Scholars with tenure may not differ significantly from you and I, they too, have their sources, and become more believable to some for the same reason as some would pay $5000 for a Rolex, where others could pretty much buy a similar watch for a far lesser price. Some answer for reasons of being flattered by recognition. Very few will honestly pursue scholarship beyond the academic venue for it’s own sake.
A long time ago, I asked William Burroughs at a seminar, if he had read Ezra Pound, and he replied negatively, later discovering this not to be the case.
‘the making it up ways’ mentioned in the OP. You mean you Think she was wrong about the gnostics considered God a fallen angel, as having demiurge type beliefs? Were there other things you Think she made up?
It’s not just Pagels who Thinks the Gnostics has a demiurge belief…
Moreno, it’s not the demiurge I’m having a problem with. I’ve known of the demiurge claims of the Gnostics for a couple of decades now, if not longer.
What’s new to me is god being considered a fallen angel. To be honest I’m titillated by the notion.
Look, I realize Pagals has advantages to the Nag Hammadi scriptures uncommon to most. Because, 1) She can get at the original copies of them. And, 2) she reads Coptic.
And that’s why we respect her Nag Hammadi credentials.
But still, Elaine makes a claim, she says of The Testimony of Truth :
And she footnotes the reference to a specific location in the T of T.
First:
fn 32. Testimony of Truth (NHC IX, 3) 29.15-17
Then, the exact location:
fn 33. Ibid., 41.3-4
Which takes us in the T of T to :
“The saw is the word of the Son of Man, which separates us from the error of the angels.”
And there is no mention of the God of Christian worship, the God of the Hebrew Bible, nor does it even say “fallen angel(s).”
And Pagels just has to realize this … but says it anyway.
Angels making errors would seem to be fallen.
the Word archon, used Three times indicates the presence of the demiurge. It was generally believed in Gnosticism that what ‘we’ know of as God is actually the demiurge and that text is using terms and ideas that fit with the general gnostic belief. I Think she is Reading it as part of Gnostic texts and not so focused on the part of the sentence you are. She is focusing on the role of Jesus. IOW she may be takign the text to be aligned with Gnostic texts in general and this is the basis for the latter part of the sentence.
The only area I see potential for questioning is whether the demiurge is an angel. I don’t remember enough of the gnostic gospels to know how it is mentioned.
But a powerful supernatural being that is not God but Thinks he is who creates an evil realm is not so different from an evil fallen angel. I Believe that the God of Christian/hebrew worship is generally considered to be a Demiurge That’s the whole idea of Demiurge beliefs, that what is called God is really a problematic to evil sub-deity. Demiurge equalling evil fallen angel doesn’t seem a leap at all to me. But maybe that is where we are talking past each other. If the issue was, was the demiurge an angel, specifically, and not some other type of sub-deity, in this case one that Thinks he is God, that I am not sure of. But it seems like a minor issue, except to scholars.
The closest I have come so far to supporting the specific idea of the Demiurge being an angel or angellike is
Would it be fair if her statement included its sense of the what the document means if it considered the document to be working with the same mythology and beliefs as other related Gnostic documents?
I’ll grant you that her statement about the God Christians worship, and the Hebrew God of the Bible, being the chief fallen angel is her interpretation of the Gnostic scriptures.
But I was snagged by her claim about what the T of T states. I had a purpose in cutting and pasting all that from the T of T. But it’s not there.
Elaine Pagels wants to know what prompts my question of God being chief of the fallen angels.
The premise :
God is a loving and forgiving God, that would allow a 2nd chance to those that rebelled against Him.
So God devised a plan to give the rebellious angels a 2nd chance, He decided to put the fallen evil angels into human beings. Then they’d have a 2nd chance to reconcile.
So as a result humans are evil fallen angels.
When I first heard of this construct by a long term friend of mine I laughed. But he continued to push it. So it stuck in my craw. Then, when keeping up with the news around the world, I saw time and time again evidence that humans could indeed be fallen angels.
But this construct depends on God being a loving and forgiving God.
So when I read Pagals The Origin of Satan and came across the notion that God too is a fallen angel it jumped out at me.
She claimed that the Gnostic text, Testimony of Truth, claimed that the Christian God and Hebrew God, of the Bible, is a fallen angel, and chief of the fallen angels.
So I went to The Testimony of Truth, hoping to cut and paste the stated quote, and email it to my friend who holds that, humans are fallen angels. Why, because it would shoot down his whole premise. Because, if God is a fallen angel He wouldn’t give a damn about forgiveness or 2nd chances.
And that is what prompted my question to Elaine Pagels.
I’m not sure, but I think the idea of a loving, forgiving God is a Christian, NT, idea. The closest the NT gets to the concept of fallen angels is in its homage to the Book of Enoch (Jude, Peter). Thus the traditional fallen angels, other than those cast out of heaven with Satan (one third of the angel population) are the nephalim.
For an extensive view of gnostic beliefs, see Hans Jonas, “The Gnostic Religion”.
It's the middle of Sept., as requested, are you at your library,
and can you speak to this claim about the T of T?"
Elaine writes back :
"Yes: Testimony of Truth, 29.15-18 refers to Genesis 6:1-4, “the erroneous desire of the angels and demons and the stars”–that is, associating “the Lord” of the Hebrew Bible with the angels who desire human women, and so “fall” from their heavenly places…
________________________________________SEE also Test Tr 46:14-48:14–and read notes in the BRILL edition. Then knowing other related texts–and a whole history of exegesis of Genesis 6:1-4–helps.
Best wishes, Elaine Pagels"
I respond back:
Elaine,
So T of T doesn't actually say:
“that the God whom most Christians worship, the God of the Hebrew Bible, is himself one of the fallen angels - indeed the chief of the fallen angels”
It’s something you extrapolate?
Elaine writes back :
Yes,his is part of a wider reading of the story of Gen 6:1-4, in which this writer participates.
You need to read the literature on this–also look at the text HYPOSTASIS OF THE ARCHONS, which DOES say this.
I AM paraphrasing–but then what we have is in Coptic translation from Greek.
She could have at least put that in a footnote. That way the fact that she stated that the text SAID that the hebrew God is an evil fallen angel would at least be excusable insofar as the book is directed at a popular audience so that the author would want to avoid being abstruse. However, she didn’t do that. So, I count it as a factual error.
Well now I feel like I’ve got my tit in the wringer with Elaine. I’m not one of her peers, I’m just a layperson. But I don’t think I can let her slide on this matter. I can’t just let her shine it on. I wonder if one of her peers has taken her on about this, over cocktails maybe. Maybe, perchance, they joke among themselves, how they slipped shit into their scholarly work. Ha … Ha!
Frankly I’m surprised that I even heard from her at all, in the first place. But here we are, writing back and forth. And I can see the elephant in the room on this matter, and she’s smarter than I am. so surely she can see it. But given she’s likely soused to the gills with the Nag Hammadi scriptures, this statement that TToT states that the Christian God, and God of the Hebrew Bible, is a fallen angel, and even chief of them, may have just slipped out of her brain, as the overall conclusion she’s drawn from all of the Nag Hammadi library.
I’m presently contemplating my next response to her. To be honest, from reading her books, I’ve developed a crush on her. I think she’s a real sweetheart. But she’s been a bad girl, and has allowed a real gaffe to be printed in her book. And this matter has got to be settled, and agreed upon. I like her, and while it may be somewhat pleasurable, I really don’t like her blowing smoke up my ass.
It’s ironic that she’s pointing you to Genesis 6:1-4. You read G.H Pember back in your fundamentalist days right? Hey look! It’s on Kindle for $9.99. amazon.com/Earths-Earliest-A … +h.+pember
How is that working out for you, god?
I have a question. Did we have a chance to evolve into human beings or during our evolution, did we become merged as fallen evil angels?
Why would a god complicate matters in that way?
How would god know then whether it was the angel or the human who became reconciled and atoned?
It all sounds like fiction and fable to me. The real truth is deeply hidden somewhere within the story.
A fairy tale might point to it more clearly. Which ones, I am not sure.
How would god decide who to blame for whatever conduct? “The fallen angel made me do it, god!” ----
No, the human being made me do it god!
