A bit more on the latest book. The material on the Gnostic Gospels, which supply some useful material on the trio (especially the Gospel of Mary), was as usual interesting. Some more orthodox experts are a bit disdainful, since the material involved and beliefs generally arise around the second century, clearly somewhat late. And, the material often is rather arcane and elitist. The early gospels [the trick might be the gnostic Gospel of Thomas, but the real early dates proposed are dubious*] and actual Pauline letters are more accurate visions of the first generation. Not that whatever they believed always matches current beliefs -- not in various respects. And, as the second generation of followers put forth an altered view of such beliefs, the seeds of Gnostic thought also were being planted. In fact, late epistles attributed to the apostles most likely in some fashion referenced such doctrines.
The psychological sentiments of such works alone suggest why researchers find so much ground to cover here. The arcane stuff is a matter of taste, surely, and the way they deal with gender is a mixed blessing. The ultimate concern is spirit, which is without gender, but [and the book has an interesting aside on the matter] some do parallel the popular view that women are inferior/underformed men. For them to reach paradise, so to speak, women have to become men first. Some Gnostic workers do focus on knowledge, not gender; others have complex views about gender, and some use female leads (e.g., Mary Magdalene) to underline gender is not the ultimate concern. Anyway, some Gnostic beliefs have a compelling feel to them. Such as the idea that matter corrupts, only spirit is ideal. Shades of Buddhism, in a fashion (suffering caused by desire, an ascetic life might be the way to go). And, though it really just pushes the goal posts, the idea that the "creator" god is the problem, since he created this darn world is a logical sentiment.
And, reading the New Testament, it is quite possible to understand the teachings to focus on the spirit, what is "inside" us. This becomes even more interesting if we understand that the opposite (orthodox) view was that matter per se is not the problem, but "sin," which is itself a growth of a separate entity of sorts (Satan). Since we have an image of Satan in the Garden of Eden (the snake), it is assumed that such an entity was of ancient origins. In fact, the general view is that a full place for Satan in the world was something that grew to be accepted only in the late biblical era. Satan is not a major character in the Old Testament and to the degree he is (e.g., Job, though there is a somewhat different role, literally, a sort of "devil's advocate"), we should recognize the books themselves are of late origin. In fact, we sort of see this in passing in the gospels, where one group of Jewish leaders do not accept an afterlife or resurrection of the body, while another do. The whole concept of "hell" also hazy early on too.
Since the apostles (including Paul) generally understood the end of days to be upon us, Satan/evil clearly played an important role. The book notes, for instance, that Paul believed that Jesus' death was a sort of blood atonement for our sins.** In fact, Paul was basically unconcerned about his life overall -- practically nothing of it is found in Paul's letters. The gospel writers, obviously, are more so. The synoptic gospels, for instance, saw his ministry as in large part a sign of his authority. A core example was his ability to exorcise demons. Getting rid of forces of evil was a logical precursor to the final total conquest. Demons in general was understood to be behind physical and mental illness (not limited to epilepsy), but this in effect religious component is rather important.
Thus, I was a bit miffed that the author did not deal with demons and what was meant by driving them out (something others were said to do at the time, and not just Jesus' disciples) with a bit more emphasis. Why exactly? Because of the little we know about Mary Magdalene (who is often confused, including by an early pope, with other women ... some named Mary ... listed in the gospels), one tidbit is that Jesus drove demons out of her. Luke 8:1-3. Admittedly, this does not seem to affect too much how people later felt about her, an important theme of the book. This is partially since we often focus on other more fictional aspects of her "biography." Still, if we are going to learn a bit about Magdala and such, the whole demon stuff might have been worthy of a few more pages.
But, some complaint. I repeat, now that I finished the last third, that is was a worthwhile book. It seems that he has other interesting works under his belt, worthy of investigation.
---
* Elaine Pagels, an expert on Gnosticism overall, wrote a book that on face value would seem to be about the Gospel of Thomas. And, she does cover the work to some extent, but the book is often concerned with other matters -- a mixed bag really. I have read other works by her and a long time ago actually had a chance to hear her give a speech. Adam, Eve and the Serpent is probably my favorite -- good introduction to her work.
** This is logical given his beliefs, including the use of sacrificial animals in Judaism. I admit that the image does not appeal to me personally. Sounds like something Zeus would do. Luke/Acts has Paul voice a different viewpoint -- Jesus' death/resurrection opens up a path for forgiveness. Luke does tend to be more friendly at times, including respecting Paul, who comes off much less abrasive in Acts. Anthony Hopkins, in the t.v. movie way back when, was more of an Acts Paul.