Paul the Gnostic (Torah, hell, Christianity, Satan, Christians)

[angellous_evangellous]

I came across a book this afternoon in which the author (who I think has completely lost his marbles) argues that:

"Paul is basically a Gnostic thinker in his view of God, Satan and the Torah, though he has distinctive traits that differentiate him from other Gnostics"

H. Maccoby, Paul and Hellenism (London: SCM Press, 1991), 37

Another author who interprets Paul through pre-Christian Gnosticism is Jean Magne, From Christianity to Gnosis and From Gnosis to Christianity (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). The title just screams circular reasoning to me.

-----

Although these books are useless to me, they may be of some value to you.

Enjoy.

[doppelgänger]

That Paul was a "Gnostic" is an ancient idea. This book might help you:

http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Paul-E...8056564&sr=8-1

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

That Paul was a "Gnostic" is an ancient idea. This book might help you:

http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Paul-E...8056564&sr=8-1

Gnostic exegesis of Pauline texts is different from Paul himself being a Gnostic.

[doppelgänger]

Who said otherwise? Don't judge the book by its title.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Who said otherwise? Don't judge the book by its title.

You're right. You did not suggest otherwise, and I suppose that it's possible that the title has nothing to do with her method.

I could care less about this topic anyway. I just thought that some people here may be interested in the books mentioned in the OP.

[yuvgotmel]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I came across a book this afternoon in which the author (who I think has completely lost his marbles) argues that:

"Paul is basically a Gnostic thinker in his view of God, Satan and the Torah, though he has distinctive traits that differentiate him from other Gnostics"

H. Maccoby, Paul and Hellenism (London: SCM Press, 1991), 37

Hyam Maccoby was a very well-known scholar, researcher and author ...
Does all of Christianity operate under a shared delusion?

[doppelgänger]

Pagels' method is to examine surviving references to the ideas and writings of 2nd and 3rd century Christians regarded these days as "Gnostics" (much of it preserved incompletely in the anti-heresiologists) to see how they were interpreting Paul's writings to support their "Gnostic" perspective. Thus, the book is about exegesis of Paul performed by Christians in the ancient world, more than it is Pagels' own contemporary arguments for a Gnostic exegesis of Paul. Thus, the book demonstrates precisely what I said it demonstrates: that the idea of Paul as "Gnostic" is an ancient one. It is an argument with very deep roots in history.

Although these books are useless to me, they may be of some value to you.

Funny, that's the same way I feel about all those texts full of theological nonsense backed with empty bluster and speculation that make up most mainstream religious scholarship.