(The following is rather more of an “essay”, but as it’s meta-discussion of a matter of some consequence occurring here in discussion – but not directly relating to EBT – I’ve chosen to put it in this category.)
I: Background
In the thread The historicity of the Buddha” an off-topic exchange took place, which, IMO, needs clarification – here rather than to hi-jack that discussion.
There I wrote a post (cjmacie 2017-06-27 12:41:35 UTC #33), offering source reference to the writings of the scholar Elaine Pagels as an historical overview of the genesis of the Christian Gospels (insofar as that thread was originally titled “The historicity of the Buddha (and Jesus)”).
This was replied-to, on a s/w tangential issue (Gnosticism in general) in the post (Coemgenu 2017-06-27 12:56:28 UTC #34).
Then an exchange relating to “gnosticism” and the evolution of the Christian canon in general, in (cjmacie 2017-06-27 13:40:21 UTC #37) and (Coemgenu 2017-06-27 15:27:45 UTC #38).
To which I replied (cjmacie 2017-06-28 07:59:12 UTC #56), questioning accusations directed against Pagels in post #38.
II: The core issue – critique of Elaine Pagels by Paul Mankowski
In the above noted post (#38) the author of the post states: “.…I do not consider her [Dr. Elaine Pagels] at all qualified to be engaging in the work she does…” The bulk of that post is then an extensive quotation, in fact an entire essay, introduced with: “Paul Mankowski of the Pontifical Institute, a brilliant scholar of Christian literature and textual criticism, says it better than I:”
(Mankowski’s essay seems to have originated in Catholic World News News Feature – “The Pagels Imposture” April 26, 2006
(Missing Page Redirect | Catholic Culture), and copied in other orthodox Catholic media.)
The crux of the essay begins (4th paragraph) with (emphasis added):
“Pagels’s The Gnostic Gospels is in large measure a polemic against St. Irenaeus (approx. 130-202 AD), Bishop of Lyons and a Father of the Church, and is aimed in particular against the defense of ecclesial orthodoxy offered by Irenaeus in his work Against Heresies – which was written in Greek but which survives, for the most part, in an ancient Latin translation.”
And bulk of the rest of the essay (911 of the total 1372 words) is devoted to the issue of a passage where Pagels quotes and interprets (or mis-interprets, per Mankowski) a passage from Irenaeus. Mankowski’s chief point in this essay appears to be defense against a perceived attack on “ecclesial orthodoxy” as argued by “a Father of the Church”.
All that (2/3 of the essay) is followed with a simple blanket and otherwise undocumented criticism “The Gnostic Gospels, like those portions of Pagels’s later work with which I am familiar, is chock-full of tendentious readings and instances where counter-evidence is suppressed.”
Other than the prolonged the Irenaeius issue, Mankowski’s text is devoted to mainly degrading Pagels ad hominem, in two paragraphs (and a quotation from the NYT) at the beginning, including
“I am going to demonstrate that Professor Pagels’s media reputation as a scholar is undeserved”;
and in the final two paragraphs, concluding with
“I am not calling for academic sanctions but, more simply, for clarification. Pagels should be billed accurately – not as an expert on Gnosticism or Coptic Christianity but as what she is: a novelist. Her oeuvre is that of fiction – in fact, historical romance.”
The main protagonists:
Dr. Elaine Pagels – Harrington Spear Paine Foundation Professor of Religion at Princeton University. She was educated at Stanford and at Harvard, where she received her Ph.D. She is a member of the American Theological Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and was twice a visitor at the Institute for Advanced Study. She has received both Rockefeller and Guggenheim Fellowships and was a Mellon Fellow at the Aspen Institute, where she later served on the Board of Trustees. Among her published works are Adam, Eve, and the Serpent (1988) ; The Origin of Satan (1995) ; and The Gnostic Gospels (1979), which received the National Book Critics Circle Award (1979) and the American Book Award (1980). She is the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship.
Fr. Paul Mankowski, SJ, – BA in classics and philosophy from the University of Chicago, an MA in classics and philosophy from Oxford, a Licentiate in the Old Testament from the Weston Jesuit School of Theology, and a PhD in Semitic philology from Harvard. He has ordained in the Society of Jesus [i.e. Jesuit] in 1987. Fr Paul is (or was) a Visiting Lector in Biblical Hebrew at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, having been Language Instructor at Weston Jesuit School of Theology, in Massachusetts, and Assistant Professor of Classics and Philosophy at Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio. He has published widely in the field of philology, including his book Akkadian
Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew. From a later source (2015) “Paul Mankowski, S.J. is scholar-in-residence at the Lumen Christi Institute, Chicago.”.
(The following information, from my research, is not touched upon, that I’ve seen, in the discussions below, but contributes to understanding his career focus.)
Wikipedia: The Pontifical Biblical Institute (it: Pontificio Istituto Biblico) or “Biblicum” in Rome, Italy, is an institution of the Holy See run by the Jesuits that offers instruction at the university level. It was founded by Pope Pius X in the Apostolic Letter Vinea Electa in 1909 as a center of advanced studies in Holy Scripture, for the purpose of the effective promotion of Catholic doctrine and its related studies.
Fr. Mankowski has widely written on various conservative Catholic topics, notably arguing that “God” is strictly “he”, and multiple other issues relating to women and feminism vis-a-vis church dogma (and politics); in particular an essay in which he (in his own words) “demolishes” one Phyllis Tribe’s arguments regarding the femininity of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Fr. Mankowski is clearly a dedicated and skilled “Defender of the Faith” against heresy.
Context of Mankowski’s critique of Pagels:
A recurrent theme in Pagels’ writings has been investigating the wealth of relatively newly discovered versions of early Christian literature, which present a more varied picture than in the orthodox accepted books of the “New Testament”. She argues that contemporary Christianity is “richer by having a wider range of Gospels” which she studies and writes about. The problem, for Mankowski and others with a stake in Christian orthodoxy, is that those “lost” texts are considered “heresy” today, in line with way back in the formative centuries of the orthodox churches when they were suppressed as heretical.
Note that Pagels has, in fact, voiced the view that the suppression (of all but the selected books of the NT) was, at the time, a perfectly understandable and justifiable course of action for the emerging orthodox Christian church, as it’s existence was threatened by a chaos of conflicting views and sub-movements (and their political entanglements.
The unexpected popularity (beyond the world of academia) of Pagels’ books, especially the well-documented view that development of early Christianity was in fact far more diverse than present-day orthodoxy will admit, was apparently perceived as something of a crisis by more conservative Christian interests, as that (s/t termed “liberal”) broadening of perspective was taken-up more positively in less extreme Christian circles (and critics), and probably was attracting some “believers” away from the more conservative circles.
(From Wikipedia: Gnosticsism – “The study of Gnosticism and of early Alexandrian Christianity received a strong impetus from the discovery of the Coptic Nag Hammadi Library in 1945. A great number of translations have been published, and the works of Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, especially The Gnostic Gospels, which detailed the suppression of some of the writings found at Nag Hammadi by early bishops of the Christian church, has popularized Gnosticism in mainstream culture, but also incited strong responses and condemnations from clergical writers.”)
It would appear that Fr. Mankowski’s essay is less motivated by scholarly matters and more with attacking perceived heresy against orthodox dogma; hence his diatribes about Pagels’ academic value are disingenuous, if not outright slanderous.
III: The larger context of debate of this issue
The overall picture reflects, as I suggested (back in post #56 above) that “There
are viewpoints from which to criticize any work of scholarship, which can be expressed and discussed in a manner focusing on sources and interpretations, which in all cases reflect interpretative slants and oversights due to human limitations and fallibility.”
Also back in the SC post containing Mankowski’s essay, the author there follows the quotation of the essay with: “There are positive mountains full of similar critiques of Pagel’s highly questionable methodologies and claims.”
While the book Mankowski criticizes (”The Gnostic Gospels”) was published first in 1979, when Pagels’ book “Beyond Belief – The Secret Gospel of Thomas” was published in 2003, the publicity surrounding which appears to have triggered a large scale reaction in orthodox Catholic (and other) circles. There were, of course, numerous published critiques of Pagel’s books since the 1970’s, some appreciative and some challenging (the latter largely on the part of orthodox viewpoints), but the 2003 book triggered a veritable
fire-storm of critique and counter critique.
Given extensive internet research, there are many serious reviews of Pagels interpretations, e.g. in the NYT and it’s Review of Books, but on a far more civilized level of discourse, sans the ad hominem and alone lines of standard literary criticism. But “similar [to Mankowski’s] critiques” appear largely in s/w conservative Catholic (and other “orthodox” Christian, e.g. Anglican, Greek Orthodox, Reformed, etc.) websites where Mankowski’s work is repeatedly cited and praised.
There are also extensive blog-type discussions / debates on this issue, sampled (attempting even-handedness) below (emphasis added) to give the flavor:
III:1: One relatively brief discussion (Home Page – I’m puzzled by the context “Free Dating…”, but this particular discussion seems relevant) arguing both sides of the issue; a couple of passages worth noting:
(Artz) Now I do note that in looking up this story I have not seen other academics jumping on the band wagon to denounce Pagels.
(Countlbli) I think this deserves further investigation. That’s what peer review is all about, after all. However, I’m not ready to call her a fraud yet because she tells us in a footnote that she’s conflating two quotes. This Jesuit clearly has a religious ax to
grind, so I’m not ready to take his claims on face value.
III:2: A far more extensive discussion, 23 pages, from multiple perspectives (pro and contra), which in fact is not unlike some discussions here at SuttaCentral (The Volokh Conspiracy - Is Elaine Pagels a Fraud? – The Volokh Conspiracy - Is Elaine Pagels a Fraud?).
Here are sample comments from there, IMO representing the various facets of viewpoint, including bits of humor as well as lapses of decorum:
1: (David Kopel – quoted from “Is Elaine Pagels a Fraud?”) Mankowski shows that “Pagels has carpentered a non-existent quotation, putatively from an ancient source, by silent suppression of relevant context, silent omission of troublesome words, and a mid-sentence shift of 34 chapters backwards through the cited text, so as deliberately to pervert the meaning of the original”.
2: (Steve – reply to 1) I hardly think playing fast and loose with a single quotation is enough to make one “a fraud.” If that were the standard, we would have to conclude that Prof. Bernstein, Prof. Zywicki, et al. are all frauds, and I just don’t think that’s fair.
3: (ox) Usually, we don’t accuse people of fraud over a single instance of academic disagreement. At most, Mankowski has shown a mistaken interpretation and suggested that there are other more ambiguous examples. That’s not much on which to hang an accusation of fraud, especially against someone with such a long and distinguished career. I’m not saying that Pagels is immune from criticism, or that someone couldn’t make out a case of fraud. But this sort of thing shouldn’t be done lightly. Here, it smacks of poltiical disagreement. You don’t have to like what Pagels writes, but this post is a not so carefully worded smear.
4: (chukuang) Of course she’s a fraud. She wants to destroy the sanctity of the Bible – those are the actions of a fraud. She wants to undermine the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. She’s an academic liberal.
5: (Tim DeRoche) I’m skeptical of Mankowski’s take. At the end of the article, he dismisses Pagels as a “lady novelist” and then compares her - unfavorably - to romance writer Barbara Cartland. Pagels may indeed be making stuff up to support her own theories…but Mankowski hardly seems like a dispassionate observer.
6: (Riskabe) _“Pagels has carpentered a non-existent quotation, putatively from an ancient source, by silent suppression of relevant context, silent omission of troublesome words, and a mid-sentence shift” _
Sounds like The King James Bible!
7: (ox) More and more, I think this post should be updated or withdrawn. The comments supporting it above are not reflective of the academic standards generally upheld by this blog. The claim strongly imputed in the post is unsubstantiated by the evidence cited for it. No one is saying that Kopel or Mankowski should pull any punches, but this is hitting below the belt.
8: (AppSocRes) The work of Pagels – popularized analyses of Gnosticism – that I’ve read has been tendentious crap. Her attempts to portray the Gnostics as a finer version of Christianity than the more orthodox tradition leave out little points… Anyonewho doubts the historicity of Jesus is right up there with Holocaust deniers… [Goodwin’s Law lives on…]
9: (Anderson) Oh, but Prof. Kopel wrote “Is Elaine Pagels a Fraud?”, so it’s okay. You can say anything about anybody if you just phrase it as a question: “Are Democrats Traitors?”, “Is David Kopel Obsessed with Guns?”, “Is Anderson a Snarky Hack?”, etc., etc. AppSocRes certainly echoes my understanding of Gnosticism, tho anti-Semitism and misogyny would be hilarious grounds for a Jesuit to cite.
10: (quihana) To this amateur reader, it seems that Fr. Mankowski’s claims regarding Dr. Pagels’ arguments are unsupported by the evidence he supplies. Pagels’ reading is interpretive - but that’s what historians do, interpret. The conflated quotation is noted as such, and while Mankowski makes much of the way she’s presented it, he overstates the case. Pagels seems to be making general claims about the theological politics of the day - Mankowski chides her for citing examples that have specific referents, as if generalities were not built from aggregating specifics. If he’s cited “not … the worst example of its kind but … among the most unambiguous” Pagels can rest easy.
11: (Mahlon) In intellectual discourse (an admittedly vague term), we must all insist on a higher standard - intellectual honesty. If you want to rearrange text to support your view, either note that you are doing so, or at least do so in a manner which makes it clear that you are doing so. Once you stray from the path of such honesty, you debase not just your argument, but the entire debate. That is not to say that Ms. Pagel (again assuming all of her alleged sins to be true) must forever be branded with a scarlet letter.
12: (RHD) This thread has gone ballistic and tendentious, but for reasons that are hard to follow.
13: (Anderson) Oh, it was fill-in-the-blank? How about “the use of a scholar’s errors to conduct an ad hominem dismissal of her entire work”? (And lord knows, whatever one thinks of Pagels, comparing her to a “lady novelist” as Mankowski does is just astonishingly sexist. Silly scribbing women! Go home to your kitchens and let men like Mankowski do the intellectual work!)
14: (Michael Jacovides) Mankowski’s criticisms are astonishingly thin. [followed by a list of the criticisms in the essay and offering less drastic interpretations]
15: (DG) As Michael points out, this is a quibble about translation. In fact, it’s a quibble about an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek text. I have no idea if the original Greek survives today, but perhaps Pagels, who reads both Greek and Latin, translated directly from that. Or perhaps she chose “unspiritual” over the ambiguous “common” to express the true flavor of the insult.
16: (pb) Mike Jacovides: “'I only wrote to defend her because the accusation of fraud was so outrageous (1)… and because you are mean (2) … and expect dishonest partisan defenders to pretend that (3) 'Pagels is not a toaster shoplifter.” How could you even imagine Pagels stealing a damn toaster?
17: (DG) In any case, my modest point is that we should be reluctant to charge fraud where a passage admits of plausible non-fraudulent interpretations.
P.S. Admittedly, the Jesuits are not historically associated with the Inquisition (which was more under the charge of the Dominicans), but focus more on higher learning, scholarship (they maintain active outposts at major universities, at least around here). Both share the common purpose, however, of defending the Faith against (perceived) heresy.
[minor edits – formatting, spelling, …]