SUGGESTION: Elaine Pagels Collection

I don't know. It just seems dangerous. First, it's post-modern. Logos is presently in the early 1900s on commentaries and the early dark ages on church fathers. Secondly, and more obviously, 'Elaine'.  Of course, 'Bart' also sounds pretty scary.

Denise said:

I don't know. It just seems dangerous. First, it's post-modern. Logos is presently in the early 1900s on commentaries and the early dark ages on church fathers. Secondly, and more obviously, 'Elaine'.  Of course, 'Bart' also sounds pretty scary.

Gee, Whyndall. Absent garbage, your house might really get smelly. And without purchasing garbage too.  That's even more scary.

George Somsel said:

Butters, I frequently agree with you, but not this time. 

Likewise.  Sorry.  I shall keep my mouth shut.  Promise.  [:#]

fgh said:

Theologically, I would say it's the commentaries that are from the dark ages.

While Bede is an actual example of a commentator from the Dark Ages, and is available for Logos, I'm not sure many of the offerings are anywhere as good as him [;)]

Re: Pagels - not exactly my cup of tea now, but she was important for my development in that she showed me that there was a lot of interesting diversity out there in the world of Biblical Studies.

SDG

Ken McGuire

David Paul said:

Hold your friends close and your enemies closer. I spend the vast majority of my time reading things I disagree with, because that process makes me far more capable of defending what I believe to be true. As a result I eliminate potential blind spots and am not susceptible to charges of being ignorant of what I discredit..."know your enemy" and The Art of War and all that good stuff.

Pagels obviously dabbles in the shallow end of the pool, but she is a best-selling author. Many people are drunk on her wine, so to speak. It will help in sobering them up if one knows her recipes. In the same vein, I heartily recommend that Logos offer a Bart Ehrman collection as well. He isn't nearly as shallow and is more popular. A lot of the points Ehrman makes are true enough, and so if "we" are to defend against his wild assertions, we have to distinguish between wheat and chaff, lest we be accused of throwing out the baby.

I've always said on this forum that one should know opposing points of view.  I'm not sure that Pagels is really an opposing point of view or that she "dabbles in the shallow end of the pool."  Unlike Dan Brown she is an accredited scholar and not a novelist.  Also, she writes about the Gnostic Paul, i.e., Paul from the gnostic perspective, but that doesn't mean that she endorses understanding Paul thus.  I was reading her on the train into D.C. when I suddenly realized my stop was coming up so I closed my attaché case and ran for the exit.  I hope someone profited from my forgetfulness (other than financially).

Denise said:

Pagels is just reporting the obvious.

Well, to be honest, that's not exactly true Denise.  I'm not trying to be argumentative, just truthful here.  I think any objective reader will discern a decidedly biased author, who is attempting to convey an ideology.  

Even IF you don't agree with that - and it sounds like you do not - it is worth asking the question:  if she is just "reporting the obvious" then why did she resort to scholarly legerdemain?  I hate to use the word "fraud" actually, but here is truly applies.    

[quote] Just as today, there's multiple Christianities for which the participants all perceive their own area to be Christianity.  I come from one that views a tiny sliver as Christianity and the rest as no different than atheists; all headed for the same destination.

That was and is true.  Nevertheless, as Christians we believe that the Church ought to be one (and we ought to work towards that) precisely because Truth is objective and one.  Most of those sects were in error; as they are now.  The conversation among denominations is precisely about that.  But as soon as we succumb to relativism in these matters - and perhaps all - we are no longer Christian.     

[quote]  Always remember ... Christianity at one time viewed Mohammadans as merely another Christianity variation. History is rarely comfortable.

Once the Church understood the nature of Islam - which is in error, and a heresy - it most certainly did not.  

Denise said:

Actually I don't have a lot of appreciation for some of her evidence, and thus her conclusions. But I have even less appreciation for the scholarly evangelicals (me being one) whose arguments appear to rarely get past the early 1900s (and so the value of Logos' classic commentaries fit in so well).

I do appreciate what you are saying Denise.  

Perhaps this might be a way of thinking about it:  100 years is not a lot of time.  It's a mere blip.  

As I see it, the central problem is this: there are no doubt a profusion of commentaries (and other material, etc.); and it is difficult to ascertain which are valuable and which are not.  It seems inexorable that we are likely to be drawn to those commentaries (and other material, etc.) that flatter our sense of things, that coincide (and therefore approve of) our particular proclivities, that mesh with our prejudices.

Do you see the problem?  

First, it is particularly difficult for us to determine what is of permanent importance - in part due to the profusion of material; but even more so, because it is difficult to avoid gravitating towards that which seems to "speak to us." 

And second, what "speaks to us" is not always what we need to hear; often it is not.  Just because a book is contemporary doesn't mean that it is more valuable as a scholarly resource.  

As C.S. Lewis said:  

[quote] Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. 

Obviously, Logos has to - or ought to - focus on what is enduring; at least that is what I would do.  

fgh said:

I'm not sure if you misunderstood me, or are expressing agreement with me, but in case it was the former: I was hinting that to me it's the early 1500s to early 1900s that are the 'dark ages'. And that, of course, is precisely the period Logos loves to publish commentaries from. 

But given how well they sell, I'm clearly in the minority. (And not a very good Lutheran.)

I was misunderstanding you a bit, and do not fully agree with you, but the century I find the LEAST useful is probably the 19th (and yes, most of the pb's I have released are 19th century) and probably the next least useful is the 18th.  On the other hand, I find the most interesting to be the 16th as well as 2nd through 5th.

And so this also puts me in the minority - like you.

SDG

Ken McGuire

David Paul said:

I would like to see the following titles by Elaine Pagels available in Logos, please.

• Adam, Eve, and the Serpent
• The Origin of Satan
• Revelations
• The Gnostic Gospels
• Beyond Belief
• The Gnostic Paul

Please keep the price of these down...you can buy them all for a penny on Amazon, and I'm not a fan to start with.

Thanks.

[Y]

Denise said:

Gee, Whyndall. Absent garbage, your house might really get smelly. And without purchasing garbage too.  That's even more scary.

Well I know manure when I smell it.