Postmodernism’s Infatuation
With Theosophy
(A Study Of The Modern Usage Of The Gospel Of
Mary)
By Andrew J.B.Stirling
A woman entered my office
with a look of desperation on her face. “Reverend Stirling, I am
going through a crisis and I wonder if you could help me. Over the
past few months I have been physically abused by my husband and I
think it is time for me to leave my marriage.” She continued to tell
me her story of woe and how, as a result of the marital breakdown,
she was exploring other avenues for relationships. In essence she
wanted me to validate her desire to enter into an extra-marital
affair and based the legitimacy of her appeal on the fact that her
husband had de facto ended the relationship. Furthermore she
then began to provide a theological basis for her pending departure.
She quoted Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code and went on to appeal to
her innate authority as a “Goddess” to embark upon a relationship
that would give her freedom and joy. “If Mary Magdalene could have a
relationship with the Saviour, why can’t I embark upon a
relationship now?” she said. To complete the argument she was making
she asked, “Why should I not have freedom in my life?”
This type of pastoral
encounter is not uncommon in our current era. Numerous pastors and
counselors face the same forms of justification for particular
actions and they are often substantiated with references to the
absolute virtue of freedom and the need to express ourselves. In our
culture, these virtues are the highest form of the good. What was
particularly striking about this pastoral encounter was the fact
that I had great empathy for the woman. She had experienced a major
crisis in her life and abuse of any kind is abhorrent. However, her
justification for adultery (for that is what it would have been) and
her desire for freedom without constraints, were also clearly
troubling. Even more disturbing were the theological underpinnings
of her argument. She was wanting me to validate her desires and
passions and was actually turning to a biblical character and her
relationship with Jesus, to support her case. I realize, however,
that the DaVinci Code is not an authoritative historical or academic
text and I could have simply dismissed it as such. However, behind
Dan Brown’s book and implicit in her questions, is an incipient
theosophical foundation. Some of this is a result of our culture’s
current fascination with numerous theosophical, Gnostic and Stoic
writings, many of which borrow heavily from each other.
The purpose of this paper
is to explore one of the often cited documents, The Gospel of
Mary of Magdala (which will be referred to as GOM throughout the
paper). We will examine why this work is appealing to our postmodern
culture and is drawing much attention from current novelists,
theologians, psychologists and philosophers. We will then examine
the text itself with an analysis of its language, dating, authorship
and form and determine whether it is an actual Gnostic text. From
there we will extract the essential themes which emerge from the
fragmentary documents and discuss their implications for theology
and the Christian faith. Finally, we will apply our findings to the
pastoral situation of the church today and see if there are any
ideas which could assist clergy in dealing with pastoral situations
such as the one cited above.
Postmodernism’s Infatuation With
Theosophy
Some modern scholars such
as Richard Dawkins are convinced that postmodernism has contributed
little to the search for knowledge. His argument is that
postmodernism is boring and pretentious (Dawkins, 824) and plays
loosely with the truth. However, the influence of postmodernism is
ubiquitous in the western world and has dramatically affected the
thoughts of our time. Disillusioned by the crisis that faced the
world in the aftermath of the First World War, its predecessor
modernism, sought to deal with the problems of a divided and torn
world that produced a crisis in the faith of humanity. Modernism
believed in progress, radicalism and a positive view of the human
potential. That faith in the human being’s ability to construct its
own ideal world, sought to come to terms with the violence and
ambiguity of the human condition. Many existentialist philosophers
and theologians emerged from this era most notably, Camus, Sartre,
Bultmann and Brunner. Succeeding this generation there arose a new
group of thinkers such as, Kerouc, Ginsberg, Heidegger, Derrida,
Foucault and Wittgenstein. While not a homogeneous group by any
means, they believed they were in the midst of a “paradigm shift”
which sought to deconstruct many of the historical texts on which
modernism had based its positivism and tried to find meaning
“behind” written texts and ideas. They wanted to go “deeper” by
stressing the multiple layers of ideas that already exist in texts.
They concluded, therefore, that no apparent and obvious truth is
implicit in writings but only a multiplicity of truths which need to
be extracted by textual analysis. However, because of their belief
in the ultimate power of subjectivism, different readers will find a
variety of meanings and truths in what they read. All of this was a
result of their frustration with modernism and its inherent
positivism. However, what postmodernism eventually produced was a
relativism which has given little foundation for the meaning it
sought.
As a result of this new
crisis of meaning, many postmodernists have turned to spirituality
to find this elusive foundation for life. Essentially they have
dismissed traditional monotheistic religions because they see them
as being part of the problem which modernism sought to rebuke. By
definition, these religions are seen as believing in a singular
transcendent being (mono (one) theist (god)) who
manifests itself through patriarchal, authoritative and historical
structures. Furthermore, this deity (manifested in different
religions), has contributed to the problems of the past such as:
colonialism, the subjugation of minorities (women, people of colour,
indigenous groups, homosexuals etc.), theocratic states and moral
absolutism. At their heart these religions are seen as the source of
war and human conflict. As John Lennon put it in his anthem for a
utopian postmodernist world view, “imagine there’s no religion.”
Such a vision is a demonstration of what is seen as the highest
good. Postmodernism, however, is not irreligious. It has sought an
alternative form of spirituality in theosophical systems which many
claim precede the monotheistic religions. By theosophy I mean “a
teaching about God and the world based on mystical insight”
(Webster’s Dictionary). This search for a theosophical foundation
turns to an immanent deity who exists within each person and not a
transcendent God. It believes that true enlightenment is found by an
inward journey that finds the authentic God within ourselves. This
inwardness is therefore totally inclusive, for each person
regardless of gender, race, culture, language or previous religious
affiliation is able to discover the true divine through an
examination of the mind that exists within. In addition, this
inwardness is a greater authority than any outward figure, teacher
or institution and is the authentic power in the universe. Through
the existence of this god within we are all connected, yet able to
interpret the outward world individually as free and sovereign
beings. Libertarianism, deconstruction, and antinomianism have
finally found their legitimate raison d’etre.
The Gospel of Mary And Its Current
Appeal
Among the texts which
validate this inward search for meaning are the Nag Hammadi
Gnostic texts which were discovered near Egypt in 1945 (Evans, 62).
Although these have gained the greatest prominence particularly the
Gospel of Thomas, a lesser known text found independently of the
Nag Hammadi corpus is the Gospel of Mary Magdala (GOM).
The origins of the text are subject to conjecture, but the
fragmentary texts were originally found in January 1896 when a
German scholar, Dr. Carl Reinhardt purchased a manuscript on the
antiquities market in Cairo. The document was a fifth century CE
papyrus codex written in Coptic. The first editor of the codex (Berolinensis
8502) was Carl Schmidt whose translation became known as the Berlin
Codex. According to King, (9) the original work is on 18 ¼ pages in
a relatively small size and consists of only parts of an original
writing. Due to a series of mishaps the document was only to be
published much later in 1941 by Walter Till. However, unbeknownst to
the publisher, another fragment (Papyrus Rylands 463) had been
discovered in 1917 and placed in a library in Manchester. Like the
Berlin Codex it is only small and incomplete and adds little to the
meaning of the text with the exception that it was written in Greek
and not Coptic. Due to this addition and the advent of the Second
World War, Till did not produce a final publishable work until 1955
along with a German translation. A further third century fragment
was found in 1983 (Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3525) in the upper Nile
region and unlike the other fragments came from a roll and not a
codex. Therefore, the original sources can be dated from the third
to the fifth centuries, were written in Coptic and Greek, were
probably only half of the original document and there were a number
of redactors in their development.
According to Ehrman (239)
the text divides neatly into three parts, “The first part begins
with the media res, with Jesus talking to his disciples and
answering their questions…..The second part is where Mary appears to
the [disconsolate] disciples….In the third part, the disciples
discuss Mary’s vision and question its validity.” This structure is
validated by an analysis of the text as it appears from the extant
fragments that these are the three vital components of the work.
One of the key debates
about GOM is whether it is Gnostic in origin. Elaine Pagels believes
that it is Gnostic, “The author of the Gospel of Mary, one of the
few Gnostic texts discovered before Nag Hammadi, interprets the
resurrection appearances as visions received in dreams or in
ecstatic trance” (Pagels, 11). However, other scholars such as
Esther de Boer believe that it is more Stoic than Gnostic (Meyer,
159). She validates this argument on the basis of the opening of the
extant text in which Jesus speaks about matter, “Will not matter
then be destroyed or not? The Savior said, All nature, all
formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they
will be resolved again into their own roots” (4:22). DeBoer suggests
that this is a reference to a Stoic notion that matter and nature
are intertwined as a construct of thought. This leads to the
avoidance of the material world and its power which causes us to
live contrary to nature. Thus the natural world is juxtaposed to the
materialistic world with the former being the authentic and true
path for the enlightened. Karen King also associates the ideas found
in the early part of GOM with Stoic views particularly as they
coincide with Platonic ideas about matter. This confluence of ideas
is manifested in their similar views of the association of evil with
the material world, the need for knowledge to free the soul from the
influence of passion, an ethical approach towards conformity with
the ideal concept of “the good” and the ascent of the soul to the
divine upon death (King, 44). Ehrman, Meyer and Robinson, however,
all posit the idea that GOM is Gnostic in origin and that its heavy
use of dualism substantiates this view. Ehrman states, “We should
remember here that Gnostic Christians maintained that this material
world and all that belongs to it are the result of a cosmic
disaster; this is not a good place created by the one true God. It
was created by a lesser deity, and the point of Gnostic religions
was not to affirm this material existence or to hope for its
ultimate redemption” (Ehrman, 232). My own view is that GOM is
essentially Gnostic and attempts to read Stoic ideas into it are
designed to legitimatize an early dating of the work. Regardless of
who is correct, the fact is that the text clearly states that matter
is “resolved into the roots of its own nature alone.” This is
dualistic and deals with an obsession of both Gnostics and Stoics;
namely the ultimate end of all things is that they will return
eventually to their original condition. This runs contrary to
biblical teaching that the earth was made by God and that it was
originally made good and that the purpose of God’s self revelation
in Christ is to restore the whole of creation (Colossians 1:15-20).
If, GOM is correct, then
it naturally follows that if everything is going to simply return to
its original condition there is no need to deal with sin. That is
precisely why Peter then says in GOM, “What is the sin of the world?
(4:25) and the Saviour answers, “There is no sin” (4:26). This again
is in contrast to John 1:29 where John the Baptist declares, “Behold
the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (See Evans,
Webb, Wiebe p.415) Also, for Paul, sin was in control of the world
through cosmic forces and that alienation from God takes place when
sin controls us. For the writer of GOM, sin does not exist as an
independent entity (Ehrman, 241).
This doctrine of sin,
however, leads to another statement that is contrary to biblical
theology. The writer extols the virtues of antinomianism, “Do not
lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a
law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it” (4:38). The
absence of constraint is due to the fact that individuals can have a
“mind to understand”(4:29). The concept of the nous was used
by philosophers such as Zeno who saw God as a cosmic form of mind
and Plato who understood it to be the “most excellent part of us”
(Bromiley, 636). Meanwhile in Gnosticism it was “hypostatized as a
god or an emanation among the aeons” (Bromiley, 637). In GOM it is
the mind that allows the individual to transcend the negative
influences of matter with all its passions and simply allows the
individual to receive the Saviour. Having received this Saviour,
there is peace and no need to worry about any external constraints.
Believing there is no sin, GOM clearly sees no need for the law.
Again this is a deviation from the biblical affirmation, “I have not
come to destroy the law but to fulfill it” (Matthew 5:17). GOM also
believes in the Platonic distinction between the immutable world of
Ideas and the changeable material world which gives birth to
passion. As GOM says, “Matter gives birth to a passion that has no
equal, which proceeded from something contrary to nature. Then there
arises a disturbance in its whole body” (4:30).This also leads to
the absence of the need for judgment, for if there are no
constraints then no one can judge another. As Evans concludes, “The
purpose of the Gospel of Mary was to challenge those who “set
boundaries” and “lay down laws” (Evans, 93). This form of
antinomianism is very popular today especially for a postmodern
society that seeks freedom from all constraints and deems this the
highest good, but it is essentially contrary to biblical teaching.
The final theological
theme is the inwardness of the kingdom, “Beware that no one lead you
astray saying Lo here or lo there! For the Son of Man is within you”
(4:34). For Gnostic thought, only those with a true gnosis
are children of God and are capable of discovering this divine being
that lies within. The concept of the “Son of Man” is not understood
in the same way as the biblical conception. Rather for GOM, “the Son
of Man is not the Savior Jesus, but the true self within.” (King,
60) It is therefore a Platonic idealized form of anthropos
that exists apart from particular (earthly and material) human
forms. Therefore, this divine transcendent image to which the soul
conforms is “non gendered: sex and gender belong only to the lower
sphere of temporary bodily existence” (King, 61). Again, this stands
in contradistinction to the biblical view that God made humanity as
“male and female” (Genesis 1:27 and Mark 19:14) which makes no
distinction between their earthly (material) form and their
spiritual essence. It is no wonder that GOM’s views have been used
to justify an androgynous anthropology. The implications of this for
sexual ethics and politics are immense with the blurring of sexual
differentiation. However, the key issue relates to the understanding
of the kingdom or reign of God. The Christian understanding is that
the while the kingdom is present in the person of Jesus Christ and
manifests itself spiritually by being all around us, it is still a
kingdom that is yet to come and finds its consummation in the return
of Christ. GOM, however, totally internalizes the kingdom and sees
it as immanent and complete. This fundamentally changes our
political vision. For Christians the struggle for justice and the
resistance to evil are manifestations of the work of the kingdom.
The cross and resurrection are seen as a sign of the victory of
Christ over all powers which oppress the human being. That is why
faithful Christians have been at the vanguard of the struggle for
social justice. For GOM, however, there is no such appeal. On the
contrary, the individual is simply destined to discover the divine
within and then avoid all passions which pollute the soul. It leads
to hyper individualism and can be self absorbed with the desire for
the salvation of the inner being. We see this in Mary’s vision of
the soul’s ascent through cosmic powers to liberation and rest.
(Meyer, 161) This ascent of the soul reaches its climax when the
Saviour says, “In an aeon, I was released from this world, and in a
Type from a type, and from the fetter of oblivion which is
transient” (8:23).
The final two significant
statements in GOM also say something profound about its conception
of authority and power. When Mary had disclosed her vision to Andrew
and Peter, they rebelled against her ideas. Andrew says, “I at least
do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these
teachings are strange ideas” (9:2). Peter reiterates Andrew’s
sentiments. Peter is then excoriated for his anger by Levi. In this
dialogue the male Apostles are portrayed in a negative light and
Mary alone appears to be the one who maintains fidelity with the
Savior’s wishes. King believes, along with Thomson (117), that this
conflict reflects a situation at the time of the writing of the
Gospel and that Peter and Mary were seen to be in competition for
authority. The desire to diminish the authenticity of Peter was seen
as a correction to the hierarchical and patriarchal structure of the
church This exaltation of Mary was also seen as an affirmation of
the divine being female as well as male and in fact, superior to it,
“that is why he loved her more than us” (9:9). In the Christian
gospels however, Mary is also not diminished and in one tradition is
the first to witness the resurrection and report it to the
disciples, “Mary Magdalene came announcing to the disciples, “I have
seen the Lord” and He had said these things to her” (John 21:18 NAS)
. However, this in no way places Mary at odds with the Apostles nor
does it give any account of words spoken to her beyond that which is
given in the Johannine text.
In conclusion, Meyer
argues, “The Gospel of Mary may help correct a false understanding
of the Christian church, and this gospel and other similar texts
help to reclaim the image of Mary and restore her to her rightful
place within the history of Judaism and Christianity” (Meyer,163).
Is he correct in this assessment of the influence of GOM and is it
as benign and enlightening as he thinks? Clearly I disagree with his
thesis. From the biblical evidence Mary did not need to be
rehabilitated. The biblical accounts place her at the centre of many
of the major and decisive events in Jesus’ life and ministry and
beyond these she does not need to be elevated. The Christian
tradition has included her among the great figures of the Bible and
despite some later attempts to place her on the periphery of things,
the biblical texts keep reminding us of her central place. Clearly
there is a political agenda at work in using GOM to elevate Mary and
denigrate the mainstream church. It is precisely this agenda which
seeks to place GOM in the midst of the earliest controversies of the
Christian church. However, there is no external evidence or internal
textual criteria to suggest that GOM can be dated any earlier than
the mid to late second century. The gospel manifestly demonstrates
an advanced form of Gnosticism which only finds its developed form
much later. Furthermore, the Coptic views which we find in the text
also suggest a much later development. The actual finding of the
fragments in Egypt simply validate this argument. GOM does not
therefore provide an insight into the earliest days of the church’s
formation nor does it allow us to place it alongside the canonical
gospels. It is, at best, a source of knowledge of the development of
Christian Gnosticism.
The pastoral implications of the Gospel
of Mary
Why is the Gospel of Mary
so popular today? Why do many members of the Jesus Seminar and
others draw on it for inspiration? The answer lies in the postmodern
desire to find extra meaning and a means whereby its own credo can
be validated. Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza has argued that the GOM
is a way of reconstructing assumptions about Christian origins in
order that we might have a “raised consciousness” regarding the
importance of the feminine. It is, “to break the hold of the
androcentric text over our historical imagination” (Fiorenza, 61).
This form of deconstruction therefore validates the feminist
critique of the historical canon and calls into question the
validity of its witness. This of course resonates with those who
want to find meaning “beyond” the Christian texts and dismisses
their apparent authority . Ever since the Eighteenth Century with
its development of theosophical ideas, there has been a fascination
with esoteric and unorthodox texts of all kinds (Smith in Parrott,
533) in an attempt to find something new which will counteract the
traditional canons of the West such as the Bible. But does that mean
that like Fiorenza the affirmation of the feminine or the
enlightenment of the postmodern mind is dependant upon claiming the
authority of spurious esoteric documents such as GOM? The answer is
no. Indeed, I would suggest there is far more to be lost than gained
in such a reconstruction. For example, take the importance of the
environment.
Today we are experiencing
an immense challenge regarding global warming. While there is still
debate as to its causes and the solutions that are to be found,
there is a general scientific agreement that this is a problem.
Christians have sometimes been at the forefront of expressing
concerns about the global affects of climate change. Gnosticism,
however, separates the true God from nature and “regards the creator
of the natural universe as evil” (Smith in Parrott, 535). If the
goal of the enlightened is to be transported through the cosmos thus
avoiding the problems of creation and matter, then why would one
want to be concerned about the state of the environment? Dualism
will always favour spiritual purity over earthly concerns. Indeed,
the inherent fatalism of GOM that believes “All nature will be
resolved again to its own roots” (4:22), merely leads to a form of
passivity. Ecologists can find little solace in the Gospel of Mary!
In the moral realm GOM is
also not helpful. One of the biggest problems facing the world today
is the spread of HIV/AIDS. While it has clearly been politicized by
the political left and right, the fact remains that it is a travesty
and an economic and human burden on the whole world. At the heart of
the spread of HIV/AIDS is sexual promiscuity. While it is not
limited in its scope to either gender or sexual orientation and can
be spread through other means than sexual activity, the fact remains
that the fastest form of development is found in un protected sexual
activity outside the bounds of monogamous relationships. To
therefore assert that “there are no rules” as GOM says, only plays
into the hands of the sexually permissive. While this might appear
to be a liberating experience for those who want sexual license
(Ginsberg) it can be a deadly reality for those who have contact
with people who have HIV/AIDS. One need only talk to many of the
women in Lesotho and Swaziland who have contracted HIV/AIDS from
their licentious husbands! GOM is certainly not helpful in this
context. Postmodern thinkers also have a challenge here. Like
Foucault they “propose a notion of the self that is always producing
itself through a full expression of desire” (Van Gelder, 130). This
sounds very much like the Gospel of Mary. However, desire without
constraints may allow for the full expression of the self, but at
what cost to others?
This is precisely the
dilemma that faced the woman who came to me for guidance. She wanted
freedom but interpreted that as license. She wanted a world without
boundaries and the liberty to express her desires and emotions. She
sought her true feminine self by appealing to her own deity and
thereby discovering her own authority. The problem is that if
everyone followed this pattern we would have chaos. Furthermore, her
true identity as a woman can still be found in the Jesus of history
as attested to in the scriptures. However, this is the same Lord who
will place boundaries around her life. The commandment to not commit
adultery or treat others with violence are clearly words of guidance
for her and her abusive husband. Furthermore, the earthly Jewish
Jesus of Nazareth who was proclaimed Lord through his resurrection
from the dead can still affirm her as a person and forgive her
sins. It allows her the freedom to have her sins forgiven and
produces within her joy and peace. It also speaks to the world in
which she lives replete with all its problems, challenges and vices
and says “repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.” This is a far
better Gospel than the one found in the escapist Gospel of Mary.
Lastly, however, we need
to examine the implications of GOM for our ecclesiology. Pagels,
King and Funk all believe that the relationship between Mary and the
Disciples in GOM paint a very different picture of the church than
that which evolved as the orthodox view. Essentially their argument
is that Mary and not the male disciples are the true inheritors of
Christ’s authority. In addition, they argue for a method of
discovering and propagating the truth that is based on dialogue.
They contrast this with the didactic and “top down” ecclesiology
that was created by males in the orthodox tradition. Funk even goes
so far as to suggest that the male dominated church created the myth
of Mary as prostitute to diminish her authority in the church (Funk,
476). Along with other members of the Jesus Seminar he questioned
the very canons of the bible which supposedly contributed to a
proto-orthodox ecclesiology based on male domination. Helmut Koester
goes even further,
The most radical shift
[in authority] is evident in the relocation of the activity of
the Holy Spirit in the church. The church was now bound into a
canon of Christian writings, written by inspired apostles, and
was no longer seen as the miraculous power of the continuing
divine action in the world. …..Moreover, the interpretation of
these holy scriptures eventually became a function that could be
controlled by ecclesiastical authority. Liberation of the early
Christian writing from their usage as inspired sources of
doctrine and authoritarian control is the most dignified task of
Scriptural scholarship. (Koester, 372)
Is Koester correct in his
analysis and are his assumptions predicated on a similar reading of
GOM to that of Funk? Clearly, many biblical scholars question the
way in which the Bible was used in the early years of the
development of the church. Who, for example, can agree with Origen’s
hermeneutic at times? The question of diminishing the canon’s
authority is another matter. It leaves room for additions such as
Gnostic gospels and GOM. I agree with Pagels, King et.al.
that GOM provides a different ecclesiology, but I differ from them
because I believe that its theology is erroneous. As Jenkins points
out (134), some feminist scholars believe that certain texts such as
GOM were deliberately excluded from the final canon because of the
church’s desire to suppress feminine power and an inclusivist
ecclesiology. However, as Jenkins suggests, “these texts [GOM] do
not originate in a time of conflicts when women’s authority was in
the process of being suppressed; if such an event ever occurred, it
was long past before The Gospel of Mary was composed” (Jenkins,
141). He argues that the whole critique of the church based on GOM
is fallacious and does not have proper evidence to support it.
The inclusive nature of
GOM and its desire to build community - something which King sees in
the gospel - is also not correct. Indeed, the hyper individualism
that exists in the gospel implies anything but the need for
community. The emphasis on individual enlightenment and salvation
actually works against the notion of a democratic and collegial
ecclesiology. Also the absence of any reference to an ekklesia
in the texts suggests that Mary sees herself as the truly
enlightened one and has no need for others to share in her
understanding of wisdom and truth. Therefore, the rejection of GOM
as an integral part of the Christian canon is designed to preserve a
sense of church which is actually much broader than that envisioned
by the Gnostics. Indeed, the feminine rewriting of the canon
represents, “the triumph of hope over judgment” (Jenkins, 146). This
does not mean, however, that the role of women in the church and
indeed their place of importance in the early church should be
ignored. It is simply that turning to extracanonical documents such
as GOM are unnecessary and even dangerous.
In conclusion it is not
difficult to see why the Gospel of Mary is appealing to
postmodernism. It removes boundaries, challenges tradition and
develops a sense of the church that promotes dialogue and dismisses
traditional authority. But is this the kind of world that God wants?
Is this not running contrary to biblical teaching, and in the end
will it not lead to the demise of its followers? These are questions
that Christian ministers need to answer today.
Bibliography
G.W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, Abridged in One Volume (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
,1997)
B.D. Ehrman, Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene:
The followers of Jesus in History and Legend (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2006)
R. Dawkins, Postmodernism Decoded
(http://richarddawkins.net/article,824,n,n)
C.A Evans, R.L. Webb and R.A. Wiebe (ed.),
Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible. A
Synopsis and Index (NTTS Vol. XVIII,
Leiden: E.J. Brill 1993)
C. Evans, Fabricating Jesus (Downers
Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2007)
E. Schussler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her. A
Feminist Reconstruction of Christian Origins (London:
Crossroads, 1983)
R.W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of
Jesus: The Search For The Authentic Deeds of Jesus (San
Francisco: Harper Collins, 1998)
G.R. Hunsberger and C. Van Gelder, The
Church Between Gospel and Culture. The Emerging Mission in North
America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996)
P. Jenkins, Hidden Gospels (Oxford: OUP,
2001)
K. King, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala.
Jesus and the First Woman Apostle (Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press,
2003)
H. Koester, Writings and the Spirit:
Authority and Politics In Ancient Christianity (Harvard
Theological Review, Vol. 84.4, 1991)
M. Meyer, The Gnostic Gospels of Jesus. The
Definitive Collection of Mystical Gospels and Secret Book about
Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Harper San Francisco , 2005)
M.Meyer, The Gnostic Discoveries. The Impact
of the Nag Hammadi Library (New York: Harper San Francisco,
2005)
W. Oddie, What Will Happen to God?
Feminism and the Reconstruction of Christian Belief (San
Francisco: Ignatius, 1984)
E. Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New
York: Random House, 1979)
D. Parrott (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library in
English (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996)
M. Thompson, Mary Magdala New York:
Paulist Press, 1995)
W. C. Till, and H. M.. Schenke, Die
gnostischen Schriften des koptischen Papyrus Berlinensis 8502.2nd
ed. Texte Untersuchungen 60 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1972)
