This book was the third Pagels that i read and i think the weakest. I don't understand how it won the Pulitzer Prize and is on the Modern Library 100 non-fiction list.

It was interesting. I would say, though, that if you read Adam, Eve, and the Serpent and The Origin of Satan, Ms Pagels abilities become much more alive as she becomes much more focused in using the gnostic texts to analyze a specific issue in the history of christianity.

I would not recomend reading this book after reading those two, but if you want a good summary of some of the ideas of the gnostics it is a good book.

It is important to note that though Ms. Pagels is a practicing christian, this view does not enter a word of this text, or any other text she has written. She tries to take an objective perspective but it comes out to me overly secularized in trying to find fault with any and all orthodox beliefs, no matter the base.

This book gives readers a chance to delve into the "other side" of Christianity--the gnostic view that was almost lost to the mists of history. Thankfully, someone found the gnostic writings, so we have an idea of what their view was from the people themselves. The gnostics had different views on the resurrection, church hierarchy, the role of women, and how one comes to know God. Some of their ideas show up today--many ultra-liberal Christians take the resurrection as more of a symbolic event, and more and more churches are including women in their leadership roles. We are probably more gnostic than we realize. I don't agree with everything the gnostics held, but their ideas should be considered by every thinking Christian. I hope to read more about the gnostic Gospels.

Elaine Pagels, having come from a posistion of such importance, is clearly one of the authorities on Gnostic traditions, and the effec they have on us in this century. Having been one of the people who was lucky enough to translate the Nag Hammadi Codicies, Pagels has possibly the best insight into these esoteric writtings.

Her book, although taking some quotes from Nag Hammadi, largely focuses on the points of comparisson between the early Christian Gnostics and the Orthodox Gnostics in the early days of the Roman Empire. Using what was learned from the Nag Hammadi Codicies, she is able to more cohesively argue both sides of the formally one sided argument against the Gnostics. Using numerous quotions from an old book called "Ibid" by Ireneaus, where the Gnostic movement was strongly bashed as heresey. Although, many of these arguments are refuted, and it clearly makes a mainstream Christian reader at the very least question his or her faith, it doesn't delve enough into the actual philosophy about Gnosis that was given in the Nag Hammadi Codicies until the very end. This perhaps was the major flaw of the book, although it showed the Social aspects of Gnosis, she didn't delve deeply into the really esoteric philosophies. Perhaps, this is because she is coming from an objective standpoint of that of a researcher.

Overall, this book is extremely strong in explaining the Gnostics, and is even at least the first primer a person should read before diving into the Nag Hammadi Library.