Talk:Elaine Pagels

Scholarly references?

It seems that the last external reference (christianity and/or elaine pagels) does not really belong in an encyclopedia. It is someone's personal correspondance, and I was unable to find the source of the correspondance. Any comments? Agentcdog 23:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Scholarship or personal attack?

A an external link was added to an article authored by a Roman Catholic priest, who makes the claim that Pagels is a "very naughty historian" and a "lady novelist" rather than a respected scholar. He bases his conclusion on the analysis of a single quotation (out of hundreds) taken out of context, from her book The Gnostic Gospels. His objection is based on her stated conflation of two different quotes, the reversal of a phrase with its antecedent, and the ironic charge that her quotation of Irenaeus is taken out of context. This priest is entitled to his interpretations, but he steps beyond analysis of Pagels work to engage in the personal attack cited above. In this he is unfortunately perpetuating the unChristian practice of character assassination engaged by Irenaeus in Against Heresies. Such action debases scholarship and is better suited to the National Enquirer than the Catholic World News. I don't think it should be dignified by a link from Wikipedia. --Blainster 19:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Having just read the article on CWN, I have to say I didn't find it a terribly argumentum ad hominem. The key point IMO,

"The example of 'creativity' here discussed may fairly be called a representative specimen of her methodology, and was singled out not because it's the worst example of its kind but because it's among the most unambiguous. No one who consults the source texts could give Pagels a pass, and that means she forfeits the claim to reliability as a scholar."

As an academic, her method of quoting a source doesn't fit with any rule of which I'm aware. If a student quoted like that in a class I taught I would fail their report. She could have easily got herself out of the mess through splitting the two quotes with an "and elsewhere" but that wouldn't have served her purposes. --Journeyman 03:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to the language (re: unreliable scholarship) used in the paragraph you quoted, however the claim that the book quotation is representative is specious. There are exactly two quotes in the entire book that are "conflations". That is hardly representative. The objection, to repeat, is that the unscholarly, unkind, and unChristian language used by the priest in his description of Pagels should not be tolerated in civil discourse. I suspect he would never say anything like that to her face. If he had limited his complaint to the professor's work, rather than demeaning her person, his article would have been acceptable. --Blainster 06:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the link ought to remain. The language is often less than kind, but the article does contain a substantive critique of Pagels' work. Sisoyflaco (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrongly cited source?

I have read the article about the one-hundred best non-fiction books and it is an article mentioning the fifty worst and fifty best books not the one-hundred best books. Furthermore, her book is in the list of the worst books so if this source is going to be used the whole paragraph should be changed. I am asking for approval to do it. (Faso 22:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

The two lists should be linked to in footnotes, to prevent interested "spin". --Wetman (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous critics

The "critics" being cited here should be identified, to demonstrate that these are not straw men set up for counter-argument's sake. Not a single direct quote from Pagels herself yet: all paraphrases. --Wetman (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reception section

This section absolutely must have the responses of Pagels to the criticism, as a basic requirement of NPOV. DGG (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree this article has turned into a hatched job. I'm tempted to just revert to last year. jbolden1517^Talk 16:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not only is the reception section entirely negative, but other sections contain criticisms as well (such as the "50 worst books mention). Reverting this article probably wouldn't be a bad idea.66.71.70.209 (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Done jbolden1517^Talk 07:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Article fairly OK

I think the templates:

• {{POV|section|date=September 2008}}
• {{criticism-section}}

are unjustified. The article is fairly neutral, although some of her critics are near to rabid for seeing a vastly different viewpoint from their own. That is however quite normal in the world of academics. The criticism section should preferrably be separate, not interspersed in the rest of the text. Otherwise the article risk becoming unpleasant. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree. Tagging the article (or perhaps rather, the subject of the article) as "disputed" is just plain silly. To a vote, I say. Please note the tag has been on the article for se7en (7!) months as of writing. "O!, the silliness." 82.181.94.185 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

the tags shouldremain, as the material in the criticism section is unbalanced. DGG (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

She now has several more books -- these need inclusion? Or is this just a platform for angry patriarchal Catholics to diss her (just kidding) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.214.66 (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Notable criticism?

The most frequent and fundamental criticism of this book comes from some scholars of the New Testament and first century (such as Richard B. Hays and N.T. Wright ) who conclude that the Gospel of Thomas is, in fact, a second century Gnostic text which uses the already extant tradition of the synoptic, canonical Gospels.

But is this criticism notable or relevant? How exactly does this specific criticism address Pagels or her book? Coatrack anyone? Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. The dates of both gospels are close enough and John has just as many problems, if not more. This doesn't seem to be notable enough for inclusion in this article, as we are discussing Pagels and her work. If, however, an article was created for Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (2003), then similar but more exacting criticisms would be warranted. In a biography article, this isn't the place for it, nor is the criticism important or relevant enough for inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wright is notable. As for this being a criticism Pagels is the leading proponent of the early Thomas theory and her book on Thomas the most important work on the topic. I was one who thought the criticism turned into a hatchet job but the debate on the dating of Thomas is definitely one of her key debates. Moreover, fundamentally choosing an early date is what makes her a leading proponent of the "New school". And her connection with the New School is a reason for criticism jbolden1517^Talk 10:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The source has nothing to do with Wright, but with Hays, and it's tacked on to a biography article. Furthermore, the criticism does not address the book, and if it does, it doesn't belong here. Lastly, the criticism of the dates isn't significant, because the dates of both Gospels are considered to be very close. If this is a key debate, then take it to a more appropriate article. This is a biography of Pagels, not a soapbox for dismissing her work with empty criticism. Of course, your revert shows you aren't actually interested in the facts, as your mind is already made up. Carry on... Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I just checked out the material you restored. It has nothing to do with Pagels. Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas there are rules of conduct on wikipedia regarding assume good faith. As for Pagels not being mentioned, she is on pages: 80, 81, 94, 119, 122, 123, 134 and by my count mentioned by name 5 times in the footnotes. That's not include references to the New School. As for the dating of Thomas being close to John, that is the point in dispute she considers them close other disagree and put Thomas much later. 12:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? You made two reverts and accused me of edit warring? That takes the cake. As for Pagels being mentioned in Hays 1996, I cannot access it on GBooks. It tells me " Pagels - did not match any documents". So, since you have reverted page 162 back into the article, you need to quote the passage per WP:V. So, please provide the quote. I still fail to see what this has to do with a biographical article. And as I pointed out above, the criticism isn't even accurate. I have provided four reasons why this criticism should not be in the article: 1) It does not appear to reflect the source cited; 2) A biography article is not the place to make tangential, non-notable criticisms of an authors work, especially by admittedly partisan critics who are not considered neutral; 3) The criticism does not appear to address specific claims by Pagels in particular, and 4) The date of both texts is in flux as is the authenticity and "historicity" of both, and as such, the criticism does not have legs. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I looked a bit harder and found that GBooks had a second copy with all the page numbers intact. And, it's exactly what I expected. The source used in the article has nothing to do with Pagels or her book.[1] Jbolden1517, I'm a reasonable person, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes people have a bad day and make poor decisions. I am giving you an opportunity to self-revert yourself before I escalate this to the next level. Your edit warring here was extremely poor form, because at some point, either myself or somebody else was going to check up on the source. Why the hell you thought you were going to get away with this is beyond me. Self-revert or I take this to the next level. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

To recap, the material jbolden1517 has edit warred into the article without proper fact-checking reads as follows:

The most frequent and fundamental criticism of this book comes from some scholars of the New Testament and first century (such as Richard B. Hays and N.T. Wright ) who conclude that the Gospel of Thomas is, in fact, a second century Gnostic text which uses the already extant tradition of the synoptic, canonical Gospels. [3]

Reference [3] refers to Hays 1996. Now, while I could not access Hays 1996 on GBooks, I could view Hays 1997, which is the exact same book, page for page. According to the cited source (p.162), neither Pagels or her book is mentioned. It does, however, criticize the Gospel of Thomas, and since that criticism is not directly related to Pagels or her book, it has no place in this article. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable counter argument to Hays. Feel free to pull the Hays ref out. jbolden1517^Talk 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I previously requested that you self-revert. Now I look at the article to see that you have modified it.[2] It immediately comes to mind that you ignored my request to self-revert and asked me to remove the material in bad faith and in attempt to get me to edit war, as your latest edit does not fix the problem but contributes to it. As I explained to you above, this is a biographical article about Elaine Pagels. It is not a critical commentary on her books. You are free to create an article about her book (and encouraged to do so) and add your critcism there. For some insight on how we do this, you would do well to read The New York Times article about similar criticism in the Sunday Book Review.[3] Please note how the criticism is focused around the Gospel of Judas, not Pagels or her books. Do you understand? Furthermore, you continue to keep Hays in the article to support your conclusion, when it has been shown that it has nothing to do with Pagels or her book.[4] This is generally referred to as synthesis, and is not acceptable. So, is there a reason you asked me to pull the Hays ref out, yet you continue to edit with it in the article, and bolster a criticism about Pagels and her book that secondary sources show is not notable for criticizing Pagels or her book, but for criticizing the Gospel of Judas? Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

To recap:

1. Hays 1996 does not support criticism of Pagels or her book.[5] It was added by an editor to synthesize and further a conclusion not supported by the sources.
2. Wright 2007 has been added to show that Pagels books are criticized, however, that is not accurate. Secondary sources show that Wright's entire book is a conservative critique of the Gospel of Judas[6], not Pagels or her book. Such criticism belongs in the Gospel of Judas article or in related articles.
3. Even though Hays 1996 was shown to be irrelevant, another book has been added to replace it - Bock 2006 (The Missing Gospels). Again, this criticism ("the Gospel of Thomas is, in fact, a second century Gnostic text") has nothing to do with Pagels, her book, or with this article.
4. Per WP:V, I am requesting that the specific passages for Wright 2007, pp. 76-83 and Bock 2006. pp. 37-42 be added by jbolden1517 on this talk page to show why they are applicable to a biography article about Elaine Pagels.

I want to see this problem resolved or I will remove all of the material in question. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles on scholars include information on the scholar. The place for information which spans multiple Pagels books is this article. The early dating / new school controversy cuts across her books, and applies to her books, her interviews and her newspaper editorials. That is it is general. Material which is book specific should be in book articles, this material is not. As for Wrights book it is not mainly about the Gospel of Judas but rather how the popular culture responded to Gospel of Judas. That popular reaction Wright sees as tied to the wider public acceptance of New School theology and Pagels is the leading proponent of that. Bock supports both the later dating and the later dating as a "refutation" of Pagels / New school. Finally stop being so suspicious. I asked you to remove Hays because I have no knowledge of the Hays ref. I've not confirmed your argument I merely indicated it seemed reasonable so I wasn't objecting to a change to the sentence to remove a ref to Hays. I'll remove though so as not to create a issue where AFAIKT there is none. jbolden1517^Talk 01:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You say that you have not confirmed my argument regarding Hays[7]. And yet, I have not once, but twice three times provided a link to the questionable material on Gbooks.[8][9][10] Do you think you could take 10 seconds out of your busy Sunday and "confirm" the argument, or do I need to file a noticeboard incident asking for administrative attention? Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So, now you have removed the Hays reference, but you still continue to preserve the content it supports in the article?[11] This has got to be one of the most disruptive patterns of editing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Before I begin the process of escalating this issue, I'm curious what you have to say for yourself. You appear to be baiting me into edit warring instead of fixing the article. I initially assumed this was the case, which is why I have not touched the article after your second revert. The pattern here is clearly disruptive. What alternative explanation can there be? Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources covering notable criticism are required. You cannot pick a random source and claim that it represents a criticism about Pagels. This criticism must be notable and it must be explicit. Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources mention Pagels by name repeatedly in those sections. That is being explicit. I also think you should possibly reread AGF. You are the one proposing radical changes to the structure of an article. Slow down. Propose changes. Give other people a chance to comment (not 1 day). See what they say wait for a consensus. Stop trying to overhaul the article alone. Cut out the threatening language "If you don't I'll delete" or "do I need to escalate". I objected to the removal of the Hays information because I happen to know the criticism was common as I was able to quickly confirm. I don't OTOH know Hays. jbolden1517^Talk 12:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What part of what I have written above is not making sense to you? Please point out specific issues you aren't following. Again, Hays says nothing about Pagels or her books. I've provided a direct link to the source three separate times; So, why have you left the Hays material in but only removed the citation? Does that make sense to you? It certainly does not make sense to me. Now, you say "the sources mention Pagels by name repeatedly". Please be specific: What sources, and where? Please provide samples here (per WP:V) In case you are continuing to ignore my comments, this article is a biographical article about Pagels. It isn't about non-notable criticisms of her books. If you want to represent some form of criticism in this article, you need to provide secondary sources that show this criticism exists. That requirement prevents partisan editors from picking and choosing criticism based on their own likes and dislikes, and is best practice. As for my edits, I am not trying to overhaul the article; I am trying to rewrite it. You are welcome to help. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The two sources both discuss Pagels in relation to the New School controversy. In other words did Christianity emerge from Palestinian Judaism directly or did it pass through several stages, for example Palestinian Judaism -> Alexandrian Judaism -> proto "gnosticism". What Bauer argued was the later, and Pagels is at this point the most well known proponent of those views. The Hays line was a criticism that this is the primary point of contention regarding Pagels. That point true, regardless of whether the Hays reference is correct or not. I've provided two more references that demonstrate that criticism. Wright was specifically mention and I included the work where he discusses Pagels. Bock is just another source. jbolden1517^Talk 13:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, per WP:V, "When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference." Please do so. Viriditas (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved to talk

I cannot think of a single biographical article that has such links. I'm therefore moving them to talk. This BLP is not a platform for soapbox-driven, religious and partisan criticism of her work. If there is something important here, great, use it as a reference. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Positive reviews

• Frank Thomas Smith, "Book Review: The Gnostic Gospels," Southern Cross Review, Issue 2.
• Frank Thomas Smith, "Book Review: Adam, Eve, and the Serpent," Southern Cross Review, Issue 14.
• Frank Thomas Smith, "Book Review: Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas," Southern Cross Review, Issue 29.
• Allen D. Callahan, "Book Review: Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas," PBS Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, Episode 712 (November 21, 2003).

Negative reviews

• Bruce Chilton, "The Gospel According To Pagels," The New York Sun (April 2, 2008).
• Jeffrey Burton Russell, "Getting Satan Behind Us," First Things (November 1995).
• Matthew Gross, "Beyond Unbelief: A Critical Response to Elaine Pagels’ Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas," Reformed Perspectives Magazine, Volume 6, Number 16 (May 19-May 25, 2004).
• Paul Mankowski, S.J., "The Pagels Imposture," Catholic World News (Apr. 26, 2006).

Christian Intercollegiate Studies Institute

In a different measure of its influence, the conservative Christian Intercollegiate Studies Institute listed it as one of the 50 Worst Books of the Twentieth Century[12].

The only problem with this is that it is basically a joke. The actual "criticism" and reason for inclusion stated by the Institute is not only baseless, it is completely unsupported and without a single verifiable fact. Essentially, the book is included on the list because they don't like it. Now, on Wikipedia, we require secondary sources showing notability for such criticism. This could be something as simple as a newspaper, magazine, or journal. Unless we have neutral sources covering this criticism, including it in this article doesn't make sense. Here it is in full:

Bored with the real Gospels and real Christianity, professors of religion were thrilled to find out how important-not to mention feminist and pre-Socratic-these fragments were.

It's an empty and baseless criticism written by a biased, partisan "institute". It might work for MAD Magazine or Saturday Night Live, but not Wikipedia. Per NPOV (undue weight) these types of sources are strongly discouraged. I've removed it from the article pending the inclusion of a secondary source documenting this list. Viriditas (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you always comment your reasons for changes on the talk page first. That's helpful. I strongly disagree. Looking at the names on that list, those are very much reliable sources. What this establishes is the importance of her book. If you look at the first entries: Coming of Age in Samoa, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Democracy and Education these are enormously influential books written in the 20th century. For a bunch of highly regarded scholars to list your work among them is a very high honor. If you want to rephrase the comment then fine. jbolden1517^Talk 12:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable secondary source that represents this "notable" criticism. Did you even bother to read it? It is pure garbage, and it is written as if it was a joke. What exactly is your requirement for inclusion? Do you understand that in order to represent something in this article, you need to be able to show that it exists independently of the primary source? To rephrase for the second time, I challenge the importance of this material. Therefore, the editor wishing to include it, merely needs to show a neutral, reliable source that has covered the issue. This is very easy to do it, if it is notable. Please do it. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a secondary source. The primary source is the book itself (Gnostic Gospels). jbolden1517^Talk 12:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No. A secondary source representing the topic, i.e. The New York Times reporting that the Intercollegiate Studies Institute listed Pagel's book as one of the 50 Worst Books of the Twentieth Century. Not the Institute reporting on itself. That is what is required, and can be found for every notable criticism on Wikipedia. Please find a secondary source. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The ISI list of 50 worst books is not worth reporting in this article--it's a predictable list published by a right-leaning organization, and wasn't taken seriously when it was published. Serious criticism would come from notable theologians, scholars of religion, prominent public figures, sources like that. I'm sure there has been such comment on Pagels, she and her work are well known. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus -- I'm not treating it as serious criticism. What I am treating it as evidence of her influence: importance and notability. Look at the list it is a whose who of 20th century liberal writers. By "worst" all they really mean is influential in a direction they don't like. If you look at the line in the article that's what it says, it is evidence of her importance. jbolden1517^Talk 13:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

But if the ISI list wasn't taken seriously, it's not evidence of her influence. Things like winning a MacArthur and looking at how subsequent scholarship draws on her work are evidence of importance and influence. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting) Makes sense. The MacArthur is good but it doesn't put her in the Dewey, Mead, Chomsky league. Do you know of a better RS that makes that claim? Everyone agrees her book is influential but say one of the most influential books of the century is a much stronger statement. jbolden1517^Talk 14:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"One of the most influential books of the century" is hyperbolic. We don't need to include it, especially when it's sourced to a marginal group like the ISI. Simply reporting that she won a MacArthur is impressive stuff--they call it the genius grant for a reason. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Last paragraph "Academic work" section

That entire final paragraph reads to me like an attenuated platform for engaging in a criticism of *one* of her works, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (2003). In my opinion, contextually, as has been hinted at before; wouldn't it be more appropriate in this context to replace the existing paragraph with a brief more generalized overall critique of her body of work as whole? Why has 'Beyond Belief' been singled out of her entire corpus for special treatment? To me, it seems to indicate at least in one sense, some kind of pov pushing, I'm not singling out any particular editor, to tell you the truth I haven't even examined the edit history beyond a glance and only over the past couple of days. Again, as has been touched on before, I'd like to propose an extensive re-write of that paragraph, with reliable referencing along the lines I've indicated above, and the creation of an independent article for Beyond Belief where the 'themes' in the present paragraph can be expanded upon and in turn challenged. Is anyone suggesting that any one of her single books isn't "notable" enough, in my opinion they all are. When it comes down to it, I wouldn't even be adverse to a free standing article dedicated to critiquing her work as whole. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Falsification of evidence

203.109.166.182 (talk · contribs) recently reverted this new section,[13] which was originally added by Stroika (talk · contribs).[14] I've warned Stroika about BLP and I've invited the user to the talk page for discussion. Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I make no apologies for adding this information without prior discussion. Be bold. Elaine Pagels has been charged with falsification of evidence by a fellow academic - a member of a Pontifical commission no less. The charge was made on the website of a reputable Catholic news magazine. The edit summary of the revert is "I removed the highly defamatory attack section; which is based on a partisan catholic website and includes some gratuitous unsourced items". It is only defamtory if it is false and the evidence of truth is in plain site. The charge was backed up with evidence. Everything relevant including the evidence was in the quotation and citation I provided.

What does the anonymous reverter mean by "partisan catholic website"? What is his objection to the CWN website? I mean apart from the fact that it is prepared to attack the sainted Pagels? Is the objection that it is a Catholic website and that Fr Mankowski is a Catholic?

It is for Pagels to refute this charge and the evidence is pretty damning. Refusing even to mention this on Wikipedia is covering up for Pagels. Come on folks it's not like we're pretending she shot JFK. The evidence is right there!

Perhaps Viriditas could point to the section on BLP I violated? --Stroika (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing; How about starting with your unsourced claim, "To date the charges have not been refuted." Then, tell me how Paul Mankoski's charges are at all notable, and what reliable secondary sources covered them. After you've done that, you can start explaining how CatholicCulture.org meets the reliable source guideline. Those are just starters. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(1) Fine, remove the unsourced claim if you like. I would have thought it was a mercy to include it. (2) Mankowski's charges are notable because falsification of evidence is a serious academic charge and he is another academic. You do know what the Pontifical Biblical Commission is don't you? In the article cited he points to specific examples of falsification with page references. What obligation is there for other sources to cover these charges? (3) CatholicCulture.org is the website of Catholic World News, a magazine put out by the Ignatius Press. The Ignatius Press holds the exclusive right to publish Jospeh Ratzinger's pre-papal works in English. Is that respectable enough for you? I note that you still haven't explained your description of it as a "partisan catholic website". Also you still haven't pointed to a specific section in BLP. Or are we allowed to insert unsourced information in other articles?

I say again: refusing to mention this on wikipedia is covering up for Pagels. The evidence is right there in the article cited.Stroika (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is covering up anything, so save your conspiracy theories for someone else. Mankowski is criticizing Pagels' scholarship regarding The Gnostic Gospels (1979). Due to this highly sensitive subject and the requirements of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, we require reliable sources that are of the highest quality. If Mankowski's criticism is notable, it will most certainly have been covered by other non-partisan sources—those with a reputation for neutrality and fact-checking. This is true for any major criticism of a work or author. Otherwise, I will assume that Jesuit Priest Paul Mankoski has an axe to grind in regards to Pagels and the Gnostic Gospels, and is using CatholicCulture.org as a platform for his views. The "about" page for that organization says, "Trinity Communications seeks through CatholicCulture.org to advance the Catholic faith and support the formation of authentically Catholic culture. We take seriously the need to present information and ideas which are in complete harmony with the teaching authority of the Catholic Church."[15] This proves beyond a doubt that this is a "partisan catholic website". The about page also describes their content as "fresh, original and incisive commentary and analysis", which tells me this is more of an opinion-driven, editorial site, which is not a good fit for Wikipedia. In whole, I would say that this automatically disqualifies this source from any semblance of neutrality. If there is a need to present a Catholic view in this article, then you may certainly propose that argument, but all I see is a massive amount of sparks flying from the sharpened edge of Mankoski's blade. If, however, a published academic in Pagels' field has made similar accusations, especially in neutral, reliable sources, we should consider their worthiness. If you wish to have a greater forum for your arguments, I would suggest taking this to either the content noticeboard, the reliable source board, or the NPOV and/or BLP board. I can provide links to both places if you need them. The fact remains, serious claims about living people must have good sources for inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Distinguish between fact and comment. Mankowski presents facts. Facts which are not in dispute. Namely that (in his words) Pagels "carpentered" a quotation. She took two sentences from different places, reversed the order and presents them as one thought. Have you read Mankowski's article? There is no Catholic view. It is simply a matter of academic dishonesty. I am not interested in wikilawyering with you. Life is too short. You get away with removing a serious fact about Pagels. Eppur si muove. And i bet you didn't expect to have that hurled at you. Stroika (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Vigorous handwaving. Perhaps Mankowski should take his concerns up with Pagels and leave Wikipedia out of it? Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple counterarguments to Mankowski's claims found here. Not reliable, but then, neither is the original. Viriditas (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

deaths in the family

This needs to be attributed: "These personal tragedies deepened her spiritual awareness and led Pagels to begin the research leading". If she says that in the introudction to her book, quote her as saying it. Noloop (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

done.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Last paragraph in 'Early life and Education'

Elaine Pagels cannot possibly have been made a Freemason at Harvard. The Harvard Lodge [16] is the regular Masonic lodge historically linked with Harvard and it is part of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts [17]. Regular Masonic Lodges do not have women in their membership. Unless there is an undeground co-masonic body at Harvard, this paragraph should be modified or excluded. gnosticpilgrim

This para has another serious problem, which is that Pagels' work consists in recovering, describing and critiquing the ideas of both the Gnostics and their opponents. That does not amount to, as the writer says, "propagating" such beliefs. Anyone who has actually read Pagels' works, rather than say, relying on the summaries of other readers, would not for a moment consider that she is "propagating" Gnostic ideas. She is excavating ancient notions that, prior to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts, were not much regarded or studied. If no one objects, I will revisit this page in a week or so and simply rewrite this paragraph, as it smacks of Masonic conspiracy theory nonsense. Counterknowledge, as Damien Thompson puts it, not real knowledge.Theonemacduff (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It was vandalism by 192.231.177.18 (talk · contribs) and it has now been deleted. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs?

I didn't see anything in the article regarding her own personal religious and/or spiritual beliefs. In general, for most biographies this is a significant component of a person's formative identity. I think it is even more important for a scholar who works on religious topics. If a Priest or a Rebbe writes scholarship pertaining to their own belief system, one always needs to take that into account when they make an assessment of the conclusion. So if Elaine is, say, an Atheist or even Agnostic, then when I read her works I have to separate that thread of thought from her scholarship. Naturally, all scholarship should be "objective," but I think most of us agree that bias is virtually impossible to eradicate on its own, hence, the need for peer review and in this case an understanding of her own religiosity. Thanks for any help!BinaryLust (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is that relevant. But as she herself makes the comments, and other authors have commented on this, okay. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing you here, but I truly don't understand why people from time to time make that comment, that is is irrelevant. It is a major component of identity, far more than say LGBT or political party. Anyway, the reason why I was compelled to ask the question is that I read an article about her new book regarding Revelations in the New Yorker and it was very anti-Christian. I then over the following weekend read an article in the Wall Street Journal about this same book and it was more even handed. It made the book sound very intriguing and a good work of scholarship. So I was using Wiki as a tool to help try and see whether or not it was the author of the New Yorker article or the author of the book who was the bigot; or rather whose perspective was being presented in the article. So if Wiki said that she is some type of devout Christian or proud of her Christian heritage, I would be able to make a better determination of which article was more neutral. Or if it said that she was a Cultural Marxist ditto. This is precisely what Wiki is there to help us with. It might sound mundane but if I had all the information that I needed then I would have been able to make the decision to purchase the book. So instead of Wikipedia, I had to read the reviews on Amazon. Ergo, Wiki did not provide all the relevant info I needed. Thanks! BinaryLust (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever consider the possibility that maybe you're the bigot? 173.58.37.123 (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Lengthy Discussion of Gnostic thought

I think the section Buddhism and Gnosticism is interesting, informative, and well written. I am not sure it belongs in the author's biography. Cgmusselman (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please flag for content and perspective. Not objective. Reads like propaganda. 98.234.142.217 (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Section on The Gnostic Paul

There need to be explicit citations of this book to support the claim that she advocates any particular reading of the Pauline Epistles. This book is a summary of Gnostic claims of specific interpretations of certain passages in SOME Pauline epistles, not an advocating for a particular reading of the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.53.113 (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Misleading article.

The article misrepresents the views she has expressed in her books. She does not "preach a position" on anything, just describes in detail many of the divergent positions held by very early Christians prior to the declaration that the now-traditional "four gospels" are exclusively canonical. She does not suggest that the Gospel of Thomas reflects Hindu nor Buddhist influencea. She's an academic, not a preacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.118.2 (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I've removed the whole section on "Buddhism and Gnosticism"; the statements in this Wiki-article were too far-streched. Thanks Corinne, for your request to have a look here! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Dubious uses of "apocryphal" in paragraph 5 of the "Academic work" section.

  Hello. As a non-religious person reading this section, I encountered repeated usage of "apocryphal" in unclear,ambiguous and potentially misleading ways. As a typical educated layman not involved in theological matters, one's default interpretation of "apocryphal" is as meaning fake, false or illegitimate. All of these are incorrect for the contexts in question.   I propose the word "uncanonical" should be used instead in both cases specified below. If no one argues otherwise, I will implement the change tomorrow. 

First, here is dictionary.com definition of "apocryphal":

    apocryphal:

adjective

1. of doubtful authorship or authenticity.

2. Ecclesiastical

 2.1  (initial capital letter) of or relating to the Apocrypha.

 2.2  of doubtful sanction; uncanonical.

3. false; spurious

---

Note that the 3 relevant definitions above (1,2.2,3) are very different in meaning, and in ways significant to what is to be asserted in the sentences involved:

The article text in question follows:

..."On Pagels' interpretation, the Gospel of Thomas claims, along with other apocryphal teachings, that Jesus was not God, but rather, a human teacher who sought to uncover the divine light in all human beings. This apocryphal viewpoint is in contradiction with the four New Testament gospels."

  Using def.3 is obviously mere POV. Using def.1 does not apply to the 2nd case, and isn't what is intended (I think?) in the first instance. The "uncanonical" of Def.2.2 is clearly the most fair and accurate and non-leading and non-presumptuous one for the second case, and likewise for the first case if authenticity is not intended to be questioned.  Def.2.2 is the correct relevant meaning, namely that the "teachings" and the "viewpoint" are not those officially sanctioned by (subsequent)consolidated established-church authority as the imprimatured official-story to be promulgated.  

  I welcome any relevant counter-points to this proposal.--Tommster1 (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)