I was taught that gnosticism runs through the cluster of religions in that area. Gnostics thought physical creation was dreadful, a hell. Within every person a divine spark lives. For those who have secret knowledge, they can escape the illusion of reality and commune with the true Sprit God. Creation occurred through a very lesser God. The true God is spirit. They believed Jesus only appeared to be real. He was more of a spirit guide. Unlike the transcedence in Judaism, and modified by Christianity, Gnosticism believes we have divine nature that must be tapped.
I only read tons and tons of Christians gnostic writings. As I mentioned, many of the sayings and stories are the same as in what emerged as orthodox Christianity. This reassures me that Q or some loose canon of Jesus tradition existed at a very early date. It is fascinating how such different world views emerged from the same sayings and stories. I have not been exposed to Jewish gnosticism. Pagels mentioned another religion that I can't recall. Perhaps it was just Greek thought, embraced by the Romans. I also question whether Gnosticism blurred the edges between the groups. If what Jesus did wasn't real, esp. the crucifixion and the resurrection, do the Christians blend into Jews blend into Greek beliefs.
Gnosticism despise the trap and prison of our physical bodies. Gnosis was the answer. I often have feelings that deep within myself there is more than appears in this world. There feels as though there is more to me than just intellecutal knowleldge, feelings, socialization.
Pagels made the point that Gnosticism did not sustain itself for more than a few generations. It targets the elite. Slaves and laborers would probably not find it an attractive belief system. Tell a slave being beaten to death than the physical world is not real. She also pointed to the desert fathers. Even the baby boomers turned corporate in time. She felt that the beliefs and structure of what became orthodoxy was the most sustainable over time. Orthodoxy won in the marketplace of ideas.
Christians had to write letters to each other frequently. I wonder why Paul's letters survived. After growing up a Witness, I despised Paul. The most beautiful, soaring scripture made me want to vomit from overuse and manipulation by the Witnesses. His core message is love and grace. I only heard all the moral bon mots that were not his. I refused to read his letters even for class. His treatment of women truly triggered me. I thought he was vile. I became Anglican and read some Protestant theologians, Tillich, Barth, Boenhoffer. Their views were radically different from WTS so I finally read Paul in normal fashion, not the Witness jumping. I was utterly shocked. Now I love Paul.
He seemed extremely insecure about his Christian credentials. It seems as though half his time is spent touting his being better than James and Peter. Sometimes I wonder if something else not mentioned was happening. He doth protest too much to quote Shakespeare. Maybe that argument was common among writers during that time period. I don't know.
