I disagree, Kolo. She is certainly the last person on my list to defend, but the truth is, the Church Chrits left behind was not structured, or even resembled anything we have today. There was a proliferation of sects and cults, and the earliest Apostolic Fathers (i.e. +Ignatius, +Polycarp) address their disruptive beliefs. Orthodoxy was challenged from all sides: the Jews, Romans and various cults (Gnostics by the dozens, Ebionites, etc.).
The faux-"Gospel" of Judas is a 2nd century Gnostic product that sheds light on various heretical beliefs. It has also been a welcome opportunity for various satanic television and publishing houses to attack orthodox Christianity—and make profit.
Elaine Pagels is not wrong when she asserts that the Church was not well defined. We know that from the history of the biblical canon and from writings of the Church Fathers. She is wrong when she asserts that Gnostics and Christians are two equal branches of true Christianity.
I’m not sure what you mean, kosta. (Contrast your post 32 to my post 34): Certainly heretics of all stripes claimed to be Christianity, but the catholic (which, yes, was mostly Greek) church was certainly very structured (while being collegial).
I guess we will just have to disagree on this one, Kosta. The Church had structure before +Ignatius of Antioch wrote his letter to the Smyrneans and that was in the late 1st or very, very early 2nd century. The fact that there were other sects and cults running around doesn’t negate that.
I stick by what I said about Pagels.
In a sense, you could say the very early Church was not well-defined, but was inherently definable and gradually self-defining.
The young Church was like a young child. She didn't have well-developed muscles, but developed them by use: weight-bearing, stress, exercise, and necessity develop muscles and (by analogy) develop the structures of the Church.
Similarly, like a young child, the early Church didn't instantly have a sophisticated immune system. Immune systems develop largely by exposure to foreign "invasion" of proteins and the formation of antibodies. The more a child is exposed to infectious agents --- assuming their fail to kill the child --- the more the child develops immunities.
Thus the Church did not unfold and explicate and refine her teachings until she was repeatedly challenged by heresies which demanded more and more detailed and explicit definitions of doctrine.
This does not imply that the Church Fathers "made it up as they went along." Rather, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, they unfolded and pondered and traced the implications of what they had already been given by the Hebrew Scriptures, by Jesus Christ, by the Apostles' preaching and letters.
This is how a simple infant Church grew up to become more discerning, more intellectually well-furnished, more organizationally elaborate, more just, loving, faithful, battle-scarred, wary, and tough.
(I know that most analogies don't run very far, but this one at least gets up on its hind legs and toddles, doesn't it?)
Programs such as this one, especially when shown on Nat Geo, are dangerous and damaging. Our parish women’s society met for dinner last night. One of the senior members, a woman who attends Church each week, mentioned this program. Her son had purchased the DVD and she began to describe how ‘professionals’ had put the jumbled pieces of the scroll together. She then began to describe the amazing contents of this ‘Gospel’, highly recommending that we all watch it. Thank goodness, I had my Blackberry with me and was able to pull up this thread and explan the false nature of the documentary. The old woman was unconvinced! Only last week Fr. Mitch Pacwa brought up the absurdity of the Gospel of Judas on his program, providing clear arguments against its validity; unfortunately, this woman missed the program.