ELAINE PAGELS is interviewed in the LA Times. She discusses her own background and the historical and theological significance of the Gnostic gospels. Excerpt:

What stirred your interest in obscure religious sects in the first place?

My father was a biologist who had no use for religion. He thought it was naive. But at 13 and 14, I began to find religious notions powerful and compelling. Whether it was the great cathedrals of Europe or Hopi dancers, I sensed in them a potent spiritual dimension of life that I just had to explore.

Later, when I went off to study the early history of Christianity at Harvard, I was surprised to discover that my professors had file cabinets filled with early Christian texts that didn't make it into the Bible. We were told they were bizarre, heretical, nonsensical, full of philosophical fantasies and religious junk. That's also what the fathers of the orthodox Christian church said. They called them "illegitimate secret writings."

After a close read, they changed my understanding of what early Christianity was all about.

*

The word "Gnostic" derives from "gnosis," the Greek word for knowledge. But what is Gnosticism?

We really don't know. The term "Gnostic" has been used in so many ways over the years it's hard to say. The label has been used by people who attacked certain early beliefs as the wrong kind of Christianity and by New Agey types.

Referring to the authors of these texts as Gnostic only accepts that negative judgment. But the people who wrote them didn't think of themselves as belonging to a school called Gnosticism. They were spiritual leaders who thought they had gone beyond simple faith to a deeper understanding.

Essentially, they were trying to make a distinction between anthropomorphic notions of God and the divine reality.

I agree that "Gnosticism" isn't a very useful category in scholarly terms. Most of the time it can be replaced with something like "adherence to the demiurgic myth" (the myth that the creator of our world is an imperfect derivative god, not the True God).

I think her answer to this question is correct as far as it goes, but it's also incomplete:

Where do they rank in comparison with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

I think of them now as the other texts that were not included in the canon. Much of what was in the canon was to be used in public church. But, as in Judaism, there were certain secret teachings — or advanced teachings — that were not to be taught publicly or even written down.

They were only to be shared with certain disciples when they were ready. In other words, the New Testament Gospels were the texts students of Christianity began with. Some moved on to the secret teachings.

She really should have added that the four canonical gospels can be dated to the second half of the first century or the very beginning of the second century at the latest. All our evidence indicates that the Gnostic gospels come from later in the second century or later still. With the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas (which I would not count as "Gnostic"), the noncanonical gospels give us no new information about the historical Jesus or the first generation of the Jesus movement.

But anyhow, read it all.