What if sin isn’t a crime, but a forgetting? This deep dive into Karen King’s commentary on the Gospel of Mary contrasts Paul’s suffering-centered theology with Mary Magdalene’s vision of inner liberation—recovering a voice long buried by the church.
I have been quietly asking to remember now since reading your posts. From writing on a theory or maybe a remembrance I wrote the piece "The Garden" that you graciously read and commented on. I wrote another, it is more a prose (poetry) after focusing on remembering.
It`s called "Rise and Shine!" if you`re interested in taking a peek. I am curious of your thoughts on it.
I read your writings every day, for reflection, for insight and for remembrance.
I am curious as to how this would stack up against the analysis in a very early work of Elaine Pagels called "The Gnostic Paul". Pagels takes commentaries on Paul's letters by the Gnostic writer Valentinus who evidently had a radically different take on the meaning of Paul's letters (notably Romans) than what prevailed in the West. It has been a long time since I read that book, but I wonder of Valentinus' reading could be more easily combined with the theology of the Gospel of Mary.
Jonathan, I love that you brought up The Gnostic Paul—Elaine Pagels was out here doing jiu-jitsu on Pauline texts before it was cool.
You're right: Valentinus didn’t reject Paul, he reclaimed him. His school read Romans not as a guilt-trip for sinners but as a mystical map for the soul’s return. In that light, Paul wasn’t a repressed celibate scolding women—he was a proto-Magdalene Christian accidentally canonized by the Empire.
If we read Paul as Valentinus did, then yeah, the bridge to the Gospel of Mary isn’t just possible—it’s luminous. Both present a vision where salvation is not about blood sacrifice or legal status, but gnosis: direct inner knowledge of the divine spark within. Paul’s “inner person” and Mary’s “Child of True Humanity”? Same whisper, different robes.
Pagels’ early work opens the door. Mary kicks it off the hinges.
Blessed be the mystics who read between the lines.
I have hung out with multiple groups that will read almost anything by Elaine Pagels and almost anything with the word "gnostic" in the title, but even among these groups the book "The Gnostic Paul" can be a hard sell.
=-=-=
You can also find interesting alternative readings of Paul is most Eastern Orthodox commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, and in Karl Barth's groundbreaking work "The Epistle to the Romans"
Thanks, Jonathan—this is all rich terrain, but I want to bring the conversation back to the central contrast I was drawing in the piece: Mary as the revealer of direct, interior awakening, and Paul as the canonical voice of mediated transformation through Christ.
While Valentinus, Arch Bishop Dmitri, and Barth each offer interesting reinterpretations of Paul, they’re still orbiting his authority. My focus is on what happens when you center Mary instead—not as a supporting act, but as the one who names the powers and walks the soul home.
It’s less about choosing between interpretations of Paul, and more about recognizing the path Mary represents: awakening not through argument, but through remembrance.
Point taken. I try to play study both strategies simultaneously.
I got onto the alternative readings of Romans bandwagon in my early 20s, but knew nothing about the Gospel of Mary until I was 64. This year I am 70.
To flesh it out: I was 17 when I read the entire New Testament and when I got to Romans I just kept saying to myself again and again, This does NOT mean what Western Christianity thinks it means. I was 22 when I discovered Karl Barth's commentary which had an electric effect on me. I was 40 (and in my skeptic rationalist phase) when I discovered both Eastern Orthodox commentaries on Romans and Elaine Pagels' book "The Gnostic Paul" (published 20 years earlier).
But I was 64 (2019) when I discovered the delightful and eminently wise "The Gospel of Mary" largely due to reading Meggan Watterson and Karen King.
Good morning, Alek
I have been quietly asking to remember now since reading your posts. From writing on a theory or maybe a remembrance I wrote the piece "The Garden" that you graciously read and commented on. I wrote another, it is more a prose (poetry) after focusing on remembering.
It`s called "Rise and Shine!" if you`re interested in taking a peek. I am curious of your thoughts on it.
I read your writings every day, for reflection, for insight and for remembrance.
This is so powerful. Thank you for your insights and dedication.
“Rather, sin is defined as attachment to what deceives—the body, passions, and illusions”
Reminds me so much of ‘anatta’. The buddhist idea of self and soul. It rings clear what you wrote earlier, “Orthodoxy is the language of love,
Buddhism is the practice”.
I appreciate your willingness to call out problems in the world today BUT offering a way out too! Not very many voices out there doing such.
So very sweet, listen to the feminine side.
connected to life bringing capacity
You glorify Mary.
Wow 💥🙏
I am curious as to how this would stack up against the analysis in a very early work of Elaine Pagels called "The Gnostic Paul". Pagels takes commentaries on Paul's letters by the Gnostic writer Valentinus who evidently had a radically different take on the meaning of Paul's letters (notably Romans) than what prevailed in the West. It has been a long time since I read that book, but I wonder of Valentinus' reading could be more easily combined with the theology of the Gospel of Mary.
Jonathan, I love that you brought up The Gnostic Paul—Elaine Pagels was out here doing jiu-jitsu on Pauline texts before it was cool.
You're right: Valentinus didn’t reject Paul, he reclaimed him. His school read Romans not as a guilt-trip for sinners but as a mystical map for the soul’s return. In that light, Paul wasn’t a repressed celibate scolding women—he was a proto-Magdalene Christian accidentally canonized by the Empire.
If we read Paul as Valentinus did, then yeah, the bridge to the Gospel of Mary isn’t just possible—it’s luminous. Both present a vision where salvation is not about blood sacrifice or legal status, but gnosis: direct inner knowledge of the divine spark within. Paul’s “inner person” and Mary’s “Child of True Humanity”? Same whisper, different robes.
Pagels’ early work opens the door. Mary kicks it off the hinges.
Blessed be the mystics who read between the lines.
—Virgin Monk Boy
I have hung out with multiple groups that will read almost anything by Elaine Pagels and almost anything with the word "gnostic" in the title, but even among these groups the book "The Gnostic Paul" can be a hard sell.
=-=-=
You can also find interesting alternative readings of Paul is most Eastern Orthodox commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, and in Karl Barth's groundbreaking work "The Epistle to the Romans"
Thanks, Jonathan—this is all rich terrain, but I want to bring the conversation back to the central contrast I was drawing in the piece: Mary as the revealer of direct, interior awakening, and Paul as the canonical voice of mediated transformation through Christ.
While Valentinus, Arch Bishop Dmitri, and Barth each offer interesting reinterpretations of Paul, they’re still orbiting his authority. My focus is on what happens when you center Mary instead—not as a supporting act, but as the one who names the powers and walks the soul home.
It’s less about choosing between interpretations of Paul, and more about recognizing the path Mary represents: awakening not through argument, but through remembrance.
That’s the turn I’m inviting.
Point taken. I try to play study both strategies simultaneously.
I got onto the alternative readings of Romans bandwagon in my early 20s, but knew nothing about the Gospel of Mary until I was 64. This year I am 70.
To flesh it out: I was 17 when I read the entire New Testament and when I got to Romans I just kept saying to myself again and again, This does NOT mean what Western Christianity thinks it means. I was 22 when I discovered Karl Barth's commentary which had an electric effect on me. I was 40 (and in my skeptic rationalist phase) when I discovered both Eastern Orthodox commentaries on Romans and Elaine Pagels' book "The Gnostic Paul" (published 20 years earlier).
But I was 64 (2019) when I discovered the delightful and eminently wise "The Gospel of Mary" largely due to reading Meggan Watterson and Karen King.