Igni ferroque

Recently, Elaine Pagels wrote in the San Jose Mercury:"The truth at the heart of `The Da Vinci Code'". In response to the barrage of media shows attempting to debunk the 'Da Vinci Code' by Dan Brown as factually inaccurate. Professor Pagels believes that "[t]he real mystery is what Christianity and Western civilization would look like had the 'Gnostic' gospels never been banned. Because of the discovery by that Egyptian farmer in 1945, we now at least have the chance to hear what the ``heretics'' were saying, and imagine what might have been."

Indeed. Around 143 CE, Valeninius was a candidate for bishop of Rome (A.K.A. Pope). He was not elected. He was the great hope of Gnosticism. Shortly afterf his death in 175 CE,

"Irenaeus began his massive work Adversus Haeresis with a highly-colored and negative view of him [Valeninius] and his teachings that occupies most of his first book."

- From wikipedia entry on Valeninius.

While I concur that what might have been is the "appeal" of the 'Da Vinci Code', the real threat of the book and the "heretical" texts found at Nag Hamadi is one of trust.

In a previous post I made the claim that the "coin of the relam" was trust. The suppression of the Gnostic gospels by Archbishop Athanasius (c 367 CE ), and Bishop Irenaeus show a lack of trust in their laity; or shall we say that they trusted the laity to not accept the church's claim that salvation can only come thru the church if the Gnostic gospels were a competing dogma. It is clear that these men suppressed the Gnostics and the Nestorians in an evil and corrupt grab for political and religious power. They were attempting (like today's televenvangelits) to create a population sheep. They knew all to well that Gnostics (mystics) would more likely be independent thinkers. This would be very dangerous to the goals of men like these.

It may have taken hundreds of years to eradicate mystisim from lay Christianity, but it was never completely eradicated.

The thing that the church may have understood is that mystics make outstanding warriors. They, therefore, concentrated the mystics in the military orders. Okay, yes they also tended to take in the second etc. sons of nobles (Primogeniture), but these knights were still indoctrinated in a monsatic life that did encourage reflection and introspection (required for independent thought). These orders were kinda the Spartans of their time (Battle of Montgisard).

While these orders exist today, they do not practice the arts that made them what they were. Instead the are dedicated to charitable works (Knights of Malta).

Understanding what warriors might have been nurtured by a Gnostic church, it is not too hard to understand why Athanasius and Irenaeus persecuted the Gnostics Heresy. The consequence of that persecution is a population that, today, demands to know what other lies have been foisted upon them. If they had not suppressed Gnosticism, they may have had a harder time controlling the masses, but the church would not be attempting to improve its image because it has lost the trust of the public (see Roman_Catholic church sex abuse scandal, and List of scandals of the Roman Catholic Church for things that the church forgot to mention).