Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category

For those with any interest in 'gnosticism' this book should be read as it examines and shows what the foundations are and what isn't really 'gnostic'. The word has been adopted and applied to any number of teachers and philosophies and theologies and all too many are not that well research and all too many self-serving rather than serving a higher cause.More books on the subject are being written and in time I'll read those...but I really appreciate the organization of the author to show where the term has been mis-applied or worse. With those sort of tools it's easier to analyse what might truly be 'gnostic' and what isn't.

This is a fine book.

I'll look carefully the notes. Thank you really much.

After reading one book which specifically mentions and disagrees with Michael Allen Williams' position, ("No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins" by Smith), I figured that "Rethinking 'Gnosticism'" would be an important read.Williams' basic position is that there is not enough evidence to support and maintain the category of "Gnosticism", and he proposes a term "biblical demiurgic tradition". Throughout the book, Williams systematically addresses central issues that have been cited as making up the Gnostic category, such as Gnostic interpretation, concepts of the body, ethical issues, and so on.I would like to mention a couple of examples where I find Williams' discussion lacking. These are only examples, and will precede some good points from "Rethinking 'Gnosticism'" as well.Firstly, Williams largely presents the category of Gnosticism in very simplistic terms, claiming that it is presented as "cliche" or "caricatures" of the religions so categorised. For ethics, Williams presents the ascetic or libertine options as the ones emphasised by previous understandings of Gnosticism. In contrast, while these elements have been discussed by other authors of note, they have not been presented in a way that obscures the complexity of Gnostic ethics in all its range, (a point in reference would be the Valentinians, who were very mild, middle-of-the-road types). In this sense, Williams seems to be shooting at shadows a bit.Secondly, Williams claims that the Gnostics had, at times, a more positive attitude to the body. While there is great complexity and variation among differing Gnostic sects, the basic negative view is fairly consistent. Even the Valentinians take a reasonably negative view to it, though they are relatively mild by Gnostic standards. The apparent positive statements and knowledge Gnostics found "encoded" in the body that Williams mentions do not negate this underlying negativity to the material world overall and the body in particular.While I disagree with Williams' overall position, I still feel that this book has definite value for someone studying Gnosticism's history and controversies. Williams reminds us that we must not get trapped by the "cliches and caricatures" that can easily influence our understanding. He does well at reminding the reader of some of the complexities of Gnostic thought.One aspect I particularly thought Williams handled well was the aspect of asceticism and libertinism. He draws out important details and discusses the evidence in fresh ways. While I do not think the evidence is there to support his position of throwing the category of Gnosticism out of the window, he does make some interesting and strong points in the details. While this is not consistently so, Williams does raise some very good issues.Despite some of the problems I have with Williams' overall conclusions, his book is an important contribution to the study of Gnosticism. He has dared rock the boat and get some rethinking going, which is always healthy. I would recommend the book to anyone who seeks an understanding of the problematic side of studying Gnosticism.

Michael Allen William's "Rethinking `Gnosticism': An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category" has become very influential within scholarly circles. Few books or articles about Gnosticism have been written since this book which do not, at the least, address his argument. Scholars are now much more careful to acknowledge that "Gnostic" is a widely varying and loosely constructed model. In his book, Williams attempts to show that no proposed definition of Gnosticism fits the varying currents and ideologies normally categorized as "Gnostic". His approach is to examine common characteristics attributed to Gnosticism and illustrate Gnostic ideologies where such a trait is absent. His argument is well constructed and persuasive. However, it contains some notable flaws. Although Williams is absolutely correct that no one definition of Gnosticism can do justice to all the ideologies which fall under it, this is in no way unique. Similar arguments have been made to dismantle terms like "syncretism," "paganism," and even "magic". Yet, as most scholars have argued since the publication of Williams' book, large categories like Gnosticism serve only as a starting point. Few of these umbrella terms could accurately describe all their subsets. The word Gnostic still gives an outline of various movements. Terms such as "Sethian" or "Valentinian" fill in the sketch. In this capacity, Gnosticism is still a useful model. All in all, I highly recommend this book for anyone who has already made some study of early Christian history and/or Gnosticism. If nothing else, it certainly allows one to understand just how variant Gnostic circles could be.

It is a spirit of the age I suppose to wring one's hands in despair and agonise over what nomenclature we should use when referring to other groups of people. This even extends it seems to groups of people who have been dead for the best part of two thousand years.We all know the kind of groups we are talking about when we speak of Gnosticism, but Williams has a problem with this terminology. Yes, we know that there was not a single Gnostic religion and, as scholarship on the  Nag Hammadi corpus  has progressed, we know that even such great scholars of a few decades past such as  Jonas  and  Rudolph  were incorrect to see certain traits common to all Gnostic groups, even as defining Gnosticism.Yet Williams still has a problem with using the phrase "Gnosticism" as a catch all. It can of course be easily demonstrated that this term was never used in antiquity, but does this mean that we moderns cannot use it as a convenient term? Williams instead proposes "biblical demiurgical traditions", a clumsy coinage which, having very early on introduced it, he proceeds to drop for most of the remainder of the book preferring instead to use "Gnosticism" albeit always quoted.The majority of the book concerns itself with deeper examination of the various characteristics which have been regarded at various times as "defining" Gnosticism, for example: world-rejection, hatred of the body, asceticism or libertinism. As is apparently de rigueur amongst all present-day scholars, Williams rejects altogether any testimony of  Irenaeus  and other heresiologists contemporary to the Gnostics, as well as disagreeing with much of what more recent scholarship has said. Williams ably demonstrates the variety and complexity of Gnostic beliefs.On the perennial question of the origin of Gnosticism, while finding much to criticise in other authors' works attempting to arrive at an answer, Williams himself is not one to stick his neck out and postulate. He does however feel confident that his new category of "biblical demiurgical traditions" will somehow give new scholars fresh ammunition to attack the problem.This is a work of somewhat scholarly tone and style, sometimes excessively so. Williams is not the sort of person to say "the sky is blue" when he could instead say that "the prevailing daytime atmospheric luminescence is of a pronounced bluish colouration".So what are we left with? An interesting and certainly extremely valuable book, examining the wide ranging beliefs and practices of Gnostics. But is it really breaking new ground in the way that Williams himself believes? Nag Hammadi corpusJonasRudolphIrenaeus