What do you think?
Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category
Most anyone interested in such topics as creation mythology, Jungian theory, or the idea of "secret teachings" in ancient Judaism and Christianity has found "gnosticism" compelling. Yet the term "gnosticism," which often connotes a single rebellious movement against the prevailing religions of late antiquity, gives the false impression of a monolithic religious phenomenon. Here Michael Williams challenges the validity of the widely invoked category of ancient "gnosticism" and the ways it has been described. Presenting such famous writings and movements as the Apocryphon of John and Valentinian Christianity, Williams uncovers the similarities and differences among some major traditions widely categorized as gnostic. He provides an eloquent, systematic argument for a more accurate way to discuss these interpretive approaches.
The modern construct "gnosticism" is not justified by any ancient self-definition, and many of the most commonly cited religious features that supposedly define gnosticism phenomenologically turn out to be questionable. Exploring the sample sets of "gnostic" teachings, Williams refutes generalizations concerning asceticism and libertinism, attitudes toward the body and the created world, and alleged features of protest, parasitism, and elitism. He sketches a fresh model for understanding ancient innovations on more "mainstream" Judaism and Christianity, a model that is informed by modern research on dynamics in new religious movements and is freed from the false stereotypes from which the category "gnosticism" has been constructed.
360 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1996
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 1, 2008
This is a groundbreaking book on Gnosticism and should be read by all who study or teach about ancient Christianity.
In this surprisingly readable work Williams argues that the category “gnosticism” is inadequate to account for the varieties of literature and/or groups that have been placed within this category. The stereotypes of “gnostic” ideology are inadequate or simply wrong and have become presupposed in literature described as “gnostic.” The main body of the work is a detailed analysis of sources (largely from the Nag Hammadi Library) which demonstrates the ways in which the stereotypical descriptors of “gnosticism” are inadequate or wrong, and would lead to the inclusion or exclusion of works that otherwise seem to have something similar about them. He also demonstrates quite satisfactorily that these generalizations are hyperbole clinging to the tales of the heresiologists and they not only fail to describe what we do actually see in the texts, but encourage us to find evidence for these stereotypes in the texts when we read them.
He proposes instead that a more useful category might be “biblical demiurgial traditions” or “biblical demiurgy” which provides a limiting parameter without resorting to the hyperbole carried by the term “Gnostic” or “Gnosticism.” He recognizes that this will cause certain problems with works previously included or excluded from the categories “Gnostic” or “Gnosticism.”
These problems of categorization are explored explicitly in chapter 2 “‘Gnosticism’ as a Category,” which in many ways is actually a discussion of the problems inherent in the study and categorization of religious traditions as a whole. He notes that there are two types of categorization regularly employed in the study of religious movements:
1.Self-definition: using the terms and categories that the peoples we are studying apply to themselves, or would probably have ascribed to themselves.
2.Typological or Phenomenological: delineating cross-traditional types of religious movements (29-30).
These are useful, though not unproblematic methods of categorizing religious traditions, but they are both used unsuccessfully in the study of “gnosticism.” There is little evidence that the groups represented by the “gnostic” literature or by the heresiologists would have identified as “Gnostics” or would have understood themselves to be part of an independent religious tradition (31-46). It is not only categorization by self-definition that has failed; typological categorization has failed also. It has failed in two ways. First, it fails to create clarity in classification because there is a true lack of consensus on what qualifies as “Gnostic” typologies (and what exists are hyperbolic stereotypes anyway) (46-49). Second, it actually fails to help us understand the texts by “obscuring from our view the true dynamics of our sources by setting us up to expect what is not there” (49-50).
Chapter 2 is a very useful and very interesting insight into the problems of religious categorization and the problems with the ways in which “gnosticism” had been studies previously. It will be useful to return to that chapter and reconsider the categorizations I choose to use in my own work. This is the real powerhouse of the book, as Williams makes his point in highly readable language and in such a way that the “example” chapters make sense in relation to this chapter. Chapter 2 would also be good reading for a "study of religions" theory course for grad students, as it addresses issues of categorizing religious movements.
He further argues for the reconsideration of the Nag Hammadi Library and that it should be taken seriously as a rational, organized collection, like the New Testament and gives several options for reading the Library as a whole, and reading the texts within the codices in light of the other texts contained in the same codex. Chapter 11 will be quite interesting for students of ancient Christian traditions.
In this surprisingly readable work Williams argues that the category “gnosticism” is inadequate to account for the varieties of literature and/or groups that have been placed within this category. The stereotypes of “gnostic” ideology are inadequate or simply wrong and have become presupposed in literature described as “gnostic.” The main body of the work is a detailed analysis of sources (largely from the Nag Hammadi Library) which demonstrates the ways in which the stereotypical descriptors of “gnosticism” are inadequate or wrong, and would lead to the inclusion or exclusion of works that otherwise seem to have something similar about them. He also demonstrates quite satisfactorily that these generalizations are hyperbole clinging to the tales of the heresiologists and they not only fail to describe what we do actually see in the texts, but encourage us to find evidence for these stereotypes in the texts when we read them.
He proposes instead that a more useful category might be “biblical demiurgial traditions” or “biblical demiurgy” which provides a limiting parameter without resorting to the hyperbole carried by the term “Gnostic” or “Gnosticism.” He recognizes that this will cause certain problems with works previously included or excluded from the categories “Gnostic” or “Gnosticism.”
These problems of categorization are explored explicitly in chapter 2 “‘Gnosticism’ as a Category,” which in many ways is actually a discussion of the problems inherent in the study and categorization of religious traditions as a whole. He notes that there are two types of categorization regularly employed in the study of religious movements:
1.Self-definition: using the terms and categories that the peoples we are studying apply to themselves, or would probably have ascribed to themselves.
2.Typological or Phenomenological: delineating cross-traditional types of religious movements (29-30).
These are useful, though not unproblematic methods of categorizing religious traditions, but they are both used unsuccessfully in the study of “gnosticism.” There is little evidence that the groups represented by the “gnostic” literature or by the heresiologists would have identified as “Gnostics” or would have understood themselves to be part of an independent religious tradition (31-46). It is not only categorization by self-definition that has failed; typological categorization has failed also. It has failed in two ways. First, it fails to create clarity in classification because there is a true lack of consensus on what qualifies as “Gnostic” typologies (and what exists are hyperbolic stereotypes anyway) (46-49). Second, it actually fails to help us understand the texts by “obscuring from our view the true dynamics of our sources by setting us up to expect what is not there” (49-50).
Chapter 2 is a very useful and very interesting insight into the problems of religious categorization and the problems with the ways in which “gnosticism” had been studies previously. It will be useful to return to that chapter and reconsider the categorizations I choose to use in my own work. This is the real powerhouse of the book, as Williams makes his point in highly readable language and in such a way that the “example” chapters make sense in relation to this chapter. Chapter 2 would also be good reading for a "study of religions" theory course for grad students, as it addresses issues of categorizing religious movements.
He further argues for the reconsideration of the Nag Hammadi Library and that it should be taken seriously as a rational, organized collection, like the New Testament and gives several options for reading the Library as a whole, and reading the texts within the codices in light of the other texts contained in the same codex. Chapter 11 will be quite interesting for students of ancient Christian traditions.
January 14, 2008
I think that Emily's review already gives a good summation of why this book is worth reading, and I don't have much to add on that count. Williams's approach to the subject matter is very thorough, well researched and well reasoned. For those interested in the history of early Christianity and the groups often labeled as "gnostic," he brings new insight and corrects some unhelpful reductions and stereotypes. The other reason I'd recommend the book is that, like others in the field, it offers a good overview of the variety of thought in the period. Williams even goes so far as to propose a hypothesis on how the Nag Hammadi might have been compiled in the last chapter.
If there is one criticism against Williams's thesis, it is that he sometimes overstates the point. On an issue like asceticism vs. libertinism, it is clear that not enough strong evidence exists to support the latter. Nearly all the information we have comes from heresiologists of the period and is not reflected in the actual literature from the groups. But on the issue of body hatred especially, we have enough intimations to suggest it might have been a common feature. Then again, it might also be deemed a common feature of early Christianity, making the distinction not particularly useful (a point Williams does make). Of course, Williams admits many times that such elements are features of some systems, his argument is more that reducing many different systems with varying nuance on these issues does not help us clearly understand the individual groups. Much less help us understand the problems they were attempting to solve. He is careful to qualify his criticism by demonstrating the nuance and is very careful not to fall into the habits he is criticizing. For that, he should be commended.
The other potential issue is not exactly a criticism of the work itself. For some readers on the subjects, the approach might be overly scholarly and lack the excitement of what the so-called gnostic groups of late antiquity were doing. Not everyone I talk to interested in the subject are interested in the more scholarly material about it, they're more fascinated by the weirdness and complexity of gnostic myth and the reframing/reappraisal of Judeo-Christian scripture. Such readers might also be disinclined to accept Williams's argument, since they're more committed to that seemingly coherent label/narrative. While I come at the subject from a similar angle, I think a clear, honest understanding of what I'm dealing with is important, which is why I appreciate such dry, scholarly tomes as this. As they say, your mileage may vary.
As such, I think this is a valuable book that brings up some apt criticisms and greater nuance to the subject, which enhances my overall understanding and appreciation. I'm not sure Williams has actually managed to change the language or conceptual framework used (I still say "gnosticism" because it's what people recognize), but certainly his approach is still worth considering. I recommend this to anyone interested in a broader understanding of the subject.
If there is one criticism against Williams's thesis, it is that he sometimes overstates the point. On an issue like asceticism vs. libertinism, it is clear that not enough strong evidence exists to support the latter. Nearly all the information we have comes from heresiologists of the period and is not reflected in the actual literature from the groups. But on the issue of body hatred especially, we have enough intimations to suggest it might have been a common feature. Then again, it might also be deemed a common feature of early Christianity, making the distinction not particularly useful (a point Williams does make). Of course, Williams admits many times that such elements are features of some systems, his argument is more that reducing many different systems with varying nuance on these issues does not help us clearly understand the individual groups. Much less help us understand the problems they were attempting to solve. He is careful to qualify his criticism by demonstrating the nuance and is very careful not to fall into the habits he is criticizing. For that, he should be commended.
The other potential issue is not exactly a criticism of the work itself. For some readers on the subjects, the approach might be overly scholarly and lack the excitement of what the so-called gnostic groups of late antiquity were doing. Not everyone I talk to interested in the subject are interested in the more scholarly material about it, they're more fascinated by the weirdness and complexity of gnostic myth and the reframing/reappraisal of Judeo-Christian scripture. Such readers might also be disinclined to accept Williams's argument, since they're more committed to that seemingly coherent label/narrative. While I come at the subject from a similar angle, I think a clear, honest understanding of what I'm dealing with is important, which is why I appreciate such dry, scholarly tomes as this. As they say, your mileage may vary.
As such, I think this is a valuable book that brings up some apt criticisms and greater nuance to the subject, which enhances my overall understanding and appreciation. I'm not sure Williams has actually managed to change the language or conceptual framework used (I still say "gnosticism" because it's what people recognize), but certainly his approach is still worth considering. I recommend this to anyone interested in a broader understanding of the subject.
August 23, 2026
The schools of thought in the ancient world that have been labeled "gnostic" are difficult to make sense of. Williams' book is a landmark in the study of these sects, and even 30 years later, I think it is one of the better studies out there.
To sum up the problem: The second-century Christian bishop Irenaeus wrote a book, Against Heresies, cataloguing all the varieties of Christianity that he hated. One of these groups had a myth that the world was created by an evil being, and that Jesus taught secret knowledge (gnosis in Greek) that would help souls escape past the evil being to join with the true, highest god. Irenaeus called this group "gnostic", but he also seemingly applied that label to other Christian groups he condemned. Later Christian heresiologists used the term in a similarly loose way. Decades later, a non-Christian Platonist philosopher, Plotinus, criticized a different Platonist school of thought that he (or his student Porphyry) labeled "gnostic", and which may or may not have been Christian. In modern times, scholars coined the term "gnosticism" for a group of belief systems, both Christian and non-Christian, that seemed related to each other. The definitions varied, but they usually included the belief that the world was created by a being inferior to the highest god and the concept of salvation through secret knowledge. Meanwhile, people began unearthing ancient manuscripts—most importantly a whole collection of books known as the Nag Hammadi library—that seemed to be "gnostic". Some of these texts, especially the Apocryphon of John, closely paralleled the myth of the evil creator described by Irenaeus, and others bore titles that seemed to connect them with the school of thought described by Plotinus. Yet these texts often defied many of the preexisting assumptions about what "gnosticism" was.
Chapter by chapter, Williams goes through each of those assumptions: that gnosticism was a "protest" against the biblical deity and Jewish tradition; that it was a parasitic offshoot of mainstream Judaism and Christianity; that gnostics loathed and rejected the physical world and the human body; that this rejection led them to either become ascetics or to perform lurid sexual rites; and that they thought salvation was available only to a predetermined elite group. He argues that the surviving texts show that each of these assumptions is either an overgeneralization or simply unfounded. The word "gnostic" is so vague and yet so burdened by these ill-founded connotations that he argues it would be better to avoid the term. Instead he suggests the more specific term "biblical demiurgical": belief systems that incorporate ideas from Jewish and Christian scriptures but distinguish the creator of the world from the highest deity.
Near the end, Williams addresses the question of where the "gnostic" schools of thought came from. He says the category is too broad and too ill-defined to be traced back to a single origin point. Moreover, even the sects that do share common features may not all trace back to the same source: "We should envision multiple innovators with diverse motivations, giving rise to a multiplicity of demiurgical myths and speculations."
While Williams may overstate his case at times, I think in general he is more convincing than the scholars he is arguing against. And because he discusses so many aspects of the "gnostic" traditions in the course of his argument, the book is useful for grasping the variety of viewpoints found in those traditions even if you don't fully accept his conclusions. If I were to recommend a reading list for understanding gnosticism, I would say to start with Nicola Denzey Lewis's Introduction to "Gnosticism:", followed by the best edition of the ancient texts, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures. But if you want to delve deeper into the scholarly analysis, I think this would be the next book to read.
To sum up the problem: The second-century Christian bishop Irenaeus wrote a book, Against Heresies, cataloguing all the varieties of Christianity that he hated. One of these groups had a myth that the world was created by an evil being, and that Jesus taught secret knowledge (gnosis in Greek) that would help souls escape past the evil being to join with the true, highest god. Irenaeus called this group "gnostic", but he also seemingly applied that label to other Christian groups he condemned. Later Christian heresiologists used the term in a similarly loose way. Decades later, a non-Christian Platonist philosopher, Plotinus, criticized a different Platonist school of thought that he (or his student Porphyry) labeled "gnostic", and which may or may not have been Christian. In modern times, scholars coined the term "gnosticism" for a group of belief systems, both Christian and non-Christian, that seemed related to each other. The definitions varied, but they usually included the belief that the world was created by a being inferior to the highest god and the concept of salvation through secret knowledge. Meanwhile, people began unearthing ancient manuscripts—most importantly a whole collection of books known as the Nag Hammadi library—that seemed to be "gnostic". Some of these texts, especially the Apocryphon of John, closely paralleled the myth of the evil creator described by Irenaeus, and others bore titles that seemed to connect them with the school of thought described by Plotinus. Yet these texts often defied many of the preexisting assumptions about what "gnosticism" was.
Chapter by chapter, Williams goes through each of those assumptions: that gnosticism was a "protest" against the biblical deity and Jewish tradition; that it was a parasitic offshoot of mainstream Judaism and Christianity; that gnostics loathed and rejected the physical world and the human body; that this rejection led them to either become ascetics or to perform lurid sexual rites; and that they thought salvation was available only to a predetermined elite group. He argues that the surviving texts show that each of these assumptions is either an overgeneralization or simply unfounded. The word "gnostic" is so vague and yet so burdened by these ill-founded connotations that he argues it would be better to avoid the term. Instead he suggests the more specific term "biblical demiurgical": belief systems that incorporate ideas from Jewish and Christian scriptures but distinguish the creator of the world from the highest deity.
Near the end, Williams addresses the question of where the "gnostic" schools of thought came from. He says the category is too broad and too ill-defined to be traced back to a single origin point. Moreover, even the sects that do share common features may not all trace back to the same source: "We should envision multiple innovators with diverse motivations, giving rise to a multiplicity of demiurgical myths and speculations."
While Williams may overstate his case at times, I think in general he is more convincing than the scholars he is arguing against. And because he discusses so many aspects of the "gnostic" traditions in the course of his argument, the book is useful for grasping the variety of viewpoints found in those traditions even if you don't fully accept his conclusions. If I were to recommend a reading list for understanding gnosticism, I would say to start with Nicola Denzey Lewis's Introduction to "Gnosticism:", followed by the best edition of the ancient texts, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures. But if you want to delve deeper into the scholarly analysis, I think this would be the next book to read.
November 27, 2019
It is an academic work, not for the usual person just interested in "gnosticism".
The book demands you already knows the majority of themes involved in the "christian gnostics" of century I to III... the Nag Hammadi codices, for sure.
The author is completely right about calling "gnosticism" a "religion", "sect" or "movement"... All that exists is a collection of texts, some with certain affinities (like the Demiurge or the "anti-cosmos" attitude), but nothing organized.
I , personally, think the "gnostic" seed of knowledge comes from another pratices, including shamistics ones, of self-knowledge, applied to the "hype religion" of their particular moment (The Christianism).
As what happened with budhism in Tibet, with the old Bon religion mixing with the Sidartha teachings... gnostical pratices mixed with christianism, producing what the nowadays scholars call "Gnosticism", as a category to facilitate the learning and study of the phenomena.
Probably, the real origin of "Gnosis" will never be found, maybe because it was oral traditions, not writing ones.
Anyway, I recommend this book to academics and to people really into "Gnosticism".
The book demands you already knows the majority of themes involved in the "christian gnostics" of century I to III... the Nag Hammadi codices, for sure.
The author is completely right about calling "gnosticism" a "religion", "sect" or "movement"... All that exists is a collection of texts, some with certain affinities (like the Demiurge or the "anti-cosmos" attitude), but nothing organized.
I , personally, think the "gnostic" seed of knowledge comes from another pratices, including shamistics ones, of self-knowledge, applied to the "hype religion" of their particular moment (The Christianism).
As what happened with budhism in Tibet, with the old Bon religion mixing with the Sidartha teachings... gnostical pratices mixed with christianism, producing what the nowadays scholars call "Gnosticism", as a category to facilitate the learning and study of the phenomena.
Probably, the real origin of "Gnosis" will never be found, maybe because it was oral traditions, not writing ones.
Anyway, I recommend this book to academics and to people really into "Gnosticism".
July 17, 2020
This book was a real challenge - and still, I have studied my fair share of comparative religion. It is very thorough and detailed but requires quite a bit of background information.
September 22, 2016
An important correction.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews