What do you think?
Rate this book
Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category
The term gnosticism, which often connotes a single religious movement, gives the false impression of a monolithic phenomenon. Here Michael Williams challenges the validity of the category "gnosticism" and the ways it has been described. Williams uncovers the similarities and differences among some major traditions widely categorized as gnostic and provides an eloquent, systematic argument for a more accurate way to discuss these interpretive approaches.
334 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1996
6 people are currently reading
170 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
February 6, 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.
November 3, 2012
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.
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 - 5 of 5 reviews