Customer Reviews

Rethinking "Gnosticism"

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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.

I will confess to having read William's book only once. It deserves at least a second reading. His careful and critical attention to all the texts of the Gnostic tradition requires sustained attention. His point of view, however, is very welcome. Gnosticism has been rather too easily straight-jacketed into a monolithic & dogmatic form: elitist, dualist, either puritanical or libertine, world-hating and earth-hating. On the other hand, it has been romanticized by the hermeneutics of victimization as a feminist harbor in a sea of patriarchy. What Williams concludes is that the common thread among the "Gnostics falsely so-called" (pace Irenaeus) is "biblical demiurgism". This means first, a deep attachment to the biblical narrative and second, a deep dissatisfaction with the biblical deity. The use of myth, imagination, subversive re-reading of texts and the primacy of experience are common, too, as ways of retaining the story and transcending the deity. Gnosticism has too often served for orthodoxy the role that Modernism played for early 20th Century Catholicism; it was given far more ideological coherence & unity of purpose than really existed. I am a great admirer of Gnostic tradition, but the despisal of matter and the physical creation always stuck in my craw. The sin of Balaam: beating the donkey which saves you from the the avenging angel you can't see. Anyway, this book enables me to inhabit that tradition more integrally, being myself a "biblical demiurgist". It encourages a more respectful reading of the texts, without readymade lenses. And while I'm at it, despite Christian assertions of the goodness of creation and its enshrinement in the sacramental system, Christian practice --along with the practice of many religions-- performs a functional equivalent of "Gnosticism" in demonizing matter as the sinful flesh...forgetting that in the Story, it was a proud and beautiful angel who engineered the fall of the universe. I'll read this book again with more care and I encourage anyone with an interest in the subject and some familiarity with the tradition to do so, too. It did not erase the Gnostic tradition for me, but opened it up. Great work, Professor Williams. Thanks.

"Gnostics" have had a bad press, especially among orthodox Christian historians. They've been booted out of the household of faith, pontificated over and generalized to death. Williams does the decent thing and brings them out from under the grey clouds of polemic so we can get a clearer view.

Untangling some of the specific groups that have been squeezed into the "gnostic" pigeonhole, it becomes apparent that these people were as different in their day as differing sects in American Christianity are now.

I wouldn't make this my first venture into reading on this subject - but it will be stimulating for anyone who knows the basics. Anyone who wants to make an intelligent comment on "gnosticism" in the early church needs to come to grips with the issues Williams raises.

Readable and provocative... what more could you ask!

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.

(I wrote this review back in 2000 and spelled my name slightly differently, so it got separated from my other reviews; I'm copying it here to live with the rest of my immortal opinions...) I will confess to having read William's book only once. It deserves at least a second reading. His careful and critical attention to all the texts of the Gnostic tradition requires sustained attention. His point of view, however, is very welcome. Gnosticism has been rather too easily straight-jacketed into a monolithic & dogmatic form: elitist, dualist, either puritanical or libertine, world-hating and earth-hating. On the other hand, it has been romanticized by the hermeneutics of victimization as a feminist harbor in a sea of patriarchy. What Williams concludes is that the common thread among the "Gnostics falsely so-called" (pace Irenaeus) is "biblical demiurgism". This means first, a deep attachment to the biblical narrative and second, a deep dissatisfaction with the biblical deity. The use of myth, imagination, subversive re-reading of texts and the primacy of experience are common, too, as ways of retaining the story and transcending the deity. Gnosticism has too often served for orthodoxy the role that Modernism played for early 20th Century Catholicism; it was given far more ideological coherence & unity of purpose than really existed. I am a great admirer of Gnostic tradition, but the despisal of matter and the physical creation always stuck in my craw. The sin of Balaam: beating the donkey which saves you from the the avenging angel you can't see. Anyway, this book enables me to inhabit that tradition more integrally, being myself a "biblical demiurgist". It encourages a more respectful reading of the texts, without readymade lenses. And while I'm at it, despite Christian assertions of the goodness of creation and its enshrinement in the sacramental system, Christian practice --along with the practice of many religions-- performs a functional equivalent of "Gnosticism" in demonizing matter as the sinful flesh...forgetting that in the Story, it was a proud and beautiful angel who engineered the fall of the universe. I'll read this book again with more care and I encourage anyone with an interest in the subject and some familiarity with the tradition to do so, too. It did not erase the Gnostic tradition for me, but opened it up. Great work, Professor Williams. Thanks.

Michael Allen Williams has produced an outstanding work which I suspect will pull the rug out from under the feet of anyone who thought they understood Gnosticism. His approach is so thorough and so fresh that I still haven't gotten up from off the ground.

Here are just a few of William's observations:

1) That that which we consider Gnostic was not necessarily world rejecting but was often world embracing, a positive effort to make sense of Jewish and Christian teachings in light of Platonism and other teachings current in the world at that time.

2) The myth of the demuirge was not "anticosmic" and may have led those who accepted it to greater, rather than less, involvement in the greater society. The modern label of "anticosmic" seems to Williams a cliche which fails to capture the ethical concerns of the early Christians who consider Gnostic. This calls into question Carl B. Smith's definition of Gnostic in his recent work "No longer Jews" which, though written after Willams work, relies on a negative anticosmicism as a key part of Smith's narrow definition of Gnosticism.

3) Williams notes that "everything we know from these sources [ e.g. those grouped as "gnostic"] themselves suggests not persons who were defiantly indifferent to all questions of right and wrong in human behavior and human relationships, but rather persons who quite often appear to be preoccupied with the very issue of achieving (or restoring) human excellence."

4) William calls into question Carl B. Smith's later view in "No Longer Jews". Williams writes that "I do think that it is probably a mistake to single out Jewish tradition, or those 'fringes' of Jewish tradition, as the locale for the origin of the entire diverse assortment of phenomena usually called 'gnosticism'. It is true that Smith opts for a narrower definition of Gnosticism but that definition is in conflict in its assessment of "anticosmicism" with William's view. Who is right I leave to the scholars but it makes me wonder if Smith's certainty is misplaced when a scholar of the apparent caliber of Williams differs. To be fair to Smith, he often refers to Williams in "No Longer Jews" and appears to constructively challenge Williams assessment but not enough to alleviate my concerns based on the issues Williams raises.

5) Williams see innovation as a key theme for the "Gnostic" groups who have been accused of being parasites. Williams suggests they may have functioned as "antibodies" and not "parasites". Innovation would count if Christian teaching were understood to be dynamic rather than a one-time static dump from heaven to earth. One would wonder reading Williams why Darrell Bock "The Missing Gospels" why Bock went to such lengths to distance the activities of the first century of Christianity with those of the second.

6) That "Gnostics" are characterized by revolt seems misleading to Williams, who favors innovation as a way to understand the efforts of various "Gnostics".

7) Williams favors "biblical demiurgical" as a way of understanding the early Christians who did could not accept that the cosmos was created by their God. The use of a new term (albeit this one a mouthful) avoids the confusion that one might feel when reading on the back cover jacket of "No Longer Jews" that that book provides an extensive survey of the issues surrounding the rise of Gnosticism". Smith's survey doesn't include a great deal about Gnosticsm as most people would understand it to be until one encounters in the book Smith's narrowing definition.

Exposed to Williams and to "Rethinking Gnosticism" I greatly appreciate his scholarship conducted in a spirit of openness. I suspect this is the kind of openness of thought that the early Gnostics aspired to.

i agreed with all his notions that gnosticism is such a wide category that cannot be pinned down to one set of characteristics, however his notion that it should all be changed to 'biblical demiurgical traditions' is also wrong. Changing the name of the category will not change the fact that all the old misconceptions will also come along with it. also if he perceive 'gnosticism' to really mean heretical, then whats the problem with using this term?

In _Rethinking "Gnosticism"_ Michael Allen Williams offer a formidable challenge to those who wish to continue using the term "gnosticism." There are two proposals that Williams asks his readers to consider. One is to rethink one's characterizations of gnosticism. The second is to replace "gnosticism" as a category altogether.

_Rethinking_ divides fairly neatly into three parts. The first two chapters are Williams' critique of gnosticism as a category. The next six chapters discuss gnostic exegesis and the term used to describe gnosticism. herein lies the bulk of Williams' argument. In the last two chapters Williams discusses the history and legacy of gnosticism.

One would expect Williams to propose an alternative term to gnosticism and, in fact, he does: biblical demiurgical traditions. What are the advantages of the new term? Williams argues that his term would be specific and easy to distinguish, a modern construct, and not burdened by cliches of the past.

In his conclusion, Williams mentions a 1978 paper given by Dr Morton Smith in which the latter argued against the
"appropriateness of this category." At the end of Smith's paper, Williams notes that Smith had resigned himself to the fact that "gnosticism" had become a "brand name with a secure market." In response Williams wonders whether the market is not softer than it once was.

Perhaps it is and probably it is not. One need only read the titles of new books to see the answer. At the same time there is another matter to be considered: does Williams' argument merit the dismantling of the category? I think not. Gnosticism is not the only term which has floating parameters.

For example consider the term "Mesoamerica." The term was adopted by an anthropologist named Paul Kirchhoff to describe the area between southern Mexico and the central American countries and the peoples who lived there. Although there is interaction between the various peoples who lived in this area, there is also a large amount of differences. The term also sets these peoples in contradistinction to other peoples who shared many cultural similarities but who lived outside the proscribed geographical area.

I think one would do well to agree with William that
"gnosticism" is a dubious category, but it is far from being the only one.

What absolute rot! Diversity is not an argument for abolishing a phenomenon and a category.