Product Description

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.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #853838 in Books
• Published on: 1999-04-12
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 360 pages

Review
There can hardly be a category more misused in contemporary scholarly and not-so-scholarly discourse than `gnosticism,' so it was probably inevitable that a serious scholar would come along with an argument for the abandonment of the category altogether. In this provocative book Williams does just that. -- Review

Review
Rare is the book on gnosticism that is thoroughly grounded in the primary sources in the ancient languages, widely conversant with the secondary literature, controlled and sophisticated in its historical method--and still intelligible and interesting, not only for experts in its field, but also for religious historians and educated readers in general. Michael Williams's Rethinking `Gnosticism' is such a book. It is essential reading for scholars of ancient Christianity and for anyone who wishes to use the terms `gnostic' and `gnosticism,' but it can be read with profit by all historians concerned with issues of methodology in studying religious people of the past.
(Church History )

There can hardly be a category more misused in contemporary scholarly and not-so-scholarly discourse than `gnosticism,' so it was probably inevitable that a serious scholar would come along with an argument for the abandonment of the category altogether. In this provocative book Williams does just that.
(Religious Studies Review )

Review
Michael Williams presents the first treatment of gnosticism in book form that endeavors, and succeeds, to get out of beaten tracks by questioning the very definition and description of this phenomenon. He conducts a detailed analysis of the clichés that have been in circulation for decades and shows convincingly how they have contributed to a distorted and biased approach to the sources. This book will be epoch-making for the field of gnostic studies and should attract a very large reading audience.
(Paul-Hubert Poirier, Universite Laval )

Customer Reviews

A Timely Rethink
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.

Fertilizing a field in danger of being burned over
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.

Demiurgal urges
"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!