 |
GetTextbooks.co.uk
Compare Prices & Save up to 90% |
|
|
|
| Login | Sign up | My Wish List |
 | | What Is Gnosticism? by Karen L. King ISBN-10: 9780674017627 ISBN-10: 0-674-01762-5 ISBN-13: 9780674017627 ISBN-13: 978-0-674-01762-7 Paperback 2005-04-30 Belknap Press Find Lowest Price |
Editorials | ||
Product Description A distinctive Christian heresy? A competitor of burgeoning Christianity? A pre-Christian folk religion traceable to "Oriental syncretism"? How do we account for the disparate ideas, writings, and practices that have been placed under the Gnostic rubric? To do so, Karen King says, we must first disentangle modern historiography from the Christian discourse of orthodoxy and heresy that has pervaded--and distorted--the story. Exciting discoveries of previously unknown ancient writings--especially the forty-six texts found at Nag Hammadi in 1945--are challenging historians of religion to rethink not only what we mean by Gnosticism but also the standard account of Christian origins. The Gospel of Mary and The Secret Book of John, for example, illustrate the variety of early Christianities and are witness to the struggle of Christians to craft an identity in the midst of the culturally pluralistic Roman Empire. King shows how historians have been misled by ancient Christian polemicists who attacked Gnostic beliefs as a "dark double" against which the new faith could define itself. Having identified past distortions, she is able to offer a new and clarifying definition of Gnosticism. Her book is thus both a thorough and innovative introduction to the twentieth-century study of Gnosticism and a revealing exploration of the concept of heresy as a tool in forming religious identity. (20050401) | ||
Reviews | ||
A helpful overview of a complex field King, who has published widely in the field of gnostic literature, provides a good overview of scholarly writings on gnosticism, evaluating the different views on the subject in a scholarly way that is easy to understand without in any sense being oversimplified. Gnosticism has long been understood as a perversion of "normative" Christianity (and, of course, there's disagreement over what that was or is); this has led people to evaluate gnosticism in light of Christianity rather than looking at what gnosticism is in and of itself; there is still disagreement over the roots of gnosticism and how its original practitioners understood it. King's work addresses the issues that have become attached to the study of this movement, interpreting them and offering her own conclusions as well. Chapter titles include "Gnosticism as Heresy," "Adolf von Harnack and the Essence of Christianity," and "The History of Religions School." She deals with the Nag Hammadi finds in some depth as well. This book would be particularly helpful for people who are new to the study of Gnosticism; it is not necessary to be a scholar to understand King's writing. | ||
Gnosticism: Not defined here Karen L. King is a religious historian that in this book reexamines the concept of Gnosticism. She attempts to sort out conflicting interpretations of those controversial beliefs in early Christian history. Drawing on the Nag Hammadi texts discovered in Egypt in 1945, King maintains that the understanding of Gnosticism has been distorted by hostile commentaries of early Orthodox Church partisans. Though she has nothing to support this hypothesis of a so-called power struggle. Her point that there probably is no entity called "Gnosticism" is deserving of discussion and research. | ||
Understand ancient religion, not the unreal polemical category "Gnosticism" This book by Karen King is not about Gnosticism, because Gnosticism never existed. This book is about the history of the modern folly of inventing an unreal category and then purporting to describe it. This book is about the history of modern scholarship of a fabricated construct labelled 'Gnosticism'. King reveals Gnosticism as an artificial, synthetic, nonexistent entity. Ancient and modern studies of Gnosticism have approached the subject with motives of defining true Christianity. No individual writing fits the various definitions of Gnosticism. Gnosticism is an unreal, artificial, false, and harmful category. All definitions of 'Gnosticism' have always been artificial and unreal and have heavily misrepresented, to the point of complete polemical fantasy, the writings they purport to generally categorize. The only way we can begin to understand the writings that have been lumped together into the fantastically ill-fitting category of 'Gnosticism' is to read each individual writing and analyze it in its cultural context. Individual writings must be considered individually on their own terms: what was the actual context for the writing? What did the author mean and mean to accomplish? How did various audiences of that writing read it; what did that particular writing mean to them? King provides a concrete example of such an approach to understanding ancient religious thought on its own terms, in her subsequent book The Secret Revelation of John. Michael A. Williams falls into the same kind of trap as other scholars in his advice to rename the chimera of Gnosticism 'Biblical Demiurgicalism'. We can hint at the problem by stating that there were diverse Chrisitianities, diverse Judaisms, diverse Gnosticisms, and diverse paganisms, but such a move isn't effective; grossly oversimplifying reification instantly sets in again. It's not merely that there were diverse variants of Gnosticism. Rather, there were diverse combinations of philosophy, quasi-Christian, quasi-Jewish, quasi-Hellenistic, and quasi-Persian elements all over the map. It is not the case that certain of these combinations clearly group together forming a distinct, discernible religion that was or should be called 'Gnosticism'. King reveals it as embarrassing how modern scholars were so uninterested in understanding each so-called 'gnostic' writing on its own terms, and were wholly motivated by polemic and apologetic concerns, to define who are the true Christians. They have been motivated by theological concerns, while claiming to be presenting scientific history. Various groups of ancient writers were involved in a project of deliberate hermeneutic and polemical reinterpretation of various venerable source materials; modern scholars need to read the resulting writings as such. King provides various other detailed points about the modern and ancient folly that has brought about the completely problematic framework that is now failing and collapsing, for defining a category of 'Gnosticism'. This book stands to become a classic, a turning point, in conjunction with Michael A. Williams' book Rethinking 'Gnosticism'. Readers might feel that this book fails to provide a definition of Gnosticism. The publisher doesn't seem to understand the book; they miss the point of the book: the front flap claims that 'she is able to offer a new and clarifying definition of Gnosticism'. She does not; she disproves that the category 'Gnosticism' maps to a set of writings or distinct grouping of ancient practices. King predicts that the term 'Gnosticism' will fall into disuse as providing no explanatory value, and calls for understanding ancient religious practice and individual writings on their own terms, with special attention to hermeneutic and polemical strategy in the writings. | ||
From polemics to pragmatics King has done historians of philosophy and religion an immense service with this study. A thorough, comprehensive and closely analysed investigation of the historiography of "Gnosticism", this book will keep students and scholars engaged for some time. Although the title isn't answered in a strict, straightforward manner, the content of the book demonstrates why this is nearly impossible. In fact, King even offers the views of those who would dispense with the term altogether. In the end, the author shows that a tight definition of the term is of less importance than gaining an understanding of what Gnosticism is about. The author starts from a firm position. "Gnosticism" in the West has long been labelled a "heresy" among the Christian churches. Most of the Christian churches, at least, since there are those who have adopted some tenets of Gnosticism into their creeds. The early Christian movements, striving for survival in the "pagan" Roman Empire, all sought some form of unity and discipline as a foundation. They sought an "orthodoxy" under which to operate. Others, nearly as many in number, granted the individual the primary role. The former group, typified by the bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus, laid the beginnings of what would become "orthodox" Christianity. They decreed the "outsiders" as "heretics". King brings Irenaeus and other critics of non-conformity together under the rubric of the "polemicists". For centuries, what we knew of the Gnostics was contained in the writings of those who condemned them. The era of "Higher Criticism" of biblical texts may have helped foster modern examination of Gnostic writings. Among the leaders of this "wave" of research was Adolf von Harnack. Von Harnack viewed Gnosticism as an offshoot of Greek - or Hellenic - culture and philosophy. If anybody can be named as detaching Gnosticism from being a branch of Christianity, it is this scholar. Casting Christianity against a Hellenic background, von Harnack sought to find elements that would give the movement unique status and explain its expansion. Following von Harnack, more [mostly] German scholars in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries formed the Religious History School. King examines the work of such figures as Richard Reitzenstein, Wilhelm Bousset, Rudolf Bultmann. Detaching Jesus from traditional Christianity, these scholars developed what has come to be known as the "Gnostic Redeemer" myth. Revising the roots of the Jesus myth, they pushed the story back in time and place to the Persian [Iran] region. It migrated westward to be absorbed by peoples along the Levant, thence into western Europe. The essence of this version of Christianity centres on Jesus lacking a human body, and providing a more direct link to the Deity. King notes how strong a challenge this proved to orthodoxy, since it transformed how followers of this idea viewed their relation to the deity. For King, two books published in the mid-1930s, set a new course for Gnostic scholarship. Walter Bauer and Hans Jonas reset the definitions [each had his own] of Gnosticism, while at the same time increasing awareness of its impact. Bauer granted Gnosticism a more substantial role than the early Christian condemning writers had done. Jonas wanted a clear identity to define a "movement" within Eastern Mediterranean concepts, but set apart from Hellenist philosophies. It was the Nag Hammadi finds in 1945 that led to the greatest crisis in definition for Gnosticism. The forty-six books unearthed from an Egyptian hillside has sparked a new wave of scholarship, but little more in clarifying meaning. The Nag Hammadi texts, King notes, vary in definition and relationship to both Jesus and the deity. Although the role of Mary Magdalene has been raised from the licentious woman depicted in the Synoptic gospels, little else is cleansed of confusion. Reflecting on the Nag Hammadi scripts, modern scholarship has attempted new definitions. Although Michael Williams has gone so far to suggest scrubbing the term altogether, King sees his proposed substitute as too cumbersome. Besides, she notes, a new term doesn't make its definition more specific. There are those who carp that King doesn't answer the question posed in the title. Her answer to that charge lies in the text itself. The vast literature on "Gnosticism" can't answer that question, why should she bear the onus of defining the undefinable? What she has accomplished is an articulate call for either a better term, clearly expressing meaning, or wiser analysis of the writings. Since Gnosticism has been applied to frameworks running from an "Oriental philosophy" to a "competitive Christianity", easy definitions will remain elusive. A further question, only lightly touched on here, is whether "Christian Gnosticism" is a true challenge to "orthodox" Christianity. Given that the works King cites, from Ireneaus through the Nag Hammadi texts, display a wide variation in how Jesus is to be considered and how humans relate to their deities, it's clear that there is room for yet more scholarship. King proposes finding a pragmatic solution that will shed the ancient duality the polemicists began centuries ago. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada] | ||
Is there a Gnosticism King provides and excellent recapitulation of previous scholarship on "Gnosticism" all the while contending that there probably isn't a monolithic entity called "Gnosticism" to recover. Her treatment of the her forerunners in "Gnostic" studies is both illuminating, succinct and well-done. She allows them space, pays credence to the legacy they left and then urges the reader to move beyond. Her synthesizations are fantastic. Much like the question of What is Christianity, the question of what is Gnosticism probably had significant diversity within the ancient world. King suggests that by constructing a category we ultimately enact violence upon the range of traditions encompassed by the Nag Hammadi texts. My critique of King's analysis is one that applies to the deconstructionist movement in general. Though she includes a section on "What now?" I cannot help but wonder if she sufficiently answers that question. She does have notes on methodology and pushes for a new rubric under which we can study the entity formerly known as Gnosticism, but I find the book deficient in where scholarship can proceed from here. Her goal is laudable, reconfiguing the conceptions about Gnosticism, but she does not fully develop her idea for future studies. | ||