What Is Gnosticism? [Hardcover]

Karen King's primary thesis in this book, if I understand it correctly, is that the term "gnosticism" is becoming useless in early Christian studies as it carries a whole bunch of baggage which does not illuminate our understanding of many of the early movements which, while considering themselves Christian (in a broad sense of the word), did not fit into what came to be the orthodox view of what it meant to be Christian.

To discard, ignore or discredit whole works by early Christians because they contain a few references to "gnostic" ideas (for example, finding God within or not accepting the Pauline version of salvation) is an unnecessary putdown in scholarly terms according to King.

King's book is written primarily to influence her scholarly colleagues who are actively writing books and papers on the (relatively) recent discoveries at Nag Hammadi and who are re-visiting other early non-canonical Christian material.

As a lay person, it makes sense to me not to "tag" a text as "gnostic" and thus automatically diminish its relevance to the study of early Christian development. King argues that each text needs to be read and understood in its own context rather than lumping it in with other "gnostic" stuff.

The study of early Christian origins and the related texts has helped me in my faith journey as I now see that diverse understandings of Jesus have ALWAYS been a part of our tradition. This may be scary for the orthodox believer, but books like Karen King's are liberating and enlightening for me.

I give the book only 4 stars out of 5 as it is a bit dense for the lay person and certainly is, by and large, focused on making key scholarly arguments relevant to the study of early Christianity. Recommended for anyone interested in the Nag Hammadi texts or early Christian texts in general.

One of Dr King's "optics" is to see how the creation of an evil "Other" serves to create and shore up the growth of an orthodox identity and social power structure. Here: a growing "orthodox Christianity" against the archetypal heresy of the "gnostics". Apply the same "optic" to her work.

That being said, Gnosticism is indeed a slippery category. This is no original insight. The mid-sixties Messina conference struggled with it. Michael Allen Williams' "Rethinking Gnosticism" questions the category closely and vigorously, but without King's Pomo Passion Play.

What all these scholars are dealing with is a movement which has had no ongoing community to fill out the meaning of its documents. It would be like trying to reconstruct Christianity simply from the New Testament, absent any Christians. Try creating a definition of Christianity from the Gospel of John, the Epistle of James, Galatians and Revelation. The kind of text-focussed method they employ is demanded, perhaps, by their profession. But the method itself has self-imposed limits that can never really answer the question, "What is Gnosticism?"

One of the problem with the Gnostics is that until 1945, knowledge of their beliefs and influences has been second or third hand, based on what early church historians and orthodox polemicists had to say about them. But 1945 was when a library of what are thought to be Gnostic writings -- the gospels -- was discovered in Nag Hammadi in Egypt. This book examines those writings.

So far so good, but the point author Karen King seems trying to make here -- apparent contradictions in the writings discovered in 1945, speculation about the origins of Gnosticism (she thinks its roots are in Judaism, but she failed to persuade me) -- seem muddled. Ms. King apparently seeks to explain the Gnostics as a group that can be understood, with a common evolution and a set range of beliefs. But I came away thinking just the opposite: that what as been traditionally attributed to Gnosticism may actually be a catch-all phrase for religious thinkers contemporary to early Christianity that don't fit into any other category, like the choice of "other" that appears at the end of a census form or opinion questionnaire.

The book is too poorly organized, dense, and tough to navigate to be compensated for by the interesting and thought-proviking points Ms. King raises from time to time. There must be something better on this subject.