The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity Michael A. Williams David Brakke The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010 In wonderfully lucid prose, David Brakke articulates a position familiar to specialists but probably not to many other readers. Arguments sketched out in an important 1995 article by Bentley Layton benefit here from the more visible platform of a full monograph. In Chapter One, Brakke updates the debate over the categories of "Gnostic" or "Gnosticism." Chapter Two recharges Layton's argument that "Gnostic" should be used as a label neither for a typological construct defined by motifs and attitudes (e.g., myths about evil or ignorant creators, dualism) nor for a supposed distinct "religion" that encompasses numerous groups from antiquity (Valentinians, Basilideans, etc.) to modern Mandaeans. Instead, Brakke expands on Layton's case that "Gnostic" should designate only one late antique historical sect. The starting point for defining this sect is Irenaeus's mention (Adv. haer. 1.11.1) of "the Gnostic school of thought" (hē gnōstikē hairēsis) and the summary (Adv. haer. 1.29) of the myth of "some" of the "gnōstikoi," a myth closely matching a portion of the Secret Book (Apocryphon) of John. The 2006 publication of the Gospel of Judas in Codex Tchacos has provided Brakke with a new building block not available to Layton. Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 1.31.1) describes the teachings of certain "others" who produced a "Gospel of Judas," and Brakke takes "others" to mean further examples of gnōstikoi. Since he agrees with many that the Tchacos Judas is probably the one mentioned by Irenaeus, and since Judas includes mythic similarities to the Secret Book of John, Brakke's delineation of "Gnostic school of thought" begins with these two texts and the associated information in Irenaeus. The other anchor point is Porphyry's mention of gnōstikoi who were acquaintances of Plotinus and whose writings included titles attested in the Nag Hammadi corpus: Zostrianos and Allogenes, as well as a "Book of Zoroaster" which could have been the text mentioned in a version of the Secret Book of John. Brakke argues that, in spite of variations, all these sources "articulate or refer to the same basic story of God, creation, and salvation, which can be called the Gnostic myth" (40). Based on their congruence with this myth, several further Nag Hammadi writings are added to his list of "Gnostic" sources. Brakke is clear that there will always be debates regarding the exact limits of this list, but "there is a large scholarly consensus about most of the works in the group" (44). This somewhat variable catalog corresponds to what many scholars label "Sethian" texts. It is well known that none of the writings such as the Secret Book, Judas, or the others contains the self-designation gnōstikos or a Coptic equivalent, but instead one finds references to the "race of Seth," "holy race," or "immovable race," etc. In answer to this objection, Brakke elaborates on Layton's clever explanation: the name "Gnostic" functioned to distinguish this "school of thought" from their contemporaries in the second century. In their founding stories, however, we should not expect gnōstikos, but rather names referring to their mythic origins or identity (cf. "Lutherans" vs. "Children of God," 47-48). Against the [End Page 479] objection that the self-designation gnōstikos is found also used by others (e.g., the teacher Marcellina, followers of Prodicus, the Naassenes, and even Clement of Alexandria), Brakke contends that there is less evidence that these other people employed it as their primary identifier, and in fact they may simply have been challenging the original claim to the epithet by "the Gnostics" (48f.). Brakke's adaptation of Layton's argument is unlikely to end debate, though it is hard to imagine a clearer elucidation of this position. Its economy is attractive; if everyone would in the future limit the label "Gnostic" to this one sect there certainly would be less confusion. However, this reviewer confesses doubt that this will happen, in spite of Brakke's gallant effort to set the record completely straight about the...