Keywords: gnosticism, heresy, religion, gnosis, Demiurge.

From Culianu to Michael A. Williams – Issues in

defining „gnosticism”

Nowadays, the category of „gnosticism” has become very ambiguous and problematic. There are different paradigms in defining the concept of „gnosticism” and because of this, there still are controversies between the most prominent scholars. In this paper my aim is to show how this concept changed from Culianu to Williams. In one of the late papers of Ioan Petru Culianu, „gnosticism” was seen like a „sick sign”. From this observation, Michael A. Williams came to dismantle the concept of „gnosticism” and to replace this concept with „biblical demiurgical traditions”.

To answer what ”Gnosticism” might be today is neccesary to show what the term meant in the past. In the history of the research of this phenomenon we have three main ways to aproach “Gnosticism”.

-Heresiological Approach

-Typological Approach

-Self-Designation Approach

Heresiological Approach

Early christian theologians like Irenaeus of Lyon, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Epiphanius of Salamis did not use the term “Gnosticism”.

The term “Gnosticism” is a modern one and it is coined by Henry More (1614-1687).

The term “Gnosticism” derives from the use of the Greek word “gnostikos” by Irenaeus of Lyon to describe the School of Valentinus. The term “knowledge falsely so-called” covers various religious groups or sects and it is a quotation of the apostle Paul's warning against "knowledge falsely so-called" in one of his Pastorals.

Theologians have left us testimonies about religious thinkers (heretics) which were called “gnostics”. In this context the term “gnostic” is synonymous with the term “heretic”.

Typological Approach

In this case the “Gnosticism” is considered as an independent religion with definable doctrinal characteristics.

According to Jonas there are eight basic features of “Gnosticism”.

In 1966, at Messina, Italy, scholars proposed restricting the use of the term “Gnosticism” to certain second-century heretical sects, while the term “gnosis” is recommended to be used to refer to “knowledge of the divine mysteries for an elite”.

Typological approach to Gnosticism has many followers (Bianchi, Culianu, Pearson, Rudolph, Marckschies).

Self-Designation Approach

Bentley Layton suggests that in the first century there were some groups who used the term “gnostics” to characterize themselves.

To identify these Gnostics, Layton based his analysis on Christian and pagan testimony. Thus, he will identify the Gnostics mentioned by Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses I, 11.1, the Carpocratians mentioned in Adversus Haereses I, 25.6 and the Barbelo-Gnostics of the same paper I, 29, the Gnostics referred to by Porphyrios in Vita Plotinus 16, Origen in his Against Celsus V, 61, and Prodicus mentioned by Clement in Stromata II, 117.5.Layton concludes that the Sethian system should be considered “Gnostic” (classical gnosticism).

“Gnosticism” after Michael A. Williams

In his book, Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category, Williams criticize both modern approaches of Gnosticism (designation approach and self-designation approach).

Williams agrees Ioan Petru Culianu observation on Gnosticism. Culianu called the term “Gnosticism a “sick sign” which can signify almost anything and therefore practically nothing”.

In this context, Williams suggested that the categories “Gnosticism” or “Gnostic religion” must be abandoned.

On the other hand, Williams observes that the concept of Demiurge is present in almost all the texts and traditions in question. From here, Williams proposed to change the concept of “Gnosticism” with the concept of “Biblical Demiurgical traditions”.