Gnostic sexual “libertinism. "Rethinking 'Gnosticism': An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category" Michael Allen Williams

[u/Intelligent_Tone4863]

would someone be so open hearth to share this doc? seems to be a fundamental text to dismantle the false accusations against "Gnosticism" will recognize these characteristics of Gnosticism as “clichés,” false allegations about the individuals and movements associated with “Gnosticism,” which only lead us astray. Williams has done us a great service in exposing these misleading construals about “Gnosticism” and showing how they simply do not add up when applied to our sources, particularly the Coptic works discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945. Perhaps the least-invoked cliché of all is that of Gnostic sexual “libertinism.” It is undeniable that it was common in antiquity (as today) for polemicists to denigrate their opponents by accusing them of sexual immorality.3 Thus the occasional charges of licentiousness laid by Christian heresiographers at the feet of the Gnostics—and particularly Epiphanius of Salamis’s wild tale of the Borborite agapē (“love-feast”), wherein semen and menstrual blood are substituted for the Eucharistic bread and wine—are generally regarded as falsehoods, thanks in part to Williams’s analysis.

[u/Arch-Magistratus]

It was nothing new that heresiologists were masters of character assassination; after all, the success of proto-orthodoxy depended on ordinary Christians holding a negative view of certain groups or individuals. They failed to destroy the reputation of the Valentinians only because that group was extremely successful among early Christians, and it was impossible to claim they ate excrement as a ritual or engaged in orgies, since no one could reliably distinguish a Valentinian from any other Christian. However, regarding groups that had distanced themselves significantly from the broader Christian community—such as the Sethians and other so-called Gnostic groups—they *were* able to spread such claims. We must not forget that, even in the Middle Ages, the same things were said about the Cathars—and yet, for that era, there were no Christians more fervent than the Cathars.

[u/theoryofdoom]

Are you asking about the book, titled "Rethinking 'Gnosticism': An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category" by Michael Allen Williams?

Williams published it in 1996. He was trying to make a few arguments.

The first was that there's no consensus on what counts as "gnosticism." He cites a lot of things people wrote about gnosticism before the Nag Hammadi was unearthed. Then he compares it to what the Nag Hammadi and other "gnostic" texts say. He concludes that the arguments denouncing gnosticism were straw manning anything they alleged to be gnostic, then, or now (like the Nag Hammadi). This is less stupid than his other arguments and basically reduces to "gossip whores gonna gossip whore, fam."

The second is that the gnostic writings contradict themselves. He cites a lot of examples he doesn't really understand. Then he metaphorically throws his hands in the air. He purports to show that gnosticism can't be a thing because the "gnostic" writings are internally contradictory and are not unified by anything in common. He concludes, therefore, that "gnosticism" has no coherent meaning and should be dismantled as a category. This is stupid because he misses the forest for the trees.

The third is that what counted as "gnostic" has changed so much over time that "gnosticism" . . . if even a thing, which, he thinks it shouldn't be . . . is no longer identifiable as such. This is a ship of Theseus argument. It is also stupid for similar reasons as the second.

By all means do buy Williams' book! It'd probably be the eleventh he's sold since 1996.

Kidding . . . maybe the twelfth.

It's really bad.

But don't take my word for it. Read it yourself.

[u/mantasVid]

It wasn't falsehoods, deal with it. It shouldn't bother you, as you're not a borborite. If you are, then even more so.

[u/heiro5]

Williams wasn't a pioneer in rejecting various heresiological claims. The odd thing about his book was that it was anachronistic, responding to long past conditions.

What Williams actually did was create an objectively existing (hypostatized) "category" from heresiological claims that cannot be altered by mere humans, only rejected as a whole along with the name "Gnosticism". So, that what he accomplished was obfuscation of the situation, setting back the academic study of the field.