T Polyphilus ([info]paradoxosalpha) wrote,
@ 2009-06-15 19:25:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Hidden Wisdom
Iranaeus describes Gnostic biblical interpretation as "dismembering the body of truth," implying that Scripture is like a "body" encompassing the totality of truth (soma tes aletheias). By their heretical, perverse mode of reading, the Gnostics "dismember," as it were, truth.

--Guy G. Strousma (2005),
Hidden Wisdom: Esoteric Traditions and
the Roots of Christian Mysticism
, p. 115


This volume, which its author admits to lack "conclusive results," doesn't overcome its origin as a collection of disparate papers and lectures on a common theme. All of the details are interesting, and often deeply considered, but there seems to be a shortage of overarching argument. At some points the book is strangely at odds with itself, most conspicuously when declaring that the "inner logic of Christian soteriology was fundamentally anti-esoteric," (133) while adducing in chapter after chapter persuasive evidence for esoteric mechanisms and doctrines in the earliest strata of Christianity.

Strousma looks at various cultural formations of late antiquity that could have been tied to (and in any case help to illuminate) the esoteric dimensions of early Christianity. Among these are Neoplatonist hermeneutics, Gnostic mythopoesis, Manicheanism, and esoteric Judaism. Strousma is especially insistent on the last of these, perhaps in (over-?) reaction to what he views as a neglect in the secular "history of religions" discipline, where the emphasis has been on Hellenistic pagan mystery cults. When he writes, "It is hard to believe in a Valentinian influence on Jewish circles," (198) my reaction is: why? Strousma himself very correctly demonstrates that "Judaism and Christianity in the second century can be perceived as sister religions, rather than standing in a filial relationship." (89)

The final chapter, new in the 2005 edition, is on "Judeo-Christian and Gnostic 'Theologies of the Name'." It should be of special interest to both ceremonial magicians and esoteric Freemasons.



(2 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]borbor_chan
2009-06-16 10:32 am UTC (link)
Nice review, I'm very much an agreement. Similar problems plague the revision of his dissertation, _Another Seed_. A colleague is a friend of his and explained away the weaknesses of the project by a visa problem - Stroumsa had to put together the diss. in about 15 months before getting kicked out of the U.S. (and Harvard) But that doesn't explain why the revision so was so incoherent - likewise with the collection under review here.

Layton excoriated _Another Seed_ in Rev. Bibl. 94 (1987): 608-613.

I met Stroumsa once when he gave a talk at Yale on Jewish-Christian relations in late antiquity. I asked what role Gnosticism played in this interface. "A lot of students," he said, "especially ones from divinity schools, students who read a lot of Peter Brown, mistakenly construe Gnosticism, a religion of second century, as a religion of late antiquity, which it is not." I didn't get a follow-up question. I wanted to throw something at the guy.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]paradoxosalpha
2009-06-16 12:43 pm UTC (link)
Silly me, I thought the second century was near enough to late antiquity for religious horseshoes (or hand-grenades). Did all the Gnosticism get so effectively rubbed out by 200?

It sounds like he was guilty there of what he admits as a fault in the introduction to the 2005 edition of his book: arbitrarily constraining the etic term "Gnostic" without providing a rationale for doing so.

I did get some worthwhile kernels from his book, but given the choice I'll take Brown over Strousma any day.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(2 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…