Wrestling with Archons: Gnosticism as a Critical Theory of Culture by Jonathan Cahana-Blum
Reviewed by: Wrestling with Archons: Gnosticism as a Critical Theory of Culture by Jonathan Cahana-Blum Jörgen Magnusson Jonathan Cahana-Blum Wrestling with Archons: Gnosticism as a Critical Theory of Culture Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2018 Pp. ix + 201. $90.00. Contrary to the current trend of dismantling Gnosticism as a category and replacing it with Christianity or biblical demiurgical traditions, Jonathan Cahana-Blum sets out to construct Gnosticism as a valid analytical category. However, he does not take as broad of an approach as Hans Jonas, who included, for instance, Manichaeism and Mandaeism (The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity [Boston: Beacon Press, 1963]). Cahana-Blum starts out with a similar set of texts to those used by Michael A. Williams, applying the criteria of biblical demiurgical tradition (Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996], 51–53). He differs from Williams, as he does not include Valentinianism in the category, holding it instead as a reform movement that is too close to the pre-orthodox church to count as Gnosticism. An interesting part of the book regards a discussion of primary and secondary sources. Normally, scholars have viewed Coptic sources as the primary ones, whereas the reports of church fathers have been considered secondary. But, Cahana-Blum turns the tables. He claims that apologetical sources are the only primary sources we have, and thus we must build upon these sources. He comes to this conclusion because he regards the Nag Hammadi sources as monastic in origin. He refers to Frederick Wisse, who suggested in the 1970s that the cartonnage of the codices indicated a monastic environment (“Gnosticism and Early Monasticism in Egypt,” in Gnosis: Festschrift für Hans Jonas, ed. Barbara Aland [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978], 436–37). Similar ideas have recently been championed by Hugo Lundhaug and Lance Jenott, who claim that the codices were used by Pachomian monks far into the fifth century if not even later (The Monastic Origins of the Nag Hammadi Codices [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015]). Cahana-Blum rightly criticizes their position, which requires a tendentious interpretation of the Nag Hammadi sources in order to make them plausible readings for Pachomian monks long after Athanasius’s Festal Letter of 367. Instead, the author suggests that the Nag Hammadi manuscripts were used by former Gnostics to accommodate the orthodox church or by a Gnostic [End Page 655] sect hidden in a monastery. In either case, the texts were hidden in response to Athanasius’s Festal Letter. Nevertheless, Cahana-Blum does not regard the Nag Hammadi texts as primary Gnostic sources. Building on the monastic hypothesis, he uses examples from the Apocryphon of John, Thunder: Perfect Mind, and Zostrianos to show that the texts have undergone a masculinization. However, it seems unwarranted to rank the Greek sources of the church fathers higher than the Coptic material. In either case, one has to evaluate the reliability of each source. I would refer to both the Nag Hammadi and the apologetic sources as secondary, or preferably, rank some of the Nag Hammadi and other Coptic texts as primary, along with some of the more trustworthy accounts of the church fathers. Moreover, the monastic context of the Nag Hammadi texts has been questioned. There have been suggestions that they belonged to a private owner who was buried with the texts and that the monastic letters in the bindings of the Nag Hammadi codices might have come from a heap of scrap papyri of diverging origins. Yet another option would be to locate the texts in a Manichaean context. We now turn to what I consider the most intriguing part of the book: Gnosticism as cultural criticism. Cahana-Blum builds on Hans Jonas’s works and concludes that Gnostic ritual was a way to free the Gnostic of the dualism of the cosmic sphere. Moreover, it gives the Gnostic a view of the conditions that seem to be self-evident cosmic perspectives, but from an acosmic perspective that is open to critique. Thereby, the Gnostic can question natural conditions, such as sexual differentiation, morals, and politics (Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, 277). Cahana-Blum...
Read more