Reflections on Teaching Gnosticism I: The Syllabus

In 2007 I used the Apocryphicity blog as a host for some musings on the weekly classes of my course on the New Testament Apocrypha. I am now teaching the counterpart to that course: Gnosticism. Though a little late into the semester now, there’s no reason to let that prevent me from posting some thoughts on the course to date. We’ll begin with a discussion of the course syllabus (available HERE).

1. Course Texts. This is the third incarnation of the Gnosticism course. The first two versions were constructed around Kurt Rudolph’s Gnosis. I found Rudolph’s book useful but occasionally had to teach against it as some of his assertions about the origins of Gnosticism and of Mandaeism are now out-of-date. So I thought I’d try out Birger Pearson’s new book, Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature. So far I am not very happy with it. While I like how he divides his discussion into the various groups (Sethianism, Valentinianism, etc.), much of what Pearson does is summarize the material. He also makes numerous assertions about the origins of the texts without offering support (leaving the reader somewhat bewildered at how he arrives at the dates he provides). I will play out the year with the book but I do not think I will use it again. This is the first year also for Meyer et al’s new Nag Hammadi Library volume. In previous years I used Bentley Layton’s Gnostic Scriptures, which, alas is currently out-of-print. But I like Meyer’s volume as it provides much more readable translations (including footnotes and subheadings) than Robinson’s and includes a few ancillary texts (e.g., Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary) and essays on the various Gnostic subgroups.

2. Assignments. The first assignment, a translation comparison, I will discuss in a second post. The other two—a book review of Elaine Pagels’ The Gnostic Gospels, and a book analysis of Michael Williams’ Rethinking “Gnosticism” —worked well in the second incarnation of the course, so I am trying them again. Pagels’ book is a classic in the field and deserves to be read and discussed (for all its strengths and weaknesses). The Williams book caps off the course and challenges the students to think about the category of Gnosticism—a bit alarming for them after spending twelve weeks discussing Gnosticism as a category.Readings. I have intentionally minimized the number of “Gnostic” texts students will read this year. I think it works better to read, say two Sethian texts rather than ten. This keeps them from being overwhelmed by the material and also prevents them from becoming bored with the repetition of the myths that form the basis of much of the literature. I have had to provide a few additional texts in pdfs because they are not in Meyer’s collection; that was the beauty of Layton’s Gnostic Scriptures: it’s texts were not restricted to the Nag Hammadi Library.

3. Lecture Schedule: I have dedicated a class to the Da Vinci Code. There are two reasons for doing so. For one, many of the students were attracted to the class because of the popularity of the novel; so it seems wise to spend some time discussing it and refuting it. Unfortunately, I tend to discuss DVC in all my classes; so, many of my repeat students may be quite sick of it by now (I know I am). The second reason is to build into the schedule a “light” class in the middle of the final month of classes. This class can also be used to catch up on any topics that I did not have time to cover in previous classes. I also have dedicated a class to Gnosticism and Modern Film. This allows time for the class to apply their knowledge of Gnosticism to searching for allusions. There are many films to choose from for such an occasion (and anyone interested can consult Eric G. Wilson’s Secret Cinema: Gnostic Vision in Film or the web site of the Gnostic Friends Network). Last time out we watched The Truman Show. This time, I may use Blade Runner (which will give me an excuse to watch the new director’s cut).

For a few other ways of teaching Gnosticism check out the syllabi by Michel Desjardins (Wilfrid Laurier University) and Patricia Miller (Syracuse University), both of which are available via the AAR’s Syllabus Project web site. In recent years Michel has used food in his lectures to illustrate concepts (e.g., students snack on triple-layered Nanaimo bars while Michel discusses the three-part anthropology of spark, psyche, and body). You can read about his experiments in his article for Teaching Theology and Religion.