Knut Melvær

Who were the Gnostics? Philologians and historians are divided between those who represent the Gnostics as a (or several) historical social group, and those who argue that the term is a concept invented by early Christians to differentiate themselves from other, and highly diverse, movements (and hence, should not be used as an analytical category). David Brakke takes the middle road. He acknowledges the term as a (proto-)Christian term for self-differentiation, but he also argues for its use in self-designation, namely the Gnostic school of thought.

If we start at the ground, level, we can recover something of the myth and rituals of the ancient Gnostics, unburdened by the clichés and stereotypes that have coalesced around "Gnosticism." We can try to get beyond Irenaeus' vision of false gnôsis –ironically enough, with his own unwitting help. (p. 28)

While the study of Gnosticism as a designative category can be an interesting topic in itself; however, the opposing stances of this category also signify diverging interpretive stances on its source material. In this respect Brakke also takes the middle ground, e.g. he reads Ireneaus both as a source for historical knowledge on 'the Gnostics' and as as a polemical (proto-)Christian protagonist. For someone who has rather shallow knowledge on this topic, this stance seems sensible. More importantly, it heightens the book's pedagogical value and invites the reader to make up his own mind.

Although The Gnostics only touches the surface of the various religious theologies, rituals, myths and sources, it makes a brief, good and interesting introduction to the study of Gnosticism and early Christianity.

My supervisor Michael Stausberg has edited THE book about contemporary theories of religion. A 'must read' if you want to be up to date on what moves in the world of Religious Studies.

Cultus und Heilsversprechen (2007) is finally published in English. Martin Riesebrodt's theory of religion is in my opinion one of the most interesting contributions to the field this last decade. I especially like his inductive-like and interpretative point of depature, and the smirky –but constructive– critique to postmodernist approaches to the study of religion. I have also written a paper on his theory of religion.

Riesebrodt is an excellent writer and doesn't shy away from the occasional joke. The Promise of Salvation should also appeal to those curious to the study of religion, and not just students and faculty.