An Exploration of Valentinian Paraenesis: Rethinking Gnostic Ethics in the Interpretation of Knowledge (NHC XI,1)

Abstract

Over the past twenty-fi ve years, the social and ethical aspects of Gnosticism have won increased attention. Scholars have tended to shift away from phenomenological approaches to Gnosticism, 1 which maintained a strict demarcation between ethics and cosmological speculation. Rather, scholars have increasingly recognized and explored social ethics within the various "Gnosticisms" that fl ourished in the second to fourth centuries, focusing on particular topics such as sexual ethics, gender roles, * An earlier version of this article was presented in the "Nag Hammadi and Gnosticism" section of the SBL annual meeting in Toronto on 25 November 2002. I wish to express appreciation to Michel Desjardins and Louis Painchaud for their helpful comments on this study, as well as to those in Toronto who gave helpful feedback, especially Elaine Pagels and Ismo Dunderberg. 1 The very designation "Gnosticism" continues to be problematic for scholars. Early Christian historiography is troubled by the construction of separate trajectories for "Gnosticism" and "Christianity"; such binary opposites usually signal evaluative rather than descriptive or explanatory connotations. A recent, and arguably the most provocative, challenge to the classifi cation "Gnosticism" is that of Michael Williams, Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996). Williams correctly notes that "Gnosticism" is a prejudicial term that has led to various misunderstandings of "Gnostic" texts and social bodies. Although I generally agree with Williams's criticism (see my "Categorical Designations and Methodological Reductionism: Gnosticism as Case Study," MTSR 13 [2001] 269-92; and "Gnosticism, Taxonomies and the Sui Generis Debate: A Response to the Rennie-McCutcheon Exchange," Religion 30 [2000] 65-67), I still fi nd that the category is useful if employed as a second-order analytical device that classifi es according to relative relations. For a similar position, placing "Gnosticism" in juxtaposition to "syncretism," see the excellent discussion in Karen L. King, "The Politics of Syncretism and the

The Two-Way Schema in Valentinian Paraenesis

“…If he disbelieves them, then [he] would be unable [to be persuaded]. But it is a great thing for a man who has faith, since he is [not] As I have argued elsewhere (Tite 2004;cf. Dunderberg 2004), this tractate is a sustained paraenesis addressed to a divided Christian community that comprised, as one faction, Valentinian Christians.…”

Transgression and Countercultural Gnosticism: A Review Essay of April DeConick’s The Gnostic New Age

“…Such theoretical application of social theory to the study of Gnosticism is long overdue. Despite efforts by, for example, Henry Green (1991;1985;1982), Michael Williams (1996), and Philip Tite (2015;2004b), the study of Gnosticism has failed to embrace social analysis and social theories arising from sociology, cultural geography, and critical theory. DeConick's push along such lines has great potential, yet adjustments in her work would be needed.…”

“…In my own work (see especially Tite, 2015;2004b), I have long fought for studying these ancient texts as products of real people engaged in social interactions resulting in (a range of) identity formations and power relations. DeConick refreshingly calls for a similar shift in the study of Gnosticism.…”