Social and Ethical Concern in the Interpretation of Knowledge (NHC XI 1): A Rhetorical Analysis of Interp. Know. 20.36–38

The Interpretation of Knowledge, a Valentinian text that dates from the late second to early fourth century, addresses a social conflict within a Christian community that has resulted in factionalism between "spiritual" and "ordinary" Christians. In this sustained paraenetic address, the author exhorts both factions to reconciliation. At the close of the tractate, the author shifts from the internal problem to themes of cosmic conflict and persecution, thereby tapping into martyrdom language. In 20.36-38 the author uses a rhetorical question and three consecutive sentences to emphasize his or her moral indignation at those in the community who are causing divisions. By building up to a rhetorical climax, the author discursively aligns these agitators with those cosmic forces that oppose the Christian's soteriological status and the church's harmony. Thus, the paraenesis charges the recipients either to accept the exhortation to unity or to be identified as persecutors rather than as "athletes of the Logos."(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)The Interpretation of Knowledge is the first tractate in Codex XI discovered near Nag Hammadi in 1945. Not until recent years has scholarly attention come to bear on this poorly preserved text. Building on my previous work on this text, and now working with the recent critical edition published in the Bibliotheque Copte de Nag Hammadi series (BCNH), along with previous critical editions, I offer a fresh and in-depth analysis of the moral exhortation in 20.36-38. Here, the author of this Valentinian paraenetic address shifts from the internal dissensions facing the community (between psychic and pneumatic Christians) to themes of cosmic conflict and persecution, thereby tapping into martyrdom language. In 20.36-38 the author uses a rhetorical question and three consecutive sentences to emphasize his or her moral indignation at those in the community causing divisions. My discussion begins with a brief overview of the Interpretation of Knowledge. Doing so will situate our passage within the broader contours of the tractate and locate my study of the text's rhetorical situation within the diverse and sometimes conflicting scholarly readings of the document.I. AN OVERVIEW OF THE INTERPRETATION OF KNOWLEDGEDespite a near consensus on the Valentinian nature of the Interpretation of Knowledge, this tractate has suffered scholarly neglect until recent years.1 Only a handful of studies have appeared, the first of which was Klaus Koschorke's influential argument that the Interpretation of Knowledge represents a type of gnostic church order.2 Since Koschorke's work, competing critical editions have emerged: the Brill edition by John D. Turner and Elaine Pagels (with English translation); Uwe-Karsten Plisch's edition with a German translation; and most recently the edition by Wolf-Peter Funk, Louis Painchaud, and Einar Thomassen (with French translation) for the BCNH series. A Spanish translation with a helpful introduction also was published by Jose Montserrat Torrents following Turner and Pagels's critical edition.3 Beyond critical editions and translation work, there has only been a smattering of shorter studies.4 Such neglect is largely due to the poor preservation of the only extant copy of this text: a Coptic manuscript from which an estimated 7.5 percent has survived,5 with the best-preserved sections being at the close of the tractate.The poor condition of the manuscript has inevitably resulted in conflicting understandings of this text. Every scholar working on this text has recognized that it is addressed to a Christian community facing some form of internal conflict (an interpretation largely inferred from the use of the Pauline body metaphor and the call to unity or harmony on pages 15 to 19). But how that divisiveness plays out in the text has been difficult to establish. On the issue of genre, for instance, the Interpretation of Knowledge has been described as a type of gnostic church order (Koschorke), a homily (Pagels), a philosophical letter (Emmel), sustained paraenesis (Tite), deliberative rhetoric (Dunderberg), or some combination thereof (Painchaud). …