Harvard Divinity School

Gnostic Interpretation of the Old Testament in the "Testimony of Truth" (NHC IX, 3)
Author(s): Birger A. Pearson
Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 73, No. 1/2, Dedicated to the Centennial of
the Society of Biblical Literature (Jan. - Apr., 1980), pp. 311-319
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509494
Accessed: 18-09-2016 06:35 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review

This content downloaded from 129.105.215.146 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:35:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 GNOSTIC INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT IN THE
TESTIMONY OF TRUTH (NHC IX, 3)
Birger A. Pearson

University of California, Santa Barbara,

and Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Interpretation of the OT is a many-faceted thing in gnost

literature. The old view that Gnosticism implies a rejection of
OT1 has had to be considerably modified in the light of n
discoveries. The Nag Hammadi texts have shown that the Gnos
made far more use of the OT than could have been expecte
the basis of older premises. R. McL. Wilson, in a recent article
has pointed out that no less than seventeen OT books are qu
in the gnostic writings collected in Werner Foerster's antholo
To be sure, Genesis-especially the first chapters-is by far
most-quoted OT book. And it is obvious that the use made by
Gnostics of Genesis and other OT writings is hardly conventio
to say the least. Even so, it is of no use to scholarship simply t
satisfied with calling attention to the "perversity" of gnostic
interpretation.4 For it is important to observe the manifold way
which the OT is utilized in gnostic, especially Christian gno
texts. One can then attain a proper understanding of the role
biblical interpretation in the development of Gnosticism, as we
early Christian theology in general.

ISee, e.g., the chapter, "The Old Testament, the Lord, and the Apostles,
Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (trans. Robert Kr
al., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) esp. 195-202.
2"The Gnostics and the Old Testament," in Geo Widengren, ed., Proceedin
the International Colloquium on Gnosticism, Stockholm, August 20-25, 1973 (S
holm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1977) 174-68.
3Die Gnosis (2 vols.; Zurich: Artemis, 1969 and 1971).
4 E. M. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evid
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973) 144-45.

This content downloaded from 129.105.215.146 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:35:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
312 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

The Testimony of Truth in Codex IX from Nag Hammadi

interesting case in point.5 This document, which has rightly
called "eines der besten Beispiele fir christlichen Gnostizism
is a polemical tract with homiletic stylistic features, holding o
a strict asceticism vis-a-vis the world and its "authorities." Its
polemical thrust is directed especially against catholic Christian
orthodoxy, but its author does not hesitate to attack gnostic
"heretics" as well, such as Valentinians, Basilidians, and others.7 It
probably dates from the late second or early third century, and was
doubtless written in Egypt, probably Alexandria. It apparently
reflects the intra-Christian struggles associated with the rising tide
of Christian orthodoxy during the time of bishop Demetrius of
Alexandria (189-231 C.E.).8
The tractate consists of two main parts: a self-contained homily
on the "word of truth" (29,6-45,6; cf. 31,8), addressed to "those
who know to hear not with the ears of the body but with the ears
of the mind" (29,6-9); and miscellaneous polemics directed
against various "heresies" (45,6-end),9 developing themes set
forth in the homily, but also utilizing a number of sources. The

5See the English translation by S*ren Giversen and Birger Pearson in James M.
Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1977) 406-16; and the German translation by Klaus Koschorke, "Der gnostische
Traktat 'Testimonium Veritatis' aus dem Nag-Hammadi-Codex IX: Eine Uberset-
zung," ZNW 69 (1978) 91-117. A complete Coptic-English edition is forthcoming:
Birger A. Pearson, Nag Hammdi Codices IX and X (The Coptic Gnostic Library; Nag
Hammadi Studies; Leiden: Brill, in press).
6Frederik Wisse, "Die Sextus-Spriiche und das Problem der gnostischen Ethik,"
in A. B6hlig and F. Wisse, Zum Hellenismus in den Schriften von Nag Hammadi
(G6ttingen Orientforschungen 6, Reihe: Hellenistica 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1975) 81.
7For a thorough analysis of the polemical argument in Testim. Truth and its
historical context see Klaus Koschorke, Die Polemik der Gnostiker gegen das
kirchliche Christentum (NHS 12; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978) esp. 91-174. See also
Birger Pearson, "Anti-Heretical Warnings in Codex IX from Nag Hammadi," in M.
Krause, ed., Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Pahor Labib (NHS 6;
Leiden: Brill, 1975) 145-54.
8For the standard discussion see W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 44-60. For a
discussion of the provenance, authorship, and date of Testim. Truth see my
Introduction in Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, forthcoming. Cf. also Korschorke,
Die Polemik der Gnostiker, 107-9.
9The last two pages of Codex IX, 75-76, are missing; the tractate presumably
ended either on p. 75 or 76. For discussion of the literary divisions here set forth
see my forthcoming Introduction.

This content downloaded from 129.105.215.146 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:35:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BIRGER A. PEARSON 313

tractate's author inveighs against "the Law," its authorities, and

those who live under it, and ridicules the foolish hopes (resurr
tion) and practices (baptism, martyrdom) of catholic Christiani
Salvation is achieved, according to him, through renunciation o
the world and knowledge of oneself, which is equivalent t
knowledge of God: "This, therefore, is the true testimony: Wh
man knows himself and God who is over the truth, he will be
saved, and he will be crowned with the crown unfading"
(44,30-45,6). Testim. Truth, as a Christian-gnostic document, sets
forth a gnostic interpretation of the descent, conception and birth,
ministry, death, and ascension of Christ, utilizing a wide variety of
NT books. Of the NT writings the Gospel of John and the Pauline
epistles are of the greatest theological influence.
Here we are interested in the tractate's use of the OT. This can
be put into three categories: (1) short quotations or allusions, (2)
extended midrashim, and (3) allegory.
1) There are not many direct quotations of the OT, outside of
the midrash on the serpent of Genesis 2-3 (see below). There
may be an allusion in the opening passage (29,7-9, quoted above)
to Isa 6:10: Kat TO'K o-Civ aKova'o00v . . . Kap&sa.1 Isa 6:10 is
paraphrased at 48,8-13 (in the serpent midrash), and is a favorite
OT text in gnostic literature.11
At 29,15-18 the "leaven of the Pharisees" (cf. Luke 12:1) is
allegorically interpreted as "[the] errant (rXadvr)) desire (erOvvlla)
of the angels (ayyeXo') and the demons (SaituDv) and the stars,"
a reference to the curious story about the "sons of God" and the
"daughters of men" in Gen 6:1-4. This may be an indirect
allusion, derived from a Jewish pseudepigraphon such as 1 Enoch,
or perhaps from a gnostic text.12 Gen 1:28 (cf. 8:17; 9:1), 2:24, and
22:17 (cf. 32:12) are combined in the following passage excoriating
the (OT) Law: "The Law commands (one) to take a husband (or)
to take a wife, and to beget, to multiply like the sand of the sea"
(30,2-5). A phrase from Gen 5:1 is interpreted metaphorically at
50,5-7: "The [book of the] generation of Adam13 [is written for

10 Cf. also Matt 13:13-15 and parallels.

lSee, e.g., Ap. John NHC II 22,26-28; BG 59,3-6; 2 Apoc. Jas. NHC V
60,5-10; Iren. Haer. 4.29.1 (Marcionites).
12See esp. 1 Enoch 6-11, probably utilized in Ap. John BG 74,1-5; cf. Val. Exp.
NHC XI 38,34-37.
'3Coptic: Trr Cw w ^ . . Tr X Tt O N a & .

This content downloaded from 129.105.215.146 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:35:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
314 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

those] who are in the [generation] of [the Law.]"14 It w

noticed that it is the Hebrew version of Gen 5:11 that is
here ("Adam" rather than the LXX a&v0p7raov).15
Ps 114 (LXX 113):3, itself based on Josh 3:13-17, is quot
an interesting account of Jesus' descent to the Jordan river
came [to the] world by the Jordan river, and immediatel
Jordan [turned] back" (30,20-23).16 A similar use of the
passage is made by the Naassene Gnostics (Ref. 5.7.41) and by
Mandaeans in their Ginza, where it is the savior Manda d
whose descent is referred to.17 It is also alluded to in a m
text.18 It is therefore possible that Testim. Truth is util
nonbiblical apocryphon here, rather than quoting directly f
Psalm 114.
2) There are two extensive passages in Testim. Truth that can
be classified as "midrashim."19 The first of these is a gnostic
midrash on the serpent of Genesis 2-3 (45,23-49,7). This passage,
marked by a paragraphus in the MS (a marginal stroke), is clearly
based on a previously-existing source, though the author of
Testim. Truth may have modified it somewhat in his own
restatement of it. It shows some significant elements in common
with parallel material in Hyp. Arch. (NHC II 88,26-91,7) and Orig.
World (NHC II 118,17-121,5), and it is probable that all three
versions derive from a common archetype, perhaps an "Ophite"-
gnostic midrash. The version in Testim. Truth clearly reveals an
earlier stage of development than the parallel texts, and adheres
more closely to the biblical text. Moreover, it shows no signs of
Christian influence. It focuses on the serpent of Genesis 2-3,

14Or: "of [Adam]," as Koschorke restores the text; his translation is cited in n. 5,
above. My restoration is based on the following context: "They follow the Law
[and] they obey it .. ," 50,8-9.
15The same phrase from Gen 5:1 is quoted in Exc. Theod. 54.2.
16The LXX text of the passage quoted is: 6'IopSavl) eorTpadr7) Ei< Ta' 6taroaw.
'7See M. Lidzbarski, Ginza (G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1925) 192 and
178.
18See PGM 4. 3053-54:... 81 ov [i.e., "Sabaoth"] 6 'Iopsa&vr forafoma
av?EXWprE av.
19See Birger A. Pearson, "Jewish Haggadic Traditions in The Testimony of Truth
from Nag Hammadi (CG IX, 3)," in J. Bergman et al., ed., Ex Orbe Religionum:
Studia Geo Widengren (Numen Suppl. 21; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 1. 457-70, esp. 459,
461. The same article is. reprinted with some revisions in Birger Pearson, ed.,
Religious Syncretism in Antiquity: Essays in Conversations with Geo Widengren (Mis-
soula: Scholars, 1975) 205-22.

This content downloaded from 129.105.215.146 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:35:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BIRGER A. PEARSON 315

retelling the story of the fall of Adam and Eve in such a way that
the serpent is portrayed as the revealer of life and knowledge,
whereas "God"20 is portrayed as a malevolent and ignorant
demon.
The following OT passages are quoted or paraphrased within
the midrash on the serpent: Gen 2:16-17 (cf. Gen 2:9, 3:3, 1),
3:4-5, 6-7 (cf. 22), 8-9, 11-13, 14, 22, 23-24, 22, Exod 20:5, Isa
6:10, Gen 3:14-15(?), Exod 7:8-12 (cf. 4:2-4), and Num 21:19.
Within the midrash, too, there are numerous indications of the
use of Jewish haggadic traditions. I have discussed this text
extensively in another context,21 and turn now, therefore, to the
other midrash in Testim. Truth.
The passage in question (69,32-70,24) deserves to be quoted
in full:

Some of them22 fall away [to the worship of] idols. [Others] have [demons]
dwelling with them [as did] David the king. He is the one who laid the
foundation of Jerusalem; and his son Solomon, whom he begat in [adul-
tery], is the one who built Jerusalem by means of the demons, because he
received [power].23 When he [had finished building, he imprisoned] the
demons [in the temple]. He [placed them] into seven [waterpots. They
remained] a long [time in] the [waterpots], abandoned [there]. When the
Romans [went] up to [Jerusalem] they discovered [the] waterpots, [and
immediately] the [demons] ran out of the waterpots as those who escape
from prison. And the waterpots [remained] pure (thereafter). [And] since
those days [they dwell] with men who are [in] ignorance, and [they have
remained upon] the earth.24

20It should be noted here that the word "God" is consistently used within this
midrash to refer to the biblical Creator, portrayed in negative terms; elsewhere in
Testim. Truth "God" refers to the supreme Father. See 37,6.22; 39,3.7; 41,5.31;
45,3. This is another indication of the use of a previously existing source.
21 See Pearson, "Jewish Haggadic Traditions in The Testimony of Truth." It should
be noted that the translation used in that article has been revised and improved
subsequently; cf. n. 5. On this midrash see also K. Koschorke, Die Polemik der
Gnostiker, 148-51.
221.e., the author's opponents.
23Following the suggestion kindly offered to me by Stephen Emmel and Dennis
Duling, I now read[g.6ojloat 70,9, instead of NCJOg6o, "their powers," as in Nag
Hammadi Library, p. 415. the meaning as now revised is that Solomon "received
power" from God (over the demons), and not from the demons. Duling is
preparing a commentary on the Testament of Solomon, which contains parallels to
this passage in Testim. Truth. See below.
240n this passage see also Sdren Giversen, "Solomon und die Damonen," in M.
Krause, ed., Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Alexander Bohlig (NHS 3;
Leiden: Brill, 1972) 16-21. Cf. also my remarks in "Jewish Haggadic Traditions,"
459.

This content downloaded from 129.105.215.146 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:35:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
316 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

In this passage our gnostic author is probably quoting fro

adapting, a written source. But in contrast to the midrash o
serpent, this text about David and Solomon and their consor
with demons is not necessarily "gnostic" at all. Indeed the so
here posited is probably a Jewish text, similar to the Testame
Solomon, with which it shares some common traditions. I
text there are no biblical quotations, but the following bi
passages are in the background: 2 Sam 5:9, the building o
stronghold of Zion (Jerusalem); 2 Samuel 11, the Bathsh
episode; and 1 Kings 5-7, especially 6:7, the building of
Temple. But the basic sources for this midrash whose b
departure-point is probably 1 Kgs 6:7 is Jewish haggadic trad
documented in rabbinic and other extrabiblical Jewish literature.
Thus when it is said in this text that David "laid the foundation of
Jerusalem," i.e., of the Temple, its author is relying on Jewish
legend, documented in rabbinic sources, according to which David
dug the foundations of the Temple, and sang the "Songs of
Ascents" (Psalms 120-134) to cause the waters of chaos rising in
the foundation pit to recede, aided by a potsherd bearing the
Divine Name (b. Mak. lla; b. Sukk. 53a). When the "worship of
idols" is brought up in connection with King David, we may
surmise that a Jewish legend, also found in rabbinic sources, is in
the background here; according to this legend David was given to
idol worship (b. Sanh. 107a).25 And, of course, the main focus of
the midrash, Solomon's enlisting the service of the demons in
building the Temple, is amply attested in rabbinic sources (b. Git.
68ab, Exod. Rab. 52.4; Midr. Cant. 1.1.5; Num. Rab. 11.3; Pesiq.
Rab. 6.7; etc.), a legend that has its biblical basis in 1 Kgs 6:7:
"neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron was heard in the
temple, while it was being built" (RSV); i.e., it must have been
built supernaturally. This legend figures prominently in that fas-
cinating document called the Testament of Solomon 26 (passim),
where one also finds reference to Solomon's ability to imprison the
demons in bottles (15.9; cf. 19.1).27 This text, in fact, is only one

25This is based on the juxtaposition of the word "head" (rosh) in 2 Sam 15:32 and
Dan 2:32!
26See C. C. McCown, The Testament of Solomon (UNT 9; Leipzig: Hinrich, 1922).
Cf. also A.-M. Denis, Introduction aux pseudepigraphes grecs d'Ancien Testament (SVTP
1; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970) 67, for brief description and bibliography.
27On this see also Richard Reitzenstein, Poimandres (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904) 295;
M. Berthelot, Histoire des sciences: La chimie au Moyen dge (reprint ed., Osnabruck: O.
Zeller, 1967) 2. 265. The bottling-up of spirits and demons seems to be a very

This content downloaded from 129.105.215.146 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:35:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BIRGER A. PEARSON 317

of very many sources in Jewish and Hellenistic lore attesting to

Solomon's reputation as a sorcerer par excellence.28 A number of
gnostic sources, too, share in this stream of traditional legend
Solomon's power over the demons is attested in the Apocalypse of
Adam and in the treatise On the Origin of the World; indeed
similar account of the building of the Jerusalem Temple is found
in the Mandaean Ginza.29 To be sure, the Gnostics assume
negative view of David and Solomon, as we can note here in
Testim. Truth, a view that is explicitly stated in Treat. Seth (NHC
VII 63,4-17), where they are discussed in a list of biblical
"laughing stocks!"
One final item should be noted concerning our midrash, fo
which I have not yet been able to find a parallel: the coming of th
Romans as the occasion for the release of the demons. In the
Testament of Solomon the demons are released at the time of the
destruction of the First Temple (15:8-11; 16:7); the coming of
"the Romans" here may be a reference either to the entry of
Pompey in 63 B.C.E. (cf. Jos. Ant. 14.71-73), or, perhaps, to the
destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E.
3) The most interesting aspect of the use of the OT in Testim.
Truth, from the standpoint of its author's hermeneutical theory, is
the use of allegory. Here we have to do with the author's own
work. Though he bases his interpretation on previously existing
sources, the use of allegory per se involves his own interpretive
creativity, and (very important) his own ultimate stance vis-a-vis
the OT Scriptures. To be sure his use of the allegorical method
itself is part and parcel of his Alexandrian background, of which
Philo is the most important representative.30

Osnabriick: O. Zeller, 1967) 2. 265. The bottling-up of spirits and demons seems to
be a very common item of folklore in the Near East, up to today. It is reported that
the discoverer of the Nag Hammadi Codices, Muhammad 'Ali al-Samman, was at
first afraid to break open the jar in which the codices were contained, for fear that a
jinn might thereby be released. His hope of finding something in the jar more
valuable (to him) than books helped him to muster up the requisite courage to
break the jar. See J. M. Robinson's Introduction to Nag Hammadi Library, 21.
28Cf. Dennis Duling, "Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David," HTR 68
(1975) 235-52.
29See NHC V 78,27-79,18; II 106,19-107,17; and Lidzbarski, Ginza, 28, 46.
30For a general discussion of gnostic hermeneutics with special attention to OT
interpretation, including the use of allegory, see my article, "Some Observations on
Gnostic Hermeneutics," in Wendy O'Flaherty, ed., The Critical Study of Sacred
Texts (Berkeley Religious Studies Series; Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union,
1979) 243-56.

This content downloaded from 129.105.215.146 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:35:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
318 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

In two of the three cases of the use of allegory in interpret

OT texts or themes, it occurs in connection with midrash
already treated. He sees in these midrashim, and in the bib
passages utilized in them, hidden meaning that he attemp
ferret out. The midrash on the serpent is introduced in the
following way: "Why, then, do you (pl.) [err] and not seek after
these mysteries (LvO-TrIptov) which were prefigured (-rv7Trov) for
our sake?" (45,19-22). In this statement, itself containing an
allusion to the apostle Paul's interpretation of OT texts (1 Cor
10:6), the author tries to make clear that one must go beyond the
bare text, and see the redemptive meaning enshrined within. His
own interpretation of the serpent treated in the midrash is made
clear in his comment following the midrash: "For this is Christ;
[those who] believed in him [have received life]. Those who did
not believe [will die]." (49,7-10).31
Again, commenting on the David-Solomon midrash, the
author refers to the "mysteries" hidden in the text:

What, then is [David]? And who is Solomon? [And] what is the founda-
tion? And what is the wall which surrounds Jerusalem?32 And who are the
demons? And what are the waterpots? And who are the Romans? But
these [are mysteries...] (70,24-30).33

Unfortunately, the top of the following page is missing, so we will

probably never know what interpretation the author offered.
The final example of OT allegory in Testim. Truth 34 is a daring
one indeed. The MS is very fragmentary here, but the text has
been restored with a high degree of probability:

31The allegorical identification of Christ with the serpent is a stock feature of

"Ophite" Christian Gnosticism, according to patristic testimony. See, e.g., Hipp.
Ref. 5.16.9-10; 5.17.8; Ps.-Tert. Haer. 2; Epiph. Haer. 37.2.6; 37.8.1. Here there is
also an allusion to John 3:14-18.
32"The wall which surrounds Jerusalem" is not mentioned previously in the text
but was presumably present in the source used here. On Solomon's wall see 1 Kgs
9:15.
33The last letters on line 30 of p. 70 are: N j' XC. ..,,<y. The last word
must have been continued on the top of p. 71: 2 N, Ay/c-re plc , "mysteries";
cf. also 45,20.
34Allegorical interpretation of NT texts or themes is found at 29,15-21 and
30,30-31,5.

This content downloaded from 129.105.215.146 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:35:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BIRGER A. PEARSON 319

. .[like Isaiah, who was sawed35 with a saw, and] he became two. [So also
the Son of Man divides] us by [the word of the] cross. It [divides the day
from] the night and [the light from the] darkness and the corruptible
[from] incorruptibility, and it [divides] the males from the females. But
[Isaiah]36 is the type (Tr-ro;)37 of the body (arwLa). The saw is the word
(h6yos) of the Son of Man which separates us from the error (n7rXrvr) of
the angels (ayy/EXo). (40,21-41,4)

The allegorical interpretation offered here has to do with th

fate of an OT prophet, but the event itself, i.e., Isaiah's gruesom
death, is not mentioned in the Bible (but cf. 2 Kgs 21:16). Th
our author is basing his interpretation on extrabiblical sources.3
The interpretation itself is a strange one, and we might be excus
for quarreling with the author's violation of good taste in holdi
up the sundered body of a murdered prophet as a hidden referen
to corporeality, and the murder-weapon itself as a type of t
saving word of the Son of Man.39 The important thing here is th
the gnostic author of Testim. Truth, while rejecting wholesale t
OT law and reviling the traditional values represented in a more
"orthodox" use of the Bible, is able to find positive truths in th
OT and in OT-based tradition, for the edification of himself an
his fellow Gnostics.
Thus, in conclusion, we find that the use of the OT in Gnosti-
cism-as I hope this little study of a single gnostic tractate has
shown-is a multifaceted thing, implying positive value in the OT
as well as negative elements, and involving various exegetical
methods. Gnostic OT interpretation is therefore of considerable
interest to students of ancient Christian history and theology.

35Line 20 is missing. The Coptic text of lines 21-22 have been restored as
follows:CN6E NHC a ac. r Ai ] o v c/LT q z oY y 8 o p
]J 13c CNL.t, There is enough left of the verb "to saw" to make the
restoration highly probable; the noun "saw" occurs at 41,1, and therefore belongs
here, for 41,1 presumes a previous reference. Isaiah is the only OT figure who can
fit here, the only one to have been sawn in two, according to tradition. The
martyrdom of the prophet Isaiah is attested in apocryphal literature; see Vit. Proph.
Is. 1; Asc. Is. 5.1-14; 11:41. A possible allusion to the same tradition occurs in the
NT at Heb 11:37.
36 The end of the superlinear stroke on the proper name Isaiah
( Hc & ( c ) is barely visible in what remains of the MS at this point;
nothing remains of the letters. The name fits exactly, from the standpoint of the
number of letters to be restored. Cf. the preceding note.
37Cf. 45,20-21: p cpTr TNTYrOr (= -rpWrro7TvoyoT ).
38Cf. n. 35.
39The "cutting" power of the Logos is an item in Hellentistic-Jewish speculative
theology; see Philo Rer. Div. Her. 130-40. In the NT see Heb 4:12, Rev 1:16; 2:12;
19:13, 15, 21. In Gnosticism see esp. Gos. Truth NHC I 25,35-26,8.

This content downloaded from 129.105.215.146 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:35:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms