We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
Interpretation of the OT is a many-faceted thing in gnostic literature. The old view that Gnosticism implies a rejection of the OT has had to be considerably modified in the light of new discoveries. The Nag Hammadi texts have shown that the Gnostics made far more use of the OT than could have been expected on the basis of older premises. R. McL. Wilson, in a recent article, has pointed out that no less than seventeen OT books are quoted in the gnostic writings collected in Werner Foerster's anthology. To be sure, Genesis—especially the first chapters—is by far the most-quoted OT book. And it is obvious that the use made by the Gnostics of Genesis and other OT writings is hardly conventional, to say the least. Even so, it is of no use to scholarship simply to be satisfied with calling attention to the “perversity” of gnostic OT interpretation. For it is important to observe the manifold ways in which the OT is utilized in gnostic, especially Christian gnostic, texts. One can then attain a proper understanding of the role of biblical interpretation in the development of Gnosticism, as well as early Christian theology in general.
1 See, e.g., the chapter, “The Old Testament, the Lord, and the Apostles,” in Bauer, Walter, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (trans. Kraft, Robert et al., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) esp. 195–202.Google Scholar
2 “The Gnostics and the Old Testament,” in Widengren, Geo, ed., Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Gnosticism, Stockholm, August 20–25, 1973 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1977) 174–68.Google Scholar
3 Die Gnosis (2 vols.; Zurich: Artemis, 1969 and 1971).Google Scholar
4 Yamauchi, E. M., Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973) 144–45.Google Scholar
5 See the English translation by Giversen, Søren and Pearson, Birger in Robinson, James M., ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977) 406–16Google Scholar; and the German translation by Koschorke, Klaus, “Der gnostische Traktat ‘Testimonium Veritatis’ aus dem Nag-Hammadi-Codex IX: Eine Übersetzung,” 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).Google Scholar
6 Wisse, Frederik, “Die Sextus-Sprüche und das Problem der gnostischen Ethik,” in A. Böhlig and F. Wisse, Zum Hellenismus in den Schriften von Nag Hammadi (Göttingen Orientforschungen 6, Reihe: Hellenistica 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1975) 81.Google Scholar
7 For a thorough analysis of the polemical argument in Testim. Truth and its historical context see Koschorke, Klaus, Die Polemik der Gnosiiker gegen das kirchliche Christenmm (NHS 12; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978) esp. 91–174.Google Scholar See also Pearson, Birger, “Anti-Heretical Warnings in Codex IX from Nag Hammadi,” in Krause, M., ed., Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Pahor Labib (NHS 6; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 145–54.Google Scholar
8 For 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.
9 The 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.
10 Cf. also Matt 13:13–15 and parallels.
11 See, 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).
12 See esp. 1 Enoch 6–11, probably utilized in Ap. John BG 74,1–5; cf. Val. Exp. NHC XI 38,34–37.
13 Coptic: 
14 Or: “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.
15 The same phrase from Gen 5:1 is quoted in Exc. Theod. 54.2.
16 The LXX text of the passage quoted is: Ἱορδάνης στράϕη εἰς πίσω.
17 See Lidzbarski, M., Ginza (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1925) 192 and 178.Google Scholar
18 See PGM 4. 3053–54: … δἰ ὅν [i.e., “Sabaoth”] Ἰορδάνης ποταμς νεχώρησεν..
19 See Pearson, Birger A., “Jewish Haggadic Traditions in The Testimony of Truth from Nag Hammadi (CG IX, 3)” in Bergman, J. et al., ed., Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo Widengren (Numen Suppl. 21; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 1Google Scholar. 457–70, esp. 459, 461. The same article is. reprinted with some revisions in Pearson, Birger, ed., Religious Syncretism in Antiquity: Essays in Conversations with Geo Widengren (Missoula: Scholars, 1975) 205–22.Google Scholar
20 It 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.
22 I.e., the author's opponents.
23 Following the suggestion kindly offered to me by Stephen Emmel and Dennis Duling, I now read 
at 70,9, instead of 
“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.
24 On this passage see also Giversen, Søren, “Solomon und die Dämonen,” in Krause, M., ed., Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Alexander Böhlig (NHS 3; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 16–21. Cf. also my remarks in “Jewish Haggadic Traditions,” 459.Google Scholar
25 This is based on the juxtaposition of the word “head” (rōsh) in 2 Sam 15:32 and Dan 2:32!
26 See McCown, C. C., The Testament of Solomon (UNT 9; Leipzig: Hinrich, 1922)Google Scholar. Cf. also Denis, A.-M., Introduction aux pseudépigraphes grecs d'Ancien Testament (SVTP 1; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970) 67Google Scholar, for brief description and bibliography.
27 On this see also Reitzenstein, Richard, Poimandres (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904) 295Google Scholar; Berthelot, M., Histoire des sciences: La chimie au Moyen âge (reprint ed., Osnabrück: O. Zeller, 1967) 2Google Scholar. 265. The bottling-up of spirits and demons seems to be a very Osnabrück: 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.
28 Cf. Duling, Dennis, “Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David,” HTR 68 (1975) 235–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 See NHC V 78, 27–79, 18; II 106, 19–107, 17; and Lidzbarski, Ginza, 28, 46.
30 For 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 O'Flaherty, Wendy, ed., The Critical Study of Sacred Texts (Berkeley Religious Studies Series; Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union, 1979) 243–56.Google Scholar
31 The 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.
33 The last letters on line 30 of p. 70 are: 
. The last word must have been continued on the top of p.71: 
, “mysteries”; cf. also 45,20.
34 Allegorical interpretation of NT texts or themes is found at 29, 15–21 and 30,30–31,5.
35 Line 20 is missing. The Coptic text of lines 21–22 have been restored as follows:
. 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 ( 
) 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.
37 Cf. 45,20–21: 
(= πρωτοτυπουᵔν).
38 Cf.n.35.
39 The “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.
