The Letter of Ptolemy to Flora

[sophiaserpentia]

The Letter of Ptolemy to Flora, preserved word-for-word by Epiphanius in his tome Against Heresies, describes the Valentinian position regarding the Law of Moses. In the early church, this text was popular as an "introductory pamphlet" to Valentinian teaching; the positions given herein, and the supporting exegesis, are sophisticated and reasonable. In this examination I am going to use Layton's translation as offered in The Gnostic Scriptures.

The Law established by Moses, my dear sister Flora, has in the past been misunderstood by many people, for they were not closely acquainted with the one who established it or with its commandments. I think you will see this at once if you study their discordant opinions on this topic.

For some say that this law has been ordained by God the Father; while others, following the opposite course, stoutly contend that it has been established by the adversary, the pernicious devil; and so the latter school attributes the craftsmanship of the world to the devil, saying that he is "father and maker of the universe."

Ptolemy instead lays out a position that differs with both the mainstream Christian interpretation of the Law of Moses as coming from God, and with the "Sethian" Gnostic position that the Law of Moses was produced by the devil.

Now, it does not seem that the law was established by the perfect God and Father; for, it must be of the same character as its giver; and yet it is imperfect and needful of being fulfilled by another, and contains commandments incongruous with the nature and intentions of such a god. On the other hand, to attribute a law that abolishes injustice to the injustice of the adversary is the false logic of those who do not comprehend the principle of which the savior spoke.

To refute the idea that the devil crafted the world, Ptolemy points out that John wrote of Christ "all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made" (John 1:3).

After a short introduction to his topic Ptolemy writes,

Now, first you must learn that, as a whole, the law contained in the Pentateuch of Moses was not established by a single author, I mean not by God alone; rather, there are certain of its commandments that were established by human beings as well. Indeed, our savior's words teach us that the Pentateuch divides into three parts. For one division belongs to God himself and his legislations; while another division belongs to Moses -- indeed, Moses ordained certain of the commandments not as God himself ordained through him, rather based on his own thoughts about the matter; and yet a third division belongs to the elders of the people, who likewise in the beginning must have inserted certain of their own commandments.

This threefold division is characteristic of the Valentinian school's tendency to view the world in the light of three natures -- pneumatic, psychic, and sarkic. Ptolemy's position is that we can perceive this in the Law of Moses directly within the teachings of Jesus.

The first piece of evidence comes from Jesus' position on divorce as given in Matthew 19. Ptolemy quotes this and then writes,

Here [Jesus] shows that the law of God is one thing, forbidding a woman to be put asunder from her husband; while the law of Moses is another, permitting the couple to be put asunder because of hard-heartedness. And so, accordingly, Moses ordains contrary to what God ordains -- for separating is contrary to not separating.

Furthermore, Ptolemy draws from Matthew 15 to make a second part of his argument:

And the savior shows also that there are some traditions of the elders interwoven in the law. He says, "For God spoke: 'Honor your father and your mother, that it may be well with you.' But you have declared," the savior says, addressing the elders, "'What you would have gained from me is given to God.' And for the sake of your tradition, o ancients, you have made void the law of God." And Isaiah declared this by saying, "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."

The second part of Ptolemy's letter deals with three divisions in God's law itself: a part he calls "pure but imperfect," a part he calls "interwoven with injustice," and a part he calls "symbolic." Inherent in this argument is the Valentinian teaching that the Demiurge is a God concerned with justice, but is not as pure in his nature as the transcendent Father, and so his Law as given is not as perfect or just as the one that would come from the Father.

The decalogue (Ten Commandments) Ptolemy says was pure, but was imperfect as it required completion or perfection by the savior. [cf. for example Matthew 19:16-23, Matthew 22:34-40]

The lex talionis is what Ptolemy says is "interwoven with injustice."

The second, which is interwoven with injustice, is that which applies to the retaliation and repayment of those who have already committed a wrong, commanding us to pluck out an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and to retaliate for murder with murder. This part is interwoven with injustice, for the one who is second to act unjustly still acts unjustly, differing only in the relative order in which he acts, and committing the very same act. But otherwise, this commandment both was and is just, having been established as a deviation from the pure law because of the weakness of those to whom it was ordained; yet it is incongruous with the nature and goodness of the Father of the Entirety. Now perhaps this was apt; but even more, it was a result of necessity. For when one who does not wish even a single murder to occur -- by saying, "Thou shalt not kill" -- when, I say, he ordains a second law and commands the murderer to be murdered, acting as a judge between two murders, he who forbade even a single murder has without realizing it been cheated by necessity. For this reason, then, the son who was sent from him abolished this part of the law, though he admits that it too belonged to God...

It is necessary to keep in mind the Valentinian distinction between Demiurge and Father to grasp Ptolemy's argument. While the lex talionis is the rule created by a just God at war with Satan, it is not compatible with the perfect nature of the Father -- and so it must be abolished by Christ.

The third part is the ritual law, which Ptolemy says has become symbolic.

[T]he savior commanded us to offer offerings, but not dumb beasts or incense; rather, spiritual praises and glorifications and prayers of thanksgiving, and offerings in the form of sharing and good deeds. And he wishes us to perform circumcision, but not circumcision of the bodily foreskin, but rather of the spiritual heart; and to keep the Sabbath, for he wants us to be inactive in wicked acts; and to fast, though he does not wish us to perform physical fasts, rather spiritual ones, which consist of abstinence from all bad deeds.

Ptolemy summarizes that (1) the pure but imperfect law has been fulfilled, (2) the part interwoven with injustice has been abolished, and (3) the symbolic has been physically (but not spiritually) abolished.

While this represents a legalistic and exegetical argument, like all of the Valentinian literature there is an undertone of "deconstruction" which hints at even deeper levels of self-deconstruction. To understand the fullest meaning of the analysis given in this text, it must be applied to the text itself. If the Law of Moses is understood as an "instance" of divine justice, then every religious instruction must itself have the same limitations -- if there is any divine element at all in the teaching, it is covered over by human interpolation and human lack of understanding.

The Valentinians understood Yahweh to be the Lord of the Jews, but not, in probable accord with Deuteronomy 32, the supreme Father or Root of All. In this way we can analyze in Valentinian teaching a hint that the Lord is taken to be perhaps the collective "higher self" or "angel" of the nation of the Jews. Its wisdom is thus the lower wisdom of the human race, not the divine wisdom which can only be learned by gnosis (acquaintance with the Root of All).

Much of the Valentinian literature in this way contains implicit warnings (discernable only to initiates) against allowing Christianity to become yet another legalistic "Law of Moses" representing the work of another Lord, another "collective higher self" offering distilled human -- not divine -- wisdom. Many later Gnostics, in their criticisms of the church, implied that this is in fact what happened.

crossposting to my journal and crossposting to gnosticism and crossposting to cp_circle