Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora

One of the most famous Christian Gnostics of the second century was Ptolemy, a renowned teacher who lived and taught in Rome. From Ptolemy’s own hand comes one of the clearest expositions of Gnostic ideas, in a letter addressed to a woman named Flora, a non-Gnostic Christian whom Ptolemy is concerned to educate into the higher realms of knowledge. The letter is just the beginning of Ptolemy’s instruction, but it concerns a central component of his Gnostic views, his understanding of the Bible.1 Regrettably, his subsequent lessons have been lost. The proper interpretation of the Bible, Ptolemy avers, depends on understanding the nature of its divine inspiration. Those who maintain that it was authored by the Perfect God and Father (e.g., the “proto-orthodox” Christians) err, because a perfect being could not inspire laws that are imperfect. Yet those who claim that it was written by God’s adversary, the Devil (e.g., other groups of Gnostics?) also err, because an evil deity could not inspire laws that are just. Instead, there is a god intermediate between these two, the just but imperfect and harsh god who created the world; it was he who inspired parts of the Bible. Other parts, however, derive from Moses himself, and yet others from the elders around him. Those that are from the intermediate god can themselves be divided into three parts, those that Jesus fulﬁlled (e.g., the Ten Commandments), those that he abolished (e.g., “an eye for an eye”), and those that he has symbolically transformed (e.g., ceremonial laws). Ptolemy explicitly bases his views on the teachings of Paul and, especially, Jesus himself. This letter has not been transmitted independently and was not present among the Nag Hammadi writings, but can be found only in quotations in the writings of the fourth-century heresy hunter Epiphanius (Book 33 of The Medicine Chest).

See further, Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 129–31.

Translation by Bentley Layton, Gnostic Scriptures: Ancient Wisdom for the New Age (New York: Doubleday, 1987) 308–15; used with permission.

201

202

NON-CANONICAL EPISTLES AND RELATED WRITINGS

blind not only in the eye of the soul but even in the eyes of the body. 7 Now, from what has been said it should be clear to you (sing.) that these (schools of thought) utterly miss the truth, though each does so in its own particular way: one (school) by not being acquainted with the god of righteousness, the other by not being acquainted with the father of the entirety, who was manifested by him alone who came and who alone knew him. 8 It remains for us, who have been deemed worthy of ⬍acquaintance⬎ with both, to show you (sing.) exactly what sort of law the law is, and which legislator established it. We shall offer proofs of what we say by drawing from our savior’s words, by which alone it is possible to reach a certain apprehension of the reality of the matter without stumbling.

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. 2 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 “the father and maker of the universe.”2 3 ⬍But⬎ they are ⬍utterly⬎ in error, they disagree with one another, and each of the schools utterly misses the truth of the matter. 4 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. 5 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. For our savior declared that a house or city divided against itself will not be able to stand. 6 And, further, the apostle states that the craftsmanship of the world is his, and that “all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made,”3 thus anticipating these liars’ ﬂimsy wisdom. And the craftsmanship is that of a god who is just and hates evil, not a pernicious one as believed by these thoughtless people, who take no account of the craftsman’s forethought and so are

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. 2 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 upon 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.

Plato Tim 28e.

John 1:3.

PTOLEMY’S LETTER TO FLORA

3 You will now learn how all this can be demonstrated from the savior’s words. 4 When the savior was talking with those who were arguing with him about divorce—and it has been ordained (in the law) that divorce is permitted—he said to them: “For your (pl.) hardness of heart Moses allowed divorce of one’s wife. Now, from the beginning it was not so.”4 For god, he says, has joined together this union, and “what the lord has joined together, let no man put asunder.”5 5 Here he 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. 6 And so, accordingly, Moses ordains contrary to what god ordains; for ⬍separating⬎ is contrary to not separating. Yet if we also scrutinize Moses’ intentions with which he ordained his commandment, we ﬁnd that he created the commandment not of his own inclination but of necessity because of the weakness of those to whom it was ordained. 7 For the latter were not able to put into practice god’s intentions, in the matter of their not being permitted to divorce their wives. Some of them were on very bad terms with their wives, and ran the risk of being further diverted into injustice and from there into their destruction. 8 Moses, wishing to excise this unpleasant element through which they also ran the risk of being destroyed, ordained for them of his own accord a second law, the law of divorce, choosing under the circumstances the lesser of two evils, as it were, 9 so that if they were unable to keep the former (that is, god’s law) they could keep at least the latter and so not be diverted into injustice and evil, through which utter destruction would follow in consequence.

203

10 These are Moses’ intentions, with which we ﬁnd him ordaining laws contrary to those of god. At any rate, even if we have for the moment used only one example in our proof, it is beyond doubt that, as we have shown, this law is of Moses himself and is distinct from god’s. 11 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.’ 12 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.”6 13 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.”7 4 Thus it has been clearly shown from these passages that, as a whole, the law is divided into three parts. For we have found in it legislations belonging to Moses himself, to the elders, and to god himself. Moreover, the analysis of the law as a whole, as we have divided it here, has made clear which part of it is genuine.

Now, what is more, the one part that is the law of god himself divides into three subdivisions. The ﬁrst subdivision is the pure legislation not interwoven with evil, which alone is properly called law, and which the savior did not come to abolish but to fulﬁll. For what he fulﬁlled was not alien to him, ⬍but stood in need of fulﬁllment⬎: for it did not have perfection.

Matt 19:8. Matt 15:8.

Matt 19:6.

Matt 15:4–5.

Isa 29:3;

204

NON-CANONICAL EPISTLES AND RELATED WRITINGS

And the second subdivision is the part interwoven with the inferior and with injustice, which the savior abolished as being incongruous with his own nature. 2 Finally, the third subdivision is the symbolic and allegorical part, which is after the image of the superior, spiritual realm: the savior changed (the referent of) this part from the perceptible, visible level to the spiritual, invisible one. 3 The ﬁrst, the law of god that is pure and not interwoven with the inferior, is the decalogue of Ten Commandments inscribed on two stone tablets; they divide into the prohibition of things that must be avoided and the commanding of things that must be done. Although they contain pure legislation they do not have perfection, and so they were in need of fulﬁllment by the savior. 4 The second, which is interwoven with injustice, is that which applies to 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.8 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. 5 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. 6 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, “You shall not kill”—when, I say, he ordains a second law and commands the murderer to be murdered,9 acting as judge between two murders, he who forbade even a sin-

gle murder10 has without realizing it been cheated by necessity. 7 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: this part is reckoned as belonging to the old school of thought, both where he says, “For god spoke: ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’ ”11 and elsewhere. 8 And the third subdivision of god’s law is the symbolic part, which is after the image of the superior, spiritual realm: I mean, what is ordained about offerings, circumcision, the Sabbath, fasting, Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the like. 9 Now, once the truth had been manifested, the referent of all these ordinances was changed, inasmuch as they are images and allegories. As to their meaning in the visible realm and their physical accomplishment they were abolished; but as to their spiritual meaning they were elevated, with the words remaining the same but the subject matter being altered. 10 For the 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. 11 And he wishes us to perform circumcision, but not circumcision of the bodily foreskin, rather of the spiritual heart; 12 and to keep the Sabbath, for he wants us to be inactive in wicked acts; 13 and to fast, though he does not wish us to perform physical fasts, rather spiritual ones, which consist of abstinence from all bad deeds. Nevertheless, fasting as to the visible

Lev 24:17, 20. Matt 15:4.

Exod 20:13.

Exod 21:12.

PTOLEMY’S LETTER TO FLORA

205

realm is observed by our adherents, since fasting, if practiced with reason, can contribute something to the soul, so long as it does not take place in imitation of other people or by habit or because fasting has been prescribed ⬍for⬎ a particular day. 14 Likewise, it is observed in memory of true fasting, so that those who are not yet able to observe true fasting might have a remembrance of it from fasting according to the visible realm. 15 Likewise, the apostle Paul makes it clear that Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were images, for he says that “Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacriﬁced”12 and, he says, be without leaven, having no share in leaven—now, by “leaven” he means evil—but rather “be fresh dough.”

5 Now, the images and allegories are indicative of other matters, and they were well and good while truth was not present. But now that truth is present, one must do the works of truth and not those of its imagery. 6 His disciples made these teachings known, and so did the apostle Paul: he makes known to us the part consisting of images, through the passage on the paschal lamb and the unleavened bread, which we have already spoken of. The part consisting of a law interwoven with injustice, he made known by speaking of “abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances”;16 and the part not interwoven with the inferior, when he says, “The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.”17

And so it can be granted that the actual law of god is subdivided into three parts. The ﬁrst subdivision is the part that was fulﬁlled by the savior: for “you shall not kill,” “you shall not commit adultery,” “you shall not swear falsely” are subsumed under not being angry, not looking lustfully at another, and not swearing at all.13 2 The second subdivision is the part that was completely abolished. For the commandment of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,”14 which is interwoven with injustice and itself involves an act of injustice, was abolished by the savior with injunctions to the contrary, 3 and of two contraries one must “abolish” the other: “For I say to you (pl.), Do not in any way resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you (sing.), turn to him the other cheek also.”15 4 And the third subdivision is the part whose referent was changed and which was altered from the physical to the spiritual—the allegorical part, which is ordained after the image of the superior realm.

Thus I think I have shown you, as well as possible in a brief treatment, both that there is human legislation which has been slipped into the law and that the law of god himself divides into three subdivisions. 2 Now it remains for us to say what sort of being this god is, who established the law. But this too I believe I have demonstrated to you (sing.) in what I have already said, providing you have followed carefully. 3 For since this division of the law (that is, god’s own law) was established neither by the perfect god, as we have taught, nor surely by the devil—which it would be wrong to say—then the establisher of this division of the law is distinct from them. 4 And he is the craftsman and maker of the universe or world and of the things within it. Since he is different from the essences of the other two ⬍and⬎ (rather)

Cor 5:7. 13Matt 5:21, 27, 33. 14Lev 24:20. Matt 5:39. 16Eph 2:15. 17Rom 7:12.

206

NON-CANONICAL EPISTLES AND RELATED WRITINGS

is in a state intermediate between them, he would rightfully be described by the term intermediateness. 5 And if the perfect god is good according to his nature—as indeed he is, for our savior showed that “one only is there who is good,”18 namely his father whom he manifested—and if furthermore the law belonging to the nature of the adversary is both evil and wicked and is stamped in the mold of injustice, then a being that is in a state intermediate between these and is neither good, nor evil or unjust, might well be properly called just, being a judge of the justice that is his. 6 And on the one hand this god must be inferior to the perfect god and less than his righteousness precisely because he is engendered and not unengendered— for “there is one unengendered father, from whom are all things,”19 or more exactly, from whom all things depend; and on the other hand, he must have come into being as better and more authoritative than the adversary; and must be born of an essence and nature distinct from the essences of the other two. 7 For the essence of the adversary is both corruption and darkness, for the adversary is material and divided into many parts; while the essence of the unengendered father of the entirety is both incorruptibility and self-existent light, being simple and unique. And the essence of

this intermediate produced a twofold capacity, for he is an image of the better god. 8 And now, given that the good by nature engenders and produces the things that are similar to itself and of the same essence, do not be bewildered as to how these natures—that of corruption and ⬍that⬎ of intermediateness—which have come to be different in essence, arose from a single ﬁrst principle of the entirety, a principle that exists and is confessed and believed in by us, and which is unengendered and incorruptible and good. 9 For, god permitting, you will next learn about both the ﬁrst principle and the generation of these two other gods, if you are deemed worthy of the apostolic tradition, which even we have received by succession; and along with this you will learn how to test all the propositions by means of our savior’s teaching. 10 I have not failed, my sister Flora, to state these matters to you brieﬂy. And what I have just written is a concise account, though I have treated the subject adequately. In the future these teachings will be of the greatest help to you—at least if, like good rich soil that has received fertile seeds, you bear fruit.

Matt 19:17.

1 Cor 8:6.