THE LAW IN AND PTOLEMY: A NOTE ON THE LETTER TO FLORA

BY

FRANCIS T. FALLON

In his commentary on Ptolemy's Letter to Flora, G. Quispel has noted that in formulating his position on the Law Ptolemy draws upon catholic tradition, adapts it to his own hermeneutical scheme, and uses it against the position of the Marcionites.1 He further correctly points to the Jewish background and suggests that Ptolemy has utilized Jewish-Christian con- ceptions in presenting his distinctions with regard to the Law.2 In this article I should like to call attention to some passages in Philo, which have not been noted by Quispel or previous commentators and which show that distinctions not only with regard to various levels of meaning in the Law but also with regard to different origins for different passages in the Law were familiar in the Hellenized Judaism of the Diaspora prior to the time of Ptolemy. Indeed, these passages in Philo seem to provide us with an insight into important antecedents for Ptolemy's attitude to the Law. A consideration of these passages also reminds us once again of the contribution to on the part of Hellenized Judaism (whether in Palestine or in the Diaspora),3 a lesson which the Nag Hammadi documents are increasingly instilling within us. Before we consider Philo, it may be helpful to recall the distinctions which Ptolemy introduces into the Law. At the start, we should note that Ptolemy does not discuss creation but advises Flora that this topic is

1 G. Quispel, ed., Ptolémée: Lettre à Flora, SC 24 (Paris, Les Editions du Cerf, 1949; 2nd ed. 1966) 9 and 23. 2 Quispel writes: "Nous supposons donc que Ptolémée a connu, directement ou indirectement, les conceptionsdes cerclesjudéo-chrétiens sur l'Ancient Testament, que nous avons citées plus haut. Ce résultat ne laisse pas de surprendre: la conception des péricopes faussées, loin d'être l'invention fantasque et éphémère de quelque gnostique, remonte jusqu'aux milieux juifs qui ont vu naitre le christianisme" (Ptolémée, 23). 3 See, for example, R. McL. Wilson, The Gnostic Problem (London, Mowbray, 1958) and K. Rudolph, Randerscheinungen des Judentums und das Problem der Entstehung des Gnostizismus, Kairos 9 (1967) 105-122. 46 reserved for a later time when she is "counted worthy of the apostolic succession" (Epiph. Pan.33,7,8-9).4 In this preliminary instruction Pto- lemy distinguishes within the Law contained in the Pentateuch a first category which is the law of . He further distinguishes within the law of God three different sub-categories of legislation: (a) the pure law, that is, the , which contain both command (prostaxis) and prohibition (apagoreusis; 5,3)5 and which come from the Fashioner and Maker of the world (7,4) but which need to be perfected (5,1); (b) the law which is typical (typikos) and symbolic (symbolikos) and enacted according to the image of the pneumatic and superior (5,2); (c) the law which is bound up with evil and has been abolished by the savior (5,1). In his own words Ptolemy expresses it as follows: "That one part, the law of God himself, is in turn divided into three parts: the pure legislation which is not mixed with evil, which is therefore properly called 'law', which the Saviour came not to destroy but to fulfil for that which he fulfilled was not alien to him, (but required fulfilment), for it was not perfect; next, the law which is intertwined with baseness and injustice, which the Saviour destroyed because it was not consonant with his nature. The third division is that (law) which is exemplary and symbolic, that which is ordained according to the image of the spiritual and transcendent (things). This the Saviour changed from being perceptible (to the senses) and phenomenal into the spiritual and invisible. Now the law of God which is pure and unmixed with evil is the Decalogue, those ten sayings engraved on the two tablets for the forbidding of those things which one must avoid and for the enjoining of things which we must do" (5,1 -3).6

Further, Ptolemy distinguishes within the Law contained in the Penta- teuch a second category, i.e. legislation derived from . Ptolemy

4 Ed. Quispel, Ptolémée,66-69. Subsequent references to Ptolemy's letter to Flora are from Epiph. Pan. chapter 33, in Quispel's edition. Thus only the section and paragraph numbers will be given. However, when the English translation is provided, the translation will be taken from W. Foerster, : A Selection of , Vol.1: Patristic Evidence(trans. R. McL. Wilson; Oxford, Clarendon, 1972) 154-161. 5 See also 3,1; 4,1; and 5,6. 6 Foerster, Gnosis, Vol.1,157-158. The text is provided in the edition of Quispel, Ptolémée, 56: