Extract from Ptolemy's letter to Flora

[Paidion]

Now I realize that Ptolemy was a gnostic (I am not a gnostic in any sense). Yet, this part of Ptolemy's letter to Flora makes sense to me. What do you think?

First, you must learn that the entire Law contained in the Pentateuch of Moses was not ordained by one legislator - I mean, not by God alone, some commandments are Moses', and some were given by other men. The words of the Savior teach us this triple division. The first part must be attributed to God alone, and his legislation; the second to Moses - not in the sense that God legislates through him, but in the sense that Moses gave some legislation under the influence of his own ideas; and the third to the elders of the people, who seem to have ordained some commandments of their own at the beginning. You will now learn how the truth of this theory is proved by the words of the Savior.

In some discussion with those who dispute with the Savior about divorce, which was permitted in the Law, he said Because of your hard-heartedness Moses permitted a man to divorce his wife; from the beginning it was not so; for God made this marriage, and what the Lord joined together, man must not seperate. [Matt 19:8] In this way he shows there is a Law of God, which prohibits the divorce of a wife from a husband, and another law, that of Moses, which permits the breaking of this yoke because of hard-heartedness. In fact, Moses lays down legislation contrary to that of God; for joining is contrary to not joining.

But if we examine the intention of Moses in giving this legislation, it will be seen that he did not give it arbitrarily or of his own accord, but by the necessity because of the weakness of those for whom the legislation was given. Since they were unable to keep the intention of God, according to which it was not lawful for them to reject their wives, with whom some of them disliked to live, and therefore were in the danger of turning to greater injustice and thence to destruction, Moses wanted to remove the cause of dislike, which was placing them in jeopardy of destruction. Therefore because of the critical circumstances, choosing a lesser evil in place of a greater, he ordained, on his own accord, a second law, that of divorce, so that if they could not observe the first, they might keep this and not turn to unjust and evil actions, through which complete destruction would be the result for them. This was his intention when he gave legislation contrary to that of God. Therefore it is indisputeable that here the law of Moses is different from the Law of God, even if we have demonstrated the fact from only one example.

The Savior also makes plain the fact that there are some traditions of the elders interwoven in the Law. For God,he says, Said, Honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, But you , he says addressing the elders, ...have declared as a gift to God, that by which you have nullified the Law of God through the tradition of your elders. Isaiah also proclaimed this, saying, This people honours me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, teaching precepts which are the commandments of men. [Matt 15:4-9].

Therefore it is obvious that the whole Law is divided into three parts; we find in it the legislation of Moses, of the elders, and of God himself. This division of the entire Law, as made by us, has brought to light what is true in it.

This part, the Law of God himself, is in turn divided into three parts: the pure legislation not mixed with evil, which properly called Law, which the Savior came not to destroy but to complete [Matt 5:17] -- for what he completed was not alien to him but needed completion, for it did not possess perfection; next the legislation interwoven with the inferiority and injustice, which the Savior destroyed because it was alien to his nature; and finally, the legislation which is allegorical and symbolic, an image of what is spiritual and transcendent, which the Saviour transferred from the perceptible and phenomenal to the spiritual and invisible.

The Law of God, pure and not mixed with inferiority, is the Decalogue, those ten sayings engraved on two tables, forbidding things not to be done and enjoining things to be done. These contains pure but imperfect legislation and required the completion made by the Savior.

There is also the law interwoven with injustice, laid down for vengeance and the requital of previous injuries, ordaining that an eye should be cut out for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and that a murder should be avenged by a murderer. The person who is the second one to be unjust is no less unjust than the first; he simply changes the order of events while performing the same action. Admittedly, this commandment was a just one and still is just, because of the weakness of those for whom the legislation was made so thay would not transgress the pure law. But it is alien to the nature and goodness of the Father of all. No doubt it was appropiate to the circumstances, or even necessary; for he who does not want one murder comitted, saying, You shall not kill and then commanded a murder to be repaid by another murder, has given a second law which enjoins two murders although he had forbidden one. This fact proves that he was unsuspectingly the victim of necessity.

This is why, when his son came, he destroyed this part of the law while admitting that it came from God. He counts this part of the law as in the old religion, not only in other passages but also where he said, God said, He who curses father or mother shall surely die.

Finally, there is the allegorical (exemplary) part, ordained in the image of the spiritual and trascendent matters, I mean the part dealing with offerings and circumcision and the sabbath and fasting and Passover and unleavened bread and other similar matters.

Since all these things are images and symbols, when the truth was made manifest they were translated to another meaning. In their phenomenal appearance and their literal application they were destroyed, but in their spiritual meaning they were restored; the names remained the same but the content was changed. Thus the Savior commaned us to make offerings not of irrational animals or of the incense of this worldly sort, but of spiritual praise and glorification and thanksgiving and of sharing and well-doing with our neighbors. He wanted us to be circumcised, not in regard to our physical foreskin but in regard to our spiritual heart; to keep the Sabbath, for he wishes us to be idle in regard to evil works; to fast, not in physical fasting but in spiritual, in which there is abstinence from everything evil.

Among us external fasting is also observed, since it can be advantageous to the soul if it is done reasonably, not for imitating others or from habit or because of a special day appointed for this purpose. It is also observed so that those who are not yet able to keep the true fast may have a reminder of it from the external fast. Similarely, Paul the apostle shows that the Passover and the unleavened bread are images when he says, Christ our passover has been sacrificed, in order that you may be unleavened bread, not containing leaven (by leaven he here means evil), but may be a new lump. [1 Cor 5:7]

Thus the Law of God itself is obviously divided into three parts. The first was completed by the Savior, for the commandment, You shall not kill , You shall not commit adultery, you shall not swear falsely are included in the forbidding of anger, desire and swearing. The second part was entirely destroyed, for An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth interwoven in with injustice, was destroyed by the Savior through its opposite. Opposites cancel out, For I say to you, do not resist the evil man, but if anyone strikes you, turn the other cheek to him.

Finally, there is the part translated and changed from the literal to the spiritual, this symbolic legislation which is an image of transcendent things. For the images and symbols which represent other things were good as long as the Truth has not come; but since the Truth has come, we must perform the actions of the Truth, not those of the image.

The disciples of the Savior and the Apostle Paul showed that this theory is true, speaking of the part dealing with images, as we have already said, in mentioning The passover for us and the Unleavened bread; for the law interwoven with injustice when he says that the law of commandments in ordinances were destroyed [Eph 2:15]; and of that not mixed with anything inferior when he says that The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good [Rom 7:12]. I think I have shown you sufficiently, as well as one can in brief compass, the addition of human legislation in the Law and the triple division of the Law of God itself.

[kaufmannphillips]

The issue of the divorce legislation is a complex one. In the first place, the legislation in Deuteronomy 24 does not command or sanction divorce or remarriage. In the Hebrew text, it is a matter of case law: when a man divorces, etc. (= the case), then the man may not take her back (= the law).

So in Deuteronomy, Moses does not command or even explicitly permit divorce or remarriage; rather, Moses circumscribes behavior after divorces have transpired. This would not necessarily telegraph Moses' opinion on the legitimacy of divorce and/or remarriage.

Let us imagine the following scenario: Doug marries Sally; Sally is insufferable; Doug divorces Sally; Sally goes to live with her sister in Moab, and marries Larry out-of-country; Larry divorces Sally; Sally reflects on her life-choices and repents sincerely and specifically and sacrificially, returning to Israel.

Then what? Let us imagine - for the sake of argument - that Moses understands remarriage after divorce to be adultery. Shall Sally be put to death for adultery? But she has repented and obtained forgiveness. Some centuries later, David commits adultery and more-or-less murder; he repents, and is not put to death. So let us imagine - for the sake of argument - that Moses has this same sort of mindset. Now what?

Now Deuteronomy restricts her from remarrying Doug; doing so is (putatively) distasteful to God.

Bottom line: Deuteronomy does not necessarily indicate Moses' stance on divorce and/or remarriage; it only articulates a protocol for a particular case.

(( But for my money, Deuteronomy is spurious, and Matthew or/and Jesus are compromised for not being aware of that or for not indicating that. And Moses' opinion on divorce and/or remarriage is a matter of speculation. ))

Paidion quoted: "The Savior also makes plain the fact that there are some traditions of the elders interwoven in the Law. For God,he says, Said, Honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, But you , he says addressing the elders, ...have declared as a gift to God, that by which you have nullified the Law of God through the tradition of your elders. Isaiah also proclaimed this, saying, This people honours me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, teaching precepts which are the commandments of men. [Matt 15:4-9]."

Of course, the passage in Matthew may be addressing extrabiblical traditions, and not necessarily any element of the "Law contained in the Pentateuch of Moses."

Paidion quoted: "Finally, there is the part translated and changed from the literal to the spiritual, this symbolic legislation which is an image of transcendent things. For the images and symbols which represent other things were good as long as the Truth has not come; but since the Truth has come, we must perform the actions of the Truth, not those of the image."

The same sort of argument could be levelled at baptism and the Lord's Supper - images and symbols that represent transcendent things. If these later symbols remain profitable, why wouldn't the former symbols remain profitable?

[psimmond]

I think both of kaufmannphillips points are good.

Ptolemy wrote: The Law of God, pure and not mixed with inferiority, is the Decalogue...

The problem that I have with this qotation is the implication that laws other than the Decalogue are considered impure and inferior. There are many laws not found in the Decalogue that Moses seems to think are from God:

Lev_11:44 For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground.

Lev_18:6 "None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the LORD.

Lev_19:10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.

Lev_19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
(Remember what Jesus identified as the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.)

Lev_19:25 But in the fifth year you may eat of its fruit, to increase its yield for you: I am the LORD your God.

Lev_19:28 You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD.

Lev_19:31 "Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God.

Lev_19:32 "You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.

Lev_19:34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Lev_19:36 You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.

Lev_22:3 Say to them, 'If any one of all your offspring throughout your generations approaches the holy things that the people of Israel dedicate to the LORD, while he has an uncleanness, that person shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD.

Lev_22:8 He shall not eat what dies of itself or is torn by beasts, and so make himself unclean by it: I am the LORD.'

Lev_23:22 "And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God."

[jriccitelli]

I do not see anything in this article that notes that the Jews had a strong Oral Tradition of laws they ‘assumed’ were given by Moses at Sinai. This is what Jesus refereed to as the teachings of men (including the Rabbinic traditions of the time). This is what the Jews later put down in writing as the Talmud and Mishna even though their own tradition told them ‘not’ to write them down.
This Oral law became almost on par with the Torah, not to mention the Pharisees and Sadducees own interpretations.

[kaufmannphillips]

jriccitelli wrote:
I do not see anything in this article that notes that the Jews had a strong Oral Tradition of laws they ‘assumed’ were given by Moses at Sinai. This is what Jesus refereed to as the teachings of men (including the Rabbinic traditions of the time). This is what the Jews later put down in writing as the Talmud and Mishna even though their own tradition told them ‘not’ to write them down.
This Oral law became almost on par with the Torah, not to mention the Pharisees and Sadducees own interpretations.

As in other cases where people speak of "the Jews," it might not be appropriate to speak so broadly, as if Jews formed a cohesive block on this issue. In the first century, there were differences of thought between Jewish sects, and most Jews might not have belonged to any particular sect.

The Mishnah and the talmuds date from long after the time of Jesus - and quite importantly, they date from long after the destruction of the temple. There was a passing of epochs: late Second Temple Judaism faded; and Rabbinic Judaism ascended and developed under the leadership of new generations. So the extent to which the Mishnah and the talmuds correspond to first-century traditions is unclear; and very often it is not certain which traditions might have had broad influence or might have had relatively narrow acceptance. But for what it is worth, rabbinic literature articulates many differing opinions, including disagreements between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel.

We can say that there were "teachings of men" in the first century, that did not always agree; and we can imagine that some persons were very attached to certain teachings, just like some persons are very attached to the teachings of certain men (and women) today.

[jriccitelli]

Hi Mr. K, I wrote the ‘Oral traditions’ were 'later' written down. There is as much debate within Judaism as there is in Christianity but some ‘general Orthodox’ now and then have held a tradition that Oral tradition does go as far back as Moses, which ones I don’t think anyone knows, but ‘some’ Orthodoxy does hold to an insistence that there was an oral law and or ‘the teachings of scribes’ that interpreted and expounded (added) on the Mosaic Law. This would have to be obvious, as Christianity has the same notions of traditions also. This also includes the ‘various’ opinions of the various and varied groups and Rabbis before and during Jesus’ time. We have evidence at least from the Qumran sect and Dead Sea scrolls of such various written teachings. I use the term Jews, as that is what the Gospels use as a term, wide and diverse as this is. I do not mean anything other that by the term.

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi, J -

jriccitelli wrote:
...I wrote the ‘Oral traditions’ were 'later' written down.

The Mishnah and the talmuds did not write down "the 'Oral traditions' {emphasis added}." At best, they wrote down some traditions from the time of Jesus. But most mishnaic and talmudic material is attributed to rabbis who lived long after Jesus; the materials that are attributed to earlier generations often cannot be verified; and in any case, the Mishnah and the talmuds include only select traditions. They include limited discussion of Sadduceean teachings, for instance.

jriccitelli wrote:
There is as much debate within Judaism as there is in Christianity but some ‘general Orthodox’ now and then have held a tradition that Oral tradition does go as far back as Moses, which ones I don’t think anyone knows, but ‘some’ Orthodoxy does hold to an insistence that there was an oral law and or ‘the teachings of scribes’ that interpreted and expounded (added) on the Mosaic Law.

One can no more take Orthodox Jewish notions to be representative of actual conditions in Jesus' time, than one can take Orthodox Christian notions to be representative of actual conditions in the first-century church. These groups have ancient roots, and some very old perspectives. But they also have accumulated ideas over the course of centuries; not all trace back to earliest times. Their various notions must be weighed critically.

The most classic text for the view you have described may be Pirqei Avot, which dates perhaps ~250 CE, generations after the time of Jesus. And the picture it paints almost certainly would have been objected to by different groups and individuals from Jesus' time, who stand absent from its catena of authorities.

jriccitelli wrote:
This also includes the ‘various’ opinions of the various and varied groups and Rabbis before and during Jesus’ time. We have evidence at least from the Qumran sect and Dead Sea scrolls of such various written teachings.

The special materials of the Qumranic sect are not rabbinic; if we had only the Mishnah and the talmuds, we would know little or nothing of the Qumranic sect, and Orthodox Jews in the present day do not treat Qumranic writings as part of their body of tradition.

Judaism in Jesus' time should not be spoken of as monolithic, with a singular body of oral tradition, but rather as diverse, with multiple competing lines of teaching and tradition. When Jesus complains about "holding on to the tradition of men," we have no idea of how many persons would or would not have held to the particular teaching/tradition being referred to. For all we know, folks who followed a different school of thought two towns over might have frowned on the teaching, too.

jriccitelli wrote:
I use the term Jews, as that is what the Gospels use as a term, wide and diverse as this is. I do not mean anything other that by the term.

If the Gospels are careless about their diction or the portraits they paint, this is no excuse for us to be careless. Too many people derive their notions of "the Jews" from Christian tradition, with little or no account for the broader field of evidence.

[jriccitelli]

My point was that 'some' Rabbis felt they were, and or, are still handing down the traditions of past scribes, all the way back to Moses (Sometimes referred to as The ‘second’ Torah). It seems some Jewish people I know agreed this is true, why you don't I do not know.
My main point was that there is evidence and logic outside, and evidence inside the Gospels to the existence of apocryphal, commentary and laws that were ‘not’ given by Moses. Possibly every culture had oral traditions and laws, from the Greeks to the Mayans. How can anyone deny there was? Jesus (whether you believe Him or not) commented on them, as noted in Paidion’s quote from Ptolemy;

The Savior also makes plain the fact that there are some traditions of the elders interwoven in the Law. For God, he says, Said, Honor your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, But you , he says addressing the elders, ...have declared as a gift to God, that by which you have nullified the Law of God through the tradition of your elders… [Matt 15:4-9]

See also Mark 7, Mark adds more, including; 'invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down’. Notice that one is the tradition, and the other is the word of God. Yet, It is 'not' as (possibly) a quote by Ptolemy ‘woven in’, for God says His words are pure. We are to be aware of the leaven of the Pharisees, that is they added to Gods words, but not the WRITTEN word of God. It was the 'teachings' of the Pharisees to be on the lookout for;
‘Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees’ (Matt.16:12)

I did not want to get into the thread on divorce and such, but as far as the Law goes, sin is still sin but Moses expressed the grace of God – to the woman, especially – I feel in Duet.24. The divorce I see was a means of escape, or protection for the fairer sex, although the Pharisees think they are ‘putting her away’ as if she was guilty of something, I see the men as ‘still accountable’ to God for this sin, but the women allowed freedom from the man, a beautiful depiction of grace (something given to the weak by the strong).

I do not know why exactly why you feel the word Jew is careless, believe me I do not want to appear such.
I do not mind being called an Indian (I am part Mohawk), although that was a mistake on Columbus’ part.
I don’t mind being called an American, or a Californian, I call myself Italian also, but I have never been to Italy or speak the language!

[kaufmannphillips]

jriccitelli wrote:
My point was that 'some' Rabbis felt they were, and or, are still handing down the traditions of past scribes, all the way back to Moses (Sometimes referred to as The ‘second’ Torah). It seems some Jewish people I know agreed this is true, why you don't I do not know.

The problem is that we lack evidence to substantiate this. There is a methodological maxim, advanced by one of the most prominent Jewish scholars of our time: "What we cannot show, we do not know." This is a natural premise for careful and conservative scholarship. Without substantive evidence, there is only speculation.

So - if we do not have evidence from the time of Jesus, showing that "'some' Rabbis felt they were ... handing down the traditions of past scribes, all the way back to Moses," then we do not know if that sort of notion flourished or even existed at the time of Jesus.


We do have a statement by Titus Flavius Josephus, who was not precisely contemporary with Jesus, but was alive during the late Second Temple period. Josephus is not an entirely trustworthy source; his every remark cannot be taken at face value. That being said, he states that the Pharisees pass down traditions from "fathers," but he neither mentions Moses nor how far back these "fathers" supposedly go {Antiquities 13.10}. And in contrast, he articulates the Sadducee position: to regard the written laws, but not to hold to the Pharisees' traditions {Antiquities 13.10}.


As for your citations from the gospels, I will address them below.

jriccitelli wrote:
My main point was that there is evidence and logic outside, and evidence inside the Gospels to the existence of apocryphal, commentary and laws that were ‘not’ given by Moses. Possibly every culture had oral traditions and laws, from the Greeks to the Mayans. How can anyone deny there was?

I do not deny that there were persons or groups in Second Temple Judaism who had some manner of regard for some sorts of extrabiblical material, whether it be apocrypha/pseudepigrapha, commentary, and/or regulations. Some extrabiblical materials existed in written form; some did not.

But not all persons or groups held the same regard for the same materials, and some persons or groups might not have adhered to any major stream of extrabiblical tradition. Many common folk might have engaged these matters like common folk do in our time: taking hold of some notions, here and there; and disregarding others.

jriccitelli wrote:
Jesus (whether you believe Him or not) commented on them, as noted in Paidion’s quote from Ptolemy;

The Savior also makes plain the fact that there are some traditions of the elders interwoven in the Law. For God, he says, Said, Honor your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, But you , he says addressing the elders, ...have declared as a gift to God, that by which you have nullified the Law of God through the tradition of your elders… [Matt 15:4-9]

See also Mark 7, Mark adds more, including; 'invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down’. Notice that one is the tradition, and the other is the word of God. Yet, It is 'not' as (possibly) a quote by Ptolemy ‘woven in’, for God says His words are pure. We are to be aware of the leaven of the Pharisees, that is they added to Gods words, but not the WRITTEN word of God. It was the 'teachings' of the Pharisees to be on the lookout for;
‘Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees’ (Matt.16:12)

First of all - in Mark 7 and Matthew 15, Jesus is addressing a group of Pharisees and scribes. But not all Jews were Pharisees or scribes; it is very likely that most Jews were neither.


Second - Mark 7 asserts that the Pharisees and "all the Jews" wash their hands a certain way, holding to the tradition of the elders.

A few points, here:

(a) It is not Jesus who makes this remark, but a commentator.

(b) It is very rare for a synoptic source to speak of "the Jews" collectively in this way, in terms of activity; so it is possible that verses 3 & 4 are a parenthetical interpolation to the text.

(c) It seems questionable, that "all the Jews" actually would wash their hands like this all the time, as the text portrays. If nothing else, we may expect that there were Jews who were less pious; and we may imagine that some of the laboring class would often enough grow hungry in circumstances where they could not perform this washing ritual.


And in Matthew 16, we have "the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

A few points here:

(a) Once again, it is not Jesus who makes this remark, but a commentator.

(b) Grammatically, this seems to lump the teaching of two groups together. But in the New Testament, and in Josephus, and in rabbinic literature, these two groups disagree. So unless the commentator is careless or ignorant or poorly-scrupled, he is not meaning to suggest that the two groups have a singular body of teaching.

jriccitelli wrote:
I do not know why exactly why you feel the word Jew is careless, believe me I do not want to appear such.
I do not mind being called an Indian (I am part Mohawk), although that was a mistake on Columbus’ part.
I don’t mind being called an American, or a Californian, I call myself Italian also, but I have never been to Italy or speak the language!

I object not to the word "Jew" per se, but to careless use of diction when speaking of Jews generally or collectively. When one says "the Jews did such-and-such" or "Jews are like thus-and-so," then the number of Jews who would not fit that description should be negligible (to a fair extent, if not an absolute extent).

In parallel: you may have heard, at some point, that "the Koreans eat dogs." In point of fact, some Koreans do eat dog meat. But the majority of South Koreans have never eaten dog meat, and only a small fraction eat it on a regular basis. So it would be careless (or worse) to say "the Koreans eat dogs"; at most, one might say "some Koreans eat dog meat" - and even then, given the social impact of the statement, it might behoove one to clarify that most Koreans do not.

And, of course, there is a long history of carelessness (or worse) about discussing "the Jews." One egregious example: it often has been stated that "the Jews" killed Jesus. But a few moments of reflection will show that this does not hold water. Even if one takes the gospel narratives at face value, it is unlikely that more than a few hundred Jewish individuals could have been involved in the process between Gethsemane and Golgotha. But at the time, there were perhaps a million or more Jews who were not involved in the process. So how would it be appropriate to say "the Jews" killed Jesus? Rather, at most, some Jews - a very small minority - were involved in the execution of Jesus.

In the case of our discussion above, the charge is not deicide, but for bibliocentric Christians it still is a matter of polemic: rather than strictly adhering to the bible, "the Jews" followed "an Oral Tradition." We may raise, of course, the question of whether any long-lasting religious community (even a bibliocentric one) is likely to avoid influence from traditions. But evidence does not show that the majority of Jews, with fairly negligible exception, followed a singular body of oral tradition.

[dwilkins]

I'm not surprised that this post started with the admission that it came from a gnostic. It is essentially the gnostic demiurge argument, which says that the good God is reflected through Christ, but the mean sub-god is the one of the Old Testament. In this case, he's trying to claim that Moses is a false prophet for inserting false teachings into scripture (some moderns may not think Moses wrote it, but certainly Ptolemy did) thereby making the real God into the Old Testament meanie sub-god. The former Jews, who founded Gnosticism in ~115AD, couldn't come to grips with the fact that God had rejected them so they were forced down this path. But, instead of being hemmed in by Greek philosophical assumptions about deity, I'd suggest simply letting the Old Testament speak for itself. God gets mad when people rebel. He is happy when they obey. He is not an unblinking singularity in space.

Doug