Valentinian and Pseudo-Clementine Understanding of the Law of Moses

**Valentinian and Pseudo-Clementine Understanding of the Law of Moses**

The Law of Moses has been interpreted in various ways across early Christian and Gnostic traditions, with the Valentinian Ptolemy and the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies offering two distinctive perspectives. Both sources acknowledge the divine origin of the law, yet they emphasize its human mediation, its limitations, and the need for discernment to distinguish between true divine commands and human or corrupted additions. Comparing these two texts illuminates both convergences and differences in their understanding of Moses, the law, and divine authority.

In Ptolemy’s *Letter to Flora*, the law is described as a composite, originating from multiple sources. Ptolemy asserts that the Pentateuch contains laws from God, Moses, and the elders of Israel: **“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… and the third to the elders of the people, who seem to have ordained some commandments of their own at the beginning.”** This tripartite division emphasizes that the law is not a single, monolithic revelation but a mixture of divine commands and human accommodations, designed in part to address human weakness.

Ptolemy illustrates this distinction with the law of divorce, citing Jesus: **“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 separate”** (Matthew 19:8). Here, God’s law is ideal and perfect, forbidding divorce, while Moses’ law permits it due to human frailty. Ptolemy clarifies that Moses acted out of necessity, choosing a lesser evil to prevent greater injustice: **“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.”** The law thus contains both divine perfection and human compromise.

Similarly, the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies recognize the divine origin of the law but emphasize the corruption that occurs after Moses’ oral transmission. According to these texts, Moses delivered the law orally to seventy chosen men, yet later written versions incorporated falsehoods: **“For the Scriptures have had joined to them many falsehoods against God on this account. The prophet Moses having by the order of God delivered the law, with the explanations, to certain chosen men, some seventy in number… after a little the written law had added to it certain falsehoods contrary to the law of God, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things in them; the wicked one having dared to work this for some righteous purpose.”** The Pseudo-Clementine view stresses that the written law, unlike Moses’ original transmission, is susceptible to human error and even the influence of the wicked one, though these corruptions serve as a test of faith.

Peter in the Homilies underscores the distinction between the oral and written law: **“The law of God was given by Moses, without writing, to seventy wise men, to be handed down… But after that Moses was taken up, it was written by some one, but not by Moses… even this shows the foreknowledge of Moses, because he, foreseeing its disappearance, did not write it; but those who wrote it, being convicted of ignorance through their not foreseeing its disappearance, were not prophets.”** This perspective parallels Ptolemy’s distinction between God’s law and human legislation, though the emphasis is on textual corruption rather than moral accommodation.

Both traditions also highlight the need for discernment when engaging with the law. Ptolemy divides the divine portion of the law into three categories: pure legislation, legislation mixed with inferiority, and allegorical or symbolic laws. He notes that Jesus “completed” the pure law, destroyed the law interwoven with injustice, and transferred symbolic laws from literal observance to spiritual meaning. Similarly, the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies emphasize the mixture of truth and falsehood in Scripture: **“He… finding fault with the Sadducees, said, ‘Wherefore ye do err, not knowing the true things of the Scriptures; and on this account you are ignorant of the power of God.’ But if He cast up to them that they knew not the true things of the Scriptures, it is manifest that there are false things in them.”** In both cases, discernment is necessary to separate what is genuinely divine from what is corrupted or secondary.

Despite these similarities, there are important differences between the Valentinian and Pseudo-Clementine approaches. Ptolemy emphasizes the moral reasoning behind the law’s variations, showing that Moses and the elders legislated out of necessity for human weakness. The law is a practical adaptation to flawed humanity, yet still contains divine truth to be fulfilled by Jesus. In contrast, the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies focus more on textual integrity, asserting that the oral law is pure but the written law contains interpolations and spurious statements. While both traditions recognize that the law is not entirely perfect in its human form, the Valentinian view stresses ethical and spiritual adaptation, whereas the Pseudo-Clementine view emphasizes historical and textual corruption.

Both traditions also reaffirm the divine origin and ultimate authority of God’s law. Ptolemy insists that the law of God itself, particularly the Decalogue, is “pure but imperfect legislation and required the completion made by the Savior.” The Pseudo-Clementine Homilies similarly note that Jesus did not come to abolish the law: **“I am not come to destroy the law, and yet that He appeared to be destroying it, is the part of one intimating that the things which He destroyed did not belong to the law… one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law.”** Both sources thus maintain that the divine law retains its integrity, even as human misinterpretation or compromise obscures it.

In conclusion, the Valentinian and Pseudo-Clementine interpretations of the Law of Moses share the recognition of God’s authority and the imperfection of human transmission. Ptolemy emphasizes the moral reasoning and the tripartite nature of the law—divine, human, and traditional—while the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies highlight textual corruption and the oral-to-written transmission. Both traditions stress discernment, but the Valentinian approach is primarily ethical and spiritual, whereas the Pseudo-Clementine approach is primarily textual and historical. Together, they provide complementary insights into how early Christian and Gnostic traditions sought to reconcile divine law with human limitations and the challenges of textual fidelity.

**Valentinian and Clementine Understanding of the Law of Moses**

The Law of Moses has long been a subject of theological reflection, and both Valentinian and Clementine traditions offer distinctive insights regarding its origin, purpose, and interpretation. Ptolemy’s *Letter to Flora* provides the Valentinian understanding, while the *Pseudo-Clementine Homilies* give a Clementine perspective, showing remarkable parallels as well as differences in how the Law is viewed.

In Valentinian thought, the Law of Moses is often misunderstood, particularly concerning its author and the nature of its commandments. Ptolemy begins by noting, **“The Law was ordained through Moses, my dear sister Flora, has not been understood by many persons, who have accurate knowledge neither of him who ordained it nor of its commandments.”** Contradictory opinions abound: some assert that the Law comes from God the Father, while others claim it is the work of the Devil, who is thought to have fashioned the universe. Ptolemy refutes both extremes, stating, **“Both are completely in error; they refute each other and neither has reached the truth of the matter.”**

According to Ptolemy, the Law cannot be attributed to the perfect God because it is imperfect and in need of completion. Yet it also cannot be the work of the adversary, because the Law is opposed to injustice. As Jesus said, **“For a house or city divided against itself cannot stand”** (Matthew 12:25), and the apostle affirms, **“Everything was made through him and apart from him nothing was made”** (John 1:3). The Law, therefore, originates from an intermediate being, the demiurge, who is neither wholly good like the Father nor wholly evil like the Devil. Ptolemy explains, **“In fact, he is the demiurge and maker of this universe and everything in it; and because he is essentially different from these two and is between them, he is rightly given the name, intermediate.”**

Ptolemy emphasizes the **tripartite division of the Law**, derived from the words of the Savior. The Law contains commandments from three sources: God, Moses, and the elders of Israel. Moses, constrained by the weakness of the people, sometimes allowed a lesser evil to prevent greater injustice, as illustrated in the question of divorce: **“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 separate”** (Matthew 19:8). Similarly, the elders’ traditions sometimes nullified God’s law: **“…have declared as a gift to God, that by which you have nullified the Law of God through the tradition of your elders. …This people honours me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, teaching precepts which are the commandments of men”** (Matthew 15:4-9).

The divine portion of the Law itself is further subdivided into three parts: the pure commandments, which are completed by Christ; the legislation interwoven with injustice, such as **“an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”**, which was destroyed by Christ; and the allegorical or symbolic laws, which Christ transformed from literal observances to spiritual realities, including offerings, circumcision, Sabbath, fasting, and Passover. The apostle Paul also affirms this symbolic meaning: **“Christ our passover has been sacrificed, in order that you may be unleavened bread, not containing leaven… but may be a new lump”** (1 Corinthians 5:7).

The Clementine perspective similarly acknowledges the imperfection of the written law. The *Pseudo-Clementine Homilies* assert that Moses delivered the law orally to seventy chosen men and that falsehoods were later added: **“For the Scriptures have had joined to them many falsehoods against God on this account. The prophet Moses having by the order of God delivered the law, with the explanations, to certain chosen men, some seventy in number… after a little the written law had added to it certain falsehoods contrary to the law of God, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things in them; the wicked one having dared to work this for some righteous purpose.”** The purpose of these falsities, Peter explains, was to test the faith of the people: those who truly love God would reject the blasphemous additions even if they seemed true.

Peter also stresses that Moses did not write the law himself: **“The law of God was given by Moses, without writing, to seventy wise men, to be handed down, that the government might be carried on by succession. But after that Moses was taken up, it was written by some one, but not by Moses… even this shows the foreknowledge of Moses, because he, foreseeing its disappearance, did not write it; but those who wrote it, being convicted of ignorance through their not foreseeing its disappearance, were not prophets.”** Moreover, Jesus’ criticism of the Sadducees confirms the presence of falsehoods: **“Wherefore ye do err, not knowing the true things of the Scriptures; and on this account you are ignorant of the power of God.”**

Clementine teachings further reinforce that Jesus’ mission was not to destroy the law but to distinguish its true parts from the spurious. As the Homilies state, **“I am not come to destroy the law, and yet that He appeared to be destroying it, is the part of one intimating that the things which He destroyed did not belong to the law. And His saying, ‘The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law,’ intimated that the things which pass away before the heaven and the earth do not belong to the law in reality.”**

Both traditions, Valentinian and Clementine, emphasize the Law’s imperfection, the role of human or intermediary influence, and the necessity of Christ to complete, correct, or clarify the law. While Ptolemy identifies the demiurge as the intermediary author of the imperfect Law, the Homilies stress the human additions and the mixing of truth with falsehood in the written law. Both, however, affirm that God’s eternal law remains pure and that faithful understanding requires discernment and spiritual insight.

In conclusion, the Valentinian and Clementine perspectives converge in recognizing the Law of Moses as containing both divine truth and imperfect additions. The Valentinian view identifies the demiurge as the legislator of the imperfect law, while the Clementine tradition highlights the oral transmission and later human corruption. In both cases, the Savior’s mission and teaching serve to reveal, complete, and purify the Law, distinguishing what is truly divine from what is human or false.