Gnos Article p1 - 1

Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 6 (2021) 1–30
brill.com/gnos
From Ignorant to Inspired: Moses in Gnostic

Literature
Jared C. Calaway
Illinois College
jared.calaway@ic.edu
Abstract
One expects that ancient Gnostic sources would be hostile towards Moses as the igno-
rant prophet of the deficient demiurge. While some ancient Gnostic sources uphold
this perspective, others indicate greater ambivalence, as they both rely upon and resist
Moses’s authority. Other sources cite Moses positively and present him as a prophet
of true, spiritual realities, even to the point of portraying Moses as a proto-Gnostic.
This variety of attitudes, moreover, follows exegetical patterns stemming from New
Testament writings, especially Matthew, and social patterns, providing an index to how
Gnostics viewed themselves vis-à-vis other Christians and other Christian Gnostics.
Keywords
Moses – demiurge – proto-Gnostic – Gnostic prophet – heresiology
1 Introduction
When speaking “Against the Gnostics” in his Panarion, Epiphanius writes,

“They blaspheme not only Abraham, Moses, Elijah, and the whole choir of
prophets, but the god who chose them as well.”1 While Moses’s popularity
waxed among Jews, Christians, and others in the Hellenistic and Roman peri-
ods, certain forms of Christianity, typically called Gnostic, allegedly devalued
Moses to the point of blasphemy. The quotation from Epiphanius encapsu-
lates what one would expect: that Gnostics would be hostile toward Moses as
1 Pan. 26.11.12 (Williams 2009).
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/2451859X-12340100

Downloaded from Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
2 Calaway
the prophet of the demiurge. Such a claim made by ancient heresiologists and
occasionally echoed by modern scholarship, however, only accounts for a por-
tion of the surviving evidence.2
By contrast, Gnostic sources and even heresiologists’ reports say varied
things about Moses and his prophetic status, though, as discussed in the con-
clusion, these varied things follow social and exegetical patterns. While there
are denunciations, sometimes harsh, of Moses and other prophets, other
sources indicate greater ambivalence, simultaneously relying upon and resist-
ing Moses’s authority. Moreover, there are, contrary to one’s presuppositions,
outright positive reminiscences of him, citing him as an authoritative source,
and presenting him as a revealer of true spiritual realities. These sources still
sometimes represent Moses and the prophets as the mouthpiece of the demi-
urge, but Moses and the prophets nonetheless had received insight of super-
demiurgical origin. Furthermore, other sources, predominantly Valentinian,
even indicate that Moses and other prophets participated in spiritual realities
themselves as spiritual beings; in other words, they were Gnostics or proto-
Gnostics.3 Indeed, there is no single “Gnostic Moses.”
2 The Demiurge’s Mouthpiece: Moses as Disseminator of Ignorance
Firstly, corroborating general assumptions of the “Gnostic Moses,” some

Gnostics – among sources generally attributed to Sethians – claimed that
Moses was merely the ignorant mouthpiece of the demiurge. The majority of
this evidence largely aligns with the heresiological material, which regularly
paint Gnostic Christians in exaggeratedly negative terms.
According to Irenaeus, “other” Gnostics place different prophets under the
power of seven different “deities” that include Ialdabaoth and the six powers
below him. Ialdabaoth, the demiurge himself, has Moses along with Joshua,
Amos, and Habukkuk, as his prophets.4 Moses is the instrument of the demi-
urge. Adding to this portrait, Hippolytus writes that, according to one perspec-
tive, all of the prophets and, therefore, the Law, derived from the demiurge,
2 E.g., Brakke 2010, 63, 84–85; Pagels 1975, 19, 72, 96, 145, 150, 152, based upon one identifica-
tion between Moses and the demiurge from Heracleon’s Comm. John (20.38) consistently
correlates the two to the point of complete identification; that is, Moses is a cipher for
the demiurge.
3 It is also noteworthy that Clem. Alex. regularly represents Moses as the model Gnostic in his
Strom., especially books 5 and 7; see discussion in Calaway 2019, 132–153.
4 Haer. 1.30.11.
Gnosis: Journal ofDownloaded

Gnosticfrom
Studies 6 (2021) 1–30
Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
From Ignorant to Inspired: Moses in Gnostic Literature 3
who was foolish and ignorant.5 The prophets could only mirror the demiurge’s
ignorance and, therefore, knew nothing of “the things of which we speak.”
Since Moses and others are prophets of the demiurge, they cannot know any-
thing beyond what the demiurge knows. The demiurge is an ignorant fool;
therefore, so are his prophets.6
This, however, is not merely a denunciation of Moses and the prophets; it
has a social context. It predominantly critiques other Christians who, using
typological and allegorical interpretations, argued that Moses and the proph-
ets either foresaw in their writings or foreshadowed in their actions Jesus’s
advent, a common Christian argument from the Gospel of Matthew onwards.
In the second and third centuries, moreover, other Christians, such as Justin,
Clement, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, began more boldly to proclaim that Moses’s
and the prophets’ source of revelation was the pre-incarnate Son himself!7 But
in this counter current, since the demiurge was ignorant of Jesus’s coming, the
prophets must have been equally ignorant.8
Some Gnostic works corroborate this general picture, though not in all of its
details. In the First Revelation of James, Jesus tells James, “he who spoke con-
cerning this scripture had limited understanding” (ⲡⲉⲧⲁϥϣⲁϫⲉ ϩⲁ ⲧⲉⲓⲅⲣⲁⲫⲏ
ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ϣⲁ ⲡⲉⲓⲙⲁ).9 Jesus, by contrast, reveals that there are twelve realms
of seven ruled over by the archons and not seven realms as James claims the
scriptures say. The one with limited understanding refers to the demiurge, but
such limitation, by implication, would extend to the prophets, since they also
are responsible for the scriptures. On the other hand, limited understanding
does not mean a complete lack of understanding.
In the Revelation of Peter (NHC VII,3), the Savior appears to Peter in the
temple and says that he (the Savior) was not proclaimed by any of the proph-
ets; they were ignorant of Christ’s advent.10 This would ultimately agree with
non-Christian Jewish views that the Jewish prophets did not proclaim Jesus.11
Its primary target, therefore, would be those who claimed that the prophets
5 Haer. 6.30.
6 Similarly, according to Hipp., Haer. 7.13, Moses received prophecies from the archon of
the Hebdomad; all prophets receive inspiration from this source.
7 See Calaway 2019, 86–104, 111–168.
8 Cf. Epiphanius’s reports on Marcion and Mani (Pan. 42.4.1–4; 66.31.2–3); Cf. Tert. Adv.
Marc. 2.26; see discussion by Jonas 2001 [1958], 207n2; Fossum 1985, 160–62; cf. Moses in
Mandaean literature in Meeks 1967, 281.
9 1stApocJas, NHC V,3 26.6–8 (Schoedel 1979).
10 NHC VII,3 70.13–72.4 (Dehardins and Brashler 1996).
11 This is a clear concern for Just., Dial.
Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 6 (2021)Downloaded

1–30 from Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
4 Calaway
did proclaim Christ’s advent, that is, other Christians. Indeed, this text has far
harsher things to say about other Christians than the Hebrew prophets.12
There is, additionally, a light reference to Moses in Gospel of Mary: “Do not
lay down any rules beyond what I have fixed for you, nor give a rule like the
lawgiver, lest ever you be detained by it.”13 If one assumes Moses is the “law-
giver,” it puts the “lawgiver” in a negative light; nonetheless, Karen King argues
that the primary object of this critique is not Jewish Law, per se, but the setting
up of new laws: that is, they are not to promulgate any new laws themselves.
She writes,
The Savior’s command in the Gospel of Mary belongs to intra-Christian

debate about the source of authority for Christian life and salvation, not
the relationship to Jewish law. The reference to the ‘lawgiver’ appears to
be merely a remnant carried over from another setting where the rela-
tionship to Jewish law was an issue. But now in a Gentile context, the
rejection of law has come to have a very different meaning. The Savior’s
point in the Gospel of Mary is that spiritual advancement cannot be
achieved through external regulation; it has to be sought by transforma-
tion within a person. Not Mosaic law, but Christian regulations are seen
to be the problem.14
If so, this would be more directed at other Christians, such as those who pro-
duced the Didache, putting them in a negative light by aligning them with
Moses, the lawgiver.
Finally, The Second Discourse of the Great Seth (NHC VII,2) is the most
antagonistic in its presentation of Moses and the prophets. While calling vari-
ous heroes of Israel “buffoons” (ⲥⲱⲃⲉ) from Adam to the twelve prophets, the
text singles out Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, and Moses, and
John the Baptist:
Moses was a buffoon, a faithful servant, called “friend” [Num. 12:6–8;

Heb. 3:1–6]. They bore witness about him in impiety, because he never
knew me, neither him nor those who were before him. From Adam to
Moses and John the Baptizer, none of them knew me nor my brothers.
For they had a teaching from angels to keep food with bitter slavery. They
never knew truth nor will they know it, for a great deception dwells upon
12 NHC VII,73.23–75.7, 76.23–79.31 (Dehardins and Brashler 1996).

13 BG 8502,1 8.22–9.4 (Wilson and MacRae 1979).
14 King 2003a, 54; italics original.

Gnosticfrom
Studies 6 (2021) 1–30
Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
their souls. They can never discover a mind of freedom to know him, until
they come to know the Son of Man. Concerning my Father, I am the one
whom the world did not know, and because of this it rose up against me
and my brothers. But we are innocent concerning it; we did not sin.15
The tone of this passage is harsh. It rebuts Numbers 12:6–8 and Hebrews 3:1–6,
which say that Moses was a friend and faithful servant. The passage resembles
the report from Hippolytus that called Moses and the prophets fools and cor-
roborates the general point that Moses and the prophets never knew the true
God. Again, while Jews would find such a characterization of Moses and the
prophets offensive, the primary target remains other Christians who thought
Moses, did, in fact, foretell the Savior.
Nonetheless, its principle arguments resemble motifs from the New
Testament. The slavery/freedom dichotomy applied to the Torah and its food
laws has a Pauline ring to it, especially in Galatians 4:21–31. The reference to
angels is also a traditional trope that extends from the New Testament.16 In the
hands of New Testament authors, it lightly devalues Moses’s revelations, and,
therefore, the requirements of those revelations. Moses never saw God on the
mountain; he saw angels instead, because no one can actually see God, except
for the Son.17 This tradition of demoting Moses and promoting Jesus – Moses
as the one who did not see (like everyone else) and Jesus as the one who did –
is developed here.18 While Moses was still worthy of emulation in the New
Testament, however, here he is a slave to ignorance.19
There are, therefore, accounts that Gnostic groups – predominantly ones dif-
ficult to categorize – devalued Moses and the prophets as ignorant fools, who
knew nothing of the true God but only the demiurge. They deny that Moses
(like the demiurge) had any knowledge of spiritual realities, including the
super-demiurgical realm and the Savior’s advent. These denunciations, how-
ever, appear to be directed against those who did believe the scriptures fore-
told the Savior’s coming.20 Nonetheless, such accounts of an outright negative
15 Disc. Seth. NHC VII, 2 63.26–64.17 (Riley 1996).

16 Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2; Acts 7:30, 38, 53; 1 Tim. 1:17, 6:16; John 1:17–18; cf. Matt. 5:8 and Heb. 11:27.
Cf. Jewish works that suggest Moses spoke with an angel ( Jubilees after 1.1–26; Sifre Num.
102, ad 12:5; Mek., Bahodesh 9, ad Ex. 20:18; Pes.R. 21, 104a; Josephus, Ant. 15.136). On the
other hand, Ps.-Philo, LAB. 10–11 has Moses directly interacting with God. See Fossum
1985, 194, 259–260.
17 Acts 7:30, 7:38, 7:53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2.
18 Calaway 2019, 64–85.
19 Acts 7:20–44 and Heb. 11:23–28.
20 Cf. Matt., Just. Mart., Iren., Tert., and Orig.

1–30 from Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
6 Calaway
view of Moses and the prophets are fewer than what one might expect. More
prominent is ambivalence.
3 Prophetic Ambivalence
Taking a step back from this wholesale rejection, other sources take a more
ambivalent posture toward Moses. There are three types of ambivalence
toward Moses. Some will implicitly rely upon the structure of the Genesis
account while explicitly denouncing Moses as lacking understanding. Others
will divide the Torah into multiple sources in order to explain its varying lev-
els of insight of what should be retained, what should be rejected, and what
should be read symbolically. A third type of ambivalence will indicate that
Moses and the prophets had insight beyond their limited station but that they
were still limited.
3.1 Reliance and Resistance: Irenaeus and the Apocryphon of John

Firstly, while relying upon several portions of the Hebrew Bible, particularly
the primeval history, Gnostic interpreters also resist the account, challenging
Moses’s insight. Irenaeus says that Gnostics cite Exodus 33:20 among other
biblical passages to demonstrate the difference between the demiurge and
the unknown God.21 At the same time, Irenaeus proposes a solution to the
Pentateuchal problem of not being able to see God and live and the fact that so
many people in the Pentateuch do see God.22
After citing a series of Gnostic prooftexts from Isaiah 1:3, Hosea 4:1,
Psalms 14:3 / Romans 3:11, and Exodus 33:20 that reveal the ignorance of the
Israelite prophets concerning the Father, the invisible Depth, who remained
unknown to the world until the coming of Christ, Irenaeus claims that these
same people “falsely” claim that Moses and the prophets instead saw the
Creator (demiurge). Exodus 33:20 refers to the high unknown God; all of the
biblical theophanies refer to the demiurge. Unlike the Hippolytus passage,
which only uses New Testament quotations to establish Israelite prophetic
ignorance, however, this passage is littered with authoritative references to
such supposedly ignorant prophets.
21 I.e., Haer. 1.19.1–2. this passage is reproduced nearly verbatim in Epiph., Pan. 34.18.1–5.
22 Exod. 33:20; Moses himself in Num. 12:8. For a discussion of this problem in ancient
Jewish interpretation, see Calaway 2013, 145–86; Calaway 2019 traces this problem across
some Jewish and predominantly Christian sources from the NT to Augustine.

Gnosticfrom
Studies 6 (2021) 1–30
Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
Irenaeus, firstly, treads lightly concerning the passage from Exodus 33:20.
Often Christians and Jews would juxtapose this passage, which states that no
one can see God and live, with an antithetical one in Numbers 12:8, which says
that Moses saw the very form of God.23 The Gnostic reading resolved this old
exegetical problem by differentiating between seen and unseen figures by
identifying them with the Father and the demiurge respectively. For Gnostic
views, the times in the Bible where people saw God indicate the demiurge; the
other portions that indicate that one cannot see God refer to the invisible first
Father or Depth. The prophets, therefore, only saw and spoke to the demiurge
and not the true God.
Irenaeus, too, must confront these contradictions, which were compounded
in the New Testament with Matthew 5:8, where the pure in heart will see God,
and John 1:17–18, where no one can see God except the Son.24 He must, there-
fore, confirm the Gnostic perspective that the Father is invisible and unseen.
He also agrees with the strategy to differentiate between seen and unseen fig-
ures. But he disagrees on the identity of the second, manifest figure, whom,
much later in his treatise, he identifies as Christ.25 At the present juncture, he
simply stresses his disagreement by repeatedly stating that the invisible father
is the creator God and not a separate being.
Who is the second figure, the one who spoke to all the prophets, or the one
whom Moses saw on the mountain or in Numbers 12? There were three basic
solutions by other Christians to resolve what Moses saw on the mountain.
Firstly, the Platonic solution postulated different types of seeing. Moses could
not see God physically (and no one else could for that matter), since God is not
a physical being; but Moses (and others) could contemplate God intellectually
and “see” God in that manner.26 The more prominent manner, and the one pre-
ferred by Irenaeus, Justin before him, and Tertullian after him, is to differenti-
ate between what is seen and what is unseen. The Father is absolutely invisible
and no one has ever seen the Father. Whenever people have claimed to see
God, they are telling the truth, because they have seen the Son.27
This occurs in three ways. Either Christ, in pre-incarnate form, appeared
to Moses on Sinai; or Moses and other prophets when they had a vision of
God (the Son) foresaw his incarnation; or all of the moments of revelation
stand outside of time, and so Moses’s ascent on Mount Sinai and Christ on
23 Calaway 2013; 2019.

24 Other texts as well: 1 Tim 1:17, 6:16; cf. Heb 11:27.
25 Haer. 4.20.
26 Orig., Princ. 2.4; cf. Ps.-Clem., Rec. 3:29–30.
27 Just., 1 Apol. 62–63; Iren., Haer. 4.20.9–11; Ign., Phil. 5; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 8.5; Orig., Cels. 2.2;
Tert., Adv. Jud. 9; Adv. Marc. 2.27; 5:19; Nov., Trin. 18–20; though cf. Tert., Jejun. 6.

1–30 from Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
8 Calaway
the Mount of Transfiguration was the same moment.28 One final solution is to
refer to the status of the seer. That is, although one cannot see God and live,
one can, interestingly like Moses, see God and die.29 Once a righteous person
achieves the status of perfection (upon death), they can finally see God.
In principle, the Gnostics’ and their opponents’ arguments are similar: the
high God is invisible; a second figure (demiurge or Christ) can be seen. And,
in fact, for the proto-orthodox, Christ was the means by which the cosmos was
created, becoming a demiurge-like figure.30 The difference is the evaluation
of the second figure. For the Gnostic system, the demiurge is not a mediator
between the visible world and the high God; in the emergent orthodox system
the second figure is.
Secondly, there is an irony to citing passages from Moses and the prophets
of the Hebrew Bible to demonstrate that the original Father has never been
known before Christ: if they never encountered anything above the demiurge,
then how could they know to attest to Israel’s ignorance – that is, how did they
know that they did not know? How did they know that they could not see or
know the invisible Depth if the only thing they knew is what the demiurge
told them? Did these prophets prophesy despite themselves? That is, did some
sort of super-demiurgical knowledge come to them (for example, through
Sophia or Achamoth, and so on)?31 If so, did they themselves understand their
own prophecies?
Irenaeus does not address this, but it is important to consider whether a
biblical story or passage is authoritative. When a Gnostic source cites a story
in Genesis, for example, that reading is ambivalent: it affirms the story or the
authority of the source by interpreting it for their own understanding and
knowledge, while disavowing the prophets associated with those sources as
the prophets of an ignorant demiurge.
A similar ambivalence occurs in the Apocryphon of John (NHC II,1).32 This
writing creates a tension between an explicit denunciation and resistance of
Moses’s account in Genesis and his authority and an implicit and general reli-
ance upon his account. It recounts the cosmogonic and primeval events but
28 See further Tert., Adv. Marc. 4.23.

29 Asc. Isa. 9:37–38; Clem. Alex., Strom. 5.1; Nov., Trin., 18–20; Meeks 1967, 209; Fishbane 1994,
14–50; Calaway 2013, 159, 175.
30 John 1; Heb. 1.
31 On this possibility, see below on Irenaeus’s remarks concerning Ptolemy; cf. Jonas 2001
[1958], 192.
32 There are four surviving versions of the Apoc. John; this essay will follow NHC II,1 for ref-
erences, but sometimes uses other versions if they have clearer readings: NHC III,1; IV,1;
and BG 8502,2; For a synopsis, see Waldstein and Wisse 1995.

Gnosticfrom
Studies 6 (2021) 1–30
Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
then checks its dependency upon Mosaic authority by repeatedly stating that
“it is not as Moses said/wrote.”33
In the first occurrence, John asks the Savior concerning Genesis 1:2, which
states that the Spirit “went to and fro.”34 In response, the Lord says, “Do not
think it was as Moses said.”35 Instead of the Spirit’s movement being above
the waters (Gen. 1:2), it refers to the Spirit/Mother’s movement in the pleroma:
“No, but when she saw the wickedness which had occurred and the theft her
son had taken, she repented. And she became forgetful in the darkness of igno-
rance, and she began to be ashamed … in movement. This movement is the
going to and fro.”36 Moses got the location of the movement wrong, but he
was correct that there was movement of the Spirit/Mother. More importantly,
he fails to appreciate the significance of the agitating movement: it relates to
Sophia’s activities, particularly her repentance, in the aeonic rather than the
material realms.37
The next passage contains two occurrences of resisting Moses.38 It refers
to the deep sleep that overcomes Adam, during which the demiurge takes
a piece out of Adam’s side to make Eve. Both this passage and Genesis 2:21
agree that Adam fell out of consciousness, but instead of ordinary sleep it was
a form of “oblivion” (ⲧⲃ̄ϣⲉ).39 The term ⲧⲃ̄ϣⲉ ranges from sleep to forgetful-
ness to oblivion. It is the same term for Sophia becoming “forgetful” above.
More importantly, Moses did not comprehend the significance of such a sleep
of oblivion – it is not a literal sleep, but the loss of sense, understanding, and
discernment.40 It was forgetfulness and obliviousness. To correct Moses, the
Lord cites Isaiah 6:10: “I will make their hearts slow, that they may neither
understand nor see.”41 To cite from Isaiah is an ambivalent act: its source is the
“first archon,” but the Apocryphon of John assumes that it, nonetheless, speaks
accurately enough to “correct” Moses.42
33 Ap. John NHC II,1 22.22–24 (Waldstein and Wisse 1995).

35 Ap. John NHC II,1 13.19 (Waldstein and Wisse 1995).
36 Ap. John NHC II,1 13.21–26; cf. NHC IV, 21.13–14, which adds a phrase just before “in move-
ment.” (Waldstein and Wisse 1995).
37 For an extensive discussion of this passage as exemplary of the Apocryphon of John’s
hermeneutical strategies, see Pleše 2006, 225–263.
38 Ap. John NHC II,1 22.20–23.5 (Waldestein and Wisse 1995).
39 Waldstein and Wisse 1995, 129 use the term “trance”; other translators say “deep sleep”
(Layton1987 46; Meyer 2007, 126), yet, however one translates this, the text still differenti-
ates between the word used by “Moses” and the one by the “Savior.”
40 cf. Orig. World NHC II, 5 116.8–117.15.
42 Cf. Jonas 2001 [1958], 94.

1–30 from Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
10 Calaway
The second occurrence in the passage challenges Moses’s saying that Eve
was not created from Adam’s rib but from his “power,” though there remains
a general agreement with Moses that Eve was, indeed, created from a part of
Adam. Heightening this ambivalence, just a few lines down, the Apocryphon
of John quotes Genesis 2:23 – “This now is bone from my bones and flesh from
my flesh” – the words attributed to Adam by Moses to illustrate Adam’s rec-
ognition of the power and insight in Eve, his counterpart.43 Clearly Moses got
some of it right and is even quoted to support the account in Apocryphon
of John.
The final occurrence refers to the flood.44 Here, there was no ark, as Moses
said, but a secret hiding place in which Noah and those of the unshakable gen-
eration (Seed of Seth) hid themselves during the flood.45 There is a division of
labour between First Ruler, the bringer of the flood, and Forethought, the saver
of Noah.
This text imaginatively reworks the primeval history of Genesis. It relies
upon the general structure of the stories, but alters details, charging them
with new spiritual significance and adapting them to the new revelation of
Christ. This work both relies upon and resists Moses’s words; it can alternately
state that “it was not as Moses said” and quote Genesis authoritatively in the
same passage.
Formally, these passages resemble the so-called “antitheses” from the
Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. The series of statements by Jesus of “you
have heard it said … but I say …”46 from Matthew is the closest analogue to the
Savior in a revelation saying “it is not as Moses said/wrote” or, in one instance
“and you heard,” and then offering a corrective.47 The difference is that the
Matthew version is about ethics and proper worship, whereas the Apocryphon
of John version is about cosmogony. Yet both function to establish Jesus’s
greater authority vis-à-vis Moses (as fulfilling in Matthew and as correcting
in Apocryphon of John), giving Jesus the last word. Jesus’ more authoritative
account, moreover, sets itself against other possible or actual readings of the
text. Like Matthew, this text seeks to establish Jesus’s authority vis-à-vis the
Torah and other interpreters of the Torah.
This imaginative reworking is not limited to Moses’s account. Karen King
writes:

44 Ap. John NHC II,1 28.32–29.15 (Waldstein and Wisse 1995).
45 cf. Nat. Rulers NHC II,4 92.4–18; Apoc. Adam NHC V,5 69.2–71.8.
46 Mt. 5:21–22, 27–28, 31–32, 33–34, 38–39, 43–44.
47 Ap. John NHC II,1 13.13–26; 22.20–23.5; 28.32–29.15 (Waldstein and Wisse 1995).

Gnosticfrom
Studies 6 (2021) 1–30
Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
According to Christ’s teaching, Plato, Moses, and Solomon offer only a

distorted and refracted imitation of the true Reality…. The revelation of
Christ fills up the gaps in these partial glimpses of truth, corrects their
deceptions, and illumines the dim perceptions of truth grasped by those
living in the darkness. In short, the most fundamental hermeneutical
task of the Secret Revelation of John is countering lies and deception.48
The Apocryphon of John seeks to harmonize all of this literature, correcting

and altering, rejecting, and rewriting. King isolates several interpretive tech-
niques (retelling, recontextualization, narrative elaboration, allegory, identifi-
cation, and intertextuality) and illustrates how the work does this with regard
to Plato, Moses (Pentateuch), and Solomon (wisdom literature).49
While King’s reading offers many insights into the authors’ hermeneutical
strategies, showing the multiple ways that Genesis, wisdom literature, and
Plato’s Timaeus are appropriated, altered, and repurposed, she barely touches
on the four occurrences of “It is not as Moses said/wrote.” Although the text
appropriates and alters multiple sources in the face of Christ’s revelation, only
Moses is singled out for censure; there is no “It is not as Plato said,” or “It is
not as Solomon said.” King’s analysis overlooks the rhetorical positioning of
its hermeneutics. By contrast, Luttikhuizen makes this the starting point of
his extensive analysis; yet, although a launching point, he still does not offer
a substantive analysis of this key phrase.50 Pleše, however, confronts the
issue directly:
The whole second part of the Apocryphon of John (“What Has Come
to Be”) is, in fact, a reinterpretation of Moses’ account of creation and
of the early history of humankind in the opening chapters of Genesis
(Gen 1–7), from “the beginning” (1:1, ἐν ἀρχῇ) to the story of Noah and the
flood (6:5–7:9). The Savior’s hermeneutical stance is polemical and revi-
sionary. What he contests is not the facticity of the events recorded by
Moses, but the perspective from which they are told – that is, the author-
ity of Moses as a reliable witness and narrator of these events.51
The reason Pleše gives for this limitation of Moses is at best implied by
the narration: that Moses is simply as ignorant as his prophetic source, the
48 King 2006, 180–181.

49 Cf. Pleše 2006, 67–73.
50 Cf. Luttikhuizen 2006, 1.
51 Pleše 2006, 67.

1–30 from Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
12 Calaway
demiurge.52 Pleše’s inference makes sense of Moses’s partial knowledge: that

he is correct about the events, but fails to appreciate their greater, spiritual
meaning.53 Throughout Pleše argues that scripture is read on two levels: a
common meaning understood by those without a pneumatic element (for
example, Moses and the prophets) and a hidden meaning that Ialdabaoth and
his prophets somehow unknowingly “signify” but which only those who have
received the Savior’s revelation have any chance of uncovering.54 The implica-
tion is that the prophets prophesy partial truth despite themselves.
Pleše’s analysis implies multiple models of how Moses’s prophecies worked.
First, Moses only understood material reality and wrote with this material
understanding based solely on the inspiration from the ignorant demiurge,
and the Savior revealed the spiritual reality that Moses’s account completely
missed. Second, each passage has two levels of meaning operating at all times,
and, therefore, Moses wrote both material understanding and, unwittingly, the
spiritual signification that can be found by an expert Gnostic reader (having
the demiurge directly as his inspiration and Sophia indirectly). Third, Moses
had multiple sources of inspiration and some parts of his prophecies came
from the demiurge and some ultimately derived from Sophia. The problem
with these three models suggested by Pleše is that the text never clearly indi-
cates any of these positions. Readers are left to infer why “it is not as Moses
said” while relying upon the basic substructure of his account. It is difficult to
find a satisfactory model that consistently satisfies all of the evidence of this
complex work.
At best, the Apocryphon of John is an exemplary sample of the deep-seated
ambivalence of Sethian attitudes toward the Genesis account, which leans
toward the more negative view of Moses as prophet. Moses’ ignorance is not
completely ignorant, but, since he only has partial knowledge, one must infer
that that he is primarily inspired by the demiurge’s own partial knowledge. Yet,
he has glimmers and moments of insight – Moses gets the basic elements of
the story right. Whether this mixture of ignorance and moments of insight is
due to multiple levels of meaning in the same passage or Sophia surreptitiously
whispering in Moses’s ear, or something else is left for the reader to decide.
Apart from the text’s narrative poetics, there is a social charge to saying
“it is not as Moses said.”55 Challenging Moses’s authority, while, as Pleše says,
52 Pleše 2006, 67–68, 167–169.

53 cf. Pleše 2006, 264.
54 Pleše 2006, 218–219.

Gnosticfrom
Studies 6 (2021) 1–30
Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
emulating it, resembles Harold Bloom’s “anxiety of influence.”56 It may be

responding to others who placed alternative significance to the wording of
these passages, but this seems unlikely. Other Gnostic, even Sethian, works
affirm Genesis’s wording of these same passages and retain a similar cosmog-
ony as the Apocryphon of John.57 Since one can get the same basic account
without directly challenging Moses’s authority, the entire rhetorical posture
has to be taken into account.
This anxiety leading to ambivalence is most likely related to the work’s
social context, but it may be difficult to locate this social reasoning precisely.58
Earlier scholarship that placed the text in a pre-Christian Jewish heterodox
framework may suggest it reflects their general frustration in response to the
Jewish War, the destruction of the temple, and, perhaps in an Egyptian context,
the Diaspora Revolt (115 CE).59 Yet even those who follow a redactional hypoth-
esis of the Apocryphon of John usually recognize much of these sections – the
dialogue between the Savior and John – as the result of a Christianizing redac-
tional layer; thus, whether one finds such redaction hypotheses convincing or
not, one must, for this element, consider its Christian context. The problem
is that so many different groups in the Mediterranean littoral, especially in
Egypt and Rome, held Moses in esteem: Jews, other Christians, the many hands
behind the magical papyri, and, as demonstrated below, even other Gnostic,
particularly Valentinian, Christians.
3.2 Ancient Source Criticism: Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora

Less negative, but also ambivalent, is Ptolemy’s Letter of Ptolemy to Flora.60
While Ptolemy rejects parts of Moses’s revelation, he often affirms other parts
of Moses’s revelation, saying that it is pure, just, partly verified and fulfilled
by the Savior, while other parts should be mined for their symbolic, hid-
den meanings.61 It remains, however, not a revelation of the high God, but
the demiurge.62
Attempting to discern different sources of revelation in the Torah was com-
mon in the first and second centuries CE. Philo of Alexandria claimed that
Moses uttered three types of divine utterances: ones in which God speaks and
56 E.g., Pleše 2006, 202. Bloom 1973; 1975.

57 Cf. Nat. Rulers NHC II,4; Orig. World NHC II,5, recognizing that Orig. World NHC II,5, is
rarely categorized as “Sethian.”
58 Brakke 2010, 71, suggests a generic social context to this rhetorical posturing.
59 Pearson 1990, 124–135; cf. King 2003b, 175–190.
60 Epiph, Pan. 33.3.1–7.10; cf. Iren., Haer. 1.7.3.
61 Cf. Ps.-Clem., Hom. III 49.2.
62 Iren., Haer. 1.27.1 reports a similar perspective from Cerdo; see Jonas 2001 [1958], 136.

1–30 from Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
14 Calaway
Moses interprets, ones which emerge from Moses asking God a question and
God responding, and finally utterances Moses spoke in his own person, but
while still in a state of divine possession.63 Justin also differentiated between
three types of prophecies: prophecies from the Father, from the Son, or from
the “Spirit of Prophecy.”64
In such a general context, Ptolemy, firstly, argues that the nature of the Law
helps one to determine its originator. It is neither fully perfect nor is it evil; it is
just. Likewise, its originator could not be the perfect and good God, as Jews and
other Christians would claim, nor does it derive from the devil, as seemingly
other Gnostics claim, but by the creator of this world, who is neither good nor
evil, but is just.65 He is an intermediate being and is even called “an image of
the better god,” a phrase that resembles the description of Jesus as “the image
of the invisible God.”66
There are three authors of the Law: the demiurge, Moses, and the elders.
Citing Matthew 19, Ptolemy argues that Moses’s views of divorce are contrary
to what God ordained, that he shifted the rule of no divorce to allowing divorce
for the sake of necessity. Moses was ultimately a pragmatist.67 There are, fur-
thermore, three types of elements within the demiurge’s portion of the Law.
There is a pure but imperfect element that is affirmed and fulfilled by the Savior
(Christ); it is imperfect because otherwise it would have no need of being ful-
filled (or perfected), relying upon the Sermon on the Mount.68 The Decalogue
is the example of pure but imperfect Law. There are parts of the Law that are
interwoven with injustice, such as the Lex Talionis, which responds to wrong-
doing with more wrongdoing; this part of the Law the Savior came to abolish,
again relying upon the so-called “Antitheses” of the Sermon on the Mount.69
Again, Ptolemy claims that while inferior, it is a response to pragmatic consid-
erations; it is a law of necessity. One could compare this with what Jesus says
about Moses’s views of divorce being temporally bounded due to hardness of
hearts.70 Finally, there is a symbolic aspect of the Law, which the Savior came
63 Mos. 2.188–91.
64 Apol. 1.35–9.
65 Jonas 2001 [1958], 192–193, calls this the most charitable view of the demiurge in Gnostic
works, but the Tri. Trac. (NHC I,5), which would not have been published at the time of
his writing, would be at least this charitable if not more so.
66 Col. 1:15.
67 This multiple source hypothesis provides a ready solution to the contradictions within
the Hebrew Bible and between the Hebrew Bible and early Christian writings; Williams
1996, 86–88.
68 Matt. 5:17–20.
69 Matt. 5:38–42.
70 Matt. 19:8; cf. Mark 10:5.

Gnosticfrom
Studies 6 (2021) 1–30
Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
to move from the sensible, perceptible sphere to the spiritual, invisible one.
The entirety of the cultic legislation falls under this category.
Even when much of the Torah and Moses’s revelations are attributed to
the demiurge, this does not lead to a complete devaluation of Moses or his
revelation; indeed, Ptolemy, like other Christians from the author of Matthew
onwards, selected certain parts to be reaffirmed by Christ, parts to be mined
for their spiritual and symbolic value, and parts to be rejected since the advent
of Christ. Moses, the Law, and the demiurge are not here portrayed as ignorant
or negatively. While in need of perfection, they are predominantly pragmatic.
3.3 The Psychic Seer of the Spiritual: Tripartite Tractate

Finally, the Tripartite Tractate (NHC I,5) never mentions Moses by name, but
the Hebrew prophets are collectively spoken of positively.71 They are not of
spiritual substance – that is, they are not Gnostics but are of psychical origin –
but they do have enormous insight, especially compared to the Greeks, who
are purely material with no psychical or spiritual insight. In a portrayal remi-
niscent of John the Baptist in the New Testament, the Hebrew prophets testify
to what is greater than themselves. Unlike the above-mentioned treatises that
claim that the prophets knew nothing of Christ or his coming, the Tripartite
Tractate (NHC I,5) claims that they did foretell of the coming Son, a position
somewhat similar to the one Irenaeus stakes out in the fourth book of Against
Heresies. Unlike Irenaeus, however, the Tripartite Tractate argues that the
prophets were confused on the details of salvation history (that is why many
of the details in the Bible seem contradictory – because they are), but they get
the gist of it: that the Savior will be born, that he will suffer, and so on.72
While the Tripartite Tractate appears to agree largely with the Apocryphon
of John (NHC II,1) in saying that Moses and the prophets were generally right
but got the details wrong, the evaluation is different. Firstly, the Apocryphon
of John only implicitly relies upon Moses and the prophets, whereas the
Tripartite Tractate explicitly claims the general structure is correct. Moreover,
whereas the Apocryphon of John critiques Moses for getting details wrong, the
Tripartite Tractate praises the prophets for getting the significant points right.
There is not much ambivalence in this account: it is quite clear and consistent
in its approach to the prophets, but it is still a middling position between out-
right negativity as seen above and outright positivity, perhaps reflecting the
Tripartite Tractate’s more positive view of psychical beings more generally. The
71 Tri. Trac. NHC I,5 110.22–114.30 (Attridge and Pagels 1985).

72 This position appears to be close to Heracl. (Orig., Comm. Jo. 13.19; cf. Hipp., Haer. 5.7;
6.34); see discussion in Pagels 1975, 40.

1–30 from Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
16 Calaway
Hebrew prophets provide positive exemplars for psychical Christians, who,

too, have the ability, should they choose it, to see beyond their station.
3.4 Ambivalent Conclusions

While there were some Gnostics who directly denigrated Moses and his rev-
elations, more commonly others took a more ambivalent or middling posture.
This posturing appears much like Harold Bloom’s famous account of the “anxi-
ety of influence” as these works, exemplified here by the Apocryphon of John,
clearly rely upon Moses and other prophets in constructing their own account,
while resisting and critiquing Moses and such prophets at the same time; the
prophecies of Moses and others were not complete ignorance, but a mixture of
knowledge and ignorance, insight and misunderstanding.
Moreover, others, like Ptolemy, corroborate that the Torah is the demiurge’s,
but, having a more accommodating attitude, affirm much of the Torah given by
the demiurge to Moses or partly created by Moses himself for the sake of neces-
sity, as pure, just, and even insightful, as something that was partly reaffirmed
by the Savior even as partly rejected (all in the Sermon on the Mount). Finally,
with the Tripartite Tractate (NHC I,5), the prophets (including Moses), though
not spiritual beings, could see beyond themselves and their station. With this
ambivalence, one begins to see how occasionally some Gnostic groups could
have some rather positive views concerning Moses and his revelation, even if
that revelation was from the demiurge. This is, however, but an initial glimpse.
Other Gnostic works demonstrate an outright positive stance towards Moses
as the revealer of truth.
4 Moses the Gnostic Prophet: The Revealer of True Realities
While works like the Second Discourse of the Great Seth (NHC VII,2) may
claim that there is absolutely no truth, knowledge, and understanding in
Moses and the prophets, there are other Gnostic works that disagree, having
a positive view of Moses.73 There are two basic types of positive references:
Moses’s authoritative writings and Moses as a revealer of true realities. While
the Tripartite Tractate (NHC I,5) already implied that the prophets could see
beyond their status, these sources – mostly Valentinian – that indicate Moses
was the revealer of true, spiritual realities also either directly state or clearly
imply that he participated in those realities. No longer just the mouthpiece of
73 While most scholars have overlooked these sources’ positive evaluations of Moses, there
have been occasional recognitions; e.g., Fossum 1985, 4–6.

Gnosticfrom
Studies 6 (2021) 1–30
Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
the demiurge – though they admit that the demiurge still spoke through him –
he becomes a proto-Gnostic or Gnostic proper.
4.1 Citing Moses as an Authoritative Source

While other Gnostic writings ambivalently rely upon Moses’s account of cre-
ation and the flood, suggesting a glimmer of his authority while resisting it,
other Gnostics directly refer to him as an authoritative source with far less
ambivalence. Epiphanius notes the books read by Sethians, including those
attributed to great people: Seth, the Foreigner, Abraham, Moses, as well as oth-
ers.74 Why compose books in the name of Moses, if he were merely the mouth-
piece of the demiurge? Why mention him in the same breath as Seth, the great
Gnostic hero, in the same way? One writes pseudonymously with names of
great people of the past in order to imbue one’s own writing with authority; if
Gnostics write books in the name of Moses, clearly, they are relying upon his
established authority.
Likewise, the Origin of the World (NHC II, 5) includes a positive reference to
Moses as a revealer. It is in passing, but it demonstrates that Moses cannot be
encapsulated entirely negatively in Gnostic sources as merely the instrument
of the demiurge, but he is also sometimes a source of genuine revelation.
You will find the operation of these names and the power of the male
ones in the Archangelic [Book] of Moses the Prophet, and the names of
the female ones in the First Book of Noraia.75
On the one hand, Moses’s knowledge of supernal powers does not necessar-
ily extend beyond the sphere of the demiurge’s rule; that is, this work attrib-
uted to him would be appropriate for those seeking knowledge of the powers
below the demiurge. But it is considered a faithful guide to such powers. It is
a reference to the names of the powers (archons), including Ialdabaoth and
those generated by him: the seven powers of the seven heavens (of chaos) with
their masculine and feminine names. Strikingly, Moses is juxtaposed to a great
Gnostic hero, Noraia (or Norea or Oraia), the wife-sister of Seth, the daugh-
ter of Eve, and the representation of Sophia in this realm.76 She is the “virgin
74 Pan. 39.5.1.
75 Orig. World NHC II,5 102.7–11 (Layton 1989c).
76 On variations on Norea’s, see Pearson 2000 [1988], 265.

1–30 from Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
18 Calaway
whom the powers did not defile.”77 A book of Moses is put at the same status
as a book of the great Gnostic heroine.
This same book – the Archangelic Book of Moses – also appears in the
Greco-Egyptian magical papyri.78 Moses is one of the most invoked figures
throughout the Greek and Demotic magical papyri.79 Many treatises are asso-
ciated with Moses and the revelation of the divine name, the source of his
power. The most prominent are the lengthy collection of spells known as the
“Eighth Book of Moses” and “The Tenth Book of Moses.”80 These spells some-
times suggest that Moses and Hermes Trismegistus – or those who invoke
them, at least – may be rivals. Even if so, their spells were collected together in
the same manuals, presumably being used by the same practitioners. Moses’s
moment on Sinai and the revelation of the divine name becomes paradigmatic
for any practitioner.
Moses’s encounter with God on the mountain was an important event not
just for Jews and Christians, who used Moses’s visions, but for others seeking
a divine encounter. These texts demonstrate a fluid religious environment,
a situation where the rank-and-file do not necessarily fit neat and tidy self-
identifying definitions of Jewish versus Christian versus Greek versus Egyptian.
These figures considered Moses as the magus par excellence. He was invoked as
a common exemplar, whose authority circulated beyond Jewish and Christian
sub-cultures, becoming a cross-religious figure. By acting as Moses did, one
could even call oneself Moses, identify with him to call down God upon the
mountain and to have a vision of the invisible.81
These traditions circulating about Moses in Roman Egypt formed a nexus
for people to attain visions of and contact with supernal powers beyond the
visible world; they would have been part of the local network of traditions of
those who produced On the Origin of the World.
Apart from such books, Epiphanius reports that the Marcosians would cite
Moses among others as an authoritative source.82 These citations do not resist
Moses’s authority or deny his accuracy; they simply interpret Moses as a source
using Gnostic cosmogony as the hermeneutic key.
77 Nat. Rulers NHC II,4 92.2–3 (Layton 1989b); cf. the failed rape of Norea here with the rep-
resentation of Eve in Orig. World NHC II, 5 116.9–117.5. For a recent discussion of rape in
these sources, see Lillie 2017.
78 PGM XIII.971.
79 Gager 1989, 160.
80 PGM XIII.1–343; XIII.343–646. There is also the “Diadem of Moses” (PGM VII.619–627).
81 PGM XIII.1–1077.
82 Pan. 34.15.1–18.1.

Gnosticfrom
Studies 6 (2021) 1–30
Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
For they say that when Moses was beginning his work on the creation, he
displayed the Mother of all at the very outset by saying, “In the Beginning
God created the heaven and the earth.” By naming these four then – God
and Beginning, heaven and earth – he portrayed, as they say, their tet-
rad. And to make its invisibility and hiddenness known he said, “And the
earth was invisible and unformed.”83
This passage continues at some length relating different aspects of

Genesis 1, the human body, and the Tabernacle to Marcus’s version of Gnostic
cosmology.84 Especially concerning Genesis 1 and the account of the Tabernacle
in Exodus 25–31 and 35–40, how did Moses know all of this? According to
Epiphanius, “They teach that in this way the triacontad has been spoken of
by the Spirit through Moses.”85 The Spirit, the divine maternal principle, is
Moses’s source of inspiration.
Far from being “protest-exegesis,” this is a traditional allegorical reading that
is, in principle, not very different than any other Jewish or Christian reading
from a Middle or Neo-Platonic perspective such as is found, for example, in
Philo’s, On the Creation of the World and Origen’s, On First Principles. Lacking
the occasional critiques found in the Apocryphon of John, the purpose here is
to demonstrate how the entire Gnostic cosmogony can be extrapolated from
Moses’s account; that is, it uses Moses’s authority to boost the authority of its
own views. In so doing, it further indicates a belief that Moses received revela-
tions from a super-demiurgical source, the divine mother, who is a spiritual
being. As such, Moses becomes a prophet with knowledge of spiritual realities
that he encoded for those who, like him, have proper knowledge to unlock.86
4.2 Moses as a Gnostic Prophet

Moses as the prophet of true realities, inspired by spiritual forces beyond the
demiurge, is a more common theme among ancient Gnostic traditions than
one might initially suppose. In the context of recounting Ptolemy’s system as
an illustration of Valentinian views, Irenaeus relates Ptolemy’s tripartite the-
ory of prophetic inspiration.87 This passage correlates the nature (or origin) of
the prophets with the nature and sources of prophecy and with principles of
biblical interpretation: different parts of scripture were inspired variously by
83 Pan. 34.15.2–3 (Williams 2009).

84 Pan. 34.15.1–9; 34.16.1–3 (Williams 2009).
85 Pan. 34.15.6 (Williams 2009).
86 Cf. Hipp., Haer. 6.14.
87 Haer. 1.1.1–1.8.5.

1–30 from Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
20 Calaway
the spiritual mother Achamoth, the demiurge, and one’s own spiritual seed.88
The nature of the prophets is the most striking of this passage. The souls
with the seed of Achamoth are superior to others and are especially beloved by
the demiurge, although he does not know why. So, he assigned them to become
prophets, priests, and kings – that is, the heroes of the Hebrew Bible. The seeds
from Achamoth are spiritual seeds, the divine element within each Gnostic
that, once perfected, will re-enter the pleroma, the bridal chamber, with the
Savior and Achamoth.89 In short, the prophets, priests, and kings of Israel had
spiritual seeds; they were Gnostics, or at least proto-Gnostics, who will one day
re-join their angelic counterparts and enter into the fullness of God.
Their supernal nature leads to a greater evaluation of their revelations.
While the sources of prophecy are still mixed, as we saw above in Ptolemy’s
Letter to Flora, the mixture is different. Whereas Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora indi-
cated a mixture of passages from the demiurge, Moses, and the elders, in this
account the mixture is inspiration from one’s own spiritual seed, Achamoth
herself, and the demiurge still has a part in prophecy.90 Their prophecies
from their spiritual seed and from Achamoth are super-demiurgical; the
demiurge does not comprehend their significance until the Savior comes and
teaches him.91
Likewise, the sayings of Jesus can be divided between the Savior, the Mother,
and the craftsman. Although Jesus’s internal inspiration by the Savior is greater
than the prophets’ inspiration by their own spiritual seeds from Achamoth,
marking him as greater than the Israelite prophets and kings and priests, the
Israelite heroes gain a greater parity here than found in the other Gnostic
sources discussed thus far. Therefore, many more of the prophecies of the
Hebrew Bible and the New Testament can be reaffirmed as coming not just
from the demiurge, but from spiritual realities beyond the demiurge. Moses is
no more the mouthpiece of the demiurge than Jesus is: both speak with supe-
rior knowledge and spiritual insight because they have a spiritual, divine origin.
This is a far cry from the denunciations above. Here Moses, the prophets, and
so many figures in the Hebrew Bible are proto-Gnostics if not fully Gnostics;
they are predecessors with the spiritual seed of Achamoth within them.
88 Cf. Justin Martyr’s tripartite scheme of scriptural inspiration divided by the Father, the
Logos (Son), and the Holy Spirit (1 Apol. 36–39).
89 Iren., Haer. 1.6.1–7.2, 1.7.5.
90 Perhaps relying here upon Sophia giving the Law to Moses in Sirach 24. Pagels 1975,
141–42, suggests that this is a Valentinian exegesis of Hebrews 1:1: that is, Ptolemy under-
stands the many ways and many parts as the multiple origins of prophetic inspiration.
91 Iren., Haer. 1.7.4.

Gnosticfrom
Studies 6 (2021) 1–30
Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
The Treatise on the Resurrection (NHC I,4) takes a different tack, but with
similar results. This treatise cites Moses and Elijah as authoritative revealers of
the true state of existence: the state of the Spirit, fullness, or the resurrection.
The passage in which the author refers to Moses and Elijah appears at the cru-
cial juncture of the discussion:
What, then, is resurrection? It is at all times the revelation of those

who have arisen. For if you remember reading in the gospel that Elijah
appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illu-
sion. It is not an illusion, but is truth! It is, rather, more suitable to say
that the world is an illusion, rather than this resurrection which has come
about through our Lord, the Savior, Jesus Christ.92
The first sentence announces this passage’s importance: “What, then, is resur-
rection? (ⲉⲩ ϭⲉ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲁⲛⲁⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ)” Resurrection is the disclosure or revelation
of those who have risen or who now exist in the state of the resurrection: not
only Jesus, but also Moses and Elijah. That is, resurrection is the revelation of
the realm of Spirit rather than the realm of the flesh or the soul.93
The Mount of Transfiguration became a favourite passage among early
Christians to demonstrate the unity of old and new revelations and to clarify
Mosaic authority vis-à-vis Jesus. This passage adds yet another issue for which
the Mount of Transfiguration would be a proof. It is the proof of the reality of
resurrection, the nature of which is a spiritual existence that transcends the
physical realm. Resurrection is not an illusion (ⲟⲩⲫⲁⲛⲧⲁⲥⲓⲁ) but is real; that
which most people think is real (the cosmos) is fantasy. This world is perish-
able, associated with death, and when Jesus died (physically) and was resur-
rected he swallowed death and revealed it to be what it is: unreal.94 The state
of the resurrection is, therefore, the only true reality.95 And the proof of it is
Moses and Elijah alongside Jesus.
If the resurrection is the only reality that truly exists, then those who believe
and know the truth already live in the state of the resurrection; salvation is
realizing that you are already resurrected. The author writes, “Come away from
divisions and chains, and therein you already have resurrection. If the one who
will die knows his own condition – that he will die even if he has passed many
years in this life – he is thereby brought into this, why not look at your own
92 Treat. Res. NHC I,4 48.3–19 (Peel 1985).

93 Treat. Res. NHC I,4 45.23–46.2 (Peel 1985).
94 Treat. Res. NHC I,4 44.39–45.23 (Peel 1985).
95 Treat. Res. NHC I, 4 48.19–49.9 (Peel 1985).

1–30 from Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
22 Calaway
condition – you have arisen and you are brought into this?”96 When Moses and
Elijah appeared on the mountain with Jesus, therefore, they appeared in the
state of resurrection, which is the state of the Spirit or fullness, the only true
way to exist. They, as well as the Valentinian believer, always already existed in
the state of resurrection. Salvation is realizing this fact.
Using Moses and Elijah as proof of the spiritual state of resurrection, the
reality that a Valentinian should enter, has implications for the status of Moses
and Elijah. If a spiritual state of existence is something that only a spiritual
being can enter and if Moses and Elijah already exist in this spiritual state of
fullness as demonstrated by the Mount of Transfiguration, then Moses and
Elijah are Valentinian prophets who illustrate true realities. Far from prophets
of the demiurge, they are proto-Valentinians!
These last sources have demonstrated unqualified acceptance of Moses’s
prophetic authority, either by citing him without ambivalence, or indicating
that he has been inspired by super-demiurgical spiritual realities, that he par-
ticipates in those realities, that he is the proof of those realities, and even that
he has a spiritual seed. All of these – mostly Valentinian – works appropriate
Moses, much like Clement of Alexandria would, as a Gnostic: as a knower and
revealer of the Spirit.97
5 Conspicuous Absences: The Disappearing Moses
While the Treatise on the Resurrection (NHC I,4) used the Mount of
Transfiguration to affirm Moses’s (and Elijah’s) importance as revealing the
true state of the resurrection as opposed to the illusory state of worldly exis-
tence, other Gnostic works notably drop Moses from references to the same
passage. Rather than maligning Moses as the Second Discourse of the Great
Seth does (NHC VII,2), or resisting and relying upon him as the Apocryphon
of John (NHC II,1) does, most sources that demote Moses do so by removing
him from places where one might expect to find him. This is done in two ways:
firstly, dropping him and Elijah from the Mount of Transfiguration; secondly,
by placing other figures on the mountain to receive revelations, effectively mir-
roring and replacing Moses’s Sinai revelation.
96 Treat. Res. NHC I,4 49.13–24 (Peel 1985).

97 See especially Clem. Alex., Strom. 5 and 7.

Gnosticfrom
Studies 6 (2021) 1–30
Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
5.1 Jesus Alone on the Mount

One of the most striking images of Moses in the gospels is his appearance
alongside Jesus and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration.98 Yet, while several
Gnostic treatises retell or allude to this event, they exclude both Moses and
Elijah from it. In the Gospel of Philip (NHC II,3) the polymorphic Jesus appears
to each person as that person is to the point that he is practically a mirror to
each being.99 Put another way, you can only see what you are.100 On the Mount
of Transfiguration, the disciples could finally see Jesus as he was – great – not
because Jesus changed, but because the disciples had.101 It is a striking inter-
pretation of the tradition, but what is especially noteworthy is the complete
absence of the rest of the mountain scene: there is no Moses or Elijah, just
Jesus and Jesus’s disciples.
Excepting the Treatise on the Resurrection (NHC I,4), this is typical of
Gnostic sources. The entire Book of Allogenes (TC) is a revelation discourse
given on Mount Tabor; it is a mixture of Jesus’s (the Stranger’s) temptation
by the devil and his transfiguration in a bright cloud of light. While the text
is highly fragmentary, only Jesus (the Stranger) and his disciples are present.
By contrast, other Christian groups invoked the Mount of Transfiguration for
the very reason that Moses and Elijah were present and, thereby, represented
the continuity between the old and new revelations, between Moses and the
prophets, on one hand, and Jesus, on the other. Epiphanius cites it against
Saturnilos and Marcion.102 While some Christians began increasingly using
the Mount of Transfiguration for the purpose of demonstrating such continu-
ity, Moses and Elijah suspiciously drop from many Gnostic accounts, subtly
uncoupling such continuity by omission.
5.2 Replacing Moses: Other Revealers on the Mountain

Several works include revelatory discourses by Jesus on a mountain given to
a particular disciple or group of disciples, usually comprising the content of
the entire text. It includes retellings of creation that ground the place of the
listener in the cosmos. While these works resemble earlier and contemporary
98 Matt. 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–8; Luke 9:28–36.

99 Gos. Phil. NHC II,3 57,28–58,10 (Layton 1989a). Cf. the polymorphism at the beginning
of the Ap. John NHC II,11.5–2.25 where Jesus appears as an old and young man, which, in
turn, resembles many of the discussions of the Two Powers controversy (see Segal 1977);
Pleše 2006, 28–40.
100 Cf. 61.20–35.
101 Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.1: one sees God when one is changed, or perfected;
here at death.
102 Pan. 23.6.1–2; Pan. 42, scholia 17 and 63.

1–30 from Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
24 Calaway
accounts of Jesus’s post-resurrection appearances, they also pick up on tradi-

tional motifs of a divine revelation on a mountain reminiscent of God appear-
ing to Moses at Sinai/Horeb.
In the canonical gospels, for example, only Matthew 28:16–20 places a post-
resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples on a mountain. It is, notably,
the gospel that most extensively attempts to present Jesus as a new Moses.
Acts 1:12, in passing and after the fact, however, also notes that the disciples
had been at Mount Olivet outside of Jerusalem when they had received some
instructions from the resurrected Christ. The recasting of Moses motifs –
deriving from written and oral stories surrounding the Exodus in the gospels
and Acts from the Mount of Transfiguration to these two post-resurrection
appearances on a mountain – form a basis for the disappearing Moses in sev-
eral Gnostic works.103
In the Apocryphon of John (NHC II,1), John receives his revelation of Jesus
on the mountain.104 The appearance of Christ has some resemblances with
post-resurrection appearances and typical apocalyptic motifs, such as those
found in Revelation. But it also resembles some late antique Jewish discus-
sions of the appearance of the LORD at the Sea and on the mountain. In this
revelation, the heavens open, there is an earthquake, and a polymorphic Christ
appears as an old man and a young man (yet triply formed). He reveals past,
present, and future, that which is visible and that which is invisible to John.
The open heaven motif, earthquakes, and the revelation of past, present, and
future are typical apocalyptic tropes. Even the revelation of visible and invis-
ible resembles the apocalyptic emphasis on the revelation of that which is hid-
den, whether above (in the supernal realms) or below.
But many of these motifs also resemble Sinai: the earthquake, the revelation
of a divine figure (Jesus) to another (John) on a mountain, and the appear-
ance of the polymorphic Christ as an old and young man. The first two are in
Exodus, but the second relies upon later Jewish interpretation of the Exodus
events. While Jesus changes appearance often in post-resurrection visions as
well as on the mount of Transfiguration in the canonical gospels as well as
in the Gospel of Philip, the statement that he appeared as an old man and a
young man deserves special comment. In Rabbinic discourses that sought to
counter the “two powers” heresy, the LORD would appear as a young man (a
warrior) at the sea and an old man on the mountain.105 The different appear-
ances of God as old and young also symbolize his mercy and justice. Therefore,
103 See Pleše 2006, 21 n.14.

104 Ap. John NHC II, 1 5–2.25 (Waldstein and Wisse).
105 For the classic discussion, see Segal 1977.

Gnosticfrom
Studies 6 (2021) 1–30
Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
in a scene already reminiscent of Sinai known from biblical sources, the

Apocryphon of John resembles Jewish traditions that had developed in its own
late antique milieu.
There are other Moses motifs in Allogenes at the end of the book
(NHC XI,3).106 In this revelation discourse of Youel to Allogenes, Allogenes is
instructed to write everything down and place the tablets on a mountain, a
job that he delegates to his son Messos. While the content of the revelations
is Platonic, there are, nonetheless, several Mosaic tropes operating. Allogenes
receives five revelations. While five is an important Sethian number, with ritual
significance of the five seals, the shift from a ritualized baptismal context to
five discourses given on a mountain has a Mosaic ring to it.107 Secondly, the
name of the revealer figure is known not only from other Sethian sources but
also from Jewish apocalypses and mystical literature as Yahoel or Yoel, whose
name derives from the Tetragrammaton YHWH.108
Thirdly, the writing and deposition of the discourses on tablets on the
mountain had become a prominent motif in late antique Judaism and in the
Nag Hammadi codices but also stems from Sinai.109 Finally, with all of these
Mosaic motifs, there is a question about the name of Allogenes’s son, Messos.110
It sounds similar to Moses but also could be “middle man” or mediator.111
This is not, however, an either/or scenario, since Paul also implies Moses’s
mediator role.112
6 Conclusion
How Gnostic groups viewed Moses is more complex than one might expect.
One presupposes that he, along with the rest of the prophets, would simply
be denigrated as the prophet of the ignorant demiurge. But this perspective
106 Allogenes NHC XI, 3 68.15–69.16 (Turner 1990).

107 See King 2006, 150–152, for a quick overview with citations of several possibilities of the
significance of five in the context of the Sethian ritual of sealing.
108 Apoc. Abr. 10.3–17; Gos. Eg. NHC III,2 50.2, 53.25, 55.22, 62.6; Gos. Eg. NHC IV,2 56.20, 69.23;
Zost. VIII,1 52.14, 54.17, 63.11, 125.14; King 1995, 46; Scholem 1946, 68–69, also notes that
Yahoel is often identified with Metatron in late antique and medieval Jewish works.
109 Exod. 31:18; 32:15–17; 34:1–4; Jub. 1:4–5:26; Josephus, Ant. 1.70; cf. Ap. John NHC II,1:31.28–34;
Gos. Eg. NHC III,2 68.1 – end; Disc. 8–9 NHC VI,6 61.18–63.32; Zost. NHC VIII,1 129–130;
Apoc. Adam NHC V,5 85.3–18 has the revelation inscribed into the rock on a high moun-
tain; cf. King 1995, 182–183.
110 Allogenes NHC XI,3 50.17–20, 68.28, 69.1, 69.16 (Turner 1990).
111 A suggestion originally made by Schenke 1990, 422. Cf. King 1995, 109.
112 Gal. 3:19–20.

1–30 from Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
26 Calaway
turns out not to be the whole story. While some Gnostics did view Moses in this
way, others had a more troubled, ambivalent relationship with him. Clearly
depending upon Moses and even citing him authoritatively at points, they also
claim that he often got his account wrong or misunderstood its significance.
Other sources, however, rely upon and cite him as an authoritative source
without any evident ambivalence, channelling his authority to undergird their
own perspectives, often claiming that his insight surpassed the demiurge. Far
from being merely the instrument of the demiurge, some sources even present
him as a proto-Gnostic who was a revealer of spiritual realities, a prophet of
the Spirit whose origin and final existence was in the realm of Spirit. From the
ignorant mouthpiece of the demiurge to the inspired Gnostic prophet of spiri-
tual realities, there is no single Gnostic position vis-à-vis Moses.
Beyond just diversity of opinion, one can determine some significant pat-
terns. Firstly, while the majority of works display some degree of ambiva-
lence toward Moses, one might note that the most negative works, including
the Second Discourse of the Great Seth (NHC VII,2), derive from a variety
of backgrounds, including Sethian and many that are difficult to categorize.
On the other hand, the most positive works tend to be those categorized
as Valentinian, such as Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora and the Treatise on the
Resurrection (NHC I,4). Among the more middling ambivalent works, Sethian
works such as the Apocryphon of John (NHC II,1) tended to be more negative
in their ambivalence, while Valentinian sources such as the Tripartite Tractate
(NHC I,5) tended to be more positive. Thus, there appears to be a social dimen-
sion underlying these views of Moses.
Secondly, these perspectives of Moses develop patterns found in works in
the New Testament. Both negative and positive evaluations of Moses have
overlaps. For example, all of the works largely fall within the framework that
no one can see God (the Father) and live, except for the Son. Sometimes this
is expressed negatively. Whether considering the views found in the New
Testament that Moses only saw angels and never God (as in Second Discourse
of the Great Seth NHC VII,2), ambivalent interactions (as in Irenaeus’s discus-
sion), or even positive reminiscences where Moses interacts with Achamoth or
higher spiritual realities, the revealer still cannot be the first Father or Depth,
whom none, not even Sophia, can comprehend.
There is, furthermore, reflection upon or general resemblance with the
Sermon on the Mount. This, again, can be expressed negatively, as in the
Apocryphon of John (NHC II,1) where “it is not as Moses said,” resembling
the “antitheses” of the Sermon of the Mount, “you have heard it said … but I
say to you.”113 It is also more explicitly expressed in Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora,

Gnosticfrom
Studies 6 (2021) 1–30
Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
where he uses the Sermon on the Mount as a template for scriptures to be

accepted or fulfilled, rejected or reinterpreted symbolically, representing
Moses as a pre-eminent pragmatist who responded effectively to situational
(though not universal) needs. Ptolemy’s solution, while “blasphemous” accord-
ing to Epiphanius, ultimately aligns with other Christians’ hermeneutical
practice that accepted some things, especially if Jesus reaffirmed it, rejected
other things as of temporal necessity, such as divorce, and thought other
things were meant to be symbolic, such as the Tabernacle. Furthermore, in
the Treatise on the Resurrection (NHC I,4), there is interaction with the Mount
of Transfiguration tradition, affirming Moses’s presence there as proof of the
spiritual reality of “resurrection,” indicating that Moses, like a good Gnostic,
participated in that reality.
Finally, with the overlaps in formal elements and often in content with New
Testament works, as well as a social distinction between difficult-to-categorize
or Sethian works, on the one hand, and Valentinian works, on the other hand,
for rejecting or accepting Moses as the revealer of spiritual realities, one can
begin to postulate some greater social importance. The debate about the sta-
tus of Moses’s revelations, visions, and prophecies has less to do with Gnostic
relationships to Judaism than with how these differing Gnostic groups saw
themselves vis-à-vis other Christians, particularly those who sought greater
continuity between the Hebrew Bible and themselves.114
The debates over whether Moses knew anything of the Savior or not most
clearly point to such a context: those works that deny it clearly do not have
non-Christian Jews in sight (since they, too, would reject that Moses and the
prophets foresaw Christ) but other Christians who drew such continuities,
including those we now call proto-orthodox as well as Valentinians. Sometimes
this is a matter of tone rather than content: both the Apocryphon of John
(NHC II,1) and the Tripartite Tractate (NHC I,5) agree that Moses and the
prophets got many details wrong but often affirm that they got some general
outlines of things correct. But the Apocryphon of John criticizes Moses for this
while the Tripartite Tractate praises Moses and the prophets for it. For works
like the Tripartite Tractate, in particular, one’s attitude toward Moses seems to
reflect one’s view of “psychic” Christians. While the Gospel of Mary may have
a passing reference to Moses, and not a flattering one, the critique seems to be
directed towards other Christians who were promulgating new rules and laws,
not (only) Jewish Law in texts such as the Didache. For figures like Marcus,
the stories of Genesis and Exodus (especially creation and the tabernacle) are
allegories of the Gnostic myth, aligning that myth with the ancient authority
of Moses.
114 See already Fossum 1985, 4.

1–30 from Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
28 Calaway
Was this interpretative enterprise directed at convincing other Gnostics

of the continuity between old and new revelations? Was it directed at non-
Gnostic Christians to demonstrate that they were not so different in their
approach? While there is no single Gnostic Moses, Moses provides a consis-
tent function: he is an index to how Gnostics viewed themselves vis-à-vis other
Christians and other Christian Gnostics.
Bibliography
Attridge, Harold and Elaine Pagels. 1985. “The Tripartite Tractate.” Pages 217–497 in Nag
Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex). Edited by Harold Attridge. Leiden: Brill.
Bloom, Harold. 1973. Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bloom, Harold. 1975. A Map of Misreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brakke, David. 2010. The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Calaway, Jared C. 2013. “To See God and Live in Late Antique Judaism.” Pages 145–186
in Seeing the God: Ways of Envisioning the Divine in Ancient Mediterranean Religion.
Edited by Jeffrey B. Pettis. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
Calaway, Jared C. 2019. The Christian Moses: Vision, Authority, and the Limits of
Humanity in the New Testament and Early Christianity. Montreal and Kingston:
McGill-Queensland University Press.
Dehardins, Michel and James Brashler. 1996. “NHC VII,3: Apocalypse of Peter.”
Pages 201–247 in Nag Hammadi Codex VII. Edited by Birger A. Pearson. Leiden. Brill.
Fishbane, Michael. 1994. The Kiss of God: Spiritual and Mystical Death in Judaism.
Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Fossum, Jarl E. 1985. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish
Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Gager, John. 1989. Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature.
Jonas, Hans. 2001 [1958]. The Gnostic Religion: The Message of an Alien God and the
Beginnings of Christianity. Third Edition. Boston: Beacon Press.
King, Karen L. 1995. Revelation of the Unknowable God. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge.
King, Karen L. 2003a. The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle.
Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge.
King, Karen L. 2003b. What is Gnosticism? Cambridge: Belknapp Press of Harvard
University Press.
King, Karen L. 2006. Secret Revelation of John. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Layton, Bentley. 1987. The Gnostic Scriptures. New York: Doubleday.

Gnosticfrom
Studies 6 (2021) 1–30
Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
Layton, Bentley. 1989a. “Tractate 3: The Gospel According to Philip.” Pages 142–215 in
Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926(1), and P.Oxy 1,
654, 655. Vol. 1. Edited by Bentley Layton. Leiden: Brill.
Layton, Bentley, 1989b. “Tractate 4: The Hypostasis of the Archons.” Pages 234–259 in
Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926(1), and P.Oxy 1,
654, 655. Vol. 1. Edited by Bentley Layton. Leiden: Brill.
Layton, Bentley. 1989c. “Tractate 5: Treatise without Title on the Origin of the World.”
Pages 28–134 in Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926(1),
and P.Oxy 1, 654, 655. Vol. 2. Edited by Bentley Layton. Leiden: Brill.
Lillie, Celene. 2017. The Rape of Eve: The Transformation of Roman Ideology in Three
Early Christian Retellings of Genesis. Fortress Press.
Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. 2006. Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus
Traditions. Leiden: Brill.
Meeks, Wayne. 1967. The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology.
Leiden: Brill.
Meyer, Marvin, trans. 2007. “The Secret Book of John.” Pages 107–132 in The Nag
Hammadi Scriptures: The International Edition. Edited by Marvin Meyer. New York:
Harper One.
Pagels, Elaine. 1975. The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters. Harrisburg,
PA: Trinity Press International.
Pearson, Birger. 1990. Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity. Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press.
Pearson, Birger A. 2000 [1988]. “Revisiting Norea.” Pages 265–275 in Images of
the Feminine in Gnosticism. Edited by Karen L. King. Studies in Antiquity and
Christianity 4. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International Press [Philadelphia: Fortress
Press].
Peel, Malcolm L. 1985. “The Treatise on the Resurrection (I,4:43.25–50.18).” Pages 123–
157 in Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex). Edited by Harold Attridge. Leiden:
Brill.
Pleše, Zlatko. 2006. Poetics of the Gnostic Universe: Narrative and Cosmology in the
Apocryphon of John. Leiden: Brill.
Riley, Gregory. 1996. “NHC VII,2: Second Treatise of the Great Seth.” Pages 129–199 in
Nag Hammadi Codex VII. Edited by Birger Pearson. Leiden: Brill.
Schenke, Hans-Martin. 1990. “Bemerkungen zur Apokalypse des Allogenes (NHC
XI,3).” Pages 417–424 in Coptic Studies: Acts of the Third International Congress of
Coptic Studies, Warsaw, 20–25 August, 1984. Edited by Wlodzimierz, Godlewski.
Varsovie: PWN-Éditions scientifiques de Pologne.
Schoedel, William R. 1979. “The (First) Apocalypse of James V,3:24,10–44,10.” Pages 65–
103 in Nag Hammadi Codices V, 2–4 and VI with Papyrus Berlinensis 8502, 1 and 4.
Edited by Douglas M. Parrott. Leiden: Brill.

1–30 from Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access
30 Calaway
Scholem, Gershom. 1946. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New York: Schocken Books.
Segal, Alan F. 1977. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and
Gnosticism. Leiden: Brill.
Turner, John D. 1990. “NHC XI,3: Allogenes.” Pages 192–267 in Nag Hammadi Codices
XI, XII, XIII. Edited by Charles W. Hedrick. Leiden: Brill.
Waldstein, Michael, and Frederik Wisse. 1995. The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag
Hammadi Codices II,1; III,1; and IV,1 with BG 8502,2. Leiden: Brill.
Williams, Frank, trans. 2009. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Book I (Sects 1–46).
Second Edition. Leiden: Brill.
Williams, Michael Allen. 1996. Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a
Dubious Category. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wilson, R.McL., and George W. MacRae. 1979. “BG,1: The Gospel of Mary.” Pages 453–
471 in Nag Hammadi Codices V, 2–4 and VI with Papyrus Berlinensis 8502, 1 and 4.
Edited by Douglas M. Parrott. Leiden: Brill.

Gnosticfrom
Studies 6 (2021) 1–30
Brill.com08/31/2023 03:51:48PM
via free access

Gnos Article p1 - 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gnos Article p1 - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 6 (2021) 1–30

From Ignorant to Inspired: Moses in Gnostic

Moses – demiurge – proto-Gnostic – Gnostic prophet – heresiology

When speaking “Against the Gnostics” in his Panarion, Epiphanius writes,

1 Pan. 26.11.12 (Williams 2009).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/2451859X-12340100

2 The Demiurge’s Mouthpiece: Moses as Disseminator of Ignorance

Firstly, corroborating general assumptions of the “Gnostic Moses,” some

Gnosis: Journal ofDownloaded

Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 6 (2021)Downloaded

The Savior’s command in the Gospel of Mary belongs to intra-Christian

Moses was a buffoon, a faithful servant, called “friend” [Num. 12:6–8;

12 NHC VII,73.23–75.7, 76.23–79.31 (Dehardins and Brashler 1996).

Gnosis: Journal ofDownloaded

15 Disc. Seth. NHC VII, 2 63.26–64.17 (Riley 1996).

Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 6 (2021)Downloaded

3.1 Reliance and Resistance: Irenaeus and the Apocryphon of John

Gnosis: Journal ofDownloaded

23 Calaway 2013; 2019.

Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 6 (2021)Downloaded

28 See further Tert., Adv. Marc. 4.23.

Gnosis: Journal ofDownloaded

33 Ap. John NHC II,1 22.22–24 (Waldstein and Wisse 1995).

Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 6 (2021)Downloaded

43 Ap. John NHC II,1 23.9–16 (Waldstein and Wisse 1995).

Gnosis: Journal ofDownloaded

According to Christ’s teaching, Plato, Moses, and Solomon offer only a

The Apocryphon of John seeks to harmonize all of this literature, correcting

48 King 2006, 180–181.

Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 6 (2021)Downloaded

demiurge.52 Pleše’s inference makes sense of Moses’s partial knowledge: that

52 Pleše 2006, 67–68, 167–169.

Gnosis: Journal ofDownloaded

emulating it, resembles Harold Bloom’s “anxiety of influence.”56 It may be

3.2 Ancient Source Criticism: Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora

56 E.g., Pleše 2006, 202. Bloom 1973; 1975.

Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 6 (2021)Downloaded

Gnosis: Journal ofDownloaded

3.3 The Psychic Seer of the Spiritual: Tripartite Tractate

71 Tri. Trac. NHC I,5 110.22–114.30 (Attridge and Pagels 1985).

Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 6 (2021)Downloaded

Hebrew prophets provide positive exemplars for psychical Christians, who,

3.4 Ambivalent Conclusions

4 Moses the Gnostic Prophet: The Revealer of True Realities

Gnosis: Journal ofDownloaded

4.1 Citing Moses as an Authoritative Source

Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 6 (2021)Downloaded

Gnosis: Journal ofDownloaded

This passage continues at some length relating different aspects of

4.2 Moses as a Gnostic Prophet

83 Pan. 34.15.2–3 (Williams 2009).

Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 6 (2021)Downloaded

Gnosis: Journal ofDownloaded

What, then, is resurrection? It is at all times the revelation of those

92 Treat. Res. NHC I,4 48.3–19 (Peel 1985).

Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 6 (2021)Downloaded

5 Conspicuous Absences: The Disappearing Moses

96 Treat. Res. NHC I,4 49.13–24 (Peel 1985).

Gnosis: Journal ofDownloaded

5.1 Jesus Alone on the Mount

5.2 Replacing Moses: Other Revealers on the Mountain

98 Matt. 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–8; Luke 9:28–36.

Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 6 (2021)Downloaded