Other Ancient Writings · Detailed Guide

Jannes and Jambres

The names 2 Timothy gives to Moses’ opponents belong to a Jewish tradition older than the New Testament. A separate Jannes-and-Jambres apocryphon also survives in multiple fragmentary witnesses, but the relationship between that book and 2 Timothy should not be overstated.

Exodus 7–8 background Pre-Christian Jewish naming tradition 2 Timothy 3:8 Fragmentary Greek and Ethiopic textual tradition

How NLDG is approaching this tradition

This guide separates three layers: the unnamed Egyptian magicians in Exodus, the pre-Christian Jewish naming tradition, and the later recoverable Book or Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres. They overlap, but they are not automatically the same literary source.

Start here

Three layers, one developing tradition

1 · Exodus

Unnamed magicians

Exodus 7–8 describes Egyptian magicians who imitate some of Moses and Aaron’s signs before eventually failing and acknowledging “the finger of God.” The text does not give their names.

2 · Jewish naming tradition

Yannes and his brother

The Damascus Document preserves a pre-Christian Jewish tradition naming one opponent as Yannes/Jannes and referring to “his brother.” This shows that the naming tradition predates 2 Timothy.

3 · 2 Timothy and the apocryphon

Jannes and Jambres

2 Timothy 3:8 gives the familiar pair of names. A separate ancient apocryphal book about the two magicians also circulated, but direct dependence of 2 Timothy on that specific book remains uncertain.

Canonical background

What Exodus actually says

In Exodus 7, Pharaoh summons wise men, sorcerers, and Egyptian magicians after Aaron’s staff becomes a serpent. The magicians imitate the sign, but Aaron’s staff swallows theirs. They also reproduce the water-to-blood sign and the frogs.

By Exodus 8:18–19, the magicians cannot reproduce the plague of gnats and tell Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” The canonical story therefore presents their power as limited and ultimately unable to match God’s action through Moses and Aaron.

Nothing in Exodus identifies the magicians as Jannes and Jambres. Those names enter the interpretive tradition later.

Pre-Christian evidence

The Damascus Document changes the timeline

The Damascus Document, a Jewish sectarian work associated with the world of the Dead Sea Scrolls, contains a striking retrospective reference to the Exodus conflict. It places Moses and Aaron on the side of the Prince of Lights and says that Belial raised up Yannes and his brother against Israel.

This is important because the tradition is pre-Christian. It means the naming of Moses’ magical opponents was already circulating in Jewish interpretation before 2 Timothy.

The passage does not yet preserve the familiar full pair “Jannes and Jambres.” It names one brother and leaves the second simply as “his brother,” showing that the tradition itself developed over time.

2 Timothy 3:8–9

Why the names appear in the New Testament

2 Timothy compares false teachers to Jannes and Jambres, saying that just as those men opposed Moses, these teachers oppose the truth. The point is not to retell the Exodus story but to use the traditional opponents of Moses as a moral analogy.

The following verse stresses that such opposition will ultimately be exposed. That mirrors the Exodus pattern: the Egyptian magicians can imitate for a time, but their limits become plain.

Modern Bible notes commonly identify Jannes and Jambres as the traditional names given to Pharaoh’s magicians. That explanation fits the older Jewish evidence.

Authorship note: This guide discusses the literary relationship of 2 Timothy 3:8 regardless of how readers assess scholarly debates over Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.

The separate apocryphal work

The Book / Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres

An ancient narrative about Jannes and Jambres circulated independently of 2 Timothy. Albert Pietersma’s critical edition assembled the principal Greek evidence under the title The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians.

Pietersma describes the work as composed in Greek, perhaps as early as the first century CE. Because the surviving witnesses are fragmentary and later than the proposed composition, the exact date remains approximate.

The story expands the magicians into full literary characters, developing their relationship, magical opposition, punishment, death, and postmortem material far beyond the brief references in Exodus or 2 Timothy.

Textual evidence

From papyrus fragments to a more complete Ethiopic witness

Greek papyri

The most important witnesses include Papyrus Chester Beatty XVI and Vienna papyrus fragments. Pietersma’s edition also incorporates related Greek and Latin/Old English material.

P. Chester Beatty XVI

The principal Greek witness preserves a large but fragmentary body of the narrative. Its physical reconstruction is complex, so the exact order of every fragment cannot be treated as self-evident.

Latin and Old English

A British Library leaf preserves part of the tradition in Latin and Old English, showing how widely the story continued to circulate in Christian Europe.

2019 · Ethiopic fragment

Ted Erho and W. B. Henry published a newly identified Ge'ez fragment and used it with the Greek papyri to refine the reconstruction of the work.

2025 · complete Ethiopic version reported

Recent scholarship now includes a new translation and an appendix summarizing a complete Ethiopic version. This significantly improves the evidence base beyond the fragmentary state known to earlier scholarship.

Textual guardrail: A more complete Ethiopic witness helps reconstruct the book, but it does not erase the need to distinguish translation history, manuscript date, and the date of the underlying Greek composition.

The source question

Did 2 Timothy quote the Book of Jannes and Jambres?

Origen already believed that the New Testament reference came from a book about Jannes and Jambres. That makes direct literary dependence an ancient interpretation, not a modern invention.

But the naming tradition itself is older than the New Testament and wider than any single surviving book. Because the names could circulate orally, in Jewish interpretive traditions, and in more than one written form, 2 Timothy does not have to depend directly on the apocryphon preserved in the surviving manuscripts.

The safest conclusion is therefore layered: 2 Timothy clearly uses an established Jewish tradition about Jannes and Jambres; whether it directly cites the particular apocryphal book we can partially reconstruct remains uncertain.

Keep the sources separated

Exodus, Damascus Document, 2 Timothy, and the apocryphon

Exodus 7–8

Unnamed opponents

Pharaoh’s magicians imitate several signs, then fail and acknowledge God’s power. No names are supplied.

Damascus Document

One name plus “his brother”

Pre-Christian Jewish evidence names Yannes/Jannes and his brother within a light-versus-Belial framework.

2 Timothy 3:8

The familiar pair

Jannes and Jambres function as well-known examples of people who opposed Moses and whose folly became evident.

Apocryphon

Expanded narrative

A separate literary work develops the two magicians into narrative characters with stories far beyond the biblical references.

Biblical connections

Where the tradition helps readers see the text more clearly

Primary canonical connection

2 Timothy 3:8–9

The epistle uses Jannes and Jambres as analogies for false teachers who resist truth but will ultimately be exposed.

The names are traditional; direct quotation from the recoverable apocryphon is not established.

Open the 2 Timothy study →

Narrative background

Exodus 7:8–13

Aaron’s staff becomes a serpent, Pharaoh’s magicians imitate the sign, and Aaron’s staff swallows theirs. Later tradition identifies these opponents by name.

Open the Exodus study →

Failure exposed

Exodus 8:18–19

The magicians fail to reproduce the next sign and acknowledge “the finger of God,” providing the narrative pattern behind 2 Timothy 3:9’s expectation that false teachers’ folly will become evident.

Return to Exodus →

Wider Jewish interpretive world

Why this matters for reading the New Testament

2 Timothy shows that biblical writers and audiences could share traditional identifications not supplied by the Old Testament text itself. Recognizing that world helps explain the passage without pretending every tradition used by a biblical writer became canonical Scripture.

Key themes

What the tradition does with Pharaoh’s magicians

Imitation versus truth

The magicians can imitate divine signs for a time, but imitation is not the same as possessing God’s authority.

Limits of deceptive power

The Exodus pattern and 2 Timothy both stress that opposition eventually reaches its limit and is exposed.

Memory filling narrative gaps

Jewish tradition supplies names and stories where the canonical narrative remains silent.

Spiritual conflict

The Damascus Document recasts the Exodus contest within its dualistic language of the Prince of Lights and Belial.

Expansion of biblical characters

The later apocryphon turns brief anonymous antagonists into developed literary figures.

Tradition and Scripture

The New Testament can make use of inherited tradition without erasing the distinction between that tradition and the biblical canon.

Canon and reception

A known tradition without canonical book status

Jewish tradition

The names and legends circulated in Jewish interpretation, but no Book of Jannes and Jambres belongs to the Tanakh.

Roman Catholic tradition

The apocryphon is not part of the Catholic Old Testament canon. 2 Timothy itself is canonical and preserves the traditional names.

Eastern Orthodox traditions

The Jannes-and-Jambres apocryphon is not generally a separate biblical book in the major Orthodox canons.

Protestant traditions

The apocryphon is outside the Protestant Old Testament canon and is studied primarily for historical and interpretive background.

Reading guardrails

Claims this page does not make

Exodus does not name Jannes and Jambres.

The names come from later Jewish tradition.

The naming tradition is older than 2 Timothy.

The Damascus Document prevents us from treating the names as a Christian invention.

The apocryphon and the naming tradition are not automatically identical.

A traditional pair of names could circulate before or alongside a developed literary work.

Origen’s claim is important but not decisive.

His attribution shows ancient belief in direct literary dependence; it does not prove the exact source route.

2 Timothy 3:8 is not labeled a verified direct quotation.

Direct dependence on the recoverable Book of Jannes and Jambres remains possible but uncertain.

A complete Ethiopic witness does not automatically settle the Greek original.

Translation history and textual reconstruction still require critical comparison.

Full-text access

Translation verification status

Verification stage

NLDG is not reproducing a complete translation yet.

Before hosting full text, NLDG will verify the critical Greek reconstruction, the relationship of the Chester Beatty and Vienna fragments, the Latin and Old English witnesses, the newly available Ethiopic evidence, editorial restorations, translation accuracy, and copyright or public-domain status. Fragmentary or reconstructed text must never be presented as though every line survives continuously in one ancient manuscript.

Pietersma critical edition overview ↗ 2019 Ethiopic fragment study ↗

Research sources

Sources behind this guide

Albert Pietersma · BrillCritical edition of the Apocryphon, Greek composition, manuscript evidence, and extensive history of the legend Pietersma · Damascus Document chapterPre-Christian evidence for Yannes/Jannes and his brother Pietersma · P. Chester Beatty XVI codicologyPrincipal Greek manuscript witness and physical reconstruction Erho & Henry · Ethiopic Jannes and Jambres2019 publication of a Ge'ez fragment with new Greek joins and reconstruction work Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 22025 new translation by W. B. Henry and T. M. Erho plus summary of a complete Ethiopic version Ted M. Erho · complete Ethiopic version summaryBibliographic record for the 2025 published appendix Cambridge · Biggs & HallExodus background, 2 Timothy naming, and later Jannes/Mambres tradition USCCB · Exodus 7Canonical narrative of the unnamed Egyptian magicians and cross-reference to 2 Timothy 3:8 USCCB · 2 Timothy 3Canonical text and note identifying Jannes and Jambres as traditional names for Moses’ opponents

Continue exploring

Move from surviving traditions to writings Scripture names but we no longer possess.

Return to the Moses tradition guide, go back to the Ancient Writings library, or continue to the Book of Jashar.

Other Ancient Writings