These passages explain w
PISTIS, GNOSIS, COSMOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY | PISTIS, GNOSIS, C | 2. It is peculiar to the scientific demonstration to attain a | These passages explain w trustworthy conclusion. The term pistis designates therefore also
| Clement, referring to Ari :
: a3 ' a ae the firm belief of reason in the truth of the conclusion of deTH emoTNLN Kptwa, ws ad | monstration. This is the ideas which underlies some definitions 15. 5, VOl. ii, 120. 25-6).
| of demonstration given by Clement in the so-called eighth book . knowledge (i.e. of the kn | of the Stromateis: stration) is represented b | é Ms (ii. 8 i cadres.
Ba val pip & iB ad { truth is an idea which f | Strom, vill. 5.
62, 12-14): woavre jE KAL THY ATOOELELY TAVTES Z oN wy decline: si ; f seen from Top. 103°7,! avOpwrror dpodoyijcaey av Adyov elvar tots dpdrapnrovpevots €K
\ Post. 72°26, 72°90-1, zav Spohoyoupevar exzopilovra rip mtorw. Cf. Strom. ii. 48. 1
Strom. viii. 5. 3 (iii. 82. 16-17): Kupudbrara pev ody amddekis Aéyerar The pistis produced by A Thy emornpovuciy mlarw evrBetaa tais TOV pavOavdvrwn yoyats.
{ Clement a scientific char Cf. Strom. ii. 49. 3 (ii. 139. 5-7) scientific. As there are so Strom. viii. 7. 6 (iii. 83. 31-3): edv odv ris edpeOf Adyos ToLodros scientific, and some othe olos ex T&v 1}8n maTav Tots odtw moTols exrropileobax ri miorw sphere ofopinion (8éga), \ * A , RENE i i ; a as Suvrdpevos, adrév roGrov elvar prjoopev odciay dmodeifews.
Cf. pistis, the one scientific, t Strom. vii. 98. 3 (iii. 69. 22-4).
: q a distinction appears in parallels between the Jewish author and Antiochus: in Leg. Alleg. i. 29 Philo \ 'yu Po a a compares the vods to a rexvirns, just as Antiochus seems to have done, Sext. Emp.
{ ae ii. 48. 3 (ii. 138.
Adv, Math. vii. 226; Philo clearly maintains that the vods must be considered as : emiornpovurtis, Tis 8€ d the source of sensations, sinceit is the principle which imparts life to them (Leg.
Surry, Ti pev emorn Alleg. i. 29, vol. i. 68. 18-195 ii. 41, vol. i. 98. 23; and ii. 45, vol. i. 99. 12 f.) : the q yeas Kal 4 mpdyva | same things had been said by Antiochus, Cic. Ac. Pr. ii. 30, mens enim ipsa, quae
| + Man i sensuum fons est... naturalem vim habet; Philo is inclined to consider sensations as 4 Wolfson. also, The Philosoph | potentially existing in mind, Leg. Alleg. ii. 45 (i. gg. 8-12): Antiochus had held q 2 This reference is given als the same view, as can be seen from Ac. Pr. ii. go: mens... quae... ipse sensus est
}) ae of Stihlin's edition.
(on this Antiochean doctrine and its sources see Strache, Ekl. 12 and 28, and ' i in. this passage of Aristotl Reid's footnote 1 concerning Ac. Pr. ii. 30, p. 212). It must not be forgotten that { _ This Passage of Aristotle, to Antiochus remained in Alexandria for some time (dc. Pr. ii. 11) and probably
P pared with Clement, Strom. H | lectured there, Eudorus of Alexandria, a disciple of Antiochus, has most probably j kpipa cs dAnBes 168€ 7. alot e played a role of mediator between Antiochus 'and Philo: after P. Boyancé, who had f sider pistis asa vehement assu hinted at the possibility ofa close relationship between Antiochus, Eudorus, and Smoxpiveras 8€ tiv miovw } elka Philo, REG 72 (1959), 378-9, WTheiler has recently drawn attention::to sowie y Sounberpartin Aristotle, Top. 12 very close correspondences between Philo and Eudorus: see Parusia, Festgabe fir ers 1303 Witt, 33 D. 135 an } I. Hirschberger, 204-15.
| a0 785: 6, Rpt. 8€ xal 4 alor 'The terminology of this definition of demonstration shows a Stoic influence, as : nid dore i brddqyes morevoe can be seen from SVF ii. 226 (cf. Ernst, 16, and Witt, 33 n. 5). A similar definition ee is not direct, but must of demonstration was given by Antiochus: ilaque argumenti conclusio, quae est grasce oe s 1001-book containing som anddetis, ita definitur: ratio quae ex rebus perceptis ad id, quod non percipiebatur, adducit,
Se when he wrote: down th Ac. Pr. ii. 26 (the reference to this passage is given by Witt, 33 n. 73 see also Ernst, j in pe is. Like pistis in its strict 16). Ernst is right in pointing out (p. 19) the correspondence between the definition i th oe = twolold meanings i ofdemonstration given by Clement and the definition ofsyllogism given by Alexander
{ ke we pia 16, 1 quot of Aphrodisias, In An. Pr. 2532, vol. ii, pars i, pp. 438-9 and 44. 14-15 Wallies. ae ales ge, as in the passage of S 2 The correspondence between these two passages of Clement has been shown peal mys:
Kai i pev mioris by Ernst, 24, and by Stablin, app. erit., vols. i, 198 and iii, 82 stn rie, same idea of pists occ 3 On the correspondence between Strom. viii. 5. 3 and ii. 49. 2 see Ernst, 27. we Fe : n An, Pr, Prooemium 4 On the correspondence between Strom. viii. 7. 6 and vii. 98. 3 see Ernst, 28 q (vol gtk 10-12, 44. 6-8), (cf. Stahlin, app., vol. iii. 6g and 83). nals G8sGng)
PISTIS, GNOSIS, COSMOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY PISTIS, GNOSIS, €yovoa ri cavris piow, 7 S€ eAAurA. Cf. Strom, viii. 5. 2-3 (iii,
| and Clement, connects 82, 14-18).!
| demonstration: this is t oe Abas ore vase P } ion waca yap addekis The distinction between pistis and drdSekis emornpovecy and mrs Fa EP. hi . "l Sofaoricy which Clement points out in these two passages is
Piaiess 677 6) bai ' ee . based on the distinction drawn by Aristotle between the scien- (ii, 120.
A ; . wiorw etvat. Albinus ado tific syllogism on the one hand and the dialectical and rhetorical i ea ; Scoot i Beg tee . scientific demonstration, syllogisms on the other. Whereas the scientific syllogism or de- :
; saaeation (see An. Pr. 71°18, dwdSeiéw 88 nay eS syllogism which we have stra ATTOOELCLY € Aeyw ath t 0} on .
(pal \ origin of his conception émarnpovixdv) is based on premisses which are primary and true, a 4 and Sofaoru A .
* + THLOVLKT) © fe} T the two other kinds of syllogism start frompremisses which belong | alll ine rs ia to the-sphere of S4éx.
The distinction 'betw eT d :
Aoyrorixdy, ToOTo Sé els 76 > sphere of Sééa.
The distinction between scientific an a fi XY dialectical syllogism appears in Top 100°27-30, drrdSeréts pev TOV avayKalov au, OyLopLo € s s
Sra ae ae Pa ae Rieongh ¢ ue . epi rov evdo€ov avAdoyt ody éorw, Srav €& dAnbav Kat mpdbrwv 6 cvAdAoytopos 7}... eadexTiKos ae wocbhcraneaes
82 avMoyands b ee evSdéwn ouoyLdpevos, cf. An. Pr. 46%9-10 dort repi 76 evOdpnpa, 6 K els 58 als Bikcsucs Zineae Seen ea dc duow mpordacton of Albinus, in which the Fa ag oh te ie hoa al se ih tae cae particularly evident, der The dialectical syllogism is called by Aristotle also émyelpnya, oe
; Top. 162"15 SE 'Alen toohetorieal wan oF aieuih (amé8eréis q containing Peripatetic do fee Ree ed a men . y OF Sees ; Clement took the notes ! pyropuc7) is based, just as the dialectical syllogism is, on premisses and which are only probable: evOdpnpa S¢ éort ovMoyiopos e€ eiKoT wv q WANs 23; h 7p an o x A Rcakteriwittabe j Ps
Fi the other books of his St } onpelwv... 7d pev eixds éore mpdracts evdofos, An. Pr. 27°15 cf. Rhet.
197.6°6 lor 8 dnddeigis S ihenue: anid bis a case analogous to tha .
. a €OTL amrooetcts TOPLK' iiia na) ida . the doctrine of the dvam 1355° 8-9, To 8 evOdunpa ovMoyiop.ds tis.5 All this substantially oe aon "is "
| 'th wh | A ve «528 '
Since pistis is the dire | agrees with what Clement says in Strom. ii. 49. 2, 7 5€ Sofaoruc) vs a at reg se 'se ; pee it is also one and the s | amddeéis mpds TOY pyTropiuKGv ywomevy emixetpnuarwy 7) Kat dia- | mncies huh & P aoe 8 = is? 2¢ { nosis » 7) yap AVWTATW A77r yropav and in Strom. viii. 7. 8 (iii.
84. 4-7), ef 8 € fa : a ey i is ; ae i % yeas, Strom. ii. 49. 3 evddEwy povwy [sc. dp£ard ris] ou La TPWTWV ye eee ovdoyretrat beyond this assertion: s HEV, OV [LIV ETLOTHMOVLKTY YE TOLNGETAL TIV arrdderEw ; cf. Strom. ih tp .
48) if reason possesses a fir ah ee: éxdpevov TH emoripn Kp All these Aristotelian doctrines have, however, become part of J die EEeowel ai ra 25the philosophical syncretism of the first centuries A.D. and occur therefore also in Middle Platonism. Plutarch also, like Aristotle ugher than éemorjpy: K ' The correspondence between Strom. ii. 48. 1 and viii. 5.
2-3 has been pointed ean oe Aristotle, An. Post. 73° out by Ernst, 24. The zpdyvaas which is mentioned in both passages of Clement
This reference is given by Witt, refers obviously to the acceptance of the premises of demonstration. If these - Bidet ao : premises are true, the mpéyvwas will be énornovixs, if they are only probable
W itt, 45, thinks it possible and based on 8d£a the zpéyvwars will be éAmoruch or Sofacru. teaching of Antiochus. He dra 2 The reference to this passage ofthe Topics is given also by Ernst, 17 and 19. nies distinc tion between logic a 3 On this passage ofthe Prior Analytics sec also Witt, 45 n. 7. by him, pp. 45-6, but the exac + On this passage of the Topics see also Witt, loc. cit. Witt's reference to Parva
» An influence ofthe teachi Nit-aerktg in a stration and syllogism which oc Nat.
451°19 is inapplicable. on ig 5 The distinction between émorin and Sdéa is made clear by Aristotle himself: f ppeaitles Witt, 33 n. 10, refers see the section 88°30-89"6 (=chap. 33) of the first book of the Posterior Analytics. tone sed etiam necessaria . . . ratio