world which is orepedv by its own nature: év S¢ rH Koopoyovia TH
PISTIS, GNOSIS, COSMOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY PISTIS, GNOSIS, C mentioned in Gen. 1: 6 hints, according to them, at the corporeal
2. The evidence we world which is orepedv by its own nature: év S¢ rH Koopoyovia TH Clement believed in the e aicOnrA orepedv odpaver Snuoupyet (76 Sé arepeov aic@nrov) yi te of the world. He must sparta rat das Brendpevov, Strom. v. 94. 1 (ii. 388. 5-6), cf. Philo,
'Yrorumdces, which is st De Opif. M. 36
11. 7f.), Kal mpGrov adrod [sc. the sensible reason: bAnv re yap axpo world] rév pepdv ... émoter Tov odpavév 6 Syproupyds, dv erdpws
What Clement says in orepewpa mpoonyspevoey dre cwparixdy dvra: 76 yap cpa dice doctrine which he expou orepedv. eixdrws obv .
. Tov alabyrdv Kal owpatoedh Tobro \ contrary, provides us wit arepdwpo: exdhecev , on this question. In Stro Clement follows Philo also in the theory according to which the i put forward by some opp sensible world is nothing but an image (edx«v) ofthe intelligible
| the Stoics, Plato, andArist world, which is its model and pattern: xéopov re adfis rov first principles, he maint pev ire ofdev 7) BdpBapos procodia, tov Sé aloOnrdv, Tov pev by these philosophers as dpyérumov, rév Se cixdva 708 Kadovpévov mapadelyparos, Strom. defined by Plato as jx) é - "93 4 Gi 387.
21-3). This idea represents a fundamental criticize these philosopher element in Philo's philosophical system. It clearly appears in } share their views complet such passages as Opif. M. 16 (i. 4. 21-5. 6), Opif. M. 36 (i. 11. 6),
The doctrine of matter Opif. M. 129 (i. 44. 19-20), Quis rer. divin. Her. 280 (iii. 64. 5-7), Clement closely both wit De Plant. 50 (ii. 143. 24-144. 1), De Ebr. 133 (ii. 196. 2-3), and Jewish-Alexandrine Phil De Conf. Ling. 172 (ii. 262. 13-14). In these passages Philo simply
Aristotle and of Antiochu reproduces the Platonic doctrine according to which the sensible which Plato speaks in th world was formed after the pattern of an intelligible reality. The matter itself as originally Ty; renee starting-point of Philo's interpretation of Timaeus represents the starting-point Te oP Lat P abébane * Clement brings the doctrine Genesis. The Jewish author adopts not only
Plato 5 eos > into direct connection with Gen. but also his vocabulary: such terms as wapdderypa, apxérurov, v. 90. Bk ae that H. 1 aa , we fre Ae sys , lear Platonic origin.! This too far when he says about Cl oma) Pipnpa, ELKw@Y, VonTOY, oparov show a clea
. ie Cle 8 acral to be uncertain as to the origin is the reason why Philo —and consequently also ement—ag vacillating from one opinion to with the teaching of Middle Platonism.
Plutarch, Albinus, there is Clement of Alexandria Pn eae intai : he sensible world was 'uncertain' or 'vacillating' as to and Apuleius clearly maintain that ' leatid the arse trary, he does not hesitate to att formed after the pattern with the intelligible an use the sa cannot be regarded as a real dpx Platonic terminology as that which occurs both in Philo and * In the Timaeus Plato had s in Cl i ; things come into existence (see e in Clement. had defined it as formless (50 d-c 1 See Timaeus 28 a-b, 28 c, 29 a-b, 30 c, 30 d, 31 a, 48 €; on the dependence of by means of a sort of bastard re Philo onthe Timaeus in his iene of the origin of the world see especially the disMost probably this receptacle s sertation byJ Horowitz, Das platonische vonrov C@ov und der philonische kdapos vontds, empty space (on this question see reprinted, with some additions, under the title Untersuchungen tiber Philons und
177-88). Aristotle identified the Platons Lehre von der Weltschépfung (Marburg, 1900).
209°11-13, 51:6 kal [Adrew rip SA 2 Plutarch, De Anim. Procr. in Tim. 1019 ¢, etxacla roO vonrod poppwbev edOds 70 yap peradnmrixdy Kal tiv xdpa dardv nat épardy dor, and 1029 C, ras iS¢as cs mapadelyparos, De Is. et Osir. 373 B
7ap dv obrw dévacro, puOuileaBa [s as an? abrod [sc. 706 yonroil] 76aleOyréy kat cwparixdy eixdvas exudrrerar Kal Méyous
70 mavdexés: cf. E. Zeller, ii/1. 722
" - gobe eae avanadoes 373 b, «ixdva rod vontod Kdopou rdv alobyrdv yervds laid emphasis on the fact that ma Albinus, Déd. 167, 5-113 and Apuleius, De Plat. i. 192-9.
30617, deiBis xai duoppov Sei 7 = 8267061 PISTIS, GNOSIS, COSMOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY PISTIS, GNOSIS, C of Middle Platonism as Plutarch, Albinus, Apuleius, and the As to the definition of m authors of the sources of the third book of Diogenes Laertius attention in Strom. v. 89. and of Hippolytus regarded matter as eternal and as originally the Alexandrine theologi devoid of any quality and form. The same doctrine can also be matter and supported the found in the Wisdom of Solomon,? in Philo,* and in Justin.*
| contrary, such definition Te y aonres + apis dvipidvra xadkds...76 duoppov yer mplv daft» rhy popdhy, obrws adry | Neopythagoreanism and N [sc. Seek dors] mpés ane exer Kal leit va: parser grepe garding matter as origina tion of the Platonic j7od0x%4 with matter was inherited by / ntiochus, who also and to év.2 This Aristotel considered matter as devoid of any form and quality: sed subiectam putant omnibus
| alepely hae sine ulla specie atque carentem omni illa qualitate . .
. materiam quandam .. . quae tota ' i y BUG 1 exponents omnia accipere possit omnibusque modis mutari, Cic. Ac. Post. i, 27. For the Stoics also
] and Numenius and by Plo matter was dows (see SVF i. 85 = i. 493 and also C. Baumker, op. cit. 331-2 being (odvoia, dv) m ust co and footantent abc ugali Eilon a ' ») o t Plutarch, De An. Procr. in Tim. 1015d (vi. 163. 10-11), 8 yap Trav unrépa a Ws hat what is: dev piv al rBifqy Kadel Thy Dqv, 1024.c (vi. 1732-3) xdbpay Te yopfee aiv ohyv
{ as a real being, and is the Gonep epav eorw dre Kal brodox7v, 1014 b (vi. 159. 13-15 jv 8ovolav Kal —r re eT Oe see ion i ox Rass Bn pele i Gee 4-5, reports the view of 22-3), dpopdov pév Kal dovorarov 76 owparixdy..., tor4f. (vi. 161. 12-14), 76 i] «riorns that Philo believed in the tiv dha del ney djopdor wai doxnudrvorov tn? adrod Myeabat al ndons movéraros
Srotarite} divcthe: Wisdom,of Solo al Buvdpews otxelas epnuov, De Plac. Philos. 882 ¢ (v. 286. 17-18), Apororédns Hither (ébs aloo H. Welua perti Kai IDérov tiv Dy... dpopgor dveldeov doxnpdriaroy drow; Albinus, Did. rrlors in Philo, pp. 55-6); and 162. 25 ff. and 163. 3-7; Apuleius, De Plat. i. 191, materiam vero improcreabilem
| can refer both to the origin ofthe incorruptamque commemorat, inabsolutam, informem, nulla specie nec qualitatis significatione q opinion, p. 57), and to the ori distinctam . . .figurationis qualitate viduatam (I follow the text proposed by Sinko, i matter and ideas): there is no De Apuleiet Albin'... 133, who tightly refers to matter the words from inabsolutam
| (Biumker, op. cit. 382 n. 1, rig up o distinctam,Maa inegover connected with theeee ier. Laert. nicht auf die der Weltbildung iii. 6g (i. 149. 13-14); Hippol.
Ref. 1. 19. 3 (iii, 19. 14-20. 1). For all these ex- | sondern auf die vor ihrer Bildu ponents of Middle Platonism the Platonic JzoS0x% is not simply the empty space:
The recent attempt made by H. see Baumker, op. cit. 373-4. To the correspondence between Clement and Albinus in Philo of the idea of the creatio in the description of matter attention has been drawn by Friichtel, BPhW 57
Wolfson bases his thesis on thre (1937), 592 (see also the reprint of Stihlin's edition, app. crit., p. 385).
; 29 which deals with the origin o iy 2 Wisdom of Solomon 11:17, xricaca Tov Kdopov €& dpoppov BAqs. Cf.J.Drumopinion, wrongly—that also the mond, i. 225, and H. F. Weiss, 34. the creation of the idea of void 3 See, for instance, De Fuga et Inv. g (iii.
112. 2) and De spec. Leg. i. 328 (v. 79. 14) he infers the creation of the Pla (see also Baumker, op. cit. 381 n. 5). The only evidence we possess in favour of idea of void with the d0S0x7 of t the thesis of thepresence in Philo of the idea of thecreation of matter is represented of De Conf. Ling. 136, in which G by two passages of his work De Providentia: a Greek fragment preserved by Eusebius, xapa, he interprets the word od Praep. Ev. vii. 21 (i. 403. 20f. Mras) begins with the words mept 8¢ 700 moG0d Tis y xéipa with the Platonic szoSox7}. odclas, et yéyove Svrws; and in De Prov. ii. 49 Aucher we read quia non solum creare i never uses o@ua (which for him et edere materiam proprium est providentiae. But as far as we can sce from the other
'matter', and nowhere identifies works of Philo which have come down to us, he scems to be far from the Biblical t Logos: see De Somn. i. 62-3) with conception of God as creator ex nihilo and to consider him only as a demiurge who i + Apol. i. 10, nat mdvra thy d makes the world out ofa pre-existent and formless matter. This is the interpreta- | BAys, and i. 59, DAqv duopgov oba tion of Philo's idea of creation which is commonly accepted by modern scholars:
| Passages demonstrate that Wolfson sce, for instance, A. F. Dachne, Geschichtliche Darstellung. . ., 328 f.; C, Siegfried, creation of matter, cannot be ac
Athueaciat Wes e ac 232 ff.; H. Soulier, 22 ff.;J.Drummond, i. 297-3103 C. Baumker, op. cit., 3845 On Justin's dependence on Midd E. Zeller, iii, 2. 436; P. Heinisch, 152; E. Bréhier, 80-2; E. Frank, 75 n. 10;
ZNW 44 (1952/3), 164-5, and al and H. F. Weis, especially PP. 31-3 Only in De Sonn. i 76 @sole obk Fy, ——— exolncev, od Snpuovpyds povov G\Ad Kal KTioTNS AUTOS div) does Philo seem to have | _ * See the passages of De Cael some awareness of the difference between the Biblical idea ofcreation and the footnote 2, p. 193 above.
Greek idea of the Demiurge. It can, however, hardly be inferred from the word | * See the passage of Phys. i. 19
~ sal [For note 4 see opposite] |