sensible objects as oxiacpa 70d pu) dvros: the ju) ov is obviously
PISTIS, GNOSIS, COSMOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY } PISTIS, GNOSIS, | century A.D.), who had described the matter which is present in | 3. In Strom. v. 92. 1 C sensible objects as oxiacpa 70d pu) dvros: the ju) ov is obviously i} sophers had taken from the #Ay in general.! Like Aristotle, Numenius opposes iAy to beginning; he himself odola.? As to Plotinus, he practically identifies dAy with pu) dv.3 order to support it, quo Referring to the dzroSoy7 of the Timaeus, he maintains that matter
92. 2).! In this way, he a can be known by the human mind only by means of analysis; i that Plato, in the Timaeu what remains at the end of this process kar' ddaipeow can hardly and that, a long time b be perceived, and does not belong to the class of real beings.* doctrine in Genesis.? Bo Accordingly, the expression pz) 6v simply means for Plotinus with such exponents of 'non-real being': it does not imply that Plotinus did not believe i and the author of the in the existence of an original matter.' Clement's use of the ex- | Laertius.3 The opposite pression jz?) 6v in connection with matter reflects a view which | world had no beginning was current in Neopythagoreanism and Neoplatonism.® exponents of the school t,t) 4, | Celsus,° and Taurus." Th 1 As to the attribution of the passage of Simplicius, in Phys. 230. 34 ff., to Moderatus see E. R. Dodds, CQ 22 (1928), 137-8. i| in the case of matter, the defini 2 Sce Proclus, in Tim. 299 c (196. 16 Diehl), rv pev odaiav Exovow duryi mpds
Hl imply the denial of his existenc rip DAqv... cs of rept Novprmov A€yovow.
( as a 'real being' since he is bey 3 Enn. ii, 4. 10, ék Barépou obx ddnBods... dco rv dvrew .. . vy 7G pip ve (these 1 Tim. 28 b, wérepov Fv, ép three expressions all refer to matter). It goes without saying that for Plotinus dn i twos apédpevos; yéyovev. is dmowos (Enn. i. 4. 8), 088 oxfua (i. 4. 8), mdvrov epnpos (i. 4. 8),76 duopfdv and 2 De Aet. M. 15, Bédrwo od... elSos (i. 4. 10). Cf, Simplicius, in Phys. 230. 26, dmoppéov els 73 xi) év, and in De Aet. M. 13, yevqrdv 88 xa 230. 29, dnogedyouaay abriw dé 700 dvros. Plutarch (De An. Procr. in Tim. 1014 b) and 19, paxpots 8& xpdvois mpér and Philo (De spec. Leg. i. 328) do not share this view: though admitting that dq adbaprov edn tov Kdapov ; see al is duopdos and drotos, they regard it as odoia; in this respect, they are under the to have held the view that the direct influence of the Porch. On the identification between An and odoéa in quam agere: nec unquam tempus fu the Porch see, for instance, SVF i. 85 (= i. 493) and also Baumker, op. cit. 338: et sensibilibus principium existenti 'Die Materie ist nicht eine Substanz, sondern als oberste, alles befassende Gattung
; Bousset, Jtidisch-christlicher Schul ist sie die Substanz.' right in his attempt to find th ] + See the whole paragraph of Enn. ii. 4. 10 and cf. the whole passage of Simplicius,
(Philos Schrift tiber die Vorsehung , in Phys. 226. 17-227. 22.
3 Plutarch, De An. Procr. in 5 Plotinus maintains quite openly that matter does exist: «f 5€ tis tiv TAnv | 381. 26-8 Diehl); Plutarch wr ph dnow elvar, Sexréov adr ex rev rept Dns Adyew riy dvdyxyy ris Sroordoews i rév xéopov which is now lost an aris, Enn. i. 8. 15. To this passage of Plotinus attention has been drawn by A. H.
Tim. 28 b, cf. Praechter, Grund Armstrong, TU 80 (Berlin, 1962), 427.
Praep. Ev. xv. 6. 7 (ii. 360. 19
6 V. Ermoni, TS5 (1904), 123, is therefore wrong in maintaining that 'matter Diog. Laert. iii. 71
(i. 150. 5) and bodies .
. were created by God'. H. F. Weiss, 154 n. 5, has fallen short of ZNW (1952/3), 163 and foo observing the close connection between Clement, Neopythagoreanism, and Neo- { 280-3; R. Walzer, Galeni Com platonism in the definition of matter as 17) év. It is interesting to notice thatPlotinus' the agreement between the int conception of matter is, in some way, analogous to the conception of the highest and Atticus with that given by divinity which is characteristic of Plotinus himself, of the Corpus Hermeticum, of I Serie II, xxxiii (1964), 34-6, a Basilides, and of Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita. The first principle, being without 4 De Plat. i. 198. any quality, is beyond real beings: it is cither éméxewa rijs odotas (En. v. 4. 15
5 Did. 169, 26-30. See also v. 4. 2) or dvovolacros (CH ii. 5, ef. xii, 1 and vi. 4) or even ode dy (Basilides in :
© i, 19. 4-8 and iv. 79d (c Hippol. Ref. vii. 21, 6 ov« dv Beds; the text can be found also in Vélker, Quellen | therefore wrong in maintainin zur Geschichte der christlichen Gnosis, 47; cf. J. H. Waszink, Basilides, RACh i. 1221).
| cosmologiche l'avvicinano assai Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita defines the highest divinity both as ji) dv and as mdons 7 See Taurus in Iohannes Ph odolas éréxewa, the latter expression being for him an explanation of the former rots ev Suvapevors Kal aws (adré 88 ps) dv, dbs mdons odolas enékewa, De div. Nom., PG 3. 588
13-14). AS koonos Kara xpdvov, and vi. 8