Although Clement makes it clear
PISTIS, GNOSIS, COSMOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY ) PISTIS, GNOSIS, C Aristotelian view of the origin of the world! and generally kept emphasis on the fact tha themselves close to the allegorical interpretation of the passage and that consequently th of Timacus 28 b which had been given in the Old Academy by days of creation must not Xenocrates andCrantor.?
An intermediate position between these him, the origin of time is two opposite views was occupied by the author of the source used
| world and is not prior to by Hippolytus in his exposition of the Platonic philosophy:
| upon Philo, who had exp according to him, the world can be regarded both as ungenerated, } 26-8 and in Leg. Alleg. i. since it is formed by matter which is coeternal with God, and } as generated, since it is a o@a which had its origin when the ideas gave shape to the formless matter.3
4. The Although Clement makes it clear that the universe was Clement's Logos plays an generated and had a beginning, on the other hand he lays
| in metaphysics. We have éyévero, odkért [i.c. Aeyérw yerntdv Tv Kéapov] (on this point se ue Merlan, 83). function which the Logo Taurus maintains that it is possible to say that the universe has been generate | se see only in two senses: (a) because its parts undergo a perpetual change, and have an both as a metaphy sical origin and an end (Ioh. Phil. De Aet. M. vi.8, vol. i. 146. 20-2; the same view is
| Here we shall therefore attributed by Philo, De Aet. M. 14, to those interpreters of Plato who regard the i physical aspect of the Log universe as generated, 4} 5d 7d ev yevéoes Kal peraBoA 7a wep Dewpetobar) ; (b) be- .
. cause its existence depends on God, exactly as the light of the moon is originated | . Clement's doctrine of by the sun (Ioh. Phil. De Act. M. vi. 8, vol. i. 147. 5-9). Taurus did not hesitate
| its dependence on Philo h to change into ef the # of the sentence of Timaeus 27 c, #} Kal dyevés éarw: see Toh, Phil. De Aet. M. vi. 21
(i. 186. 17-22) and cf. C. Andresen, Logos u. Nomos, 278.
1 Strom. vi. 145. 4 (ii. 506. 14A survey of the views of those Middle Platonists who regarded the universe as pe ev xpdvm 8é movetv tov Oedv d ungenerated can also be found in C, Biumker, PhM 23 (1887), 518; in Andresen, the words dre éyévero of Genesis Logos u. Nomos, 276-8; and in Moreschini, art. cit. 31-4. not take place at a determined 1 De Caelo ii. 283°26-30; cf. also Philo, De Aet. M. 10, AprororédAns €.
. « dyévn- | dxpovov wnvier, Strom. vi. 145. 5 tov Kal adOaprov én tov Kéopov etvat. On this Aristotelian doctrine sec also E.
2 See especially Strom. vi. 142
Zeller, 'Die Lehre des Aristoteles von der Ewigkeit der Welt', Vortrage und Abhand3 Strom. vi. 142. 4 (ii. 504. 15lungen iii. 1-36. rors odat Kat Tod xpdvou; '
2 According to Xenocrates and Crantor Plato did not think of a real generation 4+ Leg. Alleg. 2, ebnBes mdvv 7 ah of the world but spoke of a 'generation' only to make himself understood: see kdopov ..
. A€your' av obv dpOds Xenocrates, fr. 54 Heinze (S3acxaAas x¢pw) and Plutarch, De An. Procr. in Tim.
Philo maintains that the words 1013 a-b (@ewpias évexa), and cf. A. E. Taylor, 67-8. Theophrastus, following of the world did not take place Aristotle, says that according to Plato the universe was generated; immediately
| xpdveny reprdbous UmoddBns 7 Oe afterwards, however, practically adopting the view of Xenocrates and Crantor, xara. meprypagiy od diopilwv, Leg he adds that perhaps Plato said this only cadqvetas xépw (on theinterpretation given
Philo and Clement see also Hein by Aristotle and Theophrastus of Tim. 28 b see especially Toh. Phil. De Aet. M. of time is closely connected wi vi. 8, p.
145. 15-24). To the allegorical interpretation given by Xenocrates, produced by the movement ofth Crantor, and Theophrastus of Tim. 28 b attention has been drawn by C, Baumker,
M. 26 (accordingly, Philo must PhM 23 (1887), 514-17 (cf. also Moreschini, art. cit. 29-30). Crantor maintained ; iv more xpdvos dre od« Fv—the s also that Plato spoke of an origin of the world because the world was dependent
| i. 2). On Philo's doctrine of ti on a cause: see Procl. in Tim. i. 277. 8 Dichl. This interpretation of Tim. 28 b | Timaeus see particularly H. Lei is the one which we have met in Taurus, Ioh. Phil. De Aet. M. vi. 8 (i. 1475-9)?
; 5 See pp. 113-17 and pp. 15 see footnote 7, p. 197 above. On the dependence on the allegorical interpreta- ; ® Many a scholar has pointed tion of Tim. 28b given by Xenocrates and Crantor of those
Middle Platonists : ceptions of the Logos and of the h who regarded the universe as ungenerated see especially Andresen, Logos u.
P. Hofstede de Groot, 40 and Nomos, 278, and Moreschini, art. cit. 34. Atticus polemizes against such an 115-16; E. Vacherot, Tom. I. interpretation of Timaeus 28 b: see Eusebius, Praep. Ev. xv. 6, 4 (ii. 360. 6-7 Mras).
28-53; J. B. Mayor, in his intr 3 See Hippol. Ref, i. 19 (iii. 20. 2-6) and cf. H. F. Weiss, 20 n. 2. book of the Stromateis made by ']j q \, |
PISTIS, GNOSIS, COSMOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY PISTIS, GNOSIS, Clement's Logos, however, as a metaphysical principle, underThe present section aim goes three different stages of existence and that each of these close connections which stages cannot be fully understood without taking the Jewishof Clement's Logos and Alexandrine philosophy, Middle Platonism, and Neoplatonism ciples of theJewish-Alex duly into account has escaped the majority ofmodern scholars." and of Neoplatonism.
Geschichte der Logosidee in der christlichen Literatur, 396-425; E. de Faye, Clément The Logos is, first of d'Alex., 230ff, and 248 ff.; M. Daskalakis, 43-50 and 51-60; P. Heinisch, 127-8, thoughts; at this stage, 129-31 134 141-35 ty 148-51 (the wee} accurate nidi wat! which second stage, he becom has ever been made on the exact correspondences, in the single passages, between ~ ieee ws Clement and Philo); C. Bigg, 91-9; J. Patrick, 65 and 106-7; R. B. Tollinton, the first principle; in th i. 335, 337-8, and 3533 R. P. Casey, HTAR 18 (1925), 39-41, who rightly stresses of the universe or, in oth the role which Philo played in the formation of Christian Platonism (p. 45), each of these three stag without, however, working out this true premiss throughout his article; C. A.
* i Bernouilli, in his introduction to the German translation of the Stromateis made by That, in the first stage F. Overbeck (Basel, 1936), 84 and 114; G. Békés, SA 14. 31-2 and 53-4; M. same thing with the mi Pohlenz, NGA, phil.-hist. Kl. (1943), 156-7, who, however, limits his inquiry to or ideas is clearly impli the doctrine of God's transcendence in Clement, without touching his 'Logoslehre' which, according to him, is entirely Stoic; and H. A. W olfson, The PhiloStrom. iv. 155. 2 (ii, 317. sophy of the Church Fathers, 204-17 and 266-70, who is concerned mainly with the S doctrine of the Logos. It is interesting to notice that both H. Ritter and H. Laemame ¥ 73: 3 (ii. 375: mer, though admitting Clement's dependence on Philo in the doctrine of the fy xbpav Bedv 6 IAdr highest divinity, deny, at the same time, any dependence of Clement on the Jewish author in the doctrine of the Logos: see Ritter, 442 and 447, and Laemmer,
In both these passages t 56-7. the mind of God, whic r Only T, Zahn, 144-5, R. P. Casey, JTS 25 (1924), 43-56, and H. A, Wolfson,
Sere sifroe He diecead The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, 204-17 and 269, have shown, beyond any rere directly epen ent doubt, that it is necessary to distinguish in Clement the Logos which is the reason author had described G of God from the Logos which was generated by him as a distinct being and which and in De Opif. M. 20 h became his Son and the second hypostasis. The passage in which this distinction anid th hi hes between two Adyor clearly appears is the well-known fragment of the 'Yaorumdaets and the architect w ed in preserved by Photius, Bibl. Cod. 109 (see Stihlin's edition of Clement, vol. iii. tect has the town which '
202. 16-22). T. Zahn, op. cit. 144, has rightly shown that the sentence obx the same way God has "ae? odrds darw 6 capt yevdpevos refers to the zatpix@ Adyw which immediately precedes idconaa Fiieat and that the words o¥8é pujv 6 zarp@os Adyos are nothing but an explanation of the wor consisting of the i idea contained in the sentence dd ody obrés eorw 6 capt yersuevos. Photius' by anything else but by statement paddov &e oddev éxetvov is based, according to Zahn (p, 144), on a misKdap.os Nov ay éyou rérr understanding of Clement's text, in so far as he seems to have related the words
Betos XS H. A. Wol GX' ody odrés corw J cape yevdpevos not to the wazpixd Ady but to the vids. etos Aoyos, as Hi.
"A, W H. A. Wolfson, 211, is therefore quite right in translating Clement's fragment as but the reason or mind follows: 'The Son is called Logos, being of the same name with the paternal Logos, but it is not this latter that became incarnate. Nor, indeed, is it the paternal Logos, point see also Wolfson, 216. As but a certain power of God, an emanation, as it were, of His Logos, that has become quoted in order to demonstrate nous and pervaded the hearts of men.' Only at the beginning of the Latin translasingle-stage theory and in the tion made by Cassiodorus of a commentary on the first epistle of St. John (Stahlin, recent supporters of this view vol. iii. 209-10) does Clement seem to be openly in favour of the single-stage
Logos is not subordinated to G theory or, in other words, of the theory of the eternal generation of the Logos. son's pertinent criticism, pp.
But the reliability of this Latin translation is rather scanty, since Cassiodorus Wolfson, 208, have rightly poi himself admits that he did not hesitate to change the original Greek text in order
Athenagoras, and Theophilus to purge it of errors (...sed aliqua incaute locutus est, quae nos ita transferri fecimus 1 Both Stahlin, app. crit., vo in Latinum, ut exclusis quibusdam offendiculis purificata doctrina eius securior potuisset
] observed this important corre hauriri; this text of Cassiodorus is quoted by Zahn, op. cit. 134 n. 2). On this 2 Philo i. 230. i | | {