and also with the idae
~~PISTIS, GNOSIS, COSMOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY Cleme . eae .
PISTIS, GNOSIS, C act ei clearly maintains that the ideas are the result of the b GNOSIS, C a of thinking of God or, in other words, his thoughts: 7 dé
In Neoplatonism Plotinu iSéa evvdnua Tob Aeod, Strom. v. 16. 3 (iii. 336.
8). Philo also had cording to him the meta p ° | held the same view: inDe Opif. M. 17-19 he had said that er source of the existence of architect, before buildi j ; ' a > uilding the material town, has in his mi } H iol has Enn. v. ee ee first the intelligible patt ee ih pts: in his mind i im. V. I. 4 (27): 6 pev v rst the intelligible patterns o each of its parts (dozep ev Knp@
5 (12-13): 3 in Bean puxf ods éxdorav Bekdpevos rUrous, Opis. M 18) Sdiornow. in the same way God, in i stn | mes : ui order to giv BS Enn. v.
Snel conceived first its intelligible ati origin to the universe, g. 8 (12): eynetob ' a t : evevdnoe mpdrepov Tod If, in the fir adnate ; ! iS nthefirst st - mre ism 19. The réo: which are mentioned here and also with the idae hing but the intelligible id i ee leas wh : eas which are the model : a the sensible thing:
, models of immanent in it (Strom. v. s. Already in Philo, tl i vom. V. herefore, the t Bd, as the thoughts of the highest divi it i iilens appeas of BdpBapor Adyov etpyKac The definiti ighest divinity.
, ne efinition of the ideas as thoughts af God is alsocliag by taking into account the pas teristic of Middle Pl Re ee .
. haracinterpretation of Minerva in St.
Plutarch, and e Platonism: it occurs in Albinus, Atticus inclined (op. cit win St utarch, ani the autho > > csc hsanin pubes 39-40) to tr r of the source used by Hi A heiles's: thesis is Hoste (Theller's thesis ie aeceptedalia can be seen from the following evidence: y Ailppolytus, as 44-5» and by Ph, Merlan oy aie .
° thoughts of God may, Hee Ibinus, Did. 163. 12-13: éore Sé h ida ws pe :
Tiaras Academy. In Timaeus 39 ¢ Plz a abrod a) Wéa cs pev mpos Oedv vdnars act of acs 39 € Plat Ags iesea actofcontemplating the ideas: v. ne . a , " ave been difficu fo abrorenet: , yap ras Beas vorjoes Oeod alwviovs te Kat into connection with the passa Ibid. eres ; highest divinity is represeaied a 3. 29-30: etre yap vois6 Jeds brrdpxet . éorw abt@ vor ara. thoughts: avrov dpa voet Kal o > , oe ae TE. ideas. a ee BNnce:
'3 »a aldved re Kal drpenra. ara, 3, wines in Timaeus 39€ r bid. 164. 27: Kal abry evépyera adrod iSda smd, os, could be easily identified 'Atéous in Eusebius, Bi .
Met. A 1074%33-5, with the vd ; ebius, Praep. Ev. xv. 13. 5 bee: heaps vén ' foc Ag Raudryi: ak:rot 3.
(ii. 377. 13-14 Mras = n drawn by R. M, Jones, C ) es audry): 7a Too Jeod vorpara mpecptrepa. TOV aepaiyiidrain forgotten that Xenocrates identif Ta 7 E f B a Say eae Plute vd atte mapadelypara.!
| sey PRATOR Mee Wat thE r utarch, De Plac. Philos. 882 d (v. 287. 5-7): Zwxpdrns Kat ITAé = t oA question, also A. N. M. xwpotas Tis Dns obalas ras teas b ! kal ITddrwv therefore very likely that Xenocra
¢ drrohapBdvovow, ev rots vor We thesdoe ekAe Kal davraot ts vonpact he Gs exactly as the numb 7s is = 706 Geos, rouréatt Tod vod, dheorwoas.* rightly observes: 'jedenfalls bot PP 2 Ref. i, 19. 2 (iii. 9. 10-11): 76 5€ mapdSevypya tiv Sidvoray penus dazu) das & in Wahrheit
Oeod elvar, 6 Kat dav cadets der Ideen, anzusehen').
_ ; ' Tt should not befor '
J ; | ri oe forgotten t ie he area aes ores Clement and Albinus in the doctrine of th vods and the ideas: see, for 'n as as the thoughts of God has been noticed al:
Ss Mss 608 vos Kat dv, Vv » for in (1937), 591 (see also the a sticed also by L. vobs Kal dv, v. 3. 5 (26-7), év Bie OF ee pparatus of the reprint of Stahlin's editi Bape ed vods 51 Kal dv rabrdv, v. g. 6 ee presence of the same doctrine in Atticus so endian. tae beers ii, 336). pia pev odv dias rérea At ete Mie iehe Mnemosyne, Series TV, 7 (1954), 125 and 129 as been drawn by vonrév). re vo prefer to read brodapBdvover in: tead S eee 2 Clement orobe accepts in his text. As to Sauibietioek iosSica was Bena
20, ot' 6 ee eign an A ra passage demonstrates that R. M. Jo ry ernardakis, app. Crit., v. 207. This Betos Aévoe i Lich v Kéopos G ees ates that R.
Jones, CPh 21 (1926), 325, is wrong i Msscx leios Adyos is obviously the mi a eee «+. never calls the ideas theexes srleemB this passage of Clementcome n the presence of this doctrine also in Chalcidi : of the frz of eref 6c ; also in Chalcid in Senece 1¢ fragment of the 'Yrorumd sce: thecreferences: produced by W. 1¢ also in Chalcidius and in Seneca, Ep. 65
1¢ 'Yorund es produced by W. Theiler, Die Vorbereitung ..., 15-16. nce aes at the Father is also identi , vobs. 88 6 Beds. Since in PISTIS, GNOSIS, COSMOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY PISTIS, GNOSIS, existence it 'comes out' of the divine mind and becomesa distinct
Opif. M. 24 (i. 7. 12-1 = a Vg.
Ss a Spemeses ee P daft ror) elvat 7) eod Adyov 75n being, which is the author of the creation of the sensible world.
A. Wolfson has shown, this is clearly implied in the senM.
Nas 8¢ 6 Adyos Snpuoup- } kdapov, adros av ein tence of Strom. v. 16.5 (ii. 336. 12-13), mpoeAan F Canane| ab De Sacr. Ab. et C. 83 (i yias atrwos.! In this second stage, the Logos is represented by Bean, Clement: (a) as the totality of the ideas or powers ofGod Mies:
De Conf. Ling. 172 (ii , F ; all together, form the xdopos vonrés and, in connection wit u aS dowparos Kal vontds topic, also as povds 3 (0) as the principle (apx7) of everything turov, iSéars dopdrois which has been created, in so far as it is the intelligible pattern
De Somn. i. 62 (iii. 218. of the sensible world; (c) as the wisdom (copia) of God.?
| 8 CAwy dowpdrors S ' is i i vi lity of the ideas (a) That the Logos is spear with the ey "| oe eG te There are, however, so i Tom.
BD Ge or powers of God is shown by the ee ae =k gnitit oes sage quoted above. Cl (ii. 317. 24-318. 2): 'all the Sia i dl fa S F Hei om nat which comprehends ev into one, complete the sameed io gis Son is neithe immediately reminds us call up the thought ofpowers exitsel Iteoncvasvallere menides as well as of som absolutely one as unity nor many is eal 4 or Eerie ties physical voids. The fol one.— he is all. He is the circle of all powe g Wott noe Gams and united in one point.'3
Clement found already formed in Philo the doctrine of the Clement, Strom. iv. 156. i ich are identical with the ds mdvra Ev, évOa Kai mdvra Logos as the totality of the powers which a1 ; ae i, RSE EME ideas. That in Philo the Logos, the intelligible world, the ide: pee eee and the powers of God are one and the same thing can be seen au vod evros Ta mavra. from the following evidence:
Id., Znn V.4.2 (40-1): 7
' in thetdanaty bi mdvra. et 5¢ rodro Ta wd Aé f the Father, it is easy to infer that Clement believed in the id entity between mals the Logs " the first stage of its existence, the mind of God, and the ideas, exactly
Id., Enn. Vv. 9. 6 (1-2) iV ' as Plotinus believed in the identity between the ideas and the divine vods (see the 6) €orw ta Ovra...ds ad receding footnote).
€XwV Kal Ev WY auTots.
7 As iS the mpoeAday of Strom. v. 16. 2 H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, 208, rightly observes: 'zpoeA8dv is a technical term used by the apologists
Sm) on i "9 tO) to describe the act of generation by which the Logos emerges from the first stage €arw dpod marta... 6 5€ m of its existence and enters upon its second stage when it becomes a distinct personal mepréxer <rdvra> domep being. Tatian and Athenagoras use the term mpoeAOwv, Justin uses the term <i8y Kab women ghep ah.
€\0cdv.' Wolfson's interpretation is adopted by A. Orbe, AG 100. 606.
2 In this stage of its existence the Logos is also represented as the image (eixav) Id., Enn. v. 9. 8 (3-4): K of God; on the presence in Clement of this idea and on its dependence on Philo pev 6 vois 7a mdvra €iSn.
' see chapter I, pp. 15 and 21 above.
. a i Algeeadopted Bigy's translation, p. 93; I have, however, changed the renderThe similarity between ing of the words eis év eiAovyévwy and have flow os 5 t pen ike its existence, the Plotin a Ante, 2.
1} i TS 29 21), 156-9 (see particularly p.
Thi peehol oeComparedwith the ther cf Strom, Vk 5. 6 (ii. 8. 9-4) i * On Philo's doctrine of th whieh the Logos is represented as the chief of the hosts of the angels: ror der jidisch-alexandr. Religionsphil ' maoa troréraxtat orparia dyyédwy TE xal Oey. Like Philo, Clement may have
219-29, H. Soulier, 63-154, J believed in the identity between the angels, the ideas, and the powers of God; A. Aall, Geschichte der Logosidee on the identity between the angels, the ideas, and the powers in Philo see especially
137-9, 142-4, and 149, C. Bigg Bigs, oy and footnote 1 on the same page.
NGA, phil.-hist. K1. (1942), 44 ' i ©PISTIS, GNOSIS, COSMOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY | PISTIS, GNOSIS, C as it appears in the second hypothesis of the Parmenides can be the same image will be easily explained, if we assume that Clement was under the inDionysius Areopagita: K fluence of a Neopythagorean interpretation of Plato's Parmenides pat card play wow ow analogous to that on which Plotinus' doctrine ofthe vods is based. éavt@ tas edbelas évoeid E. R. Dodds has shown that the Neopythagorean schools of the | rv plav dpyny ad' as mp first centuries A.D. distinguished two kinds of 'one': the first, j TeAGS ivwvrat, De div. N absolutely transcendent 'one', and the second 'one', which is
: possible, although it cann the principle of all things and contains everything in itself; they source of these parallelis related the former to the 'one' of the first hypothesis of the voids of Plotinus is repres Parmenides and the latter to the 'one' of the second hypothesis may have adopted the of the same dialogue."
'one' of the second hypo A further correspondence can be observed between Strom. iv. the image of the circle 156. 2 and Enn. v. 9. 6. Clement compares the Logos toa circle, between the vods and th since 'all the powers are bound and united in one point'. The We can now understa divine powers are thus represented as the radii of the circle, the vonrds xdéopos with which all meet in its centre. Plotinus, in order to explain the way hypostasis, is the unity w in which the divine vods comprehends the totality of the ideas in the intelligible world, w itself, compares the vods to a seed and to the centre ofa circle: in also be defined as provas the seed all the faculties of the future being are still undivided, povad:, cs dv vonrdv). Phi since it is like the centre in which all the generative principles and consequently the Lo meet (év yap 7@ ddp ASidxprra mdvra, Kat of Adyou worrep ev has most probably bee & «évtpw). The image of the centre of the circle, which respeculations on the 'one presents the meeting-point of all the radii, is exactly the same povds is identical with t both in Clement and in Plotinus.? About three centuries later, place the highest divini (b) Since the Logos c ; 1 See the paper by E. R. Dodds, CQ 22 (1928), 129-42. Both A. F. Daehne, in himself, and since the wu De ybaer Clementis Alexandrini .
. ., 95 f1., and R. E. Witt, CQ 25(1931), 201-2, which the sensible thin have noticed the similarity between Clement's Logos and Plotinus' vods, but have
Fok not pointed out their dependence on the second hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides. sidered as the principle E. F. Osborn, though mentioning the two different conceptionsof the 'One' in created, or as the instru | Cano commemieiALpensta ie world. This idea isclearl iv. 156. 1-2 and the Plotinian vods (p. 41 and footnote 11 on the same page), falls
7) Tw oAwy APX7), NTS ATE short of establishing, in the section which he sepia preaeG So Kal mpo aldver, rerurwKe menides had for their conception of the second hypostasis. It should not be forgotten
_ TE TAVTG EYEVETO, KALXwp that Plato also maintains that the intelligible world is 'one': see Timaeus 31 a, in this last passage, of t tva, eimep xara 73 mapddeypa Sednuovpynnévos éorat, and cf. Albinus, Did. 167 how strongly Clement is 33-4, kal povoyeri] tov Kdapov ézoinoe Kara TOY apiOusv rf (S€q etxaopevoy pug ovoy.
"2 As to the comparison drawn by Daehne (op. cit. 96-7) and by Stiblin (app. crit., vol. ii. 18) between Strom. iv. 156. 2 and Enn. v. 1.7 see Friichtel's note 318, nection, he thought of the circ p. 532 of the reprint of Stahlin's edition. I myself think that Clement in Strom.
Timaeus 34 a, Laws x. 898 a, Ph iv. 156. 2 resorted to the image of the kuxAos only because the centre of the circle Enn. ii. 2. 1, Bia zi ich dopet is the meeting-point of all the radii; it is not necessary to assume that, in this con- ? See p, 216 below.
PISTIS, GNOSIS, COSMOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY PISTIS, GNOSIS, C of the Logos with his own conception of the Logos as kéopos creation, cal pera ood 7) c vonrés and rvmos of the sensible things. Here also Clement is dre ézolets Tov Kdcpov, 9:9. under the direct influence of Philo who, having considered the as instrument of God in t Logos as pattern of the sensible world, had also Tepresented it extent, anticipated in this as the dpy7 of everything and as God's instrument in the creation
As to the identification of the world." ear Philo is Clement's model:
| A further point of contact between Clement and Philo is redom and the Logos are presented by the interpretation which both of them give of the 8€ ear Beod Abyos, Leg. A words # %ju¢pa of Gen. 2:4; according to them, these words
Clement, Philo is inclined hint at the divine Logos, the principle of creation: see Strom.
506, 19i A . i, 19 and 21, vi. 145. 5 (ii. 506. 19-21) and cf. Philo, Leg. Alleg. i apts capa :
(c) Clement identifies the Logos as second hypostasis with the De Abr.
106. 1-2) : ivine wisdom, the first of the beings created by God and his De Conf. Ling. 46 (ii. 257. divine wis om, the Lipid bebcairieeda cian ' y.
J i De Somn. i. 215 (iii. 13-14 adviser: 700 viod mpd KataBodjs Kéapov cvpPovAov yevopevov Tob ; , narpés, atrn yap Fv % codia.. . Svvapus yap Tod Deod 6 vids, dre Justin also had identifie
Pe mpd mdvrewv Tav yevopevwr apyixdraros Adyos Tod warpds kal Dial. 61 (ii, 212. 18-19), w copia adrod, Strom. vii. 7. 4 (ili. 7. 9-13), cf. Strom. v. 89. 4 (ii, cf. Dial. 61 (ii. 214. 11), K 385. 4), coplas rijs mpwroxriorov.? The idea that the divine wisthe first-created being, w dom is the adviser of God and the first of the created beings is decided to create the wor characteristic of the Jewish-Alexandrine philosophy prior to Philo:
(i, 212. 11-13; 214. 1), in Ecclesiasticus 1:4 cogla is represented as the first-created (ii, 220, 1-6). The agree being, xporépa mdvruw éxriorar copia; in Prov. 8:22 the divine philosophy and the two C raat Ree ae ee wisdom says about itself Kupios exrisév pe dpyiy ddGv adbrod eis in this respect. épya adrod; and in the Wisdom of Solomon it assists God during _ The Logos is not only is the model of the sensibl « See Leg. Alleg. i. 19 (i. 65. 21-2) and De Conf. Ling. 146 (ii. 257. 4) on the Logos tence it is immanent in ] as the dpxy ofeverything ; Leg. Alleg. iii.96 (i. 134. 18-19),De Cher. 127 (i. 200. 10), supreme Weltvernunft, the De Sacr, Ab. et C. 8 (i. 205. 10-11), Quod D. sit imm. 57 (ii. 69. 18),DeFuga et Inv.95 lngrand the E of (iii. 130. 7), De Prov. i. 23 Aucher on the Logos as instrument of God in the creation aw and the PREnOnY of of the world. By the definition of the Logos as apy7 Clement is led to interpret the together, administers it an words év dpyf at the beginning of Genesis as hinting at the Logos (Strom. vi. 58. 1;
\ to the other. This idea ap \ vol. ii, 461. 8-10). Such an interpretation is not present in Philo, who, in De Opif. M.
26-7, though quoting the beginning of Genesis, ay points a that the ee Protr. 5. 2 (i. 6. 7-9): E sion év dpxj must not be understood as hinting at a determine time in which the Saas , Sark nd creation took place. Clement may have been influenced by Philo's identification a cig aba aids Te S of the Logos with the dpyij as Heinisch, 148, is inclined to believe;
I wish, however, q , tabev jppscaro 755€ To to draw attention to the fact that an analogous interpretation is given by the ; Strom. v. 104. 4 (ii. 396. 1
Valentinians of the expression év épyf which occurs at the opening of St. John's gospel : they identified the word dpx with the vids povoyerjs (Exc. exTheod. 6. 1-2).
' The same conceptions appe The identification of the Logos as second hypostasis with the dy of everything 706 Bod 706 dopdrov, zpwrdroxos occurs also in Justin, who, like Clement and Philo, defines the Logos as apy#:
74 mdvra 30° avrob cal els adrdv éx see Dial. 61 (p, 212, 16-17 Otto) and 62 (p. 220. 4-5). i i dependence of the ideas expresse 2 This passage ofClement is in keeping with what Photius tells us about Clement's
Philosophy see especially H. Heg conception of the Logos in his work 'Yrorumdcets: kai rév vidv eis xriopa Kardyet * The dependence of Justin's c (see Stihlin, vol. iii. 202. 12). philosophy has been rightly poin 8267061 ' f L\ — ; »>ISTIS, GNOSIS, C aio PISTIS, GNOSIS, COSMOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY PI ee is also immanent in the s Strom. vii. 5. 4 (iii. 5. 2241): aBrq 7) peylorn brrepoyy}, 7) Ta wdvra, is also a ; a ; Stardocera: Kara 76 OéAnpa Tod matpos Kal 76 Tay Gpiora. oiaxiler... can be ECB rom Quis S vids rod Bcod . .. maven dv mdvrore.
Inv. 110 (iii. 133. 20-1), a Strom. vii. g. 2 (iii. 8. 14-15):... Tov mpdrov Stounriy tav dAwy adopts the Stoic and Plat ek Oediparos warpos KuBepvavra.
| Logos (or world-soul) is sp Being the law of the universe, the Logos also comprehends it in boundaries of the univers i and Clement is very close himself:
Strom. ii. 5. 4 (ii 115. 23-4): eyyurdrw 5¢ duvduer, h 7a advra | Clement, Protr. 5. 2 (i. 6.
| eyekdAmiorat.! eperopa Tov Glwv .
. am The idea that the Logos is the supreme law of the universe and péowy ent ra ae ie GT the power which stretches from its centre up to its extreme
GN POU ETE TA PETE OUT RUST '
S boundaries and from these back again to the centre had been a fundamental doctrine of the Porch.? Pohlenz was therefore inclined to consider Clement as directly dependent on Stoicism
Like Clement (Strom. ii. in his conception of the Logos as the universal Weltvernunft.3 It Svvays of God (namely must, however, be observed that Plato also had considered the in itself: éykexdAmorar 5é rational world-soul as stretching from the centre up to the exSteAf ube, De Conf. Ling. treme boundaries of the sensible world+ and as the cause of its that Philo also, like Clem order and harmony, and that, owing to the combined influence everything in himselfwith of Plato and of the Porch, exactly the same conceptions occur
As to Middle Platonism both in the Jewish-Alexandrine philosophy and in Middle a power or Logos which Platonism. In the Wisdom of Solomon the divine wisdom is it together and is the cau represented as the power which penetrates into everything,
. stretches from one boundary of the universe to the other, and rat Plat. zor b (vi. a rules over it.6 As to Philo, he openly maintains that the Logos evr Kat ouvexer THY dv th india ki ij De Is. et Os. 373.4 (ii. 5
1 This is the reason why Clement maintains that God comprehends everything 116. otpduvor e& dovuddv in himself without being comprehended by anything: see Strom, ii, 6. 2 (ii, 116.
Aas 4-5)» V. 73. 3 (iis 37520-1), and v. 81. 3 (ii. 380. 13-14).
De An. Procr. in Tim. 102
2 On the Stoic doctrine ofthe rdvos or rovuxr kins see SVF ii. 448 and 450 and €orw 1) Sujxouca dia wd also Strom. v. 48. 2, vol. ii. 358. 16-17 (= SVF ii. 447).
2 NGA, phil.-hist. Kl, (1043),.258
£2, and Die Sia i. aii i t This correspondence betwee 4 Tim. 34 b 3-4, puxiy Be eis oh: pier Gere Ces Bim RENTeE TS NNER RR Eee vol. i, 6, makes no mention, has Ruler 73 copa avrf mepiexdduper, and 36 ¢ 2-3, 4 8° ek peoov mpds 7é Zoxarov
(Esuigh 1061), S46: otparéy wdvrp dtamaxetoa Kikhy te adrdv éfelev meprxadtpaca.
P 2 Cf. Clement, Strom. ii, 5. 4, 5 Tim. 36a 6-37 a1, adr}. «- Aoyopob 5€ peréxovea Bn anager' puts sre 3 See, for instance, De Post. C. aE 897 b, vot wey mpoodafodea dei Betov rd Geos tt on "san oa anoapi and i. 185. These passages of Ph youyet wdvra (I follow rhe a panies by A. ae ree risae quoted in footnote 1, p. 210
Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 195) 9 AU OC TYP CPOE TE UN Pe ae 'the profundity of Him who e 708 kéopov mavrds Kal dyew adrdy ri tovadrqy dBdv éxelvyy; cf. also Philebus 28 d, which encircles Him', voiv Kal dpdvqow .- « BiaxuBepvay, 28 €, 75 82 voiv wdvra SiaKxoopely adrd ddvat,
* Itmust be remembered that and 30 d, det mo8 mavrds voos dpxet. xyes sot with the third stage of the Logos 6 vii. 24, Surjxer 82 xaywpet Bd mdvreow 51d riyv kaBapdryra (cf. SVF i.533, ti. 418, soul is formed by an evil, irrat 441, 442, 473, and 638); viii. 1, dvaretver 5€ dard méparos emt mépas evpwaTws Kat world and is the cause of the un Biouce? ra -wdvra xpnoras.