mie dpa oddé
PISTIS, GNOSIS, COSMOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY | PISTIS, GNOSIS, C ApocryphonofJohn, 26. 4. (p. 93) : Who willbe abletocomprehend | Corpus Hermeticum him? i. 31: dvexAdN ipBas
; ] mobs NTE, ap: a Gospel of Truth 17. 7-8: That incomprehensible, inconceivable pyre, cum pwvovRef one who is superior to all thought. i peve.
2Ibid., 17. 22: That incomprehensible, inconceivable one." a ker ' dpp 6. Being beyond the reach of the human intellect, the highest ie dno divinity is also ineffable. Noname, no word is sufficiently adequate
Tos to express its nature: the passages Strom. il. 5. 3 (ii. 115. 21), h pév Strom. v. 71. 5 (iis 374. 19), Strom. v. 71. 5 (ii. 374. 22), Strom, v. 78. 3 (ii 378. 2), Strom. v. 79.
(ii. 378. 17), Strom. v. 81, '
Gnosticism 5 (ii. 38. 18), Strom. v. 82.
(ii. 380. 24ff.) are particularly i Gospel of Truth 39.
Tr worth noticing in this respect. The same idea occurs also in i 11-13: For, indeed, nat Philo (see De Mut. Nom. 14, vol. iii. 159. 4-5, and 15, vol. iii,
? the ungenerated has be 159. 12).3 no name. For what me t name could one give ; A :
Plato Albinus Apuleius ; to him?
Parm. 142 a: ob8° dpa Did. 164.7: jv puxpod De Plat. i. 190: quem évopa gorw adr@, obSet Kal dppyrov tyyetquidem pronuntiat inf 88 Adyos .
Cf. dictum, innominabilem.
7. Clement agrees wit mie dpa oddé 164.28 and 165.4. — Apol. 64. 7: nemini ofthe analytical process k éyerat.
; effabilis. the object of knowledge Symp. ati a: ovdd Tis This logical process is e Aéyos. section of Strom. v. 71.
341 ¢: occurs in Albinus, Did. pnréy yap oddapds Bader), and in Maximu Hobein). Philo also seem ; Maxi 'Tr:
N i iva Clement's God recall menue of Tyre . iinienius ; er Plotinus. Like the highest Or. xi. 60 a: rovrov Eus. Praep. Ev. xi. 22. vi.
65: : od8e Ph the Plotinian 'one' has Svopa pev od Aéyer, od =F (= fr. a Leeepuxrds corw 0 VEes escapes those who want yap oldev... mans): dAAd tis dda038" dvopractds.* : i a ae Ibid.: dppyrov dwvg.
79S bia aBurpynros ' The words trepdvw wavrds drexvas épnpia. ian.
* See H. C. Puech-G. Quispe 1 To this passage of the Gospel of Truth attention has been drawn also by 3 The correspondence betwe Danidlou, op. cit, 912. process has been noticed also by 2 See also 18. 32 and 30. 34 (cf. Daniélou, op. cit. 312). Further evidence on 3 The whole passage of Cels the presence of this conception in Gnosticism can be found in Daniélou, op. cit.
310-11. i 5 Enn. v. 5. 11 (4-5), 005€ oxf 3 H. A. Wolfson, Philo ii. 119-21, traces the Philonic conception of the in137 d 2, obre pépy eer, and 137 effability of God also back to the Old Testament.
, $ Enn. Vv. 5+ 13 (35-6), GAN' d 4 Cf. Festugiére, Révélation ..., iv. 116.
7 Enn. v. 5. 10 (9), wav riyns, ; | PISTIS, GNOSIS, COSMOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY PISTIS, GNOSIS, C place, is above virtue,? cannot be the object of science,' and is inClement's God, thoug effable;+ moreover, Plotinus also, like Clement, maintains that { are characteristic of the ' the best way to get some idea of it is the negative process xar
] identical with it. He is stil ddatpeow.s And yet there are two important differences between | of the tenth book of th the Plotinian 'one' and Clement's God which deserve some atMetaphysics, and, being t tention. First, Clement regards the highest divinity asa vods which =~ ideas in the first stage o oe ia po en Bs : comprehends the ideas in itself: vobs 62 ycpa iedy, vos 6¢ 6 } substantially to the Plo beds, Strom. iv. 155.2 (ii. 317. 11). Plotinus, on the contrary, makes
Plotinian vods with the a it clear that the 'one' is above the vods itself since it is its source.® a Plotinus allots to the 'one Secondly, Clement's God, being a vois, is also endowed with a i The identification of : inne?
: thought," whereas Plotinus excludes that the 'one' can have any proximates Clement to th noetical activity.' one of the main branches « Enn. v. 5. 9 (33) 08k & érwodv dpa. rary obv o¥Sayod. Cf. Parmenides 138 a 2, i sented by Origen the Ne kal phy roobrdv ye dv oddapod ay ein. i in Plat. Theol.
= O 2 According to Plotinus, the highest class of virtues is represented by the paraf adc il Ne 4 ( digmatic virtues which are contained in the vods (Enn, i. 2. 6. 143 i. 2. 6. 16-17) iq criticizes au the interpre and which are not real virtues but the act and the essence of the vods (Enn. gait 15)
' ticularly Origen the Neop padi eee kal 6 éorw). The 'one', being above the vois (see footnote 6), is there- , above the vods and for c fore also above virtue.
3 Enn. v. 3. 14 (2-3), 0888 yraow od82 vdnow Exopev adrod; v. 3. 14 (18), Kal ( being: Bavpaten 5 EYWY airés xpetrrwy vod Kai alabijacws; Vv. 4. 1 (9), od pnde émoripn: ed
I]\érwvos e&nyntds, doo 142 a 3-4, oddé ris emorjun odd aloBnas oddé Sdfa, 142 a5-6, ofdé doédlerar , , VOL me ob8e yuydoxerat, and E. R. Dodds, Proclus. The Elements of Theology, 311.
MPOTHKGLTOS rip Be 708 évd 4 Enn. v. 3. 13 (1), 86 Kat dppytov, V. 3. 13 (4), obre dvopa adrod, v. 3. 14 (18), kviav trapéw odk éoébOno kal atros Kpetrrw Adyov, V. 4. 1 (9), 08 pi Adyos. Cf. Plato, Parmenides 142 a 2, fl Twrive Ths adrijs perac opel deeee foro adn oll Aéyos, 142 pe anon aapeT a aE tov voov TedeuTa Kal 7d m vii. 341 c 5-6, pyrov yap oddapas eorw, , Op. cit.
. if ee me 3 See the references collected by R. E. Witt, CQ 25 (1931), 197 n. 16, who has mavTds éméxewa TOD Ovros jointed out the correspondence between Clement and Plotinus in the adoption of of Origen the Neoplatoni poi u Pp % this negative process aoe ; ¥ cdma ecard Ged f excluding only Plotinus.
'a 6 Enn. v. 1. 8 (6-7), 708 8¢ alriov vod dvros warépa pyol rdyaBdv Kal 76 eméxewa i | vos Kal éxéxewa obolas, V. 3. 11 (20), dAAd Kal xpd wdvraw, Bare Kal mpd vod, V. 3. 11
Ammonius Saccas also m (28-9), Sef 73 dvry drdody Kal aprov dmdvre Kat énéxewa vod elvat, v. 3. 12 (48), i tures, at conciliating the t 73.88 Gonep enéxewa vod, V. 3. 16 (38), Set rolvuv exetvo .. . elvat xpeirrov Kal vod,
V. 4. 2 (3), éwéxewa vob 76 yervv, V. 4. 2 Kala erties a Tt vod, Vs ia 6 (20); Quellen zur Gesch. der christl. Gnosi , 76 énéxewa 708 vontod. Aristotle, though regarding the highest principle asvods, drini .
., 79-95, and R. E. had hinted at the possibility that it wan souneting ae Hie ele coon hed a close resemblance with the o éorw 4 eréxewd rT vob, fr. 46 Rose in Bekker, v. 148327.
What Aristotle Ai differences between Plotinus and considered a simple hypothesis becomes a fundamental doctrine in the meta- « Sce the Platonic passages q physical system of Plotinus.
2 Aristotle calls the highest pr 7 The thought of God produces the ideas: see the passage of Strom. v. 16. 3 on airdy 8¢ voet 6 voids, and the wh p202 above.
—_ oes dexetipttonsun 3 Actually the Plotinian vods 8 Enn. v. 3. 13 (35-6), ody eer vdnow abrod.. Pade aro voei, v. 6. ay with the Logos in the second sta 76 éméxewa vod mpdrws voodvros otk Gv Ere voot, v.
6, 2 (16), ovdx apa voraet. TO HEY or ideas of God (see p. 205 abov dpa ob voet, v. 6. 3 (21-2), Set & 7@ pry wArjBer 76 voeiv pi) elvar, v. 6. 4 (1-2),
+ See, on this baat KO. a 088" dv ro8 voetv Soto, v. 6. 5 (4-5), Kal mdans xpelrreww vorjaews, v. 6. 6 (30-1); ® Photius, Bibl. Cod. 214. 172
GN éréxewa ovalas ovr Kal (70) Tod voety énéxewa elvat. Underthis aspect, Basilides'
1 ff.). Cf. also E. R. Dodds God resembles much more the 'one' of Plotinus: Basilides denies that God is enK, O. Weber, 160, and W. The dowed with any thought or will: see Hipp. Ref. vii. 21 (iii. 196. 20 ff. = W. Vélker, zum Neuplatonismus, 2.
PISTIS, GNOSIS, COSMOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY | PISTIS, GNOSIS, C in this connection, he must certainly have drawn attention to | totle.! E. R. Dodds, on th the fact that both the Plato of the Timaeus, the Philebus, and i trace Hierokles' fragment the tenth book of the Laws, and the Aristotle of book A of the hand, does not exclude Metaphysics, regarded the highest principle as a vodés.! Origen sented by Origen the Ne the Neoplatonist who, like Plotinus, had been a pupil of Amf monius. The close corr monius,? kept himself closer than Plotinus to the views of his
\ and what Maximus the teacher since he also, as Proclus tells us in the passage quoted $ his followers proves, howe above, identified the vods with the highest being without placing
Kt Hierokles in the two pas the 'one' above the vods.3
| is much earlier than Orig A further interesting correspondence can be observed between Pantaenus, i.e. to the end Clement and Ammonius Saccas. Maximus the Confessor, in a h nection, it should not be passage of his work De variis difficilibus locis Dionysii et Gregorit a Pantaenus lived in Alexan (= Clement, fr. 48 Stahlin, vol. iii. 224), tells us that the followers
; tury A.D. and that Ammon of Pantaenus regarded the creation of all things as the result of ; ; tl ill of God: ef yap beX%; \ , D Exanven ' See Heinemann, art. cit. 10 ral 'oes o A = Soop US nes AOI T AETO INE 58: 9 i 2 'Numenius and Ammonius', 8é ray yeyovoTwy OdAwy TETIOLNKE (Stahlin il, 224. 23-5). These
3 See the Introduction, footn words of Maximus have a striking similarity with what Hierokles 7» | originally been a Christian does . eo . z according to which he remained says in a fragment preserved by Photius in Bibl. Cod. 214. 172 a | 68-9 and 74, and AAWG, phil.-h and 251. 461 b:
- | bases his thesis mainly on what : t '
Ammonius in HE vi. 1g. 10, vo Bibl.
Cod. 214. 172 a (= PG 103.
Bibl. Cod. 251. 461b (PG 104. divine philosophy pure from any 704.4 8-9): dpxeiv yap adr eis B80AQ-10): apxeiv yap éxelvou a treatise 'About the Agreemen dndoracw TOv dvrwy 76 BovAnpa.
BovAnya els dadoracw TOV évrwy.4
Porphyry in Eusebius, HE vi. 19.
: nius from Christianity to pagan F. Heinemann, K. O. Weber, W. Theiler, and H. Langerbeck 'A since : (a) Porphyry, who obviousl im vi ai d ide Hy . the source of the i of Ammonius and of Origen the are strongly anc ined to const er TUIODIS as the s Christianity: according to him, w be fragment of Hierokles.5 Particularly Heinemann has pointed out coming across the study of philoso an) that Hierokles' sentence in Bibl. Cod. 214 (PG 103. 704 C 6-7), in keeping with the law (apés vi Z ; ae C P WY ay A 2, wan Christian followed the exactly o gut aAdAny vopilew ck a etera cmbag a SePLOT OT EASE i ; a Greek education, embraced th IDdrwn vopitew SiSwat, is perfectly in keeping with Ammonius wrong in assuming that Origen J tendency to harmonize the teaching of Plato with that of ArisE.R. Dodds, 'Numenius and Amm o Ammonius is much more reliabl ' See chapter II, p. 115n. 3 and p. 116n.
1 above. Whereas H. Dorrie, Hermes Porphyry was most probably mu 83 (1955), 457, prefers to leave without a definite answer the question whether monius' life. As to the existence Ammonius separated the one from the vods or not ('bei diesem Zeugnis muss ¢s
Moses and Jesus', which Eusebius als zweifelhaft erscheinen, ob Ammonius ausdriicklich das Eine vom Sein sonbe explained in two ways: (a) e derte'), K. O. Weber, 160, and W. Theiler, 10 and 41, are inclined to believe that before he abandoned Christiani for Ammonius the highest principle was the vods. founder of Neoplatonism with an 2 Photius, Bibl. Cod. 251. 461 a (PG 104. 77 Dff.) (= fr. 6 Weber, p. 5).
Hermes 83 (1955), 468, believes in 3 The agreement between Origen the Neoplatonist and Ammonius has been be distinguished from the founde pointed out by Weber, 160 and 162, and by Theiler, art. cit. 10.
E.R. Dodds, 'Numenius and Amm + The complete text of Hierokles' fragment as it appears in Bibl. Cod. 214 and des Origenes, Forsch. zum Neuplat., 1 251 is reproduced by F. Heinemann, Hermes 61 (1926), 7-9: view, which is entirely adopted by 5 See Heinemann, 6 and 10, Weber, 91-3, Theiler, art. cit. 9, and H. Langerby A. H. Armstrong in his revie beck, AAWG, phil.-hist. Kl. 69
Dodds, art. cit. 31, and H. Chadw 8267061 '
PISTIS, GNOSIS, COSMOLOGY, AND THEOLOGY it is therefore very likely that the doctrine contained in the passage ofMaximus and in the fragment of Hierokles was adopted
CO not only by Pantaenus but also by Ammonius, and that Ammonius actually represents the source of Hierokles.'
; E are now in a po * From Hierokles' words S:axoopyjocus jv ee wydevés dnaw ooced: om problems to whic ayayety rév rexvirny (Bibl. Cod. 214. 172 a) and d:axoopijacws €x pqdevds mpo~ i vroxeysévov yeyernuerns (Bibl. Cod, 251. 461 b) it can be inferred that Hicrokles'
' troduction. Conce source (namely Ammonius) did not believe in the existence nf an eripinet ens cultural background, our (cf,, for instance, A. Theiler, art. cit. 421 "Ammonius kent
Keine mit (30) 8 aie Clement's system has sho ewige Materic; sie ist von Gott geschaffen'), Like Clement (Strom. v.
7) t : a hat Ammonius may have held the view that matter was j7) év and that, therefore, it . of three distinct streams: could not be regarded as one of the dpyat of things (cf. Re Strom. v. 89. Ue the Platonic tradition (wh sjecti e viewof scl -P! i vhich considere: tter as one thus rejecting the view of sc hool ¥ latonism, which consic lered_mai 3 as one o} of the-second century A.D. the dpyat (see, for instance, Albinus, Did., c. viii, p. 162, and Hipp.,
; vol. iii. 19. 4-6, [draw dpyas elvar 708 rravrds Bed Kal Gdyy Kal mapdberyya. ..
No part of Clement's thou DAnv 5 waow Sroxeipévnv). By refusing to see in matter an px} (or, ta oan ' stood without taking these words, the cause from which sensible things originate) Aramonins ae hay)!
Clement's views on the deny that it was a dzoxelpevoy (in the passage of Hippolytus quoted above the x two ideas ofdpy% and sroxelzevoy are clearly connected with each other) and come analogy with doctrines ch to the conclusion that 'the craftsman did not bringforward Abe UNG out ofa! philosophy, ofJustin, and substratum' (Bibl. Cod. 214) or that 'the universe did not originate from any su
. a ee ic stratum' (Bibl. Cod. 251): the will of God suffices to bring things into existence e nt Judges the individual (Bibl. Cod. 214 and 251) since he is the sole, real dpyx} (cf. Strom. v. 89. 7, wlav of Justin, entirely depen rip évrws odcay dpyv). If our interpretation of Hierokles' ent aS CORDON Tg # time.? The function whic Ammonius really believed in the existence of a matter which was 7) 6v, no real healleoort + om épy} and no substratum, we have discovered a further correspondence between t eC c) ical interpretat Ammonius and Clement. in the preparation of gno i closely parallel to that w history—is based on Phil | tween philosophy and th i) tendency of the Jewish a in terms of Greek philoso natural explanation in his and in the cultural syncr , Jewish-Alexandrine philo schools of his time.+ The ethical views of t a syncretism of Platonic, the main features of whic Platonism. However, by a ethical stage, by consideri and by identifying it wit limits of the school-Plato * Chapter I, pp. 12-41 ab * Chapter I, pp. 56-9 abo '
CONCLUSION } is known to us and situates himself in the line of the Alexandrine t communicated only to a tradition which, starting from Philo, goes up to Neoplatonism,"
Philo, of Platonism, and Clement's conception ofpistis aims at giving an answer to the } | Clement's gnosis is par criticism of the heathen philosophers who strongly attacked the i esoteric knowledge is, a Christian idea of faith, to the followers of Valentine, who attri- | both as a metaphysical buted pistis to an inferior class of people who, according to them,
| Clement owes to the Je had no possibility, owing to their own natures, of reaching gno- | and partly also to Celsu sis, and also to some members of the Christian community of > the divinity which the Alexandria (the simpliciores) who were afraid of developing their spiration of the divine w faith into a higher form of knowledge by dedicating themselves which the incarnation o to the study ofGreek philosophy. In order to build up his theory
Jesus, is the teacher of of pistis Clement resorted to Peripatetic logical doctrines which mitted by the apostles were also current in the school-Platonism of his time as well as i Clement shows the unmi to some epistemological doctrines of Antiochus of Ascalon who, |
During the life of ma in some respects, can be considered as the father of Middle in separation from mat Platonism.3 But Clement's conceptionofpistis is important, first f close communion with of all, for a right appreciation of his idea of gnosis. He applies hi templation of the intell the twofold epistemological pistis—i.e. the pistis consisting in the divine Logos ;3 to this co immediate knowledge or acceptance of the principles of dedisciplines greatly cont monstration and the pistis consisting in the firm conviction of purification and of cont mind after the apprehension of the result of scientific demonstrarole of the encyclical di tion—to the study and interpretation of Scripture: since this with the Platonic tradit study is for him the equivalent of scientific demonstration, the It is, however, only a inner meaning which it discloses produces a pistis which is one ae munion with Christ, wh and the same thing with the pistis produced by scientific demonextent during his life on ry stration and consequently also with gnosis.+ Clement could not soul, after leaving behi have brought his theory of pistis into connection with the quesangels who watch its as tion of the study of Scripture if he had not inherited from Philo dignity of the seven zpwr the conception of the existence of an inner meaning of Scripture, the Logos, becomes a go which must be disclosed by means ofan allegorical interpretation face' and a perpetual re of the sacred text.s gnostic soul, of its deific Clement's idea of gnosis represents the central point of his adumbrated in the alle Christian philosophy. The contemplation of the highest divinity
High Priest into the Hol which can only be attained by means of an allegorical interpretabetween Clement and tion of Scripture, in which philosophy plays an important role, tion of the soul and of represents the object of an esoteric knowledge, which can be
| the Platonic influence, t Chapter II, pp. 109-11 above. account.
2 Chapter III, pp. 118-19 and 141-2 above.
Chapter I, pp. 16 ff. abov 3 Chapter III, pp. 120-36 above.
? Chapter III, pp. 161-3 ab 4 Chapter III, pp. 137-40 above.
; Chapter III, pp. 163-73 a 5 Chapter III, pp. 140-1 above.
Chapter III, pp. 186, 187 '
CONCLUSION | Clement's views on the origin of the world—the study ofwhich Philo; but his conceptio represents for him a preliminary step towards gnosis—connect him composite unity, since al very closely with Philo, with the school-Platonism of the second exactly as the radii ofthe century A.D., and also with Neoplatonism. The Alexandrine mates him both to the ! theologian follows the Jewish author in interpreting the begin- 'one' of the second hypo ning of Genesis by resortingtothe Platonic distinction between the Plotinian doctrine of the sensible and the intelligible world and, in this way, agrees also principle of creation an with the school-Platonism which had also regarded the sensible wisdom Clement is closel world as a copy of the intelligible. In the doctrine of matter philosophy. In the third Clement, like Philo and Middle Platonism, seems to believe in supreme Weltvernunft, the its pre-existence and considers it as devoid of any form and and holds it together: t quality.2 The agreement between Clement, Philo, and Middle had allotted this function Platonism is, however, in this case only partial. Clement rejects is closely parallel to the the view of the school-Platonism according to which matter is world-soul of the Platoni one of the dpyaé, maintains that God is the only true apy}, and The doctrines to which considers matter as ji) év (for Philo and Plutarch, on the contranscendence of God oc trary, matter was still an odoia).3 In regarding matter as pe Ov
| tion, and in the gnostic Clement agrees with Neopythagoreanism, with Plotinus, and go ultimately back to so perhaps also with Ammonius Saccas.4 As to the question whether portant is the doctrine o the world was generated or ungenerated, Clement, like Philo and principle, which connect such exponents of Middle Platonism as Plutarch and Atticus, is
Gnosticism, and with Ne openly in favour ofthe first solution, but at the same time, followpythagorean interpretati ing Philo, maintains that creation did not take place in time
Plato's Parmenides, althou since time itself is directly dependent on the sensible world. the influence of some Sc In the doctrine of the Logos as a metaphysical principle
Clement's God is simila iD Clement adopts Philo's theory, according to which the Logos is Plotinus, but differs from first one and the same thing with the reason of God and only
God is a vods endowed w afterwards becomes a distinct being, i.e. the second hypostasis. his 'one' above the vods Following the view characteristic of Philo and of Middle Platoconception of God resem
L nism, which perhaps goes back to the Old Academy, Clement Saccas who, most proba regards the ideas as the thoughts of God and as contained first the vois.8 in his mind (according to him there is an identity between the As to the second prob ideas, the mind of God, and the Logos in the first stage of his mination of the relation existence).7 After becoming a distinct being the Logos—who is ground and his Christi now the Son of God—contains all the ideas or divine powers in three parts, which corre itself. In this doctrine also Clement is closely dependent upon Introduction (p. 7 abov 1 Chapter III, p. 192 above.
2 Chapter III, pp. 193-4 above.
3 Chapter III, pp. 193, 195-6 above.
™Chapter III, p. 205 above 4 See chapter III, pp. 195-6 above and footnote 1, p. 226 above.
3 Chapter III, pp. 209-12 a q 5 Chapter III, pp. 198-9 above.
6 Chapter ITI, pp. 203 ff. above.
8 Chapter III, pp. 217-20 a 7 Chapter III, p. 201 above.
? Chapter III, p. 222 above ,