2. Valentinian Exegesis of the Prologue to John's Gospel and the Logos
clement of alexandria on trial
2. Valentinian Exegesis of the Prologue to John's Gospel and the Logos So far some aspects of Clement's dependence on Philo's theory of the Logos have been re-examined in relation to Photios' accusation. Now,
I turn to Clement's polemic against the Valentinian exegesis of the prologue of John's Gospel and their theory of the Logos.29 This polemic, in my view, was another influence on Clement's Logos-theology.
Already Irenaeus noted30 that the Johannine Gospel was accepted by the followers of Valentinus, although we do not know whether or not by Valentinus himself, as the most compatible with their theogony.31
The Valentinian Christians represented a number of schools and traditions such as Ptolemy, Heracleon, Theodotus, and here I refer to those which appeared in Clement of Alexandria's context, in particular, Theodotus. According to the Eastern Valenti nian exegesis represented by Theodotus, the divine Being, that is the Pleroma (τό πλήρωμα),32 is composed of eight powers, arranged in pairs, beginning with the Father and his partner, Thought. It is important to distinguish between the second, third and fourth pairs as in each one of them we find an Aeon that bears some reference to the Scriptural character of the divine Son/Logos from the Johannine documents. The second pair is the Only-begotten Son (ὁ μονογενής)33 or Mind (ὁ
29 For more detailed presentation of the Valentinian exegesis based on one representative of this school, see E. Pagels, The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon's Commentary on John, ed. L. Keck, Society of Biblical Literature, Monograph
Series 7 (Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1988); and, for a recent introduction to the Valentinian traditions, see I. Dunderberg, "The School of Valentinus", in A Companion to Second-Century Christian 'Heretics', ed. A. Marjanen and P. Loumanen, Supplements to Vigiliae christianae 76 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2005), 64–99, and Bibliography.
30 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.10.1–3.11.2. For more on Irenaeus' methodology of reconstructing Valentinian doctrine, see Boulluec, La notion d'hérésie, 2: 113–253.
31 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.11.7. Although it is difficult to conclude from the existing documents whether or not Valentinus knew and used John's Gospel, his followers such as Heracleon and Theodotus were acquainted with the Gospel.
32 This term has rather complex meaning and its specific understanding depends on the specific school of Gnosticism. In the Valentinian context, τό πλήρωμα refers to the divine realm with thirty aeons, see Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.1.3. One of them,
Sophia, fell from τό πλήρωμα, initiating the cosmic drama. Gnostic eschatological hope was based on restoration of the elect to the Pleroma (see, e.g., Clement, Ex. Th.
34.2; 36.2; Strom. 2.38.5; 4.90.3; see also Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 193–247,
315–29).
33 See Clement, Ex. Th. 7.3; John. 1:14, 18. Here Theodotus seems to differentiate the Only-begotten Son, who still remains in the bosom of his divine Father, with the one who descended to our world and was seen as Jesus. The latter is only similar to the
the teachings about two logoi of the father
νοῦς)34 and Truth (ἡ ἀλήθεια). The third couple comprises the Logos (ὁ λόγος)35 identical with Christ (ὁ Χριστός)36 and Life (ἡ ζωή).
Finally, the fourth couple Man (ὁ ἄνθρωπος)37 and the Church (ἡ ἐκκλησία) express the final stage of generation of the spiritual realm.
It is evident that within the framework of this theology, these pairs contain male–female beings. It is also clear that their emergence presents an extension of the divine realm. Each pair, male and female, as two complementary elements, constitutes one being. However it is the male element which provides the form to their offspring.38 In this context of generation and extension, the mission of the Saviour is to descend to the lower realm often identified with Sophia, while bringing with him the aeons from the higher world. Then by the union with the female element, Sophia, he produced the 'image' of the last pair of aeons: ὁ ἄνθρωπος–ἡ ἐκκλησία. In this context of the final reproduction, the Valentinian myth becomes a specific theology of salvation.
The offspring, ὁ ἄνθρωπος–ἡ ἐκκλησία, as it is consubstantial with its parent, that is the Saviour Christ, in the form of a spiritual seed is planted in those select people who will become the future 'embodiment' of that divine prototype: the perfect Gnostic. The Johannine proclamation of Christ as 'the life', who was the light of all people
(John 1:4) receives a very Valentinian interpretation, as a synonym of the Logos/Saviour who becomes the life of those recognised as worthy of the future glory. Ultimately, the Logos shines in every pneumatic.
The next important observation is that while 'the Only-begotten Son' (ὁ μονογενής/ νοῦς) remains in eternal communion with his former. The original Gnostic commentary suggests thus two persons, one is only a shadow of the other. Clement of Alexandria adds his own note (Ex Th. 7.3c) which emphasises the ontological unity of the earthly Jesus and the One in God's bosom: καὶ οὐδέποτε τοῦ μείναντος ὁ καταβὰς μερίζεται. "And he who descended is never divided from him who remained" (trans. Casey, in Clement of Alexandria: The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria, Studies and Documents 1 [London:
Christophers, 1934]).
34 See Clement, Ex. Th. 6.3.
35 See ibid. 6.1–3; John 1:1, 18.
36 Clement, Ex. Th. 6.3; see also Sagnard, Clément d'Alexandrie, 65 n. 4.
37 Clement, Ex. Th. 61.4. As observed by Thomassen: "The couple Man/Church is not mentioned, nor is the concept of the Ogdoad. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the lack of these elements of the system is simply due to the limitation imposed by the text to be expounded: the exegete could find no allusions to ὁ ἄνθρωπος or ἡ ἐκκλησία in John's Prologue" (Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 212). For detailed discussion of different Valentinian variations of the composition of the Pleroma according to the ancient records, see ibid. 193–247.
38 For yet another version of the same myth, see Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 2.13.8.
clement of alexandria on trial
divine Father, it is the Logos, a lower being, who is engaged in the creation of both realities: the invisible, spiritual world and the material world. It is to the Logos that Theodotus attached the words: "For all things were made by him and without him was not anything made
[John 1:3]."39
After the disturbance in the spiritual world caused by one of the last emanated aeons, Sophia, it is the Logos who becomes the Saviour. His mission is to re-establish harmony in the higher and lower universes.
First, this Logos/Saviour descended out of the Pleroma40 into the immaterial world covered as if with 'a spiritual cloth', that is 'the flesh/ body' produced by Sophia. This 'flesh/body' is the community of the perfect Gnostics (οἱ πνευματικοί). These were created together with the Saviour, at a certain stage of the Logos' descent into the invisible world. They are consubstantial with the Saviour as his 'flesh'. Then, the Saviour descended even lower, to the material world in the incarnation and showed himself as 'Jesus'. In conclusion it must be maintained that the Saviour's body is Sophia and her seed, which is also the community or race of the pneumatics, or 'the Church'. Again the couple of Man and the Church, not included in Theodotus' original list of the aeons, mirrors the union between the 'lower Logos' Saviour and the race of mature Gnostics. From this summary of Theodotus' theology some facts become clear that. (1) The Only-begotten Son does not take part in any stage of salvation and recapitulation. (2) The main role is attributed to the Logos, who while coming down becomes another character extending his original divine presence into his 'body', the Gnostic community. It is he who illuminated the prophets as well as guiding the pneumatics. (3) The Saviour or the Logos is not identical with the Only-begotten Son (ὁ μονογενής/νοῦς) who always remains in the bosom of the Father.41
Clement's response to this 'fragmentation' of the Logos stressed his unity as a person or hypostasis, and emphasised Johannine statements
39 Clement, Ex. Th. 45.3: πάντα γὰρ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ γέγονεν, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ γέγονεν οὐδὲν (trans. Casey).
40 In relation to this Johannine passage, Pagels makes another important distinction. According to the Valentinian myth of redemption, there were three stages of salvation related to three realms: the pleroma, i.e., the realm of spiritual beings/aeons who need the Saviour; then the kenoma, i.e., 'the world of emptiness' (outside of the pleroma) and finally the cosmos, i.e., the realm created with emergence of the syzygic pair, ὁ ἄνθρωπος–ἡ ἐκκλησία (Pagels, Johaninne Gospel, 23–34).
41 Clement, Ex. Th. 7.3; John 1:18. This distinction is emphasised by Pagels, Johannine Gospel, 37–8.
the teachings about two logoi of the father
(John 1:1, 3, 18) which pointed to the unity of the divine Son/Logos:
"But we maintain that the essential Logos is God in God, who is also said to be 'in the bosom of the Father' [John 1:18], continuous, undivided, one God."42 Clement rejected any attempt to differentiate various divine powers responsible for different stages of creation of the worlds as spiritual and material realities.43 The divine Logos shares with his Father the same qualities of nature (here: λόγος θεὸς), and through the act of creation becomes visible as its Creator. In Clement's view, against his Valentinian opponents, it is the same Logos, who creates all reality, and then in his mission becomes the Only-begotten
Son visible in flesh.44 Clement even creates a special idiom, τὸν ἐν ταὐτότητι λόγον θεὸν, to emphasise the specific nature of his Logostheology as distinct from Theodotus and the Valentinians'. Through the whole process of descent/creation we are dealing with the same λόγος θεὸς. The same Logos revealed his Father to the prophets and to the sages of all cultures. Finally, it is also the same Logos who acted through/in Jesus of Nazareth. As we can see in the context of Clement's polemic with the Gnostics, his main effort was directed towards protecting the Logos' integrity and direct union with God. Having said this, the difference in terminology between Clement and the Valentinians is not as sharp as we would except from the opponent of the Valentinianism.
However, section 19.1–2 of the Excerpta ex Theodoto serves to reinforce Photios' doubts regarding Clement's view of the Logos:45
"And the Logos become flesh"—not only by becoming man at his Advent <on earth>, but also, "at the beginning" the essential Logos became a Son by circumscription (or limitation) and not in essence.
And again he become flesh when he acted through the prophets. And the Saviour is called an offspring of the essential Logos therefore "in the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God" and "that which come into existence in him was life" and life is the Lord.46
42 Clement, Ex. Th. 8.1: Ἡμεῖς δὲ τὸν ἐν ταὐτότητι λόγον θεὸν ἐν θεῷ φαμεν, ὃς καὶ "εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς" εἶναι λέγεται, ἀδιάστατος, ἀμέριστος, εἷς θεός
(trans. Casey).
43 Ibid. 8.2.
44 Photios' charge of docetism is discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
45 Interestingly, Mark Edwards has challenged Clement's authorship of Ex. Th. 19 in order to defend him against Photios' charge (M.J. Edwards, "Gnostics and Valentinians in the Church Fathers", Journal of Theological Studies 40 [1989]: 26–47).
46 καὶ ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο" οὐ κατὰ τὴν παρουσίαν μόνον ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ ἐν ταὐτότητι λόγος, κατὰ περιγαφὴν καὶ οὐ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν γενόμενος [ὁ] υἱός. καὶ πάλιν σὰρξ ἐγένετο διὰ προφητῶν ἐνεργήσας τέκνον δὲ
clement of alexandria on trial
Following Sagnard,47 we may ascribe the first quotation to Clement as it refers to earlier (4–5; 8) parts of the interpretation of the Johannine prologue and together with them the passage 19–20 forms a coherent unity in Clement's lesson. Taking up the Johannine idiom, καὶ ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο, Clement commented on it in a very careful way as if he had in mind some fragments of the Valentinian exegesis. The Logos' appearance in flesh (σάρξ ἐγένετο) is a recent, historical event within the whole eternal process of the generation of the divine Son.
In Clement's view there are two acts of 'self-circumscription' or 'selflimitation' (περιγραφή) of the Logos. The first act took place in eternity, as the Logos became a distinct hypostasis from his Father, while still being in unity with him. The second phase happened with his incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth. This is an expression of his περιγραφή as the divine being enters into time, space and a particular culture. In both these acts 'separation' and gaining a new status does not undermine the Logos' divine nature: the Son and the Father share the same substance (οὐσία). Then the second sentence adds Clement's opinion which may have come to Photios in a deformed way as: "but some power of God, like an emanation of his Word, who became mind and permeated the hearts of men".
As noted above, δύναμίς is one of the synonyms of the divine Logos, who descended into the human realm even before his incarnation, as the giver of reason, as the ultimate source of wisdom, philosophy and prophecy. All the time, as Clement emphasises, the Logos is τέκνον δὲ τοῦ ἐν ταὐτότητι λόγου ὁ σωτὴρ εἴρηται, as he remains the Son of the essential Logos that is ὁ πατρικὸς/πατρῷος λόγος. All these statements confirm that in Clement's theology of the Logos, the Son and the Father are not different as to their nature or substance: both are divine.48 Clement only highlighted the difference in their τοῦ ἐν ταὐτότητι λόγου ὁ σωτὴρ εἴρηται. διὰ τοῦτο "ἐν αρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν· ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωή ἐστιν"· ζωὴ δὲ ὁ κύριος (trans.
Casey).
47 Sagnard, Clément d'Alexandrie, 10.
48 Again, Pagels provides an insightful summary of Clement's Logos-theology as distinct from his Valentinian opponents: "Stated most simply, what Clement does is to apply to the incarnate savior the passage the Valentinians regarded as 'most metaphysical' [i.e., John 1:1-3], and to apply the verse they refer to the mere cosmic manifestation in Jesus (J 1.14) to the very pre-existent divine logos. Through this technique,
Clement ridicules their claim to find in the Johannine prologue evidence of a hierarchically graded structure of divine being. He attempts instead to establish exegetically the claim that 'the identical logos-theos' is acting throughout all manifestations of God to mankind" (Pagels, Johannine Gospel, 40).
the teachings about two logoi of the father
individual status (ὑποκειμένη).49 Therefore any accusation of and association of Clement with 'proto-Arianism'50 in this context is unjust and groundless. Further, it is the Logos/Son who is directly involved in illuminating human reason to discover the ultimate source of reality. Clement did not hint at any consubstantiality of human reason with its divine model, which is the Logos/Son. Human reason is the ἀπόρροια of the divine Son, not in the sense of being its emanation, but rather human reason is penetrated by its light, power and ultimately life (ζωή). This emanation, ἀπόρροια, has the character of prophetic or philosophical inspiration. It is not an ontological extension of the divine Logos into the mind of a human being represented by a prophet or a philosopher. The prophet or philosopher is not an embodiment of the divine Logos. Clement of Alexandria is certain that there was only one person, Jesus of Nazareth, who was the incarnated Logos.
Before providing the reader with a conclusion, I would like to note that Photios' allegation has attracted a great deal of interest among modern scholars who unanimously defend Clement's orthodoxy.
From this we gain a certain line of interpretation of Clement's teaching, which although not unanimous, clarifies his doctrinal position and at the same time undermines Photios' accusation. As summarised by Hägg, the source of Photios' misinterpretation was the ambiguity of the central term ὁ λόγος or rather its multivalence, which remained unspecified in Clement's commentaries.51 It must be also noted at this early stage, that Photios' charge sounds not only blasphemous but also extremely convoluted. He stated that Clement of Alexandria proclaimed λόγους … τοῦ πατρὸς δύο as two divine beings, however
Photios did not shed any light on the ambiguity of the crucial term ὁ λόγος within Clement's exegesis, theology or even philosophy.
Further, in Photios' opinion and as far as we can understand his intention, Clement of Alexandria held the view that neither of the Logoi revealed themselves to humanity through historical revelation, which meant that Jesus of Nazareth was not identical with the divine Son/
Logos. The person that appeared 'in flesh' as Jesus, was a lesser (τὸν ἥττονα) being, a form of power (δύναμίς τις τοῦ θεοῦ), which in turn became incorporated into the human mind (νοῦς γενόμενος) and 49 Clement, Ex. Th. 19.5.
50 Lewis Ayres rightly points to a problematic semantic of the term 'Arian', therefore I use the noun 'Arianism' with inverted commas (see Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy, 13–14).
51 Hägg, Clement of Alexandria, 191–2.
clement of alexandria on trial
penetrated or inhabited the hearts of men. The complexity of this theological scenario suggests either that Clement's speculation on the divine persons of the Father and the Son were made without any reference to Scriptural revelation, or that he had seriously misunderstood the nature of God and possibly fallen under spell of some sort of Gnostic theogony.
In summary I would like to recall that Clement's Logos-theology emerged as a construction which referred to and depends at many points on Philo's philosophy.52 But also Clement's thought took into account a new phase of God's revelation, notably arising from a heightened appreciation of the Johannine documents and some
Pauline ideas of Christ.53 It must be emphasised, following Edwards's correct observation that Clement's theory appeared in the context of anti-Valentinian polemic responding to the specific Gnostic, Valentinian challenge. When Clement's Logos-theology is examined carefully in the context of his polemical ambitions, his philosophical and Philonic background and his particular exegetical techniques, it is clear that he believed and defended the theory of the eternal generation of the Logos. Any attempt to discern 'stages' of this divine process risked employing categories and language which, although useful on a pedagogical level, misinterpret what is by its nature apophatic, unique and without analogy in this created world. In brief, in my view
Edwards's interpretation seems to be closest to Clement's intention and the most faithful to the theological background which influenced its language, imagery and content.54
The historical context was not given sufficient weight by Photios, who judged Clement's theory from his own very personal theological stance and understanding of orthodoxy. Photios' position naturally included post-Chalcedonian theological phraseology and doctrinal sensitivities, reaffirmed by the seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea
(787 ce). Photios' experience as an exegete and feelings as a theologian 52 Berchman concludes: "This conclusion is based on two hypotheses. First, Clement borrowed almost in toto the structure of Philo's doctrine of the Logos. Second, he transformed it" (From Philo to Origen, 61).
53 Clement's fascination with the Logos-theology of John's Gospel is shown by great number of references to this document in, for example, Stromateis (see Stählin's,
Register). As to Paul's Christology, one of the main borrowings from it is Clement's emphasis on the function of the divine Logos as the Saviour of all.
54 Hägg's careful reconstruction does not take into consideration anti-Valentinian polemic in Clement's theory of Logos' generation (see Clement of Alexandria, 185–
94).
the teachings about two logoi of the father
inclined him to read Clement's commentaries on the divine Logos without taking this historical and cultural context into account. It is significant that Photios found Clement's erroneous theology of the Logos in the Hypotyposeis, but he did not mention any errors on the same subject in the Stromateis which he also read.55 Photios' critique mentions 'plenty of nonsense' (μυρία φλυαρεῖ καὶ βλασφημεῖ) in the exegetical work, while it does not condemn any specific theological reflection on the nature of the Logos in the other volumes of Clement's work. Did Clement of Alexandria make blasphemous comments in only one of his treatises, while remaining careful and faithful to the apostolic teaching in others? How can this obvious discrepancy be explained? Did Clement of Alexandria shift from being more 'heretical' at the beginning of his career to a more mainstream Christian position at the end? Did Clement begin his theological research grounded in the apostolic teaching, but become distracted by, for instance, Gnostic speculation later on? Was he too dependent on Pantaenus' exegesis while working on the Hypotyposeis? Clement's existing oeuvre, although not readily amenable to systematic analysis, does not confirm such a huge discrepancy in his thought. On the contrary, although Clement cannot be said to have developed 'a systematic theology', the exegetical, theological and doctrinal coherence of his surviving works is notable.
To be fair to Photios, Clement was unclear in his many-sided elaboration of the theory of Logos. He was attracted to the divine aspect and nature of the Logos, while the context of Jesus of Nazareth's earthly life is mentioned only on a few occasions.56 It is commonly known that in Clement's collection of excerpts from the Gnostic theologian Theodotus, it is not always possible to distinguish Clement's opinions from Theodotus'. Often the quoted passages and the commentary amalgamate into one narrative. But Photios did not base his charge on the Excerpta as he did not read them. Still, this example shows some exegetical, eclectic tendency which may have appeared and worried him. In my view, Clement was also heavily influenced by Philo's speculation about the Logos. This point was missed by Photios whose interest in metaphysics, either Platonic or Aristotelian, was rather minor, as we have pointed out earlier. In addition, I agree also
55 See Photios, Cod. 109.
56 One of them is recorded in Clement, Strom. 1.145.1. It is quite surprising how much space and time Clement's dedicates to Moses' life and how limited is his account of Jesus' life.
clement of alexandria on trial
with Mark Edwards, that Photios was capable of misreading Clement's philosophical and theological statements.57 He may have interpreted unclear concepts in Clement's work using the 'heretical' theories, such as Arian Christology, that were known to him, thereby distorting them. It is true that Clement did not provide Photios with the clarity that he might have expected from a Church Father. Neither Clement's vocabulary nor his theory convinced him, and he could not identify them within the boundaries of mainstream Christian doctrine as he understood it. Perhaps Photios found in the Hypotyposeis an unsystematic collection of thoughts, vague notions and expressions, which only confused him and led him to suspect theological error. But even so, even if the Hypotyposeis were a handbook of unfinished notes on various Scriptural themes, it is hardly possible that Clement of Alexandria held the beliefs which Photios accuses him of holding.
57 See Edwards, "Clement of Alexandria", 170 and his example from Photios, Cod.
111 and Clement, Strom. 7.110.4.
the assumption that the son of god is a creature
CHAPTER FOUR
THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE SON OF GOD
IS A CREATURE
καὶ τὸν υἱὸν εἰς κτίσμα κατάγει He thinks of the Son as a created being The seriousness of this one of Photios charges cannot be underestimated as even the slightest association with this assumption would imply that its perpetrator held a very unorthodox belief about the nature of Jesus Christ. The crucial Greek noun used by Photios and the verb1 associated with it does not leave any room for other than a literal understanding of its meaning, while the application of the noun to Christ directly undermines the divine origin and nature of the Logos.
In Clement's oeuvre the noun τό κτίσμα appears on seven occasions, once in the Paedagogus,2 and six times in the Stromateis,3 and in these
1 For instance, in classical Greek usage the verb κτίζω referred to (1) the literal construction of something, the foundation of a building or a particular city (colony) or of a philosophical school, (2) to production or creation of an artistic object (a painting, a story) (see H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, Greek–English Lexicon with a Revised Supplement [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], s.v. κτίζω). Later in the Septuagint it appeared with usage 1 in Gen. 14:19; 19:22; Exod. 9:18; and with usage 2 in Lev. 16:16;
Deut 4:32 (see J. Lust, E. Eynikel, K. Hauspie in collaboration with G. Chamberlain, A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 1996], s.v. κτίζω). (3) In the New Testament κτίζω refers to the creative act of God (e.g.,
Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19; Rom. 1:25) and highlights Christ's power to 'create a new human being' (e.g., Eph. 2:15; 4:24; Col. 3:10). Clement used the word with all of these meanings. Usage 1 appears in Strom. 1.63.4: κτίζει τὴν Περιπατητικὴν αἵρεσιν;
1.71.1: εἰκόνα τοῦ θεοῦ Ῥωμαίους κτίζειν; 1.82.4: κτίζεσθαι τὴν οἰκίαν; 1.108.3: ἐν
῾Ρώμῃ τοῦ Πανὸς ἱερὸν … κτίσας; 1.131.7: Θάσον ἐκτίσθαι. Usage 2 appears in Strom. 4.172.3: οἱ ποιηταὶ κτίζουσι γράφοντες. Usage 3 appears in Strom. 4.89.4: κτίσαντος τὸν κόσμον; 4.148.2: καλὴ γὰρ ἡ κτισθεῖσα δὴ οἰκονομία καὶ πάντα εὖ διοικεῖται. Clement also used the verb in a metaphorical way to express the 'creation of a new human being' which is progress in perfection (e.g., Strom. 3.70.2: τρίτος δὲ ἦν ἐκ τῶν δυεῖν κτιζόμενος; 7.13.3: ναὶ μὴν ἑαυτὸν κτίζει καὶ δημιουργεῖ); the creation of Adam (Ex. Th. 37.1: οἱ ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ ἐξελθόντες οἱ μὲν δίκαιοι διὰ τῶν ἐκτισμένων τὴν ὁδὸν ποιούμενοι); and in contrast to the perfect seed/race, which was not 'created' but emanated (Ex. Th. 41.1: μήτε ὡς κτίσιν προεληλυθέναι). Both the verb and the noun, κτίσμα, indicate 'a product' of an activity that brought it to being, therefore in Christological context the term is highly controversial.
2 Clement, Paed. 2.44.1.
3 Clement, Strom. 4.85.3, 6.71.4, 6.71.5, 6.142.1, 6.145.7, 7.86.2.
clement of alexandria on trial
contexts the term literally denotes God's various creatures. At the same time, nowhere in the existing treatises was the term applied to the divine Logos. The divine Logos was given other titles which emphasised his unique status, but he was not called 'the created' ipsissima verba. In relation to this charge it must be said that Clement's opinion of Christ as 'created' would challenge the core of the doctrine of salvation and redemption as understood and taught by mainstream
Christianity, through the Apostolic Fathers, the early apologists and Irenaeus of Lyons. Theologically, the application of this term to the Son of God differentiates the divine Father from his Son in such a radical way that it seriously questions the nature of the relationship between the two. It leads to the conclusion that the same divine existence cannot be shared between them.4 In this Chapter, I examine the statement in four stages as I wish to uncover not only as much as possible of Clement's view of Christ's origin, but also to show the essential elements of the theological background against which his thought appeared and from which it took its impetus. Without that philosophical and theological framework it is hardly possible to estimate the value of Clement's opinion about the origin of the Logos. To fulfil this purpose, I shall, first, sketch Clement's dependence on Philo of Alexandria's doctrine of the origin of the divine Logos. In my view,
Philo provided Clement with a substantial amount of philosophical understanding of the Johannine Logos. Secondly, I will take into consideration some Scriptural documents which inspired Clement's
4 R. Williams, summarising Arius' theological reasoning points to three important syllogisms, which are also significant in the context of Photios' charge against Clement as the Alexandria scholar would hold similar views to Arius':
1 The Logos of God is the ground and condition, the rational or intelligible structure of the world; But that structure has no existence independent of the world which it structures; Therefore the Logos does not exists prior to the divine decision to make the world: ēn hote pote ouk ēn … 2 God the Father is absolute unity, God the Son (as the realm of intelligence and intelligible) is multiplicity; But absolute unity cannot be conceptualized by any knowing subject without its being distorted into multiplicity (as something existing over again a subject); Therefore the Son can have no concept of the Father's essence no katalēpsis … 3 The Logos truly exists as a subject distinct from the Father; But the defining qualities, the essential life, of one subject cannot as such be shared with another; Therefore the divine attributes traditionally and scripturally applied to the Son must be true of him in a sense quite different from that in which they are true of the Father
(R. Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition [Canterbury: SCM Press, 2nd edn, 2001],
231–32).