3. The Evidence from the Excerpta ex Theodoto
clement of alexandria on trial
the ultimate messenger/revealer (μηνυτής) of God's mystery.35 There are parallels between the functions of the archangels and the Logos, but at the same time, as Lilla emphasised , the divine Logos held the pre-eminent position in Clement's theory.36 The Logos is the Mind (ὁ νοῦς) of God identified with the Platonic realm of Ideas (ἡ χώρα).37
The Logos is inseparable from God, but also God is indissoluble from the Logos. If so, God cannot exist without his Mind and his Wisdom.
The same divine Logos 'appeared' or 'disclosed' his separate existence in the process of creation "at the beginning of time". He was the 'mode' by which the invisible and visible worlds were created, as the 'mode' he is πρωτόκτιστος. He was not called into being in an ontological sense, as created out of something/nothing and therefore having a separate nature, but in a soteriological sense, as the unique being, who received a special function and mission as God's messenger to all creatures. The term πρωτόκτιστος is relative, it points to the rest of the creatures to whom the Logos is prior. But with the documents so far presented we can only conclude that at this stage Clement of Alexandria did not see any problems either with this identification or with 'vague' terminology. The next stage of Clement's reflection is related to his polemic against the Christian Gnostics.
3. The Evidence from the Excerpta ex Theodoto As we do not have direct evidence of the use of τό κτίσμα in relation to the divine Logos/Christ in Clement's existing works, we have to turn to some passages which might suggest that Clement used either that exact term or one of its synonyms. In Clement's oeuvre there are some places where the Logos/Saviour is denoted as the first created withn a different Greek term from the one used by Photios. We find πρωτόκτιστος or, in the later Latin translation, primo creatus in the Excerpta ex Theodoto. There are two difficult passages where Clement explained the role of the Logos while commenting on the teachings of Theodotus. The first is chapter 19.3–4:
35 Clement, Strom. 5.34.2; Paed. 1.58.1. The function of mediator of the revelation is a common place of Jewish angelology in the Scriptures (Dan. 7–12) and in the Pseudepigrapha (e.g., Jub. 1:27-29; 10:10-14; 1 En. 8; 17–36; T. Reu. 5:3; T. Levi 9:6;
Apoc. Ab. 10–18; 4 Ezra 3–14).
36 Lilla, Clement of Alexandria, 201–12.
37 See Clement, Strom. 4.155.2.
the assumption that the son of god is a creature
And when Paul says, "Put on the new man created according to God"
[Eph. 4:24] it is as if he said, Believe on him who was "created" by God, "according to God", that is, the Logos in God. And "created according to God" can refer to the end of advance which man will reach, as does
… he rejected the end for which he was created. And in other passages he speaks still more plainly and distinctly: "Who is an image of the invisible God"; then he goes on, "First-Born of all creation". For he calls the Logos of the essential Logos "an image of the invisible God" [Col.
1:15]; but "First-born of all creation". Having been begotten without passion he became the creator and progenitor of all creation and substance, for by him the Father made all things.38
And the second passage came from chapter 20:
For we thus understand "I begot thee before the morning star" [Ps.
109:3] with reference to the first-created Logos of God" and similarly "thy name" [Ps. 71:17] is before sun and moon and before all creation.39
According to Sagnard, chapters 19 and 20 were part of the earlier discourse from chapters 4–5, 9 and 18 where Clement introduced his own comments on the origin and nature of the divine Logos, therefore they represent Clement's theological views, not those of his opponent
Theodotus.40 This observation is confirmed by the opening statement of chapter 20: οὕτως ἐξακούομεν which shows Clement expressing himself in the first person plural.41 Secondly, if we accept that the passage quoted above expresses Clement's view, it must be noted that this statement uses both terms, first-created (πρωτοκτίστος) and first-born
(πρωτότοκος), synonymously. It is also worth noticing that Rufinus of Aquileia expressed amazement that Clement's writing about the doc38 καὶ ὁ Παῦλος "ἔνδυσαι τὸν καινὸν ἂνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα" οἷον εἰς αὐτὸν πίστευσον τὸν ὑπὸ θεοῦ "κατὰ θεόν", τὸν ἐν θεῳ λόγον, κτισθέντα. δύνατι δὲ τὸ "κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα" τό εἰς ὃ μέλλει τέλος προκοπῆς φθάνειν ὁ ἄνθρωπος μηνύειν ἐπ᾽ ἴσης τῷ "ἀπόλαβε τὸ εἰς ὃ ἐκτίσθης τέλος". καὶ ἔτι σαφέστερον καὶ διαρρήδην ἐν ἄλλοις λέγει "ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου" εἶτα ἐπιφέρει· "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως". "ἀοράτου" μὲν γὰρ "θεοῦ εἰκόνα" τὸν
<υἱὸν> λέγει τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἐν ταὐτότητι, "πρωτότοκον δὲ πάσης κτίσεως", <ὅτι> γεννηθεὶς ἀπαθῶς, κτίστης καὶ γενεσιάρχης τῆς ὅλης ἐγενετο κτίσεώς τε καὶ οὐσίας. ἐν αὐτῷ γάρ ὁ πατὴρ τὰ πὰντα ἐποίησεν (trans Casey). The full explanation of τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν can be found in Col. 1.16.
39 τὸ γὰρ "πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησά σε" οὕτως ἐξακούομεν ἐπὶ τοῦ πρωτοκτίστου θεοῦ λόγου καὶ "πρὸ ἡλίου" καὶ σελήνης καὶ πρὸ πάσης κτίσεως "τὸ ὄνομά σου"
(trans. Casey).
40 Sagnard, Clément d'Alexandrie, 10.
41 See also Clement, Ex. Th. 1.3: φαμέν; 8.1: ἡμεῖς δὲ … φαμέν; 33.2: παράκοuσμα τοῦ ἡμετέρου.
clement of alexandria on trial
trine of the Holy Trinity called the Son of God a creature (creatura).42
Clement seemed to understand the divine Logos as the image of God existing as absolutely the first of all beings, his role being to act as the mediator in creation and revelation.43 At the same time he did not discuss the distinction between 'created/begotten' in detail, as both terms described a form of "direct and unique procession" from God.
Later, commenting on the First Epistle of John (1.1) Clement wrote more clearly about the relationship between God the Father and his
Logos:
For that reason the Presbyter said, "from the beginning", and he explained that the beginning of generation is not separated from the beginning of the Cause of creation [i.e., the Logos]. For when he said,
"that which was from the beginning", he meant the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the Father. There was a Word, which does not have a beginning, which is unbegotten and eternal, the Word itself the Son of God, who exists in equality of substance, one with the Father as eternal and uncreated. That he was always the Word is expressed by the statement: "in the beginning was the Word".44
The passage produced a more elaborate and satisfying description of the relationship between the divine Logos and God the Father.
Unfortunately, the Latin translator Aurelius Cassiodorus45 censored the original Greek text in order to 'correct' its theological errors.46 The 42 Rufinus, De adulteratione librorum Origenis, 4: In omnibus pene libris suis
Trinitatis gloriam atque aeternitatem unam eandemque designat: et interdum inuenimus aliqua in libris suis capitula, in quibus Filium Dei creaturam dicit (see
M. Simonetti [ed.], Tyrannius Rufinus: Opera, Corpus Christianorum: Series latina 20
[Turnhaut, Brepols: 1961], 10.
43 Clement, Ex. Th. 19.2.
44 Clement, Frg., in Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus, 3:209–10: Quod ergo dicit "ab initio", hoc modo presbyter exponebat, quod principium generationis separatum ab opificis principio non est. Cum enim dicit "quod erat ab initio" generationem tangit sine principio filii cum patre simul exstantis. "Erat" ergo verbum aeternitatis significativum est non habentis initium, sicut etiam verbum ipsum (hoc est filius), quod secundum aequalitatem substantiae unum cum patre consistit, sempiternum est et infectum. Quod semper erat verbum, significatur dicendo "in principio erat verbum."
45 Flavius Marcus Aurelius Cassiodorus (c.490–583) was a Christian historian, who wrote in Latin. He was the author of, among many other books, the Chronica, De origine actibusque Gothorum, Variarum libri XII and comments on the Bible: Expositio Psalmorum, Complexiones and the lost Liber nenorialis. He was a well-educated and orthodox Christian, and his views on Clement's theology were strongly influenced by his own faith.
46 See T. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. 3: Supplementum Clementinum (Erlangen, 1884), 134 n. 2.
the assumption that the son of god is a creature
Latin equivalent of the terms related to the divine Logos and the Holy Spirit (primo creatae)47 was probably based on the Greek term πρωτόκτιστοι.48 When compared with other places in Clement's works
(e.g., Ecl. 56.7), the term first-created points to the top of the hierarchy of spiritual beings (here the Logos and the Holy Spirit) as a common term, but to Clement it was clear that the term 'first-created' could be applied to two other divine beings in order to distinguish them from the Ineffable God.49
These examples from the Excerpta ex Theodoto and other documents show that Clement of Alexandria may be found guilty of a theological error, as Photios' suggested. It looks as though, despite being a Christian, Clement was too deeply dependent at times on vague terms probably taken from Philo of Alexandria. He also assimilated some misinterpretations of the Scriptures on the origin of Wisdom.
Furthermore, it seems Clement assimilated some doubtful materials from Jewish-Christian literature and Valentinian commentaries. To some critics, Clement's Christian identity suffered from those associations. But, as in previous cases, Clement's singular expressions and notions cannot be separated from the general thrust of his theology.
Those problematic associations express the continuous, lively dialogue between Clement's thought and the ideas of his milieu, the boundaries which he often crossed in order to listen, endeavour to understand and communicate his own message concerning the Logos. While avoiding anthropomorphic notions about the origin of the Logos, he was equally against the mythologizing narratives of the Gnostics. Still, whilst rejecting these models as insufficient, he expressed his belief that the origin of the divine Logos was indeed a special phenomenon, posing a paradox and presenting God's mystery without any analogy.
This mystery had to be protected from oversimplification but was also proclaimed as the core-belief of genuine Christians.
47 e.g., Clement, Frg., in Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus, 3:211 (see 1 John 2:1): Hae namque primitivae virtutes ac primo creatae, inmobiles, exsistentes secundum substantiam, cum subiectis angelis et archangelis cum quibus vocantur aequivoce, diversas operationes efficiunt. "For these original and first-created powers remain unchangeable as to their substance, and along with subordinate angels and archangels, whose names they share, cause divine operations." By these 'divine operations' Clement might have understood creation of the universe (invisible and visible) and various acts of salvation such as the inspiration of the prophets and philosophers, and more recently the Incarnation and Resurrection.
48 See Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte, 3:98.
49 See Hägg, Clement of Alexandria, 153–61, 164–70, 173–9.