4. The Gnostic γενεά as the Challenge to Logos-Theology
clement of alexandria on trial
Thus, on the basis of the material examined so far, Photios' condemnation of Clement appears to stand. If he is to be exonerated more evidence is required. The last section of this chapter provides this by examining the fourth element which shaped Clement's problematic theory of the origin of the Logos. It explains what theological considerations led him to keep his theory of the generation of the Logos so imprecise. These reasons, as will be seen, show him as a careful defender of orthodoxy.
4. The Gnostic γενεά as the Challenge to Logos-Theology The crucial question emerges is: "Why did Clement not give greater emphasis to the generation/proceeding50 or begetting of the Logos from his Father?"51 Why does Clement's oeuvre leave room for questions at this point?
In my view, Clement's reservations about the Scriptural term γεννάω ('generate', 'beget', 'conceive', 'give birth') are related to the fact that the term was in common usage among the Valentinian theologians, including Theodotus, to denote the procreation/procession of 50 The term προέλευσις is used in Clement, Strom. 5.16.5: προελθὼν δὲ ὁ λόγος δημιουργίας αἴτιος, ἔπειτα καὶ ἑαυτὸν γεννᾷ. "When it appeared, the Logos became the cause of the creation and then he generated himself." Here the term προέλευσις denotes 'the appearance/coming forth' of the Logos as the cause of creation. As noted in Alan de Boulleuc's commentary, προέλευσις was a technical term used by early
Christian apologists in order to denote 'transition' of the Logos from his previous existence intra mentem Dei to the second stage as extra mentem Dei (see Boulluec,
Stromata V, 85).
51 However, Clement's less speculative, but more catechetical, treatise known by Latin title Quis dives salvetur (37.1) expresses the idea of generation of the Son by his
Father, who also receives characteristics of a mother: "behold the mysteries of love, and then you will have a vision of the bosom of the Father, whom the only-begotten
God alone declared [John 1:18]. God in his very self is love, and for love's sake He became visible to us. And while the unspeakable part of Him is Father, the part that has sympathy with us is Mother. By His loving the Father became of woman's nature, a great proof of which is He whom He begat from Himself (ὃν αὐτὸς ἐγέννησεν ἐξ αὑτοῦ); and the fruit that is born of love is love' (trans. G.W. Butterworth, in Clement of Alexandria: The Exhortation to the Greeks, The Rich Man's Salvation, To the Newly
Baptized, LCL [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919). Buell comments:
"Although Clement goes so far as to say that one aspect of God is a mother, his remark that the father becomes feminine to bring forth an offspring makes clear that God's fatherhood is God's prior and 'normal' state" (K. Buell, Making Christians: Clement of Alexandria and the Rhetoric of Legitimacy [Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1999], 178).
the assumption that the son of god is a creature
the Gnostic Saviour (ὁ σωτήρ)52 from his divine Parent. As we shall see, one of the documents representing Valentinian theology, the Tripartite Tractate,53 portrays the divine Father (ⲠⲈⲒⲰⲦ) as both male, generating, and female, giving birth. Also, it is important to remember that the generation of the Saviour, and then the Aeons— which is presented in varied narratives and in differing levels of detail—is directly connected with the origins of the spiritual the most perfect race.54 This race is consubstantial (ⲞⲨϢⲂⲎⲢ Ⲛ̅ⲚⲞⲨⲤⲒⲀ) or shares the same nature as their divine origin/Saviour.55 Therefore the term γενητός had in Clement's time and still has very complex semantics as well as having significant implications for the theory of salvation.56 The divine Saviour born of his unbegotten (ⲀⲄⲈⲚⲚⲈⲦⲞⲤ)
Father, was sent down to redeem the spiritual seed, or actualise spiritual potential among the most perfect, mature and advanced Christians. The perfect race was born of the Saviour in a way parallel to his birth from divine Origin. In this Valentinian context, generation and salvation are strictly ordered ontologically, while the degree of perfection descends from the highest level of the invisible/spiritual to the 52 The clear example of the latter use of γενητός in relation to the origin of the Gnostic Saviour, within the theological framework of the eastern Valentinian school, is found in the following statement from Ex. Th. 23.3: δὶο καὶ καθ᾽ ἑ <κά>τερον ἐκήρυξε τὸν σωτῆρα, γεν <ν>ητὸν καὶ παθητὸν. "Therefore he [Paul, 1 Cor. 15:12] preached the Saviour from both points of view: as begotten and passible" (trans.
Casey). Here, as Sagnard explains, in the context of Gnostic exegesis, Paul is the embodiment of the Paraclete, who proclaims the truth about the Saviour's double origin. For the audience composed of the less advanced Christians, the Saviour is proclaimed as "begotten and passible". Then to the more advanced Christians (the pneumatics) the Saviour is declared as "born of the Holy Spirit" and He only "went through" the Virgin Mary (Sagnard, Clément d'Alexandrie, 107).
53 For more detail on this document preserved in the Nag Hammadi Library, see H. W. Attridge and E. Pagels, "Introduction to The Tripartite Tractate", in The Coptic
Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codies (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
2000), 1:159–90, esp. 178–84.
54 See Tri. Trac. 118.15: ϪⲈ ⲦⲘⲚ̅ⲦⲢⲰⲘⲈ· ⲀⲤϢⲰⲠⲈ ⲈⲤⲞⲈⲒ· Ⲛ̅ϢⲞⲘⲚ̅Ⲧ Ⲛ̅ⲢⲎⲦⲈ ⲔⲀⲦⲀ ⲞⲨⲤⲒⲀ ⲆⲈ ϮⲠⲚⲈⲨⲘⲀⲦⲒⲔⲎ ⲘⲚ̅ ϮⲮⲨⲬ<ⲒⲔ>Ⲏ ⲘⲚ̅ ϮϨⲨⲖⲒⲔⲎ. This classical
Valentinian distinction finds its confirmation also in the records of Irenaeus, Adv.
Haer. 1.7.5 and Clement of Alexandria, Ex. Th. 54.1; 56.3. The importance of this distinction is related to the belief that only the spiritual race is 'born of' the Saviour and consubstantial with his divine nature.
55 See Tri. Trac. 118.21–35; 122.12–24 with the crucial term of election, superiority: ⲘⲚ̅ⲦⲤⲰⲦⲚ̅. It must be noted that within the 'eastern' school of Valentinianism,
'election' encompassed Sophia's male, angelic offspring, while 'calling' (ἐκλογή, κλήσις) referred to female offspring, the Valentinians themselves.
56 For more details on the complexity of the Valentinian notions of procession, generation and salvation, see Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, esp. 165–87.
clement of alexandria on trial
lowest one of the visible/material: each performs and acts according to its essence. Only those who are generated by the divine source are able to reach salvation without any disturbance, their salvation reaffirmed by the very essence of their beings. Therefore it is not surprising that those adhering to this kind of cosmogony expressed a great deal of interest in speculation over the beginnings of the invisible realm, the nature of the divine Origin and the emergence of the lower beings. The begetting of the second hypostasis, the Son or Mind took centre stage in this alternative Christian cosmogony.57 The act of conceiving and giving existence/birth to the Son by the divine Monad opened a whole new phase of the spiritual universe (the Pleroma) in which various divine beings or Aeons received their existence. Although the original terminology of the Gnostic myth was hidden by later Coptic or Greek modifications, this central act is denoted by such terms as: 'conceiving', 'becoming/making pregnant', 'emanating', and even 'projecting seed' (προβολή … τὸ σπέρμα).58 All of them refer to the same act known from human procreation and in Gnostic rhetoric they highlight the essential idea of kinship.
From Clement's oeuvre we know that he was familiar with various versions of the Valentinian theory of salvation and its vocabulary in which 'generation' (γένεσις) played a central role as a metaphor that legitimised the authority of a teaching or school.59 In addition,
Valentinian hermeneutics joined together γένεσις with 'regeneration'
(ἀναγένεσις), of which only the most advanced might be certain.60
Again, a closer look at the Valentinian theory helps to shed some light on Clement's possible reservations about the use of the term in relation to the divine Logos. Of course, neither the term nor his specific use of it were invented by Valentinus or his various followers, as it had a strong theological pedigree in the New Testament. Nonetheless, it took on a specific colour in the Valentinian tapestry.
57 In various versions of the original Valentinian myth of the generation/emergence of the spiritual world, the first generation of the Son is the archetype of all following generations, as well as an inspiration to the lesser Aeons (e.g., Sophia) who wished to copy the divine act of the Father with catastrophic consequences.
58 Clement, Ex. Th. 21.1; see also D.J. Good, "Gender and Generation: Observation on Coptic Terminology, with Particular Attention to Valentinian Texts", in Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism: ed. K.L. King, Studies in Antiquity and Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 23–40.
59 Various elements of that imagery are detected and studied by Buell, Making Christians.
60 e.g. Clement, Ex. Th. 25.2; see Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 315–29.
the assumption that the son of god is a creature
One of the most important documents which represents the theology of the western tradition of Valentinianism is the Tripartite
Tractate. In the section that describes the nature of the Father (51.8– 57.5) there is also one of many descriptions of the begetting of the Son:
The Father [ⲠⲈⲒⲰⲦ], in the way we mentioned earlier, in an unbegotten way, is the one in whom he [the Son] knows himself, who begot him having a thought, which is the thought of him.61
In Valentinian theogony and cosmogony, first the 'unbegotten' Father generated his only Son (ⲈⲦⲀϤϪⲠⲞ) (57.18–19), who 'exists from the beginning' (57.34), which means that he was prior to the Aeons. The Son is thus the outcome of the Father's productive activity which takes place in eternity and in the divine realm. The begetting or generation of the Son initiated the whole process of calling into being the rest of the spiritual realm, the Pleroma. The generation of the Son/Saviour mediated the extension of that realm and the appearance of its structure, usually expressed by four pairs of Aeons. However they are various accounts of that cosmological process.62 The Son/Saviour is the closest to the Father, he is the 'first-born' (πρωτότοκος/ ⲠϢⲢⲚ̅
Ⲙ︦ⲘⲒⲤⲈ), the 'only Son' (μονογενής/ ϢⲎⲢⲈ Ⲛ̅ⲞⲨⲰⲦ).63 The cosmogony denoted also his partner and companion that coexists with him and that is the 'Church' (ⲈⲔⲔⲖⲎⲤⲒⲀ). It seems that this original trinity, the incomprehensible Father, the 'first-born' Son and the Church, existed from the beginning, while the rest of the spiritual realm gradually emerged in the next stages of the process. But further, the narrative specifies characteristics of the Son's existence since he alone shares the qualities of the Father as his offspring and only ' natural' child.64 As the child of the divine, single parent, the Son is begotten eternally,
'without beginning and endless' ({ⲀⲦ}ⲀⲢⲬⲎ ⲘⲚ̅ ⲞⲨⲘⲚ̅Ⲧ<ⲀⲦ>ϨⲀⲎ),65 while the 'Church' (ⲈⲔⲔⲖⲎⲤⲒⲀ) is understood to be the community of the perfect, generated as the spiritual outcome of the loving embrace between the Father and the Son.66 And then, the Aeons which compose the Pleroma were begotten while their generation (ϪⲠⲞⲞⲨⲈ)
61 Tri. Trac. 56.34–5.
62 As to the number and names/title of the syzygic partners, see the very helpful reconstruction of possible configurations in Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 193–247.
63 Tri. Trac. 57.20.
64 Ibid. 58.5–15.
65 Ibid. 58.15.
66 Ibid. 58.20–31.
clement of alexandria on trial
remains the philosophical model of the actualisation of potential.67
Within this spiritual realm there was only one source of generation and that was the divine Father.
The Gnostic myth expressed this generation in a poetic text, in which the Father calls all intelligible and perfect reality into being from his own substance.68 Therefore the Aeons composing the Pleroma did not have any ontological autonomy, but were the names of the properties of the Father.69 As can be seen at this stage of the development of Valentinian cosmogony, the central event of this progression is generation/giving birth by which various aspects of the divine
Father's nature receive their actualisation or 'embodiment' as spiritual Aeons. This divine process of generation will be later unsuccessfully copied by one of the lowest offspring Sophia, but this time with disastrous consequences for the whole world. There is no need to discuss the whole myth here, but it is important to emphasise that Gnostic imagery accommodated the Scriptural, or more precisely Johannine, motif of the generation (γένεσις) of God very effectively. This stimulating image denoting consubstantiality, eternal procession and even some degree of equality was used by the Gnostic Christians, here the followers of Valentinus, not only in a Christological context which would have been understood by the Catholic theologians, but also in anthropology as a synonym for the perfect race. This easy hermeneutical trajectory worried Clement of Alexandria. In addition, the common use, if not abuse, of such Scriptural terminology as 'conceiving',
'giving birth', 'being born of' and 'generation' did not help to draw the clear line between Clement's interpretation of the origin of the divine
Logos, which he believed to represent the apostolic legacy, and his opponents. This struggle with the alternative theologies of Valentinianism did not necessarily make Clement 'give up' on the term γένεσις and choose to avoid it. However, this background does show some of the difficulties he faced.
In summary it must be said that Photios' charge that Clement called the divine Logos/Christ 'created' (κτίσμα) did not reflect what could be seen as Clement's authentic Logos-theology. It is correct to state
67 Ibid. 60.6.
68 "The Father brought forth everything [(Ϫ)Ⲉ ⲠⲦⲎⲢϤ︦ ⲀⲠⲒⲰⲦ· ⲈⲒⲚⲈ Ⲙ︦ⲘⲀⲨ], like a little child, like a drop from a spring, like a blossom from a [vine], like a [flower], like a <planting> […] in need of gaining [nourishment] and growth and faultlessness" (ibid. 62.10).
69 Ibid. 73.10–11.
the assumption that the son of god is a creature
that Clement's view on the Logos/Christ's divine origin contained a certain degree of terminological imprecision and was far less developed in comparison with other aspects of his theology. However, there is no doubt that for Clement the Logos/Christ fulfilled the role that in the Hebrew Scriptural tradition denoted unique closeness, eternal companionship and direct dependence on God, the Father. It is correct to contend that Clement saw his Logos'/Christ's as a separate hypostasis distinct from his Origin, but this distinction does not point to any ontological difference or some sort of lower, 'less perfect', state of being in relation to his source. Clement's avoidance of Scriptural terminology and lack of a clear pronouncement on the origin of the divine Logos as 'born of the Father', or 'consubstantial' with the Father, must be viewed in the light of Gnostic terminology and idioms denoting the generation of the eternal Son.
clement of alexandria on trial
the docetic view of christ
CHAPTER FIVE
THE DOCETIC VIEW OF CHRIST
He hallucinates that the Word was not incarnate, but only seems to be.
Following on from the previous two discussions of Clement's Logostheology, I shall now examine the other charge in this category.
According to Photios, Clement of Alexandria held at least a quasidocetic belief regarding the nature of Christ, namely that the Word/
Logos did not became flesh, but only "appeared to be in flesh", an interpretation which directly denied the reality of the incarnation.
Opinion is divided among modern scholars about how docetic Clement's theology was. Some defend Clement's orthodoxy ardently,1 while others are inclined to note a degree of ambiguity on the subject.2
Clement's position does seem to have been rather complex. Photios' charge clearly saw him as a heretic. However, I believe, there is a theo1 T. Ruther, "Die Leiblichkeit Christi nach Clement von Alexandrien", Theologische Quartalschrift 107 (1926): 231–54.
2 "Zu einem massvollen Doketismus, hat Clemens auch sonst bekannt … und das trotz aller Polemik gegen die eigentliche δόκησις" (T. Zahn, Forschungen zur
Ge schichte, 3:97). "Though criticised as such by Photios, Clement was not Docetist, and defended the reality of incarnation; but many of his statements, e.g. that Christ was not ordinary man with physical passions, have a distinctly docetic ring"
(J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [London: A&C Black, 5th edn, 1993], 154.
E.F. Osborn characterises Clement's view in relation to other contemporary patristic authors: "there is some of Irenaeus' sense of balance, but Clement is worried that this will be upset by a lack of weight on the 'God' side. If Jesus were really limited by the needs of a physical body, could he be anything more than a late and inferior entrant to a well-stocked pantheon? Consequently Clement's attitude to the manhood and body of Christ is a sharp contrast to that of Tertullian, although he still rejects the position that the body of Christ was unreal" (E.F. Osborne, The Beginning of Christian
Philosophy [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981], 214). See also an interesting comment by M. J. Edwards: "As we shall observe, there was some contention in Clement's time as to whether Christ assumed the 'psychic' flesh that all men receive from Adam or the spiritual flesh of the resurrection; even those who held the first position, on the grounds that only such a psychic Christ would be truly human, would not have taught that the measure of humanity is the despotism of the alimentary canal" (Origen against Plato, 23). "Clement nevertheless insisted on the reality and concreteness—as well as significance—of the advent, life, and death of Christ" (Hägg,
Clement of Alexandria, 196).