1 Controversies over the Logos' Body in Clement's Oeuvre
clement of alexandria on trial
logical grey area within which Clement of Alexandria can be located.
For he was constructing Christology rather than dogma. In order to investigate Photios' claim I will analyse the statements on this subject from Clement's existing oeuvre and compare them with some examples of docetic theology which appeared at the same period. This comparison should verify whether or not Clement had similar ideas to those in the docetic documents.
1. Controversies over the Logos' Body in Clement's Oeuvre I will focus first on those parts of Clement's main writings that seem to show a docetic inclination. Discussing the value of 'self-control' or 'self-mastery' (ἐγκράτεια) in the context of the Christian-Gnostic ideal, Clement referred to Valentinus' teaching on Christ's continence without, surprisingly, any criticism. Clement records:
Valentinus in his letter to Agathopus says that "Jesus showed his selfcontrol in all things which he experienced. It was his aim to gain divine nature; he ate and drank in a way specific to himself without excreting his food. His power of self-control was so great that the food was not corrupted within him, since he was not a subject of corruption."3
By referring to Valentinus' letter, Clement wished to point to a parallel with his own views on Christ's virtue of self-control, possibly as an example of the Christian-Gnostic ideal. Although the passage does not use the term 'docetic' explicitly, it presents a description of Christ's digestive abilities assuming some vague or marginal connection with his material body. A number of comments need to be made at this point. Clement of Alexandria and Valentinus shared, as far as we are able to reconstruct Valentinus' theology, a view in which the divine and human elements encountered each other in the specific nature of the Saviour, despite Clement and Valentinus understanding 'the Saviour' differently.4 Both Valentinus and Clement emphasised the priority of the spiritual element over the material one with all its consequences. So the truly spiritual, mature Christian must be free from 3 Clement, Strom. 3.59.3: Οὐαλεντῖνος δὲ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἀγαθόποδα ἐπιστολῇ
"πάντα" φησὶν "ὑποιμείνας ἐγκρατὴς ἦν. θεότητα Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο, ἤσθιεν καὶ ἔπινεν ἰδίως οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα. τοσαύτη ἦν αὐτῷ ἐγκρατείας δύναμις, ὥστε καὶ μὴ φθαρῆναι τὴν τροφὴν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐπεὶ τὸ φθείρεσθαι αὐτὸς οὐκ εἶχεν".
4 The complex Valentinian Christology, or rather the concept of the divine Saviour, has been noted in section 4 of Chapter 4 above.
the docetic view of christ
all bodily impulses and emotions. He or she has to be in total control of the sensual functions of the body. Here, the Saviour was the best example of that perfection (τελείωσις) which is expressed by the 'selfcontrol' (ἐγκράτεια) that Clement of Alexandria and Valentinus would have recommended to their disciples. To our modern sensitivity the whole argument about Christ's digestive system may seem at best odd, not to mention the other issues arising from the passage, but to Valentinus and Clement the crucial point was that while Christ had a normal body, he was more than just a mere human being. Valentinus' reference to the classical topos of the sage or saint who does not need to defecate and acquires the special status of a hero5 was accepted by Clement without any qualification. Like Valentinus, Clement too believed that Christ's nature was unique, and one of the aspects and expressions of that uniqueness was his total control over the natural desires and needs of his body. The Saviour has the power of self-mastery (ἐγκρατείας δύναμις) which not only prioritises his activities, but also silences distracting, unnecessary desires such as sexual passions, ambitions, or pleasure in nourishment,6 since he did not experience any form of corruption (ἐπεὶ τὸ φθείρεσθαι αὐτὸς οὐκ εἶχειν).
It is possible to see in this rhetorical model a pedagogical intention to portray the Saviour as the ideal of Christian behaviour and self-mastery. Jesus was free from desire for 'food' or 'wine', 'meat' or 'sex' in order to express the crucial domination of the spiritual element over 'the flesh'. Jesus was free from any form of dependence on the material element as his life was dominated by the spiritual. Jesus (it is possible to read this section in this way) in his divinity was not limited or restrained by his humanity. The former remained unshaken by the latter. If so, this passage does not lead to the straightforward conclusion that either Valentinus or Clement pronounced a 'docetic' Christology. The over-idealised portrayal of Jesus' ἐγκράτεια must be seen as an open proclamation of his perfection (τελείωσις). That sort of perfection is highly applauded by both Valentinus and Clement and recommended to their disciples as worthy of imitation. Therefore this particular passage should be assessed within its original rhetorical framework and purpose. Clement did not present any noticeable votum separatum as the whole chapter shows that his main concern
5 See Diogenes Laertius, V. Ph. 8.17 on Pythagoras' precept against public defecation, and similarly about Epimenides (ibid. 1.114).
6 Clement, Strom. 3.58.2.
clement of alexandria on trial
here was to produce convincing evidence, based on the universal religious phenomenon, that genuinely religious people searching for spiritual value share the same value of ἐγκράτεια. Here, Valentinus' doctrine had in common the attitude taught by Moses7 and practised by Greek philosophers8 and 'the gymnosophists' (οί γυμνοσοφισταί).9
All of them, in Clement's view, exercised abstemiousness, which helped them to achieve a higher degree of knowledge and advancement in moral and spiritual perfection. Yet, another of Clement's controversial statements came from the sixth Stromata and seems to contain an acceptance of docetic opinion on Christ's bodily appearance:
It is ludicrous to claim that the body of the Saviour, as a body, needed any necessary nourishment in order to support its continuance/existence. He ate, not for the sake of the body, which was sustained by a holy energy, but in order that it would not occur to those who accompanied Him to have a different opinion about Him, in a similar way as those who later claimed that His appearing in flesh was an illusion.10
This passage too must be interpreted as part of the section within which it appears. Here, Clement is proclaiming his programme of Gnostic accomplishment (τελείωσις), which was based on freedom from any bodily distraction. As previously, to illustrate this stage of τελείωσις, he pointed to the archetype of perfection: the Logos-Christ.
Clement's 'over spiritualization' of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, although it sounds like a docetic apology, is rather a rhetorical construction which aims by its radicalism to draw the attention of those who were searching for a model of spiritual excellence. In addition, if we pay careful attention to the last sentence of this section, we can clearly see that Clement was aware of some docetic, erroneous opinions in his milieu, which he aimed to counterbalance with his interpretation. In saying "in a similar way as those who later claimed that His appearing in flesh was an illusion" he hinted that some Christians, probably those of more Gnostic provenance, believed the Saviour's body was illusory rather than material. As we can see, Clement
7 Ibid. 3.57.3.
8 Ibid. 3.57.1.
9 Ibid. 3.60.3–3.60.4.
10 Ibid. 6.71.2: ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ σωτῆρος τὸ σῶμα ἀπαιτεῖν ὡς σῶμα τὰς ἀναγκαίας ὑπηρεσίας εἰς διαμονήν, γέλως ἂν εἴη˙ ἔφαγεν γὰρ οὐ διὰ τὸ σῶμα, δυνάμει συνεχόμενον ἁγίᾳ, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς μὴ τοὺς συνόντας ἄλλως περὶ αὐτοῦ φρονεῖν ὑπεισέλθοι, ὥσπερ ἀμέλει ὕστερον δοκήσει τινὲς αὐτὸν πεφανερῶσθαι ὑπέλαβον.
the docetic view of christ
opposed this opinion. His intentions are even clearer in the next part of the same chapter where we find a eulogy to Christ's detachment:
"But He was totally free from passions; unattainable to any sort of disturbance of feelings either pleasure or pain."11 And further on,
Clement unveiled his model of Gnostic perfection based on his specific elaboration of Christ's ἐγκράτεια.12
In the light of these three statements, it appears that Clement's Christology played a particular role within his project of ChristianGnostic excellence. Clement's construction of the Christ-model, presents the Saviour/διδάσκαλος as totally independent of any sensual distraction, passions or unnecessary needs. He is the embodiment of ἀπάθεια, the virtue acquired by the Gnostic Christian.13 This virtue measures the degree of perfection and assimilation to God
(ἐξομοίωσις). As noted by Lilla there are three elements which come together as an inspiration for Clement's model.14 First, the Stoic notion of the sage who daily practices ἀπάθεια, the Philonic motif of Moses' perfection expressed by the absence of passions and the Platonic postulate of assimilation to God from Theaetetus, 176b, which assumes ultimate control over all sensual or bodily urges. This ideal of ethical and spiritual perfection, which Clement so enthusiastically recommended to his readers and listeners, projected or constructed a specific Christological model, was later found by Photios to be 'docetic'.
For Clement there was an obvious and unquestionable priority, namely that spiritual reality was dominant over the visible, material element. This general metaphysical outlook encompassed his Logostheology, but it equally strongly influenced his comprehension of anthropology and ethics. These aspects of the same metaphysical vision are interdependent. Overall Clement's Logos-theology appeared unbalanced from a post-Nicene perspective, as it did not give equal weight and attention to the human, corporal, physical aspects of Christ on the one hand and the divine, spiritual, immaterial on the other. It is true that Clement showed a mainly one-sided interest in Christ. In the centre of his attention was the divine Logos, not the Saviour-inflesh: Jesus of Nazareth. Yet at the same time Clement accepted
11 Ibid. 6.71.2: αὐτὸς δὲ ἁπαξαπλῶς ἀπαθὴς ἦν, εἶς ὃν οὐδὲν παρεισδύεται κίνημα παθητικὸν οὔτε ἡδονὴ οὔτε λύπη.
12 See ibid. 6.72.1.
13 As Clement recommends, the Christian Gnostic had to be free from all passions
(ibid. 6.74.1).
14 See Lilla, Clement of Alexandria, 103–17.
clement of alexandria on trial
incarnation as a reality, and as the way in which the Logos made himself visible (αἰσθητὴ παρουσία).15
Clement often understated the Logo's humanity, especially when he compared incarnation to "a dream" (ὁ ὕπνος)16 or described it as "putting on the linen robe" (τὴν στολὴν τὴν λινῆν ... ἐνδεδύκει).17 Here,
Christ's body is compared to a linen cloth, which to later orthodox sensitivities, such as that of Photios, sounded dangerously vague. The metaphor of changing clothes ("putting on", ἐνδύω; "taking off", ἐκδύω) for the Incarnation, stressed Christ's descent into the material world or the sphere of the senses. Still, this way of speaking about Christ's Incarnation, so typical of Clement, accepted the reality of his life in flesh. This incarnated Logos set "an example of incorruption/ immortality" (ὑπόδειγμα ἀφθαρσίας)18 to Christians aspiring to spiritual and intellectual maturity. For Clement, the crucial dogma was that the Logos, as God himself, is ἀπάθής and beyond any change caused by material, corruptible elements. The divine Logos, although
15 Clement, Strom. 5.38.6.
16 Ibid. 5.105.4: οὐ γὰρ τὴν ἀνάστασιν μόνην τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐξ ὕπνου ἔγερσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν εἰς σάρκα κάθοδον τοῦ κυρίου ὕπνον ἀλληγορεῖ. "Not only is the resurrection of Christ metaphorically called 'rising from a dream'; but also the Lord's descent into the flesh is expressed allegorically as 'a dream'." In order to explain Clement's metaphors of incarnation as 'falling into sleep' and resurrection as 'waking up', it is important to note Heraclitus' and Plato's doctrines which are quoted by Clement at the beginning of the section. According to Clement, Heraclitus taught that descent into the material body is a form of 'sleep' and even 'death' (DK 22B21; Strom. 5.105.3), and Plato called existence on earth 'night' (Rep. 7.521c; Clement, Strom. 5.105.2).
Clement's eclectic exegetical method combines these philosophical sources with the Scriptural metaphors of 'sleep' (Ps. 3:5; Matt. 24:42; Mark 13:33; 14:38) in order to construct a convincing image of earthly existence (see Boulluec, Stromata V, 323–4).
17 Clement, Strom. 5.40.2–3: λέγει γὰρ ὧδε˙ "καὶ ἐκδύσεται τὴν στολὴν τὴν λινῆν, ἣν ἐνδεδύκει εἰσπορευόμενος εἰς τὰ ἅγια, καὶ ἀποθήσει αὐτὴν ἐκεῖ. καὶ λούσεται τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ὕδατι ἐν τόπῳ ἅγίῳ καὶ ἐνδύσεται τὴν στολὴν αὐτοῦ." ἄλλως δ᾿ οἶμαι, ὁ κύριος ἀποδύεταί τε καὶ ἐνδύεται κατιὼν εἰς αἴσθησιν, ἄλλως ὁ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ πιστεύσας ἀποδύεταί τε καὶ ἐπενδύεται, ὡς καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐμήνουσεν, τὴν ἡγιασμένην στολήν. "For so it is said, 'And he shall put off the linen robe that he had put on when he entered into the holy place and he shall lay it aside there, and then wash his body in water in the holy place, and put on his robe.' But in one way, as I understand it, the Lord puts off and puts on by descending into the sphere of sensual reality; and in another, he who through Him has believed take off and puts on, as the apostle intimated, the consecrated stole." The context of this passage and its Christological significance is carefully examined by Kovacs, who observes that Clement's exegesis of the Hebrew narrative defends "the church's Christology" against the Valentinian theories of the Saviour (see J.L. Kovacs, "Concealment and Gnostic Exegesis: Clement of Alexandria's Interpretation of the Tabernacle", Studia
Patristica 31 [1996]: 415–37).
18 See the whole context, Clement, Paed. 1.98.3.
the docetic view of christ
he took on the flesh with its vulnerability and corruptibility, remained above its condition, free from passions, uncontrolled desires or false ambitions.19 The relationship with the divine Logos achieved by the Christian Gnostic brings participation in his status of "incorruption"
(ἀφθαρσία) or even in his divinity. Becoming Christ-like, free from lustful passions and desires guarantees the entrance to God's spiritual dominion, which is otherwise unapproachable.20 Christ's incarnation offered the necessary, recognisable and irreplaceable bridge between the place where human beings are and reality, where God is. In conclusion it must be said that in the light of Clement's whole theory of salvation, the docetic view is unsupported.
Now we come to one of Clement's most controversial statements, which supposedly reveals his docetism. The text has been preserved in Aurelius Cassiodorus' Latin translation of Clement's commentary on 1 John. It is highly likely that a similar passage gave rise to Photios' accusation. According to Cassiodorus Clement wrote the following explanation of the Scriptural passage:
But by the expression, "we have seen with our eyes", he signifies the Lord's presence in the flesh, "and our hands have handled", he says,
"the Word of life" [1 John 1:1]. He means not only His flesh, but the virtues of the Son, like the sunbeam which penetrates to the lowest places; this sunbeam coming in the flesh became palpable to the disciples. It is accordingly related in tradition, that John, touching the outward body itself, sent his hand deep down into it, [manum suam in profunda misisse], and that the solidity of the flesh offered no obstacle
[duratiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse], but gave way to the hand of the disciple.21
19 See Clement, Frg., in Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus, 3:211: "Et tenebre", inquit,
"in eo nun sunt ullae" [1 John 1:5], hoc est nulla iracundia, nulla passio, nulla circa quemquam mali retentio, nullum perdens, sed cunctis salutem tribunes. " 'And', he says, 'in him there is no darkness at all', which means: no passion, no feeling of evil towards anyone, as he does not destroy anybody, but gives salvation to all."
20 See Clement. Strom. 5.73.4.
21 Clement, Frg., in Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus, 3:210: Quod vero dixit 'quod vidimus oculis nostris' domini significat in carne praesentiam. 'Et manus', inquit,
'nostrae contrectaverunt de verbo vitae'; non solum carnem eius, sed etiam virtutes eiusdem filii significat, sicut radius solis usque ad haec infima loca pertransiens, qui radius in carne veniens palpabilis factus est discipulis. Fertur ergo in traditionibus, quoniam Iohannes ipsum corpus quod erat extrinsecus tangens, manum suam in profunda misisse et ei duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui praebuisse discipuli. Propter quod etiam inferet: "et manus nostrae contrectaverunt de verbo vitae"; contrectabilis utique factus est qui venit in carne.
clement of alexandria on trial
The literal penetration of the body of Christ by the hand of the apostle John (not Thomas!) suggests that the Saviour's physical flesh was not resistant to his touch. We do not have the actual Greek, but this translation leads us to conclude that Christ's body was not made of any matter or solid element, but was like a fog, ethereal and immaterial.
Since for Clement, Christ's historical appearance was only a subject of belief, not of direct personal experience, he inclined, at least in this passage, to refer to some traditions (fertur ergo in traditionibus), and possibly some alternative Christian views, regarding this event.22 The last sentence of the paragraph in which Clement quoted from 1 John
(1.1), showing the accessibility of Christ's human body to his disciples is the key to the whole investigation into Clement's supposed docetism. The contact with the physical Jesus was the origin of the first disciples' faith in the divine Logos/Life.23 It is in this final comment, that the previous docetic statement finds its full explanation. Clement emphasises the historical event of their direct encounter with the divine Logos/realm of God (νοῦς δὲ ὁ θεός)24 through and in Jesus.
However, it must be noted that in Clement's Logos-theology more attention is given to Christ as the divine Logos than to those passages in Scripture concerned with the 'historical Jesus' or detailing his daily existence. The whole concept of incarnation is treated by Clement as the secondary event in relation to the principal generation of the Son by his divine Father. Clement's personal interests in philosophical theology elaborates less on the historical appearance in flesh of the Logos as we would expect from a Christian apologist. In some controversial passages Clement's sophisticated mind tries to approach and explain first and foremost how the second hypostasis, that is the divine Logos, took his origin from God. Consequently, in Clement's oeuvre a 'wordbecame-flesh' Christology is subordinated to a 'Logos-begotten' theogony. As Clement did not encounter the physical Jesus of Nazareth, his understanding of the Saviour was strongly coloured by concepts from Johannine and Pauline theology, by his Middle Platonism and by 22 Stählin's edition of Clement's oeuvres notices the parallel of Clement's interpretation with the apocryphal Acts of John, 93: "Another glory also will I tell you, brethren:
Sometimes when I would lay hold on him, I met with a material and solid body, and at other times, again, when I felt him, the substance was immaterial and as if it existed not at all" (trans. M.R. James, in The Apocryphal New Testament [Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1975]).
23 Clement, Frg., in Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus, 3:210: "Propter quod etiam inferet: 'et manus nostrae contrectaverunt de verbo vitae'."
24 Clement, Strom. 4.155.2.