2. Docetic Christology: The Evidence
the docetic view of christ
Philo's theology of the Logos. Through this more speculative lens, Clement looked at the Scriptural events and the faith of his Church, and emphasised in his Christology those aspects of the Saviour which provided his theory of salvation with the necessary inclusiveness, universality and optimism. Clement's comments on 1 John must be related to his specific use of the allegorical method as well as his belief that Christianity offered a universal way to salvation. The passage, despite containing some quasi-docetic notes, stressed the uniqueness and power the divine Son, who like the sun penetrates all and everything (sicut radius solis usque ad haec infima loca pertransiens) that is created and can be touched by the disciples (in carne veniens palpabilis factus est discipulis). According to Clement's hermeneutics, the Son of God, the divine Logos, illuminates created reality and can be recognised by all who genuinely search for God, not just 'the eleven disciples'. Therefore the central and most controversial passage on the penetration of the body of Christ by John, may in this 'symbolic interpretation' (τὸ τῆς συμβολικῆς ἑρμηνείας)25 refer to and convincingly argue the case that encountering the Saviour can only take place if one possesses the necessary qualities to see, believe and experience the Logos.
This important characteristic of Clement's approach to Scripture, his hermeneutics and theory of salvation were missed by Photios.
Photios read Clement's statement literally and what he saw as a dangerous, erroneous and docetic tendency, becomes merely idiom, when viewed against the larger scale of Clement's theological outlook. The encounter with the divine Logos cannot be constrained to the physical body of the Saviour.
2. Docetic Christology: The Evidence Clement of Alexandria's affiliation to mainstream Christianity can be better understood when we compare the passages quoted above with other literature that refers to docetic Christology. This will make it plain that Clement's pronouncements did not share the same axioms as docetic theologies. Docetism as a Christian view on Christ's nature was established early in Christian literature. The idea of the divine
Logos having a phantom-like body was quite common among the first 25 Clement, Strom. 5.46.1; see also Hägg, Clement of Alexandria, 147–50.
clement of alexandria on trial
generation of Christians26 and, shortly after, among some of the Gnostics.27 Clement was aware of the dangers of docetism, as he noted in the third Stromata in his rejection of Julius Cassian's, Marcion's and Valentinus' views on Christ's nature:
If birth represents an evil act, so consequently the blasphemers have to admit that the Lord who came through the virgin was born in evil. Such an offensive people! As they attack the physical birth they also slander
God's will and the mystery of creation. This is the axiom of Cassian's and Marcion's docetism, and even Valentinus is inclined to teach that Christ's body was "psychic".28
26 Rudolph, referring to Harnack, notes: "the Christian communities down into the second century frequently took no offence whatever at gnostic docetism, since they themselves advocated in their Christology a 'naïve Docetism'. It was only in the debate with Gnosticism that this was gradually eliminated and replaced by a complicated doctrine of the two natures. When in primitive and early Christianity there is any more detailed reflection about the relationship of God and man in Christ, this takes place for the most part in two ways. Either Jesus is a man chosen by God who was equipped with the Holy Spirit of God and at the end of his career was adopted by God to the place of Son and correspondingly set at the right hand of God (the socalled 'Adoptionist' Christology) or, in Harnack's words: 'Jesus ranks as a heavenly spiritual being (or the highest heavenly being after God, the "second God", who however is one with God), who is older than the world, took flesh and after the completion of his work on earth has returned again to heaven' (pneumatic or better hypostatic
Christology). The second type, the so-called 'spirit or pneuma Christology', is fundamentally an idea close to the docetic understanding since generally there is no more detailed reflection concerning the bodily and human side. In other words, docetism is only a variation of the 'pneuma Christology' " (K. Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of an Ancient Religion, trans. R. McLachlan Wilson [Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1983], 158–9); for a more recent approach, see R. Goldstein and G.G. Stromusa, "The Greek and Jewish Origins of Docetism: A New Proposal", Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 10 (2006): 423–41.
27 As we shall see, not all Gnostic Christologies were docetic. Also, the epithet
'docetic' may have served as a tool to denigrate theological opponents; for example,
Tertullian charges Marcion with docetic views in Adv. Marc. 3.9; while Irenaeus of Lyons accuses Saturninus and Basilides of the same error in Adv. Haer. 1.24.2 (see also
Epiphanius, Pan. 24.3.2). According to Irenaeus, Basilides taught that Simon of Cyrene was crucified instead of the Saviour. The Saviour performed yet another miracle and made Simon appear as Jesus Christ and in this way the evil powers as well as other adversaries (Catholic Christians and their literal exegesis?) were mislead. Some
Nag Hammadi documents such as Apocalypse of Adam, Apocalypse of Peter and Second Treatise of the Great Seth present variations on this basic scenario.
28 Clement, Strom. 3.102.1–3.102.3: εἰ δὲ ἡ γένεσις κακόν, ἐν κακῷ λεγόντων οἱ βλάσφημοι τὸν γενέσεως μετειληφότα κύριον, ἐν κακῷ τὴν γεννήσασαν παρθένον. οἴμοι τῶν κακῶν, βλασφημοῦσι τὸ βοὺλημα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὸ μυστήριον τῆς κτίσεως, τὴν γένεσιν διαβάλλοντες. διὰ τοῦτα ἡ δόκησις Κασσιανῷ, διὰ ταῦτα καὶ Μαρκίωνι, ναὶ μὴν καὶ Οὐαλεντίνῳ τὸ σῶμα τὸ ψυχικόν. I have translated τὸ ψυχικόν as 'psychic' in order to highlight its status between the physical and the spiritual. For more detail, see Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 39–45.
the docetic view of christ
Clement took the docetic tendencies he attributed to Cassian, Marcion and Valentinus very seriously. As 'a theological opinion' docetic views contained a whole spectrum of beliefs: from the literal rejection of any contact with the flesh, to a more sophisticated form of assuming some kind of 'quasi-spiritual' body, or likeness to the human body. Gnostic Christologies contained this range of beliefs, although Clement, probably for pedagogical purposes, referred only to two options: the more radical one of Julius Cassian and Marcion, and the less extreme one of Valentinus.29 Docetic positions are clearly visible in some of the documents discovered near Nag Hammadi.
One version of the classical casus can be found in, for instance, the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, with its theory that the Saviour did not die on the cross. Instead, Simon of Cyrene was crucified,30 and the evil archons and their offspring were cheated by the 'laughing
Saviour'. What is significant in this Christology is Christ's ability to change his 'form' (ⲘⲞⲢⲪⲎ): "for I kept changing my forms above, transforming from appearance to appearance".31 The Saviour is not attached to his 'flesh' or to a specific form of existence as a human being, and this freedom from the body provides him with the opportunity to fulfil his redemptive mission. In the same way, the First
Apocalypse of James expresses a similar concept. Here, the Saviour illuminates James' understanding of events:
29 Another contemporary representative of a docetic Christology is Bardaisan of Edessa whose theology is discussed by N. Dezey, "Bardaisan of Edessa", in A Companion to Second-Century Christian 'Heretics', 172.
30 Treat. Seth 55.30–56.19, esp. 56.10: ⲚⲈⲔⲈⲞⲨⲀ ⲠⲈⲦ`ⲦⲰⲰⲚ ϨⲀ ⲠⲒⲤⳀ︦ⲞⲤ ϨⲚ̅ ⲦⲈϤⲚⲀϨⲂ̅ ⲈⲦⲈ ⲤⲒⲘⲰⲚ ⲠⲈ. "Another was the one who lifted up the cross on his shoulder, who was Simon" (trans. G. Riley, in The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete
Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, vol. 4 [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000]). As noted by Riley, this Gnostic scenario does not mention any 'transformation' of Simon into Jesus. However in his introduction Riley adds further clarification. In the larger context of the Gnostic treatise, it emerges that although the Saviour avoided execution on the cross, his body, that is 'their man' Ⲙ︦ⲠⲞⲨ ⲢⲰⲘⲈ (Treat. Seth 55.34–35) was crucified. The 'host body' was nailed to the cross. See Riley, "Introduction to The Treatise of Seth", in The Coptic Gnostic Library, 4:137–8. Even with this more accurate addition, the basic 'docetic' doctrine of this treatise claims that the Saviour did not die as it seems to, if we approach the events/narratives in a literal way. Docetic Christology uses 'a substitute' for the Saviour's crucifixion and this is a common characteristic of this hermeneutics.
31 Treat. Seth 56.22: ⲚⲈⲈⲒϢⲒⲂⲈ ⲄⲀⲢ Ⲛ̅ⲚⲒⲘⲞⲢⲪⲎ Ⲛ̅ ϨⲢⲀⲒ̈ Ⲛ̅ϨⲎⲦ`· ⲈⲈⲒⲞϪⲰⲦ︦Ⲃ ⲈⲂⲞⲖ Ⲛ̅ⲞⲨⲈⲒⲆⲈⲀ ⲈⲨⲈⲒⲆⲈⲀ. (trans. Riley).
clement of alexandria on trial
James, do not be concerned for me or for this people. I am he who was within me. Never have I suffered in any way, nor have I been distressed.
And this people has done me no harm.32
Docetic theology provided the author and his community with an understanding that the divine Saviour could not be harmed by human, or any other, malignant actions, as he was beyond the reach of limited, created powers. The human body of Christ, whatever form or shape it had, was only an external visible 'envelope' through which there was no access to the divine essence of Christ. Even if it had been destroyed, the divine being would have been unharmed. This kind of Christology highlights the ultimate dominion of the spiritual element over the physical one: it stresses that the latter cannot limit the former. The 'good news' of the radical docetic Christology puts a stronger accent on the difference of the Saviour from the rest of humanity, while the opposite view would magnify his similarity to all men and women.
This crucial 'otherness' of the Saviour, was however, approachable, when the disciple accepted the illumination or new self-understanding as a part of that 'otherness'. For the Gnostic, the visible, material world and its institution as well as its customs, represented 'the body', which for him, as it is for the case of the Saviour, was a pure illusion.
But radical docetic theology did not represent the whole of Gnostic Christology. There were more schools and doctrines which did not share the docetic position. Recently, M. Franzemann re-examined various Gnostic documents and three main Christological positions emerged from the Nag Hammadi collection.33 The first stresses the heavenly nature of the Saviour, whereby his 'physical' body reflects
Ⲙ︦ⲠⲈⲦϨⲞⲞⲨ. (trans. W. Schoedel, in The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, vol. 3 [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000]).
33 M. Franzemann, Jesus in the Nag Hammadi Writings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 72–87. She observes: "What these texts mean by 'flesh' is not always clear, especially with their propensity for using words which can be interpreted in at least two ways. For the most part, the Jesus who is a spiritual being hides his spiritual 'flesh' under shapes, likenesses or a human body. With these texts, the unity of Jesus' heavenly existence is preserved within the earthly context. There is no diminishment of his spiritual self by his coming to the earthly contexts and no progression towards a real complementarity of natures where a multiplicity of forms is attested in his human being" (ibid. 72).
the docetic view of christ
only some likeness to human flesh;34 the second assumes the Saviour's body is real;35 and the third views the divine and human elements in the Saviour as complementary.36 These three positions are responses to the paradox of the presence of a divine, spiritual being
(i.e., the Saviour/Logos) in material form (Jesus/Christ). For all of them the spiritual and material elements are radically separated without any common denominator or shared ontological ground. While the spiritual element denotes eternity, ineffability, impassibility and unpolluted perfection, the material one means temporality, measurability, division or the chaos of being dominated by desires and ultimately deficiency. However, as the divine Saviour was 'seen' by human beings as Jesus, some form of connection between these apparently irreconcilable realities had to take place. Therefore Gnostic literature, like the proto-orthodox work of authors such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria, searched for theological concepts and semantic expressions that described this unique interrelation between divine and human realities. The crucial concept for Gnostic Christologies, was the idea that the Saviour's 'body' showed some 'likeness' (ⲈⲒⲚⲈ) or similarity to the 'shape' (ⲤⲬⲎⲘⲀ) of the human body. The first group of documents stresses this kind of incarnation for the sake of communication with the Saviour in the present, material and earthly context. The classical example of that theology can be found in the Gospel of Philip:
Jesus took them all by stealth, for he did not appear as he was, but in the manner in which [they would] be able to see him. He appeared to [them all. He appeared] to the great as great. He [appeared] to the small as small. He [appeared to the] angels as an angel, and to men as a man.37
Here, it is clear that the Saviour's appearance was related to the nature of his 'audience' and was based on the epistemological axiom of per34 Tri. Trac.; Gos. Thom.; Gos. Phil.; Gos. Eg.; Dial. Sav.; Treat. Seth; Apoc. Pet.; Ep.
Pet. Phil.; Testim. Truth; Interp. Know.; Trim. Prot.; Ap. John.
35 For instance, Ap. Jas.; Soph. Jes. Chr.; 2 Apoc. Jas; Acts Pet. 12 Apos.; Melch.
36 For instance, Treat. Res.; Teach. Silv.
ⲢⲰⲘⲈ (trans. W.W. Isenberg, in The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, vol. 2 [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989]). Although the text required a lot of reconstruction, its meaning and the crucial analogy are clear.
clement of alexandria on trial
ception "similar by similar" or "to men as a man" (ⲀⲨⲰ Ⲛ̅Ⲣ︦ⲢⲰⲘⲈ ϨⲰⲤ ⲢⲰⲘⲈ) in order to be recognised and understood. The last group mentioned by the passage perceived the Saviour 'in flesh', which denoted a specific sensitivity and awareness. Reversing this epistemological theory, we can claim that the more mature and advanced life of a Gnostic offers a more profound acquaintance with Saviour.38
In the second group of Gnostic documents, the Incarnation and contact with the physical body was real. A mysterious apocalypse called Melchizedek39 contains an anti-docetic polemic which stresses the reality of the incarnation against some Christian opponents:
They will say of him (i.e. the Saviour) that he is unbegotten [ⲀⲦ`ϪⲠⲞϤ] though he has been begotten, (that) he does not eat even though he eats,
(that) he does not drink even though he drinks, (that) he is uncircumcised though he has been circumcised, (that) he is unfleshly [ⲀⲦ`ⲤⲀⲢⲀⲜ] though he has come in flesh [ⲠⲈ ⲈⲀϤϢⲰⲠⲈ ϨⲚ̅ ⲤⲀⲢⲀⲜ], (that) he did not come to suffering <though> he came to suffering, (that) he did not rise from the dead <though> he arose from [the] dead.40
Again, the acts of 'eating', 'drinking' and 'suffering' are used as a proof against docetic Christology. Although some questions arise about the nature of Christ's body before and after resurrection, the main fact that he was really incarnate has a paradigmatic function. These documents show some awareness of the alternative (docetic) models and teaching and therefore they stressed the link between the divine and human elements in Christ. However, in this 'link' the divine uses human nature as a channel or an instrument to reach for humankind and save it.
38 For instance, see Gos. Thom. 37; and the comment by R. Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas (London: Routledge, 1997), 112–13.
39 Pearson in his introduction to this treatise points out that document maintains an anti-docetic Christology, affirming the real humanity of Jesus Christ (B.A. Pearson,
"Introduction to Melchizedek ", in The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000], 5:39). However, as also confirms, it is impossible to attribute the Christology of this document to any specific early
Christian group. Authorship and the Christian milieu which produced this document remains unknown.
ⲀϤⲦⲰⲰⲚ ⲈⲂⲞⲖ ϨⲚ̅ [ⲚⲈⲦ`] ⲘⲞ[Ⲟ]ⲨⲦ`· (trans. S. Giversen and B.A. Paerson, in The Coptic Gnostic Library, vol. 5).
the docetic view of christ
The third group views the relationship between divine and human natures as positive coexistence. It seems that for those theological schools the classical Platonic opposition, immaterial versus material, had been overcame in the Saviour. He, as divine, was able to encompass the human and material elements. It is remarkable that this harmonious vision appears, for example, in a document that was written, as Layton believes, by a "second-century Middle Platonist".41
Now the Son of God, Rheginos, was Son of Man. He embraced them both [ⲚⲈϤⲈⲘⲀϨⲦⲈ ⲀⲢⲀⲨ Ⲙ︦ⲠⲈⲤⲚⲈⲨ], possessing the humanity and the divinity [ⲘⲚ̅ⲦⲢⲰⲘⲈ ⲘⲚ̅ ⲦⲘⲚ̅ⲦⲚⲞⲨⲦⲈ], so that on the one hand he might vanquish death through his being Son of God
[ⲚϢⲎⲢⲈ Ⲛ̅ⲚⲞⲨⲦⲈ], and that on the other through the Son of Man [ⲘⲠϢⲎⲢⲈ Ⲙ︦ⲠⲢⲰⲘⲈ] the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; because he was originally from above, a seed of the Truth, before the structure (of the cosmos) had come into being. In this (structure) many dominions and divinities came into existence.42
This document suggests that the Saviour possessed or completed (ⲈⲘⲀϨⲦⲈ, ⲘⲞⲨϨ) both realities: the divine and human. With the divine, as "the Son of God" (Ⲛ̅ϢⲎⲢⲈ Ⲛ̅ⲚⲞⲨⲦⲈ), he brings the divine towards the lower human realm, while remaining united with his divine Origin that is the Father. With human, as "the Son of Man"
(Ⲙ︦ⲠϢⲎⲢⲈ Ⲙ︦ⲠⲢⲰⲘⲈ), the same Saviour is united with humanity and lifts it towards the higher realm. This salvific, unifying act brings two spheres of reality together in harmony. It is possibly one of the most original early Christian theological efforts to explain the importance of both natures of Christ for salvation. Here, the role of real incarnation and becoming the Son of Man means participation in human experience, including suffering and death. The Saviour is able to overcome this most dark experience of death, as he also possesses
41 B. Layton, "Vision and Revision: A Gnostic View of the Resurrection", Colloque
International sur les textes de Nag Hammadi (Québec, 22–25 août 1978), Bibliothèque
Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section 'Etudes' 1 (Quebec: Les Presses de l'Université Laval,
Louvain, Peeters, 1981), 208.
ⲘⲚ̅ ϨⲚ̅ⲘⲚ̅ⲦⲚⲞⲨⲦⲈ ϢⲰⲠⲈ ⲈⲚⲀϢⲰⲞⲨ (trans. M.L. Peel, in The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, vol. 1 [Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1985]).
clement of alexandria on trial
the divine nature as the Son of God. Ultimately, both natures are crucial to the salvation of humanity and they facilitate dying, rising and return to the original state. Thus, this document shows the type of Christology that in its main trajectory reassembles and is parallel to, even possibly ahead of, the mainstream Christian concept of Christ.43
How do Clement's quasi-docetic opinions look against this colourful background of Gnostic belief? I would like to sum up the examination so far with the following points. Clement of Alexandria was part of the same theological search for an intelligible, convincing explanation cur Deus homo or how the divine entered the material human realm. His theory combined elements from the Scriptures and Middle
Platonism. Like many contemporary theories it was developed in a context which did not have clear lines separating Christological dogma from theological speculation. Therefore his use of 'dangerous' idioms was part of the process of thinking together, alongside and against the theological models of his opponents. Borrowing, assimilating and reinterpreting were crucial parts of that process. Clement's LogosChrist was not a Saviour who originating in a personal mystical experience, as was Paul's, nor did he know the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
For Clement, as for Valentinus, Basilides, Cassian, Marcion and Irenaeus of Lyons, 'the Saviour' was a construct of deep personal reflection on the Scriptures; 'the Saviour' came to Clement through a specific path of ecclesiastical and Christian tradition, including the vital role of his teacher, Pantenaeus. Nor is it surprising that this
Saviour, God's Logos, has some theological and metaphysical similarities with Philo of Alexandria's doctrine, for, even as a Christian,
Clement was directly inspired by Philo's notion of the divine Logos.
This kind of Logos, although not 'abstract', is perhaps less 'historical' than the one found in other ecclesiastical authors of the time. For Clement, in contrast to Philo, this divine Logos became flesh, but in this encounter of the divine with the human, Clement was always more attracted to the divine aspect of the Redeemer. Through his
43 Peel in his commentary to this important passage, observes that although this section refers to the 'humanity' and 'divinity' of the Saviour in a 'pro-Catholic' way, it still "teaches an implicit docetism comparable to the Valentinian views" (Peel, "Introduction to The Treatise on the Resurrection", in Coptic Gnostic Library, 1:151). Similarly, it could be said that this specific version of Valentinian Christology is comparable to that of many authors representing the Great Church, as Peel hints in the same note. I believe that this passage offers a 'Christological junction', which, when one of the roads is chosen, leads either to further Catholic or Gnostic consequences in Christology.
the docetic view of christ
divine nature, the Logos reached to all humanity and spread his teaching universally. Through his humanity, this message was heard and made comprehensible to all.
In conclusion, I wish to say that Photios' criticism is based, as has been pointed out, on individual passages and forms of expression, where Clement's thought is in the process of development, searching for new idioms and theological directions. Superficially, that thought may resemble some aspects of docetic doctrine, but its essence has little in common with the docetic paradigm. Clement of Alexandria had a positive attitude to human existence in the material world; he did not promote any idea of escapism from it. On the contrary, he was a true, genuine lover of culture, literature and poetry. It is true that his oeuvre is quite laconic as to the details of Christ's suffering on the cross and death, but this does not mean that the author held docetic views. Rather it shows that, for Clement, Christ and Christology were centred more on the double, though united, act of descent–ascent than on any specific factual element from Jesus' life. On both points
Clement resembles the apostle Paul more than a docetic theologian.
Finally, I wish to point out that his more dogmatic works do not survive. Those which do are the ones in which he presents the common ground between his understanding of Christianity and secular disciplines, and one would not expect these to emphasize the more intractable elements of Christian doctrine.
Finally, Clement's global, universal outlook took the deep and direct engagement of the divine Logos in material, created reality seriously. This historical engagement had priority over his theological reflection and pedagogical activity. This characteristic cannot be omitted if we wish to remain faithful to Clement's intentions and theology.
clement of alexandria on trial
the docetic view of christ
PART THREE
ANTHROPOLOGY
clement of alexandria on trial
the transmigration of souls
CHAPTER SIX
THE TRANSMIGRATION OF SOULS
He maintains a fantastic theory of reincarnation and of many worlds before the time of Adam.
The last series of errors found in the Hypotyposeis set out Clement's supposed opinions on human being (anthropology).1 The first accusation states that he believed in reincarnation, the second that he accepted an 'impious and sacrilegious' account of Eve's creation from Adam, which suggests Adam was androgynous, and the last that he taught that the fallen angels had sexual intercourse with human women on the basis of Genesis 6:2-4. These arguments will be examined in the following three chapters. Although the allegations are treated in a separate section of the study, it will become clear, that they are connected with the previous controversies and also, with Clement's theological background and its sources.
It must be noted that Photios links two of Clement's errors, which may appear unrelated to a general reader. While the first charge points to Clement's belief in metempsychosis or the doctrine of reincarnation2 (anthropology), the second error suggests rather a metaphysical
1 I use the generic term 'anthropology', but as already noted it is hardly possible to talk about a systematic presentation of philosophical and theological issues in Clement's oeuvre. Clement's comprehension of human beings and human nature was a direct outcome of his exegesis of the Scriptures combined with some eclectic Middle
Platonic and Stoic motifs. His 'anthropology' appeared at the junction of his Logostheology, ethics and metaphysics but was not treated as a separate subject of theological and philosophical reflection. Nonetheless it was discussed in various sections of his works. This fact is reflected by the scholarship: it is hard to find an individual study dedicated to Clement's anthropology. Still, one of the best is J. Daniélou, Message Évangélique et Culture Hellénistique aux IIe et IIIe siècle (Paris: Desclée, 1960),
374–81.
2 Photios' Greek note refers to μετεμψύχωσις that is 'transmigration of souls', which is one of the terms (other are μεταμορφώσις: 'transformation', 'change of shape'; μετενσωμάτωσις: 'change of body while the soul remains its continuity/identity; ἐνσωμάτωσις: 'incarnation', 'embodiment') denoting generally the theory of multiple embodiment or descent of the soul into human or other (animals, plants) forms. According to the ancient sources, particularly from the Greek philosophical