1. Eve as a Literary Motif in Early Christian and Gnostic Literature
clement of alexandria on trial
to discover what the earliest teachings and opinions were, as well as what the alternative interpretations of Eve's origin were. Certainly the early Christian doctrine of Eve responded to the challenge of some alternative interpretations, and the latter commentaries knew about the former. Both traditions used the story from Genesis 2.21-22 as well as the rest of the account of the creation of the first human being, as a guide and didactic model to inform their Christian audiences about the origin of their present status. It is thus important to know more about the theological understanding of the origin of Eve at Clement's time, particularly in Gnostic spheres. Having briefly clarified these issues, we will turn to Clement's existing works in the hope of establishing his views on the origin of Eve. At this stage, the enigmatic invective of αἰσχρῶς τε καὶ ἀθέως points to a controversial hypothesis which, in Photios' view, Clement believed and taught. The Excerpta ex Theodoto, contains the suggestion that Adam was androgynous.
Still, it is impossible to establish whether or not the Valentinian notion of androgyny, passed over by Clement without criticism, had something in common with his views in the Hypotyposeis. In the present section I intend to investigate Clement's views in relation to early
Christian literature and some possible analogies. Then I will discuss briefly Philo's elaboration of 'Eve' as important metaphor, which was known to Clement of Alexandria. Finally I will present evidence from the existing works of Clement. Hopefully through these three stages it will be possible to assess the degree, if any, of Clement's guilt in his teaching of the origin of Eve in an "impious and sacrilegious" manner.
1. Eve as a Literary Motif in Early Christian and Gnostic Literature First-century, and even more so second-century, Christian literature expressed its interest not so much in speculations about the origin of Eve, but rather in elaborating her role as the anti-type of Mary who was presented as the obedient, virtuous servant of God.1 It can be said
1 For instance, see the opposition Adam and Eve versus Jesus and Mary in Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.19.1 or Eve as anti-type of Mary in Adv. Haer. 3.22.4, 3.23.1; Dem.
33; Justin, Dial. 100.4–6; see also G. Corrington Streete, "Women as Sources of Redemption and Knowledge in Early Christian Traditions", in Women and Christian
Origin, ed. R. Shepard Kraemer and M.R. D'Angelo (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1999), 330–54. Further developments of the motif of Eve as the archetype of the foolish women and even the source of heresy are discussed by V. Burrus, "The Heretical
Women as Symbols in Alexander, Athanasius, Epiphanius and Jerome", Harvard
the creation of eve in a blasphemous way
that for these sources the important role in the pedagogical interpretations of the biblical story was played by her sinful act as a part of history with a moral,2 which magnified her role as a negative archetype of femininity.3 Furthermore, the growing importance of the doctrine of Theological Review 84 (1991): 229–48; E.A. Clark, "Ideology, History and the Construction of 'Woman' in Late Ancient Christianity", in Feminist Companion to Patristic Literature, eds. A-J Levine and M. Robbins (London: Continuum, 2008), 101 –24, esp. 111–12.
2 See also E. Pagel's insightful paper, "Adam and Eve and the Serpent in Genesis
1–3", in Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism, ed. K.L. King, 'Studies in Antiquity and Christianity' (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 412–23. Pagels notes: "Gnostic and orthodox Christians read the same passages in radically different, even opposed, ways. To borrow the words of that nineteenth-century Gnostic, William Blake, 'Both read the Bible day and night, but you read black where I read white'.
Orthodox Christians—especially such antignostic writers as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria—all approach Genesis 1–3 essentially as history with a moral.
They treat Adam and Eve as actual and specific historical persons, the venerable ancestors of our species … Gnostic Christians, on the contrary, read the Adam and Eve story as myth with a meaning. Such exegesis tends to dissociate the figures of Adam and Eve from their literal one to one correspondence with actual men and women, past or present. Instead, such exegetes take Adam and Eve as representing two distinct elements within our nature" (ibid. 413). Pagels summaries the crucial spin and direction of the Patristic, including Clement of Alexandria, interpretation of the history: "the more I went on to reread secondand third-century patristic literature, the more I began to see how generations of orthodox Christians took the story of creation as virtually synonymous with the proclamation of human freedom" (ibid.
416). As we shall see Clement not only emphasised human freedom, but also pointed to and promoted different image of the divine than his Gnostic opponents.
3 I do not suggest that the main difference between the Catholic and Gnostic interpretations of Eve's origin would lead to only two irreconcilable attitudes: mistrust, exclusion and misogyny or trust, inclusion and positive attitudes towards women. The evidence of the documents from Nag Hammadi, but also Clement's view on women as potential Christian Gnostics illustrate the complexity of early Christian approaches to women and their role within Christian communities. Regarding the origin of Eve,
I value very much Pagels's observation: "Besides sharing with orthodox Christians many of the same questions, Gnostic Christians generally agree that the place to look for answers is in the Scriptures. What differentiates Gnostic from the orthodox exegesis is the Gnostic's conviction that the written texts, far from giving authoritative and complex direction, contain only the bare husks of meaning" (E. Pagels, "Pursuing the Spiritual Eve: Imagery and Hermeneutics in the Hypostasis of the Archons and Gospel of Philip", in Images of the Feminine, 189). Pagels continues: "the fact that we find, in the Apocryphon of John and the Exegesis on the Soul, positive images of the feminine lacking in most literally or historically minded exegesis (whether gnostic or orthodox) need not indicate different attitudes towards gender, sexuality, or even, for that matter, towards women as women. In some cases, what opens up the ranges of feminine imagery to include a positive as well as negative range is the pattern of exegesis an author adopts" (ibid. 191). As we shall see, this is the case of various Gnostic,
Christian (Clement of Alexandria) and Jewish (Philo of Alexandria) theologians. On the Gnostic interpretation of the creation of Adam and Eve in the Apocryphon of John,
clement of alexandria on trial
original sin, in which Adam and Eve were directly involved, highlighted the central role of the redeemer Jesus Christ and this theme became characteristic of mainstream Christianity. The Pauline motif of Eve's seduction4 was a part of that focus and gave it a substantial foundation. The same interest had earlier found its place in some
Jewish Apocalypses.5 Alternatively, the Gnostic trends within early Christianity were attracted to the origin, role, mission and very complex typology of Eve as they commented on the crucial episode from Genesis.6 Gnostic hermeneutics introduced Eve as "the female instructor of life" (ⲦⲢⲈϤⲦⲀⲘⲞ ⲦⲈ Ⲙ︦ⲠⲰⲚϨ)7 or "the spiritually endowed woman" (ⲦⲤϨⲒⲘⲈ Ⲙ︦ⲠⲚⲈⲨⲘⲀⲦⲒⲔⲎ).8 Unlike the proto-orthodox sources, these alternative traditions were less interested in Eve's role in the fall of humanity, "the originator of sin" (ἀρχηγὸν ἁμαρτίας)9 or "'the devil's gateway" (diaboli ianua),10 and boldly highlighted her positive function in the fulfilment of the destiny of the world.11 As in the case of the Gospel of Philip, the act of separation of Eve from Adam see G.P. Luttikhuizen, "The Creation of Man and Woman in The Secret Book of John" in The Creation of Man and Woman. Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. G.P. Luttikhuizen, Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions 3 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000), 140–56.
4 2 Cor. 11:3.
5 For example, 1 En. 69:6. 2 En. 31:6 puts the emphasis on the seduction of Eve, but not of Adam. Other pseudepigrapha stress the role of Ev e in the transgression, for instance, Jub. 3:20; 2 Bar. 48:42; LAE 35:2; 41:2.
6 See also E. Pagels, "Exegesis of Genesis 1 in Thomas and John", Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999): 477–96; G.W. MacRae, "The Jewish Background of the Gnostic Sophia Myth", Novum Testamentum 12 (1970): 86–101.
ϪⲈ Ⲉ̣ⲨϨⲀ Ⲛ̅ⲌⲰⲎ ⲈⲦⲈ ⲦⲢⲈϤⲦⲀⲘⲞ ⲦⲈ Ⲙ︦ⲠⲰⲚϨ "An androgynous human being was produced, whom the Greeks call Hermaphrodites; and whose mother the Hebrews call Eve of Life (Eve of Zoe), namely, the female instructor of life" (trans. H-G. Bethge,
B. Layton and Societas Coptica Hierosolymiana, in The Coptic Gnostic Library, vol. 2
[Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989]). Perkins's comment elucidates the nature of the first creation: "The duality of the androgynous Adam/Eve is represented by the 'instructor'/'serpent'. On the one hand, the virginal Eve is full of knowledge. On another, the defiled Eve is full of guile" (P. Perkins, "Sophia as Goddess in the Nag
Hammadi Codices", in Image of the Feminine, 97; and further discussion of this important Gnostic concept by M.A. Williams, "Variety in Gnostic Perspective on Gender", in Images of the Feminine, 10–11).
8 See Hyp. Arch. 89.11.
9 Theophilus, Ad Autolycum 2.28. Theophilus' view does not stand alone; it represents the stance of a great majority of theologians from the Great Church.
10 Tertullian, Cult. fem. 1.1.
11 For a summary of Gnostic typologies of Eve, see Rudolph, Gnosis, 97.
the creation of eve in a blasphemous way
was considered as a tragic, negative episode.12 However it must be stressed at this point that there is a crucial difference between JewishChristian, and Gnostic anthropological explanations of the Scriptural motif of Adam and Eve. While the 'orthodox' interpretations present
Adam and Even as the embodiment of two genders created by a good God, the Gnostic narratives are inclined to see the first couple as a symbol of the masculine–feminine nature of the divine world.13 One of the possible explanations of this phenomenon could be that the documents and authors representing mainstream Christianity, or the Great Church, were more constrained by the Hebrew or JewishChristian traditions of interpretation. At the same time, some Gnostic elaborations, though not all, included elements of myth from a larger spectrum of cultures and incorporated them into their theologies, as signs of "universal wisdom".14 Importantly, androgyny represented not only the original perfect stage of Adam,15 but also the eschatological status of the Gnostic.16
12 See Gos. Phil. 68.22. Logan summarises: "in these Gnostic texts Eve is interpreted in two ways: (1) she is a redeemer figure, the spiritual woman awakening Adam from his stupor (Apocryphon, Hypostasis, On the Origin); and (2) her separation from Adam marks the beginning of the processes of generation, decay and death (Valentinians, 'Apocalypse of Adam', 'Poimandres'). Indeed, some texts attempt to relate both ideas. In the 'Apocryphon' and Irenaeus' 'Ophites' on the one hand, Eve is a vehicle of light-power but also the originator of reproduction, whereas 'On the Origin of the World' distinguishes the spiritual Eve who remains unaffected by the archons' sexual overtures, from the psychic or fleshly Eve, her likeness, who is the actual object of them" (A.H.B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1996), 194.
13 For example, see Trim. Prot. 45.2–3: ⲀⲚⲞⲔ' ⲞⲨϨ̣[Ⲟ][Ⲟ]ⲨⲦ̣ⲤϨⲒⲘⲈ Ⲁ[ⲚⲞⲔ ⲞⲨⲘⲀⲀⲨ ⲀⲚⲞ]Ⲕ' ⲞⲨⲈⲒⲰⲦ "I am androgynous [I am Mother (and) I am] Father"
(trans. J.D. Turner, in The Coptic Gnostic Library, vol. 5 [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000]).
14 See Irenaeus' critique of Marcosian theology (Adv. Haer. 1.18.2); see also M. Delcourt, Hermaphrodite: Mythes et rites de la bisexualité dans l'antiquité classique, (Paris: Presses Universitaire de France, 1958); H. Baumann, Das doppelte
Geschlecht: Ethnologische Studien zur Bisexualität in Ritus and Mythos (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 2nd edn, 1980).
15 For instance, this motif can be found in Gos. Phil. 70.5–25 in the form of eschatological marriage.
16 e.g. Hippolytus, Ref. 5.7.14–5.7.15, 5.82.4 states that the Naasenes believed that the new, spiritual man is androgynous. Similarly, see the Coptic version of Gos. Thom.
114, which suggests the eschatological reconciliation of the male and female elements:
ⲈⲦⲘⲚ̅ⲦⲈⲢⲞ ⲚⲘ︦ⲠⲎⲨⲈ "Simon Peter said to them 'Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.' Jesus said: 'I myself shall lead her in order to make her male