2. Eve as a Metaphor in Philo's Philosophy
clement of alexandria on trial
2. Eve as a Metaphor in Philo's Philosophy To these traditions we must add Philo's exegesis of the passage as it brings a new twist to the whole lectio. Philo comments on the creation of Eve on a few occasions.17 As noted by Annewies van den Hoek in her recent study,18 the creation of the human being is directly linked with Philo's idea of the Creator. The divine Absolute, who in Philo's understanding combines, in a coherent way, the characteristics of Jewish revelation and some philosophical concepts, yet remains the divine Monad,19 or, to use Runia's translation, 'the Existent' (τὸ ὄν).20
This combination of biblical imagery and metaphysical language provides Philo with a notion of God which remains faithful to his religious background as well as to his philosophical investigation. God's holiness and perfection remain the objects of religious awe and intellectual contemplation. They stress the difference between the Creator and humanity. Consequently, as Hoek points out, God represents in his nature the unity which is lacking in humans. The duality of human nature is expressed in various ways: as male and female (ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ), as the body and the soul, and even in the distinctions within (ϨⲞⲞⲨⲦ), so that she too might become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven' " (trans.
T.O. Lambdin, in The Coptic Gnostic Library, vol. 2 [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989]). This narrative stresses the need for the crucial transformation from 'female' into 'male', but also from 'male' into 'female', in order to achieve the ultimate perfection. That perfection can be understood as crossing the boundaries of a specific gender, but even more, as transformation of the lower, divided existence with its 'either male or female' characteristics into the higher comprehension and self-understanding which crossed all boundaries imposed by the current world. In opposition to this hermeneutical trajectory, the Catholic response promoted rather one line of transition: from 'female' to 'male' characteristics. Clement of Alexandria was inclined towards this metamorphosis. The locus classicus of this catechesis can be found in John Chrysostom's eulogy of a certain woman, Olympias, when he complemented her: "don't say 'woman' but 'what a man!' because this is a man, despite her physical appearances" (Life of Olympias, the Deaconess, 3). For more details see A. Marjanen, "Women Disciples in the Gospel of Thomas", in Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas, ed.
R. Uro (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 94–106, Chrysostom's example is mentioned on p. 99 n. 29. The later Patristic construction of 'womanhood' is well discussed in G. Cloke, This Female Man of God: Women and Spiritual Power in The Patristic Age,
AD. 350–450 (London: Routledge, 1995).
17 See Philo, Leg. 2.19–45; QG 1.26–49.
18 A. van den Hoek, "Endowed with Reason or Glued to the Senses: Philo's Thoughts on Adam and Eve", in The Creation of Man and Woman, 63–75.
19 See Chapter 1, n.40.
20 See Philo, Opif. 8; Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 115.
the creation of eve in a blasphemous way
the human soul such as the higher rational and lower irrational part.21
Philo's exegesis of the first Scriptural account of the creation of Adam and Eve22 presents the created human beings as an opposition to God's unity. In Philo's commentary, people are from the beginning divided in various levels and aspects of their existences. But, Hoek also notes that Philo, in relation to the second narrative (Gen. 2:7) on the creation of the human being (here: ὁ ἄνθρωπος), uses the desription
" neither male nor female" (οὔτ᾽ ἄρρεν οὔτε θῆλυ).23 Contrary to appear ances, this term, in Hoek's view, does not suggest either the creation of an androgynous being, or that Philo understood the first human beings to have been hermaphrodite.24
Therefore it is not their existence as male and female that ressembles God, but the gift of the human mind (ὁ νοῦς). As Runia stresses,
Philo's elucidation shows an analogy between the role of God in the universe and the mind in humans.25 Like the invisible God, the invisible mind that perceives everything, penetrates the whole of reality
21 However, yet another interpretation is possible. According to Pearson, Philo's interpretation of the creation of Adam and Eve does not contrast 'male' and 'female' aspects of anthropology in a dualistic way, but rather suggest that the latter should support the former (see B.A. Pearson, "Revisiting Norea", in Images of the Feminine,
274).
22 Following the two Scriptural accounts of the events in Gen. 1:26 and then in 2:7,
Philo discusses the first narrative in Opif. 69 and the second in Opif. 134. Runia summarises both Philonic interpretations as follows: human being after the image (Gen 1.27) moulded human being (Gen 2.7) object of thoughts object of sense perception kind of idea or genus or seal participating in quality incorporeal composed of body and soul neither male nor female ether man or woman by nature immortal by nature mortal. (Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos, 321)
Boulluec observes that Clement of Alexandria, in contrast to Philo, does not make a distinction between the two stories of the creation (see Boulluec, Stromata V, 303).
23 Hoek adds a substantial bibliography to the issue of Early Christian, Jewish and Gnostic comprehension of gender and it transformation ("Endowed with Reason", 70 n. 22).
24 Hoek states: "In the passage from Opif., however 'neither male nor female' seems to have positive connotations and it may be that Philo had in mind a concept that was not generated, thus an a-sexual or maybe pre-sexual being" (ibid. 71). Runia accepts Tobin's explanation of this difficult passage as: the creation of human beings did not produce 'neither male of female'. Runia clarifies further, as not yet male or female, but it does not mean a hermaphrodite (Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos, 325; see Thomas H. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation [Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1983], 109–10).
This point calls for our attention as it is vital to Clement's theory.
25 Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos, 222.
clement of alexandria on trial
and is able to reach to its divine source. It should be noted that in Philo's exegesis, both male and female were created by God and his theory equates women with men in their rational skills. However,
Philo's strongly male-oriented outlook had an impact on his exegesis as the noble notion of the mind belongs only Adam.26
Philo interprets the creation of 'Adam' and 'Eve' allegorically as the creation of two human faculties: first the human intellect/mind (ὁ νοῦς) and, second the sense perception (αἴσθησις), but also he links these two characters/symbols with a third, 'the snake', which represents pleasure (ἡδονή).27 Philo's figurative analysis of the biblical theologoumena serves primarily his ethical theory as it promotes a virtuous life under the guidance of the mind. The episodes of Genesis show how Eve, here identified with sense perception, can be easily seduced by the serpent, here a symbol of carnal pleasures, and blunt the mind, that is Adam.28 Tobin observes that according to Philo, the crucial triad, Adam, Eve and the serpent, do not represent characters from the external world, but are metaphors for three main sorts of dynamism in each human being.29 'Adam' and 'Eve' are two kinds of epistemology: intelligible and sensual, which are experienced by each human being. 'Adam' and 'Eve' are embodied in each man and woman, as they also represent two opposite dimensions of human existence, the activity of the mind, the intelligible world and virtue or senseperception and pleasure. These two perceptions are not mixed together, but are contradictories. Philo's allegory leads his readers to a clear moral choice, either an intellectual life according to their mind or one focused on sensual activity and the visible world. Philo's interpretation encourages his audience to 'become Man' or 'Adam', realise the potential of the mind, instead of falling into the feminine, Eve-like lower level of comprehension. This interpretation inspired later
Christian exegesis in Alexandria, as we may see in the case of Origen.
His reading of Genesis 1:15, identifies Adam with the human spirit, which is the male element, and Eve with the soul, which denotes the female element.30
26 Hoek points to Genevieve Lloyd, The Man of Reason: Male and Female in Western Philosophy (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), 25; see also
Dorothy Sly, Philo's Perception of Women, Brown Judaic Studies 209 (Atlanta, GA:
Scholars Press, 1990).
27 See Philo, Opif. 165; Leg. 2.19–48; Cher. 57.
28 Cf. Leg., 1.71–1.177.
29 See Tobin, The Creation of Man, 146.
30 Origen, Hom. Gen. 1.15.