3. Eve in Clement's Hermeneutics
the creation of eve in a blasphemous way
3. Eve in Clement's Hermeneutics Having sketched the literary picture of Eve, we may turn to Clement's oeuvre and examine what he has to say about the creation of Eve.
Photios' charge places Clement close to Gnostic speculation mixed with Greek and pagan mythology on the origin of human beings.
Photios found in Clement's Hypotyposeis some measure of agreement with these non-Scriptural traditions which push the Alexandrian scholar out of mainstream Christianity. Therefore the only way of assessing the probability of Clement's affiliation with 'heretical' or pagan theories of the origin of the first man is to look into the evidence of the existing documents and the main characteristics of his anthropology. First, we should being with the literary evidence.
In the Excerpta ex Theodoto, there is a passage which may have created some problems, raised suspicions and even sounded scandalous to later champions of orthodoxy such as Photios. As in previous cases, to Photios' disappointment, Clement of Alexandria let the Valentinian myth pass without comment. Reading Clement along with his other comments on Adam and Eve would demonstrate that the Alexandrian scholar disapproved of the whole scenario of the creation of Adam and Eve as a blasphemy, an exegetical extravaganza and a theological nonsense. The passage from the Excerpta ex Theodoto reads as follow:
So also, in the case of Adam, the male remained in him but all the female seed was taken from him and become Eve, from whom the females are derived, as the males are from him.31
The literary framework of this section records the origin of 'Christ' as the emission (προβολή) of Sophia, who in turn, becomes the source of two elements constituting two kinds of beings or two groups of spiri31 Ex. Th. 21.2: οὕτως καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τὸ μὲν ἀρρενικὸν ἔμεινεν αὐτῷ, πᾶν δὲ τὸ θηλυκὸν σπέρμα ἀρθὲν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ Εὔα γέγονεν, ἀφ᾽ ἧς αἱ θήλειαι, ὡς ἀπ' ἐκείνου οἱ ἄρρενες (trans. Casey). In order to understand Photios' possible suspicion,
I wish to quote the full context of Ex. Th. 21.1–3: "The Valentinians say that the finest emanation of Wisdom is spoken of in 'He created them in the image of God, male and female created them' [Gen. 1:27]. Now the males from this emanation are the 'election', but the females are the 'calling' and they call the male beings angelic, and the females themselves, the superior seed. So also, in the case of Adam, the male remained in him but all the female seed was taken from him and became Eve, from whom the female are derived, as the males are from him. Therefore the males are drawn together with Logos, but the females, becoming men, are united to the angels and pass into the Pleroma. Therefore the woman is said to be changed into a man, and the church here on earth into angels" (trans. Casey).
clement of alexandria on trial
tual seeds: male and female. The Gnostic theory presents the 'male'/ 'angelic' which denote the elect as united with Christ/the Saviour and remaining in the higher spiritual realm. In turn, the 'female' are the race of the Valentinians, who temporary dwell here on earth. The section reveals an analogy between the creation of Eve, as presented in Genesis 2.21-22, and the Valentinian notion of emergence of the male.
This model offers a clear comprehension of two kinds of realities denoted here by the 'male'/above (ἡ ἐκλογή) and the 'female'/below
(ἡ κλῆσις).32 While the Scriptural account states that Eve was created out of Adam's body, some of the Valentinians believed that "Eve came from Adam" in a way that they shared the same nature with spiritual beings such as angels and Christ, the true Adam. In a further development, the Valentinians 'here'/'below' on earth are consubstantial with their archetypes 'there'/'above', as they "came from Adam".33 Recently
Thomassen has re-examined the Valentinian concept of the creation/ emergence of the original Man/Adam (ᾄνθρωπος) in the Excerpta ex
Theodoto, showing another parallel with the Treatise on the Resurrection.34 Both documents contain variations of the Valentinian myth and refer to it at different lengths, but they both portray the Man/Adam as the crucial link between "the spiritual man" (ὁ πνευματικός ἄνθρωπος) of the earthly human being and the divine realm. The central figure of Adam or 'the Primal Man' covers both elements: male and female. The section quoted above from the Excerpta ex Theodoto says more about the female elements which enter into humanity and the male which remains within Christ and the angels. But this separation is only temporary, as 'Eve' (i.e., the 32 Sagnard, in his edition, provides reference to other ancient sources which inform about the same crucial distinction in the Valentinian theory (Irenaeus, Adv.
Haer. 1.6.4, 1.8.3, 1.14.4; Heracleon, Frg. 11–13, 22–27, 31–37 [A.E. Brooke, The Fragments of Heracleon, Newly Edited from Mss with an Introduction and Notes, Texts and Studies 1.4 (Cambridge, 1891; repr. Piscataway NJ: Gorgias Press, 2004)]; see Sagnard,
Clément d'Alexandrie, Extraits de Théodote, 99 n. 2). For a discussion of this notion in the context of two of the Valentinian schools, see Attridge and Pagels, "Notes to The Tripartite Tractate", in The Coptic Gnostic Library, 1:457–8.
33 I see in the distinction between 'man here' and 'man there' or the true/original human being 'there' and its reflection 'here', a clear reference to the Platonic model that inspired the Valentinian exegetes. The parallel distinction appeared in Plotinus and become an important subject of discussion among the Neoplatonics (see C.J. de
Vogel, "Plotinus' Image of Man, its Relationship to Plato as well as to Later Neoplatonism", in Image of Man in Ancient and Medieval Thought: Studia Gerardo Verbeke ab amicis et colleges dicata, Symbolae 1 (Leuven: Leuven University Press), 147–68.
This distinction does not appear explicitly in Clement's anthropology.
34 Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 437–42.
the creation of eve in a blasphemous way
Valentinian 'here') and 'Adam' (i.e., Christ and his angels 'there') are reunited through baptismal initiation.35 The androgynous Adam serves as an example of perfect union, or reunion, of the two, originally joint, elements within the individual Gnostic man or woman.
These elements are not opposites, as in the case of Philo's exegesis of Genesis, but rather complementary. Adam is the image of the Father, which may also suggest that the ultimate source of reality is androgynous. This summary of the Valentinian notion of the androgynous
Adam shows a very inventive elaboration of the Scriptural theme from Genesis. It also leads to specific consequences in anthropology, theology and eschatology, as well as in the theory of salvation. It concludes that each Gnostic, who on earth is separated from his or her 'archetype', is 'female' but possesses the inner 'male' spark of the divine, therefore his or her nature is dual. Similarly the visible distinction of gender, as male and female is only the shadowy reminder of the primordial unity. In every male there is a female element and in every female there is a male element.
Clement of Alexandria was clearly aware of this exegetical strategy, and, consequently, he was acquainted with the crucial distinction and its influence on the theology of salvation. However, apart from the quotation from the Excerpta ex Theodoto, we do not find any evidence of influence of Gnostic speculation in his oeuvre. The Excerpta ex
Theodoto presents only a part of the original complex mythology, but Clement was aware of the much bigger picture. The fact that he does not protest against this theory of the origin and meaning of 'Eve' does not expose him to the accusation that he was a 'hidden' or silent supporter of it. Clement documented it, as an alternative lectio of the Scriptural story, perhaps assuming that even the literal quotation of the myth would convince its critical readers that the whole story was an incredible, invented fabrication, a useless speculation, and valueless.
Another relevant passage is found in the sixth Stromata, where the author discusses Christian perfection. According to Clement, in the case of the Christian Gnostic, the nuptial relationship with his wife is much more a spiritual friendship and love than a sexual union based only on physical attraction or sensual pleasure. While the latter finishes with the end of the current life, the former survives in transition
35 Thomassen points to Ex. Th. 21.3–22.6, 35–36 (The Spiritual Seed, 438, see also
378–80).
clement of alexandria on trial
into a new stage of existence after death. The spiritual bond lives on and continues in the life to come. However, it gains a new form and expression: it becomes brotherhood and sisterhood in the post-resurrection age. In this eschatological phase, as Clement understood it, the earthly institution of marriage no longer has a place,36 and differences of gender will disappear. As Clement expressed it:
[For a Christian Gnostic] wife having begotten children becomes for him like a sister as if she had with him the same father and also she reminds herself that he was her husband only when looking at the children. Truly, she will become his sister after putting off her body, which distracts and limits the knowledge of the spiritual reality by the peculiar characteristics of material flesh. The souls themselves as such are equal.
The souls are neither male nor female, therefore they will not marry nor being given to marriage [in the age to come]. Therefore woman is transformed into man, loosing her characteristics as woman, and now becoming male and perfect.37
This statement, although it echoes some idioms which were popular among Gnostics, does not suggest human beings will be androgynous status in the world to come. Still less, does it hint at the masculine– feminine amalgam that was the first perfect human being. Clement's vocabulary originated rather in the common, late Hellenistic stereotype of the superiority of men over women,38 as well as in some Pauline expressions (Gal. 3.28),39 which emphasised the temporal character of 36 See Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35.
37 Clement, Strom. 6.100.3: ἀδελφὴ δὲ τοὺτῳ ἡ γυνὴ μετὰ τὴν παιδοποιίαν, ὡς καὶ ὁμοπατρία, κρίνεται, τότε μόνον τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἀναμιμνησκομένη, ὁπηνίκα ἂν τοῖς τέκνοις προσβλέπῃ, ὡς ἂν ἀδελφὴ τῷ ὄντι ἐσομένη καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀπόθεσιν τῆς σαρκὸς τῆς διαχωριζούσης καὶ διοριζούσης τὴν γνῶσιν τῶν πνευματικῶν τῇ ἰδιότητι τῶν σχημάτων. αὐταὶ γὰρ καθ' αὑτὰς ἐπ' ἴσης εἰσὶ ψυχαὶ αἱ ψυχαὶ οὐθέτεραι, οὔτε ἄρρενες οὔτε θήλειαι, ἐπὰν μήτε γαμῶσι μήτε γαμίσκωνται· καὶ μή τι οὕτως μετατίθεται εἰς τὸν ἄνδρα ἡ γυνή, ἀθήλυντος ἐπ᾽ ἴσης καὶ ἀνδρικὴ καὶ τελεία γενομένη.
38 Cf. Clement, Paed. 3.19.1–3.19.2 and the significant examples from a Greek context: Aristotle, Gen. an. 1.729a, 2.748b; Galen, Usu Part. 14.6; and from a Hebrew context: Josephus, C. Ap. 2.201. In relation to Christianity, see e.g. Constitutiones
Apostolorum 3.1.6; 1.9 (see E.W. Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social History of its First Century, trans. O.C. Dean, Jr [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995], 361–
77). These authors present lists of male and female characteristics commonly used in this period, which correspond to the stereotypes of both genders, also found in Clement of Alexandria's works: men—strong, brave, magnanimous, reserved, rational and controlled; women—weak, fearful, petty, loquacious, irrational, emotional and uncontrolled (see, Stegemann, Jesus Movement, 361).
39 On Paul's interpretation of the position, role and value women, see D.R. MacDonald, There is no Male and Female: The Fate of a Dominical Saying in Paul and
the creation of eve in a blasphemous way
the male–female distinction, although still with some androcentric agenda.40 These factors shaped Clement's idioms and images, and as such they serve no other purpose than the promotion of an attractive portrait of Christian perfection, which was related to spirituality not ontology. As rightly noted by Buell, Clement's rhetoric used the biological differentiation between male and female in order to uphold a 'natural', that is, God-given, model of two kinds of function in society
(education) and family (housekeeping).41 To Clement, these sexual and social differentiations are not accidental and they should not be rejected. On the contrary, he upheld the natural distinction between male and female, which receives further significance in his project of education.
Gnosticism (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1987); E.A. Castelli, "Paul on Women and Gender", in Women and Christian Origin, 221–35.
40 As recently noted by D.K. Buell: "Clement repeatedly proclaims the Pauline slogan of equality in Christ (Gal. 3.28) to argue that women as well as children and slaves should 'philosophize' (Clement's term for the practice leading to the summit of Christian existence), yet he insists on the deutero-Pauline household codes and the teaching of Pastoral Epistles as an authoritative guides for how to model human relationship
… His [Clement's] model for Christian perfection presupposes an androcentric ideal: to attain the state of a Gnostic, both male and females must transformed themselves by eradication of the passions, but Clement describes this process as 'becoming male' specifically with reference to female perfection (Strom. 6.12.100.3)" (D.K. Buell,
"Ambiguous Legacy: A Feminist Commentary on Clement of Alexandria's Works", in A Feminist Companion to Patristic Literature, 26–7).
41 See also the valuable study by D.K. Buell, Making Christians, 48 –9, 63–8. Buell notes an important passage in the Stromateis (4.59.4–60.1) where Clement elaborates the distinction between Adam and Eve without reference to Genesis: τὸ μὲν τοίνυν τὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι φύσιν τοῦ θήλεος πρὸς τὸ ἄρρεν, καθὸ θῆλύ ἐστιν, οὐ φαμέν˙ πάντως γάρ τινα καὶ διαφορὰν ὑπάρχειν προσῆκεν ἑκατέρῳ τούτων, δι᾿ ἣν τὸ μὲν θῆλυ αὐτῶν, τὸ δὲ ἄρρεν γέηονεν˙ τὸ γοῦν κυοφορεῖν καὶ τὸ τίκτειν τῇ γιναικὶ προσεῖναί φαμεν, καθὸ θήλεια τυγχάνει, οὐ καθὸ ἄνθρωπος˙ εἰ δὲ μηδὲν ἦν τὸ διάφορον ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυνακός, τὰ αὐτὰ ἂν ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν ἔδρα τε καὶ ἔπασχειν. ᾗ μὲν τοίνυν ταὐτὸν ἐστι, κατὸ ψυχή, ταὐτῃ ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀφίξεται ἀρετήν˙ ᾗ δὲ διάφορον, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἰδιότητα, ἐπὶ τὰς κυήσεις καὶ τὴν οἰκουρίαν.
"We do not say that a female's nature is the same as a male's as he is female. For undoubtedly it stands to reason that some differences should exists between each of them, in virtue of which one is male and the other female. Pregnancy and parturition, accordingly, we say belong to female, as she is female, and not as she is a human being.
For if there were no difference between man and woman, they would do and suffer the same thing. Where there is sameness [with respect to male and female natures], as in the soul, she will attain the same virtue; but where there is difference as in the particular construction of the body, her lot is childbearing and housekeeping" (my translation follows Buell's text). I wish to add that my understanding of 'sameness' (ταὐτὸν ἐστι) emphasises Clement's intuition that in the attainment of perfection/holiness, both male and female Christians have equal potential.
clement of alexandria on trial
Taking into account the number of passages where Clement discusses Genesis 2.21-22, there is no evidence to suggest that he held the hypothesis of the androgynous origin of either Eve or Adam. Clement was too close to the Philonic and Pauline exegesis of the Scriptures to assimilate the non-Hebrew or non-Jewish-Christian notion of the androgyny of the first human being. For example, although Clement was acquainted with Plato's Symposium, he did not quote or comment on the myth of human origin by Aristophanes. At the same time
Clement saw how this kind of mythology had been assimilated by Gnostic theologians who were more eclectic in their combinations of Scriptural imagery and the philosophical and anthropological theories of the Greeks. The role of Eve, as Clement saw it, was an episode from myth with a meaning.42 In Clement's theology, the first woman was not a representation of the invisible, female aspects of divinity (e.g., Eve,
Sophia). On the contrary, he seemed to treat Eve as a factual human being, as history with a moral.43 And this interpretation runs throughout the whole of Clement's oeuvre, just as it finds its affirmation in the later commentaries on Clement's works.44 Furthermore, Clement's anthropology, which was not in any way a systematic doctrine, did not contain anything suggestive of hermaphroditic humanity. In Clement's surviving works, neither the interpretation of the creation of Adam nor the more philosophical reflection on human ontological nature, support Photios' charge.45 Clement's exegesis of creation was closer to 42 See E. Pagel, "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), 413.
43 For instance, see Clement, Strom. 3.74.3, 3.80.2, 3.94.1. In all these occasions
Eve serves as a negative example of the woman seduced by the devil. Clement's moral exegesis is based on 2 Cor. 11:3. While in Strom. 3.81.5, Clement emphasises Eve's biological motherhood (Gen. 4:25); then in Strom. 3.100.7, he hints at original sin. In all these cases Clement's exegesis is well placed within the framework of mainstream
Christianity of his period.
44 Clement, Protrep. 7.6; Paed. 2.123.3, 3.19.1. Similarly to the examples from the Stromateis Eve is interpreted here within mainstream Christian theology with its focus on her seduction by the evil spirit. Clement's orthodoxy is confirmed by the seventh-century author, Anastasius Sinaita in Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus, vol.
3:224. Here Anastasius describes Clement's interpretation of Gen. 2.22 as θεοσεβῶς/ θεοσεβὴς against Photios' charge of its being αἰσχρῶς τε καὶ ἀθέως.
45 For instance, one of the summaries of Clement's anthropology is presented in Strom. 4.150.2–4.150.4, including Adam's perfection as a creature. Although Clement highlights the reality of Adam's wrong choice (sin) this is the outcome of freedom given to him (and all people) by the Creator. In Clement's various discussions of the creation of the first man, there is no trace of any dramatic, Gnostic-like, split in
the creation of eve in a blasphemous way
Jewish-Christian sources46 than to the Valentinians. Indeed Clement showed a tendency to treat Eve as a real person, including her shameful role of temptress, "through whom error came to the world" (δι᾿ ἣν ἡ πλάνη παρηκολούθησεν).47 This approach places Clement's exegesis within mainstream Christianity not on its margin. It must also be noted that Clement's theology did not contain any duality, masculine– feminine, of the Father48 by which the Logos was first generated and the human being (κατ'εἰκόνα) later created. Yet, on a specific occasion,49 Clement is inclined to recognise female characteristics in God, but God's 'motherhood' is related to his way of dealing with his creatures and is not an expression of God's own 'female' nature. If men and women were created in the image of God, as the Great
Church claimed, Clement's understanding of God had to include an appreciation of the feminine characteristics of the divine. However, unlike some of his adversaries, he did not conclude that God created an androgynous human being. This sort of hypothesis must be eliminated on the ground of Clement's theology.50
Taking into account all these considerations, we must conclude that in the light of the preserved material Clement of Alexandria represents a theological and exegetical attitude that was part of the mainstream
Christianity of his time. The introduction of the androgyny of the first Adam's nature which later, either through baptism/illumination or in the eschatological phase, needed to be healed and reconciled. Clement's optimistic vision of the human being emphasises the potential of human nature to develop, grow and reach its full maturity as the Christian Gnostic under the guidance of reason and faith, in obedience to the divine Teacher/Logos.
46 Clement, Protrep. 111.1
47 Ibid. 12.2.
48 See the very useful summary of Clement's theology of God, the Father, in Hägg,
Clement of Alexandria, 153–71. See also very the valuable elaboration of Clement's rhetoric of divine/human fatherhood (Buell, Making Christians, 97–106) and divinity/ motherhood (ibid. 125 –7,149–51, 158–64).
49 Clement, QDS 37.2; see C. Nardi, "Il seme eletto e la maternita di Dio nel Quis dives salvetur di Clemente Alessandrino", Prometheus 11 (1985): 271–86. Buell observes: "Clement's corpus also contains an unparalleled quantity of feminine, particularly maternal, imagery for the divine … The ineffable part of God is father, while the part that has sympathy towards us is mother" (Buell, "Ambiguous Legacy", 27).
However, she concludes: "Clement links female attainment of imago Dei with the trope of 'becoming male' (Strom. 6.100.3) which exposes the definition of imago Dei as not entirely 'asexual' " (ibid. 55). See also K. Børresen, "God's Image, Man's Image?
Female Metaphors Describing God in the Christian Tradition", Temenos 19 (1983):
17–32.
50 This kind of logic is presented by, for instance, Hyp. Arch. 94.34–95.5.
clement of alexandria on trial
human being into his theological thought does not find any rationale and is against his interpretation of Genesis, which is coherent and serves his pedagogical and moral purpose. Clement's and the Gnostic's hermeneutics originate from a different understanding of divinity.
They differ even more in their evaluation of the created world, including the creation of the first human beings. Also, they radically differ in their solutions to the current state of existence and in their assessment of the eschatological reunion with God. All these factors refute rather than support Photios' claim. However, Photios might have encountered some of Clement's anthropological statements, in which he elaborated on Philo's motifs of 'Adam' and 'Eve' as metaphors of the male and female elements in human beings. In this Philonic context, each human being contains a 'male' element identified with the mind and a 'female' aspect, which is 'sense-perception'. It is possible to say that this 'androgyny' characterises all humanity, but this idea functions within a Philonic rhetoric and ethical programme. Clement may have used this imagery, while encouraging his students to 'become male', that is to conquer their passions and become contemplative Gnostics.
Only within this framework can the value of this rhetorical construct be appreciated, which I accept could have been a tool in Clement's pedagogical repertoire.
It must also be emphasised that Clement's positive assessment of women as capable of becoming Christian Gnostics emphasised their intellectual and spiritual potential to achieve Christian perfection. Of course they are called to progress in maturity, but the same call is given to male disciples. Women are created equal to men, bestowed with the divine gift of reason and with the same ability to progress towards the aim of all humanity, eternal communion with God.51
Women are not, in Clement's theology, a shameful failure or 'partial' human being, lacking more-advanced characteristics. Women, like men, are totally dependent on the divine Logos who guides them towards his divine Father, who remains the Creator of all. God created human souls as male and female and the original sexual differences are part of his plan of salvation.
51 For instance, see Clement, Strom. 4.60.1–4.69.4. This section contains Clement's open statement on equality, ethical ability and intellectual potential of women as people who peruse the spiritual perfection. More on this subject in an insightful comment by Buell, Making Christians, 62–8.
the sexual encounters of angels with human women 145
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS OF ANGELS WITH HUMAN
WOMEN AND THE CHILDREN CONCEIVED
Like in a dream, he believes that angels have sexual encounters with women and have children.
The last charge, although focusing on another anthropological and exegetical controversy, again highlights the substantial hermeneutical distance between Clement of Alexandria's and Photios' phases of theology. The theme, which in Clement's period was part of a common belief, six centuries later in Photios' time was a dream-like story or an incomprehensible curiosity (ἡ ὀνειροπολία). Under the influence first of the Christological, then the Trinitarian, debates in the fourth and fifth centuries, the understanding of anthropology reached a higher level of precision not only in terminology.1 Similarly, there were significant changes in the understanding of the characteristics of angels.2
1 For further details on the development of Christology and anthropology, see G. O'Collins, "Ephesus, Chalcedon and Beyond", in Christology: A Biblical, Historical and Systematic Study of Jesus Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 184–
201; D. Barthrellos, "The Monothelite Heresy of the Seventh Century", in The Byzantine Christ: Person, Nature, and Will in the Chrystology of Saint Maximus the Confessor
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 60–98; and, especially, A. Louth, St John
Damascene: Tradition and Originality in Byzantine Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 117–79.
2 I would like to point out Andrew Louth's a very helpful summary: "In the Christian centuries before John [Damascene], the concepts of both angels and demons underwent considerable development. Angels were particularly associated with Christian worship, in which the Church of earth joined with the angelic hosts in their continual praise of God as holy … The development of the doctrine of demons was, by contrast, strangely uneven: in certain circles there was great interest in the nature and activity of demons, in others they are scarcely mentioned (though their existence is not denied so much as taken for granted). Interest in demons was most intense in ascetic circles" (Louth, St John Damascene, 120–21). To John Damascene the angels were incorporeal, created but immaterial. However John Damascene believed that, in comparison with God, they have "certain density and materiality, for God alone is truly immaterial and incorporeal" (Expositio Fidei, 17.11 14, cited in Louth, St John
Damascene, 122). This view well represented the main features of the orthodox doctrine. The theory of spiritual beings, their function and nature of Denys the Areo-
clement of alexandria on trial
Later Patristic theologians were more careful in their discussion of the amalgamation of the human and the divine, or even human and angelic elements. Among the representatives of the Antiochene School of exegesis any literal understanding of the sexual intercourse between angels and women (Gen. 6.2-4) was seen as impossible, naïve (ἠλίθιος) and blasphemous (τὰ βλάσφεμα).3 With further developments of theology from the fourth century ce onwards, angels came to be seen as pagite, author of the Celestial Hierarchy, deeply inspired the later Christian tradition, including the milieu of Photios' and his adversaries (see A. Louth, Denys the Areopagite [London: Geoffrey Chapman; Wilton, CT: Morehouse-Barlow, 1989], 33–51, 111–
29). By Photios' time, Christian orthodoxy had achieved a defined doctrine on the nature of angels and demons. The latter were understood as spiritual beings, created good, who by their free will turned from God and rebelled against their Creator. As a result they became evil and were excluded from the divine realm for ever. On the importance of angelology in relation to theology as well as the cult, see G. Peers, Subtle Bodies: Representing Angels in Byzantium, Transformation of the Classical Heritage (Berkley: University of California Press, 2001), 1–11, 126–56.
3 See John Chrysostom, In Genesim homiliae 22.2 (PG 53, 187): καὶ γὰρ ἀναγκοῖον τούτου τοῦ χωρίου πολλὴν τὴν ἔρευναν ποιήσασθαι, καὶ ἀνατρέψαι τὰς μυθολογίας τῶν ἀπερισκέπτως πάντα φθεγγομένων˙ καὶ πρῶτον μὲν εἰπεῖν ἅπερ λέγειν τολμῶσι, καὶ δείξαντας τὴν ἀτοπίαν τῶν παρ᾽αὐτῶν λεγομένων, οὕτω τὸν ἀληθῆ νοῦν τῆς Γραφῆς διδάξαι τὴν ὑμετέραν ἀγάπην, ὥστε μὴ ἁπλῶς ὑπέχειν τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῖς τὰ βλάσφημα ἐκεῖνα φθεγγομένοις, καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἑαυτῶν κεφαλῆς τολμῶσι λέγειν. Φασὶ γὰρ ὅτι οὐ περὶ ἀνθρώπων τοῦτο εἴρηται, ἀλλὰ περὶ ἀγγέλων· τούτους γὰρ υἱοὺς Θεοῦ προσηγόρευσε. "You see, there is need to make a careful study of this passage [Gen 6.2] and confute the fanciful interpretations of these people whose every remark is made rashly—firstly, to repeat what they presume to say, and by demonstrating the absurdity of what is said by them to teach your good selves the true sense of Scriptures so that you will not lend your ears idly to people uttering those blasphemies and presuming to speak in a way that brings their own persons into jeopardy. I mean, they claim that this remark is made not about human beings but about angels; these (they say) he called sons of God" (trans. R. C. Hill, John
Chrysostom: Homilies on Genesis 18–45 [Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1990]). On Photios' assessment of "the holy Father" (ἁγίος πατρὸς) in John Chrysostom's (see Cod. 86) theology, see the Introduction above. See also Theodoret of Cyrus, Questiones in Genesim, 47, 48 (PG 80, 148/149). Both John Chrysostom and Theodoret of Cyrus rejected the idea of the union between the angels and human women and applied the noble title of "the sons of God" to the virtuous descendents of Seth who sinned with the Canaanite women. For more details on Theodoret's exegesis of this passage, see J.N. Guinot, L'exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr, Théologie Historique 100 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1995), 757. This line of interpretation was accepted later by Photios, who discussed the episode in Amphil. 255 and Ep. 162.15–
30, where he refers to Theodoret's exegesis (Questiones, 148a–c). On the other hand, among the Latin theologians, Augustine returns to the question about the possibility of sexual relations between the angels and women criticizing its literal meaning in Civ.
15.23.
the sexual encounters of angels with human women 147 immaterial, sexless and non procreative.4 In addition, views of the nature of angels as good and evil spiritual beings found a new hermeneutical trajectory, leaving behind the earlier Christian models and understanding.5
This chapter approaches Photios' charge by, first, presenting the main hermeneutical models available within Clement's religious and theological milieu for dealing with difficult biblical passages. It is quite certain that Clement was acquainted with those interpretations. Then, in the second part, it will analyse the passages from Clement's works which are relevant to Photios' claim.6 This methodology, as in the 4 See Theodoret of Cyrus, Graecarum affectionum curatio 3.88–91 (PG 83.786B) and the crucial statement: Τῶν ἀσωμάτων δὲ τὴν φύσιν οὐ κατὰ δύο πεποίηκεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀθρόαν ἐδημιούργησεν· ὅσας γάρ τοι εἶναι αὐτῶν ἐδοκίμασε μυριάδας, ἐξ ἀρχῆς τοσαύτας παρήγαγεν. ∆ιά τοι τοῦτο περιττὴ τοῦ θήλεος ἐκείνοις ἡ χρῆσις, ὡς μὲν ἀθανάτοις, αὔξης οὐ δεομένοις˙ ὡς ἀσωμάτοις δὲ, μίξιν οὐ δεχομένοις. Τῷ τοι καὶ ἁγίους αὐτοὺς ὀνομάζομεν, ὡς γήϊνον οὐδὲν ἔχοντας, ἀλλὰ τῶν περιγείων παθημάτων ἀπηλλαγμένους, ἔργον δὲ ἔχοντας τὴν ἐν οὐρανῷ χορείαν, καὶ τοῦ πεποιηκότος τὴν ὑμνῳδίαν˙. "On the other hand [i.e., contrary to creation of human beings as male and female in order to procreate] the nature of bodiless beings is not created in pairs, [i.e., angels do not have sexual characteristics], but he created them all at once: at the beginning he called into being the myriads according to his will.
Consequently, they do not need any contact with female sex as they are already immortal, they do not need to multiply and they are bodiless so they do not incline to any sexual union. These beings, we name 'holy' as they do not have any earthly element, they are excluded from bodily passions, while their task remains to dance in heaven and to glorify the Creator" Theodoret of Cyrus was praised by Photios as an advocate and defender of orthodoxy, see Cod. 56.
5 Jerome is one of the first exegetes who ridiculed the idea of sexual union between the angels and human women in his Homilae in Psalmos (123) denoting this idea as a 'Manichean' belief. For more details on the widespread use of this motif in early
Christianity and Judaism, see R.A. Yoshiko, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); K.P. Sullivan, Wrestling with the Angels: A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament,
Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 55 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2004), 198–225.
6 Three early Alexandrian theologians, Clement, Theognostos and Origen attracted Photios' attention with their 'bizarre' opinion on the nature of spiritual beings. This surprising attention will be further discussed in the conclusion to this chapter. Photios also accused Theognostos of Alexandria (third century ce) in Cod.
106 of an Origenist error that he believed and taught about the corporeal nature of angels and the demons. Photios states: ἔν τε τῷ τετάρτῳ περὶ ἀγγέλων καὶ δαιμόνων ὁμοίως ἐκείνῳ κενολογεῖ, καὶ σώματα αὐτοῖς λεπτὰ ἀμφιέννυσιν. "In book four he talks nonsense, like the previous one [i.e., Origen in De principiis], about the angels and the demons attributing them subtle bodies." Photios identifies Origen as the main author of this theological nonsense which claimed that spiritual beings such as the angels and the demons possessed some sort of subtle, 'ethereal' body. First, it must be noted that in Origen's treatise De principiis, 1.4.1, 1.6.3, 1.8.1, there are some refer-