Origen Against Plato

Chapter 1
Origen among Christians,

Jews and Gnostics
That Origen was born in Alexandria, the principal city of Egypt, and that most of
his education was received there, may be all that is incontestably known about his
infancy. His race, his date of birth and the religion of his parents are all matters on
which the palpable bias of our ancient witnesses forbids any but the most tentative
conclusions. Epiphanius, no friend and for the most part no authority, qualifies the
statement that he was born in Alexandria with the words by race an Egyptian,
Aiguptios genei. Although the adjective, when used alone, may betoken simply that
one comes from the hinterland rather than the capital of Egypt, the noun genei in
this context will be otiose unless it means that one at least of his parents was a
Copt. We may choose to discount this as a wilful slur, the prototype for Theodorets
invidious hurling of the term Aiguptios at Cyril of Alexandria in the fifth century;
we shall certainly be too prudent to surmise with Norman Williams that Origens
theology inherited an irascible and saturnine tincture from his provincial forebears.1
However many traces of the indigenous culture scholars may descry in the Christian
heresies and the theosophical literature of Egypt in this period, they agree that the
mother of Origens Christianity was the Church catholic. It is, however, less easy to
determine whether he was reared as a member of this church or whether, as
Porphyry the Neoplatonist seems to allege, he was brought up as a Greek among
Greeks and only later exchanged his ancestral culture for that of the new barbarians.2
It is Porphyry, more than anyone, who has taught us to regard Origen as a
Platonist at heart, who did not so much convert to Christianity as annex parts of that
religion to his own way of thinking. The present book, however, is a plea against
the promiscuous application of the term Platonic to elements of Origens thought
that he and his contemporaries would have considered part of the Christian heritage.
With the passage of time the apostolic deposit had inevitably borne interest in the
worshipping community, and, as this chapter will show, it was not always a simple
matter to distinguish this spontaneous maturation from the trickle of foreign coin.
Christian and Jew
Circumstantial testimony that Origen was a Christian from birth comes from
Eusebius, an apologist for both Origen and Christendom, and the literary adjutant
of the Emperor Constantine. Porphyrys strictures on Origen have been preserved
for us only because Eusebius feels obliged to contradict them in the sixth book of
his Ecclesiastical History. To demonstrate that Origen was never a member of a
11
12
Origen Against Plato
pagan household, he asserts that his father Leontius went to prison for his faith in
the reign of Severus, whereupon his son at the age of seventeen became his tutor in
fortitude, urging him in a letter not to put away the God of his salvation for any
imagined benefit to himself or to his kin. The date of 185 for the birth of Origen is
obtained by reckoning backward seventeen years from the Severan persecution of
202. He himself (Eusebius continues) thirsted only to join the martyrs, and his
mother could prevent him only by hiding his clothes so that he would be ashamed
to fare abroad. It is clear that the expedient was successful, yet no such fear of
custom intervened when Origen read at Matthew 19.12 that some have made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven; the story of his castration has
rendered him infamous in circles otherwise ignorant of theology, and we may note,
as a striking instance of the vagaries of tradition, that Origens friend Eusebius
feels compelled to lend his authority to this anecdote, while his enemy Epiphanius
concedes that it may be false.3
The credit of all our witnesses could possibly be saved by the conjecture that
Eusebius has mistaken circumcision for castration. The tone of legislation against
conversion to Judaism in the third century shows that this was a common error
among the Gentiles,4 though it was not one to be made by the Palestinian Epiphanius
in the fourth century, a time of fierce contention between the synagogue and the
Church. No city of the Mediterranean world played host to such a large population
of Jews as Alexandria in the time of Origen, and in his earliest works we meet
allusions to a Hebrew who instructed him in Biblical criticism. Notwithstanding
his ancestry, this man confessed both Christ and the Holy Spirit,5 and he must
clearly be credited with no mean part in the formation of a pupil who went on to
become the first Christian to enjoy a reputation for Hebrew scholarship or to
undertake a continuous exposition of the Old Testament. The influence of this
teacher will be slighted only by scholars who continue to embrace a crude dichotomy
between Hebraism and Hellenism one that must now be entertained in the teeth of
modern findings in philology, archaeology and comparative mythology, all of which
conspire to prove that the Greek and the Jew have never been such strangers as we
were once taught to imagine.6 Even had they become antipodes elsewhere in the
empire, it could hardly have been so in Alexandria: the two races had been neighbours
in that city from its foundation, and the Jew at least could hardly have maintained a
discrete identity in the place where the Hebrew scriptures had been translated into
Greek at a kings behest.
Origens master, then, was a Jewish Christian, but his religion had little in
common with the Jewish Christianity that is frequently contrasted with the Gentile
varieties.7 Its traits, as drawn by modern physiognomists, are scrupulous legalism
in dietary and venereal conduct, often amounting to abstinence, a predilection for
uncanonical gospels and apocalyptic writings, and hostility to any commutation of
monotheism, with the consequence that Christ was honoured as a glorious man, the
Messiah of prophecy, but not as God. There is reason to doubt, however, whether
any group in the ancient world would have answered this description. The Palestinian
Ebionites, who are commonly presented as exemplars of the type, are a skeletal
phenomenon at best in heresiology until flesh tints are applied by Epiphanius, and
he is no more disposed than his ecclesiastical forebears to admit that Ebion, the
putative founder of the sect, is merely an eponym from the Hebrew word for
Origen among Christians, Jews and Gnostics
13
poor.8 The doctrine that Christ was merely a man, if anyone ever held it, was
more probably the symptom of a Euhemeristic tendency than a relic of Palestinian
Christianity: it was rare to accord divine honours in the Roman world to one who
had not enjoyed them during life.9 As to legal observances, there was even a party
of Jews in Alexandria who considered them to be superannuated, and the Judaizing
Christians of the early second century (of whom for once we know something)
neither practised nor demanded circumcision. Their conspicuous devotion to the
Sabbath may have been a Gentile subterfuge to escape a persecution that was
directed at Christians but not at Jews.10 The majority of the extant texts which are
known to have been produced by Jewish Christians now form part of our New
Testament: while they lack the hallmarks of the Jewish Christianity reconstructed
by modern scholars, they bear witness to the prevalence of an error that was natural
for Jews and barely possible for pagans the worshipping of angels, with the
concomitant belief that Christ was a being of that kind.11 Here it might seem at first
that we have the measure of Origens Hebrew, who is known to have construed
Isaiahs vision of the Lord flanked by two angels as an intimation of the Christian
Trinity Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We must not infer, however, that he took
Christ for an angel: many Christian exegetes opined that certain appearances of
angels in the Old Testament were in fact discreet theophanies, and the argument
that Christ was prophesied at Isaiah 9.6 as the angel of good counsel was advanced
by many whose writings leave no doubt that they acknowledged Christ as God.12
Christian, even catholic, as it may have been, the comment on Isaiah bespeaks a
typically Jewish interest in the angelology of the Old Testament. In modern times a
superficial antithesis between Jewish and Hellenistic Christianity, coupled with the
assumption that the Ebionite is a representative specimen of the former, has led some
to suppose that only Greek thought can furnish a pedigree for the Trinity. But this is
to seek an answer without considering the problem: had the Church not been fettered
by the rigid monotheism that it inherited from Israel, the divinity of Christ would
have been no scandal and the mystery of the three in one so recondite to the faithful,
so intractable to logic would have given way to a pantheon of three unequal gods.
The doctrine of the Trinity resolves the pious dilemma of any reader, Jew or Christian,
who discovers that the same events are indifferently described in the oldest scriptures
as angelic visitations or as epiphanies of the Lord.13 Should Yahweh be degraded to
an angel? This, which might be called the Gnostic expedient,14 was equally abhorrent
to the Israelite who retained a hope for his people and to the Christian who knew
Yahweh as the Father of Jesus Christ. Or should one follow the opposite course, not
diminishing Yahweh but enlarging the class of deities? Such affronts to the unity of
God were not inconceivable, for the rabbis of this epoch used strong words against
the heretics, or minim, who paid blasphemous devotions to the angel Metatron.15
Orthodox Jewry and primitive Christianity were at one in the belief that there was
only a single God and that the angels were his creatures; but if this God addressed the
world through cherubim and seraphim, while maintaining a categorical distinction
between his glory and the ministers whom he glorified, some nomenclature must be
devised to explain his mediated presence in the lower sphere, without prejudice to the
freedom and inscrutability of his eternal nature.
The Old Testament already speaks of the name of the Lord and the glory of the
Lord as though they were his intramundane surrogates; Wisdom is personified as
14
his helpmeet in creation, and his Word is almost an intermediary.16 The New
Testament preserves echoes of a time when the abstract terms had come to be used
autonomously, as circumlocutions for a name that was now deemed to be too holy
for human lips. Keeping pace with rabbinic orthodoxy, which imagined God as
engaging in a permanent devolution of his sovereignty through his word and
wisdom, apostolic documents bestow these titles on the incarnate Christ. In him,
says Paul, dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2.8), though
the essence of God the Father remained unbounded. As the Word or Logos, Christ
is stated in the Fourth Gospel to have been theos from the beginning clearly in a
less contingent, but not perhaps in a less symbolic sense than that in which Moses
is declared in the Book of Exodus to have been made god to Pharaoh.17 No devout
Jew, of course, could have allowed that the Almighty could have delegated his
attributes so unreservedly to a single prophet; on the other hand, no heresy appears
to have been detected in the assertion of Jesus Sirach that his wisdom is embodied
in the law.18 At some time perhaps as early as the third century it became a
rabbinic commonplace that the glory of God, the Shekinah, had been scattered
among the nations by the exile and dispersion of the Jews19 Reading in the infallible
word of scripture that the patriarchs had both seen and heard the Lord, a number
of teachers postulated a form of God, an anthropomorphic vision of the invisible,
which made his will intelligible to mortals but was not to be confounded with his
essence.20 This, it would appear, was a sufficiently ancient notion to find a place in
one of the earliest meditations on the pre-existent Christ (Phil 2.512).
The first developments of Christian doctrine coincide with the age of the Tannaim,
the rabbis who took charge of Jewish life under the Roman domination. Their aim
was not to make converts but to teach Jews to be Jews, and until the compilation of
the Mishnah around 200 their sayings were perpetuated by an oral, and therefore
arcane tradition.21 Their teachings must therefore have remained unknown to the
majority of Gentiles, and once the Temple had been destroyed in 70 and the nation
of Israel broken in 135, the synagogues of the Diaspora, the expatriate population,
turned gradually into enclaves of the Law. The misanthropy of the Jews became
proverbial, and to Christians at least they were never friendly; as a convert, Origens
teacher may have incurred the maledictions of the Egyptian synagogues.22 Whether
he himself had been a rabbi we cannot say, nor whether he kept faith with his
ancestors by speaking Hebrew; we know that in the fourth century those Christians
who mastered this tongue were Palestinians either by origin or by adoption, and it
is possible that Origen, though his interest in the Old Testament was kindled in
Alexandria, commenced the study of Hebrew only after his migration to Caesarea.23
One thing is certain, whatever the course of his studies: although he was aware of
the Hebrew canon24 and restricted his own interpretative writings to its contents, he
continued to regard the Alexandrian Bible, the Septuagint, as the norm of
ecclesiastical theology.25 Even where he contends that certain passages now extant
only in Greek may have had a Hebrew archetype,26 he does not seem to assume that
the authority of the Greek would be contingent on the existence of the Hebrew, and
Kamesar is no doubt right to argue that he consulted the original with the object of
removing the obscurities and inconsistencies of the Septuagint.27
While subscribing to an expanded canon of the Old Testament,28 Origen was too
much a disciple of the New to countenance any unwritten increments to the ancient
15
legacy. For him there was no tradition of the elders, only the deposit of sacred
writings, with the Gospels, Acts, Epistles and Revelation as a supplement, for the
most part apostolical in provenance, which the Church agreed to deem authoritative.
Books that professed to be the occult (and therefore uncanonical) ebullitions of a
patriarch, a prophet or an apostle he was generally wont to handle with rabbinical
austerity. In the preface to his Commentary on the Song of Songs he deprecates the
reading of apocrypha,29 employing this term not in the modern pejorative sense
but with reference to the titles that were occasionally given to such works by those
who forged them. His own term for these spurious productions, deuteroseis, can
often stand in Greek for the tendentious paraphrases or rewritings of Old Testament
literature that the Jews called Midrash.30 Perhaps we should be less impressed by
Origens acquaintance with the vocabulary of Jewish exegesis than by his failure to
discriminate, as a rabbi would, between orthodox and heterodox experiments in
this vein. (An example of the former in Origens day would be Genesis Rabbah, of
the latter the Book of Jubilees. It is documents of the second class that Origen has
in mind though, with the precedent of Jude and the concurrence of Tertullian, he
admits the claims of Enoch.31) Whatever the idiosyncrasy that he brings to its
definition, scripture remains for Origen a fixed quantity, resisting oral or literary
accretion and containing all things needful for our salvation. It has still to be
interpreted of course, and since no individual can be trusted after the time of the
apostles, the interpreters task is either to defend the oecumenical consensus or,
where none exists, to create one of his own.
Chapter 4 addresses the modern complaint that Origen falsifies the scriptures by
his belated and capricious use of allegory to overrule the intentions of the author.
For the present it will suffice to remember William Sandays maxim that the
frequency with which a text sustains such machinations is a measure of its sanctity
in the eyes of those who read it.32 The pioneer of Biblical theology was Philo of
Alexandria, the only Jewish contemporary of the early Church who has left an
ample body of his own writings, and the one whose Judaism was most purely the
religion of a book. A figure of some eminence in his day, Philo wrote with animus
against Flaccus, a Roman governor who connived at a persecution of the Jews in
Alexandria, and, hoping to prevent the desecration of the temple in Jerusalem, he
captained an embassy to the Emperor Gaius. In Roman fashion the autocrat wished
to know nothing but why Jews did not eat pork, and it was only death that put an
end to his sacrilegious project. It is difficult to estimate the success of Philos
courtship of the world in another medium: his object, in a vast library of treatises
and homilies, was to demonstrate a harmony between the Jewish law and the moral
precepts of philosophy, thus vindicating his own faith, deepening that of his coreligionists and securing the respect of impartial Greeks.33 Nevertheless the label
Middle Platonist so frequently applied to him by those who, like the great
botanist Linnaeus, are unable to tolerate an unclassified specimen is infelicitous
in two respects. First, it often entails the generic attribution to Middle Platonism
of doctrines that are expounded for the first, or perhaps the only, time in Philo.
Secondly, it obscures the fact that the matrix of his thought was not the Platonic
corpus or any jewel of classical antiquity, but a family of documents that he read in
Greek because he had no Hebrew a Greek, as he must have known, that made no
effort to appease the taste of educated pagans. To Philo the encyclopaedic learning
16
of the nations was but the handmaid of a divinely-ordered wisdom;34 in a city of

philologists, the Torah was his palladium though one that he may have been more
eager to share than the Greeks to steal.
Thus he praises Plato because he takes him for a monotheist; he is not a monotheist
because of Plato. His confession that the word theos may be applied to beings other
than the Creator is not a capitulation to polytheism, but a candid assent to the
inspiration of passages that speak of a plurality of gods, or (as in Moses case) of
one man being made God to another.35 As an exegete he could not fail to be
troubled by such anomalies; as a philosopher he was bound to wonder how the
ubiquity, omnipotence and steadfastness of God could be reconciled with the
anthropomorphic traits ascribed to him in the Old Testament. These are questions
for any believer, not only for the Platonist; to treat them as by-products of a
particular intellectual conditioning is not to explain but to explain away. It is true
that Philo appropriates the idiom of the pagan schools, that problems which are
indigenous to the Jewish faith are framed in a language redolent of encyclopaedic
learning; the verbal dress, however, does not tell us how his questions originated,
let alone why he resolved them as he did. Students of Greek philosophy have
profited from Philos iteration of Pythagorean arguments in praise of the number
seven, but no one would suggest that he thought these a better certificate of its
holiness than the Jubilee Year, the Fourth Commandment and the inauguration of
the Sabbath in the opening chapter of Genesis.36 It is all the more remarkable, then,
that spectral antecedents are so often proposed for his doctrine of the Logos,
though if we judge by lexicography alone, it seems as fatherless and motherless as
the number seven itself.
The Logos, as the factotum of divine creation and government, is sometimes
represented in Philos writings as the eternal pattern in the mind of God; this, as we
see in Chapter 2, makes him comparable to the Forms in one legitimate variant of
the Platonic theory. Nevertheless we must ask why it is in this form by no means
the most primitive, the most specious or the most favoured in this period that the
theory has imposed itself on Philo. The answer is, of course, that he adhered to a
belief which, though occasionally serviceable to Platonists, was mandatory for
Jews the belief in a personal deity, at once benign and sovereign, who not only
wills but loves the world, and, if he will suffer any name, elects to be known as
Father and Creator. Philo would be conscious that he had met both terms in Plato,
but also that he had read them first in scripture; and in any case the Demiurge, as
father and creator of the generated universe in the Timaeus, would appear to be
not the author but an imitator of the unageing paradigm.37 As for the title Logos, it
has yet to be demonstrated that the Platonists ever used it to denote a peculiar organ
of the Demiurge or a mediator between the transcendent Godhead and the theatre
of the senses.38 Once again Philo needed to look no further than the opening
chapter of Genesis for the notion of creation through the Word, and it was certainly
not from Plato that he learned to characterize it by appellatives such as highpriest, first-begotten and son of God.39
Elsewhere, as here, the most innovative thoughts of Philo are authorized by
scripture and receive only the most perfunctory countersign from Greek philosophy.
His famous definition of God as he who is is derived from Exodus 3.14, a passage
which is still a crux for Hebraists, but is rendered in the Septuagint as eimi ho eimi,
17
What I am, I am.40 From these words, the Jewish philosopher argues, we deduce
that the essence of God is in his own keeping, that it remains inscrutable to all his
creatures, and that words are potent only to describe what he is not, not what he is.
This is the germ of the negative or apophatic theology which, though later refined
by Platonists with the instruments of a far more rigorous logic, is not securely
attested in any of Philos predecessors. Nor is pure being among the affirmative
predicates that Plato reserves for hegemonic and creative principles: the Demiurge,
as intellect, beholds the realm of essence, while the Good is raised to a higher
altitude. Where Philos thought seems most Greek in complexion, it is not because
he has superimposed the pedantry of Athens on the poetry of Jerusalem, but
because there is more homology than polarity between these neighbouring cultures.
Thus when he equated the cherubs guarding Eden with the lordship and the goodness
of God, he may have had an eye to the Aristotelian distinction between two species
of entelechy or perfection one the realized nature or actuality of a substance, the
other an operation characteristic of that nature. Yet even a candid exegete who had
never heard of Aristotle would notice that Elohim is the scriptural designation for
the benevolent creator, Yahweh for the triumphant Lord of Israel, the Septuagint
translating the first by theos and the second by kurios.41 Philo holds that human
speculations are endorsed in scripture, but only emblematically and only as
preliminaries to wisdom. Abraham was schooled in the lore of heaven by the
Chaldaeans who anticipated the interests of the Stoics, but it was when he quit that
land that he became the friend of God.42 Platos theory of the tripartite soul,
composed of reason, zeal and appetite, is accepted in the treatise On the Giants, but
only as the template for a fable in which the giants of Hebrew legend represent the
earthborn race who hunt the pleasures of the body, the sons of heaven are
devotees of encyclical education, sharp of wit but still bemused by secular
ambitions, and the sons of God are the prophets and priests who abjure all
worldly and sensual pursuits to live in perpetual contemplation of incorruptible,
incorporeal ideas.43
On the strength of the last phrase we might style this Platonism, yet philosophy
is relegated with all encyclical learning to the second class, and the allegory
purports to be derived from a threefold division of humanity in the Old Testament,
which antedates all Greek writing, and might even be regarded as the archetype for
two of Platos myths.44 The label Middle Platonist undoubtedly conceals the
originality of Philo, though most scholars would agree that this is greatly exaggerated
in Wolfsons Philosophy of the Church Fathers, which makes him the parent of
almost all the philosophy that found its way into Christian dogmatics. Although, as
David Runia has shown, the parallels between Philo and the Church Fathers are
abundant enough to fill a substantial volume, Christian writers after Clement seldom
avow his influence, which in many cases must have been oblique.45 In printed texts
of Origen the editorial apparatus suggests that he drew on Philo far more often than
he named him, but the possibility of coincident reasoning or the use of an intermediate
source cannot always be excluded. We can see and Wolfson himself proved this46
that Philos work is not an aberration in Judaism, that the Jew in his study was not
a different man from the Jew in the synagogue, and that if the teacher of Origen
was in any sense a disciple of Philo, his pupil may have received an education that
would have flattered a philosopher and satisfied a rabbi. If Philo is representative,
18
the conjunction of the didactic with the speculative mentality in the ancient world
gave rise to a strong conviction of Gods hiddenness, and a proportionately high
regard for scripture as the adumbration of his absent majesty. Study in Alexandria
led Origen to the Bible as a book which, like the mind of the Creator, could
embrace the thoughts of men without prejudice to its own authority, a book which
therefore functioned at the same time as an incontestable document of history, an
immutable guide to conduct and an inexhaustible reservoir of truth.
The Church in Alexandria
It may seem odd that Judaism should provide the overture to a survey of Origens
adolescent schooling, but if we follow the custom of treating facts before conjectures
there could hardly be any other starting point: Origens extant writings make no
mention of any tutor in Christian doctrine except for his Hebrew master. Porphyry
and Eusebius agree that he heard the lectures of Ammonius, a philosopher whose
identity is a topic for the next chapter. Eusebius, who ascribes to him a Harmony of
Jesus and Moses,47 may have taken him for the same Ammonius who designed a
rudimentary synopsis of the gospels:48
Ammonius the Alexandrian, having employed much industry and effort (as was proper) ,
has left us the fourfold Gospel, placing the corresponding passages of the other evangelists
beside the Gospel of Matthew, so that the continuous thread of the other three is
necessarily broken, preventing a consecutive reading I have taken my point of departure
from the work of the man already mentioned, but have followed a different method.
Once again we notice the supremacy of the philological method in Alexandria;49

we also see that Ammonius subscribed to the fourfold canon of the gospels. Neither
point should be overlooked in reviewing the work of Clement of Alexandria, whom
Eusebius affirms to have been Origens tutor and his precursor as head of the
Catechetical School in Alexandria.50 Doubts as to the existence of this school51
are not ill-founded if we take that word to mean an institution like a modern
university, with a precinct of fine buildings and a table of fixed emoluments for
professors. A school in the ancient world more often consisted of a self-appointed
pedagogue, a group of regular listeners, and a larger audience at occasional lectures.
If the teacher had a successor, he gained that post informally, perhaps having been
regarded as a colleague of his predecessor during the latters lifetime, and any
income that either received would result from a personal bargain with the clients.
The Catechetical School, if it is not a legend fathered by the retrospective assumption
that all teaching must take place within an authorized tradition, may have been a
private venture, though one assumes, in the light of its purpose, that it was too
benign to exact a private charge.
However they obtained their role, it is reasonable to imagine that the catechetes
were sponsored, with the sanction of the Church, by affluent Christians or by
popular subscription. An institution of some sort that would qualify adults for
baptism was an obvious necessity in a city where the baptism of infants was a rarity
as late as the year 300.52 And, though there is no sure record of a bishop in the city
19
before 200, and though the clergy are often thought to have looked on the Catechetical
School with fatherly consternation, the lessons of the school would have been of
little use unless they were designed to fulfil conditions that were uniformly imposed,
and hence imposed by the episcopate, on the administration of the baptismal water.
The notion of the Catechetical School as a hotbed of licentious preaching is another
modern chimera, and if it could be proved that some tradition had been handed on
to Origen by Clement, it would be wiser to adduce this as a proof of the orthodoxy
of the tradition than as a symptom of heterodoxy in the school. There is, as we have
noted, no corroboration in Origens works that he had been a pupil of Clement, but
perhaps the strongest evidence is that both wrote treatises with the unusual titles On
First Principles53 and Stromateis.54 Their only pagan namesakes, Longinus On
First Principles and the Stromateis of Plutarch, have perished, along with Clements
On First Principles and Origens Stromateis; nevertheless the coincidence of names
is striking enough to dispel all doubt that the younger Christian was conversant
with the writings of the elder.
It is all too common for Clements Stromateis to be regarded as his single work
of substance, and interpreted as a morganatic union between Dame Philosophy and
a beggarly handful of ecclesiastical platitudes. To many it seems that Clement is
proposing the cultivation of the intellectual virtues as an avenue to Christian
perfection, while reckoning the faith of the humble multitude, and the Bible on
which it rests, as barely adequate for salvation. It is said that, while he occasionally
professes to accept the ancient libel that the Gentiles stole their philosophy from
Moses, his real view is that God worked by a double dispensation, communicating
some truths to the Hebrew prophets and others to the Greeks. He is sometimes
thought to have been, if not a Platonist, an adherent of that sect which he himself on
one occasion styles eclectic, and whose teaching was an amalgam of serviceable
doctrines from the leading pagan schools. And since, it is alleged, he failed to
discover in these sources any plausible cognates of the Incarnation, the Passion, the
Atonement, the resurrection of the body or the second coming of Christ, the
president of the Catechetical School pays only superficial homage to these
fundamental tenets of the Church.
Few of these charges will survive inspection. Clement, supremely occupied as he
always is with the inner life, will not cease to incur the obloquy of clergymencommentators whose sole concern in reading his chapters on the eucharist, is to
find out how, by whom and on what day of the week the rite was celebrated in
Alexandria.55 Clement has no answer to such questions, and it is all to the good of
Christendom that most readers do not ask them. If it is necessary to be a Platonist to
hold that the real is the spiritual, then Paul was as much a Platonist as Clement. By
knowledge or gnosis, Clement did not mean the pursuit of a liberal education in
contempt of Biblical teaching and the inheritance of faith; rather he meant the study
of Christian doctrine and the scriptures with all the tools that could be supplied by
Gentile learning, in order that the doctrines might be better understood and the
commandments more perceptively obeyed.56 So he tells us plainly enough in the
fifth book of the Stromateis, where, in an argument that proved seminal for Augustine
and Cardinal Newman, he contends that knowledge itself must rest on faith. In the
same book he satirizes the quarrels of philosophers, and while he sees a parallel in
the Old Testament to the Pythagorean habit of secreting the most precious truths in
20
symbols, this is no proof of immediate inspiration; on the contrary, specimens of

Greek plagiarism are legion, as he proceeds to argue in a verbose, and frequently
inaccurate, dissertation.57 The flaws in his scholarship illustrate the strength of his
conviction, and only in the sixth book does he modify his thesis with the admission
that a handful of the Gentiles have been visited by the Spirit. These were not the
philosophers, but lonely vatic figures such as the Sibyl and Hystaspes the same
exceptions that had already been cited in the mid-second century by Justin Martyr
when he urged that whatever is true in Greek philosophy is traceable to theft.58
The passage that is thought to betray the eclecticism of Clement does not suggest,
when quoted at length, that he saw himself as the mouthpiece of a philosophic
trend:
There is one farmer who from the creation has sown the generative seeds in human soil,
the one who has sent the sovereign Word as rain in every season; but the seasons and
places that received it have engendered differences.59 To put it differently, the farmer
sows but preparation of the soil is also part of the same agriculture likewise not
only shepherding but ox-herding too, with all the arts of horse-rearing, dog-rearing and
beekeeping in a word, all herding and rearing of livestock differ in a greater or lesser
degree from one another, but are all beneficial to life. Now what I mean by philosophy is
not the Stoic, Platonic, Epicurean or Aristotelian, but whatever utterances of each of
these sects inculcate righteousness with reverent understanding: the whole of this eclectic
element I call philosophy. (Stromateis 1.37)
Clement has already explained that philosophy is a propaedeutic study, which

teaches us the mastery of the body and thus conduces to the apprehension of
wisdom. At its best it purifies the intellect and directs the understanding in its
search for the true philosophy (1.32). But encyclopaedic learning, with an undisguised
allusion to Philos treatment of the story of Hagar and Sarah, is the handmaid to the
wisdom of those who have been set free by Christ (1.301); the philosophy of the
world aspires to a goal that is realized only in the Teacher who declared, I am the
truth.60 Eclectic is not an adjective on all fours with Stoic or Platonist; it
designates no intellectual system that purports to answer all the most abstruse or
important questions.61 It rather appears to signify that element in philosophy which
is so much a consensus that it can reasonably be called technical, and treated, along
with sciences such as agriculture or medicine, as an ancillary to more noble or
more contentious speculations. The consensus among philosophers extended above
all to the moral principle that life should be devoted to the rational pursuit of a
wholesome end without regard to supernumerary goods or fugitive pleasures, and
perhaps also to certain axioms of logic such as Aristotles law of non-contradiction.
It therefore included matters that were germane to our existence in the present
world, but none with any bearing on theology, and none of Clements compliments
to philosophy suggest that he desired to create or fashion Christian dogma with its
tools.
The eight meandering books of his Stromateis were written to demonstrate that
the faith and practice of the finished Christian the Gnostic, as Clement calls him62
are compatible with the best that has been achieved or commended by the
philosophers. The result is simultaneously a petition on behalf of Christianity and
an apology to Christians for the cultivation of secular pursuits. The audience need
21
not be defined more narrowly, unless it is impossible for the same work to secure
the faith of intelligent believers and to disarm the ridicule of cultured pagans. Both
objectives can be sought, however, in a less eirenic manner, and the Protrepticus of
Clement is a lampoon on the religion of his times, inferior in wit and style but
comparable in content to the exquisite harangues produced by such contemporary
sophists (or showpiece orators) as Lucian and Philostratus.63 The difference is that
these men, being pagans, stopped before they had ceased to entertain their audience,
whereas Clement writes with the tedious pertinacity of a convert. He chooses to see
nothing in the pagan cults but a simple-minded practice of idolatry, assumes that
the licentious acts of the gods in myth and poetry are approved by all their
worshippers, and argues that the abominable trappings of the mysteries are sufficient
proof that edification cannot be found within.64 The work is generally counted as
an apology, but if apologetic is the means whereby a minority comes to terms
with its hostile milieu, the author of the Protrepticus was patently no artist in the
form.65
Was he a philosopher, as the Aristotelian title of the treatise seems to indicate?66
The Protrepticus applauds this class of men for knowing better than the majority,
only to convict them of pusillanimous complicity in the overthrow of reason and
human nature. Clement befriends philosophy, not philosophers, in the Protrepticus,
and not so much with the purpose of acculturation to the Roman world as to equip
himself with the weapons to resist acculturation. Having entered this gymnasium of
the intellect in youth, perhaps in Athens, he had found it to be capable of
strengthening but not of imparting virtue; to make use of its lessons, one must first
have set ones face against the sins and claudications of its unbaptized professors,
and in the present world this was impossible for those who shut their ears to the
word of God.
Each answering its purpose, the Stromateis proves the merits of philosophy and
the Protrepticus its shortcomings. The Paedagogus, or Schoolmaster, the only other
work of any length to have survived, is a treatise on Christian conduct which makes
rather more constructive use of pagan antecedents. This was no breach of faith with
the apostles, for the New Testament was frequently suspected, even in ancient
times, of raiding the lexicon of civic values when it laid down rules for intercourse
between Christians, or between Christians and the world. It would be rash to speak
at this stage of anything more than verbal affinity, as Greek and Jewish teachings
on morality were convergent, and in many cases might be said to express the
collective wisdom of humanity. Erudite Christians of the next few centuries, however,
found philosophy an arsenal of precepts on the ordering of communities and the
fashioning of character in the light of a chosen end. The collection of apophthegms
known as the Sayings of Sextus was already in Christian hands by the time of
Clement,67 and Justin was the prototype for many who praised the rectitude of the
Stoics while remaining ignorant or disdainful of their teachings in other areas of
philosophy. Clement did as almost every practical moralist does, whatever the
grounds of his own integrity: he appealed to common sense.
None of these three treatises by Clement is an essay in philosophical theology; it
is when they are least theological that they are most immersed in the philosophic
currents of the day. It was in order to row against those currents, or avoid them
altogether, that Clement equipped himself with the oars of logic in the eighth book
22
of the Stromateis, and when he invokes Pythagorean symbolism to justify his

decipherment of anthropomorphic passages in the Old Testament, he is choosing a
map but not a destination. When he concludes, in his discourse On the Salvation of
the Rich Man, that we have a right to our goods so long as we put them at Gods
disposal, he is not diluting the vigour of the gospel, but encouraging a conspicuous
philanthropy that was likely to win more converts in political society than an
outright distribution of ones fortune to the poor. The Christian of late antiquity,
being born into a world where civic loyalty was half of ones identity, fulfilled the
command to preach unto the nations by becoming an ambassador to his own city.
He did not forget that the city of Jerusalem was more sacred, and the city of God
more lasting, than the one in which he spent his earthly pilgrimage; but the custom
of munificence, like the language of philosophy, could be taken into counsel against
the avarice, pride and carnal mediocrity that cemented the infidel in his unbelief.
The strategy of such men as Clement prospered, for the public spirit of Christians
in the third century excited the respect and emulation of beholders, whereas the
courage of the second-century martyrs reaped no harvest but contempt.
A distinction, then, can be made in certain cases between the primitive content
and the prosthetic form; but can it be sustained when we find that cardinal Christian
tenets are alleged to be, not merely expressible in a Greek nomenclature, but
equivalent in substance to the postulates of some current Greek philosophy? The
most notorious case in Clement is probably his assertion that the world of ideas in
Plato is the Logos of the scriptures, who is also Jesus Christ the Word of God.68
Since the same position has been attributed to Origen, discussion of its veracity
may be postponed to the following chapter; true or false, it does not prove Clement
a Platonist where this term is an antonym to Christian. As Eric Osborn reminds
us, he would deserve the label only if he were to substitute the vocabulary of Plato
for that of scripture in passages which profess to expound the ecclesiastical doctrine
without the additional aim of juxtaposing it with the thought of pagan teachers.69 It
is one thing to say to Christians I find the term idea more significant than
Logos, another to court the Platonists by suggesting that they will gain some
understanding of the Logos if they reflect upon the functions of the idea. Instances
of the former type do not come to hand for those who wish to brand Clement as a
Platonist, for he never employs the term idea except when quoting or paraphrasing
the words of the Athenian philosopher. When we consider how far the works of
Plato exceed the letters of Paul in volume, Osborns calculation that the latter is
cited 1200 times in Clement and the former only 600 becomes an eloquent statistic.70
Early speculation on the Logos is apt to be regarded as Platonic or Platonizing
when it buries his humanity in his higher traits and contemplates him simply as the
architectonic principle of the cosmos or the disembodied voice of revelation.71 The
notion of a God who was also man, brought forth in squalor and put to death in
ignominy, was a perpetual stumbling block to the philosophers, and one of the
errors most frequently condemned in the age of Clement was docetism, which
admitted a real epiphany, but only in phantasmal flesh and blood. The heresy is
sometimes laid at the door of Clement himself because he seems to quote Valentinus
with approval when the latter denies that Christ endured the grosser operations of
the body:
23
Valentinus in his letter to Agathopous says that Jesus retained self-mastery in all that he
endured, he exercised his divinity, he ate and drank in a peculiar manner, not evacuating
what he consumed. Such was the power of his self-mastery that his food did not perish
inside him, as it was not in his own nature to perish. (Stromateis 3.7.59)
Here are the quaint beginnings of a line of thought that dominates Alexandrian
Christology throughout the patristic era, and which manifests itself again, for
example, in Origens teaching that the body of Christ was free from sexual passions.72
If, however, we use the term docetic in this connection, we should be conscious
that we are giving a much wider extension to it than the ancients, for whom it
connoted only a strict denial of the flesh, but not of everything that happens to be a
concomitant of the flesh in its present state. Even those early Christians who, like
Clement, had no strong sense of a Fall held that the properties of the flesh had been
depleted by our sins, and that only the resurrection could restore to it the glory that
belongs to it as the final work of God. The most celebrated instances of Christs
eating in the gospels take place after the resurrection, when everyone would agree
that he had attained at least the condition of being equal to the angels which is
promised to the elect in the kingdom of heaven. Even during his ministry in
Palestine, his forty days of fasting in the wilderness reveal that food was not so
necessary to his constitution as to ours.73 As we shall observe, there was some
contention in Clements time as to whether Christ assumed the psychic flesh that
all men receive from Adam or the spiritual flesh of the resurrection; even those who
held the first position, on the grounds that only such a psychic Christ would be
truly human, would not have taught that the measure of humanity is the despotism
of the alimentary canal.
The human Christ will surely have been more prominent in Clements annotations
to the gospels, which formed part of his lost Hypotyposes or Outlines of the Faith.74
Once again the title has a forerunner in the work of a recent Platonist, Albinus, but
the contents offered no shock to orthodoxy, then or now. In fact, if we may trust the
Latin paraphrase of Cassiodorus, Clement was the earliest theologian to pronounce
that the Second Person of the Trinity is strictly coeternal with the First:75
That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we
have heard [1 John 1.1]. In accordance and in keeping with the Gospel according to
John, this letter also contains a spiritual principle. Thus when it says from the beginning,
the elder expounded76 it in this way, that the origin of his generation is not separated
from the origin that is [or maybe is in] the Creator. For when it says from the beginning,
it alludes to the generation without beginning of the Son who exists coevally with the
Father That the Word existed always is what it indicates by saying The Word was in
the beginning [John 1.2].
This is the doctrine preached in Alexandria by the bishops of the fourth century,
and which after a tortuous struggle overcame the rival teaching (also fostered in
Alexandria) that the pre-existent Christ is not eternal, and is as properly styled a
creature as the Son. Origen is generally held to have been the first exponent of the
orthodox position, but the case against the priority of Clement rests on a single
piece of late and hostile evidence. The patriarch Photius, writing in the ninth
century, condemns him in his Library of excerpts and synopses for declaring that
24
the paternal mind (patrikos nous) is not identical with the emergent Word (logos
prophorikos), and understanding the second of these locutions as a Christological
title, accuses him of making Christ posterior to God.77 He knew that certain apologists
of the second century spoke of two successive phases in the pre-existence of the
Saviour: first the immanent reason, the logos endiathetos, of the Father, then a
discrete projection, the logos prophorikos, who gives utterance to the logos
endiathetos as speech expresses thought. Finding the second of these expressions in
Clement, he attached the same meaning to it, and inferred that the Alexandrian,
unlike his predecessors, had affirmed two logoi rather than two phases in the
history of one. But in fact this busy polymath appears to have been misled by a
cursory reading of the following words in the Stromateis, where Clement, using
ordinary Greek and not the idiom of the apologists, is tacitly rebuking those who
rob Christ of his identity and reduce him to an adjunct of the Father by construing
his title Logos as a synonym for the verbal utterance (logos prophorikos) of a
human subject:78
The one who gave us a share in being and life has also given us a share in logos, wishing
us at the same time to live rationally and well. For the logos of the Father of all is not this
prophorikos logos, but is the most manifest wisdom and goodness of God, an almighty
power indeed and truly divine, nor is it incomprehensible even to unbelievers, being the
will of the Almighty (Stromateis 5.6.3).
Redundant as this admonition may be for a modern reader, or for the wellgroomed audience of the Byzantine patriarch, it did not seem so to Origen, who
puts the case more forcibly in his Commentary on John. He and Clement faced a
common enemy, known to heresiologists as monarchianism, which was so reluctant
to compromise the unity of the Godhead that it left no ground for any but a
functional distinction between the Father and the Son. In common with their
contemporaries, Tertullian in Africa and Hippolytus in Italy, Origen and Clement
upheld the paradox of coeval difference in coeval unity at a time when the most
illustrious communities, those of Rome and Asia Minor, licensed teachings that
were barely distinguishable from monarchianism. For all four authors the hammer
of the monarchians was the gospel of John, a text which, though it was now
canonical everywhere, had served as a talisman for every species of Egyptian
Christianity at a time when it was unquoted, perhaps unknown, in the other
cantons of the faith.
This brings us to the question of Clements Bible. Although he is the first
Christian known to have spoken of a canon and a New Testament, it is possible that
neither of these expressions bears the same sense in his writings as in later Christian
usage. Ecclesiastical Canon was the title of a lost work which was also called
Against the Jews, and therefore may have been a Christian glossary to the Old
Testament in the manner of Justins Dialogue with Trypho.79 As for his New
Testament, he certainly endorsed the canonical gospels, but what are we to say of
his appeals in the Stromateis to a Preaching of Peter and his espousal of a secret
Gospel of Mark, which he believed to be a superior version of the canonical one,
bequeathed by the evangelist to the Alexandrian Church?80 The latter, to judge by
the few surviving fragments, was either the archetype of our Johannine Gospel or a
25
contamination of this with the canonical Mark; in either case it falls into that
category of apocrypha which Origen warned his readers to avoid. The Preaching of
Peter was evidently related to the Doctrine of Peter, deprecated in Origens On
First Principles as a book that did not carry the authority of scripture in any
catholic congregation; we have no reason to doubt that it was identical with a work
that had already been proscribed in Antioch by Bishop Serapion, whose name
seems to bespeak an Egyptian origin.81 Here at least it seems that Clement set a
liberal precedent that Origen did not elect to follow.
Origen was certainly less willing to consult arcane traditions, but the heterodoxy
of his predecessor must not be exaggerated. It is harder than some historians
imagine to construct an authors canon from his citations: Eusebius, for example,
can transcribe what he believes to be a letter from Christ to King Abgar of Edessa
without proposing to include it in his New Testament, and even in the fourth
century, the Assumption of Moses, never part of the Septuagint, could be employed
against a bewildered Arian. The adversaries of Clement were also the adversaries of
the Gallic bishop Irenaeus, who around 180 proclaimed it as an obvious truth that
the gospels cannot be more or less than four.82 Even the heresiarch Tatian, working
in Edessa a decade earlier, had omitted Peters testimony from his harmony of the
gospels, generally called the Diatessaron.83 Serapion was asked only to adjudicate
on the reading of the Gospel of Peter in Antioch, and as the Muratorian fragment
indicates, the reading of a volume, whether in public or in private, might be
encouraged even when it was not within the canon, just as a difficult book like
Revelation might be received yet not employed in public lessons.84 Scrupulous
writers after the closure of the New Testament canon were not afraid to quote
certain agrapha, or unwritten sayings of Jesus, and it was therefore not a breach
of catholicity in Clement to make use of Peters gospel though it was an indiscretion
when, as Origen reveals, the text had been a fishery for teachers of false religion in
Alexandria. The line between the apocryphal and the canonical, between authority
and speculation, was more permeable in Clement than in Origen, but it was not a
different line.
Whether Clement was the teacher of Origen is a question that we could not
determine even if we knew what we meant by asking it. We can, however, regard
him as an eminent representative of the church that suckled Origen in his Alexandrian
boyhood. This church inherited canons both of scripture and of doctrine, but it also
bred theologians who desired to improve the legacy by crowning faith with
knowledge. In the pursuit of system, a measure of linguistic innovation was
unavoidable, while philosophy supplied not only a nursery of clarity and rigour, but
a paradigm for the marriage of theology with life. No addition or alteration to the
primitive deposit was envisaged by Clement, any more than by Origen: they set out
to equip the faith with its own philosophy, not to borrow one from Aristotle, Plato
or the Stoics. For Clement, as for Origen after him, apostolic teaching was the
spring of all legitimate inquiry; if this was not coterminous with the writings of the
New Testament, the residue was in the keeping of the entire community in Alexandria,
and the pilot in these waters was not free to choose his own star.
26
Christian Heterodoxy in Alexandria

I remarked above on the absence of firm evidence for an episcopate in Alexandria
up to the time of Clement. To be sure, Eusebius flatters the see with a list of
supposed incumbents from the advent of St Mark, but as the names are only names,
unattested elsewhere and unaccompanied here by dates or circumstantial details, it
was not unfair of Walter Bauer to suggest that the list is a catholic invention to
conceal a vacant archive. Yet relics of second-century Christianity in Egypt are not
wanting, whether we seek them in the mountain of papyri brought to light by
twentieth-century excavations or in the invectives of the heresiologists, who represent
the province as the cradle of the most seductive errors. From that day to this Basilides,
Valentinus, Isidorus, Ptolemaeus85 and Heracleon have been quintessential heretics
in all manuals of doctrine; sometimes it is urged that their views are proved to have
been sectarian even in Egypt by the frequency with which extracts from the scriptures,
the Old Testament as well as the New, appear among the papyri. The truth, however,
is that sects and heresies take their origin from scripture no less frequently than the
orthodox and catholic systems do; what we know of these early theologians may
not amount to a vindication of their teaching, but it proves (as might be expected)
that the Alexandrian Bible was their instrument of persuasion, if not the foundation
of their beliefs. Indeed a more prolonged and dextrous wrestling with the difficulties
of the sacred text is evident in the fragments of their writings than in the documents
which survive from any other part of Christendom at this date.
In the service of a body that had already, in other quarters, proclaimed itself the
catholic Church, Clement hurled the most polemical chapters of the Stromateis at
the elder generation of these teachers, while Origen took some pains in the refutation
of their putative successors. Nevertheless it would be rash to deny that the opinions
of Basilides, Heracleon and their like could have shaped the thinking of their
critics, or to asseverate that they could have shaped them only by contradiction.
Speculative experiments are not heresies until they are refuted, and the refutation is
frequently the catalyst that precipitates orthodoxy. Docetism in Asia Minor forced
Ignatius into a loud confession of the unity of God and man in Jesus; Justin
Martyrs Apology to the pagan world is coloured by a desire to rebut the falsehoods
propagated by his countryman Simon Magus; it was in response to the Valentinian
teaching on the Fall (a hitherto neglected tenet) that Irenaeus undertook an essay in
theodicy which has since become a jewel of catholic literature. Occasionally
victorious Churchmen carried home the language of their adversaries, as when
Tertullian countered the monarchians by adopting the Valentinian neologism probole
to indicate the manner of Christs procession from the Father. Tertullians maxim
was to take the word and eschew the doctrine, but the two were not so easily
severed in territories where the reprimanded teachings had prevailed before an
ecclesiastical norm came into force. The tumult of conjectures that is now called
Gnosticism may be seen as an evil leaven in Egyptian Christianity, but a scholar
who omits them from a study of Origens Alexandrian background will be making
bread without yeast.
The first great name is that of Basilides, who is also perhaps the earliest theologian
to make use of the Gospel of John. The date that is generally given for his floruit,
AD 120, coincides roughly with that assigned to the most ancient surviving relic of
27
this gospel, the Rylands Papyrus. Christians in other regions were familiar with the
application of the title Logos to the Saviour, and with the Johannine representation
of the Spirit as a wind that blows invisibly where it will. But dogma remained
indifferent to Johns narrative, with its cardinal theme of Sonship first as the
only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, then in descent from heaven
to earth as Son of Man, and lastly in the paradoxical glory of the crucifixion, in
order that by this consummation of filial obedience he might draw all men unto
him and make them sons of God.86 This is the motif at the core of Basilides
allegory of the triple filiation, which, as reported in Hippolytus Refutation of all
Heresies, runs as follows. Above all worlds and beyond all ages sits the inscrutable
God, of whom no predicate is truer than its opposite, so that even the negation of
every predicate would be a false attempt to circumscribe the illimitable. While this
God cannot be properly said to exist, he is none the less the father of all existent
things, his first creation being the panspermia or collection of seeds from which the
realms of matter and of spirit are both destined to evolve. The latter is the first to be
populated, as the first and second of the three sonships (huioteis) which were latent
in the panspermia detach themselves and join the ineffable father above the
firmament. The firmament itself is brought into being in the course of this liberation,
for the pneuma or spirit accompanies the ascent of the second sonship, but is
detained at a lower altitude, where it spreads itself as a curtain between the upper
and nether worlds. Beneath the spirit lies the eightfold sphere or Ogdoad, consisting
of the earth with its seven planets; its overlord the Great Archon, who proclaims
that he is a jealous god and thinks himself the only one, is evidently the Yahweh of
the Jews. The sublunar domain belongs to the Second Archon, who as prince of the
air would seem to be the devil of the New Testament. Each begets a son who is
superior to himself, and beneath all four the third of the original sonships occupies
the nadir of the universe, which astronomy in this period declared to be the earth.
Can anything be made of this that would satisfy a Christian? As a literal
cosmogony, which subordinates the Biblical God to the Spirit and two supramundane
powers, it is clearly insupportable; but as it has all the trappings of an allegory, it
can be construed, in accordance with the literary conventions of this period, as a
parabolic history of redemption. The Gospel of John suggests an interpretation for
all three sonships: as Son of God, the Saviour dwells on the highest plane in the
bosom of the Father; as Son of Man he is lifted up and foretells his own ascension;
as the Son incarnate he performs the Fathers bidding under the tyranny of Gentiles
and the obloquy of Jews. On earth he is fortified by the descent of the Holy Spirit,
while from heaven he sends the same Spirit as the Paraclete to comfort the elect: no
wonder then that the Spirit is imagined in this myth as a divisor between his
heavenly and his earthly apparitions. So far the Gospel of John alone will take us,
and then another apostle must be our guide: the oppressors of the third sonship are
symbolically depicted as the Law and the devil because it is implied in the letters of
Paul that they conspired to crucify the Lord of glory. As the children of these
traitors, Jews and Gentiles are doomed to linger in bondage to the elements unless,
sustained by the Son in his humility and watered from above by the Holy Spirit,
they can rise above their schooling and become members of the filial elect.
Of course this exegesis is conjectural, but the ubiquitous aroma of the scriptures
in this narrative surely intimates that scripture is the key. Hippolytus caricature of
28
Basilides as an Aristotelian rests upon a spurious equation of his non-existent deity

with the god of Aristotles Metaphysics. The latter, as a mind which has no content
but its own thinking and is thus not circumscribed, as other minds are, by the
objects of its thought, is incomprehensible to the finite intellect; but even if he can
be defined only as the thought of thoughts, it remains true that he exists and is the
subject of affirmative predications. Hippolytus accusation therefore has no value
except to expose the invidious consequences of the dogma that every heresy proceeds
from sources foreign to the Christian tradition. There is little more substance in the
modern theory that Basilides was a Platonist. Its principal exponent, Gilles Quispel,
assumes that a brand of Platonism derided as the invention of new men in the late
third century was current at the beginning of the second, and that the Biblical
locutions were injected into the myth by a supervenient Christian influence.87
Quispel admits, in a fine example of litotes, that the ideas of filiality in Basilides
are not exactly Platonic ideas;88 but the critical objection to all such truffle-hunting
is that it contents itself with the exhumation of sources, real or imagined, and does
nothing to interpret what it finds.
On one point, if our witnesses can be trusted, there is undeniable evidence of
traffic between Basilides and the Platonists. Both he and his son Isidorus are
alleged to have taught the transmigration of souls from body to body, and to have
urged, as a palliation of Gods dealings with the innocent, that the wrongs inflicted
on Christians by the rulers of the present world are an expiation of sins committed
in a previous life.89 This theory involves two premisses that the martyr is superior
in integrity to his judges, and that God can be held accountable for all the
incongruities in the physical creation to which no pagan thinker of this period
would have subscribed. The doctrine of transmigration, though it was known to
have been held by great philosophers, is adopted here not on philosophical grounds,
but as the solution to a difficulty which would not have troubled anyone but a
Christian. We may add that the detractors of Basilides Clement and Origen
among them are not above all suspicion. They make him contradict his own
theodicy when they charge him with the belief that human souls were formerly
resident in animals, for whom sin could have no meaning; they sink to calumny
when they accuse him of maintaining that only the wicked suffer martyrdom and
that others are entitled to escape by denying Christ. Equally discreditable to Clement
are the circumstantial accounts of midnight debauchery, infanticide and sexual
promiscuity which he publishes in the third book of the Stromateis.90 In the ancient
world defamation can be vigorous even when it is unfounded, and it appears that
Clement, not content to tax the great heresiarch with pandering to apostasy, has
diverted against his followers the lies that had been fomented in a previous generation
to furnish pretexts for both popular and imperial assaults upon the Church.
It is possible that Basilides styled himself a Gnostic.91 In classical Greek the
term gnostikos is an adjective which means concerned with knowledge and cannot
function without a noun. In the early second century it learns to stand alone as an
adjectival noun, but only in Christian usage; pagan use is almost always an echo of
the Christian application, which is far more parsimonious than twentieth-century
scholarship has been disposed to admit. Serving at first to qualify a small group of
sects or movements, it was a name, not an incriminating sobriquet. The prosecutor
never says, They call themselves Christians, but I call them Gnostics. He sometimes
29
says, They call themselves Gnostics, but I prefer a more truthful appellation.92
Outside Alexandria it is always a party label, and among the orthodox it is used,
like socialist in a modern English parliament, to define, if not to condemn, beliefs
that are only held elsewhere. Clement marks an exception, which was not imitated
for centuries even in his native city: gnostic for him, like liberal in English
politics, functions simultaneously as the title of a small party and as a commendatory
epithet which almost any parliamentarian borrows at some time to characterize his
own position. The content of the knowledge that was claimed by the first pretenders
to the term gnostikos is not defined by any ancient source, and there is little to
support the modern theory that it implied the unmediated vision of things divine
and supernatural. Perhaps the knowledge consisted above all in the ability to
discern the latent sense of ancient scriptures, with a complementary skill in the
construction of new narratives that demanded an equally proficient reader. For
Clement, as we have seen, the gnostic Christian is not simply a believer with a
liberal education, but one in whom this education quickens his understanding of
revealed truth, thereby making him a better servant of God and of the Christian
commonwealth.
In partisan usage, outside Alexandria at least, the word gnostikos connotes above
all obscurity and a riotous miscegenation of images drawn from the Bible, pagan
myth, Platonic allegory and the foul abysses of the imagination. Irenaeus summarizes
an archetypal treatise of the Gnostics which, whatever its original form, is evidently
the one that has come to light in the twentieth century under the title Apocryphon of
John.93 The three surviving versions, all in Coptic and all perhaps dating from the
fourth century, differ widely, but are clearly redactions of the same rendering from
a Greek original. This suffices to prove the elasticity of tradition and the popularity
of the text in Egypt; its provenance and date of composition nonetheless remain
impossible to determine, and the heresy of the Gnostics, strictly so called, is still a
beast without a head. Modern histories tell us that the most zealous propagator of
Gnostic tendencies in Egypt was a younger contemporary of Basilides, Valentinus;94
ancient sources in fact do not portray him as a Gnostic, but as the heir of Gnostics,
and as the sire of a brood of heretics who in their turn became heresiarchs.95 We
must speak with some reserve, because most of our information comes from sources
who are preoccupied with epigonal characters Ptolemaeus, Heracleon, Theodotus
and who pay at best scant regard to any differences between their thoughts and
those of the more notorious offender. The nature and gravity of his offence remain
uncertain: a new generation of scholars, spurning every testimony not underwritten
by the name of Valentinus, acquits him of almost all the major heresies that have
been imputed to him and denies him a leading role in the fabrication of the great
myth which has hitherto been regarded as the diadem of Valentinian gnosis.
Doubts were first excited by the discovery of a cache of Coptic documents at Nag
Hammadi in Egypt.96 The codices, which papyrologists date to the mid-fourth
century, are once again translations from Greek texts of uncertain date, and include
two versions of the Apocryphon of John. Others bristle with Gnostic symbolism
and bear titles known to be those of Gnostic works; the myths that they preserve do
much to corroborate the polemics of ecclesiastical writers. Yet those most plausibly
attributed to the school of Valentinus contain no blatant heresies, though they are
florid in diction, hostile to the present age and somewhat chary of the name of
30
Christ. Since the Fathers must have had a reason for attaching the names of later
men to that of Valentinus, it may be that these were followers who exaggerated the
less conventional features of his doctrine, thus weaning it from heterodoxy to
heresy; or it may be that he held both an esoteric and an exoteric doctrine, the latter
of which survives at Nag Hammadi while the former was made public, with malign
intent, by Irenaeus, Hippolytus and other apologists for the catholic order. However
unreliable their accounts may be and the variations prove that they cannot all
have been derived from Valentinus at first hand it is the heresiologists, not the
Nag Hammadi Codices, who determine the meaning of the term Valentinian for
contemporaries of Origen. The Nag Hammadi Codices, which bear witness to the
tenacity of deviant Christianity in Egypt, will continue to tax the industry of
scholars, but for our purposes the man must be permitted to recede behind the
myth.
This myth, as rehearsed by the ancient heresiologists Irenaeus and Hippolytus,
runs as follows. From the Abyss, or Buthos, which veils the inscrutable Father,
there emerged first Sige (Silence), then a pair or syzygy of linked immortals, Nous
and Aletheia Mind and Truth. From these proceeded a second pair, Logos and
Zoe Word and Life and from them a third, Anthropos and Ecclesia Man and
Church. In this speculation we recognize at once the debt to John, whose gospel
promised life to everyone who receives the incarnate Word; no less obvious is the
debt to Paul, who longed to see his Church maturing into the form of a perfect man.
The coupling of mind and truth is a Platonic commonplace, though perhaps it is
only an accident that no instance of it occurs in our New Testament; we should note
that the partner of Aletheia is also styled Monogenes, a Johannine title meaning
either unique or only-begotten, which would seem to intimate that the first
emanation is the Logos who accompanies the Father in the first verse of Johns
Gospel, and therefore that the distinction in the myth between Nous, Logos and
Anthropos is merely titular. However this may be, the seven emissions and the
Father constitute the Ogdoad, and this in turn completes the Pleroma (fullness) of
the Godhead by bringing forth as many as thirty aeons. Here we cannot fail to
detect an echo of Pauls testimony that Christ appeared in the fullness of the ages,
and no doubt this is the same fullness which, according to the Apostle, dwelt
bodily in Christ.97
The lowest of the aeons is Sophia or Wisdom, who belies her name by committing
the first transgression and thus bringing about a schism in the Godhead. We find no
unanimity in our sources as to the causes of her fall. Irenaeus makes her the last of
thirty, Hippolytus the last of twenty-eight. The former says that she tried to create a
child in emulation of the Father and without her masculine spouse Thelema or Will,
but could only spawn a grotesque abortion; the latter makes the abortion a causal
outcome of an immoderate desire to know the Father in his unfathomable solitude.98
The first case may be compared with numerous instances of calamitous
parthenogenesis in Greek myth, while the second, as many scholars have remarked,
is the sin of Eve. While the offence may differ, the remedy is common to both
accounts: the aeons are protected in their sublime impassibility by a boundary or
Horos, which also bears the appellation Stauros, meaning Cross. Here it seems
that the Valentinian school concurred in adopting a motif that can only originate
with Paul: the Cross which temporarily divided the flesh of the Saviour from his
31
spirit is the folly of God which overthrows the wisdom of the world and casts a
stumbling-block before Jew and Greek alike.99
Sophia experiences the four Stoic passions sorrow, fear, desire and rage and
penitence forces tears which form the deliquescent substrate known as matter.100
The abortion or ektroma the word is the one that Paul applies to himself before
conversion101 begets the Demiurge, a being of psychic rather than spiritual
substance, who although not strictly evil lacks the knowledge of his superiors, and
sets about turning the material realm into an image of the pleroma which he
himself knows only by a vestigial memory. Marrying the name of Platos creatorgod to the character of Yahweh, he proclaims There is no other God beside me as
he fashions the planets to oppress the body and fathers the psychic race which
venerates nothing but the heavens and the Law. If Psychic means to the Valentinians
what it means to Paul, the adepts of the Demiurge are not pure souls but beings who
possess a soul and body without the spirit. Nevertheless, where Paul appears to
treat psychic and sarkic, ensouled and enfleshed, as synonyms, the Valentinian
myth divides the mortal realm into three groups the material or hylic (also
called the earthly or choic), the animal or psychic and the spiritual or pneumatic.
The last are the elect, begotten by Sophia through the secret impregnation of the
Demiurge; in this event she is masculine and he feminine, since the lower is always
feminine in relation to the higher. According to ecclesiastical witnesses, the
assignment of humanity to the hylic, psychic or pneumatic category is predestined;
the Nag Hammadi Codices do not bear out this charge, and even hostile sources
add that the psychic man, the catholic Christian, is capable of becoming a pneumatic.
As the adjective hylic implies the possession of a body without a soul, we must
assume that anyone who falls into this class is either a corpse or a person who
evinces the signs of life but is dead within.
We may note two capital differences between the story told in the Apocryphon of
John and the myth recited by the critics of Valentinus: there is not such a plethora
of emanations, and matter is not brought into being, but coeternal with and
antipathetic to the Godhead. As to the first, there is evidence of a superfetation of
aeons in the half-century or so that seems to separate the Apocryphon from the time
of Irenaeus. Even Valentinus is said to have envisaged a Tetrad rather than an
Ogdoad, and modern scholars have argued that Sophia was originally the consort of
the inexpressible Father.102 If that is so, she was displaced in the Apocryphon by the
aeon Barbelo, whose name is perhaps an echo of the Hebrew phrase that means in
the beginning. The verses that follow these words in Genesis can be construed to
signify that matter antedated the creation, so that the spirit of God already found
the earth without form and void.103 This is the presupposition of the Gnostics
strictly so called, and in their version of the myth Sophia does not generate matter,
but falls into it or at least inclines towards it. The tractate Zostrianus from Nag
Hammadi asserts that she was embroiled by her own reflection, by the shadow of a
shadow.104 The original of this text was familiar in the mid-third century to
Plotinus, who not only supplies a corroborative epitome of the myth in one of his
treatises but implies, when he says that the Gnostics are his former friends whom
he cannot take to task without compunction, that he first made their acquaintance at
the school of his master Ammonius in Alexandria.105 It has often been suggested
that Plotinus thought matured through this exchange of hostilities with his erstwhile
32
colleagues,106 and that in opposing them he was announcing his own defection
from their circle. Whether this is true or not, it would clearly not be fanciful to
suppose that Clement and Origen may have learnt as much from Alexandrian
heterodoxy as candid thinkers are wont to learn from the conversation of intellectual
neighbours who are also adversaries.
Notwithstanding the closeness of the Gnostics to Plotinus and some striking
reverberations of Platonic myth in that of the Valentinians, there is less than half a
truth in Harnacks dictum that the teachings are an acute Hellenization of
Christianity. Most scholars see that the cradle of Sophia is the canonical Book of
Proverbs, which personifies the creative wisdom of God in Chapter 8 and in the
next contrasts the wisdom which is imparted by the Torah with the follies of youth
and passion. I have noted elsewhere the importance of the Septuagintal Wisdom of
Solomon, and have likened the relation between Sophia and her abortion to that
between the two images of Israel as bride of Yahweh and harlot of the nations
which are constantly played off against one another in the prophets. The Demiurge
is the symbol of the idolaters who are mocked by Jeremiah and Isaiah; but the Jews
are now ensnared by their own polemics, for when Paul denounces the worship of
the weak and beggarly elements in his letter to the Galatians (4.9), he is pointing
not only to the Godless heavens of the Gentiles but to the graven characters of the
Mosaic Law.107 The word Ogdoad would connote, to a studious reader of the
Bible, both the Sabbath on which the innocent will rest in God and the complement,
or pleroma, of those who were saved in the ark of Noah.108 If a further allusion to
the Egyptian pantheon at Hermopolis is intended,109 it will reinforce the lesson that
the spirit cannot rest in the visible heavens or in any human concept of the Deity;
the Godhead in its totality, as the Gnostics understand it, is the fulfilment of the
ages, the consummation of wisdom and the plenum of the saints.110
If we could be certain that its contents are indigenous to Judaism, the medieval
Cabbala could be quarried for examples of the teaching that the same principle can
be masculine in relation to those beneath it and feminine in relation to those above.
One Cabbalistic doctrine which undoubtedly has its roots in Jewish reflection on
the Torah states that God, in his lower aspect, has the form of a man combining
male and female; even during the Babylonian Exile he was revealed in the form of
the similitude of a man to the prophet and priest Ezekiel, and another priestly
writer declares in Genesis 1 that man was created male and female in the image of
God.111 Philo and a number of orthodox rabbis had inferred that Adam himself was
a masculo-feminine being before the discrimination of the sexes,112 while a
Cabbalistic source equates the bisexual embodiment of humanity with the likeness
that was promised, but is not said to have been bestowed, in the original creation.
There may be a reminiscence of these notions in Philippians 2.59, where Christ is
said to have subsisted initially in the morphe or form of God; some rumour of them
had certainly reached the author of the Apocryphon of John, who depicts the
spiritual Adam as the mundane reflection of the sublime Anthropos. It is not the
proper nature of this incorporeal being to be entangled in the elements, and his
body is the work of jealous archons in alliance with the Demiurge; he owes his
animation, on the other hand, to a stealthy insufflation from Sophia.113
Even in this dualistic accretion there is a trace of Biblical teaching. In the
Wisdom of Solomon we are reminded that at birth we are helpless creatures, unable
33
to stand or speak without the discipline of wisdom; it is this same Wisdom, a mirror
of the Creator, who intervenes to enable privileged men like Lot and Noah to evade
the consequences of his general wrath.114 Only Biblical sources can account for the
conflation of the fall with the benevolent operation of divine wisdom and the
creation of humanity in Gods image. Certainly there is one text, the Poimandres
ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus (the Egyptian Thoth), which relates that the present
world came into being when the heavenly Anthropos, image of God and archetype
of the human race, was enticed into the underlying waters by the beauty of his
reflection;115 but the Poimandres is a work of uncertain date, and, while its title
seems to be of Egyptian provenance, Jewish traits have been discerned in it by
reputable scholars,116 and it is certainly in large part a rewriting of the Mosaic
cosmogony. It would be difficult to deny that the fall of Adam has a pivotal role in
Christian theodicy which was seldom allotted to it in rabbinic or other Jewish
speculations, and this peculiarity of Christian thought is rightly traced to Paul.
Nevertheless it was of little moment to ecclesiastical spokesmen in the century
between Paul and Irenaeus, even those who, like Tatian or Theophilus, laid some
stress upon the doctrine of creation. The return in Irenaeus to Pauls antithesis
between Christ and Adam was prompted by the Valentinian doctrine that creation is
itself a fall, the sequel to an irreversible rupture in the Godhead. The Christian
retort is that the fall, whatever it was, occurred inside the material order, not in the
transition from spirit to matter; a corollary is that salvation does not do away with
matter, but reclaims it and restores it through the embodiment of Christ.
How much of this debate reached Origens ears we cannot say. Neither he nor
Clement takes any notice of the Valentinian myth which must by then have been
notorious perhaps because they regarded it as a meretricious veneer for propositions
which the masters had divulged with greater clarity to their Alexandrian pupils. In
the treatise On First Principles, which Origen composed in Alexandria as a handbook
to the orthodox interpretation of scripture,117 Origen attacks the Valentinians by
name, and seems to deal a tacit blow against them when he distinguishes three
categories of wisdom: the wisdom of the world, which makes an idol of the tangible
and fleshly; the wisdom of the princes of this world, whom Origen takes to be the
inventors of the useful arts and sciences; and the wisdom of Christs people whose
only study is the route to heaven.118 The first class, like the Valentinian hylics, may
be incorrigible; the second, like the psychics, have an inkling of the truth. Rejecting
the determinism commonly imputed to Valentinus, Origen insists that we become
members of one tribe or another by the exertion of our own free will.119 I argue in
Chapter 3 that his views on the pre-existence of the soul and on the fall of Adam are
not so far from those of Irenaeus as is generally imagined; here I propose that the
belief in the redemption of the body through the bodily manifestation of the
Saviour is one in which he had been anticipated by the heretics of Alexandria.
Christological Considerations
Hippolytus, who took over from Irenaeus the role of grand inquisitor in the early
third century, reports a bifurcation in Valentinian Christology. He adduces Pauline
terms, and I have suggested that they bear a Pauline sense; Hippolytus, however,
34
insinuates that by a spiritual body the heretics always mean a body composed of
spirit, and by a psychic body a naked soul. Even his Alexandrian co-religionists
give the lie to this, for the Excerpts from Theodotus made by Clement credit this
leader of the eastern school with a number of Valentinian traits, but not with a
denial of Christ incarnate. God incarnate, indeed, he could not affirm, for while,
like other Valentinians, he speaks of a proliferation of aeons in the Godhead, he is
enough of a monarchian to deny that any fragment of the Godhead could descend
to earth and effect a union with human flesh. We cannot prove him identical with
the person known as Theodotus the Monarchian, though an a priori case might be
advanced on the grounds that Hippolytus denounces the last-named heretics in
conjunction with the Gnostics.120 We can, however, observe that the Valentinian
system often acquires a monarchian colour in early heresiologists, who suspect that
the aeons, if they are not fictitious, are merely phases or aspects of the Deity, rather
than the hypostatic entities whom Christians revere as God the Son and God the
Spirit. The adjective homoousios (consubstantial), which at length became a
catchword of the orthodox position that the three hypostases are a single God, was
at first a technical term of the Valentinians,121 and was consequently avoided by
many Churchmen for one and a half centuries. On his Valentinian premisses,
Theodotus reasons that the heavenly Logos and the human Christ are quite distinct,
the lower being an image of the higher in a circumscription (perigraphe) of flesh.122
But this is docetic only in denying that the flesh is Gods flesh, not in denying that
the flesh is real.
Theodotus does, in the first of Clements Excerpts, style the body of Christ a
spirit, but the reluctance of some editors to print the Greek as it stands shows that
the apophthegm is not easily construed, and may mean something more abstruse
than that the body was a phantom:
The spiritual seed that was sown in fleshly form by wisdom through the Logos is the one
in which the Saviour clad himself when he came down. Hence in the Passion he
consigned his wisdom to the Father,123 so that he might receive it back from the Father
lest it fall into the grip of those124 who have power to detain. (Excerpt 1).
The word spirit (pneuma) stands in apposition to fleshly (sarkion), as a predicative

noun, not a qualifying adjective: it is not that the flesh is spiritual but that in the
world it performs the work of spirit. In the Old Testament the word ruach can be
rendered spirit, breath or wind: to speak of the ruach of God is to say that he is
exercising power within, among or upon his creatures. Hence it is the Spirit that
stirs the waters on the first day, and the Spirit that will be poured upon the sons and
daughters of Israel in the latter days; it is not in the strength of man but by his Spirit
that the Almighty accomplishes his secret ends. The first man, says the Apostle,
was of the earth, earthy; the second man was made a lifegiving spirit (1 Corinthians
15.45); he does not mean that the flesh was annihilated, but that through the
embodied presence of divinity what was dead in other men became a potent source
of life. In the Gospel of John, the Spirit is the unseen wind that quickens new life,
the spring of living water that flows from the belly of the regenerate; even the
famous saying God is spirit tells us not so much that the Deity is intangible as that
he makes his temple in every heart that worships him in spirit and in truth.125
35
When early Christians argued that the God who is pure spirit cannot be confined by
a body or subject to any corporeal attribute, they arrived at a philosophical conclusion
that may not have been in the mind of the evangelist, though it is not at variance
with it. Even then the dynamic and vital character of spirit was not forgotten, and
the Holy Spirit is seldom mentioned in the patristic era without some reference to
his activity or presence in the universe. Since this is a universe in which matter is
the vehicle of presence, it was only to be expected that the flesh would serve as an
instrument of spirit, in the scripture and the sacraments no less than in the incarnation
of Christ.
According to the Naassenes, a Gnostic group that Hippolytus and his modern
annotators reckon to be at least as old as any other, the dichotomy between matter
and spirit supervenes on a state in which there was one undifferentiated substance,
a blessed formlessness or askhemosune.126 Even when they are parted by the
firmament the two worlds remain in constant intercourse, and the fiery Demiurge
who rules the lower has his beatific counterpart in the higher. The mediator is
Hermes, who in Egypt was not only the imaginary preceptor of the alchemists, but
was in some sense identical with the substrate that they were labouring to transmute,
as well as with the means of transmutation. The master Zosimus, writing around
300 in Panopolis, raises a question about the identity of the first man that had
already been broached by the Naassenes, and concludes (as they also did) that
Christ and Adam are both avatars of the everlasting rock, or adamant, which
defines the nature of mankind.127 Both alchemists and Naassenes aspired to a
synthesis of all religions, but Zosimus the Egyptian is more evidently a Christian,
and the goal of his lucubrations a goal that he purports to have achieved in his
own laboratory is the contemplation of the Son of God.128
The primacy of spirit is implied in the Valentinian myth, where matter is a waste
product of the strife between will and nature in the Godhead. At the same time the
myth teaches that this barren world is fertilized by the penance of Sophia, and texts
which are thought to inculcate a Valentinian theory of the sacraments hint that
matter is an indispensable channel of the spirit even for the pneumatic Christian.129
The Gospel of Philip from Nag Hammadi enjoins both chrism and baptism, anointing
with oil and immersion or tincture in water. An esoteric meaning is accorded to the
rite, but it is nonetheless a rite, enacted with material tokens. The illusion that a
Gnostic, being hostile to the creation, must be indifferent to the sacraments, is
dispelled by the account of Mark the Mage in Irenaeus. The latter ranks him with
the Valentinians, but he was also clearly indebted to the alchemists: pouring the
wine and announcing to his gullible congregation that it would change into the
blood of the goddess Charis (or Grace), he contrived, by the secret infusion of some
haematic substance, to make it seem that the miracle had occurred.130 It was not
uncommon for catholics of this period to believe that the body and blood of Christ
were present in the eucharist, but we do not hear of any who expected such a visible
recrudescence of his sufferings in the transitory world.
Heracleon, by taking the Gospel of John as his text,131 announced that Christ and
his ministry were at the heart of his religion; a passing remark in Origen makes it
clear that he saw the Church whatever he meant by that as the place where the
risen Christ maintains his residence on earth. His choice of Johannine passages, if
Origens citations are representative, was desultory,132 and perhaps the only episode
36
on which he commented line by line was the one in which Christ accosts the
Samaritan woman at the well.133 The colloquy that ensues, at least in the hands of a
Valentinian translator, is addressed to every seeker of the kingdom. The Samaritan,
as a female, stands for the undiscriminating soul which is nonetheless docile to
instruction; the husband whom she lacks is the pleroma or fullness of her own
perfection and that of Christ; the well from which she draws is the unfruitful realm
of matter; the waterpot that she carries back to the city is an emblem of the new life
that the soul imbibes in the wake of its conversion.134 It is obvious that this allegory
adds a great deal to the plain sense of the text, but we cannot be sure that in all
respects it contradicts the intention of the evangelist, who always makes Christ
speak through his interlocutors to humanity at large.135 Nor should we presume,
because the soul is said to be the recipient of the Gospel, that the body is excluded
from salvation. If the soul is the seat of will and choice in the human agent, even an
incarnate Saviour could hardly have chosen a different addressee, and the suggestion
that the Fourth Gospel is a spiritual pendant to the others, first advanced in Alexandria
by Clement, is endorsed by many readers who continue to regard the Incarnation,
the resurrection and the efficacy of sacraments as fundamental tenets of the
Johannine community.136 The injunction to flee the blandishments of the world
and seek the everlasting truths beyond the senses is a commonplace in early
Christian literature; and it is still the case, whatever may be said about the goodness
of the material creation, that many good resolutions come to nothing, even in
Christians, because passion, fear or appetite debilitate the will. Heracleon did not
dissolve the flesh of Christ or banish him to a world beyond experience; he did
maintain and Origen agreed that if his mission had been confined to a single
lifetime or locality he would not be the Saviour of the present world.
Concluding Remarks on Origen
From Jewish, ecclesiastical and Gnostic circles in his native city, therefore, Origen
could glean much that would assist him in the construction of a systematic Christian
theology. As all inhabitants of the Roman Empire lived under one sky, felt the same
wants and reasoned on like principles, there was sometimes no clear line to be
drawn between one faith and another, or even between the precepts of religion and
the theorems of philosophy; nevertheless there was at least one lesson to be derived
from each of these associations that Origen could not have learned elsewhere. As a
preparation for the study of his writings, it is helpful to note the things that he
deemed it profitable to borrow and the things that he felt it incumbent on a
Christian theologian to gainsay.
1
From the Jews he learned to read the scriptures with an indefeasible faith in the
inspiration of every word, and hence to handle every word with a minute
attention hitherto unmatched by Christian exegetes. Such microscopic
commentary was equally foreign to the aims of Philo,137 and while his example
may have emboldened Origen in his application of figurative readings to the
Old Testament, the desire to reclaim that ancient text from legalism, absurdity
and obsolescence had never been the monopoly of one man. From Paul138 to
37
Clement allegory had been an indispensable tool for Christian expositors, all of
whom, including Origen, were bound to hold that Philos canon was incomplete
and that no interpretation of the prophets could be authoritative unless it yielded
testimony to Christ.
2 Whether he was a pupil of Clement or merely his fellow Churchman, Origen
was taught in Alexandria that the rudiments of the faith had been imparted by
the apostles to the first generation of Christians and then bequeathed to posterity
in the form of a new but authoritative scripture.139 While the Church had
officers to shepherd the transmission of the original deposit, it was the business
of a scholar like himself to confirm their teachings from the canon. In the
treatise On First Principles, composed in Alexandria and borrowing its name
from a work by Clement, the written support of orthodoxy serves him as a
scaffold for more adventurous, though disciplined, speculation. No doubt he
looked to the Stromateis of Clement as his sanction for the occasional use of
pagan learning in this enterprise; but he would also have been admonished by
this work that knowledge of God is not a science like any other but the gift of
revelation, whether at first or at second hand. Of Origens own Stromateis we
know enough to be sure that it was not so liberal as its predecessor in quotations
from Greek literature, and indeed this parsimony is a constant feature of Origens
work, except in his response to the pagan Celsus, whom it was necessary to
counter with his own weapons. Origen is also more economical and more
diffident than Clement in his appeals to texts that lie outside the canon,140 and
he renounces any notion that one church, or a portion of it, had been trusted by
the apostles with a mystery that they purposely withheld from the multitude.
Every doctrine must be demonstrated from the inner sense of scripture if it was
not contained already in the common rule of faith.
3 Where Irenaeus said plainly that the transgression of the first man was reversed
by the obedience of the Saviour, the Valentinians unified cosmology with
Christology through a myth in which the vicissitudes of Wisdom provide a
frame to the first catastrophe and a backdrop to the second. Never since Paul
had such a central and divisive function been accorded to the Cross; never again
would a Christian cosmogony subsume so many Biblical accounts of the creation,
or bring them into such intimate conjunction with the nature and work of
Christ. The prologue to Johns Gospel was the model for this juxtaposition of
the beginning of history with its midpoint, and the irrigation of the world by
spirit is a mystery that engages almost every Gnostic thinker, even where there
is no profession of Christianity. Although we must speak with caution for lack
of evidence, it might not be too much to say that his acquaintance with the
Gnostics enabled Origen to improve on Clements understanding of the
Incarnation to affirm that God not only unlocks his wisdom to the meditative
intellect, but has come into the world in search of man.
He did not, for course, set out to be an apologist for any Gnostic group, and for the
most part he perceived them through the eyes of his catholic contemporaries. No
less than Irenaeus or Hippolytus, he believed that the Valentinians decried the
resurrection, that their Saviour spent his season in the flesh not to redeem it but to
liberate others from it, and that a lesser god was held accountable for the creation
38
of a lesser world. Much of his First Principles was conceived as an antidote to

Gnostic poisons, and the themes of the present study God, the soul and revelation
formed the threefold burden of the catholic case against the heretics in every part
of Christendom. Later they formed the burden of the Churchs case against Origen,
who was cast as a Valentinian by a number of his detractors in the third century. To
show that in fact he wielded an autonomous philosophy, based chiefly on the Bible
and the premisses of the catholic tradition, is to acquit him incidentally of many
things for which he has been both lauded and condemned. Such an exoneration
neither entails nor presupposes that the Gnostics of Alexandria had the better of
every catholic in dogmatic speculation; but if the main defendant can escape the
taint of heresy, the charges that were thought to have been proved against his
mentors will inevitably be subject to review.
Notes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Epiphanius, Panarion 64.1; Williams (1927), 209 ascribes to Origen a passionate

African idiosyncrasy, in defiance of the standard ancient use of the term African to
denote only the inhabitants of modern Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. To Williams,
however, Tertullian of Carthage and Cyril of Alexandria are compatriots. On
Theodorets pejorative use of the term Egyptian see Newman (1876), 344.
Cited by Eusebius, Church History 6.19.67. For discussion see next chapter.
Eusebius, Church History; Epiphanius, Panarion 64.1.
Simon (1986), 1045 cites Digest 48.8.11 on the assimilation of circumcision to the
self-castration of votaries in some orgiastic cults. CommMatt 15.1, pp. 34860 Benz
and Klostermann denounces any literal application of this verse, contending that the
true eunuch is the one who is sterile in evil (p. 359.25). This exegesis has a
prototype in Philos reflections on the number 7, and successor in the Neoplatonic
interpretation of the castrated Attis as the mind withdrawn from matter (Sallustius,
On the Gods and the World 4); it may thus be a case of spoiling the Egyptians
(Philokalia 13), but it does not read like the pronouncement of a man who has
become notorious for his own misreading of the sense.
See next chapter on references in Princ. and elsewhere.
See Hengel (1991), 1862 on the false antithesis between Hellenistic and Palestinian
Judaism in the New Testament era; West (1997) on the interpenetration of Near
Eastern and Greek culture in the first millennium BC.
Taylor (1990) shows that there was no such thing.
Epiphanius, Panarion 30.17 alludes to the Hebrew etymology, but continues to believe
in Ebion, the nominal founder. Origen too is aware of the connotation of the word in
his scornful allusion to the earthbound exegesis of the Ebionites who are poor in
intellect (First Principles, 3.6.8 (24), p. 334.12 Koetschau), and no doubt believes,
like Irenaeus before him (Against Heresies 1.22) that the Ebionites adhered to Jewish
practices in defiance of Pauline doctrine; but neither he nor Irenaeus has yet heard
that they slighted the divinity of Christ.
Euhemerus, much cited by the Christian apologists, purported to have written proof
that the deities of Greek myth were only mortals who received outstanding honours
for the benefits that they conferred upon their species.
See Ignatius, Magnesians 8.2 and 9.1, with Rev 2.9 and 3.9 on the synagogue of
Satan who dishonestly profess to be Jews in a time of persecution.
See Col 2.18, Heb 1.5, Rev 22.9; Ignatius, Trallians 5.2 and Smyrnaeans 3.2.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
39
Trigg (1991) enumerates earlier Christian representations of Christ as an angel, but

fails to convince me that Origen endorsed the same position.
Thus at Exodus 3.2 the angel of the Lord appeared to Moses, but at 3.4 and thereafter
his interlocutor is God. At Judges 13.9 an angel announces the birth of Samson to his
father, but at 3.22 the latter exclaims that he has seen God.
See Ptrement (1991), 5174.
See Urbach (1975), 139. On early Christian representations of Christ as an angel see
Grillmeier (1975), 4653.
Deut 12.5 (Name); Hab 2.14 (glory);Prov 8.22 ff. and Wisd 7. passim (Wisdom);
Psalm 33.6 (Word).
John 1.1; Exodus 7.1 Septuagint. These texts will be discussed more fully in Chapter
2.
Sirach (Ecclus) 24.23; see Davies (1955), 169 on the provenance of this notion and its
relevance to Paul.
See Scholem (1954), 66 with n. 94 on Hekhalot mysticism and Rabbi Akiba (early
second century AD).
See Bockmuehl (1997), and Scholem, as in previous note.
See Brooks (1988) on the compilation and content of the Mishnah, with which,
however, he does not believe Origen to have been acquainted.
We need not here attempt to adjudicate on the antiquity or scope of the so-called
blessing of the minim which was certainly pronounced against certain Christians in
certain synagogues by Origens time: see Horbury (1982) for the evidence and a
summary of competing interpretations.
See Blowers (1988); De Lange (1976), 89 cannot confidently identify any references
in his early works to Jews in Alexandria. Yet, as he goes on to note on p. 25, Princ.
1.3.4 and 4.3.14 reveal that Origen had consulted the Hebrew during his Alexandrian
youth.
At Eusebius, Church History 6.25.2, he shows how the present canon can be reduced
to a figure of 22, which is equal to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet.
For discussion and bibliography regarding the composition, purpose and influence of
the Septuagint see now Gruen (1998), 20713.
As he says of the Maccabean histories in the same passage of Eusebius, though at the
same time he declares that these works lie outside the canon.
Kamesar (1993), 428 argues against Nautin (1977), 34953 that Origens exegesis is
always centred on the Greek, not on the Hebrew, even if he occasionally lapses into
the dualism posited by Barthlemy (1972).
At On Prayer 14.4 he fiercely maintains the canonicity of Tobit and the Maccabean
writings against opponents who would limit Christians to the Hebrew books.
Commentary on the Song, proem, p. 88.56 Baehrens.
On the principles of Midrash see Schrer (1973), 9099 and (1979), 33953.
See especially Princ. 4.4.35, pp. 358.32359.4 Koetschau, though here the citation
reinforces a reference to Ps 139.16. Enoch is quoted at Jude 1.14, and perhaps tacitly
adduced at 1 Peter 3.1920. Tertullian cites it expressly at On the Attire of Women
2.10.3, and without the name of an author at On the Resurrection of the Flesh 32.1.
Sanday (1893), 39.
See Dawson (1992) for a perceptive account of Philos method; Runia (1993), 4758
for a survey of modern positions.
See On Mating with the Preliminary Sciences 5.23 on Hagar and Sarah; on the
subordination of Gentile learning to scripture in Philo see Wolfson (1961), 24.
For Philos exegesis of Exodus 7.1 (I shall make thee god to Pharaoh) at On Change
of Names 1289 see Runia (1988).
40
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

See for example, Philo, On the Making of the World 89129. For a Pythagorean
encomium of the number seven, see Varro in Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 3.10; on
Philos reputation as a Pythagorean see Runia (1995). For all that, no other follower
of this sect in Alexandria is attested during the Ptolemaic period, as Fraser (1972),
vol. 1, 492 confesses, notwithstanding his own surmise that the Neopythagoreanism
of Roman authors originates in Alexandria.
See Plato, Timaeus 28c and discussion in next chapter.
See next chapter. In view of Philos interest in Pythagorean lore, it may be interesting
to note that the Pythagorean Thrasyllus of Rhodes adopted the Stoic as an immanent
and hegemonic principle in the universe: Tarrant (1993), 11015. Tarrant and Runia
(1986), 4468 agree that Philo habitually substitutes the Logos for the World-Soul of
the Timaeus.
See Wolfson (1947), 177246.
See Starobinski-Safran (1978); Wolfson (1961).
Philo, On the Cherubim 279.
At Migration of Abraham 17691, the description of the Chaldaeans as skilful readers
of the heavens, who have thereby succumbed to astrology and a belief in the
omnipotence of fate, is clearly a satire on the Stoics.
On the Giants 6061. For the tripartite soul in Plato (reason, spirit, appetite), see
Republic 43940.
See Republic 415a-b for the division of humanity into three tribes, each derived from
a different metal; Symposium 189d-193b on the three species of primeval human
(male, female, androgynous) who threatened to storm Olympus like the giants of
Homer, and after their defeat became the ancestors of male homosexuals, female
homosexuals and heterosexuals respectively.
Wolfson (1956); Runia (1993).
See Wolfson (1948).
See Church History 6.19.6 for Porphyrys description of Ammonius, and 6.19.10 for
the Christian rejoinder.
Eusebius, Concordance to the Gospels, trans. Barnes (1981), 121. On p. 122 Barnes
notes that this Ammonius is otherwise unattested.
Origens occasional indifference to the structure of biblical narratives (which, as I
argue in Chapter 4, should not be exaggerated) might have seemed to him to be
sanctioned by the readiness of Ammonius to break threads for the sake of his
synopsis.
See Church History 5.11 on the Catechetical School; 6.13.2 on Pantaenus as Clements
tutor; 6.13.8 on Clements correspondence with Origen.
See Bardy (1937). Van den Hoek (1997) contends that the evidence favours the existence
of the school, but the ancient testimonies are subject to the doubts that have been cast on
all intellectual genealogies in antiquity by scholars such as Glucker (1978).
Otherwise one could not make sense of the anecdote (Rufinus, Church History 1.14)
that the child Athanasius horrified his elders by performing valid baptisms on infants
of his own age.
For the First Principles of Longinus (c. AD 265) see Porphyry, Life of Plotinus 14; for
that of Clement see his Stromateis 3.13 and 3.21. An allusion to Greek theories about
first principles at 5.14.140 does not convince that Kannengiesser (1988), 249 is right
to assume that Origen was subscribing to a common use of the phrasewhen he
adopted it as a title. Logan (1999), 161 n.19 cites Marcellus of Ancyras barbed
comparison of the opening sentence with Gorgias 454d-e (Eusebius, Against Marcellus
1.4); had Marcellus known of a Platonic antecedent for the title, he would no doubt
have published this also.

54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
41
For Origens Stromateis see Eusebius, Church History 6.24.3; Jerome, Commentary
on Ephesians; and Moreschini (1987). For that of Plutarch see Eusebius, Preparation
for the Gospel 1.8.112. Even if the work is wrongly attributed, it remains true, in the
words of Mhat (1966), 104, that le fragment dEusbe est un tmoin de genre.
Tollinton (1914), vol. 2, 13564 feels bound to apologize for Clements reticence, and
adds in mitigation that Alexandria was behind the other sees in the formality of its
rituals.
Mhat (1966), 42188 shows that gnosis in Clements Stromateis may signify
knowledge of science, of philosophy, of the virtues, of worldly affairs, of Christian
dogma, of supernal mysteries, of the last things or, of the inner sense of scripture. The
discovery of such an array of meanings in a single work should deter us from
assuming that the knowledge falsely so-called which Irenaeus imputes to all his
adversaries (Against Heresies 2, proem) is homogeneous in content.
See Stromateis 5.1.5 and 5.12.86 on the necessity of faith in the pursuit of things
invisible; 5.1.3 on gnosis as a higher faith, the completion of obedience; 5.9.59 and
5.11.67 on Pythagoras; 5.14.89145 on the plagiarisms of the Greeks.
Justin, First Apology 43; Clement, Stromateis 6.423.
Cf. Matt 5.45, 13.39 and parallels. There may also be a reminiscence of Numenius,
Fr. 13 Des Places.
Stromateis 1.32, citing John 14.6.
It seems to me inaccurate to say with Domini (1988), 16 that Stromateis 1.37.6
conveys his own ideal of the philosophical method, but the evidence supplied by
Domini does show that the word was a termus technicus in Clements time. Domini
rightly points out on p. 26 that the emergence of dogmatic schools of Platonism and
peripatetic philosophy coincides with the heyday of eclecticism; but this does not
seem to me to refute Zellers notion that it was a moralizing lingua franca
(Domini, loc. cit.), since the dogmatism of these schools was generally confined to
metaphysics, epistemology and some departments of logic and physics.
On the characteristics of the true Gnostic, whom Clement believes to be more faithful
to the scriptures, to moral law and to the canons of rationality, see Mhat (1966),
489522.
See Lucian, Dialogues of the Gods etc.; Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 6.11.218
etc.
At Protrepticus 70, Plato is upbraided for concealing his superior understanding of
the divine.
See Grant (1988), 9.
Our knowledge of the Protrepticus of Aristotle is derived mainly from its namesake by
Iamblichus, but affinities between Clement and earlier rhetoricians of the Roman era
are noted by Emmett (2000) in a promissory note for a longer work. We should also
observe that Origens Exhortation to Martyrdom bears the title Protreptikos in Greek.
See Chadwick (1959a), especially 10911 on Origens polemic in the Commentary
on Matthew against excessive zeal in the pursuit of sexual purity.
See especially Stromateis 4.25.155.
Osborn (1994).
Osborn (1994). It will be seen that my estimate of Clement is in general closer to that
of Osborn (1954) than to that of Lilla (1971).
See Grillmeier (1975), 10813 on the Logos as a cosmological agent.
HomLev 9.2, p. 420.1516 Baehrens.
See Luke 22.424 for his eating of fish, though in the near parallel at John 21.1214
it is not said that Christ himself eats. On equality with the angels see Luke 20.36; for
the fasting in the wilderness see Matt 4.2.
42
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92

The title may bespeak familiarity with Alexandrian literature: see Fraser (1972), vol.
1, 492 on the Hypotyposes of the Sceptic Pyrrho.
Translation adapted from Edwards (2000), 172.
On Clements appeal to certain unnamed elders as witnesses to the transmission of
the apostolic writings, see Hill (1998). The elder cannot be the author of the letter,
since Clement clearly believes him to be the same person as the evangelist, whom he
takes for John the Apostle.
Photius, Library 109. For bibliography see Edwards (2000), 168.
For commentary see Edwards (2000), 169, from whom this translation is taken with
slight changes.
Eusebius, Church History 6.13.3. On his appeal to uncanonical, though not unorthdox
witnesses, see ibid. 6.13.7. Metzger (1987), 291 observes that at Stromateis 4.15.98
and 6.15.124 the term appears to designate a norm of Christian belief and exegesis.
On the recent discovery of a letter which many scholars have agreed to attribute to
Clement, see Koester (1990), 193203.
Eusebius, Church History 6.12.24. Clement cites Peter at Stromateis 5.5.40, 5.5.43,
5.5.48 (here under the title Preaching of Peter).
Against Heresies 3.1.1 and 3.11.8.
For a survey of scholarship on this document see Petersen (1995).
See Muratorian Fragment 713 at Hahnemann (1992): We receive only the
apocalypses of Peter and John, which some of our number do not wish to be read in
church. As for the Shepherd, Hermas wrote it very recently in Rome, when Bishop
Pius his brother occupied the see of Rome; therefore it ought to be read, but not
publicly in church to the people, nor can it be reckoned in the number of the prophets,
which is complete, nor among the apostles at the end of times. I assume here, against
Hahnemann, the late second-century dating which is evidently implied by the allusion
to the late composition of the Shepherd of Hermas.
While the name indicates an Egyptian provenance, neither Origen nor Clement adds
to our knowledge of this figure, though he appears to be the principal butt of Irenaeus
attack on the Valentinians in Against Heresies, and his Letter to Flora shows that he
was willing to make discriminating use of the Jewish scriptures: see Markschies
(2000).
See John 1.14, 1.18, 6.62, 12.2833.
Quispel ([1948] 1968), citing Arnobius, Against the Nations 2.25 on p. 22 n.13. The
novi viri of Arnobius have been tentatively characterized by scholars as disciples of
Cornelius Labeo or of Porphyry; in either case they were strict contemporaries of
Arnobius, and distant epigoni of Basilides.
Quispel ([1948] 1968), 226. Bos (2000) argues cogently that if we take the exoteric
works of Aristotle as the touchstone, Basilides was indeed a disciple of the Stagirite,
as Hippolytus avers.
See Clement, Stromateis 4.813, with the sceptical commentary of Lohr (1995), 122
51. See also Stromateis 2.1124, with Lohr, 78101 on the postulation of two souls
by Isidorus in his analysis of freedom.
See Lohr (1995), 10122 on Stromateis 3.13.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.25.2 speaks of the remainder of the so-called Gnostics
after a paragraph on Basilides. On Christian and pagan usage see Edwards (1989).
Porphyry, Life of Plotinus 16 takes Gnostics as the name of a Christian sect; Iamblichus,
On the Soul p. 357 Wachsmuth perhaps recognizes them as a philosophical school.
See for example, Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies 5.11. Modern scholarship
often claims to be following the usage of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in attaching the
label Gnostic to almost all the heresies that they revile. Many infer that Gnostic
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
43
thought was a unitary system; others abuse the ecclesiastical tutors for imposing a
false unanimity on heterogeneous foes. Against the first claim see Williams (1996),
and against the second, Edwards (1989). The Fathers had no interest in pretending
that all their enemies were of one mind, since they repeatedly exult in the proliferation
of heresies from the Gnostic prototype; while all their opponents make a pretence of
gnosis, and thus aspire to be superior to the Church, the content of this gnosis is as
variable as error.
For critical edition and history of the text see Giversen (1963). Robinson (1988) is
cited here for reference to all the Nag Hammadi Codices.
Markschies (1992) is not the first to warn us that the tenets which are ascribed to
Valentinus in ancient sources do not suffice to make him a Valentinian.
See Edwards (1989) on the application of the term Gnostic in the first three centuries.
In the Panarion of Epiphanius (c. 376) we meet Secundians, Theodotans, Ptolemaeans
and Heracleonists; yet his chapters on these sects are wholly reliant on authorities
who treated Secundus, Theodotus, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon as individual students
in the school of Valentinus.
For a recent survey of theories as to the origin of the corpus, see Goehring (2000).
My account is a conflation of Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.1 with Hippolytus,
Refutation of all Heresies 6.2930. These are still the fullest summaries of the myth,
and so the analysis by Sagnard (1948), though written before the publication of the
Nag Hammadi Codices, remains invaluable. John 1.14 and 1.18; Col 2.9.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.2.2; Hippolytus, Refutation 6.30.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.2.4; Hippolytus, Refutation 6.31. Cf. 1 Cor. 1.214, with
Edwards (2001), 21820. By contrast Philo, On the Making of the World 37, derives
the word ouranos (heaven), arguing that the firmament lies between the seat of God
and the home of man.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.4.12; Hippolytus, Refutation 6.32.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.2.2; Hippolytus, Refutation 6.30; 1 Cor 15.8.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.11.1; Stead (1969).
Gen 1.2; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.29; Apocryphon of John; Scholem (1974).
Zostrianus (Nag Hammadi Codices 8.1), 10.4 at Robinson (1988), 406.; cf. Plotinus,
Enneads 2.9.10.
See Porphyry, Life of Plotinus 16 on the Gnostic authorities; Plotinus, Enneads 2.9.6
on his compunction.
See especially Dodds (1960).
Edwards (2001), 2146, citing the Exegesis on the Soul (which in turn cites Hosea 2.2
on the harlotry of Israel), Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.29.4.
See 1 Peter 3.20 and Philo, Life of Moses 2.12 on the ark; Clement, Stromateis 6.16
and Excerpts from Theodotus 63 on the Sabbath. For further commentary see Ptrement
(1991), 6870 and Edwards (2001), 218.
See Griffiths (1996), 17.
Edwards (2001), 21819, citing Gal 4.4 on the fullness of time, Eph 3.19 on the
plenitude of salvation; Rom 11.25 (with Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.7.1) on the
Church as the entire quota of the redeemed.
See Scholem (1965), 1045 on the feminine in God; Tishby (1989), 77073 on the
image of God in the embodied human being; Gen 1.26; Ezekiel 1.26.
Urbach (1975), 2278 cites a number of authorities before the third century. Philo,
Making of the World 46.134, surmises that the first Adam was incorporeal and not so
much androgynous as neither male nor female.
See for example, Apocryphon of John (Nag Hammadi Codices 2.1), 14.2131 at
Robinson (1988), 113, and 19.2431 at Robinson (1988), 116.
44
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133

See especially Wisdom of Solomon 7 and 10, with Edwards (2001), 214.
See Poimandres 1516 with the notes of Copenhaver (1992), 10911. The treatise is
often, though not invariably, regarded as the earliest writing in the Hermetic Corpus;
a date around AD 100 is accepted, on different grounds, by Reitzenstein (1904), 316
and Dodd (1935), 2019. For a summary of scholarly opinions see Copenhaver
(1992), 95.
For a sober review of the evidence see Pearson (1981).
Together with his Stromateis, according to Eusebius, Church History 6.24.3.
Princ. 3.3, pp. 256.5263.10 Koetschau. At Princ. 2.9.5, p. 168.15 Koetschau, Origen
accuses the Valentinians of positing a diversity of souls that is, souls whose
natures already destine them to perdition or damnation.
Princ. 3.4.2, p. 267.812 Koetschau.
Hippolytus, Refutation 7.356; cf. Tertullian, Proscription of Heresies 9. Edwards
(2000), 1767 points out that Valentinians and Monarchians, often treated as antipodes
in modern heresiology, were believed by ancient witnesses to be at one in holding (a)
that there were no hypostatic distinctions in the Godhead, and (b) that the earthly
Christ was not the same being as Christ in heaven.
Thus Theodotus, Excerpt 42 says that our spirits are consubstantial with that of God.
Excerpts from Theodotus 19; see Edwards (2000), 174.
Theodotus is commenting on Luke 23.46, but with a glance at John 10.17 and Eph
4.910.
That is, demons. Cf. 1 Cor 2.8, Col 2.14 and Procter (1998), 46. The latter seems to
assume a complete abstraction of spirit from matter, which I do not find in the text.
John 3.8; 7.39; 4.24.
Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies 5.7.18, tendentiously citing Rom 1.267.
Treatise on the Omega 10, at Scott (1936), 106, with commentary at 11823. Zosimus
shares a source, Nicotheus, with the Gnostics of Plotinus (Porphyry, Life of Plotinus
16): see further Jackson (1990). On affinities between Zosimus and the Naassenes
(Hippolytus, Refutation 5.7.36) see Reitzenstein (1904).
Treatise on the Omega 6 and 14 at Scott (1936), 106 and 108 with commentary at
11920. I do not wish to deny that there is also much of native Egyptian provenance
in Zosimus, as Fowden (1986) demonstrates. There appear to be elements in the most
primitive layer of Hebrew thought which are also indigenous to Egypt not least, if
Atwell (2000) is correct, the doctrine of creation by the word. The tenacity of this
motif among the Jews of Egypt is attested by a paraphrase of Genesis 1, the Apocryphon
of Moses (Greek Magical Papyri 13.11 Preisendanz), in which the world comes into
being through a series of seven divine expectorations.
See Procter (1998), 4551 on the cooperation of spiritual and material factors in the
Valentinian sacraments.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.13.2. Notwithstanding the justifiable scepticism of Frster
(1999), 91123, the parallels that he cites from pagan sources make it clear that this
report is not a simple fabrication, and the corroborative material in Iamblichus, On
the Mysteries 9.6 may be of Egyptian provenance, though Mark was not.
One that differed from Origens, according to Ehrmann (1993); since all his evidence
comes from Origens commentary, this article also demonstrates that the latters
animadversions were both truthful and precise. The remains of Heracleons work,
assembled by Brooke (1891), have received a sympathetic commentary in Pagels
(1973).
See Bendinelli (1997), 9, who follows Simonetti (1966).
Seventeen citations of Heracleon appear between p. 234.7 Preuschen (John 4.12) and
p. 257.9 (on John 4.31).

134
135
136
137
138
139
140
45
CommJoh 4.17.63, p. 235.13 Preuschen on the woman; 4.17.66, p. 235.1214 on the

well; 4.17.67, p. 235.20 on the pleroma; 4.17.187, p. 255.1215 on the waterpot.
E.g. at John 3.11, where the plural abruptly supersedes the singular in both first and
second person in the middle of Christs discourse to Nicodemus; John 3.14 is overheard
by the crowd at John 12.34.
Taking John 6.63 as an allusion to the eucharistic ritual, Barrett (1982), 42 opines that
his attitude in general may be defined as neither rejection nor sacramentarianism, but
one of critical acceptance. This holds good of Origen, though he often construes the
feeding on the flesh of the son of Man as the acquisition of the knowledge of God
through study of his word.
See Bendinelli (1997), 1014 for a brief comparison of Origen with Jewish
commentators.
Gal 4.24 etc.; see discussion in Chapter 4.
See Princ. 1, proem 13, pp. 7.59.11 Koetschau.
Cf. 1 Cor 1.23 on the Cross as a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to the
Greeks. The centrality of the Cross (and of Christs antecedent ministry on earth) for
the Valentinians is illustrated, for example, by the so-called Gospel of Truth (Nag
Hammadi Codices 1.3), 18.2232 at Robinson (1988), 41; although the Cross is
endowed here with a spiritual meaning, the nails are real enough.

Origen Against Plato

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Origen Against Plato

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Origen Against Plato

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1

Origen among Christians,