Clement’s Gnostic Interpretation of the Old Testament: Divine Pedagogy as the Basis for Clement of Alexandria’s Biblical Interpretation by Robert Geoffrey Thomas Edwards A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Wycliffe College and the Biblical Department of the Toronto School of Theology. In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College. © Copyright by Robert Geoffrey Thomas Edwards 2014 Clement’s Gnostic Interpretation of the Old Testament: Divine Pedagogy as the Basis for Clement of Alexandria’s Biblical Interpretation Robert Geoffrey Thomas Edwards Master of Arts in Theology University of St. Michael’s College 2014 Abstract Clement of Alexandria’s interpretation of the Bible is based on his theological understanding of divine progress. This progress, or divine pedagogy, begins with faith (πίστις) and culminates in knowledge (γνῶσις) – that is, acquaintance with God. Clement refers to the one who has acquired this γνῶσις as the “true Gnostic.” By examining Clement’s interpretation of three Old Testament passages (Psalm 1, Genesis 1:26-27, and the Ten Commandments [Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21]) various facets of his gnostic interpretation become evident: his biblical interpretation is affected depending on the stage of the spiritual journey; the true Gnostic has privilege to interpret over and against the heretics; and Scripture is full of gnostic truths. This thesis contributes to the discussion of early “Alexandrian” biblical interpretation. ii Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. iii Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 1 The True Gnostic.....................................................................................................................3 2 Clement’s Theology of the Bible ............................................................................................6 3 Status quaestionis ..................................................................................................................10 4 The Thesis Statement, Again ................................................................................................14 5 Outline and Notes on Method ..............................................................................................16 Chapter 2 Psalm 1 ........................................................................................................... 19 1 Προκοπή in Clement .............................................................................................................19 2 Interpretive Themes Common to the Paedagogus and the Stromateis .............................25 2.1 Blessing (μακαρισμός) .....................................................................................................26 2.2 Choice (αἱρέσις) ...............................................................................................................27 2.3 Knowledge (γνῶσις) ........................................................................................................31 3 Differing Interpretations in the Paedagogus and the Stromateis ......................................33 4 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................48 Chapter 3 Creation of Humanity (Gen 1:26-27) .......................................................... 49 1 The Valentinian Cosmogony, Cursorily ..............................................................................51 2 Excerpta ex Theodoto ...........................................................................................................54 3 Clement’s Anti-Valentinian Interpretation: Gen 1:26-27 and Plato’s Theaetetus 176b .60 4 Interpretive Privilege of the True Gnostic ..........................................................................71 5 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................75 Chapter 4 The Gnostic Exposition of the Decalogue ................................................... 77 1 Scripture’s Veiled Meaning ..................................................................................................80 2 The Disciplines of Gnostic Interpretation ...........................................................................86 3 The Didactic Side of Gnostic Interpretation .......................................................................99 4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................106 Chapter 5 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 109 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 112 Primary Sources .....................................................................................................................112 Secondary Sources .................................................................................................................112 iii Chapter 1 Introduction The basis of Clement’s interpretation of the Old Testament is the individual’s spiritual movement from faith (πίστις) to knowledge (γνῶσις), whereby the meaning of the “veiled” Scriptures becomes disclosed to the individual. Throughout Clement’s works, this individual is referred to as the (true) Gnostic – that is, the one who knows God. As we will see, this is a polemical title, but also one which Clement appropriates fully into his larger theological projects. Others have made arguments similar to this with respect to his interpretation of the New Testament, whereas very little work has been done on his interpretation of the Old Testament. Thus I will argue that the person of the true Gnostic is central to the interpretation of the Old Testament in the extant works of Clement of Alexandria.1 Judith Kovacs has recently been the most prolific in terms of publishing on Clement’s exegesis.2 In particular, she has focused on his interpretation of Paul. This is related to my study in that her publications on Clement’s exegesis have been concerned 1 Again, this statement is made based on the extant works of Clement, none of which are exegetical. His non-extant Hypotyposeis, which are mentioned by Eusebius (HE 5.6; 6.8.2), are said by Photius to have been a summary exposition of the Old and New Testaments (Bibliotheca 89a); whether these share the same “gnostic interpretation,” it is (until the work is found!) impossible to know. 2 Judith L. Kovacs, “Clement of Alexandria and Valentinian Exegesis in the Excerpts from Theodotus,” Studia Patristica 41 (2006): 187-200; “Echoes of Valentinian Exegesis in Clement of Alexandria and Origen,” in Origeniana Octava, ed. L. Perrone, 317-329 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004); “Grace and Works: Clement of Alexandria’s Response to Valentinian Exegesis of Paul,” in Ancient Perspectives on Paul, ed. T. Nicklas, A. Merkt, and J. Verheyden, 191-210 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013). 1 2 with his polemical, mostly anti-Valentinian, (what Clement refers to as) “gnostic” exegesis. Further, the one notable study that has focused on Clement’s interpretation of the Old Testament is her “Concealment and Gnostic Exegesis,”3 which centres on Clement’s interpretation of the Tabernacle. This passage has been noticed before, but mostly in reference to Clement’s dependence on Philo. What Kovacs notes, though not in a great amount of detail, is that Clement in his exegesis is responding to the Valentinian doctrine of the gulf between those of “faith” (the “ecclesial” Christians) and those who have knowledge (the “gnostic” Valentinians). Clement counters the claim that those of “faith” cannot be saved, by contriving the doctrine of two different stages of the Christian life (faith then knowledge) – and further, that true Gnostics are the ones who exist within the “orthodox” church. This dovetails with my argument; however I understand Clement’s theology of the true Gnostic, though reactionary, in a more constructive way. Before Kovacs, Alain Le Boulluec had already been focusing on this anti-Valentinian side of things, where Clement theologizes constructively in response to his Valentinian opponents.4 Kovacs’s work, however, comes from a decidedly more exegetical standpoint. From this scholarship we learn more than anything that, “[Clement’s] works contain many implicit debates in which he takes issue with Valentinian ideas without 3 Judith L. Kovacs, “Concealment and Gnostic Exegesis: Clement of Alexandria’s Interpretation of the Tabernacle,” Studia Patristica 31 (1997): 414-37. 4 Alain Le Boulluec, “Exégèse et polémique antignostique chez Irénée et Clément d’Alexandrie: l’example du centon,” Studia Patristica 17, no. 2 (1982): 707-13; “La Bible chez les marginaux de l’orthodoxie,” in Monde grec ancien et la Bible, ed. C. Mondésert, 153-170 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1984); Le notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque, IIe-IIe siècles, vol. 2: Clément d’Alexandrie et Origène (Paris: Augustiniennes, 1985), 263-468. 3 naming his opponents.”5 Many of these debates are exegetical in nature, as will be seen especially, but not exclusively, in my chapter on Gen 1:26-27. 1 The True Gnostic6 As I noted, Clement’s idea