The Metaphysics of Light in the Hexaemeral Literature From Philo of Alexandria to Ambrose of Milan I S I D O R O S C H A R A L A M P O S K A T S O S Pembroke College December 2018 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy D e c l a r a t i o n This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Acknowledgements and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Acknowledgements and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Acknowledgements and specified in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit. Isidoros Charalampos Katsos Pembroke College CB2 1RF [email protected] The Metaphysics of Light in the Hexaemeral Literature From Philo of Alexandria to Ambrose of Milan Summary This study investigates the concept of light in the early Jewish-Christian exegesis of the biblical creation narrative (Gen. 1, so-called ‘hexaemeron’). The study argues that the early hexaemeral exegetes theorised light from a dual perspective, both physical and metaphysical. The physical exegesis explained how light emerges as the natural capacity or power of the first material element of the world: fire. The metaphysical exegesis aimed to capture that light is the first immanent form of creation. The argument evolves in three stages. The first chapter discusses contemporary objections to the possibility of an investigation into the nature of light in ancient sources. It argues for the coherence of an ancient ‘physics of light,’ properly speaking, that was also used by hexaemeral authors in the course of their scriptural exegesis. The second chapter addresses modern and ancient objections to the justifiability of a scientific reading of Scripture. It aims to show that in the eyes of early Christian exegetes the rational enquiry into the physicality of light was indispensable for a proper understanding of the skopos (intended meaning) of the biblical creation narrative. Once the historiographical and hermeneutical objections have been removed, the study proceeds with the investigation of the nature of hexaemeral light itself. The third chapter proposes a systematic reconstruction of the hexaemeral theory of light, as it would appear at the end of the fourth century, taking into account its historical development from Philo to Ambrose, with Origen, Basil and Nyssen as the main protagonists. It shows that, from a premodern perspective, the rational account of the nature of light leads through the study of the physical properties to the grasp of the logos or intelligible cause of light. The three chapters build gradually towards the insight that the logos of light is the first manifestation of the logos of God in creation. The study offers a performative argument that, in the eyes of early hexaemeral exegetes, the metaphysics of creation is inherently incarnational: the contemplation of the light of the world reveals Christ as the creative logos of God at work. In this way, the study points towards a Christological answer to the much-debated question whether the talk of God as light (so- called ‘metaphysics of light’) is literal, metaphorical or anagogical. It thus provides the necessary background to deciphering the precise meaning of the Nicene formula ‘light from light.’ For Bartholomew “Which one can you name of the divinities in heaven as the author and cause of this, whose light makes our vision see best and visible things to be seen?” “Why, the one that you too and other people mean,” he said; “for your question evidently refers to the sun.” “Is not this, then, the relation of vision to that divinity?” “What?” “Neither vision itself nor its vehicle, which we call the eye, is identical with the sun.” “Why, no.” “But it is, I think, the most sun-like of all the instruments of sense.” “By far the most.” “And does it not receive the power which it possesses as an influx, as it were, dispensed from the sun?” “Certainly.” “Is it not also true that the sun is not vision, yet as being the cause thereof is beheld by vision itself?” “That is so,” he said. “This, then, you must understand that I meant by the offspring of the good…” (Plato Republic 508a-b tr. Shorey) The eye is the lamp of the body. If, therefore, your eye is simple, your whole body will be full of light (Mt. 6:22) For the one who sees has a kinship with that which is seen, and he must make himself the same as it if he is to attain the sight. For no eye has ever seen the sun without becoming sun-like, nor could a soul ever see Beauty without becoming beautiful. You must first actually become wholly god-like and wholly beautiful if you intend to see god and Beauty. (Plotinus Enn. I.6.9 tr. Gerson) Were not our eye another sun, How could we contemplate the light? Did God’s own power not within us run, How could we share in God’s delight? (Goethe Zahme Xenien III tr. Key-Fowden and Pilavachi) C o n t e n t s Abbreviations xi Acknowledgments xiii I N T R O D U C T I O N 1 I. The ‘metaphysics of light’: status quaestionis 1 II. What this study aims to do 5 III. Method, working hypothesis and contribution to knowledge 7 C H A P T E R 1 “From Sight to Light”: A Hexaemeral Guide for the Perplexed 11 I. The intelligibility of hexaemeral light 12 II. The oculocentric thesis 14 III. Three arguments for oculocentrism in the hexaemeral literature 19 1. Sight fantastic 19 2. A world with a view 23 3. A Christocentric vision of creation 27 IV. Re-thinking oculocentrism 35 1. Narrowing down the scope 35 2. Sight is light 36 3. From the phenomenal to the noumenal 39 C H A P T E R 2 The Light of the World: Hexaemeral Physics and Anti-physics 45 I. Science at the service of Scripture 46 II. In defence of hexaemeral physics 53 1. Origen and his legacy 53 2. Introducing Nyssen’s Apology 57 3. Approaching nature through the lens of Scripture: Physics as hermeneutics 60 III. Enter light 69 1. A look behind the scenes: The hexaemeral theory of change 69 2. A physics of power: The co-substantiality of fire and light 73 C H A P T E R 3 The Nature of Light: The Dawn of the First Material Form 79 I. Between physics and metaphysics: The ‘immateriality’ of light 81 1. Scriptural questions 81 2. Philosophical investigations 83 3. Cappadocian answers 88 4. Hexaemeral physics 92 5. Hexaemeral hermeneutics 93 II. Going ballistic: The singularity of the light-ray 95 1. Rectilinearity 95 2. Light mechanics 96 3. Light kinetics 97 4. The speed of light 101 5. Introducing field theory 102 III. The metaxu of light: A metaphysical note on the medium 103 1. A medium of light? 103 2. Transparency and brightness 104 3. Light semantics as key to light hermeneutics 106 IV. The metaphysics of light: A hermeneutical coda 108 1. A dual aspect interpretation 108 2. Back to Origen 110 3. Philonic beginnings 112 C O N C L U S I O N S 117 Bibliography 129 x A b b r e v i a t i o n s Abbreviations follow the standard bibliographical practice, see e.g. Seland (2014), xii-xvi; Kalligas (2014), 681- 706. Unusual abbreviations in this work are: CC Contra Celsum DP De principiis A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s This study comes at the end of a long journey. This journey brought me from Athens to Cambridge, my intellectual Jerusalem. I want to thank all those whom I met on the way and who honoured me with their guidance and friendship. Amidst so many, whom I cannot all mention here, I am first and foremost indebted to my supervisor, Rowan Williams, for his sagacious mentorship. He has guided me through this PhD research with astonishing erudition, saintly humility and the gift of freedom to grow in knowledge and explore. From my teachers at the Divinity Faculty, I am particularly grateful to Douglas Hedley for undiminished support, not the least through the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Platonism. I am also grateful to Sarah Coakley, Catherine Pickstock, Janet Soskice and Jim Aitkin for support and discussions during my PhD research. I thank David Sedley, Catherine Rowet, Katerina Ierodiakonou and Paul Kalligas for insightful comments on earlier drafts of this study. Philip McCosker, Boris Grundjevic, James Orr, Evan King and Simone Kotva are friends I have learned from. In Christian Hengstermann I have met a kindred spirit whose knowledge and kindness I admire. I am indebted to him and Rachel Evan Webb for reading the manuscript thoroughly and giving me precious feedback. I undertook this journey with the paternal blessings and support of his Beatitude, Archbishop Hieronymus the Second of Athens and all Greece, and the welcoming blessings and support of his Eminence, Archbishop Gregorios of Thyateira and Great Britain.