chapter 14 Origen to Evagrius Ilaria Ramelli This chapter points out select instances of how Plato’s ideas and dialogues were received, utilized, and interpreted by some major patristic Platonists, from Origen, who aimed at creating an “orthodox” Christian Platonism, to Grego- ry Nyssen and his disciple Evagrius, with hints also at Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius. The problematic but possible (even probable) identification be- tween Origen the Christian and Origen the Neoplatonist is highly relevant to the reception of Plato in Christian Platonism. The latter, from Clement and especially Origen, through the Cappadocians and Evagrius, down to Eriugena, is part and parcel of the Platonic tradition. In the thought of these Christian Platonists, Plato is scarcely less central than he is in “pagan” Platonists. Their primary authoritative text was Scripture, but Plato’s teachings were the same as Scripture’s, and Plato was inspired by the same Logos that inspired Scrip- ture. This is why it was natural for them, just as for Philo already, to read Scrip- ture through Platonic lenses. I The Background: Clement Before Origen, the reception of Plato in patristic Platonism can be traced to Justin, Bardaisan,1 and Clement. Here I can only touch upon Clement. Plato is expressly cited in Strom. 5.11.73.3–74.2, from Phdr. 247c concerning the hyperouranios place, Middle-Platonically identified with God (“Plato called God ‘the place of the Ideas’”), and Rep. VII concerning dialectics, with a long quotation. Plato is “the philosopher taught by the Hebrews” (Strom. 1.1.10.2). The same was suggested by Numenius, who famously described Plato as “a Greek-speaking Moses,” and later by Origen, who explained the striking convergences between Plato’s ideas and Scripture – read through philosophical allegoresis – with the hypothesis that Plato was acquainted with the “Jewish philosophy” (CC 4.39: see below). Likewise, Clement Strom. 1.28.176.1–3 deems Plato’s metaphysics 1 On Bardaisan as a Middle Platonist see Ramelli (2009b) and (forthcoming a). © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004355385_016 Ilaria Ramelli - 9789004355385 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 03:33:17PM via free access 272 Ramelli and philosophy dependent on “the Mosaic philosophy,” as already Philo called it. Here Clement also quotes Plato’s definition of dialectics in Plt. 287a. The “mysteries” of Plato’s theology also apply to Christian theology, which Clement represents as the culmination of the Mosaic philosophy.2 In Strom. 5.14.90, Clement lists examples of the dependence of Greek philosophy on the Mo- saic philosophy, including Plato’s ideas about otherworldly punishments and rewards. While Christianity was negotiating itself as philosophy,3 Clement program- matically declared that his Stromateis expounded the doctrines of the main philosophical schools (αἱρέσεις, Strom. 1.1.15.2). Like Origen after him,4 Clem- ent was convinced that Greek philosophy, and especially Plato’s, contained many good elements (although not all directly “edible”: Strom. 1.1.7.2–3), because it was inspired by the same Logos who is Christ, God’s Logos. There- fore, Clement emphasized the importance of philosophy in the formation of Christians (Strom. 1.5.31). The object of rational investigation is truth, iden- tified with Christ. This is why Clement, like Justin and Origen, can conceive of Christianity as philosophy and value Greek philosophy as an indispensable preparation for Christianity. The perfect Christian philosopher, the “gnostic”, learns the divine mysteries from God’s Logos (Strom. 7.1.4.3). God’s Son is the perfect manifestation of the divine Logos, which had partial manifestations in Greek philosophy and the traditions of several peoples. Such manifestations were given in symbols (Strom. 5.4.19.3–4.21) – the appropriate way of expression of the mystery of a divinity that, for Clement as for the Mid- dle Platonists, is transcendent and ineffable. Like Justin, who seems to have been the first to use “philosophy” in reference to Christianity,5 Clement de- scribes Christianity as βάρβαρος φιλοσοφία (Strom. 2.11.25) and true philoso- phy.6 This position will be developed not only, most notably, by Origen, but also by his follower Eusebius (PE 1.4.10). Clement did not use θεολογία in reference to Christianity for the same reason why Origen disliked ἀλληγορία: θεολογία smacked too much of “paganism”, since it was used in connection with the philosophical allegoresis of “pagan” myths and rituals. The philosophers’ ideas for Clement did contain seeds of truth, and Greek philosophy was a valid preparation for Christianity.7 The Greeks received 2 Ramelli (2016b) 3 Ramelli (2015b). 4 Demonstration in Ramelli (2013a), 137–215. 5 Apology 2.12.5; Dialogue with Trypho 8. 6 Strom. 1.1.21.28.156; 2.7.54. 7 Strom. 1.1–9.021; 6.7–8. Ilaria Ramelli - 9789004355385 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 03:33:17PM via free access origen to evagrius 273 “certain sparkles of the divine Logos,” albeit they did not reach the full flame (Protrepticus 7.74.7). Particularly Plato speaks “as though he were inspired” (Strom. 1.8.42.1); he and the other philosophers derived from “Moses” the truths of their philosophy.8 In support of the anteriority of the Mosaic philos- ophy to Greek philosophy Clement nominally invoked Philo and Aristobulus,9 to conclude that “the whole of Greek wisdom derived from barbarian philoso- phy.”10 Greek philosophy is, “in a way, providential” (Strom. 1.1.18.4). Clement quotes Numenius – later praised by Origen – who, as mentioned, described Plato as “a Greek-speaking Moses” (Strom. 1.22.150.4). Philosophy is useful in refuting heresies. In Strom. 1.19.95–96, Clement in- terprets Prov 27:10, “A friend nearby is better than a brother living far away,” identifying friends with philosophers and brothers with heretics. The source of heresy is not philosophy, as many heresiologists maintained, but the wrong interpretation of Scripture (Strom. 7.16.97.4). The same will be held by Origen, who accused “heretics” such as Marcionites and “Gnostics” of exegetical faults. Philosophy is the quest for truth, and Christ is Truth (Strom. 1.5.32.4). Pla- to’s ideal of assimilation to God and the Stoic ideal of apatheia are in perfect accord with Scripture and were actually already found in Scripture. The philos- ophers who incarnated virtue are potentially Christian and “martyrs” of – i.e. witnesses to – the Logos, since their prototype is Christ-Logos.11 Plato hinted at the Trinity, Empedocles at the resurrection; Plato pointed to ways leading to the knowledge of God and is in agreement with Paul.12 The Logos spoke through the prophets and Greek philosophers, and finally directly, when it became incarnate (Paedagogus 1.7.58.1). Greeks, Jews, and Christians “have known the same God: the Greeks according to paganism, the Jews according to Judaism, and the Christians according to the Spirit” (Strom. 6.5.41.6–7). The conviction that the Divinity expresses itself in Scripture should exhort Christians to research, making them “zetetic” (a key concept for Origen later). Such rational investigation confirms faith. Truth is expressed in symbols, that exegetes may exert their minds in the effort of interpretation.13 Many philosophers “expressed philosophical ideas symbolically” (Strom. 5.9.56), but Plato most of all – a line later followed by Eusebius. Clement inter- prets the words of Miriam’s canticle, “He triumphed with glory … threw into 8 Strom. 2.1.1; 6.3.28. 9 Strom. 1.15.72.4; 5.14.97.7. 10 Strom. 5.14.140.2; 6.7.55.3–4. 11 Strom. 2.19–22; cf. 4.1–9. 12 Strom. 3.3.18.1–2; 5.14. 13 Strom. 5.4.24; 6.15.126.2. Ilaria Ramelli - 9789004355385 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 03:33:17PM via free access 274 Ramelli the sea both horse and knight” (Ex 15:1–21) in reference to reason that over- comes passions, with a reminiscence of Plato’s Phaedrus and the injunction for the charioteer to control the horse representing the soul’s concupiscent faculty (Strom. 5.10.52–53). Christians had to ground their doctrines philosophically and develop a Lo- gos theology, which identified Christ with God’s preexistent Logos. This oper- ation, after the Johannine Prologue, continued with Justin, most Valentinians, Clement, and especially Origen, and all of Patristic philosophy, which largely depends on Origen, primarily Gregory Nyssen.14 Clement’s concept of the Logos being “all realities as One” must be seen against the backdrop of Middle Platonism, in which the Logos is the seat of the Ideas (the intelligible cosmos), which are the paradigms of reality, and joins them all in unity. In Middle Platonism, Plato’s Ideas had become thoughts of God, located in God’s mind, i.e. God’s Logos. For Christian Middle Platonists, such as Bardaisan and Clement, God’s Logos is Christ; therefore, Christ/Logos is the place of all Ideas and unifies them – God’s Logos being “all things as One”. In Strom. 4.25.155.2–157.2 Clement observes that, according to Plato, the nous is like a divinity able to contemplate the Ideas and the invisible God, and inhabits humans (4.25.155.2). The nous is “the seat of the Ideas,” and is itself God, as “God is nous.” The soul depicted by Plato, absorbed in the contemplation of the Ideas and detached from the sensible world, is assimilated by Clement to an angel who is with Christ (4.25.155.2). Clement, building up the equation, “soul: Ideas = angel: Christ,” draws a parallel, not only between the soul and an angel, but also between the Ideas and Christ, due to his concept of Christ-Logos as seat of all Ideas.