Yup, the unproblematic identification with the Sophia of the LXX in Proverbs 8 and the Logos is really, in my book, very strong evidence that the heteroousians were actually "traditional" when it came to chirstology/theology proper.
"There was then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated." (Fragments, Part I, section III)
"that so great a work was accomplished in so brief a space by the Lord, who, though despised as to appearance, was in reality adored, the expiator of sin, the Saviour, the clement, the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God, not disbelieved in by all when He was first preached, nor altogether unknown when, assuming the character of man, and fashioning Himself in flesh, He enacted the drama of human salvation: for He was a true champion and a fellow-champion with [ie. God among creatures, not that Jesus is classed as a creature] the creature." (Exhortations, Chap 10)
"Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the Expiator, the Savior, the Soother, the Divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son." (Exhortation to the Greeks, 10:110:1).
"Now the Stoics say that God, like the soul, is essentially body and spirit. You will find all this explicitly in their writings. Do not consider at present their allegories as the gnostic truth presents them; whether they show one thing and mean another, like the dexterous athletes, Well, they say that God pervades all being; while we call Him solely Maker, and Maker by the Word. They were misled by what is said in the book of Wisdom: 'He pervades and passes through all by reason of His purity;' since they did not understand that this was said of Wisdom, which was the first of the creation of God (SOFIAS THS PRWTOKTISTOU TWi QEWi)" (_Stromata_ 5.14).
Compare _Stromata_ 6.7, where Clement also uses the Greek term PRWTOKTISTOS for Wisdom or LOGOS.
I've onlny found in 6.7 "μηνύων τὸν πρωτόγονον υἱὸν" translates to "indicating/mentioning the firstborn son", and "πρώτης καταβολῆς" refers to "first foundation" or "original foundation," often translated as "from the foundation of the world" in many Christian texts. It's a phrase that suggests the beginning of time or the very start of the world's existence, often used to emphasize something's ancient or primordial nature.
observation: Ninc is obsessed with Jesus never being called a "creature" but no one here (Me, Edgar or the Witnesses) Hold that position - to say Christ is a mere creature would be putting him on a level where he is not.
However it cant be denied that "First-created" was applied (along with Firstborn of the dead) shows we should understand both meanings (as numerous scholars now concede, though refuse to adjust their beliefs)
A not "mere creature" is still a creature, but the Son is not a creature, but the only-begotten God.
"However it cant be denied that "First-created" was applied"
I'm still waiting for the clarification of the source, since in the Clementine text, not the Son, but Wisdom is called πρωτόκτιστος, but even if it's true: - the ambiguous word 'ktizo', calling Jesus 'ktisma' does not necessarily mean what you want to see in it - not every expression that sounds like a heretic proves an actualy heresy, one part of a sentence cannot be extracted from the work of the given church father, e.g. if Clement openly proclaims that Jesus is real God, then this is relevant - this does not prove a universal belief that a single witness is not a witness (unus testis nullus testis), a biblical rule - the concept of created Wisdom is known also for Augustine, but it is not identified with the person of the Son.
"shows we should understand both meanings"
The birth/generation of the Son from the Father is not synonymous with creation/being made, since these are not just different words, but the underlying meaning must be seen.
"A not "mere creature" is still a creature" - yet you use a different rhetoric in other places.. isreal is apparently not a nation (Num 23:9), despite me finding multiple commentaries saying it didn't class itself as idolotrous. i.e did not consider themselves among the nations.
"- the concept of created Wisdom is known also for Augustine, but it is not identified with the person of the Son." - loads of sources say otherwise.. and the important thing is what does Clement mean by "God" - you assume he means the only true God, but that might not be the case.
" the Son from the Father is not synonymous with creation/being made, since these are not just different words, but the underlying meaning must be seen." - yet we see they are all used basically synonomysly by early Christians
"the ambiguous word 'ktizo', calling Jesus 'ktisma' does not necessarily mean what you want to see in it" - Iv looked, and to my knowledge Ktizo is always used for divine creation after Gen 14 (Lxx) and is never used when placing someone in a position
"the concept of created Wisdom is known also for Augustine, but it is not identified with the person of the Son." - I have just discovered by my own research this is another misleading argument and is not entirely true.
John Patrick observed with respect to Clement of Alexandria’s use of such terms:
“Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God, and yet he refers to Wisdom as the first-created of God; while in one passage he attaches the epithet ‘First-created,’ and in another ‘First-begotten,’ to the Word. But this seems to be rather a question of language than a question of doctrine. At a later date a sharp distinction was drawn between ‘first-created’ and ‘first-born’ or ‘first-begotten,’ but no such distinction was drawn in the time of Clement.” (Clement of Alexandria), p. 103
It's a fair question, since I can't find πρωτόκτίσις in that writing, either.
I wonder if there are textual issues with Stromata 6.7 that could account for the fact that πρωτόκτίσις was purportedly found when the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae was searched, yet it's not in the copy of the writing found at the above link.
I will do more looking: that citation may just be mistaken, but the "first-created" language certainly appears in Stromata 5. See the image affixed to this blog post for the exact reference.
See John Patrick's book about Clement, page 103, which Duncan also quoted. He points out that Clement calls Christ (the Word/Wisdom of God), "First-begotten" in Stromata 6 and "First-created" in Stromata 5. Yet Patrick contends that Clement wasn't making a sharp distinction between the terms.
"See John Patrick's book about Clement, page 103, which Duncan also quoted. He points out that Clement calls Christ (the Word/Wisdom of God), 'First-begotten' in Stromata 6 and 'First-created' in Stromata 5. Yet Patrick contends that Clement wasn't making a sharp distinction between the terms."
Right, that's the quote that I'd like to validate myself. I'd like to quote Clement himself in discussions to illustrate the point Patrick makes. I guess I need to search Stromata 5 rather than Stromata 6.
If you can enlarge the image I posted to this blog entry, you will see the exact place in Stromata 5 where protokistos occurs. The word to look for in Stromata 6 is protogonos, I believe. That is, first-begotten. To be honest, I always found Migne a pain to search. New Greek texts make it much easier to find passages.
I see where the problem is here: 1. Clement in Stromata 5 calls Wisdom πρωτόκτιστος. 2. According to Clement, Christ is the Wisdom of God.
To draw the conclusion from this by means of a syllogism that, according to Clement, Christ is the first creation of God is rather hasty and even unfounded.
1. πρωτόκτιστος does not necessarily mean "the one who is the first to be created ever". It can also be translated as ancient, first (thus pre-eminent) compared (relative) to creatures. The verb 'ktizo' itself and the expressions formed from it also have a wide range of nuances. Rather, it emphasizes his unique role in the divine economy of creation and redemption.
2. We've known since Bill Clinton that a lot depends on "what the meaning of the word 'is' is." That "Christ is the wisdom of God", the "is" does not necessarily mean a literal identification, but also application, correspondence, and typological identification. So what can be said about the Wisdom cannot automatically be said about Christ at the same time, since this is parallelism.
Always remember, though, that theological concepts, especially ones developed in the early Christian church, can be complex and multifaceted. It's often beneficial to read Clement's works directly or delve into comprehensive studies about his theology to gain a more nuanced understanding of how he uses and conceptualizes terms like πρωτόκτιστος.
Not just according to Clement, but to many of the Church Fathers - Christ was the Wisdom of God, While not explicitly identified with "The son" (as you so boldly claimed) Wisdom is explicitly identified with "The logos". (something you omitted to mention) "is" is not the only word used when "identifying" Christ (Logos) as Wisdom but also a certain word translated "called" (haven't checked, but pretty sure this is a different word.)
"1." - your changing the goal posts here...
"first (thus pre-eminent) compared (relative) to creatures." - by claiming this you omit the second part of the compound word. Funny how when what you wanted you got.. you then change the goal posts again..
"So what can be said about the Wisdom cannot automatically be said about Christ at the same time, since this is parallelism." - funny, in most cases in parallelism the core meaning to the words (though poetically different) are synonymous and most of the time relay the same message. e.g "Before the mountains were born" (Psalms 90:2), is a poetic way of saying the the mountains were "established" (prov 8) or "created" - the terms are synonymous with each other.
"The verb 'ktizo' itself and the expressions formed from it also have a wide range of nuances." - your right it does, but like Johns strict usage ("rule"*) of arkhe and arkhon (which you fail to admit, tho is observed by most** Catholics I have spoken too) you'll notice a pattern writers fell into. Observe the usages of ktizo before and after Gen 14 in the LXX. Observe the common usage in the NT notice ktizo is exclusively used of divine creation in the NT, yet before Gen 14 in the LXX, we get a different word (Gen 14 is a very rough estimate, with a 2 chapter (12 - 14 - 16) margin of error) * Its not literally a rule, if you pay attention to how I use the word(s), you would realize I mean a "self inflicted principle" or in other words John doesn't have to do this, but chooses to. (There is more, but ill let you figure that out.) ** you being the only one
sorry Edgar I cant find it either (First-created in stromata) I think the reference is wrong. (I also don't understand the numbers e.g 5.89.4 - First number is the book, idk about the other 2)
Dear Anonymous, I know "first-created" is in Stromata 5, but I can understand your confusion since there is no uniformity when it comes to references for the Patristic literature. Another source just says Stromata 5.14 for the reference. See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2009/03/subordinationism-in-clement-of.html
I've cited plenty of Augustine in the past, and that's normally done by book, chapter, and section (i.e., Confessions 1.1.1). It's complicated and as I said earlier, I never liked searching for things in Migne anyway.
Forgot to add this into my last comment: a good way to find something that has the 3 numbers e.g 5.89.[etc] is to just search it in a document like that, basically took me straight to the word.
Good news! after a LOT of digging and transliterating I think I have located both instances in Clement. Edgar if you cut off the bit that dictates the form and case? search : πρωτόγο , there are 2 instances, one applied to uion and another to aggelon
or search "6.7.58.1" and look down about 3 lines at the bottom of the page and you will see "τὸν πρωτόγονον υἱὸν"
Clement of Alexandria turns his attention to erasing the distinction previously made between the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος (the internal Word) and the λόγος προφορικός (the spoken Word). He does not accept, in explaining the origin of the Logos, the imagery employed by Justin of a spoken word. According to him, the Logos is not a word pronounced by God when He created the world; rather, it is the very power that pronounced the divine word and which preexisted that act. It is not the word spoken (in the passive sense); it is the word speaking (in the active sense). The Logos is not the creative word spoken by God at the moment of creation; rather, it is the Logos itself that speaks this word, for it is in God the power through which God speaks.
Nevertheless, Clement’s thought remains fluid and uncertain. At times, in seeking to elevate the divinity of the Logos, he appears to follow the same path as Athenagoras, conflating the Logos with God to such an extent that he sees in it only the thought and active energy of God. At other times, he emphasizes its distinct and subordinate personality to the point of almost making it a created being, the first in rank and by birth. He calls it somewhere πρωτοκτίστος ("first-created"; Stromata, V, 14), an unfortunate expression later cited by Rufinus (De adulterat. lib. Origenis) and Photius (Cod. 109), who claimed that Clement considered the Son a creature (κτίσμα). However, this is not what he intended. For Clement, there is an unbridgeable chasm between the Son and the creatures. The Son is the king and sovereign master of creation; He formed it; He is the true Demiurge: δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ("by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made"; Stromata, VI, 7); thus, He must be worshipped. Moreover, He was not formed in the same way as creatures; He was begotten (ἐγγενήθη) by an immediate act of God, who gave Himself a Son like Himself.
However, all this remains unclear, and the cited term leaves an unfortunate impression. What Clement lacks is the notion of the eternal distinction between the Son and the Father—what will later be called the eternal generation of the Son, prior to and independent of the world. The danger we noted in Justin’s doctrine is not yet averted, and thought continues to oscillate between the two tendencies that would later culminate in Sabellianism and Arianism.
Quote from here: Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski - Clement of Alexandria on Trial
Ayres comments: “It is difficult to know how we should read this. Origen says that the first act of creation, the creation of the original rational beings before the world as we know it came into being, resulted from the immediate and unimpeded expression of God’s will. This primary creation he may have termed a κτίσμα as opposed to the κόσμος of our world. The Logos is the ‘beginning’ of this creation and the medium through which it came into being. Describing the Son as κτίσμα is very different from describing the material world as created” (Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy, 27). I find this interpretation very insightful. I wish to point out that within the framework of early Alexandrian Logos-theology, both Clement and Origen show a degree of coherence in their theory of the generation/creation of the Logos. Their theory did not imply what Photios’ critique suggested, as he judged the terminology by post-Nicene and anti-Origenistic standards. Meyendorff notes that some Origenistic monks of the ‘New Lavra’ were called ‘Protoktists’ (πρωτόκτιστοι, ‘first created’) and ‘Isochrists’ (ἰσόχριστοι, ‘equal to Christ’), as both terms expressed the highest level of spiritual perfection (see Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions, 233 n. 57)
… Nonetheless neither Clement’s nor Origen’s ideas can be seen as the direct source of ‘Arian’ Christology. If this kind of influence worried later theologians, it was only because of the simplification of the theories of both Alexandrian scholars in political and ecclesiastical conflicts in later Christianity. After the leading role of Philo of Alexandria and Sapiential literature, the third element of Clement’s background, relatively neglected by scholars, comes from Jewish-Christian literature. 26 In this tradition, the origin of the divine Logos was understood to be related to the creation of the archangels. If Clement considered the possibility of calling the divine Logos ‘the first-created’, it was not only because of Philo’s example or the authority of the Scriptural book of Wisdom, but also because some of the Christians that he respected as ‘orthodox’ sources, had already applied this notion to the Son of God. Daniélou noted a number of expressions in 2 Enoch 29:3 and Hermas (Vis. 3.4.1; Sim. 5.5.3) where πρῶτοι κτισθέντες denoted ‘first created’.
However, Clement’s adaptation of the Jewish motif must be seen on a larger scale than just a single reference. The idea of naming the highest rank of angels (archangels) as ‘the first created’ refers to a theory held only by some parts of the Hellenistic Jewish community, that among the spiritual, most perfect beings, there are different categories of angels. 28 In the book of Jubiliees, the angels were created on the first day, although they did not participate in the creation of the world. 29 This Jewish- Christian amalgam of ideas, in the case of a particular group or sect called the Ebionites, 30 even expressed the view that Christ was not begotten of his divine Father, “but was created as one of the archangels”. 31 Clement of Alexandria was acquainted with these and other Jewish-Christian views on the origin of the Saviour/Archangel, and his statements show some similarity in vocabulary, a fact noted by the ancient commentators and later by Photios.
So Clement of Alexandria contended that the way in which the divine Logos “has appeared” alongside God was directly connected with his main functions and it could not be separated from his divine status. For Clement, the divine Logos was, like Jewish-Christian archangels, prior to all creation and his priority was both chronological and ontological as he was closest in the hierarchy of beings to the ineffable God. 32 Like those archangels from Jewish theological literature, the divine Logos was God’s adviser (σύμβουλος) in the creation of the world. 33 He was and is, like the archangels, the main administrator (κυβερνήτης) of the created order; 34 also, as in the case of those archangels, he was and is the ultimate messenger/revealer (μηνυτής) of God’s mystery. 35 There are parallels between the functions of the archangels and the Logos, but at the same time, as Lilla emphasised, the divine Logos held the pre-eminent position in Clement’s theory. 36 The Logos is the Mind (ὁ νοῦς) of God identified with the Platonic realm of Ideas ( ἡ χώρα). 37 The Logos is inseparable from God, but also God is indissoluble from the Logos. If so, God cannot exist without his Mind and his Wisdom. The same divine Logos ‘appeared’ or ‘disclosed’ his separate existence in the process of creation “at the beginning of time”. He was the ‘mode’ by which the invisible and visible worlds were created, as the ‘mode’ he is πρωτόκτιστος. He was not called into being in an ontological sense, as created out of something/nothing and therefore having a separate nature, but in a soteriological sense, as the unique being, who received a special function and mission as God’s messenger to all creatures. The term πρωτόκτιστος is relative, it points to the rest of the creatures to whom the Logos is prior. But with the documents so far presented we can only conclude that at this stage Clement of Alexandria did not see any problems either with this identification or with ‘vague’ terminology. […]
These examples from the Excerpta ex Theodoto and other documents show that Clement of Alexandria may be found guilty of a theological error, as Photios’ suggested. It looks as though, despite being a Christian, Clement was too deeply dependent at times on vague terms probably taken from Philo of Alexandria. He also assimilated some misinterpretations of the Scriptures on the origin of Wisdom. Furthermore, it seems Clement assimilated some doubtful materials from Jewish-Christian literature and Valentinian commentaries. To some critics, Clement’s Christian identity suffered from those associations. But, as in previous cases, Clement’s singular expressions and notions cannot be separated from the general thrust of his theology. Those problematic associations express the continuous, lively dialogue between Clement’s thought and the ideas of his milieu, the boundaries which he often crossed in order to listen, endeavour to understand and communicate his own message concerning the Logos. While avoiding anthropomorphic notions about the origin of the Logos, he was equally against the mythologizing narratives of the Gnostics. Still, whilst rejecting these models as insufficient, he expressed his belief that the origin of the divine Logos was indeed a special phenomenon, posing a paradox and presenting God’s mystery without any analogy. This mystery had to be protected from oversimplification but was also proclaimed as the core-belief of genuine Christians.
Thus, on the basis of the material examined so far, Photios’ condemnation of Clement appears to stand. If he is to be exonerated more evidence is required. The last section of this chapter provides this by examining the fourth element which shaped Clement’s problematic theory of the origin of the Logos. It explains what theological considerations led him to keep his theory of the generation of the Logos so imprecise. These reasons, as will be seen, show him as a careful defender of orthodoxy.
33 comments:
it shows a usage distinction not found in early Bible times - all these temporal terms were synonymous with one and other.
Yup, the unproblematic identification with the Sophia of the LXX in Proverbs 8 and the Logos is really, in my book, very strong evidence that the heteroousians were actually "traditional" when it came to chirstology/theology proper.
Clement NEVER called Jesus a creature
"There was then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated." (Fragments, Part I, section III)
"that so great a work was accomplished in so brief a space by the Lord, who, though despised as to appearance, was in reality adored, the expiator of sin, the Saviour, the clement, the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God, not disbelieved in by all when He was first preached, nor altogether unknown when, assuming the character of man, and fashioning Himself in flesh, He enacted the drama of human salvation: for He was a true champion and a fellow-champion with [ie. God among creatures, not that Jesus is classed as a creature] the creature." (Exhortations, Chap 10)
"Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the Expiator, the Savior, the Soother, the Divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son." (Exhortation to the Greeks, 10:110:1).
"Now the Stoics say that God, like the soul, is essentially body and spirit. You will find all this explicitly in their writings. Do not consider at present their allegories as the gnostic truth presents them; whether they show one thing and mean another, like the dexterous athletes, Well, they say that God pervades all being; while we call Him solely Maker, and Maker by the Word. They were misled by what is said in the book of Wisdom: 'He pervades and passes through all by reason of His purity;' since they did not understand that this was said of Wisdom, which was the first of the creation of God (SOFIAS THS PRWTOKTISTOU
TWi QEWi)" (_Stromata_ 5.14).
Compare _Stromata_ 6.7, where Clement also uses the Greek term PRWTOKTISTOS for Wisdom or LOGOS.
Where?
http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/Clement%20of%20Alexandria_PG%2008-09/Stromata.pdf
I've onlny found in 6.7 "μηνύων τὸν πρωτόγονον υἱὸν" translates to "indicating/mentioning the firstborn son", and "πρώτης καταβολῆς" refers to "first foundation" or "original foundation," often translated as "from the foundation of the world" in many Christian texts. It's a phrase that suggests the beginning of time or the very start of the world's existence, often used to emphasize something's ancient or primordial nature.
observation: Ninc is obsessed with Jesus never being called a "creature" but no one here (Me, Edgar or the Witnesses) Hold that position - to say Christ is a mere creature would be putting him on a level where he is not.
However it cant be denied that "First-created" was applied (along with Firstborn of the dead) shows we should understand both meanings (as numerous scholars now concede, though refuse to adjust their beliefs)
A not "mere creature" is still a creature, but the Son is not a creature, but the only-begotten God.
"However it cant be denied that "First-created" was applied"
I'm still waiting for the clarification of the source, since in the Clementine text, not the Son, but Wisdom is called πρωτόκτιστος, but even if it's true:
- the ambiguous word 'ktizo', calling Jesus 'ktisma' does not necessarily mean what you want to see in it
- not every expression that sounds like a heretic proves an actualy heresy, one part of a sentence cannot be extracted from the work of the given church father, e.g. if Clement openly proclaims that Jesus is real God, then this is relevant
- this does not prove a universal belief that a single witness is not a witness (unus testis nullus testis), a biblical rule
- the concept of created Wisdom is known also for Augustine, but it is not identified with the person of the Son.
"shows we should understand both meanings"
The birth/generation of the Son from the Father is not synonymous with creation/being made, since these are not just different words, but the underlying meaning must be seen.
"A not "mere creature" is still a creature" - yet you use a different rhetoric in other places.. isreal is apparently not a nation (Num 23:9), despite me finding multiple commentaries saying it didn't class itself as idolotrous. i.e did not consider themselves among the nations.
"- the concept of created Wisdom is known also for Augustine, but it is not identified with the person of the Son." - loads of sources say otherwise.. and the important thing is what does Clement mean by "God" - you assume he means the only true God, but that might not be the case.
" the Son from the Father is not synonymous with creation/being made, since these are not just different words, but the underlying meaning must be seen." - yet we see they are all used basically synonomysly by early Christians
"the ambiguous word 'ktizo', calling Jesus 'ktisma' does not necessarily mean what you want to see in it" - Iv looked, and to my knowledge Ktizo is always used for divine creation after Gen 14 (Lxx) and is never used when placing someone in a position
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.v.xiv.html
"the concept of created Wisdom is known also for Augustine, but it is not identified with the person of the Son." - I have just discovered by my own research this is another misleading argument and is not entirely true.
John Patrick observed with respect to Clement of Alexandria’s use of such terms:
“Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God, and yet he refers to Wisdom as the first-created of God; while in one passage he attaches the epithet ‘First-created,’ and in another ‘First-begotten,’ to the Word. But this seems to be rather a question of language than a question of doctrine. At a later date a sharp distinction was drawn between ‘first-created’ and ‘first-born’ or ‘first-begotten,’ but no such distinction was drawn in the time of Clement.” (Clement of Alexandria), p. 103
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2009/03/subordinationism-in-clement-of.html
Nincsnevem asked:
"Where?
http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/Clement%20of%20Alexandria_PG%2008-09/Stromata.pdf"
It's a fair question, since I can't find πρωτόκτίσις in that writing, either.
I wonder if there are textual issues with Stromata 6.7 that could account for the fact that πρωτόκτίσις was purportedly found when the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae was searched, yet it's not in the copy of the writing found at the above link.
Thoughts?
~Sean
Sean,
I will do more looking: that citation may just be mistaken, but the "first-created" language certainly appears in Stromata 5. See the image affixed to this blog post for the exact reference.
See John Patrick's book about Clement, page 103, which Duncan also quoted. He points out that Clement calls Christ (the Word/Wisdom of God), "First-begotten" in Stromata 6 and "First-created" in Stromata 5. Yet Patrick contends that Clement wasn't making a sharp distinction between the terms.
Hi Edgar,
You said:
"See John Patrick's book about Clement, page 103, which Duncan also quoted. He points out that Clement calls Christ (the Word/Wisdom of God), 'First-begotten' in Stromata 6 and 'First-created' in Stromata 5. Yet Patrick contends that Clement wasn't making a sharp distinction between the terms."
Right, that's the quote that I'd like to validate myself. I'd like to quote Clement himself in discussions to illustrate the point Patrick makes. I guess I need to search Stromata 5 rather than Stromata 6.
~Sean
Hi Sean,
If you can enlarge the image I posted to this blog entry, you will see the exact place in Stromata 5 where protokistos occurs. The word to look for in Stromata 6 is protogonos, I believe. That is, first-begotten. To be honest, I always found Migne a pain to search. New Greek texts make it much easier to find passages.
Hi Edgar,
Thank you for the clarification and additional resource. It looks like it's time find a searchable Greek text of Stromata 5:-)
~Sean
I see where the problem is here:
1. Clement in Stromata 5 calls Wisdom πρωτόκτιστος.
2. According to Clement, Christ is the Wisdom of God.
To draw the conclusion from this by means of a syllogism that, according to Clement, Christ is the first creation of God is rather hasty and even unfounded.
1. πρωτόκτιστος does not necessarily mean "the one who is the first to be created ever". It can also be translated as ancient, first (thus pre-eminent) compared (relative) to creatures. The verb 'ktizo' itself and the expressions formed from it also have a wide range of nuances. Rather, it emphasizes his unique role in the divine economy of creation and redemption.
2. We've known since Bill Clinton that a lot depends on "what the meaning of the word 'is' is." That "Christ is the wisdom of God", the "is" does not necessarily mean a literal identification, but also application, correspondence, and typological identification. So what can be said about the Wisdom cannot automatically be said about Christ at the same time, since this is parallelism.
Always remember, though, that theological concepts, especially ones developed in the early Christian church, can be complex and multifaceted. It's often beneficial to read Clement's works directly or delve into comprehensive studies about his theology to gain a more nuanced understanding of how he uses and conceptualizes terms like πρωτόκτιστος.
See also the Lampe lexicon image I posted the other day, and some of us have read Clement's works.
Not just according to Clement, but to many of the Church Fathers - Christ was the Wisdom of God, While not explicitly identified with "The son" (as you so boldly claimed) Wisdom is explicitly identified with "The logos". (something you omitted to mention)
"is" is not the only word used when "identifying" Christ (Logos) as Wisdom but also a certain word translated "called" (haven't checked, but pretty sure this is a different word.)
"1." - your changing the goal posts here...
"first (thus pre-eminent) compared (relative) to creatures." - by claiming this you omit the second part of the compound word. Funny how when what you wanted you got.. you then change the goal posts again..
"So what can be said about the Wisdom cannot automatically be said about Christ at the same time, since this is parallelism."
- funny, in most cases in parallelism the core meaning to the words (though poetically different) are synonymous and most of the time relay the same message.
e.g "Before the mountains were born" (Psalms 90:2), is a poetic way of saying the the mountains were "established" (prov 8) or "created" - the terms are synonymous with each other.
"The verb 'ktizo' itself and the expressions formed from it also have a wide range of nuances."
- your right it does, but like Johns strict usage ("rule"*) of arkhe and arkhon (which you fail to admit, tho is observed by most** Catholics I have spoken too) you'll notice a pattern writers fell into.
Observe the usages of ktizo before and after Gen 14 in the LXX.
Observe the common usage in the NT notice ktizo is exclusively used of divine creation in the NT, yet before Gen 14 in the LXX, we get a different word
(Gen 14 is a very rough estimate, with a 2 chapter (12 - 14 - 16) margin of error)
* Its not literally a rule, if you pay attention to how I use the word(s), you would realize I mean a "self inflicted principle" or in other words John doesn't have to do this, but chooses to. (There is more, but ill let you figure that out.)
** you being the only one
sorry Edgar I cant find it either (First-created in stromata) I think the reference is wrong. (I also don't understand the numbers e.g 5.89.4 - First number is the book, idk about the other 2)
Dear Anonymous, I know "first-created" is in Stromata 5, but I can understand your confusion since there is no uniformity when it comes to references for the Patristic literature. Another source just says Stromata 5.14 for the reference. See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2009/03/subordinationism-in-clement-of.html
I think the quote there uses Stromata 5.14.89.
https://libguides.dickinson.edu/classicalstudies/citing
I've cited plenty of Augustine in the past, and that's normally done by book, chapter, and section (i.e., Confessions 1.1.1). It's complicated and as I said earlier, I never liked searching for things in Migne anyway.
Augustine about the created Wisdom:
https://t.ly/KfA3t
Found it!
its the genitive form "πρωτοκτίστου"
page 178 - http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/Clement%20of%20Alexandria_PG%2008-09/Stromata.pdf
Thanks Anonymous.
Forgot to add this into my last comment:
a good way to find something that has the 3 numbers e.g 5.89.[etc] is to just search it in a document like that, basically took me straight to the word.
Good news! after a LOT of digging and transliterating I think I have located both instances in Clement.
Edgar if you cut off the bit that dictates the form and case?
search : πρωτόγο , there are 2 instances, one applied to uion and another to aggelon
or search "6.7.58.1" and look down about 3 lines at the bottom of the page and you will see "τὸν πρωτόγονον υἱὸν"
Clement of Alexandria turns his attention to erasing the distinction previously made between the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος (the internal Word) and the λόγος προφορικός (the spoken Word). He does not accept, in explaining the origin of the Logos, the imagery employed by Justin of a spoken word. According to him, the Logos is not a word pronounced by God when He created the world; rather, it is the very power that pronounced the divine word and which preexisted that act. It is not the word spoken (in the passive sense); it is the word speaking (in the active sense). The Logos is not the creative word spoken by God at the moment of creation; rather, it is the Logos itself that speaks this word, for it is in God the power through which God speaks.
Nevertheless, Clement’s thought remains fluid and uncertain. At times, in seeking to elevate the divinity of the Logos, he appears to follow the same path as Athenagoras, conflating the Logos with God to such an extent that he sees in it only the thought and active energy of God. At other times, he emphasizes its distinct and subordinate personality to the point of almost making it a created being, the first in rank and by birth. He calls it somewhere πρωτοκτίστος ("first-created"; Stromata, V, 14), an unfortunate expression later cited by Rufinus (De adulterat. lib. Origenis) and Photius (Cod. 109), who claimed that Clement considered the Son a creature (κτίσμα). However, this is not what he intended. For Clement, there is an unbridgeable chasm between the Son and the creatures. The Son is the king and sovereign master of creation; He formed it; He is the true Demiurge: δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ("by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made"; Stromata, VI, 7); thus, He must be worshipped. Moreover, He was not formed in the same way as creatures; He was begotten (ἐγγενήθη) by an immediate act of God, who gave Himself a Son like Himself.
However, all this remains unclear, and the cited term leaves an unfortunate impression. What Clement lacks is the notion of the eternal distinction between the Son and the Father—what will later be called the eternal generation of the Son, prior to and independent of the world. The danger we noted in Justin’s doctrine is not yet averted, and thought continues to oscillate between the two tendencies that would later culminate in Sabellianism and Arianism.
Quote from here: Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski - Clement of Alexandria on Trial
Ayres comments: “It is difficult to know how we should read this. Origen says that the first act of creation, the creation of the original rational beings before the world as we know it came into being, resulted from the immediate and unimpeded expression of God’s will. This primary creation he may have termed a κτίσμα as opposed to the κόσμος of our world. The Logos is the ‘beginning’ of this creation and the medium through which it came into being. Describing the Son as κτίσμα is very different from describing the material world as created” (Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy, 27). I find this interpretation very insightful. I wish to point out that within the framework of early Alexandrian Logos-theology, both Clement and Origen show a degree of coherence in their theory of the generation/creation of the Logos. Their theory did not imply what Photios’ critique suggested, as he judged the terminology by post-Nicene and anti-Origenistic standards. Meyendorff notes that some Origenistic monks of the ‘New Lavra’ were called ‘Protoktists’ (πρωτόκτιστοι, ‘first created’) and ‘Isochrists’ (ἰσόχριστοι, ‘equal to Christ’), as both terms expressed the highest level of spiritual perfection (see Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions, 233 n. 57)
… Nonetheless neither Clement’s nor Origen’s ideas can be seen as the direct source of ‘Arian’ Christology. If this kind of influence worried later theologians, it was only because of the simplification of the theories of both Alexandrian scholars in political and ecclesiastical conflicts in later Christianity. After the leading role of Philo of Alexandria and Sapiential literature, the third element of Clement’s background, relatively neglected by scholars, comes from Jewish-Christian literature. 26 In this tradition, the origin of the divine Logos was understood to be related to the creation of the archangels. If Clement considered the possibility of calling the divine Logos ‘the first-created’, it was not only because of Philo’s example or the authority of the Scriptural book of Wisdom, but also because some of the Christians that he respected as ‘orthodox’ sources, had already applied this notion to the Son of God. Daniélou noted a number of expressions in 2 Enoch 29:3 and Hermas (Vis. 3.4.1; Sim. 5.5.3) where πρῶτοι κτισθέντες denoted ‘first created’.
However, Clement’s adaptation of the Jewish motif must be seen on a larger scale than just a single reference. The idea of naming the highest rank of angels (archangels) as ‘the first created’ refers to a theory held only by some parts of the Hellenistic Jewish community, that among the spiritual, most perfect beings, there are different categories of angels. 28 In the book of Jubiliees, the angels were created on the first day, although they did not participate in the creation of the world. 29 This Jewish- Christian amalgam of ideas, in the case of a particular group or sect called the Ebionites, 30 even expressed the view that Christ was not begotten of his divine Father, “but was created as one of the archangels”. 31 Clement of Alexandria was acquainted with these and other Jewish-Christian views on the origin of the Saviour/Archangel, and his statements show some similarity in vocabulary, a fact noted by the ancient commentators and later by Photios.
So Clement of Alexandria contended that the way in which the divine Logos “has appeared” alongside God was directly connected with his main functions and it could not be separated from his divine status. For Clement, the divine Logos was, like Jewish-Christian archangels, prior to all creation and his priority was both chronological and ontological as he was closest in the hierarchy of beings to the ineffable God. 32 Like those archangels from Jewish theological literature, the divine Logos was God’s adviser (σύμβουλος) in the creation of the world. 33 He was and is, like the archangels, the main administrator (κυβερνήτης) of the created order; 34 also, as in the case of those archangels, he was and is the ultimate messenger/revealer (μηνυτής) of God’s mystery. 35 There are parallels between the functions of the archangels and the Logos, but at the same time, as Lilla emphasised, the divine Logos held the pre-eminent position in Clement’s theory. 36 The Logos is the Mind (ὁ νοῦς) of God identified with the Platonic realm of Ideas ( ἡ χώρα). 37 The Logos is inseparable from God, but also God is indissoluble from the Logos. If so, God cannot exist without his Mind and his Wisdom. The same divine Logos ‘appeared’ or ‘disclosed’ his separate existence in the process of creation “at the beginning of time”. He was the ‘mode’ by which the invisible and visible worlds were created, as the ‘mode’ he is πρωτόκτιστος. He was not called into being in an ontological sense, as created out of something/nothing and therefore having a separate nature, but in a soteriological sense, as the unique being, who received a special function and mission as God’s messenger to all creatures. The term πρωτόκτιστος is relative, it points to the rest of the creatures to whom the Logos is prior. But with the documents so far presented we can only conclude that at this stage Clement of Alexandria did not see any problems either with this identification or with ‘vague’ terminology. […]
These examples from the Excerpta ex Theodoto and other documents show that Clement of Alexandria may be found guilty of a theological error, as Photios’ suggested. It looks as though, despite being a Christian, Clement was too deeply dependent at times on vague terms probably taken from Philo of Alexandria. He also assimilated some misinterpretations of the Scriptures on the origin of Wisdom. Furthermore, it seems Clement assimilated some doubtful materials from Jewish-Christian literature and Valentinian commentaries. To some critics, Clement’s Christian identity suffered from those associations. But, as in previous cases, Clement’s singular expressions and notions cannot be separated from the general thrust of his theology. Those problematic associations express the continuous, lively dialogue between Clement’s thought and the ideas of his milieu, the boundaries which he often crossed in order to listen, endeavour to understand and communicate his own message concerning the Logos. While avoiding anthropomorphic notions about the origin of the Logos, he was equally against the mythologizing narratives of the Gnostics. Still, whilst rejecting these models as insufficient, he expressed his belief that the origin of the divine Logos was indeed a special phenomenon, posing a paradox and presenting God’s mystery without any analogy. This mystery had to be protected from oversimplification but was also proclaimed as the core-belief of genuine Christians.
Thus, on the basis of the material examined so far, Photios’ condemnation of Clement appears to stand. If he is to be exonerated more evidence is required. The last section of this chapter provides this by examining the fourth element which shaped Clement’s problematic theory of the origin of the Logos. It explains what theological considerations led him to keep his theory of the generation of the Logos so imprecise. These reasons, as will be seen, show him as a careful defender of orthodoxy.
https://www.academia.edu/4996259
I am closing this thread. Thanks
Post a Comment