Liberating Clement: No, Origen Does NOT Perfect C.o.A.’s Teaching

OR WHY I PART WAYS WITH ONE OF MAINSTREAM SCHOLARSHIP’S TALKING POINTS

One commenter on a recent post by Brian LePort suggested the majority line that the theology of Origen somehow “perfects” Clement’s theology.  While most scholars have come to this conclusion, even in my first readings and comparisons of Clement & Origen, without the said pre-supposition, tell a different story. There are several reasons why I reject this premise, and why I will never accept such a simple deduction, but for starters, historical context matters. Clement and Origen are years apart in terms; Clement is dead by the time Origen is even born.

But I think perhaps the most crucial difference between C & O is their starting points theologically. Yes, both are Platonists, but guess what? There are many forms of Platonism. So in order understand these theologians, one must recognize the exact brand of Platonist kool-aid they drank (okay, that was a bit over dramatic).  For Clement, besides the gospel and Christian tradition as well as his experience as a middle-upper class Roman Egyptian [my limited guesstimate from the audiences he addresses], is CoA’s reliance on JEWISH MIDDLE PLATONISM, especially from Philo. There are many works on this, even though it is an under-researched topic.  Given the fact that Judaism and Middle Platonism were placed on the margins of Roman Egyptian society in Clement’s day, his theology when placed up against his context serves as a rather subversive force. One of the more admirable features of Clement’s theology is the lengths he goes to construct a Christology from the Jewish Bible & the New Testament witness while using Jewish Middle Platonism as a bridge between the two.  The monotheism of Judaism, Christianity, and deistic Platonism were not popular ideas in second & third century Roman Egypt. In Clement’s the Stromata, which I translate as accurately as possible, the Carpets, Clement refers to Christ as The Law Incarnate, an obvious example of taking his cue from Philo, who refers to the Logos/Wisdom as the Law in the Jewish scriptures. The Logos, as Philo and Clement understand It, is like a general, taking orders from the invisible and transcendent distant Executive, the One.

In stark contrast, Origen does not prioritize Philo’s teachings into his works, but rather he chooses to begin with secular Middle Platonism, which assumes that the Logos is a secondary and inferior figure underneath the ONE. Obviously, this is what Origen’s Christology and Trinitarianism looks like: Christ the Logos is in subordination to a hierarchy. Origen relates much more with Middle Platonist thinkers such as Numenious and Alcinous rather than Clement and Philo.

The Logos is through and through imminent within all of creation as the world-soul in secular Middle Platonism and in Origen’s Christology. In contrast, Clement’s logos is both imminent and transcendent, and therefore there is a need for the Law, and subsequently, the Mosaic covenant and Incarnation.

So no, Origen does not perfect Clement’s theology, because they depend on two different forms of Platonism.

For more information on this topic, I would highly recommend Richard M. Berchman’s From Philo to Origen: Middle Platonism in Transition. (Brown Judaic studies, no. 69. Chico, Calif: Scholars Press, 1984).

RodtRDH

Formerly known as Rod of Alexandria, Rod the Rogue Demon Hunter Preacher of Hope | Black Scholar of Patristics | Writer for Nonviolent Politics. Destroyer of Trolls. It must be that angry puppy.

More Posts - Website