Harvard Theological Review

http://journals.cambridge.org/HTR
Additional services for Harvard

Theological

Review:
Email alerts: Click here
Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the Birth of the Trinitarian Meaning of

Hypostasis
Ilaria L. E. Ramelli
Harvard Theological Review / Volume 105 / Issue 03 / July 2012, pp 302 - 350
DOI: 10.1017/S0017816012000120, Published online: 11 July 2012

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0017816012000120

How to cite this article:
Ilaria L. E. Ramelli (2012). Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the Birth of the Trinitarian
Meaning of Hypostasis. Harvard Theological Review, 105, pp 302-350 doi:10.1017/
S0017816012000120
Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/HTR, IP address: 150.217.1.66 on 06 Feb 2016

Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the

Birth of the Trinitarian Meaning of
Hypostasis*
Ilaria L. E. Ramelli
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan

Q2ULJHQV7HFKQLFDO0HDQLQJRI
Origen, far from being a precursor of Arianism, as he was depicted during the
Origenist controversy and is often still misrepresented today, was the main inspirer
of the Nicene-Cappadocian line.1 The Trinitarian formulation of this line, which was
represented above all by Gregory of Nyssa, is that God is one and the same nature
RUHVVHQFHLQWKUHHLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHVDQG
WKDWWKH6RQLVWRWKH)DWKHU,QGHHGWKHWKUHHPHPEHUVRIWKH7ULQLW\
VKDUHLQWKHVDPH2 This formulation was followed by Basil in his last phase;
Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzus from 362 onwards; Evagrius; and numerous later
authors.32ULJHQKLPVHOIKDGDOUHDG\PDLQWDLQHGERWKWKLQJVWKDWWKH)DWKHUWKH
6RQDQGWKH6SLULWKDYHWKHVDPHEXWDUHWKUHHGLIIHUHQWDQG
*
'UDIWVRIWKLVHVVD\ZHUHSUHVHQWHGLQ1RYHPEHULQ0LODQDQG)HEUXDU\LQ5RPHDQG
at the 2012 ISNS Congress; I thank those who attended my lectures, the two anonymous readers of
HTR for their perceptive reading and helpful suggestions, and all colleagues who discussed my study
with me. Special thanks to the HTR copy editor for her careful work.
1
I have argued this in Origens Anti-Subordinationism and its Heritage in the Nicene and
Cappadocian Line, VC
2
:KHQ2ULJHQVD\VWKDWWKH6RQGLIIHUVIURPWKH)DWKHULQDQGOr
he is speaking of the Sons humanity. [The Greek throughout this article is rendered in Times font.]
3
This formula was a response to the question, Is God one or more than one? recently investigated by
James Ernest, Patristic Exegesis and the Arithmetic of the Divine, in God in Early Christian Thought:
Essays in Memory of Lloyd G. Patterson (eds. Andrew B. McGowan, Brian E. Daley, and Timothy
-*DGHQ/HLGHQ%ULOO

HTR 105:3 (2012) 30250

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

303

Gregory of Nyssa closely followed him. As I set out to argue, Origens thought
represented a novel and fundamental theorization with respect to the communality
RIDQGWKHLQGLYLGXDOLW\RIFRQFHLYHGDVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHV
LQWKH7ULQLW\+HLQXHQFHGQRWRQO\VXEVHTXHQW7ULQLWDULDQWKHRORJ\EXWSHUKDSV
even pagan Neoplatonism. (Likewise, on the christological side, Annewies van
den Hoek5 has insightfully demonstrated the importance of Origen in askingand
HQGHDYRULQJWRDQVZHUWKHTXHVWLRQRIWKHXQLFDWLRQRIKXPDQLW\DQGGLYLQLW\
LQ&KULVWDQG2ULJHQVLQXHQFHRQODWHUIRUPXODWLRQV
2IFRXUVH2ULJHQGLGQRWXVHRQO\LQDWHFKQLFDO7ULQLWDULDQPHDQLQJ
for instance, he also used it in the sense of foundation;6 of material or incorporeal
substance;7 of existence;8 constitution, or coming into existence;9 and of
reality as opposed to appearance; conceptuality or insubstantiality.10 Comm.

)RU*UHJRU\RI1\VVDVFRQFHSWLRQVHHHJ/XFLDQ7XUFHVFXGregory of Nyssa and the Concept of
Divine Persons2[IRUG2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV-RKDQQHV=DFKKXEHU2QFHDJDLQ*UHJRU\RI
Nyssa on Universals, JTS &KULVWRSKHU6WHDG,QGLYLGXDO3HUVRQDOLW\LQ2ULJHQDQGWKH
&DSSDGRFLDQ)DWKHUVLQLGHPSubstance and Illusion in the Christian Fathers (London: Variorum
5HSULQWVLGHPDivine Substance2[IRUG2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
5
2ULJHQV5ROHLQ)RUPXODWLQJ/DWHU&KULVWRORJLFDO/DQJXDJHLQOrigeniana Septima (ed. Wolfgang
$%HLHQHUWDQG8ZH.KQHZHJ/HXYHQ3HHWHUV$ERRNRQWKLVSUREOHPLVIRUWKFRPLQJ
by Christopher Beeley, in which a chapter is devoted to Origens christological doctrine. I am grateful to
the author for having me read it in advance for comments.
6
E.g., Comm. Jo. 7UXHOLIHEHFRPHVWKHfoundation of knowledge

7
Dial. 16: What is in the image of God is immaterial and better than every corporeal substance
    Cels. 7KH LQFRUSRUHDO VXEVWDQFH 
 RI WKH KXPDQ VRXO RU RI DQJHOV       LV LPSHULVKDEOH DQG
impossible to consume and annihilate. Likewise in Or.HVVHQFHSURSHU
UHIHUVWRWKHVXEVWDQFHRILQFRUSRUHDOUHDOLWLHVZKLFKSRVVHVVWKH
EHLQJVWDEO\Philoc. 1.28: Gods gifts are immensely
EHWWHUWKDQPRUWDOVXEVWDQFHRUH[LVWHQFH >$OOWUDQVODWLRQVDQGLWDOLFV
in this essay are mine.]
8
Cels.$VHQVHSHUFHSWLEOHERG\GRHVQRWH[SODLQWKHPRGDOLW\RILWVH[LVWHQFH
%XWZHSHUFHLYHWKHVSOHQGRUDQGWKHH[LVWHQFHRI
heavenly bodies by looking at them.
9
E.g., in Cels.  7KH SULQFLSOH RI WKH FRQVWLWXWLRQ RI DOO UHDOLWLHV   
 Comm. Gen. 3*  7KH VXEVWDQFH WKDW IRUPHG WKH VXEVWUDWXP 
  LH WKH SUHH[LVWLQJ PDWWHU VKRXOG KDYH EHHQ LPPHQVH LQ RUGHU WR EH
HQRXJKIRUWKHFRQVWLWXWLRQRIVXFKDELJFRVPRVComm.
Jo.7KHUVWDQGSULQFLSDOFRQVWLWXWLRQRIWKHKXPDQ
being is in the image of God.
10

In Cels.  WKH WHUP UHIHUV WR WKH GHQLHG UHDO H[LVWHQFH RI SDJDQ GHLWLHV  
/LNHZLVHLQCels. 8.67, in reference to Athena: Let someone prove her existence
DQGGHVFULEHKHUVXEVWDQFH DVWKRXJKVKHKDGDQRQWRORJLFDO
VXEVLVWHQFH,QComm. Matt.ZHQGWKHRSSRVLWLRQEHWZHHQLQIDFWDQG
conceptually: .LQJGRPRIKHDYHQDQG.LQJGRPRI*RGDUHHTXLYDOHQWLQIDFW
LIQRWDOVRFRQFHSWXDOO\OLNHZLVHLQFr. Lam. 16 the question is of enemies that are such
FRQFHSWXDOO\RUDOVRLQIDFWVHHDOVRFr. Jo.
    ELV   $ VLPLODU FRQWUDVW EHWZHHQ

304

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Jo.VKRZVWKHODVWPHDQLQJUHDOLW\YVDSSHDUDQFHRUPHUHFRQFHSWXDOLW\
LQWKH7ULQLWDULDQFRQWH[WKHUH2ULJHQFULWLFL]HVWKRVHZKRGLIIHUHQWLDWHWKH)DWKHU
DQGWKH6RQFRQFHSWXDOO\EXWQRWLQWKHLUVXEVWDQFH

2ULJHQRQWKHFRQWUDU\PDLQWDLQVWKDWWKH)DWKHULVHQGRZHGZLWKKLVRZQK\SRVWDVLV
RULQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHDQGWKH6RQZLWKKLVRZQGLIIHUHQWIURPWKH)DWKHUV7KLVLVD
conceptual and linguistic novelty that Origen introduced into the Christian theological
HOG,VKDOODUJXH7KDW)DWKHUDQG6RQHDFKDUHPDGHXSRIWZRGLVWLQFWLQGLYLGXDO
substances is repeated in Cels. 8.12, in which Origen opposes those who deny that they
DUHWZRGLIIHUHQWK\SRVWDVHV 7KLVDWWHVWDWLRQLVDOOWKHPRUH
important in that it is preserved in the original Greek and is not a fragment, nor does
it come from a work of uncertain attribution. The same polemic against those who
GHQLHGWKDWWKH)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQKDYHWZRGLIIHUHQWLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHVLVUHHFWHG
in another important passage by Origen that is preserved in Greek: Comm. Matt.11
+HUH2ULJHQPDLQWDLQVWKDWWKH)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQDUHGLVWLQFWERWKFRQFHSWXDOO\DQG
in their individual substance. Of equal importance, both for its sure authenticity and for
being preserved in Greek, is Comm. Jo. 2.10.75, in which Origen asserts that not only
WKH)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQEXWDOVRWKH6SLULWDUHWKUHHGLIIHUHQWindividual substances.12 In
Fr. in Io. 37 Origen insists that the Spirit is a hypostasis, an individual substance, and
QRWVLPSO\DQDFWLYLW\RI*RG7KLVDOVRFRQUPVSchol. Matt.3*ZKLFKLV
of uncertain attribution, and moreover introduces the concept of the identity of nature/
HVVHQFHEHWZHHQWKH3HUVRQVRIWKH7ULQLW\WKH)DWKHUWKH6RQDQGWKH6SLULWDUH
one not for the confusion of the three, but because they have one and the same nature;
their individual substances are three, perfect in all of them.13 In Comm. Jo.
LQGHHG2ULJHQH[SODLQVWKDWWKH)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQDUHWKHVDPHLQWKHLUHVVHQFHRU
EXWDWWKHVDPHWLPHWKH\DUHQRWWKHVDPHWKLQJ
HYLGHQWO\LQWKDWWKH\DUHWZRGLIIHUHQWLQGLYLGXDOVKDYLQJGLIIHUHQW
LQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHVRU
In another authentic passage preserved in Greek, Comm. Jo.  2ULJHQ
criticizes adversaries who do not conceive of the Son as having an individual substance
RIKLVRZQGLVWLQFWIURPWKDWRIWKH)DWKHUDQGZKRGRQRWFODULI\ZKDWKLVHVVHQFH
LVKLVZKLFK2ULJHQGHHPVGLYLQHDQGFRPPRQWRWKHZKROH7ULQLW\15 these
WKHRORJLDQVUDWKHUFRQVLGHUWKH6RQWREHDVRUWRIHPDQDWLRQIURPWKH)DWKHUFRQVLVWLQJ

nominally and in substance is found idem 16.6: It has two meanings indicated by the two
QDPHVEXWWKHWZRDUHRQHLQIDFW> @
11



12



13

 



&KULVWRSK0DUNVFKLHVVWXGLHV2ULJHQVFRQFHSWRIOrigenes und sein Erbe [Berlin: de

*UX\WHU@
15



ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

305

RQO\LQDQHPSW\QDPHLQV\OODEOHV16 and not in a personal, real, and individual

VXEVWDQFH2ULJHQKHUHPD\EHDWWDFNLQJ9DOHQWLQLDQFRQFHSWLRQV7KH
same is stressed in Comm. Jo.WKH6RQWKH:LVGRPRI*RGLVQRWDPHUH
UHSUHVHQWDWLRQEXWKDVDUHDOVXEVWDQFHRIKLVRZQDQ
LQFRUSRUHDODQGVRWRVD\OLYLQJVXEVWDQFH
,WLVQRWDEOHWKDWLQWKHLPPHGLDWHO\
VXEVHTXHQW FKDSWHU  2ULJHQ H[SUHVVO\ FULWLFL]HV KHUHWLFV ZKR IURP
their writings, seem to be again Valentinians. Origen further explores the individual
substance of the Son in Comm. Jo. 1.39.292: Christ-Logos has its substance in
the Wisdom of God, which is the principle of all.17 The closeness to Sel. Ps. PG
12.1125.2 is manifest: here the individual substance of Gods Logos, that is, its very
hypostasis, includes its being Wisdom.18 In Comm. Jo. 2.35.215, the testimony of
the Baptist concerning Christ is said to reveal Christs preeminent hypostasis or
LQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH LQWKDWTXD/RJRV
Christ permeates the world, being in all rational souls. In Comm. Jo.
WKHGLYLQHK\SRVWDVLVRIWKH6RQ LVVDLGWREH
separated by some from Christs human aspects. In Comm. ser. Matt. YLUWXHV
are declared to be attached to Christs individual substance,19 and in Princ. fr. 33, a
reliable Greek fragment quoted by Athanasius in Decr. WRZKLFK,VKDOOUHWXUQ
2ULJHQDIUPVWKDW&KULVW/RJRVLVWKHLPDJHQRWRIWKHQDWXUHRI*RGJHQHULFDOO\
EXWRIWKH)DWKHUVRZQLQHIIDEOHDQGXQVSHDNDEOHLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH20
There are several other references to Christs hypostasis in Greek passages from
works of less certain authenticity or that have survived only in translation, but those
,KDYHDGGXFHGVRIDUZRXOGVXIFHHYHQLQDEVHQFHRIWKHIROORZLQJ+RZHYHUWKH
correspondence between the former and the latter in the Trinitarian conception of
HVSHFLDOO\LQUHIHUHQFHWRWKH6RQVHHPVWRFRQUPWKHYDOXHRIWKH
following attestations. In Sel. Gen. PG 2ULJHQLVFULWLFL]LQJWKRVHZKRGR
QRWDGPLWWKDWWKH6RQKDVDVXEVWDQFHRIKLVRZQ 7KHVHDGYHUVDULHV
EDVHWKHLUDUJXPHQWRQ-HVXVVZRUGV7KH)DWKHUDQG,DUHRQHDQGWKHVDPHWKLQJ
which in Origens view does not imply that the Son has no individual substance of his
RZQGLVWLQFWIURPWKDWRIWKH)DWKHU,QRUGHUWRPDNHLWFOHDUWKDWZLWK
KHPHDQVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHLQWKLVFDVHWKDWRIWKH6RQ2ULJHQDGGVDV,
VKDOOVKRZWKHH[SUHVVLRQZDVFRPPRQLQWKHSKLORVRSK\RIKLVGD\
and was used to specify that a substance was not to be taken generally, but was proper to
some particular being. The dignity of the hypostasis of the Son is referred to in Sel. Ps.
3*$WWKH
same time, tKH6RQLVVDLGWREH*RGE\HVVHQFHLQFr. Jo. 1. In Comm.
16



17



18


 

19
20

7

306

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Rom.2ULJHQFULWLFL]HVhaereticiZKRGHQ\WKDWWKH)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQ
KDYHWKHVDPHHVVHQFHRUQDWXUHEXWDUHGLIIHUHQWLQWKHLUproprietates:
PDOHVHSDUDQW)LOLXPD3DWUHXW alterius naturae 3DWUHPDOWHULXV)LOLXPGLFDQW Origen
opposes to this what he regards as the correct view: the properties of each Person
of the Trinity should be considered to belong to each Persons individual substance or
ZKLOHWKHHVVHQFHRUQDWXUHLVFRPPRQWRERWKSURSULHWDWHV quidem Patri
HW)LOLRHW6SLULWXL6DQFWRVXDVFXLTXHGDELWQLKLODXWHPGLXHUVLWDWLVHVVHFRQWHELWXULQ
VXEVWDQWLDXHOQDWXUD6XEVWDQWLDXHOQDWXUDUHQGHUV5XQXVLQAdult. lib.
Orig.H[SOLFLWO\VWDWHVWKDW2ULJHQDSSOLHGWRWKH)DWKHU6RQUHODWLRQVKLS
3DWUHPHW)LOLXP unius substantiae, quod graece homoousion dicitur, designavit. In
Fr. Jo. 123 the individual substance that is referred to is that of the Spirit, and here
DJDLQWKHDGGLWLRQRILVIRXQGWRHPSKDVL]HWKDWLWLVWKHVXEVWDQFHSURSHUWR
WKH6SLULWDORQHDVGLVWLQFWIURP*RGWKH)DWKHUWKHSROHPLFLVDJDLQVWWKRVHZKR
deem the Spirit simply Gods energy or activity, without a substantial existence of
LWVRZQ
The Dialogue with Heraclides, discovered on a Toura papyrus from the end
RIWKHVL[WKFHQWXU\DQGXQNQRZQIURPDQ\RWKHUVRXUFHEHIRUHWKLVQG21 offers
a stenographic record of a public discussion, part of which is highly relevant to
WKHSUHVHQWLQYHVWLJDWLRQLQWKDWLWLVGHYRWHGWRDQDVVHVVPHQWRIWKH)DWKHU6RQ
UHODWLRQVKLS )LUVW LQ D VHULHV RI TXHVWLRQV WR +HUDFOLGHV DQG WKHQ LQ KLV RZQ
H[SRVLWLRQ2ULJHQFODULHVKRZLWLVWKDWWKH)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQDUHWZRDQGGLVWLQFW
from one another, but at the same time they are one God. Although the key term
GRHVQRWSRSXSKHUHSUREDEO\IRUWKHVDNHRIVLPSOLFLW\DQGWKHODFN
of a philosophical contextOrigens conception of two distinct hypostases in one
DQGWKHVDPHGLYLQHQDWXUHLVFOHDUDQGH[WHQVLYHO\LOOXVWUDWHG,QDQGWKH
6RQLVSUHVHQWHGDVGLVWLQFWIURPWKH)DWKHU22 and this distinction resides in
WKHGLIIHUHQFHRIWKHWZR$WWKHVDPHWLPHERWKWKH6RQDQGWKH)DWKHU
are God, and yet they are not two Gods.23 Origen, who posited two hypostases, or
better three if we take into consideration the Spirit as well, had to be careful not
WRJLYHWKHLPSUHVVLRQRISRVLWLQJWZRRUWKUHH*RGV7KXVLQKHVHWVRXW
WRH[SODLQLQZKLFKUHVSHFWWKH)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQDUHWZRDQGLQZKLFKWKHVH
WZRDUHRQHDQGWKHVDPH*RG$QGLQKLVH[SODQDWLRQPDNHVLWFOHDU
that his conception of two hypostases but one divine nature or essence countered
both a kind of pre-Arianism or adoptionism, which denied the divinity of the
6RQDQGZKDW2ULJHQKLPVHOIFDOOVZKLFKSRVWXODWHGRQO\RQHGLYLQH

21
Entretien dOrigne avec HraclideHG-HDQ6FKHUHU6&3DULVGH&HUI,Q(QJOLVK
Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides and His Fellow Bishops on the Father, the Son, and the Soul
WUDQV5REHUW-'DO\1HZ<RUN3DXOLVW
22



23

DQG

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

307

K\SRVWDVLVWKDWRIWKH)DWKHU7KHWHUPDSSHDUVRQO\KHUHDPRQJDOO
extant works of Origen. It does not mean one single power or authority, but rather
RQHVLQJOHSULQFLSOHRQHVLQJOH7KLVKHUHV\LQGHHGGHQLHGWKHhypostatic
GLVWLQFWLRQEHWZHHQWKH)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQZKHUHDV2ULJHQPDLQWDLQHGthree distinct
hypostasesLQWKH7ULQLW\FRLQFLGLQJZLWKWKHWKUHHRIDOO+LVYHU\
ZKLFKRSHQVZLWKDWUHDWPHQWRIWKH)DWKHUWKH6RQDQGWKH6SLULWDQG
UHVXPHVWKLVVDPHWUHDWPHQWLQ%RRNDVDFRQFOXVLRQWRWKHZKROHLQYHVWLJDWLRQ
SUREDEO\UHIHUVLQLWVWLWOHWRWKHVHWKUHH25 The three principles for Origen
coincide with the three hypostases of the Trinity, but God is one, and the distinct
K\SRVWDVHVVKDUHWKHVDPHGLYLQH
In a fragment preserved by Pamphilus, Apol. 50, from Origens lost commentary
RQ7LPRWK\2ULJHQFULWLFL]HVWKRVH&KULVWLDQVZKRFRQVLGHUWKH)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQ
to be one and the same hypostasis in an effort to avoid the accusation of ditheism:
uti ne uideantur duos deos dicere neque rursum negare Saluatoris deitatem,
unam eandemque subsistentiam 3DWULV HW )LOLL DGVHXHUDQW LG HVW GXR TXLdem nomina secundum diuersitatem causarum recipientem, unam tamen
VXEVLVWHUHLGHVWXQDPSHUVRQDPGXREXVQRPLQLEXVVXELDFHQWHP
TXLODWLQHSDWULSDVVLDQLDSSHOODQWXU

:KDW,KDYHSXWLQSDUHQWKHVHVLVDJORVVE\5XQXVZKRUVWFKRVHWRWUDQVODWH
ZLWKsubsistentia, which is typical of him and already of Victorinus,26
DQG WKHQ WR OHDYH WKH YHU\ *UHHN WHUP QDOO\ LQ KLV RZQ JORVV KH WUDQVODWHG
ZLWKWKH/DWLQpersona7KXV2ULJHQLQWKLVSDVVDJHUHDIUPVWKDWWKH
)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQDUHWZRGLIIHUHQWK\SRVWDVHV
$OVRLVXVHGE\2ULJHQWRUHIHUWRWKHVXEVWDQFHRIHDFKVRXOIRU
example in Cels. 6.26.27 Especially from Princ. 3.1.22 it is clear that for Origen,

.
>sic@
          


25
&OHPHQWFDOOHG*RGUVWSULQFLSOHFDXVHStrom.
       KH ZDV UHIHUULQJ WR WKH )DWKHU SURSHU
ZKRPKHLGHQWLHGZLWKWKH2QHDQGWKH*RRGDVIRUWKH6RQ/RJRVKHFDOOHGKLPVHFRQGFDXVH
Strom.
26
Victorinus used it in Adv. ArianosWRLQGLFDWHHDFKK\SRVWDVLVRIWKH7ULQLW\6HH:HUQHU
Beierwaltes, Substantia und subsistentia bei Marius Victorinus, in Hypostasis e Hyparxis nel
NeoplatonismoHGV)UDQFHVFR5RPDQRDQG'DQLHOD7DRUPLQD)ORUHQFH2OVFKNL
$QG5XQXVXVHGsubsistentia to indicate an individual substance, precisely in the sense that Origen
GHQHGZLWKDVRSSRVHGWRWKHPRUHJHQHUDOsubstantiaZKLFKFRUUHVSRQGVWR
(see, e.g., his Hist. DQGOn the use of substantia and subsistentiaLQ5XQXVVHHDOVR
Trait des Principes (eds. and trans. Henri Crouzel and Manlio Simonetti; 5 vols.; SC 252253,
2683DULV&HUI6&
27

. 


308

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

exactly as with the Trinity, rational creatures share in one and the same nature, but
each of them has its own individual substance or hypostasis.28 Rational creatures
individual substances are all distinct from one another, but they all share in the same
QDWXUH7KLVSDUDOOHOEHWZHHQKXPDQLW\RUDOOUDWLRQDOFUHDWXUHVDQGWKH7ULQLW\RQ
this scorei.e., each individual of each of these two natures has its own hypostasis
or individual substance, but all individuals within the same nature share in one and
the same essenceis the basis of Gregory of Nyssas so-called social analogy,
which I deem inspired by Origens present conception.29 This is hardly surprising
if Gregory drew inspiration from Origen for his core Trinitarian conception of
7KHLQGLYLGXDOLW\RIWKHVXEVWDQFHRIHDFK rational
FUHDWXUHDQGLQWKHVSHFLFFDVHRIKXPDQEHLQJVRIHDFKVRXOLVHPSKDVL]HG
in Sel. Ezech. PG 13.817.21: Each soul has its own individual substance, which
consists in its own rationale, and not a different one.30)RU2ULJHQWKLVLVWUXHERWK
of each soul and of each Person of the Trinity.
Origens idea that all human beings, and even all rational creatures, each one
KDYLQJLWVRZQQHYHUWKHOHVVVKDUHLQRQHDQGWKHVDPHQDWXUHRUHVVHQFH
ZDVDUJXDEO\IRUPHGDQGVWUHQJWKHQHGDJDLQVWWKHEDFNGURSRIKLVDQWL
Valentinian polemic. Whereas the Valentinians divided humanity into three different
QDWXUHVLHPDWHULDODQLPDODQGVSLULWXDOZKLFKDOVRLPSOLHG
different behaviors and different eschatological destiniesOrigen insisted that all
KXPDQVDQGDOOUDWLRQDOFUHDWXUHVKDYHWKHVDPHDQGWKDWWKHLUEHKDYLRUV
and eschatological destinies depend on each ones free will. Both the Valentinian
GLYLVLRQRIKXPDQLW\LQWRGLIIHUHQWDQG2ULJHQVWUHDWPHQWRIDJDLQVW
this conception are evident in Heracleons fragments and Origens criticism of his
work.31 7KHVDPHDQGIRUDOOWKHVRXOVLVDOVRDVVHUWHGLQDIUDJPHQW
preserved by Pamphilus (Apol.IURP2ULJHQVORVWFRPPHQWDU\RQ7LPRWK\
28
0           
(= Philoc.
29
On the so-called social analogy between humanity and the Trinity, see Giulio Maspero, Trinity
and Man: Gregory of Nyssas Ad Ablabium/HLGHQ%ULOO; I fully agree with him and with Sarah
Coakley that the social analogy of the Trinity (which implies the application of the technical notions of
DQGERWKWRWKH7ULQLW\DQGWRKXPDQLW\VKRXOGQRWJLYHULVHWRSV\FKRORJL]LQJUHDGLQJV
of the intra-Trinitarian relationships, and at the same time with Maspero that the social analogy should not
be interpreted as one among the many analogies used by Gregory as a metaphor and mere rhetorical device.
30
31

 

,QIUIURP2ULJHQComm. Jo. 13.25, Heracleon asserts that the pneumatics have the same
QDWXUHDV*RGWKH)DWKHUDQGWKH6SLULWDQGDUH
2ULJHQ UHSOLHV WKDW LI WKH SQHXPDWLF QDWXUH LV  ZLWK *RG DQG \HW FRPPLWV DGXOWHU\
(since the Samaritan woman is an adulteress but is taken by Heracleon as a representative of the
SQHXPDWLFQDWXUHWKHQWKHQDWXUHRI*RGFDQFRPPLWDGXOWHU\ZKLFKLVEODVSKHPRXV)RU2ULJHQ
RQO\WKH3HUVRQVRI*RGDUHZLWKRQHDQRWKHUDQGOLNHZLVHDOOKXPDQEHLQJVDUH
ZLWKRQHDQRWKHU7KLVLVZK\LQIUIURPComm. Jo. 20.18, Origen corrects Heracleon in quoting Jesuss
ZRUGVQRW\RXEHORQJWRWKHQDWXUH>@RIWKHGHYLOEXW\RXUIDWKHU>@LVWKH
GHYLO,PPHGLDWHO\DIWHUZDUGV2ULJHQUHIXVHVWRGHQHVRPHKXPDQEHLQJVZLWKWKHGHYLO
HQGRZHGZLWKDGLIIHUHQWWKDQWKDWRIWKHSV\FKLFVDQGWKHSQHXPDWLFV

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

309

in the framework of an anti-Valentinian argument, which, as usual, shows Origens

concern for theodicy: non omnes humanas animas unius eiusdemque dicunt esse
substantiae sed diuersas naturas animarum, inter eas haereses numerandi sunt quae
iniquitatem in Excelso loquuntur ac iniustitiam inaequalitatemque eius accusant.
7KXV2ULJHQVGLVWLQFWFRQFHSWLRQRIDVRSSRVHGWRHPHUJHV
manifestly both in his Trinitarian discourse and in his discourse on the rational
beings, or logika: both the divine nature and the rational nature are divided into a
PXOWLSOLFLW\UHVSHFWLYHO\WKUHHRUPDQ\RILQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHVRU

Q7KH/DFNRID7HFKQLFDO7KHRORJLFDO0HDQLQJIRULQ
WKH:ULWLQJVRI7KHRORJLDQV3ULRUWR2ULJHQDQG*UHJRU\RI1\VVD
2ULJHQDV,KDYHMXVWVKRZQGLVWLQJXLVKHGDQGFOHDUO\ZKHQ
speaking of the Trinity, thereby creating a technical terminology. In this, as I am
going to argue next, he differs from earlier theologiansand from Athanasius and
HYHQWKH)DWKHUVZKRLVVXHGWKH1LFHQHFDQRQVZKRXVHGWKHWZRWHUPVUDWKHU
interchangeably; this interchangeable use went on as far as the Cappadocians
mature thought. An eloquent example of such interchangeability from Clement
is Strom. 5.1.3.2; another from Irenaeus is Haer. 1.8.16.32,Q,UHQDHXV
usually means substance in general, that of a whole category.33 Unlike Origen,
,UHQDHXV QHYHU XVHV  LQ WKH VHQVH RI LQGLYLGXDO VXEVWDQFH ,Q
$WKHQDJRUDVDFRPELQHGH[SUHVVLRQLVHYHQIRXQG
(Leg1HLWKHUGRHV7DWLDQVHHPWRKDYHDQ\GLVWLQFWLYHXVDJHRI
as individual substance. He employs this term in the sense of substance or
foundation. God is the foundation and principle of all that came into existence (Or.
35 in Or. 6.2 Tatian is speaking of the resurrection, when the bodys substance
YLVLEOHRQO\WR*RGDIWHURQHVSK\VLFDOGHDWKZLOOEHUHVWRUHGWRLWV
RULJLQDOVWDWH,QVHHPVWRGHVLJQDWHWKHFDWHJRU\RIWKHGHPRQV36
But even after Origen, and before Gregory of Nyssa and the late phase of the
&DSSDGRFLDQV WKH WHFKQLFDO GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ  DQG  LQ WKH
7ULQLWDULDQHOGIDLOHGWREHSHUFHLYHGE\PDQ\$WKDQDVLXVSURYLGHVDQLQWHUHVWLQJ
example in a remarkable quotation from Origen in Decr. . While Origens own
text in this quotation displays the above-mentioned distinction, Athanasiuss words,

32
Clement:              ,UHQDHXV  
.
33
Haer.           
LELGHP
VHHDOVR


See, e.g., Or. ad Gr. 

35

$

36



310

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

ZKLFKSDUDSKUDVH2ULJHQVWH[WHQWLUHO\RYHUORRNVWKDWGLVWLQFWLRQVLQFH
LVHPSOR\HGE\KLPLQWKHVHQVHRI
5HJDUGLQJ WKH HWHUQDO FRH[LVWHQFH RI WKH /RJRV ZLWK WKH )DWKHU DQG LWV QRW
KDYLQJDGLIIHUHQWHVVHQFHRUVXEVWDQFH>@
EXW LWV EHLQJ WKH )DWKHUV RZQ RIIVSULQJ    \RX FDQ KHDU DJDLQ DOVR IURP
Origen the hardworker: If he is the image of the invisible God, he is an
LQYLVLEOHLPDJH,ZRXOGHYHQGDUHDGGWKDWEHLQJDOVRVLPLODUWRWKH)DWKHU
WKHUHLVQRWLPHZKHQKHGLGQRWH[LVW)RUZKHQLVLWWKDW*RGGLGQRWKDYH
the effulgence of his own glory, so that someone would dare posit a beginning of the Son, while he did not exist before? When is it that the image and
impression of the ineffable and inexpressible substance>@RIWKH
)DWKHUWKH/RJRVZKRNQRZVWKH)DWKHUGLGQRWH[LVW"7KHSHUVRQZKRGDUHV
say, There was a time when the Son did not exist, should consider that she
RUKHZLOODOVRDIUP2QFHXSRQDWLPH:LVGRPGLGQRWH[LVWWKH/RJRV
did not exist, Life did not exist.

$WKDQDVLXVTXRWHV2ULJHQYHUEDWLPDQGLQ2ULJHQVRZQZRUGV
    PHDQV LQGLYLGXDO VXEVWDQFH IRU LW LV RQO\
WKH )DWKHU ZKR LV LQHIIDEOH DQG LPSRVVLEOH WR QDPH QRW WKH 6RQ ZKR UHYHDOV WKH
)DWKHU2QWKHFRQWUDU\ZKHQLQWKHLQWURGXFWLRQ$WKDQDVLXVVD\VLQKLVRZQZRUGV
KHXVHVLQWKHVHQVHRIVXEVWDQFHEXWQRWRI
individual substance, which Origen distinguished for the three Persons of the
7ULQLW\,Q$WKDQDVLXVVRZQZRUGVDQGDUHV\QRQ\PV,QGHHG
KHPHDQVWKDWWKH)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQKDYHWKHVDPHVXEVWDQFHDQGQRWWKHVDPH
individual substance. Athanasius uses the two terms interchangeably in his Tomus
ad Antiochenos as well.377KH VDPH LQGLVWLQFWLYH XVH RI  DQG 
different from Origens tech-nical distinction, is found in the earliest Nicene document,
Eusebiuss Letter to his own Church, preserved by Socrates Hist. Eccl. 1.8 and quoted by
Athanasius himself (Decr. 38,Q(XVHELXVTXRWHVWKHUVWFUHGDOIRUPXODSURSRVHG
E\WKHELVKRSV7KHQKHH[SODLQV&RQVWDQWLQHLQWURGXFHG7KXV
Eusebius quotes the second Creed issued by the bishops and the emperor, which, in
the passage concerning the Son, explains that he was generated from the very essence
RUQDWXUHRIWKH)DWKHUDQGLVRIWKHVDPHQDWXUHDVWKH)DWKHU39 Then, anathemas are
appended against those who claimed that there was a time when the Son did not exist,
that before being begotten, the Son did not exist, that he came into being from nonEHLQJDVDFUHDWXUHDQGPRVWLQWHUHVWLQJO\IRUWKHSUHVHQWDUJXPHQWWKDW
the Son is of a different hypostasis or ousiaIURPWKH)DWKHU
+HUHGRHVQRWLQGLFDWHWKHLQGLYLGXDOLW\RIWKH)DWKHURUWKH6RQ
EXWWKHVXEVWDQFHRUHVVHQFHRIDOOWKH7ULQLW\WKHPHDQLQJEHLQJWKDWWKH)DWKHU
DQGWKH6RQKDYHWKHYHU\VDPHVXEVWDQFHDQGLVDV\QRQ\PRI7KXVKHUHMXVW
37
This is rightly noted by Thomas Karmann, Meletius von Antiochien. Studien zur Geschichte
des Trinittstheologischen Streits in den Jahren 360364 n.Chr.)UDQNIXUWD0/DQJ
38

Athanasius Decr. 33; Socrates Hist. Eccl. 1.8; Theodoret Hist. Eccl.2SLW]

39



ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

311

as in Athanasiuss words and in Basils earlier usage,DQGDUH

treated as synonyms, differently from what happens in Origens works.

QLack of Acknowledgment of Origens Innovation and of

,QYHVWLJDWLRQLQWR,WV6RXUFHV
Against the backdrop of the analysis conducted so far, the terminological and
FRQFHSWXDOVSHFLFLW\RI2ULJHQVWDQGVRXWDOOWKHPRUHFOHDUO\7KLVVSHFLFLW\DQG
LWVLPSRUWDUHGXHWRWKHIDFWWKDW2ULJHQUVWLQWURGXFHGWKHXVHRIDV
individual substance into Christian Trinitarian terminology. This is a remarkable
innovation that laid the foundations of a consistent Trinitarian doctrine, and indeed
proves fundamental in light of its Wirkungsgeschichte UHFHSWLRQKLVWRU\HVSHFLDOO\
in that it was inherited by Gregory of Nyssa and the orthodox Constantinopolitan
formulation. But scholars have often failed to realize this innovation and, what
is more, have left its intellectual background and roots in darkness. Even Jrgen
Hammerstaedts foundational study does not pay to Origen and his sources of
inspiration the attention they deserve. Nor do many scholars who have studied
the development of the hypostasis doctrine in later Christianity acknowledge the
writings of Origen and his sources of inspirationeither in the past century or in

See Stephen Hildebrand, The Trinitarian Theology of Basil of Caesarea (Washington: Catholic
8QLYHUVLW\ RI$PHULFD 3UHVV  7KH UVW SKDVH RI %DVLOV 7ULQLWDULDQ WKHRORJ\  LV
DQDO\]HGLQFK)DWKHUDQG6RQDUHQRWDQGLVVWLOOXVHGDV
DV\QRQ\PRI7RZDUGWKHHQGRIWKHVFK%DVLOXVHGDQGGLVWLQJXLVKHG
DQG. See also Stead, Divine Substance; Heinrich Drrie, Hypostasis. Wort- und
Bedeutungsgeschichte, NAWG    LGHP Platonica Minora 0XQLFK )LQN 
5HLQKDUG+EQHU%DVLOLXVYRQ&DHVDUHDXQGGDV+RPRRXVLRVLQChristian Faith and Greek
Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Essays in Tribute to George Christopher Stead (ed. Lionel Wickham
DQG &DUROLQH %DPPHO /HLGHQ %ULOO   9RONHU + 'UHFROO Die Entwicklung
der Trinittslehre des Basilius von Csarea*|WWLQJHQ9DQGHQKRHFN 5XSUHFKW/XFLDQ
Turcescu, Prosopon and Hypostasis in Basil of Caesareas Against Eunomius and the Epistles,
VC-RVHSK7/LHQKDUGOusia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and
the Theology of One Hypostasis, in The Trinity (ed. Stephen Davis, Daniel Kendall and Gerald
2&ROOLQV2[IRUG2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV/HZLV$\UHVNicaea and Its Legacy
2[IRUG2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVVRQWKHGHYHORSPHQWRI%DVLOV7ULQLWDULDQWKHRORJ\
and terminology. On the homoiousian doctrine I limit myself to referring to Winrich Lhr, Die
Entstehung der homischen und homusianischen Kirchenparteien%RQQ:HKOHLGHP$
Sense of Tradition: The Homoioousian Church Party, in Arianism after Arius (ed. Michael Barnes
DQG'DQLHO:LOOLDPV(GLQEXUJK7 7&ODUN

Jrgen Hammerstaedt, Hypostase, RAC; see also Rex Witt, Hypostasis, in
Amicitiae CorollaHG+*:RRG/RQGRQ8QLYHUVLW\RI/RQGRQ3UHVV

6HH)UDQ](UGLQDas Wort Hypostasis. Seine bedeutungsgeschichtliche Entwicklung in der
altchristlichen Literatur bis zum Abschluss der trinitarischen Auseinandersetzungen )UHLEXUJ
+HUGHU6HYHULQR*RQ]iOH]La formulaen san Gregorio de
Nisa5RPH*UHJRULDQD/RXLVH$EUDPRZVNL7ULQLWDULVFKHXQGFKULVWRORJLVFKH+\SRVWDVHQ
TP3DWULFN*UD\7KHRGRUHWRQWKH2QH+\SRVWDVLV$Q$QWLRFKHQHUHDGLQJ
of Chalcedon, in Studia Patristica 15 HG (OL]DEHWK$ /LYLQJVWRQH %HUOLQ$NDGHPLH 
 -RVHSK 7 /LHQKDUG 7KH $ULDQ &RQWURYHUV\ 6RPH &DWHJRULHV 5HFRQVLGHUHG TS 
-HDQ*DORW8QHVHXOHSHUVRQQHXQHVHXOHK\SRVWDVHRULJLQHHWVHQVGHODIRUPXOH

312

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

the latest years. The same is true also in connection with the Trinitarian concept
RI HVVHQFHVXEVWDQFH  &KULVWRSKHU %HHOH\ WDNHV D SDUWLFXODU SRVLWLRQ
UHJDUGLQJWKHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQDQGRLQWKH7ULQLW\DFFRUGLQJ
WR*UHJRU\1D]LDQ]HQ$JDLQVWDEDFNGURSRIFDXVDOLW\DQGPRQDUFK\RIWKH)DWKHU
GLYLQHXQLW\LVORFDWHGLQWKHPRQDUFK\RIWKH)DWKHUE\ZKLFKWKH)DWKHUIXOO\
shares his being with the Son and the Spirit. As noted by Christophe Erismann,
-RKQRI'DPDVFXVSRVLWHGDVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHDQGDVWKH
essence of all members of a species. I observe this is Origens use; John inherited
it via the Cappadocians and Maximus the Confessor.
7RP\NQRZOHGJHRQO\$ODVWDLU/RJDQKDVDWWHPSWHGWRH[SODLQEULH\ZKDW
might have inspired Origen on this score, and has hypothesized that gnostics,
de Chalcdoine, Greg    /XFLDQ7XUFHVFX Prosopon and hypostasis, VC 51
  +DQV *HRUJ 7KPPHO /RJRV DQG +\SRVWDVLV LQ Festschrift U. Wickert, Die
Weltlichkeit des Glaubens in der Alten KircheHG'LHWPDU:\UZDHWDO%HUOLQGH*UX\WHU
'DYLG*5REHUWVRQ6WRLFDQG$ULVWRWHOLDQQRWLRQVRIVXEVWDQFHLQ%DVLORI&DHVDUHD
VC

-HDQ1RsO *XLQRW 'H TXHOTXHV UpH[LRQV GH 7KpRGRUHW GH &\U VXU OHV QRWLRQV Gousia et
dhypostasis, in Munera amicitiae (ed. Rossana Barcellona and Teresa Sardella; Soveria Mannelli:
5XEEHWWLQR3HWHU*HPHLQKDUGW$SROOLQDULVRI/DRGLFHDZAC.HYLQ
Corrigan, Ousia and HypostasisLQWKH7ULQLWDULDQ7KHRORJ\RIWKH&DSSDGRFLDQ)DWKHUVZAC 
DQG+ROJHU6WUXWZROI+\SRVWDVHXQG2XVLDLQ&RQWUD(XQRPLXPGHV%DVLOLXVLQVon Homer
bis LandinoHG%HDWH5HJLQD6XFKOD%HUOLQ3UR%XVLQHVV

Christopher Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God (Oxford:
2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV

Christophe Erismann, A World of Hypostases: John of Damascus Rethinking of Aristotles
Categorical Ontology, StPatr

The often puzzling complexity of this category is underlined by Karen King in What Is Gnosticism?
&DPEULGJH0DVV+DUYDUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVVZLWKP\UHYLHZLQInvigilata Lucernis
,ODULD5DPHOOL*QRVWLFLVPRNuovo Dizionario Patristico e di Antichit Cristiane
=ODWNR3OHHREMHFWVWRDWRWDOGHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHJQRVWLFFDWHJRU\*QRVWLF/LWHUDWXUHLQReligise
Philosophie und philosophische Religion der frhen Kaiserzeit [ed. Rainer Hirsch-Luipold et
DO7ELQJHQ0RKU@+DQV):HLVVVWXGLHVWKHUHFHSWLRQRIWKH1HZ7HVWDPHQWLQ
Gnosticism and accepts this category (Frhes Christentum und Gnosis [Tbingen: Mohr, 2010].
Ismo Dundenberg builds upon Williamss and Kings arguments and regards the term gnostic as
misleading in particular for Valentinianism, on which he focuses (Beyond Gnosticism [New York:
&ROXPELD 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV @ +H VHHV WKH VFKRRO RI 9DOHQWLQXV OLNH WKRVH RI %DVLOLGHV DQG
Justin, as a philosophical school. Likewise, Philip L. Tite denies the accuracy of umbrella terms such
as Gnosticism and even Valentinianism (Valentinian Ethics and Paraenetic Discourse: Determining
the Social Function of Moral Exhortation in Valentinian Christianity>/HLGHQ%ULOO@2QWKH
other hand, Weiss regards Gnosticism as a religion of its own, consistent in itself, and opposed to
Christianity as a different religion (Frhes Christentum  LW XVHG WKH 1HZ 7HVWDPHQW RQO\ LQ
RUGHUWRFRQUPLWVRZQQRQ&KULVWLDQLGHDVDQGpassim$QRSSRVLWHYLHZLVKHOGE\
Barbara Aland, ZKRWKLQNVWKDW*QRVWLFLVP*QRVLVLQKHUWHUPLQRORJ\LVD&KULVWLDQSKHQRPHQRQ
relatively unitary, and unthinkable outside Christianity (Was ist Gnosis? >7ELQJHQ 0RKU @
In Lester Grabbe, Gnosticism is described as a kind of inverted Judaism (An Introduction to Second
Temple Judaism >1HZ<RUN7 7 &ODUNH @ HVS  'DYLG %UDNNH EHVLGHV SURYLGLQJ D
useful history of scholarship on Gnosticism, adopts a middle position between the rejection of this
category altogether and its uncritical use; this category must be either abandoned or reformed (The
Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

313

especially Valentinians,UVWPLJKWKDYHXVHGWKLVWHUPLQRORJ\LQWKHLU3ODWRQLF
exegesis.
7KLVLVXQFHUWDLQKRZHYHU)LUVWRIDOOOHWPHSRLQWWRComm. Jo.
in which, as I have shown, Origen criticizes adversaries who deny that the
6RQKDVDQLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHGLIIHUHQWIURPWKDWRIWKH)DWKHU
If these adversaries were Valentinians, as is likely, this would suggest that
there is more of an opposition than of a continuity between Origens notion
RIDQLQGLYLGXDOIRUHDFK3HUVRQRIWKH7ULQLW\DQGWKH9DOHQWLQLDQ
conception. Moreover, I have already observed that Origens technical use of
WRGHVLJQDWHDQDWXUHWKDWLVRQHDQGWKHVDPHIRUDOO3HUVRQVRIWKH7ULQLW\
and on the other hand one and the same for all rational creatures (whereas each
GLYLQH3HUVRQDQGHDFKUDWLRQDOFUHDWXUHKDVDQLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHRILWVRZQ
developed in the context of his debate against Valentinianism, which divided
KXPDQLW\LQWRWKUHHGLIIHUHQWQDWXUHVRU7KXVLWLVXQOLNHO\WKDWWKHUHZDV
D9DOHQWLQLDQQRWLRQRIRQHDQGPRUHIRUWKHGLYLQHQDWXUH
just as for the human nature. Also, there is no evidence of a gnostic technical use
RIDVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH Marcellus of Ancyra may suggest this
in a passage edited by Logan,50 but he uses the vocabulary of his post-Nicene
times, and we cannot be sure that Valentinus used it. Marcellus is criticizing the
3UHVV @  EXW ,UHQDHXV XVHG LW WDNLQJ WKH GHVLJQDWLRQ  IURP WKH 6HWKLDQV ZKR
%UDNNHDUJXHVUVWDSSOLHGLWWRWKHPVHOYHV0DUN-(GZDUGVWRRFRQVLGHUVWKHWHUPJQRVWLFQRW
heresiological, but used by some gnostics whom exponents of the Great Church deemed falsely so
called (Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church>%XUOLQJWRQ9W$VKJDWH@+XJR
Lundhaug avoids the Gnosticismcategory for the Gospel of Philip and the Exegesis on the Soul
(Images of Rebirth>/HLGHQ%ULOO@DQG%LUJHU3HDUVRQNHHSVWKHODEHOJQRVWLFHVSHFLDOO\IRU
the Sethians (Ancient Gnosticism>0LQQHDSROLV)RUWUHVV@6HHDOVRP\$SRNDWDVWDVLVLQ&RSWLF
Gnostic Texts from Nag Hammadi and Clements and Origens Apokatastasis: Toward an Assessment
of the Origin of the Doctrine of Universal Restoration, Journal of Coptic Studies 

I put the term in quotation marks. Within Valentinianism itself, different trends can be noticed,
as well as common features. See only Christoph Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen
zur valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentinus (Tbingen: Mohr,
LGHP9DOHQWLQLDQ*QRVWLFLVP7RZDUGWKH$QDWRP\RID6FKRROLQThe Nag Hammadi
Library after Fifty Years HG -RKQ ' 7XUQHU DQG$QQH 0F*XLUH /HLGHQ %ULOO  
Einar Thomassen, who rightly remarks on the term Valentinian as heresiological (The Spiritual
Seed: The Church of the Valentinians >/HLGHQ%ULOO@,VPR'XQGHQEHUJ7KH6FKRRORI
Valentinus, in A Companion to Second-Century Christian Heretics (ed. Antti Marjanen and
3HWUL /XRPDQHQ /HLGHQ %ULOO   LGHP Beyond Gnosticism. On the distinction of a
Western and an Eastern Valentinianism (Hippolytus, Haer. 6.35; Tertullian Carn. Chr.VHH-RHO
Kalvesmaki, Italian versus Eastern Valentinianism?, VCDQGP\Bardaisan of
Edessa 3LVFDWDZD\1-*RUJLDV .

Origen and the Development of Trinitarian Theology, in Origeniana IV (ed. Lothar Lies;
,QQVEUXFN7\UROLDHVS

Logan is, however, right in seeing Origens usage as anti-Monarchian. On Origens antiMonarchianism, see above and Antonio Orbe, Orgenes y los monarquianos, Greg
50

$ODVWDLU /RJDQ 0DUFHOOXV RI $QF\UD 3VHXGR$QWKLPXV 2Q WKH +RO\ &KXUFK 7H[W
7UDQVODWLRQDQG&RPPHQWDU\9HUVHVJTSDW

314

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

$ULDQVIRUWKHLUGRFWULQHRIWKUHH7KLVLVRIFRXUVHWKHGRFWULQHWKDW
was eventually accepted by the church as orthodox, but Marcellus deemed it
KHUHWLFDODQGSUHIHUUHGWRDGKHUHWRZKDWKDVEHHQGHQHGDVDPRQRSURVRSLF
view; in fact it was a monohypostatic view. In the passage under examination,
Marcellus assimilates the Arians heretical doctrine to Valentinuss heretical
GRFWULQHWKH$ULDQVWHDFKWKUHHK\SRVWDVHV>@MXVWDV9DOHQWLQXVWKH
KHUHVLDUFKUVWLQYHQWHGLQWKHERRNHQWLWOHGE\KLPOn the Three Natures >@
)RUKHZDVWKHUVWWRLQYHQWWKUHHK\SRVWDVHV>@DQGWKUHH3HUVRQV
>@RIWKH)DWKHU6RQDQG+RO\6SLULWDQGKHLVGLVFRYHUHGWRKDYHOFKHG
WKLVIURP+HUPHVDQG3ODWR0DUFHOOXVXVHVDQGZKLOH
the only thing that he literally quotes from Valentinus is the title of his book, On
the Three Natures7KLVLQIDFWUHIHUUHGWRWKHWKUHHQDWXUHVRU
RIKXPDQEHLQJVWKHRUL]HGE\9DOHQWLQXVDQG
and rejected by Origen. Marcellus, who ascribes to Valentinus the idea of three
divine hypostases, which he himself rejects, states that Valentinus took it from Plato
DQG+HUPHWLFLVP5HPDUNDEO\WKHDVVRFLDWLRQRIDQGLV
QRWIRXQGHLWKHULQ*QRVWLFLVPRULQ2ULJHQLWOLNHO\UHHFWV0DUFHOOXVVRZQ
fourth-century terminology.
Indeed, Origen never XVHG  DV D V\QRQ\P RI  LQ LWV
Trinitarian meaning to designate a Person of the Trinity (whereas this usage is found
LQ+LSSRO\WXVURXJKO\DWWKHVDPHWLPH51 In its many occurrences in his writings,
HYHQZKHQLWUHIHUVWR*RG&KULVWRUWKH6SLULWPHDQVHLWKHUIDFH
sight/presence,52 or character in a rhetorical-literary sense (the character who is
51

Haer.1DXWLQ
In Cels. LWLVWKHIDFHRI*RGDFFRUGLQJWRWKH*RVSHOH[SUHVVLRQ
 WKHVDPH
scriptural reference is in Cels. Or. 11.5; 28.3; Hom. Luc. 35 p. 198; Comm. Matt. 13.28; Exp.
Prov.3*Sel. Ps. 3*VHHDOVR2WKHUH[DPSOHVLQWKHVHQVH
of face or presence of God or Christ, often based on scriptural echoes, are found in Cels. 6.5:
Comm. Jo. 

             
 Or. 9.2; Hom. Jer. 5.9 and 6.1; Sel. Ps. 
Philoc. 
Princ. VHH
also Or.Schol. Apoc. 21; Hom. Jer. Or.

OLNHZLVHLQFr. Lam. 112; Sel. Ps. Hom. LucS
OLNHZLVHLQFr. Luc.DPhiloc. 15.19:
      Hom. Jer.    
        Comm. Matt.  
 
OLNHZLVHLQFr. I CorSel. Ps.3*
            
          

52

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

315

VSHDNLQJLQDVFHQH53 In Sel. Ps. 3*2ULJHQPHDQVWKDWWKH6RQLVWKH

IDFH>@RIWKH)DWKHUDVDQLPSUHVVLRQRIKLVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH
DQGQRWWKH3HUVRQRIWKH)DWKHU+HLVWKH)DWKHUVIDFHLQWKDWKHLVWKHLPDJH
RIWKH)DWKHUVVXEVWDQFH+HEVHHEHORZDQGWKXVUHYHDOVWKH)DWKHU55 The
6RQUHYHDOVWKH)DWKHUV3HUVRQEXWLVQRWWKDW3HUVRQLQ2ULJHQnever
means Person of the Trinity, at least never directly,56XQOLNHZKLFK
designates each Persons individual substance.
Moreover, Marcellus had a somewhat polemically motivated view of Origens
Trinitarian thought, as is proved by his deeming Origens early works a basis for
$ULDQLVPHVSHFLDOO\IRUKLVLGHDWKDWWKH6RQLVEHJRWWHQE\WKH)DWKHUVZLOODV
            


OLNHZLVHDQG

            

53
Cels. Philoc.
2ULJHQPHDQVWKDWWKHVSHDNLQJYRLFHLVWKDWRI&KULVWOLNHZLVHCels. 
 OLNHZLVHDQG
7.20; Comm. Jo. 
OLNHZLVH Engastr.UHIHUVWRWKHVSHDNLQJFKDUDFWHUWKDWLV
WKH6SLULW
Philoc. Hom
JerComm. Matt. 

Ep. Greg. 
  Sel. Ps. 3*        OLNHZLVH

           
OLNHZLVH
Fr. Act.3*
Comm. Jo. 
Philoc.
;
;




55

7KH VDPH PHDQLQJ IDFH LV DOVR IRXQG LELGHP      


56
$V , KDYH VKRZQ 2ULJHQ UHIHUV WR WKH 6RQ RU WKH 6SLULW ZLWK  LQ WKH VHQVH RI
a character speaking in a scene, which is different from designating their individual substance.
According to Marie-Josphe Rondeau, however, even this designation of the Son or the Spirit as a
RUFKDUDFWHUVSHDNLQJLQDVFHQHHYHQWXDOO\FRQWULEXWHGWRWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKHLGHD
of the Trinity as composed of three Persons (Les commentaires patristiques du Psautier (IIIeVe
sicles), II: Exgse prosopologique et thologie >5RPH3RQWLFLR,VWLWXWR2ULHQWDOH@6KH
HVSHFLDOO\IRFXVHVRQWKHH[SUHVVLRQLQVLWXDWLRQVLQZKLFKWKH3VDOPLVWLVVDLGWR
speak from the mouth or the character of Christ. On Origens prosopological exegesis, see
Andrea Villani, Origenes als Schriftsteller, Adamantius 

316

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

a second hypostasis.57 On the basis of all the observations adduced so far, therefore,
Marcellus cannot be considered a reliable source on Origens Trinitarian doctrine,
its sources, and its aftermath. His assertion that it derives from Valentinianism
is at best suspect.

Q7KH6RXUFHVRI2ULJHQV1RWLRQRI7KH
Philosophical Side
If the terminological and conceptual innovation of Origen in his notion of
GRHVQRWGHULYHIURP9DOHQWLQLDQLVPDQGJLYHQWKDWQRRWKHUVXJJHVWLRQV
seem to have been offered by scholarship so far, it is necessary to direct the present
investigation elsewhere. On the basis of a systematic and complete examination of
WKHXVHDQGPHDQLQJVRIWKHWHUPLQDXWKRUVDQWHULRUWRRUFRQWHPSRUDU\
with Origen, a Christian Platonist,58 I deem it very probable that Origens Trinitarian
FRQFHSW RI  DV LQGLYLGXDO VXEVWDQFH RI HDFK 3HUVRQ GHULYHV IURP
*UHHNSKLORVRSK\EHVLGHVWKH%LEOHRQZKLFKVHHEHORZDQGLQSDUWLFXODUIURP
SKLORVRSKHUVRIWKHUVWDQGVHFRQGFHQWXU\ C.E.
Indeed, a methodical analysis, based on all extant linguistic evidence from the
EHJLQQLQJRI*UHHNOLWHUDWXUHWR2ULJHQVWLPHUVWKDOIRIWKHWKLUGFHQWXU\C.E.
proves extremely fruitful. I shall not take into consideration here several meanings
RIWKDWDUHZHOODWWHVWHGERWKLQFODVVLFDODQGLQ-XGDLFDQG&KULVWLDQ
literature, but have only little to do with philosophical and theological concepts,
such as basement, foundation of a building;59 sediment or even excrement or
abscess;60 a kind of cloud (Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist.WKHDFWRIUHVLVWLQJRU
settling down (Aristotle, Mete. EOLQHRIVXSSRUWLQJ61 or of lying in ambush
(Sophocles, fr. $OVRPHDQVRQHVZHDOWKRUSURSHUW\HVSHFLDOO\LQ
the LXX62DQGLQSDS\UL32[\ZKHUHLWDOVRPHDQVDGRFXPHQWDWWHVWLQJ
SURSHUW\ 32[\ YLLL 2WKHU PHDQLQJV DUH WRSLF VXEMHFW RI D OLWHUDU\
work, speech, etc.;63 plan, intention (Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 1.3, 1.28, 15.70,
FRXUDJH3RO\ELXVHist. RUKRSH(]HN5XWK
57
The source of Marcelluss accusation that Origen began to study Christian texts only after he had
become expert in Greek philosophy may be Porphyry (ap. Eus. Hist. Eccl.DFFRUGLQJWR$ODVWDLU
Logan, Marcellus of Ancyra on Origen and Arianism, in Origeniana VII
58
As I have proposed in Origen, Patristic Philosophy, and Christian Platonism, VC
DQGZLWKIXUWKHUDUJXPHQWVLQ2ULJHQWKH&KULVWLDQ0LGGOH1HRSODWRQLVWJECH
98-130, Origen could even have been the homonymous Neoplatonist mentioned by Porphyry in his
Vita Plotini and by subsequent Neoplatonists. This does not affect the present argument.
59

Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 1.66; 13.82; Philo, Belopoeia

60

E.g., Hippocrates, De arteSteril.  Coac.Aph.HWF$ULVWRWOHMete. 358a line

EOLQHEOLQH Hist. an. 551b line 29; Part. an.EOLQHDOLQH Theophrastus,
Hist. plant. 9.8.3; Galen, 6.252.
61
Hippocrates, De arte 55; Aristotle, Part. an. DOLQH3V>@>LXX].
62
'HXW-HU
63

Polybius, Hist. 'LRGRUXV6LFXOXVBibl. hist. 1.3.

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

317

1:12 [LXX]0RUHRYHULWZDVDWHFKQLFDOWHUPLQ*UHHNDVWURORJ\DQGUKHWRULFLQ

the latter indicating the full expression of a concept (Hermogenes, De ideis
But let me turn now to the philosophical side. The primary meaning of
DWWHVWHGLQSKLORVRSK\LVVXEVWDQFHZKLFKFDQEHXVHGLQDJHQHULF
RUDYHU\VSHFLFZD\7KLVPHDQLQJFDQDOVRDSSO\WRPDWHULDOVXEVWDQFHVVXFK
as a dry substance (Aristotle, Gen. an.DOLQH
or wood (Theophrastus, Caus. plant.RUDQ\RWKHUVXEVWDQFH One of the
EHVWDWWHVWHGPHDQLQJVRILVVXEVWDQFHDVH[LVWHQFHHYHQUHDOLW\
especially as opposed to appearance or mental abstraction. This is a relatively
generic meaning and occurs very often from Hellenistic philosophy to Origens
WLPHVRPHWLPHVDV,KDYHVKRZQWKLVVHQVHLVXVHGDOVRE\2ULJHQKLPVHOI65
Notably, this is also the meaning attested for Gnosticism in the title of one of the
PRVWIDPRXVWUHDWLVHVIURPWKH1DJ+DPPDGLOLEUDU\1+&WKHHypostasis
of the Archons, in which hypostasis (originally the Greek term, transliterated into
&RSWLFGRHVQRWPHDQLQGLYLGXDOH[LVWHQFHDVLQ2ULJHQV7ULQLWDULDQXVDJH
EXW UHDOLW\ DQG RQWRORJLFDO FRQVLVWHQFH DV RSSRVHG WR FWLWLRXVQHVV66
The same meaning in Gnosticism is attested in Clement, Exc. 3.52.2: evil does
not admit of any substance or ontological consistence per se.67 According to
Hippolytus, Haer. %DVLOLGHVPDLQWDLQHGWKDW*RGZKRLVEH\RQGEHLQJ
JDYHVXEVWDQFHWRDVHHGRIWKHFRVPRVEXWKHGLGQRWXVH
in Origens Trinitarian sense. The seed, to which God gave substance, becomes
WKHIRXQGDWLRQRIWKHFRVPRVLWLVLGHQWLHGZLWKWKH6RQVKLSZKLFKLVVDLGWR
KDYHWKHVDPHDVWKH)DWKHU68 Hippolytus is certainly one of the authors
whom Eusebius had in mind when in his aforementioned Letter to his Church he,
PRWLYDWLQJWKHGHFLVLRQRIWKH1LFHQHFRXQFLOREVHUYHGWKDW was


Polybius, Hist. 

%RHWKXVIUYV$ULVWRWOH" De mundo 395a
OLQHYV3RVLGRQLXVIU7KHLOHUYV
 IU             
IU&ULWRODXVIUIURP Stobaeus, Ecl.
EPlacit.$UWHPLGRUXVOnirocr.
   YV  'LR &KU\VRVWRP Or.     
/XFLDQPar. 27; Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrh. Hyp.0DUFXV$XUHOLXV'LRJHQHV
/DsUWLXV&OHPHQWStrom. 
$OH[DQGHURI$SKURGLVLDVIn Metaph.S
SYVIn De sensu S
YV
65

66
See, e.g., Roger Bullard, The Hypostasis of the Archons, in The Nag Hammadi Library in
EnglishHG-DPHV5RELQVRQ/HLGHQ%ULOO
67
0

68

!!
 
!
!!

318

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

already used by some Christian bishops and writers,69 although it is not found in
the Bible. In Irenaeus, Haer. 1.1.1, too, who is reporting gnostic ideas, the meaning
RILVIRXQGDWLRQRIDOOQRWLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH70 The meanings
DWWHVWHGLQ*QRVWLFLVPIRUGRQRWLQFOXGHWKDWRIDQLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH
and seem to be different from the technical Trinitarian meaning that the term bears
in Origen.
7KHPHDQLQJFRQVWLWXWLRQLVDOVRDWWHVWHGIRUIRULQVWDQFHLQWKH
UVWFHQWXU\B.C.E. by Arius Didymus, Phys. fr. 2, in which both matter and form
DUHGHFODUHGWREHLQGLVSHQVDEOHIRUWKHFRQVWLWXWLRQRIWKHERG\
71,QWKHUVWFHQWXU\C.E.&RUQXWXVDOOHJRUL]HV=HXVDVWKH
cause of the constitution and coming into existence of all realities.72 Likewise, in
the same epoch, Josephus C. Ap. 1.1 attests to the same meaning, by stating that
the Jewish people is very ancient and had an independent origin.73 The same sense
LV WHVWLHG WR LQ WKH VHFRQG FHQWXU\ C.E. by Marcus Aurelius, repeatedly, and
Alcinous.75 In Lucian, Par. 27, the meaning seems to be coherent structure, as is
that of philosophy as opposed to different kinds of rhetoric.76
,Q 1LFRPDFKXVD UVW WR VHFRQGFHQWXU\ C.E. author whom Origen knew
YHU\ ZHOO DV DWWHVWHG E\ 3RUSK\U\ PHDQV ERWK VXEVWDQFH DQG
substratum, foundation: bodily and material realities imitate the nature of the
HWHUQDOPDWHULDOVXEVWDQFHWKDWH[LVWVIURPWKHEHJLQQLQJ>
 @Intr. ar.+HUHPHDQVPDWHULDO
substance or material substratum and designates the eternal, preexistent principle
of matter. In Exc. Nicom. VHHPVWRPHDQVWUXFWXUHFRQVWLWXWLRQ
LWLVWKUHHIROGLQWKDWLWUHFHLYHVLWVVWUXFWXUH>@IURPWKHVDPH
WKHGLIIHUHQWDQGWKHHVVHQFHDQGVLPLODUO\WRLWVVWUXFWXUH>
69

7

70



71

See also IUYV

72

$Comp. /DQJVHHDOVR


73

7



Ad seips.RULJLQVWUDQVIRUPDWLRQVDQG
VXFFHVVLRQV\RXUHYLOKDV
KHUHDOOLWVRULJLQ
    WKH FRQFDWHQDWLRQ RI FDXVHV KDV HVWDEOLVKHG IURP DOO HWHUQLW\ ERWK
your birth/origin and these events.
75
Did.  :KHQ LW LV VDLG WKDW WKH FRVPRV LV  WKLV VKRXOG QRW EH LQWHUSUHWHG LQ
the sense that there had been a time when the cosmos did not exist, but the fact that it is always
FRPLQJLQWREHLQJ>@VKRZVWKDWWKHUHLVDSULQFLSDOFDXVHRILWVRULJLQFRQVWLWXWLRQ>
@
76

5KHWRULF DQG SKLORVRSK\ DUH GLIIHUHQW UVW RI DOO LQ UHVSHFW WR WKHLU VWUXFWXUH >
@IRUSKLORVRSK\KDVDVWUXFWXUHWKHYDULRXVNLQGVRIUKHWRULFGRQRW,QGHHGZHGRQRW
conceive rhetoric as one and the same thing, but some deem it an art, others, on the contrary, a nonDUW,FODLPWKDWZKDWKDVQRFRKHUHQWVWUXFWXUH> @LVQRWHYHQDQDUW

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

319

@LWUHFHLYHVDWUHEOHGLIIHUHQWLDWLRQLQWRWKHUDWLRQDOWKHLUUDWLRQDODQG
the physical part. This applies to the soul and its threefold structure. The same is
the case with another second-century Middle Platonist, Alcinous, in whose work
,KDYHDOUHDG\SRLQWHGRXWWKHPHDQLQJRULJLQIRU,QDid. 25.1, the
VRXOLVVDLGWREHDQLQFRUSRUHDOHVVHQFHLPPXWDEOHLQLWVFRQVWLWXWLRQRU
VXEVWDQFH,PPXWDELOLW\LVDFRQVWLWXWLYH
FKDUDFWHULVWLFRIWKHVRXO2QWKHFRQWUDU\ZKDWLVQRWKDVQRVXEVWDQFH
DQGQRH[LVWHQFH Did.$JDLQ
WKHVDPHPHDQLQJRILQUHODWLRQWRWKHVRXOLVIRXQGLQDQRWKHUVHFRQG
century Middle Platonist, Atticus, whose work survives only in fragments quoted
by Eusebius and Proclus. In fr. 9.10, in turn quoted by Eusebius Praep. ev. 15.9,
he claims that Dicaearchus in his psychology has entirely destroyed the substance
RUWKHVWUXFWXUHRIWKHVRXO2ULJHQ
likely knew Atticuss work, and I have argued elsewhere that Atticus and Origen
held the same concept of the soul of God the creator.77
1RZDPRQJWKHPHDQLQJVRILQHDUO\LPSHULDOSKLORVRSK\WKHFORVHVW
WR2ULJHQVLQQRYDWLYHDSSOLFDWLRQRIWRHDFK3HUVRQRIWKH7ULQLW\LV
separate, individual existence or separate substance of its own. This meaning
is found in several philosophical authors of the early imperial era whose works
Origen either certainly or probably knew. It is on this usage in these authors that my
UHVHDUFKZLOOQRZIRFXV7KHPHDQLQJLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHIRUZLWK
WKHDGGLWLRQRIWKHDGMHFWLYHLQWHUHVWLQJO\HPHUJHVLQ'HPRFULWXVIUEXW
one cannot be sure that it is not due to the early imperial source of the fragment,
Plutarch:78'HPRFULWXVFDOOHGVRPHWKLQJ>@WKHERG\DQGQRWKLQJ>@
the void, as though the latter, too, had a certain nature and a substance of its own
,Q(XGHPXVIUVHHPVWR
assume the meaning of individual substance; it designates each of the three
LQWHOOLJLEOHK\SRVWDVHV LGHQWLHGZLWK(WKHU
Eros, and Metis. However, the same proviso must be made: one cannot be certain
that this was Eudemuss own wording. A noteworthy fragment from Chrysippus
69)LVUHSRUWHGE\$OH[DQGHURI$SKURGLVLDVLQDe mixtione:79 the soul,
KDYLQJ LWV RZQ VXEVWDQFH > @ MXVW OLNH WKH ERG\ WKDW KRVWV LW
extends through the whole of the body, but, while mixing with it, nevertheless it
NHHSVLWVRZQVXEVWDQFH>@+HUHWKHQRWLRQRIDQLQGLYLGXDO
separated substance of its own appears, butdifferently from what can be seen
77
,Q$WWLFXVDQG2ULJHQRQWKH6RXORI*RGWKH&UHDWRU)URPWKH3DJDQWRWKH&KULVWLDQ6LGHRI
Middle Platonism, Jahrbuch fr Religionsphilosophie
78
The same methodological problem arises with Parmenides, fr. 1.20, in which, moreover, there is
QRTXHVWLRQRIDQ\LQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHEXWRQO\RIDVVXEVWDQFHRUHYHQIRXQGDWLRQ
WKH\SRVLWHGDGRXEOHIRXQGDWLRQVXEVWDQFH> @WKHRQHRIZKDWUHDOO\
is, i.e., the intelligible, the other of what becomes, the sense-perceptible.
79

I. Bruns, ed., Alexandri Aphrodisiensis praeter commentaria scripta minora (Commentaria

LQ$ULVWRWHOHP*UDHFDVXSSO%HUOLQ5HLPHUDW

320

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

in Origen, both in his Trinitarian usage and in reference to the logikait is not
GLVWLQFWLYHO\FRQYH\HGE\DVGLIIHUHQWLDWHGIURPLQGHHG
DQGVHHPWREHV\QRQ\PLFKHUHDOOWKHPRUHVRLQ
that the same meaning is also conveyed, shortly after, by the third, equivalent
H[SUHVVLRQ  $OO RWKHU XVHV RI  LQ &KU\VLSSXV PHDQ
substance or even structure or existence, and do not refer to an individual
substance, proper to each representative of a species and different from that of
every other representative.80 1RWDEO\ WKH H[SUHVVLRQ   LQ 69)
3.305 (virtues, inseparable from one another, belong to the souls directive part
DJDLQSDUDOOHOVLQZKHUHWKHVDPHFRQFHSW
is simply expressed with a different wording.
3KLORVXVHRILVZRUWKFRQVLGHULQJFDUHIXOO\DOOWKHPRUHVRLQWKDWKH
is a philosopher-exegete with whose works Origen was notoriously well conversant.
In Aet. 88 and 92 Philo insists on the idea of a substance of its own: the light or
KDVQRVXEVWDQFHSHUVH>@EXWLWGHULYHV
IURPZKDWSUHFHGHVLWWKHFRDODQGWKHDPHLWKDVQRVXEVWDQFHRILWVRZQ
>@7KHOLJKWRIWKHDPHKDVQRVXEVWDQFHRILWVRZQ
7KHFRQFHSWZKLFKKHUHLVGHQLHGLQUHIHUHQFHWRWKHLVWKDWRIDQLQGLYLGXDO
substance that originates from another but, from then on, is distinct from it. This is
QRWGLVVLPLODUIURP2ULJHQVFRQFHSWRIWKHJHQHUDWLRQRIWKH6RQVIURP
WKDWRIWKH)DWKHUHDFKRIWKHPKDVDRIKLVRZQ81 What is different is
WKDW3KLORIHHOVWKHQHHGWRDGGVSHFLHUVWRVXFKDVDQG
WRPDNHLWFOHDUWKDWKHPHDQVWKHSURGXFWVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHLQVRIDUDVLW
LVGLVWLQFWIURPWKDWRIWKHSURGXFHU2ULJHQXVXDOO\ZLOOQRWDGGVXFKVSHFLHUVLQKLV
7ULQLWDULDQWHUPLQRORJ\VLQFHIRUKLPDOUHDG\PHDQVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH
DVGLVWLQFWIURPZKLFKLVWKHFRPPRQHVVHQFHRIDOOWKH3HUVRQVRIWKH7ULQLW\
+RZHYHU,KDYHVKRZQWKDWHYHQKHVRPHWLPHVDGGVWRHPSKDVL]HWKHQRWLRQRI
WKHLQGLYLGXDOLW\RID
3OXWDUFKV XVH RI  WRR LV ZRUWK H[SORULQJ EHLQJ WKDW RI D 0LGGOH
3ODWRQLVWFKURQRORJLFDOO\QRWIDUIURP2ULJHQ%XWKLVFRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQRI
is, interestingly, quite different. I have already cited above Adv. Col. 1109a, line 8 as
DIUDJPHQWIURP'HPRFULWXVIUZKLFKOLNHO\FRQWDLQV3OXWDUFKVRZQZRUGLQJ
UDWKHUWKDQDOLWHUDOTXRWDWLRQIURP'HPRFULWXV
80
(J69)9DFXXPLVXQOLPLWHGDFFRUGLQJWRLWVVXEVWDQFHRUVWUXFWXUH
  69)  7KHUH PXVW QHFHVVDULO\ H[LVW D FHUWDLQ VXEVWDQFH RI WKH YRLG

81

$FFRUGLQJ WR 5DGLFH 3KLOR LV WKH UVW ZKR FRQVLGHUHG WKH /RJRV D K\SRVWDVLV MXVW DV WKH
author of the prologue to the Gospel of John did. This concept simply did not exist outside the
Mosaic tradition. See Roberto Radice, Philos Theology and Theory of Creation, in The Cambridge
Companion to Philo HG$GDP .DPHVDU &DPEULGJH 8. &DPEULGJH 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV 
DW$VKHUHPDUNVWKLVQRWLRQKDGQRSDUDOOHOLQ0LGGOH3ODWRQLVP,REVHUYHWKDWRQ
the other hand, it has a parallel in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, as I shall discuss later in the
SUHVHQWHVVD\PLJKWHYHQKDYHEHHQLQXHQFHGE\3KLORDQGZDVSDUDPRXQWWRWKHIRUPDWLRQRI
WKHWHFKQLFDOXVHRILQ2ULJHQ

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

321

+HUHWKHQRWLRQLVLQGHHGDVXEVWDQFHRILWVRZQKRZHYHU
DQG  DUH XVHG DV V\QRQ\PVWKHUH LV QR TXHVWLRQ RI DQ LQGLYLGXDO KDYLQJ D
particular substance different from those of every other individual of the same species.
,Q3VHXGR3OXWDUFKZHQGLQWKHVHQVHRIVXEVWDQFHERWKLQUHIHUHQFH
to bodily substance82 and in reference to things that have a substance or subsistence
RIWKHLURZQDVRSSRVHGWRRWKHUVWKDWDUH
RQO\DSSDUHQWDQGKDYHQRVXEVLVWHQFHRIWKHLURZQ 
 Plac. philos. EOLQH7RVSHFLI\WKLVWKHDXWKRUIHOW
WKHQHHGWRDGGWR0RUHRYHUKHUHLVXQGHUVWRRGLQD
PDWHULDOVHQVHDQH[DPSOHRIDWKLQJWKDWLVLVWKHUDLQERZRQHRID
WKLQJWKDWKDVDRILWVRZQLVKDLO$UDLQERZLVFRQVLGHUHGWREHPHUHO\
DSSDUHQWZKLOHKDLOKDVPDWHULDOVXEVWDQFH7KHDGGLWLRQRIWRLV
also found in the anonymous second-century C.E. Middle-Platonic commentary
on Platos Theaetetus 1HLWKHU
do the organs of sense-perception have a substance of their own. It is not clear,
however, whether an individual substance for each organ is meant. In 68 the notion
RILQGLYLGXDOLW\LVDJDLQDWWDFKHGWRWKHFRQFHSWRIDVLVHPSKDVL]HG
E\WKHDGGLWLRQRIWKHH[SUHVVLRQVDQG83
Numenius, the second-century Middle Platonist and Neopythagorean who was
well known to Origen, as is attested both by Origen himself and by Porphyry, uses
DVens geometricum, a geometrical entity. Since each
JHRPHWULFDOJXUHLVDQHQWLW\RILWVRZQWKHPHDQLQJRIKHUHVHHPV
to get close to that of individual substance. One of the authors who deserve the
utmost attention in this connection is Soranus, a philosophical and medical author
IURPWKHUVWKDOIRIWKHVHFRQGFHQWXU\ C.E. ,QKLVZRUNDVSHFLDOUHHFWLRQLV
devoted to the constitution of a new individual substance from another individual
substance.85 In Gyn. 2.27 Soranus observes that the new individual separates
 IURP WKH SDUHQW DQG FRQVWLWXWHV DQ LQGLYLGXDO VXEVWDQFH RI LWV
RZQVRWKDWLWHQMR\VDQH[LVWHQFHRILWVRZQRUKDV
LWVRZQLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHGyn. 2.57; see also
6LQFHSUHYLRXVO\PHDQWVXEVWDQFHRUH[LVWHQFHLQJHQHUDO
UDWKHUWKDQLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH6RUDQXVKHUHIHOWWKHQHHGWRDGGWRFRQYH\
the notion of a substance proper to a single being. In relation to Origens use of
LQUHIHUHQFHWRWKH6RQDQGWKH)DWKHULWLVPRVWLQWHUHVWLQJWKDWKHUHLQ
Soranus the matter is of a child in respect to his or her mother, and how he acquires
82

In Plac.HOLQH

83

2
)UDJPHQWV VHFWLRQ  IU          




85

7KHFRQFHSWLRQLVDLPHGDWWKHFRQVWLWXWLRQRIWKHOLYLQJEHLQJ


322

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

a substance of his own, different from that of his parent. Precisely this idea was
WUDQVSRVHGE\2ULJHQWRWKHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWKH6RQDQGWKH)DWKHUDOWKRXJK
of course, Origen was concerned with the difference between the generation of the
Son and the biological generation of humans and animals.86
1RWDEO\6RUDQXVOLNH*DOHQZKRXVHVWLPHV87 was also a
philosopher and wrote a book On the Soul,88 now fragmentary, that was used by
Tertullian in which he denied the immortality of the soul. Soranus was active in
$OH[DQGULDDQGWKHQLQ5RPHXQGHU7UDMDQDQG+DGULDQLQWKHUVWIRXUGHFDGHVRI
the second century C.E. Origen probably had Soranuss writings available, at least
his work on the soul. Origen, too, as the Dialogue with Heraclides shows, discussed
the question of the immortality of the soul, which he also denied in respect to the
real death caused by evil. Origen was familiar with medical authors of his day,
and seems to have read and followed Galen, for instance, on good health as being
a result of a balance of humors, and the treatment of relevant disorders in Hom.
Luc. 1.89 Another interesting parallel with Galen is the following: just as Origen had
his pupils study all the philosophical schools without becoming followers of one,
in order to preserve their intellectual critical capacity,90 so did also Galen before
him: he had his pupils study all the medical schools without becoming followers
of one, in order to preserve their intellectual openness to rational argument.91
Sextus Empiricus, too, the skeptic philosopher of the second/third century
C.E., in Math. 9.338 expresses the notion of individual substance by means of
$ZKROHVXFKDVDKXPDQEHLQJDSODQWDQDQLPDORUDQREMHFW
is something else than the sum of its parts, and is conceived according to its own
LQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHDQGHVVHQFH>@'LIIHUHQWO\
IURP6RUDQXV6H[WXVVHHPVWRWUHDWDQG as virtual synonyms
KHUH6H[WXVDOVRXVHVLQWKHZLGHVSUHDGPHDQLQJRIVXEVWDQFHLQ

86
Thus, for instance, in Comm. Jo. 20.18.157 it is stressed that the generation of the Son did
QRWHQWDLODGLPLQXWLRQRIWKHRIWKH)DWKHUDVLVWKHFDVHZLWKDZRPDQZKRJLYHVELUWK
for this would imply that God has a corporeal nature.
87
The Corpus Hippocraticum has 110 occurrences, but none in the sense used by Soranus (and
6H[WXV2Q*DOHQVQRWLRQRIWKHVRXOWKHERG\DQGWKHLQGLYLGXDOVHH&KULVWRSKHU*LOONaturalistic
Psychology in Galen and Stoicism 2[IRUG2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
88
On which see now Pietro Podolak, Soranos von Ephesos, Peri psyches: Sammlung der
Testimonien, Kommentar und Einleitung %HUOLQGH*UX\WHU
89
That Galen was well known in Alexandria already to Clement is argued on the basis of good
evidence by Matyas Havrda, Galenus Christianus? The Doctrine of Demonstration in Stromata
VIII and the Question of its Source VC2Q2ULJHQVNQRZOHGJHRI*DOHQVHH
Jonathan Barnes, Galen, Christians, Logic, in Classics in Progress (ed. Timothy P. Wiseman;
2[IRUG2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
90
91

See my Origen, Patristic Philosophy.

This last parallel was acutely noticed by Jaap Mansfeld in his Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled
before the Study of an Author or a Text/HLGHQ%ULOO

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

323

general.92 But he repeatedly presents the notion of individual substance conveyed

E\DOWKRXJKXVXDOO\ZLWKWKHDGGLWLRQRIIRUH[DPSOHLQMath.
2.219. Here Sextus is dealing with genera and species, which, in a hypothesis, are
FRQVLGHUHGWREHFRQWHQWVRIWKRXJKWEXWLQWKHRSSRVLWHK\SRWKHVLV
DUHFRQVLGHUHGWRSRVVHVVDVXEVWDQFHRIWKHLURZQ,Q
6H[WXVUHHFWVDJDLQRQWKHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWKHZKROHDQGLWVSDUWVLIWKHZKROH
LVPHUHO\WKHVXPRILWVSDUWVLWZLOOKDYHQRVXEVWDQFHRILWVRZQ
QDPHO\QRVXEVWDQFHEHVLGHVWKDWRILWVSDUWV7KHVDPHQRWLRQXQGHUOLHV
 D QXPEHU FDQQRW EH LGHQWLHG ZLWK WKH WKLQJV WKDW DUH QXPEHUHG EXW LW
KDVDVXEVWDQFHRILWVRZQEHVLGHVWKHVHWKLQJV,I6H[WXV
thought that each number had an individual substance, this would be very similar
to Origens notion of an individual substance for each single representative of the
same species. In Math. 8.161 Sextus is distinguishing things that are opposed to
one another and things that are in a certain relation to one another; the former are
DOOWKRVHZKLFKDUHFRQFHLYHGLQWKHLURZQVXEVWDQFHLQDQDEVROXWHZD\>
@VXFKDVZKLWHEODFNRUVZHHWELWWHU,QMath.
1.137 Sextus seems to assign an individual substance to each part or member:
parts are included in those things of which they are said to be parts, each of them
RFFXS\LQJLWVRZQSODFHDQGKDYLQJLWVRZQVXEVWDQFH>
@%XWWKHPRVWLQWHUHVWLQJSDVVDJHIRULWVVLPLODULW\WR
2ULJHQV7ULQLWDULDQQRWLRQRILVMath.
What generates something, if it changes into something else, either goes out
RILWVRZQVXEVWDQFH>@ZKHQLWWUDQVIRUPVLWVHOIDQG
JHQHUDWHVRULWUHPDLQVLQLWVRZQVXEVWDQFH>@DQG
generates by means of assuming one form instead of another one. But if it
JRHVRXWRILWVRZQVXEVWDQFH>@LWZLOOSHULVKLQWRQRQ
H[LVWHQFH,ILQVWHDGLWUHPDLQVLQLWVRZQVXEVWDQFH>@
and generates by means of receiving one quality instead of another, it falls into
the same aporia.

This passage is crucial in that the issue is the generation of a substance from
another substance; therefore, the situation parallels the generation of the Son from
WKH)DWKHUDQGWKHSUREOHPRIKRZWRGHVFULEHWKHPLQWHUPVRIWKHLUVXEVWDQFHV
Sextuss argument could be read as suggesting the conclusion that the subject
that generates remains in its individual substance, and the action of generating
does not produce any alteration in it, not even in its qualities. This is what Origen
PDLQWDLQHGRIWKH)DWKHULQWKHEHJHWWLQJRIWKH6RQ,Q6H[WXVVGLVFRXUVHLWZDV
possible to understand the producers individual substance as different from the
individual substance of the product. This was certainly the way in which Origen
XQGHUVWRRGWKHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWKH)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQ6H[WXVZDVDQHDUOLHU
FRQWHPSRUDU\RI2ULJHQKHOLYHGFLUFDC.E., and he too, like Soranus and
92

E.g., Pyrrh.LQWKDWTXDOLWLHVFDQ
subsist only in things, not in themselves.

324

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Galen, was both a physician and a philosopher. He seems to have lived in Alexandria.
+HDOVRXVHVDQGDVV\QRQ\PVEXWOLNH2ULJHQQRWZKHQKH
PHDQVDVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH7KXVLQMath.LQZKLFK
KDVWKLVWHFKQLFDOPHDQLQJKHQHYHUUHSODFHVLWZLWKRU
This is because for him, just as for Origen, the generator and the generated have
the same nature, but different individual substances.
Alexander of Aphrodisias is another philosopher certainly known to Origen
ZKR YHU\ SUREDEO\ DOVR LQVSLUHG KLP LQ VHYHUDO UHVSHFWV93 who deserves the
utmost attention. In De Anima p. 19.19 Alexander speaks of an independent
substance, with both the nominal and the verbal expression of an independent
substance. The soul and the spirit have different independent substances or
DQGWKHUHIRUHLWLVLQIHUUHGWKDWWKHVSLULWFDQQRWEHGHVFULEHGDVD
genus of the soul, since a genus has no independent substance of its own, but the
spirit does have a substance of its own.95 This is not identical to Origens idea of a
VKDULQJRIQDWXUHDQGDGLIIHUHQWLDWLRQRILQGLYLGXDO
EXWLWLVUHPDUNDEOHIRUWKHQRWLRQRIDGLIIHUHQWLDWLRQRI2QS
Alexander is saying that the forms subsist ontologically per se, even without being
conceived by an intellect;96 this is what it means that they have a substance of
WKHLURZQ,WLVXQFOHDUKRZHYHUZKHWKHUKHUH
Alexander is distinguishing the individual substance of each form. Alexander in De
mixtione (SSLVVSHDNLQJRIWKH6WRLFVLQGHHGWKLVSDVVDJHLVWKHVDPH
DV&KU\VLSSXVVIUDJPHQW69)TXRWHGDERYH,KDYHDOUHDG\QRWLFHGWKDW
LQWKLVSDVVDJHLVFORVHWRERWKLQGLFDWLQJ
the substance that is proper to the soul, in opposition to that of the body; these
substances remain separate. Indeed, in Comm. in Met.S$OH[DQGHUXVHV
DVDV\QRQ\PLFFRXSOH7KHH[SUHVVLRQS
SUREDEO\PHDQVLQH[LVWHQFH97DQGRFFXUVDJDLQRQS,IWKH\
ZHUHEHLQJVDQGVXEVWDQFHV>@WKH\ZRXOGEHLQVHQVHSHUFHSWLEOH
ERGLHVIRURQO\WKHVHWKLQJVDUHLQH[LVWHQFH>@EXWLIWKH\ZHUHQRW
WKH\ZRXOGQRWEHVXEVWDQFHV>@HLWKHU2QO\FDQEH
which may mean that only substances can subsist; indeed, they are also said to be

93
$V , KDYH SRVLWHG LQ 2ULJHQ 3DWULVWLF 3KLORVRSK\ KLV   PD\ KDYH LQVSLUHG
Origens homonymous work. I found striking correspondences between Origens and Alexanders
thought and terminology, but I shall have to treat them in a separate work. One is already detected
LQ P\ 0D[LPXV RQ (YLO 0DWWHU DQG *RG$UJXPHQWV IRU WKH ,GHQWLFDWLRQ RI WKH 6RXUFH RI
Eusebius PE VII 22, Adamantius


I. Bruns, ed., Alexandri Aphrodisiensis, 

95

2 
.
96
On forms and their subsistence in Alexander, see Robert Sharples, Alexander of Aphrodisias
on Universals, Phronesis RQDe an.DQGQuaest. 1.11.
97

*U HDFKRIWKHH[LVWLQJDQLPDWHGEHLQJV

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

325

H[LVWLQJEHLQJV2QSWRRPHWDSK\VLFDOIRUPQDWXUHDQGVXEVWDQFH
seem to be virtual synonyms.98
2Q S     FRUUHVSRQGV WR    DQG
LQGLFDWHVWKDWWKHSULQFLSOHVKDYHDVXEVWDQFHRIWKHLURZQDQGH[LVWSHUVH
MXVWDVHDFKLQGLYLGXDOEHLQJ
H[LVWVXQOLNHWKHJHQHUDDQGFRPPRQVSHFLHVZKLFKKDYH
no substance of their ownan idea that I have already pointed out in Sextus
(PSLULFXVEXWH[LVWRQO\LQEHLQJSUHGLFDWHG7KLVSDVVDJHLVVLJQLFDQWLQWKDWWKH
VXEVWDQFHLVFRQFHLYHGDVSURSHUWRHDFKSULQFLSOHDQGWRHDFKRIWKH
EHLQJVVRWKDWKHUHVHHPVWREHXQGHUVWRRGDVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH
This would be the same meaning as in Origens Trinitarian terminology: individual
VXEVWDQFH HDFK EHLQJ LQ D VSHFLHV KDYLQJ LWV RZQ  GLVWLQFW IURP
WKDWRIWKHRWKHUV*HQHUDDQGVSHFLHVGRQRWKDYHDQLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH
EXWLQGLYLGXDOEHLQJVGRS7KH
same concept underlies the following passage: The principles become for them
VXEVWDQFHVDQGVXEVWDQFHVRQWKHLURZQGLIIHUHQWIURPWKHRWKHUV>
@IRUWKHVXEVWDQFHRIFRPPRQVSHFLHV
LVQRWLQGHSHQGHQW>@S).
It is notable that each principle becomes a substance of its own, different from the
RWKHUV$JDLQKRZHYHUDQG DUHFORVHWRHDFKRWKHUDQGWKH
H[SUHVVLRQVDQGFRUUHVSRQGWRHDFK
other. On p. 199.20 Alexander is speaking of people who conceive mathematical
entities by abstraction from sense-perceptible realities and do not ascribe to them
DVXEVWDQFHRIWKHLURZQ,WLVQRWVSHFLHGEXWLWVHHPVWR
EHSUREDEOHWKDWHDFKPDWKHPDWLFDOHQWLW\MXVWOLNHHDFKSULQFLSOHVHHDERYH
is considered to have its own individual substance.99)LQDOO\LQIn Analyt. Pr. (p.
100 there is an interesting differentiation, close to that drawn by Origen,
EHWZHHQDQGWKHODWWHUEHLQJSDLUHGZLWKVRPHWKLQJV
such as matter and form, can be separated from one another only mentally and cannot
VXEVLVWZLWKRXWRQHDQRWKHULQWKHLUDFWXDOH[LVWHQFHDQG
EXWDUHGLIIHUHQWLQWKHLUQDWXUHDQGHVVHQFH101 Here, therefore, the
FDVHLVRIUHDOLWLHVZLWKGLIIHUHQWEXWLQVHSDUDEOHLQWKHLU,QWKH
FDVHRIWKH7ULQLW\LQ2ULJHQVWHFKQLFDOWHUPLQRORJ\ZHQGWKHRSSRVLWHWKUHH
GLIIHUHQWEXWRQHDQGWKHVDPH
98

7

99

6HH DOVR S        S    


100
Alexandri in Aristotelis analyticorum priorum librum I commentarium (ed. Maximilian Wallies;
&RPPHQWDULDLQ$ULVWRWHOHP*UDHFD%HUOLQ5HLPHU
101

 

 


326

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

QA Revealing Comparison with Plotinus, and Porphyrys Role:

2ULJHQV,QXHQFHRQ3RUSK\U\"
On the basis of the analysis that I have carried out, the philosophical background to
2ULJHQVLQQRYDWLYHQRWLRQRIDSSHDUVULFKDQGLWVHHPVSUREDEOHWKDW
Origen did have at his disposal sources of inspiration in this respect in early imperial
philosophical and medical authors. Plotinus is also very interesting with regard
to the present investigation. He was a fellow disciple of Origen at Ammoniuss
school and is considered to be the inventor of the three Neoplatonic hypostases.102
Therefore, one might expect him to have a very innovative and specialized use of
WKHWHUPLQKLVSURWRORJ\FRPSDUDEOHWRWKDWRI2ULJHQLQWKH7ULQLWDULDQ
HOG,QIDFWLQ3ORWLQXVWKHUHDUHPDQ\RFFXUUHQFHVRIEXWFRQWUDU\WR
what one might suppose, these have general, rather than technical, meanings; they
virtually never refer to the three hypostases of his triad of principles, the One, the
Intellect, and the Soul. It seems to me that it was rather Porphyry who ascribed to
Plotinus this technical meaning, as I shall argue.
/HWPHEULH\DQDO\]HWKHXVHRILQ3ORWLQXVVZRUN6RPHWLPHVLW
LVFORVHLQPHDQLQJWRDQGGHQRWHVVXEVWDQFH,QGHHG3ORWLQXVDWWLPHV
seems to employ the two terms as synonyms, for instance in Enn. LQUHIHUHQFH

102
See, e.g., John Deck, Nature, Contemplation, and the One: A Study in the Philosophy of Plotinus
7RURQWR8QLYHUVLW\RI7RURQWR3UHVV%HOIRUGJackson, Plotinus and the Parmenides,
Journal for the History of Philosophy    ZLWK D FRPSDULVRQ EHWZHHQ 3ORWLQXVV
thought and Platos Parmenides and an examination of the relation of Plotinuss third hypostasis,
the Soul, to the Parmenides; John Anton, Some Logical Aspects of the Concept of Hypostasis in
Plotinus, Review of MetaphysicsZKRDUJXHVWKDWWKH2QHIRU3ORWLQXVLVWKH
UVWK\SRVWDVLVSURSHUDQGVKRXOGQRWEHUHJDUGHGDVDTXDVLK\SRVWDVLVKHDSSHDOVWREnn. 5.1.10.1
DQGWRFODLPWKDWIRU3ORWLQXVWKHK\SRVWDVHVDUHRQO\WKUHH-HURPH6FKLOOHU3ORWLQXV
and Greek Rationalism, Apeiron    VHHV 3ORWLQXVV WKUHH K\SRVWDVHV DV VROXWLRQV
to three problems that arise from Platos thought. The hypostasis One answers the question of
WKHMXVWLFDWLRQRIWKHXOWLPDF\RIUHDOLW\WKHK\SRVWDVLV,QWHOOHFWDQVZHUVWKDWRIWKHFHUWLWXGHRI
knowledge, and the hypostasis Soul answers that of the relationship between the realm of forms and
that of things; John Deck, The One, or God, is Not Properly Hypostasis, in The Structure of Being:
A Neoplatonic Approach HG5DPVRQ+DUULV$OEDQ\1<8QLYHUVLW\RI1HZ<RUN3UHVV
-RKQ'LOORQ7KH0LQGRI3ORWLQXV,,,Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 3
8EDOGR53pUH]3DROLDer plotinische Begriff der Hypostasis und die augustinische
Bestimmung Gottes als subiectum:U]EXUJ$XJXVWLQXV+HQUL&URX]HOOrigne et Plotin.
Comparaison doctrinale3DULV7pTXL )UDQFHVFR5RPDQRDQG'DQLHOD37DRUPLQDHGV
Hyparxis e hypostasis nel Neoplatonismo )ORUHQFH2OVFKNL6DOYDWRUH/LOOD1HRSODWRQLF
Hypostases and Christian Trinity, in Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition (ed. Mark Joyal;
$OGHUVKRW$VKJDWHZKRKDVH[DPLQHGWKHSDUDOOHOVEHWZHHQWKHK\SRVWDVHVRI3ORWLQXV
and Porphyry and the Trinitarian thought of Clement, Origen, and the Cappadocians, among others,
EXWZLWKRXWDWWHQWLRQWRWKHVSHFLFWHUPLQRORJ\RIDQGLWVSUHVHQFHRUODFNLQ3ORWLQXV
Stephen Menn, Plotinus on the Identity of Knowledge with Its Object, Apeiron
who analyzes Enn. 5.9.7, remarking that Plotinus does not mean that the knower is identical to the
object known, but that knowledge is identical to the object, and the hypostasis Nous is knowledge
containing all sciences and existing separately from souls, which participate in this knowledge.

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

327

WKHSURGXFWLRQRIDVXEVWDQFHE\WKHUVWDFW103,QWKHUHIHUHQFHLVWRDQ
LQWHOOLJLEOHVXEVWDQFHWKDW3ORWLQXVGHVFULEHVDVWUXO\
being, or better One. In Enn. 1.8.11 Plotinus is saying that privation is not a
VXEVWDQFHSHUVHEXWLVDOZD\VIRXQGLQVRPHWKLQJ
else. In 1.8.3 the meaning is reality or substance; Plotinus is asking: Which is
the reality or substance in which aspects of evil are present without being different
from that reality, but being that reality itself?105 In 2.9.1 Plotinus focuses on the
distinction between in theory and in fact (implying the distinction between real
H[LVWHQFHDQGPHUHFRQFHSWXDOLW\RUQRQH[LVWHQFHVSHDNLQJRIWKH2QHRUWKH
Good, against the gnostics: If the gnostics say that the distinction between various
,QWHOOHFWVLVRQO\WKHRUHWLFDO>DQGWKHUHIRUHQRWRIVXEVWDQFHVRWKDWWKHUH
LVQRGLVWLQFWLRQEHWZHHQVXEVWDQFHVEXWRQO\RQHVXEVWDQFH@UVWRIDOOWKH\ZLOO
KDYHWRUHQRXQFHWKHSOXUDOLW\RIVXEVWDQFHV,Q
Enn. 5.3.12 Plotinus is speaking of the procession of various operative powers or
DFWLYLWLHVIURPWKH,QWHOOHFWZKLFKLVRQHWKHVHDFWLYLWLHVUHPDLQLQJ
IRUHYHU ZLOO EH FRQVLGHUHG WR EH VXEVWDQFHV  WKHVH VXEVWDQFHV
precisely because they are substances and not simply modalities or qualities, will
be different from the Intellect, from which they derive.106
6RPHWLPHVLVDV\QRQ\PRIH[LVWHQFHIRULQVWDQFHLQ
3.7.13, where Plotinus remarks that in case one should claim that time is not in
H[LVWHQFHRUVXEVLVWHQFHLWLVFOHDUWKDWRQH
does not tell the truth in positing it, when saying it was or it will be. Likewise,
in LWLVDUJXHGWKDWLIWKHH[LVWHQFHRIZLVGRPLVLQDVXEVWDQFH
RUEHWWHUWKHVXEVWDQFHWKLVVXEVWDQFH
GRHVQRWSHULVK6LPLODUO\LQVSHDNLQJRIPDWWHU3ORWLQXVREVHUYHV
,I\RXLQWURGXFHDFWXDOLW\LQWRWKRVHWKLQJVWKDWKDYHEHLQJDQGVXEVWDQFH>
@LQSRWHQF\\RXKDYHGHVWUR\HGWKHFDXVHRIWKHLUH[LVWHQFH>
@LQWKDWEHLQJ>@IRUWKHPZDVLQSRWHQF\+HUHMXVWDVLQ
WKHSUHYLRXVSDVVDJHVXEVWDQFHLVZKHUHDVPHDQVH[LVWHQFH
The same is the case also in 1.8.15.107,QPHDQVDJDLQH[LVWHQFH
PHDQVDOOWKDWZKLFKKDVLWVH[LVWHQFH
103
OLNHZLVH
.

See also Enn. 
DQG
,QERWKSDVVDJHV DQGDUHQHDUO\V\QRQ\PV
105

 

106





107
If one claims that matter does not exist, one must demonstrate to him or her the necessity
RIWKHH[LVWHQFHRIPDWWHU 
+HUHFRUUHVSRQGVWRWREHLWLVWKHIDFWRIEHLQJWKHUHIRUHH[LVWHQFH

328

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

IURPVRPHWKLQJHOVHDQGOLNHZLVHLQLQZKLFK3ORWLQXVLVIRFXVLQJRQ
the henad or unit.108+HUHGRHVQRWGHVLJQDWHWKHK\SRVWDVLVRIWKH2QH
EXWPHDQVH[LVWHQFHPXFKPRUHJHQHULFDOO\,QWKHPHDQLQJRI
is again subsistence, existence, not hypostasis: the One is necessary for the
H[LVWHQFHRIHYHU\VXEVWDQFH109 A lexical hue
related to the meaning existence and found in Plotinus is reality, as opposed to
QRQH[LVWHQFHFWLWLRXVQHVVDQGWKHOLNH110$QRWKHUPHDQLQJRIDWWHVWHG
LQ3ORWLQXVLVZD\RIEHLQJH[HPSOLHGIRULQVWDQFHLQZKHUH
LQGLFDWHVWKHZD\RIEHLQJRIWKHQXPEHUZKLFKPDNHVLWQRWDVXEVWDQFH
but an accident.111$QRWKHUPHDQLQJRIZKLFKZDVDOUHDG\IRXQGLQ
Greek beforehand, as I have documented above, is also attested in Plotinus, namely
WKDWRIFRQVWLWXWLRQSURGXFWLRQLQWKLVFDVHSURGXFWLRQRIDVXEVWDQFH112
In 5.6.3, very interestingly, the notion emerges of an individual and autonomous
substance or existence, however not in reference to one of the supreme principles,
later called hypostases, but in a discussion concerning the parts of a compound:
One thing that is simple cannot constitute by itself that which is a compound of
many elements, since none of these can have an individual substance or existence,
D1137KHXVHRILQUHODWLRQWRWKH*RRGWKH
2QH UHTXLUHV DQ HVSHFLDOO\ FDUHIXO FRQVLGHUDWLRQ LQ RUGHU WR HVWDEOLVK ZKHWKHU
LWFDQLQGLFDWHWKHK\SRVWDVLVRIWKH2QH*RRG,Q
3ORWLQXVWDNHVXS3ODWRVH[SUHVVLRQWKHQDWXUH
of the Good, from PhilebusGOLQHFOLQHEOLQHVFKDQJLQJ
LQWRDQGLPPHGLDWHO\DIWHUKHDOVRVSHDNVRIWKHRIWKH
108

WKHTXHVWLRQEHLQJZKHWKHURQO\RQHKHQDGKDV
H[LVWHQFHDQGZK\QRWWKHRWKHUVVRWKDWWKHUHZRXOGEHDJUHDWQXPEHURIKHQDGV
WKHK\SRWKHVLVEHLQJWKDWWKH2QHDQGWKH0RQDGKDYHQRexistence.
109
6HHDOVR

110
7KHPRGHZRXOGKDYHPRUHUHDOLW\DQG
\HWLIQRWHYHQKHUHWKHUHZHUHUHDOLW\
111

 /LNHZLVH LQ  ZKHUH WKH PHDQLQJ PD\ EH HLWKHU ZD\ RI EHLQJ RU VXEVWDQFH  

LIWKHUHODWLRQVKLSLVGHHPHGDIRUPWKHQWKHUHZLOOEHRQHVLQJOHJHQXVDQGZD\RIEHLQJ
112
7. See also 6.8.10 where Plotinus
refers to the constitution, coming into being and creation of something, in order to deny that the
UVWSULQFLSOHZDVFRQVWLWXWHGE\DQ\WKLQJHOVH


113
Rather than conceiving his three principles as individual hypostases, Plotinus may have thought
RIWKH,GHDVDVLQGLYLGXDOIRUPVRUVXEVWDQFHVDVRSSRVHGWRDEVWUDFWLRQJHQHUDDQGVSHFLHV7KHODWWHU
WKHVLVLVVXSSRUWHGE\-DPHV6LNNHPD2QWKH1HFHVVLW\RI,QGLYLGXDO)RUPVLQ3ORWLQXVInternational
Journal of the Platonic TraditionZKRDUJXHVWKDWKDG3ORWLQXVQRWSRVLWHGLQGLYLGXDO
IRUPVWKHUHZRXOGEHQRJURXQGIRUDSSURSULDWLQJHDFKWKLQJDVLQWHOOLJLEOH

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

329

*RRGWKHUHIRUHLWVHHPVWKDWDQGDUHDOPRVWV\QRQ\PV
DQGLQGLFDWHWKHVXEVWDQFHRIWKH*RRG$VDFRQVHTXHQFHDOWKRXJK
LWUHIHUVWRWKH*RRGFDQQRWEHWDNHQKHUHDVDWHFKQLFDOWHUPK\SRVWDVLVDVLQ
2ULJHQZKRKDVDFOHDUGLVWLQFWLRQEHWZHHQDQGLQWKH7ULQLW\
/LNHZLVHLQ3ORWLQXVXVHVLQUHIHUHQFHWRWKH*RRGZKLFKKH
GHVFULEHVDVUVWVXEVWDQFHLQWKHVDPHZD\DVLQ However, not even
KHUHFDQEHUHJDUGHGDVWKHWHFKQLFDOWHUPK\SRVWDVLVEHLQJUDWKHUD
V\QRQ\PRIRU,QSDUWLFXODULQ3ORWLQXVLVH[SODLQLQJWKDWWKH
UVWVXEVWDQFHQDWXUHEHLQJHVVHQFHQRWK\SRVWDVLVLVWKDWRIWKH*RRGZKLOHWKH
others are those substances or beings that are not good by nature, but by accident.
Plotinus neverXVHVWRLQGLFDWHDK\SRVWDVLVLQD technical sense, that
LVWRLQGLFDWHKLVWKUHHUVWSULQFLSOHV+HGRHVQRWHPSOR\WKLVWHUPLQWKHZD\
Origen does, to designate the individual substance of one person different from the
LQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHRIHYHU\RWKHUZLWKLQWKHVDPHQDWXUHEHWKH
latter the divine or the human nature, or the rational nature of the logika. Indeed, in
the case of Plotinuss three principles, not only would it be improper to speak of Persons,
like those of the Trinity or of humanity or the logika, but the relationship between the
One, the Nous, and the Soul is not a relation of equality, whereas the Persons of the
Trinity (and those composing humanity and the whole nature of the logikaDUHHTXDO
This was already suggested by Origen115 and was then emphasized by Gregory of Nyssa,
who knew Plotinus and was inspired by him in many respects (Gregory ascribed to the
ZKROH7ULQLW\WKHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRI3ORWLQXVV2QH7KHVHGLVWLQFWLRQVEHWZHHQ3ORWLQXVV
WULDGDQG2ULJHQV7ULQLW\DUHFOHDUDVDUHWKRVHEHWZHHQWKHLUUHVSHFWLYH
WHUPLQRORJLHV
But Porphyry, paradoxically enough,116 would seem to be responsible for an
DVVLPLODWLRQ)RULWLVDUJXDEO\3RUSK\U\ZKRDVFULEHGWKHWHFKQLFDOXVHRI
DVK\SRVWDVLVLQUHIHUHQFHWRWKHWKUHHSULQFLSOHVYHU\VLPLODUWR2ULJHQVWHFKQLFDO
use of the term, to Plotinus. In Vit. Plot. 25, indeed, Porphyry himself attests this usage
in his well-known redactional work117 he entitled Enn. 5.1 On the three Hypostases
WKDWFRQVWLWXWHWKHSULQFLSOHV7KLVWLWOHZDV
obviously not given by Plotinus. Likewise, in Vit. Plot.3RUSK\U\UHSHDWVWKHWLWOHRI

7>sc. @ 
 
.
115

As I have argued in Origens Anti-Subordinationism, VC

116

It is paradoxical given his hostility to Christianity. Most recently, Mark Edwards offered that
KLVIWHHQGLVFRXUVHVZHUHGLVFUHWHZRUNV3RUSK\U\DQGWKH&KULVWLDQVLQ
Studies on Porphyry [eds. George Karamanolis and Anne Sheppard; London: Institute of Classical
6WXGLHV@)RUDstatus quaestionis on this work, see the introduction and edition by
Enrique A. Ramos Jurado et al., 3RUULRGH7LURFRQWUDORVFULVWLDQRV&iGL]8QLYHUVLGDG
and Robert M. Berchman, Porphyry against the Christians/HLGHQ%ULOO
117

On which see Henri Dominique Saffrey, Pourquoi Porphyre a-t-il dit Plotin? Rponse provisoire,
in Porphyre. La vie de PlotinHGV/XF%ULVVRQHWDOYROV3DULV9ULQ

330

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Enn. 5.1; moreover, the title Porphyry has given to Enn. UHDGVDJDLQ
,WLVHVSHFLDOO\LQWKHIDPRXVWLWOHRIEnn. 5.1 that the
WHFKQLFDOPHDQLQJRIDVK\SRVWDVLVHPHUJHV7KH2QHWKH,QWHOOHFWDQG
WKH6RXODUHWKHWKUHHSULQFLSDO+\SRVWDVHV7KLVLVPXFKPRUH3RUSK\U\V
terminology than Plotinuss.
But why did Porphyry introduce this innovation? Which examples or sources of
LQVSLUDWLRQGLGKHKDYHIRUVXFKDFRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQRIDVK\SRVWDVLV"
I suspect that he may even have been inspired by Origen, whose work he knew quite
ZHOODQGE\KLVWHFKQLFDOXVHRIZKLFK3RUSK\U\WUDQVSRVHGIURPWKH
7ULQLW\WR3ORWLQXVVWULDGRIUVWSULQFLSOHV118 In fact, both the hypostatic meaning
RIZKLFK3RUSK\U\DVFULEHGWR3ORWLQXVDQGWKHLGHQWLFDWLRQRIWKH
WKUHHK\SRVWDVHVZLWKWKHRUUVWSULQFLSOHVRIDOOWKDWH[LVWVPDNHPHVXVSHFW
that Porphyry may have had in mind Origens Trinitarian technical terminology
RIDQGKLVSKLORVRSKLFDOPDVWHUSLHFH119)RUKHUH2ULJHQ
SUHVHQWV*RGWKH7ULQLW\DVWKHSULQFLSOHRIDOODQGPRUHVSHFLFDOO\WKHWKUHH
RIWKH&KULVWLDQ7ULQLW\DVWKHRIDOOUHDOLW\120
,Q2ULJHQGHFODUHVWKDWKHZDQWVWRZRUNRQDQGFRPSOHWHZKDW
is revealed in Scripture, and to apply to the latter the philosophical research and
parameters of Greek philosophy (Princ. 1 pr.121 Thus, he begins by dealing
ZLWKWKHUVW*RGDQGLQSDUWLFXODUZLWKWKH)DWKHUWKHUVW
the Son, who is presented as Wisdom and Logos, the seat of the Ideas; and the
Spirit. Origen constantly bases his argument on Scripture and proceeds via
UDWLRQDOGHGXFWLRQWKURXJKRXWKLV+HLPPHGLDWHO\DGGVDWUHDWPHQW
of the rational natures participation in the Good, that is, God, the fall, and the
apokatastasis.122 Thanks to such an application of philosophy to Scripture, Origen
118
$FFRUGLQJWR5DGLFH3KLORV7KHRORJ\3ORWLQXVGHSHQGVRQ3KLORIRUWKHFRQFHSWLRQ
of the Ideas not only as thoughts of the divine Intellect, but also as intelligent powers. If Plotinus
could depend on Philo, then Porphyry could certainly depend on Origen.
119
It is probable that Origen in turn was inspired especially by Alexander of Aphrodisias in
conceiving the very structure of his masterpiece, as I have argued in Origen, Patristic Philosophy.
120
This notion is so deeply rooted in Origens thought as to return in Comm. Jo.

121
We shall see whether what the Greek philosophers call incorporeal is found in Scriptures under
another name. It will be necessary to investigate how God should be considered: whether corporeal
. . . or having a different nature . . . it will be necessary to extend the same investigation also to Christ
and the Holy Spirit, then to the soul and every rational nature . . . to order the rational explanation
of all these arguments into a unity . . . with clear and irrefutable demonstrations . . . to construct a
consistent work, with arguments and enunciations, both those found in the sacred Scripture and those
thence deduced by means of a research made with exactitude and logical rigor.
122

2ULJHQWUHDWV*RGWKHUDWLRQDOFUHDWXUHVWKHZRUOGDQGHVFKDWRORJ\V\VWHPDWLFDOO\LQWKHUVW
two books; the rational creatures free will, providence, and restoration, in the third; and in the fourth,
Trinitarian matters (in a sort of RingkompositionZLWKWKHEHJLQQLQJDQG6FULSWXUDOH[HJHVLV7KLVLV
perceived as belonging to the exposition of metaphysics in that Origens philosophy is a Christian
philosophy, grounded in Scripture and facing, by means of rational arguments, questions that are
QRWGHQHGE\6FULSWXUHDQGWUDGLWLRQ

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

331

won for the Church the most culturally-demanding and philosophically-minded

people, who often were attracted by various forms of Gnosticism. He made it
impossible to accuse Christianity any longer of being a religion for simpletons
and unlearned people. Therefore, he was esteemed as a philosopher by several
non-Christian philosophers, such as Porphyry himself. Porphyry also wrote a
123 in which he demonstrated the eternity of the second hypostasis,
the Intellect. He surely knew both the homonymous work by Longinus, who was
his teacher, and that by Alexander of Aphrodisias, whose writings were regularly
UHDGDW3ORWLQXVVFODVVHVZKLFKKHDWWHQGHG%XWKHFHUWDLQO\NQHZ2ULJHQV
DVZHOO
Indeed, Porphyry knew Origens thought and philosophical sources in depth.
,Q D  RI KLV SUHVHUYHG E\ (XVHELXV Hist. Eccl.  IURP WKH WKLUG
book of Porphyrys writing against the Christians, he described Origen as an
excellent philosopher who reasoned as a Greek in metaphysical matters, although
he lived as a Christian, therefore against the law. In this fragment Porphyry, after
disapproving of the application of philosophical allegoresis to the Bible, states
that the initiator of this hermeneutical method was Origen, whom he depicts as
nevertheless illustrious for his writings. Porphyry states that he met Origen when
he was young,125 that Origens parents were Greek, and that he received a Greek
education, but then he embraced a barbarian way of life. Porphyry indeed draws
DVKDUSRSSRVLWLRQEHWZHHQ2ULJHQVZD\RIOLIHZKLFKZDV&KULVWLDQDQG
2ULJHQVSKLORVRSK\ZKLFKZDV*UHHNQPHWDSK\VLFVDQGWKHRORJ\DFFRUGLQJ
to Porphyry, Origen was a Greek philosopher, and he interpreted Scripture in the
light of philosophy.126 A noteworthy list of Origens favorite philosophical readings
follows (Hist. Eccl. ODUJHO\FRLQFLGLQJZLWKWKHDXWKRUVUHDGE\3ORWLQXVDQG
123


SudaVY3URFOXVTheol. Plat. 1.51.5.

2Q WKLV SDVVDJH VHH 3LHU ) %HDWULFH 3RUSK\U\V -XGJPHQW RQ 2ULJHQ LQ Origeniana
QuintaHG5REHUW-'DO\/HXYHQ3HHWHUV7KHRGRU%|KP2ULJHQHV7KHRORJH
XQG1HX3ODWRQLNHU"2GHU:HPVROOPDQPLVVWUDXHQ(XVHELXVRGHU3RUSK\ULXV"Adamantius
0DUFR=DPERQ Paranomos zenODFULWLFDGL3RUULRD2ULJHQHLQOrigeniana
OctavaHG/RUHQ]R3HUURQH/HXYHQ3HHWHUV$QWKRQ\*UDIWRQDQG0HJDQ:LOOLDPV
Christianity and the Transformation of the Book&DPEULGJH0DVV%HONQDS,ODULD
Ramelli, Origen and the Stoic Allegorical Tradition, InvLucHDGHP2ULJHQ
Patristic Philosophy; eadem, The Philosophical Stance of Allegory in Stoicism and its Reception in
Platonism, Pagan and Christian, IJCTRQ3RUSK\U\VDWWLWXGHWRZDUG&KULVWLDQLW\
see Jeremy Schott, Porphyry on Christians and Others: Barbarian Wisdom, Identity Politics, and
Anti-Christian Polemics on the Eve of the Great Persecution, JECS
125
See also Athanasius Syruss preface to his Isagoge: Porphyry was from Tyre and was a
disciple of Origen, and Eunapius V. Soph.Porphyry was born in 232/3 C.E., and Origen died
around 255. Therefore Porphyry was no older than twenty-two when he met Origen. It is unclear
whether he was a Christian at that time, as Socrates and Porphyrys knowledge of Scripture may
VXJJHVWEXWKHLVFHUWDLQO\QRWPLVWDNHQZKHQKHLGHQWLHVRXU2ULJHQZLWKDGLVFLSOHRI$PPRQLXV
and therefore a fellow-disciple of Plotinus.
126
.


332

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

his disciples: Plato, Middle Platonists and Neopythagoreans, and Stoic allegorists.
Porphyry regarded Origen as a convert to Christianity, a Christian in his life but a
Greek philosopher in his metaphysics and theology.
Precisely because he considered Origens metaphysical principles to be Greek,
Pophyry felt a profound continuity between OrigensGLVFRXUVHRQWKHWKUHH
RIDOOWKDWLVWRVD\WKH7ULQLW\DQGPlotinussGLVFRXUVHRQWKHWKUHHRIDOO
LHKLVSURWRORJLFDOWULDGWKH2QHWKH,QWHOOHFWDQGWKH6RXO$QGVLQFH2ULJHQ
XVHG  LQ D WHFKQLFDO VHQVH IRU KLV RZQ WKUHH  3RUSK\U\ PD\
LQGHHGKDYHDSSOLHGWKLVWHUPWR3ORWLQXVVWKUHHDVZHOODOWKRXJK3ORWLQXVV
triad presents considerable divergences from Origens Trinity, and although
DV,KDYHSRLQWHGRXWZDVQRWDWHFKQLFDOWHUPLQ3ORWLQXVIRUDQ
individual substance different from the other individual substances that share in the
VDPHHVVHQFHRUQRUZDVLWXVHGE\KLPLQWKHVHQVHRIK\SRVWDVLVSURSHU
WRGHVLJQDWHVSHFLFDOO\KLVWKUHHSULQFLSOHV7KHSUHVHQWVXSSRVLWLRQZRXOGJDLQ
even more strength if Origen the Christian and Origen the Neoplatonist, mentioned
by Porphyry in his Vita Plotini and by later Neoplatonists, were in fact one and the
same person. Interestingly, Porphyry attributes his own description of demonology
in De abstinentia to some of the Platonists; indeed, this work is based on Origens
work on the demons, which Porphyry mentions in his biography of Plotinus as a
work of Origen the Neoplatonist.127
My suspicion that the technical use of hypostasis in Plotinuss titles, created by
Porphyry and inspired by Origen, is further strengthened by the fact that Porphyry
himself, in his own linguistic use, did notHPSOR\LQWKHDIRUHPHQWLRQHG
WHFKQLFDOVHQVH)RULQ3RUSK\U\VRZQZULWLQJVPHDQVH[LVWHQFH
ZD\RIH[LVWHQFHRUVHHPVWREHQHDUO\DV\QRQ\PRI128 These are the
same meanings I have detected in Plotinus. Thus, in ascribing the technical notion
of hypostasis to Plotinuss three principles, Porphyry seems to have drawn, not
on his own or Plotinuss terminology, but on some other source of inspiration. I
127
Beatrice, Porphyrys Judgment, 362 and Heidi Marx-Wolf, High Priests of the Highest
God: Third-Century Platonists as Ritual Experts, JECSDWDFFHSWWKDWWKLV
ZRUNZDVE\2ULJHQWKH&KULVWLDQ,KDYHDUJXHGIRUWKHLGHQWLFDWLRQRIWKHWZR2ULJHQVLQ2ULJHQ
Patristic Philosophy, and, with further proofs, in Origen the Christian Middle/Neoplatonist.
128
See Sent. ,QFRUSRUHDOEHLQJVKDYHDVXEVWDQFHRIWKHLURZQDQGGRQRWPL[ZLWKERGLHV>
@
7KHTXHVWLRQLVRIDQHWHUQDOVXEVWDQFH
KHUHDQGDUHV\QRQ\PV,QEp. ad An.EWRR
PHDQVVXEVWDQFH
  Comm. in Parm.       
Sent. 
         
        WKH DWWULEXWLRQ RI  QRW
RQO\WRWKHLQWHOOHFWEXWDOVRWR excludes that it means the hypostasis of the Intellect.
On Porphyrys hypostases, see John Dillon, Intellect and the One in Porphyrys Sententiae,
International Journal of the Platonic TraditionDQG%HUQDUG&ROOHWWH'XFLFPlotin
et lordonnancement de ltre 3DULV9ULQ

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

333

have argued that this source is probably Origens technical, Trinitarian meaning
RIZKLFK3RUSK\U\WKHQWUDQVSRVHGWR3ORWLQXVVWULDGRISULQFLSOHV
Of course, Porphyry would never have admitted that he had taken such a
fundamental conception from Origen (given that Origen, albeit an excellent
SKLORVRSKHULQKLVRSLQLRQZDVQHYHUWKHOHVVD&KULVWLDQKHUDWKHUHQGHDYRUHG
to refer Plotinuss three hypostases back to Plato, as is revealed by the following
SDVVDJHIURP%RRNRI3RUSK\U\VHistory of Philosophy:129

        
           

Porphyry, reporting a thought of Plato, says: The essence of the divinity
Plato saidproceeds up to three hypostases: the highest God is the Good;
after it there comes the second God, the Demiurge, and the third, etc.

Thus, Porphyry claims that Plato posited the three principles that were later theorized
by Plotinus, and called them hypostases, and not only this, but that Plato even
DVFULEHGWRWKHVHWKUHHSULQFLSOHVRQHDQGWKHVDPHGLYLQH5HPDUNDEO\
this was not Platos own theological doctrine,130 nor even Plotinuss interpretation
of Plato (in Enn. 5.1.8 he does refer to the Second Letter and its three kings as
DEDVLVIRUKLVRZQWKUHHSULQFLSOHVEXWZLWKQRPHQWLRQRIK\SRVWDVHVQRUDQ\
Middle Platonists doctrine or exegesis of Plato proper, but it rather resembles much
more closely Origens view of the Trinity: God is the Good, the Son is the agent of
FUHDWLRQDQGWKH6SLULWLVWKHWKLUGSULQFLSOHWKH\DOOVKDUHWKHVDPHGLYLQH
EXWWKH\DUHWKUHHGLIIHUHQW,DPIXUWKHUFRQUPHGLQP\VXVSLFLRQE\
WKHIDFWWKDWLQKLV3RUSK\U\FULWLFL]HVWKH-RKDQQLQHSUHVHQWDWLRQ
of Christ as Gods Logos by reading it through the lenses of Origens understanding
RIWKH6RQKDYLQJWKHVDPHDVWKH)DWKHUEXWDGLIIHUHQW7KH
fragment is reported by three Byzantine authors, but only one version was included
in Harnacks collection131 as fr. 86;132 the two other versions come from Psellus.133
7KHPRVWFRPSOHWHDQGUHOHYDQWWRWKHSUHVHQWDUJXPHQWLV3VHOOXVVUVWTXRWDWLRQ

129
Preserved by Cyril, C. Iulian.SD

130
On Platos theology, about which scholarship does not enjoy a basic consensus, I limit myself
to referring to Michael Bordt, Platons Theologie)UHLEXUJ.DUO$OEHUZKRDGYRFDWHVWKH
presence of a coherent and constant theology in Plato and offers an overview of past scholarship.
131
Adolf von Harnack, Porphyrius, Gegen die Christen, 15 Bcher. Zeugnisse, Fragmente
und Referate%HUOLQ.|QLJOLFKH3UHXVVLVFKH$NDGHPLHGHU:LVVHQVFKDIWHQ
132
About which see John Granger Cook, The Interpretation of the New Testament in GrecoRoman Paganism7ELQJHQ0RKU
133

They have been added to Pophyrys fragments by Richard Goulet, Cinq nouveaux fragments
nominaux du trait de Porphyre Contre les Chrtiens, VCHVS

334

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

 ,I >WKH 6RQ@ LV D ORJRV LW LV HLWKHU H[SUHVVHG >@ RU LPPDQHQW
>@%XWLILWLVH[SUHVVHGLWLVQRWVXEVWDQWLDO>@EHFDXVH
at the same time as it is uttered, it has already gone. If, on the other hand,
LWLVLPPDQHQWLWZLOOEHLQVHSDUDEOHIURPWKH)DWKHUVQDWXUH>@LQ
which case, how is it that it has separated and from there has descended to
life? (Op. theol.

Now, Porphyry was reading John 1:1 with Origens interpretation of Christ-Logos
LQPLQGWKHUHIRUHKHDUJXHGWKDWLIWKH/RJRVLVLWFDQQRWKDYHDQ
OHWDORQHDGLYLQHDQGLILWLVLWFDQQRWKDYHD
RILWVRZQVHSDUDWHGIURPWKH)DWKHU3RUSK\U\VSDUDOOHOIULVDOVRWHOOLQJLQ
WKDW LW VKRZV WKDW KH DUJXHV WKDW &KULVW/RJRV EHLQJ QHLWKHU  QRU
H[DFWO\ ZKDW 2ULJHQ FODLPHG VHH EHORZ FDQQRW EH D /RJRV
at all.135KLVFRQFOXVLRQLVGLDPHWULFDOO\RSSRVHGWR2ULJHQVDQG,VXVSHFWLV
aimed at refuting it. Indeed, among Christian authors, Theophilus, Autol. 2.22 had
SUHVHQWHGWKH/RJRVRI*RGDVD/RJRVWKDWQHYHUVHSDUDWHVIURPWKH
)DWKHUEXWKHKDGQR7ULQLWDULDQQRWLRQRIDVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH%XW
Origen had it, and Origen, precisely in a polemic with another imperial Platonist,
&HOVXVGLVFXVVHG-RKQLQWKHOLJKWRIWKHFDWHJRULHVRIORJRVDQG
,QCels.2ULJHQUHIXVHVWRDSSO\WKHQRWLRQVRIORJRV
RUWR&KULVW/RJRVVLQFHWKHVHFDQRQO\EHDSSOLHGWRKXPDQORJRV
whereas the divine Logos is superior; the divine Logos-Son can grasp God, and
even reveal God, whereas the human logos cannot.136 In the same way, in fr. 118
RQ-RKQ2ULJHQDSSOLHGWKHFRQFHSWRIORJRVQRWWR&KULVWEXWWR
WKHKXPDQUDWLRQDOIDFXOW\RURYHUZKLFK&KULVW/RJRVSUHVLGHV137
Likewise in Comm. Matt. 11.2.12 Origen, interpreting the multiplication of loaves
DQGVKHVVSHDNVRIORJRVDQGLQUHIHUHQFHWRKXPDQ
reason: after equating the bread with the rational faculty that Jesus can expand
LQHDFKSHUVRQKHLQWHUSUHWVWKHWZRVKHVDVWKHWZRNLQGVRIWKLVIDFXOW\ORJRV
DQGORJRV,QSchol. Apoc. 9, too, Origen refers the idea



Michaelis Pselli TheologicaHG3DXO*DXWLHU6WXWWJDUW/HLS]LJ7HXEQHU

135

            

136
(

 
,2Q
WKHQRWLRQVRIDQGLQ2ULJHQVHHDOVR'DYLG5REHUWVRQ2ULJHQ
on Inner and Outer Logos, StPatr
137




ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

335

of logos to the human logos, and not to the divine Logos.138 Again,
in Exp. Prov. PG 17.252.12 Origen applies the same notion of logos
to the human rational faculty, and not to the divine Logos.139 The same line was
followed by three Origenist theologians: Eusebius, who refused to apply the notions
of logos and to Christ-Logos and blamed Marcellus for
doing so;140 Athanasius, who even had the assimilation of Christ-Logos to the logos
and included in anathemas (Syn. 27.3.8); and Gregory
of Nyssa, who, like Eusebius, found this assimilation Sabellian, in that it denied
the separate hypostasis of the Son.141
Porphyry likely knew at least Origens and Contra Celsum,
and probably even his Commentary on John, which included many philosophical
treatments. Porphyrys polemical fragment did not simply address John 1:1, but
implied Origens notion of Christ-Logos as having the same as the Father
but a of his own.142 When Porphyry claimed that Christ-Logos, if it is
neither nor , is not even a logos, he clearly had in mind
Speaking of one who turns ones intellect to the true light, he remarks that, in order to
be useful to other people, who have not yet had a chance to be illuminated by the true Sun, this
person should teach them by means of his or her logos .
138

The spindle is a pure intellect . . . or a logos that pulls spiritual contemplation

from the intellect.
139

140
In Eccl. Theol. ten passages prove this. In 1.17.7 Eusebius avers that the assimilation of
Gods Logos to the human logos and (
)
is not Christian, but Jewish or Sabellian, in that it denies the Son of God as a distinct substance;
see also 2.14.20:
. Two chapters in
Book 2 are devoted to countering Marcelluss presentation of Gods Logos as similar to human logos,
sometimes and sometimes (title of ch. 11:
, ; of ch. 15:
). In 2.15.23,
indeed, Eusebius paraphrases Marcellus on this point, and in 2.11.1 levels the same charge against
him: . . .

. . . ,
. Idem in 2.15.4:
,
. 2.17.6:
, .

141
Adv. Ar. et Sab. (ed. Friedrich Mueller; Gregorii Nysseni Opera; vol. 3.1; Leiden: Brill,
1958) 7185: 81.1025.
142
On which see Jol Letellier, Le Logos chez Origne, RSPT 75 (1991) 587611; Joseph
Wolinski, Le recours aux epinoiai du Christ dans le Commentaire sur Jean dOrigne, in Origeniana
Sexta (ed. Gilles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec; Leuven: Peeters, 1995) 46592; Joseph OLeary,
Logos, in The Westminster Handbook to Origen (ed. John A. McGuckin; Louisville: John Knox,
2004) 14245; my Clements Notion of the Logos All Things As One: Its Alexandrian Background
in Philo and its Developments in Origen and Nyssen, in Alexandrian Personae: Scholarly Culture
and Religious Traditions in Ancient Alexandria (ed. Zlatko Plee; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).

336

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

2ULJHQVWKHVLVWKDW&KULVW/RJRVLVQHLWKHUQRUVLQFH
Origen was the only Christian supporter of this thesis then. Precisely Porphyrys
polemic and Origens interpretation were known to Eusebiusthe author of an
H[WHQVLYHUHIXWDWLRQRI3RUSK\U\ZKRUHHFWVWKHPLQEccl. theol. 2.9.1. Here he
posits the same problem of the individual subsistence of the Son-Logos as raised
by Porphyry, and even uses the same notion and vocabulary of Christ-Logos
IURPWKH)DWKHUDVIRXQGLQ3RUSK\U\VREMHFWLRQKHWXUQVLWDJDLQVW
0DUFHOOXVEXWQRWWRFODLPWKDW&KULVWLVDORJRVKHUDWKHUDVVHUWV
that Christ-Logos is similar to it.
One last hint is found in the title and content of Eusebiuss Praep. ev. 11.21. Its
title, chosen by Eusebius himself, exactly coincides with that chosen by Porphyry for
Enn. This cannot be accidental, all
the more in that here, on the basis of the Platonic Second LetterGHWKHVDPHWKDW
Plotinus cited in Enn. 5.1.8 to provide a basis for his doctrine of the three principles,
EXWQRWDEO\ZLWKRXWVSHDNLQJRIK\SRVWDVHVXQOLNH3RUSK\U\(XVHELXVDUJXHVWKDW
Platos triad depends on the Jewish oracles, the Sapientia Salomonis. This theology
was interpreted by the exegetes of Plato, i.e., Plotinus and Porphyry, as a reference to
WKHWKUHHK\SRVWDVHVUVWJRGVHFRQGFDXVHDQGWKLUGJRGRUZRUOGVRXODQG
by the Christian tradition as a reference to the Trinity. This tradition was represented
by Clement, who interpreted the three kings of the Second Letter in reference to
both the Trinity and the Platonic principles. But Eusebius knew that it was Origen
ZKRUVWVSRNHRIWKH3HUVRQVRIWKH7ULQLW\LQWHUPVRIK\SRVWDVHVSUREDEO\LQVSLULQJ
even Porphyry, who read Plotinuss principles as individual substances in Origens
sense, and who further tried to ascribe this novelty, not to Origen, but to Plato, who
in fact did not anticipate it. Porphyry had the Second Letter in mind, that to which
Clement, Origen, Plotinus, and then Eusebius referred. Clement, Origen, and Plotinus
may have derived the interpretation of that letter from Ammonius; Eusebius was well
acquainted with their, and Porphyrys, exegesis of that letter. Now, Plotinus did not
speak of hypostases in his exegesis of it, but Porphyry, inspired by Origen, did so in
his history of philosophy and in the title he chose for Enn. 5.1, and Eusebiuss choice
of his own title suggests that he was thinking precisely of Origen and Porphyry. Did
KHVXVSHFWDQ\LQXHQFHRIWKHIRUPHURQWKHODWWHU"
2Q WKH EDVLV RI WKH DQDO\VLV RI WKH  WHUPLQRORJ\ LQ 3ORWLQXV DQG
Porphyry that I have conducted, and of all the considerations I have expounded

,ILWKDVDK\SRVWDVLVRILWVRZQ>@DQGWKXVLVDGLIIHUHQWEHLQJWKDQ
*RG>@0DUFHOOXVVODERULVLQYDLQDQGLIDOWKRXJKLWSURFHHGHGIURP*RGVLPLODUO\
WRRXUORJRVLWUHPDLQHGLQVHSDUDEOH>@IURPWKH)DWKHUWKHQLWKDVDOZD\V
and uninterruptedly been in God, even while it was working.

Eusebius knew Plotinus through Porphyrys edition (this is the conclusion of Marie-Odile
Goulet-Caz, Deux traits plotiniens chez Eusbe de Csare, in The Libraries of the Neoplatonists
>HG&ULVWLQD'$QFRQD/HLGHQ%ULOO@$FFRUGLQJWR3DXO.DOOLJDV7UDFHVRI/RQJLQXV
Library in Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica, CQ(XVHELXVNQHZ3ORWLQXVDV
well as most of Porphyry, from Longinuss library.

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

337

LQWKHFRXUVHRIWKHSUHVHQWVHFWLRQ,GRVXVSHFWDSRVVLEOHLQXHQFHRI2ULJHQ
RQ3RUSK\U\LQUHVSHFWWRWKHWHFKQLFDOPHDQLQJRIDVK\SRVWDVLV
3RUSK\U\PLJKWKDYHHYHQDVFULEHGLWWR3ORWLQXVXQGHUWKHLQXHQFHRI2ULJHQDQ
LQXHQFHWKDWKRZHYHUKHZRXOGKDYHQHYHUDFNQRZOHGJHG7KLVLVZK\3RUSK\U\
attempted, rather, to trace this innovation back to Plato. This would not be the only
H[DPSOHRI2ULJHQVLQXHQFHRQ3RUSK\U\)RULQVWDQFH5REHUW0*UDQWKDV
maintained that Origens Stromateis inspired many exegetical quaestiones in his
work against the Christians.

QThe Scriptural Side: Hebrews 1:3

In addition to the philosophical side, Scripture must necessarily be taken into
consideration in an investigation into the sources of Origens technical conception of
)RUEHVLGHV*UHHNSKLORVRSKHUV2ULJHQVWKRXJKWZDVLQIRUPHGE\WKH
Bible, both the LXX and the New Testament, and he always buttressed his rational
arguments, even in his philosophical masterpiece, with scriptural quotations and
LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV,QWKH1HZ7HVWDPHQWWKHPHDQLQJFRQGHQFHIRU
is found in Pauls authentic letters, especially 2 Corinthians. But the most
interesting passages for the present investigation belong to the Book of Hebrews.
+HUHWKHVHQVHFRQGHQFHLVIRXQGDJDLQDWOHDVWLQZKLOHLQ&RULQWKLDQV
WKH FRQQRWDWLRQ LV DOZD\V QHJDWLYH KHUH LW LV YHU\ SRVLWLYH DQG  DV
FRQGHQFHDVVXPHVDPHDQLQJWKDWLVYHU\FORVHWRIDLWK Indeed, in 11:1
DSSHDUVLQWKHYHU\GHQLWLRQRIIDLWK
7KHH[SUHVVLRQLVGLIFXOWWRWUDQVODWHWKHRSV, like the ASV, renders:
)DLWKLVWKHDVVXUDQFHRIWKLQJVKRSHGIRUWKH KJV, like the Webster, is closer
WR'DQWHVUHQGHULQJOHVVHWKLFDODQGPRUHRQWRORJLFDO)DLWKLVWKHVXEVWDQFH
RIWKLQJVKRSHGIRU'DQWHKDG)HGHqVXVWDQ]DGLFRVHVSHUDWHPar.
/LNHZLVHWKH'DUE\%LEOH)DLWKLVWKHVXEVWDQWLDWLQJRIWKLQJVKRSHGIRU,QKLV
Latin version of Origens Commentary on Romans5XQXVDGKHULQJWRWKH
RQWRORJLFDOOLQHWUDQVODWHG LQDTXRWDWLRQRI+HEDVsubstantia.
The same translation is found in the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate.
%XW WKH SDVVDJH IURP +HEUHZV WKDW PRVW RI DOO VHHPV WR KDYH LQXHQFHG
2ULJHQV7ULQLWDULDQXVHRILVVXUHO\LQZKLFKWKH6RQLVGHVFULEHG
DVsc. of the

The Stromateis of Origen, in Epektasis. Mlanges J. Danlou HG-DFTXHV)RQWDLQHDQG
&KDUOHV.DQQHQJLHVVHU3DULV&HUI




0         
ZHKDYHEHFRPHSDUWLFLSDQWVLQ&KULVWLIRQO\ZHNHHSRXULQLWLDOFRQGHQFH
steadfast until the end.

)or this passage we have Origens Greek, preserved in 3&DLUDQGFRG9DWJU



338

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

)DWKHU7KH6RQLVWKHHIIXOJHQFHRIWKH)DWKHUVJORU\DQGWKHH[SUHVVLRQWKH
H[SUHVVLPDJHVWDPSLPSULQWRUH[DFWUHSUHVHQWDWLRQRIWKH)DWKHUVRZQVXEVWDQFH
It is remarkable that this is precisely the passage on which Origen commented while
DVVHUWLQJWKHFRHWHUQLW\RIWKH6RQZLWKWKH)DWKHULQWKHDIRUHPHQWLRQHGIUDJPHQW
quoted by Athanasius, to which I shall return in a moment. And in Heb 1:3 Origen
IRXQGWKDWD3HUVRQRIWKH7ULQLW\LQWKLVFDVHWKH)DWKHUKDVDRILWV
RZQ7KH6RQLVOLNHWKHLPSUHVVLRQRIWKHLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHRIWKH)DWKHUWKXV
KHPXVWLQWXUQKDYHDRIKLVRZQGLIIHUHQWIURPWKDWRIWKH)DWKHU
7KHQRWLRQRIWKDWHPHUJHVLQ+HELVVLPLODUWRWKDWZKLFK,
have pointed out in Philo. Indeed, there exist interesting convergences between
Hebrews and Philo, whose works, according to some scholars, were known to the
author of the letter.1500RVWUHFHQWO\)RONHU6LHJHUWKDVFODLPHGWKDWDPRQJ1HZ
7HVWDPHQWZULWLQJVWKHFOHDUHVWHYLGHQFHRIDWOHDVWLQGLUHFW3KLORQLFLQXHQFHDUH
the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of John.151 The former was addressed
to Jewish Christians in Rome and, according to some scholars, its author may be

$OUHDG\ &OHPHQW FRPPHQWHG RQ +HE  LQ Strom. 7.3.16: the Son is the character of
WKHXQLYHUVDO.LQJDQGDOPLJKW\)DWKHUDQGcharacterRIWKH*ORU\RIWKH)DWKHU6HH-DPHV:
Thompson, The Epistle to the Hebrews in the Works of Clement of Alexandria, in Transmission
and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies (ed. Jeff Childers and David
&3DUNHU3LVFDWDZD\1-*RUJLDVHVS
150
The main comparative studies of Philo and Hebrews are: eslas Spicq, Lptre aux Hbreux
YROV3DULV/HFRIIUHZKRFRQWHQGVWKDWWKHDXWKRURI+HEUHZVZDVD3KLORQLDQZKR
converted to Christianity; Sidney Sower, The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews =ULFK (9=
5RQDOG:LOOLDPVRQPhilo and the Epistle to the Hebrews/HLGHQ%ULOO.XPDU'H\
The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews (SBLDS 25; Missoula,
0RQW6FKRODUVZKRGRHVQRWVHHVSHFLFFRQWDFWVEHWZHHQ3KLORDQG+HEUHZVEXWDGPLWV
that they probably had a common cultural background; Lincoln Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews:
Its Background of Thought 617606  &DPEULGJH 8. &DPEULGJH 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV 
according to whom it is not proven that Hebrews had Philo and Middle Platonism in its intellectual
background (which is admitted by Harold Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews>3KLODGHOSKLD)RUWUHVV
1989] 29, and David Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey>0LQQHDSROLV)RUWUHVV
@.HQQHWK6FKHQFNA Brief Guide to Philo/RXLVYLOOH:HVWPLQVWHU-RKQ.QR[HVS
LQWKHFKDSWHU3KLORDQG&KULVWLDQLW\DGYRFDWHVFORVHVLPLODULWLHVLQWKHFRQFHSWLRQRIWKH
/RJRVWKHLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRIWKH7DEHUQDFOHDQGWKHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQRIDQJHOVVHHHVSIRU
FRQYHUJHQFHVZLWK+HEUHZVLGHP3KLORDQGWKH(SLVWOHWRWKH+HEUHZV5RQDOG:LOOLDPVRQV6WXG\
after Thirty Years, SPhilo AnnualQRWHVWKDWWKHPDLQGLIIHUHQFHLVWKDW+HEUHZVLV
eschatologically oriented, while Philo is not, and that the latter allegorizes Scripture, while Hebrews
does not, but the similarities are more remarkable; he calls attention to the quotations from the OT that
are uniquely common to Hebrews and to Philo. See also Gert Steyn, Torah Quotations Common to
Philo, Hebrews, Clemens Romanus, and Justin Martyr, in The New Testament Intepreted (ed. Cilliers
%UH\WHQEDFK-RKDQ7KRPDQG-HUHP\3XQW/HLGHQ%ULOOZKRWKLQNVWKDWWKHDXWKRU
of Hebrews was acquainted with Philos works, and wrote from Alexandria to Christians in Rome.
151

Philo and the New Testament, in The Cambridge Companion to Philo (ed. Adam Kamesar;
&DPEULGJH 8. &DPEULGJH 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV   DW  )RU WKH SUHVHQFH RI
Platonism in Hebrews, see Peter J. Tomson, Le Temple cleste: pense platonisante et orientation
apocalyptique dans lptre aux Hbreux, in Philon dAlexandrie. Un penseur lintersection des
cultures grco-romaine, orientale, juive, et chrtienne (eds. Baudouin Decharneux and Sabrina
,QRZORFNL7XUQKRXW%UHSROV

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

339

3ULVFDRQHRIWKHUVWDSRVWOHVDQGKHDGVRIFKXUFKHV6LHJHUWGDWHVLWEHIRUH
C.E. and, while admitting that there is no evidence that Roman Jews possessed
Philos writings at that time, he deems it safe to assume that the author of Hebrews,
like other Jews in Rome, may have learned of Philos teachings orally, even from
hearing him directly.152 To the convergences already highlighted by scholars (for
instance, in the conception of the Logos, in that of angels, in the interpretation of
WKH7DEHUQDFOHHWF,DGGWKHSUHVHQWRQHFRQFHUQLQJWKHFRQFHSWRI
(YHQPRUHVSHFLFDOO\MXVWDV3KLORLQWKHDIRUHPHQWLRQHGSDVVDJHLQZKLFKKH
XVHGLQWKHVHQVHRILQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHZDVVSHDNLQJRIWKH
VRLVWKHDXWKRURI+HEUHZVKHUHVSHDNLQJRIWKH6RQDVDQRIWKH
)DWKHUVJORU\DQGDVVXFKKHDOVRGHQHVKLPDVWKHH[SUHVVLRQRIWKH)DWKHUV
individual substance. In the light of this previously unnoticed close parallel, I
wonder whether the author of Hebrews even had Philos passage in mind while he
was describing the Son in such terms. The correspondences are indeed striking, to
the point of suggesting a dependence on Philos passage:
 
 DVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH
GHULYDWLRQRIWKHIURPLWVSURGXFHU GHULYDWLRQRIWKH6RQfrom

WKH)DWKHU153
,QWKLVSDVVDJHRI+HEUHZVZKHWKHURUQRWLQXHQFHGE\3KLOR2ULJHQIRXQGD
FRQFHSWRIDVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHIXUWKHUPRUHRQHVSHFLFDOO\DSSOLHG
WRWKH)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQ+HWKHQLQWHUSUHWHGZKDWKHIRXQGLQWKH1HZ7HVWDPHQW
FRQFHUQLQJWKHRIWKH6RQDQGWKH)DWKHULQOLJKWRIWKHSKLORVRSKLFDO
XVHRILQSDUWLFXODUWKDWIRXQGLQWKHHDUO\LPSHULDOSHULRG
,QRUGHUWRGHPRQVWUDWHWKDW2ULJHQV7ULQLWDULDQQRWLRQRIGHYHORSHG
LQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKKLVH[HJHVLVRI+HEOHWPHEULH\DQDO\]HDOOH[WDQWSDVVDJHV

152
153

6LHJHUW3KLOR

Moreover, another passage of Philo could lie behind Heb 1:3: Opif.LQZKLFKWKHKXPDQ
EHLQJLVGHVFULEHGDVDNLQWR*RG
DQGDQRI*RGEHFDXVHRILWVDIQLW\ZLWK*RGV/RJRV
+HUH
KRZHYHU:LVFRXOGKDYHZRUNHGDVDFRPPRQVRXUFHRILQVSLUDWLRQZKLOHWKLVFDQQRWEH
the case for the striking parallel I have pointed out in the text. Again, the characterization of the
6RQDVRIWKH)DWKHUKDVDSDUDOOHOLQDet.>sc. @

(see also, but less relevant, Plant.
Williamson, PhiloDQG7KRPSVRQ7KH(SLVWOHWRWKH+HEUHZVXQGHUOLQHWKHFRQWLQXLW\
between Philo, Hebrews, and Clement in this description of the Logos as ,QUHVSHFWWR
my main argument, however, and to Origens understanding, Heb 1:3 is different, since it describes
the Son as the express image of the Fathers individual substance, and not of the divine power
in general. The latter, in Origens view, is shared by the Son, whereas the Son does not share the
)DWKHUVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH

340

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

in which he interprets this biblical verse. In Hom. Jer.KHTXRWHV+HE

MRLQHGWR:LVLQVXSSRUWRIWKHHWHUQDOJHQHUDWLRQRIWKH6RQIURPWKH)DWKHU
just as the light always produces its splendor;155KHRQO\TXRWHVWKHUVWSDUWRIWKH
YHUVHQRWWKHVXEVHTXHQWSKUDVHFRQWDLQLQJ/LNHZLVHLQComm. Jo.
KHTXRWHVWKHUVWSDUWFRPELQLQJLWZLWK:LVDQGDJDLQLQ
ZLWKLQDUHHFWLRQRQWKHJORU\RI*RG7KHVDPHWKHPHRFFXUVDJDLQ
in Comm. Rom.LQZKLFK2ULJHQTXRWHVWKHVHFRQGSDUWRIWKHYHUVH
DVZHOO5XQXVWUDQVODWHGDVsubstantia, and Origen interpreted the
verse in reference to the generation of the Son as the irradiation of the glory of
WKH)DWKHUZKRLVLWVVRXUFH156 The mediating role of Christ-Logos is clear in this
description, in which Christ-Logos is the seat of all Ideas, therefore of all virtues,
all capacities, etc. Rational creatures do not possess these virtues, capacities,
and so on, but participate in them insofar as they participate in Christ-Logos.157
/LNHZLVH LQ  WKH GHQLWLRQ RI &KULVW LQ +HE  LV TXRWHG HQWLUHO\
DQGLVUHQGHUHGDVsubstantia.158 In Princ. 1.2.5, too, Origen joins Heb
WR:LVWKH6RQVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHLVKHUHUHQGHUHGsubsistentia
E\ 5XQXV DV D WUDQVODWLRQ RI  LQ OLQH ZLWK KLV WHFKQLFDO UHQGHULQJ
VKRUWO\ EHIRUHKDQG LQ WKH TXRWDWLRQ IURP +HE   LV UHQGHUHG E\
5XQXVDVsubstantiaEXWSUREDEO\XQGHUWKHLQXHQFHRIWKH9HWXV/DWLQD159
7KLVLVFRQUPHGE\Princ. 1.2.2, in which Origen speaks of the Sons individual
substance, identifying the Son with Gods eternal Wisdom. Origen thus counters
a monarchian view of the Trinity, which denies that the Son had an individual
substance; on the contrary, he claims that the Son-Wisdom is not anything
without substance (aliquid insubstantivumEXWVRPHWKLQJWKDWPDNHVSHRSOH
wise: the Son of God is Gods Wisdom which subsists as an individual substance
UHVDOLTXDTXDHVDSLHQWHVHIFLDW)LOLXP'HLVDSLHQWLDPHLXVHVVH substantialiter
subsistentem7KHODVWWZRZRUGVDUHRIWKHXWPRVWLPSRUWDQFHWKHXQGHUO\LQJ
*UHHNKHUHOLNHO\ZDVLQDQ\FDVHRUD

In addition to those I shall discuss, Origen quotes Heb 1:3 also in a number of other passages
among those preservedand we have lost a great dealsuch as Sel. Ps. 3*
DQGCels. 
DQG
155



156

Quia sit splendor gloriae et imago expressa substantiae eius. Perque haec declaratur ipsum
IRQWHP JORULDH 3DWUHP GLFL H[ TXR VSOHQGRU JORULDH )LOLXV JHQHUDWXU FXLXV SDUWLFLSDWLRQH RPQHV
creaturae gloriam habere dicuntur.
157
See, for instance, Cels.2XU6DYLRUGRHVQRWSDUWLFLSDWHLQMXVWLFHEXWLV-XVWLFHLWVHOI
and the just participate in him.
158
Haec autem gloria quae speratur . . . numquam destruitur; est enim talis de qua idem apostolus
dicit loquens de Christo: qui est, inquit, splendor gloriae et JXUDH[SUHVVDVXEVWDQWLDHHLXV.
159

6SOHQGRUJORULDHHWJXUDH[SUHVVDVXEVWDQWLDHHLXV,QYHQLPXVQLKLORPLQXVHWLDPLQ6DSLHQWLD
quae dicitur Salomonis descriptionem quandam de Dei Sapientia . . . . Vapor est enim, inquit, virtutis
'HLHWLGHVWPDQDWLRJORULDHRPQLSRWHQWLVSXULVVLPD6DSLHQWLDPYHUR'HLGLFLPXV
subsistentiam habentem non alibi nisi in eo, qui est initium omnium, ex quo et nata est.

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

341

derivative was surely present in Origens syntagm. Origen clearly insists on the
QRWLRQRIWKH6RQVLQGLYLGXDOLQGHSHQGHQWDQGUHDOVXEVWDQFHKLV
DQGGHYHORSVWKLVSUHFLVHO\ZKLOHUHHFWLQJRQWKHGHQLWLRQRIWKH6RQLQ+HE
In Princ. 2ULJHQIRFXVHVVSHFLFDOO\RQWKHH[SODQDWLRQRIWKHPHDQLQJRI
LQ+HE,Q5XQXVVWUDQVODWLRQKHFRPPHQWV
RQ+HEJXUDH[SUHVVD substantiae vel subsistentiae eius, trying to determine
KRZ WKH JXUH RI WKH )DWKHUV LQGLYLGXDO VXEVWDQFH LV VDLG WR GLIIHU IURP WKH
LQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHRUH[LVWHQFHRI*RGWKH)DWKHUTXRPRGRDOLDSUDHWHULSVDP
Dei substantiam vel subsistentiam . . . JXUD substantiae HLXVHVVHGLFDWXU. Here
5XQXVUHQGHUHGDVsubstantia et subsistentia, twice, probably feeling
that substantiaDORQHDVZDVWUDQVODWHGLQWKH9HWXV/DWLQDDQGWKHQ
WKH9XOJDWHFRXOGDOVRUHQGHULQGHHG6RFUDWHVLQDWLPHYHU\FORVHWR
5XQXVV LQ Hist. Eccl. 3.7 noticed that the more recent philosophers used
LQWKHVHQVHRIWKHUHIRUHVXEVWDQFHHVVHQFH5XQXVZDQWHG
WRDYRLGDPELJXLW\LQWKHOLJKWRI2ULJHQVIRFXVRQDVLQGLYLGXDO
substance. It is noteworthy that in the passage under examination Origen
FRQFHLYHVWKH6RQDVDWKDWLVGLIIHUHQWIURPWKH)DWKHUV
alia praeter ipsam Dei VXEVWDQWLDPYHOVXEVLVWHQWLDPKHUH5XQXVUVWTXRWHV
WKH9HWXV/DWLQDVWUDQVODWLRQRIsubstantia, then adds his own, more
technical, version: subsistentia7KH6RQVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHGLIIHUVIURPWKDW
RIWKH)DWKHUKRZHYHULWLVDQLPDJHRILWDQGUHYHDOVLWVHFXQGXPKRFLSVXP
TXRGLQWHOOLJLDWTXHDJQRVFLIDFLW'HXPJXUDP substantiae vel subsistentiae eius
dicatur exprimere.
7KH VDPH LV FRQUPHG LQ Princ. fr. 33, from Athanasius Decr. 27, which I
have quoted above in extenso and which supports my idea that Origen developed
KLV7ULQLWDULDQQRWLRQRIDVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHLQWKHFRQWH[WRI
his exegesis of Heb 1:3. In this core passage, Origen observes that the Son is the
LPDJHRUH[SUHVVLRQRIWKH)DWKHUVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHRUK\SRVWDVLVZKLFKLV
ineffable,160DQGIXUWKHUPRUHLQVLVWVRQWKHFRHWHUQLW\RIWKH)DWKHUVDQGWKH6RQV
LQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHV+HUHLQGLFDWHVWKHLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHRIWKH
)DWKHUQRWWKHFRPPRQVXEVWDQFHQDWXUHRIWKH)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQZKLFK2ULJHQ
FDOOVDQGWKLVPHDQLQJDV,DUJXHZDVVXJJHVWHGE\2ULJHQVUHHFWLRQ
on Heb 1:3. Also, in Hom. Gen. 1.13 Origen is saying that the human being is
made in the image of God, that is, Christ, who is splendor aeterni luminis et
JXUDH[SUHVVD substantiae Dei, that is to say, of the individual substance of the
)DWKHU+HUHsubstantiaWUDQVODWHV5XQXVNHSWDJDLQWKHWUDQVODWLRQ
of the Vetus Latina, since this is a biblical quotation; this is why he did not use his
technical subsistentiaDQG2ULJHQLQWHUSUHWVLWDVWKH)DWKHUVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH
DVLVFRQUPHGE\WKHHTXDWLRQDeus = Pater in the immediately subsequent lines.
An interesting corroboration comes from a change in terminology in Cels.
+HUH2ULJHQSDUDSKUDVHV+HEEXWWUDQVIRUPVZKLFKLQKLV
160

.

342

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

RZQ 7ULQLWDULDQ WHUPLQRORJ\ LV WHFKQLFDO WKH )DWKHUV RU WKH 6RQV LQGLYLGXDO
VXEVWDQFHLQWRZKLFKLVPRUHDSWWRWKHGHEDWHZLWKD0LGGOH3ODWRQLVW
7KXVWKHFRQFHSWKHUHLVQRORQJHUWKH)DWKHUVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHRIZKLFK
the Son is the express image, but the nature of God altogether.161 Indeed, Middle
3ODWRQLFWKHRORJ\GLGQRWFRQWHPSODWHWKUHH3HUVRQVEHLQJRQH*RGEXWDUVWDQG
DVHFRQGDQGVRPHWLPHVDWKLUG*RGWKHVHFRQGIXQFWLRQLQJDVDPHGLDWRU162
But in the same work, when his argument requires this, Origen does introduce his
Trinitarian terminology and distinction, interestingly again in connection with
a discussion and quotation of Heb 1:3, in Cels. 8.12. Here Origen distinguishes
EHWZHHQWKHLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHRIWKH)DWKHUDQGWKDWRIWKH6RQ
LQWKHLUUHVSHFWLYHLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHWKH)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQDUHWZRGLVWLQFW
beings, but in their concord they are one and the same thing.163
One of the most important attestations of Heb 1:3 in Origen, and one of the most
relevant to my present argument, is found in Princ. fr. 33 quoted by Athanasius
(DecrZKLFK,KDYHDOUHDG\FLWHGVLQFHKHUH2ULJHQVUHHFWLRQRQ+HE
OHDGVKLPWRDVVHUWWKHFRHWHUQLW\RI&KULVW/RJRVZLWKWKH)DWKHULQGHHGWKLVLV
RQHRIWKHPDLQDWWHVWDWLRQVRI2ULJHQVXVHRIWKHIRUPXOD
anti-Arian ante litteram; Origen himself imported it from the Greek philosophical
GHEDWHLQWRWKHFKULVWRORJLFDOHOGDV,KRSHWRKDYHGHPRQVWUDWHGHOVHZKHUH
Here, indeed, Origen argues that the Son, being the image of the individual substance
RIWKH)DWKHUZKLFKLVHQWLUHO\LQHIIDEOHPXVWQHFHVVDULO\H[LVWHWHUQDOO\DQGKDYH
existed ab aeterno.165 That Origen attached the argument for the coeternity of the

161
7           

162
In Comm. Cant.SURORJXHXQIRUWXQDWHO\SUHVHUYHGRQO\LQ5XQXVV/DWLQWUDQVODWLRQ2ULJHQ
paraphrases Heb 1:3 by saying that the Logos is the image and splendor of the invisible God; no
HTXLYDOHQWRIKRZHYHUDSSHDUVKHUHJLYHQWKDWWKHLPDJHRI*RGVLPSOLHVWKHSKUDVH
WKHH[SUHVVLPDJHRIWKH)DWKHUVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH:HGRQRWNQRZZKHWKHUWKHVLPSOLFDWLRQ
LVGXHWR5XQXVRUZDVDOUHDG\SUHVHQWLQ2ULJHQVSURORJXH%XWDSSHDUVDWComm.
Cant. 2: the Son of God, the Logos, is the splendor of the glory and of the individual substance of
*RGWKH)DWKHUWKHVLPSOLFDWLRQKHUHLQYROYHVWKHHOLPLQDWLRQRIIURPWKHTXRWDWLRQ
of Heb 1:3. In Comm. Cant. 3 Origen explains that the left hand of the Logos represents its passion
and the healing of humanity, by the assumption of the human nature; its right hand represents its
divine nature, the nature that is all right, and all light, and splendor, and glory. Here Origen is
focusing on Christs human and divine nature, not on the individual substance and common nature
of the Persons of the Trinity.
163
7
                


Ramelli, Maximus.
165




ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

343

)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQWRKLVUHHFWLRQRQLQ+HELVDOVRFRQUPHG
by Princ. fr. 32.166
Two other passages are revealing. They come from Origens lost commentary
on Hebrews,167 are preserved by Pamphilus, a reliable source, and focus on Heb
7KHUVWLQGLFDWHVWKDW2ULJHQZDVDFFXVHGRISRVLWLQJWZRHTXDOSULQFLSOHV
SUHFLVHO\IRUKLV7ULQLWDULDQUHHFWLRQRQWKHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWKH)DWKHUDQG
the Son, each one endowed with an individual substance of his own, and exactly
LQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKKLVH[HJHVLVRI+HEDQG:LVDQGKLVSRVWXODWLRQ
RIWKHFRHWHUQLW\RIWKH6RQZLWKWKH)DWKHU
+RZ HOVH VKRXOG WKH HWHUQDO OLJKW EH XQGHUVWRRG WKDQ *RG WKH )DWKHU"
)RUWKHUHZDVQRWLPHZKHQWKHOLJKWH[LVWHGEXWLWVHIIXOJHQFHGLGQRWH[ist along with it. . . . If this is true, there was no time when the Son did not
exist. Now, he existed not as innate, as we have said concerning the eternal
light, to avoid the impression of introducing two principles of the light, but as
the effulgence of the ingenerated light, having that light as its principle and
spring, since it is born from that light, to be sure, but there was no time when
it did not exist.168 (Apol. 

Origen was charged with the introduction of two equal and innate principles, as
LVDOVRFRQUPHGE\Pamphilus Apol. 87: they say he described the Son of God
DVLQQDWHGLFXQWHXPLQQDWXPGLFHUH)LOLXP'HL Such an accusation is easily
XQGHUVWDQGDEOH LQ WKH OLJKW RI KLV GLVWLQFWLRQ RI WZR  RU LQGLYLGXDO
VXEVWDQFHV RQH RI WKH )DWKHU DQG RQH RI WKH 6RQ 0DUFHOOXV RI$QF\UD IU 
from Eusebius C. MarcDFFXVHG2ULJHQRIUHJDUGLQJWKH/RJRVDVDVHFRQG
substance, clearly because of Origens characterization of the Logos as a distinct
K\SRVWDVLV GLIIHUHQW IURP WKDW RI WKH )DWKHU 0DUFHOOXV PLVXQGHUVWRRG 2ULJHQ
EHFDXVHKHGLGQRWJUDVSWKHGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQDQGGUDZQE\
Origen in his technical terminology.
The second passage, too, Apol.FRPHVIURPWKHVHFWLRQRQ+HERI
2ULJHQVORVWFRPPHQWDU\RQ+HEUHZV$QGLWFOHDUO\VKRZVVWURQJO\FRQUPLQJ
what I have arguedthat it was precisely in commenting on Heb 1:3, in connection
166

S
Koetschau, from Justinians Epistula ad Mennam. This is per se a deeply unreliable source, but
KHUHLWLVWUXVWZRUWK\DVIRUWKHUHODWLRQRIWKHFRHWHUQLW\RIWKH6RQZLWKWKH)DWKHUWKHLULQGLYLGXDO
VXEVWDQFHV DQG +HE  VLQFH LQ WKLV UHVSHFW LW LV FRQUPHG E\$WKDQDVLXV Decr. 27. See also
Pamphilus ApolIURP%RRNRI2ULJHQVORVWFRPPHQWDU\RQ*HQHVLV'HHRTXRGQRQVLW
3DWHUDQWHTXDP)LOLXVVHG coaeternus VLW)LOLXV3DWULLQSULPROLEURGH*HQHVLKDHFDLW1RQHQLP
Deus, cum prius non esset Pater, postea Pater esse coepit . . .
167
168

Apol.ex libris epistulae ad Hebraeos.

Lux autem aeterna quid aliud sentiendum est quam Deus Pater? Qui numquam fuit quando
OX[TXLGHPHVVHWVSOHQGRUYHURHLQRQDGHVVHWTXRGVLXHUXPHVWQXPTXDPHVWTXDQGR)LOLXV
non fuit. Erat autem non sicut de aeterna luce diximus innatus, ne duo principia lucis uideamur
inducere, sed sicut ingenitae lucis splendor, ipsam illam lucem initium habens ac fontem, natus
quidem ex ipsa, sed non erat quando non erat.

344

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

ZLWK:LVWKDW2ULJHQUHHFWHGRQDQGHVWDEOLVKHGWKHWHFKQLFDO7ULQLWDULDQ
XVDJH RI WKH WHUPV  DQG  DQG SRVVLEO\ DOVR  ,Q
Apol. 95 Origen supports the doctrine that the Son of God is God against eos
TXRVSLJHWFRQWHUL'HXPHVVH)LOLXP'HLDQGREVHUYHVWKDWKXPDQQDWXUHKDV
nothing of divine substance (substantia LQ LWVHOI +HUH VXEVWDQFH WUDQVODWHG
substantiaE\5XQXVGRHVQRWPHDQWKHLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHRIHDFK3HUVRQRI
WKH7ULQLW\EXWGLYLQHQDWXUHRUHVVHQFHLWPXVWKDYHEHHQLQ*UHHN,QWKH
same passage, substantia, subsistentia, and natura probably render, respectively,
DQG,QApol. 99 Origen focuses on the generation of
WKH6RQIURP*RGVVXEVWDQFHWKHGLYLQHHVVHQFHRU169 hence a communio
substantiae EHWZHHQWKH)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQ+HUHsubstantia FOHDUO\UHHFWV*UHHN
7KH)DWKHUDQGWKH6RQDUHWZRGLVWLQFWLQGLYLGXDOVZKRVKDUHLQWKHVDPH
 7KHUHIRUH WKH 6RQ LV  id est unius substantiae DV 5XQXV
JORVVHVWKXVJLYLQJWKHLPSUHVVLRQWKDWWKH*UHHNWHUPZDVLQGHHGLQ2ULJHQVWH[W
ZLWKWKH)DWKHU3DPSKLOXVVFRQFOXVLRQLQApol.VXPPDUL]HV)LOLXP'HLGH
ipsa Dei substantia natum dixerit, id est TXRGHVWHLXVGHPFXP3DWUH
VXEVWDQWLDH5XQXVJORVVHVDJDLQ170 Soon after, in Apol.WKHWHUP
was surely introduced in the original Greek in Origens technical Trinitarian sense to
designate the Sons individual substance and existence, in a quotation from Princ.
7KH)DWKHUVZLOOPXVWEHHQRXJKIRUWKHH[LVWHQFHRIZKDWWKH)DWKHUZDQWV
[ad subsistendum hoc quod uult Pater] . . . WKHLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFHRIWKH6RQ>)LOLL
subsistentia] is generated by him. Here subsistentiaUHQGHUVDQGad
subsistendumUHQGHUVRUDIRUPRI
,W LV FOHDU WKHUHIRUH IURP DOO , KDYH DUJXHG VR IDU WKDW 2ULJHQV UHHFWLRQ
RQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO VXEVWDQFHV RU  RI WKH 3HUVRQV RI WKH7ULQLW\ IRU
ZKLFK 2ULJHQ GRHV QRW XVH WKH WHUP  DV , KDYH GHPRQVWUDWHG DQG
WKHLUFRPPRQGLYLQHQDWXUHDQGHVVHQFHUHVWVXSRQWZRPDLQVRXUFHV
of inspiration: one philosophical and one scriptural, the latter mainly consisting
in Heb 1:3. These sources should be considered to be intertwined, in that Origen
read Scripture in the light of philosophy (especially Middle Platonism and proto1HRSODWRQLVP 0RUHRYHU 6FULSWXUH LWVHOI ZDV IDU IURP EHLQJ LPSHUPHDEOH WR
philosophy; in particular, Heb 1:3 reveals striking correspondences with Philo,
as I have pointed out.
$UHPDUNDEOHFRQUPDWLRQRIWKHLPSRUWDQFHRI+HEIRUWKHXQGHUVWDQGLQJ
of intra-Trinitarian relationships comes from a theologian who was deeply inspired
by Origen, especially in his Trinitarian doctrine: Gregory of Nazianzus.171)RUKH
169
Secundum similitudinem uaporis qui de substantia aliqua corporea procedit . . . sic et Sapientia
ex ea procedens ex ipsa Dei substantia.
170
Compare Fr. in Ps. GXELRXVEXWQRWQHFHVVDULO\VSXULRXVLQZKLFKWKH6RQLVFDOOHG
ZLWKWKH)DWKHU
.
171

See for instance, Anne Richard, Cosmologie et thologie chez Grgoire de Nazianze (Paris:
,QVWLWXW GpWXGHV DXJXVWLQLHQQHV  DQG PRUH VSHFLFDOO\ DQG ZLWK D VXUYH\ RI SUHYLRXV

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

345

VXUHO\KDGLQPLQG2ULJHQVUHHFWLRQRQ+HEDQGKLVWKHRU\RI&KULVWV
ZKHQKHOLVWHGDQGWKHWZRFKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQVRIWKH6RQ
LQ+HEDPRQJWKRVHRI&KULVWWKDWUHYHDOWKHGLYLQLW\RIWKH6RQOr.
DQGDJDLQDPRQJWKHRI&KULVWWKDWLPSO\WKDWWKH6RQ
KDVWKHVDPHQDWXUHDVWKH)DWKHUOr.
Apart from Heb 1:3 and the New Testament, Origen of course knew the use of
LQWKHLXX+HUHOLNHLQHDUO\&KULVWLDQDXWKRUVZKRZHUHLQXHQFHG
E\ WKH *UHHN %LEOH  PHDQV WKH H[LVWHQFH RI DQ LQGLYLGXDO WKXV WKH
GXUDWLRQRIKLVRUKHUOLIHRULWVEHJLQQLQJLWVRULJLQIRULQVWDQFHLQ3V
3V172 Ignatius Phil. 12.3: God is the cause of my birth and the Lord and
SUHVHUYHURIP\H[LVWHQFH7KLVLVD
meaning that actually has to do with the notion of individual substance or existence;
I deem it probable that Origen, who knew the Septuagint practically by heart, in
DGGLWLRQWRNQRZLQJPDQ\*UHHNSKLORVRSKLFDOVRXUFHVZDVLQGHHGLQXHQFHGE\
this usage as well.
)URPWKHH[DPLQDWLRQ,KDYHFRQGXFWHGLQWKHSUHVHQWVHFWLRQLWHPHUJHVWKDW
2ULJHQVVSHFLFQRWLRQRILQWKH7ULQLWDULDQHOGGHYHORSHGQRWRQO\
RQWKHEDVLVRIWKHLQXHQFHRIHDUO\LPSHULDOSKLORVRSK\EXWDOVRLQFRQQHFWLRQ
with his Scriptural exegesis, especially of Heb 1:3, whether or not the notion of
 LQ WKLV SDVVDJH ZDV LQVSLUHG LQ WXUQ E\ 3KLOR DQRWKHU DXWKRU ZHOO
known to Origen.

QConclusion: The Clement Problem and Origens Role in the

7ULQLWDULDQ8VHRI
Besides joining the biblical use with the philosophical use of his day, Origen surely
NQHZWKHXVHRILQHDUOLHUChristian philosophers, at least in Clement
and Pantaenus, and possibly Justin. Regarding Pantaenus, we know nothing about
KLVQRWLRQRIIURPKLVVFDWWHUHGIUDJPHQWVEXWZHKDYHHQRXJKPDWHULDO
RQ&OHPHQW$QGWKLVUDLVHVDUHPDUNDEOHTXHVWLRQWKDWPXVWEHDWOHDVWEULH\
addressed.
,QPRVWFDVHV&OHPHQWVXVHRILVLQOLQHZLWKWKHPRVWZLGHVSUHDG
meanings of this term I have outlined. In Strom. 2.35.2 Clement means that Paul says
that the Law manifested the knowledge of sin, but did not produce the substance
of it; knowledge of a thing is opposed to the thing itself.173 But in another passage
knowledge is said to become a living substance in the gnostic (Strom. 
scholarship, Joseph Trigg, Knowing God in the Theological Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus:
The Heritage of Origen, in God in Early Christian Thought
172
 VHH
DOVR3V3V
(]HN
173




346

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

KHUHDQGDSSHDUWREHYHU\FORVHMXVWDVLQStrom. 5.3.2,
LQZKLFKDQGDUHPHQWLRQHGRQWKHVDPHSODQH175 The
general meaning substance is also found in Ecl. 2.2,176ZKHUH
does not indicate the individual substance of each member of the same species,
but the substance of the abyss, which is unlimited in its own substance per se but
limited by the power of God.
The most interesting passage is Strom. 7KHLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRI
in it is controversial, but it must be tackled, because it depends on whether Clement
anticipated Origen in the application of this term to each Person of the Trinity.
Clement is speaking of the four cardinal virtues theorized by Plato and by the Stoics:
The tetrad of the virtues is consecrated to God; the third stage already connects
to the fourth hypostasisRIWKH/RUG>
    @ 6RPH VFKRODUV LQWHUSUHW
here as step, a rare meaning, never attested elsewhere in Clement;177 Van den
+RHNIROORZV3UHVWLJHLQLQWHUSUHWLQJDVVWDWLRQRUVWRSSDLUHG
ZLWK DERGH  ZKLFK RFFXUV PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ LQ SDVVDJHV LQ ZKLFK WKH
ascent to gnostic perfection is referred to.178 The number four refers to perfection.
7KHRQO\SUREOHPZLWKWKLVH[HJHVLVLVWKDWWKHVWDJHVRURIWKHVSLULWXDO
ascent occur again in Strom.VHHDOVRDQGDUHODWLRQEHWZHHQWKH
notion of abode in spiritual ascent and the number three is found throughout
Strom.DQGDJDLQLQEXWRQO\WKUHHDERGHVDUHPHQWLRQHGQR
TXHVWLRQRIDIRXUWKRUHYHQ$FFRUGLQJWR0RUWOH\ZKRIROORZV
Potter,179WKHIRXUWKLV&KULVWDVVHFRQG/RJRVWKHIRXUWK3HUVRQ
RIWKH7ULQLW\7KLVZRXOGHQWDLODPHDQLQJRIDVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH
applied to each person of the Trinity, exactly as in Origen. However, it is far from


7

175
On this see Matyas Havrda, Some Observations on Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book
5, VCDW
176


177
See C. Leonard Prestige, Clem. Strom. ,,DQGWKHVHQVHRI, JTS 
 ZKR LQWHUSUHWV WKLV IRXUWK VWHS RU VWDJH DV EDSWLVPDO LQLWLDWLRQ DOVR &OHPHQWH Stromati
LQWUR WUDQV DQG FRPP *LRYDQQL 3LQL 0LODQ 3DROLQH   3LQL UHQGHUV OD WHWUDGH
GHOOHYLUWqFRQVDFUDWDD'LRHJLjODWHU]DWDSSDGHOUHVWRFRQQDFROTXDUWRJUDGLQRFKHqTXHOOR
del Signore. This interpretation is rejected by Witt, Hypostasis, 333, and Camelot in a note in
Clment, Stromate II HGDQGWUDQV&ODXGH0RQGpVHUW6&3DULV&HUI
178
Annewies van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria and his Use of Philo in the Stromateis
9&6XS/HLGHQ%ULOO
179
Raoul Mortley, Connaissance religieuse et hermneutique chez Clment/HLGHQ%ULOO
-RKQ3RWWHUClementis Alexandrini opera quae extant omnia2[IRUG9HQLFH
UHSURGXFHG LQ 3*  $QRWKHU WKHRORJLFDO H[SODQDWLRQ LV RIIHUHG E\ .DUO 3UPP *ODXEH XQG
Erkenntniss im zweiten Buch der Stromateis des Klements, ScholastikDW 50.

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

347

certain that Clement himself maintained a conception of a double Logos,180 and I

WKLQN9DQGHQ+RHNLVULJKWQRWWRVHHDUHIHUHQFHWRWKH7ULQLW\RUD4XDWHUQLW\
in the aforementioned passage.181
This idea of two Logoi, rejected by Photius,182 was also ascribed to Clement
by him. Photius is a witness who must not be overlooked, since he was still able
to read the whole of Clements Hypotyposeis, where Clement spoke of the Logos
within the framework of his iblical exegesis. But Photius may easily have been
mistaken in his interpretation.183 Edwards argued that Clement never supported the
YLHZWKDWWKH/RJRVZDVHPEHGGHGIURPHWHUQLW\LQWKH)DWKHUDQGEHFDPHDVHFRQG
K\SRVWDVLVZKHQWKH)DWKHUEURXJKWLWIRUWKEHIRUHWKHDJHVDVDQLQVWUXPHQWRI
creation. I agree that Clement probably never maintained a doctrine of two
Logoi and rather conceived several aspects of the Logos, but without necessarily
conceptualizing them as successive stages of the Logoss existence (which rather
WVLQZLWKD9DOHQWLQLDQYLHZZLWKZKLFK&OHPHQWZDVIDPLOLDUDQGZKLFKKH
also reported in Exc.3KRWLXVVDIRUHPHQWLRQHGIUDJPHQWUHIHUVDFFRUGLQJ
to Edwardsto Clements conception of ZKLFKFRLQFLGHV
with human logos and which Clement kept distant from divine Logos (Strom.
7KLVLVRQHUHDVRQZK\3KRWLXVPD\KDYHEHHQPLVWDNHQDQG,QRWHWKDWD
FRQFHUQIRUWKHGLVWLQFWLRQRIDQGIURP&KULVW
Logos is evident in Theophylactus, who lived a little later than Photius and was
a disciple of Psellus;185 the same concern may thus have been at work in Photius.
180

Paden interpreted the Logos in Clement in the light of Nicene theology. This approach was
deemed unhistorical by several scholars, who found two or three Logoi in Clement. One of these
scholars was Robert Casey, Clement and the Two Divine Logoi, JTS    2WKHU
scholars, such as Eric Osborn, Clement of Alexandria (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
3UHVVIROORZHGUHFHQWO\E\2OHK.LQGL\Christos Didaskalos: The Christology of Clement
of Alexandria 6DDUEUFNHQ0OOHUQGRQO\RQH/RJRVLQ&OHPHQWLGHQWLDEOHZLWKWKH
Son of God.
181

This is also why she has not included it in her treatment of Clements theology in God Beyond
Knowing: Clement of Alexandria and Discourse on God, in God in Early Christian Thought
182
Photius, Bibl. cod. 109 = Clement, fr. 23, III 202 Staehlin.
183
Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski, Clement of Alexandria on Trial: The Evidence of Heresy from
Photius %LEOLRWKHFD9&6XS/HLGHQ%ULOODQDO\]HVRQHE\RQHWKHHLJKWKHUHVLHVWKDW
Clements Hypotyposeis contained according to Photius, Bibl. cod. 109, considering the differences
between Photiuss post-Nicene theology and Clements. My review is forthcoming in GNOMON.

Mark J. Edwards, Clement of Alexandria and His Doctrine of the Logos, VC
 Ashwin-Siejkowski, Clement on Trial, has devoted a chapter to this Photian fragment
KHDOVRIDYRUVWKHXQLFLW\RIWKH/RJRVLQ&OHPHQWDQGVXVSHFWVDPLVXQGHUVWDQGLQJRQ
WKHSDUWRI3KRWLXV&I)DELHQQH-RXUGDQ/H/RJRVGH&OpPHQWVRXPLVjODTXHVWLRQ
RE
185

Enarr. Joh.3**RGV/RJRVLVQHLWKHUQRU)RUWKRVH
FKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQVDUHSURSHUWRQDWXUDOUHDOLWLHVDQGDFFRUGLQJWRXVKXPDQVEXWVLQFHWKH/RJRV
RIWKH)DWKHULVVXSHULRUWRQDWXUHLWLVQRWVXEMHFWWRLQIHULRUVXEWOHWLHV7KHHYDQJHOLVW>sc.
-RKQ@GHVWUR\HGLQDGYDQFHWKLVVXEWOHDUJXPHQWE\VWDWLQJWKDWDQGDUH
predicated of human and natural logoi, but nothing of the sort can be predicated of the Logos that
is above nature.

348

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

$QRWKHUSRVVLEOHUHDVRQ,QGPD\EHWKDW3KRWLXVZDVTXRWLQJIURP&OHPHQWV
quotation or paraphrase of some gnostic interpretation of the incarnation. This is
Photiuss passage:
$FFRUGLQJ WR &OHPHQW WKH /RJRV GLG QRW EHFRPH HVK EXW GLG VR RQO\ in
appearance. In his monstrous arguments, he posits two Logoi of the Father,
between which it is the inferior one that manifested itself to the human beLQJVRUUDWKHUQRWHYHQWKDWRQH)RUKHVD\V7KH6RQWRRLVFDOOHGLogos,
by homonymy with the Fathers Logos, but it is not this the one that became
HVK, nor indeed the paternal Logos, but rather a kind of power of God, like
an emanation of Gods Logos, became intellect and inhabited the minds of the
human beings186 (BiblFRG

I suspect that Clement was reporting a gnostic conception, misunderstood by

Photiushostile to the assimilation of human logos to divine Logosas his own
GRFWULQH )RU WKDW FRQFHSWLRQ VWULNLQJO\ UHVHPEOHV 9DOHQWLQLDQ LGHDV SUHVHUYHG
precisely by Clement, especially in Excerpta ex Theodoto. The very notion
that several realities are called Logos according to a principle of homonymy
LVW\SLFDOO\JQRVWLFDQGPRUHVSHFLFDOO\9DOHQWLQLDQDV&OHPHQW
himself attests in Exc. 1.25.1, where he asserts that the Valentinians called the aeons
Logoi by homonymy with the Logos.187 Moreover, exactly like in Photiuss passage,
WKH\GLVWLQJXLVKHGD/RJRVSURSHUExc. 
ZKLFKLVWKH)DWKHUV/RJRVDQGWKH6RQLHWKHRIIVSULQJRIWKDWUVW/RJRVWKH
Son, therefore, which is also the creator/demiurge, is not the highest Logos (Exc.
188 The Valentinian fragmentation of the Son-Christ-Logos-creator is also
clear in Clements account in Exc. 189 Tellingly, Clement, far from endorsing
the aforementioned fragmentation, criticizes it and opposes to it another doctrine,
which he describes as supported by the Christian group he belongs to (we, on the
FRQWUDU\PDLQWDLQDQGZKLFKLGHQWLHVWKHKLJKHVW/RJRVWKDWLV*RGZLWK
the Logos that is in God and with the Logos that is the creator of all realities

186
           


             

187

2

188

   


189


 , 
6HHDOVRExc. 


ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI

349

spiritual, intelligible, and sense-perceptiblein Exc. 1.8.1.190 )XUWKHUPRUH WKH

GLVWLQFWLRQEHWZHHQWKH)DWKHUV/RJRVDQGWKH6RQZKRLVWKHRIIVSULQJRIWKDW
Logos, is related, exactly as in Photiuss passage, to an alternative interpretation of
the Logoss incarnation, in Exc.ZKLFKDJDLQUHSRUWV9DOHQWLQLDQLGHDV191
The concept of a docetic incarnation and the interpretation of the Logoss
incarnation as the presence of the rational faculty in the minds of human beings,
which are found in Photiuss fragment, are also Valentinian rather than Clementine.
That docetism was a feature of Valentinianism does not need to be argued. As
for the incarnation of the Logos in human minds, the vivifying function of the
Logos-rational faculty on human souls is attested by Clement himself in several
passages in Excerpta ex Theodoto in which he reports Valentinian ideas.192 Instead
RIDQLQFDUQDWLRQRQFHDQGIRUDOOZHKDYHKHUHDFRQWLQXDOYLYLFDWLRQRIKXPDQV
on the part of the rational faculty. This coincides with the interpretation of the
incarnation of the Logos that Photius ascribes to Clement, but may refer to the
9DOHQWLQLDQVKHZDVFLWLQJ
Notably, the notion of a duality or multiplicity of Logoi that Clement found in
his adversaries seems to me to be the same that Origen found in his adversaries as
wellprobably Valentinians, againand refuted in Comm. Jo. LQZKLFK
he emphasizes the unity of the Logos against those who want to kill the Logos and
to break it to pieces . . . to destroy the unity of the greatness of the Logos.
Therefore, Origen, as it seems more probable from my argument so far, did not
QGLQ&OHPHQWDQDQWLFLSDWLRQRIKLVRZQXVHRIDVLQGLYLGXDOVXEVWDQFH
190
               


191
    R       

R

$VKZLQClement on Trial, 70, following Sagnard, thinks
that these words are Clements. I rather suspect that this passage expresses Valentinian ideas.
7KDWLWGRHVQRWUHHFW&OHPHQWVRZQWKRXJKWLVDOVRVXJJHVWHGE\0DUN(GZDUGV*QRVWLFVDQG
9DOHQWLQLDQVLQWKH&KXUFK)DWKHUVJTS Ashwin-Siejkowski himself notes that
Photius found Clements erroneous theology of the Logos in the Hypotyposeis, but he did not
mention any errors on the same subject in the Stromateis (Clement on TrialWKLVLV,WKLQN
EHFDXVHLQWKHODWWHUKHGLGQRWQGJQRVWLFTXRWDWLRQVRUSDUDSKUDVHVWKDWKHFRXOGPLVWDNHIRU
Clements own thought, since in the Stromateis those quotations were fewer and their markers very
clear, whereas the opposite was the case in the Hypotyposeis and in the Excerpta ex Theodoto.
192
6HHHJ7KHVRXO
LVFRQWLQXDOO\YLYLHGE\WKHORJRV2QWKHYLYLI\LQJIXQFWLRQRIWKHORJRVLQUHVSHFWWRWKHVRXOIRU
WKH9DOHQWLQLDQVVHHDOVR
            
QRWHDOVRWKHFRQFHSWRIZKLFKDSSHDUV
LQ3KRWLXVVTXRWDWLRQDVZHOO 1.1.3: 
. On the higher plane of the three races postulated by the Valentinians, the whole
HOHFWUDFHWKDWRIWKHSQHXPDWLFVLVDVSDUNOHYLYLHGE\WKH/RJRV

350

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

applied to the Trinity. Indeed, Clement himself reflected on Heb 1:3 in Strom. 7.6.15,
but he abbreviated the quotation and even dropped the word from
it, thus speaking of the Son as
. Now, if Origen did not find in Clement an anticipation of his
own Trinitarian use of hypostasis as individual substance, he was more closely
influenced by philosophical and medical authors of the early imperial age, and by
Scripture, especially Heb 1:3. Subsequently, it was mainly under the influence of
the Cappadocians that the terminology was clarified and standardized, with the formula
, , which will be used and ascribed to them still by the
Origenist John the Scot Eriugena.193 But they, and especially Gregory of Nyssa, in fact
depended on Origen. With the present research I hope to have clarified the genesis
of that formula, the scriptural and philosophical roots of the Trinitarian concept of
, and the outstanding role of Origen in its definition, to the point that he
might have even influenced the characterization of the Neoplatonic three principles
against Plotinuss useas three Hypostases: .

193
In his Adnotationes in Marcianum 77.8 (Ramelli, Tutti i Commenti a Marziano Capella:
Scoto Eriugena, Remigio di Auxerre, Bernardo Silvestre e anonimi, Essays, improved editions,
translations, commentaries, appendixes, bibliography [Milan: BompianiIstituto Italiano per gli Studi
Filosofici, 2006] 226) God, the threefold One, is beyond all: Eriugena uses to indicate
divine transcendence and interprets in Martianuss phrase
in reference to the Father and the Son ( Pater, Filius), who are different in their Persons
or individual substances () but one in their essence or nature (), according to the
distinction that originated with Origen and was maintained by the Cappadocians, Ps. Dionysus, and
Maximus the Confessor. Eriugena explicitly cites them as sources for the difference between
and in Periphyseon 2.34: Sanctus quidem Dionysius Ariopagita et Gregorius Theologus
eorumque eligantissimus expositor Maximus differentiam esse dicunt inter , id est essentiam,
et , id est substantiam, quidem intelligentes unicam illam ac simplicem divinae
bonitatis naturam, vero singularum personarum propriam et individuam substantiam.
Dicunt enim , hoc est unam essentiam in tribus substantiis.