What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
l( H I G
P� ES S
By his will, Mr. Thomas Spencer Jerome endowed the lectureship that bears
his name. It is jointly administered by the University of Michigan and the
American Academy in Rome, and the lectures for which it provides are
delivered at both institutions. They deal with phases of the history or culture
of the Romans or of peoples included in the Roman Empire.
F. E. Adcock, Roman Political Ideas and Practice
G. W. Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity
Frank E. Brown, Cosa: The Making of a Roman Town
Jacqueline de Romilly, The Rise and Fall of States According to Greek
Authors
Anthony Grafton, Commerce with the Classics: Ancient Books and
Renaissance Readers
Fergus Millar, The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic
Claude Nicolet, Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman
By his will, Mr. Thomas Spencer Jerome endowed the lectureship that bears
his name. It is jointly administered by the University of Michigan and the
American Academy in Rome, and the lectures for which it provides are
Empire
Massimo Pallottino, A History of Earliest Italy
Jaroslav Pelikan, What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem? Timaeus and
delivered at both institutions. They deal with phases of the history or culture
of the Romans or of peoples included in the Roman Empire.
Genesis in Counterpart
Brunilde S. Ridgway, Roman Copies of Greek Sculpture: The Problem
of the Originals
Lily Ross Taylor, Roman Voting Assemblies: From the Hannibalic War
to the Dictatorship of Caesar
F. E. Adcock, Roman Political Ideas and Practice
G. W. Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity
Mario Torelli, Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs
Paul Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus
Frank E. Brown, Cosa: The Making of a Roman Town
Jacqueline de Romilly, The Rise and Fall of States According to Greek
Authors
Anthony Grafton, Commerce with the Classics: Ancient Books and
Renaissance Readers
Fergus Millar, The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic
Claude Nicolet, Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman
Empire
Massimo Pallottino, A History of Earliest Italy
Jaroslav Pelikan, What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem? Timaeus and
Genesis in Counterpart
Brunilde S. Ridgway, Roman Copies of Greek Sculpture: The Problem
of the Originals
Lily Ross Taylor, Roman Voting Assemblies: From the Hannibalic War
to the Dictatorship of Caesar
Mario Torelli, Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs
Paul Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus
l( H I G
P� ES S
JEROME LECTURES, 2.I
What Has Athens to Do
JEROME LECTURES,
21
with Jerusalem?
Timaeus and Genesis in Counterpoint
Jaroslav Pelikan
Ann Arbor
THE UNVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PRESS
What Has Athens to Do
with Jerusalem?
Timaeus and Genesis in Counterpoint
]aroslav Pelikan
Ann Arbor
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PR.Ess
P� ES S
Copyright © by the University of Michigan 1997
All rights reserved
Published in the United States of America by
The University of Michigan Press
Manufactured in the United States of America
Q Printed on acid-free paper
2000zooo 1999 1998
4 3 2
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, or
otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher.
A CIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library
Copyright © by the University of Michigan 1 9 9 7
All rights reserved
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Published in the United States of America by
Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan, 1923-
What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? : Timaeus and Genesis in
The University of Michigan Press
counterpoint / Jaroslav Pelikan.
Manufactured in the United States of America
p. cm. - (Jerome lectures ; 21)
®Printed on acid-free paper
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-472-10o807-7 (cloth :alk. paper)
i. Plato. Timaeus. 2. Bible. Genesis-Comparative studies.
3. Lucretius Carus, Titus. De rerum natura. 4. Cosmogony, Ancient.
2000
1999
4
1998
3
2
5. Creation-Biblical teaching. 6. Creation-History of doctrines.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
I. Title. II. Series: Jerome lectures ; 21st ser.
B387.P45 1997
261.5'I-dczI
CIP
97-4244
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, or
otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher.
A CIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan, r 9 2 3 What has Athens to do with Jerusalem ? : Timaeus and Genesis in
counterpoint I J aroslav Pelikan.
p.
cm. - (Jerome lectures; 2 1 )
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-472- 1 0 8 0 7-7 (cloth : alk. paper)
r . Plato . Timaeus .
2. Bible . Genesis-Comparative studies.
3. Lucretius Cams, Titus. De rerum natura .
5 . Creation-Biblical teaching.
I . Title.
4. Cosmogony, Ancient.
6. Creation-History of doctrines.
II. Series: Jerome lectures; 2 1 st ser.
BJ 8 7 .P4 5
1 99 7
9 7 -4244
2 6 r . 5 ' 1 -dc2 1
CIP
l( H I G
P� ES S
To Laurence,
who is OUK a61] tot' Tr6XEW; rrOXLTr1; (Ac. 2 I:3 9)-
indeed, a citizen of each of these cities
To Laurence,
who is OUK aatjµou TTOAEWS' TTOALTllS' (Ac. 21:39)­
indeed, a citizen of each of these cities
li H E llJ
PR ES S

Dr g 11:1 zed by
Ori g1I n a I 1ko m
T H E llJ NllVE R S!lliY O� MI( H I G AN P� E%
UN Pl ERSllif Y O:F Ml (Hi IGA NI
Preface
From 29 January to 7 February 1996 at the University of Michigan, and
then from 15 to 24 April 1996 at the American Academy in Rome, I had
the honor of being the thirtieth in the series of Thomas Spencer Jerome
Lecturers. It is a delight to begin this printed version of the lectures by
following the example of all my predecessors in the Jerome Lectureship in
thanking my colleagues at both Ann Arbor and Rome for their kindness
and hospitality, and for the special combination of incisiveness and unfail-
Preface
ing courtesy with which they put their questions to me and carried on their
discussions with me, thus enabling me to improve my expositions and
strengthen my arguments. My investigations of these texts have taken me
into some waters where I do not usually swim at these depths, in which yet
other colleagues, in particular Professor Mary Lefkowitz of Wellesley
College, have been my lifeguards, and occasionally my rescuers. Colin
Day, Director of the University of Michigan Press, and Ellen Bauerle, my
editor, have skillfully seen the project through to its completion, from
when it was little more than a Platonic idea. Chapter 5 was not part of the
original five Jerome Lectures, but was given a month later, on 21 May
1996, also in Rome, at the joint meeting of the Accademia dei Lincei and
the American Philosophical Society. I have also had the opportunity of
presenting some of this material on the distinguished platforms of the
Lowell Lectures at Boston University and the Bradley Lectures at Boston
College.
From 29 January to 7 February 1 9 9 6 at the University of Michigan, and
then from 1 5 to 24 April 1 9 9 6 at the American Academy in Rome, I had
the honor of being the thirtieth in the series of Thomas Spencer Jerome
Lecturers. It is a delight to begin this printed version of the lectures by
following the example of all my predecessors in the Jerome Lectureship in
thanking my colleagues at both Ann Arbor and Rome for their kindness
and hospitality, and for the special combination of incisiveness and unfail­
ing courtesy with which they put their questions to me and carried on their
discussions with me, thus enabling me to improve my expositions and
strengthen my arguments. My investigations of these texts have taken me
into some waters where I do not usually swim at these depths, in which yet
other colleagues, in particular Professor Mary Lefkowitz of Wellesley
College, have been my lifeguards, and occasionally my rescuers. Colin
Day, Director of the University of Michigan Press, and Ellen Bauerle, my
editor, have skillfully seen the project through to its completion, from
when it was little more than a Platonic idea. Chapter 5 was not part of the
original five Jerome Lectures, but was given a month later, on 2 1 May
1 9 9 6, also in Rome, at the joint meeting of the Accademia <lei Lincei and
the American Philosophical Society. I have also had the opportunity of
presenting some of this material on the distinguished platforms of the
Lowell Lectures at Boston University and the Bradley Lectures at Boston
College.
l( H I G
P� ES S

Dr g 11:1 zed by
Ori g1I n a I 1ko m
T H E llJ NllVE R S!lliY O� MI( H I G AN P� E%
UN Pl ERSllif Y O:F Ml (Hi IGA NI
Contents
A Note on Translations
xi
Abbreviations
xiii
I. Classical Rome: "Description of the Universe"
(Timaeus 90E) as Philosophyi
II. Athens: Genese6s Arche as "The Principle of Becoming"
(Timaeus 29D-E)
Contents
23
III. Jerusalem: Genesis as a "Likely Account" (Timaeus
29D) of One God Almighty Maker
45
IV. Alexandria: The God of Genesis as "Maker and Father"
(Timaeus z28 C)
67
V. New Rome: Christ as "God Made Perceptible to the
Senses," "Only-Begotten God," and "Image of the God
Apprehensible Only to the Mind" (Timaeus 92C)
89
A Note on Translations
VI. Catholic Rome: The Trinity as "Source, Guide, and
Goal" (Timaeus z7C-4zD)
iii
Bibliography
I33
Xl
Abbreviations
I.
II.
III.
IV.
v.
V I.
xm
Classical Rome: "Description of the Universe"
( Timaeus 90E) as Philosophy
I
Athens: Geneseos Arche as "The Principle of Becoming"
( Timaeus 29D-E)
23
Jerusalem: Genesis as a "Likely Account" ( Timaeus
29D) of One God Almighty Maker
45
Alexandria: The God of Genesis as "Maker and Father"
( Timaeus 28C)
67
New Rome: Christ as "God Made Perceptible to the
Senses," "Only-Begotten God," and "Image of the God
Apprehensible Only to the Mind" ( Timaeus 9 2C)
89
Catholic Rome: The Trinity as "Source, Guide, and
Goal" ( Timaeus 27C-4 2D)
III
Bibliography
133
l( H I G
P� ES S

Dr g 11:1 zed by
Ori g1I n a I 1ko m
T H E llJ NllVE R S!lliY O� MI( H I G AN P� E%
UN Pl ERSllif Y O:F Ml (Hi IGA NI
A Note on Translations
Almost all the thinkers with whom this book deals were obliged to read
either Timaeus or Genesis or both in translation, the principal exceptions
to this being those Hellenistic Jews who had kept a knowledge of Hebrew
after acquiring Greek (which may or may not include Philo and the author
or authors of the Book of Wisdom), as well as those few Christians,
Origen and some others, who could read each of the two books in the
original. Therefore the problem of translation, which has been vexing-
A Note on Translations
and fascinating-me both personally and professionally throughout my
life, has proved to be even more complex here than usual.
In performing the pleasant duty of working through the Greek text of
Timaeus countless times for this assignment, I have had the benefit of
various translations into various languages, above all that of Francis M.
Cornford, which was the version I quoted most often in my early drafts.
Then, for a while, I had come to the conclusion that I should, despite my
reservations, revert to the translation of Benjamin Jowett in its fourth
edition, for several reasons: it is by far the best known throughout the
English-speaking world, and it is in many ways the most beautiful as
literature; his renderings, by some of the very qualities that make them
controversial, best prepare a reader for the interpretations imposed on
Timaeus by later generations of Jews and Christians; and his was the
version of Timaeus selected by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns
for their one-volume Bollingen edition of Plato (published in 196I and
several times since), despite the availability to them of the English Timaeus
of Cornford, whose translations of Theaetetus, Parmenides, and Sophist
they did include.
Nevertheless, despite personal preferences, I finally decided that to
achieve consistency and avoid the impression of arbitrariness, I should
adhere as much as I could to the translations of my various texts in the
Loeb Classical Library and in the New English Bible (though without
reproducing the verse forms and capital letters of the latter), at least for
Almost all the thinkers with whom this book deals were obliged to read
either Timaeus or Genesis or both in translation, the principal exceptions
to this being those Hellenistic Jews who had kept a knowledge of Hebrew
after acquiring Greek (which may or may not include Philo and the author
or authors of the Book of Wisdom), as well as those few Christians,
Origen and some others, who could read each of the two books in the
original. Therefore the problem of translation, which has been vexing­
and fascinating-me both personally and professionally throughout my
life, has proved to be even more complex here than usual.
In performing the pleasant duty of working through the Greek text of
Timaeus countless times for this assignment, I have had the benefit of
various translations into various languages, above all that of Francis M.
Cornford, which was the version I quoted most often in my early drafts.
Then, for a while, I had come to the conclusion that I should, despite my
reservations, revert to the translation of Benjamin Jowett in its fourth
edition, for several reasons: it is by far the best known throughout the
English-speaking world, and it is in many ways the most beautiful as
literature; his renderings, by some of the very qualities that make them
controversial, best prepare a reader for the interpretations imposed on
Timaeus by later generations of Jews and Christians; and his was the
version of Timaeus selected by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns
for their one-volume Bollingen edition of Plato (published in 1 961 and
several times since) , despite the availability to them of the English Timaeus
of Cornford, whose translations of Theaetetus, Parmenides, and Sophist
they did include.
Nevertheless, despite personal preferences, I finally decided that to
achieve consistency and avoid the impression of arbitrariness, I should
adhere as much as I could to the translations of my various texts in the
Loeb Classical Library and in the New English Bible (though without
reproducing the verse forms and capital letters of the latter) , at least for
l( H I G
P� ES S
xn
xii A Note on Translations
direct quotations, often quoting the originals together with them. But I
have also felt free to add (or substitute) my own translations and para-
phrases (for example, of the key passage from Timaeus 92C throughout)
and even-particularly in the case of the English translation by Victor E.
Watts of the "Hymn to the Creator" from book 3 of the Consolation of
Philosophy of Boethius and in the case of a few key passages from Jowett
and from the Bible-to use some other existing English translations,
where their renderings come closer to the sense in which my two primary
texts, Timaeus and Genesis, were being interpreted by the later readers of
the two together. In some cases, those later interpreters may themselves
have influenced these translations, which is, for my purposes here, an asset
rather than a liability. I have also sought to be as consistent as I could in
reproducing the fundamental distinction of Timaeus between volnT6s and
ac OrIT6; with the translations "apprehensible only to the mind" and
"perceptible to the senses," deviating therefore from the practice of the
Loeb Classical Library, which often translates a cOT6s with "sensible," a
meaning the term certainly would not have for most readers of English
today. For the Latin version of Timaeus by Calcidius, I have usually trans-
lated his translation, even where it is faulty or misleading. A similar crite-
rion has persuaded me, where an author is employing the Septuagint or
the Vulgate with a meaning that diverges significantly from the one re-
flected in the NEB (and, for that matter, from the original), to quote or
adapt English translations of those translations.
A Note on Translations
direct quotations, often quoting the originals together with them. But I
have also felt free to add ( or substitute) my own translations and para­
phrases (for example, of the key passage from Timaeus 92C throughout)
and even-particularly in the case of the English translation by Victor E.
Watts of the "Hymn to the Creator" from book 3 of the Consolation of
Philosophy of Boethius and in the case of a few key passages from Jowett
and from the Bible-to use some other existing English translations,
where their renderings come closer to the sense in which my two primary
texts, Timaeus and Genesis, were being interpreted by the later readers of
the two together. In some cases, those later interpreters may themselves
have influenced these translations, which is, for my purposes here, an asset
rather than a liability. I have also sought to be as consistent as I could in
reproducing the fundamental distinction of Timaeus between vo11T6s and
ala811T6s with the translations " apprehensible only to the mind " and
"perceptible to the senses," deviating therefore from the practice of the
Loeb Classical Library, which often translates ala811T6s with " sensible," a
meaning the term certainly would not have for most readers of English
today. For the Latin version of Timaeus by Calcidius, I have usually trans­
lated his translation, even where it is faulty or misleading. A similar crite­
rion has persuaded me, where an author is employing the Septuagint or
the Vulgate with a meaning that diverges significantly from the one re­
flected in the NEB (and, for that matter, from the original), to quote or
adapt English translations of those translations.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Abbreviations
Ambr.
Exc. Sat.
Fid.
Hex.
Arist.
Abbreviations
E.N.
Met.
Ph.
Ath.
Apol. sec.
Ar.
Syn.
Primary Sources
Aug.
Civ.
Conf.
Corrept.
Doct. christ.
Gen. imp.
Primary Sources
Ambrose of Milan
De excessu fratris sui Satyri
De fide
Hexaemeron
Aristotle
Ethica Nicomachea
Metaphysica
Physica
Athanasius
Apologia (secunda) contra
Arianos
Ambr.
Exe. Sat.
Fid.
Hex.
Ari st.
E.N.
Met.
Ph.
Ath.
Apo/. sec.
Ambrose of Milan
De excessu fratris sui Satyri
De fide
Hexaemeron
Aristotle
Ethica Nicomachea
Metaphysica
Physica
Athanasius
Apologia (secunda) contra
Arianos
Orationes contra Arianos
De synodis Arimini et Seleuciae
Augustine
De civitate Dei
Confessiones
De correptione et gratia
De doctrina christiana
De Genesi ad litteram imper­
fectus liber
De Genesi ad litteram
De Genesi adversus Mani­
chaeos
De Trinitate
Basil of Caesarea
Homiliae in Hexaemeron
De Spiritu sancto
Boethius
De consolatione philosophiae
Orationes contra Arianos
De synodis Arimini et Seleuciae
Augustine
De civitate Dei
Confessiones
De correptione et gratia
De doctrina christiana
De Genesi ad litteram imper-
fectus liber
De Genesi ad litteram
De Genesi adversus Mani-
chaeos
De Trinitate
Basil of Caesarea
Homiliae in Hexadmeron
Ar.
Syn.
Aug.
Civ.
Conf.
Corrept.
Doct. christ.
Gen. imp.
De Spiritu sancto
Boethius
De consolatione philosophiae
Gen. litt.
Gen. Litt.
Gen. Man.
Gen. Man.
Trin.
Bas.
Hex.
Spir.
Boet.
Cons.
Trin.
Bas.
Hex.
Spir.
Bo et.
Cons.
l( H I G
P� ES S
xiv
xiv Abbreviations
Abbreviations
Div.
Utrum pater et filius et spiritus
sanctus de divinitate substan­
tialiter praedicentur
Contra Eutychen et Nestorium
Introduction
In librum Aristotelis rrEpi E:p­
µEvEl.as editio secunda
Preface
De Trinitate
Preface
Calcidius
Commentarius
Timaeus
Dedicatory epistle
Cicero Timaeus
Clement of Alexandria Stromateis
Gregory Nazianzus
Epistolae
Orationes
Gregory of Nyssa
De anima et resurrectione
Orationes de beatitudinibus
Homiliae in Cantica Can­
ticorum
Epistolae
Contra Eunomium
Apologia in Hexaemeron
De opificio hominis
Dedicatory epistle
De Spiritu sancto contra Mace­
donianos
Oratio catechetica
Homiliae in orationem
dominicam
Refutatio confessionis Eunomii
Quod non sint tres dii
De vita Mosis
Hilary of Poitiers De Trinitate
Homer Ilias
Div.
Eut.
int.
Herm. sec.
pr.
Trin.
pr.
Cal.
Eut.
int.
Herm. sec.
Com.
Ti.
ep. ded.
Cic. Ti.
Clem. Str.
Gr. Naz.
Ep.
Or.
Gr. Nyss.
Anim. res.
Beat.
Cant.
Ep.
Eun.
Hex.
Horn. opif.
ep. ded.
Maced.
Or. catech.
Or. dom.
Utrum pater et filius et spiritus
sanctus de divinitate substan-
tialiter praedicentur
Contra Eutychen et Nestorium
Introduction
In librum Aristotelis TrEpt Ep-
pEVELaG editio secunda
pr.
Trin.
pr.
Cal.
Com.
Ti.
ep. <led.
Cic. Ti.
Clem. Str.
Gr. Naz.
Ep.
Or.
Gr. Nyss.
Anim. res.
Beat.
Cant.
Preface
De Trinitate
Preface
Calcidius
Commentarius
Timaeus
Dedicatory epistle
Cicero Timaeus
Clement of Alexandria Stromateis
Gregory Nazianzus
Epistolae
Ep.
Eun.
Hex.
Hom. opif.
ep. <led.
Maced.
Orationes
Gregory of Nyssa
De anima et resurrectione
Orationes de beatitudinibus
Homiliae in Cantica Can-
Or. catech.
Or. dom.
ticorum
Epistolae
Contra Eunomium
Apologia in Hexaemeron
De opificio hominis
Dedicatory epistle
De Spiritu sancto contra Mace-
donianos
Oratio catechetica
Homiliae in orationem
Ref.
Tres dii
V. Mos.
Hil. Trin.
Hom. II.
dominicam
Refutatio confessionis Eunomii
Quod non sint tres dii
De vita Mosis
Hilary of Poitiers De Trinitate
Homer Ilias
Ref.
Tres dii
l( H I G
P� ES S
Abbreviations
Abbreviations xv
Hor. Epist.
Iren. Haer.
Hor. Epist.
Iren. Haer.
Horace Epistolae
Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus
haereses
Justin Martyr Dialogus cum
Tryphone ]udaeo
Lactantius
Epitome diuinarum institu­
tionum
Diuinae institutiones
Lucretius De rerum natura
Origen Contra Ce/sum
Ovid Metamorphoses
Philo of Alexandria
De cherubim
De confusione linguarum
De congressu eruditionis gratia
De Decalogo
De fuga et inventione
Legum allegoria
De migratione Abrahami
De opificio mundi
Quaestiones et solutiones in
Genesin
De vita Mosis
Plato
Critias
Leges
Phaedo
Respublica
Theaetetus
Timaeus
Socrates Scholasticus Historia ec­
clesiastica
Sozomenus Salaminus Historia ec­
clesiastica
Tertullian
De anima
Adversus Marcionem
De praescriptione haereticorum
Just. Dial.
Lact.
Epit.
Just. Dial.
Inst.
Lucr.
Or. Cels.
Ov. Met.
Phil.
La ct.
Epit.
Cher.
Conf.
Congr.
Decal.
Fug.
Leg. all.
Migr.
Opif.
Quaes. Gen.
V. Mos.
P1.
Criti.
Leg.
Phd.
Resp.
Tht.
Ti.
Socr. H.e.
Soz. H.e.
Tert.
Anim.
Marc.
Praescrip.
Horace Epistolae
Inst.
Luer.
Or. Cels.
Ov. Met.
Phil .
Cher.
Con(.
Congr.
Decal.
Pug.
Leg. all.
Migr.
Opif.
Quaes. Gen.
Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus
haereses
Justin Martyr Dialogus cum
Tryphone Judaeo
Lactantius
Epitome diuinarum institu-
tionum
Diuinae institutiones
Lucretius De rerum natura
Origen Contra Celsum
Ovid Metamorphoses
Philo of Alexandria
De cherubim
De confusione linguarum
De congressu eruditionis gratia
V. Mos.
Pl.
Criti.
Leg.
Phd.
Resp.
Tht.
Ti.
Socr. H.e.
De Decalogo
De fuga et inventione
Legum allegoria
De migratione Abrahami
Soz. H.e.
De opificio mundi
Quaestiones et solutiones in
Genesin
De vita Mosis
Plato
Critias
Leges
Phaedo
Tert.
Anim.
Marc.
Praescrip.
Respublica
Theaetetus
Timaeus
Socrates Scholasticus Historia ec-
clesiastica
Sozomenus Salaminus Historia ec-
clesiastica
Tertullian
xv
l( H I G
P� ES S
xvi
xvi Abbreviations
Verg.
Aen.
Edcl.
Abbreviations
Verg.
Aen.
Eel.
Vergil
Aeneis
Eclogae
Vergil
Aeneis
Eclogae
Reference Works
Reference Works
Bauer
Blaise
DTC
Lampe
Bauer
Bauer, Walter A. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
Trans. and adapted by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur
Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. 2d ed. Chicago,
1 979.
Blaise, Albert. Dictionnaire latin-franfais des auteurs
chretiens. Brussels, 1 97 5 .
Dictionnaire de theologie catholique. 1 5 vols. Paris,
1 903- 5 0.
Lampe, Geoffrey W.H., ed. A Patristic Greek Lexicon.
Oxford, 1 961 .
Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche. 1 0 vols. and index.
Freiburg, 195 7-67.
The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 2d ed. Oxford,
1 992 .
Pauly, A., G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., RealEncyclopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft.
1 8 93- .
Tanner, Norman P., and Joseph Alberigo, eds. Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils. London and Washington,
1 990.
Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Leipzig, 1 900- .
LTK
OCD
PW
Tanner-Alberigo
Bauer, Walter A. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
Trans. and adapted by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur
Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. zd ed. Chicago,
Blaise
1979.
Blaise, Albert. Dictionnaire latin-francais des auteurs
chritiens. Brussels, 1975.
DT C
Dictionnaire de theologie catholique. 15 vols. Paris,
1903-50.
Lampe, Geoffrey W.H., ed. A Patristic Greek Lexicon.
Oxford, 1961.
Lampe
Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche. io vols. and index.
Freiburg, 1957-67.
The Oxford Classical Dictionary. zd ed. Oxford,
LTK
1992.
Pauly, A., G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Real-
Encyclopidie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft.
O CD
1893-.
Tanner, Norman P., and Joseph Alberigo, eds. Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils. London and Washington,
PW
1990.
Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Leipzig, 1900-.
TLL
Tanner-Alberigo
TLL
I
li HI E ll.INI E R S IT
I lze
F
PR ES S
N
I
Classical Rome: "Description of the
Universe" (Timaeus 9oE) as Philosophy
I
The Thomas Spencer Jerome Lectures are charged, by the will of their
founder, to deal with (among other possible themes) "the history or cul-
ture of the Romans." Previous lecturers in this distinguished series have
correctly construed that charge quite broadly, so as to include not only
Roman "history or culture" in the classical period but its subsequent
development into the Christian and Catholic period.1 For the history or
culture of the Romans became truly universal, and Rome became the
Classical Rome: "Description of the
Universe" (Timaeus 90E) as Philosophy
"imperium sine fine" prophesied in Vergil's Aeneid,2 not by the history of
the Caesars alone but by the history of the popes as well, not only through
the culture that spoke in the Latin of the Aeneid but also through the
culture represented by the Latin of the Vulgate and the Mass. As Alex-
ander Souter, editor of the Glossary of Later Latin, once put it, "it seems
indisputable that, whether Augustine be the greatest Latin writer or not,
he is the greatest man who ever wrote Latin."3 This Latin culture of
Catholic Rome dominated the history and culture of the Mediterranean
world and of western Europe for more than a millennium and then spread
from there to the seven continents and to the islands of the sea.
An important part of that process, both as a symbol and as an instru-
ment of such universality, was the appropriation by Christian and
Catholic Rome of titles as well as of themes that had originated in classical
Rome and its forebears, a process that was justified as an analogy to the
Israelites' having taken spoils from the Egyptians in the Exodus.4 Among
the titles, perhaps the most familiar is pontifex maximus, repeated hun-
dreds of times on the monuments and plaques of present-day Rome:
originally a title for the chief priest of Roman pagan religion, it was taken
I. Most notably, perhaps, Bowersock 1990.
a. Verg. Aen. 1.279.
3. Souter 1910, 150.
4. Aug. Doct. christ. 2.40.60-61.
The Thomas Spencer Jerome Lectures are charged, by the will of their
founder, to deal with ( among other possible themes) "the history or cul­
ture of the Romans. " Previous lecturers in this distinguished series have
correctly construed that charge quite broadly, so as to include not only
Roman "history or culture " in the classical period but its subsequent
development into the Christian and Catholic period. 1 For the history or
culture of the Romans became truly universal, and Rome became the
"imperium sine fine " prophesied in Vergil's Aeneid,2 not by the history of
the Caesars alone but by the history of the popes as well, not only through
the culture that spoke in the Latin of the Aeneid but also through the
culture represented by the Latin of the Vulgate and the Mass. As Alex­
ander Souter, editor of the Glossary of Later Latin, once put it, "it seems
indisputable that, whether Augustine be the greatest Latin writer or not,
he is the greatest man who ever wrote Latin. " 3 This Latin culture of
Catholic Rome dominated the history and culture of the Mediterranean
world and of western Europe for more than a millennium and then spread
from there to the seven continents and to the islands of the sea.
An important part of that process, both as a symbol and as an instru­
ment of such universality, was the appropriation by Christian and
Catholic Rome of titles as well as of themes that had originated in classical
Rome and its forebears, a process that was justified as an analogy to the
Israelites' having taken spoils from the Egyptians in the Exodus.4 Among
the titles, perhaps the most familiar is pontifex maximus, repeated hun­
dreds of times on the monuments and plaques of present-day Rome:
originally a title for the chief priest of Roman pagan religion, it was taken
r.
Most notably, perhaps, Bowersock
2.
Verg.
1990.
Aen. r. 2 79.
3. Souter 1 9 10, 1 50.
4 . Aug. Doct. christ. 2.40.60- 6 i .
l( H I G
P� ES S
2
2 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
over by the emperors during the principate of Augustus, was therefore
renounced by the Christian emperors beginning with Gratian in the last
quarter of the fourth century, but then was assumed (though not initially
as an exclusive title) by the popes in the next century, beginning with Pope
Leo I.s Among the themes taken over, the best known is probably the
myth of the birth of the Child in Vergil's Fourth Eclogue: "Now the Virgin
returns [Iam redit et Virgo] . . . Now a new generation descends from
heaven on high. Only do thou.. . smile on the birth of the child, under
whom the iron brood shall first cease, and a golden race spring up
throughout the world!"6 Because of its striking similarities to the proph-
ecy of the birth of the child in the Book of Isaiah, this was applied by
many Christians to the birth of the Christ child.7 Another such appropria-
tion is reflected in the opening stanza of the Dies irae, "teste Dauid cum
Sibylla."8 In its use of both these Roman sources, which had been related
to each other through the prominence in the Fourth Eclogue of the
Cumaean Sibyl, as she and the other Sibyls were eventually to be memori-
alized in the Sistine Chapel in association with the prophets of Israel,9
Catholic Rome set its classical heritage into a kind of counterpoint with its
Jewish and biblical heritage-David into counterpoint with the Sibyl for
Christian eschatology, Isaiah into counterpoint with the Fourth Eclogue
for the messianic hope.
Almost as soon as Christianity had gone beyond Greek to speak and
write in Latin, it began to raise fundamental questions about that counter-
point. "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" [Quid Athenae Hiero-
solymis?], asked Tertullian, the first important Latin Christian author.10
The answer of Tertullian to his own question was that the faithful disciple
of Jerusalem did not really need to become a pupil of Athens as well. In
proof of that answer, however, he declared: "Our instruction comes from
'the porch of Solomon,' who had himself taught that the Lord should be
'sought in simplicity of heart.' "11 Thus he quoted, in the same breath with
5. Max Bierbaum in LTK s.v.; Blaise 634.
6. Verg. Ecl. 4.6-io.
7. Is. 9:6; Norden 1924.
8. Arthur Stanley Pease in OCD s.v.; Emile Amann in DTC s.v.; Karl Priimm, Anton
Legner, Johann Michl in LTK s.v.
9. Hersey 1993, 198-20zo4.
io. Tert. Praescrip. 7; Cochrane 1944, 213-60, "Quid Athenae Hierosolymis? The
Impasse of Constantinianism," is still a helpful examination.
11. Wis. 1:1.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
over by the emperors during the principate of Augustus, was therefore
renounced by the Christian emperors beginning with Gratian in the last
quarter of the fo urth century, but then was assumed (though not initially
as an exclusive title) by the popes in the next century, beginning with Pope
Leo 1.5 Among the themes taken over, the best known is probably the
myth of the birth of the Child in Vergil's Fourth Eclogue: "Now the Virgin
returns [lam redit et Virgo] . . . . Now a new generation descends from
heaven on high. Only do thou . . . smile on the birth of the child, under
whom the iron brood shall first cease, and a golden race spring up
throughout the world! "6 Because of its striking similarities to the proph­
ecy of the birth of the child in the Book of Isaiah, this was applied by
many Christians to the birth of the Christ child. 7 Another such appropria­
tion is reflected in the opening stanza of the Dies irae, " teste Dauid cum
Sibylla. " 8 In its use of both these Roman sources, which had been related
to each other through the prominence in the Fourth Eclogue of the
Cumaean Sibyl, as she and the other Sibyls were eventually to be memori­
alized in the Sistine Chapel in association with the prophets of Israel,9
Catholic Rome set its classical heritage into a kind of counterpoint with its
Jewish and biblical heritage-David into counterpoint with the Sibyl for
Christian eschatology, Isaiah into counterpoint with the Fourth Eclogue
for the messianic hope.
Almost as soon as Christianity had gone beyond Greek to speak and
write in Latin, it began to raise fundamental questions about that counter­
point. "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem ? " [Quid Athenae Hiero­
solymis?], asked Tertullian, the first important Latin Christian author. 1 0
The answer o f Tertullian t o his own question was that the faithful disciple
of Jerusalem did not really need to become a pupil of Athens as well. In
proof of that answer, however, he declared: " Our instruction comes from
'the porch of Solomon,' who had himself taught that the Lord should be
'sought in simplicity of heart.' " 1 1 Thus he quoted, in the same breath with
5 . Max Bierbaum in LTK s.v.; Blaise 63 4.
6. Verg. Eel. 4. 6- 1 0.
7. Is. 9 : 6; Norden 1 9 24.
8. Arthur Stanley Pease in OCD s.v.; Emile Amann in DTC s.v.; Karl Priimm, Anton
Legner, Johann Michl in LTK s.v.
9 . Hersey 1 9 9 3 , 1 9 8-204.
1 0. Tert. Praescrip. 7; Cochrane 1 944, 2 1 3 -60, "Quid Athenae Hierosolymis? The
Impasse of Constantinianism," is still a helpful examination.
l I . Wis. l : I .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Classical Rome
Classical Rome 3
the warning of the apostle Paul against "philosophy and empty deceit,"12
the words of the first verse of the Wisdom of Solomon, in which the
contrapuntal harmony between Athens and Jerusalem was more pro-
nounced than in any other biblical book. The theme of that counterpoint
in the Book of Wisdom, moreover, was not the conjunction of Isaiah and
Vergil on the birth of the Child nor the conjunction of David and the Sibyl
on the end of the world but the conjunction of Genesis and Timaeus on
the beginning of the world. Having almost certainly been composed origi-
nally in Greek rather than in Hebrew, the Wisdom of Solomon is not only
the most Hellenized but also arguably the most "philosophical" book in
the Bible. That, too, was a reflection and an adumbration, for it would be
as a philosophical-theological cosmogony that the combination of Tim-
aeus and Genesis would present itself to Judaism in Alexandria and then
to Christianity in New Rome and in Catholic Rome.
This book deals with that question of cosmogony, the doctrine of
beginnings and of origins, as the question was posed for Roman culture
from classical Rome to Catholic Rome by the counterpoint between the
Genesis of Moses and the Timaeus of Plato. But in "the history or culture
of the Romans" cosmogony had been the subject of myth and speculation
quite apart from that counterpoint, most familiarly perhaps for readers of
Latin literature past and present in book i of Ovid's Metamorphoses.13
Ovid's poetic account of creation was, however, far less scientifically ex-
tensive and philosophically profound than that set forth in the De rerum
natura of Lucretius. It seems fair to say that together with Dante Alighieri
and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Lucretius represented a distinctive
combination of poetry, science, and philosophy, which was why George
Santayana bracketed him with those two later writers in his Three Philo-
sophical Poets of 1910o. Lucretius was well aware of his uniqueness within
the Roman tradition, describing himself as a poet who followed the Muses
on untrodden paths and traveled where none had gone before,14 and
identifying himself, with the words "denique natura haec rerum ratioque
repertast / nuper, et hanc primus cum primis ipse repertus / nunc ego sum
in patrias qui possim uertere uoces," as the first to have been in a position
to give a full cosmological and cosmogonic account of the nature and
Iz2. Col. z:8.
13. Ov. Met. 1.5-88; I have benefited from the commentary of Bomer 1969, 15-47, in
my reading of these lines.
14. Lucr. 1.922-27, 4.1-2.
3
the warning of the apostle Paul against "philosophy and empty deceit, " 1 2
the words o f the first verse o f the Wisdom of Solomon, in which the
contrapuntal harmony between Athens and Jerusalem was more pro­
nounced than in any other biblical book. The theme of that counterpoint
in the Book of Wisdom, moreover, was not the conjunction of Isaiah and
Vergil on the birth of the Child nor the conjunction of David and the Sibyl
on the end of the world but the conjunction of Genesis and Timaeus on
the beginning of the world. Having almost certainly been composed origi­
nally in Greek rather than in Hebrew, the Wisdom of Solomon is not only
the most Hellenized but also arguably the most "philosophical " book in
the Bible. That, too, was a reflection and an adumbration, for it would be
as a philosophical-theological cosmogony that the combination of Tim­
aeus and Genesis would present itself to Judaism in Alexandria and then
to Christianity in New Rome and in Catholic Rome.
This book deals with that question of cosmogony, the doctrine of
beginnings and of origins, as the question was posed for Roman culture
from classical Rome to Catholic Rome by the counterpoint between the
Genesis of Moses and the Timaeus of Plato. But in "the history or culture
of the Romans " cosmogony had been the subject of myth and speculation
quite apart from that counterpoint, most familiarly perhaps for readers of
Latin literature past and present in book r of Ovid's Metamorphoses. 13
Ovid's poetic account of creation was, however, far less scientifically ex­
tensive and philosophically profound than that set forth in the De rerum
natura of Lucretius. It seems fair to say that together with Dante Alighieri
and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Lucretius represented a distinctive
combination of poetry, science, and philosophy, which was why George
Santayana bracketed him with those two later writers in his Three Philo­
sophical Poets of r 9 r o. Lucretius was well aware of his uniqueness within
the Roman tradition, describing himself as a poet who followed the Muses
on untrodden paths and traveled where none had gone before,14 and
identifying himself, with the words "denique natura haec rerum ratioque
repertast I nuper, et hanc primus cum primis ipse repertus I nunc ego sum
in patrias qui possim uertere uoces, " as the first to have been in a position
to give a full cosmological and cosmogonic account of the nature and
2. Col. 2:8.
1 3 . Ov. Met. r . 5 -88; I have benefited from the commentary of Bomer 1 9 69 , 1 5 - 47, in
l
my reading of these lines.
1 4.
Luer.
r .9 2 2-27, 4.1-2.
l( H I G
P� ES S
4
4 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
system of the world in Latin, whether in poetry or in prose.1s The epic of
Lucretius is endlessly fascinating above all in its own right as the first full-
length philosophical and scientific cosmogony we know of in Rome. But
for the purposes of the present inquiry, it is valuable not primarily for its
literary form or its scientific content but especially for its philosophical
and theological Fragestellung, thus more for its questions than for its
answers. For the portions of De rerum natura devoted to cosmogony turn
out to be a veritable checklist of the issues with which the subsequent
history of philosophical speculation about the origins of the universe
would have to deal, continuing even into the modern era, and to which
therefore the counterpoint between the Genesis of Moses and the Timaeus
of Plato in Alexandria, New Rome, and Catholic Rome would have to be
addressed.
Logically the first such issue is the question of beginnings itself. Lu-
cretius set it forth as his "opinion" that the world was characterized by
"nouitas" and had not yet been in existence for very long.16 About air, for
example, he opined that it "never stops being produced" [haud cessat
gigni], but also that it subsequently "falls back into things" [in res rec-
cidere].17 As that observation suggests, moreover, he frequently corre-
lated the question of the beginning of the world with the question of its
ending, "creation" with "eschatology," to use, anachronistically but al-
most irresistibly, the later language of Christian theology. To introduce the
various components of his cosmogony (including, basically in this order,
earth, sky, sea, stars, the sun and moon, the animals, and humanity), he
took as his theme and "the order of his design" "how the world consists of
a mortal body and also has been born" [ut mihi mortali consistere corpore
mundum / natiuumque simul ratio reddunda sit esse].18 His observation
of how the "maxima mundi membra" were subject to the process of being
"consumpta [et] regigni" convinced him "that heaven and earth also once
had their time of beginning and will have their destruction in the future"
[caeli quoque item terraeque fuisse / principiale aliquod tempus cladem-
que futuram].19 But beyond that, the specifics of both creation and escha-
15. Lucr. 5.335-37. As Leonard and Smith (194z, 674) suggest, this claim was not
altogether sound, for Cicero had already treated Epicureanism in prose, though not in
poetry.
i6. Lucr. 5.330-3I.
17. Lucr. 5.279-80.
18. Lucr. 5.64-66.
19. Lucr. 5.243-46.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
system of the world in Latin, whether in poetry or in prose. 15 The epic of
Lucretius is endlessly fascinating above all in its own right as the first full­
length philosophical and scientific cosmogony we know of in Rome. But
for the purposes of the present inquiry, it is valuable not primarily for its
literary form or its scientific content but especially for its philosophical
and theological Fragestellung, thus more for its questions than for its
answers. For the portions of De rerum natura devoted to cosmogony turn
out to be a veritable checklist of the issues with which the subsequent
history of philosophical speculation about the origins of the universe
would have to deal, continuing even into the modern era, and to which
therefore the counterpoint between the Genesis of Moses and the Timaeus
of Plato in Alexandria, New Rome, and Catholic Rome would have to be
addressed.
Logically the first such issue is the question of beginnings itself. Lu­
cretius set it forth as his " opinion" that the world was characterized by
" nouitas " and had not yet been in existence for very long. 1 6 About air, for
example, he opined that it " never stops being produced" [haud cessat
gigni] , but also that it subsequently "falls back into things" [in res rec­
cidere ] . 17 As that observation suggests, moreover, he frequently corre­
lated the question of the beginning of the world with the question of its
ending, "creation" with "eschatology, " to use, anachronistically but al­
most irresistibly, the later language of Christian theology. To introduce the
various components of his cosmogony (including, basically in this order,
earth, sky, sea, stars, the sun and moon, the animals, and humanity), he
took as his theme and "the order of his design" " how the world consists of
a mortal body and also has been born " [ ut mihi mortali consistere corpore
mundum I natiuumque simul ratio reddunda sit esse] . 1 8 His observation
of how the " maxima mundi membra" were subj ect to the process of being
"consumpta [et] regigni " convinced him "that heaven and earth also once
had their time of beginning and will have their destruction in the future "
[caeli quoque item terraeque fuisse I principiale aliquod tempus cladem­
que futuram] . 19 But beyond that, the specifics of both creation and escha1 5 . Luer. 5 . 3 3 5 - 3 7 . As Leonard and Smith ( 1 942, 674) suggest, this claim was not
altogether sound, for Cicero had already treated Epicureanism in prose, though not in
poetry.
1 6 . Luer. 5 . 3 3 0- 3 r .
l 7 . Luer. 5 . 2 79-80.
1 8. Luer. 5 . 64 - 66.
1 9 . Luer. 5 . 2 4 3 - 4 6 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Classical Rome
Classical Rome 5
tology were, he added, unanswerable questions, what the "mundi geni-
talis origo" had been and likewise what its "finis" would be.20
5
tology were, he added, unanswerable questions, what the " mundi geni­
talis origo " had been and likewise what its "finis " would be.20
Philosophy and Traditional Religion
Philosophy and Traditional Religion
Because the cosmogonic myth has been one of the most universal in the
history of religion, scientific investigation of cosmic origins and philo-
sophical reflection about them must come to terms with the question of
what to do about myth, as the bitter debates over creationism in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries have amply demonstrated. "Once
upon a time, so the story goes" [semel, ut fama est] was the formula by
which Lucretius dealt with the myth of the flood,21 which soon thereafter
was to be retold for Roman readers by Ovid.22 The reservations and the
distancing expressed in that formula applied to his treatment of other
myths, as well as to his handling of traditional religious rituals or "sollem-
nia sacra."23 Thus, paraphrasing and summarizing the myth of Phaethon,
which was likewise a subject in Ovid's narrative, and which had figured in
the narrative of Plato's Timaeus as well,24 he identified it as "the tale
which the old Greek poets have sung"; but having done so, he rendered
the judgment that "this is all removed by a great distance from true
reasoning" [quod procul a uera nimis est ratione repulsum],25 because, as
the Lucretian theology has been summarized, for him "there is no ever-
lasting sun, no pater omnipotens (399), and indeed no Phaethon."26 In
keeping with that theology, his explanation of the origins of "religio" (a
term that has been rendered into English by more than one translator as
"superstition" rather than as "religion") was based on both subjective
and objective grounds. Subjectively, it took its rise, he suggested, from the
manifestation, in the world of dreams, of beings who were beautiful in
appearance and superhuman in stature, to whom humanity an-
thropopathically attributed such qualities as sensation, everlasting life,
and eternal beatitude, thereby elevating to the realm of a supposed super-
natural reality what were in fact the fleeting illusions of the moment.27
The objective grounds are more relevant here; for it was to the primitive
zo20. Lucr. 5.1211-13.
z 1. Lucr. 5.395, 412.
zz. Ov. Met. 1.262-347.
23. Lucr. 5.1163.
24. Ov. Met. 1.750-2.400; P1. Ti. 22zC.
25. Lucr. 5.396-410.
26. Rouse and Smith 1992, 409.
27. Lucr. 5.1169-82.
Because the cosmogonic myth has been one of the most universal in the
history of religion, scientific investigation of cosmic origins and philo­
sophical reflection about them must come to terms with the question of
what to do about myth, as the bitter debates over creationism in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries have amply demonstrated. " Once
upon a time, so the story goes " [semel, ut fama est] was the formula by
which Lucretius dealt with the myth of the flood,21 which soon thereafter
was to be retold for Roman readers by Ovid.22 The reservations and the
distancing expressed in that formula applied to his treatment of other
myths, as well as to his handling of traditional religious rituals or " sollem­
nia sacra. "23 Thus, paraphrasing and summarizing the myth of Phaethon,
which was likewise a subject in Ovid's narrative, and which had figured in
the narrative of Plato's Timaeus as well,24 he identified it as "the tale
which the old Greek poets have sung " ; but having done so, he rendered
the judgment that "this is all removed by a great distance from true
reasoning" [quod procul a uera nimis est ratione repulsum] ,25 because, as
the Lucretian theology has been summarized, for him "there is no ever­
lasting sun, no pater omnipotens (3 9 9 ) , and indeed no Phaethon. "26 In
keeping with that theology, his explanation of the origins of " religio " ( a
term that has been rendered into English by more than one translator as
"superstition" rather than as " religion" ) was based on both subjective
and objective grounds. Subj ectively, it took its rise, he suggested, from the
manifestation, in the world of dreams, of beings who were beautiful in
appearance and superhuman in stature, to whom humanity an­
thropopathically attributed such qualities as sensation, everlasting life,
and eternal beatitude, thereby elevating to the realm of a supposed super­
natural reality what were in fact the fleeting illusions of the moment.27
The objective grounds are more relevant here; for it was to the primitive
20.
2I.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Luer. 5 . 1 2 1 1 - 1 3 .
Luer. 5 . 3 9 5 , 4 1 2.
Ov. Met. r . 262-34 7.
Luer. 5 . 1 1 63 .
Ov. Met. l . 7 5 0-2.400; Pl. Ti. 22C.
Luer. 5 . 3 9 6- 4 1 0.
Rouse and Smith 1 9 9 2 , 409.
Luer. 5 . n 69-82.
l( H I G
P� ES S
6
6 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
discovery that the rotation of the heavens and the changing of the seasons
took place "ordine certo," but to the impossibility nevertheless of
discovering the ultimate causes of these observed phenomena, that Lu-
cretius ascribed the almost incurable human tendency "omnia diuis trad-
ere" and the almost ineradicable human belief that it was the gods who
governed the universe.28 And because, despite all the "ordo," the realm of
nature was frequently punctuated by violent interruptions and eruptions,
such as "threatening thunderstorms" [murmura magna minarum], these
events were thought to be a deliberate expression of the will and the
"bitter wrath" of the gods. "O miseras hominum mentes, o pectora
caeca!" and "O genus infelix humanum!"29 was the only appropriate
response to such a predicament.
Although religion looked to the intervention of the gods for
deliverance, the deliverance of the unfortunate human race from this
blindness and superstition and the discovery of true reasoning, both phil-
osophically about "religio" and scientifically about the universe, had actu-
ally been the accomplishment of a "Graius homo," Epicurus, "the orna-
ment of the Greek nation" [Graiae gentis decus].30 Lucretius even
exclaimed of him, "He was a god, a god he was" [deus ille fuit, deus], so
that it is no exaggeration to speak somewhat paradoxically of "the deifica-
tion of Epicurus" in Lucretius.31 At the beginning of his poetic-scientific
treatise, Lucretius hailed Epicurus as one who, refusing to be intimidated
by the "fama deum" or by the power of the elements, "ranged over the
immeasurable universe with his mind and imagination" [omne immen-
sum peragrauit mente animoque]. The "victory" he won by this intellec-
tual and imaginative boldness was to achieve, for the first time ever, a
sound cosmogony that was free of superstition, the profound and brilliant
insight into "what has the possibility of coming into being and what has
not" [quid possit oriri, / quid nequeat].32 At the center of that Epicurean
cosmogony was a redefinition of divine agency, the recognition, which
Lucretius voiced in book z and repeated almost verbatim in book 5, that
"by no means has the nature of the universe been created for us by divine
agency" [nequaquam nobis diuinitus esse creatam / naturam mundi].33
The pious practice of heaping vow upon vow and sacrifice upon sacrifice
28. See Gale 1994, 85-94.
29. Lucr. 2.14, 5.1183-95.
30. Lucr. 1.66, 3.3.
31. Lucr. 5.8; Gale 1994, 191-zO7.
32. Lucr. 1.62-79.
33. Lucr. z.177-81, 5.195-99.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
discovery that the rotation of the heavens and the changing of the seasons
took place "ordine certo," but to the impossibility nevertheless of
discovering the ultimate causes of these observed phenomena, that Lu­
cretius ascribed the almost incurable human tendency "omnia diuis trad­
ere" and the almost ineradicable human belief that it was the gods who
governed the universe.28 And because, despite all the " ordo," the realm of
nature was frequently punctuated by violent interruptions and eruptions,
such as "threatening thunderstorms" [murmura magna minarum] , these
events were thought to be a deliberate expression of the will and the
" bitter wrath" of the gods. " O miseras hominum mentes, o pectora
caeca! " and " O genus infelix humanum! "29 was the only appropriate
response to such a predicament.
Although religion looked to the intervention of the gods for
deliverance, the deliverance of the unfortunate human race from this
blindness and superstition and the discovery of true reasoning, both phil­
osophically about " religio" and scientifically about the universe, had actu­
ally been the accomplishment of a " Graius homo," Epicurus, "the orna­
ment of the Greek nation" [Graiae gentis decus] .30 Lucretius even
exclaimed of him, " He was a god, a god he was " [deus ille fuit, deus] , so
that it is no exaggeration to speak somewhat paradoxically of "the deifica­
tion of Epicurus" in Lucretius. 31 At the beginning of his poetic-scientific
treatise, Lucretius hailed Epicurus as one who, refusing to be intimidated
by the "fama deum" or by the power of the elements, " ranged over the
immeasurable universe with his mind and imagination" [omne immen­
sum peragrauit mente animoque] . The "victory" he won by this intellec­
tual and imaginative boldness was to achieve, for the first time ever, a
sound cosmogony that was free of superstition, the profound and brilliant
insight into "what has the possibility of coming into being and what has
not" [quid possit oriri, I quid nequeat] . 32 At the center of that Epicurean
cosmogony was a redefinition of divine agency, the recognition, which
Lucretius voiced in book 2 and repeated almost verbatim in book 5, that
" by no means has the nature of the universe been created for us by divine
agency" [nequaquam nobis diuinitus esse creatam I naturam mundi] .33
The pious practice of heaping vow upon vow and sacrifice upon sacrifice
28.
29.
3 0.
3 r.
3 2.
3 3.
See Gale 1994, 8 5-94.
Luer. 2 . 1 4, 5 . I I 83-9 5 .
Luer. i . 6 6, 3.J.
Luer. 5 . 8; Gale 199 4, 1 9 1 -207.
Luer. i . 62-79.
Luer. 2. 1 77-81 , 5 . 1 9 5-99.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Classical Rome
Classical Rome 7
came from that erroneous conception of divine agency, and then it fed that
error in turn; for in human beings "the ability to contemplate the universe
with a serene mind" [placata posse omnia mente tueri]34 corresponded to
the recognition that the gods themselves were doing precisely that, being
"placida cum pace quietos," and therefore were not constantly meddling
in human affairs and cosmic laws, as myth and superstition had imagined
them to be doing.3s
From this recognition that the nature of the universe had not by any
means been created by divine agency there logically flowed at least two
philosophical conclusions with far-reaching consequences for the subse-
quent history of cosmogony, one of them chiefly literary and the other
primarily theological. The first was the designation of "poetry" [carmen]
as the fitting form for a cosmogony to take in attempting to give an
account that would be "appropriate to the majesty of the universe" [pro
rerum maiestate], because prose truly was too prosaic to do the job
right.36 This insight made the careful investigation and precise clarifica-
tion of creation narrative as a distinct literary genre, as well as the specifi-
cation of the kinds of truth claims (if any) that could legitimately be made
for myth and those that could be made for poetry, a necessary part of any
attempt to make responsible scientific and philosophical sense out of what
had happened "in the beginning." And when the creation narratives under
consideration were such masterpieces of literature-and, at least in some
sense, of poetry-as Genesis and Timaeus, it would be unavoidable for
the interpreter of either text, and a fortiori for an interpreter undertaking
a comparison of the two texts, that the status of an account of creation as,
in the words of Timaeus, no more than "a likely story" [6 oEK0 Iii00o]37
would require sound analysis and precise exegesis.
The second implication of Lucretius's thesis that the universe had not
been created by divine agency was negative theology, a radical apophati-
cism about religious language, even (or especially) about language pur-
porting to give an account of how the nature of the universe has been
created by divine agency. Not only creation stories but all the mythopoeic
theories, which "have located the dwellings and temples of the gods in
heaven" [in caeloque deum sedes et templa locarunt],38 needed to be
34. Lucr. 5.1198-1203.
35. Lucr. 6.68-79.
36. Lucr. 5.1-2.
37. P1. Ti. Z9D.
38. Lucr. 5.-1188.
7
came from that erroneous conception of divine agency, and then it fed that
error in turn; for in human beings "the ability to contemplate the universe
with a serene mind " [placata posse omnia mente tueri]34 corresponded to
the recognition that the gods themselves were doing precisely that, being
" placida cum pace quietos," and therefore were not constantly meddling
in human affairs and cosmic laws, as myth and superstition had imagined
them to be doing. 35
From this recognition that the nature. of the universe had not by any
means been created by divine agency there logically flowed at least two
philosophical conclusions with far-reaching consequences for the subse­
quent history of cosmogony, one of them chiefly literary and the other
primarily theological. The first was the designation of "poetry" [ carmen]
as the fitting form for a cosmogony to take in attempting to give an
account that would be " appropriate to the majesty of the universe" [pro
rerum maiestate] , because prose truly was too prosaic to do the job
right. 36 This insight made the careful investigation and precise clarifica­
tion of creation narrative as a distinct literary genre, as well as the specifi­
cation of the kinds of truth claims (if any) that could legitimately be made
for myth and those that could be made for poetry, a necessary part of any
attempt to make responsible scientific and philosophical sense out of what
had happened " in the beginning. " And when the creation narratives under
consideration were such masterpieces of literature-and, at least in some
sense, of poetry-as Genesis and Timaeus, it would be unavoidable for
the interpreter of either text, and a fortiori for an interpreter undertaking
a comparison of the two texts, that the status of an account of creation as,
in the words of Timaeus, no more than "a likely story" [o EtKWS µu9os]37
would require sound analysis and precise exegesis.
The second implication of Lucretius's thesis that the universe had not
been created by divine agency was negative theology, a radical apophati­
cism about religious language, even (or especially) about language pur­
porting to give an account of how the nature of the universe has been
created by divine agency. Not only creation stories but all the mythopoeic
theories, which "have located the dwellings and temples of the gods in
heaven" [in caeloque deum sedes et templa locarunt],38 needed to be
3 4.
3 5.
3 6.
37.
3 8.
Luer. 5 .n 9 8- 1 203 .
Luer. 6. 68-79 .
Luer. 5 . 1 -2.
Pl. Ti. 29D.
Luer. 5 . 1 1 88.
l( H I G
P� ES S
8
8 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
subjected to the drastic criticism of the "via negativa." It was literally
quite incredible, "beyond your ability to believe, that the holy dwellings of
the gods are situated in some parts of the universe" [non est ut possis
credere, sedes / esse deum sanctas in mundi partibus ullis], in temples or
groves or even in the heavens.39 Nor was space the only category of
metaphorical language that Lucretius subjected to this devastating ap-
ophatic critique: body, emotion, and the other attributes employed in the
conventional mythological language of Greece and Rome about the gods
all had to be interpreted negatively. He repeatedly insisted, in response to
his critics, that his intention was not to abolish belief in the existence of
the divine but to help his readers to put aside "thoughts that are unworthy
of the gods and alien to their peace" [dis indigna putare alienaque pacis
eorum]. In that campaign he rejected whatever contradicted the image of
the gods as serene and tranquil, "placida cum pace quietos," which in-
cluded all the wildly anthropomorphic and anthropopathic language of
the classical myths.40
Heaven and Earth
It is a locution so widespread in literature and religion as to seem well-
nigh universal to designate the whole of things as "heaven and earth," as,
for example, Genesis does in its opening verse. The first two items in the
list of things that Lucretius attributed to the functioning of a "coming
together of matter" [congressus materiai] were "earth" [terra] and
"heaven" [caelum], with "sky and sea, sun and moon" as, in one sense
perhaps, belonging to one or the other of these two.41 But even more basic
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
subjected to the drastic criticism of the "via negativa. " It was literally
quite incredible, " beyond your ability to believe, that the holy dwellings of
the gods are situated in some parts of the universe" [non est ut possis
credere, sedes I esse deum sanctas in mundi partibus ullis] , in temples or
groves or even in the heavens.39 Nor was space the only category of
metaphorical language that Lucretius subjected to this devastating ap­
ophatic critique: body, emotion, and the other attributes employed in the
conventional mythological language of Greece and Rome about the gods
all had to be interpreted negatively. He repeatedly insisted, in response to
his critics, that his intention was not to abolish belief in the existence of
the divine but to help his readers to put aside "thoughts that are unworthy
of the gods and alien to their peace " [dis indigna putare alienaque pacis
eorum] . In that campaign he rejected whatever contradicted the image of
the gods as serene and tranquil, "placida cum pace quietos," which in­
cluded all the wildly anthropomorphic and anthropopathic language of
the classical myths. 40
than the distinction of these latter from "heaven and earth" was the
distinction between "heaven" and "earth," and the question of how, in the
Heaven and Earth
words of Genesis, "God [or whosoever] divided the heaven from the
earth." As the divider between the two, according to Genesis, God had set
a 'P, a "dome," a Hebrew term that the Septuagint translated as
cTEpE4ca and the Vulgate as "firmamentum."42 Lucretius, while rejecting
the superstition of a divine agency in creation, was nevertheless obliged to
speak, as Genesis had, about the act of dividing heaven and earth, "a terris
altum secernere caelum,"43 and as Ovid did about how "God-or kind-
39. Lucr. 5.146-47.
40. Lucr. 6.68-79.
41. Lucr. 5.67-69.
42. Gn. i:6-8.
43. Lucr. 5.446.
It is a locution so widespread in literature and religion as to seem well­
nigh universal to designate the whole of things as "heaven and earth," as,
for example, Genesis does in its opening verse. The first two items in the
list of things that Lucretius attributed to the functioning of a "coming
together of matter" [congressus materiai] were " earth" [terra] and
"heaven" [caelum] , with "sky and sea, sun and moon" as, in one sense
perhaps, belonging to one or the other of these two.41 But even more basic
than the distinction of these latter from "heaven and earth" was the
distinction between "heaven" and "earth," and the question of how, in the
words of Genesis, " God [or whosoever] divided the heaven from the
earth. " As the divider between the two, according to Genesis, God had set
a i'i?1, a "dome," a Hebrew term that the Septuagint translated as
aTEpEwµa and the Vulgate as " firmamentum. "42 Lucretius, while rejecting
the superstition of a divine agency in creation, was nevertheless obliged to
speak, as Genesis had, about the act of dividing heaven and earth, " a terris
altum secernere caelum,"43 and as Ovid did about how " God-or kind39.
40.
4i .
42 .
43 .
Luer. 5 . 1 46-47.
Luer. 6 . 68-79.
Luer. 5 . 67-69.
Gn. 1 : 6-8.
Luer. 5 . 446.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Classical Rome
Classical Rome 9
lier Nature-rent asunder land from sky" [deus et melior litem natura...
caelo terras . . . abscidit].44
In some ways, even more fundamental to any cosmogony was the
question of the elements, the stuff from which the universe was made.
Ever since the pre-Socratics, that question had been bound up with the
scientific investigation of the four basic elements, which Plato seems to
have been the first to call otXLXEa, but which under the designation
pt(w[aTa had been identified already by Empedocles as earth, air, fire, and
water.45 Lucretius was apparently the first to render cTOtXEIa with the
Latin elementa, both in the sense of "the ABCs" that still survives in the
English term elementary school and in the scientific and philosophical
sense derived from it, as in the English chemical term table of elements;46
the Greek vocable, too, carried both meanings. It was in the first of these
senses that the word was being used when he said that "elements [are
common to] words," but even in that context this point was being made to
illustrate the axiom that nothing could exist without "principia."47 Prin-
cipium was a translation for the Greek &pXrI, a term that was common to
Timaeus and the Septuagint Genesis (and subsequently to the New Testa-
ment as well), so that elementa may already in this passage have some of
its more scientific and philosophical connotations. Those connotations
were the subject matter of a lengthy disquisition in book i of De rerum
natura.48 The principal Latin technical term for the four elements em-
ployed in this disquisition was primordia: Lucretius criticized those who
"define the 'primordia' of things as soft,"49 asserted that "the 'primordia'
ought to exhibit a nature that is secret and unseen,"50 and argued against
the theory of the four elements on the grounds that "many 'primordia'
that are common to many things in many ways are mixed together in
things."51 But this discussion concluded with a return to the term ele-
menta, in which the two senses of the word illuminated each other:
All through these very lines of mine you see many "elementa" com-
mon to many words, although you must confess that lines and
44. Ov. Met. 1.2-2z2; see also the comments of Bomer 1969, 24.
45. See Claghorn 1954, 20-38.
46. TLL s.v. "Elementum."
47. Lucr. 1.196-98.
48. Lucr. 1.705-829.
49. Lucr. 1.753-54.
50. Lucr. 1.778-79.
51. Lucr. 1.814-16.
9
lier Nature-rent asunder land from sky"[deus et melior litem natura . . .
caelo terras . . . abscidit] . 44
In some ways, even more fundamental to any cosmogony was the
question of the elements, the stuff from which the universe was made.
Ever since the pre-Socratics, that question had been bound up with the
scientific investigation of the four basic elements, which Plato seems to
have been the first to call aTOLXELa, but which under the designation
pt(wµaTa had been identified already by Empedocles as earth, air, fire, and
water.45 Lucretius was apparently the first to render aTOLXELa with the
Latin elementa, both in the sense of "the ABCs " that still survives in the
English term elementary school and in the scientific and philosophical
sense derived from it, as in the English chemical term table of elements;46
the Greek vocable, too, carried both meanings. It was in the first of these
senses that the word was being used when he said that " elements [are
common to] words," but even in that context this point was being made to
illustrate the axiom that nothing could exist without "principia. "47 Prin­
cipium was a translation for the Greek cipxtj , a term that was common to
Timaeus and the Septuagint Genesis ( and subsequently to the New Testa­
ment as well), so that elementa may already in this passage have some of
its more scientific and philosophical connotations. Those connotations
were the subject matter of a lengthy disquisition in book 1 of De rerum
natura.48 The principal Latin technical term for the four elements em­
ployed in this disquisition was primordia: Lucretius criticized those who
"define the 'primordia' of things as soft,"49 asserted that "the 'primordia'
ought to exhibit a nature that is secret and unseen," 50 and argued against
the theory of the four elements on the grounds that "many 'primordia'
that are common to many things in many ways are mixed together in
things. " 5 1 But this discussion concluded with a return to the term ele­
menta, in which the two senses of the word illuminated each other:
All through these very lines of mine you see many " elementa " com­
mon to many words, although you must confess that lines and
44.
45 .
46.
47.
48.
49·
5 0.
5 I.
Ov. Met. i . 2 1 -22; see also the comments of Bomer 1 9 69, 24.
See Claghorn 1 9 5 4, 20- 3 8.
TLL s.v. " Elementum. "
Luer. i . 1 9 6-98.
Luer. i . 705 -829 .
Luer. i . 7 5 3 - 5 4.
Luer. i .778-79.
Luer. I. 814- l 6.
l( H I G
P� ES S
10
io What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
words differ one from another both in meaning and in the sound of
their soundings. So much can "elementa" do, when nothing is
changed but order; but those that are the "rerum primordia" bring
with them more kinds of variety, from which all the various things
can be produced.52
Considered discretely, each of the four elements of fire, air, water, and
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
words differ one from another both in meaning and in the sound of
their soundings. So much can " elementa " do, when nothing is
changed but order; but those that are the " rerum primordia " bring
with them more kinds of variety, from which all the various things
can be produced.5 2
earth had served one or another natural philosopher as the explanation
for the basic stuff of the universe; sometimes two of them had been linked,
air with fire or earth with water; and sometimes, as in the cosmogonic
theories of Empedocles, all four elements were fundamental. But all such
theories "magno opere a uero longe derrasse uidentur" and "principiis
tamen in rerum fecere ruinas."53 Instead, Lucretius sought, for example,
to explain fire naturalistically, as a result of lightning, rather than to make
it the basic element.54 Nevertheless, earth was for Lucretius in a unique
category among the four, as the "universal mother" [omniparens] of all,
including also fire, water, and air, "since it is from the earth that all things
have been produced."55ss
Lucretius admitted that, although the theory of the four elements was
an unacceptable oversimplification, it did make an accurate point by con-
ceiving of the universe as cohesive, to which therefore the metaphor of the
body could be applied: "All things consist of a body that is born and dies,
and we must consider the nature of the whole world to be that way, too"
[omnia natiuo ac mortali corpore constant, I debet eodem omnis mundi
natura putari].56 But in the cosmogony of Lucretius this familiar meta-
phor of "corpus" performed another critical function at the same time,
that of documenting his materialism against one or another theory of
soul. Setting forth the fundamental metaphysical presuppositions of his
system, he posited a distinction between the two components of which the
nature of the universe consisted: "corpora sunt et inane," physical objects
and the void. The reality of the "corpora" as distinct entities was guaran-
teed by the testimony of "empirical sense-experience" [sensus] (which
Greek philosophers, including Epicurus and Plato in Timaeus, together
with his later Jewish and Christian disciples, called akiOrl6L, in contrast
with v6rctL, the reality apprehensible only to the mind), whose trust-
52. Lucr. 1.823-29.
53. Lucr. 1.705-41-
54. Lucr. 5.1091-93.
55. Lucr. 5.259, 795-96.
56. Lucr. 5.Z35-39.
Considered discretely, each of the four elements of fire, air, water, and
earth had served one or another natural philosopher as the explanation
for the basic stuff of the universe; sometimes two of them had been linked,
air with fire or earth with water; and sometimes, as in the cosmogonic
theories of Empedocles, all four elements were fundamental. But all such
theories " magno opere a uero longe derrasse uidentur" and "principiis
tamen in rerum fecere ruinas. " 53 Instead, Lucretius sought, for example,
to explain fire naturalistically, as a result of lightning, rather than to make
it the basic element.54 Nevertheless, earth was for Lucretius in a unique
category among the four, as the " universal mother" [ omniparens] of all,
including also fire, water, and air, " since it is from the earth that all things
have been produced. " 55
Lucretius admitted that, although the theory of the four elements was
an unacceptable oversimplification, it did make an accurate point by con­
ceiving of the universe as cohesive, to which therefore the metaphor of the
body could be applied: "All things consist of a body that is born and dies,
and we must consider the nature of the whole world to be that way, too "
[omnia natiuo ac mortali corpore constant, I debet eodem omnis mundi
natura putari] .56 But in the cosmogony of Lucretius this familiar meta­
phor of "corpus" performed another critical function at the same time,
that of documenting his materialism against one or another theory of
soul. Setting forth the fundamental metaphysical presuppositions of his
system, he posited a distinction between the two components of which the
nature of the universe consisted: "corpora sunt et inane," physical objects
and the void. The reality of the "corpora" as distinct entities was guaran­
teed by the testimony of " empirical sense-experience" [sens us] (which
Greek philosophers, including Epicurus and Plato in Timaeus, together
with his later Jewish and Christian disciples, called a'la9T}O"LS', in contrast
with v611aLs-, the reality apprehensible only to the mind), whose trust5 2.
5 3.
54.
5 5·
5 6.
Luer.
Luer.
Luer.
Luer.
Luer.
I . 8 2 3 -29.
L70 5 - 4 r .
5 . 109 1 -9 3 .
5 . 2 5 9 , 7 9 5 -9 6 .
5.23 5-39.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Classical Rome
Classical Rome
ii
worthiness was for Lucretius the basic epistemological assumption with-
out which there could be no appeal to the judgment of "ratio" in any
philosophical and scientific inquiry "occultis de rebus." The "inane," or
void, was likewise an unavoidable presupposition, for it formed the
"locus ac spatium" within which these "corpora" were located and were
able to move about.57 As an inclusionary metaphysic, the dualism of
"corpora" and "inane" thus provided a positive explanation of reality as
individual phenomena and as an entirety, but no less important for the
Epicureanism of Lucretius was its exclusionary function. "Praeterea nil
est," Lucretius asserted flatly: "Beyond these there is nothing that you
would be able to call distinct from all body and separate from the void, to
be identified as a nature that is a third in number."58 There was no tertium
quid. From this exclusionary principle it necessarily followed that it was
"impossible for the nature of the mind [animi natura] to arise alone,
without the body," and from this in turn it further followed that "when
the body has come to its end, it is necessary to confess that the soul
[anima] has perished" as well.59 For the inquiry into "what constitutes
the soul and the nature of the mind" [unde anima atque animi constet
natura] belonged right alongside the cosmogonic investigation "concern-
ing things celestial" [superis de rebus],60 and materialism went hand in
hand with the denial of the immortality of the soul.
But the Lucretian polemic against the doctrine of the four TOLXELa and
the Lucretian axiom "Praeterea nil est" were also a way of introducing
another issue of metaphysics that already was an important subject for
inquiry and that would become much more important when the cos-
mogony of Timaeus and the cosmogony of Genesis came into collision
and counterpoint: the question of "creatio ex nihilo." For the fundamen-
tal cosmogonic question of the stuff from which the universe was made
was at the same time the question of the very definition of the verb creare,
as Lucretius made clear when he raised, to refute it, the theory "quattuor
ex rebus si cuncta creantur."61 Thus he established to his own satisfaction
that it was no more logical to call the UTroLX a the "rerum primordia"
than it was to make the "res" themselves primary and to derive the ele-
ments from them. Without invoking the verb creare in this context, he
57. Lucr. 1.419-z9.
58. Lucr. 1.430-32.
59. Lucr. 3.788-99, 5.-132-43.
6o. Lucr. 1.127-31.
61. Lucr. 1.763.
11
worthiness was for Lucretius the basic epistemological assumption with­
out which there could be no appeal to the judgment of " ratio " in any
philosophical and scientific inquiry " occultis de rebus . " The "inane," or
void, was likewise an unavoidable presupposition, for it formed the
" locus ac spatium" within which these "corpora " were located and were
able to move about.57 As an inclusionary metaphysic, the dualism of
"corpora " and "inane " thus provided a positive explanation of reality as
individual phenomena and as an entirety, but no less important for the
Epicureanism of Lucretius was its exclusionary function. "Praeterea nil
est, " Lucretius asserted flatly: " Beyond these there is nothing that you
would be able to call distinct from all body and separate from the void, to
be identified as a nature that is a third in number. " 58 There was no tertium
quid. From this exclusionary principle it necessarily followed that it was
" impossible for the nature of the mind [animi natura] to arise alone,
without the body, " and from this in turn it further followed that "when
the body has come to its end, it is necessary to confess that the soul
[anima] has perished" as well.59 For the inquiry into "what constitutes
the soul and the nature of the mind " [uncle anima atque animi constet
natura] belonged right alongside the cosmogonic investigation "concern­
ing things celestial" [superis de rebus] ,60 and materialism went hand in
hand with the denial of the immortality of the soul.
But the Lucretian polemic against the doctrine of the four aTOLXELa and
the Lucretian axiom " Praeterea nil est" were also a way of introducing
another issue of metaphysics that already was an important subject for
inquiry and that would become much more important when the cos­
mogony of Timaeus and the cosmogony of Genesis came into collision
and counterpoint: the question of "creatio ex nihilo. " For the fundamen­
tal cosmogonic question of the stuff from which the universe was made
was at the same time the question of the very definition of the verb creare,
as Lucretius made clear when he raised, to refute it, the theory " quattuor
ex rebus si cuncta creantur. " 6 1 Thus he established to his own satisfaction
that it was no more logical to call the aTOLXELa the "rerum primordia"
than it was to make the " res" themselves primary and to derive the ele­
ments from them. Without invoking the verb creare in this context, he
57.
58.
59·
60.
6I.
Luer.
Luer.
Luer.
Luer.
Luer.
r .4 1 9- 2 9 .
r .4 3 0- 3 2.
3 .7 8 8 -99, 5 . 1 3 2- 4 3 .
r . 1 27-3 1 .
r .763 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
12
i
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
pressed the same logic to reject, as even more unacceptable and absurd
than the theory that "quattuor ex rebus cuncta creantur," the theory that
these "cuncta" could have been created "ex nihilo." Therefore these
words, quoted earlier, stand almost as an epigraph near the beginning of
the work: "Principium cuius hinc nobis exordia sumet, / nullam rem e nilo
gigni diuinitus umquam" [The first principle of our study we will derive
from this, that no thing is ever by divine agency produced out of nothing].
This was, though with the significant addition of the term diuinitus, a
verbatim translation of the axiom of Epicurus: Trp Tov iV i t ov8Ev
yLVErat AEK TOO U ovTOs.62 Again translating from Epicurus, Lucretius
went on to argue that the very particularity of individual things precluded
a "creatio ex nihilo"; for "si de nilo fierent," it would be possible to
produce anything from anything, and all distinctive identity would be
lost.63 As this rejection of nothingness pertained to beginnings, so it ap-
plied to endings as well: "Nature resolves everything into its elements, but
it does not reduce things to nothing" [quidque in sua corpora rursum /
dissoluat natura neque ad nilum interimat res].64
Necessity versus Teleology
The history of cosmogonic speculation based on Timaeus (which, though
it called itself "a discourse concerning the Universe, how it was created or
haply is uncreate" [prEp ... TO) TravT6Os ... t YEyovEV if KaL tyEVE;
Ecrtv],65 did not seem to need to assert such a theory of "creatio ex
nihilo") demonstrated that this theory was by no means the only way to
give centrality to the notion of divine teleology. The subsequent history of
the interpretation of Genesis (which did not explicitly assert it either, but
which was eventually taken, by some Jews and by all Christians, to call for
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
pressed the same logic to reject, as even more unacceptable and absurd
than the theory that " quattuor ex rebus cuncta creantur, " the theory that
these "cuncta" could have been created "ex nihilo. " Therefore these
words, quoted earlier, stand almost as an epigraph near the beginning of
the work: " Principium cuius hinc nobis exordia sumet, I nullam rem e nilo
gigni diuinitus umquam" [The first principle of our study we will derive
from this, that no thing is ever by divine agency produced out of nothing] .
This was, though with the significant addition of the term diuinitus, a
verbatim translation of the axiom of Epicurus: TTPWTOV µE:v OTL ou8E:v
y(vETm EK TOU µ� ovTos. 62 Again translating from Epicurus, Lucretius
went on to argue that the very particularity of individual things precluded
a "creatio ex nihilo"; for " si de nilo fierent, " it would be possible to
produce anything from anything, and all distinctive identity would be
lost. 63 As this rejection of nothingness pertained to beginnings, so it ap­
plied to endings as well: "Nature resolves everything into its elements, but
it does not reduce things to nothing" [ quidque in sua corpora rursum I
dissoluat natura neque ad nilum interimat res] .64
it in order to make consistent sense)66 would show that the divine "creatio
Necessity versus Teleology
ex nihilo" being rejected by Lucretius was a powerful way to teach teleol-
ogy; for it ascribed to the divine Creator the sovereignty and freedom not
only to call things into being out of nonbeing but to stamp on them a
design, and thus (in Aristotelian language) to connect first cause with final
cause, ipxri with TEXos.67 Therefore William Ellery Leonard, in his edition
6z. Lucr. 1.149-50; see also Rouse and Smith 1992, 15, on this passage.
63. Lucr. 1.159-60.
64. Lucr. 1.215-16.
65. Pl. Ti. z7B-C.
66. On the history of this, see May 1994.
67. Arist. Ph. 2.3.194b-195a.
The history of cosmogonic speculation based on Timaeus (which, though
it called itself " a discourse concerning the Universe, how it was created or
haply is uncreate " [TTE pl . . . TOU TTUVTOS . . . D YEYOVEV Tl Kat ayEVES
E aT L V ] , 65 did not seem to need to assert such a theory of "creatio ex
nihilo " ) demonstrated that this theory was by no means the only way to
give centrality to the notion of divine teleology. The subsequent history of
the interpretation of Genesis (which did not explicitly assert it either, but
which was eventually taken, by some Jews and by all Christians, to call for
it in order to make consistent sense )66 would show that the divine "creatio
ex nihilo " being rejected by Lucretius was a powerful way to teach teleol­
ogy; for it ascribed to the divine Creator the sovereignty and freedom not
only to call things into being out of nonbeing but to stamp on them a
design, and thus (in Aristotelian language) to connect first cause with final
cause, apxtj with TEAOS. 67 Therefore William Ellery Leonard, in his edition
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Luer. r . 1 4 9 - 5 0; see also Rouse and Smith 1 9 9 2 , 1 5 , on this passage.
Luer. r . 1 5 9-60.
Luer. r . 2 1 5 - 1 6.
Pl. Ti. 27B-C.
On the history of this, see May 1994·
Arist. Ph. 2 + 1 9 4b- 1 9 5 a .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Classical Rome
Classical Rome i3
of De rerum natura, called attention to "the Lucretian reiteration against
teleology."68 It does seem that Lucretius was directing his polemic also, or
even chiefly, against this teleological consequence of creation when he
argued not only that the universality of transiency throughout the uni-
verse reached all the way, to affect also the temples and the "simulacra" of
the gods, but that despite the appeals being made by human prayers and
sacrifices, "the holy divinity" [sanctum numen] itself was powerless "to
push forward the boundaries of fate" [fati protollere finis] or to resist the
overwhelming power of "the laws of nature" [naturae foedera].69 The
description of primitive chaos, as a foil for the description of the struc-
tured system that was taken to be evident in the universe, would be, in the
interpretation both of Timaeus and of Genesis,70 one of the most decisive
and dramatic instruments for the promotion of the idea of teleology and
design; it may have been this also for Ovid's description of how "God-or
kindlier Nature [deus et melior litem natura]-composed this strife."71
But Lucretius anticipated its force and sought to dull its effect. "Every
kind of beginnings" [omne genus de principiis] he saw as "gathered to-
gether into a mass," in which there was neither sun nor star nor sea nor
sky, but the chaos of "some sort of unusual storm" [noua tempestas
quaedam].72 Unlike Genesis and Timaeus, however, De rerum natura
over and over refused to take what they had seen as the logical next step
from the description of chaos, which was the notion that "by divine
agency" [diuinitus] this chaos had been transformed into the order of
creation,73 when, in the words of Timaeus, the Creator "brought it into
order out of disorder" [ELs Tt vL . . . EK TfS" cTaaSG].74
The Lucretian rejection of divine agency as a means of accounting for
the dissipation of chaos and the establishment of the order of creation
reached its climax in two rhetorical questions that were to be, quite apart
from Lucretius, of enormous importance for the further study of these
issues, and thus also for the counterpoint between Timaeus and Genesis:
Whence was a pattern for making things [exemplum gignundis
rebus] first implanted in the gods, or even a conception of humanity
68. Leonard and Smith 1942, 60.
69. Lucr. 5.305-1o.
70. Pl. Ti. 3oA, 5zD-53C; Gn. 1:zz.
71. Ov. Met. 1.7, 21.
72. Lucr. 5.432-37.
73. Lucr. 1.149-50, 2.177-81, 5.195-99.
74. Pl. Ti. 3oA.
13
of De rerum natura, called attention to "the Lucretian reiteration against
teleology. " 68 It does seem that Lucretius was directing his polemic also, or
even chiefly, against this teleological consequence of creation when he
argued not only that the universality of transiency throughout the uni­
verse reached all the way, to affect also the temples and the " simulacra " of
the gods, but that despite the appeals being made by human prayers and
sacrifices, "the holy divinity" [sanctum numen] itself was powerless "to
push forward the boundaries of fate " [fati protollere finis] or to resist the
overwhelming power of "the laws of nature " [naturae foedera] .69 The
description of primitive chaos, as a foil for the description of the struc­
tured system that was taken to be evident in the universe, would be, in the
interpretation both of Timaeus and of Genesis, 70 one of the most decisive
and dramatic instruments for the promotion of the idea of teleology and
design; it may have been this also for Ovid's description of how " God-or
kindlier Nature [deus et melior litem natura] -composed this strife. " 71
But Lucretius anticipated its force and sought to dull its effect. " Every
kind of beginnings " [omne genus de principiis] he saw as "gathered to­
gether into a mass," in which there was neither sun nor star nor sea nor
sky, but the chaos of " some sort of unusual storm " [noua tempestas
quaedam] .72 Unlike Genesis and Timaeus, however, De rerum natura
over and over refused to take what they had seen as the logical next step
from the description of chaos, which was the notion that " by divine
agency" [ diuinitus] this chaos had been transformed into the order of
creation,73 when, in the words of Timaeus, the Creator " brought it into
order out of disorder" [Els Ta�LV . . . EK Tfls ciTa�(as] . 74
The Lucretian rejection of divine agency as a means of accounting for
the dissipation of chaos and the establishment of the order of creation
reached its climax in two rhetorical questions that were to be, quite apart
from Lucretius, of enormous importance for the further study of these
issues, and thus also for the counterpoint between Timaeus and Genesis:
Whence was a pattern for making things [ exemplum gignundis
rebus] first implanted in the gods, or even a conception of humanity
68.
69.
70.
7r.
72.
73.
74.
Leonard and Smith 1942, 60.
Luer. 5 . 3 0 5 - r o.
Pl. Ti. 3 0A, 5 2D- 5 3 C; Gn. 1 : 22.
Ov. Met. r .7, 2 r .
Luer. 5 .4 3 2- 3 7 .
Luer. r . 1 49-50, 2 . 1 77-8 1 , 5 . 1 9 5-99.
Pl. Ti. 3 0A.
l( H I G
P� ES S
14
14 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
[notities hominum], so as to know what they wished to make and to
see it in the mind's eye?
Or in what manner was the power of the first-beginnings [uis prin-
cipiorum] ever known, and what they could do together by change
of order, if nature herself did not provide a model for creation
[specimen creandi] ?7s
There seems to be no definitive answer to the question of how much
Lucretius may or may not have known about the previous history of the
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
[notities hominum], so as to know what they wished to make and to
see it in the mind's eye ?
Or in what manner was the power of the first-beginnings [uis prin­
cipiorum] ever known, and what they could do together by change
of order, if nature herself did not provide a model for creation
[specimen creandi] ?75
doctrine of creation as set down in Timaeus (which he could probably
have read in Greek, but which had already been translated into Latin by
Cicero) and in Genesis (which did already exist in Greek translation in his
time among the Jews of the Diaspora).76 But with such quasi-technical
terms as exemplum and specimen creandi, he was, at least implicitly,
challenging the Platonic belief in preexistent Forms and lrapaEtLy aTa on
the basis of which the particular things of the empirical universe had been
fashioned, together with the biblical belief, at any rate concerning the
fashioning of humanity, that God made man in accordance with his own
image and likeness. Even Ovid's suggestion of the possibility that "the god
who made all else, designing a more perfect world, made man of his own
divine substance" [siue hunc diuino semine fecit / ille opifex rerum, mundi
melioris origo] came closer to Timaeus as well as also to Genesis than
Lucretius did.77 For to Lucretius Nature had immanently provided her
own "model for creation," so that the "pattern for making things" was
not to be attributed to divine agency of some sort, or of any sort, much
less to what Ovid called "the providence of God" [cura dei], even if this
phrase is taken as an "almost impersonal conception of the 'Creator of the
world.' "78
To make this point, Lucretius took up the central issue of cosmogony:
"In what ways that assemblage of matter established earth and sky and the
ocean deeps, and the courses of sun and moon."79 Even the grammar here
carried philosophical connotations; for the subject of the predicate "estab-
lished earth and sky" [fundarit terram et caelum] was not a single supreme
God, as in the almost, but not quite, identical opening sentence of
75. Lucr. 5.181-86.
76. On the question of the sources known to Lucretius, see the bibliography of
Johannes Mewaldt in PW s.v.
77. Ov. Met. 1.78-79; see the parallels cited in Bomer x969, 43-44.
78. Ov. Met. 1.48; Bomer 1969, 33-
79. Lucr. 5.416-18, 67-69.
There seems to be no definitive answer to the question of how much
Lucretius may or may not have known about the previous history of the
doctrine of creation as set down in Timaeus (which he could probably
have read in Greek, but which had already been translated into Latin by
Cicero ) and in Genesis (which did already exist in Greek translation in his
time among the Jews of the Diaspora) . 76 But with such quasi-technical
terms as exemplum and specimen creandi, he was, at least implicitly,
challenging the Platonic belief in preexistent Forms and TiapaOEL yµaTa on
the basis of which the particular things of the empirical universe had been
fashioned, together with the biblical belief, at any rate concerning the
fashioning of humanity, that God made man in accordance with his own
image and likeness. Even Ovid's suggestion of the possibility that "the god
who made all else, designing a more perfect world, made man of his own
divine substance" [siue hunc diuino semine fecit I ille opifex rerum, mundi
melioris origo] came closer to Timaeus as well as also to Genesis than
Lucretius did.77 For to Lucretius Nature had immanently provided her
own "model for creation, " so that the "pattern for making things" was
not to be attributed to divine agency of some sort, or of any sort, much
less to what Ovid called "the providence of God" [cura dei], even if this
phrase is taken as an " almost impersonal conception of the 'Creator of the
world.' " 78
To make this point, Lucretius took up the central issue of cosmogony:
" In what ways that assemblage of matter established earth and sky and the
ocean deeps, and the courses of sun and moon. " 79 Even the grammar here
carried philosophical connotations; for the subject of the predicate " estab­
lished earth and sky" [fundarit terram et caelum] was not a single supreme
God, as in the almost, but not quite, identical opening sentence of
7 5 . Luer. 5 . 1 8 1 - 8 6 .
76. O n the question o f the sources known t o Lucretius , see the bibliography of
Johannes Mewaldt in PW s.v.
77. Ov. Met. i .78-79; see the parallels cited in Bomer I 9 69 , 4 3 -44.
78. Ov. Met. i .4 8 ; Bomer 1 9 69 , 3 3 .
79. Luer. 5 .4 1 6- 1 8 , 67-69.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Classical Rome
Classical Rome
I5
Genesis, nor an assemblage of lesser gods under the direction of a second-
ary divine being or Srittovpy69, as in the cosmogony of Timaeus, but the
immanent and preexistent reality of "that assemblage of matter" [ille
coniectus materiai] itself. When this assemblage of matter established
earth and heaven, moreover, "it certainly was not by any design [consilio]
of the first-beginnings that they placed themselves each in its own order
with keen intelligence [sagaci mente]."8° To the contrary, randomness
ruled, with atoms moving together by chance and coming apart by acci-
dent and "trying out all kinds of combinations, whatsoever they could
produce by coming together" [omnia pertemptare, / quaecumque inter se
possent congressa creare]. All of this had taken place not instantaneously,
as the various myths of creation-Greek and Roman, or for that matter
Jewish and Christian-seemed to teach, but "through a vast time" [per
aeuom], until eventually "those come together which, being suddenly
brought together, often become the beginnings of great things, of earth
and sea and sky."81 Here again, the language Lucretius chose was signifi-
cant: these great things, such as earth and sea and sky, had come into being
by processes that "often happen" [saepe fiunt], not as the harmonious
conclusion of a grand design and purpose that was immanent in them,
much less of one that was transcendent and that therefore was the free and
contingent choice of God the Creator.
Just as the Latin word principium and its Greek counterpart apxi could
mean either "beginning" in the chronological sense, "first principle" in
the epistemological sense, or "ground of being" in the metaphysical sense,
so the dual meaning of the word end, chronologically as "conclusion" and
metaphysically as "intention" or "purpose," which is visible also in the
Greek TXO s, in the Latin finis, and in the familiar English distinction
between "means" and "ends," has helped to shape the development of the
teleological theory in cosmogony, by relating it to eschatology. Con-
versely, the challenge of Lucretius to teleology faced the requirement of
disengaging it from eschatology, so as to enable him to acknowledge that
there would be an end-as-conclusion for the universe without being
obliged to follow earlier natural philosophers by smuggling in the tele-
ological assumption that there had likewise been, from its "prin-
cipium-cpXil," an end-as-intention in it all along. As has been noted ear-
lier, the idea "that the world is subject to death and also has been born"
80. Lucr. 5.419-20.
81. Lucr. 5.422-31; see the parallels from elsewhere in the work (from both book i
and book 5) noted in Rouse and Smith 1992, 412-13.
I5
Genesis, nor an assemblage of lesser gods under the direction of a second­
ary divine being or 8T)µt0upy6s, as in the cosmogony of Timaeus, but the
immanent and preexistent reality of "that assemblage of matter" [ille
coniectus materiai] itself. When this assemblage of matter established
earth and heaven, moreover, " it certainly was not by any design [consilio]
of the first-beginnings that they placed themselves each in its own order
with keen intelligence [sagaci mente] . " 80 To the contrary, randomness
ruled, with atoms moving together by chance and coming apart by acci­
dent and "trying out all kinds of combinations, whatsoever they could
produce by coming together" [ omnia pertemptare, I quaecumque inter se
possent congressa creare] . All of this had taken place not instantaneously,
as the various myths of creation-Greek and Roman, or for that matter
Jewish and Christian-seemed to teach, but "through a vast time " [per
aeuom], until eventually "those come together which, being suddenly
brought together, often become the beginnings of great things, of earth
and sea and sky. " 8 1 Here again, the language Lucretius chose was signifi­
cant: these great things, such as earth and sea and sky, had come into being
by processes that " often happen" [saepe fiunt], not as the harmonious
conclusion of a grand design and purpose that was immanent in them,
much less of one that was transcendent and that therefore was the free and
contingent choice of God the Creator.
Just as the Latin word principium and its Greek counterpart cipxtj could
mean either " beginning" in the chronological sense, "first principle " in
the epistemological sense, or "ground of being" in the metaphysical sense,
so the dual meaning of the word end, chronologically as "conclusion " and
metaphysically as " intention" or "purpose, " which is visible also in the
Greek TEAOS', in the Latin finis, and in the familiar English distinction
between "means " and "ends," has helped to shape the development of the
teleological theory in cosmogony, by relating it to eschatology. Con­
versely, the challenge of Lucretius to teleology faced the requirement of
disengaging it from eschatology, so as to enable him to acknowledge that
there would be an end-as-conclusion for the universe without being
obliged to follow earlier natural philosophers by smuggling in the tele­
ological assumption that there had likewise been, from its " prin­
cipium-cipxtj , " an end-as-intention in it all along. As has been noted ear­
lier, the idea "that the world is subject to death and also has been born "
80. Luer. 5 . 4 1 9-20.
8 I. Luer. 5 .422-3 1 ; see the parallels from elsewhere in the work (from both book l
and book 5 ) noted in Rouse and Smith 1992, 4 1 2- 1 3 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
16
16 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
[mortal(em) mundum natiuumque esse],82 and therefore the prediction
"that heaven and earth also once had their time of beginning and will have
their destruction in the future,"83 underlay his entire cosmogony. In imag-
ery that sometimes almost seemed redolent of apocalypticism, he proph-
esied to his patron Mennius that the threefold structure of the natural
universe, sea and earth and sky, this "mighty and complex system of the
world, upheld through many years, shall crash into ruins" [multosque per
annos / sustentata ruet moles et machina mundi], and that "within some
short time you will see violent earthquakes arise and all things convulsed
with shocks," as "the whole world can collapse borne down with a
frightful-sounding crash." Also in apocalyptic-sounding language, he ad-
mitted that what eye had not seen and ear had not heard was difficult to
communicate and even more difficult to believe, just as Timaeus had
declared, in a famous passage, "To discover the Maker and Father of this
Universe were a task indeed; and having discovered Him, to declare Him
unto all men were a thing impossible."84 In so doing, Lucretius could even
speak, in unconscious anticipation of the language that would be used in
Catholic Rome, about "the highway of faith leading straight to the human
breast and the temples of the mind" [uia qua munita fidei / proxima fert
humanum in pectus templaque mentis], but also about a "persuasion that
comes by reason rather than by the experience of reality" [ratio potius
quam res persuadeat ipsa].85 Even the myths of flood (which Lucretius
introduced with the skeptical formula "Once upon a time, so the story
goes" [semel, ut fama est])86 and of fire (which he rejected with the
formula "This is all very far indeed removed from true reasoning" [quod
procul a uera nimis est ratione repulsum]),87 could serve him in support-
ing his case for an eschatology divorced from teleology; for anyone who
believed these myths "has to admit that destruction will come to earth and
sky" [fateare necessest / exitium quoque terrarum caelique futurum].88
Both the Lucretian skepticism about any religious superstition that was
based on myth and the Lucretian polemic against any philosophical or
scientific cosmogony that was based on teleology were aimed at the dole-
ful consequences of these beliefs. The epigram "So potent was Supersti-
82. Lucr. 5.64-66.
83. Lucr. 5.243-46.
84. P1. Ti. 2 8 C.
85. Lucr. 5.91-109.
86. Lucr. 5.395, 412.
87. Lucr. 5.396-410.
88. Lucr. 5.338-44.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
[mortal(em) mundum natiuumque esse],82 and therefore the prediction
"that heaven and earth also once had their time of beginning and will have
their destruction in the future,"83 underlay his entire cosmogony. In imag­
ery that sometimes almost seemed redolent of apocalypticism, he proph­
esied to his patron Mennius that the threefold structure of the natural
universe, sea and earth and sky, this " mighty and complex system of the
world, upheld through many years, shall crash into ruins " [multosque per
annos I sustentata ruet moles et machina mundi], and that "within some
short time you will see violent earthquakes arise and all things convulsed
with shocks, " as "the whole world can collapse borne down with a
frightful-sounding crash. " Also in apocalyptic-sounding language, he ad­
mitted that what eye had not seen and ear had not heard was difficult to
communicate and even more difficult to believe, j ust as Timaeus had
declared, in a famous passage, "To discover the Maker and Father of this
Universe were a task indeed; and having discovered Him, to declare Him
unto all men were a thing impossible . " 84 In so doing, Lucretius could even
speak, in unconscious anticipation of the language that would be used in
Catholic Rome, about "the highway of faith leading straight to the human
breast and the temples of the mind" [uia qua munita. fidei I proxima fert
humanum in pectus templaque mentis] , but also about a "persuasion that
comes by reason rather than by the experience of reality" [ratio potius
quam res persuadeat ipsa] . 85 Even the myths of flood (which Lucretius
introduced with the skeptical formula " Once upon a time, so the story
goes " [semel, ut fama est] ) 86 and of fire (which he rejected with the
formula "This is all very far indeed removed from true reasoning" [quod
procul a uera nimis est ratione repulsum] ), 87 could serve him in support­
ing his case for an eschatology divorced from teleology; for anyone who
believed these myths "has to admit that destruction will come to earth and
sky" [fateare necessest I exitium quoque terrarum caelique futurum] .88
Both the Lucretian skepticism about any religious superstition that was
based on myth and the Lucretian polemic against any philosophical or
scientific cosmogony that was based on teleology were aimed at the dole­
ful consequences of these beliefs. The epigram '' So potent was Supersti82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
Luer. 5 .64-66.
Luer. 5 . 243-46.
Pl. Ti. 2 8 C.
Luer. 5 . 9 1 - 109.
Luer. 5 .39 5 , 4 1 2 .
Luer. 5 . 3 9 6- 4 1 0.
Luer. 5 . 3 3 8-44.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Classical Rome
Classical Rome 17
tion in persuading to evil deeds" [Tantum religio potuit suadere mal-
orum], which "Voltaire, an ardent admirer of Lucretius, believed ...
would last as long as the world,"89 applied ultimately to both superstition
and belief in teleology, perhaps because Lucretius seemed to interpret such
philosophical notions as teleology and design as a more sophisticated, in
reality more sophistic, version of religious superstition. Someone who had
been "overborne by the terrifying utterances of the priests" [uatum /
terriloquis uictus dictis] and by their threats of everlasting punishment
after death, threats that were based on the doctrine of the immortality of
the soul, would thereby be deprived of the "strength to defy the supersti-
tions and threatenings of the priests" [religionibus atque minis obsistere
uatum] and would become their victim and prisoner.90 Similarly, it was
necessary to recognize "by what force pilot nature steers the courses of the
sun and the goings of the moon," to avoid the twin dangers either of
supposing that the heavenly bodies moved "libera sponte sua" or of ac-
counting for their motions "aliqua diuom ratione." Otherwise the scien-
tific recognition of "how each thing has limited power and a deep-set
boundary mark [terminus]" would be replaced by a teleological specula-
tion about the purpose and design "especially of those transactions which
are perceived overhead in the regions of ether," and this could produce a
relapse into the ancient superstition about omnipotent beings.91
The Order of Creation
The theory of teleology and the argument from design, which are perhaps
best known through the "five ways" of proving the existence of God given
at the beginning of the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, were
based on the perception that creation displayed a certain order. Lucretius
believed in the existence of order, too, and spoke of "how the array of
heaven and the various seasons of the years keep turning in a certain
order" [caeli rationes ordine certo / et uaria annorum . . . tempora
uerti];92 but he did not draw from it such conclusions as teleology and the
argument from design, because his explanation of the order of creation
was fundamentally different.
r7
tion in persuading to evil deeds " [Tantum religio potuit suadere mal­
orum] , which "Voltaire, an ardent admirer of Lucretius, believed . . .
would last as long as the world," s 9 applied ultimately to both superstition
and belief in teleology, perhaps because Lucretius seemed to interpret such
philosophical notions as teleology and design as a more sophisticated, in
reality more sophistic, version of religious superstition. Someone who had
been " overborne by the terrifying utterances of the priests " [ uatum I
terriloquis uictus dictis] and by their threats of everlasting punishment
after death, threats that were based on the doctrine of the immortality of
the soul, would thereby be deprived of the " strength to defy the supersti­
tions and threatenings of the priests " [religionibus atque minis obsistere
uatum] and would become their victim and prisoner.90 Similarly, it was
necessary to recognize " by what force pilot nature steers the courses of the
sun and the goings of the moon, " to avoid the twin dangers either of
supposing that the heavenly bodies moved " libera sponte sua" or of ac­
counting for their motions " aliqua diuom ratione. " Otherwise the scien­
tific recognition of "how each thing has limited power and a deep-set
boundary mark [terminus] " would be replaced by a teleological specula­
tion about the purpose and design "especially of those transactions which
are perceived overhead in the regions of ether, " and this could produce a
relapse into the ancient superstition about omnipotent beings.91
For one thing, as that quotation indicates, the term ordo could pertain
The Order of Creation
to the concept of time itself; and, as the subsequent history of the doctrine
89. Lucr. 1.101; Rouse and Smith 1992, II n. d.
90. Lucr. 1.102-27.
91. Lucr. 5.76-90.
92. Lucr. 5.1183-84.
The theory of teleology and the argument from design, which are perhaps
best known through the " five ways" of proving the existence of God given
at the beginning of the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, were
based on the perception that creation displayed a certain order. Lucretius
believed in the existence of order, too, and spoke of " how the array of
heaven and the various seasons of the years keep turning in a certain
order" [caeli rationes ordine certo I et uaria annorum . . . tempora
uerti];92 but he did not draw from it such conclusions as teleology and the
argument from design, because his explanation of the order of creation
was fundamentally different.
For one thing, as that quotation indicates, the term ordo could pertain
to the concept of time itself; and, as the subsequent history of the doctrine
89.
90.
9 I.
92.
Luer.
Luer.
Luer.
Luer.
I . IO I; Rouse and Smith I99 2, II n. d.
I. I02-27.
5. 76-90.
5 . I 1 8 3 - 84.
l( H I G
P� ES S
18
1 8 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
of creation would show, the relation between the creation of the universe
and the creation of time demanded attention, whether it had been ad-
dressed overtly in a particular cosmogony, as by Timaeus, or more
obliquely, as by Genesis. In one respect it can be said that Lucretius
subordinated creation to time with his emphasis on the universality of
change. "The nature of the whole world" [mundi natura totius] was not
an immutable reality beyond time and change, but rather "time changes
the nature of the whole world." It did so because "one state of things must
pass into another, and nothing remains as it was [nec manet ulla sui similis
res]"; the only thing that did remain immutable was mutability, as "all
things move, all are changed by nature and compelled to alter."93 That
universal law of change affected not only the individual members of a
species, which was obvious, but entire species as well, which perished
either because they were "unable by procreation to forge out the chain of
posterity" or because, not having the means of self-defense with which
such beasts as lions were endowed, "they could neither live by themselves
at their own will" nor commend themselves to the human race for their
protection.94
Augustine's analysis of the flow of time, which he insisted moved from
the future into the past, rather than the other way around as common
sense supposed, would define past, present, and future as all in the
present-a time present of things past, a time present of things present,
and a time present of things future.9s But it was consistent with the
nominalistic approach of Lucretius to all abstractions when he denied the
reality of time per se, applying the concept instead to the empirical experi-
ence of specific and concrete events as they were perceived to be shaping
themselves into the order of past, present, and future. "Time as such," he
asserted, "does not exist, but from things themselves there comes the
sense of what has been done in the past, then what thing is present with us,
further what is to follow afterwards" [tempus item per se non est, sed
rebus ab ipsis / consequitur sensus, transactum quid sit in aeuo, / tum quae
res instet, quid porro deinde sequatur].96 No phenomenon more clearly or
more regularly exemplified this order of creation than the rotation of the
seasons. "We see many things," Lucretius pointed out, "that take place at
a fixed time [certo tempore] everywhere," such as the blossoming of trees
93. Lucr. 5.828-31.
94. Lucr. 5.855-77.
95. Aug. Conf. 11.zo.26.
96. Lucr. 1.459-61.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
of creation would show, the relation between the creation of the universe
and the creation of time demanded attention, whether it had been ad­
dressed overtly in a particular cosmogony, as by Timaeus, or more
obliquely, as by Genesis. In one respect it can be said that Lucretius
subordinated creation to time with his emphasis on the universality of
change. "The nature of the whole world" [mundi natura totius] was not
an immutable reality beyond time and change, but rather "time changes
the nature of the whole world. " It did so because " one state of things must
pass into another, and nothing remains as it was [nee manet ulla sui similis
res] " ; the only thing that did remain immutable was mutability, as "all
things move, all are changed by nature and compelled to alter. " 93 That
universal law of change affected not only the individual members of a
species, which was obvious, but entire species as well, which perished
either because they were "unable by procreation to forge out the chain of
posterity" or because, not having the means of self-defense with which
such beasts as lions were endowed, "they could neither live by themselves
at their own will " nor commend themselves to the human race for their
protection. 94
Augustine's analysis of the flow of time, which he insisted moved from
the future into the past, rather than the other way around as common
sense supposed, would define past, present, and future as all in the
present-a time present of things past, a time present of things present,
and a time present of things future.95 But it was consistent with the
nominalistic approach of Lucretius to all abstractions when he denied the
reality of time per se, applying the concept instead to the empirical experi­
ence of specific and concrete events as they were perceived to be shaping
themselves into the order of past, present, and future. "Time as such, " he
asserted, "does not exist, but from things themselves there comes the
sense of what has been done in the past, then what thing is present with us,
further what is to follow afterwards " [tempus item per se non est, sed
rebus ab ipsis I consequitur sensus, transactum quid sit in aeuo, I tum quae
res instet, quid porro deinde sequatur] .96 No phenomenon more clearly or
more regularly exemplified this order of creation than the rotation of the
seasons. "We see many things, " Lucretius pointed out, "that take place at
a fixed time [certo tempore] everywhere," such as the blossoming of trees
93.
94.
9 5.
9 6.
Luer. 5 . 8 2 8 - 3 r .
Luer. 5 . 8 5 5-77.
Aug. Con(. 1 r . 20. 2 6 .
Luer. r .4 5 9-6 r .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Classical Rome
Classical Rome
'9
in the spring and the beginnings of a beard in adolescent boys. All of these
"with regular sequence [conseque] now come back in fixed order [ex
ordine certo]."97 Fixed time and the fixed order of events were lessons
that were learned from the sun and moon, "those watchful sentinels" that,
as they traveled across the "great rotating temple" of the sky, "taught men
well that the seasons of the year [annorum tempora] come around, and
that all is done on a fixed plan and in fixed order [certa ratione atque
ordine certo]."98
The concept of "the order of creation" could refer as well to the se-
quence according to which the several ranks of creatures had put in their
appearance. This sense of the term was to be a persistent theme of cos-
mogony, also as documented both in Genesis and in Timaeus, each of
which paid attention to which species had followed which in coming into
being. Thus Ovid, too, enumerated in their sequence the way stars, fish,
beasts, and birds had been produced,99 in order then to point out that
"there was still lacking an animal more sacred [sanctius] than these, more
capable of high intelligence, and more able to exercise rule over the oth-
ers"; and therefore "natus homo est" or he was created through a divine
seed by "ille opifex rerum."100 Lucretius did not linger over quite the
same catalog of species, at least partly because his primary interest was in
asserting their common origin in the earth as the universal mother and
thus in denying the traditional doctrine of the other three crotxEla,
namely, fire, air, and water. Lucretius did posit that the "many things"
[multa] of the universe came into being "modis multis uaria ratione," but
nevertheless that in all of these ways earth "created" [creauit] them all.101
Therefore it followed "that the earth deserves the name that she possesses,
mother, since it is from the earth that all things have been produced";102
or, as he put it elsewhere, earth was "the universal mother" [omniparens]
and "the common sepulcher."103 Whatever their sequence may have been,
moreover, it was clear that "in the beginning" [principio] the earth pro-
duced herbs and plants,104 and that then "the race of winged things"
97. Lucr. 5.669-79.
98. Lucr. 5.1436-39.
99. Ov. Met. 1.73-75.
Too. Ov. Met. 1.76-81.
io1. Lucr. 5-790-94.
102. Lucr. 5.795-96.
103. Lucr. 5.258-60.
104. Lucr. 5.783-84.
19
in the spring and the beginnings o f a beard i n adolescent boys. All o f these
"with regular sequence [conseque] now come back in fixed order [ex
ordine certo] . " 97 Fixed time and the fixed order of events were lessons
that were learned from the sun and moon, "those watchful sentinels" that,
as they traveled across the "great rotating temple " of the sky, "taught men
well that the seasons of the year [annorum temporal come around, and
that all is done on a fixed plan and in fixed order [certa ratione atque
ordine certo] . " 98
The concept of "the order of creation " could refer as well to the se­
quence according to which the several ranks of creatures had put in their
appearance. This sense of the term was to be a persistent theme of cos­
mogony, also as documented both in Genesis and in Timaeus, each of
which paid attention to which species had followed which in coming into
being. Thus Ovid, too, enumerated in their sequence the way stars, fish,
beasts, and birds had been produced,99 in order then to point out that
"there was still lacking an animal more sacred [ sanctius] than these, more
capable of high intelligence, and more able to exercise rule over the oth­
ers " ; and therefore " natus homo est" or he was created through a divine
seed by " ille opifex rerum. " 100 Lucretius did not linger over quite the
same catalog of species, at least partly because his primary interest was in
asserting their common origin in the earth as the universal mother and
thus ' i n denying the traditional doctrine of the other three OTOLXE'ia,
namely, fire, air, and water. Lucretius did posit that the " many things "
[ multa] of the universe came into being "modis multis uaria ratione, " but
nevertheless that in all of these ways earth "created" [creauit] them all . 1 0 1
Therefore it followed "that the earth deserves the name that she possesses,
mother, since it is from the earth that all things have been produced " ; 102
or, as he put it elsewhere, earth was "the universal mother" [ omniparens]
and "the common sepulcher. " 103 Whatever their sequence may have been,
moreover, it was clear that " in the beginning" [principio] the earth pro­
duced herbs and plants,1 04 and that then "the race of winged things "
97.
98.
99.
1 00.
Luer. 5 . 669-79 .
Luer. 5 . 1 4 3 6- 3 9 .
Ov. Met. r .7 3 - 7 5 .
Ov. Met. I . 76-8 I .
I O I . Luer. 5 .790-94.
102. Luer. 5 .79 5 -9 6.
1 0 3 . Luer. 5 . 2 5 8 - 60.
104. Luer. 5 . 7 8 3 - 8 4 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
20
zo What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
[genus alituum] had come, also "in the beginning" [principio].105 Finally,
in an interesting parallel between Lucretius and the etymology of "Adam"
in Genesis, had come the human race, likewise from the earth, but "hard-
ier, as was fitting inasmuch as the hard earth had made it."106 Thus despite
their radical differences, both Lucretius and Genesis could have formu-
lated the purpose of their cosmogonies in the words of the conclusion of
Timaeus, "to give a description of the universe up to the production of the
mankind" [rrEpi TOi) TravTO6s [LXP YEVE eG dvOeporrtlv].107
A consideration of the distinctiveness of the human race in comparison
with other species led to the question of the origins of language, which
included the naming of the other species-"in what manner the human
race began to use variety of speech among themselves by means of the
names of things" [quo modo genus humanum uariante loquella / coeperit
inter se uesci per nomina rerum].108 The repeated polemic of Lucretius
against Platonic or other notions that the gods had created the world and
had done so on the basis of some preexistent "Form" [notities] or "Pat-
tern" [exemplum] (which Plato called rrapc SELy ta)109 necessarily implied
as its corollary that "it is a foolish notion" [desiperest] to imagine that the
gods or anyone else had "distributed names among things and that from
this source human beings had learned their first vocables."110 For the
origin of language was in fact quite the other way around: "It was nature
that drove them to utter the various sounds of the tongue, and conve-
nience that moulded the names for things" [uarios linguae sonitus natura
subegit / mittere, et utilitas expressit nomina rerum].111 Thus "natura"
and even "utilitas" acquired the sovereign freedom of action in creation-
almost, if not quite, with a mind of their own-that Lucretius refused to
allow the gods or the preexistent Forms to possess in creating. But his
rejection of the idea of a divine "exemplum" for language evidently did
not preclude a process of patterning that had moved in the opposite
direction. For "imitating with the mouth the liquid notes of the birds came
long before men could delight their ears by trilling smooth melodies in
song."112 What was true of vocal music applied as well to instrumental
o105. Lucr. 5.801-2.
106. Lucr. 5.925-26; cf. Gn. 2:7, 1 Cor. I5:47.
107. P1. Ti. 9oE.
1o8. Lucr. 5.71-72.
109. Lucr. 5.181-86; P1. Ti. 29B.
110. Lucr. 5.1041-43.
iii. Lucr. 5.10o28-29.
iiz. Lucr. 5.1379-81.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
[genus alituum] had come, also " in the beginning" [principio] . 1 05 Finally,
in an interesting parallel between Lucretius and the etymology of "Adam "
in Genesis, had come the human race, likewise from the earth, but " hard­
ier, as was fitting inasmuch as the hard earth had made it. " 106 Thus despite
their radical differences, both Lucretius and Genesis could have formu­
lated the purpose of their cosmogonies in the words of the conclusion of
Timaeus, "to give a description of the universe up to the production of the
mankind" [1TEpl TOU 1TUVTOS' µEXPL YEVEUEWS' av8pW1TLVT]S'] . 107
A consideration of the distinctiveness of the human race in comparison
with other species led to the question of the origins of language, which
included the naming of the other species- " in what manner the human
race began to use variety of speech among themselves by means of the
names of things " [quo modo genus humanum uariante loquella I coeperit
inter se uesci per nomina rerum] . 1 08 The repeated polemic of Lucretius
against Platonic or other notions that the gods had created the world and
had done so on the basis of some preexistent " Form" [notities] or "Pat­
tern" [exemplum] (which Plato called 1Tapci8E Lyµa ) 1 09 necessarily implied
as its corollary that " it is a foolish notion" [desiperest] to imagine that the
gods or anyone else had " distributed names among things and that from
this source human beings had learned their first vocables. " 1 1 ° For the
origin of language was in fact quite the other way around: " It was nature
that drove them to utter the various sounds of the tongue, and conve­
nience that moulded the names for things " [uarios linguae sonitus natura
subegit I mittere, et utilitas expressit nomina rerum] . 1 1 1 Thus "natura"
and even " utilitas" acquired the sovereign freedom of action in creation­
almost, if not quite, with a mind of their own-that Lucretius refused to
allow the gods or the preexistent Forms to possess in creating. But his
rejection of the idea of a divine "exemplum" for language evidently did
not preclude a process of patterning that had moved in the opposite
direction. For " imitating with the mouth the liquid notes of the birds came
long before men could delight their ears by trilling smooth melodies in
song. " 1 12 What was true of vocal music applied as well to instrumental
105.
106.
l 07.
108.
109.
Luer. 5 . 80 1 - 2 .
Luer. 5 . 9 2 5 -26; cf. G n . 2 : 7 ,
Pl. Ti. 90£.
Luer. 5 . 7 1-72.
Luer. 5 . 1 8 1 - 8 6; Pl. Ti. 29B.
l l O . Luer. 5 . 1 04 1 - 4 3 .
I I I . Luer. 5 . 1028-29.
1 1 2. Luer. 5 . 1 3 79 - 8 i .
l( H I G
1
Car. 1 5 :47.
P� ES S
Classical Rome
Classical Rome zi
music, for which "the zephyrs whistling through hollow reeds taught the
countrymen to blow into hollow hemlock-stalks."113
Although the explanation in Genesis that "on the seventh day [God]
rested" was connected causally there and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible
with the divine institution of the Sabbath,114 it had a cosmogonic as well
as a liturgical function. For despite later theological efforts to blur or even
obliterate the traditional distinction between the doctrine of creation and
the doctrine of preservation,115s cosmogony did seem to require closure.
Lucretius did not need to ground a religious observance such as the Sab-
bath, or even the cosmos, in a myth of divine action; on the contrary, he
separated "sollemnia sacra"116 from such myths. Nevertheless, he, too,
could have said, as Genesis did, that "God ended his work [of creat-
ing],"1 17 but with the important distinction, once again, that the subject
of the sentence was not the one "God" of monotheism, or even the many
"gods" of polytheism, but the Earth herself: "She herself created the
human race . . . But because she must have some limit to her bearing, she
ceased" [genus ipsa creauit / humanum . . . Sed quia finem aliquam par-
iendi debet habere, / destitit].118
As was pointed out at the beginning of this chapter, Lucretius was well
aware of his pioneering position in Latin science, philosophy, and litera-
ture. He was no less aware, however, of the colonial status of Latin sci-
ence, philosophy, and literature in relation to the Greeks. "Nor do I fail to
understand," he explained almost apologetically in the introduction to his
epic, in a topos that other writers of philosophical (and theological) Latin
were to repeat for centuries to follow, "that it is difficult to make clear the
obscure discoveries of the Greeks in Latin verses, especially since we have
often to invent new words because of the poverty of the language and the
novelty of the subjects" [Nec me animi fallit Graiorum obscura reperta /
difficile inlustrare Latinis uersibus esse, / multa nouis uerbis praesertim
cum sit agendum / propter egestatem linguae et rerum nouitatem].119 In
this tribute to the superiority of the Greeks, both philosophically and
linguistically, he was thinking chiefly of Epicurus, that "Graius homo"
113. Lucr. 5.1382-83.
114. Gn. 2:3; Ex. zo:8-ii.
115. On the distinction and the connection between them, cf. Henry Pinard in DTC s.v.
"Creation."
116. Lucr. 5.1163.
117. Gn. 2:2.
118. Lucr. 5.822-27.
119. Lucr. 1.136-39.
21
music, for which "the zephyrs whistling through hollow reeds taught the
countrymen to blow into hollow hemlock-stalks. " 1 13
Although the explanation in Genesis that "on the seventh day [God]
rested" was connected causally there and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible
with the divine institution of the Sabbath, 1 14 it had a cosmogonic as well
as a liturgical function. For despite later theological efforts to blur or even
obliterate the traditional distinction between the doctrine of creation and
the doctrine of preservation, 1 15 cosmogony did seem to require closure.
Lucretius did not need to ground a religious observance such as the Sab­
bath, or even the cosmos, in a myth of divine action; on the contrary, he
separated " sollemnia sacra" 1 16 from such myths. Nevertheless, he, too,
could have said, as Genesis did, that " God ended his work [of creat­
ing] ," 1 1 7 but with the important distinction, once again, that the subject
of the sentence was not the one " God" of monotheism, or even the many
"gods " of polytheism, but the Earth herself: " She herself created the
human race . . . . But because she must have some limit to her bearing, she
ceased " [genus ipsa creauit I humanum . . . . Sed quia finem aliquam par­
iendi debet habere, I destitit] . 1 1 8
As was pointed out at the beginning of this chapter, Lucretius was well
aware of his pioneering position in Latin science, philosophy, and litera­
ture. He was no less aware, however, of the colonial status of Latin sci­
ence, philosophy, and literature in relation to the Greeks. "Nor do I fail to
understand, " he explained almost apologetically in the introduction to his
epic, in a topos that other writers of philosophical ( and theological) Latin
were to repeat for centuries to follow, "that it is difficult to make clear the
obscure discoveries of the Greeks in Latin verses, especially since we have
often to invent new words because of the poverty of the language and the
novelty of the subjects " [Nee me animi fallit Graiorum obscura reperta I
difficile inlustrare Latinis uersibus esse, I multa nouis uerbis praesertim
cum sit agendum I propter egestatem linguae et rerum nouitatem] . 1 1 9 In
this tribute to the superiority of the Greeks, both philosophically and
linguistically, he was thinking chiefly of Epicurus, that " Graius homo "
1 1 3 . Luer. 5 . 1 3 8 2 -8 3 .
r r 4 . Gn. 2 : 3 ; Ex. 20: 8 - 1 r .
l l 5 . On the distinction and the connection between them, cf. Henry Pinard in DTC s.v.
" Creation. "
l l 6. Luer. 5 . l l 6 3 .
1 1 7. Gn. 2 : 2 .
r r 8 . Luer. 5 . 8 22-27.
l 19. Luer. r . 1 3 6- 3 9 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
22
zz What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
and "Graiae gentis decus,"120 and of Epicurus's disciples. Eventually the
Epicurean materialism of Lucretius was to be vindicated as in some ways
an anticipation of the direction that would be taken by important lines of
development in modern science, as Albert Einstein's brief but eloquent
tribute to Lucretius made clear when he expressed his admiration for this
"man who was gifted with scientific and speculative interest, amply sup-
plied with vivid feeling and thought," and who was "firmly convinced,
and indeed believed that he could prove, that everything depended on the
regular movement of unchangeable atoms."121 But in the meantime, for
the next thousand years and more, the future of cosmogony did not in fact
belong to Epicurean and Lucretian materialism, whether Greek or Latin.
It belonged instead, in the Greek-speaking realms of Alexandria and New
Rome and even in the Latin-speaking realm of the "imperium Romanum"
and Catholic Rome, to the theistic nonmaterialism of two other pre-
Roman-and, certainly from Lucretius's perspective, prescientific-
cosmogonies, Genesis and Timaeus. But the questions of cosmogony as
they had been formulated by Lucretius nevertheless continued to domi-
nate the philosophical discussion of these creation stories.
izo. Lucr. 3-3.
121i. Einstein 1924, VIa.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
and " Graiae gentis decus, " 120 and of Epicurus's disciples. Eventually the
Epicurean materialism of Lucretius was to be vindicated as in some ways
an anticipation of the direction that would be taken by important lines of
development in modern science, as Albert Einstein's brief but eloquent
tribute to Lucretius made clear when he expressed his admiration for this
" man who was gifted with scientific and speculative interest, amply sup­
plied with vivid feeling and thought," and who was "firmly convinced,
and indeed believed that he could prove, that everything depended on the
regular movement of unchangeable atoms. " 121 But in the meantime, for
the next thousand years and more, the future of cosmogony did not in fact
belong to Epicurean and Lucretian materialism, whether Greek or Latin.
It belonged instead, in the Greek-speaking realms of Alexandria and New
Rome and even in the Latin-speaking realm of the "imperium Romanum"
and Catholic Rome, to the theistic nonmaterialism of two other pre­
Roman-and, certainly from Lucretius's perspective, prescientific­
cosmogonies, Genesis and Timaeus. But the questions of cosmogony as
they had been formulated by Lucretius nevertheless continued to domi­
nate the philosophical discussion of these creation stories.
1 20. Luer. 3 . 3 .
1 2 1 . Einstein 1 9 24,
V la.
l( H I G
P� ES S
II
Athens: Geneseos Arche as "The
Principle of Becoming" (Timaeus z29D-E)
II
As Lucretius acknowledged in his eloquent tributes to Epicurus, that
"Graius homo" and "ornament of the Greek nation" [Graiae gentis
decus],1 it was from Athens that classical Rome learned to think philo-
sophically about cosmogony, which thus became one of the most il-
lustrious examples of the process described in the familiar words of
Horace "Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes / intulit agresti
Latio" [Greece, the captive, made her savage victor captive, and brought
Athens: Geneseos Arche as "The
Principle of Becoming" (Timaeus 29D-E)
the arts into rustic Latium].2 And the Athenian cosmogony that became
the teacher of Rome-first of classical Rome through its translation by
Cicero, then of New Rome where it could be read in the original Greek,
and then of Catholic Rome through its translations by Cicero and then by
Calcidius and through its verse paraphrase by Boethius-was the Timaeus
of Plato, which Paul Shorey, with a characteristic flourish, once called
"Plato's discourse on creative evolution, his pre-Socratic prose poem, his
hymn of the universe, his anticipatory defiance of the negative voice of
Lucretius' De rerum natura."3 Timaeus was, in the words of its most
influential translator into English, Benjamin Jowett, "the greatest effort of
the human mind to conceive the world as a whole which the genius of
antiquity has bequeathed to us";4 according to a more recent translator of
Timaeus into English, Francis Cornford, Plato here "introduced, for the
first time in Greek philosophy, the alternative scheme of creation by a
divine artificer, according to which the world is like a work of art designed
with a purpose."5 It was the only dialogue of Plato known in anything
near its entirety to the Latin Middle Ages, and therefore it has had the
longest continuous influence of any of the dialogues in the West. "There
i. Lucr. 1.66, 3.3.
2. Hor. Epist. 2.1.156-57.
3. Shorey 1933, 332; see also Shorey 1938, 45.
4. Jowett 1953, 3:702.
5. Cornford 1957, 31.
23
As Lucretius acknowledged i n his eloquent tributes to Epicurus, that
" Graius homo" and "ornament of the Greek nation" [Graiae gentis
decus] , 1 it was from Athens that classical Rome learned to think philo­
sophically about cosmogony, which thus became one of the most il­
lustrious examples of the process described in the familiar words of
Horace " Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes I intulit agresti
Latio " [Greece, the captive, made her savage victor captive, and brought
the arts into rustic Latium] .2 And the Athenian cosmogony that became
the teacher of Rome-first of classical Rome through its translation by
Cicero, then of New Rome where it could be read in the original Greek,
and then of Catholic Rome through its translations by Cicero and then by
Calcidius and through its verse paraphrase by Boethius-was the Timaeus
of Plato, which Paul Shorey, with a characteristic flourish, once called
"Plato's discourse on creative evolution, his pre-Socratic prose poem, his
hymn of the universe, his anticipatory defiance of the negative voice of
Lucretius' De rerum natura. "3 Timaeus was, in the words of its most
influential translator into English, Benj amin Jowett, "the greatest effort of
the human mind to conceive the world as a whole which the genius of
antiquity has bequeathed to us" ;4 according to a more recent translator of
Timaeus into English, Francis Cornford, Plato here " introduced, for the
first time in Greek philosophy, the alternative scheme of creation by a
divine artificer, according to which the world is like a work of art designed
with a purpose. " 5 It was the only dialogue of Plato known in anything
near its entirety to the Latin Middle Ages, and therefore it has had the
longest continuous influence of any of the dialogues in the West. "There
r.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Luer. r . 66, 3 . 3 .
Hor. Epist. 2. r . 1 5 6- 5 7 .
Shorey 1 9 3 3 , 3 3 2; see also Shorey 1 9 3 8 , 4 5 .
Jowett 1 9 5 3 , 3 :702.
Cornford 1 9 57, 3 r .
l( H I G
P� ES S
24
24 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
was," Raymond Klibansky has said, "hardly a medieval library of any
standing which had not a copy of Chalcidius' version and sometimes also
a copy of the fragment translated by Cicero. Although these facts are well
known, their significance for the history of ideas has perhaps not been
sufficiently grasped by historians."6 Thus Timaeus occupied a unique
place among the philosophical classics, and it was "of the greatest impor-
tance for ancient cosmological renewal ideology" and its medieval heirs.7
Conversely, as Arthur Lovejoy has said, commenting specifically on Tim-
aeus, "there is scarcely any general contrast between the Platonic strain in
European thought down to the late eighteenth century and the philosophy
of more recent times which is more significant than [the abandonment of
the Timaean teleology]."8
As the most important classical cosmogony, this cosmogony of Athens
would, in Greek-speaking Jewish Alexandria and Christian New Rome
and in Latin-speaking Catholic Rome, inevitably come into counterpoint
with the most important nonclassical cosmogony, that of Jerusalem in
Genesis. To quote again from Jowett:
The influence which the Timaeus has exercised upon posterity is due
partly to a misunderstanding. In the supposed depths of this
dialogue the Neo-Platonists found hidden meanings and connexions
with the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and out of them they
elicited doctrines quite at variance with the spirit of Plato. Believing
that he was inspired by the Holy Ghost, or had received his wisdom
from Moses, they seemed to find in his writings the Christian Trinity,
the Word, the Church, the creation of the world in a Jewish sense, as
they really found the personality of God or of mind, and the immor-
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
was, " Raymond Klibansky has said, " hardly a medieval library of any
standing which had not a copy of Chalcidius' version and sometimes also
a copy of the fragment translated by Cicero. Although these facts are well
known, their significance for the history of ideas has perhaps not been
sufficiently grasped by historians. "6 Thus Timaeus occupied a unique
place among the philosophical classics, and it was " of the greatest impor­
tance for ancient cosmological renewal ideology" and its medieval heirs. 7
Conversely, as Arthur Lovej oy has said, commenting specifically on Tim­
aeus, "there is scarcely any general contrast between the Platonic strain in
European thought down to the late eighteenth century and the philosophy
of more recent times which is more significant than [the abandonment of
the Timaean teleology] . " 8
As the most important classical cosmogony, this cosmogony of Athens
would, in Greek-speaking Jewish Alexandria and Christian New Rome
and in Latin-speaking Catholic Rome, inevitably come into counterpoint
with the most important nonclassical cosmogony, that of Jerusalem in
Genesis. To quote again from Jowett:
tality of the soul.9
This book is devoted to the history of that "misunderstanding." For the
last of the issues enumerated by Jowett, the immortality of the soul, it was,
however, not chiefly the Timaeus but above all the major Platonic dialogue
on the subject, the Phaedo, that influenced one of the major Christian
dialogues on the subject, On the Soul and the Resurrection, narrated by
Gregory of Nyssa as having been carried on by his sister Macrina; this
formulation articulated and decisively shaped Christian thought in a way
6. Klibansky 1981, 2z8.
7. Ladner 1959, o10.
8. Lovejoy 1936, 47.
9. Jowett 1953, 3:631.
The influence which the Timaeus has exercised upon posterity is due
partly to a misunderstanding. In the supposed depths of this
dialogue the Neo-Platonists found hidden meanings and connexions
with the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and out of them they
elicited doctrines quite at variance with the spirit of Plato . Believing
that he was inspired by the Holy Ghost, or had received his wisdom
from Moses, they seemed to find in his writings the Christian Trinity,
the Word, the Church, the creation of the world in a Jewish sense, as
they really found the personality of God or of mind, and the immor­
tality of the soul. 9
This book is devoted to the history of that " misunderstanding. " For the
last of the issues enumerated by Jowett, the immortality of the soul, it was,
however, not chiefly the Timaeus but above all the major Platonic dialogue
on the subj ect, the Phaedo, that influenced one of the maj or Christian
dialogues on the subj ect, On the Soul and the Resurrection, narrated by
Gregory of Nyssa as having been carried on by his sister Macrina; this
formulation articulated and decisively shaped Christian thought in a way
6.
7.
8.
9.
Klibansky 1 9 8 1 , 2 8 .
Ladner 1 9 59, I O .
Lovej oy 1 9 3 6, 47.
Jowett 1 9 5 3 , 3 : 6 3 r .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Athens
Athens z5
that harmonized the two subjects of Gregory's title, the immortal soul and
the resurrection of the body, into a single doctrine.10 But Timaeus had an
even more massive status than Phaedo. Timaeus affected principally the
doctrine of what Jowett calls "the creation of the world in a Jewish sense,"
making it "the primary task of a history of Platonism in antiquity to trace
the process by which the divine craftsman of the Timaeus could be made
to resemble the Creator-God of the revealed religions, and the Platonic
myth be taken as the philosophical authority for the idea that the cause of
the world is the will of God."11
For beneath and behind all the misunderstanding, Genesis and Tim-
aeus nevertheless manifested what the severest of all critics of the "Helle-
nization of Christianity," the liberal Protestant historian of dogma Adolf
von Harnack, acknowledged (in his most widely circulated book) to be,
using the Goethean phraseology so typical of him, "elements of elective
affinity" [wahlverwandte Elemente].12 Among such elements of elective
affinity as well as of contrast, moreover, Harnack went on specifically to
identify "the idea of creation."13 These two chapters will be devoted to
those elements of elective affinity and to the corollary difficulties raised by
a contrapuntal reading of the two accounts of creation-first of the con-
cepts of creation, for which Timaeus largely dictated the terms; then of the
components of the creation, for which the sequence of the six days in
Genesis provides the outline. To begin at the beginning, since both books
were about the beginning, the first sentence of part 2z of Timaeus14 con-
tained the words fl TO86E TO K6UtOU TyEVEoL" . . . KctT' dpxa,ls5 and the
first words of the first chapter of the first book of the Bible were, in the
Septuagint, EdVEoLt [or even, in the Codex Alexandrinus, FrvE L" K6U-
gOU]. Ev aPXX Erro1TrlUev 6 0E6 T6V opav6v KaL Tf1V yT11.16 As they stood,
these two formulas could be interchanged without doing violence to ei-
ther; even the variant of the title of Genesis in the Codex Alexandrinus,
which some biblical purists might be inclined to dismiss as an unwar-
io. Apostolopoulos 1986 is a close examination of the relation between Gregory's
dialogue and Plato's.
ii. Klibansky 1981, 51-52; see also his plate 5, Raphael's portrait of Plato with
Timaeus in the fresco, The School of Athens.
12. Harnack 1901, 126.
13. Harnack 1901, 143. See also Jaeger 1961, 66-67, for a catalog of affinities.
14. According to the division in Cornford 1957, in which part I, "The Works of
Reason," begins at 29D; part 2, "What Comes of Necessity," at 47E; and part 3, "The Co-
Operation of Reason and Necessity," at 69A.
15. Pl. Ti. 48A.
16. Gn. 1:1.
25
that harmonized the two subjects of Gregory's title, the immortal soul and
the resurrection of the body, into a single doctrine. 10 But Timaeus had an
even more massive status than Phaedo. Timaeus affected principally the
doctrine of what Jowett calls "the creation of the world in a Jewish sense,"
making it "the primary task of a history of Platonism in antiquity to trace
the process by which the divine craftsman of the Timaeus could be made
to resemble the Creator-God of the revealed religions, and the Platonic
myth be taken as the philosophical authority for the idea that the cause of
the world is the will of God . " 1 1
For beneath and behind all the misunderstanding, Genesis and Tim­
aeus nevertheless manifested what the severest of all critics of the "Helle­
nization of Christianity, " the liberal Protestant historian of dogma Adolf
von Harnack, acknowledged (in his most widely circulated book) to be,
using the Goethean phraseology so typical of him, " elements of elective
affinity " [wahlverwandte Elemente] . 12 Among such elements of elective
affinity as well as of contrast, moreover, Harnack went on specifically to
identify "the idea of creation. " 1 3 These two chapters will be devoted to
those elements of elective affinity and to the corollary difficulties raised by
a contrapuntal reading of the two accounts of creation-first of the con­
cepts of creation, for which Timaeus largely dictated the terms; then of the
components of the creation, for which the sequence of the six days in
Genesis provides the outline. To begin at the beginning, since both books
were about the beginning, the first sentence of part 2 of Timaeus14 con­
KUT' apxcis' 1 5 and the
tained the words � TOUOE TOU K6aµov YEVEULS
first words of the first chapter of the first book of the Bible were, in the
Septuagint, rEVEULS [or even, in the Codex Alexandrinus, rEVEULS KOa­
µov] . EV cipxu ETIOL T}UEV 6 9EOS TOV ovpavov Kal T�V yftv . 1 6 As they stood,
these two formulas could be interchanged without doing violence to ei­
ther; even the variant of the title of Genesis in the Codex Alexandrinus,
which some biblical purists might be inclined to dismiss as an unwar•
•
•
IO. Apostolopoulos I 9 8 6 is a close examination of the relation between Gregory's
dialogue and Plato's.
I I . Klibansky I 9 8 I , 5 1 - 5 2; see also his plate 5 , Raphael's portrait of Plato with
Timaeus in the fresco, The School of Athens.
I 2 . Harnack I 9 0 I , I 2 6.
I 3 . Harnack I 9 0 I , I 4 3 · See also Jaeger I 9 6 I , 66-67, for a catalog of affinities .
1 4 . According to the division in Cornford 1 9 5 7, in which part 1 , "The Works of
Reason, " begins at 29D; part 2, "What Comes of Necessity, " at 47E; and part 3 , "The Co­
Operation of Reason and Necessity, " at 69A.
I 5. Pl. Ti. 4 8A.
I 6. Gn. r : r .
l( H I G
P� ES S
26
z6 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
ranted "Hellenizing" intrusion of the concept of KdoIos into the text of
the Bible, was borne out by the opening words of the second chapter of
Genesis in all manuscripts, KaL UVVETEXETOr6qav 6 ovpav6os KUa Lf yfl KaL lra
6 KRocOs aUTWV.17 Whether they came directly from Timaeus to the trans-
lators of the Septuagint or not, the words yvEtoi, Apxi , and K6UOS,,
moreover, were (along with many others to be noted later) only three of
the elements of elective affinity evident already in the Greek vocabularies
of Genesis and of Timaeus that would be deserving of comparative study
in their own right.18
The Authority of a Cosmogony
Despite these elements of elective affinity, the two cosmogonies differed
fundamentally in the way they presented the authority of their truth
claims and in the self-consciousness with which they did so. Near the
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
ranted " Hellenizing" intrusion of the concept of Koaµos into the text of
the Bible, was borne out by the opening words of the second chapter of
Genesis in all manuscripts, Kat CJUVETEAECJ9riaav 6 oupavos Kat � yfl Kat TIUS
6 Koa µos avTwv . 1 7 Whether they came directly from Timaeus to the trans­
lators of the Septuagint or not, the words YEVECJLS' apxf] , and KOCJµos'
moreover, were ( along with many others to be noted later ) only three of
the elements of elective affinity evident already in the Greek vocabularies
of Genesis and of Timaeus that would be deserving of comparative study
in their own right. 1 8
beginning of Timaeus there appeared the story in which "Solon, the wisest
of the Seven," visited Egypt and was accosted by an aged priest, who told
him: "Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children: there is not such a
The Authority o f a Cosmogony
thing as an old Greek.... You are young in soul, every one of you. For
therein you possess not a single belief that is ancient and derived from old
tradition, nor yet one science that is hoary with age" [NEot tTE ... T c
vxdaS TdvTTE. oSlciav y yp Ev aTaiLs XETE aS' PXaLaV dKOf V 1TaXaLGV
86(av oU8E d6ti[ia Xp6vy TroXlt6v o8Ev].19 By a process of natural selection
in reverse, natural calamities, such as floods, had repeatedly obliterated
collective memory in Greece, leaving "none of you but the unlettered and
uncultured," with the result that Greek genealogies, for example, were
"little better than children's tales."20 In Egypt, by contrast, there were the
traditions contained "in our sacred writings" [Ev ToiS LEpoS ypdcJlacLv],
which were "the most ancient" [raXaLt6TaTa].21 In a debate it was pos-
sible to invoke their authority, because the Egyptians still possessed "the
actual writings" [a1T& Ta ypdtt[aTTa].22 Critias spoke of his account,
which Solon had heard during his Egyptian visit, as "a story derived from
ancient tradition" [X6yov . . . K rraXaLs aKo]s], and he went on to
17. Gn. 2:i.
i8. Such a list would overlap considerably with the "Glossary of Greek Technical
Terms from Sources Ancient and Modern" in Pelikan 1993, 327-33.
19. P1. Ti. zz22B; see Froidefond 197, 285-90.
zo. Pl. Ti. 23B.
zi. P1. Ti. 23E, zzE.
22. Pl. Ti. 24A.
Despite these elements of elective affinity, the two cosmogonies differed
fundamentally in the way they presented the authority of their truth
claims and in the self-consciousness with which they did so. Near the
beginning of Timaeus there appeared the story in which " Solon, the wisest
of the Seven, " visited Egypt and was accosted by an aged priest, who told
him: " Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children: there is not such a
thing as an old Greek. . . . You are young in soul, every one of you. For
therein you possess not a single belief that is ancient and derived from old
tradition, nor yet one science that is hoary with age " [NE:m ECJTE . . . n1s
lf;uxas THIVTES . OUOE µ[av yap EV GUTGLS EXETE BL ' apxa[av clKOTW TiaAmav
86�av ouoE µci911 µa XPOV4J TIOALOV ouoE:v] . 1 9 By a process of natural selection
in reverse, natural calamities, such as floods, had repeatedly obliterated
collective memory in Greece, leaving " none of you but the unlettered and
uncultured," with the result that Greek genealogies, for example, were
" little better than children's tales. " 20 In Egypt, by contrast, there were the
traditions contained " in our sacred writings " [Ev To'is tEpo'Ls ypciµµaaw ] ,
which were "the most ancient" [TiaA.moTaTa] .2 1 I n a debate it was pos­
sible to invoke their authority, because the Egyptians still possessed "the
actual writings" [auTa Ta ypciµµaTa] .22 Critias spoke of his account,
which Solon had heard during his Egyptian visit, as "a story derived from
ancient tradition " [A.Oyov . . . E K rraA.mas aKofls] , and he went on to
1 7 . Gn. 2: i .
1 8 . Such a list would overlap considerably with the " Glossary of Greek Technical
Terms from Sources Ancient and Modern" in Pelikan 1 9 9 3 , 3 2 7-3 3 .
1 9 . Pl. Ti. 22B; see Froidefond 1 9 7 1 , 2 8 5 -90.
20. Pl. Ti. 2 3 B.
2 i . Pl. Ti. 2 3 E, 22E.
22. Pl. Ti. 24A.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Athens
Athens 27
describe the process by which that tradition had been transmitted from
Solon to "our great-grandfather Dropides, and Dropides told our grand-
father Critias, as the old man himself, in turn, related to us."23 In this
contrast as drawn by Timaeus, the cosmogony of Genesis would clearly
have ranked itself not only as one of those traditions whose account of the
creation was contained "in our sacred writings," which were "the most
ancient," but as preeminent, indeed unique, among them. And the child-
hood of Moses in Egypt-which, it deserves to be noted, was seen as
belonging to "Asia" (meaning Asia Minor), not to Africa (known here as
"Libya")24-would become, for both Jewish and Christian interpreters,
the explanation for his having received a royal education, in which he was
"trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians."25
According to the account being expounded by Timaeus the narrator,
cosmogonic accounts belonged to these ancient traditions, but they had to
be interpreted properly. As the foundational presuppositions for its
description of origins, Timaeus posited, at the very beginning of its cos-
mogonic discourse, two closely related distinctions, which in one form or
another were to recur throughout the subsequent history of its interpreta-
tion as well as of its interaction with Genesis. As the character Timaeus
declared:
First of all, we must, in my judgment, make the following distinc-
tion. What is that which is Existent [TL To6 6v] always and has no
Becoming? And what is that which is Becoming always and never is
Existent? Now the one of these is apprehensible by thought with the
aid of reasoning [voi~uE [LETt XO6yov rrEpLtXrTT6v], since it is ever
uniformly existent; whereas the other is an object of opinion with
the aid of unreasoning sensation [660 [lET' ataO6Ew;S AX6yov], since
it becomes and perishes and is never really existent.26
That was the familiar, and fundamental, Platonic distinction between two
objects of knowledge: "what is perceptible to the senses" [T6 ato0rlT6v], a
27
describe the process by which that tradition had been transmitted from
Solon to " our great-grandfather Dropides, and Dropides told our grand­
father Critias, as the old man himself, in turn, related to us. "23 In this
contrast as drawn by Timaeus, the cosmogony of Genesis would clearly
have ranked itself not only as one of those traditions whose account of the
creation was contained " in our sacred writings, " which were "the most
ancient," but as preeminent, indeed unique, among them. And the child­
hood of Moses in Egypt-which, it deserves to be noted, was seen as
belonging to "Asia " (meaning Asia Minor), not to Africa ( known here as
" Libya " )24-would become, for both Jewish and Christian interpreters,
the explanation for his having received a royal education, in which he was
"trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. "25
According to the account being expounded by Timaeus the narrator,
cosmogonic accounts belonged to these ancient traditions, but they had to
be interpreted properly. As the foundational presuppositions for its
description of origins, Timaeus posited, at the very beginning of its cos­
mogonic discourse, two closely related distinctions, which in one form or
another were to recur throughout the subsequent history of its interpreta­
tion as well as of its interaction with Genesis. As the character Timaeus
declared:
term that Timaeus derived etymologically from the verb d6a6tEV (to rush),
because of the different "motions rushing through the body" by way of
the senses;27 and "what is apprehensible only to the mind" [T6 vordv6v].
23. Pl. Ti. zoD-E.
24. Pl. Ti. z4B-E.
25. Phil. V. Mos. I.zo; Ac. 7:2zz.
z6. Pl. Ti. z8A.
27. Pl. Ti. 43C.
First of all, we must, in my j udgment, make the following distinc­
tion. What is that which is Existent [TL To ov] always and has no
Becoming ? And what is that which is Becoming always and never is
Existent ? Now the one of these is apprehensible by thought with the
aid of reasoning [vof}aE L µETa A.6you 1TEpLA.rpTT6v ] , since it is ever
uniformly existent; whereas the other is an object of opinion with
the aid of unreasoning sensation [86�1J µET ' ala9f}aEws aA.6yov ] , since
it becomes and perishes and is never really existent.26
That was the familiar, and fundamental, Platonic distinction between two
objects of knowledge: "what is perceptible to the senses " [To ala911T6v ] , a
term that Timaeus derived etymologically from the verb afoaE LV (to rush) ,
because o f the different " motions rushing through the body" b y way of
the senses;27 and "what is apprehensible only to the mind " [To vo11T6v ] .
23.
24.
2 5.
26.
27.
Pl. Ti. 20D-E.
Pl. Ti. 24B-E.
Phil. V. Mos. r . 20; Ac. 7:22.
Pl. Ti. 28A.
Pl. Ti. 4 3 C.
l( H I G
P� ES S
28
z8 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
This distinction defined, for example, the terms in which Timaeus treated
the doctrine of the soul, which, "having come into existence by the agency
of the best of things apprehensible only to the mind [TCV voflTov] and ever-
existing as the best of things generated," was able to "partake in reasoning
and in harmony," but which was also able to form "opinions and beliefs
which are firm and true" [86at KcaL TriTEL; [34[3aLOL KadlL aXriO6], when it
was concerned with "what is perceptible to the senses" [TO aitcOrT6v].28
As those words suggest, the second distinction was the one between
Truth (dX1iELta) and mere Belief (mtcrTts). Sometimes, especially in its
earlier sections, the dialogue operated with a conventional and common-
sense form of that distinction. As already mentioned, the contrast in his-
torical reliability between Egyptian and Greek genealogies was that the
latter were to be dismissed as "little better than children's tales."29 When
introducing his story about Solon, Critias called on Socrates to "listen to a
tale which, though passing strange, is yet wholly true" [TravTdrrau( AX-
n00i's].30 Socrates agreed that "the fact that it is no invented fable but
genuine history [T6 TE p TracOEvra ti9ov dXX' dXritvb6v 6yov] is all-
important."31 Citing the myth of Phaethon, son of Helios-to which, as
mentioned in chapter i, Lucretius would later refer as a "tale which the
old Greek poets have sung," but which he dismissed on the grounds that it
was "removed by a great distance from true reasoning"32-Critias ac-
knowledged that it "has the fashion of a legend" [p0ov uxfila Xov], but
he then proceeded to identify "the truth of it" [T6 8' &aXr4i] neverthe-
less.33 Likewise the story of the flood "is reckoned to be most ancient; the
truth being otherwise . . ." [rakat6TaTa, TOb 86 &Xr4" . . . ].34
But the specifically Platonic version of the distinction, as applied to
stories about cosmic origins, consisted of assigning the possibility of Truth
only to a discussion of Being (oiaua) itself and therefore of relegating all
questions of Becoming (y&vectS) to Belief. That general principle carried
over to accounts of creation:
We must affirm that the accounts given will themselves be akin to
the diverse objects which they serve to explain; those which deal
28. Pl. Ti. 36E-37B.
29. P1. Ti. z3B.
30. P1. Ti. zoD.
31. Pl. Ti. z6E.
32. Lucr. 5.396-410o.
33. Pl. Ti. zzC.
34- Pl. Ti. 22E.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
This distinction defined, for example, the terms in which Timaeus treated
the doctrine of the soul, which, "having come into existence by the agency
of the best of things apprehensible only to the mind [Twv vo11Twv] and ever­
existing as the best of things generated, " was able to " partake in reasoning
and in harmony, " but which was also able to form " opinions and beliefs
which are firm and true " [86�m KaL rr[oTE LS �E�moL KaL UA1l9E'is], when it
was concerned with "what is perceptible to the senses" [To ala811T6v ] . 28
As those words suggest, the second distinction was the one between
Truth (aAtj9E La) and mere Belief (rr[ans ). Sometimes, especially in its
earlier sections, the dialogue operated with a conventional and common­
sense form of that distinction. As already mentioned, the contrast in his­
torical reliability between Egyptian and Greek genealogies was that the
latter were to be dismissed as "little better than children's tales. " 29 When
introducing his story about Solon, Critias called on Socrates to " listen to a
tale which, though passing strange, is yet wholly true " [rravnirraa[ aA1180Ds] . 3 0 Socrates agreed that "the fact that it is no invented fable but
genuine history [To TE µ� rrAaa9EvTa µD9ov aAA' aA118wov Aoyov] is all­
important. " 3 1 Citing the myth of Phaethon, son of Helios-to which, as
mentioned in chapter r , Lucretius would later refer as a "tale which the
old Greek poets have sung," but which he dismissed on the grounds that it
was "removed by a great distance from true reasoning "32-Critias ac­
knowledged that it "has the fashion of a legend " [µu9ou axfl µa EXOV ], but
he then proceeded to identify "the truth of it" [To 8' UA119Es] neverthe­
less.33 Likewise the story of the flood " is reckoned to be most ancient; the
truth being otherwise . . . " [rraAm6TaTa, TO OE UA119Es . . . ] .34
But the specifically Platonic version of the distinction, as applied to
stories about cosmic origins, consisted of assigning the possibility of Truth
only to a discussion of Being (oua(a) itself and therefore of relegating all
questions of Becoming (yEVECJLS) to Belief. That general principle carried
over to accounts of creation:
We must affirm that the accounts given will themselves be akin to
the diverse obj ects which they serve to explain; those which deal
28.
29.
30.
3 r.
3 2.
33.
34.
Pl. Ti. 3 6E-3 7B.
Pl. Ti. 2 3 B .
Pl. Ti. 20D.
Pl. Ti. 26E.
Luer. 5 . 3 9 6-4 1 0 .
Pl. Ti. 22C.
Pl. Ti. 22E.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Athens
Athens 29
with what is abiding and firm and discernible by the aid of thought
will be abiding and unshakable; . . . whereas the accounts of that
which is copied after the likeness of that Model, and is itself a
likeness, will be analogous thereto and possess [no more than]
likelihood.
By definition, therefore, an account of creation could only be a "likely
account" [6 ELK;s jii0oo], because both the teller of the narrative and the
29
with what is abiding and firm and discernible by the aid of thought
will be abiding and unshakable; . . . whereas the accounts of that
which is copied after the likeness of that Model, and is itself a
likeness, will be analogous thereto and possess [no more than]
likelihood.
listener were "but human creatures," sharing a nature whose limitations
compelled them to be content with this and no more;35 for the distinction
clearly implied that Belief could never aspire to Truth, which dealt with
"the principle of all things, or their principles" [TrdVTWV ELTE ApXi v ELTE
dpxds], a topic on which "it is difficult to explain our views while keeping
to our present method of exposition," the likely account.36
Developing these distinctions a little later, the dialogue correlated "the
accurately true argument" [6 St' dKpt3ELa; dXrlaiOs X6yos] and "the really
existent" [T6 OVT3S 6v].37 Recapitulating the arguments of the Republic
about the constitution of the Tr6Xs before going on to discuss the constitu-
tion of the KOa ros,38 Timaeus picked up its discussions where the Re-
public had left off, although that does not even nearly resolve the complex
problem of its place in the chronological sequence of Plato's works.39 In
the plan of the dialogues, moreover, Critias was to follow the cosmology
of his colleague Timaeus with another examination of the Tr6tXi.40 This
second part of the proposed trilogy, the Critias, survives only in a frag-
ment, perhaps because its proposed topic was taken up by Plato's Laws
instead and at great length; and the third part, Hermocrates, does not
survive at all and probably was never composed. It would therefore ap-
pear to be legitimate to take this literary and philosophical connection
between the Republic and Timaeus, and between Timaeus and the
aborted Critias, as a ground for applying to the myth of cosmogony the
more general epistemological strictures of the myth of the cave in book 7
of the Republic. Narratives of Becoming (yvEic t), then, had to be seen as
"shadows" on the wall of the cave.41 Also according to Timaeus, Being
35- PI. Ti. 29B-D.
36. P1. Ti. 48C.
37. P1. Ti. 52C. On "Real Being," see the summary comments of Mohr 1985, 49-52.
38. P1. Ti. i17C-19B. See Hirsch 1971, 337-85, esp. 363-65.
39. Raeder 1905, 374-94; Sayre 1983, 238-67; Burnet 1928, 51, 83.
40. P1. Ti. z7B-C.
41. P1. Resp. 7.514A-517A.
By definition, therefore, an account of creation could only be a " likely
account" [6 ELKWS µD9os ] , because both the teller of the narrative and the
listener were " but human creatures, " sharing a nature whose limitations
compelled them to be content with this and no more;35 for the distinction
clearly implied that Belief could never aspire to Truth, which dealt with
"the principle of all things, or their principles " [ clTTclVTWV E'L TE apx�v E'L TE
apxcis ] , a topic on which "it is difficult to explain our views while keeping
to our present method of exposition, " the likely account. 36
Developing these distinctions a little later, the dialogue correlated " the
accurately true argument" [o BL' aKpl�E LUS' aA.118�s A6yos] and "the really
existent" [To OVTWS' ov] .37 Recapitulating the arguments of the Republic
about the constitution of the TTOALS' before going on to discuss the constitu­
tion of the Koaµos ,38 Timaeus picked up its discussions where the Re­
public had left off, although that does not even nearly resolve the complex
problem of its place in the chronological sequence of Plato's works.39 In
the plan of the dialogues, moreover, Critias was to follow the cosmology
of his colleague Timaeus with another examination of the rroA.Ls.40 This
second part of the proposed trilogy, the Critias, survives only in a frag­
ment, perhaps because its proposed topic was taken up by Plato's Laws
instead and at great length; and the third part, Hermocrates, does not
survive at all and probably was never composed. It would therefo re ap­
pear to be legitimate to take this literary and philosophical connection
between the Republic and Timaeus, and between Timaeus and the
aborted Critias, as a ground for applying to the myth of cosmogony the
more general epistemological strictures of the myth of the cave in book 7
of the Republic. Narratives of Becoming (yE:vECTLS' ) , then, had to be seen as
" shadows" on the wall of the cave.41 Also according to Timaeus, Being
3 5.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
4i.
Pl. Ti. 29B-D.
Pl. Ti. 48C.
Pl. Ti. 5 2C. On " Real Being, " see the summary comments of Mohr 1 9 8 5 , 4 9 - 5 2 .
P l . Ti. l 7C- 19B. See Hirsch 1 9 7 1 , 3 3 7- 8 5 , esp. 3 6 3 - 6 5 .
Raeder 1 9 0 5 , 3 74 -94; Sayre 1 9 8 3 , 23 8-67; Burnet 1 9 2 8 , 5 1 , 8 3 .
Pl. Ti. 2 7 B-C.
Pl. Resp. 7 . 5 1 4A- 5 1 7A.
l( H I G
P� ES S
30
30 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
was accessible only to vois as understanding, not to 86a as opinion or
belief, much less to aLcOcrtoi as sense perception.42 As it was applied to
cosmogony, it was the intent of this distinction to "preserve the probable
account" [T6v ELK6T 6yOV 6LaGy(ELOV].43 Within those limits, then, it was
possible even in setting forth a cosmogony to "be reasonably well pro-
vided for the task of furnishing a satisfactory discourse [X6yov TwU
TrpErlovTa]-which in all such cases is the greatest task."44 As G.E.R.
Lloyd has said, this "reluctance to claim any more than a certain proba-
bility is readily understandable, indeed laudable when we reflect on the
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
was accessible only to vovs as understanding, not to 86ca as opinion or
belief, much less to ata911aLs as sense perception.42 As it was applied to
cosmogony, it was the intent of this distinction to "preserve the probable
account" [Tov E l K6Ta A.Oyov OLa(J(i>(E Lv ] .43 Within those limits, then, it was
possible even in setting forth a cosmogony to " be reasonably well pro­
vided for the task of furnishing a satisfactory discourse [A6yov TLVa
npE:novTa ] which in all such cases is the greatest task. "44 As G.E.R.
Lloyd has said, this "reluctance to claim any more than a certain proba­
bility is readily understandable, indeed laudable when we reflect on the
excessive dogmatism shown in this general area of inquiry not only by
most of Plato's predecessors but also by most of his successors. "45
Nevertheless, in the course of developing these distinctions and apply­
ing them to creation narratives, Timaeus did go on in several passages to
raise the question of authority, even of divine authority (though not specif­
ically of "sacred writings " ) , in a form that established connections or
counterpoint both with the polemics of the De rerum natura of Lucretius
and with the truth claims of the Genesis of Moses. It did so, however,
almost tangentially, because several of these references seem to be spoken
with what have been called "chuckles of play and irony in Timaeus'
voice. "46 The most clearly ironic of these passages was the description of
"the gift of divination" [µavnKtj] and of "the tribe of prophets" [To TWV
npocp11Twv yE:vos] , who functioned as "prophets of things divined "
[npocpflTm µavTEvoµE:vwv ] .47 The most important of these passages, cer­
tainly for the subsequent development of that counterpoint and probably
also for the argument of the dialogue itself, was its most specific reference
anywhere to the radical apophaticism about religious language described
in chapter I. Timaeus, as part of his "prelude" [npoo[µLOv] as Socrates
called it,48 warned Socrates and his other hearers, "To discover the Maker
and Father of this Universe were a task indeed; and having discovered
Him, to declare Him unto all men were a thing impossible" [Tov µEv ovv
-
excessive dogmatism shown in this general area of inquiry not only by
most of Plato's predecessors but also by most of his successors."45
Nevertheless, in the course of developing these distinctions and apply-
ing them to creation narratives, Timaeus did go on in several passages to
raise the question of authority, even of divine authority (though not specif-
ically of "sacred writings"), in a form that established connections or
counterpoint both with the polemics of the De rerum natura of Lucretius
and with the truth claims of the Genesis of Moses. It did so, however,
almost tangentially, because several of these references seem to be spoken
with what have been called "chuckles of play and irony in Timaeus'
voice."46 The most clearly ironic of these passages was the description of
"the gift of divination" [[IavTLKi] and of "the tribe of prophets" [T6 TGv
Tpo41flTCjV yvo;], who functioned as "prophets of things divined"
[rpogfiTat IaVTEVOgIEVOV].47 The most important of these passages, cer-
tainly for the subsequent development of that counterpoint and probably
also for the argument of the dialogue itself, was its most specific reference
anywhere to the radical apophaticism about religious language described
in chapter i. Timaeus, as part of his "prelude" [rpoot[itov] as Socrates
called it,48 warned Socrates and his other hearers, "To discover the Maker
and Father of this Universe were a task indeed; and having discovered
Him, to declare Him unto all men were a thing impossible" [TOV tv ov
1TOLlTIlV KGaL T aTEpa TO8E TOg oTr avT EpE V TE E pyov KL M Ep6vTa EL"
1rvTas a&uvaTOV XEyELV].49 This warning, which, as Henry Chadwick has
42. Pl. Ti. 5 ID-E.
43- Pl. Ti. 56A; Gloy 1986, 33-43.
44- Pl. Ti. z6A.
45. Lloyd 1983, 22z.
46. Alexander P.D. Mourelatos in Bowen 1991, 29.
47. P1. Ti. 71E-7zB.
48. Pl. Ti. z9D.
49. Pl. Ti. 28C.
TIOL11TTW Kat naTE: pa TOUOE Tou navTos EUpELV TE Epyov Kat Eup6vTa ELS
TIOVTas a8vvaTOV AE YELV ] .49 This warning, which, as Henry Chadwick has
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
Pl. Ti. 5 1 D-E.
Pl. Ti. 5 6A; Gloy 1 9 8 6, 3 3 - 4 3 .
Pl. Ti. 2 6A.
Lloyd 1 9 8 3 , 2 2 .
Alexander P.D . Mourelatos i n Bowen 1 9 9 1 , 29.
Pl. Ti. 7 1 E-72B.
Pl. Ti. 29D.
Pl. Ti. 28C.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Athens
Athens 31
pointed out, went on to become "perhaps the most hackneyed quotation
from Plato in Hellenistic writers,"50so divided the issue into its two constit-
uent parts, which were closely related but not identical: discovering "the
Maker and Father of this Universe," whether through investigation or
revelation, which it identified as "a task [Epyov] indeed," but presumably
an attainable one, inasmuch as the balance of the dialogue was devoted to
it; and then declaring "Him unto all men," which, despite the apparent
attempt of Timaeus in the dialogue to be doing precisely that, it called
"impossible" [d&6vaTov], at least partly because of the tendency of human
language, like the rest of human existence, to "partake of the accidental
and casual" [1ETXetLV TO 1TpoGTUvX6vTOS TE KaL ELKf].51
Some of what this important passage may be seen as implying was
suggested at two later places. Directly after the correlation just cited
between "the accurately true argument" and "the really existent,"52 the
dialogue turned to the UTOLXELa (though without calling them that) of fire,
earth, water, and air, and to the question of their "principles" [dpXal]. The
explanation of these principles, as the reader of Timaeus should by now
expect to be warned, was necessarily restricted to "a method in which the
probable is combined with the necessary" [KaT& TOV [ET' VayKrl" ELKOTa
X6yov]. But the warning did not leave it at that. Rather, the discourse
proceeded to add, "The principles which are still higher than these are
known only to God and to the man who is dear to God" [Tas 8' ETt TOlTOV
apXds dvOev eE6;os o'lE Ka Avbpp6v 6 s av KELVp 4tXos ].53 Turning later
to the nature and origin of the soul, the dialogue invoked yet once more
the familiar distinction between "the Truth" [T6 OdXlO4 ] and "the likely
account" [T6 ELK6s]. But once again the distinction was qualified in a
significant and even portentous fashion: "Only if God concurred [6eo0
v flcravTos] could we dare to affirm that our account is true"54-a
possibility that, despite the references to "divine inspiration" [iv-
Oouctai[l6'] and to "divination" [T6 [tavTELov],55ss was obviously beyond
human powers.
Thus what the Timaeus left problematic-the concept of a knowledge
about the Maker and Father of this Universe that only God and those dear
to God could possess, and then only on the condition of divine
50. Chadwick 1953, 429 n. I. See also Shorey 1938, 74, 79, 80; Nock 1962.
5 1. P1. Ti. 34C.
52. Pl. Ti. 5zC.
53. Pl. Ti. 53D.
54. P1. Ti. 7zD.
55. P1. Ti. 7iE.
31
pointed out, went on to become "perhaps the most hackneyed quotation
from Plato in Hellenistic writers," 50 divided the issue into its two constit­
uent parts, which were closely related but not identical: discovering "the
Maker and Father of this Universe," whether through investigation or
revelation, which it identified as "a task [Epyov] indeed," but presumably
an attainable one, inasmuch as the balance of the dialogue was devoted to
it; and then declaring "Hirn unto all men," which, despite the apparent
attempt of Timaeus in the dialogue to be doing precisely that, it called
"impossible" [ciouvaTov ], at least partly because of the tendency of human
language, like the rest of human existence, to "partake of the accidental
and casual" [µETEXELV TOU npoaTUXOVTOS' TE Kat ELKi] ] . 5 1
Some o f what this important passage may b e seen a s implying was
suggested at two later places. Directly aft er the correlation just cited
between "the accurately true argument" and "the really existent, " 52 the
dialogue turned to the aTOL XELa (though without calling them that) of fire,
earth, water, and air, and to the question of their "principles " [cipxal ] . The
explanation of these principles, as the reader of Timaeus should by now
expect to be warned, was necessarily restricted to "a method in which the
probable is combined with the necessary" [ KaTa Tov µET ' civayKllS' E L KOTa
Myov] . But the warning did not leave it at that. Rather, the discourse
proceeded to add, "The principles which are still higher than these are
known only to God and to the man who is dear to God " [TaS' 8' ETL TOuTwv
cipxas avw9Ev 9EOS OLOE Kat civopwv os av E KE LVtµ cpL\os iJ ] .53 Turning later
to the nature and origin of the soul, the dialogue invoked yet once more
the familiar distinction between "the Truth " [To ciA.118E:S'] and "the likely
account" [To E L Kos] . But once again the distinction was qualified in a
significant and even portentous fashion: " Only if God concurred [9EOD
�uµcptjaavTOS' ] could we dare to affirm that our account is true " 54-a
possibility that, despite the references to " divine inspiration" [E:v9ouawaµ6S'] and to "divination" [To µavTELov] ,55 was obviously beyond
human powers.
Thus what the Timaeus left problematic-the concept of a knowledge
about the Maker and Father of this Universe that only God and those dear
to God could possess, and then only on the condition of divine
50.
5 i.
52.
53.
54.
5 5.
Chadwick 1 9 5 3 , 429 n. I . See also Shorey 1 9 3 8 , 74, 79, 80; Nock 1 9 6 2 .
Pl. Ti. 3 4 C .
P l . Ti. 5 2C.
Pl. Ti. 5 3 D .
Pl. Ti. 72D.
Pl. Ti. 7 1 E.
l( H I G
P� ES S
32
3 2z What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
concurrence-is what Genesis seems to have taken for granted; and what
Timaeus took for granted-the distinction between Truth about Being
and at best "a likely account" about Becoming-is what Genesis seems to
have ignored. Its repeated refrain, "And God said" [Kai ELTrrEV 6 0 E6], was
in the first instance a way of ascribing creative power to the absolute
authority of the speaking and the word of God.56 This contrasted with the
emphasis of Timaeus on "Necessity yielding to intelligent persuasion" [St'
cvLyKTl; fSTT) 4EV1]; UTr'o() TELOOVs i" povoI].57 But it was also, in its almost
matter-of-fact repetition, the ascription of a divine authority to the ac-
count itself as the word of God, the word of God that had come to Moses
and was now coming through Moses. It does not seem to be an unwar-
ranted conclusion to suggest from its very way of narrating the creation,
as well as from its place within the context of the Hebrew Scriptures and
of the faith of Israel, that for Genesis Plato's distinction in Timaeus be-
tween Truth and Belief was an utterly alien way of thinking and speaking.
Philosophy and Traditional Religion
Behind this difference between Genesis and Timaeus was an even more
profound and fundamental one. To the writer and the intended readers of
Genesis, the reality of God, of the one God confessed in the Shema, the
liturgical formula of Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our
God, one Lord," was the nonnegotiable presupposition for any consider-
ation of creation-or of anything else. That formula invoked the two
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
concurrence-is what Genesis seems to have taken for granted; and what
Timaeus took for granted-the distinction between Truth about Being
and at best "a likely account" about Becoming-is what Genesis seems to
have ignored. Its repeated refrain, "And God said " [ Kai El TTEV 6 8Eos ] , was
in the first instance a way of ascribing creative power to the absolute
authority of the speaking and the word of God. 56 This contrasted with the
emphasis of Timaeus on "Necessity yielding to intelligent persuasion " [BL '
civciyKT)S' �TTWµEVT)S' urro TTE L8ous E µcppovos].57 But it was also, in its almost
matter-of-fact repetition, the ascription of a divine authority to the ac­
count itself as the word of God, the word of God that had come to Moses
and was now coming through Moses. It does not seem to be an unwar­
ranted conclusion to suggest from its very way of narrating the creation,
as well as from its place within the context of the Hebrew Scriptures and
of the faith of Israel, that for Genesis Plato's distinction in Timaeus be­
tween Truth and Belief was an utterly alien way of thinking and speaking.
most important names for God in the Hebrew Bible: I .,. [Yahweh], the
tetragrammaton; and D'11'. The first of these, at some point in the
Philosophy and Traditional Religion
history of Judaism, came to be regarded as too sacred to be spoken, lest it
be taken in vain,58 and therefore it was pronounced as '1.. (leaving the
consonants intact in the text but adding substitute vowel points, which
then produced, in various translations, the hybrid name Jehovah). The
sacred name was therefore translated in the Septuagint as 6 K)pto;, as it
was rendered also in the Greek of the New Testament. ., though a
plural grammatically, was treated strictly as a singular in most passages of
the Hebrew Bible. One of the exceptions to this was the declaration of the
psalm, "You are gods, sons all of you of the Most High,"s59 which had the
plural both in the Hebrew original and in the Greek and Latin transla-
56. Dirr 1938.
57. Pl. Ti. 48A.
58. Cf. Ex. 20:7.
59. Ps. 82z:6 (NEB var.).
Behind this difference between Genesis and Timaeus was an even more
profound and fundamental one. To the writer and the intended readers of
Genesis, the reality of God, of the one God confessed in the Shema, the
liturgical formula of Deuteronomy 6:4 , "Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord is our
God, one Lord, " was the nonnegotiable presupposition for any consider­
ation of creation-or of anything else. That formula invoked the two
most important names for God in the Hebrew Bible: 111.� �· [Yahweh], the
tetragrammaton; and C.,iJi?� . The first of these, at some point in the
history of Judaism, came to be regarded as too sacred to be spoken, lest it
be taken in vain,5 8 and therefore it was pronounced as ,�·ii:t ( leaving the
consonants intact in the text but adding substitute vowel points, which
then produced, in various translations, the hybrid name Jehovah). The
sacred name was therefore translated in the Septuagint as 6 KVPLOS', as it
was rendered also in the Greek of the New Testament. C';:J1?tt though a
plural grammatically, was treated strictly as a singular in most passages of
the Hebrew Bible. One of the exceptions to this was the declaration of the
psalm, "You are gods, sons all of you of the Most High, "59 which had the
plural both in the Hebrew original and in the Greek and Latin transla.
56.
57.
5 8.
59.
Diirr 1 9 3 8 .
Pl. Ti. 4 8A.
Cf. Ex. 20:7.
Ps. 82:6 (NEB var. ) .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Athens
Athens 33
tions; it had, moreover, been quoted in the plural by Christ himself, and
with the added reinforcement that "Scripture cannot be set aside."60 An
even more notable plural occurred in the biblical creation story, in the
sentence "Let us make man in our image and likeness."61 In rendering the
Hebrew term, the Septuagint translators regularly employed the Greek
title 6 9E63, despite its pagan provenance, though of course in the singular.
The Shema had equated the two titles and had neutralized the grammati-
cal plural in the name D'1.1. by declaring that the God so denominated
was nevertheless "one." The title 1', was employed throughout the
first of the two creation narratives in Genesis, now labeled as chapter i of
the book, while in the second creation narrative 1.1'. did the creating. It
has become a convention of the modern literary and historical-critical
study of Genesis to treat the two creation narratives as originally separate
sources, distinguished from each other by the use of the divine name, and
therefore usually identified, respectively, as "E" (or the "priestly ac-
count") and "J."62 Whatever the validity and importance of that
historical-critical interpretation may or may not be as a literary hypoth-
esis, it is relatively unimportant in the present context. For all the inter-
preters with whom we are dealing here, both Jewish and Christian, treated
the equation of the two titles by the Shema as normative and therefore
treated the two creation narratives as part of one divinely inspired ac-
count, even though, as we shall see in chapter 4, Philo did take exegetical
advantage of the dual account in several important ways. Coincidentally,
the narrative of creation in Timaeus also told its story twice, so that the
Jewish and Christian interpreters of Genesis could have made their own
the formula at the midpoint of Timaeus: "At the commencement of our
account, we must call upon God the Saviour to bring us safe through a
novel and unwonted exposition to a conclusion based on likelihood, and
thus begin our account once more."63
As we shall see in later chapters, the use of the Hebrew plural in the
priestly creation narrative of Genesis could be a source of some embar-
rassment to both Jewish and Christian monotheism. But the latter turned
this embarrassment to its own advantage by interpreting that plural as the
first biblical reference to the doctrine of the Trinity; and at least in the
Latin Christianity of Augustine, the repetition of that plural in both the
6o. Jn. 10:34-35.
6i. Gn. 1:z6.
6z. Anderson 1977; Steck 1981.
63. Pl. Ti. 48D-E.
33
tions; it had, moreover, been quoted in the plural by Christ himself, and
with the added reinforcement that " Scripture cannot be set aside . " 6 0 An
even more notable plural occurred in the biblical creation story, in the
sentence "Let us make man in our image and likeness. " 61 In rendering the
Hebrew term, the Septuagint translators regularly employed the Greek
title o 9Eos, despite its pagan provenance, though of course in the singular.
The Shema had equated the two titles and had neutralized the grammati­
cal plural in the name C';:lii,�: by declaring that the God so denominated
was nevertheless " one . " The title C';:tii,�: was employed throughout the
first of the two creation narratives in Genesis, now labeled as chapter 1 of
the book, while in the second creation narrative ill�� did the creating. It
has become a convention of the modern literary and historical-critical
study of Genesis to treat the two creation narratives as originally separate
sources, distinguished from each other by the use of the divine name, and
therefore usually identified, respectively, as "E" (or the "priestly ac­
count" ) and "J. " 62 Whatever the validity and importance of that
historical-critical interpretation may or may not be as a literary hypoth­
esis, it is relatively unimportant in the present context. For all the inter­
preters with whom we are dealing here, both Jewish and Christian, treated
the equation of the two titles by the Shema as normative and therefore
treated the two creation narratives as part of one divinely inspired ac­
count, even though, as we shall see in chapter 4 , Philo did take exegetical
advantage of the dual account in several important ways. Coincidentally,
the narrative of creation in Timaeus also told its story twice, so that the
Jewish and Christian interpreters of Genesis could have made their own
the formula at the midpoint of Timaeus: "At the commencement of our
account, we must call upon God the Saviour to bring us safe through a
novel and unwonted exposition to a conclusion based on likelihood, and
thus begin our account once more . " 63
As we shall see in later chapters, the use of the Hebrew plural in the
priestly creation narrative of Genesis could be a source of some embar­
rassment to both Jewish and Christian monotheism. But the latter turned
this embarrassment to its own advantage by interpreting that plural as the
first biblical reference to the doctrine of the Trinity; and at least in the
Latin Christianity of Augustine, the repetition of that plural in both the
60.
6r.
62.
63.
Jn. 1 0 : 3 4 - 3 5 .
Gn. 1 : 26.
Anderson 1 9 77; Steck l 9 8 r .
Pl. Ti. 4 8D-E.
l( H I G
P� ES S
34
34 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
verb and the adjective of Genesis i:26, "Faciamus hominem ad imaginem
nostram," became the occasion for the Western Christian teaching that
human nature, being the image not only of the oneness of the Godhead
but of the Trinity, itself manifested a Trinitarian structure. None of that
took anything away from the status of monotheistic worship as the most
basic a priori of all in the biblical doctrine of creation, for Christians no
less than for Jews. Without developing any speculative counterpart to the
Platonic version of God as 6 v, the Hebrew Bible had made all being
dependent on the reality of God; but in an act of linguistic boldness, the
translators of the Septuagint produced "a nonphilosophical statement
which has since become an epoch-making statement in the history of
philosophy,"64 when they rendered the divine explanation of the divine
name to Moses at the burning bush, as recorded in Exodus 3:14, with the
Greek formula !Eyc EIILt 6 "v. That statement also helped to set the terms
for the counterpoint between Genesis and Timaeus and made a consider-
ation of this biblical a priori mandatory.
The relation of Timaeus to traditional Greek religion-what Harry
Wolfson on the basis of Timaeus referred to as the Greek contrast between
"an anti-mythological theism, in which God is conceived of as an artisan,
and a mythological theism, in which God is conceived of as a
begetter"65-is ambiguous, as two references to that tradition make clear.
Near the outset of the dialogue, Critias introduces his story "both as a
payment of our debt of thanks to [Socrates] and also as a tribute of praise,
chanted as it were duly and truly, in honour of the Goddess [Athena] on
this her day of Festival."66 In response, Socrates describes it as "admirably
suited to the festival of the Goddess which is now being held, because of
its connexion with her."67 A little later Socrates calls on Timaeus, the chief
interlocutor from whom the dialogue takes its name, to speak "when you
have duly invoked the gods" [KUXGYUVTc KGTa VoiiOV OEO1s] (the passage
could also be translated: "when you have invoked the gods in accordance
with the law"). The response of Timaeus to this specific request deserves
to be quoted in full:
Nay, as to that, Socrates, all men who possess even a share of good
sense call upon God [EOe6v KaXoVULy] always at the outset of every
undertaking, be it small or great; we therefore who are purposing to
64. Gilson 1941, 40.
65. Wolfson 1956, 290.
66. Pl. Ti. 21A.
67. Pl. Ti. 26E.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
verb and the adjective of Genesis 1 : 26, " Faciamus hominem ad imaginem
nostram, " became the occasion for the Western Christian teaching that
human nature, being the image not only of the oneness of the Godhead
but of the Trinity, itself manifested a Trinitarian structure. None of that
took anything away from the status of monotheistic worship as the most
basic a priori of all in the biblical doctrine of creation, for Christians no
less than for Jews. Without developing any speculative counterpart to the
Platonic version of God as o wv, the Hebrew Bible had made all being
dependent on the reality of God; but in an act of linguistic boldness, the
translators of the Septuagint produced "a nonphilosophical statement
which has since become an epoch-making statement in the history of
philosophy, " 64 when they rendered the divine explanation of the divine
name to Moses at the burning bush, as recorded in Exodus 3 : 1 4 , with the
Greek formula !Eyw EtµL o wv . That statement also helped to set the terms
for the counterpoint between Genesis and Timaeus and made a consider­
ation of this biblical a priori mandatory.
The relation of Timaeus to traditional Greek religion-what Harry
Wolfson on the basis of Timaeus referred to as the Greek contrast between
" an anti-mythological theism, in which God is conceived of as an artisan,
and a mythological theism, in which God is conceived of as a
begetter" 65-is ambiguous, as two references to that tradition make clear.
Near the outset of the dialogue, Critias introduces his story " both as a
payment of our debt of thanks to [Socrates] and also as a tribute of praise,
chanted as it were duly and truly, in honour of the Goddess [Athena] on
this her day of Festival. "66 In response, Socrates describes it as " admirably
suited to the festival of the Goddess which is now being held, because of
its connexion with her. " 67 A little later Socrates calls on Timaeus, the chief
interlocutor from whom the dialogue takes its name, to speak "when you
have duly invoked the gods " [KaAEO"UVTa KUTU voµov emus] (the passage
could also be translated: "when you have invoked the gods in accordance
with the law " ) . The response of Timaeus to this specific request deserves
to be quoted in full:
Nay, as to that, Socrates, all men who possess even a share of good
sense call upon God [9Eov KaA.ouaw] always at the outset of every
undertaking, be it small or great; we therefore who are purposing to
64 .
6 5.
66.
67.
Gilson 1 9 4 1 , 40.
Wolfson l 9 5 6, 290.
Pl. Ti. 2 1 A.
Pl. Ti. 26E.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Athens
Athens 3 5
deliver a discourse concerning the Universe, how it was created or
haply is uncreate [TrEp . . . Toi) vravT6 ... y yovEV i] KaL tyEV
Eortv], must needs invoke Gods and Goddesses [eol9 TE KaL OEcs]
(if so be that we are not utterly demented), praying that all we say
may be approved by them in the first place, and secondly by
ourselves.68
Quite apart from the question of the correlation between the plural 6EoL in
the request of Socrates and the singular e6;, followed by the plurals OEot
35
deliver a discourse concerning the Universe, how it was created or
haply is uncreate [TIEpL . . . TOU TIGVTOS . . . D YEYOVEV � Kal ayEVES
Ecrnv ] , must needs invoke Gods and Goddesses [9EOus TE Kai 9Eas]
( if so be that we are not utterly demented), praying that all we say
may be approved by them in the first place, and secondly by
ourselves. 68
TE KG OEaL in the response of Timaeus, and of the oscillation between
G 6;, 6 6Es, 0 oiOL, and/or at GEal throughout the dialogue (of which
more in a moment), the function of this speech of Timaeus may not have
been easy to determine, even for ancient readers; but it "provided every
commentator with a conventional occasion for his set piece on the subject
of prayer."69 In resuming the "probable account," Timaeus once more
voiced the obligation to "call upon God the Saviour [0E6v c0)Trfpa] to
bring us safe through a novel and unwonted exposition to a conclusion
based on likelihood."70 In any case, such statements appear to have been
taken by Boethius, for example, as serious.71
The other explicit reference to the religious tradition was unmistakably
ironic in its intent.72 Any classical Greek cosmogony, including the cos-
mogony of Timaeus, was obliged to acknowledge that at least since the
Theogony of Hesiod, cosmogony and theogony had been closely related
in Greek thought. Therefore this passage contains by far the most detailed
catalog in Timaeus-and together with the end of book z of the Re-
public,73 one of the most detailed anywhere in the Platonic corpus-of
the Homeric and Hesiodic gods: "Of Ge and Uranus were born the chil-
dren Oceanus and Tethys; and of these, Phorkys, Cronos, Rhea, and all
that go with them; and of Cronos and Rhea were born Zeus and Hera and
all those who are, as we know, called their brethren; and of these again,
other descendants." But that recitation of the traditional theogony of
Olympus, which was scrupulously neutral in its tone and language, was
set in the framework of an appeal to the authority of mythological tradi-
tion, which was in turn set in the framework of the fundamental epistemo-
68. Pl. Ti. z7B-C.
69. A.C. Lloyd in Armstrong 1967, 185.
70. P1. Ti. 48D-E.
71 . Boet. Cons. 3P9.3z-33.
72. P1. Ti. 4oD-41A.
73. Pl. Resp. z.377D-38zC.
Quite apart from the question of the correlation between the plural 9Eo( in
the request of Socrates and the singular 9Eos, followed by the plurals 9Eo(
TE Kai 9Ea( in the response of Timaeus, and of the oscillation between
9Eos, o 9Eos, ol 9EO(, and/or al 9Ea( throughout the dialogue (of which
more in a moment), the function of this speech of Timaeus may not have
been easy to determine, even for ancient readers; but it "provided every
commentator with a conventional occasion fo r his set piece on the subj ect
of prayer. "69 In resuming the "probable account," Timaeus once more
voiced the obligation to "call upon God the Saviour [9dw awTflpa] to
bring us safe through a novel and unwonted exposition to a conclusion
based on likelihood. " 70 In any case, such statements appear to have been
taken by Boethius, for example, as serious. 71
The other explicit reference to the religious tradition was unmistakably
ironic in its intent. 72 Any classical Greek cosmogony, including the cos­
mogony of Timaeus, was obliged to acknowledge that at least since the
Theogony of Hesiod, cosmogony and theogony had been closely related
in Greek thought. Therefore this passage contains by far the most detailed
catalog in Timaeus-and together with the end of book 2 of the Re­
public, 73 one of the most detailed anywhere in the Platonic corpus-of
the Homeric and Hesiodic gods: " Of Ge and Uranus were born the chil­
dren Oceanus and Tethys; and of these, Phorkys, Cronos, Rhea, and all
that go with them; and of Cronos and Rhea were born Zeus and Hera and
all those who are, as we know, called their brethren; · and of these again,
other descendants. " But that recitation of the traditional theogony of
Olympus, which was scrupulously neutral in its tone and language, was
set in the framework of an appeal to the authority of mythological tradi­
tion, which was in turn set in the framework of the fundamental epistemo68.
69.
70.
7r.
72.
73.
Pl. Ti. 27B-C.
A.C. Lloyd in Armstrong 1 9 67, 2 8 5 .
Pl. Ti. 4 8D-E.
Boet. Cons. 3 P9 . 3 2 - 3 3 .
Pl. Ti. 40D- 4 1 A.
Pl. Resp. 2.3 77D-3 82C.
l( H I G
P� ES S
36
36 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
logical presupposition of the entire discourse. Thus the language of the
preamble to the theogony was clearly ironic. "We must," Timaeus in-
toned, "trust to those who have declared it aforetime, they being, as they
affirmed, descendants of gods [EKyOvoL i v OECV oi~tv] and knowing
well, no doubt, their own forefathers. It is, I say, impossible to disbelieve
the children of gods." But this assertion was qualified by the introductory
disclaimer that "to discover and declare their origin is too great a task for
us"; the words "discover and declare" [ETrEv KaL yv6vaL]-Bury reverses
the order in translation for the sake of logic-echoed the words of the
earlier warning that "To discover the Maker and Father of this Universe
were a task indeed; and having discovered Him, to declare Him unto all
men were a thing impossible."74 The assertion was further hemmed in by
the stipulation that such traditional theogonies "lack either probable or
necessary demonstration" [JVEV EIK6T)V KaL AvayKatLo1V TOBEL E6EV];75 for
the status of a "likely account" [6 E[K0; i0io] was as much as any
account of "origin" [yvEvets], including Timaeus's own account, could be
expected to attain,76 while a "necessary" explanation had to be reserved
to the Truth that dealt with Being rather than with Becoming. As various
readers of Timaeus, above all Francis Cornford, have warned with con-
siderable force, it must be noted that the dialogue did not make the
"Creator-SrltLovpy6;" the object of worship.77 In this respect, therefore,
although its doctrine of a divine creator put it on the same side as Genesis
in opposition to De rerum natura, which denied divine agency in creation
by its assertion "nequaquam nobis diuinitus esse creatam / naturam
mundi,"78 it was on the same side as the Lucretian account, and in op-
position to Genesis, in that in effect cosmogony and liturgy were kept
separate.
A plain recital and catalog (unencumbered for the present by commen-
tary) of the God-language in the "treatment of a great host of matters
regarding the Gods and the generation of the Universe" [TrepL6E 0E6ov KaL Tf
TOI) TraVTOs yEVEaE0G] by Timaeus will suggest why it would have to
appear, as Timaeus warned Socrates, not "always in all respects self-
consistent and perfectly exact"79 to any reader, even to a Greek or Roman
polytheist, but particularly to the Jewish and Christian monotheists who
74. P1. Ti. 28C.
75. Pl. Ti. 4oE.
76. P1. Ti. 29D.
77. Cornford 1957, 34-35.
78. Lucr. 2.177-81, 5.-195-99.
79- P1. Ti. 29C.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
logical presupposition of the entire discourse. Thus the language of the
preamble to the theogony was clearly ironic. "We must, " Timaeus in­
toned, "trust to those who have declared it aforetime, they being, as they
affirmed, descendants of gods [E KyovotS' µEv 9Ewv ovaw] and knowing
well, no doubt, their own forefathers. It is, I say, impossible to disbelieve
the children of gods . " But this assertion was qualified by the introductory
disclaimer that "to discover and declare their origin is too great a task for
us" ; the words " discover and declare " [E LTTELV Kai yvwvm ] -Bury reverses
the order in translation for the sake of logic-echoed the words of the
earlier warning that "To discover the Maker and Father of this Universe
were a task indeed; and having discovered Him, to declare Him unto all
men were a thing impossible. " 74 The assertion was further hemmed in by
the stipulation that such traditional theogonies " lack either probable or
necessary demonstration " [avEU ELKOTWV KGL avayKaLWV clTTOOE LCEWv] ;75 for
the status of a " likely account" [6 ELKWS' µv9oS'] was as much as any
account of " origin" [yEVECTLS' ] , including Timaeus's own account, could be
expected to attain, 76 while a " necessary" explanation had to be reserved
to the Truth that dealt with Being rather than with Becoming. As various
readers of Timaeus, above all Francis Cornford, have warned with con­
siderable force, it must be noted that the dialogue did not make the
" Creator-8ri µt0upy6S' " the object of worship. 77 In this respect, therefore,
although its doctrine of a divine creator put it on the same side as Genesis
in opposition to De rerum natura, which denied divine agency in creation
by its assertion " nequaquam nobis diuinitus esse creatam I naturam
mundi, "78 it was on the same side as the Lucretian account, and in op­
position to Genesis, in that in effect cosmogony and liturgy were kept
separate.
A plain recital and catalog (unencumbered for the present by commen­
tary) of the God-language in the "treatment of a great host of matters
regarding the Gods and the generation of the Universe " [rrE pi 9Ewv Kai TTlS'
TOV rravTOS' yEVECTEWS'] by Timaeus will suggest why it would have to
appear, as Timaeus warned Socrates, not " always in all respects self­
consistent and perfectly exact" 79 to any reader, even to a Greek or Roman
polytheist, but particularly to the Jewish and Christian monotheists who
74.
7 5.
76.
77.
78.
79.
Pl. Ti. 28C.
Pl. Ti. 40E.
Pl. Ti. 29D.
Cornford 1 9 57, 3 4 - 3 5 .
Luer. 2 . 1 77-8 1 , 5 . 1 9 5-99.
Pl. Ti. 29C.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Athens
Athens 3 7
would attempt to find its correlation with Genesis. Of the roughly seventy
times in the entire dialogue when the word 0E6; or its cognates appeared
in one form or another (including several passages already referred to), the
singular OE6o appeared by itself and without the article sixteen times;80 6
0E6; with the article and by itself likewise sixteen times;81 fl OE6S3 six times,
all of them early in the dialogue;82 OE63 and 6 GE6; together three times, in
the first of which 0E6; without the article was used twice;83 GEot without
the article twenty times, one of these passages using it twice and another
employing the form O~oi OE6-v;84 ot OEoL with the article five times;85 the
adjective OdiO;, sometimes as a substantive, eleven times, two of these in
one passage;86 and the adjective OEOUEPEXTaTO; once.87 Other "divine"
titles-apart from the seven instances of 6r iioupy6;, to which we shall be
returning88-included o rnfp,89 1TOL flTfl;90 and 6 i-roW-v,91 lTctTflp,92 6 TEK-
TULPVOREVO;,93 06 aU T(OV ahl) TL(0l),94 6 VVLTd;,95 6o UV6 ua;,96 01
VcYT1]UcVTE,97 6aLjiwv in reference to a god,98 6 Kflpo1TXctcT1lS,99 Kl
&aKou[LOVUVTE;,100 01 KpELTTOV;,101 TOP TdL; E1m( vvI~a; 8Evov,102 and o
[1ETU1TXGTTOVTES,103
8o. P1. Ti. ziE, z7C, 44E, 46C, 47A, 48D, 53D, 68D, 71A, 71E, 7zD, 8oE, 9oA, 9zA,
9ZC.
81. P1. Ti. 3oA, 3oC, 3oD, 31B, 3zB, 34C, 39B, 47C, 55C, 56C, 68E, 69B, 73B, 74D,
75C, 78B.
82. P1. Ti. ziA, z3D, z4B, z4C, z4D, z6E.
83. P1. Ti. 34A-B, 38C, 53B.
84. P1. Ti. z4D, z7B, z7C, z9C, 39E, 4oC, 4oD (twice), 4oE, 41A, 41C, 44{D, 45A,
47C, 5 iE, 77A, 9oD. O6o 6&iv is at 4 iA.
85. P1. Ti. zzD, 37C, 4oC, 4zD, 45E.
37
would attempt to find its correlation with Genesis. Of the roughly seventy
times in the entire dialogue when the word 9E6s or its cognates appeared
in one form or another (including several passages already referred to), the
singular 9E6s appeared by itself and without the article sixteen times; 80 6
9E6s with the article and by itself likewise sixteen times; 8 1 � 9E6s six times,
all of them early in the dialogue;82 9E6s and 6 9E6s together three times, in
the first of which 9E6s without the article was used twice;83 9EOL without
the article twenty times, one of these passages using it twice and another
employing the form 9EOL 9Ewv;84 oi. 9rn( with the article five times;85 the
adjective 9E'ios, sometimes as a substantive, eleven times, two of these in
one passage;86 and the adjective 9EOCJE�ECJTaTos once. 87 Other "divine"
titles-apart from the seven instances of ori µLOupy6s , to which we shall be
returning88 _ included awTtjp, 89 TTOLT1Ttjs9 0 and 6 TTOLwv,91 TTaTtjp,92 6 TEK­
Tm voµEVOS ,93 6 apLCJTOS TWV al TLWV ,94 6 �UVLCJTclS ,95 6 �uvotjaas ,96 OL
EuaTtjaavTES ,97 8a( µwv in reference to a god,98 6 KTl POTTAaCJTTlS ,99 oi.
owKoa µouvTES , 100 oi. KpE LTTous , 1 01 Tov n1s ETTwvuµ(as 9E µEvov, 102 and oi.
µETQTT AUTTOVTES . 1 03
86. P1. Ti. 4oB, 41C, 44D, 68D, 68E (twice), 69C, 69D, 76B, 9oA.
87. P1. Ti. 41E.
80. Pl. Ti. 2 1 E, 27C, 44E, 46C, 47A, 48D, 5 3 D, 68D, 7 1 A, 7 1 E, 72D, 8oE, 90A, 92A,
88. P1. Ti. z8A, z9A, 4oC, 41A, 68E, 69C, 75B.
89. P1. Ti. zzD, 48D.
90. P1. Ti. z8C.
91. Pl. Ti. 31B, 76C.
92. P1. Ti. z8C, 37C (o 'yEvv13UU lnaTflp), 4zE, 71D.
93.P1. Ti. z 8C.
94. P1. Ti. z9A.
95.P1. Ti. z9D, 3oC, 3zC, 36D.
96. P1. Ti. 3zC.
97. P1. Ti. 71D.
98. P1. Ti. 4oD.
99. P1. Ti. 74C.
ioo. P1. Ti. 75D.
ioi. P1. Ti. 77C.
ioz. P1. Ti. 78E.
103. P1. Ti. 9zB.
92C.
8 i . Pl. Ti. 3 0A, 3 0C, 3 0D, 3 1 B, 3 2B, 3 4C, 3 9 B, 47C, 5 5 C, 5 6C, 68E, 69B, 7 3 B, 74D,
7 5 C, 78B.
8 2 . Pl. Ti. 2 1 A, 2 3 D, 24B, 24C, 24D, 26E.
8 3 . Pl. Ti. 3 4A-B, 3 8 C, 5 3 B.
84. Pl. Ti. 24D, 27B, 27C, 29C, 3 9E, 40C, 40D (twice), 40E, 4 1 A, 4 1 C, 44D, 4 5 A,
4 7C, 5 1 E, 77 A, 90D. 8EoL 8Ewv is at 4 1A.
8 5 . Pl. Ti. 22D, 3 7C, 40C, 42D, 4 5E.
86. Pl. Ti. 40B, 4 1 C, 44D, 68D, 68E (twice), 69C, 69D, 76B, 90A.
87. Pl. Ti. 4 1 E.
8 8 . Pl. Ti. 28A, 29A, 40C, 4 1 A, 68E, 69C, 7 5 B .
8 9 . Pl. Ti. 22D, 4 8 D .
9 0 . Pl. Ti. 2 8 C.
9 i . Pl. Ti. 3 1 B, 76C.
92. Pl. Ti. 2 8 C, 3 7C (6 yEvvtjaas 1mTtj p ) , 4 2E, 7 1 D .
9 3 . Pl. Ti. 28C.
94. Pl. Ti. 29A.
9 5 . Pl. Ti. 29D, 3 0C, 3 2C, 3 6D.
9 6 . Pl. Ti. 3 2 C.
97. Pl. Ti. 7 1 D .
9 8 . Pl. Ti. 40D.
99· Pl. Ti. 7 4C.
IOO. Pl. Ti. 7 5 D .
I O I . Pl. Ti. 77C.
1 02. Pl. Ti. 7 8E.
1 0 3 . Pl. Ti. 9 2B.
l( H I G
P� ES S
38
3 8 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
As becomes evident from a comparison of the several standard transla-
tions of Timaeus into English-notably those of Benjamin Jowett, A.E.
Taylor, Francis Cornford, and R.G. Bury-translators have striven to
make consistent sense of this usage, especially of the singulars GE6; and 6
GE6;: Jowett, and in considerable measure also Taylor, tended in the direc-
tion of at least as "monotheistic" a reading and rendering as the text
would permit; Cornford, in reaction against them and especially against
Taylor, avoided capitals, sometimes even substituted Heaven for God, and
sought to screen out the influence of Judeo-Christian parallels, though
some of them did creep in nevertheless; and Bury resolved the dilemma in
the other direction, by capitalizing Gods as well as God most of the
time.104 Those differences among translators indicate that the questions
are multiplied still further in English by the capitalization of the name god/
God and by the use of the definite article. In German all nouns are
capitalized, and therefore the name is capitalized whether it refers to the
one God of monotheism or to one of the several gods of polytheism, but in
English capitalization is ordinarily an indication of monotheism. As sub-
sequent chapters will suggest, the same philosophical issues underlying
those problems of translation would, even absent the problem of capital-
ization, also vex subsequent interpreters of Timaeus, whether they were
writing in the Greek in which the dialogue had been composed or in Latin,
in which there was no article.
The Principle of Mediation
Whatever the language of the doctrine of God and of gods in Timaeus may
have meant, the most intriguing figure in its cosmogony, and the most
puzzling, was the divine agent of creation identified as 6 8rltovpy6;. With
the Demiurge there was introduced into the account of origins a divine
principle of mediation as well as a counterforce of Reason (vo0, X6yoys) to
combat the workings of Necessity (dvdyKfl), because "this Cosmos in its
origin was generated as a compound, from the combination of Necessity
and Reason" [r TO08E TOV KOUO)O yEVEGE audVyKl]S TE KGL VO0 GUTU-
ucEoJ EyevvflOl].105 As a consequence, two kinds of causes had to be
distinguished, "the necessary and the divine" [T6 Iv avayKaLOV, TO &E
eIov], and the necessary causes had to be sought for the sake of the divine
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
As becomes evident from a comparison of the several standard transla­
tions of Timaeus into English-notably those of Benj amin Jowett, A.E.
Taylor, Francis Cornford, and R.G. Bury-translators have striven to
make consistent sense of this usage, especially of the singulars 8E6s- and 6
9E6s-: Jowett, and in considerable measure also Taylor, tended in the direc­
tion of at least as " monotheistic " a reading and rendering as the text
would permit; Cornford, in reaction against them and especially against
Taylor, avoided capitals, sometimes even substituted Heaven for God, and
sought to screen out the influence of Judea-Christian parallels, though
some of them did creep in nevertheless; and Bury resolved the dilemma in
the other direction, by capitalizing Gods as well as God most of the
time. 104 Those differences among translators indicate that the questions
are multiplied still further in English by the capitalization of the name god/
God and by the use of the definite article. In German all nouns are
capitalized, and therefore the name is capitalized whether it refers to the
one God of monotheism or to one of the several gods of polytheism, but in
English capitalization is ordinarily an indication of monotheism. As sub­
sequent chapters will suggest, the same philosophical issues underlying
those problems of translation would, even absent the problem of capital­
ization, also vex subsequent interpreters of Timaeus, whether they were
writing in the Greek in which the dialogue had been composed or in Latin,
in which there was no article.
ones, because in the shaping of the cosmos, "the Artificer of the most
104. On the differences between Taylor and Cornford, see Des Places 1976, 21-23.
105. Pl. Ti. 48A.
The Principle of Mediation
Whatever the language of the doctrine of God and of gods in Timaeus may
have meant, the most intriguing figure in its cosmogony, and the most
puzzling, was the divine agent of creation identified as 6 ori µwvpy6s-. With
the Demiurge there was introduced into the account of origins a divine
principle of mediation as well as a counterforce of Reason (vous-, Myos- ) to
combat the workings of Necessity (avciyKri ) , because "this Cosmos in its
origin was generated as a compound, from the combination of Necessity
and Reason" [� TOUOE TOU K6aµov YEVECTLS E� avciyKTlS" TE Kal vov avaTci­
UEWS E.yEvvtjSri ] . 1 05 As a consequence, two kinds of causes had to be
distinguished, "the necessary and the divine" [TO µEv avayKruov, TO OE
8E'iov ], and the necessary causes had to be sought for the sake of the divine
ones, because in the shaping of the cosmos, "the Artificer of the most
1 04. On the differences between Taylor and Cornford, see Des Places 1 9 76, 2 1 - 2 3 .
1 0 5 . Pl. Ti. 48A.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Athens
Athens 39
beautiful and most good" [6 TOV KGaXXaTOU TE KaL apLrTOV 8r1LtoVpy69]
had made use of things that were necessary as "subservient causes" [aT(-
caL uvrflperobats], for the sake of the Good, which was the primary
cause.106 In the strict sense, therefore, he was "the Constructor of things
divine" [T65v OELWV 6rTjtovpy6;] but not the author of "the structure of
mortal things" [T-6v OevflTCov TlV yEvecVLV]. These latter were the work of
the lesser gods whom the Demiurge created and to whom he entrusted this
task. Thus the immortal soul came from the Demiurge, but the mortal
body from the lesser gods.107 Those works of which he was "Maker and
Father" [S6q[tovpyb6 sTaTflp TE] were beyond the vicissitudes of Necessity
and could be dissolved by his will alone.108 The all-encompassing presup-
position and conclusion regarding the creating action of the Demiurge
came already near the beginning of the discourse: "If so be that this
Cosmos is beautiful and its Constuctor good, it is plain that he fixed his
gaze on the Eternal" [et LEv Si KcXk6O cETLW oE O KO"G[LOS 6 TE 6TrtLOVpyOs
dya06, 8fiXov d TrpbgO TO atiov E[3XrEv].109 From this it followed that
"for Him who is most good [Ty ckpLTrp] it neither was nor is permissible to
perform any action save what is most beautiful [T6 KcXXLtTov]."110
Because the all-encompassing presupposition of the creation narrative
(or narratives) in Genesis was the monotheism spoken of earlier, there
would seem to be no obvious way to make room in it for any divine
principle of creative mediation corresponding to the Demiurge. Its open-
ing sentence consisted of a prepositional phrase, Ev apXi, a transitive verb,
vETroLrlEV, a single subject, 6 06;, and a direct object, TbOy opatvov KaL TrV
yfiv, with neither an intermediary nor an instrument being specified.111
But in the counterpoint with Timaeus there were at least two points of
contact that went beyond this simplistic grammatical interpretation in
making room also within the Genesis account for some parallel. One was
the opening noun, apxi , a term shared by the two cosmogonies as well as
by the New Testament. For if the opening preposition, Ev, which trans-
lated the Hebrew ., were to be taken as "the iv of Accompanying
Circumstances" characteristic of Septuagint Greek, which "includes the
instrumental use, but goes far beyond it,"112 then apXrj, with its many
io6. P1. Ti. 68E.
107. P1. Ti. 69C.
io8. P1. Ti. 41A.
109. P1. Ti. 29A.
I1o. P1. Ti. 3oA.
III. Gn. I:I.
1z. Conybeare and Stock 1988, 82-83.
39
beautiful and most good" [o TOV KaAALCYTOU TE KGL apLCYTOU 8T) µLOupy6s]
had made use of things that were necessary as " subservient causes " [al TL­
ms UTTT)pETouams ] , for the sake of the Good, which was the primary
cause. 1 06 In the strict sense, therefore, he was "the Constructor of things
divine" [Twv 9E [wv 8T) µLOupy6s] but not the author of "the structure of
mortal things " [Twv 9vl)TWV TTW yEVECYLV ] . These latter were the work of
the lesser gods whom the Demiurge created and to whom he entrusted this
task. Thus the immortal soul came from the Demiurge, but the mortal
body from the lesser gods. 1 07 Those works of which he was "Maker and
Father" [8l) µLOupyos TTaTtjp TE ] were beyond the vicissitudes of Necessity
and could be dissolved by his will alone. 108 The all-encompassing presup­
position and conclusion regarding the creating action of the Demiurge
came already near the beginning of the discourse: "If so be that this
Cosmos is beautiful and its Constuctor good, it is plain that he fixed his
gaze on the Eternal" [E l µE:v 8� KaA6s Eanv o8E o Koaµos o TE 8T)µLOupyos
aya96s' frflA.ov ws TTpos TO a{8Lov E�AETTEV] . 109 From this it followed that
"for Him who is most good [T0 ap[aT<.µ] it neither was nor is permissible to
perform any action save what is most beautiful [To KaAAtaTov ] . " 1 10
Because the all-encompassing presupposition of the creation narrative
(or narratives) in Genesis was the monotheism spoken of earlier, there
would seem to be no obvious way to make room in it for any divine
principle of creative mediation corresponding to the Demiurge. Its open­
ing sentence consisted of a prepositional phrase, EV apxfj , a transitive verb,
ETTOLT)CYEV, a single subject, 0 9E6s, and a direct obj ect, TOV ovpavov KGL T�V
yflv, with neither an intermediary nor an instrument being specified. 1 1 1
But in the counterpoint with Timaeus there were at least two points of
contact that went beyond this simplistic grammatical interpretation in
making room also within the Genesis account for some parallel. One was
the opening noun, apxtj , a term shared by the two cosmogonies as well as
by the New Testament. For if the opening preposition, EV, which trans­
lated the Hebrew l, were to be taken as "the EV of Accompanying
Circumstances " characteristic of Septuagint Greek, which " includes the
instrumental use, but goes far beyond it, " 1 12 then apxtj , with its many
106.
107.
108.
109.
I IO.
III.
n 2.
Pl. Ti. 68E.
Pl. Ti. 69C.
Pl. Ti. 4 I A.
Pl. Ti. 29A.
Pl. Ti. 3 0A.
Gn. I : I .
Conybeare and Stock I 9 8 8 , 8 2 -8 3 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
40
40 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
different senses, especially in Christian Greek,113 suggested, for example
to Augustine, a possible analogue.114 An even more attractive analogue
was provided by the formula "And God said" [K ELrTEVO 6 GE6;], which
occurred ten times in the first chapter. It made the speaking of God,
whatever the metaphysical reality represented by this anthropomorphic
metaphor was taken to be, the divine action in response to which one class
of creatures after another came into being. Although this emphasis on the
power of the word of God occupied a special place in the language and
thought of the Hebrew Bible,115s it could also be read as a reinforcement of
some of the accents of Timaeus, despite its differences from the language
of Timaeus about "Necessity yielding to intelligent persuasion" [t' Avdy-
KrS flTT) TIEV11S TF6 TELOO t g ~iU4povos].116 When the cosmos was said to
have been "constructed after the pattern of that which is apprehensible by
reason and thought" [yeyEvr u1vo; Trpo TO XOyy KaL 4povflEL 1TEpL-
r1TrT6v],117 the word X6yos, which would become a central element in the
philosophical-theological vocabulary both of Alexandrian Judaism and of
Christianity, could mean "reason" or "word" or both. An additional and
more whimsical parallel to the creating force of the word of God in
Genesis was provided by the comment of Critias about "mankind, al-
ready, as it were, created by [Timaeus's] speech" [ivpdTrov T() 6ay
yEyovo6Ta;], referring to the discourse on creation that Timaeus was about
to deliver in Timaeus, and then, in the Critias, to the one he had just
delivered.118
Teleology versus Necessity
Genesis was seemingly altogether silent about two closely related ques-
tions on which the cosmogony of Timaeus and that of De rerum natura
were in diametric opposition, both of them being questions that would be
addressed to Genesis by readers who came to it from the reading of
Timaeus: Why had the world been created? And according to what design
and model had it been created? Both questions were ruled out of order by
Lucretius, but both were central to Timaeus. Its answer to the first ques-
113. Lampe z34-36.
114. Aug. Gen. Man. 1.21.3.
15. So, for example, Ps. 33:6: T() X6y TO0 KUpiOv OL obpavot ETEpEw0r oav KaL T)
TVEWOuaTL TO T61TOT; aTuira(ia f] 86VaILS' vCWTJV.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
different senses, especially in Christian Greek, 1 1 3 suggested, for example
to Augustine, a possible analogue. 1 14 An even more attractive analogue
was provided by the formula "And God said " [KaL ELTTEV 6 9E6s- ] , which
occurred ten times in the first chapter. It made the speaking of God,
whatever the metaphysical reality represented by this anthropomorphic
metaphor was taken to be, the divine action in response to which one class
of creatures after another came into being. Although this emphasis on the
power of the word of God occupied a special place in the language and
thought of the Hebrew Bible, 1 15 it could also be read as a reinforcement of
some of the accents of Timaeus, despite its differences from the language
of Timaeus about "Necessity yielding to intelligent persuasion" [BL ' civciy­
KllS' �TTWµEVllS' urro TTE L8ous- E µcppovos-] . 1 1 6 When the cosmos was said to
have been "constructed after the pattern of that which is apprehensible by
reason and thought" [yEyEv1iµEvos- rrpos- To A6yc.µ KaL cppovtjaE L TTE pL­
AllTTTOV ], 1 1 7 the word A.6yos-, which would become a central element in the
philosophical-theological vocabulary both of Alexandrian Judaism and of
Christianity, could mean " reason " or "word" or both. An additional and
more whimsical parallel to the creating force of the word of God in
Genesis was provided by the comment of Critias about "mankind, al­
ready, as it were, created by [Timaeus's] speech" [civ8pwrrous- T4) A.6yc.µ
yEyov6Tas-] , referring to the discourse on creation that Timaeus was about
to deliver in Timaeus, and then, in the Critias, to the one he had just
delivered. 1 1 8
116. Pl. Ti. 48A.
117. Pl. Ti. 29A.
i18. Pl. Ti. z7A; Pl. Criti. io6A.
Teleology versus Necessity
Genesis was seemingly altogether silent about two closely related ques­
tions on which the cosmogony of Timaeus and that of De rerum natura
were in diametric opposition, both of them being questions that would be
addressed to Genesis by readers who came to it from the reading of
Timaeus: Why had the world been created? And according to what design
and model had it been created ? Both questions were ruled out of order by
Lucretius, but both were central to Timaeus. Its answer to the first ques1 1 3 . Lampe 2 3 4 - 3 6 .
l J 4. Aug. Gen. Man. i . 2 . 3 .
l l 5 . So, for example, Ps. 3 3 : 6 : Tc{> A.Oy<.µ TOV KUplOU o L oupavoL EaTE pEW8Ylaav KUL Tc{>
rrvEuµan Tou aT6µaTOs avTov miaa � 8uva µLs auTwv .
I I 6. Pl. Ti. 4 8A.
l 1 7 . Pl. Ti. 29A.
I I 8. Pl. Ti. 2 7 A; Pl. Criti. 1 0 6A.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Athens
Athens 41
tion was: "Let us now state the Cause wherefor He that constructed it
constructed Becoming and the All. He was good, and in him that is good
no envy [ 6vo'] ariseth ever concerning anything; and being devoid of
envy He desired that all should be, as far as possible, like unto Himself."
That was, the discourse continued, "the supreme originating principle of
Becoming and the Cosmos" [yev4UEW; KaL K6UROU . . . dpx iv KVpt)Tcd-
Tfv].119 In relation to this "Form of the Most Good" [Tfyv TO) apiTOU...
&84av], all other "causes" in the cosmos were in fact only "auxiliary
Causes" [ UvaUTLat], even though "the most of men" thought of them as
"primary causes."120 The second question was, if anything, even more
fundamental, as Lucretius knew when he asked his own two questions:
Whence was a pattern for making things [exemplum gignundis
rebus] first implanted in the gods, or even a conception of humanity
[notities hominum], so as to know what they wished to make and to
see it in the mind's eye?
Or in what manner was the power of the first-beginnings [vis prin-
41
tion was: " Let us now state the Cause wherefor He that constructed it
constructed Becoming and the All. He was good, and in him that is good
no envy [<f>96voS'] ariseth ever concerning anything; and being devoid of
envy He desired that all should be, as far as possible, like unto Himself. "
That was, the discourse continued, "the supreme originating principle of
Becoming and the Cosmos" [yEVECTEWS' KUL Ko a µo u . . . apxiiv KUpLwTci­
TT}V ] . 1 1 9 In relation to this "Form of the Most Good" [Tiiv TOU aptCTTOU . . .
LOE:av ] , all other "causes" in the cosmos were in fact only "auxiliary
Causes " [�uv m Tt m ] , even though "the most of men" thought of them as
"primary causes. " 1 20 The second question was, if anything, even more
fundamental, as Lucretius knew when he asked his own two questions:
cipiorum] ever known, and what they could do together by change
of order, if nature herself did not provide a model for creation
[specimen creandi] ?121
For Lucretius, the answer was to deny the reality of any pattern or design
at all.
But the answer of Timaeus was that this pattern for making things and
model for creation (which it called TrapdS&Eyra) was the design of which
the cosmos was an image (which it called ELK0 v).122 It was unthinkable
that this model or pattern should itself have belonged to the realm of those
things that had not always been from eternity but had only come into
existence. It was a general principle that "when the artificer of any object
[6 86ritovpy6;], in forming its shape and quality, keeps his gaze fixed on
that which is uniform, using a model of this kind, that object, executed in
this way, must of necessity be beautiful [KaX6v]."123 That general principle
Whence was a pattern for making things [exemplum gignundis
rebus] first implanted in the gods, or even a conception of humanity
[notities hominum] , so as to know what they wished to make and to
see it in the mind's eye ?
Or in what manner was the power of the first-beginnings [vis prin­
cipiorum] ever known, and what they could do together by change
of order, if nature herself did not provide a model for creation
[specimen creandi] ? 1 2 1
was universally applicable to all making, including human creativity, but
the supreme application of it was to the making of the universe, to cos-
mogony. From it, therefore, it ineluctably followed that "If so be that this
II19. P1. Ti. z9D-E; on the meaning of 466vo;, see Brisson 1974, 155 n. i.
Io20. P1. Ti. 46C-D.
12izi. Lucr. 5.181-86.
Izz. P1. Ti. z9B.
123. P1. Ti. 28A.
For Lucretius, the answer was to deny the reality of any pattern or design
at all.
But the answer of Timaeus was that this pattern for making things and
model for creation (which it called napci8E Lyµa ) was the design of which
the cosmos was an image (which it called ELKwv ) . 1 22 It was unthinkable
that this model or pattern should itself have belonged to the realm of those
things that had not always been from eternity but had only come into
existence. It was a general principle that "when the artificer of any object
[6 811µwupy6S'], in forming its shape and quality, keeps his gaze fixed on
that which is uniform, using a model of this kind, that obj ect, executed in
this way, must of necessity be beautiful [ KaA.ov] . " 1 23 That general principle
was universally applicable to all making, including human creativity, but
the supreme application of it was to the making of the universe, to cos­
mogony. From it, therefore, it ineluctably followed that "If so be that this
1 19.
1 20.
121.
1 22 .
123.
Pl. Ti. 29D-E; on the meaning of ¢96vos, see Brisson 1 9 74, 1 5 5 n. r .
Pl. Ti. 46C-D.
Luer. 5 . 1 8 1 - 8 6 .
Pl. Ti. 29B.
Pl. Ti. 2 8 A.
l( H I G
P� ES S
42
42 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
Cosmos is beautiful [Kak6'] and its Constructor good [dya06s], it is plain
that he fixed his gaze on the Eternal [rrp6T 6 dttov]." Nothing else could
have served as an appropriate irapdSELy a for a divine agent of creation
who did not begrudge anything good but wanted to confer it.124 More-
over, as was elaborated later in the dialogue, "all that is good is beautiful,
and the beautiful is not void of due measure" [rv 8i To dyaeObv KakXOV, TO
8 KkXOV OUK e[IETpov].125
This "due measure," or "proportionality" [dvaXoyta], gave harmony
and unity to the universe: "The body of the Cosmos was harmonized by
proportion and brought into existence. These conditions secured for it
Amity [4Xtav], so that being united in identity with itself it became indis-
soluble by any agent other than Him who had bound it together."126
Although Genesis did not raise, much less answer, the question of why
God had created the world, nor the question of its design and pattern, nor
even the question of its harmony and unity, it did seem to be answering all
three of these questions when it declared, decidedly and repeatedly, that
the created world was, in the very same word employed by Timaeus,
"beautiful" [KaX6OS]: "And God saw that it was beautiful" [KaLt ElSEV 6 0Eg
To c) SSTL KaX6V].127 Indeed, the Septuagint even improved on the He-
brew original by adding it an extra time: KaGL ELEV 6 0EG OTt KaX6v.128 And
when Genesis in its summary of the six days said, "And God blessed
them" [KaL )V6XTyflOEV aUTc 6 BE6S],129 this seemed to be similar to the
summary statement of Timaeus that "when the Father that engendered it
perceived it in motion and alive, a thing of joy to the eternal gods, He too
rejoiced"-provided that there could be a way to bend the phrase "the
eternal gods" to the requirements of biblical monotheism, as eventually
there proved to be both for Jewish and for Christian interpreters.130 For if
the Bible taught, here and elsewhere, that the created cosmos was KaX6;,
and if it taught furthermore, not here but elsewhere, that God the Creator
was dya86;,131 it might have to be called an extension or an expansion of
the language of the Bible, but it could not be called a contradiction of it, to
apply to the cosmogony of Genesis the formula from the cosmogony of
124. P1. Ti. z9E.
125. Pl. Ti. 87C.
iz6. P1. Ti. 3zC.
127. Gn. 1:4, IO, 12, 18, 21, 25, 30.
Iz8. Gn. 1:8.
129. Gn. 1:zz.
130. P1. Ti. 37C. See Ambr. Hex. 2.5.19-21; Aug. Civ. 11.21.
131. For example, Ps. 73:1: 0 3aya06 Tq 'IopaflX 6 6oG.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
Cosmos is beautiful [KaA6s-] and its Constructor good [aya86s-] , it is plain
that he fixed his gaze on the Eternal [npos- TO cH8wv ]. " Nothing else could
have served as an appropriate napci8E L yµa for a divine agent of creation
who did not begrudge anything good but wanted to confer it. 1 24 More­
over, as was elaborated later in the dialogue, " all that is good is beautiful,
and the beautiful is not void of due measure " [nav 8� TO aya8ov KaA6v, To
OE KaAOV OUK aµETpov] . 125
This " due measure," or "proportionality" [avaAoy(a], gave harmony
and unity to the universe: "The body of the Cosmos was harmonized by
proportion and brought into existence. These conditions secured for it
Amity [cplALav ] , so that being united in identity with itself it became indis­
soluble by any agent other than Him who had bound it together. " 1 26
Although Genesis did not raise, much less answer, the question of why
God had created the world, nor the question of its design and pattern, nor
even the question of its harmony and unity, it did seem to be answering all
three of these questions when it declared, decidedly and repeatedly, that
the created world was, in the very same word employed by Timaeus�
" beautiful" [KaA6s- ] : "And God saw that it was beautiful " [Kai ELOEV o 8EOS'
TO cpws- on KaA.Ov] . 1 2 7 Indeed, the Septuagint even improved on the He­
brew original by adding it an extra time: Kai El8Ev o 8EOS' on KaA6v . 1 2 8 And
when Genesis in its summary of the six days said, "And God blessed
them" [Kai T}VAOYll<JEV avTa 0 8EOS'] ' 129 this seemed to be similar to the
summary statement of Timaeus that "when the Father that engendered it
perceived it in motion and alive, a thing of j oy to the eternal gods, He too
rej oiced " -provided that there could be a way to bend the phrase "the
eternal gods" to the requirements of biblical monotheism, as eventually
there proved to be both for Jewish and for Christian interpreters. 1 30 For if
the Bible taught, here and elsewhere, that the created cosmos was KaA6s-,
and if it taught furthermore, not here but elsewhere, that God the Creator
was aya86s-, 1 3 1 it might have to be called an extension or an expansion of
the language of the Bible, but it could not be called a contradiction of it, to
apply to the cosmogony of Genesis the formula from the cosmogony of
I 24.
125.
I 26.
1 27 .
128.
1 29 .
1 3 0.
l3J.
Pl. Ti. 29E.
Pl. Ti. 87C.
Pl. Ti. 3 2C.
Gn. 1 :4, ro, 1 2, 1 8 , 21, 25, 30.
Gn. 1 : 8 .
Gn. 1 : 22.
Pl. Ti. 3 7C. See Ambr. Hex. 2 . 5 . 19 - 2 1 ; Aug. Civ. l I . 2 I .
For example, Ps. 7 3 : 1 : T2s ciya8os T0 'lapa�A. 6 8Eos .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Athens
Athens 43
Timaeus: "If so be that this Cosmos is beautiful [KaX6s] and its Construc-
tor good [dyaO6s], it is plain that he fixed his gaze on the Eternal [Trpos6 To
'&Ltov]."132 And it was only a further extension to apply to it as well the
other formula of Timaeus, which followed almost immediately, that "the
supreme originating principle of Becoming and the Cosmos" [yEVE&Ews
KaL K6iaOvU... dPXflV KvptLTcdTflv] was that the Creator was good and was
"devoid of envy."133
When this philosophical cosmogony of Athens encountered the non-
philosophical cosmogony of Jerusalem, many of the concepts of Timaeus
put questions to the text of Genesis that had not been raised in quite that
way before. In anticipation of that encounter, we have been reviewing the
cosmogonic account in the Timaeus here with an eye on Genesis. As we
continue the inquiry into Tertullian's question "What has Athens to do
with Jerusalem?" and turn therefore to the cosmogonic account in
Genesis, it will once again be a review of the one text in the light of the
other.
I32. Pl. Ti. z9A.
133. Pl. Ti. z9D-E.
43
Timaeus: " If so be that this Cosmos is beautiful [KaA.6s] and its Construc­
tor good [aya86s] , it is plain that he fixed his gaze on the Eternal [Tipos To
cit 8LOv ] . " 1 32 And it was only a further extension to apply to it as well the
other formula of Timaeus, which followed almost immediately, that "the
supreme originating principle of Becoming and the Cosmos " [yEVEGEWS
Kat Koaµou . . . apx�v KUpLwTciTY)V] was that the Creator was good and was
" devoid of envy. " 133
When this philosophical cosmogony of Athens encountered the non­
philosophical cosmogony of Jerusalem, many of the concepts of Timaeus
put questions to the text of Genesis that had not been raised in quite that
way before. In anticipation of that encounter, we have been reviewing the
cosmogonic account in the Timaeus here with an eye on Genesis. As we
continue the inquiry into Tertullian's question "What has Athens to do
with Jerusalem ? " and turn therefore to the cosmogonic account in
Genesis, it will once again be a review of the one text in the light of the
other.
I 3 2. Pl. Ti. 29A.
1 33. Pl. Ti. 29D-E.
l( H I G
P� ES S

Dr g 11:1 zed by
Ori g1I n a I 1ko m
T H E llJ NllVE R S!lliY O� MI( H I G AN P� E%
UN Pl ERSllif Y O:F Ml (Hi IGA NI
III
Jerusalem: Genesis as a "Likely Account"
(Timaeus z9D) of One God
III
Almighty Maker
Regardless of what their doctrinal concepts about creation and the Crea-
tor may have been, ancient cosmogonies-including De rerum natura,
Timaeus, and Genesis-presented themselves as accounts TrTEpi ToV
TraVTOs Xpi yEVicELES cdvOpcnrLvqs, as Timaeus called it,1 explanations of
the origins of the existing universe in the realm of becoming, up to and
including the genesis of the human race. Thus it would seem that at one
level of description the empirical components of the creation, as com-
prehended by Genesis in the phrase 6 ovpav6s Kai 1j y KaL TeS" 6 K6 OOS
Jerusalem: Genesis as a "Likely Account"
(Timaeus 29D) of One God
Almighty Maker
aiTov,2 as well as by De rerum natura in the similar phrase "of heaven
and earth" [caeli. . . terraeque],3 would have to be largely the same in all
of them. Despite such obvious similarities between them, some of them
quite illuminating and others really rather trivial, the components of the
creation prove in other respects to have been quite different from one
cosmogony to another. Therefore the counterpoint between Genesis and
Timaeus made itself audible in both directions, not only through the
general presuppositions of the two narratives but also, no less, through the
specific details of their creation accounts, which would provide much of
the subject matter for later interpretations. For the consideration of the
concepts of creation in chapter z it was appropriate to allow the philo-
sophical participant in the counterpoint, the Timaeus of Plato, to define
the terms of the counterpoint. Conversely, for this examination of the
components of creation it would seem to be sound, in the interest not only
of reciprocity but of precision, to let the religious participant, the Genesis
of Moses, set the outline and sequence, with each component being con-
sidered as it appeared for the first time in that account.
i. P1. Ti. 9oE.
2. Gn. z2:1.
3. Lucr. 5.245.
45
Regardless of what their doctrinal concepts about creation and the Crea­
tor may have been, ancient cosmogonies-including De rerum natura,
Timaeus, and Genesis -presented themselves as accounts rrEpL Tou
rraVTOS' µEXPL YEVECTEWS' avepwrrLVY)S'' as Timaeus called it, 1 explanations of
the origins of the existing universe in the realm of becoming, up to and
including the genesis of the human race. Thus it would seem that at one
level of description the empirical components of the creation, as com­
prehended by Genesis in the phrase 0 oupavos KaL � yfl KaL rras 0 Koaµos
avTwv,2 as well as by De rerum natura in the similar phrase "of heaven
and earth" [caeli . . . terraeque] ,3 would have to be largely the same in all
of them. Despite such obvious similarities between them, some of them
quite illuminating and others really rather trivial, the components of the
creation prove in other respects to have been quite different from one
cosmogony to another. Therefore the counterpoint between Genesis and
Timaeus made itself audible in both directions, not only through the
general presuppositions of the two narratives but also, no less, through the
specific details of their creation accounts, which would provide much of
the subject matter for later interpretations. For the consideration of the
concepts of creation in chapter 2 it was appropriate to allow the philo­
sophical participant in the counterpoint, the Timaeus of Plato, to define
the terms of the counterpoint. Conversely, for this examination of the
components of creation it would seem to be sound, in the interest not only
of reciprocity but of precision, to let the religious participant, the Genesis
of Moses, set the outline and sequence, with each component being con­
sidered as it appeared for the first time in that account.
I . Pl. Ti. 90E.
2. Gn. 2 : i .
3. Luer. 5 . 24 5 .
45
l( H I G
P� ES S
46
46 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
It is instructive in this connection to observe how often the presentation
of Timaeus in English has made it virtually unavoidable to introduce some
element from Genesis or another book of the Bible. Benjamin Jowett
translated the final words of the dialogue (which will figure prominently
in chapter 5 of this book), E'" ovpav6" 68E [ovoyEV l cv, as "the one only-
begotten heaven," employing the translation of IovoyEVrl in the Autho-
rized Version of the Bible.4 Francis M. Cornford criticized A.E. Taylor for
making Timaeus "more modern (and considerably more Christian) than
Herbert Spencer," but he felt obliged to explain Timaeus by observing that
"myriads of Jews and Christians, from Moses to the present day, have
believed that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and
have understood 'beginning' in a temporal sense."s Edith Hamilton, in
her introduction to the reprinting of Jowett's translation of Timaeus, had
to explain: "In the first chapter of Genesis, 'God said, Let there be light,
and there was light.' That is not Plato's way of dealing with the matter. He
thinks out what light is and how it must have come about. The chapter in
Genesis is poetry; the Timaeus has a great deal of poetry in it, but its aim is
science."6 And R.G. Bury, in the introduction to his translation in the
Loeb Classical Library (though not, it must be added, in the translation
itself), paraphrased Plato's doctrine of primeval disorder as follows: "We
are transported in imagination to a point 'before the beginning of years,'
when time was not, and 'the earth was without form and void' "; thus he
combined a passage from Timaeus with a passage from the Authorized
Version of Genesis.7 Also, where Timaeus, speaking about the origin of
woman, referred to what happened "in the second becoming" [Ev Tl
&VTEpqa yEVEEL], Bury offered the translation
"at their second
incarnation."8
Attention to Genesis for a consideration of the components of creation
commends itself as well because, although there were commentaries also
on Timaeus-most notably for our purposes here that of Calcidius in the
fourth century (addressed in chapter 6), but also those of the Neoplato-
nists Proclus and Jamblichos, and centuries later that of the Byzantine
philosopher Michael Psellus-most of the subsequent interpretations of
the similarities and differences between the two cosmogonies have taken
4. P1. Ti. 92C; Jowett 1953, 3:780; Jn. 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18 (AV).
5. Cornford 1957, x, 27 n.
6. Hamilton and Cairns 1961, 1151.
7. Bury 1929, 5; Pl. Ti. 37E; Gn. 1:2 (AV).
8. P1. Ti. 9oE; Bury 1929, 249.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
It is instructive in this connection to observe how often the presentation
of Timaeus in English has made it virtually unavoidable to introduce some
element from Genesis or another book of the Bible. Benj amin Jowett
translated the final words of the dialogue (which will figure prominently
in chapter 5 of this book), ELS' oupavos OOE µovoyEV�S' wv, as "the one only­
begotten heaven, " employing the translation of µovoyEvtjs in the Autho­
rized Version of the Bible.4 Francis M. Cornford criticized A.E. Taylor for
making Timaeus " more modern ( and considerably more Christian) than
Herbert Spencer, " but he felt obliged to explain Timaeus by observing that
"myriads of Jews and Christians, from Moses to the present day, have
believed that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and
have understood 'beginning' in a temporal sense. " 5 Edith Hamilton, in
her introduction to the reprinting of Jowett's translation of Timaeus, had
to explain: "In the first chapter of Genesis, 'God said, Let there be light,
and there was light.' That is not Plato's way of dealing with the matter. He
thinks out what light is and how it must have come about. The chapter in
Genesis is poetry; the Timaeus has a great deal of poetry in it, but its aim is
science. "6 And R.G. Bury, in the introduction to his translation in the
Loeb Classical Library {though not, it must be added, in the translation
itself ), paraphrased Plato's doctrine of primeval disorder as follows: "We
are transported in imagination to a point 'before the beginning of years,'
when time was not, and 'the earth was without form and void' "; thus he
combined a passage from Timaeus with a passage from the Authorized
Version of Genesis. 7 Also, where Timaeus, speaking about the origin of
woman, referred to what happened "in the second becoming" [E:v Tfj
OEUTE pq yEvE: oH ] , Bury offered the translation " at their second
incarnation. " s
Attention to Genesis for a consideration of the components of creation
commends itself as well because, although there were commentaries also
on Timaeus-most notably for our purposes here that of Calcidius in the
fourth century (addressed in chapter 6 ) , but also those of the Neoplato­
nists Proclus and Jamblichos, and centuries later that of the Byzantine
philosopher Michael Psellus-most of the subsequent interpretations of
the similarities and differences between the two cosmogonies have taken
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Pl. Ti. 9 2C; Jowett 1 9 5 3 , 3 :780; Jn. 1 : 14, 1 : 1 8 , 3 : 1 6, 3 : 1 8 (AV).
Cornford l 9 5 7, x , 2 7 n.
Hamilton and Cairns l 9 6 l , I I 5 1 .
Bury 1 9 29, 5 ; Pl. Ti. 3 7E; Gn. 1 : 2 (AV) .
Pl. Ti. 90£; Bury 1 9 2 9 , 249 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Jerusalem
Jerusalem 47
the literary form of commentaries on Genesis, beginning with the De
opificio and the Legum allegoria of Philo, and extending to the treatises
entitled Hexaemeron by Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Ambrose and to the
three successive works by Augustine bearing the title De Genesi. Among
portions of Timaeus that found no explicit counterpart in Genesis at all
were the disquisitions on the physiology and anatomy of the liver, spleen,
and other organs and on weight and movement.9 Its discussion of the
primacy of "sight" [64iL] in comparison with the other senses had an
importance far beyond the anatomical and physiological; for to it was
attributed "research into the nature of the Universe," together with "Phi-
losophy in all its range, than which no greater boon has ever come or will
come, by divine bestowal [&8opfOv K E6(ov], unto the race of mortals."10
But there was no corresponding consideration of the senses in Genesis.
That discussion, moreover, could have stimulated its Christian interpret-
ers to a consideration of the relative importance of sight and hearing in
both the Old Testament and the New Testament, where the patriarchs,
prophets, and apostles did have visions, but where the word of God,
perceived by "hearing" [dKOfl] and responded to by "obedience" [iTraKO ],
claimed the primacy reserved for "sight" [64ts] in Timaeus; for as the
New Testament said, summarizing the emphasis of the Old Testament as
well, "faith cometh by hearing [i TrLcTic 6 aKor)c], and hearing by the
word of God."11
Basic Questions of Cosmogony
As most subsequent interpreters were to learn, often to their dismay, the
stark simplicity of the opening words of Genesis, "In the beginning God
made the heaven and the earth" [!Ev cpX ErOLfEv o 0 6; Toy ovpavv KaL
TflV yfiv],12 was really not so simple at all, for it left unaddressed some of
the most basic questions of cosmogony. This was, as Gerhard Von Rad has
put it, "not an independent theological chapter, but part of a great...
dogmatic outline."13 In its literary form, that sentence could be taken as a
9. Pl. Ti. 7oD-71D, 62C-63E; on weight, see O'Brien 1984, 153-65.
io. P1. Ti. 47A-E. On the interpretation of the senses in Timaeus, see also Vlastos
1981, 366-73.
ii. Rom. o10:I7 (AV).
47
the literary form of commentaries on Genesis, beginning with the De
opificio and the Legum allegoria of Philo, and extending to the treatises
entitled Hexaemeron by Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Ambrose and to the
three successive works by Augustine bearing the title De Genesi. Among
portions of Timaeus that found no explicit counterpart in Genesis at all
were the disquisitions on the physiology and anatomy of the liver, spleen,
and other organs and on weight and movement.9 Its discussion of the
primacy of " sight" [oljJLs] in comparison with the other senses had an
importance far beyond the anatomical and physiological; for to it was
attributed " research into the nature of the Universe, " together with " Phi­
losophy in all its range, than which no greater boon has ever come or will
come, by divine bestowal [8wp118E:v EK 9Ewv ], unto the race of mortals. " 1 0
But there was no corresponding consideration o f the senses i n Genesis.
That discussion, moreover, could have stimulated its Christian interpret­
ers to a consideration of the relative importance of sight and hearing in
both the Old Testament and the New Testament, where the patriarchs,
prophets, and apostles did have visions, but where the word of God,
perceived by "hearing" [aKotj] and responded to by "obedience " [imaKotj ] ,
claimed the primacy reserved for " sight" [otj; Ls] in Timaeus; for as the
New Testament said, summarizing the emphasis of the Old Testament as
well, " faith cometh by hearing [� rr(ans EC aKofls] , and hearing by the
word of God. " 1 1
12. Gn. 1:1.
13. Von Rad 1958, 143; see also Anderson 1955.
Basic Questions of Cosmogony
As most subsequent interpreters were to learn, often to their dismay, the
stark simplicity of the opening words of Genesis, " In the beginning God
made the heaven and the earth " [ ! Ev cipxiJ ETfOlllO"EV 6 9EOS TOV ovpavov Kat
T�v yflv ] , 12 was really not so simple at all, for it left unaddressed some of
the most basic questions of cosmogony. This was, as Gerhard Von Rad has
put it, " not an independent theological chapter, but part of a great . . .
dogmatic outline. " 13 In its literary form, that sentence could be taken as a
9 . Pl. Ti. 70D-7 ID, 62C- 6 3 E; on weight, see O 'Brien 1 9 84, 1 5 3 - 6 5 .
I O . Pl. Ti. 47A-E. On the interpretation o f the senses in Timaeus, see also Vlastos
1 9 8 1 , 3 66-7 3 .
I I . Rom. r n: 1 7 (AV).
1 2 . Gn. I : I .
1 3 . Von Rad 1 9 5 8 , I 4 3 ; see also Anderson 1 9 5 5 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
48
48 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
description of the first in a series of discrete creative actions, according to
which the creation of the entire universe of "heaven and earth" took place
on the first day, to be followed by the acts of creating the several beings,
both living and nonliving, that were assigned to the several days of the
hexaemeron. Or it could be seen as a comprehensive prefatory formula, a
kind of chapter title under which the individual actions of each of the six
days of creation were thereafter subsumed. Even more problematic for the
history of cosmogonic speculation was the evident indifference of this
sentence to the issue that Lucretius correctly identified as "the first prin-
ciple," namely, "that no thing is ever by divine power produced from
nothing" [nullam rem e nilo gigni diuinitus umquam]-the problem of
"creatio ex nihilo."14 The Greek version even appears to have made that
issue more problematic still by its choice of verb. The Hebrew text em-
ployed the verb 12, which in the Hebrew Bible denoted the exclusive
prerogative of God the Creator, and which, beginning with the "factors
tending to the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo in Judaism"15 and continuing
with the subsequent development of this doctrine (especially in Christian
theology), acquired the additional connotation of "creatio ex nihilo,"
though it does not seem to have originally possessed it in Genesis. But the
verb in the Septuagint is not EKTLcYEv (although the verb KTL(ELv came to
carry a similar connotation in Greek) but Evroorlxiv; the Greek version
contents itself with a general term, rotLElv, which corresponded to the
general Hebrew verb 1'7, a term applicable to many kinds of making,
whether divine or human.16
Even if the verb meaning "to create," whether vrOLELV or KTLtELv, did not
necessarily imply the doctrine of "creatio ex nihilo," it in any case raised
the issue of "materia ex qua" and, more specifically, in the question of
Lucretius, "quattuor ex rebus si cuncta creantur."17 As noted earlier, the
idea of the four elements as the basic stuff of which all other things were
made had come from Empedocles and possibly from other pre-Socratics
as well. But apparently it owed its codification in the form of the doctrine
of GotXELa to the Theaetetus of Plato; and it owed much of its dissemina-
tion to its inclusion in Plato's Timaeus as a technical term, "elements of
the Universe" [uTrotXEa Toy TraVT6S] (albeit with the later caveat that the
term was quite inappropriate for "the man who has even a grain of sense"
14. Lucr. 1.149-50.
15. May 1994, 21-22.
i6. Bauer 455-56, 68o-8i; Lampe 782-83, 1107.
17. Lucr. 1.763.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
description of the first in a series of discrete creative actions, according to
which the creation of the entire universe of "heaven and earth" took place
on the first day, to be fo llowed by the acts of creating the several beings,
both living and nonliving, that were assigned to the several days of the
hexaemeron. Or it could be seen as a comprehensive prefatory formula, a
kind of chapter title under which the individual actions of each of the six
days of creation were thereafter subsumed. Even more problematic for the
history of cosmogonic speculation was the evident indifference of this
sentence to the issue that Lucretius correctly identified as "the first prin­
ciple," namely, "that no thing is ever by divine power produced from
nothing" [nullam rem e nilo gigni diuinitus umquam] -the problem of
"creatio ex nihilo. " 14 The Greek version even appears to have made that
issue more problematic still by its choice of verb. The Hebrew text em­
ployed the verb K1.�, which in the Hebrew Bible denoted the exclusive
prerogative of God the Creator, and which, beginning with the " factors
tending to the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo in Judaism" 1 5 and continuing
with the subsequent development of this doctrine (especially in Christian
theology), acquired the additional connotation of "creatio ex nihilo, "
though it does not seem to have originally possessed it in Genesis. But the
verb in the Septuagint is not E KTL<JEV ( although the verb KTL(E Lv came to
carry a similar connotation in Greek) but ETTOLT]<JEV; the Greek version
contents itself with a general term, TTOLELV, which corresponded to the
general Hebrew verb :-l�)l, a term applicable to many kinds of making,
whether divine or human. 16
Even if the verb meaning "to create," whether TTOLELV or KTL(ELv, did not
necessarily imply the doctrine of "creatio ex nihilo," it in any case raised
the issue of " materia ex qua " and, more specifically, in the question of
Lucretius, "quattuor ex rebus si cuncta creantur. " 1 7 As noted earlier, the
idea of the four elements as the basic stuff of which all other things were
made had come from Empedocles and possibly from other pre-Socratics
as well. But apparently it owed its codification in the form of the doctrine
of <JTOLXELa to the Theaetetus of Plato; and it owed much of its dissemina­
tion to its inclusion in Plato's Timaeus as a technical term, " elements of
the Universe " [aTOLXELa Tov rravTos] ( albeit with the later caveat that the
term was quite inappropriate for " the man who has even a grain of sense "
14.
15.
1 6.
17.
Luer. r . 149-50.
May 1994, 2 1 -22.
Bauer 45 5 - 5 6, 680- 8 1 ; Lampe 7 8 2- 8 3 , l 107.
Luer. r .763 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Jerusalem
Jerusalem 49
[in6 TOo Ka i3paXi 4povovvTO;]),18 because of the circulation achieved by
this dialogue in both East and West:
49
[imo Tov Kai �paxu cppovovvTos- ] ) , 1 8 because of the circulation achieved by
this dialogue in both East and West:
Now that which has come into existence must needs be of bodily
form [am0oaToELSt ], visible and tangible; yet without fire nothing
could ever become visible, nor tangible without some solidity, nor
solid without earth. Hence, in beginning to construct the body of the
All, God was making it of fire and earth [6Oev EK Trup6S KaL yfT TO TOO
1TaVT6O ApX6}[Evos vVtTavat cL La 6 0 OEOS ETOLtE]. .... Thus it was
that in the midst between fire and earth God set water and air [oiT(O
8611 Trup6" TE KaL Yqfi 08 0p dpa TE 6 0eBS v Itc OELs], and having
bestowed upon them so far as possible a like ratio one towards
another-air being to water as fire to air, and water being to earth as
air to water-he joined together and constructed a Heaven visible
and tangible [ovpav6v 6paT6V KaUL ciTT6V].19
Later on, however, Timaeus went on to specify "that fire and earth and
water and air are solid bodies."20 But otherwise the elements "are placed
ceremoniously on their metaphysical pedestals, only to be left there, and
quietly ignored in the rest of the treatise where the workings of nature are
explored."21 So nearly unavoidable has the concept of "elements" be-
come that even where the word cToLXELa is absent from Plato's Greek text,
it appears in English translation: "Now of the four elements the construc-
tion of the Cosmos had taken up the whole of every one" is Bury's render-
Now that which has come into existence must needs be of bodily
form [awµaTOE LOES' ], visible and tangible; yet without fire nothing
could ever become visible, nor tangible without some solidity, nor
solid without earth. Hence, in beginning to construct the body of the
All, God was making it of fire and earth [o9Ev EK rrupos- Kai yfls- To Tov
TTGVTOS' cipxoµEVOS' �UVLCTTCivm awµa 6 9EOS' ETTOLEL ] . . . . Thus it was
that in the midst between fire and earth God set water and air [oihw
o� rrup6s- TE Kal yfls- uowp UEpa TE 6 9EOS' EV µEac.p 9E LS' ] , and having
bestowed upon them so far as possible a like ratio one towards
another-air being to water as fire to air, and water being to earth as
air to water-he joined together and constructed a Heaven visible
and tangible [oupavov opaTOV KGl GTTTOV ] . 1 9
ing of the Greek T65v 8 S8 TETT dp&V v ov KOXOVKaTOV ELX1T]EV 1] TO) KUIJtIOU
vcTatois.22 The explanation in Genesis of 6 ovpav6s KaL ffly, which were
constructed by God to be no less "visible and tangible" than Plato's, did
not rest on an analogous catalog of preexistent building blocks. Neverthe-
less, all four of the Empedoclean-Platonic pLt(4)taTa-aotXELa did some-
how put in an appearance within its first three verses: !Ev dpXT EaToliUEv 6
O0S' ToV ovpav6v [air] KaL TilV yflv [earth]. f 8 yfl 1v 6paTos KaL
aKaTaKEUacUTOS, KaL UiKOTO aTGVCO T1] d3oaOU, KaL TVEpIa OEOU [air
again] E1TEEpETO ETrLdvC TO) 08aToS [water]. Ka1 ELTEV 6 eO6S FEVWfloYTG
4x" [fire]. KaL EyEVETO 05.23 With such an identification of TvEV [a as a
18. P1. Ti. 48B.
19. Pl. Ti. 31B, 3zB. See Schulz 1966, 25-31.
20. Pl. Ti. 53C.
z1. Vlastos 1981, 108-9; see also Hirsch 1971, 372-75.
zz. Pl. Ti. 3zC; Bury 1929, 6o-6i.
23. Gn. 1:1-3.
Later on, however, Timaeus went o n to specify "that fire and earth and
water and air are solid bodies. "20 But otherwise the elements " are placed
ceremoniously on their metaphysical pedestals, only to be left there, and
quietly ignored in the rest of the treatise where the workings of nature are
explored. " 2 1 So nearly unavoidable has the concept of " elements " be­
come that even where the word aTOLXEta is absent from Plato's Greek text,
it appears in English translation: "Now of the four elements the construc­
tion of the Cosmos had taken up the whole of every one " is Bury's render­
ing of the Greek Twv OE o� TETTapwv EV oA.ov E KaaTov EtA.11<f>Ev � Tov Koaµou
�U(JTGCTLS' .22 The explanation in Genesis of 6 oupavos- Kal � yfl , which were
constructed by God to be no less "visible and tangible " than Plato's, did
not rest on an analogous catalog of preexistent building blocks. Neverthe­
less, all four of the Empedoclean-Platonic pL(wµaTa-aTOLXELa did some­
how put in an appearance within its first three verses: !Ev apxa ETTOLllUEV 6
9EOS' TOV ovpavov [air] Kal T�V yflv [earth] . � OE yfl � v ci6paTOS Kal
aKaTaCTKEUG(JTOS'' Kal (JKOTOS' ETTclVW TTlS' a�U(J(JOU' Kal TTVEDµa 9EOU [air
again] ETTEcpEpETO ETTclVW TOV UOGTOS' [water] . Kal ElTTEV 6 9EOS' rEv118tjTW
cpws- [fire] . Kai EYE VETO cpws- . 23 With such an identification of rrvEDµa as a
18.
19.
20.
2I.
22.
23.
Pl. Ti. 48B.
Pl. Ti. 3 1 B, 3 2B. See Schulz 1 9 66, 2 5 - 3 1 .
Pl. Ti. 5 3 C.
Vlastos 1 9 8 1 , 1 0 8 -9; see also Hirsch 1 9 7 1 , 3 7 2-7 5 .
Pl. Ti. 3 2C; Bury 1 9 29, 6o- 6 I .
Gn. 1 :1-3.
I
li HI E ll.INI E R S IT
I lze
F
PR ES S
N
50
50 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
biblical equivalent for "air" in the Timaean scheme, that parallel would go
on to be used by Augustine as a justification for the use of the doctrine of
the four elements as an interpretive tool for making sense of Genesis, even
when "creatio ex nihilo" had come to be assumed as the primary meaning
of the verb create.24 Similarly, the description of "the spherical form of the
All" [T TOU 1 aTc g TOXntja . . . OapoELt8I] in Timaeus could be con-
sidered compatible with the description in Genesis of the cTEpE(4La, "fir-
mamentum" or "dome," that God used to divide the water of heaven
from the water of earth, calling it oipav6';25 according to Timaeus, the
term rrdas opav6 could be used synonymously with K6iotGO;.26
Primeval Chaos
Any reader coming to the cosmogony of Genesis from having read the
cosmogony of Timaeus, as we have done here-reading them, therefore,
not in the sequence in which they were written, but in the sequence in
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
biblical equivalent for "air" in the Timaean scheme, that parallel would go
on to be used by Augustine as a j ustification for the use of the doctrine of
the four elements as an interpretive tool for making sense of Genesis, even
when " creatio ex nihilo " had come to be assumed as the primary meaning
of the verb create. 24 Similarly, the description of "the spherical form of the
All" [To Tou TiavTos axflµa . . . acpmpoELOES] in Timaeus could be con­
sidered compatible with the description in Genesis of the CTTEpEwµa, " fir­
mamentum" or "dome," that God used to divide the water of heaven
from the water of earth, calling it oupav6s;25 according to Timaeus, the
term 1TGS oupav6s could be used synonymously with Koaµos .26
which they appeared in Greek, and then again in the sequence in which
they appeared in Latin-would look for equivalents in Genesis, if any, to
Primeval Chaos
the fundamental distinction of Timaeus between "what is perceptible to
the senses [T6 a&OfTd6v]" and "what is apprehensible only to the mind [T6
VoTT6V]."27 The question raised earlier, whether the first verse of the
Genesis account was intended only to provide a chapter title or to describe
the first in a chronological series of acts of creation, could be relevant to
such a distinction; for if it was a chapter title, it could be interpreted as
having intended to make that very distinction by the phrase 6 ovpav6s KGL
11 yfl, with otpav6s (heaven) standing for KOR[Oo VOTT6; and yf (earth) for
K6lbo; ctiOTT6; this was how Philo took it.28 The interpretation of the
opening words was crucial as well for the interpretation of what followed,
1
y1 i1]v &6paTOS KaL LKaTaO'KEVaOTOS KaL cKOTOS ETrOVi) TfS" t a oU60U,29
just as it was for the interpretation of the corresponding passage early in
Timaeus, "When he took over all that was visible, seeing that it was not in
a state of rest but in a state of discordant and disorderly motion, he
brought it into order out of disorder [etLc TtLV . . . EK Tfi clTa aG]."30 A
z4. Aug. Civ. 8.11i.
25. P1. Ti. 44D; Gn. 1:6-8.
26. P1. Ti. z8B.
27. Pl. Ti. z8A.
28. Phil. Leg. all. i. .
29. Gn. 1:zz.
30. P1. Ti. 3oA.
Any reader coming to the cosmogony of Genesis from having read the
cosmogony of Timaeus, as we have done here-reading them, therefore,
not in the sequence in which they were written, but in the sequence in
which they appeared in Greek, and then again in the sequence in which
they appeared in Latin-would look for equivalents in Genesis, if any, to
the fundamental distinction of Timaeus between "what is perceptible to
the senses [To ala811T6v] " and "what is apprehensible only to the mind [To
vo11T6v ] . "27 The question raised earlier, whether the first verse of the
Genesis account was intended only to provide a chapter title or to describe
the first in a chronological series of acts of creation, could be relevant to
such a distinction; for if it was a chapter title, it could be interpreted as
having intended to make that very distinction by the phrase 6 oupavos KGL
� yfl , with oupav6s (heaven) standing for Koaµos VOllTOS and yfl (earth) for
K6aµos ala811T6s; this was how Philo took it.28 The interpretation of the
opening words was crucial as well for the interpretation of what followed,
� OE yfl �v ci6paTos Kal ciKaTaaKEuaaTos, Kal aK6Tos ETiavw Tfls ci�uaaou, 29
j ust as it was for the interpretation of the corresponding passage early in
Timaeus, "When he took over all that was visible, seeing that it was not in
a state of rest but in a state of discordant and disorderly motion, he
brought it into order out of disorder [Els ni� w . . . EK Tfls cha6,as] . " 30 A
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Aug. Civ. 8 . I I .
Pl. Ti. 44D; Gn. 1 : 6-8.
Pl. Ti. 28B.
Pl. Ti. 28A.
Phil. Leg. all. r. r.
Gn. r :22.
Pl. Ti. 3 0A.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Jerusalem
Jerusalem 51
later passage of Timaeus described this "disorder" in detail, with "every
variety of appearance" and movement "in various directions."31 Both
cosmogonies were confronted here by a primeval form of the perennial
dilemma of theodicy; for "if so be that this Cosmos is beautiful and its
Constructor good" [EL 1iv 8 KaXgO EUTLV 68E 6 K6o0oO 6 TE TriLOvpy6
dya6],32 as Timaeus put it but as Genesis could also have put it, if in
fact, as the dialogue immediately went on to specify, both of those adjec-
tives more appropriately belonged in the superlative, so that the Creator
was "most good" [dptrTsO] and this cosmos "most beautiful" [KdX-
XLtTOs],33 then where in the world, where in such a world, could such
chaos ever have come from?34 If it came from the Creator, his goodness
could be questioned; if it did not, his status as creator could be questioned.
Timaeus had an easier time dealing with the dilemma, because its entire
middle section, "What Comes of Necessity,"35 provided it with a set of
categories, particularly the two kinds of causes, "the necessary and the
divine" [T6 iv dvtyKaLov, TO &8 Eov], for coping even with chaos.36 By
contrast, when a later prophet of Israel declared that God "shaped the
earth and made it" but "did not create it to be chaos,"37 he was making
clear that such a resolution of the dilemma was not readily available to
those who stood in the tradition of Genesis, which would not allow draw-
ing a distinction of this kind between "necessary" causes and "divine"
causes, because its picture of the process of creation was predicated on the
monergism of the divine agency of the one God confessed in the Shema.38
In Timaeus the divine response to this chaos was to "bring it into order
out of disorder" [ELs T Lv . . . EK Tfl cT T c(t],39 but in the Septuagint
Genesis the chaos was described as "invisible and unfinished" [d6paTOs
Kai KaTaOGKEU GaTOs], with its most specific characteristic identified as
"darkness over the abyss" [uK6TOS ETrT(VO T1" ] f36acouv]. Therefore, "God
said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light."40 Once again, Genesis left
unanswered the question of whence and how the darkness had come into
31. Pl. Ti. 5zD-53C.
32. Pl. Ti. z9A.
33. Pl. Ti. 3 0A.
34. See Scheffel 1976, 71-74.
35. Pl. Ti. 47E-61A; on Necessity, see Brisson 1974, 469-78.
36. Pl. Ti. 68E.
37. Is. 45:18 (NJB).
38. Gunkel 1895 remains, a full century later, an important examination of the sim-
ilarities and differences between biblical and nonbiblical views of "chaos."
3 9. Pl. Ti. 3oA.
40. Gn. 1:2-3.
5r
later passage of Timaeus described this "disorder" in detail, with " every
variety of appearance " and movement "in various directions. " 3 l Both
cosmogonies were confronted here by a primeval form of the perennial
dilemma of theodicy; for " if so be that this Cosmos is beautiful and its
Constructor good" [El µE:v 8� KUAOS ECJTLV o8E 0 KOCJµos 0 TE 8riµLOupyos
aya96s] , 32 as Timaeus put it but as Genesis could also have put it, if in
fact, as the dialogue immediately went on to specify, both of those adjec­
tives more appropriately belonged in the superlative, so that the Creator
was " most good" [apLaTos] and this cosmos " most beautiful " [KaA­
ALCJTos],33 then where in the world, where in such a world, could such
chaos ever have come from ?34 If it came from the Creator, his goodness
could be questioned; if it did not, his status as creator could be questioned.
Timaeus had an easier time dealing with the dilemma, because its entire
middle section, "What Comes of Necessity, " 35 provided it with a set of
categories, particularly the two kinds of causes, "the necessary and the
divine " [T o µE:v avayKa'iov, TO 8E: 9E'iov ] , for coping even with chaos.36 By
contrast, when a later prophet of Israel declared that God " shaped the
earth and made it" but " did not create it to be chaos,"37 he was making
clear that such a resolution of the dilemma was not readily available to
those who stood in the tradition of Genesis, which would not allow draw­
ing a distinction of this kind between " necessary" causes and " divine"
causes, because its picture of the process of creation was predicated on the
monergism of the divine agency of the one God confessed in the Shema.38
In Timaeus the divine response to this chaos was to " bring it into order
out of disorder" [Els Tcl�LV . . . EK Tfls aTac ( as] ,39 but in the Septuagint
Genesis the chaos was described as " invisible and unfinished" [aopaTos
KUL GKUTUCJKEUUCJTOS ), with its most specific characteristic identified as
" darkness over the abyss" [aKOTOS ETTclVW TflS a�UCJCJOU ] . Therefore, " God
said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light. "4 0 Once again, Genesis left
unanswered the question of whence and how the darkness had come into
3 i . Pl. Ti. 5 2D - 5 3 C.
3 2. Pl. Ti. 29A.
3 3 . Pl. Ti. 3 0A.
34. See Scheffel 1 9 7 6, 7 1 -74.
3 5 . Pl. Ti. 47E- 6 1 A; on Necessity, see Brisson 1 9 74, 469-7 8 .
3 6 . Pl. Ti. 68E.
37· Is. 4 5 : 1 8 (NJB).
3 8 . Gunkel l 89 5 remains, a full century later, an important examination of the sim­
ilarities and differences between biblical and nonbiblical views of " chaos. "
3 9 . Pl. Ti. 3 0A.
40. Gn. 1 : 2-3 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
52
52 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
being, concentrating instead on the miracle of light. The scientific discus-
sion of light and darkness in Timaeus accounted for them on the basis of
two of the four elements, fire and air-light from the first, darkness from
the second. For in addition to the most familiar and common kind of fire,
which was called "flame" [4X66], there was "the kind issuing from flame,
which does not burn but supplies light to the eyes" [ C 8&i Toils [L[act
TrapEXEL].41 Thus the eyes were "light-bearing" [Ocoug6pa 6 traTa],
through which "the pure fire within us" was emitted "in a smooth and
dense stream," making vision possible by the action of "like unto like"
[6Rotov rrp6 Sotov].42 Air, too, was of various kinds, among which there
was "the most translucent kind which is called by the name of aether" [T6
[tLEv EcryEG TaTov ETLKXfVy atiO1p KaXOV[LEVOs] and which did not obstruct
the flow of light from the light-bearing eyes.43 The particles thrown off
from an object that were of the same size as the particles of the "visual
stream" [TO Tfs 6 O0E0 pEuIaa] itself were therefore "imperceptible"
[ivacrOrlTa] and were called "transparent" [Sta4av1f], whereas the par-
ticles that were either larger or smaller were black or white or some color
in between.44 The opposite kind of air was "the most opaque" and was
called "mist and darkness" [6 8& oXepT(TaTOS 6pU.Xrq TE KiL (TKoTOS].45 In
this way the concept of the four ootxELa enabled Plato to cope in Timaeus
with the relation between "light" and "darkness" by treating them under
distinct categories; in contrast, the creation account of Genesis made them
the subject of the primeval cosmic drama of "Fiat lux!"
The apostle Paul affirmed a direct continuity between his gospel and
that cosmic drama, while also espousing a version of the relation between
the inner and the outer light, when he declared: "The same God who said,
'Out of darkness let light shine,' has caused his light to shine within us, to
give the light of revelation-the revelation of the glory of God in the face
of Jesus Christ."46 Opposing the notion of such a continuity between
creation and redemption by "the same God," later Christian dualisms
were able to find in these verses of Genesis a biblical justification for their
fundamental intuition that from the very beginning there had been a
conflict between the power of darkness and the power of light, with the
world of creatures, especially of human creatures, caught more or less
41. Pl. Ti. 58C.
42z. P1. Ti. 45B-C; Aug. Trin. 9.3-3.
43. P1. Ti. 58D.
44. P1. Ti. 67D-E.
45. P1. Ti. 58D.
46. 2 Cor. 4:6.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
being, concentrating instead on the miracle of light. The scientific discus­
sion of light and darkness in Timaeus accounted for them on the basis of
two of the four elements, fire and air-light from the first, darkness from
the second. For in addition to the most familiar and common kind of fire,
which was called " flame " [¢Mt ] , there was "the kind issuing from flame,
which does not burn but supplies light to the eyes" [cpWS' OE TolS' oµµam
TIUPEXEL] .41 Thus the eyes were " light-bearing" [ewacpopa oµµaTa] ,
through which "the pure fire within us " was emitted " in a smooth and
dense stream, " making vision possible by the action of " like unto like "
[oµoLOV TIPOS' oµOLOV ] .42 Air, too, was of various kinds, among which there
was "the most translucent kind which is called by the name of aether" [To
µEv Et'.myEaTaTov ETIL KATJV aleilp KaAouµEVOS'] and which did not obstruct
the flow of light from the light-bearing eyes.43 The particles thrown off
from an object that were of the same size as the particles of the "visual
stream" [To TllS' OlVEWS' pEuµa] itself were therefore " imperceptible "
(ava[a9T)TU] and were called "transparent" [otacpavil ] , whereas the par­
ticles that were either larger or smaller were black or white or some color
in between.44 The opposite kind of air was "the most opaque" and was
called "mist and darkness " [6 OE 9oAE pWTUTOS' oµLXATJ TE KUL CTKOTOS'] .45 In
this way the concept of the four aTOLXELa enabled Plato to cope in Timaeus
with the relation between " light " and " darkness " by treating them under
distinct categories; in contrast, the creation account of Genesis made them
the subject of the primeval cosmic drama of " Fiat lux ! "
The apostle Paul affirmed a direct continuity between his gospel and
that cosmic drama, while also espousing a version of the relation between
the inner and the outer light, when he declared: "The same God who said,
'Out of darkness let light shine,' has caused his light to shine within us, to
give the light of revelation-the revelation of the glory of God in the face
of Jesus Christ. "46 Opposing the notion of such a continuity between
creation and redemption by "the same God," later Christian dualisms
were able to find in these verses of Genesis a biblical justification for their
fundamental intuition that from the very beginning there had been a
conflict between the power of darkness and the power of light, with the
world of creatures, especially of human creatures, caught more or less
4i.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
Pl. Ti.
Pl. Ti.
Pl. Ti.
Pl. Ti.
Pl. Ti.
2 Cor.
5 8 C.
4 5 B-C; Aug. Trin. 9 · 3 +
5 8D .
67D-E.
5 8D .
4:6.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Jerusalem
Jerusalem 53
helplessly between the two contending forces. In response, Christian or-
thodoxy quoted these words of Paul to affirm the continuity.47 Eventually,
and with considerable help from the Platonic tradition, it went on to
develop the argument that as darkness was the absence of light rather than
a positive reality in its own right, so, more generally evil was to be defined
as a "privatio boni" rather than as a second god;48 this definition became
orthodox despite Paul's use, in the passage just quoted, of the portentous
term "the god of this passing age" [6 06" TOi) ak&vog TOuTOV]49 as a title
for the devil. In Genesis the presence of evil was not tied directly to
darkness as opposed to light but attributed, in the story of the temptation,
to the person of the "crafty" serpent.5so Eventually the two explanations
of evil came together, with the identification of the serpent as the devil and
the reliance of the Gospel of John on the metaphor of light and darkness
as one of its most important theological themes for the conflict between
good and evil.
A more direct function of darkness and light in the Genesis narrative
itself, and one that also invited a much more contrapuntal treatment of
Timaeus, was the measurement of time, "night and day."51 Though not a
momentous analogy, it does deserve mention that in the language both of
Genesis and of Timaeus there appeared the sequence of first "evening" or
"night" and then "morning" or "day," rather than the other way
around.52 A curious feature of the first chapter of Genesis, which has
proved especially puzzling to those interpreters who have striven to read it
as a literal account of events that took place at a definite time in history
and in the course of six days of normal length-and which those opposed
to such a literal interpretation could cite as proof against it-was that
God's separating "light from darkness" and calling "the light day, and the
darkness night" was followed immediately by the formula "So evening
came, and morning came, the first day [or, in the Septuagint, one day,
t pa ta]."53 For not until the fourth day would God make the sun and
moon "to separate day from night," which raised the troubling question
of what the word day could be supposed to mean until then. With the
47. Tert. Marc. 5.11i.
48. Aug. Gen. imp. 5.
49. 2 Cor. 4:4.
50. Gn. 3:1.
51. See Callahan 1948 and the discussions of time in Timaeus in Matter 1964, 132-36,
and Gloy 1986, 48-74.
52. Gn. 1:5; P1. Ti. 39C.
53. Gn. 1:4-5.
53
helplessly between the two contending forces. In response, Christian or­
thodoxy quoted these words of Paul to affirm the continuity.47 Eventually,
and with considerable help from the Platonic tradition, it went on to
develop the argument that as darkness was the absence of light rather than
a positive reality in its own right, so, more generally evil was to be defined
as a "privatio boni " rather than as a second god;48 this definition became
orthodox despite Paul's use, in the passage j ust quoted, of the portentous
term "the god of this passing age " [6 8Eos ToD atwvos TOVTOV ]49 as a title
for the devil. In Genesis the presence of evil was not tied directly to
darkness as opposed to light but attributed, in the story of the temptation,
to the person of the "crafty" serpent. s o Eventually the two explanations
of evil came together, with the identification of the serpent as the devil and
the reliance of the Gospel ofJohn on the metaphor of light and darkness
as one of its most important theological themes for the conflict between
good and evil.
A more direct function of darkness and light in the Genesis narrative
itself, and one that also invited a much more contrapuntal treatment of
Timaeus, was the measurement of time, "night and day. " 5 1 Though not a
momentous analogy, it does deserve mention that in the language both of
Genesis and of Timaeus there appeared the sequence of first "evening " or
"night" and then " morning" or " day, " rather than the other way
around.52 A curious feature of the first chapter of Genesis, which has
proved especially puzzling to those interpreters who have striven to read it
as a literal account of events that took place at a definite time in history
and in the course of six days of normal length-and which those opposed
to such a literal interpretation could cite as proof against it-was that
God's separating " light from darkness " and calling "the light day, and the
darkness night" was followed immediately by the formula " So evening
came, and morning came, the first day [or, in the Septuagint, one day,
�µE pa µ(a] . "53 For not until the fourth day would God make the sun and
moon "to separate day from night, " which raised the troubling question
of what the word day could be supposed to mean until then. With the
47. Tert. Marc. 5 . 1 I .
4 8 . Aug. Gen. imp. 5 .
49. 2 Cor. 4:4.
50. Gn. 3 : i .
5 1 . See Callahan 1 9 4 8 and the discussions of time in Timaeus in Matter 1 9 64, 1 3 2- 3 6,
and Gloy 1 9 8 6, 4 8 -74.
52. Gn. 1 : 5 ; Pl. Ti. 39C.
5 3 · Gn. 1:4-5.
l( H I G
P� ES S
54
54 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
events of this fourth day of creation, whatever the system of measuring
days had been before that, there finally were, according to Genesis, "two
great lights, the greater to govern the day and the lesser to govern the
night"; though they were not given names in Genesis, as they were in
many ancient cosmogonies (including both De rerum natura and Tim-
aeus), they were to "serve as signs both for festivals and for seasons and
years."54 Timaeus, too, specified such indications for its measurements of
time: "Night and Day, which are the revolution of the one and most
intelligent circuit [of the sun]; and Month, each time that the Moon
having completed her own orbit overtakes the Sun; and Year, as often as
the Sun has completed his own orbit."55 To this natural calendar of day,
month, and year Genesis added its own special component, the sacred
week, which became the distinctive way of marking the six days of divine
creation and the seventh day of divine rest on the Sabbath.56 Although the
Sabbath was based here on the creation, which was shared by the entire
human race and the entire universe, so that Philo could identify it as "the
birthday of the cosmos" [ToF K6OoiOU yEVE9XL0OS],57 it was in fact a part of
the Jewish liturgical calendar. Another parallel to Timaeus was the use in
Genesis of the lapidary phrase "With them he made the stars" to explain
the origin of the vast range of heavenly bodies, which were for both
Timaeus and Genesis too numerous to count,58 and which were incidental
to both cosmogonies.
Imago Dei
One of the most striking contrasts between Genesis and Timaeus, and also
between the "E" account in the first chapter of Genesis and the "J"
account in the second chapter, made its presence felt in the creation of
man. For (in the words of Timaeus) "as regards the mode in which the rest
of living creatures have been produced,"59 chapter i of Genesis made the
human race the apex of creation by telling the story of the creation of the
other living beings first, with man as the climax on the sixth and final day;
Timaeus did so by following its account of the creation of man with a
54. Gn. 1:14-19.
55. Pl. Ti. 39C; Claghorn 1954, 84-98; Mohr 1985, 55-75.
56. Gn. z:2-3; Ex. zo:8-iI.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
events of this fourth day of creation, whatever the system of measuring
days had been before that, there finally were, according to Genesis, "two
great lights, the greater to govern the day and the lesser to govern the
night"; though they were not given names in Genesis, as they were in
many ancient cosmogonies ( including both De rerum natura and Tim­
aeus), they were to " serve as signs both for festivals and for seasons and
years. " 54 Timaeus, too, specified such indications for its measurements of
time: "Night and Day, which are the revolution of the one and most
intelligent circuit [of the sun] ; and Month, each time that the Moon
having completed her own orbit overtakes the Sun; and Year, as often as
the Sun has completed his own orbit. "55 To this natural calendar of day,
month, and year Genesis added its own special component, the sacred
week, which became the distinctive way of marking the six days of divine
creation and the seventh day of divine rest on the Sabbath.56 Although the
Sabbath was based here on the creation, which was shared by the entire
human race and the entire universe, so that Philo could identify it as "the
birthday of the cosmos" [Tou Koaµou yEvE0ALos-] ,57 it was in fact a part of
the Jewish liturgical calendar. Another parallel to Timaeus was the use in
Genesis of the lapidary phrase "With them he made the stars " to explain
the origin of the vast range of heavenly bodies, which were for both
Timaeus and Genesis too numerous to count,58 and which were incidental
to both cosmogonies.
57. Phil. Opif. 89.
58. Gn. 15:5.
Imago Dei
59. Pl. Ti. 9oE.
One of the most striking contrasts between Genesis and Timaeus, and also
between the "E" account in the first chapter of Genesis and the "J"
account in the second chapter, made its presence felt in the creation of
man. For (in the words of Timaeus) " as regards the mode in which the rest
of living creatures have been produced, "59 chapter I of Genesis made the
human race the apex of creation by telling the story of the creation of the
other living beings first, with man as the climax on the sixth and final day;
Timaeus did so by following its account of the creation of man with a
54.
55.
5 6.
57.
58.
59·
Gn. 1 : q - 1 9 .
Pl. Ti. 3 9 C; Claghorn 1 9 54, 8 4 - 9 8 ; Mohr 1 9 8 5 , 5 5 - 7 5 .
Gn. 2:2- 3 ; Ex. 20: 8 - 1 r .
Phil. Opif 8 9 .
Gn. 1 5 : 5 .
Pl. Ti. 90E.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Jerusalem
Jerusalem
55
description of the several genera of animals (as well as woman) as various
forms of punishment for men who had gone wrong; and chapter 2 of
Genesis began with the creation of man: "In the day in which the Lord
God made the heaven and the earth, and every herb of the field before it
was on the earth. . . God formed the man of the dust of the earth."60 For
the purposes of this study of the counterpoint in subsequent history, that
contrast had several direct implications.
First of these in order of mention within the unified account, and
foremost in importance for the history of the counterpoint, was the
doctrine of the "imago Dei," the creation of man by God "in our image,
after our likeness" [KaT' ELKOVa lljETEpaV KaL KaU' 6ORoLoxLv],61 which,
according to one twentieth-century theological critic, "formed a synthesis
between the Platonic-Aristotelian-Stoic view and the Christian view of
man, which dominated the whole of the Patristic period and the Christian
Middle Ages, and has been, and still is, operative."62 For all the momen-
tous significance it would be asked to carry throughout the history of its
interpretation, the concept of "imago Dei" was, curiously, left without
specific content here at its first appearance. Genesis referred to it in its
genealogy-"On the day when God created man he made him in the
likeness of God"-then went on in the next verse to explain that Adam
"begot a son in his likeness and image, and named him Seth"; once again,
there was no particular content indicated.63 The next reference in Genesis
to the "imago Dei" invoked it as a reinforcement of the prohibition of
murder: "He that sheds the blood of a man, for that man his blood shall be
shed; for in the image of God has God made man."64 This moral applica-
tion of the concept was to persist in the New Testament,65 which, how-
ever, also made it into a technical term of Christology when it identified
Christ as the one "who is the very image of God" [6S &YTtV EtKGV TOO
OEOV],66 affecting the reading both of Genesis and of Timaeus by Christian
theologians. The identification of Christ as the image of God in person
legitimized the process of going beyond the simply moral application to a
doctrine of the divine image that could fill it with the meaning provided by
the humanity of Jesus Christ as the perfect man.
60. Gn. 2:4-7.
6i1. Gn. i:z6.
6z. Brunner 1939, 92-93.
63. Gn. 5:2-3.
64. Gn. 9:6.
65. Jas. 3:9.
66. 2 Cor. 4:4.
55
description of the several genera of animals ( as well as woman) as various
forms of punishment for men who had gone wrong; and chapter 2 of
Genesis began with the creation of man: " In the day in which the Lord
God made the heaven and the earth, and every herb of the field before it
was on the earth . . . God formed the man of the dust of the earth. " 6 0 For
the purposes of this study of the counterpoint in subsequent history, that
contrast had several direct implications.
First of these in order of mention within the unified account, and
foremost in importance for the history of the counterpoint, was the
doctrine of the " imago Dei, " the creation of man by God "in our image,
after our likeness" [KaT ' ELKOVa �µETE pav KaL Ka8 ' oµo(waw],6 1 which,
according to one twentieth-century theological critic, " formed a synthesis
between the Platonic-Aristotelian-Stoic view and the Christian view of
man, which dominated the whole of the Patristic period and the Christian
Middle Ages, and has been, and still is, operative. " 62 For all the momen­
tous significance it would be asked to carry throughout the history of its
interpretation, the concept of " imago Dei" was, curiously, left without
specific content here at its first appearance. Genesis referred to it in its
genealogy- " On the day when God created man he made him in the
likeness of God" -then went on in the next verse to explain that Adam
" begot a son in his likeness and image, and named him Seth " ; once again,
there was no particular content indicated. 63 The next reference in Genesis
to the " imago Dei " invoked it as a reinforcement of the prohibition of
murder: "He that sheds the blood of a man, for that man his blood shall be
shed; for in the image of God has God made man . " 64 This moral applica­
tion of the concept was to persist in the New Testament,65 which, how­
ever, also made it into a technical term of Christology when it identified
Christ as the one "who is the very image of God " [os E:anv ELKwv Tau
8EOu],66 affecting the reading both of Genesis and of Timaeus by Christian
theologians. The identification of Christ as the image of God in person
legitimized the process of going beyond the simply moral application to a
doctrine of the divine image that could fill it with the meaning provided by
the humanity of Jesus Christ as the perfect man.
60.
6 r.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
Gn. 2:4-7.
Gn. r :26.
Brunner 1 9 3 9 , 92-9 3 .
Gn. 5 : 2-3 .
Gn. 9 : 6 .
]as. 3 :9 .
2 Cor. 4:4.
l( H I G
P� ES S
56
56 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
But a complementary method for finding such meaning, alongside both
the moral and the Christological, came from the full-blown counterpart to
the biblical notion of "imago Dei" that was provided by the Platonic
writings, most dramatically by Timaeus. Its closing words, "image of the
[God who is] apprehensible only to the mind; God made perceptible to the
senses; most great and most good, most beautiful and most perfect in His
generation-even this one only-begotten Heaven" [E LKV TOO VOrTTOu 0e E
aLaeflT6~, EyLTOTOS KaL ptLOTOS KdtXtOT6" TE KGL TEXE)WTcTOS TyE-yOVEV EL
Opctv6b 686 RovoyEVi ccv],67 all of which later became technical terms in
Christian theology, were a summary and a climax of its central theme of
creation according to the image of the Eternal. As noted earlier, that theme
made use of the same term that appeared in the Septuagint of Genesis,
"image" [EL Kv], whose correlative in Timaeus, though not in Genesis,
was "model" [Trapd8ELtyp[a];68 the other term in Genesis, 6toL Lts, was
likewise present in Timaeus, in the general thesis, attributed to "the God,"
the Demiurge, "that the similar is infinitely more beautiful than the
dissimilar" [[upl KLXtoV 6~iOLov dvoo[ovu], which was the basis of the
Demiurge's decision to make the world spherical, "which of all shapes is
the most perfect and the most self-similar."69 For Genesis the model of the
image was God the Creator, for Timaeus "that which is uniform"; but for
both cosmogonies the concept of the image was a way of saying that "that
object must of necessity be beautiful [KaX6v]."70 The subject of the predi-
cate image of God in Genesis was specifically humanity rather than the
universe as a whole, but in subsequent exegesis and speculation it was not
difficult to broaden that predicate to make it coextensive with the predi-
cate Kak6Xos, which was applied, in Genesis no less than in Timaeus, both to
humanity and to the universe as a whole. Therefore the message of both
cosmogonies was that "If so be that this Cosmos is beautiful [Kak6'] and
its Constructor [Slgtoupy6;] good [dtya/06], it is plain that he fixed his
gaze on the Eternal [vrp6c TO ai8tov],"71 creating it according to his image.
Nevertheless it was true of both comogonies that the doctrine of creation,
and therefore the doctrine of creation "according to the image" [KaT'
ELK6va], pertained in a special sense to the creation of humanity.
The uniqueness of the creation of humanity was emphasized in the
67. Pl. Ti. 92C (adapted from Jowett).
68. P1. Ti. z9B.
69. Pl. Ti. 33B.
70. Pl. Ti. z8A.
71. Pl. Ti. z9A.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
But a complementary method for finding such meaning, alongside both
the moral and the Christological, came from the full-blown counterpart to
the biblical notion of " imago Dei" that was provided by the Platonic
writings, most dramatically by Timaeus. Its closing words, " image of the
[God who is] apprehensible only to the mind; God made perceptible to the
senses; most great and most good, most beautiful and most perfect in His
generation-even this one only-begotten Heaven" [d Kwv TOD voriToD 8EOS"
ata811T6s' µEyLCTTOS" KQL apLCJTOS" KUAALCJTOS" TE KQL TE AEWTQTOS" YEYOVEV ELS"
oupaVOS" o8E µovoyEv�s WV ],67 all of which later became technical terms in
Christian theology, were a summary and a climax of its central theme of
creation according to the image of the Eternal. As noted earlier, that theme
made use of the same term that appeared in the Septuagint of Genesis,
" image " [d Kwv ] , whose correlative in Timaeus, though not in Genesis,
was " model" [rrapa8E Lyµa];68 the other term in Genesis, 6µo(waLS", was
likewise present in Timaeus, in the general thesis, attributed to "the God,"
the Demiurge, "that the similar is infinitely more beautiful than the
dissimilar" [µup(c.µ KUAALOV oµmov avoµo[ov ] , which was the basis of the
Demiurge's decision to make the world spherical, "which of all shapes is
the most perfect and the most self-similar. " 69 For Genesis the model of the
image was God the Creator, for Timaeus "that which is uniform" ; but for
both cosmogonies the concept of the image was a way of saying that "that
object must of necessity be beautiful [KaAOv ] . " 70 The subj ect of the predi­
cate image of God in Genesis was specifically humanity rather than the
universe as a whole, but in subsequent exegesis and speculation it was not
difficult to broaden that predicate to make it coextensive with the predi­
cate KaAOS", which was applied, in Genesis no less than in Timaeus, both to
humanity and to the universe as a whole. Therefore the message of both
cosmogonies was that " If so be that this Cosmos is beautiful [KaAOS"] and
its Constructor [811 µwupy6S"] good [ciya86S" ], it is plain that he fixed his
gaze on the Eternal [rrpOS" TO a'L faov ] , " 71 creating it according to his image.
Nevertheless it was true of both comogonies that the doctrine of creation,
and therefore the doctrine of creation " according to the image " [KaT '
E L Kova] , pertained in a special sense to the creation of humanity.
The uniqueness of the creation of humanity was emphasized in the
67.
68.
69.
70.
7r.
Pl.
Pl.
Pl.
Pl.
Pl.
Ti.
Ti.
Ti.
Ti.
Ti.
9 2 C (adapted from Jowett).
29B.
3 3B.
2 8A.
29A.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Jerusalem
Jerusalem
57
second version of the creation story of Genesis by the words "God formed
the man of dust of the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life,
and the man became a living soul" [KaL EyEVETO 6 dvOpcoTro" cEL ~vXv
(CTav].72 Earlier it had spoken of "every reptile creeping on the earth,
which has in itself a soul of life" [6 XEL v aUTC buXyv (wis],73 which
makes it clear that the Greek term vuxrj, like its Hebrew original ,
pertained not only to "the man" but to other living creatures. Neverthe-
less, there was apparently a difference between the man and other crea-
tures, in that other creatures were said to "have" [ xELv] a vuxrI, whereas
the man was said to "have become" [&y vETO] one. Only concerning the
creation of the man, moreover, did Genesis in its first account speak of an
express divine decision and a consultation of God (something like what
Timaeus called a Xoy 6OIs)74 with himself, or perhaps with the angels-
"Let us make man"75-rather than of a simple and direct divine fiat. And
then, in its second account, Genesis posited a process for the creation of
the man consisting of two distinct stages (prior to the separate creation of
the woman, which was to follow later): first, "God formed the man"
[ETrXaYEV 6 0 6 T6V dvOpcorTov], a process that seemed to pertain only to
the human body, although the text did not say that in so many words;
second, "[God] breathed upon his face the breath of life" [EVEd60afyEV ELL
T6 Trp6OWTrOV aTO Trvo v ( is]. Only after the second stage, according to
the text, did "the man became a living soul." The two accounts would
provide Philo with textual justification for his fundamental distinction
between two creations of humanity. Genesis did not, here or elsewhere,
present any schematization of the relation between body and soul or
between either of these and spirit; and even in the New Testament the
entire schematism was sufficiently vague-for example, in the relation
between jivxj iov and T6 TrvEU0d tov in the Magnificat76-to provoke
later debates over dichotomy versus trichotomy. Yet there is no warrant in
the text of Genesis to conclude that the sequence of the two stages implied
a priority of worth for the body over the soul, rather than the other way
around.
Although a priority of worth for the soul over the body may have been
no more than hinted at in the account of the creation of man in Genesis, it
72. Gn. 2:7.
73. Gn. 2:30.
74. P1. Ti. 34A-B.
75. Gn. 1:z6.
76. Lk. 1:46-47.
57
second version o f the creation story o f Genesis by the words " God formed
the man of dust of the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life,
and the man became a living soul " [KaL E: yEvETO 6 c'iv8pwrros ELS' tf;ux�v
(waav ] .72 Earlier it had spoken of " every reptile creeping on the earth,
which has in itself a soul of life" [o EXE L E:v E:auT0 tf;vx�v (wfls ], 73 which
makes it clear that the Greek term tf;uxtj , like its Hebrew original ���'
pertained not only to "the man " but to other living creatures. Neverthe­
less, there was apparently a difference between the man and other crea­
tures, in that other creatures were said to "have " [EXE LV] a tf;uxtj , whereas
the man was said to "have become " [E:yEVETo] one. Only concerning the
creation of the man, moreover, did Genesis in its first account speak of an
express divine decision and a consultation of God (something like what
Timaeus called a AoyLaµos ) 74 with himself, or perhaps with the angels­
" Let us make man" 75-rather than of a simple and direct divine fiat. And
then, in its second account, Genesis posited a process for the creation of
the man consisting of two distinct stages (prior to the separate creation of
the woman, which was to follow later) : first, " God formed the man"
[EtrAaCJEV 6 8EOS' TOV c'iv8pwrrov ], a process that seemed to pertain only to
the human body, although the text did not say that in so many words;
second, " [God] breathed upon his face the breath of life " [E:vEcpUCJT}CJEV E L S'
T o rrpoawrrov avTov rrvo�v (wfls] . Only after the second stage, according to
the text, did "the man became a living soul. " The two accounts would
provide Philo with textual justification for his fundamental distinction
between two creations of humanity. Genesis did not, here or elsewhere,
present any schematization of the relation between body and soul or
between either of these and spirit; and even in the New Testament the
entire schematism was sufficiently vague-for example, in the relation
between � tf;uxtj µou and To rrvEDµci µou in the Magnificat76-to provoke
later debates over dichotomy versus trichotomy. Yet there is no warrant in
the text of Genesis to conclude that the sequence of the two stages implied
a priority of worth for the body over the soul, rather than the other way
around.
Although a priority of worth for the soul over the body may have been
no more than hinted at in the account of the creation of man in Genesis, it
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
Gn. 2:7.
Gn. 2:30.
Pl. Ti. 3 4A-B.
Gn. 1 : 2 6.
Lk. 1 :46-47.
l( H I G
P� ES S
58
58 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
became unambiguous in the account of the creation of the world soul in
Timaeus.77 In recounting "the reasoning of the ever-existing God con-
cerning the god which was one day to be existent" [d&it doyw i OEov iTEpt
TOv TOTE (6[Evov OE 6v], it spoke first about "a whole and perfect body
compounded of perfect bodies." Only then did it go on to describe how
"in the midst thereof He set Soul, which He stretched throughout the
whole of it, and therewith He enveloped also the exterior of its body."78
Here, too, just as in chapter 2 of Genesis, there would seem to be a 655ca, a
body that first was formed and only then infused with whatever was
necessary for a 4vx1l to animate it. Unlike Genesis, however, Timaeus
immediately went on to supply what Archer-Hind calls the "rectification
of an inexact statement" by explaining that "as regards the Soul, although
we are essaying to describe it after the body, God did not likewise plan it
to be younger than the body"; on the contrary, "God constructed Soul to
be older than Body and prior in birth and excellence [yEV&rEL KaL UpET1]
TpOTEQpav KaL TrpE uTEpav], since she was to be the mistress and ruler."79
As A.E. Taylor has fittingly paraphrased this passage:
It must not be inferred from our having first spoken of the formation
of the body of the oupav6os and then of the soul which God "put into
it" that this represents the real order of creation. In speaking as we
did, we fell into a neglect of accuracy and order which is one of our
human infirmities. The world did not begin by being a body and
then become a living body. We ought to have put the soul first,
because soul comes before body yEv4E EL KL pET- "in order both of
becoming and of worth."80
In corroboration of this emphasis, Plato affirmed at least twice in book io
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
became unambiguous in the account of the creation of the world soul in
Timaeus. 77 In recounting "the reasoning of the ever-existing God con­
cerning the god which was one day to be existent" [aEL A.oywµos 9Eou nEpL
Tov noTE: EaoµEvov 9Eov ], it spoke first about "a whole and perfect body
compounded of perfect bodies . " Only then did it go on to describe how
" in the midst thereof He set Soul, which He stretched throughout the
whole of it, and therewith He enveloped also the exterior of its body. " 78
Here, too, j ust as in chapter 2 of Genesis, there would seem to be a awµa, a
body that first was formed and only then infused with whatever was
necessary for a 4Juxft to animate it. Unlike Genesis, however, Timaeus
immediately went on to supply what Archer-Hind calls the " rectification
of an inexact statement " by explaining that "as regards the Soul, although
we are essaying to describe it after the body, God did not likewise plan it
to be younger than the body " ; on the contrary, " God constructed Soul to
be older than Body and prior in birth and excellence [yEVEUEL KaL cipETQ
npoTE pav Kal npEa�UTEpav ] , since she was to be the mistress and ruler. " 79
As A.E. Taylor has fittingly paraphrased this passage:
of the Laws: "Truly and finally, then, it would be a most veracious and
complete statement to say that we find soul has to be prior to body, and
body secondary and posterior, soul governing and body being governed
according to the ordinance of nature."81 At the hands of later biblical
interpreters, both Jewish and Christian, the account of the sequence of
body and soul in Genesis would easily lend itself to the more detailed
77. See Scheffel 1976, 91-117.
78. Pl. Ti. 34A-B.
79. Archer-Hind 1888, 104 n. 9; P1. Ti. 34B-C.
8o. Taylor 1928, o105.
81. Pl. Leg. io.896B-C, 89zA-B.
It must not be inferred from our having first spoken of the formation
of the body of the oupavos and then of the soul which God "put into
it" that this represents the real order of creation. In speaking as we
did, we fell into a neglect of accuracy and order which is one of our
human infirmities. The world did not begin by being a body and
then become a living body. We ought to have put the soul first,
because soul comes before body yEvEaEL Kal cipETij "in order both of
becoming and of worth. " 80
In corroboration of this emphasis, Plato affirmed at least twice in book 1 0
o f the Laws: "Truly and finally, then, it would b e a most veracious and
complete statement to say that we find soul has to be prior to body, and
body secondary and posterior, soul governing and body being governed
according to the ordinance of nature. " 8 1 At the hands of later biblical
interpreters, both Jewish and Christian, the account of the sequence of
body and soul in Genesis would easily lend itself to the more detailed
77.
78.
79.
80.
8r.
See Scheffel 1 976, 9 1 - 1 1 7 .
Pl. Ti. 3 4A-B.
Archer-Hind 1 8 8 8 , 1 04 n. 9; Pl. Ti. 3 4B-C.
Taylor 1 9 2 8 , 1 0 5 .
Pl. Leg. r o . 8 9 6B-C, 89 2A-B.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Jerusalem
Jerusalem 59
explanation in Timaeus, on the basis of this Platonic theory of body and
soul as expounded in the Laws and elsewhere.
59
explanation i n Timaeus, o n the basis o f this Platonic theory o f body and
soul as expounded in the Laws and elsewhere.
Moral Choice
Moral Choice
There was something of a parallel between Genesis and Timaeus on an-
other score as well. For the account of the formation of the man out of the
dust of the earth and of his having become a living soul was followed
immediately in Genesis by the assignment of moral choice: "And the Lord
God gave a charge [EVETElkaTO] to Adam, saying, 'Of every tree which is in
the garden thou mayest eat for food [13p0 at E ayit], but of the tree of
learning the knowledge of beautiful and evil [yLV4aKELV KaXOV KaL
lrovfp6v]-of it ye shall not eat [ov 4iyE60E].' "82 It is a linguistic curi-
osity, though perhaps no more than that, that in the Greek translation, but
not in the Hebrew original, the positive permission was put in the singular
whereas the negative prohibition was put in the plural. Another transla-
tion, and one of perhaps greater importance for the subsequent history of
the counterpoint between Genesis and Timaeus, was the designation of
the forbidden fruit as coming from "the tree of learning the knowledge of
good and evil" [TO ~iXov TOl UELSEVat yVcToV KakXO KaL Trovflpoi].83 For
this emphasis on yv(oCrTO v in the determination of moral choice, unaccom-
panied as it was by more detailed explanation, helped to make possible a
connection with that most Socratic of moral concepts, the equation of
moral wrong with ignorance, familiar from many of the Platonic
dialogues. In Timaeus this equation took the form of identifying igno-
rance as "the worst of maladies"84 and of asserting, "And indeed almost
all those affections which are called by way of reproach 'incontinence in
pleasure,' as though the wicked acted voluntarily, are wrongly so re-
proached; for no one is voluntarily wicked [KaKO [Ev yap EKLO)V OUSEis],
but the wicked man becomes wicked by reason of some evil condition of
body and unskilled nurture [Std dratieuroV Tpo4ljv], and these are experi-
ences which are hateful to everyone and involuntary."85
As in Genesis, in Timaeus the account of the formation of the souls
"equal in number to the stars" by the Demiurge is followed with a moral
revelation: "He showed them the nature of the Universe, and declared
unto them the laws of destiny [T1 V TOI wTavbs 4itv SEL E, v6[tovs Te
8z. Gn. 2:I6-I7. On KaX6v and ayaO6v as "synonyms," see Gloy 1986, i8 n. 14.
83. Gn. 2:9.
84. P1. Ti. 44C.
85. P1. Ti. 86D-E.
There was something of a parallel between Genesis and Timaeus on an­
other score as well. For the account of the formation of the man out of the
dust of the earth and of his having become a living soul was followed
immediately in Genesis by the assignment of moral choice: "And the Lord
God gave a charge [EVETELAaTo] to Adam, saying, 'Of every tree which is in
the garden thou mayest eat for food [�pwaE L ¢ayfj ] , but of the tree of
learning the knowledge of beautiful and evil [ywwaKELV KaA.cw Kai
Tiov11p6v] -of it ye shall not eat [ou ¢ciy Ea8E] . "' 82 It is a linguistic curi­
osity, though perhaps no more than that, that in the Greek translation, but
not in the Hebrew original, the positive permission was put in the singular
whereas the negative prohibition was put in the plural. Another transla­
tion, and one of perhaps greater importance for the subsequent history of
the counterpoint between Genesis and Timaeus, was the designation of
the fo rbidden fruit as coming from "the tree of learning the knowledge of
good and evil" [To �vA.ov Tou El8Evm yvwaTov KaA.ou Kai Tiovripou ] . 8 3 For
this emphasis on yvwaTov in the determination of moral choice, unaccom­
panied as it was by more detailed explanation, helped to make possible a
connection with that most Socratic of moral concepts, the equation of
moral wrong with ignorance, familiar from many of the Platonic
dialogues. In Timaeus this equation took the form of identifying igno­
rance as "the worst of maladies" 84 and of asserting, "And indeed almost
all those affections which are called by way of reproach 'incontinence in
pleasure,' as though the wicked acted voluntarily, are wrongly so re­
proached; for no one is voluntarily wicked [KaKOS' µEv yap E KWV ou8EtS' ] ,
but the wicked man becomes wicked by reason o f some evil condition of
body and unskilled nurture [8La aTiaLOEUTOV Tpo¢tjv ] , and these are experi­
ences which are hateful to everyone and involuntary. " 85
As in Genesis, in Timaeus the account of the formation of the souls
" equal in number to the stars" by the Demiurge is followed with a moral
revelation: " He showed them the nature of the Universe, and declared
unto them the laws of destiny [T�V TOU TIUVTOS' <Pvaw EOELEE , voµOUS' TE
82.
83.
84.
85.
Gn. 2 : 1 6- 1 7 . On KaA.Ov and ciya86v as " synonyms, " see Gloy 1 9 8 6, 1 8 n. 1 4 .
Gn. 2:9.
Pl. Ti. 44C.
Pl. Ti. 8 6D-E.
l( H I G
P� ES S
60
60 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
Tob" EtL1ap[1vous E TEV ctaTaLs],-namely, how that the first birth should
be one and the same ordained for all, in order that none might be slighted
by Him." Each soul was then "sown into his own proper organ of time," a
star, so that it might grow into "the most god-fearing of living creatures"
[(C V T6 EOGEO3rTaTOV].86 Even earlier, Timaeus had, moreover, also
drawn a clear linkage between morality and cosmogony: "With regard to
wisdom [TrEpt Tf; 4po0VIcYEwS], you perceive, no doubt, the law here,-
how much attention it has devoted from the very beginning to the Cosmic
Order, by discovering all the effects which the divine causes produce upon
human life."87 Yet those were not the only considerations of moral choice
in the Timaeus, which also addressed the problem of "fear and anger and
all such emotions as are naturally allied thereto." With respect to these,
there was a clear moral choice: "If they shall master these they will live
justly, but if they are mastered [by them, they will live] unjustly" [tv EL iEV
KpatTfcOLEV, 8&K LtOOLVUTO, KpaTq1f9VTEs 8 caSLKLL].88 For in this sense it
was possible for "the mortal creature" [T6 oevT6v], by allowing fear and
anger to master it, to "become the cause of its own evils."89 One of those
evils was that whereas "he that has lived his appointed time well shall
return again to his abode in his native star, and shall gain a life that is
blessed and congenial [I3Lov E-6l1ova Kct oiuvi1]," there was punish-
ment awaiting "whoso has failed therein: [he] shall be changed into
woman's nature at the second birth."90 This form of punishment was in
keeping with the statement a little earlier "that, since human nature is
two-fold, the superior sex is that which hereafter should be designated
'man' [vip]."91
In the dramaturgy of the Genesis account, it may in a sense be said that
when "the Lord God gave a charge [~vETELXaTo] to Adam," that was a
prelude to the story of the fall. By a strictly chronological reading, the
creation of the woman came after the "charge" but before the transgres-
sion, so that the textually unwarranted but theologically justifiable gram-
matical shift in the Septuagint from the singular "thou mayest eat for
food" [[3pcYEt ayf] to the plural "ye shall not eat" [o0 4dywaEoE]92 was
not only proleptic but portentous, considering how it all turned out. And
86. P1. Ti. 4 IE.
87. P1. Ti. z4B-C.
88. P1. Ti. 4zB.
89. P1. Ti. 42E.
90. P1. Ti. 42B.
91. P1. Ti. 42A.
92. Gn. 2:16-17.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
Tous Ei µapµEvous EL TIEV mha1s ],-namely, how that the first birth should
be one and the same ordained for all, in order that none might be slighted
by Him . " Each soul was then " sown into his own proper organ of time," a
star, so that it might grow into "the most god-fearing of living creatures "
[(wow TO 8EoaE �E aTaTov] . 8 6 Even earlier, Timaeus had, moreover, also
drawn a clear linkage between morality and cosmogony: "With regard to
wisdom [nE pL Tfls cppovfpEws] , you perceive, no doubt, the law here,­
how much attention it has devoted from the very beginning to the Cosmic
Order, by discovering all the effects which the divine causes produce upon
human life . " 87 Yet those were not the only considerations of moral choice
in the Timaeus, which also addressed the problem of "fear and anger and
all such emotions as are naturally allied thereto. " With respect to these,
there was a clear moral choice: " If they shall master these they will live
j ustly, but if they are mastered [by them, they will live] unj ustly" [wv EL µEv
KpaT�aOLEv, OLKlJ �LwamvTo, Kpan18EVTES 8E ci8LK(q] . 8 8 For in this sense it
was possible for "the mortal creature " [To 8vriT6v ] , by allowing fear and
anger to master it, to " become the cause of its own evils. " 89 One of those
evils was that whereas "he that has lived his appointed time well shall
return again to his abode in his native star, and shall gain a life that is
blessed and congenial [�(ov Eu8a( µova Kat auv�8ri ] , " there was punish­
ment awaiting "whoso has failed therein: [he] shall be changed into
woman's nature at the second birth. " 90 This form of punishment was in
keeping with the statement a little earlier "that, since human nature is
two-fold, the superior sex is that which hereafter should be designated
'man' [civ�p] . " 9 1
In the dramaturgy of the Genesis account, it may in a sense be said that
when "the Lord God gave a charge [E:vETE LAaTo] to Adam, " that was a
prelude to the story of the fall. By a strictly chronological reading, the
creation of the woman came after the "charge " but befo re the transgres­
sion, so that the textually unwarranted but theologically j ustifiable gram­
matical shift in the Septuagint from the singular "thou mayest eat for
food" [�pwaE L cpayfj ] to the plural " ye shall not eat" [ov cpciyEa8E ] 92 was
not only proleptic but portentous, considering how it all turned out. And
86.
8 7.
88.
89.
90.
9r.
92.
Pl. Ti. 4 l E.
Pl. Ti. 24B-C.
Pl. Ti. 4 2B.
Pl. Ti. 4 2E.
Pl. Ti. 42B.
Pl. Ti. 4 2A.
Gn. 2: 1 6- 1 7 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Jerusalem
Jerusalem 6i1
even though, strictly speaking, the prohibition as it stood had, at least in
the text, been addressed not to her but only to the man, the woman's
paraphrase of it to the serpent was in the plural (in the Greek and also in
the original Hebrew this time): "God said, 'Ye shall not eat of it, neither
shall ye touch it' [o0 J$yE9E vr' aVTOV, ob i if&lqfl6E avTO]."93 (Eve
added the latter prohibition of even touching the tree to the earlier com-
mandment as issued to Adam.) It would be attractive, in the light of later
history, to read the response of the tempter to Eve, "God knew [ tSEL yap o6
OEO6'] that in whatever day ye should eat of it your eyes would be opened,
and ye would be as gods, knowing good and evil [UEUOE 6;s OEot, yv'6~0-
KOVTE KaXoV KGaL Trovqp6v]," in relation to the dictum of Timaeus that "No
one is voluntarily wicked" [KaKb6s IIiv yap EKG)V o16ELs];94 but there ap-
pears to be no direct justification for such a bold interpretation. Consider-
ably less audacious would be the reading of the words "the Lord God gave
a charge [EVETELkaTo]" in Genesis in connection with the explanation of
Timaeus that "He had fully declared unto them all these ordinances, to the
end that He might be blameless in respect of the future wickedness of any
one of them [tva Trs EITELTa ELi] KaKlaR EKcfATWv ( LvLITLOs]."95 For this
explanation could be seen as a paraphrase of various biblical passages,
such as the prayer in the Book of Psalms "so that thou mayest be proved
right in thy charge and just in passing sentence."96
One of the most telling differences between the two accounts man-
ifested itself in relation to this very issue of the connection between moral-
ity and creation, in the definition of the consequences of the wrong moral
choice and thus in the understanding of death. When the apostle Paul
wrote, "Sin pays a wage, and the wage is death,"97 he was, as the context
of that statement within his larger comparison of Christ and Adam sug-
gests, commenting on the threat with which the "charge" of the Lord God
to Adam (and Eve) concluded: "In whatever day ye eat of [the tree of
learning the knowledge of good and evil], ye shall die by death."98 The
subsequent history of the concept of human mortality, notably the con-
troversy between Augustine and the Pelagians about whether it was a
natural condition or one that had been introduced into the human race by
93. Gn. 3:4.
94. Pl. Ti. 86D.
95. Gn. z:16-17; P1. Ti. 4zD.
96. Ps. 51:4; see also Rom. z:I-z.
97. Rom. 6:23.
98. Gn. z:17.
61
even though, strictly speaking, the prohibition a s it stood had, at least in
the text, been addressed not to her but only to the man, the woman's
paraphrase of it to the serpent was in the plural (in the Greek and also in
the original Hebrew this time ) : " God said, 'Ye shall not eat of it, neither
shall ye touch it' [ou cpayEa9E arr' avTov, OUOE µ� at1n1a8E avTov] . " 93 (Eve
added the latter prohibition of even touching the tree to the earlier com­
mandment as issued to Adam.) It would be attractive, in the light of later
history, to read the response of the tempter to Eve, " God knew [DoE L yap 6
8Eos] that in whatever day ye should eat of it your eyes would be opened,
and ye would be as gods, knowing good and evil [EaEa9E ws 8EOl , ywwa­
KOVTES KaA.Ov Kal rrovripov ] , " in relation to the dictum of Timaeus that "No
one is voluntarily wicked " [KaKOS' µEv yap E KWV ouods];94 but there ap­
pears to be no direct j ustification for such a bold interpretation. Consider­
ably less audacious would be the reading of the words "the Lord God gave
a charge [EVETE LAaTo] " in Genesis in connection with the explanation of
Timaeus that "He had fully declared unto them all these ordinances, to the
end that He might be blameless in respect of the future wickedness of any
one of them [lva TTlS' E1TELTa Elll KaK(as E KQUTWV avatnos ] . " 95 For this
explanation could be seen as a paraphrase of various biblical passages,
such as the prayer in the Book of Psalms " so that thou mayest be proved
right in thy charge and just in passing sentence. " 96
One of the most telling differences between the two accounts man­
ifested itself in relation to this very issue of the connection between moral­
ity and creation, in the definition of the consequences of the wrong moral
choice and thus in the understanding of death. When the apostle Paul
wrote, " Sin pays a wage, and the wage is death," 97 he was, as the context
of that statement within his larger comparison of Christ and Adam sug­
gests, commenting on the threat with which the "charge " of the Lord God
to Adam ( and Eve) concluded: " In whatever day ye eat of [the tree of
learning the knowledge of good and evil], ye shall die by death . " 9 8 The
subsequent history of the concept of human mortality, notably the con­
troversy between Augustine and the Pelagians about whether it was a
natural condition or one that had been introduced into the human race by
93·
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
Gn. 3 :4.
Pl. Ti. 86D.
Gn. 2: 1 6- 1 7 ; Pl. Ti. 42D.
Ps. 5 1 :4 ; see also Rom. 2 : 1 -2.
Rom. 6: 2 3 .
Gn. 2 : 1 7 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
62
6z What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
the coming of sin,99 made it clear that the specific meaning of the threat to
Adam was by no means obvious: Adam and Eve did not "die by death" on
the very day they ate of the forbidden fruit; Adam lived a total of 930
years, though it is not clear whether that term was intended to include the
"time" between the creation and the fall, however long that may have
been.100 Many interpreters throughout the centuries have, therefore,
taken the threatening words of the Lord God to Adam to mean, "In
whatever day ye eat of [the tree of learning the knowledge of good and
evil], ye shall become subject to death," that is, mortal rather than immor-
tal as heretofore. It likewise bears pointing out that the account of the fall
of Adam and Eve in chapter 3 of Genesis did not go on to play a significant
explanatory role in the consideration of death or even of sin by Hebrew
Scripture. Only in the New Testament-principally in the epistles of Paul
(chapter 5 of Romans and chapter 15 of i Corinthians)-was a causal
connection posited between the disobedience in the Garden of Eden and
the universality of death, which in most books of the Old Testament
usually seemed to be treated as a "natural" phenomenon (although "natu-
ral" was not an indigenous category in those books).
For Timaeus, by contrast, the category of the natural was an important
key to the understanding of the phenomenon of death. The term nature
(4oUoL) was employed early in the dialogue to refer to knowledge "about
the nature of the Universe" [TrEpt 4vGcEoEs TOT TaVTO6].101 Its central mean-
ing as a norm of understanding and behavior has been summarized by
A.E. Taylor: "46rts = normal state or condition. For this common sense of
the word cf. infra, 64 d i TO6 Els VtyV drv Tr XLVt dp6ov il&5, 'the return,
on a sufficient scale, to one's normal condition is pleasant.' "102 He goes
on, in his comments on the closing passage of Timaeus, to describe it as
"the main point of [Plato's] theory of iucrts, that 'passage' is the most
fundamental character of 'Nature.' "103 On the basis of those definitions
of nature as a "normal state or condition" and as "passage," the interpre-
tation of Plato's meaning here seems evident. It was based on a fundamen-
tal distinction between "every process which is contrary to nature" [rvay
To wap1 4 tv ] and "that which takes place naturally" [T6 8' TE~UKE
yLyv6 tEvov]. There were, accordingly, two kinds of death. The first kind,
99. Aug. Corrept. 12.23.
ioo. Gn. 5:5-
1io1. Pl. Ti. z7A.
ioz. Taylor 1928, 421; he adds references to Arist. Met. .ioi5ai3, and to Arist. E.N.
K. I1I7eb.7.
103. Taylor 1928, 649.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
the coming of sin,99 made it clear that the specific meaning of the threat to
Adam was by no means obvious: Adam and Eve did not " die by death" on
the very day they ate of the forbidden fruit; Adam lived a total of 9 3 0
years, though it is not clear whether that term was intended to include the
"time " between the creation and the fall, however long that may have
been. 100 Many interpreters throughout the centuries have, therefore,
taken the threatening words of the Lord God to Adam to mean, " In
whatever day ye eat of [the tree of learning the knowledge of good and
evil] , ye shall become subject to death, " that is, mortal rather than immor­
tal as heretofore. It likewise bears pointing out that the account of the fall
of Adam and Eve in chapter 3 of Genesis did not go on to play a significant
explanatory role in the consideration of death or even of sin by Hebrew
Scripture. Only in the New Testament-principally in the epistles of Paul
(chapter 5 of Romans and chapter 1 5 of I Corinthians) -was a causal
connection posited between the disobedience in the Garden of Eden and
the universality of death, which in most books of the Old Testament
usually seemed to be treated as a " natural " phenomenon ( although "natu­
ral" was not an indigenous category in those books).
For Timaeus, by contrast, the category of the natural was an important
key to the understanding of the phenomenon of death. The term nature
(<f>ucns ) was employed early in the dialogue to refer to knowledge " about
the nature of the Universe " [TTEpl <f>uaEWS TOU TTavTos] . 1 0 1 Its central mean­
ing as a norm of understanding and behavior has been summarized by
A.E. Taylor: "<f>uaLs = normal state or condition. For this common sense of
the word cf. infra, 64 d 1 To ELS <f>vaw amov miA.w ci9p6ov -ftou, 'the return,
on a sufficient scale, to one's normal condition is pleasant.' " 102 He goes
on, in his comments on the closing passage of Timaeus, to describe it as
"the main point of [Plato's] theory of <f>uaLs, that 'passage' is the most
fundamental character of 'Nature .' " 1 03 On the basis of those definitions
of nature as a " normal state or condition" and as "passage," the interpre­
tation of Plato's meaning here seems evident. It was based on a fundamen­
tal distinction between " every process which is contrary to nature " [TT av
To TTapa <f>vaw ] and "that which takes place naturally" [To 8' 1] TTEcpUKE
yL yvoµEvov] . There were, accordingly, two kinds of death. The first kind,
99. Aug. Corrept. 1 2 . 2 3 .
1 00. Gn. 5 : 5 .
I O I . Pl. Ti. 27A.
1 0 2 . Taylor 1 9 2 8 , 4 2 1 ; he adds references to Arist. Met. . 1 0 1 5 a i 3 , and to Arist. E.N.
K. l 1 7eb.7.
1 0 3 . Taylor 1 9 2 8 , 649 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Jerusalem
Jerusalem 63
"which occurs in consequence of disease or wounds, is painful" and
contrary to nature. To explain it, the dialogue turned yet once more to the
theory of the four elements, "earth, fire, water, and air," of which the body
was composed. "Disorders and disease," consequently, could be said to
result from "an excess or a deficiency of these elements" [TOt3T0v i rrap
4v0iv TrXEovE al KaL E sELa]. By contrast, "that [death] which follows on
old age and constitutes a natural end [TEXO O KaTc 4UrLv] is the least
grievous of deaths and is accompanied by more of pleasure than of
pain."104 A far closer parallel to the traditional interpretation of Genesis
on this point was provided by the address of the Demiurge to the lesser
gods. Identifying himself as their "framer and father" [rl tovpy 6" Trarflp
Te], he reminded them that they were "not wholly immortal or indissol-
uble." "Yet in no wise," he promised, "shall ye be dissolved nor incur the
doom of death, seeing that in my will [Tfif 1fis" 3ouXfuIEoes] ye possess a
bond greater and more sovereign than the bonds wherewith, at your birth,
ye were bound together."105 That emphasis of Timaeus on the decisive-
ness of the divine "will" for the issue of life or death in divine beings could
be made to comport well with the statement of Genesis that "the Lord
God gave a charge [VETELXaTO] to Adam" dealing with the same issue in
human beings.
We have already considered the creation of woman in Genesis, because
although the "charge" preceded the detailed account of it, she subse-
quently, to the serpent, described the charge as having been addressed also
to her. Strictly speaking, moreover, the creation of woman had already
been mentioned, though only in passing, as part of the work of the sixth
day in the version of the creation story recounted by chapter i: "And God
made man, according to the image of God he made him [avT6v], male and
female he made them [aTO3S']."106 But it does need to be mentioned here
again, because the step-by-step narrative of her creation came only in
chapter 2, after the step-by-step narrative of the forming of the man from
"the dust of the earth." It was connected to the perceived need of the man
for "a help appropriate to him" [3onrO6v KaT' cUT6V]. None of the animals
was qualified to be "a help like to himself" [pore 6sotLos" avTy]. Inducing
in Adam the "ecstasy of a trance" [KGTWCTLs], God fashioned a rib from
Adam into a woman.107 The location of this account, almost as an after-
104. P1. Ti. 8IE-82A.
o105. P1. Ti. 41A-B.
io6. Gn. 1:27.
107. Gn. z:18-3:I.
63
"which occurs in consequence of disease or wounds, is painful" and
contrary to nature. To explain it, the dialogue turned yet once more to the
theory of the four elements, " earth, fire, water, and air, " of which the body
was composed. " Disorders and disease," consequently, could be said to
result from " an excess or a deficiency of these elements " [TouTwv � Tiapa
¢vaw TI AEOVECta Kat EvOELa] . By contrast, "that [death] which follows on
old age and constitutes a natural end [TEAos KaTa ¢vaw] is the least
grievous of deaths and is accompanied by more of pleasure than of
pain . " 104 A far closer parallel to the traditional interpretation of Genesis
on this point was provided by the address of the Demiurge to the lesser
gods. Identifying himself as their " framer and father " [81iµLOupyos TiaTil P
TE ] , he reminded them that they were "not wholly immortal or indissol­
uble. " "Yet in no wise," he promised, " shall ye be dissolved nor incur the
doom of death, seeing that in my will [Tfls E: µfls �ouA.tjaEws] ye possess a
bond greater and more sovereign than the bonds wherewith, at your birth,
ye were bound together. " 1 05 That emphasis of Timaeus on the decisive­
ness of the divine " will " for the issue of life or death in divine beings could
be made to comport well with the statement of Genesis that "the Lord
God gave a charge [E:vETE LAaTo] to Adam" dealing with the same issue in
human beings.
We have already considered the creation of woman in Genesis, because
although the "charge" preceded the detailed account of it, she subse­
quently, to the serpent, described the charge as having been addressed also
to her. Strictly speaking, moreover, the creation of woman had already
been mentioned, though only in passing, as part of the work of the sixth
day in the version of the creation story recounted by chapter r : "And God
made man, according to the image of God he made him [auTov] , male and
female he made them [auTous] . " 1 06 But it does need to be mentioned here
again, because the step-by-step narrative of her creation came only in
chapter 2, aft er the step-by-step narrative of the forming of the man from
"the dust of the earth. " It was connected to the perceived need of the man
for "a help appropriate to him " [�0118ov KaT ' avTOV ]. None of the animals
was qualified to be "a help like to himself " [�orieos oµOLOS auT<{>] . Inducing
in Adam the " ecstasy of a trance " [E KCJTaCJLS], God fashioned a rib from
Adam into a woman. 1 07 The location of this account, almost as an after104.
105.
106.
107.
Pl. Ti. 8 l E- 8 2A.
Pl. Ti. 4 1 A-B.
Gn. 1 : 27.
Gn. 2 : 1 8 - 3 : r .
l( H I G
P� ES S
64
64 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
thought to the main body of the cosmogony of Genesis, was matched in
the cosmogony of Timaeus, in what Cornford characterizes as an "appen-
dix": "For as regards the mode in which the rest of living creatures have
been produced we must make but a brief statement, seeing that there is no
need to speak at length."108 The first of these other "living creatures" was
woman. The origin of "women and the whole female sex"109 was ac-
counted for in the context of what would take place "at their second
becoming" [iv T] 8EUTEpq yEVEtc E], which was a way of dealing with the
deficiencies and delinquencies of the first birth: "According to the pro-
bable account, all those creatures generated as men who proved them-
selves cowardly and spent their lives in wrong-doing were transformed, at
their second becoming, into women."110 The subsequent development of
Jewish and Christian thought about the relation between woman and man
was significantly affected by these two "appendices" in Genesis and Tim-
aeus and by the relation between them.
Both cosmogonies summarized their accounts somewhat before con-
cluding them. In its present form, Genesis presented such a summary at
the end of the first narrative ("E"), as a transition to the second ("J"):
"And the heavens and the earth were finished, and the whole cosmos of
them" [Kat ceVVETEXE TlO]Ycav 6 opav6; KatL ] yf] Ka Trsi; 6 K6[LO~S
avTrOV].111 Timaeus, too, could say even before getting around to the
creation of women, "And now the task prescribed for us at the beginning,
to give a description of the Universe up to the production of mankind,
would appear to be wellnigh completed."112 These conclusions of the two
cosmogonies also suggest, however, that the most fundamental compo-
nent of creation, so fundamental that it could just as legitimately have
been discussed as a "concept of creation" in our second chapter, was what
Lucretius called the "caeli rationes ordine certo,"113 the order of creation.
Typically, Timaeus was a much richer source of vocabulary for this com-
ponent than Genesis, even though in both accounts God "brought it into
order out of disorder" [t s TdtV. . . EK "~rT Ta[acS].114 Both the vocabu-
lary of this transitional conclusion in Genesis, above all of course, the
momentous phraseology ris 6 K6( UOS aTwrv, with the dual meaning of
io8. Pl. Ti. 9oE. Cornford 1957, 355-
109. Pl. Ti. 9ID.
i IO. Pl. Ti. 9oE (modified from Bury); see the comments of Archer-Hind 1888, 144 n. 4-
II1I. Gn. z:1.
112z. Pl. Ti. 9oE.
113. Lucr. 1.1183-84.
114. Pl. Ti. 3oA.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
thought to the main body of the cosmogony of Genesis, was matched in
the cosmogony of Timaeus, in what Cornford characterizes as an " appen­
dix " : " For as regards the mode in which the rest of living creatures have
been produced we must make but a brief statement, seeing that there is no
need to speak at length. " 1 o s The first of these other " living creatures " was
woman. The origin of "women and the whole female sex" 1 09 was ac­
counted for in the context of what would take place " at their second
becoming" [Ev TD OEUTEpq yEvEaE L ] , which was a way of dealing with the
deficiencies and delinquencies of the first birth: "According to the pro­
bable account, all those creatures generated as men who proved them­
selves cowardly and spent their lives in wrong-doing were transformed, at
their second becoming, into women. " 1 10 The subsequent development of
Jewish and Christian thought about the relation between woman and man
was significantly affected by these two " appendices" in Genesis and Tim­
aeus and by the relation between them.
Both cosmogonies summarized their accounts somewhat before con­
cluding them. In its present form, Genesis presented such a summary at
the end of the first narrative ( " E " ) , as a transition to the second ( "J " ) :
"And the heavens and the earth were finished, and the whole cosmos of
them" [Kat CTUVETEAEa911aav 0 oupaVOS' Kat � yfl Kat TTClS' 0 KoaµOS'
auTwv] . 1 1 1 Timaeus, too, could say even before getting around to the
creation of women, "And now the task prescribed for us at the beginning,
to give a description of the Universe up to the production of mankind,
would appear to be wellnigh completed. " 1 12 These conclusions of the two
cosmogonies also suggest, however, that the most fundamental compo­
nent of creation, so fundamental that it could just as legitimately have
been discussed as a "concept of creation " in our second chapter, was what
Lucretius called the "caeli rationes ordine certo, " l 1 3 the order of creation.
Typically, Timaeus was a much richer source of vocabulary for this com­
ponent than Genesis, even though in both accounts God " brought it into
order out of disorder" [ELS' ni�w . . EK Tfls cha�tas] . 1 14 Both the vocabu­
lary of this transitional conclusion in Genesis, above all of course, the
momentous phraseology m1s o KoaµoS' auTwv, with the dual meaning of
.
108.
109.
I IO.
l l I.
l 12.
rr3.
I 14·
Pl. Ti. 90£. Cornford I 9 5 7, 3 5 5 .
Pl. Ti. 9 1 D.
Pl. Ti. 90£ (modified from Bury); see the comments of Archer-Hind 1 8 8 8 , 144 n. 4.
Gn. 2 : i .
Pl. Ti. 90£.
Luer. I . I I 8 3 - 8 4.
Pl. Ti. 3 0A.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Jerusalem
Jerusalem 65
K6O Rto as "universe" (as in the English word cosmic) and as "adornment"
(as in the English word cosmetics), could be brought together in the
concept of order, which justified the ongoing process of reading each of
the two cosmogonies in the light of the other. The second half of this book
addresses the history of that process, in the thought of the Hellenistic
Judaism of Alexandria and then in the Christian theologies of New Rome
and of Catholic Rome.
65
KoaµoS' as " universe " (as in the English word cosmic) and as " adornment"
( as in the English word cosmetics), could be brought together in the
concept of order, which j ustified the ongoing process of reading each of
the two cosmogonies in the light of the other. The second half of this book
addresses the history of that process, in the thought of the Hellenistic
Judaism of Alexandria and then in the Christian theologies of New Rome
and of Catholic Rome.
l( H I G
P� ES S

Dr g 11:1 zed by
Ori g1I n a I 1ko m
T H E llJ NllVE R S!lliY O� MI( H I G AN P� E%
UN Pl ERSllif Y O:F Ml (Hi IGA NI
IV
Alexandria: The God of Genesis as
"Maker and Father" (Timaeus z8C)
IV
"What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" The first to ask this question,
with its negative or at best minimalist implications, was, as noted earlier,
the Christian Tertullian in Roman North Africa at the end of the second
century. But the first to answer the question, in considerably more max-
imalist fashion, had already been the Jews of Alexandria. They were also
the first to study the counterpoint between the cosmogony of Athens in
Timaeus and the cosmogony of Jerusalem in Genesis, which, except for
Alexandria: The God of Genesis as
"Maker and Father" (Timaeus 2 8 C)
any Jews of the Diaspora who may have continued to know Hebrew when
they had acquired Greek,1 it was not possible to study until Genesis was
translated into Greek, because Timaeus had never been translated into
Hebrew. So it was that the two cosmogonies first came together in Egypt,
the very Egypt where, according to Timaeus, cosmogonic traditions had
been preserved in "the most ancient" of "sacred writings";2 where Moses,
who wrote the cosmogony of Genesis and other "sacred writings" of
Israel by divine inspiration, had been given "the nurture due a prince" as
the supposed son of the Pharaoh's daughter, which would presumably
have included the study of Egyptian science;3 and where, by a widely
circulated "Egyptian mirage," Plato himself was said by the church fa-
thers to have studied.4 The elective affinities were so predominant here
that sometimes "it is . . . well-nigh impossible . . . to determine with
precision which of the two traditions ultimately has the upper hand."5
The documentation of these affinities comes from several sources, but
above all from the writings of Philo of Alexandria, because "the large-
scale use of the Timaeus for purposes of Biblical exegesis. . . is a personal
i. Nikiprowetzky 1977, 50-96, is a careful consideration pro and con of the question
"Philon savait-il l'hebreu?"
z. Pl. Ti. z3E, zzE; see Bidez 1945, 21-23 and appendix 2, 19-40, on Atlantis.
3. Phil. V. Mos. i.zo; Ac. 7:2zz; Ambr. Hex. 1.2.6.
4. Clem. Str. I.1 5.89; Tert. Anim. 2.10o. Froidefond 1971 is a history of this "mirage."
5. Winston 1979, 21.
67
"What has Athens to do with Jerusalem ? " The first to ask this question,
with its negative or at best minimalist implications, was, as noted earlier,
the Christian Tertullian in Roman North Africa at the end of the second
century. But the first to answer the question, in considerably more max­
imalist fashion, had already been the Jews of Alexandria. They were also
the first to study the counterpoint between the cosmogony of Athens in
Timaeus and the cosmogony of Jerusalem in Genesis, which, except for
any Jews of the Diaspora who may have continued to know Hebrew when
they had acquired Greek, 1 it was not possible to study until Genesis was
translated into Greek, because Timaeus had never been translated into
Hebrew. So it was that the two cosmogonies first came together in Egypt,
the very Egypt where, according to Timaeus, cosmogonic traditions had
been preserved in "the most ancient" of " sacred writings " ;2 where Moses,
who wrote the cosmogony of Genesis and other "sacred writings " of
Israel by divine inspiration, had been given "the nurture due a prince " as
the supposed son of the Pharaoh's daughter, which would presumably
have included the study of Egyptian science;3 and where, by a widely
circulated " Egyptian mirage, " Plato himself was said by the church fa­
thers to have studied. 4 The elective affinities were so predominant here
that sometimes " it is . . . well-nigh impossible . . . to determine with
precision which of the two traditions ultimately has the upper hand . " 5
The documentation of these affinities comes from several sources, but
above all from the writings of Philo of Alexandria, because "the large­
scale use of the Timaeus for purposes of Biblical exegesis . . . is a personal
I . Nikiprowetzky 1 9 77, 50-9 6, is a careful consideration pro and con of the question
"Philon savait-il l'hebreu ? "
2 . Pl. Ti. 2 3 E, 22E; see Bidez 1 9 4 5 , 2 1 -23 and appendix 2 , 1 9 - 40, on Atlantis.
3 . Phil. V. Mos. l .20; Ac. 7:22; Ambr. Hex. l .2.6.
4. Clem. Str. i . 1 5 .89; Tert. Anim. 2. ro. Froidefond 1971 is a history of this "mirage . "
5 . Winston 1 9 79, 2 I .
l( H I G
P� ES S
68
68 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
achievement of Philo";6 the deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom in the
Septuagint, which was also written in Alexandria and in Greek, and "al-
most z.0% of [whose] total vocabulary [is] never found in any other
canonical book of the Old Testament," including vocabulary that was
almost certainly drawn from Timaeus, whether directly or indirectly;7 and
behind both of these, also originating in Alexandria "sometime in the
third century B.C.E.," the Septuagint Genesis itself, which at the very least,
as noted earlier, shared with its surrounding culture some of the vocabu-
lary of Timaeus-whether or not the conventional scholarly wisdom,
challenged by Elias Bickerman, is correct in attributing it to "Alexandrian
Jews who no longer knew enough Hebrew to satisfy their religious
needs."8
In his commentary on the creation story in Genesis, Philo freely quoted
from Athens as well as from Jerusalem.9 For example, the Sabbath, which
Genesis had based on the universality of the creation rather than on the
particularity of the covenant with Israel, was, Philo insisted, "the festival,
not of a single city or country, but of the universe," and was the only
festival worthy of the name "universal" because it was a celebration of
nothing less than "the birthday of the cosmos" [To K6cRIOU EvEOXLO ].10
To prove this he invoked the authority of the Greek lawgiver Solon, who
had divided human life into ten stages of seven years each, as well as the
language of Rome, in which, by his etymology, the Latin septem was
derived from the Greek uEI3aco6; (reverence).11 That demonstrated to
Philo "the honour in which [seven] is held by the most approved investiga-
tors of the science of Mathematics and Astronomy among Greeks and
other peoples, and the special honour accorded to it by that lover of virtue
Moses [inr6 T0 4tLXapETou M0vacr o]" in his account of the creation.12
And so Philo found it altogether natural to quote from Plato (including
Timaeus) by name and also to quote Timaeus by referring to its author as
"one of the men of old" [TG6v dpXaLov TtU] without identifying him.13
6. Runia 1986, 411.
7. Reese 1970, 3. For two examples, cf. Wis. 11:17 with P1. Ti. 5oD-5iA, and cf.
Wis. 7:17-18 with Pl. Ti. 57C; see Winston 1971 and J. Laporte in Wilken 1975, 103-41.
8. Gager 1972, 32 n. 23, with bibliography; Bickerman 1976, I7I; see the materials
collected in Marcus 1945.
9. Reale 1979, 247-87; see the summary by Henry Chadwick in Armstrong 1967,
133-57.
1o. Phil. Opif. 89.
I1. Phil. Opif. 127, 104.
I2. Phil. Opif. I28.
13. Phil. Opif. I19, 133; Phil. Opif. 21, quoting Pl. Ti. z9E.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
achievement of Philo ";6 the deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom in the
Septuagint, which was also written in Alexandria and in Greek, and " al­
most 20% of [whose] total vocabulary [is] never found in any other
canonical book of the Old Testament, " including vocabulary that was
almost certainly drawn from Timaeus, whether directly or indirectly; 7 and
behind both of these, also originating in Alexandria " sometime in the
third century B . C . E . , " the Septuagint Genesis itself, which at the very least,
as noted earlier, shared with its surrounding culture some of the vocabu­
lary of Timaeus-whether or not the conventional scholarly wisdom,
challenged by Elias Bickerman, is correct in attributing it to "Alexandrian
Jews who no longer knew enough Hebrew to satisfy their religious
needs. " 8
In his commentary o n the creation story in Genesis, Philo freely quoted
from Athens as well as from Jerusalem.9 For example, the Sabbath, which
Genesis had based on the universality of the creation rather than on the
particularity of the covenant with Israel, was, Philo insisted, "the festival,
not of a single city or country, but of the universe, " and was the only
festival worthy of the name "universal " because it was a celebration of
nothing less than "the birthday of the cosmos" [Tov Koaµou yEvE8ALos] . 1 0
To prove this he invoked the authority of the Greek lawgiver Solon, who
had divided human life into ten stages of seven years each, as well as the
language of Rome, in which, by his etymology, the Latin septem was
derived from the Greek aE�aaµos (reverence) . 1 1 That demonstrated to
Philo "the honour in which [seven] is held by the most approved investiga­
tors of the science of Mathematics and Astronomy among Greeks and
other peoples, and the special honour accorded to it by that lover of virtue
Moses [uno Tov cpLAapETou MwvaEWS'] " in his account of the creation. 1 2
And so Philo found it altogether natural to quote from Plato (including
Timaeus) by name and also to quote Timaeus by referring to its author as
" one of the men of old" [Twv apxa[wv ns] without identifying him. 1 3
6. Runia 1 9 8 6, 4 1 I .
7 . Reese 1 9 70, 3 . For two examples, cf. Wis. I I : 1 7 with Pl. Ti. 50D - 5 1A, and cf.
Wis. 7 : 1 7 - 1 8 with Pl. Ti. 5 7C; see Winston 1 9 7 1 and J. Laporte in Wilken 1 9 7 5 , 1 03 - 4 i .
8 . Gager 1972, 3 2 n . 2 3 , with bibliography; Bickerman 1 9 7 6, 1 7 1 ; see the materials
collected in Marcus 1 9 4 5 .
9 . Reale 1 9 79, 247-87; see the summary by Henry Chadwick in Armstrong 1 9 67,
1 3 3-57.
I O . Phil. Opif. 8 9 .
l I . Phil. O pif. I 2 7' 104.
1 2 . Phil. Opif. 1 2 8 .
1 3 . Phil. Opif. 1 1 9, 1 3 3 ; Phil. Opif. 2 1 , quoting Pl. Ti. 29E.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Alexandria
Alexandria 69
Philo summarized the cosmogony (KoctolroLia) of Genesis in five points,
which were "most beautiful and best of all" [KXXVkTa Kai vTOViV
cptLTa],14 and which may be used here to describe the counterpoint be-
tween Timaeus and Genesis in Alexandria, "an interpretation of Genesis
in terms of the Timaeus-not in terms of the Timaeus as it is written, but
rather in terms of the Timaeus as it was understood by Philo" and other
Alexandrian Jews.15s
The God of Moses as the 6 Cv of Plato
In its polemic against idolatry, Wisdom issued a scathing denunciation of
the "born fools" who, "from the good before their eyes could not learn
69
Philo summarized the cosmogony (KoaµorrOL(a) of Genesis in five points,
which were " most beautiful and best of all " [KaAAwTa KaL rrcivTwv
apLCTTa] , 1 4 and which may be used here to describe the counterpoint be­
tween Timaeus and Genesis in Alexandria, " an interpretation of Genesis
in terms of the Timaeus-not in terms of the Timaeus as it is written, but
rather in terms of the Timaeus as it was understood by Philo " and other
Alexandrian Jews. 15
him who is [T6Ov vTa]."16 But in Alexandria this way of speaking about
The God of Moses as the 6 wv of Plato
God and Being-fraught with the speculations of Timaeus about the
fundamental difference between the mere "Becoming" [yEVEctS] of the
world perceptible to the senses, 6 K6tOS; aLeU0]T6s, and the genuine
"Being" [ov[a] of the world apprehensible only to the mind, 6 K6YolO
vofTO6S17-had been put into the service of speaking about the God of
Israel, who in the call to Moses had identified himself by declaring, first, "I
am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," and,
second, according to the Septuagint, 'Eyo EtiJ 6 &v.18 Nevertheless, Philo
took it on himself to reverse this order: "God replied [to Moses]: 'First tell
them that 'Ey L ELt 6 3v' "; this would teach that there was a difference
between the One who was true being and all those who were not and
would make it clear that "no name at all can properly be used of Me, to
whom alone existence belongs."19 Only after delivering this strictly accu-
rate designation was Moses to go on, as a concession to human weakness,
to identify 6 cv also as "the God of the three men whose names express
their virtue [prT1]fl," specifically the virtue of "wisdom" [aoIa], which in
Abraham had come from "teaching," in Isaac was "self-learnt," and in
Jacob had come from "practice" [St' aKTc E S].20 That reversal of order
in Philo's version of the history of Moses affords an insight into the
Alexandrian interpretation of the history of the creation of the universe as
14. Phil. Opif. 170-71.
I5. Wolfson 1947, 1:307.
16. Wis. 13:1.
17. PI. Ti. z9C.
18. Ex. 3:7, 14.
19. Phil. V Mos. 1.75; Nikiprowetzky 1977, 58-6z.
zo. Phil. V Mos. 1.76; Phil. Congr. 35-36.
In its polemic against idolatry, Wisdom issued a scathing denunciation of
the " born fools " who, "from the good before their eyes could not learn
him who is [Tov ovTa] . " 1 6 But in Alexandria this way of speaking about
God and Being-fraught with the speculations of Timaeus about the
fundamental difference between the mere "Becoming" [yEvEms] of the
world perceptible to the senses, 6 Koa µos ata811Tos, and the genuine
" Being " [oua(a] of the world apprehensible only to the mind, 6 Koaµos
voriTos 1 7-had been put into the service of speaking about the God of
Israel, who in the call to Moses had identified himself by declaring, first, " I
a m the God o f your father, the God o f Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, " and,
second, according to the Septuagint, 'Eyw E L µL 6 wv . 1 8 Nevertheless, Philo
took it on himself to reverse this order: " God replied [to Moses] : 'First tell
them that 'Eyw E L µL 6 wv"' ; this would teach that there was a difference
between the One who was true being and all those who were not and
would make it clear that "no name at all can properly be used of Me, to
whom alone existence belongs. " 1 9 Only after delivering this strictly accu­
rate designation was Moses to go on, as a concession to human weakness,
to identify 6 wv also as "the God of the three men whose names express
their virtue [apETtj ] , " specifically the virtue of "wisdom " [aocp(a] , which in
Abraham had come from "teaching," in Isaac was "self-learnt, " and in
Jacob had come from "practice " [fa ' aaKtjaEws] .20 That reversal of order
in Philo's version of the history of Moses affords an insight into the
Alexandrian interpretation of the history of the creation of the universe as
14.
15.
1 6.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Phil. Opif. l 70-7 i .
Wolfson 1947, 1 : 3 07.
Wis. l 3 : i .
Pl. Ti. 29C.
Ex. 3 : 7, 1 4 .
Phil. V. Mos. i . 7 5 ; Nikiprowetzky 1 9 77, 5 8 -62.
Phil. V. Mos. i . 76; Phil. Congr. 3 5 - 3 6.
l( H I G
P� ES S
70
70 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
narrated by Moses in Genesis and by Plato in Timaeus, in which the
Creator God of Moses was the 6 cv of Plato.
Prominent in this Alexandrian interpretation was an overriding in-
sistence on the mysteries of "God's hidden plan" [t1ruTilpta OEO]21 and
the transcendence of the Creator God. The "active cause" of all reality
was "the perfectly pure and unsullied Mind of the universe," which was
"transcendent" [KpEtTTWV] not only over material things but over "virtue"
[dpETrl], over "precise scientific knowledge" [i1-rLGT] l], and even over
"the Good itself and the Beautiful itself" [aT6 TO dyaO6v KaL aUTO TO
KGaX6V].22 All of these were "in his hand," because God the Creator did not
stand in need of his creatures, on which he bestowed "powers but not
independence."23 The "authority" and power of kings came from the
sovereignty of the Most High.24 Yet precisely because it was beyond the
capacity of any writer "in verse or prose" to give an adequate treatment of
"the beauty of the ideas embodied in this account of the creation of the
world," which transcended affirmation in speech, it was necessary to be
"venturesome."25 That apophatic requirement called for a method of
thinking and speaking about the Creator "by analogy" [dvaX6yw;], a
method that would, "by a natural steppingstone" [KaTd [ETacI3cJLV],
derive a "conception of the Uncreated and Eternal, the invisible
Charioteer who guides in safety the whole universe."26 The human mind,
which on its own would never have ventured "to grasp the nature of God"
[dvvTLXa3&Oat 9Eo 4oVE ], could now reach out in an attempt to do so,
because God "stamped" [ETTrw6e] it with the impress of "the powers that
are within the scope of its understanding."27
"In the beginning God," Genesis insisted: God had ordered heaven
after ordering earth, "to make clear beyond all doubt the mighty sway of
His sovereign power" [Ei EVs LVt EVapyETcrdTfV KpdTOUs dpx1].28 Be-
cause of Genesis, any such method of analogy and comparison was
obliged to draw a sharp distinction between Creator and creature and to
do so even when it was speaking in the vocabulary of Timaeus about the
immanent activity of the Creator in the creation. One way to do this was
2z1. Wis. 2:22.
22. Phil. Opif. 8.
23. Wis. 7:16; Phil. Opif. 46.
24. Wis. 6:3.
25. Phil. Opif. 4-5-
26. Wis. 13:5; Phil. Decal. 6o.
27. Phil. Leg. all. 1.38.
28. Gn. i:i; Phil. Opif. 45.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
narrated by Moses in Genesis and by Plato in Timaeus, in which the
Creator God of Moses was the o wv of Plato.
Prominent in this Alexandrian interpretation was an overriding in­
sistence on the mysteries of " God's hidden plan" [µucJTtjpw 9EOD ] 21 and
the transcendence of the Creator God. The " active cause " of all reality
was "the perfectly pure and unsullied Mind of the universe, " which was
"transcendent" [KpE L TTWV] not only over material things but over "virtue "
[apETtj ] , over "precise scientific knowledge " [E:mCJTtj µ11 ] , and even over
"the Good itself and the Beautiful itself " [mho TO ayaeov Kal UUTO TO
KaA6v ] .22 All of these were " in his hand," because God the Creator did not
stand in need of his creatures, on which he bestowed "powers but not
independence. "23 The " authority" and power of kings came from the
sovereignty of the Most High.24 Yet precisely because it was beyond the
capacity of any writer "in verse or prose " to give an adequate treatment of
"the beauty of the ideas embodied in this account of the creation of the
world, " which transcended affirmation in speech, it was necessary to be
"venturesome. "25 That apophatic requirement called for a method of
thinking and speaking about the Creator " by analogy " [avaA6yws ], a
method that would, " by a natural steppingstone " [Kanl µETa�aCJLV ] ,
derive a "conception o f the Uncreated and Eternal, the invisible
Charioteer who guides in safety the whole universe. "26 The human mind,
which on its own would never have ventured "to grasp the nature of God "
[avnA.a�E:CJ9m 9Eou cpvCJEws] , could now reach out in an attempt to do so,
because God " stamped" [ETVTIWCJE ] it with the impress of "the powers that
are within the scope of its understanding. "27
"In the beginning God, " Genesis insisted: God had ordered heaven
after ordering earth, "to make clear beyond all doubt the mighty sway of
His sovereign power" [E ls EVOEL�LV E:vapyECJTclTT)V KpctTOUS' apxfls] .28 Be­
cause of Genesis, any such method of analogy and comparison was
obliged to draw a sharp distinction between Creator and creature and to
do so even when it was speaking in the vocabulary of Timaeus about the
immanent activity of the Creator in the creation. One way to do this was
2i.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
2 7.
28.
Wis. 2 : 2 2 .
Phil. O pif. 8 .
Wis. 7 : 1 6; Phil. Opif. 4 6 .
Wis. 6: 3 .
Phil. Opif. 4 - 5 .
Wis. 1 3 : 5 ; Phil. Decal. 60.
Phil. Leg. all. i. 3 8 .
Gn. 1 : 1 ; Phil. Opif. 4 5 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Alexandria
Alexandria 71
to distinguish, among "the things which come into being," between those
things that "come into being both by God's power and through God's
agency" [vur6 r o0 yLVETat KaLL S' UaTOV] and those that "come into being
by God's power but not by His agency." The most excellent things were
those that were made both "by" [inr6] and "through" [&ti] God, although
all things in "heaven and earth" were under "the sway of His sovereign
power" even when they were not by His agency.29 Thus "the cosmogonic
power" [il SvauS KOGROTrOLftTLKfl] was equated with a power "that has as
its source nothing less than true goodness" [To 1rpos aXiELtav dyau6v],30
an equation that was not made in the cosmogonic account of Genesis, but
that, once made, could be seen as the central meaning of that account. For
the God of Moses was "a God who loves to give good things."31
For that very reason, one of the central themes of the cosmogony of
Timaeus could now be put into the service of the cosmogony of Genesis.
Genesis had not spoken about the underlying motive for the creation: it
happened simply because God willed it, no questions asked. But accord-
ing to Timaeus, the Demiurge "was good, and. . . being free from jeal-
ousy, desired that all things should be as like himself as they could be."32
David Runia has noted that in "an event of enormous significance in the
history of ideas," Philo became "the first thinker to associate the goodness
of Plato's demiurge with the Judaeo-Christian conception of God the
creator."33 As Philo put the counterpoint between the two cosmogonies
concerning creation, "its cause is God" (both Timaeus and Genesis), "its
material the four elements" (Timaeus), "its instrument the word of God"
(Genesis); and "the final cause of the building is the goodness of the
architect" (Timaeus read into Genesis).34 Specifically, Philo noted that
goodness was an attribute of the God of Moses, whom the word from the
burning bush equated with the 6 ov of Plato: "Those who have studied
more deeply than others the laws of Moses and who examine their con-
tents with all possible minuteness maintain that God. . . did not begrudge
[ovUS 4 8O6vrpev]"35 (the verb Philo uses corresponds to Plato's noun in
Timaeus, 406vo;). Quoting Timaeus for the exegesis of Genesis, Philo
declared: "Should one conceive a wish to search for the cause, for the sake
29. Phil. Leg. all. 1.4i; Phil. Opif. 45.
30. Phil. Opif. 21.
31. Phil. Leg. all. 1.34.
32. P1. Ti. z9E (Jowett).
33. Runia 1986, 135.
34. Phil. Cher. 127; see Bousset 1915, z5-28.
35. Phil. Opif. 77.
7r
to distinguish, among "the things which come into being," between those
things that "come into being both by God's power and through God's
agency" [imo 9Eou ytvETm Kai BL' m'.JTou] and those that "come into being
by God's power but not by His agency. " The most excellent things were
those that were made both " by" [im6] and "through" [oui] God, although
all things in " heaven and earth" were under "the sway of His sovereign
power" even when they were not by His agency.29 Thus "the cosmogonic
power" [i} OUVaµLS KOG µOTTOlll T LKtj ] was equated with a power "that has as
its source nothing less than true goodness" [TO npos ciA.tj9E Lav ciya96v] , 30
an equation that was not made in the cosmogonic account of Genesis, but
that, once made, could be seen as the central meaning of that account. For
the God of Moses was "a God who loves to give good things . " 3 1
For that very reason, one o f the central themes o f the cosmogony of
Timaeus could now be put into the service of the cosmogony of Genesis.
Genesis had not spoken about the underlying motive for the creation: it
happened simply because God willed it, no questions asked. But accord­
ing to Timaeus, the Demiurge "was good, and . . . being free from jeal­
ousy, desired that all things should be as like himself as they could be. " 32
David Runia has noted that in " an event of enormous significance in the
history of ideas, " Philo became "the first thinker to associate the goodness
of Plato's demiurge with the Judaeo-Christian conception of God the
creator. " 33 As Philo put the counterpoint between the two cosmogonies
concerning creation, " its cause is God" ( both Timaeus and Genesis) , "its
material the four elements " ( Timaeus) , " its instrument the word of God"
( Genesis); and "the final cause of the building is the goodness of the
architect" ( Timaeus read into Genesis) . 34 Specifically, Philo noted that
goodness was an attribute of the God of Moses, whom the word from the
burning bush equated with the 6 wv of Plato: "Those who have studied
more deeply than others the laws of Moses and who examine their con­
tents with all possible minuteness maintain that God . . . did not begrudge
[ouoE E:cp96vri aEv] "35 (the verb Philo uses corresponds to Plato's noun in
Timaeus, cp96vos ) . Quoting Timaeus for the exegesis of Genesis, Philo
declared: " Should one conceive a wish to search for the cause, for the sake
29.
3 0.
3 r.
3 2.
33.
34.
3 5.
Phil. Leg. all. r . 4 1 ; Phil. Opif. 4 5 .
Phil. Opif. 2 r .
Phil. Leg. all. r . 3 4 .
Pl. Ti. 2 9 E (Jowett) .
Runia 1 9 8 6, 1 3 5 ·
Phil. Cher. 1 27; see Bousset 1 9 1 5 , 2 5 - 2 8 .
Phil. Opif. 77.
l( H I G
P� ES S
72
72 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
of which this whole was created [T68E TO T ayV E6r1[tOUpyELTO], it seems to
me that he would not be wrong in saying, what indeed one of the men of
old did say, that the Father and Maker of all is good; and because of this
He grudged not a share in his own excellent nature [4OcECL oUK 4jo6vf(uEv
oiiLaq]."36 Here Philo the monotheist was equating with the 6 Jv of Plato
not only the Creator God of Moses but the Creator Demiurge of Plato.
The God and Father of the Universe as One
That equating was made necessary and possible by the second of Philo's
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
of which this whole was created [T68E TO nav E8riµL OupyE1To ] , it seems to
me that he would not be wrong in saying, what indeed one of the men of
old did say, that the Father and Maker of all is good; and because of this
He grudged not a share in his own excellent nature [<fn)aEws ouK Ecp86vricrEv
ova[q] . "36 Here Philo the monotheist was equating with the 6 wv of Plato
not only the Creator God of Moses but the Creator Demiurge of Plato.
axioms: "That God is one" [6T 0E e c e u(Tt]; and again, "That He that
really IS is One" [oTI EL; 6 J(v OVTC)s ETL].37 In his exposition of the First
The God and Father of the Universe as One
Commandment, he elaborated on this axiom and its corollary rejection of
polytheism: "Let us, then, engrave deep in our hearts this as the first and
most sacred of commandments, to acknowledge and honour one God
Who is above all, and let the idea that gods are many never even reach the
ears of the man whose rule of life is to seek for truth in purity and
guilelessness."38 By this commandment God had "called upon men to
honour Him that truly is."39 Such an unambiguous adherence to the
monotheism of the Pentateuch makes it all the more curious "that Philo
never directly quotes in support of it that classical scriptural proof-text,"
the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4. "It is probably," Harry Wolfson suggests,
"because this principle was so commonly well known among those of his
contemporaries to whom he addressed himself in his works," for "in
Palestine this belief in the unity of God constituted a principle of faith
which was twice daily confessed by the recitation" of the Shema, and
"undoubtedly the same confession of the belief in the unity of God was
also followed twice daily by Hellenistic Jews" (Wolfson provides no docu-
mentation for this suggestion).40 The criticism of Greek polytheism was a
frequently recurring theme in the philosophy of Athens as well as in the
religion of Jerusalem, as the sarcasm of Timaeus made clear.41 One such
sarcastic criticism appeared in Wisdom, with a parallel in Isaiah, about the
woodcutter who felled a tree, worked some of its wood into an object
useful for daily life, burned some of it to cook a meal, and then made "one
36. Phil. Opif. 21; see Brisson 1974, 155 n. i.
37. Phil. Opif. 171-72.
38. Phil. Decal. 65.
39. Phil. Decal. 8i.
40. Wolfson 1947, 2:95.
41. Pl. Ti. 4oD-E.
That equating was made necessary and possible by the second of Philo's
axioms: "That God is one " [on 8Eos EL S EaTL ]; and again, "That He that
really IS is One " [on EL S 6 wv ovTws Ean ] .37 In his exposition of the First
Commandment, he elaborated on this axiom and its corollary rejection of
polytheism: "Let us, then, engrave deep in our hearts this as the first and
most sacred of commandments, to acknowledge and honour one God
Who is above all, and let the idea that gods are many never even reach the
ears of the man whose rule of life is to seek for truth in purity and
guilelessness. " 3 8 By this commandment God had "called upon men to
honour Him that truly is. " 39 Such an unambiguous adherence to the
monotheism of the Pentateuch makes it all the more curious "that Philo
never directly quotes in support of it that classical scriptural proof-text, "
the Shema of Deuteronomy 6: 4 . " It is probably, " Harry Wolfson suggests,
" because this principle was so commonly well known among those of his
contemporaries to whom he addressed himself in his works," for "in
Palestine this belief in the unity of God constituted a principle of faith
which was twice daily confessed by the recitation" of the Shema, and
"undoubtedly the same confession of the belief in the unity of God was
also followed twice daily by Hellenistic Jews " (Wolfson provides no docu­
mentation for this suggestion).40 The criticism of Greek polytheism was a
frequently recurring theme in the philosophy of Athens as well as in the
religion of Jerusalem, as the sarcasm of Timaeus made clear.41 One such
sarcastic criticism appeared in Wisdom, with a parallel in Isaiah, about the
woodcutter who felled a tree, worked some of its wood into an object
useful for daily life, burned some of it to cook a meal, and then made " one
3 6.
37.
3 8.
39 .
40.
4i.
Phil. Opif. 2 l; see Brisson l 97 4,
Phil. Opif. 1 7 1 -72.
Phil. Decal. 6 5 .
Phil . Decal. 8 I .
Wolfson 1 947, 2: 9 5 .
Pl. Ti. 40D-E.
l( H I G
l55
n.
P� ES S
r.
Alexandria
Alexandria 73
useless piece, crooked and full of knots," into a god.42 Idolatry, because of
the intellectual and moral confusion it caused, was "the beginning, the
cause, and the end of every evil" and "the beginning of immorality. "43
Opposite though they seemed, such polytheism and atheism were two
sides of the same denial of monotheism.44 Biblical monotheism, the
doctrine that "there is only one ruler and governor and king, to whom
alone it is granted to govern and to arrange the universe," could find
support in Homer as quoted by Aristotle: "The rule of many is not good;
one ruler let there be."'45 If that was true of the polis, it "could be said with
more justice of the world and of God than of cities and men. For being one
it must needs have one maker and father and master."46
As that quotation suggests, the formula of Timaeus, "Maker and Fa-
ther of this Universe,"47 could, by the equation of the Creator God of
Genesis with the Creator Demiurge of Timaeus, be put into the service of
Mosaic monotheism. The metaphor of God as Father, which was to be so
prominent in the teaching of Jesus and in the Christian doctrine of the
Trinity, was not unknown in the Hebrew Bible, where God was the Father
of Israel, the Father and protector of the orphan;48 only by inference,
however, was Father to be synonymous with Creator, even for the New
Testament, although in the various Christian creeds of antiquity that iden-
tification became standard, as in the opening formula of the Niceno-
Constantinopolitan Creed, ILtUTEUO[LEV E[ Eva
6VE VTraTEpa TraVToKpd-
Topa.49 In Alexandrian Judaism, the "boast that God is his father"s0 was
effortlessly extended to the entire cosmos, so that it was taken as the
intended meaning of the cosmogony of Genesis that God "is not a mere
artificer, but also Father of the things that are coming into being" [oi
TEXVLTI1s jI6vov &XXa KatL "TTilp &v TCOV tYLVOiEVCOV].51 Those words of Philo
resonated across much of the corpus of his works. Particularly in the
middle section of De opificio mundi, this theme recurred often. Directly
from the Timaeus came its formula 6 TotrlTflS KU L TraT1fp,52 which gave
42. Wis. 13:11-19; Is. 44:13-17.
43. Wis. 14:27, 12.
44. Phil. Migr. 69.
45. Hom. II. 2.20zo4; Arist. Met. A.0Io76a5.
46. Phil. Conf. 170.
47. P1. Ti. 28C.
48. For example, Ps. 68:5 and Is. 64:8.
49. Tanner-Alberigo, 1:24.
50. Wis. 2:16.
51. Phil. Leg. all. 1.18.
52. Phil. Opif. 77, a verbatim quotation of the formula from P1. Ti. z8C.
73
useless piece, crooked and full of knots," into a god. 42 Idolatry, because of
the intellectual and moral confusion it caused, was "the beginning, the
cause, and the end of every evil" and "the beginning of immorality. "43
Opposite though they seemed, such polytheism and atheism were two
sides of the same denial of monotheism.44 Biblical monotheism, the
doctrine that "there is only one ruler and governor and king, to whom
alone it is granted to govern and to arrange the universe, " could find
support in Homer as quoted by Aristotle: "The rule of many is not good;
one ruler let there be. "45 If that was true of the polis, it "could be said with
more j ustice of the world and of God than of cities and men. For being one
it must needs have one maker and father and master. "46
As that quotation suggests, the formula of Timaeus, "Maker and Fa­
ther of this Universe, "4 7 could, by the equation of the Creator God of
Genesis with the Creator Demiurge of Timaeus, be put into the service of
Mosaic monotheism. The metaphor of God as Father, which was to be so
prominent in the teaching of Jesus and in the Christian doctrine of the
Trinity, was not unknown in the Hebrew Bible, where God was the Father
of Israel, the Father and protector of the orphan;48 only by inference,
however, was Father to be synonymous with Creator, even for the New
Testament, although in the various Christian creeds of antiquity that iden­
tification became standard, as in the opening formula of the Niceno­
Constantinopolitan Creed, ITwTEUoµEv ds Eva 8Eov rraTE pa rravToKpci­
Topa . 49 In Alexandrian Judaism, the " boast that God is his father" 50 was
effortlessly extended to the entire cosmos, so that it was taken as the
intended meaning of the cosmogony of Genesis that God " is not a mere
artificer, but also Father of the things that are coming into being" [ou
TEXVL TTlS µovov aAA.a KGL rraT�p WV TWV YLVOµEVWV ] .5 1 Those words of Philo
resonated across much of the corpus of his works. Particularly in the
middle section of De opificio mundi, this theme recurred often. Directly
from the Timaeus came its formula 6 TIOLTF�S Kat rraTtj p,52 which gave
42.
43.
44.
4 5.
46.
4 7.
48.
49.
50.
5 I.
52.
Wis. l 3 : u - 1 9 ; Is. 44: 1 3 - 1 7 .
Wis. q : 27, 1 2 .
Phil. Migr. 69.
Hom. II. 2. 204; Arist. Met. A. 1076a 5 .
Phil. Con{. 1 70.
Pl. Ti. 28C.
For example, Ps. 6 8 : 5 and Is. 64 : 8 .
Tanner-Alberigo, 1 : 24.
Wis. 2: l 6.
Phil. Leg. all. I. l 8.
Phil. Opif. 77, a verbatim quotation of the formula from Pl. Ti. 2 8 C.
l( H I G
P� ES S
74
74 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
content to other formulas: TvOP TraTEpa TV 6owV; Tq ~6i TdVTW1, 1TaTpL OEi;
YEvvIlys aUTOV [TOv avOp6J1TOV] 6 TraTlp; 6 lTaTfp; EK TOy TaTpOS KaL
flYEO6voS TOV T(vTTOWV; TOV 1TaTpOS KaL I3atUL E0S.53
In addition to the novelty of describing the Creator as Father, what set
this Alexandrian version of the doctrine of creation apart from most
biblical monotheism was the participation of other beings in the divine act
of creation. Philo made it clear that God had "no counselor to help Him
[ov vEL TrapaKXflTy], for who was there beside Him?"54 Nevertheless, the
cosmogony of Genesis had, at the crucial point of the creation of the
human race, resorted to a plural: "Let us make man" [Hotm4LacEV
dvOpowTov].55ss Why should such a plural have appeared at all, and why in
this particular context? "Can it be," Philo asked himself, "that He to
whom all things are subject is in need of anyone whatever? Or can it be
that when He made the heaven and the earth and the seas, he required no
one to be his fellow-worker, yet was unable apart from the co-operation of
others by His own unaided power to fashion a creature so puny and
perishable as man?"56 His conjectural answer was that the human soul
alone was "susceptible of conceptions of evil things and good things";
when the soul followed the good things, that obedience to good could be
attributed to "God the universal Ruler as their Source," whereas human
disobedience could be attributed to "others from the number of His subor-
dinates," who "imitated" the action of the Creator.s7 This read into Gene-
sis the statement of Timaeus that the lesser deities, "imitating" [pi o6-
ILEVot] the Demiurge, "received from him the immortal principle of the
soul, and around this they proceeded to fashion a mortal body," in which
there would be "a soul of another nature," subject to pleasure and pain.58
Yet even Philo seemed to recognize that this explanation of the plural
was less than satisfactory; both he and Wisdom posited the presence of a
distinct and quasi-hypostatic reality in the act of creation-Logos for
Philo, Sophia for Wisdom-though without directly connecting it to
Genesis i:z6 as the unidentified addressee of "Let us make." Justification
for the first of these concepts, Philo's Logos, came from the repeated use in
the Genesis cosmogony of the phrase "And God said" as the instrument
(or agent) of creation, and from the repeated use in the Timaeus cos-
53. Phil. Opif. 72, 74, 84, 89, 135, 144.
54. Phil. Opif. 23.
55. Gn. i:z6.
56. Phil. Opif. 72.
57. Phil. Fug. 68-70; Phil. Opif. 73-75.
58. Pl. Ti. 69C-D; Wolfson 1947, 1:387.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
content to other formulas: Tov TiaTEpa Twv oAwv; T0 8� rravTwv rraTpl 9E0;
yEvvtjaas aVTOV [TOV avepwrrov] 6 1TaTtjp; 6 TTaTtj p; EK TOU rraTpos Kal
�yE µovos Twv rravTwv; Tou rraTpos Kal �aatAEws .53
In addition to the novelty of describing the Creator as Father, what set
this Alexandrian version of the doctrine of creation apart from most
biblical monotheism was the participation of other beings in the divine act
of creation. Philo made it clear that God had " no counselor to help Him
[ou8Evi rrapaKAtjT({)] , for who was there beside Him ? "54 Nevertheless, the
cosmogony of Genesis had, at the crucial point of the creation of the
human race, resorted to a plural: " Let us make man" [TimtjawµEv
av9pwrrov ] .55 Why should such a plural have appeared at all, and why in
this particular context? " Can it be," Philo asked himself, "that He to
whom all things are subject is in need of anyone whatever? Or can it be
that when He made the heaven and the earth and the seas, he required no
one to be his fellow-worker, yet was unable apart from the co-operation of
others by His own unaided power to fashion a creature so puny and
perishable as man ? " 56 His conjectural answer was that the human soul
alone was "susceptible of conceptions of evil things and good things";
when the soul followed the good things, that obedience to good could be
attributed to " God the universal Ruler as their Source, " whereas human
disobedience could be attributed to "others from the number of His subor­
dinates, " who " imitated" the action of the Creator.57 This read into Gene­
sis the statement of Timaeus that the lesser deities, " imitating " [µt µov­
µEvm ] the Demiurge, "received from him the immortal principle of the
soul, and around this they proceeded to fashion a mortal body, " in which
there would be " a soul of another nature," subj ect to pleasure and pain.58
Yet even Philo seemed to recognize that this explanation of the plural
was less than satisfactory; both he and Wisdom posited the presence of a
distinct and quasi-hypostatic reality in the act of creation-Logos for
Philo, Sophia for Wisdom -though without directly connecting it to
Genesis 1 : 2 6 as the unidentified addressee of " Let us make. " Justification
for the first of these concepts, Philo's Logos, came from the repeated use in
the Genesis cosmogony of the phrase "And God said " as the instrument
( or agent) of creation, and from the repeated use in the Timaeus cos53·
5 4.
55.
5 6.
57.
58.
Phil. Opif. 72, 74, 84, 89, 1 3 5 , 144·
Phil. Opif. 2 3 .
Gn. 1 : 26.
Phil. Opif. 7 2 .
Phil. Fug. 68 -70; Phil. Opif. 7 3 - 7 5 .
Pl. Ti. 69C-D; Wolfson 1 947, 1 : 3 8 7 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Alexandria
Alexandria 75
mogony of Reason as the divine element both in the cosmos and in man;
the Greek word X6yos, meaning both "word" and "reason," was espe-
cially suitable as a bridge between these two. The justification for the
second concept, Sophia in Wisdom, was above all the personification of
wisdom in the canonical Proverbs, likewise attributed to Solomon. On
that basis, as David Winston has put it, the author of Wisdom "is saying in
effect that Wisdom is essentially synonymous with the Divine Mind, and
thus represents the creative agent of the Deity. The similarity of this con-
ception with Philo's Logos doctrine is unmistakable."59
In Philo's De opificio mundi, with monotheism as a major theme, the
doctrine of the Logos, coming right after the statement that God had no
raptKXlTOS in creation, was an attempt to provide a principle of media-
tion (which Timaeus did and Genesis needed) while preserving monothe-
ism (which Genesis did and Timaeus needed).60 In defense of his jux-
taposed reading of the two texts, Philo insisted: "This doctrine comes
from Moses, not from me" [TO 84 6Soya TOUTO Movue(s; &TV, OUK t6gV].
But the 6Syia he was defending as authentically Mosaic was this: "The
cosmos that is apprehensible only by the mind is nothing else than the
Logos of God when He [God] was already engaged in the act of creating
the cosmos" [T6V VOrlTOV KOUOV vELaL . . . OEO0 X6yov fS] KOcROTOLOUV-
Tos]. Its fundamental presupposition was, then, the distinctly non-
Mosaic, or at any rate extra-Mosaic, distinction between "the cosmos
that is apprehensible only to the mind" and "the cosmos that is percep-
tible to the senses."61 And the proof that this was genuinely Mosaic was
the statement of Genesis that man was created "after the image of God,"
which was by extension applied to the entire world of the senses, now seen
as the image of the world of the mind, which was equated with the Logos
of God.62 The Timaean and generally Platonic metaphor of the design
that preexisted in the mind of the architect before it became a city was
applied to the Logos of God as the one who "provided cosmic order
[SLaKoRT[nuavTa] to that cosmos which consisted of ideas [6 aK Tt)V aED0V
K6cROS]."63 This Logos transcended all the beauties of the world of per-
ception, being "not only adorned with beauty, but Himself in very truth
59. On this at least, Winston (1979, 194 n. 4), and Wolfson (1947, 1:255), are in
agreement.
60. See Colpe 1979; Tobin 1983, 44-48.
6i. Farandos 1976, 297-306, with diagram; Vogel 1985, 8-iz.
6z. Phil. Opif. 24-z5. Jervell 1960, 52-70; Winden 1983.
63. Phil. Opif. zo; cf. Pl. Ti. 77C.
75
mogony of Reason as the divine element both in the cosmos and in man;
the Greek word Aoyos, meaning both "word " and "reason, " was espe­
cially suitable as a bridge between these two. The justification for the
second concept, Sophia in Wisdom, was above all the personification of
wisdom in the canonical Proverbs, likewise attributed to Solomon. On
that basis, as David Winston has put it, the author of Wisdom "is saying in
effect that Wisdom is essentially synonymous with the Divine Mind, and
thus represents the creative agent of the Deity. The similarity of this con­
ception with Philo's Logos doctrine is unmistakable. " s 9
In Philo's De opificio mundi, with monotheism as a maj or theme, the
doctrine of the Logos, coming right after the statement that God had no
napciKAllTOS' in creation, was an attempt to provide a principle of media­
tion (which Timaeus did and Genesis needed) while preserving monothe­
ism (which Genesis did and Timaeus needed) . 6° In defense of his j ux­
taposed reading of the two texts, Philo insisted: "This doctrine comes
from Moses, not from me" [To oE. ooyµa TOUTO MwuaEWS' EaT(v, ouK E µov ] .
But the 86yµa he was defending a s authentically Mosaic was this: "The
cosmos that is apprehensible only by the mind is nothing else than the
Logos of God when He [God] was already engaged in the act of creating
the cosmos " [Tov VOY)TOV Koaµov EL vm . . . 8EOu A6yov �OT) KoaµonoLOuv­
TOS' ] . Its fundamental presupposition was, then, the distinctly non­
Mosaic, or at any rate extra-Mosaic, distinction between "the cosmos
that is apprehensible only to the mind " and "the cosmos that is percep­
tible to the senses. " 61 And the proof that this was genuinely Mosaic was
the statement of Genesis that man was created " after the image of God, "
which was by extension applied to the entire world of the senses, now seen
as the image of the world of the mind, which was equated with the Logos
of God. 62 The Timaean and generally Platonic metaphor of the design
that preexisted in the mind of the architect before it became a city was
applied to the Logos of God as the one who "provided cosmic order
[8wKoaµtjaavTa] to that cosmos which consisted of ideas [6 EK Twv loEwv
Koaµos] . " 63 This Logos transcended all the beauties of the world of per­
ception, being " not only adorned with beauty, but Himself in very truth
59. On this at least, Winston ( 1 979, 1 9 4 n. 4), and Wolfson ( 1 947, 1 : 2 5 5 ) , are in
agreement.
60. See Colpe 1 979; Tobin 1 9 8 3 , 44 - 4 8 .
6 i . Farandos 1 9 76, 297-3 06, with diagram; Vogel 1 9 8 5, 8 - 1 2 .
62. Phil. Opif. 24 - 2 5 . Jervell 1 9 60, 5 2 -70; Winden 1 9 8 3 .
6 3 . Phil. Opif. 20; cf. Pl. Ti. 77C.
l( H I G
P� ES S
76
76 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
beauty's fairest adornment."64 It was to the human soul and logos that
"the holy Logos" bore a special relation.6s That was clear from the
Mosaic doctrine of the image of God, an image whose "pattern" [Trapd-
SEtLyla] was found not in any other creature but in the divine Logos, of
which the first man "was made an image and copy" [drrEtK6vtLrga KOL
[tIn1ra].66 His descendants also participated "faintly" in the image of the
Logos "as far as their mind was concerned."67
Many of the qualities thus attributed to the divine Logos were likewise
predicated of the divine Sophia. Philo himself made this equation: "The
Wisdom of God. .. is the Reason of God [Tfic TO co0 cuoctas. 8E EUTtV 6
eoio 60yos]."68 Wisdom, he explained, was "many-named" [TroXvudvuv os],
being called, among other things, "beginning" [dpXTfl, "image" [ELKow],
and "vision of God" [6paois 0Eo]; like Logos, moreover, Sophia existed
both as a "heavenly" archetype and as an "earthly" copy.69 The author of
Wisdom took up the theme of her "many names," describing her or the
"spirit" [-rvcEia] in her, to which she seemed to be assimilated later,70 "in a
series of twenty-one (7 x 3) epithets, borrowed largely from Greek philoso-
phy" and paralleled in other Near Eastern texts.71 Among these epithets
was lovoyEvE~, which appeared at the conclusion of the Timaeus.72 An-
other of the epithets for Sophia was txdvepwTros', which had already been
applied to her at the beginning of Wisdom.73 The same attribute belonged,
according to Philo, also to God, who was tLXdpETOS KatL L6 KaXoS KaL TrpoY-
ETL 4Lxtadvpcros.74 The relation of Sophia to God, therefore, was com-
plex and subtle. Sophia was "the radiance that streams from everlasting
light, the flawless mirror of the active power of God, and the image of his
goodness" [dcraobycra 6 x0T6sG tLLov Kait EoTrTpov dKflXLSWTOV Tfl STOU GEOD
EVEpyEda" KaL ELKUV Tfc d yaO6TTlTO ctUTO];7s the last of these attributes
was an important point of convergence between Timaeus and Genesis.76
64. Phil. Opif. 139.
65. Phil. Leg. all. 1.16.
66. Phil. Opif. 139; Mack 1972, 36-41.
67. Phil. Opif. 145-46.
68. Phil. Leg. all. 1.65. See Frichtel 1968, 172-78.
69. Phil. Leg. all. 1.43.
70. Wis. 9:17.
71. Wis. 7:2zz-24; Winston 1979, 178-83.
72. P1. Ti. 92zC.
73. Wis. 1:6.
74. Phil. Opif. 81.
75. Wis. 7:26.
76. P1. Ti. 29B; Gn. 1:26-27; Phil. Opif. 25.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
beauty's fairest adornment. " 64 It was to the human soul and logos that
"the holy Logos" bore a special relation. 65 That was clear from the
Mosaic doctrine of the image of God, an image whose "pattern " [napci8E L yµa] was found not in any other creature but in the divine Logos, of
which the first man "was made an image and copy" [ciTTE L Kovwµa KaL
µ ( µriµa].66 His descendants also participated "faintly" in the image of the
Logos "as far as their mind was concerned. " 67
Many of the qualities thus attributed to the divine Logos were likewise
predicated of the divine Sophia. Philo himself made this equation: "The
Wisdom of God . . . is the Reason of God [Tfts TOD 8EoD ao<f:>(as. � 8E E:anv 6
8rnD A.6yos] . " 6 8 Wisdom, he explained, was "many-named" [noA.uwvu µos ] ,
being called, among other things, " beginning" [cipx� ] , " image " [E L KWV ] ,
and "vision o f God " [opaaLs 8E oD ] ; like Logos, moreover, Sophia existed
both as a "heavenly" archetype and as an "earthly" copy.69 The author of
Wisdom took up the theme of her " many names," describing her or the
" spirit" [nvEDµa] in her, to which she seemed to be assimilated later,70 " in a
series of twenty-one ( 7 x 3 ) epithets, borrowed largely from Greek philoso­
phy" and paralleled in other Near Eastern texts.71 Among these epithets
was µovoyEVE S, which appeared at the conclusion of the Timaeus. 72 An­
other of the epithets for Sophia was tj:>LA.av8pwrros, which had already been
applied to her at the beginning of Wisdom. 73 The same attribute belonged,
according to Philo, also to God, who was <f:>LA.apETOS KaL cpLAOKaA.os KaL rrpoa­
ETL <f:>LA.av8pwrros . 74 The relation of Sophia to God, therefore, was com­
plex and subtle. Sophia was "the radiance that streams from everlasting
light, the flawless mirror of the active power of God, and the image of his
goodness" [cinauyaaµa cpwTos ciL8(ou Kal. EaonTpov ciK11A.l8wTov T�S TOD 8EoD
EVE pydas KaL E L KWV TTtS ciya86T'flTOS mhoD ] ;75 the last of these attributes
was an important point of convergence between Timaeus and Genesis. 76
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
7r.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
Phil. Opif. 1 3 9 ·
Phil. Leg. all. r . l 6 .
Phil. Opif. 1 3 9 ; Mack 1 9 7 2 , 3 6- 4 r .
Phil. Opif. 1 4 5 -46.
Phil. Leg. all. r.6 5. See Friichtel 1 9 6 8 , 1 7 2 - 7 8 .
Phil. Leg. all. l .4 3 .
Wis. 9 : 1 7 .
Wis. 7: 22-24; Winston 1 9 79, 1 7 8 - 8 3 .
Pl. Ti. 92C.
Wis. 1 : 6.
Phil. Opif. 8 1 .
Wis. 7:26.
Pl. Ti. 29B; G n . 1 : 26-27; Phil. Opif. 2 5 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Alexandria
Alexandria 77
Another point of convergence was the title TEXVlT1s, which for Philo was
a title for God although it was overshadowed by the title TrraTilp TOV
ytvopvowv, and which in Wisdom was a title for Sophia.77
77
Another point of convergence was the title TEXVL TllS , which for Philo was
a title for God although it was overshadowed by the title TrnT� p Twv
ywoµEvwv, and which in Wisdom was a title for Sophia.77
yEV]TO O KO UIOS
The problem of the apparent contradiction between the monotheistic
language of Genesis and the function of such auxiliary agents as Logos
and Sophia (and Pneuma) in Philo and Wisdom, whatever their relation to
the Demiurge of Timaeus may have been, came to a focus in the doctrine
of creation.78 Philo set it down as his third summary point: " . . . that the
cosmos has come into being [yEVflT6" 6 KOGos]. This because of those
who think that it is without beginning and eternal [iyvfVlTov KaL dtLov],
who thus assign to God no superiority at all."79 Any philosophical treat-
ment of cosmogony had to confront the scientific issue of the constituent
elements of the cosmos. The statement in Wisdom about God's "almighty
hand, which created the world out of formless matter" [KTicGJ TOV
KOU[LOV E a6pov iXans], seemed to employ the language of the Timaeus,
requiring harmonization with biblical teaching.80 Plato's Timaeus was,
together with Theaetetus, where that issue had been systematically formu-
lated on the basis of earlier theories.81 All four of these "elements-
crotxEa" did receive some kind of mention in the course of the first three
verses of Genesis, without being identified by any such term. But they
were identified as such with the technical term UToLXEia both by Philo and
in Wisdom. It seemed to be a quotation of the formula of Timaeus, Tiv
EKaTEpoV TOV OTOLtXEICV aLTLaTEOV UoYTacuV, when the Book of Wisdom
spoke of EL&Evat OUaTacVU K6QGtOV KaL EVEpyELtav UTOtXELV.82 Sometimes,
even with that technical term, all four elements did not appear at the same
time.83 It was uniquely human, according to Philo, to share in all four
elements and to be at home in any of them.84
Conversely, a review of the writings of Moses, chiefly in Genesis but
also elsewhere in the Pentateuch, led to significant correctives on these
Timaean allusions. In contrast to "other philosophers," who called all
77. Phil. Leg. all. 1.18; Wis. 7:21, 8:6.
78. Runia 1986, 7-3 1.
79. Phil. Opif. 171.
8o. Wis. 11:17; P1. Ti. 5oD-5iA; Reale 1979, 273-81.
8i. P1. Ti. 3IB, 3zB, 48B; Pl. Tht. z2o1E.
8z. P1. Ti. 57C; Wis. 7:17.
83. Wis. 13:z2; Phil. Opif. 38, 84.
84. Phil. Opif. 147.
The problem of the apparent contradiction between the monotheistic
language of Genesis and the function of such auxiliary agents as Logos
and Sophia (and Pneuma) in Philo and Wisdom, whatever their relation to
the Demiurge of Timaeus may have been, came to a focus in the doctrine
of creation. 78 Philo set it down as his third summary point: " . . . that the
cosmos has come into being [yEVllTOS o K6aµos] . This because of those
who think that it is without beginning and eternal [ciyEVllTOV KaL cil8Lov ] ,
who thus assign to God no superiority at all. " 79 Any philosophical treat­
ment of cosmogony had to confront the scientific issue of the constituent
elements of the cosmos. The statement in Wisdom about God's " almighty
hand, which created the world out of formless matter" [KTLaaaa TOV
K6aµov E� ciµ6p<f>ou VATJS] , seemed to employ the language of the Timaeus,
requiring harmonization with biblical teaching. 80 Plato's Timaeus was,
together with Theaetetus, where that issue had been systematically formu­
lated on the basis of earlier theories. 81 All four of these "elements­
GTOL XELa " did receive some kind of mention in the course of the first three
verses of Genesis, without being identified by any such term. But they
were identified as such with the technical term GTOLXE'ia both by Philo and
in Wisdom. It seemed to be a quotation of the formula of Timaeus, T�v
EKUTEpou TWV GTOLXE LWV alnaTEoV �vaTaaw, when the Book of Wisdom
spoke of El8Evm avaTaaw Koaµou KaL EVEpyE Lav aTOLXE Lwv . 82 Sometimes,
even with that technical term, all four elements did not appear at the same
time. 83 It was uniquely human, according to Philo, to share in all four
elements and to be at home in any of them. 84
Conversely, a review of the writings of Moses, chiefly in Genesis but
also elsewhere in the Pentateuch, led to significant correctives on these
Timaean allusions. In contrast to " other philosophers," who called all
77.
78.
79.
80.
8r.
82.
83.
84.
Phil. Leg. all. r . 1 8 ; Wis. 7 : 2 1 , 8 : 6.
Runia 1 9 8 6, 7-3 I .
Phil. Opif. l 7 r .
Wis. 1 1 : 1 7; Pl. Ti. 50D- 5 1 A; Reale 1 9 79, 273 - 8 r .
Pl. Ti. 3 1 B, 3 2B, 48B; Pl. Tht. 201E.
Pl. Ti. 5 7C; Wis. 7 : 1 7 .
Wis. l 3 :2; Phil. Opif. 3 8, 84.
Phil. Opif. 147·
l( H I G
P� ES S
78
78 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
water indiscriminately Ev TOLtXEov . . . TGV TETTaOpJV, Et hV o K6 tO
86rpitoupyr1fl, Moses in Genesis distinguished between freshwater and
saltwater.ss85 The history of the Exodus from Egypt, also celebrated by the
second half of Wisdom as evidence of divine power and providence, pro-
vided Philo with a basis for describing how the God of Israel had demon-
strated "the mightiness of the sovereignty which He holds" by employing
all four elements against Israel's enemies. Thus the almighty Creator
"turned into instruments for the perdition of the impious" the elements
that originally "He shaped in His saving goodness to create the uni-
verse."86 Wisdom described how "the elements combined among them-
selves in different ways" [Ta TOtXE a [t0eapLo(6C[tEva] in the Exodus.87
One of the four provided Philo with another way of employing the cos-
mogony of Genesis to differentiate his views from the cosmogony of
Timaeus. Plato had subsumed his discussion of light under the category of
fire.88 But light had no such subordinate position in the cosmogony of
Genesis, where it was the first of all creatures, inducted with the first
magisterial "And God said" and greeted by God's first KaX6v.89 The
primeval light, perceptible only to the mind, Philo said, was "beautiful
pre-eminently" [i rep3aXX60vTw" KcaXOV], for it was "an image of the Divine
Logos" [OEiov X6yov uELK0v]. "It would not be amiss," he continued, to
term it "all-brightness" [TravavyELa], because from it all the lights per-
ceived by the senses in heaven and on earth derived "the light befitting
each of them" [Ta 1-rpE1roVTa 4yy].90 And after God had on the first day
kindled this "4xs VOflT6V, which preceded the sun's creation," this latter
being an event reserved for the fourth day, "darkness its adversary with-
drew." Thus a distinction of Timaeus made it possible for Philo as inter-
preter of Genesis to account for the puzzling hiatus between the creation
of light on the first day and the creation of the sun on the fourth.
Philo's celebration of the divine fiat in Genesis, as well as his subor-
dination of the rTOLXEia of Timaeus to the divine "mightiness of the
sovereignty" of a God who had also fashioned those same elements at the
creation of the universe and could change them all whenever he pleased,91
highlighted an even more fundamental difference:
85. Phil. Opif. 131.
86. Wis. 10:15-19:22; Phil. V. Mos. 1.96.
87. Wis. 19:18.
88. Pl. Ti. 45B-C.
89. Gn. 1:3-4.
90. Phil. Opif. 30-3I.
91. Phil. V. Mos. 1.96.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
water indiscriminately EV oTOLXE'iov . . . Twv TETTapwv, E_� wv 6 Koaµos
E_o11 µwupyft811 , Moses in Genesis distinguished between freshwater and
saltwater. 85 The history of the Exodus from Egypt, also celebrated by the
second half of Wisdom as evidence of divine power and providence, pro­
vided Philo with a basis for describing how the God of Israel had demon­
strated "the mightiness of the sovereignty which He holds " by employing
all four elements against Israel's enemies. Thus the almighty Creator
"turned into instruments for the perdition of the impious " the elements
that originally "He shaped in His saving goodness to create the uni­
verse. " 86 Wisdom described how "the elements combined among them­
selves in different ways " [n1 <JTOLXELa µE8apµo(oµEva] in the Exodus. 87
One of the four provided Philo with another way of employing the cos­
mogony of Genesis to differentiate his views from the cosmogony of
Timaeus. Plato had subsumed his discussion of light under the category of
fire. 88 But light had no such subordinate position in the cosmogony of
Genesis, where it was the first of all creatures, inducted with the first
magisterial "And God said " and greeted by God's first KaA.6v . 89 The
primeval light, perceptible only to the mind, Philo said, was " beautiful
pre-eminently" [imE p�aA.A.ovTWS KaA.6v ] , for it was " an image of the Divine
Logos" [8E (ou A.6you ELKWV ] . " It would not be amiss, " he continued, to
term it " all-brightness " [rravauyE w], because from it all the lights per­
ceived by the senses in heaven and on earth derived "the light befitting
each of them " [Ta rrpErrovTa cpEyy11] . 90 And after God had on the first day
kindled this "<Pws voriTov, which preceded the sun's creation, " this latter
being an event reserved for the fourth day, "darkness its adversary with­
drew. " Thus a distinction of Timaeus made it possible for Philo as inter­
preter of Genesis to account for the puzzling hiatus between the creation
of light on the first day and the creation of the sun on the fourth.
Philo's celebration of the divine fiat in Genesis, as well as his subor­
dination of the <JTOLXELa of Timaeus to the divine " mightiness of the
sovereignty" of a God who had also fashioned those same elements at the
creation of the universe and could change them all whenever he pleased,9 1
highlighted an even more fundamental difference:
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
9l.
Phil. Op if l 3 I .
Wis. 1 0: 1 5 - 1 9:22; Phil. V. Mos. r .9 6 .
Wis. 1 9 : 1 8 .
Pl. Ti. 4 5 B-C.
Gn. 1 : 3 - 4 .
Phil. Opif 3 0- 3 r .
Phil. V. Mos. l .96.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Alexandria
Alexandria 79
Three times in the account of the act of creation, Plato emphasizes
that the god willed, not (note well!) that the cosmos should or
should not come into being, but that it be as good as possible (z9e3,
3oaz, d3). In his commentary on the creational account Philo ea-
gerly takes over the notion of God's will, but, in contrast to Plato,
applies it to the actual decision to create the cosmos. God willed to
create this visible cosmos (Opif. i16 fovXOEiS TbOV 6paTOV KOU OV
TOUTOv1 86rltovpyccrat ).92
This emphasis on the divine will and command to create the cosmos
contrasts with the language of Timaeus about the process by which the
Demiurge "led it into order from disorder" [EL TaLtv aUvTO rjyayEv EK T1]!
79
Three times in the account of the act of creation, Plato emphasizes
that the god willed, not ( note well ! ) that the cosmos should or
should not come into being, but that it be as good as possible ( 29e3 ,
3 oa2, d3 ). In his commentary on the creational account Philo ea­
gerly takes over the notion of God's will, but, in contrast to Plato,
applies it to the actual decision to create the cosmos. God willed to
create this visible cosmos ( Opif. 1 6 �ouA.118EtS TOV opaTov Koaµov
TOVTOVL 811µwupyflam ) . 92
dTatac] and about "persuasion" [TrEIcELv] as his means of creation.93
"How could anything have continued in existence," Wisdom asked, "had
it not been your will? How could it have endured unless called into being
by you?"94 For example, when God commanded, "Let the earth bring
forth living creatures, according to their various kinds," the response to
the command was immediate: "The earth forthwith puts forth, as it was
bidden."9s
With the distinction of Timaeus between KIOS VOfT6s and K(6cRO
aitOr)T6s, Philo was able to superimpose on the cosmogony of Genesis-
or to find in it, as he would have preferred to say-an entire systematic
theory of pattern and copy derived from the cosmogony of Timaeus and
based on the presupposition that "God, being God, assumed that a beau-
tiful copy [L[trna KaX6v] would never be produced apart from a beautiful
pattern [vrapcid6Etya KaXov]." Therefore there were two distinct creations,
of the K6ito; VOTT6O" first, and then of the K6ioO cacOT)T6s, which God
made as "the very image" [dTrELK6VLr rta] of the first.96 What was
described in the opening words of the Bible was the creation of the invis-
ible, archetypal "heaven and earth," the KocIoS VOTIT6S.97 Before a partic-
ular and individual mind there had to have existed "an idea, as an arche-
type and pattern of it" [TI; 84a, (c;S dv ApXTUTrOS KL ctrapdSetLy1a
TObTOU].98 The whole creation was "a copy of the divine image" [tiLrl1ta
92. Runia 1986, 139.
93. Pl. Ti. 3oA, 48A.
94. Wis. 11:25.
95. Gn. 1:24; Phil. Opif. 64.
96. Phil. Opif. i6.
97. Phil. Opif. 29.
98. Phil. Leg. all. i.zz.
This emphasis on the divine will and command to create the cosmos
contrasts with the language of Timaeus about the process by which the
Demiurge "led it into order from disorder" [Els Tacw avTo �yayEv EK Tfls
chac[as] and about " persuasion" [TIE leE Lv] as his means of creation.93
"How could anything have continued in existence, " Wisdom asked, "had
it not been your will ? How could it have endured unless called into being
by you ? " 94 For example, when God commanded, "Let the earth bring
forth living creatures, according to their various kinds, " the response to
the command was immediate: "The earth forthwith puts forth, as it was
bidden. " 95
With the distinction of Timaeus between Koaµos VOT]TOS and Koaµos
ala811T6s, Philo was able to superimpose on the cosmogony of Genesis­
or to find in it, as he would have preferred to say-an entire systematic
theory of pattern and copy derived from the cosmogony of Timaeus and
based on the presupposition that " God, being God, assumed that a beau­
tiful copy [µ(µ11µa KaA6v] would never be produced apart from a beautiful
pattern [rrapa8E L yµa KaA6v ] . " Therefore there were two distinct creations,
of the Koaµos VOT]TOS first, and then of the Koaµos ala0T]TOS , which God
made as "the very image " [arrE LKOVLaµa] of the first.96 What was
described in the opening words of the Bible was the creation of the invis­
ible, archetypal "heaven and earth, " the Koaµos VOT]TOS .97 Before a partic­
ular and individual mind there had to have existed " an idea, as an arche­
type and pattern of it" [ns l8E:a, ws av UPXETUTTOS KUL rrapaOE L yµa
TOUTou ] .98 The whole creation was "a copy of the divine image" [µ(µ11µa
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
Runia 1 9 8 6, 1 3 9 ·
Pl. Ti. 3 0A, 4 8A.
Wis. n : 2 5 .
Gn. 1 : 24; Phil. Opif. 64.
Phil. Opif. 1 6.
Phil. Opif. 29.
Phil. Leg. all. r . 22.
l( H I G
P� ES S
80
8o What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
9Elas ELK6vOs].99 From Timaeus it could be learned that the Creator of
Genesis was like an architect.100°° That implied, for example, that Sol-
omon, in building his temple, was constructing "a copy [lirpata] of the
sacred tabernacle prepared by [God] from the beginning."101 But the most
brilliant application of the Timaean distinction to the creation story of
Genesis enabled Philo to solve the vexing problem of the two versions of
the creation of man by applying to it the double creation, first of the im-
mortal soul and then of the mortal body, posited in Timaeus:102 the man
formed of clay in the second version (Gn. 2:7) was "perceptible to the
senses" [atOir6s], whereas the man created after the image of God in the
first version was "apprehensible only to the mind [voflT6s], neither male
nor female, by nature incorruptible," as was the God in whose image that
man was created.103 That was why the text said that after receiving the
breath of the divine life, he not only received but "became a living soul."104
Both the pattern and the copy were the work of the Almighty Creator,
who was not confined to time; for "the cosmos was not made in time, but
time was formed by means of the cosmos," and time "was not before
there was a cosmos."105s From this it followed that God made "the com-
mands which He issues together with the thought behind them," both the
pattern and the copy "simultaneously."106 But the problem that accord-
ing to the cosmogony in Genesis light was created on the first day and the
sun on the fourth was one illustration of the exegetical obligation to deal
with "the chain of sequence" [6 T1f]s dKoVXVOea E ll6s] of the "bringing
in of life" [Cooyovia] in the hexaemeron.107 Part of the answer was nu-
merological: like Plato before him and Augustine after him, Philo found
six to be "the first perfect number" because it was the sum of its constitu-
ent parts, one, two, and three.108 But the most important reason for the
use of a sequence that seemed to be, but was not, chronological was "the
necessity of order [1 TcdLc]."109 This he defined in general as "a series of
things going on before and following after, in due sequence, a sequence
99. Phil. Opif. 25.
ioo. Phil. Opif. 17-18.
101. Wis. 9:8.
xoz. Pl. Ti. 69C.
103. Phil. Opif. 134.
104. Phil. Leg. all. 1.31-32.
105. Phil. Leg. all. i.z; Phil. Opif. 2z6. See Baltes 1976, 32-38.
io6. Phil. Opif. 13.
107. Phil. Opif. 65.
xo8. Phil. Opif. 13; P1. Resp. 8.546B; Aug. Civ. 11.30. See Ladner 1959, 212-22.
109. Phil. Opif. 67.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
9El.as E l Kovos] .99 From Timaeus it could be learned that the Creator of
Genesis was like an architect. 100 That implied, for example, that Sol­
omon, in building his temple, was constructing "a copy [µtµ11µa] of the
sacred tabernacle prepared by [God] from the beginning. " 101 But the most
brilliant application of the Timaean distinction to the creation story of
Genesis enabled Philo to solve the vexing problem of the two versions of
the creation of man by applying to it the double creation, first of the im­
mortal soul and then of the mortal body, posited in Timaeus:1 02 the man
formed of clay in the second version ( Gn. 2:7) was "perceptible to the
senses" [ala811T6s] , whereas the man created after the image of God in the
first version was " apprehensible only to the mind [voT}TOS ], neither male
nor female, by nature incorruptible, " as was the God in whose image that
man was created. 103 That was why the text said that after receiving the
breath of the divine life, he not only received but "became a living soul. " 1 04
Both the pattern and the copy were the work of the Almighty Creator,
who was not confined to time; for "the cosmos was not made in time, but
time was formed by means of the cosmos, " and time "was not before
there was a cosmos . " 1 05 From this it followed that God made "the com­
mands which He issues together with the thought behind them," both the
pattern and the copy " simultaneously. " 1 06 But the problem that accord­
ing to the cosmogony in Genesis light was created on the first day and the
sun on the fourth was one illustration of the exegetical obligation to deal
with "the chain of sequence " [6 Tfls aKouAou0tas E t p µ 6s ] of the " bringing
in of life " [(c.poyovta] in the hexaemeron. 1 07 Part of the answer was nu­
merological: like Plato before him and Augustine after him, Philo found
six to be "the first perfect number " because it was the sum of its constitu­
ent parts, one, two, and three. 1 o s But the most important reason for the
use of a sequence that seemed to be, but was not, chronological was "the
necessity of order [ii niELs ] . " 109 This he defined in general as "a series of
things going on before and following after, in due sequence, a sequence
99.
1 00.
roi.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
l 07.
108.
109.
Phil. Opif. 2 5 .
Phil. Opif. 1 7 - 1 8 .
Wis. 9 : 8 .
Pl. Ti. 69C.
Phil. Opif. 1 3 4 .
Phil. Leg. all. i . 3 l - 3 2.
Phil. Leg. all. i . 2; Phil. Opif. 26. See Baltes 1 9 7 6, 3 2- 3 8 .
Phil. Opif. 1 3 .
Phil. Op if. 6 5 .
Phil. Opif. 1 3 ; Pl. Resp. 8 . 5 46B; Aug. Civ. l I . 3 0 . See Ladner 1 9 5 9 , 2 1 2-22.
Phil. Opif. 67.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Alexandria
Alexandria 81
which, though not seen in the finished product, yet exists in the designs of
the contrivers"; and it had to be "an attribute of all that came into exis-
tence in fair beauty, for beauty is absent where there is disorder."110 The
division of the simultaneous creation into six days, "to each of which He
assigned some of the portions of the whole, not including, however, the
first day, which He does not even call 'first' [Trp6Trfl, lest it should be
reckoned with the others, but naming it 'one' [lia],"111 suited precisely
the definition of creation in Timaeus as the process by which the
Demiurge "led it into order from disorder."112 And the name for what he
led into order was "cosmos."
One Demiurge and One Cosmos
The fourth of Philo's summary axioms about creation was also the long-
est: ". . . that the world [K6cRos] too is one as well as its Maker
[Srirtoup-y6s], who made His work like Himself in its uniqueness [KUT& T1j
81
which, though not seen in the finished product, yet exists in the designs of
the contrivers " ; and it had to be " an attribute of all that came into exis­
tence in fair beauty, for beauty is absent where there is disorder. " 1 1 0 The
division of the simultaneous creation into six days, "to each of which He
assigned some of the portions of the whole, not including, however, the
first day, which He does not even call 'first' [rrpWTYl ] , lest it should be
reckoned with the others, but naming it 'one' [µ(a ] , " 1 1 1 suited precisely
the definition of creation in Timaeus as the process by which the
Demiurge " led it into order from disorder. " 1 12 And the name for what he
led into order was "cosmos. "
6vuiatv], who used up for the creation [y vELts] of the whole all the
One Demiurge and One Cosmos
material that exists; for it would not have been a whole had it not been
formed and consisted of parts that were wholes. For there are those who
suppose that there are more worlds than one, while some think that they
are infinite in number. Such men are themselves in very deed infinitely
lacking in knowledge of things which it is right good to know."113 For
Philo, the oneness of the cosmos was a corollary of the oneness of God the
Creator, and the case for the former was dependent on the case for the
latter, to which both Timaeus and Genesis had contributed. The question
itself came directly from Timaeus: "Are we right in saying that there is one
world [Eva oipav6v], or that they are many and infinite? There must be
one only if the created copy is to accord with the original."114 Paradoxical
though it might have seemed to some Middle Platonic readers of Timaeus
as well as to certain Stoics, the oneness of God the Creator and the
oneness of the cosmos were both grounded not in any identification of
God with the cosmos but in the fundamental ontological distinction be-
tween Creator and creature. It was the inspired insight of "the great
Moses" to recognize that distinction, which Wisdom formulated with
special sharpness.11s The alternative to atheism was not pantheism but
I1 o. Phil. Opif. 28.
iii. Phil. Opif. 15, 35; Gn. I:5 LXX.
IIz2. Pl. Ti. 3oA.
113. Phil. Opif. 171.
114. Pl. Ti. 3 iA (Jowett).
115. Phil. Opif. 12; Wis. 13:I-5.
The fourth of Philo's summary axioms about creation was also the long­
est: " . . . that the world [ Koaµos] too is one as well as its Maker
[8Ylµt0upy6s ] , who made His work like Himself in its uniqueness [KaTa Ti)v
µovwaw ] , who used up for the creation [yEVE<JLS] of the whole all the
material that exists; for it would not have been a whole had it not been
formed and consisted of parts that were wholes. For there are those who
suppose that there are more worlds than one, while some think that they
are infinite in number. Such men are themselves in very deed infinitely
lacking in knowledge of things which it is right good to know. " 1 1 3 For
Philo, the oneness of the cosmos was a corollary of the oneness of God the
Creator, and the case for the former was dependent on the case for the
latter, to which both Timaeus and Genesis had contributed. The question
itself came directly from Timaeus: "Are we right in saying that there is one
world [Eva ovpavov ] , or that they are many and infinite ? There must be
one only if the created copy is to accord with the original. " 1 14 Paradoxical
though it might have seemed to some Middle Platonic readers of Timaeus
as well as to certain Stoics, the oneness of God the Creator and the
oneness of the cosmos were both grounded not in any identification of
God with the cosmos but in the fundamental ontological distinction be­
tween Creator and creature. It was the inspired insight of "the great
Moses " to recognize that distinction, which Wisdom formulated with
special sharpness. 1 15 The alternative to atheism was not pantheism but
I I O.
II I .
I I 2.
113.
l 14.
n5.
Phil. Opif 2 8 .
Phil. O pif 1 5 , 3 5 ; Gn. 1 : 5 LXX.
Pl. Ti. 3 0A.
Phil. Opif 1 7 !.
Pl. Ti. 3 r A (Jowett) .
Phil. Opif 1 2; Wis. 1 3 : 1 - 5 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
82
8z What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
divine transcendence: because the transcendent God was one, it was pos-
sible for the creation to be one, "like Him in its oneness."
Nevertheless, the very device from Timaeus that helped make sense of
the double creation of man in Genesis appeared to introduce a fundamen-
tal metaphysical cleavage into the doctrine of man as the crown of cre-
ation and thus, by extension, into the entire doctrine of creation. Philo
attributed to Moses the principle that "everything that is perceptible to
the senses is subject to becoming and to constant change," by contrast
with "that which is invisible and apprehensible only to the mind."116 First
the distinction between the world perceived by the mind and the world
perceived by the senses, and then the unity between them, were set forth in
the single formula of Genesis: "And the heaven and the earth and all their
cosmos were completed" [Kct cvvETEXE6cOfav 6 ovpav6os Kai fl KL- Trra
6 K6iROS clT6Iv].117 Heaven in this sentence meant "mind, since heaven is
the abode of natures discerned only by mind." Earth referred to "sense-
perception, because sense-perception possesses a composition of a more
earthly and body-like sort." But cosmos embraced them both, the incor-
poreal things of the mind and the corporeal things of the bodily senses,
which therefore could be seen as "one" in the single cosmos of the one
God.118 That comprehensive vision of "the entire cosmos" was sym-
bolically set forth on the liturgical robes of the high priest Aaron.119
Both the distinction and the unity between vows and aluOerlts became
the basis for dealing with the unity of the human race, specifically the
relation between man and woman in creation, an issue on which both
Timaeus and Genesis had given problematical answers.120 In a retrospec-
tive interpretation of the account of creation in the light of the subsequent
account of the fall of Adam and Eve, Philo once more invoked the distinc-
tion between voUs and ak9~ci;t: "pleasure" [flovr] (a feminine noun in
Greek), as symbolized by the serpent, "does not venture to bring her wiles
and deceptions to bear on the man, but on the woman, and by her means
on him." This was because vo0s (masculine in Greek) represented man,
and arleLS (feminine) represented woman; pleasure attacks the senses
first, and then through them "it cheats even the sovereign mind itself."121
But just as "cosmos" in the Septuagint of Genesis 2:1 represented the
I16. Phil. Opif. I2z.
117. Gn. z:1.
118. Phil. Leg. all. iI..
119. Wis. 18:24; Bousset 1915, 37-40.
120. Pl. Ti. 9oE; Gn. z:i8-z25.
I z I. Phil. Opif. 165.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
divine transcendence: because the transcendent God was one, it was pos­
sible for the creation to be one, " like Him in its oneness. "
Nevertheless, the very device from Timaeus that helped make sense of
the double creation of man in Genesis appeared to introduce a fundamen­
tal metaphysical cleavage into the doctrine of man as the crown of cre­
ation and thus, by extension, into the entire doctrine of creation. Philo
attributed to Moses the principle that "everything that is perceptible to
the senses is subject to becoming and to constant change," by contrast
with "that which is invisible and apprehensible only to the mind. " 1 1 6 First
the distinction between the world perceived by the mind and the world
perceived by the senses, and then the unity between them, were set forth in
the single formula of Genesis: " And the heaven and the earth and all their
cosmos were completed" [Kai avvETEAEa911aav 6 oupavos Kal � yfl Kal rras
6 K6aµos ainwv ] . 1 1 7 Heaven in this sentence meant " mind, since heaven is
the abode of natures discerned only by mind . " Earth referred to " sense­
perception, because sense-perception possesses a composition of a more
earthly and body-like sort. " But cosmos embraced them both, the incor­
poreal things of the mind and the corporeal things of the bodily senses,
which therefore could be seen as " one " in the single cosmos of the one
God. 1 1 8 That comprehensive vision of "the entire cosmos" was sym­
bolically set forth on the liturgical robes of the high priest Aaron. 1 1 9
Both the distinction and the unity between vovs and a'la911aLs became
the basis for dealing with the unity of the human race, specifically the
relation between man and woman in creation, an issue on which both
Timaeus and Genesis had given problematical answers. 120 In a retrospec­
tive interpretation of the account of creation in the light of the subsequent
account of the fall of Adam and Eve, Philo once more invoked the distinc­
tion between vovs and a'la911aL s : " pleasure " [i}oovtj ] ( a feminine noun in
Greek), as symbolized by the serpent, " does not venture to bring her wiles
and deceptions to bear on the man, but on the woman, and by her means
on him. " This was because vovs ( masculine in Greek) represented man,
and a'la811aLs (feminine) represented woman; pleasure attacks the senses
first, and then through them " it cheats even the sovereign mind itself. " 121
But j ust as "cosmos " in the Septuagint of Genesis 2 : 1 represented the
I I 6.
1 1 7.
I I 8.
u9.
1 20.
12!.
Phil. Opif 1 2.
Gn. 2: i .
Phil. Leg. all. r . i .
Wis. 1 8 :24; Bousset 1 9 1 5 , 3 7-40.
Pl. Ti. 90E; Gn. 2 : 1 8 - 2 5 .
Phil. Opif 1 6 5 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Alexandria
Alexandria 83
unity of heaven and earth, and therefore also the unity between TO vorlTr6v
and TO6 awQrjT6v, so, despite the identification of vois" with the masculine
and a68crOt" with the feminine, the first created human being, the one
made in accordance with the image of God, was in fact "neither male nor
female."122 In this divine image the differences among human beings, not
only between male and female but other differences as well, could be
transcended.123 For Philo did not follow Timaeus and describe women as
men undergoing punishment; rather he followed Genesis, attributing the
creation of both male and female to God and declaring that "woman, too,
was made" by the Creator.124
Similarly, the unity of the cosmos as grounded in the unity of its Crea-
tor made possible a sense not only of the distinction but also of the kinship
between man and the other animals. Continuing its explanation of
woman, Timaeus had interpreted the various species of animals, too, as
several levels of punishment inflicted on human beings.12s But on this
issue Philo followed Genesis, asserting that the Creator "took in hand to
form the races of mortal creatures" [Ta OVfrTl yEvl (oTrXaTELV wEvEXEL-
pE t].126 The repeated language of the Septuagint about animals possessing
a 6x1-as when God commanded the seas, !EayayETJ T
av8a aEpTrETU
ivX6-v (cxaiv, and then the land, !E~ayayTwT~ fyl 4 vuXly (65av-enabled
Philo to distinguish creatures that were svExa from those that did not
possess a soul of any kind, on the basis that beings with a 4iXrl were also
endowed with the ability of sense perception (ak6irtGs).127 This included
not only animals of sea and land but also man, who was distinct from all
others and unique in his relation to God by virtue of having a 46Xnr that
was "mind par excellence"128 and that connected him to the K6(joo
vorlT6s, but who, by what he shared with the animals, participated in the
KO[O aoflT6" as well. Ultimately, the oneness of the cosmos could be
said to be guaranteed by the same factor that seemed to make the oneness
of the Creator problematical in Hellenistic Judaism, the presence of Logos
and/or Sophia. The arrangement of heaven, like that of earth, was "in
varied beauty." 129 But despite the seemingly infinite variety of these crea-
I z22. Phil. Leg. all. 1.1; Phil. Opif. 134.
123. Phil. Leg. all. 3.96.
124. Phil. Opif. 151; Pl. Ti. 9oE.
125. Pl. Ti. 9IE-9zC.
z126. Phil. Opif. 6z.
z127. Gn. 1:20, 24; Phil. Opif. 6z.
iz8. Phil. Opif. 66.
129. Phil. Opif. 45.
83
unity of heaven and earth, and therefore also the unity between TO VOTJTOV
and TO ala9T]TOV, so, despite the identification of vovs with the masculine
and a'la9T]CTLS with the feminine, the first created human being, the one
made in accordance with the image of God, was in fact " neither male nor
female. " 122 In this divine image the differences among human beings, not
only between male and female but other differences as well, could be
transcended. 123 For Philo did not follow Timaeus and describe women as
men undergoing punishment; rather he followed Genesis, attributing the
creation of both male and female to God and declaring that "woman, too,
was made " by the Creator. 124
Similarly, the unity of the cosmos as grounded in the unity of its Crea­
tor made possible a sense not only of the distinction but also of the kinship
between man and the other animals. Continuing its explanation of
woman, Timaeus had interpreted the various species of animals, too, as
several levels of punishment inflicted on human beings. 125 But on this
issue Philo followed Genesis, asserting that the Creator "took in hand to
form the races of mortal creatures " [Ta 9VT]Ta yEVTJ (<.µoTIA.aaTELV EVEXE L ­
pE L ] . 126 The repeated language of the Septuagint about animals possessing
a l!JuxTJ-as when God commanded the seas, !EtayayETw Ta u8aTa E pTIETa
l!Juxwv (wawv, and then the land, !E�ayayETw � yfl l!Jux�v (waav-enabled
Philo to distinguish creatures that were E µlj;uxa from those that did not
possess a soul of any kind, on the basis that beings with a l!JuxTJ were also
endowed with the ability of sense perception (aLa9T]CTLS ) . 127 This included
not only animals of sea and land but also man, who was distinct from all
others and unique in his relation to God by virtue of having a l!JuxTJ that
was "mind par excellence"128 and that connected him to the Koa µos
VOTJTOS, but who, by what he shared with the animals, participated in the
Koaµos ala9T]TOS as well. Ultimately, the oneness of the cosmos could be
said to be guaranteed by the same factor that seemed to make the oneness
of the Creator problematical in Hellenistic Judaism, the presence of Logos
and/or Sophia. The arrangement of heaven, like that of earth, was " in
varied beauty. " 129 But despite the seemingly infinite variety of these crea1 22.
123.
l24.
125.
l 26.
1 27.
128.
1 29 .
Phil. Leg. all. r . 1 ; Phil. Opif. 1 3 4·
Phil. Leg. all. 3 .9 6 .
Phil. Opif. l 5 l ; Pl. Ti. 90E.
Pl. Ti. 9 1 E-92C.
Phil. Opif. 62.
Gn. 1 : 20, 24; Phil. Opif. 62.
Phil. Opif. 66.
Phil. Opif. 4 5 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
84
84 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
tures, it remained true that God had "made them all by the instrumentality
of the Logos."130 The Logos was "all-healing."131 Behind all the particu-
larities of the world perceptible to the senses were the Ideas apprehensible
only to the mind, but behind and before both of them was "the archetypal
model, the Idea of Ideas, the Logos of God" [T6 TrapdSELyt a, apXETvTroS
ISEa Tmv 6E8V 6 oEO0 6yos].132 Thus the Logos provided the unity of the
Ideas with one another, which in turn united the objects of sense.
Divine Providence in the Cosmos
"The fifth lesson that Moses teaches us," Philo summarized, "is that God
exerts his providence for the benefit of the cosmos."133 The term irp6vota
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
tures, it remained true that God had " made them all by the instrumentality
of the Logos. " 1 30 The Logos was " all-healing. " 13 1 Behind all the particu­
larities of the world perceptible to the senses were the Ideas apprehensible
only to the mind, but behind and before both of them was "the archetypal
model, the Idea of Ideas, the Logos of God " [To rrapaon yµa, cipXETvnos
lOEa Twv lOEwv 6 8Eou A.Oyos]. 132 Thus the Logos provided the unity of the
Ideas with one another, which in turn united the obj ects of sense.
in the sense of divine providence did not occur in any of the translations
Divine Providence in the Cosmos
from Hebrew in the Septuagint (although the concept was fundamental,
for example, in the history of the Exodus). But it did occur in Timaeus, in
the important statement of its theme: "On this wise, using the language of
probability, we may say that the world came into being-a living creature
truly endowed with soul and intelligence by the providence of God [Sta
TflV TOo Eo Trp6votav]."134 And it did occur, for the first time in the Greek
version of the Bible, in Wisdom: "Your providence, Father, is the pilot" [l
84 fn, TraTEp, L8taK cul3Epv Trp6vota]; "fugitives from eternal provi-
dence."13s The idea, though not the word, was repeated in such prayers as
"You are just and you order all things [Ta TravTa] justly," as well as in the
review of the actions of the divine Sophia in the history of Israel.136 The
alternative to the doctrine of providence, Philo declared, was "a worthless
and baleful doctrine," which would "introduce anarchy in the
cosmos."137 If the one God was indeed "Father and Maker," it logically
followed that by his providence he would care for what he had made.138
Philo provided the fundamental presupposition for the doctrine of provi-
dence when-taking advantage of the Septuagint translation, which said
that God "caused to rest" [KaTETrav6Ev] rather than that God "rested"
[ETracvaTo]-he asserted a concept of providence as "creatio continua":
I30. Wis. 9:1.
131. Wis. i6:12.
13z. Phil. Opif. z5 (var.).
133. Phil. Opif. 171 (adapted from Yonge).
134. Pl. Ti. 3oB-C (Jowett).
135. Wis. 14:3, 17:2.
136. Wis. 12:15, o10:1-12:27.
137. Phil. Opif. 1 i.
138. Phil. Opif. Io.
"The fifth lesson that Moses teaches us, " Philo summarized, " is that God
exerts his providence for the benefit of the cosmos. " 133 The term np6vow
in the sense of divine providence did not occur in any of the translations
from Hebrew in the Septuagint ( although the concept was fundamental,
for example, in the history of the Exodus) . But it did occur in Timaeus, in
the important statement of its theme: " On this wise, using the language of
probability, we may say that the world came into being-a living creature
truly endowed with soul and intelligence by the providence of God [8La
T�v TOV 8Eov np6vowv ] . " 1 34 And it did occur, for the first time in the Greek
version of the Bible, in Wisdom: "Your providence, Father, is the pilot" [il
OE atj , naTEp, oLaKV�Epvq rrp6vow] ; " fugitives from eternal provi­
dence. " 1 35 The idea, though not the word, was repeated in such prayers as
"You are just and you order all things [Ta navTa] j ustly, " as well as in the
review of the actions of the divine Sophia in the history of Israel. 136 The
alternative to the doctrine of providence, Philo declared, was " a worthless
and baleful doctrine, " which would " introduce anarchy in the
cosmos. " 1 37 If the one God was indeed " Father and Maker, " it logically
followed that by his providence he would care for what he had made. 1 3 8
Philo provided the fundamental presupposition for the doctrine o f provi­
dence when-taking advantage of the Septuagint translation, which said
that God "caused to rest" [KaTErravaEv] rather than that God "rested"
[EnauaaTo ] -he asserted a concept of providence as "creatio continua" :
1 3 0.
13!.
1 3 2.
133·
l 34.
135·
1 3 6.
l 3 7.
I 3 8.
Wis. 9 : r .
Wis. 1 6: 1 2 .
Phil. Opif. 2 5 (var. ) .
Phil. Opif. 1 7 1 (adapted from Yonge).
Pl. Ti. 3 0B-C (Jowett).
Wis. 14:3, 1 7 : 2 .
Wis. 1 2 : 1 5 , 1 0: 1 - 1 2:27.
Phil. Opif. I I .
Phil. Opif. I O .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Alexandria
Alexandria 85
"God never leaves off making, but even as it is the property of fire to burn
and of snow to chill, so it is the property of God to make; nay more so by
far, inasmuch as He is to all besides the source of action."139
By extension, rrp6vota led to TratEVUaLts.140 Introducing his exposition
of Genesis, Philo insisted on the necessary linkage between cosmogony
and the moral order.141 He praised Moses for having provided here a
"cosmogony" [KocloTroLa] in which "the cosmos is in harmony with the
Law, and the Law with the cosmos," and in which man was a true "citizen
of the cosmos" [KOGOTOXITTSf], indeed, as Wisdom called him, "the father
of the cosmos."142 Philo contrasted this with other codes of law, and by
implication other cosmogonies, in which such a linkage was absent. That
contrast and criticism seems not to include Timaeus, with its close consid-
eration of "how much attention [the law] has devoted from the very
beginning to the Cosmic Order."143 As a "citizen of the cosmos," and the
only one, the first man had received a "divine law" and the "goal of being
fully conformed to God."144 So close was this tie between cosmogony and
morality in the providence of God that in the history of the Exodus, the
cosmos itself had gone to war in defense of the righteous; so overwhelm-
ing was the concept of "virtue" [dpET'] that it made even the bane of
childlessness tolerable.145 The statement in Genesis that "God breathed
upon his face the breath of life" meant that it was "His will to make
compliance with positive ordinances part of duty," lest someone "without
experience of virtue" refuse to accept accountability for sin.146 But when
it came to specifying the content of this "virtue," which had certainly been
spelled out in the Decalogue of Moses (on which Philo even wrote a
separate commentary), the quartet "of divine goods" and virtues formu-
lated by Plato but taught by Sophia came immediately to hand, even in a
work supposedly written by King Solomon: "temperance and prudence,
justice and fortitude, these are her teaching" [am4po6uvv y'ap KaL p6-
vfatv EK&&6L KEL, atKatOU6VlV) KaL AIVpElLav].147 Because all creatures
139. Phil. Leg. all. 1.5-6; Gn. 2:3.
140. Koch 1932.
141. Phil. Opif. z-3.
142. Wis. o10:1.
143. Pl. Ti. z4B-C.
144. Phil. Opif. 143-44.
145. Wis. 16:17, 4:1.
146. Gn. 2:7; Phil. Leg. all. 1.35.
147. Wis. 8:7; P1. Leg. 1.63 IC. See the discussion of Philo on the Decalogue in Amir
1983, 131-63.
85
" God never leaves off making, but even as it is the property of fire to burn
and of snow to chill, so it is the property of God to make; nay more so by
far, inasmuch as He is to all besides the source of action. " 1 3 9
By extension, rrpovota led t o rral8EuaLs . 140 Introducing his exposition
of Genesis, Philo insisted on the necessary linkage between cosmogony
and the moral order. 141 He praised Moses for having provided here a
"cosmogony" [Koaµorroda] in which "the cosmos is in harmony with the
Law, and the Law with the cosmos, " and in which man was a true "citizen
of the cosmos " [ KoaµorroA.( TT}S] , indeed, as Wisdom called him, "the father
of the cosmos. " 142 Philo contrasted this with other codes of law, and by
implication other cosmogonies, in which such a linkage was absent. That
contrast and criticism seems not to include Timaeus, with its close consid­
eration of "how much attention [the law] has devoted from the very
beginning to the Cosmic Order. " 143 As a "citizen of the cosmos," and the
only one, the first man had received a " divine law" and the "goal of being
fully conformed to God. " 144 So close was this tie between cosmogony and
morality in the providence of God that in the history of the Exodus, the
cosmos itself had gone to war in defense of the righteous; so overwhelm­
ing was the concept of "virtue " [apETtj ] that it made even the bane of
childlessness tolerable. 1 45 The statement in Genesis that " God breathed
upon his face the breath of life" meant that it was " His will to make
compliance with positive ordinances part of duty, " lest someone "without
experience of virtue " refuse to accept accountability for sin. 146 But when
it came to specifying the content of this "virtue," which had certainly been
spelled out in the Decalogue of Moses ( on which Philo even wrote a
separate commentary), the quartet "of divine goods " and virtues formu­
lated by Plato but taught by Sophia came immediately to hand, even in a
work supposedly written by King Solomon: " temperance and prudence,
justice and fortitude, these are her teaching" [aw<f>poavvT}v yap Kai <f>po­
v11aw E KOLOclCTKE L , OL KaLOCTUVT}V KaL avopdav ] . 147 Because all creatures
1 3 9 · Phil. Leg. all. i . 5 -6; Gn. 2 : 3 .
140. Koch 1 9 3 2.
14 i . Phil. Opif. 2-3 .
142. Wis. l O: I .
l 4 3 . Pl. Ti. 24B-C.
144· Phil. Opif. 1 4 3 -44.
1 4 5 · Wis. 1 6: 1 7, 4 : i .
1 4 6 . Gn. 2:7; Phil. Leg. all. i . 3 5 .
1 4 7 · Wis. 8:7; Pl. Leg. r . 63 l C. See the discussion of Philo on the Decalogue in Amir
1983, 13 1-63.
l( H I G
P� ES S
86
86 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
"and man above all" sought after pleasure, the life of virtue had to be one
of "self-control" [EyKpiTE La].148
The moral admonition and promise of immortality by the Demiurge to
the lesser gods in Timaeus bore some parallels to the moral admonition
and promise of immortality by God to Adam in Genesis. But it has been
pointed out by David Winston
that for Plato, the majority of souls are eventually purified through a
process of purgation and thus have a natural claim to immortality,
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
" and man above all " sought after pleasure, the life of virtue had to be one
of " self-control" [E:yKpciTE La] . 148
The moral admonition and promise of immortality by the Demiurge to
the lesser gods in Timaeus bore some parallels to the moral admonition
and promise of immortality by God to Adam in Genesis. But it has been
pointed out by David Winston
and that the Platonists usually offer proofs for immortality from the
very nature of the soul, whereas the author of Wisdom places the
emphasis not on this natural claim but on whether one has lived
righteously. In so doing, however, he follows the same path pursued
by Philo, who implies that only the souls of the wise enjoy immortal-
ity... . Both he and Philo were undoubtedly influenced in this by
biblical tradition.149
So in this instance Genesis prevailed over Timaeus. The "tree of life" in
Genesis, therefore, represented to Philo "reverence toward God [OEoaE-
3ELta], the greatest of the virtues, by means of which the soul attains to
immortality [dOavaT(ETat fl Xr]," being endowed with an immortality
that it had not possessed before by nature.1s50 It was of such a life that he
spoke in the closing words of De opificio mundi, "a life of bliss and
blessedness, because he has a character moulded by the truths that piety
and holiness enforce."1s5 And elsewhere he described being "raised to
immortality by virtues."152 The wicked were dead long before they were
that for Plato, the maj ority of souls are eventually purified through a
process of purgation and thus have a natural claim to immortality,
and that the Platonists usually offer proofs for immortality from the
very nature of the soul, whereas the author of Wisdom places the
emphasis not on this natural claim but on whether one has lived
righteously. In so doing, however, he follows the same path pursued
by Philo, who implies that only the souls of the wise enjoy immortal­
ity. . . . Both he and Philo were undoubtedly influenced in this by
biblical tradition. 149
buried; "the decent and worthy man, however, does not die by death, but
after living long, passes away to eternity, that is, he is borne to eternal
life."s153
But it was especially Wisdom that articulated this inseparable connec-
tion between immortality and virtue, in a kind of leitmotiv.154 "God did
not make death," it insisted already in its first chapter.155 On the contrary,
148. Phil. Opif. 162, 164.
149. Winston 1992, 123.
i5o. Phil. Opif. 154.
151. Phil. Opif. 172.
152. Phil. Conf. 149.
153. Phil. Quaes. Gen. i.i6.
154. Backers 1938, 10-47; Reese 1970, 62-71.
155. Wis. 1:13-14.
So in this instance Genesis prevailed over Timaeus. The "tree of life " in
Genesis� therefore, represented to Philo "reverence toward God [8EoaE ­
�E La] , the greatest of the virtues, by means of which the soul attains to
immortality [aeavaTL(ETm ii t1Jux11 ] , " being endowed with an immortality
that it had not possessed before by nature. 1 50 It was of such a life that he
spoke in the closing words of De opificio mundi� "a life of bliss and
blessedness, because he has a character moulded by the truths that piety
and holiness enforce. " 1 5 1 And elsewhere he described being " raised to
immortality by virtues. " l 52 The wicked were dead long before they were
buried; "the decent and worthy man, however, does not die by death, but
after living long, passes away to eternity, that is, he is borne to eternal
life . " 153
But it was especially Wisdom that articulated this inseparable connec­
tion between immortality and virtue, in a kind of leitmotiv. 1 54 " God did
not make death, " it insisted already in its first chapter. 1 55 On the contrary,
148.
149·
1 5 0.
l51·
l 52.
153·
1 5 4·
155·
Phil. Opif 1 62, 1 64 .
Winston 1992, 1 2 3 .
Phil. Opif 1 54·
Phil. Opif 1 7 2 .
Phil. Conf 149.
Phil. Quaes. Gen. r . 1 6.
Biickers 1 9 3 8, 10-47; Reese 1 9 70, 62-7 r .
Wis. 1 : 1 3 - 1 4 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Alexandria
Alexandria 87
it continued, "justice is immortal" [SLKaLoOwnvr yap dOdvasT6 sOETLv]156
a statement that at least seemed to suggest that immortality was not
natural. "God created man for immortality," it explained, "and made him
the image of his own eternal self; it was the devil's spite that brought death
into the world, and the experience of it is reserved for those who take his
side."157s Beginning with the consoling assurance that "the souls of the
just are in God's hand," the author granted that "in the eyes of the foolish
they seemed to be dead; their departure was reckoned as defeat"; but in
fact "they have a sure hope of immortality."158 Immortality and virtue
were inseparable, because "virtue held in remembrance is a kind of im-
mortality."s159 Because of their virtue, therefore, "the just live for
ever."160 "There is immortality," Wisdom defined, "in kinship with wis-
dom."161 Then, as if to summarize the inseparability of virtue and immor-
tality and the implicit polemic against the notion of natural immortality, a
later chapter declared, "To know you is the whole of righteousness, and to
acknowledge your power is the root of immortality."162
156. Wis. 1:15.
157. Wis. z:23-24.
158. Wis. 3:1-4.
I59. Wis. 4:1.
16o. Wis. 5:15.
I61. Wis. 8:17.
16z. Wis. 15:3.
87
it continued, "justice is immortal" [0t Kmoauv11 yap a0civaTOS EO"TLV ] 1 56a statement that at least seemed to suggest that immortality was not
natural. " God created man for immortality, " it explained, " and made him
the image of his own eternal self; it was the devil's spite that brought death
into the world, and the experience of it is reserved for those who take his
side . " 157 Beginning with the consoling assurance that "the souls of the
just are in God's hand, " the author granted that " in the eyes of the foolish
they seemed to be dead; their departure was reckoned as defeat" ; but in
fact "they have a sure hope of immortality. " 158 Immortality and virtue
were inseparable, because "virtue held in remembrance is a kind of im­
mortality. " 159 Because of their virtue, therefore, "the j ust live for
ever. " 160 "There is immortality, " Wisdom defined, " in kinship with wis­
dom. " 1 6 1 Then, a s i f to summarize the inseparability o f virtue and immor­
tality and the implicit polemic against the notion of natural immortality, a
later chapter declared, "To know you is the whole of righteousness, and to
acknowledge your power is the root of immortality. " 162
1 5 6.
1 5 7·
1 5 8.
1 59·
1 60.
l6I.
1 62.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
1:15.
2 : 2 3 -24.
3 : 1-4.
4:i.
5:15.
8 : 1 7.
1 5:3.
l( H I G
P� ES S

Dr g 11:1 zed by
Ori g1I n a I 1ko m
T H E llJ NllVE R S!lliY O� MI( H I G AN P� E%
UN Pl ERSllif Y O:F Ml (Hi IGA NI
V
New Rome: Christ as "God Made
Perceptible to the Senses," "Only-
v
Begotten God," and "Image of the God
Apprehensible Only to the Mind"
(Timaeus 9 2C)
Alexandria would go on being a venue for the confrontation between
Athens and Jerusalem and the counterpoint between Timaeus and
Genesis. But the principal locus of the counterpoint now moved from the
Alexandrian synagogue to the church of those Middle Platonists and
Neoplatonists whom a classic monograph of the nineteenth century called
"the Christian Platonists of Alexandria,"1 including, in the ante-Nicene
period, Clement and Origen and, in the Nicene and post-Nicene period,
Athanasius and Cyril. On account of its relation to the Alexandrian tradi-
tion and specifically to Philo, as well as on account of its doctrine of
creation, an especially important case study for the counterpoint is the
Epistle to the Hebrews, which after considerable hesitation, above all in
New Rome: Christ as "God Made
Perceptible to the Senses," "Only­
Begotten God," and "Image of the God
Apprehensible Only to the Mind"
(Timaeus 9 2C)
Rome, was incorporated into the canon of the New Testament.2 For, on
the one hand, summarizing the teaching of Genesis and declaring the
doctrine of "creatio ex nihilo," it simultaneously invoked and con-
travened the vocabulary of Timaeus3 when it affirmed that "by faith we
perceive [TrUTELt voov[Ev] that the universe was fashioned by the word of
God, so that the visible came forth from the invisible";4 thus it combined a
reference to the noun 1TLaTLS as Belief (which was for Timaeus incompat-
ible with daiOELta) with a reference to the verb derived from vois (which
Timaeus had made the instrument for perceiving the d&Xreta of really real
Being, in opposition to 86a as Belief). On the other hand, that same
i. Bigg i886.
z. Williamson 1970; Dey 1975, 13-20.
3. Pl. Ti. z9C-D.
4. Heb. I1:3.
89
Alexandria would go on being a venue for the confrontation between
Athens and Jerusalem and the counterpoint between Timaeus and
Genesis. But the principal locus of the counterpoint now moved from the
Alexandrian synagogue to the church of those Middle Platonists and
Neoplatonists whom a classic monograph of the nineteenth century called
"the Christian Platonists of Alexandria," 1 including, in the ante-Nicene
period, Clement and Origen and, in the Nicene and post-Nicene period,
Athanasius and Cyril. On account of its relation to the Alexandrian tradi­
tion and specifically to Philo, as well as on account of its doctrine of
creation, an especially important case study for the counterpoint is the
Epistle to the Hebrews� which after considerable hesitation, above all in
Rome, was incorporated into the canon of the New Testament.2 For, on
the one hand, summarizing the teaching of Genesis and declaring the
doctrine of "creatio ex nihilo, " it simultaneously invoked and con­
travened the vocabulary of Timaeus3 when it affirmed that " by faith we
perceive [rrLaTE L voouµEv] that the universe was fashioned by the word of
God, so that the visible came forth from the invisible ";4 thus it combined a
reference to the noun TILCTTLS as Belief (which was for Timaeus incompat­
ible with ciAtj9E La) with a reference to the verb derived from vovs (which
Timaeus had made the instrument for perceiving the aAtj9E w of really real
Being, in opposition to 86�a as Belief ). On the other hand, that same
r.
2.
3.
4.
Bigg 1 8 86.
Williamson 1 9 70; Dey 1975, 1 3 -20.
Pl. Ti. 29C-D.
Heb. n : 3 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
90
90 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
chapter of Hebrews was also the only place in all of Greek Christian
Scripture, whether Septuagint or New Testament, that explicitly called the
God of the Bible 6rlitovpy6s, indeed TEXVLTTfS KaL arLttovpyo" 6 G6 ;s this
implied a sufficient measure of continuity between Genesis and Timaeus
to warrant use of such well-known technical terms from the vocabulary of
the latter to state the teaching of the former on the doctrine of creation.
In addition to Alexandria, each of our other capitals-Jerusalem,
Rome, and Athens-retained a privileged position in the Christian
thought of the fourth century. Jerusalem, which Irenaeus had already
called "the capital city [[LTpolTroXts] of the citizens of the new covenant,"6
still occupied a unique place in Christian loyalties, also because of the
growing interest in pilgrimage to the Holy Places manifested, for example,
by the empress Helena.7 Likewise, the primacy of Rome as the see of Peter
was acknowledged also by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, who, having
been in 341 the beneficiary of the hospitality of Old Rome while in exile,
quoted with approval a letter of the bishop of Rome, Julius I, which
insisted that in disputes among churches "the custom has been for word to
be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this
place," because that was the prerogative that Rome had "received from
the blessed Apostle Peter."8 Athens, too, would continue to exercise a
hold on the mind and the imagination of Christian theologians, one of
whom exclaimed as he remembered his student days: "For those who have
been comrades there, nothing is so painful as separation from Athens and
from one another!"'9
But that same Christian theologian reserved his grandest rhetorical
encomia for another "mighty Christ-loving city," Constantinople as New
Rome (of which he would briefly be bishop in 381):
If it be no great thing to have established and strengthened with
wholesome doctrines a city which is the eye of the universe, in its
exceeding strength by sea and land, which is, as it were, the link
between the Eastern and the Western shores, in which the extremi-
ties of the world from every side meet together, and from which, as
the common market of the faith, they take their rise, a city borne
5. Heb. 11:10. The word 8rgaiovpy6s is also used in the LXX at 2 Mc. 4:i, but with
reference to a human being.
6. Iren. Haer. 3.12.5.
7. Gr. Nyss. Ep. 2; Gr. Naz. Or. 42.26.
8. Ath. Apol. sec. 2.
9. Gr. Naz. Or. 43.24.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
chapter of Hebrews was also the only place in all of Greek Christian
Scripture, whether Septuagint or New Testament, that explicitly called the
God of the Bible 8ri µwupy6s-, indeed TEXVL TflS' Kai 8riµwupyos- 6 9E6s;5 this
implied a sufficient measure of continuity between Genesis and Timaeus
to warrant use of such well-known technical terms from the vocabulary of
the latter to state the teaching of the former on the doctrine of creation.
In addition to Alexandria, each of our other capitals-Jerusalem,
Rome, and Athens-retained a privileged position in the Christian
thought of the fourth century. Jerusalem, which Irenaeus had already
called "the capital city [µf1Tp6rroALS'] of the citizens of the new covenant, " 6
still occupied a unique place in Christian loyalties, also because of the
growing interest in pilgrimage to the Holy Places manifested, for example,
by the empress Helena. 7 Likewise, the primacy of Rome as the see of Peter
was acknowledged also by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, who, having
been in 3 4 1 the beneficiary of the hospitality of Old Rome while in exile,
quoted with approval a letter of the bishop of Rome, Julius I, which
insisted that in disputes among churches "the custom has been for word to
be written first to us, and then for a j ust decision to be passed from this
place," because that was the prerogative that Rome had "received from
the blessed Apostle Peter. " 8 Athens, too, would continue to exercise a
hold on the mind and the imagination of Christian theologians, one of
whom exclaimed as he remembered his student days: " For those who have
been comrades there, nothing is so painful as separation from Athens and
from one another! " 9
But that same Christian theologian reserved his grandest rhetorical
encomia for another " mighty Christ-loving city, " Constantinople as New
Rome (of which he would briefly be bishop in 3 8 1 ) :
If it be no great thing to have established and strengthened with
wholesome doctrines a city which is the eye of the universe, in its
exceeding strength by sea and land, which is, as it were, the link
between the Eastern and the Western shores, in which the extremi­
ties of the world from every side meet together, and from which, as
the common market of the faith, they take their rise, a city borne
5. Heb. n : ro. The word OT} µLOupy6s- is also used in the LXX at
reference to a human being.
6. Iren. Haer. 3 . I 2. 5 .
7. Gr. Nyss. Ep. 2; Gr. Naz. O r. 42.26.
8 . Ath. Apo/. sec. 2.
9 . Gr. Naz. Or. 4 3 .24.
l( H I G
P� ES S
2
Mc. 4 : 1 , but with
New Rome
New Rome
91
hither and thither on the edifying currents of so many tongues, it
will be a long time before anything is considered great or worthy of
esteem.o10
91
hither and thither on the edifying currents of so many tongues, it
will be a long time before anything is considered great or worthy of
esteem. 10
For when the emperor Constantine moved the capital of the empire from
the banks of the Tiber to the shores of the Bosporus, he set it apart from its
classical and pagan predecessor, as the early Byzantine historian Sozomen
put it, by seeing to it that "it was not polluted by altars, Grecian temples,
or sacrifices."11 Moreover, as another early Byzantine historian, Socrates
Scholasticus, reported, Constantine, "having rendered it equal to imperial
Rome, named it 'Constantinople,' establishing by law that it should be
designated 'New Rome.' "12 And it was so designated in the decree of the
Second Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople in 381-"because it
is new Rome" [8t& T O ELVaLt aTtyV v av 'P irv]13-and then in the con-
troversial twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon in 451I, which
decreed, "concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of Con-
stantinople, new Rome" [rrept T'6v rrPEcIa3ELCV TflS" daytcodTlS EKKXfaltLa
Tif as KVOTaVTLVOUTr6XEW vxas 'P ti ], that "the city which is
honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equal-
ling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiasti-
cal affairs and take second place after her."14
In the event, however, Constantinople was not only New Rome; it
became a new Athens as well, where the greatest of churches was dedi-
cated not to Saint Peter or even to Saint Andrew, legendary apostle to
Byzantium, but to Holy Wisdom, Hagia Sophia, and where Greek wis-
dom and biblical revelation interacted to produce a full-blown Christian
humanism. Within the Christian culture of New Rome, the thought of
Clement, Origen, and Athanasius, the three Alexandrian Christian theo-
logians, now went on to be synthesized by the three Cappadocian theolo-
gians, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nyssa,
together with Macrina, sister of the latter two; Basil was the author of an
important and influential defense of the continued use of classical litera-
ture and philosophy by Christians.15s They continued the counterpoint in
the doctrine of creation between the Timaeus of Plato and the Genesis of
Io. Gr. Naz. Or. 42.27, Io.
II. Soz. H.e. 2.3.
12. Socr. H.e. i.i6.
13. Tanner-Alberigo 1:3 2.
14. Tanner-Alberigo 1:100oo; see Martin 1951.
15. Pelikan 1993, 10-ii.
For when the emperor Constantine moved the capital of the empire from
the banks of the Tiber to the shores of the Bosporus, he set it apart from its
classical and pagan predecessor, as the early Byzantine historian Sozomen
put it, by seeing to it that " it was not polluted by altars, Grecian temples,
or sacrifices. " 1 1 Moreover, as another early Byzantine historian, Socrates
Scholasticus, reported, Constantine, "having rendered it equal to imperial
Rome, named it 'Constantinople,' establishing by law that it should be
designated 'New Rome.' " 12 And it was so designated in the decree of the
Second Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople in 3 8 1 - " because it
is new Rome " [8La To ELvm mh�v vEav (Pwµrw ] 1 3-and then in the con­
troversial twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon in 4 5 l , which
decreed, "concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of Con­
stantinople, new Rome " [TTE pL TWV TTPECT�E LWV TTJS ayLWTclTllS E KKAllCTLas
TTJS mhfis KwvaTavnvounoAEWS vEas (Pwµ11s ], that "the city which is
honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equal­
ling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiasti­
cal affairs and take second place after her. " 14
In the event, however, Constantinople was not only New Rome; it
became a new Athens as well, where the greatest of churches was dedi­
cated not to Saint Peter or even to Saint Andrew, legendary apostle to
Byzantium, but to Holy Wisdom, Hagia Sophia, and where Greek wis­
dom and biblical revelation interacted to produce a full-blown Christian
humanism. Within the Christian culture of New Rome, the thought of
Clement, Origen, and Athanasius, the three Alexandrian Christian theo­
logians, now went on to be synthesized by the three Cappadocian theolo­
gians, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nyssa,
together with Macrina, sister of the latter two; Basil was the author of an
important and influential defense of the continued use of classical litera­
ture and philosophy by Christians. 1 5 They continued the counterpoint in
the doctrine of creation between the Timaeus of Plato and the Genesis of
IO.
II.
I2.
I3.
I4.
I5.
Gr. Naz. Or. 42.27, Io.
Soz. H.e. 2 . 3 .
Socr. H. e. I . I 6.
Tanner-Alberigo I : 3 2 .
Tanner-Alberigo I : I oo; see Martin I 9 5 I .
Pelikan I 99 3 , I O- I I .
l( H I G
P� ES S
92
92 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
Moses as it had been developed in Jewish Alexandria.16 But the doctrines
of the incarnation and the Trinity in the Christian orthodoxy that came
out of the council held in 325 at Nicaea, and behind those doctrines the
language of the Greek New Testament and of the Greek church fathers,
made it possible in fourth-century New Rome to connect Timaeus and
Genesis in new ways, as the development of Christian doctrine provided
the Cappadocians with a more profound justification for finding such a
connection in the closing words of Timaeus (translated as these Christian
Neoplatonists understood them): "image of the [God who is] apprehen-
sible only to the mind; God made perceptible to the senses; most great and
most good, most beautiful and most perfect in His generation-even this
one only-begotten Heaven" [ELK V TOO VOT]TO0 OE0)S airlT6;S, IEyLtTOS
KaL dptGTOS KdXXLATOS TE KUL TEXEOJTcTOS yEyoVEI) ELS ovpavo 68 Movo-
yEv; lS v].17 Beginning with the New Testament, many of these Greek
vocables had become technical theological terms, applied to Christ as the
Logos who had created the world and who became incarnate in Jesus of
Nazareth. Thus it was possible for the thought of New Rome to equate the
co La of Greek wisdom with the ao4La of the Book of Proverbs and the
Book of Wisdom, both of these being attributed to Solomon-not by a
collapse of either into the other, but by what we have been calling counter-
point. Or, as Endre von Ivinka has put it, "the Cappadocians remain fully
Platonists," but in a way that "the threat to the specifically Christian that
lay in these tendencies was overcome, at least in its fundamental
essence."18
rOLrlT1] KaTL TLTlp as the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ19
The equating of the God of Moses with Plato's 6 Jv was by now an
assumption that it was not necessary to substantiate, that it was indeed
not possible to controvert; for it was emblazoned in the most "towering
text"20 of the entire Septuagint: the self-designation of the God who
spoke to Moses from the burning bush in the words !Ey EL[LLt 6 v.21 The
equating may even have been at work in the "intentional tour de force" of
the salutation of the Book of Revelation, drr6 6 cv KGL 6 a U K a 6 px6-
16. See Gronau 1914, 36-37.
17. Pl. Ti. 9zC (adapted from Jowett).
18. Ivinka 1948, 58, 43; see also Callahan 1958.
19. P1. Ti. z8C; I Cor. 8:6; May 1994, 122 n. 19.
zo. Murray 1964, 5.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
Moses as it had been developed in Jewish Alexandria. 16 But the doctrines
of the incarnation and the Trinity in the Christian orthodoxy that came
out of the council held in 3 2 5 at Nicaea, and behind those doctrines the
language of the Greek New Testament and of the Greek church fathers,
made it possible in fourth-century New Rome to connect Timaeus and
Genesis in new ways, as the development of Christian doctrine provided
the Cappadocians with a more profound j ustification for finding such a
connection in the closing words of Timaeus (translated as these Christian
Neoplatonists understood them) : " image of the [God who is] apprehen­
sible only to the mind; God made perceptible to the senses; most great and
most good, most beautiful and most perfect in His generation-even this
one only-begotten Heaven" [E lKwv TOD VOT}TOV 8Eos ala9T}TOS , µE:ywTos
Kat apL<JTOS KclAAL<JTOS TE Kat TEAEWTaTOS yE:yovEV ELS oupavos OOE µovo­
YEV�S wv ] 1 7 Beginning with the New Testament, many of these Greek
.
vocables had become technical theological terms, applied to Christ as the
Logos who had created the world and who became incarnate in Jesus of
Nazareth. Thus it was possible for the thought of New Rome to equate the
aocp(a of Greek wisdom with the aocp(a of the Book of Proverbs and the
Book of Wisdom, both of these being attributed to Solomon-not by a
collapse of either into the other, but by what we have been calling counter­
point. Or, as Endre von lvanka has put it, " the Cappadocians remain fully
Platonists," but in a way that "the threat to the specifically Christian that
lay in these tendencies was overcome, at least in its fundamental
essence. " 1 8
z2. Ex. 3:14.
TIOLT}T�S Kat naTtj p as the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ1 9
The equating of the God o f Moses with Plato's 6 wv was by now an
assumption that it was not necessary to substantiate, that it was indeed
not possible to controvert; for it was emblazoned in the most "towering
text"20 of the entire Septuagint: the self-designation of the God who
spoke to Moses from the burning bush in the words !Eyw ELµL 6 wv .21 The
equating may even have been at work in the "intentional tour de force" of
the salutation of the Book of Revelation, ano 6 WV KUL 6 �u KUL 6 E PXO1 6.
17.
l 8.
19.
20.
2i.
See Gronau 1 9 14, 3 6- 3 7 .
Pl. Ti. 92C (adapted from Jowett).
Ivanka l 9 4 8' 5 8' 4 3 ; see also Callahan I 9 5 8 .
Pl. Ti. 2 8 C ; I Cor. 8:6; May 1 9 9 4 , 1 2 2 n . 1 9 .
Murray 1 9 64, 5 .
Ex. 3 : 1 4.
l( H I G
P� ES S
New Rome
New Rome 93
[lEVO;, where this version of the divine name remained undeclined despite
its being the object of a preposition, as a symbol of its transcendence.22
But in New Rome the equation acquired new significance and a whole
new vocabulary, together with an entire new set of problems, as a conse-
quence of the debates over the Trinity in the fourth century. The eventual
outcome of those debates was the adoption of oioLa (Being), the abstract
noun of Greek metaphysics employed by Timaeus and derived from the
verb ELvat (to be), to serve as the orthodox and technical term for the
Divine as this was shared by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.23 But that
seemed to run directly contrary to the usage of Timaeus, according to
which Being (oi6La) itself was the proper object only of Truth (dXOELta),
with Belief (vri(cTLt) being restricted to the questions of Becoming (y-
vEct).24 For now there was a formally legislated and imperially sanc-
tioned lrtcrTL, or creed, "the TLcnrt c [or &K0 ELS] of the 318 fathers of the
Council of Nicaea," the Creed of Nicaea.25 Contrary to the distinction of
Timaeus, however, this TrLrt l had as its object not only the process of
Becoming, y4veatL through the divine act of creation, but the divine oiLta
itself, in which the Son of God was said to share because he was, in the
celebrated formula of Nicaea proposed by Constantine, apparently at the
instance of Bishop Ossius of Cordova, 6otoo6wLto TJ vaTpL.26 At the same
time, that divine oiata was identified by the opening words of the Creed of
Nicaea: "We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all
things both seen and unseen" [LLTE6OtEv EL; s va 6E6v TaTE4pa TravTOKpd-
TOpa, TrdVThV opaTE3v TE Kat dopdTmV oTrOL1TrjV]. Both the term one and the
term God in this formula referred, according to the theologians of New
Rome, to the entire Trinity.27 This one God was Father all powerful and
Maker, and he was therefore, in the words applied by Timaeus to the
considerably less than all powerful Demiurge, 6 TOtqTfl" KaL lraTTjp.28 In
the original Creed of Nicaea, the relation of this concept of oola to the
concept of iTr6Tawts had been left unclear, as the virtual inter-
changeability of the two words in the phrase of the creed &Tipa"
TroUTCrcTE3i i1 ocdLa made evident. Only in the theological generation of
the three Cappadocians did the standard orthodox formula become one
22zz. Rv. 1:4; Moulton 1957, 9 n. i.
23. Prestige 1956, 190-96.
24. Pl. Ti. z9C-D.
25. Lampe 1087.
z6. Tanner-Alberigo 1:5.
27. Gr. Nyss. Ref. zo-z1.
z8. Pl. Ti. z8C.
93
µEVOS' , where this version o f the divine name remained undeclined despite
its being the object of a preposition, as a symbol of its transcendence.22
But in New Rome the equation acquired new significance and a whole
new vocabulary, together with an entire new set of problems, as a conse­
quence of the debates over the Trinity in the fourth century. The eventual
outcome of those debates was the adoption of ova[a (Being), the abstract
noun of Greek metaphysics employed by Timaeus and derived from the
verb Etvm (to be), to serve as the orthodox and technical term for the
Divine as this was shared by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.23 But that
seemed to run directly contrary to the usage of Timaeus, according to
which Being (oua[a) itself was the proper object only of Truth (cL\tj9E L a ) ,
with Belief (rrLGTLS' ) being restricted to the questions of Becoming (yE ­
VEGLS' ) .24 For now there was a formally legislated and imperially sanc­
tioned TTLGTLS', or creed, "the TTLGTLS' [or E K9EGLS'] of the 3 1 8 fathers of the
Council of Nicaea," the Creed of Nicaea.25 Contrary to the distinction of
Timaeus, however, this rr[ans- had as its object not only the process of
Becoming, YEVEGLS' through the divine act of creation, but the divine ova[a
itself, in which the Son of God was said to share because he was, in the
celebrated formula of Nicaea proposed by Constantine, apparently at the
instance of Bishop Ossius of Cordova, oµoouGLOS' Tc{) rraTpl .26 At the same
time, that divine ova[a was identified by the opening words of the Creed of
Nicaea: "We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all
things both seen and unseen" [IlwTEuoµEv ELS' Eva 9Eov rraTEpa rravToKpa­
Topa, TTGVTWV opaTWV TE KaL aopaTWV TTOL T)Ttjv] . Both the term one and the
term God in this formula referred, according to the theologians of New
Rome, to the entire Trinity.27 This one God was Father all powerful and
Maker, and he was therefore, in the words applied by Timaeus to the
considerably less than all powerful Demiurge, 6 TTOLT)T�S' Kai rraTtjp.28 In
the original Creed of Nicaea, the relation of this concept of ova[a to the
concept of urroaTaGLS' had been left unclear, as the virtual inter­
changeability of the two words in the phrase of the creed EC ETE pas­
urroaTaGEWS' � ova[as- made evident. Only in the theological generation of
the three Cappadocians did the standard orthodox formula become one
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Rv. 1 :4; Moulton 1 9 5 7, 9 n.
Prestige 1 9 5 6, 1 90-9 6.
Pl. Ti. 29 C-D .
Lampe 1 0 8 7 .
Tanner-Alberigo 1 : 5 .
Gr. Nyss. Ref. 20-2 i .
Pl. Ti. 28C.
I.
l( H I G
P� ES S
94
94 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
oivla for the Godhead and three uTroardets" for Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. In making their case for the doctrine of the Trinity and its relation
to the doctrine of creation, they cited, and applied to the Christian
doctrine of the Holy Spirit as the third nr6aTaotLS of the Trinity, the words
of Genesis that "the Spirit of God was being borne up on [rre(4peTro] the
face of the water."29 But they also cited certain "more theologically
minded" philosophical writers among the Greeks who had given witness
to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit when they "addressed Him as the Mind
of the World, or the External Mind, and the like."30 This seems to be a
reference primarily to Timaeus, with its doctrine of the world soul, as well
as to other Platonic dialogues, such as Phaedo.31 At the same time, how-
ever, it was essential to note that the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit,
in the context of the dogma of the Trinity, differed fundamentally from all
such formulations, with their potentially pantheistic implications, by its
emphasis on the transcendence of the Spirit and of the Trinity over all the
creation in whole or in part.32
The Nicene doctrine provided the opportunity for another counter-
point between Timaeus and Genesis, by supplying further elaboration
from Genesis for the fundamental thesis of Timaeus that "if so be that this
Cosmos is beautiful and its Constuctor good, it is plain that he fixed his
gaze on the Eternal" [eL iv 81' KKaXOs EGTLv o 6SO K6LO, 6 Te 86riLoupy6S
dyaO6s, 8fiXov 6" Trp6s TO attLov E3XETrev], because "for Him who is most
good [Tr4 dapLcrT] it neither was nor is permissible to perform any action
save what is most beautiful [T6 KkXtALGTov]."33 For when the Septuagint
Genesis reiterated and amplified the refrain "And God saw that it was
beautiful" [KaL EWLEV 6 E EOS OTL KckL6V],34 invoking the adjective KaX6v, the
same word that Timaeus had employed to speak about the created world,
this, to the theologians of New Rome, required the Trinitarian explana-
tion for both of the key adjectives in that thesis of Timaeus, that "what-
ever is KaX6v and whatever is &yaO6v, coming from God as it does through
the Son, is completed by the instrumentality of the Spirit."3s This quality
of being KaX6v, moreover, having been repeated in the Genesis cosmogony
for each successive order of creatures, was not only an attribute of the
29. Bas. Spir. z.6; Gn. 1:z; Tarabochia Canavero 1981, 25-28, 37-39.
30. Gr. Naz. Or. 31.5.
31. Pl. Ti. 35B-37C; Pl. Phd. 97C-D.
32. Bas. Spir. 22zz.53.
33. Pl. Ti. z9A, 3oA (modified from Bury).
34. Gn. 1:4, 8, io, 12, i18, 21, 25, 31-
35. Gr. Nyss. Maced.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
ova(a for the Godhead and three unoaTciaE Ls for Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. In making their case for the doctrine of the Trinity and its relation
to the doctrine of creation, they cited, and applied to the Christian
doctrine of the Holy Spirit as the third un6aTaats of the Trinity, the words
of Genesis that "the Spirit of God was being borne up on [EnE<f>E pETO ] the
face of the water. "29 But they also cited certain " more theologically
minded" philosophical writers among the Greeks who had given witness
to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit when they "addressed Him as the Mind
of the World, or the External Mind, and the like . " 30 This seems to be a
reference primarily to Timaeus, with its doctrine of the world soul, as well
as to other Platonic dialogues, such as Phaedo.3 1 At the same time, how­
ever, it was essential to note that the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit,
in the context of the dogma of the Trinity, differed fundamentally from all
such formulations, with their potentially pantheistic implications, by its
emphasis on the transcendence of the Spirit and of the Trinity over all the
creation in whole or in part. 32
The Nicene doctrine provided the opportunity for another counter­
point between Timaeus and Genesis, by supplying further elaboration
from Genesis for the fundamental thesis of Timaeus that " if so be that this
Cosmos is beautiful and its Constuctor good, it is plain that he fixed his
gaze on the Eternal" [E i µEv 8� KaA6s Eanv ooE 6 K6aµos o TE OT] µtoupyos
ciya96s , 0-flA.ov ws npos To cit oLOv E�AETIEV ] , because "for Him who is most
good [T0 ap(aT<.p] it neither was nor is permissible to perform any action
save what is most beautiful [To KciA.A.taTov] . " 3 3 For when the Septuagint
Genesis reiterated and amplified the refrain " And God saw that it was
beautiful" [Kal ELOEV 6 8EOS on KaA.6v ] ,34 invoking the adjective KaA6v, the
same word that Timaeus had employed to speak about the created world,
this, to the theologians of New Rome, required the Trinitarian explana­
tion for both of the key adjectives in that thesis of Timaeus, that "what­
ever is KaA6v and whatever is aya96v, coming from God as it does through
the Son, is completed by the instrumentality of the Spirit." 35 This quality
of being KaA6v, moreover, having been repeated in the Genesis cosmogony
for each successive order of creatures, was not only an attribute of the
29.
30.
3 i.
3 2.
33.
34.
35.
Bas. Spir. 2.6; Gn. 1 : 2; Tarabochia Canavero 1 9 8 1 , 2 5 -2 8 , 3 7 - 3 9 .
Gr. Naz. Or. 3 1 . 5 .
Pl. Ti. 3 5B-3 7C; Pl. Phd. 97C-D.
Bas. Spir. 22. 5 3 .
Pl. Ti. 29A, 3 0A (modified from Bury ) .
Gn. 1 :4, 8, 1 0, 1 2, 1 8, 2 1 , 2 5 , 3 i .
Gr. Nyss. Maced.
l( H I G
P� ES S
New Rome
New Rome 95
universe as a whole; "each creature is beautiful in its own way, because in
its own way it finds its fulfillment in the Beautiful" [E' EaUTO EKacUTOV
KakXOV UTL Xitv, E4' EcUTOO yap KUTGT TOV SLOV X6TyOV V T() KGXq noutlrTETlTr1-
po)Tat].36 But the divine definition of what was KaXo6v was not the same as
the human definition; for "what He esteems beautiful is that which pre-
sents in its perfection all the fitness of art, and that which tends to the
usefulness of its end." God the Creator was, as he had been portrayed
explicitly in Timaeus but only implicitly in Genesis, "the Supreme Artist,
praising each one of His works" in turn and all together.37 For in the plan
of the Creator "it is the purpose of the 8toupyTa that makes it TO
KaXOv."38
The self-identification of God to Moses as 6 div, which meant to Philo
that only God was true being and that no creatures were,39 meant to the
Christian theologians of New Rome, too, that God was not only "the First
95
universe as a whole; "each creature is beautiful in its own way, because in
its own way it finds its fulfillment in the Beautiful" [E<P ' EauTou E KaaTov
KaA6v Ean ALav, E<P' EauTou yap KaTa Tov lBLov A6yov EV T<fl KaA<{l auµTIETIAtj ­
pwTm ] . 36 But the divine definition of what was KaAOv was not the same as
the human definition; for "what He esteems beautiful is that which pre­
sents in its perfection all the fitness of art, and that which tends to the
usefulness of its end. " God the Creator was, as he had been portrayed
explicitly in Timaeus but only implicitly in Genesis� "the Supreme Artist,
praising each one of His works " in turn and all together.37 For in the plan
of the Creator " it is the purpose of the OT)µLOupy[a that makes it TO
Nature, but the Only Nature."40 But in their thought it was further re-
fined, and fundamentally limited, by the detailed attention they gave to
the issues of negative theology, specifically on the Trinitarian grounds that
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all "unapproachable in thought,"41 and
that therefore their relation "ought to have the tribute of our reverent
silence."42 In that apophatic enterprise they were aided by their interpre-
tations both of Genesis and of Timaeus. A key text of Timaeus, as has
been noted earlier, was the admission that "To discover the Maker and
Father of this Universe were a task indeed; and having discovered Him, to
declare Him unto all men were a thing impossible" [TbV IIV OiV 1T0tfl~jV
KgL TaTEpa TO6E TO To T 1avTO EvpELV TE Epyov KaL Evp6vTa ELS TraVTas
aS&)VaTOV XEyELV].43 Origen spent a substantial portion of his response to
the Hellenistic philosopher Celsus on this "noble and impressive" text.
"But consider," he argued, "whether there is not more regard for the needs
of mankind when the divine word introduces the divine Logos, who was
in the beginning with God, as becoming flesh, that the Logos, of whom
Plato says that after finding him it is impossible to declare him to all men,
might be able to reach anybody." Conceding that "we certainly maintain
36. Gr. Nyss. Hex.
37. Bas. Hex. 3.10.
38. Bas. Hex. 4.6.
39. Phil. V. Mos. 1.75.
40. Gr. Naz. Or. 28.31.
41. Bas. Spir. z2z.53.
42. Gr. Naz. Or. 29.8.
43. Pl. Ti. z8C.
KaAov . " 3 8
The self-identification o f God to Moses a s 6 wv, which meant to Philo
that only God was true being and that no creatures were,39 meant to the
Christian theologians of New Rome, too, that God was not only "the First
Nature, but the Only Nature."40 But in their thought it was further re­
fined, and fundamentally limited, by the detailed attention they gave to
the issues of negative theology, specifically on the Trinitarian grounds that
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all "unapproachable in thought, "4 1 and
that therefore their relation " ought to have the tribute of our reverent
silence. "42 In that apophatic enterprise they were aided by their interpre­
tations both of Genesis and of Timaeus. A key text of Timaeus� as has
been noted earlier, was the admission that "To discover the Maker and
Father of this Universe were a task indeed; and having discovered Him, to
declare Him unto all men were a thing impossible " [Tov µEv ovv TIOLT)T�v
Kat rraTEpa TOUOE TOD rravTos EVpELV TE Epyov Kat EvpovTa ELS rrc:ivTas
ci8vvaTov AEYE LV ] .43 Origen spent a substantial portion of his response to
the Hellenistic philosopher Celsus on this " noble and impressive" text.
" But consider," he argued, "whether there is not more regard for the needs
of mankind when the divine word introduces the divine Logos, who was
in the beginning with God, as becoming flesh, that the Logos, of whom
Plato says that after finding him it is impossible to declare him to all men,
might be able to reach anybody. " Conceding that "we certainly maintain
3 6.
37.
38.
39.
40.
4i.
42.
43.
Gr. Nyss. Hex.
Bas. Hex. 3 . 10.
Bas. Hex. 4 . 6 .
Phil. V. Mos. I . 7 5 .
Gr. Naz. Or. 2 8 . 3 i .
Bas. Spir. 2 2 . 5 3 .
Gr. Naz. Or. 2 9 . 8 .
Pl. Ti. 2 8 C .
l( H I G
P� ES S
96
96 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
that it is difficult to see the Maker and Father of the universe," Origen
insisted that "anyone who has understood how we must think of the only-
begotten God, the Son of God, the firstborn of all creation, and how that
the Logos became flesh, will see that anyone will come to know the Father
and Maker of this universe by looking at the image of the invisible God."44
Gregory Nazianzus, citing this text from Timaeus without identifying
its specific source, paraphrased it to mean that Plato was "subtly suggest-
ing, I think, by the word 'difficult' his own apprehension, yet avoiding our
test of it by claiming it was impossible to describe."45 Invoking the con-
cept of "the knowledge of the divine Essence" [Ti; OELa; oita; TiV
yvCov], Gregory of Nyssa, in his Life of Moses-Moses being "by far the
best-known figure of Jewish history in the pagan world"46 and the one
man who above all could have claimed direct knowledge of the divine
outa after confronting it on Mount Sinai, where God had spoken to him,
Basil said, "in person and without enigmas"47-unequivocally asserted
that, not only for human beings including Moses but even for angels, God
was "to be distinguished only by means of negation" [Ti Y ocdUEt TaVT1
8topt(6o1Evo].48 But in placing its far-reaching apophatic limitation on all
language about the Divine, Timaeus had added a stipulation, which, in the
context of the dialogue, may have seemed harmless enough, but which, at
the hands of Hellenistic Jewish thought in Alexandria and then especially
at the hands of Christian thought in New Rome, provided grounds for
reinterpreting Timaeus in the light of Genesis, a Genesis that was itself
being reinterpreted now in the light of the New Testament. The distinc-
tion of Timaeus between "the Truth" [T6 dXrl eO] and "the likely account"
[To6 ELK6], according to which both Genesis and Timaeus had to be seen as
only "likely accounts" because they dealt with Becoming rather than with
Being, had added the remote hypothetical possibility that "only if God
concurred [0eoi v4YqravT"o] could we dare to affirm that our account is
true."49 But now Christianity in New Rome was claiming to the Greeks,
as Judaism in Alexandria already had, that God truly had "concurred,"
and mightily, through acts of divine intervention and words of divine
revelation. From this it followed that this account of Becoming as re-
44. Or. Cels. 7.42-43. See the comments of Andresen 1955, 13Z-35, 347-50.
45. Gr. Naz. Or. 28.4.
46. Gager 1972, 18; see also Jean Rousselet in Vignaux 1973, 95-113"
47. Bas. Hex. 6.1; see Friichtel 1968, Iio-Iz.
48. Gr. Nyss. V. Mos. 2.
49. Pl. Ti. 7zD.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
that it is difficult to see the Maker and Father of the universe, " Origen
insisted that " anyone who has understood how we must think of the only­
begotten God, the Son of God, the firstborn of all creation, and how that
the Logos became flesh, will see that anyone will come to know the Father
and Maker of this universe by looking at the image of the invisible God. "44
Gregory Nazianzus, citing this text from Timaeus without identifying
its specific source, paraphrased it to mean that Plato was " subtly suggest­
ing, I think, by the word 'difficult' his own apprehension, yet avoiding our
test of it by claiming it was impossible to describe. "45 Invoking the con­
cept of "the knowledge of the divine Essence " [Tfls 9E tas oua[as TTW
yvwaw ], Gregory of Nyssa, in his Life of Moses -Moses being " by far the
best-known figure of Jewish history in the pagan world"46 and the one
man who above all could have claimed direct knowledge of the divine
ova[a after confronting it on Mount Sinai, where God had spoken to him,
Basil said, " in person and without enigmas"47-unequivocally asserted
that, not only for human beings including Moses but even for angels, God
was "to be distinguished only by means of negation" [rij arrocpaaEL TaUTlJ
8LopL(oµEvos ] .48 But in placing its far-reaching apophatic limitation on all
language about the Divine, Timaeus had added a stipulation, which, in the
context of the dialogue, may have seemed harmless enough, but which, at
the hands of Hellenistic Jewish thought in Alexandria and then especially
at the hands of Christian thought in New Rome, provided grounds for
reinterpreting Timaeus in the light of Genesis, a Genesis that was itself
being reinterpreted now in the light of the New Testament. The distinc­
tion of Timaeus between "the Truth" [To aA:r18Es] and "the likely account"
[To E L Kos] , according to which both Genesis and Timaeus had to be seen as
only " likely accounts " because they dealt with Becoming rather than with
Being, had added the remote hypothetical possibility that "only if God
concurred [9Eou �uµcptjaavTOS'] could we dare to affirm that our account is
true. "49 But now Christianity in New Rome was claiming to the Greeks,
as Judaism in Alexandria already had, that God truly had "concurred,"
and mightily, through acts of divine intervention and words of divine
revelation. From this it followed that this account of Becoming as re44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
Or. Cels. 7.42- 4 3 . See the comments of Andresen 1 9 5 5 , 1 3 2-3 5 , 3 4 7 - 50.
Gr. Naz. Or. 2 8 .4 .
Gager 1 9 72, 1 8 ; see also Jean Rousselet i n Vignaux 1 9 7 3 , 9 5 - 1 1 3 .
Bas. Hex. 6 . 1 ; see Friichtel 1 9 6 8 , l I 0- 1 2.
Gr. Nyss. V. Mos. 2.
Pl. Ti. 72D.
l( H I G
P� ES S
New Rome
New Rome 97
corded in Genesis could claim to be not only "a likely account" but a
"true" one.
One of the most pervasive of the definitional presuppositions in Tim-
aeus was the statement that the act of creation had taken place when the
Demiurge "brought [the cosmos] into order out of disorder" [E's T tV
. . EK TS LTa LaS]i.0s Arguing against what, fairly or unfairly, he took to
be the effort of the heretic Eunomius to put the two sources of knowledge,
"nature itself and the divine laws," on the same level, Gregory of Nyssa
maintained that for the question of "the divine generation," the relation
of the Son to the Father from eternity, nature was "not trustworthy for
instruction." This would apply, he continued, "even if one were to take
the universe itself as an illustration of the argument." For by contrast with
the eternal and timeless generation of the Son by the Father, there "also
ran through the creation [of the universe] the measure of time, meted out
in a certain order and arrangement by stated days and nights, for each of
the things that came into being." As his authority for this view of the
universe and of time, he cited what "we learn in the cosmogony of
Moses."51s The process described in that cosmogony was the creation
through the Word in Genesis as an "ordering of the world into a cosmos"
[StLaK6[fLS], a term that appeared in Plato's Timaeus in the form of a
participle used substantively about the creator gods as o LtaKO6[O0VTES
and then as a noun for the process in Aristotle's Metaphysics; verb or
noun, it suited well what Genesis taught, which was why Philo had also
employed it.52
The Incarnate Logos as "God Made Perceptible to the Senses"
[BE6S at[6Or)T6s]53
As an intensification of this apophatic limitation on language about divine
Being, Timaeus had declared, in yet another such stipulation, "The prin-
ciples which are still higher than these are known only to God and to the
man who is dear to God" [Tds a' ETI TOUTW) ApXds" vcoOEv OEos o oE KaL
avbp0ov 6" sav EKELvNO c "Lo ].54 Whatever Plato may have meant by this
added possibility, Moses seemed to be a highly likely candidate for this
position of "the man who is dear to God," and it was as such that Philo
50o. Pl. Ti. 3oA.
51i. Gr. Nyss. Eun. 3.7.34.
5z. Pl. Ti. 75D; Arist. Met. A.986a6; Gr. Nyss. Or. dom. z; Phil. Opif. zo.
53. P1. Ti. 9zC; Jn. 1:I4.
97
corded i n Genesis could claim to b e not only " a likely account" but a
"true " one.
One of the most pervasive of the definitional presuppositions in Tim­
aeus was the statement that the act of creation had taken place when the
Demiurge " brought [the cosmos] into order out of disorder" [Els TUCLV
. . . EK TllS ciTac(as ] . 50 Arguing against what, fairly or unfairly, he took to
be the effort of the heretic Eunomius to put the two sources of knowledge,
"nature itself and the divine laws," on the same level, Gregory of Nyssa
maintained that for the question of "the divine generation, " the relation
of the Son to the Father from eternity, nature was "not trustworthy for
instruction . " This would apply, he continued, " even if one were to take
the universe itself as an illustration of the argument. " For by contrast with
the eternal and timeless generation of the Son by the Father, there " also
ran through the creation [of the universe] the measure of time, meted out
in a certain order and arrangement by stated days and nights, for each of
the things that came into being." As his authority for this view of the
universe and of time, he cited what "we learn in the cosmogony of
Moses . " 5 1 The process described in that cosmogony was the creation
through the Word in Genesis as an " ordering of the world into a cosmos"
[8wK6aµT}<JLS] , a term that appeared in Plato's Timaeus in the form of a
participle used substantively about the creator gods as ol 8wKoaµouvTES
and then as a noun for the process in Aristotle's Metaphysics; verb or
noun, it suited well what Genesis taught, which was why Philo had also
employed it.52
5 4. Pl. Ti. 53D.
The Incarnate Logos as " God Made Perceptible to the Senses"
[8EOS ala9T)TOS ]53
As an intensification of this apophatic limitation on language about divine
Being, Timaeus had declared, in yet another such stipulation, "The prin­
ciples which are still higher than these are known only to God and to the
man who is dear to God" [Tas 8' ETl TOUTWV cipxas avw9EV 9EOS OLOE Kat
civopwv OS av E KE LV({J cp(A.os l]] .54 Whatever Plato may have · meant by this
added possibility, Moses seemed to be a highly likely candidate for this
position of "the man who is dear to God," and it was as such that Philo
50.
5i.
52.
53.
54.
Pl. Ti. 3 0A.
Gr. Nyss. Eun. 3 .7 . 3 4 .
Pl. Ti. 7 5 D ; Arist. Met. A.9 8 6a6; Gr. Nyss. Or. dam. 2; Phil. Opif. 20.
Pl. Ti. 9 2C; Jn. 1 : 1 4 .
Pl. Ti. 5 3 D .
l( H I G
P� ES S
98
98 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
had identified him, as one who was eligible to discover by divine revela-
tion those very "principles which are still higher than these [and which]
are known only to God and to the man who is dear to God." Philo's Life of
Moses was a detailed biographical and theological account of "this great-
est and most perfect of men."ss But when Gregory of Nyssa undertook to
write his own Life of Moses several centuries later, he was able to identify
a new prime candidate for the position: if "the principles which are still
higher than these are known only to God and to the man who is dear to
God," then Jesus Christ was, by orthodox teaching, both "God" in the
fullest and strictest sense and at the same time in a unique sense "the man
who is dear to God," and he was therefore the only one who was qualified
on both counts to know and to reveal "the principles which are still higher
than these." He who was, in the words of the Gospel of John, the Logos
made incarnate was, in the words of Timaeus, "God made perceptible to
the senses" [0E6o ai6r[rT6s].56
To make this point, the Greek-speaking Christian theologians of New
Rome unabashedly took over, as "the scriptural conception of an intelli-
gible world," the distinction of Timaeus between the world perceptible to
the senses, KO[lSO a09]TO6, which was subject to Becoming, and the
world apprehensible only to the mind, K6cY[OS vorlT6s, which alone could
be said to have really real Being.s7 Thus in his commentary on the cos-
mogony of Genesis, Basil of Caesarea taught a double creation: first of
"this invisible world," populated by various nonphysical existences, in-
cluding angels; and then of "a new world, both a school and a training
place where the souls of men should be taught and a home for beings
destined to be born and to die," the world of "animals and plants," and,
most important of all, a world dominated by "the succession of time,
forever pressing on and passing away and never stopping in its course."58
Similarly, Gregory of Nyssa postulated the distinction between, on the one
hand, what was ati6flT6V KaL UX63E and, on the other hand, what was
voqTo6v TE KatL diov.59 He could go so far as to declare that "the ultimate
division of all being is into TO vOlT6V and TO aLoOrlT6v."60 As their author-
ity for putting in place all of this conceptual apparatus from Timaeus,
both Basil and Gregory cited "the apostle," namely, Paul, who had
55. Phil. V. Mos. 1.1.
56. Jn. 1:14; P1. Ti. 92C.
57. Wolfson 1956, 268-69; Pl. Ti. 29C.
58. Bas. Hex. 1.5.
59. Gr. Nyss. Cant. 6.
6o. Gr. Nyss. Eun. 1.270-71.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
had identified him, as one who was eligible to discover by divine revela­
tion those very "principles which are still higher than these [and which]
are known only to God and to the man who is dear to God . " Philo's Life of
Moses was a detailed biographical and theological account of "this great­
est and most perfect of men. " 55 But when Gregory of Nyssa undertook to
write his own Life of Moses several centuries later, he was able to identify
a new prime candidate for the position: if " the principles which are still
higher than these are known only to God and to the man who is dear to
God, " then Jesus Christ was, by orthodox teaching, both " God" in the
fullest and strictest sense and at the same time in a unique sense "the man
who is dear to God," and he was therefore the only one who was qualified
on both counts to know and to reveal " the principles which are still higher
than these. " He who was, in the words of the Gospel ofJohn, the Logos
made incarnate was, in the words of Timaeus, " God made perceptible to
the senses " [8Eos ala911Tos] . 5 6
To make this point, the Greek-speaking Christian theologians of New
Rome unabashedly took over, as "the scriptural conception of an intelli­
gible world, " the distinction of Timaeus between the world perceptible to
the senses, Koaµos ala811Tos , which was subject to Becoming, and the
world apprehensible only to the mind, Koaµos vo11Tos, which alone could
be said to have really real Being.57 Thus in his commentary on the cos­
mogony of Genesis, Basil of Caesarea taught a double creation: first of
"this invisible world, " populated by various nonphysical existences, in­
cluding angels; and then of "a new world, both a school and a training
place where the souls of men should be taught and a home for beings
destined to be born and to die," the world of " animals and plants, " and,
most important of all, a world dominated by "the succession of time,
forever pressing on and passing away and never stopping in its course . " 5 8
Similarly, Gregory o f Nyssa postulated the distinction between, on the one
hand, what was ala811Tov Kal uA.w8Es and, on the other hand, what was
VOT]TOV TE Kal auA.ov .59 He could go so far as to declare that " the ultimate
division of all being is into To VOflTOV and TO ala8T]TOV . "60 As their author­
ity for putting in place all of this conceptual apparatus from Timaeus,
both Basil and Gregory cited "the apostle, " namely, Paul, who had
5 5.
5 6.
57.
58.
59.
60.
Phil. V. Mos. I . I .
Jn. 1 : 1 4; Pl. Ti. 92C.
Wolfson 1 9 5 6, 2 6 8 - 69; Pl. Ti. 29C.
Bas. Hex. i . 5 .
Gr. Nyss. Cant. 6.
Gr. Nyss. Eun. i . 270-7 i .
l( H I G
P� ES S
New Rome
New Rome 99
"broadly" referred to To ao 6rT6V as TU 6paTd and to To VOrT6v as Ta
c6paTa.61 On the basis of measurable differences in quantity, quality, and
other empirically perceptible characteristics, it was possible to compare
and classify whatever belonged to the KOa[oS aLolT]T6; but there was no
place for such differentiation within the KOU6oS vorlT6o, where the basis
for making distinctions was the degree of free will, that is, participation in
the First Good.62
Gregory of Nazianzus, too, made use of this distinction from Timaeus
to divide the process of creation described in the cosmogony of Genesis as
consisting of two stages, corresponding to the K6Oco; vorT6o as "His first
creation," which was a "nature akin to Deity," and the KoIto" aUaL lT6"
as "a second world, material and visible," which was a nature "utterly
alien to [Deity]"; and he went on to a glowing description of the resulting
inner "harmony and union of the whole" that prevailed in the perceptible
world as a system.63 Elsewhere he defined it as the superiority of those
angelic existences which participated in To VOrlT6V that they could "mingle
with one another as well as with bodies, incorporeally and invisibly," and
could thus comprehend the entire "system of things, visible and invis-
ible."64 Belonging as they did to the same order of reality as God, by
virtue of their being beyond the reach of the senses, these existences were
"far higher in nature and nearer to God than we."6s If it was accurate, in
the phraseology of Gregory of Nyssa, to speak of this dichotomy of Tim-
aeus between K609Ro vorT6 and KootoS caOTflT6; as "the ultimate divi-
sion of all being,"66 then the concluding particularization of it by Timaeus
in the phrase e6 at lTor6s67 would seem ideally suited to the Christian
purpose of finding in the incarnate Logos the fulfillment of the Timaean
divine principle of creative mediation.
But here there was a tension between Timaeus and Genesis, at any rate
as Genesis and Timaeus were being read in Christian New Rome, and it
probably took the heretical challenges of the fourth century to make that
tension evident. In its celebratory paraphrase of the cosmogony of
Genesis, the eighth chapter of the Book of Proverbs had represented
personified Wisdom, Sophia, as saying of herself, "The Lord created me as
61. Col. 1:16.
6z. Gr. Nyss. Eun. I.272-74; Bas. Hex. 1.5.
63. Gr. Naz. Or. 38.10.
64. Gr. Naz. Ep. ioi.
65. Gr. Naz. Or. 28.3.
66. Gr. Nyss. Eun. 1.270-71.
67. P1. Ti. 92zC.
99
" broadly" referred to T O ala911T6v as T el opaTci and to T O VOllTOV as Tel
a6paTa .6 1 On the basis of measurable differences in quantity, quality, and
other empirically perceptible characteristics, it was possible to compare
and classify whatever belonged to the K6aµos ala911T6s; but there was no
place fo r such differentiation within the K6aµos vo11T6s, where the basis
for making distinctions was the degree of free will, that is, participation in
the First Good. 62
Gregory of Nazianzus, too, made use of this distinction from Timaeus
to divide the process of creation described in the cosmogony of Genesis as
consisting of two stages, corresponding to the K6aµos vo11T6s as "His first
creation, " which was a "nature akin to Deity, " and the K6aµos ala811T6s
as "a second world, material and visible, " which was a nature "utterly
alien to [Deity] " ; and he went on to a glowing description of the resulting
inner "harmony and union of the whole " that prevailed in the perceptible
world as a system. 63 Elsewhere he defined it as the superiority of those
angelic existences which participated in To vo11T6v that they could " mingle
with one another as well as with bodies, incorporeally and invisibly, " and
could thus comprehend the entire " system of things, visible and invis­
ible. " 64 Belonging as they did to the same order of reality as God, by
virtue of their being beyond the reach of the senses, these existences were
"far higher in nature and nearer to God than we. " 65 If it was accurate, in
the phraseology of Gregory of Nyssa, to speak of this dichotomy of Tim­
aeus between Koaµos vo11Tos and K6aµos ala911Tos as "the ultimate divi­
sion of all being,"66 then the concluding particularization of it by Timaeus
in the phrase 9Eos ala9riT6s67 would seem ideally suited to the Christian
purpose of finding in the incarnate Logos the fulfillment of the Timaean
divine principle of creative mediation.
But here there was a tension between Timaeus and Genesis, at any rate
as Genesis and Timaeus were being read in Christian New Rome, and it
probably took the heretical challenges of the fourth century to make that
tension evident. In its celebratory paraphrase of the cosmogony of
Genesis, the eighth chapter of the Book of Proverbs had represented
personified Wisdom, Sophia, as saying of herself, "The Lord created me as
6i.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Col. 1 : 1 6.
Gr. Nyss. Eun. 1 . 272-7 4; Bas. Hex. 1 . 5 .
Gr. Naz. O r. 3 8 . 1 0.
Gr. Naz. Ep. I O I .
Gr. Naz. Or. 2 8 +
Gr. Nyss. Eun. I . 2 70- 7 i .
Pl. Ti. 92C.
l( H I G
P� ES S
1 00
o100 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
the beginning [or root principle] of his ways for his works" [K1pto;
EKTLOEV kE aPXrfv 68&v aTOV ELS pya aTOv], employing here the techni-
cal term meaning "create," KT1tELv, rather than the less specific term used
in the first verse of the Septuagint and meaning "make," TOtLELVI.68 In his
Orations against the Arians Athanasius had labored over that verse from
Proverbs at greater length than over any other passage of Scripture, re-
sorting to everything from textual criticism to analogy to the authority of
the creed in order to prove that this did not make the eternal Son of God a
creature.69 A similar danger to Nicene orthodoxy lurked in calling the
dichotomy between K6oto VOqT6" and K6ROS aLOflT6S in Timaeus "the
ultimate division of all being." Immediately after saying that, therefore,
Gregory of Nyssa added: "Reason again divides this 'which is not seen'
into the uncreated and the created."70 So also Gregory of Nazianzus,
immediately after characterizing the angelic "nature" [v6cts] in the K6c-
ios VOlT6" as "far higher and nearer to God than we," hastened to specify
that it was nevertheless "farther distant from God, and from the complete
comprehension of his nature [ omts], than it is lifted above our complex
and lowly and earthward-sinking composition."71 Against superstition
and idolatry it may have been acceptable for the Judaism of Alexandria,
and then for the Christianity of Alexandria and New Rome, to appropri-
ate the separation of Timaeus between TO VOqT6V and TO acr6p0T6v and to
locate the God of Genesis within the first of those categories. But the
doctrine of the incarnation located the Son of God in both categories, and
the heretical version of that doctrine made it obligatory to find Nyssen's
"ultimate division of all being"72 where Genesis had unambiguously
drawn the line-as Gregory put it later on in the same treatise, in a
"conception of existences divided into two, the creation and the uncre-
ated Nature,"73 the division into creature and Creator-and to put the
divine Logos on the Creator's side of that boundary and the human nature
assumed by the Logos on the other side. "We believe in one God the
Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen" [ItLTE1eo-
1EV Es Eva OEOV 1raTEpa rtaVTOKpdcTopa, dTtaVTl OpaT(IV TE KaL GOpdTU)V
TotoufTv]-by these opening words, which repeated the Shema, the
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, adopted at New Rome in 381, still
68. Pry. 8:zz; Gn. i:1. See Bauer 455-56, 68o-81; Lampe 782-83, 110o7.
69. Ath. Ar. 2.16.18-z.z2z.82.
70. Gr. Nyss. Eun. 1.270-71.
71. Gr. Naz. Or. 28.3.
72. Gr. Nyss. Eun. 1.270-71.
73. Gr. Nyss. Eun. 3.3.2.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
the beginning [or root principle] of his ways for his works" [ KUpLOS'
E KTLCJEV µE cipxi}v o8wv avTOV ELS' Epya avTov] , employing here the techni­
cal term meaning "create," KTt(ELv, rather than the less specific term used
in the first verse of the Septuagint and meaning " make, " TIOLELv.68 In his
Orations against the Arians Athanasius had labored over that verse from
Proverbs at greater length than over any other passage of Scripture, re­
sorting to everything from textual criticism to analogy to the authority of
the creed in order to prove that this did not make the eternal Son of God a
creature . 69 A similar danger to Nicene orthodoxy lurked in calling the
dichotomy between Koaµos vo11T6s and K6aµos aLa811T6s in Timaeus "the
ultimate division of all being. " Immediately after saying that, therefore,
Gregory of Nyssa added: "Reason again divides this 'which is not seen'
into the uncreated and the created. " 7 0 So also Gregory of Nazianzus,
immediately after characterizing the angelic "nature " [¢uCJLs] in the KOCJ ­
µos- vo11T6s as " far higher and nearer to God than we, " hastened to specify
that it was nevertheless " farther distant from God, and from the complete
comprehension of his nature [¢uaLs] , than it is lifted above our complex
and lowly and earthward-sinking composition. " 71 Against superstition
and idolatry it may have been acceptable for the Judaism of Alexandria,
and then for the Christianity of Alexandria and New Rome, to appropri­
ate the separation of Timaeus between To VOT)TOV and TO aLa811T6v and to
locate the God of Genesis within the first of those categories. But the
doctrine of the incarnation located the Son of God in both categories, and
the heretical version of that doctrine made it obligatory to find Nyssen's
" ultimate division of all being " 72 where Genesis had unambiguously
drawn the line-as Gregory put it later on in the same treatise, in a
"conception of existences divided into two, the creation and the uncre­
ated Nature, " 73 the division into creature and Creator-and to put the
divine Logos on the Creator's side of that boundary and the human nature
assumed by the Logos on the other side. "We believe in one God the
Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen " [IlLCJTEUo­
µEv ELS' Eva 8EOV iTUTEpa iTUVTOKp<iTopa, iTclVTWV opaTWV TE KUL ciopciTWV
TIOL llTtjv ] -by these opening words, which repeated the Shema, the
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, adopted at New Rome in 3 8 1 , still
68.
69.
70.
7r.
72.
73.
Prv. 8:22; Gn. l : r . See Bauer 4 5 5 - 5 6, 680- 8 1 ; Lampe 7 8 2- 8 3 , l I 07.
Ath. Ar. 2 . 1 6 . 1 8 - 2 . 2 2 . 8 2 .
Gr. Nyss. Eun. l . 2 70-7 l .
Gr. Naz. Or. 2 8 +
Gr. Nyss. Eun. r . 270-7 r .
Gr. Nyss. Eun. 3 +2 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
New Rome
New Rome
Io01
shared with Timaeus the distinction between the visible realm and the
invisible realm, but it affirmed with Genesis that the one God was the
transcendent Creator of both realms rather than a component of the
invisible realm. "For wide and insurmountable is the interval that divides
and fences off uncreated from created nature" [TroXi ydp To [ioOV KaL
8&LETfTOV, ( 1TpOS TrV KTLOTfV OUOLaV f aKTL'TOS 4UGLS &LTETELX-
IOI
shared with Timaeus the distinction between the visible realm and the
invisible realm, but it affirmed with Genesis that the one God was the
transcendent Creator of both realms rather than a component of the
invisible realm. "For wide and insurmountable is the interval that divides
and fences off uncreated from created nature " [TioAu yap TO µEaov Kat
LTcL].74 Once the Timaean vocabulary was "fenced off" this way, the
orthodox doctrine of the incarnation could make good use of it.
The Son as "the Only-Begotten God [6 [ovoyEVfls eE6s]"75
By retaining the dichotomy of Timaeus between that which was apprehen-
sible only to the mind, TO volT6v, and that which was perceptible to the
clOLECL TT}TOV, <{) TIPOS' T�V KTLGT�V ova[av � clKTLGTOS' cpUGLS' OLaTETE LX­
LGTat ] . 74 Once the Timaean vocabulary was " fenced off " this way, the
orthodox doctrine of the incarnation could make good use of it.
senses, TO aLo6rflT6v, and by subordinating it to the most fundamental
dichotomy of all, that of Genesis between the created and the Uncreated,
the Christian orthodoxy of New Rome was compelled to consider the
The Son as "the Only-Begotten God [6 µovoyEv�s- 0E6s-] " 75
ultimate implications of many other terms and concepts that were shared
by the two traditions. That obligation applied with special force to those
items of common property that were now being applied to Christ as Son
of God, among which none carried more far-reaching Christological and
Trinitarian connotations than the Timaean, and now Johannine, epithet
tOVOyEVfls.
The last two words of Timaeus, [ovoyEv1]s div,76 in which R.D. Archer-
Hind found "virtually summed up Plato's whole system of idealistic mo-
nism,"77 also summed up the earlier and more ample statement "Its
Maker made neither two Universes nor an infinite number, but there is and
will continue to be this one generated Heaven, unique of its kind [Es 6cE
IIgovoyEvi]s ovpavOs yEyov)s E'TL TE KGL ET' ETaL]."78 MovoyEVES was one
of the twenty-one epithets attributed to Sophia in the Book of Wisdom.79
From one or another source, including perhaps one or both of these, the
term govoyEvis became part of the technical vocabulary of the Gospel of
John for the Son of God, appearing there four times in all, all four of them
in its first three chapters.8° The shift in the English rendering of the word,
74. Gr. Nyss. Eun. 2.67-69.
75. P1. Ti. 92C; Jn. 1:18.
76. P1. Ti. 9zC.
77. Archer-Hind i888, 345 n. 8.
78. P1. Ti. 3 I1B.
79. Wis. 7:22.
8o. Jn. 1:I4, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18.
By retaining the dichotomy of Timaeus between that which was apprehen­
sible only to the mind, To VOT}TOV, and that which was perceptible to the
senses, TO ala9T}T6v, and by subordinating it to the most fundamental
dichotomy of all, that of Genesis between the created and the Uncreated,
the Christian orthodoxy of New Rome was compelled to consider the
ultimate implications of many other terms and concepts that were shared
by the two traditions. That obligation applied with special force to those
items of common property that were now being applied to Christ as Son
of God, among which none carried more far-reaching Christological and
Trinitarian connotations than the Timaean, and now Johannine, epithet
µovoyEvtjs- .
The last two words of Timaeus� µovoyEv�s- wv, 76 in which R.D. Archer­
Hind found "virtually summed up Plato's whole system of idealistic mo­
nism," 77 also summed up the earlier and more ample statement " Its
Maker made neither two Universes nor an infinite number, but there is and
will continue to be this one generated Heaven, unique of its kind [ds- o8E
µoVO')'EV�S' ovpavos ')'E')'OVWS' EGTL TE Kat ET' EGTat ] . " 78 MoVO')'EVES' was one
of the twenty-one epithets attributed to Sophia in the Book of Wisdom. 79
From one or another source, including perhaps one or both of these, the
term µovoyEvtjs- became part of the technical vocabulary of the Gospel of
John for the Son of God, appearing there four times in all, all four of them
in its first three chapters. 80 The shift in the English rendering of the word,
7 4.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
Gr. Nyss. Eun. 2.67-69.
Pl. Ti. 9 2 C; Jn. 1 : 1 8 .
Pl. Ti. 92C.
Archer-Hind 1 8 8 8 , 345 n . 8.
Pl. Ti. 3 l B .
Wis. 7:22.
Jn. 1 : 1 4 , 1 : 1 8 , 3 : 1 6, 3 : 1 8 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
102
102oz What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
from the earlier "only-begotten" of the Authorized Version (which re-
flected the consistent use of "unigenitus" by the Vulgate of these passages
as well as by the Latin of the Nicene Creed and the "Gloria in excelsis" of
the Mass), to the simple "only" favored by twentieth-century versions, is
an indication of changes in the scholarly opinion about the term Iovo-
yevrjc itself, as well as of shifts in modern theology. But the most arresting
appearance of the word is part of a textual variant in the Gospel of John:
"No one has ever seen God; but the only-begotten God [ovoyEv1is O6eO],
he who is nearest to the Father's heart, he has made him known."81 This
variant reading is so well attested in the manuscripts that "more and more
critical texts have adopted 8E6; however, commentators and translators
have been generally reluctant to accept that reading as the original or as
the better of the two available readings,"82 for whatever reason. Both
parts of the verse figured prominently in the thought of New Rome. The
first half was one of the key texts in support of Cappadocian apophati-
cism, and it was so used, for example, when Gregory of Nyssa quoted it
together with other passages to prove that the essence of God was "so
inaccessible that our mind can nowhere approach God."83 But the second
half, with its textual variant, was important for Basil of Caesarea and
especially his brother Gregory of Nyssa, who throughout his writings
referred to the Son of God as 6 ovoyEVfls 0E6 , a reading to which,
interestingly, his Arian opponent Eunomius does not appear to have ob-
jected. Another and cognate variant, which went back to earlier patristic
Greek writers and which was carried over into the manuscripts of their
works, was the confusion between yEVVflT6 (begotten) and yEvrT6S
(made).84
The two variants had a theological relation, not only an etymological
one. The burden of the Cappadocian case against Arian heresy was to
argue that as the IovoyEVij, indeed 6 [tovoyEV1c OE63, the Son of God was
not to be ranked with creatures, not even as the supreme creature through
whom all the "other" creatures had been created, but as Creator. Making
that case obliged them to cope with the issue of the relation between the
cosmogonies of Timaeus and Genesis; for the term appeared in Timaeus,
not in Genesis, where it could be discovered only by reading into the text
of Genesis the miniature cosmogony of the prologue to the Gospel of
81. Jn. i:18.
8z. McReynolds 1981, o105.
83. Gr. Nyss. Beat. 6.
84. Lampe 310-ii, 312-13.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
from the earlier "only-begotten" of the Authorized Version (which re­
flected the consistent use of " unigenitus " by the Vulgate of these passages
as well as by the Latin of the Nicene Creed and the " Gloria in excelsis" of
the Mass) , to the simple "only" favored by twentieth-century versions, is
an indication of changes in the scholarly opinion about the term µovo­
yEv�s- itself, as well as of shifts in modern theology. But the most arresting
appearance of the word is part of a textual variant in the Gospel ofJohn:
" No one has ever seen God; but the only-begotten God [µovoyEv�s- 9E6s-],
he who is nearest to the Father's heart, he has made him known. " 8 1 This
variant reading is so well attested in the manuscripts that " more and more
critical texts have adopted 0E6s-; however, commentators and translators
have been generally reluctant to accept that reading as the original or as
the better of the two available readings, " 82 for whatever reason. Both
parts of the verse figured prominently in the thought of New Rome. The
first half was one of the key texts in support of Cappadocian apophati­
cism, and it was so used, for example, when Gregory of Nyssa quoted it
together with other passages to prove that the essence of God was " so
inaccessible that our mind can nowhere approach God." 8 3 But the second
half, with its textual variant, was important for Basil of Caesarea and
especially his brother Gregory of Nyssa, who throughout his writings
referred to the Son of God as 6 µovoyEv�s- 0E6S' , a reading to which,
interestingly, his Arian opponent Eunomius does not appear to have ob­
jected. Another and cognate variant, which went back to earlier patristic
Greek writers and which was carried over into the manuscripts of their
works, was the confusion between yEVVllTOS' (begotten) and yEVllTOS'
(made ) . 84
The two variants had a theological relation, not only an etymological
one. The burden of the Cappadocian case against Arian heresy was to
argue that as the µovoyEvtjs-, indeed 6 µovoyEv�s- 0E6s-, the Son of God was
not to be ranked with creatures, not even as the supreme creature through
whom all the " other" creatures had been created, but as Creator. Making
that case obliged them to cope with the issue of the relation between the
cosmogonies of Timaeus and Genesis; for the term appeared in Timaeus,
not in Genesis, where it could be discovered only by reading into the text
of Genesis the miniature cosmogony of the prologue to the Gospel of
8I.
82.
83.
84.
Jn. 1 : 1 8 .
McReynolds 1 9 8 1 , 1 0 5 .
Gr. Nyss. Beat. 6 .
Lampe 3 10- I I , 3 1 2- 1 3 .
I
li HI E ll.INI E R S IT
I lze
F
PR ES S
N
New Rome
New Rome 10o3
John, as when, for example, Basil professed to have found in Genesis
"clear proofs of the RovoyEVs."85s The question was whether the identi-
fication of the Son of God with the first of the pregnant phrases at the end
of Timaeus necessitated, or justified, the identification of him also with the
last of them: if 0E6! aaOfl6r s, defined and circumscribed by a strict mono-
theism, accurately described the incarnate Son of God, did [ovoyEevi Jv,
similarly defined and circumscribed, do so also for the preexistent Son of
God?86
In a summary answer to that question, which invoked the variant
reading 6 [ovoyEv s OE6S6, Basil of Caesarea insisted that "inasmuch as all
created nature, both this visible world and all that is conceived of in the
mind, cannot hold together without the care and providence of God," it
had to depend not on another creature but on nothing less than "the
Creator Logos, the only-begotten God."87 The answer of Gregory of
Nyssa, as developed particularly in book 3 of his Contra Eunomium, was
more detailed. He attacked the attempt of Eunomius to find a uniqueness
for the [ovoy vyfl in the general circumstance "that everything which you
conceive by itself is incapable of comparison with the universe, and with
the individual things which compose it," as though that were an adequate
way to make the distinction between Creator and creature.88 The need for
such a distinction also rendered nugatory, in the discussion of "the nature
of the only-begotten God," the explanation that "it would not have been
had it not been constructed," for "what else is there among the things we
contemplate in the creation which exists without being made? Heaven,
earth, air, sea-everything whatever that is, surely is by being made."89
But that applied to creatures, not to the only-begotten God. The distinc-
tion had to be clear-cut and ontological: "The ovoy vic is something
other than the nature of the universe," because of the statement of the
Gospel of John that "through him all things came to be"; therefore, "since
all things are from God, and the Son is God, the creation is properly
something other than the Godhead."90 Because of the distinction, it was
to "the [ovoy vrs 0e6s, who created the ages," that the beginning of each
individual creature was to be traced: "vegetation, fruits, the generation of
8 5. Bas. Hex. 3.4.
86. P1. Ti. 92zC.
87. Bas. Spir. 8.19.
88. Gr. Nyss. Eun. 3.2.23-24.
89. Gr. Nyss. Eun. 3.2.154.
90. Gr. Nyss. Eun. 3.5.31, quoting Jn. i:3.
103
John, a s when, for example, Basil professed to have found i n Genesis
"clear proofs of the µovoyEvtjs. " 85 The question was whether the identi­
fication of the Son of God with the first of the pregnant phrases at the end
of Timaeus necessitated, or justified, the identification of him also with the
last of them: if 9Eos ala911Tos, defined and circumscribed by a strict mono­
theism, accurately described the incarnate Son of God, did µovoyEvi]s wv,
similarly defined and circumscribed, do so also for the preexistent Son of
God ?86
In a summary answer to that question, which invoked the variant
reading o µovoyEvi]s 9Eos , Basil of Caesarea insisted that " inasmuch as all
created nature, both this visible world and all that is conceived of in the
mind, cannot hold together without the care and providence of God," it
had to depend not on another creature but on nothing less than "the
Creator Logos, the only-begotten God. " 87 The answer of Gregory of
Nyssa, as developed particularly in book 3 of his Contra Eunomium, was
more detailed. He attacked the attempt of Eunomius to find a uniqueness
for the µovoyEvtjs in the general circumstance "that everything which you
conceive by itself is incapable of comparison with the universe, and with
the individual things which compose it, " as though that were an adequate
way to make the distinction between Creator and creature. 88 The need for
such a distinction also rendered nugatory, in the discussion of "the nature
of the only-begotten God," the explanation that " it would not have been
had it not been constructed, " for "what else is there among the things we
contemplate in the creation which exists without being made ? Heaven,
earth, air, sea-everything whatever that is, surely is by being made. " 89
But that applied to creatures, not to the only-begotten God. The distinc­
tion had to be clear-cut and ontological: "The µovoyEvtjs is something
other than the nature of the universe, " because of the statement of the
Gospel ofJohn that "through him all things came to be " ; therefore, "since
all things are from God, and the Son is God, the creation is properly
something other than the Godhead. " 90 Because of the distinction, it was
to "the µovoyEvi]s 9Eos, who created the ages," that the beginning of each
individual creature was to be traced: "vegetation, fruits, the generation of
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
Bas. Hex. 3 .4 .
Pl. Ti. 92C.
Bas. Spir. 8 . 1 9 .
Gr. Nyss. Eun. 3 . 2.23 -24.
Gr. Nyss. Eun. 3 . 2 . 1 54.
Gr. Nyss. Eun. 3 . 5 . 3 1 , quoting Jn. 1 : 3 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
1 04
104 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
animals, the formation of man, appeared at the time when each of these
things seemed expedient to the wisdom of the Creator."91
Therefore when the creed of Eunomius attempted to vindicate the
sovereignty of God the Creator and, by implication, to reduce the status of
the Only-begotten by declaring that God "did not stand in need, in the act
of creation, of matter or parts or natural instruments," Gregory of Nyssa
agreed and paraphrased the words of Eunomius to mean that "the power
and wisdom of God has no need of any external assistance." But that did
not apply to the only-begotten God, as though he had been some sort of
created "instrument" in the act of creating the cosmos; for he was in fact
that very "Power of God and Wisdom of God" in person, which had no
need of any external assistance.92 Rather it was true that the creation of
the cosmos itself, as well as subsequently "every operation [IvipyELa] that
extends from God to creation and is designated according to our differing
conceptions of it," was Trinitarian in basic structure, "having its origin in
the Father, proceeding through the Son, and reaching its completion by
the Holy Spirit" [EK TraTpos opPlaTatL KL 8Ld TOO UiO0 1Trp6OELUL Kal EV T(
1Tve[LaTrt TO aylq) TEXELOoTatL].93 Eunomius also claimed that the eternity
of the creating Logos would have to imply the eternity of the things that
had been created,94 which was really meant as an argument for the con-
verse proposition, that both the creating Logos and the "other" creatures
were temporal rather than eternal. To this the response was, once again,
the sharpest possible distinction between the two with regard to time:
"The begetting of the Son does not fall within time, any more than the
creation was before time, so that it can in no kind of way be right to
partition the indivisible, and, by declaring that there was a time when the
Author of all existence was not, to insert this false idea of time into the
creative Source of the Universe."95s When Scripture spoke about the "be-
getting" of the Son and therefore called him govoyEvrjs, it was, by a
process of definition through exclusion, utilizing "all the forms of genera-
tion that human intelligence recognizes" but filtering out all "the cor-
poreal senses attaching to the words," in order to be able "to set forth the
ineffable power of God"96 and thus to describe the indescribable process
of creation through the Word of God.
91. Gr. Nyss. Eun. 3.7.5.
92. Gr. Nyss. Ref. 68-69, quoting I Cor. 1:24.
93. Gr. Nyss. Tres dii.
94. Gr. Nyss. Eun. 3.6.60.
95. Gr. Nyss. Eun. 1.38 1.
96. Gr. Nyss. Ref. 89-94.
animals, the formation of man, appeared at the time when each of these
things seemed expedient to the wisdom of the Creator. " 9 1
Therefore when the creed of Eunomius attempted to vindicate the
sovereignty of God the Creator and, by implication, to reduce the status of
the Only-begotten by declaring that God " did not stand in need, in the act
of creation, of matter or parts or natural instruments," Gregory of Nyssa
agreed and paraphrased the words of Eunomius to mean that "the power
and wisdom of God has no need of any external assistance. " But that did
not apply to the only-begotten God, as though he had been some sort of
created " instrument" in the act of creating the cosmos; for he was in fact
that very " Power of God and Wisdom of God " in person, which had no
need of any external assistance.92 Rather it was true that the creation of
the cosmos itself, as well as subsequently "every operation [EvE: pyELa] that
extends from God to creation and is designated according to our differing
conceptions of it, " was Trinitarian in basic structure, "having its origin in
the Father, proceeding through the Son, and reaching its completion by
the Holy Spirit" [E K 1TaTpos a<f>opµUTaL Kat Ota TOU ULOU rrp6E Lal Kat EV T4}
TIVEUµan T0 ayL<.µ TEAE LOUTm ] . 93 Eunomius also claimed that the eternity
of the creating Logos would have to imply the eternity of the things that
had been created,94 which was really meant as an argument for the con­
verse proposition, that both the creating Logos and the " other" creatures
were temporal rather than eternal. To this the response was, once again,
the sharpest possible distinction between the two with regard to time:
"The begetting of the Son does not fall within time, any more than the
creation was before time, so that it can in no kind of way be right to
partition the indivisible, and, by declaring that there was a time when the
Author of all existence was not, to insert this false idea of time into the
creative Source of the Universe. " 95 When Scripture spoke about the " be­
getting" of the Son and therefore called him µovoyEvtjs, it was, by a
process of definition through exclusion, utilizing " all the forms of genera­
tion that human intelligence recognizes" but filtering out all " the cor­
poreal senses attaching to the words," in order to be able "to set forth the
ineffable power of God"96 and thus to describe the indescribable process
of creation through the Word of God.
9i.
92.
93.
94.
9 5.
9 6.
Gr.
Gr.
Gr.
Gr.
Gr.
Gr.
Nyss.
Nyss .
Nyss.
Nyss.
Nyss.
Nyss.
Eun. 3 .7 . 5 .
Ref. 68-69, quoting I Cor. 1 : 24.
Tres dii.
Eun. 3 . 6 . 60.
Eun. I. 3 8 I .
Ref. 89-94.
l( H I G
P� ES S
New Rome
105
"Imago Dei" and Christ as " Image of the God Who Is
Apprehensible Only to the Mind [E l Kwv Tou VOYJTov] " 97
New Rome 105
"Imago Dei" and Christ as "Image of the God Who Is
Apprehensible Only to the Mind [ELKWV TOO VOQTOV]"97
All of that reasoning had direct implications for the doctrine of man,
which was for both Timaeus and Genesis the climax and goal of their
cosmogony.98 When Basil composed his Hexaemeron, he had that goal in
mind but did not quite reach it; in the final discourse, he promised, "If
God permits, we will say later in what way man was created in the image
of God, and how he shares this resemblance," but he never got to it.99
When, therefore, his brother Gregory of Nyssa undertook his treatise On
the Creation of Man, he connected it to Basil's commentary on Genesis, in
which, because of the shortness of time, "the consideration of man was
lacking." 00 The counterpoint of the statement at the beginning of
Genesis that God created man "in our image, after our likeness" [KaT'
ELKOVaI 1ETEpav KaL Ka0' tol(cGLVv],101 with the phrase at the close of
Timaeus about the "image of [the God who is] apprehensible only to the
mind" [ELKhV TOO VOT1]TOU]102 and with its earlier declaration "that the
similar is infinitely more beautiful than the dissimilar"103 had been ex-
ploited already by Philo, for whom the "pattern" [TrapdtELy la] of the
image was the divine Logos, because Adam-and "as far as their mind
was concerned" [KaTc TV & LtvoLav], later human beings as well"'104
"was made an image and copy" [aTrELK6vL1a KaL i L[Rqrta] of the
Logos.105 And that which had been created in the image of God "must of
necessity be beautiful [KakO6v]."106
To the Christian theologians of New Rome the orthodox doctrine of
the incarnation meant that Jesus Christ could take over not only the title
of "God made perceptible to the senses" from Timaeus but also this
associated and corollary title of "image of [the God who is] apprehensible
only to the mind."107 Thus the concept of the "imago Dei" in both
Genesis and Timaeus acquired a specificity that neither of the two cos-
97. Pl. Ti. 92C; Col. 1:15.
98. P1. Ti. 9oE.
99. Bas. Hex. 9.6.
ioo. Gr. Nyss. Horn. opif. ep. ded.
101. Gn. i:z6.
ioz. Pl. Ti. 9zC.
103. Pl. Ti. 33B.
104. Phil. Opif. 145-46.
105. Phil. Opif. 139.
io6. Pl. Ti. z8A.
107. Pl. Ti. 9zC.
All of that reasoning had direct implications for the doctrine of man,
which was for both Timaeus and Genesis the climax and goal of their
cosmogony.98 When Basil composed his Hexaemeron, he had that goal in
mind but did not quite reach it; in the final discourse, he promised, " If
God permits, we will say later in what way man was created in the image
of God, and how he shares this resemblance, " but he never got to it.99
When, therefore, his brother Gregory of Nyssa undertook his treatise On
the Creation of Man, he connected it to Basil's commentary on Genesis, in
which, because of the shortness of time, "the consideration of man was
lacking. " lOO The counterpoint of the statement at the beginning of
Genesis that God created man "in our image, after our likeness" [KaT '
ELKOVa �µETE pav Kal Ka9' oµOLWCTLV ] , lOl with the phrase at the close of
Timaeus about the " image of [the God who is] apprehensible only to the
mind" [E l Kwv Tou VOYJTov p o2 and with its earlier declaration "that the
similar is infinitely more beautiful than the dissimilar" 1 03 had been ex­
ploited already by Philo, for whom the "pattern " [rrapci8E Lyµa] of the
image was the divine Logos, because Adam-and " as far as their mind
was concerned" [KaTa TTW 8Lcivmav ] , later human beings as well" 1 04 _
"was made an image and copy" [arrE LKOVLaµa Kal µ[ µY)µa] of the
Logos. 105 And that which had been created in the image of God " must of
necessity be beautiful [ KaA6v] . " 106
To the Christian theologians of New Rome the orthodox doctrine of
the incarnation meant that Jesus Christ could take over not only the title
of " God made perceptible to the senses" from Timaeus but also this
associated and corollary title of "image of [the God who is] apprehensible
only to the mind. " 1 07 Thus the concept of the "imago Dei " in both
Genesis and Timaeus acquired a specificity that neither of the two cos97.
9 8.
99.
r oo.
ror.
102.
103 .
1 04.
I O 5.
ro6.
107.
Pl. Ti. 92C; Col. 1 : 1 5 .
Pl. Ti. 90E.
Bas. Hex. 9 . 6 .
Gr. Nyss. Hom. opif. ep. ded.
Gn. 1 : 26.
Pl. Ti. 92C.
Pl. Ti. 3 3 B.
Phil. Opif. I 4 5- 4 6.
Phil. Opif. I 3 9 .
P l . Ti. 28A.
Pl. Ti. 92C.
l( H I G
P� ES S
106
io6 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
mogonies had itself provided, but that a reading of each in the light of the
other, and more importantly a reading of both in the light of Christology,
could now supply. The biblical proof for this method came from the very
phraseology of Genesis that had seemed so problematic in the light of
biblical monotheism: "Let us make man according to our image and
likeness" [HotilmO0Ev dvOpcoTrov KaT' ELKOVa 1ETEpaV KaL Ka0' 60IIot-
criov].108 For, Basil of Caesarea argued, "To whom does he say, 'in our
image,' to whom if not to him who is 'the effulgence of his splendor and
the stamp of his very being' and 'the image of the invisible God'? It is,
then, to his living image, to him who has said 'My Father and I are one'
and 'Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father,' that God says 'Let us
make man in our image.' "109 But this identification of the preexistent
second vorcacrt1s of the Trinity as both the addressee of the words "Let us
make man in our image" and the pattern (Trapd8ctyia) for the image went
beyond the Philonic identification of image and Logos by equating that
preexistent Logos with the Incarnate One through whom God had
brought about "the restoration of the image" [T1v TfI
ELK6vo;
iavcdXr14 lv],110
This restoration was, in one sense, a process of "new modeling us from
the evil mould of sin once more to his own image";111 but, more pro-
foundly, it represented a new "sequence and order" [dKoXouOta KaL TcLd ]
that went beyond mere restoration.112 The difference between the two
was rooted in the incarnation, "inasmuch as then [in the first creation of
the image] he imparted the better nature, whereas now [being the Image in
person] he himself partakes of the worse" through the incarnation, in
order thereby to communicate a second image and "a second communion
far more marvelous than the first."113 Being renewed "according to the
image and likeness of the first and the only and the true Beauty" [KaT'
ELKOVa KaL O11OLOUtv TO TurpWTOU KcL jidvoU Kc1 dXiOtvoi KIXXovs], there-
fore, was synonymous with "being conformed to Christ."114 The inter-
weaving of Timaean and biblical motifs in such a statement was of a piece
with the Cappadocians' use of the other formulas contained in the close of
Timaeus. Rationality, freedom, and immortality, the three component
io8. Gn. I:26.
109. Bas. Hex. 9.6, quoting Heb. i:3, Col. 1:5, Jn. io:30, and Jn. 14:9.
110. Gr. Nyss. Or. dom. z.
iii. Gr. Nyss. Ref. iiz.
iiz. Gr. Nyss. Cant. 15.
113. Gr. Naz. Or. 38.13.
114. Gr. Nyss. Cant. 15, quoting Phil. 3:10.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
mogonies had itself provided, but that a reading of each in the light of the
other, and more importantly a reading of both in the light of Christology,
could now supply. The biblical proof for this method came from the very
phraseology of Genesis that had seemed so problematic in the light of
biblical monotheism: " Let us make man according to our image and
likeness" [TIOLtjawµEv av0pwTIOV KaT ' ELKOVa iiµETE pav Kai Kae' 6µo[­
WCJLV ] . 1 0 s For, Basil of Caesarea argued, "To whom does he say, 'in our
image,' to whom if not to him who is 'the effulgence of his splendor and
the stamp of his very being' and 'the image of the invisible God' ? It is,
then, to his living image, to him who has said 'My Father and I are one'
and 'Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father,' that God says 'Let us
make man in our image. ' " 1 09 But this identification of the preexistent
second uTioaTa<JLS- of the Trinity as both the addressee of the words "Let us
make man in our image " and the pattern (Tiapci8ELyµa ) for the image went
beyond the Philonic identification of image and Logos by equating that
preexistent Logos with the Incarnate One through whom God had
brought about "the restoration of the image " [T�v TllS- EtKovos­
ETiavciAT)ljJLV] . 1 10
This restoration was, in one sense, a process of " new modeling us from
the evil mould of sin once more to his own image" ; 1 1 1 but, more pro­
foundly, it represented a new " sequence and order " [aKoAoueta Kai Tci�ts-]
that went beyond mere restoration. 1 12 The difference between the two
was rooted in the incarnation, " inasmuch as then [in the first creation of
the image] he imparted the better nature, whereas now [being the Image in
person] he himself partakes of the worse" through the incarnation, in
order thereby to communicate a second image and "a second communion
far more marvelous than the first. " 1 1 3 Being renewed " according to the
image and likeness of the first and the only and the true Beauty" [KaT '
E l Kova Kai 6µo[waw Tou npwTov Kai µ6vou Kai UAT)9tvou KaAAous ] , there­
fore, was synonymous with " being conformed to Christ." 1 14 The inter­
weaving of Timaean and biblical motifs in such a statement was of a piece
with the Cappadocians' use of the other formulas contained in the close of
Timaeus. Rationality, freedom, and immortality, the three component
108.
109.
1 1 0.
II r .
n 2.
u3.
l J4.
Gn. 1 : 26.
Bas. Hex. 9 . 6, quoting Heb. 1 : 3 , Co/. 1 : 5 , Jn. r n : 3 0, and Jn. 1 4 : 9 .
Gr. Nyss. Or. dom. 2 .
Gr. Nyss. Ref. n 2 .
Gr. Nyss. Cant. 1 5 .
Gr. Naz. Or. 3 8 . 1 3 .
Gr. Nyss. Cant. 1 5 , quoting Phil. 3 : 10.
I
li HI E ll.INI E R S IT
I lze
F
PR ES S
N
New Rome
New Rome 10o7
elements of the image of God in Cappadocian thought,115 all manifested
such an interweaving. But the Christological and the eschatological con-
tent of the image enabled them to read each of these three component
elements back into the creation account of Genesis and thereby also to
supplement and correct the creation account of Timaeus, since both ac-
counts had spoken of the image of God.116
One way this was done with respect to the doctrine of the image of God
was to give Genesis preference over Timaeus in identifying the primary
locus of the image. For Timaeus described the cosmos as made in the
image, while Genesis applied it specifically and exclusively to the creation
of man; Philo extrapolated that doctrine of the creation of man to the
KoGo{O aWOr6T6;, seen as having been created in the image of the Koato[
vorfTo;.117 But despite the attractiveness of the doctrine of the image in
Timaeus, Gregory of Nyssa declared the image to be the unique quality of
the human creature, "not of the heavens nor the moon nor the sun nor the
beauty of the stars nor any of the other phenomena of creation."118
Gregory Nazianzus, too, invoked the complexity of various creatures-
animals, fish, birds, insects, plants, sea, sky, stars, and sun-to prove that
human understanding could not grasp even the rest of the natural world,
much less the essence of the Divine.119 Therefore when Gregory of Nyssa
undertook the composition of his work On the Creation of Man as a
continuation of his brother's exposition of the cosmogony of Genesis,
which had gone into great detail about the beauty of the created world, he
explicitly declared that the creation of man was "second to none of the
wonders of the world, perhaps even greater than any of those known to
us, because no other existing thing except the human creation has been
made like God."120 Because of the image, including its quality of ration-
ality, man was unique, despite "having taken up into himself every single
form of life, both that of plants and that which is seen in brutes."121 Like
the brutes, the human creature was "subject to flux and change," but "the
element of our soul which is in the likeness of God is stable and unalter-
able [T6 t6vL6v TE KaL (xJaUT)S Xov]."122 Although only God possessed
115. Pelikan 1993, 126-34.
116. Gr. Nyss. Or. catech. 6.
117. Phil. Opif. 24-25.
118. Gr. Nyss. Cant. z.
119. Gr. Naz. Or. 28.z22-30.
Izo. Gr. Nyss. Horn. opif. ep. ded.
I z I. Gr. Nyss. Anim. res.
122zz. Gr. Nyss. Horn. opif. 27.
1 07
elements of the image of God in Cappadocian thought, l 1 5 all manifested
such an interweaving. But the Christological and the eschatological con­
tent of the image enabled them to read each of these three component
elements back into the creation account of Genesis and thereby also to
supplement and correct the creation account of Timaeus, since both ac­
counts had spoken of the image of God. 1 1 6
One way this was done with respect to the doctrine of the image of God
was to give Genesis preference over Timaeus in identifying the primary
locus of the image. For Timaeus described the cosmos as made in the
image, while Genesis applied it specifically and exclusively to the creation
of man; Philo extrapolated that doctrine of the creation of man to the
Koaµos ai.a811Tos , seen as having been created in the image of the Koa µos
vo11Tos . 1 1 7 But despite the attractiveness of the doctrine of the image in
Timaeus, Gregory of Nyssa declared the image to be the unique quality of
the human creature, " not of the heavens nor the moon nor the sun nor the
beauty of the stars nor any of the other phenomena of creation. " 1 1 8
Gregory Nazianzus, too, invoked the complexity of various creatures­
animals, fish, birds, insects, plants, sea, sky, stars, and sun-to prove that
human understanding could not grasp even the rest of the natural world,
much less the essence of the Divine. 1 1 9 Therefore when Gregory of Nyssa
undertook the composition of his work On the Creation of Man as a
continuation of his brother's exposition of the cosmogony of Genesis,
which had gone into great detail about the beauty of the created world, he
explicitly declared that the creation of man was "second to none of the
wonders of the world, perhaps even greater than any of those known to
us, because no other existing thing except the human creation has been
made like God. " 120 Because of the image, including its quality of ration­
ality, man was unique, despite "having taken up into himself every single
form of life, both that of plants and that which is seen in brutes. " 121 Like
the brutes, the human creature was "subject to flux and change," but "the
element of our soul which is in the likeness of God is stable and unalter­
able [To µovL µov TE KUL waa{m.us EXOV] . " 122 Although only God possessed
n5.
l l 6.
I I 7.
1 1 8.
n9.
l 20.
l2I.
l 22.
Pelikan 1 9 9 3 , 1 2 6- 3 4 .
Gr. Nyss. Or. catech. 6 .
Phil. Opif. 24 -2 5 .
Gr. Nyss. Cant. 2 .
Gr. Naz. Or. 2 8 .22-30.
Gr. Nyss. Hom. opif ep. ded.
Gr. Nyss. Anim. res.
Gr. Nyss. Hom. opif 2 7.
I
li HI E ll.INI E R S IT
I lze
F
PR ES S
N
108
io8 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
true "blessedness" [aKupt6TflS], it was uniquely possible for man, "be-
cause he who fashioned him made him in the image of God," to be called
blessed as well, "through participation" [KaTU IETOUOLcv].123
At least indirectly traceable to Timaeus, and perhaps to intermediate
sources, was another aspect of the doctrine of man and the image in
Gregory of Nyssa. Timaeus had explained the origin of "women and the
whole female sex"124 as a form of punishment: "According to the prob-
able account, all those creatures generated as men who proved themselves
cowardly and spent their lives in wrong-doing were transformed, at their
second becoming, into women."125 According to Philo, although
"woman, too, was made" [rrXd6ciuO KaL yvrf] by God the Creator,126 the
human being first created in the image of God had been "neither male nor
female."127 Gregory of Nyssa took advantage of the shift of pronouns
from singular to plural in the statement "God made man, according to the
image of God he made him [a5T6v], male and female he made them
[avTO!c]"128 to introduce a caesura into the middle of that statement:
"The creation of our nature is in a sense twofold [8LirXf], one made like to
God, the other divided according to this distinction" of male and female.
The first of these creations, that which took place according to the image
of God, pertained to "the rational and intelligent element, which does not
admit the distinction of male and female"; therefore, despite the mas-
culine singular pronoun "him" [afT6v], it was not masculine but neither
masculine nor feminine. The second creation was responsible for "our
bodily form and structure," divided into male and female. And to make
clear that "that which was made 'in the image' is one thing [without
gender], and that which is now manifested in wretchedness [with gender]
is another," Moses in Genesis had, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
chosen his words so carefully when he wrote, "And God made man,
according to the image of God he made him [avT6v], male and female he
made them [auTO1b]."129
In making this case for the Nicene declaration that the Son of God was
of the same nature with the Father, Basil analyzed the doxology in Ro-
mans 11:36: "Source, Guide, and Goal of all that is [ t avTOV KaL &L' GUTOt
123. Gr. Nyss. Beat. i.
124. P1. Ti. 9iD.
125. P1. Ti. 9oE (modified from Bury).
iz6. Phil. Opif. 151.
127. Phil. Opif. 134.
1iz8. Gn. 1:27.
129. Gr. Nyss. Hom. opif. 16; Armstrong 1948, 120-21.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
true " blessedness" [µaKapLOTT)S'] , it was uniquely possible for man, " be­
cause he who fashioned him made him in the image of God, " to be called
blessed as well, "through participation " [KaTa µETouatav] .123
At least indirectly traceable to Timaeus, and perhaps to intermediate
sources, was another aspect of the doctrine of man and the image in
Gregory of Nyssa. Timaeus had explained the origin of "women and the
whole female sex" 124 as a form of punishment: " According to the prob­
able account, all those creatures generated as men who proved themselves
cowardly and spent their lives in wrong-doing were transformed, at their
second becoming, into women. " 125 According to Philo, although
"woman, too, was made " [EnA.aa8T} Kat yuvT} ] by God the Creator,126 the
human being first created in the image of God had been " neither male nor
female. " 127 Gregory of Nyssa took advantage of the shift of pronouns
from singular to plural in the statement " God made man, according to the
image of God he made him [auTov ] , male and female he made them
[ auTOUS'] " 12 8 to introduce a caesura into the middle of that statement:
"The creation of our nature is in a sense twofold [oLTTA.fl ] , one made like to
God, the other divided according to this distinction " of male and female.
The first of these creations, that which took place according to the image
of God, pertained to "the rational and intelligent element, which does not
admit the distinction of male and female " ; therefore, despite the mas­
culine singular pronoun "him" [avTov ], it was not masculine but neither
masculine nor feminine. The second creation was responsible for " our
bodily form and structure, " divided into male and female. And to make
clear that "that which was made 'in the image' is one thing [without
gender], and that which is now manifested in wretchedness [with gender]
is another, " Moses in Genesis had, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
chosen his words so carefully when he wrote, "And God made man,
according to the image of God he made him [auTov] , male and female he
made them [auTOUS'] . " 129
In making this case for the Nicene declaration that the Son of God was
of the same nature with the Father, Basil analyzed the doxology in Ro­
mans I I : 3 6: " Source, Guide, and Goal of all that is [E � auTOU Kal 8L' auTOU
l 23 .
1 24 .
I25.
I 26.
1 27 .
1 28.
1 29 .
Gr. Nyss. Beat. l .
Pl. Ti. 9 1D .
Pl. Ti. 90E (modified from Bury ) .
Phil. Opif. l 5 1 ·
Phil. Opif. I 3 4 .
Gn. 1 : 27 .
Gr. Nyss. Hom. opif. 1 6 ; Armstrong 1 9 4 8 , I 20-2 r .
l( H I G
P� ES S
New Rome
New Rome 1i09
KiaL ELS OTOV T lTr-vTa]-to him [aiT(f] be glory for ever! Amen." He
applied that doxology specifically to the our6cTacLs of the Son:
Kat ELS' avTov Ta navTa]
1 09
to him [avT0] be glory for ever! Amen. " He
applied that doxology specifically to the unoaTaaLs of the Son:
-
For from him [Vi auTOi], for all things that are, comes the cause of
their being, according to the will of God the Father. Through him
[St' aToi] all things have their continuance and constitution, for he
created all things, and metes out to each severally what is necessary
for its health and preservation. Therefore to him [EdEl aT6v] all
things are turned, looking with irresistible longing and unspeakable
affection to "the author" and maintainer "of" their "life."130
But thanks to the amplification of the Nicene declaration that Basil and
the other two Cappadocians, together with others of their contempo-
raries, had formulated as the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity at the First
Council of Constantinople in 381, which laid down the Niceno-
Constantinopolitan Creed, that same passage became the basis for a spec-
For from him [E� auToD] , for all things that are, comes the cause of
their being, according to the will of God the Father. Through him
[8L ' avTOV] all things have their continuance and constitution, for he
created all things, and metes out to each severally what is necessary
for its health and preservation. Therefore to him [ELS avTOV] all
things are turned, looking with irresistible longing and unspeakable
affection to "the author" and maintainer "of " their " life . " 1 30
ulative Trinitarian metaphysic in which not only all of Scripture, including
and especially Genesis, but all of human thought generally, including and
especially Timaeus, could find a place. That metaphysic was the achieve-
ment above all of Augustine and Boethius in Catholic Rome.
130. Bas. Spir. 5.7.
But thanks to the amplification of the Nicene declaration that Basil and
the other two Cappadocians, together with others of their contempo­
raries, had formulated as the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity at the First
Council of Constantinople in 3 8 1 , which laid down the Niceno­
Constantinopolitan Creed, that same passage became the basis for a spec­
ulative Trinitarian metaphysic in which not only all of Scripture, including
and especially Genesis, but all of human thought generally, including and
especially Timaeus, could find a place. That metaphysic was the achieve­
ment above all of Augustine and Boethius in Catholic Rome.
1 3 0. Bas. Spir. 5 . 7.
l( H I G
P� ES S

Dr g 11:1 zed by
Ori g1I n a I 1ko m
T H E llJ NllVE R S!lliY O� MI( H I G AN P� E%
UN Pl ERSllif Y O:F Ml (Hi IGA NI
VI
Catholic Rome: The Trinity as "Source,
Guide, and Goal" (Timaeus z27C-4zD)
VI
The translation of the Hebrew of Genesis into the vocabulary of the
Greeks (even, to some considerable degree, into the vocabulary of Tim-
aeus) enabled the Jews of Alexandria, then the Christians of Alexandria,
and then the Christians of New Rome to read the two texts in a new and
contrapuntal way. So in turn the translation of the Greek of Timaeus into
the vocabulary of the Romans, together with the production of the Latin
Genesis, enabled the Christian philosophers of Catholic Rome to take up
Catholic Rome: The Trinity as "Source,
Guide, and Goal" (Timaeus 2 7C- 4 2D)
that task after their own special fashion and, in so doing, to distance
themselves from the philosophers of classical Rome, including Lucretius,
just as Lucretius had distanced himself from the Roman religious tradi-
tion.1 Timaeus was among the several works of Greek literature that were
translated into Latin, in whole or in part, by Cicero; but of this translation
only fragments have survived.2 The first half of Timaeus (17-53C) was
translated into Latin again in the fourth century, by Calcidius (or
Chalcidius), who was probably a Christian and who also composed a
commentary on this portion of the dialogue.3 The work bears the dedica-
tion "Osio suo,"4 and the manuscript tradition of the work identified the
dedicatee as the Catholic bishop of Cordova, Ossius (or Hosius), theologi-
cal counselor to Constantine and chairman at the Council of Nicaea in
325, where he played a prominent role in the history of the development
of the doctrine of the Trinity and is thought to have been the source for its
most celebrated formula, the 6ioo0cto;.s It is, however, generally sup-
I. See Troncarelli 1987, 61-64, on the subsequent role of this Christian use of Plato
to refute Lucretius.
z. Giomini 1975, 177-227.
3. See Waszink 1964, z5; 1975, xi-xii.
4. Cal. Ti. ep. ded. 3.
5. Cf. Switalski 1902, 1-2.
III
The translation of the Hebrew of Genesis into the vocabulary of the
Greeks (even, to some considerable degree, into the vocabulary of Tim­
aeus) enabled the Jews of Alexandria, then the Christians of Alexandria,
and then the Christians of New Rome to read the two texts in a new and
contrapuntal way. So in turn the translation of the Greek of Timaeus into
the vocabulary of the Romans, together with the production of the Latin
Genesis!j enabled the Christian philosophers of Catholic Rome to take up
that task after their own special fashion and, in so doing, to distance
themselves from the philosophers of classical Rome, including Lucretius,
j ust as Lucretius had distanced himself from the Roman religious tradi­
tion. 1 Timaeus was among the several works of Greek literature that were
translated into Latin, in whole or in part, by Cicero; but of this translation
only fragments have survived.2 The first half of Timaeus ( I 7- 5 3 C) was
translated into Latin again in the fourth century, by Calcidius (or
Chalcidius), who was probably a Christian and who also composed a
commentary on this portion of the dialogue.3 The work bears the dedica­
tion " Osio suo, "4 and the manuscript tradition of the work identified the
dedicatee as the Catholic bishop of Cordova, Ossius (or Hosius), theologi­
cal counselor to Constantine and chairman at the Council of Nicaea in
3 2 5, where he played a prominent role in the history of the development
of the doctrine of the Trinity and is thought to have been the source for its
most celebrated formula, the oµoouaLOS . s It is, however, generally supr . See Troncarelli 1 9 87, 6 1 - 64, on the subsequent role of this Christian use of Plato
to refute Lucretius.
2. Giomini 1 9 7 5 , 1 77-227.
3. See Waszink 1 9 64, 25; 1975, xi-xii.
4. Cal. Ti. ep. ded. 3 .
5 . Cf. Switalski 1 902, l - 2 .
III
l( H I G
P� ES S
112
II 2 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
posed that Augustine read Timaeus in the translation of Cicero, not in that
of Calcidius.6
Catholic Rome, in the person of Jerome, preserved in the Latin transla-
tion and paraphrase of the Chronicles of Eusebius "the most abundant
information we possess about the life of the poet" Lucretius, on which
even present-day scholarship is obliged to rely.7 And it was to another
writer of Catholic Rome, the Latin apologist Lactantius, that Lucretius
owed a measure of his reputation in the Latin Middle Ages; Lactantius
considered Lucretius "his second most favoured Roman poet," right after
Vergil, and in some of his quotations from De rerum natura, "Lactantius
. . used an earlier state of the tradition" than that of the manuscripts we
now possess.8 In his Divine Institutes Lactantius also quoted the locus
classicus from "Plato in the Timaeus," to the effect that "the energy and
majesty" of God were "so great that no one can either conceive it in his
mind, or give utterance to it in words, on account of his surpassing and
incalculable power" [ut eam neque mente concipere neque uerbis enarrare
quisquam possit ob nimiam et inaestimabilem potestatem]; the passage
seems to have come to him through Minucius Felix.9 In a later work, his
Epitome of the Divine Institutes, he more amply and more accurately
quoted these words of Plato "on the worship of the God whom he ac-
knowledged to be the Maker and Father of things [conditorem rerum et
parentem]," together with the following passage that God "is good and,
being jealous of no one, he made things that were good" [bonus est. . . et
inuidens nulli, fecit quae bona sunt]; the improvement seems to suggest
direct access to Timaeus through further study of Plato.10
Likewise from Catholic Rome came what may well have been the most
successful and the most influential rendering of Plato's Timaeus ever pro-
duced, that of "Boethius, the last Roman-the first scholastic,"11 in the
first quarter of the sixth century. Boethius, too, played a prominent role in
the history of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, through his
five theological tractates; "today," as Henry Chadwick has said, "it is
accepted by all scholars who have given attention to the subject that the
careful Neoplatonic logician who, in the first three and fifth tractates,
6. Waszink 1964, 77 n.
7. Johannes Mewaldt in PW s.v. "Lucretius (Carus)."
8. Ogilvie 1978, 15-16.
9. Lact. Inst. 1.8.1; PI. Ti. z8C; Nock 1962; Ogilvie 1978, 79.
10. Lact. Epit. 64.5, 63.1-2; P1. Ti. 29E; Pichon 1901, 156-57.
ii. Grabmann 1909, 1:148-78; Courcelle 1967, 7.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
posed that Augustine read Timaeus in the translation of Cicero, not in that
of Calcidius. 6
Catholic Rome, in the person of Jerome, preserved in the Latin transla­
tion and paraphrase of the Chronicles of Eusebius "the most abundant
information we possess about the life of the poet '' Lucretius, on which
even present-day scholarship is obliged to rely.7 And it was to another
writer of Catholic Rome, the Latin apologist Lactantius, that Lucretius
owed a measure of his reputation in the Latin Middle Ages; Lactantius
considered Lucretius "his second most favoured Roman poet, " right after
Vergil, and in some of his quotations from De rerum natura, "Lactantius
. . . used an earlier state of the tradition" than that of the manuscripts we
now possess. 8 In his Divine Institutes Lactantius also quoted the locus
classicus from "Plato in the Timaeus, " to the effect that "the energy and
majesty" of God were " so great that no one can either conceive it in his
mind, or give utterance to it in words, on account of his surpassing and
incalculable power" [ ut earn neque mente concipere neque uerbis enarrare
quisquam possit ob nimiam et inaestimabilem potestatem] ; the passage
seems to have come to him through Minucius Felix.9 In a later work, his
Epitome of the Divine Institutes, he more amply and more accurately
quoted these words of Plato "on the worship of the God whom he ac­
knowledged to be the Maker and Father of things [conditorem rerum et
parentem] , " together with the following passage that God "is good and,
being jealous of no one, he made things that were good" [bonus est . . . et
inuidens nulli, fecit quae bona sunt] ; the improvement seems to suggest
direct access to Timaeus through further study of Plato. 10
Likewise from Catholic Rome came what may well have been the most
successful and the most influential rendering of Plato's Timaeus ever pro­
duced, that of " Boethius, the last Roman-the first scholastic, " 1 1 in the
first quarter of the sixth century. Boethius, too, played a prominent role in
the history of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, through his
five theological tractates; " today," as Henry Chadwick has said, " it is
accepted by all scholars who have given attention to the subject that the
careful Neoplatonic logician who, in the first three and fifth tractates,
6.
7.
8.
9.
IO.
II.
Waszink 1 9 64, 77 n.
Johannes Mewaldt in P W s.v. " Lucretius ( Carns ) . "
Ogilvie 1 9 7 8 , 1 5 - 1 6.
Lact. Inst. i . 8 . 1 ; Pl. Ti. 28C; Nock 1 9 62; Ogilvie 1 9 7 8 , 79.
Lact. Epit. 64 . 5 , 6 3 . 1 -2; Pl. Ti. 29E; Pichon 1901, 1 5 6- 5 7 .
Grabmann 1 909, 1 : 1 4 8 - 7 8 ; Courcelle 1 9 67, 7 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Catholic Rome
Catholic Rome "I3
seeks to unravel logical tangles in the usage of the Church, is none other
than the author of the Consolation and of the commentaries on Aris-
totle."12 His translation of Timaeus was not the rendering that he had
envisioned when he expressed his ambition to turn all of Aristotle and
then all of Plato from Greek into Latin, "to bring them into harmony, and
to demonstrate that they do not disagree on everything, as many main-
tain, but are in the greatest possible agreement on many things that per-
tain to philosophy."13 Although he was prevented from fulfilling this
ambition both by its sheer enormity and by his untimely death, so that all
he completed were several works of Aristotle (chiefly those dealing with
logic), one surviving fragment of Plato, who is in some respects "the
philosopher par excellence" in the Consolation,14 is sufficient to make
posterity lament that he did not carry off the entire assignment, especially
when the elegance of its Latin is compared with the translation of
Calcidius: the twenty-eight line "Hymn to the Creator," "the great Tim-
aean hymn" that stands "at the structural center of the Consolation," in
book 3, and that begins with the words "O qui perpetua mundum ratione
gubernas," is based on the central portion of Timaeus (z7C-42D), with
borrowings from other sources both classical and Christian.15 It may well
have done more than any other version, even including the original, to
disseminate the thought of Timaeus in the West.16
This examination of the counterpoint between Timaeus and Genesis in
Catholic Rome, then, consists of a close explication de texte of the "Hymn
to the Creator," as illuminated by the other writings of Boethius, in which,
as he acknowledged, he drew on "the seeds of argument sown in my mind
by St. Augustine's writings."17 Much of the context and content for the
examination is therefore provided by Augustine's On the Trinity, Confes-
sions, and City of God, because, as J.C.M. van Winden has observed, "the
most complete enumeration of the interpretations given to Genesis i,I is
found in Augustine's Confessions, Book XII";18 also considered are the
Iz. Chadwick 1981, 174.
13. Boet. Hermn. sec. z pr.
14. Courcelle 1967, 22.
15. Astell 1994, 46; Boet. Cons. 3M9.I-z8. See Scheible 1972, 101-12; Gruber 1978,
277-90; Chadwick 1981, 233-35; O'Daly 1991, 163-65.
16. Courcelle 1967, 177-84, 432; Chenu 1968, 49-98; Troncarelli 1987.
17. Boet. Trin. pr.; on the question of Augustine's place in relation to the Consolation,
see Silk 1939 and, above all, Chadwick 1981, 174-222.
18. Winden 1973, 377. See also Aime Solignac in Vignaux 1973, 153-71.
rr3
seeks to unravel logical tangles in the usage of the Church, is none other
than the author of the Consolation and of the commentaries on Aris­
totle. " 12 His translation of Timaeus was not the rendering that he had
envisioned when he expressed his ambition to turn all of Aristotle and
then all of Plato from Greek into Latin, " to bring them into harmony, and
to demonstrate that they do not disagree on everything, as many main­
tain, but are in the greatest possible agreement on many things that per­
tain to philosophy. " 1 3 Although he was prevented from fulfilling this
ambition both by its sheer enormity and by his untimely death, so that all
he completed were several works of Aristotle (chiefly those dealing with
logic) , one surviving fragment of Plato, who is in some respects " the
philosopher par excellence" in the Consolation, 14 is sufficient to make
posterity lament that he did not carry off the entire assignment, especially
when the elegance of its Latin is compared with the translation of
Calcidius: the twenty-eight line "Hymn to the Creator," "the great Tim­
aean hymn" that stands " at the structural center of the Consolation, " in
book 3 , and that begins with the words " O qui perpetua mundum ratione
gubernas," is based on the central portion of Timaeus ( 27C- 42D), with
borrowings from other sources both classical and Christian. 1 5 It may well
have done more than any other version, even including the original, to
disseminate the thought of Timaeus in the West. 1 6
This examination o f the counterpoint between Timaeus and Genesis in
Catholic Rome, then, consists of a close explication de texte of the "Hymn
to the Creator, " as illuminated by the other writings of Boethius, in which,
as he acknowledged, he drew on "the seeds of argument sown in my mind
by St. Augustine's writings. " 17 Much of the context and content for the
examination is therefore provided by Augustine's On the Trinity, Confes­
sions, and City of God, because, as J.C.M. van Winden has observed, "the
most complete enumeration of the interpretations given to Genesis r , r is
found in Augustine's Confessions, Book XII" ; 1 s also considered are the
1 2. Chadwick 1 9 8 1 , 1 74·
1 3 . Boet. Herm. sec. 2 pr.
1 4 . Courcelle 1 9 67, 22.
1 5 . Astell 1994, 46; Boet. Cons. 3 M9 . 1 - 2 8 . See Scheible 1972, 1 0 1 - 1 2; Gruber 1 9 7 8 ,
277-90; Chadwick 1 9 8 1 , 2 3 3 - 3 5 ; O'Daly 199 1 , 1 6 3 - 6 5 .
1 6. Courcelle 1 9 67, 1 77-84, 4 3 2; Chenu 1 9 6 8 , 49-9 8; Troncarelli 1 9 8 7 .
l 7. Boet. Trin. pr.; on the question o f Augustine's place in relation to the Consolation,
see Silk 1 9 3 9 and, above all, Chadwick 1 9 8 1 , 1 74 -222.
1 8 . Winden 1 9 7 3 , 3 77. See also Aime Solignac in Vignaux 1 9 7 3 , 1 5 3 -7 r .
1 g 1 i ze
li HI E llJ I E R S lli
�
P ES S
1 14
I 14 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
several commentaries of Augustine on Genesis, works of Hilary and Am-
brose, and the commentary of Calcidius on Timaeus. Ambrose, Au-
gustine, and Boethius-and probably Calcidius if he was a colleague of
Ossius-listened to Genesis, to Timaeus, and to the counterpoint between
the two works through a Trinitarian filter. In this way Philo's innovative
equating of the one Creator God Almighty of Genesis with the rotrlT1l
KaL rraTrip of Timaeus19 could be carried over into the equating of that one
Creator God with the Trinity, as in the formula of the Council of Nicaea
(which was reported in Latin by Hilary of Poitiers):20 "Credimus in unum
deum patrem omnipotentem [omnium] uisibilium et inuisibilium fac-
torem .... Et in unum dominum lesum Christum.... Et in spiritum
sanctum."21 In keeping with his "regula canonica" about the Trinitarian
interpretation of Scripture,22 Augustine applied to these three divine Per-
sons and this one divine Substance in the Trinity the plural as well as the
singular in the words of Romans I1:36: "Source, Guide, and Goal of all
that is-to him be glory for ever!" [Ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt
omnia; ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum!]23
Philosophy and Traditional Religion
As those references to the dogma of the Trinity indicate, one of the mas-
sive differences between a philosopher of classical Rome such as Lucretius
and a philosopher of Catholic Rome such as Boethius lay in their handling
of the relation between philosophy and traditional religion. Already in the
preamble to the "Hymn to the Creator," therefore, the statement in Plato's
Timaeus that "all men who possess even a share of good sense call upon
God [9E6v KaXovctLv] always at the outset of every undertaking, be it small
or great,"24 whatever may have been its original intention, became an
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
several commentaries of Augustine on Genesis, works of Hilary and Am­
brose, and the commentary of Calcidius on Timaeus. Ambrose, Au­
gustine, and Boethius-and probably Calcidius if he was a colleague of
Ossius-listened to Genesis, to Timaeus, and to the counterpoint between
the two works through a Trinitarian filter. In this way Philo's innovative
equating of the one Creator God Almighty of Genesis with the TIOLTlT�S
Kai rraTtj p of Timaeus19 could be carried over into the equating of that one
Creator God with the Trinity, as in the formula of the Council of Nicaea
(which was reported in Latin by Hilary of Poitiers) :20 " Credimus in unum
deum patrem omnipotentem [omnium] uisibilium et inuisibilium fac­
torem. . . . Et in unum dominum Iesum Christum. . . . Et in spiritum
sanctum. "21 In keeping with his " regula canonica " about the Trinitarian
interpretation of Scripture,22 Augustine applied to these three divine Per­
sons and this one divine Substance in the Trinity the plural as well as the
singular in the words of Romans l l : 3 6: " Source, Guide, and Goal of all
that is-to him be glory for ever ! " [Ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt
omnia; ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum ! ]23
authoritative proof text that Philosophia quoted expressly to Boethius
and to which she obtained his no less express assent, employing the lan-
Philosophy and Traditional Religion
guage of Timaeus: "We must call upon the Father of all things [rerum
omnium patrem], for if this is omitted no beginning can be rightly and
properly based."25 In such passages, as Helga Scheible has put it, "the
19. Pl. Ti. z9C.
zo. On Hilary's importance for Augustine's Trinitarian thought, see Aug. Trin.
10.10.II.
2I. Tanner-Alberigo 1:5.
z2z. Pelikan 1990.
23. Aug. Trin. 1.6.Iz.
24. Pl. Ti. z7B-C.
25. Boet. Cons. 3P9.32z-33.
As those references to the dogma of the Trinity indicate, one of the mas­
sive differences between a philosopher of classical Rome such as Lucretius
and a philosopher of Catholic Rome such as Boethius lay in their handling
of the relation between philosophy and traditional religion. Already in the
preamble to the "Hymn to the Creator, " therefore, the statement in Plato's
Timaeus that " all men who possess even a share of good sense call upon
God [9Eov KaAouaw] always at the outset of every undertaking, be it small
or great, "24 whatever may have been its original intention, became an
authoritative proof text that Philosophia quoted expressly to Boethius
and to which she obtained his no less express assent, employing the lan­
guage of Timaeus: "We must call upon the Father of all things [rerum
omnium patrem] , for if this is omitted no beginning can be rightly and
properly based. "25 In such passages, as Helga Scheible has put it, "the
I 9 . Pl. Ti. 29C.
20. On Hilary's importance for Augustine's Trinitarian thought, see Aug. Trin.
IO. I O. I I .
2 r . Tanner-Alberigo I : 5 .
2 2 . Pelikan I 990.
2 3 . Aug. Trin. r . 6 . I 2.
24. Pl. Ti. 27B-C.
2 5 . Boet. Cons. 3 P9. 3 2- 3 3 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Catholic Rome
Catholic Rome ii5
blending of the Creator of the world (here, that of the Old Testament)
with the Supreme Idea of Platonism makes it possible for the Christian
thinker to find an adequate way of speaking about his God."26 Calcidius,
too, as was his wont, made his translation of this passage into an extended
paraphrase, with an appeal to universal tradition: "It is customary for all,
as a kind of religious duty, . . . to pray to the Deity for help" [cum
omnibus mos sit et quasi quaedam religio . . . precari ad auxilium
diuinitatem].27 As the summary conclusion to his Consolation of Philoso-
phy, Boethius insisted: "Nor vainly are our hopes placed in God, nor our
prayers, which when they are right, cannot be ineffectual."28 In agree-
ment with Augustine's commentary on Genesis,29 as well as with other
writers, a clinching argument that Boethius drew from the philosophical
discussion of providence, foreknowledge, and fate was the same reductio
ad absurdum, that if determinism were correct, there would be "no sense
in hoping for anything or in praying that anything may be averted."30
This argument of Boethius was at the same time an assertion of the confi-
dence in "Reason controlling Necessity [dviyKrj]" celebrated in Tim-
aeus,31 where "necessary causes" were seen as "subservient causes" [act--
ats vrrrpETOvUatLs] in contrast to "the divine" [T6 OELov] and reasonable
causes, which were in control for the sake of the primary cause, namely,
the Good.32 It is plausible that Boethius was, by this reductio ad absur-
dum, also directing a polemic against the De rerum natura of Lucretius,
which attacked the superstitious confidence of priests and their victims in
prayer and sacrifice, on the grounds that "the holy divinity" [sanctum
numen] was caught captive within "the boundaries of fate" [fati finis] and
therefore could not be of any help to the suppliant.33 Therefore Boethius
could conclude one of his theological tractates with a reminder of what
"our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us to desire in our prayers."34 He
began another of his theological tractates with the orthodox confession
that "the surest source of all truth is admittedly the fundamental doctrines
z6. Scheible 1972, 104.
27. Cal. Ti. 22.
28. Boet. Cons. 5P6.46.
29. Aug. Gen. litt. 2.17.
30. Boet. Cons. 5P3.33. See the parallels cited in Gruber 1978, 392.
3 1. Pl. Ti. 48A.
32. Pl. Ti. 68E.
33. Lucr. 5.305-o10.
34. Boet. Eut. 8.
115
blending of the Creator of the world (here, that of the Old Testament)
with the Supreme Idea of Platonism makes it possible for the Christian
thinker to find an adequate way of speaking about his God. ''26 Calcidius,
too, as was his wont, made his translation of this passage into an extended
paraphrase, with an appeal to universal tradition: " It is customary for all,
as a kind of religious duty, . . . to pray to the Deity for help " [cum
omnibus mos sit et quasi quaedam religio . . . precari ad auxilium
diuinitatem] .27 As the summary conclusion to his Consolation of Philoso­
phy, Boethius insisted: "Nor vainly are our hopes placed in God, nor our
prayers, which when they are right, cannot be ineffectual. "28 In agree­
ment with Augustine's commentary on Genesis,29 as well as with other
writers, a clinching argument that Boethius drew from the philosophical
discussion of providence, foreknowledge, and fate was the same reductio
ad absurdum, that if determinism were correct, there would be "no sense
in hoping for anything or in praying that anything may be averted. "30
This argument of Boethius was at the same time an assertion of the confi­
dence in "Reason controlling Necessity [ avciyKY] ] " celebrated in Tim­
aeus, 3 1 where " necessary causes" were seen as " subservient causes " [aiTL ­
aLS' urr11pETouamS'] in contrast to "the divine " [To 8E'iov] and reasonable
causes, which were in control for the sake of the primary cause, namely,
the Good. 32 It is plausible that Boethius was, by this reductio ad absur­
d um, also directing a polemic against the De rerum natura of Lucretius,
which attacked the superstitious confidence of priests and their victims in
prayer and sacrifice, on the grounds that "the holy divinity" [sanctum
numen] was caught captive within "the boundaries of fate " [fati finis] and
therefore could not be of any help to the suppliant. 33 Therefore Boethius
could conclude one of his theological tractates with a reminder of what
"our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us to desire in our prayers. " 34 He
began another of his theological tractates with the orthodox confession
that "the surest source of all truth is admittedly the fundamental doctrines
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
3 i.
3 2.
33.
34.
Scheible 1 9 7 2, 1 04 .
Cal. Ti. 22.
Boet. Cons. 5P6.46.
Aug. Gen. Litt. 2 . 1 7 .
Boet. Cons. 5 P3 . 3 3 . See the parallels cited in Gruber 1 9 7 8 , 3 9 2 .
Pl. Ti. 4 8A.
Pl. Ti. 68£.
Luer. 5 . 3 0 5 - 1 0.
Boet. Eut. 8 .
I
li HI E ll.INI E R S IT
I lze
F
PR ES S
N
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
116
116 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
of the Catholic faith," and he concluded it with the imperative to "recon-
cile faith and reason."3s For it was his intent in all these tractates to
expound what "Catholics in accordance with reason confess" about "the
middle way of the Christian Faith" and "the true and solid content of the
Catholic Faith" [firma ueraque fides catholica].36 The confidence that this
content was "true and solid" enabled Augustine to expound Genesis "not
by the method of affirmation but by that of inquiry" [non adfirmando, sed
quaerendo], just as long as this method of doubting inquiry "does not
exceed the limits of the Catholic faith."37 On the basis of such a pre-
established harmony between biblical faith and Greek reason, Calcidius
could link the martyrdom of Socrates with those of Isaiah and Jeremiah,38
just as Boethius could honor Socrates as a martyr.39 For, as he declared at
the conclusion of another tractate, in a summary statement of his program
of faith in search of understanding, the task of his philosophical theology
was to "furnish some fitting support in argument to an article which
stands quite firmly by itself on the foundation of Faith."40
The article of faith he had in mind in those words, which had first been
established by authority and was binding on that ground but which was
now also to be examined by reason and philosophy, was the doctrine of
the One God as Trinity; "the Trinity consists," as Boethius defined it, "in
plurality of Persons, the unity in simplicity of substance."41 On this
dogma, according to Boethius, it was obligatory to adhere to "the lan-
guage of the Church" [ecclesiasticus loquendi usus] and to obey "the
decision of ecclesiastical usage" [ecclesiasticae locutionis arbitrium].42
Boethius was probably making not more than a slight allusion to this
doctrine when, in the Consolation of Philosophy, discussing the relation
between sufficiency, power, and "respect" [reuerentia], he proposed that
"we judge these three to be one."43 But if, as scholars now agree, Boethius
is the author of both the Consolation and On the Trinity, so that despite
the notorious silence of the Consolation about Christianity, "the
Christianising reading of the Consolation is one that Boethius himself
35. Boet. Div.
36. Boet. Eut. 6, int., 7.
37. Aug. Gen. imp. I.
38. Cal. Com. 172.
39. Boet. Cons. IP3.9.
40. Boet. Trin. 6.
41. Boet. Div. 55-57.
42. Boet. Eut. 3, 4.
43. Boet. Cons. 3P9.8; see also 3M9-1.i3.
of the Catholic faith, " and he concluded it with the imperative to " recon­
cile faith and reason. " 35 For it was his intent in all these tractates to
expound what " Catholics in accordance with reason confess" about "the
middle way of the Christian Faith " and "the true and solid content of the
Catholic Faith" [firma ueraque fides catholica] .36 The confidence that this
content was "true and solid " enabled Augustine to expound Genesis "not
by the method of affirmation but by that of inquiry" (non adfirmando, sed
quaerendo] , just as long as this method of doubting inquiry "does not
exceed the limits of the Catholic faith. " 37 On the basis of such a pre­
established harmony between biblical faith and Greek reason, Calcidius
could link the martyrdom of Socrates with those of Isaiah and Jeremiah,3 8
just as Boethius could honor Socrates as a martyr.39 For, as he declared at
the conclusion of another tractate, in a summary statement of his program
of faith in search of understanding, the task of his philosophical theology
was to " furnish some fitting support in argument to an article which
stands quite firmly by itself on the foundation of Faith. "40
The article of faith he had in mind in those words, which had first been
established by authority and was binding on that ground but which was
now also to be examined by reason and philosophy, was the doctrine of
the One God as Trinity; "the Trinity consists," as Boethius defined it, " in
plurality of Persons, the unity in simplicity of substance. " 4 1 On this
dogma, according to Boethius, it was obligatory to adhere to " the lan­
guage of the Church " [ ecclesiasticus loquendi usus] and to obey "the
decision of ecclesiastical usage " [ecclesiasticae locutionis arbitrium] .42
Boethius was probably making not more than a slight allusion to this
doctrine when, in the Consolation of Philosophy, discussing the relation
between sufficiency, power, and " respect " [reuerentia] , he proposed that
"we judge these three to be one. "43 But if, as scholars now agree, Boethius
is the author of both the Consolation and On the Trinity, so that despite
the notorious silence of the Consolation about Christianity, "the
Christianising reading of the Consolation is one that Boethius himself
3 5.
3 6.
3 7.
38.
39.
40.
4r.
42.
43.
Boet. Div.
Boet. Eut. 6, int., 7 .
Aug. Gen. imp. r .
Cal. Com. 1 7 2 .
Boet. Cons. r P 3 . 9 .
Boet. Trin. 6 .
Boet. Div. 5 5 - 5 7 .
Boet. Eut. 3 , 4.
Boet. Cons. 3 P 9 . 8 ; see also 3 M9 . r 3 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Catholic Rome
Catholic Rome I I7
makes possible by the way in which he writes the book,"44 it is an attrac-
tive application of "the language of the Church" to identify the "everlast-
ing reason" [perpetua ratio] in the opening line of the "Hymn to the
Creator," as well as the "divine reason" [diuina ratio] to which according
to an earlier prose passage of the Consolation the governance of the world
was subject and which was synonymous with "providence,"45 with the
divine and everlasting "ratio" or 6yos, the Second Person of the Trinity,
through whom, according to the Gospel of John, God had created the
world.46 Reciting the Trinitarian creed at the beginning of De Trinitate,
Augustine affirmed, "And this is my faith because this is the Catholic
faith" [Haec et mea fides est quando haec est catholica fides].47 After a
similar recital at the beginning of his early commentary on Genesis (al-
though with a somewhat variant text of the creed), he declared this to be
what "Catholic discipline commands that we believe" and follow in the
interpretation of Genesis.48 Even without such a command, he followed it
also in the interpretation of Timaeus. Augustine invoked the passage in
Timaeus that distinguished between Truth (dX1jELta) and Belief (TQruTLs),
according to which Truth pertained only to Being (oLrta) but not to
Becoming ('yEvEoLs).49 He called the distinction "certainly a valid state-
ment" [profecto uera sententia] and applied it to Christ as Truth and as
"eternity," who had referred to knowing the Trinity when he said, "This is
eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ, whom
thou hast sent."s0 That passage from Timaeus was, with others, evidence
for the truth of the statement of Paul that the "invisible attributes" of God
were "visible in the things he has made," but it was also evidence for the
inadequacy of "philosophizing without the Mediator, that is, without
Christ the man."51s Thus in Christian New Rome and in Catholic Rome,
the familiar warning of Timaeus, "To discover the Maker and Father of
this Universe were a task indeed; and having discovered Him, to declare
44. Chadwick 1981, 222. Many long-standing questions on this issue have been laid to
rest by Chadwick's book, which, as Lerer (1985, 10io) observes, "successfully establishes
[Boethius's] place in early church history."
45. Boet. Cons. IP6.zo, 4P6.9. On providence, see Ambr. Hex. 3.17.71 and Scheible
1972, 184-87.
46. Jn. i:3, knowable also by reason (Aug. Conf. 7.9.13-14).
47. Aug. Trin. 1.5.7.
48. Aug. Gen. imp. i.
49. Pl. Ti. z9C-D; Cic. Ti. 3.8.
50. Aug. Trin. 4.18.24; Jn. 17:3.
51. Aug. Trin. 13.19.24, quoting Rom. I:zo and I Tmin. z:5.
117
makes possible by the way in which he writes the book, "44 it is an attrac­
tive application of "the language of the Church " to identify the "everlast­
ing reason" [perpetua ratio] in the opening line of the "Hymn to the
Creator, " as well as the "divine reason" [di uina ratio] to which according
to an earlier prose passage of the Consolation the governance of the world
was subject and which was synonymous with " providence,"45 with the
divine and everlasting "ratio " or A.Oyos, the Second Person of the Trinity,
through whom, according to the Gospel of John, God had created the
world.46 Reciting the Trinitarian creed at the beginning of De Trinitate,
Augustine affirmed, "And this is my faith because this is the Catholic
faith" [Haec et mea fides est quando haec est catholica fides] .47 After a
similar recital at the beginning of his early commentary on Genesis ( al­
though with a somewhat variant text of the creed), he declared this to be
what " Catholic discipline commands that we believe" and follow in the
interpretation of Genesis. 48 Even without such a command, he followed it
also in the interpretation of Timaeus. Augustine invoked the passage in
Timaeus that distinguished between Truth (cL\�0E La) and Belief (rr(ans ),
according to which Truth pertained only to Being (oua(a) but not to
Becoming (yEVEOLS ) .49 He called the distinction "certainly a valid state­
ment" [profecto uera sentential and applied it to Christ as Truth and as
"eternity, " who had referred to knowing the Trinity when he said, "This is
eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ, whom
thou hast sent. " so That passage from Timaeus was, with others, evidence
for the truth of the statement of Paul that the "invisible attributes " of God
were "visible in the things he has made," but it was also evidence for the
inadequacy of "philosophizing without the Mediator, that is, without
Christ the man. "5 1 Thus in Christian New Rome and in Catholic Rome,
the familiar warning of Timaeus, "To discover the Maker and Father of
this Universe were a task indeed; and having discovered Him, to declare
44. Chadwick 1 9 8 1 , 222. Many long-standing questions on this issue have been laid to
rest by Chadwick's book, which, as Lerer ( 1 9 8 5 , l o ) observes, " successfully establishes
[Boethius's] place in early church history. "
4 5 . Boet. Cons. l P6. 20, 4P6.9 . On providence, see Ambr. Hex. 3 . 1 7 . 7 1 and Scheible
1972, 1 84 - 8 7 .
46. Jn. 1 : 3 , knowable also b y reason (Aug. Con(. 7 .9 . 1 3 - 1 4 ) .
4 7 . Aug. Trin. i . 5 . 7.
48. Aug. Gen. imp. I .
4 9 . Pl. Ti. 29C-D; Cic. Ti. 3 . 8 .
5 0 . Aug. Trin. 4 . 1 8 . 24; Jn. 1 7 : 3 .
5 i . Aug. Trin. 1 3 . 1 9 . 24, quoting Rom. 1 : 20 and I Tm. 2 : 5 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
118
ii 8 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
Him unto all men were a thing impossible,"52 had been quoted over and
over again in opposition to polytheism (for example, by Justin Martyr,
Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius) and
would go on proving to be useful.53
But because, conversely, "in our Mediator are hidden all the treasures
of wisdom and of knowledge," as the protection both against the seduc-
tiveness of "false philosophy" and against the terrors of "the superstition
of false religion," thus in a polemical double stroke both against the
materialistic philosophy that Lucretius had espoused and against the pa-
gan superstition that he had attacked,54 there could also be an authentic
wisdom and a true philosophy, celebrated by Plato as the love of God.55
Plato's teaching that "philosophers must involve themselves in political
affairs" had induced Boethius to "apply in the practice of public admin-
istration what I learned from [philosophy] in the seclusion of my private
leisure," for it was God himself who had "set [philosophy] in the minds of
philosophers."S56 The supreme embodiment of Plato's ideal of the
philosopher-king had been Solomon, the king who was a philosopher and
the inspired writer of four philosophical books of the Bible.57 Therefore
"the identification of the Boethian Philosophia with the Biblical Wisdom"
became a common practice among medieval readers of the Consolation.58
They read the personified Philosophia who spoke in Boethius's Consola-
tion of Philosophy in the light of the personified Sophia who spoke in
Solomon's Book of Proverbs and Book of Wisdom, which had in turn
been taken by Calcidius to be in agreement with the claim in Plato's
Timaeus that Sophia had been present at the creation.59 Such an identi-
fication would seem all the more plausible because of Philosophia's direct
quotation from Wisdom 8:i, in which, Boethius said, "not only the con-
clusion, the sum of your arguments, delight me, but much more the very
words you use [multo magis haec ipsa quibus uteris uerba]," presumably
because they came directly from the Bible.60 Accordingly, Augustine re-
52. P1. Ti. z8C; Cic. Ti. z.6.
53. Nock 1962, 79-86; see the partial catalog in Geffcken 1907, 174-75.
54. Aug. Gen. litt. 1.z1; Col. 2:8.
55. Aug. Civ. 8.11.
56. Boet. Cons. IP4.6-8; cf. Pl. Ti. 47A-E.
57. Ambr. Exc. Sat. 2.30-3 1.
58. Troncarelli 1987, 113.
59. Cal. Comrn. 276.
6o. Boet. Cons. 3P12.63-68; Wis. 8:1. Chadwick (1982, 237-38) points out that this
biblical reference "enforces a doctrine of natural theology, not revealed."
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
Him unto all men were a thing impossible,"S2 had been quoted over and
over again in opposition to polytheism (for example, by Justin Martyr,
Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius) and
would go on proving to be useful.S3
But because, conversely, " in our Mediator are hidden all the treasures
of wisdom and of knowledge, " as the protection both against the seduc­
tiveness of "false philosophy" and against the terrors of " the superstition
of false religion," thus in a polemical double stroke both against the
materialistic philosophy that Lucretius had espoused and against the pa­
gan superstition that he had attacked, s 4 there could also be an authentic
wisdom and a true philosophy, celebrated by Plato as the love of God.SS
Plato's teaching that "philosophers must involve themselves in political
affairs " had induced Boethius to " apply in the practice of public admin­
istration what I learned from [philosophy] in the seclusion of my private
leisure," for it was God himself who had " set [philosophy] in the minds of
philosophers. " S6 The supreme embodiment of Plato's ideal of the
philosopher-king had been Solomon, the king who was a philosopher and
the inspired writer of four philosophical books of the Bible.S7 Therefore
"the identification of the Boethian Philosophia with the Biblical Wisdom"
became a common practice among medieval readers of the Consolation.5 8
They read the personified Philosophia who spoke in Boethius's Consola­
tion of Philosophy in the light of the personified Sophia who spoke in
Solomon's Book of Proverbs and Book of Wisdom, which had in turn
been taken by Calcidius to be in agreement with the claim in Plato's
Timaeus that Sophia had been present at the creation. s 9 Such an identi­
fication would seem all the more plausible because of Philosophia's direct
quotation from Wisdom 8 : 1 , in which, Boethius said, " not only the con­
clusion, the sum of your arguments, delight me, but much more the very
words you use [multo magis haec ipsa quibus uteris uerba], " presumably
because they came directly from the Bible.60 Accordingly, Augustine re5 2. Pl. Ti. 28C; Cic. Ti. 2.6.
5 3 . Nock 1 9 62, 79-86; see the partial catalog in Geffcken 1907, 1 7 4 - 7 5 .
5 4 . Aug. Gen. litt. i . 2 1 ; Col. 2 : 8 .
5 5 · Aug. Civ. 8 . 1 I .
5 6. Boet. Cons. lP4.6-8; cf. Pl. Ti. 47A-E.
5 7 . Ambr. Exe. Sat. 2 . 3 0-3 I .
5 8 . Troncarelli 1 9 87, 1 1 3 .
5 9 . Cal. Com. 276.
60. Boet. Cons. 3 P 1 2 . 6 3 -68; Wis. 8 : I . Chadwick ( 1 9 82, 2 3 7- 3 8 ) points out that this
biblical reference "enforces a doctrine of natural theology, not revealed."
l( H I G
P� ES S
Catholic Rome
Catholic Rome ii9
peatedly utilized Wisdom as the key to Genesis, including that same pas-
sage, Wisdom 8:i, to interpret Genesis I:24-2z5.61 Both Sophia and Phi-
losophia spoke with a divine authority, inspiring "awe."62 Philosophia
had the authority and ability, according to Boethius, "to unfurl the causes
of hidden things [latentium rerum causas euoluere] and to unfold expla-
nations veiled in mist."63 She urged human reason to press as far as its
limits would permit, but she admonished that it was "most just that
human reason should submit to the divine mind."64 That dual function of
reason made the practice of philosophy and the adherence to traditional
Trinitarian orthodoxy, and hence the interpretation of Timaeus and the
interpretation of Genesis, neither identical nor incompatible.
Creator of Heaven and Earth
The hymn of Boethius was addressed to the "Creator of heaven and earth"
[terrarum caelique sator], celebrated in the next book as "artifex."6s The
designation "heaven and earth" was shared by Genesis and other cos-
mogonies, including that of Lucretius, and was, Augustine saw, a syn-
1 19
peatedly utilized Wisdom as the key to Genesis, including that same pas­
sage, Wisdom 8 : 1 , to interpret Genesis 1 : 24 - 2 5 .6 1 Both Sophia and Phi­
losophia spoke with a divine authority, inspiring "awe. " 62 Philosophia
had the authority and ability, according to Boethius, "to unfurl the causes
of hidden things [latentium rerum causas euoluere] and to unfold expla­
nations veiled in mist. " 63 She urged human reason to press as far as its
limits would permit, but she admonished that it was " most j ust that
human reason should submit to the divine mind. "64 That dual function of
reason made the practice of philosophy and the adherence to traditional
Trinitarian orthodoxy, and hence the interpretation of Timaeus and the
interpretation of Genesis, neither identical nor incompatible.
onym for "universe."66 An earlier hymn in the Consolation was addressed
Creator of Heaven and Earth
to the "Maker of the circle of the stars, / Seated on your eternal throne, /
Spinner of the whirling heavens, / Binding the constellations by your
law";67 and a later hymn praised "the Maker of this great universe [magni
conditor orbis].... / What is, what has been, and what is to come, / In
one swift mental stab he sees."68 In a direct echo of the statement of "the
supreme originating principle of Becoming and the Cosmos" in
Timaeus-that God "was good, and in him that is good no envy ariseth
ever concerning anything"69-and also in an echo of Genesis as it had
come to be read,70 Philosophia, paraphrasing an Augustinian argument
(and anticipating the Anselmic ontological argument), asserted, "That
God, the principle of all things, is good is proved by the common concept
of all men's minds; for since nothing better than God can be conceived of,
61. Aug. Gen. litt. 3.12; Aug. Gen. imp. 15.
6z. Boet. Cons. IPI.1.
63. Boet. Cons. 4P6.I, apparently an echo of Lucr. 5.774-75.
64. Boet. Cons. 5P5.11.
65. Boet. Cons. 3M9.z, 4P6.Iz. See Lerer 1985, 208 nn.
66. Aug. Gen. litt. 5.2; cf. Pl. Ti. 28B and Waszink 1964, 56-57.
67. Boet. Cons. IM5.i-4.
68. Boet. Cons. 5Mz.7, 11-12.
69. Pl. Ti. 29D-E; Cic. Ti. 3-9-
70. Phil. Opif. z1.
The hymn of Boethius was addressed to the " Creator of heaven and earth"
[terrarum caelique sator] , celebrated in the next book as " artifex. "65 The
designation " heaven and earth" was shared by Genesis and other cos­
mogonies, including that of Lucretius, and was, Augustine saw, a syn­
onym for "universe . " 66 An earlier hymn in the Consolation was addressed
to the " Maker of the circle of the stars, I Seated on your eternal throne, I
Spinner of the whirling heavens, I Binding the constellations by your
law" ;67 and a later hymn praised "the Maker of this great universe [ magni
conditor orbis] . . . . I What is, what has been, and what is to come, I In
one swift mental stab he sees . " 6 8 In a direct echo of the statement of "the
supreme originating principle of Becoming and the Cosmos " in
Timaeus-that God "was good, and in him that is good no envy ariseth
ever concerning anything" 69-and also in an echo of Genesis as it had
come to be read,70 Philosophia, paraphrasing an Augustinian argument
( and anticipating the Anselmic ontological argument), asserted, "That
God, the principle of all things, is good is proved by the common concept
of all men's minds; for since nothing better than God can be conceived of,
6r.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
Aug. Gen. litt. 3 . l 2; Aug. Gen. imp. l 5 .
Boet. Cons. l P 1 . l .
Boet. Cons. 4P6. 1 , apparently a n echo o f Luer. 5 . 774 - 7 5 .
Boet. Cons. 5P 5 . 1 r .
Boet. Cons. 3 M9.2, 4P6. 1 2 . See Lerer 1 9 8 5 , 208 nn.
Aug. Gen. litt. 5.2; cf. Pl. Ti. 2 8 B and Waszink 1 9 64, 5 6- 5 7 .
Boet. Cons. lM 5 . 1 - 4.
Boet. Cons. 5M2.7, 1 1 - 1 2.
Pl. Ti. 29D-E; Cic. Ti. 3 .9 .
Phil. O pif 2 l .
l( H I G
P� ES S
1 20
i zo What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
who can doubt that that, than which nothing is better, is good?"71 For, as
Augustine had summarized both cosmogonies, "Because God is both om-
nipotent [Genesis] and good [Timaeus], he made all things to be alto-
gether good [Genesis and Timaeus]."72
Elsewhere Augustine strove to harmonize Timaeus and Genesis on this
point. He drew a direct parallel between the repeated refrain of Genesis,
"God saw that it was good,"73 and the formula of Timaeus that "when
the Father that engendered it perceived it in motion and alive, a thing of
joy to the eternal gods, He too rejoiced."74 Commenting on these words
of Timaeus, he added, "Plato too was not, when he said this, so foolish as
to suppose that God's happiness was made greater by surprise at his new
creation"; to the contrary, Plato "merely wished to show by his words that
the work won the approval of the artist as much when finished [iam
factum] as when it was but a design for skilful execution [in arte facien-
dum]."75 In Timaeus Plato had said that there were three questions, "the
Becoming, that 'Wherein' it becomes, and the source 'Wherefrom' the
Becoming is copied and produced" [TO6 v yLtyv6Oevov, To ! &V T y.YVE-
Tat, TO 8! 60EV ct0ootolopEvov b ETaL TO yLyvO[Evov].76 It was formally
similar but substantively quite different when Augustine raised three ques-
tions or "three chief matters concerning a work of creation that had to be
reported to us and that it behoved us to know, namely who made it, by
what means, and why." All three were answered in the single verse "God
said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light. And God saw that the light
was good."'77 To the three questions, therefore, Genesis answered: "So if
we ask, 'Who made it?' the answer is 'It was God.' If we ask, 'By what
means?' the answer is 'God said, "Let it be"; and it was.' If we ask, 'Why?'
the answer is 'Because it is good.' " Although both Genesis and Timaeus
were in agreement on this point that the world was "good," Timaeus, not
Genesis, in so many words had made this "goodness" an answer to Au-
gustine's question of "why," when it identified this as "the Cause where-
for He that constructed it constructed Becoming and the All: He was
good, and in him that is good no envy ariseth ever concerning anything;
71. Boet. Cons. 3P.Io.7.
72. Aug. Gen. litt. 4.16.
73. Gn. 1:4, 1o, 1z, 18, 21, 25, 30.
74. Pl. Ti. 37C; according to Giomini 1975, zz8, Augustine is not quoting from
Cicero's translation here.
75. Aug. Civ. 11.21; cf. Ambr. Hex. 2.5.19-21.
76. Pl. Ti. 5oC.
77. Gn. 1:3.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
who can doubt that that, than which nothing is better, is good ? " 71 For, as
Augustine had summarized both cosmogonies, " Because God is both om­
nipotent [ Genesis] and good [Timaeus] , he made all things to be alto­
gether good [ Genesis and Timaeus] . "72
Elsewhere Augustine strove to harmonize Timaeus and Genesis on this
point. He drew a direct parallel between the repeated refrain of Genesis,
" God saw that it was good, " 73 and the formula of Timaeus that "when
the Father that engendered it perceived it in motion and alive, a thing of
j oy to the eternal gods, He too rejoiced. " 74 Commenting on these words
of Timaeus, he added, "Plato too was not, when he said this, so foolish as
to suppose that God's happiness was made greater by surprise at his new
creation " ; to the contrary, Plato " merely wished to show by his words that
the work won the approval of the artist as much when finished [iam
factum] as when it was but a design for skilful execution [in arte facien­
dum] . " 75 In Timaeus Plato had said that there were three questions, "the
Becoming, that 'Wherein' it becomes, and the source 'Wherefrom' the
Becoming is copied and produced" [TO µEv )"L yvoµEvov, TO 8 ! EV 4) y( )"VE ­
Tm, TO 8 ! 09Ev acpoµmouµEVOV cpUETat TO )"LyvoµEvov] . 76 It was formally
similar but substantively quite different when Augustine raised three ques­
tions or "three chief matters concerning a work of creation that had to be
reported to us and that it behoved us to know, namely who made it, by
what means, and why. " All three were answered in the single verse " God
said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light. And God saw that the light
was good. " 77 To the three questions, therefore, Genesis answered: "So if
we ask, 'Who made it? ' the answer is 'It was God.' If we ask, 'By what
means ?' the answer is 'God said, "Let it be " ; and it was.' If we ask, 'Why ?'
the answer is 'Because it is good. "' Although both Genesis and Timaeus
were in agreement on this point that the world was " good, " Timaeus, not
Genesis, in so many words had made this "goodness" an answer to Au­
gustine's question of "why, " when it identified this as "the Cause where­
for He that constructed it constructed Becoming and the All: He was
good, and in him that is good no envy ariseth ever concerning anything;
7i.
72.
73.
74.
Cicero's
75.
76.
77.
Boet. Cons. 3 P. 1 0.7.
Aug. Gen. litt. 4 . 1 6 .
Gn. 1 :4, ro, 1 2, 1 8 , 2 1 , 2 5 , 30.
Pl. Ti. 3 7C; according to Giomini 1975, 228, Augustine is not quoting from
translation here.
Aug. Civ. r r . 2 1 ; cf. Ambr. Hex. 2 . 5 . 1 9 -2 i .
Pl. Ti. 50C.
Gn. 1 : 3 .
D 1 1 1 ze
T H E U I E R S lli
� l( H I G
P ES S
Catholic Rome
Catholic Rome i2i
and being devoid of envy He desired that all should be, as far as possible,
like unto Himself."78 Augustine immediately went on to link the testi-
mony of Plato's Timaeus with this exegesis of Genesis: "Plato too gives
this as the proper reason, beyond all other reasons, for the world's cre-
ation, namely, that good works might be created by a good God."79 In
attempting to account for this striking harmony between Genesis and
Timaeus, Augustine considered several possible explanations, without
making a specific choice between them at this point:
He [Plato] may have read our passage, or may have got knowledge
of it from those who had read it, or else by his superlatively keen
insight [acerrimo ingenio] he gained "vision of the unseen truths of
121
and being devoid of envy He desired that all should be, as far as possible,
like unto Himself. " 78 Augustine immediately went on to link the testi­
mony of Plato's Timaeus with this exegesis of Genesis: "Plato too gives
this as the proper reason, beyond all other reasons, for the world's cre­
ation, namely, that good works might be created by a good God. " 79 In
attempting to account for this striking harmony between Genesis and
Timaeus, Augustine considered several possible explanations, without
making a specific choice between them at this point:
God through understanding of God's creation," or he too may have
learned of these truths from such men as had gained vision of
them.80
That harmonization between Timaeus and Genesis was in keeping with
the Catholic way, which, according to Boethius, was to "reconcile faith
and reason."81
In an earlier treatment by Augustine of the relation between Timaeus
and Genesis there were likewise three such issues for reconciliation.82
Quoting the opening verses of Genesis, he found that the parallels with
Timaeus had been strong enough to give rise to the theory of various
Jewish and Christian thinkers that Plato had read the Genesis cosmogony.
He [Plato] may have read our passage, or may have got knowledge
of it from those who had read it, or else by his superlatively keen
insight [ acerrimo ingenio] he gained "vision of the unseen truths of
God through understanding of God's creation," or he too may have
learned of these truths from such men as had gained vision of
them. 80
Augustine's answer to this theory was to argue on the basis of chronology,
here in book 8 of the City of God, that Plato could not have heard the
prophet Jeremiah or had access to the Septuagint Genesis; he modified this
somewhat in book z .83 But he did not seek in either passage to demon-
strate from a comparison of the two texts how dissonant they were. On
the contrary, as he examined another chronology, that of the creation
narrative in Genesis i, he took the words of Genesis 2, "This is the book
of the creation of heaven and earth, when the day was made" [Hic est liber
creaturae caeli et terrae, cum factus est dies], to mean that the six days
were intended to refer not to six discrete periods of time but to the estab-
78. P1. Ti. 29D-E.
79. P1. Ti. 28A; Cic. Ti. 3.9.
80. Aug. Civ. i1.21, quoting Rom. I:zo.
81. Boet. Div.
82. Aug. Civ. 8.11ii.
83. Aug. Civ. 11.1.
That harmonization between Timaeus and Genesis was in keeping with
the Catholic way, which, according to Boethius, was to "reconcile faith
and reason. " 8 1
In a n earlier treatment b y Augustine o f the relation between Timaeus
and Genesis there were likewise three such issues for reconciliation. 82
Quoting the opening verses of Genesis, he found that the parallels with
Timaeus had been strong enough to give rise to the theory of various
Jewish and Christian thinkers that Plato had read the Genesis cosmogony.
Augustine's answer to this theory was to argue on the basis of chronology,
here in book 8 of the City of God, that Plato could not have heard the
prophet Jeremiah or had access to the Septuagint Genesis; he modified this
somewhat in book r r . 83 But he did not seek in either passage to demon­
strate from a comparison of the two texts how dissonant they were. On
the contrary, as he examined another chronology, that of the creation
narrative in Genesis r , he took the words of Genesis 2, "This is the book
of the creation of heaven and earth, when the day was made " [Hie est liber
creaturae caeli et terrae, cum factus est dies], to mean that the six days
were intended to refer not to six discrete periods of time but to the estab78.
79.
80.
8I.
82.
83.
Pl. Ti. 29D-E.
Pl. Ti. 28A; Cic. Ti. 3 .9.
Aug. Civ. l I . 2 1 , quoting Rom. 1 : 20.
Boet. Div.
Aug. Civ. 8 . 1 I .
Aug. Civ. l i . 2 I .
1 g 1 i ze
li HI E llJ I E R S lli
�
P ES S
122
1izz What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
lishment of cosmic order.84 Although the six days were not literal days
and God had "created all things simultaneously," the creation recounted
in the hexaemeron was "nevertheless not therefore without order."85ss The
idea of cosmic order was not alien to the Genesis account, particularly
with the use of the term KocilOS in the Septuagint;86 nevertheless, the
centrality of the concept of order, and therefore the substitution of order
for chronology as an explanation of why Genesis spoke of six days of
creation, was evidence not for Plato's having read Genesis but for Au-
gustine's having read Timaeus, with its declaration that the Creator,
"when he took over all that was visible, seeing that it was not in a state of
rest but in a state of discordant and disorderly motion, brought it into
order out of disorder."87
A second point of contact between the two cosmogonies, according to
Augustine, was the theory of the four elements.88 The catalog of the
elements from Timaeus in Wisdom89 provided Augustine with a justifica-
tion for repeatedly invoking the elements in his exegesis of Genesis.90 It
was a Catholic consensus concerning "the followers of Plato" that "the
Hebrews agree with them" as regards the distinction between the "ra-
tional soul" [anima rationabilis] and "matter" [silua].91 The Book of
Wisdom had, moreover, spoken of God's having "created the world out of
formless matter" [KTLtaca TOV KOG1Ov a t6p4ov iXls], a statement that
seemed to be based on Timaeus.92 According to Augustine in all three of
his commentaries on Genesis, however, this "formless matter" could not
be said to have been uncreated, and both it and the things that had form
had been created simultaneously, the priority of the formless matter being
a matter "not of time, but of origin."93 The "formless matter" of the
Book of Wisdom was not exempted from the all-inclusive paraphrase of
the first two chapters of Genesis by the prologue to the Gospel of John:
"All things were made through him," the Logos.94
84. Gn. z:4; Aug. Gen. litt. 5.-1.
85. Aug. Gen. litt. 3.32-33.
86. Gn. z:1.
87. P1. Ti. 3oA.
88. P1. Ti. 3IB, 3zB; Ambr. Hex. 1.8.30.
89. Wis. 13:2.
90. Aug. Gen. imp. 4; Aug. Gen. litt. 2.3. See Pepin 1964, 432-33.
91. Cal. Com. 300; cf. Switalski 1902, 45-48.
92. Wis. 11:17; P1. Ti. 5oD-51A.
93. Aug. Gen. Man. 1.7.11-12; Aug. Gen. imp. 3; Aug. Gen. litt. 1.14-15-
94. Aug. Gen. litt. 5-17; Jn. 1:3.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
lishment of cosmic order. 84 Although the six days were not literal days
and God had "created all things simultaneously, " the creation recounted
in the hexaemeron was " nevertheless not therefore without order. " 85 The
idea of cosmic order was not alien to the Genesis account, particularly
with the use of the term Koaµos in the Septuagint;86 nevertheless, the
centrality of the concept of order, and therefore the substitution of order
for chronology as an explanation of why Genesis spoke of six days of
creation, was evidence not for Plato's having read Genesis but for Au­
gustine's having read Timaeus, with its declaration that the Creator,
"when he took over all that was visible, seeing that it was not in a state of
rest but in a state of discordant and disorderly motion, brought it into
order out of disorder. " 87
A second point of contact between the two cosmogonies, according to
Augustine, was the theory of the four elements. 8 8 The catalog of the
elements from Timaeus in Wisdom89 provided Augustine with a justifica­
tion for repeatedly invoking the elements in his exegesis of Genesis. 90 It
was a Catholic consensus concerning "the followers of Plato " that "the
Hebrews agree with them " as regards the distinction between the "ra­
tional soul " [anima rationabilis] and "matter" [silua] .91 The Book of
Wisdom had, moreover, spoken of God's having "created the world out of
formless matter" [KTL(JQ(JQ TOV Koaµov E� aµ6pcpou UAT]S] , a statement that
seemed to be based on Timaeus. 92 According to Augustine in all three of
his commentaries on Genesis, however, this "formless matter" could not
be said to have been uncreated, and both it and the things that had form
had been created simultaneously, the priority of the formless matter being
a matter "not of time, but of origin. " 93 The "formless matter" of the
Book of Wisdom was not exempted from the all-inclusive paraphrase of
the first two chapters of Genesis by the prologue to the Gospel of John:
"All things were made through him, " the Logos.94
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
9r.
92.
93.
94.
Gn. 2:4; Aug. Gen. litt. 5 . r .
Aug. Gen. litt. 3 . 3 2- 3 3 .
Gn. 2 : r .
Pl. Ti. 3 0A.
Pl. Ti. 3 1 B, 3 2B; Ambr. Hex. r . 8 . 3 0 .
Wis. 1 3 : 2.
Aug. Gen. imp. 4; Aug. Gen. litt. 2. 3 . See Pepin 1 9 64, 4 3 2-3 3 .
Cal. Com. 3 00; cf. Switalski 1 902, 4 5 - 4 8 .
Wis. n : 1 7; Pl. Ti. 5 0D-5 1 A.
Aug. G en. Man. i . 7. 1 1 - 1 2; Aug. Gen. imp. 3; Aug. Gen. Litt. i . 1 4 - 1 5 .
Aug. Gen. Litt. 5 . 1 7; Jn. 1 : 3 .
I
li HI E ll.INI E R S IT
I lze
F
PR ES S
N
Catholic Rome
Catholic Rome 123
That same passage enabled Catholic exegesis, in its treatment of the
question "From what did God create the world?" to draw on another of
the component ideas of Plato's metaphysics, the doctrine of Forms, as it
had appeared also in Timaeus. For the words in John meant that "the very
Wisdom of God [ipsa Dei sapientia], through whom all things were made,
knew those divine, unchangeable, eternal reasons even before they were
made."95 This passage likewise implied that the angels, as "the chief
creatures" [principaliter conditi], had also known the Forms or "eternal
reasons" of the entire created universe in that very Word of God.96 Thus
the light referred to by the opening words of God in creation preexisted
"in the Word of God according to reason, that is, in the coeternal Wisdom
of God," and only afterward came into existence in the realm of nature.97
The omnipotence of God the Creator, which, Augustine said on the basis
of Timaeus, "according to Plato, preserves both things that had a begin-
ning from perishing and things that were bound together from disin-
tegrating,"98 was manifested in the resurrection of the body. For, as Au-
gustine continued on the basis of Timaeus, "the lesser gods, who were
charged by Plato with the creation of man as well as of the other terrestrial
animals were able, as he declares, to remove from fire the property of
burning, while leaving that of brightness to flash through the eyes."'99
Arguing from Timaeus but for a distinctive teaching of Scripture and the
church, Augustine concluded, "If then the will and power of the supreme
God can [do all of this], as Plato himself has allowed,. . . shall we hesitate
to allow him to abolish putrefaction of the flesh of any man on whom he
bestows immortality, while leaving the properties intact, and to retain the
harmony of design among its members [congruentiam figurae mem-
brorumque], while removing the sluggishness of its weight?"1oo
The third and most striking point of harmony that Augustine found
between Genesis and Timaeus-a point so striking that he acknowledged
it "brings me virtually to an admission that Plato was not without knowl-
edge of those books" of Moses, just as also elsewhere he admitted the
possibility that Plato "may have read" Genesis0lt-was a continuation of
95. Aug. Gen. litt. 5.13; see Wolfson 1956, 282-83.
96. Aug. Gen. litt. 4.24.
97. Aug. Gen. litt. z.8.
98. Pl. Ti. 41A-B.
99. P1. Ti. 45B; according to Giomini 1975, 2zz8, Augustine is not quoting from
Cicero's translation here.
Ioo. Aug. Civ. 13.18.
101. Aug. Civ. 11.z1.
1 23
That same passage enabled Catholic exegesis, in its treatment of the
question " From what did God create the world ? " to draw on another of
the component ideas of Plato's metaphysics, the doctrine of Forms, as it
had appeared also in Timaeus. For the words in john meant that "the very
Wisdom of God [ipsa Dei sapientia] , through whom all things were made,
knew those divine, unchangeable, eternal reasons even before they were
made. " 95 This passage likewise implied that the angels, as "the chief
creatures" [principaliter conditi], had also known the Forms or "eternal
reasons" of the entire created universe in that very Word of God.96 Thus
the light referred to by the opening words of God in creation preexisted
" in the Word of God according to reason, that is, in the coeternal Wisdom
of God," and only afterward came into existence in the realm of nature. 97
The omnipotence of God the Creator, which, Augustine said on the basis
of Timaeus, " according to Plato, preserves both things that had a begin­
ning from perishing and things that were bound together from disin­
tegrating, " 98 was manifested in the resurrection of the body. For, as Au­
gustine continued on the basis of Timaeus, "the lesser gods, who were
charged by Plato with the creation of man as well as of the other terrestrial
animals were able, as he declares, to remove from fire the property of
burning, while leaving that of brightness to flash through the eyes. " 99
Arguing from Timaeus but for a distinctive teaching of Scripture and the
church, Augustine concluded, " If then the will and power of the supreme
God can [do all of this], as Plato himself has allowed, . . . shall we hesitate
to allow him to abolish putrefaction of the flesh of any man on whom he
bestows immortality, while leaving the properties intact, and to retain the
harmony of design among its members [congruentiam figurae mem­
brorumque] , while removing the sluggishness of its weight ? " lOO
The third and most striking point of harmony that Augustine found
between Genesis and Timaeus-a point so striking that he acknowledged
it " brings me virtually to an admission that Plato was not without knowl­
edge of those books " of Moses, just as also elsewhere he admitted the
possibility that Plato " may have read" Genesis101 -was a continuation of
9 5 . Aug. Gen. litt. 5 . 1 3 ; see Wolfson 1 9 5 6, 2 8 2 -8 3 .
9 6 . Aug. Gen. litt. 4.24.
97. Aug. Gen. litt. 2.8.
98. Pl. Ti. 4 1 A-B.
99. Pl. Ti. 4 5 B; according to Giomini 1 9 7 5 , 228, Augustine is not quoting from
Cicero's translation here.
roo. Aug. Civ. 1 3 . 1 8 .
r o r . Aug. Civ. r r . 2 r .
l( H I G
P� ES S
1 24
124 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
the process by which the God of Moses had come to be seen as the 6 Sv of
Plato, as a result of which there was a clear agreement between Plato's
doctrine of Being and the self-manifestation of God to Moses from the
burning bush: "I am the One who am" [Ego sum qui sum].102 By drawing
the ontological distinction between the Creator and all creatures, the
creation narrative in the First Book of Moses necessarily implied that
when this divine self-manifestation in the Second Book of Moses used the
verb "to be," it was intended "in a vastly different sense" [longe aliter]
from the way it was used when it was applied to any creature.103 The
difference consisted in this: "God is oloLa or essence, for he is and is
especially that from which proceeds the being of all things. He is oi6o;ts,
i.e., subsistence."104 The general metaphysical principle that "being and
unity are convertible terms, and whatever is one, is" [esse enim atque
unum conuertitur et quodcumque unum est, est], while applicable also to
other doctrines,105s applied preeminently to the being of God and also to
the being of God as Trinity. This biblical doctrine of Being was at the same
time a "tenet [which] Plato strenuously upheld and most earnestly urged
upon others." But Augustine added that he did not know "whether this
statement can be found anywhere in the writings of those who preceded
Plato," except of course in the word from the burning bush itself.106
Such a clarification of the verb "to be" was indispensable in Catholic
language about the Trinity, as Boethius explained when in the pro-
legomena to his De Trinitate he provided the definition that God "is very
being and the source of being" [esse ipsum est et ex qua esse est] and that
therefore "the divine substance" [diuina substantia] was pure form.107
But this had to be defined even more precisely, because although "substan-
tia" was the first among the "ten categories which can be universally
predicated of all things," it could be applied to God only if it was specified
that "substance in Him is not really substantial but supersubstantial"
[substantia in illo non est uere substantia sed ultra substantiam],0lo8 so
that the normal language of affirmation did not properly apply to tran-
scendent reality. The incorporation of "substance" or "being" as oioca
into the 6ooo0Lo; of the Creed of Nicaea, together with the distinction
2o. Ex. 3:14.
103. Aug. Gen. litt. 5.16.
104. Boet. Eut. 3.
105. Boet. Eut. 4.
io6. Aug. Civ. 8.11ii.
107. Boet. Trin. z.
io8. Boet. Trin. 4.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
the process by which the God of Moses had come to be seen as the o wv of
Plato, as a result of which there was a clear agreement between Plato's
doctrine of Being and the self-manifestation of God to Moses from the
burning bush: "I am the One who am" [Ego sum qui sum] . 102 By drawing
the ontological distinction between the Creator and all creatures, the
creation narrative in the First Book of Moses necessarily implied that
when this divine self-manifestation in the Second Book of Moses used the
verb "to be," it was intended "in a vastly different sense " [longe aliter]
from the way it was used when it was applied to any creature . 1 03 The
difference consisted in this: " God is oua(a or essence, for he is and is
especially that from which proceeds the being of all things. He is oua(waLS',
i.e., subsistence. " l 04 The general metaphysical principle that " being and
unity are convertible terms, and whatever is one, is" [esse enim atque
unum conuertitur et quodcumque unum est, est] , while applicable also to
other doctrines,105 applied preeminently to the being of God and also to
the being of God as Trinity. This biblical doctrine of Being was at the same
time a "tenet [which] Plato strenuously upheld and most earnestly urged
upon others. " But Augustine added that he did not know "whether this
statement can be found anywhere in the writings of those who preceded
Plato," except of course in the word from the burning bush itself. 106
Such a clarification of the verb "to be " was indispensable in Catholic
language about the Trinity, as Boethius explained when in the pro­
legomena to his De Trinitate he provided the definition that God " is very
being and the source of being" [esse ipsum est et ex qua esse est] and that
therefore "the divine substance " [ diuina substantia] was pure form. 1 07
But this had to be defined even more precisely, because although " substan­
tia " was the first among the "ten categories which can be universally
predicated of all things," it could be applied to God only if it was specified
that " substance in Him is not really substantial but supersubstantial "
[substantia in illo non est uere substantia sed ultra substantiam] , 1 08 so
that the normal language of affirmation did not properly apply to tran­
scendent reality. The incorporation of " substance " or " being " as oua[a
into the oµoouaLOS' of the Creed of Nicaea, together with the distinction
ro2.
103.
104.
IO5.
106.
107.
108.
Ex. 3 : 1 4 .
Aug. Gen. litt. 5 . 1 6 .
Boet. Eut. 3 .
Boet. Eut. 4 .
Aug. Civ. 8 . r r .
Boet. Trin. 2.
Boet. Trin. 4 .
I
li HI E ll.INI E R S IT
I lze
F
PR ES S
N
Catholic Rome
Catholic Rome 125
between the one ota a of the Godhead and the three VrroTUE ts of Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, meant that the "ecclesiasticus loquendi usus" was
permeated with the vocabulary of Trinitarian ontology, in the Greek of
New Rome and also in the Latin of Catholic Rome, even though the
relation between the Greek and the Latin vocabulary was sometimes a
source of confusion.109
The Order of Creation
From the understanding of "being" as properly belonging to God the
r25
between the one oua(a of the Godhead and the three U1TOUTclUElS of Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, meant that the "ecclesiasticus loquendi usus " was
permeated with the vocabulary of Trinitarian ontology, in the Greek of
New Rome and also in the Latin of Catholic Rome, even though the
relation between the Greek and the Latin vocabulary was sometimes a
source of confusion.109
Creator alone, and only derivatively to the creation, an important corol-
lary necessarily followed: "That is, which keeps its order" [Est enim quod
The Order of Creation
ordinem retinet].110 As both Timaeus and Genesis, when read together,
defined creation as "bringing order out of disorder,"111 so, too, they both
celebrated the order of creation. In the words of the "Hymn to the Crea-
tor," "Thou, height of beauty, in Thy mind the beauteous world / Dost
bear, and in that ideal likeness shaping it, / Dost order perfect parts a
perfect whole to frame" [Pulchrum pulcherrimus ipse / Mundum mente
gerens similique in imagine formans / Perfectasque iubens perfectum abso-
luere partes].112 So all-pervasive was this order of creation that even "that
which has departed from the rule of this order appointed to it, although it
slips into another condition yet that too is order, so that nothing in the
realm of providence may be left to chance."113 In Genesis God divided
light from darkness (which Augustine had learned through his conflict
with Manichaeism to define negatively, or privatively, as the absence of
light, not positively as a reality on its own), so that "even these privations
[of reality] might have an order of their own"; for "God is not the author
of our faults, but he is the orderer of them."114 For the sake of order,
creation was narrated chronologically, even though it had taken place
simultaneously.
Within the created world, the primary modality of order was time: as
"Creator of the planets and the sky," God had brought "time from time-
lessness."11s Therefore time could be defined by Calcidius as "the sim-
109. Aug. Trin. 5.8.10.
iio. Boet. Cons. 4Pz.36, 4P4.z7.
iii. P1. Ti. 3oA.
i iz. Boet. Cons. 3M9.7-9.
113. Boet. Cons. 4P6.53.
114. Aug. Gen. Man. 1.4.7; Aug. Gen. imp. 5.
115ii. Boet. Cons. 3M9.z-3.
From the understanding of " being" as properly belonging to God the
Creator alone, and only derivatively to the creation, an important corol­
lary necessarily followed: "That is, which keeps its order" [Est enim quod
ordinem retinet] . 1 1° As both Timaeus and Genesis, when read together,
defined creation as " bringing order out of disorder," 1 1 1 so, too, they both
celebrated the order of creation. In the words of the "Hymn to the Crea­
tor," "Thou, height of beauty, in Thy mind the beauteous world I Dost
bear, and in that ideal likeness shaping it, I Dost order perfect parts a
perfect whole to frame " [Pulchrum pulcherrimus ipse I Mundum mente
gerens similique in imagine formans I Perfectasque iubens perfectum abso­
luere partes] . 1 12 So all-pervasive was this order of creation that even "that
which has departed from the rule of this order appointed to it, although it
slips into another condition yet that too is order, so that nothing in the
realm of providence may be left to chance. " l 1 3 In Genesis God divided
light from darkness (which Augustine had learned through his conflict
with Manichaeism to define negatively, or privatively, as the absence of
light, not positively as a reality on its own), so that "even these privations
[of reality] might have an order of their own " ; for " God is not the author
of our faults, but he is the orderer of them. " 1 1 4 For the sake of order,
creation was narrated chronologically, even though it had taken place
simultaneously.
Within the created world, the primary modality of order was time: as
" Creator of the planets and the sky," God had brought "time from time­
lessness. " 1 1 s Therefore time could be defined by Calcidius as "the sim109.
l I O.
l l l.
1 1 2.
113.
l J 4.
l 15.
Aug. Trin . 5 . 8 . ro.
Boet. Cons. 4P2 . 3 6, 4P4 . 27.
Pl. Ti. 3 oA.
Boet. Cons. 3M9.7-9.
Boet. Cons. 4P6. 5 3 .
Aug. Gen. Man. 1 +7; Aug. Gen. imp. 5 .
Boet. Cons. 3 M9.2-3 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
1 26
12z6 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
ulacrum of eternity."116 Both Genesis and Timaeus, each in its own way,
had referred to this creation of time.117 But that reference of Genesis to
the creation of the heavenly bodies on the fourth day for the purpose of
measuring time could not be taken to mean that there had been no time
before.118 Time, too, had been created, as had the angels; and time began
with creation.119 The reference of Timaeus to an existence of the world
before time likewise needed, according to Boethius, to be interpreted
correctly:
Therefore those are not right who, when they hear that Plato
thought this world neither had a beginning in time nor would have
an end, think that in this way the created world is made co-eternal
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
ulacrum of eternity. " 1 1 6 Both Genesis and Timaeus" each in its own way,
had referred to this creation of time. 1 1 7 But that reference of Genesis to
the creation of the heavenly bodies on the fourth day for the purpose of
measuring time could not be taken to mean that there had been no time
before. 1 1 s Time, too, had been created, as had the angels; and time began
with creation. 1 1 9 The reference of Timaeus to an existence of the world
before time likewise needed, according to Boethius, to be interpreted
correctly:
with the Creator. For it is one thing to be drawn out through a life
without bounds, which is what Plato attributes to the world, but it is
a different thing to have embraced at once the whole presence of
boundless life, which it is clear is the property of the divine mind.
Nor should God seem to be more ancient than created things by
some amount of time, but rather by his own simplicity of nature.120
As Boethius argued elsewhere, to say that God "ever is" [semper est]
meant that for God this "ever" had to be taken as "a term of present
time," an eternal Now, "abiding, unmoved, and immovable," which
could not be true of the world.121
In opposition to those who "have regard not to the order of the world
but their own desires" and who as a result "think the freedom to commit
evil and go unpunished for the evil done is a happy thing," it needed to be
emphasized that the order of creation implied the divine moral order.122
Therefore the prayer in the. "Hymn to the Creator" for "light" to
"disperse the clouds of earthly matter's cloying weight," so that the crea-
Therefore those are not right who, when they hear that Plato
thought this world neither had a beginning in time nor would have
an end, think that in this way the created world is made co-eternal
with the Creator. For it is one thing to be drawn out through a life
without bounds, which is what Plato attributes to the world, but it is
a different thing to have embraced at once the whole presence of
boundless life, which it is clear is the property of the divine mind.
Nor should God seem to be more ancient than created things by
some amount of time, but rather by his own simplicity of nature. 120
tures of God could "fix on Thee our mind's unblinded eye,"123 was a
petition not only for the mind to receive intellectual illumination but for
the will to attain moral integrity. The direct correlation between the two
116. Cal. Com. z3; Ladner 1959, 211i n. 34; Pepin 1964, 156 n. i.
117. Gn. 1:14-19; Pl. Ti. 39C; Cic. Ti. 9.32-34.
i18. Aug. Gen. litt. 2.14.
119. Aug. Gen. imp. 3; Aug. Gen. litt. 5.5.
120zo. Boet. Cons. 5P6.9-II. Gruber 1978, 409-o10, cites the parallel of Aug. Civ. 11.4;
also appropriate is Ambr. Hex. 1.1.3.
iz21. Boet. Trin. 4.
122. Boet. Cons. 4P4.z7.
123. Boet. Cons. 3M9.23-25.
As Boethius argued elsewhere, to say that God " ever is" [semper est]
meant that for God this "ever" had to be taken as "a term of present
time," an eternal Now, "abiding, unmoved, and immovable, " which
could not be true of the world. 121
In opposition to those who "have regard not to the order of the world
but their own desires" and who as a result "think the freedom to commit
evil and go unpunished for the evil done is a happy thing, " it needed to be
emphasized that the order of creation implied the divine moral order. 122
Therefore the prayer in the . "Hymn to the Creator" for "light" to
" disperse the clouds of earthly matter's cloying weight, " so that the crea­
tures of God could "fix on Thee our mind's unblinded eye," 123 was a
petition not only for the mind to receive intellectual illumination but for
the will to attain moral integrity. The direct correlation between the two
n 6. Cal. Com. 2 3 ; Ladner 1 9 5 9 , 2 1 1 n. 34; Pepin 1 9 64, 1 5 6 n. r .
1 1 7. Gn. 1 : 1 4 - 1 9 ; Pl. Ti. 39C; Cic. Ti. 9 . 3 2- 3 4 .
n 8 . Aug. Gen. Litt. 2 . 1 4 .
1 1 9 . Aug. Gen. imp. 3 ; Aug. Gen. litt. 5 . 5 .
1 20. Boet. Cons. 5P6.9-1 r . Gruber 1 9 7 8 , 409 - 1 0, cites the parallel o f Aug. Civ. l r .4;
also appropriate is Ambr. Hex. r . r . 3 .
1 2 1 . Boet. Trin. 4.
1 2 2. Boet. Cons. 4P4.27.
1 2 3 . Boet. Cons. 3 M9 . 2 3 - 2 5 .
I
li HI E ll.INI E R S IT
I lze
F
PR ES S
N
Catholic Rome
Catholic Rome 127
divine acts of creating the human race and of issuing a moral "charge" to
the human race was central to the cosmogony of Genesis, as well as to the
outcome of the cosmogony in the narrative of the fall, but it was not
nearly so central to the account of human origins in Timaeus. For the
latter, the closest parallel to the "charge" of God to Adam came rather in
the charge issued by the Demiurge, as their "framer and father," to the
lesser gods.124 The description of the Demiurge in the cosmogony of Plato
as the "framer and father" [opifex paterque], terminology that had by
now been transferred to the Creator in the cosmogony of Moses, meant
that as "framer" the Demiurge was the one who had made them but that
as "father" he made provision for them to attain beatitude by command-
ing them to obey the moral order of his will.125 In his commentary on this
passage, Calcidius explained the words addressed by the Demiurge to the
lesser gods according to Plato in the light of "the prohibition addressed by
God to our first parents according to Moses," one of whose most impor-
tant implications was the doctrine of free will, which taught that "the
power to abstain or not to abstain [from eating the forbidden fruit] re-
sided with them"; for "if it had been by necessity that this was to happen,
it would have been in vain for him to prohibit it."126
The most important expression of this correlation between the divine
order and the moral order was the doctrine of creation in the image of
God. In accordance with a tradition going back to Alexandria, the
thinkers of Catholic Rome continued the definition of the image of God as
rationality, thus supplying a concept that they derived from Jerusalem and
Genesis with a content that they derived from Athens and Timaeus.127
But they pressed this traditional combination considerably further, ex-
tending the teaching of Genesis about the creation of humanity in accor-
dance with the image of God to include the teaching of Timaeus about the
creation of the universe in accordance with a model that was eternal.128
For the entire cosmos shared in the image of God, as Plato had taught in
the often repeated axiom of Timaeus that "If so be that this Cosmos is
beautiful and its Constructor good, it is plain that he fixed his gaze on the
Eternal."129 Thus the doctrine of the image and likeness of God was
applied to the entire universe, and God's "ideal likeness" was said to
124. P1. Ti. 41A-B; Cic. Ti. 11.40-41.
125. Cal. Com. 139.
I26. Cal. Com. 154.
I27. Aug. Gen. imp. 16.
128. Gn. 1:27; Pl. Ti. 29B; Cic. Ti. 2.7.
129. Pl. Ti. z9A; Cic. Ti. 2.6.
r 27
divine acts of creating the human race and of issuing a moral " charge" to
the human race was central to the cosmogony of Genesis:1 as well as to the
outcome of the cosmogony in the narrative of the fall, but it was not
nearly so central to the account of human origins in Timaeus. For the
latter, the closest parallel to the "charge " of God to Adam came rather in
the charge issued by the Demiurge, as their " framer and father, " to the
lesser gods. 124 The description of the Demi urge in the cosmogony of Plato
as the " framer and father" [ opifex paterque ], terminology that had by
now been transferred to the Creator in the cosmogony of Moses, meant
that as " framer " the Demiurge was the one who had made them but that
as "father" he made provision for them to attain beatitude by command­
ing them to obey the moral order of his will. 125 In his commentary on this
passage, Calcidius explained the words addressed by the Demiurge to the
lesser gods according to Plato in the light of "the prohibition addressed by
God to our first parents according to Moses," one of whose most impor­
tant implications was the doctrine of free will, which taught that "the
power to abstain or not to abstain [from eating the forbidden fruit] re­
sided with them "; for "if it had been by necessity that this was to happen,
it would have been in vain for him to prohibit it. " 126
The most important expression of this correlation between the divine
order and the moral order was the doctrine of creation in the image of
God. In accordance with a tradition going back to Alexandria, the
thinkers of Catholic Rome continued the definition of the image of God as
rationality, thus supplying a concept that they derived from Jerusalem and
Genesis with a content that they derived from Athens and Timaeus. 127
But they pressed this traditional combination considerably further, ex­
tending the teaching of Genesis about the creation of humanity in accor­
dance with the image of God to include the teaching of Timaeus about the
creation of the universe in accordance with a model that was eternal. 128
For the entire cosmos shared in the image of God, as Plato had taught in
the often repeated axiom of Timaeus that "If so be that this Cosmos is
beautiful and its Constructor good, it is plain that he fixed his gaze on the
Eternal. " 129 Thus the doctrine of the image and likeness of God was
applied to the entire universe, and God's "ideal likeness " was said to
1 24 .
125.
1 26.
1 27.
128.
1 29 .
Pl. Ti. 4 1 A-B; Cic. Ti. l r .40- 4 r .
Cal. Com. 1 3 9 ·
Cal. Com. 1 5 4 ·
Aug. Gen. imp . 1 6.
Gn. 1 : 27; Pl. Ti. 29B; Cic. Ti. 2.7.
Pl. Ti. 29A; Cic. Ti. 2.6.
l( H I G
P� ES S
128
i z8 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
"turn the firmament in similar patterns."130 Yet Ambrose and Augustine
preserved the original point of the biblical doctrine, which had been to
emphasize, also morally, the distinctiveness of the human race as pro-
tected from desecration by the holiness of the God who had made it in his
own image.131 Like the doctrine of creation itself, the doctrine of the
creation of man in the image of God was at the same time eschatological
in its implications, looking backward to the quality that had originally set
humanity apart from all other creatures, but also carrying with it the
promise of a destiny that was no less distinctive. Philosophia put it to
Boethius as "a kind of corollary":
Since men are made happy by the acquisition of happiness, but
happiness is itself divinity, it is obvious that they are made happy by
the acquisition of divinity. But as by the acquisition of justice they
become just, or by the acquisition of wisdom, wise, so by the same
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
"turn the firmament in similar patterns. " 1 30 Yet Ambrose and Augustine
preserved the original point of the biblical doctrine, which had been to
emphasize, also morally, the distinctiveness of the human race as pro­
tected from desecration by the holiness of the God who had made it in his
own image. 1 3 1 Like the doctrine of creation itself, the doctrine of the
creation of man in the image of God was at the same time eschatological
in its implications, looking backward to the quality that had originally set
humanity apart from all other creatures, but also carrying with it the
promise of a destiny that was no less distinctive. Philosophia put it to
Boethius as "a kind of corollary" :
argument they must, when they have acquired divinity, become
gods. Therefore every happy man is a god, though by nature God is
one only: but nothing prevents there being as many as you like by
participation. 132
By asserting monotheism and asserting a "divinization freed of all Stoic
pantheism,"'133 this extrapolation from the doctrine of creation in the
image of God was a summary of the definition of salvation as 0o01G,
which, while not absent from the tradition of Western Latin Christianity,
was more central to the spirituality and theology of the Greek Christian
East.
It was largely a Western Latin innovation when the image of God
became, in the thought of Augustine, a creation in the image of the Trinity
and therefore a Trinitarian image. The plurals in the phrase of Genesis,
"Let us make man in our image and likeness" had somehow to be squared
with biblical monotheism. Already in the first Christian dialogue with
Since men are made happy by the acquisition of happiness, but
happiness is itself divinity, it is obvious that they are made happy by
the acquisition of divinity. But as by the acquisition of j ustice they
become j ust, or by the acquisition of wisdom, wise, so by the same
argument they must, when they have acquired divinity, become
gods. Therefore every happy man is a god, though by nature God is
one only: but nothing prevents there being as many as you like by
participation. 1 32
Judaism after the New Testament to have been preserved, these words had
functioned as proof that the Son of God, "who was truly brought forth
from the Father, was with the Father before all creatures."134 The argu-
130. Boet. Cons. 3M9.8, 17.
131. Jas. 3:9; Ambr. Hex. 6.8.47-48; Aug. Gen. imp. 16.
132. Boet. Cons. 3PIo.23-25; for classical antecedents, see Gruber 1978, 295.
133. Faller 1925, 428.
134. Just. Dial. 52.
By asserting monotheism and asserting a "divinization freed of all Stoic
pantheism," 133 this extrapolation from the doctrine of creation in the
image of God was a summary of the definition of salvation as 9EWCTLS',
which, while not absent from the tradition of Western Latin Christianity,
was more central to the spirituality and theology of the Greek Christian
East.
It was largely a Western Latin innovation when the image of God
became, in the thought of Augustine, a creation in the image of the Trinity
and therefore a Trinitarian image. The plurals in the phrase of Genesis�
"Let us make man in our image and likeness " had somehow to be squared
with biblical monotheism. Already in the first Christian dialogue with
Judaism after the New Testament to have been preserved, these words had
functioned as proof that the Son of God, "who was truly brought forth
from the Father, was with the Father before all creatures. " 1 34 The argu1 3 0.
l3I.
1 3 2.
133·
134.
Boet. Cons. 3 M9 . 8 , 1 7 .
fas. 3 :9 ; Ambr. Hex. 6.8 .47- 4 8 ; Aug. Gen. imp. 1 6.
Boet. Cons. 3 P 1 0 . 23 - 2 5 ; for classical antecedents, see Gruber 1 9 7 8 , 29 5 .
Faller 1 9 2 5 , 4 2 8 .
Just. Dial. 5 2 .
I
li HI E ll.INI E R S IT
I lze
F
PR ES S
N
Catholic Rome
Catholic Rome 1i29
ment that these plurals "reveal that there is neither one isolated God, nor
yet one God in two dissimilar persons," continued to be prominent in the
theologies of Catholic Rome, such as those of Hilary of Poitiers and
Ambrose of Milan.13s But Augustine pressed the concept of the image, in
the light of the words of Genesis, to make it an image of the Trinity.
Already in the commentary on Genesis that he began and then dropped in
393, he was saying that "man was created after the image of the Trinity
itself."136 But in his theological masterpiece, the fifteen books of De
Trinitate, he developed this insight into a speculative tour de force. The
foundation of the insight was his quest for "a trinity, not any trinity, but
that Trinity which is God, and the true and supreme and only God [illam
trinitatem quae deus est, uerusque ac summus ac solus deus]."137 Once
found, that divine Trinity yielded an understanding of its image in the
human mind, which in book io Augustine perceived in the relation be-
tween "these three, memory, understanding, and will" [tria haec, memo-
riam, intellegentiam, uoluntatem],138 as well as in other "footsteps of the
Trinity" [vestigia Trinitatis], which he traced and compared. But to make
this point, Augustine had to attack those philosophers-including Cicero
in the Hortensius, the treatise, now lost, to which Augustine attributed a
major role in his own conversion139-who took seriously the possibility
that the soul might be corporeal.140 Returning therefore to a fuller refuta-
tion of Cicero on this point in book 14, he based his argumentation on the
Timaeus of Plato,141 Timaeus being the very treatise that Cicero had
translated into Latin enabling Augustine to read it, and Plato being chief
among those whom Cicero (and Augustine) called "the philosophers that
were the greatest and by far the most celebrated [maximis longeque
clarissimis]."142 And when Augustine attributed the title "love" [amor] to
the Holy Spirit, as a result of which what the apostle had called "the unity
which the Spirit gives" applied originally and ontologically to the Trinity
itself and derivatively to creatures,143 he may also have been alluding to
Timaeus, according to which love or "Amity" [4iXia] enabled the cosmos
135. Hil. Trin. 4.17-18, 3.23; Ambr. Hex. 6.7.41-43; Ambr. Fid. 1.7.51.
136. Aug. Gen. imp. 16.
137. Aug. Trin. 9.1.1.
138. Aug. Trin. 10.11.17-18.
139. Aug. Conf. 4.4.7; 8.7.17.
140. Aug. Trin. 10.7.9-10.
141. Pl. Ti. 42-43; Cic. Ti. 12.44-13.48.
142. Aug. Trin. 14.19.26.
143. Eph. 4:3; Aug. Trin. 6.5.7; Studer 1995, 577-79.
1 29
ment that these plurals "reveal that there is neither one isolated God, nor
yet one God in two dissimilar persons, " continued to be prominent in the
theologies of Catholic Rome, such as those of Hilary of Poitiers and
Ambrose of Milan.135 But Augustine pressed the concept of the image, in
the light of the words of Genesis, to make it an image of the Trinity.
Already in the commentary on Genesis that he began and then dropped in
3 9 3 , he was saying that " man was created after the image of the Trinity
itself. " 136 But in his theological masterpiece, the fifteen books of De
Trinitate, he developed this insight into a speculative tour de force. The
foundation of the insight was his quest for "a trinity, not any trinity, but
that Trinity which is God, and the true and supreme and only God [illam
trinitatem quae deus est, uerusque ac summus ac solus deus] . " 137 Once
found, that divine Trinity yielded an understanding of its image in the
human mind, which in book 1 0 Augustine perceived in the relation be­
tween "these three, memory, understanding, and will" [tria haec, memo­
riam, intellegentiam, uoluntatem] ,13 8 as well as in other "footsteps of the
Trinity" [vestigia Trinitatis] , which he traced and compared. But to make
this point, Augustine had to attack those philosophers-including Cicero
in the Hortensius, the treatise, now lost, to which Augustine attributed a
maj or role in his own conversion139 _ who took seriously the possibility
that the soul might be corporeal. 140 Returning therefore to a fuller refuta­
tion of Cicero on this point in book 1 4 , he based his argumentation on the
Timaeus of Plato,141 Timaeus being the very treatise that Cicero had
translated into Latin enabling Augustine to read it, and Plato being chief
among those whom Cicero (and Augustine) called "the philosophers that
were the greatest and by far the most celebrated [maximis longeque
clarissimis] . " 142 And when Augustine attributed the title "love " [amor] to
the Holy Spirit, as a result of which what the apostle had called "the unity
which the Spirit gives" applied originally and ontologically to the Trinity
itself and derivatively to creatures, 143 he may also have been alluding to
Timaeus, according to which love or "Amity" [tj>LA.ta] enabled the cosmos
135·
1 3 6.
137·
1 3 8.
139·
140.
141.
142.
143·
Hil. Trin. 4 . 1 7- 1 8 , 3 . 2 3 ; Ambr. Hex. 6.7.4 1 -4 3 ; Ambr. Fid. i . 7 . 5 i .
Aug. Gen. imp. 1 6.
Aug. Trin. 9 . i . I .
Aug. Trin. 1 0. 1 i . 1 7 - 1 8 .
Aug. Conf 4.4.7; 8 . 7 . 1 7 .
Aug. Trin. 10.7.9-10.
Pl. Ti. 4 2 - 4 3 ; Cic. Ti. 1 2 .44 - 1 3 .4 8 .
Aug. Trin. 1 4 . 1 9 .26.
Eph. 4:3; Aug. Trin. 6 . 5 .7; Studer 1 9 9 5 , 5 77-79.
l( H I G
P� ES S
130
130 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
to be "united in identity with itself [and] indissoluble by any agent other
than Him who had bound it together."144
The doctrine of the Trinity could perform this function of explaining
creation, providence, and eschatology because God was, according to
Romans 11:36, "Source, Guide, and Goal of all that is." The Trinitarian
interpretation of Romans 11:36 had been attacked by Arius and his asso-
ciates145 and had been defended by, among others, Augustine's mentors
and sources of knowledge about the Trinitarian theology of New Rome,
Ambrose and Hilary, in painstaking textual analyses.146 Augustine him-
self did not always interpret the passage in an explicitly Trinitarian way in
his commentaries on Genesis.147 But in De Trinitate he took it as a prime
example of how the language of faith and of Scripture could refer both
"singly to each person in triple fashion" [de singulis personis ter] and "to
the Trinity itself not in the plural but in the singular" [de ipsa trinitate non
pluraliter sed singulariter].148 In keeping with what Boethius was to call
"the middle way of the Christian Faith" and "the true and solid content of
the Catholic Faith,"149 Augustine saw the relation between singular and
plural in this passage as the middle way between the error of polytheism
and the error of blurring the distinctions among Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.150s Near the beginning of his treatise, he summarized the Trinitarian
exegesis of the passage:
If it is about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, so as to
assign each clause severally to each person [ut singulis personis sin-
gula tribuantur]-"from him," namely, from the Father; "through
him," namely, through the Son; "for him," namely, for the Holy
Spirit-it is manifest that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
is one God, inasmuch as [the apostle] continues in the singular
number, "To whom be glory for ever!" [singulariter intulit: "Ipsi
gloria in saecula saeculorum!"].151
144. P1. Ti. 32C; Cic. Ti. 5.-15.
145. ap. Ath. Syn. 16.
146. Ambr. Fid. 4.11.141-57; Ambr. Hex. 1.5.19, where it is applied to the Father; Hil.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
to be "united in identity with itself [and] indissoluble by any agent other
than Him who had bound it together. " 144
The doctrine of the Trinity could perform this function of explaining
creation, providence, and eschatology because God was, according to
Romans 1 1 : 3 6, " Source, Guide, and Goal of all that is. " The Trinitarian
interpretation of Romans 1 1 : 3 6 had been attacked by Arius and his asso­
ciates 145 and had been defended by, among others, Augustine's mentors
and sources of knowledge about the Trinitarian theology of New Rome,
Ambrose and Hilary, in painstaking textual analyses. 146 Augustine him­
self did not always interpret the passage in an explicitly Trinitarian way in
his commentaries on Genesis. 147 But in De Trinitate he took it as a prime
example of how the language of faith and of Scripture could refer both
" singly to each person in triple fashion" [de singulis personis ter] and "to
the Trinity itself not in the plural but in the singular" [de ipsa trinitate non
pluraliter sed singulariter] . 148 In keeping with what Boethius was to call
"the middle way of the Christian Faith" and "the true and solid content of
the Catholic Faith, " 149 Augustine saw the relation between singular and
plural in this passage as the middle way between the error of polytheism
and the error of blurring the distinctions among Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. 1 50 Near the beginning of his treatise, he summarized the Trinitarian
exegesis of the passage:
Trin. 8.38.
147. Aug. Gen. imp. 4; Aug. Gen. litt. 5.5, 5-13.
148. Aug. Trin. 5.8.9.
149. Boet. Eut. 6, int., 7-
15o. Aug. Trin. 6.1o.12.
151. Aug. Trin. 1.6.12.
If it is about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, so as to
assign each clause severally to each person [ ut singulis personis sin­
gula tribuantur] - " from him, " namely, from the Father; "through
him, " namely, through the Son; " for him, " namely, for the Holy
Spirit-it is manifest that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
is one God, inasmuch as [the apostle] continues in the singular
number, "To whom be glory for ever! " [ singulariter intulit: " Ipsi
gloria in saecula saeculorum ! " ] . 1 5 1
144. Pl. Ti. 3 2C; Cic. Ti. 5 . 1 5 .
1 4 5 · ap. Ath. Syn. 1 6.
146. Ambr. Fid. 4 . 1 i . 1 4 1 - 57; Ambr. Hex. i . 5 . 1 9 , where it is applied to the Father; Hil.
Trin. 8 . 3 8 .
147· Aug. Gen. imp. 4 ; Aug. Gen. litt. 5 . 5 , 5 . 1 3 .
1 4 8 . Aug. Trin. 5 . 8 .9 .
149· Boet. Eut. 6, int., 7.
1 50. Aug. Trin. 6 . 1 0. 1 2 .
1 5 i . Aug. Trin. r . 6 . 1 2 .
D 1 1 1 ze
T H E U I E R S lli
� l( H I G
P ES S
Catholic Rome
Catholic Rome 1 31
And "so," as he went on to say on the basis of those words, "those three
are God, one."152
The "Hymn to the Creator" of Boethius closed with a pleonastic apos-
trophe that paralleled, without the triadic formulas of that treatise or of
Augustine's De Trinitate, "the prose-poem of the ending" of his De fide
catholica:153 "To see Thee is our end / Who art our source and maker, lord
and path and goal" [Te cernere finis, / Principium, uector, dux, semita,
terminus idem].154 Taken together, the Pauline-Augustinian and the
Boethian doxologies could be read as the cadenzas of Catholic Rome,
summarizing the counterpoint of Timaeus and Genesis and at the same
time responding to the questions that Lucretius had raised in classical
Rome. The word meaning "source" in Boethius's hymn, principium, was
a rendering of the term apXi , which was the common property of the first
sentence of part z of Timaeus, the first words of the first chapter of
Genesis, and the first words of the Gospel of John;155ss by introducing it
here in defense of the primacy of divine agency, Boethius was in effect
rejecting the Lucretian axiom "Principium cuius hinc nobis exordia
sumet, / nullam rem e nilo gigni diuinitus umquam" [The first principle of
our study we will derive from this, that no thing is ever by divine agency
produced out of nothing].15s6 Boethius used words meaning "Guide," or
"lord," and "path," dux and semita, to speak about what Philo, on the
basis of both Genesis and Timaeus, had defined as the "providence that
God also exercises on behalf of the cosmos" [6T1 KatL TpOVOEL TOV KU [LOU 6
0e6;];157 Boethius celebrated it here on the grounds that "nothing in the
realm of providence may be left to chance."158 He used words meaning
"Goal" and "end," terminus and finis, to refer to the definition of TEXos in
nature and history that De rerum natura had rejected (when it sought to
disengage the inevitable end-as-conclusion from the notion of end-as-
intention in order to posit the first while denying the second), but that
Timaeus, against both Necessity and Chance, had declared "the supreme
originating principle of Becoming and the Cosmos" [Yev4EGS KaL KOcJIGOU
... apXyv KUpL()TcLTf'V]. That principle was "the Cause wherefor He that
constructed it constructed Becoming and the All. He was good, and in him
15 2. Aug. Trin. 6.5.7.
153. Chadwick 1981, 176.
154. Boet. Cons. 3M9.z7-28.
I55. Pl. Ti. 48A; Gn. i:1; Jn. 1:1; Ambr. Hex. 1.4.12.
156. Lucr. 1.149-50.
157. Phil. Opif. 170-71.
158. Boet. Cons. 4P6.53.
13 1
And " so," as he went on to say on the basis of those words, " those three
are God, one . " 1 52
The "Hymn to the Creator" of Boethius closed with a pleonastic apos­
trophe that paralleled, without the triadic formulas of that treatise or of
Augustine's De Trinitate, "the prose-poem of the ending" of his De fide
catholica:153 "To see Thee is our end I Who art our source and maker, lord
and path and goal " [Te cernere finis, I Principium, uector, dux, semita,
terminus idem] . 1 54 Taken together, the Pauline-Augustinian and the
Boethian doxologies could be read as the cadenzas of Catholic Rome,
summarizing the counterpoint of Timaeus and Genesis and at the same
time responding to the questions that Lucretius had raised in classical
Rome. The word meaning " source" in Boethius's hymn, principium, was
a rendering of the term apxtj , which was the common property of the first
sentence of part 2 of Timaeus, the first words of the first chapter of
Genesis, and the first words of the Gospel of ]ohn; 155 by introducing it
here in defense of the primacy of divine agency, Boethius was in effect
rejecting the Lucretian axiom "Principium cuius hinc nobis exordia
sumet, I nullam rem e nilo gigni diuinitus umquam " [The first principle of
our study we will derive from this, that no thing is ever by divine agency
produced out of nothing] . 1 56 Boethius used words meaning " Guide," or
" lord, " and "path, " dux and semita, to speak about what Philo, on the
basis of both Genesis and Timaeus, had defined as the "providence that
God also exercises on behalf of the cosmos " [oTt Kat 1TpovoE'i Tou Koaµou 6
9E6s-];157 Boethius celebrated it here on the grounds that " nothing in the
realm of providence may be left to chance . " 158 He used words meaning
" Goal " and "end, " terminus and finis, to refer to the definition of TEAOS' in
nature and history that De rerum natura had rej ected (when it sought to
disengage the inevitable end-as-conclusion from the notion of end-as­
intention in order to posit the first while denying the second), but that
Timaeus, against both Necessity and Chance, had declared "the supreme
originating principle of Becoming and the Cosmos " [yEVECJEWS' Kat Koaµou
. . . apx�v KUplWTanw ] . That principle was "the Cause wherefor He that
constructed it constructed Becoming and the All. He was good, and in him
l p.
153·
1 5 4.
155·
l 5 6.
1 5 7·
1 5 8.
Aug. Trin. 6 . 5 . 7 .
Chadwick 1 9 8 1 , 1 7 6 .
Boet. Cons. 3M9.27-28.
Pl. Ti. 4 8A; Gn. 1 : 1 ; Jn. 1 : 1 ; Ambr. Hex. 1 + 1 2.
Luer. r . 149-50.
Phil. Opif. l 70-7 r .
Boet. Cons. 4P6. 5 3 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
132
132 What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
that is good no envy ariseth ever concerning anything; and being devoid of
envy He desired that all should be, as far as possible, like unto Him-
self."159 For Catholic Rome, that principle applied, preeminently and
sublimely, to the Holy Trinity as Source, Guide, and Goal.
159. Pl. Ti. 29D-E; Cic. Ti. 3.9.
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
that is good no envy ariseth ever concerning anything; and being devoid of
envy He desired that all should be, as far as possible, like unto Him­
self. " 159 For Catholic Rome, that principle applied, preeminently and
sublimely, to the Holy Trinity as Source, Guide, and Goal.
1 5 9 . Pl. Ti. 29D-E; Cic. Ti. 3 .9 .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Bibliography
Allen, Reginald E., ed. 1965. Studies in Plato's Metaphysics. London.
Alter, Robert. 1981. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York.
Amir, Yehoshua. 1983. Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von
Alexandrien. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Anderson, Bernard W. 1955. "The Earth Is the Lord's: An Essay on the Biblical
Bibliography
Doctrine of Creation." Interpretation 9:3-20.
. 1977. "A Stylistic Study of the Priestly Creation Story." In Canon and
Authority, ed. George W. Coats and Burke O. Long, 148-62. Philadelphia.
Andresen, Carl. 1955. Logos und Nomos: Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das
Christentum. Berlin.
Apelt, Otto. 1922. Platon's Dialoge "Timaios" und "Kritias" iibersetzt und
erlaiutert. Leipzig.
Apostolopoulos, Charalambos. 1986. Phaedo Christianus: Studien zur Verbind-
ung und Abwigung des Verhaltnisses zwischen dem platonischen "Phaidon"
und dem Dialog Gregors von Nyssa "Uber die Seele und die Auferstehung."
Frankfurt.
Archer-Hind, Richard Dacre. 1888. The "Timaeus" of Plato. London.
Armstrong, Arthur Hilary. 1948. "Platonic Elements in St. Gregory of Nyssa's
Doctrine of Man." Dominican Studies 1:113-26.
,ed. 1967. The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval
Allen, Reginald E., ed. 1 9 6 5 . Studies in Plato 's Metaphysics. London.
Alter, Robert. l 9 8 i . The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York.
Amir, Yehoshua. 1 9 8 3 . Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Phi/on von
Alexandrien. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Anderson, Bernard W. l 9 5 5 . "The Earth Is the Lord's: An Essay on the Biblical
Doctrine of Creation. " Interpretation 9: 3 - 20.
Philosophy. Cambridge.
Astell, Ann W. 1994. Job, Boethius, and Epic Truth. Ithaca, N.Y.
Baeumker, Clemens. 1890. Das Problem der Materie in der griechischen Phi-
losophie. Miinster.
Baltes, Matthias. 1976. Die Weltentstehung des Platonischen "Timaios" nach den
antiken Interpreten. Leiden.
Bickerman, Elias. 1976. "The Septuagint as Translation." In Studies in Jewish and
Christian History, 1:167-zo20o. Leiden.
Bidez, Joseph. 1945. EOS ou Platon et l'Orient. Brussels.
Bigg, Charles. i886. The Christian Platonists of Alexandria. Oxford.
B6mer, Franz. 1969. P. Ovidius Naso "Metamorphosen": Kommentar. Vol. i.
Heidelberg.
Bousset, Wilhelm. 1915. Jiidisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und
Rom. Gottingen.
Bowen, Alan C., ed. 1991. Science and Philosophy in Classical Greece. New York
and London.
133
---
. l 9 7 7 . "A Stylistic Study of the Priestly Creation Story. " In Canon and
Authority, ed. George W. Coats and Burke 0. Long, 1 4 8 - 6 2 . Philadelphia.
Andresen, Carl. 19 5 5. Logos und Nomos: Die Polemik des Ke/sos wider das
Christentum. Berlin.
Apelt, Otto . 1 9 2 2 . Platon's Dialoge "Timaios " und ''Kritias " ubersetzt und
erlautert. Leipzig.
Apostolopoulos, Charalambos. 1 9 8 6. Phaedo Christianus: Studien zur Verbind­
ung und A bwagung des Verhaltnisses zwischen dem platonischen "Phaidon "
und dem Dialog G regors von Nyssa " Uber die Seele und die Auferstehung. "
Frankfurt.
Archer-Hind, Richard Dacre. 1 8 8 8 . The "Timaeus " of Plato. London.
Armstrong, Arthur Hilary. 1 9 4 8 . " Platonic Elements in St. Gregory of Nyssa's
Doctrine of Man. " Dominican Studies 1 : 1 1 3 - 2 6 .
---
, ed. 1 9 67 . The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval
Philosophy. Cambridge.
Astell, Ann W. 1 9 9 4 · Job, B oethius, and Epic Truth . Ithaca, N.Y.
Baeumker, Clemens . l 8 9 0 . Das Problem der Materie in der griechischen Phi­
losophie. Munster.
Baltes, Matthias. 1 9 76. Die Weltentstehung des Platonischen "Timaios " nach den
antiken Interpreten. Leiden.
Bickerman, Elias. 1 9 76. "The Septuagint as Translation. " In Studies in Jewish and
Christian History, 1 : 1 67-200. Leiden.
Bidez, Joseph. 1 94 5 · E OS ou Platon et /'O rient. Brussels.
Bigg, Charles. 1 8 8 6 . The Christian Platonists of A lexandria. Oxford.
Bomer, Franz. 1 9 69 . P. Ovidius Naso "Metamorph osen '': Kommentar. Vol .
I.
Heidelberg.
Bousset, Wilhelm.
I
9 I 5 . Judisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und
Rom. Gottingen.
Bowen, Alan C., ed. 1 9 9 I . Science and Philosophy in Classical Greece. New York
and London.
133
l( H I G
P� ES S
134
134 Bibliography
Bowersock, Glen Warren. 1990. Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Ann Arbor.
Brisson, Luc. 1974. Le meme et l'autre dans la structure ontologique du "Timee"
du Platon; un commentaire systematique di "Timee" de Platon. Paris.
Brunner, Emil. 1939. Man in Revolt: A Christian Anthropology. Trans. Olive
Wyon. Philadelphia.
Biickers, Hermann. 1938. Die Unsterblichkeitslehre des Weisheitsbuches.
Miinster.
Burnet, John. 1928. Platonism. Berkeley.
Bury, Robert Gregg, ed. and trans. 1929. Timaeus, Critias, Cleitophon, Menex-
enus, Epistles, by Plato. Cambridge, Mass.
Callahan, John F. 1948. Four Views of Time in Ancient Philosophy. Cambridge,
Mass.
. 1958. "Greek Philosophy and the Cappadocian Cosmology." Dumbarton
Oaks Papers Iz:29-57.
Chadwick, Henry, ed. and trans. 1953. Contra Celsum, by Origen. Cambridge.
Bowersock, Glen Warren. 1 99 0 . Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Ann Arbor.
Brisson, Luc . 1 9 74 · Le meme et l'autre dans la structure ontologique du " Timee "
du Plat on; un commentaire systematique di "Timee " de Plat on. Paris.
Brunner, Emil . 1 9 3 9 · Man in Revolt: A Christian Anthropo logy. Trans. Olive
Wyon. Philadelphia.
Biickers,
losophy. Oxford.
Chenu, Marie-Dominique. 1968. Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Cen-
tury. Ed. and trans. Jerome Taylor and Lester A. Little. Chicago.
Clark, Stephen R. L. 1984. From Athens to Jerusalem: The Love of Wisdom and
the Love of God. Oxford.
Cochrane, Charles Norris. 1944. Christianity and Classical Culture: A Study of
Thought and Action from Augustus to Augustine. New York and London.
Collins, John J. 1983. Between Athens and Jerusalem. New York.
Colpe, Carsten. 1979. "Von der Logoslehre des Philon zu der des Clemens von
Alexandrien." In Kerygma und Logos: Festschrift fiur C. Andresen, ed. Adolf
Martin Ritter, 89-107. G6ttingen.
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis, and St. George Stock. 1988. Grammar of Sep-
tuagint Greek. 1905. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.
Cornford, Francis MacDonald. 1957. Plato's Cosmology: The "Timaeus" of Plato
Translated with a Running Commentary. 1937. Reprint, New York.
Courcelle, Pierre. 1967. La consolation de philosophie dans la tradition litteraire:
Antecedents et postirite de Boece. Paris.
Courtonne, Yves. 1934. Saint Basile et l'hellinisme: Etude sur la rencontre de la
pensde chrdtienne avec la sagesse antique dans l'Hexameron de Basile le
Grand. Paris.
Des Places, Edouard. 1976. Platonismo e tradizione cristiana. Ed. Pier Angelo
Carozzi. Milan.
Dey, Lala Kalyan Kumar. 1975. The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfec-
tion in Philo and Hebrews. Missoula, Mont.
Dorrie, Heinrich, Margarete Altenburger, and Uta Schramm, eds. 1976. Gregor
von Nyssa und die Philosophie. Leiden.
Unsterblichkeitslehre
des
Weisheitsbuches.
Bury, Robert Gregg, ed. and trans . 1 9 29 . Timaeus, Critias, Cleitophon, Menex­
enus, Epistles, by Plato. Cambridge, Mass.
Callahan, John F. 1 94 8 . Four Views of Time in Ancient Philosophy. Cambridge,
Mass.
. 1 9 5 8 . " Greek Philosophy and the Cappadocian Cosmology. " Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 1 2 :29- 5 7 .
Chadwick, Henry, ed. and trans . l 9 5 3 . Contra Ce/sum, b y O rigen. Cambridge .
--- . 1 9 6 6 . Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies _in
Justin, Clement, and Origen. New York.
Claghorn, George Stuart. 1954. Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's "Timaeus." The
Hague.
Die
1 9 3 8.
Burnet, John. 1 9 2 8 . Platonism. Berkeley.
---
1. 981. Boethius: The Consolations of Music, Logic, Theology, and Phi-
Hermann.
Munster.
. 1966. Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in
Justin, Clement, and Origen. New York.
Bibliography
---
. l 9 8 r . Boethius: The Consolations of Music, Logic, Theology, and Phi­
losophy. Oxford.
Chenu, Marie -Dominique. 1 9 6 8 . Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Cen­
tury. Ed. and trans. Jerome Taylor and Lester A. Little . Chicago.
Claghorn, George Stuart. 19 5 4 . Aristotle 's Criticism of Plato 's "Timaeus. " The
Hague.
Clark, Stephen R. L. 1 9 8 4 . From Athens to Jerusalem: The Love of Wisdom and
the Love of God. Oxford.
Cochrane, Charles Norris. 1 9 4 4 · Christianity and Classical Culture: A Study of
Th ought and Action from Augustus to Augustine. New York and London.
Collins, John J. 1 9 8 3 . Between A thens and Jerusalem. New York.
Colpe, Carsten. l 9 7 9 . "Von der Logoslehre des Philon zu der des Clemens von
Alexandrien. " In Kerygma und Logos: Festschrift fur C. Andresen, ed. Adolf
Martin Ritter, 8 9- l 07. Gottingen.
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis, and St. George Stock. 1 9 8 8 . G rammar of Sep­
tuagint Greek. l 90 5 . Reprint, Peabody, Mass .
Cornford, Francis MacDonald. 1 9 5 7 · Plato 's Cosmology: The 'Timaeus '' of Plato
Translated with a Running Commentary. 1 9 3 7 · Reprint, New York.
Courcelle, Pierre. l 9 67. La consolation de philosophie dans la tradition litteraire:
Antecedents et posterite de Boece. Paris .
Courtonne, Yves. l 9 3 4 . Saint Basile e t l'hellenisme: Etude sur la rencontre de la
pensee chretienne avec la sagesse antique dans l'Hexameron de Basile le
Grand. Paris .
Des Places, Edouard. 1 9 7 6 . Platonismo e tradizione cristiana. Ed. Pier Angelo
Carozzi. Milan.
Dey, Lala Kalyan Kumar. 1 9 7 5 · The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfec­
tion in Philo and Hebrews. Missoula, Mont.
Dorrie, Heinrich, Margarete Altenburger, and Uta Schramm, eds. 1 9 7 6 . Gregor
van Nyssa und die Philosophie. Leiden.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Bibliography
Bibliography 135
Diirr, D. 1938. Die Wertung des gottlichen Wortes im Alten Testament und im
antiken Orient. Leipzig.
Einstein, Albert. 19z4. "Geleitwort" to Lukrez von der Natur, trans. Hermann
Diels, ed. by Johannes Mewaldt. Berlin.
Faller, Otto. 1925. "Griechische Vergottung und christliche Vergottlichung." Gre-
gorianum 6:405-35.
Farandos, Georgios D. 1976. Kosmos und Logos nach Philon von Alexandria.
Amsterdam.
Fleury, Eugene. 1938. Hellnisme et christianisme: Saint Gregoire de Nazianze et
son temps. zd ed. Paris.
Froidefond, Christian. 1971. Le mirage egyptien dans la litterature grecque
d'Homere ca Aristote. [Paris.]
Friichtel, Ursula. 1968. Die kosmologischen Vorstellungen bei Philo von Alex-
andrien. Leiden.
Gager, John G. 1972. Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism. Nashville.
Gale, Monica. 1994. Myth and Poetry in Lucretius. Cambridge.
Geffcken, Johannes. 1907. Zwei griechische Apologeten. Leipzig.
Gilson, Etienne. 1941. God and Philosophy. New Haven.
Giomini, Remo, ed. 1975. M. Tulli Ciceronis scripta quae manserunt omnia, 46.
Leipzig.
Gloy, Karen. 1986. Studien zur platonischen Naturphilosophie im Timaios.
Wiirzburg.
Grabmann, Martin. 1909. Geschichte der scholastischen Methode. z vols.
Freiburg.
Gregg, Robert C. 1975. Consolation Philosophy: Greek and Christian Paideia in
Basil and the Two Gregories. Cambridge, Mass.
Gronau, Karl. 1914. Poseidonius und die jiidisch-christliche Genesisexegese.
Leipzig.
Gruber, Joachim. 1978. Kommentar zu Boethius "De consolatione philosophiae."
Berlin and New York.
Gunkel, Hermann. I1895. Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine
religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung iiber Gen i und Ap Joh 12. Got-
tingen.
Hamilton, Edith, and Huntington Cairns, eds. 1961. The Collected Dialogues of
Plato. Bollingen Series. Princeton.
Harnack, Adolf von. 1901. Das Wesen des Christentums. 4th ed. Leipzig.
Heinisch, Paul. 1908. Die griechische Philosophie im Buche der Weisheit.
Munster.
Hersey, George L. 1993. High Renaissance Art in St. Peter's and the Vatican: An
Interpretive Guide. Chicago.
Hirsch, Walter. 1971. Platons Weg zum Mythos. Berlin.
Ivanka, Endre von. 1948. Hellenisches und Christliches im friihbyzantinischen
Geistesleben. Vienna.
Jaeger, Werner. 1961. Early Christianity and Greek Paideia. Cambridge, Mass.
Jervell, Jacob. 1960. Imago Dei: Gen. 1,26 f. im Spiitjudentum, in der Gnosis und
in den paulinischen Briefen. Gottingen.
135
Diirr, D . 1 9 3 8 . Die Wertung des gottlichen Wortes im A/ten Testament und im
antiken Orient. Leipzig.
Einstein, Albert. 1 9 24 . " Geleitwort " to Lukrez van der Natur, trans. Hermann
Diels, ed. by Johannes Mewaldt. Berlin.
Faller, Otto . 1 9 2 5 . " Griechische Vergottung und christliche Vergottlichung. " Gre­
gorianum 6 : 40 5 - 3 5 .
Farandos, Georgios D . 1 9 7 6 . Kosmos und Logos nach Phi/on van Alexandria.
Amsterdam.
Fleury, Eugene . 1 9 3 8. Hellenisme et christianisme: Saint Gregoire de Nazianze et
son temps. 2d ed. Paris.
Froidefond, Christian. l 9 7 I . Le mirage egyptien dans la litterature grecque
d'Homere a Aristote. [Paris .]
Friichtel, Ursula. 1 9 6 8 . Die kosmologischen Vorstellungen bei Philo van A lex-
andrien. Leiden.
Gager, John G. 1 9 7 2 . Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism . Nashville.
Gale, Monica. 1 9 9 4 · Myth and Poetry in Lucretius. Cambridge.
Geffcken, Johannes. 1 9 0 7 . Zwei griechische Apologeten. Leipzig.
Gilson, Etienne . 1 94 1 . God and Philosophy. New Haven.
Giomini, Remo, ed. 1 9 7 5 · M. Tulli Ciceronis scripta quae manserunt omnia, 4 6 .
Leipzig.
Gloy, Karen . 1 9 8 6 . Studien zur platonischen Naturphilosophie im Timaios.
Wiirzburg.
Grabmann, Martin. 1 9 09. Geschichte der scholastischen Methode.
2 vols.
Frei burg.
Gregg, Robert C. 1 9 7 5 · Consolation Philosophy: Greek and Christian Paideia in
Basil and the Two Gregories. Cambridge, Mass.
Gronau, Karl . 1 9 1 4 . Poseidonius und die judisch-christliche Genesisexegese.
Leipzig.
Gruber, Joachim. 1 9 7 8 . Kommentar zu Boethius "De consolatione philosophiae. "
Berlin and New York.
Gunkel, Hermann . 1 8 9 5 . Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine
religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung uber Gen I und Ap Ioh I 2. Got­
tingen.
Hamilton, Edith, and Huntington Cairns, eds. l 9 6 i . The Collected Dialogues of
Plato. Bollingen Series. Princeton.
Harnack, Adolf von. 1 9 0 1 . Das Wesen des Christentums. 4th ed. Leipzig.
Heinisch, Paul.
1 9 0 8 . Die griechische Philosophie im Buche der Weisheit.
Munster.
Hersey, George L. 1 9 9 3 · High Renaissance Art in St. Peter's and the Vatican: An
Interpretive Guide. Chicago .
Hirsch, Walter. l 9 7 I . Platons Weg zum Mythos. Berlin.
Ivanka, Endre von.
l 94 8.
Hellenisches und Christliches im fruhbyzantinischen
Geistesleben. Vienna.
Jaeger, Werner. 1 9 6 i . Early Christianity and G reek Paideia. Cambridge, Mass.
Jervell, Jacob. 1 9 60 . Imago Dei: Gen. I , 2 6 f. im Spatjudentum, in der Gnosis und
in den paulinischen Briefen. Gottingen.
l( H I G
P� ES S
136
136 Bibliography
Jowett, Benjamin, ed. and trans. 1953. The Dialogues of Plato. 4th ed. 4 vols.
Oxford.
Klibansky, Raymond. 1981. The Continuity of the Platonic Tradition during the
Middle Ages: Outlines of a "Corpus Platonicum Medii Aevi." zd ed. Munich.
Koch, Hal. 1932. Pronoia und Paideusis. Berlin.
Ladner, Gerhart B. 1959. The Idea of Reform: Its Impact on Christian Thought
and Action in the Age of the Fathers. Cambridge, Mass.
Leonard, William Ellery, and Stanley Barney Smith, eds. 1942. T. Lucretii Cari De
rerum natura libri sex. Madison.
Lerer, Seth. 1985. Boethius and Dialogue: Literary Method in "The Consolation
of Philosophy." Princeton.
Lloyd, G.E.R. 1983. "Plato on Mathematics and Nature, Myth and Science." In
International Christian University Publication IV-B, Humanities: Christianity
and Culture, I1I-30. Tokyo.
Lovejoy, Arthur O. 1936. The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an
Idea. Cambridge, Mass.
Mack, Burton L. 1972. "Imitatio Mosis: Patterns of Cosmology and Soteriology
in the Hellenistic Synagogue." Studia Philonica I:27-55.
. 1973. Logos und Sophia. Gottingen.
Marcus, Ralph. 1945. "Jewish and Greek Elements in the LXX." In Louis
Ginzberg Jubilee Volume, ed. Saul Lieberman et al., zz7-45. New York.
Martin, Thomas Owen. 1951 i. "The Twenty-Eighth Canon of Chalcedon: A Back-
ground Note." In Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed.
Jowett, Benj amin, ed. and trans. 1 9 5 3 . The Dialogues of Plato. 4th ed. 4 vols.
Oxford.
Klibansky, Raymond. 1 9 8 1 . The Continuity of the Platonic Tradition during the
Middle Ages: Outlines of a '' Corpus Platonicum Medii Aevi. '' 2d ed. Munich.
Koch, Hal. 1 9 3 2 . Pronoia und Paideusis. Berlin.
Ladner, Gerhart B . 1 9 5 9 · The Idea of Reform: Its Impact on Christian Thought
and Action in the Age of the Fathers. Cambridge, Mass.
Leonard, William Ellery, and Stanley Barney Smith, eds. 1 9 4 2 . T. Lucretii Cari De
rerum natura libri sex. Madison.
Lerer, Seth.
May, Gerhard. 1994. Creatio ex nihilo: The Doctrine of "Creation out of Noth-
ing" in Early Christian Thought. Trans. A.S. Worrall. Edinburgh.
McReynolds, Paul R. 1981. "John i:i8 in Textual Variation and Translation." In
B oethius and Dialogue: Literary Method in " The Consolation
Lloyd, G.E.R. 1 9 8 3 . " Plato on Mathematics and Nature, Myth and Science . " In
International Christian University Publication IV-B, Humanities: Christianity
and Culture, n - 3 0 . Tokyo.
Lovej oy, Arthur 0 .
l93
6. The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an
Idea. Cambridge, Mass.
Mack, Burton L. 1 9 7 2 . "Imitatio Mosis: Patterns of Cosmology and Soteriology
in the Hellenistic Synagogue . " Studia Philonica 1 : 27- 5 5 .
---
Denken Plotins. Winterthur.
l98 5.
of Philosophy. " Princeton.
Aloys Grillmeier and Heinrich Bacht, z:433-58. Wiirzburg.
Matter, Peter Paul. 1964. Zum Einfluss des platonischen "Timaios" auf das
Bibliography
. 1 9 7 3 · Logos und Sophia. Gottingen.
Marcus, Ralph . 1 94 5 · "Jewish and Greek Elements in the LXX . " In Louis
G inzberg Jubilee Volume, ed. Saul Lieberman et al., 2 2 7 - 4 5 . New York.
Martin, Thomas Owen. 19 5 1 . "The Twenty-Eighth Canon of Chalcedon: A Back­
ground Note . " In Das Konzil van Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed.
New Testament Textual Criticism, Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in
Honor of Bruce M. Metzger, ed. Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee, o105-i8.
Oxford.
Merlan, Philip. 1960. From Platonism to Neoplatonism. zd ed. The Hague.
Mohr, Richard D. 1985. The Platonic Cosmology. Leiden.
Moulton, James Hope. 1957. A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Pro-
legomena. 3d ed., 1908. Reprint, Edinburgh.
Murray, John Courtney. 1964. The Problem of God Yesterday and Today. New
Haven.
Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. 1977. Le commentaire de l'Ecriture chez Philon d'Alex-
andrie. Leiden.
Nock, Arthur Darby. 1962. "The Exegesis of Timaeus 28C." Vigiliae Christianae
16:79-86.
Norden, Eduard. 1924. Die Geburt des Kindes. Leipzig.
O'Brien, Denis Patrick. 1984. Plato Weight and Sensation: The Two Theories of
the "Timaeus." Paris and Leiden.
Aloys Grillmeier and Heinrich Bacht, 2:4 3 3- 5 8 . Wiirzburg.
Matter, Peter Paul. 1 9 64 . Zurn Einfluss des platonischen " Timaios " auf das
Denken Plotins. Winterthur.
May, Gerhard . 1 9 9 4 · Creatio ex nihilo: The Doctrine of " Creation out of Noth­
ing " in Early Christian Th ought. Trans. A.S. Worrall. Edinburgh .
McReynolds, Paul R. l 9 8 i . "John 1 : 1 8 in Textual Variation and Translation . " In
New Testament Textual Criticism, Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in
Honor of Bruce M. Metzger, ed. Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee, r n 5 - 1 8 .
Oxford.
Merlan, Philip. 1 9 60 . From Platonism to Neoplatonism. 2d ed. The Hague.
Mohr, Richard D. 1 9 8 5 . The Platonic Cosmo logy. Leiden .
Moulton, James Hope. 1 9 5 7 · A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Pro­
legomena. 3 d ed., 1 9 0 8 . Reprint, Edinburgh.
Murray, John Courtney. 1 9 64 . The Problem of God Yesterday and Today. New
Haven .
Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. 1 9 77. Le commentaire de l'Ecriture chez Phi/on d'Alex­
andrie. Leiden .
Nock, Arthur Darby. 1 9 6 2 . " The Exegesis of Timaeus 2 8 C . " Vigiliae Christianae
1 6: 7 9 - 8 6 .
Norden, Eduard . 1 9 2 4 . Die Geburt des Kindes. Leipzig.
O'Brien, Denis Patrick. 1 9 84 . Plato Weight and Sensation: The Two Theories of
the "Timaeus. " Paris and Leiden .
l( H I G
P� ES S
Bibliography
Bibliography 137
O'Daly, Gerard. 199. The Poetry of Boethius. London.
Ogilvie, Robert Maxwell. 1978. The Library of Lactantius. Oxford.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. 1971-89. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Develop-
ment of Doctrine. 5 vols. Chicago.
O'Daly, Gerard. 1 9 9 1 . The Poetry of Boethius. London.
Ogilvie, Robert Maxwell. 1 9 7 8 . The Library of Lactantius. Oxford.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. 1 9 7 1 - 8 9 . The Christian Tradition: A History of the Develop ­
ment of Doctrine. 5 vols . Chicago .
.1990. "Canonica Regula: The Trinitarian Hermeneutics of Augustine." In
--Collectanea Augustiniana, ed. Joseph C. Schnaubelt and Frederick Van
Fleteren, vol. i, Augustine: "Second Founder of the Faith," 329-43. New York.
• 1993. Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural
Pichon, Rene. 1901. Lactance: Etude sur le mouvement philosophique et religieux
sous le regne de Constantin. Paris.
Pinault, Henri. 1925. Le Platonisme de saint Gregoire de Nazianze: Essai sur les
relations du Christianisme et de l'Hellenisme dans son oeuvre theologique. La
Roche-sur-Yon.
Prestige, George Leonard. 1956. God in Patristic Thought. London.
Raeder, Hans. 1905. Platons philosophische Entwickelung. Leipzig.
Reale, Giovanni. 1979. "Filone di Alessandria et la prima elaborazione filosofica
della dottrina della creazione." In Paradoxos Politeia: Studi patristici in onore
di G. Lazzati, ed. Raniero Cantalamessa and Luigi Franco Pizzolato, 247-87.
Milan.
Reese, James M. 1970. Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its
Consequences. Rome.
Rivaud, Albert, ed. 1925. Timee, Critias, by Plato. Paris.
Rouse, William Henry Denham, and Martin Ferguson Smith, eds. 1992. De rerum
natura, by Lucretius. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.
Runia, David T. 1986. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Leiden.
Santayana, George. 1910. Three Philosophical Poets: Lucretius, Dante, and
" Canonica Regula: The Trinitarian Hermeneutics of Augustine . " In
Fleteren, vol.
---
I, I, 1-4). Paris.
. l 990.
Collectanea Augustiniana, ed. Joseph C. Schnaubelt and Frederick Van
Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism. New Haven.
Pepin, Jean. 1964. Theologie cosmique et thdologie chretienne (Ambroise, Exam.
137
.
l993 .
l,
Augustine: "Second Founder of the Faith, " 3 29 - 4 3 . New York.
Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural
Theo logy in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism. New Haven .
Pepin, Jean. 1 9 64 . Theologie cosmique et theologie chretienne (Ambroise, Exam.
I,
l,
1 - 4 ) . Paris.
Pichon, Rene . 1 9 0 1 . Lactance: Etude sur le mouvement philosophique et religieux
sous le regne de Constantin. Paris.
Pinault, Henri. 1 9 2 5 . Le Platonisme de saint Gregoire de Nazianze: Essai sur les
relations du Christianisme et de l'Hellenisme dans son oeuvre theologique. La
Roche-sur-Yon.
Prestige, George Leonard.
l 9 5 6.
God in Patristic Thought. London .
Raeder, Hans. 1 9 0 5 . Platons philosophische Entwickelung. Leipzig.
Reale, Giovanni. 1 9 7 9 · " Filone di Alessandria et la prima elaborazione filosofica
della dottrina della creazione . " In Paradoxos Politeia: Studi patristici in onore
di G. Lazzati, ed. Raniero Cantalamessa and Luigi Franco Pizzolato, 247- 8 7 .
Milan.
Reese, James M. 1 9 70. Hellenistic In"fiuence on the Book of Wisdom and Its
Goethe. Cambridge, Mass.
Sayre, Kenneth M. 1983. Plato's Late Ontology: A Riddle Resolved. Princeton.
Scheffel, Wolfgang. 1976. Aspekte der platonischen Kosmologie: Untersuchungen
zum Dialog "Timaios." Leiden.
Scheible, Helga. 1972. Die Gedichte in der Consolatio Philosophiae des Boethius.
Heidelberg.
Schulz, Dietrich Joachim. 1966. Das Problem der Materie in Platons "Timaios."
Bonn.
Shorey, Paul. 1933. What Plato Said. Chicago.
. 193 8. Platonism Ancient and Modern. Berkeley.
Silk, Edward T. 1939. "Boethius's Consolatio Philosophiae as a Sequel to Au-
gustine's Dialogues and Soliloquia." Harvard Theological Review 32:19-39.
Souter, Alexander J. 1910. "Chronicle of Patristica." Journal of Theological Stud-
ies II:I35-56.
Steck, Odil Hannes. 1981. Der Sch6pfungsbericht der Priesterschrift. zd ed.
Gottingen.
Consequences. Rome.
Rivaud, Albert, ed.
l
92 5 . Timee, Critias, by Plato . Paris.
Rouse, William Henry Denham, and Martin Ferguson Smith, eds. 1 9 9 2 . De rerum
natura, by Lucretius. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.
Runia, David T. 1 9 8 6 . Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Leiden.
l 9 IO.
Santayana, George .
Th ree Philosoph ical Poets: Lucretius, Dante, and
Goethe. Cambridge, Mass.
Sayre, Kenneth M. 1 9 8 3 . Plato 's Late Ontology: A Riddle Resolved. Princeton .
Scheffel, Wolfgang. 1 9 7 6. Aspekte der platonischen Kosmologie: Untersuchungen
zum Dialog "Timaios. '' Leiden.
Scheible, Helga.
l972.
Die Gedichte in der Consolatio Ph ilosoph iae des Boethius.
Heidelberg.
Schulz, Dietrich Joachim. 1 9 66. Das Problem der Materie in Platons '7imaios. ''
Bonn.
Shorey, Paul. 1 9 3 3 · What Plato Said. Chicago .
---
. 1 9 3 8 . Platonism Ancient and Modern. Berkeley.
Silk, Edward T. 1 9 3 9 · " Boethius's Consolatio Philosophiae as a Sequel to Au­
gustine's Dialogues and Soliloquia . " Harvard Theological Review 3 2: l 9 - 3 9 .
Souter, Alexander J .
l
9 I O . " Chronicle o f Patristica. " ]ournal of Theological Stud­
ies n : 1 3 5 - 5 6.
Steck, Odil Hannes. 1 9 8 i . Der Schopfungsbericht der Priestersch rift. 2d ed.
Gottingen.
l( H I G
P� ES S
138
138 Bibliography
Studer, Basil. 1995. "Zur Pneumatologie des Augustinus von Hippo (De Trinitate
15,17,27-27,50)." Augustinianum 35:567-83.
Bibliography
Studer, Basil. 1 9 9 5 . " Zur Pneumatologie des Augustinus von Hippo (De Trinitate
1 5 , 1 7,27-27, 5 0 ) . " Augustinianum 3 5 : 5 67 - 8 3 .
Switalski, Wladislaus. 1 9 0 2 . Des Chalcidius Kommentar zu Plato 's Timaeus: Eine
Switalski, Wladislaus. 1902. Des Chalcidius Kommentar zu Plato's Timaeus: Eine
historisch-kritische Untersuchung. Muinster.
Tarabochia Canavero, Alessandra. 1981. Esegesi biblica e cosmologia: Note
sull'interpretazione patristica e medioevale di Genesi i,z. Milan.
Taran, L. 1972. "The Creation Myth in Plato's Timaeus." In Essays in Ancient
Greek Philosophy, ed. J.P. Anton and G.L. Hustas, 372-407. Albany, N.Y.
Taylor, Alfred Edward. 1928. A Commentary on Plato's Timaeus. Oxford.
Tcherikover, Avigdor. 1961. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Trans. Shimon
Applebaum. Philadelphia.
Theiler, Willy. 1971. "Philo von Alexandria und der hellenisierte Timaeus." In
Philomathes: Studies and Essays in Memory of Philip Merlan, ed. Robert B.
Palmer and Robert Hamerton-Kelly, 25-35. The Hague.
Tigerstedt, Eugene Napoleon. 1974. The Decline and Fall of the Neoplatonic
Interpretation of Plato. Helsinki.
Tobin, Thomas H. 1983. The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpre-
tation. Washington.
Troncarelli, Fabio. 1987. Boethiana Aetas: Modelli grafici e fortuna manoscritta
della "Consolatio Philosophiae" tra IX e XII secolo. Alessandria.
Vignaux, Paul, ed. 1973. In principio: Interpretations des premiers versets de la
Genese. Paris.
Vlastos, Gregory. 1981. Platonic Studies. Princeton.
Vogel, Cornelia J. de. 1985. "Platonism and Christianity: A Mere Antagonism or a
Profound Common Ground?" Vigiliae Christianae 39:1-62.
. 1986. Rethinking Plato and Platonism. Leiden.
Von Rad, Gerhard. 1958. "Das theologische Problem des alttestamentlichen
Schopfungsglaubens." In Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, 136-47.
Munich.
historisch -kritische Untersuchung. Munster.
Tarabochia Canavero, Alessandra . l 9 8 i . Esegesi biblica e cosmo logia: Note
sull'interpretazione patristica e medioevale di Genesi l , 2 . Milan.
Taran, L. 1 9 7 2 . " The Creation Myth in Plato's Timaeus. " In Essays in Ancient
Greek Ph ilosophy, ed. J . P. Anton and G.L. Hustas, 3 7 2 - 4 0 7 . Albany, N.Y.
Taylor, Alfred Edward. 1 9 2 8 . A Commentary on Plato 's Timaeus. Oxford.
T cherikover, Avigdor. 1 9 6 i . Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Trans. Shimon
Applebaum. Philadelphia .
Theiler, Willy. 1 9 7 1 . " Philo von Alexandria und der hellenisierte Timaeus. " In
Philomathes: Studies and Essays in Memory of Philip Merlan, ed. Ro bert B.
Palmer and Robert Hamerton-Kelly, 2 5 - 3 5 . The Hague.
Tigerstedt, Eugene Napoleon. 1 9 74 · The Decline and Fall of the Neoplatonic
Interpretation of Plato. Helsinki.
To bin, Thomas H . 1 9 8 3 . The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpre­
tation. Washington.
Troncarelli, Fabio . 1 9 8 7 . Boethiana Aetas: Modelli grafici e fortuna manoscritta
de/la " Consolatio Philosophiae " tra IX e XII secolo. Alessandria.
Vignaux, Paul, ed. 1 9 7 3 · In principio: Interpretations des premiers versets de la
Genese. Paris.
Vlastos, Gregory. l 9 8 r . Platonic Studies. Princeton.
Waszink, Jan Hendrik. 1964. Studien zum Timaioskommentar des Calcidius.
Leiden.
, ed. 1975. Timaeus a Calcidio translatus commentarioque instructus. zd
Vogel, Cornelia ]. de. 1 9 8 5 . " Platonism and Christianity: A Mere Antagonism or a
Profound Common Ground ? " Vigiliae Christianae 3 9 : 1 - 6 2 .
ed. London and Leiden.
--Watts, Victor E., trans. 1969. Boethius. The Consolation of Philosophy. London
and New York.
Weiss, H..E 1966. Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des hellenistischen und pal-
distinischen Judentums. Berlin.
Wilken, Robert L., ed. 1975. Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early
Christianity. Notre Dame.
Williamson, Ronald. 1970. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Leiden.
Von Rad, Gerhard. 1 9 5 8 . " D as theologische Problem des alttestamentlichen
Schopfungsglaubens . " In Gesammelte Studien zum A/ten Testament, 1 3 6- 4 7 .
Munich.
Waszink, Jan Hendrik . 1 9 64 . Studien zum Timaioskommentar des Calcidius.
Leiden .
Winden, J.C.M. van. 1959. Calcidius on Matter: His Doctrine and Sources. zd ed.
--Leiden.
. 1973. "The Early Christian Exegesis of 'Heaven and Earth' in Genesis
i.1." In Romanitas et Christianitas: FestschriftJ.H. Waszink, ed. W. den Boer,
371-82. Amsterdam.
. 1 9 8 6. Rethinking Plato and Platonism. Leiden.
, ed. 1 9 7 5 · Timaeus a Calcidio translatus commentarioque instructus. 2d
ed. London and Leiden .
Watts, Victor E., trans. 1 9 69 . Boethius. The Consolation of Philosophy. London
and New York.
Weiss, H.F. 1 9 6 6 . Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des hellenistischen und pal­
astinischen Judentums. Berlin.
Wilken, Robert L., ed.
1 9 7 5 · Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early
Christianity. Notre Dame.
Williamson, Ronald. l 9 7 0 . Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Leiden.
Winden, J.C.M. van. 19 5 9 . Calcidius on Matter: His Doctrine and Sources. 2d ed.
Leiden .
---
l.l.
. 1 9 7 3 · " The Early Christian Exegesis of ' Heaven and Earth' in G enesis
"
In Romanitas et Christianitas: Festschrift J.H. Waszink, ed. W. den Boer,
3 7 1 - 8 2 . Amsterdam.
l( H I G
P� ES S
Bibliography
Bibliography 139
• 1983. "The World of Ideas in Philo of Alexandria: An Interpretation of
De opificio mundi 24-25." Vigiliae Christianae 37:20zo9-17.
Winston, David. 1971. "The Book of Wisdom's Theory of Cosmogony." History
of Religions II, no. 2:185-2o02.
---
De opificio mundi 24 - 2 5 . " Vigiliae Christianae 3 7: 209 - 1 7 .
of Religions l l , no. 2 : 1 8 5 - 202.
---
David Noel Freedman, 6:120zo-27. Garden City, N.Y.
Wolfson, Harry A. 1947. Philo of Alexandria. z vols. Cambridge, Mass.
" 1956. The Philosophy of the Church Fathers. Cambridge, Mass.
David Noel Freedman, 6: 1 20-27. Garden City, N.Y.
Wolfson, Harry A. 1 9 4 7 · Philo of Alexandria. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.
---
Yonge, C.D., ed. and trans. 1993. The Works of Philo. Rev. ed. Peabody, Mass.
. 1 9 7 9 · The Wisdom of So lomon. Garden City, N.Y.
--- . 1 9 9 2 . " Solomon, Wisdom of. " In The Anchor Dictionary of the Bible, ed.
Wortmann, Eberhard. 1965. Das Gesetz des Kosmos: Die gittliche Harmonie
nach Platons "Politeia"-"Timaios." Remagen.
. 1 9 8 3 . " The World of Ideas in Philo of Alexandria: An Interpretation of
Winston, David. l 9 7 L " The Book of Wisdom 's Theory o f Cosmogony. " History
" 1979. The Wisdom of Solomon. Garden City, N.Y.
" 1992. "Solomon, Wisdom of." In The Anchor Dictionary of the Bible, ed.
139
. l 9 5 6. The Philosophy of the Church Fathers. Cambridge, Mass.
Wortmann, Eberhard. l 9 6 5. Das Gesetz des Kosmos: Die gottliche Harmonie
nach Platons "Politeia " - "Timaios. " Remagen.
Yonge, C . D . , ed. and trans . 1 99 3 . The Works of Philo. Rev. ed. Peabody, Mass.
l( H I G
P� ES S