Origen and Numenius'

nou.r.d!o-o,

The aim of^this paper-is to anaryse the relationship bemeen origen andNumenius ^of Apamea. The topic ."n.ro, be perfectly clarified *i.rro,r, investi-gating the far-reaching question of the connection berween origen and philos_ophy or, in a broader sense, rhe relationship of christian ,t.o-t"ogy and Greekphilosophy' These are very complicated issues. Here, I confine myself to formu-late my general position.

our starting poinr is that origen obviously was not a Greek philosopher but achristian thinker'. At the same time, he was the found.er of christian theologyas science in its Greek and Medievar sense. He was the first christian thinkerwho adapted and used philosophicar or scientifi. -..rroaotogy, .",.gori., "rrd

H::::::.ITly. which resulted in a genuine ryr,h.rl in his writings.r nls racr otrvrously proves that the Alexandrian consciously adapted o, ,po.ri"-neously followed cerrain phirosophical pa*erns. The latter porriilrtity shourd beemphasized, because these pattern,

"r. .l...r.rrts of a linguirai.-.ogrriairr. sysrem,

:hey are parts of a welanschauung, which are nor to br .q.r"t.a"*i*, some adhoc appliedphilosophical motives."\we musr disdnguish bemeen ,.-"rk, Origenmade concerning the pos.sibiliry of how to ..I",."to Gr..k phil;rophy and thereal use ^of those philosophicar motives which became .rr.ri.i"t org"nizing ele-ments of his thinking. philosoprricalparterns are not just in the air, rather theyare present in the fruits of Greek philosophical writings.

Tfrese. preliminary theses aim to .-ph"rire that it is by no means pointless toraise the question of origen's phrrosophical sources without confining our inves_tigation to his statements on philoropi.rrr but this does not mean that we wouldattempt to reduce his thoughts to such sourcesr.

' This text is a strongly modified version of the vII'h chapter of my dissertat ion phihsophicalPatterns in origen' s 'Vorh

$9y) which has been edited urra., ,t . -"i,{ -ii;O;;" and the GreehPhihnphy (1995, Pdcs' in.Aungarian: orrg*,io)r-n gnog fhaifa. Fitozlfai jeglek origeniszmunkdssdgdban.; separately in a condensed d,iaft: origenisz is Numlniosz, Magyar F1oz6fiai szemre,r994h-2, y-46).

" This fact is sometimes forgomen by scholars, who made the most serious attempts to discoverorigen's philosophical baclground, fo, .*r-pl. p- oi rav., origlne. Sn ,ir, ,on o"urre, sa ?ensee,I-III' Paris ry23-t928'The best comprehensive book on the topic: H. Kocn, pronoia und paideusisLeipzigrg3z; ngwadays see R. BrniHv AN, From phii to Origen Chico, t9g4.r J' D^NrELou (oiglne, paris 1948) and H. cRouzru (orife* ii e'n;uEt lr,paris 196z) takeorigent statemen* as a starting p.ointwhen they study the connection b.m.en origen and Greekphilosophy. According to theiiview, it is a 'diametrical

opposition,' tj. oi*,i.", , op. cit., ro9;H' Cnouzrr' op' cit, gr-94) which primarily characterizes ihi, .orrn..iion. This - unsatisfhctory -judgemen-t is in part a proper rea*ion to the work of H. KocH, which has undoubtedry been themost profound elaboration on the issue of origent relationship *itr, prril...prri until no*, butKoch gave a simplified picture presenting origeir ", ";;l;il;;;.i;;"# abstract philo-sophical problems of divine providence i"a rtl. will are the central questions.

52 AoaraANTrus 6 (zooo)

concerning the issue of philosophical infuence, there is a widespread beliefyorked out by Hal Koch according to which origen was definitely infuencedby Middle Platonism, more exacdy, by the school-philosophy of MiddlePlatonic tradition. This, however, does not imply th"t

".ryorr. could have

demonstrated direct connecrions benveen Middl; blatonic te"t, "nd

origentwritings+. This failure can be accounted for by the anonymiry of the tui"aat.Platonic scholastic works and origen's strong tendency to synthesize. yet, we cansafely claim that the Alexandrian was familiar with Middle platonic philosophi-cal teachings and he was comperent in philosophl.Although origen was at home in the intellectual atmosphere of the MiddlePlatonic school-philosophy, this trend seemed less important to him, for heregarded the Middle Platonic tradition as not especially relevant from a theo-logical point of view6. It was the Neo-pythagorean, proto-Neo-platonic thinker,Numenius, in whose works origen found several applicable conceptions andwho just partially belonged to the Middle platonic r.hol"rti. traditionT. The ver-ification of my thesis according to which Numenius was the most importantphilosopher for origen, raises serious difficulties. First origen's above-men-tioned strongly synrhesising adaptational method makes th. !*".t philologicaldemonstration of theoretical connections almost impossible. seconjly, *. f,"rr.only fragments from Numenius which need thorough interpretation. Thirdly,Numenius seemed a bit baffling even ro his immedia* por,.riry due to his own

+ H' Kocn' op' cit., z18-276; R' Br'ncHuaN, op.cit. Koch believes thar he was able to prove directtextual parallels berween Atticus and origen (p. zle b.,t his arguments lack validiry jR. souos,Oigenesz ls a giiriigfloztifa, t6o-r64).t,H',-D.ory"

*nied Origent professional abiliry in the field of philosophy (Die platonische Thntogiedes Kebos' in Platonica minora,MinchenrgT6,255-z5g).In my opinion th.re

"r.'at lerst three poiits

according to which one can argue against Dcirrie's position: I ii Contra Cebum the literary genre ofapology obtained its perfection, z) Origtnt theologr represenc a more sophisticared systel than

:h^": :f C.lrp 3) Origen was more familiar with Gieek ihilorophy th"r, Gi.gory of Nyssa.o Alcinous' theology with its Aristotelian elemen* remained alien ior o.lgenlatiicus did not make

a.deep,,impression on him. Some elements from Plutarch had a cei"tain importance for theAlexandrian.7 Koch sees a rigid line of demarcation beween Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism, because inhis opinion Middle Platonism is an essential part of the tradition of classical, rationa-l thinking con-trary to ecstatic, allegorical, mystical Neoplatonism. He puts Numenius in rhis irrational tr.rrd

"rrdsees no close connection berween him and origen. (op. cit., zz7-zzg). Based on modernNeoplatonic research Daniclou and Crouzel do ,rot Jar. this opposition berween Middle platonicschool-philosophy and Neoplatonism any more, and in their oiirrion many origenian philosoph-ical motives have common elemenrs with Neoplatonism incluiing Num.rrirrs tlo 1;. DaNrrr-ou,op.cit . ,ror-roz;H.Cnouzar, op..yi t ,a7a6),althoughintermsofrh. irut i l i tar ianpictureoftheorigenian relation to Greek,philosophy, they do

-not

".rign real theological importance to

Numenius' ideas in respect of Origenian theology. Berchman iimore positiveln this question, buthe does. not regard the Numenian role as more i--por.".r, than that oiAlbirr,r, (Alcinous), Atticusor Moderatus. obviously, it did not happen by chance thar J.p KsNNry gave a lecrure in the"colloquium origenianum Quintum' (r9g9) on Numenius' theolog, (pioschresis Reuisited, tnoigeniana Quinta, ed. R.J. po*, r,..r't ..r t992, zr7-4o), but he did riot .air. the question of therelation between Origen and Numenius.

ROeeRT Sovos - Origen and Nurnenius 53

style. Porphyry mentions in his vita Plotini that "... the people from Greece

b.g"r, to' ,"y'th"t Plotinus was appropriating the ideas of Numenius..."8.

Fjlowing thi, ,t"t.rrr.nt, he quotes Amelius protesting against this charge who

first apoi-ogized for citing Numenius only from memory. Amelius contends:

"Yo*, *,rritreat it with justified indulgence... and besides, the intention of our

friend (sc. Numenius), who is being put on trial for the opinions which he shares

with us, is not very easy to grasp, because he treats the same subjects in different

ways in different places"l. iongi.r,t. blames Numenius for the lack of accuracF

(drpipera), contrasring him with Plotinus in this respect. Numenius' fragmen-

rary consequently for ,r, ..rr..r less understandable writings need thorough inter-

pr.t"tion, ""a

i. ir not surprising that eminent representatives of the history of

philorophy understood our thinker in diametrically opposing ways. certain

,.hol"r, ,egard.d him as the trail-blazer of the Oriental anti-intellectualistic spir-

itual trends - for insmnce, of gnosis - or as a Jewish authorlo, others looked upon

him as the follower of the Hellenistic rationalist tradition who, like many other

philosophers, showed interest in Oriental, barbaric wisdom"'^Corrsiderirrg the above-mentioned difficulties, it is not sufficient to take as a start-

ing-point the well-known fact that origen knew and referred to Numenius,

,p!"t i"g highly of him. In order ro prove the significant theoretical influence

which .h. Ap"-.". philosopher had on Origen, I propose the following Proce-

dure: r. I wili give a comprehensive picture on Numenius which represents a czm'

munis opinio Ind whictris nor an overbold interpretatio"; ?.lwill consider the

,.I..,"rri. of pieces of information about Numenius provided by Origent writ-

ings; 3. I wiu try to demonstrate the terminological kinship benveen the theolog-

icJ writings of the two thinkers; 4. I will call attention to an important structur-

,l "nalogy-of

their philosophical-theological systems (concerning the latter ques-

tion, I Jould like to analyse the Father-Son relationship in Origen and Numenius

which can be connected with the Neoplatonic and Proto-Neoplatonic hypostasis-

doctrine); 1. Finally, I will shed light on the parallel presence of certain ideas

belonging to other disciplines in Numenius and Origen'

I Vita Phtini t7,r-2. translated byA.H. ARMSTRoNG.e Vita Phtini r7,3r-i9.'o cH. Brcc, The christian Platonist of Alexandria, oxford 1923, 3oo; H.CH. Pupcu, Numinius

dApamie et les thiologies orientales au lecond siicle, in Milanges Bidez (= Annuaire de l'Institut de

philologie et d'Hisroi.e Orientales de Universitd libre de Bruxelles, z lrsl+l),745-778 (= En qutu

de k gnose, l, Paris 1978, z5-54).,' R. BruTLpn, Numenius, P\il.Srrppl. z Gg+o) and A.-J. FrsructEns in the III'd and IVm volumes

of La riudhtion d'Hermbs Tiismifii, (Paris 1953-1954). This latter trend is the strongest in modern

Numenius-Research: At least HlJ. Krdmer, E.R. Dodds, J. Dillon, M. Frede, J.H. \Waszink agree

with this view. Everybody admits of course that the oriental influence should not be neglected' for

example in Numen'ius' prychology. Cfr. C. MonrscutNt, La posizione di Apuleio e della scuola di

Gaio nell'ambito d"l mri;iphton;izza, ASNSPL II y (tg64) ry-56, esp. the third chapter on Middle

Platonic theology.

,4 AleueNrlus 6 (zooo)

\What do we know about Numenius? Only a few things, but much more rhan,for instance, about Atticus or'Iaurus whose influence on Origen Hal Koch -

unsuccessfully - tried to demonsrrate". His works went lost: only about sixtyfragments and a testimony of his remained to posterity and half of these docu-ments are available in Christian texts. The only thing we know about his life isthat he was in his acme around r5o AD; he was born in Apamea (northern Syria)and he probably began to teach there, but worked also in other cities, perhaps inRome too. Quite a number of fragments survived from two of his writin gs OnGoodness (Ilepi rdya)ot) was writren in a dialogue-form, the other bears thetitle On the Disloyahy of the Academy to Plato (Ilepi rflE raTv dxa|qpawdvnpdE IlAc{rava 6taordoer,-,9). Numenius identified himself as the follower ofPythagoras and Plato and as the heir of a more ancient tradition rooted in theteachings of the "barbaric" sages, and in Moses' words inspired by God.According to Numenius, Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato proclaimed the samedoctrines but Academic disciples misunderstood their masrers' teachings.Numenius' conception of the three Gods is his characteristic doctrine. On thetop of the hierarchy stands the first God who is concenrrared in himsel{, simple,indivisible, who does nor take part in the creation of Cosmos, who is Goodnessitself, the first intellect (uofis), one (Ev), the king. He is existence or he is beyondexistence. Although the first God is unmoved, his immobility is a sort of innermotion which sustains the order and the eternal continuance of the Cosmos.The second God is identical with the Platonic Demiurge, and he is also an intel-lect (vofrg), though besides intellect he has other mental faculties as well.Participating in the first Goodness he is good himsell too. In contrasr with thefirst God, the second God is mobile; he keeps imirating the first God and he isintelligible. The third God is called by Numenius "noir1pc", 'work",

for he isprobably the Cosmos as Proclus proves it in his Commentary on Timaioft, andOrigen most likely refers to Numenius when he contends in Contra CelsumY,

7, that certain philosophers regard the world as a third God. In a way, however,he is "one with the second God". How can rhe Demiurge be one with Cosmos?How can the Cosmos possess the faculty of discoursive thinking (6rciuota), theonly attribute the noirlpa-third God has according to Numenius' fragments? Itseems to be the most acceprable explanation that the third God is the unity ofcosmic order and the \7orld-Soul, and the \forld-Soul is one with the Demiurgein a certain respect (but not in the sense of identiry), i.e. the \7orld-Soul has anessential kinship with the Demiurge.The matter is indeterminate dyad (<idplorog 0uri9), it has no genesis, it is eter-nal, without qualities in itself, unknowable, non-exisrent; it is not indifferent butbad. In contrast with the theory of some Pythagorean philosophers, this inde-terminate, unmeasured dyad does not derive from the One. The dualism of first

" H. KocH, op. cit.,268-276.') Fr. zr. I quote according to the edition of E. oes Pu.Crs, Numenius. Fragments, Pais ry73.

ROnBRT Sovtos - Origen and Nurnenius 55

God and matter is present in the cosmos and in individual human beings, the

inordinate motion of matter is pre-existent to the matter-arranging activiry of

the Demiurge. The bad \7orld-Soul causes the inordinate motion of bad matter

and is in constant battle with the good lWorld-Soul. Numenius ascribes ruling

function to the latter such as Plato did in the Laws or Plutarch in his De Iside et

Osiride.It is the intellect in human beings which is connatural with the Gods,

and the inferior part of our soul is connected with the material'W'orld-Soul. In

the strictest sense of the word, we cannot talk about different parts of the soul,

since there are two separate souls in us: a good and a bad one. The more peffect

soul is pre-existenr, it is a divine exhalation, an intermediate mathematical enti-

ry between intelligible and sensible beings. The incarnation of soul is definitely

a bad occurence according to Numenius, and this event depends on a judicial

decision or on cosmic necessiry. In other fragments Numenius describes the

embodiment of the soul as the consequence of astral determinism.

Numenius' doctrine of two souls reyeals Oriental influence. This infuence can be

detected in the authort religious enthusiasm, in his style resembling the language

of Hermetic scriptufes and the Chaldzan Oracles, and dso in the fact that he tried

to fathom the roots of philosophical tradition in barbaric writings. On the other

hand, an important characteristic of his fragments is the use of such formal and

thematical elements like the deification of the Cosmos, deep erudition, subtle

argumentative abiliry, and fie stylisdcal marks of the invectives of Hellenistic

philosophical schools which can be traced back to the intellectualism of Hellenistic

thinking. That Numenius was not a man of mediocre talent who could be easily

left out from the study of the history of philosophy is proven by his having been

part of the curriculum in the school of Ammonius and Plotinus and probably in

the Athenian school as well, and especially by the fact that Plotinus was charged

with plagiarizing Numenius. An1,way, the three-God-concept and two of the most

important elements of Neoplatonic theology made the Apamean philosopher

Plolinus' precursor. "One is the principle of participation, that in the Intelligible'World

all things are in each thing, but modified in each by im special character...

The other is the principle of 'undiminished giving', which implies non-reciprocat-

ing causal relations, so that the cause is never dissipated among its efFects..."t4.

Origen refers to Numenius in several passages of the Contra Celsum: "How much

better than Celsus is Numenius the Pythagorean, a man who showed himself in

many works to be very learned and who by studying several doctrines made from

many sources a synthesis of those which seemed to him to be true. In the first

book of his Vork On the Good where he speaks of the nations that believe God

ro be incorporeal, he also included the Jews among them, and did not hesitate

to quote the sayings of the prophets in his book and to give them an allegorical

'4 E.-R. DoDDS , Numenius andAmrnonius,in Ennetiens sur lhntiquiti ckssiqueTomeY: Les sources

de Phtin, Vandoeuvres-Gen|ve 1957, 23.

56 AoaveNlus 6 (zooo)

interpretatiori'rt. \7e find an even more detailed remark on Numenius in thefourth book: "I am also aware that Numenius the Pythagorean, a man whoexpounded Plato with very great skill and mantained the Pythagorean doctrines,quotes Moses and the prophets in many passages in his writings, and gives themno improbable allegorical interpretation, as in the book entitled Hoopoe ("Enorf)and in that Concerning Numbers and in that on the Place.In the third book onthe Good he even q,rJr., a story about Jesus, though without mentioning hisname, and inrerprets it allegorically; whether his interpretation is successful ornot we may discuss at another time. He also quotes the srory about Moses andJannes and Jambres. It is not that this is a source of pride to us, bur that weapprove of him because he had a grearer desire than Celsus and other Greeks toexamine even our writings in a scholarly way, and was led to regard them asbooks which are to be interpreted allegorically and which are not foolisli"6. InY, ,7. he mentions the work of the Apamean philosopher entitled On theInconuptibility of the Soul.\7hat kind of information can we get from these statements? First of all, thesequotations shed light on origent profound knowledge of Numenius, andindeed, there is no other philosopher whose works Origen was more familiarwith than Numenius. secondly, the appraisemenr according to which he is the"... man who expounded Plato with very great skill and maintained thePythagorean doctrines" indicates an evaluation, that a most importanr represen-tative of Hellenic thinking is under discussion. Generally, origen did not laudphilosophers, but Numenius is a significant exception.

'w'e can also cite

Hieronymus who wrote the following in connection with origen's Stromateis;Hunc (scil. Clement of Alexandria) imitatus Origenes d.ecem scripsit Stromateas,christianorum et philosophorum inter se sententiat conparans, et omnia nostrae reli-gionis dogmata de Pktone et Aristotele, Numenio cornutoque confrmanfz. TheStrornateis did not survive, but it is clear, that Jeromet account is reliable.Thirdly, Numenius deserved this appreciation especially by holding the Judeo-Christian tradition in high esteem. Clement of Alexandria had already noticedit earlier and he quoted this line from Numenius: "ri ydp Lort rltrdrov iiMcrluoflg drrrri(cou;"'8. Fourthly, Numenius interpreted both the old andNew Testaments, following a method of allegorical interpretation which corre-sponded to Origen's conception. It is probable that he did not make use of thatgnostic exegetical method which ignored the prophets. This means thatNumenius' theology can be interpreted without identifying Oriental infuence

\-CCels. I, ry (I quote the translation by H. Cneo'lrrrcr, Cambridge ryfi, ry).'6 CCels. IY, 7 (p. zz6).

" EP' 7o,4. Porphyry refers to Numenius as the firsr thinker, after Plato, whom Origen studied. Itis more than symptomadc that one of the most frequently mentioned names in connection withthe supposedly Neoplatonist Origen is that o[Numenius.'8 strom' r,zz,t5o,4. clement's statement is quoted by Eusebius in praep. Eu.lx,7,r. Des places doesnot regard it as part of rhe fragment r a.

ROnERT Sotr.tos - Origen and Numenius 57

with gnosis. Fifthly, the first attribute Numenius posited concerning God was

incorporeiry just like Origen claimed at the beginningof De principiis.

In connection with the Origen-N"-.iil, relationship, we can find considerable

similarities between the first and second God, the God-Father and the Logos. It

applies to both the approach towards their relations and all those attributes with

which Origen and Numenius characterized the two Gods. Consequently, Origen

did not simply sympathize with the Apamean philosopher because the latter

appreciated the Oriental - ircter aliaJudeo-Christian - theological tradition.

This position is confirmed by the comparison of those terms' as well, the pagan

thinker and the Christian theologian applied to denote God. I begin the present

inquiry by comparing expressions they used to describe the first God.

r. Both of them use the expression airod4a\ov ("Goodness itself") which was

not a widely applied term to denote the highest God at all. The expression has

philosophical, Platonic origin, but neither the Middle Platonic philosophers nor

Plotinus did use it, therefore this terminological parallel between Origen and

Numenius has a great importance. Numenius wrote: "Eine p 6: 6 6qptoup-

ybs 6 rfrg yeuloeujs ionv riyc0ds, fr nou Eo'rat rai 6 tfrs oriotas

0lproupybg airodyo.Eo4 orip$urov rfr otoia"'e. It sounds in Rufinus'

translation of De principiis as principalis bonitaPo, in Jerome's letter rz4 perfecta

bonita?'and in Justinian can be found the original Origenian expression, ar)-

rodya\ov".z. They both regarded this airociya}ov as the "first God". Numenius expres-

ses himself in the following way: "6 0e bs 5 piv npritog iv €aurofi tiv

torrv tin),ots"'1. Origen calls the Son "second God" in several Passages which

show that the distinction between first and second gods was natural for him'a.

3. The first God is one and a uniry. Concerning this aspect Numenius refers to

Plato; "the Goodness is one (""rb dycrOdu... ioriv tv"1zs, and according to

another fragment in Calcidius, following Pythagoras Numenius called this God

mona*6. This Pythagorean terminology is stressed by origen in a central pas-

sage of De principiis: the God " ... intellectualis natura simplex... Vovd.g, et ut ita

re Fr 16, 8 = Eusebius: Praep. eu.XJ, zz,1-5.20 Princ. l, z, 11.2r Ep. tz4, z: Deum panem omnipotentem appellat bonum et perfectae bonitatis. Cfr. H. Cnouz[ -

M. SIvoNerrt, Origine. Ti,aiti des principrs, II, SC 253, Paris 1978, fi.

" Ibid.,53-54; Mansi IX t2t.Furthermore in Origen it is dyaOdrqs (Comloh. XIII, z5' ttltV\,

57,;r9),tiLleryits 0e6r\s(Comloh.Xlll, 16,234;Princ.III,r,16).Cfr.withJustinianus,EpistolaadMennam6.Fr. In Comloh. l l ,z,17 orlr<j0eosisidenticalwith6 eeds.Al l terminimeanthe

idea of good. Cfr. tilqeos riyc8bg eis iorr in ComMt. XV' rr (GCS X, 128,6).'1 Fr. tr, n; cfr. fr. rz-r3.a CCek.Y, lg;YI,6r; VII, 57; Comloh. 11, ro,7o;Y1, 29, zoz; ck. Princ. 1,3, 5.

" Fr. t9, tz.'6 Singukritas, ft. 52.

t8 AoeueNrius 6 (zooo)

dicam ivrLg, et mens acfons, ex quo initium totius intellectualis naturae uel men-tis es/''7. As we can see in Platonic dialogues - for example in the Parmenides -"one" and "simplicity' are almost equivalents, they mean the same unstructuredbeing or not being. Naturally, this terminological parallel does not counr muchbecause the use of the termini povcig and €vcfg in Alexandrian theology (Philo,Clement of Alexandria) was current. Nevertheless, it can be seen that betweenthe Nvo main forms of Middle Platonic theology, the more rationalistic and lessspiritual Aristotelian teaching represented by the Gaius-group (Gaius, Alcinous,Apuleius, Albinus), and the more spiritual and personal Neopythagorean-Platonic theology Origen stood closer to the latter oner8.The above cited, rgth fragment indicates that Numenius - like Origen - did notuse the Plotinian term rb €v as a technical term for the notion of subjecr. Thislack is a characteristic feature of Middle Platonism'e.

4. The most frequent rerm both of them employed to denote the Supreme Godis "reason" (vofrg), or in certain cases, npdroS uofrgro.

5. Naturally, this npritog votg is the beginning of all, therefore it is tipXrjl', oi--ria or a\rrov)t, and in a metaphorical sense "source" (nlyd)rr, Demiurgela or"father" (narrip)ri.

6. The Father is being itself, or perhaps he is beyond being. Origen did not wantto settle this question. He quoted his pagan adversary with approval in the VIthbook of the contra celsum: "God does nor even parricipate in being (oioiq)",and in the next passage he commenred upon this thought as follows: "Moreover,God does not even parricipate in being. For He is participated in, rather thanparticipates; and He is participated in by those who possess the Spirit of theGod. Our Saviour also does not participate in righteousness; but being right-eous, he is participated in by the righteous. However, there is much to say which

27 Princ. l, r, 6, r5o-r54.'8 comlob. l, zo, 19; on the origenian dualiry between one and many from the ethical point ofview: HomEz. lx, 4 De orat. )C{L, z; Philoc. vIII, 3 fr. In oseam (origine. Philocalie rzo, sur lesEcitures et la letne I Africanus, ed. M. Hanr [SC 3oz], 34o.G-rc).'s R.E. VITT,,4lbinus and the history of Middb Pktonism, Cambridge 1937, 19.ro Numenius: fr. t6; t7; zo; Origen: Princ. 1, 4 6.t' Numenius: fr. r6,t; Origen: dna{anloig dpyl (Comloh. l, 17, rcz).3' Numenius: fr. 16,3. Origen: Comloh. lI, z, :.4.3r Origen, Princ. l, 4 6; ...unus deitatis fons uerbo ac ratione sua teneat uniuersa, spiritu uero oris suiquae digna sunt sanctifcatione sanctifcet... G, l, ); bonorum omnium fons (I, 6, ); origo et fons fliiuel spiritus sancti pater est (Il, z, r). Cfr. Numenius fr. 15, 8-ro: ... .rlv npoootocv re npti.rrpo'rdol glpi etucr <iurloru oripgurov, ,i+' frs ri re rci{tg .rofi x<iopou xci I pouli dt6ros rai q oor4p(a dloLyeTrar eig rd 6tra.raOrigen, Comloh.I,rT,roz;Numenius, fr .16,9-ro: "theDemiurgeofexistencewil lbetheGooditself". As terminus technicus "demiurge" usually refers to the second God, but by expansion ofmeaning denotes the first God in similar way. This extension may have b...r ih. ground forProclus to say, correctly, that in Numenius "the Demiurge is mofold" (fr. zr, l.Jt Numenius fr o, 3; zr, r. Naturally, after Plato's Timaeus the term "fathei' was an almost gener-ally accepted expression in the same way as in the Judeo-Christian tradition. In Platonic meaning(the father of all) in Origen: De orat. V z; XV, r.

ROesRT Sotvtos - Origen and Numenius 59

is hard to perceive about being, and especially ifwe take 'being' in the strict sense

to be unmoved and incorporeal. \7e would have to discover whether God 'tran-

scends being in rank and power'36, and grants a share in being to those whose

participatioi is according to His Logos, and to the Logos himself,_or whether He

is Himself being, in spite of the fact that He is said to be invisible by nature ..."r2.

Interpreting Join 4, z3 ("God is a Spirit") Origen distinguishes three possibili-

ties regarding rhe meanin g of pneuma: r. corporeal nature, z. incorporeal nature,

3. "bo*

of b.ing, and he excludes only the first answeris.In De oratione )CCVII,

g-g origen girr.s a different interpretation of the word orioia. Aithough he does

not bind hilseff to any solution, it is clear that in a narrow sense the incorpo-

real, noetic, unalterable nature is the orjoia, therefore substance is akin to the

God. origen interprets Exodus T 14 ('I am rhat I arn') in a philosophical con-

,.*r, "..oiding

to which Godt immutable nature is correctly expressed by the

the name: 6 fifie.Ve find similar ideas in Numenius, too. In the above quoted

r6th fragment, the "Demiurge of being" is at the same time "kindred in nature

with being" (oripQurov rfr otoiq). In the same fragment we read that "ei 6'

€o'rr uiv voltbv rl otoia rai r1 \6(a, tattrlg 6' topoXoyden np€o-

pdrepov rcai atnov etuat 6 vots, arirbs o0rog pdvog e{ipqrar tov 'rb

d"ya06v" . Numenius referred to him, clearly not irrespective of the Septuaginta,

in the r3th Fragment as "who there is" (6 du;+o. In the rTth fragment, it is "being

itself" (arirofy). t" Numenius'writings 6 tiv, ariro<iv and orlota are identi-

."f4r, and the elements of his vocabulary are easy to find in Origent worla in the

same way as the rypical Middle Platonic oscillation between two options: the

first God is the being or He is above the beinga'.'When we consider the terminological similarities between Numenius and

Origen in connection with the second God we find further relevant elements,

btrt"" d..p., analysis needs more than registering general parallels, therefore, in

the following part of our investigation, terminological similarities will be showed

whithin the scope of a more detailed examination of the structural analogy

between these divine beings.

t6 Plaro, Rep. 5o9 B.17 CCellVL 6+ (pp. i7918o).18 Comloh. XIll, zt, rz3.)e De orat. )O(IV z (GCS ll+, ro). The philosophical conrext is clear, because this is the only

origenian text in which the Platonic doctrine on learning as remembering emerges.40 I cannot discuss the textual problems emerging here. Dodds proposes a different reading

(Numenius and Arnmonius, r5.), but the 6 ciu as Hebraism is generally accepted. cfr. J.

\Turrraren, Moses Atticizing,iho.ni* zr Q96) ry6 ff. andlo., Numenius andAlcinoas on thefrst

principle, Phoenix 1z ft978) 44ff.'0, Fr.'6,6-r5. It is a fact having certain importance that discussing the immutabiliry of the being,

Numenius cites Plato's doctrine expressed in Crarylus according to which there is an inner simi-

lariry between things and their names in the same way, as origen in De omt. )o(v z.

+' On this question-see J. \fstrrarun,'E ndxetva voii xai oiotas, VigChr z1 $96) gt ff'

6o AoavaNrrus 6 (zooo\

rv.Investigating the two divine persons, origen and Numenius similarly use aNeoplatonic dynamic-metaphysical approach. By this approach I mean the fol-lowing: \7e cannor describe the divine order surpassing the scope of humanunderstanding in terms of the well-known concepts of "creation'; or "produc-tion'deriving from the notion of "cause" and rdxul; this order is describableo{y by memphors. "Neoplatonic dynamic-metaphysical approach" imply a sortof collective term for the metaphors referring to these biariiculate relatLns. Thebiarticulate relation is asymmetric in the sense that it has a more perfect mem-ber and a less perfect one, and the connection of members is timiless, erernal,but active. The nature of these members is largely similar, therefore theNeoplatonic dynamic-metaphysical approach emphasizes this close relationshipof the members and, at the same time, it highlights the difference berween theirpositions in the hierarchy of beings. The more perfect member emits his good-ness from himseli but this emanarion does not cause diminishing of being inhim, and this process of emission hypostathizes as an independent being in eier-nal progression. opposing the process of emanation stands the reversal turn(inrorposri) which breaks up the dynamic-eternal cycle. Naturally, whenDodds registers the presence of 'the

principle of participation, that in theIntelligible \7orld all things are in each thing, but modified in each by its spe-cial character..." and "the principle of

'undiminished giving', which implies non-

reciprocating causal relations" in rhe fragments of Numenius, it involves the useof several elements of the "Neoplatonic dynamic-metaphysical approacli' fromthe side of Numenius-In Numenius' case as well as in Origen's, the second God is described as "good"(d"ya06v) but not "the Goodness itself"; he has only a share in the First GooJness.Ag even more important analogy is that in characterizing the "second God", bothof them proceed from the formula of emanation, and we cannor find this motivein other philosophers belonging to Middle Platonism. philo used the termdeuteros tlteos, as well, and Alcinous contrasted reason (vofis) with the "first God".Concentrating on the conrent of the expressions, however, we realize the closerelationship berween the origenian Son and Numenius' "second God". Themelning of Logos in Philo contains a lot of things: "Torali', "angel", "divine intel-lect", "world spirit", and in terms of certain not unambiguou, phr"r., the divineintellect is a substantial being comprising the ideas. As far as Alcinous is con-cerned, the concept ofsubstantial independence and unity oftranscendent exis-tence is completely missing from his notion of the second God. According to theDidaskalikos, the first God, the unmoved mover is connected with that votswhigh is the heavenly reason, i.e. with the higher, inseparable part of the \7orld-soul: "(...) first God, being the cause of the eternal activity of ihe intellect of thewhole heaved'4r. "(...) He is Father through being the cause of all things and

a, Alcinous, Didask. X, z, translated bv T. Drnor.r.

ROSBRT Sotr,tos - Origen and Numenius 6t

bestowing order on the heavenly Intellect and the soul of the world in accordance

with himself and his own thoughts. By his own will he has filled all things with

himselfl rousing up the soul of the world and turning it towards himself, as being

the cause of its intellect"4. In a similar way, Atticus did not formulate with the

conception of the existence of a "creating Intellect" having a middle state of exis-

tence benveen the supreme God and the \7orld-Soul either, since according to

him there is no intellect existing separately from the soul. In contrast with this

idea, the second God in Numenius is the creating Intellect who is different, as its

creator, from the third God, the \forld-Soul, which may be actually identical

with Cosmos, although their nature is similar. Therefore Numenius'second God

is a transcendent hypostasis, and \Waszink is right in stressing the significance of"une innovation de Numenius I I'intdrieur du platonisme: I'introduction d'une

seconde entitd transcendentale entre I'Etre supr6me et le cosmos"at. This second

divine person is like an idea. In Numenius "to the Second God corresponds a dif-

ferent orloia which includes his own i,6da and presumably i-6dar"a6. In Origen

the Son has his own existence and He is idea in a different sense: "... the very

Logos and truth, and, further, the very wisdom Himself"aT.

To demonstrate the existence of elements implying the "Neoplatonic dynamic-

metaphysical approach", I will now consider some relevant passages from Origen:

For if"all things that the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise" Voh, s, r9), thenin this very fact that the Son does all things just as the Father does, the Father's image isreproduced in the S^on, whose birth from the Father is as it were an act of his will proceed-ing from the mind4d.

The onlybegotten Son, therefore, is the brightness of this light, proceeding from God with-

out separation, as brightness from light, and lightening the whole creation... This brightness

falls softly and gently on the tender and weak eyes of mortal man and little by light trains

and accustoms them, as it were, to bear the light in its clearness... it renders them capable of

enduring the glory of the light, becoming in this respect even a kind of mediator between

men and the lighta9.

Now God's wisdom is therefore an werlasting brightness, enduring eternally. If this point is

44 lbid.,X3.4t J.H. \fAszINr, Porphyrius et Numenius, in Entretiens sur I'antiquiti ckssiqzr XII, Vandoeuvres-GenEve 1966, 4o. Cfr. \?l Dr\lsr, (Jntersuchungen zur mittelplatonischen und neupktonichenSeelenhhre,

's?iesbaden ryU,68; H. oE Lev, Macrobius and Numenius. A stady of Macrobius, In

Somn., I, r. ru, Brussels ry72, 34; M. BArrEs, Numenius aon Apamea und der phtonische Timaios,VigChr zg (r97j) 266. These interpretations criticize H.-J. KnAvEn's position who identifies theNumenian Second God with \forld-Soul in his Der (Jrsprang d.es Geistmetaphysih (Amsterdam

ry64) and wants to attach Numenius to Xenokrates.46 E.-R. Dooos, op. cit., 15.a7 CCels.Y7, 6l;Y,39;V7, 47i Princl,2,4; the very Righteousness (Homler. XV, 6 GCS r1o, n);the very Righteousness, the very Tiuth, the very Sanctiry the very Perseverance (Homler. XV, 6GCS 47, z-3); the very Logos, the veryTiuth (ExM. X, GCS ro, z8); the veryTiuth (,&t/ly'. XLVII,

GCS +1, ri); the very Logos (Comloh. 1I, 3, zo). Origen and Numenius equally prefer the use of

the prefix "auto" to stress the uniry as idea.4 Princ.I, z, 6, transl. by G.Vl But,rnru<zoRtu.ae lbid.,I, z, z.

6z AoeveNrtus 6 booo\

fully understood, it is a clear proof that the Son's existence springs from the Father himself,yet not in time, nor from any other beginning excepr, as we said, from God himselflo.

This approach is quite easily palpable in Numenius' writings. The most obviousformulation of the notion of source-preserving emanation can be found in ther4th fragment. Eusebius expressly says that this text discusses the problem of"how the second cause receives his existence from the first cause":

...rd Oi Oetti (scil.6o0durc) io'ny olc perc6o0durc iv0lv6' ir<etft yeyevlpdvatv\eu re orirc tine),ritruOe rcriretft yev6peva rbv piu tiuloe .rbu O' orix €plarfercai npoorrivqoe rfr nepi riu ilnio'raro dvapvrioer."Eorr 6t roffro .rb rca)rbu Xpfrpatnro'rrjpq ri rcc).ri, fig diva'ro ptu 6 lapr,5u, otr dno).eine.rct 6' criris 6 6e-6or<tjs. Oioy dv i6ors Lta|\&ro d4' €.rdpou trriyvou trriXvou Qo5e EXourc, ii pit'rbu np<ire pou dqei).aro tiLL' ii ris iv atrQ ti).ns npbs rb treiyou ntp i{-agOeio1s. Torot'roy rd Xpfrpri iorr rb r{9 intorripls, ii 6o0€1od xci Xlq0eioanapo.p.(ver piu rc,) 6e6o:rdn, oiyco.n 6i tr,j lap<5vn f1 aurri.

The connection of the two highest Gods is srrucrured by the principle of par-ticipation. Both are intellect (voflg), therefore their nature is the same in a cer-tain sense, but the second God only participares in the Goodness itselfi

ei ydp riryaOrjs iorry 6 6erirepog oi nap' €aurofi, napd 6t .rofi npd.rou, 1169oi<iv re tq' o0 perouoias Eoriu o0ros dya0<59, pig dyasbv <etuat>, d).),r,rs .re

xdv 'niyq arl,ot ds riyaOoi) pe,rc).aXtbv 6 6eri.repog;tt;otirog rci eir6'rros 6 6lproupybg etnep io.ri pterouoiq rofi npo5rou dya8ofiriyaOds, <ayaOo0> tOda &v eiq 6 nprlrog vots, djv ainotiya}oviz.

By calling the first God norrjptl and the second God "descendent"(Zyyouog)5+,

Numenius describes the essential similarity and difference berween them at the

same time, such as by characterizing the latter as an "imirator" (prplrri9)rr.

Concerning this question, Numenius also mentions that the first God is theDemiurge of being (orioic), while the second is that of genesis (ydueorg), andhe uses the term "image" (eircrriu)16 to refer to the connection of being and gen-esis. The "activity''of the two Gods is similar bur, at the same time, different inNumenius. The first God is unmoved, yet he has an inner movemenr, while thesecond God is moving. The motion of the first God, however, permeares rhewhole universe: du'ri ydp rfrs npooorioqg rc! Oeurdptp Krylio€tos: rivnpooofrocu ro) npoirq ord.oLv Qlpi etucr rtulorv odpSurov, ,iO' is

to lbid., I , z, l .t'Numenius, fr. r9.t2 Fr. zo. These two fragments make it clear that the Demiurge is good; therefore, there is no needto suppose a gnostic influence on the theology of the Apamean philosopher.t, Fr. rz; zr, r. In fr. zr nc{nnos.,4 Fr. 2r,7.rr Fr. 16, 7; t6, t5.s6 Fr. t6, z.

ROesRT Sotvtos - Origen and Numenius 63

fl re r<i{r-g rofi rc<iopou xai r1 Fovl) fl atotos rci rl ouorlpia ava-

xetrat eis td 6trarz.

The first God is active in a sense: he emits perfection from himself. In writing

about the first or the second God, Numenius always highlights their analogies,

their inner connections, and this tendency is apparent in his characterizing the

two Gods simultaneously by comparing them to each other in a sort of oscillat-

ing movement of thinking. \7e cannot find such a way of thinking neither in

Middle Platonic authors nor in Philo, for they dealt with static principles: such

as God, the ideas, and matter in a static way; and, on the other hand, they had

nothing to do with two Gods having uofis:-character besides and beyond the

\7orld-Soul. This Numenian stylistical mark became an organizing principle in

Plotinus, but it had been present in Origen, as well. The Numenian Father and

Son are transcendent spiritual beings, the former is like a point and the latter

conrains the elements of multiplicity such as in Origen's workst8. However, we

have no firm basis for reconstructing how Numenius in fact conceived the orig-

ination of the second God. It is only presumable that, since two unchanging,

purely spiritual beings are in question whose connection was depicted as a

Father-Son reladonship, Numenius probably described this origination as a per-

manenr birrh, as the everlasting emanation of Goodnesste. Presumably Origent

tenet of the eternal birth of the Son was not unfamiliar to Numenius, although

we cannot find races of this concePt in his fragments. The most direct parallel

of the Origenian theory of the eternal birth of the Son is Plotinus' frfth Ennead

, where the famous formulation of the emanatoric Process can be read' Following

Platot Timaeus (27 c, 48 d) it starts with a prayer: "Let us speak of it in this way,

firsr invoking God himself, not in spoken words, but stretching ourselves out

with our soul into prayer to him..."6o. The Intellect itself is being born from the

One, without any movement of the One, in a timeless Process.

How did it come to be then, and whar are we to think of as surrounding the One in its

repose? It must be a radiation from it while it remains unchanged, like the bright light of the

s7 Fr. rj,7-ro; cfr. fr. ry.18 The first God concentrates in himself in his solitude as a king beyond being. fr. z. The expres-

sion tnoXoripevoy ini rf orioiq has a twofold meaning. On the one hand it signifies tran-

scendence, and, on the other hand it means a contact with intelligible beings (cfr. the commen-

tary of des Places, p. 44). Multipliciry is implied in the second Numenian God by its twofold func-

tion, namely the contemplation of the 6rst God, himself or the intelligibles, and, the practice of

creation and providence (fr. n;6; r8.). Similarly, Origen lays emphasis on the unstructured sim-

plicity of the Father and the multipiicity of the Son. The latter has different names because of his

various firnctiorc (Princ. I, z, r): he has a twofold nature, Sophia and incarnated God, transcen-

dent and immanent (6 rriv ntlvrav X6yo9: CCels.Y ,24, cfr.Y7,4). He contains in himself the

ideas of creation (Princ.l, z, z; CCek. V 39). Naturally, many elements of this analogy can be reg-

istered in the writing of other thinkers, e.g., Philo or Clement of Alexandria.

te Genesis implies change, and, if somethingis changing itwill be no eternal entiry (Numenius,

fr. 7.). Origen's arguments for eternal birth presupposes this reasoning.6" Plotinus, Enn. Y, t, 6, 9-rt, transl. by A.H. ARMSTRoNG.

64 Aoavexrrus 6 (zooo)

sun which, so to speak, runs round it, springing from it continually while it remainsunchanged. All things which exist, as long as they remain in being, necessarily produce fromtheir own substances, in dependence on their presenr power, a surrounding reality directedto what is outside them, a kind of image of the archetypes from which it was produced... An{all things when they come to perfection produce; the One is always perfect and therefore pro-duces everlastindy; and. its product is less than itself, \fhat then must we say about the mostperfect? Nothing can come from it except that which is next greatest after it. Intellect is nexrto it in greatness and second to itor.

Origent very similar formulations of the idea of the eternal birth of the Son canbe found inthe De Principiis tndhis 9th Homily onJeremiah6,. This doctrine pres-ents the most intimate link bet',veen Origen and Plotinus, because our sources donot know other thinkers using this idea before Plotinus6r. It is probable thatOrigen's and Plotinus'common source was Numenius orAmmonius.Eusebius' quotation in the XIth book of PrEaratio Euangelica shows that theApamean thinker uses rhe same praying-formula as Plotinus5a, and in what followshe also talks about the process of emanation6i in terms of which the self-concen-tration of the first God is conceived as an inner modon, and the main metaphys-ical elements are the relationship of the Father and the Son, the torch simili andthe undiminished giving of perfection. \7e are likely to be right ro suppose that atthis point Numenius is writing about the eternal birth of the second God.The second God is a sort of mediator between the first God and the inferiorbeings. This mediation is being realized in creation, in providence, and in ourpossibility ro get ro the 6rst God only through the second God or God's Logos:"... Oedy 6t npoorccheodpevor €aurofi yvtil,tova yevip.evov re IdyCOeT{cr 0eoaupdu spou'ri6ov"66. A more detailed investigation may producenumerous aspects of this role of mediation:

r) Giving the knowledge by revelation or by natural process6T.z) Creating beings who have intellect68.

3) Creating, that is practising providence and ameliorating matterse.4) Spreading, dividing, making individual the general god coming from the

first Godz".

5) Image of the first principlezr.

6t Enn,Y, t ,6 .6' Princ. l, z, 7. l; Homler. IX, GCS 7o, t4; Comloh. l, 29, zo4.6r H. cnouzEr , origtne et Plotin, comparaisons doctrinales, paris r99r, 17-43.lnthe commentary(Tiahi des principes, ll, sc 253, p. 39. n.3r) H. cnouzu- and M. sruoNsrn mention Albinus.too. In realiry AJbinus (Alcinous) has nothing to do with the idea of eternal birth.5a Numenius, fr. rr.6r Fr. rr-rj.66 Fr. t; cfr. fr. z; t+.6z Fr. t) 14 19, cfr. Origent Logos.68 Fr. tz; t3.6s Fr. rr; n; ry; t8.7" Fr. t3; 15.7'Fr.r6i zo. Origen, Pinc.l ,z.,6-8;1,2,V; Cornloh. XIII ,36, 44; CCels.yI,g-6a.

R6seRT Sovtos - Origen and Numenius 65

The uniry of the first two divine persons is supported by the motive oftnr"orpoQrj. In Numenius' case his navigator simile express this turn to the firstentity in an excellent way: "Kupepurirls Vtv rrou Lv pdoqr nelctyer

Soporipe vog rinEp nq6a).irou rirl-'i(uyog rots: oto€r- Oiigrjver rlu uafivi0e4dpLeuog, dppara 6' atro0 rcai vofis: erl0t ro0 aiO{pos owr(rarannpds r& pe'rciporc rai { 66bs arirri dyor 6r"' oripavofi dneror, n}.doy-'rr rd'rco r<crd rlu od\ctrrav'or.iror xoi 6 Olproupybg rilu titrqv,ptrdner- re ovri rot otpcuot elE tdv i iva 0edu npooay6pevov arirofird 6ppa'ra trappriuet re rb ptu rcprnrdv and rflg 0erirpia9..." (fr. r8).Origen inhis Connmentary onJohz uses the motif of inrorpoQri: "... tr<iyos, 6stv .ipXfr frv, rr! etvar npdg rbu Seby aei p(vav 0e<is, oirc &v 6'arirb iolrlrds <l- pr\ npds Oebu fru, xai oix dy [eiyas 0e<i9, ei pfl

napdpe ue rfr ridtahein'rq Odq tofl narprrcofi pd0ou9"72.

These were the most important elements of the Neoplatonic dynamic-meta-physical approach in Origen and Numenius. At an important point, however,we find differences between Origenian theology and Numenius' thoughts. TheCreator-God in Origen is the Father instead of the Son. He also objected to theconception according to which the Son is imitating the father like the discipleimitates his master, and he keeps carrying out in the material world what theFather is accomplishing in the spiritual worldTl. These thoughrs seem to be in aclear contrast with Numenian philosophy, according to which the Demiurge isunambiguously the second God, who is a prpqrrigz+.In terms of Origent theory creation is the mutual work of the Father and theSon. The plural number in Genesis r, z6 refers ro them, therefore the spiritualbeings are their creatures. On the other hand, there is a certain division of activ-iry between them, and according to Origen the following words from thePsalms: "He spake and they were made, he commanded and they were creared"(Pt.32,9) express that "... the immediate Creator and, as it were, direct Makerof the world was the Son of God, the Logos, but that the Father of the Logoswas the primary Creator because he commanded His Son, the Logos, to makethe world"7t.The material beings were not created directly by the Logos but the angels, andcertain impersonal forces "helped" the Logos. Nevertheless, the Father is theCreator, and the Numenian and the Origenian standpoints are not identical.There are two possibilities by which the contradicdon may be eliminated. Thefirst solution is that for Origen the immediate Creator is the Logos. Secondly,the assumption may be worth considering that the work enritled The AloneCreator is the King which usually is regarded as a work of Origen the

7' Comloh. II, z, 18.7t Pinc. I, t, tz.7a Numenius, fr. n; cfr. fr. 16.7t CCels.Yl,6o.

66 AoeveNrlus 6 (zooo)

Neoplatonist, contains our theologian's polemics against NumeniusT6.

\7e can draw the conclusion from the issues which have been treated so far.

Concerning the connection between the First and the Second God, we have seen

that the elements of the Neoplatonic dynamic-metaphysical approach are evi-

dently similar in the writings of Numenius and Origen. Origen's adaptative

method makes it impossible to prove the borrowing in a philologically indis-

putable way, since to accomplish this task we should demonstrate parallels

between longer passages but such texts are not at our disposal. Yet, we cannot

account for the similarities unless we accept that, concerning theologicd issues

in a narrower sense, Origen relied on Numenius - perhaps through the media-

tion of his and Plotinus' mutual master, Ammonius Sakkas, whose philosophy,

however, is unknown for us - and the Apamean thinker was important for

Origen not solely because of his interest in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Naturally, I do not want to affirm that there is no difference between the two

thinkers' theological standpoints. The Numenian theories of proschresis and the

idea of eternal, bad matter and second world-Soul imply some distances.

Nevertheless, when Origen tells us that huic (Pater) tamen esse f lium non nos soli

pronuntiamus, quarnuis satis hoc et mirum et incredulum uideatur his, qui apud

Graecos uel barbaros phihsophari uidrntur; tamen a nonnullis etiam ipsorum habi-

ta eius uidetur opinio, cum aerbo dei uel ratione creata esse ornnia conftentur77, the

first thinker to whom we must refer. is Numenius.

\7hen we turn from the problem "f

,il. divine persons to the question of the

material world and the soul, comparison is more difficult, since here we have

only very incomplete and second-hand reports on Numenius' doctrinesT8. His

fragments do not discuss in a distinctive manner the notion of the matter and

material, corporeal entities. Nevertheless, for Numenius and for Origen too,

material objects are in continuous change, and both thinkers stress this aspect of

the material body as its most essential featureTe. The world in itself is good, for

Numenius this is the third god, but its terrestrial part has some badness because

of its material composition. Origen regards the material world as the conse-

quence of an earlier fall of spiritual beings, as rca'ropotrrj8o and pedagogical pun-

76 In my opinion only one Origen existed. I discussed this question in my book Oigen and the Greek phi-losopll, cir., 2336. I cannor accept ICO. 'Wsnen's (Origena dtr Neupl'ztoniker, Miinchen 196z) and R.Goumr's (Porplryre, Ammonius, lrs da.u Oigine et les autres, RHPhR 57 ft97fl 4V-496) theory about thedouble fault of Porphgy and Eusebius. In this question I agree with PF. Brarnrcs (Porplryry:s Judgementon Oigen, rn Origeniana Quinta, cit.,3jry6), altlough I cannot accept his opinion about the intentionof Origen's The onf poiltis is the basibus accarding to which he wrote this book against Plotinus (p. l6D.The existence of one Origen is not a comrnani opinio, therefore, in the following I do not want to argueon the basis of this assumption in favor of the close relationship beween Origen and Numenius.77 Princ. I ,3, r, 6-1.78 E.R. DoDDS, op. cit , zt.7e Numenius fr. 3; 4 a;4 b; 8; 1; 52. Origen, De orat. )O(\II, 8; Pinc. Il, u 4; Il, z, z.8o Princ. lII, 5, a.

RdsrRT Sotvtos - Origm and Numenius 67

ishment, and there are numerous texts which affirm that the terrestrial world isin the devilt powerS'.Finally, I would like to shed light on some parallels mainly in the domain of psy-chologlr which do not prove the direct influence of Numenius on Origen but areworth considering. Of course, the soul is immortal in terms of Numenius' rheo-

ry as well, and we are not to be surprised at finding the same srarement in bothauthors according to which the soul takes nourishment not in a physiologicalsense but by means of learning8'. They also agree on the conceprion rhat the soulis substantially immaterial, yet it is accidentally extended8s. The soul has pre-exis-tence, and it arrives from outside into the bodfl+. They share each other's reser-vations concerning the Platonic tripartite division of the soul. Origen's objectionto this Platonic doctrine is based on his opinion in terms of which this theorycannot be confirmed by the authority of the Scripture8t. Therefore, rhe motivesare different. Origent standpoint in De principiis III, 4, r-; is clear; among thepossible solutions of the division of the soul, we should choose exclusively theone-soul-theory but this choice must be accomplished by the listener himself.Both alternative ideas (the one-soul-doctrine and the two-souls-doctrine) arebased on the Scripture, both are to be discussed, bur to evade heretic conclusionsthe two-soul-theory must be interpreted in such a way that it will lose its essence;i.e., that there are two souls in the ontic sense, the one being connected with rea-son and the other with matter. Only in a peculiar sense can one speak about theexistence of two distinct souls. This problem shows how difficult it is to compareOrigen with Numenius in the field of psychology. It seems at firsr sight that thetwo-soul-doctrine is adopted by Origen because the war of the good againsr theevil sometimes obtains psychological, onric, and even cosmological emphasis86.Numenius seems to adopt a classical two-soul-doctrine, but the fragmentary char-acter of his accounr makes the exact comparison impossible.In the field of psychology, the most important similarity between Origen andNumenius is that the term rlux{ is linked with negative associations in bothauthors. Origen treares the etimology of rpuXrj-rpriye o0cr (soul-cooling down)as a negative process8T, and, Numenius names the souls with Homer immortals

8' Princ. l, 5, 5; 11,8, l; III, y, 4. But both thinkers hold that the creating power is single and pos-itive. In Numenius' philosophy there is no place for two differenr crearors as in Gnosticism.8' Numeniqs, fr. 4 b; Origen, Princ. l, r, 6-7; Comloh. XIll, 34, zr9.83 Numenius, fr. 4 B. In the Origenian theory incarnated souls use three-dimensional bodies.8t Princ. I,7,3-4; Numenius, fr. 36.8s Princ. IIl, 4, z; Numenius, fr. 44. In reality Origen often bases his ethical statements on thisPlatonic division.85 In R. Fenwr,R-oa's opinion, Origen maintained the rwo-soul-theory, because he was in an innerlink with Gnosticism (Two souk, vigChr 37 [r9U] 36o378).I cannot agree with his solution. Onthe other hand it is not clear why there are two souls in Numenius. Porphyry compares the exis-tence of two souls with the nature of double parts of the body, but how does rhis simile in fr. 44work? \,Vhat is the difference between rwo souls and two parts of soul in the same person?8z Princ. II, 8, 3, r5o-r58; r68-t73.

68 ADAMANTIUS 6 (zooo)

and distinguishes the souls and the perfect souls which become gods or princi-

ples of souls88.

A furth., parallel could be that the embodiment of the soul is conceived as the

.o.rr.q,.r.ri.. of a judicial decision, and as far as incarnation is bad - and in

Numenius it is unambiguously a negadve event and according to Origen this

divine punishment witlr a pedagogical intention is brought about by the negli-

gentia of the spiritual beings - it was probably preceded by a- certain sin. The

Lost important mark of oriental influen8e on Numenius, the fact that the judi-

cial decision takes place in heaven, is a commonplace for Origen8l. It is named

as "earth" by both, but the nvo cosmological systems are different; Numenius

maintains twelve spheres to be existed, while Origen counts only nineeo. The

nature of the cause of the fall was not clearly described by Numenius' and

Jamblichus reproaches Numenius for the lack of distinguishing the causes for the

embodiment of soulse'. The idea, in terms of which the soul is essentially reason'

implies that Numenius understood the embodiment of the soul in the same way

", b.ig.n did. Both thinkers held that intellectual beings have the same nature

or original nature: "Kord 6i .rorirqv vofi rcoi 0e triu roi rdv rpetrrduou

yevAi ori6iu q guXi or-evrjvoxa Kord- ye rlv 6tr1u oriotav"e'.Naturally,

in the strict sense of the word, there is no equality between God and soul in

Origen, and it is possible to call the soul "god" only in an extended senseet. The

nature of the souls, angels, and demons is the same.

According to Numenius, the cause of the corruption of the soul is somehow mat-

tersa. Thii doctrine makes another difference between him and Origen. However,

it is not obvious from his fragments in what sense mafter is the cause of the evil. It

seems to be stretching things to suggest that a sort of cosmic determinism would

bring about the connection of the originally nouslike individuai soul with matter

in Numenius. This might appear so because Numenius links the depiction of the

celestial journey of the soul with astrological speculationset. It may be worth noting

that in .onrr..,ion with apocatastasis, Origen also writes about the celestial travel of

the soul, and although he refers to former Christian texts as sources, he uses such

motives in De principiisll, S, r-5 whose original source is the closing m)'th of Plato's

Republic, the vision of the Pamphylean "E1', which Numenius discussed in detail

and Porphyrius relied on when writing his On the Caue of the Nymphl'We

can realize some similarities between their tenets on the soul, yet the direct

theoretical influence of Numenius on Origen cannot be proven partly because

of the fact that the Numenian concePt of bad matter, bad \(orld-Soul, is in

88 Numenius, ft.3r; 4r; 42.8e Numenius, fr. 35; Origen, Princ. l, 5, 5; I' 7, 2-3.eo Numenius, fr. 35; Origen, Princ.II,3, 6; Hieronymus, Ad Auitum, Ep' o4, 5'e'Numenius, fr. 48.ez Fr. 41; cfr. fr. 42. Origen, Princ. 1, 5' 3-5; l' 6, I'ei Comloh. Il, z, r7-r8. it is possible to become God by participation. Cfr. Numenius, ft. 3t, 34.e4 FL 4i, t2.et Fr. 34, )r.

L

t . + -

"Fp"rki"" wkh cstakresffiid tel#nci6 of Orberrt &eol€r.

&l'$ Sofn'si{; l.!9pq,Se,pr!xe*t *odysis hs :#t *-,ft*Por.Wt,ia#uste lfu$ir+h$'tld on Origen, dte traces of vthi€h er€ ts.boqeq inOriges's teaching on the fra$er, the Logos and their relatimsip.

I6hs€ fuffisUniversity of Pdcs

Department of History of PhilosophyIqffig u.6H-z6z+P€cs

69

+

1. E

?.-ts:-