Christian Gnosis: From Clement the Alexandrian to John Damascene

259 CHAPTER TWENTY FOUR CHRISTIAN GNOSIS: FROM CLEMENT THE ALEXANDRIAN TO JOHN DAMASCENE Doru Costache C hristianity has emerged in history as a community of learners, disciples of a Teacher, Jesus Christ, and his successors, the apostles. More a philosophical school than a religious movement, from the outset Christianity has focused on the teaching and wisdom of the Founder, which it construed as “the way” to knowledge and perfection. Gnosis, the knowledge revealed by the Teacher and explained by his successors, was interwoven with the practical life, or the virtuous and spiritual experience, and so inherent to Christianity. Holistically understood, the gnostic dimension was nevertheless central for many theologians, from the second to at least the eighth Christian century. Herein I offer glimpses of their elaborations, pointers to a phenomenon whose breadth and complexity far exceed the parameters of this chapter. CLEMENT TH E AL E X AND RIAN Echoing the journey of Justin Martyr a generation earlier, Clement, whose life roughly spanned from the mid-second century to the early third, embarked on a philosophical quest which led him to the discovery of Middle Platonism and culminated with his Christian conversion. His conversion occurred under the guidance of Pantaenus, in Alexandria, Egypt. He established there a school of Christian philosophy – perhaps modeled after the Roman school of Justin and surely that of his teacher. As a master of Christian philosophy and perhaps an Alexandrian presbyter, Clement structured his teaching by the classical paideia, with a Christian twist. Paideia, richer than modern education in that it entailed both curricular training and formative dimensions, prescribed advancement through successive stages of learning up to the highest state of intellectual and moral perfection. Similarly, Christian pedagogy presupposed a gradual initiation of a convert, from the status of “catechumen” to that of “enlightened,” and inally “believer.” Clement combined the two traditions into one complex process of philosophical pedagogy, which progressed from the preparatory phases of paideutic training to the “holy gnosis” of the higher stages of Christian initiation (Choufrine 2002: 17–32). His major works, Exhortation (= Exhort.), The Tutor, Stromateis (= Strom.), and the loose parts of The Teacher, illustrate the curriculum. 259 9781138673939_pi-697.indd 259 19-Jul-18 11:52:09 PM 260 — Doru Costache — Clement was concerned with perfection, which, as depicted for the Alexandrine intelligentsia, he construed complexly. Perfection was unreachable without the curricular stages of theoretical and practical disciplines (Strom. 2.5.24) such as music, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, dialectic, and philosophy. As much as gazing upon “things divine” and contemplating “the great mysteries of existence” (Strom. 7.10.55; 1.28.176), one learned how to “till the soil, make geometrical measurements, and philosophize” (Strom. 6.8.65). Above all, one aimed at gnosis – “the perfection of the human being as a human being” (Strom. 7.10.55). Theological gnosis was the fulillment of human existence. This was so because “the human being was made primarily for the knowledge of God” (Strom. 6.8.65). To attain gnostic perfection, one progressed from catharsis (Strom. 5.11.70) to the “little mysteries of the teaching” and the “great” mysteries of contemplation (Strom. 4.1.3; 5.11.71), culminating in divine vision (Strom. 5.11.71; Lilla 1971: 163–9). Gnosis amounted therefore to more than an intellectual accomplishment. It constituted a holistic “way of life and thinking in concord with and adherence to the divine Logos” (Strom. 7.10.55), entailing one’s reference to a transcendent paradigm. The gnostic had to observe in everything the wisdom of Christ, Logos incarnate – in faith (Strom. 2.4.16; 2.5.23), grace (Strom. 5.12.82; 7.7.44), and virtue (Strom 2.10.46; 7.1.3; Prophetic selections 37.1). Consequently, Christianity was the privileged framework for achieving gnosis. Building on “Mosaic philosophy,” shaped after the Platonic curriculum of ethics, physics, and epoptics (Strom. 1.28.176), Christianity was the perfect gnosis. Variously termed “gnostic tradition,” “holy gnosis,” and “ecclesiastical gnosis” (Strom. 5.10.63; 3.9.67; 7.16.103), the Christian tradition made possible one’s advancement from a naïve faith and preconceived ideas to a mature knowledge and wisdom (Strom. 7.10.55). This process was guided by elders (Bucur 2015: 17–19), who delivered the wisdom of Christ revealed to the apostles and the prophets (Strom. 6.7.61). This interplay of Old and New Testament authorities in the handing on of ecclesial gnosis was typically Clementine. Elsewhere he added to this framework the Logos’s cosmic revelation (Exhort. 1.2; Costache 2013a: 122–4). The common denominator for these channels of divine knowledge – the cosmos, the prophets, the apostles, and the elders – was their reference to Christ, Logos incarnate, who sang the universe into existence, spoke through the prophets, and communicated the truth to his disciples, who have then instructed the elders. Clement returned frequently to the centrality of Christ to the gnostic tradition (Strom. 5.10–11; 6.7.57-8; Lilla 1971: 158–63). Actually, Christian gnosis was perfect because the one who was its source possessed perfect knowledge (Strom. 1.20.97; 6.7.55; 6.8.70). Christ circumscribed the universe’s present, past, and future (Strom. 6.9.78). Moreover, as creator Logos, Christ was the “primary meaning” of the universe (Strom. 5.11.71) and its inner measure (Exhort. 1.5; 6.68). Consequently, when the Clementine gnostic “contemplated and comprehended” the “great mysteries of the universe,” he or she acquired a profound knowledge of Christ, the foundation of the cosmos. Ultimately, what the “holy gnostic” (Strom. 2.20.104; 4.23.152) sought was complete gnosis, an understanding of the universe in the light of its measure. Contemplation proceeded gradually from the visible world to the invisible and then to the vision of Christ as Logos (Strom. 5.10.66; 5.11.71). Acknowledged as “gnosis and spiritual paradise,” “true gnosis and light,” and God’s Son who “offered and revealed” the understanding of the universe (Strom. 6.1.2; 6.7.61), Christ was the supreme object of gnostic contemplation. 260 9781138673939_pi-697.indd 260 19-Jul-18 11:52:09 PM 261 — C h r i s t i a n g n o s i s : f r o m C l e m e n t t o Jo h n — All Christians were called to divine gnosis, but Christ offered the deepest teachings only to worthy recipients (Strom. 1.1.13). In a way, supreme knowledge was not for all (Strom. 1.12.55). This caveat does not denote Clement’s adherence to the “gnostic” elitism of his Alexandrian contemporaries. What he meant was that gnosis was attainable through diligent study and strenuous ascesis. Gnosis was available for the studious and pure, who, like Abraham and Moses, had undertaken the transformative process facilitated by the curriculum (Strom. 1.23.153; 2.5.20; 5.11.73; 6.10.80; Choufrine 2002: 86–7). The need for puriication, alongside study, was motivated by the view that gnosis, as “the pure light which enlightens those pure among the human beings,” required an existential compatibility from its seeker (Prophetic selections 32.3). It required transformation. Thus, Clementine pedagogy aimed at personal transformation by way of a gnostic process that led to enlightenment. ATHANASIUS O F AL E X AND RIA Almost nothing is known of Athanasius’s (d. 373) life before his public ascension after 325. Scholars doubt that his education included higher training (Louth 2004a: 275). Perhaps an autodidact, Athanasius displayed nevertheless a sense of tradition which entailed familiarity with an Alexandrian forebear and Clement’s onetime disciple, Origen. He must have become familiar with Origen’s ideas both directly, through study, and indirectly, by drawing on older Origenist contemporaries such as Antony (Casiday 2002: 211–20). That he appreciated Origen is well known (Louth 2007: 75– 6). But when they refer to his dependence on earlier traditions, scholars do not connect Athanasius with Clement. Nevertheless, even without displaying the structured pedagogy of Clement, his construal of gnosis followed similar principles. He maintained that gnosis was attained by answering the divine call to know God through faith, faith manifesting a disposition of the soul which was conditioned by ascetic puriication (Life of Antony [= Ant.] 77.3-4; 78.1). Elsewhere he referred to grace, faith, and virtue as prerequisites of superior knowledge (Against the Gentiles [= Gent.] 30, 33). These elements, and some of the following ones, correspond to Clement’s holistic gnosis. Athanasius believed that the call to divine gnosis was imbedded in human nature. God had made humankind in the image of God’s Son, enabling it to know the Father and his Logos (Gent. 2). Moreover, God conditioned humankind towards God’s likeness so that it can understand the world and grasp the eternity of its creator. But the human mind was able to exercise contemplation proper, a “perception of things intelligible,” only if it maintained likeness to God and an ascetically puriied heart (Gent. 2.15–35). Within the same context Athanasius deployed an arsenal of epistemological terms. There, on a single page we ind the following concepts related to ratiocination and knowledge, in the order in which they unfold: notion, thought, contemplation, science, conceptualization, gnosis, capacity to represent reality, knowledge of the divine, understanding, power of the mind, realization, vision (Gent. 2; cf. 31, 33). Together with this complex vocabulary and the theological presuppositions earlier outlined, Athanasius understood the acquisition of divine gnosis as a gradual process which, like for Clement, began with the contemplation of the universe to end by gazing 261 9781138673939_pi-697.indd 261 19-Jul-18 11:52:09 PM 26 — Doru Costache — upon the divine. Without the material being organized in this precise order, within Gent. 2 four steps are discernible: examining things created; discerning God’s providence; realizing God’s eternity and the creation’s ephemeral condition; and contemplating the Logos, the image of the Father, as “divine gnosis”. Athanasius represented the cosmos as a book out of which, as from Scripture (Blowers 2012: 319), one learned the mysteries of the cosmos and its creator (Gent. 34). An accurate reading of the cosmic book required a sharp mind, whose gnostic aptitudes were enabled by ascetic puriication and contemplative exercises (Gent. 34). It appears that, informed by Clement, Athanasius’s gnostic program was ultimately inspired by Antony, depicted as a Christian sage (Ant. 14.2-3) whose wisdom, drawing on personal experience, exceeded that of his pagan counterparts (Ant. 72–80). This illustration lends substance to the ideal of Christian gnosis as an existential accomplishment. THE CA P PAD O CIANS The Cappadocian fathers, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa, lourished in the second half of the fourth century. Whereas they shared interests and approaches, they were not always in agreement (Louth 2004b: 289). Of interest is their depiction of Moses as paradigmatic for the gnostic quest – a depiction in which reverberate motifs pondered by Philo, Clement, Origen, and perhaps Athanasius. Basil (d. 379), a bishop of Cappadocian Caesarea for less than ten troubled years and an elegant writer, is considered an ecclesiastical administrator and staunch Nicene theologian rather than a thinker concerned with divine gnosis. This view must change. I have shown elsewhere (Costache 2013b: 111–14) that even works not taken as relevant for mysticism, such as the Homilies on the Hexaemeron [= Hex.], display signs of Basil’s traditional mind. At close inspection, one inds therein heuristic devices, typical for the mystagogical approach, meant to stir the intelligent reader’s desire to seek higher gnosis. Basil recommended in the prolog that the cosmos be approached with an inquisitive reason, puriied senses, and a discerning mind untainted by worldly cares, able to identify the divine signature in things created. Also there, Basil introduced Moses as an illustration of how gnosis should be attained (DelCogliano 2010: 81, 86), through a gradual process of personal transformation. Being trained in the Egyptian sciences, the prophet proceeded to purify his mind and life. Puriication facilitated his progress in the “contemplation of beings,” which he exercised for 40 years, after which he “beheld God, as much as possible for the human being to see” (Hex. 1.1). This depiction is typical for the triple pattern – puriication, contemplation, theological gnosis – encountered in earlier authors. Elsewhere, Basil added important notes on divine gnosis. Knowledge of God was a gift apportioned to the seekers, an illumination for whoever had “puriied the eye of their soul” (Against Eunomius [= Eun.] 1.1,7). The source of enlightenment was Christ, who granted “access to gnosis” (Eun. 1.26) and mediated one’s union to God (Eun. 2.19). Even so, the superior knowledge attained by saints like Paul did not exhaust the ocean of divine mysteries (Eun. 1.12–14). Attainable to some extent, gnosis may have remained an ever-elusive target. Basil’s onetime friend, Gregory the Theologian (d. 390), for a while bishop of Constantinople and the best educated of them (McGuckin 2001: 35–83), displayed 262 9781138673939_pi-697.indd 262 19-Jul-18 11:52:09 PM 263 — C h r i s t i a n g n o s i s : f r o m C l e m e n t t o Jo h n — a more consistent interest in writing on gnosis and perfection. He afirmed an inextricable connection between lofty discourse, an experientially authenticated knowledge, and personal worthiness (Beeley 2008: 35, 65–7, 101, 251). Thus, anyone who did not qualify for theological gnosis had to refrain from discoursing on it, even from listening to it (Theological Orations [= Theol.] 1.3). Gnosis was conditioned by the existential isomorphism between subject and object – the human mind and the divine reality – which, in turn, was contingent on the human mind’s puriication. The genuine teacher was the accomplished gnostic who, like Moses, has undertaken catharsis. The isomorphism between subject and object, or, better, the human and the divine subjects, was required because gnosis was a participatory experience. Paraphrasing the Exodus narrative about Moses climbing up Sinai (Theol. 2.2–3; Oration 20.2), Gregory described one’s attainment of divine gnosis as ascending to the condition of “becoming a relative of God,” so participation in the divine. This was not the same for all. Symbolically illustrated by the elders who accompanied Moses, “the worthiness of their puriication” or personal catharsis conditioned their level of participation; some of them could not climb too far, others fell short of reaching the top. Worthiness dictated why few people could approach the cloud of divine mystery, having access to the hidden wisdom and gnosis – the top of the mountain as it were – while the many struggled with the externals of the Law, at the foothills of Sinai. Those attached to “material things” remained foreign to “contemplation and theology.” Consequently, Gregory warned them not to approach “the height of vision,” indeed “divine glory.” Nevertheless, like in Basil, given God’s transcendence, the culminating gnostic experience of divine vision remained imperfect even for the worthy ones, the existential isomorphism between the subjects notwithstanding. Lastly, Basil’s younger brother, Gregory (d. ca. 395), bishop of Nyssa, is unanimously acknowledged as the spiritual master among his peers (Louth 2004b: 197). This scholarly acclaim refers to the many writings he dedicated to the topic of interest, not the traditional criteria concerning matters of gnosis or mystical theology. Below I focus on his approach to the Sinai narrative illustrated by Life of Moses, where Gregory redrafted already familiar motifs (Blowers 2015: 9–16). It is there that, while interpreting the scriptural account, he described superior knowledge as an ascent of “the mountain of divine gnosis” (2.152.8). In dealing with the text, he nevertheless followed the triadic outline of perfection encountered in the foregoing authors. According to him, Moses travelled in stages from “the contemplation of beings” to “the knowledge of the divine power” which has created the universe, to then ascend “there, where God is” (2.167.3-4, 7–12; 2.169.3-5). The experience amounted to a divine “mystagogy,” an “ineffably mystical initiation” of Moses in higher gnosis (1.42.1, 4), which crowned the seeker’s efforts of catharsis (1.42.5-17). Thus, ascesis, or rather virtue, and divine revelation conditioned gnosis. Gregory highlighted that the commandments delivered a “teaching for virtue” which led the gnostic mountaineer “to the heights of virtue” (2.152.1-2; 2.153.2-4). Virtue exceeded ethics, being charged with epistemological signiicance. In his words, “the head” of all virtue was gnosis, the “respectful thought concerning divine nature” (1.47.2-5; 1.47.9-10). However, virtue was one’s “way towards gnosis” (2.154.1-2; 2.157.5-12; 2.166.1-8). This understanding echoes the traditional conviction, earlier discussed, that gnosis required an ascetic reshaping of life. But in Gregory virtue and gnosis appear to have overlapped as much as gnosis and perfection did in Clement. 263 9781138673939_pi-697.indd 263 19-Jul-18 11:52:09 PM 264 — Doru Costache — In becoming virtuous through ascetic puriication, Moses concluded the “divine ascent” by “entering the innermost sanctuary of divine mystagogy,” thus “becoming an initiate of the ineffable” with insights into the “abyss of divine gnosis” (1.46.4-5; 2.161.7; 2.164.7; 2.167.8-9). This achievement crowned the contemplative effort of piercing beyond the “phenomenal universe” and embracing “the invisible and the unreachable” (1.46.7-8; 2.153.17-18; 2.163.4-5; 2.169.7). Virtue, it seems, trained him to humbly realize that, given the caesura between the created and the uncreated, “the divine is there, where understanding cannot reach” (1.46.9-10). Ultimately, gnosis remained work in progress. This realization prompted Gregory to phrase gnosis paradoxically: Moses managed “to see by not seeing” through the veils of a “luminous darkness” (2.163.6-8; 2.164.1-4). Possibly for the same reason, Gregory developed the notion of epektasis or the endless ascent toward God, as another way of saying that gnosis was a never-ending chase after the divine. Although the Cappadocian fathers maintained distinctiveness from one another, they were agreed on matters mystical. As illustrated by their views of Moses, supreme gnosis was made accessible by one’s corresponding puriication and advancement in virtue, one’s personal transformation. The measure of personal transformation conditioned one’s level of receptivity towards divine revelation. Thus articulated, gnosis was irreducible to reasoning and the accumulation of information; it was, instead, a holistic experience where knowledge and life mingled in the making of a renewed human being – forever drawn to reach the unreachable. EVAGRIU S P O NTICU S A Pontian intellectual trained by the Cappadocian fathers and several desert elders, Evagrius (d. 399) referred to the early Alexandrians both directly (Casiday 2013: 13– 17) and through the lens of the Cappadocians, particularly Gregory of Nyssa (Ramelli 2015: 165–71). Throughout the Evagrian corpus one discovers the same interest in triadic patterns discussed above. This is obvious in his works, The Practical Treatise (= Pract.), The Gnostic, and Gnostic Chapters, which mirror Clement’s trilogy of The Tutor, Stromateis, and The Teacher. The same interest transpires in the way Evagrius has organized his relection. Signiicantly, he construed Christianity as “the teaching of our Savior Christ that consists of the practical, physical, and theological stages” (Pract. 1). Whereas his entire corpus is a monument to the quest for Christian gnosis, unless otherwise stated herein I exemplify the topic of interest by considering The Gnostic. The writing explores matters of monastic life superior to what pertains to basic asceticism, such as contemplation, compassion, discernment, and prayer. These were the main qualities and activities of the holy gnostic. Evagrius shared with the Cappadocians the view that to reach perfect knowledge was impossible in the present circumstances (23). Nevertheless, the advanced possessed a comprehensive grasp of reality (16). This holistic perception corresponded to an existential accomplishment since, as highlighted in the prologue of Pract., virtue, dispassion, faith, and love made possible the contemplation of nature and the ultimate blessedness. Typically, this achievement required the triadic path of the “practical” puriication and progress in dispassion, the “physical” discovery of the truth hidden in all things, and 264 9781138673939_pi-697.indd 264 19-Jul-18 11:52:09 PM 265 — C h r i s t i a n g n o s i s : f r o m C l e m e n t t o Jo h n — the “theological” turn from things material to the “irst cause” of everything (49). In walking this path, the gnostic was able to grasp the principles of beings and make proper use of them (15). For this reason, the gnostic was the best aid for others in matters of reaching perfection (22), and the most qualiied guide to the knowledge of created and divine realities (13). There is indication that, while inspired by the desert elders he encountered, Evagrius’s sketch of the gnostic borrowed nevertheless from Clement. But, to legitimize his interpretation, Evagrius made mention of more recent authorities, namely, “Gregory the righteous” (either the Theologian or the bishop of Nyssa), “the pillar of the truth, Basil the Cappadocian,” “Athanasius, the holy luminary of the Egyptians,” “Sarapion, the angel of the Church of Thmuis,” followed by “Didymus, the great and gnostic teacher.” Since the passages attributed to them cannot be traced to known writings, it is likely that Evagrius either referred to their oral preachings or used them as springboards for his views. With reference to Gregory he noted (44) that the master correlated the four Stoic virtues – prudence, courage, moderation, and righteousness – and the contemplative undertakings of the gnostic. The virtues oriented the gnostic’s mind towards worthwhile objects and away from vain hypotheses. The virtues regulated also the manner in which the gnostic shared insights with others. Proportional to the audience’s aptness, righteousness demanded that the more advanced disciples received the teaching in obscure statements, which incited them to ponder matters, whereas simple folks were granted a clear instruction, for their immediate beneit. Turning to Basil, Evagrius (45) pointed out that the Cappadocian had drawn a sharp line between human and divine gnosis. Human knowledge was acquired by way of assiduous study and did not require ascesis. In turn, being acquired through gracious illumination, divine gnosis was nonetheless conditioned by the “righteousness, gentleness, and mercifulness” of the dispassionate. Given the aspects of puriication and illumination, divine gnosis was associated with a perception of the mind’s ethereal light during prayer. Moving on, Evagrius (46) pointed out that Athanasius was concerned with how the gnostic faced the snares of the evil one and the requirement of enduring trials nobly. But the main feature of the Athanasian gnostic was generosity – an “eagerness to feed those that present themselves” in order to learn the ways of true knowledge. In turn, Evagrius (47) observed that Sarapion emphasized the existential impact of “spiritual gnosis.” Using Platonic anthropology, Evagrius’s Sarapion preached that gnosis furthered the catharsis of the mind, healed the natural aptitude of anger through love, and controlled the appetitive energy through abstinence. Lastly, Didymus, Evagrius has shown (48), construed the gnostic as “always exercising” by contemplating the universe and people’s worthiness. The exercises included memorizing the discoveries, understanding the world and its diversity, together with discerning the advancement “in virtue and gnosis” of those who spiritually redrafted their lives. Spiritual exercises and the attainment of gnosis were entwined. With Evagrius, together with a return to Clement’s rigorous depiction of the “philosophical life” leading to gnosis, the corresponding views of Athanasius and the Cappadocians, who preferred to theorize about scriptural igures, have been aligned with the concrete circumstances of the desert ascetic life. At the forefront of Evagrius’s theorizations on the attainment of gnosis was the igure of the holy gnostic. 265 9781138673939_pi-697.indd 265 19-Jul-18 11:52:09 PM 26 — Doru Costache — MAXIMUS THE CO NF E S S O R The greatest Byzantine theologian, Maximus (d. 662) is usually credited with achieving a creative synthesis of previous traditions, together with exploring new avenues pertaining to mystical theology. Of interest is his construal of gnosis, within which the ethical and ascetic prerequisites observed by Clement and Evagrius intersected with the revelational vantage point of the Cappadocians – against the backdrop of a spiritual reading of scriptural passages, speciic to the Alexandrian tradition. Similar to the foregoing authors and many others after them, such as Macarius, Diadochus of Photiki, Mark the Ascetic, and Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus’s view of gnosis was at the forefront of his theological endeavors, irrespective of the genre to which his writings belonged. Symptomatically, in Chapters on Love 1.4 he pointed out that true love of God becomes manifest when one prioritizes divine gnosis to knowing anything else. Likewise, in the beginning of On the Our Father (1) he entreated God to lead him to an understanding of the mysteries encoded within the words of the prayer. The prayerful approach to higher knowledge features also in To Thalassius 48, which has the seekers striving to arrive, through praxis and contemplation, at the inner chambers of God’s house where, “with never silent voices, they sing the gnosis of things ineffable.” Furthermore, his Mystagogy searches for gnosis through liturgical symbols. That said, in the tradition of Evagrius’s Gnostic Chapters and their ifth-century replica written by Diadochus, the Confessor produced a typically monastic treatise in sentence form, Two Hundred Chapters on Theology and the Incarnate Economy of the Son of God, relevant to the scope of this study. Unless otherwise stated, in what follows I focus on this work. Echoing the Aristotelian distinction between theoretical and practical wisdom, Maximus referred to the “double” nature of gnosis, namely, “scientiic” or theoretical, and “actively practical” or the experiential grasp of reality (1.22). The second, applied dimension was associated with the observance of divine commandments, but essentially did not differ from the theoretical dimension; the object of both types of gnosis was the divine principles of things created. The passage seems to favor the applied gnosis. This choice, which may represent a deliberate counterpoint to the Aristotelian primacy of theoretical wisdom, alludes to the general patristic opinion that genuine knowledge was conditioned by ascetic fortitude. Consequently, the experiential grasp of reality presupposed puriication through the “practice of the virtues,” the “attainment of dispassion” (1.32), and humility (1.18–20). Advancement in virtue and dispassion was required in order for the seeker to “shake off” the preconceived opinions about things and so reach the “inner principle of truth” or the “foundation of real knowledge” (2.75; 1.21). In addition to puriication, the Maximian gnostic had to consider the objects of interest through Christ’s life, taken as a theoretical lens. Alongside deciphering “all the enigmas and types within Scripture,” the vantage point of “the mystery of the Logos’s embodiment” enabled one to grasp “the science of the visible and the noetic creations” (1.66). Furthermore, Christ’s cross, burial, and resurrection facilitated the comprehension of the inside of things and the purpose for which all were made. Only thus, by collecting “the inner principles of created beings,” could one have “received portions of the loaves of gnosis from the hands of the Logos” (1.33), inding noetic nourishment in things created, “the divine gnosis they contain” (1.32; 1.18; Bradshaw 2010: 818–19). Elsewhere, and more simply 266 9781138673939_pi-697.indd 266 19-Jul-18 11:52:09 PM 267 — C h r i s t i a n g n o s i s : f r o m C l e m e n t t o Jo h n — stated, “true knowledge” was accessible through faith (1.9), but not without a direct divine input – “the revelation by grace” (1.17) or the “divine illumination” (1.31). Thus, the gnostic quest was an interactive experience, an event of divine-human communion (1.30; 2.32). Puriication and natural contemplation led to divine knowledge. It is plain that Maximus construed the gradual attainment of gnosis according to the ancient tradition of the three stages (Blowers 2016: 74–7), even though at times, like in To Thalassius 10, he rendered these stages in variant terms such as fear, advancement, and perfection. Equally traditional was his interest in identifying the triple pattern in scriptural contexts. For example, and perhaps drawing on Origen’s First Homily on Genesis, he produced a synthetic interpretation of the days of creation as a triadic advance towards perfection and spiritual knowledge. For him, the six days typiied the ascesis that was conducive to virtue, the seventh day represented the apophatic approach of the contemplatives to the “ineffable gnosis,” and the eighth corresponded to the culminating deiication of the worthy ones (1.55). The attainment of gnosis amounted to a state of blessedness or “mystical joy” (2.24), which in the here and now was limited by corporeality (2.87). The last nuance is reminiscent of Evagrius. That said, together with Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus believed that the path of gnosis was an endless one and that, motivated by desire (Cooper 2015: 363–6), the human being was called to “advance from one virtue to a greater virtue and ascend from a certain knowledge to a higher gnosis,” aiming to reach the heavenly tabernacle of God (2.77) and so become “the dwelling place of God” (1.53). Even so, or rather due to this asymptotic ascent to God, the Maximian gnostic was, similar to its Clementine and Evagrian prototypes, not isolated; he or she was someone able to “feed thousands,” “cure every disease and inirmity,” “healing the sick, and through hope restoring devotion to those who have lost it” (1.33). JOHN DAM AS CE NE Born in Damascus to a wealthy family, John (d. 749) lived as an erudite monk in the Palestinian monastery of Saint Sabbas, where he wrote treatises, orations, and liturgical hymns. For reasons that remain obscure, he composed a trilogy on aspects pertaining to gnosis, The Fount of Knowledge (= Fount), dedicated to his supposedly foster brother, Cosmas, bishop of Maiuma (Louth 2002: 31–7, 44–6). According to the prolog to the trilogy, the Damascene adopted the selective approach of the famous Basilian bee (see Address to Youth 4) when searching the elements of proper thinking within the classical tradition, which he discussed in the irst part, Philosophical Chapters (= Phil.); then he disclosed, in Against the Heresies (= Her.), a range of doctrinal errors, maybe samples of incorrect thinking (as implied elsewhere within the same preface, “I shall refute all ordinary and falsely called knowledge”); and then, in On the Orthodox Faith (= Orth.), proceeded to explain the truth preached by the God-inspired prophets, the divinely taught apostles, and the God-bearing shepherds and teachers. Herein I refer to passages that strictly treat the prerequisites and the acquisition of superior gnosis. In the irst part of the trilogy, from chapter three onwards, John discussed the various kinds of curricular knowledge, theoretical and practical, that we have encountered in Clement and Maximus. And although the study of the disciplines, 267 9781138673939_pi-697.indd 267 19-Jul-18 11:52:09 PM 268 — Doru Costache — particularly dialectic, makes for most of the remaining work, the earlier chapters, including the prolog of the trilogy, include signiicant caveats in relation to genuine gnosis. The relevant chapters summarize the earlier elaborations on the Christian gnostic tradition. The Philosophical Chapters abruptly begin by stating that gnosis is proper to rational beings as much as ignorance is the province of irrationality. John explained within the same place that the soul’s mind has an “eye of sorts” or a “gnostic faculty” by which it can acquire knowledge and understanding. For the human mind, therefore, “there is nothing of greater value than gnosis” and in its absence reason abides in darkness. The darkness of ignorance, furthermore, translates as a condition of inferiority to irrational beings, a state to which human beings condemn themselves through intellectual neglect. Instead, reason lourishes when it attains “the true knowledge of things that are” (Phil. 1). But to know things for what they are, human reason should persist in its quest for the truth. In the Damascene’s words, “let us search, let us enquire, let us examine, let us question” (Phil. 1). There is nothing that the mind should take for granted. One should not be complacent, satisied with untested information. This conviction echoed Clement’s and was somehow at variance with the monastic commonplace that curiosity, in popular parlance, killed the cat. One must knock hard at the doors of gnosis in order “to see the beauties” behind them and vigorously dig “to ind the treasure of gnosis and delight in its wealth” (Phil. 1). As he proved in the second book of Orth., this included scientiic enquiry, not just theological aptness. John’s conviction that true knowledge can be grasped by the polymath “lover of learning” only through “diligence and effort” was not the only prerequisite. He believed likewise that gnosis required “before everything and after everything” God’s gift of grace (Phil. 1). Elsewhere (Orth. 1.1; Adrahtas 2003: 110–11; Louth 2002: 90– 2), instead of grace he referred to a gradual divine revelation – in the harmony of nature, in the Scriptures, and in the gospel of Christ – a schema which is reminiscent of Origen’s and Maximus’s theory of the three embodiments of the Logos (Blowers 2016: 78, 139–40). Ultimately, Christ, “the very wisdom and truth” in whom “all the treasures of gnosis are hidden,” was the one who led the soul from ignorance and falsehood to the truth (Phil. 1). What matters is that for John there was no rift between scientiic enquiry and theological knowledge. But, as much as diligence in study, neither grace nor revelation could have suficed either. John iterated again and again that one had to be personally worthy to acquire gnosis. For instance, in the prolegomenon to Fount and by way of rhetorical interrogations, he claimed that, his own impure mind being sullied “with every sort of sin” and “the rough waters of thoughts,” it cannot have served as a mirror to God nor can it “utter things divine and ineffable.” Within the same preface he added that it would be unpardonable to pretend to know when one was in fact ignorant. One had to be sincere therefore, we read elsewhere (Phil. 1), cultivating attentiveness, maintaining the inner eye unclouded by the passions, and a mind free of material interests. At the end of the same chapter, the Damascene added: “if we approach gnosis not as a vain pursuit and with humble thinking, we shall be ready for what is desired.” We ind here, again, the ascetic and existential criteria upheld by his traditional forebears. Humility was instrumental for the gnostic pursuit. It prompted one to call on the Lord, “our guide,” and so, through obedience to him, become an “imitator of Christ.” Walking in the footsteps of Christ, in turn, led one “from the lowest place to the highest,” which amounted 268 9781138673939_pi-697.indd 268 19-Jul-18 11:52:09 PM 269 — C h r i s t i a n g n o s i s : f r o m C l e m e n t t o Jo h n — to becoming graciously illuminated, more precisely the possessor of a puriied heart and an enlightened mind (Fount, preface). The perfect exempliication of this trajectory was again the experience of Moses, who reached dispassion and abandoned preconceived ideas, which enabled him “to receive the divine vision” and know the very name of God (Fount, preface). John Damascene construed gnosis as a holistic experience which involved “our whole soul and our whole understanding” (Phil. 1). As Louth (2002: 37) had it, the trilogy deined “what is to be a Christian, understood less as a set of beliefs […] than as a way of life.” In conclusion, gnosis was central to the early Christian experience, being construed as a holistic, existentially and intellectually complex achievement, which entailed ascesis, virtue, training, study, theological acumen, grace, and faithfulness to divine revelation. REFERENCES Adrahtas, Vassilis. 2003. “Theology as Dialectics and the Limits of Patristic Thought in the Post-modern World: A Reading into St John of Damascus.” Phronema 18: 109–27. Beeley, Christopher A. 2008. Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God: In Your Light We Shall See Light. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blowers, Paul M. 2012. Drama of the Divine Economy: Creator and Creation in Early Christian Theology and Piety. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— 2015. “Mystics and Mountains: Comparing Origen’s Exegesis of the Transiguration and Gregory of Nyssa’s Exposition of the Sinai Theophany.” Phronema 30 (2): 1–18. ——— 2016. Maximus the Confessor: Jesus Christ and the Transiguration of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bradshaw, David. 2010. “Maximus the Confessor.” Lloyd P. Gerson (ed.). The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: vol. 2, 813–28. Bucur, Bogdan G. 2015. “Hierarchy, Eldership, Isangelia: Clement of Alexandria and the Ascetic Tradition.” Doru Costache, Philip Kariatlis, and Mario Baghos (eds.). Alexandrian Legacy: A Critical Appraisal. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 2–45. Casiday, Augustine. 2002. “ ‘All Are from One’: On St. Antony the Great’s Protology.” Studia Monastica 44 (2): 207–27. ——— 2013. Reconstructing the Theology of Evagrius Ponticus: Beyond Heresy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Choufrine, Arkadi. 2002. Gnosis, Theophany, Theosis: Studies in Clement of Alexandria’s Appropriation of His Background. New York: Peter Lang. Cooper, Adam G. 2015. “Spiritual Anthropology in Ambiguum 7.” Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 360–77. Costache, Doru. 2013a. “Meaningful Cosmos: Logos and Nature in Clement the Alexandrian’s Exhortation to the Gentiles.” Phronema 28 (2): 107–30. ——— 2013b. “Christian Worldview: Understandings from St Basil the Great.” Doru Costache and Philip Kariatlis (eds.). Cappadocian Legacy: A Critical Appraisal. Sydney: St Andrew’s Orthodox Press: 97–126. DelCogliano, Mark. 2010. Basil of Caesarea’s Anti-Eunomian Theory of Names: Christian Theology and Late-Antique Philosophy in the Fourth Century Trinitarian Controversy. Leiden: Brill. Lilla, Salvatore R. C. 1971. Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 269 9781138673939_pi-697.indd 269 19-Jul-18 11:52:09 PM 270 — Doru Costache — Louth, Andrew. 2002. St John Damascene: Tradition and Originality in Byzantine Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— 2004a. “The fourth-century Alexandrians: Athanasius and Didymus.” Frances Young, Lewis Ayres, and Andrew Louth (eds.). The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 275–82. ——— 2004b. “The Cappadocians.” Frances Young, Lewis Ayres, and Andrew Louth (eds.). The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 289–301. ——— 2007. The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition: From Plato to Denys. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McGuckin, John A. 2001. St Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Ramelli, Ilaria L. E. 2015. “Evagrius Ponticus, the Origenian Ascetic (and not the Origenistic ‘Heretic’).” John A. McGuckin (ed.). Orthodox Monasticism Past and Present. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press: 159–224. 270 9781138673939_pi-697.indd 270 19-Jul-18 11:52:09 PM