2.57. We have learned that
there are three altars of the heights: the third is simple, whereas the two
(others) are composed. And that wisdom which is about the second altar reveals
the wisdom of the third, whereas that which is about the first altar comes
first vis-à-vis that which is in the second one. (Evagrius’s Kephalaia
Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac [trans.
Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; Writings from the Greco-Roman World 38; Atlanta: SBL
Press, 2015], 123)
This is another kephalaion
that focuses on a gnoseological hierarchy, here delineated in three steps. The
imagery of the “altars” alludes to various degrees in the progression of the
gnosis. However, terminology must be paid attention to: here it is a matter not
of “contemplation” (theōria) or “knowledge” proper but of “wisdom,” ܐܬܡܟܚ, corresponding
to Greek σοφία. Evagrius describes wisdom as follows: “wisdom [σοφία] is
knowledge [γνῶσις] of corporeal and incorporeal realities and the contemplation
in them of judgment and providence” (scholium 3 on Prov 1:2). Wisdom is the
main epinoia of Christ, together with that of Logos. Knowledge is
connected with the Logos-epinoia of Christ; Wisdom with his Wisdom-epinoia.
These are the two main epinoiai of Christ; according to Origen, Wisdom
is the very first epinoia of Christ, even anterior to “Logos,” because
the Logos itself was from eternity in Wisdom. As Origen remarked in his
Commentary on John, commenting on John 1:1 (“in the beginning was the Logos,” ἐν
ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος), the Logos “has its hypostasis, or individual substance, in
Wisdom, who is the Beginning” (ἐν ἀρχῇ τῇ Σοφίᾳ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχων). See
Ramelli, “Origen, Greek Philosophy.” (Ibid., 123-24)
2.58. Those who now live in
breadth have been given the three altars, whereas those who live in length and
depth will be given them in the world/aeon to come. (Evagrius’s
Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the
Syriac [trans. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; Writings from the Greco-Roman World
38; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 124)
Evagrius goes on to speak of the
three altars and the wisdom that concerns them, of which he has already spoken
in KG 2.57. The distinction that he draws in the present kephalaion
seems to be between rational creatures who live in a diastematic condition, and
thus in space and time in this world—that is, human beings during the present
life—and rational creatures that are free from διαστήματα—in particular, he
seems to be thinking of angels. Humans will attain the three “altars,” or the
three grades of wisdom, like angels, when they are in the other world. Breadth
suggests the stay and wandering in the present aeon, while depth and length
suggest a vertical ascent toward God, throughout the aeons. The scriptural
reference underlying this kephalaion is Eph 3:18–19: “I pray that you
may have the power to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and
length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses
knowledge.” In a scholium on Prov 3:19–20 Evagrius comments precisely on this
passage: “That which here [the author of Proverbs] has called ‘earth,’ Saint
Paul denominates ‘breadth’ [πλάτος], and what are here called ‘heavens’ Paul in
his letter to the Ephesians calls ‘height’ [ὕψος], and that which he
allegorically calls ‘abysses’ (Paul) denominates ‘depth’ [βάθος], and the
‘clouds dropping water’ he calls ‘length’ [μῆκος]. All these symbolize the
rational creatures distributed in orders/arrangements [κόσμοις] and bodies [σώμασιν]
according to their state.” This confirms the association I proposed of the
dimensions mentioned by Evagrius with different orders of rational creatures. (Ibid.,
124-25)
4.88. Among the three altars
of knowledge, there are two that have a circle, whereas one is seen without a
circle. (Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the
Unreformed Text from the Syriac [trans. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; Writings from
the Greco-Roman World 38; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 243)
The idea conveyed by this kephalaion
may be that two kinds of knowledge are circumscribed and limited, whereas the
third is unlimited. The two limited kinds of knowledge seem to be the knowledge
of corporeal realities and that of incorporeal creatures, those that Evagrius
calls secondary and primary; the third kind of knowledge is that of the
Trinity, which is unlimited just as the Trinity is, which is “essential
knowledge” (see above, KG 4.77 and 4.87, with the relevant commentaries). The
infinity of God is a trait that characterizes Gregory of Nyssa and goes back to
Origen. On the three altars, see KG 2.57–58 above and the relevant
commentaries. (Ibid., 243)
5.53. The spiritual sacrifice
is a pure conscience, that which is laid (offered) on the state of the
intellect as on an altar. (Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostika: A New
Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac [trans. Ilaria L. E.
Ramelli; Writings from the Greco-Roman World 38; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 297)
Persius Flaccus, the Roman Stoic
who wrote philosophical satires, also identified the pureness of one’s thoughts
and the honesty of one’s heart as the true and best sacrifice, besides which no
further sacrifice is needed (Satire 2.71–75). See Ramelli, Stoici romani
minori, 1361–515, also with the review by Gretchen Reydams-Schils in Bryn
Mawr Classical Review, October 2009,
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-10-10.html. A parallel concept is found in
Paul’s “rational cult,” or λογικὴ λατρεία; moreover, in Paul the notion of
“conscience,” or συνείδησις, is paramount (see Philip Bosman, Conscience in
Philo and Paul [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003]), and from him it was picked
up by Christian authors. See Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “Conscience. IV.
Christianity,” in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception (ed.
Hans-Joseph Klauck et al.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 3:650–52. It is a
Christian, Theophilus, who attests (To Autolycus 2.4) that in Stoicism
each one’s conscience is so important as to be divine; indeed, especially the
Roman Stoics and authors who were strongly influenced by them, such as Seneca
and Juvenal, emphasized the role of conscience (see Ramelli, Stoici romani
minori, 2599–626, s.v. “coscienza,” and passim in the essays and
commentaries therein). Juvenal, Satire 13, observes that conscience
produces remorse for one’s sins and works as the divinity’s principal
instrument to punish human sins. Paul was probably acquainted with the Stoic
conception of conscience, and Evagrius was surely acquainted with Paul’s notion.
(Ibid., 297-98)
5.84. The intelligible temple
is the pure intellect, that in which now there is the Wisdom of God, “full of
varieties/modalities.” Indeed, God’s temple is the one who is a seer of the
holy Unity, and God’s altar is the contemplation of the Holy Trinity. (Evagrius’s
Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the
Syriac [trans. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; Writings from the Greco-Roman World
38; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 311)
Evagrius continues his series of
interpretations of elements related to buildings and the city (5.74, 77, 80,
82). If, as I suggested, the city he has in mind is the holy city of the
Apocalypse (Rev 21–22), this would perfectly fit his present interpretation of
the temple as the bare/pure intellect, since the temple of the Apocalypse is
explicitly identified, not with a temple of stones, but with God and Christ
(Rev 21:22). Likewise the stones that make up the holy city are identified by
Origen with rational creatures (On First Principles 2.11.2–3; see above,
the commentary on KG 4.30), and John himself in the Apocalypse says that
the victor in the battle against evil will be a pillar in the temple of God,
which will never go out (Rev 3:12, a passage that was dear to Origen).
Moreover, mentions of the temple and temple imagery are scattered throughout
the Apocalypse. See Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “Jesus, James the Just, a Gate, and
an Epigraph,” in Kein Jota und kein Häkchen des Gesetzes werden vergehen
(vgl. Q 16,17): Das Gesetzesverständnis der Logienquelle auf dem Hintergrund
frühjüdischer Theologie (ed. Markus Tiwald; BWANT 200; Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 2013), 203–29.
The definition of God’s Wisdom,
who is Christ, as “full of varieties/ modalities” comes from Eph 3:10. This
biblical quotation is a favorite of Evagrius’s, who uses it also in KG
1.43; 2.2, 21; 3.11; and 4.7 (see above, the relevant commentaries). Origen
elaborated on it for his image of Christ- Logos-Wisdom bearing the paradigmatic
Ideas or logoi of all beings on his surface, notably the same image that was
used by Bardaisan of Edessa. See Ramelli, Bardaisan of Edessa, 107–24,
and new remarks in Ramelli, “Preexistence of Souls,” the section on Bardaisan.
See also above, the commentary on KG 2.2.
The altar too is often mentioned
in the Apocalypse (Rev 6:9; 8:3, 5; 9:13; 11:1; 14:18; 16:7). In this kephalaion
the temple and the altar as symbols of the contemplation (θεωρία) of the divine
Unity and Trinity remind readers of the mystery of God as one nature in three
hypostases. Evagrius in this respect was in perfect continuity with the
Cappadocians, who had inherited this theological point from Origen. See Ilaria
Ramelli, “Origen’s Anti-Subordinationism and Its Heritage in the Nicene and
Cappadocian Line,” VC 65 (2011): 21–49; idem, “Origen, Greek Philosophy.” (Ibid.,
311-12)
