Autor: Lonergan, Bernard J. F.

Buch: The Way to Nicea

Titel: The Way to Nicea

Stichwort: Problem: naiver Realismus (Irenäus, Klemens von Alexandrien)

Kurzinhalt: ... it is characteristic of all men ... to suppose, at least implicitly, that the ultimate and basic categories are not those of being, or of substance, but of place and time ...

Textausschnitt: 5. The problem of naive realism

113a If the remedy for the improper use of symbols was true knowledge of actually existing things, then obviously one had to fix on some determinate notion of reality. We have already referred to the naive realism of Tertullian, who pictured to himself the unity of the divine substance as a kind of organic unity. The difficulty, however, is not Tertullian's alone; it is characteristic of all men, unless and until they become wiser, to suppose, at least implicitly, that the ultimate and basic categories are not those of being, or of substance, but of place and time. (Fs)

113b This point can be illustrated from the writings both of Clement of Alexandria and of Ireneus. First we shall take Ireneus, who, wanting to demonstrate that there was only one supreme God, appealed above all to the notions of containing and of being contained:

"For either there must be one who contains all things, who in his own domain made each and every thing that has been made, according to his own will; or else there must be many gods who created, each one of them starting where another ends, each one bordering on another. In the latter case, all the gods must be included in something greater than them all, containing them all; and each one will be confined to his own area; and so none of them can be God. For each one, compared with all the others taken together, will have only a tiny part, and none of them can be called the Omnipotent; and so this view leads necessarily to impiety".1

113c Then, as if to cut off an escape-route of the Gnostics, Ireneus continues:

"But if they say-as some of them do indeed say-that being inside and being outside of the Pleroma are to be understood in terms of knowing and of not-knowing respectively, since whoever knows something is within that which he knows, then they will have to admit that the Saviour himself (whom they call the All) was in a state of ignorance... If therefore, the Saviour went outside of the Pleroma, in order to search for the lost sheep, then he went outside of knowledge, and so he was in ignorance. For either they must admit that he was spatially outside of the Pleroma, and then we bring all our earlier arguments against them; or else, understanding inside and outside in terms of knowledge and ignorance respectively, they will have to admit that he whom they acknowledge as Saviour, and much earlier, Christ, were in ignorance, having gone outside of the Pleroma (that is, outside of knowledge), in order to form their mother".2

114a To reinforce the point, let us add the following passages from the Excerpta ex Theodoto, which recent editors ascribe not to Theodotus the Gnostic, but rather to Clement of Alexandria:3

"... 'for I say to you that their (the children's) angels look always on the face of God'... 'Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God'. But how can he, who has no shape, have a face? The apostle spoke of heavenly bodies, beautiful and intelligent; how could he have given them their different names, unless they had shape and form, unless, indeed, they were clothed in some body? 'The splendor of the heavenly bodies is different from that of terrestrial bodies, the splendor of the angels' bodies is different from both, and the splendor of the archangels' is different again': compared with the terrestral bodies, or with the stars, the angels and archangels are without shape, and incorporeal, but compared with the Son they can be said to be determinate bodies, accessible to sense. And the same can be said of the Son, compared with the Father ...".4
[...]

115a Clearly enough, these passages from the Excerpta not only give expression to a naive realism, grounded in a confusion to which men are naturally prone;1 but they also appeal to the scriptures in support of this naive realism. And the same is to be said of Ireneus.2 But there is a further element to be mentioned, and that is the influence of the Stoics. For on the basis of their own naive realism the Stoics had elaborated a whole system of materialistic philosophy; and many of the ante-Nicene authors, having quite an affinity with the Stoics, were moved to borrow their technical terms, and to adapt their distinctions and their theorems to their own ends.3 (Fs)

116a Now if error seeks supporting arguments in scripture and, at the same time, decks itself out in the terms and the distinctions of a philosophy, it can hardly be overcome except by a doctrine of hermeneutics, combined with an opposing philosophy. And this, in fact, is what happened at Alexandria. Clement himself, having discoursed at length, and with an abundance of illustrations, on the use of symbols,4 boldly concluded: [...]