PLATONISM AND THE TOOLS OF GOD powers of reasoning and the mechanic’s technical knowledge the prophetic art

ning and the mechanic’s technical knowledge the prophetic art which
CARL O’BRIEN draws us to follow the guidance of Fate” (13.4.81-2). Maximus’ point is that God
only operates the machinery; and rather than being omnipotent as the Judaeo-
Christian God is often perceived as being, He is severely limited by what the machin-
ery can actually accomplish.

The Divine Architect

Introduction
The Demiurge posited by the first century exegete, Philo Judaeus is upwardly-mobi-
In the biblical accounts of creation (Gen. 1:1 -2:4a and Gen. 2:4bff), it is enough for
le with a promotion from craftsman to architect. Such an elevation involves more
God to will something to be created for this to happen. The second account may refer
than social prejudice, however. While Plato had posited three principles: God (the
to God as a potter or builder, but it still differs significantly from Plato’s Timaeus,
Demiurge), the Ideas and matter from which everything else has its being, by Philo’s
where the world is generated by the Demiurge (Greek = Craftsman) who has to lite-
time the Ideas or intelligible archetypes according to which sensible reality is orde-
rally toil at the task of ordering the cosmos; an image which was something of an
red had become regarded as merely the thoughts of God. This leads Philo to introdu-
embarrassment for generations of later Platonists. As the Epicurean of ND I. 19 moc-
ce his famous comparison of the Demiurge with a king founding a city at Opif. 17.
kingly states: “What power of mental vision allowed your master Plato to envisage
Once the king has decided upon construction, the architect mentally draws up the
the vast and elaborate architectural process adopted by God in constructing the
plans. The means by which he replicates this mental conception in the material realm
world? What method of engineering was employed? What iron tools and levers and
echoes what the Demiurge accomplishes.1 The Logos, then, contains the noetic realm,
cranes?” (trans. LCL modified).
as the mind of the Demiurge, but it is not true to state that it has a physical place.2
Indeed, if God is truly a Craftsman, He must be provided with tools with
This is the world of Ideas as God is actually engaged in creation, but as Philo consi-
which to construct the world. These “tools” are not more than mere stylistic devices.
ders God as continually engaging in the process of creation, no fine distinction need
Although used for the purposes of exposition, they tend to have an insulating func-
be made concerning this point.3
tion by effectively separating the first principle from matter. Plato describes the
Philo blurs the distinction between the king and the architect as an attempt
Demiurge sorting out the elements with the aid of a winnowing-fan, an image that
to preserve God’s transcendence. Another reason may be that he did not wish to open
probably suggested itself to him from the sieve posited by Democritus, the atomist.
speculation concerning an ontological chain of demiurgic intermediaries. It indicates
The second century A.D. Platonist, Maximus of Tyre developed a still more elaborate
that the function of Demiurge does not exhaust God’s being – it is only one of his
image:
roles. The Demiurge for Philo is subsumed into the Judaic god and the Logos-Cutter
which He employs to carry out his demiurgic function is a subordinate entity, allow-
As to the nature of this divine craft, I am unable to describe it to
ing Philo to resolve the supposed contradictions between both generative models.
you explicitly, but you will be able to understand its effects from
Secondly, Philo presents the architect as envisaging the future city mentally, when in
an image of the kind I shall now give you. You have surely
point of fact he would use written plans - however this would not suit Philo’s con-
before now seen ships being hauled up out of the sea and stones
tention that the intelligible realm does not occupy physical space.
of enormous bulk being moved by all sorts of twistings and
rotations of machinery as each component transmits its impetus
The Logos-Cutter
to the next and one component receives the movement from
Allotting tools to the Demiurge goes beyond producing a comprehensible image of
another, the whole machine is set in motion. It is the whole
world-generation or explaining the mechanism of causality. It helps to insulate the
machine that is responsible for achieving the task, but by means
Demiurge from the recalcitrance of matter, thereby reducing his responsibility for the
of the collaboration of its individual parts. (Oration 13, trans.
element of disorder in the world. Such “tools” differ from the machine of Maximus
Trapp)
in that they are philosophical entities in their own right, or “hypostases”, aspects of
the Godhead that enjoy an independent existence. Philo posits the Logos (Word)-
Maximus’ vision here goes beyond mere imagery. He seeks to expound the
Cutter. The image of the Logos as a tool is one of the predominant images presented
causality of the Demiurge in terms of its relation to limiting factors, such as Necessity
by Philo in order to cast light on its functioning in the creation of the world.
and Providence. As he elaborates: “Call the mechanic God, the machines human
Additionally, the Logos can also be presented as a mediating entity. The image of the

60 61
Logos as a cutter might well have suggested itself to Philo from the flaming sword of ed our soul and limbs in the middle, so too when he wrought the
the Cherubim at Gen. 3:24, once Philo had equated this with the Logos (a concept world, did he deal with the being of all that is.7
that preceded Philo). This notion can be paralleled in Gnosticism, with examples
found in the Nag Hammadi texts. According to The Testimony of Truth 9.3, it is the This notion of the Logos engaged in division is central to Philo’s notion of
Word (logos) which separates us from the error of the angels, where it is associated world-creation. It is hardly surprising that it is the Logos which is engaged in this sort
with the incarnate Son of Man. In The Teaching of Silvanus, the Logos is also regar- of activity, as the human mind, which Philo also describes as a Logos, is occupied
ded as a cutting-agent¸ and identification with the incarnate Christ is made explicit. with much the same function on a smaller scale, when it is engaged in diaresis.8 Heres
The Gospel of Truth compares the Logos to a drawn sword. However, just as in The 134 continues this concept of a creative division on the part of the Logos, based
Teaching of Silvanus, this cutting-action has a soteriological, rather than a demiurgic around the four main elements.
significance, evoking the Johannine conception of Incarnation with the Word
condemning some and saving others. This He took and began to divide as follows. First He made two sec-
This portrayal of the Logos as a saw or sword may either be influenced in tions, heavy and light, thus distinguishing the element of dense from
some way (directly or indirectly) by Philo, or indicate a current in Judaeo-Christian that of rare particles. Then again He divides each of these two, the
philosophical thought, which Philo himself adopted. As Hay claims, it seems likely rare into air and fire, the dense into water and land and these four he
that the conception of the Logos in a cosmological sense originated with Philo, laid down as first foundations to be the sensible elements of the sen-
although he may have drawn upon the Jewish tradition’s view of the divine word as sible world.
a sword used for protection of the faithful and punishment of the wicked.4 The Logos-
Cutter can be viewed as a Jewish response within the current of Greek philosophy, The first task of the Logos-Cutter is division based on the elements. The activ-
which attempted to explain the imposition of order upon a disordered universe, using ity of the Logos here parallels very closely the ordering through differentiation
figures such as Hermes or Osiris as a personification of divine wisdom. As a divine engaged in by the Demiurge of the Timaeus.9 It is interesting that in spite of a certain
mediator, the Logos appears at Poimandres 10 -11 and at Plutarch’s De Iside et adoption of Stoic elements, a great deal of Philo’s exposition of the Logos-Cutter is
Osiride (53 – 54, 372E – 373C). Eudorus (of Alexandria) may also have expressed expressed in terms generic to all the schools. Certainly Stoic, however, is the division
the combination of the monad (indivisible first principle) and dyad (divisible sec- of fire into two kinds at § 136; the useful variety and what amounts to the Stoic pyr
ondary principle) as the thought or Logos of a supreme One.5 Tobin suggests that the technikon (fire as the basic substrate which survives the end of each world-order), set
Logos in Philo may reflect an element from the early stages of Alexandrian Middle aside to preserve the heavens.10
Platonism, ignored by subsequent thinkers.6 At Heres 140, Philo makes it quite clear that God is the true Demiurge and
A useful source for Philo’s doctrine of the Logos-Cutter is his commentary the Logos is merely the means or tool by which He creates, rather than some kind of
Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres (“Who is the Heir of Divine Things?”), an exegesis of independently operating agent.
Gen. 15:2-18, concerning Abraham’s sacrifice of the heifer, ram and birds. Although
the concept of the Logos-Cutter is only fully developed in Heres, at Fug. et. Inv. 194- Thus God sharpened the edge of His all-cutting Word, and divided
196, it is mentioned as a Divider. In an interesting philosophical insight, Philo por- universal being, which before was without form or quality, and the
trays Yahweh as the inventor of Platonic diairesis (philosophical investigation, divi- four elements of the world which were formed by segregation from
sion) by which he differentiates the various levels of the created realm. At Heres 132, it, and the animals and plants which were framed with them as mate-
Philo refers to Abraham’s division of his sacrifice as symbolic of the Logos’ division rials.
of our consciousness into rational and irrational soul, true and false speech and cog-
nitive and non-cognitive impressions. At Heres 133, Philo signals the link between The Being which God divides here is ousia or the Stoic conception of matter,
diairesis and demiurgy: although God is envisaged as ordering, rather than creating. The continual division of
matter by the Logos can be viewed as Philo’s version of the continual geometry
The subject of division into equal parts and of opposites is a engaged in by the Demiurge at Plutarch’s Quaest. Conviv. 1002E, stressed at Heres
wide one and discussion of it is essential. We will neither omit 235 (quoted below), where the Logos is said to never cease to cleave matter. The pas-
nor protract it, but abridge it as far as possible and content our- sage describes the Logos as dividing matter into an infinity of infinities; for Philo,
selves with the vital points only. Just as the great Artificer divid- there was no such thing as an atom in the philosophical sense- it was always possi-

62 63
ble, even if only for the Logos, to subdivide matter eternally. The description here is very similar to the construction of the heavens and the
The Greek oudepote here, I would suggest, could be taken as “at no point” insertion of the World-Soul at Timaeus 35. Although Philo dispenses with the World-
as well as “never”; the Logos never ceases to divide matter in the temporal sense, but Soul, which becomes largely replaced by the Logos, he is prepared to adopt the
equally in its continual care for the phenomenal realm, it is capable of infinite divi- imagery of the Timaeus for his own purposes.11 Dillon suggests that Philo may be
sion, or at least to a point beyond that which can be comprehended by the human using a Stoic handbook in delineating his concept of the Logos.12 In this context, he
mind. cites the presentation of Antiochus of Ascalon in Cicero’s Academica Posteriora,
This notion of the Logos as a tool is echoed in a similar passage at §167: where mention is made of an infinite “cutting” and “dividing” of matter.13 However,
“these tables too were cut by the Divine Legislator and by Him only.” This notion of Cicero does not go into details of how this division contributes to the organisation of
cutting suggests that the thought of God can be equated with the Logos-Cutter. The matter.
passage helps to reinforce the notion of the Logos-Cutter as an instrument of the
Demiurge, since the identification of a legislator with a Demiurge is an old one, as This pronouncement of theirs is not wide of the mark. Judge that the
both can be regarded as imposing order upon disorder. Although Philo’s image of the master art of God by which He wrought all things is one that admits
Logos-Cutter appears to be a unique contribution, Heres 146 reveals how much he of no heightening or lowering of intensity but always remains the
owes to the Demiurge of the Timaeus: same and that through its transcendent excellence it has wrought in
perfection each theory that is, every number and every form that
In the light of this preliminary sketch observe how God in “dividing tends to perfectness being used to the full by the Maker. (Heres 156)
in the middle” actually did divide equally according to all forms of
equality, when he created the universe. First, as to equality of num- Just like his Platonic predecessor, the Philonic Demiurge constructs the world based
ber, he made the light parts equal in number to the heavy parts, earth on significant numbers, which reveals the perfection of the cosmos. It is this that
and water, which are heavy being two, and fire and air, which are nat- allows Philo to explain in philosophical terms creation in six/seven days –obviously
urally light being two also. Again by this division we have one and there is no reason why an omnipotent deity should require a week to create the cos-
one in the driest and the wettest, that is earth and water, and in the mos, since he would be capable, as Philo asserts, of creating it simultaneously- how-
coldest and the hottest, that is air and fire. In the same way, we have ever, the importance of six and seven underline the perfection of what was created
one and one in darkness and light, in day and night, in winter and (both are philosophically important numbers in Greek thought, while seven is impor-
summer, in spring and autumn, and in the other examples of the same tant in Judaism as it represents a complete whole). This perfection of the created
nature. world is evoked by the menorah.14
At Heres 157, it is evident the cosmos as a whole is good:
This activity is similar to the separating action of the Receptacle. The stress on divi-
sion based on equality (i.e. rational principles) echoes the mixing together of the For He judged equally about the little and the great to use Moses’
Same and the Different – Philo points to the rationality visible in the cosmos, as evi- words (Deut.1.17) when He generated and sliced each thing nor was
dence that it must have been created by a rational principle. This is echoed in the He led by the insignificance of the material to diminish, or by its
description of the equitable construction of the heavens at Heres 147: splendour to increase, the art which He applied.

For equality of the magnitude, he gave us the parallel circles in heav- There can be no question of the recalcitrance of matter as an explanation of the exis-
en, those of the equinox in spring and autumn, and those of the sol- tence of evil in the created realm: Philo’s God, like the Platonic Demiurge, made the
stice in summer and winter, while on earth there are the zones two of best kind of world possible, but unlike him, was in no way limited by the materials
which are equal to each other, namely those which adjoin the poles, which He used. The prejudicial Platonic view of matter does come across at Heres
frigid and therefore uninhabited, and two which are bordered by the 158, although not as a limitation on God’s bounty. Rather, matter is not responsible
last named and torrid zone, these two habitable, as we are told, for the beauty of the cosmos, which must be attributed to the superior science of the
because of their temperate climate, one of them on the south side and Demiurge.15 At Heres 163, Philo indicates that in spite of what humans might think
the other on the north. there is no dichotomy between an inferior or superior part of creation:

64 65
 But with God no kind of material is held in honour and there- 187-188, where he refers to the Logos as a bond holding together creation, though he
fore he bestowed upon them all the same art and in equal meas- uses the terms kolla (glue, cement) and desmos (bond,ligature), rather than the more
ure. And so in the holy Scriptures we read, “God saw all things Stoic hexis (cohesion):
which He had made and behold, they were very good” (Gen.i.3)
and things which receive the same praise must be of equal hon- And a unit admits neither of addition nor subtraction, being the
our in the eyes of the praiser. image of God who is alone in His unity and has fullness. Other
things are in themselves without coherence and if they be con-
This passage seems to indicate the existence of different types of matter. Here Philo densed, it is because they are held tight by the divine Word,
is influenced by the Septuagint account; in which man is created from a mixture of which is a glue and bond, filling up all things with His being.
materials, such as mud and pneuma (breath). The passage echoes Plotinus’ comment He who fastens and weaves together each separate thing is a lit-
at Enn. 3.2.11.6 that a craftsman could not make an animal only with eyes, even if eral truth full of his own self, and needs nothing else at all.
these are its finest feature. The beauty of the cosmos lies in its instantiation of all pos-
sibilities, and even though some of these possibilities may appear better than others, This echoes the portrayal of the Logos at De Plantatione 7-10, as a bond holding
God has applied the same skill in creating everything. together opposites. There is an interesting parallel in the pseudo-Aristotelian De
This point is picked up at De Prov. 59 when Philo states that the creation of mundo, where Nature is regarded as responsible for the harmony of opposites.xvii As
reptiles has not come into being by a direct act of Providence but as an attendant cir- in Philo, Heraclitus is regarded as the originator of this concept. Although no exact
cumstance. Philo adopts the response used also by Christian thinkers in explaining parallel of the Philonic Logos-Cutter (in a demiurgic sense) prior to Philo can be
why God has created wild animals (they encourage bravery) at De Prov. 56-58. found, Heraclitus does mention a spiritual principle bounded by fire which he calls
Philo’s response is more systematic, however. Worms and lice cannot be blamed on logos, and which contributes to world-order by combining opposites rather like
the Demiurge, but occur for scientific reasons (putrefaction in food and perspira- Philo’s Logos at Heres 199:
tion).16 Just as Plato asserts that only what is good can be attributed to God,
Providence is only responsible for that which is created “out of its proper substance And the mixture thus harmoniously compounded proves to be
by a seminal and primary process of nature”. Philo also adopts the Stoic approach that that most venerable and perfect work, a work in very truth holy,
apparent evils, upon closer inspection, turn out to be beneficial, when he points out even the world, which he holds under the symbol of the incense
the utility of many venomous animals in medicinal processes at De Prov. 60f. offering, gives thanks to its Maker, so that while in outward
The Logos goes on to allocate various portions to humanity at Heres 180: speech it is the compound formed by the perfumer’s art which
is burnt as incense, in real fact it is the whole world, wrought by
Further, nature abounds in things which bear some shape or divine wisdom, which in fact is offered and consumed morning
stamp and others which do not, even as it is with coins, and you and evening in the sacrificial fire.
may note how the indivisible severer divides them all into equal
parts and awards those that are approved by their stamp to the This image of a cosmic mixture produced by the Demiurge could easily be inspired
lover of instruction, but those that have no stamp or mark to the by Plato. However, Philo stresses that this mixture is harmonious, which is clearly not
man of ignorance. the case in the Timaeus, compounded as it is of the passive and the recalcitrant
(Sameness and Different). Indeed, at Heres 214 and QG. III 5, Philo points out that
It appears that Philo is advancing a proto-Gnostic viewpoint here, in his view of a Heraclitus’ cosmology shares similarities with that of Moses. In the Hermetic tradi-
Demiurge who distributes two different qualities of goods to two different classes of tion there is also a Logos-Cutter of sorts; Poimandres, who produces the cosmos
humanity. I think, however, that Philo is drawing a very Platonic distinction. The through differentiation, and Hermes who is a combined Truth and Logos figure.
image of the stamp is similar to his use of the seal at Opif., and refers to those ele- Philo’s mention of Heraclitus does not indicate that he was father of a doctrine
ments of the phenomenal realm which are made after the image of the Logos (in involving the Logos-Cutter. One can only conclude that the Logos-Cutter is an orig-
Platonic terms, an instantiation of a Form). Therefore it seems that the Logos distrib- inal contribution of Philo’s or he acquired it from a Hellenistic Jewish source (as
utes to men of ignorance that which is purely material. there does not appear to be any exact counterpart to this before him in the Greek
Philo seems to have a Stoicized reading of the Timaeus in mind at Heres philosophical tradition).

66 67
 The division of the Logos-cutter should not be viewed as a crude creational than a mere tool or knife used by God during creation. It is a mediating entity, which
mechanism. As Radice has shown, the Logos engages in a very complex process.18 1) functions as a co-Creator and plays an active role in the universe after genesis,
It engages in actual division (Heres 133 – 140). 2) It engages in a secondary, equal- although it does not compromise God’s unity.24
ising division (Heres 141 – 200). 3) Mediation (Heres 201- 206) is followed by 4) the This is reiterated at Heres 236, where Philo indicates that not only is the
placing of the divided components (Heres 207 -229) and finally 5) the non-division Father indivisible, but that this characteristic is possessed by the Logos also. It is par-
of noetic reality (Heres 230 -236). This creation is part of a whole sequence of the ticularly interesting that Philo should attempt to preserve this sort of “unity in the sec-
ordered and proportional construction of subordinate structures. For example, the ond degree”, since it indicates that the Logos is not based on the Platonic dyad.
heavy cosmic substance becomes separated into earth (dry) and water (wet), while the (Indeed, it is a masculine entity and has more in common with the World-Soul). One
light forms air (cold) and fire (hot). Earth is divided into continents and islands, while of the advantages in numerous metaphysical systems for postulating secondary gods
water is drinkable and undrinkable. This reveals not just a continual division of cos- is that it allows postulation of further hypostases, but Philo, as a monotheist, is very
mic substance, but a logical division that itself is responsible for cosmic structure.19 keen on preserving a united godhead, even as regards secondary divine entities. In
In this sense, the Logos is a mediator, not just between the First Principle spite of Philo’s claim that the Logos is a secundus deus, it very clearly is not, in the
and the rest of creation, but an equaliser in terms of size (§§ 147 -150; night and day, original Numenian sense of the term. Numenius’ Second God is divided by matter,
the equinoxes, both poles etc.) as well as in terms of proportion (§§ 152f; between the whereas although the Philonic Logos is the sole cause of the division of matter, Philo
four elements in the cosmos or between the four constituent factors (dry, wet, cold is at pains to point out that it is not divided by it.
and hot) in Man). This can, naturally, be viewed as a development of the notion of On two occasions, Philo refers to the Logos as an instrument used by God
creation as a transition from disorder to order expressed at Tim. 30A (cf. Her. 133) in the creation of the world. At Leg. All. III, 31, 96, we are told that God “used it like
and unity based upon the harmony of proportions reflected at Tim. 31 A – 32 A. To a an instrument when He was making the world” and “when He was fashioning the
great extent this notion of division is also echoed at Sophist 253 D-E. world, He used it as an instrument , so that the arrangement of all the things He was
This structured approach to creation by division is a metaphysical necessity completing might be faultless”. On three occasions, the role of the Logos as an instru-
in Philo’s scheme. Although Philo does not recognise an atom, in the sense of a par- ment is implied. It is that “through which the world was produced at Sacr. 3,8, Spec.
ticle which cannot be further divided, he does recognise the absurdity of an infinite I, 16, 81) or that “by which” God made the world at Immut. 12, 57.25 This is similar
division on the part of the Logos. For this reason intellects and noetic reality are not to the role played by Wisdom during creation. In The Wisdom of Solomon, the author
divided by the Logos.20 Philo finds biblical justification for this approach in the com- treats wisdom as equivalent to the Logos of God, although he refers to it as “God’s
ment on Abraham’s sacrifice at Gen. 15:10: “but the birds he did not divide”. This is daughter”. Wisdom is equally “that through which the world came into existence”
what Philo means when he states that the Logos “never ceases to divide, for when it (De Fuga 20 &109) or “was brought to completion” (Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari
has gone through all sensible objects down to the atoms and what are called indivis- 16 & 54). Wisdom additionally is the title given to what seems to be the Philonic
ibles, it begins from them again to divide those things contemplated by reason into equivalent of the Receptacle at Ebr. 8, 31, where it is called the “mother and nurse of
inexpressible and indescribable parts.” (Heres 26). By things contemplated by reason, the all”.
Philo is not referring to the noetic realm, rather sub-atomic particles which although The Logos functions in the typical role of a divine mediator, insulating God
they may not be humanly divisible can still be reduced by the Logos. from the disorder (in Philo’s case, evil might be a little too strong) inherent in mat-
This system of creation is complemented by agricultural imagery at De ter:
Plantatione.21 This is drawn from the notion of God as a cultivator at Republic X When out of that [shapeless and quality less matter] God pro-
597C –D8. The cosmos can be considered like a living creature or farm which duced all things, He did so without touching it himself, since it
requires continual tending on the part of God. However, that this image is not a model was not lawful for His nature, happy and blessed as it was, to
for an alternative type of creation, but only an alternative explanation of creation is touch indefinite and confused matter but instead He made full
illustrated by the fact that this creation is still fundamentally one of transition from use of the incorporeal powers, well denoted by the name of
order to disorder. If the earth is composed of the heavier elements (water and earth) ideas to enable each genus to take its appropriate shape. (Spec.
at the centre, and the lighter ones (water and fire) at the exterior, this leads to the I. 329, trans. Wolfson).
question of how these elements do not neutralise one another through their close
proximity.22 This is the effect of the mediating presence of the Logos.23 This mode of creation is echoed when God calls upon his powers to aid Him in the
This reveals the complex nature of Philo’s conception of the Logos. It is more forming of Man. These incorporeal powers which allow matter to take a shape do not

68 69
themselves become enmattered (unlike the Man of the Poimandres). Although it may NOTES
not be lawful for God to act directly upon matter, this does not prevent Him from dis-
pensing benefits directly to mortals (Leg. All. III, 178). These incorporeal powers 1
De Opificio Mundi. 18 "Then taking up the imprints of each object in his own soul
which assist in creation would seem to reflect the influence of the Stoic doctrine of like in wax, he carries around the intelligible city as an image in his head.
efficient causes rather than the Platonic theory of ideas (though in the Phaedo the Summoning up the representations by means of his innate power of memory and
Ideas have a causal function). engraving their features even more distinctly on his mind, he begins as a good
builder, to construct the city out of stone and timber, looking at the model and ensur-
Conclusion ing that the corporeal objects correspond to each of the incorporeal Ideas." (trans.
With the emergence of Neoplatonism, such speculations on the tools required by a David Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos According to
Craftsman-god ceased to play an important role in philosophical debate, with the Moses, Introduction, Translation and Commentary , (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2001).
alternative image of world-generation propounded by Plotinus of “procession” and 2
Opif. 20.
“return” to the supreme Principle. For Plotinus, the supreme principle (“the One”) did 3
Opif. 24: “The intelligible cosmos is nothing else than the Logos of God as he is
not require tools to produce anything – it just occurred spontaneously. Neither did he actually engaged in making the cosmos. For the intelligible city is nothing else than
deliberate before generation, since this would imply hesitation. Although Plotinus the reasoning of the architect as he is actually engaged in the planning of the foun-
does posit hypostases before sensible matter is reached, these are not characterised as dation of the city.” (trans. David Runia).
“tools”. In his view, the One produces a power in an unformed state, which success- 4
David M. Hay, “Philo’s Treatise on the Logos-Cutter” in Studia Philonica II
fully orders itself in response to its contemplation of the One. Unlike the Demiurge, (Providence: Brown University Press, 1973), 19.
the One does not toil at the task of producing the cosmos, and does not look down- 5
T.H. Tobin, “Was Philo a Middle Platonist? Some Suggestions” in Studia Philonica
wards to what it has produced. Annual V (Providence: Brown University Press, 1993), 149.
The Logos-Cutter is a distinctively Philonic concept, effectively combin- 6
Ibid.
ing elements from Platonic and Judaic sources and playing a major role in Philo’s 7
Translations, unless otherwise specified, are from F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker,
mission to explain Mosaic doctrine in the language of Greek philosophy. Philo stress- eds. & trans., Philo of Alexandria, (London: Loeb Classical Library, 1929-1934), vol-
es that it pervades those areas of the cosmos where it was beneath God’s dignity to umes I-V.
go and the Logos is often described in biblical terms - as the sword of the Cherubim 8
This parallel is made more explicit at Heres 235 “The divine Word separated and
or an angel. However, the Logos functions in a similar manner to a Platonic apportioned all that is in nature. Our mind deals with all the things material and
Demiurge, engaging in a complex process of imposing order upon disorder to immaterial which the mental process brings within its grasp, divides them into an
improve the intelligibility of the cosmos, rather than strictly creating. infinity of infinities and never (oudepote) ceases to cleave them.”
Despite speculations in certain Gnostic texts on a saw of God, the 9
This notion is developed at Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres 13.
hypostases posited by this tradition are not normally regarded as instruments, but as 10
Cf. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 1. 120.
aspects of God or the Church. Indeed Sophia, which one might imagine to be the 11
Heres 153 propounds the notion that man is a compound generated by an equitable
Wisdom of God, and therefore a counterpart of Philo’s Logos-Cutter, is in fact char- mixture of his components by the Logos.
acterised as an imperfect female entity, whose irrational desire to know the Father 12
John Dillon, “Reclaiming the Heritage of Moses, Philo’s Confrontation with Greek
triggers a series of events, resulting in the birth of an evil (or in some sects merely Philosophy” in Studia Philonica VII, (Providence: Brown University Press, 1995),
ignorant) Demiurge, who then constructs the world. Surprisingly, the Demiurge of the [hereafter Dillon, Reclaiming the Heritage], 118.
highly mythologized systems of Gnosticism does not usually have tools, while more 13
“infinite secari atque dividi”. Ap. Cicero. Acad. Post. 27.
observations on this point were made in the realm of “serious” or mainstream phi- 14
Heres 225.
losophy. And perhaps that is one of the strongest arguments for viewing the highly 15
Heres 158.
evocative imagery of the “tools” of God as produced for serious metaphysical, rather 16
De Prov. 59.
than purely stylistic, reasons. 17
Dillon, Reclaiming the Heritage, 118.
18
Radice, R. “Platonismo e Creationismo in Filone di Alessandria” (= Metafisica del
platonismo nel suo sviluppo storico nelle filosofia patristica 7), (Milan:
Pubblicazioni delle Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 1989), 67.

70 71
19
Ibid., 70 presents a schema detailing the symmetrical structure inherent in this divi-
sion by the Logos
20
Ibid. 75.
21
De Plantatione, 2 .
22
Plant. 4.
23
Plant. 8 “and it is the eternal Logos of the eternal God, the most solid and the firmest
support of the whole” (my translation).
24
Cf. Heres 234.
25
Harold A. Wolfson, Philo - Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam, (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1968), 266.

72