Philo and Numenius in the Neoplatonist-Christian struggle for true philosophy in the third century

Soloviev Roman Sergeevich ORCID: 0000-0002-0833-0624 Postgraduate, Lecturer at the Department of Philology at Moscow Theological Academy (Sergiev Posad, Russia), Lecturer at the Department of Early Christian Literature at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities (Moscow, Russia) 141310, Russia, Moscow region, Moscow, Likhov Lane, 6, office 1 solorom@gmail.com Other publications by this author

IntroductionThe second century became a melting pot of cultures, languages, philosophies and religions.

Thus, Plutarch of Chaeronea in his treatise "On Isis and Osiris" is an example of Greco-Egyptian syncretism, and Numenius of Apamea tries to trace the connections between Plato and Pythagoras, on the one hand, and the teachings of the Brahmins, Zoroastrians and Jews, on the other. At this time, gnosticism arises and spreads, which has absorbed the whole range of philosophical and mystical ideas, and Platonism absorbs many unusual features: his followers get acquainted with the ideas of the Eastern peoples, whose texts, including Christian ones, become famous, are commented on and discussed. Papyrus finds in Nag Hammadi, containing not only Gnostic texts, but also hermetic, Encratite, Judeo-Christian and even pagan writings, indicate how diverse the library of the early Christian community was. Christians create their own schools in which they polemize with the pagan teaching about God, borrowing from geno- and polytheists both theological terminology and material for a polemic that was already mutual in the second century: it was conducted not only by Christian apologists, but also by pagan intellectuals, Kels, who wrote against Christians and saw them as a threat, Lucian, who accused Christians of simplicity. Already at the beginning of middle Platonism, Philo of Alexandria developed Platonic philosophy almost exclusively on biblical material.

With the obvious openness of philosophical schools in the II century, there is a well-established stamp regarding the Neoplatonists about the closeness of their school in relation to Christian theology and philosophizing: for example, G. Derry ^{[1, 41-42]}, L. Brisson, A. Segon ^[2], F. Offman ^{[3, p. 3]}, K. de Vogel ^{[4, p. 31]} argue that there is no reason to talk about the influence of Christian texts on the Neoplatonic school due to the closeness of the latter. Based on this attitude, it was suggested that there were two Ammonias, Saccas and the other, so that each of them would remain in his closed philosophical environment ^[5]. In this article, we will try to establish possible reasons why Amelius Gentilian was open to the sacred text of Christians, and pay special attention to Numenius and Philo as a possible and authoritative example for Amelius of openness to the external platonism of paideia. We will try to show how the important role of Philo and Numenius among Platonists and Christians testified to the intersection of the libraries of two competing schools and created the foundation for interschool interaction in the third century.

Figure Amelia: student, teacher, polemicist If Porphyry invariably attracts researchers, then Amelius is a figure who is not spoiled by the attention of researchers, which is obviously caused by the extremely fragmentary state of the author's writings and a low assessment of his philosophical heritage, which pales next to the writings of his school colleague Porphyry of Tyre.

See the opinions of Zeller ^{[6, pp. 688-692]} and Freudenthal ^{[7, c. 1823]}. Among modern researchers, the approach of J. Dillon is indicative, defending the inclusion of Christians in interschool disputes, but very modestly assessing the merits of Amelius ^{[8, p. 191]}. If the works of Porphyry of Tyre, according to the bibliographic database of L'Ann?e philologique, are somehow touched upon in 1027 articles, then only 25 articles are devoted to Amelia. Currently, 72 fragments concerning Amelia have been identified, placed in a variety of contexts: of these, 20 biographical testimonies about Amelia are contained in the VP of Porphyry, 31 in Proclus, 7 in Sirian and Damascius. The first and only collection of fragments and testimonies belongs to the Greek A. N. Zubos and occupies only 19 pages ^[9]. The dissertation attached to it (52 pages) is a compilation of classical works by Zeller, Freudenthal and Heinemann. Not independent in fact, it did not take into account modern literature, for example, criticism of Heinemann's thesis by E. Dodds in his edition of Proclus' "The First Principles of Theology". For the current status quaestionis according to Amelius, see L. Brisson ^[10].

The image of Amelius and the basic information about him was preserved by his fellow student Porfiry in the essay "The Life of Plotinus". Amelius was a native of Italy: he was born between 216 and 226 in Etruria (Porph. VP. 7.2; Eun. Vit. soph. 17), but he wrote in Greek all his life. The date is rather conditional, since it is deduced from the assumption that Amelius entered the students of Plotinus at the age of 20 to 30 years. His real family name ( ) (Gentilianus), and , Greek origin, the name was probably a nickname (supernomen ^[11]), to produce the results that in the II–III centuries were commonplace. Back in the II century . Nomeni "translated" name "Maxim" as "Great": that would later repeat an admirer of Noumenia Ameli, turning to Porfiry as Basileus: ... (VP. 17.14–15). Porphyry himself called himself a Basileus: VP. 20.91 ( ). We have no information about Amelia's childhood and youth. The only thing we have is a report about studying with Lysimachus (VP. 3.43). In the preface to the book "On the Goal", Longinus reports (VP. 20.47) that Lysimachus was a stoic philosopher who, like Ammonius, was engaged only in teaching philosophy, refusing to write essays. Then Amelius moved to Rome, where in 246 A.D. he joins Plotinus, whom he will leave only a year before his death in 269. Thus, Amelius was a disciple, confidant and assistant to Plotinus for 24 years.

While staying at Plotinus' school, Amelius not only attends classes, but also writes comments on Plato's dialogues, which he analyzes in classes with students. J. Dillon attributes the writing of commentaries to the late period of life in Apamea (before the 290s) ^{[12, p. 32]}. We believe that the assumption looks much more convincing that Amelius, who analyzed Plato's dialogues with students in classes at the Plotin School and wrote many other works, compiled a Commentary in the process of working on the text with other members of the school. Proclus, in the Commentary to Timaeus, reports on the teaching of Amelia (the story with Porphyry's proposed edit in Plato. Tim. 39E during Amelia's class. Procl. In Tim. II.300.23–35 Diehl). If colleagues at school offered edits, why couldn't they be recorded immediately in class, but had to wait more than thirty years to make a Comment?

In addition, Amelius participates in philosophical discussions with Platonists who accused Plotinus of plagiarizing Numenius (VP. 17.4–6. We do not know exactly who Plotinus' accusers were: people with great fame who came from Greece. L. Brisson inclines to the idea that they could have been the Athenian scholarchs Eubulus and Theodotus or and their disciples ^{[10, p. 807]}). Amelius, on behalf of Plotinus, argues with Porfiry, who has just come to his teacher's school. Porfiry could not agree with the idea that there is no intelligible outside the Mind. On behalf of Plotinus, Amelius writes a refutation of Porphyry's opinions in the book "On Porphyry's Perplexities" and again responds to Porphyry's new objection in a book whose title is not reported (VP. 18.14–19). The echoes of these disputes are contained in the treatise Plot. Enn. 5.5, while the doctrine originally disputed by Porphyry is in Plot. Enn. 5.2.

Amelius also enters into discussions with Longinus, defending both his teacher and himself from the attacks of envious people. Longinus writes a letter to Amelia (VP. 20.98), in which he criticizes Plotinus' book "On Ideas". Thus, he argued that Amelius is not a true platonist: he is rather a stoic, and therefore, due to his incompetence, he cannot act as an authority on issues of Platonism. He also accused Amelius of insufficient philological training, since the writings of Plotinus that he rewrote contain many errors. In response, Amelius sends from Rome a lengthy book "On Platonic Justice" (VP. 20.87) and "On the Nature of Plotinus Philosophy" (VP. 20.97–104).

In 270, Amelius leaves 100 books of scholia compiled at the lectures of Plotinus to his adopted son Gostilian Hesychius (VP. 3.46–48). It is difficult to say whether they can be considered a finished work, but if we believe the testimony of Proclus (Procl. In Tim. II 213.9–13), these notes on some points represented a state of mind of Plotinus, different from what is recorded in the "Enneads". At least, during the life of Amelius, these scholias had a certain circulation.

Amelius was very religious: he observed traditional rituals, demonstrating an interest in religious traditions, in particular myths, sacred texts and rituals. Porphyry in VP. 10 tells about Amelia's unsuccessful attempt to force the teacher to visit the temple on the New moon holiday. In this episode, Amelius, who visited temples on every feast day, is characterized as , i.e. "a lover of sacrifice." The interest in the exegesis of such texts as "Orphic Poems" and "Chaldean Oracles" is seen in Proclus' quotation from Amelius in Tim. 1.306.1-14 and 1.336.16-26, where Proclus, following largely Numenius, identifies the three demiurges put forward by him with Uranus, Kronos and Phanetus (fr. 96 Kern); a reference to the Chaldean oracles can be traced in In Tim. I 361, 30: (cf. Og. Chald. 68.2 Des Places). In addition, he, following Plotinus, criticizing the Gnostics (Plot. Enn. III.8; V.8; V.5; II.9), – among his disciples were Gnostics, – writes in forty books a refutation of the book of Zostrian, which, of course, contributed to his acquaintance with the Holy Scripture of Christians (VP. 16)

269 G. Ameli leaves the teacher and settles in Apamea, the second largest city of Syria after Antioch, where he opened a philosophical school or group sample Noumenia, who has previously praised Apamea as a center of philosophical studies (, , . Suda. N. 517.1 ^{[13, c. 749–754]}).

Eusebius of Caesarea in his work "The Evangelical Preparation" gives a lengthy quotation from Amelius, without specifying the name of the work that served as the source (Eus. Caes. Praep. ev. 11.19). It seems that Eusebius quotes Amelius first–hand (at least this is indicated by the clear labeling of the quotation) and includes an excerpt from Amelius in a lengthy section (Praep. ev. 11.14-19) devoted to how Greek philosophy agrees with the Jewish, and therefore Christian, teaching about the Logos, the second reason. Like Numenius, Amelius was interested not only in the classical philosophical heritage, but also in the doctrine of the Logos, which was important both for Philo of Alexandria and for Christian theology.

Numenius of Apamea – a model for AmeliaSo, the name Amelia in the sources is associated with Numenius, whose writings became known to descendants through the efforts of Amelius, who, as suggested by I. Mannlein-Robert, borrowed a favorable hermeneutic approach to texts external to platonic paideia from Numenius ^{[14, p. 1318]} See also the opinion of Iamblichus from Proclus: Procl.

  In Tim. .277.26-31, III.33.33–34.1 Diehl. The figure of Numenius is not accidental in the intellectual formation of Amelius: Amelius, following his beloved Numenius, was also interested in barbaric wisdom (Porphyry reports that Amelius completely rewrote all the works of Numenius and learned them by heart (Porph. VP. 3.44–46)). Ammonius, the teacher of Plotinus, was strongly influenced by Numenius and sought to reconcile the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle (Phot. 214.172a), thereby bringing philosophy itself to unity, traces of which can be found both in Plotinus and in his disciples (see, for example, Plotinus' study of the topic of logos in a peripatetic spirit: ^{[15, p. 437]}). Here are concrete examples of the openness of the Numeration of the Eastern tradition, which distinguished him from the Platonists.In the surviving fragments of Numenius, who introduced many Pythagorean-Gnostic elements into his philosophy, in addition to obvious Platonism, there are also Jewish, hermetic, Zoroastrian features that introduced into the category of "serious" philosophy those ideas that previously had circulation only in grassroots thought ^{[16, p. 378]}.

Eusebius of Caesarea in the "Evangelical Preparation" quotes a program passage from the first book "On the Good" of Numenius, in which he indicated that his task was to purify Plato's philosophy, to reveal its connection with Pythagoras, as well as with the teachings and sacraments of the Brahmins, Jews, Zoroastrian magicians and Egyptians (Eus. Caes. Praep. ev. 9.7.1).

Being presumably of Jewish origin (see 1 Macc. 12:16, where one of the Jewish ambassadors in Rome has the name Numenius. The name, however, was also common among the Greeks, Persians, Romans, and Jews. See the collection of testimonies in ^{[17, p. 19]}. In the same place, on page 20, linguistic arguments are reproduced in favor of the fact that the Greek language was not native to him, taken from the publisher of Numenia ?. des Places. In favor of the Semitic origin of Numenius, see the arguments in ^{[18, p. 298]} and ^{[19, p. 188]}), Numenius knows the Old Testament well, from where he inserts quotations into his writings. Thus, he quotes Gen. 1:2 (fr. 30, 6 Des Places); Exodus 3:14 (fr. 13, 4 Des Places); Prem. 14:21 (fr. 56, 2 Des Places). Gen. 3:21 (in Porph. De abst. 1.31; 2.46), Gen. 2:7, 4:10; Lev. 17:10-11, 14; Deut. 12:23 (in Calcid. In Tim. 55, 219, 232) ^{[19],[17, c. 21]}. Also, according to Origen of Alexandria, Numenius repeatedly explained the teachings of Moses and the prophets in an allegorical spirit (Num. Fr. 1c, 10a Des Places = Orig. Contr. Cels. 4.51 (I, p. 324, 18–27 Koetschau). He also applied allegory to the explanation of the Demiurge's care for the world (fr. 12 Des Places). See the hypothesis of De Ley ^{[21, p. 56]}, according to which the word (bickering) is an allegorical indication of rain and lightning sent by Zeus the Thunderer. Also see Num. Fr. 53-60 Des Places with allegorical interpretations.

Numenius mentioned the Jews, speaking of peoples "who worship God as disembodied" (fr. 56 Des Places), whose God "does not allow participation in himself ()"; He is "The Father of all gods, who considered it unworthy that someone should share His honor with him", which is an allusion to Exodus 20:3, 5: "May you have no other gods before my face… I am the Lord, your God, a jealous God...". In addition to the biblical texts, Numenius turned to the apocrypha: in fr. 9 Des Places mentions Egyptian temple scribes with whom Moses competed. If in Exodus 7:11 the names of the magicians and sages are not named, then in the New Testament 2 Tim. 3:8 it is said that their names were Jannes and Jambres ^{[22, p. 40]}. Interestingly, he identifies Moses with Moses, which the Jewish historian Artapan did before him (see Eus. Caes. Praep. ev. 9.27.3), who thus tried to make Greek wisdom dependent on Jewish wisdom, since in this case Orpheus was a disciple of Moses-Moses, who transmitted wisdom to the Greeks In the third book "On the Good" Numenius refers to the figure of Christ and, as Origen reports, "even expounds a certain story about Jesus without mentioning him and interprets it allegorically" (Num. Fr. 10a Des Places).

Numenius deduces the truth from the texts using an allegorical method of interpretation, which is applicable not only to the texts of the barbarians, but also to the dialogues of Plato. Thus, in the treatise "On the infidelity of the Academy to Plato", he sharply attacks all those who turned away from the true teachings of Plato, dating back to Pythagoras: from Xenocrates to Antiochus of Ascalon; in the dialogue "On the Good", he systematizes the philosophical doctrine of ontology and theology, and in the treatise "On the secret teachings of Plato" Numenius offers an interpretation of the dialogue "Euthyphron", and also, according to Proclus (fr. 35 Des Places), Numenius interpreted the myth of the Era from the 10th book of the "State". Finally, the saying of Numenius, preserved by Clement of Alexandria, is widely known: "What is Plato but Moses speaking Attic?" (Num. Fr. 8, 13 Des Places = Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.150.4). Later, the phrase is repeated by Eusebius, who depends on Clement, in Praep. ev. 9.6.9 and 11.10.12-14. Later the phrase occurs in Theodor. Graec. affect. cur. 2.114 and in Souda, s.v. v ^[23]. Platonic perception of earthly life is colored by features of oriental, Semitic, spirituality: Numenius perceived earthly existence as a struggle of the unreasonable part of the soul with the rational, which can be resolved only with the transition of the soul from matter to the sphere of the divine. This is similar not only to the Gnostic and hermetic teachings, but also resembles the famous passage of the Apostle Paul from Rom. 7:8-23, where it is said about the struggle of the body, flesh, and mind. As you know, the main goal of Gnostic eschatology is to find a way out for a person who is lost in this world, unfit for life, and immersed in the body, the tomb of the soul, which will allow him to leave the changeable and unfit for life pseudo–reality. As for the hermetics, we can recall how in the Poimandra, the first treatise of the Hermetic Corpus, man, the image and creation of God, enchanted by his reflection, falls into the lower world, connects with Nature, which gives birth to people whose souls are divine in origin, and their bodies belong to the lower world, therefore, in order to be saved, it is necessary that the soul ascend to God and merge with Him. (Corp. Herm. Poim. 19, 20; Corp. Herm. Kor? Kosm. 18, 22, 41).

Two parallel schools: Numenius and JustinAs we can see, Numenius, who lived in Rome and led the philosophical school, used not only Platonic texts, but also biblical ones, including their Gnostic interpretation.

  At about the same time, Justin the Philosopher was there, who opened a school in his own home for all comers, both for Christians and for outsiders, both for men and women, in order to convert pagans to the true faith (Acta Iustini Rec. A, 3.3. Iustin. Dial. 64.2; 1 Apol. 12.11).The philosophy of Justin, based on the revelation of the Divine Logos, combined the best of the philosophy of the Greeks (2 Apol.

13, , scattered in the world) with the Revelation given to the Jews ("Dialogue with Tryphon", passim). Relying on Philo of Alexandria, Justin, as well as Numenius, is the only one of the Platonists of the second century who resorts to allegory, borrows the allegorical method from Philo and expounds his own teaching about the Logos ^{[24, p. 23]}. The decisive thing here is that Justin thinks of God's conversion to the world, His descent, His self-abasement in the "Logos Christ" not only in the kerygmatic formulas of the New Testament, but in the philosophical categories and concepts that he brought with him from ordinary philosophizing into true philosophy, which combined Revelation and the achievements of the human mind.

The most important theme in the theology of Justin becomes the doctrine of the Logos, Which he calls and , God and God doeth the will of God the Father (Iustin. Dial. 61.1; 55.1, 56.11; 100.2, 1 Apol. 46.2, 63.15). If many of Justin's expressions are quite platonic in nature, where it is possible to include the doctrine of subordination of the second hypostasis in the Trinity (Iustin. 1 Apol. 13.3-5; Dial. 56.4), the novelty of his teaching about the Logos is the emphasis on the personal nature of the Logos embodied in the Person of Jesus Christ. Justin justifies this teaching by referring to the prologue of the Gospel of John.

Justin emphasizes the cosmological function of the Logos, through whom God created the world from formless matter, whose existence he supports (Iustin. 1 Apol. 10.2; 59.5, etc.). Justin draws a connection between the biblical account of creation and the literal reading of Plato's Timaeus, which, according to Justin, relied on the testimony of Moses, older than Plato. Justin's teaching about the seminal logos allowed him to claim the entire preceding philosophical tradition, thereby laying the foundation for the Christian faith (Iustin. 1 Apol. 44.10; 46.2; 2 Apol. 7.1; 13.5). The human mind naturally became involved in the Logos, and therefore, even before the incarnation of the Logos, the truth was partially available to him, including through natural knowledge of God.

Decisive claims on the whole Hellenic tradition (Iustin. 2 Apol. 10.2; 13.4), the statement that all who lived with the Logos are Christians, not only Moses and Abraham, but also Heraclitus and Socrates (Iustin. 1 Apol. 46.3), created a point of tension and challenged the keepers of tradition, prompting them to turn to Christian texts in a desire to refute the claims of the newly-appeared philosophers. This is evident not only in the example of Porphyry's treatise "Against Christians", but also in Amelius' much more restrained and respectful treatment of the competing tradition.

Even if we refer to the absence of direct controversy with Justin in the sources, Numenius could get acquainted with Christian philosophy not only in Rome, but also in Apamea: Hippolytus mentions that Numenius' contemporary gnostic Alcibiades (Hipp. Ref. 9.13) came from the same Apamea, the gnostic Basilides came from the neighboring Apamea region, whose activity was During the reign of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, the Gnostics Marcion and Valentine, representatives of the Gnostic sect of the Elchasites, also lived in Apamea for some time. Platonists were no less susceptible to views that were unorthodox for Platonism than Christians, including heterodox ones, were to platonic ones, and this assimilation took place within the framework of interschool interaction. For all intellectuals of the II–III centuries, the presence of a school is characteristic, where not only authoritative texts were read, but also texts of philosophical opponents (hermetics and Numenius knew the texts of the Old Testament, and Christians Athenagoras and Tertullian – texts of the Hermetic Corpus), and the schools themselves were thought of as a place where a person, interpreting revealed texts (or biblical, or the Platonists have oracles) can achieve salvation (Justin, Hermetics, Gnostics, in the third century – Plotinus, Origen, and later – Iamblichus, Proclus, etc.). Regarding Origen, the thought of Origen the Platonist, different from Origen the Christian, may arise. The question of the two Origen requires special consideration and contains many details that are not directly related to the task of this article. Without going into the details of the discussions of Unitarians and dualists on the question of the two Origen, we note that we proceed from the positions of Unitarianism. But one argument in favor of Unitarians must be pointed out. Namely, it must be remembered that no one – neither Christians nor pagan platonists, including Porphyry – spoke of two Origen, although with the celebrity of both contemporaries it was decidedly impossible; moreover, both Longinus and Porphyry should have known both. Of course, Eusebius could not have been unaware of the fact that there were two Origens, if this had been the case. Thus, the onus probandi in solving this issue lies not with Unitarians, but with "dualists", and, of course, it is impossible to reduce everything to the fact that the pagans did not mention Christians, because Porphyry is just talking about the Christians Ammonius and Origen. As E. Digezer aptly noted, the defense of the hypothesis of two Origen is largely based on a subconscious fear of blurring the line between Platonism and Christianity, the destruction of which will violate the usual "pagan–Christian" dichotomy, within which many studies of late Antique literature are still being conducted ^{[25, p. 13]}. In recent years, the opinion has been increasingly asserted that there was only one Origen, who studied with Hercules and Plotinus with Ammonius Saccas and, in turn, was the teacher not only of Gregory the Wonderworker, but also of pagans such as Longinus and Porphyry. For an extensive bibliography of authors inclined to Unitarianism, see ^{[26, p. 268]}.

Interest in Jewish Wisdom: Numenius and PhiloWith the expansion of the Platonists' intellectual horizons, the figure of Philo of Alexandria acquires a new sound, whose teaching about the Logos unexpectedly turned out to be comparable to the Gospel of John, the central text for Justin, which later attracted Amelius Gentilian to the circle of interpreted texts

 It should be noted that the following approaches are not a decisive argument for the dependence of Numenius on Philo: both were platonists and were inspired by a common Platonic tradition.

Nevertheless, the texts of Numenius, and in the case of Christians and Philo, were highly valued in the circle of platonists competing with the school of Plotinus: for example, Origen analyzed Numenius in class, and Philo became a source of inspiration for him in allegorical interpretation. For the followers of Origen, for example, Eusebius of Caesarea, Philo was the most authoritative author. Thus, Eusebius in his "Church History" not only talks about Philo's political activity (Hist. eccl. 2.6), but also praises his erudition (2.4), specifically talks about alleged meetings with the apostles Peter and Mark (2.16), quotes Philo's description of the supposedly Christian community of ascetics (2.17) and even cites list of his works (2.18). This indicates the presence of Philo's works, not known within the Jewish tradition proper, in the Caesarean Library and his authority in the Origen school. Philo for Christians became an authoritative voice for the philosophical legitimization of Christianity and a link with the Jewish tradition in the face of the accusations of the same Kelsa in the recent emergence of Christianity and the fall from Judaism. If Philo's place in the Christian tradition is very noticeable, then in the tradition of the Middle and new Platonists everything is not so obvious.

E. Dodds in the book "The Pagan and the Christian in the Time of Troubles" ^{[27, p. 209]} suggested that Numenius took the allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament from Philo of Alexandria (a vivid example of dependence: Num. Fr. 19; 32 (ed. Leemans) = Orig. Contra Cels. IV.51). Not only E. Dodds ^{[28, p. 140]}, but also other researchers, such as E. Moeller ^{[29, c. 140]}, have made a guess about the influence of the Jewish tradition, in particular Philo, on Numenias.. 92, 94, 102, 107], K. Guthrie ^{[30, 145]}, J. Whittaker ^{[20, p. 297]}, J. Gager ^{[31, p. 68-69]}, E. Norden ^{[32, p. 109]}. However, the researchers did not specifically deal with this issue and rarely bothered to substantiate this guess. Let us proceed to the analysis of textual and semantic approaches of both authors, which indicate the probability of Numenius' acquaintance with the works of Philo.

Numenius taught that there are two souls in man, the rational and the unreasonable ^{[33, pp. 204-205]}, "the rational part of the soul comes from heaven, i.e. from God and the cosmic mind (monad), the unreasonable — from matter and an indefinite binary" (Num. Fr. 44 Des Places). The source for him was the teaching of Philo of Alexandria about two human souls: the higher (mind) and the lower (soul) (Philo. Det. 79-95; Id., De spec. leg. 4.123). fr. 13 Des Places is also very indicative, where Numenius, speaking of the second reason, likens the relationship of God and the demiurge to the relationship of the master and the worker ^{[34, p. 3]}. God, quite in the spirit of the Septuagint and Philo, is called Numenius. We agree with the arguments of De Place and Whittaker ^{[35, p. 108]}, who defended handwritten reading and did not accept the emendation instead of .

In the 15th, 22nd and 46th fragments, Numenius discusses the first and second gods: unlike the second god, who is in motion and connected with the sensory world, the first one is at rest, in the intelligible sphere. Philo, interpreting Gen. 17:21, calls the reality that is different in relation to sensory existence disembodied, intelligible, timeless (Philo. De mut. nom. 267), and in another treatise speaks of two worlds created by God: the elder, intelligible, and the younger, sensual world (Philo. Deus imm. 32). Their difference is the same: the younger world is set in motion and remains in time, while the older world remains together with God, out of time, in eternal rest.

Numenius' acquaintance with Philo is clearly seen in similar images: Philo compares the human soul to a ship sailing on the sea and avoiding the storm of vices (Philo. Deus imm. 26. A similar image in the treatise Philo. De sacr. Abelis et Caini. 90), Numenius also speaks of a ship sailing on the waves, whose captain controls the voyage by looking at the sky (see Eus. Caes. Praep. ev. 11.18.24 = Num. Fr. 18 Des Places). If in Philo God, "blessed and incorruptible", controls the outcome of the voyage, then in Numenius the image is refracted in the natural philosophical dimension: looking at the supreme god, the Demiurge brings harmony into matter and controls it with the help of ideas.

The theme of wreck in a stormy sea and rescue in a quiet harbor is repeated more than once in Philo: see De agric. 89.1–6; De mut. nom. 215.6–8; QE 2.55b. In the treatise De spec. leg. 3.3–6 Philo describes his contemplative life away from low passions and carnal thoughts. However, he was forced to plunge into the abyss of political worries, which he describes as a stormy sea where there is no way to find refuge. However, the desire for learning inherent in him helps him to raise his gaze to heaven and look at the pure and blameless heavenly life. As noted by J. Dillon ^[36], the image of a shipwreck, followed by a rescue in a quiet harbor, is the result of an allegorization of the episode "Odyssey", where Odysseus left on a raft. Ogygii and, guided by the stars (Hom. Od. V.270), after a terrible storm, finally reaches the island of Scheria, where the Phaeacians lived. Similarly, Numenius, under the influence of Philo, sees in the image of Odysseus a man who goes through the whole path of becoming in the material world in order and returns to a place inaccessible to sea storms (Num. Fr. 33 Des Places). Porphyry already borrows this image from Numenius in the treatise "On the Cave of the Nymphs", which directly names Numenius among the sources (Porph. De antr. 5, 10, 21–24, 28, 34).

In addition, Philo's idea of God as an intelligible being, the "prototype of light", emitting thousands of intelligible rays (Philo. Cher. 97), very similar to what we see in Numenius in his description of God as an intelligible super-essential good (Num. Fr. 16, 17 Des Places). For Philo – one of the features that brings him closer to Platonism – God is the lawgiver and the source of laws (Philo. De sacr. Abelis et Caini 131, Somn. 2.187: ? , ? , ? ...) and Nomeny, speaking of the demiurge, likens it to the legislator (Num. Fr. 13 Des Places).

So, the following picture is built in front of us:

(1) Philo > (2) Numenius and Justin > (3) Origen and Plotinus, as well as Amelius and Porphyry, are all somehow connected with Alexandria, Apamea, Rome.

This tradition is well known by Eusebius of Caesarea, a disciple of Origen's disciple Pamphilus, who wrote in defense of Origen and at the same time profusely quoted all these platonists. In 233, the entire corpus of Philo's writings was brought to Caesarea, a city that became the main center of Philo's writings, popular among Christians no less than among Platonists, and to an incomparably greater extent than among Jews. Van den Heck believes that after the catastrophe of the Jewish community of Alexandria in 115-117 A.D. Philo's writings, once at the disposal of the Christian Church, which at that time focused exclusively on "pagan" Christianity, were presumably stored in the library at the Public School. Origen, forced to leave Alexandria in 233, took copies of Philo's works to Caesarea to the library he founded. Almost 100 years later, Eusebius of Caesarea had them at hand and compiled a catalog of Philo's works (Hist. eccl. 2.18.1–8) ^{[37, p. 209],[38]}.

The same authors were in the reading circle of both Christian and Platonic thinkers. Philo of Alexandria influenced not only Justin, but also Numenius, who borrowed an allegorical method from the latter and, as we have shown, had direct textual approaches to Philo. Philo became a significant author in the libraries of both Platonists, who saw platonic ideas in his texts, and for Christians, for whom Philo's exegesis came to the fore. In Rome, Numenius was analyzed and interpreted by Plotinus, who had previously studied with Ammonius (VP. 14.10–12). The oldest of Plotinus' students, Amelius, copied and memorized all the works of Numenius, which he could bring with him to Apamea when he left Plotinus around 270. In Athens, another student of Ammonius Longinus, comparing Plotinus and Numenius, comes to the conclusion that Plotinus plagiarized Numenius (VP. 20.74–76). Finally, Numenius was also respected by the third disciple of Ammonius, the Christian Origen, who had already read his texts in his philosophical school in Caesarea. Moreover, Origen, according to Jerome (Ep. 70.4.3), writes "Stromata", a lost treatise in ten books in which he compared the opinions of Christians and philosophers with each other and confirmed Christian teaching with the help of Plato, Aristotle, Numenius and Cornutus. Some fragments of Numenius are known to us only thanks to Origen: thus, the composition of Numenius De incorruptibilitate animae (fr. 29 Des Places) is known only by Origen's mention in Contr. Cels. 5.57. Even Porphyry of Tyre, an opponent of Origen, who attended his school in Caesarea in his youth, reports that Origen was perfectly familiar with the philosophy of Numenius (Eus. Caes. Hist. eccl. 6.19.8). Philo and Numenius are united by the history of the existence of their works: all of them are mainly preserved by Christians, and specifically by Origen and Eusebius (for example, fragments 1-23 of Numenius are known precisely because of them).

Both Philo, Numenius, and Justin (later Origen and Eusebius) were united by a common reading of Plato, from whom they distinguished the Good on the other side of being and the good that comes from it (Plato. Rep. VI 509b), from which they derived the doctrine of the Logos creating the cosmos (the Justin–Origen–Eusebius line) or the doctrine of the first and second gods (Numenius– Amelius), formulated in similar terms. Logos could well be identified with the demiurge from Plato's Timaeus: in this case, Numenius' teaching that the first God eternally generates the second God who creates the world found support among Christians and required a polemical reaction in the school of Plotinus. For example, Porphyry of Tyre, referring to Numenius (Fr. 30 Des Places), in the treatise De antro nymph. 10 in full agreement with Amelius, speaking about the descent of the soul into the world of matter, attracts not only classical Greek (Heracl. B77 DK), but also Eastern and biblical sources (Gen. 1:2).

Note that in Eusebius these authors are united in one section of the "Evangelical preparation": So, before the quote from Amelia (Eus. Caes. Praep. ev. 11.19) Eusebius quotes excerpts from Plato (the second Letter attributed to him with a passage about the three Principle kings in the universe [Plato]. Epist. 2. 312d–313a), Philo of Alexandria, Plotinus, Numenia (the doctrine of the three gods and the relationship between the first and second god), which for him are important evidence of the convergence of pagan and biblical worldviews (Procl. In Tim. I.303.27 – 304.7 = Num. Fr. 21: , , . Proclus distinguishes between the Numenius of the father (), the creator () and the creation (). The father and the creator represent , and the creation is the result of the work of the demiurge).

ConclusionSo, we can conclude that Numenius was in the field of view of both Neoplatonists and followers of Origen, he was addressed as a measure of the correct interpretation of Plato.

  It was his philosophical attitudes and benevolent approach to "external wisdom" that Amelius assimilated, who proceeds to interpret the prologue of the Gospel of John, a key text for Christians who identified the Logos with Jesus Christ. If Plotinus showed little interest in Christianity and religious rites in general, then Amelius attracted "barbaric" texts to philosophical discourse. Amelius relied on Numenius, who not only knew and attracted Jewish texts (Biblical texts and the writings of Philo) for philosophizing, but was also familiar with Christian topics (apocrypha) and knew Justin the Philosopher: Numenius and Justin lived at the same time in Rome, both led a philosophical school and were interested in similar problems of the Logos. The commonality of the library of Platonists and Christians determined Amelia's openness to Christian texts, which become not only the subject of controversy, but also the material for school discussions, where the sacred text of Christianity is reinterpreted in a platonic spirit, losing unacceptable for Platonists accents on resurrection and grace.List of abbreviations:

Clem.

Alex. Strom. – Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata

Corp. Herm. Kor? Kosm. – Corpus Hermeticum. Kor? Kosmou

Eus. Caes. Hist. eccl. – Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica

Eus. Caes. Praep. ev. – Eusebius. Praeparatio evangelica

Hom. Od. – Homerus. Odyssea

Iustin. 1 Apol. – Justinus Martyr. Apologia prima pro Christianis ad Antoninum Pium

Iustin. 2 Apol. – Justinus Martyr. Apologia secunda pro Christianis ad senatum Romanum

Iustin. Dial. – Justinus Martyr. Dialogus cum Tryphone

Num. Fr. – Numenius. Fragmenta

Og. Chald. – Oracula Chaldaica

Orig. Contr. Cels. – Origenes. Contra Celsum

Philo. De agric. – Philo Judaeus. De agricultura

Philo. Cher. – Philo Judaeus. De cherubim

Philo. De mut. nom. – Philo Judaeus. De mutatione nominum

Philo. De sacr. Abelis et Caini – Philo Judaeus. De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini

Philo. De spec. leg. – Philo Judaeus. De specialibus legibus (lib. I–IV)

Philo. Det. – Philo Judaeus. Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat

Philo. Deus imm. – Philo Judaeus. Quod deus sit immutabilis

Philo. Somn. – Philo Judaeus. De somniis

Philo. QE – Philo Judaeus. Quaestiones in Exodum (fragmenta)

Phot. Bibl. – Photius. Bibliotheca

Plato. Rep. – Plato. Res publica

Plato. Tim. – Plato. Timaeus

Plot. Enn. – Plotinus. Enneades

Porph. De antr. – Porphyrius. De antro nympharum

Porph. VP. – Porphyrius. Vita Plotini

Procl. In Tim. – Proclus. In Platonis Timaeum commentaria

Theodor. Graec. affect. cur. – Theodoretus. Graecarum affectionum curatio