Numenius of Apamea

← Encyclopedia

Numenius of Apamea was a Greek philosopher of the later second century CE, from the Syrian city of Apamea, usually classed as a Neopythagorean and a leading figure of what historians call Middle Platonism — the long stretch between the old Academy and Plotinus. Almost nothing he wrote survives whole. What is known of him comes from fragments quoted by later writers, chiefly the Christian scholars Eusebius and Origen, who copied him out for their own purposes and so preserved a thinker they did not follow. The man behind the fragments is faint: no securely fixed birth or death year, a floruit placed by his quotations in the generation before Plotinus, and a home city — Apamea on the Orontes, a Hellenized Syrian town with a long Stoic pedigree — that situates him exactly on the seam where Greek philosophy met the religious learning of the eastern provinces. That position, more than any biography, is the key to him.

A single wisdom, older than Greece

He read Plato and Pythagoras as one teaching, and both of them as inheritors of a still older wisdom held in common by the great peoples of the East. His method, stated in the surviving frame of his major work, was to expound Plato’s doctrine, bind it back to the precepts of Pythagoras, and then call on the nations of good repute — the rites and doctrines of the Brahmans of India, the Jews, the Persian Magi, and the Egyptians — as standing in agreement with it. He did not treat these as exotic ornament but as witnesses: testimony from peoples whose antiquity, in his reckoning, ran behind the Greeks and so closer to the source. Eusebius preserves the program nearly intact in the Preparation for the Gospel, where Numenius writes that after sealing a point by the testimonies of Plato one must go back and connect it with the precepts of Pythagoras, and appeal to the nations of good repute, bringing forward the institutions of the Brahmans, Jews, Magi, and Egyptians as agreeing with Plato.

The most famous line attributed to him sharpens this into an epigram. What is Plato, he is reported to have asked, but Moses speaking Attic Greek? The remark survives because Clement of Alexandria quoted it, around the year 197, in the first book of his Stromateis, and Eusebius took the quotation up after him. In its frame it is not flattery of Moses and not condescension toward Plato: it makes the Hebrew lawgiver and the Athenian philosopher two voices of one doctrine, the second rendering into Greek what the first had set down in another tongue. Read with the longer passage about the nations, it places the Hebrew scriptures alongside the Egyptians, the Magi, and the Brahmans as fellow records of a single ancient truth — and it does so a generation before any Christian thinker had cause to enlist a pagan philosopher for the same end, which is part of why the Christians kept it.

That instinct — to gather the nations’ sages into one lineage behind the Greek philosopher — would echo for centuries. It is among the earliest clear statements of the idea later named the prisca theologia, the conviction that the traditions are one wisdom variously told, an ancient theology partially held by all peoples and most purely by the oldest. The structure Numenius gives it — a chain of privileged ancient peoples, a retrojection of Greek metaphysics onto an older Eastern source — is the recognizable shape of every later version, from Philo of Alexandria’s earlier harmonizing of Moses with Greek philosophy to the Renaissance genealogies that ran wisdom from Hermes through Pythagoras to Plato. Modern scholarship reads this recurring move as a structural feature of Platonism itself, the habit of finding Plato’s truth already spoken in an older, usually Eastern, voice — and Numenius is one of its founding instances rather than a curiosity at its edge.

The graded divine

His surviving titles — On the Good (his central treatise), and a polemic on the Academy’s drift from Plato — point to his governing concern: the structure of the divine. He ranked it in grades. A first god, wholly at rest, is pure being and the Good itself, untouched by making and turned only toward what is intelligible; this highest principle does nothing, in the sense that craft and motion belong below it. A second god, active and turned toward matter, orders the cosmos as a craftsman — the demiurge, who looks up to the first for his pattern and down to the world for his work, and so is in a sense double, both contemplating and making. What the fragments call a third is bound up with the made world, the cosmos itself as ordered and ensouled.

The second god’s doubleness is the hinge of the whole scheme, and the fragments press it with vivid images. The making god looks two ways at once: upward, where he contemplates the first and the intelligible forms, and downward, where he imposes that pattern on a matter that does not want it. Numenius likens the first and second gods to a farmer and the one who plants — the higher sowing the seeds of every soul, the lower distributing and tending them — and elsewhere he sets the demiurge as a steersman who, guiding the ship of the cosmos by the stars above him, keeps his eyes fixed not on the sea he crosses but on the heaven he steers by. The first god neither makes nor moves; he is the still pattern. The second moves precisely because he must look both ways, and in dividing his gaze he divides himself — the source, in Numenius’s reading, of the fracture by which unity becomes a made and many world.

The relations between the three Numenius cast in startlingly domestic language. In the report of Proclus, who read him closely, Numenius named the first god Father, the second Maker, and the third the Made — grandfather, son, and grandson, a descending family of the divine in which each grade begets the order below it. Reading these grades is contested: whether they are strictly three gods or two principles with the second counted twice, and how sharply the dividing lines fall, because they reach us in pieces, through hostile or selective hands and through later Platonists with systems of their own to defend. The pattern itself is unmistakable, and it matters. A graded descent of the divine, the highest principle held wholly apart from all making, the act of ordering pushed down to a secondary god — this is the architecture that Neoplatonism would raise into a complete system, a procession from the One through Intellect to Soul. Numenius stands at the moment the materials were assembled but not yet joined.

The Pythagorean cast of the scheme is everywhere in it. From Neopythagoreanism he took the conviction that number and the interplay of unity and multiplicity lie beneath the order of things, and the disciplined sense of the soul as immortal and fallen into body. For Numenius the soul’s descent into matter is a genuine calamity, not a neutral arrangement — a darker reading than many of his contemporaries allowed, and one that gives his cosmos its peculiar tension. His matter is not inert but actively disorderly, an indefinite Dyad with something like a will against the good; he refuses the more comfortable Platonism that makes matter merely the passive absence of form. Because matter resists, the cosmos must be mastered, and mastery requires a god who stoops to the work — which is exactly why the highest god must be held clear of it, lest the Good be implicated in the disorder it overcomes. The architecture is forced by the dualism: a first god pure and idle precisely so that a second may descend and make.

This sets him at a remarkable angle to the religious currents of his century. The sharp opposition of a transcendent good principle to a recalcitrant material one, the soul as a stranger fallen into the world, salvation imagined as the soul’s return up the grades — these are the coordinates of Gnosticism, and of much in the Hermetic writings of the same period, and Numenius runs close enough to that temper that later readers have grouped him with it. Yet he remains a school Platonist, arguing from the dialogues and from Pythagorean number rather than from revelation or myth of redemption; he is the philosopher standing where the philosophical and the religious metaphysics of the second century touch. His appeal to the Brahmans, the Magi, the Egyptians, and the Jews belongs to the same moment — a Greek thinker in a Syrian city, reading the wisdom of the empire’s eastern peoples not as foreign but as older kin to his own.

The charge against Plotinus

That the first god rests while a second makes, that the divine descends by grades, that matter resists and the soul falls — set beside the system Plotinus built in Rome a century later, the resemblance is close enough that it was remarked in Plotinus’s own lifetime. In his school the charge circulated that the master had merely repurposed Numenius. Porphyry records the episode in his life of Plotinus: a Stoic and Platonist named Trypho carried the accusation, and one of Plotinus’s most devoted pupils, Amelius — who had transcribed and very nearly memorized the whole of Numenius — wrote a treatise in answer, setting out the difference between the doctrines of Plotinus and Numenius and dedicating it to Porphyry. The defense is itself a measure of the debt: a school does not refute a charge of theft from a thinker it had not absorbed, and Amelius could answer precisely because he knew Numenius by heart.

Scholarship treats the relationship as real influence rather than theft. The two schemes do not align grade for grade. Plotinus’s One is more radically beyond being, set above even the Good as a principle from which all flows by overflow rather than by craft; his Intellect is a single tier where Numenius had wavered between a contemplating and a making god; and Plotinus refused the doctrine of an evil, willful matter that gives Numenius his dualist edge. Where Numenius pictured gods who beget and make, Plotinus described a timeless emanation in which nothing deliberates and nothing chooses. But the direction of the architecture — the held-apart first principle, the graded procession beneath it, the soul’s ascent back up the order — is continuous from the one to the other, and the continuity is why the charge of theft could be made at all and why it took a treatise to answer.

Numenius reads, then, as one of the bridges by which Pythagorean number, Platonic metaphysics, and the religious temper of the eastern provinces flowed toward Neoplatonism. His fragments were read aloud in Plotinus’s seminar; Porphyry and Amelius both absorbed him even as they defended their master against him; Iamblichus and Proclus worked him over and carried what they took into the emanationist systems that followed. The later Platonists, building toward the One and Intellect at the summit of a descending order, were building on ground he had cleared. He is the precursor that tradition could neither quite claim nor disown — too close to be ignored, too unfinished to be made the founder.

The fragments and their keepers

What remains of Numenius is roughly sixty fragments and testimonia, none of them a complete work, recovered from the writers who quoted him. The pattern of preservation is itself instructive. The pagan Platonists — Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus, the Latin commentators Calcidius and Macrobius — cited him as a forerunner; the Christians — Clement, Origen, and above all Eusebius — quoted him as a pagan witness whose harmonizing of Plato with Moses and the nations served their own case that the Greek philosophers had borrowed from Hebrew wisdom. A thinker who argued for one ancient truth behind all the peoples was, predictably, useful to everyone and owned by no one; he survives in the citations of those who turned him to ends he never set.

The standard modern edition gathers and translates these into French: Édouard des Places, Numénius. Fragments (Paris: Les Belles Lettres / Budé, 1973), printing some thirty numbered fragments with their ancient sources. A full English edition with translation and commentary followed in George Boys-Stones’s Platonist Philosophy 80 BC to AD 250 (Cambridge University Press, 2018), which assembles the fragments and testimonia within the wider Middle Platonist corpus. The reconstruction of Numenius’s thought belongs to the great twentieth-century recovery of Middle Platonism: John Dillon’s The Middle Platonists (1977) set him in the line of Platonist theologians between the Academy and Plotinus, and E. R. Dodds, in his 1960 Entretiens contribution on Numenius and Ammonius, weighed precisely the question of how much of Plotinus was already present in him. The primary witnesses are themselves readable: the long stretches of Numenius preserved in Eusebius’s Preparation for the Gospel survive in E. H. Gifford’s public-domain 1903 translation, where the line about Plato and Moses stands embedded in book eleven amid Eusebius’s own argument. The English-speaking Platonic revival that would later make this whole tradition available — the labor of Thomas Taylor, who Englished Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, and Iamblichus across the turn of the nineteenth century — left Numenius himself untranslated, fitting for a figure who reaches every later age only at second hand.

He stands at a hinge. With him Greek philosophy began again to speak openly of gods, hierarchy, and ascent, to rank the divine in descending grades, and to look outward to older nations for confirmation of what it taught. The first god he set at rest above all making; the cosmos he left in the keeping of a second, and the philosopher’s task he made the long ascent back up that order toward the Good. The work that drew this map is mostly lost. The map was not — it was the one the next century would build on.

→ In the library: Plato — The Dialogues (Jowett) · Plotinus — The Enneads (MacKenna)

→ Related: Neoplatonism · Neopythagoreanism · The One · Nous · Apuleius · Origen · Plato · Pythagoras · Prisca Theologia · Iamblichus · Proclus · Clement Of Alexandria · Philo Of Alexandria · Thomas Taylor