What do you think?
Rate this book
Our Divine Double
What if you were to discover that you were not entirely you, but rather one half of a whole, that you had, in other words, a divine double? In the second and third centuries CE, this idea gripped the religious imagination of the Eastern Mediterranean, providing a distinctive understanding of the self that has survived in various forms throughout the centuries, down to the present. Our Divine Double traces the rise of this ancient idea that each person has a divine counterpart, twin, or alter-ego, and the eventual eclipse of this idea with the rise of Christian conciliar orthodoxy.
Charles Stang marshals an array of ancient from early Christianity, especially texts associated with the apostle Thomas “the twin”; from Manichaeism, a missionary religion based on the teachings of the “apostle of light” that had spread from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean; and from Neoplatonism, a name given to the renaissance of Platonism associated with the third-century philosopher Plotinus. Each of these traditions offers an understanding of the self as an irreducible unity-in-duality. To encounter one’s divine double is to embark on a path of deification that closes the gap between image and archetype, human and divine.
While the figure of the divine double receded from the history of Christianity with the rise of conciliar orthodoxy, it survives in two important discourses from late theodicy, or the problem of evil; and Christology, the exploration of how the Incarnate Christ is both human and divine.
Charles Stang marshals an array of ancient from early Christianity, especially texts associated with the apostle Thomas “the twin”; from Manichaeism, a missionary religion based on the teachings of the “apostle of light” that had spread from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean; and from Neoplatonism, a name given to the renaissance of Platonism associated with the third-century philosopher Plotinus. Each of these traditions offers an understanding of the self as an irreducible unity-in-duality. To encounter one’s divine double is to embark on a path of deification that closes the gap between image and archetype, human and divine.
While the figure of the divine double receded from the history of Christianity with the rise of conciliar orthodoxy, it survives in two important discourses from late theodicy, or the problem of evil; and Christology, the exploration of how the Incarnate Christ is both human and divine.
320 pages, Hardcover
Published March 7, 2016
11 people are currently reading
157 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
October 18, 2021
This is a truly excellent account of divine doubling as lens for philosophical/theological anthropology: what does it mean for us to be a subject set off from the rest of reality? Are we singular in our natures, or somehow encompassing multiplicity in our unity? And of course, how we view the answer to those questions reflects and refracts into how we view god.
Stang traces the idea of the double and its soteriological history from Plato through early Christian sources focused on the apostle Thomas, Manichaeism, and its most philosophically sophisticated form in Plotinus and Neoplatonism. His methodology hews closely to source texts and includes strong explications of technical terminology related to twinship and relationality. There's delightful reading here delineating the use of terms like "syzygy" or Coptic terms like "oua ouot" for the singular self that is itself a "dividuality." There's even an extended excursus on the metaphysical depths of Mani's quip in response to his disciple's glib wish that Mani could be doubled!
Of particular note is Stang's tracing of an earlier model of Christianity focused on twinship with Jesus (think Paul's "it is no longer I who lives but Christ in me"), which was effectively driven underground by conciliar Christianity and sublimated into anxieties about Christ's dual nature as human and divine. The word "homoousias" hides whole wars of ideas within it. I think it's clear that those anxieties and preoccupations resurface later in mystical and apophatic traditions, but Stang only hints briefly here at the connection in references to his earlier work on Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.
Stang maintains an academic sangfroid, but it's clear that he sees this work as central to our lived experience and to philosophy as practice. As he works through the technical elements of Mani's cosmology or holds forth on the Plotinian doctrine of the undescended nous, Stang nonetheless always holds open a space for how we see ourselves in relation to the world, that first double that birthed us. He's not as ebullient or as funny as his confrere Jeff Kripal, but he's more methodical and ultimately lands in roughly the same place: we can recognize the active, self-creating aspect of the self, which is sustained by a constant interchange between the "I" and the "non-I". We are not static creatures, but grow and change by incorporating difference into our identity. We recognize the alien in ourselves because we are not wholly transparent to our own gaze.
Stang has given us an excellent toolkit of metaphors tied to the figure of the divine twin to help us understand what we are and how to live with it. Highly recommended, especially to students of early Christianity or late antique religion and philosophy.
Stang traces the idea of the double and its soteriological history from Plato through early Christian sources focused on the apostle Thomas, Manichaeism, and its most philosophically sophisticated form in Plotinus and Neoplatonism. His methodology hews closely to source texts and includes strong explications of technical terminology related to twinship and relationality. There's delightful reading here delineating the use of terms like "syzygy" or Coptic terms like "oua ouot" for the singular self that is itself a "dividuality." There's even an extended excursus on the metaphysical depths of Mani's quip in response to his disciple's glib wish that Mani could be doubled!
Of particular note is Stang's tracing of an earlier model of Christianity focused on twinship with Jesus (think Paul's "it is no longer I who lives but Christ in me"), which was effectively driven underground by conciliar Christianity and sublimated into anxieties about Christ's dual nature as human and divine. The word "homoousias" hides whole wars of ideas within it. I think it's clear that those anxieties and preoccupations resurface later in mystical and apophatic traditions, but Stang only hints briefly here at the connection in references to his earlier work on Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.
Stang maintains an academic sangfroid, but it's clear that he sees this work as central to our lived experience and to philosophy as practice. As he works through the technical elements of Mani's cosmology or holds forth on the Plotinian doctrine of the undescended nous, Stang nonetheless always holds open a space for how we see ourselves in relation to the world, that first double that birthed us. He's not as ebullient or as funny as his confrere Jeff Kripal, but he's more methodical and ultimately lands in roughly the same place: we can recognize the active, self-creating aspect of the self, which is sustained by a constant interchange between the "I" and the "non-I". We are not static creatures, but grow and change by incorporating difference into our identity. We recognize the alien in ourselves because we are not wholly transparent to our own gaze.
Stang has given us an excellent toolkit of metaphors tied to the figure of the divine twin to help us understand what we are and how to live with it. Highly recommended, especially to students of early Christianity or late antique religion and philosophy.
March 1, 2019
Don't judge this book by its dreadful cover. It is an academic exploration of an arcane and niche topic that will be of little interest to most but is fascinating to me, especially in its treatment of the Gospel of Thomas, and the writings of Mani and Plotinus. Stang is a generous author. He signposts his arguments well, he repeats himself where necessary, and he writes clearly even when dealing with technical subjects and when introducing varied sources (of which he displays easy mastery). The argument seems to me to hold water, although I'm not really qualified to judge because my ignorance forces me to rely on his paraphrasing of ancient texts.
In the end Stang quotes WH Auden: '"We are lived by powers we pretend to understand"', and suggests modern readers (like me!) may, if they engage at all, assume this to mean we 'are lived by our unconscious'. For the ancients, he argues, 'the "powers" by which we are lived are not so much beneath as above us: they are divine,' and this 'power is simultaneously and paradoxically "I" and not-"I"'. The urgency enters when we realise that 'the "I" we are accustomed to recognise is at best incomplete (and worse, is a form of false consciousness),' and that 'we are on the move between the "I" we thought we were to a new I that includes the not-"I"'. For those that haven't read the book, the 'not-"I"' could be said to be our divine double that serves to bring us back to the Good, the One, or God depending on the flavour of your beliefs. For Stang the "I" and the not-"I" is one of the perennial problems with which philosophy and religion wrestles, but for him the problem is to be lived with rather than solved or answered.
Engaging with this conclusion, I am minded to paraphrase John Gray's 'The Soul of the Marionette': We yearn for a type of knowledge that would make us other than we are, but why try to escape from yourself? Accepting the fact of unknowing makes possible an inner freedom as you become content to let meaning come and go. Not looking to ascend to the heavens, one can find freedom in falling to earth.
In the end Stang quotes WH Auden: '"We are lived by powers we pretend to understand"', and suggests modern readers (like me!) may, if they engage at all, assume this to mean we 'are lived by our unconscious'. For the ancients, he argues, 'the "powers" by which we are lived are not so much beneath as above us: they are divine,' and this 'power is simultaneously and paradoxically "I" and not-"I"'. The urgency enters when we realise that 'the "I" we are accustomed to recognise is at best incomplete (and worse, is a form of false consciousness),' and that 'we are on the move between the "I" we thought we were to a new I that includes the not-"I"'. For those that haven't read the book, the 'not-"I"' could be said to be our divine double that serves to bring us back to the Good, the One, or God depending on the flavour of your beliefs. For Stang the "I" and the not-"I" is one of the perennial problems with which philosophy and religion wrestles, but for him the problem is to be lived with rather than solved or answered.
Engaging with this conclusion, I am minded to paraphrase John Gray's 'The Soul of the Marionette': We yearn for a type of knowledge that would make us other than we are, but why try to escape from yourself? Accepting the fact of unknowing makes possible an inner freedom as you become content to let meaning come and go. Not looking to ascend to the heavens, one can find freedom in falling to earth.
April 20, 2023
There's a curious idea one hears in philosophical and mystical thought from Plato through Plotinus and into the early Church, but one must listen carefully for it. The idea is that each individual person is doubled in some sense, that there's a heavenly counterpart, an archetypal self, a second 'me' with whom I am more throughout myself, with whom I am more truly 'me.' Stang fleshes out this idea in "Our Divine Double" (Harvard, 2016) by tracing this "twinning" or doubling of the self from Plato through St Paul, Thomas, Mani, and finally Plotinus.
For Plato's Socrates, the "daimonion" (a "divine something") is the guiding companion of his life, preventing him and limiting him when necessary, but never speaking to him or encouraging him positively. The daimonion in most (early) dialogues has this mirroring function, almost like a conscious or inner-voice of something higher, more divine than Socrates, which keeps him in check. Stang does an excellent job of delineating exactly how the daimonion works in the dialogues and how its portrayal differs in other works of Ancient Greek literature, and even in later works of Plato. The daimonion is occasionally discussed as being simply a "god," and therefore occasionally needing sacrifice and worship. But Stang points out that in Plato's clearest dialogues which mention the daimonion, this divine thing is not so much a conventional god, but a higher force, above the self, which joins with it. Stang then weaves this account into the account of eros in the Symposium and Phaedrus, showing that there's another, parallel theme in Plato whereby the individual seems his or her own, true self in the pupil of his or her lover; in other words, it is through unitive, erotic love that two separate beings come together and "complete" and "fulfill" one another. The two become one, hence, there is a duality in a singular existence, and a singular existence is elevated by realizing and entering into this duality. Erotic love leads lovers to comprehend the Source of love: the Good.
In regards to the New Testament, Stang focuses especially on St Paul's words to the Galatians, "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20 ESV). In this, however, Stand has curiously much, much less to say than he does about Plato - even than he does about Mani. Indeed, for me this was the very odd weakness of this entire study; Stang jumps over most of the New Testament's very intriguing references to this notion of the "divine double" and instead devotes a chapter to the Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic texts (which he mistakenly attributes to the "Thomas tradition" or "Thomas school," which I simply don't see). For example, Rom. 6:4-6 (". . . we have been united with him by a death like his . . ."), 2 Cor. 4:10, 11, (". . . so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our mortal flesh. . ."), 2 Cor. 13:3 (". . . Christ is speaking in me. . ."), 2 Cor. 13:5 (". . . that Christ is in you. . ."), Col. 3:3, 4 (". . . when Christ, who is your life, appears . . ."), etc. Now Stang does briefly touch upon John's Gospel, but again, I question why he left the New Testament so quickly so as to dwell with the Gospel of Thomas and Manichaean texts. These 'doubling' texts are so fascinating, and they're frequently explained by biblical scholars as being examples of hyperbole, hints of Paul's "mysticism,"or colorful language to explain faith. The strength of this book is that Stang gives us a new vocabulary for teasing out some of these intriguing threads of 'twinning' and 'doubling' in religious history. It's a pity he leaves most of the New Testament to one side.
In the chapter on Thomas the "Twin," Stang does bring out several fascinating features of the Gospel of Thomas that are often overlooked. The very fact that Thomas (which means "twin") is also called Didymus (which also means "twin") and then in many texts is referred to as Judas (i.e., one of Jesus's brothers mentioned, e.g., in Mark 6:3), is quite significant. This "Twin Twin" is the brother ("twin") of Jesus.
The chapter on Mani was also illuminating, and, for a non-specialist work (in other words, a work not exclusively devoted to Gnosticism or ancient heresies), the presence of a chapter on Mani was quite surprising.
I think I benefited most from Stang's careful exegesis of certain passages of Plotinus's Enneads which explain each person's divine archetype which dwells in heaven while we dwell on earth, split from it.
For Plato's Socrates, the "daimonion" (a "divine something") is the guiding companion of his life, preventing him and limiting him when necessary, but never speaking to him or encouraging him positively. The daimonion in most (early) dialogues has this mirroring function, almost like a conscious or inner-voice of something higher, more divine than Socrates, which keeps him in check. Stang does an excellent job of delineating exactly how the daimonion works in the dialogues and how its portrayal differs in other works of Ancient Greek literature, and even in later works of Plato. The daimonion is occasionally discussed as being simply a "god," and therefore occasionally needing sacrifice and worship. But Stang points out that in Plato's clearest dialogues which mention the daimonion, this divine thing is not so much a conventional god, but a higher force, above the self, which joins with it. Stang then weaves this account into the account of eros in the Symposium and Phaedrus, showing that there's another, parallel theme in Plato whereby the individual seems his or her own, true self in the pupil of his or her lover; in other words, it is through unitive, erotic love that two separate beings come together and "complete" and "fulfill" one another. The two become one, hence, there is a duality in a singular existence, and a singular existence is elevated by realizing and entering into this duality. Erotic love leads lovers to comprehend the Source of love: the Good.
In regards to the New Testament, Stang focuses especially on St Paul's words to the Galatians, "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20 ESV). In this, however, Stand has curiously much, much less to say than he does about Plato - even than he does about Mani. Indeed, for me this was the very odd weakness of this entire study; Stang jumps over most of the New Testament's very intriguing references to this notion of the "divine double" and instead devotes a chapter to the Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic texts (which he mistakenly attributes to the "Thomas tradition" or "Thomas school," which I simply don't see). For example, Rom. 6:4-6 (". . . we have been united with him by a death like his . . ."), 2 Cor. 4:10, 11, (". . . so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our mortal flesh. . ."), 2 Cor. 13:3 (". . . Christ is speaking in me. . ."), 2 Cor. 13:5 (". . . that Christ is in you. . ."), Col. 3:3, 4 (". . . when Christ, who is your life, appears . . ."), etc. Now Stang does briefly touch upon John's Gospel, but again, I question why he left the New Testament so quickly so as to dwell with the Gospel of Thomas and Manichaean texts. These 'doubling' texts are so fascinating, and they're frequently explained by biblical scholars as being examples of hyperbole, hints of Paul's "mysticism,"or colorful language to explain faith. The strength of this book is that Stang gives us a new vocabulary for teasing out some of these intriguing threads of 'twinning' and 'doubling' in religious history. It's a pity he leaves most of the New Testament to one side.
In the chapter on Thomas the "Twin," Stang does bring out several fascinating features of the Gospel of Thomas that are often overlooked. The very fact that Thomas (which means "twin") is also called Didymus (which also means "twin") and then in many texts is referred to as Judas (i.e., one of Jesus's brothers mentioned, e.g., in Mark 6:3), is quite significant. This "Twin Twin" is the brother ("twin") of Jesus.
The chapter on Mani was also illuminating, and, for a non-specialist work (in other words, a work not exclusively devoted to Gnosticism or ancient heresies), the presence of a chapter on Mani was quite surprising.
I think I benefited most from Stang's careful exegesis of certain passages of Plotinus's Enneads which explain each person's divine archetype which dwells in heaven while we dwell on earth, split from it.
July 7, 2022
What is with his obsession with the doubling concept? He's continued it in the Intro to his 'Invitation to Syriac Christianity' book, as if doubling was a core to Christianity that was just forgotten about. Other than Charles Stang, there is little concern for this topic among anyone else, outside of others in academia (e.g. Orlov at Marquette on Enoch-Metatron) who write these books for themselves & their grad students. Does he want us (meaning average people in America) to embrace a divine double concept? Does Christianity need to change? Does he want to form a new church? Of course no questions like these are answered, instead it's just a litany of facts about doubling.
This book may appeal to modern issues: the 'party of one' idea and single life that is so popular in places like Japan & big cities in America. People are abandoning Christianity for 'Gnosticism' and this kind of inner twin is great for that (just marry yourself, that's what Christianity is really about anyway!). Of course Stang isn't advocating for any lifestyle today, but he's going to fuel that fire. All kinds of cult leaders & sects will eat up whatever they can to provide prooftexts for their way of life. Stang of course can distance himself from all of that. Groups like the Mormons are especially ripe for this kind of stuff, anything to do with Enoch-Metatron or esoteric ideas is excellent fuel for their cult.
Do yourself a favor and avoid these historical books by scholars who are not presenting a way of life today. Why should someone care what Mani said or did 2000 years ago? You shouldn't. Part of this is the 'publish or perish' and professors are having to become obsessed about something, even if they don't incorporate it into their own lives, it's just writing for the sake of writing. 0/10.
This book may appeal to modern issues: the 'party of one' idea and single life that is so popular in places like Japan & big cities in America. People are abandoning Christianity for 'Gnosticism' and this kind of inner twin is great for that (just marry yourself, that's what Christianity is really about anyway!). Of course Stang isn't advocating for any lifestyle today, but he's going to fuel that fire. All kinds of cult leaders & sects will eat up whatever they can to provide prooftexts for their way of life. Stang of course can distance himself from all of that. Groups like the Mormons are especially ripe for this kind of stuff, anything to do with Enoch-Metatron or esoteric ideas is excellent fuel for their cult.
Do yourself a favor and avoid these historical books by scholars who are not presenting a way of life today. Why should someone care what Mani said or did 2000 years ago? You shouldn't. Part of this is the 'publish or perish' and professors are having to become obsessed about something, even if they don't incorporate it into their own lives, it's just writing for the sake of writing. 0/10.
July 6, 2025
Honestly it wasn’t really what I hoped for. Too lost in detail and with a tendency to become obscure, it nevertheless dealt only with a small slice of the relevant tradition. No denying the scholarship, which is careful and thorough, and perhaps more readable than might be expected, but still far from a comprehensive treatment of the subject.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews