Goa, i ae ee
CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN AND VALUE determination of these sources enable us to reconstruct a substan- ; (p) they have 'stolen' tial unity and coherence in his thought? own from the Old Testam 2. Why does he dwell at such length on the topic of the theft on Moses; of the Greeks'? Is his insistence due only to his love for erudition ?
(c) philosophy, which Can it not find an explanation in the vehement attack which ; stolen by some inferior p a non-Christian Platonist of the second century A.D. launched
' against Christianity, and which forced Clement to take up the As to the first solution, defence of his own religion? And—what is perhaps more im- : grasp some idea of God portant: in developing his polemic, does Clement resort to ideas bvowxh évvowa, Or 'commo which are also characteristic of his opponent? possess; in Strom, 1. 94.
3. How can Clement's attitude towards the individual philoexplanation as suggeste > e sophical schools be explained? Does it really depend on his éyvoray eaynkevat Tods "E Christian faith, which enables him to judge what is right and voov...3 but in Strom. v. what is wrong in the different philosophical systems?! Is it not own view: Oeod per yap rather due to the philosophical education which he received i maot Tots ed Ppovodar mav before becoming a Christian, and which plays such an important the Stoic origin of this d role even after his conversion?
| Antioch of Ascalon and 4. Why does he sometimes seem to speak as an 'eclectic'?Can What, however, is more i his 'eclecticism' be regarded simply as 'Christian'? Can it not shows a strong inclinati rather be traced back to a doctrine on which one of his explana- { connection with human tions of the origin of Greek philosophy is ultimately based? Is it
\ God. In the section of S g : hi é aan all wise men, owi not also a product of his cultural formation?
Nv to ~ 5. Is it possible to establish a sort of parallelism between the of Goa, i ae ee :
: q ; ' irrational animals also function which, according to Clement, Greek philosophy has | ra a , *, the history of mankind and the role which divine essence, he lays accomplished in the history o Mm pee sae 'bl it still plays in the formation of the perfect Christian who must it would be impossible t re
© attain gnosis? In other words: is the relation between Greek conception' since he al philosophy and Christianity in history analogous to the relation reason, which was bre rm between the study of philosophy on the one hand, and the inter- ! Sce SVF ii. 83, 106, 473 pretation of Scripture and gnosis on the other?
, these xowaé or duecxal évvoww ar tabula rasa—by experience, whe them sometimes mpoAnpets : se + "The solutions which Clement adopts in order to explain
; of Cicero, 213 (the note is conc be Se webb anil hy are substantially | x. 30). This doctrine occurs als the problem of the origin of Greek philosophy Ble with logic and epistemology : ¢ the following: snes alates ee viii ry : ity > ent ae anavres €xopev pvet (Strom. vii (a) the Greek philosophers have discovered some doctrines, reminds us of the words mens e and reached a certain degree of knowledge of some elements of movetur which reproduce the v divine inspirati : lor Antiochus' adoption ofthe ithe -mselves or by means of a divine inspiration; 'hus' adop' truth, either by the Y i Der Eklektizismus ..., 17, and Middle Platonism see, for inst 1 On this point see the Introduction, p. 3 above. ter in Uberweg-Heinze, Grund
CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN AND VALUE moAAob ye Sef duoipov efvar Velas evvotas rov avOpwrov, bs ye Kat { pretation of the passage Tob eupvorparos ev TH yeveoes peradaBely dvayéypamrat, kabapwStrom.
Vv» 944 3 (UL 388 tépas ovaias Tapa 7a da aa peracydy (Strom. v. 87. 4, vol. ii. eunvebobar id Oe0d eis 383. 20-384. 3). If we want to grasp the real meaning of this divine in man is also th passage, we must remember that Clement is thinking here of | pretation of two other p the words of Gen. 2: 7, kat émAacev 6 Beds tov avOpwrov xoov amd kar' elkdva jperépay kat Tis yas Kal eveddonoev els 76 rpdawrov adbrod mvoiy Cwijs, and that cov dvOpwrov, Kar' eixdv he interprets the zvon Cais as meaning 'reason', as it is easy to thinks that the word e infer from the words xalapwrépas ovcias mapa 7a GAda Cha i hints at the divine Logos, peracyev, which represent his own explanation of the biblical
: for him the two biblical passage. That Clement identifies the avo7) Cws with reason is man a rational principl proved by the passage which immediately follows. Eager as he image, the Logos; this is to show the agreement between the Greek philosophical docelkdva Kal Opoiwow to trines and the teaching of Scripture, he adds that the followers of Ocod Adyos Beios Kai Bac Pythagoras andofPlato held also the view that reason was somevoos (Strom. V. 94. 4-5, V thing which had been given by God to man: évredBev of (yey) here is in perfect agreem dpdt rov IIvOaydpav Bein potpe rv vobv eis avOpeirous jKew daci, he had remarked on the ot &€ appt tov IT\drwva vot pev év puyi Oelas polpas dméppovayv had grasped some elemen indpyovra (Strom. v. 88. 1-2, vol. ii. 384. 3-7).! The same interor ofthe Kowés vobs : Tov ris 6 rovTwy TraTip axon « Tam personally inclined to believe that the sentence of Strom. v.
I : ve 5-6), aX twets pay 7G wemorevxdre mpooemmetaba 73 dyiov mvejud daper, has will ae VELEN) la been put in a wrong place by the copyist either of L or of one of its predecessors,
Gedmepumrov efvat Aeyovoa since it breaks, wine any reason, the avy arecenees "a peice schools. Its Clement a close kinshi proper place would be before the clause which introduces the biblical quotation in universz Strom. v. 88. 3 dvagavSéy yap 8: "Tarp... In the text as it stands in Stiblin's ersal Logos, the S edition the ydp of this introductory clause has no meaning, since there is norelation surprising if some Gre between it and the immediately pementne ois to the Paniele school. te some exact idea of the sentence dX' jets... represents on the contrary the natural introduction to the | a ae abe ; y Sane a element dw e biblical quotation of Strom. v. 88. 3 dealing with prophecy, since it is meant ee welling in them to draw attention to the fact that prophecy is originated by the Holy Ghost. As cs oldv re ovvOewpoivres i He the aor KabdmepHise kal sinarores hahaynoo, they seem to ne to discovered some doctrin " be a gloss of some erudite commentator; Clement had no reason to say xadmep tion of : f "
; of the TI\drav if he was to add, immediately afterwards, a longer statement about the '
1¢ eternal trut Platonic school. I suggest therefore the following reading of the whole section of DéAovow eipjobat twa To we v. 88. a neers of Mae appt eg Lites i bean Hd i els
20-2: cf. Strom. i. 20. avOpdrous jew Pai, [kaBdrep ITAdrwv xal Aprororédns dporoyodow'] of b¢ dudi tov evapyh, belay Ler TTérava voov pev &v uy Oelas polpas dnépporay snépxovra, yuxty 8 &v adpane
| py}, Oeiav Swpedv "EN xaroilovaw. GAY jpets 7@ memorevxér mpocemmvetobar 76 dy.ov mvedyd daper.
| dvadavddv yap Sid "Iw... Clement's words vodv pév ev sbuxf..- doxiy be ev gods). As to the presence of thi odpart xarouxilovaw seem to have been directly originated by Timaeus 30 b 4-5, see, for instance, Albinus, Did vooy pev ev puxh, puxiy 5¢ ev cdpare cuvords. This passage, however, is not conActius, Plac. iv. 5. 1, 392 b 2 cerned with the origin of human reason, but with the order established by the ; ot the terms dméppora and dzo Demiurge in the universe by means of the world-soul. The doctrine of the divine
R. E. Witt in CQ 25 (1931), 2 origin of human reason can be observed in another passage of the Timaeus, namely " E, Molland, SO 15-16 (1 41.0 7-d 1, Betov Aeysuevov styepovoby re... omreipas Kal SrapEdpevos eyes rapaddow kar' Eudaaw ddyBetas with 'ref (these words are part of the speech which the Demiurge addresses to the astral
Platonic origin of the idea of r CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN ] AND VALUE naturalis, which appears in Strom. i. 94. 2 and Strom. v. 87. 2, is is particularly instructiv thus developed by Clement himself into the idea of the intuition
344. 26-345. 2) Clement or discovery of some true principles: directly in Strom. 1. 94. 3-4 goras, his disciples, and and by way of implication in the section of Strom. v. 87. 3-88. I. attained a partial knowl That between the two ideas there is a climax has been rightly help of God come into h shown by E. Molland.' giver), owing to some a The Greek philosophers could discover some true doctrines
| power, and grasped parti not only by means of their reason, but also by means ofa divine | they honoured it with app inspiration, which also comes from the Logos. In other words: in keeping with the expla not only did God in creation provide man with a divine principle tion of the proper sense o which represents his reason but, in the history of mankind, he strong emphasis on the also inspired a few selected people. We can thus understand why him, exists between the O in Strom. i. 26. 2 (ii. 17. 4-5) Clement says: éyovor peév 71 olketov
Accordingly, for Clement dbdocws Blwpa of "codpot rH Sravolg", AapBdvovor Sé "'zvedpa | phets, are divinely inspir aicOjoews" mapa Tis Kupuntdrns codpias.2 The cogol rj) Siavoig with the zvedua coming f mentioned here include also the Greek philosophers (cf. Strom.
— In order to describe t i. 26. 4, vol. ii.
17. 12-13); the zvedpa aicbjoews ('spirit of took place, Clement likes sensitivity') represents the divine inspiration, and the xupwwrarn j God inspired the philosop f zos.3 Thata copot rf Savoia the Greek philointo their minds. This id copia the Logos. That among the porth q p | : rim us i sophers must be included is also shown by two other passages,
| naow yap anagardds d Strom. i. 87. 2 (ii. 56. 6), tows yap Kal Tvetpa aicOjoews eoxnKact drarpiBover, évéorakral T [sc. of grdcogor], and Strom. vi. 154.
(ii, 511. 3-5), of rolvwy J what Clement says later o ed icf D bévres. This mvedpain- | iat TiKa ovvacknlertes.
' prdcopor..... medpart alodyrin@ j 'a, 'cal with BeHol in the whole work of Clement spiring the philosophers is practically i entical with the Holy rejected. The sentence dv' jpei Ghost, which inspired the prophets of the Old Testament and"
*Iwi)\..., is not meant to opp which is represented as something distinct from human reason the source of inspiration to the <—3 pees ne a BAN abel.
; i { of the human mind; Clement a (cf. Strom. v. 88. 2-3, vol. il. 384. 5-8, GAN" jyeis [nev] 7 Tene all men possess from the divine OTEVvKOTL mpocemimvetabat TO dyvov meta paper. dvapavdov yap who believe in him (either the dua Ted ew eipyrat).4 A passage of the fifth book of the Stromateis why. he uses the verb mpooemmve * / { else) instead of the simple émvet parallels to it collected from some later authors such as Philo and Plutarch (see)
Sid tis mioTews mpocywdpevov pp. 76-85). mentioned immediately after th 1 See Molland's acute and penetrating analysis of the section of Strom. i. 94. 1-45
Tpooemnvetabat 76 dytov mvedpa art. cit. 65-75, especially p. 71 (a short summary of it can be found in his book ' See footnote 1, p. 11 above The Conception of the Gospel .. ., 49-53)- { 2 This sentence has a doubl 2 The expressions "oogol 77 Siavolg" and "mvedpare aigijcews" go back to the Possess is obviously human reas passage of Exod. 28: 3 which Clement quotes a few lines before, Strom. i. 26. 1 of the Platonists and of the Pyth (ii. 17.
2-3): see Stihlin's apparatus, ii. 17.
"moppo.a coming from God (se 3 On the identity between the Logos and the divine wisdom see chapter III, the same idea appears also in Bo, .an8-9 below, Stvauis 708 Bel olov dardppoia 4 For the text see footnote 1, p. 14 above. This passage, as it stands in kapSias dvamepolryxe. On the o Stihlin's edition, has provided Volker with a beautiful occasion to point out the pecially (ué\ora) on the philo radical opposition between the Christian doctrines of Clement and those of the but must hint at the divine ins Greek philosophers (see p. 284 n. 7). Were this true, this would be the only passage iod 3267061
CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN AND VALUE evatopard twa Tod Adyou Tob Beto AaBdvres "EAnves oAtya arta | guvesews efwpBpynoev [sc. rijs dAnbelas ef0éyEavro. Clement therefore finds it easy, at the . us at once of the express beginning of chapter VII of the first book of the Stromateis, to ¥ rob Ge08 Suvdpews Kal dmé compare Greek philosophy with the showers falling upon the 68. 2;! the mention of t earth: xaradaiverat totvuv 7 mporraideia 7) 'Ednvixi adv kat adrfj
. wisdom of God upon som > ~ . purocodia OedOev ijxew els avOpeirous . .
. dv qpdrov of JeTol KaTapprophets find their exact pijyvevrau, Strom. i. 37. 1 (ii. 24. 8£F.). A few lines below Clement,
Strom. i. 26. 2, v. 88. 2-3, in order to give another picture ofthe origin of philosophy, resorts | and the image of the rainf g I [aes sae,
: to the Gospel parable of the sower; the different philosophical / of scientific knowledge is systems are compared to the different seeds which the same
| Clement, Strom. i. 37. 1. husbandman drops on different places at different times (Strom.
In Philo these ideas Pp:
I : i. 372-3, vol. ii, 24. 16-23). Even here, however, Clement can- | closely connected with t not refrain from using the image of the rainfall, in close conPhilo openly maintains t nection with that of the dropping of the seeds: efs yap 6 rijs €v J | things, De spec. Leg. iii. av0pdrrois ys yewpyos 6 dvwhev onelpwv ... Ta OpenriKa o7réppara,
| to the image of the sho p vais yewpy pu . ..
74 Openrixd omépyt i 6 tov KUptov Kal? Exacrov Katpov éxouPpicas Adyov (Strom. i.
| which God bestows Hi Ip cant q Pp Y' vol. ii. 24. 17-19; cf. Paed. i. 41. 3, vol. i. 115. 7-8, Tod prroorépyou | evidence shows:
Kal pAavOpdrov TATPOS erro Pprjoavros Tov Adyov). The Logos 1S | Leg. Alleg. iii. 164 (i. 149 thus represented as the multitude of the seeds which like a rainDe Sobr. 64, (ii. 227. 76): fall are dropped on the soil; it is, needless to say, one and the | De Migr. Abr. 121 (ii. 29 same thing with the zveda which inspires the philosophers. buBpet Kal emwider ra If we want now to understand why Clement had so many ideas
De Migr. Abr. 156 (ii. 29 and images floating in his mind when he attempted to set forth J Quis Rer. div. Her. 280 (i ¥ ¥ £ : os :
; Ni se one ofthe possible explanations ofthe origin of Greek philosophy, - a Nne rat (iii. we must remember that he found them already formed in the AE REE CRBS 39Jewish-Alexandrine philosophy and in Justin, In the Wisdom of Since philosophy contain Solomon,! which Clement knew nearly by heart and which he blessings are dropped li times, the:eodla of God is:described as rule Philo, like the author of quotes so many t , the ys '
° 708 Beod Suvdpews Kal dmdppora rijs tod mavroKpdropos 8ééns | present philosophy itself J * . ss i .
] ei\uxpurjs (7: 25).2 Moreover, it contains the "Holy Ghost' in into the human mind, De ¢ , nye Ae) , Py itself (€or yap ev abrf meta voepor, ayvov, ovoyeves, 7. 22) and, q Fa se 6 obpavds, eydbp é ] v (ase mace descending upon the souls of some blessed men, enables them to | nv. 166 (iii, 146. 12-13) : ih r ~ j abrys at , become prophets (els yuyas dolas peraBaivovoa didovs Oc08 Kat
Habis Kal abrodidaxros c mpodryras Karackevdle, 7: 27). In Ecclesiasticus (or the Wisdom | c._, The author of the Wisdom of Jesus. Son of Sira), science and knowledge are represented as Sa whereas in Protr. 68.
2 Cl ee eee ogos into the minds of the ph a rainfall produced by the divine wIs a CTT RES PMO es "70ppowa) out ofits source (i.e.
* On this product of Hellenistic Judaism and its philosophical sources see E.
_, . These words of Philo find t Schiirer, Band iii. 505, 512 (especially 507), and E. Zeller, Die Philos. der Griechen PAvcodias yév0s, of weiLov dyab iii, 2. 292-6.
- Yedv; Clement also may have 2 R. E. Witt, CQ. 25 (1931), 201, has also noticed the use of the term daéppora Strom. i,20, 1-2 (ii. 13, 28-30), in the Wisdom of Solomon.
| "psdv "EMnar deSopevnv.
CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN [ AND VALUE and Leg. Alleg. iii. 162 (i. 148. 17-19), 0d ynivors Kai Oaprots De Somn. i. 34 (ili. 212. tpéperar 7) yuxy}, GAN ois 6 Beds buBprjon Adyors €x peTapoioy
} Like Clement, Philo ex kat kabapas dvoews. Clement found therefore in the Jewish- . 96 and 27 in the se Alexandrine philosophy the image of philosophy as a shower,
} sitatiodl of the divin which he reproduced in chap.VII ofthe first book of the StromaGod: the following pas wie : ah ss ' respect:
But there are still some more similarities between Philo and Clement. Like Clement (Strom. i. 37. 2), Philo maintains that the Opif. M. 139
Logos is the source of wisdom... Adyor Oetov, ds copias earl proper to employ f anyi}, De Fuga et Inv. 97 (iii. 131. 1), and in order to represent the @ pattern taken from way in which the Logos is originated by God he uses theimage of | Logos. T his is the rea ep ape as Re ccnanimsid oi } and imitation of the the effluence of a stream out of its source: dxpotdrns Kal mpeoBufaite face. rds shea ep ts Se ala aa SuPonoe tee copids il Quis Rer. divin. Her. 230éwAjppupe vapa, De Somn. ii, 221 (iii, 294. 8-9) ; in this passage
"which is above us, b the zpeoBurdrn dpx7} hints at God, whereas the expressions 7) 7@v in us, being its imita dvr yéveats HpPBpnoe and aodias ..
. vaya indicate the divine us the image of God Logos. Here we havea very close kinship with the améppova which cast of the image. For appears both in Clement and in the Wisdom of Solomon, with | God but 'after the im the &pBpyce of Ecclesiasticus, and with the expressions 7ov Kvpiov us possesses .
. erouPploas Adyov or ézopBpijcavros Adyov which we have met whereas the reason in Clement.2
{ human reason and t Moreover, Clement depends closely on Philo both in the doc- | De spec. Tag: ul 207 (¥ trine of the divine origin of human reason—the discoverer of jee tan ie a See philosophy —and in the interpretation of the passages of Genesis
De glam el Poen. 163 concerning the creation of the first man, That for Philo the human ! hiner ease Wao vods is something divine is proved by the following evidence, the kinship with his which shows a striking similarity with the passages of Clement an archetype, that t quoted above (pp. 14-15):
De Decal. 134 (iv. 299. is } Ht re : att ! most faithful image a Quis Rer. divin. Her. 64
15. 19-20): 6 Karamvevobels dvwBev, Quaest. in Gen. i. 4:.. obpavias re Kat Oelas potpas emdaxdv, 6 Kabapwraros vobs.
God's form is intelli Quis Rer. divin. Her. 184 (iii. 42. 11-12): ...6 dxpaudvéoratos vods % archetype ... And h éorw, ds am' odpavod Kararvevobels... the Logos of God, t 1 H. A, Wolfson has drawn attention to the image of the shower used by Philo pis tatasiiser gral m in De spec. Leg. iii. 185 as well as to the use aptes Clement' Philo ae 142 ang q In Justin it is possible t 160-1, and The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, 22). He goes too far, however, when lelism wi Bh he says that Clement quotes Philo 'almost verbatim' (Philo i. 160-1 and The Philosm with the views he sophy 9, y Fathers, 22).
This pean of Philo contains therefore tbe same doctrine " ao PO ne eg arn Fe eeeeer an Paiabiie Liem LaiClaesa tie influence of Philocon' Glem in Philo will be added in chapter III, pp. 203-5 below. i also P, Heinisch, 161-2.