Spermatikos,
CLEMENT EMENT'S VIEWS Justin tre by sled sees Gna j IE ORIGIN lee ; eek philos : ng is an imitation of= cll 3 ch a tuman r nen ; ;a imitationof i as Logos and el nan reason, AND VALUE Ge enetecn piration of tl osely relatedt li = in one esand dls ed to planted in all men (éudv regarded Grek il vie canceaiten self.
That { a 'dim' knowledge of th os | im h Apol. ii. two following passa speeds of same words, occurs in t omopas dj.vd on yap avyypadeis mdvres ges Philosophy, however, | nan ee a8 : twos Kat pt avro Spav 7a. origin only to hu pipnpa Kara Sv 7a ovra.
& : tod Adyou or [raped eg [ri an'? ered cara Suvaputy Bobev Kat & Cada demas | Apol. ii elvov] 7) perovoia Kal al Erepov atts, oméppa. of the soul's kinship with G ii, 8.
1: Sea 7d rovaia Kat jul, add, 08 Kara Xd) ul este wi Coe '
It bea 76 eud plpnors yi Ta Xap soul as part of Divine rea Adyov.! éudurov mavrt yé eTQL. t a ae: e at least indire rej Si ' yéver rev avOpes ; Tete anle directly rejects the + cali : rue that in chapte ne last sentence of ea.
TOU the Platonic doctrines rs 4 an ter between humz of the first passage poi { and, in order to be heroe Logo an reason (the c sage points to the disti ' but, on the other te pts cl 8 aE original mod i). copy or imitation) ; distinction the doctrine of the divi it sho ose kinshi : el) and ' and the divi contrary ivine orig ; ship betwee:
, at the sz je divin rary, he maintains qui D tion can "i ol veen the former and tl same time, stresses tl iS to the soul is theae o r bserved | ne latt ne according t oF ton ape pipnars 2 | betweer L er. g to Justin, is practi human r : n omépua, pui| se connecoN etme male practica , of an reas fe, pt C: ua ody xal rip Suv poe of the divine Ii is represented 5 ere, weromales and q i. Pfaittisch isase «T im (wer , uOgos, and, i : a 'see i.e.
Bee T 'ovoia) andis his i , in this s eed', ie, as a par Wassink vi (p. 110) or lying i and is his imitati ense, it al ar acank virtually agrees 3 idea of Justi mitation (jj > so partak kar ally agrees with ustin's se pipnya, pi} akes of ann, dass Justin die it of the expression sentence recallsi ee) The under: was Holte Rak nommsah a .
= i) oy ¥ a mt which human re: kar' eixdva of Gen. hilo's interpretatio:
Aé-youene and theser Le ason i ~ 1:2 ation gnoscologica js mrépa T = i noe z oda ae fra) atonic teaching which yorimageoftheakepeto wes philosophical Jectelon
€ view, accordi ance agment.+ Owing to this 1regarded the human " ogos,3 and feet according to Soci g s part of the divi vods as a divi | xéppa 06 Ady t In my-opini 1e divine L ivine ; human rea Aéyov, the Ady ci | or .
) yeas pee refer also , the ore : hich is instance, Plato, Ti ee er also to huma 'pa 708 Adyou im- ° , Plato, Timaeus aon ie oa brapidpevos eye us 41 c pu ctrine as and not si i you amopa rapidpevos €yu sf b 2 The nonnentinns. Holte believes.ety to the Stoie and Middle passages ney ey puxt Wag shins 2 C en observedt petween owdeiti,. h 12 (1958), a iddle Platoni dxdamacpa Betov ob ies Ece Justins Le byHolte (art. ci 'pia, perovoia » 139 and 141, ic Adyov bec » ev. Most pro 38 fins Lehre vom Logos @ + Cit. 147 and 153) » peréxew, wébefis, and ji, ] wwhicl »ecause he had still a 'a 387. The term oné, Spermatikos, FA 53) and by J. Waszi and pijenpa has 1 the Demiu i o and pf oréppa doe: s, ACh, Erganzung:
+» Waszink, Beme; The oe = ag : ep he ught that what i 's me ==metsBtni_ ei me The terms ané what is dropp . by the di réppa and i of the origi ve.
The similari 4, p. 23 bel peréxery, t)> by the div: i sah e gin of huma similarity betw: low.
, werovola, vine principle "e te nae p23 elo , | the ane, : iple and whi eink, Whe. Have recen on bas wofortunatel ol. ii, 13. 6 and Phi se alperay Adyou of Justi ce ten sn Ba of the Platonists ( of Justin i : ee nr , Bae oe theory The fi onists (Cle
(Holte. expressions A d (artt. citt rved by Hol y re fact th | (Clem.
Strom, ee on | co ia then i that this o7é short of bri:
17-8, mentions '00 Adyov and dé: lem concerni .ogos (ér aréppa, whe eat Fecomeestint gyosueme cerning the ex Tepos ... €r¢ ey enone 'Philos ioterpre
: pov, Apol. a tt agree wi: ction with 'Interpretation of Ge: aren pie that Lo; gree with Holte h Justin's en 1: a7 in this re nship with —ection with Jo Se).
27 but falls ; spect, that for Phi tat Logon Me oat HUE says:
'the o7¢ ment and an i at for Philo al eed is sown i nim is sown ii oméppa Tod Xd: nd an image a from hir sown in Man by n in Man, TI 5 Adyou does '
Besid age of the I m but is by the personal .
The meaning i: not mean j nth ides Apol. ii he Lo that he is s nevertheless an imi al Logos, a seed ing is on the c 708 Beod elvar &, ii. 13. 6 and is completely ri slice imitation of , a seed that is clearly di daerraats Was ie cre sii ita rly distinguish ( { créaxe, and xOnwev Kal saying: 'Justin has gos'
(p. 146); guished Waszink id Apol. ii.
Tis eanalocly pe ao) | ner do I think M eee: 389, has di »10.95 X ly denied the idea Fee comectionadele att , however, i exists b also the r, interprets :
CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN AND VALUE directly into the mind of the Greek philosophers. This idea is the Logos is the absolute clearly implied in the following passages: d by philosophical doctrin Apol. ii. 10.
1: daa yap Kadds det ebbeyavro Kat edpov of procodr}- | easily maintain that the cavres 7) vouoberjaartes Kata Adyov pepos (bv') edpécews Kal what the Logos Sows, p / > Oewpias eari rovnbévra abrois.
13 Gao pépous To Apol. ii. 13. 4: actos ydp tts [i.e. each philosopher or each poet] 13. 43 Kara orrepparucod dad pépovs Tod omeppartKod Kal Belov Adyou 76 avyyerés dpdv KadOs
| they can see what is clo épbéyéaro. j cvyyeves op@v)? and utt Apol. ii. 8, 4: 03 Kara oreppariKod Aéyou jépos.!
By tracing Greek phil It is R. Holte's merit to have distinguished the Adyos omepparicds direct inspiration of the mentioned in Apol. ii. 13. 4 and 8. 4 from the Adyou ozopd or knowledge: by means of orréppa 706 Adyou which occurs in Apol. ii. 13. 6 and 8. 1.2 Wherein all men and which is as the Adyou ozopd or o7réppa 706 Adyov represents what is dropped can already reach a ' by the Logos, the Adyos oweppartxds is nothing but the divine
| when, on the other han Logos himself engaged in a special activity. Both Holte and from the divine Logos w Waszink have rightly pointed out that the expression Adyos utter something good ( o7epuartixds must be interpreted in an active sense :3 the Logos, in Justin, duv8pds and xad the three passages quoted above, is represented in the act of tween two stages of know 'sowing' philosophical doctrines; the Greek philosophers are the the sower is applied to t :
: f CR: ang * object ofthis activity, i.e. they receive what the Logos sows. Since 1 since 1 The close connection between these three passages has been rightly pointed
| which macs form human out by Waszink, 385 and 387. q him ;3 and directly in A 2 Art. cit., 13h 'all scholars have= itfic menses tie eniseep ee vor however, be remembere orepparixds and onépya rod Adyou in Justin are identical . . . could not one of these ' terms be thought to imply something divine and the other something human?'
\ & not dropped by the and 146, ',.. the question of whether the terms Adyos omepparinds and oméppa the whole of mankind ( 700 Aéyov are really identical has never been raised in pregarct The mre hes in the second case only been unreflectingly postulated.' On the exact meaning of oépya rod
Adyov and q a ptale. y partake Aéyou emopd, however, see my remarks in footnote 4, pp. 22-3 above.
; partake of the benefits , 3 See Holte, 147, 'the epithet ovepparixds. .
. refers to Logos in aspecial activity, * Waszink, 386, is quite r i.e. sowing his oxépya', and Waszink, 384 and 387, 'ich bin mit ihm [i.e. Holte]
| omeppattxod Kai Belov Adyou of einverstanden wenn er... betont dass die Bedeutung von spermatikos aktiv sein ) des in ihm vorhandenen Teils muss und dass es somit beim Logos spermatikos nicht um etwas menschliches, einen Logos' and in remarking: 'D in die Menschen eingesiiten Logos, sondern um eine aktive und gottliche Potenz,
Wahrheit mit dem Logos ident den saienden Logos, handelt.' As to the view held by Andresen, according to which | d.h. in seiner Seele) tragt.'
Justin has inherited the doctrine of the Aéyos ovepparixés from Middle Platonism \ orepuarixos is limited to the so (ZNW 44 (1952/3), 170-3, and also Logos u. Nomos, 336), see the criticism of : of God (this view is held by H Holte, 137-8 and 145-6, and of Waszink, 382-4. I have nothing to object to the quite. clearly to the various do remarks with which Waszink concludes his paper, art. cit. 390 'Die Wahl des 'aws established by the lawgiv Terminus Adyos ovepparixds lasst sich erkliren aus einem Zusammentreffen von
* Holte, 147, considered the drei Faktoren: erstens der Tatsache, dass es sich hier um einen allbekannten '34 as dependent on 76 ovyye stoischen Terminus handelte ...zweitens des Einflusses der Parabel vom Saer to his partial insight into thing (Matt. 13: 3) und drittens der Frequenz des Bildes des Saéens und Pflanzens in } this interpretation Waszink, Philonschriften.'
I should only like to add that Justin most probably thought | vnepuarixod Kat Belov Adyov do also of the passage of Plato, Timaeus 41 ¢ 7-d 1, in which the term oze(pas occurs
His translation of the whole p (see also footnote 4, p. 23 above).
* See my remarks in footnot } CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN AND VALUE omepparicds.! Since the Logos is, for Justin, practically identical that Clement does not with the mveSpa,* he does not seem to be very far removed from of the Adyos omrepparicds the conception which we have noticed in Clement: the Greek explain the origin of Gr philosophers are, like the prophets,? divinely inspired men. sorical interpretation o cy We can now proceed to notice some very close corr espondences | Lord 6 dvwbev orrelpov . between Justin and Clement. Like Justin, Clement maintains that vol. ii.
24. 18) is practica the Greek philosophers could attain only a partial and 'dim' knowAdyos o7epparixds; and ledge of the truth represented by the Logos: the passages of Justin,
Adyov mentioned by Cle Apol. ii. 10, éveidy dé ob mavra 7a Tod Adyou eyvapioay, ds €oTe évatopnara tod Adyov, n ve :
Bs , ; Xpiords, and ii, 13. 6, of yap avyypadets mdvres Sud Tis evovons | which, as we have seen, t m a see Sane .
, 708 Mbyou aropas dpvSpOs éSévaro dpav 74 dvra,* must be compared | It is most likely that Cl with Strom. i. 80. 5 (ii. 52. 15-16), 7) pev odv 'Edyvuch prooodia . . . decessor, although he ne enisBodos dAnbelas auf yé 7, GpvdpGs dé Kal od maons, yivera.s
To sum up. If we cons Moreover, the dzéppova Bei} which falls especially into the minds sophy from a divine insp : ah Rs of the philosophers (Protr. 68. 2) and the evavopara twa Tob Adyou the Wisdom of Solomo roo belov which the Greeks receive (Protr. 74. 7) represent the | coherent doctrine which equivalent of what Justin's Agyos orepparucds drops on the Greek in nearly the same image philosophers. In this connection it is important to remember in the Wisdom of Sol 1 [do not think that Waszink is right in bringing the passages of Apol. ii. 13. 6 codiav bpBpynce, codpiav d and ii. 8. 1 concerning the oméppa rod Adyov and the Adyou ezopd into connection avedua and Adyo i mi .
IS OTEPULA with the passages ofApal. ii, 10. 1, ii. 13. 4, and ii. 8, 4 inwhich the Adyos omepparixds } ip: oi is Bag occurs, and in referring consequently Apol. ii. 13. 6 and ii. 8. 1 also to the activity
POWRSHREC)» SHOES ATAU ofthe Adyos omepuarucds as sower of philosophical doctrines (see for instance p. 387, Operrixa orreppara, 6 Tov 'Justin das Vorhandensein eines Teils des mit Christus identischen
'"'sienden The terms avedua, dad Logos" und damit der ebenfalls mit Christus identischen Wahrheit in jedem der Glanee ee 'c MUTO vor Christi Menschenwerdung Iebenden Menschen angenommen hat... vor
. equivalent, sin der Menschwerdung Christi jeder Mensch teilhatte an dem siienden Logos der in philosophy; he was able ihm einen Teil seiner selbst, d. h. der Wahrheit, sate', and p. 390. 'der Teile der already been employed, '
390; 'de é ed, Wahrheit in alle Menschen cingesit hat'). He comes to this conclusion because of the Je 'ish-Al P' i c he interprets the omépya 709 Adyou and the Adyov eropd of Apol. ii. 13. 6 and ii. 8. 1 ewish-Alexandrin from a purely gnoseological point of view; in my opinion, instead, neither expresOne last remark must sion hints at the philosophical doctrines, but at human reason (sce above, footnote quiry into the first explan Y a r 4 p22, and footnote 1, p. 23). given by Clamné ee 2 See the passage of Apol. i. 33. 7 quoted in footnote 4, p. 22 above.
2 Sce Apol. i, 36. 1, 706 Kwodvros adrod Belov Abyou, Apol. ii. 10. 9, Adyos yap Fv strongly attacked Christ |. nat ud rv apodnray mpoermdy 74 wéMovra yiveotar, and Dial. 7,... paxdpror
Celsus, stresses the ident 'eal Bixator Kal Beodureds, Oely mvetpar Aadfoavres . .
. mpopyras 5¢ adrods Kadodaw. thesavevhets ana See also Andresen, Logos und Nomos, 342-3. prophets and the ve + The adverb dyuSpds is a technical term in Plato's theory of knowledge: for its presence both in Plato and in the Platonic school-tradition see the evidence
* Ido not agree, therefore, collected by Andresen, op. cit. 338 n. 71.
. employed Justin's doctrine of 5 Clearly connected with this passage is Strom. i. 94. 7 (ii. 61. 1-3), xar' Eudaow TOs and Die Stoa (Gottingen, 1 82 Kal Siddacw of dxpiBds wap' "Egor didoaodroavres SiopHor rv Gedy, where trine of the Aéyos emepyarexds the expression kar' éudaow Kal duddaow, 'by way of reflection', suggests an imper- \Syor dvanBev kareomappevor dd fect stage of knowledge, i.e. a kind of knowledge which is distinct from the direct ig Todrov rév xdopov, Hippol. R knowledge mpécwrov mpés mpdaw7ov: see Molland, SO 15-16 (1936), 69 and os bleroma is obviously Jesus (c 76-85, and cf. footnote 1, p. 15 above.
*Actov Kapmdv rév 'Inaoty).
CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN AND VALUE exponents of the waAais Aéyos among whom, according to ip Justin openly maintains the Greek philosophers must be included: Kat mvetpa et Te of- "4octrines owe their ori cade xarisv ex Bcod mpoaTayyéMew 74 Beta, ror" dv ety To myelin
(i, 158-60) he does not 76 tara Knptrrov, ob 1) wAnabevres avbpes mradatot moANd kayaba.
: doctrine of the origin fiyyewday (fr. vii. 45, p189. 2-4)." We have already noticed thay Scripture (see also Apol. for Justin and Clement the Greek philosophers are, like the As to the third solut prophets, inspired by the divine mvedpa or Logos. There can
! been stolen by some p be no doubt about the fact that Justin, Clement, and Celsus J men, Clement adopts a show a substantial agreement on this point. As we shall have
;. 81. 1-5. Two other p opportunity to see later on (p. 37 below), Clement, besides b | Strom. Vv. 10. 2 (ii. 332.
Justin's writings, also most probably knew Celsus' AAnOijs Adyos. later on an account of Something must now be said about the two other solutions,
— of certain angels who r The second solution, namely that ofthe 'theft ofthe Greeks' and and Strom. vii. 6. 4 (iii. of their dependence on the Old Testament, represents one of "B\gar riyprocogiay 81 the main topics of the Stromateis: Clement resorts to it very fresource of this theory ca quently throughout his work. This theory, however, occurs also.
J ipets ev 7@ odbpav@ Fre, in Philo and in Justin, who both adopt it together with the first Kal pvaripiov 70 ex Beod solution. In De Soman. ii. 244 (iii. 297. 23-6) Philo maintains that rats yuvaly ev rais oxA the words Baoweds rapa Beod ef od ev piv, which in Gen. 23: 6 of some angels and of t refer to Abraham, represent the model of the maxim drt pdvos one of the favourite a codds dpywy Kat Baowreds; in De Aet. M. 19 (vi. 78. 9-11) the especially of those who, Platonic doctrine according to which the universe has been
7] demonic origin of Gre generated and will not perish is presented as an original dis- ! tracing this story back covery not of Plato but of Moses, who had already expounded
\ pletely different way ;+ it in his sacred books; in Quaest. in Gen. iv. 152 Heraclitus is although they do not represented as a thief, since he stole from Moses the saying 'we question of the origin o live their death and we die their life'; in De spec. Leg. iv. 10. 61
If we want now to est '
(v. 223. 1-2) the Jewish law is considered as the model for the the origin of Greek phi '
Greek legislations; in De mut. Nom. 167-8 (iii. 185. 5-6) Moses q some scholars have don is regarded as the author of the doctrine according to which i | sonally preferred, nor m virtue is a ed7d0ea; in Quis Rer. div. Her, 214
(iii. 48. 21-3) j they contradict one ano Heraclitus' theory ofthe unity of opposites is considered as being | up his mind and to ch already present in Moses." by :
Clement's thought ther Very similar ideas are adopted byJustin. In Apol. ii. 44 (i. 122.
' Andresen's remarks on th 27-124. 1) Plato's statement aria éAopevov, beds 8° avairtos (Rep. also bee Mary U5 x. 617 e) is regarded as dependent on Moses, who had lived much
Ci ne ee earlier than any Greek writer; a few lines after (i. 124. 1-5) J > On the presence of this ' tullian—see the references give 1 Cf. Andresen, Logos und Nomos, 138-40 and 306.
! of Justin, i. 210 n, 6, and by 2 See also Wolfson, Philo i. 141-2, who does not seem, however, to have taken into } * See footnote 3, p. 10 abo account the passage of De Somniis ii. 244 and De Aet. M. 19.
' Philo, De Gig. 17 (ii. 45.