prophets who were able to attain a partial knowledge of the
CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN } AND VALUE theories, as can be seen from five passages of the Stromateis. In difference if Clement Strom. i.
(ii. 56. 1-6) Clement maintains that, among ; plagiarism of the Greek the philosophical doctrines, some have really been stolen from Justin by resorting direc the prophets, whereas some others have been discovered by the find already formed in philosophers themselves, who perhaps possessed a kind of azvedpa
] if he is inclined to cons aicbjcews. This statement is taken up again in Strom. vi. 55: 4
Enoch as another possi (ii. 459. 27-460. 3). In the well-known passage ofStrom. ii. 100. 3 i Clement, as well as for containing a eulogy of the Platonic formula dpotwos bed q stantial identity between Clement points out the close similarity between Plato's teaching ij doctrines and the teach and that of the Jewish law and, in order to explain it, says that the divine origin of Gre Plato either was by some chance in harmony with the law
| purpose of Clement ha through his own excellent nature, or was directly instructed scholars; they have, ho by the oracles of Scripture. The same idea appears in Strom. thus fallen short of poin v. 29. 3-4.
344. 23-3453): here Pythagoras, his disciples, ) decessors in this most i and Plato are first represented as closely dependent on Moses
(od8pa 7 vopobérn cipihnoar), and then regarded as inspired 2. The idea that Gre prophets who were able to attain a partial knowledge of the j ofthe Greek thinkers bu truth, In Strom. v. 10. 1-2 Clement promises to deal later on in | is expounded in many greater detail with the plagiarism of the Greeks from Scripture b | dealing systematically w as well as with the story ofthe fall of certain angels. This passage f first book: after mentio proves, beyond any doubt, that the second and third solutions
; sophical schools, he goe do not contradict each other; in the same way, the passages of | the oldest among them, y i i.
—4, and ii . 3 show that there ; Strom. 1. 87. 2, V1. 55+ 4, V293-45 and ii. 100 3 sk WI E | 1 My statement is of course is no conflict between the first and second solutions.
Nhat i a still possess. P. Wendland in t Molland has rightly said about the section of Strom. i. 94. 1-31 18 | 770, rightly observes: 'denn d .
: re | i lutions adopted | gesetzt, aber in den erhaltene equally true if referred to the three different so P however, have dealt with the pl by Clement. lost writings: Clement, Strom. y ' i ng But something more must be said. We should not be far from q much evidence in support of sg mange ae Kae ' find any contracomparison with the Greeks: 81
« the truth if we assume that Clement did not id a m= ' passage can refer only to so diction between these three theories just because his predecessors,
| as Wendland, loc. cit., is incli Philo and Justin, were indifferent whether they should attribute q have come down to us: see Ph se . pace | 2 See, for instance, Baur, 533, reek ivine Logos or to the { g. the origin of Greek philosophy to the divine Logos ¢ Phil { 189. The similarity between plagiarism of the Greeks from Scripture. The views 0 a ql origin of Greek philosophy a and Justin on the origin of Greek philosophy are substantially
Logos and mankind has occa ga 'A he © : it does not make much 107 and 113, and de Faye, op. the same as those adopted by Clement: it de out so far that the main featu 1 'The four possibilities... which Clement sketches out in Strom. i. 94 are not { (ic. the relationship between thought of as alternatives between which we have to choose, one excluding the q Greeks) are already present others. Clement is a most non-scholastic thinker who does not work with clear
H. A, Wolfson, Philo i. 160-1, distinctions and sharply elaborated alternatives. He will not make distinctions observed some similarities bet or separations where reality exhibits connexions and inseparability' (Molland, a | see also footnote 1, p. 20 abo art. cit.
75) . do not examine the question i