dependent on the Barbarians. Clement openly maintains that
CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN AND VALUE 15th and the 16th) tot he demonstration of this thesis. In Strom.
; 'eis must, in his intention i. 71. 3-4 (ii. 45. 19-26) he sets forth practically the same con- | 'theft of the Greeks' (wh ception of history as that which underlies the passages of the | sent a kind of introduct AdnO}js Adyos quoted above: dirocodia rolvey rolvwdpedés Te that Clement, already in Xpfiwa dda per 7jxpace rapa BapBapos kara 7a Evy SiaAduipaca, antiquity of the Jews in Borepov 5é kat eis "EMyvas xarfAOev. The words zrdAae pev 7Kpace
Ynbijs Mbyos explains th Tapa BapBdpots Kara TH eOvn SiaAdpipaca recall analogous expres- | topic of the 'mirage orie sions of Celsus: go7w dpyatos dvwHev Adyos wept dv 51) del kat
! the topic ofthe 'theft of ta €Ovn ra copidrara Kal wéhes Kal avdpes aopot KaTeyevovTo, q ieis not only because of i. 14.c. Moreover, the list of the barbarian races given in Strom.
} Clement with the best o i. 71. 4 shows a very close kinship with the catalogues present ; opponent. in the fragments i. 14.¢ and vi. 80 of the AAnPijs Adyos.'
The agreement between Celsus and Clement appears also in F their tendency to regard the Greek philosophers as directly q 3. On the question of dependent on the Barbarians. Clement openly maintains that dual philosophical system most of the Greck philosophers had been instructed by some not it is possible to share barbarian teachers (Strom. i. 66. 1, vol. ii. 41. 24)
: Plato (he says) Clement's acceptance or always showed a great respect for the Barbarians and aclknaw! doctrines as simply due ledged that both he and Pythagoras had learnt the best doctrines
| reach a solution for this from them (6 8& []Adrwv Sfov ds ceuvdvev det rods BapBdpous of Clement's views on eiploxerat, pepynpévos adrod re xal [Tvayépov sed apNgteres OL
Aristotelian, and Stoic s yewaisrara rav Soyudrew év BapBdpos pabévros, Strom. i. 68. 2, exponents of Middle P vol. ii. 42. 26-8).2 It would be difficult to deny the existence of | which ee possible to a close relationship between these words of Clement and what
Middle Platonism m this Celsus says in vi. 9, vi. 10 b, and vii. 58 (see p. 39 above). i i Justin, Clement s utte It is, then, the same conception of the history of philosophy
] schioils go ultimately bac that appears in both Celsus and Clement. Only the use they ceneney A.D. which must make of it is dictated by opposite intentions. In developing his tural formation of both C P theory of the maAads Aéyos Celsus aimed at showing that Greek
| paps philosophy represented the climax of the cultural tradition of sg necagrecinent betwe the whole of mankind and consequently that Judaism and ChrisJ sm appears particularl tianity were nothing but bad imitations of this tradition. Clement,
(a) the warm praise o who had read Celsus' work and become aware of the danger it (2) the condemnation represented, borrowed from him the main features of his conception in order to emphasize the dependence of the Greek philo- | : ratte i. 72. 4 (ii. 46. 15sophers on the barbarian races and consequently also on the Jews:
Deiti art ok ak itil the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of the first book of the Stroma1) __* Vélker, Derwahre Gnostiker ; , '
. analogy between the history of To the importance of Clement's catalogue for ancient ethnography attention | likely a was converted to Chris has recently been drawn by A. Dihle, 7ACh, Ergiinzungsband 1, 60-9.
{ | =ne his cultural formatio | 1¢ Platonic schools of the se CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN AND VALUE (c) the condemnation of the Peripatetic doctrine which limits
Pythagoras also is pr divine providence to the world above the moon; Strom. V. 29+ 3-4 (ii. 344.
(d) the condemnation of Stoic materialism and determinism. as those philosophers (a) No Greek philosopher is so warmly praised by Clement as lowed the oer ohe Plato.! In chapter VI of the Protrepticus Plato is directly invoked elements et : gh oe by Cl t to be his companion in his search for God: tiva together with Plato ab ine ap rf i Bow, by ITN Hj od familiar with the teachi dp AdBw ovvepyov rijs Cyricews ;* €t Bovret, rov IDdrwva. 7H obv amilia t
Yee lov rov Oedv, & LAdrwv; (Protr. 68.
1, vol. i. 51. 25-7): infer from their doctrine ECLYVEUTEO!
, WV Tmunediate! afterwards Clement quotes the well-known pasinto harmony with the oe Te ite 28, tov yap warépa Kal mounriy tod Tod TavTos spired by a prophetic po ox: omic i sll Galan 1 SL rrnemeee some prophetic sayings, edpeiv re epyov Kal edpovras els dmavras éferreiv advvarov, ani j : yings; Epist, vii.
941 c, pntdv yap o88apds éort, which, as we shall sce, proved to be clear and in oan oe sinpartatte elements of the background of Clemthey got some reflection ent's conception of the highest divinity.' After these quotations,
Clement 1s thus inclin Clement again addresses his words directly to Plato, and renews and of Pythagoras in a re i.ie to accompany him in his search for the Good: as two theologians who eae TDdrow tnapiinas ris adnBetas: GAM pi) drroxdpuns* Edv prow highest divinity. This wa ie ema 'eae ia 6 4 ép. (Protr. 68.
2, vol. i 52 1-2) underlies also Justin's u ayavou 7 .
. ss re pan: ey 2-4) Plato is represented as 6 dudadniOns of the Dialogue with Tryp n Strom. i.
2as a aa i fins ovmevos and in Strom. ii. 100. 3 he is again praised a period of his life pre be : it ofhe denetion of the human 7édos as dpotwais 0e@ Kare. as a follower of the Platon Aesoa . he does not hesitate to r ® Although Clement maintains several times that Plato owes
; men, who were our wall much to Scripture,+ such a dependence does not induce the pee sii he cpa Christian author to condemn him, but on the contrary to praise ie - lest ¢—_ Ys 1 a the divine character of his philosophy. The best proof is given ee i ta Te eee! by chapter XXVofthe first book of the Stromateis:what Clement
Seay Lae ae 1); wants to stress here is not Plato's dependence on Moses in the pe TON HOU SBMA EGG pOS " different branches ofhis philosophical system, buton the contrary sieua tt by cihixpwet ab the excellence of his conceptions, particularly that of the Bios version ae impor eon 'o Gewpyrixés. Plato's indebtedness to the Jewish law giver becomes n, does not disav 1 a hi ther reason to adopt and follow his 'ching the theology which he therefore a further ig. his time . t 'Clemens in Platon lebt und webt', W. Bousset, Jiidisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb
. . . bse nar before becomi anemone : y Apol. ii. 10
$ . i These words were most probably suggested to Clement by Plato, Phaedo, 65a from quoting the hackne g-b 1, mérepor eumdsiov 76 aGpa 7 of, edv vis adrd ev rH Lariat Kowwrdy oupmapa~
H On this passage see also pp AapBavp; '
Ont ' See chiapas IIT, pp. 219 and 220 below.
; Areference to this passage c 4 See, fi vanstance, Protr. 70.
1 (is 5316-17), Paed. ii. 18, 1 (i, 166, 24-5), 18. 2 an That Justin's quotation of (i 16 eet i '89. 2 (i att 14-15) ii. gt. 1 (i. 212. 9), iii. 54. 2 (i. 267. 20-1), z lato's text but on a school-tra Rint 10.2 (ii. 8 5-6), In 165, 1 (ii. 103. 14-15), i. 166, 1 (ii. 103, 25-6), ii. 133. 2 i contparison between Justin, (ii. 186. 13-15), v. 99. 3 (ii. 3922-5).
CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN Wl Sr r # ; ; i i | AND VALUE a Christian Justin continues to express his conception of the | a ality : an Justi u F I F | poreal realities, and the c highest divinity in Platonic terms. i ' ntellective faculty with =a i F \ intelle a y with The tendency to regard Plato and Pythagoras as the highest
I had become a wi t j a u goras i 1ad ome a wise man theologians among the Greek philosophers, which can be re- \ to see God very soon: fo cognized both in Clement and in Justin, is also characteristic of ; sophy' (Dial.
> sal ~ Middle Platonism and represents an important feature of the j understand why Clement a i! ns culture of the second century 4.p." Both philosophers are often and Pythagoras from a .
¢ +f ross) mentioned together and praised because of the excellence of their a heir doctrines in such loctrines. Plutarch celebrates both Pythagoras and Plato be i = iukane s.
(b) The condemnation cause of their doctrines of the harmony of the universe and of in the following passages . tas the immortality of the soul, De Mus. 1147 4 9-17 and De Vita et i Poes. Hom. 122 (v ii. 395-15 17)- The school ¥ latonism identifies
Prot. 66. 5 (i. 51. 6-7) : " also the Platonic definition of the human tédos as dpotwors be@ 8s oddev pérew olerar T (Theaet. 176 b) with that characteristic of the Pythagorean school,
Strom. i. 50. 6 (ii. 33.
Exov OeG.2 Taurus praises Pythagoras' way of teaching (Gellius, Emxotpetor, is Kal p .
~ ~ g by, £ Noct. Att. i. g. 1-8, vol. i. 59. 5-60, 6) ;3 Theon of Smyrna Tlabdos Sader, mpd '
1¢ points out that Plato very often followed Pythagoras, De Ut.
Strom. ii. 16. 3 (ii, 121.
Math., p. 12. 10; and Maximus of Tyre represents Plato as an mpormijoas Thy %5or%y 'interpreter of God' and asa 'seer', Or. xi. 6 €.5 It is this religious j Thesamedénd of polem interpretation of Plato that also underlies some typical writings
God's anon OF ne of Middle Platonism, such as the Didaskalikos of Albinus, the De ie oe dieasiehe pres Platone et eius dogmate of Apuleius, the Quaestiones Platonicae and ee me : the De Animae Procr. in Tim. of Plutarch, and the speech bear- !
Apol. i. 28 (i. 88. 10 ff z j ing the title Tis 6 Beds kara. [TAdrwwa of Maximus of Tyre. The H} wh elvan adrov bid r passages of the Timaeus and of the seventh letter, which are so '
3) Ow eoucdra pévew praised both by Clement and byJustin, represent also the fundamental background of the theology which was taught in the { Justin does not specify w Platonic schools of the second century.® There is no better picture curus and his followers of this school-Platonism than that given by Justin himself at | easily inferred from thea the opening of his Dialogue with Trypho: 'I occupied myself as to justify the condemnat much as possible with the study ofthe Platonic doctrines; [made
| providence. good progress and advanced in the knowledge of them every f In another passage Jus day. My whole being was captured by the thought of the incor- ! For the admiration of Pythagoras during the first centuries of our era see Apel. a 7: 3: ZapSavdra especially A. J. Festugiére, op. cit. i. 14-18. Andresen's remarks are also worth doxety eddarpovety.? noticing, art. cit. 162, and op. cit. 124 and 239-40.
; 2 See the evidence collected by Andresen, art. cit., n. 20 on pp. 162-3.
| ' Avenrdépov Nay had, 3 Ch K. Pracchter in his article 'Taurus', RE, Zweite Reihe, neunter Halbon tees seca Pporqo band,-caly oe Bees with the con .
Or. cm especially i Dinghies a Ch Andresen, abt Gt 462.
6 HE Aci see pi, REOTRENG.
Fae i ecially in the Phaedrus © See pp. 212, 219-20, below.
{ * On this passage of Justin s q CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN ; AND VALUE The two main arguments which appear in the polemic of (c) Closely connected Clement and Justin against the Epicurean system (namely the : system is the criticism di denial of divine providence and the deification of pleasure) are
| to which divine provide also characteristic of Middle Platonism. Already Antiochus of the moon. In Protr, 66 Ascalon had made it clear to the Epicureans that virtue and Peripatetic doctrine! an pleasure contradicted each other, non igitur potestis voluptate omnia a \ . cit. 529-30, 530-1 (on Eu derigentes aut tueri aut retinere virtutem (Cicero, De Fin. ii. 22. publ 580:
> r } Atticus), 551-2 (on Hierax), 71);! Taurus in Gellius, Noct. Ait. ix. 5. 8 does not conceal his 'Hierax der Platoniker', Herme polemical attitude towards Epicurus' identification of pleasure
Beane 3 pala i, and * '
Re siesnecc es ve opposite endency of Mi with the highest good and his denial of God's providence; Antiochus of Ascalon, had giv Plutarch, Adv. Col. 1111 b 10-12, addresses exactly the same patetic, and Stoic doctrines, charges against Epicurus; moreover, in De Stoic. Rep. 1052 b see Sects art, cit.on Taur Bac he sharply eriticizes both Epicurus and Chrysippus and 76-7, R. E, Witt, Albinus..., i s ply Zi v9) a ysippus { occupies an intermediate posi puts them on the same level: as the former had destroyed the hand, his writings against the providence of the gods, in the same way the latter had denied presen a eiecsion Dee er "Leys . on the other hand he did not their incorruptibility.' Atticus is particularly violent against doctrines into his system (see '
; fd Ba Epicurus. Ina fragment preserved by Eusebius (fr. Ill Baudry) j examine this question more in he condemns him together with Aristotle, since both of them
" aud 203 elon § thik:
Been J oan tthe 'or the presence of this had excluded the notion that God can care about man, Three | owe this reference to Stihlin, passages of the fragment are especially worth noticing, namely v. 32 (i, 213. 6-7 Long), Scare oe .
20-4), and xv. 5. 11 (ii. 358. 3-7). In the same fragment Atticus | less they enjoy divi By ¢ ; jess they enjoy divine prov id expresses himself ironically about the Epicurean doctrine of HaMN¢y ze Kal Frrov dpedelas we pleasure: earthly things (ua\ov Vo Great Persian King: as the pr Praep. Ev. xv. 5. 6 (ii. 357. 3f.): éxeivos pv yap Kal advy xpnords
Persgnally but by his satraps, Sia, bares rh ASoviy uty mporelvas ds dyabér A guariianstap mot of cre'bat: o y Philo: in De Decal. 178 (i ; f ; ; whereas God, the Great King'
1 For the reference to this passage see Andresen, art. cit. 186 n. 119. the task of punishing the trans r) 2 See also K. Praechter in his article on Taurus, coll. 61 and 66, and Andresen, and in the same work, De Decal art. cit, 186 and footnote 120 on the same page. ;
{ King and the sensible universe ait must be observed that Plutarch has nothing to object against Chrysippus pus were not very different: as criticism of the Epicurean doctrine which denies God's providence: pds rév work [Tept ovotas, he had mai 'Emixoupov padora vageras [sc. Chrysippus] dah SO TOUR a NuUao Meas Tu pero ta was well administered, there w dnd trav evordy as Exoper rept Oedv edepyerixods Kal guravOpdirous emwvoobvres,
Prov idence did not care (djeAo De Stoic. Rep. 1051 e€ 1-4. He simply mentions it immediately after condemning ship of mean daemons (} 8d Chrysippus doctrine of dvdyxn which practically limits divine providence (De
In refuting Chrysippus' view Pl Stoic. Rep. 1051d 10-12) ; in this way, he wants to draw the attention of the reader of the Persian king and of the s to the contradiction which, according to him, exists between Chrysippus' docnes and by Philo, A trace trine:of dvdyrn and his defence, against Epicurus, of divine providence.
Bet allots the guardianship 4" On this fragment see especially Praechter in Uberweg-Heinze, Band i, 548, q lato's Timaeus: at the end of h and in his article on Taurus, col. 61, and Andresen, art. cit. 186. Together with coders that they must look a Eudorus, Taurus, Nicostratus, and Hierax, Atticus represents the tendency of Jn the other hand, however, Middle Platonism which opposed any contamination between the Platonic and Can care about man (see Laws Peripatetic doctrines: see E. Zeller, Die Phil. der Griechen iii/1, 837, Praechter,
} Gnd: maintains quite openly t .
CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN ) J i. 20. 3: of Aeyopevo tendency—which had been inherited by his school—to identify ; Aol, 20-37 or Sever en!
Y tk ; Ari ' tle's view about divine els Tip dvadveoIau Soyp ri universe,'
God with the soul oO t ~ pain da Seon. wiH0: 3, (i.
985. 19-20)5 kdopov yevéoBar Adyovow providence 1s mentionec again In Strom.
(U. 3 0° a Ze yooopev TOV TdvTwy Trom according to Clement, Aristotle was led to formulate this doctrine } spol. ii. 7. 3: bs 3pdobo :
. ne , A ee achosrm moved) Z os by his misunderstanding of Ps. 35: 6, Kupte, ev TO odpav@ To éAcds ebododv adrovs [sc. the gov Kal 1) adnberd. cov éws ra&v vepeAdv. That such a condemnation
Apol. ii, 7. 4: 7) pmSev e of Aristotle comes from Middle Platonism can be seen from the | kat dvadudpeva els 7d. abr passages of Atticus quoted above, where Aristotle is put on the { doynxévar. kal adrdv ré g ; ly ; , same level as Epicurus, because he too denied that God cares év mdon Kaxia yuwopevo for man.? Justin also must have held the BATOG: NAR
WEGS Clement, This polemic against Sto since the passage of Apol. i. 28 quoted in the previous section can authors have in commo equally refer to Epicurus and to the teaching of the Peripatetic
Platonism. In De Stoic. Rep school.3
! criticizes Chrysippus' vie (d) The condemnation ofStoic seas is particularly clear material and corruptible; i following passages of Clement, which seem to repeat one
; ; : si : a ; J It is not right to conside another:
, cannot get out of it an ™ sea al dente , f :
66. 3 (i. 50. 24-7) : odde ey Toys are 7S rods mapeevaopat, blocked up in matter, 8d dans BAns, Kal did ris drypwrdrys, 76 Belov SujKew A€yovras, q sidering the gods simpl of Karacydvovaw arexvds tiv gidocodiay.
\ posite powers of water Strom. i. 51.
(ii, 33. 12-14): GAG Kai of Xrwixol, dv Kat adrav existence together with Paar iP Re aac, A Cs pépynras [sc. St. Paul], o@pa dvra ov Oedv bid ris drypwrdrns together with it. In thi ns wepourynxevat A€yovow, od Karas. ao. nor free like the chario Strom. ii. 14.3 (ii. 120. 7-8): .... 76 dmrAodv, 6 obre aby HAn eorlv ovre nailed to their basemen BAn odre bd Ans.
Pak are closed in the corp Strom. v. 89. 2 (ii 384. 18-19): fact yap cdpa elvar rdv Bed of must share its destiny t Zrwixol cal rvedpa kat obolav, worep dpére Kal ripv yuxiv. q formation. se SLANNe at aan Redcap Saad 'trom. v. 89. 3 (ii. 384. 22-385. 1): dAX' of pev Sujcew dia maons h \lbj ns ol S Me Nie j Albinus also maintains qu odalas Tov Oedv pact... i beregarded as corporeal:
> rega : me rejection of Stoic pantheistic materialism appears also ' a : oil "
The ce " foll @ evan shiwss | Did. 166. 2 ff.: If God is c in Justin, as the following ev We i and form... but it is a smallest things (Laws x, goo c Pes tf 903 : as oe Scala oTh aber) wi matter and form, since Atticus in his polemic against Aristotle and Epicurus (see p.
; y ABR aie " ge Plutarch in his criticism of Chrysippus (De Stoic. Rep. 1051 d 4-9) may have } ° "Pueal accordingly thought of these passages ofthe tenth book of the Laws.
; way: if he is corporeal, 1 On this doctrine see Aristotle, Iept dogogias, fr. 26 Walzer (= Cicero, he would be either fire De Nat. Deor. i, 13. 33: modo mundum ipsum deum a rd [sc. Aes cf. also composed of these ele fe i a.
De Nat. ab beikS Sor ai nial [se.
Theophrasti] auditor Strato... q primal, Moreover, he vim divinam in natura sitam esse censet. ta i . e on Pracchter, RE, Zweite Reihe, Vierter Halbband, col. 61, thinks that Taurus if he is composed of mat also, like Atticus, may have criticized this Peripatetic doctrine: he composed a it 1s necessary to consi work 'About the differences between the doctrines of Plato and those of Aristotle'. p is corporeal, he is also 3 On Justin's attitude towards the Peripatetic school see also Andresen, art. change; each ofthese a cit. 160-1.
8267081 }LEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN ' ra CLEMENT'S H IE ORIG } AND VALUE With the beginning of this passage of Albinus it is worth comp :
A $) & mus: P BE: y een:
Oe Plutarch stresses the inco paring Clement, Strom. 1. 14. 3 (ii, 120, 7-8) ...70 amdoby, 0 q nt 4m and the idea otre adv bAy eotiv obre VA ovre b70 vAns.! of eypappert) ; NL SET OUT EY OTe YN: reveusati contradictions which wou Another point on which Stoicism is violently criticized is the ; h of tl
; rs to adopt both of them at doctrine of efuappévy: destiny, according to the Stoics, regulated =| human actions in such a way that the possibility of a free De Stoic. Rep. 1056d 1-1 choice and consequently also the idea of personal responsibility success, oe"ae do seemed to be completely destroyed. Clement, on the contrary,
| a ne stationary cr lays a very strong emphasis on the power of free choice which en jusions, the p n oe . man possesses, and, polemizing indirectly against the Stoics, saved Beclite spaniel seinns that pies and ponblments cold nok Satie if AE is an absolute cause, t Pp ' =" cp a k > } cause. As absolute cau human soul were devoid of it: voluntary choice, as i Strom. i. 8g. 1 (ii. 5719) : €kovouos yap i Te aipears 7} TE THs adnfetas unhindered and effect » ; éxrpom}. f The author ofthe treatise Strom. i. 83. 5 (ii. §412-14): obre 8€ of Erawor obre ydyor ot af co taraneRior ef 'om a ya? of eo heh , cin en Nicoaih a oa: existence of e{wappévn do ripal ob ai KoAdces Sixavar, p7) THs yuxis eéxovons Thy eovolay sHBieES i eae Sa ak aan EIU SERA Fama , choice in man (70 é¢' ju rijs Oppajs Kal aoppijs GAN dkovatlov THs Kaklas ovao7ns. aca f ' pal bd F 570€ 7-11, 5704 4-5) 571 Justin maintains that the acceptance of the Stoic doctrine of Timaeus, 156, p190. 1 eiappévn would imply the destruction of the ideas of good and hominem qui utpote rational evil, which are both based on the assumption that man is enconsilium), and 179, p. 208 dowed with a free powerofchoice: the long section ofApol. i. 43 onem quidem esse in hominibu (i, 118-22) as well as some passages of chapter VII ofthe second on this point.? apology (i. 218. 9-11; 218. 15-22 ; 220. 5 ff.) showclearly Justin's | Like Justin, therefore, opinion on this problem.? sophical systems from th But exactly the same ideas appear in Middle Platonism. A His philosophical educati correspondence between Albinus and Clement, which J. Wytzes
\ sion to Christianity. also has noticed,} is particularly striking:
; , . Some « Clem. Strom. i. 83. 5 (ii. 54.
Albinus, Did. 179.6-7:émelxaltd | aa ppemners of the 12-14): odre 5€ of Erawor ore ef" Hiv oixijcerae Kal Errawvor kal a BS dtl ement.as/an ydyor o80? af rysal ob6" ai koddoes dyou Kal wav 7d TovTOLS mapam A= ; . e that Clement, o Sixavae, ph Ths Yuxiis exovons Thy Wy.
: uth had been torn into ., , Pee ek.
| ragme ' a &ovolay rhs Spuiis wal doppiis Albinis, Did. 279. g-40% aie wea of it had been GAN dxovolov rijs Kaklas ovans. amoroy obv%) Wuyh Kal én? adrf pev phical systems,+ showed Clem. Strom. i. 89.
76 mpagae 4 py, Kal ob KarnvdyStH ) n the critical attitude of éxovavos yap % Te alpeats 4 TE THs KaoTar TOTO.
Avidreson;:art, aE 184-7. e of M GAnYeias extpom}.
F eee A Zeller, Die Philos : On the criticism of Stoic pantheism in Middle Platonism Andresen's remarks J by A Gereke, RMPh yg (1 286), W are particularly worth noticing: see art. cit. 170 and op. cit. 304.
* Besides the very furious iets 2 On Justin's criticism of Stoic determinism sce also Andresen, art. cit. 183-7. and Strom, vi, 55. 4 (ii we VC 9 (1955), 149+ particularly Strom. i. 57.
CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN | AND VALUE eclecticism to which either he personally or his teacher Pantaenus' fundamentally two: the .
* ae had given shape: like a bee flitting from flower to flower, he was is directly connected wi g i : i : j ; : oe Hd thus able to find, in the different systems of Greek philosophy,
— gives of the origin of Gr some true doctrines, and to gather them together so as to re- | which this explanation construct that universal truth which the individual philosophical fined as 'historical', res systems had only partially grasped. 'This assumption seemed to on which the Christian be confirmed by the view held by E. Molland of the practice
Clement's theory acc then current in the catechetical school of Alexandria; for he system contains some el supposes that in the catechetical school the works of the most
| tion in the fact that, ac important Greek philosophers were read, discussed, and comcould reach a certain k mented upon, and that what the pupils learnt from their teachers their own reason, the d was, first of all, how to select the best doctrines from all Greek is intimately connected philosophical systems.3 It will be the purpose of the present that divine inspiration section to determine in what sense these views may be accepted
| filled.! In both cases, w and how they can be inserted into the general frame of Clement's — the divine Logos,? i.e. thought. can be regarded both as There is no doubt about the fact that in the first book of the all men possess, and as t Siromateis Clement seems to speak as an 'eclectic'. But it would the philosophers. But be misleading to detach his 'eclecticism' from one of the most ments; in chapter VII important aspects of his theological thought and from his culpractically identifies phi tural background. In other words, it is not sufficient simply to senting it first as a show point out Clement's 'eclecticism' by quoting the sections of husbandman.* the Stromateis in which it appears, without trying to determine
| Considered from thi the reasons to which it ultimately goes back. These reasons are systems of Greek philo 1 See E. Redepenning, 93-4.
Logos. This imposing c 2 The metaphor of the bee as the best picture of Clement's eclectic attitude has be regarded simply as 'C been pointed out by G. Basilakes (see footnote 3, p.
2 above) and, in more recent sent its basiv'are already times,byW. Telfer, in his interesting paper in 77S 28(1926/7), 167 8. Telfer draws dottrine'af th oaeaG attention to some passages in which Clement,by quoting the sentence of Prov. 6. 8a rine of the divine "
} mopevOnre pos Tiy péhtoaay Kal pdbe cs épydris earl, advises the gnostic or perfect both of Philo and ofthe Christian to imitate thetireless activity of the bee so that he may become zrodupabyjs trine of the effluence o (see Strom. i. 93. 6, vol. ii. 22. 13-15, and Strom. iv. 9. 2, vol. ii. 252. 9-10: both
BERS EOUTE.3 ses passages are quoted by Telfer, 171). 'Telfer is certainly right when he says: 'Honey, s source and ofits d for Clement, symbolizes the sweet and profitable knowledge of the Logos, which | and the prophets goes is to be culled from all over the varied garden ofthe universe. The bee symbolizes
Ecclesiasticus, and to P the active principle of truth in man, which enables him to do this; or, by a de+ J and in Clement' rived use, it symbolizes a "gnostic" soul as actualizing this principle. Because
J din Clement's great the sweets of the Logos are to be found anywhere, the gnostic will be rodupabys"
Uhe first reason for C (art. cit. 177). It must, however, be observed that his following statement, "And Tn observing: thatpart he himself [sc. Clement] is like a bee, gathering divine sweets from all over the philosophical noe a garden ...of his encyclopaedic knowledge', though substantially true, is supsophical systems C ported by no direct evidence, since the passage of Strom, vii. 111.
1 (iii. 73. 28-9) J 1 Se . to which he refers does not contain any identification of Clement with the bee, a eee above. but simply a picture of the various and composite nature of the Stromateis. f ic footnote 2, p. 17 abov 3 E. Molland, The Conception of the Gospel .
; See especially footnote 4, CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN | AND VALUE nor does he behave like a narrow-minded Christian who limits doctrines which, under himself to comparing the truth represented by his religion with tural synthesis present in the different philosophical systems, in order to establish to what century: in particular, extent they agree with each other, and who, after this compariPhilo's philosophy was m son, comes to the conclusion that, after all, it should not be gorean, Platonic, Stoic, very dangerous to borrow some 'terms' or 'expressions' of the ' such a syncretism did no Greek philosophers ;' he is under the direct influence of Jewishteristic of Middle Platoni
Hellenistic and Middle Platonic doctrines which both determine sity of realizing a synthe the way in which he approaches and resolves this problem, and finds therefore its exac actually represent the constitutive elements of a most important
Middle Platonism and o aspect ofhis theological thought. It is not by a simple chance that We are now also able the famous passage of Strom. i. 37. 6, which has been constantly
Christian catechetical sc quoted by the scholars who have regarded Clement as an from the description o 'eclectic', occurs immediately after the representation of Greek
Gregory Thaumaturgus philosophy as a shower and as a multitude of seeds and its identiit right to draw attention fication with the divine Logos.
Gregory Thaumaturgus Since the universal truth represented by the Logos is scattered of all Greek philosopher in the different systems of Greek philosophy, it naturally follows, which were regarded a in Clement's opinion, that he who wants to know the whole were obviously included truth must gather together the best doctrines of the different as well as some Stoic an systems: in this way he can build up a kind of absolute philosophy this way, a close parall which is also identical with the truth.3 Clement, however, is practices of the catechet well aware of the fact that neither he nor any other Christian teristic of some contemp theologian is the first who must perform this task. During his
{ and rejection on the pa philosophical studies before his conversion Clement had come j minate philosophical do into contact with the Platonic schools of the second century A.D.
) of some exponents of Mi and noticed that the exponents of many of them, following the missed no opportunity example of Antiochus of Ascalon, did not refrain from adopting tic, and Stoic concepti " doctrines of the Porch and of the Lycaeum, thus conferring an did not hesitate to bor eclectic character upon Platonism;+ moreover, after his arrival doctrines of the Porch in Alexandria, he, as a Christian theologian, had had the best though even stronger—'e opportunity of reading the writings of Philo as well as other the teaching of the mos products of Hellenistic Judaism and of observing that these
! contemporary with Ori writings contained a selection of the best Greek philosophical Plotinus' school the Stoi © A list of the scholars who hold this view is given in the Introduction, p. 3 of several exponents of above, footnotes 1-2. j ' This will be shown more 2 Sce the Introduction, footnote 3, p. 2 above. work, 3 See particularly Strom. i. 57. 6 (ii. 36. 31-37. 2), 6 88 7a Sinpnuéva ovvels ablis
* See footnote 3, p. 2 above.
Kal évorojaas TéActov Tov Adyor dxwdtvurs ed to8" dre kardperat, THY GAjBevav.
* Chapter XIII, 151-3, p. 2
4 On the eclectic tendency of some schools of Middle Platonism see footnote 4, * See pp. 47 f. above. pp. 46-7 above.
, 5 See pp, 46 ff. above.