Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum, ed.
xiv EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS : wpe ; rj Il Porphyry, Vita Plotini, ed. by E. Bréhier (Plotin, Ennéades i) (Paris, ResBelics
4. by E: Diehl, vols. i-iii (Lipsiae, 1903-6)INT Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum, ed. yy E. og aaa Mau (Lipsiae, Pa Mathematicos, libri i-vi, ed. by J.
Sextus Empiricus, Adversus / ree pee iibri Vika, ed. by H. Mutschmann (Lipsiae, 1914). pacaited n Clement of Ale Ne Simplicius, in Physica, ed. by H. Diels, Comment.in Arist. gr. ix-x ( ' been piling up du 1882-5). hsmuth and C. Hense, vols. i-iv compilator or as Stobaeus, Anthologium, ed. by C. Wachsmu c he has attracted the atte Geral aber ae I Arnim, vols. i-iii (Lipsiae, 1903-5)- ; the sources of some erud Stoics, fragments collected by ama : 7 1878) Greek philosophy, his et
'Theon of Smyrna, ed. by E. i bia me Ww 'Till, 'Die gnostischen Schrifmical attitude towards Wisdom ofJesus oan = ies eet 8502, TU 60 (Berlin, 1955)+ aspects of his work have i rus aca anabeal by R. Heinze, Xenocrates (Leipzig, 1892). that a further study wou Xenocrates, fragments co new to what we alread | sophy' is concerned, th appear at a first glance.
Clement's cultural back secondly—and this is p modern scholars have g relations exist between tianity. It is on the solu appreciation of the Chr logian ultimately depen As soon as moder Aristotelian elements i immediately back to t and Aristotle.
In this considered either as a 1 This is the view held espec Groot, C. Bigg, 63-150, R. B.
39-101, and J. Wytzes in hi 226-45, and VC 14 (1960), 12 ? Some scholars, by taking C to the conclusion that the inf than that of any other philosop 15; H. Preische, 42; C. Merk, 53-9, and 'Ethische Anschau J. Stelzenberger, 166-70, 226 A. Goedeckmeyer, 252-3; M.
Die Stoa i. 415-22, who has p doctrine ofthe obedience to the Pohlenz has not seen, howe cipated by the studies of Me , 8267061
INTRODUCTION ~ alc I .
Aristotelian," or as a Platonist in his metaphysics and theology does not contaminate i and as a Stoic in his ethics.? It was this tendency that also gave originality. Clement ap i O.
? i shape to the image of Clementas an eclectic philosopher. Tt was philosopher who, being very easy, starting from the simultaneous presence of Platonic, own religion, is able to Stoic, and Aristotelian elements as well as of so many quotations j the heathen philosophy from classical authors throughout Clement's writings, to speak of ;t elements which are no Clement's eclecticism ; some statements oa pe first ciples. This trend of thou book of the Stromatets and especially the so often quoted passage ofthe last and ofthe pr of Strom. i. 37. 6 seemed to provide the best evidence in support
«a the recent book by W of such a view. t , sive work on Clement w The definition of Clement as an eclectic' combines very often to the German theologia with the tendency, characteristic of some modern theologians, who likes to present h to contrast Christianity with Greek culture. In their opinion,
Stoic philosopher in or the Christian religion and Greek philosophy represent two forces guage as the heathens which are substantially extraneous to one another and between showing them that a Chr which no real synthesis is possible. Christianity, being perfect
' in terms of Greek phil in itself, needs no help from profane culture: in order to appear elements of Greek phil more attractive to the 'heathens', it can only deign to borrow tance: they are purely a few elements or terms from the philosophical systems which : genuine Christian thoug are not so removed from the truth it represents, provided that this influenced by them.? and M. Spanneut, who does not add much to the conclusions reached by Merk,
The reason why the f Stelzenberger, and Pohlenz (see particularly pp. 170-1, 234, 235) 244-5» 247-51, sources have come to c t See particularly H. J. Reinkens, who bases his arguments mainly on the he Nobady has so f resenceinClement ofelements of Aristotelian logic (see, for instance, pp. 300 and the question of the relat pres hil hy of tl 309). philosophy of the second 2 This view is shared especially by E. Freppel (see particularly p. 316), by E. de
Faye, Clément d'Alexandrie, 318, and by J. B. Mayor in his introduction to the 19a fox spatanee, SH Tv English translation of the seventh book of the Stromateis made by F. J. AHort
Hider Ditnewon, Figs | Ha (London, 1892), pp. *Xxv XXXVi.
; A. GC. Outler, JR 20 (1940), ne e The scholars who have been led to this conclusion by, the passage of Strom.
2 W. Vélker, Der wahre Gnos i. 97. 6 (ii. 24, 30-25. 2) represent an overwhelming majority. I shall mention at But the two following passag random the following: J. A. Bielcke, who, though being inclined to consider
| ideacof Valkex's book: Clec Clement as a Stoic (see footnote 2, p.
1 above), attaches nevertheless some Grenzlinie [sc. between orth importance to the passage quoted above (sce particularly p.14);F.1 ribbechovius, hat'
(p. 9); 'Seit den Tagen d 6; E, Redepenning, who traces Clement's eclecticism back to the eclecticism of his ie dea=n teacher, Pantaenus (Erste Abt., 93-4); H. Ritter, Erster Teil, 442-3; B. Vacherot, lehistert haiten. Teh habe dss i. 250; H. Laemmer, 56; H. Preische, 32; D. Demetreskos, 83; G. Basilakes, 4; already clear in: his-article,'
F. R. Hitchcock, 53 and 57; J. B. Mayor, pp. xxxiv-xxxv; W. Scherer, 4-5; E,-von Ivanks, who: has devo M. Daskalakis, throughout his dissertation; O. Bardenhewer, Zweiter Band
Christainat aie platonnchen (Freiburg, 1914), 473 H. Eibl, ZPhuphK 164 (1917)> 423 R. P. Casey, who, though Bildwert haben' (p. 98). treating Clement generally as a Platonist, is nevertheless inclined to consider him
3 Some scholars hav ne an eclectic as Well, HTAR 18 (1925); 953 JMeifort, 95 C. A. Bernouilli in his Have filies hart prgai .
. cid eS * ~ q 'atroduction to the German translation of the Stromateis made by F. Overbeck Dachne, De yydaet Clementis (Basel, 1936), 103; E. Molland, The Conception ofthe Gospel.
« - 166 ff. (about the Kling, 868; M. Dods, 58; E. eclecticism of the Christian school of Alexandria);and E. F. Osborn, 8. chapeicipis Cones Pea
INTRODUCTION | I __what C. Andresen has doneforJustin! has still to be done for , first produced a fruit Clement; very few scholars have realized the presence, in Judaism, and which wa Clement's thought, of some ideas which are characteristic of so deeply,! has not bee Neoplatonism ;? and the Jewish-Alexandrine philosophy, which Clement and of Plotinus: both soul and the second hypostasis 'Six contemporaries', (i. 36-148); J. Meifort, 14 and 34; J. Lebreton, RSR 34 q pederd elvar Oeds (p. 197); str (1947), 58-93 R. Arnou's statements in DThC, Tome xii (1932-5), are worth the knowledge of God (pp. noticing, in so far as he is the first who has fully understood the importance which | (pp: 199-200), emphasize its Middle Platonism had for the cultural formation of the Christian Fathers in , gndppoia, emarpody, and émaz general (see pp. 2274 and 2275) and particularly of Clement and of Origen the perfect man (p. 204). Witt (see pp. 2305, 2306, and 2308). Arnou mentions a few points in which the in- | fact that Clement and Ammoni fluence of Platonism both on Clement and on Origen is particularly relevant,
| town, Alexandria, for some ye (see particularly p. 2306), but he seems rather to point to some of the directions q other (p. 195)- I regard the ex in which new research should move than to produce a comprehensive and detailed
; Ammonius as extremely likel inquiry on this subject. R. E. Witt also rightly considers Clement as one of the timius Severus' persecution (a exponents of the Platonism of the second century A.D. in his book Albinus. . ., 1143
| attended the lectures of Amm G. Lazzati, though acknowledging the fact that Clement's philosophical studies and, on this occasion, made a took place, just as it had happened forJustin, in the Platonic schools of the second
| had already been attending century A.D. (see p. 41), makes no attempt to show in detail Clement's dependence , | Eusebius, HE vi. 19. 6, vol, ii. on this kind of Platonism, but goes on to speak about his conversion to Chris- | preserved by Eusebius, HE v tianity, by drawing a parallel between him and Justin (see particularly pp. 48 and ] presence of Ammonius in Ale 51-3). The article by A. C. Outler is nothing but a repetition of what Meifort had
. cf., on this point, H. Dérrie, already said; only occasionally does he hint, in general terms, at the influence of | ,68).
I am not persuaded by Middle Platonism on Clement (p. 237). The three papers by J. Wytzes do not ] attended the lectures of Ammo touch the problem of Clement's dependence on Middle Platonism (only two particularly pp. 471 and 472), correspondences between Clement and Albinus are mentioned, sce pp. 50 and andria at the very beginning 221 below):Wytzes is mainly concerned with the influence which Plato's ideal of : and ertirely agree with K, O. paideia had on Clement's thought. As to E. Osborn, he lays strong emphasis on { 34-9 has shown, in a convinc the importance which the first two hypotheses of Plato's Parmenides had for the attends d by Origen the Chris formation of the theology of Middle Platonism and of Neoplatonism, of which j (this view is shared also by E hegives a general sketch (see particularly chapter I, pp. 7-24) but does not examine
Hardt v. 31 n. 1, H. Chadwick in detail the manifold relations between Clement, Middle Platonism, and NeoJ] Ammonios der Lehrer Origenes, Fo platonism.—The most concrete contributions to the problem of Clement's dehave been very close connect pendence on Middle Platonism have been made by L. Friichtel, who in his short chetical school of Alexandria: hote in BPhW 57 (1937), coll. 591-2 has drawn attention to some correspondences tells us, had originally been between Clement and Albinus, by J. H. Waszink, whose statements in the paper
| Appdvos pev yap Xporiavds r 'Der Platonismus und die altchristliche Gedankenwelt', Entretiens Hardt iii been rightly pointed out by Wi .
(Genéve, 1955); 139-78, should represent the starting-point foranybody wishingto papers inJHS 77 (1957), 71examine closely the problem of the Platonism of the Church Fathers (on Clement thecriticism, however, of Lan see particularly pp. 153-5 and 168), and by J. Daniélou, Message évangelique . .. i mained a Christian throughou (on his contributions see chapter III, footnote 1, p. 213 below).
We shall have occasion, in th 1 C, Andresen, ZNW 44 (1952/3), 157-95» has proved beyond any doubt Justin's J POPE pomtitace especially p dependence upon Middle Platonism in the most important points of his ethics,
' Seeespecially the exact re cosmology, and theology, as well as in his attitude towards the different schools | of his book Philo von Alexandria of Greek philosophy.
| er a 343-51) and P. Heinis 2 The only exceptions are represented by A. F. Daehne, E. F. Osborn; and | vn , in (in the critical apparat R. E. Witt. Both Dachne and Osborn try to establish parallels between Clement's cube that: Clement knew Phil conception of God and of the Logos on the one hand and the Plotinian é&and vods
| eine ny excerpty of hisayratin on the other (sce Dachne, especially pp. 79-112, and Osborn, pp. 25-37 and 41). books).
'The sections of Philo But also these two problems deserve a closer examination (see pp. 205-7 and 221-3 j boot 4gees eviderts thet F below). The short paper by R. E. Witt, CQ 25 (1931), 195-204, is very important,
(Hes of the Stromateis as anot since it points out further interesting correspondences between some doctrines of | ermes 31 (1896), 435-56).