134-6; H. Schiirmann, 15-16 and 27-32; E. Beppe re 4s H.es
CLEMENT'S VIEWS ON THE ORIGIN AND VALU Almost everyone who has written about Clement has thought it and the Jewish law, it proper to devote some pages of his book, article, or dissertation covenants, were to prep to the description ofClement''s attitude towards Greek philosophy, j the Jews respectively fo as it appears especially in the first and sixth books of the Stromatian message, the 'true teis. A considerable amount of literature already exists on this
Clement's opinion, con subject.! Those people who do not themselves wish to take the had also been 'stolen' b trouble of going through the Stromateis can read in almost every and finally that, althou study on Clement that he believed in the divine origin of Greek perfection of the Chris philosophy," in the providential role which God had bestowed useful for the Christian upon it in any case—i.e. even if one admitted that it had not against the attacks of ent directly by hims—and in the correspondence between : providing their souls wi een sent y by I is a refutation of the opinion ofthose Christians who believed that the devil was the Christian doctrines.° the author of philosophy, cf. Strom. i. 80. 5, vol. ii. 52. 17, Strom. vi. 66. 1, vol. ii. have said what had to 465. 3 ff., and also de Faye, 189). oe << fae lta; | dwell on them at a dis 1 Without attempting an exhaustive survey, I shall mention the fo lowing ho fe scholars: F. Tribbechovius, 31-4; H. F. Guerike, 106-9 and 110-12; P. Hofstede
The problems for wh de Groot, 14-21; F. C. Baur, 520 ff.;J. Kaye, 426 and 428;I.A. Mohler i. 450-15 reached so far are of a Kling, 899-901; E. Redepenning, Erste Abt., 139-473 H. Ritter, 429-30; E. mental issues:
Vacherot, i. 248-50; V. Hébert-Duperron, 61-76, 105-16, and 116-23; N. Le a Nourry in Migne, PG 9, coll. 1259-67;J.Cognat, 107-24 and 125-373JHuber,
1. Why does Clemen 134-6; H. Schiirmann, 15-16 and 27-32; E. Beppe re 4s H.es of Greek philosophy, w Knittel, TQ 55 (1873), 198-204 and 366-7; C. Merk, 1-15;
Dods, 543 xs % ap 7 F. R. Hitchcock, 134-493 W. Christ, ABAWM, philos.-philol. Kl. xxi, Abth. ili with ene another ?7On (1901), 458-69; W. Wagner throughout his dissertation; O. Bardenhewer, j immediately afterwards, Clem 19-21; J. Geffcken, 235-55; E. de Faye, Clément d'Alexandrie, 174-90 and 191200;
Zeus' fire made by Prometheus M. Daskalakis, 22-9 and 29-32; F. H. Chase, 282-5; C. Bigg, 76-9; J. Patrick, 12-15) Clement mentions two 34-64; O. Bardenhewer, 45; W. Bousset, Jiidisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb . 9 205-18 philosophy : the Greek philos and 219-36 (the most accurate analysis of the sections of the Stromateis dealing truth cither by accident (xa with the question of the origin of Greek philosophy); H. Eibl, 33-59; G. Bardy, awvruxlav). Here also he does Clément d'Alexandrie, 52-63; J. Meifort, 6-9; P. T. Camelot, RSR 21 (1931),
: providence: Belas otxovopias 4 541-69; E. Molland, SO xv-xvi. 57-85 and The Conception of the Gospel. . ., 40-69 Strom. i. 18, 4 (ii. 13. 13-14) a and 69-75; A. C. Outler, JR 20 (1940), 238-9; E. Aleith, 920; P, Barth and remarks, pp. 9-10, are worth A. Goedeckmeyer, 250; M. Pohlenz, NGA, phil.-hist. Kl. (1943), 109-10 and Die
_? This view is strongly emph Stoa i. 415; J. T. Muckle, Phoenix v (1951), 79-86; W. Volker, 332 52; H. A. vi. 42. 1-3 (ii. 452. 21-453. 3
Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, 21-23 and E. Fascher, TU 77. 194-8. vi. 67.
1 (ii. 465. 19-21), and 2 See, for instance, Strom. i, 20. 1-2 (ii. 13. 28-30) (with this passage it is worth , _ 7 See, for instance, Strom. i comparing Strom. vi. 110. 3, vol. ii. 487. g-11, and Strom, vi. 42. 1, vol. ii. 452. i. 94.3 (ii. 60. 20-21), 21-3); the section of the 7th chapter of the 6th book, from 52. 7 up to 58. 3
' a For the evidence see pp.
(ii. 460. 21-461. 9), where the Logos is represented as the first teacher of all Greek + Strom. i, 80. 6 (ii. 52. 19-2 philosophers and consequently as the main source of philosophy; Strom. vie 58. 2
1 (ii. 4go. 28-9). This (ii. 461. 15-16), Strom. i. 37. 1 (ii. 24. 8-9), i. 94. 2 (ii. 60. 15-18), vi. 62. 4 (ii. 463. ticularly insists. The question v4ni6), vi. 156-3 (ii 512. 11-18), and vi. 159. 6-8 (ii. 513. 31-23 514. 1-5).
; tanity will, however, be discu 3 In Strom. i. 81. 4-5 (ii. 535-13) Clement seems to make a concession to his J Strom. i. 28. 4 (ii. 18. 7-8), opponents by accepting their view according to which philosophy had not been hn. 63. 31 64. 2), vi. 81. 4 (ii. sent by God, but stolen by some inferior powers or angels who transmitted it to Passages refer to a particular men (Strom. i. 80. 5, Vol. ii, 52. 17-193 for the origin ofthis view see p. 29 below);
© See the references given b such a theft, however, in Clement's opinion, was allowed by God who, in his ? Some scholars have point providence, knew what a benefit men were to receive from it, Strom. i. 81. 5 (ii.
Pereatly involved : see the ref 53. 10-13). The same idea underlies the passage of Strom. i. 86, 2-3 (ii. 55. 22-9) 5 should like to add Daehne, 48