3. The Evidence from Book 5 of the Stromateis
clement of alexandria on trial
economy of salvation, a positive—although dramatic—eschatological act. Jewish and Christian apocalypses testify that the final conflagration of the visible world will establish God's kingdom, although they varied in their interpretation of that new reality. Furthermore, for Jewish and Jewish-Christian literature, fire as a phenomenon was the characteristic, classical attribute of God's self-disclosure, as was evident from the Hebrew Scriptures. Fire was the sign of God's closeness, might and mystery, but it also became the prelude to the inevitable judgement to come and it portended the end of the present world. In Clement's hermeneutics, which drew upon both legacies, Greek and Hebrew elaborations of the theme supported each other and were cumulative. Greek speculation about the role of fire in ending the existence of visible reality mirrored the Jewish insight about the destiny of the world. The Scriptural evidence about the nature of the end of the world, received further exemplifications in Greek philosophy. That sort of eclectic adaptation of both legacies was one of Clement's crucial philosophical axioms. Therefore, he claimed that some of the Greek sages, here Heraclitus, were able to foresee the end of the world, as they were inspired by the same spirit as the Hebrew prophecies, and particularly that of Moses.18
3. The Evidence from Book 5 of the Stromateis Having indicated two important sources of influence on Clement's use of the idea of eschatological conflagration, I shall now introduce the crucial passages which discuss this motif. The important evidence can be found in a section which begins with Clement's confirmation that Heraclitus distinguished two worlds. One of them is eternal (τὸν ... κόσμον ἀίδιον εἶναι) and the second is perishable (τὸν δέ τινα φθειρόμενον).19 Clement's interpretation of Heraclitus' teaching stated that these two worlds are interconnected, since the latter is not autonomous, but depends on the former. The first then, containing
"the universal essence" (ἁπάσης τῆς οὐσίας ἰδίως) is "not created neither by humans or gods" (οὔτε τις θεῶν καὶ οὔτε ἀνθρώπων
18 Clement believed that Plato learned some of his doctrines from Moses (see, e.g.,
Strom. 5.73.4).
19 Ibid. 5.104.1; see n. 12 above.
many worlds before the creation of adam
ἐποίησεν), but is everlasting: "it was, and is, and will always be like ever living fire kindled by measure, and extinguished by measure".20
According to Heraclitus, as recorded here by Clement of Alexandria, the eternal world is in permanent transformation from one stage of being setting on fire, in an ordered way, to another phase of being extinguished, equally ordered (ἀποσβεννύμενον μέτρα). In other words, the eternal world is never static, but exists in a rhythmic mode of birth and death, eruption and extinction; it disappears but is then regenerated. Cosmological, metaphysical (i.e., not sensual) fire provides the whole process with an essential energy as well as being the beginning and the end of the whole cycle. To illustrate this transformation within the intelligible world, Clement refers to another statement of Heraclitus: "there are transformations of the fire, first into the sea, and of the sea half becomes the land and half a fiery cloud".21
In Clement's view, Heraclitus' observation about the origin of the four elements (fire, water, earth, air/πρηστήρ) and their coexistence in the eternal world, which was the prototype of the visible one, echoed the biblical image of the creation of the present world. From the first
20 Clement, Strom. 5.104.2: ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ἀεὶ καὶ ἔστιν καὶ ἔσται πῦρ ἀείζωον ἁπτόμενον μέτρα καὶ ἀποσβεννύμενον μέτρα (DK 22B30; H.A. Diels, Doxographi
Graeci [Berlin, 1879], 1:157.10–158.7). Alain Le Boulluec detects in Clement's presentation of Heraclitus' theory a strong Stoic influence. By bonding together Heraclitus and Stoic ideas, the Christian scholar aims to reject any form of dualism, possibly related to some Gnostic doctrines, in which the corruptible, material element of the human body was set against the spiritual, perfect soul/mind. Clement's catechesis seems to convince his audience that the material body will also be 'purified' by the fire at the eschatological event. Consequently, it will participate in the life to come (see
Boulluec, Stromata V, 321–2).
21 Clement, Strom. 5.104.3: πυρὸς τροπαὶ πρῶτον θάλασσα, θαλάσσης δέ τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ γῆ, τὸ δὲ ἥμισυ πρηστήρ. For further discussion of Heraclitus' statement, see
T.M. Robinson, Heraclitus: Fragments: A Text and Translation with a Commentary (Toronto and London: University of Toronto Press, 1991) (no page numbers), see
"commentary to fragment 31a". The last expression of the quoted sentence: πρηστήρ is translated here by 'a fiery cloud', while Robinson prefers 'burner'. It both cases the term semantically denotes a type of air that is part of a hurricane or stormy weather.
Robinson comments on πρηστήρ: "just what a 'burner' was for Heraclitus is disputed, but a survey of the evidence … suggests that it was probably a term for a bolt of lightening (the noun is formed from the verb 'to burn'). Why does Heraclitus talk of such a thing here? One possibility is a desire on his part to stress, in a single vivid phrase, something of the violence frequently attending the change from sea to air to aether and vice versa … A time of storm is usually one in which the water-cycle is most evident: an abnormal build-up of heat eventually induces, by evaporation, and an abnormal build-up of clouds and a storm breaks out … A further, natural reason for talk of lightning-bolts here is to indicate the divine power of aether as guide and controller of the cosmic process" (ibid.).
clement of alexandria on trial
chapter of Genesis, Clement combined two narratives, rather metaphorically, trying to show that they harmonise. This concord of Greek philosophy and Hebrew revelation expressed one of Clement's axioms about the divine source of both traditions. In Clement's view, Greek wisdom was dependent on Hebrew philosophy, which in the context of Genesis took the form of the theology of creation. In a particular exegetical elaboration (Strom. 5.104.5), Clement explains that the divine Logos first created fire, which then was changed into water through air (ἀέρος) and that water was the principle of the whole construction of the world, called by Heraclitus 'the sea'. Then from that 'sea' the visible earth and the sky are created. Clement follows
Heraclitus closely through the whole scenario of the gradual transformation of one element into another, with fire the beginning and end of the whole process.22 Throughout the section, Heraclitus' theory of the conflagration (ἐκπύρωσις) served a specific purpose. It revealed to the Greeks, in Clement's opinion, a parallel to the Hebrew's revelation, the cosmological structure of the world, its dynamic nature, and its direct dependence on its Creator, the divine Logos. This JudaeoChristian concept of the Creator and Administrator of the universe identified with the Logos also found an analogy in Heraclitus' theory.
The Greek sage seemed to identify the aether or 'thunderbolt' as the crucial factor of the whole process of transformation by Zeus or by the power of Zeus.23 The whole highly allegorical and multi-level construction presented by Clement is certainly off-putting to readers who, like Photios, do not value his allegorical method, but Clement's most theologically dangerous pronouncement comes at the end of the whole section, when he summarised the previous examination of Heraclitus' theory. As he often does, Clement added new material to his narrative, without any introduction or commentary, leaving his observation and its meaning open to the appraisal by the reader:
Similar doctrines are taught by the best known of the Stoics, while discussing the conflagration of the world and the government of the world, as well as when they consider differences of quality of men and the world, finally when reflecting on the continuance of our souls.24
22 Clement, Strom. 5.104.5.
23 See Hippolytus, Ref. 9.10.7; Clement, Strom. 5.115.1; see also Robinson Heraclitus: Fragments, "commentary to fragment 31a".
24 Clement, Strom. 5.105.1: παραπλήσια τούτῳ καὶ ἐλλογιμώτατοι τῶν Στωϊκῶν δογματίζουσι περί τε ἐκπυρώσεως διαλαμβάνοντες καὶ κόσμου διοικήσεως καὶ τοῦ ἰδίως ποιοῦ κόσμου τε καὶ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τῆς τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν ἐπιδια-
many worlds before the creation of adam
The theological danger in this passage for the theory of conflagration25 is the suggestion that the understanding of this event and its Stoic consequences, including restoration of the new world, are compatible with the data from the Bible. The Greek philosophical theory, if applied without any criticism, would deform the Scriptural revelation creating an erroneous understanding of the creation of the world. This is how
Photios understood Clement's narrative which as on many other occasions, was composed of closely interwoven materials borrowed from Scriptural theologoumena and Greek philosophical theories. Clement often aimed to highlight as many similarities as possible between the Scriptures and Hellenic wisdom. Consequently, he had to use a very complex, sometimes dubious amalgamation of the material, in order to emphasise the crucial parallel. The same effort centuries later in Photios' time was seen as meaningless, artificial and responsible for many serious doctrinal errors. But Clement, although faithful to his axioms and methodology, did not betray his Christian faith or even his understanding of the correct Christian doctrine. For instance, as has been already noted, while reaffirming the significance of fire as a medium for purifying the world and opening a new stage of the world
(a Hellenic motif), he identified the next phase of the re-emergence of the purified world as the resurrection (ἀνάστασις).26 This Christian μονῆς. Behind the general label 'Stoics', it is possible to recognise here Zeno (SVF
1.32) and Chrysippus (SVF 2.131); cf. Diogenes Laertius, V. Ph. 7.137, 142, 156); Cicero, Nat. d. 2.118. Allan de Boulluec states that Clement's observation on differences of opinion among the early Stoics as to the continuation of existence until the conflagration (καὶ τῆς τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν ἐπιδιαμονῆς) echoed two different views, one of Cleanthes and the other of Chrysippus. As Diogenes Laertius reports: "Cleanthes indeed holds that all souls continue to exist until the general conflagration; but Chrysippus says that only the souls of the wise do so" (V. Ph. 7.157; see Boulluec, Stromata
V, 322).
25 Clement, Strom. 5.9.4–5.9.7.
26 Ibid. 5.9.4. Clement's exegesis responded to his fundamental philosophical paradigm on the coherence and harmony between Hebrew revelation and the 'correct'
Greek doctrines, namely Pythagoreanism and Platonism. It also rejected in toto the 'atheism' of Epicurus and criticised some ideas of Perpiatetic (the limit of the divine providence) as well as the Stoic schools (materialism and determinism). However, within that paradigm Clement of Alexandria aimed to 'save' as much of the philosophical legacy as was useful to his catechesis. In the case of the Stoic notion of conflagration, its valuable and positive contribution, noted by Clement, was related to the new life after the eschatological fire. Clement emphasised the correct, in his view, Stoic intuition that people will be called back to life after the end of the visible world, and their future existence will include their purified bodies. This adaptation of the Stoic doctrine may suggest that in Clement's milieu the Stoic theory of the end/beginning of the world was still in circulation.
clement of alexandria on trial
view, in Clement's case, emphasised that all sages (Hebrew and Greek) as long as they were faithful to the inspiration of the divine Logos, were able to correctly prefigure the Christian dogma. Ultimately, the Christian faith had priority and censured the value of the philosophical doctrines. This view was one of Clement's axioms.
While studying Clement's known views, another passage must be quoted in order to assess his theology correctly. Again, in Book 5 of the Stromateis Clement reflected upon a crucial passage from Plato's
Timaeus on the number of worlds, and this reflection, although very unsystematic, contains an answer to the question of the acceptance of a plurality of worlds before the creation of the present one:
Plato in "Timaeus",27 while being in doubt whether there are several worlds or just one, applies the names to similar realities, calling the world and the heaven by the same name. And the passage follows like this: "Have we been correct in speaking of one world, or of many, in fact infinitely many worlds? But it is correct to say that there is one world, if indeed it has been created according to its model."28 Also in the Epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians29 it is written, "An ocean impassable by people and the worlds after it."'30
In the light of this passage at least, Clement accepted Plato's logic about the necessity to admit one sole universe (κόσμος αἰσθητός) made as a copy of its original pattern (κόσμος νοητός). Clement noticed the lack of precision in Plato's terminology, as the same term is applied to different realities (ἀδιαφορεῖ περὶ τὰ ὀνόματα, συνωνύμως κόσμον τε καὶ οὐρανὸν ἀποκαλῶν) and this confusion needs to be clarified. Again, in support of Plato's final decision to opt for only one world, Clement referred to another source, a statement
27 Plato, Timaeus 31a.
28 Boulluec's comment on Clement's reference to Philo's model amplifies the link between the oneness of the Creator-God (theology of monotheism) with the oneness of the created world (metaphysics) (Le Boulluec, Stromata V, 260).
29 1 Clem. 20.8. This interesting, if not surprising, reference to the epistle emphasises, as the French commentator suggests, opposition between God and the world, where both the Creator and the creature are separated by 'the ocean', which is a metaphor for an abyss (see also τὸ ἀχανές in Clement, Strom. 5.71.3; Le Boulluec, Stromata V, 260).
30 Clement, Strom. 5.79.3–5.80.1: ἀπορήσας γοῦν ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῷ, εἰ χρὴ πλείονας κόσμους ἢ τοῦτον ἕνα νομίζειν, ἀδιαφορεῖ περὶ τὰ ὀνόματα, συνωνύμως κόσμον τε καὶ οὐρανὸν ἀποκαλῶν· τὰ δὲ τῆς λέξεως ὧδε ἔχει· "πότερον οὖν ὀρθῶς ἕνα οὐρανὸν εἰρήκαμεν ἢ πολλοὺς καὶ ἀπείρους ἦν λέγειν ὀρθότερον; ἕνα, εἴπερ κατὰ τὸ παράδειγμα ἔσται δεδημιουργημένος." Ἀλλὰ κἀν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους Ῥωμαίων ἐπιστολῇ "ὠκεανὸς ἀπέραντος ἀνθρώποις" γέγραπται "καὶ οἱ μετ' αὐτὸν κόσμοι".
many worlds before the creation of adam
from Clement of Rome's Epistle, where he found a similar metaphorical use of the word κόσμος and καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν κόσμοι in relation to other unknown places on earth. In both Plato and Clement of Rome, the metaphorical use of the term κόσμος shows a number of realities that are denoted by the same noun. However, Clement of Alexandria was aware of the possible confusion and misapprehension, as both Plato and Clement of Rome believed in just one world. At this stage in the current context, it seems that Clement of Alexandria was certain that there is only one visible world, one copy of the one original pattern. But Photios' accusation does not point to a theory of parallel coexistence of numerous worlds (A, B, C), but rather the existence of consecutive worlds (1, 2, 3, …).
Having taken into account the existing collection of Clement's works it must be stated that there is no sign in it of assimilation of the doctrine of cyclic changes. For example, Clement's account of the history of Greek philosophy31 and his record of the events in the ancient world,32 including events in the Hebrew chronology33 and the Christian one,34 clearly present a linear sequence. Clement believed in the 'creation of the world at the beginning' and that was for him a factual event, not an allegory.35 In addition, Clement's theory of Christian perfection operates within the axioms about 'the beginning' and 'the end' of the whole process of advancement in virtue, holiness and knowledge as well as its mystical τέλος.36
The theory of cyclical time/worlds, as a conviction, would also go against Clement's greatest philosophical and theological authorities:
Plato, Philo of Alexandria, the Scriptural evidence of the Hebrew Bible and the emerging Christian literature with apostolic authority, such as that of the apostle Paul. Even if Clement, at times in his life, changed his mind, he certainly remained faithful to those authorities. Like many other Jewish and Christian theologians of this period, he believed in the uniqueness of the present world, its finite existence and dramatic conclusion. While the biblical, apocalyptic and some Greek imagery pictured the end of the world in very vivid colours as a 31 Ibid. 1.59.1–1.73.6.
32 Ibid. 1.101.1–1.104.3, 1.117.1–1.117.10, 1.128.1–1.139.5.
33 Ibid. 1.105.1, 1.112.1–1.116.3, 1.118.1–1.127.3, 1.140.1–1.141.5, 1.151.1–1.164.4.
34 Ibid. 1.145.1–1.145.6.
35 Ibid. 5.93.5; 6.58.1.
36 For more on this subject, see N. Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek
Patristic Tradition, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2004), 121–40.
clement of alexandria on trial
judgement by fire, as prefigured by the Scriptural prophecies, or destruction by fire, according to some philosophical scenarios,
Clement of Alexandria assimilated these literary forms to his own theological composition and purpose. The concept of eschatological conflagration was a fairly widespread concept, which crossed the boundaries of religious and philosophical traditions and schools.
Clement treated it as a rhetorically useful model, established in the Scriptures of the 'Old Testament' and the emerging literature of the 'New Testament' and philosophically convincing, to express the closure of history. Photios' possible conclusion—that if Clement believed in one part of the Greek theory of conflagration, he must have believed in another one (the periods of the universe) is a mistake—unless of course it was stated by Clement, expressis verbis, in the lost Hypotyposeis.
Clement's strong convictions about the eschatological conflagration of the universe, which he may also have borrowed from Jewish or Jewish-Christian apocalypses, does not directly imply that he believed in the cyclic nature of that event at all. For Clement the eschatological fire was a primary metaphor of the necessary moral purification
(κάθαρσις) that prepares for a new stage of life and relationship with God.37 Therefore Heraclitus' and the Stoic notion of ἐκπύρωσις had primarily an ethical and pedagogical application, and secondly it could be applied to an eschatological expectation. Having said that, I must also note that Clement's laconic treatment of the theory of world-periods is related to the fact that this hypothesis, as opposed to the linear model of history, did not receive much attention from his direct opponents, the Gnostics.38 Therefore the scanty and scattered remarks on 37 Clement, Strom. 4.104.1, here the martyrdom is a form of 'purification'
(κάθαρσις), similar view in ibid. 4.74.3; for more evidence, see ibid. 4.39.2, 4.143.1,
4.152.3; 5.3.4, 5.57.2; 7.56.4, 7.56.7; Clement, QDS 42.19.
38 See Rudolph's observation: "As far as we can tell from the source material at present available Gnosis nowhere envisaged a repetition of the world-cycle—such as for example in Greek or Indian teaching on the succession of world epochs. A cyclic conception of the world process is foreign to it. Of course there are phenomena within the concept of the history considered on the macrocosmic level which have a certain cyclic character, as for example in the systems involving three principles or the acceptance of several world ages with a catastrophic outcome for mankind (e.g. flood). And furthermore, on an individual level, there is the doctrine of the transmigration of the souls as a process of purification. But these events constitute no exception to the rule of the Gnostic view of time in which the course of history was determined by a linear theory" (K. Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of an Ancient Religion, trans. and ed. R. McLachlan Wilson [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983], 195).
many worlds before the creation of adam
this subject appeared mainly in those parts of his work where he tried to present a history of philosophical ideas that mirrored Scriptural notions, or where he argued for the value of purification as prerequisite for participation in God's mysteries.
In conclusion, I see Photios' indictment as another expression of his inability to cope with Clement's central paradigm, that some elements of Hellenistic philosophy and Hebrew wisdom could be combined together since they come from the same source, which is the divine
Logos. Clement needed this axiom in order to bring as many of his educated, possibly very cultured Hellenistic disciples, into the Christian faith and to present Christianity as a 'scientific' belief that is neither superstitious nor novel. This axiom laid the foundation for the whole architecture of Clement's philosophical theology and pedagogical activity. It is not certain to what extent Photios was aware of this.
Losing sight of this particular axiom is to miss completely the whole framework of Clement's thought.
Photios encountered the idea of conflagration in the lost Hypotyposeis, which is not be surprising, as it appeared in other parts of Clement's oeuvre, but he deduced from this much more than Clement intended. While Clement had interwoven this concept into his whole theory of the eschatological consummation of time, Photios approached the theme as literal history. This clash of hermeneutics inevitably produced his accusation of heresy. Clement's approach to the Scriptural narrative combined with his interest in Hellenistic ideas created a real problem for a reader such as Photios, who worked within the differing philosophical and theological theories of his time and culture.39
39 Closer to Photios' time, Basil the Great (c.330–379 ce) addressed the theory of conflagration in his Homilae in Hexameron (1.3) as a part of his polemic against some
Christians who were inclined towards 'Aristotelian' metaphysics. A century later,
John Philoponus' (490–570 ce) wrote De eternitate mundi contra Proclum, a polemic treatise against Neoplatonic philosophers and their claims regarding the eternity of the world. Philoponus' contribution to the development of Christian doctrine and cosmology was that he argued on the basis of scientific, Aristotelian philosophy the correctness of the assumption that the world was created in time and would come to an end. In his case, Artistotelism provided him with the intellectual apparatus to defend Christian belief in creatio ex nihilo and in the end of the world. The general
Byzantine philosophical outlook was based more on Aristotle's logical treatises than
Plato's metaphysics and cosmology. This case is exemplified by John of Damascus, as noted by Louth, who used Aristotelian terminology in his polemic against the iconoclasts (see Louth, Greek East and Latin West, 129). A similar approach may be found in Photios' stance. Therefore to the Byzantine mentality, here represented by Photios,
clement of alexandria on trial
The opening phrase of this chapter shows more of Photios' determination to represent the orthodox doctrine of the Church, than to explore fairly the complex background of Clement's views, his intentions and pedagogical purposes. Photios might have taken pars pro toto: some short notes, possibly vague comments from Clement's
Hypotyposeis, on 'eschatological fire' and 'the final purification' as adequate evidence of his 'heretical' views. But the whole framework of Clement's theology, especially his faithfulness to the Scriptures, does not provide any convincing proof that he might have believed in a 'number of worlds before the creation of Adam', especially if we assume that by 'world' he understood a similar reality to the present, material universe. However, he might have considered, as a hypothesis for his philosophical theology, that the present visible world was created as the reflection of the ideal world of Ideas. But still, this hypothesis, which Clement shared with Philo and Origen, does not suggest many, but just on world. Clement's whole theory of history, salvation and achievement of perfection is based on the visible foundation where thanks to God's providence and individual human freedom, there is a continuous progress from prophecy (i.e., the Scriptural revelation) towards anticipation, realisation and ultimately the end
(τέλος) in the 'world to come', but which is already here. This unique and sole trajectory of salvation included history and it is through history that salvation reaches all and brings them to the final closure of time. This holistic view does not leave any room for repetition of events. Clement's theology emphasises and convincingly argues for a linear notion of time progressing towards its end. It also affirms the end of the present, visible world at the end of time. the earliest Christian debates on the nature of the universe with their background of Jewish, Gnostic, Stoic and Middle Platonic cosmologies sounded rather incomprehensible and ridiculous. Later Byzantine scholars such as George Gemistos Plethon
(1355/60–c.1453) and George Scholarios (1400/5–1472) found Aristotle's doctrine of the eternality of the world irreconcilable with biblical revelation and therefore argued against it (see G. Karamanolis, "Plethon and Scholarios on Aristotle", in Byzantine
Philosophy and its Ancient Sources, 251–82, esp. 274–5.
many worlds before the creation of adam
PART TWO
LOGOS-THEOLOGY
clement of alexandria on trial
the teachings about two logoi of the father
CHAPTER THREE
THE TEACHINGS ABOUT TWO LOGOI OF THE FATHER
λόγους τε τοῦ πατρὸς δύο τερατολογῶν ἀπελέγχεται, ὧν τὸν ἥττονα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐπιφανῆναι, μᾶλλον δὲ οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνον· φησὶ γάρ·
"λέγεται μὲν καὶ ὁ υἱὸς λόγος, ὁμωνύμως τῷ πατρικῷ λόγῷ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ σὰρξ γενόμενος. οὐδὲ μὴν ὁ πατρῷoς λόγος, ἀλλὰ δύναμίς τις τοῦ θεοῦ, οἷον ἀπόρροια τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ νοῦς γενόμενος τὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων καρδίας διαπεφοίτηκε"
He attests to hold a strange doctrine of two Words/Logoi of the Father, of which the lesser was revealed to humanity, and even this was not true.
According to his words: "the Son is also named the Logos/Word, having the same name as the Word of the Father, but he did not become flesh; nor the Word of the Father, but some power of God, like an emanation of his Word, who became mind and permeated the hearts of men"
The second series of alleged errors in the Hypotyposeis concern Jesus Christ, his status and nature.1 It is appropriate to gather all three charges in the same section as they are all related to the divine Logos.
The first charge to be considered in this Chapter is that Clement's believed that there were two Logoi of the Father, that is two "Words" of the Father. The following Chapter (4) focuses on the accusation that the Son of God was, according to Clement, a 'creature' (κτίσμα). And in the final chapter of the current section (Chapter 5) I shall discuss
Photios' assertion that the Alexandrian scholar held docetic views on Christ.
In order to investigate Clement's view on this matter it will be necessary to refer briefly to some aspects of Philo of Alexandria's theory of the Logos, since it is commonly accepted by modern scholars that Philo's doctrine greatly influenced Clement's philosophical reflection
1 In theology the particular discipline which academically elaborates systematic knowledge of the person of Jesus Christ is called 'Christology'. However, in relation to Clement of Alexandria's theology of Christ, I prefer to use another term, 'Logostheology'. The main rationale for this is that in the present context Clement's view of Christ emphasises his divine status as the Logos of the Father, much more than his historical appearance as Jesus of Nazareth. Even in Chapter 5, where I examine Clement's view of incarnation, the Saviour is to Clement still primarily understood as the divine Logos.