Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T06:07:01.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Another Look at the Literary Problem in Clement of Alexandria's Major Writings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Walter Wagner
Walter Wagner
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Religion, Upsala College, East Orange, New Jersey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The relationship among Clement of Alexandria's three major works, Protreptikos, Paidagōgos and Stromateis, has vexed scholars for almost a century. Present state of the question reflects the condition of Clement studies as a whole: a welter of promising insights, ingenious theories, many contradictions and frustrating confusion. Recent attempts to approach the Alexandrine through historical-exegetical procedures have reopened Clement studies and have suggested that re-examination and re-evaluation of his theology are in order.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , September 1968 , pp. 251 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. One noteworthy historical-exegetical study is Kretschmar's, Georg unpublished PhD. thesis (University of Heidelberg, 1950)Google Scholar, Jesus Christus in der Theologie des Klemens von Alexandrien. The writer is grateful to Dr. Kretschmar for sending a copy to him and for allowing Drew University, Madison, N. J., to microfilm his work.

2. Among the older exponents of the traditional view are Kaye, John, Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria (London, 1835)Google Scholar and Wilson, William, The Writings of Clement of Alexandria (Edinburgh, 1901).Google Scholar

3. Bardenhewer, Otto, Patrologie, 2nd edition (Freiburg im Breisgau) p. 114.Google Scholar

4. De Faye, Eugene, Clément d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1898).Google Scholar

5. Wendland, Paul, review of De Faye's book in Theologische Literaturseitung, XXIII, (12 10, 1898) 653f.Google ScholarHeussi, Carl, “Die Stromateis des Clemens Alexandrinus und ihr Verhältnis sum Protreptikos und Pädagogos, ”Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, XLV, (1902), 465–512.Google Scholar

6. Adolph Harnack, Theodore Zahn and Otto Bardenhewer readily accepted the view as did Havey, Francis (“Clement of Alexandria” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, 1908, p. 12)Google Scholar and Wood, Simon (Clement of Alexandria. Christ the Educator, New York 1954)Google Scholar.

7. They recognized that present Book VIII was not original to the work but considerations on logic.

8. Stählin, Otto, Bibliothek der Kirchenväter … Clemens von Alexandreia, I (Munich, 1934 ed.), 32.Google Scholar

9. Munck, Johannes, Untersuchungen über Klemens von Alexandrien (Stuttgart, 1933).Google Scholar

10. Among the treatises Clement proposed to write but which he did not or which are not extant were a Physiologia as well as a Peri Archōn.

11. Stählin, I, 33–35. Lazzati, G., Introduzione allo studio di Clemente Alessandrino (Milan, 1939).Google Scholar

12. Quatember, Friedrich S.J., Die christliche Lebenshaltung des Klemens von Alexandreia. Originally a PhD. thesis for the Gregorian University (Rome, 1942)Google Scholar, it was published in Vienna in 1947.

13. Völker, Walther, Der wahre Gnostiker nach Clemens Alexandrinus (Leipzig, 1952)Google Scholar. It was completed during World War II but not published due to production problems.

14. Tollinton, R. B., Clement of Alexandria. A Study in Christian Liebralism. I (London, 1914), 192f.Google Scholar Völker, p. 32, nt. 1.

15. Stählin I, 204, nt. 1Google Scholar; Reinhardt, Karl, Posidonius (Munich, 1921), p. 56Google Scholar; Wood, p. 3, nt. 2.

16. Laertius, Diogenes (Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, VII, 108)Google Scholar stressed that Zeno was the first to use Kathēkonta (that which is fitting and proper) in ethics.

17. Diogenes Laertius, VII, 4, 91, 92, 166Google Scholar. Cicero, , De Officiis I, 7f.Google Scholar

18. Seneca, , Epistle XCV, 65Google Scholar noted protreptikos as one of five things needed to rouse the soul to rational conduct. The literary style and use of protreptikoi is considered by Gehäusser, Wilhelm, Der Protreptikos des Posidonius (Munich, 1912)Google Scholar and During, Ingemar, Aristotle's Protrepticos. An attempt at Reconstruction (Goteborg, 1961)Google Scholar. Helpful considerations are given by Pire, G., Stoïcisme et Pédàgogie (Paris, 1958).Google Scholar

19. Diogenes Laertius, VIII. Seneca, , Epistle XCV, 45Google Scholar. Aristotle, , Fragment 51.Google Scholar

20. Much debate surrounds Posidonius. Diogenes Laertius XII, 39f. has the bulk of his known views and there are also comments in Sextus Epiricus's Against the Dagmatists, Cicero, Seneca and Galen (De Placitis Hippocrates et Platonis). In addition to Gerhäusser and Reinhardt Posidionius was dealt with by Jaeger, Werner, Nemesius von Emessa (Berlin, 1914)Google Scholar; Dobson, J., “The Posidonius Myth,”; Classical Quarterly (1918) XII, pp. 179–195Google Scholar; Schubert, Paul, Die Eschatologie des Posidonius (Leipzig, 1927)Google Scholar; Edelstein, Ludwig, “The Philosophical System of Posidonius,” The American Journal of Philology (1936) LI, pp. 286–325Google Scholar; and Hijmans's, B. “Posidonius' Ethics,” Acta Classica (1959), pp. 27–42Google Scholar. This study is endebted to Hijmans's work.

21. Diogenes Laertius, VII, 84.Google Scholar

22. Seneca, , Epistle XCV, 65.Google Scholar

23. Diogenes Laertius, VII, 84.Google Scholar

24. Cicero, , De Officiis, I, 7.8.Google Scholar

25. Seneca's Epistle LXXXIX dealt with the parts of philosophy and mentioned the paedagogus of humanity was the philosopher. The moral portion of philosophy had three parts: speculation (thōretikē), impulse (honmētikē) and action (praktikē).

26. Seneca's Epistle XCIV defended kathëkonta, while XCV took up the cause of katorthōmata.

27. Seneca, , Epistle LII, 3–4.Google Scholar

28. Seneca, , Epistle XCV, 64.Google Scholar Plutarch (On the Education of Children, 10) described those who fulfilled their paideia as “hierophants of the gods and torch-bearers of wisdom.”

29. Philo, , Legum Allegoria I, 57Google Scholar; De Congressu 14; De Decalogo 20; De Cherubim 12–20; De Virtutibus 3; De Vita Mosis 11; De Posteriatate Caini 6, 38, 42; De Ebrietate 21–22, 39; Quod Ominis Probus 2; De Sacrificii 5, 10, 22–25; De Agricultura 3. Philo also called Deuteronomy Moses's Protreptikos (De Agricultura 17, 39). Clement's use of Philo was noted by De Faye, Völker, Boussett, Wilhelm (Jüdisch-Christliche Schulbetrieb in Alexandrien und Rom, Göttingen, 1915)Google Scholar. Outler, Albert (“The ‘Platonism’ of Clement of Alexandria,” Journal of Religion, 1940, XX, 217–240)Google Scholar and Osborn, Erich (The Philosophy of Clement of Alexandria, Cambridge, 1957).Google Scholar

30. Philo, , Legum Allegoria I, 56–66.Google Scholar

31. Strom. I. 30; 97, 1; 176, 1–3; IV. 104; VI. 84; VII. 4. Clement probably considered logic as prefatory to ethics. Present Strom. VIII may be a portion of his logic.

32. Prot. 118. Paid. I. 102–103 Strom. I. 176; IV. 155; V. 70; VI. 54; 108.

33. Prot. 5; 8; 85; 95.Paid. I 1; 18; 26; 53; 98; III. 37. Strom. I. 2; 173; VI. 102.

34. Prat. 117 Paid. I. 1–3; 98–99; III. 86–101. Strain. II. 97.

35. Paid. I. 87. Strom. IV. 3; VI. 50; 78.

36. Strom. IV. 3; VI. 1

37. Strom. IV. 6. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History VI. 13) felt he called it Stromateis because it contained a variety of pagan opinions, history and specimens of learning.

38. Strom. VI. 1–4; IV. 1.

39. Strom. VI. 111.

40. Paid. I. 75–95.

41. Paid. I. 1f.