Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T07:46:57.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clement of Alexandria on The Generation of The Logos *

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

H. A. Wolfson
H. A. Wolfson
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the time of Clement of Alexandria there existed two theories with regard to the generation of the Logos. They may be described as the twofold stage theory and the single stage theory. According to the twofold stage theory, which reflects a similar conception in Philo,1 the Logos at first existed from eternity in God and then, prior to the creation of the world, it was generated from the essence of God as a distinct personal being. Representatives of this view are, among the Greek Fathers, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Hippolytus, and among the Latin Fathers, Tertullian, Novatian, Lactantius, and as late as the fourth century, Zeno of Verona. According to the single stage theory, the generation of the Logos from God was from eternity. The first to introduce this view were Irenaeus and Origen and it is this view which ultimately prevailed. Now with regard to Clement of Alexandria, who was a contemporary of both Irenaeus and Origen, it is the general opinion of students of the history of doctrine that he is to be included among those who introduced the single stage theory, though Zahn finds that Clement “always makes a sharp distinction between the only Unbegotten God the Father and the Son or Logos who was begotten or created before the rest of creation.”2 It is this general opinion which I wish to question in this paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 1951 , pp. 72 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1951

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 For Philo's twofold stage theory of the Logos see my Philo, I, 229–236; 239–240; 374–375. Cf. Danièlou, Jean, S. J., in his review of Philo in Theological Studies, IX (1948), p. 586.Google Scholar

2 Cf. Zahn, Th., “Supplementum Clementinum,“ in his Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Literatur, III (1884), 144Google Scholar. Zahn refers to “Str. VI, 16; VII, 58” of Dindorf's edition. The first reference is probably a misprint for V, 16 and it is the passage in Strom. V, 316 (PG 9, 33 A) discussed below at nn. 24–30. The second reference is to the passage in Strom. VII, 1058 (PG 9, 481 B- 484 A) in which the “Almighty” is described as “the one and only God the Father” and the Son is described in scriptural language as “the face of the God of Jacob” (Ps. 24:6, LXX) and as “the express image” of the glory of the Father (Heb. 1:3).

3 Paedag. I, 862 (PG 8, 325 B).

4 Ibid. I, 753 (8, 312 D).

5 Strom. V, 11 (9, 9 A).

6 Tixeront, , Histoire des Dogmes, I 9 (1924), 286 (Eng. I, 248).Google Scholar

7 Patrick, J., Clement of Alexandria (1914), p. 99.Google Scholar

8 Supplicatio pro Christianis 10.

9 Contra haeresim Noeti 15 (PG 10, 824 B).

10 Novatian, , De Trinitate 31.Google Scholar

11 de la Barre, A., “Clément d'Alexandrie” Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, I, 159.Google Scholar

12 Strom, VII, 27 (9, 409 C).

13 Cf. note ad. loc. in Hort-Mayor's Clement of Alexandria: Miscellanies Book VII, p. 208.

14 Cf. PG 9, 409 C.

15 Strom. VII, I2 (9, 404 C).

16 Ibid. IV, 25162 (8, 1372 B); V, 14141 (9, 205 B).

17 Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte 4 (1906), 169.

18 Deter. 31, 118.

19 Leg. All. III, 61, 175.

20 Migr. I, 6; cf. Philo, I, 234, 251.

21 Protrept. 12121 (8, 244 A).

22 Plant. 5, 18.

23 Cf. Philo, I, 234–235.

24 Strom. V, 316 (9, 33 A).

25 Oratio ad Graecos 5, (PG 6, 813 C).

26 Ibid. (816 A).

27 Ibid. (817 A).

28 Supplic. 10 (PG 6, 909 A).

29 Apologia I, 6 (PG 6, 336 C).

30 Tixeront, loc. cit.

31 Strom. VI, 758 (9, 280 B).

32 Ibid. V, 1489 (9, 132 A).

33 Gen. I:26.

34 Protrept. 1098 (8, 212 C-213 A).

35 Strom. IV, 25155 (8, 1364 C); Cf. Patrick, op. cit., p. 105.

36 Heres 48, 230–231; Cf. Philo, I, 393, 395.

37 For “image of God,” see Heres 48, 230–231, et al. Cf. 2 Cor. 4:4, et al. For “archetypal light of light,” see Somn. I, 13, 75, though in Philo the Logos is the archetypal light of light in a sense secondary to that of God.

38 Agr. 12, 51, et al.

39 I John 5:7 cf. Hippolytus, , Contra haeresim Noeti 15Google Scholar

40 Parmenides 132 B.

41 De Anima III, 4, 429a, 27–28. Cf. Stählin's note on Strom. IV, 25155 in his edition, II, p. 317, 1. 11.

42 Cher. 14, 49; Cf. Philo, I, 251.

43 Leg. All. III, 9, 29; Philo, I, 345 f.

44 Heres 48, 236; Cf. Philo, I, 393.

45 Opif. 5, 20; Cf. Philo, I, 245.

46 Photius, Bibliotheca, Col. 109: Clemens Atexandrinus, ed. O. Stählin, III, p. 202, 11. 18–22.Google Scholar

47 See Zahn, op. cit., pp. 144–147; Tixerout, op. cit. I9 286 (Eng. 1, 247); Harnack, , Dogmengeschichte I 4 (1909), p. 369, n.2 (Eng. II, 352, n. 2)Google Scholar; Ziegert, P., Zwei Abhandlungen über I. Flavius Clemens Alexandrinus: Psychologie und Logoschristologie (1884), pp. 87–90Google Scholar; Bethuue-Baker, J. F., An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine7 (1942), p. 134–135Google Scholar; Patrick, op. cit. pp. 102–106.

48 Excerpta ex Theodoto 19. Cf. editions of R. Casey (1934) and F. M. M. Sagnard (1948).

49 Adversus haereses II, 30, 9.

50 Adversus Hermogenem 20.

51 Isa. 42:10

52 Protrept. I7 (8, 61 C).

53 Strom. IV, 25162 (8, 1372 B).

54 Protrept. 880 (8, 192 A).

55 Paedag. I. 26 (8, 256 A).

56 Ibid. I, 984 (8, 349 C).

57 Rom. 8: 20.

58 Strom. VII, 25 (9, 409 A).

59 Ibid. V6, I (9,16 B).

60 Protrept. 10110 (8, 228 A).

61 Rom. 8:34; cf. Col. 3:1; Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55.

62 Paedag. I, 24 (8, 252 C).

63 Cf. above at n. 52

64 Adumbrationes in Epistolam I Joannis 1:1 (9, 734 D); ed. Stählin, III, p. 210, 11. 2–4.

65 Ibid. (9, 755 A); ed. Stählin, III, p. 210, 11. 5–7. Cf. Patrick, op. cit., p. 100.

66 Dictionary of Christian Biography, I, 564; Zahn, op. cit., p. 134.

67 Cf. Zahn, op. cit., p. 134; Patrick, op. cit., p. 24.

68 On 2:1 (9, 755 D); ed. Stählin, III, p. 211, 1. 15.

69 See attempt to harmonize his expression with the single stage theory in Loofs, op. cit., 169.