Although within the limitations of the study of the Stromateis nearly all topics associated with Clement’s use of Philo are touched on in more or less detail in Van den Hoek’s monograph, much of her research is pre- sented in an analytic and fairly piecemeal manner. Other scholars have attempted to deal with the question of the relation between Philonic and Clementine thought in a more general and synthetic way. In the final section of this chapter we will examine some of these studies with the aid of an evaluative typology. But first we should take a separate look at a number of specialized topics.
(a) Biblical interpretation and exegetical themes. Although none of Clement’s extant writings is a commentary in the strict sense of the word (in contrast to Philo), they nevertheless abound with exegetical material.
Certainly the statement that Clement ‘regards matter as timeless [i.e. pre-creational] and ideas as introduced from certain words of scripture’ very strongly suggest an exegesis of the Mosaic creational account influenced by Philo. We might compare esp. Str. 5.93-94 on the creation account, on which Van den Hoek (1988) 196 writes: ‘The whole passage is scarcely intelligible without Philo in the background.’ Also Photius’ mention of disgraceful exe- gesis of Eve’s formation from Adam (cf. esp. Leg. 2.28-30) and the angels’ intercourse with women (cf. Gig. 6ff.) are suggestive.
4s Van Winden (1978), quote on 208; cf. Van den Hoek (1988) 20, quoted above at the beginning of 98.3. Does she here, just like Clement does sometimes, unconsciously echo her fellow-countryman?
46 Plant. must thus be added to the list of Philonic works which Clement used directly; cf.
Van den Hoek (1988) 210.
47 For further studies on this continuity see the references below at n. 76. At Prow. 67 Van Winden uses the quote from Philo Somn. 2.258 to settle a problem in Clement’s text.
146 CHAPTER EIGHT CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 147
Heinisch argues that Clement’s distinction between literal and allegorical interpretation of scripture is strongly dependent on Philo. A few examples are given, while the rest of the material is dealt with sequentially in the second half of his book.48 Den Boer in his Dutch doctoral dissertation emphasizes the associative manner of Clement’s allegories. In the section devoted to specific allegories he refers on numerous occasions to material drawn by Clement from Philo, but the discussions do not go down very deep.49 Grant and Hanson give brief characterizations of Clementine alle- gory, both emphasizing its Philonic debts. Grant points out that, unlike Philo, Clement sees the need to give an argued defence of the method, which he sets out in Stromateis book 5. The central argument that the im- portant ideas in scripture are expressed enigmatically comes from Philo.
Hanson, who sees Clement as a vital link in the chain from Phi10 to Origen is highly critical:51
Clement... does not indeed show quite the same tendency to undermine historical narratives by allegory as Philo does, or as Origen does after him. He has, in fact, a stronger grasp upon the doctrine of the Incarnation than Origen.
But in most other respects he has surrendered wholeheartedly to the Philonic tradition of exegesis. The temptation to use this tradition for much the same purposes as Philo used it, to introduce into the biblical text a philosophical system which is not there, was too great for him. He is the first Christian writer to use allegory for this purpose, and he provided an example which Origen followed with deplorable eagerness.. .
Hanson rightly points out that Clement has produced many allegories of a Philonic character without being directly indebted to Philo. He does not make clear, however, whether this is the result of Clement’s own creative efforts, or whether he was indebted to unknown Christian (or even Jewish) allegorizing predecessors. The example of the Letter of Barnabas will have played a strong legitimizing role for Clement here, for he unreservedly accepts its apostolic authority.s2
For an example of the study of individual exegetical themes we might mention a number of studies by DaniClou. Among the exegetical topics he analyses are the figure of Adam, Paradise, Noah’s ark, Isaac and his marriage to Rebecca, the life of Moses. 53 The French tradition of the study of early Christian exegesis has been continued in recent years above all in
48 Heinisch ( 1908) 65ff., 125-292, conclusion on 292; see the critique by Van de Hoek (1988) 7-9.
49 Den Boer (1940); specific allegories in chapters 7-l 1.
so Grant (1957) 85-89.
.51 Hanson (1959) 117-121, quote at 120.
52 Grant (1957) 88.
s3 DaniClou, esp. (1950), but also (1947) on Isaac, (1953b) on Paradise, and in general (196la); on the last named theme also Bietz (1973), on Noah also Lewis (1978). Some general remarks at Simonetti (1981) 37-4 I who sees a debt to Philo especially in the area of cosmological exegesis.
the project La Bible d’Alexandrie, which presents translations and com- mentary on the books of the Pentateuch, with frequent reference to exegesis in Philo and Clement. s4 The emphasis, however, is firmly on the text being given exegesis, so that few conclusions are reached on the exegetes themselves and the influence of the one upon the other.
One cannot help noticing that-apart from the study of Van den Hoek- most of the research on Clement’s use of allegorical interpretation and its relation to Philo dates back to three decades or longer ago. There is cer- tainly room for more thorough-going research in this area.
(b) Philo, Pluto and Platonism. As we have already seen, Clement twice calls Phil0 a Pythagorean. 55 Even if the precise reason for the epithet
is somewhat mysterious, it is certainly at least partly explained by the close connection between (Middle) Platonism and (Neo)-Pythagoreanism in the time of Clement.56 It is interesting to observe, should there be any doubt on the matter, that we can actually prove that Clement was aware of the close connection between Platonism and Philonic thought, if we read on his texts carefully. As we already noted earlier,57 Clement takes over Philo’s interpretation of the place (&OS) seen from afar (Gen. 22:4) in terms of God’s transcendence, and then immediately adds that ‘the region of God is hard to attain, <the same> God whom Plato called the region of ideas, having learned from Moses that He is a place that contains all kinds of things and in their totality’.58 Clement thus makes a direct connection between Philonic and Platonic thought, both of which he considers to be derived from Moses.
The same passage is analysed in detail by Wyrwa in his thorough and impressive study on the Clementine ‘appropriation’ of Plato and Platonism in the Stromuteis. He regards this passage-together with another a page further on in which Ex. 20:21 is cited59-as particularly significant because one can trace with great clarity how Clement entwines Philonic material
54 See Harl (1986) on Genesis (with as a special study on the first 5 chapters the splendid work of Alexandre (1988)), Le Boulluec-Sandevoir (1989) on Exodus, Hark-Pralon (1988) on Leviticus, Dogniez-Harl (1992). Lack of indexation makes these French studies hard to consult, except on specific texts. Specifically on the first verses of Genesis see also Nautin (1973), esp. 8688, Van Winden (1973).
ss See above at n. 16.
% Philo’s extensive use of arithmology may also have contributed to the epithet. Quite a few of these themes are taken over by Clement; cf. Van den Hoek (1988) 124ff., 152ff., 196- 197,202-204. The passage Opif. 13-28 may have been particularly significant in this regard;
cf. ibid. 196.
ST Seen. 32.
s8 Str. . .)5 73 3 part of the longer passage 5.71-74 discussed above as one of Van den Hoek’s
‘short sequences’; for &~adrho~o~ cf. Post. 18; for @pa or &OS ii%& cf. Cher. 49, Sottm.
I .62-65, going back to Plato Rep. 509d2, Phdr. 247~2. See further Le Boulluec ( I98 1) 252f., Van den Hoek ( 1988) 168f.
s9 Str. 5.78, on which cf. Le Boulluec (1981) 258, Van den Hoek (1988) 194.
148 CHAPTER EIGHT
with ‘Schulplatonismus ‘.60 Philo is in fact referred to in countless footnotes of this extensive study, but he rarely makes it into the main text. This oc- curs for two reasons: (i) the author makes no direct connections between Philo and Middle Platonism; (ii) though taking the role of scriptural exege- sis fully into account in his analysis, he appears to underestimate its importance from a systematic point of view, and thus does not inquire in any depth how Clement comes to make his connections between Platonism and the biblical text.61
A detailed aspect of the relation between Plato, Philo and Clement is examined in the Ziirich dissertation of Riedweg, namely their use of the terminology of the mysteries in order to represent contemplative activity and the ‘experience’ of God. Riedweg emphasizes that Clement takes over from Philo a theme which, when compared with Plato, represents an original adaptation of the motif, namely its application to the allegorical interpre- tation of scripture. The deeper meaning of the text is a ‘mystery’, to be studied in contemplation and disclosed by the initiated interpret.er.e2
(c) Ethics and Christian mysticism. The most extensive thematic study on Clement ever published is the analysis of his doctrine of ethical perfec- tion by Wlker.63 The same scholar had earlier published monographs on Origen and Philo, in the latter of which he had notoriously argued against those who would make Philo the origin of Christian mysticism and thereby discredit it on account of its alleged non-Christian origin. Philo’s synergistic conception of the ‘perfect man’ (z&to<) already indicates the fundamental difference, for true Christian mysticism must be centred on the ‘in Christ’
(6~ Xpta@) and the Sacrament. 64 In the later study the tone is less polemical. In its final chapter an attempt is made to place Clement’s doctrine in its historical context. It is no doubt significant that the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists are first outlined, whereas Philo is interposed between them and Clement’s Alexandrian ‘successor’ Origen. Viilker emphasizes that Clement’s dependence on Philo is even stronger than first appears.65 In his views on the nature of sin and its origin in man’s free will, the nature and practice of repentance, the conscience, the virtues, the concept of true knowledge (yv&otc,), there are in every case strong points of contact. Also their vacillations--Schwa&en is one of Wlker’s favorite 6o Wyrwa (1983) 272-279.
6i See particularly the ‘systematischer Ausblick’ on 317-322. For a much more extensive inquiry into the triangular relation between Philo, Platonism and Clement see the study of Lilla discussed at some length in $8.6 below.
62 Riedweg (1987), esp. 87-92. 133-137, 159-161.
63 Viilker (1952).
64 VBIker (1938) xii. The study on Origen was published in 1930.
6s Viilker (1952) 617-623, with much more detail than can be adequately summarized here.
The conclusions are not documented, and seem to be based on a swift comparison between the results of the two monographs.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 149
terms-run parallel, e.g. in a negative and a positive attitude to the world, and their indecision between recognition of the primacy of the will and deference to Greek intellectualism. But each time Clement does not just slavishly copy Philo, but reads him from a Christian viewpoint. Philo lacks the warmth and passion that is infused in the Christian’s expositions on love towards one’s fellow man (~&~8po&), faith, and the role of the Logos. Gnosis too occurs not just through divine grace, as in Philo, but is more concretely received, through the reception of the Holy Spirit in bap- tism as the result of the intermediation of the son. A fine example is Clement’s doctrine of the perfect man’s impassibility (&&&ta). This is based, not so much on the imitation of God (l&qot~ 0~0%) as is the case in Philo, but on the following of Christ’s example through love. Just as Philo has conflated Stoic and Platonic elements in his doctrine of ‘becoming like unto God’ (ktop,oioatq xp&q zi>v &&v) and brought it in relation to biblical texts and views, so Clement has carried the process one step further and founded the relationship on the Sonship of Christ.66
Basically the technique used by Clement is the same as that by Philo, but carried out at a different (i.e. higher?) level.67 There is a nucleus of thought-Christian in Clement’s case, as it was Jewish in Philo’s-, around which foreign material is built up layer by layer. The well-trained eye sees cracks and faulty joints, but the sound intentions of the builder can be discerned.68 A sharp eye, however, will detect an obscurity in this summary. Does the Philonic material used belong to the nucleus, or the surrounding layers? Viilker’s own detailed analysis of the absorption of Philonic themes in Clement’s ethical doctrines suggests that the image is inadequate.69
Other studies on ethical themes in both writers, such as by Merki on
‘assimilation to God’ (bpoioat< e&t@) and by Classen on the canon of virtues,70 do little more than juxtapose the relevant material, without any attempt to pin down the changes and developments that have taken place.
A far more ambitious analysis is given in the monograph of Lilla, to which ample attention will be paid in the final section.
(d) Clement and Philo’s Judaism. It is well known that there is not a single indication in Clement’s writings that he had any direct contact with Jews or the Jewish community .7* He generally refers to them in a neutral 66 VSlker (1952) 622f.
67 Note the change in imagery: in the earlier monograph Philo’s use of Greek philosophical terminology and doctrines is compared to ‘scaffolding’.
h8 Ibid. 623.
h9 Telling here is the fact that both monographs have virtually the same structure.
‘O Merki (1952), successive chapters on Philo, Clement and Origen in preparation for the doctrine of Gregory of Nyssa; Classen (1979); the same triad also in Raasch (1968) on
‘purity of heart’.
‘I Cf. Van der Broek (1990) 111 cited above in $7.1. Schreckenberg (1982) 2 1 I remarks:
IS0 CHAPTER EIGHT
way, or names them together with the Gentiles. The Judaism that Clement is above all interested in is the Judaism of the scriptures, whether of the Old or the New Testament. As we noted earlier, the fact that he calls Phi10
‘the Pythagorean’ is not evidence that he is trying to conceal Philo’s Jewish origin.72 But it is perhaps a hint that Philo is on the way to losing his special Jewishness and becoming the Church Father honoris cuusu of later times. As we saw in the first chapter it is not impossible that the legend of Philo Christianus began in one of Clement’s lost writings.73 what Clement learns from Philo in the area of Judaism is exclusively biblical exposition.
6. Clement’s debt to Philo: an evaluative typology
How, then, are we to evaluate Clement’s use of and debt to Philo? We conclude our survey with a number of contributions which attempt to give a more general answer to this question. For the sake of clarity these can be divided into three different positions, which together form a useful evalu- ative typology, and to which we have given the labels maximization, minimization, delimitation.
(a) maximization
The strongest affirmation of a decisive dependence of Clement on Phi10 is certainly to be found in the study of Wolfson, which as a scholarly study sui generis we have already introduced in an earlier chapter.74 As one example out of many we cite the following summary of a discussion of four Clemen- tine passages:75
Combining all these passages from Clement we may gather the following general view of his own theory of ideas. The ideas constitute an intelligible world, which is contained in the Christian Logos as in a place. The Christian Logos has two stages of existence, during the first of which it is identical with God, but during the second it is a distinct personal being. Accordingly, the ideas too, which are contained in the Logos, may be said to have the same two stages of existence. All this is acknowledged by Clement to have its source in the Barbarian philosophy, that is, the scriptural philosophy as formulated by Philo, and it is this Barbarian philosophy which, according to him, is also the source of the Platonic theory of ideas. He thus definitely attributes to Plato the Philonic view that the ideas are contained within a Logos and that the Logos had two stages of existence.
‘Ausgesprochen antijtidische Aussagen fehlen bei ihm, und man kann fast sagen, dafi er die Juden freundlich ignoriert oder doch die apologetische Kontroverse mit ihnen nicht sucht, sondern sie eher beilhfig abtut.’
72 See above at n. 16.
73 The Hypotyposeis; cf. above n. 43.
74 Wolfson (1956); cf. above $3.2.
75 Ibid. 269: the passages are Str. 4.155,5.73,5.16,5.93.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 151
For the systematic interpretation of the Logos, Wolfson thus affirms, Cle- ment is dependent on Philo, who also had a double Logos theory.76 More- over Clement reads this Philonic philosophy back into Plato, so that Plato too is seen by Clement to have a theory of the Logos. But, it is important to note, though Clement places his own emphases, there is nothing really special about his particular debt to Philo. All the prominent Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, are building on the foundations of Philonism. This is a consequence of Wolfson’s fundamentally a-historical approach.
An author who in part follows Wolfson’s lead is Mortley. He begins his monograph on Clement’s hermeneutic thought with a chapter on the doc- trine of transcendance.77 Historically Wolfson’s claim that Philo was the originator of the notion of the unknowable and ineffable God cannot be sustained. But he is right in emphasizing that Philo, ‘in adapting the con- ceptual structures of the Bible to those of hellenistic philosophy, created the patristic presentation of the unknown God’.78 As such it was taken over by Clement, as it had been by Justin and Pantaenus before him.
Much more historically orientated, but agreeing with both previous scholars that the influence of Phi10 is direct and fundamental, is the mono- graph of Lilla.79 Its aim is to ‘discover the line which separates the Plato- nist and the disciple of Phi10 from the Christian and to determine the nature of the Christianity which provides his ‘Platonic’ problems with a satis- factory solution’.*O Convinced, like Philo, that the Logos penetrated the cosmos as a ‘divine effluence’ and so was also active in the development of Greek philosophy, Clement followed both Philo and Middle Platonist authors in eclectically ‘realizing a synthesis of the ‘best’ philosophical doctrines’.*1 Clement has learnt from Philo that philosophy is both the preparation for and the key to the understanding of scripture.
In order to achieve his aim Lilla embarks on a thorough examination of the Philonic and Platonist doctrines that Clement has included in his syn- thesis. The study is a veritable gold-mine of information. In the domain of ethics, he opposes the view of Viilker that philosophical doctrines make no
76 Philo’s double Logos theory is outlined at (1947) 226-240. Note that ‘double’ is meant in the sense that the transcendent Logos is double in nature, (I) as the mind of God identical with his essence, and (2) as a created intelligent and intelligible being; Wolfson also adds a third immanent stage. For further comparative remarks on the Logos doctrine of Philo and Clement from the ‘religionsgeschichtliche’ and theological angle respectively, see Colpe (1979), Williams (1987) 117-131.
77 Mortley (1973) 5-l 1.
78 Ibid. 9. For Mortley Philo is in fact the spiritual father of Arianism; see below 8 10.2.
79 Lilla (1971), a revised Oxford doctorate written under the supervision of H. Chadwick.
x0 Ibid. 8.
x’ Ibid. 55. The words ‘synthesis’, ‘syncretism’ and ‘eclecticism’ are rather uncritically used.
This view of Middle Platonism was strongly attacked by Dillon (1977) xiv and pus.~irtl.