136 CHAPTER EIGHT
reference at 2.100.3 has the most interesting context. Having reached the end of an extensive set of paraphrases from Philo’s De virtutibus, Clement states that Plato’s telos (‘becoming like unto God’) is the same as that of Moses. The reason is either that he hit on it independently or that he was instructed by a divine oracle. In order to support the first possibility Clement cites a passage from Philo. If this is from Mos. 1.22 (on Moses!), as thought by editors and commentators,*s then the citation must be from memory, because apart from the phrase ai p&~&tit cpbaey there is no verbal similarity at all. Twice, at 1.72.4 and 2.100.3, Clement calls Phi10
‘the Pythagorean’. The epithet is somewhat puzzling. Given the contexts, there is clearly no intent to conceal Philo’s Jewishness (at 1.147.2 Josephus is called b ‘Iov&x~o~). Since in the following line Aristobulus is described as ‘the Peripatetic’, it seems that Clement wants to indicate the philosophical school to which he thinks Philo is nnost closely related. But
‘Pythagorean’ hardly seems to be very suitable in Philo’s case.16
It would be rash to conclude that these four texts were the only pas- sages in which Clement is indebted to Philo. Inde(ed it emerges that they form no more than the tip of the iceberg. As early as Potter’s edition of the extant works of Clement published in 1715 it was recognized that he had made extensive use of Philo’s writings and that it was necessary to identify such usage for the proper understanding of the text.17 Mangey came to the same conclusion in his remarkable edition of Philo’s complete works in 1742.18 But it was not until the end of the 19th century that the task was taken to hand in a systematic way. In their still unsuperseded critical edition of Philo’s Greek writings Cohn and Wendhand print large slabs of Clementine material below the Philonic text.” In 19105X)9 St&lin published his definitive text of Clement’s writings in the series Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller. In his apparatus criticus he identifies numerous places where Clement uses or alludes to Philo. These references were considerably expanded by Friichtel and Treu in Uheir later revisions of Sttihlin’s text.20 It would be rash to affirm that no nnore uses of or allusions
15
b)
Cf. C-W 4.124, StHhlin-Friichtel-Treu (1905-1985) 2.168 (v&h a cautionary note added Friichtel).
16 17 18 19
See also the further remarks below at $8.5 (b), (d).
Potter (17 15), reprinted as volumes 8 and 9 of Migne’s Patrol’ogia Graeca.
Mangey (1742).
Cohn-Wendland (1896-1915); cf. esp. 1.236242,2.3-7,3.72-79, 87-109,4.119-135, 153- 159, 221-228, 5.268-332. There is no index testimoniorum in tlhe edition itself, but this has been supplied in Runia (1992a), with references to Clement at 90-91. Wendland also wrote an important preparatory study on the significance of the Clemelntine evidence for the estab- lishment of Philo’s text, (1896a).
2o Stghlin-Frtichtel-Treu (1905-1985) passim; see the latest list in 4.47-49 (= 19804). The revisions also incorporate material from Stlhlin’s translattion (1934-38). Note that Friichtel also made important contributions to the task of identifying Philo’s fragments, which before the advent of computer assistance was immensely difficult; cf. R-R 14-19. The
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 137
to Philo remain to be discovered in the intricate mazes of Clement’s writings, but we may be sure that the bulk of this arduous labour has been carried out by the scholars just mentioned and others who have made less conspicuous contributions. The result is in fact an outstanding example of how an extremely difficult task- after all one virtually needs to know the whole of Philo by heart in order to accomplish it-can be achieved through the cumulative effort of generations of scholars.
Once the identifications had been made, it became possible to place the study of Clement’s.use of Phi10 and Philo’s influence on Clement on a se- cure footing. The first to attempt this was Heinisch, who once again fol- lowed in the footsteps of the earlier pioneering, but rather unsatisfactory attempt of Siegfried.** Since then a substantial but rather disorganized literature has developed on the subject. Fortunately a study has appeared a few years ago which for the first time examines Clement’s use of Philo with the required thoroughness, combined with an exemplary attention to metho- dological issues. This excellent piece of research is now the best intro- duction to the subject, as long as we bear in mind that the study does not cover the entire subject (it confines its attention to Clement’s main work, the Stromateis). Nevertheless the best course for us will be to begin by examining the results of this monograph, before turning to other aspects of the subject.
138 CHAP1 ER EIGH’I‘
_
tention to the textual and literary basis in his writings.25 Van den Hoek’s greatest debt, from the methodological point of view, is to the formidable studies of MChat, who was the first to tackle the disconcerting literary structure of Clement’s ‘carpetbags’ and show through a painstaking analysis the various methods and techniques that were used to put them together.26
The point of departure for Van den Hoek’s research is the identification of Philonic material that has been made in the above-mentioned GCS edition. According to Sttihlin and his revisors Philo has been used on more than 300 occasions in the Stromateis. On this basis Van den Hoek sets out her aim as follows (20):
Our study intends to review all the material from Philo that is included in the Sttihlin-edition, to reorganize it to reflect the perspective of Clement himself and to assess its importance for Clement. Attention will be directed towards the form of the borrowing and the technique of citation. The attempt will be made to recreate Clement’s working methods: as it were, to look at him at his desk. It will be asked what books were on the desk at a given time, and how accurate or inaccurate was he in using them. What was his technique of writing when he adapted this material from ‘outside’? Was it directly from outside or did it already belong to his cultural and intellectual baggage? Because we deal with one source here, namely Philo, and not a variety of authors, it is possible to develop a framework that is made to measure for the situation. In this case, an important part of the framework is testing for the degree of literality in a borrowing. The question is posed whether or not the borrowing represents a real quotation, one in which the adapted source is clearly recognizable even if not totally literal or a paraphrase.
It is necessary, therefore, to distinguish between quotation, paraphrase and reminiscence, and examine how these different types of usage function in the structure of the Clementine text. Since not every kind of borrowing should be placed on the same level, the following hierarchy of usage is established (22):
A certain dependence (quotation and paraphrase)
B probable dependence (paraphrase and reminiscence with support from the context)
C unprovable dependence (reminiscence) D non-dependence on Philo.
By means of this literary-analytic approach an attempt is made to show how Clement used Philo both on a technical level and in his use of theo- logical concepts. Similarities and differences in their situation have to be 2s Wolfson (1956); Lilla (197 1).
x Mehat (1966a). Van den Hoek was also able to use his unpublished complimentary thesis (I966b). For a brilliant example of how to follow the train of Clement’s thought see Le Boulluec’s commentary on book 5 (198 I), which contains much discussion of material drawn from Philo in this book.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 139
investigated, in order to show how Clement adapts his borrowings to suit his own purpose within the framework of his position in the 2nd century Alexandrian church.27
The subsequent structure of the study is determined by the nature of the material. Van den Hoek identifies four main blocks in which Philo is exten- sively used, four shorter sequences, and a large number of isolated refe- rences. We shall briefly review the main themes that come to prominence in her analysis.
(a) Four main blocks
(i) The Hagar and Sarah motif. In Str. 1.28-32 Clement makes extensive use of the allegory on the relation between Sarah and Hagar developed by Philo in De congressu in order to illustrate his views on the proper relation between philosophy and faith. The entire passage is a medley of quotes from the book of Proverbs, passages taken over from Philo, and Clement’s own adaptations. The context is polemical: Clement is responding to those who regard philosophy as useless or even dangerous (45). The concept of wisdom, however, is profoundly altered by Clement, for it is no longer linked to the Law, as in Philo, but to Christ (46).2s
(ii) The story of Moses. In Str. 1.150-182 the context is clearly apolo- getic: Clement wants to show that Hebrew wisdom is older than Greek philosophy, and that Plato must somehow have been indebted to it. Philo’s no less apologetic biography of Moses comes in handy for this purpose. In
$150-157 he takes up diverse pieces of Philo’s narrative account without making any noteworthy changes. In $158-182 the usage is more schematic.
The emphasis on Moses the perfect man is taken over from Philo, but the Hebrew lawgiver loses his uniqueness. The true Lawgiver is the only- begotten Son (65-66). There are christological reasons for dropping the title of high-priest that Philo gives to Moses (64).*9
(iii) The Law and the virtues. In book 2 Clement discusses faith, know- ledge and virtuous conduct as part of baggage of the person who is on the way to the perfection of gnosis. In the course of the passage $78-100 devoted to the theme of the virtues (&pezai) copious use is made of Philo’s
Although Van den Hoek places a good deal of emphasis on the differences between Philo’s Judaism and Clement’s Christianity and is aware of the polemical focus of much of Clement’s argument, I believe she might have said a lot more about his concrete situation in the Alexandrian church, such as we have outlined in this and the previous chapter. This aspect gains more attention in her subsequent 1990 article cited above in n. 10.
‘* Further discussion of the career of this remarkable Philonic allegory in the Church fathers in Henrichs (1968a), and in another shorter study by Van den Hoek (1987); see also above $4.6 and n. 118.
“’ On the difficult question of how Clement’s division of the Mosaic philosophy in I. 176ff.
relates to that of Philo, discussed by Van den Hoek at 60-62, see also the separate study by MChat (1972).
I40 C‘HAPTER EIGHT
treatise De virtutibus.‘” Using what Van den Hoek calls a ‘cut and paste technique’ Clement quotes Philo verbatim or gives dense paraphrases at regular intervals, moving through his scroll as he does so. He is particularly attracted to Philo’s use of biblical injunctions based on the Mosaic Law.
This is because he is implicitly arguing against the antinomianism of Marcion. Law and faith must be seen as a unity, for God the giver of the Law is good and just. The Law educates to Christ, who then takes over as the Teacher (112). For this reason Clement allegorizes much more than Philo, in order to raise the prescriptions to a new spiritual context.31
(iv) The temple, vestments and the high priest. Clement’s treatment of these themes occupies Str. 5.32-40, as part of a longer discussion of the hidden meanings in the symbolism of the Mosaic cult. He thus stands in a long tradition of exegesis of Ex. 26-28, and Philo ‘is by no means the only author who contributes material. Philo’s influence, according to our author, is primarily in the area of formal structure, i.e. he supplies a sequence of themes, but does not determine the direction of Clement’s thought. The symbolism presented by Philo is predominantly cosmological, with a link to anthropology via the macrocosm-microcosm relation. Clement, on the other hand, is continually concerned with the history of salvation, emphasizing the double movement, of Christ downwards in incarnation and of the true Gnostic upwards to the spritual realm (146).
(b) Short sequences
(i) Str. 2.5-6, based on Post. l-24. Clement takes over the biblical markers furnished by Philo (Ex. 20:21, 33:13, Gen. 22:4), substituting Jer.
23:23 for the last text. Both authors address the question of how God is to be attained by wisdom or knowledge. Clement himself adds the theme of the hidden character of the truth. Interestingly he appears to have wound through his scroll backwards on this occasion (152).
(ii) Str. 2.46-52, drawing on Congr. 83-106, Post. 22-29. Once again various biblical texts are taken over from Philo. Clement’s chief interest is once again man’s orientation towards God in gnosis, giving stability to the soul. The interposition of extracts from Philo-especially those concerning symbolism of the numbers 3, 9 and lO-is particularly abstruse. Indeed it is only possible to make sense of the train of thought if one is aware of the Philonic background (159).
(iii) Str. 5.67-68, drawing on Sacr. 84, 95-100. Philo’s exegesis of Lev.
2: 14 is connected up to his attack on the use of anthropomorphic language R” On the textual value of Clement’s usage see Wendland’s article cited above in n. 19, and my own analysis of the textual transmission of this particular treatise in Runia (1991~).
j’ At 11 I Van den Hoek finds it ‘striking’ that Philo allegorizes so little in this work. This may have above all a formal reason, because the treatise belongs Exposition of the Law, which contains relatively little allegory. Elsewhere Philo is just as keen as Clement to use allegory in order to raise the Law to a higher spiritual level.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 141
to describe God through the theme that neither God nor the true gnostic is subject to the passions.
(iv) Str. 5.71-74, drawing on Post. 14-20, Somn. 1.64-66. The chief theme here is the notion of place (&co<), which in one sense can and in another sense cannot be applied to God.32 The treatment here is more philosophical than in the earlier use of Post. in Book II. It is worth noting that Clement is the only early Patristic author to cite Gen. 22:3-4, clearly deriving the text from his reading of Philo.
(c) Isolated references
Van den Hoek sifts through the remainder of the identifications made by the editors. It turns out than many texts referred to are really too general to indicate a direct relation, so she finds herself disqualifying quite a number passages as D’s according to the classification noted above. Nevertheless a long list of A’s and B’s is retained (C’s occur less often).34 The more important themes and topics contained can be summarized as follows:
(i) Pentateuchal motifs, including etymologies of Patriarchal names;35 (ii) many more texts on theological themes;
(iii) man’s relation to God, e.g. in the themes of ‘following God’ (2.69), and
‘likeness’ (bpoioot~, 2.100, 5.94);
(iv) a number of texts in which Platonism and Philonic themes are strikingly brought together (1.168,4.3,4.155, 163, 5.93-94).
(v) various ethical themes.
It is apparent from this summary that in these isolated passages many of the same Philonic motifs used in the longer sequences reappear.
We turn now to the conclusions that Van den Hoek reaches on the basis of the extensive analyses just outlined. These can be brought together under four headings.
1. It is necessary to make a sharp division between Philonic works that Clement uses in extenso (Post., Congr., Mos., Virt.), works he certainly refers to but in a much briefer fashion (Leg., Cher., Sacr., Somn., QG), and works he appears to have read but only recalls from memory (e.g. Opif.) j2 An important theme also in the Apologists; see above $6.3 and n. 69 on Athenagoras.
Clement’s preoccupation may result from disputes with the Valentinians (172, citing Le Boulluec).
j3 Based on Biblia Patristica ~01s. l-4. Origen cites the text at Horn. in Gen. 8.6 without comment. See further Harl (1986) 193. On the Platonic themes here in relation to Philo see below $8.5 (b). See also the extensive discussion in Wyrwa (1983) 272-278 (neglected by Van den Hoek), who regards 973-74 and $78 as especially interesting ‘weil hier Platen in schulphilosophischer Deutung aufgenommen und mit Philon zusammengebracht ist (272).’
34 See the statistics on 223-224. The disqualification of certain texts, however, is certainly too severe. For example it is unwise to label the explicit reference to Philo at I .72.4 with a D ( 179), for, as we saw above at n. 13 Clement may be referring to the Hypotherica.
j5 Cf. 222; more on these in Treu (1961).
142 CHAPTER EIGHT
(210). In his use of the first group Clement uses a very distinctive method or technique (214ff.). The Philonic exemplar is considerably abbreviated, generally by first quoting a few lines verbatim, then paraphrasing a section, then jumping to a following quote, and so on. The sequence is determined by the unfolding of the scroll of the original, usually in a forward direction, but on one or two occasions in reverse. The jumps that are made are often determined by the biblical texts in Philo to which Clement is attracted.
There can be no question of plagiarism, however, for Clement is constantly in dialogue with his source (216). In some passages Philo is not the only author consulted, but in a ‘process of accumulation’ citations from other authors are added in a highly associative (and sometimes rather abstruse) way (216). A puzzling aspect of Clement’s usage that remains to be ex- plained is why his use of Philo is predominantly anonymous (we recall only four explicit references), whereas in the case of other authors-whether pagan or Jewish or Christian or Gnostic-he usually keen to name his sources.36
2. Much of the material drawn from Philo has an apologetic background which makes it highly suitable for Clement’s purposes (218). Very often, however, it is also possible to discern a specifically polemical concern be- hind the appropriation, especially in relation to heretical opponents such as Gnostics (esp. Valentinians) and followers of Marcion3’ and church mem- bers who have no time for a philosophical understanding of Christianity (220).
3. What are the criteria that Clement uses in his selection of Philonic material? Here Van den Hoek reaches the most important conclusion of her book. It is particularly the biblical component of Philo’s thought to which Clement is strongly attracted (220). Almost exactly half of all Clement’s certain borrowings (61 out of 125) are directly related to biblical interpre- tation. Of these 35 involve allegorical interpretation, 26 biblical exposition without the use of allegory. A second large component consists of borrow- ings that focus on philosophical or theological concepts, i.e. 59 out of the remaining 64 instances. The main subjects here are the (1) doctrine of God, (2) knowledge and wisdom concerning God, (3) ascent, contemplation and becoming like God (bpoioot<), (4) the virtues, and (5) some philosophical classifications. But here too, many of these passages are directly related to biblical texts (31 out of 59). This means, in fact, that a remarkable 74% of Clement’s borrowings are related more or less directly to biblical exegesis.
4. Finally Van den Hoek draws some noteworthy conclusions on the j6 Van den Hoek does not actually draw attention to this problem in her 1988 study, but raises it at (1990) 190: ‘His borrowings are often literal, and he often mentions his source by name. Philo remains strangely unacknowledged, but this omission is an exception rather than the rule.’
j7 By the time of Clement the notion of ‘heresy’ is firmly fixed, as studied in great depth by Le Boulluec (1985) 263-438.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 143
shifts in meaning that have taken place between Philo and Clement. She emphasizes two points. Firstly, Philo’s thought is predominantly theocen- tric and cosmocentric, focussed on the history of creation. Clement is not uncomfortable with this background, but consistently gives the material an wthropological turn, focussed on the history of salvation which has the incarnated Logos, Jesus Christ at its centre.38 Secondly, the role of the Law is different in the two authors. For Philo the Law of Moses is primary, incorporating all the virtues in its prescriptions. Clement has a markedly positive attitude to the law, but for him it must remain subordinate. It leads
to Christ, but is simultaneously brought to fulfilment by him. Awkward prescriptions in the Mosaic law are allegorized away. In Philo virtue is coupled closely to the Law; Clement, in contrast, subordinates it to wisdom and knowledge. Virtuous action consists in following Christ and culminates in martyrdom, a notion that is quite foreign to Philonic thought.
The concluding words of the study summarize its findings in a trenchant way (229):
Philo’s vision that made it possible to link philosophical concepts with the bib- lical message was of great influence... On this track Philo found a follower in Clement; the latter hungrily swallowed Philo’s words and eagerly absorbed his thoughts; he used Philo’s inventions and misused them to provide his own.
Many of the twisting threads of Clement’s theological thinking are taken from Philo but they are woven into a very different tapestry.
The exceptional value of this monograph for our subject is immediately apparent. Clement is one of only two authors whose use of Philo has now been studied in a methodologically conscious way.39 The study is honest about its limitations. It does not cover the entire subject. Only the Stroma- teis have been analysed; Clement’s other works fall outside its scope.40 The larger subject of Philo’s influence on Clement’s thought, and particular- ly on his philosophical and theological views, is addressed at most in an indirect way. We shall return to this question in the final section of the chapter. It is the considerable merit of Van den Hoek’s study that it furni- shes a very accurate basis on which this larger question can be discussed.
4. Other writings
Also in the case of the other writings of Clement, a lengthy process of identification of Philonic material has taken place, largely distilled in the apparatus and indices of Stghlin-Friichtel-Treu. This material has not yet
‘x We might say that Clement anticipates Plotinus and Augustine in this emphasis.
“’ The other is Ambrose in the study by H. Savon; see below 9 14.4.
J’) Dr. Van den Hoek informs me that she hopes to carry out the same investigation on the remainder of the Clementine corpus when time permits.