“Autarchy” in the thought of Clement of Alexandria. A paradigm for establishing a “greed line” in the Indian context

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKOWLEDGEMENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

INTRODUCTION
Title
Statement of Problem
Elaboration of the Problem
Importance of the Problem
Purpose of the Research
Method of Study
Hypothesis
Division into Chapters
Scope and Limitation
Previous Research

CHAPTER – 1 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: LIFE, INFLUENCES AND THOUGHT
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Alexandria
1.3 Clement of Alexandria: Theologian Par excellence
1.3.1 Birth and early years
1.3.2 Philosophy and Influences
1.3.3 Biblical Hermeneutics
1.4 The Trilogy and other writings
1.4.1 Kerygma: The Divine movement and economy of salvation
1.5 Critical evaluation
1.5.1 Photios’ Bibliotheca: Critique
1.6. Conclusion

Chapter 2 Autarkia: in Context
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Philosophy: Handmaid of Christianity
2.3 Autarkia: in Greek Philosophical context
2.4 The Christian context: A Project of Perfection
2.5 Trajectory of Autarchy in Clement
2.5.1 Autarchy and Theosis
2.5.2 The Attainment of Likeness
2.5.3 Christian Perfection: In God
2.6 Social Sensitivity: An essential requisite
Conclusion

Chapter 3 Greed Line and Autarchy in Indian Thought
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Global Crisis
3.3 Poverty, Wealth and Ecology Project of the WCC
3.4 Greed Line
3.5 A Framework: Towards multidimensional greed indicators
3.6 Indian Economic Context
3.7 Indian Philosophical wealth
3.7.1 Principle Thoughts
3.8 Indian Economic Perspectives
3.9 Buddhism: The Philosophical aspiration
3.8.1 Buddhism: The Greaco-Indian connect
3.10 Gandhian Thought
3.10.1 Selected Gandhian Economic and Ethical features
3.10.1.1 Non-stealing
Evaluation
Conclusion

CHAPTER- 4 CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Journal
Documents and Reports
Internet Resources

ACKOWLEDGEMENT

Glory and honour be to the source of all knowledge, the one Triune God

This thesis work forms a significant part of my efforts towards Masters in Theology and is actualized by the extensive support of several enlightened individuals. Let me extend my gratitude towards Met. Dr. Mathews Mar Severios, who guided this research, with his unparalleled knowledge into the subject and comprehensive thought. I also respectfully bear in mind the guidance and support received from Met. Dr.Youhanon Mar Demetrios, Rev. Dr. K.G Pothen, Rev.Fr. Dr. K.M George, and Rev.Fr. Dr. V.S Varughese (Registrar, FFRRC)

These efforts were materialized through extensive engagements and encouragements of my teachers at Federated Faculty for Research in Religion and Culture, St. Thomas Orthodox Theological Seminary, Nagpur and Orthodox Theological Seminary, Kottayam during the course of academic grooming. My heartfelt gratefulness also to the Librarians and staff members at UTC, Bangalore, TMAM, Manganam, MTTS and OTS, Kottayam for facilitating my naive readings. My learning in fellowship of friends and batch mates especially, Fr. Jomon John , Rev. Justin, Selvam Christuraj has been immense. Also, very importantly, this work wouldn’t have been materialized without the constant support and empathy of family and the divine joy in presence of my little angel Sarah as a year and a half old toddler.

In Christ,

Anish John

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

illustration not visible in this excerpt

INTRODUCTION

The economic and financial breakdowns, bankrupt nations and alarming ecological degradation have all constantly raised concerns for linking Poverty, Wealth, Ecology and its legitimacy. Rising Governmental policies and checks against unethical financial gains, unaccounted income by individuals or corporate all directs towards a more subtle ,ethical and social change. Greed and legitimate use of wealth seemingly a spiritual and moral imperative, now seeks discussion even for structural changes in national or transnational policies. As Dr. Rogate Mshana puts it, “The intertwined financial, economic and ecological crises are rooted in greed.” (in the Foreword, The Greed Line, Final Report published by WCC).

The religious fabric of Christianity owes an unprecedented responsible attitude to the concerns of Greed, poverty and wealth. This concern is a responsibility of diakonia^[1] not of any exclusivist superior claims in a Pluralistic context. World Council of Churches has extended discussions focusing on poverty, wealth and ecology since its 8th Assembly at Harare, 1998 directly with AGAPE (Alternative Globalization Addressing People and Earth) process. Also, the WCC’s motto of preferential option for people in poverty remains relevant today.^[2]

However, the Early Christian wealth of Social sensitivity and Philosophical tradition of Patristics remain unexplored in contemporary discussions. Christian Church possesses in its literature an abundant and incomparable treasure. But it is an inheritance that must be reclaimed by each generation.^[3] The concept of “Autarchy” (Autarkia) in Clement of Alexandria catalyzes thought towards a new ethical and moral paradigm to counter greed. In the Indian context of widespread poverty, economic disparity and unrestrained exploitation, Autarchy as in Clement would enable a culture of enough and help constructing a Greed line.

Title

Autarchy in the thought of Clement of Alexandria: A paradigm for establishing “Greed line” in Indian context.

Statement of Problem

This study is an exploration into the concept of autarchy in Clement of Alexandria towards establishing a greed line for Indian Context.

Elaboration of the Problem

The concerns of wealth and poverty, its legitimate purpose, catalyzed by recent economic recessions have all raised alarms for constructing a “just” and “enough” economic model. The issues of structural greed and poverty are being persistently discussed in economic consultations at national and international levels. The World Council of Churches had opted, “Economy of Life: Overcoming greed to eradicate poverty” as a major theme for ecumenical conversations at its 10th General assembly held at Busan, 2013.

The word greed itself is generic and pejorative. However, in economic parameters it is an interesting fact that there exists a bench mark for the minimum level of consumption or per capita income of a person referred to as ‘poverty line’; on the contrary, the upper limit of consumption remains unbounded. Greed line is thus the upper limit of a legitimate consumption or share of goods. Wealth is essentially seen as a blessing in Christian understanding. However, it also seeks a greater responsibility and commitment towards the cause of the poor.

While the biblical tradition does not provide direct guidance for the contemporary effort to identify a “wealth line” or a “greed line”, it points to a relatively consistent normative framework for considering the social responsibility of wealth and condemning the greedy accumulation of property and wealth as idolatry. This framework was adapted and developed further in the early church.^[4]

Autarchy or self-sufficiency is an approach widely discussed in cynic and stoic philosophy; however, primarily explored in Christian perspective by Clement of Alexandria. His works are especially noted for their intellectual proximity to stoicism, illustrated by his use of the concepts such as autarchy and neutrality of goods. Alexandria was one of the largest cities in the Roman Empire, a cosmopolitan place with considerable wealth, especially through trade, and highly developed culture of learning. Given this context and his own background, Clement addressed himself to the educated and reasonably well off members of the community. While he attacked the conspicuous wealth and luxury of the elites, he did not question wealth as such, nor did he believe that poverty in itself was meritorious. His approach to the question of poverty and wealth is inner detachment from wealth, whose main purpose is to provide for the basic needs of daily life, and the focus on koinonia, the praxis of sharing property and wealth for the benefit of the whole community. Since wealth is a gift from God, it should be used to meet the needs of those who lack the means for their sustenance.

Martin Hengel summarizes his teachings in the following terms: Clement counters the extravagance of the well-to-do...with reasonable, disciplined moderation which is guided by the “Logos”...and gives full share to the neighbor in need. The aim of this instruction by the Logos is not a flight from the world, but a reasonable, moderate and at the same time generous use of worldly goods, thus in clement traditions of Jewish wisdom, Stoic ethics and the message of the New Testament, combine in the specific situation of the Alexandrian church in a new synthesis which is to point the way forward for the later church.^[5]

Clement of Alexandria in his Paedagogus (2, I, 132) defined: “Just as the measure for the shoe is the foot, so is property related to the needs of the body”. God created the world in order for us to use it; however, we earn material goods so as to achieve autarchy. Autarchy breeds good men for society, especially when it is accompanies by love. ( see also Stromata, iv, 5), Rich Man’s Salvation (XIV).

Clement does not seem to outrageously condemn wealth and luxury such as, for example, fine clothes worn by Christians and their attendance at public baths, rather he rejected the excessive use of it (a kind of inner detachment). Thus while interpreting the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Clement warned the wealthy of the danger for their salvation. According to our Lord's teaching, he urged the rich to give generously to the poor, contending that this injunction shows Christian charity. To such well-off Christians he addressed his later volume Can the Rich be Saved ? Clement advised his readers not to let life's material goods or greed get in the way of better concerns. He argued that property itself does not bring a man closer to God.

The researcher intends to consider certain parameters or indicators for evolving a better understanding of autarchy which are:

- The Economic behavior
- Money and Interest
- Wealth: accumulation, distribution and Retention
- Social structure of economy
- Koinonia
- Gluttonous consumption , etc.,

Importance of the Problem

The growing global economic and financial crisis, far spread income disparities have all raised alarms to develop some theologizing as part of our struggle to overcome greed and injustice. The Indian background–its economical, political and social disparities all relate perfectly to the conditions dealt with by Clement of Alexandria. In Indian context special emphasis on ‘plain living’ which helps in cutting down wants and promotes self-sufficiency is the basic guiding principle of Gandhi’s economic thought. An exploration in Indian context remains a valid position for Autarchy.

Also, absorbing insights from the Church Father in his efforts during the 3rd century Alexandrian Christianity would surely guide us towards a profound progress for establishment of a “greed line” (largely as a moral concept) in Indian context.

Purpose of the Research

The intent of this research is to explore the wealth of Patristic “autarchy” in Clement of Alexandria towards establishing a paradigm for “greed line” in Indian socio-economic context.

Method of Study

The research is mainly analytical and reflective. It will be analyzing the works of Clement of Alexandria to trace the concept of “autarchy” and its means, towards establishing a greed line in Indian context.

Hypothesis

Exploring Autarchy as an ethical and moral concept towards a new paradigm for constructing Greed line in Indian context.

Division into Chapters

Chapter 1: Clement of Alexandria: Life and Thought

Chapter 2: Autarkia in context

Chapter 3: Greed line and Paradigm of “Autarchy” for Indian Context

Chapter 4: Conclusion

Scope and Limitation

- The concept of greed line is developed and understood largely at an ethical and moral level, devoid of any attempts to define it as a pure economic term or pattern ( as poverty line) Greed line is thus the upper limit of a legitimate consumption or share of goods in an ethical and moral terms.
- This study is an attempt to build a pattern for establishing a greed line in Indian context of far spread economic disparities especially in “Gandhian” thought of self sufficiency.
- The study lacks availability or use of original texts by Clement of Alexandria, and is limited to the available translations (mostly in English).

Previous Research

No direct research material is available to the extent of researcher’s knowledge. However, linking discussions are traced in the article by Kondrad Raiser, “Theological and ethical considerations regarding wealth,” in WCC Ecumenical Review (October, 2011) and in the Final report and supporting studies published by WCC in 2014(as a report of the Greed line study group, WCC), titled “The Greed line” edited by Rogate R. Mashana and Athena Peralta.

CHAPTER – 1 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: LIFE, INFLUENCES AND THOUGHT

1.1 Introduction

Clement of Alexandria is a towering figure of the Early Christian age (2nd A.D). He was an architect of Christian Hermeneutics and Biblical Scholarship par-excellence. Jerome’s high praise that “of all Fathers he (Clement) was the most learned” (Epist., LXX, 4), speaks for itself. He very well treaded the path of synthesizing Greek Philosophy and the Christian message. Clement believed that “Philosophy is of divine origin”^[6] and that was unimaginable to the contemporary Christian mind of his times. An outstanding exponent of the theology of the Alexandrian School, believed to be the first Christian university.

The wide range of writings of clement posses a wealth of Greek philosophical concepts wed into Christian faith. And the concept of “Autarchy” evolves in such a philosophical context for Clement as a virtue of Christian faith, an ethical morale.

1.2 Alexandria

It is generally believed that, Christianity must have taken root early at Alexandria.^[7] As W.H.C Frend describes, “Alexandria had already begun to be a centre for the Christian mission by 180 A.D. The city was the main port for a varied trade between the eastern Mediterranean, the Red sea, and beyond the Gulf of Aden across the Indian Ocean to the Malabar Coast. There were also contacts with an important town just south of Pondicherry (Poduca) where quantities of fine Roman tableware (samian pottery) and amphorae have been found.”^[8] It was the second city of the Roman Empire, the centre of flourishing trade and commerce, with a population about half a million. This included a large Jewish populace. The learned Jew Philo, elder contemporary of Paul, mentions that the Jews in Alexandria and all Egypt totaled about a million. And it was the home of that Hellenistic Judaism of which Philo’s works are an outstanding monument.^[9]

As Norman Russell, gives a realistic view of the situation, explaining that the Church in Egypt (Alexandria) has left no archaeological evidence dating from before the fourth century to help us trace its race and development. Written sources are also few Eusebius offers no information for the period before the last decade of the second century beyond a bare list of bishops with an indication of their date. It is only with Bishop Demetrius (189-232), in whose episcopate Pantaenus, Clement, and Origen were active, that Eusebius has reliable material to draw on. This near-invisibility of the early Egyptian Church may be explained by the vicissitudes of the once large Jewish community that in the earliest years must have formed the Church’s matrix.^[10]

Alexandria was also a cultural centre of the highest importance and was one of the leading intellectual centers of the Roman world. It had two important libraries, and students gathered there to study literature and especially science –among its alumni we hear of Euclid (450-380 BCE) and Galen (C.E 200). In fact it was what we should nowadays call a university town. The library is believed have been open for public since the time of Augustus. There was also the Serapeum, with its significant ‘daughter library’, and many schools, both public and private, which attracted students from all over the Mediterranean.^[11] Alexandria was also a religious centre. Worshippers of every creed were to be found there. The pagan deities, the Roman Emperors, the local native cults, all had their shrines there.^[12]

1.3 Clement of Alexandria: Theologian Par excellence

In Clement’ of Alexandria (c.150-215), the outstanding "interpreter of Christian faith in the early centuries, we encounter a true bridge-builder between Christian faith and secular culture.^[13] Clement was a traveler, always moving on. He invites Greeks to desert to God’s side and to enjoy the danger of change (prot 10.93.2). In his quest for knowledge, he left home and travelled to teachers around the eastern Mediterranean, moving from Italy to Egypt.^[14] Clements’s life work was a war, waged on two fronts; to approximate Christianity to notions drawn from Graeco-Oriental syncretism and heterodox Judaism.

1.3.1 Birth and early years

Very few facts are directly known to us concerning the life of Clement of Alexandria. His title comes from the city which was the scene of all his important work; but an early tradition spoke of him as being an Athenian by birth, and this may be correct. The date of his birth can be fixed roughly at 150 A.D. We are told nothing of his parentage or early training. It seems clear, however, that he was not a Christian to begin with. He is so well acquainted with the mystery cults that there is a strong probability that he had been initiated into some of them. We have it on his own authority that he wandered through many lands and heard many teachers. Six of these he singles out for mention, though not by name; they were “blessed and memorable men," who spoke "plain and living words." Doubtless all of them were Christians. The last of the six, who was "first in power," and whom he found in Egypt, is almost certainly Pantaenus, then head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria.^[15] A mention of the School of Basilides, usually considered a Gnostic teacher is imperative at this juncture. Like that of Clement the intellectual background of Basilides was a mix of Stoic ethics and Pythagorean theology, later widely regarded as characteristic of the Platonist Philosophy of the Hellenistic age.^[16] Clement staunchly objected the deterministic scheme of salvation and the implied ethical consequences in Basilides. However, as Norman Russell points out, Clement did study Basilides and his son Isidore’s writings carefully.^[17]

In the famed passage Clement tells us about his education (Strom., I, II): “This book is not written to show off my skill as a writer; it is rather that Iam treasuring up notes for my old age, a remedy for forgetfulness. They are intended simply as a picture and rough sketch of those clear and living teachings and of those blessed and truly honorable men whom I was privileged to hear. Of them one was an Ionian who taught in Greece. Others were in Magna Graecia [I.e., Southern Italy]; of them one came from Coele- Syria, the other from Egypt. Others lived in the East; of these one was an Assyrian, one a Palestinian Hebrew. After I met the last (who was first of them in importance) I abandoned further search, having discovered him hiding in Egypt. A truly Sicilian bee, he drew honey from the flowers in the meadow of the apostles and prophets, and implanted in the souls of his pupils pure knowledge.”^[18]

For Clement it was at Alexandria that his wanderings for quest of knowledge ceased at least spatially. Soon he became a presbyter of the Church, and taught in Alexandria for more than twenty years, succeeding Pantaenus^[19] as head of the Alexandrian School. Later, at the outbreak of persecution under Severus^[20] in 202 C.E, he left Alexandria, never to return. We get one more glimpse of him; in 211 C.E., he was the bearer of a letter from Alexander, afterwards bishop of Jerusalem, to the Church at Antioch. In this letter he is described as “Clement the blessed presbyter, a virtuous and esteemed man . . . who upheld and extended the Church of the Lord." Alexander was one of Clement's old pupils, and a fellow-pupil with the great Origen. Clement must have died not long after this letter was written; for the same Alexander, writing to Origen a few years later (around 215), speaks of him together with Pantaenus as “those blessed men who have trodden the road before us."^[21] Clement with his first hand experience and interactions with the contemporary world around remains for ever a wider Christian Philosopher –Theologian.

1.3.2 Philosophy and Influences

Clement has been seen variously by different interpreters, and this owes to the versatile thought pattern. One is instantly reminded of St.Paul’s words, “To the Jews I became as a Jew...To those outside the law I became as one outside the law.” (I Cor.9:20-21). Meanwhile, one extolled Clement as a Christian liberal, while another explored his rich store of citations. Many have struggled with his literary form. One was drawn to the richness of his call to piety and perfection. Another discerned a logical pattern, which permeated his thought. More recently, some writers have pointed the depth of his penetration of Plato and others his understanding of true philosophy. However, it is truly evident to say that clement, more than any other early Christian writer knew and enjoyed Greek philosophy and literature.^[22]

As for Clements’s his favorite theme was that the world was prepared by Greek philosophy for the Christian religion. Among all the schools, Platonic, Stoic, Cynic, Pythagorean and even from that of Epicurus, he had something to gain, and except the last mentioned, he abandoned none of them when he found his permanent resting place within the Church. No man of his age knew better what philosophy could provide and where philosophy fell short. And, in so far as he had learned this in his student days, Athens rendered him a great and abiding service.^[23]

In spiritual matters Clement called for philosophical exploration and movement: he exhorted Greeks to turn to Christ, to follow Christian morals in every detail of behavior and finally to become wise in the mysteries of Christ. Practical problems drew attention and analysis from his inquiring mind. Despite his criticism of Gnostic theosophy, he followed the flight of Theodotus^[24], exploring new questions and problems. The Christian should never abandon his simple faith, but he should always be moving on in his journey towards wisdom and the likeness of God. Saturated with study of this culture, he belonged to Alexandria, a city which was ruled by it. Clement displayed that heritage as clearly as Tertullian displayed the Roman heritage of Carthage. Alexandria was a cosmopolitan city that had a population of Greeks, Jews, Egyptians, other native Africans and Romans. It had a dominating position in trade. It also had a long literary tradition and a special Platonic tradition which Eudorus^[25] represented. Its libraries were central in its learning. Clement quotes more than 300 different literary sources for more than a thousand references to other writers. Jewish-Hellenistic works were also available to Clement. Philo was a major influence, and minor influences came from Demetrius, Aristobulus, the Sibylline oracles and others. Interestingly, the story of the Alexandrian origin of the Septuagint emerges in a second-century tradition which is found in Clement and Tertullian, Justin, Irenaeus and elsewhere. Clement exhorted pagans to turn to Christ with kerygmatic fervor. His language was tied closely to the text of scripture which was ever in need of transposition from vision to metaphysic. Logic for Clement always helped to expound scripture and to defend its truth.

1.3.3 Biblical Hermeneutics

The writings of Clement are considerable in extent, and remarkable in character. Hardly a page can be found without some Old and New Testament reference or exposition.^[26] His achievement began from a grasp of divine love as the core of the Christian gospel. God is not God unless he be both father and son, for the divine being is the love which joins father and son. God is love and the revealed mystery of this love is the gospel. Clement’s faith in one God is expressed in both philosophical and biblical terms. God is one because he is one and nothing but one (a simple unity), and because he is one and universal.

From this scheme he explained the duality which he found in the Johannine account of God, who is father and son, God and word etc. Clement used the relation between simple and complex unity, between father and son, claiming that in philosophy as in the bible they could not be held apart. The reciprocity, which joined them, is central to his thought. He speaks (Paed 1.5.24.3) of the great God who is the perfect child, of the son in father who is father in son. He quotes Is. 9:5, 6 where the Holy Spirit tells him of the great God who is perfect child in newness and perfection. Elsewhere, he speaks of the undefiled God, who has taken the form of man, who is the servant of the father’s will, who is both word and God, who is in the father and at the right hand of the father and who has the form of God as he has the form of man (paed 1.2.4.1). One can see how Clement follows the Platonic logic of simple and complex unity (Parmenides 137c–142). God is the first and oldest first principle and the cause of all things. Nothing can be predicated of him, for he is neither a whole nor a collection of parts. He has no limit, form or names, so all the names we give him are improper. We choose the best names to support our understanding and to indicate the power of God. He cannot be proved because there is nothing prior to him and he is known only by the grace and the word which proceed from him (Paed.5.12.81f). Yet the same God, as divine logos, is the creator and sustainer of all things.^[27] Interestingly, Clement doesn’t array into writing a commentary on scripture but exploring the logos theology of the Fourth Gospel, the drama of salvation drawn from Paul and a sense of the relation between God and man as it runs through the whole of scripture. Scripture sets for him the problems of theology and controls the formation of his thought. He is a Platonist as well as a biblical theologian.^[28]

Eric Osborn explicates the features of Clement’s Biblical expertise when he writes, ‘For one of his best modern interpreters, Clement’s fusion of prophecy and Plato opens the way to a biblical theology.’ Again, Clement finds in scripture the progress of the soul to God. To sum up, in ‘his profound and concrete religious sense, in the richness of his theological ideas, in his reflection upon the nature of symbolism which is present in the natural world and especially in scripture, by his continual investigation into the problems of the knowledge of God and in the relation of Greek philosophy and Christian faith’, Bluntly put he goes beyond exegesis to biblical theology.^[29]

1.4 The Trilogy and other writings

It is believed that Clement replaced Pantaenus as the head of the so called ‘catechetical school’ in Alexandria and began teaching sometime in 190, but was forced to relinquish the role and flee Alexandria during the persecutions of Severus in 202. It was probably during this time that he wrote the works that are collected under his name.^[30]

As Eric Osborn explicates, “Movement marks the plan of Clement’s writing” (a detailed salvific movement also discussed under next heading). Clement follows the logos who exhorts pagans to desert their falsehood for the truth of God, instructs them in the ethics of Christian practice, then goes on to teach the true knowledge of the mysteries of Christ.^[31] Following this plan, Clement’s major works form a trilogy: (a) The Exhortation to the Greeks (Protrepticus), (b) The instructor (Pedagogues), (c) The Miscellanies (Stromateis). The Title Stromateis was not uncommonly used in Clement’s age for writings without any strict order and containing varied subject-matter. In the manuscripts there are eight books of the Stromateis, and Eusebius of Caesarea thought the whole work was complete in the eight books before him. But the eighth book was evidently not intended for publication, and consists of notes of a preparatory nature on which Clement draws in the first seven books. Probably it was appended to the incomplete work after Clement’s death. As to how many books Clement meant to write we cannot comprehend. Towards the end of Book VII (cf. also VII, 89) he writes of continuing further. Also, the surviving minor works compound the sense of movement. There is a sermon on the salvation of the rich man (Quis dives salvetur ? and a fragment on patience to the newly baptized. The former written to reassure his wealthy and cultured Christian pupils that Christ condemned only the wrong attitude to wealth, not wealth as such.

Numerous fragments of other works are quoted in later writers, and the manuscripts also preserve two works which throw important light on Gnosticism entitled “selections from the Prophetic Sayings”(Eclogae Propheticae) and “Epitomes from the Writings of Theodotus and So-called Eastern Teaching of the Time of Valentinus”(Excerpta ex Theodoto). Of the latter there is an edition with English translation and notes by Dr.R.P Casey (1934). It is scarcely intelligible without an extensive commentary.^[32] Eusebius cites works which are lost, except for fragments: On the Passover, On Fasting, Against Judaisers, On Providence.^[33]

1.4.1 Kerygma: The Divine movement and economy of salvation

Eric Osborn in a very subtle and apt manner describes the Divine movement, “From invitation (Protrepticus) through instruction (Pedagogues) to perfected humanity (Stromateis VII) is as decisive as are the earlier ages of the plan of salvation.”^[34] Clement in his writings ever uses the language of movement to describe God, salvation and humanity. Clement’s Exhortation to the Greeks is a lyrical work beginning with a description of the gospel as the new cosmic song which supplants the old songs of the Greeks and which can turn stones into men. The new song overcomes the dullness of those whose hearts are petrified against truth. The exhortation culminates in an offer of salvation.^[35]

Further, the beginning of Clement’s thought, as for other second-century theologians, is the primitive Christian Kerygma, which speaks of a good and only God, and of his plan of salvation, which comes to perfection in Christ and may be received by all. Yet it seems at times that the Kerygma was overlooked while emphasis was philosophical deliberations. However, for Clement Kerygma is pivotal and it emerges at the beginning of Protrepticus (4.59.2); Homer is ordered to be silent in the presence of those who have received the divine likeness of a God who dwells with them and feels for them. These are the chosen generation, the royal priesthood, and the peculiar people of God. They have learned everything from him who came from above and they have come to know the economy, the plan of salvation, of God the supreme disposer (Prot. 4.59.3). With this knowledge, they are able to walk in newness of life. The economy joins the old with the new and begins with God’s creation of the universe out of nothing by his pure volition, an act which he alone was able to achieve (Prot. 4.63.3). The Kerygma begins from God and continues in his economy.^[36] The unity of the divine plan declares God’s unchanging purpose, which is to save the flock of men. It was for this reason that he sent the good shepherd and acted in ways consistent with the fulfillment of his plan (P rot. 11.116.1). In accommodation to his Greek readers, Clement turns first to the account of the philosophers. Their opinions about God are largely wrong (prot 5); but some philosophers have spoken the truth.^[37]

1.5 Critical evaluation

Works of Clement since late 18th century has been critically assessed and questions raised on its authorship. Clement’s ‘trilogy’ of major works raises questions which drew close attention of the academia during the first half of the twentieth century. The crucial passage in the first chapter of the Pedagogues distinguishes between the divine logos who invites men to salvation (protreptikos), then guides them to right action and the healing of their passions (paidagogos) and finally teaches, explains and reveals first principles, clarifying symbolic and ultimate statements (didaskalikos). None have questioned the first two elements of Clement’s threefold economy. Also, the Protrepticus and Paedagogus bear the names which denote their functions. Traditionally, the Stromateis were taken to be the Didascalus. De Faye in 1898 claimed that the Stromateis were too unsystematic to be the final work of Clement, who had intended to write a systematic treatment of Christian knowledge but was forced by his complex environment to write a preliminary work which justified the use of Greek philosophy. The stimulus for the Stromateis lay in the caution of many Christians towards Greek philosophy which heretics had used (it was thought) to the detriment of the faith. De Faye was dominated by a belief in ‘systems’ which was characteristic of his day.^[38]

The views of De Faye were very soon attacked by Heussi^[39], who gave forward an amendment of the traditional view. Again, in 1925, Prat^[40] proposed a diverse version to re-establish in part the traditional claim for the Stromateis. Munck went into greater detail and provided grounds for believing in two trilogies: Protreptikos, Paidagogos, Didaskalo s; and Stromateis I–III, Stromateis IV–VII, and the Physiologia. Munck^[41] claimed that Clement did not produce the final work of either trilogy. However, this attractive solution appeared too systematic for Lazzati, who divided the works into two broad categories, Firstly, those intended for private instruction, and again those directed to the general public. The seven books of the Stromateis and the three commentary works were esoteric. The Protrepticus, Paedagogus and Quis dives salvetur ? were meant for the general public. Yet another interpretation was proposed by Quatember, who argued impressively that Clement’s trilogy referred to three stages of instruction, not to three written works (triology).^[42]

Osborn points out another notable literary comment on Clement from S. R. C. Lilla, who devotes a footnote to the puzzle of the Stromateis. Lilla inclines to the view of de Faye and disagrees with Me´hat: ‘The Stromateis, though dealing in many sections with gnosis, never examines in detail such arguments as cosmology or theology, which represent the content of the higher gnosis and which would fit in very well with the logos didaskalikos, but rather touch them en passant.’ Such a view, however, plays into the hands of E.L Fortin, for whom Clement’s brevity is exactly the means by which the ‘higher gnosis’ is communicated. Lilla concludes that Clement’s reference to a subsequent work, dealing with cosmology and theology, points to the proposed Didascalus.^[43]

Another critical view of the Stromateis was put forward by J. Ferguson, who claimed that they are what the title suggests, a scrapbook of notes in which Clement stored his material.^[44] Clement bit off more than he could chew, and the Stromateis constitute a collection of ideas which never cohere as instruction for Christians seeking higher knowledge. Ferguson claims that on occasions Clement mentions his intentions for the Didascalus: for instance, he will give some account of first causes, some account of the Greek mysteries and will write more on the true Gnostic. However, according to Ferguson these things are postponed and never written. In the Stromateis, Clement is only concerned with scraps; he is merely ‘composing a piece of exhibition oratory...a kind of sketch of words and people, lacking sharpness and vitality’.^[45]

[...]

---

^[1] Ministry; active service, done with a willing (voluntary) attitude.

^[2] Athena Peralta& Rogate R. Mshana , eds., Linking Poverty Wealth and Ecology (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2013), vii.

^[3] John Ernest Leonard Oulton and Henry Chadwick, trans.and eds., Alexandrian Christianity,Vol.2 of TheLibrary of Christian Classics,edited by John Baille,John T.McNeill and Henry P.Van Dusen (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), 9.

^[4] Kondrad Raiser, “Theological and ethical considerations regarding wealth,” WCC Ecumenical Review (October, 2011), 280.

^[5] Kondrad Raiser, “Theological and ethical considerations regarding wealth,”WCC Ecumenical Review (October, 2011), 282.

^[6] John Ernest Leonard Oulton and Henry Chadwick, trans. and eds., Alexandrian Christianity, Vol.2 of The Library of Christian Classics, edited by John Baille, John T.McNeill and Henry P.Van Dusen (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954),19.

^[7] Oulton and Chadwick, trans. and eds., Alexandrian Christianity …, 15.

^[8] W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 286.

^[9] Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and Classical Tradition (London: Clarendon Press, 1966), 15.

^[10] Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 116.

^[11] Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 117.

^[12] Majorie Strachey, The Fathers without Theology (New York: George Braziller Inc., 1958), 136.

^[13] http://www.fatherkmgeorge.info/Books/gospel.htm (29/10/15).

^[14] Eric Osborn, Clement of Alexandria (U.K: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 1.

^[15] G.W.Butterworth, Clement of Alexandria (London: Harvard University Press, 1919), xi-xii.

^[16] Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition …,119.

^[17] Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition …, 119.

^[18] John Ernest Leonard Oulton and Henry Chadwick, trans.and eds., Alexandrian Christianity.Vol.2 of The Library of Christian Classics. edited by John Baille, John T.McNeill and Henry P.Van Dusen (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954),16.

^[19] Head of Catechetical School of Alexandria from around AD 180.

^[20] Septimius Severus, Roman emperor from 193 to 211.

^[21] Oulton and Chadwick, trans.and eds., Alexandrian Christianity,Vol.2…, xii.

^[22] G.W. Butterworth, Clement of Alexandria (London: Harvard University Press, 1919) , 2.

^[23] Rodney A. Whitacre, A Patristic Greek Reader (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 7.

^[24] Theodotus, a follower of Valentinus (an Alexandrian Gnostic).

^[25] Eudorus of Alexandria was an ancient Greek philosopher, and a representative of Middle Platonism.

^[26] G.W. Butterworth, Clement of Alexandria (London: Harvard University Press, 1919) , xiii.

^[27] Robert Rainy, The Ancient Catholic Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1902), 89.

^[28] Eric Osborn, Clement of Alexandria (U.K: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 75.

^[29] Osborn, Clement of Alexandria …,75.

^[30] Andrew C. Itter, Esoteric Teaching in the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria (Boston: Brill Publications, 2009), 7.

^[31] Osborn, Clement of Alexandria …, 5.

^[32] John Ernest Leonard Oulton and Henry Chadwick, trans.and eds., Alexandrian Christianity.Vol.2 of The Library of Christian Classics. edited by John Baille, John T.McNeill and Henry P.Van Dusen (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954),17.

^[33] Oulton and Chadwick, trans.and eds., Alexandrian Christianity …,5.

^[34] Osborn, Clement of Alexandria …, 55.

^[35] Osborn, Clement of Alexandria …, 31.

^[36] Osborn, Clement of Alexandria …,32.

^[37] Osborn, Clement of Alexandria …,32.

^[38] Osborn, Clement of Alexandria …, 5-6.

^[39] C. Heussi’s work, ‘Die Stromateis des Clemens Alexandrinus und ihr Verha¨ltnis zum Protreptikos und Paidagogos’.

^[40] F. Prat’s work, ‘Projets litte´raires de Cle´ment d’Alexandrie.

^[41] J. Munck, Untersuchungen u¨ber Klemens von Alexandria.

^[42] Osborn, Clement of Alexandria …,5-6.

^[43] Osborn, Clement of Alexandria …, 9-10.

^[44] Osborn, Clement of Alexandria …, 9-10.

^[45] Osborn, Clement of Alexandria …, 9-10.