Running head:

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: THEOLOGICAL DISTINGTIVES IN

EVANGELICAL PERSPECTIVE

A Term Paper

Presented to Professor Joel Scandrett

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Deerfield, Illinois

As a Requirement in

Course 8000

Patristic Theology Seminar

By

James Becknell

September 29, 2011

 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 2

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: BACKGROUND

Titus Flavius Clemens was born circa 140 A.D., likely

in Athens or Alexandria1 and undertook a philosophical

education in the vein of the Aristotelian philosophers of

his generation.2 It appears that Clement wandered about the

known world seeking out a teacher. His pursuit of a

philosophical mentor took him from Athens to Italy; from

Syria to Palestine. He found just what he was searching for

in in northern Egypt in the city of Alexandria. He found

Pantaenus, the ‘Sicilian bee’3 there and began his

philosophical career.4 Alexandria was a place unparalleled

to pursue any scientific or religious endeavor under

heaven, and this certainly played heavily into Clement

landing in this illustrious location. Clement is identified

1
John Ferguson, Clement of Alexandria (New York: Twayne, 1974),
1.
2
Ashwin-Siejkowski and Piotr, Clement of Alexandria: A Project of
Christian Perfection (New York: T & T Clark, 2008), 20.
3
Claudio Moreschini and Enrico Norelli, Early Christian Greek and
Latin Literature: A Literary History Volume One From Paul to the Age of
Constantine, trans. Matthew J. O'Connell (Peabody: Hendrickson
Publishers, Inc., 2005), 250.
4
Everett Procter, Christian Controversy in Alexandria: Clement's
Polemic Against the Basilideans and Valentinians (New York: Peter Lang
Publishers, 1995), 3.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 3

with the founding or co-founding5 of a catechetical school

of Christian education and philosophy.6 He was forced to

flee the city during the persecution of Septimius Severus

in A.D. 202 and apparently, he died outside of Alexandria

around A.D. 211-216.7 The exact nature of the school is

indistinct, but we can be confident a school of thought was

unfolding in a uniquely Clementine mold.8

The five extant works of Clement of Alexandria are

1. Protreptikos (Exhortation to the Heathen/Greek)

2. Paidagogos (Instructor)
3. Stromata (Miscellanies)
4. Who Is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved?
5. Excerpts from Theodotus

The first three are referred to as The Great Trilogy.9 These

are considered a compendium of Clement, describing the

5
Annewies Van Den Hoek, "The 'Catechetical' School Of Early
Christian Alexandria And Its Philonic Heritage," Harvard Theological
Review 90, no. 1 (1997, January 01): 61.
6
Moreschini & Norelli, Early Christian Greek and Latin
Literature, 250.
7
Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought: Volume 1 From
the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon, 2nd ed. (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1987), 190. Gonzalez seems to suggest that he died in
either Cappadocia or Antioch. Generally speaking, other scholars agree
with this assumption.
8
Hubertus R. Drobner, The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive
Introduction, trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann (Peabody: Hendrickson
Publishers, Inc., 2007), 132.
9
Clement Of Alexandria, Alexandrian Christianity: Selected
Translations of Clement and Origen, the Library of Christian Classics:
Ichthus Edition, ed. Henry Chadwick (Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1954), 17.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 4

function of the Word in three stages. This would be the

Word as Exhorter, Instructor and Teacher.

As Exhorter, the Word invites us to abandon paganism

and follow the way of salvation, as Instructor the Word

endeavors to lead disciples, as ancient slaves led

children, to higher standards of behavior and in particular

to liberty from the slavery of passions.10 These works are

10
Gonzalez, 191. In the final analysis of the so-called trilogy,
it seems to have come short and becomes a ‘bi-logy’ with an extensive
epilogue of various notes. This epilogue was not called Didaskalos, as
Clement intended, but ended up with the name Stromata (miscellanies),
likely because of its apparent lack of coherence. Why was the trilogy
cut short? There are no definitive explanations, but there are some
hypotheses. Interestingly, it is in this miscellany that some of
Clements most prodigious ideas are clearly stated. Clement is free to
“expound the highest aspects of his doctrine.” (Gonzalez, 192)This
leads me to believe that this ‘miscellany’ of ideas was not an
incomplete work or a project beyond Clements intellectual capacities,
but an intentional, higher form of education for the advanced student
of the Gospel and philosophy. (Roberts, Louis. "The literary form of
the Stromateis." Second Century: A Journal of Early Christian
Studies 1, no. 4 (December 1, 1981): 211-222.)

It seems to be the hope of authors of such literary works to avoid the

error of feeding “... the memory not the mind.” (Macrobius, Saturnalia
praef. 7) This quote from Macrobius gives us some evidence that this
style of educational material was not uncommon in the ancient world and
it would have been especially welcomed among the Greek thinkers of the
day as an appropriate philosophical challenge that was not arranged in
a sophomoric way. It is clear from his own word that Clement has a
clear intention: Its purposes are pedagogical to stimulate an exercise
worthy of an Olympic religious athlete.

In a meadow the flowers blooming variously, and in a park the

plantations of fruit trees, are not separated according to their
species from those of other kinds. If some, culling varieties,
have composed learned collections, Meadows, and Helicons, and
Honeycombs, and Robes; then, with the things which come to
recollection by haphazard, and are expurgated neither in order
nor expression, but purposely scattered, the form of the
Miscellanies is promiscuously variegated like a meadow. And such
being the case, my notes shall serve as kindling sparks; and in
the case of him, who is fit for knowledge, if he chance to fall
in with them, research made with exertion will turn out to his
benefit and advantage. For it is right that labour should precede
not only food but also, much more knowledge, in the case of those
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 5

the documents we have available for evaluating Clement’s

theology directly.

that are advancing to the eternal and blessed salvation by the

straight and narrow way, which is truly the Lord's. (Stromata
VI.1)

If we critically evaluate Clements own comments about his intended

literary structure and compare this arrangement to other similar
documents of its era, it seems reasonable to accept that Clement is not
just rambling here, but had a strategy that could be seen as an
appropriate end to his trilogy.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 6

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA AND CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

Clement of Alexandria was the initiator of what is now

called Christian Platonism.11 Particularly, Middle

Platonism12 which was a syncretic mash of various Greek

philosophical influences, primarily stoicism and the

Aristotelian/peripatetic school. He united Greek

philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine. While it

is easy to critique Clement for this effort in retrospect,

he really was an innovator in amalgamating philosophy and

Christianity. There are mixed reviews on the result of

this, but it was his effort to appropriate the Christian

faith to his socio-historical milieu. In this regard, he

was a disciple of Justin Martyr in the Christian tradition

and Philo of Alexandria in the Alexandrian school of

theology.13

11
Robert Pierce Casey, "Clement Of Alexandria And The Beginnings
Of Christian Platonism," Harvard Theological Review 18, no. 1 (1925,
January 1): 39.
12
Salvatore Romano Clemente Lilla, Clement of Alexandria: A Study
in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1971), 4.
13
David T. Runia, "Clement Of Alexandria and The Philonic
Doctrine Of The Divine Power(s)," Vigiliae Christianae 58, (2004,
January 01): 257.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 7

Clement, while truly a ‘Platonist’, was following the

Alexandrian religio-philosophical atmosphere. He was not a

passive recipient of these ideas, but sought out the

Alexandrian way as he travelled the world in search of a

philosophical instructor and system. The force of his

effort, along with Philo and other Alexandrian thinkers

helped to establish this so-called school of thought.

H.A. Wolfson, upon evaluating a number of passages

from the Stromata, makes the argument that Clement inherits

his Platonic philosophy from Philo. Wolfson might call him

a Philonic Platonist or a Christian Philonic Middle

Platonist.14 Eric Osborn argues, very effectively, that

Clement had a steady commitment directly to pure Platonic

doctrine. One of the more convincing arguments he espouses

relates to sources cited by Clement. Osborn shows that he

quoted Plato twice as much as he quoted Philo. Here he also

talks about the fact that Clement believed in the

philosophical system of the Greeks, Plato being its chief

prophet.15 According to Clement’s conclusions, Plato and the

Greeks could not be treated lightly because Platonic

14
Harry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers
Volume 1 Faith, Trinity, Incarnation (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1964), 266-270.
15
Stromata, 5.5,14.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 8

philosophy was to the Greeks what the law was to the Jews.16

Now this was a step Philo, undoubtedly, was not willing to

make.

While Clements sources are an important part of

studying his theological contributions17, they do not

explicitly define his theology. This is one of the problems

with trying to trace down the roots of any religious or

philosophical tradition. As Harold Bloom states, in The

Anxiety of Influence, “...the profundities of poetic

influence cannot be reduced to source study.”18 Clement’s

relationship with Philo was one of profound influence

beyond the sources. Just as influence in other arenas does

not spring simply from the sources, I would agree with

Osborn that this relationship is much more complicated than

can be appropriated through source evaluation. On the other

hand, any serious student of Clement will miss a vast

amount of understanding by ignoring his sources.

16
Eric Osborn, Clement of Alexandria (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005), 103-105.
17
Annewies Van Den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria and His Use of
Philo in the Stromateis: An Early Christian reshaping of a Jewish model
(Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1988), 1-4.
18
Harold Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 7.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 9

THE ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE

Another one of Clement’s monumental contributions to

the history of Christian thought comes in his

interpretation of the scriptures from an allegorical

archetype. Clement answers the question, ‘How are the

scriptures to be interpreted?’ decisively: They are to be

interpreted allegorically.

For the Lord says, "He that hath ears to hear, let him
hear," declaring that hearing and understanding belong
not to all. To the point David writes: "Dark water is
in the clouds of the skies. At the gleam before Him the
clouds passed, hail and coals of fire;" showing that
the holy words are hidden. He intimates that
transparent and resplendent to the Gnostics, like the
innocuous hail, they are sent down from God; but that
they are dark to the multitude, like extinguished coals
out of the fire, which, unless kindled and set on fire,
will not give forth fire or light.19

The scriptures are hidden in allegory for specific

reasons.20 One reason is so that we may become inquisitive

and be constantly on the watch for the discovery of words

19
Clement Of Alexandria, The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of
The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D 325 The Fathers of the Second
Century- The Stromata, Kindle Books, ed. Phillip Schaff, Alexander
Roberts, and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal
Library, 2009), Loc. 26765-86.
20
Phillip V. Miller, "New Hearing For The Allegorical Method,"
Perkins Journal 29, no. 2 (1976, December 1): 29.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 10

of salvation. Secondly, the allegorical understanding of

scripture is not suitable for all to attain. It might cause

the recipient harm. The truth is preserved for chosen men,

selected to knowledge in consequence of their faith;

ultimately the style of the Scripture is parabolic.21

While he held that the scriptures were revealed to the

true gnostic in an allegorical sense this did not diminish

the historical sense of the Scripture. How does he strike

the balance between allegorical interpretation and the

historical sense of Scripture? It is in his understanding

of scripture in the layers of various senses.22

Clement’s Doctrine of Various Senses

Clement believes that the realities of this world are

symbols of eternal truths. He holds that things in this

world are true, but have their utmost value as signs aiming

to the world of ultimate reality. The literal and

historical are still proper, but even the factual still has

its greatest value when interpreted as signs or allegories

21
Stomata, 6. 15.
22
Gonzalez, 195.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 11

that show more profound truths in the universe.23 All text

has at least two meanings; literal and spiritual.24

The deeper, allegorical meanings of the scriptures are

the location where Clement roots his theological position.25

The primary meaning in every text cannot be treated as

superfluous, but every Christian is to strive to uncover

the allegorical sense. This is all according to the

manifold love and wisdom of God. He shares the same

scripture with both the ignorant and learned and finds the

way to communicate to them, through the sacred writings, at

their level.26 There can be even more than one allegorical

meaning and for the earnest Christian, there is much to be

learned.

Clement’s Basic Exegetical Principles

The first exegetical principle is that allegorical

interpretation must not discard the primary meaning of the

text, except when this meaning is such that contradicts

23
Eric Osborn, The Philosophy of Clement of Alexandria
(Cambridge: University Press, 1957), 168.
24
Stromata 1.26, 6.15, 7.16.
25
John Norman Davidson Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, revised
Edition (London: A & C Black, 1985), 74.
26
Gonzalez, 197. This nod to the ignorant here is a concession to
the requirements of Christian love, but Clements esoteric approach to
biblical interpretation puts the learned and brilliant student of the
scripture in the position of favor.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 12

what is already known of God’s character and dignity.27

Secondly, each text must be interpreted in the light of the

rest of Scripture. This means, primarily that every text

must be understood within its proper and immediate

context.28 Even this relatively conservative paradigm for

interpretation would lead to extravagant readings, although

there is an attempt here to keep the allegorical method in

check under the authority of the scriptures.29 This held

value for the future Christian interpretation of the Old

Testament, which was one of the chief problems facing the

early church. This made it possible for the Christian to

appropriate the teachings of the scriptures into a coherent

vision of the faith in the New Testament era.30

27
Clement Of Alexandria, The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of
the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 The Fathers of the Second
Century- The Instructor, ed. Phillip Schaff, Alexander Roberts, and
James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library,
2009), 9755-63.
28
Stomata, 3.11.
29
Osborn, Clement of Alexandria, 68-71,
30
Johannes Quasten, Patrology Volume 2 The Ante-Nicene Literature
after Irenaeus (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1962), 3.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 13

CLEMENTS DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS

The doctrine of the Logos is the primary center of all

of the surviving ideas of Clement of Alexandria. The Logos

is the sun of Clements solar system. Quasten captures this

centrality when he states that

Clement attempted to set up a theological system with

the idea of the Logos as its beginning and basis. All
his thinking and reasoning are dominated by this idea.
Thus he stands of the same ground as St. Justin, the
philosopher, but he has advanced far beyond him.31

Whether we believe it to be justified or not, Clement makes

an extraordinarily daring move in appropriating Greek

philosophy into a ‘super-cultural’ Christian view of the

cosmos. It is a cosmology, seeking to explain the entirety

of human history with the Logos as the central figure from

beginning to end and this finds it apex in its

manifestation in the flesh of the man Jesus Christ. The

Logos is creator of the cosmos, the revealer of the God of

the Old Testament as well as the agent behind the

philosophy of the Greeks and then in the full revelation of

Christ incarnate. Quasten says of Clements doctrine of the

31
Quasten, Patrology, 21.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 14

Logos, that it is “... the highest principle for the

religious explanation of the world.”32

The Logos is ...teacher of the world and the lawgiver

of mankind...saviour of the human race and the founder
of a new life which begins with faith, proceeds to
knowledge and contemplation and leads through love and
charity to immortality and deification.33

The divine life has been made available to us through the

embodied Logos. I think that Quastens conservative

evaluation of the centrality of the Logos to Clements

theological system is fair: His system fails to be

‘Christian’ in the sense that what the Gospel holds at its

systematic center is God, while he holds the supreme idea

of the Logos at the center.34

32
Ibid, 21.
33
Ibid, 22.
34
Ibid, 23.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 15

ALEXANDRIAN INFLUENCE ON CLEMENTS PHILOSOPHY

Alexandria was established by Alexander the Great in

around 332 B.C.E.35 This city, founded with great

expectations, quickly became one of the anchor poleis under

Alexander’s realm. It was chief among all Roman city-states

as a place of unparalleled cultural activity.

From the time of Alexander’s foundation of the city to

beyond the Roman period it was the most important
commercial city in the Mediterranean world. A
marvelously cosmopolitan city... an array of
magnificent buildings: the great lighthouse, the
Pharos, two superb harbours to exploit it outstanding
commercial potential and a series of canals linking
Lake Mareotis, the temple of the Imperial Cult, the
famous Museon-perhaps the major center of intellectual
endeavour in antiquity but sadly destroyed in the 270s
during civil conflict- and the Serapeum which in time
became under the Romans the greatest centere of pagan
worship in all of Egypt.36

The Museon was an astounding ancient accomplishment.

Ferguson says that “It was a center of scholarship,

scientific research and literary culture... containing a

zoo, botanical garden, and library of three quarters of a

35
Gonzalez, 186.
36
David Ivan Rankin, From Clement to Origen: The Social and
Historical Context of the Church Fathers (Burlington, VT: Ashgate
Publishing Company, 2006), 113.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 16

million volumes.”37 It really is hard to fathom a center of

culture and study so vast in the ancient world; a pattern

for the coming days of the University.

Other contributing factors to Clement’s vision of the

Christian faith could be attributed to geographical

factors. Egypt was seen as a mysterious land; a place where

the thought life of the Mediterranean world converged,

especially from the eastern world. The Jews in Alexandria

where under the overarching influence of Philo. He had

appropriated Greek philosophy in the Middle Platonic school

and was interpreting the Law and the prophets allegorically

well before Clement of Alexandria came along. There is no

doubt that this had a profound influence on the way in

which Clement interpreted the scriptures. As well, the

Babylonian influence of astrology and the Persian influence

of dualism were also feeding the syncretistic religio-

philosophical milieu. Alexandria was a location set for

individualism, cosmopolitanism and diverse doctrinal

traditions, all of which were at play during Clements

gestation as a theologian. The atmosphere was primed for

this ‘Alexandrine’ school of Christianity.38

37
John Ferguson, Clement of Alexandria (New York: Twayne
Publishers, Inc., 1974), 21.
38
Gonzalez, 187.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 17

WHAT DOES ALEXANDRIA HAVE TO DO WITH WHEATON?

What role does the Clementine brand of Christianity

play for us today? How do we appropriate the Alexandrian

school of Christianity to our circumstances in

evangelicalism in the 21 Century? There are a variety of

ways to claim Clement for todays Church. For one we should

be advised by Clement regarding a way through tough

theological questions. Another consideration for today

could be a means to help us understand our place in

relationship to cultural, political, philosophical and

religious influences on the Church as a microcosm of

society. What can Clement teach us about engaging culture

in a Christian way? What are the limits on this dialogue

between the Academy and Jerusalem? Clement would be one to

cautiously push this relationship to its limits while

trying to keep to a genuinely orthodox theological

position. Another possible place of pedagogy between

Clement and Wheaton is the meaning and purpose of tolerance

for diversity in theological tasks. Finally, Clement is

able to guide us in dialogue within our own traditions of

 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 18

scripture interpretation. What do we hold regarding our

exegetical boundaries interpreting the scriptures? How do

our congregations read the scriptures? Are we either robing

the scriptures of their mystical sense by an overemphasis

on reason or are we over allegorizing and reading scripture

out of context to suit our own denominational traditions?

There are many places to seek Clements advice, but these

are a few that may be helpful for the evangelical reading

of Clement of Alexandria.

Understanding the history and evolution of Christian

thought holds a vital place in our future as a church. If

we carefully observe Clement and the patristic era

Christian thinkers we can avoid repeating mistakes

previously made and where they were successful, we can

model ourselves after them appropriately. Thank God that we

did not have to face down the daunting task of

appropriating the Christian faith in such a rugged era of

theology! What a radically challenging situation to be in.

This makes Clement open to a great amount of criticism, but

also a great amount of admiration for the theological tasks

he accomplished.

We may say that Clement opened the door for the

ultimate corruption of the ‘pure’ Christian faith or we

could alternatively say that he paved the way for

 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 19

Christianity to be a religion for all times and all

generations irrelevant of the culture or epoch. This would

be a profound gift to all future generations of non-Jewish

Christians who would have to fight to apprehend the

Christian faith in the midst of socio-cultural attacks

opposed to the new life in Jesus Christ.

Understanding Clement can help us comprehend our place

in relationship to philosophy and socio-politically

formative issues pressing our faith traditions for

solutions to the problems being posed in real time. How

will we appropriate our faith in the midst of deep,

penetrating social and cultural issues which cannot simply

be ignored? There are many important issues Christians must

engage. The quality of the work that these theologians put

forward during times of great duress gives a significant

clue to the quality of the convictions they held. It is

easy to dismiss the conclusions that Clement came to from

the twenty-first century. But, before the conclusions of

Nicea, what sort of profound conclusions might we have

drawn? The incredible work combined with a profound genius

created a basis for the Christian faith to be understood

for all future generations. If not for the careful and

innovative steps taken by Clement and his predecessors,

would we have what we do in terms of clear Christian

 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 20

traditions to base our life upon? This is a question of

providence and I believe God would have provided other

means. At the same time, we can be grateful that courageous

Christians, like Clement, embraced the challenge of

understanding Christianity in their situation. This is a

prescription of courage for us today. What are the daunting

theological tasks facing the Church? Are we prepared to

wade into the deep waters with the defense of orthodoxy on

our hearts? I pray so.

Clement contributes to a history of genuine tolerance

in a diverse religio-philosophical world. Clement the

cosmopolitan, in caricature, holds a great allure for the

postmodern philosopher: Clement was not tolerant in the

postmodern sense. He was tolerant of any source that could

possess even a granule of truth. He believed that granule,

no matter where it came from, to be from God. Because he

held this view on truth, he was constantly on the lookout

for it in a great diversity of sources. His citations of

ancient sources are vast: 1002 OT citations, 1608 citations

from the NT, 152 citations from Christian literature

outside the canon and 966 citations from among the Greek

philosophers shows his openness to various sources.39 He

39
Annewies Van Den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria and His Use of
Philo in the Stromateis: An Early Christian Reshaping of a Jewish Model
(Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1988), 2.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 21

apparently cited over 30040 different authors in his works!

This was a true bibliophile if ever one existed. The thing

I appreciate about his use of these sources is that he

interacted with them critically. He was not an unyielding

syncretist. He took in the granules of truth and removed

the bones of heresy. While his methods are far from what we

would consider to be conservative today, it is a repeatable

method of interacting with various doctrinal traditions in

a tolerant and yet critical manner. This is a model of

tolerance that theologians today can grasp for and follow.41

Comprehension of the allegorical methods of

interpretation employed by Clement of Alexandria can help

us today as we seek to completely embrace the message

scripture has to offer its readers. While there is an

inherent danger of eisegesis when approaching the

scriptures in this way, caution should be used judiciously.

At the same time, we should not be so cautious as to

exclude powerful and properly biblical messages from our

understanding of God’s communication to us. There are

deeper, symbolic and mysterious aspects to the Book we base

our beliefs upon. If we reason away these aspects of our

40
Clement of Alexandria, Osborn, 2.
41
A.J. Conyers, "Rescuing Tolerance," First Things no. 115 (2001,
August 1): 45-46.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 22

faith, we will miss some of the most poignant messages

available to us. Fear should not be the driver of our

interpretation, but faith.

Because of my highly rationalistic training, this

particular reading of scripture leaves me with an uneasy

feeling. I believe Clement provides some exegetical

boundaries which can help us find a way forward into some

of the wonderful mysteries offered to us in the Bible.42 It

is a way to hold to the value of our rationalistic

evaluation of the scriptures while not abandoning some

deeper, allegorical understandings that could potentially

expand our faith in new and fresh ways as we are guided

along by the Holy Spirit.

While I have offered a mostly sympathetic reading of

Clement, I have not read him uncritically. I am looking for

common ground with him so that we can chart a way forward

with our ancient brethren. I do believe this is the way

Clement would likely read our thoughts. I am concerned

about an idealized, uncritical reading of the fathers, but

I am more concerned about not reading them at all. The fear

of being negatively affected theologically by this author

is mostly unwarranted. I think about how uncritically most

42
Phillip V. Miller, "New Hearing For The Allegorical Method,"
Perkins Journal 29, no. 2 (1976, December 1): 33-34.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 23

Christians will read “Christian” literature today. If we

are going to consume Rick Warren, N.T. Wright, Rob Bell and

Joel Osteen can’t we include a little Clement in our

literary diet? It is my hope that we can consume the works

of ancient writers like Clement with the same spirit he

might interact with our writings, open and tolerant yet

always gleaning for the granules of truth available to

every hungry soul.

Clement has had a profound impact on the historical

development of Christian thought. He engaged in the

pioneering effort to integrate Christian theology with the

profound truths of the philosophical traditions of his day.

Today what we would call this Christian Platonism, but for

the undiscerning it may just be called simply Christianity.

He has left us with the legacy of the allegorical

interpretation of scripture from the Christian vantage

point. This opened the door for a historical evaluation of

the teachings of the Old Testament and a way forward for

the Gentile Christian world to engage the important

teachings found there.

His continuation and expansion on the doctrine of the

Logos plays an important role in the future understanding

of Christology. He also left us with his pupil Origen, who

is one of the most important figures in the history of

 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 24

Christian thought. These contributions, as well as many

others, leave us hungering for a greater appreciation of

Clements lasting influences. It lays the ground for a

lifetime studying his impact on our Christian faith.

 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 25

WORKS CITED

Alexandria, Clement of. The Ante-Nicene Fathers:

Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to
A.D. 325 The Fathers of the Second Century- The
Instructor. Edited by Phillip Schaff, Alexander
Roberts, and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids: Christian
Classics Ethereal Library, 2009.
———. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of The Writings
of the Fathers Down to A.D 325 The Fathers of the
Second Century- The Stromata. Kindle Books. Edited by
Phillip Schaff, Alexander Roberts, and James
Donaldson. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal
Library, 2009.
———. Alexandrian Christianity: Selected Translations of
Clement and Origen. The Library of Christian Classics:
Ichthus Edition. Edited by Henry Chadwick.
Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954.
Ashwin-Siejkowski, and Piotr. Clement of Alexandria: A
Project of Christian Perfection. New York: T & T
Clark, 2008.
Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of
Poetry. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Casey, Robert Pierce. "Clement Of Alexandria And The
Beginnings Of Christian Platonism." Harvard
Theological Review. 18, no. 1 (1925, January 1): 39-
101.
Conyers, A.J. "Rescuing Tolerance." First Things. no. 115
(2001, August 1): 43-46.
Drobner, Hubertus R. The Fathers of the Church: A
Comprehensive Introduction. Translated by Siegfried S.
Schatzmann. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007.
Ferguson, John. Clement of Alexandria. New York: Twayne
Publishers, 1974.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 26

Gonzalez, Justo L. A History of Christian Thought: Volume 1

From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon. 2nd
ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987.
Hoek, Annewies Van Den. "The 'Catechetical' School Of Early
Christian Alexandria And Its Philonic Heritage."
Harvard Theological Review. 90, no. 1 (1997, January
01): 59-87.
———.. Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the
Stromateis: An Early Christian reshaping of a Jewish
model. Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1988.
Kelly, John Norman Davidson. Early Christian Doctrines.
Revised Edition. London: A & C Black, 1985.
Lilla, Salvatore Romano Clemente. Clement of Alexandria: A
Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1971.
Miller, Phillip V. "New Hearing For The Allegorical
Method." Perkins Journal. 29, no. 2 (1976, December
1): 25-34.
Moreschini, Claudio and Enrico Norelli. Early Christian
Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History Volume
One From Paul to the Age of Constantine. Translated by
Matthew J. O'Connell. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers,
2005.
Osborn, Eric. The Philosophy of Clement of Alexandria.
Oxford: Cambridge, 1957.
———. Clement of Alexandria. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2005.
Procter, Everett. Christian Controversy in Alexandria:
Clement's Polemic Against the Basilideans and
Valentinians. New York: Peter Lang Publishers, 1995.
Quasten, Johannes. Patrology Volume 2 The Ante-Nicene
Literature after Irenaeus. Westminster, Maryland: The
Newman Press, 1962.
Rankin, David Ivan. From Clement to Origen: The Social and
Historical Context of the Church Fathers. Burlington,
VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2006.
Roberts, Louis. "The Literary Form Of The Stromateis."
Second Century: A Journal of Early Christian Studies.
1, no. 4 (1981, December 1): 211-222.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 27

Runia, David T.. "Clement Of Alexandria And The Philonic

Doctrine Of The Divine Power(s)." Vigiliae
Christianae. 58, (2004, January 01): 256-276.
Wolfson, Harry Austryn. The Philosophy of the Church
Fathers Volume 1 Faith, Trinity, Incarnation.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 28

APPENDIX A

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Behr, John. The way to Nicea. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's

Seminary Press, 2001.

Bigg, Charles. The Christian Platonists of Alexandria. New

York: Macmillan, 1886.

Brooks, J. A. "Clement of Alexandria as a Witness to the

Development of the New Testament Canon." Second
Cent 9, no. 1 (1992): 41-55.

Chadwick, Henry. Early Christian Thought and the Classical

Tradition: Studies in Justin, Clement, and Origen. New
York: Oxford Univ Pr, 1966.

Enslin, Morton Scott. "A gentleman among the

fathers." Harvard Theological Review 47, no. 4
(October 1, 1954): 213-242.

Grant, Robert McQueen. "Early Alexandrian

Christianity." Church History 40, no. 2 (June 1,
1971): 133-144.

Livingstone, Elizabeth A. The Oxford dictionary of the

Christian church. New York: Oxford Univ Pr, 2006.

Méhat, André. "Clement of Alexandria." In Eucharist of the

early Christians, 99-131. New York: Pueblo Publ Co,
1978.

Molland, Einar. The conception of the gospel in the

Alexandrine theology. Oslo: [s.n.], 1938.
 Clement of Alexandria: Theological Distinctives 29

Roberts, Louis. "The literary form of the

Stromateis." Second Century: A Journal of Early
Christian Studies 1, no. 4 (December 1, 1981): 211-
222.

Stewart-Sykes, Alistair. "Origen, Demetrius, and the

Alexandrian presbyters." St Vladimir's Theological
Quarterly 48, no. 4 (January 1, 2004): 415-429.

Hoek, A. van den. "Divergent Gospel Traditions in Clement

of Alexandria and Other Authors of the Second
Century." Apocrypha 7, (1996): 43-62.

________________."How Alexandrian was Clement of

Alexandria: reflections on Clement and his Alexandrian
background." Heythrop Journal 31, (April 1990): 179-194.

Wolfson, Harry Austryn. "Clement of Alexandria on the

generation of the logos." Church History 20, no. 2
(June 1, 1951): 72-81.

Young, Frances M. "Reconsideration of Alexandrian

Christology." Journal of Ecclesiastical History 22,
no. 2 (April 1, 1971): 103-114.