|
Clement of Alexandria and the People of Knowledge
Mary C. Sheridan
“Does He not plainly then exhort us to follow the…life [of
knowledge], and enjoin us to seek the truth in word and deed?” Stromata IV.VI. (p. 155)
Introduction
Before starting a discussion of
Clement of Alexandria’s concept of gnôsis,
how he conceived gnôsis for his group
of Christians, and how gnôsis
would/should affect their lives, we need to understand three concepts hidden in
this title.
First, we must understand something
of Clement’s Early Christian Small Study Group.
Second, a complete discussion of the
term gnôsis is necessary as the bedrock concept to understanding the beautiful
teaching of Clement that he hoped would transform the lives of each member of
his Early Christian Small Study Group.
(Otherwise, why would he have written about gnôsis?)
Third, I have chosen to use the term people of knowledge rather
than man of knowledge for a specific reason. I will discuss the use of this terminology
in some detail as it is an important foundation to understanding Clement’s
concept of how Christians lived; without this discussion much of what Clement
has to tell us will be lost.
After these concepts are explained, I
will elaborate on Clement’s concept of gnôsis;
and how Clement perceived true living of this concept would transform the
Christian’s life.
Clement’s Early Christian Small Study Group
First, we know that Clement’s group had to have been
composed of those we might today call the upper middle class. One important characteristic of Clement’s
group is that we know they were a group that was quite educated. Clement’s writings talk in detail of the
philosophies of his day. Philosophy in
Clement’s day was not strictly an arcane discipline reserved for philosophy
departments in universities as it is today.
Clement’s writings tell us that his group read and
studied intently the philosophers from Plato through to their own time. We know Clement’s group in Alexandria must
have been “fluent” in all the philosophers because Clement discusses in detail
in his Stromata all the philosophies of his time; he discussed these
philosophers and their writings in careful detail, illuminating details that
today only professional scholars consider.
And in those days as today, it took a person of some means to study and
become what we today would call educated.
The Meaning
of Gnôsis
Second, Clement of Alexandria, in his
Stromata, has an extensive teaching on gnôsis. The purpose of this
article is to explain and elaborate the ideal of gnôsis that Clement of Alexandria epitomized and concretized for
the members of his Early Christian Small Study Group. Clement spoke of gnôsis,
and Clement spoke of the man of gnôsis. The word “Gnostic” was used by the
heresiologists, Irenaeus and Tertullian, in the second century and in the late
second and early third century by Hippolytus and Epiphanus. The word “Gnostic,” as used by Irenaeus and
Tertullian, was definitely not a compliment.[1]
To begin this discussion, let us take a moment to
investigate Clement’s use of the word, “knowledge” (gnôsis). [2] Clement
almost never refers to “Gnostics” or “Gnosticism”; but he very often uses the
term gnôsis. Clement also has a
great deal to say about the practice of
gnôsis. A frequent phrase Clement uses is “the man of gnôsis”
(knowledge). A basic search of
dictionary etymology of this Greek word[3]
tells us that the Greek verb ginôskô is a primary verb with a denotation
of “to know”; however, this word has many additional meanings that overlay the
denotation. To simply say gnôsis
means “to know” is a vast oversimplification.
We must delve into the connotations for the subtle shades of meaning
that surround this word.
First, gnôsis is a noun and the verb is
variously ginôskô and gnôskein.
The additional meanings that come with this family of words are
these: When speaking of a personal
relation (as in “knowing” Christ or as in those “God has judged worthy of the
blessings of the Gospel”), the meaning includes “to recognize as worthy of
intimacy and love.” In Hebrew this
meaning is extended euphemistically to the “carnal connection of male and
female,” and also to the physical intimacy of husband and wife. In the New Testament ginôskô is
“employed in…the knowledge of God and Christ, and of the things relating to
them or proceeding from them.” Gnôskein
“denotes [notice the word denotes]…a
knowledge grounded in personal experience” [emphasis added], a “clear
and purely mental perception, in contrast both to conjecture and to knowledge
derived from others.” The denotation of
the noun gnôsis also means “general intelligence, understanding”; but
when used in the New Testament, gnôsis refers to “the knowledge of
God…as offered in the gospel,” the knowledge of “things which belong to God,” a
“deeper, more perfect and enlarged knowledge” of religion as is characteristic
of the “more advanced” in a religion; it also carries a connotation of “moral
wisdom…as seen in right living.”
Clement uses this term prolifically, often referring
to “a man [person] of knowledge (gnôsis),” that is, a person who is
acquainted with, studying to become, in the process of becoming a person with
personal knowledge of, intimacy with, love of the Word (Logos) or
Christ. Thus, when he uses the phrase
“man of knowledge,” Clement tells his readers/listeners[4]
that putting the tenets of philosophy along side the tenets of Christianity
will lead to a personal relationship with Christ.
Clement of Alexandria used all these
meanings and discussed these concepts at length and held up their meaning as an
ideal for his Early Christian Small Study Group.
Women in Early Christian Small Study Groups
Before embarking on the discussion of
the Man of Knowledge, an explanation is required for my peculiar use of the
term “Person/People of Knowledge.” In
order to begin this discussion we must understand the place women held in the
society of the second century C.E. In
Clement’s time women were considered a step above slaves; it was not a matter
of whether women were of the aristocratic class, the free born class, the freed
class, or the slave class.[5] The thinking of the time simply did not
allow for any other concept regarding women.
We must be careful not to project on to Clement and the people of his
time—including women—the thinking of our times, and we must also not expect to
see concepts we may think should be considered expressed in Clement’s time—or
his writings. We must take Clement’s
writings in the context in which they were set, the second century C.E.
So with this thought carefully in
mind, let us consider the following concepts generally accepted as true in the
times of which we are speaking.
Biologically, women were considered “failed males.”[6] Galen (140-199 C.E.)[7]
was one of the most advanced physicians in his time and renowned in the Roman
world. Rebecca Flemming’s study[8]
tells us Galen taught that the materials from which woman was made were
innately corruptible, and that the female individual was “ ‘less perfect than
the male.’ ”[9] Flemming further notes that Galen states that
the demiurge made “half a species imperfect and mutilated” in order to nourish
the fetus.”[10] And once again, Galen states: “ ‘The female is less perfect than the
male.’ ”[11]
Despite being considered “failed
males,” non-Christians gave women surprisingly high offices in both official
and domestic religious rites, some women even serving as priests. Yet when it came to the “bottom line” women
could not hold the highest levels of priesthood; in the many Roman cults’
feminine priests were always subject to masculine priests.[12]
In Judaism, “women were excluded from
the central activity of the rabbis:
with a few outstanding exceptions, women took no part in the passing
down of the tradition through the intensive study of the Torah.”[13] The married woman’s function was to “provide
for the biological continuity of Israel.”
This role was “unambiguously blessed by the rabbis….But it formed a
crushing bar to further religious service.”
The study of the Torah was the “precious privilege of free males.” Furthermore, “the biological fact of
menstruation incurred disqualifications from participation in so many rituals
that it was impossible for a mature woman” to take part in either the study of
the Torah or in many religious services.
This attitude went so far as to be characterized in a “notorious
remark.” This remark, addressed to a
rich aristocratic married woman, was that it was “better to burn Torah than to
allow a woman to handle it.”
Since these beliefs about the biology
of the human body were all that was known of the time, this attitude of the
male as superior to females simply pervaded society. Women accepted their subjugation to men as not only a fact of
life but as the correct social order.
It was in this milieu that Christianity developed.
There was one exception to this
“natural order” of women’s “place” in society.
Some of the Early Christian Small Study Groups, though they likely did
not hold a different view of women’s “place” in society in social practice, did
hold in their theology what some considered shockingly different views of the
place of women in religion.
Elaine Pagels notes without
qualification that during the second century (when Clement lived, wrote, and
was most active), among Gnostic groups, women “were considered equal to men; some
were revered as prophets; others acted as teachers, traveling evangelists,
healers, priests, perhaps even bishops.”[14]
However, Lampe[15]
has some qualifications on the place of women in Christianity in the first two
centuries. Lampe notes[16]
several points about women in Rome; we may extrapolate (with consideration of a
somewhat different cultural milieu) to the situation of women in
Alexandria. Lampe notes:[17]
1.
“The number of Christian women in relation to men apparently increases
in proportion as one ascends the social scale.” It seems also that more socially higher-ranking women lived with
socially lower-class men than did the opposite. Then, Lampe also notes that socially upper-class women were
attracted to both Judaism and Christianity.
2.
“Hermas[18] is aware
not only of Christian businessmen but also [of] Christian businesswomen
[emphasis added] who were active in economic matters and even became nervous
when their business do not go well.”
Eisen,[19] citing
numerous scholars, notes that women in Greco-Roman Antiquity “practiced the
greatest variety of independent professions and callings, that they could have
and indeed did have economic independence.”
Eisen then quotes Meeks noting that there are inscriptions still extant
that tell us “ ‘women were active in commerce and, like their male
counterparts, used some of the money they made in ways that would win them
recognition.’ ” The implications of
this point are that women must have been, if not independently wealthy, of
upper-middle-class status. Women,
therefore, were part of the “Rich Christians” Hermas exhorted to share their
bounty with poor Christians.[20]
3.
“Christianity found a hearing predominantly [emphasis added]
among women in Rome.” Can the same be
said of Christianity in Alexandria?
Clement himself notes the place the wives of the apostles held in the
ministry of the apostles.[21] Clement particularly notes that the wives of
the apostles were “fellow-ministers” who helped with the conversion of
women. Clement also notes women deacons
are mentioned in 1Timothy. Clement
addresses sections of the Paedagogus[22]
and the Stromata directly to women.
In general Clement chastises them for flaunting their fine clothing,
jewelry, etc. One can conclude from
these passages that he would not have so addressed women if they had not been a
part of his Early Christian Small Study Group and if they had not been
of sufficient social standing to be well to do.
4.
“The willingness of Roman women to suffer martyrdom is praised as much
as that of Roman men.”
Here let us digress a bit to discuss
the differences between the way martyrdom was regarded in Rome and how it was
regarded in Alexandria in the second half of the second century. It should be noted that in Alexandria
Clement was not in favor of martyrdom in general and did not encourage
it. Clement gave careful thought to
martyrdom. He spends eight chapters or
portions of chapters in his Stromata discussing martyrdom, praising
martyrs, and refuting Basilides’ concept of martyrdom.[23] But Clement himself decided that he could
not approve of martyrdom for Christians.
He said that a Christian should not avoid death because he/she was
afraid of it. Clement, however, said
that God did not wish
us…to be the authors
nor abettors of any evil to any one, either to ourselves or the persecutor and
murderer. For He…bids us take care of
ourselves. But he who disobeys is rash
and foolhardy. If he who kills a man of
God sins against God, he also who presents himself before the judgment-seat
becomes guilty of his [own] death. And
such is also the case with him who does not avoid persecution, but out of
daring presents himself for capture.
Such a one, as far as in him lies, becomes an accomplice in the crime of
the persecutor. And if he also uses
provocation, he is wholly guilty, challenging the wild beast. And similarly, if he afford any cause for
conflict or punishment, or retribution or enmity, he gives occasion for
persecution.[24]
Clement himself left Alexandria when
the persecution of Septimus Severus threatened at the beginning of the third
century. However, during this same
period of persecution, the father of Origen was martyred when Origen was
sixteen or seventeen. Origen in his
young age was himself so eager to follow in his father’s footsteps to
martyrdom, that Origen’s mother had to hide his clothes to keep him from giving
himself up to authorities as a Christian. [25] It is not difficult to imagine that Clement
and Origen may have had strong disagreements on this point. I wonder if it was this disagreement that
led to what seems to be Origen’s ignoring Clement. It is hard to conceive that these two men did not know each
other; yet neither ever refers to the other.
Perhaps it was the disagreement on martyrdom that led to what might have
been “hard feelings” between them.
Now back to our discussion of women
after our digression on martyrdom.
Individual women did not hold “active leading roles” in the Roman
Church; nor does it seem they held active roles in any Christian Church in any
other city. Interestingly, Lampe notes
that Clement of Rome[26]
emphasizes that women should be subordinate and limit their area of influence
to the home. Clement of Alexandria
admonishes women who adorn themselves with rich clothing and jewels not to
manage the household of their husbands.[27] Interestingly, Lampe notes that the
harshness of such admonition may presuppose that the opposite is the case in
practice.[28] Put more directly, Lampe notes that such
harsh admonitions that women remain subordinate may indicate precisely the
strong influence and control women exercised in their households and
businesses.
Eisen[29]
reinforces Lampe’s thought and adds to and expands on Lampe’s almost offhand
remark. Eisen specifically notes two
different emphases that need to be reconsidered:
1.
“A primary concentration on…‘women as species’ leads to a
reconstruction of male images of women and only indirectly sheds light on the
many-faceted reality of women’s lives.”
2.
“[E]specially in philosophical writings, there is a concept of
gender that assigns women to the household sphere and thus to the field of
reproduction in the broadest sense.”
Having noted these points Ute Eisen
states that very often the “statements and normative regulations” regarding
women as stated in the New Testament, “synodal canons, or the repressive
utterances of individual Church Fathers about women, such as Tertullian,
Ambrosiaster, Jerome, and John Chrysostom ….are often reactions to a
different praxis” [emphasis added].
Eisen states such restrictive statements about women “must be
interpreted as refractions of desire and reality.”[30] Thus, Eisen reinforces Lampe’s point that
women may have exercised a strong influence and control in their households and
in business. In the writings of the men
of the second century such control is acknowledged only obliquely and
negatively by condemnation.
Eisen[31]
further notes a “special problem in the context of a reconstruction of the
history of women.” She specifically
notes: “One central problem…is that as
a rule the masculine plural, functioning as ‘gender neutral,’ is chosen for
describing groups of mixed gender.” But
the use of the masculine plural for the gender neutral has, Eisen cogently
observes, “real consequences.” Eisen
quotes Häberlin, et al.:[32] “ ‘When the masculine form assumes the
function of gender neutrality, the male half of humanity becomes the norm, and
the female half is given a subordinate status.
Through the use of the generic masculine women and their achievements
are rendered invisible.’ ”[33]
However, Lampe does call attention to
some exceptions regarding specific Roman women who were singled out in their
own right: [34]
1.
Grapte, a widow, instructed widows and orphans.
2.
A woman named Marcellina was the founder of the Carpocratians in Rome in
the mid-second century (155-166 C.E.).[35]
3.
Tertullian (160-220), a contemporary of Clement of Alexandria, speaking
of the “conduct of heretics” [Gnostics] and specifically of women who were
Gnostics says: “The very women of these
heretics, how wanton they are! For they
are bold enough to teach, to dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures—it
may be even to baptize. Their
ordinations are carelessly administered, capricious, changeable.”[36] Tertulliann’s statement tells us that women
in the Clement’s time held several offices:
Women taught, exorcised demons, cured people, baptized, were ordained;
that is, women must have acted as priests at Eucharist ceremonies.
4.
Justin Martyr[37]
mentions a woman who “receives her Christian education from…Ptolemaeus.”[38] According to Justin’s story, this lady of
high social standing has a husband who is not Christian. Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) counsels her
extensively regarding her divorce from her husband. It is clear from Justin’s story and the counseling of Ptolemy
that the woman is an intelligent and educated person. It should be noted that this woman and her counselor, Ptolemy,
were followers of Valentinus.
5.
Lampe[39] mentions
the wives of two governors—of Syria and Cappadocia. Both of these women were Christians. The wife of the governor of Syria “intervened with her husband to
prevent the persecution of Syrian Christians.”
Clement’s
Attitude Toward Women
How did Clement regard women? Clement wrote very specifically about the
Christian life and about how the man of knowledge lived. If we then think that often women of the
higher economic classes were drawn to Christianity, gave of their riches to
promote Christianity, and were some of the most devoted Christians, how would
women react to a situation in which only men were considered capable of gnôsis.
There is more than one approach to answering this question. One is Clement’s theological answer; the
second is the practical, everyday-living answer for the life of the Christian. A third consideration is that Clement
himself was a loving family man. Brown[40]
notes the “unflagging, gentle precision of [Clement’s] vignettes of Christian
deportment” which “charm us into believing that we can be with him in the
Alexandria of the second century—dining, holding conversazioni, walking
with spritely steps across the well-clipped lawns of a Hellenistic suburban
villa, even, on occasions, retiring discretely to bed with his spouse.” Such a man must have wanted to find a way to
include the women of his family and his Early Christian Small Study Group in gnôsis.
First let us look at Clement’s
theological answer.[41] First, when thinking about this answer, we
must keep in mind that he and his students knew and believed only what was
thought about the concepts of male and female in their time. The answer to the question of how Clement
regarded women tells us many interesting things. Clement states that souls by themselves are equal; souls are
neither male nor female. Second,
Clement states a woman must become a man; and when she does, she can
become as “manly and perfect.” In the Paedagogus
Clement quotes Paul: “There is neither
Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor freeman; there is neither male nor
female. You are all one in Christ
Jesus.”[42] Thus Clement, in this work that was likely
addressed to his Early Christian Small Study Group as a lecture or homily,
obviously includes women.
In fact, Clement also probably knew
of the Gospel of Thomas. This
text was known among Christians during the first and second centuries.[43] In fact, Meyer goes so far as to state: “The textual evidence for an early date for
the Gospel of Thomas ….may rival that of any of the New Testament
gospels.”[44] The Gospel of Thomas has two
statements that are similar to Clement’s.
The first states: “Jesus said to
them, ‘When you make the two into one…when you make male and female into a
single one so that the male will not be male nor the female be female…then you
will enter [the kingdom].’ ” And the Gospel of Thomas ends: “Jesus said, ‘Look, I shall guide her to
make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you
males. For every female who makes
herself male will enter heaven’s kingdom.’ ”[45] Meyer concludes: “The sayings, coming from the living voice of Jesus, are not what
Jesus once said as much as they are what Jesus continues [emphasis
added] to say.”[46] So, Christians of the second century were
familiar with the Gospel of Thomas and considered the sayings of Jesus
as if Jesus were speaking in the present tense.
Although Clement of Alexandria never
declared himself to be a Gnostic, he had to have been familiar with these
writings. It is clear from Clement’s
own writings that he held to the Gnostic view that women[47]
were equal to men. In Book Four of the Stromata,[48]
Clement states categorically that “women as well as men [are] capable of
perfection.” He enumerates at length
the names of women he considers equal to men; these are women who are mentioned
in the Old Testament, in the various Greek philosophies, and in Philo. In fact, Clement goes so far as to make a
statement that in its day must have been shocking: Clement notes that if a women who wishes to pursue “perfection”
(which for Clement was pursuit of gnôsis),
and her husband refuses to allow her such pursuit, “let her by herself
[emphasis added] earnestly aim at virtue.”
Clement further notes that the pursuit of gnôsis is not possible without education; therefore, Clement also
clearly implies that women must be educated.
Clement straight-forwardly says in this discussion on women and
perfection that the pursuit of “virtue…depends not on others, but on ourselves
above all.”
We might even say that Clement goes
“out on a limb” in his support of women in regard to gnôsis. We must remember
that in the second century a woman needed her husband’s consent for any action
of importance in her life. While this
may seem foreign to twenty-first century ideas, this concept was taken for
granted in Clement’s time. But Clement
states that in a situation where a woman’s husband is not Christian and/or does
not practice gnôsis, the woman should
first try to persuade her husband “to be her associate” in acquiring gnôsis.[49] Clement goes further, including any woman of
a household, and states:
But if one [the male head of the household] keeps
from such a mode of life [the practice of gnôsis]
either wife or maid-servant, whose heart is set on it; what such a person in
that case plainly does is nothing else than determine to drive her away from
righteousness and sobriety, and to choose to make his own house wicked and
licentious.
But if her husband refuses to join
with her, if she is unable to persuade her husband of the importance of gnôsis, Clement states she should then
“by herself earnestly aim at virtue” so as to influence her husband by her
actions; in other words, Clement in effect states the woman should then proceed
to practice gnôsis without his
consent. This must have been a truly
“hot button” issue at the time as Clement then follows this advice with a
chapter on how “A Good Wife” lives and handles her daily life in her home and
with her husband.
In his extensive writings, but most particularly in
his Stromata Clement almost never uses the word “Gnostic,” although
English translations of Clement’s work do use the word without hesitation. Clement refers often to the “Man of
Knowledge”; and we have seen that in Clement’s day, women were not mentioned as
such; but Clement clearly included women in his concept of the Man of
Knowledge.[50] So, from this point on I will use the term
“People of Knowledge” rather than “Man of Knowledge” to indicate the spirit of
Clement and his thought.
Clement and Gnôsis
The entirety of the concept of gnôsis, with all its denotations and connotations, was taken up by Clement of
Alexandria and explained in his last group of writings called the Stromata. The Stromata were written for the Christian seeking an advanced spiritual life.
It is necessary first to establish the place the concept “knowledge”
had in what may be called the “Gnostic” thinking of the time.[51] Specifically, Hans Jonas notes that in the
Valentinian[52]
soteriological system, gnôsis assumed “an ontological status far
exceeding any merely moral and psychological importance.”[53] In Valentinus’ system, gnôsis was the
absolute condition of salvation for the individual and for god because every
private act of gnôsis affected the god.
Christians, though, made gnôsis a qualifying condition of
salvation; Christians (and for that matter Valentinus) taught that the
sacraments, divine grace, and the Eucharistic mystery, were necessary for
salvation. It was the actualization of knowledge in the person that was the important aspect of gnôsis.
Barnstone notes that in all the Gnostic systems there was “a shift from
a God-oriented to a self-oriented religion.
Self-knowledge, not reverence for a deity, leads to salvation in such a
system. In short, Gnosticism is a
personal religion or philosophy whose eschatological goal is the discovery of
divinity within the self.”[54] This shift from a God-oriented system to a
system with a goal of the discovery of divinity within the self, then led to
“knowledge”/gnôsis as the means to salvation.
What Gnôsis Is Not
Clement
of Alexandria himself was extremely specific in what he considered gnôsis
to be and how he considered a person who was working to attain gnôsis
thought, believed, and lived. Clement
was very specific in what he considered gnôsis was not. In fact, he takes an entire
chapter of his Stromata to say what kinds of knowledge were not gnôsis.[55] Clement notes there are many kinds of
“knowledge”: There is experience,
cognition, comprehension, perception, and science—none of these are gnôsis.
Specifically, there is “Knowledge which is an intellectual state”; this
kind of knowledge produces the act of knowing; and this type of knowing
produces the knowledge of facts that cannot be refuted. Clement then states experience is a type of
knowledge which “investigates the nature of each thing.” He notes also that cognition is the
“knowledge of universals by species.”
Comprehension is the “knowledge of what is compared, or a comparison
that cannot be annulled, or the faculty of comparing the objects with which
Judgment and Knowledge are occupied, both of one and each and all that goes to
make up one reason.” Perception is the
“knowledge of intellectual objects.”
Science is the “knowledge of the thing in itself, or the knowledge which
harmonizes with what takes place.” All
these kinds of knowledge are not gnôsis.
So what did gnôsis mean to Clement, and who was the Person of
Knowledge? Clement takes a long time to
explain this question. We must remember
here that Clement was speaking to a group of Christians who were what we would
call middle class; they were educated and very interested in the various philosophical
ideas of the day. Philosophy in
Alexandria served as a substitute for religion for some people in Alexandria in
the second half of the second century, much as science can serve as a kind of
religion for some people in the twenty-first century. The official religions of the state were little less than a kind
of rallying point for the Roman Emperor—perhaps similar to faithful fans of
baseball teams who “stick with” their team winning or losing.[56] However, lack of faith in the official gods
could have more serious consequences than lack of faith in one’s team. Any serious rejection of the official
religion could get one killed, as is attested by the Christian martyrs.
The mystery religions and philosophy “filled in” what official
religions lacked. So Clement spends a
lot of time explaining how gnôsis is not like philosophy. Clement discusses Plato, Socrates,
Xenocrates, Heraclitus, Euripides and other philosophers such as the Stoics,
the Pythagoreans, the Peripatetics, and others; he also discusses their various
writings throughout the Stromata.[57] In fact, Clement held that the Greeks
plagiarized their philosophical ideas from the Hebrews.[58] I am not going to discuss Clement’s almost
continuous references to the Greek philosophers except to say that in every
instance he finds the Greeks lacking.
One concept that is important to understand is that which Rudolph calls
“gnostic anthropology.”[59] Rudolph notes that Gnostics divided men into
three “classes”:
1. Those who were of the earth
or the flesh (from the Greek hyle, “matter”).
2. Those who were psychic (from
the Greek psyche, “soul”).
3.
Those who were pneumatic (from the Greek pneuma, “spirit”).
Lampe[60]
further elaborates on this three-fold division of Gnostics noting: “In the Valentinian model…the Church…consisted
of two concentric bodies; the inner represents the Valentinian ‘pneumatics,’
the outer, the ‘psychics.’ As different
levels of perfection, they constitute one organism. Not two exclusive, but two concentric spheres.” Lampe further notes that “the Valentinian
explicitly seeks community with psychic [emphasis added]
Christians.” But Lampe explains that
the “ ‘psychic’ understanding…is not false but a superficial and preliminary
stage of understanding, which is surpassed by the gnostic understanding.” So basically, the Valentinians looked for
their converts among ordinary Christians, not among non-Christians.
Clement in the Paedagogus
gives a different slant to the Valentinian concept of three groups. He states:
“It is not, then, that some are enlightened Gnostics and others are only
less perfect Spirituals in the same Word [logos] but all…are equal and
spiritual before the Lord.”[61] Clement does two things in this
passage. First, he presumes his group
were so well acquainted with this concept of humans being divided into three
classes that he assumes his Christians know what he is referring to. Second, he tells his group that this concept
is not a valid concept; Clement says both the psychics and the Gnostics are
equal.
Clement may be referring here to a
tendency among some Christians, who must have somehow let their pursuit of gnôsis “go to their head.” The heresiologists, particularly Irenaeus
and Tertullian, had strong comments to make on these Gnostics who “lorded it
over” other Christians. They spoke
especially of the Valentinians.
Irenaeus (ca 130-200) said that the Valentinians were “evil seducers and
hypocrites.” They “entrap the more
simple [Christians], and entice them.”
Irenaeus basically states that
the Valentinians “say the same things and hold the same doctrines” as did
Irenaeus. Then, when the Valentinians
have “rendered them uncontradicting hearers…they describe to them in private”
their own doctrines. Irenaeus laments
that when the Valentinians have “rendered them uncontradicting hearers of their
own, they describe to them in private the unspeakable mystery of the
pleroma.” Furthermore, Irenaeus goes
on, stating that the new convert to Valentinianism “is puffed up to such an
extent, that he thinks…that he has passed within the Pleroma…he walks with a
strutting gait and a supercilious countenance, possessing all the pompous air
of a cock.” Irenaeus says these people
“call themselves ‘the spiritual,’ and allege that they have already become
acquainted with that place of refreshing which is within their pleroma.” In other words, Irenaeus complains that the
Christians who follow gnôsis are
haughty and proud because they have the idea that they already participate in
heavenly life.[62] Tertullian too states: “They are all mightily puft up; they all,
all of them highly promise Mountains of Knowledge.”[63]
Perhaps some of those who followed gnôsis did “go overboard,” but perhaps
no more so than some groups of today’s Christians who feel that their own
particular “brand” of religion is the only real one.
What Gnôsis Is
To begin this positive discussion of gnôsis as opposed to the above negative
discussion, we must consider a question Pagels asks.[64] She states the question and answer
succinctly: “How was a believer to tell
true Christians from false ones?
Orthodox and gnostic Christians claimed to represent the true church and
accused one another of being outsiders, false brethren, and hypocrites.” She states that a minority of Christian
groups “pointed to qualitative criteria” as determinants of who was
Christian. These groups in the minority
refuted what the majority considered criteria for who was Christian. The majority considered the criteria for who
was Christian to be Baptism, the creed, martyrdom, and an “actual, visible
community.” Pagels points out that the
minority of Christians, who tended to be in the category that is sometimes
called Gnostic, said that being baptized, reciting the creed, being part of a
community, and even experiencing martyrdom were simply actions that could be
performed by anyone. The minority group
(of Gnostics) “required evidence of spiritual maturity to demonstrate that a
person belonged to the true church.” We
will see that Clement himself in the Stromata emphasized this last point
of spiritual maturity in the Christian.
When considered carefully, it is obvious the Gnostics had a good point.
In the Protreptikos [Exhortation to the
Baptized] Clement does not mention gnostic teachings or even imply that his
readers know about them (at least as far as I can determine). In the Paedagogus [Christ the Educator],
Clement has some direct and indirect references to gnôsis and those who
have “knowledge”; but these references are not numerous. The Stromata [Miscellanies], on the
other hand, have many references and many discussions on what knowledge is, who
the person of knowledge is, how the “Gnostic” should live, and what the
“Gnostic” should believe. These
references and discussions are both direct and indirect and for the most part
are scattered throughout the Stromata.
However, Book Seven of the Stromata is almost entirely devoted to
a discussion of gnôsis and those who are true men of gnôsis.
From the above summary of Clement’s non-discussion
of gnôsis in the Protreptikos, his sparse discussion of gnôsis
in the Paedagogus, and his full discussion of gnôsis in the Stromata,
McGuckin’s concept of Clement’s three works as an “ascending curriculum” is
evident.[65]
Paedagogus
In
the Paedagogus Clement has more to say about the “negative” and implied
aspect of the beliefs of other sects than he has to say about positive aspects
of being a Person of Knowledge. Clement
handles this implied concept in an oblique manner, i.e., he discusses
“punishment” by God at some length. So,
to begin with Clement’s positive comments in the Paedagogus:
Clement’s first comment regards what he calls
“carping critics” which Wood tells us refers to “Gnostics.” Clement states:[66]
We are children and
little ones, but certainly not because the learning we acquire is puerile or
rudimentary, as those puffed up in their own knowledge falsely charge. On the contrary, when we were reborn, we
straightway received the perfection for which we strive. For we were enlightened, that is, we came to
the knowledge of God [Emphasis added]. Certainly, he who possesses knowledge [emphasis added] of
the Perfect Being is not imperfect.
Notice that Clement indirectly states that a person
of gnôsis is perfect—but he does it in such a manner as to soften the
impact of this statement. Clement continues:[67]
When we are baptized, we
are enlightened; being enlightened, we become adopted sons; becoming adopted
sons, we are made perfect; and becoming perfect, we are made divine. “I have said,” it is written, “you are gods
and all of you are the sons of the most High.”
Here we have Clement quoting both the Galatians 4.5
and the Psalms 81.6.[68] Also included in this statement is a
reference to the “spark of the divine” that the person of knowledge seeks to
recover.
Another positive comment by Clement in the Paedagogus
regarding gnôsis: Here again,
Clement presupposes that his readers/listeners understand a reference not
explicitly stated. First, Clement
states:[69] “we who were uninstructed, but were
learning, heard that knowledge is engendered together with enlightenment,
bathing the mind in light.” A few
sentences later, Clement continues: “It
is not, then, that some are enlightened Gnostics [People of Knowledge] and
others are only less perfect Spirituals in the same Word, but all, putting
aside their carnal desires, are equal and spiritual before the Lord.” Among the other instructions Clement gives
in these statements is the presupposition that those he is addressing
understand the classifications of men in the Gnostic myth. Stated in a slightly different way than
above: Wood states that[70]
Gnostics considered there were three groups of humanity: The “highest” group were the People of
Knowledge themselves who were “the perfect, possessors of perfect knowledge;
the less perfect, but still partially enlightened were the Psychikoi, or
Spirituals, while the unenlightened were Hylikoi, or Materialists. Wood notes that this concept was based on
1Corinthians 15.44: “It is sown a
physical body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.” But the Gnostics, and Clement among them,
added a third dimension to the physical body/spiritual body dichotomy. The “Gnostics” considered themselves a step
above all the rest of men. But Clement
in the above quote adds an admonition aimed at his group seeing themselves in
perspective. He tells them that
although they may be perfect People of Knowledge, they must remember that
although they may participate in one of the two “higher” groups of people—the Pneumatics
and the Psychikoi—they are all “equal and spiritual before the
Lord.” One can also imply from this
statement that those who are “material beings” (Hylikoi or Materialists)
were not included in this equality before God.
Who of Clement’s group, on hearing this statement would not strive to
establish him/herself solidly within at least the spiritual group of psychikoi?
The last direct reference to gnosis in the Paedagogus
we will deal with summarily. This
reference is included in a long analogy that deals with Christ as nourishing
the Christian with meat and milk.[71] Much of this passage is based on science of
Clement’s time that has been long outdated and that to modern ears sounds
foolish; so we will simply mention the ideas:
Clement, once again, admonishes the members of his Early Christian Small
Study Group to be careful that they not let the fact that they are people with
a close relationship with God “go to their head.” Clement states: “But, if
it is human wisdom which is the crowning boast of knowledge…listen to the
command laid down in the Scripture:
‘Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom.’ ”[72] A few sentences later, Clement notes
again: “If there are any contentious
objectors who think to rise to a higher knowledge…they are being carried away
by their boastful wisdom, contrary to the simple truth.” Clement never lets his guard down regarding
his People of Knowledge and their becoming enamored of their own spiritual
status as People of Knowledge
Stromata[73]
Clement begins [74]
by telling his readers of the Stromata that he is going “to prove to the
Greeks” that only the People of Knowledge are “truly devout”; his intent, he
says, is to teach the philosophers “what sort of person the true Christian is”
and thus lead the Greeks to understand their mistakes in “indiscriminate
persecution” of Christians and their irrational abuse of Christians whom they
call atheists,[75] when
Christians “have the knowledge of the true God.” So, it is clear from the beginning: Clement is going to “speak the language of the philosophers” in
order to instruct them; however, implied in this statement is the fact that his
readers either are philosophers themselves, students of philosophy, and/or well
acquainted with what the philosophers taught.
Clement also says that he will use the Scriptures appropriately to
“sketch…the Christian religion” because it is from the “Scriptures that
[Christians] draw their life and breath.”
But Clement must have had some mixed
feelings regarding the philosophers as later he states: “The laws of the state…might…be able to
restrain evil practices” but “mere persuasive arguments are too superficial in
their nature to establish the truth [of the need and value to the person of
living a good life] on scientific ground, but Greek philosophy does, as it
were, provide for the soul the preliminary cleansing and training required for
the reception of the faith, on which foundation the truth builds up the edifice
of knowledge” [gnôsis].[76]
Yet, Clement borrowed a lot from the
Greek philosophers. Specifically,
Pierre Hadot[77] notes that
Philo of Alexandria indicates two lists of spiritual exercises the
“Stoico-Platonic” philosophers practiced.
In the interest of conciseness, I am combining these two lists. The Platonists and Stoics (and even the
Epicureans, though the Epicureans differed slightly in their list) took for
granted that the person interested in living a moral life practiced the
following: research, thorough
investigation, reading, listening, attention, self-mastery, indifference to
things a person could not change, meditation, remembrance of good things, and
accomplishment of duties.[78] It is worth elaborating on a few of these
exercises the philosophers recommended for the person who wished to pursue
philosophy as these same exercises are taken for granted by Clement; Clement,
however, “Christianizes” these practices.
So, I am giving a very truncated explanation of one or two of the more
prominent of these spiritual exercises as the philosophers described and
recommended them.
In explaining “attention” Hadot
states:
Attention…is the
fundamental Stoic spiritual attitude.
It is a continuous vigilance and presence of mind, self consciousness
which never sleeps, and a constant tension of the spirit. Thanks to this attitude, the philosopher is
fully aware of what he does at each instant, and he wills [emphasis in
original] his actions fully.[79]
Hadot further explains: Attention was a “rule of life” that was
applied to “all life’s possible different situations….In this case…we are not
dealing with mere knowledge, but with the transformation of our personality.”[80] The philosophers explained this concept of
attention carefully and in detail.
Everyone with any education in the second century would have heard of
the exercises of the philosophers and would have been familiar with them. Clement, of course, knew these exercises
“backwards and forwards” and seems to consider that his followers did too.
Regarding meditation, Hadot
notes: “The exercise of meditation is
an attempt to control inner discourse, in an effort to render it
coherent.” The practice of meditation
required “nourishment.” This
“nourishment” was described as “reading, listening, research, and
investigation,” all of which provided “food” for meditation.[81]
Finally, the practical exercises were
“intended to create habits….Other exercises such as self-mastery and fulfilling
the duties of social life, entailed practical forms of behavior.”[82] Hadot astonishingly, yet exactly, explains
that the term “doing philosophy meant the actual practice of how to
‘live’: that is how to live freely and
consciously.”[83] It was these ideas that Clement took for
granted as he explained to the People of Knowledge how to achieve an actual
practice of living in order to achieve “knowledge.”
Clement states that the worship the
People of Knowledge give to God “includes both loving God and being loved by
him”; it also includes giving God his “due, with silent worship and holy awe”
as far as it is “possible for…learners to understand.”[84] Furthermore, the People of Knowledge pay
“service to God by [their] constant self-discipline and by cherishing that
which is divine in [themselves] in the way of unremitting charity.”[85] Clement further states: “And…by godliness we understand the habit
of mind [emphasis added] which preserves the fitting attitude towards
God.” Those who understand this habit
of mind and understand “what is fitting both in theory and in life” will be
“made like to God.” This reference of
“being made like to God” is a reference to the concept of theosis which
refers to the spark of the divine in humans.
This concept of theosis is also referred to as “divinization” or
“rebirth.” Let us take a small
digression to understand this concept at this point, for it is a concept
Clement takes for granted that those who will read his Stromata will
understand.
First it should be noted that Clement
states that his followers will become like God. The works that Clement refers to (and that
he is sure his followers are aware of) state that those who follow the teaching
become God. So, Clement alters
the concept in a significant way. This
concept was an important concept in Plato and in Egyptian Hermetica. Clement was very well acquainted with Plato
(as is evident from his works); and, though Clement does not speak about the
Egyptian Hermetica, there is no doubt that he was well acquainted with
Egyptian religious beliefs.[86]
That being said, let us examine, very
quickly, this concept[87]
which was “laid down by Plato in a much-studied passage of the Symposium…and
it was a standard element in the teaching of Platonism in the second century
A.D.” This passage was a “theory of the
soul’s progress from higher to higher abstraction toward a mystical leap to gnosis.” The “mystical ascent is…a means of gaining nondiscursive
knowledge of gnosis (‘acquaintance’). Once it has achieved its goal, the soul must descend back through
the same levels it passed before, in reverse order.”
Fowden explains the Egyptian concept of divination.[88] “Rebirth is emphatically not a repetition of
physical birth, but a bursting [emphasis
added] into a new plane of existence previously unattained, even unsuspected,
albeit available potentially.”[89] Fowden goes on to note that “the knowledge
of God” does not bring about “external knowledge of one being by another, but
an actual assumption by the initiate of the attributes of God: in short, divinization.”[90] Furthermore, divinization was “deeply
private, and the reward of conscious effort—no mere rite of passage….the
Hermetist was assimilated to the One God. He is most nearly to be compared with
the ‘divine man’…of later Platonism.”[91]
The Orthodox Church states that
partaking of the divine nature is the “aim of the Christian life.” Ware states: “[T]he final goal at which every Christian must aim [is] to
become god, to attain theosis, ‘deification’ or divinization’. For Orthodoxy our salvation and redemption
mean our deification.” [92] Ware is careful to note the
distinction between God’s
essence and His energies. Union with
God means union with the divine energies, not the divine essence….The mystical
union between God and humans is a true union, yet in this union Creator and
creature do not become fused into a single being.…Orthodox mystical theology
has always insisted that we humans, however closely linked to god, retain our
full personal integrity.[93]
Now let us return to Clement’s
discussion of gnôsis and how People
of Knowledge practiced gnôsis. Since Clement spends many chapters
discussing the relation of gnôsis to philosophy, this paper will obviously
have to discuss only the highlights of Clement’s thought. Clement states that the People of Knowledge
observe this order of acquiring knowledge:[94] First, with regard to the social order[95]
Clement states the People of Knowledge honor their rulers, their parents, and
their elders. Second, with regard to
their “teaching world” the People of Knowledge will honor philosophy—and most
particularly the “earliest philosophy,” the Scriptures.[96] Third, Clement states the People of
Knowledge honor the spiritual world in two ways: a) by “seizing” (capturing, understanding) the concept that God
the Father is the “earliest and most beneficent of all existences.” (Here Clement again reinforces his concept
that Christian concepts predated any Greek philosophical concepts.) b) The People of Knowledge honor the Son as
the “beginning and first-fruit of all existing things” and who is “timeless and
without beginning.”
Clement then states that the People of Knowledge exercise constant self-discipline through cherishing the divine in themselves and by unremitting charity towards others. It should be noted that Clement calls this
constant self-discipline and unremitting charity towards others an “occupation.”[97] Clement (following the Stoic philosophical
teaching) states that the pursuit of gnôsis
is both a theory of life and a habit of mind.[98]
Clement states, “it is of great
importance in regard to virtue to be made fit for its attainment….it is intended
that we should be saved by ourselves.”[99] Clement states that it “is the nature of the
soul, to move of itself.” He goes on to
note that because we are rational individuals and because philosophy is a
rational study, “we have some affinity with it. Now an aptitude is a movement towards virtue, not virtue
itself.” In other words, the People of
Knowledge must work at attaining gnôsis.
Clement then notes that there are
three kinds of people who attain virtue:[100] 1)
Those who are “competent to attain virtue, 2) those who attain or have attained some form of virtue, and 3)
those who may be good in some way but “through negligence” have “turned to the
opposite” of living a virtuous life.
Here Clement refers to what was generally considered in the second
century to be the three “types” of people.
These three types of people are variously interpreted by different
philosophers in the second century.
(See above discussion on the three types of people.) One such teacher of the second century was
Valentinus; Clement tended to agree with Valentinus, although at times Clement
modified Valentinus’ thought.
Valentinus followed
Paul’s tripartite
division of man into body, soul, and spirit….Humanity consisted of those whose
essential nature was spirit, the pneumatics; those whose nature was of
soul-stuff, the psychics; and those who were merely of the earth, earthy. The pneumatics with whom the Valentinians
naturally identified themselves were wholly predetermined to gain complete
salvation and incorporation into the Pleroma. The earthy class were equally absolutely predestined for
hell. The middle class, however, the
psychics, consisted of the ordinary members of the Christian Church who did not
attend Valentine’s conventicle. The
Valentinian was permitted to hope for their [sic] salvation; they might be
saved or they might be lost; everything depended on their use of free will.”[101]
Clement’s emphasis on the need for
the People of Knowledge to work to attain gnôsis
clearly indicates that he considers those who are reading his Stromata
to be of the second, psychic, group of humanity. Clement, though, slightly modifies
Valentinian’s three groups. Clement’s
list of the three types of humans is:
1) Those who are competent to attain virtue (gnôsis), that is, they actually have the ability, expertise, skill,
talent required to attain gnôsis. Clement does not explain this further. Thinking more deeply about this concept, I
consider that Clement realized that the People of Knowledge needed to possess
at least an inclination for the spiritual life. Someone consumed only by the tangible, by what we today might
call consumerism, an interest in acquiring only the physical riches of life,
with no appreciation whatsoever of anything spiritual would not have the ability
to appreciate gnôsis. There is plenty of evidence that Clement
thought about and thoroughly disapproved of “consumerism” in his day.[102] 2) Those who attain a kind of virtue
(gnôsis) and 3) Those who through
negligence (although they may be good in some ways) eventually turn to the
“opposite” of virtue (gnôsis). Clement concludes that gnôsis is “most difficult to acquire, and is attained with much
toil” and excels all kinds of culture in greatness and truth.[103]
Clement comes back to a subject
addressed before, but he takes a different approach than he did
previously. Clement is concerned that
members of his group do not get “big heads,” as we might say today; he is
careful that his People of Knowledge do not think that because they are
striving for gnôsis they are somehow
better than other Christians. Clement
states that no one is perfect in every regard because we are all human.[104] He asks:
Who actually is perfect? Rather
than answer directly, Clement states a negative indication and a positive indication
of who might be on the road to attaining gnôsis. He states a negative: People of Knowledge abstain from bad
things. Then he states a positive: People of Knowledge follow Scripture. But following scripture is only a step on
the road to gnôsis. Not even confessors (those who are
persecuted for being Christian, suffer for their beliefs (but who are not
martyred) can be considered perfect.
Clement then proceeds to be most
specific in stating the positive aspects of life as it is lived by People of
Knowledge. Clement quotes 2Corinthians
6.3-8, although he does not state specifically that he is quoting Paul, Clement
refers to “the apostle”;[105]
most likely, Clement thought that everybody interested in what he was saying
would know that he was quoting Paul.[106] Clement lists one characteristic of the
People of Knowledge—they will be patient; then he enumerates in detail
the circumstances under which the People of Knowledge will be patient:
--when they are sick or ill: Presumably, the People of Knowledge will be
patient not only when they themselves are sick or ill but when others whom they
can help are sick or ill.
--when confronting the inescapable or
inevitable. Considering what the
“inescapable” or “inevitable” might be one thinks in terms of the state of
medicine in the second century and how many people who became ill would
inevitably die for lack of medicines we have nowadays to prevent illness. While death in the second century most
certainly was an inevitable fact of life just as it is in the twenty-first
century, still the very fact of the advances in medicine in the intervening
eighteen hundred plus years allows for many twenty-first century people to live
longer lives than those of the second century.
Then too approaching old age is inevitable.
--when suffering anguish or
heartbreak. This concept follows
necessarily from the above “inescapable/inevitable” idea. Family members, for instance, who have
individuals in their family die, suffer anguish. Human life has many situations under which a person feels anguish
or heartbreak.
--when suffering beatings or
whippings. This point is obviously
directed toward Christians who lived in times of persecution and for whom such
sufferings were a very real possibility.
--when imprisoned. This point is again obvious because of the
chance for persecution the late second century Christians faced.
--when suffering confusion,
upheavals, trouble. It is clear that
Clement is well acquainted with life as life is full of situations where one
may not know the right decision to make, when circumstances upset one’s life
and cause serious problems in one’s life.
--when working to earn a living. How human Clement is to include this point
in his list of times when a person must practice patience.
--when it is necessary to protect or
watch over others, for instance, times during which it is necessary to sit up
with someone over night who is very ill.
This point is an extension of “sickness and illness” and “the inevitable”
listed above. But this point could also
refer to parents who must “watch over,” be responsible for, their
children. Furthermore, this concept
could include the manner in which public servants administer their
offices. This point has a broad
application in life.
--when fasting. Most likely Clement here is referring to
religious fasts as his group of Christians were more likely well to do
individuals rather than being poor people who might suffer from shortage of
food. Nevertheless, here Clement admonishes
his group to observe religious fasts.
--by being honest and reputable. Clement obviously intended these good
character traits to apply to both the personal and business life of his
Christians.
--when striving for gnôsis.
Clement tells his Christians that achieving intimacy with God is not an
easy task; it requires a lifetime of attention to learning proper habits of
acquiring knowledge. Striving for gnôsis also requires the discipline and
effort required in that lifetime of attention to attaining knowledge of
God.
--by being uncomplaining in the
problems of life. This admonition by
Clement speaks for itself.
--by being kind.
--by demonstrating in one’s life
genuine, sincere, unaffected, heartfelt love for God and other people.
Clement concludes by noting that
these are the preparatory exercises of learning how to become People of
Knowledge. He states: “And now we perceive where, and how, and
when” to work to obtain the habits that will lead to becoming People of
Knowledge.[107]
What then is characteristic of the
person of knowledge after he/she has achieved the habits of the preparatory
exercises? Clement states that all
people have the ability to attain intimacy with God, but only People of
Knowledge actually attain intimacy with God.[108] He notes that first it is necessary to know
exactly what constitutes actions that will hinder one from attaining intimacy
with God. Second, Clement notes the
People of Knowledge will gradually realize the habits that keep one from
attaining intimacy with God and will automatically avoid such habits.
Clement also states that it is not
sufficient to recognize this or that action that will inhibit intimacy with
God. He states that People of Knowledge
realize that there are two aspects of this intermediate aspect to learning gnôsis.
First, the People of Knowledge will realize the habits they already
possess which keep them from intimacy with God. Clement here states that hiding behind the excuse, “the devil
made me do it” is not acceptable.[109] It is also not enough to avoid those things
which prevent intimacy with God because of worry, anxiety, fear; nor is it
enough to attempt to achieve intimacy with God through a promise of good things
to come, such as a promise of going to heaven.
The People of Knowledge will realize that Knowledge (gnôsis) is “desirable for its own
sake.”
Clement is careful to state that
“going off the deep end” in practicing intimacy with God is not acceptable
either; that is, being too strict with one’s habits is not what he is talking
about. Clement notes that the enjoyment
of the necessities of life is perfectly acceptable. He points out that it is not the “quality” in the use of the
necessities of life but the “quantity in excess” that keeps one from attaining
intimacy with God. Clement even states
that without what he calls “necessities” there would be no attaining of gnôsis; in fact, to attain knowledge the
People of Knowledge must actually live well—but one can live well
without exercising excess in such living well.
In this discussion Clement emphasizes
that, “For souls, themselves by themselves are equal. Souls are neither male nor female.” Thus Clement includes both the female and male members of his
Christian group in his discussion of who might attain gnôsis. Clement states that if the People of
Knowledge practice the habits he describes, they will “soak up” what it means
to be Christ-like as far as it is possible for a human being; only then if the
People of Knowledge have mastered such habits of Knowledge, they will
attain intimacy with God.[110]
However, Clement always hedges his
statements by saying that as long as the People of Knowledge are living human
beings, they must consistently, throughout their lives, practice the habits
that lead one to attain gnôsis. Thus, Clement is clear in saying that no
living human being attains complete gnôsis. Most likely these statements of Clement were
designed to oppose some groups who professed to practice gnôsis but who assumed a kind of “elitism”[111]
because they considered themselves “People of Knowledge.” Clement here, while emphasizing the
“qualitative criteria” for being a Christian, was careful to have his group of
Christians avoid their pursuit of gnôsis
allowing them to become conceited, think themselves better than others, and/or
become overconfident in what their relationship to God was. Clement was always interested in what Pagels
calls the “qualitative criteria” of being Christians.[112]
Clement states that knowing and
learning philosophy is elementary to the person wishing to become an
individual who practices gnôsis.[113] Clement embarks on a very long, extended
metaphor of a gardener grafting a wild olive with a cultivated olive.[114] Clement includes in this metaphor Greek
philosophers, the Jews and the Old Testament, and pagans practicing the
mystical cults. He states that all
three of these are like the wild olive that, if gnôsis (the cultivated olive) is grafted on to the wild olive, will
result in all these becoming engrafted into the faith of each individual’s
soul. Clement states that the Holy
Spirit by this means is then “transplanted” into each of these groups,
distributed throughout the world.
Clement, thus, would Christianize not only philosophy but the Old
Testament and the mystery cults.
Having discussed the above, Clement
again (as he has before) returns to the subject of “spiritual perfection” in
Book VII. In this Book VII he
reiterates and elaborates on the themes he has already discussed but at a
greater depth. Some examples of his
reiterations are these: Clement states
that the People of Knowledge pay “service to God by…constant self-discipline
and by cherishing that which is divine” in themselves by practicing
“unremitting charity.”[115] Clement notes that charity is practiced by
serving people both in body and soul; service of the body includes both taking
care of people when they are sick and by “administering of earthly
things.” Clement states that enjoyment
of the necessities of life is not wrong; it is possible to have (want) things
of quality in one’s life; it is the excessive possession and use of the
“good things” in life that is unacceptable for the People of Knowledge.[116] Service of the soul is the practice of
philosophy, most notably the “habit of mind which preserves the fitting
attitude toward God.”[117]
Clement concludes: The People of Knowledge will reveal their
practice of intimacy with God by exhibiting “three achievements”:[118]
(1) The People of Knowledge will know the “facts of the Christian
religion.” (2) They will accomplish
whatever “the Word” commands, instructs, encourages for the People of
Knowledge. (3) They will share with
others the desire to achieve intimacy with God.
Here it is
necessary to take a small digression and explain Clement’s use of the term “the
Word.” This is a reference to logos. This word has a plethora of meanings. The general meaning is: those things that are put together in
thought, that is, concepts which, having been thought, gathered together in the
mind, and are then expressed in words.
So, a twofold use of the term is distinguished—one which relates to
speaking and one which relates to thinking.
In its use as regards expression in words, the meaning can include (in
the religious sense) the Old Testament prophecies, particularly Messianic
prophecies; the moral precepts given by God in the Old Testament, the art of
speaking about things pertaining to wisdom or knowledge. Logos in its use as regards the mind
alone refers to the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, or reasoning. This meaning is extended to the Divine Mind
that pervades and notes all things. St.
John in his Gospel uses the term to mean the personal (hypostatic) wisdom and
power in union with God, his minister in the creation and government of the
universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which
for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of
Jesus Christ.[119] When Clement uses the term “Word” (logos)
he is including all these meanings; further, he knows that his People of
Knowledge are cognizant of these meanings and understand his use of the term.
Clement also
elaborates on “proof that one knows God.”[120] He states that the People of Knowledge “put
[their] confidence in the Saviour’s teaching.”
In no manner do the People of Knowledge do wrong. Clement then “riffs” on the “Word” (the
concept of logos):
But
most perfect and most holy of all, most sovereign, most lordly, most royal, and
most beneficent, is the nature of the Son, which approaches most closely to the
One Almighty Being. The Son is the
highest pre-eminence, which sets in order all things according to the Father’s
will, and steers the universe aright, performing all things with unwearying
energy, beholding the Father’s secret thoughts through his working….being never
divided...but existing everywhere at all times and free from all
limitations. He is all reason, all eye,
all light from the Father, seeing all things, hearing all things, knowing all
things, with power searching the powers….the Word of the Father who has received
the holy administration by reason of him who subjected it to him; through whom
also all men belong to him, but some by way of knowledge, while others have not
yet attained to this; some as friends, some as faithful servants, others as
servants merely.[121]
Here again,
Clement makes a reference to the “three types” of people as noted above.
Clement
continues by discussing the sense of religious duty, the spirituality, and the
holiness of the People of Knowledge. He
states that the person practicing gnôsis
will first care for him/herself “and then for his neighbors with a view
to our attaining the highest standard of excellence.”[122] He states that the person of knowledge will
use his learning to control his instincts and impulses. If that person is placed in an authoritative
position, he will exercise his authority as Moses did, honoring the best in
those under his authority and only using tactics of punishment as described in
the Paedagogus, that is, as Christ himself exercised punishment. When one thinks about this, one realizes
that Christ never did punish anyone; Christ said that the one who was guiltless
should throw the first stone.
The People
of Knowledge will not be influenced by either the good opinion of others or he
bad opinion of others.[123] Clement re-states the fact that “consumerism”
is not an acceptable practice for the People of Knowledge; he notes that the
People of Knowledge are citizens of the world, but not of this world only;
they are people of a “higher order.”
The People of Knowledge are rich in a different manner than simply
counting riches in terms of acquiring the latest and the best in material
things; People of Knowledge covet “nothing, having few wants and [enjoy] a
super-abundance of every good” simply because they are practicing intimacy with
God, because they seek gnôsis.
Clement
discusses prayer in great detail. Among
his thoughts on prayer are the following.
He states the person practicing gnôsis
makes his requests to God for those things that pertain to the spirit. Clement defines his statement by saying that
the person of gnôsis will not “have
his good things attached to him like ornaments, but…be him[her]self good.”[124] Furthermore, we learn something of what must
have been the practices of at least some elements of second century
society. Clement states: “we must never employ a prayer…for the
injury” of others.[125] Then Clement emphasizes: “Prayer…is converse with God.” We address God “in a whisper, without
opening our lips, or uttering a sound, still we cry to him in our heart. For God never ceases to listen to the inward
converse of the heart.”
Clement
states the People of Knowledge do not hold grudges, are not angry with
anyone. Clement notes, following the
Stoics, that the person of true gnôsis
controls his passions, does not get carried away
by
things which have nothing to do with his true self, but accommodates
him[her]self to the necessities of the case….For he [she] does not wish to be
faithful only in reputation or…in outward seeming, but in knowledge and in
truth, that is to say, in consistent action and effectual speech. Wherefore he [she] not only praises what is
noble, but him[her]self strives to be noble, passing from the condition of a
good and faithful servant to that of a friend by means of love, owing to the
perfection of the virtuous habit which he acquired in its purity by true
instruction and long training.[126]
Clement
continually reinforces the idea that the People of Knowledge gradually acquire
intimacy with God by discipline and reason.[127] He goes on to state that the People of
Knowledge use their intelligence to determine “what reason dictates as right
and fitting,” and what are the good things for the People of Knowledge to do in
life.[128] Clement then proceeds to mention in detail
some examples of what he considers reason would dictate for his group and how
the People of Knowledge will actually live:
--Clement
states that a person of knowledge is not “irrationally brave.”[129] Here Clement reinforces his thoughts about
martyrdom. Clement states that the
person of knowledge is “distinguished from other so-called martyrs, in that
they [the so-called martyrs], provide occasions for themselves by exposing
themselves to dangers” but the People of Knowledge take “precautions in
accordance with the dictates of reason” and then will cheerfully offer
“themselves, when God really calls them.”
The People of Knowledge are sure that even in martyrdom they are not
“guilty of any rash act.” [See
discussion above on Clement’s thoughts on martyrdom.]
--Clement
states that the People of Knowledge show their love for God by choosing love
“for its own sake, not for any other reason.”[130] Once again, Clement reinforces the necessity
of reason in the life of the People of Knowledge; he states that love for the
person of knowledge grows out of the “discipline of life” and the control of
one’s passions. Thus, the person of
knowledge will have self-control; but not the kind of self-control that comes
because of ambition for the good things of life, not the kind of self-control
that comes in a desire for “bodily health,” nor in abstaining from the
pleasures of life that the person of knowledge “has no taste” for, but
“temperance that is chosen for her own sake, being perfected according to
knowledge and taking up her abode in the heart, gives a [person] authority and
makes [that person] independent.” So
the People of Knowledge are “naturally disposed to love God” and become friends
of God, being ranked as children of God.
--Clement
continues his description of how the People of Knowledge live by saying that
the person of knowledge will be “fair…towards all his neighbours, whatever
their legal position”;[131]
the person of knowledge will show love even for servants and enemies. Clement states that the person of knowledge
will stand “to him in the relation of brother by the same parents; certainly,
when he is in distress, he relieves him by consolations and encouragements and
by making provision for the needs of daily life. While he gives to all who are in need,” he does it “in accordance
with justice and proportionately as the individual has needs.” Clement goes so far as to state that the
person of knowledge “gives even to one who persecutes and hates him, if he
stands in need of it, caring little for those who insinuate that fear was his
motive, provided that he was doing it not from fear, but only from a wish to
help.” This is “tough stuff” about how
the People of Knowledge should live.
--Clement
also speaks about marriage in his examples of how the People of Knowledge
live. Clement states being a person of
knowledge is not shown by the “choice of the celibate life.”[132] Clement states that the true person of
knowledge will excel in discharging the duties of spouse, by conducting the
household responsibly, by being solicitous for one’s family, servants, and
possessions. Clement goes so far as to
state that the person who is not married “is in most respects untried.”[133]
--Clement
instructs his group of Christians on how to pray. He notes two things about prayer:[134] First, Clement states that the People of
Knowledge will forgive those who have offended him or hurt him in any way;
quoting the Gospel of Matthew (6.12), Clement states if they do this,
they will be able to pray, “ ‘Forgive us, for we forgive.’ ” Second, Clement states that the People of
Knowledge will not only give their prayer to the needy, they will
actually give to the needy “in a secret and unostentatious manner.” Clement states that most of society has the
attitude that “[p]overty…and disease and such-like trials are often used for
admonition [by God].” However, People
of Knowledge will take a different approach; they will actually help people in
trouble, do “kind action” and not because they wish to “show off” or display
their own wealth. The People of
Knowledge will help those suffering the distresses of life simply because
they are People of Knowledge. Clement
elsewhere[135] succinctly
states that, “the end of the [People of Knowledge] on earth is in my opinion
twofold, in some cases…contemplation, in others action.” Thus, Clement advocates that his people will
move from prayer and study to the practice in their lives of that prayer and
study.
--Further
elaborating on forgiveness, Clement approaches this topic from another
standpoint. He refers to Paul
(1Corinthians 6.1-2) stating that the People of Knowledge hold a unique
standpoint regarding forgiving others.
Clement states that Paul “defines” the position of the People of
Knowledge as not only “consisting in submitting to wrong rather than inflicting
wrong on another, but he also teaches him to forget injuries, not even allowing
him to pray against him who has done the wrong.”[136] Clement states that, “the Lord…gave a plain
command that we should pray for our enemies.” (Again referring to Matthew
5:44.) But in further elaborating on
this point, Clement gives a very concrete example—perhaps one that has come up
in this group of Christians. Clement
states that if the People of Knowledge take their grievance to the courts, they
show “nothing else than a desire to retaliate and a willingness to commit a
second wrong” and will prove themselves to be “equally in fault” in such a
situation. Furthermore, People of
Knowledge do not even pray that those who have done them a wrong will come to
harm; Clement states the People of Knowledge “pray even for their enemies”
because that is what the Lord teaches.
--Clement
states that People of Knowledge will be “true to [their] word and not belie any
promise, however much others may break their engagements.”[137] Clement uses this statement to start a
discussion about orthodoxy versus heresy.
He notes that just as physicians hold “different opinions in accordance
with their particular schools,” physicians are “still equally engaged in the
practice of healing.” Clement uses this
example of physicians to note that, “we are told that” there are various
heresies among Christians. Clement
states that because of these disagreements among Christians about who is
orthodox and who is heretic, “for this reason…we need more attention and consideration
to determine how we should live” a good Christian life. (Remember, at this time orthodoxy was not
yet finally determined; and there were many different groups who all called
themselves Christian.) Clement tells
the People of Knowledge: “We must…spend
more thought in searching for…truth, which alone has for its subject…God.” He notes that the hard work of studying and
searching for truth will “make one buckle to the toil of discovery”; the People
of Knowledge will not “abandon” such search for the truth but will consider
continued search for the truth to be “sweet.”[138] Concluding this long discussion, Clement
states that the People of Knowledge will grow old in “study of the actual
Scriptures” and will live a life in accordance with the gospels. Clement states: “the life of the People of Knowledge “is nothing else than deeds
and words agreeable to the tradition of the Lord.”[139]
Clement ends
what is actually seven books of discussion on how People of Knowledge live by
stating that his discussion is simply an “introduction” and a “summary” of his
thought regarding the People of Knowledge and how they should live.[140] He says he has “scattered the sparks of the
doctrines of the true knowledge…here and there…so that it should not
[emphasis added] be easy for the uninitiated who came across them to discover
the holy traditions.” He says that his
teachings are not “ornamental parks with rows of ordered plantations to
please the eye” but rather are “thickly wooded hill, overgrown” with various
kinds of trees and plants. He mentions
cypresses, bay trees, apple trees, olives, ivy, figs, all “mingled
together.” As is evident from this
summary of Clement’s thought on the People of Knowledge he says his Stromata
“make no pretence of order or choice diction” because the Greek philosophers
“object to over-sweetness of style, and sow their doctrines secretly and not in
a plain, unmistakable manner, seeking to exercise the diligence and ingenuity
of the readers, if there should be such.
For we must provide a large variety of baits owning to the varieties of
fish.”
Notes:
[1] It should be
noted that Bentley Layton lists Clement of Alexandria and Origen among the
heresiologists. It is clear Clement of
Alexandria strongly disagrees with Basilides and condemns outright the
Marcionites, the Carpocratians, and a Sophist named Prodicus. Specifically, Clement condemns the
Carpocratians’ teaching regarding sexual intercourse. Clement says: “If these
people spoke of spiritual union like the Valentinians [do], perhaps one could
accept their view.” But Clement seems
not to have endorsed the Valentinians enthusiastically; he gives a kind of
“back-handed” approval to them. Clement
says: “The Valentinians who hold that
the union of man and woman is derived from the divine emanation in heaven above
approve of marriage.” John Ernest
Leonard Oulton and Henry Chadwick, The Library of Christian Classics, Volume
II: Alexandrian Christianity: Selected Translations of Clement and Origen
with Introductions and Notes (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, MCMLIV
[1954]) 3.4.29 [p. 53]. Oulton and
Chadwick, 3.1.1 (p 40). Specific
references (all from Oulton and Chadwick) regarding the heresiologists Clement
mentions are: Basilides: 3.1.1,3; 4.12 (p. 47). Marcionites: 3.3.12-13, 18, 21; 3.4.25 (pp 45-46, 48, 49, 51). Carpocratians: 3.2.5,9-10; 3.4.25 (p. 42-43; 52). Prodicus: 3.4.30 (p 54). References from Ante-Nicene Christian
Library: Translations of the Writings
of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, Volume XII, Clement of Alexandria, Volume II,
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, MDCCCLXIX
[1869]). This book will be listed
henceforth as the Stromata.
References are: Basilides: II.III (p. 175-179). Prodicus:
2.II (p. 260). References to Valentinus: XX.XX (p 65); IV.XIII (p 179); VI.VI (p 334); and
VII.XVII (p. 486). The translation
of Wilson can also be found online at www.earlychristianwritings.com.
[2] James Strong, The New
Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words, “The Greek Dictionary.”
(Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1996) and Joseph Henry Thayer, A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi
Testamenti. Translated, Revised, and Enlarged, Numerically Coded to
Strong’s
Exhaustive Concordance. (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1977) Numbers 1108 and 1107.
[3] Material and
quotes that follow are from Thayer, entry number 1097 (pp. 117-118) and entry
number 1108 (p. 119). See also
Strong, entry numbers 1097 and 1108 [p. 597].
[4] We must keep
in mind here that “reading” for a lot of Christians or, more generally, those
“ordinary” people interested in the pursuit of spiritual meaning in their life,
“reading” was listening to someone who could read and who then
read aloud to either an individual or to a group. The only way for the ordinary (illiterate) person to have access
to the scriptures and the writings of the philosophers was to have someone who
was literate read to him/her. However,
it is clear from the detail with which Clement discusses the various well-known
philosophers and writers famous in the second century that Clement’s group of
early Christians must have been among the better educated of the time.
[5] For the
enumeration and meaning of these various “classes: of women see Celia E.
Schultz, Women’s Religious Activity in the Roman Republic, (The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 2006).
[6] Peter Brown,
The Body and Society: Men, Women and
Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, (Columbia University Press, New
York, 1988) 10.
[7] Brown,
timeline, p. viii. Henceforth, all
dates given for individuals are from this same citation unless otherwise
indicated.
[8] Rebecca
Flemming, Medicine and the Making of Roman Women: Gender, Nature, and Authority from Celsus to Galen, (Oxford
University Press, New York, 2003). See
particularly Chapter 5, pp. 255-287 and Chapter 6, pp. 288-358.
[9] Flemming,
pp. 305-306.
[10] Galen based
this belief on complicated “scientific” thought that has long been discarded by
modern science. To read Galen’s basis
for his idea that a woman was a “failed male” see Flemming pp. 305-313.
[12] There might
have been one exception where a man’s position was dependent on his wife. In the case of the office of dual
priesthood, a husband and wife who served as priests of Jupiter, the husband
was required to resign his priestly office should his wife die. See Schultz, p. 81.
[13] Material
and quotes that follow are from Brown, p. 145 unless otherwise indicated.
[14] Elaine
Pagels, The Gnosic Gospels (1979; New York: Vintage Books, 1981) 72.
For Pagels’ complete discussion of women in Christianity among both the
orthodox (note the small “o”) and the various Gnostic groups see especially
pp. 71-83.
[15] Peter
Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus:
Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, Translated by Michael
Steinhauser, Edited by Marshall D. Johnson, (1987, Minneapolis, Fortress Press,
2003).
[16] Lampe’s
work concentrates on the city of Rome.
However, it seems to me that it is not unreasonable to take his
statements regarding women and apply them in general terms to the cultural
milieu of Alexandria in which Clement wrote.
In fact, we will see from Clement’s writings regarding women that all
may not have been as simple as to say women were equal to men.
[18] Hermas,
also known as the Shepherd of Hermas, was a slave who became a freeman and a
business owner and a property owner; his wealth and social status declined
because he was “denounced as a Christian and imprisoned.” Lampe, p. 224. He developed an ethical and theological position that elaborated
to Christians a specific practice of how to live the Christian life. His works are: Visions, Mandates, and Similitudes. He preached and wrote in Rome in the first
half of the second century. See Lampe
pp. 90-99 and 218-236.
[19] Ute E.
Eisen, Women Officeholders in Early Christianity: Epigraphical and Literary Studies, trans. Linda M. Maloney
(1996, Collegeville, Minnesota, The Liturgical Press, 2000) 15-16.
[21] Oulton and
Chadwick, Stromata, 3.6.53 (pp. 64-65).
[22] The
Fathers of the Church: A New
Translation, Volume 23: Clement of
Alexandria, Christ the Educator, trans. Simon P. Wood, C.P., (Washington,
D.C., The Catholic University of America Press, 1954) 3.2.4-14 (p.
202-211). This is the English
translation of the Paedagogus and will hereafter be referred to as Paedagogus.
[23] See Stromata
Book IV, Chapters 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 17.
[24] Stromata,
IV. X [p. 173].
[26] Lampe p.
147 and Ante-Nicene Christian Library:
Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, Edited
by the Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Volume XVII, The
Clementine Homilies, (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, MDCCCLXX [1870]) Books
VI-XII of the Clementine Homilies translated by Peter Peterson, XX.XIII
(p. 198) and XII.XV (p. 199).
[27] Paedagogus
2.12.128-129 [p. 198] and 2.10.109 [p. 184].
[30] Eisen
proposes that an emphasis on “individual women” rather than on the “genus
‘woman’ ” is the approach needed to decode the “androcentric paradigm” that has
focused on texts from the ancient church that consider the “ ‘nature’ and
‘purpose’ of women” being “interpreted in real-historical terms and read as
images of historical reality.” Eisen,
p. 2.
[32] Eisen, note
26, p. 26 quoting Häberlin, Schmid, & Wyss in Meisterlin 16-17.
[33] For a more
thorough examination of the “gender neutral” problem see also Elizabeth
Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her:
A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (1983,
New York, The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2002) 43-53 and Luce Irigary, Thinking
the Difference: For a Peaceful
Revolution, trans. Karin Montin (1989, New York, Routledge, 1994) 39-64.
[34] Lampe,
p. 147-148 and p 354.
[36] Praescriptio
[The Prescription against Heretics] XLI at ,http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian11.html
or
[37] Ancient
Christian Writers: The Works of the
Fathers in Translation, No. 56, St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies,
Translated with Introduction and Notes by Leslie William Barnard, (New York,
Paulist Press, 1997), 2.1.1 (p 73).
[38] Lampe,
P. 237. See also Justin Martyr, Apology
2.2 (pp. 73-75).
[41] This
material is from the Stromata VI, XII.
There are two problems with this material: one is that Clement himself “jumps” from topic to topic. Obviously, these materials in the Stromata
are exactly what their Greek name states they are—miscellaneous thoughts
that Clement wrote down, perhaps as he thought of them. The second problem is that the translation
itself is over one hundred years old and thus is somewhat “archaic” to our
“ears.” So in light of these two issues
regarding the Stromata, I have taken material on a particular subject,
where Clement may have spread the
material throughout a chapter and/or book, and combined it to summarize the
entirety of Clement’s thought. I have
tried to make the translation less archaic and more familiar to the modern
reader by liberal use of a thesaurus, thus substituting more modern terminology
for archaic words. Clement also refers
to the transformation of a woman into a man in “The Excerpts.” See “Extracts from the Works of Theodotus
and the So-Called Oriental Teaching at the time of Valentinus” No. 79, accessed
March 7, 2007:
[42] Paedagogus,
I.6.31 [pp. 30-31]. Specifically,
Clement quotes Galatians 3.26-28.
[43] Marvin
Meyer, The Gnostic Discoveries: The
Impact of the Nag Hammadi Library, (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005) 63.
[44] The Nag
Hammadi Scriptures: The International
Edition, Marvin Meyer, ed., (HarperSanFrancisco, 2007) 137.
[45] These two
quotes from The Gospel of Thomas are from The Nag Hammadi
Scriptures: The International Edition,
Marvin Meyer, ed., “ The Gospel of Thomas with the Greek Gospel of
Thomas” Introduced and translated by Marvin Meyer, (HarperSanFrancisco,
2007) 133-156. Specific quotes are from
The Gospel of Thomas 22.4-7 (p. 142-143) and 114. 2-3, (p. 153). NHC II, 2; 37, 22 4 & 7 [p. 143] and 51,
114, 2 and 3 respectively [p. 153]. See
also NHC II, 2; P. Oxy.1, 654, 655; and Hippolytus, Refutation of All
Heresies.
[46] The Nag
Hammadi Scriptures: The International
Edition, Marvin Meyer, ed., “ The Gospel of Thomas with the Greek
Gospel of Thomas” p. 135.
[47] I have
included the feminine reference in places where Clement uses only the masculine
reference. We must keep in mind that
while Clement himself included in his audience all the members of the
school he took over from Pantaenus, there was a very strict social
stratification of society at the time that placed elite men at the top
of all society; socially everyone else was below them, i.e., included in
the strata below elite men were non-elite men, women, slaves, in short, anyone
who was not an elite man. Clement did
have a strong social bias in favor of men and against women; women come in for
sharp critique by Clement. Slaves, of
course, are simply considered by Clement as they were in the social and
cultural milieu of his time, a normal part of the social structure. Referring back to strictly masculine usage
in Clement’s writings: Such usage is
not too different from present day Christian Liturgies, West and East, where
until a relatively short period of time ago, all reference was strictly
masculine. I remember being told in
school by a female teacher that we should always remember that “man” meant “ human.” This female teacher saw the obvious
exclusion of women in a strict use of the masculine reference and in her own
way tried to remedy the problem by implicit inclusion of females in liturgical
language. Sadly, such implicit
inclusion is woefully inadequate.
Attempts have been made in recent years to develop an all-inclusive
language in Christian Liturgies; but almost two thousand years after Clement, an
uphill battle still remains.
[48]Material and
quotes that follow will be from the following unless otherwise indicated: Stromata IV.XIX (pp. 193-196).
[49] Material
and quotes that follow are from Stromata IV.XIX [p. 196] unless
otherwise indicated.
[50] I have
opted for the inclusive term “people” rather than the strictly masculine “man,”
or a constructed, cumbersome form such as “wo/man-wo/men.”
[51] I am omitting here any discussion of the
very complicated and extensive Gnostic myth, except as it may be necessary to
understand Clement’s concept of the Man of Knowledge.
[52] Valentinus
is the only Gnostic that Clement of Alexandria does not specifically mention he
disagrees with. While Clement never
specifically endorses Valentinus, Clement is far closer to Valentinus in his
thinking than he is to the thinking of any of the other early Christian gnostic
groups of his time.
[53] Material
and quotes that follow are from the following unless otherwise indicated. Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God & the
Beginnings of Christianity (1958 Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press, 2001) 175-176.
[54] Willis
Barnstone, ed., The Other Bible:
Jewish Pseudepigrapha, Christian Apocrypha, Gnostic Scriptures,
Kabbalah, Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1984), 288-289.
[55] Material
and quotes that follow are from Clement of Alexandria, II.XVII (in
Wilson, p. 45-46) unless otherwise indicated.
As noted above, Clement had a habit of skipping from topic to topic and
back again to his original topic; so rather than list all the numerous
citations, I will given the book and chapter(s) and will summarize the material
in that book and chapter(s).
[56] One thinks
of the fans of the Chicago Cubs who have a running statement of “maybe next
year” [the Cubs will win a championship].
[57] For
references to Clement’s discussion of Plato and the various Greek philosophers
see: Stromata (Wilson) II.V [pp.
12-15]; XIX [pp. 58-59]; IV.IV [pp. 147-148], VI [p. 151], VII [p. 163]; V.I
[p. 226], III [pp. 230-231], VIII [p. 247-254], X [p. 260], XI [p.
266-267], XIII [p. 271-273]. See also Stromata (Oulton and Chadwick) III.III.12, 13 [p.
45-46], 18-20 [pp. 48-49]; VII.57 [p. 66]; and VII.IV.22-27 [pp. 106-108].
[58] Stromata
(Wilson) V.XIV [pp 275-301].
[59] Kurt Rudolph,
Gnôsis:
The Nature and History of Gnosticism, trans. Robert McLachlan Wilson (1977, HarperSanFrancisco, 1980). For a full explanation of “gnostic
anthropology” see pp. 88-92.
[61] Paedagogus
1.6.3 [p. 31].
[62] Irenaeus Adv.Haer.
III, XV.2. Posted July 13, 2005,
accessed October 23, 2007 at www.earlychristianwritings.com
[63]
Tertullian’s Prescription against Heretics, trans. J. Betty, Oxford,
1711, accessed October 23, 2007.
[64] Material
and quotes that follow are from Pagels, pp. 125-126 unless otherwise
indicated.
[65] John
Anthony McGucken, The Westminster Handbooks to Christian Theology, The
Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology, (Westminster John Knox
Press: Louisville, Kentucky, 2004) 68.
[66] Clement of
Alexandria, Christ the Educator, Book 1, chapter 6.25 (pp. 24-25).
[67] Clement of
Alexandria, Christ the Educator, Book 1, chapter 6.26, (p. 26).
[68] Clement of
Alexandria, Christ the Educator, Book 1, chapter 6.26, footnotes 4 and
5, (p. 26).
[69] Clement of
Alexandria, Christ the Educator, Book 1, chapter 6.30 and Book 1,
chapter 6.31 for respective quotes (pp. 30 and 31 respectively).
[70] Material
and quotes that follow are from Clement of Alexandria, Christ the Educator,
Book 1, chapter 6.31, footnote 26, (p. 31) unless otherwise indicated.
[71] Clement of
Alexandria, Christ the Educator, Book 1, chapter 6.34-52, (pp. 34-49).
[72] Clement of
Alexandria, Christ the Educator, Book 1, chapter 6.37. Here Clement quotes 1Thessalonians 4.9.
[73] See Book
VII of the Stromata. I am using
both Oulton and Chadwick, “On Spiritual Perfection” Miscellanies, Book VII,
translated by J.B. Mayor, revised, and Wilson’s translation especially Book VI.
[74] Material
and quotes that follow are from Oulton and Chadwick, Stromata, VII.I.1
[p. 93] unless otherwise indicated.
[75] It should
be noted: “The Greek ä?e??
means something more than ‘godless’ and yet less than the positive English word
‘atheist.’ It was applied…to
philosophers who denied the existence of the gods; also to Christians, partly
on the same ground, partly because they could show no image of their own
God….the word conveys a theological rather than a moral imputation.” Clement of Alexandria: Exhortation to the Greeks, The Rich Man’s Salvation,
To the Newly Baptized,” trans. G.W.
Butterworth (1939, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2003)
46-47, footnote b.
[76] Stromata,
VII.I.19-20 [p. 104].
[77] Pierre
Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life:
Spiritual exercises from Socrates to Foucault, trans. Michael Chase
(1995, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts, 2007) 82-89.
[84] Stromata,
VII.I.2 [p. 94].
[85] Material
and quotes that follow are from Stromata, VII.I.3 [p. 94] unless
otherwise indicated.
[86] See Stromata
VI.IV where Clement states that the “Greeks drew many of their philosophical
tenets” from the Egyptians and Stromata V.VII where Clement discusses
“Egyptian Symbols and Enigmas of Sacred Things.” See also Protreptikos ( Exhortation to the Greeks)
II.33-34 and Nag Hammadi Codices VI.4 and 6 in Meyer trans. Nag
Hammadi Scriptures, “The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth.”
[87] Material
and quotes that follow are from Bentley Layton, The Anchor Bible Reference
Library: The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and
Introduction by Bentley Layton, (1987, Doubleday, New York, 1995) 121
unless otherwise indicated.
[88] Garth
Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes: A
Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind, (1986, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1993).
See also: Brian P. Copenhaver, Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the
Latin Asclepius in a New English Translation, with Notes and
Introduction, (1992, Cambridge University Press, 2002); see especially Hermetica
IV.6, XIII, XIII.21.
[92] Timothy
Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia), The Orthodox Church, (1963, Penguin
Books, 1997) 231.
[94] Material
and quotes that follow are from Stromata VII.1.2 unless otherwise
indicated.
[95] Clement
here refers to the “world of sense”; but because of Clement’s explanation, I am
using the term “social order.”
[96] Clement
continually maintains throughout his writings that the Greeks plagiarized their
philosophy from the Hebrews. Clement
was unable to allow for the fact that the Greeks might have conceived their
philosophy before the Old Testament Scriptures came into existence. See Anthony Grafton and Megan Williams,
Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge,
Massachusetts, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press 2006); see
particularly the discussion of Eusebius’ development of a timeline that allowed
for the concept that some civilizations predated Abraham.
[97] See
translation of Wilson: Stromata
VII.I [p. 407].
[98] Stromata
(Oulton and Chadwick) VII.I.3 [pp. 94-95].
[99] Material
and quotes that follow are from Stromata (Wilson) VI.XII [pp. 359-360)
unless otherwise indicated.
[100] Material
and quotes are from Stromata (Wilson) VI.XII [p. 360) unless otherwise
indicated.
[101] Material
and quotes that follow are from Oulton and Chadwick,” General Introduction,” p.
32 unless otherwise indicated. Oulton
and Chadwick here refer to 1Thessalonians 5:23.
[102] Much of
the Paedagogus deals with just this topic that I am calling
“consumerism.” See Christ the
Educator Book Two, particularly Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 and Book
Three, particularly Chapters 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 12.
[103] Stromata
(Wilson) VI.XII [p. 360).
[104] Material
and quotes that follow are from Stromata IV. XXI [p. 200] unless
otherwise indicated.
[105] Stromata
IV.XXI [p. 201].
[106] Clement
consistently and prolifically quotes from the any part of the Old and New
Testaments. His People of Knowledge
must have been extremely well educated in the Scriptures. Clement also quotes various philosophers and
secular authors of the day throughout the Stromata, although he
generally notes the philosopher, school of philosophy or secular author he is
quoting. Thus, I conclude that Clement
must have considered that his People of Knowledge were extremely well versed in
the Scriptures. It should also be noted
that in this listing I have taken the liberty to elaborate on Clement’s list;
in fact, this list, having been translated in the late nineteenth century, is
listed using the following words:
afflictions, necessities, distresses, stripes, imprisonment, tumults,
labors, watchings, fastings, pureness, knowledge, long-suffering, love
unfeigned. These words too often are
taken for granted as being self-evident in meaning; yet they often actually
mean little to the person reading them.
I have taken the liberty of elaborating on the meaning of these various
words and giving appropriate examples of how they may be interpreted.
[107] Stromata,
IV. XXI [p. 201].
[108] Material
and quotes that follow are from Stromata, VI. XII [pp. 359-360] unless
otherwise indicated.
[109] Material
and quotes that follow are from Stromata, VI. XII [pp. 361-362] unless
otherwise indicated.
[110] Material
and quotes that follow are from Stromata, VI. XII [pp. 364-365] unless
otherwise indicated.
[111] For a more
thorough discussion of the idea of “elitism” see Pagels pp. 124-126.
[113] Material
and quotes that follow are from Stromata VI.XV [p. 372].
[114] For the
entire text of this metaphor of “engrafting illustrative of different kinds of
conversion” see Stromata VI.XV [pp. 373-374].
[115] Material
and quotes that follow are from Oulton and Chadwick, Stromata VII.I.3
[p. 94] unless otherwise indicated.
[116] Stromata
Wilson VI.XII [pp. 361-362[.
[117] Oulton and
Chadwick, Stromata VII.I.3 [pp. 94-95].
[118] Oulton and
Chadwick, Stromata VII.I.4 [p.95].
[119] See Strong
and Thayer Number 3056.
[120] Material
and quotes that follow are from Oulton and Chadwick, Stromata VII.II.5
[p.95] unless otherwise indicated.
[121] Oulton and
Chadwick, Stromata VII.II.5 [pp. 95-96].
[122] Material
and quotes that follow are from Oulton and Chadwick, Stromata VII.III.16
[p. 103] unless otherwise indicated.
[123] Material
and quotes that follow are from Oulton and Chadwick, Stromata VII.III.18
[pp. 103-104] unless otherwise indicated.
[124] Oulton and
Chadwick, Stromata VII.VII.38 [p. 117].
[125] Material
and quotes that follow are from Oulton and Chadwick, Stromata VII.VII.39
[p. 117] unless otherwise indicated.
[126] Oulton and
Chadwick, Stromata VII.XI.62 [p. 132].
[127] Oulton and
Chadwick, Stromata VII.XI.64 [p. 133].
[128] Oulton and
Chadwick, Stromata VII.XI.65 [p. 134].
[129] Material
and quotes that follow are from Oulton and Chadwick, Stromata VII.XI.66
[pp. 134-135].
[130] Material
and quotes that follow are from Oulton and Chadwick, Stromata
VII.XI.67-68 [pp. 135-136].
[131] Material
and quotes that follow are from Oulton and Chadwick, Stromata VII.XI.69
[pp. 136-137].
[132] Material
and quotes that follow are from Oulton and Chadwick, Stromata VII.XI.70
[p. 138].
[133] Clement
hear speaks from experience, as he was a married man with a family. And I might say that people who are/have
been married may certainly agree with Clement.
[134] Material
and quotes that follow are from Oulton and Chadwick, Stromata
VII.XIII.81 [p. 145].
[135] Oulton and
Chadwick, Stromata VII.XVI.102 [p. 159].
[136] Material
and quotes that follow are from Oulton and Chadwick, Stromata VII.XIV.84
[pp. 147-148].
[137] Material
and quotes that follow are from Oulton and Chadwick, Stromata
VII.XV.90-91 [p. 151-152].
[138] In a
subsequent chapter Clement addresses those he considers heretics and who have a
false teaching. He names names: Valentinus, Marcion, Basilides, the
Encratites, the Docetae, the Haematitae, the Cainites, the Ophites, the
Simonians. See Oulton and Chadwick, Stromata
VII.XVII [p. 162-163].
[139] Material
and quotes that follow are from Oulton and Chadwick, Stromata
VII.XVI.104 [p. 160-161].
[140] Material
and quotes that follow are from Oulton and Chadwick, Stromata
VII.XVIII.111 [p. 164-165]. In fact,
Oulton and Chadwick note (footnote No. 65, p. 165) that Clement did not write
any more on this subject. Even though
there is an eighth book of the Stromata, it “is not a continuation” but
seems to be a “rough draft for lectures…not…intended for publication.”
|
