CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA AND GNOSIS: A DISSERTATION IN REVIEW

CLAYTON N. JEFFORD Saint Meinrad School of Theology, Saint Meinrad IN 47577

It has become a virtual truism within academic circles that a scholar's career and reputation typically are shaped by his or her dissertation. Indeed, the dissertation commonly appears as the firstfruits of one's academic research life. The long months that are required to assemble the research, the literary offspring that finally emerges through these labors, the satisfaction that comes with the approval of the newborn product by mentors and peerseach element in its turn contributes to the student's sense of identity and intellectual value within the broader realm of scholarly achievement. While subsequent monographs and essays may come and go throughout an individual's career, it most often is through the dissertation that researchers gain recognition among their colleagues. As a candidate for the degree of Th.D. in August 1954, John E. Steely submitted his dissertation on Gnosis: The Doctrine of Christian Perfection in the Writings of Clement of Alexandria to the faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The research was directed by his mentor, Theron D. Price (a contributor to the present volume), and was dedicated to two important women in Steely's life, his mother and his wife. Though the monograph was solid and informative, it never was published and all too quickly slipped into quiet obscurity. Consequently, the initial research efforts of a fine scholar have spent the majority of the last forty years in that place where unpublished dissertations in religion traditionally come to their final, eternal restthe dusty (and too often unexplored) shelves of the seminary library. On the surface, therefore, it would seem that our apparent "truism" about a scholar's dissertation and self-identity probably should not be applied to the career of Professor Steely. Over his academic career Steely instead gained recognition in two other ways: in the first place, for his monumental achievements in the field of translation; secondly, for his contribution to the processes of ecumenical dialogue and re-evaluation within the Baptist heritage. As to the former, his translations gradually have exposed an entire generation of English-speaking students to the views and arguments of the last generation of German scholars, those exegetical pioneers who examined biblical and patristic texts from within the Old Liberal and History-of-Religions schools of

382

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

thought. As to the latter, his views of the Baptist legacy and its relationship to the church universal have led many people to reconsider the roots of their own religious beliefs. Yet one does a disservice to the legacy of John Steely if in fact one omits some consideration of Steely's own, original research as it appears in his dissertation. In this essay I intend briefly to encapsulate the basic argument and primary data of the dissertation in an effort to inform the reader with respect to some of Steely's earliest research interests, interests which often continued to shape his subsequent investigations. Though substantial work has been undertaken into the life and work of Clement since the time of the dissertation,1 the essential information of the monograph remains valid, and many of the insights which Steely proposed in the 1950s remain intriguing in the 1990s. It is my intention here to offer the basic ideas of Steely's dissertation and, in that process, to suggest some subtle ways in which the text serves as a mirror in which the life and work of John E. Steely may be better understood and more fully appreciated. The present essay is structured to reflect the movement of the dissertation, the chapter titles of which are offered below as the headings for each section. After a careful review of the monograph, I have observed numerous parallels between the circumstances of that person who was the focus of Steely's study, the patristic author Clement of Alexandria, and those of Steely himself. Those readers who knew Steely's academic situation no doubt may observe similar parallels and, hopefully, the irony that spawns from such a comparison.

THE LIFE AND WORK OF CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA2 Titus Flavius Clemens Alexandrinus (ca. 160-215) certainly stood at the forefront of theological reflection in Christian Alexandria as the second century of the common era evolved into the third. His genius was nurtured and permitted to mature within an environment that encouraged intellectual pursuit. The church in the West had gained its independence from Judaism and, with Victor as bishop of Rome, it stood in a period of structural and intellectual

*See, e.g., the review of Eric Osborn, "Clement of Alexandria: A Review of Research, 1958-1982," SecCent 3 (1983) 219-44, and the bibliography of Annewies van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the Stromateis, VCSup 3 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988) 231-47. The work of Andr Mhat is especially helpful here in that he offers a somewhat later perspective upon many of the issues that served as a focus of interest for Steely's dissertation; see Andr Mhat, tude sur les 'Stromates' de Clment d'Alexandrie, Patristica Sorbonensia 7 (Paris: ditions du seuil, 1966). John E. Steely, Gnosis: The Doctrine of Christian Perfection in the Writings of Clement of Alexandria (Th.D. diss.; Louisville, 1954) 6-31 (= "Chapter One").
2

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

383

transition. This transitional period endured the development of Montanist, Noetian and gnostic movements, each of which sought to organize the church both internally and with respect to its broader situation within the Roman empire. Neo-Platonism and the influence of Greek philosophy around the Mediterranean basin opened doors within theological speculation. Indeed, no region was more tolerant of these developments than was Egypt. And it was within this open environment that Clement was able to utilize his talents in an effort to shape a religious tradition which came to dominate the history of Alexandrian theology. Little is known of Clement's early life, though perhaps he was born and raised in Athens. Around 180 he came to Egypt where he eventually served within the Alexandrian church, probably as a "presbyter." He most often is recognized as the premier student of the scholar Pantaenus, who himself is remembered as the founder of the renowned library of Alexandria and its famous catechetical school. Clement soon became a co-worker at the school. Eventually he became its director upon the death of Pantaenus around the year 200. It was under the direction of Clement that the school provided a bulwark of support for the rise of Alexandrian theology under such theologians as Origen and Didymus the Blind. During the persecution of Septimius Severus (ca. 202), Clement fled to Palestine and fell into the service of Alexander, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. There is no evidence that Clement ever returned to Alexandria, and presumably it was in Caesarea that he died roughly a decade later. It is clear from Clement's writings that Greek literature served as the foundation of his education. He seems to have known Greek philosophy and the literature of numerous classical authors quite well. No doubt his knowledge of classical sources made him an attractive student for his many subsequent teachers, those whom he described as "blessed and truly remarkable men."3 Clement's ability to utilize classical literature, his consideration of Greek philosophy and his exposure to the ideas of competent Christian theologians all contributed to the framework of thought that is expressed within his writings. Numerous works have survived from the hand of Clement: the Protrepticus (Exhortation to the Heathen); the Paedogogus (The Instructor); the Stromata (The Miscellanies); Quis Dives Salvetur (Who is the Rich Man that Shall Be Saved?); and numerous fragments.4 Throughout these texts one
3

Ibid., l l n l l (Strom. 1.1). Unfortunately the names of Clement's teachers have become a matter of speculation. Steely provides dates and a brief overview for the content of each text (Ibid., 1628). An interesting addition to Steely's list might be the controversial letter of Clement to Theodore in which there is testimony of a "more spiritual" version of the Gospel of Mark; see Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1973).
4

384

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

discovers a scholar who was concerned for a vision of Christ as "teacher" and for the implications of that vision. Clement was masterful in his ability to combine scholarly orientation and spiritual insight. His efforts were at once both intellectual in foundation and practical in orientation. He saw the need to formulate a Christian theology that is universal in its parameters, that envelops an understanding of history and that ultimately is ethical in tone. In this quest he advocated a Christian understanding of gnosis ("knowledge") as the logical goal to which faith is directed. But this knowledge is not the untamed concept of other more heretical thinkers. Instead, for Clement
. . . Gnostic Christianity must be moral as well as intellectual; it must be built upon faith; it must foster no aristocracy of mental ability; it must reject extremes both in asceticism and in libertinism, and it must be in harmony with the gospel which is the precious heritage of the Christian community.5

It was upon this concept that Clement constructed an understanding of theology which he believed could be used to evangelize the nations and to serve as an ideal for the direction of daily Christian living. THE CHRISTIAN BACKGROUND OF THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN GNOSIS IN CLEMENT6 There is little question that Clement's greatest single contribution to Christian thought was the doctrine of Christian perfection or gnosis. Yet it is important to remember that he did not stand at the beginning of speculation about Christian gnosis within early ecclesiastical circles. By the time of Clement, the great gnostic teachers Basilides and Valentinus had lived, taught and established dominant schools of thought which were in place both around the Mediterranean and within the nascent church. In response to this perceived threat, the famous heresiologists Tertullian, Irenaeus and Hippolytus already were actively concerned to insure that Christian theology would not be damaged or misled by gnostic speculation. It was within this very environment of hostility toward gnosticism that Clement offered his ruminations upon Christian gnosis and its necessary role for theology at Alexandria. The greatest threat of gnosticism for Christian theology perhaps existed in the typical gnostic tendency to categorize humanity into a classic tripartite schema: (1) those without any hope of salvation (the animal); (2) those with the potential for salvation (the psychic); and, (3) those who possess the essential "knowledge" of salvation (the spiritual or perfect). It is the membership of this

Steely, Gnosis, 31. Ibid., 32-64 (= "Chapter Two").

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

385

last categorythe perfect (= gnostics)who considered themselves to belong to the highest class of humanity. For Clement, subsequently, it was not gnosis itself that served as the threat to Christian theology, but it was the ensuing elitism that such a school of teaching suggested and that commonly was advocated by gnostic devotees. While Clement accepted the validity of gnosis as an integral part of Christian theology, he also sought to re-examine the concept in such a way that he could avoid this threat of elitism. To this end he borrowed the very weapons of the gnostics in order to wage war against them. In an effort to attack the gnostics Clement first turned toward a canon of texts which he claimed that the heretics had denied and dismissedthe New Testament. He advocated a specific methodology in this task which enabled him to stay in close harmony with the validity and correct meaning of the intention of the scriptures, at least as he understood it. Clement first searched for biblical citations and comments upon gnosis or perfection. His efforts reveal that he did not consider himself to be a "biblical theologian" in the modern sense of the phrase, yet he did manage to quote materials from every book of the New Testament except for James, 2 Peter and 3 John.7 Clement ultimately was led to turn to the philosophers in support of his examination of scripture with the understanding that "the same God who furnished both the Covenants was the giver of Greek philosophy to the Greeks."8 It was this enthusiasm for Greek philosophy which so often has been associated with the perspective of Clement by modern researchers. Especially important for Clement were the works of Plato and of the Pythagoreans, though "he was well-versed in the writings and thoughts of the Stoics, Plato, Aristotle, and Philo Judaeus."9 More will be said on this subject below. In addition, Clement was quick to apply the allegorical method of interpretation to scripture. With the use of allegory Clement could focus upon a "deeper" understanding of the intentions that lay behind the writings of the earliest Christians. To this end he believed that his view into the reality of the Bible superseded that of the gnostics, who were prone to interpret texts on a surface, literal level alone. Clement's use of allegory became a technique which served to dominate those later patristic authors who studied biblical texts in Alexandria, thereby to establish a world-famous reputation for "Alexandrian allegorical method" among biblical scholars of the period.

Clement also made extensive use of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (specifically 1 Clement, Barnabas, Didache, Diognetus, Hermas and perhaps Ignatius), as well as of numerous apocryphal texts (specifically the Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of the Hebrews, Preaching of Peter, Gospel/Traditions of Matthias and Apocalypse of Peter).
% 9

Strom. 6.5.

Steely, Gnosis, 67.

386

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

It was not through exegetical method alone, however, that Clement distinguished himself from the gnostic schools with respect to his understanding of gnosis. Clement held a most specific roster of doctrinal values which served to separate his interests from those of the gnostics. To begin with his doctrine of God, Clement found the God of Christianity to be unknowable and, subsequently, without adequate expression. This f itself does not distinguish Clement from typical gnostic thought, of course, but he continued to insist that God is known only in relationship to humanity, and not through pure speculation. Furthermore, humanity contains within its essence a general freedom of willwithout distinction among persons. Such a supposition in fact does serve to separate Clement from the typical gnostic teachings of his times, of course. The emphasis upon God in relationship to humanity, creator in association with creation, knower in affiliation with the known, gives a distinct tenor to Clement's perception of gnosis so as to define the concept as that agent by which humanity seeks to attain communion with the divine. In support of this perception, Clement argued that humanity bears both an "image" and a "likeness" to God: an image which appears in the rational nature of all humanity; a likeness which is the similarity to God's nature that is found in Christians alone. It is at this point that Clement commonly is charged with the taint of gnostic influences, that is, because of his belief that humanity should be divided according to certain "strata of salvation." The fruit of this speculation was the belief by Clement that, indeed, even the deification of humanity was possible.
It will be noted that this doctrine implies the expansion of an idea of man's kinship to God, in that there is that within man which may be converted into such a close identification with Deity as to justify the expression theopoisis. The truly mature Christian is regarded as one who has applied himself to the possibilities which God has bestowed upon him, and thus has attained the exalted state which may be called gnosis.10

But note, however, that the state of gnosis and the process of the deification of humanity is not to be achieved without the primary element of "faith"a feature which serves no role within gnostic systems of speculation.
. . . Faith is the minimum condition of admittance into the kingdom of God, but it is not the realization of the fulness of spiritual life. . . . Clement felt that a peculiar duty was his to rescue the idea of gnosis from the heretics and preserve its respectability among the Christians,

Ibid., 57. Cf. Raoul Mortley, Connaissance religieuse et hermneutique chez Clment d'Alexandrie (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973) 150-57.

10

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

and this could be done only if it could be shown that there is no cleavage between faith and gnosis.11

387

Intermingled with these concerns for Clement's doctrine of God and for his understanding of humanity is the doctrine of love. Love too is intermingled with gnosis, but it is the form of love that is expressed between individuals which stands in the more prominent place, rather than the love which God expresses for humanity in general. For Clement, the core of religious identity and Christian aspirations to divinity are recognized precisely in the forms of expression that one Christian has for another. The specific applications of this love bear "evidence of the Hellenistic stamp"12 upon Clement's theology. It was this very imprint of Hellenism to which Steely next turned his attentions as he examined the work of Clement.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND OF THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN GNOSIS IN CLEMENT13 A reading of Clement's writings suggests immediately that his educational background was shaped by a primary reading of numerous ancient Greek authors. Yet as Steely himself notes, Even though it may appear that he hadfirsthandknowledge of the writings which he quoted or to which he referred, it seems likely that he utilized anthologies of ancient thought, both philosophical and popular.14 It is entirely possible, of course, that Clement's knowledge of the ancients and his speculation upon their themes derived from secondary anthologies of their works and not upon their original writings. But one should not forget that in Alexandria Clement had access to numerous literary materials, both secondary and original, through the facilities of the famous library there. His own early education no doubt was assisted in later years by his exposure to such materials. It is not difficult to assess Clement's personal estimate of the value of philosophy. Without question, there is an implied approval throughout his

Ibid., 60-61. Ibid., 64. Ibid., 65-97 (= "Chapter Three").

12 13 14

Ibid., 66. In support of this observation, Steely's own note at this point encourages the reader to consider "the series of quotations in Protrepticus VE; Stromata V. 14; VI.2."

388

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

writings. Yet in addition to this general acceptance of philosophical speculation, numerous instances appear in which Clement offers specific commendation of Greek authors and their ruminations. Thus, for example, he states
Our book will not shrink from making use of what is best in philosophy and other preparatory instruction. . . . All, in my opinion, are illuminated by the dawn of Light.15

Clement believed that philosophy derived from divine inspiration, and that it has stood in history as that way in which God is "glorified among the Greeks."16 With such praise for the authors of the Greek philosophical tradition, it is only natural that Clement should feel justified in his use of the tradition itself. Yet he himself observed that some criticism must be applied in this process, since not all materials are qualified for consumption. His primary criticisms were twofold: "it is at best preparatory, and it is all too susceptible to perversion and abuse."17 In this way Clement was able to protect himself against the ways in which his opponents may have used Greek philosophy and their claims to its validity as support for their own positions. For Clement, philosophy was "preparatory" for the "enlightened person," perhaps to be understood much in the same way as was espoused in the writings of Thomas Aquinas a millenium later. Steely undertakes a quick scan of the writings of Clement in an attempt to list representative examples of those philosophers whom Clement felt were worthy of note. Included in this list are: (from the Protrepticus) Thaes, Epicurus, Anaximenes, Parmenides, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Democritus, Plato, the Stoics, the Cynics, the Pythagoreans, the Socratic school; (from the Paedogogus) Heraclitus, Plato, Zeno, Aristotle; (from the Stromata) Plato, the Stoics, the Sophists, Philo, the Pythagoreans, Aristotle, etc.18 Perhaps most important for any consideration of Clement is an understanding of the way in which he employed the writings and thoughts of the philosophical schools. From the outset Clement demonstrated a distinct debt to the methodology of the Greek philosophers. This debt appears in three facets, as follows. First of all, he acknowledged the need to utilize the tool of logic, or reason. In addition, he argued for the validity of "plurality of data," that is, for the goal of a complete system of knowledge that is informed by multiple sources of inspiration and revelation. The unity that is achieved by such a collection of

15

Ibid., 68. The quotations offered here are borrowed from Strom. 1.1, 13. Ibid., 69; taken from Strom. 6.5. Ibid., 70; taken from Strom. 1.5 and 6.8.

16

17

18

Ibid., 71-75.

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

389

fragmentary materials does not threaten faith, which remains solid and unharmed. Finally, he was concerned for more than mere information. Indeed, he was concerned for values. "To Clement the chief value to be found was the way of salvation, leading to heaven and life eternal."19 Apart from his debt to philosophical methodology, one finds that Clement's writings and thoughts were influenced markedly by the work of Plato. Of all that Clement utilized from the work of Plato, perhaps the single most influential idea "which had significant impact on the doctrine of Christian perfection is Plato's teaching concerning likeness to God as the end and goal of human existence."20 For Plato and Clement alike, this "likeness" is to be found in humanity's approach to divine justice or righteousness. "Likeness," therefore, is not to be envisioned within the realm of being, so much as in the realm of imitation and moral motive.
He is the Gnostic, who is after the image and likeness of God, who imitates God as far as possible, deficient in none of the things which contribute to the likeness as far as compatible, practicing self-restraint and endurance, living righteously, reigning over the passions, bestowing of what he has as far as possible, and doing good both by word and deed.21

Another aspect of Clement's use of philosophical tradition is apparent in his utilization of Stoic terminology and ideas. Typical of Clement's ideology is a focus upon the concept of "passionlessness." The true Christian must endeavor to control and master the passions of the human nature. So too, one should focus upon the ideal of "life in accordance with reason and nature." The true Christian seeks to exist in harmony with the ebb and flow of existence. Such Stoic conceptions are evident throughout Clement's writings, and these pieces of philosophical tradition continually were blended into a Stoic-Platonic syncretism that was used as a standard by which the Christian should be measured in the quest to "become like God." As Steely observes,
To become like God [Clement] regarded as the summum bonum of life, and this is sometimes couched in the extreme terms which seem, to Western ears, to echo more of Stoicism than of Christianity. It is the splendid possibility of human nature, in at least this one respect, to approach likeness to the divine, and this was to Clement a goal worth seeking.22

19

Ibid., 77.

^Ibid., 79.
21

Ibid., 79; taken from Strom. 2.19.

^Ibid., 86.

390

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

Other philosophical trends also are evident in the works of Clement. For example, the Pythagorean mathematical system certainly has shaped his speculative use of numbers. Such speculation is evident in his exposition on the mystical meaning of the tabernacle and its furniture,23 as well as in his lengthy comments upon the decalogue.24 Elsewhere he acknowledges his approval of Pythagorean systems of thought and teachings, systems to which his development of a true Christian gnosticism unquestionably were indebted.25 In addition to the Pythagoreans, Clement exhibits some debt to the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus. Apart from Clement's use of the "logos" theology (which in fact may have been derived as easily from Stoic speculation as from Philo) and his employment of allegorical methodology in the analysis of scripture, Clement's entire approach to the progress of the Christian in the quest for divinity reflects the doctrine of higher life which Philo also espoused. Philo's vision was of a contemplative, temperate life, an existence in which desire is eliminated. Such an existence was possible for Philo because of his idea (ala Aristotle) that humanity possesses two minds, a higher and a lower (= conscience and reason). It is to this higher mind that Philo aspired as the setting for his ideal existence. No doubt, Clement's own division of humanity according to the biblical claims for "image" and "likeness" of God were shaped by this Aristotelian conception. As with Philo, it is the nature of "likeness of God," the higher mind, which serves as the expression of that experience in which the human aspiration to the divine may be achieved. THE ATTAINMENT OF CHRISTIAN GNOSIS26 Clement offers several lists with respect to how the ideal Christian may attain to the realization of gnosis. Unfortunately for the modern student, the steps toward this realization which are contained within these lists do not reveal any apparent consistency. It has been up to scholars to explain these divergences, and by the 1950s several common theories were offered to illuminate the process that Clement had envisioned in this quest. These may be listed briefly here:27 (1) Clement offered no true system, probably in order to

"Ibid., 92; taken from Strom. 5.5. Cf. van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria, 11647. ^Ibid., 92; taken from Strom. 6.16. "Ibid., 93; taken from Strom. 1.1, 12, 6.1. ^Ibid., 98-132 (= "Chapter Four"). Ibid., 99-106. Here Steely reviews the work and perspectives of Guy Harvey Ranson, Walter Vlker, R.B. Tollinton and G.W. Butterworth. As he correctly observes, the weight of the argument should be placed upon the witness of the Stromata, which is the most mature of Clement's writings.
27

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

391

conceal his teaching from "the casual and unworthy reader"; (2) a formal process can be recognized which follows a specific ordering of elementsrepentance, faith, overcoming of passions, attainment of Christian morality, attainment of Christian piety, attainment of Christian love, attainment of gnosis, assimilation to God, (3) there are two basic stages onlyorigination in faith and completion in gnosis; (4) there is really only a single stage"faith, which 'becomes a higher quality as the soul ascends'";28 and, (5) the process is a pilgrimage with two sides, "the practice of virtue" and "the progress of knowledge."29 Into this discussion of the vision of Clement, Steely offers his own contribution.30 From the outset, one observes that the "lack of system" in Clement's works must be acknowledged to the extent that it affects the doctrine of gnosis on two specific counts: the stages by which the Christian progresses along the pathway to realization, and the "statement of procedures" to be observed by whomever seeks this path. Steely observes that the key to any understanding of Clement's perspective here should focus upon a particular statement which Clement chose to use in one specific context, only thereafter to repeat elsewhere in a separate context: ". . . the course of life which from elementary instruction grows by faith; a n d . . . prepares beforehand the soul. . . for the reception of gnostic knowledge."31 Thus for Clement, as Steely argues, there are indeed two basic stages of progressionfaith and knowledge (gnosis). Elsewhere Clement again refers to the perfect Christian as a "gnostic soul," but within the same chapter offers two additional elements which appear to transcend the stage of gnosis along this progression: "For it is said, To him that hath shall be given': to faith, knowledge; and to knowledge, love; and to love, inheritance."32 Some authors have argued that it is not gnosis which Clement perceives as the true goal, therefore, but inheritance. Steely argues that in reality this is not the case, since Clement within the same paragraph offers once more a different scenario of extremes along this progression toward salvationfaith and love, without inheritance. It is virtually inconceivable that within this limited context Clement has offered the Christian with two separate, ultimate goalsboth love and inheritanceor that, within the broader

^Ibid., 103; quoted from R.B. Tollington, Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Liberalism (London: Williams and Norgate, 1914) 2.23 Iff. Ibid, 105; quotedfromB.W. Butterworth, "The Deification of Man in Clement of Alexandrie JTS 17 (January 1916): 157-68.
30 29

Ibid., 106-32. Paed. 1.1 and Strom. 6.1 respectively. Strom. 7.10.

31 32

392

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

framework of the chapter, he should offer threeknowledge, love and inheritance. Rather, Steely appropriately concludes,
. . . closer examination of this one passage will reveal that Clement did not intend to employ these two terms to picture stages on the road to life for the Christian seeking perfection, but rather to speak of the gifts of God given in succession, knowledge being added to faith, love to knowledge, and the inheritance to love, in the normal, the ordinary course of events in the Christian's life. This is not the pathway to be taken by the few who strive to reach perfection.33

Thus one is left to conclude that Clement envisioned two basic stages along the path to Christian realizationfaith and gnosis. That point at which the Christian must engage the journey of perfection may be found in the essence of "faith." In some respects faith is superior to knowledge since faith serves as the sure foundation for accurate judgment. Indeed, "knowledge cannot be attained without faith."34 Nor can the gnostic ever transcend faith, which is divine in origin and the foundation for all subsequent experience. Clement's most helpful discussion of faith is contained in Stromata 2 and 5, where he writes for the Christian in uninhibited language and in an almost systematic approach to the topic. Clement envisions faith in a twofold sense"a common faith... which all Christians possess, and a select faith which is built thereon, resulting from instruction and the word of God."35 In essence these are not different, but the former is immature while the latter has the potential to develop into knowledge. In opposition to the teaching of Basilides, Clement argued that such faith does not derive from nature, nor does it develop toward gnosis in an automatic manner. To argue otherwise would be to deny an element of freedom in the perspective of the Christian.36 Instead, knowledge may be acquired only through the process of choice. Here one might argue that Clement provides a contradiction in his understanding of faith, in the one case "as the choice of the soul to serve God" and in the other as "the foundation of that choice."37 But such an argument ultimately cannot be used as a condemnation of Clement's

33

Steely, Gnosis, 109.

^Ibid., 110.
35

Ibid., 114; taken from Strom. 5.1

36 See the general discussion of W.E.G. Floyd, Clement of Alexandria's Treatment of the Problem of Evil (London: Oxford University Press, 1971) 24-40. 37

Steely, Gnosis, 117.

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

393

own approach, since the New Testament itself contains a similar fluctuation in its understanding of faith. Clement acknowledges that the possession of faith alone is not equivalent to perfection, though faith, as a divine gift, is perfect and serves to unite all those who believe into an equal status before God.38 Rather, the possession of faith prepares the Christian in order that each person who has faith may seek knowledge. As Steely observes, the harness which Clement cast around the concept of knowledge served a specific and important function for the development of Christian theology during his time:
With the utilization of so common a word as this [i.e., knowledge], applicable by the modern mind to so many realms without prejudice, Clement sought to turn a great tide of religious and philosophical thought and to regain the initiative for the Christian gospel in the minds of learned men.39

The value of speculation had been lost to the primitive church, which continued for some time to view itself as the institution of an interim period until the parousia. The episcopate was concerned primarily to preserve the essence of faith and, indeed, even to avoid speculation. Clement boldly argued that knowledge, though framed upon faith, was instrumental in order to understand the hidden truths of the gospel that had been hidden from the masses. The gospel message was a message, not only for those who held faith in pious simplicity but as well, for the educated and reflective. Knowledge, or gnosis, is at once the illumination that occurs at the time of conversion and is at the same time the goal toward which each Christian must travel. Faith is a requirement for the Christian, but gnosis is the obvious aspiration for those who accept this faith. It is this latter focus that occupied Clement's primary interest, that is, gnosis as a goal. For Clement, gnosis must be treated "not only as a level of life to be attained, but also as a discipline to be mastered, a curriculum to be pursued.'*40 Like faith, gnosis is a divine gift. Its primary source is the Bible. But above all else, it is both intellectual and ethical in its nature. It is to this focus upon the ethical aspect of gnosis that Steely next turned his attention.

38

See Paed. 1.6. Steely, Gnosis, 120.

39

"Ibid., 126.

394

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

THE LIFE OF THE TRUE CHRISTIAN GNOSTIC41

As is curiously true of many academic monographs, the longest portion of Steely's dissertation, that is, his final argument in which he states his primary observations, may be restated in only a few paragraphs. The focus of this discussion is the theme that the true Christian gnostic lives a life which is sound in theological focus and solid in ethical perspective. Steely offers his argument as a description of "the significance of some of the aspects of that life represented by Clement as the acme of Christian progress in the present life."42 The primary text for consideration here is the Paedagogus. In this work Clement argued that the logical goal of true Christian living is "perfection," a concept which is to be equated with spiritual maturity or sinlessness. All Christians enjoy perfection to the extent that they have faith in Christ. Yet the ideal Christian seeks that form of perfection which reflects a more mature faith experience. The primary characteristic of this maturity is the realization of a "complete freedom from sin,"43 a goal which Clement did not claim to have acquired for himself, yet which remained in his thought as a worthy quest in any individual's pursuit of God. In the search for perfection and sinlessness the Christian must undertake the necessary exercise of "apathy" or "passionlessness." Clement borrowed directly from Stoic thought here.44 As Steely observes,
. . . the ideal Christian, who could not, in the last analysis, be servant to any save God alone, must free himself from the dominion of the senses and all external influences.... This is quite different from any view which proposes an ascetic self-denial on the grounds of the essential evil of this world or of the physical nature of man. . . . Clement's view is . . . essentially religious, rather than philosophical. It is based upon his doctrine of the nature of man and his doctrine of God, not upon an interpretation of the universe which is essentially materialistic.45

41 42

Ibid., 133-87 (= "Chapter Five'*). Ibid., 134. Ibid., 142.

43

^^The concept of apathy, which was borrowed from Greek philosophical schools of thought, may be said to have affected the majority of theologians from the Alexandrian school; see Mhat, tude sur les 'Stromates,9 366-73.
45

Steely, Gnosis, 147-48.

JOURNAL OF THE NABPR

395

In essence, Clement was not in agreement with the view of contemporary gnostic teachers who argued that apathy is necessary in order to avoid the evils of the material world. Indeed, Clement was an advocate of enjoyment and delight in the human situation.46 Clement believed, however, that some control of the physical appetites is necessary so as not to detract from the quest for perfection. Admittedly, the demands of physical existence must be observed; however, the demands of spiritual maturity must take precedence. The true Christian gnostic must be active in the world, neither passive in lifestyle nor useless to society. Clement characterized the mature believer as an active learner, teacher, prayer, almsgiver and philanthropist.47 In this respect Clement certainly did not endorse the contemplative life of strict asceticism and withdrawal from the world. On the contrary, while Clement acknowledged that the "contemplation of God is the chief delight of the [perfect Christian],"48 he believed that the service of others is a necessary part of the present human condition. Finally, Clement's focus upon sinlessness certainly was not an endorsement of ignorance. Gnosis is at once a spiritual experience and an intellectual exercise. It is a quest for honorable knowledge; it recognizes philosophy as a gift from God. The aspiration for gnosis is the aspiration to imitate God, a pursuit which is divine in origin and intellectual in essence. The goal of this activity is to obtain that exalted state which is equivalent to the deification of humanity, that is, to obtain a vision of God. "Gnosis is," in Clement's words, "the perfecting of man as man."49 CONCLUSION50 There are many scholars who have condemned Clement and his positions throughout the years, while as many more have praised the man and his accomplishments. He was an early Christian theologian who, like many of his contemporaries, was concerned for the preservation of learning, yet who, unlike most of his contemporaries, was interested to speculate with respect to the quest of human aspirations for divinity. In this process Clement saw the

"Prot. 10.
47

See Strom. 1.13; 2.19-20; 6.10, 12, 18, 20; 7.3, 7, 12.

^Steely, Gnosis, 163.

49 50

Ibid., 183. See here as well Floyd, Clement, 84-90.

Steely, Gnosis, 188-94 (= "Conclusion'*).

396

PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

practical advantage in the interpretation of philosophy, that is, the opportunity to apply a gift from God toward the pursuit of Christian perfection, or gnosis. While Steely obviously reflects an admiration for Clement's views, particularly within the context of the early Christian community of Alexandria, he does not offer this respect without some critique. For instance, Steely notes that Clement had not considered fully the applied relationship between what is ideal and what is actual within Christian existence.51 Further, he questions whether the ideal of apathy ever can be reconciled to the virtue of love within the Christian life. And finally, Steely observes that Clement failed to recognize the seriousness of sin as a barrier between humanity and God. Thereby the drastic process of redemption which is presented in the biblical perspective is lost on Clement. Despite these very basic critiques, however, Steely nevertheless holds an appreciation for Clement, his life and his works which is deep and full of conviction. This becomes evident in the concluding comment of the dissertation, an observation which is borrowed from the work of F.D. Maurice:
I do not know where we shall look for a purer or a truer man than this Clement of Alexandria. He seems to me that one of the old fathers whom we should all have reverenced most as a teacher and loved most as a friend.52

I submit that these reflections may be made equally as well of that man for whom this present volume is offered in honor, Professor John E. Steely. May both Clement of Alexandria and John of Wake Forest rest in peace!

Curiously, it may have been this very critique of Clement that so often became the motivation for Steely's own academic projects. Steely, Gnosis, 194; quoted from F.D. Maurice, Ecclesiastical History of the First and Second Centuries (Cambridge: University Press, 1854) 239.
52

51

Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.