1 Clement’s Christian Sources

Clement of Alexandria is remembered as one of the foremost early Christian intellectuals, whose complex writings offered a Christian philosophy that proved influential in antiquity before later falling out of fashion.¹ One of the primary reasons that Clement was celebrated as both a scholar and an exegete was his willingness to grapple with a diversity of literary sources.² From Greek philosophy, drama and poetry, to Hebrew prophecy and Christian scriptures – his extant works are saturated with literary borrowings. Though Chadwick and others have rightly affirmed the use of handbooks in Clement’s oeuvre, it is without question that Clement was familiar with an incredible range of ancient writing.³ Clement’s works weave together these disparate sources in the construction of his Christian teachings.

Clement’s literary borrowings are so profuse that disagreement remains on precisely how many are identified in his oeuvre – Van den Hoek considered them to be practically “innumerable.”⁴ Despite disagreement, the various figures suggested by scholars demonstrate Clement’s literary breadth. Alongside the thousands of Greco-Roman quotations identified by Stählin in the early twentieth century (of which, by Stählin’s count, Plato alone accounts for 618 individual references), there are an enormous number of citations of Jewish and early Christian material.⁵ Eric Osborn estimated there to be 3279 references to the New Testament in Clement’s extant works, with an additional 1842 references to the Jewish Scriptures.⁶ In an earlier study, Krause identified the saturation of Clement’s writings with scriptural borrowings to be anomalous among late-second century Christian authors.⁷ Of these scriptural references, Stählin’s index recognised 1273 Pauline borrowings – making Paul Clement’s most cited author among his extant writings.⁸

Despite the clear mass of literary borrowings, a firm total remains elusive. Van den Hoek attributes this, in part, to the manner in which Clement introduced his quotations. He rarely signposted his literary borrowings with common indicators such as “κατὰ λέξιν” (“as the phrase goes,” found only 24 times), and this lack of uniform clarity certainly contributes to the confusion around precise figures.⁹ Nonetheless, regardless of the exact criteria employed to demonstrate specific literary borrowings, these figures illustrate just how important quotations were to Clement’s writing style, and in constructing and promoting his own form of intellectual Christianity.

As Lilla noted, Clement’s thought “represents the meeting-point of three distinct streams: the Jewish-Alexandrine philosophy, the Platonic tradition (which includes both school-Platonism and Neoplatonism), and Gnosticism.”¹⁰ This culminated, in literary form, in a trilogy of major works that offered a Christian philosophy dependent upon the fundamental principle of the divine Logos.¹¹ The Protrepticus exhorted the reader to embrace belief, the Paedagogus provided instruction in that faith, and the Stromateis led to deeper spiritual initiation.

Clement was a teacher, instructing his followers in a Christian philosophy that he hoped would shape their entire lives. His divine Logos underpinned this philosophy, and though fully revealed in Christ, the Logos incarnate, was the organizing principle for all knowledge and wisdom in Clement’s system. As such Clement could incorporate Plato in his many borrowings as “Moses speaking Greek” or label Euripides the “philosopher of the stage.”¹² Through the epistemological harmonizing power of the divine Logos, even authors like Euripides could become mouthpieces of the Christian message.

Lilla’s seminal work in this area has, until recently, shaped discussions around Clement’s relationships with “gnostic” groups and with Platonic thought. As recent work by figures such as Roig Lanzillotta has demonstrated, there is much to be gained through the re-examination of these relationships.¹³ A reconsideration too of Clement’s literary borrowings further illuminates both Clement’s influences and his intentions with such textual usage.

The harmonizing power of the divine Logos that brought figures such as Euripides into the Christian fold included within it a diversity of early Christian literature. His “Christian” borrowings were not limited to works he considered inspired, and he drew frequently on the writings of Tatian, Basilides, and Valentinus as well as popular works such as the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. Though sometimes cited in order for Clement to refute them (such as at length in the third Stromata) the majority of such borrowings are in fact found in support of his arguments.¹⁴ Works that were popular even among his direct opponents became a part of Clementine spiritual expression.

Scholars have long noted that this is an unusual approach. Theodor Zahn wrote of Clement in his 1884 magnum opus on New Testament canon; “his exceedingly uncritical attitude to apocryphal literature exceeds anything to be found in other Church fathers.”¹⁵ Zahn recognised both the volume and anomalous complexity of Clement’s engagement. Morton Smith similarly emphasised this trait, considering Clement “outstanding among Christian writers for his acceptance of OT and NT pseudepigrapha.”¹⁶ More recently Carleton-Paget and Van den Hoek have further commented on Clement’s unique approach to such a breadth of Judeo-Christian sources.¹⁷ From the nineteenth century until the present day, Clement’s unorthodox embrace of works that he himself would have repudiated in many contexts has been widely appreciated.

This paper will explore how Clement’s cultural and intellectual synthesis draws not simply on the literary traditions of the wider Greco-Roman world, but on the textual deposits of other Christian movements in the second century. His unusual engagement with this diversity of early Christian literature sits within that, but also allows the reader (and hopefully, for Clement, the convert) to move beyond that. As a result this paper will first examine how Clement’s hermeneutic allowed such an innovative and generous approach to texts that even Clement himself actively repudiated, before considering how their use within his extant writings conforms this diversity of texts into a shared expression of Christian truth.

The result of such an investigation is not the ‘gnostic’ acquiescence of Lilla, but a particularly Clementine perspective on the discernment of truth that allows Clement’s “true gnostic” a unique privilege in the handling and ultimately the editing of even potentially adverse spiritual material. This furthermore sheds new light on a range of texts that scholars have long considered Clement to believe to be canonical.

2 Clement’s Hermeneutic

Clement’s hermeneutic has long been of interest to modern scholars. His use of allegory and typological readings has been recognized as inaugurating an Alexandrian style that found its zenith in the writings of Origen in the third century.¹⁸ Young, for example, considered Clement’s efforts as “foundational” for the future work of figures such as Origen (regardless of whether a formal relationship existed between the two.)¹⁹ Links backwards to Philo have been established, as have trends continuing from the Alexandrian approach into the writings of Augustine.²⁰ Despite the allegorical and indeed mystical nature of Clement’s epistemology, his hermeneutic was relatively straightforward. In his intellectual amalgamation of Christian and platonic ideals, it centered on the underpinning principle of his philosophy: the divine Logos.

His perspective was shaped by the incarnation of Christ as the fullest revelation of the divine Logos, but with the crucial understanding that this was not the sole divine revelation of the Logos. As the organizing and underpinning principle of all creation, the Logos spoke more broadly, and could be heard by the true and enlightened follower. Clement’s hermeneutic was therefore dependent upon this word of God being expressed in creation, throughout history, in a multiplicity of ways.

In discussing Clement’s epistemological foundations, Dawson labelled it a “hermeneutic of the divine voice” and elaborated on this descriptor: “Just as a ventriloquist ‘throws’ his or her voice, making it appear as though any number of other objects are speaking, so Clement construes scripture and other texts as expressions of a single divine voice, the discourse of God’s own speech.”²¹ Clement’s Logos operates, according to Dawson, as a divine echo ringing throughout history. This echoing of the divine voice was a theory already popular in ancient Jewish thought, as Kindiy has noted, “a hermeneutic connection between the Hebrew scriptures and Greek philosophy had already been established before Clement by such Jewish philosophers as Aristeas, Aristobulus, and Philo of Alexandria, who synthesized – by means of allegorical method – the Greek Platonic idea of Logos and the Jewish religious notion of the Word of God.”²² The hermeneutical connection between texts as an expression of the divine Logos is more, however, than a simple echo. The Logos is itself the foundation of the cosmos, and as a result, is heard not simply as an expression of God, but as the organising principle of all creation.

Clement is explicit in opening his first major work, the exhortatory Protrepticus, that the divine Logos possesses a cosmologically harmonizing power. This power has the ability to grant life to individuals, and to unite all things to the glory of the Logos himself.

[He] has made men out of stones and men out of wild animals. Those who were as dead, who had no share of genuine life, were revitalised when they heard this song. And it is this very song that composed all creation into melodious agreement, and tuned into concert the discord of the elements, that all the universe might be in harmony [ἁρμονία] with it.²³

Clement presents the incredible power of his foundational divine Logos in musical terms as the Logos alone harmonizes the divergent and discordant melodies of creation into one glorious tune.²⁴ Later in the work, Clement describes the right response to the divine Logos as being the raising of a tuneful “marching song” in praise.²⁵ His invitation to the faith is presented as a rightful participation in the harmonizing melody of creation, an invitation to align your own tune with that of Christ himself. Clement is buying into a broader platonic understanding of the term ἁρμονία (harmony). As Faulkner explains, in “ancient Greek thought … the musical meaning of harmonia was subsidiary to the cosmic meaning of the term.”²⁶ Philolaus, a philosopher whose career was contemporaneous with that of Socrates, explained the role of cosmic harmony through a discussion of “number.”

Number, fitting all things into the soul through sense-perception, makes them recognisable and comparable with one another … You may see the nature of Number and its power at work not only in supernatural and divine existences but also in all human activities and words everywhere, both throughout all technical production and also in music.²⁷

Philolaus illustrates the place of ἁρμονία in philosophical discourse, particularly in Pythagorean and Platonic schools.²⁸ For Clement, divine harmony becomes the means by which the Logos unites all things to himself, culminating in the people of Christ. Creation is unified in this tuneful melody as dissonance and discord are removed by supernatural orchestration.

Christ himself is therefore presented by Clement as the “instrument” of God. The double meaning here gives Clement’s understanding a sense beyond the Philonic use of the word “instrument.” Philo describes the Logos as ὄργανον, meaning instrument or tool, a sense Clement reproduces but exceeds – stressing a deliberate musical sense.²⁹ In his employ of ὄργανον to describe Christ, Clement makes this sense explicit in describing Christ as “το πολυφώνον ὄργανον” (a many voiced instrument).³⁰

Shortly after this description, Christ (the divine Logos) is described as “ὄργανόν ἐστι τοῦ θεοῦ παναρμόνιον” (he is the all-harmonious instrument of God).³¹ Clement’s paralleling of Philo’s description of the Logos as the ὄργανον of God is given a new meaning. Christ becomes not only the means by which God exercises his authority and power in creation (as he is for Philo) but this incorporates – through this musical use of the term – a distinctly eschatological flavour, as Clement offers a sense of eternal completion in the harmony of all things. Many disparate voices become unified in one harmony through the power of this Logos.

It is Christ, the divine Logos, who brings together all creation in divine harmony. Clement’s deliberate presentation of the Logos as this harmonizing concept utilizes this philosophical/musical terminology to express the identity of the Logos, emphasizing his cosmological sovereignty, and his ability to transform humanity as part of this ultimate harmonization of all creation. Clement returns to this theme of eternal harmony throughout his first work, and is explicit that the divine Logos drives creation towards this.³² Cosgrove summarized this (albeit without reference to the Protrepticus), in Clement’s oeuvre.

Clement’s Logos Christology includes a musical cosmology that imparts a musical aspect to his soteriology. The beatific vision includes a beatific audition, a participation in a suprasensible, rational, heavenly music. This music touches Christians in temperate songs that subdue the passions and help to form the soul for heaven. The New Song tunes both the great cosmos and the little cosmos of the human being.³³

This cosmology sharpens Clement’s Christology, all through the musical language and metaphors the Christian author constructs. By weaving into his Logos-Christology this musical language and its clear implications, Clement’s wider “hermeneutic of the divine voice” is strengthened.³⁴ This is clearly displayed in his first major work, and in its cosmological reach, encompassing all things as Clement applies the Logos to the human experience. From this, the didactic application relevant for this present discussion is clear. Centered on the underlying harmonizing power of the divine Logos, Clement can argue that all texts illuminate something of Christ.

As a result, Cosaert can elsewhere suggest that Clement is able to transform philosophy into a teacher of the Greeks. It becomes “to the Greek world what the law and prophets were to Israel: a pedagogue to lead them to Christ.”³⁵ Though the Christ-event represents the fullest of divine revelation, these other texts in varied ways attest to this Logos.

Cosaert is astute regarding Clement’s position. Philosophy, argues the Christian author, “was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring the Hellenic mind, as the law, the Hebrews, to Christ. Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.”³⁶ Philosophy was to the Greeks what the Law was to the Hebrews – a paving of the way for the true pedagogy of Christ incarnate. Speaking a short while later about the deliberate division of truth by false teachers, Clement offers the illustration of truth being like the scattered limbs of Pentheus torn apart by the frenzied maenads in Euripides’ Bacchae.³⁷

Just as Pentheus’ limbs lay strewn about the hillside of Mount Cithaeron, truth can be found in the various reaches of creation.³⁸ Whether glimpsed on the stage of Sophocles, or the philosophy of Plato, or indeed through the tuneful song of David or the teaching of Paul, truth is on offer for the discerning soul to discover.

Not, however, that Clement considered all fragments of truth to be equal. Indeed, the Christian author suggests that other sources of truth can only point the searcher towards Christ himself. Philosophy, for example, glimpses the truth only “as if in a dream.”³⁹ In this understanding we can expose the hermeneutic of Clement more clearly. Centered on the harmonizing power of the divine Logos, all things (and this includes all texts) can be shown to reveal fragments of truth pertaining to that very harmonizing Logos. As such, the advent of Christ represents the climax of the revelation of truth, and is therefore the means by which all other expressions of truth can be evaluated.

Rightly then, to the Jews belonged the Law, and to the Greeks philosophy, until the Advent; and after that came the universal calling to be a peculiar people of righteousness, through the teaching which flows from faith, brought together by one Lord, the only God of both Greeks and Barbarians, or rather of the whole race of men. We have often called by the name philosophy that portion of truth attained through philosophy, although but partial ….⁴⁰ Truth is transmitted in creation, through various and specific channels, until the advent, wherein it found its culmination in Christ himself. Portions of truth, such as that contained within philosophy, attest to the fullness of truth found in the incarnate Logos of God himself. The result of this, in the human experience, is that truth can be readily grasped by the believer – who looks back on philosophy and the law with the hindsight of Christ, enabling them to identify truth as it attests to him. This, in turn, creates a new race of enlightened “true gnostic” believers. Only this new race finds itself safe in Christ, and, equipped with this hermeneutic, are able to approach all teachings and sift through them for the scattered truths of Christ alone. Through the harmonisation of the divine Logos, we are able to recognize Clement’s hermeneutic.

In this, we can develop Dawson’s descriptor. Clement holds not simply to “a hermeneutic of the divine voice” but rather, a hermeneutic of the harmonizing divine Logos.⁴¹ There are practical implications of this, to which we will return, but importantly, this hermeneutic characterizes Clement’s approach to the diversity of early Christian literature.

3 Clement’s Innovative Approach to Early Christian Texts

This exploration of Clement’s hermeneutical approach allows us to recognize within that the innovative use of a range of early Christian writings. Through the harmonizing power of Clement’s divine Logos, even the most problematic of texts can be made useful. This may not be possible in their entirety, but through the employ of reconciling truth, fragments of divine attestation can be gleaned from such works – even if the groups and figures that employ these texts use them to teach doctrines that are in direct opposition to Clement’s own teaching. As a result, because of this eternal harmonizing power, even these erroneous teachings of competing “gnostic” groups, or “heretical” figures such as Valentinus, can be redeemed.⁴² This is not through these figures themselves, who do not rightly approach with the lens of the divine Logos that Clement embraces, but by Clement himself and the true Christian believer who acts in light of a genuine initiation into the mysteries of Christ.

As noted in the introduction to this paper, Clement is famed for his prolific literary borrowings from figures such as Homer, Plato and Euripides, as much as he borrows from Paul, Isaiah and the Gospels. Through his hermeneutic of the harmonizing divine Logos these disparate writings are united around Christ himself. Of particular interest for this paper, however, is the manner in which works including the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and alternative “gospel” texts such as the Gospel of the Egyptians find their own place within this organizing schema.⁴³ Quoted liberally throughout Clement’s project, such works demonstrate that Clement is perfectly comfortable borrowing from even controversial or later rejected Christian and pseudo-Christian literature.

Indeed, the number of these quotations may well surprise us. Krause identified at least 152 quotations of texts outside the writings of the New Testament, a number that, he noted, far exceeded the extant writings of figures such as Irenaeus or Hippolytus.⁴⁴ Whilst Clement certainly borrowed from such texts less than his enthusiastic engagement with the likes of Paul or Plato, the presence of these “apocryphal” works is nonetheless significant. Van den Hoek noted at least twenty-five quotations from the Epistle of Barnabas, six from the Gospel of the Egyptians and four from the Apocalypse of Peter, alongside a number of other works.⁴⁵ These other works included less obvious examples, such as “two proverbs on ‘searching and finding’ ” which bear significant resemblances to P.Oxyr.654.5–9 and its second logion of the Gospel of Thomas (NHC II, 2).⁴⁶

From simple brief references to lengthy passages incorporating full quotations, Clement did not shy away from the reproduction of such texts. His comfort with the material is such that in almost every chapter of his extant oeuvre, these works find multiplicitous representation.

As such, Clement’s unusual approach stands in stark contrast to the clearer delineations constructed by figures such as Irenaeus or Tertullian. Both these contemporaries of Clement offer a more recognizable apportioning of approved and unapproved status for early Christian works. Irenaeus went as far as to equate “apocryphal” with “forged” in his writings – determined to safeguard texts he believed to be divinely inspired and worthy of further study.⁴⁷ Tertullian was similarly dismissive of texts he did not believe to be genuine or trustworthy. Despite beginning his career in support of the scriptural status of the Shepherd of Hermas, as he grew older Tertullian shifted to consider the work apocrypha et falsa (secret and false) sternly categorizing it as heretical and misleading.⁴⁸ For both these figures, the falsehood of such texts was inherent in their very οὐσία (susbstance).

They could not be redeemed through selective reading and quotation, and were instead to be repudiated. Where Clement could recognize a truth-value in these works – speaking of “secret teachings” within them, corrupted by error and layers of false teaching – the likes of Irenaeus and Tertullian were wholly dismissive of them.⁴⁹ Instead of discrediting these works in their totality, Clement believed that through the right application of a divinely inspired hermeneutic, one could glean truth from these texts. Where Tertullian or Irenaeus saw only false doctrine, Clement saw knowledge mishandled (or abused) by errant groups. “Apocryphal” did not therefore necessarily equate to corrupt or false for the Alexandrian.

Some “apocryphal” works could in fact contain significant Christian truth for Clement. He therefore considered himself free to borrow from these texts; to handle them rightly. Clement considered himself – as an enlightened gnostic-Christian – free to edit these texts so as to draw out truths that only the genuine believer would recognize.

Two metaphors from Clement’s Stromateis will suffice to demonstrate the importance of this editorial role. In the first Stromata, Clement reaches into Greek mythology for an image of truth scattered among creation. And so, then, truth is singular (there are, however, ten thousand paths to falsehood) – just as the Bacchants tore apart the limbs of Pentheus, so too have sects of both barbarian and Greek philosophy done the same with truth, and each celebrates as the whole truth the mere portion which has fallen to their lot.⁵⁰ While truth remains a monolithic ideal, it has been scattered by errant teachers, and fragments of reality have been presented to gullible followers as the sum total. Clement’s metaphor, lifted from its most famous manifestation in Euripides’ Bacchae, includes a sense of deliberate obfuscation in the action of these false teachers.⁵¹ Rather than submitting to truth itself, Clement presents Greeks and “barbarians” as having torn it apart, deliberately attacking truth itself in order to construct their own ideals. Early Christian writings have a part in this, as various teachers proffer snatches of truth to unwitting Christian believers as truth in its totality – and the foolish Christian is led astray. More than this, the implication with Pentheus’ torn body as metaphor is that truth is torn into different pieces, and different sizes.

Each erroneous group wrongly celebrates the fragment they possess as the whole truth, but in reality some have more truth than others. As well as demonstrating Clement’s understanding of the extent of the spread of truth in creation, this metaphor alludes to the manner in which it is spread.

Clement offers a similar metaphor in his seventh Stromata. This time, Clement draws not from the mythological, but the mundane, offering his reader a geographical and horticultural image. While there is but one royal highway, there are many others also. Some lead to a precipice, some to a rushing river or a deep sea. [It is wise then] … to make use of the royal, and frequently used, way. So, though some say first this and then that, concerning truth, we must not abandon it, but must seek out the most accurate knowledge respecting it. Since also among vegetables grown in the garden, weeds also spring up, are the gardeners therefore to cease from tending to their gardens?⁵² Unlike Clement’s image of Pentheus torn asunder, this second (more peaceful) metaphor implicitly charges the Christian believer to respond. Clement suggests that the path to truth is singular, and urges his readers not to turn aside from it. Instead, they must actively seek out knowledge that further illuminates this path for them. And, crucially, they are not to be put off by falsehood and deception. Just as a gardener does not give up on his vegetable patch when he notices weeds among the healthy shoots, so too ought the discerning Clementine gnostic not give up on glimpses of truth because they appear among falsehoods. Instead, they are to cultivate a garden of luscious plants – truth gathered in and preserved.

As Clement handles and engages with Christian literature from an array of contexts and groups, he does so as the proverbial gardener. Truth is gathered in as its manifest fragments are edited into coherent (Clementine) Christian teaching. The hermeneutic of the harmonizing divine Logos allows the true believer to weed out deception and tend to the bright shoots of truth.

Clement approached such works with a secret gnostic power that could illuminate the truth: the harmonizing divine Logos and his own new status as a redeemed believer. As such, as Edwards has noted, Clement was “omnivorous” in regard to such works; “he seldom returns empty-handed from an encounter with those whom he regards as heretics.”⁵³ Indeed, Edwards has earlier argued that we ought not to take Clement’s famed “eclecticism” as a mere amalgam of teachings drawn from different schools – but rather as a “consensus” on ethics and sciences.⁵⁴ Recognised in tandem with Clement’s hermeneutic we can see how this eclectic consensus stems from the underlying truth of the divine Logos. In approaching a range of early Christian texts, while even their very authors might have missed the true faith at which they hinted, Clement is able to rightly employ them.

For Clement’s new race of redeemed humanity, such works could become sources of instruction, education and edification – even if their common use was the spreading of mis-information, heretical teaching and schism. The true initiate of Clement’s Christian mystery (encouraged by his appeal of Book Twelve of the Protrepticus) would be able to illuminate truth in texts that were shrouded with mystery, deception and error.⁵⁵ Just as Clement does through his various literary borrowings, the true believer could edit such works to produce a stream of truth and neglect the error that originally accompanied it. In direct opposition to groups labelled ‘gnostic’ by both their competitors and chroniclers, Clement offers a genuine gnostic power – a true gnosis – that will enable his followers to uniquely pursue truth where it may be found.⁵⁶

4 Use and Reuse: The Apocalypse of Peter (NHC VII, 3) and the Epistle of Barnabas

Clement’s innovative approach to the reading and handling of early Christian writings – an approach that casts the reader not as passive recipient of the truth therein but as active editor of that truth – allows him to use and reuse works from a broad spectrum of popularity and theological agreement. Two texts will demonstrate this breadth of engagement: the Apocalypse of Peter (NHC VII, 3) and the Epistle of Barnabas. The former is poorly preserved, and Clement’s limited interactions prove a valuable testimony to its early circulation. The latter was clearly popular in Clement’s Alexandria, and its impact on Clement’s own thought more broadly has been widely affirmed.⁵⁷ Despite a varied use and interaction with both texts, each serves to support Clement’s overall arguments for his Christian philosophy, even if elsewhere these texts would suggest a Christianity in opposition to his own.

The Apocalypse of Peter, a work which recounted heavenly visions and the teaching of the risen Christ, was considered divinely inspired by the author of the Muratorian canon, but disputed elsewhere.⁵⁸ It survives only through a few (wildly divergent) manuscripts; the fragmentary Greek remains of which were discovered in Akhmîm (in Upper Egypt) in 1886–1887, alongside a Gospel of Peter.⁵⁹ The work recounts three visions attributed to the Apostle Peter, which center on Christ as Saviour. Crucially, the work presents Christ as a docetic figure, and primarily as the savior who redeems humanity – rather than the Logos figure of Clement’s own Christology.⁶⁰ Divergent teachings are evident throughout the work.⁶¹ Until the close of the nineteenth century, however, little was known about the text beyond its existence.

Indeed, alongside inclusion in the Muratorian canon, only Clement’s complimentary reference to the work in his Eclogae Propheticae preserved a fragment of the text and gave any indication that it had been held in high esteem by some early Christian groups.⁶² Clement cites this unusual work four times across his extant writings, though Eusebius (who himself considered the work “disputed” – ἀντιλεγόμενας) notes that Clement provided an abridged account of the entire work in his now lost Hypotyposeis.⁶³

To these recognized quotations we can rightly add a tentative identification by Stählin of a reflection of the Apocalypse of Peter in the closing lines of Book Eight of the Protrepticus.⁶⁴ Clement closes this Book by quoting a number of Scriptural references found in the Apocalypse of Peter, and the parallel is persuasive, if a certain identification remains unlikely.⁶⁵ Nonetheless, the Scriptural quotations are shared across the two works, and Clement freely embraces these texts as a pre-selected group focused on the theme of final judgement.⁶⁶ These six quotations (including the lost abridgement in the Hypotyposeis) do not represent a huge literary borrowing, but rather a selective embrace of a text that presented for the most part a Christianity in opposition to Clement’s own. Nonetheless, the work itself is attested by numerous Egyptian papyrological fragments.⁶⁷

Despite suggestions that point to the primacy of the Ethiopic tradition, it was clearly a popular work in Clement’s Egypt, and the Greek version most likely hailed from Egypt itself.⁶⁸ Clement is happy to embrace this work, within his own hermeneutical framework. His epistemological approach allows for the selection and contortion of any literary borrowing, and this mysterious apocalypse can therefore become a mouthpiece for the truth of Clement’s divine Logos.

His treatment of the better preserved Epistle of Barnabas is, if anything, even more intriguing, and bears greater reflection.⁶⁹ Whilst some rejected it (Eusebius listed it as “spurious” – νόθος) Clement once again approached the work from a more positive position.⁷⁰ This is perhaps less surprising than his use of the Apocalypse of Peter, given the shared focus on ideas such as presenting the likes of Moses and David as pre-Christian authors, though there were certainly aspects of Epistle of Barnabas that Clement gladly overlooked. Whilst not explicitly affirming the letter as scripture he did acknowledge it contained the words of “the Apostle Barnabas”.⁷¹

His twenty-five borrowings make it his most commonly cited “apocryphal” work. The majority of these are found in his Stromateis but a clear reference of Clement reading scripture with/through Epistle of Barnabas can also be found in Book Ten of his exhortatory Protrepticus. His placement of a vocal opposition to pederasty amidst a recollection of the Ten Commandments echoes the similar reproduction of these commandments in Epistle of Barnabas.

As clearly demonstrated by Table 1.0, Clement follows the pattern of Epistle Barnabas, rather than the LXX, in bringing παιδοφθορήσεις (corrupting a youth) into the text immediately after the command against μοιχεύσεις (commiting adultery). Absent in the LXX (which moves straight on to forbidding theft, in a reflection of the Hebrew Bible) the command against pederasty reads as a variant echo transmitted to Clement through a work he appreciated and quoted often. If the textual record is in any way indicative of popularity, Epistle of Barnabas was significantly more widely embraced than the Petrine Apocalypse of Peter. Though again its origin has long been disputed, the strongest case is made for Alexandria.⁷² The sense that Clement adopted something of a “Barnabean tradition” is only affirmed by the suggestion that Clement even transmits memorized scripture through its lens.

Seemingly, this tradition developed in Alexandria, and Clement shows himself once again – as with the Apocalypse of Peter – willing to embrace texts that are popular in his local intellectual and spiritual context, even if they teach in themselves alternative Christian messages. Unlike, however, the clear divergent Christian teaching of the Apocalypse of Peter – Epistle of Barnabas offers Clement more material to work with. More of the text, as is evident from his large number of borrowings, can be considered “truthful” within the Clementine hermeneutic. Through the harmonizing voice of the divine Logos, Clement was able to unite different and even oppositional Christian teachings to his own ideas – even teachings that themselves clashed with one another.

In many senses, Clement offers both an echo and reflection of his opponent Tatian in his approach to the multitude of available early Christian writings.⁷³ The echo is found in the emphasis on both coherence and truth that these two figures place at the heart of Christian teaching. As Hunt noted “[the] principle of internal consistency was central to Tatian’s understanding of Christianity, and is most clearly seen in his presentation of Christianity as ‘the truth.’ ”⁷⁴ Tatian understood a central truth to run through genuine Christian teaching, bound together in a consistency that could be explored through all divinely-inspired exposition and instruction. Clement likewise recognized the existence of this genuine truth, manifested in the divine Logos himself and his eternal inspiration of all things that point to him. The echo, however, ends here. Clement instead stands in contrast to his Assyrian counterpart.

Whilst the embrace of this sense of consistency and truth led Tatian to pen his Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels that narrowed down the available texts for his readers to consult, Clement’s hermeneutic moves him in the opposite direction. Clement even refutes Tatian for making a distinction between the law and the Gospel as being products of a different God, and the former therefore worthy of being abolished.⁷⁵ While Tatian sought to narrow down the written expression of Christian truth, Clement embraced an ever-expanding diversity of truth-texts.

Clement remained clear that some works have greater value than others (the prophets over Plato, for example), nonetheless he considered that all works can be used to glean the truth if examined through this Logos-lens. Even “apocryphal” or “false” works could be brought into the light, and eternal truth could be spun from them. Some works, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, even preserved in fragments the words of the apostles themselves. Though not perhaps as valuable as scripture itself, they were seen by Clement as nonetheless offering a credible contribution to the spiritual formation of the Christian believer. There may be dross to refine and remove, but underneath all this, glimpses of truth could be taken up.

5 Repackaged “Truth” over Faithful Transmission: The Shepherd of Hermas

In contrast to the more intellectually-isolationist approach of those like Tatian, Clement suggests to his readers that the diversity of early Christian writings have been at best misunderstood. Error has been foregrounded by false teachers, and genuine truth has only been glimpsed, or perhaps passed over altogether. Nonetheless, these texts have value in and of themselves. As the examples of the Apocalypse of Peter and the Epistle of Barnabas show, in the light of Clement’s Logos-lens, they can even be redeemed in service of genuine Christian faith. Having established the hermeneutic with which Clement approaches such works, and the innovative approach he is therefore able to adopt, this paper will turn to consider the outworking of the editorial approach to reading that Clement models for and demands of his converted reader.

Clement’s hermeneutic essentially affords him the opportunity to revise any text to the service of his divine Logos. The faithful transmission of the text is not the central aim of a Clementine literary borrowing, and accurate reproduction of exact words and phrases thus becomes of secondary concern.⁷⁶ This in itself illuminates the range in numbers of quotations identified by modern scholars in Clement’s oeuvre – genuine citations are met with misremembered and deliberately misrepresented ones also. Clement’s literary borrowings are a minefield for the textual critic. More than this, however, this looser approach to the “original” or source text allows Clement to create a narrative of truth that – as with Tatian – weaves together his entire corpus. One final major literary example will illustrate this approach.

The Shepherd of Hermas is a work that finds frequent reproduction in Clement’s oeuvre (with at least twelve references in the Stromateis alone) yet its appearances are carefully curated. Clement strips away the excessive apocalyptic imagery and its lengthy digressions about the person of the church and the place of wisdom. Instead, Clement uses his quotations primarily in discussions around repentance, as well as regarding angelic imagery in discussions of the Holy Spirit.⁷⁷ Clement takes this text and appropriates it strategically in support of his own Christian teaching.

The Shepherd of Hermas most likely originated in Rome, and contains the visions and revelations shown to the titular Hermas, as well as his interpretations of them.⁷⁸ The work was popular across the Roman world, and it is widely held that a number of prominent early Christian figures considered it to be canonical.⁷⁹ Alexandria was no anomaly in this widespread popularity, and this list of figures who considered the work canonical often includes Clement himself. Clement’s interest in the work is unsurprising – there are more extant papyri containing text from the Shepherd of Hermas than there are for the majority of New Testament books.⁸⁰ Clement is, as with the Apocalypse of Peter and Epistle of Barnabas, typically uncritical in his handling of this work.

Though selective in his quotations, he cites it regularly. Despite scholarly enthusiasm for Clement holding this text as authoritative, he appears deliberate in not labelling it as scripture, though does consider the visions of Hermas themselves to be divine revelations.⁸¹ Clement repeatedly signposts his quotations of the work with reminders that these are “revelations [given to] … the Shepherd of Hermas.”⁸² Clement connects the Shepherd of Hermas with a higher power (ἡ δύναμις ἡ φανεῖσα and ἡ δύναμις ἡ τᾷ Ἑρμᾷ κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν λαλοῦσα) further demonstrating his esteem.⁸³ ii suggests that Clement’s view of the work leaves little room for it to be considered anything but canonical in the Alexandrian’s mind. Alongside Barnabas, Batovici argues that Clement believes these to be genuine scriptural works, due to the “apostolic character he confers to these writings.”⁸⁴

Clement is certainly more fulsome in his engagement with this text than he is with a work such as the Apocalypse of Peter, but I would suggest that Clement in fact viewed this work not as canonical, but as a truth-text within his wider literary approach discussed in this paper.

The recognition of Clement’s use and reuse of a variety of early Christian literature discussed within this paper allows us to put forward a third reading of Clement’s view on the Shepherd of Hermas. He clearly regards the work as important, and credible, but considers it to be part of a wider body of literature that exposes the truth alongside scripture, which he seems to treat as a separate category. Clement’s oeuvre provides four supporting clues for this new perspective. Firstly, as noted above: Clement nowhere introduces this text explicitly as scripture. Despite numerous borrowings, Clement instead suggests a divine power revealed truth to Hermas, rather than labelling the writing itself as an authoritative text. This description of this higher power (as discussed above – ἡ δύναμις ἡ φανεῖσα and ἡ δύναμις ἡ τᾷ Ἑρμᾷ κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν λαλοῦσα are but two examples of his introductory phrasing) fits comfortably with the wider perspective put forward in this paper.

Secondly, Clement himself distinguishes between at least two types of Christian text. His introduction of a quotation from the Gospel of the Egyptians in his third Stromata demonstrates how he sees a clear division between texts which have been handed down from the Apostles (in which he counts the four now-canonical gospels) and those which he is also willing to read and mine, yet stand apart from the former (in which he counts the Gospel of the Egyptians).⁸⁵ Thirdly, Clement’s generous view of more contested works (discussed above in this paper) leads to this idea that works containing such “secret teachings” can offer something to the average believer.⁸⁶ Fourthly, his hermeneutic of the universal harmonisation of his Logos-Christ enables the apologist to see truth in all texts, to “redeem” them in Christ. Truth can be sought even in the most corrupt of works, and harmonised with the divine Logos for an expression of the eternal truth found only in Christ.

The Shepherd of Hermas is seen by Clement as less fallible than the writings of the Greeks or Romans, and he was happy to overlook deficiencies in the text in order to present the truth within. As all truth is ultimately part of the universal harmony of Christ, the Shepherd of Hermas becomes an expression of divine power where it attests to the truth. This does not, however, make it scripture. For in Clement’s schema, texts can provide attestations to truth without being scripture themselves.

Clement’s use of the text was restricted primarily to discussions around repentance and angelic imagery, and the Shepherd of Hermas supported and even developed his understanding of these matters.⁸⁷ He did not consider the work to be scripture, but simultaneously recognized that these divine visions could sharpen his spiritual understanding. Rather than seeing works such as the Shepherd of Hermas as anathema, Clement edits them within his hermeneutic. To an extent this is the same approach as he would take to any other text. The distinct boundaries of various corpora drawn up by modern scholars (Greek, Jewish, Christian etc) are void in Clement’s schema. While certain Christian texts are privileged by Clement as scripture – and therefore of greater worth – Clement is able to be selective across literary divides.⁸⁸ In much the same way he cherry-picks specific teachings from the Shepherd of Hermas, Clement is able to lift lines of Euripidean tragic drama, or Callimachean poetry.

The latter affords us a particularly stark example. In making a case that the Greco-Roman gods are not, in fact, immortal in his Protrepticus, Clement suggests that “even your legends seem to me to have grown old. Zeus is no longer a snake … Where is Zeus himself … ? Search for your Zeus. Scour not heaven, but earth … Yes. Zeus is dead … for a tomb, O Lord, did the Cretans build for you.”⁸⁹ This last line is lifted directly from Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus. Clement finds a fragment of truth in it – even the Greeks’ own poets concede that Zeus is dead. Of course, this line is taken rather crudely out of context.

O Zeus, some tell of how you were born on the hills of Ida; o Zeus, others say in Arcadia. Either of these, or father, did they lie? “Cretans are always liars.” For yes a tomb, o Lord, did the Cretans build for you. But you did not die, for you are forever.⁹⁰

Clement scans the passage, finds a singular grain of truth, and is happy to strip away the “untruths” that surround it. Even if the very next line directly contradicts his claim. This ruthless editing allows Clement to draw out truth, and do away with that which opposes his preconceived ideas. Callimachus was not scripture, yet it can still be allowed to speak truth. So it was with a diversity of Judeo-Christian works. Clement is happy to apply his selective reading regardless of the text at hand, for his harmonizing Logos can draw out truth in all things. Clement repackages the truth, sifting through writings from an incredible array of contexts and presenting a coherent narrative through them all by a rigorous selectivism. Nonetheless – Clement’s approach to the Shepherd of Hermas differs from his treatment of examples like Callimachus. As with Epistle of Barnabas, Clement signals that he recognizes there to be a clear deposit of divine truth in these works.

Clement never suggests that either text represents scripture, but they are clear works of some value. The number of references to both works demonstrates this elevated status in Clement’s mind, and this has led to the idea that they – alongside the Apocalypse of Peter (as well as 1 Clement and the Didache) – were considered to be Scriptural. As Cosaert has noted, the frequency of quotation suggests this conclusion.

While it is impossible to say definitely what additional books Clement would include in his NT canon, frequency of citation and authoritative references indicate it would probably include 1 Clement, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Didache.⁹¹

Cosaert argues that the frequency of quotations ought to lead to the conclusion that Clement considered such works scriptural. Brooks preceded this viewpoint by suggesting that it was “possible – even probable – that Clement recognized as scripture four or five early Christian writings which ultimately failed to find a place in the canon.”⁹² The consensus is that Clement made room in his canon (a canon he never clearly sets out) for these five texts. As this paper has shown, however, frequency of citation does not equate to scriptural authority. Rather, Clement offers his readers a new reading experience through the inclusion of such texts.

We overstate the case when we suggest that Clement would have included these texts as scripture; Clement himself certainly gives no such impression. Rather, he considers that they contain deposits of divine truth, a truth that the true gnostic believer is able to rightly illuminate. These texts can therefore be edited as they are read. The truth within can be extracted through the Logos-lens of the true believer, and the error or misguided dross can be removed. The value of these texts, for Clement, lies in their ability to be conformed to the image of Christ his literary project promotes.

This approach has implications therefore for both Clement’s disciples and his opponents. The disciple of this Logos-way is left with a harmonized path to truth. Clement claims that his Logos harmonizes all things to himself, yet this is achieved not through a universalist embrace of diverse beliefs, but an exclusive narrowing of all things to one framework. Itter, for example, is wrong to make a case for a universalizing dimension in Clement’s soteriology in his discussion of the Stromateis.⁹³ While it might be the case that there is a universality to Clement’s appeal, his demonstration of salvation culminates in the truth of the divine Logos alone. His entire Stromateis exemplifies the path that his disciple must take. Having been brought into faith by the appeal of the Protrepticus, and educated like a spiritual babe by the Instructor in the Paedagogus, the Stromateis opens with the prophetic meadow.

Clement writes that he wants his disciples to emulate his teacher:

He, the true, the Sicilian bee, gathering the spoil of the flowers of the prophetic and apostolic meadow, engendered in the souls of his hearers a deathless element of knowledge.⁹⁴

This famous passage illustrates Clement’s approach to the diversity of his sources. Rather than advocating for a universalist approach, Clement urges his readers to scour knowledge and literature within his epistemological framework. He urges his readers to edit. As students of the wise disciple of this “Sicilian Bee”, Clement’s followers are to seek out this deathless knowledge.⁹⁵ There is a narrowing, rather than a universal widening, of truth in Clement’s pedagogical understanding. Genuine truth is only illuminated through true faith in the divine Logos, and though it can be sought out widely, it only points to the narrow reality at the heart of Clement’s teaching. Clement’s followers are simultaneously freed – to seek out truth wherever it may be found – and restricted, to arranging and interpreting truth within the narrow parameters established by Clement’s overarching hermeneutic.

Truth is, like the limbs of Pentheus or like flowers in a garden, scattered throughout creation.⁹⁶ Later Clement extends the image of the metaphorical “bee”, describing how it flits from flower to flower, gathering pollen and creating honey.⁹⁷ This is how the true Christian gnostic is to act, roaming through Clement’s work, and the world, discerning knowledge from the prophetic meadow, obtaining truth from the scattered flowers. The true gnostic is illuminated by God, the God who stirs the souls of his people, who opens their eyes to true salvation. All of humanity, writes Clement, have an inkling of truth (he speaks of how “philosophers dream of truth”) – but only in the Logos are men woken from these dreams to genuine sight.⁹⁸

Jane Heath described the Protrepticus as Clement “underscoring the need for revelation”, the Stromateis demonstrates the hiddenness of that revelation, as the gnostic believer explores truth in a deeply personal, concealed manner.⁹⁹ Illuminated by the Logos himself, the true gnostic seeks out truth understood between themselves and God alone. For Clement, faith leads to sight. Blessed with true spiritual sight, Clement’s believer is able to “plunder the Egyptians” – to take of these texts as he desires, and remake them as he sees fit.

In stark contrast, Clement’s approach to such works simultaneously exposes the fragility of his opponents. Much of his Stromateis, and the now fragmentary Hypotyposeis, focus on the refutation of Gnostic heresies in particular. He directly confronts groups that celebrate the works Clement so willingly cites, yet in Clement’s mind they abuse and misuse them. His opponents are damned by their clouded sight, unable to truly understand the texts they possess, and their need of the divine Logos himself. The opponent is exposed as a fraud, peddling texts he does not understand, reaching for truth that eludes him, and returning only with fragile and false corruptions of reality. Texts such as the third Stromata, with its lengthy attack on Basilides and his understandings of marriage and relationships, demonstrate the error of his opponents.

Yet the willing use of texts that figures such as Basilides and his followers embraced illustrates how Clement positions himself alone as possessing genuine insight and the discernment of truth – where his opponents determine only further error. The cynic would say that Clement has constructed a hermeneutic where he profits from the sale of truth. The ancient satirist Lucian penned Philosophies For Sale – where he imagined a great slave market with each philosophy being put up for sale one after another. Zeus conducts the sale, and arranges the philosophies attractively so they might themselves attract a hefty fee.¹⁰⁰ Is Clement perhaps simply packaging and selling his Christian philosophy? If his path is the only option for the exposure of genuine truth, then he must be followed, even if it costs.

To offer a more charitable reading, Clement instead presents himself as simply safeguarding the truth. In his enlightened wisdom, he is able to speak truth where others teach error. As a result, there remains a breadth to his appeal to faith. Despite the actual constraints of the harmonization of all things in the divine Logos, the offer of illumination through the divine Logos is held out widely. Clement closes his Protrepticus with an encouragement to accept this offer:

But with you still rests the final act, namely this, to choose which is the more profitable, judgement or grace. For my own part, I claim that there is no shadow of doubt which of the two is better; no, it is sinful even to compare life with destruction.¹⁰¹

Clement suggests that the choice rests with the individual, either a taking up of the truth he holds out, or an acceptance of judgement and destruction. Clement’s invitation to the Christian faith is not simply into a spiritual existence, though it is certainly that, it is into an inner intellectual depth, that exposes a truth scattered across all creation, long overlooked by countless errant unbelievers. The simplicity of this choice masks the complexity of the Christian project to which Clement invites his audience, but it nonetheless remains an offer held out to all.

6 The True Gnostic Editor

This paper began by establishing Clement’s epistemological framework, before determining that through this Clement utilizes a diversity of early Christian writings – even the “apocryphal” writings of his direct opponents – to attest to the truth of his own position. Through the various examples drawn on above, a picture of Clement’s treatment of such works has been constructed. To return to the metaphorical garden of Clement’s seventh Stromata; this paper has demonstrated how the vegetables are tended while the weeds are rooted out and forgotten.¹⁰² A further metaphor allows us to situate Clement’s usage of such literature within his wider hermeneutical approach. Ward, in a recent study of Clement’s biblical exegesis, likened Clement’s reading of scripture to the dome mosaic on the ceiling of the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna.¹⁰³

Ward suggested that Clement constructed “textual constellations” analogous to this mosaic – which features the four evangelists at the heart of a matrix of starry constellations.¹⁰⁴ We can similarly extend this to Clement’s extra-biblical exegesis. At the heart of his understanding lies the truth of the four Gospels – the identity and mission of the incarnate divine Logos and his teachings. Texts such as the Epistle of Barnabas or the Shepherd of Hermas become contributing factors to this wider textual constellation.¹⁰⁵ This constellation is one constructed by the wisdom of the divine Logos – but it is one drawn together by the true gnostic as they edit their reading to produce deeper insight into this divine truth.

In his Stromateis, Clement berates those who “follow everything except the true evangelical canon.”¹⁰⁶ He recognises there are texts of superior value – a true canon that lies at the heart of the textual constellation illuminated by his divine Logos (despite never offering exact clarity on what he considers to be a part of that canon). Beyond these privileged works are torn scraps of truth scattered across creation. They are not enough for true and lasting gnostic-transformation, yet they nonetheless illuminate the same truth that Clement’s canon teaches, at times supporting the believer’s understanding of those truths. Through Logos-led selectivism, and a habit of reading that sees the reader edit the very texts they study, truth can be developed. Clement’s constellation is therefore in fact vast – for all texts can attest to this truth, and this includes even those texts embraced by opposing Christian groups.

We have noted the impact this approach has on both Clement’s opponents and his followers. Competitively, both with fellow believers and with non-Christian teachers, Clement’s intellectual framework allows him to advance his own teaching beyond their own. He simply cannot be defeated when even the tools of his opponents can be turned to his own cause. This, in turn, appeals to potential disciples. Not only does Clement offer an appealing framework with which to approach a diversity of sources, but he does so with an inherent competitive edge. His use of early Christian texts sets him apart, from both those who adhere strictly to them and those who reject them outright. Clement offers a third way, a via media where the wisdom of the Egyptians can be plundered anew as all wisdom becomes Christian wisdom when handled rightly.

Clement’s approach to the diversity of early Christian works he references is unique. Figures such as Tertullian and Irenaeus might shun these texts because of their error, but Clement embraced them because of their truth, however fragmentary. Where truth led Tatian to a narrow textual focus, truth led Clement to broaden his reading. This paper has suggested that Clement’s hermeneutic, which applied to Callimachus and Shepard of Hermas as much as it did to Paul or Isaiah, facilitated such an approach. As a result, works such as the Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas or the Shepherd of Hermas are not additions to canon, but in fact represent a spectrum of supporting material. Even spurious gospel-texts or the writings of figures such as Basilides fit into his organizing schema as offering some value to the believer.¹⁰⁷

Clement could redeem works that even his most ardent opponents embraced (or produced), because as a true initiate of the divine Logos himself, Clement could identify the snippets of truth such works contained. There are many ways of accessing this wisdom, and this Alexandrian author recognized that some controversial works carried greater significance than others, but there was only one “way of truth” to which these texts pointed. The harmonization of the divine Logos means that the inspiration of the four Gospels and the Prophets spoke also through Plato, Homer and Euripides, as well as the Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Valentinus or Tatian. That voice, though sounding out to all, was heard only rightly by Clement’s true, Christian gnostic. In turn, that gnostic became the editor of each work they turned their hand to, a new form of redeemed reading that enable all wisdom to point to the salvific divine Logos.