The "Stromateis" of Clement of Alexandria (c.150-215 CE) has received much scholarly debate over whether it can be accorded the role of the third and highest phase of his pedagogy. This was a treatise that promised an account of the true philosophy of Christ set down for Christians seeking higher knowledge of doctrine. This book takes a new approach to deciphering the nature and purpose of these enigmatic books concentrating on the close relationship between method and doctrine, and the number and sequence of the texts as they have come down to us. The outcome is a concise summary of current scholarship on Clement s method and a fresh picture of how he applies it to the transmission of esoteric doctrines.

The Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria (c.150-215 CE) has received much scholarly debate over whether it can be accorded the role of the third and highest phase of his pedagogy. This was a treatise that promised an account of the true philosophy of Christ set down for Christians seeking higher knowledge of doctrine. This book takes a new approach to deciphering the nature and purpose of these enigmatic books concentrating on the close relationship between method and doctrine, and the number and sequence of the texts as they have come down to us. The outcome is a concise summary of current scholarship on Clement’s method and a fresh picture of how he applies it to the transmission of esoteric doctrines.

In The Moral Psychology of Clement of Alexandria, Kathleen Gibbons proposes a new approach to Clement’s moral philosophy and explores how his construction of Christianity’s relationship with Jewishness informed, and was informed by, his philosophical project. As one of the earliest Christian philosophers, Clement’s work has alternatively been treated as important for understanding the history of relations between Christianity and Judaism and between Christianity and pagan philosophy. This study argues that an adequate examination of his significance for the one requires an adequate examination of his significance for the other. While the ancient claim that the writings of Moses were read by the philosophical schools was found in Jewish, Christian, and pagan authors, Gibbons demonstrates that Clement’s use of this claim shapes not only his justification of his authorial project, but also his philosophical argumentation. In explaining what he took to be the cosmological, metaphysical, and ethical implications of the doctrine that the supreme God is a lawgiver, Clement provided the theoretical justifications for his views on a range of issues that included martyrdom, sexual asceticism, the status of the law of Moses, and the relationship between divine providence and human autonomy. By contextualizing Clement’s discussions of volition against wider Greco-Roman debates about self-determination, it becomes possible to reinterpret the invocation of “free will” in early Christian heresiological discourse as part of a larger dispute about what human autonomy requires.

How might one describe early Christian exegesis? This question has given rise to a significant reassessment of patristic exegetical practice in recent decades, and H. Clifton Ward makes a new contribution to this reappraisal of patristic exegesis against the background of ancient Greco-Roman education. In tracing the practices of literary analysis and rhetorical memory in the ancient sources, Clement and Scriptural Exegesis argues that there were two modes of archival thinking at the heart of the ancient exegetical enterprise: the grammatical archive, a repository of the textual practices learned from the grammarian, and the memorial archive, the constellations of textual memories from which meaning is constructed. In a new treatment of the theological exegesis of Clement of Alexandria-the first study of its kind in English scholarship-this study suggests that an assessment of the reading practices that Clement employs from these two ancient archives reveals his deep commitment to scriptural interpretation as the foundation of a theological imagination. Clement employs various textual practices from the grammatical archive to navigate the spectrum between the clarity and obscurity of Scripture, resulting in the striking conclusion that the figurative referent of Scripture is one twofold mystery, bound up in the incarnation of Christ and the higher knowledge of the divine life. This twofold scriptural mystery is discovered in an act of rhetorical invention as Clement reads Scripture to uncover the constellations of texts-about God, Christ, and humanity-that frame its entire narrative.

In Clement’s Biblical Exegesis scholars from six countries explore various facets of Clement of Alexandria’s hermeneutical theory and his exegetical practice. Although research on Clement has tended to emphasize his use of philosophical sources, Clement was important not only as a Christian philosopher, but also as a pioneer Christian exegete. His works constitute a crucial link in the tradition of Alexandrian exegesis, but his biblical exegesis has received much less attention than that of Philo or Origen. Topics discussed include how Clement’s methods of allegorical interpretation compare with those of Philo, Origen, and pagan exegetes of Homer, and his readings of particular texts such as Proverbs, the Sermon on the Mount, John 1, 1 John, and the Pauline letters.

Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings investigates portrayals of the first-century philosopher and exegete Philo of Alexandria, in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius. It argues that early Christian invocations of Philo are best understood not as attempts simply to claim an illustrious Jew for the Christian fold, but as examples of ongoing efforts to define the continuities and distinctive features of Christian beliefs and practices in relation to those of the Jews. This study takes as its starting point the curious fact that none of the first three Christians to mention Philo refer to him unambiguously as a Jew. Clement, the first in the Christian tradition to openly cite Philo's works, refers to him twice as a Pythagorean. Origen, who mentions Philo by name only three times, makes far more frequent reference to him in the guise of an anonymous "one who came before us." Eusebius, who invokes Philo on many more occasions than does Clement or Origen, most often refers to Philo as a Hebrew. These epithets construct Philo as an alternative "near-other" to both Christians and Jews, through whom ideas and practices may be imported to the former from the latter, all the while establishing boundaries between the "Christian" and "Jewish" ways of life. The portraits of Philo offered by each author reveal ongoing processes of difference-making and difference-effacing that constituted not only the construction of the Jewish "other," but also the Christian "self."

Maximus the Confessor's combustive historical era, committed doctrinal reflection, and loud and influential voice took him on a turbulent career of traveling and writing around the Mediterranean. Maximus was a spiritual teacher, an ascetic and a contemplative, but he was also a polemicist, a crafter of dogma, an embattled Christologian, a premeditating rhetorician. In this study, Luke Steven binds together these two disparate sides of the man and his writings by showing that throughout his oeuvre the Confessor positions imitation as the key to knowledge. This lasting epistemology characterizes his earlier ascetic and spiritual works, and in his later works it prominently defines his dogmatic Christological method – that is, the means by which he communicates and persuades and brings people to understand and encounter Jesus Christ, the one with two natures, divine and human. This multifaceted study offers a deep assessment of Maximus’s forebears, new insight on the animating assumptions of his thought, and an unprecedented focus on the rhetoric and method of his christological writings.