دانلود کتاب کلمنت اسکندرانی، آموزش‌های اولیه مسیحی و «مدرسه تعلیمات دینی»

Clement of Alexandria survives as something of an enigma. He simultaneously commands an outsized in¬uence in the history of Christian intellectualism while also provoking a scepticism that has long dogged his memory. His allegorical interests and mystical emphases are seen as inaugurating an Alexandrian style of Biblical interpretation that comes to maturity under Origen in the third century, while his harmonisation of Christian teachings with philosophical expression – particularly the Middle Platonism of his Alexandrian contemporaries – provided a model for later Christian intellectuals such as Augustine and the Cappadocian Fathers. His erudition and the depths of his learning were regularly recognised and praised in antiquity.1 Nonetheless, the complexity of his literary style and theological expression led to accusations of heterodoxy and a tarnished legacy. The Byzantine churchman Photios accused Clement of heretical belief in the ninth century, and these allegations only further tarnished his reputation.2 The eastern Orthodox church ceased to venerate him as a saint in the tenth century, and the western Catholic church followed suit in the early seventeenth century. Despite evident ancient popularity, Clement’s star waned as the centuries progressed. Since the nineteenth century, however, a blossoming sub eld of Clementine studies has reversed this trend. Pioneers such as Eugène De Faye may have been critical of Clement’s ‘verbosity’ (not without cause), but they nonetheless began to reconsider his theological legacy.3 Stählin’s early twentieth-century critical editions of Clement’s extant works introduced them to new generations of scholars, supporting this developing interest.4 While Tollinton’s suggestion that we nd in Clement a nascent proto-Anglicanism illustrates continued confessional concern, his repatriation as a worthy subject for theological study was consolidated throughout the previous century.5 The likes of Osborn, Kovacs, Van den Hoek, Le Boulluec, Ashwin-Siejkowski and Heath (among others) have further developed our understanding of this almost paradoxical gure in recent years.6 For, despite such interest, Clement remains a complex subject. He continues to exist as both an in¬uential gure and a repudiated intellectual. His life and works are of great importance, yet much of his biography is obscured and many of his writings either partially or wholly lost. Clement endures as an enigma whose resolution is far from assured.