Filed under: Quotes, Recycling | Tags: Clement of Alexandria, quote, Recycling, skepticism
On another blog this morning, I came across a quote, attributed to the early church father, Clement of Alexandria:
We are not to throw away those things that can benefit our neighbor. Goods are called good because they can be used for good: they are instruments for good, in the hands of those who use them properly.
A few things about this quote struck me as a bit off. First of all, it seemed a bit modern to me – but maybe Clement was just ahead of his time.
Then I checked for other instances of this quote via Google, hoping to find a reference to what work this quote was pulled from. While I found this quote on several other sites (all having to do with conservation, environmentalism or recycling) I could find no reference to where this quote originated from. Then I checked several sites that specialize in quotes of famous people. On those sites, this quote was not included among Clement’s quotes.
Then I looked at the play on the words “good/goods” in the second sentence. In English, the play on the words makes sense and helps to make the point. In NT Greek (which I assume Clement would have spoken, being from Alexandria), the play does not exist – the word ‘goods’ would be (transliterated) hyparxis, while the word ‘good’ would be (transliterated) agathos or agathopoieo.
Some of the sites posting that quote include here, here, here, and here. My Greek transliterations are taken from Strong’s Concordance.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I’m skeptical that this is actually a quote from Clement of Alexandria. Can anyone show me a reference to quell my skepticism?
-DrDave
1 Comment so far
Leave a comment
From Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved:
XIV. Riches, then, which benefit also our neighbours, are not to be thrown away. For they are possessions, inasmuch as they are possessed, and goods, inasmuch as they are useful and provided by God for the use of men; and they lie to our hand, and are put under our power, as material and instruments which are for good use to those who know the instrument. If you use it skilfully, it is skilful; if you are deficient in skill, it is affected by your want of skill, being itself destitute of blame. Such an instrument is wealth. Are you able to make a right use of it? It is subservient to righteousness. Does one make a wrong use of it? It is, on the other hand, a minister of wrong. For its nature is to be subservient, not to rule. That then which of itself has neither good nor evil, being blameless, ought not to be blamed; but that which has the power of using it well and ill, by reason of its possessing voluntary choice. And this is the mind and judgment of man, which has freedom in itself and self-determination in the treatment of what is assigned to it. So let no man destroy wealth, rather than the passions of the soul, which are incompatible with the better use of wealth. So that, becoming virtuous and good, he may be able to make a good use of these riches. The renunciation, then, and selling of all possessions, is to be understood as spoken of the passions of the soul.
Comment by Peter February 20, 2010 @ 6:13 pm