In the Pastoral letter that Clement, bishop of Rome from 92 to 101, writes to the congregation of Corinth, admonishing them for their spirit of contention and exhorting them to seek harmony and concord, two passages have been brought in connection with Philo. Van Unnik, explaining with great mastery of detail the background of the term ~ipfivq Pa&%x in 1 Cor.
2.2, points out a number of parallel passages in Philo, which show that the
’ Various editions. I have used Funk-Bihlmeyer-Schneemelcher (1956).
* See sound observations on the corpus (for readers of Dutch) in Klijn (1966-67) 8-13.
j There are, for example, practically no references to Philo in the classic 5 volumes of commentary by Lightfoot, (1889-90).
4 See also chapter 7 on Alexandria, where we examine the Letter to Diognetus and some writings generally grouped under the title New Testament Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha (to which the Letter of Barnabas should actually belong).
88 CHAPTER FIVE
context of the term is Augustan political thought, in which the peace and concord of unity is contrasted with disharmony and dissension of civil strife.5 The earliest examples that Van Unnik finds are all from Judaeo- Hellenistic literature, but he sees no reason to conclude that its origin lies here.6 There is of course no question of any direct contact between Philo and Clement, only a shared background, the Judaeo-Hellenistic nature of which should, I believe, be emphasized more than Van Unnik has done (though he is looking only at a single phrase).
A second, more interesting, passage that has been brought in relation to Philo is the beautiful ‘cosmological’ chapter 20 on the elements of creation which, keeping within their ordained bounds, benefit man and beast, and so reveal God’s lovingkindness. Jaeger has drawn attention to the image of springs of water which unceasingly offer their life-giving breasts to mankind (20.11).7 He points out parallels in three Philonic passages, @if. 38, 133, Aet. 66. The last-named passage is derived from the Peripatetic author Critolaus. Behind the convergences of the four passages, Jaeger argues, lies a tragic poetic fragment which portrayed the earth as a pregnant woman and its springs as the breasts of a feeding mother. For Philo and Clement Jaeger, using the questionable methods of Quellenforschung, postulates a common Stoic source which they both used, no doubt indepen- dently of each other.
Another aspect of this chapter may be noted, namely the strong echoes of the Mosaic creation account, and especially of the divine commands given in the works of the six days.
(a) the heavens are subordinated to the creator, day and night, sun, moon and stars fulfilling their ordered course; vv l-3, cf. Gen. 1:3-5, 14-
18;
(b) the earth brings forth its gifts, not deviating from what has been ordained; vv. 4-5, cf. Gen. 1: 11-13;
(c) the sea does not exceed its bounds as its waters have been gathered together; v. 6, cf. Gen. 1:9-10 (note esp. sic, &S auvayoy&~, cf. Gen. 1:9
&i< ouvayoy+ uiav).
(d) summarizing at the end: ‘the great craftsman (Squtoup-&) and master (&or&~~~) of all things commanded (npoo~za~ev) them to be in concord and peace (buovoiq), benefitting (EI~~~EGv) all things’.
The mixture of Greek cosmology and Mosaic creational themes is rather reminiscent of Philo, even if composed on a much less sophisticated level.
Most striking is the use of the Platonizing term ‘demiurge’, and the emphasis on divine command, also prominent in Philo’s commentary.*
s Van Unnik (1970).
h Ibid. 277-278.
7 Jaeger ( 1959).
* See my comments at Runia (1986) 108,223.
APOSTOLIC FATHERS 89
Unquestionably a Hellenistic-Jewish background lies behind Clement’s formulations here.
2. Ignatius of Antioch
Condemned to death and longing for the prize of martyrdom, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote seven letters to various Christian communities in Asia Minor and Rome during his journey under escort to the capital. The letters show clear affinities to and developments of themes in two of the New Testament writers discussed in our previous chapter, Paul and the Gospel of John.9 Recently a splendid commentary on the letters has been published by Schoedel , which inter alia plurima makes valuable comments on the relation to Philo. The question of whether Ignatius may have read Philo is not asked: presumably it is out of the question. Philo furnishes parallels, and these are considered to be of some importance:10
Rather different is the problem of the relation between Ignatius and Hellenistic Judaism. Parallels involving Philo, Josephus, and others are frequently noted in the commentary. Philo, of course, is particularly well represented. It is often the case, however, that references to pagan sources seem as relevant as refe- rences to Philo; and in any event, the cumulative weight of the parallels is not overwhelming. Yet it would be wrong to underestimate their importance... One conclusion to be drawn from such material is that Hellenistic Judaism rather than Gnosticism often provides the background for an understanding of Ignatius’ spirituality.
The themes that Schoedel considers most important in this context are theological and anthropological. Ignatius goes further than the New Testa- ment writers in stressing God’s transcendence. Note, for example, how negative epithets used to describe God in Judaeo-Hellenistic thought are applied to Christ in a way that anticipates later diophysite christology (Poly. 3.2):”
Observe the times. Look for him who is above time (i)&p Katp6v)-non- temporal (&xpovos), invisible (&6pa~os), for our sakes visible (bpc~&), intan- gible (&mh&pnzo~), impassible (&W&G), for our sakes passible ( XC&&), one who endured in every way for our sakes.
God is beyond temporal and spatial categories, and this is shared by Christ who existed with him before the ages (Magn. 8.2). God’s oneness is ac- knowledged, but subordinated to the emphasis on his revelation through
‘) Koester (1982) 2.282f.
lo Schoedel(l985) 17.
‘I Ibid. 19, 267; his translation. The stress on incarnation is directed against docetist oppo- nents, who in Schoedel’s view may have been inspired by ideas from Hellenistic Judaism; cf.
ibid. 17, 155f.
Jesus Christ, who fully shares in his divinity. Schoedel sees parallels with Philo in Ignatius’ emphasis on unity and concord: unity in the Church with the bishop as its head, communion with God through Christ.12 The Christian
‘attains’ God in death - the conviction of immortality playing an important role in the desire for martyrdom -, but already ‘possesses God’ here and now.13 In anthropological terms, Ignatius takes over the Pauline antithesis between spirit and flesh, a dualism in line with his theology. In one intriguing text, however, he attempts to surmount the opposition in a rather aphoristic way:14
Fleshly people (oaplctrcoi) cannot do spiritual things (xveupa~uc&), nor yet spiritual people do fleshly things; just as faith cannot do the things of faithless- ness, nor yet faithlessness the things of faith. But what you do even according to the flesh, that is spiritual; for you do all things in Jesus Christ.
In at least two aspects Ignatius is far removed from Philonic thought.
Firstly he shows almost no interest in the Hebrew scriptures: there are only three quotations and a further handful of allusions, none of which are to the Pentateuch. There is polemic against Christians who regard the Scriptures as ‘archives’ which have the final word.15 Secondly the biblical doctrine of creation is taken for granted but almost no emphasis is placed on it (the term ~6oyo< is always used in the negative sense of that which is opposed to God). 16 Two conditions for an interest in Philo’s thought during the Patristic period are thus here noticeably absent, unlike the third author whom we shall now examine.
3. Letter of Barnabas
The Letter of Barnabas is closer to a paraenetic homily presenting scrip- ture-based argumentation than a real letter. From the viewpoint of both form and content it shows marked similarity to the Letter to the Hebrews, though lacking the sustained power of the latter’s theological argument.
The author of the work is unknown (it is very unlikely to have been the missionary Barnabas), and its dating and place of origin have been the sub- ject of lively scholarly debate. A date between 95 and 130 is probable.17 For I2 Schoedel (1985) 18-21, 53 (with subtleties on the question of Ignatius’ ‘mysticism’ that are not so germane to our discussion).
I3 Schoedel (1985) 29: ‘The expression “to attain God” [zuy~hv~tv &oc], then, takes its place with others in the letters that describe the relation between God and human beings in terms of a deep communion verging on or passing over into mysticism.’ Similar, but not identical expressions at Gig. 61, Migr. 49.
14 IS 16 17
See comments 23-24, translation at 63.
Schoedel(l985) 17,207f. on Phd. 8.2.
Schoedel(l985) 14, 17-18.
Extensive discussion in Richardson-Shukster (1983), arguing for a date during or just
APOSTOLIC FATHERS 91
the place of origin there are two strong candidates, Palestine-Syria and Alexandria.is Hanson, Barnard and Pearson are confident that the docu- ment is of Alexandrian provenance, stressing the similarities with Helle- nistic-Jewish exegesis found in Philo. l9 Prigent argues against this view.
He concedes that there are important parallels. Philo, for example, is the only source that joins Barnabas in linking up Gen. 25 and 48, while the similarities in the symbolism of sacrifice, circumcision, sabbath, and dietary laws are striking. But he affirms that the Alexandrian character of the exegesis and similarities to Philo have been exaggerated, and finds more points of contact with developments in Palestine in Syria, e.g. at Qumran and in Rabbinic thought.20
In an illuminating article full of acute observations, Martin has demon- strated that the examination of points of contact between Barnabas and Alexandrian Judaism (Aristobulus, Letter of Aristeas, Wisdom of Solomon, Philo) carried out by scholars so far has been partial, superficial and some- times downright erroneous. 21 He briefly outlines seven topics in which these points of contact have been insufficiently studied:
(0 the double creation of man (cf. Burn. 6.8-19);22 (ii) the sabbath and eighth day (cf. Burn. 15.1-9);
(iii) the rays of the sense-perceptible and the divine sun (cf. Burn. 5.10);
(iv) the exegesis of the two goats (cf. Burn. 7.6-10);
(v) the exegesis of the heifer in Num. 19 (cf. Burn. 8.1-6);
(vi) the exegesis of the serpent on the pole in Num. 21 (cf. Burn. 12.5-7);
(vii) exegetical themes and anti-Judaic polemic (cf. Burn. 9.4, 14.4).23 after the reign of Nerva (96-98); Barnard (1966) 46 and Pearson (1986b) 15 1 argue for a date close to or a little later than the Jewish revolt at Alexandria in 115-l 17.
t* The issue is complicated by the fact that the author is at least partly a redactor, who takes over material from existing documents. This is very clearly the case for the final chapters 5 18-21, introduced by the words ~EU@@EV 6k ~cti kni im$mv yvGjotv ~cti 6t6rx~fiv. The doctrine of the ‘two ways’, the one of light and life, the other of darkness and death presented here is closely related to the same theme in the Diduche; both are thought to go back to a Jewish source. Cf. Audet (1958), Prigent-Kraft (1972) 12-21. Audet 254, 259 sees ruppro- chements with themes in Philo, citing Spec. 2.62-63. Also Spec. 4.108-109 and the exegeses of Deut. 30:19, Num. 20:17-20 in Deus 50, 145ff. are relevant, but Philo characteristically converts the polarity in terms of virtue and vice.
I9 Hanson (1959) 98-100; Barnard (1966) 41-72; Pearson (1986b) 211-213. All three authors stress the connection with Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 (which is again closely related to Hebrews, cf. above $4.3). Barnard’s suggestion that the author was a converted Rabbi is strongly reminiscent of Spicq’s position on the author of the Letter to the Hebrews.
2o Prigent (1961), summarized in Prigent-Kraft (1971) 20-24.
21 Martin (1982).
22 But the paraphrase of $6.12-13 ‘una cosa t: la plasmazione de1 Figlio, altra quella dei singoli uomini’ is odd. Barnabas interprets the plural in Gen. 1:26 as God talking to the Logos (cf. §5.5), an exegesis that later recurs in Justin Dial 62.1.
27 See further remarks on anti-Judaic polemic below.
92 CHAP1 EK FIVE
The observations, Martin affirms, are nol sufficient to allow the conclusion that the Letter is an Alexandrian document (and certainly not that there is a direct dependence on Philo),*4 but rather that the author had a thorough acquaintance with Judaeo-Hellenistic exegetical traditions. The task that remains to be done, he concludes, is a further study of the hermeneutics of Hellenistic Judaism and the tension in it between allegory and historical explanation and between universalist and particularistic thought. Such an enquiry will allow the relation between it and early Christian thinkers such as the author of the Letter to become more clearly defined.
For our purposes there are four points that should be emphasized.
(a) The aim of the Letter is to instruct its readers ‘so that after your faith you may obtain complete (or perfect) knowledge (s&h& ‘yvGiat~) (1.5)‘.
The times are evil and the worker of evil has the power, so our task must be to search the ordinances of the Lord; if we have the fear of God, endurance, patience and self-mastery to reinforce our faith, then wisdom (oocpia), understanding (ohwy), knowledge (bntcm’pq) and gnosis (yv&
at<.) will joyfully accompany them (2.2-3). It is apparent that the deeper
knowledge or gnosis of which the author speaks is to be achieved through the proper understanding of scripture in non-literal, i.e. allegorical or typo- logical terms .*5 The continuity here with Philo is highly significant.
(b) But closer attention should be paid to Barnabas’ method of scriptural interpretation. 26 When, for example, in 13.5 he cites Gen. 48:13-19, in which Jacob blesses the younger Ephraim instead of the older Manasseh, he interprets the text typologically: the brothers represent Israel and ‘this people’ (i.e. the Christian sect), and Jacob’s unexpected action shows that the Christians are heirs of the covenant. How different to Philo’s allegorical exegesis which turns on the distinction between recollection (civ&pvqot~)
and memory (pv”i)p.q), inspired by the respective etymologies.27 Such philo- sophical exegesis is totally foreign to Barnabas’ thought-world. Much clo- ser to Philo is his interpretation of the Jewish dietary laws. When Moses says ‘do not eat pork’, what he means is ‘do not associate with men who are similar to swine, who when they flourish forget the Lord, but when they are in need remember him again.’ This interpretation is not so far removed from Philo’s diatribe against desire at Spec. 4.1OOff. With respect to chew- ing the cud the similarities are a lot closer (compare 10.9 with Spec. 4.107).
A major difference remains, however, for according to Barnabas Moses
24 Cf. Hanson (1959) 99: ‘... the Epistle of Barnabas shows no sign of influence from Philo whatever.’
25 Cf. Koester (1982) 2.277, who points to the use of the term yvLjoq in the introduction to exegeses in 6.9, 9.8 (cf. also 10.10). I would see a stronger connection between this use of the term and the perfect knowledge of 1.5 , 2.3, 13.7 than envisaged by Martin (1982) 174 n. 6.
For the Septuagintal phrase X~&JEXE &XIX@ alluded to in Barn. 2.1 and 4.6, cf. Migr. 8.
2h On Barnabas’ hermeneutical methods compared with Philo, cf. Heinisch (1908) 58-61.
27 Cf. Leg. 3.90, Sobr. 27-29.
At’OS’I‘OI,IC b’A’I‘HEKS 93
p r o n o u n c e d t h e s e d o c t r i n e s (%ypa~~) in spirit only, but the Jews, in accordance with the desires of the flesh, take them to refer to food literally (10.8). (The same similarity and difference is found concerning circumcision;
compare 9.1-4 with Spec. 1.8-11.) For Philo, as the famous passage at Migr. 89-93 makes quite clear, allegorical interpretation of the injunctions of the Law does not justify non-observance, let alone abrogation.
(c) As already indicated, there are numerous thematic and exegetical points of contact between Barnabas and Philo. Especially noteworthy is the large number of texts from the Pentateuch that are dwelt on. But the actual interpretations that the author supports are in most respects at a great remove from Philo’s thought. Texts that are given a philosophical interpretation in Philo refer in Barnabas either to Christ, to the imminent end of the world-the eschatological emphasis is even stronger than in Hebrews-, or to the relation between the people of the Old and the New Covenant. It is fair to say, I believe, that if Christian thought had developed exclusively along the lines explored by Barnabas, there would have been little interest in a more direct usage of Philo, in spite of all the common elements which we have observed.
(d) Finally, the anti-Judaism of the Letter is pronounced, much stronger in fact that anything we read in the New Testament.29 Indeed the work can be regarded as a kind of precursor of the Adversus Ioudueos literature that will be come to prominent in the relations between the Christian and the Jewish communities. The Covenant which God swore to the Patriarchs was indeed offered, but the Jews were unworthy to receive it on account of their sins, as indicated by the incident of the Golden calf. Moses was given the Cove- nant as a servant, whereas the Christians have received it from Christ him- self. The purpose of his incarnation was partly that the sinfulness of the Jews could become complete (!), but also that the Christians could be ran- somed out of darkness and become a holy people. Martin rather tenuously suggests the exploitation of Hellenistic-Jewish themes in this polemic, e.g.
in the gradation of knowledge received from Moses and Christ.30 More important, in my view, is the fact that anti-Jewish polemic can stand by side with material drawn from Jewish sources without any conflict being felt by the author. Such mental dissociation was a necessary condition for the Christian appropriation of Philo.
28 Themes: sacrifice 52; man made in the image $5-6 (esp. Gen. 1:26, 28), purification 68, circumcision $9; arithmology $9.8 (Gen. 14:14, but the technique used differs from Philo’s methods); dietary laws $10, sabbath $15 (note Gen. 2:2, also exploited in Hebrews 4:4), the temple $16. See further discussions scattered through Heinisch (1908).
29 Cf. Schreckenberg (1982) 174-178. We will be referring frequently to this excellent analysis of this genre of literature in the course of our study.
X) Martin (1982) 181f.
Chapter Six
The Apologists
Towards the middle of the 2nd century the Christian communities, steadily gaining in strength, begin to direct their attention outwards towards the society in which they lived. Right from the beginning this dimension had not been entirely lacking, as Luke perceived when he presents the apostle Paul as delivering a sermon to a group of assembled Athenian philosophers on the Areopagus (Acts 17:16-34). Paul’s speech contains various themes that are a clear continuation of the tradition of Jewish apologetic.
Nevertheless it was not until the 2nd century that more strenuous and systematic efforts were made to present the salient points of the Christian message to audiences whose basic view of the world was based on the accumulated tradition of Greek philosophical thought. The first group to attempt this task are generally known under the collective title of the Apo1ogists.l Their interest in philosophical and theological questions naturally brings them much closer to Philo than the New Testament writers and the Apostolic Fathers. We shall now examine their relation to the Philonic legacy, paying most attention to the figure of Justin Martyr, unquestionably the greatest of these early Christian ‘theologians’. As we noted in one of our introductory chapters, much of this ground has been covered by Martin in his valuable status quaestiunis on ‘Phi10 and Christian ideas of the second century’ .2
* Texts collected in Goodspeed (1914), which as a collection still remains unsuperseded. In recent years there has been considerable work done on the texts of individual authors. The following works should be noted: new editions of Athenagoras by Schoedel (1972), Marcovich (1990a) (Legatio only); new edition of Justin’s Apologies by Wartelle (1987), of Dial. l-9 (with extensive commentary) by Van Winden (1971); new edition of Tatian by Whittaker (1982). For a text and translation of Theophilus (not included in Goodspeed) see Grant (1970). The most recent comprehensive study of the Apologists is by Grant (1988).
2 Cf. Martin (1988), and above $3.3, where we note that he intends to publish a monograph
on this subject.
APOLOGISTS 9s
1. Aristides
The address of Aristides is made to the Emperor Hadrian, i.e. before 138
ad, making it most likely the oldest of the Apologists’ writings.3 The transmission is unfortunately imperfect, and hence rather complicated. The most complete version is in Syriac, but there are also fragments in the original Greek and Armenian extracts, as well as adaptations in a Byzantine romance, all of which do not always correspond to the Syriac.
Point of departure still has to be the text and commentary of Geffcken published in 1907. 4 In the title of the work Aristides calls himself an
‘Athenian philosopher’ (cpttioocpo~ ‘A&qva?o<), perhaps using the term in the broad (and rather vague) sense that is common in the 2nd century. But
it is also possible, as Geffcken suggests, that there is a direct connection
with the Judaeo-Hellenistic tradition, in which aocpia represents the wisdom revealed by God through his prophets (and especially Moses) and cpthooocpia is the pursuit of that wisdom by those who desire the truth.5 What is in any case clear is that the author of this apology shows a surprisingly favourable attitude towards Judaism. The main body of the address ($2-13) enumerates the religious beliefs and practices of various nations (Chaldeans, Greeks, Egyptians). The Jews are superior to these, for they worship God alone (§14), but are inferior to the Christians because they refuse to recognize Christ (915-17).
The favourable stance towards Judaism can be interpreted in more than one way. Grant sees it as evidence that the work is very early, written well before the Bar Kochba revolt.6 O’Ceallaigh, on the other hand, has argued that the bulk of the work was originally written by a ‘proselyte to Hellenist Judaism’, and that this Jewish work of the 2nd century was interpolated, probably in the late 4th century, in order to convert it to a Christian apology.7 Van den Broek basically agrees, affirming that ‘there are strong indications that the main body of this apology was written by a Jew indeed, but there is no evidence which precludes the view that this Jewish work, in an admittedly awkward manner, was already Christianized in the second century’ .* If the basic document underlying the apology was derived from, or .7 Quadratus may be older, because according to Eusebius HE 4.3.1-2 he too addressed his work to the Emperor Hadrian. But conventionally Quadratus is reckoned with the Apostolic Fathers.
4 Geffcken (1907); for further details on the text see the overview of Van den Broek (1988) 203.
5 Geffcken (1907) 31-32. For the polyvalence of the term cpthoaocpicr in Philo see Nikipro- wetzky (1977) 97-i 16.
6 Grant (1988) 39.
’ O’Ceallaigh (1958) 227 and passim.
’ Van den Broek (1988) 205.