Although the beginnings of the Christian church at Alexandria are shrouded for us in a mist of ignorance, it is reasonable to assume that there was a great deal of continuity with the large and highly influential Jewish cornrnu- nity of Philo’s time. By the 2nd century, when the influence of Judaism had abated, a pluriform situation developed in which a diversity of views was able to flourish. Continuities of thought can be discerned between most of these various groups and Philonic thought, although it cannot be proven that any of them had direct access to his writings. The Christian Gnostics share much in common with Philo and Hellenistic Judaism, but they intro- duce a radical twist which separates them sharply from Philonic thought.
The greatest continuity is found with the group of Platonizing Christians, who attempted to make use of Greek philosophical ideas in their attempt to understand the Christian message and make it presentable in the intellec-
@ Marrou (1951) 241-268.
67 Marrou (1951) 266; Grant (1988) 178 describes it as ‘possible though not certain’.
68 E.g. Geffcken’s suggestion (1928) 19 that the analogy between the soul in the body and the Christians in the cosmos owes something to Op$ 53, 69; cf. Marrou (1951) 172.
69 $5.9, &Ti yijq &ccTp’p1 oz)o~v, &hh’ I% oGpav@ nohm60vza~.
‘O Marrou (1951) 135; but cf. also Hebr. 11:9-10, 13:14.
7’ See esp. the study of Bitter (1982), and also above $6.5 on Irenaeus.
7z Blanchetikre (1989), esp. 188-190.
tual climate of Alexandria. Of all the documents studied the Teachings of Silvanus shows the most direct similarity to Philonic writings, although
there still remains a difference in level of sophistication. This difference will
now disappears as we turn our attention to the most famous institution of the early Alexandrian church, the Catechetical School.
Chapter Eight
Clement of Alexandria
After all the ‘ifs’, ‘maybes’ and ‘probablys’ of the previous chapters it is a great relief to reach an author of whom we may be absolutely certain that he knew about Philo, had read his writings, and even had some of them, as it were, on his desk. Clement is the first Christian author to make explicit mention of Philo, twice calling him a ‘Pythagorean’ and once referring to one of his works (the De vita Moysis). We know little about the circumstances and events of Clement’s life.’ According to the tradition he was born in Athens (probably around 145) and came from a pagan background. Perhaps his traditional birthplace is symbolic, but if so, it is appropriate, for it is very likely that Clement was first deeply imbued in philosophy before he became a Christian. After some Wanderjahre, perhaps set in motion by his con- version, he settled in Alexandria between 175 and 180. There, according to tradition, he became a pupil of Pantaenus and joined him in the work of the Catechetical school. Many, though not all, of his writings appear to have been written in Alexandria. After some 25 years in Alexandria he left the city, and spent the remainder of his life elsewhere, most likely in Jerusalem, dying some years before 221. Decisive, both for Clement’s career and his knowledge of Philo, was his involvement in the Catechetical school in Alexandria. So it is here that we should begin.
1. The Alexandrian catechetical school
The major historian of the early Church, Eusebius, does not mention the school until Book 5 of his History, when he reaches the reign of Commodus and the person of Pantaenus. ‘From ancient custom, he informs us (5.10.1), a school of sacred learning had existed among the Alexandrians.’ Pan- taenus was head of this school, both in his writings and in oral instruction commenting on the treasures of scripture. At this time he was joined by Clement as pupil and collaborator (5.10.4).* Later Clement is described as
’ The following is based on Nautin (1961) 138-141, MChat (1966a) 42-54.
* Eusebius HE 5.10. I : t?c &pxaiou %ou< 6t6amaheiov T&J iepGjv h6yt.w nap’ aixoi< [i.e. the Alexandrian Christians] ouveor&zos.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 133
being in charge of the school and having had Origen as one of his pupils (6.6.1). In at least two respects Eusebius’ account is far from clear. Firstly is he correct in assuming that the school had a catechetical function within the Alexandrian church? Bardy argued that Eusebius’ account is anachronistic, and that that the ‘school’ did not function as an official centre until the time of the young Origen. But such doubts are probably misplaced, provided we do not see the ‘school’ too much in terms of an official institution03 It would appear that Pantaenus and Clement undertook their teaching duties with the encouragement of the existing ecclesiastical estab- lishment, even though their activities-to judge by Clement’s apologetic tone in his Stromateis-did cause controversy in some circles. Secondly Eusebius’ words definitely imply that the school existed before Pantaenus took charge. Why then does he only mention it here for the first time? Is it because he lacks information, or is he-from his own apologetic viewpoint on behalf of orthodox tradition-engaged in a cover-up? It is possible that Pantaenus took over the ‘school’ from earlier members who had a more Gnostic orientation.4 Eusebius would then have a reason for denying real continuity.5
The scholastic activities of Pantaenus and Clement are consistent with the important role that was accorded to teachers and teaching in the early Alexandrian Church.6 It is highly plausible that the practice of exegesis and teaching forms a continuation of earlier activities by students of the Law in the Jewish community of Philo’s day. In an article on theological education at Alexandria Grant remarks:’
3 A convincing refutation of the views of Bardy (1937) and (1942) is given by Mthat (1966a) 62-70. Further discussions of the catechetical school in Bigg (1886), Roncaglia (1977), Tuilier (1982), Grant (1986), but none of these accounts are entirely satisfactory.
Note that also in the case of philosophical schools the arrangement were most likely less
‘institutionalized’ than we are often inclined to think; cf. for example Goulet-Cazk (1982) 232-257 on the ‘school’ of Plotinus. Brown (1988) 104 gives a suggestive description: ‘It is difficult for a modern reader to enter into the intensity of the didaskaleion, of the small study-circle of male and female disciples that would gather for years on end around a single spiritual guide.’ The concept of an Alexandrian school has played an important role in the history of theology, as set out in the articles of Harnack (1896), Chadwick (1957), and with specific reference to 19th century historiographical aspects Le Boulluec (1987).
4 Roberts (1979) 54 goes well beyond the evidence when he affirms: ‘If Valentinus and Basilides taught in Alexandria, the obvious place for their teaching would have been the School... Pantaenus’ function as head of the School may well have been to cleanse it of Gnostic influence.’ Pearson (1990b) 210 is more careful when he suggests that ‘Pantaenus took over the leadership from a Gnostic teacher’.
’ As Van den Hoek (1990) 179 points out, Eusebius had special connections with the Alex- andrian school through his teacher Pamphilus, who had had connections with two heads, Origen and Pierius. Neymeyr (1989) 42-45 too easily assumes Eusebian ignorance.
’ See above $7.3.
’ Grant (1986) 180; texts cited are Contempl. 3 1, 78.
The best precedent for the Christian schools of Alexandria seems to lie not in Philo but among the Therapeutae by the Mareotic lake, described in Philo’s work On the Contemplative Life. Certainly their leader is an ideal theological teacher. “He does not make an exhibition of clever rhetoric like the orators or sophists of today but follows careful examination by careful expression of the exact meaning of the thoughts.” What this teacher is discussing is “some question arising in the sacred writings,”
by someone else.”
or he may be solving “one proposed Another resemblance appears in the exegetical method.
“The exegesis of the sacred writings treats the inner meaning conveyed in al- legory,” for the Bible is like a living creature with the letter for its body and the invisible meaning for its soul. Such Therapeutae would be ready for Alex- andrian Christianity.
The continuity that Grant detects here is, I think, convincing (and sheds further interesting light on Eusebius’ non-historical adoption of the Thera- peutae as proto-Christians). I am less happy about the contrast he makes between Philo and the Therapeutae, for these ‘ascetics’ are given an idealized description by Philo, and so the activities he records may well reflect what took place in the synagogues which he describes elsewhere as
‘schools’ of Mosaic learning .8 Unfortunately Philo’s general descriptions make it virtually impossible to determine in what kind of scholastic context he himself operated, so that it is hazardous to specify a more direct connection between him and the later school of Pantaenus and Clement.9
For more than one reason, therefore, the Alexandrian school must be given a central place in our investigation. In the metropolitan milieu o f Alexandria it had a central function as an educational centre, enabling Christian theology to reach a level of sophistication higher than that attained by the Apologists and Irenaeus hitherto, and making possible the rich tradition of speculative Alexandrian theology that was to flourish in the succeeding centuries. The open and relatively positive attitude towards Greek philosophy is a direct continuation of the attitude underlying the philosophically orientated exegesis found in Philo. Another aspect of the school is no less imporant. As Van den Hoek has usefully pointed out in a recent contribution on Clement’s ‘Alexandrianism’, his activities as writer were only made possible by grace of his access to a well-stocked library.
His literary and scholarly approach to learning ‘is only possible in a place where a tradition of scholarhsip exists and where reference material is readily available. The multitude of sources that reached him-whether in
* Cf. Mos. 2.216, Spec. 2.62. On this texts, which refer to synagogues and not to ‘secular’
schools of learning, see Nikiprowetzky (1977) 177-180.
9 Culpepper (1975) 197-214 usefully examines the question of Philo’s school, but concurs somewhat hastily with the views that Philo was an ‘Einzelgtinger’ and that there were no direct links with the later Alexandrian school (213). On the ‘school tradition’ anterior to Philo to which he bears witness in his writings see above $2.1 and n. 2. The tradition recorded in a Syriac author that Philo himself was director of the Alexandrian School is doubtless legendary; see above 5 I. I (I 3), Q I .4.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 135
the form of extracts or complete works-proves how richly endowed his immediate environment was.‘lO The role of the Alexandrian school as a scholarly resource centre has a further aspect whose importance for our subject can hardly be overestimated. As we saw in our account of the transmission of Philo’s writings, it was in all likelihood the school of Alex- andria, under the leadership of Pantaenus, that was directly responsible for their preservation. Since Clement is the first writer we know to make extensive use of these writings, it is reasonable to assume that copies were kept in the school itself or were in the possession of its members.11 BarthClemy speculates that, if it had not happened that someone in this environment stumbled across the books of the learned Jew and discovered that they were useful for purposes of the study of the scriptures, these would have certainly been lost to posterity, just as happened to the remain- der of Alexandrian Jewish literature .12 The (unstated) assumption here is that there was a lack of continuity with an earlier phase of Alexandrian scholastic activity. Because of our ignorance concerning the origin of the Alexandrian school, we cannot know how the rescue operation was effectuated. That it took place is certain.
2. Foundations
As already indicated, Clement mentions Philo four times by name. All four texts are located in the first two books of the Stromateis, in which by means of a wide-ranging discussion involving a vast amount of historical and philosophical material Clement defines his relation as a Christian scholar and ‘gnostic’ to the anterior traditions of Greek philosophy and the Jewish Bible (in Greek). At 1.31.1 Philo is reported as recording the etymo- logies of the names Hager and Sarah. He is next invoked, together with Aristobulus, as having copiously demonstrated the antiquity of the Jewish race and the fact that the philosophy in their sacred writings predates Greek philosophy (1.72.4). 13 In 1.151.2 he cites Philo’s De vita Moysis as evidence of Moses’ training in the Greek paideia (not realizing that this relates uncomfortably to his previous allusion to Philo).14 The fourth
‘” Van den Hoek (1990) 190. Once again a comparison with the ‘school’ of Plotinus is illuminating. The activities descibed by Porphyry in Vita Plotini 14 imply the existence of some kind of school library.
‘I There may be a hint that the former is correct in the variation in use of Philo throughout the Stromateis; see below $8.4.
I2 Bartheltmy ( 1967) 60; see further above $1.4.
I3 The reference here may be general, or more specifically to the largely lost Hypothetica, as Wendland (1896b) 770 suggested.
I4 Interestingly Clement too makes the connection with the account in Stephen’s speech in Acts 7; see our comments above in $7.2.
136 CHAPTER EIGHT
reference at 2.100.3 has the most interesting context. Having reached the end of an extensive set of paraphrases from Philo’s De virtutibus, Clement states that Plato’s telos (‘becoming like unto God’) is the same as that of Moses. The reason is either that he hit on it independently or that he was instructed by a divine oracle. In order to support the first possibility Clement cites a passage from Philo. If this is from Mos. 1.22 (on Moses!), as thought by editors and commentators,*s then the citation must be from memory, because apart from the phrase ai p&~&tit cpbaey there is no verbal similarity at all. Twice, at 1.72.4 and 2.100.3, Clement calls Phi10
‘the Pythagorean’. The epithet is somewhat puzzling. Given the contexts, there is clearly no intent to conceal Philo’s Jewishness (at 1.147.2 Josephus is called b ‘Iov&x~o~). Since in the following line Aristobulus is described as ‘the Peripatetic’, it seems that Clement wants to indicate the philosophical school to which he thinks Philo is nnost closely related. But
‘Pythagorean’ hardly seems to be very suitable in Philo’s case.16
It would be rash to conclude that these four texts were the only pas- sages in which Clement is indebted to Philo. Inde(ed it emerges that they form no more than the tip of the iceberg. As early as Potter’s edition of the extant works of Clement published in 1715 it was recognized that he had made extensive use of Philo’s writings and that it was necessary to identify such usage for the proper understanding of the text.17 Mangey came to the same conclusion in his remarkable edition of Philo’s complete works in 1742.18 But it was not until the end of the 19th century that the task was taken to hand in a systematic way. In their still unsuperseded critical edition of Philo’s Greek writings Cohn and Wendhand print large slabs of Clementine material below the Philonic text.” In 19105X)9 St&lin published his definitive text of Clement’s writings in the series Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller. In his apparatus criticus he identifies numerous places where Clement uses or alludes to Philo. These references were considerably expanded by Friichtel and Treu in Uheir later revisions of Sttihlin’s text.20 It would be rash to affirm that no nnore uses of or allusions
15
b)
Cf. C-W 4.124, StHhlin-Friichtel-Treu (1905-1985) 2.168 (v&h a cautionary note added Friichtel).
16 17 18 19
See also the further remarks below at $8.5 (b), (d).
Potter (17 15), reprinted as volumes 8 and 9 of Migne’s Patrol’ogia Graeca.
Mangey (1742).
Cohn-Wendland (1896-1915); cf. esp. 1.236242,2.3-7,3.72-79, 87-109,4.119-135, 153- 159, 221-228, 5.268-332. There is no index testimoniorum in tlhe edition itself, but this has been supplied in Runia (1992a), with references to Clement at 90-91. Wendland also wrote an important preparatory study on the significance of the Clemelntine evidence for the estab- lishment of Philo’s text, (1896a).
2o Stghlin-Frtichtel-Treu (1905-1985) passim; see the latest list in 4.47-49 (= 19804). The revisions also incorporate material from Stlhlin’s translattion (1934-38). Note that Friichtel also made important contributions to the task of identifying Philo’s fragments, which before the advent of computer assistance was immensely difficult; cf. R-R 14-19. The
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 137
to Philo remain to be discovered in the intricate mazes of Clement’s writings, but we may be sure that the bulk of this arduous labour has been carried out by the scholars just mentioned and others who have made less conspicuous contributions. The result is in fact an outstanding example of how an extremely difficult task- after all one virtually needs to know the whole of Philo by heart in order to accomplish it-can be achieved through the cumulative effort of generations of scholars.
Once the identifications had been made, it became possible to place the study of Clement’s.use of Phi10 and Philo’s influence on Clement on a se- cure footing. The first to attempt this was Heinisch, who once again fol- lowed in the footsteps of the earlier pioneering, but rather unsatisfactory attempt of Siegfried.** Since then a substantial but rather disorganized literature has developed on the subject. Fortunately a study has appeared a few years ago which for the first time examines Clement’s use of Philo with the required thoroughness, combined with an exemplary attention to metho- dological issues. This excellent piece of research is now the best intro- duction to the subject, as long as we bear in mind that the study does not cover the entire subject (it confines its attention to Clement’s main work, the Stromateis). Nevertheless the best course for us will be to begin by examining the results of this monograph, before turning to other aspects of the subject.