You are on page 1of 23

Why Does Clement of Alexandria Call Philo "The Pythagorean"?

Author(s): David T. Runia
Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 1-22
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1584152
Accessed: 17-12-2017 06:17 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1584152?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae
Christianae

This content downloaded from 149.105.1.53 on Sun, 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

WHY DOES CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
CALL PHILO "THE PYTHAGOREAN"?

BY

DA-VID T. RUNIA

The evidence and the problem

It is a well-known fact that the massive corpus of writings of P
of Alexandria only survived because he was taken up in the Chris
tradition as a church father honoris causa,' In our extant sources
first mentioned by Josephus (Antiquities 18.258), who describes h
"a man respected in every way ... and not unskilled in philosoph
But this is the last reference to Philo by a Jewish author until the 16
century. We first read about him in a Christian author in the Stroma
of Clement of Alexandria (written at the end of the 2nd century
Clement explicitly refers to Philo on four occasions, but his actual us
of Philonic material is much more extensive. Indeed Clement's han
of Philo is an illuminating example of the way ancient authors
wont to use other authors as a source for their own writing. In
excellent and well-received monograph on the subject Annewies van d
Hoek has shown that on at least eight occasions Clement had a cop
Philo on his desk as it were, and that he copied out extensive exce
in the Stromateis, unrolling his scroll as he went along (on one occasio
in reverse!).3
The four passages in which Clement refers to Philo by name are
following:4

1.31.1: Eptivuve6 et 6 O iXv ZTv "Ayacp apopixovaw ..., TIv Sapawv E a&pXTiv .L
(Philo interprets Hagar as "sojourning" ..., Sarah as "my rule".)
1.72.4: TOUT&ov &awvTcov IpeapuTa6tov ( oaxp TO6 'Iouoaiov yevoS xai TTv
auTol pXoootlo v irv paXTo T v rOV yevo?i:vnlv Trpoxartapait Trfi; xp' "EXTall cpLXoa
at8a coXX,.v 6 Ilu0oay6pitoS ToSoixvumat OltXov, ou .LTv aXXa xoai 'Apto6pouX
rIep7craltqtx6os xai aXXot :XEtiou0, 'iva ( .I xax' Ovor(.a EI7rtCv 8uaTp(ipo. (Tha
race of the Jews is by far the oldest of all these (races or cultures) and
their philosophy in a written form commenced prior to that of the Gre
is fully demonstrated by the Pythagorean Philo, as well as by Aristobu
the Peripatetic and many others, a list of whose names I will not bore
with.)
1.152.2: Tr v bE a&XXv eVXuxXLov axtaseiov E"EXlvEs; C(8axaxov ev AiT'i`rcO, (; av

? E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1995 Vigiliae Christianae 49, 1-22

This content downloaded from 149.105.1.53 on Sun, 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

2 DAVID T. an account of which by Philo in his Life of Moses. "Philo the Hebrew".ileaov. whom.X.53 on Sun. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. (The remainder of the general education Greeks taug [Moses] in Egypt.oaTa xal TTv cov oupaovCov MoI. In addition he learned Assyrian let the science of the heavens from the Chaldeans and from the Eg 2. ei're [xoal] ouvapoacJ)v n:coS oo6yP v6toLu ("ao yTp IRET&yXat YuaEt xao TyULvao xaOcOv EU':ToxoaJi :to.'0 We would expect that Philo's role as a predecessor in the This content downloaded from 149.8 This information may be derived from Clement. aeti 'i&)v.1.9 Now in my view the epithet "Pythagorean" which Clement attaches to Philo is unexpected.105. In the other two the situation differs. he had been taught it by learned men then These references deserve further study. RUNIA Pa(cLxov 7caiLiov.org/terms . This epithet is used of Philo in only one other ancient source.jstor.ciov AtyurcTiov . or because. Clement does add a description that tells us more about who this Philo might be.C lTIV 7sap&a T XaXa. i7pojae6. as might be more likely. (Plato th opher posits as the goal of life "well-being".5 In the third text both the name and the w as a source is given. Eusebius had read very carefully. It is surely surprising that he does not describe him as "Philo the Jew" or. and says that this is " ing like unto God to the extent possible".6 Here too name is given without any further description.vO 'AaaupCov Tpa&p. no doubt in order to own account of the same subject more authority.Xov ra MXouaofw iTyou6?evo?)..." la S pl6atv 6 HuOayopEtos Oi. Ti aGL Ot' Xov Iv T(O MCOuE PriCA). a. who informs us that according to "Philo the Pythagorean" the best of the Hebrews retired to Lake Mareotis and practised philosophy there. When introducing Philo in his Ecclesiastical History Eusebius tells us that Philo is recorded as having exceeded his contem- poraries in his zeal for the philosophical discipline of Plato and Pythagoras (so I translate Trv xaxra HaX&ova xat fluOa-ypaov &yoyTrv).100.3: HnI&Tcov UE 6 cptX6aopoo. E capa T vov TO6 XoTiCov ava8otoaXolE artE iLaOiJaco. which occu middle of an extensive section that borrows heavily from Ph Jewish author is suddenly introduced without any further indic to who he might be. E&iu8aLxovLav TEXO. "4LOC 9nlatv auTjIv eLvac "xacra TO6 uvoO6v". . Clement explicitly indicates that he has of Philo's account of the life of Moses.7 A single other text points in a similar direction. In the first.S tLO4ievoS. in this either coinciding or other with the doctrine of the Law (for great natures who are d passions somehow or other hit on the truth. He is twice called "the Pythagorean". namely the historian Sozomen. as would befit a royal child. as one who wa thirsting for learning. as we know. as says the Pythagore when expounding the works of Moses).

Yet it is easy to that from the historical point of view the issue is not without significance.3 After a long passage starting at ?78.53 on Sun. It is highly probable that it was through the intervention of the so-called catechetical school of Pan- taenus. in which Clement describes how the Greek philosophical doctrine of the various virtues is already located in the writings of Moses. The answer to our question will be determined primarily by Clement's perception of Philo and other writers like him. 4 It is. therefore. 2. that the writings of Philo were rescued from the debris of Jewish-Alexandrian culture after the disastrous happenings in the century after Philo's death. The evidence of other contemporary authors is only useful to the extent that it brings Clement's views into sharper relief. WHY DOES CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA CALL PHILO "THE PYTHAGOREAN"? 3 Jewish-Christian tradition. The formulation of the telos as s6o8atiovca and O6LOKtwaoS 0sc xarxa TO uvar6v. It will be more convenient to take the latter first. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. with Clement that we should start. apart from the brief notice in Josephus.'2 Just as from the textual point of view. we cannot check him. I begin. The text at Str.1. can this mean that in some way or another Philo was a member of the Pythagorean school? Naturally we have to allow for the fact that Clement may have been privy to information that is other- wise lost to us. As we have seen.jstor. was more important for Clement than an attach ment to a philosophical school of thought. of course. of which Clement was a member (but of which we know perilously little).105. the tradition that ascribes authority the Hebrew scriptures.e. When he calls Philo a "Pythagorean". 176b.100.org/terms . derived from Theaet. But we do have the duty to examine the question of why Clement called Philo "the Pythagorean" from as many angles as are made available to us by our limited sources. since they may well tell us something about why Clement chose to describe Philo in the way that he did. is of course straight Middle This content downloaded from 149. it is concluded that "Plato the philosopher" has a doctrine of the telos which is the same as that of Moses (see tex cited above). In her monograph Van d Hoek devotes virtually no attention to the matter.13 so also from the historical perspective the early information supplied by Clement has to be taken very seriously. with the contexts of the two passages. If this is the case. i. This is the task that I propose to take on myself in the present article. Clement is the first author to name Philo.

jstor. however.22 Clement. ever thirsting for kno somehow came into contact with learned men who could teach him what was contained in the Mosaic philosophy.TevoS which follows the mention of Philo's name.53 on Sun. It is not impossible that Clement has in mind a passage now lost (e. equivalent to "in his commentaries on Moses").105. or it may mean "giving an exposition of the facts about Moses". 2. .4 DAVID T.g. or because Plato.15 The convergence of doctrine is to be e either through the fact that great minds can hit on the tru pendently of each other. RUNIA Platonist doctrine. a very general sense.25-29 (note especially Ta06xv at ?2 cited passage is part of a longer section of Philo's wor adapts at length in book I of the Stromateis (he refers to of the passages cited above in which Philo's name is final consideration is the ambiguity of the phrase ra MouaixoS eyou. This may mean "expounding the writings of Moses" (i.e.100.3 io)XXa yap ai pLey&XXat puaLSt ai yap J?ya&Xat cpuELS x xaoVO'TOLOlL T(lV ?Tv eS7rtaJTXl:yn. Mos. 1.aTTOXOUait tCqg 7XEpt tl It is perhaps better not to place Clement's words in q since he is giving the gist of Philo's words. 1. not citing The context determines the change from itCLotjITIn (rele natural abilities that came to the fore during his train (Plato's ethical insights). But I agree with the editors of Philo." The first and lesser difficulty posed by the passage is that the quote from Philo which is supposed to support the former alternative is nowhere to be found as such in the Philonic corpus.org/terms .16 The latter alternative recalls the apologetic argument of the "theft of the philosophers". It seems to me. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. which could then be a reference to the biographical details furnished in abundance in the De vita Moysis. Cohn and Wendland.2' The latter view would further support Cohn and Wendland's view. But then xalvoToLuo5al has to for truth (in the ancient conception) is not found throug A further argument in favour of this derivation is th words yutvai 7ia0xv clearly reflect what Philo say asceticism at Mos. Str. that the first interpretation of the phrase is the more likely. which is one of the pillars of Clement's argument throughout the entire work. This content downloaded from 149. in the Quaestiones or the Hypothetica). that he almost certainly has a passage in mind which describes Moses' own education:'8 Philo.1.

At this point we should take into account an acute observation made by Dietmar Wyrwa in his analysis of Clement's use of Plato. and can be dealt with quickly. the passage 2. Pythagoras and Thales) were barbarians anyway.78.org/terms .24 It is tempting to connect this obser- vation with Clement's description of Philo as "the Pythagorean".e.5 and 97.4 The context here is less illuminating. 8 and 168). i. is whether there is any con- nection between what we just called the "erudite literary allusion" and the theme of the passage.23 He points out that Clement's men- tion of the 6OoioaCl Oecx formula is anticipated on two occasions earlier in the passage. (2) Plato recognizes the contribution of barbarian philosophers. i. This means that if the formula is now attributed to Plato. at 80. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. and can be regarded as the climax of. in the other Plato's independent acquisition of a philosophical truth. the entire sequence of whic is determined by large-scale (but wholly unacknowledged) borrowing from Philo's treatise De virtutibus.e. This particular passage follows on. and that both passages are taken straight from Philo (Virt. therefore.g.53 on Sun.1.22 Is Clement indirectly making amends by naming Philo after the event in the expectation that th attentive reader will make the connection? The question to be answered. The first two are "Philo the Pythagorean" and "Aristobulus This content downloaded from 149. He argues that (1) many of the first Greek philosophers (e.1. even if formally and strictly speaking there is no connection between the statement on Plato and the reference to Philo. The section ends with a long series of witnesses. In this section25 Clement discusses the relationship between Greek and barbarian philosophy. Whether this interpreta- tion is legitimate has yet to be seen. A minimalist view would be that Clement is making an erudite literary allusion to a memorable turn of phrase in Philo.72.jstor.1. The text at Str. a complication. the Platonic telos.1-101. at the very least Clement has implicitly indicated his recognition that Philo's use of these phrases has a Platonic (as well as a Mosaic) background. however. (3) many of the Greek philosophers studied with or learnt from barbarian philosophers. After all the contexts are rather different: in th one case the education of the prodigy Moses.105. WHY DOES CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA CALL PHILO "THE PYTHAGOREAN"? 5 The second interpretative difficulty is that we must try to determine the intent and scope of the reference to Philo. and (4) philosophy flourished among the barbarian races before it reached the Greeks. There is. 1.

In most of his extant writings Philo shows little interest in historical details. but certainly deserves serious con- sideration.e. be little doubt that the apologetic motif would have met with his approval. i. Her Hermippus). Thereafter Clement cites four sources which support his thesis (Megasthenes. our text. There is nothing remarkable about a Jew claiming the antiquity of his own race. It is apparent that Clement's use of such philosophical epithets needs to be examined in closer detail. There is no text in the extant Philo which explicitly undertakes to prove the antiquity of the Jews and the anteriority of their written phi- losophy (i. In the first place such terms will very often indicate membership of or affiliation to a philosophical ao'tpea.26 There can. There was no central body that organized all philosophers who called themselves Platonists. perhaps better. the Law). "school of thought".28 In Clement's time. It does make a difference if he is someone who has an association with the Greek philosophical tradition. a philosophical "school" or. however.e. but no doubt most Platonists would look up to the occupant of the chair of This content downloaded from 149.6 DAVID T.53 on Sun. Clement does not bother to tell his reader that Philo is Jewish.e. Philo's fellow-Alexandrian Aristobulus is also given an epithet that indicates a connection with a philosophical school. RUNIA the Peripatetic". These "schools" scarcely existed in the institu- tional sense to which we are accustomed (although in Clement's day there were some municipal chairs for the various oapioagt. anonymi.27 Why then is Philo given the epithet "Pythagorean" in this context? No doubt because it boosts his standing as a witness. philosophers were generally identified by their allegiance to one of the rival "schools" that went back to the earlier period of the Greek philosophical tradition.jstor.1.org/terms . Epithets indicating connections with philosophical schools in Clement Before looking at particular examples.105. Wendland's suggestion that Clement is referring here to a lost section of the Hypothetica cannot be proven. So Clement's statement might be taken as a rhetorical flourish. What do terms such as "Pythagorean" and "Peripatetic" refer to? Here there is an important distinction that needs to be made. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. i. we must first address a preliminary question. and at Athens even an Imperial endowment). as is well known.

Quite different is the case of Pindar.105. The secrecy is Pythagorean. then a IIptcarMtiTLx6q. One could also be "affiliated" with such a "school of tho without teaching philosophy professionally.29 One could be a professional rep tative of such an a'ops. Clement calls various people "the Pythagorean" if. w is claimed that Numa learnt from Moses not to allow anthropom images of God. Hippodamus. the "Stoic" Seneca. e.3' On two occ Clement calls Numa. Such membership could projected into the distant past. was thoug have been a pupil of Pythagoras. Athamas.30 It is also possible. King of Rome. Clement describ as "Pythagorean" on account of the first lines of the sixth Nem which the single origin of men and gods is celebrated (i.org/terms . Pythagorean monad). in his biography discusses the possibility that Numa was an intim Pythagoras at some length. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. The one in the same chapter as the second of the texts analysed above. to use these terms in a different sense indicate not a membership of or an affiliation to a "school of thoug but rather an affinity to the thought of such an oa'psat. as he thinks were members of the ancient Pythagorean school. and so on.e. a "Pythagorean". then a IIu0ao6p&it finally a prominent nIXaTzvtx6<o-before he fell in with the old ma the sea.53 on Sun.32 This information Clement derives from Plutarch.33 We note that in this text Clement that the Romans were taught in secret that it was only possible "to contact with the most excellent principle (&pa4ao0at roO PXaTCaxrou) the mind alone. Phi Epicharmus.35 Here we have a clear case of "affinity of thought" retrospectively attributed. e. but the philosophy Platonism. however.34 But there is no association of the Boeotia dar with the Pythagorean school.1. who regarded himself as an "Academic". Empedocles could be called Pythagorean" because he came from Western Greece. The only "modern" Pythagorean whom Clement mentions as such This content downloaded from 149. the "Platon Plutarch. WHY DOES CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA CALL PHILO "THE PYTHAGOREAN"? 7 Platonist philosophy in Athens. and maintained similar doctrin reincarnation). One c "Platonist" if there are elements of Platonic doctrine in one's wr even if one does not regard oneself as a "member" of that schoo distinction between the two usages is necessarily somewhat flui cannot always be accurately demarcated. That it is real can be illustr if we now turn to some examples found in Clement himself.g.at Such were the men whom Justin stu with-first a Sxro'ix6o.g. Here we think of men s as Cicero.jstor. and so on.

105. Cle- ment mentions him four times. Strato.org/terms . chiefly because he is such an intriguing figure. Aft pronouncement concerns Plato. not Pythagoras. who is called "the Peripatetic" in the very same sentence as Philo is called "the Pythagorean".150 he is recorded as contending that Plato is none other than a Mco LtxLtov.38 Nothing unexpected here. Philo's fellow Alexandrian Jew Aristobulus. The text itself does not tell us very much.3 He is the only one of Philo's Jewish-Alexandrian predecessors whom we know by name. B. of course. It would appear that Eusebius became interested in him through his reading of Clement. it furnishes us with two surprises. Strikingly Clement. Aristobulus the Peripatetic Much ink has been spilt on Aristobulus. We shall return question below.jstor.C. If we take him to have flourished in the mid-second cent. The Euse- bian fragments allow a number of further unnamed borrowings in Cle- ment to be identified. one supposes. of which on two occasions as "the Peripatetic".1. This case requires our closest attention. about whom we would like to know a lot more. Lyco. RUNIA (apart from Philo) is Numenius. Firstly Aristotle is once somewhat curiously called "the Peripatetic". in the famous text at Str. though himself probably tr a Platonic school environment. This means that he must have had access to a copy of Aristobulus' work. Hieronymus. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about.53 on Sun.40 Clement's designation of Aristobulus as "the Peripatetic" is perhaps even more puzzling that of Philo as "the Pythagorean". no good reason for excluding him from the school that he himself founded.37 Others given the title belonged to the Peripatetic school during Aristotle's lifetime and the subsequent Hellenistic period: Clearchus.. 1. Critolaus. for the extant fragments clearly disclose the conviction-similar to that of Philo-that This content downloaded from 149. but we may assume that in Clement's eyes Numenius was a member of (or af with) the Pythagorean ati'pes. The more difficult question he Numenius' relation to the Platonic school of thought is. The remaining surprise is. then a period of nearly two centuries separates them. nowhere describes any philos "Platonist" 36 As for the term kIIp1o0trtxxoS.8 DAVID T. Eusebius gives us four extended passages. Whereas Clement cites only short pieces of text. but there is. an inter- pretation of the Jewish Law with an apologetic orientation.

that it was found in the title of Aristobulus' book. Clement does not allude to this text.1.46 Aristobulus aligns himself with Jewish philosophers and particularly Moses. but Aristotle is not mentioned. for there is no hard evidence either way. 4 that "it is confessed by all philosophers that one should have holy conceptions concerning the deity. and so tell us more about his perceptions than about the situation three centuries earlier. From him they pass onto Eusebius.43 (c) the very recent suggestion that Aristobulus may have been acquainted with the pseudo-Aristotelian work De mundo.42 (b) that the title does not refer to a philosophical affiliation rather to a scientific and possibly biographical interest. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. e.jstor. Aristobulus actually speaks of his own "affiliation" when he says in fr.41 The following hypo been put forward: (a) that the title "Peripatetic" is a deduction from his w perhaps based on the reference to the ao'peaso x ox 6oe tepta 5.g.53 on Sun. and then further into the tradition. that "Plato followed the lawgiving of our tradition (Ti xaO' O&qs This content downloaded from 149. and that this work is his chief point of reference in his orientation towards Greek philosophy. Walter's own explanation of the title (i.4. (a) above) is not particularly convincing. Th allows a rather eclectic approach. but we have none better. however. Such hypotheses need not delay us any longer. as particularly suggested by his reference to the divine 86vaFt.e. which is especially well enjoined by our school of thought (/i xa0' 0tUs a'peqtS)".45 I assume with Walter that the titles are the work of Clement. WHY DOES CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA CALL PHILO "THE PYTHAGOREAN"? 9 Greek philosophy is inferior to and indebted to Moses. for the fragments of Aristobulus himself and their adaptation by Clement give us a sufficient clue. It is difficult to argue against this." The assumption of the last two hypotheses is that the title was either a self-designation or handed down through the tradition. but he does cite the passage which according to Eusebius stood a little earlier in Aristobulus' book. and the Peripa once. for it hardly puts Cle- ment's analysis of Aristobulus' writings in a very favourable light.org/terms .105. He in fact mentions Pyth Plato twice. a view which to rhyme with a Peripatetic position. Moreover when discussing the significance of the S clearly indicates that God created the cosmos. or perhaps based on a more general impression of his motivation. or at least have consciously been taken over by him.

that. cf.105. Philo. 1.50-51: on the decad (exeg.JaTxoiaot)".5? but Clement's trained eye will have picked up more themes with a Pythagorean origin. What.48 Regrettably we are not in a position to determine with any certainty what that affinity in Clement's eyes was. cf. as Pythagorean? Let us review four possibilities. however. he is specifically thinking of this penchant for arithmologizing exegesis. therefore. Congr. 16:36. 100-106. we need to ask whether there are any other features of This content downloaded from 149. Such affiliation is reserved for his relationship to Moses.2 recalls similar Philonic formulations at Leg.4 cannot possibly have meant that Aristobulus was a "member "affiliated with" the Peripatetic school. (ii) Str. 13-14. was in Clement's eyes not a member of the Pythagorean hairesis. 2. Leg. we may argue.93-94: on the six days of creation. the triad and the hebdomad.139-145: on the hebdomad in relation to the 4th command- ment.org/terms . QE 2.jstor. and also Opif. may have induced Clement to regard Philo's thought.1. (iii) Str.54 The possibility has to be considered. 5. Ex. and thus Philo himself. Philo only mentions Pythagoras or his followers explicitly on a limited number of occasions. when Clement calls Philo "the Pythagorean".3. 1. esp.2-20. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. Moreover the reference to God as beyond the One and the monad at Paed. did reveal affinities with Pythagorean thought.68 etc.71. He is called "the Peripatetic" on account of an affinity that he had with Peripatetic thought. This is the relationsh had with his own Jewish school of thought. 2. 6. Opif. RUNIA vo%to06ea()" and that "Pythagoras transferred much from our t (Tciv rcap' ijLv) to his own system of thought (Boy.5 (b) Secondly.5' On a number of occasions he specifically refers to Pythagorean number lore when expounding biblical numbers such as the monad.52 Cle- ment takes over this method. 40.53 on Sun. (a) A prominent aspect of Philo's biblical exegesis is his heavy use of number symbolism or arithmology. Praem. 89-127. and also of a connection with a theology of the "One God". and this will have encouraged the use of the epithet. cf.10 DAVID T. There are at least three significant texts where he takes over substantial material on arithmology from Philo:53 (i) Str. we may ask.49 His writings. Philo's affinity with Pythagoreanism This clear result in the case of Aristobulus will encourage us to undertake an analogous argument for Philo's appellation as "the Pythagorean".

64 As the more ancient figure. As i well known. and the first two centurie A. (c) The third possibility takes us in an entirely different direction. i concluding that the epithet "Pythagorean" refers to Philo's fondness for this particular Platonic dialogue. "in spite of his frequent designation as a This content downloaded from 149. e. As Whittaker remarks. Clement was perfectly aware of this connection.org/terms . was in circulation and was regarded as the original from which Plato had taken (or even plagiarized) his doctrines. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.60 In Clement's day the personage of Timaeus was regarded as a Pythagorean (in the dialogue he is described at 20a as coming from Locris in Italy).59 As the passage at Str. written in Doric and attributed to Timaeus Locrus. not only in the Timaeus. because they were less tied to the study of Plato writings.C.105. with the addition of specia emphases on the role of numbers (esp. Various them mind.63 Indeed Pythagorean doctrine might be described as vir- tually identical with Platonist philosophy. For this reason we are not justified. in the doctrine of first principles and on the contemplative life (together with various practical injunc tions).53 on Sun. Pythagoras was the creative source. that none of these are sufficiently important in Phi ciently prominent in Clement's borrowings from Philo to epithet. (d) The final possibility takes us further along the same path.57 even the doctrine of metempsychosis.65 The best individual example is the philosopher Numenius.58 It will however. but had mor speculative freedom. but Plato had worked out his thought in greater philosophical detail. 5.D. Plato was regarded as having "Pythagorized". Plato's Timaeus. I would argue.61 Clement refers to the figure of Timaeus (Locrus) twice. One of the more obvious features of Philo's writings is their extensive use of philosophical material from the so-called "Bible of the Platonists". bu throughout his entire oeuvre. Pythagoreanizing esotericism.93-94 implicitly shows (Philo's name is not mentioned). Platonists and (Neo-)Pythagoreans formed two separate aitp?aet. The reason why this was possible is clear enough. during the final century B. but from the doctrinal point of view there were strong connections between them. Moreover a Pseudo-Pythagorean work.62 but nowhere does he associate him with Pythagoreanism.56 the goal of ethics a ing God".1. WHY DOES CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA CALL PHILO "THE PYTHAGOREAN"? 11 Philo's thought that on their own may have been sufficient fo to have labelled Philo "the Pythagorean".g. In practice this meant that Pythagoreans could claim Platonist doctrine as an integral part of their a't'patS.

but was This content downloaded from 149. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. that when Clement calls Philo "the Pythag is indicating that he has recognized not only Pythagorean t also the dominant Platonist element in Philo's thought.67 He argues that Plato drew the doctrine of the i of the soul from Pythagoras. even if the mention of Philo strictly speaking refers only to a bon mot. therefore. Which of these a deserves our preference? It might be argued that we need n since Clement may have had a plurality of reasons.12 DAVID T.70 Clement thus has more to gain from the statement that Philo was well-acquainted with a major direction of Greek thought. the antiquity of the Jews compared with Greek philoso- phy. It is also possible that the epithet ref dominant Platonist strain in his thought.jstor."66 Turning to Clem that he on various occasions associates Pythagoras (or Pyt and Plato. A difficult choice We are thus left with two alternative answers to our que possible that Clement calls Philo "the Pythagorean" on acco role that arithmology or number-symbolism plays in his th especially in his exegesis.org/terms . We thus find ourselves in broad agreement with David Winston when he writes:7' "It is thus clear that the expression "Pythagorean" does not preclude one from being a Platonist. I believe that two arguments latter view. i.1. Clement's designation of Philo as a "Pythagorean" was therefore probably not meant to preclude his being a Platonist. and even locates a non- Pythagorean in one of Plato's dialogues. The second passage is also overtly doxographical (in the broad sense of the term). Firstly. This suggests that he may have wanted to avoid the term (for whatever reason). the context of the t which Philo receives this designation is apologetic rather than exegetical.53 on Sun. the content of Numenius' surviving fragment main more Platonic than Pythagorean.69 Nev think it is useful to determine one's priorities on this issue.68 The suggesti made.105. as we said earlier. A second. an certainty cannot be attained. admittedly less strong. and preferred the more dignified title of HnuOaroperos.e. and the derivation of the Platonic telos-formula from Moses. for bot are covered under the single epithet. argument is that Clement nowhere uses the term flXaxoovxos in order to designate a philosopher. RUNIA Pythagorean.

or even sometimes a selectively favourable attitude to contemporary Judaism. i perhaps even exclusively.74 Rather we should argue that both Clement and Origen had on the whole a relatively neutral.76 Clement is quite happy to point out that Josephus is a Jew. however. whose approval of an institution should at once command its acceptance by Christians. and certainly very little inclination to engage in open and direct discus- sion with them. Did Christians of the late third century (sic) care for the authority of a Pythagorean? This approach is not convincing. Let us examine a few of these references..77 The reason he does not do so in the case of Philo is presumably because This content downloaded from 149. that is to say. C. that we take "Platonist" here to in affinity to the thought of an haeresis. In fact Clement's writings reveal sur- prisingly little contact with the Jewish community of his day (which may not yet have recovered from the terrible events earlier in the century). For it would be rash to think that Clement had overlooke obvious fact that Philo's loyalty and devotion were primarily. if not quite that..75 It was this "window of opportunity" presented by the Alexandrian tradition that was in all likelihood responsible for the survival of Philo's writings in the first place. we find that they were rather ashamed to quote Philo. negative either towards Philo's Jewish background or towards his pagan learning? It was suggested nearly a century ago by F.53 on Sun. Conybeare that Cle- ment may have given Philo this title in order to conceal his Jewishness:73 If we examine the references to Philo made by Christian writers in this earlier time.72 The attitude behind the title There remains a final question to be discussed in relation to the epithet that Clement bestows on Philo.1.105. WHY DOES CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA CALL PHILO "THE PYTHAGOREAN"? 13 used only to indicate that both he and Plato had "Pythagorized" proviso would be. or. Clement of Alexan- dria in his Stromateis alludes to Philo as 6 IluOay6peto. at least not inclined to regard him as an authority.jstor..org/terms . and not in the stronger sens a membership of or affiliation with such an haeresis (or schoo thought). to the "school of Moses". We noted at the outset that it would be more expected that he name him "Philo the Jew (or Hebrew)" as an indication of his ethnic and religious provenance. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. Does a negative aspect lie concealed in the epithet "the Pythagorean".

Having given a summary of Pythagorean and Platonic doctrine. namely when he argues that Marcion derives his doctrine of the evil nature of matter from that source. and not from the gospels.53 on Sun. Hippolytus views negatively. In this meant positively or negatively? The answer must surely be the former.8' But the work in its Christian form. then he had to be a Jew. given Clement's comparatively favourable attitude to the Platonist tradition.80 The attitude behind calling someone a "Pythagorean" in this context is the opposite to that involved when Clement gives Philo the same title. What Clement regards positively. Cle- ment's attitude is brought into clear relief when it is compared with that of his younger contemporary Hippolytus. conceal Philo's Jewish- ness. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. was probably compiled between 180 and 210 by a writer whose kindred spirit was Clement of Alexandria and whose motto might have been Pythagoras saepe noster. that Valentinus drew together his hairesis (i. not a Christian". alternative mode of thought).14 DAVID T. RUNIA Philo's Jewish origin is obvious enough.jstor.1. arguing that those who read it take over various pernicious Pythagorean doctrines and so "drink of the golden cup of Babylon". he states that it was "from this. This content downloaded from 149. on one occasion Clement associates Pythagoreanism (and Platonism) with heresy. we are not surprised to read a few lines later that the heretic has misrepresented the original doctrine. for whom the titles Pythag- orean and Platonist easily become terms of abuse when brought into connection with heretical thought. as expressed in the title. The same difference is well illustrated by another text. If he was not a Christian. but highlights an aspect of his thought and writings. The reader could be assumed to con- clude that Philo as an exegete stood in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. as we shall demonstrate.e. and so he should rightly be considered a Pythagorean and a Platonist. and does not need to be underlined. The very first reference to Philo in the Stromateis involves the etymology of a biblical name. namely the Sentences of Sextus. The title "Pythagorean" does not.79 But. This collection of aphorisms was attributed by some to "Sextus the Pythagorean".82 This is close to the spirit in which Clement calls Philo "the Pythagorean". according to Chadwick's reconstruction of the tradition. but he is also a learned man. therefore. and in the eyes of the "liberal" Clement this is a positive feature. Philo stands in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. whereas Jerome's attitude is a continuation of what we found in Hippolytus.78 Admittedly.105. Jerome in the 4th century strongly polemi- cizes against it as the work of "a man without Christ and a heathen".org/terms .

heavily indebted to earlier sources as he was89. It is in any case probable that Sozomen's descrip- tion of Philo as "the Pythagorean" derives from the narrow Alexandrian-Caesarean tradition that we have been investigating. a passage which the Church historian cites verbatim. and which is first recorded in Isidore of Pelusium and Jerome.92 One wonders whether the expression was not formulated This content downloaded from 149. Where did he. however. He may mean the Pseudo-Clementina. where. in which case the lost Hypotyposeis would again be a can- didate. as we saw.85 But where does he get his extra information from? It is possible that he recalled Clement's epithet. A few pages earlier (1.88 The suggestion gains sup- port if we take the other later text into consideration.105.84 Philo is described as "not unskilled in philosophy". calls Philo "the Pythagorean". But there is also another possibility. It is uncertain.1.ov tXatcovet. get his information from? It has been sug- gested that the passage in Eusebius just mentioned was his source. I HXa&ov tcpXovCet 1 tX. an important work of Clement now most regrettably lost. WHY DOES CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA CALL PHILO "THE PYTHAGOREAN"? 15 Later sources As noted at the outset two Christian authors subsequent to Clement refer to Philo's Pythagoreanism. This source may have been the Hypotyposeis. then it would appear that Eusebius.1. by describing Philo as "one who showed zeal for the philosophical discipline of Plato and Pythagoras".53 on Sun. Sozomen too.86 It is equally possible that he drew on his own reading of Philo in the library of Caesarea. A final matter of related interest is the bon mot on Philo and Plato which began to circulate in the Eastern Church.90 This is possible (though why should he choose the school of one philosopher at the expense of that of the other. which was in fact more famous?). in which one of his sources was "Clement" (in addition to Eusebius). since we know that it contained much quasi-historical material on the Apostolic age.org/terms . 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. By way of an epilogue some brief com- ments should be made on these texts.12) Sozomen informs his reader that he has written a short account of the history of the Church up to the time of Constantine in two books. as we saw earlier. If our interpretation of the Clementine title is correct.jstor.87 Another possibility is that the source that he used for the legend of Philo Christianus contained more information on Philo. In this text he is embellishing what he read in Josephus.83 reveals a perfect understanding of what Clement will have meant by it.91 but he may also mean Clement of Alexandria. whether Eusebius is here deriving his information from Clement's Stromateis.

3 Clement of Alexandria and his Use of Philo in the Stromateis: an Early Christian Reshaping of a Jewish Model. does not explain the epithet fully. for it can clearly be shown that it must refer not to any kind of "membership of" or "affiliation with" the Peripatetic school. Vigiliae Christianae Supplements 3 (Leiden 1988). therefore.a av.ov uo00 Certainly it was no less true to say from the contemporary point of view that i HluOay6pac crXa. or more generally the dominant Platonist strain in his thought (included under the title Pythagorean because it was recognized that "Plato Pythagorized"). The choice between these two explanations is difficult. xa 1t XL(P0om0 oux moaCEpom . the epithet is surprising because it does him in the Judaeo-Christian tradition where.16 DAVID T. This positive attitude is important from the historical point of view. he primarily belongs. Clement is not trying to conceal Philo's Jewishness. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about.1. the title must be seen as a compliment in the direction of his Jewish predecessor. 211-216. In one passages Philo's name is coupled with that of "Aristobulus the Peripatetic".Xov cXa Summary of results The argument that we have pursued in this article may be su along the following lines. but we opt for the second. Philo shows an affinity of thought with Pythagoreanism. This content downloaded from 149.. more specifically the role that arithmology plays in his exegesis. In both cases th though revealing.org/terms . RUNIA with half an eye on the well-known dictum that 6 IIXa. but rather an affinity of thought (even if what this is remains rather puzzling). see esp. Two plausible explanations can be given for what such an affinity might be.a Fv8oqoS..105.94 NOTES ' For a full account of this process see my Philo in Early Christian Literature: a Survey.jstor. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum III 3 (Assen-Minneapolis 1993). 2 avnp . Given his relatively "liberal" stance.TovieL i HXATnov 7ruOayo was for Christians to say that II.Xa'cov cptXovit n q i'. also for Clem light of his borrowings). This second title gives us a vital clue. for ultimately it lead to the survival of Philo's works through the intermediation of the Episcopal Library of Caesarea. When Clement on two occasions "the Pythagorean". For Clement.53 on Sun.

Eccl. and also Runia op. Clement of Alexan- dria: a Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism. I have raised the question without giving an adequate answer at op. 1) 22-23.4. or whether. 14 Previous research on this question has been limited to scattered observations. but only mentions its nam incidentally. op. and my "Underneath Cohn and Colson: the Text of Philo's De virtutibus". esp. cit.72.2. cit. This frequent habit of ancient authors was heavily exploited in the meth of Quellenforschung developed in classical studies in the 19th century. Band 2: Der hellenistische Rahmen des kaiserzeitlichen Platonismus (Stuttgart 1990). It is possible that Clement refers to Philo at Str. 2. com- mentary at 480ff. The Studia Philonic Annual 5 (1993) 133. t historian. C. 16 So I interpret the phrase zap& LtvJov 6 TOT Xoyiov. I return to this qu later in my paper. On the entire subject see further the texts assembled by H. 1. "Est-ce Hoshaya Rabba qui censura le "Commentaire Allegori- que"? A partir des retouches faites aux citations bibliques. The Studia Philonica Annual 6 (1994) 1-27. (n. he is mistaken (it should be Philo the Elder. Nearly a dozen extracts Str. Radice and D. Winston. (n. 13 See P.39 could be taken as a paraphrase of/commentary on Clement's text: "It is not quite clear whether Plato happened to hit on these matters by chance. '5 Cf.org/terms . This content downloaded from 149. etude sur la tradition textuelle du Commentaire Allegorique de Philon". R. Lilla. Origen's words at C.12. Alcinous. Hermes 31 (1896) 435-456. cit. 8 Hist.9.8. 1. Der Platonismus in der Antike. 2 153.4.19 Whittaker. 4. ?69-71 (texts at 1290-219. on his visit to Egypt he met even with those who interpret the Jews' traditions philosophically. Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford 1971) 106-110. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. Dorrie and M.1. Barthelemy. "Philo und Clemens Alexandrinus". 12 See D.5 he quotes the words of Clement that imme follow his mention of Philo the Pythagorean at Str. Until then he is "Philo the Hebrew" "Philonic Nomenclature". 7 Hist. esp. 124-127. (n.105.. but if so. 9." (translation Chadwick). colloques nationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Paris 1967) 60. 1.. 3) 107. 1. Baltes. Did. Philo is in fact not called "the Jew" in our until the second half of the 4th century. Wendland. 5 Note how Clement is heavily dependent on a source. Evang. WHY DOES CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA CALL PHILO "THE PYTHAGOREAN"? 17 4 The text used is that of StAhlin-Frichtel-Treu (GCS). 179. some of which he kept. 184. an essentially ri procedure because the extent of the dependence can only be determined if the exploit source is still extant (in which case the results of the Quellenforschung are generally much less significance).6.152. as some think.3. 14-20 " Cf.jstor. referring of course to Philo's account of the Therapeutae.). Philosophia Antiqua 44 (Leiden 19862) 341-343. at Praep. 28 181. 1) 136 and in an article "Was Philo a Middle Platonist? A Difficult Question Revisited". in Philon d'Alexandrie: Lyon 11-15 Septembre 1966. Evang. Eccl. and some of which he slightly altered. S. 6 Perhaps too because it is an unusual and contestable (since chronologically impla ble) piece of information. = RE (46)). Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 30 (1991) 116-134. since the whole context concerns how Greek ethics takes its starting point from Moses. 9 For example.69-75 are cited throughout books 9 and 10 of Praep. See below notes 44 and 71 on the research of R. Cels. and for Philo see my Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. 10 As I have shown in a recent article.53 on Sun. and learnt some ideas from them.

Cohn and P. Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt (Berlin 1896- 1915) 4.21 and 23. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff. 709-715. 1. the suggestion was taken over by Stahlin-Friichtel in the GCS edition of Clement (2. his Antiochus and the Late Academy. (n. 24 A very similar procedure occurs at Str. Thummer. 8. cit. esp.org/terms . 3) 71-72. i. (n. WUNT 2.18 DAVID T. for example U. 17) 144. (n.. 32 Str. Hahn. 36 The term nIXao. (n. Inuory6potos and nu0ayoptx6. making a distinction b claims of theft and of dependence.2. Wyrwa 148-152 denies its presence in Book II. 28 There is no need to document what follows in detail. Pindaros (Berlin 1922 "Pythagoreisches laf3t sich bei Pindar durchaus nichts nachweisen.73. 14. Plut. 26 Cf. 206-225..39 1990). the more specific words lv Tx) Moua'co& PiC) at Str. also my "Philosophical heresiog This content downloaded from 149.v. Philosophia Antiqua 56 (Leiden 1992). (n. 1. emerging towards the end of the 1s A. i. Hypomnemata 56 (Gottingen 1978).D. die doch in Hintergrunde bleibt". chap. See Glucker op.4.152. Ltudes sur les "Stromates" de Clement d'Alexandrie.4-10. cf. "8 L. 25 I take section XV = ?66-73 as a single unit in the argument. cf.8. Der Philosoph und die Gesellschaft: Selbstverstandnis. 5. 30 Cf. Greek Religion (Oxford 1985) 300-301. M. Mansfeld. my remarks on his use of the celebrated text Tim. 15) 77.168). Heresiography in Context: Hippolytus' Elenchos as a Sourcefor Greek Philos- ophy. 31 For the references see the useful overview in the GCS edition of Clement (ed. D. Wyrwa.105. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. The verb eauoXyi is in fact not found in our extant Philo. A.1. '9 As noted by Van den Hoek op. Dillon and A. 35 Cf. 34 Str. Long (edd.e. and "Cicero's Philosophical Affiliations". cit. texts cited at Fragmente der Vorsokratiker 31Al1. as I pointed out in op. Die christliche Platonaneignung in den Stromateis des C Alexandrien.171-172. and cf. on Athens 118ff.vtx6o is a late development. Numa 1.102. cit. (n. 1. J. Particularly influential have been the studies of J. 3) 184. 28) 134-137. Wendland. Mehat. esp.2.71. offentliches Auftreten und populare Erwartungen in der hohen Kaiserzeit (Stuttgart 1989). cit. es sei denn die wanderung.e. also E. Glucker. 4. 22 See the lists at A. Die Religiositat (Innsbruck 1957) 121-130. The Question of "Eclecticism" (Berkeley 1988) 34-69 (where he promotes the terms "affiliation" and "membership"). but this question is not relevant to our pres taking. cit. Van den Hoek op. 22. 29 On the public position of philosophers in the 2nd century see now J. Jahrbuch fur die Philologie Supplbd 22 (1896) 770. 8. 3 See esp. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 53 (Berlin-New York 1983) 298-31 the theme before Clement P. Patristica Sorbonensia 7 (Paris 1966) 238. and cf. Presbyteron kreitton: Der Alter judischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte. 1) 147. s. on either side of the text on natural abilities adapted here! 21 Cf.jstor. see esp. RUNIA 17 Cf. 23 Op. 5. 82A10 Diels-Kranz. W. 3) 179 classifies the text as D. (n. 5. non-dependence on Philo. in J. cit.124 (the work of Cohn).2-3. 22b on the juvenility of the Greeks compared with the Egyptians at op. Van den Hoek op.1. 174ff. cit.).3-4. Burkert. 20 There are references to Greek teachers at Mos. 27 "Die Therapeuten und die philonische Schrift vom beschaulichen Leben".53 on Sun. but this should be qualified.2-3. Stahlin- Frichtel-Treu). Pilhofer.

Praep.88. cit.15.99. say nothing about philosophical affiliation.16. Clem not use the earlier term 'Axa8olijiox6i. instead he speaks of o{ ix Tri 'Axa871A doxography on the telos at Str. and the description of the Therapeutae as having -Tg atpi'aws &dpX1TyrT have shown them the way in allegorical exegesis (Contempl.1. 45 There is only evidence from silence. Schiirer. Evang. where it is suggested that he might have even been a member of the Alexandrian museum.105. 39) 3.345 etc. Charlesworth. G. followed by Holladay (see n. Yarbro Collins is found in J. Clem not concerned with his education (about which he presumably knows nothing).17. Walter..1-3. An English translation of the fragments by A. 3. QG 1. Praep. the author of 2 Macc. 44 R. 40 Lucid overview at Walter. esp. as happened in the case of the Philonic corpus. 1973 (London 1974) 164 and n. 49 Philo himself does not use the phrase 71 a'peit xroo Mouaicos.150. 3. This is a relatively large number if compared with Philo's practice in the c other Greek philosophers. 100. cit. 1. 1.8 (the only case). of whi are in Aet. Presumably a copy was taken by Origen to Caesarea. 43 M.53 on Sun. Hengel. and stress only his Jewishness.587.org/terms . 13. H. who is about to publish a new edition and commentary. 12. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Spec. 1. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (London 1983-85) 2. 38 See the list in the GCS edition of Clement (ed. The other independent witnesses to Aristobulus. R.129. Evang. the reference schools (BLtxaxaXtxa) where Jews devote themselves on the sabbath to the acquisit knowledge.5 (Clement mentions the title probably in order to emphasi separate schools regard matter as one of the archai). of German 2nd edition. 50 Nine references in all: Opif. (n. 7-9.12. 4. The History of the Jewish people in the Age of Jesus Christ. in 4 (Edinburgh 1973-87) 3. but note the very c expression o( yv&pqtot -ou Mcouaeox (e. op. trans. 37 Str.4 in the successions of the philosophers Aristotle is recorded as having founded the n peetes t te et eetet. 5.579.49. Leg. La filosofia di Aristobulo e i suoi nessi con il De Mundo attribuito ad Aristotele (Milan 1994). 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. Vermes et al. 4= Eus. Pr Aet. cit. 3 vols. 39 The standard work remains by N. 47 Str. 4. 86. at Det. Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos: Unter- suchungen zu seinen Fragmenten und zu pseudepigraphischen Resten der jidisch- hellenistischen Literatur. Further bibliography is given at E. TU 86 (Berlin 1964).12. 5 at Eus. 41 Fr. 46 Fr. 373.63. The non-literal interpretation of the creation account. (which also includes the reference to the Peripatetics). 13. 29). 1. 1. For example he mentions Plato only 14 times. 39 above).g. 48 I prefer this formulation to that of Walter when he says the term indic Aristobulus' "Bildung" (and draws the parallel with Philo as Pythagorean).8. 42 Walter op. cf. At Str. Walter appears to have succeeded in dispelling the sceptical views of 19th and early 20th century. 12.jstor. Stahlin-Friichtel-Treu).). I have derived much profit from an unpublished paper by C.8. but the direction of his thought.163. 2.837-842. and Bishop Anatolius. = Eng. which anticipates Philo's later interpretation.9ff. Schirer op. 29 and 73-95. This content downloaded from 149. Radice.. ZPE 72 (1988) 243. WHY DOES CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA CALL PHILO "THE PYTHAGOREAN"? 19 evidence in two recently published inscriptions". is not the same as denying creation altogether. Holladay.

org/terms . also M. 60. It is far from clear that Philo subsc doctrine of metempsychosis (cf. cit. 55 Cf. texts at 24. who refers to it twice at Migr.49 (thirty-six). M. 2. art. 15) 346-349). daB es sich bei der bezeichneten Person um This content downloaded from 149. (n. 4. 53.166. (n. also Radice op. 63 The last word has not been said on this question. Runia. who also points to the prominence of the "contemplative life" in Py thought.191-229. Note. which Clement does not even mention h Philo. 59 As investigated at length in my doctoral dissertation cited above in n. 57 Cf. 44) 21. cf. Dillon. 16).P. op. cited by Philo at Prob referred to by Clement at Str.1. cit. ANRW 2. The follows just a few lines after the mention of Philo as the Pythagorean (see th at the beginning of the article). da3 der Ausdruck "Pythagoreer" selbst fur einen Platoniker nicht ausschlief3t. commentary 253ff.36. Th interpretation of the epithet "Pythagorean" for Philo is suggested by Radice. Pythag Revived (Oxford 1989) 9ff. QG 3. 128 and 131. RUNIA 51 Best recent treatment in H. 62 and Van den Hoek op. 61 See Dorrie-Baltes.53 on Sun. "Arithmology as an Exegetical Writings of Philo of Alexandria". O'Meara. 52 Opif. (n. Frede. that Pythagoras or Pythagoreanism are not mentione Philo's De vita contemplativa. but there isolated passages which an interpreter could read in this way if he wished (cf. 3) 188. 196. Timaeus Locru natura mundi et animae (Leiden 1972) 85ff. Dillon in Dillon and Long. D.g. the injunction "not to walk on the highways". 2.). 66 Ibid. 247.4.36. R. op. 1. 24. 56 E. 60 See n. 54 J. 3) 152-160. cit. which could be taken in an esoteric rath protreptic sense. 205 have included this last passage in her group of "short sequences" instead of "isolated references").15 (hebdomad and monad). M. Philo Sacr. who says of this case: "Jedenfalls is soviel klar.2 (Berlin-New York 1987) 1047. At Str. Migr. 62 Str. 100 and Leg.1 (Berlin-New York 1987) 1 121. Numenius fr. (n. 63) 120. Whittak "Platonic Philosophy in the Early Empire". Cf.20 DAVID T. cit (n. (n.jstor. cit.105. taken over by Clement in Str. Abr.6.114. 15. cit. 5. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about.1.6 Diels. 7. W.3. Moehring Memorial Volume (Atlanta 1995). Apuleius Flor. 5. SBL Seminar Papers 13 (1978) 1. But the question of the "institutional" relation between two movements is still far from clear. 15. op. J. 1. 1.8. The second text attributes a passage to Timaeus Locrus. 64 Dorrie-Baltes. 128-131. who for the phrase 6 HlXdcwv 7uOrayopi(t refer to Aetius 2.31. a reprinted in J. Kenney (ed.57 Des Places. cf. (n.ci .4. J. 65 As noted by Whittaker. See the comments of J. Marg. 119. 58 Referred to by Clement at Str. But it would be wrong to see a direct connecti Pythagorean formula IEoooat 0.69. cit. ANRW 2. Moehring. "Numenius". The Middle Platonists (London 1977) 156 regards these stat Philo as "an essentially rhetorical flourish".139). 28) 119-125. 53 On these texts see further Van den Hoek op. however.1 Clement takes over the Platonic language of the g lesser mysteries.32. but does see a connection w Pythagorizing early Middle Platonist Eudorus. cf. 44) 20. op.1.1 former text Clement brings out the connection with Pythagoras more clearly although he does not mention him by name (-rXt ov sap' "EXXrlat aopocv). cit. b is not found in the work under his name still extant.

He points at 43 to the revealing text at Justin Dial. On this text and its context see further Mansfeld. with whom Clement had close contact after his depar- ture from Alexandria. 82 Ibid. the splendid description of H.1 Cle- ment states that he will use some scripture texts in the hope that "the Jew may hear h words and convert from what he believed to the One in whom he did not believe".2.12. 48. who have been a wall and a pillar for philosoph 69 As Prof. ouverlxE6 86a. on this text see A. 133. cit. Wyrwa.105. De anima 20. Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish- Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine (Cambridge 1976). XoytaoeiT1. cit. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. (Paris 1985) 290.6. (n. (n.3. 1) 344-346.2. was dedicated to Alexander. 2. 70 See our discussion of the passage earlier in the article. 2 vols.6) is made to say t Plato and Pythagoras were "wise men. oui Xpmtxav6. 3. 74 Cf. on the relation between Pythagoras and Plato in Clement. who argues in pass ing that it means "die Gefolgschaft in einer philosophischen Richtung". Adv.3. op. 15) 41-45. op.6.12-13.1: otLau6rr T. As Eric Osborn remarks. implying that they represent the same "direction of thought". 5. 72 On Walter's view that the epithet indicates Philo's "philosophische Bildung" se above n. where the young Justin.2. 71 At The Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993) 145-6. to my knowledge the only named non-biblical person to be called such in his works. M.88.53 on Sun. 6.. 5. see ther Lilla op. Clement and Origen (Oxford 1966. 1) 149-150 (with further references). cit. 76 See my conclusions at op. But according to Eusebius Hist. but the works cited are pseudonymous.1) and passim. 78 For the title cf.Lev. . 1.3 this work. De Lange.29. 5. 6.12. cf.. 17) 85.68. cit. WHY DOES CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA CALL PHILO "THE PYTHAGOREAN"? 21 einen Platoniker handelt. cited by H.99. citing Aristobulus). and so may be the product of a quite different situation than the Stromateis written a decade or more earlier.1 and 89." But his observation that mainly Christian authors Numenius a "Pythagorean" is a red herring. Eccl. 67 Str.5 (with Aristotle as well). 112-140. i nIHuoay6pou xai nHXarovo. nIpo Tous 'Iou8Ot1ovraS. my remarks at op.. Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin. 19842) chap. 2. 1. At Str. 3.. lC8tiS(ot.org/terms . "Clement wanted to convert Jews and to do it quietly. H first example (left out in the quote) is Justin.27. 8txoai)o IlnuOaoptxo6 xat nXarovtvix6. La notion d'here'sie dans la litterature grecque IIe-IIIe siecles. who is studying in a Platonist school (cf. Hip- polytus takes over this attitude from (his teacher?) Irenaeus. haer.14. 73 Philo about the Contemplative Life (Oxford 1895.1. Clement attacked Judaisers in a separate work" (p. (n. Eric Osborn points out to me. 148 in his forthcoming article in Origeniana Sexta)..3 (w Socrates. 2.1. "The Liberal Puritan". 68 Str. (n. 77 Str. &a' fS Oua0evrSvo0. This content downloaded from 149.2. 1. 75 On Origen see also N.147. Bishop of Jerusalem. New York 1987) 328-329. There was traffic in the opposite direction.jstor. TTv piatpv rTTv Siauro auva'TOyaov. in response to my article "Was P a Middle Platonist?" at ibid. 5.29. repr. 30) 177-203. 160 (with an elegant adaptation of Tertullian's claim Seneca saepe noster.2. 2. (n. Chadwick. R. entitled Ki&vov IxxXTCntmaaotxo6.58. 81 Jerome Ep. cit.48. The Sentences of Sextus (Cambridge 1959) 120. Chadwick. 80 Refutatio 6. 79 Str. Better is the explanation of D. Le Boulluec. oux &7sO 'C&V ErwTayXiov. Note how the author both times con- nects the philosophers with xai.

If it h any factual basis. beginning wit Athenagoras and ending with Rhodon. 8' On which his catalogue of Philo's writings in Hist. Sabbah and A. Philo makes no mention of Pythagoreanism in Contempl. 64. 90 In the note at B. (n.3 (description of Philo). 208. Hansen. 9' As argued at ibid. 23-63. 2. P. Bremmer suggests to me that Sozomen may have concluded that Philo was a Pythagorean because he drew a connection between the Pythagorean con- templative life and Philo's account of early monasticism (as he read it). As mentioned above (n. 85 Hist.2. Grillet. Rijnsburgerweg 116. fascicule 1. Philip's statement is too short to interpret with any confidence. In this list Pantaenus (who is described as C ment's pupil!) is called an Athenian and "a Pythagorean philopher" (text at G. 8 and text thereto. 2333 AE Leiden. 89 The extant history shows a great dependence on the earlier work of Socrates Ecclesiasticus. Archipel Egeen: Publication de l'Universite de Tours Departement d'tudes Helleniques. Codex Baroccianus gr. Mansfeld and A. On the other hand. 86 See above n.10.e. it can be read in a similar way to my interpretation of "Philo th Pythagorean".22 DAVID T.5. Eccl. 142. Annewies van den Hoek (Harvard) kindly dre my attention to an important text that I had overlooked.2-5 (citation of Josephus).. fo 216 records a notice in which the fifth-century Church historian Philip of Side gives a l of the succession of the heads of the Alexandrian catechetical school.53 on Sun. Sozomene Histoire Ecclesiastique. 313.C. who says that according to traditi Pantaenus had "started from the philosphical school of thought (qLX60aoos ay&oyi. I do not know if Sozomen was sophisticated enough to be capable of this. Festugiere. cit. Eric Osborn (Melbourne). SC 308 (Paris 1983) 166. but Sozomen most likely had not read this work anyway. the formu tion of Eusebius' statement suggests it may refer to Pantaenus' affiliation before turned to Christianity. 56). i.105. J. On the notice of Philip see now the detailed analysis of Pouderon. cit.18 is based. G. Eccl. GCS (Berlin 1971) 160). RUNIA 83 See above n. This stat ment contradicts the report of Eusebius in HE 5. 2.jstor. 1992.org/terms . 1) 7. The Netherlands This content downloaded from 149. to my colleagues J. 92 On this saying see Runia op. "Le temoignage du codex Baroccianus 142 sur Athenagore et les origines d Didaskaleion d'Alexandrie'. 319 (where I argue that "the Greeks" among whom according to Jerome the proverb circulates are likely to be Greek- speaking Church fathers). Theodoros Anagnostes Kirchengeschichte. 94 My thanks to the editors of this journal.) of t so-called Stoics". 88 As I suggest at op. 93 On which see above n. and finally to the members of the Dutch Patristi Genootschap voor Oudchristelijke Studien for various constructive remarks. 2 and text thereto.-J. (n. Bo to Prof. Prof. as referring to an affinity of thought. which hel me formulate my views with more precision.1. 116. 17 Dec 2017 06:17:45 UTC All use subject to http://about. 84 See above n. 9 on his knowledge of the Stromateis. As this article was going to the press Dr. 1) 4. 2.4.