American Society of Church History

Early Alexandrian Christianity

Author(s): Robert M. Grant
Source: Church History, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Jun., 1971), pp. 133-144
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Society of Church History
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3162366 .
Accessed: 16/09/2014 06:34

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

.
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.

Cambridge University Press and American Society of Church History are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Church History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 90.219.204.227 on Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:34:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EarlyAlexandrianChristianity
RORERTM. GRANT
Eusebius and the Life of Origen
Nearly everything that is recorded about the early history of Alexandrian
Christianity lies in the Church History of Eusebius. Many Alexandrian theo-
logical writings are preserved, but as might be expected they cast little light on
historical events. Now the basic difficulty with Eusebius' work is that it has to
be classified as "official history." It therefore contains a judicious mixture of
authentic record with a good deal of suppression of fact and occasional outright
lies. He wrote it in defence of himself and his friends and their outlook toward
the nascent imperial church establishment under God's messenger Constantine.
Because the course of human events is never as clear as the official his-
torian would like, it is necessary for him to impose something like a cipher upon
the sources he is transmitting. It then becomes necessary for the modem his-
torian to "decipher" his predecessor's text. In a series of articles on "Les secrets
du chiffre," published in the magazine Gringoire during 1936 and 1937, Robert
Boucard made an important point: "Ernest Renan seriously misled us when he
wrote that 'history is a modest science based on conjecture'. This is true only
of his history. True history, once freed from its deceptive official mask, provides
not only the most lively and moving spectacle there is but also all the certainity
the human spirit can legitimately hope for; I might say all the mathematical cer-
tainty, since this history has been transcribed 'in cipher'."1
We claim no mathematical certainty for the results of this paper. It is the
case, however, that we cannot understand Eusebius' account of early Alexandrian
Christianity unless we decipher it in relation to his purposes and circumstances.
Eusebius was well aware that many Christians were deeply suspicious of the
speculative, philosophy-oriented theology that had long flourished at Alexandria
and had later been transplanted to his native city of Caesarea in Palestine. In
Origen's own time Demetrius of Alexandria saw heretical implications in it;
Eusebius does his best to obscure the fact. His successor Peter, recently a
martyr, had sharply criticized some of Origen's doctrines; Eusebius says nothing
about his criticisms. Another martyr, Methodius, also attacked Origen; in the
Church History Eusebius carefully refrained from mentioning him at all. As for
Eustathius, later bishop of Antioch, Eusebius answered his criticisms of Origen
by getting him deposed and sent into exile.
For Eusebius, Origen was the hero of the whole Alexandrian-Caesarean
axis. His own teacher Pamphilus had spent his time in prison (308-310) in
writing five books of an Apology for Origen. This work is now lost, but a
summary by Photius (Bibl. cod. 118) shows that Eusebius managed to visit
Pamphilus in prison and assist him; after Pamphilus' death he added a sixth
book, devoted in part to an attack upon Methodius. At least the first book of
1. Gringoire (30 April 1937), 17. I am grateful to Mr. David Kahn for the use of micro-
films of these articles.
Mr. Grant is professor of New Testament and Early Christianity in the Divinity
School of the University of Chicago. His paper was first delivered as the Presi-
dential Address at the dinner meeting of The American Society of Church His-
tory on December 29, 1970 in Boston.
133

This content downloaded from 90.219.204.227 on Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:34:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
134 CHURCH HISTORY
the Apology was addressed to the rigorist confessors in the copper mines at
Phaeno, scornful of philosophical theologians and of others who were not
martyrs.
Photius' summary proves that the Apology underlies Eusebius' account of
Origen in Book VI of the Church History. It discussed the martyrdom of Origen's
father, the boy's letter to him, and the attempt to martyrdom prevented by the
boy's mother. It showed how Origen became head of the Alexandrian school,
and how Bishop Demetrius' early love for him turned to hate after Origen was
ordained at Caesarea. Finally, it showed how Origen suffered a martyr's death
at Caesarea in the persecution under Decius. Eusebius actually gives cross-
references to the Apology at three points in the Church History where he men-
tions details about the episcopal synods, complaints about Origen's orthodoxy,
and his correspondence with various important persons.2 But it is obvious that
he used the Apology as the foundation of his whole biography of Origen-for
stories about his early life, about his work in the school, and about his death.
This last item needs to be given emphasis. In Book VII Eusebius dated Origen's
death early in the reign of Gallus, and his chronology, such as it is, requires an
even later date, under Valerian and Gallienus. Actually, however, he intended
to see Origen's death precisely under Decius. His account of Origen's life ends
with the statement that he is describing his death (teleutO) "at the time of the
persecution"; the old list of chapter headings for Book VI agrees with this.3
Eusebius clumsily re-edited his account when he was writing Book VII and
had discovered that Origen died later; but traces of the earlier view, derived
from Pamphilus, still remain.
In other words, the whole account of Origen in Book VI of the Church
History is purposefully apologetic. The leading themes are the same as those
of the Apology. From his youth onwards Origen was devoted to the study of
scripture, not Greek philosophy. He was always a loyal son of the church and
a militant enemy of heresy. His life was "philosophical" in the sense that it
was rigorously ascetic. Origen himself was ever eager for martyrdom. His
teaching, never secret, was always encouraged by episcopal authority. In short,
Eusebius was using, and further developing, a life of St. Origen.
He or Pamphilus, or both of them, have vigorously expunged nearly every
human trait from this biography, which starts out in the realm of folklore and
presents Origen as the Wunderkind who will grow up to be the "divine man"
of Hellenistic popular religion and philosophy.4 He is the sleeping beauty not
wakened by his father's kiss, bestowed in recognition of the divine spirit within
him. He is the boy wonder who urges his father to die but cannot be a martyr
himself without his clothes. Small wonder that he is nearly killed by Alexan-
drians who regard him as responsible for his pupils' deaths! When he does not
become a martyr, he rejects Greek literature, stops wearing shoes, abstains from
wine and most foods, sleeps on the floor, castrates himself. Is there a real
Origen here at all? Or do the stories derived from various kinds of adulation
somehow cancel one another out? In any event, it is extremely precarious for a
historian to make any use of these stories, and he must not be seduced by Euse-
2. HE VI 23, 4; 33, 4; 36, 4.
3. Ibid., VI 39, 5 (594, 16 Schwartz); cf. p. 517, 8 (manuscripts E and R). For teleuts -
death, cf. II 23, 3; III 31, 1.4; IV 15, 47; VI 2, 15.
4. Cf. L. Bieler, Theios AnJr (Wien, 1935-1936); Hal Koch in Pauly-Wissowa, BE,
XV111 (1942), 1036-40; G. Hornschuh in ZKG, 71 (1960), 1-25. 193-214.

This content downloaded from 90.219.204.227 on Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:34:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EARLY ALEXANDRIAN CHRISTIANITY 135

bius' apparently chronological sequences. At key points it is absolutely certain

that the sequence has been violated. Origen's conference with Julia Mamaea is
set at the beginning of the reign of her son Alexander Severus, so that Origen
will seem to be famous at that point. In actual fact, however, Mamaea was in
Antioch in 232, ten years later, not before that.5 Exactly the same purpose is
revealed in what Eusebius does with Julius Africanus, who said that he went to
Alexandria because of the great fame of Heraclas. The book in which Africanus
said this was finished in 221, and it is therefore clear that Heraclas was more
famous than Origen then. Eusebius does not like this idea, and he therefore
puts his comments on Africanus in Origen's Caesarean period (after 231), when
Heraclas would have been famous not as a scholar but because he was bishop
of Alexandria.? This much manipulation of the facts is unquestionable. We must
assume that there is more than we can now trace.
Origen's own works provide a somewhat different picture of him. He turns
out to be a rather vain man, self-righteous, humorless. He vehemently attacks
Demetrius and other bishops who venture to oppose him, but when confronting
the bishop of Rome he is ready to blame his theological indiscretions on his friend
and patron Ambrose. Whether by chance or not, he seems to be absent from
Egypt just at the 14-year intervals when poll-tax registration would make tak-
ing an oath necessary.? We do not need to accept later gossip about his use of
drugs to improve his phenomenal memory,8 or about his actually offering sac-
rifice to the gods though against his will.9 It is a fact, however, that Demetrius'
condemnation of him was approved by all the churches of the eastern world ex-
cept those of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaea.10 His real humanity re-
sulted in his having real enemies. Eusebius' picture of him is basically incredible.
Indeed, one may finally add that Eusebius' chronology for Origen's youth
is wrong. Origen is supposed to be sixteen when Laetus is prefect of Egypt, and
this synchronism is further synchronized with 201/202, with a high degree of
probability. But then Origen is supposed to be seventeen when Aquila is prefect.
Unfortunately Laetus was in office to 203 and was succeeded by Claudius Julianus.
Aquila did not become prefect until 205/206. Eusebius is trying to provide an
atmosphere of incessant persecution in which the boy wonder can become head
of the Alexandrian school. His account is wrong.11

Eusebius and the Alexandrian School

Origen is the main figure of the Alexandrian school in Eusebius' book, and
once we have seen that his memory has been radically distorted by hagiography
and apologetic it becomes highly probable that the picture of the school as a
whole has suffered too.
It is clear enough that Eusebius' picture of Christian beginnings at Alex-
5. HE VI 21, 3-4; ef. G. Herzog in Pauly-Wissowa, BE X 421.
6. HE VI 31, 2; for Africanus cf. M. J. Routh, Reliquiae saorae (ed. 2, Oxford, 1846),
II, 287 (frag. 39).
7. Demetrius: Jerome, C. Bufin. II 18 (PL 23, 461); Ambrose: Jerome, Ep. 84, 10
(CSEL 55, 132-33); census: M. Hombert-C. Pr6aux, Recherches sur le recensement
dans 1'9gypte romaine (Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 5, Leiden, 1952), 76-84.
8. Epiphanius, Haer. 64, 13, 12. For the use of drugs by M. Aurelius cf. T. W. Africa
in Journal of the History of Ideas, 22 (1961), 97-102; E. 0. Witke in Classical
Philology, 60 (1965), 23-24.
9. Epiphanius, Haer. 64, 2, 2-5.
10. Jerome, Ep. 33, 5 (CSEL 54, 259).
11. O. W. Beinmuth in Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists, 4 (1967), 106-
9; also T. D. Barnes in Harvard Studieo in Classical Philology, 74 (1970), 313-16.

This content downloaded from 90.219.204.227 on Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:34:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
136 CHURCH HISTORY
andria is an artificial construct, created by the combination of a legend about
Mark as the first bishop with the notion that Philo, who had met Peter at Rome,
wrote about early Christians when he described the Therapeutae. These sectarian
Jews observed a "philosophical life." They allegorized the scriptures, practised
noble asceticism, and observed Easter. To be sure, Philo had said they observed
Pentecost, but Eusebius somehow knows that he must have had Easter in mind.
The Therapeutae also knew the offices of deacon and bishop. "Anyone who is
anxious for a careful examination of the points," he says, "may learn them from
this man's account."12 One may also learn how wrong Eusebius is. On the other
hand, it is highly probable that Alexandrian Christianity did emerge out of Alex-
andrian Judaism. Eusebius' idea is not so bad. It is just that he claims to be a
historian and then gets his history all mixed up.
After leaving the Therapeutae, Eusebius has little to say about Alexandria
for more than a century. There was a Jewish revolt at Alexandria in about 115,
but Christians seem to have had nothing to do with it.'l The Gnostic Basilides
taught there, but Eusebius knows little about him and cares less.4 To find out
more about Christian teaching we must take a glance at more reliable sources
for the period.

Gnostics and others at Alexandria

The kind of philosophy that flourished at Alexandria in the second century
was hyphenated. The older schools tended to merge, and at Alexandria as else-
where there were philosophers who called themselves eclectics.'5 In consequence,
it is hard to differentiate "main streams" of thought from little brooks or even
stagnant pools. There are lots of shadowy figures. Modern scholars have spoken
of Ammonius Saccas as a "great shadow."'6 The Christian teacher Pantaenus
is certainly a shadow, whether great or small. Indeed, as Walter Bauer demon-
strated, Alexandrian Christian orthodoxy itself is a shadow or, to change the
figure, perhaps a mirage.17 What flourished at Alexandria during most of the
second century was Gnostic Christianity as expounded by Basilides, Valentinus,
Carpocrates, and their followers. Whatever the origens of their speculations
may have been, it is evident that in the second century the influence of Neo-
pythagoreanism was strong. The kind of Platonism that was flourishing had a
place in itself for Pythagorean ideas and for the veneration of Pythagoras. Nu-
menius is usually called a Middle Platonist nowadays, but both Clement and
Origen explicitly called him a Pythagorean.18 The apologist Justin, when still
a pagan and under Middle Platonist influences, spoke of both Plato and Pythagoras
as the foundations of philosophy.19
Several notions about Alexandrian Christian Gnostics point toward Py-
thagorean influences upon them. Basilides, for example, was said to impose a
five-year period of silence on his followers "in Pythagorean fashion."20 The
doctrine of two souls held by his son Isidore was Pythagorean, according to

12. HB II 16-17.
13. Ibid., IV 2, 1-3.
14. Ibid., IV 7, 3.
15. Diog. Laert. I 21; ef. Clement, Str. I 37, 6.
16. E. R. Dodds in Entretiens tur 'antiquite classiqu V (Geneve, 1960), 32.
17. Beohtgtiubiglceit und Ketzerei ian altesten Christentwn (Tiibingen, 1934), 49-64.
18. Clement, Str. I 150, 4; Origen, C. Cels. I 15; IV 51; V 38, 57.
19. Dial. 5, 6.
20 Eusebius, HE IV 7, 7.

This content downloaded from 90.219.204.227 on Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:34:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EARLY ALEXANDRIAN CHRISTIANITY 137

Clement of Alexandria.2 In a fragment quoted by Clement, Isidore expressly

appealedto the authority of the ancient Pherecydes, who in turn was said to
have relied on a Jewish apocalypseof Ham22-and accordingto tradition,Pher-
ecydes was one of Pythagoras'teachers.23According to Irenaeus, the Gnostic
Carpocratestaught the doctrineof transmigrationand insisted on the secrecy of
Jesus' teaching; small wonder that his followers veneratedstatues of Christ and
of other philosophers,the first of whom is listed as Pythagoras.24Irenaeus also
claimed,rightly,that the numberspeculationof the Valentinianswas Pythagorean
in inspiration.25
Pythagoreaninfluence was strong not only on AlexandrianChristianswho
were viewed as Gnosticsbut also on the first of them to appear to be orthodox,
at least as reported by Eusebius. This was Pantaenus. The not too reliable
Philip of Side definitelystatedthat he was a Pythagorean.2 To be sure, Eusebius
called him an ex-Stoic,27but he may have been trying to muddy the philosophical
waters.
Eusebius'other story about Pantaenusmay point in the same direction. Ac-
cording to this, Pantaenustook the Christiangospel to India. We do not deny
that there were links betweenIndia and Alexandria,or that such an early Chris-
tian writer as Hippolytus was acquainted,at first- or second-hand,with au-
thentic Indian ideas.28 It is easy, however, to exaggeratethe importanceof such
contacts; we may mentionthe supposeddiscoveryof non-Semitic,"Aryan"ideas
behind Ammonius Saccas by Erich Seeberg29or the theories of Ernst Benz
about Indianinfluenceson AlexandrianChristianity.80Seventy years ago J. Ken-
nedy claimed that the system of Basilides was "Buddhist Gnosticism."31It is
more likely that the debt to India in all these instanceswas really a debt to the
Neopythagoreans.Numenius, for example, claimed that Greek philosophywent
back to the wisdom of the Brahmans,the Jews, the Magi, and the Egyptians.82
Similarly Philostratussaid that Pythagoras derived his rule of life from India
via the "nakedsages" of Egypt.3a We thereforesuggest that Pantaenus'mission
to India symbolizesthe presumedpresenceof Indianelementsin his Pythagorean-
ism or his Christianityor both. We cannot say much more, for Eusebius' ac-
count is full of such expressionsas "it is said,""he is mentioned,"and "the story
goes." We do not know what value to assign to the fact that Pantaenus'pupil
Clement was the first Greek author to mention the Buddha-as a god.34
Unfortunatelywe do not possess enough informationfor us to accept the
theory of H. Langerbeckthat Pantaenus was a great synthesizerof Stoic and
21. 8tr. II 114, 2.
22. Ibid., VI 53, 5.
23..Ibid., I 61, 4; IV 9, 1; Diog. Laert. I 15; VIII 2; Porphyry, Fit. Pyth. 1; Iambliehus,
De vit. pyth. 9.
24. Adv. haer. I 25 (pp. 208-10 Harvey).
25. Ibid., I 1, 1 (p. 9); II 14, 5 (p. 299). For Pythagorean influence on Gnostics else-
where cf. J. Carcopino, De Pythagore aux aptrees (Paris, 1956), esp. 99-221.
26. Text in G. Bardy, Bevue biblique 51 (1942), 81-82.
27. HE V 10, 1-3.
28. J. Filliozat in esvue de l'histoire des religions, 130 (1945), 59-91.
29. Zeitschrift fir Kirchengeschichte, 61 (1942), 136-70.
30. Abhandlungen ... Main, 1951 (no. 3), 173-202.
31. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1902), 377-415.
32. Fragments 9a-b Leemans = Eusebius, Praep. ev. IX 7 and Origen, C. Cels. I 15.
33. Fit. Apolon. VIII 7 (cf. VI 15).
34. Str. I 71, 6; cf. A. M6hat, gtude sur le 'Stromates' de Clement d'Alewsdrie (Paris,
1966), 44-45.

This content downloaded from 90.219.204.227 on Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:34:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
138 CHURCH HISTORY

Pythagorean ideas on a Christian foundation.35 All we can say is that while he

wrote nothing he probably reinforced Neopythagorean influence upon his disciples.
Certainly Pythagorean influence was strong in Alexandria at the end of the
second century. We know this fact first from the so-called Sentences of Sextus,
a collection of Pythagorean maxims modestly Christianized and then used by
Origen and other Christians.s3 We find it evidenced on an even broader scale in
the writings of Clement of Alexandria. Clement knew much about Pythagorean
history and referred to Philo, one of his major sources, as a Pythagorean.87 He
interpreted the numerological significance of the Decalogue in a Pythagorean man-
ner.38 In turn, he took a Pythagorean explanation of the master's "symbols" or
passwords and correlated it with verses from the Bible.89 He definitely viewed
Pythagorean allegorization as the same method as his own.40 Finally, he be-
lieved that the Pythagorean communities prefigured the Christian church.41
But Clement did not discover Pythagoreanism for himself. He was the heir
of an older Pythagoreanizing Judaism to which he points when he identifies Philo
as a Pythagorean. Others traced the wisdom of Pythagoras back to the Egyp-
tians, the Indians, the Babylonians or Chaldaeans and the Magi. Clement faith-
fully reports the varying opinions on this subject.42 The Hellenistic Jewish writ-
er Aristobulus, however, had shown Clement that much of Pythagoras' teaching
came to him from the Hebrews, chiefly from Moses.4 Perhaps, then, it was not
Clement but an Alexandrian Jewish predecessor who correlated the passwords
with the Old Testament; what Clement did was add a few New Testament
verses to complete the parallels. Certainly he believed that at several key points
the doctrine of Pythagoras was the same as that of Paul. Pythagoras held that
only God is wise; so Paul spoke of "the only wise God" in Romans 16:26f.44
Paul's statement that "it is good not to eat meat or drink wine" (Rom. 14:21)
is what the Pythagoreans taught.45 Non-Christians, says Clement, describe
Pythagoras as visiting the altar of Apollo at Delos because it was not defiled by
animal sacrifice; a fortiori, then, they must accept the Christian statement that
"the genuinely holy altar is the righteous soul, and the sacrifice upon it is the
holy prayer." The sentiment itself is neo-Pythagorean.46
The presence of motifs like these in the thought of Gnostics, Pantaenus, and
Clement point ahead to the conclusion of Henri Crouzel: "Neopythagoreanism
or Middle Platonism constitutes the milieu which gave Origen his philosophical
formation."47 In the past, scholars have laid special emphasis on Origen's debt
to Platonism. We agree that it was real. But so was the influence of Neopy-
thagorean life and thought, and we venture to suggest that this was one of the
35. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 77 (1957), 71-73; also in Aufsiate sur Gnosis (Abhand-
lungen . . . Gttingen III 69, 1967), 157-61.
36. H. Chadwick, The Sentences of Sextus (Cambridge, 1959).
37. Str. I 72, 4; 100, 3 (so also to Numenius, I 150, 4).
38. Str. VI, c. 15; A. Delatte, etudes sur la litterature pythagoricienne (Paris, 1915), 231-
45.
39. Str. V 27, 2-31, 2.
40. Eel. proph. 32.
41. Str. I 66, 2; cf. W. den Boer, De allegorese in het werk van Clemens Alexandrinus
(Leiden, 1940), 67.
42. Str. I 66, 2; 69, 1. 6; 70, 1; VI 57, 2.
43. Ibid., I 150, 3.
44. Ibid., IV 9, 1.
45. Paed. II 11, 1.
46. Str. VII 32, 5 (ef. Diog. Laert. VIII 13; Iamblichus, De vit. pyth. 25, 35); Sextus,
Sent. 46; Pyth. Sent. 66.
47. OrigAneet la philosophie (Paris, 1962), 49.

This content downloaded from 90.219.204.227 on Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:34:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EARLY ALEXANDRIAN CHRISTIANITY 139
points about the Alexandrianschool which Eusebius rather thoroughlysuppres-
sed. He was embarrassedby the statement of the Neoplatonist (and Neopy-
thagorean) Porphyry to the effect that Ammonius Saccas introducedthe Chris-
tian Origen not only to Plato but also to such Neopythagoreanwriters as Nu-
menius, Cronius, Moderatus,and Nicomachus.48Let us look, then, at a letter
from Origen from which Eusebius provided a brief extract.49 It tells us that
Origen had "found"Heraclas "with the master of philosophicaldisciplines";he
had been with him for five years before the time when Origen began to "hear
the teaching." Since this teacherwas AmmoniusSaccas,whose teachinghis other
pupils regardedas secret,50is it not possiblethat the five-yearperiod is precisely
the five years of Pythagoreansilence? In other words, it may well be the case
that Heraclas was Ammonius'first Christianpupil and that his term of silence
ended just when Origen began to study in the school.
In any case, both Heraclas and Origen were trained by a Neopythagorean
master, and in turn they trained their Christianpupils in similar fashion. We
know from the apologist Justin that Pythagoreanteachers insisted upon such
preliminarystudies as music, astronomy,and geometry, for they took the soul
away from objects of sense and directed it toward noetic objects.51 Just so, at
AlexandriaOrigen offered instructionin "geometryand arithmeticand the other
preliminarystudies" to those who were naturallysuited for them; after that he
would introducethem to the writings of the philosophers.5 As usual, Eusebius'
account of the school is rather confused. He tells of Origen's concern for in-
troductorycourses only after he has already describedhow he divided up his
teaching with Heraclas. Heraclas, he says, provided "the first instruction for
those who were just beginningelementaryeducation,"while Origen himself gave
the lecture (akroasis) for the more advanced students.53 But presumablythe
division of labor took place after Origen had first taught beginners. Eusebius
has placed his notice early because he is showing how importantOrigen was,
and how early this was recognized.
One can argue that the similaritybetweenwhat Origen taught and what the
Neopythagoreanstaught is due to the general philosophicalconcernsof both and
to the structure of the enkuklios paideia. But it is worth noting that when
H.-I. Marroulists philosophicalwitnesses to this course of study he gives nine
names from the early empire,and five of them are relatedto the Neopythagorean
movement.54
Beyond the introductorycourses lay the exegesis of texts regardedas some-
how inspired. This is what Eusebius says Origen emphasizedwhen he gave up
introductoryteaching. It is also what, as C. Prichter showed, was the method
of study amongthe Neoplatonists.55Their allegoricalinterpretationwas not native
to Platonismbut to the Neopythagoreansources of this aspect of their thought.
They would Platonizeand PythagoricizeHomer and Hesiod (Porphyry'streatise
De antro nympharum provides a good example) just as Origen would find a
deeper meaning,often Platonic, in the scriptures.
48. HE VI 19, 8.
49. HE VI 19, 13; cf. P. Nautin, Lettres et dorivains chrdtiens des iie et iiie $cl8es (Paris,
1961), 126-34.
50. Porphyry, Vit. Plot. 3, 24-27 Henry-Schwyzer.
51. Dial. 2, 4.
52. HE VI 18, 3.
53. Ibid., VI 15.
54. Histoire de l'aducation dans l'antiquit6 (ed. 2, Paris, 1950), 524 (note 5).
55. Genethliakon fiir C. Robert (Berlin, 1910), 122-127.

This content downloaded from 90.219.204.227 on Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:34:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
140 CHURCH HISTORY

Origen's School at Caesarea

The school of Origen at Alexandria thus resembled a Pythagorean educa-
tional establishment, and what Gregory Thaumaturgus tells us about the "academy
in exile" at Caesarea shows that it continued to do so. The students began with
grammar, rhetoric, geometry, music and astronomy; they went on to read and
analyze all the "ancient" philosophers and poets except the atheists. Only after
these courses could they go on to examine the sacred words of scripture and
understand what was obscure and enigmatic in them." Gregory's address of
gratitude to Origen begins with praise of silence; he says that for eight years
he has neither pronounced nor written any discourse, long or short, and that he
has heard no one speak except "these marvelous men who have embraced the good
philosophy."67 Since Eusebius tells us that he studied with Origen for five years,
we may wonder if Gregory is not alluding to something like the Pythagoreans'
three-year novitiate, followed by five years of silence and communal living.58
Crouzel has convincingly argued that at Caesarea Origen and some of his pupils
shared possessions and lived together.59 Gregory and the Pythagoreans alike
laid emphasis on the maxim "Know thyself."60 Both stressed the traditional
virtues of justice, temperance, and courage; both insisted upon the importance
of philia, the tie of friendship that bound the group together.61 Obviously some-
thing of a case can be made for Pythagorean influence on the school at Caesarea.
When we look more closely we find that part of the case fades away. Other
schools than the Pythagorean laid emphasis on the same preliminary studies.
The first three years of Gregory's studies were probably devoted either to learn-
ing Latin62 or to beginning his work in Roman law.6 It remains doubtful, in
spite of his statements, that he spent the whole five years as a student of the-
ology, for he expected to become a lawyer after leaving Caesarea." His re-
marks about the grandeur of Roman law suggest that it was fresh in his mind.6
In addition, the Pythagoreans were not the only ones to say, "Know thyself," or
to speak of the cardinal virtues, or even of friendship. We conclude that while
there are obvious resemblances between Origen's school and Neopythagorean in-
stitutions, some are due to the fact that both Origen and the Neopythagoreans
were teachers.
It remains significant, however, that in the treatise Contra Celsum Origen
defends Christian secrecy by comparing it with that of the Pythagoreans. Those who
were called "hearers" of Pythagoras heard about his ipse dixit; others learned

56. H. Crouzel,Grdgoire ie Thaumaturge: Remeroiement 4 Origne (Paris, 1969), 188

(Letterof Origen, 1, 15-16); 142 (Pan. 113-14). Ancient: Pan. 139. 151. 160; modern
(= Stoic), 124. 160; scripture: Pan. 173-74.
57. Pan. 1-3.
58. Tamblichus,De vit. pyth. 72.
59. Op. oft., 18-20.
60. Pan. 141; cf. P. Courcelle in Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull'
Alto Medioevo IX (Spoleto, 1962), 265-95; a minor correction on Philo, Migr. 8: A. V.
Nazzaro inBRviata di filologia, 98 (1970), 188-92; see now for hermetic usage H. D.
Betz in Harvard Theological Review, 63 (1970), 465-84.
61. Virtues: Pan. 122; Iamblichus 167ff., 187ff., 214ff.; friendship: Pan. 81. 89-92;
Iamblichus 101-2. 229. 240.
62. Pan. 7. 58-62; cf. F. Schemmel in Philologieche Wochenschrift, 45 (1925), 1278.
63. P. Koetschau, Des Gregorios Thaumaturgos Damcrede an Origenes (Freiburg-Leipzig,
1894), id-xii.
64. Pan. 192-93.
65. Ibid., 7.

This content downloaded from 90.219.204.227 on Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:34:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EARLY ALEXANDRIAN CHRISTIANITY 141

the secret doctrines.66 In the same treatise he referred to the "Pythagorean"

Numenius four times and mentioned the view that Pythagoras' philosophy came
from Jewish sources.67 We can at least say that he knew the schools were similar,
though he may have laid emphasis on the point because he was explaining Chris-
tianity to an outsider.68
Eusebius and Later Alexandrians
If now we leave Origen at Caesarea and return to Alexandria, we find
nothing about the school during this period but we do find Dionysius, bishop of
Alexandria, speaking of Plato and Pythagoras as "the wisest of the Greeks."69
Plato's name we should expect. But here is Pythagoras again. More important
is a later situation in which both Platonism (more precisely, Neoplationism) and
Pythagoreanism are involved. This is to be found in what Eusebius tells us, and
in what he does not tell us, about Anatolius of Alexandria, bishop of Laodicea.
Anatolius was such a famous and well-rounded teacher, says Eusebius, that
he became the first head of the Aristotelian school at Alexandria. (Eusebius is
unaware that there were Peripatetic philosophers at the Museum in Alexandria
sixty years earlier.70) During the siege of the Brucheion (273) Anatolius was able
to have the Alexandrian senate meet in this quarter of the city. He recommended
surrender to the Roman army outside the walls but settled for desertion by in-
dividuals, thus saving the entire Christian community. Later on, while Theotecnus
was bishop of Caesarea, Anatolius was his coadjutor. Then-in 268 or 269-
Anatolius visited Laodicea, near Antioch, and became bishop there. Eusebius'
story is thoroughly inconsequential, and we suspect that as usual he is conceal-
ing something. What is it this time?
First, Eusebius says that Anatolius wrote arithmetical introductions in ten
complete treatises.71 He mentions these as examples of Anatolius' ability in the
preliminary studies or encyclica. But the work of Anatolius actually exists. It
is no "introduction to arithmetic" but a Neopythagorean treatise on the nu-
merological significance of the first ten numbers.72 Just as Anatolius put his
knowledge of astronomy to work for religion when he composed his Paschal
Canons,73 so in writing on arithmetic he was serving Pythagorean religious
philosophy.
Why the mixup about Anatolius in Eusebius' narrative? Because he was
one more Pythagoreanizing Christian from Alexandria and, more than that, he
was actually a friend of the Neoplatonist Porphyry, who had attacked Chris-
tianity, and a teacher of the Neoplatonist Iamblichus. Conceivably Anatolius
had one Christian disciple, the man who succeeded him as bishop at Laodicea
and was famed for his philosophy and secular learning. Unfortunately this bishop
left the church during the persecution. Eusebius had no reason to say that
66. C. Cels. I 7. Clement too mentioned the two groups (Str. V 59, 1), though he noted
that other schools had esoteric doctrines; he also mentioned the ipse dixit (II 24, 3).
67. C. Cels. I 15; cf. Josephus, C. Apion. I 162-65.
68. On the question of the philosophical emphasis of the school at Caesarea cf. A. Knau-
her in Minchener Thetoogiwsche Zeitschrift, 19 (1968), 182-203; he contrasts Gregory's
description with "die retrospektiv konstruierte innerkirehliche Deutung" in Eusebius.
69. Eusebius, Praep. ev. XIV 23, 1.
70. Dio Cassius 77, 7, 3.
71. HE VII 32, 20 (Anatolius = VII 32, 6-21).
72. J. L. Heiberg in Annales internationales d'histoire. Congras de Pars, 1900. 5e section
(Paris, 1901), 27-41.
73. HE VII 32, 14-19; cf. V. Grumel in M6langes B. Tieserant II (Studi e Testi 232,
1964), 217-40.

This content downloaded from 90.219.204.227 on Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:34:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
142 CHURCH HISTORY

Anatolius had taught him; but at Laodicea who else would have done so? More-
over, a reasonable chronology for the life of Iamblichus certainly suggests that
he studied with Anatolius after the latter became the bishop of Laodicea. Euse-
bius could not possibly discuss this subject. In the fifth century Synesius could
freely combine Neoplatonic thoughts with the office of a bishop,74 and of course
Ambrose and Augustine could read Neoplatonic books; but in the early fourth
century Eusebius felt, in the face of Porphyry's attack on Origen, that he could
not lay much emphasis on correlations.
What we have now seen is that the Christian school at Alexandria, dis-
continuous or not, in exile or not, was closely related in form and sometimes in
content to the Neopythagorean movement. When Origen was under fire from
orthodox Christians and rigorist confessors, Eusebius felt it necessary to sup-
press most of the facts pointing to the relationship. These were not the only
facts Eusebius suppressed in regard to the Alexandrian school. First, he ap-
parently found the theological position of Theognostus too difficult to discuss.?
He explained how Dionysius denounced Sabellianism and chiliasm,76 but made
no reference to the attack on his theology by his namesake at Rome. He de-
scribed Peter, bishop of Alexandria, only as an ascetic and martyr,77 without
mentioning his criticisms of Origenism or his difficulties with Meletius. Finally,
he referred to Achillas only as a late third-century presbyter and catechist,78 not
as the man who during his brief episcopate took Arius back into the church.79

Conclusions and Suggestions

In short, as a representative of the would-be church triumphant of the early
fourth century, Eusebius found nearly everything about the history of the Al-
exandrian church and school ambiguous and he therefore made it obscure and
difficult. If there is one item of which the Alexandrian anti-Origenists could rea-
sonably have been proud, it was the 43-year episcopate of their leader Demetrius.
Is it not sometimes the case that longevity plus vigor equals orthodoxy? But
Eusebius could not get even this point straight. Demetrius became bishop in
188/189; his episcopate ended soon after 230/231.8 This is quite close enough
to a 43-year interval. But according to Eusebius' life of Origen, Demetrius had
just received the episcopate in 201/202.81 More probably he was finding it dif-
ficult to correlate his legends about Origen with his legendary bishop list.
The upshot of our investigation into the Alexandrian situation is this. First,
what Eusebius, often regarded as our primary authority, tells about it is subject
to almost limitless doubt and revision. Eusebius can never be trusted if contra-
dicted by a more reliable witness, hardly ever even if not contradicted. Second,
the school at Alexandria (and later at Caesarea) was rather more exotic and
esoteric than is often recognized. No doubt the Neopythagorean look that the
74. Cf. H.-I. Marrou in A. Momigliano (ed.), The Conflict Between Paganism and Chris-
tianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford, 1963), 126-50.
75. On him cf. After the New Testament (Philadelphia, 1967), 78-80.
76. HE VII 6; 24-25.
77. Ibid., VII 32, 31; VIII 13, 7; IX 6, 2.
78. Ibid., VII 32, 30.
79. Theodoret, HE I 1, 18; Sozomen, HE I 15; ef. W. Telfer in Analecta Bollandiana,
67 (1949), 117-30.
80. Eusebius, HE V 22; VI 26.
81. Ibid., VI 2, 2.

This content downloaded from 90.219.204.227 on Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:34:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EARLY ALEXANDRIAN CHRISTIANITY 143

school has is largely due just to the fact that is was a school of religious phi-
losophy or philosophical theology. Such schools tend to look Neopythagorean. But
the leaders of the Christian school certainly did nothing to prevent a Pythagorean
or Pythagoreanizing interpretation.
Indeed, we may well go on just a little farther and look into two more
aspects of the school in which such influences seem prominent. First, we know
that in Neoypthagorean circles the biography of Pythagoras was a vehicle for
moral and philosophical instruction. His life exemplified the doctrine-just as
in Eusebius' view Origen's life was identical with his teaching.82 Such biographies
of Pythagoras were certainly known to Alexandrian Christians. Clement echoes
much of the key information provided in them; much later, the form of Athanasius'
Life of Antony was indisputably based on the biography of Pythagoras.3 These
witnesses come from the second century and the fourth. What of the third?
There we find not the life of Pythagoras but the life of Origen, the miraculous
child, adept at all learning, given encouragement by his father, early concerned
with the allegorical method.8 The early life of Origen as described by Eusebius
is the product of the Pythagoreanizing school either at Alexandria or at Caesarea.
Even Origen's asceticism is close to that ascribed to Pythagoras: meditation
night and day, no wine, little food, little sleep.85 Thus when we find the infant
Origen described in terms often Pythagorean, and find the school later set up
in Pythagorean fashion, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the influence of
this religious philosophy was rather strong.
The second aspect of the school leads us off into the realm of imagination
and perhaps of fantasy, but we are not necessarily mistaken when we move
in this direction. After all, the last few pages of Danielou's Message evan-
gelique et culture hellenistique are devoted precisely to the secret teachings and
gnosis of Origen; and this is the kind of subject we wish to discuss. In theory
the teaching of Pythagoras was secret, as was that of most Gnostics. In theory
much of the teaching of the Alexandrian theologians was secret too. The ques-
tion as to whether or not they had a secret tradition is not the basic one. Any
theologian who is good at allegorizing can find his whole system somewhere or
other in the Bible. What counts is the content of the secret teaching, and this,
as Cardinal Danielou sums it up, is concerned with "the invisible world and the
destiny of souls before their birth on earth and after their death; the world of
their descent into bodies and their departure from bodies. It is also concerned
with the descent of the Logos and of angels into bodies: incarnations of salva-
tion after the incarnations of sin."86 Before Origen Clement had dealt with sim-
ilar subjects in his late work the Hypotyposes. He had referred to timeless mat-
ter and had found Platonic ideas in the Bible; he had spoken of the transmigra-
tion of souls and of the many worlds that existed before Adam.87 Similarly
Origen-following, as he said, Pythagoras, Plato, and Empedocles-was will-
82. Ibid., VI 3, 7.
83. R. Reitzenstein in Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Alkademie . 1914, no. 8; cf.
A.-J. Festugiere in Bevue des etudes grecques, 50 (1937), 478; H. Dorries in Nach-
richten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in G6ttingen, Philos.-Hist. KI. 1949, 357-
410; E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (Cambridge, 1965), 31.
84. For these points cf. Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. 1 (17, 10-13 Nauck). 11-12 (23, 1-6);
Tamblichus,De vit. pyth. 9 (8, 6-13 Deubner).
85. Iamblichus 69 (39, 3); cf. 13 (10, 11-14). 27 (16, 8).
86. Op. cit., 430 (cf. 527-60).
87. Photius, Bibl. od. 109 in 0. Stihlin, Clemens Alexandrimw III 202 (frag. 23).

This content downloaded from 90.219.204.227 on Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:34:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
144 CHURCH HISTORY

ing to claim that "there are certain secret principlesby which each soul that
enters a body does so in accordancewith its merits and former character."8
Danielou has shown that in content much of the secret teaching was related to
Jewish apocalypsesand then to Gnostic ideas. It seems likely that Pythagorean
relations were also involved. The difference between an Alexandrian Chris-
tian and an AlexandrianNeopythagoreandepends on their varying assessments
of different oriental theologies. When Numenius gave a signal for advance by
lauding the wisdom of the orient and correlatingPlato with Pythagoras,he set
the stage, so to speak, for the Alexandrianschools. "Numeniusthe Pythagorean
philosopherexplicitly writes, 'What is Plato but Moses in good Greek?'"88
To see the AlexandrianChristiansin all their freshnessand uniqueness,we
must criticallyanalyze the effort Eusebius made to make them seem innocuous
and the attemptsof Rufinus to make Origen orthodox. Jerome was unpleasant,
but he was probablyright when he criticizedsome of Origen's views. The stu-
dent of early Christianitymust take seriously not only geographicalvariations
among Christians but the almost universal phenomenonof "discord between
popular faith and learned theology," emphasizedlong ago by Lebreton.90The
learnedtheologians,especiallyat Alexandria,were really trying to use the eclectic
philosophyof their time in order to explain their religion. In the long run, what
they took from Middle and Neoplatonicmetaphysicsand Stoic ethics was more
importantthan the formal elements and the emphasis on secrecy and hidden
meanings which they took from Neopythagoreanism.But these elements had
a role to play, for them as for Neoplatonistslike Porphyryand Iamblichus.
88. C. Celeau I 32 (tr. H. Chadwick).
89. Frag. 10 Leemans = Clement, Str. I 150, 4.
90. Bevue d'histoire eccsiastque, 19 (1923), 481-506; 20 (1924), 5-37; ef. also my
chapter in The Crucible of Christianity (ed. A. Toynbee, London, 1969), 318-30.

This content downloaded from 90.219.204.227 on Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:34:12 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions