Harvard Divinity School

Dietary Laws among Pythagoreans, Jews, and Christians

Author(s): Robert M. Grant
Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 73, No. 1/2, Dedicated to the Centennial of the
Society of Biblical Literature (Jan. - Apr., 1980), pp. 299-310
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509493
Accessed: 26/02/2009 05:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.

http://www.jstor.org
 DIETARY LAWS AMONG PYTHAGOREANS,JEWS,
AND CHRISTIANS
Robert M. Grant
Universityof Chicago
Chicago,IL 60637

Dietarylaws, as well as problemsin regardto their obser-

vance,are prevalentin religiousgroupseven todayandwerefairly
commonin antiquity.Outsidersand insidersas well often won-
dered what the point of the laws was, and in three significant
communities-Pythagoreans, Jews,andChristians-the regulations
wereinterpreted,or interpreted away,withthe help of philosophi-
cal or even historicalanalysis.

1.Pythagoreans
The Pythagoreansymbolahave come down to us in several
ways, of which the most importantare the relativelyliteral-
historicaltreatmentprovidedby Aristotlein his treatise On the
Pythagoreans and the allegorizinginterpretationgiven by Andro-
cydes On PythagoreanSymbols.1
Presumably at leastthe Aristotelian
picturewas known to Alexander Polyhistor,who, as quotedby
Clement of Alexandria,said that Pythagoraswas a pupil of
Zoroaster.2Aristotle'searly dialogue On Philosophy reflectsthis
interest.3Jaeger suggests that Archytasof Tarentumand the
PeripateticAristoxenuspreferreda "worldly"conceptionof Pytha-
goras'doctrine and thereforeheld that Pythagoras had not taught
abstinencefrom variousfoods.4Since he had not taughtit, alle-
gorizationwashelpfulfor explainingthe tradition.

I The basicstudies are those of F. Boehm, De symbolispythagoreis(Diss., Berlin,

1905); A. Delatte, Etudessur la litteraturepythagoriciene(Paris, 1915) 285-307;
M. P. Nilsson, Geschichtedergriechischen Religion(2d ed.; Munich, 1955) 1. 703-8;
M. Marcovich,"Pythagorica,"Philologus108 (1964) 29-44 (esp. 43-44).
2Frg.Gr.Hist. 273 F. 94 (ClementStr. 1.70.1);cf. Diog. Laert.8.24.36.
3Frag.6 Walzer(Diog. Laert.1.8; Pliny N.H. 30.3).
4Aristotle(2d ed.; Oxford,1948) 455-56.
300 HARVARD THEOLOGICALREVIEW

From Aristotle the evidence is not altogether clear. Following

Plutarch'slost treatise On Homer, Aulus Gellius cites his state-
ment about Aristotle: "Aristotle says that the Pythagoreansab-
stained from the matrix, the heart, the sea-nettle, and other such
things, but used other animal food." Gellius notes that Plutarch
elsewhere mentioned abstinencefrom mullets.5This kind of state-
ment is confirmed by Diogenes Laertius, using Aristotle: "He
forbade the eating of red mullet and blacktail, and he enjoined
abstinence from the heart and from beans, and sometimes from
matricesand red mullet [anotherword for it]."6Relativelyhistori-
cal, at any rate non-philosophical,explanations of such practices
and others are given on Aristotle's authorityin another passagein
Laertius.7As Delatte pointed out, the injunctionsare describedas
to be taken literally.8They lie in the sphere of religiousmagic.9
The negative approachwas proposed by Aristoxenus in his
book On Pythagoras.Gellius cites his words:"Pythagorasespecially
recommended the bean as a vegetable, saying that it was both
digestibleand laxative, and thereforehe most frequentlymade use
of it." Aristoxenusalso held that Pythagorasate piglets and young
goats.10
Such a varietyof attitudesmeant that recourseto allegorization
was appropriate,especially in view of the presence of abstention
commands among the symbols. Aristotle himself had handed
down "Abstain from beans," "Do not pick up crumbs from the
table," "Do not eat the heart," "Do not eat red mullet," and "Do
not eat blacktail."11Apparentlyit was Androcydeswho first alle-
gorized such sayings. We are explicitlytold that he took "Do not
eat blacktail" to mean "Do not pass on a false account, for
falsehood finally blackens and perishes."12A different allegory
appears in Pseudo-PlutarchDe educandispueris: "Do not spend

5A. Gellius 4.11.12-13; cf. also Diog. Laert.8.34.

6Diog. Laert.8.19.
7Ibid.,8.34-35.
8Delatte,Etudes,288.
9Marcovich,"Pythagorica," 43-44.
?0A.Gellius 4.11.4-6; similarbut expanded,Diog. Laert.8.20.
11Diog.Laert. 8.34 and 19. In his Quaest.conviv.Plutarchspeaks of abstinence
from the white cock, the red mullet, and the sea-nettle (670D), and also refers to
abstinence"especiallyfrom fish" (728D).
12Rhet.graec.III, p. 194, 3-5 Spengel.
 ROBERTM. GRANT 301

your time with men of black character,because of their malevo-

lence." In the same work we find "Do not eat the heart" inter-
preted subjectively:"Do not harm your soul by wasting it with
worries."And abstinencefrom beans means stayingout of politics,
where beans were once used in voting!13A certain Demetrius of
Byzantium, used by Athenaeus, treats not eating the heart as
equivalent to keeping free from grief.14This is not unlike what we
find in Diogenes Laertius, "Do not waste your soul with troubles
and worries,"though verballycloser to Pseudo-Plutarch.15
When we come to the Neoplatonists the traditionof exegesis
remainsmuch the same. Porphyrytells us that not eating the heart
means not grieving oneself with troubles, but when he comes to
various pieces of meat and to beans he gives an allegorical
explanation but at the same time insists on abstinence.16This is
not surprisingin the author of a treatise On Abstinence from Meat.
The later NeoplatonistIamblichusgives thorough-goingallegorical
explanationsin both his PythagoreanLife and his Protrepticus.In
the latter he assembles (perhapssometimes invents) no fewer than
thirty-nine symbols and gives an allegorical interpretation of
each.17
Jewish and Christian acquaintancewith the symbols as such
was usually limited, even though the gnomic form of several was
like that of gospel sayings and the problem of observance or non-
observance was similar. Philo, however, does know one Pythago-
rean symbol, "Do not walk on the highways," and like members
of "the most holy band" takes it to mean not following popular
and beaten tracks.18Clement of Alexandriaquotes twelve symbols
in all (nine of them in Str. 5.27-31) and cites Androcydestwice.19
It looksas thoughhe is followingthis interpreter,thoughpossibly
at one or two removes. The only dietary symbol he mentions is
"eatingthe heart" which, he says, the initiatesuse of jealousy and
grief.20His second citationfrom Androcydespoints towardgreater
literalness:"Wine and indulgence in meat make the body strong

13p.12E-F.
14 Athenaeus452D.
15Diog.Laert.8.18.
16PorphyryVit.Pyth.42-45.
171amblichus Vit.Pyth.83-86; 152-56; Protr.21.
18Philo, Quodomn.prob.2.
19Str.5.45.2-3; 7.33.7.
20Str.5.30.5. He discussesbeans apartfrom the symbol;cf. 3.24.2.
302 HARVARD THEOLOGICALREVIEW

but the soul more sluggish."21At the very least, abstinence was
being commended. Hippolytustoo discussed the symbols, eight of
them in all. The ones having to do with eating are explainedquite
oddly. "Do not take a bite from a whole loaf" means "Do not
diminishyour propertybut live off the income; keep the estate like
a whole loaf." "Do not eat beans" means "Do not accept the rule
of the city; for they elected the rulerswith beans at that time."22
These passages show that conflicts over dietary laws existed
within Pythagoreancircles and that old dietary ordinances were
preserved, usually in allegoricalform. They also show that people
like Philo, Clement, and Hippolytuswere awareof the existence of
the allegorizationsand presumably under similar circumstances
could follow the Pythagoreanlead.

2. Jews
Outsiders like Plutarch viewed Jewish, Egyptian, and Pytha-
gorean customs as much the same. He begins his discussion of the
question "whether the Jews abstain from pork because of rever-
ence or aversion for the pig" by describingEgyptianideas about
animals and then asks, "How could anyone blame the Egyptians
for such irrationalitywhen it is recorded that the Pythagoreans
respect even a white cock and abstain particularlyfrom the red
mullet and the sea-nettle among marine animals?" He also raises
questions about the hare. Is it just "filthy and unclean"? Or is it
like a small ass? Or is it divine, since it sleeps with its eyes
open?23Others, like Posidonius, simply rewrite the story of the
Mosaic legislation24-just as some claimed that Pythagorasinsti-
tuted a meat diet for athletes.25Posidonius held that it was only
Moses' superstitioussuccessors who introduced dietary laws and
circumcision (and excision). Few Jews, except perhaps in pre-
MaccabeanJerusalem,would acceptsuch notions.

21Str. 7.33.7; Plutarch Tranq. 472B; Esu earn. 995E; cf. Theopompus in
Athenaeus 4.157D; Pliny N.H. 14.58; also P. Corssen, "Die Schrift des Arztes
Androkydes IIEPI nYOAFOPIKfN EYMBOAfN," Rhein. Mus. 67 (1912)
240-63.
22Hippolytus Ref. 6.27.5.
23 Plutarch
Quaest. conviv. 670D-E.
24
Frg. Gr. Hist. 87 F 70 (Strabo 16.2.37.761); cf. H. D. Betz, Galatians
(Hermeneia;Philadelphia,1979) 167.
25Diog.Laert. 8.13; PorphyryAbst. 1.26; lamblichus Vit.Pyth. 25; cf. Delatte,
Etudes, 310.
 ROBERTM. GRANT 303

Within Judaismit was considered necessary to provide a ratio-

nale for the dietary laws. A moral message was given in the law,
accordingto the Epistleof Aristeas.If you are not to eat birds that
are wild and carnivorousand tyrannical,this shows the importance
of justice, not force. Similarobservations could be appliedto the
wilder animals. Thus the weasel conceives through its ears and
gives birth through its mouth. It is like bad people with bad
thoughts.26More systematically,Philo explains that while the law
says that the camel is unclean, the letter does not explain the
situation. You have to turn to allegory.27In his treatise On the
SpecialLaws he gives two explanationsof the dietary ordinances.
First, what is forbiddenis good to eat. If you ate it you would be
gluttonous and develop dyspepsia.This appliesto pork as well as to
fish without scales or fins (shellfish). But Moses did not want to be
too harsh. He therefore forbadecarnivorousanimals but approved
grass-eaters.These number, mystically, ten: calf, lamb, kid, stag,
gazelle, buffalo, wild goat (tragelaphos),white-rumpedantelope,
pointed-hornantelope and giraffe.28Next Philo turns to the ani-
mals that have a parted hoof or chew the cud: this means that
pupils chew the cud of learning and choose virtue or vice. Un-
parted hooves are bad. Fish have to have fins and scales so that
they can swim against the current. Similarconsiderationsapply to
reptiles, grasshoppers,and birds of various sorts.29Regrettablywe
do not possess the projectedtreatise of Josephus On the Laws, in
which he intended to state the reasons for the dietary
regulations.30
In a more crucialconflict situation, the author of 4 Maccabees
finds the work of reason expressed not in finding reasons for
defending the law but in producingthe self-controlthat overcomes
desire for fish, birds, and animals forbidden by the law. The
control of the passions by religiouslymotivated reason is, indeed,
the theme of the work.31

26Ep.Arist.146.165-66 (cf. Eusebius.P.E. 8.9.16.31-32).

27Agric.131.
28Spec.4.100-105 (on the goodnessof fish and pork,PlutarchFort.98E).
29Spec.4.106-18
30Ant.3.259-60.
314Macc2:33-34; 1:1.
304 HARVARD THEOLOGICALREVIEW

Finally, Josephus claims that "there is not one city, Greek or

barbarian, nor a single nation, . . . where .. .many of our prohibi-
tions in the matterof food are not observed."32Presumablyhe has
in mind something like a consensusgentium in support of the
dietary laws. To judge from Philo and himself, the gentes were
Pythagoreanand Egyptian.In any event, no matter what reasons
might be given for the practices,the practiceswere to be observed.
In this case, then, as not among the Pythagoreans,we see
efforts to give rationaljustificationfor the dietarylaws (except in 4
Maccabees)but not to explainthem away.

3. Christians
We begin our considerationof the Christiansituationswith the
so-called Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:20 and 29 (cf. 21:25). This
seems to be primarilya regulationin regardto diet, forbiddingthe
consumption of foods offered to (or polluted by) idols, from
"fornication,"and-most important for our purposes-from the
meat of animals strangled (without blood drained) and from
blood.33(Philo condemns both stranglingand the consumptionof
blood.)34The subsequent history of the Decree and similar texts
seems to indicateclearlythat this was a dietaryregulationintended
to be observed. Thus in the Didache we see something like it
being modified:"Concerningfood, bear what you can, but abstain
completelyfrom meat offered to idols, for it is the worshipof dead
gods."35This idea is changed in the DidascaliaApostolorum(about
200), where we find the theory that the OT contains two sets of
laws and the dietaryregulationsbelong to the later and inferiorset.
Only heretics teach Pythagoreanvegetarianismor abstinencefrom
pork.36In the fourth-centuryApostolicConstitutionsthere is the

32 C. Ap. 2.282.
33Cf. esp. H. Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte (Tibingen, 1963) 84-85; E.
Haenchen, TheActs of the Apostles(Philadelphia,1971) 468-72; E. Molland, "La
circoncision,le baptemeet l'autorit6du d6cretapostoliquedans les milieuxjud6o-
chr6tien des Pseudo-Clementines," StTh 9 (1955) 1-39; M. Simon, "De
l'observancerituelle de l'ascese:recherchessur le D6cret Apostolique,"RHR 193
(1978) 27-104.
34Spec.4.122-23.
35 Didache6.2 (interpolated,accordingto J.-P. Audet, La Didache:Instruction
des
Ap6tres[Paris,1958] 350-57).
36Didasc.23, pp. 202-3 Connally= 6.10, 3-4 Funk = Const.Apost.6.10.2-3.
 ROBERTM. GRANT 305

same denunciationof heresy, along with the positive injunctionsto

eat every kind of meat, but not the blood, and notably "the fat of
the land."37The dietary emphasis has disappeared.Idolatryis still
mentioned, but it too will pass away. Similarly,although Irenaeus
probablywrote the letter of the Gallicanmartyrsin which we learn
that Christiansdo not eat the blood of irrationalanimals,38he also
attests a text of Acts (witnessed by the NT Codex Bezae) from
which "strangled"has been dropped and to which the Golden
Rule and an injunction to "walk in the Holy Spirit" have been
added.39 Tertullian too has only "sacrifices, fornication, and
blood," and he explicitlyinterprets"blood" as "murder."40This is
not to say that minds did not change. In his earlier Apologyhe
spoke of Christiansas not eating blood and abstainingfrom the
meat of animalsstrangledor found dead.41
The situation by the early third century is well indicated for
some Christians, at least, when Origen replies to the criticisms
made by Celsus. Celsus had written that "if they follow a custom
of their fathers when they abstain from particularsacrificialvic-
tims, surely they ought to abstain from the food of all ani-
mals-this is the view taken by Pythagoraswith the intention of
honouring thereby the soul and its organs." Origen replies that
"the divine Scripturedoes not even suggest anythingof the kind,"
though the exegetical problemsrelated to the law of Moses would
take too long to discuss. In any event, the apostles and elders
meeting at "Antioch" defined "the essentials"-"things sacrificed
to idols, or things strangled,or blood." All three points are related
in Origen's mind to the activity of demons, identified with idols,
for the demons are fed by blood or vaporsfrom blood.42
Origenthen quotes the Sentencesof Sextus (Pythagorean-Chris-
tian) to the effect that "it is a matter of moral indifferenceto eat
living things, but abstinenceis more rational."43He too views it as

37Const.Apost. 7.20: every kind of meat, but not blood, after Deut 15:23;also
"the fat of the land," Gen 45:18.
38EusebiusH.E. 5.1.26.
39IrenaeusAdv.haer. 3.12.14.
40TertullianPudic.12.4-5.
41Apol.9.13-14; cf. C. K. Barrett,"ThingsSacrificedto Idols," NTS 11 (1964/65)
138-53.
42OrigenC. Cels. 8.28-30. On demons' food cf. H. Chadwick, OrigenContra
Celsum(Cambridge,1953) 146, n. 1.
43 Cf. H. Chadwick,TheSentencesof Sextus (Cambridge,1959) 24, no. 109; also
p. 108, with referenceto Clement Str. 7.32.8.
306 HARVARD THEOLOGICALREVIEW

more rationalbut claims that among the reasons the Pythagorean

one-transmigration of the soul into irrational animals-is not
acceptable.The reason for his discussingthe point at such length is
partlyrelated to his awarenessthat he is not far from the doctrine
ascribedto Pythagorasin some repsects.
Given the general Christianrejection of the OT dietary laws,
what was one to do with the animals? We have already seen
helpful leads supplied by the Pythagoreans, in the Epistle of
Aristeas,and of course especiallyby Philo. To be sure, Philo does
not abandon the law as law. Thus he speaks of the "gentle and
good ordinance" related to oxen treading out the grain, even
though he holds that the allegoricalmeaning is more important:
"the law does not prescribefor irrationalanimals but for those
who possess mind and reason."44The apostle Paul is more radical.
"It is written in the law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle an ox
when it is treadingout the grain.' Is God concerned with oxen?
Does he not speak entirely for our sake?"45 Then comes a
"moral"interpretationbased on treatingthe ox as if it had human
aspirations.
The Epistleof Barnabasextends the allegoricalmethod to the
food laws in a fairly rigorous way, since it also contains a theory
about God's supposed covenant with the Jewish people as con-
demned by the prophetsand indeed abolished.46The tenth chapter
of Barnabas is concerned entirely with animal lore: an original
version of pig, birds, and fish (as R. A. Krafthas pointed out) plus
details about the sexual peculiaritiesof hare, hyena, and weasel.47
Since the hyena is mentioned in the Greek OT only in Jer 12:9 the
author seems to be going out of his way here. In each case the
moral lesson is drawnfrom supposed characteristicsof the animal.
The starting point obviously lies in the OT itself, where carni-
vorous beasts are not to be eaten. We move then through Aristeas.
Now, however, the law as law is abolished. All that remains is the
moral meaning. Pigs grunt when they are hungry and otherwise
are quiet. Eagles, two varieties of hawk, and ravens are carni-
vorous and prey on other birds (so Aristeas). The sea-eel, the
octopus, and the cuttle-fishsimply swim or drift near the bottom,
not diving as good fish should. At the end these animals are

44Virt. 146; Spec. 1.266.

451 Cor 9:9-10.
46Barn. chap. 2; 4.6-8; 14.1-4.
47Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache (New York, 1965) 109-12.
 ROBERTM. GRANT 307

interpretedin the light of the first verse of the Psalms:"Blessed is

the man who has not gone in the council of the impious (the fish
on the bottom) and has not stood on the path of sinners (the pig)
and has not sat on the seat of the pestilent (the birds)." This is
David's gnosis about the three doctrines. Clement of Alexandria
liked it.48
What Clement did not like was Barnabas'account of the hare,
the hyena, and the weasel. He agreed that "the all-wise Moses"
refered to sexual aberrationswhen he mentioned these animals,
which one way or another symbolize pederasty or at least non-
reproductivesex. Clement kept Barnabas'conclusions but explicit-
ly rejected his supporting evidence, appealing instead to more
reliable accounts of hare and hyena in Aristotle49and simply
reinterpretingthe badness of the weasel.50
Barnabas also explains the cud-chewing animals and the
divided hoof in a manner much like Philo's. Those who chew the
cud are chewing on the word of the Lord, while the divided hoof
points beyond a choice to the actual life of the righteous man,
walkingin this worldand expecting the age to come.
A different line of allegorizing thought appears in Origen's
early treatise On First Principles.It is present because Origen is
justifyinghis very bold allegorizationsand is arguingthat there are
"irrational" or "impossible" commands in Scripture. As an
example of irrationalityhe chooses the command to eat vultures
(Lev 11:14). No one even driven by hunger in the direst
pestilences would ever eat vulture. Two examples of the
impossible are providedby the "wild goat" (tragelaphos),which is
nonexistent because made of two species like a centaur, and the
griffin, never encountered by any human being. It is true that
Aristophanes, Plato, and Aristotle all thought the tragelaphos
fantastic;but Philo did not, as we have seen, and it is mentioned
in the Greek text of Job as well as by Diodorus Siculus and Pliny
the Elder.51Clement of Alexandria believed in griffins; so did
Origen, when he got older.52

48Str. 2.67.1-3.
49Paed.2.84-88, with passagesfrom Aristotlecited by Stahlin.
50Paed.2.7.4.
51Referencesfrom LSJs. v. tragelaphos(except for Philo).
52 Paed. 2.120.1; 3.26.2; Origen C. Cels. 4.24. The basic passageis Origen Princ.
4.3.2.
308 HARVARD THEOLOGICALREVIEW

4. Conclusion
We have now seen something of the use made of the
allegorical method in relation to the dietary laws of the
Pythagoreans,the Jews, and the Christians.Obviouslythe method
as such did not necessarilylead to abandonmentof the letter. It
could be used to explain an inner meaning to be kept side by side
with the observance. It could also be used to explain gnomic
sentences like the symbols of the Pythagoreans, and we now
finallyturn to words in the SynopticGospels which resemble such
symbols and received similar modes of interpretation.Very often,
indeed, they containreferencesto animals.
Matt 24:28 (Luke 17:37) providesan obvious parallelto dietary
laws. "Where the corpse may be, there the eagles will gather."
(The variant "body" in Luke looks like a correction, since vul-
tures, not eagles, were regardedas eating carrion.)53Pliny refers to
an eagle somewhat like a vulture, "the only eagle that carriesaway
the dead bodies of its prey,"54but this hardlyimplies an assembly
of eagles. Perhaps we may guess that originally the Matthaean
logion justified (wrongly)the prohibitionof eagles in Lev 11:13 or
Deut 14:12. In isolation it became more cryptic.Irenaeus referred
it to the corpse of Jesus and the eagle-likedisciples.So did Origen,
who went out of his way to note that the birds were not vultures
or ravens but "the non-carrion-eatinganimal."55
"Don't give what is holy to the dogs or cast your pearlsbefore
swine" (Matt 7:6). This mysterious (proverbial?)saying becomes
in effect a dietary law in the Didache when referred to the
eucharist and an anti-sexual injunction among the Naassenes.56
More commonly, members of groups, Gnostics and other Chris-
tians, took it of outsiders: non-Gnostics, non-Christians, finally
non-intellectuals.57 Methodiustried to make it more general:pearls
were virtues, swine were pleasures.58

53AelianNat. anim. 2.46; 9.10.

54PlinyN.H. 10.8.
55IrenaeusAdv.haer.4.14.1; OrigenMatt.ser. 47.
56Didache9.5; Naassenesin HippolytusRef 5.8.34 (interpretingas if "dogs"and
"swine"reflectedthe usage of Aristophanes).
57Basilidiansin Epiphanius24.5.2; Elchasaiin HippolytusRef 9.7.1; Clement Str.
1.55.3; 2.7.4; TertullianPraescr.26.1; 41.2; Bapt. 18.1; Ad. ux. 5.5.2 (porcus =
non-Christianhusband);OrigenC. Cels. 5.29.
58MethodiusDe creatis1, P. 493-94 Bonwetsch.
 ROBERTM. GRANT 309

The dogs recur in the story of the Syro-Phoenicianwoman

(Mark 7:27-28 = Matt 15:26-27).59Jesus says to her, "It is not
good to take the children's bread [=what is holy?] and cast it to
the dogs." She replies, "The dogs under the table eat from the
children'scrumbs." It is odd, though probablynothing more, that
the Pythagoreanstoo discussed crumbs. They were not to pick
them up, "either in order to accustom them not to eat immoder-
ately or because connected with a person's death." According to
Aristophanesthey "belong to the heroes."60In his exegesis of the
verses, Origen touches upon (but rejects) the Pythagoreandoc-
trine of the transmigrationof souls, preferringa moral interpre-
tation of "dogs" and of other animalnames.61
The comments on salt in Mark 9:50 ("Salt is good; but if the
salt becomes unsavory, with what will you salt it? Have salt in
yourselves and be at peace with one another") reminds us of the
Pythagoreansymbol: "Of salt he said it should be brought to table
to remindus of whatis right;for salt preserveswhateverit finds,
and it arises from the purest sources, sun and sea."62
Probably any ancient teachers could have said things about
yokes (but the Pythagoreansmeant the beam of a balance by
zygos) and burdens,63about broad and narrow ways,64about not
looking back,65about not offering to greet everyone.66It is not
significant that we find such matters in both traditions.
Pythagorean influenceseems clearin Luke'saccountof primitive
in
sharing Jerusalem,however;andwe mayaddthe symbolstating
that "Man must become one," preservedonly by Clement of
Alexandriaand perhapsopen to suspicionas Christian.67
It findsa

59Theswine recurin Mark5:11-13, whateverthat may mean.

60Diog.Laert.8.35.
61OrigenMatt.comm.9.17, p. 64, 18 Klostermann.
Metempsychosisand dogs are
connectedin Pythagoreantraditionaccordingto Diog. Laert.8.36.
62Diog. Laert.8.35.
63Matt11:29-30; cf. lamblichus Vit. Pyth. 84. Since Plutarch(290E and 727C)
and Hippolytus(Ref 6.27.4) have "Don't step over a broom" instead of "Don't
step over a balance" (e.g., the Suda in Diels-Kranz, Vorsokratiker 58 C 6), the
parallelcannot be more than verbal.
64Matt7:13-14; cf., e.g., Clement Str. 2.79.2; 5.30.1.
65Luke9:59-62; 17:31;Diog. Laert.8.17.
66Luke10:4;cf. Plutarch96A.
67On Pythagoreanphrases in Acts cf. Conzelmann, Apostelgeschichte, 31; on
"one" cf. Clement Str. 4.151.3.
310 HARVARD THEOLOGICALREVIEW

not necessarilyan offshoot, in sayings about unity like those in the

Gospelof Thomas.68
It is clear enough that at the end of the second century such
correlationswere often recognized. Clement of Alexandria twice
referred to Philo as a Pythagorean,69while in Contra Celsum
Origenapparentlyspoke of him as among "our predecessors."70 As
de Lange comments, "It would appear from this that Origen
regardedPhilo as part of the heritage of the Church."71Clement
seems to have thought that the Sayingsof Sextuswere Pythagorean
but usable,72while Origen definitely thought they were Christian.
Both Clement and Hippolytus used the Pythagorean Carmen
aureum,and both cited Pythagoreansymbols. Clement even coor-
dinated them with sayings from the Old and New Testaments.73
He providedthe startingpoint for this essay.

68 Gos. Thom.11, 22, 106.

69Str. 1.72.4; 2.100.3.
70C.Cels. 5.55; 7.20.
71N. R. M. de
Lange, Origenand theJews (Cambridge,1976) 16.
72Str.7.32.5 (Sent. 46 ascribedto Pythagoras;elsewhere anonymouscitations);
not a Pythagoreanaccordingto OrigenC. Cels. 8.30.
73Clement Paed. 1.94.1; Hippolytus Ref 6.23.4. Collections of symbols in
Clement Str. 5.27-31; HippolytusRef 6.26-27.