clemente pitagorico.pdf

download clemente pitagorico.pdf

of 23

Transcript of clemente pitagorico.pdf

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    1/23

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    2/23

    WHY DOES CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIACALL PHILO "THE PYTHAGOREAN"?

    BYDA-VIDT. RUNIA

    The evidence and the problemIt is a well-known fact that the massive corpus of writings of Philo

    of Alexandria only survived because he was taken up in the Christiantradition as a church father honoris causa,' In our extant sources he isfirst mentioned by Josephus (Antiquities 18.258), who describes him as"a man respected in every way ... and not unskilled in philosophy".2But this is the last reference to Philo by a Jewish author until the 16thcentury. We first read about him in a Christianauthor in the Stromateisof Clement of Alexandria (written at the end of the 2nd century A.D.).Clement explicitly refers to Philo on four occasions, but his actual usageof Philonic material is much more extensive. Indeed Clement's handlingof Philo is an illuminating example of the way ancient authors werewont to use other authors as a source for their own writing. In herexcellent and well-receivedmonograph on the subject Annewies van denHoek has shown that on at least eight occasions Clement had a copy ofPhilo on his desk as it were, and that he copied out extensive excerptsin the Stromateis, unrolling his scroll as he went along (on one occasionin reverse ).3The four passages in which Clement refers to Philo by name are thefollowing:4

    1.31.1: Eptivuve6et 6 iXv ZTv"Ayacp apopixovaw.., TIv Sapawv E a&pXTivLou.(Philo interpretsHagaras "sojourning" .., Sarahas "my rule".)1.72.4: TOUT&ov awvTcov IpeapuTa6tov (axp TO6Iouoaiov yevoSxai TTv7apauTol pXoootlo vrv paXTovOV yevo?i:vnlv rpoxartapait Trfi; xp' "EXTall cpLXoaopiao;at8acoXX,.v 6 Ilu0oay6pitoSToSoixvumat OltXov, ou .LTv XXaxoai Apto6pouXoS 6rIep7craltqtx6osai aXXot :XEtiou0, iva .I xax' Ovor(.a I7rtCv uaTp(ipo. (That therace of the Jews is by far the oldest of all these (races or cultures) and thattheir philosophy in a written form commenced prior to that of the Greeksis fully demonstrated by the Pythagorean Philo, as well as by Aristobulusthe Peripatetic and many others, a list of whose names I will not bore youwith.)1.152.2: Tr bE a&XXvVXuxXLovaxtaseiov "EXlvEs; C(8axaxovv AiT'i`rcO,(; av

    Vigiliae Christianae 49, 1-22E.J. Brill,Leiden, 995

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    3/23

    DAVIDT. RUNIA

    Pa(cLxov 7caiLiov, Ti GL Ot'Xov Iv T(OMCOuE PriCA),7pojae6,vOaveOE a'AaaupCovTpa&p.oaTaal TTv cov oupaovCov MoI.CTIV 7sap&a XaXa,ciov Tapa TEAtyurcTiov.. (Theremainder f the generaleducationGreeks aughthim[Moses]nEgypt,as wouldbefit a royalchild,an accountof which s givenby Philoin his Lifeof Moses.In additionhe learnedAssyrian ettersandthe scienceof the heavens rom the Chaldeansand from the Egyptians.)2.100.3: HnI&TcovUE 6 cptX6aopoo, E&iu8aLxovLavTEXO;S tLO4ievoS, "4LOCCo)V O6E"9nlatvauTjIveLvac"xacraO6 uvoO6v", ei're [xoal]ouvapoacJ)v :coS oo6yPaOtLOUv6toLu ("ao yTp IRET&yXatuaEt xao TyULvaoxaOcOv U':ToxoaJito; ;Cept T:1va,X,ileaov,"a S pl6atv6 HuOayopEtosOi,Xov ra MXouaofw Tyou6?evo?), EiTrexalcapa vov TO6 XoTiCovva8otoaXolE artELaOiJaco; aetii&)v. (Plato the philos-opherpositsas thegoalof life "well-being",andsaysthatthisis "becom-inglike unto Godto the extentpossible", nthis eithercoinciding omehowor otherwith the doctrineof the Law(forgreatnatureswho are devoidofpassions omehowor otherhiton thetruth,as saysthePythagorean hilowhenexpoundinghe worksof Moses),or because,as one whowasalwaysthirsting or learning,he had beentaught t by learnedmenthenliving.)

    These references deserve further study. In the first, which occurs in themiddle of an extensive section that borrows heavily from Philo, theJewish author is suddenly introduced without any further indication asto who he might be.5 In the third text both the name and the work usedas a source is given. Clement explicitly indicates that he has made useof Philo's account of the life of Moses, no doubt in order to give hisown account of the same subject more authority.6 Here too Philo'sname is given without any furtherdescription. In the other two passagesthe situation differs. Clement does add a description that tells us a littlemore about who this Philo might be. He is twice called "thePythagorean". This epithet is used of Philo in only one other ancientsource, namely the historian Sozomen, who informs us that accordingto "Philo the Pythagorean" the best of the Hebrews retired to LakeMareotis and practised philosophy there.7A single other text points ina similar direction. When introducing Philo in his Ecclesiastical HistoryEusebius tells us that Philo is recorded as having exceeded his contem-poraries in his zeal for the philosophical discipline of Plato andPythagoras (so I translate Trv xaxra HaX&ovaxat fluOa-ypaov &yoyTrv).8Thisinformation may be derived from Clement, whom, as we know,Eusebius had read very carefully.9Now in my view the epithet "Pythagorean" which Clement attachesto Philo is unexpected. It is surely surprisingthat he does not describehim as "Philo the Jew" or, as might be more likely, "Philo theHebrew".'0 We would expect that Philo's role as a predecessor in the

    2

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    4/23

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    5/23

    DAVID T. RUNIA

    Platonist doctrine.15 The convergence of doctrine is to be explainedeither through the fact that great minds can hit on the truth inde-pendently of each other, or because Plato, ever thirsting for knowledge,somehow came into contact with learned men who could teach him whatwas contained in the Mosaic philosophy.16The latter alternative recallsthe apologetic argument of the "theft of the philosophers", which isone of the pillars of Clement's argument throughout the entire work."The first and lesser difficulty posed by the passage is that the quotefrom Philo which is supposed to support the former alternative isnowhere to be found as such in the Philonic corpus. It is not impossiblethat Clement has in mind a passage now lost (e.g. in the Quaestiones orthe Hypothetica). But I agree with the editors of Philo, Cohn andWendland, that he almost certainly has a passage in mind whichdescribes Moses' own education:'8

    Philo, Mos. 1.22 Clement,Str. 2.100.3io)XXaap ai pLey&XXatuaLSt ai yap J?ya&XatpuELSxoayuljvial aovxaoVO'TOLOlL T(lVTv eS7rtaJTXl:yn. .aTTOXOUaitCqg7XEpttlV &X7,6i0tav.

    It is perhaps better not to place Clement's words in quotation marks,since he is giving the gist of Philo's words, not citing them verbatim.The context determines the change from itCLotjITInrelevant to Moses'natural abilities that came to the fore during his training) to &XaOltia(Plato's ethical insights). But then xalvoToLuo5alas to be changed too,for truth (in the ancient conception) is not found through innovation.'9A further argument in favour of this derivation is that the additionalwords yutvai 7ia0xv clearly reflect what Philo says about Moses'asceticism at Mos. 1.25-29 (note especially Ta06xv t ?26). Moreover thecited passage is part of a longer section of Philo's work which Clementadapts at length in book I of the Stromateis (he refers to it in the thirdof the passages cited above in which Philo's name is mentioned).20Afinal consideration is the ambiguity of the phrase ra MouaixoSeyou,TevoSwhich follows the mention of Philo's name. This may mean"expounding the writings of Moses" (i.e. a very general sense,equivalent to "in his commentarieson Moses"), or it may mean "givingan exposition of the facts about Moses", which could then be areference to the biographical details furnished in abundance in the Devita Moysis.2' The latter view would further support Cohn andWendland's view. It seems to me, however, that the first interpretationof the phrase is the more likely.

    4

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    6/23

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

    The secondinterpretative ifficultyis that we musttryto determinethe intentandscopeof the reference o Philo. A minimalist iew wouldbe that Clement s makingan erudite iteraryallusion to a memorableturn of phrase n Philo. After all thecontextsare ratherdifferent: n theone case the education of the prodigy Moses, in the other Plato'sindependentacquisitionof a philosophical ruth.There s, however,acomplication.Thisparticularpassagefollows on, and can be regardedas the climaxof, the passage2.78.1-101.1,the entiresequenceof whichis determinedby large-scale but wholly unacknowledged) orrowingsfrom Philo's treatiseDe virtutibus.22s Clement indirectlymakingamendsby namingPhilo after the event in the expectation hat theattentivereaderwill make the connection?Thequestion o be answered, herefore, s whether here is any con-nection betweenwhatwejust called the "erudite iteraryallusion"andthethemeof thepassage, .e. the Platonic telos. At thispointwe shouldtake into accountan acute observationmadeby DietmarWyrwa n hisanalysisof Clement'suse of Plato.23He pointsout that Clement'smen-tion of the 6OoioaClOecx ormula is anticipated on two occasions earlierin the passage,i.e. at 80.5 and 97.1, and that both passagesare takenstraight rom Philo (Virt.8 and 168).Thismeansthat if the formula snow attributed to Plato, at the very least Clement has implicitlyindicatedhisrecognitionhat Philo's useof thesephraseshas a Platonic(as well as a Mosaic)background.24t is tempting o connect his obser-vation with Clement'sdescription f Philo as "thePythagorean", venif formallyand strictlyspeakingthere is no connectionbetweenthestatementon Plato andthe reference o Philo. Whether his interpreta-tion is legitimatehas yet to be seen.The text at Str. 1.72.4

    The contexthere is less illuminating,and can be dealt with quickly.In this section25Clementdiscusses he relationshipbetweenGreekandbarbarianphilosophy. He argues that (1) many of the first Greekphilosophers e.g. PythagorasandThales)were barbarians nyway,(2)Plato recognizes he contributionof barbarianphilosophers, 3) manyof the Greek philosophersstudied with or learnt from barbarianphilosophers,and(4) philosophy lourishedamongthe barbarian acesbefore it reachedthe Greeks. The sectionends with a long series ofwitnesses.Thefirst two are"PhilothePythagorean" nd "Aristobulus

    5

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    7/23

    DAVID T. RUNIA

    the Peripatetic",i.e. our text. ThereafterClement cites four Greeksourceswhichsupporthis thesis (Megasthenes,anonymi,Herodorus,Hermippus).Thereis no text in the extantPhilo whichexplicitlyundertakes oprovethe antiquityof the Jewsand the anteriority f their writtenphi-losophy (i.e. the Law). So Clement's statementmightbe taken as arhetoricalflourish. In most of his extant writingsPhilo shows littleinterest n historicaldetails.26Therecan, however,be littledoubt thatthe apologeticmotif would havemet with his approval.Wendland'ssuggestionthat Clement is referringhere to a lost section of theHypotheticacannot be proven, but certainlydeserves serious con-sideration.27

    Whythen is Philo giventhe epithet "Pythagorean"n this context?No doubt because t boosts his standingas a witness.There s nothingremarkablebouta Jewclaimingheantiquity f his own race. Clementdoes not bother to tell his reader hat Philo is Jewish.It does make adifferenceif he is someone who has an associationwith the Greekphilosophical radition.Philo's fellow-Alexandrian ristobulus s alsogivenanepithet hat indicatesa connectionwith a philosophicalchool.It is apparenthatClement'suse of suchphilosophical pithetsneeds obe examined n closerdetail.

    Epithetsindicatingconnectionswithphilosophical chools in ClementBefore looking at particular examples, we must first address a

    preliminaryquestion. What do terms such as "Pythagorean"and"Peripatetic" efer o? Herethere s animportantdistinction hat needsto be made.In the firstplacesuchtermswill veryoften indicatemembership for affiliation to a philosophical ao'tpea, i.e. a philosophical "school" or,perhapsbetter, "school of thought".28 n Clement'stime, as is wellknown,philosophersweregenerallydentifiedbytheirallegianceo oneof the rival"schools" that went backto the earlierperiodof the Greekphilosophicalradition.These"schools"scarcelyexisted n the institu-tional senseto which we are accustomed although n Clement'sdaythereweresomemunicipal hairs or the variousoapioagt,nd at Athenseven an Imperial endowment). There was no central body thatorganizedall philosopherswho called themselvesPlatonists, but nodoubt most Platonistswould look up to the occupantof the chair of

    6

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    8/23

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

    Platonistphilosophyn Athens.29One couldbe a professional epresen-tative of such an a'ops.atSuch were the men whom Justin studiedwith-first a Sxro'ix6o,hen a IIptcarMtiTLx6q,hen a IIu0ao6p&ito, andfinally a prominent nIXaTzvtx6

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    9/23

    DAVID T. RUNIA

    (apart from Philo) is Numenius, in the famous text at Str. 1.150.4 wherehe is recorded as contending that Plato is none other than a Mcouoiq&X-LtxLtov.The text itself does not tell us very much, but we may certainlyassume that in Clement's eyes Numenius was a member of (or affiliatedwith) the Pythagorean ati'pes. The more difficult question here is whatNumenius' relation to the Platonic school of thought is. After all thepronouncement concerns Plato, not Pythagoras. We shall returnto thisquestion below. Strikingly Clement, though himself probably trained ina Platonic school environment, nowhere describes any philosopher as a"Platonist" 36As for the term kIIp1o0trtxxoS,t furnishes us with two surprises.Firstly Aristotle is once somewhat curiously called "the Peripatetic",but there is, one supposes, no good reason for excluding him from theschool that he himself founded.37 Others given the title belonged to thePeripatetic school during Aristotle's lifetime and the subsequentHellenistic period: Clearchus, Strato, Lyco, Hieronymus, Critolaus.38Nothing unexpected here. The remaining surprise is, of course, Philo'sfellow Alexandrian Jew Aristobulus, who is called "the Peripatetic" inthe very same sentence as Philo is called "the Pythagorean". This caserequires our closest attention.

    Aristobulus the PeripateticMuch ink has been spilt on Aristobulus, chiefly because he is such an

    intriguing figure, about whom we would like to know a lot more.3 Heis the only one of Philo's Jewish-Alexandrian predecessors whom weknow by name. If we take him to have flourished in the mid-secondcent. B.C., then a period of nearly two centuries separates them. Cle-ment mentions him four times, of which on two occasions as "thePeripatetic". It would appear that Eusebius became interested in himthrough his reading of Clement. Whereas Clement cites only shortpieces of text, Eusebius gives us four extended passages. This meansthat he must have had access to a copy of Aristobulus' work, an inter-pretation of the Jewish Law with an apologetic orientation. The Euse-bian fragments allow a number of further unnamed borrowings in Cle-ment to be identified.40

    Clement's designation of Aristobulus as "the Peripatetic" is perhapseven more puzzling that of Philo as "the Pythagorean", for the extantfragments clearly disclose the conviction-similar to that of Philo-that

    8

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    10/23

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

    Greek philosophy is inferior to and indebted to Moses. This of courseallows a rather eclectic approach. He in fact mentions Pythagoras andPlato twice, but Aristotle is not mentioned, and the Peripatetics onlyonce. Moreover when discussing the significance of the Sabbath, heclearly indicates that God created the cosmos, a view which is difficultto rhyme with a Peripatetic position.41 The following hypotheses havebeen put forward:

    (a) that the title "Peripatetic" is a deduction from his writings,perhaps based on the reference to the ao'peaso xx 6oe tepta&iou n fr.5, or perhaps based on a more general impression of his apologeticmotivation;42(b) that the title does not refer to a philosophical affiliation at all, butrather to a scientific and possibly biographical interest;43(c) the very recent suggestion that Aristobulus may have beenacquainted with the pseudo-Aristotelian work De mundo, and thatthis work is his chief point of reference in his orientation towardsGreek philosophy, as particularly suggested by his reference to thedivine 86vaFt;4."The assumption of the last two hypotheses is that the title was either a

    self-designation or handed down through the tradition, e.g. that it wasfound in the title of Aristobulus' book. It is difficult to argue againstthis, for there is no hard evidence either way.45I assume with Walterthat the titles are the work of Clement, or at least have consciously beentaken over by him, and so tell us more about his perceptions than aboutthe situation three centuries earlier. From him they pass onto Eusebius,and then furtherinto the tradition. Walter's own explanation of the title(i.e. (a) above) is not particularly convincing, for it hardly puts Cle-ment's analysis of Aristobulus' writings in a very favourable light, butwe have none better.

    Such hypotheses need not delay us any longer, however, for thefragments of Aristobulus himself and their adaptation by Clement giveus a sufficient clue. Aristobulus actually speaks of his own "affiliation"when he says in fr. 4 that "it is confessed by all philosophers that oneshould have holy conceptions concerning the deity, which is especiallywell enjoined by our school of thought (/i xa0' 0tUs a'peqtS)".46Aristobulus aligns himself with Jewish philosophers and particularlyMoses. Clement does not allude to this text, but he does cite the passagewhich according to Eusebius stood a little earlier in Aristobulus' book,that "Plato followed the lawgiving of our tradition (Ti xaO' O&qs

    9

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    11/23

    DAVID T. RUNIA

    vo%to06ea()" nd that "Pythagoras transferredmuch from our tradition(Tcivrcap'jLv) to his own system of thought (Boy,JaTxoiaot)".47lementcannot possibly have meant that Aristobulus was a "member of" or was"affiliated with" the Peripatetic school. This is the relationship that hehad with his own Jewish school of thought. He is called "thePeripatetic" on account of an affinity that he had with Peripateticthought.48 Regrettably we are not in a position to determine with anycertainty what that affinity in Clement's eyes was.

    Philo's affinity with PythagoreanismThis clear result in the case of Aristobulus will encourage us toundertake an analogous argument for Philo's appellation as "the

    Pythagorean". Philo, we may argue, was in Clement's eyes not amember of the Pythagorean hairesis. Such affiliation is reserved for hisrelationship to Moses.49His writings, however, did reveal affinities withPythagorean thought, and this will have encouraged the use of theepithet. Philo only mentions Pythagoras or his followers explicitly ona limited number of occasions,5? but Clement's trained eye will havepicked up more themes with a Pythagorean origin. What, we may ask,may have induced Clement to regard Philo's thought, and thus Philohimself, as Pythagorean? Let us review four possibilities.

    (a) A prominent aspect of Philo's biblical exegesis is his heavy use ofnumber symbolism or arithmology.5' On a number of occasions hespecifically refers to Pythagorean number lore when expoundingbiblical numbers such as the monad, the triad and the hebdomad.52Cle-ment takes over this method. There are at least three significant textswhere he takes over substantial material on arithmology from Philo:53

    (i) Str. 2.50-51: on the decad (exeg. Ex. 16:36, cf. Congr. 100-106;(ii) Str. 5.93-94: on the six days of creation, cf. Opif. 13-14;(iii) Str. 6.139-145: on the hebdomad in relation to the 4th command-

    ment, cf. esp. Leg. 1.2-20, and also Opif. 89-127.Moreover the reference to God as beyond the One and the monad atPaed. 1.71.2 recalls similar Philonic formulations at Leg. 2.3, Praem.40, QE 2.68 etc.54 The possibility has to be considered, therefore, that,when Clement calls Philo "the Pythagorean", he is specifically thinkingof this penchant for arithmologizing exegesis, and also of a connectionwith a theology of the "One God".5

    (b) Secondly, we need to ask whether there are any other features of

    10

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    12/23

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

    Philo'sthought hat on theirownmayhave beensufficient or Clementto have labelledPhilo "the Pythagorean".Variousthemescome tomind,e.g. Pythagoreanizingsotericism,56hegoalof ethicsas "follow-ing God",57even the doctrineof metempsychosis.58t will be agreed,however, hatnone of these aresufficientlymportantn Philo or suffi-ciently prominent n Clement'sborrowings rom Philo to explaintheepithet.(c)The thirdpossibilityakesus in anentirelydifferentdirection.Oneof the moreobvious featuresof Philo's writings s theirextensiveuseof philosophicalmaterial rom the so-called"Bibleof the Platonists",Plato's Timaeus.59As the passage at Str. 5.93-94 implicitlyshows(Philo's name is not mentioned),Clementwas perfectlyaware of thisconnection.60n Clement'sdaythe personageof Timaeuswasregardedas a Pythagoreaninthedialoguehe is described t 20a as comingfromLocris in Italy). Moreover a Pseudo-Pythagoreanwork, written inDoric and attributed o TimaeusLocrus,was in circulationand wasregarded as the original from which Plato had taken (or evenplagiarized)his doctrines.61Clementrefers to the figureof Timaeus(Locrus) twice,62 but nowhere does he associate him withPythagoreanism. or thisreasonweare not justified,I wouldargue, nconcluding hat the epithet"Pythagorean"refers to Philo's fondnessfor this particularPlatonicdialogue.(d) The final possibility akes us furtheralongthe samepath. As iswell known,duringthe final centuryB.C. and the first two centuriesA.D. Platonists and (Neo-)Pythagoreans formed two separate aitp?aet,but from the doctrinalpoint of view there were strong connectionsbetween hem.63ndeedPythagorean octrinemightbedescribed s vir-tuallyidenticalwith Platonistphilosophy,withthe additionof specialemphaseson the role of numbersesp.inthedoctrineof firstprinciples)and on the contemplativeife (togetherwith variouspractical njunc-tions). The reasonwhy this was possibleis clear enough. Plato wasregardedas having "Pythagorized",not only in the Timaeus,butthroughouthis entireoeuvre.64 s the moreancientfigure,Pythagoraswasthe creative ource,butPlatohadworkedouthisthought n greaterphilosophicaldetail. In practicethis meant that PythagoreanscouldclaimPlatonistdoctrineas anintegralpartof theira't'patS,uthadmorespeculative reedom,because heywere ess tiedto the studyof Plato'swritings.65hebestindividual xamples thephilosopherNumenius.AsWhittaker remarks, "in spite of his frequent designation as a

    11

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    13/23

    DAVID T. RUNIA

    Pythagorean, the content of Numenius' surviving fragments is in themain more Platonic than Pythagorean."66Turning to Clement, we seethat he on various occasions associates Pythagoras (or Pythagoreans)and Plato.67He argues that Plato drew the doctrine of the immortalityof the soul from Pythagoras, and even locates a non-existentPythagorean in one of Plato's dialogues.68 The suggestion may bemade, therefore, that when Clement calls Philo "the Pythagorean", heis indicating that he has recognized not only Pythagorean themes, butalso the dominant Platonist element in Philo's thought, for both aspectsare covered under the single epithet.

    A difficult choiceWe are thus left with two alternative answers to our question. It is

    possible that Clement calls Philo "the Pythagorean" on account of therole that arithmology or number-symbolism plays in his thought, andespecially in his exegesis. It is also possible that the epithet refers to thedominant Platonist strain in his thought. Which of these alternativesdeserves our preference? It might be argued that we need not choose,since Clement may have had a plurality of reasons.69 Nevertheless Ithink it is useful to determine one's prioritieson this issue, and althoughcertainty cannot be attained, I believe that two arguments support thelatter view. Firstly, as we said earlier, the context of the two texts inwhich Philo receives this designation is apologetic rather thanexegetical, i.e. the antiquity of the Jews compared with Greek philoso-phy, and the derivation of the Platonic telos-formula from Moses. Thesecond passage is also overtly doxographical (in the broad sense of theterm), even if the mention of Philo strictly speaking refers only to a bonmot.70 Clement thus has more to gain from the statement that Philo waswell-acquainted with a major direction of Greek thought. A second,admittedly less strong, argument is that Clement nowhere uses the termflXaxoovxos in order to designate a philosopher. This suggests that hemay have wanted to avoid the term (for whateverreason), and preferredthe more dignified title of HnuOaroperos.e thus find ourselves in broadagreement with David Winston when he writes:7' "It is thus clear thatthe expression "Pythagorean" does not preclude one from being aPlatonist. Clement's designation of Philo as a "Pythagorean" wastherefore probably not meant to preclude his being a Platonist, but was

    12

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    14/23

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

    used only to indicate that both he and Plato had "Pythagorized"." Myproviso would be, however, that we take "Platonist" here to indicateaffinity to the thought of an haeresis, and not in the stronger sense ofa membership of or affiliation with such an haeresis (or school ofthought). For it would be rash to think that Clement had overlooked theobvious fact that Philo's loyalty and devotion were primarily, indeedperhaps even exclusively, to the "school of Moses".72

    The attitude behind the titleThere remains a final question to be discussed in relation to the

    epithet that Clement bestows on Philo. We noted at the outset that itwould be more expected that he name him "Philo the Jew (or Hebrew)"as an indication of his ethnic and religious provenance. Does a negativeaspect lie concealed in the epithet "the Pythagorean", that is to say,negative either towards Philo's Jewish background or towards his paganlearning?It was suggested nearly a century ago by F. C. Conybeare that Cle-ment may have given Philo this title in order to conceal his Jewishness:73

    If we examinethe references o Philo madeby Christianwriters n thisearlier ime,we find that theywere ratherashamed o quotePhilo;or, ifnot quitethat, at leastnot inclined o regardhim as an authority,whoseapprovalof an institution should at once command its acceptancebyChristians.Let us examinea few of thesereferences...Clementof Alexan-driain his Stromateis lludesto Philo as 6 IluOay6peto;.id Christians fthe late thirdcentury sic) care for the authorityof a Pythagorean?This approach is not convincing. In fact Clement's writings reveal sur-prisingly little contact with the Jewish community of his day (which maynot yet have recovered from the terrible events earlier in the century),and certainly very little inclination to engage in open and direct discus-sion with them.74Rather we should argue that both Clement and Origenhad on the whole a relatively neutral, or even sometimes a selectivelyfavourable attitude to contemporary Judaism.75It was this "window ofopportunity" presented by the Alexandrian tradition that was in alllikelihood responsible for the survival of Philo's writings in the firstplace.76Clement is quite happy to point out that Josephus is a Jew.77The reason he does not do so in the case of Philo is presumablybecause

    13

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    15/23

    DAVID T. RUNIA

    Philo's Jewish origin is obvious enough, and does not need to beunderlined.Theveryfirst reference o Philo in the Stromateisnvolvesthe etymologyof a biblicalname. Thereadercould be assumed o con-clude that Philo as an exegetestood in the Judaeo-Christianradition.If he was not a Christian, hen he had to be a Jew.Thetitle "Pythagorean"doesnot, therefore,concealPhilo'sJewish-ness, but highlightsan aspect of his thought and writings. In thismeantpositivelyor negatively?The answermustsurelybe the former.Philo stands n the Judaeo-Christianradition,but he is also a learnedman,as expressedn the title, andin the eyesof the "liberal"Clementthis is a positive feature.78Admittedly, on one occasion ClementassociatesPythagoreanismandPlatonism)with heresy, namelywhenhe argues hat Marcionderiveshis doctrineof the evilnatureof matterfrom that source.79But, given Clement'scomparatively avourableattitudeto the Platonisttradition,we are not surprisedo reada fewlines laterthatthe heretichasmisrepresentedheoriginaldoctrine.Cle-ment'sattitude s brought ntoclearreliefwhen t is comparedwith thatof his youngercontemporaryHippolytus,for whomthe titlesPythag-oreanand Platonisteasilybecome terms of abuse whenbrought ntoconnection with heretical thought. Having given a summary ofPythagorean ndPlatonicdoctrine,he states hatit was"fromthis,andnot from the gospels, as we shall demonstrate, hat Valentinusdrewtogetherhishairesis i.e. alternativemode of thought),and so he shouldrightlybe considered Pythagorean nda Platonist,nota Christian".80Theattitudebehindcallingsomeonea "Pythagorean"n this context sthe oppositeto that involvedwhen ClementgivesPhilo the same title.What Clementregards positively, Hippolytusviews negatively.Thesame differences wellillustrated y another ext,namely he Sentencesof Sextus. This collection of aphorismswas attributedby some to"Sextusthe Pythagorean".Jerome n the 4th centurystronglypolemi-cizesagainst t as the work of "a manwithout Christand a heathen",arguing hatthosewhoread t takeover variousperniciousPythagoreandoctrinesand so "drinkof thegoldencupof Babylon".8'Butthe workin its Christian orm, according o Chadwick'sreconstruction f thetradition,was probablycompiledbetween 180 and 210 by a writerwhose kindred piritwas Clementof Alexandria ndwhosemottomighthave been Pythagoras saepe noster.82This is close to the spirit in whichClementcallsPhilo "thePythagorean",whereasJerome'sattitude s acontinuationof what we found in Hippolytus.

    14

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    16/23

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

    Later sourcesAs noted at the outset two Christian authors subsequent to Clementrefer to Philo's Pythagoreanism. By way of an epilogue some brief com-ments should be made on these texts. If our interpretation of theClementine title is correct, then it would appear that Eusebius, by

    describing Philo as "one who showed zeal for the philosophicaldiscipline of Plato and Pythagoras",83 reveals a perfect understandingof what Clement will have meant by it. It is uncertain, however, whetherEusebius is here derivinghis information from Clement's Stromateis. Inthis text he is embellishing what he read in Josephus, where, as we sawearlier,84Philo is described as "not unskilled in philosophy", a passagewhich the Church historian cites verbatim.85But where does he get hisextra information from? It is possible that he recalled Clement'sepithet.86It is equally possible that he drew on his own reading of Philoin the library of Caesarea.87Another possibility is that the source thathe used for the legend of Philo Christianus contained more informationon Philo. This source may have been the Hypotyposeis, an importantwork of Clement now most regrettablylost.88The suggestion gains sup-port if we take the other later text into consideration. Sozomen too, aswe saw, calls Philo "the Pythagorean". Where did he, heavily indebtedto earlier sources as he was89,get his information from? It has been sug-gested that the passage in Eusebius just mentioned was his source.90Thisis possible (though why should he choose the school of one philosopherat the expense of that of the other, which was in fact more famous?).But there is also another possibility. A few pages earlier (1.1.12)Sozomen informs his reader that he has written a short account of thehistory of the Church up to the time of Constantine in two books, inwhich one of his sources was "Clement" (in addition to Eusebius). Hemay mean the Pseudo-Clementina,91but he may also mean Clement ofAlexandria, in which case the lost Hypotyposeis would again be a can-didate, since we know that it contained much quasi-historical materialon the Apostolic age. It is in any case probable that Sozomen's descrip-tion of Philo as "the Pythagorean" derives from the narrowAlexandrian-Caesarean tradition that we have been investigating.A final matter of related interest is the bon mot on Philo and Platowhich began to circulate in the Eastern Church, and which is firstrecorded in Isidore of Pelusium and Jerome, I Xa&ovcpXovCet1 tX,ovtXatcovet.92 One wonders whether the expression was not formulated

    15

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    17/23

    DAVID T. RUNIA

    withhalf an eye on the well-knowndictumthat6 IIXa,ov uo00ayopLtet.93Certainly t was no less true to say from the contemporaryPlatonistpoint of view that iHluOay6pacrXa,TovieL HXATnovruOayopitehan itwas for Christians to say that II,Xa'cov ptXovit n i',XovcXaxtoviEt.Summaryof results

    Theargumenthat we havepursuednthisarticlemaybe summarizedalongthe followinglines. WhenClementon two occasionscalls Philo"the Pythagorean", he epithet s surprising ecause t does not locatehim in the Judaeo-Christianraditionwhere,also for Clement(in thelightof hisborrowings), eprimarily elongs.Inboth casesthecontext,though revealing,does not explainthe epithet fully. In one of the twopassages Philo's name is coupled with that of "AristobulusthePeripatetic".This secondtitlegivesus a vitalclue, for it canclearlybeshown that it must refer not to any kind of "membershipof" or"affiliation with" the Peripateticschool, but rather an affinity ofthought (even if what this is remainsratherpuzzling).For Clement,therefore,Philo shows an affinity of thought with Pythagoreanism.Twoplausible xplanations an begivenfor what such anaffinitymightbe, morespecifically he role thatarithmologyplaysin his exegesis,ormoregenerally he dominantPlatoniststrainin his thought (includedunder the title Pythagoreanbecause it was recognizedthat "PlatoPythagorized").Thechoice between hese twoexplanationss difficult,but we opt for the second. Clement is not tryingto conceal Philo'sJewishness.Given his relatively"liberal"stance,the title must be seenas a complimentn the directionof hisJewishpredecessor.Thispositiveattitude s important rom the historicalpointof view, for ultimatelytleadto the survivalof Philo's worksthrough he intermediation f theEpiscopalLibraryof Caesarea.94

    NOTES' For a full account of this process see my Philo in Early ChristianLiterature: a Survey.Compendia RerumIudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum III 3 (Assen-Minneapolis 1993).2 avnpa av,a Fv8oqoS... xa1t XL(P0om0 uxoaCEpom .3 Clement of Alexandria and his Use of Philo in the Stromateis: an Early ChristianReshaping of a Jewish Model, Vigiliae Christianae Supplements 3 (Leiden 1988); see esp.211-216.

    16

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    18/23

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

    4 The text used is that of StAhlin-Frichtel-Treu (GCS). It is possible that Clement alsorefers to Philo at Str. 1.152.2, but if so, he is mistaken (it should be Philo the Elder, thehistorian, = RE (46)).5 Note how Clement is heavily dependent on a source, but only mentions its namesincidentally. This frequent habit of ancient authors was heavily exploited in the methodof Quellenforschung developed in classical studies in the 19th century, an essentially riskyprocedure because the extent of the dependence can only be determined if the exploitedsource is still extant (in which case the results of the Quellenforschung are generally ofmuch less significance).6 Perhaps too because it is an unusual and contestable (since chronologically implausi-ble) piece of information.7 Hist. Eccl. 1.12.9, referring of course to Philo's account of the Therapeutae.8 Hist. Eccl. 2.4.3.9 For example, at Praep. Evang. 9.6.5 he quotes the words of Clement that immediatelyfollow his mention of Philo the Pythagorean at Str. 1.72.4. Nearly a dozen extracts fromStr. 1.69-75 are cited throughout books 9 and 10 of Praep. Evang. I return to this questionlater in my paper.10 As I have shown in a recent article, Philo is in fact not called "the Jew" in our sourcesuntil the second half of the 4th century. Until then he is "Philo the Hebrew"; see"Philonic Nomenclature", The Studia Philonica Annual 6 (1994) 1-27, esp. 14-20." Cf. op. cit. (n. 3) 107, 179, 184.12 See D. Barthelemy, "Est-ce Hoshaya Rabba qui censura le "Commentaire Allegori-que"? A partir des retouches faites aux citations bibliques, etude sur la tradition textuelledu Commentaire Allegorique de Philon", in Philon d'Alexandrie: Lyon 11-15 Septembre1966; colloques nationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Paris 1967)60, and also Runia op. cit. (n. 1) 22-23.13 See P. Wendland, "Philo und Clemens Alexandrinus", Hermes 31 (1896) 435-456,and my "Underneath Cohn and Colson: the Text of Philo's De virtutibus", Society ofBiblical Literature Seminar Papers 30 (1991) 116-134, esp. 124-127.14 Previous research on this question has been limited to scattered observations. Seebelow notes 44 and 71 on the research of R. Radice and D. Winston. I have raised thequestion without giving an adequate answer at op. cit. (n. 1) 136 and in an article "WasPhilo a Middle Platonist? A Difficult Question Revisited", The Studia Philonic Annual5 (1993) 133.'5 Cf. Alcinous, Did. 2 153.8, 28 181.19 Whittaker, S. R. C. Lilla, Clement of Alexan-dria: a Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism, Oxford Theological Monographs(Oxford 1971) 106-110, and for Philo see my Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus ofPlato, Philosophia Antiqua 44 (Leiden 19862)341-343.16 So I interpretthe phrase zap&LtvJovOTXoyiov,since the whole context concerns howGreek ethics takes its starting point from Moses. Origen's words at C. Cels. 4.39 couldbe taken as a paraphraseof/commentary on Clement's text: "It is not quite clear whetherPlato happened to hit on these matters by chance, or whether, as some think, on his visitto Egypt he met even with those who interpret the Jews' traditions philosophically, andlearnt some ideas from them, some of which he kept, and some of which he slightlyaltered..." (translation Chadwick). On the entire subject see further the texts assembledby H. Dorrie and M. Baltes, Der Platonismus in der Antike, Band 2: Der hellenistischeRahmen des kaiserzeitlichenPlatonismus (Stuttgart 1990), ?69-71 (texts at 1290-219, com-mentary at 480ff.).

    17

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    19/23

    DAVID T. RUNIA

    17 Cf. D. Wyrwa, Die christliche Platonaneignung in den Stromateis des Clemens vonAlexandrien, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte53 (Berlin-New York 1983) 298-316, and forthe theme before Clement P. Pilhofer, Presbyteron kreitton: Der Alterbeweis derjudischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte, WUNT 2.39 (Tlbingen1990). Wyrwa 148-152 denies its presence in Book II, making a distinction between theclaims of theft and of dependence, but this question is not relevant to our present under-taking."8 L. Cohn and P. Wendland, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt (Berlin 1896-1915) 4.124 (the work of Cohn); the suggestion was taken over by Stahlin-Friichtel in theGCS edition of Clement (2.168).'9 As noted by Van den Hoek op. cit. (n. 3) 184. The verb eauoXyi is in fact not foundin our extant Philo.20 There are references to Greek teachers at Mos. 1.21 and 23, i.e. on either side of thetext on natural abilities adapted here21 Cf. the more specific words lv Tx) Moua'co&PiC) t Str. 1.152.2.22 See the lists at A. Mehat, Ltudes sur les "Stromates" de Clement d'Alexandrie,Patristica Sorbonensia 7 (Paris 1966) 238, Van den Hoek op. cit. (n. 3) 71-72.23 Op. cit. (n. 17) 144.24 A very similar procedure occurs at Str. 5.73, as I pointed out in op. cit. (n. 1) 147.25 I take section XV = ?66-73 as a single unit in the argument.26 Cf. my remarks on his use of the celebrated text Tim. 22b on the juvenility of theGreeks compared with the Egyptians at op. cit. (n. 15) 77.27 "Die Therapeuten und die philonische Schrift vom beschaulichen Leben", Jahrbuchfur die Philologie Supplbd 22 (1896) 770, cf. 709-715. Van den Hoek op. cit. (n. 3) 179classifies the text as D, i.e. non-dependence on Philo, but this should be qualified.28 There is no need to document what follows in detail. Particularlyinfluential have beenthe studies of J. Glucker; see esp. his Antiochus and the Late Academy, Hypomnemata56 (Gottingen 1978), esp. 174ff., and "Cicero's Philosophical Affiliations", in J. M.Dillon and A. A. Long (edd.), The Question of "Eclecticism" (Berkeley 1988) 34-69(where he promotes the terms "affiliation" and "membership").29 On the public position of philosophers in the 2nd century see now J. Hahn, DerPhilosoph und die Gesellschaft: Selbstverstandnis, offentliches Auftreten und populareErwartungen in der hohen Kaiserzeit (Stuttgart 1989), on Athens 118ff.30 Cf. texts cited at Fragmente der Vorsokratiker31Al1, 82A10 Diels-Kranz, and cf. J.Mansfeld, Heresiography in Context: Hippolytus' Elenchos as a Sourcefor GreekPhilos-ophy, Philosophia Antiqua 56 (Leiden 1992), esp. chap. 8.31 For the references see the useful overview in the GCS edition of Clement (ed. Stahlin-Frichtel-Treu), 4.171-172, s.v. Inuory6potosnd nu0ayoptx6;.32 Str. 1.71.1, cf. 5.8.4.

    3 See esp. Plut. Numa 1.2-3, and cf. 8.4-10, 14.2-3, 22.3-4.34 Str. 5.102.2.35 Cf. for example U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Pindaros (Berlin 1922) 251:"Pythagoreisches laf3tsich bei Pindar durchaus nichts nachweisen, es sei denn die Seelen-wanderung, die doch in Hintergrundebleibt"; also E. Thummer, Die Religiositat Pindars(Innsbruck 1957) 121-130, W. Burkert, Greek Religion (Oxford 1985) 300-301.36 The term nIXao.vtx6os a late development, emerging towards the end of the 1st cent.A.D. See Glucker op. cit. (n. 28) 134-137, 206-225; also my "Philosophical heresiography:

    18

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    20/23

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

    evidencen two recentlypublishednscriptions",ZPE 72 (1988)243. Clementalso doesnot use the earlier erm Axa8olijiox6i;nsteadhe speaksof o{ ix Tri'Axa871Atiaen his longdoxography n the telos at Str. 2.129.8 (theonly case).37 Str. 5.88.5 (Clementmentionsthe title probably n order to emphasize hat fourseparate choolsregardmatteras one of the archai).At Str. 1.63.4 in the surveyof thesuccessions of the philosophers Aristotle is recorded as having founded the ntspwlrXjTtxT

    peetes t te etetet..38 See the list in the GCS edition of Clement (ed. Stahlin-Friichtel-Treu), 4.163.39 The standardworkremainsby N. Walter,Der Thoraausleger ristobulos:Unter-suchungenzu seinen Fragmentenund zu pseudepigraphischen esten der jidisch-hellenistischenLiteratur,TU 86 (Berlin 1964). Walterappearsto have succeeded ndispellinghesceptical iewsof 19thandearly20thcentury.An English ranslation f thefragmentsby A. YarbroCollins is found in J. H. Charlesworth,TheOld TestamentPseudepigraphaLondon1983-85) .837-842.Further ibliographys givenat E. Schiirer,G. Vermes t al., TheHistoryof the Jewishpeoplein theAge of JesusChrist,3 vols. in4 (Edinburgh 973-87) .587. I have derivedmuchprofitfrom an unpublished aperbyC. R. Holladay,who is about to publisha new edition andcommentary.40 Lucidoverviewat Walter,op. cit. 7-9. Presumably copy was takenby Origen oCaesarea,as happenedn the case of the Philoniccorpus.41 Fr. 5 at Eus. Praep. Evang. 13.12.9ff. (whichalso includes the reference o thePeripatetics).The non-literalnterpretation f the creationaccount,whichanticipatesPhilo's laterinterpretation,s not the same as denyingcreationaltogether.42 Walterop. cit. 12, followedby Holladay seen. 39 above).43 M. Hengel,Judaism nd Hellenism: tudies n theirEncounternPalestineduring heEarlyHellenisticPeriod, =Eng. trans.of German2ndedition,1973 London 1974)164and n. 373;cf. Schirerop. cit. (n. 39)3.579,where t is suggestedhat hemighthaveevenbeen a memberof the Alexandrianmuseum.44 R. Radice,Lafilosofia di Aristobuloe i suoi nessicon il De MundoattribuitoadAristotele Milan 1994),esp. 29 and 73-95.45 There s onlyevidence romsilence.Theother ndependentwitnesses o Aristobulus,theauthorof 2 Macc.andBishopAnatolius, aynothingaboutphilosophical ffiliation,and stressonly his Jewishness.46 Fr. 4= Eus. Praep. Evang. 13.12.8.47 Str. 1.150.1-3.48 I prefer this formulation to that of Walter when he says the term indicatesAristobulus'"Bildung" anddraws he parallelwithPhilo as Pythagorean).Clement snot concernedwith his education aboutwhichhepresumably nowsnothing),but withthe directionof his thought.49 Philo himselfdoes not use thephrase71 'peit roo Mouaicos,but note theverycommonexpression (yv&pqtotouMcouaeoxe.g. at Det. 86, Spec. 1.345etc.), the reference o theschools (BLtxaxaXtxa)where Jews devote themselves on the sabbath to the acquisition ofknowledge, and the description of the Therapeutae as having -Tg atpi'aws &dpX1TyrTaLhohave shown them the wayin allegorical xegesis Contempl.29).50 Nine referencesn all:Opif. 100,Leg. 1.15, QG 1.17, 1.99, 3.16, 3.49, 4.8, Prob. 2,Aet. 12. This is a relativelyargenumberf comparedwith Philo'spracticen thecaseofother Greekphilosophers.Forexamplehe mentionsPlato only 14times,of which halfare in Aet.

    19

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    21/23

    DAVID T. RUNIA

    51 Best recent treatment in H. R. Moehring, "Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool in theWritings of Philo of Alexandria", SBL SeminarPapers 13 (1978) 1.191-229; about to bereprinted in J.P. Kenney (ed.), Moehring Memorial Volume (Atlanta 1995).52 Opif. 100 and Leg. 1.15 (hebdomad and monad), QG 3.49 (thirty-six), 4.8 (triad).53 On these texts see further Van den Hoek op. cit. (n. 3) 152-160, 196, 205 (she shouldhave included this last passage in her group of "short sequences" instead of among the"isolated references").54 J. M. Dillon, The Middle Platonists (London 1977) 156 regards these statements byPhilo as "an essentially rhetorical flourish", but does see a connection with thePythagorizing early Middle Platonist Eudorus.55 Cf. also Radice op. cit. (n. 44) 20.56 E.g. the injunction "not to walk on the highways", cited by Philo at Prob. 2 and alsoreferred to by Clement at Str. 5.31.1, which could be taken in an esoteric rather than aprotreptic sense. At Str. 4.3.1 Clement takes over the Platonic language of the greaterandlesser mysteries; cf. Philo Sacr. 62 and Van den Hoek op. cit. (n. 3) 188. This possibleinterpretation of the epithet "Pythagorean" for Philo is suggested by Radice, op. cit. (n.44) 21, who also points to the prominence of the "contemplative life" in Pythagoreanthought. Note, however, that Pythagoras or Pythagoreanism are not mentioned at all inPhilo's De vita contemplativa.57 Cf. Migr. 128-131, Abr. 60, taken over by Clement in Str. 2.69.4, cf. 2.100.4. In theformer text Clement brings out the connection with Pythagoras more clearly than Philo,although he does not mention him by name (-rXtov sap' "EXXrlatopocv).The latter textfollows just a few lines after the mention of Philo as the Pythagorean (see the text citedat the beginning of the article). But it would be wrong to see a direct connection with thePythagorean formula IEoooat0,ci , which Clement does not even mention here, unlikePhilo, who refers to it twice at Migr. 128 and 131.58 Referred to by Clement at Str. 7.32.8. It is far from clear that Philo subscribes to thedoctrine of metempsychosis (cf. Runia, op. cit. (n. 15) 346-349), but there are a fewisolated passages which an interpretercould read in this way if he wished (cf. esp. Somn.1.139).59 As investigated at length in my doctoral dissertation cited above in n. 15.60 See n. 53.61 See Dorrie-Baltes, op. cit (n. 16), texts at 24, commentary 253ff.62 Str. 1.166.1, 5.114.4. The second text attributes a passage to Timaeus Locrus, but itis not found in the work under his name still extant; cf. W. Marg, Timaeus Locrus Denatura mundi et animae (Leiden 1972) 85ff.63 The last word has not been said on this question. See the comments of J. Whittaker,"Platonic Philosophy in the Early Empire", ANRW 2.36.1 (Berlin-New York 1987) 117-121, J. M. Dillon in Dillon and Long, op. cit. (n. 28) 119-125, D. J. O'Meara, PythagorasRevived (Oxford 1989) 9ff. But the question of the "institutional" relation between thetwo movements is still far from clear.64 Dorrie-Baltes, op. cit. 247, who for the phrase 6 HlXdcwv7uOrayopi(t refer to Aetius2.6.6 Diels, Numenius fr. 24.57 Des Places, Apuleius Flor. 15.65 As noted by Whittaker, art. cit. (n. 63) 120.66 Ibid. 119. Cf. also M. Frede, "Numenius", ANRW 2.36.2 (Berlin-New York 1987)1047, who says of this case: "Jedenfalls is soviel klar, da3 der Ausdruck "Pythagoreer"selbst fur einen Platoniker nicht ausschlief3t,daB es sich bei der bezeichneten Person um

    20

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    22/23

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

    einen Platonikerhandelt..." But his observation hat mainlyChristianauthorscallNumeniusa "Pythagorean"s a redherring.67 Str.1.68.2, 3.12.1,5.29.3,5.58.6,5.88.1 and89.5(withAristotleaswell),5.99.3(withSocrates,citingAristobulus).68 Str.6.27.2, 1.48.2;on the relationbetweenPythagoras nd Platoin Clement, eefur-ther Lillaop. cit. (n. 15)41-45. He pointsat 43 to the revealingext at JustinDial. 5.6,where heyoungJustin,whois studyingn a Platonist chool(cf. 2.6) is made o saythatPlato andPythagoraswere"wisemen,who havebeena walland a pillar orphilosophy".69 As Prof. Eric Osbornpointsout to me.70 See our discussionof the passageearlier n the article.71 At TheStudiaPhilonicaAnnual5 (1993)145-6, n responseo myarticle"WasPhiloa MiddlePlatonist?"at ibid. 112-140.72 On Walter'sview that the epithetindicatesPhilo's "philosophischeBildung"seeaboven. 48. Better s theexplanation f D. Wyrwa,op. cit. (n. 17)85,whoarguesnpass-ing that it means "die Gefolgschaftn einerphilosophischenRichtung".73 Philo abouttheContemplative ife (Oxford1895,repr.NewYork1987)328-329.Hisfirstexample left out in the quote)is Justin,but the workscitedarepseudonymous.74 Cf. myremarks t op. cit. (n. 1) 149-150 withfurther eferences).At Str. 2.2.1 Cle-ment statesthathe will use somescriptureextsin the hopethat "the Jewmayhearhiswordsand convert rom what he believed o the Onein whomhe did not believe". AsEricOsbornremarks,"Clementwanted o convertJewsand to do it quietly.Therewastraffic in the oppositedirection.ClementattackedJudaisersn a separatework"(p. 148in his forthcomingarticle n Origeniana exta).But according o EusebiusHist. Eccl.6.12.3 this work, entitled Ki&vovxxXTCntmaaotxo6;Ipo TousIou8Ot1ovraS,was dedicated toAlexander,Bishopof Jerusalem,withwhomClementhad close contactafter his depar-turefromAlexandria, nd so maybe the productof a quitedifferentsituation hantheStromateiswrittena decadeor more earlier.75 On Origensee also N. R. M. De Lange,Origenand the Jews: Studies n Jewish-ChristianRelations n Third-Centuryalestine Cambridge 976).76 See my conclusionsat op. cit. (n. 1) 344-346.77 Str. 1.147.2,to my knowledgehe onlynamednon-biblical erson o be called suchin his works.78 Forthetitle cf. thesplendiddescriptionf H. Chadwick,EarlyChristianThought ndthe ClassicalTradition: tudies nJustin,Clement ndOrigen Oxford1966,19842)hap.2, "The LiberalPuritan".79 Str. 3.12-13;on this text see A. Le Boulluec,La notiond'here'sie ans la litteraturegrecqueIIe-IIIeiecles,2 vols. (Paris 1985)290.80 Refutatio 6.29.1: otLau6rr... i IHuoay6pouai nHXarovo; uverlxE6 86a, &a' fSOua0evrSvo0,ux&7sOC&VrwTayXiov,TTvpiatpvrTTviauroauva'TOyaov, lC8tiS(ot,Lev,txoai)oIlnuOaoptxo6atnXarovtvix6;,uiXpmtxav6;oytaoeiT1.ote how the authorbothtimescon-nects the philosopherswith xai, implying hat they represent he same "directionofthought".On thistext andits contextsee furtherMansfeld,op. cit. (n. 30) 177-203.Hip-polytustakes over this attitude rom(histeacher?) renaeus, f. Adv. haer. 2.14.6.81 JeromeEp. 133.3,citedby H. Chadwick,TheSentences f Sextus Cambridge 959)120.82 Ibid. 160(withan elegantadaptationof Tertullian's laimSenecasaepenoster,Deanima20.1) andpassim.

    21

  • 8/13/2019 clemente pitagorico.pdf

    23/23

    DAVID T. RUNIA

    83 See above n. 8 and text thereto.84 See above n. 2 and text thereto.85 Hist. Eccl. 2.4.3 (description of Philo), 2.5.2-5 (citation of Josephus).86 See above n. 9 on his knowledge of the Stromateis.8' On which his catalogue of Philo's writings in Hist. Eccl. 2.18 is based.88 As I suggest at op. cit. (n. 1) 7.89 The extant history shows a great dependence on the earlier work of SocratesEcclesiasticus. Prof. J. Bremmer suggests to me that Sozomen may have concluded thatPhilo 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). I do not knowif Sozomen was sophisticated enough to be capable of this. As mentioned above (n. 56),Philo makes no mention of Pythagoreanism in Contempl., but Sozomen most likely hadnot read this work anyway.90 In the note at B. Grillet, G. Sabbah and A.-J. Festugiere, Sozomene HistoireEcclesiastique, SC 308 (Paris 1983) 166.9' As argued at ibid. 116.92 On this saying see Runia op. cit. (n. 1) 4, 208, 313, 319 (where I argue that "theGreeks" among whom according to Jerome the proverb circulates are likely to be Greek-speaking Church fathers).93 On which see aboven. 64.94 My thanks to the editors of this journal, to my colleagues J. Mansfeld and A. P. Bos,to Prof. Eric Osborn (Melbourne), and finally to the members of the Dutch PatristischGenootschap voor OudchristelijkeStudien for various constructive remarks, which helpedme formulate my views with more precision.As this article was going to the press Dr. Annewies van den Hoek (Harvard) kindly drewmy attention to an important text that I had overlooked. Codex Baroccianus gr. 142, fol.216 records a notice in which the fifth-century Church historian Philip of Side gives a listof the succession of the heads of the Alexandrian catechetical school, beginning withAthenagoras and ending with Rhodon. In this list Pantaenus (who is described as Cle-ment's pupil ) is called an Athenian and "a Pythagorean philopher" (text at G.C.Hansen, Theodoros Anagnostes Kirchengeschichte, GCS (Berlin 1971) 160). This state-ment contradicts the report of Eusebius in HE 5.10.2, who says that according to traditionPantaenus had "started from the philosphical school of thought (qLX60aoosy&oyi.)of theso-called Stoics". Philip's statement is too short to interpretwith any confidence. If it hasany factual basis, it can be read in a similar way to my interpretation of "Philo thePythagorean", i.e. as referringto an affinity of thought. On the other hand, the formula-tion of Eusebius' statement suggests it may refer to Pantaenus' affiliation before heturned to Christianity. On the notice of Philip see now the detailed analysis of B.Pouderon, "Le temoignage du codex Baroccianus 142 sur Athenagore et les origines duDidaskaleion d'Alexandrie', Archipel Egeen: Publication de l'Universite de Tours,Departement d'tudes Helleniques, fascicule 1, 1992, 23-63.

    Rijnsburgerweg 116, 2333 AE Leiden, The Netherlands

    22