Robert M. Grant is professor of New Testament and Early Christianity in the Divinity School of the University of Chicago.
This paper was first delivered as the Presidential Address at the dinner meeting of The American Society of Church History on December 29, 1970 in Boston.
Because the course of human events is never as clear as the official historian 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 historian 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 certainty, since this history has been transcribed 'in cipher'.
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 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 mentions details about the episcopal synods, complaints about Origen's orthodoxy, and his correspondence with various important persons. 
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.  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.  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 Alexandrians 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 Eusebius' 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.  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 taking an oath necessary.? We do not need to accept later gossip about his use of drugs to improve his phenomenal memory,  or about his actually offering sacrifice to the gods though against his will.  It is a fact, however, that Demetrius' condemnation of him was approved by all the churches of the eastern world except those of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaea.  His real humanity resulted 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. 
It is clear enough that Eusebius' picture of Christian beginnings at Alexandria 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."  One may also learn how wrong Eusebius is.
On the other hand, it is highly probable that Alexandrian Christianity did emerge out of Alexandrian 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.' The Gnostic Basilides taught there, but Eusebius knows little about him and cares less.  To find out more about Christian teaching we must take a glance at more reliable sources for the period.
The Christian teacher Pantaenus is certainly a shadow, whether great or small. Indeed, as Walter Bauer demonstrated, Alexandrian Christian orthodoxy itself is a shadow or, to change the figure, perhaps a mirage.  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. Numenius is usually called a Middle Platonist nowadays, but both Clement and Origen explicitly called him a Pythagorean.  The apologist Justin, when still a pagan and under Middle Platonist influences, spoke of both Plato and Pythagoras as the foundations of philosophy.  Several notions about Alexandrian Christian Gnostics point toward Pythagorean influences upon them. Basilides, for example, was said to impose a five-year period of silence on his followers "in Pythagorean fashion."  The doctrine of two souls held by his son Isidore was Pythagorean, according to Clement of Alexandria.  In a fragment quoted by Clement, Isidore expressly appealed to the authority of the ancient Pherecydes, who in turn was said to have relied on a Jewish apocalypse of Ham  - and according to tradition, Pherecydes was one of Pythagoras' teachers.  According to Irenaeus, the Gnostic Carpocrates taught the doctrine of transmigration and insisted on the secrecy of Jesus' teaching; small wonder that his followers venerated statues of Christ and of other philosophers, the first of whom is listed as Pythagoras.  Irenaeus also claimed, rightly, that the number speculation of the Valentinians was Pythagorean in inspiration. 
Pythagorean influence was strong not only on Alexandrian Christians who were viewed as Gnostics but 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 definitely stated that he was a Pythagorean.  To be sure, Eusebius called him an ex-Stoic,  but he may have been trying to muddy the philosophical waters.
Eusebius' other story about Pantaenus may point in the same direction. According to this, Pantaenus took the Christian gospel to India. We do not deny that there were links between India and Alexandria, or that such an early Christian writer as Hippolytus was acquainted, at first - or second-hand, with authentic Indian ideas.  It is easy, however, to exaggerate the importance of such contacts; we may mention the supposed discovery of non-Semitic, "Aryan" ideas behind Ammonius Saccas by Erich Seeberg  or the theories of Ernst Benz about Indian influences on Alexandrian Christianity.  Seventy years ago J. Kennedy claimed that the system of Basilides was "Buddhist Gnosticism."  It is more likely that the debt to India in all these instances was really a debt to the Neopythagoreans. Numenius, for example, claimed that Greek philosophy went back to the wisdom of the Brahmans, the Jews, the Magi, and the Egyptians.  Similarly Philostratus said that Pythagoras derived his rule of life from India via the "naked sages" of Egypt.  We therefore suggest that Pantaenus' mission to India symbolizes the presumed presence of Indian elements in his Pythagoreanism or his Christianity or both. We cannot say much more, for Eusebius' account is full of such expressions as "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. 
Unfortunately we do not possess enough information for us to accept the theory of H. Langerbeck that Pantaenus was a great synthesizer of Stoic and Pythagorean ideas on a Christian foundation.  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.  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.  He interpreted the numerological significance of the Decalogue in a Pythagorean manner.  In turn, he took a Pythagorean explanation of the master's "symbols" or passwords and correlated it with verses from the Bible.  He definitely viewed Pythagorean allegorization as the same method as his own.  Finally, he believed that the Pythagorean communities prefigured the Christian church. 
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 Egyptians, the Indians, the Babylonians or Chaldaeans and the Magi. Clement faithfully reports the varying opinions on this subject.  The Hellenistic Jewish writer Aristobulus, however, had shown Clement that much of Pythagoras' teaching came to him from the Hebrews, chiefly from Moses.  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.  Paul's statement that "it is good not to eat meat or drink wine" (Rom. 14:21) is what the Pythagoreans taught.  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. 
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."  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 Neopythagorean life and thought, and we venture to suggest that this was one of the points about the Alexandrian school which Eusebius rather thoroughly suppressed. He was embarrassed by the statement of the Neoplatonist (and Neopythagorean) Porphyry to the effect that Ammonius Saccas introduced the Christian Origen not only to Plato but also to such Neopythagorean writers as Numenius, Cronius, Moderatus, and Nicomachus.  Let us look, then, at a letter from Origen from which Eusebius provided a brief extract.  It tells us that Origen had "found" Heraclas "with the master of philosophical disciplines"; he had been with him for five years before the time when Origen began to "hear the teaching." Since this teacher was Ammonius Saccas, whose teaching his other pupils regarded as secret,  is it not possible that the five-year period is precisely the five years of Pythagorean silence? In other words, it may well be the case that Heraclas was Ammonius' first Christian pupil 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 Christian pupils in similar fashion. We know from the apologist Justin that Pythagorean teachers insisted upon such preliminary studies as music, astronomy, and geometry, for they took the soul away from objects of sense and directed it toward noetic objects.  Just so, at Alexandria Origen offered instruction in "geometry and arithmetic and the other preliminary studies" to those who were naturally suited for them; after that he would introduce them to the writings of the philosophers.  As usual, Eusebius' account of the school is rather confused. He tells of Origen's concern for introductory courses only after he has already described how he divided up his teaching with Heraclas. Heraclas, he says, provided "the first instruction for those who were just beginning elementary education," while Origen himself gave the lecture (akroasis) for the more advanced students.  But presumably the division of labor took place after Origen had first taught beginners. Eusebius has placed his notice early because he is showing how important Origen was, and how early this was recognized.
One can argue that the similarity between what Origen taught and what the Neopythagoreans taught is due to the general philosophical concerns of both and to the structure of the enkuklios paideia. But it is worth noting that when H.-I. Marrou lists philosophical witnesses to this course of study he gives nine names from the early empire, and five of them are related to the Neopythagorean movement. 
Beyond the introductory courses lay the exegesis of texts regarded as somehow inspired. This is what Eusebius says Origen emphasized when he gave up introductory teaching. It is also what, as C. Prichter showed, was the method of study among the Neoplatonists.  Their allegorical interpretation was not native to Platonism but to the Neopythagorean sources of this aspect of their thought. They would Platonize and Pythagoricize Homer and Hesiod (Porphyry's treatise De antro nympharum provides a good example) just as Origen would find a deeper meaning, often Platonic, in the scriptures.
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 Latin  or to beginning his work in Roman law.  It remains doubtful, in spite of his statements, that he spent the whole five years as a student of theology, for he expected to become a lawyer after leaving Caesarea." His remarks about the grandeur of Roman law suggest that it was fresh in his mind.  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 institutions, 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 the secret doctrines.  In the same treatise he referred to the "Pythagorean" Numenius four times and mentioned the view that Pythagoras' philosophy came from Jewish sources.  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 Christianity to an outsider. 
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. ) 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 individuals, 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 concealing something. What is it this time?
First, Eusebius says that Anatolius wrote arithmetical introductions in ten complete treatises.  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 numerological significance of the first ten numbers.  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 Christianity, 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 Anatolius had taught him; but at Laodicea who else would have done so? Moreover, a reasonable chronology for the life of Iamblichus certainly suggests that he studied with Anatolius after the latter became the bishop of Laodicea. Eusebius could not possibly discuss this subject. In the fifth century Synesius could freely combine Neoplatonic thoughts with the office of a bishop,  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, discontinuous 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 suppress most of the facts pointing to the relationship. These were not the only facts Eusebius suppressed in regard to the Alexandrian school.
First, he apparently found the theological position of Theognostus too difficult to discuss.? He explained how Dionysius denounced Sabellianism and chiliasm,  but made no reference to the attack on his theology by his namesake at Rome. He described Peter, bishop of Alexandria, only as an ascetic and martyr,  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,  not as the man who during his brief episcopate took Arius back into the church. 
But Eusebius could not get even this point straight. Demetrius became bishop in 188/189; his episcopate ended soon after 230/231.  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.  More probably he was finding it difficult 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 contradicted 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 school has is largely due just to the fact that is was a school of religious philosophy 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.  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. 
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.  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.  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 evangelique 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 question 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."  Before Origen Clement had dealt with similar subjects in his late work the Hypotyposes. He had referred to timeless matter and had found Platonic ideas in the Bible; he had spoken of the transmigration of souls and of the many worlds that existed before Adam.  Similarly Origen - following, as he said, Pythagoras, Plato, and Empedocles - was willing to claim that "there are certain secret principles by which each soul that enters a body does so in accordance with its merits and former character."  Danielou has shown that in content much of the secret teaching was related to Jewish apocalypses and then to Gnostic ideas. It seems likely that Pythagorean relations were also involved. The difference between an Alexandrian Christian and an Alexandrian Neopythagorean depends on their varying assessments of different oriental theologies. When Numenius gave a signal for advance by lauding the wisdom of the orient and correlating Plato with Pythagoras, he set the stage, so to speak, for the Alexandrian schools. "Numenius the Pythagorean philosopher explicitly writes, 'What is Plato but Moses in good Greek?'" 
To see the Alexandrian Christians in all their freshness and uniqueness, we must critically analyze the effort Eusebius made to make them seem innocuous and the attempts of Rufinus to make Origen orthodox. Jerome was unpleasant, but he was probably right when he criticized some of Origen's views. The student of early Christianity must take seriously not only geographical variations among Christians but the almost universal phenomenon of "discord between popular faith and learned theology," emphasized long ago by Lebreton. 
The learned theologians, especially at Alexandria, were really trying to use the eclectic philosophy of their time in order to explain their religion. In the long run, what they took from Middle and Neoplatonic metaphysics and Stoic ethics was more important than 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 Neoplatonists like Porphyry and Iamblichus.
  HE VI 23, 4; 33, 4; 36, 4.  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.  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.  HE VI 21, 3-4; ef. G. Herzog in Pauly-Wissowa, BE X 421.  HE VI 31, 2; for Africanus cf. M. J. Routh, Reliquiae saorae (ed. 2, Oxford, 1846), II, 287 (frag. 39).  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.  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.  Epiphanius, Haer. 64, 2, 2-5.  Jerome, Ep. 33, 5 (CSEL 54, 259).  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.  HB II 16-17.  Ibid., IV 2, 1-3.  Ibid., IV 7, 3.  Diog. Laert. I 21; ef. Clement, Str. I 37, 6.  E. R. Dodds in Entretiens tur 'antiquite classiqu V (Geneve, 1960), 32.  Beohtgtiubiglceit und Ketzerei ian altesten Christentwn (Tiibingen, 1934), 49-64.  Clement, Str. I 150, 4; Origen, C. Cels. I 15; IV 51; V 38, 57.  Dial. 5, 6. 20 Eusebius, HE IV 7, 7  8tr. II 114, 2.  Ibid., VI 53, 5.  Ibid., I 61, 4; IV 9, 1; Diog. Laert. I 15; VIII 2; Porphyry, Fit. Pyth. 1; Iambliehus, De vit. pyth. 9.  Adv. haer. I  (pp. 208-10 Harvey).  Ibid., I 1, 1 (p. 9); II 14, 5 (p. 299). For Pythagorean influence on Gnostics elsewhere cf. J. Carcopino, De Pythagore aux aptrees (Paris, 1956), esp. 99-221.  Text in G. Bardy, Bevue biblique 51 (1942), 81-82.  HE V 10, 1-3.  J. Filliozat in esvue de l'histoire des religions, 130 (1945), 59-91.  Zeitschrift fir Kirchengeschichte, 61 (1942), 136-70.  Abhandlungen ... Main, 1951 (no. 3), 173-202.  Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1902), 377-415.  Fragments 9a-b Leemans = Eusebius, Praep. ev. IX 7 and Origen, C. Cels. I 15.  Fit. Apolon. VIII 7 (cf. VI 15).  Str. I 71, 6; cf. A. M6hat, gtude sur le 'Stromates' de Clement d'Alewsdrie (Paris, 1966), 44-45.  Journal of Hellenic Studies, 77 (1957), 71-73; also in Aufsiate sur Gnosis (Abhand- lungen . . . Gttingen III 69, 1967), 157-61.  H. Chadwick, The Sentences of Sextus (Cambridge, 1959).  Str. I 72, 4; 100, 3 (so also to Numenius, I 150, 4).  Str. VI, c. 15; A. Delatte, etudes sur la litterature pythagoricienne (Paris, 1915), 231- 45.  Str. V 27, 2-31, 2.  Eel. proph. 32.  Str. I 66, 2; cf. W. den Boer, De allegorese in het werk van Clemens Alexandrinus (Leiden, 1940), 67.  Str. I 66, 2; 69, 1. 6; 70, 1; VI 57, 2.  Ibid., I 150, 3.  Ibid., IV 9, 1.  Paed. II 11, 1.  Str. VII 32, 5 (ef. Diog. Laert. VIII 13; Iamblichus, De vit. pyth. 25, 35); Sextus, Sent.  Pyth. Sent. 66.  OrigAne et la philosophie (Paris, 1962), 49.  HE VI 19, 8.  HE VI 19, 13; cf. P. Nautin, Lettres et dorivains chrdtiens des iie et iiie $cl8es (Paris, 1961), 126-34.  Porphyry, Vit. Plot. 3, 24-27 Henry-Schwyzer.  Dial. 2, 4.  HE VI 18, 3.  Ibid., VI 15.  Histoire de l'aducation dans l'antiquit6 (ed. 2, Paris, 1950), 524 (note 5).  Genethliakon fiir C. Robert (Berlin, 1910), 122-127.  H. Crouzel, Grdgoire ie Thaumaturge: Remeroiement 4 Origne (Paris, 1969), 188 (Letter of 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.  Tamblichus, De vit. pyth. 72.  Op. oft., 18-20.  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 in BRviata di filologia, 98 (1970), 188-92; see now for hermetic usage H. D. Betz in Harvard Theological Review, 63 (1970), 465-84.  Virtues: Pan. 122; Iamblichus 167ff., 187ff., 214ff.; friendship: Pan. 81. 89-92; Iamblichus 101-2. 229. 240.  Pan. 7. 58-62; cf. F. Schemmel in Philologieche Wochenschrift, 45 (1925), 1278.  P. Koetschau, Des Gregorios Thaumaturgos Damcrede an Origenes (Freiburg-Leipzig, 1894), id-xii.  Pan. 192-93.  Ibid., 7.  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).  C. Cels. I 15; cf. Josephus, C. Apion. I 162-65.  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.  Eusebius, Praep. ev. XIV 23, 1.  Dio Cassius 77, 7, 3.  HE VII 32, 20 (Anatolius = VII 32, 6-21).  J. L. Heiberg in Annales internationales d'histoire. Congras de Pars, 1900. 5e section (Paris, 1901), 27-41.  HE VII 32, 14-19; cf. V. Grumel in M6langes B. Tieserant II (Studi e Testi 232, 1964), 217-40.  Cf. H.-I. Marrou in A. Momigliano (ed.), The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford, 1963), 126-50.  On him cf. After the New Testament (Philadelphia, 1967), 78-80.  HE VII 6; 24-25.  Ibid., VII 32, 31; VIII 13, 7; IX 6, 2.  Ibid., VII 32, 30.  Theodoret, HE I 1, 18; Sozomen, HE I 15; ef. W. Telfer in Analecta Bollandiana, 67 (1949), 117-30.  Eusebius, HE V 22; VI 26.  Ibid., VI 2, 2.  Ibid., VI 3, 7.  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.  For these points cf. Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. 1 (17, 10-13 Nauck). 11-12 (23, 1-6); Iamblichus, De vit. pyth. 9 (8, 6-13 Deubner).  Iamblichus 69 (39, 3); cf. 13 (10, 11-14). 27 (16, 8).  Op. cit., 430 (cf. 527-60).  Photius, Bibl. od. 109 in 0. Stihlin, Clemens Alexandrimw III 202 (frag. 23).  C. Celeau I 32 (tr. H. Chadwick).  Frag. 10 Leemans = Clement, Str. I 150, 4.  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. 144