¹ This thesis is supported by, amongst many others. Marcel Simon in his widely acclaimed book, Verus Israel. A study of the relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (AD 135 – 425) (ET Oxford, 1986).Google Scholar

² Die Altercatio Simonis et Theophili Christiani nebst Untersuchungen uüber die antijüdische Polemik in deralien Kirche (TU III.1, Leipzig, 1883), 56f.

³ Anti–Judaism and Early Christian Identity. A Critique of the Consensus (Leiden, 1995).Google Scholar

⁴ This is now the consensus position put forward by, amongst others, Pearson, B.A., ‘Earliest Christianity in Egypt: Some observations’, in edd. Goehring, J. and Pearson, B.A., The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (Philadelphia, 1986)Google Scholar; and van den Broek, R., ‘Juden und Christen in Alexandrien’, in edd. van Amersfoort, J. and van Oort, J.. Juden und Christen in der Antike (Kampen, 1990), 102–103Google Scholar, especially n.5, where other literature on the subject is mentioned. This thesis replaces Bauer's, W. view of heterodox origins espoused in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (ET New York, 1971), 44–53Google Scholar. For a helpful survey of a variety of theories on the origins of Christianity in Alexandria (and for an endorsement of the idea of Jewish origins) see Sangrador, J.J. Fernández, Los orígenes de la comunidad cristiana de Alexandria (Salamanca, 1994), 69–107.Google Scholar

⁵ See Strom. 1.11:2.

⁶ This is the opinion of Eusebius at HE 5.11.1, who states ‘that in Book 1 of the Miscellanies there is a covert allusion to that scholar (i.e. Pantaenus).’ Eusebius does not go on to explore the supposed Jewish origins of Pantaenus. In his extant works Clement only refers to Pantaenus explicitly once, and this to explain Pantaenus’ view on the understanding of verb tenses in the prophetic writings (Proph. Ed. 56.2). On this passage see Nardi, C., Clemente Alessandrino. Estratti Profeticiin Biblioteca Patristica IV (Florence, 1985), 136Google Scholar. Such an obviously expert exegetical remark on the Old Testament might indicate Pantaenus Jewish origin, though the currency of such a view amongst Christians might be indicated by the fact that the same rule is referred to in Justin, Dial. 114.1; and Irenaeus, Dem. 67.

⁷ The debate on whether such a school in fact existed in Alexandria before the third century, and what Pantaenus' role in it might have been, is summed up by, amongst others, Lilla, S.C.R., ‘Pantaenus', in The Encyclopedia of the Early Church (ET, ed. Frend, W.H.C.. Cambridge, 1992), 639Google Scholar. For the most recent discussion of this vexing problem, see van den Hoek, A., ‘The “Catechetical” School of Early Alexandria and Its Philonic Heritage’, HTR 90 (1997), 59–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Ipse Origenes et Clemens et Eusebius atque alii complures, quando de scriptures aliqua disputant et volunt approbare dicunt, sic solent scribere: “Referebat mihi Hebraeus” et “Audivi ab Hebraeo” et “Hebraeorum ista sententia est.” The quotation comes from Contra Rufinum, 1.13and is cited in full in GCS: Clemens Alexandrinus III, edd. Stählin, O. and Früchtel, L. (Berlin, 1970), 225Google Scholar. Jerome does not refer to Clement's association with Jews in his brief account of Clement's life in his De Viris Illustribus 38, although he does allude to the fact that Clement makes use of a number of Jewish authors.

⁹ For such an assessment of the evidence see Krauss, S., ‘The jews in the Work of the Christian Fathers’ JQRV (1892–1893), 134–138Google Scholar; Wilde, R., The Treatment of the jews in the Greek Christian Writers of the First Three Centuries (Wahington D.C., 1949), 180Google Scholar; Méhat, A, Étudesurles ‘Stromates’ de Clément d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1966), 395–398Google Scholar; W. van den Broek, ibid., 111; van den Hoek, A., ‘How Alexandrian was Clement of Alexandria? Reflections on Clement and his Alexandrian Background’, Heythrop Journal XXXI (1990), 185Google Scholar; Schreckenberg, H., Die christlichen Adversus–Judaeos Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (2nd ed.Frankfurt, 1990), 211–213Google Scholar; and Runia, D.T., Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (Assen, 1993), 120Google Scholar (largely repeating the judgment of van den Broek). For a contrary opinion, but one that is not substantiated by the evidence, see Wilken, R., Judaism and the Early Christian Mind (New Haven and London, 1971), 41Google Scholar. For some further pertinent bibliography see Samuel Krauss and William Horbury, The Jewish Christian Controversy from the Earliest Times to 1789. Vol. 1, History (Tübigen, 1996), 30.

¹⁰ Clement refers to Demetrius (Strom 1.141.1–2; 150.2); Aristobulus (Strom. 1.72.4; 1.150.1; 5.97.7; 6.32.5); Aristeas (Strom. 1.148.1–149.3); Artapanus (Strom. 1.154.2); Pseudo–Hecateus (Strom. 5.113); Ezekiel the Tragedian (Strom. 1.155.1–1.156.2); and The Assumption of Moses (Strom. 6.132). A Jewish Greek source may well lie behind his detailed account of Jewish history at Strom. 1.101. If. For references to Philo see GCS: Clemens Alexandrinus IV (Register), ed. Staehlin, O. (Leipzig, 1909), 47–49Google Scholar; and for the most recent survey of these citations and allusions, see A. van den Hoek, Clement; and the helpful summary of her conclusions in Runia, D.T., Philo in Early Christian Literature (Assen, 1993), 130–156.Google Scholar

¹¹ There are a number of occasions where Clement alludes to Jewish opinion. In two of these Clement refers to those he calls the μσται (see Strom.1.153.1 concerning the interpretation of the change of name Moses undergoes at his ascension; and 1.154.1 concerning the way in which Pharaoh died, an interpretation paralleled in Ex.R.and Rashi on Gen. 2.14. See de Lange, Jews 150 n.40). Clement never explicitly refers to the μσται as Jewish, but Krauss, ibid., 136f., on account of parallels with extra–biblical Jewish material, assumed that they were (for further discussion of the and similar affirmation of their Jewis origin, see Adler, William, ‘Introduction’, in edd. Kam, James Vander and Adler, William, The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (Minneapolis, 1996), 22)Google Scholar. At Strom 5.36.3 Clement bases an interpretation of the ark on the basis of its rendition in Aramaic as Thebutha; at Strom. 7.89 Clement cites a Jewish (and pagan) objection to Christianity, namely its sectarian character; at Strom.7.33 his arguments for the rationality of the dietary laws seem to reflect Jewish opinion; and at QDS 28.2 Clement provides his reader with a list of those whom the Jews regard as their neighbours. See also his references to Judaic interpretations at Paid.1.34, and Strom. 6.41.6; and the possibility that his interpretation of Psalm 19 at Eel. Proph. 51–62 reflects Jewish exegesis (note its apparently ‘pesharic’ form) of the same psalm. On this see C. Nardi, ibid., 16 and 134–140.

¹² See Strom.2. If. and many other places. For a discussion of this topos in Clement's work, and the different ways in which it is expounded, see Lilla, S.C.R., Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism (Oxford, 1971), 12f. and 31–33Google Scholar. We should note that it is not always the case that the term ‘barbarian’ as used by Clement refers to Jews. See, inter alia, Strom. 1.66.3

¹⁴ For these references see Strom. 1.72.4; and 2.100.3.

¹⁵ Clement refers to Philo directly very rarely (apart from the references noted in n.14 see also Strom. 1.31.1 and 1.152.2). This may be explained by Clement's general reluctance to refer to his sources, something noted by Chadwick, H., in Oulton, J.E.L. and Chadwick, H., Alexandrian Christianity (London. 1954), 19–21Google Scholar. This might also explain his rather allusive reference to the already noted above. For a recent discussion of Clement's description of Philo as a Pythagorean, and his knowledge of Pilo's Jewishness, see Runia, David T., ‘Why does Clement of Alexandria call Philo “The Pythagorean”?’, VC 49 (1995), 1–22. Runia argues that the designation ‘Pythagorean’ should be seen as complimentary and not as evidence for Clement's ignorance of Philo's Jewishness. The contexts in which Clement makes use of Philo, which are mainly exegetical, indicate that he thought of him as a Jew (see esp.pp.13–14).Google Scholar

¹⁶ The context in which Jerome makes this statement is one in which he is defending his use of the Jew Baranina as a source of information concerning the Hebrew Bible. He refers to Clement's apparent use of Jewish expertise as a means of justifying his own actions in that regard.

¹⁷ See Strom.2.2 where Clement states that one of his purposes in writing the Stromateis is “to defend those tenets, on account of which the Greeks assail us, making use of a few scriptures, if perchance the Jew may listen and be able to turn from what he has believed to him whom he has not believed.”

¹⁸ He describes the Jews as faithless and ignorant (Strom. 2.21.2); as those who do not understand the intention of the Law and have no faith in its prophetic power, and hence follow the bare and not the inner meaning (Strom. 2.42.4–5. See also Strom. 7.109.3, where Clement describes the same failing of the Jews by means of an allegory of the Jewish food laws. The Jews, he states, are like those who chew the cud but they do not part the hoof. Such an interpretation is based on the fact that the jews possess the oracles of God, but they do not believe in Christ). See further Strom. 6.41.2 and 46.1.

¹⁹ See Paid. 2.63.4; 2.73.5f. (here the Jewish crucifixion of Christ is linked to their lack of understanding); and Strom. 6.128.1, though, in this instance, Clement is quoting from the now lost second century work, the Kerygma Petrou, and does not make use of the quotation to advance anti-Jewish claims.

²⁰ See Strom. 7.35, where, while arguing for the need on the part of the true Gnostic for continual prayer, Clement dismisses the Jewish habit of praying seven times a day (Psalm 119.64).

²¹ See Strom. 2.67.4 and the almost incidental observation that some regard the way of the sinners, mentioned in Ps.1.1, as the 'Ιου∂αϊκην υπληΨιν and his anui-Jewish quotation of the Kerygma Petrmt at 6.41.2 where the anti-Jewish aspect is not exploited. In this respect see also his interpretation of 1 Cor. 2.8; and his reference to the destruction of Jerusalem at Strom. 1.146 and 147.2.

²² For the most recent endorsement of this view of the provenance of the epistle, see Fernandez Sangrador, ibid., 145–155.

²³ See Staehlin, Register, 27. Staehlin, in the opinion of the present author, is somewhat generous in his attributions. But there exist eight explicit references to the epistle, all in the Stromata. (2.31.2; 2.35.5; 2.67.3; 2.84.3; 2.116.3; 5.51.4; 5.63.1; 6.64.3).

²⁴ See A. van den Hoek, Clement, 69f., where, commentingon Clement's use of Philo in Strom. 2.78–100, a passage concerned with an exposition of virtue as expounded in the law, she shows how Clement is keener to allegorise the law than Philo.

²⁵ For this opinion see especially van den Hoek, Clement, 228: There is no trace of a negative attitude toward the law in Clement. He defends the position of the law against the attacks of the followers of Marcion. He does not, moreover, echo the negative valuations that are well known from other Christian writers, nor does he interpret the law exclusively as a prefiguration of Christ.‘ Relevant in this respect is a passage like Strom. 3.46.2. Here Clement writes that the design of the law is to divert us from extravagance and all forms of disorderly behaviour; this is its object to draw us from unrighteousness to righteousness.’ He then quotes Matt. 5.17 (‘I did not come to destroy but to fulfil the law’), and comments: “Fulfilment does not mean that it (the law) was defective ()).” Of course, Clement is keen to stress that the law is a paidagogos to Christ (Paid. 1.59f.), and to allegorise it, but none of these assumptions lead to a radical dimunition of its literal value. For further elucidation of this point see Schreckenberg, Adversus-Judaeos,.212–213.

²⁶ see Dial. 20. For a recent discussion of these attitudes see Paget, James Carleton, The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background (WUNT 11.64; Tübingen, 1994), 151f.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Paid. 2.17.

²⁸ See, inter alia, Strom. 4.134.4; and 6.159.2.

²⁹ See, inter alia, Strom. 6.47.2.

³⁰ See Paid.1.59. If. for a comparison of the old covenant of the Jews and the new covenant of the Christians. See Schreckenberg, ibid., 212–213.

³¹ See van den Hoek in n.25.

³² Clement of Alexandria: a Study in Christian Liberalism, vol. II (London, 1914), 283.Google Scholar

³³ HE 6 13.3

³⁴ See Jerome, De viris illustribus. 38; and Photius, Biblioiheca Cod. 111, ed. I. Beker, 89–90.

³⁵

³⁶ Notes on the Nature of Clemens Alexandrinus' Canon Ecclesiasticus', in Sparsa Collects The Collected Essays of W.C. van Unnik: vol.3: Patristica, Gnostica, Liturgica (Leiden, 1983), 40–51.1 am indebted for this reference to Dr. W. Horbury.

³⁷ Ibid., 48. His argument is in part based upon the content of the one existing fragment of this work, found in a polemical treatise of Nicephorus of Constantine (Staehlin, III, 218–219), where Clement states that the words in 1 Kings 8.27a (‘But can God indeed dwell on the earth?’) allude not only to the heavenly temple, but also to the Lord's flesh; in part upon Clement's own definition of éκκλησιαστικς κανών in terms of the unity of the law and the prophets and their fulfillment in Jesus (see Strom. 6.125); and in part upon the apparent similarity of this work to the Didascalia Apostolorum. Van Unnik shows that there is no evidence to support Zahn's claim, Forschungen zur Ceschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons undder altchristlichen Literatur, vol. III, Supplementum Clementinum, (Erlangen, 1884), 35–36, that the work was an extended polemic against the Quartodecimans.

³⁸ See the almost complete absence of any reference to Judaizing Christians in Clement's definitely Alexandrian works.

³⁹ WR. Wilde, ibid., 180.

⁴⁰ See the title of his Protrepticus (ΠΡΟΤΡΕΠΤΙΚΟΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΑΣ), apparently the first work in a trilogy, definitely including the Paidagogos, and perhaps the Stromata. See also Strom. 1.15.

⁴¹ For the evidence in favour of an Alexandrian identification, see Chadwick, H., Origen: Contra Celsum, (Cambridge, 1965), xxviii–xxix.Google Scholar

⁴² Corpus Payrorum Judaicarum, vol.1, ed. Tcherikover, V. in collaboration with A. Fuks (Harvard, 1957), 92–93Google Scholar (Vol. II was published in 1960, and Vol. III in 1964 with M. Stern as an additional editor). For the same thesis, see now Modrzejewski, j. Méléze, The Jews of Egypt. From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian (ET Edinburgh, 1995), 207–225.Google Scholar

⁴³ See Cpj II, 445 and 448.

⁴⁴ See Cpj III, 460, where out of a population of 1000 in Karanis, only one Jew is mentioned.

⁴⁵ CpjII, 158a.

⁴⁶ For an assembly of the albeit flimsy evidence pertaining to Alexandrian Judaism from the period 117 to about 300, see de Lange, , Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian relations in third-century Palestine (Cambridge, 1976), 8–9.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Dr. W. Horbury, who is of the opinion that Tcherikover et al. exaggerate the extent of damage done to the Jewish community as a result of the revolt, has brought to my attention the fact that the anti-jewish Acts of the Alexandrians continued to be copied after the revolt.

⁴⁸ While discussing the period running 117–337, Tcherikover notes: ‘The general impression is that of a complete breakdown of Jewish life in Egypt, at least al the beginning of this period.’ (vol. I, 94).

⁴⁹ For this observation see Méhat, ibid., 397.

⁵⁰ This point is made by van den Broek, ibid., 113–114. For references to Jewish traditions in Origen's Peri Archon see 4.3.2 (conflicting Jewish traditions on what is prohibited on the sabbath, discussed by de Lange, Jews, 40); 4.3.14 for an interpretation of Is. 6.2–3, the source of which was an anonymous man, referred to by Origen as Hebraeus Doctor, probably indicating ajew who had become a Christian. De Lange, Jews, 9, wishes to leave the question of Origen's knowledge of Alexandrian Jewry ‘open’, and seems to come close to endorsing van den Broek's view that what knowledge of Judaism he may display in apparendy Alexandrian works, could have been acquired in his visits to Caesarea. He continues: “Such knowledge as he displays of non-rabbinic judaism he may have acquired in Alexandria, or in his travels in Rome, Achaea…, or in Palestine.’

⁵¹ It is the opinion of the present writer that Barnabas was written in the Principate of Nerva, that is, before the Trajanic revolt. See Carleton Paget, Barnabas, 9–27.