Why Did Eusebius Identify the Therapeutae as a Christian Community?

I begin by reviewing the reasoning that led Eusebius to identify the community of Lake Mariut as the first Christian community in Egypt. As Eusebius seems to have been the first to claim this, one may wonder what led him to identify the Therapeutae as Christians. Eusebius's Christianization of Philo's account was certainly made easier—or perhaps even encouraged—by Philo's downplaying of the Jewish identity of the Therapeutae community: Philo never uses the word “Jew(ish)” when describing the community and almost never refers to Jewish legal practices, apart from the Sabbath. As David M. Hay has emphasized,²³

Obviously, the ascetic practices of the community were so similar to the asceticism promoted by Eusebius himself²⁵

Moreover, it is worth asking why, for instance, Eusebius chose to embrace Philo's account of the Therapeutae while rejecting the reports of both Philo and Josephus on the Essenes.²⁷

The Role of De vita contemplativa in Eusebius's Demonstration

Eusebius's use of excerpts from VC in his account of the origins of Christianity in Egypt takes the form of a demonstration. Eusebius structures his account and employs appropriate language in order to present his thesis that the Therapeutae are Christians, demonstrate its truth, and defend it against opponents. The account may also sometimes be described as a synkrisis, a comparison between the Therapeutae of the VC and the Christians as described in the New Testament.

HE 2.17 may be divided into three parts, which are arranged in climactic order. Each part supplies, according to Eusebius, even stronger arguments in favor of his thesis:

1. HE 2.17.1–13 comprises a first selection of Philonic material, augmented with several important comments by Eusebius. First, he states his thesis that the Therapeutae are Christians. Then, he legitimizes both his own narrative and that of Philo by repeating Philo's promise neither to go beyond the truth nor to add anything to it. This legitimization is reinforced by Eusebius's claim that Philo himself had attended some meetings of the Therapeutae.³¹

2. In HE 2.17.14–17, Eusebius presents a second set of quotations, which he clearly identifies as such. He says he does so in case anyone still holds that Philo's description could apply to others than Christians. The vocabulary used by Eusebius is significantly rhetorical and aims at persuasion: “let [the reader] be persuaded (

) by Philo,”

…

).

Ibid. The word ajnamfhvriston is worth noting because it is very rare. Significantly, it is used by Clement when he claims that the philosophy of the Hebrews will be “indisputably proven” (

, Strom. 1.21.101.1) to be the most ancient. Clement, whose influence on Eusebius is clear, especially in terms of apologetics (notably in PE), perhaps provided him with this expression.

).

3. In HE 2.17.18–24, lest the first two sets of extracts alone prove unpersuasive, Eusebius introduces a third set of citations and paraphrases, stating, “if after this anyone obstinately denies [that the Therapeutae were Christians] let him be delivered from his disbelief and be persuaded by clearer demonstrations” (

). Such language indicates the demonstrative and rhetorical character of Eusebius's chapter on the Therapeutae. Indeed, the expression

is clearly reminiscent of Origen's interpretation of Pharaoh's hardheartedness in Exodus,

, and

. So, using elevated language, Eusebius implies that the one who is not persuaded by Philo's passages is like Pharaoh, who, despite Moses' signs and prodigies, refused to believe.

The very last words used by Eusebius in HE 2.17,

, punctuate the argument.

Who Are Eusebius's Opponents?

The fact that Eusebius's account of the Therapeutae is constructed as a demonstration raises the following question: Who are his opponents and what are their arguments? Eusebius's account indicates the substance of two main arguments against his thesis: Why do the Therapeutae seem to respect Jewish customs if they are Christians? And why were the Therapeutae not called Christians if indeed they were?

Eusebius answers the first objection by explaining that the Therapeutae were “apparently of Hebrew origin”

and, therefore, “still preserved most of the ancient customs in a distinctly Jewish manner” (

).

, in the comparative form, is applied in HE to Christian groups willing to keep Jewish law, such as the Ebionites,

Eusebius answers the second objection—that Philo never refers to the Therapeutae as Christians—by remarking that it is not known whether Philo gave them this name or they called themselves Therapeutae; moreover, he argues, the name “Christian” was not as well known as in his days.⁴²

John Malalas gives the same information when he says that Evodius (the first bishop of Antioch, according to Eusebius [HE 3.22]) was the first to give the name “Christians” to the followers of Christ. E According to him, they were called

and

before Evodius (Chron., PG 97.377).

Now, were Eusebius's opponents pagans, Jews, or Christians? It is likely that they were pagans. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine fourth-century Caesarean Jews discussing and debating Philo's treatise. On the contrary, it is a well-known fact that pagans like Celsus or Porphyry attacked Christianity on the grounds of its Jewishness; for instance, Porphyry rebuked the Christians for adopting the Jewish scriptures and, at the same time, rejecting their customs.⁴⁴

In one sentence, Eusebius may hint that he was opposing Jews (whether real or imagined): he uses the verb sklhruvnw to answer those who disagree with his identification. Despite the fact that he may be alluding to Pharaoh, he may also be referring to the Jews, who were commonly denigrated by early Christian writers for their hardheartedness. Moreover, Dominique Barthélemy has convincingly suggested that certain differences of readings between some of the manuscripts of Philo may be explained on the supposition that a Jew tampered with the Philonic text in the library of Caesarea at the time of Origen, in an attempt to “Judaize” it.⁴⁸

Finally, it is possible, but highly unlikely, that Eusebius was arguing against Christians who would have disputed the Christian identity of the Therapeutae, given that Eusebius's identification was widely accepted by later Christian authors.

To sum up, Eusebius's opponents may have been pagan or Jewish. The evidence is too scarce to allow any certainty, but I do not think that the hypothesis of Jewish opponents should be discarded. In either case, it is hard to decide whether these opponents were real or rhetorically constructed by Eusebius.

Eusebius's Handling of the De vita contemplativa

A close parallel reading of the texts of Eusebius and Philo permits a better understanding of Eusebius's methodology in appropriating VC and of the specific techniques he employed. Eusebius's account of VC is a mix of loose paraphrases, summaries, and quotations in oratio recta and obliqua. In this section, I wish to explore how these different forms are used in order to pursue the apologetic purpose aimed at by the HE. It is necessary to examine in detail how Philo's material is organized and reproduced by Eusebius.

1) At HE 2.17.3=VC 1, Eusebius summarizes and paraphrases Philo's statement that he will adhere to the truth and will not embellish the life of the Therapeutae.

2) At HE 2.17.3=VC 2, Eusebius summarizes Philo's passage on the etymology of the word “Therapeutae.” For instance, whereas Philo enumerates the different passions of the soul, Eusebius contents himself with mentioning the “passions of evil” (

). Philo's text states that they are also called Therapeutae “because they have been taught by nature and the holy laws to worship the Existent who is better than the Good, purer than the One and more primal than the Monad” (

).

⁵¹

Translated by David Winston, Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, The Giants, and Selections (The Classics of Western Spirituality; London: SPCK, 1981).

Eusebius shortens the passage, saying that they are perhaps called Therapeutae because of their “pure and sincere worship and cult of the divine” (

). The rendering of

by

, and the omission of both “the sacred laws” (

) of the Jews and the philosophical notions of the good, the one, and the monad all demonstrate Eusebius's intent to Christianize the passage.

Significantly, Eusebius skips over both Philo's criticism of the different sorts of pagan worship as well as his philosophical and mystical description of the Therapeutic life. Eusebius was not eager to compare the first Egyptian Christians' “enthusiasm” about God with that of Bacchic revelers,⁵²

VC 12.

as Philo did. He extracts only the points that are relevant to his demonstration.

3) Likewise, at HE 2.17.5=VC 13;18–20, Eusebius summarizes Philo's description of the Therapeutae abandoning their goods to their relatives and friends, but he omits Philo's comparison of this Therapeutic practice (leaving behind their possession) with that of the wise men of Greece (Anaxagoras and Democritus), as well as Philo's assertion that they leave behind their relatives. He gets straight to the point: the solitude of the Therapeutae. At this stage, his summary becomes a more faithful paraphrase of VC 19–20. The same words used by Philo are also used by Eusebius (

).

⁵³

This very rare word appears only in Philo, Abr. 23.3; and Alciphron, Epist. 4.17.7.6, according to TLG.

But Eusebius deletes the misanthropy (misanqrwpiv a) mentioned and denied by Philo. Whether Eusebius is here eschewing a derogatory word commonly used by anti-Jewish writers⁵⁴

The accusation of misanthropy was frequently made against the Jews both in the Hellenistic and Roman age: see Katell Berthelot, Misanthrôpia Judaica: Le débat autour de la “misanthropie” des lois juives dans l'Antiquité (JSJSup 76; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 79–184. é

or simply abbreviating Philo's account is unclear. It is true, however, that the accusation of misanthropy was also applied to the Christians, as witnessed by Tacitus and Celsus.⁵⁵

Tacitus, Ann. 15. 44: odium humani generis; Origen, Cels. 8.2. Both authors associate Christians and Jews. Tacitus does not do this explicitly, but he probably regarded the Christians as a Jewish sect. For more details on pagan attacks against the Christians, see Stephen Benko, “Pagan Criticism of Christianity during the First Two Centuries A.D.,” ANRW 2.23.2 (1980) 1055–1118.

Strikingly, Eusebius expands Philo's account by adding that the Therapeutae were actually “emulating the life of the prophets in a zealous and warm faith” (

).

⁵⁶

HE 2.17.5.

He also introduces a comparison to the Acts of the Apostles (4:34–35), in which the acquaintances of the apostles are said to have sold their possessions and shared the proceeds. This is not quite what Philo tells us about the Therapeutae, who are only said to have given away their possessions. Yet, in Eusebius's eyes, the correspondence is close enough to allow him to equate the practices of the Christians and the Therapeutae.

4) At HE 2.17.7=VC 21–22, Eusebius presents the first faithful quotation in oratio recta, fulfilling his promise to cite Philo “in proper terms” (

). The paragraphs concern the location of the Therapeutae, who are said to be particularly numerous around Alexandria. Eusebius omits the next two paragraphs (VC 23–24); they include geographical information and details about the arrangement of the houses in the community place. These details were apparently unnecessary to Eusebius's demonstration.

5) Eusebius carefully acknowledges that he draws his next Philonic extract from further on in the text, using, as usual, the expression

and even summarizing the content of the intervening passage (

).

⁵⁷

HE 2.17.8.

He carefully copies Philo's passage (HE 2.17.7–8=VC 25), which he cites again in oratio recta. He also adjusts Philo's

to read

in order to facilitate the reader's understanding.

Interestingly, at HE t 2.17.9, Eusebius introduces the next excerpt, which deals with the

and

of the Therapeutae, by labeling them as

. The fact that Eusebius identifies the buildings simply as churches indicates that he is not at all determined to relate VC to Christian monasticism. VC 26–27, which deals in a distinctly philosophical way with the presence of God in the dreams of the Therapeutae and their twice-daily prayer,

⁵⁸

See, e.g., VC 27: “at sunset they pray that the soul may be fully relieved from the disturbance C of the senses and the object of senses.”

is omitted, although Eusebius indicates that he skips a part of the text by the words

.

6) At HE 2.17.10–12=VC 28–29, Eusebius cites in oratio recta Philo's account of the allegorical reading practice of the Therapeutae and their religious singing.

⁵⁹

HE 2.17.10–12.

In this passage, Philo mentions the “writings of men of old” and of the “founders of their sect” that are read by the Therapeutae. Eusebius, just as we are today, was intrigued by the “writings” mentioned by Philo. He seized the opportunity to identify these works as the Gospels, the writings of the apostles and “some hermeneutical commentaries in the manner of the old prophets, such as the Epistle to the Hebrews and many others epistles from Paul” (

).

⁶⁰

HE 2.17.12–13.

By doing so, Eusebius converts Philo's portrait of the Therapeutae into a portrait of a Christian community.

In addition, Eusebius enhances his source by describing the musical activity of the Therapeutae as “the making of new psalms” (

).

⁶¹

HE 2.17.13.

Indeed, Psalms have a special importance in Eusebius's writings; as Kofsky has pointed out, “in the [Demonstratio evangelica], the Psalms are presented as the Christians' foremost prophetic book!”⁶²

Kofsky, Eusebius, 154.

7) Eusebius resumes his quotation at HE 2.17.16=VC 34, after skipping Philo's account of the observance of the seventh day in the Therapeutae community. Perhaps he wishes to avoid the subject of the Jewish Sabbath, one of the only Jewish legal practices mentioned by Philo in this treatise. Eusebius prefers to cite the paragraph on the community's continence (

), a virtue claimed by some Jews, and later by Christians.

⁶³

Josephus and Philo regularly cite

as a Jewish quality. The Christians view it as a Christian quality. Clement of Alexandria especially emphasized this Christian virtue (see Str. 3.7; 2.20) and perhaps wrote a

(PGL). Compare also the Encratite sect mentioned by Irenaeus and others.

Here again, Eusebius faithfully cites the passage in oratio recta. He also carefully edits the citation: for instance, he stops quoting when Philo draws a comparison between the Therapeutae and grasshoppers and makes another reference to the seventh day. Eusebius skips the large section that follows, in which Philo critically compares the pagan symposia with the symposium of the Therapeutae. Obviously, this was too long a passage to be included in his report and, moreover, it was not directly relevant to his purposes.

8) At HE 2.17.18, Eusebius introduces the third set of quotations, which, according to him, should persuade even the most obstinate.

⁶⁴

HE 2.17.18.

He begins to cite, now in oratio obliqua, the passage dealing with the women of the Therapeutic community (VC 68), the so-called Therapeutrides.⁶⁵

Joan E. Taylor has just published a new book on the subject: Jewish Women Philosophers of First-Century Alexandria: Philo's “Therapeutae” Reconsidered (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Unfortunately, I did not have the chance to read it before this essay went to press.

It is unclear why he suddenly switches to oratio obliqua. The quotation is very faithful, except that Eusebius omits the end of the paragraph, where Philo states, “the Father has sown in her [the soul] intelligible rays whereby she can behold the teachings of wisdom” (

).

⁶⁶

VC 68. Trans. Winston, Philo of Alexandria.

It may well be that Eusebius omitted this line just for the sake of brevity. It is equally possible, however, that he wished to avoid either the imagery of pagan legends⁶⁷

As Daumas and Miquel (129 n. 2) have explained, the rays may have referred, in some people's opinion, to the Apis “conçu comme lumière brillante” and the myth of Danae. Eusebius refers to the myth of Apis at Praep. ev. 2.1.50.

or the mystical-philosophical language of which Philo was so fond, or perhaps both. Philo's description of the virgins who bear only immortal children was sufficient for the parallel Eusebius wanted to draw between the Therapeutae and the Christians.

9) Eusebius connects this passage to his next citation, which returns to oratio recta (HE 2.17.19–20=VC 78), skipping over the first part of Philo's description of the symposium. Although the beginning of the citation is faithful to the text and starts exactly where Philo himself starts dealing with allegory, the end of the citation significantly differs from Philo's text; moreover, Eusebius omits the second half of Philo's paragraph, which continues in the same vein. Compare the two authors' accounts of the “soul of the law”:

As the boldface passages show, Philo's account of the contemplation of familiar objects by the soul is replaced by Eusebius with an account of how the Therapeutae contemplate the invisible meaning of the scriptural words. Therefore, Eusebius has interpreted Philo's passage as dealing with the allegorical exegesis of the Therapeutae.

has been understood as

,

⁶⁸

This word may refer not just to a “community” but also to a school of thought. Erotianus (1st century C.E.) used it to designate the medical school of Herophilus (Erot. Praef. and Gal. 17(2).145; LSJ, s.v.

). It is possible that in Eusebius's mind, it may designate a church: according to Chrysostom,

(Hom. 45.4 on Acts [9.342E]). Later on,

would also designate a church (IGC As. min. 215 [Naxos, 7th–9th c.]; PGL, s.v.

). Because Eusebius uses the words

and

(HE 2.17.9) in referring to the

in each

(Philo) of the Therapeutae, it seems likely that he here uses oijkiva to mean “church,” thereby Christianizing the passage.

which iotacism would easily allow, and

has been omitted. Therefore, the Philonic text is significantly Christianized, and, given Eusebius's purpose, it seems reasonable to assume that he himself introduced these changes.

10) Finally, Eusebius summarizes those passages that point to the Christian identity of the Therapeutae (HE 2.17.21–23). He notes the separation of men and women,⁶⁹

VC 32; 69.

although Philo is not describing the place where they live but the place where they celebrate the seventh day. The summary nature of Eusebius's remarks here allows him to omit that the separation between men and women is not a permanent one. Likewise, Eusebius identifies the Therapeutae's meetings, vigils, fasts, and attention to the word of God with the Christian exercises at Easter.⁷⁰

HE 2.17.21.

He insists that these correspondences are found within the Christian community only, stressing the great feast during which they do not sleep but rather lie on the ground, abstaining from meat and wine, singing together,⁷¹

Compare VC 80; Eusebius here loosely paraphrases the paragraph.

and seasoning their bread with only hyssop⁷²

Hyssop is mentioned twice in the NT: John 19:29 and Heb 9:19.

and salt.⁷³

VC 64–88.

He also finds in Philo's account a reference to the Christian hierarchy.

Actually, a close reading of Philo's text easily proves Eusebius's arguments wrong. First, the great feast is not annual, like Easter, but takes place every fifty days;

⁷⁴

VC 65.

second, many “philosophical” groups in antiquity could have maintained such customs; and third, Philo nowhere deals with an ecclesiastical hierarchy rising “from the deaconate to the episcopate” (

), as Eusebius claims.

⁷⁵

HE 2.17.23.

Eusebius was only (mis)interpreting Philo's use of the words

,

⁷⁶

VC 75.

,

⁷⁷

VC 79.

and his mention of a hierarchy in the account of the communal singing.⁷⁸

VC 80.

Conclusion

This short analysis indicates both some of the points on Eusebius's agenda and his techniques as a narrator and citator, and permits the following conclusions:

First, Eusebius generally cites passages in the order in which they appear in Philo's text.⁷⁹

There is a single exception: at the end of ch. 17, Eusebius provides his reader with a mix of several Therapeutic features described in different parts of Philo's treatise (HE 2.17.21–23).

Second, the variation in Eusebius's methods of quotation (i.e., paraphrase, quotation in oratio recta/obliqua, summary) may be explained on the grounds of his apologetic agenda. Thus, the content of the four passages faithfully cited in oratio recta

⁸⁰

See ##3, 4, 5, and 6, above: HE I2.17.7=VC 21–22; HE 2.17.8=VC 25; HE 2.17.10–12=VC 28–29; HE 2.17.16=VC 34.

— Philo's remarks on the location of the Therapeutae in Alexandria, on their ascetic practices, and on their allegorical reading of the writings of the “men of old”—was worth quoting carefully, and required no apologetic adjustments. Nevertheless, Eusebius may have tampered with the text once in an otherwise faithful citation in oratio recta.⁸¹

See #9, above: HE 2.17.18=VC 68.

On one occasion (when he deals with the Therapeutrides), Eusebius carefully cites Philo in oratio obliqua,⁸²

See #1, above: HE 2.17.18=VC 68.

but without otherwise altering his source. Eusebius's several habits of quotation may indicate that he sought to avoid repetitive patterns, introducing variatio for the sake of his reader. When Eusebius resorts to a loose summary of Philo's text, he may simply be abbreviating his source without prejudice.⁸³

This is, in my opinion, only the case at the beginning when he summarizes Philo's promise to be faithful to the truth (HE 2.17.3=VC 1).

He claims in the middle of his account that “although Philo discusses many other points as well in the same book, it seemed necessary to enumerate only those things through which the characteristics of the life of the Church are exhibited” (

).

⁸⁴

HE 2.17.14–15.

More often, however, he seems to be omitting facts and details that do not demonstrate close correspondences with Christianity; on several occasions, it seems that Philo's text did not support Eusebius's thesis that the Therapeutae were Christians.⁸⁵

See ##2, 3, and 10, above.

By omitting and skipping over some parts of VC, Eusebius could better achieve his Christian appropriation of the text.

Third, Eusebius also Christianizes Philo's account by modifying it and then comparing the altered account favorably with the book of Acts and other accounts of Christian practice. Eusebius thereby eliminates the philosophical and Jewish elements from Philo's text and emphasizes, even enhances, similarities between the customs of the Therapeutae and the Christian ascetic way of life.

Eusebius's Representation of Philo

In addition to all the devices that Eusebius employs when quoting his source, the high status that he confers on Philo greatly aids his appropriation of VC. Although he does not literally make a Christian out of Philo, I will argue that he wished to hint at the possibility. In fact, he succeeded so well in this endeavor that Jerome would include Philo in his De viris illustribus because, in his opinion, VC was de vita nostrorum liber (“a book about the life of our people”).⁸⁶

Eusebius's story of an encounter between Philo and Peter in Rome is suggestive. Nevertheless, it tells us nothing decisive about Philo's supposed acceptance of Christianity. Kirsopp Lake's translation

by “Philo came to Rome…to speak to Peter.” Indeed,

is an idiom meaning “to encounter, to come into contact.”

Nevertheless, Eusebius seems to hint that Philo's meeting with Peter led him to write about the disciples of Mark in Alexandria; according to him, the story of the encounter between Philo and Peter is not implausible (

)

This story is introduced in the HE by the words

, which have been understood by Hugh J. Lawlor (“Hegesippus and the Apocalypse,” JTS 8 [1907] 441; compare Hermathena 26 [1900] 16ff.), Joseph B. Lightfoot (The Apostolic Fathers [ed. J. R. Harmer; New York: MacMillan and Co., 1898] 1:58, 238), and Bruns (“Philo Christianus,” 141–45) as referring to a written source instead of a vague oral source. However, Andrew J. Carriker (The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea [VCSup 67; Leiden: Brill, 2003] 63–68, at 68) has shown that the phrase is not a certain indicator of a written source, although “when employing this phrase, Eusebius does appear, in general, to have used at least one source, whether written (the majority) or oral.” I would tend to agree with Runia's suggestion (Philo in Early Christian Literature, 7) that Eusebius found this story in a lost work of Clement, such as the Hypotyposeis, rather than Bruns's suggestion (“Philo Christianus”) that Hegesippus was his source. I wonder, however, whether Papias should be so quickly dismissed. Both Papias and Clement of Alexandria seem to be Eusebius's sources for Mark's evangelization of Egypt (HE 2.15.2–16.1). Moreover, at HE 3.39, Eusebius's account seems to indicate that he included Papias in his HE because of the value of his testimony on the apostolic age (even if he did not himself see and hear the apostles), although he despised him for recounting “marvels” and “myths,” including millennialism. Therefore, it seems to me that Papias may be a possible source. This would explain why Eusebius does not give the name of his source: although the story of the encounter fitted nicely in his account of early Egyptian Christianity, he did not himself see Papias as a serious, reliable source. On the contrary, had the “authoritative” Clement been his source, it is likely that he would have mentioned him.

The statements about Philo that follow the story of the encounter between him and Peter shed more light on Eusebius's Christianization of Philo. For instance, Eusebius provides us with an intriguing description of Philo's attitude towards the Therapeutae:

.

What does Eusebius imply when he uses these three participles:

Lake does not do justice to the nuances of Eusebius's text. Indeed,

means, according to LSJ, “to approve,” or even “to accept as a teacher, follow.”

can mean “revere, admire,” according to both Lake and PGL (which cites Eusebius's passage). But the primary meaning of this term is stronger: “to divinize, to confess as God” (PGL). Although Eusebius certainly does not wish to say that Philo considered the “apostles of his time” as gods, it is nevertheless significant that he uses

and

when describing the attitude people should adopt towards Christ: “having benefited so much from the teaching of our savior, would they not approve him and acknowledge him as God, given that he is the son of God and the savior of ourselves?” (

).

means more than “to recognize” and is used elsewhere by Eusebius as meaning “to revere as sacred.”

)

Therefore, it seems that Eusebius's description of Philo's attitude towards the Therapeutae aims to hint at Philo's religious acceptance of the Therapeutae. Since Eusebius identifies them as a Christian community, he probably aims to hint at Philo's acceptance of Christianity. One must bear in mind, however, that nowhere does Eusebius claim that Philo considered this sect to be Christian.

Another hint is dropped at HE 2.17.12, where Eusebius tells his readers it is likely that Philo attended the Therapeutic expositions on the sacred Scripture, although this is never stated by Philo himself.

, translated by Lake as “listened.” This verb, however, may have a stronger meaning: the substantive

may designate “obedience.”

See LSJ, s.v.

. In 1 Kgdms 15:22, it describes obedience to God.

is rather rare, but the simple form

means, in some patristic texts, “to be a hearer as a catechumen, as one who is in the first class of catechumens.”

PGL, s.v.

.

Thus, analysis of these passages indicates that Eusebius skillfully brings Philo as close as possible to being a Christian without actually asserting that he converted. This he did by stressing Philo's admiration for the Therapeutae and by claiming that Philo had encounters with both Peter and the Therapeutae.

Why did Eusebius refrain, then, from claiming Philo as a convert? This is probably because he wanted to preserve the weight of Philo's testimony as both a “Jew” and a “Hebrew.”¹⁰¹

Eusebius's Purposes

Eusebius employs VC in order to demonstrate that the Therapeutae were the first Christians of Egypt, the followers of Mark, who was himself Peter's disciple.¹⁰²

The number of men and women who there believed at the first attempt was so great, and their asceticism was so extraordinarily philosophic, that Philo thought it right to describe their conduct and assemblies, and symposia and all the rest of their manner of life.

¹⁰³

Ibid.

Further, Eusebius claims that Philo's treatise “obviously contains the rules of the Church which are still observed in our time” (

).

).

). He also says that it corresponds exclusively to “our communion” (

) and to “the worship of Christians according to the Gospel” (

).

it is plain to everyone that Philo perceived and described the first heralds of teaching according to the Gospel and the customs handed down from the beginning by the Apostles.

¹⁰⁷

HE 2.17.24.

These passages explicitly present Eusebius's agenda, to demonstrate that the Therapeutae are the first Egyptian Christians. More specifically, however, he presents them as idealized ascetics.

As Arieh Kofsky has pointed out, in the third book of the Demonstratio evangelica (henceforth DE), Eusebius eagerly describes the widespread ascetic movement that preceded monasticism, and his “description is reminiscent of Philo's idealized view of the Therapeutae.”¹⁰⁸

The very structure of the second book of HE reflects this intention. The chapter on the Therapeutae belongs to a historical sequence reaching from the preaching of Peter (HE 2.14) to the treatises of Philo (HE 2.18). This section is flanked, on the one hand, by chapters on Theudas the magician (HE 2.11), Queen Helena (HE 2.12), and Simon Magus (HE 2.13), and, on the other hand, by an account of the miseries of the Jews caused by their crime against Christ (HE 2.19–21). In this context, the narrative of the Therapeutae appears, as it were, as an exemplum of Christian virtue in contrast to the deceits of magicians and the crime of the Jews. The purity and goodness of the first Christians of Egypt are enhanced by the implicit comparison. Moreover, Eusebius may have aimed to show the superiority of Christian asceticism over pagan asceticism, such as that endorsed by Porphyry.¹¹¹

In addition, Eusebius may have attempted to glorify the Alexandrian tradition by giving it, by virtue of his interpretation of Philo, an apostolic origin going back to Peter's teaching, through both Mark's preaching and Philo's testimony. Interestingly, the first passage quoted literally by Eusebius concerns the location of the community of the Therapeutae.¹¹⁴

Eusebius's insistence on the Alexandrian location of the Therapeutae and of Mark's activity in Egypt can be explained in several ways. First, Robert Grant has pointed out that Eusebius's conclusion about the Therapeutae is that they were members of the Christian church and governed by a bishop.¹¹⁶

But there may have been another reason as well: by incorporating Philo's testimony on the Therapeutae, Eusebius was able to confer its lettres de noblesse on the Alexandrian school of which he clearly made himself the heir, notably through his recognition of Clement and Origen as his masters.

).

). Likewise Heraclas, who is said by Eusebius to have been bishop in Alexandria,

)

).

).

).

) and that “this school has lasted on to our time” (

),

In addition, the emphasis Eusebius places on the virgin Therapeutrides may also indicate his willingness to link the Alexandrian and Caesarean schools to the community of the Therapeutae. Indeed, Eusebius's note on Origen in HE shows that the latter welcomed women in his school: Origen “preached the divine teaching not only to men, but also to women”;¹³⁴

The importance of the Therapeutrides may also lie in the parallel that Eusebius was able to draw between the latter and some Christian virgins, notably those who were martyred in Alexandria.¹³⁷

Finally, at HE 5.11. 4, Eusebius quotes Clement, who seems to state that Pantaenus

), just as the Therapeutae retired to an isolated place near Alexandria.

Summary and Conclusion

The contours of Eusebius's project to Christianize Philo's VC for the glory of Egyptian Christianity should now be clear. I rehearse the main points:

First, Eusebius's chapter on the Therapeutae is not a mere report but a demonstration in three parts that the sect described by Philo in VC is Christian. Eusebius's mention of anonymous opponents was probably not just a rhetorical device, but reflected some actual pagan and/or Jewish opponents. Eusebius employs several techniques in reproducing Philo's account: he paraphrases, summarizes, and quotes it in oratio recta and a obliqua. These different forms serve Eusebius's apologetic purposes, although they may also have been used for the sake of stylistic variatio. Likewise, he is generally very faithful to Philo's text, although he does not refrain from tampering where he thinks it necessary.

Second, Eusebius's description and interpretation of Philo's attitude towards the Therapeutae also facilitates his appropriation of the VC. But, as we have seen, although Eusebius strongly hints at Philo's acknowledgement of Christian doctrine, he does not go so far as to claim that he converted. It is Philo's Jewishness, in fact, that gives weight to Eusebius's demonstration.

Third, this paper has examined the multiple ends at which Eusebius aimed. Although he makes it obvious that his main purpose is to demonstrate that Philo's Therapeutae were in fact the first Christians in Egypt, evangelized by Mark, he accomplishes other implicit goals as well. These include the validation of the apostolic authority of the see of Alexandria, the apologetic glorification of early Egyptian Christianity in contrast to heresy and Judaism, and the legitimization of the Christian schools of Alexandria and Caesarea, which he implicitly traces back to Peter and Mark, with the aid of Philo.

In addition, I think that the arguments developed in this paper have conclusively shown that Eusebius saw the Therapeutae neither as monks nor as proto-Christians, and that he did not assume Philo's conversion. Rather, in his use of VC, he succeeded in grounding his vision of the new Christian philosophic life, as implemented by his Alexandrian and Caesarean predecessors, in the very beginnings of Egyptian Christianity. In other words, Philo's VC provided Eusebius with a mythic origin for one of the most important Christian traditions.

In return, Eusebius greatly advanced the status of Philo: for the first time, the authority of Philo in the church was explicitly acknowledged, and Philo became a valuable “witness” to Alexandrian Christianity. Although we do not know the historical connection between Philo and the so-called “catechetical school” of Alexandria,¹⁴³