Brief Contents

Alexandria the City•Origins•Physical, Social, and Political Makeup

A Christian Center•Influences•Development of a Christian Tradition•Theological Legacy

1

As a way to begin it seems fitting to note the vast contrast in the beauty and horror that took place in the city. It is easy to go to one end of the spectrum, but understanding the contrasting descriptions that came out of ancient Alexandria give us a good starting point to assess the city.

Achilles Tatius:“I entered *Alexandria+ by the Sun Gate, as it is called, and was instantly struck by the splendid beauty of the city, which filled my eyes with delight. From the Sun Gate to the Moon Gate – these are the guardian divinities of the entrances – led a straight double row of columns, about the middle of which lies the open part of the town, and in it so many streets that walking in them you would fancy yourself abroad while still at home… I tried to cast my eyes down every street, but my gaze was still unsatisfied, and I could not grasp all the beauty of the spot at once; some parts I saw, some I was on the point of seeing, some I earnestly desired to see, some I could not pass by; that which I actually saw kept my gaze fixed, while that which I expected to see would drag it to the next. I explored therefore every street, and at last, my vision unsatisfied, exclaimed in weariness, “Ah, my eyes, we are beaten.” (Loeb Classical Library 5.1.1-5 trans. S. Gaselee.)

Staying with Achilles theme of beaten, an account recorded by Eusebius found in Bishop Dionysius epistle to Germanus, from the same city in time of turmoil around 250 A.D. (cf. Frend, 930).

“The persecution with us did not begin with the imperial edict, but preceded it a whole year. … First, the seizing a certain aged man named Metra, they called upon him to utter impious expressions, and as he did not obey, they beat his body with clubs, and pricked his face and eyes; after which they led him away to the suburbs, where they stoned him. Next they led a woman named Quinta, who was a believer, to the temple of an idol, and attempted to force her to worship; but when she turned away in disgust, they tied her by the feet, and dragged her through the whole city, over the rough stones of the paved streets, dashing her against the millstones, and scourging her at the same time, until they brought her to the same place, where they stoned her” (Eusebius, 6.41).

My investigation into Alexandria is slanted towards discovering how the same place could be described in two very different, and opposite ways.

2

Alexander the Great founds the city in 331 B.C. Stories are told of Alexander planning the city, almost in its entirety, by drawing out the walls and streets with chalk. When he ran out of chalk they used grain and continued the lining of the wall. With all of the grain on the ground flocks of birds descended on the site and consumed the grain. Alexander wondered about this and was told that was an omen of the enormous success of the city (Haas, 24). Later we see that its coastal location at the entrance to Egypt facilitates grain gathering and distribution to the Roman Empire.

Ptolemy I takes over control of Egyptian territory after the division of conquered Alexandrian lands. He establishes a museum and library “providing for 100 research scholars in the humanities and sciences, [making] the city one of the most influential centers of Greek learning” (Downey, 300).

Octavius (or Augustus as he was known from 27 B.C.) took over Egypt as a province of the Roman empire. “Roman senators were not allowed to enter Egypt without the emperor's permission, because this wealthiest of provinces could be held militarily by a very small force, and the threat implicit in an embargo on the export of grain supplies, vital to the provisioning of the city of Rome and its populace, was obvious. Internal security was guaranteed by the presence of three Roman legions (later reduced to two), each about 6,000 strong, and several cohorts of auxiliaries.”

3

As mentioned, this was a planned city. Unlike cities that began in one localized spot and sprawled out in convenient directions when needed, Alexandria’s construction from Stadium to Hippodrome was intentional and organized.

•Protected, smooth-watered harbors with an enormous lighthouse (Pharos) guided ships away from dangerous reef and rock outcroppings and into the city. The lighthouse made use of reflection in the day and fire in the night. The City was built in a way that combined beauty and function. The dual harbors gave access to the city’s major social/political centers:

•Theatre•Gymnasium•Library and Museum•Ceasareum (Sebastion)

•The Via Canopica was the principle boulvard in the city. “*N+one of the boulevards of ancient Mediterranean port cities could compare with Alexander’s Via Canopica, a thoroughfare that easily ranked along Rome’s Via Sacra or Athen’s Panathenaic Way as one of the great streets of the classical world” (Haas, 81). Though the layout of the city was constructed on the functional grid pattern, the architecture was large, beautiful and along a theme of cosmopolitan luxury. Views of the harbor and other functional areas of the city were said to have been specifically designed to exploit the beauty. •Along with the more grand centers such as the Theatre, there were numerous smaller public leisure centers such as baths, taverns, and lecture/meeting halls. •The closest comparison I can think of is working on a cruise ship. A great portion of the inhabitants may have been working class individuals, but they were working in a beautiful place. Like working on a criuse ship, one may have small quarters but all of the views are beautiful and resources are available.

4

Ancient obelisks were taken from the Pharaonic temples at Heliopolis in Egypt and set up in Alexandria. These same obelisks were taken from Alexandria and erected in London and New York.

5

While the form of the city was elegant, its function in the Roman empire was critical. Alexandria was not considered a part of Egypt, it was separate from Egypt, a center alien to the Egyptian citizen (Bingen, 283). It was distinct in this way because of its importance in the administration of gathering resources for the Greeks as well as the Romans.

•It boasted tremendous •production and craftsmanship; everyone is said to have had a trade.•Luxury items such as spices/gems and linens •Access to markets•Networking and shipping expertise•Administration of levies and taxes

•By far its most important role was its role in shipping Egyptian grain to Rome.•At the height of the Roman empire 83,000 tons of grain went to Rome•Constantinople took 220,000 tones

•Alexandria stored and administrated the distribution of these quantities. Its location at the access point of Egypt to the Mediterranean liked two continents promoted regional and long distance trade.

It is also noted that alone with its access to economic markets, Alexandria supported the intellectual market as well. As a center for administration and contacts it also became a place where “a steady stream of tourists and pilgrims *attended+, drawn from many religious persuasions” (Haag, 41). It functioned as “antiquity’s melting pot of ideas and philosophies” (44).

6

Upon first reflection Alexandria appears as this intellectual utopia where ideas and perspectives came together peaceably in all circumstances. And yet the environment had been tremendously violent by a variety of commentators. It seemed that the populous were sparked to extreme violence by as little as an impromptu accusation made by someone with a strong voice.

The advent of Roman rule is attributed, in some ways, to the tumult in the early part of the first century. Hellenistic Jews, according to Philo (In Flaccum), found life in Alexandria to fit them quite well. Judaism, under the direction of Philo, was found harmonization with Platonic and Hellenistic ideals. Freedom for thought, self-governance, and use of public amenities was the norm, it seemed, and Alexandrian Jews welcomed their international brethren to join them (Alston, 165-6; 172-3).

Roman rule sought to change that situation over the course of a fairly significant period of time. What comes to fore in this period of time is sometime violent struggle for hegemony between the various groups. Jewish people were attacked and tortured intermittently from 38 A.D. – 190 A.D. But the picture is not always clear. The sources that bring out the violence of the Alexandrian’s may have been biased, or the recounting of the brutality may serve to grab the attention of the modern reader. Haas makes the point that Alexandrian history should not read from riot to bloodshed (Haas, 11).

7

EmperorDirect relationship – often issuing direct commands to the city of Alexandria. Relationships with prominent citizens also provided a means of influence for the Emperor. Military Administration (dux Aegypti)Punished factions and promote those that gave sway to the Emperor’s objectivesCivil Administration (praefectus Aegypti)Enforce rules and administrate grain.A wide range of civil servants below prefect.Ethno-Religious Leadership – some evidence shows that at various times ethno-religious groups were given some measure of autonomy. Self government was permitted but seems to have slowly fallen out of practice upon the advent of Roman rule.

It is fairly clear that the Roman imperial government had a great stake in the city of Alexandria. As a result the grip it held on the city was tight and its affairs were often the subject of the Emperor’s personal attention. Empire propaganda was used to direct the attention of the population to the Emperor and subsequently Imperial priorities. Alexandria served as a announcing and celebratory city for the accomplishments of Rome. It was given special monuments, inscriptions, and its own coinage. Was thismaterial appeasement for the focus of a vital workforce? Likely. As well as this positive reinforcement, the Emperor, dux Aegypti, and praefectus Aegypti did not shy away from using other techniques. On some occasions military guards were dispatched to “enforce the empire’s interests.” These shows of force were often directed at particular parties of people who were making accusations. What seems clear, though, is that it was usually those being accused that received the punishment. Another tactic taken up by administration was to prohibit spectacles in the social gather sites, close the baths, and cut off the bread ration.“This had such an immediate and profound effect upon the populace that their pleadings prompted Florus to reinstate these essential amenities and rioting quickly ceased” (Haas, 77). Like parents the Roman administration employed rewards, spankings and could withhold the niceties of life. All so that the people would behave and fall in line with the objectives of the empire.

A particular instance of Rome’s use of these ‘social sway’ policies was in 539. “After a year of unsuccessful efforts at winning over the Alexandrians to a Chalcedonian patriarch” (Haas, 80) Justinian closed the doors to all the churches, when he re-opened them, they were all under the authority of the Chalcedonian clergy. The Monophysite patriarch, Theodosius, knew that open Chalcedonian churches were more dangerous to his cause than closed Monophysite ones. ‘He sighed and wept, because he knew the people of Alexandria, that they loved pomp and honour, and he feared that they would depart from the orthodox faith, with a view to gaining honour from the prince’ – a telling observation on the power of imperial patronage. … Imperial patronage or repression remained an important external factor in the conflicts between Alexandria’s pagan, Jewish, and Christian communities – often tipping the balance in favor of one or another faction depending on the government’s perceived interests at any given moment” (81).

8

The social structure of this city was elaborate. The picture that emerges from Alexandria is varied over the course of its history and is not complete.Several observations come together:•Roman governance imposed quarters and sub-districts•The quarters were used in legal documents but not necessarily indicative of ancestral or tribal affiliation.•People tended to organize themselves in a variety of ways:

•Religious groups or schools of thought•Family/hereditary bonds•Craft associations, or tied to their position in trade or the economy – their work.•Sporting associations

•These groups had some measure of autonomy and self rule. They found their voice in public venues not so much through political representation as dramatic outbursts before the prefect at the Hippodrome and other places.

9

•These sort of groups were important in the society of Alexandria because they determined to whom the rich would be associated. That is to say that a horizontal stratification is not the best way to understand Alexandrian society. Vertical strata, rather, seems to characterize how people organized themselves. •There was no middle class, only the wealthy honestiores and the poorer humiliores. •While people of similar bonds may have lived together in the various quarters, they would be grouped together by the factors mentioned above. These poor class groups may have interacted with the wealthy people. These wealthy people were given to easily changing political or social affiliations depending of what benefit they may collect. The fact remained, however, that the vertical stratification meant that of all economic status collected on the basis of belief, intellectual persuasion, similar career, or leisure activity. These affiliations were not as set in stone and Athanasius commented that leaders moved about from group to group depending on political advantages.

The point that seems to come across is that in its historical course Alexandria is that determined groups of people existed and were not shy to engage in real conflicts for their ideals.

10

11

Philo’s description of the earliest Christians seems to identify the Monastic types. Alexandrian Christianity is not generally characterized by people too shy to enter into discussion with others.

12

It was likely that Eusebius had misinterpreted Philo’s description about the earliest Christians. Some believe that Philo was describing an early Jewish sect (Grant, 198-9).

Philo of Alexandria: if Jesus Christ the Jew originated Christianity as a whole, Philo the Jew originated the development of Christian Philosophy. His missionary endeavor sketched the route that the Alexandrian Christian church would follow in mediating a set of religious values and practices to the Hellenistic and philosophical world. Missions were, in the case of Alexandria, an endeavor of explaining Christian belief in a cornucopia of other systems of thought (Frend, 35). The LXX, produced in Alexandria under the Ptolemies was the Old Testament scripture for the early church.

At any rate, the Christians in Alexandria were not monastic in the sense that they abandoned discourse. That is the highlight of Alexandrian Christianity and is seen in Eusebius’ own description of the ancient school for the study of divine things governed over by Pantaenus.

Pantaenus was a stoic philosopher who had seal for the divine word and took the gospel even to India. Zeal was a common trait in Alexandrians and it appeared to have been in the Christian movement as well (Eusebius, 5.10).

13

Alexandria was a diverse setting. From what we can gather about the library, texts from a wide variety of perspectives and locations “embracing all of knowledge. … The sources tell us that this reach extended beyond Greek culture to the literature of its neighbors, ranging from the Jews to India” (Bagnall, 361). For the purposes of this presentation we can identify a number of major players that shaped the culture of the city and the context in which those commission to preach Christ found themselves.

Pagans: they tended to have the corner of the market when it come to buildings and real estate. Many of the largest structures were devoted Egyptian deities, like Isis, and Hellenistic gods like Poisedon. More important deities were celebrated nearer to the city center or located near large public structures like the Caesarion. The temple of Serapis itself was built to house a shrines to Isis and Anubis but included a library and lecture theatres (Haas, 144-49). “Paganism in the late Roman Alexandria was a welter of diverse cults and allegiances, an amalgam of religions with no particular unifying bonds or practice… *they were a+ conglomeration of various subgroups associated by a wide range of overlapping social and economic ties” (152). GnosticsPlatonistsJewsChristiansEmpire

While there was a great diversity among the people, it is important to note that the Pagan community had great sway on what occurred in the city. The image that comes out of Alexandria is of philosophical debate and the exchange of ideas. This is due in great part to the fact that the philosophers where the ones who wrote things down and their works are the ones we have today. Understanding the seeming disconnect between cultural and intellectual utopia and ‘knock-em-down drag-em-out’ city of rioters comes through getting the picture straight. Our view of Alexandria is skewed towards the ‘soul’ and doesn’t take into account the ‘body.’

14

Into this environment you have the competing ethnic groups/schools of thought. It is a very simple assessment of complex social situations over the course of centuries, but the violence tended to come from clashes between these groups trying to establish their own hegemony. The Roman government mediated between them and had its own interests in mind.

The schools of though, such as Christianity, Gnosticism, Platonism, and to a lesser degree Judaism, had to adapt to the massive pagan population not only to gain converts, as it were, but to survive. Cultural and intellectual interplay is the most prominent feature of Alexandria and it seemed that ideas from all quarters were involved in the discussion. Jews, Gnostics, Platonists, Christians, and Pagans interacted with the ideas of their neighbors and in some cases borrowed heavily to make their point. This helps us to understand the strategies that were employed by the different groups as they acted and interacted in their community.

15

Frend identifies Gnosticism as the first authentic Gentile Christianity in Alexandria. It reached its heyday between 130 and 180 A.D. They “laid the foundation of much that became the Alexandrian school of theology in the next two centuries” (195). Gnostic investigation took Christian though to a deeper level and immersed it in deep moral and intellectual issues. Gnosticism was not a unified religion, it had almost as many specific incarnations as teachers.

Gnosticism was successful because it rode on the back of several developments.• Hellenized monotheistic Judaism: Jewish culture was embracing mysticism, but it provided the idea that there was one creator of great knowledge and mystery that brought the universe to being. •Platonic Ideals: Philo’s used Platonic concepts to explain God. This God was good and no evil could come from him; this God sprang forth wisdom, reason, ideas. Salvation became the Platonic wherein bodily passions were left behind and the reasoned soul ascended to God.•Abandoning Yahweh: Yahweh of the Old Testament did not stand up to the Plato’s picture of God. Yahweh became a demiurge, a lower ranking being responsible for material creation. Law was no longer the standard for life but understanding. Questions of providence and theodicy were easier answered by leaving behind the ‘messy’ God of the Old Testament gave human beings physical indignity and seemed violent toward them. •Wide Range of Sources: Gnostic teachers tended to draw from a wide variety of sources and harmonize the concepts and beliefs that came from those sources. Homer, Moses, Plato, Pythagoras, and Paul, provided insights towards the Gnostic goal of gathering the mystical gnosis and the escape of matter-bound death.•Exclusivity: Gnosticism found purchase in the minds of mystically and philosophically oriented people not only because it piqued their sense of curiosity in ideas, but also because it was an exclusive club. Only the socially elite had access to the true teachings of Christ – they formed secret sects and the instructions on how to “outwit the powers of the soul would encounter on its upward flight” (Frend, 200).•Finding Christ: Christ was a convenient figure to tie together. He had gained popularity in the first century world because of the powerful things done in his name. He was said to have defeated death and possess “the medicine of immortality, and the antidote for death.” Jesus fit well, for the Gnostics, as the Divine Wisdom, the Logos, the conduit for the secret message and instruction on how to get past physical bonds and return to the good.

16

17

Some of the foundational leaders in Alexandria:oBasilides

oGod is completely transcendent and incomprehensible to the human mindoThe center of the dreadful human condition is located in ignorance.

oValentinusoHeraclonoPtolemyoHeracleon

18

•Writing Alexandrian Christians used Platonic philosophy to understand and explain their faith. Gnosticism had dominated for nearly the first two centuries but had over extended and opened itself up to criticisms. •Gnosticism is not the same as Platonism. Gnostics came to Platonism by way of Hellenistic Judaism and the work of Philo. It provided a neater alternative to understanding human reason and ideals over the system of pagan gods that Plato had become suspect of. Passion and the body are replaced by reason and understanding. Gnostic teachers used Platonic philosophy to their advantage just as Christian teachers were going to do.•These Christians took their cue from the earlier work of Philo to understand God as ‘the form of the good.’•Christians wrested Christ from the Gnostics as selective divine knowledge-giver and interpreted him as the Wisdom/Logos of God the Creator.•Platonism was used as a tool for communicating – a necessary language to know for living in the Greek world.•While the emphasis for Christian Platonists moved away from cosmic dualism and special secret knowledge, Platonism still encouraged rationality and rejection of the body.

19

Gnostic and Orthodox Christianity parted ways in a couple of respects.

Pantaenus: “an unusually erudite and open-minded scholar who in Platonic fashion mixed seriousness and playfulness in his predominantly apologetic writings” (Wickert, 38).

Clement (of Alexandria) rejected the sectarianism of the Gnostics, and wanted to keep belief within the church and its Rule of Faith. Gnosticism “offensive to human freedom of will and common sense.” Clement may have been somewhat elitist in his pursuit of knowledge and perfection as the ideal for Christians. He is reported to have come in conflict with those Christians who were not philosophically oriented. He had a commitment to using the tools and arguments available to him for the purpose of directing people to the Eternal God

Origen knew that Christ’s ability to change lives, the real lives of even un-educated people, proved his message to be true. Gnosticism brought many different ideas together towards one unifying idea of God, but it over extended itself and had no agenda or power to impact the masses. He understood that the message and mobility of the Christian church was more effective than Gnosticisms obscure elitism.

Cyril of Alexandria: “made it his aim to combat the Antiochene Nestorius and to defend for Mary the title of theotokos.

They did not differ, however, in their tendency to adopt outside philosophy for their own use. The dominant writing Christians in Alexandria still made us of Platonism for their ends. Platonic philosophy could be used to better explain and understand theological principles. While other Christian writers, including Hippolytus and Tertullian, rejected Gnosticism and Platonism, Clement’s position was that “Platonism and Scripture could be combined to demonstrate not dualism (Gnostic) but the harmony and goodness of the universe.” He and Origen knew that in their context the ability to communicate to reasonable and educated people.

Although there was a tendency in both Clement and Origen towards knowledge and the process of perfection, moral teaching and study of the scriptures were key (van den Hoek, 70-71). Both of them stressed that the truth resided in the Orthodox church (72), moral teaching and behavior did not fall

20

The success of the Christian mission in the first centuries of the church is in part due to the Christians at Alexandria.•Organization

•The city of Alexandria was second in the Roman Empire only to Rome itself. Orthodox bishops understood the role of active leadership and organization. “Demetrius of Alexandria (189-232) established suffragan bishops in Egypt and consolidated the authority of the bishop of Alexandria over the rest of Egypt, at the expense of the Alexandrian presbyters who had apparently previously governed the church with the bishop” (Frend, 284).

•Resources•Existing trade networks and markets were used to carry communications between bishops and even hold councils (Frend, 284). In some cases bishops drew upon the social relationships for their benefit. Organization coupled with the bounty of economic production provided for bishops and presbyters to do their work.

•Relevance to Culture•Christian leaders in Alexandria were well versed in the ideas and culture of the day, they gave intelligent and well defended responses to culture.

•Passion•Not only were the leaders in Alexandria willing to engage in rhetorical arguments, they often faced grim persecution from competing ideological groups and the Roman rulers trying to promote imperial objectives. Passion and zeal, among bishops and laity gave solid roots to the growth of Christianity in Alexandria.

•Tools for Explanation•Beyond Alexandria, the work of the so-called Christian Platonists gave the Christian world at large the tools to evaluate bold statements about the nature of Christ, the Trinity, and relationship with the Empire. Without this work, even though it may have fault here and there, the church would not have made the sometimes razor-thin differentiations that it did in order to preserve right doctrine.

21

•Allegorical Interpretation: as opposed to the Antiochene school of literal interpretation.

•Trinity (Cappadocian Fathers): Athanasius is said to have used Alexandrian Platonism and the concept of the logos to develop the concept of homoousios and defend the Nicene Creed. His arguments against Arius served as a starting point and influence for the Cappadocian fathers who would further develop the doctrine of the Trinity.

•Arius: one could say that the precise philosophical knowledge and argumentation allowed Alexander and Athanasius to understand and respond to what Arius was proposing about Christ. Heresy is often a very minute matter of detail that allowed to remain causes dramatic changes in theology and practice (Jehovah Witnesses)

•Alexandrian/Antiochene Christology: Athanasius’ Christology: “Although the Logos is itself present in the created world insofar as it lends to the individual things of the world their unity as cosmos, the sinful self-centeredness of human beings conceals any knowledge of this unity as established by the Logos. For this reason, such knowledge of God is now renewed by the Logos’s own act of entering into an invdividual body and demonstrating visibly that it is the Logos itself that vivifies the human body, giving it life. The Christological formula reads commensurately: the Logos or God in the body. … Monophysites all followed the lead of Athanasius” (Muhlenberg, 464). “Alexandrian theology… began with the Logos (its Platonic legacy) and set the person of the Logos under the conditions of the humanity of Jesus” (Wickert, 38).

•Monophysite: the one divine nature of Christ. 22

Why the two descriptions? In the end I think people’s conception of what is right and wrong is very dear to them. As much as the free flow of debate and ideas may have existed, people were passionate about what they believed at how to live because of it. Alexandrians loved their opulent surroundings and they often appreciated the empire that made them possible. Yet when push came to shove, riot came to kill –many times over ideas. The Platonic concepts of appetite and reason, body and soul, sensible and intellectual did come to bear in the history of this city. Perhaps using Plato’s ideas wasn’t as bad of a project as some have said.

However we evaluate them, we must remember that ideological wars are still being fought today. However much we fancy our world to be the civilized utopia of science and thought, it is sadly still a world where monks fight monks and tribes obliterate tribes. The message of Christ has not lost its relevance.

23

Alston, Richard. "Philo's in Flaccum: Ethnicity and social space in Roman Alexandria." Greece & Rome. 44, no. 2 (October 1997): 165- 75. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed January 26, 2009).

Bingen, J. Hellenistic Egypt: Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall. Berkley: University of California Press, 2007.

Bagnall, Roger S. “Alexandria: Library of Dreams.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 146, no. 4 (Dec., 2002): 348-362. JSTOR (Accessed January 28, 2009).

Davidson, Ivor J. “Alexandrian Christianity and Its Legacy.” In The Birth of the Church: From Jesus to Constantine, A.D. 30-312, 249-270. Vol. 1 of The Baker History of the Church, edited by Tim Dowley. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004.

Downey, G. “Alexandria.” New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. Edited by William J. McDonald, et al. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. Translated by Christian Frederick Cruse. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1955.

Fraser, P. M. Cities of Alexander the Great. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Grant, Robert M. “School and Church at Alexandria.” In Augustus to Constantine: The Rise and Triumph of Christianity in the Roman World, 198-215. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1970.

Haas, C. Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.

Marlowe, J. The Golden Age of Alexandria : from its Foundation by Alexander the Great in 331 BC to its Capture by the Arabs in 642 AD. London: Gollancz, 1971.

Pearson, Birger A. “Alexandria.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1. Edited by Noel Freedman, et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Swain, Joseph W. The World Empires: Alexander and the Romans After 334 B.C.. Vol. 2 of The Ancient World. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950.

van den Hoek, Annewies. “The ‘Catechetical’ School of Early Christian Alexandria and Its Philonic Heritage. The Harvard Theological Review. 90, no. 1 (Jan., 1997):59-87. JSTOR (accessed January 28, 2009).

24