Philosophy, the Handmaiden of Theology Henrichs, Albert Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1968; 9, 4; ProQuest pg. 437

Philosophy, the Handmaiden of 
Theology 

Albert Henrichs 

THE MAXIM that philosophy should serve as the handmaiden of 
theology was frequently proclaimed by scholastic theologians 
in the Middle Ages. They expressed it in these terms: Philo­

sophia theologiae ancilla.1 Whether or not the subordination of philos­
ophy to theology, which is implied in this formula, can be supported 
by reasonable argument will not be touched upon in this essay. It is 
the origin rather than the doctrinal aspect of this idea which I shall 
discuss.2 

One more limitation is necessary. The interpretation of the relation­
ship between philosophy and theology in terms of servant and mis­
tress originated in the Alexandrian school of theology and can be 
appreciated adequately only when considered in connection with the 
character, methods and intentions of that institution. Our analysis, 
therefore, will be confined to the way in which this idea was repre­
sented and transmitted in the writings of the four leading teachers of 
this school, namely Philo the Jew and the Christians Clement, Origen 
and Didymus the Blind. They constitute a uniform and continuous 
tradition of biblical exegesis and, to a lesser degree, of theological 
thinking, which persisted from the first to the fourth century of our 
era. After that time, the doctrines of Origen and Didymus, which 
were nearly identical in substance, fell victim to the rigorous censor­
ship of church councils, and their works, with few exceptions, were no 
longer copied. 

One of the ideas that escaped this damnatio memoriae, because it cor­
responded to a common belief of the Greek Fathers in general, was 

1 Still useful is F. J. Clemens, De scholasticorum sententia philosophiam esse theologiae ancillam 
commentatio eM iinster 1856). Clemens was one of the first scholars to trace the maxim back to 
Philo. Since then this origin has become well-known: cf e.g. E. Norden, Antike Kunstprosa II 
(LeipZig/Berlin 1918, repro Darmstadt 1958) 670-79; H. Fuchs, Reallexikonfur Ant. u. Chr. 5 
(1962) 382 S.V. ENKYKLIOS PAIDEIA; F. Kiihnert, Allgemeinbildung und Fachbildung in der Antike 
(Berlin 1961) 94f and 133f. 

2 A version of this paper was presented at a colloquium of the Department of Classical 
Studies of the University of Michigan on 25 July 1968. 

437 



438 PHILOSOPHY, THE HANDMAIDEN OF THEOLOGY 

the subordination of philosophy to theology. It meant simply that the 
secular knowledge of the time and, more specifically, Greek philo­
sophy, especially the Platonic concept of the human soul and the 
ethical system of the Stoics, could serve as a useful instrument in the 
interpretation of the scriptures. 

One of the most characteristic features of the Alexandrian school is 
the allegorical interpretation of the Bible. This method of biblical 
exegesis is based upon the principle that not all passages of the Bible 
can be taken at their face value, but that a deeper meaning can be de­
rived from most of them. Frequently the same passage could be in­
terpreted both literally and allegorically. To a modern mind this pro­
cedure is arbitrary, because it reads a meaning into a text that was not 
given to it by its authors. But the doctrine of divine inspiration pro­
vided ample justification for the Alexandrians. The books of the Old 
Testament had been written by divinely inspired prophets and sages, 
and they had been intentionally composed in a way that allowed for 
different interpretations. Thus the explanation of a biblical passage 
could be adapted to the degree of enlightenment which the reader 
had attained. 

Allegorical interpretation was not at all restricted to the Bible. The 
Homeric poems were the first Greek texts to be subjected to this kind 
of treatment. The earliest evidence for allegorical interpretation of the 
Iliad dates from the sixth century B.C., whereas the works of philo 
provide the first extensive example of similar methods applied to the 
Septuagint. (The few fragments of Aristobulus are negligible.3 ) There 
can be no doubt that Philo had Jewish predecessors. But even so the 
application of the allegorical method to Homer antedates the Jewish 
allegorists by at least three centuries. It is well known that the Stoic 
philosophers were also fond of allegorical interpretation, which en­
abled them to find traces of the Stoic doctrine in texts that were con­
siderably older than Stoic philosophy itself. Chrysippus was notorious 
for this pursuit. According to Cicero, who follows Philodemus' treatise 
On Piety, Chrysippus tried in the second book of his work On the Nature 
of the Gods to reconcile the poetry of Orpheus, Musaeus, Hesiod and 
Homer with his own teachings about the gods, which he had ex­
pounded in the first book of the same work.' 

3 For a detailed discussion of the evidence see N. Walter, Der Thcrraausleger Aristobulos 
(Texte und Untersuchungen 86, Berlin 1964), esp. 141-48 on the predecessors of Philo. 

'Cic. Nat.D. 1.15.41= Philodemos, Piet. p.80,16ft'. Gomperz; H. Diels, Dox.Graec. (Berlin 



ALBERT HENRICHS 439 

There are certain conditions under which allegorical interpretation 
is possible and even inevitable. The first requirement is that there be a 
text to which this interpretation can be applied. Most naturally this 
text will be a book or collection of writings which has been sanctioned 
by tradition and the content of which is so important for the inner life 
of a given society that it is recognized as an authoritative source of 
knowledge by each successive generation. The other condition is a 
fairly developed cultural status of this society. As a result, the message 
contained in this text will not be accepted without criticism but will 
be challenged by contemporary intellectual achievements. Such criti­
cism will discover that the inherited text is full of objectionable pas­
sages which no longer make sense. The traditional commitment of the 
society to this text, however, is so deep-rooted that a total rejection of 
it is impossible. Instead, the defenders of the tradition declare that the 
wisdom of the present lies hidden in the old texts and can be easily 
brought to light if only proper interpretation is given to them. It was 
precisely under these circumstances that allegorical interpretation as 
a compromise between the contending forces of tradition and progress 
was invented. 

The reader of Homer and of the Old Testament comes constantly 
across passages which were morally objectionable or otherwise found 
unsatisfactory in antiquity. The only possible solution for ancient in­
terpreters was to explain such difficulties away by giving a new mean­
ing to them. 

One of these offensive passages in the Old Testament is Genesis 16.1-2. 
The text reads: "Sarah, Abraham's wife, did not bring forth any chil­
dren for him. But she had an Egyptian handmaiden whose name was 
Hagar. So Sarah said to Abraham: Behold, the Lord closed my womb 
so that I cannot bring forth children. Therefore go to this hand­
maiden of mine in order to beget children by her." 

To Jews and Christians alike, monogamy was the only acceptable 
relationship between man and woman. To accept this passage in its 
literal sense was beyond their capacity. How could Abraham, the 
model of virtue, have intercourse with a maid-servant of his house­
hold, and how could his wife Sarah not only tolerate this license but 

1879) 547. The Stoics used fanciful etymologies in order to support their interpretations. In 
this respect, they surpassed even the Alexandrian exegetes of the Bible. A pre-Stoic alle­
gorical commentary on Orphic poetry is extant on papyrus; cf S. Kapsomenos. Deltion 19 
(1964) 17-25, R. Merkelbach. ZPapEpigr 1 (1967) 21-32. and W. Burkert. AntuAb 14 (1968) 
93-114. 



440 PHILOSOPHY, THE HANDMAIDEN OF THEOLOGY 

even make the suggestion herself? The obvious conclusion, that among 
nomadic tribes the chief of a clan had to produce male offspring by 
any means and that a patriarchal society did not necessarily practise 
monogamy, was not drawn. Instead, allegorical interpretation was 
substituted for historical record. 

We are now in a position to understand Philo's comment on this 
passage: "The idea that the quotation we deal with has anything to do 
with physical intercourse, which aims at pleasure, must be abandoned 
completely. For it is Mind (Abraham) who is approaching Virtue 
(Sarah) and who desires to beget children by her. Since Mind is not yet 
advanced enough to do so, he is advised by Virtue to have the hand­
maiden, that is intermediate education (f.L'U7J 7TaLS€ta), betrothed to 
hi "5 m. 

The very nature of Philo's interpretation is significant. Sarah and 
Hagar are no longer regarded as living human beings, but as symbolic 
representations of mental activities. The intermediate education (we 
explain the term later) that is equaled with Hagar is an important 
element in the faithful's endeavor to reach his final goal, which con­
sists in moral perfection or virtue and is identified with Sarah. The 
Greek philosophical term which the Alexandrian theologians used to 
describe this way towards perfection is 7TpOK07T~, 'spiritual progress'. 
What the Hellenized Jews and Christians of Alexandria regarded as 
the essence of their religion was not so much obedience to the Jewish 
Law or the display of Christian charity, but rather the unceasing at­
tempt to understand the Divine. Thus their religious attitude was 
deeply influenced by Greek, and this means in our context pagan, 
tradition. They practised the Socratic gospel that virtue and knowl­
edge cannot be separated and that the greatest accomplishment of 
man is moral blamelessness combined with intellectual excellence. 

The allegorical interpretation of Genesis 16 by Philo and his Christian 
successors is a perfect self-characterization of their own attitude, by 
which they tried to link the creed of Judaism and Christianity with the 
achievements of the Greek mind. In fact we are entitled to conclude 
that Sarah and Hagar symbolize the two souls that kept Alexandrian 
theology alive for more than four centuries. It is not surprising that 
the decline of the Alexandrian school coincided with the final stage of 
pagan philosophy, when Neoplatonism ended in theurgy and magic. 
In 553, only a quarter of a century after the pagan university of Athens 

6 Philo, De COllgr.Erud.Grat. 12 (vol. III.74,16ff Wendland). 



ALBERT HENRICHS 441 

had been closed by Justinian, the Council of Constantinople declared 
that the teachings of the Platonizing Alexandrians Origen and 
Didymus were heretic.6 Thus the Christian Church purged itself of an 
element that, though foreign to the majority of ancient Christians, 
had for the first time propagated the Christian belief in philosophical 
language and had created the first systematic outline of theological 
doctrine. 

The term 'theology' was rarely used by the Alexandrians. Instead, 
they preferred the terms ap€,T~ and aocpla with reference to the course 
which they were pursuing. In their usage, the word ap€T~ does not 
have primarily a moral connotation. Didymus, for instance, followed 
Aristotle in distinguishing between practical or ethical virtues on the 
one hand and dianoetic virtues on the other.7 If we transfer this dis­
tinction into a Christian context, we may say that the former group 
includes the moral code of the Ten Commandments, for instance, 
whereas the latter group comprises virtues such as insight (aVVEaLS), 
prudence (cppCWYJULS) and wisdom (aocpla), which were associated with 
the doctrinal aspect of the Christian belief. We have already mentioned 
that the Alexandrians stressed intellectual qualities much more than 
the 'practical' virtues of moral behavior. For them the virtue of virtues 
was aocpla, which is defined by Philo as "the knowledge of things divine 
and human and of their causes," a definition which stems from 
Chrysippus.8 In this sense, ap€T~ and aocpla can be regarded as identical. 

Another passage from Philo may serve as an illustration for this use 
of aocpla and will at the same time enable us to determine the correct 
meaning of the 'intermediate education' with which Hagar was identi­
fied. The passage runs: "We are not able to receive the seed of virtue, 
unless we have previously met with the handmaiden. The hand­
maiden of wisdom is encyclopedic education, which consists in the 
various branches of preliminary instruction (~ Dux T(VV 7Tp0TraLD€vp.eXTwv 
'" ')"9 EYKVKI\LOS p.ovaLKTJ . 

The accumulation of technical vocabulary in the last part of this 
passage can be dealt with briefly, because the terms are well-known. 

6 Didymos der BUnde, Kommentar zu Hiob, Teill (Pap. Texte u. Abh. I, Bonn 1968) 31lff; 
L. Koenen, ZPapEpigr 2 (1968) 50f. 

7 Didymus, op.cit. (supra n.6) 4l. 
8 Philo, De Congr.Erud.Gr. 79 (1II.87,19ffW.). For Chrysippus' definition, see SVF 11.35 and 

1017; W. Bousset, Jiidisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom (Gottingen 1915) 
106f; Walter, op.cit. (supra n.3) 84f. 

t Philo, De Congr.Erud.Gr. 9 (lli.74,2ff W.). 



442 PHILOSOPHY, THE HANDMAIDEN OF THEOLOGY 

Hagar is interpreted as the body of secular knowledge, which in 
Hellenistic and Roman times provided a preliminary education for the 
student before he devoted himself to a special field, for instance 
rhetoric, philosophy or law.10 This preliminary education is compar­
able to the modern academic ideal of a studium generale which should 
precede professional studies. 

The regular Greek terms for this body of knowledge are -l] JYKVKAWS 
TrWDElcx or 'Tee TrP0TrCXtSEVt-LCX'TCX. In spite of various modern theories about 
the significance of the term JYKVKALOS, the clearest explanation can be 
found in ancient authorities, who interpret it as a circle of disciplines 
through which the student had to pass.u The idea of the circle was 
supposed to stress the uniform character and the interrelationship of 
these disciplines. This JYKVKAws TrcxtSElcx is identical with the artes 
liberales (Cicero was the first to use this term 12), which were a con­
stitutive factor in mediaeval universities. In the passage quoted from 
Philo, t-L0vaLK~ is synonymous with TrCXLSElcx. Already in Attic Greek the 
word t-L0fJacx was used to designate the arts.13 

There is another important element in the allegorical exegesis of the 
Bible that deserves mention. Hebrew names which occur in the 
Septuagint were incorporated into allegorical interpretation by giving 
a Greek translation of them. Such a translation, of course, had to 
correspond exactly to the tenor of the interpretation given to a specific 
passage. Therefore the criterion for translation was not etymological 
correctness but mere expedience.14 Thus in many instances we are 
unable to verify these Greek translations and to connect them with 
any of the Hebrew roots known to us. It is doubtful whether Philo 
knew Hebrew at all. It would by no means be surprising if he did not. 
The Greek translation of the Old Testament, which is traditionally 
called Septuagint, was made in response to a general need: the Helle­
nized Jews of the Diaspora had by that time forgotten their native 

10 For an extensive treatment, see Kuhnert, op.cit. (supra n.I). 
11 Quint. Inst.l.lO.I; August. Contra Acad. 3.7. The idea of a uniform and coherent body 

of knowledge was stressed by Cic. De Or. 3.21 and Arch. 2; also by Vitro De Arch. 1.1.12. 
12 Cic. De Inv. 1.35; cf Cic. De Or. 1.17, 1.72 and 3.127; Sen. Ep. 88.2. 
13 E.g. Eur. Med. 1085 and 1089. Philosophy itself was also called p.ovu£JO]; cf PI. Phd. 61A 

and Strab. 10.3.10, p.468. For a later example, see Dion.Hal. De Orat.Antiq. prooem. 1, 7j 
'AT'T£K~ p.ouua, who refers to Attic rhetoric in contrast to the Asianic perversion. This passage 
in Dionysius is even more pertinent to our subject, since Attic oratory is compared to a 
married woman (7j '>..w81pa yap.€-n]), who loses her influence to a mistress (€Talpa). 

14 Even if the translations can be justified by modern linguistic standards (as seems to be 
the case for Sarah, the 'princess'), it remains true that etymological correctness was not the 
main concern of the allegorists. 



ALBERT HENRICHS 443 

tongue. Christian theologians faced a similar language problem. 
Didymus, for instance, confesses several times that he does not know 
Hebrew.15 Origen, on the other hand, was one of the few Christian 
scholars of that time who were well versed in that language. The most 
conspicuous proof is his bilingual edition of the Old Testament, the 
Hexapla, in which the Hebrew version and the Greek translations of it 
were arranged in parallel columns. Those allegorists who were un­
familiar with Hebrew could consult special dictionaries, the so-called 
Onomastica, which listed the Greek equivalents of Hebrew names in 
alphabetical order. 

The traditional translation for Sarah is 'the leading one' (~ apxovua 

or apx~ JLOV).16 Clearly the translation was made to express the super­
iority of the mistress over the handmaiden or, in the terms of the 
interpretation, that of virtue and wisdom over secular knowledge. 
We find also combinations such as 'leading virtue' (apxovua apeT~)17 

or 'the leading wisdom' (~ apxovua uocpLa).l8 Hagar's name was sup­
posed to mean 'sojourn' (7TapoLKT}utS). The underlying idea is that the 
student of divine wisdom has to soj ourn with the handmaiden first, 
until he is able to settle permanently in the embrace of the mistress. 
The Greek term for such a permanent settlement is KaToLKT}UtS, which 
Philo uses in his explanation of Hagar's name: "Before anyone who is 
eager to get settled in the perfect wisdom is enrolled in its city, he 
sojourns with the encyclopedic disciplines in order to advance through 
them with devotion to the perfect wisdom."19 

It is in this context that we must look for Philo's explanation of his 
term 'intermediate education' (f1-~uT} 7TatDeLa). The student of wisdom 
who tries to get acquainted with secular knowledge first is somewhere 
between an alien and a citizen. "For a sojourner can be compared to a 
citizen because he lives in the community, and to an alien because he 
is not permanently settled there." 20 This intermediate position of the 
student of wisdom was transferred by Philo to the activity in which 

15 Didymus, op.cit. (supra n.6) 51. 
16 E.g. Philo, De Cherub. 7 (I.l71,21f Cohn); De Mut.Nom. 77 (HI.l70,16ff W.). 
17 Philo, Leg.Alleg. 3.244 (I.l67,5 C.); De Cherub. 3 (I.170,14 C.). 
18 Philo, Leg.Alleg. 2.82 (1.106,24 C.). 
19 Philo, Leg.Alleg. 3.244 (I.l67,10ff C.). 
20 Philo, De Congr.Erud.Gr. 23 (III.76,23ff W.). The same metaphoricallanguage is used in 

the Letter to Diognetus, where it expresses the transitory existence of the Christians on earth: 
"They live in their own countries, but as aliens; they share all duties like citizens and suffer 
all disabilities like foreigners; every foreign land is their country, and every country is 
foreign to them" (Ep. ad Diogn. 5.5, transI. E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of 
Anxiety [Cambridge 1965] 20). 



444 PHILOSOPHY, THE HANDMAIDEN OF THEOLOGY 

the student is engaged. Thus the term <intermediate education', 
which is peculiar to Philo, was coined. The internal logic of Philo's ex­
planation should not be examined too closely. Allegorical interpreta­
tions are surprisingly systematic, but nevertheless they do not follow 
strict logic. 

We have seen that Philo's allegorical interpretation of Abraham's 
relations with Sarah and Hagar is the source from which the maxim 
which we are discussing was derived. Before we can proceed to con­
sider the use which the Christian successors of Philo made of this 
maxim, we must deal with the model that inspired Philo. The fact 
that Philo's explanation of Genesis 16 has a pagan precedent is highly 
characteristic of the Hellenized spirit in which Alexandrian allegorical 
interpretation developed. Stobaeus and the Gnomologium Vaticanum 
preserve a fragment which is ascribed by Stobaeus to the Stoic philos­
opher Ariston of Chios (ca. 250 B.C.).21 There is some doubt as to the 
authenticity of his ascription, because the Gnomologium ascribes the 
same fragment to Gorgias. But obviously Ariston is the better guess. 
The text runs: "From the <Comparisons' of Ariston. Ariston of Chios 
maintains that those who waste their effort with the propaedeutic dis­
ciplines but neglect philosophy, resemble the suitors of Penelope, who 
when they failed to win over the mistress mingled with the hand­
maidens." 22 

The close resemblance to Philo's explanation of Genesis 16 is obvious. 
We can safely assume that this comparison between the suitors of 
Penelope and the pursuers of the propaedeutic disciplines was known 
to Philo. It is unlikely that Ariston intended to interpret this episode 
from the Odyssey allegorically. He simply referred to it by way of 
comparison. But the fact that he did shows how easy it was to explain 
passages from Homer in a figurative sense. That Ariston was a Stoic is 
also significant, if we recall the use of allegorical interpretation by the 
Stoics. For Ariston it was philosophy that ranked above the encyclo­
pedic disciplines, whereas for Philo it is wisdom, which is for him the 
equivalent of theology. This difference accounts for one passage in 

21 Stob. 3.109 (vol. III.246,1 Hense)=SVF 1.350; L. Sternbach, "De Gnomologio Vaticano 
inedito, II," WS 10 (1888) 36 no.166= Texte und Kommentare 2 (Berlin 1963) 68. Slightly dif­
ferent versions of the same apophthegm are ascribed to Aristotle (Cramer, Anecd.Par. 
IV.411,15ff), Aristippus (Diog.Laert. 2.79) and Bion ([Plut.] De Lib.Ed. 10 p.7C). 

22 The translation is based on the version preserved in Stobaeus. 



ALBERT HENRICHS 445 

Philo, where he subordinates pagan philosophy to wisdom or theol­
ogy: "And indeed, in the same way in which the encyclopedic 
disciplines contribute to the acquisition of philosophy, philosophy itself 
contributes to the acquisition of wisdom."23 Here we have the triple 
sequence of encyclopedic disciplines, philosophy, wisdom instead of 
the usual pair, encyclopedic disciplines versus wisdom. The reason for 
this inconsistency is that in this passage Philo had Ariston's comparison 
in mind, which he reinterpreted by subordinating pagan philosophy 
to his Graeco-Judaic theology.24 

We may deal with Clement briefly. In a chapter of his Stromata he 
explains the meaning of Sarah and Hagar with long quotations from 
Philo. But he adds one new element, which we shall meet again later 
when we treat Didymus. Clement connects the allegorical interpreta­
tion of Genesis 16 with a similar explanation of a passage from Proverbs 
(5.18-20), which reads: "Let your fountain of water be your own, and 
rejoice with the wife of your youth. Let her accompany you like your 
most beloved deer and your most graceful foal. Let your own wife 
attract you and let her be with you every moment. Because you have 
been embraced in her love, your offspring will be numerous. Let your 
dealings with another's wife not become frequent." These lines have a 
poetic beauty of their own. But Clement's explanation of the last part 
of this passage proves that he disliked the literal meaning. "The words 
'Let your dealings with another's wife not become frequent' recom­
mend that a person make use of secular education (KOGfLLKTJ 7TaL8£La), 

but not stay with it indefinitely." 25 Here the allegorical interpretation 
of Hagar is applied to another passage of the Old Testament. 

What we have of Origen has come down to us in a mutilated and 
fragmentary condition. Parts of these texts are extant only in Latin 
translations, which were made towards the end of the fourth century. 
We must be content if we find some traces of our maxim. 

A short Greek fragment from Origen's commentary on Genesis 16 

has been preserved. We can gather from it that he, too, interpreted 
Sarah as virtue (cXp£T~) and Hagar as the propaedeutic disciplines (Tct 
7Tp07TaLS€VfLara).26 In a Latin version of his Homilies on Genesis the fact 
that some of the Patriarchs were married to several wives either at the 

23 Philo, De Congr.Erud.Gr. 79 (III.87,19ff W.). 
24 This passage has puzzled some scholars: cf Bousset, op.cit. (supra n.8) 102f, and 

Kuhnert, op.cit. (supra n.1) 94 n.4. 
25 Clem.Ai. Strom. 1.5.29 (GCS II.19,5ff). 
28 Orig. In Gen. 16.4 (Migne, PG 12 [1862] 116A). 



446 PHILOSOPHY, THE HANDMAIDEN OF THEOLOGY 

same time or successively is explained in terms of the allegory. The 
wives are the virtues, which one acquires at the same time or one after 
the other. In the same passage, logic and rhetoric, both of which form 
part of the propaedeutics, are described as concubinesP 

The most interesting passage, however, can be found in a letter that 
Origen wrote to his former pupil Gregory the Wonder-Worker. 
There we read: HI should like you to select even from Greek philos­
ophy those encyclopedic disciplines or preliminary studies that can be 
applied to the Christian teaching, and also those parts of geometry and 
astronomy that are useful for the exegesis of the Holy Scriptures. The 
reason for this advice is that we have to regard pagan philosophy as an 
assistant of Christian doctrine, just as the adherents of pagan philos­
ophy themselves regard geometry, music, grammar, rhetoric and 
astronomy as assistants of their philosophy."28 It seems clear to me 
that Origen here expressly refers to Ariston's subordination of the 
propaedeutic disciplines to philosophy. 

The writings of Didymus have suffered even more severe damage 
than those of Origen. Until recently, all that was known were several 
hundred fragments of some of Didymus' commentaries on books of 
the Old and New Testaments. These fragments had been collected by 
scholars from the so-called Catenae, Byzantine commentaries of the 
Bible which consist of excerpts from the Greek Fathers that are 
written continuously around the text of the Scriptures. Thus no co­
herent commentary of Didymus and, with one very doubtful excep­
tion, none of his dogmatic works were extant. This situation has been 
completely changed by the discovery in Egypt in 1941 of eight papyrus 
codices, five of which contain Didymus' commentaries on Genesis, 
Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Job and Zachariah. This find has provided nearly 
1,000 papyrus sheets or 2,000 pages of new information. The publica­
tion of these texts is in progress. 29 We shall see presently how useful 
this increase in material will prove for our purpose. 

Some fragments bearing the name of Didymus have been incorpo­
rated in the vast collection of excerpts from the Bible, Philo and the 
Greek Fathers that is known as the Sacra Parallela of John of Damascus. 
These excerpts are arranged according to subject matter and must 
have been a widely-used book of reference. Under the heading 'Secular 

27 Orig. In Gen.Hom. 11.2 (GCS VI.103). 
28 Orig. Ep. ad Greg. Thaum. 1 (Philocalia p.64,21ff Robinson). 
29 L. Doutreleau and L. Koenen, RecSciRel55 (1967) 547ff; Koenen, op.cit. (supra n.6) 41-53. 



ALBERT HENRICHS 447 

Education' we find the following passage attributed to Didymus: 
"There are times when you come into brief touch with a discipline 
other than your own because of its usefulness, only to return to your 
own immediately. Grammar, for instance, is 'another man's wife' 
(Prov. 5.20). Yet it is appropriate to approach her briefly, because read­
ing requires a skilful and sharp mind. The same is true for rhetoric, 
because it brings about vigor of speech and a correct sequence of ideas. 
And again for philosophy, in order to prove easily what at first seems 
to be incompatible. This is the way you beget children by the Egyptian 
Hagar, the handmaiden of the free Sarah, who is the 'leading one' and 
Wisdom personified. After this we should return to the Wisdom 'of 
our youth' (Prov. 5.18), which is a gift of God, so that we beget by her 
children who are no longer the secular knowledge born of the hand­
maiden (=Hagar), but the prudence that is born of the free and per­
fect Wisdom (=Sarah)."30 

This passage contains all the elements that we have hitherto dis­
cussed. The texts from the Bible on which it is based are Genesis 16 and 
the lines from Proverbs which we quoted earlier. These references find 
their clearest expression in the mention of Sarah and Hagar, of "the 
other man's wife" and of the "wife of your youth." The interpretation 
given to these two passages is the traditional one. The "other man's 
wife" or Hagar is equated with the secular disciplines such as gram­
mar, rhetoric and philosophy. The term philosophy is here identical 
with logic or dialectic. It is noteworthy that the three disciplines men­
tioned by Didymus correspond exactly to what the Middle Ages 
called trivium, the triple way, which together with the quadrivium 
formed the body of the arts. Sarah is interpreted as the perfect wis­
dom which brings forth prudence. The connection of wisdom with 
prudence is also known from Philo.31 The translations of the biblical 
names are still the same. Didymus' advice to remain with the secular 
disciplines only for a short time reflects the translation 'to sojourn' 

30 Sacra Paralle/a. Migne. PG 96 (1891) 344AB: £v£C1Tl7TOT£ 7TPOS dAlyov OLYOVTIX 8ux TO XP7/(lLfLOV 
&>.AoTptaS 8L8aUKaAlas mx,\Lv TfjS lolas dJ(Nws £X£UO(XL. orov ypafLfLaTLId] &>.AoTpla yv~ TVYXaV£L' 
TaUT[] 7Td'\LV KaAOV 7TPOS dAlyov £yylUaL But TO TEXVLKOV Kat dgv rijs avayvwuEWS. 0f-L0lwS PTJTOPLKfi 
aLa TO luxvpov TOU '\oyov Kat T~V aKo,\ovOtav. &>.Aa Kat q,L'\oUOq,tCf aLa TO £Va7TOO£LKTOV TWV 
cpaLvofLlvwv £vavTtwv. fLETft oe TOWO ws am) TfjS Alyv7TTlas • Ayap T£KVWGaVT£S 7TaL8lGKr}s OUG'1)S 
Tfjs J'\£vOlpas EapM TfjS apxouU'1)' Kat aVTouoq,la; OVU'1)' 7T&ALv tEl; T~V £K VEO'T'1)TOS Tpa7TWfLEV 
uocplav, ifns Kat 8,,080TO, €UTLV, 07TWS Kat €g aVTfj; T£KVWUWfL£V oVK'n WS am) 000,\'1), alu8'1)Tu, 
wx8TJfLaTa, &>.A' W, Jg ~'\Ev8'pas Kat TE'\das Gocplas cppOV1JGLV. 

81 Philo interprets Sarah as q,POV'1)ut>, De .1\1igr . .4.br. 126 (11.292,26f W.). 

7-G.R•B.S• 



448 PHILOSOPHY, THE HANDMAIDEN OF THEOLOGY 

that was given to Hagar's name. Sarah is called 'the leading one', as 
was the case in Philo and Clement. 

Without the new papyri it would be impossible to prove that this 
passage actually goes back to Didymus. The ascriptions in collections 
of this kind are often wrong. 

In a very mutilated passage of his commentary on EccleSiastes, which 
is still unpublished, Didymus gives a literal as well as an allegorical 
explanation of the first line of the quotation from Proverbs.32 The 
literal interpretation goes: «You 'rejoice with the wife of your youth' 
(Prov. 5.18) in a literal sense, if you approach her in the way pre­
scribed by the Law, so that 'your marriage is honorable and your bed 
undefiled' (Hebr. 13.4). The passage supports monogamy. For he whose 
only wife is his first one has her 'from his youth', but not the man who 
has many wives."33 Later on, Didymus quotes the lines from Proverbs 
again, and this time he is opposed to the literal explanation: HIf we 
understand these lines literally, they do not seem to be true. For a 
man's offspring will be made numerous by many wives rather than 
by a single one. It may happen that the only wife he has is either not 
productive or totally sterile."34 Then Didymus goes on to the alle­
gorical interpretation: HI will give you a better explanation of the 
words 'of your youth' (Prov. 5.18). I do not say something new that 
cannot be found in some written treatise or other, nor do I say 
something that has not been observed by many others. The 'wife 
of your youth' is the true wisdom (1j &>"7]Otvry aoc/>la) or the true ethical 
virtue (1j &>"7]Otvry ~OtK';' &p€T~)."35 This time Didymusstresses the prac­
tical aspect of virtue rather than the intellectual. What follows in the 
papyrus is a long and very fragmentary section, in which Didymus 
maintains that true wisdom and true virtue naturally precede their 
spurious counterparts. This is an application of the Neoplatonic 
doctrine that only good actually exists, whereas evil is merely a priva-

32 I am indebted to L. Koenen and L. Liesenborghs for their generosity in placing their 
transcripts and photographs at my disposal. Most of the restorations are theirs. 

33 Didymus, Comm. in Bcd. 275.2-6 (on Bcd. 9.9a): Ka~ W, 1T[p]O, TO P11TOV oW O'vv[£v].ppalV£Tat 
yvVatK[l] Tt, rfj £K V£OT1jT[O,] a,"ov, £cXv oVroo[, aVrfj] 1TpoaE>'8rJ [wa'IT£p] {3oV>'£Tat VOp.o,. wan 
7lILtOV yap.ov [£x]nv Ka~ KolT1j[v &p.l]avTOV. 8[7)>'OL] Kat p.ovoyaIL{av ~ Mgt,· Ov8E yap & [1T]O.\-\a, 
£Xoov £K V£07[11]TO, [£X£t], aAAa ILoV7)V ~v 1TpWT1jV. 

34 Didymus. Comm. in Eeel. 275.17-19: £av £1T' [p7)TOlq AWltpIL€V [70]0"[0], 9V t/>alV£7CXl. oVroo, 
£XOV· ILa)J.ov yap £K 1T>'£tOVoov yvv[at]KWV 1TO.\-\OO'[T]O, Tt, £O'7CXl.11 £K p.ta.,. avp.{3alv£t T~V ILlav 11 
OAtY070KO[V] £lvat 11 O'T£[Lp]av. 

36 Didymus, Comm. in Bcel. 275.23-26: Kat IJfAOO K[aAWS £l]1T£LV TO £K V£OT1j70S. OU KCXl.VOTE[P]oo, 
Myoo TO p.~ K£lp.£VOv £!, 'Y.R{t.p[ii TtVt]. TO p.~ 1TO.\-\OLS 811PWP.£vov. £K v£oT1jTOS ')IVV1} £O'7tV ~ aA118Wl1 

[-I..' ] ~ • ~. \ 8 \ '8 \; , 9'9 .,..ta TJ 7) W\7) tV7) 7) tK7) ap£T1j. 



ALBERT HENRICHS 449 

tion of good.36 Hereafter Didymus resumes his main interpretation. 
True virtue produces many spiritual children. "But it is also necessary 
that we stay for a short time with <another's wife' (Prov. 5.20), that is 
with the foreign wisdom (7TpOS T~V ;gw8€v aocPlav)."37 The Greek term 
lewOf-v (JocPla is synonymous with the KOaJLtK~ 7Tatof.la of Clement. Thus 
Didymus' interpretation follows the traditional pattern. Since Didy­
mus has already pointed out that he is offering a well-known inter­
pretation for the passage from Proverbs, we are not surprised when he 
refers to Philo explicitly at the end of this interpretation. "In a similar 
way Philo showed that the housekeeper (?)38 (=Hagar) produces off­
spring before perfect virtue does. For if one does not beget children by 
these (women) of inferior status, one cannot become father of unde­
filed achievements and of the teachings of wisdom."39 Didymus 
clearly refers here to philo's interpretation of Genesis 16. 

We have again reached the point from which we departed. Didy­
mus, the last representative of the Alexandrian school, repeats the 
allegorical interpretations that Philo had developed about 350 years 
before. 

The interpretation of Genesis 16 that we read in St Paul's Epistle to the 
Galatians (4.22-26) is completely different. St Paul is also convinced 
that an allegorical interpretation is the best approach to this passage. 
But for him, Sarah and Hagar symbolize the two Covenants and thus 
the development from servitude towards freedom. This explanation, 
from which pagan influence is totally absent, illustrates the more 
traditional spirit of Palestinean Jewry compared to the Hellenism of 
the Alexandrian Jews.40 The profound difference did not escape 
Didymus. His reference to Philo is followed directly by a reference to 
St Paul: "The same relationship is called <letter' and <spirit' by the 

36 Cf Didymus, Comm. in Ps. 129 (A. Kehl, Der Psalmenkommentar von Tura. Quaternio 9 
[Papyrol.Colon. I, Koln-Opladen 1964] 1) 6: Kat KaIJ6Aov yE TOVTO MYOJl.EV· 1]YEtTaL Td: KaAd: 
nuv KaKclJII. 

37 Didymus, Comm. in Ecd. 276.15-16: 8Ei 8~ Kat 1TPO, aMoTplav d>.lyw, [Elvat ~Jl.ii" TOVT]f9"n 
1TPO, ~v £~wIJEJI aoc/>Lav. 

38 My supplement is doubtful, because the word ~ Tall-La was not widely used. One would 
also expect the article, for which there is no space at all. 

39 Didymus, Comm. in Eee!. 276.19-22: Kat KaTd: TOVTO «> cJJLAwv €~EAa~EvT[aJl.J?av 1TpOTlKTEL[V] 
Tij, apETij, Tij, nAda,' El Jl.~ yap n, T€KTI EK TOtYrWV TW[V Jl.]£LKpWV, o~ S[u]v[aT]E 1T( aT )7JP 
{EK Tij,} TWV €PYWV TWV aJl.LaJITWV Kat TWV IJ£WP"YJJl.aTWV Tf), aocf>la, YEJI€alJat. (lege [Jl.]LKpWV, 
8[v1v[aT]aL; €K rij, manus posterior). 

40 This is the view of Norden, op.cit. (supra n.l) 674 11.1. 



450 PHILOSOPHY, THE HANDMAIDEN OF THEOLOGY 

Apostle."41 Didymus makes frequent use of the Pauline terms 'letter' 
and 'spirit' when he refers to the Old and New Covenant or to the two 
Testaments.42 But he also gives a new tum to St Paul's explanation by 
adding: "It is indeed impossible to think in terms of allegorical inter­
pretation without having practised the literal interpretation first."43 
The different explanations of the Alexandrians and of St Paul have one 
thing in common: Hagar and Sarah represent successive stages on the 
arduous way towards the realization of Christianity. 

We have reason to expect more information on Didymus' interpre­
tation of Genesis 16 and on his dependence on Philo from his com­
mentary on Genesis, which hopefully will soon be published by 
P. Nautin. 

UNIVERSITAT KOLN and 

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 

August, 1968 

u Didymus, Comm. in Bcel. 276.22-24: T6 8~ alh6 TOVrO .; a1TdO'TO~OS- yp&.p.p.a I(a~ 1TV£vp.a 
MY[£L' I(]at a8t1vaTdv €aTLV T<X rijs- avaywyi7s- vofjUaL p.~ aKpLfMuavTa T<X rijs- f97[opla]f. 

U E.g. II Cor. 3.6. Didymus, Comm. in Zach. 266.14ff, esp. 266.21ff; idem, 163.2f and 221.3ff; 
Comm. in Ps. 134 (op.cit. [supra n.36] 6) 6ff, with Kehl's note. 

C8 See n.41 supra.