The Therapeutae of Philo

In his De Vita Contemplativa the Alexandrian Philo makes an extremely remark-able

description of an ascetic community with which he was familiar and which was settled
not far from Alexandria, namely above Lake Mareotis. Philo's intention in this treatise is
not to give an idealized account of what he himself describes as âÝï÷ 'åöòèôéëÞ÷ but
rather to sketch the way of life of a specific monastic community of Egyptian Jewish
ascetics. At the very beginning of his treatise, Philo notes the substantial contrast
between the Therapeutae and another Jewish ascetic sect, the Essenes. The Essenes led a
more practical and active life, while the Therapeutae were dedicated to contemplative
life. One could observe also other differences between the two ascetic traditions. The
Essenes were exclusively male communities while women participated in the communal
gatherings of the Therapeutae communities. Although the Essene's highly organized
communal life involved great frugality, there is no conclusive evidence that it denied the
lawfulness of marriage. The ascetic tradition of the Therapeutae, on the other hand,
insisted on absolute sexual abstinence. The Therapeutae did not practice the Essene
communistic way of life but lived separately as anchorites. They practiced renunciation
of property, living a life of severe discipline, fasting and praying daily according to an
established horarium. As regards theological method, they were enthusiasts of the
allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament.

It should be pointed out from the very outset that Philonian monachism has been seen
as the forerunner of and the model for the Christian ascetic life. It has even been
considered as the first picture of Christian monasticism. Such an identification can
already be found in Eusebius of Caesarea. In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius,
referring first to apostolic foundations of the Church of Alexandria by St. Mark, points
out that Philo's Therapeutae were the first Christian monks. He sees in their
renunciation of property, in their chastity of life, in their severe fasting, in their solitary
lives, in their devotion to scriptural reading and in other aspects of their ascetic life, the
Christian monks. Eusebius was so certain that Philo was describing the life of the first
Christian monks that he argues that Philo himself, not only knew the life of the first
Christian ascetics, but also had himself adopted it.

It is true that there are considerable similarities between the Therapeutae and the way of
life of the first Christian monks of Egypt, especially those of the Nitria Desert. It is for
precisely this reason that until the end of the eighteenth century Eusebius' position was
widely accepted among Christian scholars. Another deduction, derived from the
striking similarities already noted, was that of the Strasbourgian scholar Lucius, at the
end of the last century. He insisted that the De Vita Contemplativa was not, in fact,
Philo's work, but that of an unknown Christian author of the third century. Interesting
though it may be, Lucius' position can be dismissed since Massebieau and Conybeare
have definitively proved the authenticity of the Philonian authorship of the De Vita
Contemplativa. What is indisputable is the fact that in Philo's presentation one finds
basic trends of early Christian monasticism. The semianchoritic character of the
Therapeutae community, the renunciation of property , the solitude during the six days
of the week and the gathering together on Saturday for the common prayer and the
common meal, the severe fasting , the keeping alive of the memory of God, the
continuous prayer , the meditation and study of Holy Scripture were also practices of
the Christian anchorites of the Alexandrian desert.

In his attempt to clarify their vocation in connection with the title reserved to them,
Philo makes the following observation:

The vocation of these philosophers is at once made clear from their title of Therapeutae
and Therapeutrides, a name derived from £åòáðåàö, either in the sense of "cure",
because they profess an art of healing superior to that practiced in the cities which cures
only bodies, while their's treats also souls oppressed by grievous and wellnigh incurable
diseases, inflicted by pleasures and desires and griefs and fears, by acts of covetousness,
folly and injustice, and the countless hosts of other passions and vices; or else in the
sense of "worship" because nature and the sacred laws have schooled them to worship
the Selfexistent, Who is better than the Good, purer than the One, and more primordial
than the Monad.

Pseudo-Dionysius in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy takes up Philo's basic points in order to

speak about the Christian monastic vocation. We should note that Pseudo-Dionysius is
one of the very few Christian writers to actually use the term Therapeutae when
referring to the monks. He even preserves the information that the term was in common
use: "Some people gave to the ascetics the name Therapeutae or servants while some
others gave them the name monks". Although both Philo and Pseudo-Dionysius use the
same name "Therapeutae" to describe the monastic vocation, there are substantial
differences between the understanding of Philo and that of Pseudo-Dionysius. In Philo's
interpretation, one realizes that the ascetics described by him in the De Vita
Contemplativa were persons who "professed an art of healing superior to that practiced
in the cities". Their art of healing derives from the simplicity of their way of life.
Escaping the noise of the city, they embrace the natural way, living in the gardens,
enjoying the fresh air and the calm and beauty of the countryside. Apart from that, they
have the opportunity to practice inner solitude, not because they are misanthropes, but
because they are aware that "in every city, even the best governed, is full of turmoils and
disturbances innumerable which no one could endure who has ever been once under the
guidance of wisdom".

The freedom from every necessity and the natural way of living is understood in the
Philonian text as a way of healing. It is precisely and basically for this reason that the
ascetics were called by Philo "Therapeutae". In the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Pseudo-
Dionysius, we find a quite different interpretation. The monks are called "Therapeutae"
because they have freely dedicated themselves to the service of God. Here 'åòáðåÝá is
understood as duty and service to God. The Christian monks have a specific orientation,
i.e., to be servants and worshippers of God. It is true that the idea of service is also
mentioned by Philo but assigned a secondary importance. The ascetics are named
Therapeutae primarily because they practice the art of healing.

Already the etymological issue, i. e. the differentiation, regarding the meaning of the
word "Therapeutae", leads us to understand that, despite the use of the common term,
the Philonian and Dionysian visions are absolutely different. The monastic vocation in
Philo's De Vita Contemplativa derives all its strength from the monks' ascetic endeavors.
Its inspiration and accomplishments are those of, admittedly dedicated and serious
persons; but they are still limited by the human condition. Philo's monks possess and
profess an art of healing derived entirely from their own ascetic labors. According to
Pseudo-Dionysius' approach, the monastic vocation has God as its foundation and final
goal. In this sense monastic life is a desire toward God's life. Pseudo-Dionysius makes
his points clear when he writes that the Christian ascetics are called "therapeutae" and
"monks": Because of the purity of their duty and service to God and because their lives,
far from being scattered, are monopolized by their unifying

The second observation is related to the term "monk" itself. Pseudo-Dionysius takes up
again Philo's idea concerning the "One" and the "Monad" in order to interpret the term
"íïîáøÞ÷". In Philo's De Vita Contemplativa we find the point that the monks "worship
the Selfexistent who is better than the Good, purer than the One and more primordial
than the Monad". According to Pseudo-Dionysius the monks are named íïîáøïÝ as well,
because their constant struggle is orientated toward the undivided and unified life. The
author of the Areopagite text following the Eastern patristic theology understands sin as
disruption, as something which introduces discord and division. Pseudo-Dionysius
defines the destructive character of sin as "an inharmonious mingling of discordant
elements". Christian life in general and monastic vocation in particular is an effort to
restore in every human being the unique life of God. In the final analysis the life of God
is a life of unity and the monastic vocation is, in fact, a unifyi

But in studying the De Vita Contemplativa of Philo and comparing it to the data
concerning the monastic vocation given by Pseudo-Dionysius in his Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy, one can discern a third very substantial difference. In the Dionysian
exposition there is a strong ecclesiological perspective. Those dedicated to the monastic
life are, not simply philosophers or therapeutae in the Philonian sense, but are serving
God within the body of the Church. This means that monastic perfection is realized, not
via an abstract and autonomous life of contemplation, but indeed in the Church. The
monastics, as therapeutae, have a specific function to fulfill which has been understood
as an ecclesiastical service. The ecclesiastical character of the monastic vocation is
presented by Pseudo-Dionysius with what he says about the "mystery of the
consecration of a monk". It should be noted once more here that monks are considered
by Pseudo-Dionysius as having a specific gift and place within the ecclesiastical
hierarchy

It is interesting to see how the Areopagite describes this consecration:

The priest stands before the divine altar and chants the invocation for a monk. The
person being initiated stands behind the priest and does not kneel on either one or both
knees. The divinely scriptures are not put on his head. He simply stands while the priest
chants the secret invocation over him. When this is finished, the priest approaches the
initiate. First he asks if he will not only renounce his doubleminded way of living, but
even refuse every fantasy (which could be a destruction to his way of life). He reminds
him of the rules governing a fully perfect life and openly asserts that he must surpass
the median way of life. After the initiate has devoutly promised to do all this, the priest
makes the sign of the cross on him. He cuts his hair and invokes the three Persons of the
divine blessedness. He takes away all his clothes and gives him others. Then together
with all the other sacred men present at the ceremony, he gives him the kiss (of peace)
and confers on him the right to commune in the divine Mysteries.

Pseudo-Dionysius presents a detailed explanation of every symbolic action of a

consecration of a monk. It is not within the purview of this paper to provide a detailed
commentary. The only thing we wish to underline is the fact that after the completion of
the consecration, the neophyte partakes of the holy Eucharist.

The participation in the Eucharist has evident ecclesiological significance. It is a living

testimony that the monks form an integral part of the Church. Their way and their
vocation is under the blessing of the Church. According to Pseudo-Dionysius, their life
is not an extraecclesial spiritual activity, but is indeed ecclesial life. In the Philonian
presentation the absence of such a perspective is striking. One realizes that the
Therapeutae were a body of ascetics whose integration within the fold of Judaism was
extremely tenuous. In the Pseudo-Dionysian understanding, the art of the ascetic life is
the art of the Church herself. Their art leads through purification, illumination and
perfection to divine communion. The final goal of the monk's life, as well as the common
goal of all Christians, is to "be partakers of the divine nature" (II Peter I:4).

We can now summarize by saying only that Pseudo-Dionysius, to describe the monastic
vocation, used the Philonian way of thinking with all its Platonic background. But
behind the similar language, one can easily remark the substantial difference between
Philo and Pseudo-Dionysius. The contribution of Pseudo-Dionysius lies in the fact that,
not only has he not rejected Philo's thought, but he enriched it with a distinctly Christian
attitude. Or to put it differently. Pseudo-Dionysiu's purpose was to present the Christian
teaching concerning the monastic way; and he did so using the Philonian language,
symbols and categories.