PANTENUS. — Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, 10) relates that in the time of Commodus, P. would have been head of the school for biblical studies in Alexandria and would have taken his starting point from Stoic philosophy (according to Philip of Side, from Pythagorean philosophy). This information is contradicted by another that follows (10, 2): P. would have been ordained as a missionary to the peoples of the East and sent as far as India. His mission as an “evangelist” is narrated according to Eusebius’ general concept regarding “evangelists” (v. Eusebius, op. cit., III, 37, 2). Their task, among other things, was to transmit a written Gospel.
P., however, must have realized that the Gospel of Matthew, written in Hebrew letters, had already been spread by Bartholomew in India (10, 3; cf. also Ephrem, Evangeliorum concordantia, ed. Moesinger, Venice 1876, p. 286). P. would have died as head of the school, where he taught orally as well as through writings (10, 4): thus closes Eusebius’ account. The contrasting tendencies between P. as head of the school, philosopher, and author of books, and P. as evangelist, missionary, and teacher of oral instruction, may perhaps be explained by the fact that the former reveals the later Alexandrian tradition about P. It cannot be maintained that P. was head of the famous school, which may not have existed in his time (cf. J. Pannino, Onofrio — Ritratto di O. P. di Tiziano — Roma, Galleria Colonna).
Munch, Untersuchungen über Klemens von Alexandrien, Soccarda 1933, p. 185). It is generally said — following an indication by Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V, 11, 2, p. 452, 10 sg. ed. Schwartz — that he would have been mentioned, though not by name, by Clement in Strom. I, 11, 2, and is identified, it is claimed, with the Sicilian Apellian, so that P. would have been of Sicilian origin. But this identification is neither certain nor plausible. If the evangelist P. went to India (perhaps southern Arabia or Axum; cf. A. Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, Leipzig 1924, II, p. 608; M. Simon, Versus Israel, Paris 1948, p. 311), where he found the Gospel of the Hebrews (Hebrew Matthew), it is more likely that he should be identified with the Palestinian Jew whom Clement mentions (Strom., I, 11, 2) among his teachers and who was probably the vehicle of apostolic traditions coming from James the Just (Strom., I, 11, 3); and thus it may be supposed that P. transmitted local Palestinian traditions, perhaps even with a Judaeo-Gnostic tendency, to Clement. The various hypotheses about the role P. may have played in Clement’s work (W. Bousset, Jüdisch-christl. Schulbetrieb in Alexandria, Göttingen 1915, and Munch, loc. cit.) cannot be proven. It can only be supposed that Clement transmitted many exegetical traditions of P. under the citation of the “presbyters” in his (mostly lost) Hypotyposes, while P.’s name appears only once in Eclog. proph., 56, 2. P. was one of these ancient presbyters, transmitters of apostolic oral tradition: the “presbyters” did not write (Ecl. proph., 27, 7). The attribution of books to P. by Eusebius and others may perhaps be explained by admitting that traditions of P., more or less authentic, were published in book form by pupils of P. or adherents of the Alexandrian school.