Professor David T .


David T. Runia

Exegesis and Philosophy Studies on Philo of Alexandria


British Library CIP Data

Runia, David T. Exegesis and philosophy : studies on Philo of Alexandria. (Collected Studies Series : 3 3 2 ) 1. Jewish Philosophy. Philo, Alexandria I. Title II. Series 181.06 ISBN 0 - 8 6 0 7 8 - 2 8 7 - 5

This edition © 1990 bx


Published bx

Variorum Gower House, Croft Road, Aldershot Hampshire GU11 3 H R Great Britain Gower Publishing Company Old Post Road Brookfield Vermont 0 5 0 3 6 USA

Printed in Great Britain bx

Galliard (Printers) Ltd Great Yarmouth, Norfolk C O L L E C T E D S T U D I E S CS 3 3 2




Philo, Alexandrian and J e w previously unpublished How to read Philo Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 40. The Hague: Boekencentrum, 1986 Polis and megalopolis: Philo and the founding o f Alexandria Mnemosyne 42. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989






The structure o f Philo's allegorical treatises Vigiliae Christianae 38. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984 Further observations on the structure o f Philo's allegorical treatises Vigiliae Christianae 41. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987 Mosaic and Platonist exegesis: Philo on 'finding' and 'refinding' Vigiliae Christianae 40. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986 Review of: R. Goulet, La philosophic Journal of Theological Studies 40. Oxford: University Press, 1989 de Mo'ise







Philo's De aeternitate mundi: the problem o f its interpretation Vigiliae Christianae 35. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981 Redrawing the map o f early Middle Platonism: some comments on the Philonic evidence Hellenica etJudaica: hommage a Valentin Nikiprowetzky ed. A. Caquot-M. Hadas-Lebel-J. Riaud. Leuven-Paris: Editions Peeters, 1986 History o f philosophy in the grand manner: the achievement o f H.A. Wolfson Philosophia Reformata 49. Utrecht: Centrum voor Reformatorische Wijsbegeerte, 1984







Naming and knowing: themes in Philonic theology with special reference to the De mutatione nominum Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman world, ed. R. van den Broek-T. Baarda-J. Mansfeld, EPRO 112 Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988 God and man in Philo o f Alexandria Journal of Theological Studies 39. Oxford: University Press, 1988 Review of: F . Siegert, Philon von Alexandrien: Uber die Gottesbezeichnung "wohltdtig verzehrendes Feuer" (De Deo) Vigiliae Christianae 43. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989






Addenda et Corrigenda Index This volume contains x + 3 0 8 pages


T h e articles in this volume, as in all others in the Collected Studies S e r i e s , have not been given a new, continuous pagination. In order to avoid confusion, and to facilitate their use where these same studies have been referred to elsewhere, the original pagination has been maintained wherever possible. Each article has been given a Roman number in order o f appearance, as listed in the contents. T h i s number is repeated on each page and quoted in the index entries. References to the Addenda at the end o f the volume are indicated by asterisks in the margin by the passages concerned.


but it is wiser to concentrate on the task at hand. when I was preparing my study on Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. but which I did not find time to investigate in depth until later. one should not pursue Philo's philosophical thought without taking the exegetical context into account. written in the years 1 9 8 4 . The studies collected together in this volume were. For this reason it is o f paramount concern that we understand how Philo undertakes to present his exegesis. While writing my study on Philo's use o f Plato's famous cosmological dialogue. Exegesis and philosophy thus constitute two divisions o f this collection. Amsterdam).8 9 . I f these studies have a certain unity o f perspective and purpose. even i f I did not agree with him on every point. and was soon thereafter published in a slightly revised version (Leiden 1 9 8 6 ) . But three o f these works are only available in an Armenian version. There still remains a great deal o f research . published in 1 9 8 1 . As argued in a methodologically oriented essay with the hopefully not too pretentious title 'How to read Philo' (study II). In the course o f research many interesting topics and themes emerge which one would like to look at further. 2 The one exception is study VIII on the interpretation o f Philo's De aeternitate mundi. and their relation to the remainder o f Philo's oeuvre. my aim was to prepare a study on the literary and philosophical features o f the five so-called philosophical treatises. as I would like to think. but De providentia still awaits a critical edition. translation and commentary). In taking this view I built on the foundations laid by the magisterial studies o f Valentin Nikiprowetzky on Philo's use o f scripture. with one exception. then the reason will no doubt lie in the circumstances just outlined. Terian. while a third on theology brings the two central concerns even closer together in a concentration on specifically theological themes.PREFACE One o f the more trying aspects o f writing a lengthy study is that one has to 'put the nose to the grindstone'. They tackle questions that intrigued or perplexed me while I was working on the abovementioned study. and the absence o f reliable translations caused me to abandon the project (in the case o f De animalibus the lacuna has since been filled by A. It is in fact the remnant o f an earlier research project. When I first started working on Philo. which first appeared in 1983 in a provisional edition (dissertation Vrije Universiteit. This at least was my experience. I became convinced that the clue to his thought lay in the correct appreciation o f the relation between exegesis and philosophy.

M y other friends in the world o f Philonic scholarship are so numerous that it wouldbe invidious tosingleout any o f them in particular. J . as the Judaeo-Christian and Greek traditions converge and meet for the first time. C. A.O.W. Also I am deeply indebted to the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (N. Another concern which emerges in most o f the studies in this volume is the attempt to place Philo in his context in the history o f philosophy. I would like to express a warm vote o f thanks to the various publishers who generously gave me permission to reproduce the studies and reviews collected in this volume. Mansfeld (in chronological order). R U N I A Faculteit der Wijsbegeerte Vrije Universiteit. Although it is agreed by all nowadays that Philo stands close to the begin­ nings o f Middle Platonism. I X and X I an attempt is made to supply and evaluate further evidence in this area. particularly in the case o f his great Allegorical Commentary.). The appearance o f this collection is a fine opportunity to indicate my debt to the three Dutch scholars who encouraged me to pursue my studies from the time that I arrived in this country. Their names will be found richly distributed throughout this book. undertaking both to summarize the state o f current research and point the way to fresh avenues o f approach. much still remains unclear. Brill in Leiden. Amsterdam The Netherlands July 1990 . The theme o f Philo's impact on Patristic thought is one o f the areas in which I intend to continue my researches during the forthcoming period. van Winden. Their names are recorded in the table o f contents. namely Professors A. J . Although H.X to be done in this area. In studies V I . D A V I D T. M. W o l f s o n ' s view on the importance o f Philo for the history o f philosophy cannot be accepted in the extreme form in which he presents it (see the critique in study X ) . In this regard it would not be unfair to make special mention o f the Dutch publisher E . P. J . B o s . Studies X I and X I I also look forward to a later period. who sup­ ported me financially for most o f the period during which these articles were written. and especially the ideas o f the Alexandrian theologians Clement and Origen. when Philo will exert an important influence on Patristic thought. More than half the studies in this book originally appeared in journals or series published by this firm. Two long articles are devoted to this question (studies I V .V ) . he is surely right in seeing Philo as a milestone in the history o f thought.

First t h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y a n d l a t e r t h e Christian C h u r c h flourished t h e r e for a p e r i o d t h a t s p a n n e d nearly a m i l l e n i u m . H a r l e . 1 . ALEXANDRIAN A N D JEW* ' W h a t d o e s J e r u s a l e m have to d o with A t h e n s ? ' was t h e question p o s e d by t h e C h u r c h F a t h e r T e r t u l l i a n in o n e o f his powerful attacks o n p a g a n culture* T h e a n s w e r h e e x p e c t e d his r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n to receive was. 1 This article was originally published in a Dutch version u n d e r the title 'Philo.P r a l o n ( 1 9 8 8 ) . T h e aim o f this c o n t r i b u t i o n is to i n t r o d u c e t h e r e a d e r to o n e o f t h e m o s t o u t s t a n d i n g figures in t h e l o n g history o f A l e x a n d r i a . it c o u l d b e a r g u e d that t h e i m p o r t a n t r o l e played by this city in t h e history o f J u d a i s m a n d C h r i s t i a n i t y r e c e i v e s less a t t e n t i o n t h a n it deserves. T h i s i n t r o d u c t o r y a c c o u n t will chiefly c o n c e n t r a t e o n Phi­ l o ' s t h o u g h t as s e e n from t h e perspective o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n G r e e k a n d J e w i s h ideas that takes p l a c e in t h e a b o v e . which was intended to present Philo as a kind o f case study. T h e general theme o f the fascicle deter­ mined the particular emphases of my article. t h e J e w P h i l o . as part of a special number devoted to the question of the acculturation of Jews in the Greco-Roman society o f their time. B u t first we shall have to find o u t a little m o r e a b o u t t h e city a n d t h e m a n w h o lived his e n t i r e life t h e r e . T h e r e c e n t initiative o f M a r g u e r i t e Harl a n d h e r t e a m o f c o l l a b o r a t o r s to p r e p a r e translations a n d c o m m e n t a r i e s o n t h e b o o k s o f t h e S e p t u agint u n d e r t h e title La Bible d'Alexandrie deserves the h i g h e s t praise. L e Boulluec-Sandevoir ( 1 9 8 9 ) . T h e m a i n r e a s o n we a r e in a p o s i t i o n to k n o w so m u c h a b o u t this m a n a n d his t h o u g h t is that a b o u t fifty o f his writings have b e e n preserved. Titles that have a p p e a r e d so far a r e Harl ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Alexandrijn e n j o o d ' in the journal for Dutch classics teachers Lampas22 ( 1 9 8 9 ) 2052 1 8 .I P H I L O . O u r answer in t h e c o n t e x t o f this a r t i c l e m i g h t r a t h e r b e : ' A l e x a n d r i a has to d o with t h e m b o t h ' . A l t h o u g h t h e city o f A l e x a n d r i a has g a i n e d its own n i c h e in t h e history o f W e s t e r n c u l t u r e . o f c o u r s e : ' n o t h i n g at a l l ' .m e n t i o n e d works. T h e s e two c o m m u n i t i e s h a d t h e i r own B i b l e in a version which has r e m a i n e d c a n o n i c a l in t h e E a s t e r n C h u r c h to this very day.

w h o r e i g n e d from 2 8 3 to 2 4 6 . J e w s settled t h e r e as m e r c e n a r i e s . T h e y g a i n e d t h e right to form t h e i r own Kok{%zx>\\. a n d how t h r o u g h providential i n t e r v e n t i o n all 7 2 trans­ lators a c h i e v e d an identical result. It was t h e r e f o r e an e v e n t o f e n o r m o u s i m p o r t a n c e for t h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y in A l e x a n d r i a that t h e H e b r e w B i b l e was translated i n t o G r e e k . received a divine imprimatur. l a b o u r e r s . s o m e t i m e they were b r o u g h t a l o n g o r p u r c h a s e d as slaves.e.D.I 2 The Jews in Alexandria In t h e first d e c a d e s after t h e d e a t h o f A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t . B u t when P h i l o was b o r n i n t o this c o m m u n i t y its finest years already b e l o n g e d to t h e past.C. F r o m now o n the J e w s c o u l d live in a c c o r d a n c e with t h e i r naxpw e0r|. Fickermann ( 1 9 7 6 ) .a. i. T h e majority of scholars date it to the 2nd century B. From the second c e n t u r y B . i. t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t e t h n i c minority g r o u p . T h e paternalistic g o v e r n m e n t o f t h e P t o l e m i e s h a d given way to a stricter R o m a n r e g i m e . In t i m e this c o m m u n i t y b e c a m e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t a n d i n f l u e n t i a l in t h e e n t i r e J e w i s h diaspora.e. farmers. An excellent survey of all facets to do with the Septuagint in 4 . It did n o t take l o n g b e f o r e a c o n s i d e r a b l e n u m b e r o f J e w s settled down in t h e Egyptian capital. however. by m e a n s o f t h e a u t h o r i z e d trans­ lation these had. N o t all aspects o f this story. It is c l e a r that we have h e r e a kind o f 'foundation-myth' o f t h e A l e x a n d r i a n J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y . 2 It is particularly striking how q u i c k l y G r e e k b e c a m e t h e p r i m a r y language o f the Alexandrian Jewish community. Elias B i c k e r m a n n put forward s t r o n g a r g u m e n t s for t h e possibility t h a t t h e K i n g did i n d e e d take such an initiative. C . m e r c h a n t s . a r e equally legendary. as it were. they possessed limited rights o f self-administration. invited t h e High Priest in J e r u s a l e m to s e n d a d e l e g a t i o n o f wise m e n w h o c o u l d translate t h e J e w i s h Law. In A l e x a n d r i a t h e J e w s f o r m e d . after t h e G r e e k M a c e d o n i a n citizen b o d y a n d t h e native Egyptian p o p u l a c e . maintain that it is dependent on Philo and was written in the 1st century A. T h a t P h i l o h i m s e l f h a d n o k n o w l e d g e o f H e b r e w is a l m o s t c e r t a i n . O n e o r two scholars. ^ T h e dating of this work is controversial. T h e h a r m o n i o u s picture o f a c o m m u n i t y t h a t lived in p e a c e with its e t h n i c n e i g h b o u r s n o l o n g e r 3 4 2 On the settlement of Jews in Egypt see Hengel ( 1 9 8 0 ) 85ff. we may p r e s u m e . when t h e P t o l e m a i c dynasty c a m e to p o w e r in Egypt. which at t h a t t i m e h a d only r e c e n t l y b e e n f o u n d e d by A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t in 3 3 1 B . C . a l a r g e n u m b e r o f J e w s e m i g r a t e d from Palestine to E g y p t .. In the so-called Letter of Aristeas a n d in o n e o f P h i l o ' s writings we r e a d an a c c o u n t o f h o w K i n g P t o l e m y P h i l a d e p h u s . onwards t h e r e were p r o b a b l y few J e w s t h e r e w h o c o u l d still s p e a k o r r e a d H e b r e w . quite some time before Philo.

His b r o t h e r was alabarch ( p r o b a b l y t h e official r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f J e w i s h t a x a t i o n ) . C . Caligula a n d p r e s u m a b l y i n t o t h e r e i g n o f Claud­ ius. with t h e e x c e p t i o n o f a single i m p o r t a n t i n c i d e n t . P h i l o thus b e l o n g e d to t h e elite o f A l e x a n d r i a n J e w i s h society. M o r e o v e r it is appar­ e n t from t h e e v i d e n c e in P h i l o ' s writings t h a t t h e r e w e r e i m p o r t a n t divisions within the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y itself. P h i l o we k n o w to have b e e n a m e m b e r o f a wealthy a n d highly i n f l u e n t i a l family. a kind o f p o g r o m t o o k p l a c e in t h e J e w i s h q u a r t e r s o f A l e x a n d r i a . A L E X A N D R I A N AND J E W 3 r e p r e s e n t e d the reality o f t h e existing situation. i n c l u d i n g P h i l o . His n e p h e w was t h e n o t o r i o u s T i b e r i u s J u l i u s A l e x a n d e r . H e is k n o w n b o t h as Harl-Dorival-Munnich ( 1 9 8 8 ) . If the situation o f the Jews would improve. b u t all t h e s a m e we may d e d u c e t h a t h e was n o l o n g e r y o u n g . A vivid d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e riots in A l e x a n d r i a a n d t h e c o n s i d e r a b l e d a n g e r s o f t h e e m b a s s y a r e p o r t r a y e d by P h i l o in t h e two works by w h i c h h e is b e s t k n o w n to classicists. T i b e r i u s . t h e In Flaccum a n d Legatio ad Gaium. to b e sure. t h e praefectus o f Egypt. 5 Philo's two names P h i l o is o n e o f t h e very few personalities from t h e a n c i e n t world w h o in t h e c o u r s e o f t i m e has a c q u i r e d a d o u b l e n a m e . It c a n b e a s s u m e d t h a t h e was b o r n in a b o u t 15 B . At t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e latter work P h i l o i n f o r m s his r e a d e r that h e is an old m a n with white hair. a p e r i o d with c o n s e q u e n c e s that P h i l o will certainly n o t have f o r e s e e n . then all nations would abandon their own customs and h o n o u r o u r laws alone. c o n d o n e d o r even e n c o u r a g e d by Flaccus. T h e advent o f Christianity caused this prediction to be at least partly fulfilled. s e n d i n g a d e l e g a t i o n . H e thus lived d u r i n g t h e r e i g n s o f t h e e m p e r o r s Augustus. It was a t i m e o f decisive i m p o r t a n c e for t h e history o f W e s t e r n civilization. In 3 8 A.D.I P H I L O . wanted to restrain such a process within carefully c i r c u m s c r i b e d limits. 5 . S o m e o f its m e m b e r s were all in favour o f virtually c o m p l e t e a c c u l t u r a t i o n . w h o . latter b e c a m e G o v e r n o r o f Egypt. In r e s p o n s e t h e J e w s d e c i d e d to d e f e n d t h e m s e l v e s at t h e very h i g h e s t level. with a c l e a r allusion i n t e n d e d to Plato Timaeus 2 2 b . B u t a b o u t t h e actual details o f his life we a r e a l m o s t c o m p l e t e l y in t h e dark. In a remarkable passage at De vita Moysis 2.43-44 Philo remarks that the Jewish law has not been given its due recognition because of the nation's lack of prosperity. an e x a c t c o n t e m p o r a r y o f J e s u s Christ a n d a b o u t two d e c a d e s o l d e r t h a n S e n e c a a n d Paul. T h i s is a topos. as an a p o s t a t e from his J e w i s h beliefs. o t h e r s . o f w h i c h P h i l o was a p p o i n t e d leader. to t h e E m p e r o r Gaius Caligula in R o m e .

where a further distinction is also m a d e between philosophy ((piAoaoipla) and wisdom (ao<pia). P h i l o c a n b e c a l l e d Alexandrinus. 7 t a i 8 e { a ) . this did n o t m e a n t h a t his loyalty towards his J e w i s h h e r i t a g e was d i m i n i s h e d o r u n d e r m i n e d . 2 5 9 ) . as we saw. In a t i m e o f crisis. T h e e x t e n t o f P h i l o ' s k n o w l e d g e o f p h i l o s o p h y h a s b e e n a m a t t e r o f s o m e d e b a t e . esp. T h i s has to d o with his J e w i s h b a c k g r o u n d . is by n o m e a n s superficial. B u t it is c l e a r t h a t his p r e f e r e n c e s lay e l s e w h e r e . h e did n o t shirk from political involvement.J . His e n t i r e ceuvre is really a gigantic a t t e m p t to show " See De congressu eruditionis gratia 73-80. driven o n by t h e g o a d s o f p h i l o s o p h y . F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h d u r i n g t h e last twenty years h a s d e m o n ­ strated that this j u d g m e n t is t o o n e g a t i v e . B u t every now a n d t h e n . s c i e n c e a n d p h i l o s o p h y was q u i t e e x c e p t i o n a l in t h e J e w i s h c o n t e x t . B u t t h e p u r p o s e s for w h i c h h e u s e d this k n o w l e d g e w e r e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t than t h o s e o f o t h e r p h i l o s o p h e r s a n d s c h o l a r s o f his<. 7 8 . 6 7 8 A l t h o u g h P h i l o was d e e p l y i m p r e s s e d with t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s o f G r e e k c u l t u r e a n d p h i l o s o p h y . usually in t h e form o f Philo of Alexandria. such as g r a m m a r . T h i s positive attitude to G r e e k c u l t u r e h e holds in c o m m o n with A l e x a n d r i a n J u d a i s m in g e n e r a l .I 4 Philo Alexandrinus a n d Philo Judaeus. as is i n d i c a t e d in a b r i e f n o t i c e o n h i m in J o s e p h u s ' Antiquities ( 1 8 . See esp. P h i l o ' s k n o w l e d g e o f G r e e k philosophy. F e s t u g i e r e m a i n t a i n e d t h a t P h i l o was n o m o r e t h a n 'un h o m m e m o y e n cultive'. t h e o t h e r n a m e s u d d e n l y a p p e a r s . My i m p r e s s i o n is t h a t t h e r e is a very definite p r e f e r e n c e for t h e f o r m e r . h e was c o n v i n c e d t h a t h e s h o u l d n o t tarry a m o n g t h e s e subjects for t o o long. a n d especially G r e e k p h i l o ­ sophy. B u t . It is in fact i n t e r e s t i n g to observe how classicists use t h e s e two n a m e s . b u t also b e c a u s e o f his g r e a t k n o w l e d g e o f a n d love for G r e e k c u l t u r e . B u t we c a n b e c e r t a i n t h a t his e x t e n ­ sive k n o w l e d g e o f G r e e k literature. . b u t should move o n to t h e h i g h e r study o f 'things divine a n d h u m a n a n d t h e i r c a u s e s ' . b o t h n a m e s a r e equally a p p r o p r i a t e . 533ff. n o t o n l y b e c a u s e h e s p e n t his e n t i r e life in t h e Egyptian m e t r o p o l i s . As far as we a r e c o n c e r n e d . Festugiere ( 1 9 4 9 ) 521-585. In a rare a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l pass­ a g e h e tells us that h e g a i n e d a c q u a i n t a n c e with t h e various subjects o f t h e so-called e n c y c l i c a l o r i n t e r m e d i a t e studies (eyKi)KA. w h e n a s c h o l a r feels a ( p e r h a p s u n c o n s c i o u s ) n e e d to i n d i c a t e t h a t P h i l o is really an o d d fish in t h e classical p o n d . Nikiprowetzky ( 1 9 7 7 ) . a typical p r o d u c t o f t h e H e l l e n i s t i c s c h o o l s . n a m e l y in t h e d o m a i n o f i d e o l o g i c a l activity. a n d particularly o f Platonism a n d S t o i c i s m . T h e well-known F r e n c h classicist A . g e o m e t r y a n d m u s i c . for they b o t h e x p r e s s essential aspects o f his life a n d work.

w h i c h c o n t a i n s 21 b o o k s . T h i s g r o u p in turn consists o f t h r e e large series.8 4 ) .a p o l o g e t i c . Did h e above all wish to p e r s u a d e t h o s e a m o n g his own p e o p l e . As an e x a m p l e o n e m i g h t m e n t i o n t h e a n o n y m o u s a u t h o r o f De sublimitatep r o b a b l y a c o n t e m p o r a r y o f P h i l o . I would a r g u e . such as his n e p h e w A l e x a n d e r . t h a t in fact the h i g h e s t wisdom a t t a i n a b l e by m a n is to b e f o u n d in t h e Law o f t h e g r e a t H e b r e w p r o p h e t Moses. In t h e so-called Allegorical Commentary. 9 Philo 5 writings P h i l o ' s literary productivity was certainly impressive. T h e question has often b e e n posed who t h e g r o u p o f p e o p l e were at w h o m P h i l o ' s a p o l o g e t i c efforts were primarily d i r e c t e d . is by far t h e largest ( 3 9 b o o k s ) . P h i l o was in the first p l a c e an apologist a n d d e f e n d e r o f J u d a i s m . T h e s e c h a p t e r s a r e n o t i n t e r p r e t e d in t e r m s o f t h e p r i m a l history o f m a n a n d G o d ' s election o f the p e o p l e o f Israel. b u t are read at a ' d e e p e r ' level as a pro­ f o u n d a c c o u n t o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e soul. c o n s i s t i n g o f works which a r e exclusively c o n c e r n e d with t h e e x p o s i t i o n o f scripture. 4 8 o f his writings a r e still e x t a n t . T h e majority o f t h e s e a r e p r e s e r v e d in t h e o r i g i n a l G r e e k . t h e h i s t o r i c a l . T h e n a t u r e a n d c o n t e n t s o f these writings can tell us a lot a b o u t b o t h the m a n a n d his t h o u g h t . the extensive material collected by Stern ( 1 9 7 6 . T h e first g r o u p . who* s h o w e d an i n c l i n a t i o n to a b a n d o n t h e faith o f t h e i r fathers t h a t they s h o u l d m a i n t a i n t h e i r loyalties in a t i m e o f crisis? S u c h an aim will certainly have b e e n p r e s e n t in his m i n d . a n d t h e Cf. which b o t h in form a n d c o n t e n t differ quite markedly from e a c h o t h e r . has b o t h g r o u p s in m i n d . A L E X A N D R I A N AND J E W 5 that t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e did n o t n e e d to b e a s h a m e d o f t h e i r cultural a n d r e l i g i o u s h e r i t a g e . b u t a g r o u p o f n i n e treatises is only available in an A r m e n i a n translation m a d e in t h e 6th century. P h i l o gives an e l a b o r a t e c o m m e n t a r y o n t h e first 17 c h a p t e r s o f t h e b o o k G e n e s i s from a purely allegorical perspective. His s e c o n d n a m e Judaeus is any case entirely a p p r o p r i a t e . h e r p l a c e in reality. P h i l o . Gager ( 1 9 8 3 ) . a n d t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l writings. It is c u s t o m a r y to divide P h i l o ' s writings i n t o t h r e e g r o u p s : t h e e x e g e t i c a l . Nevertheless we s h o u l d take i n t o a c c o u n t that d u r i n g this p e r i o d J u d a i s m e x e r c i s e d a g r e a t e r f o r c e o f attraction on G r e e k a n d R o m a n intellectuals than is often r e a l i z e d . His g r e a t knowledge of G r e e k culture a n d p h i l o s o p h e r is p l a c e d entirely at t h e service o f this a p o l o g e t i c task. .I P H I L O .w h o in a well-known passage d o e s n o t h e s i t a t e to c i t e s o m e verses from t h e c r e a t i o n a c c o u n t o f M o s e s as an e x a m p l e o f sublimity in l i t e r a t u r e .

a n d m o s t o f t h e i r r e f e r e n c e s to t h e S e p t u a g i n t are in t h e form o f p a r a p h r a s e r a t h e r than direct quotation. this w o r k c o n s i s t s o f q u e s t i o n s that are raised in relation to the biblical text. T h e r e a d e r is advised. chiefly b e c a u s e it h a s o n l y b e e n t r a n s m i t t e d to us in an A r m e n i a n t r a n s l a t i o n . Isaac. T h e third series o f e x e g e t i c a l writings. C o n s i d e r a b l e e x e r t i o n is d e m a n d e d from t h e r e a d e r . cf. is m u c h less well known t h a n the o t h e r s . to c o n s u l t t h e structural analyses supplied by m o s t translators. Formally. B u t h e also feels t h e n e e d to p l a c e t h e Law in a wider c o n t e x t .a. In terms o f literary form a n d style t h e s e writings a r e m u c h c l o s e r to t h e usual m e t h o d o f t h e H e l l e n i s t i c ct>YYpocu|j. which a m o u n t s to t h e m e t h o d o f e x p l a i n i n g M o s e s via M o s e s . T h e result is a g r o u p o f writings that is far m o r e accessible to the uninitiated r e a d e r than the o t h e r two e x e g e t i c a l series. T h e m e t h o d used is first to give a literal r e s p o n s e to t h e q u e s t i o n . to which P h i l o t h e n p r o c e e d s to give suitable answers. T h e s e c o n d series has b e e n given t h e n a m e Exposition of the Law. with special e m p h a s i s o n t h e symbolic m e a n i n g a n d value o f its various rituals a n d i n j u n c ­ tions. i. it belongs to the Exposition of the Law. J o s e p h a n d Moses in the s e r i e s . Some scholars regard the De vita Moysisas a separate work at a more introductory level. T h e y reveal a lucid didactic structure. a n d consists o f 12 b o o k s . as c o n t a i n e d in t h e B o o k s o f Moses. it is often also regarded as part o f that series. m e n who e m b o d i e d t h e Law in t h e i r way o f life even b e f o r e it c a m e into e x i s t e n c e as t h e Law o f Moses.e. and so stands at the beginning of all editions and translations of Philo's works. As its title i n d i c a t e s . Sandmel ( 1 9 7 9 ) 47. however. P h i l o g e n e r a l l y b e g i n s in a straightforward way by citing a single verse from t h e P e n t a t e u c h a n d m a k i n g c o m m e n t s o n it. h e b e g i n s t h e s e r i e s with an e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e M o s a i c c r e a t i o n a c c o u n t in t h e treatise De opificio mundi. B u t in his e x p l a n a t i o n h e tends to invoke a c o n t i n u a l stream o f o t h e r M o s a i c texts. and the De opificio mundi also contains (limited) allegorization. t h e best known o f all his w r i t i n g s . M o r e o v e r h e r e g a r d e d the Patriarchs o f the Jewish p e o p l e as 'living laws'. J a c o b . B e c a u s e h e is c o n v i n c e d that t h e r e is a d i r e c t relation between t h e Law o f M o s e s a n d t h e Law o f N a t u r e . T h e r e s u l t a n t e x p o s i t i o n is often e x t r e m e l y c o m p l i c a t e d . followed a figurative o r a l l e g o r i c a l 10 11 Because the Allegorical Commentary starts with Genesis 2. while r e a d i n g .I 6 e x p e r i e n c e s she u n d e r g o e s as she s e a r c h e s for h e r divine origin a n d g a i n s k n o w l e d g e o f h e r c r e a t o r . F o r this reason h e also i n c l u d e d (3(oi o f A b r a h a m . with as f u n d a m e n t a l a s s u m p t i o n t h e unity o f s c r i p t u r e . T h e lives o f Isaac and J a c o b are no longer extant. t h e Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus o r the Quaestiones. P h i l o ' s c h i e f aim is to i n t r o d u c e t h e r e a d e r to t h e J e w i s h Law. 1 1 1 0 .

b u t is also q u i t e u n n e c e s s a r y . t h e r e f o r e . P h i l o d o e s n o t envisage a c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n s c r i p t u r a l e x e g e s i s a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l discussion. t h e found­ ation o f his e n t i r e a t t e m p t to d e f e n d J e w i s h wisdom. b u t r a t h e r a d i f f e r e n c e in m e t h o d a n d pur­ p o s e . lawgiver a n d p r o p h e t . T w o o f these have already b e e n m e n t i o n e d . It is almost impossible to d e t e c t that they have b e e n written by a d e v o u t J e w . P h i l o r e g a r d s h i m s e l f as p r i m a r i l y an i n t e r p r e t e r . priest. t h a t they yield valuable e v i d e n c e for t h e study o f a n c i e n t philosophy. P h i l o d o e s n o t stop to t h i n k how M o s e s c o u l d b e the s o u r c e o f all wisdom. It is c l e a r that h e c o n c e i v e s o f M o s e s as an h i s t o r i c a l f i g u r e . n o t an original t h i n k e r . a n d t h e s e writings a r e n o t written in a way t h a t f a c i l i t a t e s systematic e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e i r c o n t e n t s . T h e words that h e wrote down were i n s p i r e d by G o d . T h e first o f t h e s e c o n t a i n s four writings which are generally called the historic-apologetic treatises. T w o s m a l l e r g r o u p s o f P h i l o n i c writings r e m a i n . T h e claim has often b e e n put forward that these are youthful works. written b e f o r e P h i l o discovered the value o f his own J e w i s h h e r i t a g e . H e was a prolific writer. As far as the form o f t h e work is c o n c e r n e d o n e c a n d e t e c t b o t h a G r e e k a n d a J e w i s h b a c k g r o u n d . i n c l u d i n g that o f G r e e k t h o u g h t .3 9 A. T h i s hypothesis is n o t only c o n t r a d i c t e d by various details in t h e works themselves.I P H I L O . t h e first five b o o k s o f t h e H e b r e w b i b l e . T h i s is for h i m an a r t i c l e o f faith. It is t h e task o f t h e e x e g e t e to u n c o v e r a n d e x p o s e to view t h e p r o f o u n d truths t h a t lies . It is n o surprise. T h e s e treatises reveal the c o n s i d e r a b l e k n o w l e d g e a n d erudition that P h i l o possessed in c e r t a i n areas o f H e l l e n i s t i c philosophy. b u t also the m e t h o d o f scriptural e x p o s i t i o n practised in the Hellenistic-Jewish synagogue. A L E X A N D R I A N AND J E W 7 o n e . as we have j u s t seen. Central themes in Philo's thought It is by n o m e a n s an easy task to s u m m a r i z e P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t in t h e space o f a few pages. It is thus with the figure o f the J e w i s h lawgiver that we s h o u l d commence. His task is to e l u c i d a t e the wisdom o f Moses. M o s e s c o m b i n e d in the o n e person t h e offices o f king. H e even d e s c r i b e s t h e t h o r o u g h e d u c a t i o n in b o t h s c i e n c e a n d philosophy that h e received at t h e c o u r t o f P h a r a o h . In t h e s e works t h e r e a r e scarcely any r e f e r e n c e s to scripture. Moses is r e g a r d e d by P h i l o as t h e a u t h o r o f t h e e n t i r e P e n t a t e u c h . T h e s e c o n d g r o u p consists o f five p h i l o s o p h i c a l treatises o n diverse subjects (two o f t h e s e a r e dialogues with his n e p h e w A l e x a n d e r ) . n a m e l y the works d e s c r i b i n g t h e events o f 3 7 . B u t . totally a-historical t h i n k e r t h a t h e is.D. T h e g e n r e o f o c 7 t o p i c u K O C ! XvcEiq applied to the H o m e r i c writings is clearly relevant.

t h e e x o d u s o f an o p p r e s s e d p e o p l e .says P h i l o . W h e n we r e a d a b o u t ' h e a v e n ' . t h e r e a d e r has to e x e r t h i m s e l f in o r d e r to discover it. ' e a r t h ' . 1:1-3. F o r Philo the philosophical e x e g e t e it is a s o u r c e o f w o n d e r that the b o o k o f G e n e s i s c o m m e n c e s with a c r e a t i o n a c c o u n t . we s h o u l d n o t t h i n k o f t h e parts o f t h e world we c a n see a n d e x p e r i e n c e .opificio mundi h e shows how t h e seven days o f c r e a t i o n disclose with r e m a r k a b l e p r e c i s i o n the structure o f c r e a t e d reality.I 8 c o n c e a l e d in his books. 'Nature is wont to c o n c e a l i t s e l f . w h o c r e a t e s o r d e r o u t o f an already existing c h a o s . In his work De •. b u t r a t h e r r e g a r d t h e s e as t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e rational plan o f t h e c o s m o s . As we n o t e d e a r l i e r when o u t l i n i n g t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e A l l e g o r i c a l C o m m e n t a r y . T h e i m m e d i a t e r e a c t i o n o n e m i g h t have to this is that it is q u i t e an uphill task to discover the highest wisdom in writings that c o n t a i n little besides the stories of the wanderings of n o m a d i c Patriarchs. Runia ( 1 9 8 6 ) . B u t it is i n c u m b e n t o n the r e a d e r to search for a d e e p e r m e a n i n g . how s h e gradually e m a n c i p a t e s herself from t h e deceptive attractions o f earthly e x i s t e n c e a n d r e t u r n s to the p r o m i s e d land.e. was t h e p r o f o u n d m a x i m o f H e r a c l i t u s . 'waters' a n d ' l i g h t ' in G e n . T h e truth is n o t l o c a t e d o n t h e n o t c o n c e r n e d with t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e visible c o s m o s as we know it. B e f o r e G o d c o m m e n c e d his creative task. h e first m a d e .a plan o r blue-print. however. G o d the c r e a t o r b e a r s a definite r e s e m b l a n c e to t h e P l a t o n i c d e m i u r g e . It e m e r g e s that M o s e s ' i n t e n t i o n s in his a c c o u n t c o r r e s p o n d to a large d e g r e e to what Plato p r e s e n t e d in his c o s m o l o g i c a l d i a l o g u e . i n v e n t e d by S t o i c p h i l o ­ s o p h e r s in their d e f e n c e o f H o m e r ' s poetry. P h i l o n o w h e r e explicitly indicates that G o d h i m s e l f first c r e a t e d the primordial matter.j u s t like a g o o d a r c h i t e c t . a n d now applied to J e w i s h writings by Philo on a g r a n d scale. an intelligible o r n o e t i c c o s m o s which h e p l a c e d in his L o g o s . In g e n e r a l P h i l o d o e s n o t deny that the literal m e a n i n g o f text has its own ' o n e ' in t h e S e p t u a g i n t a l t e x t . a heavenly o r even divine e x i s t e n c e . t h e a r c h a i c laws a n d rituals o f a primitive society. . ' d a r k n e s s ' .h e l e a r n t it from M o s e s . W h a t is very surprising is that a c c o r d i n g to P h i l o the first day . d^Ariyopia is a g r a m m a t i c a l t e r m t h a t simply m e a n s 'saying s o m e t h i n g else than you actually m e a n ' . ' t h e d e e p ' . the Timaeus. 'spirit'. i. which is c a r r i e d o u t 12 I presented a detailed examination of Philo's use of this work in my dissertation. b u t n o d o u b t . at t h e d e e p e s t level t h e P e n t a t e u c h is c o n c e r n e d with the fate o f t h e soul. t h r o u g h t h e use o f t h e a l l e g o r i c a l m e t h o d o f s c r i p t u r a l e x e g e s i s . T h e p r o b l e m can b e solved. as would later b e f o r m u l a t e d in the classic d o c t r i n e o f creatio ex nihilo.

T h e only n a m e that is in any way a d e q u a t e to d e s c r i b e h i m is t h e n a m e with which h e revealed h i m s e l f to Moses at M o u n t H o r e b . In t h e m o s t g e n e r a l terms it can b e said that t h e L o g o s r e p r e s e n t s t h e face o f G o d t u r n e d towards reality. t h e s e c o n d c h i e f divine n a m e in t h e G r e e k O l d T e s t a m e n t o c c u r s for t h e first time. however. t h e d o c t r i n e o f the L o g o s . T h r o u g h t h e c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f t h e c r e a t e d reality m a n is able to gain knowledge o f G o d ' s e x i s t e n c e . s o m e t i m e s h e is m o r e like an aspect o f G o d . s i n c e any form o f tiredness o f laziness is foreign to the divine n a t u r e ) . a l t h o u g h that should n o t b e taken in the literal s e n s e . T h e divine L o g o s has already b e e n m e n t i o n e d as t h e p l a c e o f t h e intelligible c o s m o s in t h e act o f c r e a t i o n . in G o d o r his L o g o s . A L E X A N D R I A N AND J E W 9 d u r i n g the r e m a i n i n g five days o f the c r e a t i o n a c c o u n t (on the seventh day t h e C r e a t o r takes his rest. A striking d i f f e r e n c e . is that P h i l o locates the plan. is a p p a r e n t . B u t G o d h i m s e l f actually has n o n a m e in the strict sense. t h e r e f o r e .as f o u n d in the verb x { 0 r | u i . whereas for Plato the ideas a r e quite i n d e p e n d e n t o f any deity for their existence. a d m i n i s t e r i n g . P h i l o a t t e m p t s to j u s t i c e to b o t h G o d ' s t r a n s c e n d e n c e a n d his r e l a t i o n to t h e c o s m o s as c r e a t o r a n d providential m a i n t a i n e r . o r also t h e retributive p o w e r o f G o d . P h i l o ' s d e p e n d e n c e o n t h e Timaeusof Plato. j u s t like the powers m e n t i o n e d above. in which t h e divine d e m i u r g e c o n t e m p l a t e s a pre-existent intelligible m o d e l . 3 : 1 4 in t h e S e p t u a g i n t ) . S o m e t i m e s t h e L o g o s is talked a b o u t in t e r m s o f an i n d e p e n d e n t l y existing entity (a ' h y p o s t a s i s ' ) . which is equivalent to t h e P l a t o n i c world o f ideas. (powers) G o d stands in relation to c r e a t e d reality. is m o r e c o m p l e x than t h e above a c c o u n t m i g h t suggest. In his t h e o l o g y . T h i s n a m e r e p r e s e n t s t h e ruling. It is in this c o n t e x t that we should place the d o c t r i n e for which Philo is p e r h a p s best known. O n c e t h e first m a n a n d w o m a n have b e e n p l a c e d in Paradise. T h e L o g o s is also p r e s e n t e d as G o d ' s i n s t r u m e n t b o t h d u r i n g c r e a t i o n a n d in t h e c o s m o s ' providential administration. ' p l a c e ' o r ' e s t a b l i s h ' ) . t h e r e m a r k a b l e translation o f E x . It is a p p a r e n t that P h i l o ' s t h e o l o g y is s o m e w h a t c a u g h t b e t w e e n t h e . h e t r a n s c e n d s all knowledge o r description.I P H I L O . when h e said T a m the o n e w h o is' (eyco eiui 6 oSv. By m e a n s o f these two 8i)vdfieic. ( ' L o r d ' ) . P h i l o is struck by t h e fact that in the biblical c r e a t i o n a c c o u n t Moses repeatedly uses t h e divine n a m e 6 Qeoq ( ' G o d ' ) . T h e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s which h e c o u l d find b e t w e e n a i m p o r t a n t philo­ sophical work such as t h e Timaeus a n d scripture was o f crucial import­ a n c e for his a t t e m p t to show that M o s e s was t h e s o u r c e o f t h e h i g h e s t wisdom. P h i l o ' s t h e o l o g y . 6 icupux. however. T h i s t e r m i n d i c a t e s G o d ' s creative p o w e r ( i n d i c a t e d by t h e e t y m o l o g i c a l r o o t 6 e . T h e d o c t r i n e ©f c r e a t i o n plays an c e n t r a l r o l e in P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t .

B u t from t h e historical p o i n t o f view it proved to b e o f the greatest i m p o r t a n c e . It is well known t h a t in G e n e s i s t h e c r e a t i o n o f m a n is d e s c r i b e d twice. Less than h a l f a c e n t u r y t h e Evangelist J o h n was to identify J e s u s with t h e L o g o s . P h i l o . B u t l a t e r C h r i s t i a n t h i n k e r s did s e e a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n J o h n ' s christology a n d P h i l o ' s L o g o s . T h i s special status also e m e r g e s . t h e a n i m a l s . even in part. It is p e r h a p s unlikely that J o h n was i m p e l l e d . such as t h e waters u n d e r a n d a b o v e t h e f i r m a m e n t .h e a c c e p t s M o s e s as t h e single a u t h o r o f t h e e n t i r e P e n t a t e u c h . i n t e r p r e t s this in t e r m s o f a d o u b l e c r e a t i o n o f m a n . the 'earthly m a n ' is c r e a t e d . which in various passages contain interpretations that cannot easily be reconciled to each other. a r e passed over in s i l e n c e . 1 3 I have somewhat simplified Philo's more complex presentation.d w e l l e r . w h o 'was in t h e b e g i n n i n g with G o d ' a n d ' t h r o u g h w h o m all things were m a d e ' ( J o h n 1:2-3). T h e solution b r o u g h t forward in t h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e L o g o s is n o t in all respects satisfactory. a n d it e n c o u r a g e d t h e m to regard P h i l o as a Christian avant la lettre. T h e c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e universe that e m e r g e s from P h i l o ' s e x e g e s i s o f t h e M o s a i c c o s m o g o n y shows a s t r o n g r e s e m b l a n c e to t h e h i e r a r ­ chical a n d g e o c e n t r i c m o d e l that b e c a m e the standard view in t h e c e n ­ turies after Plato a n d Aristotle. such as t h e distinction b e t w e e n t h e s e x e s . H e is a u\£06pio<. w h o o f c o u r s e c a n n o t envisage an e x p l a n a t i o n in t e r m s o f differing s o u r c e s . lifeless things. a cruvaficpoxepov o f m i n d ( o r rational soul) a n d body. in t h e r e m a r k a b l e a c c o u n t t h a t Moses gives o f his c r e a t i o n . a c c o r d i n g to P h i l o . birds. b o r d e r . Specifically J e w i s h ( o r a n c i e n t MiddleE a s t e r n ) aspects o f the c r e a t i o n a c c o u n t . situated o n t h e b o r d e r l i n e b e t w e e n t h e divine a n d t h e non-divine. In t h e first a c c o u n t t h e ' h e a v e n l y m a n ' is c r e a t e d .I 10 Jewish emphasis o n G o d ' s unicity ( ' t h o u shalt have n o o t h e r gods o t h e r t h a n m e ' ) a n d t h e G r e e k t e n d e n c y to solve t h e p r o b l e m o f divine t r a n s c e n d e n c e a n d i m m a n e n c e by m e a n s o f a h i e r a r c h y o f divine b e i n g s . a n d at t h e very b o t t o m o f the scale. T h e n follow m a n . w h e n G o d s h a p e s m a n ' s b o d y o u t o f clay a n d b r e a t h e s in him his Spirit. in 1:26-27 a n d 2:7.. a b e i n g that c a n o r i e n t a t e itself toward its heavenly origin. plants. to write t h e s e words t h r o u g h an a c q u a i n t a n c e with the t h o u g h t o f P h i l o . In this h i e r a r c h y o f b e i n g m a n has a very special p l a c e . fishes. his L o g o s a n d t h e powers. At t h e a p e x stands G o d . lacking t h e specific c h a r a c ­ teristics o f corporeality. In t h e s e c o n d a c c o u n t . and 1 3 . the m a n who is n o t h i n g b u t m i n d .. T h e heavenly b o d i e s a n d t h e a n g e l s (who r e p l a c e the d e m o n s in G r e e k c o s m o l o g y ) a r e also divine b e i n g s . o r can r e m a i n m i r e d in t h e earthy n a t u r e o f bodily e x i s t e n c e .

T h e body b e l o n g s to the e a r t h h e r e below. Cf. the r a t i o n a l e l e m e n t . For a detailed analysis see especially Tobin (1983) and the study of Goulet discussed below at n. the m i n d o r spirit to t h e h e a v e n s o r divine r e a l m a b o v e . killed his God-loving b r o t h e r A b e l . r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e i r r a t i o n a l . b e c o m i n g like G o d .2 3 ) . that t h e decisive reversal occurs. F o r a G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r such a vacillation would surely be p r o b l e m a t i c . W h e n C a i n . In t h e G a r d e n o f E d e n . W i t h o u t G o d ' s g r a c i o u s c o n d e s c e n s i o n m a n ' s q u e s t for 1 4 have lead scholars to suspect the presence o f various exegetical traditions (see o u r discussion further below). S e c o n d l y a s t r o n g e m p h a s i s is p l a c e d o n t h e r o l e o f divine g r a c e . P h i l o r e g a r d s m a n ' s g o a l o r xeXoq as oumcooic. things already went w r o n g . A L E X A N D R I A N AND J E W 11 T h e essential features of P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e o f m a n e m e r g e clearly in his e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e c r e a t i o n o f m a n . Following in t h e footsteps o f Plato. the studies o f Whittaker ( 1 9 6 7 ) . Firstly k n o w l e d g e o f G o d is for P h i l o n o t m e r e l y t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f an a b s t r a c t p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n c e p t . w h o thinks it c a n a c t as g o d . T h e same basic interpretation can be m a d e o f Israel's later flight o u t o f Egypt. right at t h e very b e g i n n i n g . a n d d r a g g e d A d a m . Yet it would b e one-sided i f I were to give the i m p r e s s i o n that P h i l o ' s e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e Law o f M o s e s a m o u n t s to n o m o r e t h a n a purely i n t e l l e c t u a l i s t i c . anti-materialistic a n d a n t i . yet even h e c o u l d o n l y see t h e ' r e a r s i d e ' o f G o d ( E x .15. Eve. T h e r e is some alternation between masculine and neuter descriptions o f God in Middle Platonism. But whether the phrase 6 wv occurs in Numenius is a matter o f some debate. in spite o f his u t t e r t r a n s c e n d e n c e . 3 3 : 1 3 . t h e vot><. Significant in this r e g a r d is that h e d e n o t e s G o d b o t h with the biblical p e r s o n a l m a s c u l i n e 6 wv a n d the p h i l o s o p h i c a l a b s t r a c t n e u t e r T O 6v (in t h e g e n i t i v e a n d dative c a s e s t h e y a r e o f c o u r s e indis­ t i n g u i s h a b l e ) . A p a r t from t h e e x e g e t i c a l a s p e c t . two t h e m e s betray biblical a n d J e w i s h i n f l u e n c e . T h e i n f l u e n c e o f P l a t o n i c dualism is strong.which has b o t h a r a t i o n a l a n d an i r r a t i o n a l p a r t . N o o n e c a m e f u r t h e r in this q u e s t that t h e p r o p h e t M o s e s himself. a n d later also N o a h . It is only when S e t h is b o r n . down to p e r d i t i o n . such as ' a b s o l u t e b e i n g ' . still a p e r s o n a l b e i n g with w h i c h m a n has a r e c i p r o c a l r e l a t i o n . F o r P h i l o G o d is.f u n c t i o n s as a b r i d g e b e t w e e n the two.I P H I L O . 1 4 . symbolizing p l e a s u r e . T h e e n t i r e P e n t a t e u c h can thus b e i n t e r p r e t e d as a l o n g j o u r n e y from t h e d o m a i n o f t h e b o d y a n d t h e earthly r e g i o n s to the heavenly a n d spiritual r e a l m . In o r d e r to attain a life o f virtue a n d piety m a n must s e e k a r i g h t relation b e t w e e n r a t i o n a l t h o u g h t a n d irrational passions. while t h e soul . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . the situation d e t e r i o r a t e d even further. was s e d u c e d by t h e s e r p e n t . M a n c a n r e a c h this g o a l by s e a r c h i n g for G o d a n d a t t e m p t i n g to gain k n o w l e d g e o f h i m to t h e e x t e n t that that is h u m a n l y possible. Getp.h e d o n i s t i c system o f e t h i c s .

S u c h c o n ­ d e s c e n s i o n only takes p l a c e i f m a n a b a n d o n s any d e l u s i o n s o f auto­ n o m o u s g r a n d e u r h e m i g h t have a n d r e c o g n i z e s his own n o t h i n g n e s s (o\)5eveia). n o less t h e n than now. P h i l o ' s reply would b e that t h e symbolic a n d a l m o s t s a c r a m e n t a l value o f c e r t a i n ritual a c t i o n s would d i s a p p e a r i f t h e s e were n o l o n g e r p r a c t i s e d by t h e majority o f believers. such as was soon to b e d e v e l o p e d by Christianity. M o r e o v e r it s h o u l d b e r e c o g ­ nized that the Law o f Moses takes i n t o a c c o u n t the m o r a l a n d intellect­ ual weakness o f t h e h u m a n r a c e . T h i s separates h i m to q u i t e a m a r k e d d e g r e e from o t h e r J e w i s h g r o u p s o f his day. O f crucial i m p o r t a n c e for P h i l o ' s view o f J u d a i s m . is t h e fact that h e shows absolutely n o i n t e r e s t in history. In his t h o u g h t all e m p h a s i s is p l a c e d o n structural e l e m e n t s .9 3 ) h e e m b a r k s o n a fierce attack against those w h o wish only to r e c o g n i z e t h e spiritual m e a n i n g o f t h e Law a n d n e g l e c t the p r a c t i c e o f c i r c u m c i s i o n . t h e s e would have to b e a b a n d o n e d . In a truly universal perspective. A c r u c i a l q u e s t i o n h e r e is what s h o u l d h a p p e n with t h e ritual i n j u n c t i o n s o f the Jewish Law. Universalism weighs m o r e heavily in P h i l o ' s b a l a n c e than particular­ ism. Nevertheless P h i l o would n o t d e n y that t h e p e o p l e o f Israel have a special task. D o e s any special p l a c e r e m a i n for t h e p e o p l e o f Israel with w h o m G o d m a d e a c o v e n a n t in this philosophically o r i e n t a t e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f scripture? T h e n a m e Israel is r a t h e r dubiously etymologized by P h i l o as m e a n i n g ' t h e o n e who ( o r the r a c e that) sees G o d ' (6 opaw 0 e 6 v ) . T h i s attitude m i g h t s e e m to b e s o m e w h a t i n c o n s i s t e n t . B u t for P h i l o this would definitely b e g o i n g t o o far. It is c l e a r t h a t this d e s c r i p t i o n c a n n o t b e c o n f i n e d to J e w s a l o n e . In a f a m o u s passage (De migratione Abrahami 8 9 . in my o p i n i o n . H e is i n t e r e s t e d in t h e q u e s t i o n o f the relation between time and eternity.I 12 k n o w l e d g e o f a n d i n t i m a c y with h i m w o u l d b e in vain. . T h e J e w s a r e t h e r e to l e a d t h e way. o n t h e p l a c e o f m a n in reality a n d his relation to the divine. It is true. especially in the light o f a strictly rational p h i l o s o p h i c a l perspective (but o n e might c o m p a r e a similar attitude o f certain H e l l e n i s t i c p h i l o s o p h e r s towards t h e c u l t o f t h e g o d s in t h e G r e e k polis). t h e c e l e b r a t i o n o f the sabbath a n d o t h e r feasts. b u t unfort­ unately they have fallen on difficult times a n d the i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n they c a n m a k e is n o t r e c o g n i z e d by t h e n a t i o n s t h a t s u r r o u n d t h e m . B o t h apocalyptic a n d m e s s i a n i c ideas have n o r o l e to play in his t h o u g h t . t h a t m o s t p e o p l e find it quite impossible to s p e n d very l o n g in t h e rarified air o f p u r e philosophy. but does not consider the possibility t h a t an event o f s h a t t e r i n g i m p o r t a n c e c o u l d take p l a c e in t h e c o u r s e o f time as e x p e r i e n c e d h e r e o n earth. a n d o f c o u r s e also from the i n c i p i e n t world o f early Christian t h o u g h t .

6yo<. was f o r c e d to use t h e system c o n s t r u c t e d by his p r e d e c e s s o r s . R e c o g n i t i o n o f this c o n c e a l e d b a c k ­ g r o u n d . t h e n h e must have h a d assistance in this task. while everything else that was specifically r e l a t e d to J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n s was j e t t i s o n e d . A. a n d t h a t i t is very likely that his work c o n t i n u e s a l o n g tradition o f allegorical exegesis in the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y o f A l e x a n d r i a .C a n a d i a n s c h o l a r R i c h a r d G o u l e t has p u b l i s h e d a massive study which puts forward the hypothesis that P h i l o m a k e s e x t e n s i v e use o f a c o n t i n u o u s a l l e g o r i c a l c o m m e n t a r y o n t h e P e n t a t e u c h w h i c h p r e s e n t e d an e x t r e m e l y r a d i c a l a n d d a r i n g alle­ gorical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Mosaic t h o u g h t . o r even t h e r a t i o n a l e l e m e n t in m a n in himself. F u r t h e r r e a c t i o n s to this e n o r m o u s l y c h a l l e n g i n g h y p o t h e s i s will have to b e awaited. who in G o u l e t ' s view p r o b a b l y u n d e r w e n t a c o n v e r s i o n which led h i m to r e c o g n i z e the value o f his J e w i s h h e r i t a g e . I f h e was u n a c q u a i n t e d with t h e H e b r e w l a n g u a g e . t h a t h e m a k e s extensive use o f the etymologization o f biblical H e b r e w n a m e s in o r d e r to supply a f o u n d a t i o n for his allegories. Many scholars have c o m e to t h e c o n c l u s i o n that P h i l o must have h a d i m p o r t a n t p r e d e c e s s o r s . My own view is that G o u l e t g o e s far t o o far in his 15 1 6 Goulet ( 1 9 8 7 ) .. for e x a m p l e . using only a kind o f arithmological symbolism in the De opificio mundi. It is i n t e r e s t i n g . o r directive Soul o r L o g o s o f t h e c o s m o s . Even the c r e a t i o n a c c o u n t itself was a l l e g o r i z e d in terms o f the structure o f the cosmos and m a n . 1 6 1 5 . but there are some tiny hints elsewhere in his writings that others may have attempted a full-blown allegorical interpretation. Naturally h e c o u l d m a k e use o f t h e so-called onomastica. A L E X A N D R I A N AND J E W 13 The originality of Philo's thought A q u e s t i o n that has s t o o d at t h e c e n t r e o f r e c e n t scholarly discussions o n P h i l o ' s a c h i e v e m e n t is the e x t e n t to which his t h o u g h t is an original c o n s t r u c t o f his own. P h i l o . Nevertheless o n e would e x p e c t s o m e o n e who develops an allegorical system to have m o r e c o n t r o l over his material a n d n o t j u s t c o n s u l t a list that may have b e e n drawn up for quite a different p u r p o s e .I P H I L O . Philo himself does not do this. G o d h i m s e l f is allegorically i n t e r p r e t e d in basically Stoic terms as the 6p96<. e n a b l e s o n e to e x p l a i n a n u m b e r o f funda­ m e n t a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s in P h i l o ' s thought. which a l m o s t certainly was t h e case. which c o n t a i n e d l o n g lists o f H e b r e w n a m e s a n d c o r r e s p o n d i n g G r e e k etymologies. G o u l e t a r g u e s . b u t c o n t i n u a l l y en­ d e a v o u r e d to a d a p t it in a d i r e c t i o n t h a t was m o r e c o n s o n a n t with essential aspects o f J e w i s h piety. T h e writer(s) only wanted to retain the d e e p e r symbolic a n d universal m e a n i n g o f the Law. V e r y r e c e n t l y t h e F r e n c h .

T h e J e w s themselves d e c i d e d P h i l o was n o t for t h e m . c a m e to r e g a r d P h i l o as a ' b r o t h e r in t h e faith'. Cf. Didymus t h e B l i n d a n d A m b r o s e . 1 8 1 9 1 7 . P h i l o n i c ) t h o u g h t prevents h i m from d o i n g j u s t i c e to t h e c e n t r a l r o l e o f P l a t o n i s m in P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t . It is u n d e n i a b l e that this s o m e t i m e s leads to a variety o f e x p l a n a t i o n s a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h e o r i e s that a r e n o t easy to h a r m o n i z e with e a c h o t h e r .P h i l o n i c ) a n d religious (i. t h e p r e h i s t o r y o f his a l l e g o r i c a l e x e g e s i s was probably much more c o m p l e x . that the P h i l o n i c c o r p u s did n o t d i s a p p e a r j u s t like a l m o s t all t h e rest o f t h e r i c h b o d y o f A l e x a n d r i a n J e w i s h literature. D u e to P h i l o ' s i n t e r v e n t i o n . C h u r c h F a t h e r s such as C l e m e n t . = study VII in this volume. t h e early Christians. p r e .e. in all l i k e l i h o o d . as m a n y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f his p r e d e c e s s o r s as h e c o u l d in his t h r e e g r e a t series of commentaries. we a r e given t h e c h a n c e to o b s e r v e t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l a c h i e v e m e n t s o f a f l o u r i s h i n g a n d q u i t e e x c e p t i o n a l J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y . This is especially the case in the Quaesliones. By t h e e n d o f t h e 2 n d c e n t u r y a c a t e c h e t i c a l s c h o o l h a d b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e A l e x a n d r i a n c h u r c h . 1 8 1 9 1 7 The fate of Philo's writings H o w did it h a p p e n . slowly b u t surely b e g a n to d o m i n a t e J e w i s h intellect­ ual life. a n d did n o t h e s i t a t e to take over a g r e a t n u m b e r o f ideas a n d t h e m e s from his writings. B u t e x e g e t i c a l activities in A l e x a n d r i a did n o t die out. O r i g e n See my review in Runia ( 1 9 8 8 ) . O r i g e n . a n d later Eusebius. however. In t h e s e c o n d p l a c e G o u l e t ' s sharp division b e t w e e n p h i l o s o p h i c a l (i. a n d it was h e r e . the study of Tobin cited in n.I 14 assertions a n d fails to d o P h i l o ' s i n t e n t i o n s j u s t i c e .13. which have often been described as exegetical notebooks. a n d so felt the n e e d to r e c o r d . that t h e writings o f P h i l o w e r e saved from oblivion. T h e y were c o n t i n u e d in a slightly revised form by a different g r o u p o f p e o p l e . T h e r e was n o r o o m for his p h i l o s o p h i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f scripture in t h e R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m that. a n d i n t e g r a t e w h e r e possible. It was n o t really until t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y that J e w s b e g a n to rediscover t h e i r long-forgotten c o m p a t r i o t . It is precisely by m e a n s o f ideas derived from c o n t e m p o r a r y Platonism that Philo thinks it p o s s i b l e to r e c o n c i l e G r e e k r a t i o n a l i s t t h o u g h t with t h e r e l i g i o u s heritage o f Judaism. Presumably P h i l o perceived that h e s t o o d at t h e e n d o f a rich p e r i o d o f e x e g e t i c a l activity in A l e x a n d r i a .e. t h e n . In the first p l a c e h e has n o t b e e n a b l e to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t P h i l o only m a d e use o f a s i n g l e m a i n s o u r c e . after the severe p o g r o m s in A l e x a n d r i a a n d the fall o f J e r u s a l e m .

Philo was thus n o t only a Philo Alexandrinus a n d a Philo Judaeus. It is t h r o u g h t h e m e d i u m o f Patristic t h o u g h t that P h i l o e x e r t e d a n o t i n c o n s i d e r a b l e i n f l u e n c e o n W e s t e r n philosophy a n d theology. P h i l o was d e e p l y c o n v i n c e d t h a t i f i n t e l l e c t u a l s t o o k t h e t r o u b l e to p l u m b t h e d e p t h s o f t h e M o s a i c writings in a serious way. Philo. D .I P H I L O . especially in the areas o f theology a n d a n t h r o p o l o g y . His greatest d e b t is. b u t his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is heavily d e p e n d e n t o n the so-called M i d d l e Platonist m o v e m e n t . P h i l o t o o w i s h e d to d e f e n d t h e c u l t u r a l a n d religious h e r i t a g e o f his p e o p l e . H e has m a d e a careful reading o f P l a t o ' s m o r e i m p o r t a n t dialogues. as we have s e e n . which b e g a n to m a k e headway d u r i n g his lifetime.g. T h e s o u r c e o f all w i s d o m . was t h e G o d . the c o n t o u r s o f which are still far from b e i n g fully understood". h e t o o d e c i d e d that attack was t h e best f o r m o f d e f e n c e . they would b e f o r c e d to a g r e e with h i m . Also t h e e t h i c a l ideas which P h i l o takes over from t h e S t o a a n d c e r t a i n sceptical ideas often have a Platonizing ring. that P h i l o h i m s e l f was deeply i n f l u e n c e d by G r e e k culture. others c o n c e n t r a t e d t h e i r efforts o n h i s t o r i o g r a p h y (Artapanus) a n d c h r o n o g r a p h y ( D e m e t r i u s ) . i n c l u d i n g t h a t o f t h e G r e e k s . and esp. 1 8 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s it h a s b e c o m e a b u n d a n t l y c l e a r . conqueror or conquered ? O f all t h e p e o p l e s in t h e N e a r East in t h e c e n t u r i e s after t h e c o n q u e s t s o f A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t . a n d above all by G r e e k philosophy. The c e n t r e o f such activities was A l e x a n d r i a . b u t ultimately also b e c a m e a Philo Christianus. t h e J e w s were t h e o n l y n a t i o n w h o h a d t h e c o u r a g e to defy t h e 'cultural i m p e r i a l i s m ' o f G r e e k t h o u g h t a n d even a t t e m p t e d to c h a l l e n g e it with a p o l o g e t i c material o f t h e i r o w n . even in this s h o r t survey o f his t h o u g h t that we have p r e s e n t e d in this article. A L E X A N D R I A N AND J E W 15 took c o p i e s o f nearly all P h i l o ' s writings with h i m when h e moved from A l e x a n d r i a to C a e s a r e a in P a l e s t i n e in 2 3 3 A .b e l o v e d p r o p h e t a n d lawgiver M o s e s . a n d for which . 92-93.h e is an i m p o r t a n t witness. It is certainly n o c o i n c i d e n c e that t h e s e writings are a l m o s t exactly t h o s e which we still possess. Dillon ( 1 9 7 7 ) 139-183. B u t d o e s this m e a n that we s h o u l d label Philo a ' M i d d l e P l a t o n i s t ' . to Plato. S o m e J e w s wrote e p i c p o e m s (Philo Epicus). In his Church History E u s e b i u s gives a c a t a l o g u e o f t h e P h i l o n i c writings p r e s e n t in t h e Episcopal Library o f C a e s a r e a ( 2 . E. 2 1 . as c e r t a i n s c h o l a r s h a v e d o n e r e c e n t l y . others composed dramas (Ezechiel Tragicus). the fine chapter on Judaism in Momigliano ( 1 9 7 5 ) . 2 0 2 1 2 0 t h e a b s e n c e o f o t h e r m a t e r i a l . Winston ( 1 9 8 5 ) .

on h u m a n ' n o t h i n g n e s s ' b e f o r e G o d . W o u l d it t h e n b e m o r e c o r r e c t to c o n c l u d e t h a t P h i l o m a d e an a t t e m p t to r e a c h a synthesis o f J e w i s h a n d G r e e k t h o u g h t ? H e r e t o o I have strong reservations. ' P h i l o aims to conquer hy showing that what is valuable in G r e e k t h o u g h t is already p r e s e n t in J u d a i s m . 1 . H e is t h e s t a n d a r d against which o t h e r thinkers n e e d to b e tested. since t h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e to suggest that what P h i l o s o u g h t was a kind o f h a r m o n i z a t i o n b e t w e e n two different kinds o f t h i n k i n g .I 16 Personally I would hesitate to d o this.1 (= Haase ( 1 9 8 4 ) . 2 2 1 Borgen ( 1 9 8 4 ) 154. t h e o t h e r falsehood. Halbband 1.which a r e definitely n o t G r e e k . T h e a p h o r i s t i c f o r m u l a t i o n o f this p a r a d o x by t h e Norwegian s c h o l a r P e d e r B o r g e n c a n hardly b e b e t t e r e d : ' P h i l o is a c o n q u e r o r .) is devoted to Philo and gives a good picture of the state o f Philonic research at the end of the 1970's. B u t it is surely a n e a r thing. T h e truth is to b e f o u n d in M o s e s . T h e entire volume o f ANRW II 21. In t h e first p l a c e b e c a u s e t h e r e a r e c e r t a i n e l e m e n t s in his t h o u g h t . b u t r a t h e r as a devout a n d Law-abiding Jew. B u t these a r e n o t simplistically to b e identified with J e w i s h a n d G r e e k t h o u g h t respectively. Yet the attraction that G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y e x e r t s o n h i m is so strong that h e d o e s n o t even realize that h e is in d a n g e r o f b e i n g swept o f f his f e e t . o n t h e r o l e o f divine g r a c e . I f it is possible to m a k e use o f t h e sophisticated p h i l o s o p h i c a l systems o f t h e G r e e k s in o r d e r to e x p o u n d the truth. It is true that in his view t h e r e a r e two o p p o s e d worlds o f t h o u g h t . It would b e g o i n g t o o far to assert t h a t h e has b e e n conquered by the force majeure o f G r e e k t h o u g h t . t h e n such a p r o c e d u r e is entirely legitimate.such as his e m p h a s i s o n piety. T h e p a r a d o x o f P h i l o ' s f a r . the o n e r e p r e s e n t i n g the truth.r e a c h i n g a c c u l t u r a t i o n has now c o m e clearly i n t o view. S e c o n d l y b e c a u s e it was n o t at all his i n t e n t i o n to p r e s e n t h i m s e l f as a G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r . o n the verge o f b e i n g c o n q u e r e d .

HAASE ( e d . an Annotated Bibliography Vigiliae C h r i s t i a n a e S u p p l e m e n t s 8 ( L e i d e n 1 9 8 8 ) . Y. E . Histoire des doctrines de 2 l'Antiquite classique 11 ( P a r i s 1 9 8 7 ) . Philo of Alexandria: 1937-1986.). GAGER. RADICE a n d D. An e x c e l l e n t a n t h o l o g y with c o p i o u s a n n o t a t i o n is: Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life.* A . 'A g e n e r a l b i b l i o g r a p h y o f Philo J u d a e u s ' . RUNIA. translation a n d i n t r o d u c t i o n by D. D I L L O N . B I T T E R . The Origins of Anti-semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (New York-Oxford 1 9 8 3 ) . ' P h i l o o f A l e x a n d r i a : a critical a n d synthetical survey o f r e s e a r c h since W o r l d W a r II'. Pseudepigrapha. T . GOODENOUGH. in E . E t u d e s Bibliques ( P a r i s 1 9 4 9 ) 5 2 1 . STONE (ed. Hellenistisches Judentum in romischer zeit: Philon und . G O O D E N O U G H . Jewish writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha. as well as s o m e i m p o r t a n t s t u d i e s t h a t will o r i e n t a t e t h e r e a d e r in r e c e n t s c h o l a r s h i p o n P h i l o . R. Philo. L. F o r s c h u n g e n z u m j u d i s c h . G O O D H A R T a n d E . 'Philo o f A l e x a n d r i a ' .T o r o n t o 1 9 8 1 ) . 2. Josephus. Josephus. R. A.I t h a c a . the Hebrew Names in Philo. W.5 8 5 . Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: B r o w n J u d a i c Series 1 1 5 ( A t l a n t a 1 9 8 8 ) . GRABBE. R. in M. E . La revelation d'Hermes Trismegiste. A M I R . An Introduction to Philo Judaeus ( O x f o r d 1 9 6 2 ) . ) . 220 ( L o n d o n .c h r i s t l i c h e n Dialog 5 ( N e u k i r c h e n 1 9 8 3 ) . * R. W I N S T O N . The Politics of Philo Judaeus: and Theory (New H a v e n 1 9 3 8 . E . F E S T U G I E R E . U t r e c h t 1 9 8 2 ) . The Middle Platonists: 80 B. J . The Giants and Selections. DILLON. T h e Classics o f W e s t e r n Spirituality ( N e w Y o r k .2 8 2 . — ( 1 9 8 4 b ) . GOODENOUGH. C R I N T II 2 (Assen 1 9 8 4 ) 2 3 3 . r e p r i n t e d H i l d e s h e i m 1 9 6 7 ) 2 Practice 125-321.C. Qumran Sectarian Writings. vol.I P H I L O . R. Le Dieu cosmique. L . 1 6 7 .D. * J . to A. Die hellenislische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien. A L E X A N D R I A N AND J E W 17 BIBLIOGRAPHY A c o m p l e t e b i b l i o g r a p h y o f s c h o l a r s h i p o n P h i l o .N e w York 1977). P. G O U L E T . p r e f a c e by J . B O R G E N ( 1 9 8 4 a ) . In t h e following list I i n c l u d e all works c i t e d in t h e n o t e s . i n c l u d i n g listings o f editions a n d translations can b e found in two works: H . Vreemdelingschap bij Philo van Alexandrie: een onderzoek naar de betekenis van KapoiKoq (diss. La philosophic de Moise: essai de reconstitution d'un commentaire philosophique prephilonien du Pentateuque.1 5 4 . ' T h e S e p t u a g i n t as T r a n s l a t i o n ' . B I C K E R M A N N . in H a a s e ( 1 9 8 4 ) 9 8 . R. in Studies in Jewish and Christian History ( L e i d e n 1 9 7 6 ) 1 . Studies that c a n serve as an i n t r o d u c t i o n to his writings a n d t h o u g h t are m a r k e d with an asterisk. J .2 0 0 .

HARL. M. M E N D E L S O N . La filosofia Mosaica (Milan and the T i m a e u s of Plato. U Levitique. Cambridge C o m m e n t a r i e s o n t h e W r i t i n g s o f t h e Jewish a n d C h r i s t i a n W o r l d 2 0 0 B . Philo of Alexandria: an Introduction ( N e w Y o r k . H A R L E & D. Philo's 1988). Initiations a u Christianisme a n c i e n (Paris 1 9 8 8 ) . G n o s t i c a ( P a r i s 1 9 8 7 ) . La Bible grecque des Septante du Judaisme hellenistique au Christianisme ancien. NIKIPROWETZKY. Philo of Alexandria 44 (Leiden 1986). vol. 3 vols. Greeks and Barbarians 1989). M. 1 9 4 7 . W I N S T O N . of Theological S. * M. observations philologiques. D. Phoenix 21 ( 1 9 6 7 ) 154. H E N G E L . V. The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation. review o f R. W O L F S O N . L a Bible d ' A l e x a n d r i e 3 ( P a r i s 1 9 8 8 ) . Alien Wisdom: the Limits of Hellenization ( C a m b r i d g e 1 9 7 5 ) . WHITTAKER. A r b e i t e n z u r L i t e r a t u r u n d G e s c h i c h t e des H e l l e n i s t i s c h e n J u d e n t u m s 11 ( L e i d e n 1 9 7 7 ) . Philo. T. 'Moses Atticizing'. Catholic Biblical Q u a r t e r l y M o n o g r a p h Series 1 4 ( W a s h i n g t o n 1 9 8 3 ) . T . TOBIN.* Jewish Identity. L'Exode. La Genese: traduction du texte grec de la Septante. T e i l II P r i n c i p a t : B a n d 2 1 ( B e r l i n .O x f o r d 1 9 7 9 ) . L a Bible d ' A l e x a n d r i e 2 (Paris A. 2 P h i l o . — . A. * A. introduction et notes (Paris 1 9 8 6 ) .N e w York 1 9 8 4 ) . ' N u m e n i u s a n d A l c i n o u s o n t h e First P r i n c i p l e ' . RUNIA. L E B O U L L U E C a n d P. MENARD. SANDEVOIR . La Bible d'Alexandrie. Goulet. PRALON. G. 1 9 6 8 ) . H . (Jerusalem 1 9 7 4 84). MUNNICH . SANDMEL. G.* World. M. / m s . W I L L I A M S O N . La gnose de Philon d'Alexandrie.I 18 Aufstieg u n d N i e d e r g a n g d e r r o m i s c h e n W e l t . Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria H. La philosophic de Moise. J . MOMIGLIANO. 1987). Phoenix 3 2 ( 1 9 7 8 ) 1 4 4 - R. Jews in the Hellenistic t o A. ( C a m b r i d g e Mass. DORIVAL & O . Filone di Alessandria. R A D I C E . C . A. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. HARL.D. Foundations (Cincinatti Christ­ of Religious Philosophy in Judaism. Journal Studies 4 0 ( 1 9 8 9 ) 590-602. 196-201. 2 0 0 ( C a m b r i d g e 1985). STERN. 2 vols. T . 4 ianity and Islam. Brown J u d a i c Series 161 (Atlanta (London 1980). Le commentaire de VEcriture chez Philon d'Alexandrie: son caractere et sa portee.* 1989). D. R E A L E & R. J . P. . RUNIA. P h i l o s o p h i a A n t i q u a D.

and above all the similarities and differences between the thought of the near contemporaries Philo and Paul.1. London 1985. Themes of particular interest have been the logos theology of John's Gospel and the Letter to the Colossians. Generations of scholars have been intrigued as to whether Philo can shed light on the origins of the New Testament. 2. 3. Mack. whether we call this Normative. Formative. See B. will be the presence of Philo's works on the shelves of the prospective student. we can say that they supply significant information for the following areas of study and research. Palestinian. at any rate. has not been very favourable to us in its transmission of source material dating from the period in which Philo was active. Time. if only because Philo himself tells us he regularly travelled to Jerusalem. the Old Testament interpretation of the Letter to the Hebrews. moreover. Judaeo-Hellenistic 1 T 1. 2 In the Claremont Philo Research Project. But there must have been interchange.Wendland and Aucher amount to no less than 2632 pages of text. H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. A skyscraper appears to loom more massively when it stands on its own than when it is surrounded by buildings of comparable size. or even (following M. 1 The scanty remains of Judaeo-Hellenistic literature (excluding Philo and some Septuagintal writings) have been collected and translated in J. A massive presence F o r all those wishing to study the culture. Studia Philonica 3 (1974-75) 71-112. volume 2. or more particularly the religious and philosophical ideas. 2 . L. Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt (hence­ forth ANRW) II21. 'Philo Judaeus and exegetical traditions in Alexandria'. Massive. Most of what we know about Hellenistic Judaism must be drawn from Philo. Attempts (so far relatively unsuccessful) have been made to reconstruct the theological history of the Alexandrian Synagogue solely on the basis of Philo's evidence .). Hengel) Hellenized Judaism. The dominant position of Philo's writings among the pitiful remains of literature needs no demonstration . Less clearly defined is Philo's relationship to mainstream Judaism. for the 4 8 treatises of the Corpus Philonicum in the standard editions of Cohn . of the Greek and Jewish world at the beginning of our era. Looking more specifically at the central presence of Philo's writings.227-271. The cross-currents between Philo's milieu and Haggadic and Halachic literature 'and not to forget Qumran) are demanding continued investigation. Charlesworth (ed. 'Exegetical traditions in Alexandrian Judaism: a program for the analysis of the Philonic corpus'. Berlin 1984. it is likely that Philo of Alexandria will constitute a massive presence.II How to read Philo /.

his writings supply valuable material. This is just as well. Also the relation between the Philonic corpus and the more recently discovered Gnostic literature is a subject with important connotations. Philonic scholarship 3 In the study of every ancient author the achievements of centuries of scholarship interpose themselves between us and the ipsissima verba of the author in question. Aim of this article Without doubt. a reading of Philo will have much to offer students of the six (or seven if we count Gnostic studies as separate) areas of investigation just outlined. I happen to believe that Philo is a rewarding author to read and study. J . 1981 . Last but certainly not least. And it is precisely in this context that his massive presence can be daunting as well. In fact I would go a step further and say that in practice Philo is more often read for the information he can give in relation to others than for his own sake. 519. Philo's writings are a welcome indication of what a well-educated Greek gentleman could be expected to have known. 2. How can we read Philo satisfactorily and profitably when there is so much of him to read? The aim of this article is to give some consideration to the quite practical question of how we should read Philo. in what way we can approach his works and make use of the information he offers without doing him injustice in the process. Festugiere) . Paris 1949. volume 2: Le dieu cosmique. as many have found in the past. The heavy dependence of the exegesis and theology of the Church Fathers on ideas first aired in Philo has long been recognized. of and contemporary currents in Greek philosophy. Because our sources for the philo­ sophical developments in Philo's time are particularly meagre. as we realize when we compare the virtually illegible scrawls of 3 La revelation d'Hermes Trismegiste. Philo has been (rather one-sidedly) described as a 'product of the Hellenistic schools such as were produced by the dozen' (A. If one should find his writings insufferably tedious. 5. This. ^ for which he is gradually 6. it is likely in my view that one has failed to understand what Philo was aiming to achieve.II 186 4. 2 . before he can be properly used to shed light on others. but by no means exhaustively researched. 3. i.e. it should be noted. we can now say. Philo had a thorough knowledge of the tradition gaining the scholarly recognition he deserves. Even though he was a Jew. The basic assumption that I shall make is perhaps not as innocuous as it sounds: it is my conviction that Philo should first be understood for himself. applies whether we do or do not regard Philo as a worthwhile author in his own right. and so are ol interest to students of Hellenistic culture in its diverse aspects. especially for the study of Stoicism and the beginnings of the Middle Platonist movement.

Hilgert. Indices ad Philonis Alexandrini opera.HOW TO READ PHILO I8 7 many ancient manuscripts with the streamlined presentation of the modern text or commentary. Indices and lexica.47-97. Filone di Alessandria: bibliografia generate 1937-1982. Philo of Alexandria: an introduction. though limited to studies written in Italian. German.1. volume 7. and his significance' ANRWII21. volume 7. Theiler in an appendix to the German translation of Philo . Borgen have produced valuable 4 introductory surveys which undertake to introduce the reader to both Philo's writings and thought and the results of the scholarship that has focussed on them . English and Spanish. A valuable index of philosophical and theological themes in Philo is furnished by W. E . Leisegang and G. P. ANRWII21.1. but can sometimes be more useful because it usually gives some of the context and subdivides the usage of the more common terms. for this work gives an objective summary of the contents of all the items it contains . New Haven 1938. 8 'Sachweiser zu Philo'.386-411. Jewish writings of the second temple period. French. 98-154. Stone (ed. we gain some idea of the amount of scholarly effort that has been expended on Philo! 3.1. Berlin 1974. G. 5 H. Philo von Alexandreia: die Werke in deutscher Ubersetzung. Both authors reveal a sound awareness of the crucial methodological issues involved in studying Philo.). De Providentia. for the Greek fragments (Hypothetica. 'Philo of Alexandria' in M. Radice. but for serious research more sophisticated tools will be needed.3-46. ANRW II 21. The former is less exhaustive. as always. In Philo's case too a good deal of scholarly activity has taken place. 2. Sandmel. Berlin 1964. his writings. Bibliographies. A more valuable resource is provided in the 'bibliografia ragionata' for the years 19371982 recently published by R . Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum II2. in L. The beginner will receive an excellent orientation by means of these works. 7 J . E . Indices of the Greek words used by Philo have been prepared by J . Naples 1983. R. repr. Both divide their lists into subsections covering the various aspects of Philonic studies. 'Philo Judaeus: an introduction to the man. Radice. When we consider that. In recent years S. L . Borgen. 6 R. Unfortunately the last-named work is not complete (even for the Greek Philo). A general bibliography of Philo. Goodhart and E . Berlin 1926-30. This invaluable work should be translated and made available to readers of English. In vol. Exhaustive lists of all studies are given for the years up to 5 1937 in the bibliography of Goodhart and Goodenough and for 1935-1981 in the bibliography of Hilgert . Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt. Assen 1984. more succesfully and more comprehensively done in some areas than in others. Sandmel and P. Goodenough.233-282. 1. Quaestiones) are not included. This has been. New York 1979. 10 of the Loeb edition J . Surveys. Cohn et alii. Mayer. It is the accumulated results of Philonic scholarship that can supply us with the tools that will help us to read him. Index PhUoneus. 8 7 6 . it still lists 1118 items. 'Bibliographia Philoniana 1935-1981'. E a r p has given us a list of scriptural passages used by Philo and an index of 4 S. 'Philo of Alexandria: a critical and synthetical survey of research since World War II'. W . but the reader can further gauge the contents of the various items only from the titles which their authors gave them. 1962. Mayer . A more direct access to the contents of Philo's writings is furnished by indices and lexica of various kinds. Leisegang.

17 (Defugaetinventioneby E. These are indispensable if one wishes to follow the train of thought in Philo's more complex exegetical works. Arnaldez). Chico. vol.). But it should be added that a number of the translations of individual treatises in the French series effectively amount to commentaries. So much for the framework of scholarship within which the student of Philo can operate. 24 (De specialibus legibus I-II by S. vol. Box. Petit). vol. D. for the Quaestiones Marcus). Kahn). 4. In recent years there has been a salutary concentration on problems of methodology in studying Philo. Firstly. Philonis Alexandrini De animalibus. Smallwood. StarobinskiSafran). Terian. Commentaries. commentaries have so far been produced for but a limited number of treatises. vol. New York 1979 .). 2 2 . 23 (De decalogo by V. Measson). Some­ times it was difficult to believe that two studies were talking about the same author. the De 12 11 and one exegetical double-treatise . Harl). so divergent were the methods employed and the results achieved. Dillon (ed. 14 Leiden 1977. 16 (Decongressu by M. Winston and J .II 188 names which effectively summarizes the allegorical themes brought in relation to persons and places in the Pentateuch. 28 (Quod omnis probus liber sit by M. vol. In this context a special mention should be made of the magisterial study by V. for De Providentia Hadas-Lebel. California 1983. 10 The best list we have is found in Leisegang. The indices. Leiden 1961. I myself have tried to proceed further on the basis of some o f the principles enunciated by 9 Biblia Patristica: supplement Philon d'Alexandrie. 12 H. Nikiprowetzky). Philonis Alexandrini In Flaccum. Hadas-Lebel). 30 (De aetemitate mundi by R. The surveys and bibliographies give guidance through the forest of studies based upon them. 10 9 This slender volume is an absolute 'must' for all Philo scholars. 11 The best one can do is consult the indices prepared by various translators (for De animalibus see Terian. A. E . California 1981. 25 (De specialibus legibus III-IV by A. however. 13 Note especially vol. Finally it should be noted that the Armenian part of Philo's writings is far less well indexed than that part that has come down to us in the original . A deficiency of Philonic scholarship is that adequate animalibus. 35 (De Providentia by M. Here too the Armenian Philo is virtually terra incognita. Earp's list of scriptural passages has now been superseded by an exhaustive 'Index biblique' published in France as a supplement to the Biblia Patristica . G.vol. London 1939. and that could just as easily have been the book's title. vol. 15 (Quis rerum divinarum heres sit byM. vol. Daniel). vol. Two treatises of Philo of Alexandria: a commentary on De gigantibus and Quod Deus immutabilis sit. commentaries and summaries give access to the contents of Philo's writings. Summaries of the contents of individual treatises will be found in the English and French translations. Nikiprowetzky entitled Le commentaire de TEcriture chez Philon d'Alexandrie . Chico. vol. Commentaries proper exist only for the two historical works. 14 (De migratione Abrahami by J . There is no adequate index of Philo's usage of and allusions to Greek literature . to add a two-fold caveat. 13 (De confusione linguarum by J . and very good ones at t h a t . Moses). Allow me. Cazeaux). 1970 . vol. a remarkable aspect of scholarship on Philo is the amount of disagree­ ment and disparity that can be observed among its leading practitioners. Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium. 14 13 (Its last chapter is called 'Prolegomenes a une etude de Philon'. 4 (De sacrificiis by A. Indices 3-26. Alexandre). Paris 1982.

whether in the original (preferable) or in a sound translation (unavoidable for almost everyone in the case of the Armenian works). we should now ask.II HOW TO READ PHILO 189 Nikiprowetzky in my study of one aspect of Philo's writings. It is far more than that. If only all the world would read it and study it and understand it! There is. If one wishes to make responsible statements on Philonic themes or doctrines. But de facto Philo limits the predicate 'authoritative' to a much smaller body of writings than is customary in Judaism as a whole. F o r the Jews of Alexandria. however. Other Septuagintal writings are seldom invoked. Philo passionately defends his religious and cultural heritage. the Timaeus . 15 The second part of my caveat flows on naturally from the first. his extensive exploitation of Plato's famous cosmological dialogue. Accordingly let us now move from scholarship to the works on which that scholarship is based. A first answer must be that Philo. It is because scripture is inspired by God and thus authoritative that Philo feels called to expound it. it will be necessary to read what he actually wrote. The question still remains. It is the repository of the highest wisdom that man can attain. What. as has already been intimated. Philo's aims Philo was. namely his use of Greek philosophical literature and. the preservation of their ethnic and cultural identity was not something that could be taken for granted. uninformed reader. however. and then only in relation to a prior Mosaic text. Philo is clearly not the kind of author that can be studied on the basis of secondary literature alone. From his general approach and from very many individual passages it is possible to discern that he saw his task not only as an exegete but also as an apologist of scripture. a third general feature of Philo's work which will forcibly 15 Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Philo is first and foremost an exegete of scripture. . as a loyal and devout Jew. a voluminous writer. in particular. But this answer is not enough to explain certain specific charac­ teristics of Philo's exegesis. Given the difficulties just sketched. 4. Leiden 1986 (revised edition of diss. were the aims that he set himself in producing this extensive corpus of writings? The briefest glance at the corpus will confirm that the vast majority of the treatises present exposition and explanation of the first five books of the Septuagint. as to why Philo took upon himself this huge labour of giving a comprehensive exposition of Mosaic scripture. Free University Amsterdam. sur­ rounded on all sides by the proud achievements of the dominant (and prestigious) Hellenistic culture. H e is only interested in giving exegesis of the writings of the blessed lawgiver Moses. felt a deep veneration for scripture and regarded it as man's highest calling to explore the depths of wisdom that it contains. The Law of Moses is not only not the curiously archaic and jumbled document that it might seem to the casual. 1983). Assimilation and apostasy were ever-present dangers.

De opificio mundi 8 ) . in his role as apologist of scripture. but only to the extent that it guides him in selecting which aspects of the language of reason are more and which are less conducive to his exegetical purpose. It is not just that Philo.1. almost unwittingly. Hence his willingness to relate and take over the interpretations of previous exegetes. Philo himself has accepted 'the language of reason' supplied by Greek philosophy as the intellectual framework of reference within which scripture is to be explained. I can do no better than repeat P. My remarks will be related to the five-fold division of Philo's works which has been accepted by scholars for almost a century. a proponent of the Hellenistic paideia.II 190 strike every reader and which we need to take into consideration. esp. The real truth lies deeper. but the riches of thought in Moses' words which must be explored and exposed to view. and is surely too profound for an ordinary mortal to grasp in its fullness'. W e recognize now too how risky Philo's venture is. They are not the last word on the subject. Because Philo regards himself as first and foremost an exegete of scripture. but can also as philosophos beat the famous Greek lawgivers (foremost among them Plato) at their own game (cf. feels that he must defend the contents of scripture with reference to certain Greek philosophical ideas. The three aspects so far discussed . Borgen's concise formulation: Philo is 'a conqueror on the verge of being conquered' . It is as if he is saying to us: 'My expositions deserve serious consideration. Philo's writings 16 What then are the features of Philo's actual treatises that we need to take into account when tackling the subject of how to read Philo. the importance of apologetics and the conditional acceptance of Greek paideia . but will have to speak at a high level of generality. . but they do point the way. It is not his ideas that are most important. he is prepared to accept a relatively modest role. be overlooked. W e see now what is perhaps the chief reason that Philo expounds the Pentateuch only. He welcomes the concentration on Moses the great sage. A n important corollary should not. On account of their defective transmission the Questions and answers on Genesis and Exodus are by far the least read and studied of all Philo's treatises. who is not only the pro­ phetic vehicle of God's revealed word. Hence too his sometimes rather uncomfortable habit of putting forward explanations that are not wholly consistent with each other. See also Runia 528-546. F r o m the literary/structural viewpoint the procedure they follow is straight16 'Critical survey' ANRW II21. Naturally in this context I cannot deal with each treatise individually.the centrality of exegesis. 1.are sufficient to explain the nature of Philo's aims and the resultant characteristics of his writings. 5.150. however. In the process of expounding Mosaic scripture he becomes. The primacy of scripture is retained. Thoroughly immersed in Hellenistic paideia as the result of his education and further studies.

The Biblical text gives rise to a question. The treatises in the Exposition of the Law pose less problems.4. The exegesis presented in the great Allegorical Commentary is infinitely more complex. even if it is now more in the form of paraphrase and elaboration rather than quotation and direct commentary. 4. Chr. Leiden 1983. more synoptic. . For these same reasons the Questions have been regarded as a kind of exegetical notebook containing ideas for later more complex exegesis. to consult the summaries of their contents which I mentioned earlier on. exegete' ANRW II 21. The chief difficulty that the reader faces is getting to grips with what Philo is actually saying. It is so complex in fact that it is absolutely necessary. The strong influence of rhetorical methods must also be taken into account in our interpretations. Moreover. The main biblical text and the secondary biblical texts combined together form the skeleton on which the contents (and thematic intentions) of the treatise are draped. and D. when studying these works. but even the longer answers do not reveal any complexities of structure. La trame et la chaine: ou les structures litteraires et I'exigese dans cinq des traites de Philon d'Alexandrie. There are two chief reasons for this. The literary form is clearly influenced by ideals of lucidity and logical presentation developed in Hellenistic scientific literature. Vig. Otherwise getting lost in Philo's labyrinthine sequences is virtually guaranteed. Recent research has suggested an intimate connection between the structure of the Questions and these allegorical treatises. 40 (1986). but that he also regularly introduces secondary biblical texts in order to throw extra light on his subject. Runia. especially in the case of the biographical works. Philo on the whole does not appeal to other biblical texts to elucidate or illustrate his exposition. 'Further observations on the structure of Philo's allegorical treatises'. 3. 156-226. 38 (1984) 209-256. Cazeaux. which is then answered. Vig. The procedure is less detailed.1. The vast majority of answers are no more than a page in length. In the historical-apologetic works we encounter a different situation. In this way a complex structure with a fairly loose conceptual and thematic unity is developed . usually at the two levels of literal and allegorical exegesis. 'Philon d'Alexandrie.II HOW TO READ PHILO 191 forward. The chief difference is that Philo not only concentrates his exegesis on the main biblical text quoted at the beginning of each 'chapter' of the treatise. Chr. and Philo tends to stick rather close to the subject at hand. The Armenian transmission often casts a veil over the precise meaning. See now J. As the 17 17 The results of the most recent research have not yet been incorporated in the surveys listed in n. T. The questions asked are generally limited in scope. The latter in fact amount to a number of questions chained together in a continuous structured whole. 'The structure of Philo's allegorical treatises'. But the more Hellenized method of presentation should not blind the reader to the fact that Philo is still giving exegesis of scripture. It is therefore of paramount importance when reading these difficult treatises always to relate Philo's line of thought to the biblical texts on which he is commenting and the exegetical problems which he discerns in them. For close interpretative work it is adviseable to consult your local Armenologist! 2.

A. 5. The question of Philo's projected audience needs to be borne in mind. Philo's apologetic concern is now more directly focussed on the concrete historical situation of the Jewish people in the past and in his own time. Runia. The philosophical treatises form an idiosyncratic chapter in Philonic studies. . 6. Can we say that certain works are aimed at a particular kind of audience.g. in my view. Philosophical sources are dealt with a great length. a quest the results of which he was prepared to share with others. deliberately esoteric.e. e. They are a material record of his quest to fathorn the depths of wisdom contained in scripture. in my view. ANRW II21. a young Philo before he was 'converted' to a recognition of the value of his heritage? Recent research has shown that this is most definitely not the c a s e . 18 These too have not yet been fully incorporated in the surveys.II 192 name implies. Philo's chief audience will have been well-educated Jews. but it is not. of course. Is this a different Philo here. Philo's audience 18 A further question that is often raised is what audience Philo envisaged for his writings. for we are confronted with 'historical accounts' quite different to what we are used to. The way in which the doxography on the indestructibility of the cosmos climaxes with the view of Moses (based on Gen. 'Philo's De aeternitate mundi: the problem of its interpretation'. far too difficult to be comprehensible for beginners. Vig. The allegorical treatises are. Chr. In reading these works too it is necessary to note the context and where possible make connections with Philo's other works. Terian. 35(1981)105-151. i. 8:22) at De aeternitate mundi 19 is very revealing in this regard. The best known example is Philo's fascinating depiction of the Therapeutae (in the De vita contemplativa). written with the aim of concealing information from the unexperienced reader. but he would have welcomed interest from sympathetic outsiders. The rhetorical mode of presentation causes more serious interpretative difficulties here. The philosophical issues discussed are very much 'controlled' by exegetical themes which occur in the remainder of Philo's works.1. They are not milk but solid food. There is of course no direct exegesis in these writings. Philo here appears to be writing exclusively in the manner of a professional Greek philosopher. But the apologist at work is the same man who regards the wisdom of Moses as his nation's greatest drawcard. But they are not. biblical exegesis wholly recedes. See D. going to play a decisive role when we confront the question of how we should read Philo. and that this needs to be taken into account in our reading of them? On occasion Philo makes introductory remarks that appear to indicate that he is making allowance for a potential readership that is poorly acquainted with Judaism (the passage in the De aeternitate mundi just cited is a good example). T. 'A critical introduction to Philo's dialogues'. Every effort should be made to relate the contents of these works to exegetical themes elaborated in the main body of Philo's writings. Philo is writing his long series of treatises in the first place for himself.272-294. as Philo would say.

When the base text has been localized and the train of thought established. not all parts are equally accessible (note esp. to Philo's other works. But it must be remembered that the thematic unity of a treatise is often of a loose. of course. yet it is essential if one wishes to reconstruct the train of thought. and that means an exegetical theme or problem may lurk in the background.. the problem will be quite clear. in the biographies of the Patriarchs. to locate the biblical text which forms the basis of the passage. If we are dealing one of the Questions. If one concentrates on a few selected 'purple passages'. It is necessary. Firstly he or she will need to identify the ideas that Philo uses. Many of Philo's state­ ments and treatments of a theme are very much context-bound. There are. e. so that the meaning which Philo intends with them can be accurately established. there is a good chance that the result will be one-sided. On the whole we can say that. the Armenian works).e. But Philo's oeuvre is vast. Philo will not be inclined to elaborate. always aim at taking all the relevant passages yito account. How to go about reading Philo Having completed our brief tour through the problem-areas of Philonic research . some purely descriptive passages. In other works an element of reconstruction may be involved. and the kind of audience he envisaged for them . 2. Since Philo regarded it as his task to expound Mosaic thought in relation to accepted Greek scientific.II HOW TO READ PHILO 193 7. The final step draws us away from the immediate concerns of contextuality. The next recommendation is that we should attempt to establish what the exegetical problem is which has impelled Philo to develop the passage under discussion. if at all possible. When pursuing a particular subject in Philo. before all else. recommended procedures). If the passage is in one of the nonexegetical works. and thus in need of qualification. Nevertheless it is still important to relate it. Given the complex chains of exegesis which Philo sometimes constructs. the nature of his aims and methods.g. 4. 3. special attention must be paid to the context. yet any subject can turn up virtually anywhere. we are now in a position to tackle the main question of this essay: how do we go about reading Philo and using his evidence in our own research? My advice to the reader is that he or she adhere to the following four rules (or. it may be necessary to relate the passage to the main themes of the whole treatise in which it occurs. philosophical and theological ideas. but even there analysis of exegetical paraphrases can yield interesting insights into (problem-inspired) modification of the biblical text. it will accordingly be the task of his interpreter to reconstruct this process in reverse. When examining a particular passage. associative kind. The difficulties involved here are . the procedures he follows in his treatises.i. if there is no problem. there is of course no exegetical context. 1. less prescriptively. This might seem to be stating the obvious. so that the relation to a wider context may not be so illuminating. which in Philo's case nearly always means the exegetical context. this may not be easy.

In fact it is clear that the third and fourth steps must go hand in hand. I can imagine that readers may wish to raise an thinks especially of the Stoa . If. It is easier. . But even here we must allow for the fact that Philo reads Plato through the spectacle of Platonist interpretation. for example. the same background knowledge that Philo had at his disposal. to make a study of Philo's treatment of the theme of Jacob's wrestling with the angel and his sub­ sequent change of name than to expatiate on the doctrine of divine transcendence which he calls upon in order to explain the name. Nikiprowetzky has convincingly shown. this will mean that we have to pay attention to the exegetical foundations of his writings. In the case of Platonic philosophical motifs. for example. therefore.II 194 considerable. 14. see above n. But do not the recommenda­ tions put forward have the effect of confining the study of Philo almost exclusively to the limited area of exegetical themes? Will Philo then only be of interst for biblical scholars? How can he then still merit the attention of scholars working in the wide range of fields outlined at the beginning of this article? In reply to this objection I would begin by making a partial concession to the conclusion it draws. In the case of other philosophical schools . Inevitably. In fact I would go a step further and affirm that it is precisely in those places where an exegetical problem provokes Philo to reflection on a philosophical or theological problem that our author is at his most interesting and important for the history of ideas. discussion of exegetical themes will lead us right into the midstream of that confluence of Greek and Jewish ideas which is inimitably and peculiarly Philonic. Y e s .the situation is much worse. It will be conceded that. however. Having put forward the recommendations outlined above. It is because Philo attributes a particular kind of philosophical theology to Moses that he interprets the etymology of the name Israel (he who sees God) in the way he does. In this way the circle closes and we are back at the exegetical problem identified in our third step. 19 19 As V. Ideally the interpreter should have. ideas start to get shuffled about like displaced persons. as the example makes quite clear. in fact. or have access to. But this is patently not possible. wrenched from their surroundings and forced into uneasy and frictionfilled cohabitation. if Philo is first and foremost an interpreter of Mosaic scripture. This approach. and much of the history of Platonism is obscure to us. was the chief reason for the alarming dissension that reigned in Philonic scholarship until quite recently . attempts are made to discuss Philonic doctrine without taking into consideration the exegetical problematics in response to which he develops it. His Timaeus is the same as our Timaeus (apart from possible textual variants). Y e t . the separation made here has an element of artificiality in it. we can at least read the same writings of Plato that Philo himself read. Our interpreter's second task is to relate the ideas so far established to the exegetical locus which prompted Philo to summon them. it is easier and more immediately illuminating to examine an exegetical theme in Philo.

8. And indeed. a.3-5. It would have been impossible. The first touches on a philosophical theme and has a negative purpose. J . and has a more positive intention. but which can be of interest for students of the history of ideas. H. Dillon. 20 21 For a brief account of this doctrine see J. twoness. precisely because it is unrelated to a scriptural basis (real or imagined).271-273. It will be understood that. not the ideal world in its totality. he writes. The career of this rather obscure late Platonic doctrine is a subject of much interest of historians of ancient philosophy. Amsterdam 1964. Dillon. it is true. It would seem that Plato envisaged two levels of ideas. when Philo offers information which is not directly relevent to his exegetical concerns. is almost invariably tangential to Philo's main concerns.e. in a passage in De opificio mundi 102 Philo appears to make a reference to idea-numbers. These are called the idea-numbers. London 1977. On the strength of this passage scholars have concluded that for Philo the ideas are to be viewed primarily as numbers . . Tarrant. but the ideas of oneness. i. and not as comprehensive as I would like. I will give an example of such a piece of information in the final section of this article. 169. my examples will be very limited. Middle 21 20 Platonists 159. If we look at the exegetical context. at the secondary level the other ideas produced by combinations dependent on the idea-numbers . H. This passage is part of a disproportionately long encomium of the hebdomad in Opif. to show how things should not be^done. the second enters the field of theology. at the primary level the ideas of the primal numbers one to ten. Der Ursprung des Geistmetaphysik. that towards the end of his life Plato put forward a doctrine in which he postulated two ultimate principles above the ideas. The hebdomad and the idea-numbers A question which gave Plato and his later followers much concern was the nature and the extent of the ideas which play such a central role in Platonic philosophy. for reasons of space. We should therefore be rather hesitant to integrate such material into an account of 'Philo's thought'.e. Scepticism or Platonism?: the philosophy of the Fourth Academy. By acting on the Dyad the One generates. and it is only natural that they turn to Philo to see if he can shed any light on it. a different picture emerges.II HOW TO READ PHILO 195 There are many occasions. and so on up to ten. I would argue that such material. for bodily things to be measured by the hebdomad (i. however. The Middle Platonists. Cam­ bridge 1985. Kramer. There are indications. by 3 dimensions and 4 limits) if it were not that the ideas of the primal numbers contained the nature of the hebdomad. not in the Platonic dialogues but in reports found in Aristotle and other authors. Cf. the One and the Indefinite dyad. Two examples In the final section of this paper I shall illustrate the recommendations I have proposed for the-reading of Philo's works by means of two examples.

Petit. The relation laid between 6665 thjuorog and an Aristotelian unmoved mover is Boyanc6's. 23 For discussions and references to further literature see A. The mention of the idea-numbers is quite incidental to Philo's main purpose. Grand Rapids 1964-76. work. and in Deut. Moehring. 278. H. Paris 1974.62 and 3. B y rounding up all the examples I have already followed the first of my re24 25 26 22 Cf. Puech.).139-149. but that it is not a concept that is of any importance for his own thought. Boyanc6 briefly discusses Philo's use of the title as an introduction to a much broader discussion of Philo's philosophical theology.24. . 'Arithmology as an exegetical tool in the writings of Philo of Alexandria'. 24:16 (Balaam's blessing on Israel).34. which is to show how appropriate it was for Moses to indicate that the completion of the creation of the cosmos was celebrated on the seventh day. In the Greek world the same word had been commonly used as a title of Zeus. Les oeuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie. De congressu 58. and also by gentile groups who showed Judaizing sympathies . Bertram in G. by stressing that Moses outlines seven .200 ff. 25 Legum allegoriae 3. series 13. There is thus no connection with an exegetical problem. therefore.II 196 89-128. which is clearly either taken from a source or based on Philo's own collection of arithmological material .82. 116). Essays on religion and the ancient world. We should conclude. at QG 2. based on Gen. not Philo's. Daniel. 26 The index to Marcus' translation suggests two references to 'God most high'. in Num. There appear to be no readily identifiable instances in the Questions . Kittel (ed. 3. 7. Hengel. Consultation of Radice's bibliography reveals that the only discussion of the term in the last 45 years is by P. 16-36. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Judaism and Hellenism. 32:8 (song of Moses).main elements or participants in the ideal world). 33. De posteritate Caini 89. Oxford 1972. M. 24 See above n. Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum: fragmenta graeca. Missoula 1978. C.317. 22 b. 23 Because we have here to do with a distinctive title it will be a good idea to start by consulting Mayer's lexicon . The second reference is similar. Let us briefly examine Philo's usage of the term. 8. In Flaccum 46. G. by Jewish apologists as a bridge-builder between Judaic mono­ theism and acceptable forms of Greek piety.618-619. De ebrietate 105.or nine or even ten . 14:18-22 (Abraham and Melchizedek).. that Philo furnishes evidence for the existence of the doctrine of the idea-numbers in the philosophy of his time or in the sources available to him. Legatio ad Gaium 157. The title is of special interest because there is evidence to suggest that by the time of Philo it found use on both sides of a religious divide. God the most high In the Septuagint the word vtluoTog is used at least a hundred times as a title for God or in direct relation to Him (most often in the Psalms. W e find that Philo uses the term only eleven times. SBL Seminar Papers. In the Pentateuch it occurs much less frequently: four times in Gen. Nock. The original Greek of the first reference has been preserved by Eusebius and reads tov dvcordTO) (6e6v) (text in F. vol.g. Paris 1978. but he chooses not to. De mutatione nominum 202. 416-430. Siracides). R. Boyanc6 in his article 'Le dieu tres haut chez Philon' in Melanges d'histoire des religions offerts a H. London 1974. D. seven times in the Allegorical Commentary and four times in the historical w o r k s . De plantatione 59. 1.295ff. 1:1-5. It was certainly not impossible for him to have used the doctrine of idea-numbers in this context (e. The contents of the ideal world are a problem for Philo when he gives his inter­ pretation of 'day one' in Opif.

is: why does God curse the serpent. It is no coincidence.82 the term occurs in a passage quoted from the L X X . and boundaries (5ota) and God the most high (uajHOtog) in Deut. that the (for Philo) chief scriptural locus shines through. But Philo feels obliged to add a footnote. What if the word vtyioxoq is taken not as a colourful elative.II HOW TO READ PHILO [97 commended procedures. Smallwood. The title may suggest that God has a spatial or a bodily aspect. it is worth investigating whether he uses these same texts elsewhere (for this the Index biblique is in28 27 Unless in De plantatione we see a subtle thematic connection between mountain (6005) in Ex. The exegetical problem located in the main biblical text. Gen. to observe that in all four cases Philo uses the title with reference to the Temple in Jerusalem . in spite of its Mosaic backing. 1. . 28 Cf. 14:18 in Leg. 4:39. 15:17 quoted in § 47. 3. that He is to be localized in one particular place (such ideas are very common in Greek philosophy). not v^ioro? in the previous verse. Commentators have failed. Legatio ad Gaium 241. The conclusion is warranted that this divine title. 32:9. however. 3:14. 27 2. The usage of the word in the Allegorical Commentary is wholly text-bound. One is almost inclined to go a step further and say that he positively avoids it where possible. It seems likely that apologetic motives play a role here. An extra piece of research should be taken into account here. 4. The quotation of Gen. It is striking that Philo refers to 'God the most high' four times in Flaccus and Legatio ad Gaium. but as a true superlative? Are there other gods who are not so high? Philo defends his monotheistic conviction against possible polytheistic misinterpretation (in pagan usage) by appealing to the authority of Deut. 32:8 quoted in § 59. is not regarded by Philo as particularly significant or informative. I think. examples e contrario are Noah and Melchizedek who receive unmotivated grace. Moreover it emerges from an analysis of the contexts that in all these six cases there is no indication that the presence of the word in the text was an incentive for Philo to quote i t . without allowing him to defend himself (§65)? A parallel example is E r (Qen. Because Philo relates the title vtyioroq exclusively to usage of three Pentateuchal texts. The term can lead to theological misunderstandings. Philo interprets the scriptural words that Melchizedek is 'priest of God the most high' as meaning that he symbolizes the logos who has Him that is ( T 6 V 6 v x a ) as his portion and has lofty (tityT)Xa>g) and sublime conceptions concerning Him. The final words of § 82 show Philo retains the connection with the main biblical text: the earthbound thoughts with which the lofty conceptions of Melchizedek the logos are compared are those of the serpent who grovels in the dust. Philo associates the title with Jerusalem because of the depiction of Melchizedek in Gen. 8 2 . 38:7). but simply present the results of my little enquiry. 3 . 3. Perhaps another theological question also played a role. In fact in all cases except Legum allegoriae 3. I will not bore the reader with the mechanics of the other three. high (iaJmXtp) and heavenly doctrine in § 52.82 is much more interesting. but 'universal Ruler' (jiavnyenovos) in § 58 is a paraphrase of Lord ( K V Q C O V ) in Deut. as he points out in Leg. 14.

Melchizedek is here called 'the great priest of the greatest God' 6eov). Following Pentateuchal usage. And in so doing it clearly reveals how important it is for the student of Philo's writings constantly to bear in mind that Philo. 8 2 . however. 14: 18-22 is given in De Abrahamo 2 3 5 . was first and foremost an expositor of Mosaic scripture. for all his Hellenistic paideia and his predilection for Greek philo­ sophy. De specialibus legibus 1. and so alters vtyioroq to uiyiOTog for the sake of rhetorical effect. 35:25). So here perhaps he wishes to present Melchizedek as the prototype of the later high priest.133 (quoting Num. 3. Philo occasionally calls the high priest 6 fifcyag lepevg (cf. It does. 3 .II 198 dispensable). Why the alteration of the title? 'Greatest' ( 6 jAEyag i£QEi>g T O V \ieyioxov certainly avoids the error of spatiality. but still falls prey to the problem discussed in Leg. . The second example which I have just worked out was not ambitious.161. and has not led to startling conclusions. It emerges that a paraphrase of Gen. illustrate rather well the procedures which I have advocated in this article. Perhaps the reason for Philo's alteration must be located elsewhere. Legatio ad Gaium 3 0 6 ) .


After a few p r e l i m i n a r y r e m a r k s on the u n p a r a l l e l e d b e a u t y a n d d e p t h o f the M o s a i c c r e a t i o n a c c o u n t . P h i l o c o m m e n c e s his e x e g e s i s with a radical and quite unexpected interpretation o f 'day o n e ' o f crea­ t i o n . t h e r e is a s h a r p d i v i d e b e t w e e n ' d a y o n e ' a n d the five d a y s o f c r e a t i o n that s u c c e e d 1) Philo of Alexandria and the T i m a e u s of Plato (Leiden 1 9 8 6 ) . F . M y a r g u m e n t will b e that t h e r e a r e c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n s in P h i l o ' s text that in c o m p o s i n g his i m a g e he is a c t u a l l y t h i n k i n g o f the f o u n d a t i o n o f his o w n c i t y .1 6 9 . 2 2 . ) .1 8 . F i r s t it will b e n e c e s s a r y to s k e t c h in s o m e b a c k g r o u n d b y i n d i c a t i n g the w i d e r c o n t e x t o f the p a s s a g e in q u e s t i o n . Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. A l e x a n d r i a . M y m a i n thesis in this s e c t i o n was that the c o n t e x t in w h i c h the i m a g e is used should p r i m a r i l y b e read in t e r m s o f P l a t o n i s t e x e g e s i s a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f the b a s i c d e m i u r g i c m e t a p h o r o f the Timaeus.k n o w n i m a g e o f the f o u n d i n g o f a city p r e s e n t e d b y P h i l o in De opificio mundi 1 7 . 1 9 2 7 ) . as an obiter dictum in a footnote by G.Ill POLIS AND MEGALOPOLIS: PHILO AND THE FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA 1. a H e b r a i s m ! — i n d i c a t e s . M o o r e . 267 (a reference I c a m e across when I had com­ pleted my research). A s its a p p e l l a t i o n b y m e a n s o f the c a r d i n a l a n d not the o r d i n a l number—rjfiipoc [xia. . In this short p a p e r I w a n t to r e t u r n to the P h i l o n i c p a s s a g e in q u e s t i o n a n d briefly dwell on an a s p e c t that w a s given insufficient a t t e n t i o n in the p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n . 1 6 5 . C . A r e c o g n i t i o n o f that c o n c r e t e b a c k g r o u n d will give us a d d i t i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e t o w a r d s the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f P h i l o ' s e x e g e t i c a l a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l i n t e n t i o n s in this rich a n d s u b t l e t e x t . 2 ) T o my knowledge this suggestion has been made only once before. R e c e n t l y in m y T i m a e u s of Plato study entitled Philo of Alexandria and the I d e v o t e d a n u m b e r o f p a g e s to the w e l l . I ( C a m b r i d g e Mass. P l a t o ' s h u m b l e c r a f t s m a n h a s b e e n p r o ­ m o t e d to the r a n k o f a r c h i t e c t ' ) . b y A l e x a n d e r the G r e a t in the y e a r 3 3 1 B .

xd etSooXa lP ? ^ a l M-aXXov evcKppaYiadp. B u t the l o c a t i o n o f this n o e t i c c o s m o s poses a p r o b l e m .. . Xtpiva$ T 0 vecoaoixoix.iv. w h e n P h i l o d e s c r i b e s his i m a g e as etxcov xic. C . xu7rou<. xeix&v xaxaaxeuds. xoqxos that is to b e c r e a t e d d u r i n g the r e m a i n d e r o f the c r e a t i v e w e e k (De opificio mundi 1 5 . V C h r 37 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . i8puaei<. actually 4 engaged in the creative act (Geou Xoyov rjSrj xoafA07totouvxo<.rjp. O n the final. h e first put xo 7tapd8etyfxa xrjv ex XiGoov x a l £6XGJV dpxexai xaxaaxeud^eiv. I n d e e d t h e xoqxos vorjxos is n o t h i n g else t h a n the L o g o s o f G o d when 3.3. It c o n t a i n s p r e e m i n e n t l y the voyjxdi. I (Berlin 1896). aoxoxpaxoos e£ouaia$ [A£xa7toiou[Aevoo x a i apta xo 9p6vr)(jia euxuxiav auve7UxoafjiouvTo<. the per­ s o n a l p r o n o u n has a m o r e specific force t h a n o n e n e e d n o r m a l l y s u s p e c t . 3) Text cited from L .. 4 ) De opificio mundi 18-20. Philo concludes by applying c o s m i c pLeyaX67coXt(. M .) ).1 6 ) . i f w e p a y careful a t t e n t i o n to a n i m a g e d r a w n from o u r o w n w o r l d . It is n o t l e g i t i m a t e to r e g a r d it as o c c u p y i n g a p h y s i c a l xonot. Siaypdcpei Tcpcoxov ev eauxco xd xfjs \LzXXo\ior\c. exdaxr) xcov dacoptdxtov i8ewv xou<. xoapios. h e h a s in m i n d the f o u n d a t i o n o f his o w n c i t y . the intelligible m o d e l o r b l u e p r i n t for the aiaGr)x6<. I n o w cite the t e x t o f the image which 17-18) ): erceiSdv TZ6X\. xoiv reap' rjp.TCapeXGwveaxiv oxe xi<... amofiXiizoiv xd? e^ofxoiwv ouaia?. I s u b m i t .Ill PHILO AND T H E FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA 399 it. dyaXfjiaxocpopeT vorjxrjv 7r6Xtv. the g r e a t city A l e x a n d r i a . see J . i .dxcov eiG' &<snzp ev xrjpw xfj eauxoo cj>i>xfi [Lvr\[ir\ xfj aofxcpuxo) x a i xou? x P a a x T 7 ^ ? exdaxoov 8e£dp.6vo<. a7tox&XeTaGai (xepri axeSov ofouavxa. rjs dvaxivrjaai.2 5 . van Winden. W e will u n d e r s t a n d h o w a n d w h e r e it is c o m p o s e d . Cohn.e opificio mundi 24-25.% x x i ^ x a t xaxd 7TOXXT)V <piXoxt|juav PaatXeoos rj Xafjurpou XYJV TIVOS 3 f o r m s the s u b j e c t o f this p a p e r (De opificio mundi Tiyepiovoi. 209-217. oixtoov xai Srjfxoauov dXXcov oixoBop.9-6. W h e n G o d d e c i d e d to f o u n d together an intelligible cosmos. The world of ideas in Philo of Alexandria: an interpretation o/D. 2 4 .evo<.evo<. awp-axi- the lesson o f t h e i m a g e to his the a c c o u n t o f the c r e a t i o n a l e v e n t . Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt. e . axevoo7cou<. T h e r e a r e at least t h r e e r e a s o n s . P h i l o d e c l a r e s . w h i c h h a s as its l o c a t i o n n o o t h e r p l a c e t h a n t h e d i v i n e L o g o s . XYJV TWV drco 7tai8eia<. avrjp dpxiTexxovixos x a i noXtoiq euxpaaiav x a i eoxaipiav XQU XOTCOU Geaadp. oia 8Y)(xioupy6? dyaGos. 5. tepd yufjivdaia rcpuxavela dyopd<. for t h i n k i n g t h a t . difficult passage.

s u c h as t h e o r a c u l a r d r e a m a n d the g o o d o m e n s . P s e u d o C a l l i s t h e n e s Historia Alexandri Magni I 3 1 . although P h i l o c o u c h e s his d e s c r i p t i o n in the most g e n e r a l t e r m s p o s s i b l e . W h a t I p r o p o s e to do n o w is to e x a m i n e c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f t h e i m a g e b y w a y o f a k i n d o f c o m m e n t a r y . D i o d o r u s ) . ( 3 ) the g o o d o m e n s for the future c i t y . 'AXe^dvSpeia.1 0 . ( 2 ) the s e l e c t i o n o f t h e site as p a r t i c u l a r l y s u i t a b l e for a c i t y . it is i m m e d i a t e l y c l e a r that he follows the b a s i c n a r ­ r a t i v e p a t t e r n o f the a c c o u n t s . Q u i n t u s C u r t i u s I V 8 . V a l e r i u s M a x i m u s I 4 . w h o in a n u m b e r o f o t h e r t e x t s is d e s c r i b e d as the a r c h i t e c t o f A l e x a n d r i a : V i t r u v i u s I I pref.6-7. as is h a r d l y s u r p r i s i n g . the details o f the i m a g e a r e p a t e n t l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f the v a r i o u s a c c o u n t s o f t h e f o u n d i n g o f A l e x a n d r i a that a r e found in o u r s o u r c e s ) . 1 . 2 3 9 2 . followed b y t h e p l a n ­ n i n g o f its m a i n features. S t r a b o X V I I 1. Fraser. h o w e v e r . E . RE I 4.3 2 . P s . s. T h e figure o f A l e x ­ a n d e r the G r e a t . a basic narrative pattern. P l i n y .v. 2 3 . 4 .v. T h e s e a c c o u n t s a r e s e v e n 5 in n u m b e r : A r r i a n Anabasis I I I 1 . 3-7 and notes 1-15. D i o d o r u s S i c u l u s X V I I 5 2 . Ptolemaic Alexandria I (Oxford 1 9 7 2 ) .2 . consisting o f three main elements.2 ( 1 9 0 1 ) . B y z . I f we set aside the v a r i o u s l e g e n d a r y a c c r e t i o n s a n d differences in d e t a i l . S t r a b o X I V 1 . I a m g o i n g to p o i n t o u t n o t o n l y v a r i o u s 5 ) I a m relying heavily on the analysis of P. B u t it will r e p a y us to l o o k at the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s with m o r e a t t e n t i o n to d e t a i l . M . Deinokrates ( 6 ) . A m m i a n u s M a r c e l l i n u s X X I I 16 ). 3 . A m o n g t h e five m e n t i o n e d in t h a t text is D i n o c r a t e s o f R h o d e s .Ill 400 Firstly. s o m e m e n t i o n is m a d e o f a r c h i t e c t s w h o assisted t h e k i n g in his e n t e r p r i s e .2 . in t h e c o n t e x t o f the p r e s e n t a r t i c l e . Fabricius s. as i n d i c a t e d b y the use o f b a r l e y for m a r k i n g o u t the walls (in s o m e s o u r c e s e a t e n b y b i r d s ) . can be s e e n to b e c o m m o n to t h e m : ( 1 ) A l e x a n d e r ' s a r r i v a l at the site ( h e r a l d e d in s o m e a c c o u n t s b y a n o r a c u l a r d r e a m ) . o c c u p i e s the c e n t r e s t a g e in t h e s e a c c o u n t s . c o m p a r i n g t h e m with w h a t w e find in the s o u r c e s . I follow him in regarding Dinochares in Pliny as an error for Dinocrates. 4 . to m a k e a d e t a i l e d c o m p a r a t i v e a n a l y s i s o f all t h e t e x t s c i t e d a b o v e . . I n all b u t two ( A r r i a n . Natural History V 6 2 . C a l l i s t h e n e s is the o n l y s o u r c e w h o a c t u a l l y gives n a m e s . 7 . I f we l e a v e out the details not r e l e v a n t to P h i l o ' s p u r p o s e s in his i m a g e . 6 I t w o u l d b e t e d i o u s . 2 . P l u t a r c h Vita Alexandri 2 6 . J a s o n apud S t e p h . 6 ) Cf.3 .

but also a n u m b e r o f v e r b a l p a r a l l e l s . rj xivo? r)ye(x6vo<.4 9 . . there is the same emphasis on plan­ ning. Fraser op. exempli eXGovxa. h o w ­ e v e r . rffep-cov a n d (axpaxrry6<. 1 x a l i$ oaov euxuxia? xfj<. o f M a c e d o n b y b i r t h . V I I 3 0 . £7c<ovufjLOV eauxou xaxaXwteTv). the grotesque project to transform M o u n t Athos. records A l e x a n d e r ' s perception o f the c o m m e r c i a l possibilities o f a c i t y o n the site ( I I I 1. B . 2 ) . aoxoxpaxoui. also D i o d o r u s X V I I 5 2 . planning in contrast. 8 ) Cf. A Historical Commentary on Anion's History of Alexander (Oxford 1 9 8 0 ) . cit. A r r i a n . T h e role o f D i n o c r a t e s o f R h o d e s is p l a y e d d o w n in the a c c o u n t s o f t h e f o u n d i n g o f the c i t y b e c a u s e the l i m e l i g h t is-on A l e x a n d e r . dv eu8ai[xova). a n d e c h o e s o f t h e s e will b e c o n t a i n e d in o u r sources ). aove7uxoqjiouvxo<. e£ouaia<j |A£xa7roioo(i£vou: T h e titles a n d d e s c r i p t i o n fit A l e x a n d e r p e r f e c t l y . .. 3 refers somewhat obscurely to an account of 'the Alexandrians trusting in the authority of Heracleides'.PHILO AND T H E FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA 401 t h e m a t i c s i m i l a r i t i e s . dv0poo7rivr)<. m o s t s o u r c e s e m p h a s i z e t h e role o f A l e x a n d e r h i m s e l f in t h e ( n o t e e s p e c i a l l y A r r i a n I I I 1. b u t t h e r e is also a t r a d i t i o n that m e n t i o n s the a s s i s t a n c e o f a r c h i t e c t s . I 6 7 7 on the Alexan­ drian tradition behind Ps. . I f it is t r u e that P h i l o is t h i n k i n g o f the f o u n d a t i o n o f his o w n c i t y . b u t also effectively as the result o f his s t u n n i n g l y successful m i l i t a r y c a m p a i g n s . cf. xf|v euxuxiav auv£7ttxoa(xouvxo<. 5 auxo<. Bosworth. Callisthenes.: T h e m o t i v e o f p e r ­ s o n a l g l o r y for the f o u n d a t i o n o f t h e c i t y is t h a t given b y P l u t a r c h in A l e x a n d r i a ' s c a s e ( 2 6 . 9 8 7 gratia the r e m a r k s with w h i c h A r r i a n c o n ­ c l u d e s his h i s t o r y . cf.: A l e x a n d e r ' s euxuxta w a s o f c o u r s e p r o v e r b i a l . 7 architecti of the architect Ammianus sollertia 7) Plutarch 2 6 .5 yzviaBai xi£ xcov arco 7tai8£ta<. in his different c o n t e x t . A. . The is emphasis found in on the professional XXII competence 1 6 . 4 8 . h a s A l e x a n d e r d e l e g a t e t h e t a s k o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e city to him ). it is likely that h e will reflect w r i t t e n a c c o u n t s o f t h e e v e n t with w h i c h h e w a s a c q u a i n t e d . 9 ) Note that in the other anecdote that Vitruvius tells about Dinocrates. . dvrjp dpxixexxovtxo^: A s n o t e d a b o v e . but on that occasion Alexander rejected the site. V i t r u v i u s .) auxoxpdxoop f o r m a l l y in his l e a d e r s h i p o / G r e e c e ) . for h e w a s (BocaiXeooi. xaxd 7coXXrjv cpiXoxipiav . xd <rr\\iii<x xfj 7c6Xet eGrjxev. |3aatX£co<. 4 e(3ouX£xo rcoXiv (X£ydXrjv x a l 7coXudv0pa>7tov 'EXXrjviSa .

is the f a v o u r a b l e l o c a t i o n o f A l e x a n d r i a a t o p o s . d e s c r i b i n g A l e x a n d e r as m a r k i n g out an a g o r a . I 4. m e n t i o n e d in a l m o s t all s o u r c e s . C l o s e s t to P h i l o is P l u t a r c h 2 4 . 2 6 4 . : T h e s o u r c e s e m p h a s i z e the c a r e ­ fully p l a n n e d l a y o u t o f the c i t y . o f c o u r s e . Petschenig argued for the retention of the reading of the ms. 10 P l i n y V 6 2 architectus pluribus modis memorabili et sollertia fretus. h e p r o b a b l y m e a n s p h y s i c a l m a r k i n g s ( c f . This would introduce the contrast between the magnificence of the king and the professional competence of the architect which is basic to Philo's account. ingenio. a n d t h e e n c l o s i n g wall ( I I I 1 . . ( a l m o s t the s a m e p h r a s e in J a s o n ) ) . t h e r e f o r e . Staypdcpei rcporcov iv eaoxw T O C . N e v e r t h e l e s s we should n o t e that P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n h e r e uses eOxaipoxaxa. A r r i a n c o m e s closest. as B o s w o r t h o b s e r v e s ) . Seyfarth's edition (Leipzig 1 9 7 8 ) the sentence reads: Alexandria enim uertex omnium est ciuitatum. cit.7 euxaipia). 11) Bosworth. 5 ) . — M y c o n c l u ­ sion is. the story o f the b i r d s ) . op. b u t so t o o . uipT) is not entirely without echo. &7COTeXeTc0ai noXeax. V i t r u v i u s I I pref. that the g e n e r a l a n d the p a r t i c u l a r s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n P h i l o ' s i m a g e a n d the a c c o u n t s o f t h e f o u n d i n g o f A l e x a n ­ d r i a a r e sufficient to rule o u t m e r e c o i n c i d e n c e . but older editions read magnificentia. uoXic.7 futurae urbis liniamenta (part of the story of the birds which Philo does not exploit).Ill 402 Dinocratis ). t e m p l e s for G r e e k a n d E g y p t i a n d e i t i e s . 2 exaedificandae urbi. . . conditoris altissimi et architecti sollertia Dinocratis.r|Tat ( X V I I 5 2 . V here.2 7 0 7 ) . 7 exeXeuae 8taypd<J>ai TO axrjfxa 1 2 T r £ noXtax. quam multa nobilitant et magnifica. M a x . cf. Curtius I V 8 . w h e t h e r d e s i g n e d p r i m a r i l y b y A l e x a n d e r o r b y o n e o r m o r e a r c h i t e c t s . 12) Even Philo's phrase x a xf[C. tepd "fufxvdata rcptnavela XTX: P h i l o . W h e n A r r i a n d e s c r i b e s A l e x a n d e r as p l a c i n g arj(X£ta. 1 architectus 1 1 cogitationibus xr)v euxpaaiav x a l euxatptav TOO T07iou Geaadjxevos: N o t o n l y .] x£xoap. euxpaaia) a n d S t r a b o ( X V I I 1. in a s e n s e is P h i l o . b u t the w h o l e i d e a that a s u i t a b l e site m u s t b e selected for the f o u n d a t i o n s t a n d a r d l i t e r a r y t h e m e ( e x a m p l e s at P l a t o Timaeus precisely the phraseology found at Diodorus o f a city is a 2 4 c . [xeXXouanr]<. w i s h i n g to e m b e l l i s h his i m a g e . 10) In W . H e is d e s c r i b i n g t h e city o f his o w n d a y . gives a l o n g e r list o f k i n d s o f s t r u c t u r e s to b e i n c l u d e d in the city t h a n is given in o u r s o u r c e s (all o f w h i c h a r e r a t h e r b r i e f o n the a c t u a l p l a n n i n g ) . Val. rcaaa [ s c . 3 ) is h i g h l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n . Laws (XVII 70452. D i o d o r u s ' p h r a s e oixuov x a l t&p&v rcoXuxeXeat xaxaaxeualc.

It must be emphasized that the loss of the original precludes a precise interpretation. 2 8 2 . I follow the suggestion of Hadas-Lebel. Aucher's Latin version and the French transla­ tion (based primarily on A u c h e r ) of M . A little l a t e r in the d i a l o g u e ( § 7 3 ) P h i l o . c r e a t e d the m e g a l o p o l i s o f the c o s m o s < i n > that v o i d . Philo (following a Stoic source) accepts the pre-existence of the void.Ill PHILO AND T H E FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA 403 F o r the s e c o n d a r g u m e n t in f a v o u r o f m y thesis we m u s t t u r n to the w r i t i n g s o f P h i l o h i m s e l f . while n o t h a v i n g p r o d u c e d the v o i d . Hadas-Lebel (De Providentia I et II. at Spec. so it is reasonable to sup­ ply the n a m e of Sparta and its founder(s). which has replaced xevov in the text (cf. <the Heraclidae founded S p a r t a > in L a c o n i a . c o n s t r u c t i n g p r i v a t e a n d p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s . ' Y o u say that G o d did not found t h e v o i d . a d d s that ' t h e f o u n d e r s o f cities d o n o t h a v e j u s t t h r e e o r four h o u s e s b u i l t . ( 2 ) Only the Laconian region is mentioned. 14) T h e r e are important differences between the texts. although one would expect a single founder (perhaps Lycurgus?). b u t i n c r e a s e t h e n u m b e r o f h o u s e s b y far. in r e s p o n s e to A l e x a n d e r ' s q u e r y a b o u t the i r r a t i o n a l l y e x c e s s i v e n u m b e r o f s t a r s . a n d at the s a m e t i m e also c a u s e d place to c o m e i n t o e x i s t e n c e ' . I n a s i m i l a r w a y G o d t o o . 3 2 7 ) . n a m e l y t h e c r e a t i o n a n d s t r u c t u r e o f t h e c o s m o s ) 1 4 1 3 13) M y translation from J . in c o r r e l a t i o n with t h e c i t i e s ' c i r c u m f e r e n c e ' . a n d A l e x a n d e r o f M a c e d o n f o u n d e d t h e widely r e n o w n e d A l e x a n d r i a o f E g y p t . B y far the m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g text is found in De Providentia I I 5 5 . 1 . Les (Euvres de Philon d'Alexandrie X X X V (Paris 1 9 7 3 ) . T h e s e w e r e e a c h founded b y rulers o f old: T h e s e u s founded Athens in A t t i c a . h o w e v e r . whereas in Opif. b u t r a t h e r t h e y found a w o r k o f n a t u r e a l r e a d y p r e p a r e d for t h e m . ( 1 ) novum clearly translates xocivov. he is anxious to articulate the difference between intelligible and sense-perceptible reality and . B. a n d for that r e a s o n did not c r e a t e b o d y . B y l o o k i n g at < t h e e x a m p l e o f > c i t i e s . y o u will b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d w h a t I a m s a y i n g to y o u .2 8 5 ) . c a u s e d the cities m e n t i o n e d a b o v e to b e b u i l t . In Prov. T h e word principes which I have translated 'rulers' perhaps renders ^yeixove? in the original Greek. T h e y s u r r o u n d e d c e r t a i n a r e a s with walls a n d . w h i c h u n f o r t u n a t e l y is n o t p r e s e r v e d in the o r i g i n a l G r e e k . P h i l o gives the following reply to the state­ m e n t o f his n e p h e w A l e x a n d e r that p r o v i d e n c e is n o t r e s p o n s i b l e for the e x i s t e n c e o f t h e void o r p l a c e ) . In the Armenian there are two textual difficulties. P h i l o t h u s twice uses the i m a g e o f t h e f o u n d i n g o f cities in a c o n t e x t parallel to that o f De opificio mundi. n a m e l y t h o s e r e g i o n s . B u t it was not T h e s e u s w h o f o r m e d A t t i c a o r < the H e r a c l i d a e > L a c o n i a o r A l e x a n d e r E g y p t o r L i b y a . an example of this confusion in our Greek mss.

T h e m a g n i f i c e n c e o f c o n c e p t i o n ( T O 9povT)p. But these differences do not concern us here. t w o a r e m y t h i c a l . 16) Philo quotes //. 15) Aucher nominatissima probably renders 6vo\ia. I n the a c c o u n t o f t h e t r a n s l a t i o n o f the Septuagint h e praises P t o l e m y P h i l a d e l p h u s . who.265. i m p r e g n a t e s E v e who ouaGrjaii. so t h a t e x t r a o r d i n a r y a c t s o f m u n i f i ­ cence called or c o n s t r u c t i o n s (cpiXoTifxiat. a n d she p r o d u c e s t h e g r e a t e s t o f evils for t h e soul. H e t h u s s h o w e d t h e soul o f a n i n f a n t o r a p r i v a t e c i t i z e n . e s p e c i a l l y in ' o u r o w n A l e x a n d r i a ' . § 2 9 ) . in c o n t r a s t to Legatio whose monuments surpass the magnificent works w h e r e P h i l o e x t o l s the ( J i o v a p x i a ) a n d b e n e f i c e n c e o f A u g u s t u s .) a d u m b r a t e d in o u r i m a g e c a n t h u s b e u s e d to p a r a l l e l t h e s p l e n d o u r o f t h e d i v i n e C r e a t o r . cf. A l e x a n d r i a is not specifically m e n t i o n e d in this t e x t . oux drfaGov 7toXuxaiaapiT) (Plut.7tpo<. in w h i c h c a s e it b e c o m e s t h e the idea of the void actually forms part of the x6o(io$ vot]t6<. gazes all a r o u n d h i m a n d p r o c l a i m s t h a t x a i TOC xrjBe x a i TOC TT)8S £(xd ( § 6 3 ) . meaning 5 6 . Cain.w o r l d o f P h i l o m a g n i f i c e n c e is v e r y m u c h a double-edged notion. b u t it c a n also e n t e r i n t o r i v a l r y with it. c e r t a i n l y n o t t h e soul o f a k i n g . having b e c o m e m a s t e r o f E u r o p e and Asia. for h e d o e s n o t r e a l i z e t h a t all t h i n g s a r e t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f G o d . (De vita Moysis 16 1 5 xocxocaxeuoci) a r e proverbially 149-150. w h o left many i n d i c a t i o n s a n d m o n u m e n t s o f his g r e a t n e s s o f m i n d ((a. Is he thinking of the celebrated pun spoken to the same ruler by the philosopher Arius Didymus. already in Philadelphian I I 2 9 ) . the o t h e r is A l e x a n d e r .6 4 . e x i s t e n c e . T h e h i s t o r i c a l e x a m p l e t h a t P h i l o gives is t h a t o f A l e x ­ ander.a Xap. since surely no 'nature' exists outside God's creative power. O n e w o n d e r s w h e t h e r P h i l o h a s a d d e d the e x a m p l e o f A l e x a n d r i a to his s o u r c e . 8 1 ) ? . Mos. that is created (cf. T h e phrase 'work of nature already prepared' is especially curious. II 2 0 4 in favour of Augustus' fxovocpxCa.eyaXo9poauvris) in v a r i o u s cities a n d l a n d s . stands on a p r o m i n e n t spot. 1.Ill 404 O f t h e a c t u a l f o u n d e r s m e n t i o n e d . B u t in the r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t . T h e p r i d e reflected in the e p i t h e t ' h i g h l y r e n o w n e d ' ) r e s u r f a c e s e l s e w h e r e in P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s .(y:6x<xxoi in the original. v a i n g l o r y 'possession' symbolizes the m i n d t h i n k s t h a t all h e p e r c e i v e s with his s e n s e s is his o w n p o s s e s s i o n o r h a n d i w o r k . Adam-vou<. W i t n e s s the allegory o f the birth o f C a i n g i v e n at De Cherubim (ol'rjais). Ant.

Ill PHILO AND T H E FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA 405 aXoyov cppovrjfxoc o f t h e m i n d puffed u p with its o w n s e l f . o n the six o c c a ­ s i o n s t h a t h e uses t h e w o r d with c o n c r e t e i n t e n t . Another classic example of hybris is X e r x e s who mounts an attack on heaven. Macedonians. t h e m o t h e r c i t y o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e ) . p. 2 9 .. (In are 1 6 3 ) . 6 x % eu8aip.G o v e r n o r o f E g y p t is d e s c r i b e d as h u r l i n g h i m s e l f o n t o t h e g r o u n d a n d c r y i n g o u t : eyw OXdxxos eifju> Flaccum 0 rcpo M-txpou TTJS [xeyaXoTcoXeco^ r\ 7coXu7t6Xea><. Persians all get a place in the catalogue of vanquished rulers illustrating the vicissitudes of human affairs in the famous 'life is a d r e a m ' passage at Ios. also Ios. T h e two e p i t h e t s u s e d to d e s c r i b e A l e x a n d r i a s t r i k i n g . It is r e v e a l i n g that the o n e t i m e P h i l o d o e s call a n e a r t h l y c i t y a m e g a l o p o l i s . QE I 1. 7toXu7ioXi<. also Mos. Philo is the first (and according to Liddell and Scott the only) ancient author to use the word figuratively of the cosmos. Ptolemies. opificio 1 9 17) Cf. a m a g n i f i c e n c e w h i c h c a n easily t u r n i n t o v a i n g l o r y ..1 2 0 .i m p o r t a n c e (cf.£"faXo7EoXis is a m o r e c o m m o n w o r d in P h i l o . 4 6 . I n the vivid a c c o u n t o f t h e w r e t c h e d ( b u t in P h i l o ' s v i e w t h o r o u g h l y d e s e r v e d ) e x i s t e n c e o f F l a c c u s in e x i l e o n t h e island A n d r o s . the m a g n i f i c e n c e o f its r u l e r s . 2 0 3 . 'AXeljocva Speias rjyefxcov. 2 . 3 3 4 . Legat.. Spec. esp. w h e n h e applies the m e s s a g e o f o u r i m a g e to 1 8 t h e c r e a t i o n o f the c o s m o s ) . De Cherubim 64) ). Deed. ( O n t h e o t h e r h a n d . 19) Flacc. Mos. m o s t n o t a b l y at De opificio mundi 1 9 . 3 0 5 .1 3 6 ) . the s p l e n d o u r o f A l e x a n d r i a a n d its r o y a l p a t r o n a g e . it e a c h t i m e refers to J e r u s a l e m . I 3 4 . I n t e r e s t i n g a n d s o m e w h a t s u r p r i s i n g l y . used b y P h i l o o n l y h e r e . 1 3 5 . c a n b e e x p l a i n e d as r e f e r r i n g to the d i v e r s e e t h n i c iroXixeufxaxa ( i n c l u d i n g the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y ) e m b r a c e d w i t h i n the 7coXixeia o f A l e x a n d r i a as a w h o l e . 1 . 1 1 7 . b u t e l s e w h e r e h e a l w a y s uses it to d e s c r i b e the c o s m o s as a w h o l e .. II 5 1 . 125-147 (cf. cf.—give c o n s i d e r a b l e s u p p o r t to o u r thesis t h a t the e v e n t P h i l o h a s in m i n d in t h e i m a g e o f De mundi is the f o u n d i n g o f A l e x a n d r i a . where the sober Moses (as future king) is contrasted with those who become puffed up when the faintest breeze of euxuxia reaches them.r]Tp67toXi<. the e x . Somn. its d e s c r i p t i o n as (xeyaXoTcoXii. 3 0 . 5 3 .ov£aT0CTr)(. P h i l o d o e s not d e s c r i b e A l e x a n d r i a as a p. 18) Cf. 1 7 O n e t e x t still n e e d s to b e c o n s i d e r e d . 2 9 4 . he is r e f e r r i n g to A l e x a n ­ d r i a . 2 8 1 . . ) The t h e m a t i c parallels w e h a v e found in P h i l o ' s writings—the f o u n d a t i o n o f A l e x a n d r i a i l l u s t r a t i n g the c r e a t i o n o f the c o s m o s . x ^ P ? infcponoq Aiyuniov.

Fraser. the f o r m e r o n a c c o u n t o f the c i t y ' s g r e a t s i z e . i f it did n o t l e a d us to a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e i m a g e with w h i c h started. o f c o u r s e .2 9 . and No also of here. h e gives a l o n g g e n e r a l i z e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f the t a s k o f b u i l d i n g a c i t y in o r d e r to p r o v e that C a i n c o u l d n o t do the task o n his o w n . 2 1 ) Cf. the l a t t e r in r e f e r e n c e to its t w o f a m o u s harbours on e a c h side o f the Heptastadion. . 2 7 . Xtp. i n t o P h i l o ' s m e t h o d a n d p u r p o s e in d e v i s i n g it. waterways made Amsterdam ). 9 ) . cit. V I I of the Cambridge Ancient History (Cambridge 1 9 2 8 ) .Ill 406 T u r n i n g n o w to the third a n d final r e a s o n . I wish to a r g u e . Strabo's word for the canals is Siupug ( X V I I 1. T h e c o n c r e t e we background a g a i n s t w h i c h t h e i m a g e c a n n o w b e p l a c e d gives a d d i t i o n a l i n s i g h t .. between 1 5 4 and 1 5 5 . op. t h e m o s t f a m o u s w a s A l e x a n d r i a i t s e l f ) . xocxoc yr]v). a n d w h i c h h e p r o c e e d e d to e x p l o i t 2 0 ) I base this statistic on the beautiful m a p of the cities of Asia in the first edi­ tion of vol. b u t m a y serve to r e i n f o r c e the a r g u m e n t s a l r e a d y p r e s e n t e d . but Pseudo-Callisthenes speaks of 6ys. O f the c i t i e s f o u n d e d b y A l e x a n d e r a n d his H e l l e n i s t i c s u c c e s s o r s less t h a n a fifth fit this d e s c r i p t i o n . on which I count 16 'new or substantially new Hellenistic foundations' that are ports and 70 that are not. D o c k y a r d s t o o a r e o n l y to b e f o u n d in a c i t y on the c o a s t . F o r t u n a t e l y this is t h e c a s e .7). r e m i n i s c e n t o f the n e t w o r k o f Alexandria the ancient precursor 4 . as I h a v e said.6va<. X T X ) . g i v e n in t e r m s o f the h i g h e s t g e n e r a l i t y a n d this will l a r g e l y a c c o u n t for P h i l o ' s e x c l u s i v e use o f plurals (tepd yofAvdata ^po-caveta dyopd<. It is i n t e r e s t i n g to n o t e that w h e n P h i l o reflects o n the b i b l i c a l r e p o r t m a k i n g C a i n ( ! ) the first c i t y b u i l d e r . a n d t h a t the t e x t h a s to b e a l l e g o r i z e d (De posteritate mention of harbours that 2 1 20 Caini 49-51). B u t o u r thesis w o u l d b e o f little m o r e t h a n a n t i q u a r i a n i n t e r e s t . 5-6. N e v e r t h e l e s s a p l u r a l i t y o f m a r k e t p l a c e s a n d h a r b o u r s d o e s suit A l e x a n d r i a p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l . T h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e c i t y that is to b e built is.xr\yoi (I 3 1 . All the a b o v e a r g u m e n t a t i o n h a s s h o w n — t h e a r g u m e n t is c i r ­ c u l a r . but there are dockyards c h a n n e l s o r c a n a l s (bytxobc. a m o n g w h i c h . T h e r e a r e t w o a s p e c t s o f the a c c o u n t o f the f o u n d i n g o f A l e x a n ­ d r i a w h i c h a t t r a c t e d P h i l o to it. I m u s t e m p h a s i z e that o n its o w n it c a n c a r r y little w e i g h t . b u t sufficiently p l a u s i b l e to a v o i d b e i n g v i c i o u s — t h a t t h e r e must have been one account or m o r e o f the founding o f A l e x a n d r i a w h i c h P h i l o k n e w well e n o u g h to e c h o in his o w n w r i t i n g .

. J o n e s . . I t is. Pliny N. H . 4 9 . The Greek City (Oxford 1 9 4 0 ) . All the a c c o u n t s e m p h a s i z e that right from the v e r y start A l e x a n ­ d r i a w a s a p l a n n e d c i t y . often connecting them to the great cities of Greece or the heroes of the epic cycle. 1 6 8 . W h e r e h e i n n o v a t e s is his s t r o n g stress o n t h e i n t e r n a l i z a ­ t i o n o f the p l a n in t h e a r c h i t e c t ' s m i n d . 1). 2 4 ) R u n i a op. T h e r e are m a n y examples o f the divine creative activity being c o m p a r e d to that o f a n a r c h i t e c t . for the r a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e u n i v e r s e in his view is such t h a t it d o e s n o t a d m i t d e v e l o p m e n t a l c h a n g e . e . It is a voryvr\ ITOXK.PHILO AND T H E FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA 407 in t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f his i m a g e . T h e p l a n d o e s n o t cpnsist o f m a r k i n g s o n t h e g r o u n d . It w a s n o t a c i t y w h o s e o r i g i n s w e n t b a c k to the d i s t a n t a n d u n d o c u m e n t e d past. s e r v i n g as a TrapdSetyfxa to b e followed in t h e a c t u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e c i t y . giving the c i t y its f a m o u s chlamys 2 3 2 2 s h a p e ( i . as in the story o f t h e b i r d s . A s I p o i n t e d o u t in m y e a r l i e r d i s c u s s i o n ) . A. like t h a t o f a M a c e d o n i a n growth. the m e t a p h o r o f the c i t y b o t h as a n i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the r a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e c o s m o s a n d as p o i n t i n g to t h e a c t i v i t y o f a d i v i n e r u l e r o r s o u r c e o f o r d e r is a c o m m o n p l a c e in p h i l o s o p h i c a l l i t e r a t u r e b e f o r e a n d after P h i l o . 6 the otxou[xevr| too is xXocu. M . cit. Strabo X V I I 1. cf. T h e r e a s o n for t h e i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n is c l e a r . I t is n o t e v e n a b l u e p r i n t set d o w n o n p a p e r . A l e x a n d e r a n d his a r c h i t e c t s h a d a d a p t e d the p l a n o f the c i t y to the special features o f the site. h o w e v e r . i m p r i n t e d o n the r a t i o n a l soul o f the a r c h i t e c t as o n w a x . as n o t e d a b o v e . / N o r o o m w a s to b e allowed for the s p o n t a n e o u s developments of unplanned suits P h i l o ' s p u r p o s e a d m i r a b l y .u8oeiori<. 2 3 ) Cf. P h i l o w a n t s to l o c a t e the s o u r c e o f the r a t i o n a l a n d purposeful s t r u c t u r e o f t h e c o s m o s in t h e d i v i n e L o g o s as p r e s e n t in G o d ' s m i n d .H. V 6 2 . for t h e use o f t h e i m a g e o f the f o u n d i n g o f a city in o r d e r to illustrate a n d a r t i c u l a t e t h e a c t o f 2 4 2 2 ) Hellenistic cities that had existed prior to Alexander's conquest attempted to conceal their barbarian origin through the fabrication of foundation legends.8. I have f o u n d n o a c t u a l p a r a l l e l s . a n a t u r a l e x t e n s i o n o f t h e b a s i c d e m i u r g i c m e t a p h o r o f t h e Timaeus. T h e emphasis on planning m i l i t a r y c l o a k ) . (n. B o t h o f t h e s e will r e p a y e x a m i n a ­ tion in a little m o r e d e t a i l . According to Strabo II 5 . a n d for w h i c h a m y t h i c a l f o u n d e r h a d to b e a p p o i n t e d ) . so that one might regard Alexandria as a microcosm of the inhabited world.

3 9 e 8 ) . 5 8 . M o h r .. The Middle Platonists ( L o n d o n 1 9 7 7 ) . Timaeus Kftkmtv) 3 0 c 7 . 2 7 ) Cf. a wholly g e n e r i c concept o f animality which the demiurge contemplates (cf. A d m i t t e d l y in a n u m b e r o f o u r s o u r c e s . cit. Dillon. in c o n t r a s t . it is m a d e to s e e m t h a t A l e x a n d e r c a r r i e d o u t b o t h t a s k s .. It s h o u l d b e n o t e d . op.1 6 5 . cit. m o s t n o t a b l y A r r i a n . B e h i n d the i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n o f the a r c h i t e c t ' s p l a n lies. P h i l o ' s i m a g e . e m p h a s i z e s the r a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y t h a t t a k e s p l a c e in the a c t u a l c o m ­ position o f the X6<3\LO<. vorjxoi. R u n i a . 2 9 a 3 as h e c a l c u l a t e s (cf. P r e f i g u r i n g the t e n d e n c i e s o f l a t e r Middle Platonist authors. 3 0 b 1 Xo"ftadp. P h i l o ' s a d a p t a t i o n o f the story o f the f o u n d i n g o f his o w n city m a y b e less c o m m o n p l a c e t h a n at first a p p e a r s .Ill 408 c r e a t i o n ) . Dillon. the e x e g e s i s o f G e n e s i s 1. The Platonic Cosmology (Leiden 1 9 8 5 ) .3 3 .) h o w to m a k e t h e 2 9 c o s m o s in t h e b e s t possible w a y ) . that P h i l o ' s i m a g e o f t h e i n t e r n a l i z e d p l a n o f a city r e i n ­ forces t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f a x6a[LO<. R . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n i n t u i t i v e c o n t e m p l a t i o n a n d d i s c u r s i v e r e a s o n i n g . D. as h a s often b e e n p o i n t e d o u t . N o t o n l y . . vorproi. Philo places m o r e emphasis on 2 7 the p a r a d i g m a t i c t h a n the e p i s t e m i c role o f the i d e a s ) . is t h u s o b f u s c a t e d . h o w e v e r . R u n i a . T h e i n f l u e n c e o f the c o n t e x t . T h e s e c o n d a s p e c t o f the story o f t h e f o u n d i n g o f the city o f A l e x ­ a n d r i a t h a t a p p e a l e d to P h i l o w a s t h e d i s t i n c t i o n m a d e b e t w e e n t h e k i n g w h o g a v e t h e initial i m p e t u s entrusted and the a r c h i t e c t w h o executing the was with the t a s k o f d e s i g n i n g a n d work. b a s i c to P l a t o ' s e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l s c h e m e .£vo<. 159. 2 9 ) Cf. II 5 5 . J . M o r e s e r i o u s l y . 2 8 ) Cf. cited ibid. S u c h a c o n c e p t i o n does v i o l e n c e to P l a t o ' s b a s i c i d e a in m o r e t h a n o n e r e s p e c t . n e e d l e s s to say. m a y b e felt h e r e . s e r v i n g as a m o d e l for t h e s t r u c t u r e o f the c o s m o s p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e it c o n s t i t u t e s a c o m p l e x a r t i c u l a t e d n e t w o r k o f i d e a s . which 2 6 2 5 is m u c h stronger than anything we find in P l a t o n i s t s o u r c e s ) . 1 6 4 . op. having patently b e c o m e dependent 2 8 o f the thinking o n the a c t i v i t y o f the c r e a t o r ) . a n d t h e role 2 5 ) Closest is the Epicurean polemic against Plato at C i c e r o DND I 19. in P l a t o the m o d e l is c o n ­ c e i v e d as a vor|x6v c/pov ( c f . 2 6 ) Cf. 2 3 . cit. 5 3 . T h e Timaeus is c l e a r l y the m o d e l for this c h a n g e o f e m p h a s i s . as n e t w o r k o f i d e a s .. or whether he found it already present in his Stoic source. the P l a t o n i c t h e o r y o f f o r m s . op. But it would be nice to know whether Philo thought up the image at Prov. as is also the c a s e in the e m p h a s i s o n p r e c r e a t i o n a l reflection. a r e the ideas n o l o n g e r i n d e p e n d e n t demiurge.

i'pfwv xat (BaaiX£u<.. B u t w h a t d o e s such t r a n s c e n d e n c e m e a n in t e r m s o f G o d ' s r e l a t i o n to the c o s m o s ? Is h e t r a n s c e n d e n t in that he is the c o s m o s ' creator.4 . h a d n o t r e s o l v e d this i s s u e . F o r A t t i c u s the is 7tafjip\xaiX£u<. for his c o n t e m p o r a r y N u m e n i u s t h e h i g h e s t god w a s a b o v e dpyo<. this will h a v e g i v e n h i m e n c o u r a g e m e n t in his a d a p t a t i o n o f the r e c e i v e d a c c o u n t s to the specific p u r p o s e s o f his e x e g e t i c a l a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n t e x t . R u n i a . it s e e m s to m e h i g h l y p l a u s i b l e t h a t . It is possible to see in P h i l o ' s i m a g e .. Y e t in the a c c o u n t o f c r e a t i o n G o d . b u t the w o r d s 7Wcp£X0oJV eaxiv bxz xiq a l m o s t suggest that it is a m a t t e r o f c o i n c i d e n c e that a t r a i n e d a r c h i t e c t h a p p e n s to c o m e o n the s c e n e . p o s t u l a t e a h i e r a r c h y o f g o d s .Ill PHILO AND T H E FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA 409 o f D i n o c r a t e s o f R h o d e s is e c l i p s e d . b u t h e is u n d e r a c o n s t r a i n t n o t felt b y the two p h i l o s o p h e r s j u s t m e n t i o n e d . 3 0 T h e r e c a n b e n o q u e s t i o n that the k i n g is a s y m b o l o f d i v i n e t r a n s c e n d e n c e ) . w h i c h v e r y d e l i b e r a t e l y d i s s o c i a t e s the k i n g from a c t i v e par­ t i c i p a t i o n in the a c t u a l d e s i g n i n g o f the c i t y . b e c a u s e a specific a n d f a m o u s a r c h i t e c t was a s s o c i a t e d with the f o u n d i n g o f his c i t y . ' G o d h a d n o o n e to assist h i m . m o s t n o t a b l y in the s u m m a r y at De opificio 3 1 mundi 24 ). xat dpujTOT£x K (fr. 168. for that w o u l d r u n d i r e c t l y c o u n t e r to the t e n e t o f m o n o t h e i s m at the h e a r t o f J u d a i s m . op. 1 2 D e s vr P l a c e s ) . 3. o r does transcendence entail being entirely above the ' d i r t y w o r k ' o f c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y ? E v e n a c e n t u r y after P h i l o the Platonist tradition Platonic demiurge the d e m i u r g e . for w h o else w a s t h e r e ? ' is the r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n p o s e d at De opificio mundi 2 3 . a c o n s c i o u s d i v e r g e n c e from such a p r e s e n t a t i o n . his L o g o s a n d the n o e t i c c o s m o s a r e kept closely t o g e t h e r . I n the i m a g e t h e r e is a s t r o n g d e m a r c a t i o n b e t w e e n the k i n g a n d the a r c h i t e c t . T h e r e is cleayly a d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n the w a y the i m a g e is por­ t r a y e d a n d its a c t u a l a p p l i c a t i o n to the c r e a t i o n o f the c o s m o s . T h e s o l u t i o n in t e r m s o f a D i v i n e L o g o s ( § 2 0 ) o r a D i v i n e p o w e r ( § 2 1 ) r u n s a l o n g the knife e d g e o f 3 0 ) See above n. cit. H o w e v e r this m a y b e . . T h i s is the i n t e l l e c t u a l H e cannot simply b a c k g r o u n d to P h i l o ' s d i s t i n c t i o n . N o t o n l y a r e we not e x p l i c i t l y told that the k i n g a c t u a l l y d e c i d e s to found the city ( t h e effect o f the r a t h e r forced use o f a p r e p o s i t i o n a l p h r a s e two a n d a h a l f lines l o n g in the o p e n i n g c l a u s e o f the i m a g e ) . 3 1 ) Cf.

F r e e d m a n and M . when a mortal k i n g b u i l d s a p a l a c e . while the T o r a h d e c l a r e s . T h i s is in c o n t r a s t to the a c c o u n t in D i o d o r u s . 7 0 . E . The figure o f the k i n g is. 'beginning' referring to the T o r a h . 7-29. while royal S t r a b o in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f A l e x a n d r i a r e m a r k s that the 3 2 p a l a c e s o c c u p y a q u a r t e r o r e v e n a third o f the c i t y ' s e n c l o s u r e ( X V I I 1 . B a a r d a .4). T h e a r c h i t e c t m o r e o v e r d o e s n o t b u i l d it o u t o f his h e a d . not m e a n t to signify r e m o t e n e s s . It is a n a t u r a l c o n s e q u e n c e o f his e n d e a v o u r to d i s s o c i a t e the k i n g from d i r e c t c o n t a c t with the city in its f o u n d a t i o n ( a n d its l a t e r administration).7 4 . as recently examined with admirable clarity by J . R a b b i H o s h a ' i a gives the following c o m ­ m e n t o n G e n . edd. I ( L o n d o n 1 9 5 1 ) . T h e c h i e f r e a s o n for P h i l o ' s o m i s s i o n is not far to s e e k . Philo's reflections on God's being and relationality at Mut. H .T . 3 4 ) Cf. 8 ) . . 1 9 8 .2 0 0 and nn. Mansfeld ( e d d .1 1 7 . Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception. the uneasy coexistence of cataphatic and apophatic theology in relation to the highest being is also reflected in Middle Platonism. E . 3 3 the R a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i c c o m m e n t a r y o n G e n e s i s . p e r h a p s . Simon.J . i n v i t i n g the p r o c e s s o f h y p o s t a s i z a t i o n . U r b a c h . as i f his t r a n s c e n d e n c e m e a n t that he w a s wholly c u t o f f from the c r e a t i o n a l e v e n t . It is s t r i k i n g t h a t in P h i l o ' s q u i t e d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f the features o f the city to b e b u i l t n o m e n t i o n is m a d e o f p a l a c e s . Knowledge of God in Philosophy and Religion from Alexander to Constantine (Leiden 1 9 8 8 ) . blessed be H e ' . The Sages Qerusalem 1 9 7 9 ) . T h u s G o d c o n s u l t e d the T o r a h a n d c r e a t e d the w o r l d . 9 2 . In h u m a n practice. w h i c h e x p l i c i t l y states that A l e x a n d e r g a v e o r d e r s to b u i l d a l a r g e a n d m a s s i v e p a l a c e ( X V I I 52. O n e final c o m m e n t b e f o r e I close m y d i s c u s s i o n . ' . A t t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f Genesis Rabbah. b u t r a t h e r a s p l e n d o u r a n d fulness o f B e i n g that is not defined o r e x h a u s t e d b y the r e l a t i o n he h a s to c r e a t e d reality as its creator and s o u r c e ) . Mansfeld. b u t e m p l o y s p l a n s a n d d i a g r a m s to k n o w h o w to a r r a n g e the c h a m b e r s a n d the w i c k e t d o o r s . in R . ' i n the beginning God created (1:1)'. he builds it not with his o w n skill b u t with the skill o f a n a r c h i t e c t . 1 : 1 ) . 2 3 4 . van den B r o e k . 1. 3 3 ) Translation in Midrash Rabbah. B u t m o r e can be said. T h e h y p o t h e s i s that the i d e a m a y h a v e p a s s e d d o w n 3 2 ) Cf. ) . 5. N u m e r o u s s c h o l a r s h a v e n o t e d the s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n the i m a g e u s e d b y the R a b b i a n d P h i l o ' s a c c o u n t o f the f o u n d i n g o f t h e c i t y ) .Ill 410 w h a t is a c c e p t a b l e . ' T h e T o r a h d e c l a r e s : ' I w a s the w o r k i n g tool o f the H o l y O n e . .

T h e r e is no evidence of a Jewish tradition about God as architect before Philo devised his image. I n the w o r d s o f the p r o p h e t I s a i a h ( 6 6 : 1 ) . note that he translates 'rolls and tablets' rather than 'plans and diagrams'. 3 7 ) E . 3 6 ) U r b a c h . P h i l o speaks o f a world o f ideas illustrated by plans localized in the a r c h i t e c t ' s m i n d . 1:1. which is even more reminiscent of the engraved Decalogue and the written T o r a h . cit. Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Assen 1 9 8 4 ) . 2 6 5 ) : ' H e r e Jewish traditions about God as architect fuse with Platonism. but he cautiously concludes. w h i c h is illustrated b y ' p l a n s a n d diagrams' explicitly d e s c r i b e d as not p r e s e n t in the a r c h i t e c t ' s h e a d .). T h e c h o i c e o f the p a l a c e c a n readily b e u n d e r s t o o d . t h e r e is a f u n d a m e n t a l difference b e t w e e n 3 6 3 5 the two i m a g e s . Borgen writes on the parallel between the two texts (Philo of Alexandria. P. t h o u g h u n s e e n not o n l y to his s u b j e c t s b u t e v e n to his m o s t i n t i m a t e 3 7 3 5 ) Cf. I f t h e r e w a s a n y relatjjon b e t w e e n the two i m a g e s . But Philo identifies these Platonic ideas with the T o r a h revealed through Moses. op.. 15. I n G r e e k t h o u g h t at the t i m e o f P h i l o the i m a g e o f the p a l a c e is a s s o c i a t e d a b o v e all with the G r e a t K i n g o f P e r s i a . T h e R a b b i d e s c r i b e s the k i n g as b u i l d i n g a p a l a c e . M o o r e . op. at Genesis Rabbah 1. 2 0 0 . the a r c h e t y p e o f the a b s o l u t e m o n a r c h . w h e r e a s in P h i l o it is a city t h a t is founded ( a n d the k i n g is not said to b u i l d i t ) . (n. I 2 6 8 . g . T h e m o s t f a m o u s e x a m p l e is found in the P s e u d o . and Philo does not identify the noetic cosmos with the T o r a h . .PHILO AND T H E FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA 411 d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y from P h i l o g a i n s c r e d e n c e from the fact that the R a b b i in q u e s t i o n is v e r y likely to h a v e had c o n t a c t with O r i g e n a n d his c i r c l e in third c e n t u r y C a e s a r e a ) . the R a b b i d e s c r i b e s G o d as c o n ­ sulting the T o r a h . a n d t h e e a r t h is m y f o o t s t o o l ' . in M . we w o u l d h a v e to c o n ­ c l u d e that R a b b i H o s h a ' i a was not m e r e l y a d a p t i n g the P h i l o n i c p r e s e n t a t i o n but d e l i b e r a t e l y r e a c t i n g a g a i n s t it. a m u c h q u o t e d verse in J e w i s h ( a n d also e a r l y C h r i s t i a n ) l i t e r a t u r e ) . 2 ) . B u t . 'the coin­ cidence is not a kind to demonstrate dependence'. w h e r e the k i n g is d e p i c t e d as sitting in the c e n t r e o f his p a l a c e a n d c o n t r o l l i n g the reins o f his m i g h t y k i n g d o m . Stone (ed.A r i s t o t e l i a n De Mundo. where the verse is quoted in order to explain the 'heaven and earth' in Gen. ' t h e h e a v e n is m y t h r o n e . It n i c e l y c o n v e r g e s with the J e w i s h c o n c e p t i o n o f the world as the d w e l l i n g p l a c e ( a n d p l a y t h i n g ) o f the M a s t e r o f the U n i v e r s e . cit. as U r b a c h h a s s t r o n g l y e m p h a s i z e d ) .' T w o objections must be raised. T h e r e is a n o t h e r difference b e t w e e n the two i m a g e s to w h i c h I w a n t to d r a w a t t e n t i o n .

. O . Tijdschrift voor Philosophic 3 9 ( 1 9 7 7 ) .412 c o u r t i e r s ) . * 3 8 ) De Mundo 6 3 9 8 a l l . A s I h a v e n o t e d . b u t o n l y its h i g h e s t p a r t . xat [xovou (3aaiXeco<. P h i l o . illustrates b y m e a n s o f the i m a g e o f the f o u n d i n g o f a c i t y . T h e i m a g e is p r e s e n t e d in the m o s t g e n e r a l t e r m s . * This article was written with the Gnancial support of the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Scientific Research ( N .b l . Bos. A s P h i l o affirms at De vita Moysis 2 . The theological conception in 'De Mundo' and the relation between this writing and the work of Plato and Aristotle. where the ten curtains (auXaTai) of the tabernacle sym­ bolize the perfect structure of Socpia which auXrj xal (BaaiXeiov eaxi xou ncnvr\yt\i6vo<. I n o u r i m a g e a p a l a c e is not b u i l t . on this text cf. W . also Congr. it was often used as s u c h in the p h i l o s o p h i c a l tradi­ t i o n . U n l i k e a p a l a c e . 3 1 4 . 1 9 4 . 3 9 ) Cf.3 3 0 . T h e p a l a c e d o e s not s y m b o l i z e the e n t i r e c o s m o s . . while 3 9 3 8 the e a r t h is its o u t e r m o s t r e g i o n ( e v e n i f it is in the m i d d l e ! ) ) . e x p l a i n i n g not j u s t the s t r u c t u r e o f the u n i v e r s e b u t first a n d f o r e m o s t its r a t i o n a l l y p l a n n e d c r e a t i o n . A. in the c o s m o s h e a v e n is a (BocatXeiov UpoVcaxov. 116. a c i t y with its m a n y a n d d i v e r s e p a r t s i n t e r l o c k e d in a c o m p l e x s t r u c t u r e is a s u i t a b l e s y m b o l o f the c o s m o s as a w h o l e . P. auxoxpaxopoi. b u t the close e x a m i n a t i o n o f its c o n t e n t s a n d p u r p o s e that I h a v e u n d e r t a k e n in this a r t i c l e h a s s h o w n that it was the f o u n d a t i o n o f the g r e a t c i t y in w h i c h he h i m s e l f lived that w a s at the b a c k o f his m i n d . ) . the d i v i n e r e s i d e n c e . b u t a c i t y is f o u n d e d .

of course. In fact it is the mark of the true rambler that his points are always connected. go on indefinitely. The process might. one might speculate that the harsh scholars such as E . Unfortunately. in which he discerns the same idea. They are expositions of what Philo conceives to be the inner and spiritual meaning of various incidents and texts in Genesis. Festugiere constituted a form o f revenge on the m a n who had imposed on them so m a n y hours o f disagreeable concentration. So far his method is consistent enough. and that he is unable to restrain himself from following up each connection as it occurs. J . in the words o f W . This word does not mean that the thoughts are disconnected. however. which are fairly homogeneous. W . Colson: 3 2 These treatises. But this second text generally contains some other words in which he finds some other idea. "veritable t o r t u r e " . Theiler and A . do not aim at any continuous or systematic body of thought. . judgments on Philo m a d e by distinguished Dodds. R . that the task o f working their way through the long series o f exegetical treatises was. perhaps — though it is a fault which is rather lovable — he is an inveterate rambler. too valuable to be passed over. 1 a Indeed.IV T H E S T R U C T U R E OF PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES A REVIEW OF T W O RECENT STUDIES AND SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS to the revered Valentin memory of Nikiprowetzky F o r a century or m o r e students o f the philosophical and religious developments in later antiquity have recognized that they could not af­ ford to neglect the voluminous works o f Philo o f Alexandria. But even those o f us who are inclined t o take a m o r e favourable view o f Philo's achievement m a y well be prepared to assent t o the criticism implicit in the following description given by F . M a n y found. Philo takes his text and expounds its philosophical meaning and proceeds to illustrate it from some other text. Bousset. H . but even Philo feels that there must be some limit to it and ultimately returns to his main subject.

in my view. In each case we will above all be interested in what they can teach us concerning the formal structure o f Philo's allegorical treatises. we shall in the third and final part append some addi­ tional comments o f our own on this problematic area o f research. E n c o u r a g e d by what we have learnt. which together make up nearly half o f Philo's surviving o e u v r e . On the basis o f what principles are the long sequences o f Biblical exposition joined together? Is there a lack o f control. This review article will consist o f three parts. In fact the thesis can be defended.IV 210 Colson is here talking about the twenty-two treatises o f the Allegorical C o m m e n t a r y . Let us begin with the m o r e ambitious and extensive o f the two studies. that Philonic scholarship. the two works in. as Colson suggests? A n d even if we were t o agree that Philo does not aim at systematic presentation. In the first two a de­ tailed critique will be given o f the two above-mentioned studies. T h e col­ lective a p p r o a c h allows a many-facetted analysis. In retrospect it may emerge that the year 1983 marked an important stage in the confrontation o f the problems we have outlined. and that this failure has significantly contributed to the negative reactions to his writings men­ tioned above. though now recognizing the central place o f ex­ egesis in Philo's thought. with the result that its price is beyond the reach o f all but the wealthiest private buyer. The one is not only sumptuously produced but also o f considerable length and bulk. T h e sequential exegesis which he describes is not only difficult to read and analyse. Written and c o m ­ piled (for the most part) on opposite sides o f the Atlantic. The research o f a single scholar which it con­ tains represents a personal tour de force that cannot fail to excite our admiration. In this year two studies were published which both focus a good deal o f attention on the nature and formal procedures o f Philo's exegesis. it is an intensely difficult work which makes extreme demands on the reader. 6 5 4 . presented in a fluent and attractive style that encourages the reader t o continue from the one section to the next. but also gives rise to many questions.question form a contrasting pair in a number o f respects. Concentrating on a single theme t o the point o f obsession. It records the results o f an inter­ disciplinary research project carrried out by a team o f scholars. The other is much shorter and m o r e modest in its presentation (and so also moderately priced). can his reader nevertheless discern structural and thematic coherence? The answers given to these questions by Philonic scholars have been far from unanimous. has not yet been able to c o m e to terms with the formal structure o f his allegorical exegesis.

coherence 9 however. litteraires et I'exegese dans cinq des traites de Philon The aim o f the study is to examine the nature and vinced that this passage provides vital information on the method and methods o f Philo's exegesis as revealed in the literary structure o f his allegorical writings. In a complex allegorical exegesis o f Lev. probably the longest on Philo ever written. 2:14 in De sacrificiis into the finest divisions. R. there follows the first part. 8 Its main thesis can. In it analyses. 16:6-12). T h e aim and contents o f his book are better indicated in its sub-title. The book concludes with a bibliography and four indices. De fuga Quisrerum gratia mutatione sit (Gen. some more detailed and m o r e comprehensive Abrahami than others. adopts the "maniere synthetique" and presents a summary o f the procedures o f Philonic exegesis which emerged in the preceding analyses. 17:1-5. each o f which deals with part o f the story o f A b r a h a m : De migratione divinarum nominum heres (Gen. Let it be said at the outset o f our discussion that it will be quite im­ possible to give an adequate summary o f this book. 10 o f the In order to ap­ it is essential that we first understand what Philo is trying t o do in his exegetical labours. located in 76-87 Philo affirms that the logos. After a relatively short introduction. 16:1-6). are given o f (exegesis Gen. T h e work is divided into two main parts. in the space at our disposal. 1 2 : 1 . De congressu et inventione eruditionis (Gen. De (Gen. light. Cazeaux strongly affirms the central place o f Biblical exegesis in Philo's work . Like a number o f other c o n t e m p o r a r y Philonic scholars. which takes up three-quarters o f the book. Goodenough's famous study. be formulated in a short sentence. 15-22). when it has been divided ( § 8 3 ) .6 ) . A careful analysis o f Philo's exegesis reveals beyond all doubt the total literary composition and structure o f his treatises. Cazeaux is con­ Philo's writings.THE STRUCTURE OF PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 211 I T h e meaning and intent o f the title which Jacques Cazeaux has given his monograph. or in this case an image. will not be immediately clear to light. The second part. in contrast. La trame et la chaine. Les structures d'Alexandrie. But the sub-title makes it clear that Cazeaux does not wish to do this in abstracto. 15:2-18). 7 five allegorical treatises. By it refers directly to a phrase. preciate the nature o f this postulated c o h e r e n c e . Like the title o f E . should receive its appropriate demonstrations in the m a n n e r ^ h a t the warp receives the woof structure o f Philo's allegorical treatises. everyone.

C a z e a u x ' s favourite image for the resultant literary product is that o f the tapestry 8 3 ) . leaving " s p a c e s " and "distances" in between which are left free o f the psychological and philosophical explanations characteristic o f Greek literature from H o m e r onwards. Novel is his conviction that there is an intimate relation be­ tween the texture o f the Biblical narrative and the structural methods o f Philo's exegesis. A striking feature o f C a z e a u x ' s monograph is a never-ending succession o f enthusiastic laudes Philonis. is a seamless texture 14 13 o f many strands. Thus the text in Genesis is explained with recourse to a text in E x o d u s . Explanation and substitution do not lead mere­ ly t o a doubling up. coherence). Philo's logos. Philo weaves together his exegetical themes into a rigorously controlled structure o f unsurpassed coherence and subtlety. is also . and so on. for via structure the unity and coherence o f scripture is d e m o n s t r a t e d . given the name o f redundance 16 The ( " r e d o n d a n c e " ) . T h e first principle is that o f substitution ("suppleance"). (drawn from Sacr. extolling the magisterial qualities o f Philo's structured exegesis. Its narrative moves from event t o event and from theme t o theme with slowness and sureness. Philo continually invokes other texts t o explain his base-text. Rather. faultlessly crafted through the interweaving o f the w o o f o f Biblical text and the warp o f exegetical t h e m a t i c s . slowness. as exemplified in each treatise. The en­ comiastic tone o f this paragraph is deliberate. Characteristic o f the Bible is the unity o f its conception and the slowness with which it unfolds its ideas. n u a n c e . Taking the unity o f scripture as his starting-point.IV 212 and thought. contrast. It is the chief reason for the strangeness o f his discourse when viewed through modern (Hellenically influenced) eyes. but introduce deepening. and "spatiality" o f scripture in the structure o f his exegesis. Philo imitates the unity (i. second principle." H o w is this structure achieved and what are its features? C a z e a u x in­ troduces two principles and a number o f techniques which together a c ­ count for the structure o f the individual treatise and its parts as he sees it. the figure o f Moses is substituted for that o f A b r a h a m . 12 T h e meaning and purpose o f the exegetical treatises cannot be considered in isolation from the complexities o f their structure.e." W h a t is meant by "the structure o f Philo's exegesis"? C a z e a u x repeats over and over again that the sequence o f exegeses and themes in Philo's treatises are not to be explained in terms o f a loose or free association o f ideas — we recall t o mind Colson's rambler here! — in the manner o f a preacher or a philosophical c o m m e n t a t o r .

explaining one phrase or verse. 17 new elements. These patterns are made clear to the reader in some 140 diagrams placed at regular intervals throughout the book. can be illustrated as follows: a §83-88 DRAMATIC VOYAGE Egypt/Canaan \ . 21 By means o f his two principles and the diverse techniques Cazeaux is able to discern recurring structural patterns in the chapters and lesser units o f Philo's exegesis. which patterns the rows o f iron filings around and between its two poles. the structure o f the chapter Congr. This is possible because the second phrase or verse is partially redun­ dant. 18 The techniques which Cazeaux discovers in the structuring o f Philo's exegesis cannot be discussed in detail here. but the " c h a p t e r s " into which it is divided and which are based on the lemmata o f the scriptural text. Through the teleological method control and direction are in­ for the gallery o f substituted texts and figures are skilfully guided towards the (partially redundant) thematics o f the following text. is found at the end o f such clusters.IV THE STRUCTURE OF PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 213 based on the assumption o f the unity o f scripture. positive and negative f e a t u r e s . accor­ ding to C a z e a u x . repeating aspects o f the previous one but also adding troduced into the exegesis. >s 22 83-121 a' §111-121 SHARMONIOUS VOYAGE Egypt/Canaan b §89-93 VICTORY (WAR) 10 = 9 + 1 c §94-102 TITHE 10 = 10 b' §103-110 LIBERATION ( P E A C E ) 10 = limit . Philo's exegesis is fundamentally teleological. symmetrical Philo organizes his patterns pf 19 into cor­ respondence and contrast. but at the same time looking forward t o and working its way towards the next. when the themes are all o f a sudden cinematically flashed past or are concentrated in one figure. They depend for the most part on the two notions o f symmetry substituted texts and figures and movement. picturesquely labelled "acceleration" or " e n v o y " . 20 It will be clear by now that the basic unit o f Philo's exegetical structures. is not the treatise as a whole. symbols and figures. Cazeaux uses here the image o f the magnet. T o take an example. A special technique. The move­ ment o f the exegesis occurs as the reader proceeds through the sym­ metrically organized clusters o f texts.

is Philo's ment. The procession o f Biblical figures. Firstly. T h e purpose o f these is not any kind o f philosophical or theological in­ vestigation. in spite o f endless variation. contiguity/separation. produced by means o f its underlying structure. record ( o r indeed re-enact) the history o f divine action and human response. but complementary.e. not in the develop­ ding t o Cazeaux. time as past/present/future e t c . their insufficiency is disclosed to all when they are overtrumped by the superior knowledge based on revealed Mosaic scripture. but as expressed in terms o f movement. He calls it a " c r a d l e " . explored by substitution and teleological anticipation. Cazeaux perceives a repeated movement from philosophy t o scripture. 2 5 W h a t emerges in all clarity here. or mythological transcendence/im­ 23 T h e line il­ lustrating the cradle has an arrow-tip to indicate the movement o f the manence. h i s t o r y . coalesced. virtually Thirdly. the history o f creation and the history o f salvation.e. the Patriarchs and the people o f Israel. birth/death/resurrection. some dialectical and rather abstract (unity/multiplicity. Biblical characters or themes associated with characters) and the grouping o f these in constellations. even static/dynamic e t c . others m o r e philosophical (person/object.e. 28 Fine examples are found in 29 the long chapter on the L o g o s in Quis heres. the development o f the exegesis is determined (and the move­ ment controlled) by a number o f concepts. they are "categories" which regulate the flow o f the ex­ egetical t h e m e s . The unaided reasonings o f philosophy have strict limitations. as formulated in the polarity o f Genesis and E x o d u s .IV 214 Cazeaux's remarkable discovery is that. W h a t meaning is contained in and conveyed by means o f these recur­ ring structures? Cazeaux's views can be subsumed — the systematization is mine—under four headings. with a central section act­ ing as "hinge" or " a x i s " (as in the above e x a m p l e ) . the heart o f Philo's thought lies in his figures (i. appearance/reality. " c u r v e " . Lord/God. contemplation (i. cosmos) and cult (i. ) . Its symmetrical form is most often achieved by means o f a chiasmic construction. when abstract reason yields t o concreteness and meaning. or " p a r a b o l a " . it is the same basic pattern that recurs over and over again. 24 Secondly. A n d in the process history o f the soul and history o f the people should not be seen as antithetic. exegesis. L a w ) . positive/negative. ) . 27 26 philosophical sense. This mini-treatise con­ firms Festugiere's view that in philosophy (and also in theology) Philo is . accor­ preoccupation with time.

O n c e again the spiritual j o u r n e y o f A b r a h a m is central. 37 T h e next treatise Quis heres receives a fuller treatment ( 2 0 2 38 pages).1 7 5 ) . like a tattoo 34 under the s k i n . 30 Fourthly. In this analysis Cazeaux does not deal with each o f the five treatises in the same way. follow the same spiritual itinerary. a single universal schema. B y a kind o f " d o u b l e t h i n k " we must imagine that the movement located in the ex­ egetical structures is not Biblical exposition in abstracto. i f we realize that he sees his task as locating and structuring the conceptual order im­ manent in scripture. but gives concrete expression. therefore. the long section on the Xoyo? is not a philosophical digres­ sion. T h e discussion o f De migratione pages). 31 but is actually by the characters in the exegesis and also by P h i l o the ex­ T h u s . dans Peconomie dont elles temoignent en voulant «sauver» le texte de Philon. we c o m e to that aspect o f C a z e a u x ' s analyses which shows the most affinities to structuralist literary criticism. B u t this is no reproach. which by its future orientation separates the present o f the divine gifts (first part) and the past o f the paths already traversed (third part). experienced egete and his readers. T h e p r o o f lies in the results g a i n e d : Nous souhaitons que notre preuve soit cherchee et reconnue dans la repetition feconde des hypotheses. tegrated into the plan o f the treatise as a w h o l e . the has its central point in the announcement o f the telos ( § 1 2 7 . A c h i e f object o f the T h e problem o f a sodiscussion is to show how the long chapter on the L o g o s is perfectly in­ 39 called digression is also the subject o f the much briefer discussion o f De . when he has toiled his way through 4 6 5 pages o f ex­ traordinarily detailed and c o m p l e x analysis.IV THE STRUCTURE OF PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 215 no m o r e than a " s i m p l e b a c h e l o r " . and can only be laid bare by the patient labour o f 35 detailed analysis. treatise 36 Abrahami deals with the whole treatise. 33 It lies hidden under the surface o f the text. dans la simplicite qu'elles pretendent faire regner. via the process o f religious discovery contained in its structure. as well as his disciples in reading it. to the propaideutic knowledge that A b r a h a m must acquire in his spiritual quest. but has what the author calls " u n e charactere plus r a p i d e " ( 1 1 6 Recording the stages o f A b r a h a m ' s mystic pilgrimage. on which the structure o f P h i l o ' s exegetical treatises is based and which accounts for their total coherence. T h e reader is likely to consider this talk o f e c o n o m y and simplicity somewhat naive. 32 T h e r e is. this time in terms o f the schema birth-death-resurrection. A n d P h i l o in writing the treatise. to return to the example we used just TOLIEU? before.

finding/searching. 43 the logos). . rhetoric (methods o f organizing scripture). he assures us. because it does not try t o explain everything. T h e "livre" is "defait" because it remains unachieved. its author regards it as no more than symbolic. But the methods o f modern scholarship constrain him. a c c o r ­ 40 ding t o Cazeaux. but by artisanal intuition. concentrating exclusively on §1-38. but is this time "precise". the "jeu Philonien" o f allegory and hidden meaning. The base-text may at times seem rather distant. The excursus on the decad must be seen. 1 7 : 1 . A b r a h a m is now on the threshold o f autonomy. T h e procedures o f Philo's exegesis are grouped under four headings: g r a m m a r (philological tools used in exegesis). it follows the logic o f scripture in the structural logic o f its own commen­ tary. dialectic (movement between polarities). for any form o f synthesis is inimical t o the nature o f Philo's thought. but only as a supplement t o (not a replacement for) the earlier analyses. 41 T h e treatment o f De mutatione is once again short ( 2 6 pages). T h e reader will find it useful. One suspects that Cazeaux would have preferred not to give a "synthetic" presentation at all. 46 W e must not make the mistake o f subjecting 47 Philo t o the "iron c o l l a r " o f deductive logic o r psychology. The teleology and subterranean logic o f Philo's exegesis emerge very clearly h e r e . hidden under the surface o f the text. The analysis o f De fuga et inventione again covers the whole work. not by a theoretical framework. The three main themes—flight. his uncompromising Biblicism—all these combine t o produce what is called "un livre defait". a book that is not a book as we have c o m e to know i t . 42 On the second and final part o f the study we can be brief. but does not fill in the " s p a c e s " o f scripture. but in fact a wonderful nominum harmony is achieved. It explores and articulates. as now becomes visible in the movement from the divine name xupio? t o the name Geo? in Gen. " a u s t e r e " ( 9 4 pages). Cazeaux's study is guided. as the hinge on which the structure o f the entire treatise t u r n s . The tapestry o f his logos is inimical to a "Hellenizing" discursive reason. and each time his basic cradle schema can be discerned.IV 216 congressu (26 pages). source—are each subjected by Philo t o a logical division. philosophy (categories o f understanding leading to the intervention o f The Hellenism of this classification is m o r e apparent than 44 real. 45 W h a t is the net result o f Cazeaux's research? The consummate ar­ tistry o f Philo's structural exegesis. T h e Eigenart o f Philo's exegesis comes into clear relief 48 when it is compared to the rapidity and directness o f Patristic exegesis.

I believe. The importance o f the principle o f substitution—another way o f saying that scripture is ex­ plained via scripture—is proven beyond all doubt. beginning with a couple o f lesser impor­ tance. we m a y be persuaded that Philo's methods are not as haphazard as has often been t h o u g h t . Having set out the contents o f Cazeaux's study as accurately and per­ suasively as we could.) is intriguing. he allows it slowly to unfold. we should begin by emphasizing that the book is not without certain merits. word analyses etc. 1. Nothing. the result is rather unpleasant. I shall try t o compress my objections into five points. Presupposing only the unity and self-sufficiency o f scripture. curves and hinges everywhere. if merely held for their own sake. The lone ranger. This policy does the reader a great disservice.. In particular the treatment o f Philo's 49 In the analysis of sections Philo's treatises many penetrating observations can be read with profit. as it claims to do? Regrettably the book has been con­ ceived and written so as t o resemble those capsules we get from the chemist.. indeed mandatory. But on a number o f occasions he shows convinc­ ingly that Philo anticipates and works towards Biblical texts and themes which he intends t o incorporate into his exegesis. more taxonomic (catalogues. if we open them up and want t o taste just a little. It is Cazeaux's deliberate policy to avoid all 51 discussion with the results o f Philonic scholarship. for the reason that the study presents a picture o f Philo's writings and thought which I find entirely unconvincing. Since the tenor o f these will be predominantly critical. he prefers to confront Goliath (Philo!) unencumbered by the arms o f T h e numerous works cited in the Bibliography are virtually never 5 3 referred t o .IV THE STRUCTURE OF PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 217 The Alexandrian. is m o r e boring than pedantic discussions with other scholars. it is time now to conjoin some evaluatory remarks. The function o f such discussion must be t o orientate the reader in what he already knows and what he must . is sound. divisions. is not trying to prove preconceived ideas. 52 Like David. Even if we do not see cradles. Saul. The principle o f teleological organization cannot. unlike his successors. o f course. My answer t o the question just posed must be decisively in the negative. 50 But does this massive study present us with the key to the secrets o f Philo's exegesis. Its starting-pointy the affirmation o f the centrality o f scriptural exegesis in Philo's thought. They must be swallowed whole or not at all. be given the universal scope claimed by Cazeaux.

I suspect that Cazeaux grossly overestimates the literary pretensions o f Philo's scriptural commen­ taries. as literally. 8 2 . constructed reasonings (xaTaaxeuocQ to the "systematique" or subterranean logic o f scripture. for example. A when such detail is not required to c o r r o b o r a t e his thesis. 60 If we were to read from §78-79. expression (rhetoric). namely that the piece o f embroidered work (TCOIXIXLIOC) refers to Philo's treatises. and that is certainly not Philo's intention! The clue to the organization o f Philo's treatises is not to be found here. 62 61 Judaeus. Her.) to the figures and themes they contain. The task o f these is to elucidate the logos hidden in scripture x a x a T O Buvoaov. not to emulate scripture with a logos o f their o w n . the whole allegory Goodenough d i d . 76-87 should be read at a high level o f generality. Cazeaux says on m o r e than one occasion that he does not wish to contest other ways o f reading and analysing But it should be clear by now that his approach has a markedly . chapters (xecpaXoaa) to the divisions o f his treatises. we might conclude that scriptural teaching should be abolished. 16-35? A n d is the Middle Platonic interpretation o f the Timaeus not r e l e v a n t ? 56 Time and time again the reader observes that Cazeaux's obsessive preoc­ cupation with his own manner o f reading Philo leads t o a disdain detail. ordered thought (philosophy) and ordered 59 depending on how you look at it) between " r e a s o n " and "language". 58 There is not a single indication in this text that he is describ­ ing the literary praxis o f his own commentaries on scripture. 3. the endless prairie with "ne'er a signpost Moreover no attempt is made to place Philo in the context o f his own times and his own situation—as if the man were a Biblical expositor pure and simple. should we not hear something about Philo's knowledge o f Hebrew? Does this view not contradict the exegesis in Opif. floating in the ether with only a copy o f scripture to keep him c o m p a n y ." cowboy on Cazeaux's reader feels like a in sight". demonstra­ tions (dnzohii&i<. on the basis o f which the book receives its title. as Cazeaux 160 translate the words tohu maintains. 2. the words au. between and the meaning o f the latter shifts (creatively or confusingly.opcpov x a i arcoiov in wabohu in Gen. 55 If.IV 218 unlearn. and as such it is indispensable. Philo maxime Philo. A s is his wont. In fact the entire passage o f the (admittedly difficult) allegory on the words o f Lev. Philo appropriates material from Greek philosophy and rhetoric for purposes o f illustration. I am not persuaded 57 for by Cazeaux's analysis o f Sacr. warped interpretation.8 5 . 2:14 in Sacr. The of­ fering to be brought to the Lord is both the properly disposed soul and its logos. 1:1.

it does not encourage the pursuit of philosophical systematics. 65 cannot but have the effect o f reducing the influence o f Greek thought on Philo t o a minimum. contemplation—are taken over and adapted for the purposes o f understanding scripture. There is no movement from philosophy to scripture. au lieu de suivre Aristote et les Physiciens grecs. to distinguish between the soteriological history o f the people o f Israel and the spiritual history o f the soul. Philo in fact em­ braces it with fervour. if brought in relation to the perennial polarity o f Philo Judaeus and Philo Alexandrinus that has c o m e to exist in Philonic scholarship. as we saw. the "jeu serieux" o f imagination and memory in search o f the "logique profonde" o f scripture. Nothing could be further from Philo's inten­ tions. 66 (2) The reading o f Philo's exegesis in terms o f the history o f creation (Genesis) and the history o f salvation ( E x o d u s ) leads to a serious overestimation o f the role o f history in his thought. (1) F a r from rejecting the "iron c o l l a r " o f rationality. And on closer examination we observe that. L'etre est a chercher du cote (sic) de la personne humaine. The understanding o f allegory as an experience midway between reason and aesthetics. W e briefly mention three aspects. but rather the realization that the study o f scripture is the true philosophy. perfection/immortality. it takes up an extreme position on the side o f Judaization.THE STRUCTURE OF PHILO'S A L L E G O R I C A L TREATISES 219 "totalitarian" tendency. 63 Cazeaux's depiction of Philo's exegesis 64 as "subtle But what could be more eloquent than the following remark (to the example involved we shall return b e l o w ) ? L'attention poftee par Philon a ces pronoms manifeste q u ' a sa maniere Philon est parti a la recherche de la substance: l'Ecriture juive l'oriente vers un modele de la «personne». Cazeaux refuses. 67 But in a . The ideals o f Greek philosophy—logos. both o c c u r in the book Genesis. The subject has t o o broad a scope to be adequately discussed within the con­ fines o f this review. pour qui le modele de la substance est a chercher du cote de l'objet du monde. Allegory is the indispensable vehicle in this process. virtue. Philon obeit aux schemas de la pensee juive. thereby neglecting very important aspects o f Philo's thought. both occur in the allegorical exegesis o f its c o n t e n t s . Perhaps not too much should be read into Rabbinism". But it does allow the imposition o f Greek philosophical ideals on the Biblical text with the result that the " f l a v o u r " o f Philo's thought —and here my view is diametrically opposed to Cazeaux's—stands worlds apart from that o f the Biblical narrative (and the exegesis o f the Rabbis). inseree dans un temps qui interesse la divinite et la revelation de la divinite. To be sure.

designe en hebreu autant l'intelligence que l'affectivite". the Philo can do this because in Stoic philosophy the heart is the location o f riyeLtovtxov. however. man's reasoning faculty. 123 Philo cites the Biblical 71 words xocp&iocv aovtevou (Deut. but also positive­ because it runs counter to the fundamental (philo­ for they are the need sophical) dualism o f reason and unreason upon which the exegesis is based. not fear. 7 : 2 3 ) . Affirma­ o f Philo's exegesis (and not seldom o f his inter­ preter) runs like a purple thread through the tapestry o f Cazeaux's The reader. consistently makes no attempt to understand 70 In practice such a the philosophical division o f labour must and does lead to disastrous results. 68 It is not a matter o f either/or here. 69 (3) The conclusion cannot be avoided that Cazeaux disallows the in­ fluence o f Greek philosophy on Philo on a priori grounds. Through the in­ fluence o f Greek philosophical ideas the historical figures o f scripture tend to be allegorically reduced to states o f the soul in search o f knowledge o f God as 6 w v / x o ov. c o m e to lose their own individuality. T o give a trivial example (others will follow below): when in Fug. 4. Jaubert has shown that in Philo the notion o f the covenantal relation essential to this "historical" approach almost whol­ ly recedes in favour o f the theme o f the spiritual experience o f the soul. 2 9 : 4 ) . by being taken to represent the spiritual exodus o f the individual soul. Cazeaux background o f Philo's explanations. will soon wish t o replace the word with "hypercomplexity" or "abstrusity". absurd or simply impossible.IV 220 nuanced analysis A . this is not only irrelevant (Philo reads Greek. it is abundantly clear that xocpSioc is understood as parallel to Xoyiqjioi. the Medieval doctor subtilis. Duns Scotus. unavoidable result of the method which the study adopts. because from the philosophical viewpoint adopted by Philo they are irrelevant. In a paradoxical way these figures. Cazeaux's Philo is only a bachelor in philosophy. 73 cum laude. with the result that his analyses repeatedly make statements and reach conclusions which cannot be cor­ rect. Such examples could be multiplied ad libitum. but o f priorities. Expositor subtilis. in §121 and vou? in § 124 ( E x . not Hebrew). for the interpretations which he must work his way through are o f such a labyrinthine intricacy that they . But as an ex­ egete he is surely entitled to that d o c t o r a t e summa tion o f the subtlety book. It is claimed that "une recherche d'histoire litteraire permettant de noter les criteres de l'eclectisme qui joue dans les emplois de la philosophic" is a study posterior to and independent o f his own analysis. ly misleading. When it is stated that "le 72 « c c e u r » .

no matter what genre o f writing he used. It is the method o f the Procrustean bed. The c o n t r a r y is true. 8 2 . and. " This is not reading what Philo says. the Philonic exegesis and C a z e a u x ' s interpretation are all talking on the same wave-length. ) Tucked away in the middle o f one o f his analyses is the telling phrase. W e can formulate it in the following way: what Philo does with the Bible. that the break between §81 and 82 should be effaced. 5. in fact. (It may well. ' 'Philonisant luminating. Having m a d e the assumption o f the total coherence o f Philo's exegesis. is precisely what C a z e a u x does with Philo. Moreover. A remarkable result is the frequency with which C a z e a u x . ignores the structural markers that Philo himself gives. 76 The most astonishing claim that this book makes—it is in­ 77 herent in its entire design—is that the Biblical text. "coherence o b l i g e " . §82 ecrcco 8e. . an aesthetic experience entirely divorced from reali­ ty like the Glass bead g a m e in H e r m a n Hesse's great novel. Once again a casual phrase is highly il­ . XP"*\ °^ ••• V>^6L T O " x t ' B p a " ) . The interpreta­ tion o f Sacr. . furnishes an example. we might add. should attempt to convey this meaning in the manner envisaged by Cazeaux.IV THE STRUCTURE OF PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 221 m a k e the contents o f the Talmud or the Metaphysics o f Aristotle read improbable like a comic-strip in comparison. §80 eaxco 8£. but using Philo's ideas and writings t o build a cathedralic edifice o f his own invention. H e is not help­ ing us t o understand the m a n Philo better. however. our author is compelled extreme lengths to demonstrate the validity o f his own thesis. translates eaTco 75 So he 8e at the beginning o f §82 with "cela ne veut pas dire que a notre tour''. in reconstructing the structure o f Philo's treatises. It seems to me entirely that an a u t h o r . coherence js compelling. 74 In­ deed.8 5 . The "jeu Philonien" which we constantly read about is in fact nothing else than the "jeu Cazelien". be impossible. §85 The tetradic articulation o f the allegory is clearly indicated by Philo ( § 7 6 "veoc" u i v 8toc -coSe. compulsive. the actual harvest o f the b o o k is very . so important to his thesis. so that the example o f J a c o b and E s a u in §81 reflects on the division o f the logos in §82-85 (a mistaken interpretation in my view—Philo's exegesis is often much m o r e episodic than he is prepared to a l l o w ) . as our author himself admits. uncovering a hidden literary structure is one thing—this study has shown that it can be done—but actually devising and concealing it is quite a different m a t t e r . C a z e a u x has decided for the purposes o f his interpretation. and having moreover discovered to his own satisfaction the universal to go to schema that effectuates that coherence. using it as a springboard for his allegorical speculations.

one from each treatise discussed. which may seem rather harsh. 15:25 in § 3 6 is prompted by the word eSetijev in that text (wholly ignored by Cazeaux). The objections which we raised were presented in general terms. The interweav­ ing o f the themes o f research throughout the lengthy analyses is skilfully done. tempt compels our admiration. But the at­ . On p.IV 222 thin. T h e page-long paragraphs (sixty or eighty lines are no exception) of seamless prose are less a g r e e a b l e . Unfortunately limitations o f space dictate a sketchy treatment. in which the deficiencies o f his methods clearly emerge. in the composition of his own study on Philo. of which soon has the effect o f numbing the reader rather than the endlessly intricate analyses give rise to an overwhelming surfeit meaning. en le tournant sur ses trois faces: ufaire voir» — «celui qui voit» — «Celui qui fait voir»." My answer would differ. however. let me immediately add that from the literary point o f view the book is a considerable achievement. 6 opwv. The ruse here is thus Cazeaux's. T o the contrary. this deliberate mimesis 79 Some o f the results o f are m o r e successful than others. But it is clear that C a z e a u x regards his thesis as validated above all by the persuasiveness and con­ vergence o f his textual analyses. has made a concerted attempt to adopt Philo's style and methods. et d'Abraham a qui Dieu s'est adresse: «Je te ferai vo/V». This gives the whole enterprise a remarkable consistency. "Philonisant a son t o u r " . It would be unfair to halt at this point. disappointment is likely to ensue. Migr. This is not. but of the words fjv aoi Setijco in the Biblical text (ooi is equated. an "interpretation raisonnee" of the word 'to see'. il attaque Interpretation raisonnee du mot «VOIR». It is correct that the explana­ tion in § 3 6 . de quel texte de PEcriture entreprend-il alors le commentaire? II traite simultanement (tout est la) et de son Jacob. Having made these remarks. dealing in turn with to Stixvu^tvov. So. 6 4 we encounter the following question and answer: "Lorsqu'au § 3 6 . It is clear that C a z e a u x . for example. 78 Not that it does not contain enough material. with Israel 6 opwv 9e6v). not Philo's. achieved by translating the verb Seixvuvai by "faire voir" in80 Personally I cannot regard the whole undertaking as a success. le « VOYANT» ( § 3 9 ) . by substitution. 6 Seixvu?. The scriptural text dealt with is the base-text Gen. for reasons already outlined. stimulating him. And when it is realized that this surfeit reduces itself to the repetition o f a structural logic that is both subterranean and subrational. and how the rather obscure citation of Ex. devenu en un seul et meme homme. the analysis is meant to proceed with the same slowness that the Bible and Philo exhibit. 12:1 and in particular the words fjv aoi Setljw. 3 6 .4 2 is triadic. W e shall now give five examples. as he sees them. Note how the last words in §35 prepare the transition.

p. xi? . «Quoi?» permet de resumer les — hors du texte biblique — se trouve a la frontiere de ces deux volets. because Philo is dealing with different parts of the base-text. 1 9 4 .. scripture (xt) the model of person. 2 3 . N o reader confronting Philo's words can reasonably be expected to find a system of pronominal metaphysics in this passage. Her. the parts of the base-text cited in §31 and 3 4 are suf­ ficient to explain the train of the thought. lead to a discus­ sion of divine grace. that is what he would be but for the measurement of the L o g o s . en effet. A b r a h a m is not already " c h a m p infini" (p. But when he affirms (p.). 1 6 : 3 . " Cazeaux's interpretation of § 3 1 . which " s a v e s " the Biblical text (by offering a connection. 5 6 4 ) and to establish a dialectical movement between J a c o b ." We must object to the translation (another none-too-subtle ruse). 1 9 1 ) . If Philo had meant infinite.3 5 .p.3 9 ) .. p.3 3 ) and Jacob-Israel ( § 3 8 . oil nous lisons: «Que — Ti |xot OGXTEK. The words xi [xoi 8waei<. cf. and explained in terms highly reminiscent of Her. 1 9 5 ) . but are anticipated from Gen. oev yevoixo . he may well be correct (note how fjv (yfjv) remains unexplained). since the patriarch does not know the extent to which he will be able to receive the proffered grace. This measurement is not "objective" {ibid. he would have written a7teipa. me donneras-tu donne des (biens) infinis?» d[xu0T]xa Sou?. This double structure is unnecessary. . None of this is particularly compelling. "countless") stresses the extent of divine beneficence. 1 . " J u s q u ' i c i .3 3 . There can thus be no ques­ tion of a movement on A b r a h a m ' s part from "unlimited a b u n d a n c e " to "measured limit" (what he has already received must be already measured). 12:7 (xai &<PTIR\ xopio? TW Appapi) in mind. which distorts the meaning of Philo's words? The motivation is undoubtedly his desire to submit to the "imperialism of symmetry" (p. 3 1 . but accommodated to A b r a h a m ' s ability to receive. different substituted texts. What has led him to introduce this ruse. But there is more at stake than a translation here. 1 9 5 . d(ju30T)xa ("untold". But the whole of C a z e a u x ' s analysis of § 1 . .TUN.3 9 stands or falls with this movement. A b r a h a m reste plonge dans l'abondance illimite. and for this reason it must be measured. " L ' o p p o s i t i o n (limite/illimite) apres m'avoir se poursuit au § 3 3 . different (though connected) exegetical themes. xXr\pow[IO<. Here follows a (selective) com­ mentary on a commentary on a commentary. .. 1 9 4 ) . . 4 3 . The words xi<. 31 at Opif.J a c o b ( § 2 7 . bridged by the account of the exegete's experience in § 3 4 . is according to Cazeaux>a purely philosophical phrase (not true). It is aphoristically phrased at Spec. Hence the tension of the passage. p. 6 7 ) that during this passage Philo has Gen.3 9 (a passage with important implications. "L'exegese de «Mqi» § 3 1 . p. not " l a demesure plurielle et etouffante". 1 6 7 ) . Yet philosophy (xi?) advocated the model of substance. P.3 3 is vitiated by a failure to take into account the philosophical doctrine on which Philo's remarks are based. which is a relatively self-contained piece of exegesis. STRUCTURE: OF PHILO'S AIL LGORICAI TREATISES 223 stead of "montrer". the treatment is more episodic than Cazeaux will allow. comble qu'il se reconnait par le don de D i e u . G o d in the fulness of his be­ ing distributes his beneficence (both ontological and epistemological) to the extent that the recipient is able to receive it. Nor can I agree with a movement from xi (scrip­ ture) through xi? (philosophy) to eyw (scripture). nor from infinite plurali­ ty (d^uOrixa!) to a singular limited essence. le pronom «Qui?» commande les § 3 4 a 3 9 . . Such a movement seems to me illusory." Cazeaux is talking here about what he calls the "structural logic" which is in­ terior compared with the external structure formed by the Biblical citationstcf. The concatenation is more textually based. 1 9 3 .4 in order to explain A b r a h a m ' s next words. xapiCofxai 8'cyw xa oixtia xw Xr](|.o(xevcp. XXTIPOVOIXO? are indeed transitional.

tutelaire. Congr.. 94-102. " U n e cohorte de p a s s i o n s " . How does A b r a h a m know his own oixeia (cf. At the least we must think of ewtd9eiai. so Philo's words in §34 could remind us of his etymology.. The number six possesses perfection. 199. Harl in her commen­ tary.) p. The allegory takes little account of A b r a h a m ' s role as founder of the Jewish race. with its four cradles formed into one big cradle. (1) The arithmological observations are irrelevant. On ne s'etonne pas de rencontrer egalement dans ce §99 les trois Patriarches de la triade mystique . A b r a h a m ne rejoindrait pas la hauteur du ciel: il ne retrouverait done pas son origine naturelle de nctxi\p (jttTEcopoi. Curiously our author seems unaware that QE2. 405-408. virtually the half-way mark of the whole treatise (n. is already established. is too negative on this).. present et futur. . But when he writes (p. 369 and 378 we learn that the pivotal point of the symmetrical construction of the p a s s a g e is §99. S o m e comments on the analysis at p. "S'il restait sans enfant.". 378): "11 est [§94-102] dans le traite le point d'invasion ou la lumiere superieure enleve et transfigure les reflets de la propedeutique . is a masterpiece of ingenuity." My question is: how can the reader reasonably be expected to pick up these messages when there is no talk of them in the text? A brief glance at §99 will confirm that nothing is said of xoupoi.224 p. But does it help us understand Philo's text better? On p. passe. Cazeaux's neglect of the Greek philosophical background of Philo's words leads to a hazardous interpretation. le voici qui touche barre. Fug. 28:22 and 14:22 as part of the treatment of the theme of tithing. the last four words should in my view be replaced with " a l'exegese du texte". if they had been important Philo would have mentioned them. liee comme Isaac a ces «moments» — xaipoi — qui depassent le cours des heures et signifient le rapt de la science et de l'exercice par la Nature immediate. Les ceuvres de Philon . Opif. will be astonished to discover how much he is actual­ ly missing because he has failed to comprehend the "deep structure". who finds here brief references to the (verbally similar) texts Gen.43)? (Note how the Siopomxov yevoi. but A b r a h a m does not know whether his membership will lead to progeny. L ' « i n s t a n t » privilegie de Sara contient les trois moments du temps.6% is preserved in . o f "mystique". A b r a m is not yet A b r a h a m . et l'une de ces trois figures surmonte toute mesure temporelle. from which he emigrated? Probably the etymology is irrelevant here. but it is the wrong kind o f perfection for theology (cf. p. II existe dans la vie d ' A b r a h a m un point — et peu importe la chronologie — oil il aborde aux rivages plus parfaits de Taction de graces. Must we really take §34-39 as purely ironical? This would be to neglect man's ouSeveia (§29-30) and the concomitant recognition of G o d ' s graciousness (§31). avec la complicite de Melchisedeq. Cazeaux's analysis of §83-121. Quand il fait retour de la « d ? m e » . The hapless reader. qui de soi apprend et connait par soi (§99). 1. 407) "Retenons le pragmatisme de Philon: il tire les elements d'une construction locale dans le sens favorable au plan du traite. une figure accomplie. The thought of dBavaata as the ideal of the sage has summoned an allusion to the oupdviov cpu-cov in Plato Tim.. But how could Philo mean that A b r a h a m in any way returns to his Chaldean past. (2) Cazeaux is right in his criticism of G o o d e n o u g h . 90a (M. 13). 99. 200. In fact the subject of 7td0T) is not broached here.49. Here are some samples (p." True. of "les trois moments de t e m p s " .. . 23). 202. Surely inappropriate for the sage desiring to attain virtue and excellence. 15. Spec.

but always with rule or sovereignty. not t o . possible because of "un jeu de mots. Once again it is the quest for movement (p. faisant coincider les observations les plus superficielles avec le secret dessein d'une providence litteraire a qui rien n'echappe. Mut. is a fine example of Cazeaux's methods. Let us bring o u r discussion o f C a z e a u x ' s study t o a close with a final quote: 81 En tout cela. sur dpxrj «pouvoir» et «cause»" (p. Now apxri can mean many things. (translated "position") in §97. we m a y reasonably ask. au debut. 4 8 3 we read: "Faut-il souligner la maitrise du commentaire? Et. est dit n'etre pas employe xupuo?. 15-17. But Cazeaux proceeds to translate dpx^ in §15-17 as "cause". 1 7 : 1 . (4) A point of more consequence: there is no basis for Cazeaux's contention that in §102 Philo divides between the "metropolis" as the dwelling-place for the Levites who have found the Logos and the five other cities as places of refuge for the manslayers.. qui en est a peine un. Cette double impropriate apparaTt comme une verite dialectique par rapport a l'imagination chaldeenne (a la fin du §17: £q>avxaatcoGr|). Surely a red light should flicker in our minds at this point. It is clear that in § 1 5 . The compact analysis of § 1 . from the philosophical and theological point of view. 4 8 1 . 4 8 2 . i. for Philo never associates the divine name xupto? with causation. Space prevents the discussion of more than one detail. jusque dans le detail. on doit pouvoir considerer comme objective la relation suivante: ©eo?.3 8 ((i&i'Cova) are far-fetched.3 8 . aJxiou. And when we look at the text we find in §15 that Philo is quite explicit: woreTO"&<p0T] xupio? xw 'APpaot(i" XeyeaGat u7tovoT|x6ov oux £mXafx7tovTo<. ( 3 ) A minor point: Philo does not relate GEO? to the noun 9£<m. dissimulant le procede. mais sa denomina­ tion reste ou xuptov. But in the endeavour to construct the entire chapter in terms of the above-mentioned dialectic an impossibly complex and un­ convincing result is achieved. W h y . not least because this passage is. and then on to a higher gift indicated in the words iy<i> ei'pu 6e6<.e. par exemple. based on the tension and dialectical movement between the two divine names in Gen. should P h i l o be so diabolically secretive? His task as c o m m e n t a t o r is t o elucidate the secrets o f scripture. the distinction in the last sentence is between xaxoixriaEi and xaxacpuyd?. The envisaged connections with earlier themes in §8 and 2 4 .1 8 Philo outlines a progression from the Chaldean quest for immanent causation to recognition of God's apxr|. 4 8 8 ) is thus at least partly based on a flawed understanding of Philo's doc­ trine of the divine powers. but on different conditions. 4 8 0 . On p. The analysis (see the cradles on p. 4 0 6 "le passage du Levite au Logos') which brings about the forced interpretation. but to the verb XI&RYU ("place". but "cause" is not one of them.THE STRUCTURE O F PHILO'S A L L E G O R I C A LTREATISES 225 Greek (part of the only section of the Quaestiones to come down to us in a direct tradition). "establish"). la «Cause» est designee sous le nom de Kupux. oo?. one of the most interesting in Philo. Et nous pensons que le lecteur moderne peut beneficier. de ce detour immense que nous lui imposons. including "begin­ ning" and "principle". a la fin. All six cities are available to both groups.2 ) . x a l £ni«patvo(jievou xou rcavxoi. Philon use d'une habilete presque diabolique.

The pair of treatises De Gigantibus — Quod Deus were chosen for the production of a detailed commentary on a representative section of the Philonic corpus to serve as a paradigm for the type of commentary which we felt was needed. T h e team consisted o f eight scholars. but it is a parent can be initiated by reading his b o o k s . with one important exception in the person o f the F r e n c h scholar. 86 A s the title o f the project implies. 84 83-111 and and decide for himself or herself whether the detour will be worthwhile. It is a team effort. confronted by the astonishing difficulty and minimal harvest o f this study. new and more detailed insights into the immediate sources and true nature of Philo's work. about the " i m m e n s e d e t o u r " ? It is not the task o f a reviewer. T o be sure. the c o m p a c t analyses o f Congr. G o o d e n o u g h and H . T h e leaders o f the project. II A s we already stated in our introductory remarks. however.. P h i l o practises an esotericism. but on a reconstruction o f what he would have said i f he had articulated what he had really meant to say. W o l f s o n . M y fear is. A n Interdisciplinary Study in the Fusion and Diffusion o f Cultural T r a d i t i o n s " . 82 trans­ esotericism. Its origins lie in a project entitled " P h i l o o f Alexan­ dria. the late Valentin N i k i p r o w e t z k y . the purpose [of the project] was to attain. the members o f the team are specialists in the diverse . this particular b o o k must be read in its en­ tirety or not at all. formulate its aim as f o l l o w s : 85 . then. and does not aim to produce a synoptic view on any aspect o f P h i l o ' s thought or work. namely the temptation to engage. M y advice to the prospective reader is to begin with its most accessible chapters. carried out in 1976-78. not on an investiga­ tion o f what P h i l o actually said. that. into which readers possessing the right qualifications Cazeaux has fallen into the same trap that earlier ensnared great scholars such as E . by means of an interdisciplinary team approach. 8 3 W h a t .. U n f o r ­ tunately. he or she will disappoint the expectation o f its author..3 8 . Nor would I wish to do so in this case.. the second b o o k to be reviewed stands in marked contrast to the first. to discourage others from reading the b o o k being reviewed. as was noted a b o v e .IV 226 enshroud them in a well-nigh impenetrable cloud o f secrecy o f his own devising. A . Mut. David W i n s t o n and J o h n Dillon. R . all o f whom were at the time work­ ing in the United States. except in exceptional cases. 1 .

In our review we shall deal in turn with the four main parts o f the book. without a clear marcation between them and lacking any true external or internal unity. T h e book which acquaints us with the results o f the research project consists o f a C o m m e n t a r y on the two Philonic treatises De and Quod Deus immutabilis tion is further divided gigantibus sit. Formally they are best regarded as two "commentaires suivis ou perpetuels" on Gen. 89 88 Does this mean that we must side with those who adopt a very critical attitude to Philo's writing. Philo's exegetical treatises are in fact literary . commences with what is the longest and arguably the most important contribution to the entire b o o k . will be slightly m o r e expan­ sive than the rest on account o f its direct relevance to the main theme o f this article. The development o f the ex­ 90 egesis lies in the progression from one question and answer to the next. in spite o f their lack o f unity. The chief reason that the structure o f Philo's exegesis is so badly misunderstood must be sought. 87 In it Nikiprowetzky undertakes to examine the methods o f Philo's exegesis in the two treatises dealt with in the C o m m e n t a r y . almost twice the length o f the commentary it introduces. he argues. in the opinion o f our author. these being in every case based on the biblical lemma under discussion. with which we begin. in the failure to recognize the "mother-cell" of his exegetical developments.IV THE STRUCTURE OF PHILO'S A L L E G O R I C A L TREATISES 227 scholarly disciplines related to the study o f the writings o f the JewishAlexandrian exegete and philosopher. entitled " T h e F o r m o f Philo's C o m m e n t a r y " . The first section o f the Introduction. and no attempt has been made by the editors to harmonize the various views expressed". It is stressed in the Preface that "each author is responsible for his own contribution to the introduction. do show that Philo is a writer who gives his exegesis a clear and coherent structure? It is the aim o f Nikiprowetzky's chapter to resolve this question. A n y attempt at producing a synthetic analysis o f this progression is foredoomed to failure. or should we con­ clude that these treatises. 6:1-4a and 4 b . The introduc­ into three sections. and philosophical aspects o f the two treatises respec­ tively. for they place all the problems confronting research on Philo's exegesis in a particularly clear light. preceded by an Introduction which is discussing the formal.1 2 . namely the quaestio followed by a solutio. stylistic/literary. The discus­ sion o f the first part. The two works—which may well have originally been a single w o r k — c o n s t i t u t e an excellent testcase.

to draw the conclusion that . Nikiprowetzky concludes that it has very neatly confirmed the original premiss. il le pratique d'une facon parfaitement coherente et rigoureuse. is a quite invaluable aid to the reader who wishes to follow the paths (and blind alleys) o f Philo's exegetical developments. Their contents are divided into a sequence o f 14 questions and answers. avec une logique sans faille. a tiroir".5 7 ) to 4 4 capita answer the biblical lemma under investigation. that Nikiprowetzky joins C a z e a u x in asserting the fundamental coherence o f Philo's exegetical structures. tak­ ing the form o f a brief summary o f each caput o f Philo's text. which leads to what Nikiprowetzky calls a is seen as strictly subordinated to the main struc­ et solutiones. and on the reasons for the continual oscillation between feelings o f fascina­ tion and disappointment which is the experience o f Philo's m o d e r n readers. Interesting parallels are drawn here with the writings o f another Jew. 5 5 . 8 9 . however. In the case o f Gig. dans la perspective reelle de sa pensee qui est celle des quaestiones et solutiones. 92 C a z e a u x ' s "suppleance"). and an outline o f the solutio capita (Deus 140-183) o f text. Quaestiones but the mode o f execution shows a much greater thematic 93 richness and literary sophistication. C'est un auteur clair. With regard to Philo's composi­ tional skills he decisively affirms: Philon pratique en fait l'art de composer et meme.-Deus Quaestiones we are in the particular­ ly fortunate circumstance o f having at our disposal the sections o f QG which deal with the same biblical text ( 1 .IV 228 adaptations and developments o f the basic method o f the in Genesin et Exodum. Franz Kafka. 94 It would appear.1 2 ) . ture o f the 14 quaestiones Having reached the end o f his analysis. This outline. T h e chapter is brought to an end with a number o f thought-provoking remarks on the significance o f the allegorical method (both as an apologetic instrument and as an instrument for spiritual discovery).9 9 ) . the quaestio implicitly raised. It should be noted that the 14 sections in each case involve a starting out from and a reversion to the main biblical text under scrutiny (Gen. 6 : 1 . The aim and method o f Philo's commentaries is very similar t o that found in the in Genesin. therefore. Philo's practice o f in­ voking "quaestio other biblical texts and giving them detailed attention (cf. F o r each question and explicitly o r is given. T h e temptation must be resisted. " The analysis o f the two treatises which Nikiprowetzky presents is en­ tirely based on the theory just outlined. varying in length from 3 (Gig.

not that o f a total integration o f countless exegetical themes into a complex tapestry o f meaning. Dillon does not justify his choice o f Afeoplatonist comparative material. This is in itself.g. a valuable conclusion. both Philo and Proclus are doing the same thing. and brief comments a r e made on the fre­ quent discrepancies between the two. T h e existence o f the latter kind o f coherence is denied in the strongest terms. it is a pity that Dillon's article does not focus its attention m o r e directly on the two treatises being c o m ­ In a third contribution David Gooding and Nikiprowetzky col­ 101 laborate in examining Philo's use o f the Bible in the two treatises. there not Middle 98 T w o minor points o f criticism. levels o f interpretation. multiple exegesis e t c . in the passages in which multiple exegeses o f anonymous c o m m e n t a t o r s are presented. amounting t o a total o f 6 1 . "setting up straw men in order to shoot them d o w n " . T h r o u g h o u t his analysis Nikiprowetzky'displays a fidelity t o the letter and spirit o f Philo's text which constitutes a shining example for all Philonic scholars and stands in marked contrast to the cavalier methods employed by Cazeaux. the use o f a7coptat.THE STRUCTURE OF PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 229 there is a measure o f convergence in the results o f their research. ranging from (sometimes) accurate quotation t o ( m o r e often) inaccurate citation. biblical text. o f course. In fact the methods and conclusions o f the two French scholars are galaxies apart. the list is all the m o r e invaluable because o f the . 97 Although some interesting examples are noted (e. the results on the whole are rather thin. 1 0 0 Secondly. Time and time again his positive delight in detail and the attention he. T h e coherence which Nikiprowetzky discovers is that o f a struc­ ture based on a sequence o f questions and answers. Is Platonist evidence available. 96 95 In the following chapter Dillon undertakes to examine the extent to which there are parallels between Philo's exegetical methods and those used by the Platonist c o m m e n t a t o r s on the dialogues o f P l a t o . 1 0 2 Nikiprowetzky provides us now with a list o f all the references to the The L X X text and Philo's text are placed side by side. allusion and adapta­ tion. lavishes on small but significant points leads t o an improved understanding o f the Philonic t e x t . W e are thus given insight into a fascinating scale o f biblical usage. An in­ teresting suggestion made by Dillon is that. 103 A s we shall see. because the various questions and answers are for the most part seen as quite independent o f each o t h e r . much closer to Philo's 99 time (and perhaps p l a c e ) ? mented on in this b o o k . ) . A second difference lies in their attitude t o the Philonic text.

is double-edged. Our verdict. Sometimes the discussion o f the attention t o the structural role o f the secondary biblical texts invoked in what he calls the "quaestio . ing what the actual quaestio his quaestiones et solutiones. Gooding adds some interesting remarks on other aspects o f Philo's use o f the Bible. 106 But this is only one of the diverse techniques which he employs t o introduce his explanation of the text. T h e delineation o f 14 sub-divisions. as we shall presently see. a semantic distinction. and had to be taken into account as well. such as his manifest lack o f knowledge o f the Hebrew underlying the Greek version and his frequent misrepresentation of the meaning it intends to c o n v e y . But is it helpful to label each o f these sub-divisions as quaestiones phasis placed on the quaestio et solutiones! F o r two reasons the answer must be in the negative. As a demonstration of the validity of the theory on the historical developments encapsulated in the formal features o f Philo's exegesis the analysis is highly successful. the em­ or arcopt'a posed by the biblical lemma is excessive and one-sided. now that we can give it. Crucial here. H e can just as easily start with an opinion o f other exegetes. as presented in the opening chapter. T o be sure. by seeing the structure o f the treatises exclusively in terms o f the French scholar does not pay enough a tiroir". has so far been postponed.IV 230 important role played by references to the biblical text in the structure of Philo's exegesis. involving a return to the central text at regular intervals. a grammatical observation. 108 accident that Nikiprowetzky sometimes has great difficulty in determin­ et solutio Secondly. Firstly. though by no means a failure. 104 A n evaluation o f Nikiprowetzky's contribution. 1. clearly the chapter on Philo's biblical usage is intimately connected with it. is o f the highest importance for an understanding o f the treatises' structure. As an analysis of the structure and thematic development 105 o f the two treatises the account is in our view less successful. each beginning with a return to the main biblical text being commented on. and that this origin is still detectable in the structure o f the two treatises analysed. 2. o f the postulated quaestio 1 0 7 It is no is. and so o n . but the piece-by-piece exposition o f the biblical text. I a m persuaded that Nikiprowetzky is en­ tirely correct in postulating that Philo's exegetical procedures grew out of the quaestio et solutio method used in the Synagogue and in Jewish exegesis. is not the con­ tinual raising o f arcopiai. Nikiprowetzky can point to some excellent examples o f how Philo uses a problem raised by the text to "break it open" and thus embark on his exegesis.

and we come t o a better understanding o f certain aspects o f the two treatises. But are they in themselves enough to refute Colson's accusation that Philo's method is that o f the "inveterate rambler"? 113 The second part o f the Introduction. entitled "Philo's style and dic­ tion". plain. Philo's awareness and ap­ preciation o f questions o f style is above all made clear in his own writing. . The most striking example is Deus 140-183. continues the good work o f the first. Plato and later Academics as well as the Stoic-Cynic diatribists. The motivation behind Philo's choice o f subordinate biblical texts is often not made sufficiently c l e a r . " In each case the twin aims o f the project are ably carried out: we learn m o r e about Philo and his Umwelt.2 0 . the characteristics o f his style in Gig. I . florid. are sufficient to give the work(s) a measure o f coherence and clarity. on exegesis o f the main biblical text." It must be readily conceded to Nikipro­ wetzky that the 14 sub-divisions which he has found in Gig.-Deus. Yet in the end the analysis he presents suffers from being too static and too descriptive. ' insufficiently 09 The relative independence o f these developments is A final criticism that can be made of recognized. Nikiprowetzky's analysis is more difficult to formulate with sufficient nuance. The three pages on Philo's vocabulary are particularly instructive. and yet be followed by the exegesis of another.T H E STRUCTURE-: O F P H I L O ' S A I . 4 and the relation between rhetoric and allegory in his w o r k s . poetic. subordinate text which is much longer and more detailed. for the same reason few remarks are made on style." And this awareness o f style leads to much diversity:" 6 7 He has many styles. noted. W e have already praised the French scholar for his fidelity to the Philonic text and the great value o f his summaries and notes. The combination o f an identification o f the central quaestio and a caput-by-caput summary o f the contents o f the solutio cannot do full justice to the dynamic element in Philo's exegetical structures. which concen­ trates for the most part on an exegesis not o f Gen." 1 110 cases of (teleological) anticipation are not separate quaestiones based 2 thematic connections made between could receive more emphasis. his vocabulary and word choice. solemn. F G O R 1 C A 1 T R E A T I S E S 231 main biblical lemma can be very short. 2 0 : 1 7 . and show how much we can still learn in this a r e a . 6:12 but of Num. " 5 Leopold is very much aware o f the par­ ticular purpose o f Philo's writings: the frequent use o f grammatical terms is the result o f his task o f commenting on the Mosaic text.-Deus. In four chapters o f varying length J o h n Leopold discusses Philo's knowledge o f rhetorical theory. and vehement. and he must have had many models.

is the most disappointing sec­ 122 tion o f the book. 128 127 126 In this case the attribution o f eu7ta0eiai such as j o y and mercy to 6 Geo?. " T h e topos should not be seen as a cliche and an indication o f lamentable unoriginality. entitled "Philosophical themes in the De Gigantibus and the Quod Deus". as suggested Well prepared by 227 pages o f introduction. to the C o m m e n t a r y p r o p e r . (1) I cannot believe that the description c ^ x " ° ' ^ and have no b o d i e s . dle Platonists. it strikes me that the tribon of the philosopher is almost always em­ broidered with the fancy stitching of the poet. " A final chapter on Philo's use o f topoi 9 8 is supplied by T h o m a s C o n l e y . God is being spoken of at the level o f the L o g o s . whenever the Bible uses the epithets Geo? and xupio?. who needs a metaphor to denounce even the least of the vices. A valuable examination o f the use o f allegorical terms shows that Philo stands closer to the P l a t o n i c / P y t h a g o r e a n tradition found in Plutarch than the purely Stoic tradition represented by Heraclitus (though both have much in c o m m o n ) . But — as with many philosophers of his era — his methods were thoroughly rhetorical. by Dillon. T w o o f its chapters were written a decade ago and have already been published twice elsewhere. 120 it in fact serves as an 121 important bridge between rhetoric and philosophy: Philo's intentions. Further research in this area will certainly lead to valuable results. dealing with Philo's doctrine o f angels and the theology o f Both are written in the fluent and lucid style that we have c o m e to expect from the author o f The Mid­ Their value lies in the numerous interesting observations stimulating ideas which they contain. do full justice t o trans­ radicality o f Philo's solution to the problem o f divine cendence? The doctrine o f the powers commits him to the view that. is eminently plausible. Given the breadth o f thematic . an exhaustive treatment o f 0 at these subjects could not be expected in this context. The final part o f the Introduction.IV 232 but. Quod Deus. and 124 The two remaining chapters. there was no need to publish them once a g a i n . T w o comments on points o f detail. even if Philo does not always draw attention to the f a c t . the reader at last comes The writing o f a c o m m e n t a r y on Philo is first and foremost a matter o f selection. may have been in some sense philosophical. 222ff. Since no attempt has 123 been made to revise them in the light o f the specific aims o f the Project. are contributed by D i l l o n . Geo? is thus not directly equivalent t o 6 GOV. This entire section o f the Introduction is recommended reading. the 125 oVoXwv axripaxoi at Gig. in Philo. in short. 8 necessarily entails that the stars are immaterial (2) D o the remarks on p.

in accordance with what are seen as the basic divisions o f the Philonic text. T o begin with.THE STRUCTURE OF PHILO'S A L L E G O R I C A L TREATISES 233 scope found in the average Philonic text and the vast amount o f background material (mostly from Greek and Hellenistic sources) that can be adduced to explain it. On the whole the selection made in the . an exhaustive c o m m e n t a r y can easily lead to a kind o f infinite regress. (iii) explanation o f exegetical themes and (limited) cross-references to of other relevant Philonic passages. 1 3 0 Some light editing could have easily removed these deficiencies. in which " a t o m i s t i c " comments are made on diverse details o f the text. c o n t r a d i c t 129 ) the ex­ haustive treatment given in the Introduction. (v) discussion o f philosophical ideas contained in the text. has both strengths and weaknesses. T h e C o m m e n t a r y is divided into ten sections. (vi) historical background given where necessary (often very in­ formative). terms and images in the works o f P l a t o (and to a lesser degree in the Stoics and the Aristotelian tradition). it is strange that its 10 sections were not better correlated with the 14 divi­ sions o f Nikiprowetzky's analysis. with much stress o f novelties in Philo's usage). It is a measure o f Philo's huge debt to P l a t o that even in this area the detailed comments given are by no means complete. E a c h section is commented on at two levels: first "General c o m m e n t s " . the comments on Philo's use o f the biblical text merely duplicate (or worse. and also in the successful location o f the origin o f so many o f Philo's ideas. It is greatly to be regretted that the authors have given no indication o f the grounds or criteria on which their selec­ tion o f explanatory material has been based. (ii) ex­ planation o f language and terms used (given very full treatment. followed by a "Detailed c o m m e n t a r y " . The most disturbing weakness is its almost total lack o f integration with the rest o f the book. T h e C o m m e n t a r y . (vii) parallels (limited) in Rabbinic texts. The strengths o f the C o m m e n t a r y . (iv) elucidation the sources o f Philo's literary and philosophical motifs. which give a resume o f the development and main themes o f the exegesis. on the other hand. Moreover. such as we have sketchily described it. Many o f the detailed c o m ­ ments also show considerable overlapping with subjects dealt with by diverse contributors earlier o n . W e can only try to reconstruct what they were. The main in­ terests and emphases o f the C o m m e n t a r y as a whole appear to be the following: (i) textual matters (severely restrained treatment). This procedure is eminently sound and to be recommended for other Philonic commentaries. lie above all in the treatment o f Philo's language and ter­ minology.

22:12.) A final observation is that the treatment o f Philo's use o f the L X X . epistemology is required. npo? navToc oixetov: interpretation sound.16. Philo is thinking of the seven days of the creation account here (ava7t<xuo[ievT|<. Gig. but rejected by Posidonius) was a viable philosophical option in Philo's time. Deus 4. but it would seem better to recast the sentence. Decal. oia7topfja<xi: cross-reference to the main thesis of Nikiprowetzky (and to Dillon at T T 82) would seem required. often penetrating remarks are made. Gig. G/g. (quite incompatible with Opif..5. Why is the theme of the a8ixos/8ixaio<. LA 1. " E v e r " could be changed to "never". 2:2-3. 245). The parallel given (LA 3. Gig. that all the parallels given are always to the point. (This is not to say. G/g.40a8. and especially his references to primary and secondary biblical lemmata cited and discussed in the exegesis. ment. is rather spotty. In the following list o f comments on the C o m m e n t a r y examples are given which will illustrate the criticisms voiced above.29ff. yeveai?/6v: a note on the tion cannot be correlated with the tripartition of the soul. no TTOVTJPOI suitable Pentateuch texts on ayyeXoi G/'g.l9ff. nevertheless it should be judged positively in the light o f the tendency to "parallelomania" so often shown by Philonic scholars. "We may also note Plato's doctrine in the Phaedrus (249B) that no soul that has ever had a vision of the truth will rise from brutish into human s h a p e .22. I do not think a unitary conception of the soul (Stoic. ayomrixov: summoned forth by Gen. 15. 6:9. (p. not of cosmic regions. whereas Colson ( L C L ) goes badly astray.28-30.88) obscures Philo's careful distinction between the biological and the technical metaphor. Gen. Plato 77m.98-\0\). 103-105 are not very helpful. QG 4. Deus 30.69: the exegetical constraint of the image of the tiger needs to be mentioned.35. Gig.8.34. " This cannot be right. (p. GigAl.234 C o m m e n t a r y has much to recommend it. Second auxol? must be auxoT? if the comment is to make sense. are available. Gig. Cher. GigA. Such reticence does give many remarks a "bitsy" quality (and on occasion important subjects are left undiscussed). cf. we may suspect.Sl. Deus Iff. so the references to a Gnostic text and Congr. A word needs to be said on the remarkable exegesis of Gen. with special reference to the important parallel at Proem. . Deus 12. CJJUX^V xtvouvxai: cf. 273). Gig.. 1:2 introduced here but cf. Why does Philo quote a non-Pentateuchal text here? because. The parallels with Plato and Aristotle are not persuasive because Philo's tripartiNimrod: unnecessary doubling up with T T 69-71.20. and also the Aristotelian doctrine of the fifth ele­ *i v o C v : this apparent equivocation deserves a comment. The editors refuse to become excessively sidetracked. Gig.60.66. o f course. just as often important (and obvious) references are left unnoticed. here further complemented by an "administrative" metaphor.5). used? because Noah is called Sixato? in Gen.

dxpdxou? (jLe9ua(xaxo<. 134 is required.29e alluded to a couple of lines later. does not adopt but adapts Plato's theory. xa|ju£oo[i£vco is inspired by Rep. is altered to opwvxotc). Moreover there are significant differences between the Platonic 132 Being and Stoic theories of v i s i o n . Surely we are not meant to deduce from the Plotinian text cited that by Getwv epy^v Philo (also not noted at §153).37c but on Tim. Eupeais/dveupeo-ii. 118.92c. 8eaud: is Platonic or Stoic avdyxr] meant? Deus 79.\>6.. jioaei?: cf. "Philo adopts here the Platonic theory of vision. V6(JUO-[XOC: the xu7io<. la distinction que Philon repete en leur nom releve d'une tres detestable grammaire grecque. Cross-reference to p.179. O ' S ALE. for Philo. " The reader needs to know that the etymology is included as SVF 2. " I f it is Stoic . 181. Van den Broek Vig. 36ff.458.: on the semantic distinction put forward here Nikiprowetzky had written ( T T 71): "Philon attribue cette distinction a 'des gens qui se soucient de la propriete des mots'. .508b6.90a. The NT reference is Matt. Deus 42. Deus 158. as comparison with Plutarch shows. and 6 pXemov. that this study has made good its chief aim o f providing us with a . 33 (1979) 266. Deus 116. passages in early Middle Platonism. The reference to the definition of man at Cra/. Deus 182. now that our review is drawing to a close. God Time (Oslo 1971) 32-57. . it is proof of scripture's essential agreement with philosophy (since 1 S a m . one of Philo's favourite exegetical themes. Deus 145. under in­ fluence of Plato. Deus 86. Note that dcpOovoc anticipates 77/77. 4:6. Deus 106. -nj7twai<.§77. 9:9-10 speaks of both dv9pw7co? zoo 9EOU indeed a Platonic notion. metaphor is again crucial. Deus 155.: means the ideas. -toc if\c. under exegetical constraint. Deus 141. 126. note how the latter description. Philo. . Deus 108. Chr. Excellent remarks on Philo's political tact and his love for (dubious) puns. 16:4. Deus 105. Reference should have been made to J .69dl see R. Deus 181. 191c. a-fxiarpeOfji.EGORICAL. TRL-ATISES 235 Deus 31-32.. where Philo explicitly alludes to Tht. it is in fact Fug. The substitution of Mwuaeox. of course.97-98. . but based not on Tim. Deus 115." A comment on this assertion by the classicist Dillon would have been greatly appreciated. A. np&xov. see above on Deus 43. is essential here. esp. N o reference is given for the long passage quoted here. Deus 139.YXR\<. Par une tres curieuse ironie. for there appears to have been an interaction between interpretation of the Tim.IV THEi S T R U C T U R E O F P H U . The editors' reference to Plato's receptacle is sound. The comments on this important text are inadequate. A pure duplication of the discussion on p.: going back to Plato's image at Tim.'•" Deus 47. Dews 43." The subtletfes of this passage are missed here. 9p£(i. Is the conclusion warranted. Note the exploitation of an alternative etymology at Her. but there an unmixed draught is not for mor­ tals (what would Cazeaux make of this!). £Tto|jLJ3per: inspired by the "bread from heaven" in Ex. 91e.: a cross-reference to Her. " This is being excessively timid. pXaaxrinoc: adaptations of 77/r?. which was also that of the Stoics. Deus 175. and Thaet. is quintessential^ Philonic.399c is excellent. Whittaker's chapter on Philo in his important study.[ia. " P e r h a p s an adaptation .

no matter how learned and industrious he or she might be. in the hope that some helpful ideas may c o m e forward." who praxis moreover never theorizes about the methods o f his exegesis. not t o say the last word on the subject. It is important. that the last word has by no means said on the subject. Remarkably little research has been carried out in this a r e a . I believe. is greater in the case o f the second book than o f the first. however. F o r these results we must be grateful. result could so easily have been attained. It is undeniable that the venture o f an inter­ disciplinary project carried out by a team o f scholars has proved its worth. This we observed with the utmost clarity in the analyses presented by Cazeaux and Nikiprowetzky. They must be taken as no more than a response to the two books (and the seven Philonic treatises which these invite their readers to examine). This contribution. It will be readily conceded. The aim o f the brief remarks which I shall now append is. difficulty 1 3 5 and a great deal remains to be done. I shall begin with a few general remarks. to grant this would be being overly kind. The book shows such a manifest lack o f coordination and in­ tegration 133 that the sum o f the whole must be judged to be less than the 134 sum o f its parts. his can only be reconstructed through painstaking analyses o f the treatises as we have them. to start off by giving an outline o f the prin­ ciples on which the study and interpretation o f Philo's works should be based. The chief 6 is that Philo is very much a writer sui generis. needless to say. and the result cannot be said to be superior to the best commentaries on Philo produced h i t h e r t o . and then move quickly on t o a discussion o f the actual structure o f Philo's allegorical treatises.IV 236 paradigm o f what a commentary on Philo should be like? With all due respect for the valuable research which the work contains. in my view. The principles that need to be recog- . But the price paid for this diversification cannot be ig­ nored. T h e collaborative method o f the study allows a breadth o f scope that cannot be rivalled by the efforts o f a single c o m m e n t a t o r . T h e way one analyses the structure o f a Philonic treatise is necessarily to a large degree determined by the ideas one has on what Philo is trying to achieve and the way one thinks his writings should be read. The pity is that the aspired Ill Both studies reviewed in this article have made a contribution to our understanding o f the nature and formal structure o f Philo's exegesis.

The exegete must "break open" the secrets locked inside the text. or in order t o reconstruct a philosophical (or mystical) theory o f deeper insight or consistency. 138 We must attempt to understand Philo's explanations o f Mosaic philosophy as they stand before us. such as the raising o f an arcopia. It is wrong. 2. and must never be seen in isolation from that text. The interpretation that Philo gives o f a scriptural text conveys to us what he thinks his reader should know in order to understand that text. but Philo is above all concerned with the deeper. 137 The interpretations given by Philo are summoned forth by the biblical text. Moses' manner is cryptic. allowance is always made for the possibility that another exegesis—whether his own or put forward by . 4. for that would give his exegesis virtually the same status as scripture itself. The finality of the Philonic text. But "out­ side material" is also often required. And if the text is to have a deeper "philosophical" meaning. hence the need for c o m m e n t a t o r s . 1. therefore. whether in order to uncover a subterranean structure o f greater complexity and subtlety. Thus the reader o f Philo's works must always try to determine the relation o f his exegesis to the biblical lemma being commented on. in my view. Aspects o f the biblical lemma under discussion can be illumined by invoking other biblical texts con­ taining parallel words. a grammatical observation. "philosophical" meaning o f the text. His exegesis always retains a provisional element. Philo regards himself as a com­ mentator o f scripture. making due allowance o f course for the context in which the exegesis is given. whose task is to elucidate the meaning present in the Mosaic text. drawn in the main from Greek philosophy but having their ultimate source (according t o Philo) in Mosaic thought.THE STRUCTURE OF PHILO'S A L L E G O R I C A L TREATISES 237 nized when reading Philo's exegesis c a n . taking recourse to various interpretative techni­ ques. and so on. 3. This meaning is located at various levels. The meaning o f the Mosaic text is by no means immediately accessible. This is consequent upon the exegete's task o f expounding or explaining scripture. a diaeretic distinction. or for whatever other r e a s o n . phrases or ideas. be confined to four in number. the detection o f an anomaly. to attempt to get behind Philo's explanations. The modesty definitive of the Philonic text. The opacity of the biblical text. Philo does not aim to give the explanation o f Moses' hidden meaning. The primacy of the biblical text. its contents must be brought in rela­ tion to philosophical concepts and ideas.

or even determined. and the group De agricultura-De plantatione-De Allegorical Legum ebrietate-De The two extremes in this regard are clearly the In the former (especially books I and II) Philo adheres very closely to the main biblical text.-Deus shows with ad­ mirable clarity how the exegesis o f the main biblical text (Gen. The chief reason for this is that Philo is at times inclined to give a considerable measure o f independence to what we have called secondary exegesis in the composition o f his treatises. Philo generally invokes other biblical texts in order to cast more light on the main text. determines those treatises' macro-structure. it is above all the first two which are o f paramount importance if we are to understand the way in which the treatises are structured. Indeed it is quite fascinating to observe how the ratio between primary and secondary exegesis varies in the course o f the Commentary. A single text may be given two quite different interpreta­ tions. T h e primacy o f the biblical text entails that the structure o f a treatise is in the first place determined by the divisions o f the main biblical text. In the latter he manages to write well over a hundred pages on two verses o f scripture. by its context. One can thus speak o f primary subordinate exegesis. sooner or later. The opacity o f the biblical text entails that. which concentrates on direct exegesis o f the exegesis. Moreover the exegesis o f a par­ ticular scriptural text is often strongly influenced. these con­ tain a number o f key words. It is my conviction that. familiar to students o f his writings. 6 : 1 . depending on the context in which those interpretations are called forth. and o f secondary biblical lemmata full understanding o f the main biblical text (to which. the full connotations o f which are ex- . seldom making an excursion which in­ volves the invocation o f other biblical passages.IV 238 predecessors or colleagues—may be closer to the t r u t h . and to both the main biblical lemma and the subordinate biblical lemmata. we must pay close attention to both the primary ex­ egesis and the secondary exegesis. which the exegete interprets one by one. he always returns). after giving a preliminary ex­ planation o f the main biblical lemma. A llegoriae sobrietate.1 2 ) . Nikiprowetzky's analysis o f Gig. in unravelling the structure o f Philo's allegorical treatises. 140 Although all four o f the principles outlined above will need to be borne in mind during the reading o f Philo's treatises. phenomena of multiple exegesis and exegetical 139 Hence the so inconsistency. in fourteen divisions. which gives exegesis o f to the extent the exegete deems fit for the main biblical lemma.

T H E S T R U C T U R E OI P H I L O ' S A l l ECiORlCAL T R E A T I S E S 239

pounded with copious reference to other biblical texts. The procedure in Gig.-Deus falls in between these two extremes. One might be tempted to draw the conclusion that a development in method and style has taken place here."" But such a conclusion is not justified, for in the great allegorical treatises on A b r a h a m (De migratione tione nominum) Gig.-Deus. The task facing research on Philo's exegetical structures is first of all to make detailed analyses o f the diverse treatises, following the lead o f Nikiprowetzky (and before him Colson in the "analytical introduc­ tions" to his translations). The approach must be as empirical as possi­ ble, observing the actual praxis o f Philo's exegesis.


to De


Philo reverts to a procedure reminiscent o f that in

At the same time

an inventorization needs to be made o f the exegetical procedures which Philo habitually employs in the structuring o f his w o r k s . The four most important procedures, I would provisionally suggest, are the following: (1) citation o f the main biblical lemma; (2) brief paraphrase a n d / o r initial explanation o f the lemma (in which diverse exegetical techniques are used to "break open" the t e x t ) ; return to the main biblical text. The second of these procedures is naturally o f prime importance in determining the course o f the exegesis. If Philo begins his explanation with a diaeretic schema or the analysis o f a particular term, then this will largely determine the nature and the sequence o f the biblical texts used for illustratory purposes. Fine examples are found in the treatise De fuga et inventione, at 3ff., 119ff. and 177ff. But it is especially the third o f the above procedures to which I wish to draw attention. If it is true that the structure o f the allegorical treatises consists o f both primary and secondary exegesis, then the manner in which Philo links together main and subordinate biblical lemmata (and the one subordinate lemma with the next) is going to give us an important insight into the mechanics o f his structures. Such linking is effectuated by what I will call modes transition, which can be classified into two basic types. of

( 3 ) transition to secon­

dary biblical lemmata which illustrate and deepen the exegesis; (4)

1. The first type is a verbal mode o f transition. A word or phrase in the main biblical lemma catches Philo's attention and prompts him to recall another biblical passage where that same word o r phrase also oc­ curs. This passage is cited (or alluded to) and its themes interwoven in the discussion. The same mode o f transition can also occur between two subordinate biblical lemmata.


2. The second type is a thematic

mode o f transition. A theme or topic

raised in the main biblical lemma causes Philo to think o f another biblical text which contains the same theme or can be used to illustrate that theme. Once again this mode o f transition can o c c u r between two subordinate biblical lemmata. It should be noted, moreover, that the first type includes the method o f the second type, but not vice versa, for clearly, if two biblical texts contain the same word or phrase, then in Philo's eyes there will also be a thematic connection between them. W h e n reading and analysing some o f Philo's allegorical treatises I was forcibly struck by the number o f occasions on which he employs the first kind o f mode o f transition. The importance o f this verbal method of linking texts has certainly up to now not received the attention it deserves. Let me give two examples from Deus,
the main biblical lemma is cited, Ncoe eupe x<xp

the one straightforward
7 t a

and clear, the other dubious but nevertheless illuminating. (1) At § 1 0 4


Kupiw t & 6ec*> (Gen.

6:8; here in a retouched version, the actual biblical words evocvxiov xupi'ov T O U 9soG having already been given in § 8 6 ) . W h a t impels Philo to c o m ­ pare Noah with Moses ( § 1 0 9 - 1 1 0 ) and Joseph ( § 1 1 1 - 1 1 6 ) ? The subor­ dinate biblical lemmata are in fact E x . 33:17 (euprjxoci; y a p x<*ptv evcouiov

and Gen. 39:21 (e'Bwxev auxto x<*piv ivavxt'ov T O U apxiSearfxocpuXaxo?).

Clearly the verbal parallelism between these three texts has initiated the exegetical thematics o f this passage. U n a w a r e o f the m o d e o f transition, both Colson and Nikiprowetzky cite Gen. 39:1 only and fail to observe the clear paraphrase o f Gen. 39:21 in § 1 1 1 .
1 4 6

(2) The same main biblical

lemma (Gen. 6:8) is cited at §86. Concentrating on the word eupe, Philo distinguishes between eupeai? and aveupemc;. The example given o f the lat­ ter is the Nazarite ( N u m . 6, i.e. the subordinate biblical lemma). Is the method o f transition thematic or spiritual integrity ( § 9 0 ) . having begun
1 4 7

here? This is quite likely: the Nazarite, But it does seem a little odd that Philo, should illustrate it

after being defiled, reconsecrates his head and thus "refinds" his vow with a purely verbal distinction,

without reference to a verbal cue. The verb euptaxco occurs in Num. 6 on­ ly at v . 2 1 , where we read: ouxo? 6
Scopov aikoG xupico rcept

V O L I O C ;

v l

eu?ocuivoi>, bq a v euJjrrcai xupi'op
£ l


eGx?)?, X ^ P ^

& ^PXl "h X * P auToG x a x a 8uva{juv

xfjc; eux !? auxoG . . . Could it be that Philo read aveuprj, and that this reading prompted him to invoke the Nazarite as example o f a v e u p e c n ? ?

By applying all the elements so far outlined—the four principles, the adstruction o f both primary and secondary exegesis and both main and subordinate biblical lemmata, the four procedures (with particular at-


tention to the two kinds o f mode o f transition)—it should be possible, I believe, t o analyse a Philonic treatise in such a way that the reader gains some idea o f the framework and dynamics o f its structure. Remaining true t o the first principle outlined above, we shall above all try t o make transparent the skeleton o f the treatise, which consists o f the various biblical texts subjected t o exegesis. T h e example chosen as an illustra­ tion is the treatise Quod Deus sit immutabilis. or alluded t o ) in Two treatises [In what follows the debt to Nikiprowetzky's analysis (and especially his list o f biblical texts cited will be abundantly in evidence. T h e following abbreviations will be used: MBL SBL PIE MOT main biblical lemma subordinate biblical lemma paraphrase a n d / o r initial explanation mode o f transition]

S T R U C T U R A L A N A L Y S I S : Quod Deus sit »1 Citation M B L Gen. 6 : 4 §2


P I E meaning o f "after t h a t " and "engender for oneself" §4 S B L G e n . 2 2 : 2 - 9 example o f A b r a h a m and Isaac
[MOT v.13 thematic; but cf. v.8 6 0edc; otpexou eocuxtp and avrjveyxev — a v a y e i 0eeo]


S B L I S a m . L l l example o f Hannah and Samuel [MOT (and (and verbal: Samuel, meaning xexaynevoc; 0ecp, picks m o r e distantly the M B L aOxoic;); the cited text the etymology o f Hannah) also anticipates the up a v a y e i 0etp; 8i8cou.i a o i in the cited text reflects both

theme o f grace in § 1 0 4 - 1 1 6 , based on M B L Gen.6:8.] §6 S B L N u m . 2 8 : 2 Hannah follows the injunction o f
Moses [MOT verbal: 8i8<ou.i a o i — 8 t o p a , 8 6 ( x a x a . . .


S B L I S a m . 2 : 5 the nature o f the God-beloved ( H a n n a h ) [MOT thematic: monadic = blessed]


Return t o M B L cp0apxoT<; e a u x o t ? 9 0 a p x a yevvtoaiv cf. G e n . 6 : 4


S B L G e n . 3 8 : 9 Onan as illustration o f cpiXocuxioc [MOT
verbal: eauxoi? — oux a u x t o ]
1 4 9

Return t o M B L

oi yevvtovxe? atkoic; cf. G e n . 6 : 4


Citation M B L Gen.6:5-7 §21 §33 §34 §49 PIE the words ev£0u[X7]07)-cnevor|0r) in M B L should not be citation again o f Gen.6:6 citation once again o f Gen.6:6 thematic] taken to mean that God is subject to change Return to M B L Return to M B L §50 P I E explanation o f what eve0uLir|0T)-8ievofj07] in M B L means S B L D e u t . 3 0 : 1 5 , 1 9 p r o o f text, man can and must choose between life and death [MOT


Citation M B L Gen.6:7 §52 PIE §53 §54 how can it be said that God feels anger? SBLNum.23:19 S B L Deut.8:5 [MOT thematic, note that both texts quasi-independent are cited to justify Philo's systematic philosophical in­ terpretation, and do not lead t o developments] §69 §70 Return to S B L Gen.6:7 cited in shortened version Return to M B L PIE §74 §77


Citation M B L Gen.6:7-8 (i.e. problem Gen.6:7 not yet resolved) §71 metaphorical attribution o f anger to God brings out a S B L P s . 100:1 mixture o f mercy and judgment thematic:

vital truth [MOT verbal: cf. anger and grace in M B L ] recalls §74

S B L P s . 7 4 : 8 mixture theme continued [MOT ticipated]

where S B L an­ [MOT

§82 §85






thematic: multitude Gig AH.) §86 Citation M B L Gen.6:8 §86 PIE §87

— unmixed, huo — mixed] the single Noah opposed to Hannah above, and also

Return to M B L (but not cited) o f the unjust (cf.

finding (grace) compared with refinding S B L N u m . 6 : 2 , 5 , 9 , 1 2 Nazarite example o f [MOT thematic
eupfj aveupeat?

(but possibly verbal,

cf. Num.6:21 av [MOT ver­

— see above)]
eupeai? eupe


S B L G e n . 2 7 : 2 0 J a c o b example o f bal: cf. M B L (note that further verse also recalls Gen.6:8!)]

e v a v x i o v [xou

in the same of finding


S B L Deut.6:10-11





without §99





by oux

tpxo86fj.r]aav etc.] S B L Deut. 1:43-44 example o f seeking what one is not suited for, i.e. not finding [MOT thematic: based on 7tapaj3taaajj.£voi (but note the theme o f being given but not accepting (cf. Hannah again) in D e u t . l , esp. v. 2 0
o 6 xupio? 6 Geo? rjixcov Si'Scoeuv
O L U V ) ]


Citation M B L Gen.6:8 (already cited in §86) §104 P I E ..'the meaning o f "finding g r a c e " §109 S B L E x . 3 3 : 1 7 c o m p a r i s o n / c o n t r a s t Moses [MOT ver­ bal: euprjxa? x ^ P
l v



cited as euprjxai; x ^ P

t v


S B L Gen.39:21 contrast Joseph [MOT

verbal: eScoxev

x « p i v evavxCov xoG dpxiSecjLiocpuXaxo?, alluded to in
l v

§111 x ^ P

° ^ eGpiaxet xrjv dxtLua? d8o£ox£pav 7 t a p a xco


§116 §117

Return to M B L , but here as anticipation o f the lemma about to be cited

Citation M B L G e n . 6 : 9 §117 PIE §119 the offspring are meant as virtues o f the man pleasing S B L G e n . 3 7 : 2 contrast Joseph (cf. §111) [MOT
bal: ocuxou 8e oci yeveaeii; ' I a x c o P ' 'Itoar)9 cf.

to God ver­


Citation M B L Gen.6:11 §122 PIE §123 why does Moses straight away talk o f corruption? S B L Lev. 13:14-15 solution illustrated by example o f living §127 §131 §136 §137 §138 colour in the leper [MOT thematic (but [jtiavGriaexai perhaps recalled by e90dpr) in M B L ) ] S B L L e v . 1 3 : 1 1 - 1 3 continuation o f illustration, with a new p a r a d o x added [MOT thematic] thematic] S B L Lev. 13:34-36 continuation o f illustration, with a new p a r a d o x concerning the priest [MOT [MOT [MOT verbal: cited S B L I Kings 1 7 : 1 0 parallel case, Elijah and the widow verbal (but not made clear until §138)] c o m p a r e another widow, Tamar [MOT verbal: x^ipa in both texts] S B L Gen.38:11

S B L I King 17:18 return to the prophet Elijah in § 1 3 1 , i.e. both priest and

etofjXGec; is summoned by etaeXGovxa in the S B L prophet are

allegorized as the EXeyxo?]

244 §139 S B L I S a m . 9 : 9 - 1 0 prophets called both " s e e r s " and "men o f G o d " [MOT §140 §140 §141 Return to M B L PIE §145 §148 no grammatical mistake here, for flesh seeks t o cor­ S B L N u m . 2 0 : 1 7 - 2 0 the royal road through E d o m [MOT verbal: 68to recalls M B L ] further explication of S B L (the S B L Num.20:17 SBL §156 §157 §159 §181 verbal: dvGpooTOc; xou Geou in v. 10 recalls previous S B L ] Citation M B L Gen.6:12 rupt God's way

whole section §144-183 is based on exegesis o f the (and thus not o f the M B L ) , but other biblical [MOT [MOT texts are invoked for illustratory purposes) S B L Deut.28:12 m a n n a as divine nourishment thematic: thematic: S B L Gen.48:15 J a c o b ' s nourisher return to exegesis o f first S B L S B L Num.22:31 parallel example o f B a l a a m and first S B L ; also thematic Num.24:17-18] §182 §183 allusion rcaaaic to P s . 9 0 : 1 1 - 1 2 [MOT verbal d y y e X o t ? , ev by translating x a i ? 6801? aou] thematic: [MOT verbal: ev TTJ 68to (not cited by Philo) recalls both M B L because o f B a l a a m ' s association with M o a b , which is closer to E d o m , cf. is God contrast with ex Xdxxou a o u o f first S B L ] Geo? 6 Tpecpcov continues theme]

allusion to N u m . 3 1 : 8 [MOT

d7iexxeivcxv into \xr\ LxexaxpeTOLievoi; xto dvxi(3at'vovxt eXeyx°P 9Gopdv xTjv "fAexd xcov xpaujjiaxitov" auGis evSeijexou, Philo briefly recalls the M B L (xaxe9Gapii.evr) e t c . ) and con­ nects up the story o f Balaam (and E d o m ) with the theme o f § 1 2 1 - 1 4 0 ( & e y x o c ) ] N.B. no proper return to M B L at the conclusion o f the treatise.

It is the consequence o f the empirical method that we have advocated (above p. 2 3 9 ) that we can do no m o r e now than reflect on the validity and usefulness o f the results furnished by the example set out above (which, note well, represents but one o f the twenty-two allegorical treatises). The following comments would seem appropriate. 1. T h e nine main sub-divisions outlined by Nikiprowetzky (his quaes-




et solutiones)

have been shown to have a solid basis. But the

distinction introduced by us between primary and secondary exegesis is o f no less importance. Well over half o f the treatise is engaged in ex­ egesis o f biblical texts subordinated to the main biblical text G e n . 6 : 4 - 1 2 . There was in fact a good deal o f fluctuation in the ratio between the two kinds o f exegesis. In Deus 2 0 - 6 9 the exegetical problems raised by 121-183 vir­ Gen.6:5-7 are discussed with almost no references to other scriptural material. Philo is at his most systematic here. But in Deus tually no reference to the main biblical lemmata is m a d e at all, and it seems (although it is in fact not the case) that Philo has completely forgotten the chief task o f his c o m m e n t a r y . 2. T h e investigation o f Philo's use o f modes o f transition between the biblical texts he cites and explains was also illuminating. Fifteen o f these were solely thematic, but an equal number also involved the exploitation o f verbal parallelism. T h e consequences are two-fold. Firstly Philo pro­ duces in this way a strongly concatenated transition is either explicitly exegetical structure, for each easily motivated or its motivation is

perceived by the reader. Only when a return is made to the main biblical text does a clear break occur. Secondly Philo's method cannot but be the result o f a strong emphasis on the wording o f scripture, for at least half the time it is the actual word or phrase in the biblical text which causes him to call to mind another text which he can use for purposes o f deepening or illustrating his exegesis.

3. Philo's method o f structuring his treatises, based as it is on the association and concatenation o f biblical texts and exegetical and philosophical themes, requires at the very least an intimate knowledge o f the Pentateuch and a formidable m e m o r y .

But the possibility must

also be entertained that he made use o f a c o n c o r d a n c e o f some kind, which enabled him t o locate verbally parallel texts with precision and rapidity. A fine example o f such recourse to a c o n c o r d a n c e is, I suspect, the analysis o f the word exaxacuc; at / / e r . 2 4 9 - 2 5 8 . in relation to the views put forward by
1 5 2

Turning now t o m o r e general conclusions, we can evaluate our results Colson, Cazeaux of and free Nikiprowetzky. C a z e a u x decisively rejects any suggestion

association in Philo's structures, whereas Colson sees such association as the hallmark o f his method ( o r lack thereof). I think the truth is somewhere in between. T h e method o f concatenation which Philo employs can easily give the impression that it is the work o f a rambler. I would not wish t o absolve Philo from every trace o f unpredictability o r



in the construction o f

his exegetical

structures (as intent behind

Cazeaux does). But to accuse him o f a lack o f control definitely goes too far. This for two reasons. Firstly, there is a clear literary (presumably) conventional quaestio et solutio the enchaining o f his exegesis. Dissatisfied with the static quality o f the method, Philo introduces a dynamic element (i.e. movement through concatenation) in his ex­ egetical structures, though at no stage abandoning his direct concern with the biblical text that lies before him. Secondly, the enchaining is the direct consequence o f his chief hermeneutic assumption, namely that the scriptural logos beauty o f this logos, him.

forms a united, rational w h o l e .


Stunned by the

the exegete tries to bring into relief as much as he

can o f its unity and profundity, but the task is much too great for T h e big question that remains unresolved is the extent to which Philo aims at a thematic unity in an individual treatise. This time Nikiprowet­ zky and Cazeaux are directly opposed in their conclusions, the former finding no external or internal unity, the latter discerning an allpervading thematic c o h e r e n c e .

Once again a midway position looks

m o r e attractive. The verse-by-verse ( o r phrase-by-phrase) exegetical procedure results in a.piecemeal treatment o f themes and motifs, but the fact that a single scriptural passage controls the flow o f the exposition allows ( o r even necessitates) the repetition and elaboration o f thematic material. quate. In a well-known passage describing the exegetical practice o f the Therapeutae, Philo says that according t o these men the Mosaic legisla­ tion resembles a living being, the literal c o m m a n d s corresponding to the body and the deeper (allegorical) meaning to the soul! contains.
158 157 156

But much further research is required to substantiate this

verdict. T h e analysis o f Deus given above is in this regard quite inade­

The same im­

age can be applied to a Philonic treatise and the allegorical exegesis it But the details o f the image will have to be increased if is formed justice is to be done t o the complexities we have encountered in this arti­ cle. If the allegorical treatise is a living being, then its skeleton by the biblical texts which it expounds; some bones have a m o r e impor­ tant function than others, but all are required to provide the necessary support. T h e sinews and ligaments ques which he exploits. The flesh which hold the skeleton together are and bodily organs correspond t o the the exegetical procedures which the writer sets in motion and the techni­ exegetical themes and figures which give the exposition its conceptual



contours. The nervous


( o r , in Philonic terms, the soul)

is the

deeper philosophical meaning which pervades the whole. Most impor­ tant o f all is that the living being is alive. The continuing challenge o f Philonic studies—a task in which the great scholar to whose memory this article is dedicated set an example for all to follow—is to investigate the secrets o f that vitality and convey its power t o all those who show their eagerness to listen and learn.


Die Religion des Judentums in spatheltenistische Zeitalter (Tubingen 1926 ) 454; cited by V. Nikiprowetzky, "L'exegese de Philon d'Alexandrie" RHPhR 53 (1973) 311. This article contains a fascinating collection of critical judgments on Philo's writings. E . R. Dodds CQ 22 (1928) 132n.l: "Any attempt to extract a coherent systern from Philo seems to me foredoomed to failure; his eclecticism is that of the jackdaw rather than the philosopher." W. Theiler, Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus (Berlin 1930) 30: "Ein Schatten von Tragik streicht iiber sein Werk, wenn dieser Mann, unfahig den Sinn der Philosophic zu verstehen, geblendet von ihrem Lichte, die Schopfung seines Volkstumes nicht mehr natiirlich betrachten kann, hochstens hie und da fiir eigenes religioses Fuhlen einen echten Ausdruck findet." A. J . Festugiere, La Revelation d'Hermes Trismegiste (Paris 1945-54) 2.534: "On peut, helas, lire tout Philon sans rencontrer une seule reflexion originale qui denote quelque experience personnelle, rien qui ressemble au dialogue d'un esprit avec soi-meme au spectacle de la destinee ou des hom­ ines. Ce n'est jamais que du convenu, des banalites de manuel."



Philo Loeb edition vol. 1 (London 1929) x-xi. Forty-eight treatises in all, excluding the fragments. See my discussion of recent developments in Philonic scholarship in Philo of Alexan­ dria and the Timaeus of Plato (diss. Amsterdam 1983) 5-20 (revised edition to appear in the series Philosophia Antiqua (Brill, Leiden) in 1985). J . Cazeaux, La trame et la chaine: ou les structures litteraires et l'exegese dans cinq des traites de Philon d'Alexandrie; Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums X V ; E . J . Brill, Leiden 1983; xiii + 620 pp., price Hfl. 216. D. Winston and J . Dillon (edd.), Two treatises of Philo of Alexandria: a commentary on De gigantibus and Quod Deus sit immutabilis; Brown Judaic Studies 25; Scholars Press, Chico Califor­ nia 1983; viii + 407 pp., price US$ 15.
4 5 6


In 1965 Cazeaux had already published an annotated translation of this treatise in the series Les oeuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie (edd. Arnaldez-Mondesert-Pouilloux). The long introduction anticipates many of the insights and methods developed in his magnum opus. Because so much is crammed on every page, the book contains well over 300,000 words. The two volumes of H. A. Wolfson contain more pages, but there is much less on each page. ' Cf. Cazeaux, La trame et la chaine (henceforth TC) 1, 7, 27, 31, 220, 347, 585. Cazeaux TC 7: "II faut une fois suivre ligne a ligne les sinuosites du discours. Cette lecture suppose simplement qu'on adopte le postulat de l'unite et de la coherence:
8 10


248 l'analyse fera droit ou non a ce postulat; et la convergence des resultats constituera la preuve." I.e. the method adopted is deliberately circular. Cazeaux TC 1-7 (taking his cue from E . Auerbach), cf. 23-4, 27-8, 67, 79, 442, 533. Cazeaux TC 1,6,156 (against M. Harl, cf. 307), 163, 207, 220, 225, 262, 298, 356-80 (refusal of a digression) etc. " Cazeaux concedes that this method has affinities to the structuralism of Levi-Strauss and Dumezil, but insists that his analysis follows the paths of a "critique litteraire classique" (TC 24). Cazeaux TC 5-7, 12-13, 27 ("Philon concevait que le discours noue des fils multiples en un travail analogue a celui de la broderie."), 31, 78, 156 ("la variete d'une trame ne condamne pas a fragmenter la chaine"), 292, 347, 393, 490, 506-515 (analysis of Sacr. 81-85), 592. Examples at 60, 67, 107, 147, 198, 292, 321, 363, 421, 469, 493 etc. Cazeaux TC 60-64, 568-578 and passim. Cf. the "return" of which Colson speaks in the passage cited above (n. 3). Cazeaux TC 157, 498 (image of magnet), 503-5 and passim. Emphasis on symmetry at 328 f., 364-8, 484, 562-8 and passim. Cazeaux TC 39, 87,111,430, 541-2 etc. Cf. Cazeaux TC 33. The length of the "chapters" varies. Usually it is about twenty or thirty capita in Cohn-Wendland's text, but Her. 125-236 is also a single "chapter" (cf. 260ff.). See Cazeaux TC 363, 366.
11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2

Cf. Cazeaux TC 87, 363 (cradle), 92 (pivot), 93 (chiasmus), 105 (parabola), 198 (hinge), 351 (curve) etc. , Cazeaux TC 553-7 and passim. The central place of figures and constellations: 471-2, 584-6 and passim. The two poles Genesis and Exodus: 154-5, 179, 270, 295-303, 397, 513-4, 570, 585. Cazeaux TC 64-71, 203-5 and passim. See the discussion at 204-5, which brings Cazeaux's views into particularly clear focus. Cazeaux TC 143, 198, 340-5, 557-60 and passim. Cazeaux TC 261-309 and esp. 271-3 on §141-160. Cazeaux TC 307-9, 548ff. Examples at 55-6, 85, 95 (brevity of M/'gr.l06-8 has mystic significance), 154-5, 248-51 (movement), 347 ("Abraham caique a ce point de son histoire la pratique de l'exegete tout au long de sa carriere"), 376, 445 ("ce procede suppose une sorte de perfectionnement du disciple . . . " ) etc. It is surprising that Cazeaux does not theorize more on this aspect of his structuralist approach in the synoptic part of his study. Cf. Cazeaux TC 262 ("les etapes d'une decouverte religieuse"), 266 ("C'est l'etre d'Abraham qui s'y transforme . . . " ) , 305. Cazeaux TC 562-8. The image is found at 556-7. Cazeaux TC 33. Cazeaux TC 38. See Cazeaux TC 38-152 and a summary at 506-7. See Cazeaux TC 153-354 and a summary at 507-8. See Cazeaux TC 156, 260-309. See Cazeaux TC 355-380.
24 25 26 27 28 29 50 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4 0




See Cazeaux TC 381-474 and a summary at 508-510. See Cazeaux TC 475-499 and a summary at 510. Cazeaux TC 517-61. Cazeaux TC 32. The claim on p. 2 that this "lexicon of forms" can serve as a guide to the entire oeuvre of Philo is excessive. What about the quite different method and style of the Quaestiones, not to speak of the apologetic/historical and philosophical treatises. Cazeaux TC 32. Cazeaux TC 503-4, 510, 542, 559, 581. I have retained the French, lest a translation obscure the meaning. ' Cf. Cazeaux TC 207-8, 498, 503-5, 582. Cf. Cazeaux TC 8>10, 15, 17, 157, 592. Two examples: p. 237 on Her.&3, in support of the reading cpiXtas, which anticipates Deut. 13:6 quoted a little later; 486ff. on Mut.34, where the citation of Gen.5:24 clearly looks forward to the text Gen. 17:1 discussed in §39. E.g. the ordering of the 8 exempla of seeking without finding in Fug. 143-65 and the 5 meanings of izr\yr\ in Fug. 177-201. In both cases there is conscious ordering and progres­ sion. Cazeaux TC 33. Ibid. This image is not as modest as it might seem, for it implies that the single pebble in Cazeaux's slingshot is sufficient to topple the giant in his entirety! Of the 195 items in the Bibliography 9 are cited, and of these a third are the author's own. On the rare occasions that Cazeaux does refer to a fellow-scholar (e.g. 156 M. -Had, 307 A. J . Festugiere, 396 E . Starobinski, 407 E . R. Goodenough), a flood of light is thrown on his intentions. Also badly missed is a status quaestionis by means of which we can place Cazeaux's contribution in perspective. For example, given Philo's position as an upholder of a minority culture in Alexan­ dria, how can one assert that his allegory is "nullement le moyen d'une apologetique" (581, cf. 6)? Cazeaux TC 268. On this text see Runia op. cit. (n. 5) 117-9. A striking example of carelessness is the compilation of the index of authors' names, which in its l ' / pages contains no less than 8 different kinds of mistake or inconsistency. Other examples of what I would subsume under "disdain for detail": (1) At p. 143 a con­ trast is made between Homer and scripture. "Homere ne peut faire mieux: il doit passer le relais a Moise, lequel a dispose dans l'histoire de Samuel et de Saul les mots exacts . . . " Homer could of course never claim such prophetic powers. (2) p. 229 (cf. 308): "Vient ensuite une longue exegese du verbe «sortir», a partir de la reponse de Dieu: «Celui qui sortira de toi, c'est celui-la qui heritera de toi» (de Genese, ch. 15, v. 4 ) . Nous verrons dans le detail comment elle se subdivise, mais pour l'instant, reperons simplement que Philon profite du fait que le verset suivant reprend le meme verbe, « / / le fit sortir au-dehors et il lui dit: Leve lesyeux vers le ciel», pour faire des deux versets une sorte d'equivalence . . . " But since when are ifcXtuotzct.i and eHrryoq-Ev the same verb? Or did Philo write in French? (3) p. 493: " P a r un echange de fond qui rejoint les echanges formels que nous venons de reconstituer, le Dieu immobile, axpejiTOi;, «immuable» (debut du §28), est ce qui rend l'homme parfait egalement «immuable»—fcptmot; (a la fin du §24)." But man is only a T p £ 7 t x o ? if we accept a rather dubious emendation of Colson. Surely the reader has a right to be informed of this?
42 4 3 44 45 46 4 48 49 50 51 52 s3 54 55 56 57 2


He might of course argue that Philo is filling these well-known technical terms with his own meaning. Volkmann. We do not. On the shift of meaning of the word logos see the notes to the English (Colson LCL) and French (Measson Les oeuvres .t[xounevou? XOUI. . Greek declamation (Cambridge 1 9 8 3 ) 4 0 .3\-9. . wish to deny that Cazeaux TC 3 3 .7 . PEXEOI hi oiixw? 6 xt^twxepoi.7 3 ) . dvap[XOVtOU?. Runia op.5 . ) xo!. Note that according to some rhetorical theorists d^oBE^t? (which usually has philosophical connotations) can be an alternative for xaxao-xEori (cf. 4 3 8 . 4 3 4 . of salvation seems to me unPhilonic. (Leiden 1 9 7 7 ) is badly missed. Needless to say Cazeaux makes no attempt to research the rhetorical background of Philo's passage (all we find is the feeble note (n. Nikiprowetzky. OIXEIOIK. Philo merely says that each leading thought (x£9dXatov) has its own 60 appropriate arguments (xaxaaxEuaQ. x a x a a x E u d ? o u v t a x a x a t .5 .4 2 . 67 already cited in n. 5 1 4 is illusory.5 59 The whole passage needs to be taken into consideration. But Cazeaux means more. 3 7 7 . . By light. Cazeaux TC 1 5 7 . dxpi XEUxoxdxwv xscpaXaiwv X(ITI8EI? xporaiv xtvd vrjuaxoi. But surely such an adaptation would have to be indicated somehow or other.5 .£t<.. R. as we might have guessed. 8£?T|xai xa0d7t£p xpoxrjv d7to8£il. Most of the terms used appear to derive from the stasis-theory ("issues" of the case argued in the declamation). . But it is not so easy to TEXVT) pin his meaning down. 5 0 3 . One more point of detail: how Cazeaux can write (ibid. Jaubert. oT oxo7tov 7tpo9e(ji£voi xd (3eXr| rcdvxa Erc'auxov a9tevai £otx£v Xoyo? T) rcapwvxaf y a p xo XE<pdXatov. 1 . the following passage from the prjxoptxri of Apsinos (Spengler Rhet. EX uoiwv XOTCWV auyxEixat x a t x a x d n o t a . xaxaaxtud?. of course. and Cazeaux's distinction between them on p. 65 66 See further the discussion at Runia op. 64 Cazeaux TC 1 9 3 on Cazeaux TC Cf.Gr. La notion d'alliance dans le Judaisme (Paris 1 9 6 3 ) . Russell.oxwv. 3 8 0 ) : KEpi (iEV xwv cjxdaEwv xat xwv Exdaxr) E(X7ti7tx6vxwv XE9aXaiwv txavw? xot? 7tp6 T|[xwv XsXEXxat. ) translations. § 8 2 . 7ioixiX(xa civ (There follows a reference to Ex. cf. for an alternative cf.. A. Her. oxav xaxaaxeuri. xwv OJXOTCW (jiv 3 6 : 1 0 . A discussion with the important study of V.4 4 2 and esp.5 5 ) 3 8 7 . 3 0 ) "les xaxaaxEuat me paraissent un terme de logique . 5 9 2 .IV 2 5 0 58 See Cazeaux T C 5 1 1 ." is a mystery to me.cit. Ce «tout» n'est autre que l'unique Parole de Dieu dans la Bi­ ble. see now D. £x (jtuptwv ISEWV xpuo-ou xwv £. But the most important e^apixoaxiov xtva sentences (with crucial terms underlined) are: StatpEXEov ouv auxov eu.) "La systematique (les xaxaoxsuat du § 8 2 ) revient au «tout» qui a engendre les «divi- sions» a partir de lui-meme. xai Exdaxw xd<. 61 Le commentaire de VEcriture chez Philon d'Alexandrie " 63 585. (n. Cf. Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Romer (Leipzig 1 8 7 4 ) 1 3 5 ) . x £ 9 a X a t a 7ipoT]you[XEva. vuvi S E ISwfXEV auxd xd xuptwxaxa [ = 7tpor)youfAEva?] xwv XE9aXaiwv. " ) . It is evident that Philo's discussion of the division of the logos is based on Greek rhetorical theory (on the importance of Siaipsati.9 3 .cit.tatv£xw<. light (New Haven 1 9 3 5 ) 9 3 . 4 7 7 . . 2 7 . xd Xeyofxeva E(jutt7txovxa. dyaGoui. fi. 2 0 3 . there are important parallels between Philo and the Rabbis in their methods of exegesis. XEXEatoopyEtxat. 68 A. Thus the two terms in Philo's text are doubtless meant as synonyms. The antithesis between history of creation and history 4 2 6 . Clearly Philo's text merely serves as a springboard for Cazeaux's own ideas. 5 9 4 . 1 7 8 .

THE STRUCTURE OF PHILO'S A L L E G O R I C A L TREATISES 251 6 9 I cannot agree with the view that the Biblical characters during the process of substitu­ tion retain their individuality. Cazeaux TC 585. To the point of excess from the stylistic point of view. Bokser. Fortschritt und Vollendung bei Philo von Alexandrien (Leipzig 1938). 363. Cazeaux could have learnt much here from the classic study of W.1 (1984) 156-226.cit. [my emphasis]" 82 83 84 Cazeaux TC 355-80. Cazeaux TC 510.cit. so important in Greek philosophy. J . The characteristics I just mentioned sometimes have the effect of obscuring as much as embellishing the intended meaning. Notre lecteur trouvera sans doute dans nos analyses — et dans Philon — une maigre provision. et quelle que soil. On p. 5) 351. 85 86 Winston and Dillon Two treatises (henceforth TT) vii. 475-99. (n. the "subtilke" of Philo's exegesis or Cazeaux's interpretation is affirmed on 51 of these pages! Cazeaux TC 492. Leopold. V. "L'exegese de Philon d'Alexandrie dans le De Gigantibus et le Quod Deus sit Immutabilis". quelles que soient les influences que nous pouvons par ailleurs deceler. 12-17 really be prepared to learn anything from Philo's exegesis? Cazeaux TC 503: " L a plupart des ouvrages cherchent a fournir une sorte de nourriture a l'esprit. peut-on oser dire. varied. Gooding. T. il est vrai que par elle nous pensons rejoindre sinon l'intention formelle de l'Alexandrin. Not that their historicity is in any way denied. (n. Celui qui les lit retient des notions dont il grossit le bagage de ses connaissances. 61) 22. to any real degree remains Abraham. See Nikiprowetzky op. that Abraham. Volker. 80 81 79 Cazeaux TC 29. or. Another possibility now available is to consult the exten­ sive summary of his position which Cazeaux gives in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt II 21. = TT 5-75. son hypothese reelle. T. But on p. Cazeaux TC 422. Wallis. At 585 he goes so far as to speak of the "exactitude" of Philo's understanding of scripture. 400 and 595 I kept count. D. The remaining scholars were B. [his emphasis]" A remark made in an earlier article in HE A 18 (1972) 292 is even more frank: "Peu importe a la limite la justesse de Interpretation ultime que je propose de ce texte particulier. mais ses presupposes. Cazeaux TC 581: "L'image du livre fait et defait n'est qu'un symbole. " Incidentally the only text in the Pentateuch in which this word. 5-7 Nikiprowetzky is curiously hesitant to draw this conclusion. Nikiprowetzky. Between p. when being explained via Jacob or Moses. ce qui n'est pas Pessentiel. une intention expresse de I'auteur. it is simply not important for the purposes of the allegorical interpretation. R. Runia op. The style of the book is literary." 70 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Cazeaux TC 2. L'organisation meme de la matiere parle pour elle-meme et exige une lecture nouvelle. I do not consider myself in a position to judge it. Conley. is found. which is a handicap for a work of scholar­ ship. rich. 54 he 87 88 . Cf. Cazeaux TC 511-4. But would a modern-day commentator on Gen.

89 91 Nikiprowetzky TT 7. 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 . 90 Cf. Nikiprowetzky TT 8. The Anon.70. E. so we can think of a cabinet which has various drawers which can be pulled open at will (and in which you never know what you will find . Nikiprowetzky TT 16. Dews 21. Nikiprowetzky. Actually there are 63: the biblical texts quoted by Philo at Gig. 106 105 . Nikiprowetzky TT 54. in the use of quotation marks. which in the mss. 4 (1976-77) 1-16 (see now also P. Dillon TT 84.g. Skarsten. Cf. 58 and Deus 140 have been inadvertently omitted. just as a "piece a tiroirs" is a "comedy in episodes". also furnishes interesting evidence. "Philo's Bible in the De Gigantibus and the Quod Deus sit Immutabilis"..70. J . But "tiroir" literally means a "drawer". the many observations in the notes and "notes complementaires" (59-75). Class. pro­ ceeding approximately verse by verse (with exceptions.Phil.) and might have easily been divided into two separate treatises (e.Comm. Gooding TT 119-125.g at Gig.54. his own article on Harpocration's Commentary on Plato in Calif.cit. (n. e.141. also has a double title (Ile. x a i MPI xfj? ei? t a i'aa x a i tvav-ua ~ZO\IF\I. "" E. Punite interne existe si peu que . §1-124.g. 61) 170-180). It is a remarkable fact that no systematic study has ever been made of the relation be­ tween exegesis of the same biblical texts found in the Quaestiones and the remaining exegetical works. I take him to mean a quaestio in episodes. "The formal structure of Philo's allegorical exegesis".1 (1984) 134ff. Stud. esp. 1.252 states: " E t . "Quaestiones et Solutiones: some observations on the form of Philo's exegesis" Stud. ) ." Compare a treatise such as Her. ° We can infer from an introductory note that the chapter was not originally part of the project. = TT 77-87. 107 the quotation of Aucher's version of QG 1. Ant. Nikiprowetzky here develops ideas already aired in his monograph (op.55. Cf. But some adaptation might have been possible. p. Unlike Cazeaux. 6:1-12). Two typing errors in Nikiprowetzky's contributions may con­ fuse the reader: p. Nikiprowetzky TT 54-58. Nikiprowetzky makes frequent references to the results of Philonic scholarship. 4 (1971) 125-146. a = TT 89-125. Dillon. D.86. in the lists of Jerome and Suidas this actually occurs). Nikiprowetzky has no difficulty in showing how carelessly Philo's editors have dealt with his references to the biblical text.g. The various observations made by Nikiprowetzky represent an important start.. Borgen and R. etait un seul traite. 125-316. Deus 1. 27 last line should read §20-50. omission of a verse (6:10) or repetition of the same verse (Deus 51.). .92 should read filios. Gooding and V. reellement. but always in order to benefit his reader and without a trace of pedantry.0 101 102 103 104 92 Comparison of Nikiprowetzky's structural analysis in TT 9-53 with his list of cited biblical texts at TT 91-118 shows that every one of his 14 quaestiones et solutiones begins with the citation of a part of the biblical passage being commented on (Gen. Borgen in ANRW II 21. He has in the meantime received corroborative support from P. TOO T I ? 6 tcov 6eicov IAII XXT)POV6(JIO<. son absence a peut-etre ete responsable de la scission en deux ecrits distincts de ce qui.104. . Theaet.

Wallis' article has been slightly altered at a few points. The notes of Winston's article have been shortened. p. Conley TT 174.-Deus is no more than incidental to their purpose as a whole. "Philo's doctrine of Free will". "Quaestio. = TT 141-154. i. (1889). 3 (1974-75) and in Protocol Series of the Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Studies (Berkeley) 13 (1975). But discussion of passages in Gig. the angel as &ktyx i §'83 recalling the priest and prophet in §131-139.31 discloses a bad case of parablepsis in Wallis' chapter: on p. T. why is the widow of Zarephath chosen as an illustration in Deus 136? (The point of the criticism here will become clearer in the third part of this article. "il faut formuler ici la Quaestio en la construisant a partir de la solutio qui en resout les difficultes"). il n'en est rien") etc. but can be taken too far.) "' E. 210 after "man's moral life" (line 20) the following words must be added. D. a v a x e p d o T T c a t in Deus 74 clearly anticipates d x p d x o u xepdanaxo? in the text cited in §77. = TT 217-227. All these nonetheless have bodies. 2). "Characteristics of Philo's style in theDe Gigantibus and Quod Deus". J . "Rhetoric and allegory". 40 at TT 258: "Geo? here should properly refer to God's logos. R. Festugiere (see above n. This is a welcome correction of the excesses of Cazeaux. "° E. Cf. In fact the chief difference between Philo's Quaestiones and his running commen­ taries is that in the former he almost never invokes other biblical passages and texts to il­ lustrate his exegesis. 6ff. Leopold TT 163-170.e. Nikiprowetzky wishes to emphasize the independence of each quaestio et solutio (cf. and in particular by A. "Philo's knowledge of rhetorical theory". 109 112 0( m 6 118 108 T.g. "where he definitely appears original is in conceiving the £Xerx°?» times.THE STRUCTURE O F PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 253 E. " Leopold TT 135. Two examples. = TT 137-140. '" See above n. Comparison with Stud. 10 on Gig. the illustration of Joseph's career used in both Deus 11 Iff.Phil. "II n'y a d'autre lien entre cette partie et la partie precedente que celui qui est fourni par le texte scripturaire commente. 3. '" Leopold TT 151. En realite. Dillon.. however. = TT 207-216. = 155-170. "Philo's doctrine of angels". = TT 181-195. = TT 129-136. 20 (1976). A mistake made especially often by French scholars. 6 (p. rather than to God himself. 38. "' TT 137-140.. 10. "Philo's use of topoi". "The idea of conscience in Philo of Alexandria". Deus 86 (p. = TT 171-178. Very little research has been carried out on this subject since the monograph of Siegfried (1875) and Cohn's edition of Opif.3. Leopold." It certainly does refer to the level of the Logos (and 125 126 124 . "Philo's vocabulary and word choice".").41d6.g. Cf. = TT 197-205.g at Gig. and 119ff. Conley. But I have found no evidence in these treatises to corroborate the "teleology on a grand scale" envisaged by Cazeaux. Philo already knows he is going to use that text. Both were previously published in Stud. Winston. Wallis. "The nature of God in the Quod Deus". "" J . the remark on Gig. Phil. 120 121 122 123 a t " 9 J . 77m. where the components of man's soul are less d x r i p a x a than those of the World-soul or the heavenly bodies.

it is better to read a scholar's own words if possible. also feels joy. sometimes to Quod Deus.cit. both pur and pyr are found. distinguishing between five different kinds of exegetical commentary (cf. 225-6 and n. 29ff. rather irritating.g. but according to the Preface the contribution of Nikiprowetzky was also con­ siderable. 17 (Starobinski-Safran). we find only three studies of direct relevance. to my mind. 231-233. a number in the French translation series (esp. See also the remarks above on p. 24 (Daniel). who in this way can put forward a most convincing explanation for Philo's "scepticism". also id. 28 (Petit). 150. 6:2 & 4.e. 209 1 find ugly). 10-11). At any rate it is better first to examine Philo's actual praxis than to try to "explain him" by straight away adducing numerous parallels and/or investigating presumed source usage. observes parallels between Philo. I. But the lack of uniformity in so many other things is unnecessary and. M. 234. 127 128 129 130 131 132 I have said nothing of the numerous inconsistencies of a minor sort. I to Ebr. A full discussion is found in ibid. In Studien zu Philon von Alexandreia (Breslau 1929) 1-67..). The remarks on Philo's vocabulary and language (e. first use of words.1 (1984) 132-138).37c7). The main authors are the book's editors. but in the chapters of Leopold and occasionally elsewhere it is transliterated (also without uniformity. 135 134 133 Because Philo is the only representative of the allegorical exegesis practised in Alex­ andrian Hellenistic Judaism who has survived. Three examples: (1) Greek is copiously used throughout the book. 23 (Nikiprowetzky). 1:2 in Opif. in the end. elegchos on p. 82-83. Whether there are important parallels with the methods and structures of Rabbinic exegesis is. vols. the second treatise is sometimes abbreviated to Deus. in his study Bread from heaven: an exegetical study of the concept of Manna in the gospel of John and the writings of Philo (Leiden 1965).cit. In addition to the studies mentioned in n.cit. 17-20. 90 and incidental remarks in prefaces to translations and commentaries. (n. (3) Gooding uses an idiosyncratic method of referring to the sections of Philo's treatises which we find nowhere else in the book. 138 139 1 4 0 137 136 . (n. The decision to publish the results of research in two languages was sound. adduced on p. 222. Nikiprowetzky op.g. "Philosophical" in the broad meaning intended by Philo. Cf. ANRWW 21. Winston and Dillon. E. and Gig. still an open question.254 not to God as TO 6'V)! But admittedly the precise relation between God and Logos is dif­ ficult to pin down in a straightforward formula. 61) 183-192. and the commentaries on the political works by Box and Smallwood. though very useful. cf. do become rather tedious. P. hapax legomena etc. 61) 100-102. John and Palestine midrashim in the ex­ egetical method and structure of the individual pericope (cf. "Commentary". when he observes what a marvellous cosmos he is making (7w7. On the third study see below n. 15 (Had). Note that the Platonic demiurge. Adler examines the literary form of Philo's allegorical treatises from Leg. = TT 231-358. Could they not have put in­ to lists and placed as an appendix to the discussions at TT 137-140? See Runia op. Borgen. 22 commented on above on p. the exegeses of Gen. 5) 133-134 on Opif. Nikiprowetzky op. 16 (Alexandre). (n. Compare TT 107 and 236 on Philo's reading of the L X X text in Gen.

Sandmel. 21 (elsewhere only at Mut. 237 in the second principle. Cf. the interpretation of which does not lend itself very well to the example of aveupeat?. Note that we con­ sidered diaeresis to be no more than one of these techniques. Philo of Alexandria: an Introduction (New York 1979) 14-15. it seems. But the centrality of exegesis. I to Ebr. after some brief remarks on Agr." aou. 16 eupr)xa x«ptv 146 147 148 149 1 5 0 151 145 l v £t tv t v 144 Cf.. Borgen A NR WW 21. Essays in honour of W. Greeks and Christians ." Cf. . Besides the main quotation from the Pentateuch (the text). Hamerton-Kelly and R. <xuxa> at 95. Chris­ tiansen. notably by I.THE STRUCTURE OF PHILO'S A L L E G O R I C A L TREATISES 255 "" The conclusion of Adler. Hamerton-Kelly points to the importance of the exegetical method of gezereh shawa (inference by analogy).cit. euprjxwi. "" I would distinguish here between (formal) procedures in the explanation of texts and techniques by means of which these texts are "broken open" and explained. as an "eman­ cipatory process" in which Philo gradually wrenches himself away "von dem Zwang den Worten der Bibel gehorsam zu folgen" and makes his hands free "zu einer selbstandigeren schriftstellerischen Leistung" (op. D. but rather that one should not straightaway attempt to defend a preconceived theory (as Adler did). who sees the development from Leg. He is. 1 might say in my defence. 6:4.-Ebr.59. Ex. Scroggs (edd. x<*P evavxiov 7 i a p d aot. the ex­ ploratory remarks of R. not layers of concealed doctrine. also CohnWendland 2. 43-59 he concludes: "In all these cases the scriptures are introduced. (and also Somn. S. of course. 13 eupT)xa x*P evavxiov aou. Hamerton-Kelly. Nikiprowetzky inconsistently reads auxw at TT 26. 112 (cf.-Plant.) the method of ex­ egesis adopted allows more room for a thematic structuring of the treatises. Cf. 17. Jews. But Philo does not refer to v. the principles outlined above). "Some techniques of composition in Philo's allegorical commentary with special reference to De agricultural in R. Colson ad loc). v. 220). this exposition can also be identified as a united whole by the similarity between the opening and concluding statements. Nikiprowetzky's remarks at TT 39. v. 33:12 x<*P t'x ? totp'e^oi. (n. is by no means diminished. This emphasis on the wording of the text seems to me the result of hermeneutic assumptions found in Jewish rather than Greek (philosophical) exegesis. there afe subor­ dinate quotations. 78-95. By "empirical" here I do not mean that one should start out without any views on the role of exegesis in Philo's work (cf. So it may well seem that I am sinning against my own third principle here! But we are reconstructing associations in Philo's mind. or (very ex­ cusably) got the various formulations a bit muddled. Die Technik der allegorischen Auslegungswissenschaft bei Philon von Alexandrien (Tubingen 1969). Philo may have read tvavxiov aou in v.. Some ex­ amples of the latter are given above on p. Philo alludes to and does not cite this verse because in his exegesis he wants to pass over the embarassing fact that the Lord gives Joseph grace in the eyes of the chief jailer. 135) 47).). the former must be right. its importance for the understanding of Philo's exegesis has been greatly exaggerated. On p. 142 Cf. especially that of subordinate biblical texts. If Adler had analysed the whole Allegorical Commentary he would have been forced to abandon this conclusion. correct to observe that in Agr. 56.1 (1984) 137: "The structure [of a longer form of direct ex­ egesis] shows the following characteristics: A quotation from the Pentateuch is followed by an exegetical paraphrase which determines its exposition. Davies (Leiden 1976) 45-56. But given the context and the reading of the reflexive pronoun in Gen. not because of an analogy of thought but because of a verbal analogy.

Cazeaux TC 3 2 . 4 and the fourth principle above on p. Cf.cit. 9 3 . 2 2 7 . QG 3 . 7 8 (cf. 2 3 1 and n. (n. the criticisms above on p.1 1 2 . 1 1 1 . Compare the Middle Platonists. 3 ) . See above p. One might compare Plato. 155 156 158 154 . Opif.256 In this passage Philo cites 4 of the 5 instances of the word exoraois (and 4 of the 8 in­ stances of the corresponding verb i%iarr\\i\. Cf. who adopted the method of explaining Plato via Plato on the assumption that their master had produced a coherent body of doctrine.). who is convinced that the whole conceptual world can be mapped by means of the method of diaeresis. 5 ) 401 f. but gets no further than giving a few examples. Migr. arranged in a four-fold diaeretic classification. 2 3 7 . Contempt. see Runia op. 151 152 Cf.

Secondly. with a group o f interested students. The procedure which I intend t o follow in this article is not dissimilar (siparva licet) t o the method used by Aristotle t o such purposeful effect in his school treatises. to apologize for returning to the subject o f the structure and organization o f Philo's allegorical treatises.V FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON T H E STRUCTURE OF PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES* In a previous article published in this journal I made a number o f comments on the structure o f Philo's allegorical treatises. This is even more indispensable if we should make the attempt to read a Philonic work with others. Finally. and in relation t o the dominant Greek culture with which he was so well a c ­ quainted. And yet this area o f investigation is vitally important for at least three reasons. e. I shall c o m m e n c e by presenting the results o f research carried out on the subject so far. That article began with an evaluation o f two stimulating studies devoted t o the analysis o f individual Philonic treatises. our understanding o f what Philo was endeavouring to achieve in his allegorical interpretation o f Moses will be increased if we gain some in­ sight into the structural mechanics o f those treatises in which his maturest allegorical ideas are presented. In the present article I wish to present some further observa­ tions on the same subject. T o start with. The observations put. this subject can help us gain an improved view o f the ever-controversial issue o f Philo's Sitz im Leben. A n examination o f these 1 . There is no need. it is going t o help us in the practical task o f reading and studying these works if we have some idea o f what Philo's aims and methods were in composing them.g. very little scholarly attention had been devoted to it. as we shall soon see. forward in the final section took the results o f these studies as their point o f departure. I believe. both with regard t o his place within the Judaism o f his day. Until recently. this time approaching the problems involved from a m o r e general perspective.

3 sit as the example. preliminary research tasks essential to such an enterprise have not yet been carried out. Thanks to the labours o f David Winston. This is. But I now regret having focussed on it alone. T h e choice has been made on purely practical grounds. for the time being at least. to the exclu­ because it has become increasingly clear to me that the two treatises were composed as a single literary unit. either by other Philonic scholars or by myself. it is surely surprising that the subject o f the formal and thematic structure o f these treatises had until quite recently received very little scholarly at­ tention. I. and they in turn form the point o f departure for the rest o f the article. The pioneering study o f M . J o h n Dillon and their research team. will have to be more modest.V 106 results leads to a number o f aporemata. As will soon become clear. I a m first and foremost thinking o f that long sequence o f biblical commentaries which in modern scholarship has c o m e to be known as the Allegorical Commentary. it is now the allegorical work we know best. not to deny of the Law and the Commentary Quaestiones. In my previous article I used Quod Deus immutabilis sion o f De gigantibus. Adler had met with only a limited . the obvious fact that allegorical exegesis also occurs in Philo's other two exegetical sequences. Status quaestionis Given the daunting productivity o f Philonic scholarship and the cen­ tral place occupied by the allegorical treatises in Philo's ceuvre. o f course. If these observations help readers o f Philo to understand better what Philo is doing in the treatises they are reading. their aim will have been more than fulfilled. the Exposition But these treatises have a rather different structure. O f the twenty-one treatises in the I have chosen the double-treatise De Deus immutabilis sit as the example o f Philonic exegesis on which my observations will focus in particular. It needs to be said at the outset that when I speak o f Philo's allegorical treatises. This article will presuppose an acquaintance on the part o f the reader with the con­ tents o f the entire double-treatise. W h e r e my procedure em­ phatically differs from that o f the illustrious philosopher is that it can­ not be the aim to present a comprehensive and definitive account o f the nature and structure o f Philo's allegorical treatises. Our ambitions. the relation o f which to what we find in the Allegorical Commentary 2 falls outside the Allegorical gigantibus-Quod scope o f this article.

each basically representing a quaestio the quaestiones et solutiones et solutio and running parallel to 1. It was not until the 1970's that scholars turned their attention to the various problems involved. though their greater c o m ­ plexity shows that they are meant for a reading public. such as drcopfjcieie 8'dv xic. I believe. Philo. The monographs o f H . . to the late Valentin Nikiprowetzky. otix drco CTXO7COG xi 8 r j 7 t o x e .89-99. The Commentary cedure. Jie had occasion to look at the context and composition of Philo's exegetical treatises. as was analysed in my previous article. 8 located in QG Seen in this perspective. In his magisterial study. the work has a coherent and logical structure. Thyen). Not long before his death. in Nikiprowetzky's view. 5 4 1. Borgen and R. nor a faithful reproduction o f preaching activity in the et Synagogue solutiones (Volker. which. Nikiprowetzky returned to the subject he had earlier broached. Between the various sub­ divisions the French scholar perceives a good measure o f discontinuity. if it had been written in English could have carried the title 'Prolegomena to the study o f Philo'. Skarsten in a penetrating article. .O'S A L L E G O R I C A L TREATISES 107 response. Thyen and I. which is an expanded alternative for the basic Bid xt o f the Quaestiones. But there is clearly a connection with the exegetical a c ­ tivity that took place in the Synagogue. he at­ tempted. . Asked to contribute a structural analysis to the Gig. and not as the result o f thematic or conceptual unity. Christiansen also failed to rouse greater interest in the subject.-Deus c o m m e n t a r y . T h e formal aspects o f the parallels in method between the 7 represents an elaborated form o f the same b a s i c ' p r o ­ Quaestiones and Philo's other exegetical works were further investigated by P . These are not the product o f compilation of exegesis practised in the exegetical schools o f Alexandria (Bousset). for the most part successfully.PHll. . is an 'auteur clair'. Particular emphasis was placed on Philo's use o f certain formulas. The Quaestiones in Genesim et Exodum faithfully mirror the question and answer Allegorical 6 method used for exegesis in the Synagogue. Nikiprowetzky Credit for a breakthrough cannot unfairly be given. to show that the structure o f the work is based on a sequence o f 14 sub-divisions o f the Biblical text. But note that this coherence is presented precisely in terms o f the basic structure.

Hamerton-Kelly could explain to his own satisfac­ tion the composition and structure o f the De agricultura. not only on the level o f ideas. Suffice it to say that he argues the total and unconditional coherence o f the structure o f Philo's allegorical treatises. in the way he constructs the allegorical treatise De agricultura.e. but rather moves at a 'sub­ terranean' level. i. 9 Robert Hamerton-Kelly undertook to show how Jewish and Hellenistic cultures blended in Philo. 10 It emerged used by Philo was based on verbal T h e response o f the scholarly world to Cazeaux's novel and provocative a p p r o a c h must be awaited. that the form o f gezerah shawa analogy rather than analogy o f thought. In the space o f two years he has pub­ lished not only the massive study on Philo's literary structures reviewed in my previous article. By demonstrating the role o f these two techniques. In other Philonists it may strike a m o r e responsive c h o r d . after decades o f hard labour. The Jewish side is articulated by means o f a comparison with the traditions o f midrash. use o f the method or technique o f diaeresis but her claim that the whole allegorical method is based on it is a patent exaggeration). J a c q u e s Cazeaux has entered a period o f harvest. My own critique was. The Hellenistic side comes forward in Philo's (as shown by Christiansen. but also two shorter accounts based on the results o f the larger work. it cannot be denied. but also on the level o f literary composition. as well as another study in which two additional Philonic treatises are analysed at considerable length. . It is not my intention to give another summary o f C a z e a u x ' s thesis. It is o f paramount importance to re­ cognize that the exegetical 'deep-structure' which Cazeaux postulates is not developed on the surface o f the text.V 108 2. " both founded on the assump­ tion o f the unity o f scripture. By means o f the twin prin­ ciples o f substitution and r e d u n d a n c e . Philo is able to achieve complex and elaborate structures o f meaning. rather negative in some o f its conclusions. one o f the seven middoth egetical norms attributed to Rabbi Hillel. 3. Hamerton-Kelly In an exploratory article which has been undeservedly neglected. gezerah shawa and in particular the technique o f or ex­ (inference by analogy). Cazeaux It would appear that. a procedure that imitates the 'slowness' o f the biblical text and is quite inimical to the discursive rationality o f Greek thought.

it was hoped that it would be possible to reconstruct the history o f exegesis developed in the Alexandrian S y n a g o g u e . It should be further observed that M a c k ' s a p p r o a c h shares some c o m m o n ground with the structuralist views o f C a z e a u x . In the first article this suggestion is worked out with reference to the single lemma given ex­ egesis in Sacr. a brief account o f a saying o r action on the part o f a well-known historical figure) may have served as a model for Philo in his exegesis (i. and in so doing Philo makes extensive use o f the methods o f rhetorical elaboration. is that it imposes the techniques o f a speech genre on Philo's text. ture o f the single Philonic treatise o r part t h e r e o f .V PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 109 The reader himself experiences this movement as he proceeds through the treatises. but it is necessary t o begin by noting an important development in his thinking. Instead the process o f moving logically from one set o f signs t o another creates a space. analysis o f the entire treatise De sacrificiis. according to Philo as read by M a c k .e. Betz in an unpublished critique. and it is there . In the famous paper that formed the basis o f the Claremont Research Project he encouraged a certain atomization o f Philo's ex­ egesis. rather than the c o m ­ mentary genre that one would naturally expect. But has this made him any mpre accessible? 4. however. elaboration) o f the Mosaic scriptural lemma. is encoded. put forward by H . M a c k suggests that the elaboration o f the chreia (i. By excavating the various exegetical layers present in the 12 treatises. Most o f his work is relevant. By following the signposts that Philo conceals in his ex­ egetical structures. D. It is above all the complexity and intricacy o f Cazeaux's structural analyses—in his magnum opus 140 diagrams are needed to elucidate them—that must astound the reader. Philo the disorganized rambler is replaced by Philo the supreme structural orchestrator. Mack Another scholar who has made highly creative and stimulating con­ tributions to our subject is Burton M a c k . 1-10. he completes a spiritual itinerary parallel to those o f the Patriarchs recorded in scripture. in the second article it is further extended to an A n objection to this attempt. the emphasis shifts to the coherent struc­ Scripture. The logic o f analogy and elaboration is not intended t o lead the reader t o a single conceptual grasp o f a system o f truth.e. The task o f the exegete is to decode it. 13 In two more recent papers.

'It is with process as an experience that Philo has achieved some­ thing remarkable.V 110 that the 'truth' resides. that Philo must be seen as an exegete. but since it forms part o f work done in recent research. 15 Its chief concern was to draw at­ tention to the fact—also exploited by Cazeaux." 4 5. Giovanni Reale o f Milan. Radice Also south o f the Alps valuable research is being carried out on Philo. In an analysis o f Deus it could be shown that the transitions from the one text to the next are in about fifty per cent o f cases based on verbal parallels in the actual text. in interpreting the main biblical text on which the treatise focusses its concern. especially in the circle around P r o f . on which the flesh o f its allegorical contents is draped. Just recently an Italian translation o f six Philonic treatises (including latest (and very thorough) bibliographer. This reveals the strong emphasis Philo places on the actual wording o f scrip­ ture. and not as a 16 Gig. habitually feels the need to invoke secon­ dary texts from elsewhere in the Pentateuch (and rarely from other biblical books) in order to elucidate the deeper meaning o f Moses' words. no Secondly he agrees with Cazeaux that there are strictly speaking digressions in the allegorical treatises.- Deus) has been published. Firstly he insists philosopher. It contains an introductory section by Philo's Radice begins with two interpretative postulates. The conceptuality is in fact very difficult to spell out. 6. O f particular in­ terest was the question o f what actually determines the choice o f these secondary biblical texts. but in a quite different way—that Philo. one or two indications will have to be given. All these texts form as it were the skeleton o f the treatise. How then can we explain the . while in the remain­ ing fifty per cent they are motivated by thematic considerations. But the vitally important question o f whether Philo imposes a con­ ceptual and thematic unity on his treatises had to be left unresolved. Roberto R a d i c e . This is the way in which the process o f following the elaboration becomes an intellectual exercise which corresponds to the psychological experience intended as the " t r u t h " to which scripture calls. Runia It would be m o r e decorous to pass over the contents o f my article in silence.

aporemata The summary o f recent research just outlined has been necessarily im­ pressionistic and incomplete. . T h e process repeats itself until Philo reaches where he wants to be. E n o u g h has been said. Philo's procedure is compared with a staircase. solutio but also has a surplus element. it is still the points o f disagreement that have the upper hand. whether explicitly or implicitly. The answers the quaestio. It is within this closed circle. Consider what happens in Sacr. but by the controlling directive idea. 72-79: 18 J II. The main biblical text is analysed. and themes which emerge in the various chapters (equivalent to et solutiones) o f the treatise and can allow a good deal o f thematic discontinuity. 2 6 : 1 0 'old'(relative) 32 'hoary' * 'old' 'young' (absolute) 1. although there are undoubted points o f consensus. however. to justify the conclusion that. which causes an­ other biblical text to be called in.V PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 111 repetitions and general disorganization o f argumentative procedure that is undeniably present in them? (Note that in admitting this Radice im­ mediately parts c o m p a n y with Cazeaux again.) Radice introduces a distinction between the directive the specific quaestiones idea. that the various allegorical terms find their definition and the directive idea is worked o u t . and so on. which itself has a surplus element. which can be conceptually for­ mulated and gives the treatise (or even groups o f treatises) its unity. Let us begin with the former.11:16 'old' = worthy o f respect young' * 'old' : text The exegesis thus moves in jumps. as a 'comprehensive semantic unity'. A second integrative element—again at least partly in agreement with Cazeaux—is that Philo's departure from and return to the main text takes the form o f a circular procedure. The unity is supplied not so much by the themes utilized. 17 On the subject o f the structure o f the individual 'chapter' or pericope Radice also provides some interesting observations. Results and e v . in terms o f question and answer.

(1) There seems little agreement on the basic structure and procedure o f the Philonic 'chapter'. but remain character­ ized by a fairly high level o f generality. T h e above points o f consensus are most useful. and above all on penetrating to its hidden deeper meaning. with exegetical praxis in the Alexan­ drian Synagogue. generally called chapters. It is easy to take this insight for granted. (3) The thesis o f Nikiprowetzky and others that the procedure o f the quaestio followed by the solutio is fundamental to the structure o f the allegorical commentaries has met with a good deal o f approval. the and solutio) between quaestio that is repeated over and over again. Most scholars regard the divisions which Philo introduces into the text as the basis for the various sections o f a treatise. but we should bear in mind that it is in fact still quite new.g. arguably also philosophical aims. As soon as we move to m o r e detailed treatments. it is the points o f disagreement that strike our atten­ tion. All will agree that Moses is being explained via Moses. There is a link. or does Philo exhibit used in various treatises. we can say that there is considerable agreement on the fundamental role o f the main biblical text in supplying the basic continuity o f the exegesis. even if Philo's finished products are much more sophisticated and presuppose a high level o f raxiSeia on the part o f the reader. deferential role on his p a r t . but these are primarily effectuated by means of his exegetical a c ­ tivity. o r do 21 a diversity o f approaches? Is there. 20 19 others favouring a more (2) Turning now to the structure o f the individual treatise. But do these secondary texts merely function as illustratory material. The primary focus o f his activity is on explaining the scriptural text. I summarize them under three headings. Is there a uniform method (e. o r do they take on a life o f their own? (2) T h e second problem area is a continuation o f the first.V 112 (1) The most important result of the above survey is the complete agreement on the fact that Philo must be regarded first and foremost as exegete o f Mosaic scripture. some scholars asserting that 'Philo's claim is to be able to master the m a s t e r ' . Philo has apologetic aims. it is generally surmised. T o . but with wider implications for the understanding o f a treatise as a whole. a marked difference structural methods the similarities remain greater than the differences? The role o f the secon­ dary biblical texts which Philo habitually introduces is also controver­ sial. furthermore. On Philo's hermeneutic assump­ tions there is as yet a basic split.

C o m p a r e d with the other two projects. Nevertheless I intend to give a sample in this paper by comparing Philo's structures with three other types o f exegesis. is this o f an intellectual kind which is to be grasped by the mind as a kind o f dogma. a structural analysis. both Greek and Jewish. (3) The third'disagreement is implicit rather than overt. or a certain measure o f discontinuity chapters. T h e remainder preferred to base their findings exclusively on internal analysis o f Philo's own works. associative kind? A n d . first on a chapter. or is it rather meant to be 'ex­ perienced' through reading the treatise? Finally. or at least a controlling 'directive idea'. namely a comprehensive comparison o f Philo's structures with other forms o f ex­ egesis. even if he had antecedents or colleagues in the his own style and method? O f the scholars developed reviewed only the two Americans Hamerton-Kelly and Mack adduced comparative material. Firstly. Secondly. a systematic comparison must be made between the and especially those parts o f both works which give direct exegesis o f the same main biblical lemmata. produced at approximately the same period. treatises. we cannot be certain that the results will be as remunerative. if there is coherence. who. C a n light be shed on Philo's procedures by means o f comparison with other writings. This will give us some perspective on the third Every time a scholar bases con­ 22 clusions on a small or partial segment. A third m a j o r piece o f research could also be proposed. o r — a third alternative—a continuity between o f a somewhat ca­ pricious.V PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 113 what extent does Philo endeavour to impose a structural coherence. reaching conclusions troverted or modified treatises. It should by now be clear that at least two m a j o r pieces o f research need to be carried out before any definite conclusions Allegorical can be reached on the structure o f Philo's Commentary and the Quaestiones in Genesim et allegorical Exodum. made with as few preconceptions as possible. must be made o f all the allegorical treatises from Leg. then on the series o f chapters that make up a treatise? Is there a total coherence. it is also worth asking the question o f how difficult Philo intended his treatises to be. whether Jewish o f Greek? Or is it better to regard Philo as a writer sui generis Synagogue. he or she runs the risk o f that are only partially valid and can be con­ in the light o f material drawn from other . The results just outlined set the parameters o f what I aim to acfhieve in the remainder o f this paper. however. to Somn.

concentrating my observations on the evidence in Gig. Tarrant has proposed an earlier dating on 24 philosophical grounds. T h e first editors o f the Anonymous Theaetetus C o m m e n t a r y . The fact that we are looking for exegetical works restricts us even more. 1 1 . Finally. Our supply o f literature written about the time o f Philo is rather thin. by way o f conclusion.3 5 . On the value and 25 quality o f the fragment there has also been a divergence o f opinion. 2 6 I am sure that every Philonist who reads these ex­ tracts will recognize similarities with and parallels to Philo's exegesis.e.V 114 o f the problem areas mentioned above. Some comparisons It is a fact we have to learn to live with when studying Philo that it is easier to use his evidence to cast light on his surroundings than to use his surroundings to cast light on him. T h e papyrus as we have it c o m ­ prises about 4 0 sheets and contains the initial part o f a Platonist c o m ­ mentary on Plato's dialogue Theaetetus (up to 153e). C . But let us see what we can c o m e up with. 5 0 B . Although the entire document is interesting for purposes o f c o m ­ parison. but also to Greek works produced in Alex­ andria and elsewhere. Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary The first document may in fact be roughly contemporary with Philo. i. Dillon regarded it as maintaining 'a level o f stupefying banality'. There is no other reason for this than the fortuities o f transmission.-Deus. dated both the papyrus and the original to the second century A. but T a r r a n t is inclined to take it more seriously and attempts to derive im­ portant evidence on the development o f Middle Platonism from it. 2 2 the question is introduced by Bid xi and is .e. and this applies not only to Hellenistic-Judaic writings. 2 3 But very recently H .5 7 . Note how at 3 4 . Thereafter I will address the other two problem areas. I will bring for­ ward what I consider to be the single most important issue raised by our III. subject. or a little l a t e r . Diels and Schubart. I shall concentrate my remarks on two passages. i. T h e c o m m e n t a t o r subdivides the Platonic text into short lemmata. 1. which he comments on one by one. The use o f the quaestio method. 4 2 .D. 4 4 and 5 6 . the explicit or implicit raising o f arcopiai in the text is particularly marked. He is even prepared to credit it to Eudorus or his circle. 3 4 . 9 .

. 5 7 . which draws atten­ tion t o a distinction between finding and refinding. T h e reply takes the form The third alternative is of a multiple exegesis. Both the exegetical multiplicity and the 27 modesty are frequently paralleled in P h i l o . terested in an immediate application to the reader's own c o n c e r n s . ) .. work is much less 'spiritual' than Philo's allegorical e x p o s e s . 1 6 e t c . . 5 7 .26. with jumps from one subject t o another.). 4 0 ) .21 [XTI7TOXE afxeivov f) Xeyeiv c m .g. No at­ tempt is made to connect one pericope with the next (though the author does retain a perspective on the larger developments o f the dialogue. When it suits the interpretation small words are closely looked at and their natural meaning violated (rcax. following Plato's text. 3 2 f f . cf. Although the c o m m e n t a t o r practises the Middle Platonist hermeneutic principle o f explaining Plato via Plato and so is eager to adduce other texts. at philo­ 29 H e is not in­ The 2. .6:8 at Deus 56. ) . in Philo it often cjenotes Moses. At the same time the c o m m e n t a t o r . T h e c o m ­ mentator..g. ) . 30 86. is interested in explaining sophical difficulties and tackles philosophical issues. e. whether in order t o resolve a possible conflict ( 5 7 . .V PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 115 attributed to anonymous exegetes (CTJTOGCJI. First two opinions o f unnamed exegetes are given ( 3 4 . 1 3 evioi Srj a p e a x o v x a i ) . But there are also significant differences to be observed. Finally the difference in subject matter is to be noted. The word under discussion YR\AI Some o f the more detailed interpretative techniques also strike us as is enough to indicate Plato ( 5 7 . 2 6 ) . 1 6 ) . but clearly receives the author's support (35. adopts a more 'atomistic' a p p r o a c h . W o r d s from. at 3 5 . we find in the treatise in which Porphyry gives an allegorical exegesis o f H o m e r ' s des­ cription o f the cave o f the nymphs (Odyssey XIII 102-112) 31 Having . 3 5 -uiv£? (poccriv. both in subject matter and method. the lemma a r e quietly [jiavGavoucjiv at 5 6 . 1 8 f f . o r just outside. just as introduced into the exegesis (e. Porphyry's De antro nympharum A greater affinity. . familiar. who after all is dealing with a text o f considerable length (and not a single page or less o f Pentateuchal text). these secondary texts never lead to separate developments as in Philo. 3 5 . is uncannily reminis­ cent o f Philo's exegetical comment on Gen. 1 4 f f . There is a more direct concentration on the subject at hand. 2 8 Other Platonic texts a r e invoked as ' p r o o f o f a given interpretation. 1 5 ) or as p r o o f ( 5 7 . T h e interpretation o f euptaxeiv at 5 6 . modestly presented.

V 116 quoted these lines and defended a non-literal interpretation. Is this parallel t o Philo's method o f concatenation? In fact there is a basic difference between this work and Philo's allegorical treatises. 1 7 8 ) .g. It is. however. W o r d s a r e etymologized ( § 1 5 ) and n a m e s TCapaaxf]aat. F o r example. Once again numerous parallels o f content and technique strike the eye.oxi explained ( § 3 5 ) with allegorical intent. Thus the very first line of the text is dealt with last ( § 3 2 ) . the wandering soul. The structure is thus m o r e like that o f a Hellenistic auyypatjitjia ( a fine parallel is Plutarch's De animae tione in Timaeo. The quaestio method is again in evidence ( § 1 5 Bid xi. t o o . A t the same time P o r p h y r y evidently accepts the practice o f exegetical polyvalence. because very little remains in it o f a c o m m e n t a r y in the strict sense o f the word. § 3 2 Xeircexat Zr\ Ttoxe (xrivuet). § 3 1 dXX' I'va [xr].. 32 but P o r p h y r y also makes it quite clear that 33 he is heavily indebted t o the Neopythagorean Numenius (and his pupil Cronius). there are certain shared characteristics. Porphyry extols the virtues o f H o m e r and defends the poet's allegorizing intent ( § 3 6 ) . procreaalso a piece o f exegesis). P o r ­ phyry has the tendency to string examples together and then call himself back to the main task at hand (e. above all the structural elements that should claim our attention.. but usually making quite clear which interpretation he favours. but I find them rather elusive when examined m o r e carefully. 3 2 ) . is this little work the only continuous piece o f exegesis o f a single H o m e r i c text that we h a v e . just like Philo does in the case o f Moses.g. admitting m o r e than one explanation for the same symbol (e. with the result that one can . the allegorical ex­ planation o f the blinding o f the Cyclops in terms o f freeing oneself from the life o f the senses ( § 3 5 ) could c o m e virtually straight out o f Philo. who in turn doubtless made use o f earlier exegesis. N o t only.. T o be sure. ) . cf. Porphyry quotes the H o m e r i c text at the beginning and returns t o it at intervals ( § 1 5 . § 1 9 ) . Stress is placed on the a p ­ propriateness o f the symbolism ( § 1 9 oixeioc auLtPoXoc e t c . But. It is true that there is a considerable chronological disparity between Philo and P o r p h y r y . for example. Congr. because in this way he can organize the work so that it reaches a climax in the psychological allegory o f Odysseus. H e r e . but he does not divide it into lemmata which he deals with one by one. the Neoplatonist philosopher proceeds t o give a c o m p a c t exegesis o f them in terms o f an elaborate symbolism comprising themes from both physical and psychological allegory.. how­ ever.x6v Xoyov [XTixOvcoLtev. T h e balance between physical and psychological allegory differs from what we Philonists are accustomed t o .

more complex and more repetitious. The connections are 34 made on thematic rather than on verbal g r o u n d s . I believe we can legitimately regard Philo as a Hellenizing midrashist. H e concludes his discussion as follows: In brief I would define midrash as a type of literature. But what is midrash! but not defined'. 3. (An immediate difference in relation to Palestine midrashists is that Philo places much more emphasis on the authorship o f the divinely elected prophet and lawgiver Moses. even if it is (so far) not possible for us to pin these down precisely. C a n we speak o f "secondary exegesis" in Porphyry? The philosopher certainly deepens and illustrates his interpretation by referring t o other texts. and so on. that there were parallels between the methods o f interpreting scripture practised in Alexandria and in Palestine.) P o r t o n goes on t o outline a variety o f types o f midrash. which stands in direct relationship to a fixed. following the proposal o f R. In so doing I do not presuppose any firm views on the thorny question o f Philo's rela­ tion to Palestinian Judaism. 37 P o r t o n . for Philo expounds. and in which this canonical text is explicitly cited or clearly alluded to. W e do not find the quasi-independent developments which are one o f the main reasons that Philo's allegorical treatises are so much longer. e. canonical text. 36 35 F o r Hamerton-Kelly. Speaking with specific reference to the terms o f this (admittedly wide) definition. L e Deaut. oral or written.PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 117 more easily obtain an overview o f the whole work than in the case o f Philo's treatises. who does make the attempt t o define it by focussing on its for­ mal or literary aspects. Orphica ( § 1 6 ) . 'Midrash is a mode o f thinking which m a y be described I find myself attracted to the new approach o f G. considered to be the authoritative and the revealed word of God by the midrashist and his audience. cross-references to H o m e r in §16 & 3 4 . Palestinian midrash affiliations W e now make a considerable jump from the Hellenic discussed so far to a possible Palestinian connection.g. These have a wider range than in Philo. a written canonical text which both he and his audience regard as divinely inspired and authoritative. ( A r a m a i c translations or paraphrases) to Rabbinic . I believe. It is not unlikely. but this difference is subordinate. Sophocles ( § 1 8 ) . Targumim ranging from midrash. but also to Mithras mysteries ( § 1 5 ) . and specifically cites or alludes t o .

a brief explanation is given. W e observe that. 12:1 and 6 : 2 8 . not least because the protreptic themes set in motion by Philo's psychological allegories are wholly missing.V 118 The last-named is again divided into homiletic and expositional t y p e s . 39 It is also possible that in their formal aspect they have adopted methods used earlier. o f Rabbi Once again chronology is a problem. but in relation to other Bible texts. 38 Since the latter follows the biblical text verse by verse. W e note also how the secondary texts quoted can lead to quasi-independent developments. 3 f . 2 9 ) depends entirely on the enchainment o f themes. 3 0 ) . 40 which is further split into smaller lemmata. but in their present form cannot antedate the third or fourth centuries A . D . Both works belong to the earliest Rabbinic midrashim. either stated by the exegete ( 1 . At any rate it was not difficult to locate texts that can be profitably compared with Philo's procedures. some o f which may be virtually contemporary with Philo. Next there is a section on three kinds o f prophets (among whom J o n a h ) . The question o f the place o f revelation leads after much meandering t o the example o f J o n a h .31ff. The secon­ dary developments are less expansive than in Philo. 1 2 : 1 . 1 1 . which deal with sections o f the same biblical text . In the Mikilta each chapter is devoted to a section o f the biblical text. My example is the first chapter o f the Tractate Pisha. 1 ) . 1 2 f f . which is immediately followed by an objection (equivalent t o an exegetical drcopia). The response is also given in terms o f Bible texts. In fact the secondary biblical texts are much m o r e copious than in Philo (in our extract 54 texts!). abundantly clear that they contain much traditional material. however. in which exegesis is given o f E x . At 3. It is. who tried t o escape from the land o f Israel and God's presence ( 7 . Thus the first ob­ jection results from the juxtaposition o f E x . con­ taining a diaeresis which we could easily find in Philo ( 8 . the exegete justifies his response by appealing to the hermeneutic rule o f kal vahomer middoth (e minore ad maius). ) . In the case o f Genesis Rabbah it will be instructive to look at chapters X X V I I and X X I X . N o r is there any attempt at the conclusion o f the discussion to return to the initial theme (cf. The objection is raised not so much because the text is unclear. it would seem closest to Philo and thus what we are looking for. at the very earliest. 2 ) or put into the mouth o f the reader ( 3 . ) . F o r purposes o f il­ lustration I have selected some passages from the Mekilta Ishmael and Genesis Rabbah. after the lemma has been cited. 41 The connection with the beginning o f the pericope ( 3 . one o f the seven o f Hillel.

V PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 119 underlying the commentaries in Gig.). fin. Clearly the four texts are arranged in ascending sequence—Noah's grace is less than Joseph's. X X V I I §1-2. make it quite concrete ( § 4 ad 4. 45 At the same time the vast difference between the way Philo and the Rabbis 'fill in' these texts cannot but strike us. in Deus 1 0 4 . Although the extreme compression o f the presentation often makes the connections o f thought difficult to follow. Chapter X X I X provides a further illustration o f how important verbal parallels are for the selection o f the secondary biblical texts. Secondly. A t the beginning o f the chapter the biblical lemma is quoted. Philo's habit o f inserting protreptic passages with direct appeal to the reader in his allegories (e. such as Philo achieves with his returns to the main biblical text . and so on. by referring to Haggadic lore concerning the feeding o f animals in the middle o f the night. In §3 Rabbi Simon. it wou^d appear in this case at least that it is the verbal similarities which led to the choice o f the secondary t e x t . expounding the lemma 'but Noah found grace in the eyes o f the L o r d (Gen. That could be the shortest way to summarize the results o f our comparisons. the so-called 'diatribes') was not encountered. If we lump together the three passages.6:5 and 18:20 indicates that the punishment inflicted in both cases is the s a m e . Findings Close. As the explanation o f this text unfolds. we found no attempt to join up the various pericopes o r 'chapters' o f ex­ egesis.1 1 6 . the connection is gradually made clear (cf. C o m p a r e Philo's procedure.g. T w o exceptions must be made to this generalization.). but not close enough. except to a weak degree in Porphyry. In §4 other Rabbis c o m p a r e the lemma with three other texts in which Old Testament figures 'find grace'. Then the exegete puts forward another biblical text which at first appears to have little to do with the main text.-Deus. The verbal parallel between Gen. chains together three texts with the word 'found' and a fourth with 'found grace'. note how the game element in midrash emerges here). whereas the Rabbis. this midrash 42 The procedure adopted in differs from what we found in the previous work. which is less than Esther's. we find that most features o f Philo's exegesis could be paralleled somehow or other. shawa 43 The comment gezerah 44 in §3 furnishes a fine example o f the hermeneutic principle o f (explicitly invoked). 6 : 8 ) ' . The grace found by Noah leads in Philo's inter­ pretation to highflown metaphysics (Deus 107f. mutatis mutandis.

and especially contemporary. My impression—more than that it cannot be called at this juncture—is that the formal aspects have been drawn m o r e from Greek models. Yet not close enough. Philo's method o f composing his allegorical treatises is clearly related to exegetical methods developed by both Greek and Jewish interpreters o f authoritative writings (cf. that Philo is a writer sui generis. Only more precise applications o f analogy. as Hamerton-Kelly sug­ shawa is t o o gests? The midrashic examples indicate that gezerah specific a hermeneutical principle to fit the bill in the majority o f cases. Philo's 'verbal shawa. The method o f textual analogy is so general a practice that it is not theoretically justified. The comparisons illuminate Philo—as such they have been a useful exercise—. who is not restricted by the practice o f lemma by lemma exegesis. Hamerton-Kelly). W e can only guess as to whether this would be different if we had access to more. are laid down as rules. as in ka vahomer and gezerah 47 shawa. even if we should consider Philo to be a writer sui generis. My strong suspicion re­ mains. material. clearly has its roots in Jewish exegesis. Even Porphyry. however. he would be attempting something quite foreign to the exegetical traditions in close proximity t o him. . If such in­ tegration were Philo's aim. but cannot be mode o f transition' clearly resembles gezerah equated with i t . and not directly taken over from other exegetes and exegetical traditions. (3) In none o f the passages compared did we come across anything remotely resembling total coherence o r a concerted attempt at integra­ tion o f themes or ideas. while the manner o f invoking and handling o f the 46 biblical text has a Jewish b a c k g r o u n d . who has developed a style and method distinctively suited to his own aims. But how useful is it then to say that Philo's allegorical exegesis can be analysed in terms o f a stringing together o f quaestiones and solutiones! (2) The enchaining o f secondary biblical texts. especially on the basis o f verbal parallels.V 120 and his frequent transitional phrases. If we also add implicit owcopiai. But can we iden­ tify this procedure with the gezarah shawa. This is worth bearing in mind. does not achieve this. (1) The method o f raising explicit quaestiones or dmopioci was c o m m o n to all three examples as well as Philo. but they do not 'explain' him. nearly every item o f exegesis can be said to be based on this method. I append some comments on points o f detail.

for pin these chapters down precisely. the question o f whether Gig. 48 1. and also to our example o f Philonic exegesis. Structural organization W e have already noted a fortunate aspect o f our choice o f example. however.-Deus each quaestio et solutio is not coincidental.PHILO'S A L L E G O R I C A L TREATISES 121 IV. so that the exegete can pass on to the next lemma). Some observations It is time now to turn to our remaining two points o f disagreement.e. so that it is better to follow Winston and Dillon and regard the whole o f Gig. for we find that (1) Gen. Nikiprowetzky and Radice. Another indication . Deus 20-85 gives rise to greater complexities. The reason for this is equally clear. 4 9 et solutiones I am Corresponding to is approximately a 'chapter' in Gig. T a k e .presents exegesis o f the same biblical text dealt with in QG 1. Deus 2 0 ) . shows that the raised by Gen. 6 : 3 a . 6:3b has been integrated into. AUVOCPRIVCOIAEV namely Philo's desire to enchain or 'weave together' his interpretations into a literary whole (cf. or—perhaps better—fastened onto the tail of.e. and (3) in §70-85 an answer has to be given to the arcopia o f Gen. the double-treatise (which is actually single) entitled Etept y t y a v x t o v r\ 7uepl xou \ir\ xperceaGai T O GeTov. namely that it.-Deus. convinced that the chapter. 19-57 as a single unit. The parallelism between these 11 quaestiones and the structure o f Gig. that in practice it is not so easy. Winston and Dillon were content with 10 in their commen­ tary. the contrast between the judg­ ment in 6:7 and the grace in 6 : 8 ) can be broached.91. while Radice took a midway position and postulated 1 2 . (2) at §70 the whole o f §51-69 is treated as a preliminary enquiry rather than the answer to the main <X7TOPIA.89-99. Nikiprowetzky's analysis furnished 14 chapters. which we may define as a unit o f exegesis in which a lemma o f the main biblical text is comprehensively ex­ pounded (i. But a look at the thematics o f Gig.6:7 before the main theme (i. It should be noted. 6:7 is cited fully twice (at § 2 0 and 5 1 ) . tual praxis 51 Clearly there is an arbitrary element in determining what a chapter is in the a c ­ o f Philo's exegesis. focussing on the parallel quaestio <X7COPIA at QG 1. the exegesis o f Gen. which we then in our analysis have to divide up again. think it is. is a useful concept 50 in analysing the structure of Philo's allegorical treatises. 55-57 should be seen as a separate section or 'chapter'.

o r objection) 7TOIR|Tar<.e. TauTT]v I'aGi aocptav. But.. e. Gig. Gig. TOC rcapa T O I ? YIYDVTCOV OI'ETOCI T O V vo[xoGeTT)v aiviTreaGai. ranging from 5 capita (Gig..1 0 .g. the chapter Mack analysed in terms o f the chreiaelaboration. Deus Cazeaux. with reservations by Radice). ecm T O .. A suggestion I would wish to put forward is that it is useful to distinguish between Philo's use o f exegetical procedures and exegetical techniques.. 7 0 . 1 2 2 . . <X7I:O8COCFO[X£V. 1 . i.g. (lefAuGeuuiva 7cept T W V (c) initial observation (often quaestio 58 W K O S TIC. But his 'imperialism o f symmetry' can by no means be imposed on all chapters without straining the reader's credibility. axoXouGtoc. 1 . C a n we say that Philo uses a fixed method in composing the chapters o f his treatise? I am less convinced than other scholars—Nikiprowetzky. Gig. 1 0 4 . . 5 6 .g. (b) citation main biblical lemma e. 5 2 The next problem is unquestionably more difficult. ouv SietXeyuivot uept TOU. . at Gig. 3 3 . will be found in every chapter. T h e following list will indicate which procedures I envisage (plus in each case an example in which a formal indicator can be detected): e. it is impossible t o detect such a structure in every chapter. 1 .g. Sometimes they are quasi-formally introduced. W e find explicit quaestiones or omopia is undoubtedly 8 6 . 1. M a c k — t h a t he does.g. Some o f these. m o r e often Philo employs them im­ plicitly.5 ) to 4 4 (Deus 140-183). ato(XDTCOV (d) background information (necessary for the allegory) e. once again. Philo's manner o f returning to the main biblical lemma can easily suggest the circular 'cradle' structure proposed by Cazeaux (followed.. 1 9 'iiizt Y A P <f>r\ai 'xupto? 6 Geo?. Deus TeXeiav 686v TCOV yap TOI (jiv eveSTjaaTo aicovtou xai dcpGdpTOu (e) detailed allegorical explanation 1 4 3 xaTe^Geipe 7taaa aap£ T T J V T T J V T O U 7cp6i. 53 (a) introduction (or transition from preceding chapter) Deus 33 XI ixavooc.V 122 o f the fluidity o f Philo's chapters is evident in their variation in length. in m o r e than half the chapters. 1-5 shows clear affinities with Sacr. By the former I mean the regularly recurring methods used by Philo t o construct the development o f a chapter o f his exegesis... Deus 3 5 e.. But the method is t o o general to be really informative. Geov ayouaav. but not usually all. The role o f the quaestio important.

Deus 119 ixepoc 5'eaxtv r\ ex PeXxiovos yevous dq eXocxxov etSo? LU^VTJXOU [xexaPoXiq. which. Examples o f such techniques are: report o f an objection (Deus 2 1 ) . . d> 4 X Q» • • • (h) p r o o f or witness e. but that it also hap­ pens in ( d ) . objec­ tion. r\<.g. outline o f a diaeresis (Gig. (g) allegorical application to the soul (often 'diatribe') e. Many o f these techniques we 55 a tiroir'. Philo deals separately with two or m o r e parts o f the biblical lemma as quasi-independent units in the one chapter. .V PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 123 (f) example/comparison/illustration/contrast e. The sequence o f procedures (though not necessarily all o f them) occurs once per chapter.g.. e. Moreover the same procedures can be invoked to deal with a secondary biblical text cited to explain or deepen our understanding o f the main text. have a m o r e direct relation to the contents o f the biblical text. . oxocv 9 f j .g. Deus 114 dXXoc au y e .. 3 2 . making a gram­ matical observation (Deus 141). before proceeding to a m o r e detailed explanation in terms o f his exegetical system. making a laudatio found distinction (Deus 8 6 ) or establishing a contrast (Gig. especially promi­ nent in procedure ( c ) . as sometimes happens.g. once it is understood. Their task is to focus the attention o f the reader on one particular aspect o f the lemma.g. Deus 5 0 rcocpo x a i Xoyiov eaxt. e. o f the lawgiver (Gig. .g. Exegetical techniques. 85 raxyxdXox. leads to a better understanding o f the lemma as a whole. Deus. W e should note that it is especially in ( f ) and (h) that secondary biblical texts are invoked.4 6 . 19-57. ouv xco rcXriGet xcjv dStxcov Xoyia[juov dvxeOTjxev eva xov S i x a i o v . 1). 5 8 ) etc. on the other hand. distinction e t c . JU 1 (i) conclusion o r return to the main biblical lemma e. 54 and which can be regarded as a paralleled in the non-Philonic exegetical passages analysed for purposes o f comparison earlier in this article. 6 0 ) . the 'breaking open' o f the biblical text. (There is a close relation to the d<pop(jiou.e. Gig. 22-21. xotouxov avayeypa[A[jivov ev AeuxepovojJLtco. e. This leads to the phenomenon which Nikiprowet­ zky has called the 'quaestio 'chapter within a chapter'. in Gig. an dnopia. ) . .g. I have distinguished between ( c ) initial observation and (e) detailed allegorical explanation. unless. ) They are. Gig. therefore. because it appears that Philo likes first to 'break open' the text by means o f an initial observation (i. the 'hints' or 'pretexts' used to justify the allegorical m e t h o d .

is dominant. Philo's structures are t o o fluid. on eight occasions in Gig. but can be used to usher in such a technique (cf.-Deus. ) . But a number o f the secondary biblical texts (not all) are given a role that is hardly less important than that o f the main text. and I have retained its salient features in the analysis o f Gig. to my mind. At the same time. These texts together form the framework upon which the exegesis is based. It is therefore not itself an exegetical technique in the limited sense I en­ visage. where the asks only what the text means. F o r this reason I remain convinced that it is highly important to observe the central role played by both the primary and secondary biblical texts in establishing the structure o f Philo's exegesis. I think it preferable to view the quaestio as Philo's favourite way o f introducing the initial observa­ 7 tion which allows him to break open the text under discussion. I f f . also Gig. T h e main biblical text. and then immediately a further exegetical technique is required to break open the text. we can to some degree retrace the associations . 32-46. In discovering the connections be­ tween the various texts. I remain with the difficulty o f how I should deal with the practice o f posing a quaestio. P e r ­ sonally I find the result no more than partially successful. It does show. one retains the feeling that there is an element o f coercion or imposition involved in our analysis. Num. how­ ever. This obser­ vation was the basis o f the analysis o f Deus carried out in my previous article. There is a method. from which the exegesis proceeds and to which it returns. but no fixed procedure or 'system' whose secret code we have to ' c r a c k ' . as we have seen. I regard its use as insufficiently consistent for it to be regarded as a fixed procedure.-Deus. It is striking that on the only two occasions that Philo gives a phrase for phrase detailed exegesis o f a longer biblical lemma in Gig. In Appendix 3 I have undertaken to give a structural analysis o f De gigantibus in terms o f the procedures and techniques just outlined. 2 0 : 1 7 . 18:6 at Gig. he does so o f a secondary text ( L e v . that in general terms these categories are valuable for the task o f understanding how Philo builds up his treatise from the inter­ pretation o f the one biblical lemma to the next. occurs C o n t r a r y to Nikiprowetzky and others. as for example at Deus 8 6 . we should also note that it can sometimes amount to quaestio no more than a formality.V 124 Having made this distinction between exegetical procedures and ex­ egetical techniques. t o o flexible to allow us to 'decode' them in a way that might render them 'accounted for' or in any way predictable. Not only is it often hard to decide whether there is an actual quaestio or not.1 8 0 ) . which.2 0 at Deus 1 4 5 .

as the turning-point of the corruption of the world. where it is presented in direct connection with the figure of Noah. as Cazeaux claims? W e turn to our final point o f disagreement. as Philo himself defines it in Deus 119: '.6.' The generation of evil should be seen as a process of degeneration from the good or. It is the same theme as in the tetralogy (Cher. our freedom of will. unity. the theme of degeneration and that of virtue are systematically contrasted. but Philo reads it . Discontinuity. in this pair of treatises. furnish the following answer: 57 Overriding themes. the transformation from a superior genus to an inferior species.. but now viewed from a 'historical' rather than an 'archetypal' or 'psychological' perspective.. or total coherence } 1 But to what-extent does Philo himself aim to impose a unity or coherence on his own treatises as structured literary compositions? Is he an emulator o f Moses in this regard. In so doing we need t o add a consideration o f the content Gig. does speak o f a 'dominant'idea': 58 Thus the actual meaning.. and the role within us of the Logos.). and. is a continuous c o m m e n t a r y on the text Gen. 56 his careful use o f language and 2. virtue and pleasure..-Deus o f Philo's treatise to the purely formal aspects on which we have concentrated so far. goes t o o far here in his emphasis on the negative side.V PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 125 made by Philo in composing his treatises.-Post. 6:1-12. Hence. acting as a conscience. where the term 'generation' takes on a quite specific meaning. but purely by reason. in my view. W e note that they speak o f 'overriding themes' rather than a central theme. Philo feels justified in making these associations because he assumes that scripture is a coherent whole. but there is also another. also. self-abnegation (or God-centeredness) and self-centeredness. Can it be said that Philo derives from this text a central theme which per­ vades the work as a whole? Winston and Dillon. are the duality and tension between the spirit and the flesh. But this is precisely the theme of Gen. our responsibility for our actions. the dominant idea of our treatises is that of the 'generation' of evil.Generation is a kind of passage or journey from non-being to being. as a corollary. therefore.. as a superficial reading of the inspired text might suggest. They are so often based on verbal parallels because he considers that one o f the fundamental ways that Moses conveys the coherence o f his thought to the reader is through phraseology.. the nature of God's providential care for us. T h e biblical text might warrant such pessimism. Radice. without addressing the question directly. Radice. in contrast. not governed by any pas­ sion... The title of the treatise should properly be 'Of the corruption of the world' or 'On the generation of evil'.

60 Winston and Dillon. so in Deus Noah balances the forces o f disintegra­ T h e question is: what docs Philo do with this opposition? Do we get a series o f 'variations on a theme'. until we receive an all-round picture? This is surely what Nikiprowetzky had in mind when he emphasized the discontinuities between one chapter and the next. Just as in Post. There is one extraordinary facet o f Philo's exegesis which holds me back from accepting this quite plausible view. in this work at least. we can hear the p r o treptic element ringing through loud and clear. 59 the birth o f Seth halts the downward spiral o f Cain's progeny. I agree with Winston and Dillon that Philo bases the thematics o f his treatise on the fundamental dichotomy between the spirit and the flesh suggested by the biblical text. 13-14 and Num. The text at the end o f this section. with their 'overriding themes' may mean the same. 6 : 8 ) . explore the diverse ramifications indicated by the biblical text. Comm. It is possible for the soul which is not wholly impure (cf. tion. sums it up perfectly. then what takes place in the last quarter o f the treatise would be inex- . deepen our understanding o f it by introducing contrasts and comparisons. albeit not very c l e a r l y . By a clever selection o f secondary biblical texts a s (especially from Lev. I cannot see how there is any hint o f this doctrine in the main biblical text (it is not related to the x«pi? o f Gen. has the freedom o f will to turn to good or evil. which look at the opposition from various angles. 2 0 ) Philo introduces the role o f the eXe-fx ? logos or conscience. But Philo needs it because he is keen to show that the chasm that divides spirit from flesh and virtue from vice does not separate the world into two permanent c a m p s . It is this unexpected extrapolation o f the biblical text which persuades me that. the last caput § 1 8 3 ) to listen to the admonition o f the inner monitor. The title o f the work also draws attention to this dichotomy. and in the midrash). to better its ways and join the people o f Israel on the Royal road. As so often in Philo. It is possible because the soul. as emphasized in the philosophical exposition o f Deus 3 5 . Theat.V 126 otherwise.4 8 . 6 : 1 1 . 30:15 & 19 ( § 5 0 ) . If Philo was simply taking the main biblical text lemma by lemma. I have in mind the sur­ prising turn that Philo gives to his lengthy exposition o f Gen.1 2 in Deus 0 122-183. Philo does have a main theme o r a direc­ tive idea (I borrow the term from Radice) which has played a decisive role in determining the treatise's structure. expounding the themes he hap­ pened t o find there (as in the Anon. Deut.

It cannot be said. 29. he knows already that he is going to invoke the words o f another text 7rp6<. This I think he does not do. Philo sometimes anticipates a biblical text which he will later exploit. so that the work is given a fundamental thematic coherence (cf. that the work lacks a thematic focal point. It is motivated legitimated by the central theme which Philo extracts from the allegorized biblical text. when Philo at Gig. Ps. 90:11-12 alluded to in §182)? However tempting it m a y seem to attempt to integrate such thematic parallels. 1 8 : 6 ) . a d p x a oixetWic: with reference to the main biblical lemma (Gen.TOXVTOCotx'etov aapxoc./7toXu<xv0pco7ua. we have a strong indication that he has already planned to develop this theme at the end o f the treatise. while in §178 a 7toXudv0pco7iov eOvo? sinks into oblivion? (2) Is it structurally significant that Onan is used as an example in Deus 16 and Tamar in §137? (3) Is it structurally significant that in Deus 11 unmixed wine is associated with God and mixed wine with man. 77:49 cited in §17) and Deus ends with the ayyeXo? as Xoyo? 9eTo? (cf. (1) Is it structurally significant that in Gig.V PHII. As Cazeaux has shown. 2 there is a contrast eii.O'S A L L E G O R I C A L T R E A T I S E S 127 plicable. But it is possible to go a step further and claim that Philo has attempted a large-scale integration o f the multivarious exegetical themes he has called into service. The association made between the 'way of flesh' in Gen. Nor should we be tempted to conclude that Philo at the end of the work loses control over his material. A good example o f such 'teleology' is found at Gig. also Gig. I give a few examples o f the kind o f themes that occur in different chapters and might encourage us to look for a tight-knit structural coherence. 6 : 3 ) . begins with ayyeXoi rcovripot (cf. 1 2 and the King's way in Num. 2 0 : 1 7 is by the verbal parallel between the texts. I think the temptation should be resisted (in the final example the conscious literary device of symmetrical inclusion may be suspected). The treatise has at the least a unity o f a loose kind. OCUTOC (Lev. When Philo writes r) rcpoc. above all Cazeaux's a p p r o a c h ) . filling up his papyrus roll by expatiating on a new theme that is only marginally related to the main biblical text. for Philo has manifestly manipulated his exegesis in order to pro­ vide it with one. 6 . but that in §158 God gives the people of Israel unmixed draughts (cf. therefore. Because Philo tends to repeat themes and ideas at regular in- . Ps. but in Deus 148 an a fortiori analogy el? dvrjp => e9vo<. 6 4 speaks o f A b r a h a m following the Royal road. rtoXuavGpw^o-ca-cov. 52)? (4) Is it structurally significant that Gig. Now it seems to me that. The move is premeditated.

and moreover likes to look at them from various points o f view (depending on where and how the biblical text leads him). •cd-cxwuev) walking along the high road (X6co9opou 680G. Key words are vou6eaia and aw<ppoviCea9ai (cf. Nimrod and also the ocb^axoi. (2) Some men worship God in love. (That Noah is called tj\rr\t\x6$ xai 7ioXu|xain §107 is not enough to connect him up with Abraham the <piXona9r)(. 6 ^pox67t-cwv. there is an almost infinite number o f possibilities for the analyst to make connec­ tions and set up contrasts that Philo himself does not make explicit. cf. For the men of earth the chief characteristic is addiction to the flesh. are self-defeating. For the latter the lawgiver has included the anthropomorphic and anthropopathic passages in scripture. we raise more problems than we solve. The allegorical thematics of Abraham and Noah also diverge. The allegory of Joseph and the chief jailer differs: here the account concentrates on 7ia0o<. Do 'we' also belong to the dim-witted or miseducated for whom the literal sense of scripture is meant (Deus 63)? Surely not. Abraham's Gewpia -coo xoqxou (because he is a man of heaven) is quite extraneous to the virtue/vice thematics of the treatise as a whole. based on the alternation o f main and secondary biblical texts. 61 Philo's self-imposed task as c o m m e n t a t o r . 6 -ceXeioi. But the words are also applied to 'us' (cf. 60-64 the interpretation of Gen. for Philo right through the treatise is acquainting us with the deeper sense. §52). M o r e o v e r they e n c o u r a g e us to neglect the i m p o r t a n c e o f looking first o f all at the relation between the exegetical interpretation and the biblical texts Once (primary and secondary) on which the interpretation is based. My chief quarrel with any attempt to detect a complete thematic coherence in Philo's treatises is that it conflicts with the principle o f the finality o f the Philonic t e x t . The object of their nd0T]at<. men of heaven. again some examples m a y clarify the point at issue. 'us' and the angel in §181-182 with the awixaTo? 9IX01. Moses. 91X01 of Deus 55). (adp? not found in Deus llOff. When eight lines before the end of the treatise (§182) Philo writes inl vouGemat xai aco9povia(xw. is given a quite different content. 6:4 leads Philo to distinguish between men of earth. They immediately plunge the interpretation into such labyrinthine complexities that the basically lucid structure o f Philo's treatises. also Gig. But is this parallel structurally important for our reading of Gig. in my view. men of God. But Philo makes no effort to bring out any connec­ tions. (1) In Gig.). it is not likely that he has forgotten his earlier usage (cf. if we try to make a direct correlation of Balaam. Israel in §146). <|)uxfi? 91X01 and Moses in §51-69. In both cases we recognize in the background the familiar hierarchy of 6 90CGX01. Hence the atomistic features of both chapters when looked at in the context of the treatise as a whole.) In both chapters Philo lets the allegorical themes be dictated by the texts (primary and secondary) given exegesis.. cf. in Gig..V 128 tervals. 60ff. In Deus 104-116 examples of the biblical expression 'found grace' lead to another triad Joseph. In other words. cannot but be lost to view. Such attempts. 47). others in fear (Deus 69). But is the repetition of structural significance? Clearly Balaam belongs to the men of earth (ffi? 9p£(x(xa. Noah.-Deusl Naturally Joseph is in the camp of Nimrod and the men of earth.

If he is actually inviting us to make all kinds o f structural connections between various parts o f the work without making these explicit. as can be the case in phi­ losophy and religion. This process o f persuasion is 'experienced' by the reader in his reading o f the treatise. E v e r y writer aims to have some effect on the reader who reads what he has written. He a c ­ cepts the validity o f the 'language o f reason' and expects his reader to do the same. even when the aim is purely transmission o f knowledge.-Deus in Philo? The central role o f the has already been stressed. 64 T o speak o f our experience is only to 'double' our accept­ ance o f the philosophical contents o f the work. and there are some well-known anecdotes o f oc­ casions when it did have that effect. is to persuade the reader o f the validity and viability o f the relation he sets out between Moses' words and the conceptuality which is contained in or hidden behind them. con­ ceptual content and experience can only be artificially separated. Because in that case we really need a second commen­ tary to determine what Philo's own deeper meaning is. 62 My view is that this approach is in fact less attractive or useful than it might sound. Is the situation any different protreptic element in Gig. Experiencing a treatise! But maybe I arii on the wrong track. then he is evidently not serving his own purpose. Maybe Philo does not want a reasoned articulation and integration o f the meaning o f all the themes he introduces into the various stages o f his exegetical structures. strongly protreptic work. T h e process would lose its raison d'etre if the content o f the conceptuality was hollowed out and replaced by the experience alone. . as he sees it. Its readers are meant to experience the pull o f the philosophical life. Literary structure. Plato's Phaedo. Admittedly 65 Philo does not give chains o f argument to justify the philosophical conceptuality he employs in order to explain the Mosaic m e s s a g e .V PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 129 on scripture is to elucidate the words o f Moses. is a pected to have direct effect on people's lives. 3. 63 But surely our admiration for Socrates is only worth anything in Plato's eyes if we are convinced by what he says and see an authentic relation between his arguments and his d e e d s . His task. This applies a fortiori when the knowledge imported is ex­ to take a famous example. Maybe what he wants is that we 'experience' the process o f passing from flesh to spirit as we read our way through his structured exposition o f the biblical t e x t .

Concatenation The most distinctive feature o f Philo's allegorical treatises from the literary point o f view is his desire to connect together his exegetical ex­ planations into a continuous chain. Philo appears to have possessed a strongly associative mind. But the reader will forgive me if I indicate as briefly as possible what I consider to be the most im­ portant issue raised by our discussion. Decal. if I may permit myself a psychological specula­ tion. the fixed procedures But he has not. Virt. taken over o f rhetorical theory by means o f which rhetors were trained to produce their elpnos Xoytov. Philo has. and is probably derived from rhetorical theory and practice. but also uses it to describe his own procedure in his 178. in the Quaestiones). 1. This is suggested. W e follow the call to live the life o f the spirit. . for these were not suited to the practical requirements o f the exegete. ) . 4. Mut. for example. Spec. whose thought is quickly 'triggered' by parallels (verbal and thematic) and analogies.V 130 We must therefore slightly alter the formula we used in the case o f P l a t o . such as was practised in the speech genre. Because we accept this. Without doubt the hermeneutic practice o f explaining Moses via Moses (virtually absent. by his use of the word a u v e i p w .344 e t c . 198. Moreover. for composing or giving a speech (Congr. 67 Philo appears to use it as a kind o f technical term 6 4 . T o speak o f our experience is only to 'double' our acceptance o f the relation made by Philo between scripture and the philosophical con­ c e p t u a l l y required to explain it. taken over the 68 ideal o f concatenation. which is the philosophical life understood in Philonic terms. I suspect. pace M a c k . note well. encourages en­ chainment. cf. A crux in our reading of Philo This paper is already long enough as it is. 16). we become more and more convinced during our reading o f the treatise that spirit is superior to flesh. This distinguished these works from the Quaestiones. in the writing o f his exegetical w o r k s . 66 Nevertheless I am persuaded that the chief reason for Philo's concatenative tendency is literary. 6 1 . V . treatises (Congr. 94. W e also found it difficult to parallel in our section on comparative material.

Theaet. Fortunately. (This is not to deny. My own view is that. allegorical exegesis o f which leads to the ad­ junction o f secondary texts drawn from elsewhere in the Pentateuch (and rarely from outside it). because I a m persuaded that from the conceptual and thematic view­ point the treatises have at most a loose unity. that there is much repetition in Philo. the conceptuality o f a treatise should not be subordinated to or replaced by the experience undergone in reading it. I conclude that it is permissible to examine or utilize a Philonic passage in isolation from the thematics o f the treatise in which it is located. perhaps.) The question is: if each o f Philo's exegetical chains is unique in the way described. or even determined by. and that. but at this point for some reason he came to a halt (Plato Theaet.9-35. Just as in the case of the roots of squares representing three and five square feet (cf.44 'And in this way taking every single case in turn up to the root of seventeen square feet. o r is the meaning o f that portion intrin­ sically related. we as interpreters must always relate his statements to the biblical texts on which they are explicitly o r implicitly based. is it legitimate. to sever a portion o f the exegesis from its place in the structure o f the treatise in which it is found. for it is often hard to do otherwise. moreover. of course. when we are discussing a theme in Philo. Every treatise has a different main biblical text. because Philo regards himself as a disciple and expositor o f Moses. for each time there are different texts and chains o f association involved. 147d4). But. In practice this ensures that we will always be careful to look at the context o f his words.V PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 131 Philo's allegorical treatises are complex structures consisting o f en­ chained exegesis o f primary and secondary texts. E a c h chain o f texts and concomitant themes is unique. the answer to this question will be dependent on how we view the structure o f Philo's treatises. 147d5-6)'. Appendix Commentary (a) 34. but this is due to the limited number o f basic allegorical themejs and also to the fact that he tends to use a number o f biblical texts (and also etymologies) over and over again as a kind o f allegorist's stock-in-trade. 1: translation o f extracts from the Anonymous Theaetetus . will surely be inclined to answer the question in the negative. who find an integrated structural coherence in the allegorical works. its place in the s t r u c t u r e ? 69 Naturally. Pan-structuralists.

excluding nine and sixteen square feet. seven square feet and the others one by one up to seventeen square feet. In fact he does not always use the word 'recollection'. For this (number) represents a limit (or a stopping point). in their minds) (151b2-3). but only when this is the primary focus of atten­ tion. cf.e. 'But of the delivery the god and I am the cause (150d8-el). while the seventeen square feet is musical. as the tone is (formed) in the ratio of nine to eight. because the (musical) tone is not divided into equal semitones. 4 x 4 ) have an area (numerically) less than the perimeter.' My craft arouses the pain of childbirth that results from bewilderment (cf. then. There are those who inquire why he proceeded to seventeen square feet and then stopped. as has been demonstrated in our commentary on the Timaeus. can he say here that some men seem to him not to be pregnant? In this case we should understand the words 'in this life'. the products are sixteen and eighteen. like in the case of six square feet. 'With some (of these men) the daimonion that is present in me forbids me to associate. Squares that fit inside the tetrad (i. 150d7-8).V 132 so he also presented the other similar roots and demonstrated that they are commensurate in respect of the plane surface area [which they can form. But also the square formed by (sides of) four is sixteen. How.e. He made that clear when he said in the Meno. 151 a7) whenever it raises questions that are not straightforward.' Yet in the Symposium he says that 'all men are pregnant both in soul and in body' (206c-l). who do not seem to me to be somehow pregnant (i. since the daimonion of Socrates was not always dissuasive. unless there is someone besides who will articulate them. For four sides each of four units make sixteen. So it was . Of these the middle number is seventeen.11-57. Theatetus.e.42 'But they themselves have found in themselves many fine things and given birth to them (Theaet. for four times four is sixteen. which divides the upper and the lower into unequal proportions [i. Some (others) are of the opinion that... This is the square with a side of four. 18/17].' How do the souls still recollect. while it causes the pain to cease whenever it renders assistance by supplying starting-points and guiding the part­ ner in the dialogue. if you double the eight and the nine. but not in respect of the sides.' The word 'allows' (is used) instead of the words 'is not opposed'. in counting out the roots. 17/16. 'But in the case of some. (b) 56. but with others it does allow me (151a3-5). and it follows that this pregnancy of the soul is recollection. Perhaps it would be better to affirm that he proceeded to seventeen square feet because sixteen square feet reveals that only the square whose area is sixteen square feet has a perimeter and a surface area that are (numerically) equal. combined geometrical and musical theories. 148b2].' For the thoughts are insuffi­ cient to produce the wise man. For. 150d7) or find? But also those who lose something and later recover it are said to 'find'. but the phrase 'he for some reason came to a halt (147d6)' constrains that one inquires as to the reason for his stopping. he just hap­ pened to stop for some reason where he did. the question of roots being geometrical. 'My craft (of midwifery) is able to arouse this pain of childbirth and to cause it to cease (151a8-bl). For the souls are unable to summon up these recollected thoughts every time they are embodied. Met there be no difference whether we say it is teachable or reminded' (paraphrase 87b7-cl). even if it was possible once. And some say that Theodorus. as an expert in geometry and music. if they either learn (cf. but sometimes encourages him to associate.

6:1 (b) §1 initial observation (here quaestio §1. But in the general account it is necessary that they are such (i.e.V PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 133 not for nothing that he places the word 'somehow' before the word 'pregnant'. demons. 77:49 [MOT verbal dyyeXou? =» dyyiXtov KovTjpwv] (e) §17-18 detailed allegorical explanation §19 (a) transition (b) §19 citation MBL Gen. 31:2-3 [MOT verbal nveu^a-co? 0etou] (ii) illustration/comparison (Moses' Ttveuna) SBL Num.-Deus Winston-Dillon I 1-5 II 6-18 19-57 III IV V VI VII VIII 58-67 1-19 20-69 70-35 86-121 X XI XII 117-121 122-139 140-183 gigantibus IX X 122-139 140-183 Appendix 3: Structural analysis o f De Abbreviations MBL main biblical lemma SBL secondary biblical lemma MOT mode of transition §1 (a) citation MBL Gen. but so that it is understood that they are pregnant 'in some way' according to their current situation. 1:2 [MOT verbal Tcve0>a 0eou] SBL E x .11:17 [MOT verbal Ttveufiocxo?] . Moses) (c) §7-16 background information (d) §17 proof of doctrine SBL Ps. answer (§2-3) ushers in detailed alle­ gorical explanation (§4-5) (note that in §5 both return to M B L and proof of soundness of exegesis) §6 (a) citation MBL Gen. 6:3a (c) §20-21 initial observation (distinction (xevetv/xaxapieveiv) (d) §22-27 (i) background information (what is 0eou 7tveG|xa?) SBL Gen. pregnant). IV 55-57 V 58*67 VI 1-19 VII 20-50 VIII 51-69 IX 70-85 X 86-103 XI 104-116 XII 117-121 XIII 122-139 XIV 140-183 Radice I 1-5 II 6-18 III 19-55 IV 55-57 V 58-67 VI 1-19 VII 20-50 VIII 51-69 IX 70-116 Gig. 6:2 (b) §6 initial observation (angels. Appendix 2: Attribution o f chapters to Nikiprowetzky I 1-5 II 6-18 III 19-55.

5:31 Ex. 40. 2:24 [MOT verbal adpxa. 18:6 initial observation (repetition of av6pw7to?). auxou] §47 return MBL §48-54 further illustration (Moses. 17:1 [MOT thematic] allegorical explanation (oi yr\<. which I believe precedes both the Allegorical Commentary and the Exposition of the Law). 14:44 to Lev.V 134 (e) (1) (g) (h) return to MBL citation (again) of section of MBL initial observation (why especially a«p??) illustration SBL Lev. 33:7 Ex.O. followed by detailed allegorical explanation (note lemmata cited §33. MBL] (d) §65 (e) §66-67 NOTES * This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the Philo seminar held at the SNTS conference. transition to citation MBL Gen. (d) (ii) above) §28 §29 §29-31 §32-47 (i) 0) sequence of SBL [MOT all thematic.e. 39. 35. 34 Ex. and also presented to the Philo consultation group which met at the A A R / S B L conference at Anaheim. 6:3b (as appendix to chapter) (1) §56-57 initial observation (quaestio) here related to SBL Deut 34:7 [MOT verbal/thematic] detailed answer postponed §58 (a) citation MBL Gen. 14:44 Deut.Chr. 38 (1984) 209-256. 6:3a] illustration (Nimrod) SBL Gen. 16:2] SBL Num. 2 1 . cf. 18:14 Lev. cf. Gen.). Trondheim. 16:2. from Legum allegoriae to De somniis (thus excluding De opificio mundi. The paper was prepared with the financial support of the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z. I. the lawgiver appears to be indulging in mythology answer = background information > (discusses men of earth. Norway. God) SBL Gen. I would like to thank participants of both groups for their constructive comments. in August 1985. 20:21 (k) §55 return M B L . natSe?) SBL Gen. though probably verbal associa­ tion from Num. 6:4 (b) §58-59 (c) §60-64 initial observation (objection. 10:8 [MOT verbal y i ^ . Vig. heaven. 45) [MOT verbal Jtp6<. California in November 1985. 7tdv-ta oixetov aapxoi.W. cf. 'The structure of Philo's Allegorical treatises: a review of two recent studies and some additional comments'.

15 16 prefazione.Phil. This exegesis'. 39 (1985) 188ff. Summarized in art. 21 Cf. D. E . and my remarks in art. I. the principle of the modesty of the Philonic text postulated in art. Radice (Milan 1984). It appears at times to embrace an entire treatise or group of treatises.). Cf. Chris­ bei Philo von Alexandrien Gigantibus and Quod Deus sit immutabilis (Chico California 1983) (henceforth cited as Two 4 5 Studien zu Philon von Alexandreia H. 4 (1976-77) 1-16. Scroggs) (Leiden 1976) 45-56.l) alterations to the diagram). 'Weisheit und Allegorie bei Philon von Philonic corpus' Stud. ( n .Phil. Philon d'Alexandrie: de la grammaire a la mystique ANRW Philon d'Alexandrie Supplement au Cahier Evangile 44 (Paris 1983). 'Argumentation in Philo's (forthcoming in a volume on De sacrificiis in Studies in Hellenistic 'Argumentation in Philo's De sacrificiis' §4.cit. the main thesis of Adler op.4). L'epee cherubim and De " 12 du Logos et le soleil de midi (Lyon 1983) (analysis of De Abrahamo). ( n . 'Philon d'Alexandrie. Winston and J .Chr. Davies (edd. L . On Radice's bibliography see Vig. art. 'Some techniques of composition in Philo's allegorical commentary with special 9 reference to De agricultura: a study in the Hellenistic Midrash' in Jews. (Breslau 1929). Essays in Honor of W. 53-54). Thyen. (n. work was submitted as a thesis in 1970 and provisionally published in 1974. 'Exegetical traditions in Alexandrian Judaism: a program for the analysis'of the 3 (1974-75) 71-115. a development took place from text-bound exegesis to free composition. Mack (edd. 6 Le commentaire de I'Ecriture chez Philon d'Alexandrie (Leiden 1977) 170-180.Phil. 10 La trame et la chaine: ou les structures litteraires et l'exegese dans cinq des trades de (Leiden 1983). Die Technik der allegorischen Auslegungswissenschaft (Tubingen 1969). introduzione. 13 Alexandrien' Stud. . 'Decoding the scripture: Philo and the rules of rhetoric' in F . (n. Hamerton-Kelly & R.. l ) 212-213.cit. B. Homi/ie (Gottingen 1955). with peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Hilgert.cit. Greenspahn. Greeks and Chris­ tians. Dillon.cit.cit. Cf. and Sobr. R. Der Stil der judisch-hellenistischen tiansen. Mazzarelli. 7 'Quaestiones et solutiones: some observations on the form of Philo's Stud. 8 Two treatises 5-58 (see esp. 17 My reading of Radice leaves me somewhat in doubt as to the scope of the 'directive idea'. traduzione di C . but can also be used with reference to the shorter 'chapters' dealing with one verse or phrase of the main biblical text. note e apparati di R. Nourished De sacrificiis' Judaism). 18 Example given at Le origini del male 13-14 (for the sake of clarity I have made some Mack 'Decoding the scripture' 115.PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 135 3 D. exegete' 11 21.. who argued that between Leg. l ) 227-231. l ) 236-247. ( n . E . 5-9.1 (1984) 156-226. Two treatises of Philo of Alexandria: a commentary on De treatises). 14 memory of Samuel Sandmel (Chico California 1984) 81-115. 5 (1978) 57-105. 19 2 0 237-238. Filone di Alessandria: le origini del male.

(n. C . Anonymer Kommentar zu Platons Theaetet (Papyrus 9782) (Berlin 1905). But note the appeal to the Homeric words vextoep ipuOpov because epu0pov is the colour of honey (§16).cit. 270. as Philo might do. 72 and passim. Pepin art cit.1 eupr|aet<.-Mut. e. in a manner parallel to the Philonic development from Quaestiones to the more complex allegorical treatises (as postulated by Nikiprowetzky and Borgen & Skarsten). and the intro36 37 38 39 6 35 .. the contents of which were primarily philological.53.86. Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (Munchen 1976 ) 201.. It is not impossible.55-92. cm. Dillon. State University of New York at Buf­ falo. 66-88. Diels and W.30) 51 n. as a notorious 9tXo(5dpPapo?. Cher.12 6-tav yap axojtfji. In Theaetetum' CQ 33 (1983) 161-187. however. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 2 12 22 Note also that Numenius. cf. Ibid.g. Porphyrius: De grot van de nimfen (Baarn 1984). art. Her. exegete d'Homere' in Porphyre. D. Verhoeven et alii. H . 34 33 Cf. Dorrie. For further remarks on the formal resemblances between Platonist commentaries and Philo's exegetical writings see J . Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Leiden 1986) 502ff. Les mythes d'Homere et la pensee grecque (Paris 1956. formally parallel to Philo's Quaestiones (cf.-Sobr. At 15. Arethusa Monographs I (Buffalo 1969).) etc. 280-283 etc. Nikiprowetzky on Gig. Por­ phyry himself wrote 'Ofxriptxa CwifJta-ta. Homeric exegesis for the most part took the form of duopiai xat Xuaet?. Mos. H. Chr. 1973 ) 419-459.-Deus.39 opa?. Multiple exegesis.. Mack on Sacr. Eratapokrisis RAC6 (1966) 343). C R I N T II 2 (Assen 1984) 233-282. In both cases the history of compilation and accretion is very complex.37 a protreptic theme is raised on the basis of Tht. E . also for readers of Dutch.. 209-211.cit. The Middle Platonists (London 1977) 270. 33.e. 259-265.). (n. Pepin. Hamerton-Kelly on Agr. and now Scepticism or Platonisml: the philosophy of the Fourth Academy (Cambridge 1985) esp. Runia op. i. Deus 107 (\ii\nox ouv a[AEivov Sv t'(r\ ixhixzaQoLi T O U T O . 'The date of the Anon. Strack. cf. 597616.. Buffiere.-Deus. 40 (1986) 209-217.). For a more detailed examination of the parallel see my article 'Mosaic and Platonist exegesis: Philo on 'finding' and 'refinding". 66. quote on p. T. Runia on Deus. Neusner. that longer Homeric ^7\xr\[ia. cf. J . This is reminiscent of Philo's associative methods. 2. Schubart. Jewish writings of the second temple period. Borgen. 145d. Art. 'Philo of Alexandria' in M. H. 58. Because this document has never been translated into English. Stone (ed. and Cher. Cazeaux on Migr. 'The formal structure of Philo's allegorical ex­ egesis' in Two treatises 77-87. the remarks of P. 'Porphyre. Runia.. 21-30. Philo at Deus 26. 'Defining midrash' in J ..e. 1. The study of ancient Judaism (New York 1981) 1. On this interesting little work see further F. L .V 136 I. Adler on Leg.xct had made the move to a more complex structure. modesty ([ATITCOTE. may have even read Philo's ex­ egesis of the Pentateuch. Leg. esp. as 'perhaps') e. Radice on Cher.98-99.. Text and translation by Seminar Classics 609. I append a provisional version of these passages in Appendix 1 at the end of the article. But he does use the second person in order to involve the reader (e. Vig.g. 62. 70-79.g.9) 47. but is not used to inspire the reader to emula­ tion. Entretiens Hardt (Geneva 1966) 229-272.

In reference to the Sodomites: 'Verily. Z. at Deus 117 & 122 is similar. witness. See the table set out in Appendix 2. 18:20 xnzXrfiwzcm. Le origini del male 497. The analogy is preserved in the L X X : 6:5 £7tXTi8uv0Tiaav. Note that there is a difference between Philo and the Rabbis here. Freedman and M. Eusebius HE 2. cf. esp. Philo regards the verbal analogy as the result of the precision and accuracy of the divinely inspired lawgiver. analogy. even though he sees the two cosmic disasters as strictly parallel (Mos.54-57). contrast. G.l) 239ff. Cf. Cazeaux too accepts the unit of the chapter as a working hypothesis. 1-5. Only 6 of the chapters—Gig. epilog). Lauterbach. Parallels between Gen. must view the analogies more 'abstractly'. Philo apparently does not exploit it. gezarah shawah. cf. Deus 1-19. 6-18. example. 2 40 41 42 43 44 Note how Rabbi Abba b.l) 239. 161ff. XXVIII §8) bases an inter­ pretation on a complete disregard for punctuation. 267. 'Remarques sur la theorie de l'exegese allegorique chez Philon' in Philon d'Alexandrie. XVIII. 1 (London 1939) 220222. The analogy teaches that the punishment stated in the one case was also inflicted in the other'. art. Scrip­ ture and tradition in Judaism (Leiden 1973 ). Freedman & Simon ad ioc: 'Heb. Cf.cit. the same text as one of those used by the Rabbi. 'all his days'. The Rabbis. in mind at Deus 111.4. (n.2. op. He confines his comparison to Pentateuchal figures (Noah. Cf.g. J . (n. The reader will note a certain similarity with the 'patterns of elaboration' suggested by Mack in his two recent papers (e. 6:5 and Eccl. 'heart'. " Philo clearly has Gen. again mutatis mutandis.150 (which I now qualify). 39:21. This is an expansion of suggestions made in art. but combines it with Gen. Compare 8. Le origini del male 41-42. Pepin. 6:7-8 reads 'for it repenteth that I have made them and Noah' (impossible in the Greek). . Joseph). cf. Cazeaux in his analysis of Quis heres admits a chapter of 100 capita (§130-229). even though their method is very similar (cf. who do not confine the analogies to the books of Moses. On the tracing of midrashic material back to the time of Philo and earlier cf. 44 (my translation). and note also Radice Appendice B. my remarks above on the gezerah shawa). Lyon 11-15 Septembre 1966 (Paris 1967) 131-167.35! Genesis Rabbah. Vermes.R.V PHILO'S ALLEGORICAL TREATISES 137 ductions in the edition of Lauterbach and the translation of Freedman & Simon. 20). 2:21-23: 'man'. the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great' (Gen. 140-183—are unanimously recognized. as made possible by the God-given nature of scripture.cit.1-15. so that Gen. Simon vol. 'evil'. Philo's procedure. Moses. 58-67. Text and translation in J .cit. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 46 Two treatises 16. 230-232. and n. Kahana (Gen. La trame et la chaine 33. rationale. Taking into consideration only the undisputed chapters. But my procedures are based on 'empirical' analysis of Philonic treatises rather than the codes of rhetorical systems. 55 56 57 58 54 Two treatises 232.13-18 with Ebr. See above on Nikiprowetzky's analysis.18. 122-139. I also avoid the term 'elaboration'. On these in Philo cf. X X I X §1. translated by H. 39:4. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (Philadelphia 1949) 1.

The artist Plato is.e. Cf. W. An analogous question has been raised in relation to Plato's practice of writing selfcontained dialogues. by altering TO Oetov to Deus. also his use of auvu9<xivw.V 138 On the problems associated with the title cf.. though it is used less exclusively of the speech. In Congr.cit. VI (Cam­ bridge 1981) 1. Gig. Riginos. also Gig. 48-54). 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 59 . (n. cf. Though there is some philosophical argument in Gig. Some examples given at Runia op. Deus 23. In Congr. endless) concatenation. Guthrie. 64 the philosophers. 6-18 and Deus 33-47. Cf. Platonica: the anecdotes concerning the life and writings of Plato (Leiden 1976) 180-183. at Deus 29-32. Cf.cit. Xoyoui. ajtveuort auveipovte? T O U ? ntpi dpeTf)<. art. A. which are primarily meant to furnish background information. (n. restricts the scope of the unchangeability (in the treatise it is also attributed to the ao<po?. K. Two treatises 7. e.g. Note how the Latin of the title of Quod Deus. Note that Philo is aware of the dangers of excessive (i. could virtually come straight out of a philosophical textbook. of course. A history of Greek philosophy vol. 178 he checks himself from excessive ouveipfio?. cannot hold their audience. but this is tangential to the question at issue here.l) 237: 'The interpretation that Philo gives of a scriptural text conveys to us what he thinks his reader should know in order to understand that text. not averse to using literary means for heightened effect.-Deus. Nikiprowetzky Two treatises 5-7. Cf.30) 321.' See the views of Cazeaux and Mack briefly set out above. C. S.

Philo o f Alexandria introduces a distinction between 'finding' and 'refinding' which has recently caused scholars some concern. The fourth scholar>v xaXelv e. 6 ) .' Having quoted the words in Gen. first of the Nazarite who recovers his vow ( N u m . In the recently published comprehensive study devoted to this double treatise both the late V.1 1 ) who make sudden. then o f J a c o b (Gen. The remarks o f the French scholar. oi hi <x rcaXai vuv oi rcpdixov 7t£pi£TCoi7)aavxo. xouxt [Jiiv ouv xo epyov eupeatv. In this brief article I shall undertake to defend Philo from at least the most serious o f the criticisms levelled against him by three scholars. he immediately launches into the distinc­ tion mentioned above (Deus 8 6 ) : xoov eupiaxovxcov oi jjtev a rcpoxepov (JLTJ e^ovxei. i x e l v o oi CTQXTJXIXOI X W V ocveupeatv oi xupicov 6vo[i. . was led astray was myself. Dillon (in their detailed c o m m e n t a r y ) focus at­ tention on Philo's distinction. e u p i a x o u a i v . Nikiprowetzky (in his introductory analysis) and D. as I now think.uo0aai. Winston and J . Scriptural examples follow. So part o f what now follows is also a retractatio. Deus im­ Philo's controversial remark is part of the exegesis of Gen. 6:8 on which his 2 chapter o f exegesis will focus.27:20) and the Israelites ( D e u t . are particularly severe: 3 Philon attribue cette distinction a «des gens qui se soucient de la propriete des mots». unexpected finds. d7c£|3ocXov auOu. la distinction que Philon repete en leur nom releve d'une tres detestable grammaire grecque. with which I begin. 6: 1-12 which he presents in the double treatise De gigantibus—Quod mutabilis 5/7. 6 : 1 0 . Par une tres curieuse ironie.VI MOSAIC AND PLATONIST EXEGESIS PHILO ON 'FINDING* AND REFINDINC-' In one o f his philosophically orientated exegeses o f the Mosaic Pen­ tateuch. Thereafter Philo appears to lose interest in the distinction and does not return to it at § 1 0 4 when he final­ ly addresses the quoted biblical lemma.

. therefore. . two different activities. In other words. in fact. as we shall see. for that matter. and that it certainly never means 'refind' or 'recover'. . But fortunately the situation is not hopeless (Deus 9 0 ) : 4 dXX' O[AOO<. drcoPocXwv ocuGi? x a i x a G a p G e l . Thus. . Indeed. suddenly becomes defiled and loses all that he has so far achieved. It is apparent that the verb dveupiaxeiv has nothing t o do with the matter. Brunei and P . Philo's practice is better than his preaching! Now. dva[3Xaaxdveiv 'shoot up anew'. ap­ parently. in spite o f the careful nurture o f the growths o f ex­ cellence in his soul.. N u m . quite irrelevant to the matter at issue. it may not be possible t o exculpate Philo entire­ ly. never has that force has a recapitulative or repetitive force (e. 6 : 1 2 ) . Nikiprowetzky continues. Not surprisingly. But the verb dveupiaxeiv is much m o r e c o m m o n . the verb dveupiaxeiv does not occur in the pericope (or. Chantraine.). There it only has an intensifying effect which indicates the effort involved in the process o f discovery. This single word denotes. and that o f finding for the first time what one has never yet possessed. when we examine Philo's use of the verb. 'le sentiment que Philon avait de la langue grecque est en effet bien meilleur que la reflection theorique sur la langue a laquelle il affirme ici donner son a p p r o b a t i o n ' . It c a n happen that the maker of the great vow. to? xd<. occurring on­ ly here in Philo. Nikiprowet­ zky affirms that the prefix d v a . that o f finding again what one has previously lost.g. for the activity represented by dveupeai. M o r e light is shed on Philo's procedure when we turn to part o f his description o f the first scriptural example. is very rare. which is certainly flawed. F o r the sake o f clarity Philo finds it useful to formulate the two activities represented by the one verb in terms o f two nouns. But not on account o f Nikiprowetzky's critique. 7cpox£pa? xfjs xporcfjs T[[xepa? d X o y o u ? e £ e x a £ e a 0 a i (cf. The exegete's concern is with the verb eupiaxeiv which he comes across in the biblical lemma. is contained in the verb eupiaxeiv. dveupeai? and eupeau.(Bdvei x a t dva[xifxv7)axexai wv xeax.VI 210 The noun dveupeai. Philo's use o f the verb dveupiaxeiv is. e7teXeXr]axo. Appeal­ ing to the standard works by J . x a i obtep a7ce(3aXev e u p i a x e i . which in other verbs often dv<xCco7tupeTv 'rekindle' etc. in the entire double treatise). respectively. the French scholar concludes. dvaXafj. in the case o f dveupiaxeiv. we find that there is virtually no difference be­ tween it and the uncompounded unambiguously eupiaxeiv.

From the context. I affirmed. TOU But in § 87 the exegete has clearly told us evapyeaxaxov. the second o f which is relevant to our present discussion.9 0 is based on a verbal cue in the biblical text (cf. dveuptaxetv (One might also point out in passing that. It is likely.e. the prepositional prefix in the verb Phaedo it occurs in a well-known passage (76d7-e4): has posed problems for modern scholars in a different context. X P ^ a v ^PT) X 'P e auToG x a x a Suvajxiv tfj? £ox*iS a i k o G .. These transi­ tions are. it appears. because Philo uses the verb (and not av&uptoxEi) eupi'axei here. that the exam­ in § 8 7 . In an article containing some comments on the structure o f Philo's allegorical treatises. o xocxu The Nazarite is an example o f 'finding' in the sense o f 'refinding'.. surprisingly often based on verbal parallels. It is evident that Philo is fully consistent in using the word eupiaxei described by the noun ing' (cf. § 86 (cited above). and yet the verb avanifivTjaxETai just above makes this solution difficult to accept. to represent the activity dveupeaic. where we read: W OUTO? w v 6 VOJJLOS TOU Eujja(/ivou. b\ av eufjr)'cat xupico Scopov ao-coG xupiw •rcepi vf\$ fcuxfjs. euprj impelled Philo to give this example here cannot be considered certain.VI MOSAIC AND P L A T O N I S T E X E G E S I S 21 1 Winston and Dillon in their commentary make the following comment on this passage: x a i a7tep a j t e $ a X e v e G p t o x E t . noted by time'. i.21. 2 7 : 2 0 ) in the sense o f 'finding for the first in § 9 0 . 7 the next example in § 9 2 . In Plato's . quite apart from the prob­ lem o f Philo's usage. 2 7 : 2 0 ) : The verb eupiaxw occurs in Num. But first I must point out the Deus immutabilis sit. I took two examples from Quod ple o f dveupeat? 6 Winston and Dillon. rather i. just as J a c o b in § 92 is an example o f 'find­ topzc in G e n . Philo must be thinking of the necessity of start­ ing again from the beginning. he is giving an example o f npoxipov 7tapa5£ly[xoc eupeaic. and that this reading prompted him to invoke the Nazarite as example of dveupeat?? That the word read dveuprj. But it is certainly wrong to suggest that he may have for reasons that by now should be quite clear. . . 1 pointed out that it is useful to observe the manner in which Philo moves from one biblical text to the next. that the Nazarite is a or 'finding what one has lost'.6 only at v. Could it be that Philo read dveupt). In fact the words o b i e p d7r£(3aXcv in § 9 0 virtually repeat the description o f 'refinding' given in in one o f its two senses here. T o the presence o f the verb avocniuvfjaxeToci mistake 1 made myself. The commentators seem to imply that. of than o f the expected dveupeai? euptaxei dveupeaic.e. based on G e n . I shall return directly. one would expect this to be an exam­ ple of aveupeoi? rather than of euptai?.

r\ (as opp. such Stoic neologisms as &yop\t. papyrus roll.).. 253E). between Euptcns. i.VI 212 ei [xev eaxiv a GpuXoufxev d e i . 10 is not mentioned). as 'recover' or 're-discover'. The distinction between eupeai? and aveup&ais seems not to be made elsewhere in so many words.e. we encounter the following brief exegetical pericope: . Meno 74A. T o my knowledge their last statement is correct. as we have seen. or eGroxOEia (as opp.g. ouxco? x a i TTJV rjLiexepav (JJUX^V elvai x a i rcpiv y e y o v e v a i YJfXd?. Admittedly. 'discovery' and dvtupeau. they have been induced by the context into giving the prepositional prefix a force which. it normally does not have (and doubtless should not be given). x a i inl xauxrjv xd ex xcov aiaGrjaewv roivxa dvacpepofxev. and dveupeai?? Winston and Dillon in their c o m m e n t a r y affirm: 9 He [Philo] begins with a scholastic distinction. Moreover. their suggestion that the source o f the distinction may be connected to discussions on the Platonic doctrine o f reminiscence is an inspired 76el guess. x a X o v xe xi x a i d y a G o v x a i rcaaa r\ xoiauxrj o u a i a . In the Anonymous found partially preserv­ ed on the remains o f a second century A . Soph. d7to7rpor)Y[i£vov. overlooked by Philo's discussion. In a footnote to the words 'some Hellenistic source' they add: Cf. to roxGo. But there is a Platonist exegetical text. I t o o have not found any other example o f the distinction formulated in this way. D . of bp\ir\). Phaedr. OUTGO? toarcep x a i x a u x a eaxiv. Given the close proximity o f the verb dva(jii(xvfiaxeiv and the fact that Plato clearly describes the process o f recovering prising previously held but now forgotten knowledge. possibly borrowed from some Hellenistic source.ev. u 7 t d p x o u a a v rcpoxepov d v e u p i a x o v x e ? rju:exepav o u a a v . our two c o m m e n t a t o r s . which may have been stimulated by Plato's frequent use of aveupwxw in contexts associated with reminiscence (e. which offers a striking parallel for Theaetetus Commentary. we have seen that the use o f the verb dveupiaxeiv is strictly speaking irrelevant (and the most striking instance at Phd. 252E. d v a y x a l o v . x a i x a u x a exei'vr) a7ieixdCo|j. 'rediscovery'. Are 8 there any other ancient philosophical or exegetical texts which might cast some light on Philo's double explanation o f eupiaxw and his distinction between eupeau. The context is concerned with the theory of recollection (76c4 dvaLiijivfiaxovxai d p a a 7toxe e'fxaGov). it is not sur­ that some reputable translators have rendered the word dveopiaxovxe.

r\hr\ fxevxoi oux dT a t T et X P ^ i ^> 1 T ^i? " a vajjivriaeco? 6v6[jiaxi. (knowledge via a . dated the work to the mid-second century.vr)a x o v x a i a i 4>uxai. Meno 87b7 ff.11 d X X ' a u T o l 7tap'auxcov.av9dvouaiv r\ eupiaxouaiv.« cf. In the Neoplatonist commentaries (which.VI MOSAIC AND P L A T O N I S T E X E G E S I S 213 col. Plato's text raises an exegetical drcopia. T a r r a n t has made a not unpersuasive attempt to show that it may be c o n t e m p o r a r y with Philo or even earlier. 150d7-8 x a t izGiq exi dva[ju[i. eSriXwaev 8e ev xcoi Mevcovi etutov. The editors o f the Anonymous Commentary. Tht. when the doctrine is the primary focal point o f the discussion. and that P l a t o only uses the technical term dvd[xvr)ai<. 7toXXd x a i x a X d e u p o v xe? xe x a t x e x o v x e ? . el'xe 818axxov el'xe dva{xvr)axov a u x o Xeyo[jiev. Clearly the meaning given the verb eupiaxeiv is identical with one o f the meanings put forward by Philo. i. et yt T) jj. Xeyovxai [jiv eupiaxeiv x a i 01 d7toXeaavxe<. con­ tain much material derived from earlier exegesis) there is quite a bit o f discussion o f eupeai?. particularly in relation t o [xdOrjan. the heyday o f Middle Platonism (and not much earlier than the roll itself)-" Recently H . 7cept xouxou a x o ^ f j .e. »8ia<pepexoj 8e [xr]8ev. o f course. xe x a i uaxepov Xa(36vxe? a u io.56. dXXd o x a v 7rpor)You[xevcoi. 12 W e cannot be certain whether this particular examination o f eupiaxeiv was confined to exegesis o f the Theaetetus text or was m o r e widely disseminated. H o w can the language o f 'find­ ing' and 'giving birth' be reconciled with the doctrine o f recollection? In reply the c o m m e n t a t o r declares that the verb eupiaxeiv can also be used o f those who lose and later recover something. Diels and Schubart.

. Philo does not exploit the innate Platonic and the theme o f recollected knowledge. in associating this word with the specific activity o f refinding. which has remained quite unparalleled.1 1 . familiar makes himself vulnerable to the charge o f writing dubious Greek? I shall now . already discussed o f what he above. x a i tjr}ii]oi<x>c. we may conclude.215e) states: oti x a i TO Cr]TeTv x a i TO eupiaxeiv 8r]XoT xr)v dvd(JTVR]aiv OUTS y a p Cr)Tr)a£iev av TIC ou eaTiv dvevv6r|T0c OUT' dv eupoi 8 i d ye ^r\ti\azoic. The final text used (§ 175-176) to illustrate dveu tjxzrptoic eupeais. however. D e u t .. not wholly the same (note also fr. is related to Platonist t h e m e . These Platonist exegetical themes are also o f interest in relation to Philo's discussion rcepi eup£aeco<. in which the purification o f the defiled Levite—an example.VI 214 teacher) and dvdLivr]aic (recollected knowledge). Highly instructive for our purposes are some notes purportedly derived from Plutarch o f C h a e r o n e a and now located among the remains o f Damascius' c o m ­ mentary on the Phaedo. This is a less specifically W e are left with Philo's use o f the noun dveupeai?. in but Tht. cf.. forgotten (dvaXa|ji(3dvei x a i dva(xiLivfiax£Tai <ov T£<OC 9601?. 1 5 0 . reminiscent o f both Philo and the Anon. 6 : 1 0 . Is not the conclusion unavoidable that Philo. must have recalled to mind discussions on eupeaic.Comm.Theaet.Comm. prompted by another exam­ ple o f the word eupe in the biblical lemma (Gen. It is apparent that the two distinct activities represented by the verb eupiaxeiv are equivocal. n One o f the notes (fr. we recall. 14 ability o f the gifted student. In the rest o f the passage.19). M o r e we cannot do for him. o f refinding—is directly associated with recollection for a while had £7C£X£XTJ<JTO). cannot be wholly excluded. W e can c o m p a r e another passage. Plant. cited above which inspired we him.Theaet. confronted by the biblical text which he was about to explain in Deus 86 ff. Philo. 119-176. is exactly the same as that found in Deus 9 4 .9 5 as an example of (unexpected) finding. 16:7) and developed at great length in Fug.216e olov d7toXo(jivr|c.1 5 6 . eupeaic. in which Philo explains in some detail the distinction.56. embark on a last line o f defence. The (admittedly remote) possibility that it was the very passage in the Anon. and dvaLivrjaic which he had c o m e across in his study o f Platonist writings. Confirmation o f the conclusion have reached is found in the passage at Deus 9 0 . A distinction is made here between recollected finding and finding by chance.X£yeTai y a p eupiaxeiv x a i 6 x a x d 7rep{7CTojaiv.

17 acquisi­ The same awareness is or assumed by Philo when he uses the much rarer noun aveupeat?. The last-named noun is a good example. ' The verb (jieGueiv. to my mind. is represented by oi Crjxrixtxoi -CWV xupuov 6vo|j. The states o f objective reality are primary. the vicissitudes of linguistic usage are secondary. also Gig. but the equivocity.. but rather two activities both described by that same verb. if Philo decides to circumscribe those two activities with two nouns..i? etc. are pronounced h o m o n y m o u s (§ 154). reveals an equivocity. also Gig. just like eupiaxeiv in Deus 8 6 . and auvcovujjia (cf. F r o m this perspective it is clear that. for it appears that the Greek reader could tell from the context whether it meant tion o f knowledge or recovery o f knowledge. Thus. 15 on whether the wise man is permitted to get drunk (§ 142-177). .exeivo 8e.. when Philo speaks o f h o m o n y m y or synonymy. dvdXr)(J.56.dxoov. xcov fjiev..56).VI MOSAIC AND P L A T O N I S T I . It is as if he says. pected the reader to recognize the recapitulative force o f the preposi­ tional prefix in dveupeai? on the analogy o f words such as dvd|AV7)<ns... strictly speaking. between ofxcovufxa QE fr. This passage is part o f a longer discussion.xdc 8e. It is not the words rcpornjuxTtov but the things or acts or events which are h o m o n y m o u s . Now the important thing to realize is that. to whom the distinction is accredited? It is m o r e than likely. At the beginning o f the discusion another verbal distinction is made (§ 142): eaxi TOIVUV TO fxeGueiv SITTOV.. cast in the form o f a Geai? and clearly adapted from an unknown philosophical source. the one we may call eupiaxeiv-activity A . as well as the corresponding verbs oivouaGou and [jieGueiv.. Perhaps he himself was not unaware that he was employing a neologism quasi-neologism. The nouns olvo? and [xeGu. the other eupiaxeiv-activity B . ev fxev laov T I TOO oivouaGou. exepov 8e laov xto XrjpeTv ev oivcp. he follows Aristotle and general ancient prac­ tice. I S I S 21 5 from its important role in Aristotelian philosophy. But who. 150 (cf.. which is in fact quite opposite to what we are accustomed. I suggest a short-hand way of distinguishing that the words eupeai? and Philo would have ex­ dveupeai? do not represent the analysis o f established linguistic usage. 16 Hence his talk o f xouxi jaev TO epYov.XI C . The only difference is that in this case Philo does not complicate matters by introducing nominal equivalents. it is not the verb eupiaxeiv that is equivocal.8 Petit). in Deus TOC 8 6 . there is an element o f artificiality in the procedure. Plant.

Ibid. in his 18 On is also c o n c e r n e d case eupiaxeiv and dvoifju[jivf)axea0ou. forthcoming in Judaica et Hellenica (studies in honour of the late V. in fact. Zintzen. edited and translated by F. T h e r e is. Sandbach. NOTES ' That the two treatises in our modern editions were originally a single work is shown not only by the total lack of a break between them. Dillon (edd. 171 (1909) 531-547 (reprinted in C. Scepticism or Platonism?: the philosophy of the fourth academy (Cambridge 1985) 66-88. Plato. Diels and W. 'The date of anon. Califor­ nia 1983) 71. Cf. " Ibid.6 0eTov (HE 2.3). Schubart. For a critique of Tarrant's thesis in relation to Philo see my article.).15 (London 1969) 388-401.4). Ibid. Plato's Phaedo (Cambridge 1955) 73. What Plato said (Chicago 1933) 173. 'The structure of Philo's allegorical treatises' VChr 38 (1984) 209-256 (part of the arti­ cle gave a critique of the book cited in n. and that the periphrasis may simply refer to P h i l o h i m s e l f . Shorey. no way o f telling who was ultimately responsible for that t r o u b l e s o m e c o i n a g e dveupeai?. but also by Eusebius' description of the copy in the library in Caesarea. The Greek commentaries on Plato's Phaedo volume II Damascius (Amsterdam 1977) (fragments at 166-171. the paraphrase of P. 'Redrawing the map of early Middle Platonism: some comments on the Philonic evidence'. 'we have to recover this knowledge'. cit. H. xxivff. Der Mittelplatonismus (Darmstadt 1981) 301-316). The last days of Socrates (London 1959 ) 127. The Middle Platonists (London 1977) 270. not disputed by K.216 that Nikiprowetzky is doubly correct when he suggests that the phrase does not refer to specialists in linguisitic usage but has the m o r e general meaning o f 'those who are interested in or careful about the right use o f w o r d s ' .17-20. 2 4 1 1 2 12 i . But I think we can now learn to live with it.. * R. Praechter's review in G6tt.Gel. 326.Anz. ' D. Tredennick. 240. "' Text in H. ' My references are to the most accessible edition. see L. Anonymer Kommentar zu Platons Theaetet (Papyrus 9782) Berliner Klassikertext II (Berlin 1905) 37. Westerink. 'thereby recovering what was ours aforetime'. Ibid. LCL vol. Plutarch's Moralia Fragments. 300-303). G. I quote the editio maior of Cohn-Wendland. Repi yiyavTcov r|rcepixoO U. 2.3) 320. Hackforth. the other hand. Two treatises of Philo of Alexandria (Chico. In Theaetelum'. S o m a y b e the Crrrryuxoi are Platonist exegetes.T) xpintaQou -.18. 72. H. ' Op. CQ 33 (1983) 161-187. Dillon. (n. Nikiprowetzky) (Paris 1986). 'as we re-discover our own former knowledge of them'. On the Neoplatonic commentary among which the fragments are ensconced. and J .75. Winston and J . the c o m m e n t a t o r on the Theaetetus with the proper usage of 6v6[x<rca.

Proclus in Ale. qveupiaxovxa? f\ rcap' dXXtav avaxtvou(ievou<. Brehier. r^xa? emaxpecpovxai. Fortschritt bei Philon von Alexandrien (Leipzig 1938) 154 ff. xai 8f eauxwv xo dXrjGei. 17 176.. ei? xf)<. of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics (Toronto 1978 ) 112. The research for this article was carried out with the financial assistance o f the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement o f Pure Research (Z. Les idees philosophiques de Philon d'Alexandrie (Paris 1950 ) 272 ff. avaXricJuv. (n. 3 et und re/igieuses Vollendung 15 W. Volker.). The contect shows that dvaXr)^? means 'recovery' rather than 'acquisi­ tion'. .20-24 Westerink: ou yap aXkr\ ti? 686? EI? xxfjaiv ujtoXEtrcexai XTJV cppovTjaetoc. Dillon op.po<. 16 Cf. " Op. <xXX' r\ [xa^etv 8eTTOayvooujievov r] eupeiv.W.MOSAIC AND P L A T O N I S T E X E G E S I S 217 14 Although it certainly is not un-platonic: cf.cit.. J . eauxoCx. Owens. See my remarks at VChr 35(1981)112-114.3) 72. The doctrine Cf. O'Neill in his translation (The Hague 1965) rightly resists and renders 'discovering the truth on our own account'. The speculation that Aristotle's lost Sym­ is the direct or indirect source is unwarranted. E. It is rightly deleted in the recent works of Aristotle 3 posium selection of Aristotle's fragments in J . But W. xai PoT]9ou(xevou<. Note here too how tempting it is to render the word dveupiaxovxa? as 'recover'.O. e7rtaxri(jiT)(. ( n . The complete (Princeton 1984) 2384-2462. l l ) 152.). Barnes (ed. r\ r. cit..

to portray Philo as primarily a religious thinker rather than a philosopher. if the claims o f G o u l e t ' s study are taken seriously. F i r s t . as we shall see. . T h i r d l y and m o s t importantly. M o r e recently j u d g e m e n t s have tended to b e m u c h kinder.VII REVIEW La philosophic de Mo'ise. . Paper 2 4 6 F . we can best cite the c o n c l u d i n g words o f M a r g u e r i t e H a r l ' s influential I n t r o d u c t i o n to h e r transla­ tion and c o m m e n t a r y on Quis heres rerum divinarum sit: ' P h i l o ' s spiritual life is an interiorization o f J e w i s h religion . returns to the earlier attitude with a vengeance. but the impact o f his views on the development o f P h i l o n i c scholarship remained l i m ­ ited. scholars have long differed in their evaluation o f Philo as a writer and a thinker. it is necessary to refer to the long-standing debates on the extent to which the c o n t e n t s o f P h i l o ' s exegetical treatises represent his own achievement. T H E author. I n d e e d . but intolerably long-winded scatterbrain. particularly in F r a n c e . M o r e recently B u r t o n M a c k and other A m e r i c a n scholars returned to the question o f the exegetical traditions o f the A l e x a n - . U n t i l about 4 0 years ago the verdicts were on the whole negative: Philo was regarded as a well-meaning. G o u l e t . 1 1 . ' T h i s view o f P h i l o as essentially a homo religiosus is central to G o u l e t ' s thesis. 6 2 1 . Vrin. it will be useful to m e n t i o n three items o f b a c k g r o u n d information. whose c h i e f value lay in the evidence he preserves. 1 9 1 5 ) who first argued at length that m o s t o f P h i l o ' s material was traditional. P p . as scholars tried to develop s o m e feeling for what Philo was trying to do. has written a long. T o illustrate. H e is the first representative o f a new type o f religious m a n . (Histoire des D o c t r i n e s de l'Antiquite Classique. In order to place the work securely in its scholarly c o n t e x t . I t was W i l h e l m B o u s s e t in his Jiidisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexan­ dria und Rom ( G o t t i n g e n . a historian o f ancient philosophy in the late Hellenistic and Imperial period. rich. S e c o n d l y . 1 9 8 7 . By R I C H A R D G O U L E T . Essai de reconstitution d'un commentaire philosophique prephilonien du Pentateuque. there has been a tendency in recent times. it is b o u n d to give rise to a storm o f controversy a m o n g scholars interested in the writings and thought o f P h i l o o f Alexandria. ) Paris: Librairie Philosophique. J. and highly stimulating book.

It is founded. on the following five premisses. that he h i m s e l f does not pay sufficient attention to the m o r e recent work on the subject. F r o m another perspective the distinction between the two kinds o f thought can also b e expressed in t e r m s o f G r e e k universalism and J e w i s h particularism. I t is worth emphasizing at the outset that this theory is a hypothesis in the true sense o f the word. 1 . P h i l o ' s writings do not repre­ sent an eclectic synthesis o f a large diversity o f earlier exegetical traditions. and essentially non. an explana­ tion and a tertium quidas referent. persuasively in m y view.m a c r o c o s m relation. £ K t 6 < . A b r a h a m as T c a t f ) q 8 k X . the other religious. f\%0V)q . T h r o u g h o u t the entire work G o u l e t consistently maintains a clear-cut distinction between philosophical and religious thought. A t the core o f P h i l o ' s exegetical writings is a fundamental i n c o h e r e n c e . T h e former displays a strong intellectualistic bias. on the other hand. if closely analyzed. his highest calling is to follow the dictates o f the m i n d in a life o f virtue. t h e o c e n t r i c . the one secular. however. 2 . T h e central hypothesis o f G o u l e t ' s book. consisting in the continual j u x t a p o s i t i o n of two i n c o m p a t i b l e views o f reality. M a n is related to G o d in a m i c r o c o s m . G o d as L o g o s . O n l y a wholly natural theology is admitted in such thought. whether h u m a n or divine. but rather. emphasizing the power o f the m i n d . T h e r e is no evidence that can be used to support it outside the writings o f P h i l o himself. first cause or administrator (but not creator) o f the c o s m o s .VII 591 drian synagogue. It tends towards an anti-intellectualistic position because it is c o n c e r n e d that the h u m a n m i n d m i g h t attribute too m u c h power to itself and in its presumption deny its dependence on G o d ' s grace. and philosophical. A n a m b i t i o u s project was set up in order to investigate the subject b u t it has not reached c o m p l e t i o n (and it is not likely that it ever will). T h i s i n c o h e r e n c e results from the fact that Philo has reworked a written c o m m e n t a r y on the P e n t a ­ teuch. that the full thrust o f B o u s s e t ' s position was not taken sufficiently seriously. G o u l e t argues. Allegory in the true sense involves a s y m b o l . i. it would appear. I t will emerge. Religious thought. humanist.or even anti-philosophical.e. sees the relation between G o d and m a n as that between creator and creature. taken from B o u s s e t but now worked out to the full extent o f its implications. can b e formulated as follows. G o u l e t takes a very stringent view o f what constitutes allegory. reveal a critical confront­ ation with a project which in t e r m s o f sheer intellectual audacity and power far outstripped his own efforts. the philosophical allegory o f which differed profoundly from his own religious viewpoint.

9 9 . when A b r a h a m represents the sage searching for G o d . T h e authors responsible for the p r e . had no choice b u t to take over these etymologies if his own allegorical c o m m e n t a r i e s were to succeed. 5 . T h e allegorical system devised by the Allegorists is wholly moral or ethical in e m p h a s i s . M u c h o f P h i l o ' s exegesis is essentially literalist.o n e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e between symbol and explanation if the allegory is to b e satisfac­ tory. exegesis o f . T h e allegorical c o m m e n t a r y on the P e n t a t e u c h that Philo pillages is a rigorously structured running c o m m e n t a r y . p r o c e e d ­ ing verse b y verse. with no digressions and little or n o references to o t h e r biblical texts. a r e q u i r e m e n t that Philo frequently ignores. T h e m i n d m u s t use the senses as instruments (note that G o d gave A d a m (the unformed m i n d ) E v e ( s e n s e .g. the responsibility is to be laid at P h i l o ' s door. indicated b y the e t y m o l o g y ) t h u s represents the m i n d o f the sage (explanation) because it is in control o f reasoned speech (referent). P h i l o . A l t h o u g h Philo makes frequent references to other exegetes. b u t they do not really coincide with his own views. w h o m Philo m e n t i o n s in Abr. I f these five premisses are granted. It recounts how the m i n d m u s t o v e r c o m e the distractions o f the senses and the onslaught o f the passions in order to live the life o f excellence (dcQexf)) in h a r m o n y with the rational structure o f the c o s m o s . I f departures from c o h e r e n c e or c o n s i s t e n c y are found in P h i l o ' s allegorical explanations. t h o u g h no Hebraist. M o r e o v e r . and are in all likelihood to b e identified with the so-called ' e x t r e m e allegorists' w h o m Philo attacks in Migr.VII 592 ( s y m b o l . has done m u c h valuable research on these n a m e s and sharply criticizes S t e i n ' s m o n o g r a p h on the s u b j e c t ) . which m i g h t appear to indicate a diversity o f anterior traditions. a large n u m b e r o f these are not to b e taken at face value. 3 . e. or when the M o s a i c creation a c c o u n t is taken to refer to an actual event. I t is thus the Allegorists who are responsible for the basic structure o f P h i l o ' s philosophical allegories. this should b e read in an instrumentalist fashion and not in t e r m s o f the kind o f dualism that P h i l o is fond of.P h i l o n i c allegorical c o m m e n t a r y are the (j)uatKoi avSgec. 8 9 — 9 3 because they refuse to adhere to a literal o b s e r v a n c e o f the L a w . A l t h o u g h there is an evident anti-sensualist bias (with the E p i c u r e a n doctrine o f pleasure as the telos as a special polemical focus). there should b e a o n e . 4. s y m b o l and explanation are not formally kept apart in the proper m a n n e r . then the remainder o f G o u l e t ' s a r g u m e n t follows s m o o t h l y . w h o knew n o H e b r e w .p e r c e p t i o n ) as a helpmate. and achieving a c o h e r e n t and thoroughly consistent philosophical s y m b o l i s m . I t is they who devised the etymologies o f biblical n a m e s on which m u c h o f the allegory is based ( G o u l e t .t o .

G o u l e t suggests that this group o f exegetes flourished two or three generations before P h i l o . and these are m a i n l y S t o i c . T h e prescriptions o f the M o s a i c L a w have a universal s y m b o l i c meaning. As P h i l o patently prefers the m o r e ascetic position which declines to regard t h e m as goods in the true sense. T h e Allegorists are naturally not c o m m i t t e d to any particular philosophical system or school.593 G e n . as P h i l o who e m p h a ­ sizes the inward disposition o f the sacrificer is wont to do.g. but regarded as a pure literary s y m b o l o f dcQexf) or s o m e other philo­ sophical c o n c e p t . according to G o u l e t . A similar viewpoint is taken with regard to the doctrine o f the t h r e e kinds o f goods. b u t one that abandons any adherence to the claims o f J e w i s h particularism. W h o were these Allegorists? T h e y are to b e located. readily available in the philosophical koine o f the first century B C . Speculatively it is proposed that the Allegorists m a y b e identified with the m y s t e r i ­ ous T h e r a p e u t a e . demonstrates the priority and superiority o f M o s a i c thought over whatever the G r e e k s could offer. with the m e t h o d o f the lost c o m m e n t a r y whose existence he has hypothesized. H a n n a h and S a m u e l ) . but did so in t e r m s o f the prevailing intellectual fashions o f their day. in enlightened circles o f the Alexandrian J e w i s h c o m m u ­ nity. no doubt early in his career. G o u l e t argues. G o u l e t sees this doctrine as one o f the best criteria for separating the two kinds o f thinking. but G o u l e t thinks it unlikely that these books were systematically c o v e r e d ) . the bona corporalia and the bona externa c o n t r i b u t e instrumentally to the acquisition o f perfect excellence. Its appearance m u s t have differed m a r k ­ edly from what we can still read today in P h i l o ' s Allegorical . recognition o f which renders literal o b s e r v a n c e unnecessary and counter-productive. T h e P e n t a t e u c h is presented as a veiled form o f moral philosophy. Sacrifice should not b e m e r e l y spiritualized. T h e y choose ideas and c o n c e p t s for their allegories that suit their purpose. § § 2 8 7 7 8 W h a t m o r e can b e said about this lost d o c u m e n t ? It is likely that it was confined to the P e n t a t e u c h ( P h i l o records a few figures from the historical books whose n a m e s are etymologized (e. Peripatetic. which i f read properly. for in De vita contemplativa 2 9 Philo tells us that these people possessed d o c u m e n t s containing allegorical interpre­ tations o f S c r i p t u r e . 2 : 1 8 ) . T h e s e people were keen to propagate their J u d a i s m . and P l a t o n i c . and the description o f the allegorical m e t h o d they practise in and agrees perfectly. T h e Allegorical c o m m e n t a r y produced by these people is thus an apologetic work. T h e c h i e f philosophical position that they oppose is the sensualism o f the E p i c u r e a n school. b u t that he m a y have had direct contact with t h e m .

E v e r y now and then Philo inadvertently preserves an extract which is taken virtually verbatim from the original doctrine. e. however. A particularly significant sign o f P h i l o ' s interference is his refusal to allegorize the figure o f G o d as it o c c u r s in the Pentateuchal narrative (the same m i g h t b e said o f the relative infrequency o f P h i l o ' s allegorization o f M o s e s the G o d . I t contained no digressions. 1 3 4 ) . although G o u l e t does not actually m a k e this p o i n t ) . so he constantly tends to slip into an essentially literalist interpretation o f the Pentateuchal narrative. T h e a c c o u n t o f creation records the intelligible genera corresponding to the c o n t e n t s o f the visible c o s m o s ( G o u l e t hunts out s o m e hints that there was an allegorical interpretation o f G e n . which uses allegorical . he perceived that he had no c h o i c e b u t to build on the foundation already laid by his predecessors. p. G o u l e t suggests that he may have been attracted to the project o f the Allegorists during his youth. It is likely that the Exposition o f the L a w . H e then realized that the project of the Allegorists failed to acknowledge the G o d o f Israel. 4 5 (cf. T h e overall a r c h i t e c t o n i c structure o f the work can be partly reconstructed from a valuable passage that Philo p r e s ­ erves at De posteritate Caini 173-4. soberly and system­ atically dealing with every biblical pericope. from A d a m through to M o s e s record the progress o f the soul towards the perfection o f moral excellence. p r o b a b l y including the lists o f n a m e s which Philo tends to skip. in the Legum Allegoriae. at the t i m e that he wrote the philosophical treatises. at Legum Allegoriae 2 . and probably few cross-references to other scriptural texts. At s o m e time. W h e n . he decided to e m b a r k on the c o m p o s i t i o n o f his own Allegorical C o m m e n t a r y . no doubt almost all the t h e m e s o f the ethical part o f philosophy will have been covered.594 C o m m e n t a r y . J u s t as Philo is not prepared to abandon a literal reading o f the L a w .b e l o v e d prophet. and in its glorification o f the intellect reeked o f impiety. T h e c h i e f characteristics o f the C o m m e n t a r y were fidelity to the biblical text and a far-reaching c o h e r e n c e o f s y m b o l i s m and conceptuality. for he in G o u l e t ' s view has a cavalier attitude to the biblical text and is chronically incoherent or inconsistent. A t first. the generations o f man. perhaps as the result o f the t r a u m a t i c experiences o f AD 3 5 — 4 0 he underwent a conversion to a m o r e authentic J e w i s h religiosity.g. T h e role played by Philo in all this should b y now b e fairly clear. the p l a c e m e n t o f m a n and w o m a n in paradise symbolize m a n ' s physical and psychological disposition. B o t h are in marked contrast to P h i l o ' s practice. b u t later he deviates m o r e and m o r e . 1 which P h i l o suppresses). B y the t i m e that the C o m m e n t a r y has reached its conclusion. It was a running c o m m e n t a r y . he adheres fairly closely to the prior s c h e m a .

B u t he remains firm in his conviction that by constantly applying the twin criteria o f fidelity to the biblical text and c o h e r e n c e o f philosophical interpretation he can recover the main outlines o f the prior d o c u m e n t . M o r e o v e r — a n d here is the sting in the tail—this discovery disqualifies a particular way o f reading P h i l o .P h i l o n i c Allegorical C o m m e n t a r y achieved by a m i n u t e analysis o f all the relevant exegeses that Philo records o f the entire P e n t a t e u c h . A c c o r d i n g l y the main bulk o f his very l'ong study consists o f a construction o f the p r e . that the F r e n c h scholar is careful to dissociate h i m s e l f from B o u s s e t ' s ' d o c u m e n t a r y hypothesis'. but rather is actively hostile towards it. G o u l e t claims that his analysis has uncovered a lost d o c u m e n t to which Philo is greatly indebted and whose intellectual achievement far outstrips his own.595 explanation but sparingly. Philo o b s c u r e s the trail by reinterpreting s y m b o l s or giving t h e m a multiple signification. is the negation o f all the principles that the Allegorists stood for. T h e purport is thus revolutionary: from now on scholars m u s t read Philo 'archaeologically'. T h e chief point that G o u l e t makes time and t i m e again is that Philo does not maintain a positive or neutral attitude towards his source. b y constantly conflating quite different kinds o f thought. Philo did not m e c h a n i c a l l y reassemble d o c u m e n t s produced b y earlier m e m b e r s o f an Alexandrian school. finally. G o u l e t ' s analyses here are very detailed. T o summarize. p. is m o r e representative o f his mature thought (while the j u m b l e d mass o f the Quaestiones. by introducing long digressions. W h a t he does is take a single d o c u m e n t and so thoroughly rework it that it requires the tenacity and brilliance o f a S h e r l o c k H o l m e s to uncover the traces o f the original s c h e m a t a . Often G o u l e t has to throw up his hands in despair. and so our author has to rely on material found in 'digressions' or supplied by the other two major exegetical works. the most copious material is available for the early chapters o f G e n e s i s . though useful for searching out r e m n a n t s o f the lost C o m m e n t a r y . T h r o u g h o u t the entire analysis large slabs o f P h i l o n i c text are cited in F r e n c h translation. 1 7 P h i l o ' s own running allegorical c o m m e n t a r y peters out. 5 6 4 ) . cf. T h i s happens to b e the way that Philo is nearly always read. and they will c o n c l u d e that. taking up as m u c h as one-third o f the entire book. After G e n . Naturally. far from being entranced by the . W e must note. i.e. as an author whose writings form a coherent whole that is his own intellectual property. T h e s e later chapters b e c o m e rather tedious because o f the paucity o f information that they are able to supply. thwarting its purpose and ravaging its integrity with increasing frequency throughout his c o m m e n t a r i e s .

(a) As briefly m e n t i o n e d earlier. T h e b o o k is c r a m m e d with penetrating analyses o f individual P h i l o n i c passages. (b) A t t e n t i o n is drawn to a small n u m b e r o f texts where it appears b e y o n d doubt that the figure o f G o d in the sacred narrative is allegorized in t e r m s o f the OQQoq Xoyoc. i. pp. the ruins . which need to b e taken up and tested in future studies on P h i l o . to m y knowledge. a R o m a n road whose traces can still b e seen in aerial photographs despite later medieval and m o d e r n accumulations (p.OCI in Legum allegoriae 1 . 1 5 4 . It illustrates o n c e again how fruitful it is to approach Philo from the perspective o f his biblical exegesis (the thesis so forcefully defended b y Valentin N i k i p r o w e t z k y ) . 1 necessarily demonstrates that P h i l o h i m s e l f had written such an a c c o u n t ) .. H i s hypothesis has to b e tested. 3 8 6 ) . M o r e modestly G o u l e t indicates that the sole aim o f his lengthy study has been to supply research on Philo with a new point o f departure. his analyses carefully scrutinized. T o this e x t e n t B o u s s e t ' s original intuition has been validated. the universal rational principle in relation to which m a n ' s moral behaviour should be directed (cf. O n l y two particularly interesting observations can b e noted here. one cannot but be struck b y the author's virulently negative attitude to Philo. Illuminating in this regard are a n u m b e r o f striking i m a g e s — t h e book has been written with m u c h atten­ tion to style and s t r u c t u r e — t h a t he uses to illustrate the relation b e t w e e n Philo and postulated original d o c u m e n t : M i c h e l a n g e l o ' s L a s t J u d g e m e n t fresco censored by D a n i e l da V o l t e r r a (p.596 rationalism o f G r e e k philosophy. G o u l e t persuasively suggests that there m u s t have b e e n an allegorical interpretation o f the first chapter o f G e n e s i s in e x i s t e n c e . and how fruitful is it likely to be? L e t m e emphasize first o f all that this b o o k deserves to b e taken very seriously indeed b y all scholars working on P h i l o ' s thought and writings. L e t m e now set out a n u m b e r o f what I consider to b e weaknesses in his m e t h o d o f approach. 2 5 9 . I n d e e d . 1 3 6 — 9 . Is this new point o f departure mandatory. he reacts strongly against it and substitutes a J e w i s h conception o f the relation between G o d and m a n . 8 7 ) . pp. T h e cumulative result o f all these analyses is that there can be no doubt that P h i l o did m a k e extensive use o f exegetical traditions which had b e e n formulated before he began to c o m p o s e his works. b u t I do not think that the word TC6CA. we need to ask. this is the first time that a study has attempted a sequential analysis o f P h i l o ' s exegesis o f the entire P e n t a t e u c h . even if this is carried out very m u c h from a particular perspective.e. B u t this does not m e a n that G o u l e t ' s hypothesis must be accepted in its entirety. p r e ­ sented in purely anthropological t e r m s (cf. 7 ) . F i r s t .

P h i l o is not regarded as a pure c o m p i l e r and the mistake that B o u s s e t m a d e is not repeated.1 9 .2 G o u l e t discusses various exegeses o f G e n . as one o f the above images indicates. I do not mean here 'his supposition that P h i l o takes over the basic m e t h o d o l o g y and extensive chunks o f an existent d o c u m e n t b u t at the same time carries out a form o f intellectual guerrilla warfare against it without ever explicitly informing his reader about his debts and his polemical intent.g o i n g transformation that he achieves in his c o m ­ mentaries is taken very seriously. It is argued. he tends to m i n i m i z e the role o f other exegetic groups or persons. 2 8 : 1 1 . to b e bulldozed out o f the road wherever possible. 3 0 . that the 'literalists' are invented when he takes o b j e c t i o n s put forward by the Allegorists against the literal reading o f S c r i p t u r e and places what is o b j e c t e d to in the m o u t h o f fictional persons. O n pp. is Philo himself. G o u l e t in fact accuses Philo o f subterfuges that fall little short o f an accusation o f bad faith and play an important role in his argument. half the t i m e . a Classical or Hellenistic agora the remains o f which can only b e excavated if s o m e old houses are pulled down (p.597 of an ancient pagan t e m p l e on w h i c h a B y z a n t i n e c h u r c h has been built (p. 2 9 5 ) . T h e second o f these. for e x a m p l e . F o r e x a m p l e he complains over and over again that P h i l o introduces digressions into his c o m m e n t a r y on S c r i p t u r e which confuse the train o f t h o u g h t and detract from the postulated original d o c u m e n t ' s rigorous c o h e r ­ ence. including polemical remarks addressed at 'literalists' w h o do not accept the allegorical m e t h o d . attributed by Philo to evioi. F r o m the psychological point o f view this attitude is easily explicable as the result o f years o f poring over the writings o f a thinker w h o m one does not admire intellectually. he is seen as no m o r e than an unfortunate obstacle. W h a t I refer to is the way G o u l e t deals with P h i l o ' s frequent references to other exegetes. and especially the biblical h e r m e n e u t i c . T o b e sure. 1 1 6 . 1 5 6 ) . B u t why should we disbelieve P h i l o when he says this is the view o f others? . N o attention is paid to the motives. B e c a u s e G o u l e t ' s hypothesis is c o n c e i v e d in t e r m s o f a basic polarity between the Allegorists and Philo. O n e can go a step further. B u t . B u t what is its effect on the study itself? It seems to m e that G o u l e t entirely fails to e n c o u n t e r Philo on his own t e r m s . anti-intellectualist attitude that G o u l e t regards as the hallmark o f P h i l o ' s thought. T h e real literalist. and thus postulates that a significant n u m b e r o f P h i l o ' s references to others are fictional. T h e t h o r o u g h . involves precisely the religious. T w o o f these are given by Philo in De Somniis 1 . that m i g h t have induced P h i l o to present his c o m m e n t a r i e s in this way ( m u c h research has been carried out on this s u b j e c t in recent years).

1 3 6 ) . T a k e as an e x a m p l e the Old S t o a . iii. cf. o f course. p. T h e i l e r in Entretiens Hardt. N o t e . SVF 3 . the 'religious' aspect is even stronger. A third objection follows quite naturally. B a b u t . 2 . M a n s f e l d has argued (in M . it is wrong to suggest that the S t o i c attitude to the ruler o f the universe is purely intellectualistic. 4 2 . His J e w i s h exegetes in their espousal o f a rationalistic or h u m a n i s ­ tic theology are portrayed. however. J . Gecbv ccj f\q (Huexat 0£OCT£f3sia is from the philosophical viewpoint entirely acceptable (cf. 6 7 f f . W . 1 9 7 9 ) p. C o n s i d e r i n g the p r o m i n e n c e that is given to the role o f philosophy in the A l l e g o r ­ ists' exegesis. M y o b j e c t i o n is that G o u l e t formulates the distinction in such a m a n n e r that it presupposes the result he wishes to achieve. one m u s t have serious reservations about the rigorous division between philosophy and religion that G o u l e t maintains. C h r y s i p p u s affirms that theology was the ' c l i m a x o f p h y s i c s ' and its transmission 'initiation into the m y s t e r i e s ' (SVF 2 . G o u l e t c i r c u m v e n t s this approach by opposing the Allegorists w h o have a unified position to Philo who has a religious rather than a . In the case o f the Platonic tradition. it is remarkable how little effort G o u l e t m a k e s to relate it to c u r r e n t philosophical trends. that the rejection o f all c u l t i c practice which G o u l e t attributes to the Allegorists is a m o r e e x t r e m e position than that espoused by the majority o f H e l l e n i s t i c philosophers (cf. De nat. to use an apposite D u t c h expression. as m o r e R o m a n than the P o p e . V e r m a s e r e n (ed. 1 0 0 8 ) . 1 5 3 . deor. B y the t i m e o f C i c e r o a slogan such as yvcoaic. T h i s very doctrine suggests. 3 2 : 3 1 . Studies in Hellenistic religions ( L e i d e n . ) S e c o n d l y . ) . too. It has been t h o u g h t by s o m e scholars that it m i g h t b e possible to trace a d e v e l o p m e n t in the philosophically influenced exegeses that Philo records.). G e n . C e r t a i n l y there is an important difference between philosophical theology and religious devotion. 6 0 6 . D . A s J . b u t that detailed research would not be profitable because the Allegorists did not owe allegiance to any philosophical school in their conviction that true doctrines were derived from M o s e s . H e suggests that one m i g h t draw parallels with certain features o f the t h o u g h t o f A n t i o c h u s o f Ascalon or Posidonius. without an emotional or religious d i m e n s i o n . La religion desphilosophes grecs (Paris 1 9 7 4 ) . 1 8 1 ) . and it may well b e argued that P h i l o ' s oft-stated view o f m a n ' s o65eveioc before the face o f G o d represents a J e w i s h c o n c e p t i o n that is out o f place in G r e e k thought. that its adherents would have been rather susceptible to changes in intellectual fashions.598 ( N o t e also that it is not exact to say that in § 8 4 P h i l o gives the Allegorists' exegesis o f the verse in question. he is in fact giving exegesis o f another verse.

5 5 6 ) . T h e general position that G o u l e t attributes to the Allegorists would appear to ante-date these developments. T h e Allegorists are tentatively dated to two or three generations before P h i l o . 6 . Aetius 1 . to b e located in the period 1 5 0 . H e admits that the Platonizing antithesis between VoOq and od'aGriaic. and there is a certain vogue for sceptical views in the broad sense. i.g.e. (a) E p i s t e m o l o g y is in vogue. or he m u s t c o n c e d e that here too Philo has imposed his own t e r m i n o l o g y on the original source. crucial to the Allegorical c o m m e n t a r y is not so easy to place (p. B o t h aspects have left their mark on P h i l o ' s writings. D i s a r m i n g l y G o u l e t anticipates the disapproval o f P h i l o n ists. His radical hypothesis is i n c o m p a t i b l e with the assumptions upon which m o s t 'synthesizing' accounts o f P h i l o ' s thought have been c o n s t r u c t e d . F r o m the viewpoint o f the history o f philosophy the interesting question is w h e t h e r the revival o f the paradigm theory o f the ideas is motivated by epistemological or cosmological—theological c o n ­ cerns (cf. O n l y about twenty books and articles on Philo are referred to during the course o f this very long study.. 3 1 . e. in his use o f Plato. pp. the foundations o f h u m a n knowledge are m u c h discussed.VII 599 philosophical approach (although allowance is m a d e for an e x t e n ­ sive 'culture litteraire et p h i l o s o p h i q u e ' that e m e r g e s . namely his refusal to engage in an adequate discussion with previous P h i l o n i c scholarship.5 0 B C . G o u l e t has a choice. 4 D i e l s ) . with a growing interest in its transcendental 'doctrines (aided in this b y the revival o f P y t h a g o r e a n i s m ) . O n e c a n n o t help observing that this policy stands in shrill contrast to that o f Philo himself. (b) P l a t o n i s m m a k e s a strong c o m e b a c k . T h i s is exactly the time that important changes are taking place in the landscape o f ancient philosophy. p . for he or she is in m a n y . it does the reader a great disservice. 1 1 5 ff. Scepticism or Platonism? the philosophy of the Fourth Academy ( C a m b r i d g e . about 5 0 B C . w h o does record the views o f his predecessors and t h e r e b y rescued their work from oblivion! M o r e ­ over. 9 4 ) . T a r r a n t . T h e r e are p r o b l e m s here which he declines to address. 7 . T w o aspects are certain. W h a t about the pair o f c o n c e p t s aiaGrjxoc. Koajxoi. M y final o b j e c t i o n will c o m e as n o surprise to the author. 2 . though the precise c o n t o u r s are m o s t o b s c u r e and P h i l o ' s evidence is often called in for purposes o f delineation.). cf. Koauo<.—vor|Td<. but asserts that extensive interaction with existing scholarship would only have distracted h i m from his purpose. E i t h e r he m u s t assume on the basis o f his hypothesis that these t e r m s circulated well before Philo (and p r o b a b l y before the Platonist revival). 1 9 8 5 ) . which also play an important role in his reconstruction? T h e s e are not found before P h i l o (cf. i. m o s t recently H .e. also T i maeus L o c r u s 3 0 .

b u t that the allegorization in t e r m s o f the history o f the soul is P h i l o ' s own c o n t r i b u t i o n . T h a t there m a y have been a group o f exegetes or even a single savant w h o put together a .3 is traditional. yet still retain the single tenet o f the superiority o f M o s e s ? O n a priori grounds it is likely that a group o f J e w i s h allegorists would have still felt t h e influence o f J e w i s h theism to s o m e degree. t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f G o d as creator and provident ruler. B u t there is no evidence outside Philo (the Letter of Aristeas is regarded b y G o u l e t as p o s t . H o w likely is it that a group o f J e w i s h intellectuals existed w h o went a good deal further than Philo h i m s e l f in their adherence to G r e e k philosophical ideas to the e x t e n t o f subscribing to a secularizing h u m a n i s m o f the kind suggested b y G o u l e t ? G i v e n t h e diversity o f J u d a i s m s that have existed over t h e millennia the possibility cannot b e dismissed out o f hand. T h e position in an e x t r e m e form does not seem plausible or attractive.P h i l o n i c . I n reaching this conclusion he pays m u c h m o r e attention to t h e c o n t e x t o f the d e v e l o p m e n t o f philosophy than G o u l e t does. A fuller examination o f G o u l e t ' s thesis is not possible within t h e confines o f this review. inter alia m a k i n g the telling point that such systems o f allegory do not m a k e an appearance before the advent o f M i d d l e P l a t o n i s m (cf. T h e supposition o f a genetic development in P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t runs c o u n t e r to the growing c o n s e n s u s that the philosoph­ ical treatises are unlikely to b e works o f P h i l o ' s youth. 2 8 and p. T o b i n argues that m u c h o f P h i l o ' s exegesis o f G e n . T h a t Philo had exegetical predecessors to w h o m he was m u c h indebted seems to m e b e y o n d doubt.600 cases deprived o f the c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f recent scholarship and is unable to gain the orientation that results from placing the new hypothesis in the c o n t e x t o f existing ideas.g. 4 M a c c a b e e s t o o is very late). there are o p . G o u l e t ' s inadequate remarks at pp. 1 . W h y abandon all claims to particularity in favour o f a rigorously universalist perspective. 1 9 8 3 ) ) . W h a t follows b y way o f final evaluative remarks will have to b e stated rather apodictically.6 ) . and that this would have m a d e their position m o r e attractive to P h i l o . 4 3 3 ) . c i t . L e t m e give three e x a m p l e s . H . ' s on p. T o b i n 5 years ago published a m o n o g r a p h which covers part o f exactly the same ground covered b y G o u l e t . M o r e importantly it so happens that T . without t h e support o f full argumentation. b u t reaches a c o m p l e t e l y opposite conclusion (The creation of man: Philo and the history of interpretation ( W a s h i n g t o n . 5 4 4 . S u r p r i s i n g too is t h e refusal to confront the depiction o f P h i l o attempted b y Nikiprowetzky w h i c h has exerted considerable influence on P h i l o n i c studies during t h e last decade (his m o n o g r a p h does not even receive t h e courtesy o f a full citation. e.

It remains somewhat o f a puzzle why Philo felt constrained to integrate so m u c h traditional e x e ­ gesis into his own work. in reducing the variety o f exegeses as m u c h as possible to a single group. p. P h i l o ' s Platonism was precisely o f crucial i m p o r t a n c e because it allowed him to integrate philosophical conceptuality and J e w i s h religious belief in an intellectual construction that was to enjoy a long and impressive career. B o u s s e t ' s ' d o c u m e n t a r y hypothesis' is still exert­ ing a surreptitious influence here. the doctrines o f the powers and the logos. but that are also not necessarily o f P h i l o ' s own devising. had a greater historical i m p o r t a n c e than the hypothesized d o c u m e n t (if it existed) could have ever had.occncr|ai<. however. G o u l e t ' s n u m e r o u s analyses can b e consulted. I am m u c h less eager to agree that there was a single document such as G o u l e t proposes. I am not convinced that the only way to read Philo responsibly is more archaeologico. T h e r e are n u m e r o u s important constituents o f P h i l o n i c exegesis—e.601 particular moral allegorical interpretation o f the Pentateuch o f m o r e than usual c o h e r e n c e is certainly possible. whether it is actually possible to unravel the .g. (j)iA. T h i s may have been written down or it may have been transmitted orally. he must necessarily represent a positive trait in the allegory. therefore. sjnce J o s e p h is a positive figure in S c r i p t u r e . T h e subordination o f physical to ethical allegory that he proposes is excessively reductionistic. T h e concepts o f &Q£Tf). In conclusion. beside others. G o u l e t certainly goes far too far. J o s e p h . O n e m i g h t suggest—but here too evidence is lacking—that he sensed that he stood at the end o f a long tradition now under patent threat. to m y m i n d . De vita contemplativa 9 0 . as a stimulating but highly speculative guide. which G o u l e t sharply criticizes. the triad u&9r|CJi<.) W i t h regard to Philo h i m s e l f the essential question is surely whether he is an integrationist or a (covert) confrontationi*st.—and n u m e r o u s variant treatments o f exegetical t hemes that G o u l e t cannot integrate into his d o c u m e n t . s y m b o l o f the body.-(t)6cxi<. I opt for the former. T h e r e is room for drama in the allegory o f the soul here. Allowance should b e m a d e for the possibility o f layers o f traditional exegesis beneath his text. ei)8ou|!ovia. ( I cannot agree with G o u l e t ' s view that. F r o m this perspective P h i l o ' s writings. after all. OscuQia. 5 2 9 ) . It is far from clear. for all their s h o r t c o m i n g s . and that he had a duty to record. A good example o f a diversity o f traditions surrounding a single biblical figure which has recently received scholarly attention is P h i l o ' s various a c ­ counts o f J o s e p h . G o u l e t is convinced o f the latter.ia GeoO could be welded together without maladresse (cf. is responsible for leading Israel down to E g y p t .

T h e p r i n t e r ' s . w h i c h is v e r y r e a s o n a b l e for s u c h specialized w o r k ) .602 strands o f prior exegesis in an illuminating way. Pace G o u l e t that is s o m e t h i n g worth d o i n g . T h e a u t h o r p r e p a r e d t h e t e x t himself. 1 . a n d o n l y t h o s e w h o w o r k e d w i t h W o r d 1.f i v e p a g e s . and c o n c e r n s .05 on t h e A p p l e M a c i n t o s h c a n fully a p p r e c i a t e w h a t t h a t m u s t h a v e i n v o l v e d (it c e r t a i n l y e x p l a i n s t h e m e a n b r e v i t y o f t h e m o r e t h a n s i x t y c h a p t e r s ) . T w o c o m m e n t s m i g h t b e m a d e in a spirit o f c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m . 1 O n e should p e r h a p s add a brief note on the presentation o f this study. n o t t h e t y p e w r i t e r ' s . T h e p r i c e is relatively low ( a b o u t £ i p e r t w e n t y . b u t t h e s m a l l fount is s i m p l y t o o small a n d in t h e l o n g r u n i m p o s e s s t r a i n on t h e r e a d e r . m e t h o d s . a p o s t r o p h e s h o u l d h a v e b e e n u s e d . P h i l o should b e read first o f all in t e r m s o f his own aims. T h e r e is a p r o b l e m in t h e p r o p o r t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e l a r g e a n d t h e s m a l l fount size u s e d . T h e l a r g e fount is nicely sized.

. only a minority of scholars regard it as authentically his. Firstly the treatise presents difficulties on account o f its formal structural and features. Soon afterwards Philonic authorship was reaffirmed and interest in the work subsided. Because the short essay contains much valuable between information on diverse aspects of Hellenistic philosophy. All in all. even to the point of being able to destroy it.VIII PHILO'S DE AETERNITATE MUNDI: T H E P R O B L E M O F ITS INTERPRETATION 1. However. Nevertheless the inter­ pretative problem perceived by the nineteenth century savants has never been sufficiently resolved. thereby casting. the hesitant attitude portrayed in his words is typical o f Philonic scholarship as a whole. The principal basis for denying the work to Philo runs as follows. A t a first reading it appears to be a patchwork o f . then. to believe in the eternity of the world. The interpretative problem reveals a double aspect. should he wish. many o f whom were not particularly sympathetic to Philo's literary and intellectual achievement. Philo has dealt with God's creation of the world. 2 They noted the problematic relation o f the treatise to the rest o f Philo's ceuvre and the initial response was to declare the work inauthentic. the treatise. Although Sandmel is incorrect in suggesting that most scholars con­ sider the treatise inauthentic. is relatively unimportant. Precisely because the treatise affirms the eternity of the world. The double problem* mundi: 1 In the most recent introductory manual on Philo. Sandmel devotes the following brief remarks to the treatise De aeternitate While On the Eternity of the World is customarily printed in the collections of the writings of Philo and is often ascribed to him. the majority of scholars deny the treatise to Philo. In many of his writings.. God is omnipotent over the universe. a shadow on the treatise's interpretation and causing the tentative attitude illustrated by the quote above. it cannot be eternal. if the world is destructible. genuine or not. is in effect to deny God's ultimate power over it. 1875 and 1900 it all o f a sudden attracted the attention o f some o f the best scholars o f the day.

The second problematic aspect o f the treatise's interpretation is o f a philosophical nature and has already been broached by Sandmel in introduces cosmological and theological the passage quoted above. but this sequel has not survived. They argue not only that the c o s m o s is indestructible (dcpdapxoq) but also that it is uncreated (ayevr|-uo<. 3 Accordingly the treatise has been traditionally included. The first half o f the proposition. however. commentary wholly recedes in favour o f philosophical four o t h e r s . o f which thirty-nine books survive. But what has disturbed the readers o f the treatise m o r e than its seemingly haphazard organization is the gap that separates it from almost all Philo's other writings. however. The topic o f whether the cosmos is de­ structible o r indestructible concerns close to Phila's heart.VIII 106 doxographical accounts. if properly qualified. Philo's precise relation to these arguments. The characteristic features o f this group are that they use Greek literary forms and source material in order to discuss philosophical themes for their own sakes. Moreover the explicit manner in which it refers to Greek philosophers by name and deals with their views is without parallel in the Philonic corpus. T h e im- . with only a minimum o f references to scripture and Jewish traditions. 4 words are only briefly mentioned on one occasion (Act. Moses and his divinely inspired 19). 'philosophical treatises' it appears to attempt a systematic handling o f its theme. In the last sentence o f the work another set o f arguments is promised. Y e t even within this group our treatise has T o a greater extent than the other its idiosyncracies. Exegetical argument. But the arguments presented in the treatise put forward a viewpoint inconsistent with the views recorded elsewhere in Philo's writings. so that the work remains incomplete. After a brief introduction from source material but are interspersed with his own presents a long sequence o f arguments which are evidently derived comments. is far from clear. The second half o f the proposition is without doubt in direct contradiction to Philo's unshakeable conviction that G o d has created this cosmos. vigorous polemics Philo and rhetorical illustratory passages. but it is questionable whether these necessary qualifications are sufficiently stressed in the treatise as we have it. philosophical arguments. Philo dedicated a large part o f his life to the immense task o f writing a philosophically orientated c o m ­ mentary on the Pentateuch o f Moses. together with in the group o f so-called 'philosophical treatises'. In the De aeternitate mundi. can be considered Philonic.).

in his substantial monograph on the cosmology o f Hellenistic Palestinian Judaism. it was Bernays ( 1 8 6 3 . an Alexandrian J e w . 1876. today it can be said that the treatise is only ascribed to a pseudonymous a u t h o r through inadvertence. if not all. Already in But.VIII PHILO'S DE A E T E R N I T A T E M U N D I 107 portance o f the issue at stake can be gauged from the fact that Weiss. 7 The strength o f Bernay's arguments was by no means in proportion to the drastic conclusion which he drew from them and. in Zeller's opinion. It should be noted that all the proponents o f the work's inauthenticity had an extremely low . Von Arnim ( 1 8 8 8 ) advanced even further along these paths o f specu­ lative Quellenforschung. An ancillary (philosophical) problem which has taxed the minds o f scholars is that a philosophically plausible content must be ^suggested for the missing sequel. felt obliged spite of the treatise De aeternitate 5 and a to c o m m e n c e mundi. 1882) who for a time won acceptance for the view that the work was falsely attributed to P h i l o . 2. In this question the formal and the philosophical problem o f the treatise's interpretation merge together. his study with 'prophylactic' chapter on our treatise in order to show that Philo. C . 9 8 we will not dwell on them here. In a brilliant demonstration o f philological expertise C u m o n t showed that the linguistic and stylistic features o f the treatise were unmistakably Philonic. in did not run the risk o f denying the fundamental doctrine o f Jewish cosmological thought. Since no fragments o f this part have ever been identified. this unknown author 1880 Zeller pointed out that the work must have been produced by had done nothing but superficially and incompetently adapt a treatise o f an eclectic Peripatetic who had lived in the first century B . Attempted aeternitate solutions De mundi has already been briefly noted. A satisfying solution will have to dwell on both aspects. the creation o f the c o s m o s by G o d . Although some earlier 6 The first attempt to solve the interpretative problem o f the scholars had had doubts about its authenticity. any hypothesis must be entirely based on the philosophical problematics as they are presented in the treatise's incomplete state o f preservation. aspects o f Philo's t h o u g h t . since they have been adequately refuted on a number o f o c c a s i o n s . although not all scholars were immediately convinced. 12 Cumont's study was warmly received and. 10 But all these attempts were reduced to 1 1 naught by the study o f C u m o n t ( 1 8 9 1 ) . M o r e o v e r a good argument could be put forward that its contents were in harmony with many.

F)<pa(4. in his own style.VIII 108 regard FOR its author's abilities. zu aber ich halte es fur eine Profanation. The word 7tapeiA. Philo has written the work. . Von Arnim expressed this view most forcefully in response to C u m o n t : identificieren. such as Plato and Euri­ pides. fiery polemic and frequent quotation o f authors. wenn ihm dieser Aus- druck nicht zuviel Ehre anthut. Cumont's suggestion was eagerly taken up by Wendland ( 1 8 9 2 ) . der KEPI 1 3 ' i c h bin kein Verehrer Philos. The De mundi is a school treatise in the narrow sense o f the word.EV in the final paragraph (Aet. Reinhardt ( 1 9 2 0 ) C u m o n t used this argument chiefly to explain the formal characteristics o f the treatise (for the philosophical problem he had another line o f attack. The youthful Philo has recorded. a Jugend- asserted that the De aetemitate Juvenile stylistic features are the repetition o f argument. 18 150) must be inter­ preted as meaning 'what we have taken over as traditional school Bousset in fact attempts a compromise (unknown) between the views o f Bernays and C u m o n t . who were read at school. but are not seriously examined. material (Schuliiberlieferung) . i\\ NOXE Even if none o f these youthful works had survived. 14 to receive support in some quarters. C u m o n t mundi is a youthful work. It is evident that the theory creates a gap between the youthful treatise and Philo's main body o f work. ihn mit dem Menschen d(p$apo"ia<. Denn er ist ein blosser Compilator. it could have been deduced from Philo's other works that there was a period in his life in which he devoted all his time to the study o f the Greek philosophers. as we shall see). so that the interpretative problem is 'explained considerably reduced in importance. 1 6 the subdivision and chronology o f Philo's writings ( 1 8 9 9 ) . A different nuance was given to the Jugendschrift aetemitate theory by Bousset 17 away' and ( 1 9 1 5 ) in his research on Philo's use o f source m a t e r i a l . Cohn in his article on and o t h e r s . but what he records is the thought o f another author. 6 i 8 cpiTiooxxpig axoXti^cov • 1 5 legibus III." The work is apparently so shoddily put together that it falls well below the level o f Philo's literary performance. T h e structural problems o f the treatise emerge here. verfasst h a t . Together with the other philosophical treatises it is to be dated to the time o f his youth to which he so wistfully looks back in the opening words o f De specialibus Xpovoc. the lecture material o f one o f his Greek teachers with the intention o f refuting this viewpoint later on. It does not represent Philo's own thought. A second solution to our problem was first suggested by C u m o n t and still continues schrift.

It presupposes the validity o f the application o f a genetic approach. but both stress that these youthful works have for his later work. in the remark noted above. nous montre comment Philon a forme sa pensee au milieu du vaste tourbillon des doctrines philosophiques. but has always failed on a c c o u n t o f a evidence. en un mot c o m m e n t sont nees les grandes conceptions qu'il dans son ceuvre fiu C o m m e n t a t e u r de Moi'se". quoique served Philo as a valuable praeparatio ( 1 9 6 9 ) writes o f the De aeternitate incomplet. 22 / and 7 / . Arnaldez mundi that "cet ouvrage.e. When we consider that there are strong thematic resemblances between our treatise and De Providentia in the De aeternitate mundi. attractive though this theory as a solution is. has been attempted on numerous occasions in scholarship. and then later in the exegetical treatises finds its feet. as one would expect. 25 deprecatory view o f the quality and value o f the philosophical treatises. 18 devait orchestrer Nikiprowetzky ( 1 9 7 7 ) concurs with this view. 2 1 and that the 'schoolmaster' tone o f the dialogues with Alexander can occasionally also be detected we must conclude that the (admittedly 2 3 slender) evidence favours the second alternative. 2 0 Thus we have the choice o f either splitting the group o f philosophical treatises into a youthful and a mature sub-group. suppositions o f the Jugendschrift developmental approach Secondly the pre­ or ob­ of thesis must be recognized for what they are.VIII PHILO'S DE A E T E R N I T A T E M U N D I 109 Recently two F r e n c h scholars have expressed their approval o f the Jugendschrift theory. frequently accompanied by speculative psychological servations. or keeping the group together and regarding them all as mature works. wishes to make a distinction between intellectual evolution and the development o f a literary manner. i. that the philo­ sophical treatises as a whole are mature w o r k s . 19 But. 24 to the thought and writings o f Philo. But this is to deny the close relation between form and content in Philo's writings. and o f the De aeternitate . Finally it must be observed that the Jugendschrift thesis. is often accompanied by a mundi in p a r t i c u l a r . but rather o f a literary manner which first searches. This Philonic total lack Nikiprowetzky. In the first place it is now widely accepted that the dialogues with Alexander belong to the period o f Philo's maturity. perhaps even to his old a g e . c o m m e n t son senti­ ment religieux l'a tres tot guide par les voies les plus sures. which elsewhere in his study it is Nikiprowetzky's constant aim to affirm. it poses problems o f its own. but emphasizes that one cannot speak o f an intellectual evolution in his thought.

Arnaldez finds Cumont's solution very satisfying and adds that in the area o f cosmology sure philosophical Philo found that Aristotle provided a he found basis. 1941).VIII no N o t content with his already strong defence o f the treatise's authen­ ticity. according to C u m o n t . 2 6 philo­ C u m o n t con­ cedes to Bernays that the diverse arguments are presented in the De mundi in such a vigorous way that there can be no doubt that the author is convinced o f their validity. 3 0 by There is no doubt in his mind that the arguments put forward in the De aetemitate mundi are sincerely meant. 28 Aristotle inadequate and turned to the doctrine o f Plato. In the missing sequel Philo would have shown to what temporary Aristotle. and in order to achieve it he makes a temporary alliance with Aristotle. F o r now Aristotelian doctrine o f creatio aeterna. Hence his desire to reconcile the two Cumont's attempted solution raises a number o f very important issues which will need to be discussed further below. therefore. this approach cannot solve the problem o f the treatise's interpretation. the fertile mind o f Cumont also put forward another solution to its interpretative problems. Leisegang but can they be attributed to Philo? The answer to the riddle which the treatise poses is to be found in its dialogic notes that also De Providentia I discusses the problem o f the eternity o f the cosmos. Finally the efforts o f some scholars to pay closer attention to the treatise's literary form and structure should not be overlooked. He can do this because. . 29 it suffices to say that we reject its main thesis that Philo subscribes to the In our opinion. An extremely radical solution along these lines was proposed Leisegang (1937. This thematic resemblance shows us that o u r treatise should be read in close connection with the three treatises which Philo wrote in order to engage in philosophical discussion with his nephew. Philo's aim in the extant half is to refute the Stoics. extent 21 aetemitate creatum). It is philosophically not permissible to say that the cosmos has been created in time (in he differed in his interpretation from his tempore ally. In neglecting these aspects other interpreters have gone astray. he concurs with the doctrine that the cosmos is created from all eternity {ab omni exstitisse). this time concentrating on the sophical aetemitate difficulty which was briefly outlined a b o v e . but that in the area o f theology philosophers. They work on the assumption that Philo's intentions in writing the treatise can only be reconstructed if also its structural and literary features are analysed and understood. structure.

"understood".fi(paLt£v should be translated simply 31 The word 7 t a p e i - as "heard".in effect only one sentence in the whole work can be attributed to Philo himself . Firstly he asserts that a distinction should be made between the first part o f the work up to the first sentence o f Aet. after a (logos) few dialogic interchanges Alexander gives a lengthy speech arguing on behalf o f the thesis that animals possess a rational faculty. A similar procedure was followed in De aeternitate only the speech (logos) mundi. That Philo should wish to defend as his own considered opinion the Stoic doctrine o f the cyclical destruction and regeneration o f the cosmos is wholly i m p r o b a b l e .. A. This is not necessarily the case for the lengthy sequence o f arguments in the second half. Not only is Leisegang's solution radical . Much more limited in his aims is Colson ( 1 9 4 3 ) in the brief preface to his edition and translation o f De aeternitate mundi. Only in the last sentence is there a hint o f the original dialogic f r a m e w o r k .) Secondly he suggests a new possi­ bility for the status o f the arguments in Aet. But it is Philo's way to reproduce with all his vigour opinions and doctrines which he is really going to controvert later. 32 Nevertheless Leisegang has at least demonstrated how important it is to understand the literary and structural features o f the treatise.thesis which Philo wholly rejects and which he would refute along Stoic lines in the missing sequel.35 and 49 that some argument must be "clear to everyone" or in 69 "that the foolish imaginations of the opponents have been refuted" I do not feel sure that Philo might not talk very differently when he gives to each point the opposition which he promises in his final words.. His article shows what happens when the hints that Philo gives are not properly understood. (This distinction had been totally ignored by Leisegang and others.VIII PHILO'S DI: A E T E R N I T A T E M U N D I 11 1 Alexander. mundi can best There. but both the dialogic framework and Philo's reply have been lost. 33 In a discussion o f the work's authenticity he makes two very important observations on its is also radically false. arguing a. W h a t remains is o f Philo's opponent (possibly Alexander him­ self). So when I read in De Aet. In the first part Philo is without doubt speaking for himself. to which Philo makes a shorter reply arguing the opposite thesis. .20-\49 : 3 4 In describing the arguments for the eternity of the Cosmos he puts them forth with such gusto and denounces the opponents so vigorously that at first sight anyone would suppose that he is giving us his own conviction.20 and the remainder. What Philo attempts to do in De aeternitate be seen if one compares his method in De animalibus. Philo is telling us in this final sentence that he has recorded to the best o f his ability the words o f his opponent as he heard them.

not only on a c c o u n t o f their philosophical content. Philo's five 'philosophical treatises' have been placed together in a separate subdivision o f his writings. W e shall see that Colson is correct in this suggestion.(ova. to be found in one o f Philo's exegetical treatises. N o a h the just man be­ comes d r u n k . but also because their literary form and structure is based on the manner o f writing practised in the Greek philosophical schools. The literary and structural aspects o f this treatise which are o f relevance to the De aetemitate mundi are as follows : . W e shall c o m m e n c e by outlining two illuminating parallels. At the end o f our survey it appears that it is in the analysis o f literary form and structure that we are likely to find the clue we so badly need in order to resolve the interpretative problem posed by the treatise. although it will be necessary to refine it to some extent.VIII 112 Colson here breaks through the fixed assumption o f Bernays. 140). treatise De 3 7 But before Philo c o m m e n t s on these words (in the he presents to his readers what the Greek ebrietate). i. eivai yecopyd<. De plantatione. C u m o n t and Leisegang. 3. K a i e u e 9 u a 9 r | (quoted at Plant. is it possible to specify what type treatise Philo is following in its composition? C a n parallels be adduced with respect to form and structure which give a clearer picture o f what Philo is doing in our treatise? Both questions we would wish to answer in the affirmative. Some literary and structural observations A s has already been noted. the case o f the De aetemitate or model o r genre o f philosophical In mundi. namely that the sequence o f arguments represent the firm conviction o f the author (or speaker) who is presenting them. W e will proceed now to make a number o f observations in this area which will be necessary in order to c o m e to an improved understanding o f Philo's intentions in writing the work. 36 Philo wishes to c o m m e n t on the words o f Moses at C7e«.9:20-21a. According to Moses. It is generally agreed that he adapts for this purpose a Greek philosophical treatise o f unknown p r o v e n a n c e . 38 and that the original form o f this treatise can still be discerned behind Philo's adaptation. on the theme ei u£&uo~$f|o"£Tai 6 aocpoi. The latter aspect has perhaps received 35 insufficient stress and has certainly been insufficiently r e s e a r c h e d . icai eTue T O O oivou. The first parallel is. rather surprisingly. philosophers have said on the subject..e. yfjq* m i ecpuieuaev du7reA. fjp^aTO Ncoe dv^pconot.

( 1 6 5 .VIII PHILO'S DE A E T E R N I T A T E M U N D I 113 T r e a t i s e o n e i u e $ u G o f | C T e x a i 6 a o t p o c .. III a r g u m e n t ( s ) a g a i n s t the p r o p o s i t i o n . to think that there a r e only two g r o u p s . ( 1 4 3 ) o i 8e x o u e v o i v o u a & a i K a i c r a o u S a i c p TtporjfjKov d7tecpf)vavxo. r | p e i v °v a o t p o v u f j x e A j i p f | o e i v . 4 0 ( a ) t r a n s i t i o n t o t h i r d p a r t . Xpr)CTX£ov. . x o v u e v o x t 6 ootpoi. ei7teiv. 3 9 II a r g u m e n t s in f a v o u r o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n : ( a ) t r a n s i t i o n t o s e c o n d p a r t . . e v u e v i c t o v x i xcp o i v o u c x o V i t . d7to8ei^eCTtv. ev&evSe d7t68ei£. ( P h i l o . ( b ) s e q u e n c e o f five a r g u m e n t s in f a v o u r o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n rcpayudxcov xou xov xd aocpov uev 6pcbvuua. extei 8e oi)8ek. (c) xfj r e s u m e o f c t j i e f o p i n i o n s h e l d o n t h e i s s u e . e i 8e d y c o v i ^ e x a i . eiKOxcoc.. (142). x d u e v o u v c b a a v e i T t p o o i u i a xf\q x o i a u x d e a x t . Kaxa- d v a y p d ( p e x a i v i k c o v .XXov av 8 6 ^ a t .. 8t7cA.EKxai. ou uexpiox. Xoyov f\br\ 7tepaivcouev GKevj/ecoc.( 150-5) A. ecrxi x o i v u v x o 5txx6v. ue^uaSfivai 8'eaxi xoiauxr|.eiovt X P ! ^ " ^ 1 0 0 0 1 1 T ue$ueiv ev exepov 8e taov xcp X .. xpixoq 8' ecrxiv. rcpoxeivexai 8e ouxox. oivcp (142). with C o l s o n . x o v 8e x o u v a v x i o v o x t o u u e $ u c r $ f | G e x a i P e B a i o u u e v o v . o u Kaxavof|aavxe<. eucdc... o O x o q e ' i p r | x a i . (ii) u i a Seuxepa uev (i) xcov nepi A.eyeiv T t p o x e p o v . a K t a u x x x e i v \id. 7 t i a x e t < . KOL& a u x d v dycovitpuevoc. u e S u o $ f ) o e x a i K a x a c K e u d ^ o v x a ..5 0 ) .(145). o u x o i v u v 8 i a u a p x r ) c » 6 u e d a X^eyovxec. dvdyKT| K a i x o u q x o e v a v x i o v K a x a c T K e u d t p v x a c . evxexvoic. d p u o x x o v dpxfiv ( 1 4 9 . e p f i u o u .. cbv uia eaxtv... a n d that t h e s e c o n d o i 86 r e f e r s b a c k t o t h e first position. . ur|8exepou u e p o u q SiKaa&evxoc. ( b ) a n a l y s i s o f a c e n t r a l t e r m in t h e p r o p o s i t i o n ..ouv a x . e£.6yoc. xdc. Xoyovq i'va 8iKaioxdxr| y e v r | & f | KpTcnc. ( b a a v e i Ttpooiuia 149): v 142-77). 8eiKvu<. ( 1 7 2 ) (v) ei 8" coe>7tep e v aXXa Kai xatq (perhaps a 8tKaaxr|picp dxexvotc. ei xcov (piX.. o x t (iv) dXAoxptov cntouSaiou xo pe&uetv. xfjq 7t£pi rcddoc. £ a 7 t o u 5 t i c » $ T | 8e rcapd noXXolq f) gk£\|/ic. subsection uf| uovov argument) xaic. x o v 8e r c e p i a u x f j c . inclined. ( a ) s u b j e c t i n t r o d u c e d . ..i<. o x t U£&ua9f)a£xat (173-4). ouk xiq (156-64) ( i i i ) S e u x e p o c ..(144) oi 88 xo u e y e $ o < . o v x a . A.eyouevai<. who I am V o n A r n i m c o n s i d e r s t h a t t h e s e c o n d o i 8e r e f e r s t o a t h i r d g r o u p maintain a c o m p r o m i s e position m i d w a y between the first two. u e v 8f| X...r|pelv dvoiK£tov.7 1 ) ye of uf)v the ouk olSev third oxt Suetv e v a v x i c o v . xo xo 8e A. cf.oa6(pcov ue&uodfjaexai 6 aotpoc. I i n t r o d u c t i o n ( 7 t p o o i u i o v . Plant. x w v 8e e7tixeipr|eTdvxcov 7tpoxctCT£i o l uev ecpaaav uf)XE d K p d x c p 7tA. (175).EX. x o u 8e rcpoxepou xf|v 7toir|aaLievou<. t)7teppo>ajc.

e K d x e p o v nfj uaA. (b) statement o f treatise's method (also transition to the first set o f arguments).. &pxr)v 7tpd<. ( 1 7 6 .. indicate that Philo certainly intended to adduce (and refute) break off abruptly.. the j o y o f the perfect soul Isaac (Plant.. . . e x i Xoyovq xo u e v xcov 7ravxd<. K a i K a i ufjv. opinion..7 ) The words in 176 ak)C ouv rcpiv f| x o i x . Philo is recording.e. the views o f But it is evident that he supports the arguments in favour the philosophers. i ' a o v ercei K a i xo 7t0p e i a i v oi xou arcotpaivoLievoi. a c p e u e v o i S£ xa>v dvSpcov. .. (priori 5f] xiq evavxiou- u e v o c . more than just the single argument f o u n d in the text.oyouuai. strung together by introductory phrases and connecting particles.. the reverse o f the previous xcov x p w u e v g v v . . 5e Ttpcbxoc.9 5 7 F ) III second set o f arguments : (a) transitional sentence.VIII 114 (b) argument against the proposition.. II first set o f arguments : sequence o f arguments in favour o f the proposition that water is m o r e useful than fire. u e x i c o u e v and uf)v. aXka uapxupcov eKGixepoic... and including diverse attempts to refute in advance xi uiKpoX. K a i 8uvaT(bxaxo<. more useful than water (i. The third argument is given added force by a brief excursus on a favourite Philonic theme.7 0 ) . K a i ufiv ( 9 5 5 E . Treatise on Again we shall xpnaiucbxepov. briefly outline those aspects o f the treatise which are relevant to our purpose : 7iepi x o f j rcoxepov u8cop f\ nvp I introduction: (a) brief survey o f thinkers who support either side o f the proposition. ( 9 5 5 D . as he explicitly tells us. ( p r | a i v 6 nivSapoc. e v t e u S e v e^cov . o f De plantatione Comments. auucpwvei Se i c a i 'HaioSoc.. 41 found in the Corpus o f Plutarch's Moralia. xouvavxiov dv tic... xi U y o i . 1 6 8 . but at 177 the Mss. cnceii/cbueSa etc. ( 9 5 5 E ) . which eon is immediately refuted ££. akXovq CTuveipeiv.fjc... A s so often Moses anticipates the discoveries o f the Greek philosophers. (957B). .ta)v dyoucriv f|ua<. The o u t c o m e suits Philo well. the opposite view on the proposition dp' ouv xpiicnuwxepov e k e T v o .. ouxoc.. since there is no doubt that in the Genesis account N o a h does get drunk. .E ) . so that there is no need for him to indicate his own of the proposition. (b) sequence o f arguments in favour o f the proposition that fire is position). . T h e second parallel is a brief treatise o f no great literary o r philo­ sophical merit entitled riepi xofj rcoxepov u8cop f\ Tufjp xpilo*iu«>x£pov.

.. (4) the two series o f arguments take opposite points o f view on the central proposition and a decision needs to be made as to which series is the more persuasive (either settled already by the author o r left to the reader). .. 0 6 Tcavxanaaiv drcaXAayevxoc.. d v . (7) the sequences o f arguments are joined together by introductory phrases and connecting particles. If we now take the De aetemitate mundi together with the two parallel treatises. dveu 7iup6<. an ak\r\c. . . dxoTtov. consisting o f an introduction and two series o f arguments. It is only possible to look at the relative strength o f the arguments. K a i ufjv. . The final argument ( 9 5 8 E ) . K a i x o i y' eiq x o u v a v x i o v A. having no preference one way o r the o t h e r ? He uses the first person for both arguments. xoux'axpeX-ijiwxepov 5f)?iov y a p .. ( 9 5 7 B . xcov 8 e Sueiv a u J h c . (6) the series o f arguments are themselves introduced by transitional sentences which mark the turning-points o f the treatise.9 5 8 E ) . being less trivial and more philosophically from Plato's Timaeus orientated. (5) it is to be expected that the stronger series o f arguments would be presented second and form the climax o f the treatise. The 42 author thus in all probability favours the second proposition and gives it the final and stronger position in the structure o f the t r e a t i s e . (2) the structure is essentially tripartite. so this is no way to decide. ercei 8 e K a x d xoOxo xou Xoyou yeyovauev. but there is no attempt to construct a logically coherent and consistent sequence o f a r g u m e n t . . It would seem that the arguments on behalf o f the primacy o f fire are the stronger.. K a i uf)v. Comments. alluding to a famous and edificatory passage ( 4 7 a . . (8) both series o f arguments aim to be as persuasive as possible . Noteworthy is the fact that the author does not adjudicate between the opposing arguments. . (3) the introduction contains definitions (if necessary) o f crucial terms in the central proposition and a brief summary o f opinions held on the proposition.the author can speak in the first person on behalf o f both..dBoi TIC.. a number o f c o m m o n characteristics emerge : (1) the treatises focus on a central proposition. xo y a p Xeyeiv (be.c ) would then form a fitting climax. . eaxi t t o $ ' 6 dv^pcorcoc. cpSeipexai xo £cpov. dpxfjc.. Does this mean that he is just a neutral observer.VIII PHILO'S DE A E T E R N I T A T E M U N D I 115 again loosely strung together and frequently arguing against the opposite point o f view.

ducpiaPr|xou- theorists. 6 k o g u o c . But the genre as practised in the Hellenistic period has its origins in the theories and praxis o f Aristotle and the Peripatos.) ei cKpaipoeiSf]<. solum sapientem esse divitem (ibid. . is essentially. that class o f propositions which are not o f necessity true. Dox. The distant roots o f the &egicj can be seen in the practice o f arguing pro et contra initiated by the sophists P r o t a g o r a s and Gorgias (cf. D . Oral.a.. 8 i a i p £ p £ i 8 e XOU XOTCOU. f\ 8e uevou. MorA39A) II 17. it will be a u t c o ^ e g i c . d u E i v c o v x o u T t p a K x i K o u ( M a x i m u s Tyrius. £1 $£Ol £ I G I . but is the result the &EOI<.Gr. A . ei SiSaKxov f\ apexx] (Plutarch. ) defines the genre as follows : &egic. Rh. The proposition must be a general one. It is crucial to realize that the $£ciic.Stoic. disputative in char­ acter. 4 3 of dependence on a c o m m o n generic literary form.Gr. (Cicero. (Hermogenes. as Theon clearly indicates. according to the definitions o f the rhetorical $eaic. 0X1 6 UEV e g x i v o u o X o v o u u e v o u r e p a y u a x o c . e g x i v A^oyiKf) d u c p i o p f | x r | G i v e7u8exouevr| H p o a a m c o v c b p i G u e v c o v K a i izd<5r\q TtepiGxdaecoc. (Aetius. This form is the genre The genre o f the Stoiq partem o r quaestio infinita can be defined as the o f in utramque (lst-2nd dveu treatment o f a general p r o p o s i t i o n on a popular-philosophical e7UGKei|/i<. by the method 4 4 level. aucjriGK. The proposition on which the Hectic.42) 6 x i 6 $£copr|xiK6<. 6 k o g u o c .oc»oipr)X£OV (Aristotle's an philosophandum sit (Cicero's e i d r t E i p o c . also the Dissoi logoi and Socrates' two speeches in Plato's Phaedrus). 16) etc. i.30 Sp. 274)) works o f Greek and R o m a n writers : ei cpiA.). pioc.. (in addition the proposition.VIII 116 It will be agreed that the far-going similarities between three treatises of of disparate provenance cannot be accidental. focusses must belong to the Ev8o£.e.) Par.. reference to specific persons or events Otherwise. not a $£Gic. Placita ei £cpov f) p f | ^coov 6 TJAaoc. olov ei y a u n j e o v . but concerning which one can form an opinion. Also the A c a d e m y and the Stoa adopted this disputative method. without (7tepioxaai<. arguing pro et contra of $£G£ic. Examples o f the themes 4 5 to those given by T h e o n ) are found in the Protreptikos) Hortensius) (Diels. The New Academy school's found it especially useful because it gave expression to the .. £1 7Cai807tOlT)X£OV. T h e rhetor Theon cent.

3 Sp. Accordingly 9eo"ei<. adhering to the disputative character o f the genre. but only a division into rcpooiuiov and K8(pdA. Philo may have become a c ­ quainted with it there. o r followed examples o f the genre which he c a m e across in his' r e a d i n g . but by no means obligatory. in the form o f a treatise o r an examples. The deaic. as in the Tusculanae essay. Its members themselves both pro and contra argued diverse propositions. and our three But it was also possible to present dsaeu. On the basis o f the evidence at our disposal it must be concluded that the genre does not present one single rigidly maintained literary form. Cicero likes to clothe his the use o f the first person in the presentation o f arguments in the examples analysed above). Often only the case in favour o f the proposition is presented.. The essential feature o f the genre is its disputatory character.) where the opposing arguments are introduced by an anonymous cpr|c»i).). in the form o f a dialogue. with his inclination towards .aia ( 1 2 1 . C . but the speaker or writer. tractare would lead i.6 Sp. though his great preoccupation with the relation between philosophy and rhetoric is o f no concern to us. Also with respect to the question o f whether one set o f arguments must be stronger and 'win the contest' there are no rigid rules to be followed. as we find in Cicero's Paradoxa difficult Stoicorum disputationes. as Cicero repeats on numerous occasions. arguments pro. does bear the opposing case in mind and takes care to refute various arguments in advance (as seen in the stock example ei yaurixeov o f the rhetor Aphthonius ( 5 0 . Disputation necessarily entails a declamatory element (cf.e. arguments contra. was used as a paedagogic method in both the philosophical and rhetorical schools o f Philo's day. as Carneades did on the notorious occasion o f the embassy to R o m e in 156 B . O u r evidence shows that this structure is c o m m o n . Our best evidence is found in Cicero. 5 . but it is to imagine the dry sequences o f arguments actually being spoken aloud. finding expression most often in the practice o f the pro et contra or in utramque 47 dicere partem tractare.PHILO'S DL A E T E R N I T A T E M U N D I 117 probabilistic theories and methods.. T h e declamatory element is still faintly present. one to expect a tripartite structure to be normal in a deait. 46 It is necessary now to examine the relation between the theoretical prescriptions pertaining to the genre and the way that the genre is brought to actual expression in the form and structure o f a literary work. The rhetor Theon does not prescribe a specific literary form for the dean. The method o f in utramque partem proemium. Cicero.

to bear the following caveat in mind.. would lead us to expect. can the marked similarities between the treatises be explained. A more dogmaticallyminded author. is also relevant to the other philosophical W e shall do mundi well. in order to compose the De aetemitate not obliged to adhere to rigidly fixed rules o f form and content. It is evident that its disputatory character is not conducive to a rigorously systematic and dispassionate handling o f the theme under discussion. The De aetemitate mundi in its finished form would have followed . there remains a structurally vital passage in the work which requires a preliminary examination. as indeed we shall discover when we analyse the treatise. but our treatise is the only example that treatises o f P h i l o . however. is mentioned as a typical theme for a $ecri<. The correspondences both in structure and in phraseology between the three treatises are much m o r e striking than the observations made above on the literary form o f the $ecn<. 6 50 KOCTUOC. 48 Let us return to the three examples with which we started out. however. 51 has survived. as in the enigmatic conclusion o f his De natura deorum. or its equivalent as practised in the rhetorical and 4 9 philosophical (Aet3) The proposition ei acpdapioc. by Aristotle and Q u i n t i l i a n .VIII 118 A c a d e m i c scepticism. in the form o f a treatise o r essay. namely the practice o f stringing together long chains o f arguments and illustratory material without making any attempt to construct a systematically presented and logically coherent w h o l e . The literary form and method o f the Oeouc. There can be no doubt that they reveal the essential features o f the genre o f the $eai<. Only by means o f this hypothesis. W e m a y thus conclude that Philo's treatise has as its formal basis the genre o f the Mmq schools o f his d a y . But there remains a puzzling aspect. often likes to keep the issue open. to postulate the hypothesis that we are dealing here with one widely disseminated manner o f composing a ^emc. Finally a word must be said about the manner in which the requisite arguments are presented in the genre. But before we can proceed to that undertaking.. will leave no doubt in the mind o f the reader as to which point o f view he favours. based on an examination o f practical application rather than theoretical prescription. In utilizing the genre Philo is o f the deoic. In the examples that have survived we continually observe the structural feature which must be considered a characteristic o f the deaic. It is necessary. therefore. One would expect him to play around with the genre and adapt it to his own (philosophical) purposes.

in leading to a misinterpretation o f the treatise as O u r text is based on Cohn's edition : 5 2 a whole. The three parts are clearly demarcated by two sentences (Aet. a n d that the aioax. maintain that the cosmos is uncreated and indestructible we should present first". M o r . the introductory section to the sequence o f arguments in the second part. 9 5 5 E .VIII PHILO'S DE A E T E R N I T A T E M U N D I 119 the tripartite structure which we have seen to be a basic feature o f the deaicj. T h e sentence is read in this way 53 by Wendland and Festugiere-. by those w h o put forward the arguments. 150 is obscure because the part which it introduces is missing. &EOV add. so that one has to decide whether it qualifies the participle K a x a c n c e u d ^ o v x a c . Ttpocj x o v o p a x o v <$£ov> ai5oucj floats as it were in the middle o f the sentence. It is possible that trie 'floating phrase' is meant to qualify 7tpoxepoix.. It is the function o f these sentences to indicate the precise relation between the three parts. 1. The sentence reveals t w o chief difficulties. Thus there are three ways o f reading and trans­ lating the sentence (omitting the final phrase. x a K x e o v . to which we will return later). 1 7 5 . Cumont.. referred to belongs to the subject o r the object o f the verbal complex. In order to substantiate this claim a careful look at the sentence xouc. transitional parallels to which we noted in the two treatises which are structurally parallel to our treatise (Plant.20. less literally. Colson. "the arguments which. Such an excuse cannot be given for the first sentence o f Aet. refers to the subject o f the verbal complex. 8e &yevr|TOV Kai dcp&apxov KaxaoKeud^ovxacj A-oyoix. it must be decided whether the aickbc.20. This is the w a y in which the sentence is read by most translators a n d c o m m e n t a t o r s . which all on its own makes the transition from. Bernays oiiceiav : oaiav coni. or. Plut. The difficulty is that the two transitional sentences are laconic in the extreme. . including Bernays. eveKa xfjcj 7tp6<. 9 5 7 B ) . 2. x a K x e o v . Aet. Y e t the sentence is very difficult to interpret.6yot. so that the ai5cbcj is shown by the A. A translation would read.\50). M o r e o v e r if the phrase qualifies the latter. Indeed we would wish to affirm that the failure to interpret it correctly has been a crucial factor is a first desiderandum. namely Philo. 1 4 9 . xov o p a x o v <9edv> aiSouc. o r the verbal complex 7ipoxepou<. on account o f their reverence f o r the visible g o d . Von Arnim. In the first place the phrase e v e m xfjc. TOV 6patov U : TO opuxov MHP(v). npoxepoucj xaKxeov otKeiav dpxf|v taxPovxac. W e can take the 'floating phrase' to qualify K a x a a K e u d ^ o v x a c .

rcpoTepouc. l a K i s o v . On the other hand there seem no grammatical criteria to help us decide whether the aibfoq o f the 'floating phrase' should be attributed to either the subject o r the object o f the sentence's main verb. W e might translate. on account o f our respect for the visible god. "the arguments. (in this way) making an appropriate start". so it would seem m o r e natural to take it with the main verb o f the sentence. . present first". in P h i l o . to my knowledge. In this way any possible ambiguity is avoided. But we have n o t exhausted the difficulties o f the sentence at left o u t o f consideration. on account o f their reverence for the visible god. 5 5 The 'floating phrase' stands wholly outside the phrase containing the verbal form K a i a a K s u d ^ o v T a c . This interpretation is . 58 Only the There is also a problem'concerning the phrase which has so far been dpxfjv A-aBoviac. not been suggested before. o r lack t h e r e o f . Firstly it can be read as commenting further on Philo's decision to start off his debate with the arguments which maintain the uncreatedness and incorruptibility o f the cosmos. is the least likely o f the three. 57 56 If A. is that the 'floating phrase' again qualifies object TdKieov. but it seems to me that the first suggestion. It is normal practice in Greek syntax. they can certainly be attributed with ai56<. A third possibility rcpoTepouc. to decide between these rival translations? It may seem rather rash to cross swords with the coeditor o f the editio maior o f Philo's works.6yoi cannot be personalized in the manner o f the first and third translations is g r o u n d l e s s . on the basis o f purely syntactical considerations. refers to the o f the verbal complex. T h e role o f this phrase can be interpreted in t w o ways. if a prepositional phrase qualifies a subordinate verb or participle. "the arguments which maintain that the cosmos is uncreated and indestruc­ tible we should. Examples o f both can be found context will allow us to decide. "the argu­ ments which maintain that the cosmos is uncreated and indestructible we should. Von Arnim's objection that A. o i K e i a v Aet. A translation would read. 3. who on the whole writes syntactically correct and lucid (if rather long-winded) G r e e k . to include that phrase either wholly o r partially within the relevant clause or phrase o f the verbal form. Examples abound in the writings o f Philo. present first".VIII 120 Bormann and P o u i l l o u x . This manner o f reading the sentence has.6yoi can be instrumental in destroying the cosmos.20. we should present first. while clearly not impossible.. but that this time the aiSdx. 54 A translation would then read. Is it possible...

the word ev$£v5e pointing to the first argument which begins without further-ado. and written in an extremely compressed manner. F o r m and content.20ff. but because in our study it will only be possible to concentrate on those aspects which a r e relevant to the solving o f the interpretative problem outlined at the start. we should present first.RNITATE M U N D I 121 favoured by all the translators o f the t r e a t i s e .20 mundi and the enigmatic sentence have not yet yielded all their secrets. which immediately follows. It exhorts the reader by pointing out the importance and value o f the subject to be discussed.VIII PHILO'S DE AE I F. It underlines the status o f the opinions and arguments which are about to be presented. we would be taken right into the very centre o f Philo's thought. show that the latter interpretation is the more probable. 'convenient'. There Philo writes 7 i o i r | a a u 8 v o u ( . making (now) an appropriate start". W e emphatically describe the analysis as 'partial'. It introduces the subject o f the treatise. 150 which performs exactly the same transitional function in the Moiq structure as Aet. ev9ev5e zr)v apxf)v. grammatical structure and meaning can only arti­ ficially be kept apart. T h e function o f the exordium is threefold. It is time to pass on now to a partial analysis of the treatise in order to discover what Philo's intentions were in writing it and what the message was that he wished to convey. It is brief. A large number o f parallels. A partial exordium analysis mundi begins with an The introductory section o f the De aetemitate ( 1 . But we can no longer discuss them in isolation from what Philo wants to say in the treatise.2 ) . Both the structure o f De aetemitate at Aet. 59 Alternatively we can Aet. The most important parallel is the sentence at Plant. both in and outside Philo's writings.e..20. methodological. . If we were to investigate the many themes and doctrines to which it fleetingly refers. This argument is then seen as making a particularly appropriate starting point for the lengthy sequence o f proofs which Philo is about to present. namely introductory. 60 The word o i K e i a v troubled Cumont 61 and Leisegang.) read the phrase as making a transition to the argument (i. 4 . but in this interpretation the word is not significant and means merely 'suitable'.. not so much out o f a sense o f modesty. "the arguments. Other parallels add strength to our conviction that Philo is using a con­ ventional formula often placed at the beginning o f a philosophical discussion in order to indicate that the author is moving to the first argument or item o f discussion. protreptic. A translation would read.

Such a distinction between two levels o f knowledge and emphasis on the hindrance o f sin and guilt can be paralleled in other authors o f Philo's . y e v v r i T f j c j . It is to be expected that Philo will substitute © e o c j . In the dialogue Timaeus tells his colleagues that it is a sound practice to invoke the godhead if undertaking a discussion o n the universe e i y e y o v e f| K a i d y e v e q e a x t v . who a r e still soiled and stained by folly and vice must remain content with a uiutiua xf\q dX. 6 3 Given our human nature. When discussing the question o f the indestructibility o f the c o s m o s we should invoke G o d because he is the dya&oc. to the exordium of et Osiride.6yov. he continues later on. It is reserved for the elect few who have cleansed themselves from all passions and diseases o f the soul. 66 He conceives o f two levels o f knowledge. It speaks only o f x o v ( m e p dcp&apaiac. Plato vacillates in his in­ vocation between $ e o v and &eo0<. cr-coxaauoi. with a Ttpooiu t o v . Further. 6 K o a u o q . oracles. j u s t as there is nothing m o r e perfect than the c o s m o s in the sensible r e a l m . for Pla'to's philosophical viewpoint will play a vital role in the treatise. structure. T r u e knowledge i s dispensed by G o d through dreams. £r| T O U viae. Indeed it is remarkably parallel. G o d possesses complete knowledge and is the source o f all knowledge. also in the sensible realm. 6 4 Philo's method is to make explicit what in terms o f his own thought is implicit in Plato's words. Only at Aet3. in which Philo now proceeds to relate God's omniscience^ to Plato's hint o f the limitations o f human nature has surprised many r e a d e r s . 6 5 It is important to note that God's status as c r e a t o r and the perfection (within limits) o f the c o s m o s receive stress at the very outset o f the treatise. a HECTIC. e i dopSVxpxoc. we would not expect this literary f o r m exordium KOCTUOU on the basis o f the here presented. x e K a i dedc. 62 function and subject matter {mutatis Plutarch's De hide philosophical discourse. and that he makes explicit the relation between G o d and the cosmos and between G o d and knowledge is also hardly surprising. W e . could we reasonably begin to suspect The and fact that the exordium is built u p around two passages from Plato's Timaeus is not without significance in relation t o Philo's aims intentions. both in terms o f mutandis). however. we shall have to be content with a probable a c c o u n t on the coming into being and the nature o f the cosmos. signs and wonders.122 Although it was normal practice to c o m m e n c e a Seaic.. T O U X. by means o f e i K o i e c . perfect in the noetic realm.r)&eiac. T h e way. a treatise written in the manner o f a where Philo speaks o f toix.

he indicates that his treatise will not focus o n the subject discussed by Plotinus in Enn.. and to 68 especially in mind the Jewish patriarchs and above all Moses. central terms o f the proposition them (Aet. explains why at Prov. namely Koauoc. aetemitate He would expect that only two opinions can be held o n the proposition ei d(f>9apxoc. The first surprise awaiting the attentive reader o f the De mundi c o m e s at the beginning o f Aet J.. very similar to the one But I cannot go all the way with the keen-witted analysis o f Arnaldez. £ K xofj uf| 6VTO<. as is evident in its phraseology.. and (pOapxoc. namely K6CTUO<.. Short definitions Mundo Certainly that is the case in the treatise De Aristotle).. but Philo calmly states that three 8 6 ^ a i are possible . because then they could 7 3 claim that their theories do not propose true destruction at a l l .W 4 8 the Stoics could be considered proponents o f the view that the c o s m o s was uncreated and eternal. Perhaps in retrospect the reader realizes oacraep ydp that he could have been warned by the statement at Aet. 6 Koauxx.W 1. T h e third definition of KOGUOC. who considers that Philo sees deepseated cosmo-theological motives behind the various definitions and that his awareness o f these motives determines his presentation and choice o f definitions. Philo proceeds now to a short section in which he defines the two ei dq>$apxo<. xo uf) 6 v cp^eipexai. 6 7 But I feel certain that when he thinks o f the elect few he has G o d revealed his word. (attributed to answer the question o f the precise function that Philo wishes to give here presented. to the definitions But this does not can say much. 6 Koauo<.. and dcp&apxoc. o 6 8 ' eic. 72 Similarly the definition o f (pdopd is directed specifically against the Atomists and Stoics. . 71 It seems to me m o r e likely that Philo is using these definitions in order to eliminate in advance possible misunder­ standings which could impede the progress o f the treatise. ou8ev yivexai. 7 0 o f Koauoc. F o r Philo. in the meaning o f oopav6<.5. yevr|x6<. A E T E R N I T A T E M U N D I 123 time. a preliminary definition o f crucial 69 terms fits well into the 7 r p o o i u i o v o f a &eo~tc. yevnxoc. By rejecting the second definition o f K6CTUO<.that the cosmos is dyevnxot. the inspired prophet to whom whose works he himself devoted a lifetime o f study and m e d i t a t i o n . and indicates in which sense he wishes to use A s we saw above. in which a definition Philo accepts is l o c a t e d .. and cp^opd. and dcpdapxoq (the UIKXT| 8 6 £ a ) . Such an interpretation would be fatal to Philo's intentions in the doxography that follows the definitions and is thus e l i m i n a t e d . Philo will not allow a definition o f destruction as a total reductio ad nihilum.VIII PHILO'S DF.3-6).

The atomists with their mechanistic explanations for the coming into being and destruc­ tion o f the c o s m o s and their d o g m a o f a plurality o f worlds present . so that the sharp edges of the original meaning inevitably become blurred. Then Philo could justifiably be accused o f careless composition. Democritus and Epicurus on the one hand. the majority o f the Stoics on the other (Aet. 11 Y e t . it needs to be emphasized that Philo does succumb to the pitfalls observed by Festugiere. 16 In the meantime it has been brought up to date. K a i cp&apxoc. the doxography is presented in the spirit o f a dialogus mortuorum. that the c o s m o s is yevrixoc. Its basic format is traditional and goes back to Aristotle's De philosophia and De caelo. The first position. y e v e a i c . The doxography (Aet. and the Stoics have replaced Presocratic cosmologists. and cp&opti are inseparably coupled. that this does not mean that the subject o f the treatise has changed. which mundi duced at Aet. W h e n we turn to Philo's doxography we observe that its contents can in no way be described as original.S-9). When Aristotle is said to oppose the Stoics and Epicurus.). It will appear. has two groups o f representatives.. A s points out. The question o f its coming into being is complementary and necessary. The subject o f the treatise remains the indestructibility o f the cosmos.l fits well into the structure and method o f the Both the close structural parallels to the De aeternitate Further writings.VIII 124 as f o r all philosophers in the ancient world. however. evidence 74 we adduced above contained a doxographical section in the T t p o o i p t o v . The question o f the d c p d a p a i a x o u yeveaic. in spite o f the doxography's not lack o f originality. the practice is not without considerable d a n g e r s . xou KOCTUOU cannot o f the (Philo be discussed without taking into consideration the question KOCTUOU. 18 But for Philo these two groups do not stand on the same level. W e shall see that he has carefully organized his doxography and so reveals that he has made a penetrating analysis o f the cosmological and theological views o f the philosophers whose Socjat he records. but remains subordinate. K a i cp&apxoc. The doxographer wrenches his material from its original context and isolates it f r o m the philosophical system o f its a u t h o r . Epicurus has been placed beside the Atomists. is abundantly present in Cicero's philosophical Indeed the compilation o f doxographical material was a Festugiere pertinently 75 very fashionable practice in Philo's day. Hence the three views on the question discounts the possibility that anyone would assert that the c o s m o s was & y e v r | x o c .8-19) that follows the xpixxai 56£.at intro­ Moiq.

8 4 Here can be perceived for the which Philo uses to organize the d o x o ­ namely the admiration of the cosmos. as a opaiocj Seoq. as the result o f his maintaining that the cosmos is dyevr)TO<. It seems at first sight puzzling that Philo explicitly refuses. to ascribe the destruction o f the c o s m o s to G o d . with its 7 t d v $ s i o v o f heavenly bodies. This attitude o f reverence cosmos. o f his opponents. One can almost hear the clashing and clattering o f the mass o f atoms. Philo chooses his words with care. dyevrixocj K a i dtpdapiocj (Aet. when reporting the Stoic doctrine. 1 0 . The word 'atheism'. the first philosophical perfection criterion graphy and the treatise as a whole.1 2 ) .VIII PHIl. which differs from the constructions built by human hands in that it will not one day suddenly collapse like a shoddily built h o u s e . Philo wants to keep the doxography under the tight control o f his own views. 79 T o describe G o d as the 80 source o f the cosmos' destruction is b l a s p h e m o u s . The Stoics. however. piety consists in recognizing the dSeorrn. however. In opposing the doctrines o f the Atomists and Stoa. K a i dcpSapxoc. that the c o s m o s is K a i domq. is evident Aristotle's (its effusiveness has surprised many c o m m e n t a t o r s ) but the extent and import o f his approbation must be carefully e v a l u a t e d . The atheism o f the Atomists and the Stoa consists in their threatening the cosmos with destruction and recognizing its divine nature. Not only do they subscribe to a single cosmos. 83 His doctrine is more pious than that o f the Stoics because he has an eye for the perfection o f the ordered structure o f the cosmos. as Philo describes it at Aet. Aristotle recognized the cosmos. by Aristotle in his lost dialogue De philosophia. i. however. 82 not towards the defended was displayed and It is clear.OS DE A E T E R N I T A T E MUNDI 125 a wholly godless doctrine. from the construction o f the doxography that Philo's commendation o f Aristotle's pious and religious spirit is not meant in an absolute sense..e.20. Aristotle acted uf|7roT* T h a t Philo approves o f Aristotle's opposition 81 euaePcoc. Philo agrees with Aristotle that indestructibility . And when the cosmos perishes in the great conflagration its rebirth takes place under the guidance o f Divine Providence. but as the direct consequence of his opposition to those who maintain the first p o s i t i o n . does not have the usual meaning found in Philo's writings. / D o e s this mean that he fails to take Stoic monism seriously? I would suggest that Philo is viewing the Stoic doctrine through the spectacles o f his own t h o u g h t . Such control is also evident in the transition to the second position. but they also consider G o d to be the cause o f its genesis. must definitely be placed on a higher level.

that.1 2 . the following doctrines compressed within its con­ (i) the creation o f the cosmos by G o d . 87 holds the cosmos Plato has realized that the cosmos. There he affirms that those who pronounce the cosmos uncreated and eternal not only show too much admiration for the c o s m o s and not enough for its creator. for all its impressive perfection.\3). passage which he has quoted. (v) the task o f the L o g o s as the oeciuoc.b 6 . will greatly clarify Philo's intentions in the doxography. beginning with a quote from Plato's Timaeus (Aet. K a i dcp^apioc. in presenting Aristotle's argument against his oppo­ nents.. for its preservation and indestructibility on God's provi­ dential care. The choice o f this text. in his view. despite the casual air o f Philo's doxographical cpaai. to those o f Aristotle. is anything but random. in Philo's eyes. Philo concentrates on the possibility o f the cosmos' destruction. but also do not realize that they deny the doctrine o f Divine Providence. 4 1 a 7 . The reciprocal part o f Aristotle's doctrine. indicate (Aet. (iii) the eternity o f the c o s m o s guaranteed by God's PouA. 7 7 r a . but it is not stressed as part o f his 'pious and religious s p i r i t ' . It is dependent for its genesis on God's goodness. On the basis o f this Timaeus passage and the interpretative c o m m e n t s Such an inter­ Timaeus pretation undermines. The importance o f this text in Philo's thought is matched by the frequency o f its utilization fines: in Middle Platonism. (ii) the basic validity o f the axiom that all that is born must die. could perhaps be read into Aristotle's accusation that the cosmos would be no different than mere x ^ p o K u n j a . Here Plato's views are clearly superior. It must be observed. De opificio mundi 7 . (iv) the intimate connection o f the eternity o f the cosmos with the doctrine o f Divine Providence. the uncreatedness o f the cosmos. The transition to the third position 85 in the doxography.VIII 126 is a fitting attribute for the marvellously constructed work o f art which man is privileged to observe all around him. the basic message o f the . is not autonomous. since there can be no proper relation between that which has not truly been created and One who has not been its c r e a t o r . however. is made without any fuss o r bother.\4) 8 8 Accordingly in the doxography Philo is careful to that he does not accept the views o f those 8 9 who interpret the Timaeus as not presenting the doctrine o f a real creation but rather Aristotle's doctrine in a didactic j a c k e t . 86 Philo finds elsewhere and here. A brief glance at the important text. which together. that the cosmos is yevriTdc.r|aic. The position is allowed to speak for itself.

K a i dcpOapxoc. true to the metho­ dology outlined in the exordium. It may seem that we are extracting too much from the doxography. a doctrine is.\9).ll-S). A t t h e very least he is a guarantee o f its validity. In spite o f the lack o f direct editorial comments on the third opinion. Having now reached the end o f the 7 r p o o i u i o v . the second philosophical criterion relation used f o r to the have the organization o f the doxography and the treatise is brought to the fore (albeit in a rather subtle fashion). it come to t h e 8 6 ^ a o f t h e Jewish lawgiver. the m o r e respectability it is likely to have and t h e more In this way Philo can at last smoothly One is expected. to recall t h e Jewish apologetic device o f t h e 'theft o f t h e Philo implies t h a t Moses is t h e source o f inspiration for the doctrine that the cosmos is yevnioc. Moses. But he has not yet finished with his expose o f the proponents o f the yevecnc.. ex longinquo 9 0 but to illustrate The older a principle in t h e history o f philosophy to which he attaches great significance. He proceeds to mention the possibility that the poet Hesiod was the father o f Plato's-doctrine (Aet. but also too much. that to some purified souls G o d has revealed the truth by special means o f revelation. Philo thus returns to the theme introduced in the exordium. K a i dcpdapaia o f the cosmos. E a c h 8 6 ^ a is superior to the one that precedes it . n o t with the motive o f discrediting P l a t o . 7rp6xepov (Aet. The Pentateuchal quotations vouch for the truth o f the third opinion (although Philo. 91 reverentia.. Aristotle's theology was not up to the standard o f his the 94 . philosophers'. we can be wholly certain that it represents Philo's own v i e w . far from fulfilling the perfunctory role one might expect o f a doxographical section in the $ecu<. W e end this all too brief analysis o f the doxography by drawing the conclusion that.RNITATF. t h e principle o f maior truth it is likely to c o n t a i n . proved inadequate because it was double-edged. namely God's cosmos as its creator and providential maintainer. since Philo makes no explicit editorial comments on the third position.VIII PHILO'S DE AETF. 92 s e e m s . it has evidently been carefully thought out and organized. introduced by an emphatic uaKpoIc. is not about to embark on Biblical 93 exegesis). 8e xpovoic. The first criterion One could insufficient admiration for the cosmos as a perfect work o f art. Philo has rearranged the tradi­ tional doxographical material in such a way that it proceeds step by step in a hierarchical sequence to reach a fitting climax in the 8 6 ^ a o f Moses (a literary structural technique which he has also used else­ w h e r e ) . M U N D I 127 which Philo appends to it.

But first it must be determined what the relation is between the Ttpooiuiov as we have analysed it and the remainder o f the treatise. Then he adds the 'floating phrase' c v s K a xfjc. the s e n t e n c e . After speaking o f three positions in the doxography. as is indicated If the structure o f the treatise is to become clear.20-149. A. Philo must show what two positions he will set out in detail.VIII 128 sequence. The arguments to be presented first are xouc. namely the admiration for the per­ fection o f the cosmos. Plato. or perhaps three. W e must return now to the sentence at Aet. It is this sentence which provides the reader o f the treatise with his second surprise. Ttpoc. (Pythagoreans). Democritus and Epicurus. interpretations. which marks the transition from the Ttpooiuiov to the long sequence o f arguments at W e saw earlier that from the grammatical point o f view the sentence is ambiguous and is subject to two. A t this point the interpretation o f the sentence becomes critically important. Aristotle.. xov o p a x o v <3eov> aiSoOc. Philo all o f a sudden reverts back to two (made clear by the use o f rtpoxspouc. those o f Aristotle and his followers. Stoa.6you<. W e shall see that the philosophical judg­ ments made in composing the doxography closely accord with his views on the subject elsewhere in his writings. d y e v r j x o v K a i d c p d a p x o v K a x a c n c e u d ^ o v x a c . however. by the parallels we a d d u c e d . 98 cosmos (Aet. (Hesiod). The wording o f the phrase evidently is meant to refer the reader back to the description o f Aristotele's reverence for the doxography. On the basis o f the second interpretation. we would expect two. 9 5 The two chief turning points o f the doxo­ graphy. are each motivated by a philosophical criterion based on systematic philosophical analysis.1 1 ) and the first philosophical criterion used to organize the Let us recall our three alternative interpretations o f On the basis o f the first (and grammatically least likely) 99 interpretation Philo does not attempt to motivate his decision to start with these arguments but simply repeats the connection between the philosophical position o f the dyevcria K a i dcpSapcria o f the cosmos and the attitude o f cosmic reverence as outlined in the doxography. and God's relation to the cosmos as its creator and providential maintainer. 1 0 .20 Aet. which has already drawn our attention.e.. from the first to the second. and from the second to the third opinion. and how they are related to his doxography. i. M o s e s . 97 96 In the tripartite structure o f the $ecnc. instead o f Ttpcbxoucj). Philo indicates that he himself subscribes to Aristotle's attitude o f 'reverence towards the .

apparent when arguing against the Stoic position. namely whether Philo as a practising Jew would not feel qualms in describing the cosmos as a 'visible god'. but because their relative merits justify giving them a first say. not because they accord with Philo's own viewpoint. Merits relative to what. but it is not own 101 Aristotle's view has a commendable aspect. whereas in fact he is only In the light o f these results consider the claim justified that the misinterpretation o f this short . a fact which we could not have deduced from the doxography alone. which becomes particularly Philo's view. In the doxography it was evident that Philo did not give his unreserved approval to the admiration shown by Aristotle towards the cosmos because the Stagirite did not recognize the implication o f the cosmos' dependence on a transcendent cause. The significance duction. I have presented the alternative which seems to me most persuasive last. to which we will return later. Relative to the arguments in favour o f the first position propounded especially by the Stoics. The Aristotelianizing arguments are presented first. Also the problem which has troubled generations o f com­ mentators. Philo adds that he is in this way making an appropriate start ( o i K s i a v dpxriv A.VIII PHILO'S DE A E T F . the chief pro­ ponent o f the o p i n i o n . R N I T A T E M U N D I 129 visible god' and f o r this reason the arguments on viewpoint behalf o f his should be presented first. that the we arguments which follow have received Philo's support. from the viewpoint o f the meaning.aB6vTac.) presumably because he is about to start off his arguments with four propounded by Aristotle himself. 102 O f the other two interpretations the first is. but is used to plan the structure o f the philosophical analysis o f the doxography is not restricted to the i n t r o ­ o f the entire treatise. The third interpretation o f the sentence gives us another possibility.the one found in all translations o f the work . Philo is therefore giving open support for the philosophical criterion o f the admiration o f the cosmos. Thus also here we do not have to credit Philo with an attitude o f unqualified 'reverence towards the visible god' which cannot be paralleled elsewhere in his w r i t i n g s . quite plausible and definitely to be preferred above the second. This inter­ pretation . since the phrase is presented as Aristotle's rather than P h i l o ' s .is positively misleading because it encourages the reader to conclude reporting them. 100 Just like Philo in his doxography. And what are the arguments that will be presented u a x e p o u q ? Here is raised the vexed question o f the nature and content o f the missing third part. one might ask. falls away.

e. i. 1 0 7 It is noteworthy that most o f the arguments are con­ cerned with intra-cosmic or immanent causes and events. so also the Aristotelianizing arguments are used to controvert the Stoic position.VIII 130 sentence has been one o f the crucial factors which have led scholars to a misinterpretation o f Philo's intentions in the treatise as a whole. the level on which we would expect Stoics and Peripatetics to dispute with each other. W e will confine ourselves to a few generalizing remarks. that it is difficult to separate source material from Philo's own additions. The remainder o f the extant part o f the De aeternitate d(p$apxov KaiaaKeuct^oviacj Xoyovc. 103 mundi is devoted KaiaaKeud- to the long sequence o f arguments introduced as TOUC. 105 These are not signs o f youth. It is a convention o f the disputatory genre that the use o f the first person in putting forward arguments does not necessarily mean the expression o f one's own personal opinions. dyevriTOV Kai As Reinhardt saw. W e can hardly disagree with Colson when he remarks that the citation o f a poetic quote three times in a short work is a piece o f careless c o m p o s i t i o n . that the arguments so often begin and end with introductory and concluding phrases added by the author to keep them separated. This is o f course not to say that the work is a literary masterpiece. that a number o f obvious and seemingly careless repetitions are e n c o u n t e r e d . Other literary features o f the second part o f the treatise can now be placed in perspective. He is doing precisely what was expected in the disputatory method o f the genre o f the Seoicj. which Philo has taken over for his own ends. but acceptable consequences o f the literary method Philo has chosen. 106 A detailed examination o f the arguments which Philo presents is not possible within the scope o f this article. technicus for the presentation o f arguments in a Philo has undertaken to collect a series o f arguments on behalf o f the dyevriaia and d(p$apaia o f the cosmos and present them in as persuasive a manner as possible. it is the way of the Seaic. with a good dose o f polemic thrown i n .. that no attempt is made to build up a coherent body o f argument that defends the proposition in a systematic way. Only three o f the twenty four arguments refer to G o d in his . we are now in a position to refine the statement o f Colson quoted e a r l i e r .. ^eiv is the terminus Secric. Just as in the doxography Aristotle is used to oppose the Stoa. 1 0 4 It is not only Philo's way to reproduce with all his vigour opinions and doctrines which he is really going to controvert later. Because o f the investigation we have made into the literary background o f the treatise. inexperience or haste.

own. but. 110 reinforcing our belief that the question o f the yeveaiq TOU KOOUOU plays only a subordinate role in the purpose o f the treatise. * Their view­ point is. however. R N I T A T E M U N D I 131 capacity as creator o r maintainer o f the cosmos. they are not without shortcomings o f their. the same as that found in the rest o f his writings? The answer must emphatically be given in the affirmative. How. Philo finds the arguments useful for the preliminary task o f refuting the inanities o f the Stoa. 111 Especially to be rejected is the suggestion o f Weiss that Philo. 112 Also to be rejected is the verdict o f C u m o n t and Arnaldez that Philo considers the Aristotelianizing arguments that the cosmos is uncreated in time and eternal to be philosophically valid and necessary as far as they 1 3 go. allowed many statements with which he disagreed to remain standing. Therefore we disagree with all the commentators who consider that Philo is persuaded o f the validity o f these a r g u m e n t s . as he has subtly indicated in the introduction. but from the theological point o f view inadequate. 108 It would be absurd to say that this merely reflects the nature o f Philo's sources. are we to evaluate Philo's position in relation to the sequence o f arguments which he has put forward? W e believe that Philo does not support these arguments and that they cannot be quoted as representing his considered opinion. The theme o f reverence for the cosmos is recalled to mind when the arguments at regular intervals focus on the imminent death threatening the cosmos and its parts as the result o f the godless opinions o f the philosophers. subtle and well thought out. 109 Finally it must be observed that. and even in these his transcendence is not s t r e s s e d .is the position which Philo presents in the doxography as his own view on the subject o f the indestructibility (and the coming into being) o f the cosmos in the De aetemitate mundi. as we have interpreted it. It is necessary first to pose the central question . for the reason that philosophical consistency was not high on his list o f priorities and his aim in writing the treatise was apologetic rather than philosophical and s y s t e m a t i c .VIII PHILO'S D E A E T F . In order to set out our objections to it we must now place our discussion in a wider context. then. although the arguments are meant to prove both the ayevrioia and the acpdapoia o f the cosmos. as will become evident in a brief survey o f relevant passages located in the Corpus Philonicum. emphasis is chiefly placed^on the latter aspect in the actual arguments them­ selves. in reworking his source material. C o m m e n t a t o r s have been led astray by the conviction with which they are presented and the use o f the first person. .

1 7 8 . and man in the sublunary sphere. 1 2 6 . initiated when man uses his gift o f sight to look at the movements o f the heavenly beings. and not in terms o f a universal eschatological p e r s p e c t i v e . but is preserved from destruction by the will and providence o f its c r e a t o r . admiration for its c r e a t o r . as someone has said. 123 Another significant parallel to the thought o f our treatise is the confrontation between Moses and the Chaldeans at Migr.the c o s m o s has been created and should in theory c o m e to an end. "so that high honour m a y be given both to the creator and the cosmos. who as an individual perishes but as a race receives i m m o r t a l i t y . and he repeats it over and over again . recurring cycle is nothing but myth-making T e p a i o X o y i a . 120 Also the way in which the two philosophical structure the doxography is indubitably lyrical descriptions o f its p e r f e c t i o n . the best o f causes. 1 2 2 121 criteria are used to Philo on many Philonic. and all that his creation can do in reply is to give thanks and praise. the one. Moses endorses the doctrine o f cosmic sympathy but . 1 1 4 It is one o f those questions on which philosophers 1 1 5 and sophists are bitterly divided. The Chaldeans were impressed with the unity and c o n c o r d o f the c o s m o s and thought it to be either G o d o r to contain G o d as its soul. tinction is made between the heavenly beings 118 1 1 7 1 1 6 The dis­ theory that the cosmos consumes itself and is reborn in an eternally A who receive direct immortality. the other the most perfect o f created t h i n g s " .true piety entails an attitude o f relative cosmos as God's created handiwork and absolute as c r e a t o r and ruler o f the cosmos.VIII 132 The question o f the y£V£Gi<. G o d in his goodness confers benefits on his creation. occasions reveals his admiration for the c o s m o s as a work o f art in But invariably admiration o f the c o s m o s either leads to o r is accompanied by recognition o f and Philo's thought can thus be summarized admiration admiration for the for G o d as follows .8 4 . 119 Those who do consider the c o s m o s un­ created and eternal fail to recognize God's providence and are filled with godless arrogance./dy£vr|c>ia and (pdopd/dipoVxpaia o f the cosmos is one o f the most basic questions o f philosophy. who were duly punished with total c o n f u s i o n . Characteristic is the passage at Plant. but always in terms o f natural disasters o r SefjA-aia in parts o f the cosmos. thereby showing the hopelessness o f their quest for the t r u t h . Such were the builders o f the tower o f Babel. Philo's answer is that which he gives in the doxography.3 1 . discusses on A s biblical exegete Philo punishment numerous occasions the theme o f divine applied on a cosmic scale.

20-149) writings.e. F o r Philo the immanent bond that holds the cosmos together is the L o g o s a n d / o r the Divine p o w e r s .\52 are not to be found in Philo's the c o s m o s is eternally preserved because o f the proportional mixture and distribution o f its elements. because they can help him solve the problem o f the relation o f the creation o f the cosmos to the concept o f time.VIII PHILO'S D E A E T E R N I T A T E M U N D I 133 strongly disagrees with their theology. arguments and statements which claim that the cosmos is indestructible on purely immanent and non-theological grounds (i. Conversely. On the authority o f Moses (Gen. Philo maintains that G o d is the creator o f time and that time c a m e into being with the c o s m o s . W e believe not. Significant also is how often Philo associates the themes o f admiration for the cosmos and its creator and the genesis and indestructibility o f the cosmos with the theme o f Divine Providence and the images o f G o d as KuBepvf|T. parallel to the arguments in Aet. a real event that actually took p l a c e . r)vio%oq. W e are even . 1 2 7 1 2 6 The cosmos is preserved through Men must c o m e as suppliants to the creator to ask 1 2 8 for perpetuity o f his w o r k s . to indicate such a b e g i n n i n g . in the Aristotelianizing arguments o f De aetemitate Is there. but rather as the consequence o f the doctrine o f God's o m n i p o t e n c e . 1 3 3 There can be absolutely no doubt that Philo considered the creation o f the c o s m o s to have been He likes to use the Platonic 134 phrase DPXT) yeveaeax. if the cosmos is God's 1 3 2 (younger) son. 3 7 d . but the statement occurs in a passage discussing the activity o f the Divine L o g o s . then time is his g r a n d s o n . however.1 8 ) and Plato ( 7 7 m . any reason to follow the viewpoint o f C u m o n t and Arnaldez and conclude that Philo is nevertheless sympathetic towards the arguments that assert the c o s m o s ' dyevriaia and dcp&apaia. then. The doctrine o f the indestructibility o f 1 2 9 the cosmos must not be affirmed at the expense of. 1 2 5 There are indications. ecpopoq/and so o n .. God's m e r c y . so in De aetemitate mundi the movement is from the doctrines o f 1 2 4 the Stoa and Aristotle to those o f Plato and M o s e s . A t Her. 1 3 1 A s he vividly says.3 8 c ) . Philo is not wholly consistent on the question but the main lines o f his thought are clear. while G o d the creator is wholly transcendent. but is held together by God's powers.X: 1 4 . The cosmos is not the first G o d . 1 3 0 but this doctrine is nowhere to be found mundi.r|c. that Philo's conception o f God's providential maintenance o f the cosmos differs from that found in Platonic philosophy in that it does not flow automatically as it were from God's nature (as if G o d is restricted by how man reasons about h i m ) . Just as A b r a h a m migrates from Chaldea to the promised land.

Moreover the final sentence o f the treatise. created in time. 1 5 0 ) is similar in formulation and function to the single sentences in the two parallel treatises outlined above which effect a transition to the third part o f the d e a t q . The sequel was never written! Several scholars is important enough to justify But of a certain a m o u n t .1 5 appears to have been included for the very purpose o f refuting this view in advance. o f time. so that from it alone we can gain no real clue about the contents o f the missing p a r t . however. 1 3 8 The sentence on its own. The first is the simplest. any 1 4 0 conjectural reconstruction must wholly depend on the hypotheses one has m a d e concerning Philo's intentions in what has p r e c e d e d . the question speculation. Philo is strictly speaking not c o n s i s t e n t . TOO KOCTUOU napeiA. to incline towards the view o f a creatio aeterna 136 1 3 5 But on the question o f whether one can say that the cosmos was Certainly.ev. F o u r possible solutions to the mystery have been brought forward.20-149. although it is not possible to deduce how many years ago the event o c c u r r e d .52-4. Only one o f the twenty-four arguments. W h a t did Philo write in the section o f the treatise which is no longer e x t a n t ? W e saw that a tripartite structure was c o m m o n in the genre o f the decrtc. ev TOICJ ercetxa 5r|taoTeov ( . Cumont and Arnaldez have been misled into thinking that the question o f time and genesis is much more important than it actually is in the context o f the treatise's aims.f|ipap. 137 concerns the question that cannot be paralleled in It must be It is another indication that Philo does not himself subscribe to the arguments he is presenting in Aet. 8e Ttpocj eKacrcov evavxirixjeic. A s Arnaldez rightly points out.d uev ouv Ttepi dcpdapaiac. One question remains and it is the most enigmatic o f all. 4 ^ . however. 1 4 . Aet. Indeed the explicit rejection o f an Aristotelianizing interpretation o f the Timaeus at Aet.. . a subordinate role in the De aeternitate mundi. there is no reason whatever to conclude that Philo is tempted which allows a c o m ­ promise with Aristotle's affirmation o f the uncreatedness o f the cosmos and a reconciliation o f the doctrines o f Plato and Aristotle. repeated that the question o f the yeveatc.VIII 134 told that the creation took place on the vernal equinox. and it maintains a viewpoint Philo's w r i t i n g s . is laconic and 1 3 9 rather imprecise. o f the cosmos only plays In fact it is only introduced because it allows Philo to distinguish sharply between two very different kinds o f dcp&apcria with very different theological impli­ cations. e t p n j a i Kaid S u v a u t v idc.

which suggests that in the missing section Philo would have defended his own view that the cosmos was yevnrdc.VIII PHILO'S DE A E T E R N I T A T I : M U N D I 135 have toyed with the idea. (arguments defending the Stoic position that Philo in the missing section would have presented arguments opposite to those in Aet. Kai (p&apioc. does not deserve serious discussion. This solution is consistent with our view that the doxography represents Philo's considered opinions on the subject o f the dcp&xpoia TOO KOOUOU and that it is used to organize the structure o f the treatise. The wording o f the which can be read as meaning that the author has finished discussing the subject o f dcp&apaia and will pass on now to opposite arguments ( e v a v T u b o e i g ) . the second is normally the stronger. but that is not the impression we gain from the way it starts off in the first twenty sections. in which. Kai (pdapxoq) but that he would have made clear. 1 4 5 A number of comments need to be made. it is not at all probable that the emphasis will d(p3apaia n o w fall on the subject o f the y e v e c u c . that he did not support them. final sentence (Aet. A second possibility. AS was stated in the introduction.20-149 1 4 1 does not represent Philo's own viewpoint. 1 4 2 . 1 4 3 F r o m the point o f view o f the genre o f the Secuc. The treatise would then a m o u n t to no more than a purely 'academic' exercise. TOO KOCTUOU..20-149 that the cosmos was yevnroc. might appear to favour this solution. though it is o f course impossible to p r o v e . that the cosmos is d(p9apxo<. it would seem most unlikely that he would leave the work unfinished with his own point o f view stated only in the 7 i p o o i u i o v and further left undiscussed. if two opposing groups o f arguments are set out. but at the same time also y e v n r o c . as he did in the doxography.. such a 144 procedure would be surprising but p o s s i b l e . But on the basis o f our interpretation it meets with the formidable objection that Philo will in fact at no stage present his own viewpoint. Although Philo will be defending the position that the cosmos is yevriToq Kai d(p9apTO<. . The majority o f scholars have favoured this solution. totally ignoring as it does the role o f the doxography in the construction o f the treatise. A third suggestion is actually a variant o f the second. If we are correct in asserting that Aet. M o r e o v e r it concurs with the method o f the genre o f the Seoiq. namely that in the missing part Philo presents the view which he made clear was his own in the doxography. Thus the only plausible suggestion is the one that remains. but without being at all specific about what the missing section may have c o n t a i n e d .150). the treatise has as its theme the question o f the .

The formulation T I J CC Ttpocj 8KtxcTTOv evavTicbcreic. Philo will only broach the subject o f the creation o f the cosmos inasmuch as he needs it to elucidate his views on its indestruc­ tibility.1 4 9 . systematically organized line o f reasoning on the subject? His use o f the genre o f the &ecnc.20-149. 148 the other so-called philosophical But emphatically this does not mean that the figure o f Moses has departed from the scene. 147 is too vague and can be inter­ Moreover. Thus in its avoidance o f exegetical exposition the De aeternitate mundi would have remained similar to treatises. at Aet.\50 preted in either d i r e c t i o n . The statement that the c o s m o s is the cause o f its own subsistence {Aet.10) is radically deficient. or would he now have preferred to present a coherent. is decisive for the settling o f this question. The length o f the final section cannot be estimated with any certainty.VIII 136 TOU KOCTUOU. 2 0 .\50) against those presented in Aet. Another question which must be raised but to which no certain answer can be given is whether the final section would have contained only negative arguments (as announced at Aet. F o r its existence . to draw on philosophical arguments that the o r whether he would have embarked on biblical exegesis. The presence o f the Jewish lawgiver continues to dominate the treatise precisely because he had reached the very summit o f p h i l o s o p h y treatise's s u b j e c t . 150 149 and is the guarantor for the validity o f Plato's and Philo's viewpoint on the Our speculations on the actual content o f the final section will be brief and will aim at being consistent with our interpretation o f Philo's philosophical analysis as revealed in the doxography and also with our interpretation o f his attitude towards the Aristotelianizing argu­ ments in the second part. points to the former. would Philo have retained the literary structure o f a sequence o f arguments loosely strung together. Finally it is pertinent to raise the question o f whether in the missing sequel Philo would have continued similar to those in Aet. but in the dialogue De animalibus (which as we saw has a Stoiq structure 1 4 6 ) Philo's reply is much shorter than the speech which he refutes. One would expect a response o f at least equal length.r|&eia<. or whether Philo would have launched into positive arguments which represented and clarified his own position. It can be held probable that Philo would have pointed out the shortcomings o f the many arguments which contended that the cosmos is indestructible on account o f its a u T & p K e i a or a u t o n o m o u s existence. In our opinion the statement in the exordium treatise will remain on the level o f a uiur|Lia TTJCJ &A. but we cannot be wholly certain.

The fact that Stoicizing arguments are used to bolster a Platonizing position would not trouble P h i l o . wrote De Providentia 158 I the Trje suggestion seems u n l i k e l y .53). at Aet. G o d its creator and protector. N o r can it be said that the cosmos cannot undergo destruction because there is no internal o r external cause mighty enough to destroy it (Aet.32c*r33a is beginning. for 77m. (Aet. 1 5 7 mundi. There is a third possibility . with the proviso that the chief emphasis must have remained on the subject o f the d(pOapaia o f the cosmos. The at Aet. It is especially intriguing to speculate whether he might have used the Stoicizing arguments which are briefly (and perfunctorily) refuted at Aet. overtrumped by 7 7 m . The cosmos and in theory should be subject to 8idA. It has been suggested that Philo.21 requires drastic revision. instead o f writing the sequel to o u r extant version o f De aetemitate in its p l a c e .it will perish because o f its 1 5 1 own intrinsic n a t u r e . If he did so. 1 5 6 The arguments demonstrate in a dramatic way the crucial importance o f the doctrine o f God's provi­ dential care. If the cosmos has had a also time cannot be considered without beginning o r end noetic world.1 9 .VIII PHILO'S DF. which counters and holds in check the forces o f disso­ lution. A E T E R N I T A T E M U N D I 137 it is dependent on a transcendent cause. 1 5 5 I f the parts o f the c o s m o s have c o m e into being and are subject to decay and destruction. is (puaei yevr\xoq but the pair o f attributes are not applicable to the cosmos. Nevertheless contents o f that treatise (and especially its many proofs for the existence o f Providence) could well form a guide to the positive arguments that Philo developed in the missing section.. 4 1 a . I 9 . Philo would in all probability have appealed The argument 152 to the stern Eleatic principle that all that is born must die. or.20-24).41a-b. it is instructive to c o m p a r e the first section o f De Providentia where he attacks those who posit the uncreatedness and indestructibility o f the cosmos because they effectively deny the existence o f Providence. 143^4. in terms o f Plato's phraseology in 77ra.25-21 1 5 4 appeal to Plato's Timaeus in order to show that the 1 5 3 c o s m o s is immune to destruction is in v a i n . W e cannot be sure whether Philo would have switched Then it would not be xpovoq but a i 6 v .ixji<. Philo may also have raised the problem o f how the cosmos . opposition to a presentation o f positive arguments o f his own. but are used to g o o d effect in Prov. nav 8e$£v Xvxov. also the whole will be threatened with total dissolution.b . an attribute o f G o d and the from I. The fact that dyevriaia is consequent upon dcp&apaia through (puaiicf) dKo^ooJMa would not be d e n i e d .

the other on behalf o f its ytvemq and dcp&apaia. namely that the two series o f arguments should argue for and against the proposition which forms the subject o f the although certainly utilizing the genre o f the &£CTI<. 1 5 9 But in the philosophical treatises he is reticent 1 6 0 about introducing these aspects o f his t h o u g h t . Instead o f having only two positions. the one set arguing in favour o f its dyevricjia and dcpSapoia. There­ fore the French scholar is not justified evavTicbaeic. has not adhered to its most basic feature. W h a t is the imma­ nent-Scauoq o f God's transcendent (3o6Xn.VIII 138 is bound together by God's providential activity. It is apparent. where the second defeats the First. the paradoxical situation emerges that Philo. 2 0 . This is not to suggest. 4 1 b 4 . that the most plausible reconstruction o f De aeternitate mundi is that after an introductory section Philo presented two sets o f arguments in favour o f the indestructibility o f the cosmos. the solution envisaged by Cumont and Arnaldez. (cf. therefore. Philo has. This for the reasons discussed at length above. 7 7 m . If so. It is certain that Philo would not have introduced the doctrine o f a creatio as a positive argument in his sequel. he has unfolded three positions. at Aet. that the genre and structure o f the Seatcj are irrelevant to our treatise. In a Moiq on the subject £t dcpdapxocj 6 KOCJUOCJ one would expect one side supporting the destructibility o f the cosmos.5 ) ? In the exegetical works the answer lies in the activity o f the Logos and the Divine p o w e r s . while the basic disputatory structure o f the decnc. and we cannot be aeterna sure that he would have raised the subject here. the other its indestructibility. in retrospect.1 4 9 . On the contrary. Can we agree with Arnaldez that the treatise is "un ouvrage tres bien construit et a g e n c e " ? 1 6 2 With respect to the overall design and . sets o f arguments support the position o f the cosmos' indestructibility. in fact.\50 to "nos disaccords in weakening 161 the force o f relatifs a chaque point" in Even though both order to a c c o m m o d a t e his own i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .. This structure was clearly foreshadowed and introduced in the doxography. The conclusion is permissible that Philo was m o r e interested in doing justice to the philosophical problematics o f his theme than in strictly adhering to the rules o f the disputatory genre. using the second to refute the first and the third to triumph over the second. to the philosophical exigencies o f his subject. rather subtly adapted the basic structure o f the &emc. Philo can speak o f 'opposition' because he is persuaded o f the radical deficiency o f the arguments presented in ^ e / . remains basically intact.

150. the main problem o f its interpretation can be resolved if close attention is paid to three aspects which w. . It is beyond all reasonable doubt that the contents o f the treatise.20-\49 even should not unreservedly be quoted as Philo's own opinions. o r even maybe solely for himself. fellow Jews (perhaps his nephew Alexander). Philo's purpose and intentions in writing it are not made explicit. Because the arguments defending Philo's own position are lost. the treatise's contribution to Philonism must be found above all in the first twenty paragraphs. if interpreted correctly. Towards a reappraisal of Philo's philosophical treatises aetemitate Although the problems o f interpreting Philo's treatise De mundi are considerable. ( 3 ) the correct interpretation o f the enigmatic which introduces the long sequence o f arguments in the second part o f the treatise. T h e arguments at Aet. discussion o r person which motivated it. On the basis o f these results the question o f the relation o f the De aetemitate mundi to Philo's other writings. Pohlenz has suggested that it forms a kind o f sequel Aet. it can no longer be considered surprising that the treatise has been so long and often so radically misunderstood.20-149 which. are wholly in line with Philo's thought as it is found in the remainder o f his writings. When this deficiency on our part is added to the fact that the final section is lost. W e can only conjecture whether it was written for Alexandrian intellectuals. /» 5.20 structure o f the w o r k . which Philo has adapted to his own* purpose.20. becomes all the m o r e urgent. A corollary is that the content o f though the manner o f expression is indubitably Philonic. He scholars so many headaches. if taken as Philonic. Its 'academic' presentation conceals the occasion. namely at Aet. have caused his true thought. Possibly he reckoned on a greater familiarity with the literary form he uses than we now possess. Philo becomes brief and cryptic to the point o f being obscure.l-\9 plays in the organisatory role that the sentence at Aet.VIII PHILO'S DE A E T E R N I T A T E M U N D I 139 the philosophical analysis behind that design we can certainly assent. although finding them useful for refuting the theologically even m o r e inadequate views o f the Stoa. do not represent presents them as the arguments o f others. proselytes. But at crucial points in the structure o f the piece. ( 2 ) the doxography at Aet. and especially to the exegetical treatises.e have studied in this a r t i c l e : ( 1 ) the conventions o f the literary genre o f the 3emc. 13.

Although they have long been drawn upon as a fertile source o f evidence and culture. we have seen that he considered it worthwhile to devote some o f his time to a systematic philosophical handling o f a theme which he obviously thought important but which was not often explicitly men­ tioned in the Pentateuch. in our opinion. The treatise may therefore present us with evidence o f Philo's educational and intellectual milieu. D . but m o r e im­ portantly it gives us insight into an aspect o f his own preoccupations. 165 N o matter for whom o r for what occasion Philo wrote the treatise. that he rejected the method o f philosophy as an intrin­ sically valid. Insufficient account has been taken o f the special evidence which they provide in the attempt to construct a general picture o f Philo. 168 A solution to these difficulties is a first requirement. 1 6 4 of the Law.VIII 140 or appendix to the De opificio mundi. A fortiori these remarks apply to the group o f the for ancient philosophy philosophical Hellenistic treatises as a whole. This is a result o f some importance at a time when Philonic scholarship is (rightly) coming to the realization that Philo was above all an exegete o f scripture and used philosophy primarily for the purpose o f illuminating the L a w o f M o s e s . 163 Danielou sees Exposition because biblical important points o f contact between the treatise and the 30-40 A . manner o f reflecting on the nature o f G o d and the worlds o f intelligible and perceptible reality. 1 6 6 Such a view need not entail. Indeed we have seen that he was prepared to utilize it also for himself. however. they do not take into account the fact that in our treatise Philo deliberately avoids his usual practice o f concentrating on exegesis. in Philonic studies they have suffered an unreasonable neglect. Doubtless a contributing factor to this neglect has been the severe philological difficulties encountered in the three 'Armenian' t r e a t i s e s . which it is to be hoped will . which he thinks was written for non-Jews in the decade Both suggestions lack conviction. The subject was so important and the philosophical material so copious that a separate monograph was r e q u i r e d . 167 T o assert dogmatically without the support o f any evidence that the De aeternitate mundi is a youthful work reflecting in the (immature) period o f Philo's philosophical studies is to beg the entire question o f the relation between exegesis and philosophy Philo's achievement. where the same problem area is discussed. if limited. in a manner that was certainly not irrelevant to his exegetical and religious preoccupations elsewhere.

M. De Providentia I and //.9 5 .ix-xii. Gesammelte Abhandlungen (ed. Arnaldez.) 34-40 (also Ges. A. Akad. L. as we have it. J .Abh. 'Der pseudophilonische Bericht uber Theophrast'. S. Eduard Zellers Kleine Schriften (ed. Les ceuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie (ed. P. van Winden. E. Von Arnim. De aetemitate mundi. 1 6 9 The time is drawing nigh. M. Loeb Classical Library (London 1929-62) IX 172-5. Akad. Sandmel. O. 2 3 1 The tripartition of Philo's writings into exegetical. although De Providentia I. Boot.-hist. de I'ecole des hautes etudes: Sciences religieuses 1(1889)1-91. der Berl. C. F. I 283-90). Scholars such as Bernays. Cohn. 110. Hermes 15(1880)137-46 (repr. The last three (often called the 'dialogues with Alexander'. TV97 (Berlin 1966) 18-26. See further below p. De anjmalibus. 'Uber die unter Philon's Werken stehende Schrift Uber die Un­ zerstorbarkeit des Weltalls'. Gomperz. Bibl. 'Die unter Philon's Werken stehende Schrift Uber die Unzerstorbarkeit des Weltalls nach ihrer ursprunglichen Anordnung wiederhergestellt und ins Deutsche iibertragen'. Zeller. NOTES * I would wish to express my gratitude firstly to Prof. Philo. Kl. R.8). Berlin 1885) I 284 n. (n. phil. Cumont. Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitaller Jesu Christi (Leipzig 1 9 0 9 ) 6 3 3 . 1882 1-81.-F. Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie Judentums. phil. 1 0 1 1 9 8 1 2 H. 'Le classement des ceuvres de Philon'. P. Prof. we consider. Martin. von Arnim. Abh. J . Zeller. Colson. H. Leuze Berlin 1910) I 215-25). . Diels. Massebieau. amounting to about a quarter of the whole. 'Einteilung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos'. Norden. who read a^draft version of the study and offered valuable suggestions. Philo of Alexandria : an introduction (New York) 76. Monatsber. G. Usener. Akad. Schurer. 1863(15 Jan. 'Uber die Herstellung des Zusammenhanges in der unter Philon's Namen gehenden Schrift riepi dcpDapaiaq KOQUOU durch Blatterversetzung'. philosophical and apologetic treatises has become universally accepted since the studies of E. for a to reappraisal o f the philosophical treatises and what they contribute our knowledge o f Philo as a many-sided writer and thinker.Kl. Prof. Cumont. D. Weiss. Quellenstudien Cumont op. Schenkeveld and Drs. Bernays. is not in dialogue form) survive only in an Armenian translation. Bernays. The treatises are Quod omnis probus liber sit. zu Philo von Alexandria (Berlin 1888) 1-52. Arnaldez-Mondesert-Pouilloux) 30 (Paris 1969) (introduction and notes Arnaldez. are preserved in the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius. J . Pouilloux. Fragments of the original text of De Providentia II. traduction Pouilloux).VII( 1899)385-436. Philonis De aetemitate mundi (Berlin 1891) i. L. Bos who drew my attention to the problem and gave me every possible form of assistance. Philologus Suppl. F. 4 4 H. 6 7 5 des hellenistischen und paldstinischen See J . 1. 1876 209-76. Wendland. The research work was caried out with the assistance of a University of Melbourne Travelling Scholarship. der Berl.PHILO'S DE A E T E R N I T A T E MUNDI 141 be fulfilled s o o n .cit.hist. de Vries. also to Prof. der Berl. Abh. H. J.

xfov 85-6. Philos Schrift iiber die Vorsehung (Berlin 1892) 2.113-6. de I'Ecriture chez Philon d'Alexandrie. "eine noch 6 etwas unbeholfene Jugendarbeit Philon's". Poseidonios 1 7 134-52. 2 6 Cumont xi-xv. Akad. See V. Prov. ak"ka yfipax. Niki­ prowetzky.n. D. M. may be dated near 30. dneipotepcov evSouc. For critical comments on both the use of the genetic method and the tendency to psychologism. n. Prov.11 we read ou y a p veornjoc.%) 70.-hist. (i) that Philo as so often is simply being inconsistent. Bousset. Danielou.l Aet.Kl. (Paris 1958) 7 1 . 138 and n. Nach.. Philon d'Alexandrie und Niedergang des romischen Welt Gottingen 1 9 REJ 125(1966) 323-4. "dasz er eine solche. It should be noted that for Philo (piXooocpia is a many-sided word. v o n Arnim.) will endeavour to show that the dialogues must be dated to the closing years of Philo's life. 'Philon von Alexandreia'.l 6-36.ll 2 3 Cf. He is interested above all in demonstrating the authenticity of Aet.5 . J . A. Jiidisch-christlicher 389. 16) 2.. . for an example of the use of psychological criteria cf.. cit. Somn. imax&fj. 'Recherches esseniennes et pythagoriciennes'. cf. d.S. rd aeuvd K a i 7iepiuuxn. More 'schoolmasterish' is the remark at dvcryicatov 8e npoc. um die Genesis seines spateren Systemspsychologisch zu erklaren. musste man vorauszetzen. d. Thus he says at xv that if one does not accept his solution to the philosophical problem.112 its presence is less likely in a youthful work. on this passage 106. cf. 'Philo' and Aet. Wiss. 95. U.Ul Monatshefte 28(1892) 466. 2 0 phil. Pohlenz.l5) 215.. (ii) that he changed his mind as he grew older. 1 8 Arnaldez (op. and so marshalls as many arguments as he can. 1 4 1 5 1.. Nikiprowetzky (op. Stahlin. ALGHJ XI (Leiden n. Review of Cumont in Philosophische Cumont xxiii-xxiv. 2 1 Cf. cf. Cf. A. Le commentaire 1 6 1977) 97-116.. "Accordingly.cit. Terian forthcoming article in Aufstieg (Andrews University.cit. Reinhardt.98. in 1942 4 1 2 .4) which can signify both Greek philosophy and Jewish study of the Law. 1 (1949) 5 . n.g. I surmise that Nikiprowetzky nevertheless wishes to retain an early date for the philosophical treatises because otherwise they do not fit in so well with his main thesis that Philo is first and foremost a commentator on scripture. P. Wendland. 240. Spec. At Aet.Ta 8u8evv. Art.33-4.5 . Cohn (art. (Munchen 1921) 212-3. esp.cit. 10-11). two possibilities still remain. Accordingly it is not easy precisely to pin down Cumont's point of view.6 . t f i v T o a a u x r | v eupeaiXoyiav dnavrf^crai uf) TIC. Leisegang.VIII 142 1 3 H. very reminiscent of the solicitude which Philo shows for Alexander's mistaken opinions at Prov.. and Alex.A. 2 4 RE X X . also Cumont xv who thinks Philo may have changed his mind on the subject of the indestructibility of the cosmos. O. The trouble with Cumont's study is that it is too clever and inventive. probably goes with them". man konnte fast sagen griechische Periode in seiner Entwicklung durchgemacht hat. A fine example of the use of the genetic method at H. 135-6. Griechischer Literaturgeschichte (Munchen 1 9 2 1 ) 628. Schulhetrieb in Alexandria und Rom (Gottingen 1915) W. Prov. 2 5 E.". In a Prof. see Nikiprowetzky (1977) 192-4. K. an exception must be made for the view of Arnaldez.U 45-60. but 2 2 Admittedly the contrast between youth and old age was a topos (cf. Wendland (op. cf. below p. Nock CR 57 (1943) 78.

Effe. See J . give the contra arguments a free hand. I 2 . From there it is only a short step to the Greek philosophical conception of the aocpoc. 26-8. Arnaldez-Mondesert-Pouilloux) 28 (Paris 1974) 39-43.hence the escape routes noted in n. Colson III 209 (who omits to say that substantial parts have been claimed for Aristotle's lost Symposium.. 4 0 3 9 . Les ceuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie (ed. Colson (op. The typology of Noah as 6 Siicaioc. 7 and Fug. I 7. It is probable that in this dialogue Aristotle espoused a creatio aeterna and not the maturer doctrine of the De caelo. riepi \&&x\c. Aristoteles qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta (Leipzig 1886. 'Philons Schrift uber die Ewigkeit der Welt'. is based on scripture (Gen. 26. Philosophia Antiqua X X X (Leiden 1976) 192-207). Colson III 211 thinks that we possess only the supporter's speech (including arguments professing to meet those of the opponent) and that the opponent's speech is wholly lost.: een onderzoek naar de Griekse opvattingen over de dronkenschap (diss. Petit. Texts such as Opif.3 . cf. J . see M. Philo does not. 176. also W . Poseidonios' metaphysische Schriften (Breslau 1928. Theologie cosmique et theologie chretienne (Paris 1964) 472-92. n. Cf. cf. Quod omnis probus liber sit. Deus 31. It must be borne in mind that Philo is drawing his information on Aristotle (either directly or via another source) from the lost De philosophia and not from his scholastic works. M. 20) 411. V. I. Thus the passage from Zacharias of Mytilene which speaks of an di8iou SnuioupyiKoO aixiou . Leisegang (1937) 166. For a sound discussion of the literary genre of Quod omnis probus liber sit. 1968) II 97-9. n. Leg. Baltes. I have assumed that the structure of the treatise was tripartite (thus almost wholly parallel to the De aetemitate mundi). B.VIII PHILO'S D E A E T E R N I T A T E M U N D I 143 Cumont appeals to remarks at Opif. 2 8 2 9 3 0 2 7 H. the sound comments of Arnaldez 34-7. "seine Ubungsarbeiten im philosophischen Stil".quoted by Cumont xii in order to prove that Philo held this position . cf. Die Weltentstehung des platonischen Timaios nach den antiken Interpreten. however. "hier behandelt Philon philosophische Probleme ganz in der Weise der Griechen". 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 The similarity was noted by Von Arnim (1888) 102.cit. refutes them straight away. cit. 175. Cf. repr. Schmidt. Heinemann.cit. Rose. 8) 173-4. The words of Plant. 4) 389. repr. and not from Philo as Cumont suggests (cf. Leiden 1947) 50. and Pohlenz (art. Studien zur Kosmologie und Theologie der Aristotelischen Schrift 'Uber die Philosophie\ Zetemata 50 (Munchen 1970) 7-23. For other examples of Hellenistic philosophical treatises with a similar structure. 1967) 99-101). . Arnaldez 28-30. as he himself tells us at Plant. There has been much dispute concerning the source of the treatise. n. 3 7 3 8 3 6 Von Arnim (1888) derived from Aristotle's De philosophia via Porphyry. 68-9. the vague comments of Cohn (art. Philologus 92 (1937) 156-76 (summary in his RE article cited above n. 24). Leisegang. Colson III 498. Colson 174. presumably for the sake of economy. whose view is similar to Colson's. but. cf. but has not been exploited. Pepin. Text at Colson III 284-304. Prov. 6:9). which speak of xobq TO evavtiov KaxaaKevu^ovxaq and a S i K a i O T U T n K p i G i c . seem to me to indicate that the break between the pro and contra arguments occurs at that point. Leisegang (1937) 165 and others. 12 bring him into difficulties .

Fin. Throm esp. Philon d'Alexandrie. cf.13-17. f\ ou). never For the evidence on which this brief historical survey is based.10ff. was pointed out en passant n. to my knowledge.14ff. cf. Spengel) II 120. Alexandre.Or. Hermogenes. national Lyon 11-15 septembre Actes du colloque 1966 (Paris 1967) 105-130. Ill 5 5 etc. 4 5 been compiled. trans. also Plutarch. Ill 80. II 9. H. d Hermes Trismegiste (Paris 1945-54) theory. Quintilian. It is one of Throm's main theses that the genre of the Siatpipfi. 44 and also the remarks of Reinhardt 213-4. so that we cannot determine with any certainty how he obtained it and can only deduce its nature and extent from the evidence in his works. esp.4 (though not wholly correctly. cf. 4 8 Cf. The relation of the De aeternitate mundi to the genre of the 9eaic. CQ 33 (1939) 198-202. H. Inst. De oral. cf. 4 6 Philo always speaks in very general terms about his rhetorical and philosophical training. 'Quelques aspects de la rhetonque chez Philon'. Sandbach. A word must be said about the so-called genre of the SiatpiPf). 919). The authenticity o f the treatise has been frequently questioned. et H. Topica I 14 105b25 (notepov 6 K o a u o c . A. Michel. C .-J. 160-89. Throm. ibid. the scathing attack by F.7 3 . 4 4 Rhetores Graeci (ed. Marrou. But it must be added that Throm's theory. Die Thesis. II 2. however. as worked out on a popularizing level. nius. is in fact not a separate genre at all. London 1956) 204). Rhetorische Studien 17 (Paderborn 1932). Moralia. disp. aiSioc. . but a subsection of the Seaic. Handbuch der literarischen philosophic chez Ciceron (Paris 1960) 211-9. Stoic. in Greek culture after Isocrates the line between 'school' and 'real life' becomes more and more blurred (H. AphthoFurther examples at Throm 78-9. Philo would have continued to use literary Inst. that Plutarch himself wrote it as a parody or when a schoolboy! 4 2 Also very similar in form and structure to the two parallels which I have adduced norepov v|/i>xfjc. 49. despite the strength of his arguments. as postulated by Wendland and others. Plutarch's Moralia. 81-101. A. Festugiere. ibid. however.cit. also considered pseudonymous). 16) 2 1 2 . 114-5 where the 9£aic.-I. Lausberg. 'La culture profane chez Philon'. A. L C L XII (London 1957) 290-307. Cicero.g. Quintilian. Cf. Rhetorique by Reinhardt (op.. Helmbold.. Sandbach. has not found universal acceptance and one still frequently finds the diatribe mentioned as an independent genre (e. Tusc. since he is considered to supply significant evidence for the Siatpipf). L C L X V Fragments is the first of Tyrwhitt's fragments of Plutarch's Moralia. A. Lesky. the examples given in the rhetors mentioned at n. r\ o-cbuaroc.VIII 144 4 1 Text at W . An exhaustive list has. Aristotle. Plutarch's divided into two opposing sets of arguments. Geschichte Literatur 4 7 der griechischen 10 (Bern 1 9 7 1 ) 755. 17. 1036Bff. ibid. the excellent article of M. cf. 4 9 This does not mean we have an argument here in favour of the Jugendschrift of As Marrou has pointed out. A history in antiquity 5 0 (Eng. This view is important for an understanding of Philo's works. is discussed without actually described as such.Or. 4 3 (London 1969) 32-59. also H. forms which he had learnt in his grammatical and rhetorical training. education 3 Cf. He reserves the possibility. cf. so rigidly On the subject of the 9eaiq I have relied heavily on the excellent monograph of Rhetorik (Munchen 1960) I 6 9 .Rep. Reinhardt's remarks appear to have been overlooked by subsequent interpreters of the treatise. Throm 78). It is not. Michel. eniduuia K a i AU7tn (text at F. La revelation II 414.

g. Colson. Ill 209. 29c-d. o u a i v ) e u a p a T n i e o v . Cohn-Heinemann-Adler-Theiler Berlin 1909-64) VII 84.Phys.Emp.3-128. tXzvSepoq (Prob. spoke of 'offenbaringssuchtiger Schwarmerei' (1882 5). Wendland. 74. 61.. Colson IX 199. Bormann..Woch. devout Jew though he was. 29a2-6. Par.PHILO'S D E A E T E R N I T A T E M U N D I 145 VII 2 2 (ut in generalities. 7. 351C-F.cit. Ill 2 (47) 1 10.Philol. Von Arnim (1892) 465. Here it is likely that we should read 7 t p a T x o u e v o i < . Tim. n. 112). II 6 1 . II 126. Pol. De caelo I 2 268b 14. Praem.. 13. rather than take the 'floating phrase' with the participle.deor. Sex. wholly included Leg. Berl. the two treatises in Plutarch's Moralia 959E-992E). Theon. more coherently organized layout of a philosophical discourse. Adv. The reading I have given (ei. (e. anaaiv dveu Tfjc.. namely the general principle enunciated at the beginning of the argument at Aet. Bakes (op. 6 5 6 6 6 4 . 1.. Plotinus. Praem. Wendland. E.cit. Bernays. Cicero.) is probably what Philo read (cf. Cohn and P. where her remarks on the diatribe form should be modified in the light of what we have said above in n. M. For another example of a sentence with a 'floating' prepositional phrase which causes ambiguity cf. for Leisegang's view cf. 27c-d. Plato.). 29) 73.47. Conf. Festugiere (op. cf. De animalibus on the proposition o n TOV A o y o v e/et *d « A o y a (cf. 33) but in its presentation it is a hybrid form between a 3eai<. OTI naq 6 dcfceiot.. E. Enn.3 Sp. cf. Aet. 6 3 6 2 Plato. Albinus. Bernays. 'rightly and appropriately beginning with the table' (translation Marcus). I 13-193. an atomorum concursu munilus sit effectus.g. parallel to the second interpretation Contempt. Quod omnis probus liber sit has as its subject the proposition of a 9eoiq. K. 48) II 239. De Providentia I similarly reveals hybrid characteristics. Post. partially included Opif. An exact parallel for this use of oiiceiav perhaps at QE II 69.) 5 7 5 8 5 y 6 0 6 1 5 6 5 5 5 4 Plut. Philo von Alexandria: Die Werke in deutscher Ubersetzung (ed. Review of Cumont.rj.g. parallel to the third inter­ pretation Opif. 8) 89. But the overall structure of the treatise shows the tighter. 54). II 4-72. I 9-33). an sit aliquando casurus). The reading at 27c5 has been much disputed. n. Cumont wanted to emend to oaiav. 20 that all things liable to perish are subject to either an internal or an external cause of destruction. Mos. B 1 1260b36-7. Cicero. XI 3. n. 7. 34. (sc. genre is obvious: De Providentia II on the proposition et eativ f\ npovota (cf. and a philosophical discourse. an providentia regalur. De nat.cit.cit. J . C. Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt editio maior (Berlin 1896-1915) VI 79. Pouilloux (op. Rh. Epit. van Winden has suggested to me that oiiceiav dpxT)v may have a more specific reference than I have given it in my interpreta­ tion. Post. 114. Petit (op. 35). cf. Aristotle. That the two dialogues are based on the Seaic. There are sequences of loosely connected' arguments reminiscent of a dossier from a Seaic. Bormann. A. 52. A paraphrase of Tim. Pouilloux (references above n. n. eicouaiou icaiciac. Prov.Gr. Tim. De Is. 1937 173-4. (Prof.-J. cf. 46. 10. 5 1 Text and sigla from L. Von Arnim (1892) 465. 1891 1031.Stoic. 5 3 5 2 Bernays (1876) 226.

Cf. especially 361. apply to the whole cosmos or only the oupavoq? (iii) was Aristotle's accusation in the De philosophia originally levelled at the Atomists or Plato's demiurgic account in the Timaeusl Philo's independent-minded use of the passage can offer us no secure answer to the last two questions. 'Ocellus Lucanus': Text und Kommentar (Berlin 1926) 32. Ps. at Aet. 76-7. 2 9 ) 2 5 1 . 65-74. fr. as Nikiprowetzky (1977) 100 has remarked. Seneca. The passage Aet. Philo has the Jewish patriarchs in mind without specifically alluding to them by name. cf. n. 7 7 7 6 A common practice at the time. 256. (piA. TG&V &7t6 tfjc.cit. But see further below n. n. Tusc. Philo has 'mechanically transcribed' the doxographical section. 12 in the first person that he has read in the treatise of Ocellus applies not to himself but to his source. J . Cf. 115 on Plant.oa6(pa>v is generally taken to refer to the numerical strength of the Stoic school. 7 0 7 1 6 9 Arnaldez 41-53. where. Seneca. C i c . II 102. 6 noXi>q oui^oc. Philo mentions several renegades at Aet. Bos). TO>V 6 8 6 7 See above p. Danielou (op. 148.cit. Plut. cf. KUKOU rcapuTtav (Prov. 20. The point is again made clear at Aet.deor. Prob. De mundo 2 391 b9—12. For Aristotle's attitude of cosmic reverence in the De philosophia cf. Ep. 10 part of Aristotle's comments or an editorial imposition of Philo (so read by Arnaldez 56)? (ii) did Aristotle's reference to the 6paxdc. Pepin 287-91. Leisegang's theory that the speaker (Alexander?). IV 187). We might add that they show acquaintance not only with the content of such philosophy. Festugiere (op. 54. 350-69. A. II 4 5 . Two definitions of K o a u o c . Lucullus 119. Itoac. It is arguable that tension between these two definitions determines the whole movement of the treatise (suggested to me by Prof. for an important text on the role of definitions in deaziq. 14 Ross and discussions at Festugiere II 233-47. H .7 7 .6 .Quaest. n. De nat.4 . cf. especially 252. This remark is surely an insult to Philo's intelligence. An important source was doubtless Plato. Spec.7. Blumenthal. But we must beware the excesses of Quellenforschung. De Is. Arnaldez 5 5 . 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 5 See Pepin (op. 8 0 7 9 7 8 We are not aided by the fact that the meaning of u f | J i o T £ in Philo appears to fluctuate from 'perhaps' to 'surely' (in the context the meaning 'on no account' is out of the question). 6 1 . T f i u n .. Phdr. Seoc. 126. 18 Ross. regarded as De phil. again the discussion at Prov. 382F.9 . II 3-4. 351D.cit. 8 2 8 1 . Cicero. A fine example is found at R. fr. p. 48) II 344. with the result that the statement at Aet. 9. cf. Axiomatic is that 9edc. but also with the method of contemporary philosophers. Fug. are given. 142.2 ) remarks that these definitions reveal Philo's acquaintance with contemporary philosophy. is riddled with problems of interpretation which we cannot possibly discuss in detail here: (i) was the aSeoxric. VII 29 3 (a fine parallel for eniaoupctvicov). Harder. I 1-5. has a jab at Philo himself is quite incredible (1937 168).g. For another suggestion cf.VIII 146 Cf. cf. 250b-c. Ptotinus'psychology (The Hague 1971) 13. Fin. Divine punishment is carried out by God's powers or ministers. 10-11. 65. Nat. 6 2 . ouSevoq amoc. The remark would gain more point if it was taken to imply that not all Stoics subscribed to the doctrine of the destructibility of the cosmos. P. 113. Aristotle.Disp. I 18-22. E. A practice also found in the works of Aristotle and Plotinus. in referring to the elect few.

favour the reading T O opctTOv. in welche der Kompilator(!). The climax of Aristotle's doxographical sections tends to be the opinion held by himself which inevitably follows them. 175 unSexepou. 9 4 are Plotinus. et tres sincerement. Praem. Her. Mor. JtpoTepov. C i c . de Vogel.g. to indestructible rather than to uncreated". 214. Theiler. cf. 9 5 Cf Arnaldez 6 1 .VIII PHILO'S D E A E T E R N I T A T E M U N D I 147 8 3 For reasons that will become evident later I cannot agree with Arnaldez. Fine parallels in other authors Bousset). but then later affirms (69) that "Philon se tourne. 8 4 Cf. Ill 1(3)2 and Justin Martyr's stylized account of his intellectual pilgrimage (Dial. 76. Deed. T O U K o a u o u 7tavTO<. 9 6 Noted already by Von Arnim (1888) 5 and Cumont xii. but it is not generally recognized how frequently he implicitly the doctrine. 113-5. above p. 9 3 None of the commentators who consider the work to be Philonic deny this (except E. but Bernay's emendation to T O V opaTov Seov has been accepted by all commentators except Leisegang (1937 173). I 108. ni)Tou6A. Also the scribes did not understand the sentence at Aet. and thus bowdlerized the text (cf. Enn. Baltes 5 2 . K a i naXiyyEvzaiac.. I 19. but Migr. 8 5 Cf. On this question see Pepin 86-94. . 150 npoxepou. Colson IX 175. It is on the implications of the observation that the interpretations diverge.. "II convient de remarquer d'ailleurs que l'examen des trois groupes de doctrines se termine sur la figure de Moi'se en un bel accord final.g. 32-4. 4 0 . The reading T O 6 p a T o v can only make sense. Festugiere I 14. 57 etc. 246. 2). The doxographicum on Hesiod may reflect a Peripatetic source (cf. De Harus. d'abord. as he does here. d(p9apaia<. who rightly says (56) that Philo's praise of Aristotle is only comprehensible in terms of what has proceded. 115ff. 9 1 The principle was certainly not confined to Jewish and Christian apologetics.6 . if it refers back to the distinction between vorjTOv and aia9r)TOv at Aet. 1 (and not outside the treatise as Leisegang wishes). Prov. Conf. 955E eicdTepov. For a modern example remarkably parallel to Philo. refers to Prob. cf. The argument reappears in later Middle Platonism. but 19). words at Aet. Compare the following texts: Her. Von Arnim considers the change "recht charakteristisch fur die Unklarheit des Gedankens. Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus (Berlin 1930) 14-5. 9 2 Philo utilizes the device explicitly on a number of occasions (e. 262. Cher. 245. The phrase is taken from was widespread in Philo's time (e. Leg. C . which is not wholly impossible. W. cf. 8 8 8 9 9 0 that tells us little about what Philo wants to do with it. 9 8 The Mss. ainsi que l'habile ecrivain alexandrin aime a le faire chaque fois qu'il a atteint au sommet de ce qu'il avait a dire". where the renegade Stoics xaq eKTtupcoaeic.3 . Plut. Ill 97-103. Migr.2 . Baltes 33). 181. 21-30. in our opinion. 288.). But a direct reference to the report of Aristotle's 10 is much more probable. 166.g. J . 8 6 The Middle Platonists 8 7 (London 1977) 158. Dillon. Leg.. 9 7 Plant. Aet. icata- Xmovxeq npoq 9 e i 6 x e p o v Soyua T O Tfjc. vers le Maitre du Lycee" (my italics) because only he can help him solve the philosophical problems associated with the creation of the cosmos. Theoria (Assen 1967) 201-2. Cumont xxv). 20 properly. befangen war". 58.naav (Cumont and Cohn unneccessarily conjecture b a u b x e p o v ) . 220. "the words that follow show that 'piously and religiously' apply Cf. J . Baltes passim and esp.

20 too? 1 0 0 9 9 Philo almost always uses ctiSrix. 127-8 etc. Tim. Aet. Met. 133. 2 2 . 103. 246. . 1. Meteorol. 83-4. QG I 99(?). 162. 228. Colson 172-3. fr. and ai8£ia9ai in a limited ethical sense. 106. II 283. 11 npoq xcov TOV cntavra KOOUOV tcp Xoyta K a 9 a i p o u v x c o v . 124. Cf. Decal. because there ou8£v aideaSevxec. With the important exception of the argument from time at Aet. 1 0 4 1 0 3 1 0 2 1 0 1 Above p. 137. 47a-c. (cf. Mos. Abr. and other similar phrases can best be seen at Congr. in Top. Somn.19 Sp. QG II 12-13. cf. 12. 180. Spec. 114.VIII 148 See above p.1. Praem.Philo is arguing with a conception of God quite different from his own (cf. Mut. Only in a few cases are the words used to express reverence for God (Mos. PI. I 208. Cf. I 158. 108. Alex. 52-4. 6 Seoc. 39-47. traditions. Opif. above n. on which see further below p. Her.. Rh. 270c. means 'felt no shame'. 54. also Aet. cf. 119-20. cosmos destroyable but not to be destroyed. Spec.Gr. Spec. Ill 99. II 61. Arnaldez and others. Spec. 47). our remarks above p. 54. It remains mysterious why Philo does not tell us that these arguments were put forward by Aristotle. 89-103. 50. QG II 12 etc. 5) 25-6. 118. Plant. cf. 41a-b). 111. Ill 189. Praem. 19). n. 1-12. 47-51.. Plant. Spec. Mos. His attitude towards the phrase 6patoc. Abr. 113. 171. Prov. Prov. 1. Somn. 201. I 76. 73. Leg. Weiss. 84 v|/i>xf| 5t xov KOOUOU i c a i a TOUC. 1 1 7 1 1 8 1 1 6 Her. On Philo's attitude to the cosmos see further below p. Praem. Sacr. The often cited reference to Conf. 175. 82). QG III 54) and never to express reverence for the cosmos or its parts. Ebr. 56-69. II 59-66. 263. 39-44. 1 0 6 1 0 5 Colson IX 286. Pol. Tim. Laws 676-9. 126 on Plato. 58. XII 8. 94. II 61. 56. 27. where he describes the cosmos as aia&riTOV 8oKT|aei 9e6v. 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 5 Creation of the cosmos Opif.. Specifically at Aet. I 14. a development of Plato. 1-2. If the cosmos is called divine then strictly speaking a qualification is required. Weiss (op. Are we meant to deduce this from Aet.. Migr. 1 1 1 1 1 0 Cumont. dtvTiSo^oOvTac.12f. the Platonic and Aristotelian theory of periodic natural disasters. 1 0 7 Aet. II 151-6. I 6-8 etc. cf. recalling Aet. II 121. 149.3 . Mos. 112. 171-2. note especially Aet. 6-8. I 210-1. 117-149. I 6. 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 9 Conf. This observation supports our conviction that Philo has imported the notion of aiS(bc. 7-9. (exegesis of Gen. 173 is not relevant. Ar. Migr. 1 0 8 1 0 9 Aet. De phil. II 5. Philo is not puritanical in his use of the word Seoc. 40 etc. Reinhardt 213-4. 45-7. (it is after all only one of God's names). Reinhardt 213.. Cf. respect for one's elders and superiors. 199. Tim. Seoc. Opif. Danielou 66. 78. Plant. QG I 96. 132. Spec.e. cit. Nikiprowetzky (1977) 186. Spec. 181. for the cosmos from Aristotle's De philosophia (cf. Bernays (1882) 35. 8 Ross. Leg. etc. institutions etc. Theon Rhetor. I 36. cf.Aphr. Von Arnim's labyrinthine analysis is a reductio ad absurdum of what happens when the literary background is ignored or misunderstood (1888 1-52). i. 20. Pohlenz. 22c-e. Ill 7. above p. Ill 187-8. 142-6. 110. . QG IV 51 etc. the opposite sex.

58. Leg. "With all his (i. 126) I 317-22. Mos. 37d). between .. 165. Enn. but he is certainly not being careful. Conf. In a different context at Decal. 1 3 6 At Opif. cf. QE \ 1. cf. Philo's) insistence upon the indestructibility o f the world. Aet. 1947) and evil). Plato. also the remark o f H. good Founda­ Christianity and Islam (Cambridge Mass. Baltes 32. 53. Prov. 28b6. Leg. Prov. n . Mos.cit. uev eaxi §pav cKdxepa (i. Cf. QG II 17. Tim. 26 he says that there was no beginning of the cosmos raxd xpovov and to that venture to say that time is older than the cosmos is dcpiAoaocpov. 166. 121. the allusion i s to Tim. Conf. Plant. QE II 89 etc. Philo: tions of religious phitosophy in Judaism. ) . II 4 5 . The words 'eternal' and 'eternity' are ambiguous and should be avoided i n a discussion of the De aetemitate (i. 42. Philo means that man is not in a position to determine how long ago creation took place. I 6-36. Ebr. Somn. Somn. On the whole I believe that one should make another distinction. 188. Perhaps he means here the distinction between the time of the cosmos and God's time (usually akbv. 60. 1 2 3 1 2 4 in response to the biblical text. I 209. Wolfson.. Aet. I 6 etc. A E T E R N I T A T F M U N D I 149 1 2 2 Cf. Belief i n the eternity 1 2 8 1 2 9 study i s insufficiently nuanced.. But much remains unclear i n both text and translation of the imperfectly preserved treatise. II 263. Prov.e. II 3. K&ia:iv(p (i. Spec. Opif. 58 he affirms K a i rjv rcoxe xpovoq 6x8 OUK f|v (6 K o a u o c . 23. (which cannot - and does not). 29a. based o n PI. It seems most likely that they represent an amalgam o f philosophical and astrological doctrines which Philo considered dangerous.e. 1 3 0 Her. Her. 165. 126.2 . 7:4. that a severe problem i s presented by Philo's train o f thought at Prov. 131 . Ill 189. II 61. Her. 6). Spec. Much energy has been expended o n the question o f whom Philo has in mind when. with its rigorous distinction between human 1 2 7 Aoyiau6<. It must be admitted. 14. 181.e. II 283. Deus 106. Plot. QG Ml must disagree with Nikiprowetzky when 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 1 3 4 1 3 5 he deduces from dopiaxov xpovov in the last-named text that Philo considered the cosmos from all eternity ('Problemes du 'recit de la creation' chez Philon d'Alexandrie' REJ 124 (1965) 272 n. from Plato. Conf. God) 56vaui<. and that they cannot equated with any particular thinker. however. 26. Wolfson (op. 1 2 5 Migr.. IV 187. Deus 31. VI 7(38)1. Opif. school or doctrine. Ill 2 (47) 1-2. QE I 1 etc. Decal. also used in the exordium.9 etc. cf. i s most instructive. I 241. (which can and does change its mind) and divine vou<. QG II 13 (exegesis o f Gen. Deus 3 1 . Possibly a solution could be found i n the distinction made by Wolfson i n the remark quoted above i n n .e. Migr.10). Sacr. 114. O S DF. dcp9apaia) o f the cosmos does not amount to a denial o f God's ultimate power over i t . It will be agreed that the statement o f Sandmel quoted at the beginning o f our mundi.Exai 8 S uova xdya&d. QG IV 88. all the texts cited i n n . II 150-2.118. I 2. he portrays the Chaldeans. 7-9. He only means that we can rely upon God's promise that He would not destroy i t . he does not mean that God could not destroy the world if He had the will to destroy i t . 114-5. 65. Tim. " . 220. 98. 22e. I 3 4 .VIII P H I I . The contrast with the philosophy o f Plotinus. Po6A. I. 1 2 6 Cf.6 . 89-92. These passages appear to be i n direct contra­ diction to the thesis o f the De aetemitate mundi (and the rest o f Philo's works) i n that Philo contemplates the end o f the cosmos when God will lose his patience with man's impiety and will convert his providential care into retributive punishment. 1 3 1 6 . Spec. cf. A. Spec. Tim.

Note in both sentences TO evavxiov. 1 5 2 most unlikely that Philo would have presented such an argument in the De An Aristotelian doctrine. 3 and 4. LSJ adloc. 51. . "The word n p o T e p o u c . which fits in well with the method of uev. any third hypothesis being ignored for the occasion". above p.9 . 111). Review of Bernays" edition. 1 5 4 Compare the procedure at Plut. instead of Trpdnouc. 145.. also in Philo. Leisegang (1937) 156. 1 4 5 98 (1898) 129.Alt. above p. 53 that the nature of t i m e is Philonicum. but also n. 1 5 3 Who appeals to Tim. 41b. <piA. n. 1 4 8 Cf. Wendland (art. . 113—4). 2 7 7 . Weiss 24.Fort. Mtouaflc. 32c-33a at Aet. 106 and n. above p. 7tpdc. Bousset 135-6. yeveaecoc. cf. 23) 78. in 20 suggests that the only subject treated in either half of the essay was the controversy between the Stoics and the Peripatetics. as an orthodox Middle Platonist. above p. Plut. Revue critique n d'Histoire xfjc. and that Philo prefers the latter position. Aet.. 68. 1 4 1 Bernays (1882) 35 n. Arnaldez 68. tn ai>xy\\ <p9daac. Philo or an intermediary source? The question has as yet not been resolved. n.cit. our parallel above on p. Ar. 1 4 4 Cf. 2.. Leg. rcapa^auPdvoo the 9eaic. See above n. 175. 114. 1 4 0 tradition' (cf. 1 5 5 Cf. cit.r . Weiss 24. Mor. Cf. With respect to the dispute concerning the interpretation of the word 7tap£iXf|(paoften has the connotation. Both scholars call in as support the Mediceus. On the basis of the doxography it seems aeternitate 1 4 9 1 5 0 1 5 1 of his powers or ministers. 126).. puzzling title of the treatise in the Codex flepi Colson IX 177. Kai dTe^euTntoc.. where Plutarch. 1 4 3 1877. Aet. 28-34) by ap­ pealing to the doctrine of providence and alluding to Tim. because it is probable that some of Philo's writings were lost very early on. TOO et de KOOUOO Litterature.8 . avapxoc.oao(piac.cit. Wendland (op.. 175-7 the arguments against the Cumont xiv. The fact that no fragments of the missing part have ever been identified is not an argument in favour of this solution. De facie 9 2 7 A . n. 108. 16) 1892 4 . De caelo I 11-12. Arnaldez 6 8 . 53) 1891 1030-1. (cf. Leaving out the possibility that God himself could destroy the cosmos by means at Aet. 8. GKOCTTOV proposition are not presented independently but refuted directly. d K p o T n r a . VIII 1 251 b25) is nowhere else to be found in the Corpus 1 3 8 1 3 9 Plant. 1 4 6 1 4 7 can be interpreted as meaning 'against each argument' or 'in relation to each point made'.VIII 150 ctpxfi yeveaKCoq Kaid xpovov and dpxrj y c v e a e w q auv xpovw. 975B (cf. but he is definitely in error when he suggests at 12 that Philo accepts a periodic cycle of cosmic generation and destruction "was ein . Jahresber. 232). Pohlenz 417. above n.42 Qf . 39-44 (cf. 127. Martin. 1 3 7 The genuinely Aristotelian position found at Aet. cf. Opif. 25-7. of 'receiving from report or I 4. Leisegang (1937) 174-6. thus contesting the celebrated argument from Aristotle's De philosophia mundi.D . Nock (art.. Aristotle (in the De philosophia). Bousset is closer to the right interpretation than Leisegang (cf. OIAXDVOC.klass. refutes Aristotle's doctrine of natural place (cf.H . where at Plant. Phys..8 .

Cf. The difference in emphasis between the doxography in Act. n. cit. Mack. Arnaldez 69 (my emphasis). translation and commentary on the De animalibus and is preparing a similar edition for the treatises De Providentia I and //. 'Exegetical methods in Alexandrian Judaism : a program for the analysis of the Philonic Corpus'. Prof. esp. 129) argues against it. Pohlenz 427. Danielou71. We would strongly disagree. especially the rigorously argued thesis of Nikiprowetzky in his study Le commentaire de I'Ecriture chez Philon d'Alexandrie. 133. Prov. I Edition critique II Commentaire TU 113-4 (Berlin 1973). Studia Philonica 3 (1974-5) 71-115. I 34-6. Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum: fragmenta graeca. 1) 76 errs when he classifies the De aetemitate mundi among the treatises in the Exposition of the Law. A. Arnaldez-Mondesert-Pouilloux) 33 (Paris 1978). and the passages at Prov. L. und den Inhalt des verloren zweiten Teiles dieser Schrift wirft". But see now the splendid philological labours of F. Arnaldez 61. Petit. 89-92 (see above n. 103^1. also preserved for the most part only in Armenian. with the way that philosophy is 'bracketed' in the ambitious programme of B. In the philosophical treatises the Divine Logos is only alluded to once. Thus Sandmel also (op. 1 5 6 1 5 7 1 5 8 1 5 9 1 6 0 1 6 1 1 6 2 1 6 3 1 6 4 1 6 5 1 6 6 1 6 7 1 6 8 1 6 9 . Cf. Bousset 143. Terian is about to publish a text. I 23. 1 2 1 . Until recently the same neglect has attended the study of Philo's Quaestiones in Genesim et Exodum.PHILO'S DE AETERNITATE MUNDI 151 ganz neues Licht auf riepi dcpSapcriac. at Prov. L'ancienne version latine des Questions sur la Genese de Philon dAlexandrie. See above p. where a Stoic definition of the cosmos is attributed back to Plato. Les ceuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie (ed. therefore.


for it undertakes to examine the more external aspects o f late Hellenistic philosophy. whether we like it or n o t ? T o hear his answer we will have to wait for the promised companion volume devoted to analysis o f the philosophical 1 1 The Middle Platonists (London 1977). He argues convincingly that the Academy as a philosophical institution ceased to exist at the beginning o f the first century B. there has long seemed an empty space between the final period o f Hellenistic philosophy. only a noninstitutional 'school o f thought' adhered to and propagated by individual teachers. In the debris o f ancient philosophical literature which time has bequeathed to us. Naturally attempts were made to fill this gap. scholarship abhors a vacuum.LX R E D R A W I N G T H E MAP O F E A R L Y MIDDLE PLATONISM : Some comments on the Philonic evidence Like nature.C. cf. The empty space remained. but a few pages later goes on to affirm that the direct ancestor o f Middle Plato­ nism is more likely to be Eudorus o f Alexandria. Does this mean we may have to resign ourselves to the existence o f the 'empty space'. Albinus. Thereafter there was no Platonist 'school'. esp. Apuleius. even though this man remains a 'rather shadowy figure' . In recent years. But could what we know o f their thought explain the difference in philosophical timbre between the restrained. He recognizes a 'turn to dogmatism' in the thought o f Antiochus. these attempts could carry little conviction. this field o f research has got moving again. . John Dillon has given us a compre­ hensive survey o f the worlcs and philosophical theories o f the Middle Plato­ nists. primarily as the result o f two important books. The emphasis o f John Glucker's study is quite different. Thinkers such as Posidonius and Antiochus were pushed into prominence. 105. 115. many o f whom we now know very little about. in which the New Academy played a significant role. at least partially sceptical approach o f the late Academy and the rise o f a dogmatism that was to result in the metaphysical grandeur o f Plotinian and later Neoplatonist thought? In fact. or at least account for it. and the so-called Middle Platonism o f authors such as Plutarch.

For a more developed presentation of Tarrant's position see now the monograph just published. In the meantime he is prepared to predict that in future surveys of the beginnings o f Middle Platonism 'one may have to redraw the map. to the extent that Dillon devoted an entire chapter to him in his book . cit. This I do in memory o f the great scholar. In both articles Tarrant had to take into consideration the evidence supplied by Philo o f Alexandria. and 50 A. Scepticism or Platonism?: the philosophy of the Fourth Academy (Cambridge 1985). 97. Philo supplied the epistemology 4 that allowed Middle Platonism gradually to establish itself. Quart. By reinterpret­ ing the tradition o f Academic scepticism and probabilism in terms o f the acceptance o f the self-evidence (evdpyeia) o f sense-perception and intellec­ tion. Central to his thesis is the reassessment — and to some degree rehabilitation — o f the contribution of Philo o f Larissa. 6 uaieirciKoc. Philo Her. Rev. This is hardly surprising. esp. in a review of Dillon's book. not his namesake Philo of Larissa. My aim will be more modest. Taking this view as starting-point. Tarrant has attempted to shed new light on two well-known documents. Less is made of the Philonic evidence in the book than in the articles. ouoO K a i 5iKaaxiKO<. Unqualified 'Philo' and 'Philonic' in this essay will refer to Philo of Alexandria. 'Agreement and the self-evident in Philo of Larissa' Dionysius 5 (1981) 66-97. let alone o f his thesis as a whole. In two long and 5 intricate articles published in 1983 he assigns both a date between 50 B.e. the last official head o f the Academy.IX 86 and doxographical issues . both literally and figuratively' . cf.D. see below p. dvfjp . the so-called 'philosophical digression' in the seventh Platonic epistle and the anonymous Commentary on the Theaetetus (Berlin papyrus 9782). who more than anyone else o f his generation was able to introduce a modicum o f order into the centrifugal dissension o f Philonic studies. cf. i. 6 7 8 5 . esp. (n. 30 (1980) 58. 94. 'The date of Anon. Op. Cf. for Philo is one o f the very few authors whose works are extant and so can inform us on this obscure period.C.. 94-97. though he certainly should not be called the movement's founder . 2 6 7 8 3 4 Antiochus and the late Academy (Gottingen 1978). In Theatetum Class. This is not the place to give a detailed critique o f Tarrant's redating proposals. right in the middle o f our 'empty s p a c e ' . 33 (1983) 161-187. Class. 247. 1) 139-183. 3 2 One man who is taking up the cartographical challenge in an exemplary manner is the Australian scholar Harold Tarrant. namely to make some brief comments on his use o f the Philonic evidence and on the implications o f that evidence for our knowledge o f the beginnings o f Middle Platonism. 'Middle Platonism and the Seventh Epistle' Phronesis 28 (1983) 75-103.

The Index Philoneus of G. is two things in particular. 'probably not long after the meeting between Justin and the Platonist'. cit. Tarrant notes and amplifies the allusion to 341c located by Van Winden at Dial. Overt allusions must always have a 12 13 Art.e. 15). cit. that it may have been written by Thrasyllus (died 36 A . Plutarch.C.D. Our author is well aware that his approach has the limitations and vulnerability o f an argumentum e silentio. They. when it is first alluded to and quoted in extant a u t h o r s . (n. Jones (1916). cit. D . Tarrant affirms that he found no obvious allusions in Philo. doubtless following the Teubner text of Sieveking. with its tendency towards esotericism and mysticism. and neglecting the more recent compilation of W. 77. Further research that I have carried out has only corroborated this a s s e r t i o n . the virtually exact contemporary o f Thrasyllus.1 suggested by the same scholar (the text reads euou 5e Ttapaxpfjuct TiOp ev TTJ vj/uxfj dvcwpOn : rcapaxpfiua is used here for the sake of variatio.IX REDRAWING THE MAP OF EARLY MIDDLE PLATONISM 87 I In the first o f the two articles to be discussed.N. but the dating he gives. It is poss­ ible to show that the passage was not used by an author who would have certainly made use o f it if he had known it. he argues. would damage this argument beyond repair. 1 0 11 1 2 1 3 9 . 2) 210 asserts that the first clear mention of an individual Platonic philosopher also occurs in this work. (n. O'Neil. He is unsure who the earliest author to make a certain allusion to the passage is. a single allusion to the digression in the works o f Philo. but that it did not achieve widespread circulation until the second half o f the second century A . It cannot. (77 &<.1. What gives it a measure o f force. Art. envisage an allusion to 344b7 at Mor. Helmbold and E. Art. 89. 340345c) is a product o f early Middle Platonism. but did not use the digression when compiling his list o f five-fold classifications in the De defectu oraculorum . 81-84. Plutarch's quotations (Baltimore 1959). is almost certainly too early. 77-78. Mayer (Berlin 1974) is indispensable for such an inquiry. but misses another at 8. who used the remain­ der o f the epistle in his Life of Dion. . be regarded as wholly certain. however. Moreover the kind o f Platonism portrayed in the passage. Tarrant's concern is to argue that the philosophical digression o f Plato's seventh epistle (c.M. 382D. A good candidate might be Justin Martyr. D . Interestingly Glucker op. 9 1 0 11 Needless to say. The Dialogus cum Tryphone must have been written before 165 A. Tarrant made his task somewhat easier than he might have. i. Ibid. having been used in the previous passage). e£. fits in well with developments that might be expected in post-Eudoran P l a t o n i s m . 85-92 and esp. cit. 4. 87. and that none were reported in Leisegang's index or in the foot­ notes to the L o e b e d i t i o n . ) and even perhaps incorporated in his edition o f Plato's works. by using the list of Platonic quotations in Plutarch compiled by R. 5) passim and esp.

though both words are very c o m m o n in Philo. But this does not necessarily mean he does not know it. The Homeric quote (//. s £ . cit. K a i vouc. This usage gives rise to some problems. 341e5 342a-d 344b7 344dl-2 In all likelihood. The latter would have more appeal to Philo. A. go a step further and agree with Tarrant's (admittedly tentative) suggestion that Philo.. icAiBavo<.: the first combination o f verb and noun is not used. also Synesius Ep. he uv(/r)^f) K a i x a u v r ] tXniq: this striking phrase is not used. a ( p 9 £ v (pax. but one word does not make an allusion.6^. SI8COA.) is not used by Philo. to which I shall later return.up6c. had he known the digression. then. as point o f comparison) and at Mut. 2 : 4 ) at Sacr. So in his case far and away the strongest argument o f the 'he would have used it' type is if one can point to a Pentateuchal text which cannot but have brought the Platonic passage to his mind if he had known it. as a process of spontaneous combustion (cf. Enn. . have appealed to the Alexandrian Jew. The second is found only at Leg.). 5. therefore.IX 88 verbal basis if they are to be successful. 7.17. 7r.au7td8e<. Philo does not allude to the digression.6yoc. On his own admission Philo is first and foremost an exegete o f scripture.: combination not used. Bearing this in mind. Revelation is used here in the sense o f a disclosure — presumably by God or another divine agency — o f real knowledge that transcends the knowledge accessible to the human mind when operating on its own strength. 2. Ka7tvi£6u£vo<. 1 4 1 5 1 4 15 78-79 comes Art. 139).30 and Post.15 make no attempt to exploit the thematics o f the d i g r e s s i o n .360 etc. 7 t u p 7r. What a multitude o f opportunities for the Platonizing allegorist here! But the two detailed exegeses at Her. but this Genesis text could recall the former.. 80.3.r|5fio"av: combination not used. 307312 and QG<. The quintet dvouxx A. The metaphor used in 341c-d and implicit in 344b can be read in two ways.. 5. The lastnamed passage has an interesting context (see below).ai(pvr)c. Similarly the exegesis o f vea (Lev. Can we.28. . 15:17 (cpA. would have made use o f i t ? Both the process o f revelation described in the digres­ sion and the esotericism that it proclaims would. e^eA. but there is no allusion to the epistle.\|/s ( p p o v r i a i c . we review the most striking passages o f the digression : 341c5-d2 e£. xpiPoueva 344b4) or as ignition by means of a spark leaping across from something or someone else (so read at Plot. One thinks first o f all o f Gen.: common in Philo (see below). 58 (both with r|A. cf.OV ercioTfiuTi HEUTTTOV is not exploited by Philo. But for the moment let me say that I agree that from the epistemological point o f view Philo might well have been attracted.

if he is himself a serious man. If. o f the divine light at Mut. His most serious interests have their abode somewhere in the noblest region o f the field o f his activity. 1.). Praem. cf. and the theme o f the £KA. it would be reserved for a handful o f intimates. 37. if anything was put down on paper.IX REDRAWING THE MAP OF EARLY MIDDLE PLATONISM 89 very close (cpeyyoc. will have brought to his mind the legislation Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (diss.32-50 etc. Post. however.auyic. 341c5-6. A m s t e r d a m 1983. called it a transparent e s o t e r i c i s m . not his face ( E x . 35 (an auto­ biographical passage). must have been quite unacceptable to Philo ( 3 4 4 c 3 . but we can be certain that. 168-169. it is an inevitable conclusion from this that when anyone sees anywhere the written work o f anyone. The task o f the exegete is to uncover the riches o f scripture in his commentaries to the best o f his ability. 3-6. 1 7 1 6 . This cannot strictly speaking be called esoteri­ cism. The reference to the vouoGenic. so that the reader possessing the right qualifications can be initiated into the Mosaic mysteries by reading and understanding the exegete's books. Deus 93.. Moses deliberately conceals his doctrines from those unfit to receive them by enshrouding them in the cloak of allegory. Virt. 3 3 : 1 3 .aicpvr|<.2 3 . located towards the end o f the passage.&Lii|/r) TO amoudOoucj aotpiacj). he really was seriously concerned with these matters and put them in writing. Philo is convinced that there is ascertain kind o f knowledge. This differs from what we find in the digression. A . Yet the contrast between old learning and fresh inspiration in this passage does not impel a recollection o f Plato's letter. F r o m the thematic rather than the exegetical viewpoint examples can also be multiplied. the subject treated cannot have been his most serious concern — that is. Nikiprowetzky. 164. Translation L . One state­ ment in particular.) at Migr. Would the esotericism o f the digression also have appealed to Philo? As is well known-.d 2 ) : 16 1 7 In a word. in this following the lead o f Nikiprowetzky. Spec. in the area o f philosophical theology. aicpvi5iov £7uA. cf. F o r this reason Moses on the mountain can only see what is behind God. 432f. Compare. V. The esotericism involved in Philo's allegorical commentaries is quite another matter. whether that o f a lawgiver in his laws or whatever it may be in some other form. in print) 4 1 5 . the theme o f suddenness (&. Post. 264. Le commentairc de I'Ecriture chez Philon d'Alexandrie (Leiden 1 9 7 7 ) 22. Her.d2-3). for example. but mortals 'have utterly blasted his wits'. Whether or not the 'revelation' described there can or cannot be put into words is a matter o f interpretation (cf. which is beyond the capacities o f the human mind. 13-16. I have. 'then surely' not the gods.

but there is no allusion to the epistle. though both words are very ( p a x .7 9 comes Art. uv|/r|Af| K a i xavvr] eXniq: this striking phrase is not used. 344dl-2 The Homeric quote (//.6yo<. So in his case far and away the strongest argument o f the 'he would have used it' type is if one can point to a Pentateuchal text which cannot but have brought the Platonic passage to his mind if he had known it. K a i vouc.6^. The metaphor used in 341c-d and implicit in 344b can be read in two ways. 1 5 : 1 7 ((pA. then. rcupoc. What a multitude o f opportunities for the Platonizing allegorist here! But the two detailed exegeses at Her. £ ^ s X a u v | / £ cppovriaicj . 1 5 1 4 15 . therefore. have appealed to the Alexandrian Jew. 80. 3 0 7 3 1 2 and QG 3 . But for the moment let me say that I agree that from the epistemological point o f view Philo might well have been attracted. go a step further and agree with Tarrant's (admittedly 1 4 tentative) suggestion that Philo. In all likelihood. he argues. also Synesius Ep.360 etc. Can we.3.: the first combination 58 (both with f\kioq as point o f comparison) and at Mut. exploited o f verb Post: The quintet ovoua X. But this does not necessarily mean he does not know it. ipiPoueva 344b4) or as ignition by means of a spark leaping across from something or someone else (so read at On his own admission Philo is first and foremost an exegete of scripture. to which I shall later return. The latter would have more appeal to Philo. KXIPCXVOCJ Kajcvi^ouevocj. 139). Bearing this in mind. 7 8 .a(p0£v 341e5 342a-d 344b7 combination not used. Philo does not allude to the digression. 2 : 4 ) at Sacr. : combination c o m m o n in Philo. cit. si'5(oA.28. cf. The second is found only at Leg. Similarly the exegesis o f vsa (Lev. would have made use o f i t ? Both the process o f revelation described in the digres­ sion and the esotericism that it proclaims would.ov OTicrcfiuri neurcTOv is not by Philo.. 1 5 make no attempt to exploit the thematics o f the d i g r e s s i o n . One thinks first o f all o f Gen.IX 88 verbal basis if they are to be successful. we review the most striking passages o f the digression : 341c5-d2 ££. Revelation is used here in the sense o f a disclosure — presumably by God or another divine agency — o f real knowledge that transcends the knowledge accessible to the human mind when operating on its own strength. This usage gives rise to some problems. ^aujtdSec.30 and 5. but this Genesis text could recall the former.. as a process of spontaneous combustion (cf. The last- named passage has an interesting context (see below). 7. and noun is not used. had he known the digression. 2. Enn. KVO nr\8f\aav: e£. not used.). 5.) is not used by Philo.: common in Philo (see below). but one word does not make an allusion.

the subject treated cannot have been his most serious concern — that is. in this following the lead o f Nikiprowetzky. 1. cf. F r o m the thematic rather than the exegetical viewpoint examples can also be multiplied. 432f.IX REDRAWING THE MAP OF EARLY MIDDLE PLATONISM 89 very close (cpeyyoc. whether that o f a lawgiver in his laws or whatever it may be in some other form. Whether or not the 'revelation' described there can or cannot be put into words is a matter o f interpretation (cf. If. called it a transparent e s o t e r i c i s m . I have. V.32-50 etc.. Nikiprowetzky. Spec. The esotericism involved in Philo's allegorical commentaries is quite another matter. which is beyond the capacities o f the human mind. and the theme o f the £KA. 3-6.d2-3). Le commentaire de I'Ecriture chez Philon dAlexandrie (Leiden 1977) 22.A. His most serious interests have their abode somewhere in the noblest region o f the field o f his activity. Post. 3 3 : 1 3 .2 3 . in the area o f philosophical theology. Deus 93. cf. but we can be certain that.\|/i<. however. 'then surely' not the gods. One state­ ment in particular. he really was seriously concerned with these matters and put them in writing.). 1 7 1 6 . Compare. not his face ( E x . if anything was put down on paper. will have brought to his mind the legislation Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (diss. if he is himself a serious man. located towards the end o f the passage. must have been quite unacceptable to Philo ( 3 4 4 c 3 . Amsterdam 1983. The reference to the vouo9exr)<. 264. Moses deliberately conceals his doctrines from those unfit to receive them by enshrouding them in the cloak of allegory. for example. Philo is convinced that there is ascertain kind o f knowledge. 168-169. ocxpiaq). but mortals 'have utterly blasted his wits'. Yet the contrast between old learning and fresh inspiration in this passage does not impel a recollection o f Plato's letter. aicpvi5iov 87ciMu\)/r| xo auxou&Qoix. of the divine light at Mut. 35 (an auto­ biographical passage). it is an inevitable conclusion from this that when anyone sees anywhere the written work o f anyone. Translation L. F o r this reason Moses on the mountain can only see what is behind God. in print) 415. This cannot strictly speaking be called esoteri­ cism.d 2 ) : 16 1 7 In a word. Virt. 37. it would be reserved for a handful o f intimates. The task o f the exegete is to uncover the riches o f scripture in his commentaries to the best o f his ability. Her. the theme o f suddenness (E^ai(pvr\q) at Migr. This differs from what we find in the digression. 341c5-6. 164. 13-16. so that the reader possessing the right qualifications can be initiated into the Mosaic mysteries by reading and understanding the exegete's books. Would the esotericism o f the digression also have appealed to Philo? As is well known. Post.

even though it means the pledge I made to confine myself to the Philonic evidence will be broken. therefore. 90d4-5 is literally to the rational motion o f the heavenly revolutions (of the heavenly bodies placed in the circuits o f the cosmic soul). polemically phrased. and so engaging in strife with them to be filled with envy and hate.c 5 ) 1 9 18 Plato : F o r surely. but all abide in harmony as reason bids. One further remark I cannot resist making. which are the true object o f the philosopher's contemplation (cf. If what was here said was true. Philo's life's work as exegete o f the Mosaic laws would have been all for nothing. In book VI o f the Republic could not be more explicit ( 5 0 0 b 8 . as a rational being must be. 6v. Indeed. And is not the whole point o f the elaborate and frequently misunderstood psychogony in the Timaeus that the soul. But these merely symbolize the rationality o f the eternal r e a l i t i e s . however. but he fixes his gaze upon the things of the eternal and unchanging order (EIC. Shorey (slightly modified). only of ouoicoaK. he will endeavor to imitate them and to the extent possible assimilate himself to them ( o n u d A i a x a dtpouxnouaOai). Philip of Opus.IX 90 o f the great Moses. Towards the end o f the article Tarrant asserts : 'To the best of-my know­ ledge Platonism know no doctrine of ouoicoaK. nothing unPlatonic about this. I am prepared. Cf. or ultimately to the whole ideal world as xo ovxcoc. and the Pseudo-Platonic (Philadelphia 1975) 24-36. Tsxayueva dxxa Kai Kaxd x a u x a dei sxovxa). the man whose mind is truly fixed on eternal realities has no leisure to turn his eyes downward upon the petty affairs o f men. Rep. Translation P. be considered less persuasive. cit. to my mind. L. As the author o f the epistle defines the rceuTixov as 6 8f| yvcoaxov xe K a i &Xr|0co<. This statement is. by virtue o f the components blended in its composition.) and to which his ultimate ouoicoatc. Adimantus. e a x i v 6v (342b 1). and seeing that they neither wrong nor are wronged by one another. 91. There is. to the ideas. Academica: Plato. it might not even be unreasonable to argue that the fact that ouoicoaic. rceuTrcco. 7t£U7tx(p. His suggestion that that evidence may give it positive support must. 0 e c p ' . and not the ouoicoaic. 1 9 2 0 Epinomis . Taran. is related to both the ideal and the sensible world and so can gain knowledge and true belief about them in accor­ dance with the principle 'like is known to like'? The assimilation advocated in Tim. what is involved here is actually ouoicoaK. Geco ubiquitous 1 8 20 in later Platonism. o f course. to affirm that the Philonic evidence does not conflict with the thesis proposed by Tarrant. 529bff. is Art.

proposed by Diels and reinforced by Praechter in his important r e v i e w . 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 1 . 75 columns and 4 fragments of the papyrus text survive. which after its publication by Diels and Schubart in 1 9 0 5 has for many years suffered an undeserved neglect. Der Mittelplatonismus (Darmstadt 1981) 301-316. But this article is cer­ tainly o f greater importance for those interested in the development o f the Platonist school o f thought in the period between the later Academy and fully-fledged Middle Platonism. Schubart. Tarrant marshalls four chief arguments in favour o f his view.. We thus have probably about an eighth to a tenth of the original work. I can. that the commentary shows significant affinities with the Middle Platonism o f the second century A. It must be said that the Australian scholar has the tendency to overwhelm the reader with a mass o f detail. but more importantly because the philosophical contents o f the work point to an earlier d a t e . and in particular with what we know o f the school o f Gaius. 153d-e. Tarrant argues. The view. dealing as it does with an obscure papyrus rather than with the most controversial document in the Platonic corpus.D. cit. not only because that school has been proved to be a figment o f the scholarly imagination. reprinted in C. Class.D. Our attention is redirected towards the mutilated remains o f the anonymous Commentary on the Theaetetus. 165-167 and passim. 2 1 22 The argumentation o f the article is long and complex. Anonymer Kommentar zu Platons Theaetet (Papyrus 9782) Berliner Klassikertext II (Berlin 1905).IX REDRAWING THE MAP OF EARLY MIDDLE PLATONISM 91 advocated in the digression is an indication in favour authenticity as a Platonic work. not all in a readable condition. is it by far the largest surviving fragment of a pre-Neoplatonic commentary on a Platonic work. Not only. Gel. Gott. Diels and W. Zintzen. therefore. must be rejected. give only a highly simplified resume o f the central thesis and the arguments used to demon­ strate its plausibility. all o f which is selected and presented exclusively with refe­ rence to the central argument. Rev. and probably not too late in that century. all o f which in fact are interwoven with each o t h e r . 23 2 4 2 5 H. 33 (1983) 161. it also 'may yet prove to be the most important document we possess for plotting the course o f pre-Plotinian P l a t o n i s m ' . The text commences near the beginning of the work and the comments proceed up to Tht. The date of the papyrus itself is the second century A. Anz. so that after a while he has trouble distin­ guishing the wood from the trees. of the passage's II The second of Tarrant's articles is less 'sensational' than the first. Art. 171 (1909) 531-547.

Academic and Pyrrhonist doctrine. there can be little doubt about his identity. He even claims that there was but a single Academy and that all but a very few o f its members had positive doctrines which are the same as those they accredit to Plato. as if their contribution was still relevant to Platonic studies. A further examination o f the detailed evidence brings him to the verdict that. There is a greater interest in epistemo­ logical and ethical matters. therefore. Taking these points into consideration. . 1. both in the technical area o f criteriology and in more general terms. but none o f that obsession with theology and the history o f the disembodied soul that was to come later. Boyance. (4) The direction o f the author's interests are not those we would expect from a second-century Platonist. whereas it did have much to say on issues that were a t the centre o f earlier debates. Use of the Theaetetus. Theiler and Dillon have come to regard Eudorus as playing a crucial role at the beginning o f the Middle Platonist movement.IX 92 ( 1 ) By the second century the Theaetetus was not considered an important dialogue for the understanding o f Plato's thought. Are the Pan-Posidonianism and the Pan-Antiochism o f earlier scholarship making way for a new Pan-Eudorism ? I shall now make a number o f observations on Tarrant's thesis in relation to the Philonic evidence. . Tarrant concludes that the author must have written his commentary before the period o f Plutarch and the Platonists that come after him. the epistemological views o f the commen­ tator. the Alexandrian philosopher whose 2 6 floruit must be placed in the second half o f the first century B . The parallels he envisages with Philo o f Alexandria also support an earlier date. and even sympathy for. Philo o f Larissa and Aenesidemus belonged to the recent past. ( 3 ) Not surprisingly. The author regards himself as belonging to the flA-axcoviKoi. Does Philo's use o f the Platonic dialogue support the contention that it played a much more important role in the 2 6 Ibid. The new evi­ dence that Tarrant brings to our notice thus fits in neatly with the recent trend. (2) The view o f the history o f philosophy presented in the work does not correspond to the vantage-point o f a second-century Platonist. In all likelihood he is Eudorus. C . but also speaks on a number o f occasions o f the 'AKaSriual'Koi in tones o f respect. in which leading scholars such as Dorrie. 179-181. The mild leanings towards scepticism which he reveals explain the interest in. if the author is a figure known to us from other sources. point to a period when the debates between protagonists such as Antiochus o f Ascalon.

On the passage see now the important discussion on Philo's eclecticism by J . namely Her. the last three o f which are relevant to our subject (§246): 2 9 (1) those who hold that nothing is in a state o f being (eivai) but that all things are in a state o f becoming (yiyveaOai) are in dispute with those who maintain the opposite view.). a Sceptical terminus technicus) by means o f five doctrinally opposed couplets. Billings. In undertaking to show the dissension and sophistry o f the hopelessly divided philosophers. The first couplet is clearly drawn from the Platonic doxography at Tht. to which I am indebted for some of the following observations.). art.IX REDRAWING THE MAP OF EARLY MIDDLE PLATONISM 93 philosophical discussions o f the period o f Eudorus than in the more sophis­ ticated Platonism of the second century A . Thus. the part commented on in the papyrus. 181 is a misprint for 247). Dillon). (3) and. ? Philo's use o f the Theaetetus is in fact more extensive than is indicated by Tarrant. Cain as sophist/Protagorean/Epicurean at Det. 212 cited by Tarrant cf. Two treatises of Philo of Alexandria (Chico California 1983) 241. But we may suspect a more direct rele­ vance to contemporary philosophical disputes as well. Deus 43. Mansfeld. the latter almost certainly the 30 Cf. 166. Chicago 1919) 96-98.H. cit. Mut.) and mind (Sidvoia). Winston and J . 2 8 2 9 3 0 2 7 •* . 1. Also the initial section o f the dialogue. for example. Not only does Philo heavily exploit the purple passages 176a-c (quoted verbatim at Fug. Philo presents their 8tacpcovia (§248. 181 and Mut. 27 28 There is one passage in particular which needs more attention than Tarrant allows it. the words dvepudxiaxoc. 79. Cf. those who propound that all things are incomprehensible (dicaxdA/nrcxa) are in dispute with those who declare that a good many things can be known.1 4 4 ) . The second couplet also recalls the Platonic dialogue. 150cff. 35-36.. The Platonism of Philo Judaeus (diss. discussed at some length by the anonymous commentator. But Philo. i. 348. Long and J . 63. 175-176. Spec. 144a8. 156-157. I owe these references to D. 152d-e. A. and duBtaoOpiSia used by Philo derive from a reading ofthis s e c t i o n . D .82) and 191 c-192c (in addition to Fug.106 etc. 166n.e. remains deliberately vague. (2) those who assert that man is the measure o f all things are in dis­ pute with those who confound the judgment-faculties (Kpixfjpia) o f sense-perception (aio-Onaic.g. where Protagoras' dictum plays an important role (152aff. See further T. is put to good use. 2 4 6 . Opif. the travails o f Hannah at Deus 11-15. Cf. Post. forthcoming in the Collected papers of the Colloquium on Eclecticism in ancient philosophy held at the FIEC conference Dublin 1984 (edited by A. as so often.2 4 8 . in more general terms. The entire passage on Socrates' midwifery is attractive for. 177 (where I presume the first Her. Dillon. Philo on account o f the light it can shed on the allegorical meaning o f many a Pentateuchal text (e.48. the former group representing perhaps the E p i c u r e a n s . 1 4 3 .

In the third couplet the reference to the controversies between the New Academy and the Stoa cannot be missed. the fine article by M. 3 2 3 1 . Theaet. 1. 35. 57. But it is worth noting that the commentator makes a clear attempt to neutralize the sceptical possibilities o f Socrates' remarks that he is dyovoc.43-58. The wise man — Philo is surely thinking here above all o f the lawgiver Moses — is able to rise above the squabbles o f the philosophers and settle matters with his superior sense of discrimination. Tarrant is thus clearly right in assigning to the Theaetetus a place high up in Philo's list o f favourite Platonic dialogues. that Plato was an 'Academic' who made no dogmatic p r o n o u n c e m e n t s . where it is combined with Laws 716c) and in his many allusions to the doctrine o f the Heraclitean flux (note esp.e. Comm.). it is highly likely that Philo also drew on his knowledge o f the Theaetetus when he refers to the Protagorean doctrine elsewhere (Post. Philo is being clever. i. In the light o f what we have seen so far. Once again. 2. Burnyeat.13. who sits down and examines the products of the disputant soul. Conf. we read. Philo's dogmatism goes beyond the Platonic text. dvfip). ( d l ) .193-194. He tries to nullify the Sceptical critique o f dissenting dogmatists by reducing them to a party in one o f the many disputes. But this does raise an intriguing question with regard to the indubitable number one on the list. therefore. Somn. but by no means in support o f a tendency towards scepticism. Undoubtedly Philo shows an interest in scepticism here. and also further than the anonymous commentator's exegesis o f the relevant passage. The sage is the man who is both midwife and judge (§247 6 uaieuTiKoc. Spec. 15:11. deciding what should be retained and what should be thrown away.F.11. this has always been the Achilles heel o f extreme Scepticism : can the Sceptic condemn the dogmatism o f others without becoming dogmatic himself? can he live his own s c e p t i c i s m ? Even more important for our discussion is the fact that Philo is giving an allegorical exegesis of Gen.27. (150c4) and ou rcdvu T I rjocpoc. and moreover reveals his awareness that the Theaetetus has pertinent things to say on the subject.IX 94 Purrhonists and the more recent revitalizer o f their doctrine. ouou Kai StKarjtiKoc. Anon. After all. It should not* be thought. Abram (the sage) sits down among the birds (the dissenting sophists/philosophers) and the bisected pieces o f sacrificial meat (couplets o f conflicting doctrines). The skeptical tradition (Berkeley 1983) 117-148.35-55. the Theaetetus is summoned forth in this passage. 31 32 Cf. 'Can the skeptic live his Skepticism' in idem (ed. Aenesidemus. 53. oocpiac. 103-106). the Timaeus. But what are his intentions? As Mansfeld has acutely observed.

At 48. 3 5 .3 xa ovxa is used of the transcendent objects of knowledge (i. M". 1 0 ) . 38. But given the poly valence o f the term o u a i a and the statement that ai o u a i a i dAAoxe aXkax. ideas). we might add. since at col. Baltes. This corresponds well to what we know o f the situation in Middle Platonism. 160. But of this we cannot be sure. 37 38 3 9 Although Tarrant is right to observe that we know nothing o f the commentator's p h y s i c s . It can be used for xa aiaOnxa. 164. There is no indication that the cosmo­ logy and the ontology of the Timaeus were less important for our author than they were for other P l a t o n i s t s .e. cit. where. A minor argument put forward by Tarrant in favour o f his thesis is that the commentator disregards the two-world ontology o f the Timaeus and the epistemology based thereon (even though he had already written a commentary on the dialogue. 164 n. Locr. 7capeX. when discussing the Heraclitean Tidvxa pet. Ibid.37 he uses the language of the Timaeus to describe Parmenides: o6xo<. By H. 71. etc. 69 and 72 there are substantial lacunae. <pumv. This not only.24). Twice the commentator. It has even been proposed that the interpretation of this work may have played a decisive role in the establishment o f the Middle Platonist m o v e m e n t . This might seem to conflict With the sharp Timaean distinction between ovxa and y i y v o u e v a . cf. Art. y i v o v x a i icaxd auvexfj puaiv. Ibid. as has often been observed. 167. in Von Platon zum Platonismus: ein Bruch in der Uberlieferung und seine Uberwindung (Opladen 1976). The Timaeus neglected! In Philo no other Platonic dialogue can com­ pete with the Timaeus when it comes to supplying doctrinal material for the Platonist elements in his t h o u g h t . Actually reiterated by Plato at 152el (cf. names ai o u a i a i as the subject o f the flux (67. 27-39.6(bv 8e 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 3 3 . yap cmopXev|/a<. If the commentator left both these passages out of discussion. I think that here is definitely pushing the argumentum a silentio too far. but also. separates him from Philo.IX REDRAWING THE MAP OF EARLY MIDDLE PLATONISM 95 2. xfjv xou eiSouc. this might be taken as a neglect of the Timaean ontology. 40 41 Analysed in detail in the study cited above at n. separates him from second century Platonists. 33 34 35 3 6 I am not as convinced as Tarrant that the silence o f the commentator concerning the two-world ontology of the Timaeus is fraught with philosophi­ cal significance. Dorrie. 153a6). 4. no great significance can in my view be attached to the terminology. Art. cit. There is only one positive indication in favour o f this a r g u m e n t . who does draw extensively on the Timaeus for ontological and epistemological doctrines. as Tarrant argues.43. Timaios Lokros Uber die Natur des Kosmos und der Seele (Leiden 1972) 39 on Tim. One might even toy with the idea that at 70. Plato's cosmological dialogue receives a disproportionate amount o f a t t e n t i o n . and in other writings. 16.

35(1981)105-151. 18. while Philo's replies owe much to the S t o a . 143d 1-5!) between Stoics.1 (from Tim. Rep. (n. Cf. for eidoq as the model cf. Academics and Epicureans is resolved as it were with the climactic reference to Plato's famous words on ouoicocnc. 4 2 4 3 O f interest too is Philo's procedure in the second book o f the De Providen­ tia. 12. 5.l80e)? Perhaps a Parmenidean non-creating god. Moreover he never refers to philosophers as Platonists. Who is the subject of the verb Ge^ei in the quotation (instead of Te^eGei as in P1. but fades out later. Nevertheless I do see an important parallel in the use o f concise doxo­ graphical sections which show an interest in Hellenistic philosophy that is still present in Plutarch. W e have here a dialogue between Philo and his nephew Alexander. M. 4 2 4 3 4 4 .e. Chr. So the Philonic evidence does not aid Tarrant's thesis on this point. Cf. in QG 3. The perspective on the history of philosophy. Hesiod and Moses. Philo Opif. (i. It is more profitable to look at the five so-called philosophical treatises. my analysis of the literary form and structure of the work in 'Philo's De aeternitate mundi: the problem of its interpretation" Vig. Mansfeld informs me that he considers a doxographic report such as at Arist. 32. These concentrate on themes in the areas o f physics and ethics. 16:12). Geco and 8iKaioor)vr| at 176a-c. Academics and Sceptics are mentioned by name only once in Philo's works.IX 96 3. Me/.20). discus­ sion in utramque partem). De Providentia I et II. cit. 35 (Paris 1973) 65-67. 484c9). For a7toPAev|/ac. Alcinous Did. Locr. but leaves no doubt about where his own preferences l i e . Runia op. which is carefully structured to reach a climax in the Socjai o f Plato. Y e t in general terms there is no spirit o f 'mild scepticism' pervading this work. Arnaldez-Pouilloux-Mondesert) vol. in which care is taken to present both sides o f the various arguments: Alexander draws heavily on the arsenal o f New Academic argumentation. Hadas-Lebel. as the source o f justice (extracted from Tht.3-7. In astronomical matters probability must be the aim (§72). Philo too is careful to draw attention to the limits o f human knowledge. cf. But J . In his exegetical works Philo is habitually vague in his references to actual Greek philosophers and their schools. 29a3. where a discussion on oiKeicoaic.33. with a passage in the commentary (5. In the De aeternitate mundi Philo discusses the question in the form o f a modified Gecac. Les CEuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie (ed. It is interesting to compare the doxographical introduc­ tion o f this treatise (§7-19). Cf.986b24 a more likely source of inspiration.7%f. and so will not tell us much about the epistemological issues raised in the commentary on the Theaetetus. Tim. even though in a number of texts he evidently has them in mind . 16) 485-486. Philo is pulling out all the 4 4 xf)v b"kr\v cpriaiv «olov aKEivntov te QiXei rah xcavii ovoua eivai». where they are disparagingly referred to in order to explain Esau's boorishness and love of contention (Gen.

54.39ff. Art..oveiK(DC. xdv Oeov duoicoaicj. 165. and it may be purely coincidental that the metaphysical references are kept so sober. Epistemology and mild scepticism. 172. 47 48 5. Here we reach the very centre o f Tarrant's thesis and it is not surprising that most o f his discussion o f Philo's evidence concentrates on this s u b j e c t . metaphysics and the descent/ ascent o f the soul which is so characteristic o f later Middle Platonism .3 (i|/i)xr)v xeOeaaOai xd ovxa. The descent/ascent o f the soul in the Phaedrus myth supplies him with a pivotal metaphor.5 f|7tiaxavxo a i yu^ai Kai nitkax VCC Kai evCTOuaxcoOeTaai. Phdr. Philon d'Alexandrie et le my the du "Phedre": images de Dieu et de I'dme (unpubl.30 Kaxd rcaaav evoxoudxcooriv). It is perhaps no coincidence that snippets o f the conversation remind us o f the sage (here Philo!) taking his seat among the contentious philosophers and resolving the d i s p u t e s . 173-178. It has been precisely these interests (together with his extensive use o f the Timaeus in the area o f cosmology) that have led many scholars to see an affinity — though not a direct connection — between Philo and the group o f Middle Platonists beginning with Plutarch. 247e3 v|/u%fi . He is notoriously obsessed with the themes o f the nature o f G o d (and his relation to m a n ) and the fate of the soul.35 divine aocpia).. §85 'let us no longer altercate in the manner that the aipeaeic.. 58. cit. 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 4 5 . £xoixn. cf. One cannot help. cit.18 7tp6<. xd ovxa O X O J Geaaanevn.g. Ibid. in spite o f the chronological disparity . Tarrant argues. uf| (piA. Is the fragment we have long enough and representative enough to allow such a judgment? The reference to the Phaedrus myth is unmistakable at 48. See now the comprehensive study of A. thinking that the Australian scholar is trying to have it both ways here. both in psychology and epistemology (though he has no ue for the additional aspect o f metempsychosis) . cit. As Tarrant rightly points out (art. 177. 175.. One might add that he came to Athens from Egypt (Eunapius Vit. cf. diss. 45 4. 4 6 Philo's evidence does not support the notion o f a theological and meta­ physical sobriety in early Middle Platonism. But there is not that preoccupation with theology. The direction of philosophical interests. Measson. 454). Art. §112 TOIC. Lyon 1982). 177). Plutarch's tutor Ammonius might be a bridge. divine rcpovoia. Phil. The piety o f the commen­ tator. are accustomed to attack each other. Philo should not be seen as a committed d o g m a t i s t : 49 50 E. 167. 57. note also 53. for I already incline to your view'. so he may have lived in Alexandria when Philo was an old man. is strongly reminiscent o f Plutarch (7.IX REDRAWING THE MAP OF EARLY MIDDLE PLATONISM 97 stops in order to convince his recalcitrant relative.

one can suggest that somebody like he did so. Philo retains a mild A c a ­ demic scepticism. we can do little more than skate over the surface. One cannot assert that [the commentator] influenced Philo. to cite one o f the more important. F o r many years scholars have puzzled over the considerable number o f passages in Philo in which he is pessimistic about the possibility man has o f gaining certain knowledge and over how these passages can be given a satisfactory place in his t h o u g h t . (n. [The commentator's] kind o f Platonism is also Philo's kind o f Platonism. unless. in Opif. 88. These criteria are second best . Nikiprowetzky. There are passages in Philo which clearly could suggest such a distinction.. they are able to reject these New Academic criteria and replace them by a higher truth from God. 16) 523-557. Tarrant's solution will repay careful consideration. The issues raised here are large. The same emphasis on a higher revealed knowledge is crucial to Tarrant's inter­ pretation of the digression in the Seventh epistle. For a fuller discussion see Runia op. It must not be thought that the higher knowledge o f which Philo so often speaks is regarded by him as being o f an essentially 53 See above all the important contribution of V. cit. Thus. 5 2 5 3 5 1 . (n. which is limited be­ cause man's unaided reason has a limited reach. which will end in mere 'reasonable' and 'probable' conclusions. but no more. and both seem to have a religious faith which surmounts doubts about the details o f this world . But traditional philosophy offers nothing m o r e . as we saw above on p. but also. cit. They share a readiness to discuss and make use o f a number o f Stoic ethical ideas as well as an interest in scepticism. qua philosopher. Men are bound to judge by such criteria.IX 98 It is not so much that Philo tries to steer a middle course between scepticism and dogmatism: rather he sees mild scepticism as the proper product o f philosophic enquiry. Should we read this to mean that the great Moses combined a properly philo­ sophical attitude o f mild scepticism in certain matters with true knowledge based on direct divine revelation in others? 52 The objection I have to this approach is that it encourages a division between philosophy and religion which is unhelpful for an understanding not only o f Philo's thought. the case rests in effect on a vital distinction between philosophical knowledge. cit.. for they both teach confidently and with positive purpose. like Moses. Neither would be classed as sceptics today. op. 51 As can be seen from the passages quoted above. 29).. 16) 183192 and also now Mansfeld art. 8 Moses is described as 'both having reached the peak o f attainment in philosophy and having been instructed by means o f oracles in the numerous and most comprehensive doctrines o f nature'. o f that o f his Middle Platonist ( n e a r C o n t e m p o r a r i e s .. and a higher kind o f know­ ledge revealed by God to a privileged f e w . (n. I think.

through divine assistance.21-24. declare that in many 5 5 (2) those texts which look to the object o f knowledge and. not on passages which are striking but unique' . so that he does not accredit much originality to Moses on these issues either. 141-144 at op. devolve into a statistical exercise. Aet. 136. But in the areas o f theology. i. note that Moses' knowledge too is limited in this domain. 1. that the higher knowledge is possessed by God and the heavenly beings and can be granted to especially gifted human beings (such as the Patriarchs and Moses). 5 5 5 6 5 4 5 6 . At least a tripartition is required: (1) those texts which have as their basis the assumption that there is a hierarchy o f knowledge. 16) 122-130. 1. For a fuller discussion see Runia op. especially in the areas o f epistemology and logic. e. where it is accessible to the initiated reader. transcends the capability of even the most gifted and divinely favoured of men.g. ) . Near the beginning o f his discussion o f the Philonic evidence Tarrant affirms that 'a sensible estimation o f Philo's work must rely chiefly on the recurrent factors.38.IX REDRAWING THE MAP OF EARLY MIDDLE PLATONISM 99 different kind. we will find it useful. Bearing in mind the centrality o f the thought and writings o f Moses. he is polemicizing against Dillon's use of Congr. anthropology and ethics he tends to present Moses as a kind o f super-philosopher who can succeed where other philosophers (including Plato) falter. Her. 224. The tracking down o f 'recurrent factors' must not. Plant. I believe.. to distinguish between a number o f different types o f 'sceptical' passages in Philo's oeuvre. but that most lovers o f learning have to be content with the lesser prize o f probabilities (cf. areas o f scientific inquiry certain knowledge cannot be reached (cf. ) . (n. Philo is persuaded that Moses. taking his seat between the bickering birds and the doctrinal 8ixoTouf)uaxa. 79-80. It is undoubtedly true that Philo is not interested in the technical niceties o f many philosophical discussions. Praem. It is essential that we base this procedure on an insight into what Philo is trying to achieve in his giant enterprise. supernatural or non-rational. (3) those texts which emphasize the epistemic limitations o f the exeArt. Somn. under the influence o f Plato's strictures in the Timaeus. creational cosmology. attained the highest knowledge available to man and that he encoded this knowledge in the Pentateuchal books. W e recall the sage. at Sacr. 43 e t c . 174. 1) 144. 161 f f . Fug. As was remarked earlier (p. the essential nature of God. 4) at least one area of knowledge.e. cit. 1-2 etc. Spec. cit. cit. however. (n. than the knowledge o f the truth sought by the philosophers. 54 Methodologically this is entirely sound.

The reason the two groups must be kept apart is the assumption — strange to us. if the crocpocj Noah gets drunk and walks around naked (Gen. 176. for he too can count on the aid o f divine inspiration (cf. 166-205. by way o f a biblical parallel. Nikiprowetzky. 1 9 : 3 3 . The importance o f distinguishing these three groups should be immediately clear. H . Philo's exegesis is not going to give us the last word on 58 59 Cf. as worked out most often in the allegorical exegesis o f biblical texts. the higher his rung will become. and if. The further he advances in his studies. 27). Janacek. and so has his own place on the epistemic ladder. Cher.IX 100 gete in his task o f decoding the wisdom contained in the books o f the sage Moses (cf. 72. F . The one thing that cannot be emphasized enough is that in all cases (except in the philosophical treatises) it is vitally important to regard the exegetical concern o f the passage under discussion. 'Philon von Alexandreia und skeptische tropen' Eirene 20 (1982) 83-97. Opif. This is the lesson that Professor Nikiprowetzky hammered home in his many essays. Not all questions raised in philosophy are such that it is possible to gain certain knowledge concerning them. 18 e t c . cit. The second differs from the other two because it is particularly con­ cerned with the object o f knowledge. and no student o f Philo can afford to ignore it. Colson. op. W e have already come across an interesting example in our comments on Her. Lot does likewise and moreover sleeps with his two daughters (Gen. Decal. 55. But obviously there is an intimate connection between the two groups. but space forbids.aioi Kai Oeloi avSpeq than in the exercise o f independent philosophical reflection. 9 : 2 1 ) . It is surely evident that. in which Philo invokes the ten tropes o f the Sceptic Aenesidemus and 'thus seems to overthrow the basis o f his philosophy' . but essential for Philo — that one could advance further by studying the writings o f the 7t<XA.3 5 ) . The question o f whether Philo was influenced by the Sceptic original or a New Academic a d a p t a t i o n is less important here than the question o f the exegetical context. In the former a theoretical approach is taken. in the latter there is a more di­ rect concern with the knowledge the exegete himself can achieve in his study o f scripture. ) . Another which is no less significant involves the notorious passage at Ebr. Tarrant art. cit. 16) 190-191. 5 7 It would be illuminating to look more closely at individual passages. 5 8 5 9 5 7 . 246-248 above. The exegete too is thirsting for knowledge. (n. Philo LCL (London 1929-62) III 314. The independence of mind with which Philo adapts the Aenesideman tropes is rightly stressed by K. Cher. In the first and third the emphasis lies on the subject o f the cognitive process.

the former (by implication) being regarded as the discoverers o f doc­ trines. For the sake of economy I give no examples. namely the parallels between the anonymous commentary on Plato and Philo's Mosaic exegesis. drcoKptxeov xoivuv 6 3 xi xotouxo Trpoadrcxovxec. Philo' has to resort to the techniques o f allegory in order to elucidate the cryptic. (n.1 (paoi) -—. 16) 502-505. xa> n^dxcovi) is reminiscent o f Philo's tireless apologetics . 4. ) .40. 27) 8ff. (5) Diverse exegetical techniques. (4) The invocation o f parallel texts from other Platonic works. or because o f possible discrepancies or inconsistencies (e.44 e t c . (2) The regular use o f the method o f the quaestio cf. but these can easily be supplied by those familiar with his exegetical methods and techniques.4 0 (eppexcooav ouv oi und dyvoiac. (1) The division o f philosophers into oi ndkaioi and oi veto-repot (cf. Runia op.e. 52.).oxiuiav r\ akXo on Moses' behalf. 6 1 6 2 6 3 6 0 et solutio in order to elucidate the Platonic text (e. xtvec. Commentary and exegesis. 8. 11. 6. 3 4 .IX REDRAWING THE MAP OF EARLY MIDDLE PLATONISM 101 the possibility that the oxxpocj has o f gaining knowledge possession o f his faculties. in the same way Philo habitually denotes fellow-exegetes.10.g. 7taA. the latter as interpreters and exegetes.11 xcov nX. 57. 8. such a s : introducing an exegesis with On Philonic exegesis and Platonist commentaries cf. doubtless with Aenesidemus in mind) or o f his own school (e. Especially the passionate outburst at 4 5 . It is worth noting that the most recent philosopher mentioned by name in the commentary is Ariston o f Chios {floruit 2 5 0 B . Neverthe­ less it is worth pointing out at least the following p a r a l l e l s . either for the sake o f illustration or elucidation (e. 2. almost certainly greater than the similarities . 29. 4 oi Iluppwveioi.g. (3) The defence o f Plato and his doctrines against the attacks o f rival schools. in this the commentator differs from the later Neoplatonist commenta­ tors. or other commentators (e. i. cit.27 £r|xeixai ouv . ) . the vecbxepoi are always referred to anonymously 62 61 — whether philosophers o f other schools (e. 'The formal structure of Philo's allegorical exegesis' in Winston and Dillon op. but struck me forcibly while reading the papyrus. drceipoKrAiav f| (piA. cit.g.25. 4 5 . when in full The final aspect I wish to discuss is not touched on by Tarrant. Niki­ prowetzky in Winston and Dillon op. 34. 27) 77-88. .ata<. 74. (n. Incidentally. J . quasi-oracular nature o f the Mosaic text. Dillon. On the central place of the quaestio et solutio method in Philo's exegesis cf. .15). 2 6 ) . 6 3 . C .7).g. 28.42. The commentator gives a methodical and didactic sentence-by-sentence exposition o f a philoso­ phical work. 56. Naturally there are also marked 60 differences. (n.g.32.27.g.

therefore. we may gain an important clue here to the reticence with regard to the affirmation o f doctrine in propria persona which is shared by both Philo and the commen­ tator ('mild scepticism' in my view does not hit the right note). he places more emphasis on the dialectical nature o f Plato's writings ( 5 9 . 3 5 . 6 5 6 6 6 4 .11.11) and on the Symposium (70. But note that the opening words xcov Kupicoxdxcov rRdxcovoc.17 Diehl).. 66 I hesitate in rendering AxX. such as we find in a relatively unsophisticated form in the Didaskalikos of A l c i n o u s . 70. where the last opinion (the author's) is regarded as the most plausible (35. cross-references to other exegetical works of the author (already written 35. 1 2 ) : "I affirm. 1. direct appeal to the reader (58. 64 65 It must be admitted that in the small remnant o f the commentator's exegetical output that s u r v i v e s there is no direct reflection on the a c ­ tivity o f the exegete and the extent to which he can gain insight into the master's thought. Evidently it is the task o f the followers o f Plato to examine the master's writings carefully and to make an attempt to determine what Plato's doctrines are. multiple exegesis. on the Phaedo (48. xd KUpicbxaxa xcov Soyudxcov xauxd exeiv xcp rRdxcovi). This exegetical task is in fact exactly what the anonymous commentator himself is doing.4 TO K&Keivouc.39). 172)? But the point is that oi eurceipoi xfjc. the use o f 'perhaps' to introduce an interpretation.). referring to the master's words with a simple cpr|ai (39. 6 4 . drawing atten­ tion to Plato's concision (41. 'without our being aware o f it' (cf.r|06xto<. but to those who are skilled in his method he covertly makes his opinion k n o w n " .29). that in his researches he inquires and does not disclose his views.IX 102 'perhaps' (29. attention to small details o f the text (57. 9 ) .10. Soyudxcov recall almost exactly what the commentator says of the 'Academics' (55. But various pieces o f evidence — such as his willingness to cite other exegetes. and so puts forward neither what is false nor what is true. 2 1 ) . Commentary and doxo­ graphy thus precede a more systematic account o f Platonic doctrine. Commentaries on the Timaeus (35.9) anticipated. Does it mean 'imperceptibly'. in reply to a possible conflict between 77?/.331. So perhaps it is better to render 'covertly' (cf.27.35. 151 d2-3 and Rep. At 55. A few colums later. cit. Tarrant art. ue068ou do perceive what is going on. Festugiere's rendering of the same word at Proclus in Tim. 389b. Indeed. however. The commentator is very much concerned with the question o f whether Plato (and his followers) have positive doctrines or not.13ff.10) already completed.8 he is affirmative : "that Plato has doctrines and makes them known can be convincingly deduced from the man himself. The similarities we have observed do not just result from the fact that both authors are commenting on an authoritative text. promised 4 8 . 3 8 ) .9).


the emphasis on his own view (cpr| ui, Xeyco) — do indicate that he is conscious of the provisionality o f his own attempt to explicate Plato's thought. The further one has advanced, the better one's understanding . It is perhaps no coincidence that in both Eudorus' and Plutarch's interpretation o f a Platonic text there is strong emphasis on xo eiicoc, o f the views p r e s e n t e d . The beginnings o f Middle Platonism may, therefore, have to be sought in a long process o f exegetical reflection on the Platonic corpus, in which the probabilistic inheritance o f the late Academy was applied not to the Plato­ nic doctrine itself,- but to the possibility o f the interpreter gaining in­ sight into what^tlie doctrine o f the school's founder actually was. This, at any rate, would correspond well to the nature o f Philo's 'sceptical ten­ dency'. He is convinced that the aocpoq, and most notably Moses, can decide between the dissenting 56^at o f the philosophers. He is far less convinced that, as interpreter o f the sage's writings, he can reach that level o f learning and inspiration himself. My conclusion with regard to the main thesis o f Tarrant's second article is, therefore, double-edged. It seems to me very likely that the anonymous Commentary is earlier than hitherto supposed — certainly earlier than 'Plu­ tarch, perhaps roughly contemporary with Philo. The direction o f the commentary's interests and the nature o f its doxographies support this, even though we should be careful not to draw too many conclusions from such a limited (in more than one sense!) fragment. I do not believe, however, that the papyrus is o f crucial importance in that it introduces us to a 'mildly sceptical' epistemology that stands midway between the more far-reaching probabilism o f the later Academy and the dogmatism of mature Middle Platonism. At least, the Philonic evidence — and especially the relation between scepticism and dogmatism in his thought — does not support this view. Whether or not the fragment should be assigned to Eudorus, which would make it quite a bit earlier than Philo, is a further question which has not been touched on in this essay. Aside from the many points o f detail discussion by Tarrant, there is also the question o f quality to be considered. Is this the sort o f w r i t i n g
6 7





Cf. perhaps 12.6 avixriuooc. (7/i/.144b4) Se, 'ivct K a i TipoKorcrj, reminiscent of the notion of progress and perfection basic to Philo's allegories (and to his own performance as exegete). Cf. Plutarch Mor. 1013B and the parallels adduced by Cherniss in the note to his LCL text and translation. I cannot agree with Tarrant's interpretation of this text at art. cit. 181-182. Eudorus' TO CIKOC, must also have referred to the explanation (by Crantor and Posidonius) of Plato's text. Plutarch is being polemical, hence the accusation of i8ia Soyuara. Dillon op. cit. (n. 1) 270 writes that the commentary "in general maintains a level of stupefying banality".
6 8 6 9


that can be expected from a man who has been thought to have played a decisive role in the establishment o f a philosophical movement that was to be a dominant force in intellectual life for half a millenium and m o r e ? But I cannot end without a final caveat. In this article evidence from revealing the works o f Philo o f Alexandria has been brought to bear on a Middle Platonist document. This is in effect a testimonium paupertatis, above all how meagre our sources are for the period under discussion. F o r Philo is emphatically not a Middle Platonist. He regards himself as a loyal disciple o f Moses, and shows a partiality towards Platonic doctrines for no other reason than that he is convinced that Plato's ideas most often and most nearly correspond to what is the hidden deeper meaning o f the Mosaic p h i l o s o p h y .

So, in the process o f redrawing the map, the

Philonic evidence can only play a subsidiary role, casting a comparative light on what has already been located elsewhere. And if what we can locate is insufficient to fill in the contours o f the terra incognita on our m a p ? In that case we shall simply have to acknowledge our ignorance and wait patiently, in the hope that sooner o r later the tufa o f Herculaneum or the sands o f Egypt will yield us more o f their priceless treasures.

On the question of Philo's relation to Middle Platonism see the discussion at Runia op. cit. (n. 16) 485-522.

7 0



The origin of this article dates back to a meeting held at the Free Universi­ ty Amsterdam some five years ago, one of those regular get-togethers in which teachers and students of ancient, patristic and medieval philosophy discuss research developments and other topics of mutual interest. When, towards the end of the meeting, those present were asked to volunteer themes for future discussion, I suggested that a paper could be presented on the view of the history of philosophy developed by H. A. Wolfson. To my surprise and delight this proposal was warmly supported by the late Prof. dr. M. C. Smit. Wolfson's numerous important contributions to the history of medieval philosophy had not - needless to say - escaped the polymathic scope of his learning. The grand thesis put forward by Wolfson, he affirmed, was no longer getting the attention it deserved, and was well worth re-examination. Unfortunately, due to the pressure of circumstances, the preparation of my paper was delayed. In any case, Prof. Smit would not have been present to hear it, for the above-mentioned meeting was one of the last which he was able to attend. Pietatis causa, however, I would like to take up the thread of my suggestion, not only in order to fulfil my promise, but also to see whether Prof. Smit's judgment could be vindicated in this case. Given the unparalleled breadth of Wolfson's interests and the no less re­ markable scope of his achievements, the treatment of his life's work in the context of this article will have to be severely restrictive, if not downright superficial. In the first part I shall give a summary of his main thesis and the scholarly works in which it was presented. In the second part a critical evaluation of some of the more salient aspects of his work will be attempt­ ed. As the title of the article indicates, the emphasis of my review will be di­ rected towards the macro-structural aspect of Wolfson's work, i.e., the grand thesis on the history of philosophy which he developed in the course of his research. Within this larger context special attention will be given to the central place of Judaism, and in particular to the crucial role of the first Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria.


The scholarly career and views of HARRY AUSTRYN WOLFSON can­ not be properly understood without reference to his Jewish-American background. It is fitting, therefore, to begin with some biographical details. Wolfson's unusual middle name, which he gave himself in his twenty-fifth year, immediately draws our attention to his birthplace. It is a Hellenized version of Ostrin, the name of a small Lithuanian town situated not far from the then border of Poland and White Russia. There he was born in 1887, the son of simple Jewish parents. His exceptional intellectual ability manifested itself early, during his education in the rigorous but challenging school of biblical and talmudic studies. In 1903, at the age of sixteen, he emigrated with his family to the United States of America, where, by dint of sheer hard work and a measure of good fortune (a scho­ larship!), he gained admission to Harvard University in the autumn of 1908. With that famous educational institution he was to remain associated until his death in 1974, gaining his doctorate there in 1915, becoming the foundation occupant of the Nathan Littauer Professorship of Hebrew Li­ terature and Philosophy (the first chair of its kind in North America) in 1925, and continuing to live close to the campus after his retirement in 1958. Though an excellent speaker and an inspiring teacher, Wolfson was of a rather retiring disposition and habitually devoted all the time at his dis­ posal to study and scholarly productivity. Later in life, when his great con­ tribution to the study of the history of philosophy received due recognition, he was overwhelmed with academic honours. This he found gratifying, but he did not allow it to distract him from his dedication to scholarship and the completion of his life's work. The task which Wolfson had set himself was to produce a series of twelve

volumes with the general title Structure

and Growth of Philosophic


from Plato to Spinoza.
*1 2-3 4-5 6-7

The individual books of the projected series were:

Introductory volume: Greek philosophy Philo: Foundations of religious philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, 2 vols. 1947 The philosophy of the Church fathers, vol. 1 Faith Trinity Incarna­

tion, 1956 (vol. 2 not published)
The philosophy of the Kalam, vol. 1 1976, vol. 2 Repercussions Kalam in Jewish philosophy, 1979 of the

*9 [9a] * 10 11-12

The Muslim philosophers Averroes)

(Arabic philosophy from Al-Farabi to

The philosophy of Halevi and Maimonides [Crescas' critique of A ristotle: Problems of A ristotle's Physics in Jew­ ish and Arabic philosophy, 1929] Latin philosophy from St. Thomas Aquinas to Descartes The philosophy of Spinoza: Unfolding the latent processes of his rea­

soning, 2 vols. 1934 (definitive revised edition planned as conclu­ sion of the whole series). When it is realized that the asterisks denote works that were not published, it becomes clear that the monument that Wolfson left behind at his death was substantially unfinished. But when we further realize that at least drafted, but sometimes fully completed, manuscripts of these volumes

114 were prepared, we gain some idea, not only of the prodigious scope of Wolfson's learning, but also of the single-minded dedication with which he pursued his goal. Before we make some remarks on the works he did pu­ blish, however, we need to say something about the grand view of the histo­ ry of philosophy on which the whole series is based, and also about the con­ troversial method which was used to produce it. The grand view of the history of philosophy which Wolfson developed at­ tempts to reshape the conventional view accepted everywhere in the West­ ern world almost as a matter of course. Its novelty lies not in its triple struc­ ture, but in the fact that it sees the history of philosophy as a kind of trip­ tych, in which the central panel is the most important - contrast the con­ ventional view which regards the middle period as no more than an inter­ lude - and in which the hinges holding the panels together are represented by the thought of two Jewish philosophers, Philo and Spinoza. For a conci­ se account I can do no better than cite Wolfson's own words, as formulated
in the Preface of his book Religious philosophy:*

If we are to follow the conventional method of dividing philosophy into ancient, medieval, and modern, then medieval philosophy is to be de­ fined as that system of thought which flourished between pagan Greek philosphy, which knew not of Scripture, and that body of philosophic writings which ever since the seventeenth century has tried to free itself from the influence of Scripture. Medieval philosophy so defined was founded by Philo, who lived at the time of the rise of Christianity. Osten­ sibly Philo is only the interpreter of Hebrew Scripture in terms of Greek philosophy. But actually he is more than that. He is the interpreter of Greek philosophy in terms of certain fundamental teachings of his He­ brew Scripture, whereby he revolutionized philosophy and remade it into what became the common philosophy of the three religions with cognate Scriptures, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This triple scrip­ tural religious philosophy, which was built up by Philo, reigned supreme as a homogeneous, if not a thoroughly unified, system of thought until the seventeenth century, when it was pulled down by Spinoza. In the final paragraph of the same work he is even more succinct: For on all [the various] religious issues there are only two alternatives. One was stated in the Hebrew Scripture, and the other in the various writings of Greek philosophers. Thereafter, the great question in the history of religious philosophy was whether to follow the one or the other, or to combine the two. And in the history of religious philosophy, so conceived, two figures are outstanding, Philo and Spinoza. Philo was the first to combine the two; Spinoza was the first to break up that combi­ nation. Interestingly, in these passages Wolfson describes his subject as 'the history of religious philosophy', whereas the title of his whole series speaks of 'phi­ losophical systems'. There is no conflict here. In Wolfson's eyes the only philosophy worth doing was religious philosophy, or, perhaps more accu­ rately, all philosophy had to be regarded in its relation to religious philo­ sophy. Secular philosophy was not truly autonomous, but had broken away from religious philosophy and was attempting to forget its origins. A corol­ lary of this view is the importance and validity of natural theology, since,

X 115 for Wolfson as for everybody else, philosophy began with the Greeks. It is less straightforward to give an outline of Wolfson's method. Yet an understanding of this method is indispensable for an evaluation of his grand thesis as a whole. Wolfson himself described it as 'the Talmudic hypothetico-deductive method of text interpretation'. Its chief characteris­ tic, he claims, is its scientific nature: The Talmudic student approaches the study of texts in the same manner as the scientist approaches the study of nature. Just as the scientist pro­ ceeds on the assumption that there is a uniformity and continuity in na­ ture so the Talmudic student proceeds on the assumption that there is a uniformity and continuity in human reasoning. Now, this method of text interpretation is sometimes derogatorily referred to as Talmudic quibbling or pilpul. In truth it is nothing but the application of the scien­ tific method to the study of texts. It is to be assumed that every philosopher stands in a tradition. Whether consciously or unconsciously, he either reproduces the views of earlier thinkers, or interprets or criticizes these views. When interpreting the thought of a philosopher one should not, therefore, be distracted by the form in which that philosophy is presented - whether it be in the form of a dialogue, scholastic treatise, biblical exegesis, doxography, classroom lec­ tures, philosophical commentary, or sequences of geometric proposi­ tions - , for this can conceal as much as it reveals of the author's true thought. The purpose of historical research, Wolfson says in explicit terms, . . . is to uncover these unuttered thoughts, to reconstruct the latent pro­ cesses of reasoning that always lie behind uttered words, and to try to de­ termine the true meaning of what is said by tracing back the story of how it came to be said, and why it is said in the manner in which it is said. Moreover the method allows its results to be controlled and verified in the manner of a scientific experiment. When dealing with a particular ques­ tion Wolfson would start with a number of representative texts. Having reached a conjectural hypothesis on the basis of these texts, he would check its validity against all other texts that could shed light on the subject at hand. In practice the application of this method results in the two main feat­ ures of Wolfson's research. Firstly, it is profoundly systematic, reconstruc­ ting lines of philosophical argument with the utmost clarity, even in cases when the actual writings of the philosophers concerned are obscure and full of confusion. Secondly, the thought of every philosopher is regarded as a part of a tradition, inextricably linked to the philosophical ideas that pre­ ceded it and proceeded from it. In the case of Philo's thought, for example, Wolfson not only shows how he criticized and reshaped the views of Plato, Aristotle and the Stoa, but also concludes each chapter by outlining the fate of his ideas in the subsequent philosophical tradition until Spinoza. These two features, systematization and location within the tradition, will meet us at every turn, as we now give a chronological overview of the stu­ dies which Wolfson lived to complete.
5 6 7

The subject of Wolfson's first major study - completed in 1917, but due to the unavailability of funds not published until 1929 - was Crescas, the Jew-

providing. published in 1934. Light of the Lord. By 1941 the volumes of his great series had been planned and much was already down on paper. Wolfson was con­ vinced that the Ethics in its geometric form was only a bare outline of all that went on in Spinoza's mind when writing it. Yet he hung back. God is little more than an empty logical shell. The study on Spinoza. Hebrew and Arabic. Equally predictable was his keen­ ness to portray Spinoza's thought against the background of medieval phi­ losophy in the three languages Latin. the Introductory volume on Greek philosophy was ready for the press. comes as no surprise. that first led Wolfson to develop his hypothetico-deductive method. of the closed system of the Maimonidean universe that ulti­ mately went back to the physics and cosmology of Aristotle. That clue he found in the chapters of that work which he had dedicated to the thought of the Alexandrian Jew. In Crescas' view Maimonides had placed an excessive reliance on the powers of reason. the philosophy of Spinoza as found in the Ethics. had convinced Wolfson of the essential unity of the medieval tradition in its triple form of Jewish. Wolfson finds little of the much-vaunted God-intoxication in Spinoza. Up to the time that Wolfson took Philo's many volumes of biblical com8 . Indeed. Philo. as we shall see more clearly later on. the Spanish Jew resolutely refuses to take the step . It was the cryptic concision of Crescas' masterpiece. he thinks. a contemporary of Jesus Christ. but. Although there are ideas in Crescas that remind us of the innova­ tions of Spinoza. that behind the Ethica ordine geometrico demonstrata lay the Ethica more scholastico rabbinicoque demonstrata. the key to his entire grand perspective on the history of philosophy. but of a thinker who is steeped in the tra­ dition. The chapters were methodically expanded into two monumental volumes. the religion of reason set up in its stead covers the same ground. based once again on use of the hypothetico-deductive me­ thod. by that year. Arabic and Latin scholastic philosophy. Crescas stands squarely in the rich tradition of five centuries of Jewish-Arabic philosophy. Hence the subtitle of the study.X 116 ish philosopher who lived in fourteenth century Spain. Reason can. but nevertheless by means of a number of acts of intellectual daring crosses the boundaries imposed by that tradition. in the suspicion that he was missing the vital clue. his relation to that tradition has to be reconstructed from hints strewn through the text. starting ex nihilo as it were.that would place him outside the religious and philoso­ phical tradition of Judaism. anticipating the discoveries of Galilei and Bruno two cen­ turies later. more often than not. The subject of Wolfson's next major work. The portrait that emerges from the study is not that of a radical inno­ vator. a remnant from the long tradition which Spinoza is at­ tempting to overthrow. but the limits of its powers must be kept carefully in mind. It remains Wolfson's most controversial work. This new conception allows no room for a religion of revelation. and in fact cannot be understood without reference to that which it is trying to the area of theology . Unfolding the latent processes of his reasoning. He then took the fateful decision to trace that tradition back to its origin. one might say. be used to refute the scientific dogmas of the Aristotelian tradition. The specific subject of the study was Cres­ cas' demolition. But very little of this background is apparent in the Ethics.

the medieval conception of philosophia as the ancilla theologiae. of which the first two lay the foundations for the rest.The same subordination of reason to faith continued to be maintained. Wolfson found. the creation of the world. but. All he had to do was fill in the contours and the series of twelve volumes would be finished as a matter of course. which entailed for him the subordination of reason to faith. Wolfson had to distinguish 11 . the unity of the world. it is most remarkable that without a group of official disciples his teachings became the most dominant influence in European philo­ sophy for well-nigh seventeen centuries. in order to do justice to the increased sophistication of Patristic thought. not a mere dabbler in philosophy. justifying this with his assertion that Philo could read Hebrew and that he stood in direct relation to currents of 'native Judaism'. the existence of the ideas. the unity of God. or rather laid the groundwork for. of which only a first part was published in 1956. the reality of Divine provi­ dence. While preparing a brief hundred-page sketch of Patristic philosophy. the eternity of the Law. . Students of Jewish and Christian religion had regarded his philoso­ phical exegesis as a caricature of biblical thought. he suddenly realized that the land of the Fathers was to him 'as dark as the proverbial darkest Africa'. But in spite of the manifest indebtedness to the Greek phi­ losophical tradition. Convinced that the artificiality of the literary form of Phi­ lo's writings often obscures his thinking. he employed his method to recon­ struct the coherent system of philosophy which represented what Philo 'really thought'. Wolfson makes a much more extensive use of Rabbinic parallels than was customary in Philonic scholarship. the revelation of the Law. 9 10 With the discovery of Philo's key role the map of Wolfson's grand con­ ception was finally complete. . He is to be given credit for origi­ nality in all the problems dealt with by him. He thus anticipated. The result was a manuscript of 1800 pages.X 117 mentary down from his shelf. the foundation of Philo's system is Jewish to the core. The hypothetico-deductive method was yet again indispensable for Wolf­ son's enterprise. That system is set out in a sequence of twelve chapters. and that these men were a much more important link in the chain of post-Philonic philosophy than he had supposed. As a 'religous preamble of faith' Philo formulated eight principles which he considered essential to a successful philosophical en­ terprise: the existence of God. made their reappearance in the Church fathers. the Alexandrian had received rather a poor press. He did have the power of intellect to be able to reject the theories of other philosophers and to strike out a new and hitherto unknown path for himself. Six of the eight principles of Philo's preamble of faith. while students of ancient philosophy had found him inconsistent and unable to grasp the deeper phi­ losophical issues which he touched on. for in this particular set of problems he was the originator of every fundamental concept which continued to be discussed thereafter throughout the history of philoso­ phy. . The decisive step taken by the Jew Philo was to subordinate philosophy to religion. On the basis of these eight principles Philo constructed an impressively coherent system of philosophy. But once again his inquisitiveness got the better of him. The portrait presented by Wolfson attempted a wholesale revision of this communis opinio: Philo will emerge from our study as a philosopher in the grand manner.

for in many quarters these were seen as having no systematic philosophy worth speaking of. Firstly. Averroes and St. When this was combined with the broad sweep of his grand perspective. To quote his own words.contain much material that was planned for inclusion in the works of the great series. So. The manner in which Wolfson managed to disentangle. only six months before his death. Concurring in general 15 . the volume of Latin scholastic philosophy re­ mained unwritten. but the loss is to some degree compensated by the fact that the 12 13 three volumes of collected papers . analyse and systematize this material re­ presents a remarkable achievement. before Al-Kindi introduced a more direct knowledge of original Greek philosophical works. The Kalam (Logos) is the name given to the Islamic philo­ sophy developed by the Mutakallimun (lovers of learning) in the eighth and ninth centuries. This is regrettable. The Patristic theories on the Trinity. delivered at Harvard in 1960 on the theme 'Descendants of the Platonic ideas'. many of which are still unpublished. 14 Finally. The final volumes of the projected series which Wolfson completed were devoted to the philosophy of the Kalam and its repercussions in Je­ wish thought. the remarkable lucidity of Wolfson's analyses and the unsurpas­ sed command of all the material at his disposal gave his readers or listeners the impression that the mists usually enshrouding the history of philo­ sophy were cleared away and that its contours were all of a sudden revealed in sharp relief. It's my Vietnam. perhaps the challenge he took on here was too great. for five of Philo's eight principles and a modified version of a sixth (the Platonic ideas) could be located in it. Xo his sa­ tisfaction he established that Philonic philosophy also supplied the founda­ tion of this Arabic body of thought.' The Preface of the published work is da­ ted April 1974. the Logos and the Platonic ideas are seen as a development of views first launched by Philo. Nowhere is the sys­ tematic rigour of his method put to more effective use than here. Tve spent too much time on the Kalam. given the complexities of the tradition that spanned the seven centuries from the New Testament to John of Damascus. A particular difficulty of this project was the fact that for our knowledge of the Kalam we are wholly dependent on brief and often obscure doxogra­ phical reports. the effect could be exhilarating. For example. II (1977) . Wolfson did not live to complete the ambi­ tious project on which he had embarked some four decades earlier. but some of Wolfson's more important views on the thought of Thomas Aquinas can be located in an article on 'The double faith theory in Saadia.Religious philosophy: A group of essays (1961) and Studies in the history of philosophy and religion I (1973). In fact. Thomas'.118 between single faith theories of Tertullian and Origen and the double faith theory put forward by Clement and Augustine. as was already observed. There is an important rehabilitatory element in Wolfson's treatment of the Fathers. two brief remarks on aspects of Wolfson's work which add much charm and interest to the solid mass of historical analysis and philosophical argument presented in his many studies. But the clarity of the results produced is perhaps too great. The challenge for Wolfson was to see whether this philosophical system fitted into his grand thesis. For an example let us briefly turn to his Alfred North Whitehead Lecture.

when he examined and collated manuscripts in the famous libra­ ries of Europe. Halevi and Maimonides. Leipzig. he nevertheless felt con­ strained to qualify it in an important way. And looking at that wealth of magnificent volumes. The final remark. Paris. Narboni and Shem-tobs. as his thoughts). who related them to God and postulated an intradeical (existing within God. the only time after his immigration that he left the shores of North America: Once. with gilded back and bronzed corners. There were the old Church Fathers. Wolfson was a consummate master of English prose. And the Logos of Philo lived seventy years and begat the Logos of John. standing there in the open shelves. Hundreds upon hundreds of volumes. the choicest products of the printer's art of Venice.X 119 terms with Whitehead's oft-quoted dictum that the European philosophical tradition consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. and I was overcome by that feeling of sadness and sorrow which to our forefathers was ever present throughout their exiled life amid the foreign splendor of European cities. the great Albertus and Thomas. both those who wrote in Greek and those who wrote in Latin. all were gathered to­ gether. or in the manner of Philo. Every great thinker of the church whose teachings helped to mold Christian thought and tradition was represented there by his writings. And the attributes of Spinoza lived two hundred years and begat among their interpreters sons and daughters who knew not their father. And Plato lived forty years and begat the ideas. And the attributes of the Schoolmen lived four hundred years and be­ gat the attributes of Descartes and Spinoza. offering themselves for use and for study. And the attributes of Islam lived five hundred and fifty years and be­ gat the attributes of the Schoolmen. Wolfson ended his lecture with a synop­ tic summary. in a great library. Secondly. expressed in the language of the Bible: Now these are the generations of Platonic ideas. In the long history of philosophy Plato's ideas are either interpreted extradeically (existing outside of God). as intended by their inventor. And the ideas of Plato lived three hundred years and begat the Logos of Philo. Basel. I was walking through the narrow aisles between long rows of book-shelves stocked with the works of the church writers. of those unpublished works of Gersonides. and Rome. there also were Augustine the saint and Abelard the erratic. The implication is: in Whitehead's foot­ notes Philo played a decisive role. is particularly significant. in spite of the fact that he never spoke a word of that language until his sixteenth year. And the Logos of John lived six hundred years and begat the attributes of Islam. followed by an extradeical stage. he of Aquino. bound in'pigskin and in moroc­ co leather. scattered all over the world and rotting in the holds of libraries. It recounts an experience during the years 1912-14. I thought of those shabby tomes which incarnate the spirit of Saadia. as the attentive reader by now will certainly have observed. a feeling so well expres16 . with its subtle undertone of allusion to apostasy and alienation. Again a single illustration will suffice.

with a formid­ able rigour. Hegel. The role of Judaism It is no coincidence that. the rest will quasi-automatically follow. 17 II To give a critical evaluation of the achievement of H. that Wolfson's work is 'utterly idiosyn­ cratic'. Unavoidably we must penetrate to the foundations on which his monumental edifice is built. the second and third essentially 19 . Although ostensibly wholly dedicated to aca­ demic scholarship. In short. back to its origin in Plato or Aristotle. It is not enough to complain. this profound loyalty to Judaism furnishes the key to Wolfson's grand per­ spective. Surely no one has ever matched his knowledge of the He­ brew and Arabic and Latin texts of medieval philosophy. This was indispensable for the study of the 'medieval' tradition with its daunting lin­ guistic diversity. Wolfson is by no means a straightforward undertaking. Kant and beyond. in the touching prayer: 'Lord. I remember. Hume. Philo. Syriac and Arabic texts were all dealt with in the original. and am sore amazed To see each city standing in her state. Avicenna. the re­ sults of his research are presented. when Wolfson for the first time presents his grand view of the history of philosophy. Linguistic barriers did not confine him: Greek. He­ brew. medieval and modern philoso­ phy. but is alsb the cause of its chief weakness. but it is not art for its own sake. What emerges above all is Wolfson's overriding loyalty to his Jewish origins. And God's city to low grave razed. A. Latin. With the passion and finesse of a Sher­ lock Holmes he would track down a term from its use in Spinoza or Descar­ tes. Plotinus.' The eloquence of these lines is unmistakable. he takes up an explicitly anti-Hegelian stance. whether in the analyses of philosophical discussion or in the presentation of his own case. he continued to regard himself as a 'non-observant orthodox Jew' and in the first place a 'student of medieval Jewish philosophy'. via Maimonides. 18 1. an author has the right to demand that he be judged by a competent critic. As will appear.120 sed. As has often been noted. in the words of one highly critical reviewer. The first of these periods was heathen. I would go so far as to assert that Wolfson's writings on the phi­ losophical tradition possess a virtually flawless internal coherence. had adopted a tripartition of the history of philosophy into ancient. Wolfson was an expert in the tracing and analysis of philosophical terms. Moreover. in more than one respect. It is meant to bring home with full force the plight of the Judaic heri­ tage in its material state. Once the presuppositions on which they are based are accepted. This was combined with a remarkable feeling for the logic of argument. it will be recalled. But who is going to approach even remotely the astonishing breadth and depth of Wolfson's learning? He appeared to have a first-hand knowledge of the entire range of philosophical source-material from the Greeks to Spinoza. a career in which he met with overwhelming success. To begin with.

It must be agreed with Wolf­ son that this scheme.cannot be said to have begun before the activity of Saadia and Isaac Israeli in the early tenth century. The hypothetico-deductive method The method which underlies Wolfson's entire scholarly achievement was developed in response to highly abstruse texts.X 121 Christian. If Philo is left out of account. In other words. not only in religion. It should be clear by now how absolutely vital Wolfson's interpretation of Philo's role is for the success of the whole enterprise. not entirely flattering. the influence of Jewish philosophy . on the other hand. while in the final period it is liberated and can propound the metaphysical Idea with the conviction of purely rational cogency. such as Crescas' Or Adonai and Spinoza's Ethics. Se­ condly he is not content with the insignificant role attributed to Judaism in philosophy's development. The difference between the latter two is that in the former phi­ losophy was in bondage to the service of theology. ex­ ploiting the full efflorescence of the former and containing the still con­ cealed bud of the latter. while that of Philo can be safely relegated to a footnote. Hegel's conception of the Jewish contribution to Western culture was. without Philo Wolfson's Judaeocentric hy­ pothesis must fail. Even if in the period from Philo to the seventeenth century reason is subordinated to faith. It is the an­ tithesis to the Greek thesis. To the exent that his method allows us to gain insight into this concealed background. but also in philosophy. Wolfson's reply is that the role of Judaism is decisive. we should note. awaiting the synthesis of Christianity. And this contribution is confined to the realm of religion. with scant reference to the tradition that lay be­ hind them. for before then both Rabbinic and Talmudic thought had had no impact on the philosophical tradition whatsoever. the philosophy produced is nevertheless a fully-fledged philosophy in its own right. how do we know who they were? Will the tools of philology and analysis. If an author does not refer to his predecessors. shorn of its metaphysical pretensions. the course of medieval philosophy had largely been set. By this time. has by no means lost all its influence. need only be noticed in an external and historic way. bridging the gap between Arabic and scholastic thought. But how could he reach an estimation of Philo's import­ ance that is so markedly at variance with the verdicts reached by other scholars? 20 21 2. Firstly he strongly disagrees with the relatively humble status accorded to medieval philosophy. .e. In the medieval period Jewish philosophy 'holds the central and most impor­ tant position'. as is well known. in which philosophers presented their views in a compressed manner. the philosophy developed by the Church fathers had been set in motion by the radical innovations of a Jewish philosopher. enabling such identification. be sufficiently precise? Wolfson not infrequently assumes too easily that a philosopher's knowledge of the tradition is the same as his own. Wolfson's objections to this scheme can be brought under two matter how great it is thought to be . there is an arbitrary element. Even here. it is welcome and indeed often very informative. i. The Jewish and Arabic contribution. But long before that. however. pretty well complete. It is not a retrogressive interlude between the two great periods of Western philosophy.

. . to my mind.. but on the result achieved when it is combined with another text (with often a very different context). but a semiotic field pointing to deeper unexpressed thoughts. reminiscent of Tal22 23 24 . . T o begin with. His strength lies above all in the exer­ cise of his formidable combinatory talent. . . . . Naturally. resolving every contradiction. in fact. Wolfson is thus able to impose his systematic insights on the thought of a philosopher without restraint. . depends not so much on its contents. . . .X 122 But. this term would seem to have been used . but at the same time is wholly devoid of flexibility and spontaneity. a way must be found to reconcile this statement with his other statements. . . at their best and fullest. all interpretation involves such imposition to some degree. On the assumption that the reasoning of a philosopher is per definitionem coherent and systematic. . filling every la­ cuna. this would seem to be contradictory to some of his other statements which we have quoted above. or that he changed his mind. unless we assume that Philo did not know his own mind. and Wolfson usually does ignore it. and. of course. or . . in the distinc­ tion drawn by Philo between . T h e result is a structure of thought which possesses an iron consistency. . His accounts thus abound with formulas such as: . . are nothing but floating buoys which signal the presence of submerged unuttered thoughts. . . we believe. . A way of reconci­ ling this apparent contradiction is to be found. .' T h e consequences of this approach to philosophical texts are far-reaching and. fraught with risk. . . . It undertakes to reconstruct the latent processes of a philosopher's thought. but the inconsistency disappears if the term in these two passages is taken to be used in two different senses . Since the context of the texts is never more than of secondary importance. 'The uttered words of philosophers. . . be reduced to the question of how we should read philosophical texts. Wolfson endeavours to present the underlying system in pristine clarity. Here the risk of arbitrariness is much and much greater.. evidently with all this at the back of his mind . . it can readily be ignored. . the hypothetico-deductive method promises much more than the filling in of concealed background. . F o r Wolfson a text is not the concrete expresssion of what an author in a particular situa­ tion at a particular time wanted to say to a particular reading public. . T h e importance of a text. we shall try to knit together his scattered statements into a connected story. . he has given expression to a view which must have been meant by him to be either . How do we know that the results of such 'literary psychoanalysis' correspond to an author's true thought. very often. it may perhaps be inferred t h a t . . il­ luminating every obscurity. and not to an artificial construct that exists nowhere else but in the mind of the interpreter? T h e controversial element in Wolfson's method can. . T h e subtleties introduced in order to achieve consistency can often be very fine. . what are the consequences for Wolfson's presentation? It is evident that the method allows the interpreter a virtually untrammeled freedom in the selection and ordering of texts. What is distinctive in Wolfson's case is that he takes the process of systematization to an extreme.

paradoxically. it is a crucial indicator of what he is trying to 26 27 . Philo's aim is not to present a philosophy of his own. The treatment of individual philosophers can then. one suspects. then. he would surely be amazed and. In the case of authors such as Philo and Origen it is fatal.X 123 mudic study at its most inventive. of the manner in which he falls prey to or is able to transcend the prevalent intellectual tendencies of his time. What remains out of sight is the individuality and growth that is an integral part of his achievement. 25 3. The continuity which he discovers. other texts can be dealt with in a very unsubtle (and often very literalistic) fashion. however. But if the same reader would then turn to Philo's actual writings. a. What. The nature of his writings. In his expositions a large number of philosophi­ cal themes recur over and over again. How could it be otherwise. If the reader of Wolfson's two volumes had never read a word of Philo. the form of Philo's writings is not artificial. in the case of a Thomas Aquinas or a Spinoza arguably less so. rather bewildered. when hundreds of years are covered in the space of a few pages or even a few paragraphs? But it is high time that we pass from the realm of generalities to an examination of his treatment of one particular author. the situation is less unsatisfactory. The prevalence of system over and above context inevitably results in a one-sided picture of a philosopher's thinking. but to extract and expound as best he can the brilliant thoughts of the great lawgiver and sage Moses. Philo's place in the history of philosophy We return to the figure of Philo. the following. be very spotty. is often most enlightening.let alone systematization . When Wolfson deals with a philosophical problem invol­ ving the contributions of a whole line of philosophers. but did work his way through the collection of Philo­ nic texts which are accumulated there as basis for the systematic analysis. he would almost certainly be convinced by Wolfson's presentation. both in systematics and argumentation. but the amount of integration . of the way he can be torn between or can overcome conflicting patterns and traditions of thought. Wolfson as­ sumes that the form of Philo's writings is artificial and obscures his true (systematic) thought. Yet. as if Wolfson deliberately wishes to ignore the nuances or reservations which a philosopher may feel compelled to bring forward. The damage caused by Wolfson's excessive systematization depends to some degree on the author under scrutiny. involving too much use of prooftexts strung together or contrasted with each other. To what extent can we concur with his evaluation of Philo's significance for the history of philosophy? To what extent does his treat­ ment of Philo bring to light basic weaknesses in his method? A detailed examination of Philo's writings and thought has led me to the conclusion that on at least five issues Wolfson's presentation of Philo's achievement is misleading. are the consequences for the philosopher's thought when presented in his fashion? Chiefly. The decisive role which the JewishAlexandrian thinker plays in Wolfson's grand scheme has already been pointed out. A glance at the collected treatises of Philo will show that for the most part they consist of commentaries on the five books of Moses. We can gain little idea of the wrestling and sudden illuminations which the philosopher ex­ periences. I submit. In fact.that is attempted is rathe'r limited.

with its more positive atti­ tude to the frujts of Hellenistic culture. c. We agree too with Wolfson that Philo was remarkably well read in the traditions of Greek phi­ losophy. he does not regard the Logos as an interme­ diary between God and cosmos. Wherever he can Wolfson emphasizes Philo's close relation to 'native Judaism'. He is chiefly interested in Greek philosophy inasmuch as it aids us in gaining a deeper understanding of scripture. Philo's relation to the oral traditions of Palestinian Judaism is still a highly contro­ versial subject in Philonic studies. At re­ gular intervals in Wolfson's study we are introduced to Philonic doctrines in which he is said to revise philosophical ideas from a Jewish viewpoint. T h e numerous parallels which Wolfson adduces certainly give an unbalanced picture. and was thus able to read the Bible in the original. b. Secondly. (i) Philo is the first philosopher to declare that God is unnamable and un­ knowable. He affirms that Philo had a working knowledge of Hebrew. (ii) Philo developes a three-stage Logos theory (transcendent within God. Aristotle.and in this he is basically correct. was a more self-contained phe­ nomenon than Wolfson thought. Epicurus . I give four important examples. Nevertheless in two respects his presentation of Philo's relation to Greek philosophy does not convince. 28 29 30 31 32 . part of the picture of 'the phi­ losopher in the grand manner' is that he is interested in technical ph'ilosophical questions for their own sake. A perusal of Philo's writings shows that this is not the case. But Alexandrian Judaism. Firstly. if he had thought Philo did no more than give exe­ gesis of scriptural passages in terms of currently held Greek ideas. Wolfson is undoubtedly correct when he says that 'Philo is a critic of all schools of Greek philosophy'. starting out from scriptural presuppositions. Philo the revolutionizes Wolfson would not have made his gigantic claim on Philo's behalf. transcendent outside God. Philo's loyalty is focussed entirely on the philosophy of Moses. Wolfson presents Philo as continually in discussion with the coryphaei of Greek philosophy . Philo's relation to Greek philosophy. Thus the influence of Middle Pla­ tonism and Neopythagoreanism is seriously underestimated. But he has to bend the evidence considerably to do so. and Greek philosophers are only of concern to him when they reflect something of that pinnacle of wisdom. But he does not sufficiently recognize that Philo's interpretative views are largely de­ termined by the trends of his own time. Philo has borrowed so much from Pla­ tonism that Moses seems to us at times little more than a Plato Hebraizans. Concerning Philo's deep loyalty to the traditions of Judaism we need have no doujbts. Philo's relation to Judaism.Plato. He is thus a revolutionizer. deliberately and systematical­ ly set about remaking Greek philosophy. immanent in the cosmos). as a philosopher among other philo­ sophers. while the knowledge of the scholastic treatises of Aristotle that Wolfson attributes to him is a patent exaggeration. but. T h e proofs on which his affirmation is based have come under heavy criticism. Of course. loyal to the te­ nets of monotheistic Judaism. Zeno. d. Philo. But this is emphatically not how Philo saw the matter.X 124 achieve. especially when we consider that much of that Rabbinic tradition was recorded centuries after Philo's death.

Nevertheless.reason to faith. But it must not be thought that only pedantic scholarly disputes are in­ volved here. It is undoubtedly true that Philo regarded Moses as inspired by God when he composed the Law.flow together. con­ cluding that they do not coincide with the evidence in Philonic texts or that. not a relative freedom as in Greek not helpful for our understanding of Philo's thought.e. e. the unknowability of God is a doctri­ ne of major importance in Middle and Neoplatonism. T h e truth was seen. He is much rather a pioneer. A Platonist would readily subscribe on rational grounds to the first six principles (the last two he would find somewhat puzzling). T h e preamble itself is more than likely in­ fluenced by Greek ideas. T o this task Philo devo­ ted all the spare time at his disposal. Reason and revelation may be said to coincide. If in the pfocess he makes use of Greek philosophical doctrines. and that no kind of ratio­ nal argument could be found which would induce him to abandon his po­ sition. if the evidence is lacking and reconstruction is necessary. Philo espouses a theory of creatio ex nihilo contrary to the tenets of Greek philosophy. but this would take us too far from the task at hand. For example. Philo would deny that there can be any conflict between reason and revelation.X 125 (iii) God's omnipotence means that he can break the laws of nature if and when he desires. and is embodied in the Mosaic Law. In his thought two powerful streams of thought . as Wolfson would wish us to believe. But in Philo's view this is emphatically not a submission to the dictates of Greek philosophy. 33 34 3 5 36 37 T o conclude. T o start with. possesses an absolute freedom of the will. but because he is persuaded that the ideas are actually present in scripture. (iv) God created the cosmos out of matter which he had himself first crea­ ted. His grand attempt to expound scripture with the aid of Greek philosophical ideas was to have a profound influence.Greek philosophy and Jewish religion . I believe that the double subordination which Wolfs­ on postulates . Wolfson has not been able to convince anyone that Philo was responsible for this innovation and that philosophers such as Albinus and Plotinus took the idea from him. to the extent possible for a man. a misconception. by the great Moses. It would be highly illuminating to examine these points in greater detail. the preamble of faith which Wolfson reconstructs is not very startling. It is equally true that Philo shows an unconditional loyalty towards the Law. Faith and reason. man too. to a remarkable degree Philo takes over the ma­ jor assumption of Greek philosophy. T h e entire picture of Philo as a revolutionizer is. T h e task is to bring to light that concealed truth by the patient labour of exegesis. because he is made according to God's image. Philo is not a revolutionizer. they are in­ herently implausible. i. that is not because he is consciously at­ tempting a grand synthesis of Judaic and Greek thought. namely that true knowledge is to be gained through the exercise of reason. philosophy to revelation . firstly on the Christian apologists . T h e disabling limitations of man's unaid­ ed reason are all too clearly shown by the never-ceasing dissensio philosophorum. Is there anything in scripture to suggest that God created but one cosmos because he is One and because he used up all the available m a t t e r ? In fact. Suffice it to say that scholars have vigorously protested against all these interpretations. as we shall see.

the relation of God to the cosmos (providence. And the three forms of that text . the creation and duration of the cosmos. and this accounts for the many inconsisten­ cies. Not only is the contribution of Patristic philosophy underestimated. Is it a coincidence that in the genealogy of the Platonic ideas. free will).the Hebrew Bible. he jumps from the Islamic philosophers to the Schoolmen. provisional aspect. miracles). To this extent Wolfson is undoubtedly right in re­ garding Philo's thought as a significant turning point in the history of phi­ losophy. the scantiness of the Philonic preamble of faith and the pro- . Much of his thinking has a tentative.parallel way took over and developed the heritage of Philonic and Patristic thought. therefore. Not the exegete but the prophet-philosopher is the repository of the truth.X 126 when they set out to explain the scriptural message to the intelligentsia of their time. Christian) were produced which each in a . until the entire edifice was demolished by the uncompromising rationalism of Spinoza. the relation between God and man (man 'in the image'. It must be conceded to Wolfson. obscurities and lacunae which pace Wolfson can be found in his works. Medieval philosophy in a triple guise The second major aspect of Wolfson's grand perspective which demands evaluation is the thesis that medieval philosophy forms an essential unity in a triple guise. such as the exis­ tence and attributes of God. Alas. one can have no objection. that a triple unified medieval philosophy makes a good deal of sufficiently paral­ lel to ensure a unified body of thought. But that should not deter us from recognizing that his view of a triple unity provides a wel­ come correction of the standard Hegelian view of the history of philo­ sophy. I believe. In all three philosophies the tradi­ tion of rational thought. That Jewish philosophy should occupy the central position in medieval philosophy. and later on the Church fathers in their endeavour to develop a systematic theology. Philo would not have wished it otherwise. But it is not right to suggest that Philo developed a philosophical system which was to determine the course of seventeen centuries of philo­ sophy. and so will find it difficult to follow in his footsteps. Latin) three philo­ sophies (Islamic. In three languages (Arabic. which was cited earlier. as Wolfson especially in his younger years was wont to claim. Hebrew. Philo did not claim to have all the answers. Jewish. the Koran . does not seem to me to have been proven in any of the studies he lived to complete. most of us will lack the philological skills and the massive erudition that Wolfson pos­ sessed. and so on. though not all. But it goes far too far to affirm that Philonic thought 'dominates' medieval philosophy. so how could the exegete's writings have* the last word? 4. covering the medieval Jewish contribution with silence? Can we go a step further with Wolfson and speak of a unified 'scriptural religious philosophy in the Philonic tradition'? If by this is meant that phi­ losophical themes first mooted in the exegesis of Philo continue to be in­ vestigated and rethought. but it would also be to overlook significant differences between Philo and later thinkers. Moreover. which ultimately goes back to the Greeks. that many. We see. is com­ bined with appeal to an authoritative text. of the same philosophical problems recur. the Christian Bible.

in order to understand those features of Wolfson's grand perspective which make it so distinctive. In the latter the starting-point is faith in certain divinely re­ vealed presuppositions or principles. in which first .' But untill when did it last? Wolfson's answer is again clear. we have to pene­ trate behind that academic facade.. albeit in a slightly different form (I shall return to this in the last section). One we may call the manner of Athens. on the basis of which remaining pro­ blems can be dealt with through the use of reason. of ideas and universals. reasonable grounds for doubt. is none other than to apply the hypothetico-deductive method to Wolfson himself! What conception of the relation between Judaism and philosophy had led him to propound his Judaeocentric perspective on the history of philosophy with so much assurance and perseverance over a period of nearly fifty years? Historically philosophy has dealt with a wide scala of subjects and pro­ blems. on having read Spinoza's Tractatus theologico-politicus. Judaism and philosophy Like many other scholars. there is an element of plausibility in this view.efforts were made to break with the theologically dominated modes of philosophical thinking. to put it in another way. In the former reliance is placed on the autonomous powers of human reason. that. are those which fall within the scope of classical metaphysics and the related themes of episte­ mology and anthropology. the other the manner of Jerusalem. but the reality it at­ tempts to portray is more complex. Once again. Wolfson conceals himself behind the impas­ sive facade of academic scholarship. The most important of these. the relation of man to the reality surroun­ ding him. it is essential to his whole thesis that in their case the manner of Jerusalem predominates. The figure of Spinoza can in certain respects be re­ garded as an embodiment of philosophical developments in the seven­ teenth century. The question is: did Spinoza play a decisive role in this? Or. in Wolfson's view.. Accor­ ding to Wolfson two and no more than two fundamental approaches to these problems have been developed in the course of the history of thought. Wolf­ son's 'Philonic tradition' has an attractive simplicity. I think. 5. however. exclaim: 'now at last we are freed from the tyranny of a philosophy subordinated to revelation'? There are. did a significant number of leading philosophers. A more suitable formulation might be: 'the philosophical movement which the pioneering work of Philo initiated lasted untill. replete with foot­ notes and cross-references. It is this second ap­ proach which gains the sympathy of Wolfson as a 'non-practising orthodox 38 .and only partially successful . of death and immortality. Many of these themes have been mentioned in passing in our review: the nature of being. The task before us. who. denied the doctrine of divine revelation and so laid bare the foundations of medieval philosophy. the origin and ultimate destiny of that reality. His many volumes. He affirms the key role of Spinoza. It has beco­ me clear by now. Although Wolfson ad­ mits that Philo and his successors in medieval philosophy to some degree harmonize the two approaches. and so on. the problems of knowledge and belief. of God as highest being. of free will and cau­ sality. in fact. breathe an air of studied objectivity. though a Jew and steeped in the tradition of Jewish philosophy.X 127 blems with regard to the relation between faith and reason reappear.

but he depicts this in terms that stress the role of man's intellect. But. Man's telos is to know God and the reality God has created. which he has taken over. But he would object. Wolfson would not object to the transformational role that Guttmann attributes to Judaism in the development of Jewish philosophy. The role of faith in this is crucial and yet quite the magnificent achieve­ ment of the Greeks . Modern philosophy either reverts back to the Greek approach. but from Greek philosophy. which we can call the manner of Alexandria. It is instructive at this point to compare Wolfson's approach with that of another leading historian of Jewish thought. We can now. curiously enough. to Guttmann's assertion that philosophy al­ ways enters Judaism from the outside and does not well up from the inmost fountains of Judaic thought. never speaks of God's blessedness. not from the Bible. the Septuagint. They received philosophy from outside sources. and the history of Jewish philosophy is a history of the successive absorptions of foreign ideas which were then transformed and adapted according to specific Jewish points of view. At a crucial moment of his theology and anthropology Philo introdu­ ces the ideal of theoria. Such a view would have to undermine his conception of the crucial role of Judaism in the history of philosophy. very large. I shall confine myself to two comments. Once the 'preamble of faith' has been accept­ ed. while others are not entirely inaccessible . the speculative impulses of human reason are given considerable free­ dom of movement. The issues raised here are. Guttmann begins his study Philosophies of Judaism (note the plural!) with the follow­ ing paragraph: The Jewish people did not begin to philosophize because of an irresist­ ible urge to do so. but primarily a manner of dealing with the fundamental intellectual problems that confront man in his exis­ tence. for in this city it was initiated by Philo and the 39 40 41 . In Wolfson's intellectualistic approach to Judaism we can perhaps also locate the deepest source of his attraction for the figure of Philo. has a strongly intellectualistic colouring. or gets distracted by issues of minor importance. Firstly. which furnishes the base-text for Philo's exegesis. in which the more important objections that need to be made against Wolfson's view can be brought forward. In both cases no advances are made. not even so much a way of life. of course. both in his life and in his scholarship. go one step further. Judaism for him is not so much a mode of religious obser­ vance.but are placed on a secure footing through the inter­ vention of divine revelation. Julius Guttmann. To the two approaches which Wolfson regards as fundamental a third must be added. I think. let alone of his contemplative mode of exist­ ence. Some of these are unattainable through the powers of human reason. the conception of Judaism which Wolfson took as point of de­ parture. and in gaining this telos man can strive for the con­ templative blessedness possessed by God himself. Naturally. It consists of the acceptance'of certain presuppositions or articles of knowledge. I think. A chief characteristic of Philo's thought is the manner in which he intellectualizes the contents of Jewish religion. Not that he in any way wishes to detract from the importance of man's relation to God.X 128 Jew'.

Even when a 'preamble of faith' is being formulated. so that the result is neither the one nor the other. Wolfson will object.of the things that are. One could go further and argue that. but also the creator and formulator of his own meaning. In this approach the Hellenism of Athens and the Judaism of Jerusalem are combined. I would argue. in defiance of the evidence and in contradistinction to other scholars. Not only does it separate (most of) modern philosophy from what had gone on before. I do not think it is as Jewish as Wolfson thought it was. A parallel problem was clearly present in Wolfson's own life. assumptions and doctrines of Greek philosophy continue to be introduced. Was there not a certain tension between his unremitting dedication to the ideals of academic scholarship and his loyal­ ty to the ideals of the orthodox Judaism which he claimed to profess? The second remark that needs to be made concerns Wolfson's assump­ tion. This break occurs above all in the area of epistemology and anthropology. Wolfson underestimates how dominant the role was which Greek philosophy played also in the period of medieval philosophy between Philo and Spinoza. not only an autonomous agent. but more often than not quietly via the back door. Here we have the basic reason why. either because it has no meaning or because there is no mode of access to the meaning it does have. and what has followed since then should be regarded as variations on the same old least after Plato. Man is. there is a real possibility that the essence of the biblical message will be lost. which usually remains implicit. For this rea­ son. so modern philosophy never ceases telling us. but its repercussions are omnipresent in modern culture.e. That doctrine had long been undermined. Can we go along with Wolfson on this point? There is much to be said. as the Greeks presupposed. as assumed by the philosophers of the medieval period. sometimes overtly. Instead he conflates the two wherever possible and stresses the role of Judaism in the result.there is 'nothing new under the sun'. on account of the strong intellectualistic emphasis which we have observed. that they 43 42 . that they are.X 129 tradition to which he belonged. The fundamental weakness of Wolfson's thesis seems to me that he does not distinguish at all clearly between the manner of Jerusa­ lem and that of Alexandria. we may surmise. The demolition work of the Dutch Jew brought about a reversion to the presuppositions and thematics of Greek philosophy. nor does he attempt to uncover the meaning given (by God) in reality. Meaning is rather imparted to rea­ lity through man himself. even when a Biblical text is given exegesis. Perhaps this is the chief reason that the beginning of the modern age in philosophy did not have to wait until Spi­ noza's refutation of the doctrine of revelation before it could proceed. that in the history of philosophy . He does not detect and de­ cipher the meaning present in reality. for the assertion that between the periods of ancient and medieval philosophy (however articulated) and the period of modern philosophy a fundamental break has occurred. with the result that modern man feels alienated from pre-modern philosophy and can regard it in no more than an academic perspective. that this modern view of things is no more than a restate­ ment of Protagoras' famous dictum that 'Of all things is man the measure . It is thus a particular kind of Jewishness that underlies Wolfson's Judaeo­ centric hypothesis. too. Palestinian) Judaism. he relates Philo so closely to native (i. Philo and Spinoza . of the things that are not.

we would still have to conclude that the Protagorean view was an isolated phenomen­ on in the stream of ancient order to create his own religious philosophy. It is true that Philo initiates a new era because in his work two traditions of thought flow together for the first time. It is not the place here to discuss when and where this postulated break may have occurred. be said to add up to the whole truth. namely that con­ cepts that still play a crucial role in modern philosophy are in fact no more than fossils from a bygone era whose true meaning is no longer under­ stood.he also felt an admiration for the magisterial qualities of Wolfson the scholar and for the unrivalled dedication to the study of the history of philosophy which he showed throughout his long career. But even if we could be sure that the 'being' and 'non-being' that man measures is truly relative to every measurer (after all. he is using the materials of history creatively . Maclntyre to elucidate the history of ethical philosophy. But this does not mean that the task Prof. The Achilles heel of Wolfson's thesis lies in his con­ ception of Judaism and the role he assigns to Judaism in the history of phi­ losophy. for it does not correspond to the history which it ostensibly undertakes to describe. against the background we have sketched it becomes clear that what Wolfson has given us is really a kind of surrogate.In his perspicacity Prof. As I have argued in the case of his account of Philo. Smit foresaw this. Smit encouraged me to under­ take has remained without fruit. A. 45 46 44 Ill To conclude. A study of Wolfson's achievement has confronted us with major questions which cannot be avoided by anyone who wishes to gain a perspective on the wider issues raised in the history of philosophy as a whole. One might even argue a more general version of the stunning thesis used by A. the grand thesis of H. Certainly this doctrine of Presocratic sophist has a modern ring. but it cannot be said that this philosophy is a Philonic philosophy and is adequately circumscribed in terms of a (Philonically inspired) subordination of reason to faith. It is true that medieval philosophy presents an essential unity in the guise of three languages. But per­ haps . as far as I can judge. Wolfson on the history of philo­ sophy which has been outlined and evaluated in this article consists of two half-truths. but it cannot be said that an articulated Philonic system dominates seventeen centuries of phi­ losophy. therefore. The two half-truths put forward by Wolfson cannot. whether in Kant or Descartes or even earlier. At any rate. but in so doing he was compelled to withdraw behind the facade of academic reportage of the history of philosophy. His great desire was to actualize and continue the great heritage of traditional philo­ sophy. 'man' is collective) and not merely equivalent to the 'deciphering' mentioned above. But in the final analysis this creation hangs suspended in the air. Here surely was a bond between the two students of medieval phi- .1 am speculating here .130 are not'.

in B. 1 Cf. 38. v. The philosophy of Spinoza 113f. 47 Notes For my biographical information I am indebted to the excellent bio­ graphy by L . On the hypothetico-deductive method see further Crescas' critique of Aristotle 24-29. cit. (n. ibid. viii. I 9 0 . Quoted in Schwarz op. W. 13 Cf. 1) xxi. Scholarship on Phi­ lo and Josephus (1937-1962). All passages from the two volumes on Philo. Schwarz op. New York 1963?. cited in Schwarz op. 'What is new in Spinoza?'. L . Lit. 67-68). 'The needs of Jewish scholarship in America'. The philosophy of the Kalam 70-79. R. (n. a highly penetrating critique of Wolfson's volume on Patristic philosophy. Russell's History of Western philosophy (London 1946. Musurillo. 7. Otis. Ibid. Philo I 114-115. B. 269. Dooyeweerd's Reformatie en scholastiek in de Wijsbegeerte (Franeker 1949). Studies in the history of philosophy and religion I viii. 89f. 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 1 0 11 2 14 15 1 6 17 1 8 9 2 0 2 21 2 2 2 3 1 . 26-27. But what is 'native Jewish tradition'? See the criti­ cisms of E . T h e term coined by H. 67 (1948) 87109 and esp. Goodenough in his review in Journ. (n. Philo 1 1 0 7 . Ibid. and. 1) 251. cit. 1 Philo II 440-441. Rev. Wolfson retained and defended his method to the last. cf. cit.X 131 losophy. (n. All Wolfson's books were published by Harvard University Press. Cambridge Massachusetts. 1) 158. Published as 'Extradeical and intradeical interpretations of Platonic ideas' in Religious philosophy 27-68 (see esp. in The philos­ ophy of Spinoza II 331-355. K. 1 8 1 . even if in other regards the views they developed and the paths they travelled to reach those views were very different. at a more popular level. Schwarz. Amsterdam 1977). Cf. As can be seen at a glance . Studies in the history of philosophy and religion I 583-618. Wolfson of Harvard: Portrait of a scholar. Crescas' critique of Aristotle 25. Philos. cf. the Introduction to the Winkler Prins encyclopedie van de filosofie (ed. See the magisterial chapter. The philosophy of Spinoza I 20-31. cit. 6 6 (1957) 550.I give examples chosen fairly much at random . Philo 1 9 5 . Cf. « Ibid. Feldman. 1) 132-133. 1 9 6 1 ) .1 0 7 . The philosophy of the Kalam viii. 1961. Cf. H. Schwarz op. Kuypers. Phil­ adelphia 1978. Bibl.

Cf. Die Ideen. 182. cit. Cf. Leiden 1973. art. A controversial issue in Philonic studies is the extent to which Philo is dependent on already existing Alexandrian traditions and whether he should be regarded as no more than one of a large group of exegetes of scripture practising there. See Philo II 110-126 (i). diss. Juives 101 (1949) 117-120. (n. E . cit. Winston. cit. art. Two treatises of Philo of Alexandria. Religious philosophy 216: 'The main purpose of our discussion was to show that historically there were two roads to undetermined freedom of the will. but that his personal contribution was considerable and in all likelihood represents the peak of what Alexand­ rian Judaism achieved. Studia Philonica 3 (1974-75) 47-70. for example. W. 1973 . Brill (Leiden) in late 1985. (n.Wolfson. Rev. De opificio mundi 171. 65-75. Vadja. Winston and J . cit. Volker. Otis. (n.who. Bormann. The Middle Platonists. Mortley. the following critiques: on (i) R. 26) 248-252. (n. 26) 297-300. See also the introductory remarks by R.und Logoslehre Philons von Alexandrien: eineAuseinandersetzung mitH. Dillon (edd. 'Freedom and determi­ nism in Philo of Alexandria'. See. A. 18) 546-547. 71 (1950) 292f. 26) 144. Chico California 1 9 8 3 . Cf. cit. 3. cit. I 300-316 (iv). 376-379.passim. 391-393. His final published article was 'Answers to criticisms of my discussions of the ineffability of God' (Studies in the history of philo­ sophy and religion II 538-541). and the review of Otis cited above in n. op. Runia. 425-447. I 226-240 (ii). Philo II 158-160 and Mortley loc. on (iv) D. Zwi Werblowsky in the abovementioned edition. Cf. F o r what follows see the detailed account in Runia op. Connaissance religieuse et hermeneutique chez Clement d'Alexandrie. Koln 1955. See my study Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. 1 8 1 . (n. to be published in a revised edition in the se­ ries Philosophia Antiqua of E . on (iii) D. Le commentaire de VEcriture chez Philon d'Alexandrie. London 1977. cit. J . Leibniz. and H u m e . belong to a new 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 31 3 2 3 3 3 4 35 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 2 4 0 4 4 2 4 3 24 .4 5 6 (iii). See especially Philo's programmatic remarks in De opificio mundi 4-6. as we all know. on (ii) K. F r e e University Amsterdam 1983. T h e ideas here are adapted from Plato's Timaeus-. cf. Et. the quote from Religious philosophy cited above on p. 10) 94ff. Nikiprowetzky op. who describes the arguments as possessing an 'esprit veritablement sophistique' (75). 5-11. the critique of V. > See further Runia op. 18). J .1 9 6 . diss. 25 Cf. Nikiprowetzky. the analysis in Runia op. 30 Philo I 107. R. Cf. New York 1964. cit. Zeit. B. I 4 2 4 . and that Descartes. Lit. Deut. T. 18. J . Goodenough. the Epicurean road of the den­ ial of causality and the Philonic road of divine causality and miracles.132 Philo I 107. Dillon. My own view is that Philo certainly made use of already existing exegetical traditions. F o r an example of this attitude cf.). Wolfson maintained his position to the bitter end. reprinted in D. Leiden 1977. Cf. G. 161.

where Wolfson discusses Philo's attack on the Protagorean doctrine. Free University Amsterdam 1984. Cf. A. Over intuitie en discursiviteit bij Aristoteles.but still the same old roads.' Cf.traveled the same old roads. however. 'In memoriam M. lengthened. If we cut through the jungle of words which so often obscures the discussion of this problem.. Perhaps already in Thomas Aquinas. modernized. smoothed out. London 1981. we shall al­ ways find the two old roads. diss.116-121 and passim. He argues that the Thomistic attribution of the opera­ tion of abstraction to Aristotle's nous poietikos (De anima III 5) gives the hu­ man mind a more active role in the process of cognition than was envis­ aged by Aristotle himself.. and so occasionally some of them lost their way and got to the wrong place. Aertsen. J. C. 47 . though for reasons they did not take the trouble to tell us they either made a detour or completely changed their direction. maca­ damized. Kai. perhaps. 47 (1982) 121-133. Philo I 168-171. straightened out. Ref. 4 4 45 4 6 After virtue: a study in moral theory. Smit: filosoof van de integrale zin' Philos. Not all who traveled these roads. as my friend Victor Kai has pointed out to me.133 age in the history of philosophy . and heavily academized . broadened. See further V. the Philonic and the Epicurean. were equipped with good road maps.

ocoua. far more has been written by modern scholars about what Philo wrote on God. For J . avGpconoc.. Koouoq.. 9e6<. The first I would call the systematic approach. according to Mayer's (not fully complete) lexicon: 0e6<. three ways of approaching Philo's theology.. only one of the supreme Being's names—is the most commonly occurring n o u n ? Yet. at any rate.. Tournai 1961. x6xvr). Philo is "le premier theologien de la transcendance. The climax of this attempt is represented by the two large volumes of Wolfson. \|/uxii. v6uo<. Which other author writing in Greek could we sum­ mon. Philons griechische undjudische Bildung. fivOpconoc. according to Brandwood: X. (puai<.. Gressmann. during a symposium on knowledge of God from Alexander to Constantine. 300. Danielou. Tubingen 1926 . yvxA. grosso modo.i<.. uepoc. about what Philo might or should have written on God. at least one paper should be devoted to Philo's theological ideas. Heinemann. xponoc. Is there anything to add to the accumulated weight of studies on Philo's theology? Should we join the prevailing consensus that his thoughts are stimulating but disorganized and ultimately dissatisfying? It is with some brief remarks on Philonic scholarship. it is surely fitting that. we might add." The top-twelve of nouns in Philo is. 1 2 I There are. for it can not unfairly be described as the attempt to put together. yf\.XI NAMING AND KNOWING T H E M E S IN P H I L O N I C T H E O L O G Y W I T H S P E C I A L R E F E R E N C E TO T H E DE MUT A TIONE NOMINUM Philo. Die Religion des Judentums im spathellenistischen Zeitalter. it would fail to gain a place). the loquacious yet often inscrutable Jew from Alexandria. Message evange'lique et culture hellenistique auxHe et Hie siecles. in whose works the word 9e6<. on Philo's behalf. apxA (note that if 9eoq was confined to usage in the singular. (puoiq. much though Philo wrote on God. Compare Plato's list. But behind W. avfjp... Breslau 1932. 7r6X.. Bousset/H.—as we shall see. X-oyoq. a p e x T J . the systematic presentation of his doctrine of God which he never managed (or dared) to publish. vouq. 5. cited with approval by I. that I wish to begin.6YO<." Whether one agrees or dis­ agrees with this.. 3 2 1 LCOKP<XXT)<. . has had the honour of being called "the first theologian. or. 445..

5 The historical approach too has had to pay a price for its undoubted suc­ cesses.C. Philo: Foun­ dations of religious philosophy in Judaism.e. 3 Wolfson notoriously overtrumped his predecessors by banning every form of inconsistency from Philo's thought and claiming the foundation of a religious philosophy that was to last until Spinoza. Exemplary studies using the historical approach are Boyance's account of Aristotelianizing theological motifs in Philo and John Dillon's balanced and sympathetic survey in his well-known book on the Middle Platonists.. Cincinatti 1985. but not a protagonist on the intellectual stage. Drummond. 1950 . but could not all foresee.A. pioneered by Theiler and Boyance. in which the names of Goodenough. Goodenough. Dillon. It has generally been recognized that the clarity thus achieved was of a rather artificial kind. run into certain problems. Puech. In this context Philo is a source of evidence and a fascinating figure in his own right. in: Melanges d'histoire des religions offerts aH.F. Boyance. which have been described as unfortunate or artificial. Stuttgart 1831. Most importantly there has been insufficient awareness of the dangers involved in looking at Philo retrospectively. e. L . which we might call the historical (or doxographical) approach. Gforer and Von Mosheim span a period of nearly two centuries. 'De Philone' in his translation of R. E\ Brehier. Mass. A. pace Wolfson. in the sparkling survey of Philo's theological ideas published recently by David Winston. or even as designed to mask his true thought. Drummond. The true intellectual system of the universe. Philo und die judischalexandrinische Theosophie.. Bat.2 vols. Paris 1974. however. Gfrorer. moreover. New Haven 1935.828. Philo Judaeus. 1. Since then attempts at systematic elucidation have been more modest. Christianity.839. Light. Lugd. It has proved. Brehier.R. Logos and mystical theology in Philo of Alexandria.XI 70 him lies a long tradition. contradictions and obscurities from Philo's thinking. Cudworth. 2 vols. 2 vols. London 1977. P. 2 2 3 4 5 3 . Time and time again researchers have had to confront the harsh reality that it is easier to use Philonic evidence to illuminate his surroundings than to J . i. 139-183. It has not been easy. Cambr. 1773 . E. Strenuous efforts. D. 139-149. Lon­ don 1888. It does. 1835 . to come to terms with the nature of Philo's writings. 1947. H. J . Le dieu tres haut chez Philon. By Light. Les idees philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d'Alexandrie. and Islam. Winston. Von Mosheim. 4 The systematic approach has made significant contributions to our under­ standing of Philo's theological ideas. J . from the perspective o f later developments in philosophy which he may have set in motion. very difficult to remove inconsisten­ cies. Many dis­ tinctive Philonic notions can be paralleled and illuminated by doctrines in Middle Platonism and Neopythagoreanism. have been made to locate the sources of Philo's ideas in the philosophical developments taking place in the three centuries between Posidonius and Plotinus. In the last thirty years or so research on Philo's theology has been under­ taken from another angle. Paris 1908. The Middle Platonists. Wolfson.g.

I think. I am referring to a paper comparing the Alexandrians Philo and Clement recently presented by the Australian theologian Eric Osborn. In my study on Philo's knowledge and use of Plato's Timaeus. But how much did these men actually learn from Philo? Osborn's argument moves in two steps. It is possible. to show that argument is unneces­ sary. to give a much more radical critique of the historical approach. The crucial difference. however. It is my intention in this paper to pursue a third approach to Philo's theo­ logical thought. cf. 505 ff. This doxographic approach is compar­ able to the taxonomic efforts of a stamp-collector. line and sinker. 40. When Philo and Clement are compared. and even doctrines are fluid. Terms. Leiden 1986 . we do so at the peril of misrepresenting his loyalties and violating his own self-awareness. but that what Clement takes over from Philo are not the interesting and important things. is that Philo does not offer argument. Osborn felt the need to confront the ostensible source of many of their ideas. their meaning dependent on the context in which they are put forward. by presenting doctrines in neatly packaged parcels. Proper to historical enquiry in the domain of philosophy is the method of problematic elucidation. it is necessary to argue. We now come to the second step in Osborn's argument. This is a harsh judgment on Philo. There is a growing consensus among Philonic scholars that Philo saw 9 Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. gives an elegant variation of the consequentia mirabilis immortalized in Aris­ totle's Protrepticus: "No one can dispense with argument for. 3. It is necessary to ask what problems 8 7 6 a thinker posed and to analyse the arguments he put forward in order to resolve those problems. whereas Clement does. it emerges that there is much common ground. Cambridge 1981. closer to the Gnostics than to Clement.4 9 . Osborn here draws on the work of the Australian philosopher John Passmore. 7 8 9 6 2 . which also had to deal with diverse theological themes. Philo and Clement. I label the contextual ap­ proach. For Philo scripture gives immediate access to the plain of truth. Clement makes grateful use of the language of biblical Hellenism developed by Philo and the many exegetical themes found in his works. swallow hook. by tracing the careers of terms and concepts. his justifi­ cation in The beginnings of Christian philosophy. I concluded that. which for want of a better term. reasoning is inappropriate. which we should not." The description of Philo as a theosophist is taken over from the study of Gfrorer cited in n. 273-288. concepts.XI NAMING AND KNOWING: THEMES IN PHILONIC THEOLOGY 71 use his surroundings to illuminate him. though it is very tempting to label Philo as a 'Middle Platonist'. First he denounces historians who try to explain the development of ideas by hunting sources. Philo is not a philosopher but a theosophist. however. Prudentia 19 (1987) 3 4 . I shall return to it later. Having written highly respected studies on early Christian thinkers. Osborn.

which con­ tain surveys on the progress of research. But does this new awareness of the importance of Philo's exegetical activity mean that he is no more than an exegete? In fact the implications for his stature as a philosopher or theologian are as yet by no means clear.39-44. of secondary biblical texts in order to give the exegesis greater depth and enchains the sequences of exposition in a continuous whole. for the same biblical passage is given exegesis in QG 3.e. Burton Mack. The De mutatione nominum is one of the privileged cases where we can trace the parallelism with the Quaestiones. See my articles The structure of Philo's allegorical treatises VC 38 (1984) 209-56. in the context in which his ideas are first developed. II The De mutatione nominum is the final treatise still extant of the body of con­ tinuous verse-by-verse and exclusively allegorical exegesis that Philo compiled on the book of Genesis. Leiden 1977. i. in: M. among whom I might mention the late Samuel Sandmel. Philo asks questions of and makes observations on the however. Philo of Alexandria. But above all it is associated with the scholarly achievement of the late Valentin Nikiprowetzky. but assembles material from the whole of Gen. RFNS 76 (1984) 15-41. 5 3 . Stone (ed. 259 ff. Filone di Alessandria nella interpretazione di V. will be a concrete example of Philonic exegesis. Marguerite Harl. Unlike in the Quaestiones. Borgen. at least in the books we have. It is only in recent years that we are starting to understand the rationale behind the way these treatises are com­ posed. interrupted on­ ly by periodic returns to the main t e x t . Peder Borgen and Jacques Cazeaux. Assen 1984.). Jewish writings of the Second Temple period. Radice. 13 The assumption upon which this Cf. in accordance with the method I am ad­ vocating. and that a sound way to start understanding him is to begin at the level of his exegetical exposi­ tions. above all Le commentaire de TEcriture chez Philon d'Alexandrie. My starting point.XI 72 himself first and foremost as an exegete of Mosaic scripture. does not continue the verse-by-verse exegesis. 12 Like in the exegetical notebooks which constitute his Quaestiones in Genesim et Exodum. Hopefully the present paper can make a contribution to this evaluatory task. also R.6 0 12 13 10 . " The Desomniis. and Fur­ ther observations on the structure of Philo's allegorical treatises KC41 (1987) 105-138. Nikiprowezky e della sua scuola. an extended passage from the treatise De mutatione nominum in which Philo reflects on the themes of knowing and naming God. Various scholars have contributed in various ways to this movement. is the richest and most rewarding section of the Philonic corpus—also for the study of his theological ideas—. 10 A fruitful result of this new approach has been a growing interest in the structure and procedures of Philo's exegetical writings. but readers have often been deterred by the extraordinary complexities of its structure. P. as we now call it. 11 The great Allegorical Commentary. he makes extensive use main biblical text.

with less invocation of secondary bibli­ cal texts than usual. There are only two manuscripts of any value. lemma: 16 1 5 Without any introductory words Philo begins by quoting the initial biblical £ Y 8 V E T O 'Afjpa&n £ T C O V £ v e v T ) K O v T a £vv6a. The section of biblical text which Philo gives exegesis is rather long. Often the only way to retain the thread of the procedure is to keep a good eye out for the biblical texts that Philo summons and for the associations of words and ideas that cause him to summon them. On the role of the 'chapter' in the structure of the allegorical treatises see Runia. Text as in Philo. tea 'Afjpaau Kai eiTtev aOtcp' feyco slua 6 6eo<. cit. L X X twice reads Appctu. Some pas­ sages are indirectly preserved in the Sacra Parallela of John of Damascus. A cornucopia of themes flow in and out of the exegesis. 112. At a conservative estimate 400 emendations have been incorporated into or proposed for the text as printed in Colson's translation. Moreover the omission allows him to pass directly from the change of name given to Abraham in v. 6] xi-xii). Because of the poor manuscript tradition the text is in very bad shape. I am your God. Further ob­ servations. He has ap­ parently already discussed important aspects of their contents in the lost trea­ tises On the covenants (cf. oou. and the exact meaning of many passages is far from c l e a r .15. But analysis of individual treatises reveals that Philo does locate in the biblical text under discussion a main directive idea. 121. Kai (5<p0r| Kupioc. § 1 . the record of an appearance of God to Abraham when he is ninety-nine years old. Abraham was ninety-nine years old. op. 1 4 1 5 1 6 . that Philo makes extensive use of other Pentateuchal material to cast light on the verses that are the special object of his exegesis.1 4 from his commentary for two reasons. The treatise I have singled out for special attention possesses some idiosyn­ cratic features. No attempt is made to integrate these into a rigorously unified whole. Philo deletes verses 6 . also in the passage we will be looking at more closely. (Gen. Nevertheless the reader will soon observe. [n. depending on the exigencies of the text and the whims of the inter­ preter.5 to that of Sarah in v. and the Lord appeared to Abraham and He said to him. 1 7 : 1 . 17:1) (I follow the abbreviations for Philo's works set out in Runia. and in a number of sec­ tions this leads to a sketchy treatment. § 53). philologically precise commentary. The main biblical text commented on in the treatise is Gen.3 8 . 14 We are badly in need of a sound.2 2 . which is able to give the single treatise a loose kind of unity.XI NAMING AND KNOWING: THEMES IN PHILONIC THEOLOGY 73 method is based is the total coherence of Mosaic scripture. The section of the treatise on which I propose to concentrate is what we may call the first chapter.

Why should Abraham be ninety-nine when he is told 18 19 This anticipatory o r 'teleological' method o f exegesis has been well observed by J . . 5. C f . cit.3 8 ) . Erotapokriseis. But I cannot g o along with the far-reaching conclusions he draws from it in terms o f a structuralist reading o f Philo. I add them to the above list.2 6 ) What is meant by T am your God"! (§ 2 7 . Before we move on. the method of asking ques­ tions of the biblical text—probably drawn from contemporary synagogal practice —plays an important structural role in Philo's allegorical commen­ taries. it is worth making a brief remark on the nature of these aporiae that Philo raises. 4. although he is recorded in Gen. 17 Aporia 6. The choice of the secondary text clearly anticipates the next main biblical lemma 'be pleasing before Me' discussed in § 39 ff.XI 74 Examination of the exegesis in our chapter shows that this lemma gives rise to five problems or aporiae. 1966. or by what means.1 8 . 3 4 2 ff. Leiden 1983. which the exegete proceeds to answer one by one. practised on both literary and philosophical t e x t s . Why does Abraham briefly doubt the birth of Isaac. 1 . 176 ff. is the Lord seen? (§ 3 .1 8 7 ) If Abraham asks that Ishmael shall live. the response to which illustrates some themes touched on in the first chapter. Philo often uses this technique of anticipation for the fluent enchainment of his exege­ sis.3 8 which well illustrates his methods. 7 5 and Nikiprowetzky. C a z e a u x . 4 7 6 . Aporia 7. does that mean he despairs of Isaac's birth? (§ 2 1 8 .6 ) Who is it that is actually seen? (§ 7 . H . Contempt. La trame et la chaine. What is the significance of the number ninety-nine? What does it tell us about the man to whom the Lord appears? Aporia Aporia Aporia Aporia 2. (n. 3. Later in the treatise there are two further aporiae. (§ 1 . Philo invokes Enoch as an example of a sage who 'pleased God and was not found' (Gen.3 3 ) At the end of the chapter.2 3 2 ) We have thus seven aporiae. after a series of quick thematic shifts. RAC 6. In Hellenistic literature too there was an important genre of CnxfiuaTa Kai Xuoeiq.4 9 9 . because the road to understanding is blocked. 1 7 : 1 7 . 10). all of them implicit rather than explicitily formu­ lated. As already noted above. 5:24) (§ 3 4 . Dorrie. In his huge monograph on Philo's structures he gives a detailed analysis o f Mut. but only a limited selection of all the questions and themes raised in this single treatise. cf. op. 1 8 1 9 1 7 C f . Aporiae oc­ cur.2 ) How. drawn from Gen. a suitably Philonic number. 15:6 as having trusted God? (§ 1 7 5 . as the word itself indicates.1 7 ) What is meant by T am your God'? (§ 1 8 . There are obstacles which impede the exegete's path as he tries to gain an ade­ quate grasp of the text. Aporia 1.

XI NAMING AND KNOWING: THEMES IN PHILONIC THEOLOGY 75 of Isaac's impending birth. derived ultimately from Plato's Republic. 'progressing' and 'perfect'—both doctrines familiar from Stoic ethical theory—are fun­ damental to the thematics of the treatise. had on the mountain as recorded in E x .32-50. but by means of the noetic activity of the eye of the soul. Post. 23 22 is The crucial distinction Cf. the obstacles encountered have a positive effect. The symbolism of the number ninety-nine points to the man of progress (6 7ipoKO7tT0)v). Philo has worked them out at greater length elsewhere. Once again Philo does not elaborate the theme in the way we find a number of times elsewhere. Ill What. This is reinforced by the way in which the third aporia tackled. then He is obviously not seen by the eyes of the body. These are again familiar themes. however. The standard work on this immensely important theme in Philo is still W. God does not reveal his Being. Such cursory treatment should not. QG 4 . Cf. 21 * If the Lord of the Universe is seen by Abraham. to be unveiled by the resources of the allegorical method. Toronto 1978\ 211-9. 166-9.' it must not be thought that T6 6V. are the themes of importance for an understanding of Philo's theological thought that these exegetical obstacles in our passage generate? The first two aporiae do not cause our author much delay. The doctrine ofBeing in the Aristotelian Metaphysics. Fug. was mentally grasped by any man (§ 7 ) . Spec. for at a hundred years the perfect man Isaac (6 xeXeioq) is born. and does not dwell on them h e r e . Praem. The notion of progress and the division of men into the categories 'worthless' ((paOXoi). but of that light which God himself shines forth.49. 36-46. paradigm of the questing mind. It is perhaps not entirely inappropriate to compare the list of aporiae drawn up by Aristotle in Metaphysics B. nor of its own light. Deus 62. but only by a little. 1 . the supreme Being. 2 0 The difference be­ tween Aristotle and Philo—and of course it is a very significant difference—is that the former meets his obstacles in what he regards as a direct theorizing on the nature of reality. 166-9. J. 33 is a sufficient guarantee. Leipzig 1938. blind us to the quasi-automatic way in which our author translates the appearance of God in terms of learning and the in­ tellective quest. Spec. not of sense-perceptible light. Post. 1. Fortschritt und Vollendung bei Philo von Alexandrien. 21 2 2 23 2 0 . The ex­ perience which Moses. and not some other (less improbable) age? At the same time. which makes use. When scripture declares that 'the Lord was seen.Owens. Volker. 1. Abraham falls short of perfection. 13-16. 164-5. but only what comes after him. then. for they indicate that the real meaning lies deeper. whereas the latter confronts them in an authoritative text that interposes itself between the interpreter and that reality.2 etc. however.

Theiler. It is important to note that the ancients did not clearly distinguish between name and word (Svoua serving for both). Festugiere. Le dieu cosmique. II. 3:14. 1. 1976. cupies the central place in the treatise as a whole. The first is that Philo is intentionally mixing up the two usages of 'proper name' in the passage and oscillates from the one meaning to the o t h e r . (n. taken over from rhetorical theory and given a theological application. whose view is uncritically accepted by Festugiere op. on the unknowability of the soul/mind see also Somn. Consequent upon Being's unknowability is the fact that He has no 'proper name' (6vo|ia Kupiov). already implicit in the words 8(8cooi KaxaxpfioOai § 12). 74-76.J. 544. cit. W. Instead Philo invokes the traditional. or as (2) a personal English as well). then it is likely that ancient and medieval scribes were too. A. McLelland. 2. Colson. 25 2 4 The brevity is motivated. To the reader this statement in § 11 cannot as yet be wholly clear. op. Philo von Alexandria: die Werke in deutsche Ubersetzung (Cohn/Heinemann/Adler/Theiler).30 ff. is. the chaotic state of the t e x t . There is. Cf. Hence. cit. by his haste to arrive at the theme which oc­ proper name (the ambiguity. God the Anonymous: a study in Alexandrian philosophical theology. F..110. 34.1 5 has been complicated by two suppositions made by diverse expositors. I suspect. Cf. 6. IV. Interpretation of Philo's discussion on the naming of God in § 1 1 . and followed by J. F o r the time being. Cf. in the main biblical lemma. however. and Geoc. The second is that God's 'proper name' refers to the tetragrammaton Hebrew of the second secondary text E x . 3).149. First he indi­ cates the secondary biblical text which he is adducing for purposes of elucida­ tion. Then. I will discuss it in more detail later on in my paper.C. we have enough interpretative problems on our hands. This notion of katachresis. But the juxtaposition of the two chief Septuagintal names Kupioc. no exegetical constraint on Philo to introduce the theme of the naming of God. For §§ 11-15 the much emended text as presented by Colson is generally speaking satis2 5 2 6 2 2 7 2 8 2 4 . 609. argument which moves by analogy from the unknowability of the human mind to the unknowability of G o d . Berlin 1962 . strictly speaking. E x . 10). by immediately introducing the notion of 'improper use of language' (KaT&xpnaic.XI 76 between God's existence and essence is not pointed out. Cambridge Mass. Le dieu inconnu et la Gnose (Paris 1954) 17 n. no doubt.H.. 6 : 3 ) . Paris 1949.120-2. 27 26 (as intended in the original If modern scholars have been 28 perplexed by the passage. the single most interesting feature of our passage. 83. Wolfson. so in this article I will disregard the distinction as well. and not very inspiring. we note. I submit. Abr. And Philo has prepared the way by already speaking of God as 'Being' (TO 6v § 7. But he does not know whether the expression 'proper name' is to be understood as (1) a legitimate name as opposed to an 'improper' or metaphorical appella­ tion. in the single biblical lemma is a good pretext. He or she can be certain that Philo introducing some kind of word-play on the use of the divine name Kupioc. La revelation d'Hermes Trismegiste. is preserved in Philo does not leave the reader in suspense. he makes it quite clear that he intends the first of the two possible mean­ ings. Philo LCL (London 1929-62) 5.

as he announces to Moses in E x . derived from the theological reflection on the first and second hypotheses of the Parmenides.r|7tToq) (all three found in § 15). both involving the term 5voua Kupiov. for Being in Its (essential) na­ ture is unknowable (§ 9 ) .). 3:14. It is a name for 'generations' (yeveaTc. John Dam. d>q £v 6v6uom T(p Kupico. John Dam. Philo has not worked out the philosophical problematics of the question with the preci­ sion that we will later find in Clement and Plotinus.' the attribute and the name can only indicate His relation to something else. Two phrases.e. Negative theology and abstraction in Plotinus. is 6 <5v. 6 9e6c. 30 God therefore grants the improper use of a name. mankind does need the use of an appellation for Being. (the Lord God). a name for the ages of man. But.). 6c. fiv dvouari T © K u p i © . Ttepi TOU unSevl 8e5r|Xa>a8at 6V6UOTI a o T o u Kupico. and prefers to speak of an "improper name. 3:14).).2. but cf. For Philo the problem of relationality is more important than that of multiplicity. 6. Philo concludes from E x . De Deo 4 ) .3. Philo's thesis is straightfor­ ward: because God. for those who come into the realm of mortal genesis there is need for the 'improper use' (KaTtixpnaic. i.67. God gives an aicoviov 6vou^a. It might seem in §§ 11-12 that Philo distinguishes between 6vona (name) and J i p 6 o p n o i q (appellation). a v 6V6UOTI K u p i © T© (accepted by Theiler). as if it were a proper (i. 1. Somn. All that one can do is to resort to negative attri­ butes such as 'indescribable' (appnxoc. 367 ff.e. Philo contends that the formulation in Ex. as the very next verse indicates. he cannot be legitimately and properly named. Colson (be. 3:15 supports his interpretation. a v dvonaxi xcp Kupico). which necessarily involves a measure of plurality and—the aspect that Philo will later stress (§ 27)—a degree of relationality.XI NAMING AND KNOWING: THEMES IN PHILONIC THEOLOGY 77 My view is that both suppositions are incorrect. to be fair to him. 8>v 6v6uan TOIOUT© (!).) of a divine name. 29 But.6. 'unknowable' (&nepiv6r|TO<. but it soon becomes clear that he does not follow this through. T6 6voua aoToO Kupiov (followed by Wendland). § 13 mss. 'unnameable' (&Kaxov6naoTO<.\). On Clement see below at n. AJPh 96 (1975) 363-77 (esp. One might argue that even here there is an implicit comparison with beings which are knowable (and a relation to creatures who might desire to know Him). Kupioc. legitimate) name (§ 12 8i6cooi KcrcaXpfjaGai (be. Colson 5voud TI OUTOO K u p i o v (whom I follow) (interestingly exactly the same mistake at Justin Apol. for Plotinus see esp. 91. so that if they worship Him they can do so with a best possible name factory. he is primarily interested at this point in the positive divine names 9e6c. let us not forget. require comment: § 12 m s s . my own suggestion is ©c. Mortley. Moreover 'Being' itself might be thought to be a positive attribute. A name entails predication. and R. 'in­ comprehensible' (aKaxdX. If we say 'Being is good' or 'Being is God.) (not used here. but not appropriate for His own ageless existence.). God cannot legitimately be named. Mangey. av 6 (5v 6v6u<m TOIOUT©.12-17. Hoeschelius. and Kupioq (and. he is committed to the biblical text in Ex." 2 9 3 0 . Implicit at this point is the Platonist argument. 3:14. Wendland's conjecture 6 dKcerovouctoToc. that any name or attribute adds to Being.

2. He is also unknowable and incomprehensible. 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 31 . 29). 34 Philo concludes (§ 15) that if the supreme Being is indescribable. He describes the logos as having a name that is 'personal as well as proper' (i8iov K a i Kupiov). I do not have one). 26). Wolfson.1 1 . 353. 32:20). speaks here the technical language of Greek grammar and rhetoric. cit. but he does not attempt to relate this to the question of God's "proper name". because it begins with the word (JKpOnv ('I was seen'). legitimate name' Colson. Philo means to say. Mortley. (n. However this m a y be.' Moses. But the exegete has to engage in some fast foot­ work to get the text to say what he wants. the matter further by adding an a fortiori argument (§ 1 4 . but instead I gave My improper name.1 5 even closer to the main biblical lemma from Gen.) and the logos who is 'not described' (ou frnxdc. says. cit. he is well aware of the difference between a negative and a privative attribute. which. 3 2 31 Philo argues that we have 33 (unusual word order). if my emendation is accepted. so that we read Svop-d nou xd Kupiov ('My proper n a m e ' ) . I believe that. If God's logos. 3). 6:3. From § 13 (and. then is it any wonder that God himself also does not do so? There is. situated at a lower level of being. Secondly he distinguishes between God w h o is 'in­ describable' (appnroc. Colson badly mistranslates here: mortality does not need a 'substitute for the divine name. L. The words need to be rear­ God ranged. 3 : 1 4 . op. Philo complicates. Legal. 13 is wide of the mark!). but does not confuse. An im­ pressive confirmation of the interpretation so far is located. a basic distinction to be made. Perhaps the conclusion is made only in order to return the commentary back to the main biblical text. legitimate) name I did not reveal to them (because. On Philo and the tetragrammaton cf. for there Philo deduced unnameability from unknow­ ability. (n. in the parallel text E x . Cohn. Geburtstage. it appears that the reasoning is circular. 309.XI 78 (§ 13). cit.e. The L X X text x6 6vo|id |iou Kupioc. 35 Philo believes the two doctrines are reciprocally reinforcing. 'My proper (i. Philo now argues. § 12) it emerges that Philo prefers the expres­ sion dvon& n Kupiov. but refuses to reveal it. Cohns 70. Perhaps. in this case the angel with whom Jacob wrestled.' for any name applied to God is substitutionary. ('my name Lord') is cited by Philo as T 6 6von. Philo to his credit makes the distinction pellucidly clear in two ways. provided we take Kupiov ovo^ia to mean 'proper. 149.d nou Kupiov.1 5 ) . (n.120 (but his reading of the citation of Ex. 2. i. But the biblical text constrains him. does not disclose his name (Gen. 6:3 in Mut. If we recall § 9 . 132. as Wolfson argued. Clearly he has no idea that the tetragrammaton here a case of hyperbaton is being referred t o . as we shall see. Philo refers to the tetragrammaton at Mos. 17:1. however. whereas God does not have one and cannot re­ veal it properly. On this difference cf.). The angel. Judaica: Festschrift zu H.114-5. art. op. brings the problematics of E x . does have a proper name. Berlin 1912.e. Zur Lehre vom Logos bei Philo. 374-5.

The statement can only be spoken 'im­ properly' (KaxaxpnaxiKcoc. 3 9 3 8 . Beginners should look t o Moses. who is 9E6<. who is 9e6<. Being (xd 6v) exists qua Being (fj 6 v ) .. not as belonging to what is relative (rcpoc. 6 : 3 . op. as is implied in his blessing in Deut. Philo is immediately struck by the juxtaposition of eipi ('I am') and Geoq. (n. 4 8 6 . Not long ago as a Chaldean he was still under the delusion that the cosmos possesses autonomous efficient causes. 1 7 ) . and Colson is obviously wrong in wanting to emend vduouc.6 . 1 5 4 . This. op. £niX. And then immediately he be­ comes the recipient. not 'properly' (Kupiax. K a i £ni(paivou£vou T O U navxdq a h i o o . See now my detailed interpretation in God and man in Philo o f Alexandria. T h e passage should be read in terms o f an intended contrast between Moses. God does not appear to Abraham a s Being. cit. with reference to the three classes of men outlined at the beginning o f the trea­ tise. But in Abr. 5 1 . In other words the previous discussion on the supreme Being's unnameability is relevant here too. 1 8 : 1 . 3 7 3 6 C f . with reference to the same biblical text E x . t o P h a r a o h . 3:15 and Gen. 1. JThS 3 9 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . when the Lord (Kupioq) says to him 'I am your God (0e6<. The supreme Being is not only God o f creation as a whole. t o A b r a h a m . the illuminating parallel passage at Mos. 6:3. 2 6 ) . where he is concerned with exegesis o f E x .dujtovTo<. and 0e6<. The learning soul is a late starter. 2 3 0 .1 5 . Philo's passage on the naming of God is coherently and not unim­ pressively argued.).' The fifth aporia turns to the role of the divine name 9e6<. but also o f human souls ( § 1 8 ) . The relation of God to men was already hinted at when He gave His improper name 'Lord God of Abraham. and such a man is honoured with the title 'man of God. The interpretations that Colson suggests are ingenious but unconvincing.7 . It is now worked out with more precision. 1 1 .' 36 37 In the fourth aporia Philo directs his attention to the personal pronoun joined to the divine name (I a m your G o d ) .158). but in the guise o f His ruling power. in a relationship of beneficence. The aporia raised in § 7 is now close to solution. by which he must mean T 6 6 V but at the same time refers back to the discussion in §§ 5 . Cazeaux. one might be tempted to say. for the perfect man such as Moses He is both Kupioc. A precis o f the same argument. is a sentence such as only Philo could write.' The train o f thpught is here once again rather labyrinthine. that the phrase might refer t o the creative power.). the explanations o f God's name are not strictly speaking consistent with Mut. as indicated by the name Kupioc. xi). F o r the worthless man such a s Pharaoh He is Kupiog in a relationship of fear. is given at Somn.3 without reference t o E x . I cannot discuss them n o w . 38 39 But Philo is not finished with the words 'I a m your God. and God. 121.). for the man o f progress such as Abraham He is 9e6c. 1 regret having given the impression in VC 3 8 (1984) 2 2 5 .XI NAMING AND KNOWING: THEMES IN PHILONIC THEOLOGY 79 throughout. Platonic being. Philo writes oi>x cbc. o f a greater act of divine beneficence. 1 . Colson.. Now he recognizes God as king and ruler. (cf. Philo now focusses in o n the ontological aspect (§ 27). (n.. Hence KXfjpov auxoO must (rather surprisingly) refer t o Moses and not God. cit. Isaac and Jacob' (§ 12). 33:1 (§ 2 5 ) .

but in absolute terms ( K O B * auxfiv) o u a i a .14 et de Coran 20.. 4 1 Albinus and the history of Middle Platonism. Created reality is relative. Dieu et I'etre: exegeses d'Exode 3. Thus 'I am your God' is equivalent to 'I am your maker and creator' (eyco eiui Ttoinrfiq K a i drjuioupyoc. 4 6 dence. 4 7 Paris 1978. Sur une lecture demonolbgique de reverse applies. 4 7 . 20:21 (yv6(poc.230. how Philo could become enthused about the consistency of the Pentateuch. E .6 7 . Moses is not superstitious in the use of names. is used! How appropriate that only once in the whole Pentateuch the veil of God's relationality is cast aside. QG 2. we are not speaking of Him as He really is. Philo says elsewhere. g . Vignaux ( e d . D r u m m o n d cited by Colson op. ) . 4 5 C f . Yet I would wish to argue that the motivation and the consequences of the doctrine are presented here in a particularly lucid way. as the etymology indicates.). I think. 9 : 1 . Academic categories—all are brought to bear on a per­ sonal God who says T a m ' ! Suffice it to say that the main point is the dis­ tinction between what is absolute and what is relative. o n this difficult text see V . (n. op. Dillon. in. O n his use o f the first see the analysis o f E . unchanging and self-sufficient. So we end up with a brief exposition of the doctrine of the divine powers. Cambridge 1937. but invariably in terms o f His relationality. I myself do no better when I speak of God's names (it goes against the grain to talk continually of Being and Its names). 14 dans Poeuvre de Philon d'Alexandrie. o f course. he implies. Nikiprowetzky. W i t t . in § 4 6 he speaks o f 8e6c. as if relative' (cboavei npoc. whereas in § 8 2 the Somn. 133. matter and the c o s m o s . 3 : 1 4 . 1. <o6q>. 8 . 5 ) . t o Pharaoh. R . stand God's powers. 4 0 41 4 2 4 3 44 45 46 47 48 4 0 I a m not sure Philo intends any kind o f allusion t o the Aristotelian doctrine o f x6 6 v ij 6 v . 4 4 6 6e6c. 7 : 1 6 . Starobinski-Safran. How accurate that God presents himself as Kupioc. when xb 6 V would seem m o r e c o r r e c t .1 as relative t o G o d . 279. E . to the recalcitrant Pha­ r a o h ! How splendid that right throughout the account of creation the divine name 9e6<. 8 6 . 9. where G o d speaks a s K u p i o c . 3 3 : 1 3 . finds it quite impossible and quite unnecessary to achieve consistency and correctness in the use and non-use of God's n a m e s . cit. towards that which is other than Him.2 3 a r e the central texts o f Philo's theology o f transcen­ o f the doctrine o f the powers (and m a y antedate P h i l o ) . probably the best known of all Philo's theological ideas. 3 : 1 4 ! Philo. wholly dependent on divine benevolence. Observations such as these m a y have something t o d o with the origin E x . and it is made clearly enough. P . By making a mental displacement we can understand. 37. 4 3 It is tempting t o accept Wendland's proposed conjecture 5TIUIOUPY6c. discloses God's creative activity. E x o d e 3 . God is absolute. via the powers. 5 8 7 . 6 6 . T I ) . Philo has t o ignore passages such as E x .11-24. The name 9e6<. O n the A c a d e m i c categories and their use in E u d o r u s and Middle Platonism c f . cit. As far as I know it is the only instance in his writings. Plant. In between. 4 8 . 4 2 C f .5 5 . o r c o m p a r e Albinus' description o f 186a in Did. the thinking subject. when the God-beloved Moses receives the oracle in E x .80 Aristotelian substance. § 2 9 ) . Nor. Philo is claiming that every time we speak o f God by means of his names.16. by means of which that benevolence is effectuated.

219. 260. for God is uncompoundedly divine. which allows a measure of integration. There is a vast difference between God and 53 and filled Philon d'Alexandrie. recognize his own 'nothingness' (o656veux. Understandably Philo does not dwell on the choice o f divine name here. Philo does not attempt to make his allegorical commentaries into thematically unified and coherent literary products. 1 3 7 . 52 for the highest benefits are reserved for divine natures wholly severed from the Philo thinks here not only of angels and departed souls such as Enoch (§ 34).NAMING AND KNOWING: THEMES IN PHILONIC THEOLOGY 81 need we be. Runia. Quis rerum divinarum heres sit vol.3 ) . 123 ff..). not least because his copy o f the L X X apparently read Kupioq and not the 6 8e6<. hoping for the full measure of proffered knowledge (§ 2 2 2 . Our trea­ tise has a main directive idea or theme.: cf. 6 ) . What he does expect is that 'we carry along with us' the awareness of God's essential namelessness every time we find ourselves making use of the various names which he possesses. Man can only receive the munificence of the divine grace if it is measured out in accordance with what the soul of each person can accept (§ 2 3 2 ) . T o u a t i (eds. 4 9 There is an unbridgeable gap between God and man. At the end of the treatise the learner has not quite yet progressed so far. I have included them to give some idea of how themes initiated in the first chapter are developed later in the treatise. in the incorporeal and intelligible realm (§ 267). §§ 3 0 . But a trea­ tise is not just a potpourri of whatever happens to enter into his head. T h e theme o f 'contentment' also at §§ 5 0 . op. Nahon et C .e. Louvain 1981. 5 0 4 9 On the 'Levitic spirituality' cf. As I observed a little earlier. But God has said *I am your God. which adapts Plato's tVyanav at Tim. But let her in any case be content (ayanryxov body. cit. 2 9 c 8 (cf.9 ) . in our mss. 268. Time and space forbid more than a passing glance at the last two aporiae. 5 3 5 2 5 1 . whereas man is a mixture of the divine and mortality (§ 184). 5 2 f. 51 5 0 Let the soul therefore be a thankful suppliant of § 219) with the fruits of toil and practice. cit. 17:22) perfected as a listener with wisdom. Not the seer! Philo is unpleasantly constrained by the text o f Gen. able to stand on his own two feet (§ 270). De Gigantibus 6 . but especially o f Moses who entered the 'darkness' of invisible and immaterial being (§ 7 ) .' affirming His unceasing beneficence. 183. Isaac is not yet born. the chief reason for this being his subservience to the main biblical text. But God leaves him (Gen. 118.. and no doubt also of Isaac who is born 'in the other year' (Gen. T h e theme o f divine grace/benevolence is very prominent in Mut. 15 Les oeuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie. 155. (n. 142. the very similar formulation at Aet. cf. 2 . It looks like the wording o f § 2 3 2 is meant t o remind us o f the celebrated text Sapientia Salomonis 11:20. in: G. i. 253. Harl.8 . Both aporiae reveal doubts on the part of the progressing soul to whom God appears. I would formulate it as follows. Paris 1966. The learner must dispense with all self-assertion (§ 175). God. § 155) and God's never-ceasing grace (§ 2 1 8 .). op. 17:22. 130 ff. 17:21). 61 f. M .1 8 . Runia. Hommage a Georges Vajda. On the theme o f measured distribution o f divine beneficence cf.

Arnaldez. cit. Nikiprowetzky in a posthumously published article. that the presence of such themes in a broad group of school Platonists (and Neopythagoreans) militates against the thesis. Die Einteilung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos. could not contest this. To say that the title of the De mutatione nominum is inappropriate because it covers the contents of only part of the treatise (i. Op. 87. in the case of Joseph (§ 9 1 ) . 5 ) .17. 3). Numenius. Cohn. Dillon ibid.. we might be tempted to give Wolfson the benefit of the doubt. 117-142. Justin. Hilgert/B. in: F. Paris 1964. Mortley.XI 82 man: God is steadfast. but the characteris­ tic negative terms are not employed. Nourished with peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in memory of Samuel Sandmel. (n. and dK0tTdA. 176. and the sound remarks of R. Op. 27).. who is polyonymous (having three names. 28c in the Epicurean doxography at Cicero ND1. 5).r|7txoc. (n. 7 (1899) 396. Philologus Supplbd. 307. Another weakness of Wolfson's 57 58 59 60 On God's stability and immutability cf. Cf. cit. Greenspahn/E. cf. The exceptions are Moses. But does this entail that we should grant Wolfson's claim that Philo's scripturally based philosophy provided the vital impulse for the development of negative theology in later Greek philosophy? If the line of transmission was confined to Philo. who alone o f the Patriarchs has a single name (§ 88). Abr. 5 5 56 54 IV In his survey of Philo's debts to Middle Platonism John Dillon states that Philo is the earliest authority for the application of the epithets dKaxovdnaoTOQ.1 2 9 ) is clearly very wide of the m a r k . decline.). fr. De mutatione nominum vol. 2. the one as an unwritten law (cf. but this seems to me clearly a privative use of the term. (n. and that exegesis of the first hypothesis of the Parmenides was a probable stimulus to reflection in Philo's time or even earlier. 6. La revelation d'Hermes Trismigiste. Mack (eds.e.104. § 1 2 5 . These are our two great examples.110-138. but illustrate a profound truth. 4. unchanging. Another difficult passage. whereas man is subject to the vicissi­ tudes of change.L. 18 Les oeuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie. op. 26). Connaissance religieuse et hermineutique chez Clement 55 5 6 57 58 59 6 0 5 4 . or. Properly speaking God as Being has no name. Moyses palpans vel liniens: on some explanations of the name of Moses in Philo of Alexandria. &ppr|TO<.. and Theiler. to G o d . but through his diverse unchanging improper names he mercifully re­ lates to souls at different levels. Clement. cit. 46.. It is true that the paraphrase of Tim.E. Chico California 1984. the catalogue of name-changes in § 6 0 . 54 f. §§ 24. The changes of name in scripture are not a matter for ridicule (§ 6 2 ) .9 ) . despite his notorious reluctance to credit Philo with any independence of thought whatsoever. The last two words of the treatise are (not accidentally I suspect) Pe3<xi6xaxov EISOC. Plotinus. the complaints of L. Celsus. Even Festugiere. 28. Men and women such as Abraham (§ 60) and Sarah (§ 77) receive changes of name because they show progress. 155. § 26). Aristotle is reported as having called the fifth element aicaxovbuaoxov (De phil. however. the other as the great lawgiver (cf. I agree with Dillon. 11.30 approaches negative theology. also R. splendidly analysed by V. and Isaac.

these might point in the direction of our 'hard line'. di­ minished) mind instead of a "small" mind. 6). As Prof. quam K a x d x p n o i v vocant. Festugiere's study (cited in n. According to Cicero Aristotle includes katachresis under the heading of metaphora. 32. 205b6. is a technical term belonging to the theory of tropes ( x p o r c o i . Cf. The subject of negative theology has been much discussed. I would like now. legitimate word or name' and indicates no more than 'nor­ mal. See esp. also De orat. (n. Cousin. The term Kupiov 6 v o | i a in Aristotle does not yet have its technical meaning of 'proper. 58) and the researches of J . Schenkeveld. to focus on a related topic that has gone largely unnoticed.' Nevertheless some notion of 'extended' or 'unusual' word-usage must be implied in katachresis'. Kaxdxpnoic. Cf. cf. Apart from a brief discussion in Runia. 4. in Platonismus und Christentum: Festschrift fur H. Paris 1978. but it is difficult to give a more precise general definition. In general terms one can say that katachresis has to do with the extended use or misuse of words or phrases. Before commenting on Philo's application we shall have to look at the background and development of the term and what it represents.10 1410bl3. 61 6 2 6 3 6 4 65 6 6 6 7 6 8 . i. also Philo's interpretation of the third commandment at Decal. non-literal Word usage) in Greek rhetoric and grammar.e. JbAC Ejgbd. 10 (1983) 303-6). The 'soft line' finds its origins in Aristotle. 3. a lot may depend on how one interprets the words si opus est in Cicero.8 6 and "Appntoq K a i a K a x o v o u o T o c . . 82-95.e. Cicero and other Latin gram61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 d'Alexandrie. the former term being used by grammarians for misuses of language. Mansfeld. But nothing in Cicero's example suggests this. 3.XI NAMING AND KNOWING: THEMES IN PHILONIC THEOLOGY 83 position is the fact that the specifically Jewish prohibitions on pronouncing the tetragrammaton and on taking God's name in vain (third commandment) do not appear to have had much impact on Philo. These I shall call the soft and hard line respectively. For what follows I am partially indebted to J .45. for analy­ sis of its development and usage reveals that it is employed in two related but differing w a y s . 97-9. SO 48 (1973) 7 7 . this volume. Orator 94: Aristoteles autem tralationi et haec ipsa [uTtaXXayfi et ueTcovuuia] subiungit et abusionem. Leiden 1973. and the contribution of J . and when we misuse related words on occasion because it gives pleasure or it is fitting. Amsterdam 1964.3 270b24. Note esp De Caelo 1. Studies in Demetrius On style. 92 ff. Rhet.169. Dorrie. Taken in a very specific way. 'when we say a "minute" (i. 6 . ut cum minutum dicimus animum pro parvo et abutimur verbispropinquis. 296-7. in the space that remains. pp.2 1404b6. si opus est. ordinary usage. Philo's theological application of the no­ tion of katachresis has never received any scholarly attention at a l l . also earlier Plato Symp. also D.M. as far as I know.' This report is consistent with non-technical usage of the verb K a x a x p d o n a i in Aristotle's extant writ­ ings. A. vel quod delectat vel quod decet. Her. cit. Indeed. Rhef. Schenkeveld points out to me. See above n. 438. otherwise it could not be distin­ guished from metaphoric usage in general. 21 1457bl.1 1 . (notably Neopythagoreanism and the Transcendent Absolute. op. Quintilien Institution oratoire vol. Whittaker now collected together in Studies in Platonism and Patristic thought London 1984. 3. cf.

L .. . olov ydw KaX. especially a violent m e t a p h o r . quae non habentibus nomen suum accommodat quod in proximo est. L . quod abusio est ubi nomen defuit. such as when we call the murderer o f a mother or a brother a 'parricide' (which word originally only referred to the killing of a father [pater].5 : \ . 6 9 H . Rhetores Graeci. 8ia(p6pei 8e u e x a c p o p d K a i K a x d x p t i o n . catachresis. if we accept Quintilian's etymolo­ g y ) . but an earlier date. T h e t. tralatio ubi aliud fuit. Munchen 1 9 7 4 . 3 4 . In his standard work on ancient rhetoric Martin follows the latter tradition. 3 .. Antike Rhetorik. flnep &nb xou K u p i o x .duou. du7i6A. for the Ilepi xpdnoov literature is given by a 2 n d century A . when he says that 'die KaTdxpT|ai<">» abusio. Cousin). .. in his little book flepi iporccov gives a similar definition. arguing that the term K a T d x p n o i c . The rhetorical theorist Tryphon. W e s t .1 9 3 .1 3 Bernadakis: K a x d x p n o i c . d n d KaxovouaCouevoo eni dKaxov6uaoxov.. T r y p h o n De Tropis. the hard line in many instances regards as no more than metaphora. Wiirzburg papyrus. Xeyexai. uexevTiveyuevTi d n d x o u Ttpcoxou KaxovouaoGeVroc. he asserts.Plutarch's Vita Homeri Kat&xprioic. The former.ou . 1 8 3 4 6 . 6 7 7 . eoxi X6£i<. Cambridge M a s s . Kuptcoc. 8 . Smyth. K a i dtpGaXudc. 8x1 f| uev u e x a c p o p a d n d KaxovouaCouevou e n i Kaxovoua£6uevou Xeyexai. 5T|XOUU6VOO uexcKpepei xf|v XPflorv ecp' §xepov O O K Exov d v o u a Kupiov . discernendumque est {ab) hoc totum tralationis istud genus. quam recte dicimus abusionem. . Greek grammar.' (ed. 2 3 0 ff. whereas the latter moves from what is named to what is un­ named ( d K a x o v o u a o x o v ) . W . . ecp' exepov & K a x o v 6 u a a x o v K a x d x d OIKEIOV. if they are not by T r y p h o n himself. 7 2 7 3 7 1 7 0 J . who lived in Alexandria one or two generations before Philo.g. involves the transference of a word from one named object to another named object. D . is likely. Leipzig 1856.XI 84 marians approve of this soft line on katachresis. is the difference between what I have called the soft and the hard line. C . is defined as 'the trans­ ference of a word-usage from an object which is properly ( K u p i c o q ) signified to another object which has no proper name ( K u p i o v o v o n a ) . 2 . uev 811. f| 8e K a x d x p r i a i c . ' In Book VIII of the Institutio oratorio Quintilian explicitly rejects the Aristotelian-Ciceronian approach. M a r t i n . CQ 1 5 . 1956. daB fur ein fehlendes proprium ein naheliegendes in seiner Bedeutung dem gesuchten proprium ahnliches Wort eintritt. 2 0 . Spengel. . Here. . besteht darin. What the soft line calls kata­ chresis. plausibly contain material going back t o him. .a. 1 9 2 . 1 9 6 5 .' 69 7 0 71 7 2 73 It has been argued by Barwick that the origin o f the doctrine of tropes is to be sought in the contribution o f the Stoa to the study o f grammar and rhetoric. 7 : K a x d x p n o i c . 88ev K a i KaxdxpTiaic. It finds a modern formulation in Smyth's Greek grammar. and at the end o f his discussion specifically addresses the problem of the difference between metaphora and katachresis. where it is described as 'the extension o f the meaning of a word beyond its proper sphere. 1st century B . should only be used to describe the deliberate misuse o f a word in order to represent a meaning for which no correct word is available. In Ps. argues that both this work and the c o m p a n i o n piece falsely ascribed in Spengel t o Gregory o f Corinth. xe K a i exuucoc. 6 . e. 2 6 6 . succinctly stated. ' W e note that the technical use of K u p i o v ovona as 'proper' or 'correct' name is an intrinsic part of the definition.q. 1 1 . M .

twice. 94. . Deus 71 (t6 KupioXoyoouevov in' dvGptoncov 7td9o<. When we address God by one of His names.229.3. Post. as we have already seen. 1. also the use of KupioXoy&o at Det.245. Winston and Dillon in their commentary miss the allusion to the theory of tropes). who argues that the origin of such rhetorical theories should not be sought within the confines of one particular philosophical school. riepi TOO K u p i c o q KexpfjoGcu Zrjvcova TOIQ 6v6uaoiv. fame can be KaTaxpnoTuccoc. 161.-hist. Cher. are the seven passages in which Philo specifically applies the notion of katachresis to man's naming and speaking about G o d . Congr.g. . Her.g. Sacr. Mut. entertain the possibility that the Stoics defended their paradoxes in a similar manner.10. Naming and 79 80 K. which might seem correct. He refers to it fourteen times. men. implicitly at De Deo 4. GGA 212 (1958) 161-173. 3. We may. however. 11-14. for we apply names or words to a Being who is properly speaking nameless and indescribable. 27-28.617). In Plutarch's Moralia once (25B). 6 0uu6<.Laert.595. 3. Decal. or when we speak of Him generally. 101. however. 120. 121. Philo gives the term a Stoic application (Leg. Somn. sometimes this loose usage approximates to our 'soft line' (e. Barwick suggests (110). De Deo 4.20). 1..K1. 2. e l p T i t a i Tpo7tiKcbTepov ini TOU dvxoc. philol. 7. in Plotinus once (1.The theological extrapolation is of course Philonic. 1. Cf. as opposed to ordinary usage. Congr. Legat. Not the Old Stoa.88-97. 121). On occasion Philo uses the term quite loosely (e. Whether this was the case or n o t . Cher. Berlin 1957. 168. a comparatively high frequency when compared with other writers.49. 58. 75 76 77 78 79 80 74 . and if they are called citizens. Diog. are actually aliens and foreigners. 101.86. Probleme der stoischen Sprachlehre und Rhetorik. it is only by misuse of the word (KctTaxpiloei 6V6U(XTO<. ' If the Stoics claimed that only the sage is a king or a rich man. k & k c o o t c . . Barwick. 7. 27 -28. 6). Abr. but is in fact catachrestic. Post.XI NAMING AND KNOWING: THEMES IN PHILONIC THEOLOGY and 85 that the Stoa was responsible for introducing the new technical usage of (6vouot) as meaning ' p r o p e r ' . in the usual m a n n e r . also Leg. at Decal. Somn. 168.86. called dyaGd). Chrysippus is known to have written a treatise on 'Zeno's correct usage of w o r d s .229. 94. they are clearly not using the words paoiXeuc. 11-14. 3. the complaint of Alexander of Aphrodisias at SVF 3. There can be no doubt that in these passages he has the 'hard-line' interpretation in mind. by arguing that their use of words was legiti­ mate. we use words not legitimately but catachrestically. The speculative nature of Barwick's investigations is criticized by D. but initiated by Diogenes of Babylon.6.122 ( = SVF 3. and nXouoioc. Cf. In De Cherubim 121 he argues that only God is in the true sense ( K u p i c o c . A neglected text in Philo may be illuminating. Abhandlungen der SachsischenAkademieder Wissenschaften zu Leipzig.). 120. and this even includes the wise.75. 161. 266. in Clement four times. it is worth pointing out that certain Stoic doctrines naturally led to reflection (and no doubt polemics) on the subject of word-usage. Cf.86 (health. 124. Fehling. Post. Leg. swearing as misuse of God's polyonymous name). wealth. Mos. ) a citizen. Sacr. Kupiov 74 75 76 77 78 Let us return now to Philo's exploitation of the term katachresis.4. 2. Mut. meaning not 'chastening' but 'toil'). Abr. Somn. Of paramount interest to us.

2 0 8 . 56. 6 v 6 u a o i KOXOIC. KOXOUVTEC. K p e i r r c o v 5 e xpovou K a i aic&voc. But is there any evidence that Philo's was taken over? I have found V Clement in specific application o f the notion o f katachresis only two passages which are in any way relevant. 1. Leg.. npoo%pcoue6a. but has made 85 himself known under many names or appellations is already a prominent theme in Justin and other early Apologists. . 1 . for the task o f lan­ guage is t o give phonetic expression to the factuality and essence o f things. 2 . we apply these not as His name. Cher. 1. This emerges when we examine the early Christian phi­ losophers and exegetes who were acquainted with the Philonic heritage o f thought. or rather one should say misreads.c. As we observed earlier. Justin Apol. 5 . peouanc. Philo reads. so that the mind can gain support from these and not be led a s t r a y . A . This can be made clear with reference to a technical term drawn from (philo­ sophically influenced) rhetorical theory. 3 . dva>vujio<. 1 . Les Stromateis V. Somn. also 1 . 8 . 1 . . and 8 2 8 3 see n. In Stromateis a discussion o f God's ineffable transcendence writes that 'if we sometimes name Him. 1 5 . (n. K a i d 6 p a t o q 6<p9aXnoTq' OUK . Stead informs C f . esp. K a i fippiyroc. K a i ndon. 1 0 .) the One or the Good or Nous or Being or Father or God or Demiurge or Lord. The great nomothete had not. 8 4 m e that the subject m a y be o f relevance t o the later Arian controversy. 2 . dKOTOvduaoToq also at Spengel 3 . 2 . (poaeooc. 3 0 . I confine myself t o Christian thinkers up t o the time o f Origen. G .9 . 2 0 2 ff. but out o f embarrassment we take recourse (npooxpconeOa) t o fine names. 2 3 2 . the formulation o f which i s almost exactly the same as Clement's (Or. 1 9 4 etc. 8 5 also the text o f Aristides discussed by R . 3 7 1 . 81 Since God's essence is unknown to man. Moses as saying that God does not reveal a Kupiov 6voM.. 86 Sir. 06 K u p i o c . Q G 4 . 1 : Kfiv 6voudCcouev <X6T6 noxe. a o T O < . S C 2 7 8 . 1 9 (the second work ascribed t o T r y p h o . 7 2 above).XI 86 speaking about God strains the limitations o f language. It would surprise me greatly if we have not encountered here a serendipitous find o f Philo himself. cit. enepeiSeoGai TOUTOIC. ufi nepi rtXavcouSvn. u n 6 8 e dnopiac. op. d v o u a a u t o u npocpepduevoi Xeyonev. o u x (be. 6 . 1 0 2 8 . Paris 1 9 8 1 . 7 . forgotten the rhetoric and philosophy that Greek teachers had taught him when he was still a prince o f Egypt (Mos. calling Him improperly (06 Kupicoc. 1 .a. this volume. Athenagoras Leg. in his grammar book (we 83 recall Tryphon's statement a b o v e ) and that he observed that it was precisely the same term that Platonists were using in their attempts at negative theology. it would seem. 84 The doctrine that God is ineffable and nameless. 6 1 . language must necessarily fall short. L e Boulluec &XXa (Clement d'Alexandrie. May we not surmise that his remarkably associative mind 82 was struck by the word & K a t o v 6 | i . van den B r o e k . S o m e examples a t Runia. vouoG&rn. it cannot be said to have caught on. (text L e Boulluec). 6 ) . 8 2 . fj-roi £v f\ TdyaGdv f| vouv fj a u x 6 T 6 8 v fi n a x e p a 9 e 6 v f| onuioupydv fj Kupiov. C . ' 86 8 1 Cf. (pwvtj. . 2 .230. 2 1 7 .2 9 . But it is very important not to overlook that even here scripture is pointing the way. 2 6 6 ) adduces a statement i n a speech o f the r h e t o r / philosopher Maximus o f T y r e .23)! Original and apposite as Philo's idea may have been. Theophilus arf/4ur. 2 Hobein): 6 uev y d p Geoc. P r o f . 1 1 . tv' £XTJ fi S i d v o i a .

the direct source. . . K a i dvouaoiv. in a way that is relative (rcpoc. sur­ prisingly perhaps.3 Otto: d K n K o c b c . K a i (jtnoic. . K a i vofioeox. . Cels. CQ 19 (1969) 189 ff. Human weakness (doGeveia) is also stressed by Philo at Mos. . Whittaker. the index locorum in Stahlin's edition and Le Boulluec's commentary. Philo and Clement would of course both aggressively reject the rhetor's reference to "graven images". 5e a u x o u XaPetv xf|v o u o i a v .Xk' dSiacpdpcoc. 393B-C. 1. Cf.1.. enepei56ue6a cpcovatq. Philo cannot accept this on account o f his loyalty to Mosaic scripture. .11 (in a 'Platonist' context) the words nomenparumproprium 'quodest' might suggest an allusion to Kaxdxpnoi<. [6 nXdrcov] yap ev Aiyu7ixq) x6v Gedv xcp Mcouaei eipr|K6vai 'Eyco eiui 6 cBv. to Sextus Empiricus. Mor. .2 1 . • Both Clement arid the anonymus. term katachresis which is somewhat comparable to Philo's. With regard to the question being/above being both Plutarch and Numenius are closer to Philo than Clement and Plotinus. Cf. eyvco 6xi o£> Kupiov Svoua eauxou 6 Ge6<. 1. 93 The connection between Philo and the Sceptics fixovxec.75. which is clearly ploit it in his discussions with Celsus on God's namelessness or in the Both he and Clement show more sophistication than Philo in their speculations on God's transcendence. come very close to Philo's idea. R. not even Plutarch. The second relevant passage is located in the Cohortatio ad gentiles. Speaking of Plato's doctrine o f being. cf.207: cpauev 8e K a i (be.5 Clement adds K a i dvdnaxoc. 29. to Philo's 07tepdvco K a i xdnov K a i xpdvou (Post. for no name can properly be ascribed to God (KupioXoystoGai). where in 71..71-74. Cf. 1. Hyp.. as we saw earlier. ou8ev y d p 6voiia ini GeoO KupioXoyeioGai Suvaxdv.M. but indifferently or catachrestically. [(peovdej. . K a i ei (JouXovxai KaxaxprioxiKcoc/ oOxe yap npimi x<p OKeTtxiKCp 91 9 2 9 0 93 . in contrast to Philo and anticipating Plotinus. Note esp.20-73. oi> Kupicot. and a direct debt may be suspected (much Philonic material is absorbed into this b o o k ) . Origin too does not ex­ Deprinbut the 'technical' notion o f katachresis cipiis. whose anonymous author was probably 88 87 a contemporary of Origen. 72. 6. TIOEUSV auxd<. . therefore. is neglected. he declares that the Greek philosopher had heard the words spoken to Moses in E x . 388F-389A.75. . disqualifies the epithet 'Being' for God. 3:14. 90 89 The last clause is a paraphrase of Philo's words in Mos. katachresis 91 Middle Platonists also do not apply the notion o f 9 2 theologically. but in fact they refer to the Latin rendering of xd 6v. Grant. XpoooO . 2 0 . 7. 12-20 in Str. t i ) and so also relative to the Sceptics. C. It is especially striking that Clement. who had a fine opportunity to do If we wish to find a creative use o f the so in his mediations on the Delphic E . 14). J . But. npdq auxdv £<pn.42. 58. K a i TUTIOK. . See above at n. . ad gent. xa nap' f|ucov KaXa xfj eKeivou (puaei eTtovojidCovxec. De princ. Phoenix 32 (1978) 144-154. 1. 5. uev auxou xfjq voifaeax. und 5e daGeveiac.2. HThR 51 (1958) 128-134. Coh. SnXouvTeq x d npdyuaxa .XI NAMING AND KNOWING: THEMES IN PHILONIC THEOLOGY 87 This reminds us very much o f Philo. Sceptics do not use the terms and expressions of their philosophy dogmatically as if they properly reveal facts. • eTtiGuuouvxec. and had realized that God did not tell him his proper name (Kupiov ovoua). we must turn. Note especially the extensive use of Post. At Seneca Ep. xa yap dvduaxa eiq STJXCOOIV K a i 8idyvcooiv 8 7 8 8 89 xcov 07toKEiu6vcov KEixat 7tpayudxcov .

having just written the passage on God's unnameability which we discussed. 98 Philo's use of the notion of we may conclude.4. was Philo's idea not more explicitly taken over? In the case of the author of the Cohortatio one might surmise that he did not recognize the technicalities involved.4.6. 3:14 see M. Cf. 1 0 0 99 On the other hand. 87-108. Cels. 2.2 Str. but why underline it so heavily when God has sent His only begotten son. E x . aXXcoc.18 (in an exegesis of Ex. 94 Why. has too negative an emphasis for the Christian thinkers. Does not Plotinus emphasize the passivity of the intellect as it waits for the spark suddenly to jump across from (ptovouaxew. Harl. John 14:6-9. Cf. (n. x&c. Van Winden. C M . 95 A clue may be gained if we observe that. But I would be very hesitant to say this of Clement and Origen.Naz. It might be argued that this contrast is too absolute. ad locc. goes on to add that it is only by divine grace and God's Logos (i. hXXa npdc. you know my Father and have seen H i m ' ? see G o d ' . i n : Vignaux. Citations et com­ mentates d'Exode 3. 7. we may finally ask. On the use of the phrase npoc. 27.82. 3:14 quoted by M. Christ) that the Unknown is known and quotes the words of Paul in Acts which are the subject of Dr. 97 of the article cited below in n. Harl on p. 46). xouq oKenxiKouq. 126. C. also Hyp. op. Clement. cit. 6:3. Some­ what simplistically we might formulate the difference as follows: for the Jew and the Christians God makes sure that he is Kaxri T O 8 u v a t 6 v known to man (whether via Moses or the incarnation). Cf. 96). Justin Dial. cited by Clement Str. Or.1.1. 80 on Mut. who know their rhetorical tropes backwards. cpcovaq eiXiKpivdjq anuaiveiv XeyeoGai. Cels. who said to his followers 'if you know me. he implies that 97 Christ the Logos was the Geoq who appeared to the Patriarchs and that it was his name that was not disclosed to t h e m . the aim of whose philosophy could also be said to be 'to the Jew Philo and the Christian Fathers stand side by side. 5. 3:14 are common in early Patristic literature. xi K a i npdc. Dial. Gnosis I. An early Christian philosopher. although quotations of E x . refer­ ences to the other two texts used by Philo. front­ wards and sideways. and also Greg.16.135. 5. Origen C. RAC 11 (1981). On Patristic use of Ex. 50-51. 1. 14 chez les Peres Grecs des quatre premiers siecles. so to speak.XI 88 may seem less startling if we bear in mind the contribution of sceptical theories to what Raoul Mortley has called the gradual move 'from word to silence' in ancient thought. 9 4 9 5 9 6 97 98 9 9 1 0 0 . whereas for the Greeks God is knowable (again KCITCX T O 8UV(XT6V) and it is up to man to know him. The limitations of human thought and language are a fact and a problem—on this all are in agreement—. Their acquaintance with the trope is clear from passages such as Str. Leiden 1971. Biblia patristica. 3:15 and E x .26. 96 When Justin quotes the last-named text to Trypho. 5. in comparison with the Platonists. on which see J .e. 30. 8. xi cf. above p. are exceedingly rare. 526. xe f||iiv ouvepyet x6 unSe xauxac. katachresis. Van der Horst's paper elsewhere in this volume.43.191.

as briefly as I can. including its central tenet of monotheism. to Philo. 104 God has to be unnameable and named at the same time. Mansfeld.193. is a crutch. Cf.' Op. 103 For it cannot but draw attention to an unavoidable ele­ ment of tension in his thinking on God. 224 f. Origen. 86) that 'we give to God's na­ ture names that we like. If we retain SiScoui with the mss. in which Philo. Perhaps we should better say. Philo's loyalty to Judaism. ou XeveaOai. nevertheless it might aid us in developing a more general perspective on Philo's theology. and (2) in relation to the Greek philosophical doctrines which give them a Cf. At Mut. Plotinus: the road to reality. As J . Comm. and he finds that its chief doctrine. KaxaxpfjoGai. 6). cit. Greek philosophical theologies which have a vo0<. Runia.8. Particularly important are the passages Sacr. as their highest divinity confront the same problem. Editors since Hoeschelius have read 8i8cooi with John Dam. 196).3 . Rist. But in his thinking and writ­ ing about God he has decided to appropriate ideas from Greek philosophical theology. for Philo katachresis is not a 'necessary evil'. lfJl and Deus 51-71. V Allow me to return.Joh. 5. and the remarks of J .3.31 Spengel. with reference to his favourite texts Num. Note too the casualness with which Maximus says (above n. 4 4 2 . at QG 2. tradition. 32. 215. but of course he is stuck with it. Cambridge 1967. But by then the stage of gaining 102 support from the availability of God's names has long been p a s s e d . op. In Philo's view katachresis is a necessary evil. though the notion of katachresis in its specific application is limited to the problem of naming and speaking about God.28-35 (with clear reference to PI. with the direct ms. Hypostasization.23:9 and Deut. esp. 8i8ci)ui '/bestow the possibility of katachresis'.28.. 7 341c). is not a viable o p t i o n . but an audible sign of God's grace. we might be tempted to say.. (n. 106 105 But it occurs not without God's con­ says God according nivance. is unconditional. a split-level conception of divini­ ty. 121 am tempted to read. discusses in very general terms our speaking about God.17. 438. Enn. cf. 1 0 2 103 1 0 4 1 0 5 1 0 6 1 0 1 . then Philo is quite naturally continuing the first person employed in loov xco eivai rcetpoKa. as developed in the doctrine of the powers. In my dissertation I hinted that. the phrase 8em£poq 9e6q is found only once in the Philonic cor­ pus. Our reading of a single Philonic text has shown that there are two 'patterns of correlation' in Philo's exegetical works. in this volume pp. But by the time of Plotinus these difficulties have been definitively straightened out. Philo would gladly throw it away if he could. symptomatic of the human condition. Trypho at 3.62 (on this text 443 n. Ep. Note that dXAriyopia too is one of the tropes. to the themes with which I began. The diverse themes which Philo develops in his elucidation of the main biblical text and related secondary texts can be analysed (1) in relation to the same themes found elsewhere in his works. shows. Cf. 107 f.351.XI NAMING AND KNOWING: THEMES IN PHILONIC THEOLOGY the One and illuminate the s o u l ? 101 89 Very true.8:5. cit.

108 Philo. Kupiov o v o n a ) to acceptable philosophical for example. What. and by T. then. over Philo. though. the contents of which proved to be coherently thought through. Osborn is right in saying that Clement takes over the language of biblical Hellenism first developed by Philo. e. (n. ios i response to the view (Nikiprowetzky) that Philo is first and foremost a commentator on scripture and that this goes a long way to explaining his lack of consistency. a penetrating analysis of the confluence of Judaic and Hellenic theological motifs in Hellenistic Judaism by Y. Die Begegnung des biblischen und des philosophischen Monon 1 0 9 1 0 7 .XI 90 theoretical basis. 6).e. JBL 104 (1985) 558 ff. This practice can be highly irritating to modern sensibilities. though they are never without their perils. Philo perhaps more so than Clement. 107 I would nevertheless contend that. to describe the difference in terms of theosophy and philoso­ phy." Yet for Philo his hermeneutic method is essentially scientific! Here a potential weakness of the method of problematic elucidation becomes apparent. but for critical remarks on Tobin's study see Runia. It is hardly helpful. philosophically speaking.g. naming and Much emphasis has recently been placed on the role of tradition in Philo's exegesis. should be the response to Osborn's critique? It would be facile to affirm that our analysis of the chapter from the De mutatione nominum. It is these two 'patterns of correlation' which make the systematic and the historical/doxographic approaches possible and worth­ while. Cf. preferring the internal conceptual coherence of a chapter or a treatise to the achievement of a wider consistency. but he does not recognize how important and determinative that first step w a s . Amir. Both men accept divine revelation. Tobin. but it is left to the reader to determine the precise theological connotations. Winston. The fact of the matter is that Philo does not argue as much as we would wish. The creation of man: Philo and the history of interpretation. is sound and apposite. 556 ff. ideas. the results can often be quite rewarding. i.H. and we are still far from fully understanding its ra­ tionale. 44): "The difficulty which faces this defence is that Philo is not really subject to the text. cit. but the Jew's defences are formulated with less eye for apologetic rigour. 109 Hence the discussion on knowing. both regard it as rationally defensible. in his exegesis of Mosaic scrip­ ture. that it projects modern assumptions onto a past body of thought which as a (Kuhnian) paradigm has its own coherence. his allegorical method is too arbitrary to be governed by its subject matter. he relates Mosaic words and concepts (e. in the Claremont Philo research project (on which see Studia Philonica 3 (1974-75) 71-112). Clement does represent an advance. and D. Osborn replies (p. The notion of katachresis. Washington 1983. embarks on the decisive shift from an experience of God that is direct and concrete to an experience of God that is mediated through theoretical reflection on what God's nature i s . i.e. is sufficient to vindicate Philo.g. if Philo is read in smaller sec­ tions as we have attempted to do in the present paper. op. His method is primarily that of correlation. They are hazardous precisely because Philo subordinates himself to the main and associated bible texts at hand.

Huygens scholarship of the Netherlands Organisation for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z. F o r this reason. even if.). as we have seen.XI NAMING AND KNOWING: THEMES IN PHILONIC THEOLOGY 91 speaking about God that has* occupied us in this paper. Evangelische Theologie 38 (1978) 2 . . perhaps. not all his theological ideas caught on.W. & C .1 9 . * The research for this contribution was supported by a C .* theismus als Grundthema des judischen Hellenismus. Philo was the first theologian.O.

But there is no evidence for such cultural segregation. 185. Indeed. 227. in particular. More problematic is the question of its date. That such plays existed is proved by the fact that. It seems almost certain that the play has its origin in Alexandria. . If Wolfson (1947). QE fr. as we all know.XII G O D A N D M A N IN P H I L O OF ALEXANDRIA 1 * P h i l o o f A l e x a n d r i a . is the most extensive example of a Hellenistic play still extant. Given the political situation in Roman Alexandria. But is it also possible that he patronized the production of Jewish plays? I do not. cf. as in the example just given. and probably to the second rather than the first half of that century. It is with a problem raised by the contents cf this play that I wish to commence this article. Jacobson (1983). then it would be natural for the Exagoge to be a prominent part of their repertoire. it was written at least a century before Philo's birth. even if he had wanted to. there may be political rather than literary motives involved. If so. written in respectable Iambic trimeters. Other Philonic texts referring to the theatre at Ebr. 5-13. etc. who has just written a fine commentary on the play. 81 is right in postulating the existence of 'young men's Jewish dramatic organizations'. Jacobson. Spec. A striking example is found in the treatise Quod omnis probus liber sit. 14 ff. 4. of course. Mendelson (1974-5). where he records that he recently saw some actors performing a play of Euripides. and. 2 3 4 This article was written with the financial support of the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (ZWO). What I am referring to is the possibility of plays written in Greek by Jewish authors on Jewish subjects. that he attended theatrical performances. 141. The terminus ante quern is the death of Alexander Polyhistor f. is not very generous with information about himself in his writings. via Alexander Polyhistor and Eusebius. we still posses extensive frag­ ments of a play called the Exagoge by a poet with the very Jewish name of Ezechiel. Feldman 2 3 4 1 (i960). mean to suggest that there were plays performed in Alexandria in the Hebrew language. that is plays written by the great Athenian playwrights and their Hellenistic successors. 177. But that certainly does not exclude the possibility that Philo read the play or even saw it performed. Prob. that Philo attended performances of Greek plays. Philo might not have been able to follow these. 26. this play. But he does occasionally tell us that he participated in Alexandrian cultural life. during which a euology of freedom roused the audience to a pitch of enthusiasm. argues that it should be dated to the second century b c . It is natural to assume.40 BC. H.

20-3 and passim. Moses has a dream which he recounts to his father-in-law R a g u e l : 8 7 e ( 6 o ) | ' o g q u g x a x ' a x p a Z i v ( a i ) o u 0Q6VOV UIYAV u v ' ELVAT u i x Q 1 '? o u p a v o u jm>xac. Van der Horst (1984).8 . the divinely appointed leader of the people of Israel.2 4 ) . the author must have violated the unities of time and place customary in Greek drama. OQOVOV UIYAV 70 EIJIEV x a 0 f | a 0 a i . DE^ipt be uoi eveuae. x a y a ) JTPOOOEV E c r r a 0 n v 0Q6VOU. 23 (with minor alterations). the reference to Moses' royal education in 11. 29—36. Text Snell ( 1 9 7 1 ) . ibid. o x f j j i T Q o v 6E UOI j i a o 6 a ) x e x a i ETC. He meets the daughters of R a g u e l ' ( J e t h r o ) . who is also the leading figure in Philo's exegetical oeuvre. 363. T h e protagonist is indisputably Moses. many of which can be paralleled in Jewish Midrashic texts (some alsp occur in Philo's De vita Moysis. A long fragment contains the messenger speech. Translation based on version by Van der Horst (1983). as recorded in the second book of the Pentateuch. On the Midrashic parallels see ibid. T h e play ends at Elim. It is the exodus of the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt. Analysis of the chosen themes and language of the play reveals that the author's primary source was the Septuagint. 3 6 . but that. on Elim as symbolizing the promised land. T h e play begins with Moses recounting the events of his flight from Egypt. in which G o d foretells the course of events during Moses' confrontation with Pharaoh. 1 8 . Quite a number of interpretative additions are made to the biblical text. in which the crossing of the Red Sea and the destruction of the Egyptian army is retold in vivid detail. 5 6 While still in the land of Midian.. 1 2 : 1) see Jacobson (1983). ev tip xa8ij06ai qxoxa y e w a i o v r i v a 6ia5Tm' e / o v x a x a i UIYA OXTJJTTQOV xeoi EIXOVUNO) UAXIORA. It would seem probable that the play followed the Hellenistic convention of five acts. 1 . 75 On the dramatic structure of the play see Jacobson (1983). 8 5 . 2: 21 and Num. But one striking scene is difficult to parallel and seems to be quite unique. Actually Ezechiel describes Raguel's homeland as Libya. in order to accommodate the variety of scenes preserved in our fragments. elaborated in great detail in Mos.(JaaiAixov 6' e&awe HOI 6 i d 6 r | [ i a x a i AIIXOG EX 0Q6VO>V 5 xoiQi^exai. the oasis which in Ezechiel's description clearly prefigures the promised land that is the ultimate goal of the Israelites' j o u r n e y .9 . and that is followed by the decisive encounter at the burning bush. On the traditional background (reconciliation of Exod. for example. 165.XII GOD AND MAN IN PHILO OF A L E X A N D R I A 49 T h e title of Ezechiel's play indicates its subject with all clarity. 6 7 8 .

vy. 70 75 80 Raguel responds by interpreting the dream ( 1 1 . eyx. but he has no recorded dreams. Light. Moses will establish a great throne and will become a leader of men. while the vision of the earth. And a multitude of stars fell on their knees before me and I counted them all. and they moved past me like a regiment of mortals. as Starobinski-Safran points o u t . Moses prophesies and undertakes journeys of mystic ascent in the Pentateuch. But. Jacobson combats this 9 10 9 Starobinski-Safran (1974). Half a century ago.XII 50 eyu) 6' eoei&ov x a i e v e q O e y a i a g x a i e^t3jieq8ev x a i uoi ejuht'. and he himself descended from the throne. which never won wide acceptance but 10 . these dreams are usually premonitory. 290. what is below it. Goodenough (1935). 221. T h e r e is nothing in the Exodus narrative that even remotely suggests this dream. 8 3 . He handed me the sceptre and summoned me to sit on the great throne. whereas here Moses is promised a glorious future. and I stood before the throne. Then I awoke from my sleep in a state of fear. On it was seated a noble man. Goodenough used this passage as evidence his thesis of the mystic Moses as central figure in a Jewish mystery religion strongly influenced by O r p h i s m . An explanation might be sought in Ezechiel's extensive acquaintance with the conventions of Greek tragedy. I dreamed that on the summit of mount Sinai stood a great throne reaching to the corners of heaven. aaxEQurv node. Also he gave me the royal diadem. presaging disastrous events. in which dreams occur quite frequently. in his controversial study on Hellenistic Judaism By Light. with a diadem (on his head) and holding a great sceptre in his left hand.Xov ovoavov.r|v. So once again it might be better to turn to whatever parallel material can be found in Jewish tradition. God has given a good sign. yfjv c u i a o a v (be. On the thesis. But we then find ourselves in the middle of a scholarly controversy about how Ezechiel's depiction of Moses' dream should be inter­ preted. 80 xd|xo0 jiagfiYEv e i t ' £U(poPr)0Ei5 JtaQ£n|3oXr| Pqotwv. what was before. t i JiXfj6oc. and what is to come (6\J>ei tot x' ovxa xa xe ngb xov xd 8 ' voxeoov) . y o u v a T a iy<b 6 e J i d v x a g f|Qi9urioau.9 ) . and what is beyond God's heaven indicates that he will see what is. And I saw the full circle of the earth and what was below the earth and beyond the heaven. E|aviaran' e | vnvov. And with his right hand he beckoned me.

8 . the Philonic texts which he thinks support Ezechiel's implied deification of Moses are precisely those which Jacobson used for purposes of contrast in order to show how demystified the dramatic presentation i s . no heavenly ascent on the part of Moses. F o r parallel evidence on this conception of divine kingship Van der Horst appeals to texts in Philo. in manifest form and not in riddles (ev ei6ei x a i oi> 61' a l v i y a x c D v ) . according. Ezechiel grants Moses the gift of prophecy. (1983). T h e r e is no supernatural atmosphere. as we shall see. T h e implication is that Moses is actually deified. Van der Horst is not persuaded by these a r g u m e n t s . Indeed. Jacobson asserts. T h e r e is. 140-7. 1 2 : 6 . Hovering in the background is the text Num. 273. Sandmel (1979). Nikiprowetzky (1977) passim. (1984) 363 ff. had a strong Nachwirkung in the United States. 89 ff. no assignation of cosmic rulership (as Goodenough mistakenly supposed on the basis of what he read in Philo). 12) with Van der Horst (1983). see Nock (1937). In fact what we have here is one of the very first throne-visions which were later to become so prominent in the Merkavah literature of Jewish mysticism. (1983). the views of G. Quispel (1981). He rightly points out that it is unreasonable to expect that the audience should interpret this scene in terms of a text located in a later book of the Pentateuch (I would go further and say that the fact that Moses does receive a prophetic dream means that the playwright does not have the text in mind. 276-7 (and n. but not to his servant Moses'. What is so remarkable is that God leaves this throne so that Moses can sit on it. But there is one crucial difference. from the Jewish angle its intent is to demystify the figure of Moses. Cf. 12 13 T h e purpose of my article is not to dwell on this interpretative nevertheless. 416-18. T h e dream is thus an accommodation to the practices of Greek tragedy. to whom He will speak mouth to mouth. who regards Ezechiel as presaging certain Gnostic ideas. 48-50. but merely a divinely sent. but denies him knowledge of the divine mysteries. 11 12 13 . prophetic dream. surely we cannot regard the scene as so 'secularized' that the dream occurs without divine intervention). Van der Horst (1983). to Van der Horst. Jacobson (1981). 25-6. a striking similarity between Ezechiel's presentation and what we find in the Hebrew Book of Enoch and other Judaic writings. Compare Jacobson (1981). where the L o r d says that to other prophets He will make himself known in dreams. In the play there is only one throne.XII G O D A N D MAN IN P H I L O O F A L E X A N D R I A 51 view vigorously." T h e r e are similar accounts of a divine throne in the heavens and of the ascent of a privileged figure such as Enoch or Moses to the throne in Jewish apocalyptic literature. But if we look carefully at Ezechiel's presentation we must conclude that he wants to demythologize such accounts.

when he affirms that not even a messenger was left to tell the tale. 2 : 3 ) becomes in Ezechiel vjie^e0r|xe .' T h e m a t i c and linguistic parallels between the play and the narrative in the De vita Moysis form the basis for this judgment. P h i l o . I cannot agree that Philo is engaged in polemic against Ezechiel in Mos. Both scholars can probably learn from each other. 1 0 ) and that the princess found him ev xu> baovxaxu) TO)V eXuYv ( 1 4 ) (Jacobson does not mention the change of person doing the placing/finding in Philo). this is a natural expansion of the 6 14 15 16 Cf. Aspects of Jacobson's view seem to me rather forced. on the other hand. 1 7 9 . noff. appeal to Philo. 1 5 : 5 . has perhaps taken dramatic aspects of the presentation insufficiently into account. 38-9. fascinating though the question is. 2.knew and used the Exagoge'.og J i a o a T O V JtoTauov ( E x o d . But how would he have viewed the portrayal of a Moses who dreams that he takes God's place on the throne and (like Joseph before h i m ) envisages the stars bowing down to him.baav (11. and concludes that'it seems likely t h a t . Gen. 1 . . F o r if that were the case. In his commentary Jacobson puts forward the evidence that he and his predecessors have collected. the Septuagintal x a i eSrpcev avxvy (sc. between God and man? In order to answer this question we shall have to look at the way that Philo himself deals with this problem of the divide between God and man. it is perhaps worth asking whether there is any evidence that Philo was in fact acquainted with Ezechiel's play. with Van der Horst. . 8tpiv) elg T O eX. . as we saw. Jacobson (1983). 86-9.XII 52 controversy. . and that leads us into the real subject of this article. 1 . 14 15 But before I try to grapple with the question I have posed. interpreted the scene as a quasi-deification of Moses. commented on by Philo in Somn. we might be able to answer the question by looking for a direct response to the poet's presentation in Philo's works. Both scholars. commented on by Philo in Her. Gen. should we conclude that he would have approved? Or is it more likely that he would have protested. Cf. . . affirming that in such a vision Moses was overstepping the all-important dividing line between the divine and the human. J t a g ' a x o a noxaviov Xaoiov e'15'&oc. stars whose number he (unlike Abraham before h i m ) is able to count? Assuming that Philo. Philo says that the mother xov Jtai5a exTi8eaai J t a g a Tag 6x8ag T O V jioTauou (Mos. quite often reminiscent of his own efforts in the De vita Moysis. and he does nothing with the motif of the vacation of the throne. 1 6 — 1 7 ) . 37: 9. T h e question that concerns me is the following: how would Philo have reacted to this scene if he had witnessed it on the stage (or read it on papyrus) ? We can be certain that he would have been delighted with the eulogistic presentation of Moses in the play. . F o r example. Van der Horst. both from the theological and philosophical angle.

but shows the austerity of a true sage.9 ) . 'Behold I send you as god to Pharaoh'. 47-52Meeks (1967). he gained knowledge of paradig­ matic Being. he enjoyed a partnership with the Creator to such an extent that he was deemed worthy of the same appellation.7 ) . which also combine texts such as E x o d . Entering into the darkness where God was. Philo's exegesis at Migr. 81-4. does not call M o s e s 0e6q t o A a r o n . in two stimulating analyses. his kingship and his mystic ascent is illuminated by Rabbinic and Samaritan parallels. It is connected to E x o d . But at § 1 4 8 . lawgiver. But that does not make it any less important. 4: 16 t h e Septuagint. Indeed. each element obeying him as master ( 1 5 5 . In fact I am not persuaded that we can be at all confident that Philo was acquainted with the play. 2 0 : 2 1 . where God says to Moses. priest.. 195 ff. that in E x o d . by Holladay (1977). F o r this reason God gives him the whole cosmos as portion (xAtJQog) and inheritance. Meeks. 7 : 1 (and 4 : 1 6 ) .6 2 an excursus with a somewhat more theoretical character is given. T E x a i Xoyixog) ( 1 6 2 ) . Moses as leader does not believe in pomp and circumstance. who receives a mystic initiation and so possesses an intermediate status between God and m a n .bEiy\ia) for his followers to imitate ( 1 5 8 . 3 3 : 1 . has argued that Moses is portrayed as God's cosmic vice-regent. 1 4 : 2 8 ) . 365.g. Our question must therefore remain strictly hypothetical. and so can offer his life as a godlike masterpiece and paradigm (naQa.XII GOD AND MAN IN P H I L O OF A L E X A N D R I A 53 biblical x a i ca> xaxeXEicp0r| e£ COJTUYV ovbk etc. In the De vita Moysis Philo outlines in a very straightforward-way. As future legislator he was already a living and rational embodiment of the law ( v o u o g euipuxoc. 106 and Van der H o r s t (1984). ( E x o d . if other Philonic 18 1 9 1 7 O n the i n t r o d u c t o r y nature of t h e treatise ( b u t not exclusively directed at gentiles as G o o d e n o u g h (1933) t h o u g h t ) see Nikiprowetzy (1977).) of the whole nation. 5 . 3 4 : 2 9 . the central place occupied by Moses in his understanding of J u d a i s m . which describes Moses' ascent of Mount Sinai. E x o d . 2 0 : 2 1 . for he was named god and king (Oeogxai fkxoiXEtJc. 7 : 1 . Moses is king. passim It is s o m e t i m e s overlooked by scholars. but reads cri> bk aiixq) 6ar| tot Jtp6g xov 8e6v. prophet. T h e connection between his divine status (as god). e. Deut. 1 8 1 9 . 100 ff. for it raises issues vital to an evaluation of a central aspect of Philo's thought. S a n d m e l (1979). 17 T h e biblical text that impels Philo to call Moses 6E05 here is E x o d . In Book I his kingship is explained chiefly through a narrative account of his leadership of the people of Israel. Indeed. in contrast to the H e b r e w text. II Let us begin with the Philonic text which has been invoked as a significant parallel (whether positively or negatively) to Ezechiel's presentation of Moses. C f . and (1968). accessible to readers with little knowledge of the Jewish religion.

Laert. T w o problems cause Meeks to take recourse to parallels in Palestinian sources (with which Philo may well have been quite unfamiliar). where Philo paraphrases Rep. 7 : 1 . 14. 128-9. 54oa-b. but enhances Moses' qualifications for kingship. it emerges that Philo vacillates between presenting Moses as sharing God's nature and even 'approaching substantiality' with Him. on Philo see pp. 365. I believe. Moses is now the philosopher-king envisaged by Plato (cf.XII 54 texts in which E x o d .5 strengthen his case). Runia (1986). T h e entry into the darkness is not meant to indicate a divinizing initiation rite. in discussing Moses' kingship. 7: 1 see also the carefully executed study of Holladay (1977). invoke E x o d . (1983). In the double title 0e6gxod PaaiXevg the second term is meant to explicate the first. 1 . Post. 355. and why does he relate it to the mystic ascent of Sinai? It is possible. Clearly. 7. Philo would have applauded Ezechiel's dream scene as a theatrically successful depiction of Moses' elevation to divine status. 484b. 40. 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 0 . to find satisfactory answers in terms of Philo's own thought. the biblical justification for the theory is found a few chapters further (Exod. Meeks (1968).d ) . 7 (taken over by Clement Str. Holladay (1977). who cites Rep. 25 and (1984). Mos. cf. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Meeks (1967) 104 f. if Meeks is right. 480a. 2 . 4 7 3 c . Mut. cf. 181. For the following discussion on Exod. 20: 21 consistently represents for Philo the intelligible world. 2 . Hence. 103-98 (but I do not think the non-Philonic pp. Holladay 126. Van der Horst cites Meeks in support of his interpretation. 1 2 4 . Leg. and as such can be a JTAOADEIYHA for his subjects. 170). But let us first look a little more closely at Philo's text. the decree in honour of Zeno of Citium. Cf. 10. 2. Cf. the subtitle of Meeks's monograph (1967). and viewing him as a divine man (0eiog avfjo) who is granted an apotheosis. 1 ) . 114. 25: 9x6nagd6eiY(ia!. 7 : i is invoked are analysed. Cf. VOOG as f|Yeuovixov is god to the irrational mind or soul in charge of the bodily r e a l m . Why does Philo. 125 ff. 7 : 1 : Moses the true king is god to Pharaoh the fool who thinks he is king. Meeks is in fact refining Goodenough's hypothesis of the mystic Moses as 'saviour' of the Jewish people (and forerunner of the incarnated Logos of Christianity). The word-play on jiaoadeiyua (ideal exemplar. The yvocpog of Exod. 6. Diog. in the c o n t e x t — M o s e s has just had the confrontation with P h a r a o h — t h e text springs naturally TO mind. Sacr. in which he argues that the concept of the 8EIOC iivf\Q is not as important in Hellenistic Judaism (and by implication in the New Testament) as has often been thought. 8-9. 1. Philo consistently associates rulership with godship in his exegesis of E x o d . For the £105 of a philosopher as a n a o a d E i y u a cf. Wolfson (1947). Having gained knowledge of the intelligible r e a l m . example) is Philo's idea. Cf. Our question would already have received an a n s w e r . cf. Mut.

But. 207 ff. This does not convince. As always in Philo's exegetical works a multitude of exegetical and philosophical themes are woven in and out of the treatise. Amir (1983). at § 1 9 and 1 2 5 . For a more detailed treatment of the thematics of this treatise see Runia (1988). 1 7 : 1 . cf. the (for our purposes) crucial text Exod.XII GOD AND M A N IN P H I L O O F A L E X A N D R I A 55 But questions remain. j . with emphasis on the obedience of the elements? Why does Philo stress that Moses. 33: 11. 'And the Lord was seen by Abraham and said to him "I am your God" '? It must not be thought. 1 is introduced. Here the names refer to the divine powers and 28 29 30 31 f 3 2 The exegetical theme of Moses as 'friend of God' (§156) is based on Exod. ( § 1 5 7 ) . because he is keen to prove that the motif of the thaumaturgic Beioc avrjp is of no importance in Philo.) ? Why is Moses portrayed as god. 1 5 . In the case of the other two questions. 1 . 82-9. as the title indicates. one of whose characteristics is that he is a xoouoitoXtxTic. T w i c e . On this important theme. virtue. 3 : 1 4 . 28 29 30 31 32 . but also from other events that are to occur during Moses' leadership of the people of Israel. In the De mutatione nominum a running commentary is given on Gen. and vice. says Philo with an appeal to E x o d . Moses is presented as a (Stoic) ojtou&atos. see ibid. I propose now to turn to an allegorical treatise.5 . 185). the friend of G o d . The title has been often regarded as a misnomer. 1 5 5 . not only from the account of the ten plagues which Philo has just reported. 82. in order to understand Philo's intentions with the text (and how they reflect on Mos. but of the whole people? T o the first of these questions the context can yield a satisfactory answer. see Runia (1988). so we can only name him by means of xaxaxQnoig. we have to look more closely at the context in the treatise as a whole. that God can be legitimately named. because the changes of name are only discussed in §60-129. the deliberate misuse of language ( § 1 1 . there is a certain concentration on the problem of names (in the main biblical text both Abraham and Sarah have their names changed). not of Pharaoh. we may reasonably suspect that other themes hover in the background without being made explicit. But this is a serious misconception of Philo's way of constructing a treatise.2 2 . It is apparent that the elements obey him. at 1. Why does the scriptural text say.8 ) . 72ff. receives the cosmos as allotment (Xfj^ig) or portion (xXfjoog) befitting God's heir (xXnoovouoc.1 5 and 6 : 3 .1 3 ) .g. offers an interpretation in terms of Stoic physics—the elements include soul. We should note that Philo where possible rationalizes the miraculous aspects of the Exodus narrative (e. Holladay. The Philonic Moses is quite a different figure than an Apollonius of Tyana. His nature is to be and not to be predicated. But. Why is Moses' kingship placed in a cosmic perspective. however. in which many of the themes we have encountered so far are brought together in a complex but well-integrated w a y .

0 E O 5 to the man in progress.2 4 ) . divine powers. Text C O H N ." a i k r i " Qeov (Deut. 6 R | X . Moses is to the worthless man what God as 0e6g is to the man of progress (here Abraham). the archetypal (porOXog ( E x o d . a t i T O v TQOJTOV (bg A V B G O U J I O V TE Y I V E O S A I xai A V B O U M O V 8EO0- A V B G A M O V & F ) aXXa \ir\ v o u x a r | g T O V \iev y a p . O J t w g T a i g E t m o i i a i g T£>. 33 34 At the end of the passage Moses is again invoked. then it is easier to understand how God and Moses can share the same name.XII 56 their use must be seen in relation to different types of man. T h e supreme Being (xo 6v) is. translation my own (with some assistance from Colson (LCL)). 3 3 : y a p q p r j o i v "f| ei)A. on this text see Nikiprowetzy (1980). o u T a i &E ( X A X I O B ' MU)uaf|g. 1. a ^ E v o v E/H TOV 6 E O J T O T I X 6 V QPOPOV. even God Himself (but then catachrestically. 34 35 33 . Not God but Moses is Qeoq to Pharaoh. If the name or title G e o ? cannot be predicated of God as He really is ( § 1 1 ) . is of obvious relevance to his use of E x o d . 190. to express things as they really are. T h e r e are thus a whole range of beings that can be called 0 e o i : certain men. via His powers. T h e lawgiver is not superstitious about the use of names. this time as example of the perfect man.& i a u i v £ i y a o OIRTOG A V S P A M O G a T Q E i r t o g .6 ) in full: 35 2 4 . x i j q i o c . E v o g xai OTEVCOV e n i x Q E p . x a i ieoojiQEJtovg avu&ooEOjgd^ico8Eig. 8 E O I > POUXEI 6 T A V O I A G & £ . s o that through such Somn. and 0e6c. 7 : 1 . but has one aim only. angels.xf\\ia A V S G O O J I O V be Qeov. a i > T o g JIQOTEQOV YEVOV xXfjgog a ^ i o x Q E o o g aiiTov. E I XXTJQOV TOV 8 E 6 V E X E I V . that the man of progress should be benefited by Him as God. A V S G A M O G kni McouoEwg. This point. that is. (bg ai>xr|na x a i (b(pEA. 2 5 .ri(xa. Runia (1986). 7 : 1 is quoted. For He determines that the worthless man should be ruled by Him as Lord and with awe and groaning feel the fear of the Master hanging over him. I need to quote the relevant capita ( § 2 4 . 3 1 : 1 3 with its double use of 0e6g. A ) evX6yT\oe J I A Y X A X R ] g 2 6 . often overlooked by theologians who ignore the philosophical underpinnings of Philo's doctrine of God. 250.oyia i ) v 1). x. TOV 6 E T E X E I O V xai riyEUOVEijEoSai ( b g vnb xvoiov Eioanav TOUTO x a i EiiEoyETEioSai ( b g vnb Qeov. 228-30. to the man who has attained perfection ( § 1 8 . e x E i v o g &E J i a v T w g e o r i v (bg Qeov. But Philo complicates matters by interweaving the special position of Moses in his exegetical schema. But let us return to the text under discussion.y £ v r | A R | av T o v g XEtQonoir|Tovg x a i Exouaioug o u i a v T a g v o u o v g Exqpuyr|g. 'iv' E I > X A ( 3 O I > u . 6 I X A T O I y a p TOV U£V Q P A U X O V (bg vnb xvgiov & E O " J I 6 £ E O 6 A I . 2 4 . This remark gains extra significance in the light of the context.£i6TnTog £ ( p i x r | T a i . this time in relation to the problematic text Gen. heavenly bodies ( 0 e o I aia0rrcoi). 61 F . xvoiog to the worthless man.W e n d l a n d . TOV 6 E j t o o x o j r t o v T a ( b g vnb Qeov EviEoyeTEioSai. C F . § 1 9 ) . Philo remarks in another passage which discusses the same theme of proper and improper naming. not legitimately). Philo's line of thought is difficult here. GeiagJigovoiagavTi6oi)vai EODTOV. and has been much misunderstood.

. . 1 3 3 . that instead of divine providence he should offer himself (as blessing)! 2 6 . suggests (and incorporates in his translation): §24011x05. 7 : 1 . 'is the blessing which Moses gave. as benefactor for the lower ranks of m e n .9 .avOgomou 6E 0E6V.) I am convinced therefore that the words a^toxQEooc. a man of God as a boast (for yourself) and an instrument of service (for others). by invoking Deut. 113 f. This will happen if you abandon all handmade and arbitrary laws. who would normally be expected to do this. 1 0 : 9 ) .. first you yourself become a portion worthy of him (Moses). LSJ 2). T h e 'man of God' mediates by blessing the people. aiitof) in § 2 6 must mean 'worthy of h i m (i. / T h e train of thought is not immediately clear. and that the perfect man should be directed by Him as Lord and benefited by Him as God. Moses gives himself (as blessing) instead of G o d . And why does Philo suddenly speak of having God as the mind's xXfjooc.? Because that is what Moses himself has received as arch-Levite. So if you wish to have God as the portion of your mind.' What a splendid and holy exchange is he deemed worthy of. while the perfect man is above all a man of God. and many emendations have been proposed. 'This'. Moses)' and not. Clearly there is a connection with Exod. Levitic xXfjoog are brought together in Congr. meaning of dvxi&ooic.). Colson translates 0£iag Jipovoiag avxi&oOvai ECIUTOV as 'in return for God's protecting care he should give himself to God'. 2 5 . cog a v x W to avOpdwiou 8E 0E6V. . . exeivwg. Admittedly it is not easy to see why Philo. wants to emphasize the special role of Moses. the man of God. vonoug to (xwjiovg. This is especially shown in the case of Moses. . 26 CIVOQUMTOV xe (0EOV) Y i ° 0 dv0Qu)jiov 0e6vavOpcojiov (XEV yixQ 0EOU. to Pharaoh. av0Qcojiot) 6E 0e6v. after his summary of the three groups of m e n and the three divine names they are respectively assigned. for whom the L o r d Himself is his portion (Deut. (Exactly the same themes of avx^a. as all 36 37 D u t m e Colson (1934).4 . Perhaps avxi&ooEwg should be translated 'substitution' or 'replacement' instead of 'exchange'.8 and 1 2 8 . V £ a i x a i 01 3 7 3 6 . especially by the translators Colson and T h e i l e r . However this may be. Theiler (1938). ( 0 E O O ) wg olxnua. EXEivog to oijxwg . wg xxfj|ia. . cog . whereas Moses. differs somewhat because the substitutionary role of Moses is not discussed. dvTi6oaic. One might suspect. proposes: 25 a£iw0Eig to a|i<p 9E6V (but the construction with the participial vocative is surely an acceptable ellipse). 3 3 : 1 . b u t ctv6Qa)jro5 9 e o 0 to his followers. Philo.GOD AND MAN IN P H I L O O F ALEXANDRIA 57 acts of kindness he may reach perfection. Some justification for such rashness can be found in the very poor state of the manuscript tradition of this treatise. 154 ff. But from the context it is clear that avxidioioui here means 'give instead o f (cf. can modulate his activity (through blessing a n d condemnation) a n d so is of more immediate assistance to his subjects. except that Moses is now not S e o c . he says. that he means to say that God's beneficence is unalterable.e. But do not think that being a man and a man of God amounts to the same: you are a man as God's possession. and so taking God's place (dvu&ooic. . for God remains wholly unalterable. makes a direct jump to God's unchangeability. with a forward glance to § 2 7 . that is.

Both Meeks and Holladay resort to Rabbinic and Samaritan parallels to explain the use of E x o d . 39 4 0 41 4 2 4 3 38 . god ( E x o d . instead of the passions. the race that sees G o d . 7: 1 as proof of Moses' kingship. he reaches a climax in the figure of Moses. and so not only is able to lead a rational and blessed life himself. however. in describing Moses' relation to his people. 7: 1) ( § 1 2 5 . 123-5. On the passage and its difficult etymologies see now Nikiprowetzky (1984). T h e r e is no proof. Having given a detailed resume of all the biblical characters who have had their names changed (§60-124). that Philo was acquainted with such 41 4 2 43 Cf. like Isaac ( § 8 8 ) is excluded from a change of name. L a t e r in the same treatise Philo returns to these themes. Holladay (1977). He heals souls into whom he places. 25) of the same title as God. 33: 1. God)'.. On the word play with tvXoyiai and EuXoYiorta see ibid . But it means that he is god of his people in the same way that he is god to the wicked Pharaoh. Philo again refers to the Levitic xXfjoog. 1 2 5 : 'As for Philo the priest is a designation of the Wise Man. who not only. Cf. that is in 'secular' terms. because Moses is being presented as king and leader. 33: 1 ) . our discussion of which had left us with unresolved difficulties. 7: 1. Harl (1966).e. Earp (1962).' See above p.. but even has three names. When explaining Moses' role as man of God. Moreover. It is clear that Colson's suggestion that we read jAcouovg (faults) instead of 'laws' is based on a complete misinterpreta­ tion of the passage. 130 ff.XII 58 translators have hitherto rendered. 55. 333 f. a right mind and a holy reason. man of God (Deut. T h i s text too has an honorific element: Moses is deemed worthy (a|ia)9eig! cf. 38 3 9 40 W e are now in a position to compare this text with the passage in the De vita Moysis. Mut. T h e way to do this is to begin with obedience to his legislation. Here. Philo cannot use the 'priestly' text Deut. 'worthy of Him (i. If we want to participate in the Levitic spirituality which is Philo's religious and philosophical ideal. Moses (meaning 'reception' or 'feeling for'). T h e emphasis of Moses' receipt of the cosmos as allotment or portion in § 1 5 6 . Are the people then tpaOXoi? Y e t elsewhere the people are collectively called Israel.9 ) .7 surely means that the Levite theme is playing a role in the background. Meeks (1968). 355 ff. he receives not God but the cosmos as xXfjgog. but has to fall back on Exod. so in the exercise of his priestly functions Moses communicates to the people access to the wisdom which distinguishes him. F o r Pharaoh the fool Moses is 6e6g because he acts as a mediator and intercedes with the Father in the infliction of punishment. Delling (1984). Moses assigns himself as portion to the Creator. we must first take Moses as our portion (and example). but also bequeath that gift to o t h e r s . Having no eyes for his kinship to created reality.

Mut. but the portrayal of the sage as the true ruler and 'god of men' is clearly consistent with the depiction of Moses as 0e6g x a i PaoiXeuc. T h e ojtou6aios.) T h e lawgiver of the Jews states even more boldly that he who is possessed by love of the divine and worships Being is no longer a man but a god. When the friend of God is called to kingship. 7 : 1 at Mos. Instead of associating Moses' godship and kingship with the Levitic theme of devotion to God. F a r from being exalted to a position as God's cosmic vice-regent. precisely the realm of genesis that the Levite had pledged to disregard (cf. It is thus in his account of Moses as priest that Philo emphasizes his calling to the Levitic task of serving God as true Being (cf. Runia (1986). 7: 1 and Deut. 2 6 and 1 2 7 . On its relation to the exegetical treatises see Petit (1974). Philo chooses to emphasize that the sage received the cosmos as a portion. 2. that is once again the Levitic t h e m e . based on Deut.£TJOVTa). leaving to the Father of all the position of King and God of gods (0ed)v Paodei xai Oea)).G O D A N D M A N IN P H I L O O F A L E X A N D R I A 44 59 Midrashic traditions. 1 . 3 3 : 1 . 1 5 8 on an analogy with and as a replacement for Deut. Our analysis constrains us. But for the friend of God there is also a higher office. 45 46 Yet there is also a difference.4 ) . though a god of men ( & V 0 Q Q ) J I U ) V 0e6v) and not of the parts of nature. (Both themes. 546. He who has been deemed worthy (f||ia>Tat) of such divine rank. who is friend of God and hence also ruler and king of kings. 1 . T h e reason for this is clear enough. 3 3 : 9 ) . cannot but be free as well. worships Being only (TO 6v uovov 0eoan. 234. Adaptation of Stoic paradoxes on the oocpoc. Mos. T h e sage. occur in Mos. But we have no way of determining what those traditions were.8 . this is where our parallel texts shed the most unexpected light on the presentation of Moses in Mos. that is. Det. which form the philosophical basis of this heavily Stoicizing treatise. 62. Cf. Indeed. 4 3 . 67. his concern is primarily with the cosmic realm of genesis. 53-445 46 47 48 4 4 . in Mos. just as in Mut. 1 2 7 aXV dv0gd)Kov TTJV J I Q O C . we recall. not through himself but as friend of God. Another example of such a 'more general interpretation' is found in the philosophical treatise Quod omnis probus liber sit ( 4 2 . 33: 1. On the biblical and Platonic resonances of the expression 0e6c 8ed»v see Runia (1986). I think it is likely that Philo has introduced a more general interpretation of E x o d . 6 7 ) . yiveoiv uf| ewoaxoTog ovyyeveiav. therefore. 1 5 5 . 2 . There is every chance that traditional exegesis lurks behind his use of texts such as Exod. Mos. is surely free and has attained the state of blessedness (eudaiuoveiv). 1 . Moses is being presented here as fulfilling an 47 48 The point is not that Philo was unacquainted with exegetical traditions. according to Moses in Prob. 1 5 5 ff. T h e context differs. the priesthood. See above pp. to reach a conclusion which is practically the opposite of that urged by M e e k s . 102-4. 1 .

Contrast Meeks (1968). A little earlier in Mos. 1 .1 0 (exegesis Gen. 360. but so that weaker natures may have a title (jto6oQr|Oig) with which to address Him. 94 T(J> TOV 0eo€ JtoXtHovvuq) 6v6(iOXl. As philosopher-ruler and xoouojioXiTT)g. T h e fact. as G o d ) ' (jioooorjoeajg tfjg autfjg d£ia)6eig) in Mos. God too has many titles—God. 76-9. Father. has no proper (i. a difficult passage that has been much misunderstood. ( T h e element of (propagandistically motivated) biographical hyperbole lies in the fact that Moses is presented as combining all the offices in his one person. T h e crucial difference is that for Moses these are personal and proper names (i&ia x a i xtioia 6v6\iaxa) which tell us something about his nature. W e should. but it does not imply a kind of deification in which Moses comes to share in the same nature as G o d . 51 52 53 50 . 49 50 51 52 It would not be practicable to analyse all the passages in which Philo invokes E x o d . 33: 1) in the course of his exegetical expositions. 11 ff. however. the practising Levite would have to abandon worldly concerns. He says that he is God (6eog) of Abraham. had made the same point: no name (ovouct) can properly be predicated of God. This has been done by Holladay (1977). In Sacr. 4: 2) the line of thought is: 53 49 InMut. as transcendent Being. Decal. therefore. Philo is not always consistent in distinguishing between ovoua and J i p o o p n o t g in the case of God. that Moses is given the same title as God is certainly a great honour. i. legitimate) name ( X V Q I O V ovoua) which can indicate his essence. for example in Plant. Creator and so o n . 158. as priest and prophet he receives God himself as portion.1 5 . 7: 1 (and Deut. 7 5 . Cf. briefly look at two texts in which Philo mixes exegetical and philosophical argumentation in support of his conception of Moses' godship. in each case taking the all-important context scrupulously into account. Isaac and J a c o b .. on which see Runia (1988). T h e privileged status of Moses is shown by the fact that he has no less than three names (one of which is 'god'). 3: 1 4 . he receives the cosmos as portion. with reference to E x o d . such a conclusion would reveal a failure to understand the nature of God's transcendence and the implications of that transcendence for the way in which He can be named.) T h e final point which our discussion of the two passages in the De mutatione nominum has taught us is how to interpret the words 'being deemed worthy of the same title (sc. as is indeed implied in the 'division of labour' between Moses and Aaron in the Pentateuch.6 Philo. 1 .e. whereas God. On the contrary. L o r d .XII 60 office that is lower tnan the office of priest (and also of lawgiver and prophet) which he will also receive. 108-55. 86. Philo dwells only on xupiog and Beog as names for Being: but cf. Mut.

A god does not undergo addition or diminution. Colson ( L C L ) mistranslates at Sacr.XII G O D A N D M A N IN P H I L O O F A L E X A N D R I A 61 1. 7: 1 ) . 141 rightly stresses the importance of the allegorical intent of the passage. in his use of the word 9EOC. 4: 14) the argument appears to go in a reverse direction: Only God* as 6 a>v ( E x o d . 54 In Det. In Moses.e. after 2. that is. God as Being is active. A god. 'Being given' entails passivity.OYiac in Rep. 33: 1 he transmits divine blessings to the people through his own person. but are drawn in opposing directions through the constraint of the context.. according to Plato's xijjroi xfjc 0eoA.2 (exegesis Gen. Moses represents a higher stage. In comparison with God as 6 d>v the o o c p o g is found to be an a v 8 o a ) J i o g 8eofJ (implicit reference to Deut. not passive. as God is). T h e o o m o g is therefore not really 6e6g (i. including Moses). T h e second text is more important for our evaluation of Philo's response to Ezechiel. 7: 1 he mediates by representing God to. however. But for the highest or first god passivity is evidently impossible. and interceding with Him on behalf of. 4: 2. In exegeses of E x o d . beings that come him only seem (66^71) to exist. 2. In the second the gulf that remains between God and even the most privileged of men is demonstrated with great clarity. For example. but at Mut. similar mistake at Migr. ii 379 ff. Philo does equivocate somewhat. he is not added to his fathers but is translated to God himself. T o the problematics of the first we shall have to return in the final section of this article.. Holladay (1977). Abraham. but they undergo passivity inasmuch as their motion is at least in part determined by an external cause (world-soul orfirstunmoved mover). 7 : 1 ) . 5. 35: 29). 1. not activity. but only in appearance ( 6 6 | T | ) (i. Esau underwent addition at birth or death (Gen. passivity is. has the characteristics of goodness and immutability.e. 3: 14) really exists. 33: 1 ) . 2 5 : 8 . 55 5 6 5 4 . 4 9 : 33.e. 3. the fool. 84. 1 5 5 . 6.8 these two 56 55 1. 129 he gets it right. Moses is given by God as a 'god' to Pharaoh ( E x o d . 3. T h e wise men (or minds) Abel. 34: 6). In the first Moses is allegorized as the perfect soul and is brought in as close a relation as possible to God. J a c o b . for it means that another god must act on him and that god would then have to be higher. 4. not 'God'. the planets as 'visible gods' follow an unchanging course. 4. to Pharaoh). 9: 0e6c means 'a god' (i. Therefore no one knows the location of Moses' grave (Deut. T h e characteristic of Moses that has emerged as predominant in our analysis is his role as mediating figure. Addition and subtraction are not compatible with the second of these. T h e two arguments are not strictly speaking incompatible. for he is appointed as god to Pharaoh ( E x o d . 1 6 1 . In exegeses of Deut.

of E x o d . Dey (1975) 58 ff. Her. following Wolfson (1947). Philo is. 1 1 . 9: 6 with the better-known text xax' elxova 0eoO E J i o i n o e v in Gen. 170-3.e. 'the angel of the Lord'. as if next to each other in a list). Runia (1986). 9: 6. could be regarded as divine and therefore as a 'second power' in heaven next to and even as a rival of G o d . 226-94. Spec. cf. 1:27 (see further Runia (1986). It is clear from a number of comments that Philo makes that he regards the high priest (or Moses) as a representative of (or an allegorical symbol for) the Logos. cf. and that to speak of more than one 8E6C is not necessarily a conscious departure from monotheism such as Philo understands it. we note. Moses as arch-high priest in Mos. and one of the basic categories by which the rabbis perceived the new phenomenon of Christianity. Migr. 14: 22 at Leg. earlier than Jesus. The importance of Philo's evidence for Segal's thesis is apparent from the very first paragraph of his Preface: 'It became clear that "two powers in heaven" was a very early category of heresy.9 . See Segal (1977). Hence his careful remark on the expression xov 9e6v x o v \5i|noxov at Gen. Should we then go a step further and attempt to see this mediating role in a theological perspective? In Philo's theology the mediator par excellence is. It has been thought that Philo gives evidence of (and shows a measure of sympathy for) a theological position that was branded heretical by the Rabbis. 159-81 and passim. and does not actually identify him with the divine hypostasis. QE 2. T h e Logos is 'the face of God turned toward creation'. This occurs in QG 2. because they imply a possible comparative basis (i. see also Holladay (1977). the Logos. 446-51. Recently there has been renewed interest in the subject of hypostatization. ^ug. T h e subject is much too complex to be more than mentioned here. that the catachresis involved here is very remarkable and probably needs to be explained by the fact that Philo found it awkward to reconcile the words E V E L X O V I 0 E O O EJioinoa in Gen. 6 0 . 2. and thus divinize him via the 'back door' of hypostatization? T h e answer must be in the negative. 50. 16 Des Places). 1. imman­ ent. 66-186). Cf. exeg. 442 f. 116. sensitive to the use of expressions such as first (or highest) and second god (common in contemporary Platonism. 1. In one such text Moses is portrayed as 6 leodc.). on the contrary. Fossum (1982). Xoyos (Her. if Philo is a trustworthy witness. 5 8 5 9 5 7 Cf. namely that God's highest servant. 3. 1. and as such can be located at several hypostatized levels (transcendent. 3 7 ° . In a number of texts the high priest is described as the logos who mediates between God and m a n .81 On only one occasion in all his works does Philo unambiguously speak of a 6Ei3xE0og 0E6g. It is precisely because the ooq)6g is a perfect man that he is granted this 57 58 59 60 Winston (1985).' It is not appropriate in this context to give a detailed critique of Segal's use of Philonic evidence. Wolfson (1947). 62 in an exegesis of Gen. Segal 164.XII 62 approaches appear to be combined. 118. I think. T h e question that immediately concerns us is: does Philo relate Moses as mediator to this Logos theology. 15. 182-5. as an a n g e l ) . But it needs to be said that he is insufficiently aware of the fact that 0e6g is only one of God's names. Numenius fr. 108. cites the text as if it is in no way remarkable. 102. 185. of course. 2 4 : 6 . 234.

would not have been enough to compensate for the lack of explicit qualifications required by the dream account. for the reason that it might suggest that a man could come to occupy the same place as God. that the playwright. T h e former thought the Philonic depiction provided a parallel for the prophet's deification. Defended with reference to the biblical words (bg av8(KiMtog (Deut. Interestingly at Somn. In my view the comparisons made by both scholars have no sound basis. It is highly probable— though we can never be c e r t a i n — t h a t the scene would have surprised him. and most certainly not in relation to God himself. 230-4 (with reference to Lev. It will be recalled that an appeal to the Philonic evidence was made by both Van der Horst and Jacobson in their interpretation of Ezechiel's s c e n e . These qualifications are nowhere to be found in Moses' account of his dream. any of the Pentateuchal texts and exegetical traditions which we have seen Philo using in order to indicate Moses' special status as leader of his people and chosen prophet of G o d . 237 (note the context!). not in relation to other divine beings. 189 Philo attempts to integrate this text with Exod. 1. being strictly speaking neither God nor man but rather occupying a midway position. namely how Philo would have reacted to Ezechiel's presentation of Moses' dream. But he is only a god in relation to. and does not allude to. Unless one excepts the accounts of Moses' ascent to Sinai. demythologizes or demystifies his subject. I submit. In relation to the cosmic reverence Moses receives in Exagoge 79 ff. W e are now in a position to give an answer to the question we set ourselves earlier in this article. 6 2 63 64 6S 66 See especially Somn. 8: 5). But this. 43 discussed above p. In such a delicate question careful qualifications are required. but they are not expounded with reference to a divine throne. See above p. e. when compared with Philo. « Cf. Moses can be called a 'god' because scripture accords him this title. T h a t God should relinquish the throne in favour of Moses he would not have found acceptable. 7 : 1 . 2. T h e picture of God as a noble man seated on a throne he would have found bold but not unacceptable in the light of the use of anthropomorphisms in s c r i p t u r e . 16: 17). in Somn. It would not have escaped Philo's notice that Raguel's interpretation of the dream does not dwell on these theologically precarious aspects and instead hails Moses as future leader and s e e r . especially Prob. 59. 51.XII G O D A N D M A N IN P H I L O O F A L E X A N D R I A 61 63 privileged position. T h e latter argued the opposite.g. cf. 2. I do not envisage Philo immediately leaving the theatre in disgust—he was a clearly a tolerant m a n — b u t I am sure he would have felt misgivings. 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 6 61 . for it is not based on.other men. Van der Horst (1983). 27-8.

that is. Aaron the Xoyog Ev6ia8ETog. and t e X e i o i . . 6 9 . Moses' statement that man was created x a t ' E i x o v a 0 e o x ) x a l x a 0 ' ouotoooiv is excellent. 8 . for there is no earth-born creature that resembles God as much as man does. 408. and which can add an extra dimension to o u r investigation of the relation between God and man in Philo's thinking. But this statement must be carefully understood: 68 6' euxpeoeiav u n d E i g E i x a ^ E T O ) o o b u a x o g xagaxTfjgi.l i k e . 67 T h e s e examples of psychologizing allegorization may not seem very startling.6v y a p E X E I Koyov 6 u i y a g xiYefiow EV a n a v x i t ( p x o o u c p . 3 9 . OTJTE 6eo£i6eg TO OVSQCOJIEIOV o w u a . K Q o x o j i T o v x e g . a n d t h e h u m a n b o d y is not g o d . when Philo interprets the t e x t that Moses is given as a god to Pharaoh. F o r there is another aspect of the exegesis of E x o d . and Pharaoh the irrational part of the soul associated with the body. TOUTOV cog E O I X E x a i 6 avSgawuvog voug EV d v 6 g a ) J t i p . I refer t o Philo's exegesis of Gen. in Sacr. my translation. the same allegorization is also present. 1 9 ) or between the perfect mind and the mind in charge of the earthly realm (e.1 0 ) . t h e m i n d . On the role of Aaron as Xoyog for Moses the vovg see the allegories in Det. t h e 67 On the various types of allegory see Runia (1986). with reference to the parts or potencies of the soul. I believe. 2 : 7 to breathe into the face (as f r v E u o v i x o v of the body) and not into the other parts such as the senses and the organs of speech and reproduction? T h e answer is that these were 'in-breathed' by the vofjg. In this case Moses represents the rational voijg. Why. 1 : 2 6 in Opif. But there is a much more important text where. f o r G o d d o e s not h a v e a h u m a n s h a p e . Hence Moses is called 'god' t o Pharaoh.XII 64 III Although we already have a n answer to the question we posed ourselves.4 0 . T h e t e r m ' i m a g e ' is s p o k e n with r e g a r d to t h e d o m i n a n t p a r t of s o u l . Philo asks in Leg. So far.g. .4 0 and Migr. 6£og of the aXoyov (uigog) of the soul. In a smaller number of texts. which shares what it has received from God with the unreasoning part of the soul. in Mut. for the voOg is.4 . that of the u n i v e r s e s e r v i n g a s a n a r c h e t y p e . 3 9 . he allegorizes it in terms of the relation between the wise man and the f o o l (e. it would be a pity to stop a t this point. 1 . I n r e l a t i o n t o a s i n g l e m i n d . r | 6E E I X W V X E X E X T O U x a x a xov xf|g ipuxfig f|y£u6va voOv.g. TQOJCOV T i v d 8Eog &v xov (pepovrog x a i dyaA. 7 : 1 which has as yet hardly been touched on. T h i s is an example of ethical allegory based on the division of men into cpaOXoi.u«TO(poQoi)VTog aiixov. so to speak ( c b o a v e i ) . TT|V B u t n o o n e s h o u l d r e p r e s e n t the l i k e n e s s in t e r m s of b o d i l y f o r m . 8 1 . Philo allegorizes the text in terms of psychological allegory. is God said in Gen. however.J i g o g y a p eva xov T t b v oXiov E X E I V O V ( b g a v a g x e x i m o v 6 EV E x a o T i p xwv xcrrd u i g o g aHEixovioOr).OTJTE y a p avSgamoiiopqpog 6 0Eog. Text Cohn-Wendland. 68 .

251-3. Aristotle follows suit. Arist. and in later writers it is a c o m m o n p l a c e . 69 Against the background of Greek philosophy Philo's depiction of the h u m a n mind as 0£og is by no m e a n s extraordinary.g. Rep.7 1177316. Moreover. 88b2. not in the way that the supreme Being is God of all that c o m e s after Him. F o r it is apparent that the place that the great Ruler occupies in the whole cosmos is occupied by the human mind in man . that is in the way that Moses is to Aaron and Pharaoh (cf. Admittedly in the psychologic­ al allegory Pharaoh represents the irrational soul. 7337. e. anim. De part. C4). Some persons were so puffed up with their importance that they deified themselves. One might compare a number of texts in which Philo. In Opif. Nic. which falls little short of calling it a 0 £ o g . and especially in the Timaeus (41C7. But the difference is trivial. 90C4 (allowing a wordplay on the word etifiaiuxov). 329 f. It is the only occasion in which Philo calls an aspect of man 'god' outside a strictly allegorical context. For an examination of all the relevant texts see Runia (1986). albeit a less explicit one. 45ai. When Philo describes the mind as 'a god so to speak to him who bears it and carries it around like a shrine'. 8. e. 10. because the irrational soul is precisely that part of the soul that man needs because he has a body. e.3 0 . But danger lurks here. 4 0 (boavei ycto 0Eog E O T I T O V aXoyov 6 vovg).XII G O D A N D M A N IN P H I L O O F A L E X A N D R I A 65 individual mind in each human being is modelled.2 1248327. Eth. De anima 1. Eth. whereas here Philo speaks of the body. but in a relative or analogical or metaphorical way. Ps. T h e mind is 'god' to the body. 1. but the text is rather uncertain. 13301. In Plato man's voi)g is regularly called 9eiog or T O 0 E I O V . so that he b e a r s on his sexual organ the symbol of his recognition that God and not he is the true c a u s e of procreation. D 2 8 . Pharaoh is king of Egypt because he is wedded to the body and cannot loosen himself from its fetters. 9oa8. as god so to speak to him (the body) who bears it and carries it around like a shrine. Ale. On the strong Nachwirkung of this text (also in Philo) see Runia (1986). 72 73 10. 3 70 71 69 736328. 10 686329. Eud. 1 . Tim. De mundo 1. Plato in the protreptic climax of the Timaeus describes man's divine part as his oaiuxov. 5-11 and passim. In Laws 8g7b2 Plato seems to qualify vouc as aei 0 E 6 V 6Q0<I>C OEOIC. T h i s step was taken by Aristotle. . . Leg. the phrase is so striking that we cannot help suspecting that the description of Moses as 'god to Pharaoh' is lurking in the background. 589d2. anim. 391315: see further Pepin (1971). 4 408629. i. in commenting on the fifth commandment. 6 9 TQOJtov tiva also introduces a qualification. 69d6. 8oa4.g. De gen. T h e text I have just cited is a unique text in the Corpus Philonicum. Phd. 2. suggests that parents are in a sense 'gods visible to sight'. because in their parenthood they imitate the demiurgic activity of God. who in his Protrepticus a p p e a r s to have alluded to 7 0 71 72 73 Spec.g. 4. . F o r this reason man should be circumcised.

On Philo's interpretation of Gen. 184. meminisse. invenire. Her. 1. He certainly does not deliberately avoid this practice. 177-83. 70. fr. 141. T h e same verse is invoked by Cicero in his well-known discussion of the immortality of the soul: . 29. 333 I gave six examples (Leg. which of course is the point that interests us in this article. 90. Holladay emphasizes the fluidity of the term. Mut.XII 66 the words of Euripides. ergo animus. in which he argues that the manifold inconsistencies of Philo's 75 7 6 7 7 7 8 7 4 . T h e fact that Philo's description of man's vofig as 'a god so to speak' is comprehensible against the background of Greek philosophy does not mean that it is indistinguishable from that background. that Cicero finds the Euripidean verse audacious. Homerus . 18 Pistelli)=Arist. given the bulk of his writings and the conventionality of the description (especially among Platon­ ists). who exhorted his friends 'to try to restore the god in you (TOV ev fiulv 6e6v) to the divine in the all (jioog TO ev T(p Jiavxl 9eiov)'. F o r a final example we might turn to the famous last words of Plotinus. one might here too argue a certain reticence on Philo's part. Ebr. Often it means little more than 'wonderful' or 'incorporeal/immortal'. Post. Leg. Beioc is hardly ever used of man (exception Virt. quae autem divina? vigere. Somn.e. 23. 67. i : 2 6 . 6 vofjg ydg eoriv ev exaotop 6e6g (for the mind in each person is (a) g o d ) . Holladay's aim. Det. and time and time again Philo returns to them when he wants to indicate the basic features of man's makeup. sapere. disp. but gives it his full approval. 78 Iamblichus Protr. These two texts are expounded in all their detailed complexity in the De opificio mundi and Legum allegoriae. as noted above in n. We note. In Runia (1986). Y e t . Protr. divinus est. Cher. B110 During. deus. 1. 74 75 76 77 Whether reticent or not. i. 65. . T h e biblical foundation for this is supplied by the two fundamental texts of Mosaic anthropology (one of which we have already briefly touched o n ) . 184. Vita Plotini 2. divina mallem ad nos. 177) because man is a temporary conjunct of corporeal/mortal body and incorporeal/immortal soul. humana ad deos transferebat. Gen. ut ego dico. 10c Ross. 95. Porphyry. ut Euripides dicere audet. 2. Only the latter part can be called 0£iog. But I had not yet then seen the valuable discussion of Philo's use of 0eiog at Holladay (1977). whereas Philo feels a need to qualify the identification of voOg and 0e6g. for example. for it is possible to collect about a dozen examples. 34). 3. We should therefore add at least the following texts: Opif. It is interesting in this context to ask ourselves to what extent Philo feels free to follow the conventional use of the epithet 'divine' to describe the rational soul or mind. Philo is certainly prepared to call the human mind or rational soul 'divine' or 'god-like'. . . Drawing on the study of Van Camp and Canart (1956) on the use of 9eioc in Plato. 1: 26-7 and 2: 7 see now the important study of Tobin (1983). Tusc. . the reference to actual divinity is considerably diluted. 8 (48. Only the more general framework of Philo's interpretation can be dealt with n o w . is to play down the importance of the notion of the Oeiogavfjo in Philo. 84.7 and 2 : 7 . 93: Det.


T h e first account of man's creation, which Moses presents as taking place on the sixth day (Gen. i : 2 6 - 3 0 ) , is taken by Philo to represent the genesis of man as an intelligible and incorporeal being, that is as a vovg without the encumbrances of o<b\ia or irrational tyuxr|. This emerges clearly enough in the text Opif. 6 9 which was cited above. But that text is exceptional because it speaks in terms of a direct relation between God and man's votic,. Elsewhere Philo insists that the words x a t ' elxova 8 E O T J ('according to the image of God') convey a double relation. Man (primarily as vovg) is an image of the divine Logos, which in turn is an image of God. So man is an image of an image. By 'image' (elxwy) Philo means something made in relation to a paradigmatic exemplar ( j i a Q a & E i y u a ) , as takes place in the Platonic theory of ideas which he exploits in order to interpret the Mosaic account of creation. T h e distance between God and man is expressed first, by the ontological gap between model and copy (or origin and derivative), and secondly by the fact that man is not directly imaged on God, but on the Logos which is posterior to Him.

In the second account of man's creation, which is described in Gen. 2 : 7 and is difficult to reconcile 'chronologically' with the earlier account on the sixth day, Moses portrays God as forming man from the earth and 'in-breathing' his face with the breath of life, and so making him into a living soul. Philo interprets this as meaning that man's body is formed from material components and is 'in-breathed' by God's spirit (jtvof) £u)fjg is equated with jtvEtJua), so that man as a ouvautpoxEQOV of body and soul comes into existence. T h e relation between God's Jtv£t)|j,a and man's rational soul or mind is now not one of model and copy, but rather one of part and whole. Man's voug is an 'inseparable fragment' (anoojtaoua otj & U X I Q E T 6 V ) of the divine soul, by which is clearly meant the divine L o g o s . T h e terminology here betrays the influence of the Stoic doctrine of the Xoyog as jtvEvuct pervading the entire cosmos, but also fragmentarily present in man (in Platonism J I V E T J U U is not exploited for anthropological purposes).
80 81

Philo's loyalty is, as always, to the biblical text. But in giving that text a philosophical interpretation he is not just combining Platonist and Stoic anthropological doctrines in a mechanical eclectic fashion. In Det. 8 3 he explicitly rejects the materialist notion that the J t v E T J u a that man receives is 'moving air': it is rather the stamp (Tijjtog) and
interpretation are to be explained in terms of his loyalty to a long tradition of exegesis that he himself only partially develops and modifies; cf. the critiques of Winston (JBL 104 (1985) 558-60) and Runia (1986), 556-8 and see further Winston (1985), 28-30 and Runia (1986), 334 ff. (with bibliography). Cf. Opif. 25, Leg. 3. 95-6, Her. 230 f., etc. Det. 90, cf. Opif. 146, Spec. 4. 123, etc. Cf. Runia (1986), 508, Tarrant (1985) 55 ff. (who argues that the notion of logos fills the gap in Middle Platonism).
7 9 80 81


impression (xaoaxxf|o) of the divine power (i.e. the L o g o s ) . In fact Philo's Mosaic anthropology is primarily Platonist, and in contempor­ ary Platonism the same lack of clarity is found with regard to the question of whether man's rational part is related to the divine in a model/copy or a part/whole relation. T h u s Philo's remark at Opif. 1 4 6 that man is xfjg uctxaoiag cpvoEoag ExuayEiov f\ ajioojiaaua f| ajiaiiyaoua is rather similar to Plutarch's statement f| avSouwiov ipvxr) UEQog xi fj n i u T j u a xf|g xov Jiavxdg ovoa (Mor. 4 4 1 F ) . T h e reason for the lack of clarity is to be located in the two interpretative problems posed by the creation account in the Timaeus of Plato, that is the relation between the demiurge and the world-soul and the significance of the fact that the 'soul-mixture' of both the world-soul and man's soul is prepared in the same crater. (Clarity is finally achieved in Plotinus, who distinguished no less less than four kinds of relation: ( a ) a 'sister' relation between individual souls, that is the world-soul and human souls: (b) a part/whole relation between individual souls and the All-soul (i.e. hypostasis); (c) a model/copy relation between the noetic cosmos and the sense-perceptible cosmos: (d) a relation of procession and reversion between the hypostases of vovg and t|n>xrj).
8 2 83

Philo is not deterred by the problem of the two kinds of relation, nor does he try to solve it in a theoretical way. He is content, for the most part, that the two Genesis texts can be reconciled, and so can be given a predominantly Platonist interpretation. T h i s is especially evident in the two passages of the Allegorical Commentary in which he gives a kind of systematic summary of Mosaic anthropology, Det. 7 9 - 9 0 and Plant. 1 4 - 2 7 . Man is basically a mrvauxpoxeoov consisting of two parts, the body and the rational soul or m i n d . It is only with regard to the latter that man is in some way related to the divine. T h i s dualism is the basic message of the two Mosaic t e x t s , which Philo can only read in the way he does because he is committed to a Platonizing view of man's basic s t r u c t u r e . But before we can move on, two extra comments have to be made.
8 4 85 86 87

First, it should be noted that, although Philo tends to reconcile the two texts and thus put the two kinds of relation on a par, there is some evidence that he shows a preference for the model/copy relation such as is presented in Gen. 1 : 2 6 - 7 . Not only does he, as we saw before,
Cf. Winston (1985), 29 and n. 7, Runia (1986), 472. See Helleman-Elgersma (1982). Cf. Runia (1986), 325 ff. On Philo's further bipartite and tripartite psychology see ibid. 301-11, 329. Note how it can be extracted from Gen. 1: 26-7 alone, by contrasting avSgtonov in v. 26 and xov avSqxojtov in v. 27 (Fug. 71-2). Note the way he deals with the biblical words that God breathes his spirit into man's face, e.g. in Opif. 139, and compare what a modern Jewish philosopher such as Levinas does with the same text.
8 3 8 4 85 8 6 8 7 8 2


see in the notion of nvev\ia the danger of a materialist interpretation. But at Mut. 2 2 3 he explicitly says that it is more reverent for disciples of Moses to call man an eixovog Seiag Exuayeiov Euxpegeg (cf. Gen. 1 : 2 6 - 7 ) than a xr\c, TOV Jtavtog i^v/fis a j t o o n a o u a (cf. Gen. 2 : 7 ) . T h e reason for the remark must surely be a conviction on Philo's part that the (double) model/copy relation distinguishes more clearly between God's true divinity and man's derived divinity. T h e second remark is not unrelated to the first. Besides the texts in which Gen. 1 : 2 6 - 7 and 2 : 7 are reconciled, there are also passages in which Philo distinguishes between the two and speaks of a double creation of man*. In the first text Moses is taken to describe the creation of a 'heavenly man', in the second an 'earthly man'. T h e precise difference between these two is a matter of considerable controversy. In some passages, for example Opif. 1 3 4 - 5 and QG 1. 4 it appears that the heavenly man is the paradigmatic exemplar of the earthly man, that is belonging to the noetic world. In other texts, for example Leg. 1. 3 2 and QG 2 . 5 6 , Philo speaks of a pure mind which has no part in that which is corporeal and sense-perceptible. T h i s seems to me a more plausible view of what can be meant by the heavenly m a n . In a limited number of texts Philo shows that he allows for the possibility that the human xovg can divest itself wholly from the body and the irrational soul (cf. the heavenly man created on the sixth day) and become 'enrolled in the noetic cosmos'. F o r our purposes the most important passages are three remarkable t e x t s — Q E 2 . 2 9 , 4 0 , 4 6 — i n which Philo discusses the ascent of Moses in E x o d . 2 4 . These texts have often been discussed in relation to the theme of Moses' 'divinization' which was dealt with earlier in this paper. But it seemed better to postpone the discussion until now, for it is clear that Philo envisages Moses in a special condition in which he can hardly still be regarded as a m a n :
88 89 90 91 92

QE 2 . 2 9 : ' F o r w h e n t h e p r o p h e t i c m i n d b e c o m e s d i v i n e l y i n s p i r e d a n d filled w i t h G o d , it b e c o m e s like t h e m o n a d , not b e i n g at all m i x e d w i t h a n y of t h o s e Contra Winston (1985) 29; cf. T o b i n (1983), 93, Runia (1986), 472. Cf. Runia (1986) 334 ff.; but this was written before the publication of Tobin's book and the attempt to interpret Philo's anthropology without recourse to an Ideal man in the platonic sense of the word must remain somewhat problematic. It might be tempting simply to identify the intelligible man with the man as pure voOc,, in anticipation of Plotinus who affirms that 'the vonxd are not outside the \ovq' (cf. Enn. 5. 5, Armstrong (1957)). But the vovc would then be on the level of the L o g o s . How would it be individuated, and how does it come to descend? Cf. Gig. 54, 61, Her. 280, QG 4. 138 and the remarks at Runia (1986) 332. Cf. Goodenough (1935), 226 ff.; Meeks (1967), 364; (1968), 124 ff.; Van der Horst (1983), 25. Translation Marcus L C L (but allowance must be made for the inaccuracies caused by the indirect transmission).
8 9 9 0 9 1 9 2 88

things associated with duality. But he who is resolved into the nature of unity, is said to c o m e near God in a kind of family relation (prob. ovyyivna), for having given up and left behind all mortal kinds, he is changed into the divine, so that such men become kin to God and truly divine.' QE 2 . 4 0 : 'What is the meaning of the words, "Come up to Me to the mountain and be there" ( E x o d . 2 4 : 1 2 ) ? T h i s signifies that a holy soul is divinized (8eoi>o8ai or 6eo<popeio0cu?) by ascending not to the air or to the ether or to heaven (which is) higher than all but a (a region) above the heavens. And beyond the world there is no place but G o d . . . "

In the case of Moses man's characteristic duality is overcome, not only to the extent that the soul survives the death of the body, but to the extent that the voOg achieves a monadic unity that enables it to transcend the world of physical reality altogether. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the six days of cloud and the calling up of Moses on the seventh day in Exod. 2 4 : 1 6 encourage Philo to recall the creation a c c o u n t :

QE 2 . 4 6 : 'But the calling above of the prophet is a second birth better than the first. F o r the latter is mixed with a body and had corruptible parents (cf. E x o d . 2 : 1 - 2 ) , while the former is an unmixed and simple sovereign mind . . . F o r he is called on the seventh day, in this (respect) differing from the earth-born first moulded man, for the latter c a m e into being from earth and with a body, while the former (i.e. the heavenly m a n ) ( c a m e ) from the ether and without a body . . .'

Clearly this interpretation has very little to do with the text that Moses was 'given as a god to Pharaoh' (Exod. 7 : 1 ) — in spite of the rapprochements made by scholars—except when that text is allegor­ ized as referring to the votig. But here there is no relation to Xoyog (Aaron) or otbiia. (Pharaoh), for now the voOg is wholly incorporeal. T h i s is the highest form of divinization. But can we still speak of the divinization of man? Let us turn to one more, to my mind typically Philonic, passage before we attempt to reach some conclusions. In Mut. 1 8 1 - 5 , commenting on Gen. 1 7 : 1 7 , Philo poses the following exegetical quaestio: if Abraham is said to have believed in God (Gen. 1 5 : 6 ) , how can it be that he here shows signs of doubt in God's promise that Sarah will bear a son and heir? Whoever asks this question seems to wish 'to declare the created uncreated, the mortal immortal, the destructible indestructible, and, if it is not blasphemy to say this, man
Text ibid. This passage is difficult, and not all its problems can now be discussed. Especially the words 'from the ether* seem surprising (cf. Philo's remark in QE 2. 40 cited above). They are missing in the Greek fragment preserved by Procopius (but why should the translator make them up?). On the association of the heavenly man not with the sixth but the seventh day, cf. Nikiprowetzky (1965), 277, 302 (Tobin does not discuss this text).
9 3



man God' ( x o v Y ° u e v o v c u t o c p a t v E i v a y E v r i x o v x a i x o v 0vnxdv a0avaxov x a i x o v cpSaoxov acp0aoxov xai x o v av0QU)Jtov, e I 0 e u i c , e u t e i v , 0 e 6 v ( § 1 8 1 ) ) . It is futile to think that man's steadfastness can match God's, for there is an essential difference between God and man: having a simple nature, God is not a composite being (otiyxQiixa); we humans on the other hand are mixtures ( x o a u a x a ) , consisting of a mortal and a divine part which are harmoniously blended, but distinguishable nevertheless ( § 1 8 4 ) . Blessed (ei)6ai|xu)v) is the person who for the greater part of his life can incline to the better and more divine portion, for continual bliss is not possible for the mortal kind (§185). T h e r e are here, the reader will agree, a number of themes that are by now familiar to us. It would be blasphemous to call man God, or even a god, unless careful qualifications are made, such as Philo invariably does when discussing the biblical text in which Moses is called such by God himself. Nevertheless, when the nature of man's makeup is analysed, it emerges that he does possess a divine part, a part through which he is related to God and is able to emulate God in right living to some degree. T h i s part is the rational part of the soul or the mind. Much, therefore, of Philo's thought on the relation between God and man is summarized by the exegesis in Mut. 1 8 1 - 5 . As was said earlier o n , Philo's philosophical conception of man is dualist. Man is basically a o i r v a u x p o x E Q O v of body and rational soul or mind. Both of these parts are created by God, but only with respect to one of them, the mind, is man related to H i m . Philo extracts this anthropology from the biblical record because he reads it with Platonist spectacles. When he reads that man is made in God's image and that God breathes His spirit into man's face, he could also have taken these statements to refer to the whole of man, that is, soul and body, and not just to one of his parts. Nevertheless, I would not wish to suggest that we have here a total abandonment of Judaism in favour of Greek philosophical ideas. T o start with, Philo does not waver in his loyalty to the biblical text, which does provide him with his starting point and can be so read. Moreover, it can be argued that Philo in fact shares his intellectualistic bias with his colleagues in Palestinian Judaism, but gives it a different content, he in terms of Greek rational thought, they in terms of the study of the minutiae of the L a w .
94 95

Philo's dualism stands in a long tradition, from Plato to Descartes
See above, p. 68. Philo nowhere denies that man's body is created by God. It is only with respect to the irrational soul that he has doubts, these being prompted by a combination of the influence of the Timaeus and the exegetical problems posed by the troublesome plurals in Gen. 1: 26 and two other texts. On this subject see Runia (1986), 242-9.
95 9 4

72 and beyond. This is not the place to subject it to a general philosophical critique. T h e r e is, however, one specific problem which touches on the subject of our paper, the relation between God and man, and with this I would like to end my discussion. T h e problem is this: if it is through his mind that man is related to God, and that relation is effected through the mediation of the divine Logos, can the relation be delimited with any precision? With regard to the 'divine' we can say without reservation that it stops at the divine part of man: those creatures above and including man in the hierarchy of living beings are divine, or at least possess a divine part; those creatures below man have no part in the divine. But God as supreme Being and creator is not co-extensive with the divine. Can Philo make clear to us where God's divinity stops and 'derived' divinity starts? T h e role of the Logos is, of course, determinative in answering this question. A short answer would be: 1. T h e Logos as divine hypostasis has a transcendent and an immanent aspect, the former manifest above all in its role as place of the noetic cosmos in the process of creation (cf. the model in the Timaeus), the latter in its role as providential maintainer of the cosmos once it is created (cf. Plato's world-soul or the Stoic L o g o s ) . 2 . When man is said to have a model-copy relation to God, Philo is thinking particularly of the mediation of Logos in its transcendent aspect. 3 . When man is said to have a part-whole relation to God, Philo is thinking particularly of the mediation of the Logos in its immanent aspect.
97 96

Clearly, therefore, the problem is in large part reduced to the question of what Philo intends with his hypostatization of the Logos. It would seem to me that Philo faces a dilemma. If he wishes us to understand the role of the Logos in a nominalist fashion, then the concept or the Logos has the primary function of reminding us of God's utter transcendence: God's essence is not exhausted in His relation to what comes after him (which relation is represented by the L o g o s ) . But then it is going to be very difficult for Philo to indicate where God's divinity ends and 'derived' divinity begins. If man is part of the Logos (part-whole relation), and the Logos is only nominally separate from God, then (part of) man is part of God. If, however, the Logos is to be
For an interesting initiation to the issues involved, see the recent debate between Robinson (1983) and Nussbaum (1984), with specific reference to the Aristotelian philosophical position. I ignore here the third aspect, that of instrument of creation (which bridges the transcendent and the immanent aspect); for a more detailed account see Runia (1986), 446 ff.
9 7 9 6

7 and 2 : 7 . is a 'god' to Pharaoh. T h e r e is a third way. Winston (1985). angels/demons. Moses' godship can be seen as relational because the term 9eog used to describe him is not co-extensive with God as supreme being. Exod. that is God as 6 wv. and even to his own people. derives his divinity from the creator). T h e r e is no evidence to suggest. men. My impression is that this tension remains unresolved in Philo's doctrine of the Logos. Man's vofig is divine because it is in a model—copy relation or a part-whole relation to the divine Logos. with significant consequences for the clarity of his philosophical position on the question of man's relation to God. But it is not easy for him to give a Cf. 7 : 1. however. for it can be allegorized in terms of the mind and the body. and it is that part of man that Philo calls 'divine' (though not as often as we might expect in relation to his philosophical background). the transcendent Logos rests with God. Only part of man is related to God. 9 8 . 1 : 2 6 . as well as the Logos. T h e crucial Pentateuchal text for Philo in his reflections on man's relation to God from this angle in E x o d . the Logos or the powers. 98 IV T h e results of our enquiry into Philo's views on the relation between God and man can now be briefly summarized. that is. 7 : 1 is still relevant here. the paragon of excellence to the extent that is attainable for man. then man is no longer part of God (since he. that Philo would wish to introduce such a radical separation in the L o g o s .XII G O D A N D M A N IN P H I L O O F A L E X A N D R I A 73 understood in a realist fashion as an entity separate from God Himself. In a theological perspective Philo thinks primarily in terms of entities in a quasi-Aristotelian sense. his interest turns to man's component parts and their relation to the divine. But such hypostatiza­ tion can be seen as a threat to God's aloneness. the two verses in the creation account which describe the creation of man. 17 f. In absolute terms a better title is 'man of God'. namely a double Logos instead of a Logos with a double aspect. heavenly bodies. but emphatically in no more than a relational sense. on the double Logos symbolized by the High priest's Xoyiov (Mos. In our analysis it proved profitable to distinguish between a theological and a philosophical approach to the problem. in direct confrontation with Judaism's central tenet. But the central Mosaic texts are now Gen. but is no more than one of His names (in fact God has no 'proper name' indicative of His essence). 127). 2. Moses. When Philo approaches the problem from a more philosophically orientated perspective. that is his rational soul or mind. It is clear that Philo would not wish to abrogate the divide that separates God and man. the immanent Logos belongs to what comes after Him.

A m s t e r d a m . j . L. j . w . E. Philo L C L 10 vols. HELLEMAN-ELGERSMA. The E x a g o g e of Ezechiel ( C a m b r i d g e . HORST. w . Goodenough ( L e i d e n . w . EARP. R. 1982). NEUSNER ( e d . 2 1 5 . v o l . and it draws attention to unresolved tensions that remain in his doctrine of the Logos. 'Mysticism and apocalyptic in Ezechiel's Exagoge'. Le sens du mot OEIOZchez Platon ( L o u v a i n and Paris. H. A. ( e d d . BIBLIOGRAPHY AMIR. T h i s lack of clarity is inherent in Philo's Platonism. Indices to Colson and Whitaker. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. By Light. CAMP. a critique of the use of this category in New Testament Christology (Missoula.2 5 . H. xxxvii (1984). H. G. English translation of Philo's mutatione nominum (1934) in F. ' T h e background to the doctrine "that the intelligibles are outside the intellect'". HOLLADAY. ( L o n d o n . Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien ( N e u k i r c h e n . 1983). ) . COLSON and G. 1984). 935)HARL. R. 1956). P. ' S o m e notes on the Exagoge of Ezechiel'.3 7 . 354-75JACOBSON. 5. 1967). GOODENOUGH. 2 7 . Quis rerum divtnarum heres sit in R. WHITAKER. The prophet-king: Moses traditions and thejohannine christology (Leiden. Les ceuvres de Philon d' Alexandrie. 2 1 . 1962). Mnemosyne.9 . w .9 3 . FOSSUM. H.4 2 . ) . H. ARNALDEZ et alii. Religions in antiquity: essays in memory of E. 1980). Entretiens Hardt v ( G e n e v a . Nourished with peace: studies in Hellenistic Judaism in memory of Samuel Sandmel ( C h i c o : California. 1966). DEY. T h e i o s aner in Hellenistic Judaism.6 2 ) . Soul-sisters: a commentary on Enneads IV j (27). Journal of Jewish Studies. vi (1981) 2 7 2 . 1-8 of Plotinus (diss. 1 9 7 7 ) . H. 10 ( L o n d o n . M. xxii ( i 9 6 0 ) . 1 9 7 5 ) . 'Philo's exposition of the L a w and his D e vita Mosis'. H. COLSON. xxvii ( 1 9 3 3 ) . L. 15 (Paris. Utrecht. 1968). j . in F. v o l . DELLING. E. Light: the mystic gospel of Hellenistic Judaism ( N e w H a v e n .XII 74 clear indication of where God's true divinity ends and man's derived divinity starts. F. ' T h e "one w h o sees G o d " in Philo'. ' T h e orthodoxy of the Jews in Hellenistic E g y p t ' . The name of God and the angel of the Lord: the origins of the idea of intermediation in Gnosticism (diss. 1 9 2 9 . 1983). MEEKS. vol. ' M o s e s as god and king' in j . Harvard Theological Review. VAN DER ' M o s e s ' throne vision in Ezechiel the dramatist'. ARMSTRONG. i960). Y. P. FELDMAN. K. GREENSPAHN et al. x x x i v (1983). 1 0 9 . VAN and CANART. The intermediary world and patterns of perfection in Philo and Hebrews (Missoula. K. c. Jewish Social Studies. J .

3 0 5 . M. '"Moyses palpans vel liniens": on some explanations of the name of Moses in Philo of Alexandria'. WINSTON. v. Nourished with peace: studies in Hellenistic Judaism in memory of Samuel Sandmel (Chico: California. Gnomon. Quod omnis liber probus sit in R. 'Pneuma-related concepts in Platonism'. Die orientalischenReligionen im Rbmerreich (Leiden. H. SEGAL. Philo: foundations of religious philosophy in Judaism. 'Une poete Judeo-Hellenistique: Ezechiel le tragique'. LOGAN and A. 'A reappraisal of Wolfson's method'. A. 1984). Philo von Alexandria: die Werke in deutscher Ubersetzung. vol. j . Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy. in R. NUSSBAUM. De gigantibus 6-18'. F. 1972. 1 (Gottingen.XII G O D A N D M A N IN P H I L O O F A L E X A N D R I A 75 MENDELSON.7 1 . reprinted in Essays on religion and the ancient world. Judaic Christianity and Gnosis' in A. ii (1984). pfepiN. TARRANT. The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in honour of Robert McL. 1962 ). RUNIA. NOCK. Two powers in heaven: early Rabbinic reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden. 1983). 'Aristotelian dualism'. W. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy.). M. H. (edd. German translation of De mutatione nominum (1938) in L. B. Christiantiy and Islam (Cambridge: Mass. 'Naming and knowing: themes in Philonic theology with special reference to the De mutatione nominum'. G. 2 7 1 . STEWART. PETIT. s. Le commentaire de I'Ecriture chez Philon d'Alexandrie (Leiden. 7 vols. 'Sur un lecture demonologique de Philon d'Alexandrie.4 2 . vol. Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta.). WEDDERBURN (edd. 6. E. 1974). 1985). 1 1 7 . Studia Philonica. 'Problemes du "recit de la creation" chez Philon d'Alexandrie'. 1 9 8 1 ) . Logos and mystical theology in Philo ofAlexandria (Cincinnati. T. 156-65. D.). V N DERBROEK (ed. Les aeuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie. M. 2 2 I I 2 D . Museum Helveticum (1974) 2 1 6 . THEILER. J. 1977). ROBINSON.). 123-44. VERMASEREN (ed. Philo of Alexandria: an introduction (New York. cxxiv (1965). 46-68. 1979). (Oxford. ed. Vadja: etudes d'histoire et de pensee juives (Louvain 1980). TOUATI. H. in c . 1988). 55-60. 1985 ). vol. 'Aristotelian dualism: reply to Howard Robinson'. D. 197-208. 13 ( 1 9 3 7 ) . 4 3 . TOBIN. A. 1983). 1909-64). i (1983). Hommage a G. 'Gnosis' in M. Idees grecques sur Vhomme et sur Dieu (Paris 1 9 7 1 ) . 69-91. Prudentia (Supplementary number. 1986). D. 'Judaism. SNELL. A. 2 vols. (Breslau & Berlin. A. ARNALDEZ et alii. 'Review of Goodenough (1935)'. STAROBINSKI-SAFRAN. A. A Knowledge of.2 4 . Wilson (Edinburgh. EPRO (Leiden. 1985)WOLFSON. The creation of man: Philo and the history of interpretation (Washington. E. SANDMEL. T.God from Alexander to Constantine. 28 (Paris. 1 9 7 1 ) . 1947. 1 9 7 7 ) . H. j . QUISPEL. COHN et alii. s. Revue des Etudes Juives. in F. H. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Leiden.. z. GREENSPAHN et al. iii (1974-5). B. ~ NIKIPROWETZKY. NAHON and c.

and it was carried out with direct reference to the Armenian and not via the intermediation Hellenistic-Jewish. Ruckubersetzung des Fragments aus dem Armenischen. v i i i + 1 9 0 pages. First it will be useful to give an outline o f what the author has placed before us. H e begins with a brief introduction ( 1 . at least with regard to the fragment De Deo. a retroversion o f the work back into Philonic Greek. A t the same time. B . the De Deo. In m o r e than one respect this study is a tour de force. a c ­ companied by an extensive c o m m e n t a r y . Price DM 8 9 . Terian. 1988. but not Philonic. in our view. This was the first translation o f these works into a modern language. who had asserted in his English translation o f the animalibus De that 'a reconstruction o f the Greek original is impossible'. deutsche Ubersetzung und K o m m e n t a r von Folker Siegert. In 1980. o f whose authenticity he is now convinced. Before us lies a much m o r e ambitious undertaking. These will emerge in the course o f this review. o f the authoritative Latin translation o f J . M o h r (Paul Siebeck). De Jona and De Sampsone. There follows the heart o f the book. Siegert argued in a brief introduction that all three works were changed his mind. B . in which he outlines the neglect that the fragment has suffered and argues that the slavishly literal method o f translating practiced by the Hellenophile school allows the attempt at retroversion. the retranslation o f the F r a g - . Feuer" Uber die Gottesbezeichnung "wohltatig verzehrendes (De Deo). how­ ever. Here he takes a stand against A. Folker Siegert pub­ lished a German translation o f three short works transmitted to us as part o f the Armenian Philo. C . be considered a (qualified) success. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 4 6 .1 2 ) .XIII REVIEW Philon von Alexandrien. Siegert is at­ tempting a feat that has never been achieved before. as volume 2 0 o f the same scholarly series. The result can. J . All readers—emphatically including this reviewer—will be envious o f the considerable philological skills and the remarkable breadth o f knowledge displayed in this volume. it raises difficult questions about the status that can be accorded this kind o f text. In the intervening years he has Aucher. Tubingen. Next the Armenian text in Aucher's edition o f 1826 is reproduced ( 1 3 2 2 ) .

Both language and content confirm in the clearest terms that the fragment is authentically Philonic. in which the author explains or defends his choice o f terminology (the choice to give references to CohnWendland's text by volume. but even the briefest perusal will show that it is a passage o f exceptional interest. About half o f each page is taken up with a detailed apparatus. The bulk o f the book is taken up with an extensive commentary (39139). the self-reference in line 1 4 9 ) . Passing now to the retroversion. T h e translated text is only 155 lines in length.1 5 9 ) and ex­ emplary indices ( 1 6 0 . The book ends with a detailed bibliography ( 1 4 0 . There are indications that this is a late work o f Philo (cf. The chief philosophical interest of the text is its preoccupation with the relation between divine transcendence and immanence. At the same time. Philo is giving an exegesis o f the text Gen. It was probably part o f the allegorical treatise that followed on from De mutatione o f the fragment. Both are not found elsewhere in his writings (for the latter cf. 4 2 2 ) . while A b r a h a m is the soul engaged in a mystical vision o f being. characteristic doctrines o f negative theology are employed to emphasize the transcendence o f the Ylpti-zoc. On the following pages ( 3 3 . as elsewhere in Philo. in which the L X X speaks o f A b r a h a m lifting his eyes and seeing three men appear above him. which ends its exegesis at Gen. the reviewer finds himself in a dif­ ficult situation. however. T h e three men represent. not being in a position to judge the relation o f the Greek retranslation to the Armenian text on which it is based.3 2 ) .XIII 399 ment back into Philonic Greek ( 2 3 . Is. 17:22. Let me start with two examples o f passages which seem to me to be particularly successful: nominum. All I can do is c o m p a r e the result with my own intuitions concerning Philonic style and diction based on years o f familiarity with Philo's Greek.3 7 ) there is a revised translation o f the work based on the interpretations contained in the retranslation. These two texts induce Philo to give a cosmology that is m o r e heavily impregnated with Stoic ideas than any other in his writings (note the definition o f nup x e x v i x o v attributed to xwv dato xfj? cpiXoaocpiocs ov-coov xive?. 18:12. 4 : 2 4 (God as a devouring fire). which is punctuated by 10 excursus on various topics raised by the text. At one stage Philo cites two texts. Hebrews 12:29). only a few verses before the main biblical lemma . 6:1-2 (the Seraphim) and Deut.1 9 0 ) . ' H y e u w v . = SVF 2 . page and line numbers only here was not a good idea. the supreme being with his chief powers. since many readers will not have direct access to that work).

. here is surely an Armenian doublet. (lines 89-93) Readers will have no difficulty in recognizing the familiar Philonic idioms and terminology. I shall briefly indicate some o f the m o r e striking examples. as Mayer's index shows. 1. i. 8£. ap' ouv 8ia xouxo <ovo[xaa9r)aav " T u r c o t " . there a r e many individual passages that leave me with severe doubts.£voc £xd<rc<*> xtvl Iv xolq ouai xdc dp(ioxxouaa? 7toi6xT]xa<.134 (Jacob's . 8ia<jY]u. I would expect exuTcwae (cf. line 62: dpxovxixfj is not Philonic Greek. but that they are called that.e. The concept here is eminently Philonic. which he explains one by one. oxi "Kupioc 6 0e6c aourcupxaxavaXioxov eoxiv". 2 3 0 .e. construction. line 57: oxuXo<. In short.e<ov.25. xeTurccoxe there are no cases o f usage o f the perfect active o f xurako in Philo.dvaXiaxov ou 90opo7couo<. Migr. I have no doubt that Siegert is following the Armenian here. A better reading is suggested by Somn.."£u. but does it faithfully represent the Greek? In the second passage I a m puzzled by the fact that the biblical text contains the verb xaxocvaXi'axetv.XIII 400 "Eepacpiu. (lines 72-76) Ma>u<jfj<. The perfect line seems odd. xaXeixai vel sim. Somn.. but in his c o m m e n t s Philo repeatedly uses the word avaXiaxeiv. ovo(xa uiv euGuPoXto? ikiyi-zo vel sim. Mut. a7xopdv: the metaphorical use of <j7topd in Philo is very rare (cf.7rpr)at<. line 119: 5<[K? seems an unattractive opposite to f| T O O xoau.aivcov x a l e7tia<ppayiaau.dCexat. which shows that Philo almost certainly wrote qjuaixcoxaxa.ou (Bdaic. dXXd 7to9&rxe Xawc hr\ dxoueiv x o v xpo^ov. but not in a cosmological c o n t e x t ) ."- 6vou. 1. 103. line 117: The best parallel is Leg.. so one would expect npbc SeTijiv vel sim.199). ou T O cpGeipeiv ISiov euTt 0eou. line 106: <d>?> £x ui| ovxo? tic xo elvai rcapayGoyT) auv-rnpriTixfi. xaG' ov xo dvaXtoxeiv <paiv6[xevov oXoxXrjpov StaxTipet.. x o y a p aa>£eiv. the perfect passive occurs at Leg. If inculcation is meant (which I doubt). although I recognize a great a m o u n t o f authentic Philonic diction in Siegert's retroversion. In the first ex­ ample Philo gives two etymologies for the word 'Seraphim'. i. This t o o seems c o n t r a r y t o his normal practice.. The parallels cited are not persuasive.ov xex67xtoxe.. dXXd atoxripCwc.. but the language seems to me most improbable.. line 1 2 : 7 t p 6 c I C J 6 X T ] T O C x a i Stxaioauvrji. There is nothing to stimulate such a usage in this context. Read dpxixfj." epfiriveuexat "XUTCOI" rj "eu. in the third 45 etc.. line 49: The point of the powers as 8opu<p6pot is not that they are (ioxiv) Geo? and xupio? respectively. olc 6 rioiT]xr)c xov eu8oP6X<oc lyevexo xcov 8uvdu. 6vou. Sioxt etBri xat acppayiSec eiaiv. hi x a i xr)Xauy£<JTepov cprjatv.. The division of the light into two indicates equality. 1.7tpT)<nc" hi 8ta xouxo. 96. 3 . Surely we would expect a uiv. But even here questions remain. only Mut. then yevvTiotv would be more expected.

a<. . It is endangered by both the Scylla o f novelty and the Charybdis o f familiarity. yet is two steps removed from it. I find it very difficult. which the great classical Armenian dictionary o f equivalents.v. the exercise will hardly have seemed worth the effort.poXtxwc Xeyexai 6 arjp. My overall impression is that the retranslation is a significant and highly commendable contribution towards a better understanding o f this text. and sometimes none o f these are satisfactory.) In other words. as Siegert indicates. a very unusual piece. .' It is a thousand times more likely that the lack of sophistication was shown by the Armenian translator than by Philo. no parallel for this statement can be found in for 1836-37 gives 12 Philo's writings. 18:1-2 would lead one to expect a word such as 6paai<. namely etxova. but to underline how difficult a task he has taken on himself. after all. the exegesis o f Gen. does not convince. since it appears to personalize (and Christianize) the Philonic L o g o s t o o much. than the retroversions supplied by Marcus in his translation o f the Quaestiones. to determine what kind o f status should be accorded to this retranslated text. where he comments on the lines retranslated as TT)V eixova a u x o u x a i xrjv xcov 8uva[xea>v dbteaxeiXev 7xp6g r)u. therefore. It is. much more useful.XIII 401 ladder): xXiu.a!j xotvuv ev u. xopucpTj 8' oupavoc. how likely is it that it did stand in the original version of this fragment? line 147: the perfects avaxexaxe and rjpxe seem contrary to Philo's usual style. Siegert comments (123): 'Recht einfach halt Philon die Grenzen der bewohnten Welt auch schon fur die Grenzen des Kosmos. (3OTJ06V aXyriSoviov x a i x a x c o v . His usage of the term O I X O U ( J L £ v t i is always confined to human culture. H o w splendid it would be if we had the whole o f the Armenian Philo in this retroverted state (but the labour involved would . (And indeed the translation offered above. as a glance at the listing in Mayer's lexicon s. It appears in the same language as the original. vel sim.ev xw xoau. line 121: To my mind it is quite impossible that Philo in a cosmological context should write dnxb xtov ixepdcxcov xfjc otxouu. the retranslator constantly has to make a choice between alternatives. for ex­ ample. on the other hand.evT)c lid x a rcepaxa (s/c) xexa<v>xou. the word Mwuaod'xoc is nowhere found in the entire Philonic corpus preserved in Greek. A particularly revealing remark is found at the very end o f the c o m m e n t a r y . one will have to be cruu. Whichever way we translate the Armenian word kerparan. if everything we read is already familiar. The purpose o f these examples is not to detract from Siegert's achievement. line 135: If. ou [iaatc uiv eaxi yrj. If a statement appears daringly dif­ ferent from what Philo says elsewhere. will confirm.

it is my suspicion that Siegert's respect for the abilities o f the Armenian translator is not seldom excessive. it would be naive to think that the final result is anything like a reliable guide to Philo's original text. It has. E x . 18:1-2) was presumably quoted a little before the surviving text commences. Gnostic and Patristic thought. in my view. covering a thousand years o f intellectual history in a display o f great scholarly virtuosity. It is a classic example o f a 'chapter' o f a Philonic treatise. Siegert has the oppor­ tunity to expatiate on themes ranging from negative theology and mysticism to Persian court ceremony and the role o f the phallus in an­ cient cosmology. Partly this is the result o f the fact that only a certain amount could be said in the space o f a selective c o m m e n t a r y .) and Philo's 'desktop ecstasy' (line 6 5 ) . 4 : 2 4 . is 'begriffsgeschichtlich'. Clearly the text is part o f the Allegorical C o m m e n t a r y . and cannot have always been in a position to have had an adequate understanding o f Philo's intent. he was a long way removed both in time and place from Philo's intellec­ tual environment. smaller sections o f the lemma are individually explained. Because the piece. 2 5 : 2 1 . W e turn.XIII 402 be colossal). 19:4. But the problem goes deeper. T w o discussions that are particularly interesting are on the masculinity o f the creator (lines 35ff. 6:1-2. The considerable strength o f the c o m m e n t a r y is that it places the Philonic text in the wider context o f the development o f Greek philosophical. The weakness o f the commentary is that it fails to show the coherence o f Philo's thinking in the face o f the diverse backgrounds against which he is viewed. The margin for error is simply excessive. though short. Deut. to the c o m m e n t a r y . touches on a great number o f central theological and cosmological themes. Deut. 3 2 : 1 0 . the chapter is rounded off with an edificatory conclusion which returns to the main lemma (further discussion on this method in . its strengths and its weaknesses. The method. last but not least. As some o f the examples given above indicate.1 2 ) which illustrate and deepen the meaning o f the main text. Jewish. The main biblical lemma (Gen. partly it undertakes to elucidate the text by furnishing a truly im­ pressive array o f parallel and illustratory material. On the other hand. Whoever he was. as the author explains in his introduction. Partly its purpose is to give further clarification o f the interpretation underlying the retransla­ tion. Biblical. Is. transfer is then made to secondary biblical lemmata ( E x . The author appears to show little awareness o f the rationale that lies behind Philo's exegetical method.

ist Philons Fundlein. the poetic gleams o f daylight. This divine light has the nature to divide. 38 ( 1 9 8 4 ) 2 0 9 . God is described as 6 'Eo-rox. line 22: A comment might have been made on the defence of Moses' use of seemingly superfluous words. 3. A t midday the sun appears to stand still in the sky.233. who generates an aaxioc. line 32: An interesting parallel for God's immutability in this context is Somn. Moreover noon divides (at least in the day in two. Leg. A fine example. Specifically it should be noted that Gen. as the etymo­ begrunden (my emphasis). 54. and thus can hardly be under­ stood without constant reference to that text. cf.2 5 6 and 41 ( 1 9 8 7 ) 1 0 5 . especially for the precise comparison and elucidation o f ter­ minology.XIII 403 my articles in this j o u r n a l . I conclude my review with some comments on individual passages. auyr) that il­ luminates the entire soul. Fug. Although Siegert cites many parallel passages from other Philonic writings in order to illustrate the text. the details o f which are not easy to reconstruct from behind the Armenian translation.' Much m o r e attention could have been paid to the role o f the logy o f the Greek word indicates (from [xearj r ) u i p a ) . One cannot help suspecting that a valuable opportunity was lost here. F o r Philo these astronomical facts form the basis for a complex allegory.. 2 . and objects on the ground cast no shadow the Middle E a s t ) .6f the possibilities is found in the opening lines o f the text. The line o f thought is incom­ prehensible here.147. I wonder whether these were used extensively enough. a very common apologetic-exegetical technique in Philo. unless one realizes that Philo is commenting on the word [Liar\[i$pi(xc in the biblical text. Even m o r e remarkable is that all three being one o f the treatises translated into Armenian o f which the Greek original still exists).. the inac- . as it were. Philo's c o m m e n t a r y thus consists o f the application o f philosophical ideas to the words o f the biblical text. It is a pity that there was no systematic comparison with the exegeses in De Abrahamo Quaestiones in Genesim passages exist in Armenian translation (De Abrahamo 119-132 and 4 . laBt sich aber auch textimmanent biblical text in understanding the fragment. 1. 18:1-2 is one o f those very rare texts which receive detailed exegesis in all three of Philo's series o f biblical commentaries. I fail to see the point of a cross-reference to the lexical study of Kuhr.1 3 8 ) . where Philo looks at the question from an opposing point of view. Commenting on the doc­ trine o f the powers in line 4 8 Siegert rightly affirms: 'Die Zweizahl.

230.. since. and Prov.: A fascinating parallel text to Mut. also Seiendes mit Nichtseiendem zu identifizieren' is to reify the term and not look at what the author means by it. C O V .e. i. which is hardly the case here. 42 (1988) 290-295 (who did not exploit this text. 13). one's things).5. The Platonic source in the Phaedrus myth. even though in line 53 it speaks of a 'flying chariot'). . nicht <xpx<ov.82) TO ov is included in the inappropriate names. cf. 24-25. den Menschen. Gottes etxwv sein lafJt. 5. is decisive.1071-74. 5 V F 2. line 36: Philo's conception of God's'tktoqexpressed through the act of creation is profoundly Jewish. which illustrate the start of the cosmogonic process by means of Hera's practising fellatio on Zeus. 1.404 cessibility of which can be judged from the fact that it only exists in hand­ written form.26f. The parallel with Cle­ ment Protr. J . is precisely the other way around. Die Inspiration heiliger Schriften bei Philo von Alexandrien (Giessen-Basel 1987).: The view that Philo has a 'steep' or high doctrine of scriptural in­ spiration has been strongly opposed in the recent important monograph by H. as cor­ rectly seen by Bultmann in the TWNT article referred to by Siegert. I disagree with Siegert's interpretation here. The Greek notion of pity is quite different. yet that passage is by no means undiluted Stoicism. dafJ die Heilige Schrift Gen l. in the translation published earlier]: T ) Y 6 U . which I read differently than Siegert). for Philo in this sense the word appears to mean 'substrate' or 'stuff (the word can also mean 'property'. das Platonische UT] 6v mit der stoischen ouaia. van Winden has proved in this journal (32 (1978) 208-213) that Clement had the Philonic text on his desk. und nicht den ganzen Kosmos. The affirmation that 6 <ov is not God's Svoua tStov xai xupiov derives from an exegesis of Ex.. Later in Cle­ ment (Str. as Philo does in Opif.2 is not just 'Fortleben'. line 87: 'Philon weiB. Similarly there is only a confusion between ouata and <juu. the decisive step towards Neoplatonism has been made. This can hardly be said of the human race in general. 16-20. as Siegert points out. But I am not happy with the translation 'Substanz'. because Moses uses the etxwv-relation for man the microcosm. line 45ff. i. Burkhardt. Somn. M. Yet another example in the comment on line 43: 'Die an Philon orientierte Riickuberzetzung fallt weniger gnostisch aus als erst angenommen [i. 7-17. line 65ff. Philo's negative theology does not necessarily mean that God has to be denied the predication of Being. noted by Siegert. C.e.p£Pr)xev if the terms are used in an Aristotelian sense. 1. line 91: The conflicting views on God's awrripta given in Aet. it is legitimate to use it for a philosophical exegesis of the first day of creation. I are very relevant here. as it were. 6:3 (cf.e. 1-27 are indeed strik­ ing.' Again it is not the term that counts but the thought behind it.' The reasoning in the impor­ tant pasage Opif. line 37: The use of ouata to describe 'matter' has a Stoic background. the monograph by Anita Measson reviewed in this journal. To say of 'Philons Problem mit der Materie' that 'der Ursprung der Schwierigkeiten liegt in Philons Inkonsequenz. line 121: The similarities to the cosmology behind Plant. it is 'an emotion roused by contact with an affliciton which come undeservedly on some­ one else (my emphasis)'. In the excursus on Phallos and tension the most important Stoic texts need to be added. Mut. 6 oSv is not a name (cf.

line 149: Grofimann's list of passages referred to in the expression worcep STJ eXeyov 7coXXdxi<. Further comments/could be added ad libitum. esp. 191. 183. Flacc.55. is too vague: they are Migr. 170 and the conclusion at 191). but let these suffice to show the exceptional interest o f the text presented to us by Siegert. Spec. line 147: To say in relation to Philo's views on divine rcpovoia that 'Historie wird zur Physik' is a very one-sided presentation. He has found a nugget o f the purest gold and exploited it to the enrichment o f Philonic scholarship.249. and Legal. QG 1. The entire historical accounts in Flacc. Prob. .22. Abr.XIII 405 line 128: The Empedoclean doxa on the six archai is given at Prov. a passage regarded by many scholars as an interpolation. 13. 2. 1. are practical applications of the doctrine of Providence (cf.


0etv also occurs in the story of Tamar in Gen. see now the companion piece 'How to search Philo'. n. in J . p. Du char aile de Zeus a VArche p. Study I X p.6 in the 1986 edition. See now A. G O R L E R . § 1 3 7 . 187 Study IV p. 8 8 .8 : the verb eiaeA. D I L L O N and A. Study VIII p. Undersuchungen zu Ciceros Philosophic (Heidel­ berg 1974). 122 Philo's use of the Timaeus in this treatise was further analysed in my dissertation. n.240 p. The Question of "Eclecticism" (Berkeley 1 9 8 8 ) 7 0 .169 Terian's edition and commentary on the De animalibus was published in 1981.29 Mansfeld's study has since been published as 'Philosophy in the Service of Scripture: Philo's Exegetical Strategies'. Vigiliae Christianae Supplement 8 (Leiden 1988). 3 8 : 1 6 . A. see esp.93.1 0 2 .6 This has now been done: R . L O N G (edd.97. Philo of Alexandria: an Annotated Bibliography 1937-1986.1 4 0 p.225 p. The analysis of Deus 8 6 was developed further in study IV.243 Jacques Cazeaux has now written a sequel: La trame et la chaine: le cycle de Noe.211 p.47 . 187 n. and so forms a bridge between the two subordinate texts.A D D E N D A AND C O R R I G E N D A Study II p. M. R A D I C E and D .151. A L G H J 2 0 (Leiden 1989). T.). The criticism of Cazeaux's analysis of Mut. 15-17 here was unduly harsh. The Studia Philonica Annual 2 ( 1 9 9 0 ) 1 0 6 .117 My argument would have been aided by use of the study of W. M E A S S O N . For searching Philo in indices and via the computer. RUNIA. p.9 0 . 1 2 3 . n.

As Prof. 5 2 3 . see now Study XIII. but here the name Albinus has sneaked back in.D.75 On the important parallel text in De Deo. See now V. p. 175-6.6 . 133.36. K A L .42 Study X I I For further reflections on the theme see now W.404. On Intuition and Discursive Reasoning in Aristotle. n. p. 472-5. 2 8 7 . 'Philo of Alexandria on Deification and Assimilation to God'. I must admit to some inconsistency with regard to the name of the author of the Didaskalikos. why should anyone bother to preserve such a very ordinary work? I do not think this argument is conclusive. H E L L E MAN.-2a"Alliance: images et mythes platoniciens chez Philon d'Alex­ andrie (Paris 1986).9 1 . Updated references are: n. the question of quality could have some bearing on the dating o f the original.7 1 . 132.103 Study X p. n. Baltes (Munster) has pointed out to me. p. n.404 ad line 65ff. Following Whittaker. p. E .41. Burckhardt's monograph was published in 1988. I usually call him Alcinous.37. Study XIII p. Philosophia Antiqua 4 6 (Leiden 1988).34. The papyrus is a luxuriously produced exemplar dated to about 150 A.6 .5 2 . n. n. The Studia Philonica Annual 2 ( 1 9 9 0 ) 5 1 . which was neglected in this study.26 The revised edition appeared in 1986. If the original was written 100 or even 2 0 0 years earlier. n. 4 5 1 .80.45 Study X I p. 3 4 1 . .

4 8 .. 9 4 . 8 Heraclitus Stoicus Hesiod VIII. 4 0 5 Epicureans VII. 7 5 . 15. 8 6 Atticus 111. 4 0 4 Arriajj III. 109 Ambrose I.Descartes X . 4 1 0 Empedocles XIII. passim. Theaetetus Commentary V... 150. X I . I X . V. 127 IV. 103. VI. 9 2 . 15 Athenagoras X I . 124ff. passim Alexandria I. 2 1 2 . 8 0 Eunapius I X . 8 2 . Ammonius I X . VIII. I X . 63 Flaccus 111. 5 9 9 Al-Kindi X . 7 1 . 102 Alexander the Great III. 132 Eudorus of Alexandria I X . 149 Chrysippus VII.. I X . 124ff. 83. 408 Diodorus Siculus Egypt 1.3 . 120. 85 Cicero VII. 131-3. X I I . 2 1 9 . 97 Anon.2 III. X I .91-104 Antiochus of Ascalon VII. XII." 9 6 . 217. XIII. 92 Aphthonius VIII. 93 Epicurus VIII. X I . 114-5. 101 Aristotle IV. 233f. 14 Ammianus Marcellinus III. 15. 71 Gorgias VIII. X . 77. 124. 8 5 .. 116 Heraclitus I.. 1-5. 82. 2 1 5 . 15 Democritus VIII.409 Augustine X . VIII. 118 Albinus I X . X I . 71 Didymus the Blind I. 80. X . VI. 82. 143. 115 Cronius V.5 3 . XII. 5 9 8 . 400ff. 2 5 0 Apuleius I X . 5 9 8 . 8 2 Chaldeans VIII. 2 3 2 . 9 6 Aenesidemus I X . III. 117-8. 86. 400ff. 134. 91 Gnostics X I . 118 Celsus X I . 14 Dinocrates of Rhodes III. 110. 8 5 .. 100. 6 6 Eusebius I. 124ff. 118. 5 9 8 . 132. 117 Apsinos IV. 14. 116. 101 Aetius VII. 400ff. 116 Demetrius I. 85f. VI. 107. X I .INDEX Academics I X . 6 5 Arius Didymus III. 4 0 4 Crescas X . X . 130. 8 6 Ariston of Chios I X . X I I . 8 0 Alcinous IX. 5 9 3 . 4 0 8 Artapanus I. 9 2 . 97 Euripides X I I . X I . 85 Aristides X I . 125. 146. 9 2 . 6 6 Clement I.405 Gaius the Platonist I X . 2 1 6 Ezechiel Tragicus I. 118. 400ff. X .

93ff. 8 6 . 82. II. 2. Philo Allegorical Commentary IV. XII.3 Peripatos VII. VII. 227ff. 82 New Academy VIII. IV. 83 Jason 1 1 1 . 4 0 2 Jerusalem III. 4 0 6 Jesus Christ I. 9. 88 scholarship II. 2 4 9 . 2 2 9 . 100ff. 118 Neoplatonists IV. X I . passim hermeneutics IV. 197 Logos I. 2 3 7 Septuagint IV. VII. 6 2 Origen I. 7 2 Melchizedek II. VIII. 87. 97ff. 118f. V. X . XII predecessors I. 113. 10-11. 9. V. XII. 186-9 scripture IV. 5 9 3 .8 . 88 Middle Platonists I. 130f. VII. theology I. 2 1 9 Israel I. 77 Josephus I. 2 5 6 . 197-8 Moses I... 194. 185 Numenius I. X I . 189. 233ff. 4 0 0 . 11. I X . 2 1 9 . 15 Philo of Larissa I X . passim Quaestiones V. 7. IV. III. IV. 116 Maximus Tyrius X I . 107. 117 Paul 1. X I I dogmatism I X . VIII. 190. 77. II.. 130 Leibniz X .-2Homer IV. Parmenides X I . VI. 193. 190 exegesis II.. 237. 8 6 . 132 Letter of Aristeas I. 13-14. 4 0 9 . III. II. 116. 9 2 Plato II. XIII Wolfson on Philo X writings 1. 231 salvation IV. 5 9 3 . XIII exegetical traditions VII. 82. III. V. 8 6 . passim apologetics I.. 127. 4 Justin Martyr VIII. 107. 4. 7 3 . 12. 118. 16. passim. 9-10. education I. passim . 8. II. VII. 121 Rabbis IV. 3 John the Evangelist I. 8 2 Mutakallimun X . 14. 229ff. IV. 190-2 Philo Epicus I. 121 Philo (continued) allegory I. 82. 88 Kant X . 147. II. 2 1 9 rhetoric IV. 12 Jerusalem II. 196-8. 116 New Testament II. V. IV. IV. 6 0 0 Maimonides X . X I . 72ff. 195-6 Armenian translation XIII doctrine of creation I. 112 history I. 2 2 9 Neopythagoreans X I .. X . II. VIII passim doctrine of God X I . passim. 2 5 0 . 190. 2 1 9 scepticism I X . VII. 2 1 4 . 599ff. 4 0 7 . 116. 123 Orphica V. 10 John Damascenus X I . IV. VIII.5-7. VIII. I X . XII doctrine of man I. X I . 5 9 1 . 132 Isaac Israeli X . VII. I X . X I . 116-7 Hume X . 4 1 1 . X I I . X I . 15. 189 arithmology II.

131-3. Ps. 4 1 1 . 1. 87 Sophocles V. 84f. X .400 . 114.. IV. 114-5. 4 0 6 Ps. 2 1 7 Procopius X I I . 123. X I .7 Synesius I X . VI. 4 0 6 . 2 3 4 . Genesis Rabbah V. 108 Rabbi Hosha'ia 111. 123 Ps.. 118-9 Rabbis I. 4 0 2 Vitruvius 111. 82.Plutarch X I . 118-9 Rabbinica. VI.410 Rabbi Ishmael V. 86-91 Theaetetus V. Rabba Abba b. X I . I X . 2 1 1 . I X . 9 5 . X I . X I I . 137. 8 6 Valerius Maximus III. I X . 120 Posidonius IV. X . 89.400 Plotinus IV.„133. 116. Kahana V. 127. 116.Justin X I . 88. X . 8 4 . 2 3 2 . 87. 400ff. X I . I X . 110. 2 3 4 . 96 Tryphon X I . 115 Tertullian I. 5 9 8 . 6 8 Plutarch III. X I .. 4 0 4 Pyrrhonists I X . 7 5 . 121 Sceptics I X . 147. 4 0 0 . 7 0 Stoics I. I X . 129. 124ff. 5 9 9 . VIII. 87. III. 9 6 . X I . 5 4 . 400ff. 93 Timaeus I. 8 5 .Callisthenes III. VIII. 233f. 116f. X I . 123. 117 Spinoza X . VIII. 6 8 Porphyry V. 192 Thomas Aquinas X . 15. 97 Republic I X . 146 Septuagint I. 87f. 5 9 3 . VIII. 5 9 9 . VIII. 118. VIII. 89. 116. VII. 137 Rabbi Hillel V. V. 9 6 Seneca VIII.. 88 Talmud X . 3 9 9 Strabo III. 122. VII. 8 9 . 126ff. 129 Ps. 2 2 9 . XIII. 7 0 . 114-5. 6 8 Pliny 111. 14. IV. 7 0 Protagoras VIII.-3Plato (continued) Phaedo V. 125. I X . 61 Seventh Letter I X . 151. 7. 3. VIII.2 Phaedrus VIII. 146. X I I . 7 7 . 130f. X .. 8 6 Therapeutae II. 70 Proclus IV. 116. X I I . 2. 2 1 4 .Aristotle III. Theophilus X I . 9 2 . 4 0 8 . 6 5 . 87 Tiberius Julius Alexander I. 84 Ptolemy Philadephus I. 3. 88. 4 0 0 . 124 Saadia X . 118 Theon rhetor VIII.Longinus I. 9 3 . 5 Ps. 85 Quintilian VIII. I X . 116. 122. 115-7. 2 Sextus Empiricus X I . 8 4 Quintus Curtius 111. 9 4 Pythagoreans VII. 103. VI. 95.400-1 Zeno X I . 133 Thrasyllus I X .. 8 5 . XII. 111 Timaeus Locrus VII. III. 97.

163 111. 12. 2 4 . 13. 67. 5 9 2 . VIII. 2 6 VIII.. 2 2 6 . 2 4 0 Plant.1 VII. 132. 8 2 II. 21 Iff. 62. 2 1 8 . 2.3 1 VIII.2 4 5 .4 VII. 8 3 XII. 2 3 5 II. 4 8 Contempt. 111.7 7 VIII.5 XII.5 5 . 107. 6 0 0 Aet. VIII. 64f. 7 4 f f . 133.9 IV.2 0 5 I X . 1 0 2 II. 112-4. 3 Decal. 6 5 . 1 2 3 IV. 4 3 X I I . 1-19 I X .7 9 V.46 XII. 104 IV.2 5 XIII. 6 9 X I I . 596. 2 2 4 Fug. 1 5 0 VIII. 96.4 I. 2. 3. 1 7 8 . V. 132 Her.6 4 III. 9 6 Flacc.8 I X . 9 0 VII. 152 VIII. 111. 97. 1 7 3 . 3 .116-9 VII. passim.2 6 X I I .9 2 VI. 5 9 4 Gig. 15-7 IV. 1.. 7 7 .75-76 XII. IV. 2 1 3 . 70f. 8 9 .9 3 I.4.. 59.1 VIII. 8-10. 4 0 4 . 1-33 X I . II. 6 9 Somn. 20-24 III. 2 2 5 . 141 X I I . 1. 3 4 IV. 1 7 .3 X I I .. 1 6 1 . 2 4 9 . VII. 2 8 .8 0 1. 74ff. 4 0 4 . 4 8 VIII. 2. 2 4 0 . 1 3 6 QG 1. 5 3 . 1 2 6 . 2 4 6 . 2 1 8 .1 0 2 IV.-4- INDEX OF PHILONIC PASSAGES Only the more important cited passages are listed. passim • Deus IV.. 195-6. 5 6 . 224. 1 8 . VI. 55-57. 60f. 8 I X .1 8 III. 111. passim. 125 XII. 5 8 VIII. 197 Cher. 195 Leg.403. 4 3 . 2. 149 Spec. 198 Mos. 5 5 . 5 9 7 Abr. 7 2 . 1 8 1 . 3 1 . .55 III. 9 6 QE 2.29 XII. 9 4 .8 5 IV. 109. 1.8 VII. 109f. 4 0 9 .40. 6 9 . 221 Det. 74ff.8 4 VIII. 2 3 3 X I I . 1 7 5 ..2 4 5 . 1. 108. III. 593. 4 0 3 . 4 0 3 Anim. 3 3 I X . 2 1 8 . 7 3 . 149 Prob. 4. 222. 137. 3 . 216. 2 2 6 . 100 Migr. 61 Post. 123. 9 9 IV. 8 6 IV. 1.148-62 X I I . The order of the treatises follows that of the major editions and translations. 121.3 2 X I . 121 Ebr. 64. 223. 93.73 III. 1 6 6 ..2 9 . 2 2 0 Mut. X I I . passim. 2 1 4 .5 8 IV. 2 . 64.62 X I I . 60. I. 8 6 . 399ff. IV. VIII. 1-38 IV.89-99 V. 2 . Figures in bold denote capita of the treatise concerned. 68. 1. 1 1 1 . 2.40 X I I . 1 4 2 . 1-10 V. 2 4 5 Congr.9-19 VIII. I X . Opif.1 2 1 IV. 4 0 4 Sacr. V.. 8 2 .187 VIII. 7-17 XIII. passim.8 7 X I . 149. 142ff.405 Prov. 7 0 De Deo XIII . V. 8 3 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful