Aeyexai yap OIKOC K X TO £K y u v a t K o c Kai CI

T£KVCJV ouyKpina. TO t\\bv uoTepyjua ofrroi dveitAyipcjoav.

= De Mutatione Nominum. = De Exsecrationibus. = De Plantatione. = De Ebrietate. = De Migratione Abrahami. the last volume. = De Vita Contemplativa. iii = Legum Allegoria. Animal. is the Cohn-Wendland edi­ tion of the corpus. Deo = De Deo. Index. Fug. LA. Gig. Legat. = Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit. = Alexander sive de eo quod rationem habeant bruta animalia. i. T h e titles of Philo's works are so long as to compel a system of abbreviation if they are much used. = De Aetemitate Mundi. = De Praemiis et Poenis. Opif. ii = De Vita Mosis. Plant. Mos. I should like to see it come to be generally adopted by Philonic scholars for our common convenience: Abr. because extant only in Armenian. 1 8 5 1 . is referred to as Leisegang. Berlin. Decal.1 9 3 0 . = De Abrahamo. i. Conf. xxiii f. = De Conjusione Linguarum. iii. = De Cherubim. Praem. Ebr. ii.= De Agricultura. Post. Jos. i. unless otherwise stated. .1 8 5 3 ) . Jona = De lona. Heres = Quis rerum divinarum Heres. = De Fuga et Inventione (De Profugis). Agr. 1 8 9 6 . = Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari soleat. Mig. = Legatio ad Gaium. are used in the Latin translation by Aucher as reprinted in the Tauchnitz Edition of Philo (Leipzig.. Det. = Quod Deus sit Immutabilis. Leisegang. ii. ii. Cher. Viae. = In Flaccum. = De Congressu Eruditioriis Gratia. = De Posteritate Caini. i. Cont. Immut. = De Gigantibus. Aet. W o r k s of Philo not included in this edition. Mut. Exs.ABBREVIATIONS THE text of Philo used. = De Opificio Mundi. T h e following table is for the most part that found in Colson and Whitaker. Cong. Prob. the Index Verborum by H . = De Josepho. I. = De Decalogo.

SOURCE" = " A Neo-Pythagorean Source in Philo Judaeus. two volumes. seven volumes. Lipsiae. The Loeb Classical Library (five volumes out of ten are published) .1 9 2 4 . Som. 1 1 5 . 1 9 2 5 . i. i. ii. Poseidonios = Poseidonios' metaphysische Schriften. Cohn. * T h e translations of Philo which follow have been checked with those of the volumes of this series now available. i. Breslau. the publisher. Yale University Press. by fimile Brehier.1 0 2 .* HARRIS. London and N e w York. LIGHT Provid.1 9 2 9 . Bildung = Philons griechische und jiidische Bildung. 1 9 3 1 (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums. and then by I. iii. 1 8 8 7 . 1 9 2 9 . QE. by I. Yale Classical Studies. H . QG. Cambridge. 1 9 2 8 . 1 9 2 8 . iii. Paderborn. Heinemann. iii. five volumes have been published. COLSON and WHITAKER = Philo. collegit Ionnes ab Arnim. Konigsweg = H B A Z I A I K H O A O Z : Der Konigsweg zu Wiedergeburt und Vergottung bei Philon von Alexandreia. Second Edition. ii. Parts 3 and 4 ) . 1 9 2 1 . two volumes.1 6 4 . i. ii. = De Providentia. H . HEINEMANN. ii. ii. Where the authors' rendering could not be improved. Heinemann. Goodenough. i. Yonge's translation. 1 9 0 9 . iii. JOSEPHUS is quoted by Book and Section as divided by Benedictus Niese.. i. four volumes. Paris. X V I I . Virt. Yale University Press." by Erwin R. PASCHER. BREHIER. by I. Sac. Goodenough." by Erwin R. iv. Spec. "HELLENISTIC KINGSHIP" = " T h e Political Philosophy of Hellenistic King­ ship. 1886. although useful for treatises not yet included in the Loeb series.1 9 3 4 .1 8 9 5 . 1 9 2 1 . Philos Wer\e = Die Wer\e Philos von Alexandria in deutscher Ubersetzung. Colson and G. Breslau. Les Idees = Les Idees philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d'Alexandrie. ii = Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum. by J. SVF = Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. it has been reproduced with the kind permission of the Harvard Univer­ sity Press. could rarely be accepted for more than a line or two without radical emenda­ tion. Breslau. by F . . i. Heinemann. ii. as was often the case. Rendel Harris. III ( 1 9 3 2 ) . Fragments = Fragments of Philo Judaeus. HEINEMANN. Whitaker. Yale Classical Studies. iv = Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin. except the last. 1 9 2 1 . 5 3 . i. ii = De Somniis. iv. "NEO-PYTHAG.xiv BY LIGHT. Responsibility for all translations included is of course mine. iv = De Specialibus Legibus. edited by L. — De Sobrietate.. I ( 1 9 2 8 ) . Sob. with an English Translation. = De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini. = De Virtutibus. Greek writers are quoted in English for the benefit of those whose Greek is laborious. by Joseph Pascher. Berlin. Flavii Josephi Opera.

YONGE = The Worlds of Philo Judaeus. five volumes. 1 8 8 4 . 1 8 5 4 . London.1 8 5 5 . the Contemporary of Josephus. translated from the Greek. D . . recensuit Curtius Wachsmuth et Otto Hense. Berlin. = Johannis Stobaei Florilegium.ABBREVIATIONS xv WACHS. four vol­ umes.1 9 1 9 . Yonge. by C.


as well as. W e have felt on sure ground with the differences. T h e point that is often missed is that the union of these is . in the second Period. and may become m u c h more accurate by becoming explicit. LIGHT INTRODUCTION STUDY of the ancient mysteries is complicated by much more than the inade­ quacy of our data. we must al­ ways bear in mind the fact that the material borrowed from the Orient or Egypt all passed through amazingly similar types of adaptation. It can be complicated. it must always be remembered. and assert their ultimate identity. But have we not lost sight of the fact that a native Egyptian of 500 B. it is a path to Real­ ity. of which Isis or Attis is the symbol. and w h e n it has been possible to trace Hellenistic mystic imagery to the Orient or Egypt we say that the Hellenistic notion is the oriental point of view simply expressed in the Greek language. Further. even if he had had a perfect command of the Greek lan­ guage. that is. Existence. Particularly have we tended to contrast the "philosophers" of the earlier period with the "mystics" of the later. Knowledge. than a classical philosopher could have done? W e pass from Classic Greece to the Hellenistic A g e with a sense of difference. T h e Hellenistic m a n himself. like travellers in a strange land. C. and in the new field are struck by a sense of contrast. T h e mystery is not a path to Isis or Attis. This is danger­ ous ground for an historian. and usually has been. in our attempt at visualizing Hellenistic mentality. T h e tendency is then for us. For much as the various mythologies may survive in the Hellenistic accounts. something which can be taken out of the cold words of formulation and made radiantly alive within the longing hearts of mankind. T h e value of Isis. is to make the intellectual concept emotionally realizable. out from the original forms into the Hellenistic Age we should find at least just as great changes. but if we could trace Isis or Attis. but such a projection is always implicit in our writing. could much less have written Plu­ tarch's De hide. So Plutarch can turn from Isis to Iranian mythology. ob­ viously a questionable procedure. T h e differences between the two Periods are certainly there. Life. con­ sidered himself a Greek. Most of us come to the Hellenistic Age after a more or less thorough early training in the point of view of the Classical Age.BY LIGHT. by lack of imagination as to the temper of mind of the mystic devotees. with full knowledge of their native states. the oriental imagery. to analyze the differences while we neglect the similarities. or Greek mythology. it is not the mythology itself which matters but the mythology as a symbol of meta­ physical truth.

but in the passionate desire of the Hellenistic m a n to experience emotionally the concepts he has learned from Greek rationalism. Such a religion in itself meant nothing to the Hellenistic religious thinkers. T h e early Christians seem to have been content with the mythological assertion that Jesus was the Son of God and would return from the clouds to assert his power. T h e close kinship of the Pythagoreans with the Orphics. H o w far back does this tendency go in Hellenism. T h e myths were important only as they helped the Greek thinker with his Greek concepts. the gateway to a larger life. and Christianity a mystic cult with $UT[0\\6C. T h e mystic emphasis of the Hellenistic Age presents a contrast to the rationalism of the typical. the stories of the Virgin Birth. most highly de­ veloped. Was all this the orientalizing of Greek thought or the Hellenizing of oriental mythology ? Obviously both. T h e Mystery of Demeter and the Bacchic groups. Greek Philosophers. LIGHT not in a mystic concept fundamentally arising from one or the other my­ thology. But there is just as great a contrast between a developed Hellenistic mystery and the original form and meaning of its mythologies. Christ almost at once became to them the Logos. it was ready to conquer the Graeco-Roman world. the respect shown the Orphics by the . It is true that the Hellenistic World was wide open to invasions of eastern religious teachers and doctrines. T h e same process is illustrated in Christianity. point to the fact that rationalism was never the solu­ tion of life for at least a very large part of the Greeks. though given slight emphasis in our classical curricula. the sense of failure without divine help to realize the ideal quality of life. the nveuna. that is as Christianity became another and more adequate means of making emotionally real and accessible the old Hellenistic abstractions. As their thought went on into elaborations it produced more mythology. or for men to accomplish their destiny? T h e question has only to be asked for it to become obvious that the tendency was marked as far back as we can with any certainty trace the various currents of Greek life. Men of that age were fascinated by new mythological formulation and in Gnostic groups dedicated them­ selves to its ever greater elaboration. and especially the early and strong influence of the Orphics. the tendency to use mythology as a basis for an emotional experience of rationalistic concepts. N o r was this movement long dissociated from the philosophers. and the conviction that this life is inadequate as a stage for the operation of justice with men. After such a revolutionary change. and hence that it was out of the heart of Greek civilization at its greatest period that there came the tendency to find in a mythological presentation of the divine mystery. Yet the mythology could not remain long in the Greek world without becoming transformed into typology. made vivid by initiations and sacraments. and a mystic meal.2 B Y LIGHT. the Sophia.

not that in the Hellenistic Age the tone is so different from what appeared from her great m e n to be the spirit of Athens in her prime. T h e Hellenistic Age was the age of the average intellect. even hard headed Romans. Strange new terms came into use. and force Syrians. Yet for all the strange stuff in the mixture. are almost unique exceptions in Greek life. and \)\v\. It was a n e w compound. but that. robes. It is not that the metaphysic of OrphicPythagoreanism and Platonism remained unaffected by its borrowings. and the obviously profound influence they had upon Plato. not so much a new spirit arose as the spirit which would appear in classic times to have been that of the majority. the rationalistic temper continued so dis­ tinctly and so long to flavor the generally popular civilization. Absolute in Being. But mystic metaphysics. to be sure. even Aristophanes.INTRODUCTION 3 dramatists. show. the great constants of the Hellenistic Mysteries. w h o had been represented on the hideous cross to gather to Himself. the sins of humanity. like a magnificent quicklime. Greek rationalism could penetrate into all the world. as well as the philo­ sophic ideas with which they were fused. and annihilate in His own death. the "Female Principle of nature" as Plutarch called Isis. More than that. made vivid to m e n through mythology. Aristotle. and through initiations into Giaooi with their sacraments. T h e combination was certainly n o longer Greek. processions. that the thought life of Greece early and steadily felt the attraction exerted by the emotional over­ tones of Orphism. into echoing Greek metaphysics. Sophia. But they. with the possible exception of Posidonius and the mathematicians. far from being representative. all were as idiomatically a product of Classic Greece as its drama and art. sacraments. and the absence of great rationalistic metaphysicians to carry on the work of the classic philosophers. were nearly pure rationalists. Initiations. Egyptians. turned everything it touched into its own nature. and as she appeared in many mythologies to typify creation in sexual language. and perhaps the early Stoics. this metaphysic. Giaooi. W i t h the collapse of classic Greek civilization. failing to produce giants. A n overwhelming series of waves. any my­ thology. Finally there was the great God. Over that rationalistic remnant swept wave after wave of oriental inundation—only at once to have its oriental character and objective rationalized. N o t pure metaphysics as Aristotle understood it could thus penetrate and survive. a spirit overshadowed in our picture of Classic Greece only because of the presence there of the great m e n who must have been as exceptional and remote then as they would have been at any time since. to give only a few instances. and then the fantastic nAyjpcj|jaTa of grades of divinity: all were parts of the new data. T h e amazing thing is. and to promise the mystic ascent in language just as sexual. T h e mystic Logos. N o t least of all did it do so with the tiny group that proclaimed Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah. the new ingredients were transformed more than they trans- .

and in their version of Orphism developed the first mystic philosophies of Greece. further. But it is a difficult thing to imagine that the great later tree which supported all these branches stood without roots in the Hellenistic Age. an eclecticism.4 B Y LIGHT. This is not a surprising circumstance upon second glance. but out into the mystic beyond. For these two schools. were interested in the mysteries and made some use of them. with amazing uniformity. but the mystic philosophy which was transforming every other oriental mythology i . Julian. whatever it is. without documents. LIGHT formed the Greek element. impossible to state h o w influential that tradition was in the Hellenistic period. varying in detail. but with a firm basis in Neo-Pythagorean Platonism. But we must not judge the mysteries by these people. Greeks like Herodotus and Diodorus were interested to record oriental mythology as data of oriental history. Porphyry. But m e n who adopted the mysteries to themselves. For in all intelligent Graeco-Roman circles. judged by the type of communicant who is too unintelligent to understand what we con­ sider its real purport. But it must have been the continuation of this Orphic-Platonic-Pythagoreanism which they themselves are stating in the new typology of Egypt and Iran. and mystical experience. Apuleius. But what remains to us of the interpretation of the mysteries is. asceticism. to say nothing of Justin Martyr. to be sure. It had to be shot through with Greek rationalism. It must be borne in mind that the most ignorant then as now were probably content with the simplest mythological literalism. It is. to be sure. and Chaeremon is lost. T h e Greek rationalism which transformed the mystic mythologies was. Socrates died in Orphic hope. Iamblichus. seem almost invariably to have been Neo-Pythagoreans or Platonists. were at their earliest stages the closest of all to the Orphics. T h e later writers w h o show mystic influences in their rationalism. or rationalistic influences in their mysticism. T h e Stoics. and the most mechanical sacramentalism. Plotinus. N o t that either Platonism or Pythagoreanism was exclusively mystical in its interests. Into this atmosphere the Jew brought his faith and his Scriptures with their oriental stories and conceptions. 1 T h e great body of literature or tradition which must lie behind Plutarch. not any random type of that rationalism. Clement. mere mythology was not enough. any more than we like to have our own religion. Plato's charioteer drives his horses not simply through the cosmos. or were m u c h influenced by mystic thought. and Origen. so closely related from the beginning. But the rationalistic analysis of the Republic could find culmination in the Orphic eschatology of the tenth book as easily as Pythagorean numbers and ethics could culminate in metempsy­ chosis. Proclus. . H e met not Aristotle or Zeno. have but to be named to show the consistency with which mystic rationalism remained true to the Pythagorean-Platonic type. Records of the early Hellenistic stages of this movement have so com­ pletely disappeared that Bevan and T a r n have discussed Hellenistic Philoso­ phy without reference to it.

or even be content with occa­ sional borrowings. "literalists" Philo calls them. and Brehier have attacked the complicated problem of trying to cull out from Philo's allegorical mazes his religio-philosophical "system. T r u e most N e w Testament scholars. The only dispute is as to how early one may assert that the change was made. That Christians were paralleling Chris­ tianity and Orphism by the Second Century is clear alike from the writings of the period and the iconography of Christ. . a n d students of Greek and R o m a n religious history. T h e great work of Heinemann. were one after the other being m a d e over into mysteries by the Greeks on the model. I n an environment where the folk religions of Isis and Attis. was Judaism alone to escape? Could and did the Jew keep his orientalism intact. become primarily such a mystery. and Cohn to give an introduction to the writings of Philo. abundant traces of Greek Jews w h o remained funda­ mentally oriental. W e have insisted that Philo answer this or that question of our own. Philons Bildung. M y o w n debt to Pascher will be abundantly apparent. H e has been searched for traces of Platonism. if I may say so. to a greater or less degree. Still no one seems to have tried to read Philo. Dahne. T h e y wrote such works as II a n d III Maccabees in praise of "normative" legalism. as will be indicated. of Rabbinical affinities. for at least an important minority. though they have solved many critical problems about the relation of differ2. Writers like Gfrorer. rather than listen to w h a t he is himself trying to say. or did his synagogue too tend to become a Qiaooc. T h e r e is no important writer of antiquity w h o has been so little studied as Philo Judaeus. dispute that in the liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions. I think. D r u m m o n d . a n d with the philosophic foundation. Massebieau. T o all of these a n d many others." Students of the history of religion have indicated many details in his works that reflect the mysteries. have at one time or another. But there is indica­ tion of a complete transformation of Judaism in the Greek world that has not been systematically examined. of Orpheus. Pascher. is a splendid analysis of the different ingredients that have gone into Philo's composition. any student of Philo must be profoundly indebted. N o one would. a n d his whole tradition a typology of this mystic philosophy? It must at once be said that the thesis of this book is that Judaism in the Greek Diaspora did. to understand what Philo himself thought he was driving at in all his passionate allegorical labors.INTRODUCTION 5 2 into a mystery religion. Even the attempts of Schiirer. with the grain instead of against it. T h e question of h o w m u c h his Logos doctrine resembled or differed from the Christian Logos has been discussed for more than a century. Christianity had become a mystery religion. But still the great continent of the Philonic allegory itself remains un­ charted for the beginner. of Stoicism. There are. and in Clement and Origen. but especially to the latest Religionsgeschichtlicher. a n d later of Mithra a n d Christianity. looked in his vast writings for answers to questions that have arisen in t h e course of their studies.

H o w far they succeeded in Palestine u p to the fall of Jerusalem. T h e Jews became a race with a single and exclusive cult. when a student should try to do just this which seems never to have been done. to read the corpus in an attempt to find what Philo himself wanted the reader to learn. So long as they were faithful to the requirements of Yahveh they thought that they could satisfy the requirements of other gods as well. without realizing h o w "cross-grained" their study has been. where almost a hundred years before the Chasidim they became so Hellenized that the old Bible was of no use to them in the original Hebrew and had to be translated. however attractive. determinism. In the earlier period of Israel it had been only the occasional prophet w h o recog­ nized that the borrowing was not merely a taking over of attractive ideas and practices from the Gentiles. In this connection it must be remembered that their ancestors could never leave the gods of the Canaanites alone. and the future life. But no cursory reader of their history can miss the point that they had a terrific struggle to pull the Jews away from their fascinated preoccupation with Greek ways and ideas. So it is not surprising. but was apostasy from true Yahvism. and still regard themselves as true Israelites. that was not pe­ culiarly their own. T h e translation which was made showed that even the few who could still read the old lan­ guage at all had forgotten the original meaning of many of the words. that he should emerge with a novel interpretation. It will clarify the reader's mind if that thesis is clearly stated at the outset. Yet even the Pharisees were full of foreign notions about angels. the sinfulness of Greek literature and manners. W h a t must provoke initial resistance. and were primarily thinking in Greek terms. our records do not indicate. Jewish children now had Greek . But their nature seems not to have changed.6 B Y LIGHT. L o n g before the beginnings of the Pharisaic reaction Jews went over to Egypt in great and increasing numbers. yet leave the reader quite at a loss for the content and purpose of the writings themselves. Yet I am none the less convinced of the truth of the interpretation. and a m herewith publishing the first of a series of volumes in which I shall try to prove what has become to m e an inevitable thesis. T h e Phari­ sees came forward in place of the ancient prophets to insist upon Jewish ideological exclusiveness. LIGHT ent treatises to each other. It seems to m e then that Jews in the Diaspora began very early to borrow ideas from their neighbors. but has a significance for the whole problem of the origin of Christianity which most students in that field will not welcome. especially on the part of those who have been reading Philo for years. at least as regards cult practices. is that the new interpretation not only involves Philo. T h e great mass of the Israelites seem never to have suspected that to be Israelites meant to be in opposition to everything. It is apparent that after the great revival of Ezra this was n o longer pos­ sible.

. God. o Geoc. had been transformed into a Mystery. T h e stages by which all this occurred are very uncertain. a n d to rise to incorruption. 46: dXridEiav bh nexiaorv ol xdv ftedv Gecp ( p a v x a a w o ^ v T e g . Still the cult was inviolable: that lesson had been learned once and for all. or the abandonment of their cult practices. was to be found by 4 3. God was no longer only the G o d presented in the Old Testament: H e was the Abso­ lute. Judaism in the Greekspeaking world. by translation "Sophia. Moses n o w has the power of Hermes." which may well be a nom-de-plume. indicate that here again the Jews were cap­ tivated by their neighbors' religion and thought. every Hellenis­ tic Jewish writer has a Greek name. the only true. immortality. and the Jews." was identical with that "Female Principle in nature" which Plutarch identified as Isis! All that n o w needed to be done was to develop sufficient skill in allegory and the Torah could be represented as the iepoc Xo^oc. whereby Judaism was at once transformed into the greatest. and range of the Jewish mind. that by Philo's time. could and did take over the esoteric ideology of the mystic philosophers about them. the amazingly clever trick was devised. of the Light-Stream. while the Jewish Mystery is fully developed. 4. of representing Moses as Orpheus and Hermes-Tat. Yet the fact is. But what shreds of literature we have from Greek Judaism before Philo. T h e door was wide open. There is m u c h that is uncertain about Hellenistic Judaism. A great mystic conception of Judaism and of life was thereby developed. the Logos or Sophia. and explaining that the Jewish "Wisdom" figure. life. Yet since a Jew could not now simply become an initiate of Isis or Orpheus and remain a Jew as well. b u t the explicit comparison is n o longer made. But the cult could put no bounds on the sensitivity. par-excellence.. certainly not much later than a century and a half before h i m . all trace of the process by which the Jews came to ascribe the ex­ traordinary powers to the Patriarchs is lost. cpcoxl <pfi>£. T h e objective of this Judaism was salvation in the mystical sense.INTRODUCTION 8 7 names. and long before. But the intermediate steps are lost. traversing the Royal Road. and in Philo. especially in Egypt. as the quotation on the title page says. Except for "Ezekiel the Tragic Poet. without the slightest feeling of disloyalty. Proem. connected with phenomena by H i s Light-Stream. and the full achieve­ ment recorded by Philo's time. not that they had borrowed it from the Greeks. T h e hope and aim of m a n was to leave created things with their sordid com­ plications. Moses h a d become Orpheus and Hermes-Tat possibly two centuries before Philo did his writ­ ing. especially and inevitably the Pythagorean-Platonism of Alexandria. but that the Greeks originally had taken it from them. by climbing the mystic ladder. Indeed they early claimed. we do not know when or by whom. it seems to me. Mystery. Moses became priest a n d hierophant as well as lawgiver. keenness. I do not profess to be able to trace the process in detail.

Indeed they were the model Jews. for all his writing is oriented about it.8 BY LIGHT. who had as­ cended the Stream to the Logos. were incarnations of the Logos. the unwritten streaming Logos-Nomos of God. the true L a w of Judaism. as commandments. by obeying the copy-law. It was the material copy of a Platonic original. But however much or little the Jewish Mystery may have developed its own cult practices. T h e Patriarchs. baptism. T h e great temple cultus was also allegorized as rep­ resenting a Mystery. the Hierophants of the Mystery. Indeed some of them. to have been the heart and core of Greek Judaism. the Unwritten Law. but that in some such way the movement developed. Jews and proselytes. T h e L a w became a difficult problem. had to see mystic-rationalistic significance in it. Giaooi." and seems to have been stressed at all only because the Jews did not want to abandon that cul­ tus. But its spiritual value was secondary altogether to that of the great Source of the written Law. to war­ rant assuming not only the existence of the Jewish Mystery. into the material medium of nouns and verbs. I have not been able to determine. and by most Jews was carefully followed. espe­ cially Moses. it seems. $GJTI <t>GJC. and so the saviors of those w h o would join the Mystery. had had access to this Law. But the true Jew. Philo is the chief source for knowledge of details of this Mystery. but as a set of commands concerned with physical life it was obviously of less importance than the great spiritual reality of the Light-Stream. and a "sacred table" from which the uninitiated were rigorously kept away. and there is enough evidence. and were God's "loans" to help other men. as we see the sun. A t least the remains of the liturgy of Greek syna­ gogues is drenched with this mystic conception of and aspiration for God. Certainly it is in terms of the Mystery that Philo alone becomes intelligible. the radiation or emanation from Himself which m e n of the age frequently called Geoc without the article. H e was a Light which was discerned by the Light-Rays that H e shot forth. and yet. T h e evidence seems on the whole to suggest that they may have had their mystic initiation. it seems to me. like the Christians later. So again a clever solution was found: the Law. especially of Moses. One could be a Jew. and directed toward its explanation. was said to be only the projection of the true Law. Only as one came up into this. As such it had its uses. LIGHT that lower type of divinity. by means of the rays that reach us. if they kept it. it was the i£poc Xoyoc of the Mystery. to come to the same vision. But it was the "Lower Mystery. T h e evidence for this is unsatisfactory because scanty and not in agreement. the Logos. as a mystic philosophy. according to mystic Judaism. had one fulfilled the L a w of Moses. H o w far such Jews organized themselves into cult groups. . got his L a w through the mediation of the Patriarchs. As the Torah. it was said. in a sense. and so had been true Jews before the legislation of Sinai. the sacred teaching. itself a light. but he does not stand alone.

as shown in Chapter X. we must look closely at Christian origins for the answer to many prob­ lems that have baffled us. Moses. For obviously the first step is to settle the question " W a s there ever such a mystic Judaism?" This volume is published as a separate study that discussion may be simplified by being concentrated upon that single point. Further if the Mystery did exist. if not a majority. the unsettling of many theories. is far beyond so crude a stage of syncretism.least a very considerable minority of his Jewish associates in the Greek world. the art. T h e allegories of Philo are then not attempts at making Abraham. For Philo the Hellenization of Isis was a foreign thing. and with h i m apparently at least his most intelli­ gent associates. and the ark types of Isis or the Persian pleroma. Jews were obviously looking directly and avowedly to Or­ pheus and Isis. a parallel in the true sense of be­ ing a line which would never touch his own. h o w far back does it go. it is here that he must look for the origin and explanation of that amaz­ ing Jewish art which the Yale expedition. b u t of the ideas which Greek thinkers were forcing upon all mythology. but which throw m u c h additional light upon the movement. It seems that. If he then has not invented Mystic Judaism. perhaps. though I do not profess to have used all there is. Ear­ lier approaches to the problem have been made by historians of religion prin­ cipally interested in the analogies to be drawn. and h o w did the movement develop ? This is the problem of Chapter X. F r o m h i m the main lines of the Mystery are first de­ scribed. or his Powers and similar conceptions in Persia. if Judaism in the circles that were using the Septuagint had come to mean what I have indi­ cated. it seems to me. not directly at Gentile mythology but at the Hellenistic mys­ tic philosophy which made any mythology only a typology for its doctrines. T h e study begins with Philo because he is our only extended source in Hellenistic Judaism. In discussing the Mystery the purpose is to be principally descriptive. which in their present form are apparently later than Philo. once that term has become clear through analyzing his presentation. between Philo's Sophia and Isis. It appears from his own writings that he is not thinking in vacuo in his own age. under Professor Rostovtzeff. fragments from a mystic Jewish liturgy. though this is as far as the present volume attempts to go. and the influence of the Mystery in early Greek Christianity. H e is looking. for example. I have not neglected to use all the light possible from oriental religions. Thereby we may expect. But these later aspects of the thesis. but represents at. Only as notions from Isis h a d . But Philo. Sophia. followed by a discussion of a body of material. Such an approach seems to m e to be fundamentally secondary. must await the subsequent vol­ umes of this series. I n the primitive stages of the movement. has just uncovered at D u r a .INTRODUCTION 9 My general thesis does not stop here. if one admits the existence of this Mys­ tery.

but a priori this would seem the natural way. we infer. Moses did not continue long. for example.10 B Y LIGHT. But his attitude toward the mysteries of his neighbors is as scornful as toward their worship of cats and crocodiles. it could go on to represent itself as the only true Mystery. and the records m a k e it highly probable that in such a way Judaism actually did become the type of religion Philo describes. In view of the character of Paul. T h e approach to Philo by parallels from other systems is often as uncon­ vincing as the parallels frequently quoted between Paul and Mithra. to lead m e n to Being. must have presupposed a period when Judaism had at least for a time allowed itself to be compared with the mysteries already recognized by Greek thinkers. but the distinction between the two attitudes with which Greek Jews approached their environment is unmistakable. T o begin with the parallels is then mis­ leading. In both religions the oriental element was never en­ tirely lost. After Judaism had. T h e transition is lost. But both religions came to be predominately ex­ pressions of that powerful genius. T h e transformation in Judaism seems to m e as complete as that from the Synoptics to Chalcedon. for it implies that Philo himself had. to say the least. been recognized as a religion offering a way to mystic objectives in conscious comparison with the other mysteries. and deal with its own mythology and the mystic philosophy without further reference to its competitors. Philo's advanced position. As a matter of fact it is patent that he would have regarded such an assumption as a violent travesty and insult. LIGHT very early come into Judaism or had been completely assimilated into Greek mysticism could they affect him. But it is clear that the early stage of syn­ cretism with mythology was quickly lost. For some of Philo's predecessors two hundred years before him this was'not the case. or Or­ pheus. at least in its own eyes. the Greek genius as it survived in the Hellenistic and R o m a n world. It is not for the historian to say that only so could the Philonic stage of the Mystery have been reached. . the Isiac mythol­ ogy in mind as he wrote about Sophia. offering Judaism as a solution of common mys­ tic problems independent of the other mysteries. that is primarily with Orpheus and secondarily with Isis. it is at once incredible that he should from such sources have taken practices and ideals directly and de novo to weave them into his new faith. to be developed explicitly as the Jewish Osiris or Musaeus. Rather he became the Greek hierophant ideal. In the case of Philo his interest in the think­ ers of Greece is as obvious as his dependence upon them.

as well as beyond the Good and all other categories. As light is brighter at the source. or it could inspire the mystical fervor with which Plato's passage is heated. This stream may be called a stream of light. or as one api .CHAPTER I THE GOD OF T H E MYSTERY ONE of the most familiar facts about Philo is that to h i m God was the Abso­ lute. since it includes them all. or of life. but is itself a unit. a self-sufficient existence. that orb which burns. Yet. T h e arrauyaojja could then be a purely ontological theory in metaphysics. Philo's Deity had somehow to be brought into rela­ tion with the world. or was so regarded by the ancients. yet without need of fuel from outside itself. For metaphysical or mystical purposes the figure of light was definitely always a figure of speech rather than a literal transfer­ ence of the details of ancient physical theories of light. in as m u c h as in ancient thought light was a stream of fire coming from a fiery source. Such a figure was universally taken in antiquity when the problem of the relation of the Unrelated had to be discussed. as to Plato. as of course it still is. the Absolute. I n the solution of the problem of how the unrelated God could be the God of the universe Philo vividly foreshadows the thought of Plotinus. a single and unique Being beyond even the Monad and the number One. But the figure was constantly used. or of creation. But the stream itself is greater than any of these single aspects. Plato's TO ayaOov. it sends out its great stream of light and heat which makes life possible upon the earth. 69 ff. like the God of later Neo-Platonism. it had reality. in spite of the fact that H e was essentially beyond rela­ tion. both. Even those schools furthest re­ moved from regarding light as a stream of particles or atoms made it in some sense an ana\JYao\ia. Or it could be. to all appearances. See Brehier's excellent discussion Les Idees. T h e sun was taken as the figure. F r o m Plato's myth of the Cave on through the latest Neo-Platonists. a radiation or emanation from and of fiery nature. was a solar source which was the unaffected cause of even those shadows which seem to ordinary m e n to be the only existences. eter­ nally. 1 T h e tendency was equally constant to break u p the Light-Stream from God into successive stages. It is not the sun. In so far as a concept could be connected with the a n a u y a o n a from Reality. yet it is in a sense the projection of the sun to us. for the stream from the sun is not a pluralistic collection of independent elements. T h e aspects are only convenient abstractions for our immediate purpose. . or of heat. Independent of the world.

presented an explanation. or of the apparently native Orpheus. prays to her not as to the personal Isis. Plato had done something suggestively ^similar in the allegory of the Cave. T h e contrast between the mythology at its origin and the use m a d e of it by Hellenistic schools was that the Isis or Mithra story was mythology in the sense of folk history in its native state. arbitrary typology. Posidonius. According to the Persian type God is a solar source sending out rays. their representation within the cave of the material world. then TOC vo/)Ta. Any formulation of the relation of the Unrelated. and the Hellenistic m i n d was quite open to any new mythological formulation which would be help­ ful to one who wished to visualize and ascend the Stream. and the Female Principle type.12 B Y LIGHT. All our evidence suggests that this was a mystical element which came from the East into Greek thinking. and. such as. and. whether made primarily with metaphysical or mystical objective. T h e r e was the sun. In the Pseudo- . T h e successive stages of decreasing brilliance were then over and again marked off as distinct grades of reality. which strongly resembles myth. or it may have come in gradually as Platonists con­ tinued to reach out for fresh parables to explain the grades of reality. but became. as has been suggested. or that form in matter was such. It may have been introduced by a few great individuals. It is true that in turning Plato's stages of reality into solar emanations the Hellenistic W o r l d went far from Plato's own teachings. it was correctly appreciated. T h e beautiful stories of foreign religions. as those made to order like Plato's. But by Philo's time the grades had become emanations. the longing of matter for form. a myth in the Platonic sense of the term. quite as accu­ rately. when in rapture he has a vision of Isis rising from the sea. what may be called the Persian type of pleroma. By Philo's time. Even Aristotle. LIGHT proaches the source. could be used quite as easily. to the Greek. like Plato. the schematizations were becoming m u c h more elaborate. used myth frankly. when faced with the problem of connecting the Unmoved Mover with matter. possibly. and then the shadows of these." w h o m he could address by many names be­ cause no one name meant anything literally. is perforce mythological. Indeed it was by this means that mythology was chiefly used to m a k e vivid and experiential the metaphysical conception. largely under inspiration from the Orient. There are n o hints in Plato that the F o r m s are "rays" from TO dyaOov. so the Light-Stream of Reality is brighter as one gets away from its more remote glimmerings to deal with it nearer its point of origin. TO dya06v. but as to a conventionalization of the "Female Principle in nature. Less rigorous rationalists felt even more consciously that they were trying here to explain the inexplicable. This is a very simple scheme. Even Apuleius. T w o main types of formulation of the Stream had arisen.

{The Sacred Books of the East. Plutarch names from Persia such a series descending from A h u r a M a z d a . and could not have been a part of the Gentile Zeitgeist of Alexandria.). Plutarch. V. Konigsweg. These are not named. As Pascher says. and since his writing the influence of Iranian speculation upon Philo has been generally assumed. "Die Himmelreise der Seele. Jackson. and so represent the forces of deity active within the material world. 47. of euvoia. T h e first three are the gods or creators. as the Persians called them. Khshathra Vairya. and euvonia. Good Royalty. But it does not follow that they must have come to Jews in Alexandria through oriental Jewish assimilation. pp. 83-99? analyzed the problem. W. To Wesendonk Philo is an "orthodox Jew" in feeling. These Amesha Spentas are so m u c h like divine emanations which we shall encounter in Philo that Darmesteter thought their presence in the Avesta indicated a Philonic or Neo-Platonic influence. 1924. I n oriental religions themselves there were fami­ lies of deities. A parallel list of the descending deities. dAy|0£ia.L0C. More fully Wesendonk. 5 . 209 ff. However justifiable the assumption of direct Iranian influence upon Philo may or may not prove to be. 1 5 7 . and the Hermetica show the active presence of Iranian influence. 2 1 4 . n a s . the second three are the creators of oo$ia. he argues. Darmesteter. Haurvatat. Perfect Right­ eousness. Asha Vahista. Bousset showed the error of such a conclusion. De Iside. 5. Beneath these are twenty-four lower deities w h o were p u t within the Cosmic Egg. That they were no contribution of Philo I agree. 4. vol. his Suvdneic. The Zend Avesta. ii. p. 3 . 2. If Persian details are there at all." Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft. the satraps are his rays. Spenta Armaiti. n. 4. Bousset. Pascher is quite right in paralleling Plutarch's list with that in the Avesta: 1 . is preserved. 2 . Royal Power. for they projected out through the great realm of Persia the Royal Power which was invisibly concealed at its source in the capital. it is clear that Plutarch's list is only generally similar to the list in the Avesta. 6. This the Hellenistic writer used as a myth of the Abso­ lute God. Good T h o u g h t . W. 1 8 . In the Mithra-Liturgy there appear to be similar groupings. influenced by Greek thought. Ameretat. Pious Modesty. A review and bibliog­ raphy of the controversy are to be found in A . and not be a contribu­ tion of Philo's own. See Pascher. and so a late date for the Persian formu­ lation. 43. and. 6. Urmensch und Seele in der iranischen TJberlieferung. p. p. pp. 3 . Health.T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 13 Aristotelian De Mundo the satraps of the Great K i n g are used as figures. of the relation of Philo to the Amesha Spentas and Gayomart. Amesha Spentas. the "seven 2 8 4 5 6 2. I V ) . more importantly for our purpose. See also J . n. lesser manifestations of the single reality. theogonies. Konigsweg. lvi. respectively. 408 ff. the association of Philo's teaching with the Iranian goes back to Zeller (Philosophic der Griechen. IV. of wealth (TTAOUTOC. Immortality. III. If the K i n g is the sun. Zoroastrian Studies (1928). with copious references to the literature. cit. descending groups of deities.) and "of the pleasures which have reference to what is noble" (TCJV km TOIC KaXoIc y]§£uv). V o h u Mano. pp. sending out H i s Suvdnsic to be the divine forces and representa­ tions in the material world. they must have come in as part of the general Jewish assimilation of Persian ideas. magical papyri. and so available for direct assimilation there.

Accord­ ing to Plutarch Osiris." Each is hailed in the Liturgy by its magical name. Immediately he is surrounded by light rays. so that n o w he too is a traverser of the W a y which the supreme G o d has created. b u t not a specific formulation within the pleroma. through w h o m he produces Horus. O u t of all this material it becomes clear that the W a y is important. in which the mysticism of sex is fundamental. H o r u s would seem to be the Divine Stream as clothed in mat­ ter. First the mystic is conducted through the pleroma described. the Cosmic Logos. Strengthened by this h e ad­ dresses God in magical light terms. and finally he comes to the Greatest G o d . $uoeuc GyjAu. a n d with a fiery crown. LIGHT Tuxai of the heaven (or the universe. fair of form. Isis. a golden crown. the most holy guardians of the four pillars. A . with locks of fire. 10.X8 dbid xov deCou dxevi^cov etc." This is Helios. Geoc. 9. H e is distinguished by the fact that h e traverses the Heavenly Road. a n d the light-mysticism. 11. This experience of seeing the Greatest means at once death and birth to the mystic. and wears trousers. T h e Greatest is also young. also with magical names. Beneath these seven goddesses are seven gods with the faces of black bulls. H e has golden hair. T h e idea of the pleroma is important. 8. noble and good virgins. has a wife. clad in a white chiton and a scarlet chlamys. Just what Isis typifies does not clearly appear. Over against this general organization of the Light-Stream. Dieterich. T h e vision of all these comes after the first experience by which the mystic breathes into himself the Spirit of Qod. 11.. p. But there is no standardization of the pleroma. oupavoc). and begs H i m to approach. . the recipient of all coming into being" (TO T/JC. t o w h o m the lesser deity is besought to conduct the mystic. the type of the projection of divine light into the lower realm. p..23 ff. IX. a type whose origin seems primarily to have been in Persia. T h e highest of the lower deities is the mystic guide along the W a y through the pleroma to the Greatest. T h e n he sees "a younger God. Ib. 1 1 : iXsvotxox elg roftou Mai Styei avxdv jieQuiaxoihrxa <ftg ev 6 8 $ . 10. aeavxdv xd Tcvsv\ia: ib. 1923. De Iside.14 B Y LIGHT. the light god and the Logos. the sacrament or secret teaching. the greatest of the gods. Kal SEKTIKOV cmaoY\Q yzviotuc). Above h i m is still 6 IIZYIOTOC. with linen garments and golden diadems. sacred (icpai) and of the same type of existence as pivi|jippo<|>op. established by Law. as well as the general formulation of the supreme G o d beneath w h o m is the pleroma. H e carries a starry symbol and emits stars from his body. 1 2 . 53 ff. 20 ff. and made the nuoryjpiov. with a light-glance. By fertilizing her Osiris could beget 7 8 9 10 7. stands the Female Principle type of formulation. Since she was originally a chthonic deity she would appear to be somewhat analogous to the Mother N a t u r e of our o w n figurative speech. Eine Mithrasliturgie. is clothed in a white chiton. 1. 1 2 . She is the "Female Principle in nature. that is the greatest of the lesser divinities.

it becomes apparent that. and by the more extreme a n d crude form of Dionysiac rites. n o w identi­ fied with Isis. and then union with Osiris. were very popular. Both of these types of ascent. "La notion de la Sagesse dans les trois premiers siecles de notre ere. T h e Bacchanalian ex­ cesses. the Dionysiac-Orphic movement created the Giaooc. Again as with the Persian type of formulation.T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 11 15 the world. and of great importance. as the mystic. the desire to find the whole of G o d in place of fragments. she is the field and matter for both (du-qpoiv oflaa x&Qa z a l vXr\). of the Phrygian Magna Mater. Her whole sketch of the conception through the period is very illuminating. in as much as she can also be fertilized by the Bad one." Archiv ftir Geschichte der Philosophic und Soziologie. The conception of Isis in this sense is best presented by Marguerite Techert. I n the Orphic-Dionysiac tradition there was apparently for the first time invented the Giaooc. the Greeks had made a real place for them in their 12 1 1 . A t the same time her longing for Osiris. It is apparent from the De hide and from Apuleius that the mystic finds the first great step to be union with Isis in her search. pp. pp. to be sure. is gratified by partaking in Isis' o w n experience with Osiris. and the intense longing for union. §53. singularly inappropriate as they seem to our notion of Greek life.). It was. T h e Orphic-Dionysiac groups scattered rapidly and widely throughout the Greek-speaking world. or Hecate would do just as well. the important thing about this formulation is not specifically the Isis myth but the concept of the "Female Principle of nature" and the notion of mystic ascent by a sexual mystic union with that "Prin­ ciple. T h e mysteries of Eleusis were definitely localized. 1 2 . 9 if. . of Athena. the "local con­ gregation" conception. But more important for Hellenistic religion than the temporal priority of Orphism is Orphism's logical priority. were made into Giaooi by the Greeks after the manner of Or­ pheus. and has lost thereby al­ most all literal significance. Bellona. how­ ever foreign in origin. but to the mind of Apuleius the mythology of Demeter and Persephone. which to Plutarch were themselves inter­ changeable. one feels that the mythology has been turned by the Greek mind into a typology. 60 ff. It came forward largely as a reformed a n d tempered Dionysiac mys­ tery. then. in accordance with which an Orphic or Dionysiac cultus could be set u p wherever there were initiates. is a symbol of the whole spirit of mystic ascent. Pascher's chapter "Konigin Isis" is likewise valuable (Konigsweg. Hera. But her desire is always toward the Better. though he first begat the World-Principle. W h e n one considers the respect shown these rites by the dramatists and Plato. T h e temporal priority of Orphism over the mass of Hellenistic mys­ teries is obvious enough. her gathering his fragments together. As has been suggested. Typhon. antedated i n Greece by the Eleusinian Mysteries. She would appear also to be Matter. I n the classical age itself. or of Aphrodite. XXXIX (1930). of the Candian Artemis." T h e idea may have originated in Isis (though in any other fertility goddess as easily).

the Son of the supreme God and "the Female Principle. W h a t does this mean for the attitude of the Greek? It can only mean that the theory of m a n and of his need for salvation. but that the mythology itself was rather sug­ gestive than definitive. two sets of sacraments. T h e Giaooc. Orphism sought to get the same results as the Bacchanalia by a more tem­ pered cultus and a more philosophical mythology. Greeks learned first to look for an immediate experience of God which would be a sharing in the divine immortal nature. as represented by the Bacchic and Orphic Giaooi. But Orphism went on to a more defi­ nitely dualistic formulation of the nature of m a n than appears in our rec­ ords of the Dionysiac rites in their unreformed state." denouncing each other. a chthonic deity. and asserting each its own exclusive truth. since life in the body is death." Demeter." and into the very being of the savior the mystic can rise. in a wild way. LIGHT life. A divine savior is at hand to give h i m this life. and only as he can get out of that nature into the divine nature can he hope really to live. and the conception of the cosmic significance of the Savior God as the son of the supreme deity by the "Female Principle. A n institution which could so affect Greek life as to produce its whole great tradition of tragedy is obviously not to be regarded as anything but an integral part of Classic Greece. powerful as were the attractions of the rites. If Plato could treat each with respect." were kept. But it is just as important to notice that strong as was the conviction of the truth of this theory of man." Its white-clad initiates were free from the burden of the flesh. T h e myth stressed also the notion that the universe was to be ex­ plained in terms of a Supreme Deity who has sexual relations with a "Fe­ male Principle. the notion of the possible share of m a n in divine nature by cult acts. and hence of the necessity for regeneration in the sense of purification. Orphism and the Bacchic Giaooi were not rival "churches. of the possibility of attaining that salvation through cere­ monies. M a n is sinful by his very nature. T h e Orphics seem to have given the Greeks a "sense of sin" in the later meaning of that phrase. N o w it must be noticed that in the Classic Age the Greeks had developed a tremendous sense that unaided humanity is helpless without some sort of superhuman intervention. and so produces the Savior God Dionysus. two mythologies. as well as a way of escape from the cloying contamination of the "wheel. was widely accepted. the sacraments offered in the widely scattered Giaooi. and so be a foretaste of life after death. to be sure. the less critical "average m a n " would have done so. and were only awaiting the final deliverance. T h e r e seems first to have arisen here the conception of the uncleanness of matter. Probably a large majority of the Greeks w h o were initiated into one . Here. T h e means thereto are at hand. of salvation as release from matter and union with divine nature.i6 B Y LIGHT. in Classic Greece herself there were. dif­ ferent though similar.

She is 1 3 . a phenomenon which will in itself show conclusively that mythology was a very elastic and typological affair within the Orphic cult group. T o this it must first be protested that our knowledge of Hellenistic life. Orphee (Paris. 13 H e r e it is that the "Female Principle" is receiving highly important devel­ opment. T h e appeal of the Greek mystery was the appeal of a philosophy of life and of a promise through rites to gain an emotional realization of the objective of that philosophy. powerful. though it is unproved and dubious. This is not the place to treat Orphism as such in extenso. They certainly do not represent the point of view of primitive Or­ phism. it is still true that the type of thought expressed in those H y m n s was a continuous and forceful thing. Rhea. 1925). pp. proves nothing about the possibility of a real cult back­ ground for the Greek Orphic literature of the Hellenistic Age. and mother of Zeus. and persistent mystic convention of thought. W e look within the Orphic H y m n s for the best revelation of the concep­ tions lying behind the cult. or Eastern. O n the other hand absence of Orphic remains at Rome proves little for the East. is from the archaeological point of view so inadequate as to m a k e an argument ex silentio very dangerous. since Orphism was a type of solution of life's problems which had little appeal to the R o m a n mind. wife of Cronos. Modern scholar­ ship has seriously questioned the relation of this literature to the cult. H o w m u c h they represent the point of view of the Orphism so ac­ ceptable to Pythagoreans and Plato is something we cannot say. at least in the Hellenistic Age. the story of a definite. Still the possibility remains that the Orphic H y m n s had little real cult association. Traces of Orphic cults in the Hellenistic and R o m a n times have been disappoint­ ingly meager in archaeological remains. especially at Rome. and of the earth." as contrasted with "guilt. It has always been a Greek. which is all we need for our purpose. thing. Granted this. if their place of residence permitted. and. heaven. is mother of Gods and men.6 7 . .T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 17 were also in the other. and winds. daughter of Protogonus. 5 3 . Indeed the indifference to specific mythological formulations is seen within Orphism itself. Andre Boulanger. particularly in such centers as Alexandria. But it will be well to point out at least its treatment of the "Female Prin­ ciple" in nature. Even today the difference between the type of piety traditionally Eastern and the piety represented in the Western church is that the R o m a n tradition so largely lacks the Orphic sense of "contamination. But they tell their own story for their own age. and not the appeal of a specific mythology." Absence of R o m a n remains of Orphism. sea. then. and the hypothe­ sis has been forcibly advanced that the H y m n s and the Argonautica repre­ sent a literary Orphism that existed as a movement of mystic philosophy independent of an actual cult. into the Eleusinian Mysteries also.

the universal Queen. But she is also identified with Demeter of Eleusis. each is the Great Mother." T o her is applied the portentous word jjouvoyevyic. Hymn XLIV. Persephone is also MOUVOY£V/]C.18 B Y LIGHT. there is a common notion applied to all this list of goddesses. 20. T h e H y m n to Misa. which in the next H y m n . the unfortunate mother of Dionysus. 16. that is the Phrygian Magna Mater. 18." and her coming brings to m e n the mystic peace and cuvojjia. but she is also the sharer of Dionysus' hearth. and saves by her high minded purposes (owT/jpioc z\j$pov\ (3ouAyj). XLIX. In another H y m n the "Mother of the Gods" is addressed in exactly the same terms. is identified with the Magna Mater of Phrygia and Lydia. Semele. his follower. that is she is the Syrian Dea and Isis. while mythologies foreign to Orphism are freely borrowed. .. She is mother of neces­ sity. the throne mate of Dionysus. Hymn XXVII. 22. Demeter is the All-Mother (jra[j[j/]T£ipa). the nurse of Dionysus. LIGHT 14 addressed as the First Author (apxty^veOAe). whoever she was. Hymn Hymn Hymn Hymn Hymn XIV. and sea. double natured (St^uyjc). 1 5 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 So far. and has the seminal power of Dionysus as Eubouleus. 21. XXVI. Hymn L . also to Demeter. Queen" it is obvious that the asso­ ciation may also be with Demeter. Hippa. She is the many-named. Savior ( c d n x i p a ) . 17. but called also the Phrygian Savior (Opuyiv]C ocinxipa). called the spouse (ouvopeuvoc) of Cronos. is explained as meaning "Mother of immortal gods and mortal m e n / ' In these two H y m n s she is of course the goddess w h o gives the fruits of the earth. Some. 15. XL. However different they were in details. "Mother of the Blessed Ones and mortal men. Hymn XLI. the Female Principle. so she is identical with Dionysus (lacchus). and is obviously like Demeter in being the source of earthly fruit. But to most of them the total functions of that Principle are indifferently ascribed. is also the "Universal Queen" (nanpaoiAeia). It is obviously the same goddess who is addressed as Goddess Earth ( F a i a Gea). 19. XXIX. at once a virgin goddess and the mother of Dionysus (called here Eubouleus) and of the Eumenides. hails her as male and female (apo/]v KGCI 07jAuc). earth. with the 14. W i t h this Female Principle goes the notion of bisexuality of the female with power to impregnate. but when she is called "the chthonic mother. She is the proclaimer of the "holy marriage of chthonic Zeus. "unique of kind." though in this case without any refer­ ence to the specific story of Demeter. Aphrodite is in t u r n the one who has given birth to all things in heaven. appear to represent only aspects of the activity of the Female Principle. but on the basis of their adaptability to illuminate the significance of the Female Principle. like Persephone. it is evident. and the Oea (3ao!Aeia recognized in Syria and Egypt. not for their parallel­ ism to Greek mythology.

The Mystical Hymns of Orpheus (reprinted 1896). is Dike. so far as I know. 25. She is eternal Life (alSioc. Taylor was quite uncritical. She is self-sufficient. male and female (Koupy) KOU K o p e ) . with copious notes from the very late Platonists. and have been laying the ground for Proclus and his school. Such thinking as that represented by Plutarch for Isis may well have been going on before Philo for Orphism. then. How elaborately later thinking connected this mythology of the hymns with the Pleroma of the Light-Stream is still most conveniently to be appreciated from Thomas Taylor. 26. But I do not think we shall understand the Greek of the Hel­ lenistic or Roman period if we take any of the mythologies as meaning much to h i m in their literal form. Hymn LII. and n e w rites. a translation. and the Oriental pleroma. It is highly likely that this power of impregnation would be applied to the mystic impregnation of the initiate. In the Hellenistic period. they were any less Greek than before. Hymn X. become the Light-Stream as represented in the mythology of Isis or Mithra. and for none of them was it ever dreamed of asserting an exclusive claim to the truth.T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 23 19 Magna Mater of Phrygia. T h e Mithraic pleroma might also appear. There were. Dionysus is hailed as Adonis. is the fire breather (nupinvooc) and fire blazer ( T T U P I ^ S Y Y ^ C ) . is the "Universal Queen" and all wise (navocxpoc)." and the fact that Dionysus is specifically born in fire (TTupoonopoc). with Aphrodite (Cytheria). Hymn L V I . H e r e the Female Principle has indeed swallowed up all mystic mythology. accepted Proclus' thesis that the later explanations of his school represented the original meaning of the hymns. 24. the Greeks would have been amazed at the suggestion that in adopting n e w mythologies. Yet one is tantalized by the feeling that such a use of this material as Proclus represents by no means began as late as the Neo-Platonists. and with Isis. w h o is likewise Mouvoyevyjc. Hymn XLII. Fatherless." N a t u r e is all-gleaming (navauY^c). A Hellenistic Greek was interested in the religions of Egypt and the East only in so far as they offered n e w myths with funda­ mentally the old significance. W i t h i n this composite conception was also included the notion that it was the Fire or Light-Stream. as said. Luv\) d deathless Provi­ dence. under new influences. the Female Principle or bisexual type of formulation. 27. and 4>povy)oic." and "universal Mother. a virgin. which has been dissolved in a conception of Deity that combines the notion of the universal genetrix with the power of impregnation. the source of legislation. It is notable for what is to come that this deity is also the 0£O|jo$opoc. Hymn XXXII. T h e H y m n to N a t u r e ex­ presses the same notion in making N a t u r e "her own Father. and rites that could be adapted to use in a Greek Qiaooc T h e life that had flowed into h i m in the streaming cup of Dionysus might now. But such a notion cannot. . T h e male-female is also Pallas Athene. be documented. but 24 a n 25 2 6 2 7 23. It is with reference to the Light-Stream that I in­ terpret the almost constant allusion to these god-goddesses as the "torchbearer. These were the great types of formulation. N o n e of them was ever made into a creed." the "Father and Mother of all.

So God is Himself neither visible nor perceptible. as it has been pointed out by Pascher and others. are manifest and knowable. There is n o need of apology for quoting in extenso the little read material: 28 God has knowledge of the affairs of other living beings. but rather is to be contemplated (decoQatog) only by reason (koyog) and mine (voog). it is trying to find within Judaism a symbolic basis by which it can express and achieve the Greek mystic goal. or a Jewish series of Amesha Spentas. greatness. escape from the toils of the body into immaterial immortal life. and the things of which they are the herdsmen are the works and the deeds. But what Philonic Judaism is trying to do is not to find a Jewish Isis or Demeter. but the other gods who run in the heaven along with the univer sal revolution are.) are Truth. though Pascher has overlooked the fact that the Philonic Sophia is much more like the Orphic compound Female Principle than anything specifically Isiac. Yet it seem? to me that God is not a unit. i. A n d to a m a n like Plutarch. a concept inherently inde­ pendent of its mythological formulations. T h e Greek mystic goal was. and frequendy meaningless In the first sentence the original meaning was probably that God. it is being argued. although the Greatest and Most Exalted. of w h o m we k n o w only that this one fragment bears his n a m e . The text of the first lines of this fragment is very corrupt. and virtue. reasonably (xaxa Xoyov). Reading EVTI for si. . These of which H e is the herdsman. LIGHT both of these had significance only as they threw figurative light upon the Bacchic-Orphic objective. This latter would be the God who embraces the whole universe. The fragment is found in Stobaeus. But the many other [gods] are distinguished with reference to theii function (xara Suvafuv). unless H e is so to a very restricted number of men. 48). they were interchangeable ty­ pologies for the same reality. and the movements that occui in the whole universe. I. know all things: He was perceived by only a very few men. and over them all H e rules who is preeminent ir power. p. And His Powers (§IMX|Aie<. there are remarkable similarities to Isis and to the Amesha Spentas of Persia. Onatas. d&TYFREIA here and a few lines below seems corrupt. But His works and deeds are clearly perceptible to all men. is One. and is for us particularly illuminating because of its basic similarity to the objective of Philo. 29. 30. the Rulei of all. . But His Powers (Sirvdpueg) are Truth. I. while unknowable. This seems to be the mystic background of Philo and his group. For God is Himself mind (voog) and soul (tyv%&) and the director ( t o dysptovixov) of the whole universe. I n his thinking about God.20 BY LIGHT. It is important for our purpose as an expression of the mystic philosophy that lies behind all the assimilations of the mythologies. servants of the First and Conceptual 29 31 80 28. Perhaps read aiafrt\xal with Meinekc 3 1 . Fortunately w e possess a state­ ment of the concept itself apart from mythological formulation in a frag­ ment from a Neo-Pythagorean writer. 39 (Wachs. . .

So their function is alike to rule and to be ruled. But actually the Supreme God is utterly beyond the lower gods. They are the shepherds of the works of God in nature. Accordingly He is not composed out of two things. apart from the supreme and single Leadership. while the body. Similarly the soul is a spirit (Soajxcov) for it rules and puts in motion the whole being). T h e r e is the O n e God. pure. if they were deprived of their captain or chorus leader. which are obviously to control the various phe­ nomena of the universe. spirit and the spiritual. The cosmos and the things that move in every way in it are divine (fletog). As a result of the . though the text is here too corrupt for the identification to be certain. as soldiers to the general. or as comrades in arms within a single troop to the troop leader and captain. but the body is mortal and mixed with mud. or soldiers to military exploit. nor out of any contraries (for contraries are wont by nature both to rule and to be ruled). T h e lower gods would seem naturally to be the Powers of the first lines of the fragment. In general God gave the body to mortal beings as a result of an eternal and ineluctable necessity. but those things that are ruled could not be appointed to their tasks if they were deprived of their leader. as I said at the outset of this discourse. subject to H i s power. T h e ideas here suggested must be clearly vizualized. But that is not illuminating. probably H i s Powers. Such a nature [as that of the Supreme Leader] has need of nothing whether akin or extraneous to Himself. and anything spurious sullies what is naturally genuine. In the same way lead sullies gold. They have n o power to carry out their functions. is not to be reserved to the Supreme God. the author protests.T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 21 Those who say that there is one God and not many are in error. But the general picture is clear. Beneath H i m . for it is their nature to follow after the man who is leading them well. aloof. unmixed. W e have little from the fragment as to the exact nature of these lower deities. soul and body (for H e is entirely soul). while they are both rulers and ruled. for it is H i s nature to be unmixed with everything that would sully H i s character as the pure leader. for the soul is unpolluted and divine. Himself Origin (a. The other gods have such a relation to the First and Conceptual God as members of a chorus to the leader. and by means of these works God is first to be ap­ prehended—indeed the mass of m e n can get no higher.Q%d) and the First. Their accessibility is not discussed. So one must distinguish between God and the divine. For they do not grasp the supreme quality of the divine preeminence. H e is pure soul and mind. For whatever shares in generation is by nature destitute and impoverished. is spiritual. just as members of a chorus could not be set to singing together. and is more powerful and exalted than the others. God is therefore. inaccessible to m e n except by reason and mind. and all its parts. The mixture with the body sullies the purity of the soul. except that they are "like" the Supreme God. are the gods H i s agents. So I mean that they have not understood that the Supreme Principle rules and directs beings similar to Himself. T h e word Gsoc.

LA. and then to a reasoned apprehension of even the Supreme God. a con­ trast between the "Highest Logos. Or again Sophia. This is exactly the sort of ascent. in h u m a n souls. It is interesting to see h o w variously this figure is developed. makes the universe partake of the divine nature. "Female Principle.." the source of Sophia. 245. 34. 3739. Sophia is the M o t h e r . God and Sophia are mutually sources to each other of "delight" (LvTp\j<pv\[xa)* T h e relations of Sophia to the Logos are highly complex.. the same river of Eden that has just appeared as "ge­ neric Virtue.. Into this point we must go later. Som. 49.. Fug. 242. This river divides into four streams. By the soul man can ascend first to knowledge of God as revealed in H i s works." It is a very short step to seeing the whole reach of divinity. 54.. H o w Philonic Judaism does this can best be understood from the details. i. 109. 52Cher. 40. 3335. even secondarily through His servants. 65. and gives varying formulations. for the Jewish counterpart of this conception. 36. If God is the Father of the Universe. 49. the four cardinal virtues of intelligence. 97. two pages later. ii. LA. and so even the physical universe can be called "di­ vine. T h e Stream from God Philo accepts without question. courage. 242. the philosophical kernel. God is the husband of Sophia. while the daughter of God. is both male and female. and will find that 32 33 34 35 86 7 38 89 40 32. T h e Logos flows from Sophia like a river. First is that which centered in the. LIGHT fact that the phenomena of the universe are the works of God. the Powers or lower gods. . W h a t we must bear in m i n d in consider­ ing Philo's typology is the fact that the objective is to furnish Jews with a typology for this philosophic mysticism rather than with a direct parallel to any mystic mythology as such. 64. God is repre­ sented in the universe. ii.." Philo would not have had far to look. and so has the masculine power of scattering the seeds of intelligence and noble conduct. One representation is: God the Father pro­ duces Sophia. 64. 38." T h e contrast might seem here to be.. and a lower Logos derivative from her. Som. of the Sophia as the mother of the Divine L o g o s . Sophia flows out in a river that is "generic virtue" (/] y^viKyj aptTY). so that the activity of God within the universe. ayaQoTYic). as Pascher takes it. and. of begetting these. It is also the kernel to m a k e which vivid Philo elaborates his own typology. Ib. around which the mysteries all appear oriented. Ib. Sac. the source of Sophia. control.. Philo speaks of the Highest Divine Logos w h o is the source of Sophia. It was right at h a n d in the Jew­ ish Wisdom who had in Greek become Sophia. Bet. as a series of emanations. Man is a hybrid of soul and body. which Onatas insists must not be restricted to the Supreme Being. ii. and justice. Fug.22 B Y LIGHT. 43. 108 f. if he had himself m a d e the search de novo. T h e body is obviously helpless.

the One w h o Spoke. or Sophia as a derivative from the Logos. Philo speaks of it as though it were still there. It was the abcde. T h e figure of the two Logoi. T h e Presence. It is brought in only because Philo and his group want the type of experience which his neighbors are getting through the bisexual "Female Principle of nature. the Logos can be represented as derived from Sophia. T h e schematization he presents had to express the number seven. indeed does so in connection with Sophia as the river of E d e n . pp. T h a t is. but the chamber in the temple which was to have been sanctified by its presence was still as sacred in its memory. the voice that spoke to Moses from the ark. See below. and that in that Stream men may hope to find God. the mercy seat. 4 . and by analogy with the Persian conceptions we have been discussing. Reversing the order of these Philo describes each part as a symbol. and the Pres­ ence or the One w h o spoke. i. the fact that there flows from God the effluence of His power and nature. the law within the box. of God in a sense completely unique. H o w elaborately Sophia is used in allegorizing the stories of the Patriarchs will appear below. W h a t then does the Sophia mythology mean ? In it­ self and literally. the two cherubim. F r o m H i m radiate all the lower manifestations. the formulation in terms of a pleroma is still more important. 2 . If Jews were looking for a symbol of the nature of deity. nothing. TO ov. the presence. to imagine how intense must have been the emotional associations of the Jews of antiquity with the secret Ark of the Covenant. is only a slight variant. It is difficult for us who are not Jews. or for modern Jews. where more fittingly could they look than to the ark ? It is not at all surprising that the figures for the mystic deity should appear from Philo to be here most importantly ex­ pressed. H i d d e n away from all men but the high-priest. and approachable even by him but once a year when he must be half blinded by incense. Important as is the female sexual figure for the Light-Stream in Philo. Their experiences with their wives are the Mystic Marriage of man with the divine force and life. if used at all. the ark was the very heart of all that was sacred in the Jewish religion. T h e relationship can be expressed in any form that is immediately convenient. is the highest God. or the two can be made completely identical. 65. But not any specific mythology of Sophia is it worth Philo's while to make consistent.LA. Philo tells us. Philo found the seven parts of the ark to be respectively the box.T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 23 there is in Philo no real doctrine of a lower Cosmic Logos such as Pascher distinguishes. F r o m the Logos the 41 42 41. of no fixed importance in Philo's thinking. 101 ff. It had been lost for centuries. For Philo flatly identi­ fies the Logos with Sophia." T h e Stream is evidently the impor­ tant thing. corresponding to the voice heard by Moses. because of the Pythagorean foundation of his thought. First is the Logos TOU OVTOC.


each other. Philo's most important passage describing this schematization of God and the Stream should be quoted. is both the Creator and King. the Platonic world of forms. and so of a conceptual nature (LmoTY\\iov[KY\ 4>uoic). though divided. that is that their ouoia is divine. 44. and the Royal in the Creative. 63 f. since God. are an extremely beautiful and divine similitude. Harris. These serve in the universe as the guards at its limits ( o p o i ) . For it was advantageous that they be divided in order that the one might function as creator.. 65. For if God had not been merciful to the things which now exist. who are called the Creative Power (Suvajjic TroiyjTiKyj). " T h e cherubim are said to be of beaten gold to express by the gold the fact that they are of the highest be­ ing (ouoia). and the Royal Power sends forth the Leg­ islative Power (Suvapic vojjoGsTiKy]). So the Creative Power is equivalent also to the word Oeoc. QE. the one typified by the box of the ark. and the Royal or Ruling Power (Suva|jtc PaoiAiK/j). 65. Each of these is now in turn the source of a further emana­ tion.T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 25 Stream goes on out in two branches. 64. ii. and together toward the Mercy Seat. the L a w within the box. H e has explained the significance of the two cherubim as representing the Creative and Ruling Powers of God. in the common Old Testament reference to God as "Lord G o d . For the functions differ. the two cherubim. Ib. nothing 43. For it is necessary that the Powers. Ib. and their wings overshadow the parts below to indi­ cate the guardianship of these Powers over all that is beneath t h e m . pp. Fragments. These words of Scripture.. 45. says Philo. are again united. xuQiog and -freog] in order that the Creative Power might share in the Royal. by which the cosmic peace is pre­ served since everything is kept within its proper limitations. the Mercy Seat. the forms of forms. They are pro­ vided with wings because all the Powers of God "desire and struggle for the Road u p to the Father". In the second place. T h e Creative Power sends forth the Merciful Power or Benevolence (Suva|jic UCCJC). 46. T h e seventh and last member of this pleroma. p. 43 44 45 46 T h e next section explains why the faces of the cherubim are turned toward .e. the craftsmanship illustrates that they are form. Fragments. 62. is the Conceptual World (K6O\XOC voyproc). who is One. that of Equality. naturally the Powers. the Creative and Royal. 63. should look toward each other in contemplation of each other's beauty. with the second definitely inferior to the first. . which is also the punishing Power. the pure and unmixed. and at the same time in conspiracy for the benefit of things that have come into existence. the Ruling Power to Kupioc. Ib. Both incline fittingly toward the Mercy Seat. And the Powers were brought together in another way by the eternal juxtaposition of the names [i. the other as ruler... T h e Creative Power is not only the Creative principle but the guardian of the world against destruction. Harris. the Royal Power puts into it the great Law.

ii. and second that H e speaks from be­ tween the Creative and Royal Powers. and though seemingly divided partake in £VGJOIC together. for they are symbolic. They are func­ tional distinctions of the single Power of God. and the object of the whole schematization apparent. and above and between is the Voice. and the laws treasured within it. leaves no void in nature. but are only aspects of the single nature and activity of God. In explaining the words. is the Divine Principle. 67. The parts of the ark are severally mentioned. first the definiteness of Philo's schematization. 145 ff. LIGHT 47 would have been created through the Creative Power nor be given legal regi­ mentation by the Royal Power. and every Power. There is the box of the ark. thus creating love and unanimity. so called in Chaldean." pp. 66." 48 The purest and most prophetic mind receives knowledge and understanding of God (TO ov) not from TO OV Himself. A ladder. . 49. They are conventionalizations of the Stream. with a mystic-metaphysical rather than cosmic-mythological objective Philo now goes on to give the whole scheme. theory which I have discussed in my "NeoPythagorean Source. but from His primary and guardian (6oQixpoQOi) Powers.26 B Y LIGHT. and second the fact that these Powers have not distinct existence. This concept echoes the Xoyoq xo\xzv<. if we would understand what they symbolize. and upon it the Mercy Seat. 49 T h e solar character of the figure is at once indubitable. We must go over these individually. and still above this the One who speaks. so that one may be able to perceive the Elder and Brighter by means of the secondary illumination (cpey/o^). the Creative Power. and arbitrates between the things that seem in opposition to each other. but fills all things and acts as a mediator. which is a Mean. each r u n g of which represents brighter illumination. 66. 22. T w o things are at once becoming clear from the material thus far described. QE. for the mind is not great enough to com­ pass His magnitude. beginning at the top. upon the Mercy Seat are the Cherubim. The mind understands this as follows: the Logos of God. 50. p. ii. the Logos. 48. T h e next section discusses the meaning of the statement of God to Moses "I shall become known to thee from there. Harris. is being constructed. but only conventionalizations. T h e Power of God is being visualized in its richness by discussing it in terms of Powers. For the Logos is always the cause and creator of fellowship (xoivcovicc). not existential distinctions. Now if any one 50 47. QE. "I will speak to thee from above the Mercy Seat between the cherubim" Philo says: f Herewith it appears first that above the Power of Mercy. xxv. Fragments. Exod. but the Powers share each other's nature. One must be content with the fact that beams (rag cruydc.) are borne from these into the soul.

with reference to which the Cre­ ator (6 TE^VLTTJG) founded and ordered all things.QXf\). the Benefactor. Fragments. their two antecedents. stems off from the Royal Power. of mystic ascent. and this Power is called deog. T h e aforesaid total seven in number.T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 27 could accurately grasp the natures of these. If you want them downwards you will find the One who speaks first. A n d his purpose has also been m a d e clear: they are rather grades. the Punisher and Benefactor. the Essence germinative of things that exist (f| cnieQpiaTixf] Tcav OVTCOV o u a i a ) . the Creative and Royal Powers. 68. and beneath the Royal Power the sixth the Punisher. F r o m these two Powers others grow out. in the hope that higher Existence may become apparent by means of the secondary illumina­ tion. Y e t for his purpose the stages are as set as the Amesha Spen­ tas with which they have often been compared. 66-68. above them the Creative Power. But let us see what each of these is. which have their kinship rather with the Creator than with what has come into being. the laws which [Moses] has called the testimonies. A l l of this is the descending Light-Stream of G o d . T h e first is the Being more primal than the One. W e mortals must be content that beams are borne into the h u m a n m i n d from the secondary existences. that is the Law-making and Punishing Power. the Royal Power. T h e ark has in symbol all things located within the holy of holies: the immaterial world. the Monad. the Logos second. the Powers. which is the root of the Punishing and L a w ­ making Power. T h e other is the Royal Power.Second is the Logos of TO o v . pp. W e should expect that the mystic ascent would be by successive ad­ vances from stage to stage. F o r the Power of Mercy. Below and around these is the box of the ark. then beneath the Creative Power. stems off from the Creative Power. Harris. as from a source. . T h e one is the Creative Power. the Power of Mercy and the Benefactor. the symbol of the Conceptual World. H i d d e n within the holy of holies the Jews have the true symbol of G o d ' s nature. whose name is Benefactor (ei)£QyeTig). W e must bear in m i n d that Philo has definitely warned us against conceiving of these as anything but aspects of G o d ' s unity. ii. guarantor of Mercy and Benefaction. the Mercy seat. and the Legal Power. third the Creative Power. It must also be noticed that Philo has hinted at a 5 1 . two kindred Powers. 51 T h e descending emanations are m a d e repetitiously specific. the fifth one. and this Power is called Lord (wjQiog). A n d there appears the Mean. stages. it seems to me that possessed by the most divinely formed beauties he would be able to renounce all other things which are sought after. and above the Logos the One who speaks. and seventh the world made up of the F o r m s . the two Powers divide themselves off. with reference to which the Creator (6 8ri|xiouQyog) rules over the things that have come into being. and seventh the One w h o speaks. sixth is the Logos. fourth the Rulership (a. the divine Logos. comprising the Conceptual World. whose proper name is Punisher. and the Beginning ( a Q p l ) . QE. than meta­ physical realities. since the h u m a n m i n d cannot bear the Stream as it comes directly from TO ov. F r o m the Divine Logos.

i. See also Spec. 6 JJOVOC. so that the seven are the Negative and Positive Commands. Beginning with the Creative and Royal Powers the kinship. ii. . the Conceptual W o r l d would seem not to stem from a particular Power above it. from the discus58 54 52. 0 £OTIV a^euSuc. nor the only description of Deity as a Being revealed primarily in the Logos and the Powers. All seven mem­ bers of the Pleroma appear in De Fuga. 9 5 ff. By the instrumentality of these Powers the Immaterial and Conceptual World was framed. and finally God. In its place the Legislative Power is divided into two. the Negative and Positive Commands.. while it is perhaps the most striking one. while the Logos. who is One. have a kinship with the Created Realm. . and TO OV.. but with n o suggestion that the box of the ark is the KOO\XOQ voy)Toc." voy)T<i. which would imply that there are lesser. is with the Creator. T h e last Power. .28 B Y LIGHT. the Conceptual Realm. but with h i m rides the O n e w h o directs the Charioteer. God and H i s two Powers are the simpler representation of Deity. 5 3 . a conclusion which will soon appear justified. but with n o mention of the symbolism of the ark itself or of the relation of L a w and Mercy to the higher Powers. and the Mercy Seat or Mercy as the lower group. apparently some at least of the lower emanations. then the Logos. which all are helpers and saviors of the Created Realm. Conf. and the three lowest Powers on the other. 100 ff. T h e Logos is the Charioteer of the universe. H e r e the whole series u p to and including the t w o primary Powers are in the visible realm. It would seem natural to conclude that the three lowest Powers. In the diagram I have connected it with all the Powers because of the following passage: God. the Logos. has around Him unspeakably great Powers. and above them the two higher Powers. 59. 52 T h a t is. for the Logos is here the "oldest" of the voyjTa. or "younger. 1 7 1 £. 307. as "image of God. on the one hand. and with no Logos as the direct source of the two higher Powers. T h e explanation of the symbolism of the ark which we have been follow­ ing. LIGHT distinction between the Creative and Royal Powers. is by no means Philo's only passage of the kind. and among them are included the Punishing Powers. In De Vita Mosis. not with the Created Realm. ii. ouyyeveia." is in­ visible and has no share in the realm of things perceptible by the senses. . but from all together.. the same symbolism is more briefly explained. 54. O n e must not j u m p to the conclusion that Philo thought all the lower members of the series as in any sense perceptible by physical sensation. is not in this passage distinctly related with the ones above it. Philo tells us also that the L a w is put within the box of the ark to show that the K6O\IOC v o y j T o c is permeated in all its parts by L a w . Actually. conversely. QE.


. 166. divided and united by God Himself.. T h e secondary Powers do not appear at all. Through His Goodness H e begat all that is. the same picture of Deity and the Powers appears con­ nected with the symbolism of the Cherubim at Eden. are contingent upon m a n . Deo. the Cherubim are symbols. in Heres. 56. and Mercy. 3 1 . Fug. Another symbol of the Logos and the Powers Philo finds in the three "men" w h o appeared to A b r a h a m . as was suggested in the first passage con­ sidered. Philo immediately after the digres­ sion on the ark returns to these cities and says that three are placed on the hither. which are taken as symbols of the six emanations below TO OV. T h e passage in De Fuga on the symbolism of the ark is a slight digression within a large and highly important discussion of the six cities of refuge. conceived before them all. 58. T h e three m e n that Abraham saw typified to Philo the seminal masculine nature of Being rather than the receptive female nature of matter. the line would seem to be drawn between the higher and the lower Powers. And in the midst between the two there is a third which unites them.3° 65 B Y LIGHT. Colson and Whitaker's translation. 2. the Positive Com­ mands. through His Sovereignty He rules what H e has begotten. 2. T h e picture is one of God as revealed in the Logos and the two higher Powers. 103 ff. TJ if. 57. three on the further side of Jordan so as to symbolize the fact that the three lower Powers. Cher. 60. manifest above them all. for he has n o 58 59 60 61 55. For exceeding swift and of burning heat is Logos and chiefly so the Logos of the (Great) Cause. In Cherubim. those aspects of Deity to which m a n may hope to rise. while the three higher members belong to the celestial realm. Of these two potencies. for it is through Logos that God is both ruler and good. Ib.. not as a name. 6 1 .. xviii. Sovereignty and Goodness. e^arrrojjevai TOU TGJV avGpciTTOJV erriK/jpou yevouc.. even Goodness and Sovereignty. Logos. The cherubim of the ark appear with the same symbolism as the Powers. LIGHT sion immediately following. 3 . that is the Negative Commands. since all are but aspects of the single God. 59. and to go to them is to leave the world of mortality. but in ecstasy he has learned the following: 56 The voice told me that while God is indeed one. he says. all blend and be seen to be mutually interchangeable. Gen. . W h e n fully apprehended the Powers will. T h e one in the middle of the three is called Being (obviously TO ov). His highest and chiefest Pow­ ers are two. for it alone preceded and outran all things. 57 Philo goes on to urge his soul to mystic apprehension of these Powers. as the fiery sword is the symbol of reason. Abraham's "lifting u p his eyes" is the lifting of the eye of the mind in the vision of a prophet. Philo gives other in­ terpretations.

air a n d fire (heaven).eig. that is to get science as well as saving doctrine from the Torah. T h e Body Guards are H i s Powers guarding the safety and preservation of H i s most perfect creation. L o r d . and... and called cherubim by Philo. H e then compares the objects of Abraham's vision to the seraphim of Is. These lower and higher sets of wings. Philo concludes. for the two lower are the two lower elements. for he saw the Creator suspending the four elements from Himself. had each six wings. T h e six wings are themselves interpreted in cosmic significance. the Physicist Commentators explain as being in opposition to each other. but the constructive type of fire by which unformed matter is given form. and drawing them u p to Himself as though with Body Guards. Ib. This Philo goes on to compare with the symbolism of the cherubim of the ark. and the Royal Power. 1 2 : "Formam suam suarumque virtutum misit ad nos in auxilium adversus dolores st mala. 66. 4. vi. and the Logos that is spoken. 1 ff. while the wings that fly are the reconciling principles between them in that they bring the contraries together in the dux princeps. Here the passive element in creation was too feeble to receive the full effect of God's 8uvdu. 63. 2 3 . they had to be apportioned according to the ability of matter to receive Jiem.. because though his o w n interest was primarily in the mystical side by which the vision of God and the Powers meant salvation from mate­ rial ills and participation in the divine nature. So the vision of Abraham was very magnificent. appear frequently in Philo. 65. Ib. but Philo wanted to include it.T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 3i 62 name. Cf. 5.. quae prae se fert quicumque mortalis est naturae.. to be sure. still he was in sympathy with what the Physicist Commentators were trying to do. were made of fire. See also Conf. 10. Ib..." 68.1 3 9 . Qzoc. not the consuming destructive fire. the two wings that cover the face are the two elements that are higher. This fire penetrates all the unformed matter and by its operation separates out the elements. But it is to the saving mystery that he returns. like the lower and higher elements. Opif. 64. T h e seraphim. 6. and w h o seem to have been quite specifically scientific in their interests.. 1 3 4 . Heres.euc. Ib.. 8. seems thrust into his general train of thought. T h e m e n on either side are sym­ bols respectively of the Creative Power. Ib. 67. Ib. earth and water. two in number according to the Greek text.. Their explanation of the seraphim^ w h o are to Philo identical with cherubim." 68 64 65 66 67 T h e Physicist Commentators to w h o m Philo here refers. In expounding the Neo-Pythagorean theory of creation by bisec:ion Philo hints at identifying the Powers with the Xoyoq xou. 9. the one above them w h o speaks from the middle. 7. A n d G o d "sends H i s o w n form and that of H i s Powers to us to aid us against the miseries and evils which are the concomitants of every mortal nature. according to Philo. 3 1 2 . but to describe his type of existence. T h e fiery Power emanations from God account for the for­ mation of the material world. . but Philo's chief concern is with 68 62.

deoii. which are first the Creative and the being of a great number. b u t afterwards those by which H e foresees the future and numerous other beneficent. yet of a s o r t to represent themeslves in the material world in images or likenesses as they give form and quality to unformed matter. I. T h a t is they are the "forms" of the Platonic-Pythagorean type. Herm. SixaioavvTi. chastising. The manuscript authority seems about equally divided between ISiOJioiovat and elSoiCOiovoi. xoivcovia. 72. 70. .7 . i.. !. One is struck by the parallel to a list of Powers in a Hermetic tract. Of that more later. The same may be said of Conf. for there the KOOJJOC. 45 ff. 70 71 72 73 Such departures from Philo's more usual speech should not deflect atten­ tion from the fact that there is hardly a single treatise of Philo in which there 69. qxoc." These Powers cannot be apprehended by material sight. Philo speaks of God as incomprehensible in Himself. To this Scott (Hermetica. In the Legatio ad Gaium. T h e Powers he has in m i n d here are the LmoTY)[\Y] 0£ou. One remarkable passage in De Specialibus Legibus" represents the §o£a of God as the Powers. yet Moses burned to go on to apprehend them. It is apparently from this point of view that Philo can frequently speak in general of the Suvajjaic of God. <|>p6vy)oic. T h e passage is in no sense a contradiction of the scheme typified in the ark. §§io9f." Scott might have been describing the Logos and Powers of Philo. 73. vvcoaic. See Reitzenstein. shape to aox^M^TioTa. dyaftov. The number of Powers seems also indefinite in Plant. I n Quod Deus sit Immutabilis. 2 3 1 . 7 7 . SiKaioouvyj. definition to r a aopiara. LIGHT them as means of escape from material bondage and defect to the pure existence of the immaterial realm. 8 f. and this organism is built up in the reborn man. 50. espe­ cially of the type of the "limit" which Plato took from the Pythagoreans to be the foundation of his Philebus. 1 7 1 f. definitely the forms of the virtues. 4 . and in general attuning together the worse to make it into the better. VO/jtoc. The two SirvdjiEic.. Poimandres. was still collectively the Powers here discussed. so the Powers are revealed (apparently in material f o r m ) as tempered for our gaze. and corrective Powers. Against Cohn I prefer the former. airfield.Evog x a i g TOU %ZOV Swdu-Ecnv EIC.32 B y LIGHT. For the light streaming from God is too brilliant for us to endure.8 1 he describes the Powers of G o d as p u r e in relation to God. 7 1 . p. but mixed in their manifestation to men. XCLQaq. T h e forms are "called ISeai because they give individual character to each thing that exists. XAQTEQIA. l Y X Q a x E i a .. Kal TCJV aAAwv £KaoT/]c apercjv.: Corp. giving limit to TCL aneipa.COT|. T o be sure the Suvajjeic of God do not always appear to be j u s t these two. 245) notes: "The Logos is an organism of which the several Powers of God are the constituent parts. auvdofrQCoaiv xov \6yov). XIII. These come to the aspirant and cleanse him and articulate him with the Logos (dvaxadaiQou. as the body is built up of the several members. oo$ia. in the more special sense appear below in the same treatise. while only the lowest stage. in themselves apprehensible only by the purest intellect (AKPAI4>V£OT<rroc vouc). to God. ordering the disordered.. and to be approached only through H i s Suvajjeic.

Indeed it is just because Philo. a holy and divine vision. whether with or with­ out the Logos. the Creative Power which is called God. and so the intellect perceives most clearly a unity although previously it had learned to apprehend it under the similitude of a trinity. So in order that mind may perceive God the ministering Powers appear to be existing along with him. who in Himself is unity. God was steadily visualized in this way by him. consistently thought of God in these terms that Philo's very monotheism is in danger. Ib. Philo's form of defense is extraordinary for its premotiition of the Christian solution of a kindred problem. 76. and the Royal Power. Ib. the defense of his embassy to Gaius.. the measure of all things.T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 33 is not at least a reference to God and the two Powers. .. 2." or "they are unified in the Logos who is them. . [the mind] could perceive Being only by means of its association with those primal Powers which exist direcdy with Him." which mean "they are one by a higher explanation. and produces a three-fold apparition upon the human mind. the Creative and Royal. For Philo quotes the verse " H e looked and behold three m e n stood over against him. to those who can perceive. this represents that it is possible both for one to be three and three one in so far as they are one in the Logos above them. iv. which is called Lord. it understands itself as penetrating to that stage: mind is itself reduced to monadity." The next sentence. For in the highest experience and clearest vision the triad disappears in the o n e : which makes itself appear without the assisting Powers." and comments: Very naturally. and itself appears as primal and supreme. for pagan R o m a n readers. For the human mind is denied so acute a vision that it can see as a distinct God H i m who transcends the Powers assisting Him. and apparently the group he represents. . is one God. in such a way that a single vision appears to him as a triad. where the "ratio" is connected with the two to make a third. 8: "qui in ipsa unitate trinitati similis apparet ob videntium infirmitatem. and it is even the deity which h e represents the Jews as worshipping when he writes. and he must insist that God is still the O n e while represented in the Powers. So speaking truly and accurately. OG. 76 77 74. and triad as unity. But this Logos is numbered along with the primary Powers. yet appears in the likeness of the triad on account of the weakness of those who would see H i m . as I said just above. 74 75 T h e n after explaining that the eyes raised are the eyes of the soul Philo continues: The eye so raised begins by seeing the Rulership. The Latin of Aucher reads "eo quod unum sunt secundum rationem supernam. might above shows 75." Yet one . 77. that the Greek must have carried the latter sense. intelligible as well as sensible. For when the mind begins to receive a sure apprehension of Being. 4. and as it were they make an apparition of three instead of one.

iii. Heilige Geist ( 1 9 1 9 ) . sometimes of one. Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinite. 30. 79 80 So when the conceptual beams of the shining God. On the Powers as overpowering light-beams see also LA. i. Philo compares this ap­ pearance of three to a person casting two shadows. 96 (cf. In LA. a disconnected thing. 77 ff. it so excessively illuminates everything as to darken what things had seemed brightest in themselves. 78. just before it arrives at that goal "pure and untempered rays stream forth like a torrent.. One who is still strug­ gling along in semi-obscurity (6 JtQOxojtTGOv) sees only a dyad. 102). 58. T h e clearest expres­ sion of the idea is a comparison of God to the sun whose rising obscures the stars. p. n.e. 119 ff. 27. 7 1 . Adler. as the Royal Power. though Leisegang (Pneuma Hagion. where the one G o d is described as manifesting H i m ­ self as a 4>avTaoia. Immut. note in Philos Wer\e. 37 ff. as the Creative and Beneficent Power. 0e6c. divided in itself. 23. a Catholic writer on the origins of the doctrine of the Trinity.. 100. i^br.. but thinks their phraseology is so likely to have been given a Christian coloring by the Armenian or Latin translators that he needs mention the passages only in a footnote. 164. 82. LIGHT 78 Lebreton.. Jules Lebreton. it can see nothing else. 80. p. 2 1 1 ff. Paris.34 B Y LIGHT. as in the parable of the cave. n. 3) points out that this axid is a Platonic imitation. so that by its beams the eye of the understanding is dazzled (oKoroSiviav). while the "one in the middle" is the naTY\p TCJV OAGJV. 1919. . 44. 81 Again when the h u m a n mind tries to rise to God the Great King. 81. in unclouded light. Abr.." In spite of this darkening effect of divine light I should guess that Philo could speak of the beaming emanations as themselves comparable to shadows because the light of the central source was so m u c h more brilliant that they seemed rather like shadows than lights in comparison. 107. These "shining shad­ ows. shine in upon the eye of the soul.. Praem.." an impossible figure for moderns. quotes these passages. though he admits his figure of "shadows" is misleading since there is no such thing as a shadow in deity.. are possible for Philo's generation because to the Greek a strong light "darkened" a lesser light. but sometimes as three. iv. 79. and in the same way the coming of the 4>&c VO/JTOV r m o K i a f e i the light of h u m a n thought. But I cannot see why he thus wishes to discard these when he accepts and quotes other passages almost as Christian. 1. 1922. The man who has completed the mystical journey (6 xe^eiog) sees the triad. So the sun's rising £TnoKia£si the light of the stars. 3. ii.. P. beams unmixed and pure and most luminous. Fragments. for. 30. when knowledge of Existence shines in. 6 GJV. the Logos is itself a axid fteou. Kupioq. and indeed speaks of the "shadow" as "beaming forth" from the central <j>avTaoia (airauYa£o|j£vcjv arro TOUTOU OKI&V).. 195. Opif. Leisegang. Harris. V. 3 2 . Virt. But really all are one 82 has to be quite advanced as a mystic to get even a vision of the three. its center filled out and complete in nature: QG.

ii. This figure. T h e important point for our immediate purpose is that Philo never broke down his monotheism.T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 35 88 and the same with the source. expe­ rience what is undesirable through the Kindliness of the great and bountiful God. See my The Theology of Justin Martyr.) of the Cause you may win the blessed heritage. is familiar in Christian writers about the Trinity. Rulership and Goodness] God is good by the fact that His dignity as ruler is made manifest. The great argument about the relation of the Logos to God hinged upon whether the Logos-ray was a permanent. by dispairing of your better hopes. and second the Logos of God and the others [apparendy the Powers] subsist only with reference to the Logos. while He rules by the fact that His goodness is made manifest.85. but the uncreated and eternal world actually was a unit in the person or nature of deity. H e might talk in mythological fashion of various personalities and Powers. 109: Cod. 85 A single reading of this passage in either Greek or English does not make its purport clear. and similarly you may not. love and piety towards God. T o w a r d God. So he addresses the mystic m i n d as follows about the apprehension of God: Oh Mind. for in nature and function they blend in a single K p a o i c They are distinguished only for the solace o f mankind. and may at once know as well the blending and mixture (auvo86g re xal xQaaig) of the supreme Powers. and only our being dazzled by $Qc voyjTov makes them appear as three. 195b. a s a result of their apparent distinction. Rup. efful­ gence from God. 83. by exalting yourself. . Indeed in one passage. 86. E X qjcoxog. if not the passage. [This is all s o ] in order that you may possess the virtues that arise from them. Harris. m a k e together £v unoKeinevov. Philo says: The most generic thing is God. or only a seeming. . In these Powers together [sc. m a n must take two attitudes corresponding to the two primary Powers. suffer because of the greatness of the Rulership of the King. pp. receive the uncounterfeited impression in order that as you are in­ structed concerning the Rulership (&QX(\) and Goodness (&Ya{h)TT]c. where the Logos is cpcoc. but the aspects of God are still only aspects of a nature that is essentially one. LA. 84. p. or a temporary. but actually they are as good as non-subsisting. 148 ff. 84 Philo means that to attempt t o understand God's nature we must approach it from the point of view of H i s aspects. and that in your contact with these you may not. M a n must be humble o r he will be crushed by God's Ruling Power. Yet these two Powers are not distinctive themselves. he must be full of confident hope (very close to the Pauline Faith) o r the Power of God which expresses itself in kindliness toward one who thus hopes will prove anything but the Benefi­ cent. after speaking of the divine Powers. Philo is saying. that m a n may. Fragments.

Sac. h o w e v e r distant.EUAJTIM'EVOI iivarrJQia JIEQI xb AQXFJS x a l egovaiac. and the Ruler Himself is the meas­ ure of all things corporeal and incorporeal. convinced that God. Sovereignty and Goodness." because the sacred story that un­ veils to us the truth of the Uncreated and His Powers must be buried. iv. 86 87 So the O n e manifests itself as the three. in Harris. . Fragments. to be told only to one capable of understanding a n d g u a r d i n g the secret. 88 G o d is thus at once source of the form and life of the universe. H e writes: For Abraham went with all zeal and speed and eagerness and bade Sarah (that is Virtue) hasten and knead three measures of meal and make "buried" cakes when God came attended by His two highest Powers. as far as metaphysics is concerned. of Pythagoras and Plato this problem w o u l d be one of the most important for a personal adjustment to the forces of the universe. are a h u m a n conventionalization. as translated by Colson and Whitaker in the Loeb series. It is impossible to take this whole speculation of the relation of G o d to H i s P o w e r s . T h e P o w ­ ers. These editors note: "Philo deduces an allegory from iynQvopiag (so the LXX) which means 'cakes baked in the ashes. a n d a n assertion that to find the highest P o w e r s or the L o g o s is to find G o d . p. His Sovereignty of its subjects. 59. W e are n o w ready. U. which has power to see. w o r t h y of becoming JJUOTIC T&V TCASIOV TZXZTUV. that is. yet is still a l w a y s the One.' " 88. and measure what lies within their province. xviii.3 6 BY LIGHT. where mention is made of ol (irjjtco x a \izy6Xo. 144 ff. together w i t h a 86.. A n d Philo represents it as the very heart of the "mystery reli­ g i o n " through w h i c h he himself hoped to find salvation. the one between the two. called up before the eye of the soul. of the one and the many. 8. exists—God who overtops His Powers in that H e is visible apart from them and yet is revealed in them—the soul may receive the impression of His sovereignty and beneficence. who is above all. See on this passage Brehier.. Les Idees. T o any followers. Another reference to the same Mystery is in a fragment from LA. Gen. though not subject itself to measurement—for G o d and His Powers are alike uncircumscribed—is the measure of all things. 6. His Goodness is the measure of things good. a n d this sacred or mystic teaching ( k p o c Aoyoc) is the supreme Mystery. TOU yevr\xov. pp. she will learn not to blab or babble them thoughdessly. when H e . Each of these aspects. as mere metaphysical hair-splitting. and at the same time is H i m s e l f personally that form and life. 87. that is. but to store them up and guard them in secrecy and silence. F o r it is written "make buried cakes. 60. three separate visions or aspects. for a free shifting back and forth between the P o w e r s a n d G o d . LIGHT have both humility toward G o d and steadfast confidence in H i m . It is to serve H i m that these two Powers assume the functions of rules and standards. since the knowledge of divine rites is a trust which not every comer can guard aright. being admitted into the inmost mysteries. Thus too. xov aYevriTOu x a l JtsQi a y a v OUSEVEUXC. It is well that these three measures should be as it were kneaded and blended in the souls in order that.

T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 37 sense of relative distinctions which would correspond to the less a n d more complete mystical experiences. 5 6 1 . 91. Zeller and many others see quite rightly here a fundamental divergence of philoso­ phy and religion. where he is discussing Plotinus. II. F o r example Lebreton represents Philo's distinction between God and the Powers as being really a distinction between the being a n d the activity of G o d . So far as Philo is concerned I have characterized such distinctions as artificial because while it is quite true that he. See Heinze. wonach demselben kein selbstandiges Sinn z u k o m m t . it is just as true that in the thought of both of them even the created world is conceived as held together by G o d . since philosophy tends to regard principles of mediation between God and Creation as abstractions. It is clear that Philo wanted to keep the Powers as mediators in both senses. much more is it true that for all the dis­ tinctions Philo draws. 291 ff." So Zeller is quite right when he feels dissatisfied with his own distinction a n d goes on to characterize Plotinus' system as "dynamistic Pantheism. III. the world is "divine. like Plotinus. it is pre­ cisely in their being that they are ultimately indistinguishable from G o d . wanted to represent G o d as a Being apart and unique. 201. Caird. yet these words of Zeller about Plotinus are strikingly descriptive of Philo: "Dieses System ist pantheistisch. 90. alles Endliche ist i h m blosses Accidens. "Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers. Philo felt that the material world was a "blosse Erscheinung des Gottlichen. . Philosophic der Gricchen." Philo's doctrine was more dualistic in regard to matter than Plotinus'. one is forced at least to refer to the development of this con­ ception of the attributes of deity i n the Christian heresy of "modalistic m o n 89. students of Philo have made what seem to m e artificial distinctions. so that it is never strictly accurate to apply the term pantheism to him. ii. Philosophic der Griechen. p. Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinite. H e brought the two together in what scholars have for some time been calling "Modalism. denn es behauptet ein solches Verhaltniss des Endlichen zur Gottheit. E . T o the mystical use Philo makes of the conception w e shall return." If this is true even down into the created realm." N o t recognizing this. Lehre vom Logos. blosse Erscheinung des Gdttlichen. III." F o r in so far as matter manifests any form. 89 90 91 I n passing. 197.. since his religion was always ultimately under philosophic control. Also Zeller in one passage distinguishes between doctrines of emanation which are schemes for the transmission of divine nature and those which are schemes for the trans­ mission of divine power. Jules Lebreton. 4 1 2 £. while religion is apt to think of them as personalities. the Logos and Powers are modes or aspects of God's nature as well as of H i s activity. or as Onatas p u t it. in a sense the world shares in God's nature as well as power. in God's being as well as in H i s activity. as the Creator and Ruler of a world essentially distinct from Himself. Practically real as the modes are. ii.

et docuit semetipsum esse qui inter Judaeos quidem quasi Filius apparuerit. XLVIII (1929). Haer. 169-205. Son. pp. for it is familiar that the Stoics saved their monotheism by insisting that the gods of their fathers and neighbors were only Suvdpeic. as described at the beginning of this chapter.. Harvey (Harnack. I. TOV aurov d v a i ay\ov TTvsOna. pp. n. Heinemann's connecting this with Posidonius (Poseidonios. It was apparently a pleasure for the Stoic to think of deity as the TTOA\JGJVU|JOC. T h e identification led to 97 92. to k n o w that the doctrine that God is One. Another group. and deity k i n g . 2 1 7 . but only their susceptibility to the Zeitgeist. which as modes had no separate existence. Brehier has gone to considerable length to develop the Stoic parallels. recognizing also the emer­ gence of the Greek AIK/J in Philo's § u v a | J i c . LIGHT 02 archism. Ed. Epiph. 95. But the Stoics h a d no defi­ nite trinity or special grouping of Powers to correspond to what w e have been discussing in Philo. It is a pleasure to record that the similarity was recognized by the learned but ever unknown marginal commentator in my copy of Drummond's Philo Judaeus. loc. He compares Philo's conception to Sabellianism. 2. w h o pervaded all things. cit.38 BY LIGHT. 147 f. cf.. and Spirit as divine modes or aspects. 95 96 A n immediate source of Philo in making his doctrine take the form it does seems more likely to have been the conception of royalty of the Hellenistic Age. II. TOV a i r r o v ctvai u i o v . as a background for this speculation." or "modalism" as Harnack called it.). Here it is at once striking that one of the earliest clear expressions of the doctrine comes out in a frag­ ment from the Gospel of the Egyptians. the worship of Jesus of Nazareth. 206. of the one Logos—God. 93. in reliquis vero gentibus quasi Spiritus Sanctus adventaverit. 62. b u t were mani­ festations due to divine mercy and h u m a n frailty. 4. On Hebrew royalty see my "Kingship in Early Israel" in Journal of Biblical Literature. 3 2 1 ) does not convince me. 97. 96. necessitated the formulation of a n expres­ sion for his full and ontological divinity as an individual. by which the. and to find various ways of connecting the Logos with n e w gods. one must confess at once that nothing definite can be produced. xvi. Christian orthodoxy could not tolerate such teaching because the essential thing in its religious life." T h a t is. There is really m u c h to connect Philo with Stoicism. king was deity. Les Idees. 2. certainly of Alexandrian origin: TOV a u T o v d v a i n a r e p a . the Simonians said: " H i e igitur a multis quasi Deus glorificatus est. Irenaeus. Dogmengeschichte. n. (3aoiAiK/). On Hellenistic royalty see my "Hellenistic Kingship:" . 94. but with varying manifestations. From Harnack. Ap. I. Yet in all this they show no original contribution. Ap. It is highly impor­ tant. in Samaria autem quasi Pater descenderit. the unity of God was to be preserved by representing Father. appears in Philo's writings clearly and is there expressed in terms of the three w h o are O n e ! 98 94 W h e n one raises the question of Philo's sources for this doctrine. 1. whose origin seems to him thereby "assez facilement" explained.

59. thought out in slightly different imagery. " So the creative act of scattering the Aoyoi OTTepjjaTiKoi is performed by God. but after H e had completed it then the world was ar­ ranged and set in order under the sway of His Royal P o w e r . cf.. 99 f. His Creative P o w e r ) . Opif. 1 1 6 . Conf. 170 ff.. 29. T h e matter is made very clear when he says. 64. Sac. Agr. Gig. der zugleich den Weg zur Eudaimonie weisen soil die Inkarnation des gottlichen Logos zu sehen. O n the other hand. Spec." Far from this statement being "fraglos.T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 39 the most extraordinary mutual borrowing. A t the same time the conduct of earthly courts symbolizes how we should act toward G o d . This conception of kingship. 75. Himself enthroned and inaccessible. living remote in his palace. LA. ii. 277: "Fraglos hat er (Posidonius) zu der Neigung der Zeit beigetragen.. for royalty. Ib. W e are reminded again of the extraordinary description of the rule of the Great K i n g of Persia. V. 99. or specifically they recall to him 6 [siyac paoiAsuc. Such. seems to be the background for Philo's doctrine of Suvaiiac.e. 1 2 3 . iv.. 108. 274 ff. points out that this original meaning had been obscured by Philo's time.. but extend­ ing H i s government through the world as H e sends forth His Suvapic into all things. Legat. This work is questionably Philonic." it seems to me highly improbable. QG. 104. 67. 45... benefactor. W h a t was said of God must somehow be said of the King—so the K i n g is VOJJOC ejj^uxoc because God's nature is the vo\\oc TYJC cjnjoecjc. Real-Encyclopadie. 30. as it appears in the jrepi KOOHOU. 6. 66. 101. Post. m . T o Philo §opu<j>6poi conveyed always still its original meaning of a bodyguard of royalty. ruling according to law and justice. Agr. in dem wahren Herrscher. See his Poseidonios. 146. but the idea here is quite what he would have approved. Som. ii. because H e is a k i n d and merciful \ing} * God is "a K i n g invested 98 09 100 101 102 108 104 105 106 107 108 Q 98. See above p.. Spec. 102. God as king acts as judge. 107.. Indeed frequendy as he speaks of the one Power as being distinctively the Royal Power. 105... is the rule of God. i. It and the Suvajaic NOIYJTIKY) are the two § o p u $ 6 p o i . Immut.. Chap. leader in war. Cher. There is no remote justification for Heinemann's saying that Posidonius contributed the term v6[ioq £\ityv%o<. who is King. ii. and tends to develop in a cosmic palace a mythological company of vicegerents and councillors. 109... p. QE. 5 1 . 398a f. 45. secluded and invisible. 159. giver of peace. 16. Reisch in Pauly-Wissowa. . iii. iv. 92. Cher. 3.. II. 1 3 . 289.. 7 1 . Mig. cf. 176. iii. LKZI KGCI ol §opu<t>6poi. 1579. it is God. appears as the Suva|JIC vonoGeTiK/j or (3aoiAiK/). especially p.g. 78. Spec. says the treatise. 1 0 1 . 29.. E.. 106. Fug. but reaching and controlling his kingdom by vicegerents and officers. 100. the Logos His unapxoc. Legat. vi. as when he says onou 6 fiaoiXzvc. and together constitute God's § o £ a . Spec. Congr. 1 1 5 . the One. God is the great King. 168. Abr. "As \ing H e created the world according to H i s beneficence (i. 99. in con­ trast to that stern aspect of H i s nature usually associated with the Royal Power. 103... 1 2 2 . in which the vopoc. but the meaning is very clear for him. Jona.

xiv. ii." H e r e the yjucpov a n d v6jji|jov recognizably refer to our two Powers. It is too m u c h to expect that Philo would be consistent in his division of operation. while he subordinated the punishments and allotted them to the more restricted place at his left hand. ii. 64. 87. for in the ideal king. Provid." These two Powers really correspond to the two chief functions of the Hellenistic king. ap. Ib. of course.. has indeed as such "attuned together by unshaken Laws of N a t u r e and into an indissoluble unity the two most beautiful things. 1 1 7 . where God saves m a n by stretching forth H i s right hand. i. and to kindle a flame of that most sure hope of winning and enjoying good things which is afforded by the fact that to be bountiful is His choice. Spec. lmmut. Legat. 1 1 3 . the sovereignty is seen in the beneficence and the beneficence in the sovereignty." Each of these is as much an aspect of the ideal king as the other. in another the same Power becomes the guardian of \O6TY\C. not too sharply distin­ guished. 1 1 5 . 95. Aucher's translation Armenian gives a slightly. cities. Plant. . He can both benefit and injure.okaoxr\Qioq. " T h e form of the creative Power is a peaceable. T h e two Powers were. but the royal Power is a legislative. 2. H i s hand of salvation. LIGHT with gentle (y^epov) and lawful (VOMIMOV) authority (yiysi-iovlav). Cf. and chastising virtue. a n d the universe.. Cher. 29. of the in. by which h e was de­ scribed as EuepY£T/jc or Zurvip and VOUIJJOC or SiKaioc. 114 115 116 117 no. as if it were right that he offer good things from his ready store and display the better order which was repre­ sented at his right hand. Mos. ii. 307: JTSQI T O OV al JCQCDTCU xat UIVITFTAI xcov 8vvau. different reading. xxv. 113 God appears in the same light in the discussion of H i s mercy and severity in Philo. Fragments. T h e picture is vividly set forth in Philo's description of what he considered the blasphemous antics of Gaius in trying to make himself out as the divine king.. Eusebium. VIII. tyce S U 8 Q V 8 X T 1 5 >cal y. as Philo says here of God. not essentially. and beneficent virtue. So in one passage he makes the function of the second Power consist chiefly of punishment of wrong doers. 57. 112. p. QG. the source of all eipyjvy) and ocjr/jpia. w h o governs the whole heaven and cosmos with justice. and God is exercising both attributes as King. he held a bow and arrows in his left hand while he extended graces with his right. Praeparatio Evangelica. i. Gaius 110 111 112 metamorphosed and transformed himself into Apollo. 64: Harris. but confidently to abandon the haunting fear of the power of His rulership.s(6v elaiv.' One is strikingly reminded of the Son of Man seated on the throne of his glory at the last judgment as described in Mat.. 99. Says Philo. changing Himself from one to the other according as He must recompense a man who has done something.4 O BY LIGHT.. T h e way in which apxh is the source of all goods for individuals. 1 1 4 . The greatest good of the soul would be to doubt no longer concern­ ing the power of the King in either matter. 7 3 : TTJV 8eliav xal O-COTTIQIOV %BIQCL O Q E Y C O V . QE. But by virtue of His being the Benefactor His desire is only to benefit. 88: "By virtue of his being a ruler he has a twofold capacity.. cf." 1 1 6 . and gentle. 3 1 ff. crowning his head with garlands to represent rays (cbmvoeiSeai). 1 5 . namely rulership with providence.

by virtue of its beams of light: VJIO Jtdvxcov SoQvqpOQeixai xcov xoau. or 'OpGpc Aoyoc. 1 2 1 . T h e figure of royalty was certainly a source of the hierarchy of Powers. Pascher has amply demonstrated the light-symbolism of the hier­ archy of divinity which he was discussing. ii. Sextus Empiricus. This is a very good instance of Philo's frequent use of Stoic terms with a meaning not at all Stoic. T h e light-symbolism of Philo's hierarchy of Powers is no less clear. 120. two on either side. who is ruling on the "royal citadel ( a K p a ) . Fragments. Benefaction seems to Philo especially the fruit of the rulership TOU PaoiXeuovxoc 0eoO. without whose permission the others can do nothing. For the use of the term in astronomy. Kroll." Philo does not refer to the higher Powers specifi­ cally in the following passage. and 8OQU<P6QOI.. and while the notion of the legality of the rulership is brought out. QE. 66). Beside her sit four attend­ ants. but from his primary and guardian Powers (§opu<t>6poi Suvajjeic) : 119 1 2 0 And it is something with which one must be content that beams are thence borne into the soul. in order that the older and more resplendent [existence] may be visible from the secondary illumination.T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 118 4i is elaborately expounded. 67 (Harris. TO ov. and Euvopia who closely resembles AIK/). But another source is equally apparent. Philo says that such knowledge cannot come directly from God. the sanctuary of Zeus the K i n g . the whole would have to be modified as Philo has done to make it symbolize any philosophical conception of divinity. Some such picture of divine rulership must lie behind the type of divinity we have been describing. p. 122. T h e first passage considered. NOJJOC. For when the question is raised about the way in which a person could get knowledge of God. Som. 66 ff. 285 ff. where a certain arrangement of sun and stars makes "the sun as King of all visible things. sit on the right. see Proclus. the light mysticism of the mystery religions. " This ruling of H e r a for Zeus at once suggests Philo's Logos. Yet in contrast to Philo. Dio's description is obviously a casual figure for deity. The familiar JCUQ xexvuc6v of Stoicism was a material thing. the allegory of the ark with the cherubim. ii. was clearly a matter of light emanations. ed. on the left are Eipyjvy] and a male figure. the manifestation of Deity immediately in contact with the Powers.. I. the imitator of the creative 8wd|X8ic. but there can be no doubt that the two Powers in which we have been especially interested are included: 1 1 8 . There is no real distinction in Dio between the Powers on the right and left. AIK/J. In Philo's thus representing God as the K i n g with attendant Powers one is reminded of D i o Chrysostom's description of the Court of Hera. Mathematicos. cf. 1191. In Rem Publicam. Adv.oxQaTOQCDV. 122 . II. 25 ff. 220..eic. For a combination of solar or astronomical symbolism with 8uvdu." T h e Powers were "beaming shadows. V. 38. 121 T h e seraphim-cherubim were made of the "constructive fire.

.. and in agreement with what I have said before. or emanations of the nup T^xviKov.8 1 . Immut. A n d can you think it possible that your understanding should be able to grasp in their unmixed purity those uncreated Powers.E g y p t i a a or Oriental source for the conception. 5 1 6 ) . nay not even the whole heaven and universe.. however loud they boast. . Commentators would fill the hiatus in some way to supply the idea that the keeper of souls keeps those souls not yet incarnate. Hermetica. and let not the human race seek a more perfect joy. but mixed in respect to created beings. the light which is stored in the treasury of our eyes. Colson and Whitaker's translation slightly revised. for it is when these converge to meet and greet each other that the apprehension through vision is produced. wills not to dispense benefit or punishment as H e could do. . I. For the Powers which G o d employs are unmixed in respect to Himself. wherein is a moderate measure of His Powers. the other directs. H e tempered them in this way. T h e Creator then. knowing His own surpassing excellence in all that is best and the natural weak­ ness of His creatures. A n d the Keeper of souls guards the s o u l s . Scott. 8 ) . for our sight will be quenched and blasted by the bright flashing of its rays. the other the Guide of souls. 464. ad loc. But surely the mixed is not un­ mixed. If indeed w e could drink and enjoy this diluted draught. Cf. or unmixed. and indeed striking parallels to his doctrine of P o w e r s are to be found in those sources. 128 P h i l o regarded the P o w e r s as light-emanations.4 2 B Y LIGHT. F o r it can­ not be that mortal nature should have room for the unmixed. T h e one guards. a portion of heaven. surrendering its power of burning but retaining that of giving light. a con­ densed mass of ether. xlix. 124. but according to the measure of capacity which H e sees in those who are to participate in either of those dispensations. w e should reap sufficient gladness. T h i s w o u l d suggest a G r a e c o . W e cannot look even upon the sun's flame untempered. Stob. full of mixture" (Ps. I. according to the will of G o d . but the Guide of souls sends forth and assigns to their respective places the souls that become incarnate. that the radiance drawn off from the blazing flame. no mortal could receive them. lxxv. which stand around H i m and flash forth light of surpassing splendor? When G o d ex­ tended the sun's rays from heaven to the boundaries of earth. two in number. might meet and hail its friend and kinsman. Scott. I n a H e r m e t i c tract it is written: There are from above the guards (SoQixpoooi). Hermetica. I. ere it reach and apprehend them. of the universal Providence. though the sun is but one of God's works in the past. . and yet there is a meaning in these words most true to nature. F o r we have shown that these Powers at their full height unmixed and untempered subsist only in the Existent. 69 (Wachs.. lust in the same way if God's knowledge and wisdom and prudence and justice and each of His other excellences were not tempered. 124 1 2 5 T h e functions of these §opu<t>6poi are not those of P h i l o . "there is a cup in the hand of the Lord of unmixed wine. 7 7 . one of which is the Keeper of souls. though i n their limited field of operation the Creative P o w e r of P h i l o w o u l d seem l i k e 123. 125. LIGHT A n d therefore it is said in another place.

Papyri Graecae Magicae. 434. 1 3 1 . Les Idees. The treatment of the 8uvdu. T h e conception reappears in three magical papyri. p. in Kroll's Die Lehren des Hermes Trismegistus. 202): T O U fteov xovfrdbteQ dxxlvec. I. T h e first two of these are more like the Creative and Royal Powers of Philo than anything yet encountered. pp. 1 1 7 . Poimandres. the Guide of Souls. 147 f.ig tov fteov of Poimander. 22b (Scott. Pub.. I. B r e h i e r has paralleled them with the Stoic 131 132 126. 76 ff. 20 (Wachs. p. 544. 3 (Scott.. and it is notable that z\[iap[\ivY\ is 126 127 128 129 aut deus summus.. but two §opu<j>6poi. . aut ab ipso deo qui secundus effectus est deus. W i t h these Reitzenstein connects a sentence from a papyrus in the British Mu­ seum: oi Suo Geoi oi n e p l o£.. i. and so it is more than likely that there is some connection between these Powers and Philo's. 1 0 2 : ok KctAft TOV \xLyay iv oupavy <5. esp. Eijjapnevyj. 77 f. W e are not surprised to find that the Logos itself is npuTV\ Suvapic from God in another fragment. Scott. I. 362. or more than two. cit. Vienna Academy. by C. 1 3 2 . and necessity carries things on to completion. II ( 1 9 3 1 ) . T h e interest of this passage is that it gives us the two Powers as both subject to God through the Logos. Scott. cit. rather than in late Stoicism. 208) and the statement in Ib. It is in such a source as this. Wessely in Den\schrijten. Order (ordo) follows these and works out the interrelations of things. 28. in itself a striking fact. pp.. dvaYXY] and e!|J. 144 ff. p. T h e Hermetic Asclepius speaks of z\[\ap[iLvv} and necessitous as two Powers which order all things in heaven and earth according to divine laws. Hermetica. BM. T h e idea of a God with two §opu<j>opoi. 6vvau. I. the Keeper of souls. Frag. CXXIII. 127.. 1893. 9 s T e p o c 'Ac)). El[iap\izvv] creates the beginnings of all things (rerum omnium initia parit). 130 Clearly with this is to be connected a fragment in Stobaeus: All things come into being by nature and fate. And Providence is the self-perfect Logos of the God of the Heavens. the Royal Power like the \puxono|jn6c. I. is excellent. is subject to Providence and a v a y K y ] . op. 2 5 0 : r a l e oaic QovXaic 5opu<t>opo0oiv a n a v r a . 60. 129. L . XI. 82). 39. 130. 25. I. op. With this should perhaps be connected the Aeon.Eic. and it has two self-sprung Powers. p. T h e text describing avdyKy] is lost. was clearly familiar to popular Graeco-Egyptian thought. v. Sopucfopouoiv oi SSKCC e£ yiY^VTCC. A t least there are two Sopu<t>6poi of God. the stars are subject to d\iap\iLvYi. Ill. P . Scott. 0a0. Preisendanz. p. ai evEQVsiai. Text as by K. 128.. X. 1914.. KaAarrai 0 c k 0eoc ZGJ. In one paivx^uux has not only a father and mother. Abhandlung II. and no place is destitute of Provi­ dence. as the text stands. that I would find the origin of Philo's Powers.aQ|X8VT].. I. and Pap. as are all things in nature and among men.T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 43 \puXOTajjiac. Wessely parallels this with P a p . He was quite aware of the kinship to Philo's Suvdjietc.

1 3 3 . . are regarded with general consistency as representing the two Powers. the Jews of his environ­ ment must have treated him as a heretic rather than have regarded h i m as their leader and chief representative. the Septuagint translation of the two H e b r e w words Yahveh Elohim. for his Cornutus reference (ch. xv) only describes the Graces as great Powers along with the whole procession of Greek divinities. H a d Philo as a com­ plete novelty thus published book after book in which God appears as a Light-Stream manifesting Himself in lower Powers. a conception of God as fundamentally a supersensible light-fire source having contact with matter through radiated Suvajjeic was in no sense a part of. or from the philosophical schools of Classic Greece. and the whole picture of Deity of which they are a part. 138 Inexact as are the Hermetic and magical parallels to Philo's conception. they strongly suggest that Philo's Powers. In its final form as Philo represents it. w h o so repeatedly expresses the deepest abhorrence of contemporary mysteries. T h a t they could in themselves have suggested the interpretation Philo gives them is of course pointed out in general that wherever the Stoics may have borrowed the term Suvajjeic for. should deliberately and without precedent have borrowed from them de novo these notions of deity completely at variance with the older Jewish tradition. AIK/) will be discussed in the next chapter. Certainly they did not come to h i m from any traditional Judaism we know.. La. H e has not a passage to quote to justify his elevating these two into supreme aspects of the Stoic Deity. however much philosophers in Egypt may have attempted to orient traditional deities with such philosophical conceptions as the KOOJJOC VOTJTOC. Stoicism. it is notable that the borrowed con­ ceptions are thoroughly welded into the Jewish Scriptures. VII. LIGHT Xapic and SiKyj. along with their GraecoEgyptian neighbors. H e has done so at the expense of Philo's repeated denial of any fundamental or essential contrast between them. are by etymology given significance as aspects (Kara TOLQ S u v a p s t c ) of the Stoic pan-Deity. all of whom. Diog. their particular allegorization of the Olympians. or compatible with. A t the same time it is incredible that Philo. Kupioc and 0£ck. as the Graces here. T h e probability is m u c h greater that such a borrowing of a foreign conception of Deity was a gradual process.44 B Y LIGHT. T h a t Jews could suddenly have accepted such an inter­ pretation without long having thought of God. Grace and Justice. Brehier makes a great deal of the fundamental contrast between the beneficent and punishing functions of the t w o Powers of Philo. were an adaptation of conceptions from the reli­ gious world of Graeco-Egypt and Persia. It need only. a swing or drift which involved many people and a long time. 147. as a Light-Stream is equally impossible.

because as h e thinks D r u m m o n d "meconnait la pensee de Philon en la ramenant a u n e espece d'idealisme a la Spinoza." N o w it is entirely correct. 136 ff. 3 1 4 . and sug­ gests that the short cut was not in Philo but in the modern interpreters w h o had failed to take Philo's remarks fully into consideration. Popular Gnostic tendencies were philo­ sophically weak in sacrificing the philosophic and Jewish urge for divine unity to a hypostatization of those stages of ascent experienced by the mystic. Die Lehre vom Logos. we might say of him. 1888. 1 4 1 . Of course Philo was not primarily interested in metaphysics. E. Ib. p. Yet they are closer in feeling to the Neo-Platonic effort at a philo­ sophical account of G o d and H i s relation to the world than to the atmos­ phere of the popular sources quoted. This is a mode of language with which we are not familiar. It will be seen that Philo used the Powers in a fundamental way in his mystic approach to God. See p. for h e is determined to m a k e of Philo not a metaphysician but a m a n "preoccupied above all with morality a n d with the ascent of the soul toward the knowledge (mystical) of G o d . not by his philosophical but by his military abilities. that won the battle. Heres. but the general. ii. 1 3 5 . fully refutes this explanation. Brehier rather returns to Zeller a n d Heinze.1 5 5 . 136. Heinze. There has been much discussion of whether Philo in his use of the Powers was more a mystic than a philosopher. 140. p. F o r Philo's o w n theory D r u m m o n d speaks strikingly of the Powers as "aspects" of a divine nature which appears to us to have aspects only because m a n is incapable of apprehending H i m at once as a w h o l e . as it seems to me. 139." 1 3 7 .. Det. in spite of what he calls its ingenuity. 407 ff. historiquement bien posterieur. 130. Why Brehier should object to similarities to Spinoza here is hard to see in view of what he himself says on p. 89.. 95: "He (God) may not do as absolute Being or universal Cause what nevertheless he does as Benefactor or moral Governor. H i s nature. ii. it is notable that Philo's use of the Powers is on a far higher level than the parallels adduced from magic and the Hermetica. Die Philosophic der Griechen. he could m a k e the connec­ tion only by using a religious mythology of personal Powers. . is aKa. except for the fact of H i s existence. III (1903). God's subordi­ nates. see esp. Les Idees. 6 5 . H e i n z e and Zeller saw the Powers as admissions of failure on Philo's part philosophically to connect a n absolute and self-contained Deity with the world. and yet.g.T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 45 I n conclusion. meaning that he succeeded in war. as w e shall see later. 136. Lond. " H e dislikes D r u m m o n d ' s theory. if we know a man under strongly marked characters. I doubt if any134 185 136 187 1S8 139 140 134. 1 3 8 . G o d is Himself ctSeiKToc.. D r u m m o n d . without danger of being mistaken that it was not the philosopher. that this discussion of G o d and H i s Powers proves highly valuable in the description of the soul's ascent to God. pp. Philo's Deity is notable because Philo refused to see the Powers as anything but distinct flashes of the single divine nature as apprehended from the h u m a n point of view. 244 ff. Philo Judaeus.Ta\Y\moc.

for all the . But when we admit that Philo's interest was primarily ethical and mystical. the ark. did recognize the inevitability of the Greek Absolute in any adequate thinking about God. which cannot be treated here. It is all typology. for description if not for source analysis. and the formulations are only h u m a n conveniences which quite fade away when one has reached the top of the ladder. and as we go on we shall see how deeply the conceptions penetrated all his thinking. we have by no means justified belittling his serious philosophical pur­ pose. or the Persian doctrine of Powers. as of course we must. But with Philo this is not true mythology. had adopted. Philo would have been insulted if any one had put his typology into the indifferent mixing pot of Plutarch. to meet the individual's hope for salvation. the Absolute. to Osiris. and yet like the Greeks of his day he longed to approach the Unapproachable. or to Dionysus as interpreted by Orpheus. and the Jews he represents. LIGHT one in the world ever was so interested. Aristode's or Kant's. T h e fact is that in Philo's Deity we have a conception fit primarily. H e himself. D r u m m o n d still seems to me the best guide. shall we say. Comparative mythology meant nothing to Philo. and apparently many of his associates. Both of these conceptions of God Philo. a God who was the source and sanction of ethical idealism. or Ahura Mazda. to find a schematization for approach to the Greek Absolute. Philo's religious urge is obviously much more apparent than. Plutarch turned to comparative mythology. Philo and Plutarch seem to m e to offer the most illuminating comparison. or vice versa. T h e solution was to Plutarch indifferently the mystic-sexual formulation. But it is a formulation that would sacrifice none of the best philosophic interest of the day in presenting m a n with a Deity at once the Monad.4 6 B Y LIGHT. O n this whole problem. as will appear. W e are all solving in our work our deeper emotional problems and it may or may not be apparent to ourselves or to others what we are ultimately doing. So we shall not understand Philo either by sacrificing his philosophic in­ terest to his mysticism. H e reveals the fact that Jewish mythologies of Sophia and of the Powers had been created on the basis of the Jewish Chochma and of the mystic symbol of Judaism. A n d it seems to m e that of all problems which Philo was especially anxious to think through the most important was that of the nature of God and of both the possibility of divine relation with men and comprehension of God by men. H o w could this be done? T h e answer of his environment was ascent through mystical-sexual union with the "Female Principle." or by conceiving that the Stream presented itself as a series of quasi distinct stages or aspects. and the Prime Cause. H e could not turn from Yahveh to Zeus. and the goal of his mystical aspiration. as does Apuleius by implication. But he. For the mystical urge in Philo was present in a profound m i n d which was not content without a tremendous effort at grasping and thinking through the intellectual problems arising from his mysticism.

T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 47 similarities that can be pointed out between his formulations and those of his neighbors. and a vindication of the unique truth of Judaism. the Road to the Greek Absolute. But he is a m a n of the Hellenistic Age in his attempt to keep typology subordinate to metaphysics. In his exclusiveness he stands out as a Jew. . found in his typology two definite things. It was for Chris­ tian theologians two centuries or more later to subordinate metaphysics to typology.

so that the duty of the Jew was the glorification of God by obeying H i s L a w . H o w could a m a n still call himself a Jew when God had become something so essentially foreign to Judaism? T h e answer must be found in Philo's attitude toward the Jewish L a w . the organi­ zation of its disorganized parts and nature into a great city with legal regi­ mentation. or order. In the one case it is form that comes into matter. or the God of the Streaming Sophia. This process could be. L a w in its ultimate character was the expression of the Life or Being of God. In brief. Without going into the details of Philo's theory of creation. Y\ ano\oc \JXY]. and as there was only one creation of . was given those attributes by their coming into matter from without. but it will clarify our whole exposition of the Mystery to have in mind from the start the relation of Jewish L a w to the higher L a w . it must be pointed out that for h i m creation was the process by which original matter. that is in the pri­ vate and public life of men. from God. describable only by its utter lack of form. whether he approached the subject as a politician or as a religious thinker. and in the universe. is different enough from the God usually associated with Judaism. H o w this operated in ethics and politics we can not here discuss. or the same essentially non-Stoic conception could be presented as the making of unordered matter into a great cosmos.CHAPTER II THE HIGHER LAW BEFORE going on with the Mystery we must stop to ask h o w Philo could have found room in Judaism for such a deity as that described in the preceding chapter. quality. Philo regarded law as of two kinds. the Father in heaven w h o has given H i s children H i s will codified in the L a w . A n d for this we must first define clearly the higher L a w . in the other it is Law. T h e God of the Powers. but in either case what makes matter into a cosmos is the coming into it of a divine force or effluence. Into this subject we cannot here go in detail. Philo regarded the Jewish L a w from the point of view of his entire phi­ losophy of L a w . since a Jew's attitude to the L a w has always been the criterion of Judaism. expressed through the typical Platonic ter­ minology of the forms. W h e n this L a w was more or less understood by m e n of intelligence it was set forth for other m e n in the material medium of nouns and verbs. above any concrete legal manifestation was the L a w it was reflecting." always inferior to " L a w " which was essentially immaterial. or stages. T h e contrast made itself felt in every place where the L a w entered as an entity and force. the ordering effect of that Being and H i s will in and for all existence below H i m . and was. and became "laws. Always.

so the two were to Philo interchangeable ways of saying the same thing. 2. whose (3ouAy)|ja is the n o r m of the universe. 2 Philo is here talking of the Jewish T o r a h which. in order that H e might use the incorporeal and god-like pattern in mak­ ing the corporeal cosmos like it. So when God willed to create this visible cosmos H e first formed the %6o\ioq vorjtog. 1 I n the De Opificio Philo makes a great deal of this conception that crea­ tion was the giving of form to formless matter. that nature in accordance with which the whole cosmos is ruled. Opif. is used in such a way as in no sense to confuse that Platonism by the introduction of any essentially Stoic point of view. Behind both T o r a h and cosmos. and comprise as many kinds of perceptible objects as there were conceptual kinds in the other. T o Philo the first chapters of Genesis have for their purpose the implication that the cosmos sings in harmony with the Law and the Law with the cosmos. as long as it remained Stoicism. lb.T H E HIGHER LAW 49 the material world. but always.. even those of the good and the beautiful. for he is one who regulates his actions in accordance with the will of nature. is $uoic. the universal mind which transcends all cate­ gories. and that no object of perception could be flawless which had not been modeled after an archetypal and conceptual form. Into this conception it is necessary to go more deeply. Philo after the passage just quoted goes on to say that Moses. O n this familiar Philonic notion it will perhaps be sufficient to quote: For God. he is saying. W h a t came into matter from G o d to m a k e it a cosmos was form or L a w or Logos because these were but different approaches in Philo's m i n d to the same concept. and secondly a passive cause. inanimate and unable to move itself. in things that exist. Philo is opposed to Stoicism precisely because to h i m the attempt to find an antei . recognized that there must. insisted upon the ultimate common origin of the two. knew in advance that a beautiful copy could not come into existence without a beautiful pattern. T h e " L a w of Nature. b u t even in that treatise creation in this sense is throughout subservient to the notion that creation was a process of imposing L a w upon matter. what he elsewhere calls the L a w of Nature. The second creation was to be an imitation of the earlier creation. 3 .. 1 6 . T h e Plato­ nism sets the tone and is the constant point of view in this treatise. being God." a term usually associated with Stoicism. Stoicism to be sure divided the original fire into two similar principles. be two prin­ ciples: first an active cause. Creation as the introduction of form need not detain us. . however. and that the law-abiding man is forthwith a citizen of the cosmos. is in har­ mony with the universe. w h o had gone to the heights of philosophy and the profoundest as­ pects of nature.

" the fruits of the earth. 130. 58.. Spec. Heres. 106. 1 2 1 f. 8. b u t the e n d is G o d alone. 10. Prob.. Aristotle. 192. and of her giving the chameleon and polypus their protective colorings. 1 3 . The passage recalls the mixing bowl of the Timaeus.. 1 4 3 . Heres. 36. made h i m male and female. 99 f. 164.. ii. or \jX\ky\. Som. in which great storms make inner wars. In creation $uoic first created light. 1 3 2 . 52.1 7 2 . W h a t then is this 4>uoic which can thus have a will? O n e has only to glance at the Index of Philo to see h o w frequently and variously he uses the term. 16. Spec. Meteor. ausc. Phys. 263. Mos. or the material world is the aloOyjTK) ((juoic. E. and clothing. i. 1 2 .. Opif. Fug. 26.. 2 1 . 379b 25. 129. F r o m being the material world itself. 249. Ebr. 1 1 . Heres.. Praem. and seems often to be merely phraseological. w h o is y\ ap[oTY\ 4>uoic. W i t h "divine skill" N a t u r e created m a n after mixing the elements. i. 5. 1 5 2 .. iv.. Mos. 7. Again there seems to be nothing specifically Stoic in this usage. 36. i.. 180. b u t neither N a t u r e nor her will is in this sense identified with the cosmos. I n the creation a n d ruling of 8 4 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 3. Deed. 266. and by \o6tv\c. made h i m a gregarious creature. 4.. 1 1 7 . I n one passage he discusses nature as the beginning a n d end. Migr. b u t the expression is found in strongly Neo-Pythagorean passages.g.. Abr. 4. Prob. Congr. and which sup­ plies m e n with the "gifts of nature.50 BY LIGHT. T h e high­ est aspects of " N a t u r e " could never in any sense be inherent concomitants of Matter. or opar/). as w e speak of the "finest thing in nature. W h e n Philo wishes to be more specific he distinguishes between the jjepioroc a n d the a\iip\0T0Q <t>uoic... gave m a n the five senses. 1 1 1 . N o w it is notable that Nature's "will" is the n o r m of the cosmos. Polit. 1 7 2 . Som. 108.. Such will appear to be Philo's generally consistent thought about the L a w of Nature. 6.. Opif. 2 3 1 . Its parts are the four elements.. 1252b 3 2 . Heres. T r u e the phrase rot ev Tig $uoei is a common one for the natural world. Ib. LIGHT cedent monism behind this dualism was essentially blasphemous. Heres.. 43. 22. 184. 20. Praem. 23. 103. 14. 97. 19. 53. . ii. 1 8 ." or "in the world" with no specific materialistic con­ notation. a n d says that with m e n the beginning of perfection lies within our o w n nature. 27. 190. 1 1 1 . 2 3 5 .. Decal. iv. Decal. 37. Virt. ii. or e v e n refer specifically to the forms. Congr.. 1 5 .. 3 5 . a passage apparently reflecting Aristotle's language. i. Sac. Spec. Abr. and apparently created the rest of the material world. ii. or the term T a ev T/j 4>uc£i may include both ra aIo0y)Ta a n d x a v o y j T a . 128. Spec. cf. 4>uoic becomes the moving and creating cause in the material world. for Philo speaks of Nature's allotting the scheme of fruit bearing to the different animals and plants. Mos. ii. 17. 1 7 0 . 1 2 2 . 9.. i. Ouoic is the material world which natural phi­ losophers study.. iii. 194a 28.. i.. Spec..

Nic. T h a t is. Eud. 29. 28.. 1 3 . T h e cosmos is a city. 1 1 5 3 b 32. the heavenly bodies. In another passage h e slips in the same way from God to nature. i. . Cher. 8 . 26. 205. 659b 3 5 . i] \ikv yap \xzyaX6noXiQ ohz 0 KOOHOC SOTI Kai jjia XP*]Tai noAnxia 27 28 29 80 81 82 88 84 24. Sac. Spec.. 32." 33. viii. i. T h e cosmos is matter put in order under a divine regimentation. Heres. I prefer keeping JiQUxaveiJOVTOc. but he insists that their power is completely dependent upon God who rules all things in the "city" according to justice and l a w . which is a AoyiKy) QXJOK bound to m a n by the cement of $uoic. Part. 645a 9. 1247a 10. yet gives birth. Proem. ii. or profane. i. ii. as Aristotle did. 48 f. nourishes but is not nourished. viii. and the Father who begat it directs it "by means of the L a w of N a t u r e . Philo's sense of the law and order of the cosmos is k e e n . By far the commonest type of Natural L a w is that which means the rule of God or N a t u r e in their synonymous sense. but there seems little confusion between them. They are distinct types of L a w . cf. i. So. we must separate from our conception of God any trace of the created.. ii.. 39. Spec.. i. 34. It is quite to be expected that Philo should speak of the L a w of N a t u r e as the regimentation of the material cosmos. 34. atque aequum est et conveniens. N a t u r e exercises providence. 302. 9. Som... Anim. a dele­ gated sort of executive power in this divine rulership. ut sit ei legislator ac legisdator.. Opif. 28.T H E HIGHER LAW 24 5i 25 26 material phenomena N a t u r e used the number seven. 198. LA. ii. Cf. yet participates in none herself. QE. with Cohn to changing to JtQVxaVEiJOvrag with Heinemann. so the order of the universe makes unavoidable the inference that it is ruled by G o d . Eth. i. causes growth and decay. 27. W i t h this large variety of meanings for $uoic. 9 8 . "She gives many gifts to men. H e has slipped from $uoic to Qzoc without the slightest sense of change. a L a w within the material cosmos.. 1 1 5 . for 4>UOK was only a locution for God throughout. Post. 42: "magna est mundus iste civitas. iii. 30. yet is herself unchanging. as well as the L a w of God since N a t u r e is God.1 1 1 .. 1 4 3 . 25. ac legitima: necesse est autem istam politicae meliori lege uti. Spec. Spec. Eth. changeable. 100.1 7 3 . creates but is uncreated. 162.1 6 . 64. Fug.. " Like Plato Philo is willing to concede to the popular rulers of h u m a n destiny. 189. "Per ordinem autem universus mundus et huius partes factae sunt": QG. So it is not sur­ prising that first God and then QXJOK gave m a n his reasoning power. 9 ff.. LA. Philo concludes. 1 0 2 ." For she is unborn. i. 14. Cf. mortal. 34. Heres. Spec.1 0 1 . Plant. Both types of natural L a w are to be found. it is clear that the term VOJJOC Tyjc $ u o £ U c might have a variety of meanings too. in creation 4>uoic can be used as a synonym for God. 33. Praem. 3 1 . 1 7 1 . As any one would be a fool who went into a well-ordered city and did not conclude that it must have good rulers.

41. 61 where Philo speaks of f| ev xfj qwaei xd|ic. Opif. G o d is also t h e fatherruler. ii.. T h e meaning of the terms must in any given case b e determined not by their meaning in another source. or of Law. W h e n Philo speaks of Providence.52 35 B Y LIGHT. 40. Spec. as the $o\j\v][ia ryjc <|>UO£GJC. Ib. a n d charioteer. good shepherd. T h a t is. 44. . Agr. and G o d is called the great Ephor of the Universe. is adduced as the best parallel. T h e providence of God for 42 43 44 45 46 47 41 35. ii. H e has much to say of the important powers of the different n u m ­ bers. h e means not the law inherent in the "nature of things" but that inherent in the N a t u r e of God. 46.. but more importantly it is the imitation of His nature. with rulership always 86 37 38 39 40 K a r a VOJJOV Kal SiKyjv. 78. w h o was in complete a n d transcendent contrast to "things. 47. who cannot do with matter what is beyond the law of its nature. 156. Specifically the most orderly city of the ancient world. 128. ii. 1 3 . 37. T h e contrast of the two is most sharply brought out in those passages where Philo departs from his customary usage to speak of a law inherent in matter itself. 45. 43. 36. 1 1 . the nature of matter is itself a law not only for itself. 49. Much of this terminology can be paralleled in Stoic sources. he says. In this he suggests the Timaeus. cf. his thought is not on that account Stoic." 42.. 48.. 39." If <j>uaic can mean God to both Philo a n d Stoicism.. Ib. i n . as in Jos. Provid. Provid.. 5 1 . Sparta. Abr. 1 5 . ]os. If Philo has used Stoic terminology to express his thought.. which always assumes the existence o f the JtaQafteC- . who knows and executes all things in it. fi xQiprai 6 x 6 o > o g .. 60. as a copy of God the archetype. but he nowhere ascribes the origin of their powers to God's creative act.. This law of nature is the law of the nature of matter. 2 3 .. X6yov xgeixxcov jtoXiTEia. similiter per providentiam regi mundus dicitur. 82: "Quern ad modum urbs virtuosa per legem dicitur regi. 38. The Ephor of the universe is frequently A I X T J . 8. not an ordinance of God. their powers are determined by the " L a w of N a t u r e " .. Provid. it is H i s providence. x a i fj Jtavxdc. which limitation would definitely restrict the working of G o d by setting u p an obstacle or situation beyond H i s complete control. but by their meaning in the writer at hand. It is just as familiar in Neo-Pythagorean fragments. So it is not in the nature of creation. powers which G o d h a d in mind as H e ordered the cosmos. 3 5 . Opif. 279: 6 d e o g x a i v6jbia)v e*axl jia(>d8eiY|xa aQX^xvnov. . God is also the cosmic Ephor in Opif. A n d the L a w of the universe is directly the product of G o d .Ib. . Heres. There are other traces in Philo of a law of nature quite independent of God's creation. LIGHT Kal VOJJCJ £v(. F o r he sometimes speaks of a law of nature which conditioned God's act of creation. i. 29.. 9. yet <j>uoic means something as different to t h e t w o as their concep­ tions of God are different. but compelling recognition from God. to be able to receive benefits in a way comparable to God's power of bestowing t h e m . helmsman. 46.Opif..

QG. Frag. VII.. Praem. Opif. Philo uses it as little as possible because it contradicts his o w n usual notion that all law is a product of God. 63. a n d this.. Parall." with which might be identified the cause "more ancient.e. superne universorum moderatricem supersedentem.. 48. b u t which recoiled just as sharply from 49 50 51 52 Y U a x a .. Pseudo-Philon. 3 . to insist that Natural L a w is the L a w of G o d . Ed. a n d when he does use it. a n d has characterized the great orthodox tradition of Christianity which shrank from setting u p any ultimate cosmic principle of evil. 1 : "Quare puto legislationem (dei) sicut in navi optime a se constructa. and the idea of t h e Creator as having number ready at h a n d h a d not been either chal­ lenged or explained. it would seem." (Tauch. utiliter consulere. 6 5 3 ) . Even the heavenly bodies move according to the "ordinances and laws which G o d laid d o w n in H i s universe as unalterable. abundantly present in Philo's environment. as being at hand for the Creator's use. 6 1 . 3 0 1 . 42. mundum hunc ad salutem singulorum derigere et singulis quaecumque ubique sint. apparently because they were aware that t h e logical consequence of a l a w to which G o d h a d to conform in creating the world is fatalism. for exam­ ple. for it has absolute sovereign authority.. Theosophie. -21 (Frag. Sacr. it appears. Philo is distinctly not a fatalist. T h a t G o d is the cause of all things.T H E HIGHER L A W 53 48 H i s creation is itself necessitated by a L a w of N a t u r e which seems to antecede it. VIII. Philo would certainly have said was God's o w n nature. 1 7 1 . Damasc. See Gfroerer. Jona. to be a n emergency device for the purpose of theodicy. Heres. as in Plato­ nism. T h e law of matter. xiv. 49." a law of which requires care for creation. Oeopolc a K i v v Q T o i c These latter usages. while it too appears as a condition­ ing force in Platonism. Philo sharply repudiates. 300 f. but nowhere accounts for their origin. however easy it might be to conclude fatalism from isolated statements. which drives a n d steers the universe like a charioteer or pilot." i. are not. Mangey II. It was a position inherent in Platonism.. b u t is not the cause of physical imperfection or moral evil is a position straddling the issue neither original with Philo nor unfamiliar after h i m . T h e school seems not to have discussed that point.. to be taken as anything b u t incidental ex­ pression. at least logically: " F o r that the maker should care for the thing m a d e is required by t h e laws a n d ordinances of N a t u r e . 472 ff. and the system of numerical relationships. ii.) . Heres. than fate or neces­ sity. Evang. T h e origin of the nature of number must be taken as a n inadvertent anomaly in Philo as it is in Plato. Opif. T h e "Nature. " Even God's o w n kingship H e holds $UO£CJC. Philo und die judisch-alex. Indeed both Philo a n d Plato use it slightly. 5 1 .. I. in Eusebius. in Joh. 52. Cf. Provid. Praep. in which God's o w n action is conditioned by a L a w of Nature. 50. 748B. at least. i. is in Philo m u c h more akin to die Stoic conception. Certainly it would have been given n o explanation in the Academy or by Pythagoreans that would have been reminiscent of the Stoic L a w of N a t u r e . more primal. 420.

Aristotle also connects it with law. Laws. F o r except only when dealing with the problem of evil. This he takes over to his own idea of virtue when he says T O uiaov eWiv &q 6 Xoyoq opftdc.. H i s Nature. note. So we may rightly expect that when Philo is speaking of God. but in their use of 6 6p9oc Xoyoc for the Logos they made the meaning of the identification clear. XIII. T O V 6(yfr6v \6yov o ovx EQL 6 v6u. 257 ff. the L a w of N a t u r e is the L a w that comes from God as a part or aspect of the Light-Stream. vi. though I cannot think the two are identical here as does Heinze (op." suggested in his Phaedo. 487. Logos.oc. Indeed in Laws 6596. In Herodotus (ii. T h e L a w is connected with G o d in the general scheme of the Light-Stream in two ways. paoiXiKyj. as also in Critias 109b. p. Sextus (Math. He gives as a popular definition (jtdvTEg O Q I ^ O V T O I I ) of virtue that it is a 8^15 xaxd T O V opdov \6yov. 310c. Sac." o opOoc Aoyoc both as a term and as a description of law antedates their teaching. Nic. law itself pronounces the OQftdc. But it means "reason" itself in Polit. Indeed. The connection of the term with v6u. T h e L a w of God. 1 7 . LIGHT attributing the causation of evil to God. n. The OQfroc. G o d is essentially VOJJO6£T/)C Kal n/jy/) VOJJGJV. 1208a 9 ff. T h e identification of the Nomos with the Logos was terminologically again at hand from Stoic sources. Mag. where he asserts that the ancient laws which estab­ lish the existence of the gods are qpucrei since they are vou ysvvf]\xaxa x a r d taSyov OQfrdv. But when he turns specifically to the problem of evil we shall find a parallel to Paul's "law of the members.05 first appears in Plato. and its subordinate SuvaiJic VOMO0CTIK/]. p. 310c). 1138a 10. a n d H i s relations with the world. first by Philo's identifying it fully with the Logos.. 89od. ad loc).. In Plato it is parallel with EKioxr]\ir\ (Phaedo 73a). Xoyoq (jto. Er\enntnisstheorie der Stoa. Xoyoq is a guide of conduct (Polit. Xiyei (Eth.).) makes too specific the meaning here.. p. 54. 68) it means simply "truth. RE. 55. w e shall find h i m putting all things subject to the L a w of G o d in Nature. 60. See Heinze Lchre vom.). Nic. 1 2 2 ) uses the term of Empedocles. Eud.. 1 ) thinks the notion a Platonic invention. In view of the evidence given b e l o w it is hard to see h o w Stein is justified in saying that the Cynics first gave the expression philo­ sophical significance. Clement of Alexandria quotes Speusippos as saying that L a w is an 53 54 55 56 53.54 BY LIGHT.) and so can be identified with q>Q6vr\aiq (1144b 21 ff. or the L a w of Nature. 1147b 3 1 . N o t only did Stoics use the two terms interchangeably. but we cannot be certain that it was used by Empedocles. 1 3 1 . 415. 1888. Ethics of Aristotle.. T O V \mb T O U V O J A O U \6yov OQihSv eiQTiuivov). Eth. vii.dc. 56. O n each of these a word further must be said. Taylor (Plato. Aristotle also used the term both as right reason and as the background or source of law." that is mention of a law of the material nature which seems at enmity with God's l a w . as far as its connection with L a w is con­ cerned." Leisegang (Pauly-Wissowa. 1058 f. 259. 1222a 9. and secondly with the Suvapic. 1 1 3 8 b 20. . In this passage it seems to mean "formu­ lated reason" (not Burnet's "right account. n. As right reason it is the subjective guide within man (Eth.. Nic. cit.. 1144b 26. b 7 ) .. Like many terms n o w freely called "Stoic. I. Grant. On this subject see the Appendix. Plato's casual way of bringing it in would suggest to me much more a similar popular usage. p. Eth. 19 f. (Eth. cf. Let that theist w h o can solve the problem of evil cast the first stone at either Paul or Philo for such incon­ sistency. may thus be considered inde­ pendently of the anomalous natural law of matter. when he says that suicide is JtaQOt. 7 6 ) .

1003). 1 id and i (Wachs. which is law. 3 1 7 ) . Yet since it is common to m e n a n d gods. a n d so the fellowship of gods and m e n has the foundation of a com­ m o n law—which implies a common civil organization (civitas). But while nomos and 6p8oc Xoyoc are thus identified in the sense of statutory law. Cf.) is clearly wrong in thinking that Posidonius first introduced the term into Stoicism. It is Posidonius himself who tells us that the older Stoics used the OQ^bg Xoyog as the X Q I X T I Q I O V (Diocles. as 6p0oc Xoyoc. x6 rikr\§0$ auve^ftov xal 8oxiu. according to the Stoics. Marcion ap. d>c. N o t only. III. La. iv (ed. which pervades all things. See Cicero. 62.. Aphrod. oflc. 308). 59. Stob. VII. II. SVF. 60. A n d not 58 59 60 01 62 68 64 65 66 57. II. So the Wise M a n is he who does everything K a r a TOV opGov Xoyov. and sin is its transgression. Clem. 63. 96. Diog. Stromata. I. p. Al. is an excellent thing. 1 3 . De Fato. This seems but an adaptation of the definition of law attributed to Pericles by Xenophon (Mem. Cicero. 445).. 96. I. Diog. On this point Stein. xii. the distinction is usually felt that the civil law is ideally a derivative from the universal Nomos. I. III. 3 2 5 ) . T h e fragment is small. c. Er\enntnisstheorie der Stoa. 93.. III. I. 253 ff. but recta ratio.. the Stoics say. III." Nomos and 6p0oq Xoyoc.daav evQatye. 66. La. Stahlin II. I." and expressed themselves in the mutually complementary realms of private morality and public law.... II. 58. VII. So it is given to all m e n . De Legibus. La. 88 (SVF. cruM-Paivovxoc. pp. 560).. II. but while it does not command the upright m a n in vain. III. seems to me still sound. it has no power to control the wicked. xii. 64. or opGoc Aoyoc. de BudS). Stob." D i o Chrysostom tells us that nomos. 500. (pod^ov. 18 (SVF. There is no reason for calling Diog. 1 1 . and Alex. 1 2 3 ) . 2 7 5 ) . 1 4 . 33 (SVF. 35 (SVF. 80. Stob.. De Legibus. 4 (SVF. III. vii. II. 128 (SVF. for it is opGoc Xoyoc stipulating what is to be done. in. 308). 66. 75 (ed.T]3TTdi £v xfi T O U jtafrovc. ap. otfxoi v6um etafrv. a xe 8 s i Jtoielv xal fi |iT|. Heinemann (Poseidonios. alike existed "by nature. Stromata. All that the Stoics seem to m e to have done with the notion was to give it a formulation so convenient that it could be used by all schools: " T h e universal law (o v6|ioc 6 KOIVOC) is the opGoc Aoyo<. 4 2 ) : Jidvxec. IV. II.. 128 (SVF. II. Cicero explains. but Clement took it definitely as the source of the similar Stoic notions. as Heinemann does. 4). 6 3 1 ) .. 3 1 4 .. III. As a universal existence the L a w of Nature seems to be everywhere present and active. Cf. a later ascription. III. but not everywhere in the same sense. 54. 3 1 7 ) . uprightness and self-control are defined in terms of i t . Diog. III. Al. 14 (SVF. 10a (Wachs. 5 0 1 ) . Stob. Cicero. Clem. VII. A t the same time the opOoc Aoyoc was the foundation of statutory l a w : "Law. jtaQa xdv 6oddv xal xaxd <pi>oav Xoyov. 5 0 1 ) . ii. was to stand beside the king on his throne.). 230 f.): xal xd JtaQa cpuorv 8' £iA. II. Stob. vii. it is the foundation of a social life between them. Paed. 3 3 (SVF. . 33 (SVF. VII. III. and forbidding what is not to be done. 1 (SVF. I. Orat. 61. SVF. and is to be identi­ fied with Zeus as he is the leader in the ordering of phenomena. {jjtoYQacpfi. La. 18 (SVF.. De Republica. II.. 65. III. III.T H E HIGHER LAW 57 55 excellent thing as being opGoc Aoyoc. ii. rather than that the civil law is itself in any given case to be identi­ fied with the higher principle. is ratio present in both gods and men..

and with Nomos in now a civil. 6 vofxog.. He goes on to say. . n o w a universal mystical sense. it is rather because of his own personal character. in the world city. i. Ill. is iden­ tified n o w with the universal Logos. Deor. T h e term vopoc is specifically interchangeable with 6p8oc Aoyoc. Lactantius. cf. T h u s the word opGoc is frequently omitted and Aoyoc alone p u t in formulae where we k n o w opGoc Aoyoc must have been understood by both Philo and his reader*. 1 6 1 . SVF. n o w a moral.. 142. Stob.. cf. Mig. 48. 55. 36 (SVF. 9 1 3 .. d. II. 1 ) where the term JtaQa cpvcav is defined as T O JtaQa TOV OQCpov x a l x a x a (pvaiv Xoyov....ou Xoyoq r\ A. as in the familiar definition that vopoc is "nothing else than Aoyoc enjoining what is necessary and prohibiting what must not be d o n e .. dqpftaQTog EV dftavaTCp 8iavoia TimcoftEig. So with Philo the great L a w of God or Nature is the opGoc Aoyoc. 68. III. opGoc A6yoc. Gr. of the common possession of the universal ratio or recta ratio. Cicero.56 BY LIGHT. If his argument frequently runs away from his data. II. . as Philo points out. De Legibus. 2. In the Stoic environment from which he took his ideas there must have been many whose natures impelled them to mysti­ cal communion and union with the universal principle they found repre­ sented in themselves. while in another passage 70 71 72 67. LIGHT only is the universe a single civitas common to gods and men. n o w with Nomos. such as we find in Philo. Praem. II. 6 OQftog X6yo<. Phil. 05 br\ vojxog EC?TIV.og dipEufiTig 6 OQfrdg X6vog . then. and not because he has not a philosophy fully capable of mystical inferences. 7 1 . OQ^og Xoyog had been used . 10a (Wachs. 46. T h e one most striking feature for our present purpose is that A6yoc. 72. I. 2 2 5 . Even the Stoic necessity and providence were included in the same conception: so Chrysippus defines: Eiu-aQU-Evn EO*TIV 6 T O U xoau. we understand. vou. has also passages of Lactantius and Minucius Felix). 130. vii. there is much light thrown on Cicero's point of view..3 2 3 has an extended exposition of the legal philosophy of Cicero to try to distinguish the Posidonian elements. 67 T h e Stoic opGoc Aoyoc. Ttoyog E S T ! ftEioc. p. but as a city is built upon family relationships. both as universal.6705 (Plut. vou-og) TCOV E V T(p xocFfico jtQOVoia Sioixouuivcov. and political terms are quite interchangeable. UJC' dftavaTOv (putfECOc. " I n the same definition Aoyoc 6doc might be used. by virtue. and was of a nature to do full justice to the mystical elements of his teachers. 1. See a number of interesting parallels in Zeller. as it expresses itself finally in Cicero. Nat. Prob. Cicero. goes back to Zeno himself. Poseidonios. I. O n e is safe in saying that with Philo the whole conception is developed at least as m u c h for mystical as for political purposes. 69. so. n. individual. I. If Cicero goes on from this last passage to n o mystical flights himself. 68 69 Philo drew in part from much the same philosophical sources as Cicero. 70. and Minucius Felix tell us that that equation of natu­ ral and divine law. 23 (SVF. 3 3 9 ) . 162. vii. m e n are agnates and fellow-tribesmen of the gods. II. Cicero. Ebr. Heinemann. and VOJJOC. and in such an identification the L a w of N a t u r e becomes a moral as well as physical force.

just below. Again vopoi are <j>uo£uc lepoi Aoyou So with Philo. 124 f.. collecting and holding together all its parts. 8 f. 62. for like a shepherd God the shepherd and king leads earth and water and air and fire and all the plants and animals in them.. Le doctrine du Logos chez Philon d'Alexandrie. See also Prob.og. This is extended from the center to the limits.. oQfrdg Xoyog. It is clear that $865. ii. 97. and in addi­ tion H e leads the nature of heaven. it is clear that the opGoc may be dropped at will. fi x a l a v u j t a g 6 xoau. p. the revolutions of the sun and moon. 75. See also the parallelism in Jos. and the variations and harmonious dances of the other stars. Spec.T|frn. and it seems more likely that Christians would have changed an original vou-og to Xovog than vice versa. 73. 1 3 quotes the passage using loyog for vou-og.d£Exai ft£0"u. Plant. Haft' ov xd JtQoaTJxovxa x a l EJti|3dMovxa s x d a x o i g drt£VEu.. 1 1 6 was quite right in pointing out that since the t w o terms were interchangeable the discussion had litde point. agree on vou-og. for the Father who created it made it the unbreakable bond of the universe.. It is significant that none of these has the article.. As. carrying on the irresistible course of nature. 3 1 . 77. Pr. or. but here identified with Aoyoc <J>UO£GJC. so all late editors read Xoyoq with Eusebius. 6$£v EVnQU. dslog Xoyog. O n the basis of this complete agreement of the universal Logos and N o m o s I disagree with the latest editors in preferring to read vopoc to Aoyoc in the following passage: 78 74 75 76 77 There is no material thing so powerful that it is able to support the world. Philo has here used Xoyog by attraction from the priesdy A.g. and from the extremities to the center. avxr\ bk Saxiv 6 xfjg (pi3c?£Cog OQftdg taSyog.6tovxo x a l xcjj jxpoaaYOQEvd-Evxi Ssovxcog Xoyeicp* \6y($ yaQ al XQOJtal x a l Exrioaoi &oai xsxayuivcp x a l Jtaytcp cruviaxavxai. Ev. Prob. 78 T h e passage of Philo which establishes best the opGoc Aoyoc as being uni­ versal L a w . 1 7 4 : frsog t\ Xovog r\ vou-og ftEiog.ix£iav. H e leads them according to as synonymous with fteoc. 76. VII. (without the article) just above in §128. But all mss. but the eternal Nomos of the eternal God is the most secure and stable support of all things.OY£iov. 5>v Exdcrxrig OQog XQia tcp8ta. Soulier. og xuQicoxEQa xXriaEi jtQoaovou.. 1 4 3 : IJCEI 8 S Jtacra KoXig svvo\ioq £X8i JtoA. Eusebius. 1876. Mos. while the phrase opGoc Aoyoc is always to be taken with a legal implication. dvayKaicog <ruv£|3ai/v£ xcjj Hoo\ioxo\uzr\ xQfjaftai JIOUXEIO. 1 3 . v6u. Opif. and vofiog are here quite interchangeable.. 237.. Still I think that the mss. ii. 74. Ib.. should join in the first verse of the twenty-third Psalm. is the following: T h e universe.6g. reading is preferable. 223. Philo says.og telog $ v . and at the same time as identical with the universal Logos. 0 TKJC $UO£CJC opGoc Aoyoc. See also Som.T H E HIGHER LAW 57 the law of the universe is defined substantially in the same way. Turin.. Accordingly the term Aoyoc appears in many descriptions of natural phenomena where we should expect VOJJOC. xgdrcag XEaaaQag. ii. 29. a n d that in Philo's mind the great L a w of N a t u r e is only another n a m e for the Logos or one of its aspects. Jos. e. yvooQitojXEVOg xalg xou r\kiov JtEQicpogaig xaxd xdv EV aQiftumg daaXsuxov xal pspaioxaxov xal ftsiov ovxcog Xoyov. things mortal and divine. As for example. 78. cf. .

by the fact that the 6p0oc Aoyoc guides the universe according to (Kara) justice and law. 146. by Badt in Philos Wer\e.. who received the guardianship of this sacred flock like a viceroy of the Great King. Agr. especially of justice. Indeed the op0oc Aoyoc of Philo is the Logos in its legal aspect. Similarly its legal force is felt when it is given a place in the Pythagorean scheme of the universe according to numbers. LA. T h e legal implication of the term seems not lost even when it appears as the source of the virtues. It was the immaterial God who was the Tryjyy] vo^wv. in which the opGoc of "right" angles is identified with the 6p06c of "right" reason. H e r e then are God and H i s first-born Son. and treated the two thereafter in so loosely dualistic a form. so that it becomes the constituent element in the square. 36. Som. that this implies an undeniable carrying over of the Stoic materialism. But it was from God. the chief virtue. that m u c h that they would say of the Logos-Nomos controlling the universe could be said quite as accurately of Philo's immaterial Logos-Nomos coming down from God to matter to introduce form and order. LIGHT SIXT] and n o m o s . T h e identification of the L a w with the Logos is thus complete. God's L a w did in Philo's m i n d permeate and guide the universe as an immanent principle. p.. 2 1 5 . iii. Lehre vom Logos.. 1914. Bonn. O n e must not be misled. 80 with note ad loc. 5 1 . 150. On this passage see Hans Meyer. to conclude that the two are distinct. Cher.. 40. not from anything analogous to the Stoic "fire. 240 f.. see. whose identification with op0oc Aoyoc and nomos is complete. Actually the Stoics themselves saw the split between the active and passive agents of the primal fire as taking place so early in the process of creation..58 B Y LIGHT. 79 It is from this point of view that the Aoyoc Geloc can be called the Sionoc Kal Ku3^pvyjTy)c TOU navToc. p. for He has appointed TOV 6Q$6V avxov Aoyov xal JtQCOToyovov mov. i. O n e may read the Logos at any time when Philo is speaking of the L a w of N a t u r e : and it must always be borne in mind that the Logos is not the Stoic Logos. So completely are the universal Logos and the 6p0oc Aoyoc interchangeable that Philo can speak of the universal onepnaTiKoc Aoyoc as 6 OTT£pnaTiKoc Kal y£vvy)TiKoc TGJV KaAcov 6p0oc Aoyoc. and it was always qualitatively distinct from the matter it permeated. Mos. 81. the Pythagorean symbol of justice. ." that it came. Geschichte der Lehre von der Keim\raften. It is rather the Light-Stream coming down into matter. usually called the Logos alone. 80. a concomitant of the ultimate material substrate. 82. Cont. 83. I cannot agree with Heinze. 80 81 82 88 Philo expresses the interrelation of the concepts much more accurately and clearly when he puts L a w into its place in the schematization of the Stream 79. ii. T h e Stoic terms can be used because the terms are themselves older than Stoicism and have no specific materialistic denotation. 1 2 1 .. Plant.

194 if. 4. Mig. p. IV. Spec. L a w as it manifests itself in a material medium would by this be definitely inferior to the L a w not so manifested. n. 86. First of these to be considered is Philo's conception of SIK/]. that they must be at least briefly treated. from the product to the source. would have been as essential in the case of L a w as in the case of any of the other derivations from God. and L a w itself is something that could be transcended by the mystic if he rose beyond the great divide to the Higher Powers. iv. 1 2 .. Mut. with its legal aspects. iv. But L a w was still a higher principle than the KOOJJOC VOY\TOC. figures used by Philo in developing the conception of the L a w of God in the universe. L a w itself. with the inevitable corollary that H e was law-maker..T H E HIGHER L A W 59 by its Powers. appeared fairly low in the hierarchy. Agr. 384. Brehier points out the most obvious facts. 196 f. Hirzel has a large collection of similar passages in his Themis. T o Philo.. 43. a definite step toward higher reality. etc. the legal was always the just. and in such statements as that r a a u r a SiKcua are equivalent to TOC Koiva TKJC 4>UO£GJC Kal aKivyjTa v6(jijja. so the Suvajjic (3aoiAiKyj expressed the ruling power of God. 149. because God Himself is only the source of 84 85 80 87 88 84. O n e might. . Philo seems to have assigned to SIK/J a very real function when he says that SIK/J looks to the enforcing of the Decalogue. But there are several cognate no­ tions. the aspects apart from the mate­ rial world and those which could find at least partial representation in mat­ ter. H e r e it need only be stressed that just as the Suvapic TTOI/JTIK/) represented God's creative and providential aspects. or that T a Tyjc (3aaiXs(ac SiKaia are the same as TY\Q $ao\kz\aQ SoypaTa Kal VOJJOI. which is given out by God without stated penalties. even in its lower steps as statutes. 88. stop here in describing Philo's concep­ tion of Natural L a w and the L a w of God. Xenophon. or laws. 201. and as one went beyond to those Powers not characterized by L a w he had not rejected the L a w but only gone on to the source of the L a w . AIK/) then must be examined as an aspect of Law. T h e importance of this formulation is that it made Law. T h e Stream. and the way in which it could be linked u p with different aspects of his thought. In discussing S(K/|. 87. has already been discussed in the preceding chapter. Philo does not himself state the familiar Greek aphorism. TO VOJJIJJOV SiKcuov clvai. which throw so much light upon the variety of its usage. and perhaps should. Les Idees. Di\e und Verwandtes. seated beside G o d . as to all Greek tradition. and 6 voiiipoc equivalent to 6 SiKaioc. but their equivalence was repeatedly assumed in his favorite use of synonymous doublets. Yet the obligation to rise beyond the particular to the universal. Memorab.. that is Natural Law. Philo has retained the Greek mythologi­ cal figure which was first nipehpoc OeoO. and was definitely present there. indeed on the hither side of the great line which divided the created from the uncreated aspects of Deity. 85.

326. evil which could not have come from God. 201. 5 4 102. The Political Ideas of the Greeks. 1 9 2 1 . while Philo was convinced of the reality of evil. as the object against which sins are committed. His JtaQe&QOS.. Dike und Verwandtes. in the way in which SiKyj followed the brothers of Joseph. F o r hiKY\. 1927. IV. 48.. 225.. cf. Prob. if sometimes 89. this is a most striking instance of the complete interchangeability of the two words. See R. and as napzbpoc T£> Gey visits t h e offenders against the eternal L a w of N a t u r e with all the most powerful ele­ ments of t h e universe. For it is right for the ministers and lieutenants of God.. 128. and especially the excursus on the JtdoEfiQOi. as for captains in war to apply punishments to those who desert the ranks of the Just One... 5 5 . I need not go into the much discussed history of bint]. A specific example is found in the per­ sistent enmity which SIK/J came to take toward Flaccus because he was eKvojjoc. as the warden of peace and the one who furnishes richly and without stint all the good things of peace always to everyone everywhere. 176 ff. The text (§52) speaks of the Xoyog %r\q diSiou cpuaecoc. 149. a n d not at all. For stricdy speaking God is the President of peace. ii. John L . brings t h e most terrible pun­ ishments to malefactors (such as the profane or incestuous)." So G o d offers no asylum for evil doers. i. 19. Cf. iii. Conf. 56-225. 94. 90. 95. pp. and is used in the fragment. iii. 1907. It is obviously at times associated with the Suvajjic (3aoiAiKy) or vojjoOeTiKy). especially fire a n d flood. 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 T h e weakness of Philo's theodicy has been shown.. pp. distinctively Stoic. 106 f. No^iog is clearly meant. If the text has not been altered from what Philo wrote. 2 5 3 .1 2 1 . since 5bo] naturally hates evil.. but it is right that the general security of everyone should be ascribed to the Great King. 146. Mig. they will be exacted with abundant usury at what seems to her the proper time. p. In Spec. 96. but knows that Dike. 93. 89 Again the dread visitation of SiKyj. iv. . As a power of vengeance it appears in Philo for two reasons. Les Idees. pp.. Themis. Hirzel. Cf. Myres.. 162. Jos. 186. Dec. 147. 95. the closing sentences of the fragment quoted by Cohn in the Editio Motor. as well as Oedipus and the whole Persian race. Spec. he did not actually believe in the existence of any force in the world beyond God's direct control. as a reflection of current Greek manner of speech. 2 1 2 . 167-240. Mos. Mos. Ehrenberg. Mos. ii. 5 3 . LIGHT "the means of salvation unmixed and not partaking in vengeance. Mos. i. ii. and the ecpoQog of human affairs will not rest.. 92. he speaks of "myriads" of such ephors. pp. F o r the eye of hiKY] sees what occurs in even the most remote places. 170. 189. Dec. 104.. Spec. 91. Plac. but by no means always. 1 1 6 . 412 ff. T h i s is the sort of SiKir) familiar to readers of classical literature from H o m e r on. 89. 102. if her punish­ ments are not inflicted at once. a n d consists chiefly in the fact that. Jos. a n d as another method of theodicy. 19.. but His subordinates are the leaders of wars. Brehier. as Brehier implies. pp. Spec. Die Rechtsidee im fruhen Griechentum. the £$opoc. Conf." is the "cause of good things only and the cause of no evil thing. and will take the chastisement of sinners as its proper (avyysveq) task.6o B Y LIGHT.

Spec.o8ixaioc. note 36. but one. as m u c h to help the slaves a s to avenge the It is interesting that w h i l e vengeance a n d punishments are figuratively. d8ixov 8e x a l >l>8v8eg T O vouxaai x a T a T O V dvfrQcomvov voiiv Tairca a u u £ a i v e i v . 98.. x a l JteQaai x a l oQOig TT|V TCOV cftcov jieQivQaapai cpuaiv. p. iii. that is also true of G o d Himself. 1 4 1 . the SiKaioc is a passing modifier apparently carried over by transposition. ii. I n fact the only passage I h a v e found w h e r e God is represented a s SiKaioq in any essential w a y . 143. 80. (Heres. JtoiTiTtXT].. 128. A n d if SiKy) is the all seeing. 368. and as such is dxQifHodixaioc. 104. 5 5 . God is not himself here fiixaioc. p. (3aaiA. i. 104 1 0 3 it sends help t o those in distress a s w e l l a s penalty to the malefactor. ii. 1 0 0 G o d is also H i m s e l f G o d H i m s e l f sees t o it that the penalty is restricted n o t only to the deserts.. In Mos. is a mistake: dutyfree. The reference to God as Sixaioc. because H i s mercy is older than H i s Stay]—a poetic statement o f no literal metaphysical i m p o r t a n c e . but even t o the endurance of the culprit: this H e does. 237. 102. Spec. but only figuratively.. (Heres. 52. since the true perception learned that God's emanations were not many or divided. 2 3 2 ) . "champion of the just man. Toi5 Sixaiou (Abr.. Som. 194. So when Philo says that God is unlike man in being able to make a geometrically perfect bisection.. I cannot feel that this expresses literally his ultimate philosophy. be x a l Sixaiov \ISTQOV T O T O V fx6vov dixaiov ftedv vnoXafisiv j t d v T a jxsTQelv x a l aTaftuxxtfftai x a l dQiftu-olc. 105. the E p h o r . in Leisegang's Index. i.T H E HIGHER L A W 61 it acts to relieve G o d of the responsibility o f direct action in punishment. 101. sins upon the s i n n e r . statements w h i c h con­ 99 travene Philo's entire theodicy... 103. Som. 279. Immut. 140. 99. B u t in general G o d is 97. 107 1 0 6 a n d as j u d g e P h i l o represented G o d as just in H i s j u d g m e n t s . 97 the m a n w h o puffs himself u p in his o w n 98 conceit m a k e s G o d his opponent a n d p r o s e c u t o r . Abr.. 105 P h i l o did of course m a k e G o d personally the j u d g e . But we have seen that all such statements have only suggestive value.. Conf. 205. 100. 107. H i s theodicy is devoted to defending not the justice but the goodness o f G o d . Mos. delegated f r o m G o d . as judge He is judge of Himself. iii.. Opif. Heres. . but JtQoaY©viaTT|c. P h i l o has n o interest in vindicat­ i n g the justice of G o d a s such. w h o r r a v r a opa Kal n a v r c j v a K o u e i . was more primary an expression of God's nature than the ruling emana­ tion. Vift. 174. 106. F o r e x a m p l e the destruction o f S o d o m w a s brought about by SIKKJC yvu[ir\ Gsia SiKaoSeloyjc. 2 7 1 . 76. i.. See above.ixr|. 1 9 4 ) . MOS. the fiuvajxic. Ebr. ii. 260 one escapes from timidity in the battle of life by using Tf| dxoOmQETCp T O V 8ixaiou av\i[xa%ia which has traditionally been translated "the invincible alliance of the Just (God)" (so Badt in Philos Wer\e).. 1 5 5 ." This is what is meant also when God is called <piA. the damsels a t the w e l l . It is (fiAaperoc a s w e l l a s |jiooTT6vy]poc. 1 6 3 ) . LA. 279. cf. 1 1 1 . a n d the w o r d is o f s o little importance that the passage rather gains than loses in clarity b y i g n o r i n g it. I see no reason for supplying the word God. is so completely subordinate to G o d that SIKV) is often said t o be inflicted by divine w i l l . To Philo this probably meant that the emanation primarily merciful. the fivvajLUc. as w h e n it sent Moses to help a n d w h e n it brings calamity upon the m a n w h o mistreats a n d kills his slaves. P h i l o tells us. 101 And SIK/J itself is not a l w a y s only the 102 hater o f evil.

163 (see note 105). 336. Fragment. oxi f| X Q I Q I C . £ a u T ( j . oftev xal E V E X E Q O I C . 1 1 2 .. xvQie. 109. 186. aov. V6IM$. j u s t . and God. which twice says dA/nftival xal 8ixaiai al XQiaEig o~ou (xvi. f| xQtcac. God Himself is not f i t t i n g l y to be t h o u g h t of as h a v i n g j u s t i c e as p a r t of His nature.. pious. 52. 1 7 2 ff. Som.. and Ps. God has the imoTY\[iYi Kal Suvajjic "of the truly good. 4. but is not. May Philo have had in mind the lost original of the Apocalypse of John. who was a b o v e even the Aoyoc-vojioc. but he was a b o v e the laws of the r e a l m .. AiKaioouvK) was to any Greek a q u a l i t y of c o n f o r m i n g to l a w s . Elias. in the following statement (QE. It is by no means w i t h o u t s i g n i f i c a n c e that in the p a s s a g e j u s t c i t e d w h e r e Philo c a l l s God the "everflowing s o u r c e of j u s t i c e . Fragments. Tauchnitz Edition of Philo VI. Pantasopulos. But neither is as fitting an original for Philo's statement as the Apocalypse passage. and so deflecting it from its original application to God as an attribute. 1 0 9 or SiKaioouv/jc. but here the Greek reads dixaioc. ftelov yaQ f| Sixaioawn xal dfisxaaxov. and the l i k e . w h e n h e w o u l d n a t u r a l l y h a v e g o n e on to say that God is Himself j u s t . pp. 10: xd xQiu-axa xov X V Q I O U d^Tyfrivd. cxix. i n . T h e c o n f u s i o n i s here q u i t e deep. Legat. Praep. 272): jtevia xaft' eaurfiv u£v eXeov xQTI^t elg djiavoQfrcooav evfieiag. in Euseb. xal oaiog KVQioq. which seems exacdy what Philo is trying to avoid saying. makes this passage and the above mentioned Heres. 2) ? Philo's form of reference suggests a non-canonical source.) Miinchen. . Mfg. So to Philo. T O \ J fttov Sixaid ECTTIV. " but these cannot be forced b a c k upon the n a t u r e of God. in Philo's eyes. E V EiQ-nxai. p. i n s t e a d a s s u r e s us that God is a u T a p K s o T a r o c . Die Lehre vom naturlichen und positiven Rechte bei Philo Judaeus (Diss. I do not agree with him. in that he is not c o r r u p t i b l e by b r i b e s . " T h e r e a s o n for t h i s is not far to seek. xiv. and the v i r t u e s and p r o p e r t i e s of God m u s t . 7. xal evfrfic. VIII. For j u s t i c e demands a s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t in w h i c h it might be e x e r c i s e d .. I t h i n k . the basis for stating that Philo regarded God as the model of justice. LIGHT ttyiyyi cf>pov^O£CjJc. Philo. i. 296f. beautiful. ii. 22 ff.. require no a s s o c i a t i o n for t h e i r full r e a l i z a t i o n . xix. so the w o r d " l a w . Kal S i K a i o o u v y j c 111 108 He governs ouv SIK/J. The nearest expres­ sions in the Old Testament are Ps. e n t i r e l y s u f f i c i e n t u n t o Himself. while as we shall see hardly 112 SiKaioouv/j is the g r e a t way in w h i c h m a n can i m i t a t e and conform himself to God. A k i n g m i g h t and s h o u l d be SiKaioc as he h a r m o n i z e d his l i f e w i t h the incoming Aoyoc-vonoc. 32. and h e n c e e s s e n t i a l l y a b o v e all law. 8e X Q I O T V louaa Poapeuxfi XQiyzai xcp xfjg laoTnroc. 1893. u n e s c a p a b l e .62 v) ilvaoc |j£Ta 110 B Y LIGHT. was to be d e s c r i b e d by this t e r m . and then makes H i m the rryjYy) § i K a i o o u v / ) c . Spec. 2. " he has been t a l k i n g of God as b e i n g d i f f e r e n t f r o m o r d i n a r y j u d g e s . together with a complete misunderstanding of Som. ii. Sixfl.. As far as I can judge from so small a passage Philo seems to be making an Old Testament statement of the justice of God into a derivative statement that justice is a divine thing. $E5ixaiG)uiva em xo aux6.a b i d i n g " was h a r d l y to be applied to Philo's God. elc.. A t one 108. Harris. xix. and self-sufficiency and j u s t i c e cannot b o t h be i n h e r e n t in the s a m e person. 277. for I think that to Philo God as " j u s t " would be ultimately as a n o m a l o u s as the c o n c e p t i o n of God as " p i o u s . Ev. 1 3 7 : Aixaiog el. ii. Further the d e l e g a t i o n of His j u s t i c e to A\ky\ was a p a r t of Philo's f e e l i n g that God m u s t be s u f f i c i e n t in Himself. This latter quotation is traditionally referred to Deut. n o . as the s o u r c e of l a w s . 10. t h e n .

b u t which is ultimately under H i s control. p. solve the problem of evil. God appears to m e n in a lower mystical stage as the personal guide of a complicated machine. T h e r e are n o externals. For example Cher. dwelling in all things.' " This discussion of space is the highest of three views: one which considers space as %&QO\ wto acou-axoc. am not space. which has after all a mere logical existence. Philo did not. severity. however. W h a t appear to the lower mystic as actions are n o w seen to be intimate expressions of that nature of God. and that virtue. or persons. I. with the exception of r a w matter. at another G o d is H i m ­ self the sponsor or even the direct agent in such acts. Quite another vision dawn^ upon the mind of the m a n w h o has climbed above this stage. JtSKht\Qto\i£vr\. T h e r e is no real objectivization from God. it seems to m e . H e can be regarded as the source of a great L a w or justice which has become more or less distinct from G o d H i m ­ self." But these both disappear in the third. i. 93. But he did think of G o d as appearing entirely different according to the mystical status of the individual m a n . doing all well. T h e present difficulty. O n this plane G o d can be considered as work­ ing with assistants. in the discussion of God as Space in which the universe moves and exists (Som. powers.T H E HIGHER L A W 63 time we have Philo delegating all acts of discipline to mythological assistants in order to free G o d of responsibility for evil action. at best only approxi­ mately applied to God. 1 1 4 . b u t with some practical diffi­ culties still to be adjusted. 106. from any one of whose various rungs Philo may be speaking at a given time. a second which regards it as the X6yo% fteiog "which God himself has filled completely full with incorporeal Powers. and below. T h e religious attitude of one in this stage is ultimately to be that of obedience to law. and the same is true of every individual thing. since G o d is personally the power informing all things. a n d mercy of God. of course. but is embraced by nothing at all and because He is a refuge for all things. even the distinc­ tion between G o d as acting a n d G o d as being. A complete discussion of the nature of G o d as Philo considered it is not here in place. as God.. for example. discuss them. T o one on a higher level the whole process of creation seems rather the unfolding of God's o w n nature.): "God Himself is called 'space' by reason of the fact that He embraces all things. This appears. For that which is embraced is an other thing from that which embraces. yet Philo always evades m a k i n g them into such fundamental aspects of the divine nature as he makes God's goodness. but I am in space. since it is only found completely informed by G o d . not God by the 118 114 1 1 3 . is associated with H i m in its individual rather than social sense. and the divine being embraced by nothing is necessarily its own 'space. just because He is His own receptacle and contains Himself and dwells in Himself. Goodness is the only virtue at all applicable to God. Again w e may speak of the justice. a n d admiration of God's virtues and p o w e r . the word is described by being applied to God. the true vision of T6JCOC. All distinctions in G o d lose their significance. in theory. which is ultimately self-sufficient and incapable of relation with exter­ nals. So there are in God no actions and no social virtues. .. 63 f. is almost altogether obviated in the mystical ladder.

his own personality is quite indistinguishable from God's. 664. H e could no more stop with a code than with the stars. p. there is no room for God as just. Philo had no need to abandon law as a step towards God. "for he w h o thinks that God has any quality . " If justice has no proper place in God's nature. 120. . SIK/).—. Suvapieic. and truly salvation. So SiKaioouviq. 116. For God's nature is that of the monad (/) TOU evoc $UOIC) .. 2. were in themselves only steps to higher conceptions.Exdj3knxov EU. His divine Logos. Exs. LA. 1 1 8 .£vog Ixeiv xov •frsov T| u/f) Eva Elvat r\ &YEvnxov x a l dqpftaQxov r) dxQEJtxov Eauxov d8ixEi. LA. i. their conformity to H i s L a w and kingship. VOJJOC. or the quality of conforming to God's L a w or Nature. H e is thus unmixed and u n m i n g l e d . 183. then. AiKaioouvy] is distincdy a virtue of parts of the universe. and had no ulti­ mate validity. 54. 1 0 1 . is the highest state of a created being. ov *fr£Ov. injures himself. ov 8 i d xcov axe^wv—ov yao dv&QCOJiopiOQcpoc. Shall we say with Brehier that this is mysticism rather than philosophy? Yes. Heres. ii. So he says of God that xaxd xd avxd eaxcbg X I V E I XY)V a v u j t a a a v a x d a i v . but their own SiKatoouvyj. So when Philo says: oomipiov kv TOIC [xaXioja 115 116 1 1 7 118 119 SiKaioouv/) Kal avOpdjrrcJV Kal TGJV TOU KOOJJOU n e p u v . or any of the other words of praise so beloved by Philo's ancestors and compatriots. 162. which showed clearly enough his dissatisfaction with much of his imagery. Philo the philosopher really appears undisguised at comparatively rare intervals. 5 1 : 6 yaQ fj jtoioxTjxa olou. yyjc Kal o u p a v o u . 6 Gcoc povoc £OT! Kal £v.cpaivovaav: Mut. His cosmic mythologies never pleased him. Mang.. LIGHT word. of course. merciful. T h e perfect mystic finds himself completely assimilated into this nature of God by the vision. aXka xrrv dxQEJtxov x a l du. one of the great principles derivative from H i s nature. QXJOK anAyj. ou ouyKpi|Ja.6 4 B Y LIGHT. He might as well have denied any reality to the 8uvdu. which differs from Philo's rather in Plotinus' greater powers of analysis and description than in any essential particular. Harris. and it is only when the vision of the truth departs and the ordi­ nary illusion of existence returns that he feels himself as in any sense a dis­ tinct existence." T o this Philo would gladly have agreed.Eig as to the "legs. .. In the higher vision. 119. II. . if we are willing to say the same of the deity of Plotinus. 120 it is clearly not the SiKaioouv/i of God which saves m e n and the parts of the cosmos. Fragments. W h e n Philo wishes to speak of the power of God's L a w as a regulative force in the cosmos he is apt to do so in the mathematical terms of the Pythagorean \O6TY\C. H e was constandy indicating higher syntheses." for neither properly harmonizes with the last phrase. 1 1 7 . it is still. et al. not G o d . It is philosophy with a mystical urge—and only really philosophic at the top of the "ladder. but the L a w to which he must ultimately aspire would be the N a t u r e of God rather than any cosmic force or code derivative from that Nature. T h e importance of \OOTY\C as a traditional expression of 1 1 5 .

1307a 26. Eth. So Aris­ totle could write. 308 ff. E . under others equality according to w o r t h . A necessary form of equality is also the proportional. V. the demand of all the other forms of the state was for the proportional looryjc:. but in another way with respect to spatial magnitudes. Polit.. z measure of about three inches. is the same as that of their art in general. Op. 1 1 3 1 a 25 f. and the other numbers similarly. but not in value. 3 1 3 . in neasure but not in value. with the developed caste system of the Greeks. so that the tax payment of one hun128 1 2 1 . I n place of the sensible visible world-harmony emerged the invisible harmony of the opposites. 122. Op. See especially 277 ff. 1 2 5 . which not merely formed and ordered dead masses a n d spaces but expressed life a n d spirit a n d sought to subdue both in the masses and forms of beauty. Dike. Plato and his Predecessors. 1 2 7 . " T h e history of the Greek cosmos. and small to great. Greek Political Theory. in magnitude. T h e cry of democracy was always for some sort of application of the mathematical iooryjc." Philo was quite aware of these aspects of the conception of equality. not of course equal by count (aQidjicp) but by analogy of the amount of property to the tax rate.. looryjc. Themis. p. " and " T h e 'equal' in respect to worth is that every one should have his o w n . by which also a few things can be re­ garded as equal to many. station. three equals three. "All agree that justice in distributions must be based on some principle of w o r t h . Nic. 128.. cit. 7. I n later times. V.. it was probably the Pythagoreans w h o first m a d e this change in meaning explicit. This form of equality also cities are periodically accustomed to use when they bid each citizen to bring an equal amount from his property. Barker.. or cubit cubit. " H o w looryjc became a cosmic principle. The idea seems :o be that a yard of cotton equals a yard of silk. Hirzel has eloquently described. 1. 3 1 5 . 6.. For s p a n may equal span. 122 123 124 125 128 127 For. breadth and depth. and service. 1 2 3 . as is the case also with things weighed and measured out. 46 ff. pp. was the equal share of one warrior as compared with the others in the spoils and provisions. 126. . pp. cit. V. whose dimensions are length. " although he himself admitted that " u n ­ der certain conditions arithmetical equality must be used. 308 ff. pp. I n early times equality. T o a rigid architectonic method of exposition used in primi­ tive times there succeeded also here another method. 124. As Hirzel says.T H E HIGHER L A W 121 65 the Greek sense of justice does not need detailed reviewing h e r e . this came to be replaced by a geometric proportionality as the true meaning of \O6TY\C: not to every m a n the same but to every m a n his due according to his de­ serts. later form of Kakaoxy\.. a matter of equal arithmetic count­ ing. I I aAmorrj. Ib. as that two equals two. pp. 1302a 7. Ib. 277 ff. the term "equal" is used in one way with respect to numbers. Hirzel. 297 ff. und Verwandtes.. 228-320. a pound of lead equals a pound of gold. the greatest work of art of the Greeks. or the fundamental principle of the cosmos.

by the universal presence in it of looryic. i. Mos. For "the legal and equal are seeds of peace. God is referred to as creating l o o T y j c . xv. Spec. 1 0 ) . cosmic Law.exQcdv \o6xr\xi Jtap/ eavxq) xo dvaXoyov exdaxoig. 101. Joseph Cohn.2 4 8 . in a note to his translation of this passage. Spec. iv. and inequality is the source of dfiixta." in Yale Classical Studies. p.cou.ev dviaoxrixog laoxrixa ex be axoxoug qpcog egyaadfievog. It is of considerable importance for our purpose. Heres. the jjyjTyjp SiKcuoouv/jc. 265. " 'Equality' put in place all things. T h e longest single discussion of this point is found in Quis Heres.. Fragments. iv. according to unshakable laws and ordi135 129. both t h o s e in h e a v e n and t h o s e upon e a r t h . which means that it is made law-abiding. God is 6 laoxTjxog xal Jtavxog xoii dgiaxou br\\iiovoy6<z: Spec. where it is introduced in passing as being an axiomatic part of his philosophy and that 130 131 132 of his r e a d e r s . 187 God is described as calling xd \xr\ ovxa etc. 134. p. and were kept ever familiar in later times. the "Cutter.. 47). " then goes on to divide the 0£Cjpy]Ta into parts for which Philo finds no n a m e s . 6 (Harris. Spec. i. TO elvai by making xd§iv e£ dxaSjiag xal e§ djtouov jtoioxTjxag xal dvonoicov ou. . says that Aristotle's discussion lies behind these remarks of Philo. 132. and the universal c a u s e of pres­ ervation (ocjT/ipiac) and duration. i. T h e immediate agent of the division is the Logos T o p e u c . Fragments. i. cf. 145. of Philo. I have examined this whole passage carefully elsewhere. 2 3 1 . that we find Philo using \OOTY\C as one of the chief principles in the cosmos. then. 135. QE. In Spec. "A neo-Pythagorean Source in Philo Judaeus. where Philo makes the most of the text. All nature is full of cnKcuoouvy]. p. III (1932). T h e ideas probably antedated Aris­ totle in Pythagoreanism. 1 3 0 . if not the funda­ mental one. 133. Harris. iv. But inequality and greed give rise to war and are destructive of what things exist. 295. 328. 144." It is not surprising to find the notion in o t h e r writings of Philo.66 129 BY LIGHT. and hence is used by Moses as the basis of all his laws. § 1 3 1 . T h e r e is no reason for assum­ ing an immediate use of Aristotle's text. See Spec. 166. xal u-exga axafru. xal 8iau. 204. T & X6y($frecDQT]Tdslg du-udrixoug xal djteQiYQdqpoug [xoipag. ii. where laoxrig is T| Sixaiocarvrig 6\o%y\ xal nr\yr\. 115-164. Legat. 1 3 1 . See the Tauchnitz Ed. cf..oioxT}xag xal exsQOtoxrjxcov xauxoxTjxag xal e§ dxoivcovrixcov xal dvag noaxcov xoivcoviag xal dgu-oviag xal ex u. The last two would seem a summary of all the preceding. 134 133 and in H i s rulership as always being guided by i t .evoc. 232: olg xd dppioxxovxa'xaQL^Exai Jtgog xd xfjg exdaxou ipuxfig o*xafru/r|u. "and he divided them in the middle" (Gen. 2 5 3 . For our purposes here it is only neces­ sary to indicate that Philo's aim in the e n t i r e passage is to point out that this account of creation makes \O6TV\Q the creative and controlling feature of the universe.2 3 8 . LIGHT dred drachmas from one man would seem to be equal to the tax payment of a talent from another. 85.." which begins by dividing all material things down to the "so called indivisible a t o m s . Mut. VI.

Source.070:.. the phases of the moon. 108.. T h e wealth of nature is arranged on the principle of !OOT/)C. though that seemed to be his implication. Spec. Decal. in bodies by health. is SiKaioouv/).. Plant. and concludes that in the universe \O6TY\C is represented by the cosmic order (KOOJJOC e o r i v ) . Opif. cf. and all is to be called the product of iooryjc: or vo\xoc TYJC 4>UOSCJC indifferently. Aet. 138. H e has learned of it from those who have investigated natural phenomena most closely. dxQiPoijvxEg f|ulv Jtage&oaav. 144. however that part in which justice and injustice are found should be preeminendy endowed with reason. 145. 129. 5 1 . dogs are faithful to death. appar­ ently the Pythagoreans. Conf. 1 2 2 . T h u s the study of geometry. 1 5 1 . Spec. 2 1 3 . 7 3 . Cont. Note that there he speaks of X&o\ akoya. 61. Ib. iii.. xd xcov ^cpcov |XT| Xovtxd. H e points out that even shellfish and storks have social vir­ tues which can only be described as arising from a sense of justice and goes on to say: 187 188 189 140 141 142 It is right that the universe should be composed not of some only of its parts but of them all. 232. 231 01 x d qpuaecoc. Spec.. the number four. But he draws no such conclu­ sion as that therefore they must have a share in reason since they are thus virtuous. and storks are exemplary for the care the younger birds give the older o n e s . 139. 46. 142. 237. by instilling in the mind the con­ ception of 1O6T/]C. For both of these pertain to reason. iv. and of all the num­ bers. Ordinarily then he can use the terms \OOTY\C and SiKaioouv/] as synonymous. Sac.. iv. and in souls by KaAoKayaOia. is of course especially sym­ bolical of justice. 1 3 2 . in the passage already referred to. 1 4 1 . See my "Neo-Pythag. instils §iKaioouvyj at the same t i m e . 148 In discussing the honoring of one's parents Philo points out that lions. Animal. but apparently he had 144 145 136. 143. while on other occasions he denies that animals could have virtue or vice since they do not have vouc o r Xoyoc. it should be noted in passing. neither of which expressions makes it essential that all animals should be 0^. but makes a distinction between \O6TY\C as a principle in nature. Cong. the determining factor in all virtue. All of this. speaks of TO $\JO£\ SIKCUOV. and SiKaioouvK)." he goes on to say.T H E HIGHER LAW 186 6 7 nances. For us here it is not so important that Philo contradicts himself about the animals as that he has definitely m a d e the distinction between Natural L a w and the virtue of following that Law.. 1 7 . the first square number. the four seasons. And so it is necessary that reason should be distributed to men and likewise to those animals mentioned. 16." p. in cities by democracy.. 1 1 3 ff. Opif. In general it is only another term for the same concep­ tion when Philo. and leopards can be domesticated as a result of their sense of gratitude to their keepers.. and illustrates by the equal divisions of day and night. and so he who is guided by \O6TV\C in money affairs is led into SiKaioouvy].. 140. .. Legat. 108. hares. n. 1 3 7 .

the very L a w and regularity of the divine N a t u r e . and a proof of His sure strength is that whatever H e says comes to pass. LA. 203 f. for there is nothing higher. p.produce in parallel to Philo's statement. 273. 149. but it seems obvious that he was w o r k i n g from Hierocles' sources. 147 Since A b r a h a m had faith in G o d ." Philo can hardy be w o r k i n g from Hierocles. 148 If one puts these passages together it appears that P h i l o is hinting that in g i v i n g A b r a h a m H i s oath H e g a v e h i m N a t u r a l or D i v i n e L a w . Some have said that it was inappropriate for H i m to swear. \OOTV\C. ii. so that they are indistinguishable from o a t h s ? 146 G o d swears not by something else. A n d what else are laws and ordinances but sacred ^oyoi of nature. 147." Moreover the very words of God are oaths and laws of G o d and most sacred ordinances. It is in this sense that only G o d and the friend of G o d is TTIOTOC. guaranteeing by an oath w h a t H e h a d promised to h i m . Spec. belongs precisely to 146. as a Platonist deeply interested in Pythagorean material. W h e r e did Philo get such a notion of the divine oath as L a w ? says 149 Heinemann that Hierocles the Platonist is the first to mention the oath as a k i n to N a t u r a l L a w . Abr. Philos Wer\e. speaking no longer as G o d to a man. even as Moses is said to have been "faithful in all his house. Sac. LIGHT a real meaning w h e n he did distinguish between SiKaioouv/j and its mother or source. 148. S o m e of the more striking passages must be quoted: Justice and every virtue is ancestral law and ancient ordinance.68 BY LIGHT. 1 3 . A s a matter of fact there is nothing else w h i c h H e i n e m a n n . . or the meta­ physical L a w . for only they h a v e the fixity of the divine nature that expresses itself in the universal L a w . iii. Hierocles. n. and only God and one who is God's friend is faithful.. A s A b r a ­ h a m lives by faith in the Xoyoc or Aoyoi of G o d he is l i v i n g in that faith that is the TTIOTIC of G o d . it is true. 1 1 1 . for an oath is added to assist faith (mctecog evexa). Cf. It would seem to be a corollary from this that all God's words are oaths receiving confirmation by accomplishment in a c t . 84. ii. G o d responded by g i v i n g rrioric back in return to him. F o r H i s speech is an o a t h . and "hence P h i l o can hardly be w o r k i n g here from G r e e k sources. and this is especially characteristic of an oath. having their fixity and stead­ fastness in themselves. T h e r e is little likeli­ hood that Hierocles w o u l d himself have invented so important a conception. 91 ff. 2. can . but as a friend to a confidant.. or so far as I k n o w any one else. G o d has met A b r a h a m ' s nioriq by g i v i n g h i m the supreme m o r i c . is by describing that L a w as the Oath of G o d . Decal. but by H i m ­ self. Another of Philo's approaches to the cosmic L a w of G o d .

Opif. 153. 158. iv. ii. and even to require masters to nourish. Similarly rulership is by Nature's L a w properly concen­ trated in a single source. 2 3 3 . and the Epistle to the Hebrews alone in ancient literature have this peculiar conception of the n i o T i c TOU 0eiou o p K o u . Virt. H i s 151 152 158 154 155 156 157 158 159 150. 1 3 . they. 5 1 . 19. Memorabilia. Considerable light is thrown on Philo's conception of the character of Natural L a w by the casual references he makes to it for specific applications. This inference from divine rulership is variously applied. F r o m this it follows that it is a L a w of N a t u r e that the maker must have a care for his own creation. So to break the law of God is to transgress the m o T i c TOU Oslou opKou.T H E HIGHER LAW 69 that school from which Philo drew most heavily.. Fragments. .. ' 1 5 1 . which follows the Greek notion as expressed by Socrates.. Rom. but also to m e n to prevent the exposing of children by their par­ e n t s . VIII. Philo says that it was appealed to by the Roman friends of Gaius to justify his murdering his relatives in order to make himself unchallenged in his sole rulership. 42. Hierocles' dis­ cussion is interesting in full. n o . Plant. I. 159. Commentarius in Aureum Carmen. It is a L a w of N a t u r e that the thing made comes after the maker (a reference to the priority of the Creator as determining the whole succession of cause and effect in n a t u r e ) . 1 5 5 . Legat. at least to the extent of giving them the necessities of existence. 156. Whatever the material behind Philo and Hierocles. p. after Law. Harris. Xenoph. II. and a glance at Hierocles' statements makes some interrelation seem to m e irrefutable. it should be re­ called that Philo represents the giving to Abraham of the Oath of Promise as a gift of divine L a w itself. For to see to it that all things endure. Graec. 421 ff.. all servants born in the house... and it preserves the order of the Law (toxi vofxou rfyv xdl~iv) so that the perfection of the Law of creation is the undeviating quality of the beautiful order in created things. 154. we would define as the cause which preserves all things in their own state and keeps them so fixed as if they were bound by the faith of an oath (ev OQXOU J t i a t e i ) .. as though dispensed by Law. a L a w which is applied not only to G o d .. an application which Philo by no means approves. 68. A frag­ ment of Philo reads: yovlac f l u a ' OOTOC yap vojjoc Oeloc T S Kal ^UOIKOC. which is especially and eternally respected among those people who always think in terms of God.. Ant.. 2. 157. 1 3 2 . Spec. 1 3 2 . would be the principal work of the divine Oath. IV. As a background for Hebrews. and Dionysius Halicarnassus. Praem. but I can quote only excerpts: 150 Law we have already described as the eternally unchanging activity (Ivigysia) of God. I quote from the edition in Mullach's Fragmenta Philos. Oath. T h e powers of the various numbers are determined by Natural L a w . 1 5 2 .

he formulates the Natural L a w that justice is a matter of uniting equals with equals. but discussion of that point must be postponed to another study. 23. 173. 32. Praem.. incest and pederasty. Athos. 37 ff. QG. like with l i k e . to the hu­ m a n constitution by showing that the rulership of the mind over the rest of the h u m a n constitution is established by Natural L a w . 164.. an inference from the fact that v/hile all other animals were created simul­ taneously male and female. Spec. VIII. . It would appear that Philo was drawing upon this passage were it not that he has obviously got his reference to the canals near Mt. Arist. iv. 1 3 2 .. 735 ff. Rhet. See the Appendix. 1 1 7 ff. and inter­ course for begetting children is a L a w of N a t u r e . ii. 165. H e does apply it. In these he seems to imply that it is a Natural L a w that anarchy must inevitably destroy any kind of order. Athos from the same source as his protest against the bridge.. A still further extension leads h i m to say that by a L a w of Nature foolish people are subjected to the wise. however.. 3 1 . i. Ebr.7 o B Y LIGHT. 141 ff. 1373b 14 169. Animal. Murder is against Natural L a w . I. T h e Laws of Nature seem especially specific in regard to man's sexual life. Philo calls violations of Natural Law. education brings safety.. iii. while many who are slaves by civil law are not so by Natural L a w . Eve was created after Adam. Concupiscence is given m a n by this L a w to preserve his b o d y . iv.. Themis. 30. 172. LIGHT own theory of rulership accepts the principle. 218. 204 points out that this is rabbinic. and hence he can say too that it is a Natural L a w that ignorance brings destruction. 166. ap. intercourse during menstruation. iv. QG. or with a barren woman. Agr. as well as what we still call "unnatural" vice. See the Appendix. Like traditional Greek formulation of Natural Law.. Similarly it is a violation of the Laws of N a t u r e to get more than one crop a year from the soil.. 1 3 . Many of these ap160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 160. But adultery. Heinemann in his note to Spec. for in doing so he h a d broken down the natural boundaries of sea and l a n d . 1 7 1 . 5 3 . QG. Spec.. Xerxes failed in his attack because he had aroused divine wrath by bridging the Hellespont and by building a ship canal across the isthmus of Mt. ii. while his body is affected by the changes of seasons according to Natural L a w . Fragments. 19. Hirzel. as in the breeding of mules.. Ib. The Greeks had the same feeling about canals as Philo expresses: see Herodotus. Empedocles. I. 74. The same notion about the bridge over the Hellespont is expressed in almost identical words in Aeschylus' Persians. ii. 46.. 19. M a n is also subject to a L a w of necessity which requires h i m as a soul to leave his fatherland for the mortal b o d y .. Prob. 163. the status quo of nature is to Philo guarded by Law. Praeparatio Evangelica. 1 6 1 . 37. Spec. 49. Eusebius. 162. 46 ff. u x v w v a i x d ftu-ixxa ov% oaiov. 174. Som. 108. p. xiv. while against the crossing of different types of animals. 27. 2 2 1 . p. Fragment ap. Fragment 14 in Harris. QE. 2 1 2 . Also a m a n w h o marries a woman older than himself breaks the L a w of N a t u r e . Animal. 168. iv. cf. Di\e und Verwandtes.QG. 48. 170. Cf. 47 ff. 167. iv. iii. Decal. 204.

But natu­ ral science and L a w are still the great avenues which lead m a n to the place where creation and creative activity. IV. 177. Accordingly the chief approach of m a n to G o d is through H i s radiant vopoc Tyjc Qvozuc. Decal. and in TO ov which towers in brooding mystery even beyond the Logos. Spec. LA. 167. ap. or by having done deeds of rryjpcjoic. Tpaujja. or any thing else reprehensible in the sight of oocjna or vopoi. 175. God Himself is higher than even the differentiation of H i s radiation which m e n call L a w . 174 175 178 177 178 179 174. 202 ff. It is a creation of God or an expression of H i s N a t u r e or will. V. IV. 2. cf. else the law of the gods brings the natural penalty of misbegotten children.1 1 . the one which tests impiety toward God and the other which has regard to misanthropy among one's fellow m e n . or of oo$ol Kal VOJJI|JOI avSpec.. It was according to divine law to worship the gods in Xenoph. Memora­ bilia. 178. For a fuller discussion of the Temple and Priest see Chapter IV.. in nature. I n the same realm Philo says that it is a Natural L a w that one w h o curses a good m a n becomes himself ac­ cursed. These applications of Natural L a w are by no means complete. Xenophon. 19 ff. So the L a w of N a t u r e is a conception which appears in every aspect of Philo's thinking. iii.T H E HIGHER L A W 7i plications of the L a w of N a t u r e to sex are Jewish. i. by sharing in the spirit of rapine. i n . and guides the conduct of men. It is 8doc v6|joc to honor virtue for its o w n sake. 219.. In one passage he gives a more comprehen­ sive discussion. laws and L a w . and only two. iv. 176. Pomponius. but show the varied use Philo made of it. QG. he w h o blesses a good m a n is himself blessed. I. But as the expression of God's rulership it is the governing force in all nature. iv. while it is conveniently and on occasion spoken of as a principle inde­ pendent of God to account for evil. but Philo is building upon a Greek foundation as expressed by Socrates that begetting of children must not be done between people closely related.. 179. I. and so must be in harmony with the Laws of Nature. into all goodness. T h e H i g h Priest. u(3pic. As such his m i n d must be filled with piety by constant preoccupa­ tion with good a n d useful thoughts and his life filled with good works. is an incarnate representation of the Logos. Memorabilia. Digest. are alike subsumed in the Logos. So his hands must never have worked aSuaa by accepting bribes. as a whole and by specific application. 9 . i. (3[a. . or of improper age. by being spotted with innocent blood. For h u m a n beings there are two great tribunals. but only what is honored by t h e m . W h e n the mystic has achieved the full experience he will have transcended God's legal activity as he does God's Creative Power. Cyrop. 19. by the Mystery of Aaron. iv.

iv. T h e Jewish T o r a h was regarded essentially as God's revelation of Himself to Israel. the emphasis laid upon it. as the guide to mystic salvation. Schechter. 102 ff. Philon von Alexandreia als sozialen Denver. Opinion at the time was divided among Jews as to whether that T o r a h was essentially limited to the 2 1. and by orienting Jewish L a w with Natural L a w as the L a w of God. pp. N o more patent fact springs out of the pages of Philo than his loyalty to Judaism. and in Philo's thinking in general. Franz Geiger. Abrahams. By magnifying Law. in degree if not in kind. but the legal terminology and its implications are those of Greek thinkers. 2. Yet in Philo's writings there is a stress laid upon L a w as the approach to salvation that goes beyond these writers. W h e n one turns to Philo's notion of Jewish L a w it is clear that Jewish apologetic fervor has been the inspiration of this intensified stress upon L a w in general. Moore. to give only the more familiar examples. T h e Jews had much of the best Greek thought with them in seek­ ing salvation in Law. Israel's treasured "Teaching" on sacred subjects. the L a w of Nature. I have in mind the familiar writings of Herford. loyal to the race as a whole. etc. nothing was found that was not familiarly Greek in its foundation. by implication. and. thought that the best way of educat­ ing a people in the higher life a n d leading them into adequate achievement of their possibilities was in providing them with a legal system which would best train them in SiKaioouv/] by being true L a w Kcrra SIK/JV. 1 7 9 . Spec. and Solon. the Jewish L a w . T h e Stoic ideal of living according to nature was real­ ized in the fulfilling of the L a w of Nature. espe­ cially of the schools of Plato and Pythagoras. However the prominent position given to L a w in the Stream. a n d his treatment of the L a w is so Jewish that his writings are frequently only intelligible w h e n the Jewish attitude toward the T o r a h is kept in m i n d along with the Greek conception of vopoc.1 8 1 .CHAPTER III THE TORAH I N the discussion of Philo's view of the Higher L a w of God. T h e Stream in which that L a w finds its place is of composite origin. Plato. are the result of the Jewish attempt to represent L a w . the Jew could present his religion as the solution of the Greek problem. Aristotle. . but most of all loyal to the Jewish Law. or of the mystic search of the Hellenistic A g e . 1 So much has recently appeared to explain the Jewish view of the T o r a h in Philo's day that n o w only a word is needed on the subject. H e was loyal to the Jewish group in Alexandria. with details found in Aristode which Aristotle may well have taken from those schools. Montefiore.

iii. for the T o r a h as a whole was thought to be beyond formulation. 10. T h e Septuagint translation of the word T o r a h by the Greek word VOJJOC was peculiarly unfortunate. Det. 7. of Creation. Such a God had in H i s great mercy revealed to the Jews H i s will for h u m a n conduct. 159. 77. Obedience to the com­ mands carried value only as it sprang from a love for the whole revelation and the God thus revealed. 3 Much as Philo departed from the ordinary lines of traditional Jewish Midrash. Mig. 6. had a wife is " l a w " . as the revelation of the truth that is his constant concern in all but his occasional political writings. he was a writer of Jewish H a g g a d a or Midrash. 1 3 2 . of Balaam's cursing. of the Flood.. called the great patriarchs to found the Jewish race.. 2 3 . 159. watched over the race in Egypt. F o r the T o r a h included also the revelation of God as the God of Israel. as Herford has well pointed out. a eunuch. 155. One could obey the laws. painstakingly fashioned m a n . and from a desire to please H i m by accepting and fulfilling the entire Torah. the stories of Rebecca at the well. Opif.. VOJJOC. 169. which itself was God's revelation of H i s existence and character. Ib. But in either case it was agreed that Judaism rested upon the Torah. 4. expounding always the T o r a h of God. Mig.. for it has led later generations to believe that the Jewish L a w was primarily a code of commands and prohibitions.. 3a. T h e specific laws were specific. T h a t the Jewish VOJJOC meant to h i m the divine revelation of truth is easily demonstrated. 54. 12. Det. H e of course refers to the specific laws as vojioi throughout his writings. Immut. in trying to use all his gifts and faculties to understand the depth and height of the treasures of Jewish revelation. Understanding and interpretation might and did vary. of Abraham's migration. rather than from being that Torah themselves. It is Torah. of the appointment of Aaron as Moses' spokesman. p. 1 1 . and led them out miraculously to give them the Promised Land. of Phinehas' thrust3a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 3. Conf. LA. The Pharisees. or as Y\ vo[\oBzoia. Conf. and try to understand. of the tower of Babel. w h o had created the world. T h e fact that Potiphar. 236. 99. but the specific laws had their author­ ity from being a part of the greater Torah which included them. . 5.. but not as an end in themselves. and to be specifically followed. 8.. Post. or as he calls it. 5. or included the sort of legalistic and doctrinal tradition that later developed into Talmudic Judaism. though it included a code. and only by doing both was one living according to the Torah. T h e T o r a h to which the C X I X Psalm was dedicated was a long way from being merely a book of laws. 9.. and of H i s will for m a n . 1 3 . of the curse of Cain.. 1 7 7 . and divine visitation. but constantly quotes non-legalistic parts of the Pentateuch as 6 VOJJOC or oi VOJJOI..T H E TORAH 73 Scriptures. of the activities of the Amorites.

he does not mean that the Patriarchs are bundles of commands which were written down by Moses.74 BY LIGHT. At the close of the same series of writings. postponing consideration of the particular laws until w e have discussed the more general laws. LIGHT 14 ing his spear through the womb of the Midianitish w o m a n . even those parts of the sacred books are L a w which are attacked as fables by unsympathetic Greeks. w h o is greater than the Good. Post. Decal.. the Patriarchs. T h a t is. 1 2 1 .. instructing m e n "to worship Being. T h e transition from the H e b r e w to the Greek sense is not al­ ways superficially apparent. and more primal than the M o n a d . the story of creation. Flac. T h e r e is no thought of deducing the specific commands from the incidents of the lives of the Patriarchs. It is in this general sense that the L a w is a teacher. 37: xoapioitoua f| xcbv v6u. 21. as VOJJOI aypa<j>oi from w h o m the written laws are derived. 1 . Such a use of VOJJOC. It is the L a w in the larger sense which they brought to men. 40. as he introduces the last book (the De Praemiis et Poenis). 19. T h e first of these subjects was the creation of the world. 20. . it is a purely technical term used by Jews to indicate the Hebrew conception of Torah. the historical part. he explains that the first book of the sacred laws is Genesis. the word 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 14.. It is from the L a w that Philo has learned that the happy m a n is the m a n w h o uses sound judgment for good ends.. F r o m the L a w the haughtiest tyrant could learn humility in learning that men all have a common origin and nature. he says that the Xoyia delivered by Moses are in three parts. A t the beginning of the De Abrahamo.uxoi. See also Mos. In a word. a n d h a d been so treated in the De Opificio. a n d sketches a few of the variety of subjects he finds therein discussed. 2L 16. and that the Pentateuch only set forth in writing what was more perfectly revealed in their characters. and the legislative. Cont. 1 8 . is mean­ ingless in Greek. 2. b u t itself the begin­ ning of the Jewish L a w . all these are Law. 183. and since this has now been canvassed in the preceding treatise we can go on to discuss the laws. Occasionally Philo feels the Greek meaning of his term in referring to the Pentateuch. when he is writing a transitional paragraph from the De Opificio to the subject be­ fore him. ii. " By having taught the Jew h u m a n sympathy (avGpcjrronaGeiv) it teaches h i m not to seek the punishment of his enemies... Ib.. Post. but that they were an unwritten repre­ sentation of God's revealed nature and will. 17. more simple than the One. 80. W h e n Philo speaks of the Patriarchs as VOJJOI £(j\J. and the part dealing with the patriarchs is the historical part. 1 5 . one could infer that the story of creation was not a part of the Jewish law unless one looked back and saw that the creation story was not an introduction to. H e r e the legislative is restricted still further to the Decalogue and the particular laws.. says Philo.cov £axlv aQ%r\. Conf.



Aoyia has taken the place of vopoi for the whole. T h a t is the Greek sense of VOJJOC has for the time quite driven out the Jewish sense. I n one passage of the Allegory he betrays a consciousness of this double meaning, for while he refers to the whole Pentateuch (here specifically Gen., vi, 7) as L a w and the product of the lawgiver, he explains that the parts of the L a w con­ cerned with injunction and prohibition (01 £v Talc; npooTac;£oi Kal anayopcuoeoi v6|joi) are the laws in the proper sense of the term (KUPIGJC dol VOJJOI), that is in the proper sense of the Greek word as distinguished from the peculiar Jewish usage. So far as I know this is the only passage where Philo betrays his sense of the inaccuracy of the Jewish usage; in general he refers to the entire Pentateuch as vojjoOsoia, or VOJJOC, as an established ter­ minus technicus. But the reader must always bear in mind that the word in such a connection means Torah and not the Greek VOJJOC, or our word law. W h e n one takes u p the problem of Philo's attitude toward the Jewish VOJJOC, then, one is faced by the fact that Philo himself thought of that VOJJOC in two senses, as the VOJJOC in general, the Jewish Torah, and as a body of specific commands. H i s attitude toward the one need not, and, it will be found, does not fix his attitude toward the other. It is almost as obvious that only the Pentateuch is Torah to Philo as that the Pentateuch as a whole is such. I n the first place it is striking that in the course of the entire Exposition there is not a single reference to any Jewish writer or document but Moses and the books ascribed to h i m . T h e Judaism Philo was presenting to Gentiles did not bring in the histories, the poetry, or the prophecy of Judaism. W h e n writing for Jews in the Allegory, in the Quaestiones, and in the De Exsecrationibus he could occasionally quote these other writings, though on the whole surprisingly little, but they were no part of the T o r a h Philo gave his prospective converts. H i s forms of quoting books of the Bible outside the Pentateuch, where he refers to them in his writings for Jews, are worth noting. O n the whole the commonest introduction is simply by the title of the book quoted, as he might quote from H o m e r . A quotation from Judges is introduced by 4>v]o[, with no explanation of the force of the word on the context. Sometimes a quotation appears simply as representing the opinions of the " m e n of old."
22 23 24 25 26 27

22. Immut., 5 1 - 5 3 . 23. Leisegang (Philos Wer\e) and Colson and Whitaker have both missed the point in their notes ad loc. 24. In a single passage, Virt., 62, Philo's words reflect the "Wisdom" language of Proverbs, viii, 22 ff., a passage quoted in Ebr., 3 1 . But nothing is given to suggest to the reader whence the thought came. 25. Job thus quoted in Mut., 48; Psalms in Mut., 1 1 5 ; Mig., 1 5 7 ; Immut., 74; Gig., 1 7 ; Conf., 5 2 ; Som., i, 7 5 ; ii, 242, 246; Fug., 59; Proverbs in Ebr., 84; QG, iv, 129. 26. Conf., 130. Cf. the quotation from I Samuel in Mut., 1 4 3 . 27. I Sam. so referred to in Mig., 38; I Kings in Immut., 1 3 6 - 1 3 9 . In §136 the passage from I Kings is called an "imitation" of a conception in Leviticus.




But frequently there is a phrase which shows that Philo thought the book he was quoting was inspired. H e says that h e is a n admirer of the oracular utterances of the books of K i n g s . H e says it would be well to believe that "the Lord is m y shepherd," for the author of the twenty-third Psalm was not a n ordinary man, but a prophet. H e quotes as witness for an argument 6 6con£oioc 6\vv\p w h o wrote the ninety-third Psalm. Again as witness h e quotes Is. v, 5, 7, saying that it was spoken under inspiration (emGacioac) by one of the ancient prophets. These passages would lead one to conclude that Philo regarded the rest of the Old Testament as inspired, but not as Torah. T h e basis of Philo's dis­ tinction would seem to be that in the Mystery, as we shall see, one could become inspired (Philo felt himself inspired at t i m e s ) , and that certain great men of past generations had achieved that experience, b u t none in such a way as to p u t their writings on a level with the writings of Moses himself. Of Jeremiah he says, for example, in introducing a quotation, that h e was not only an initiate but a hierophant in the Mystery, to such an extent that in his inspiration he could utter an oracle IK npoaCJTTOU TOU 6 SOU. T h e r e is a definite mystic circle, a Oiacoc, which was also the prophetic circle. Jere­ miah again is TOU TTPO^/JTIKOU Giaocrryjc x°pcu. Zechariah and the author of the sixty-fourth Psalm were each TIC TGJV £TCUPGJV MGJUO£GJC; the author
28 29 80 31 32 33 84 35



or TIC TGJV £K TOU Geiou

Xopou. T h e author of the thirty-sixth Psalm was also a member of Moses' Giaooc, who was entirely absorbed in the divine possession. T h e author of the thirtieth Psalm, because h e felt his weakness in sophistic argument,
prayed God to silence his opponents: h e was TIC TGJV MGJUOCGJC YVGJPIUGJV.

T h e inspiration of these m e n was certainly not to be classed with that of Moses, nor were their books, valuable as they were, T o r a h or Nomos. Occa­ sionally words are taken from the histories or prophecies and quoted as "an oracle" of G o d , b u t it will be noticed that i n each case such words are represented in their context as spoken by God in the first person, and Philo explains in one passage that God spoke the words through the prophet as a n oracle. H e is thus implying not that the book quoted is an "oracle" as a whole, but only these divine utterances. I n only a single instance, so far as I can discover, is a quotation introduced from a book outside the Pentateuch as "scripture": Samuel is quoted as 6 Upoc Aoyoc. However this unique
39 40 41

28. 29. 30. 32. 33. 35. 37. 39. 40.

Conf., 149: avo:u,ai x a i tcov ev paaiAixalg $i$\oiq iegocpavxTyfreVccov. Agr., 50. The eighty-third Psalm was written by Tig JtQoqpTycixoc; 6\vr\Q, Heres, 290. Plant., 29. 3 1 . Som., ii, 1 7 2 . Cf. Exs., 1 5 8 . Spec., iii, 1 ff.; Mig., 34 f.; Cher., 27. Cher., 49, 5 1 . 34. Conf., 44. Ib., 62; Som., ii, 245. 36. Cong., 1 7 7 . Ebr., 3 1 . 38. Conf., 39. Plant., 138; Mut., 139, 169; Conf., 166. Fug., 197. 4 1 . Ebr., 143.



departure from his custom is to be explained, another passage makes abun­ dantly clear that Samuel was not regarded as on a level with the Pentateuch, for he quotes the same chapter of the same book in another place as simply from "the first book of Kings," a n d says that the passage agrees with TO U p u T c t T o v MOJUO£OJC ypa\x\xa. - T h e reader could not have missed the con­ trast in his feeling about the two writings. O n e other passage likewise is at variance with Philo's usual attitude. In QG, iv, 147, Philo says that there is attributed to God (he means, obviously, attributed by Scripture) three senses in their higher form, sight, hearing and smell. T o justify his statement he quotes Genesis on the senses of sight and smell, but Psalms lxviii, 34 (lxix, 3 3 ) , for the sense of hearing, as though the Psalms were on that plane of equality with the Pentateuch that elsewhere he so consistently denies. O n e might devise ingenious explanations for this departure, but whatever the explanation, the fact remains that it is a single instance of departure, and cannot seriously alter the impression of his remarks when taken as a whole. O n the whole, then, it would appear that what inspiration the later writers had was in Philo's opinion an inspiration quite inferior to that of Moses, if their contact with God was not in some sense mediated by their membership in Moses' Giaooc. Traditional Judaism for Philo was Moses-centered in a way that is in striking contrast with the Apologetic and Christian literature of his day. H e has not excluded the Messianic hope from his belief. Rather there are good reasons for believing that his expectations in that direction were active and eager. But his writings are conspicuous for their omission of prophetic words and of the prophetic point of view. This is quite intelli­ gible in writings directed to Gentiles, but more striking that it should be so largely absent from the writings for Jews. Philo's Judaism was the Judaism of the Torah, and for h i m the T o r a h was the Pentateuch. Philo's attitude to the Scriptures seems just as much in contrast with the Jewish tradition in Palestine which we k n o w as with early Christian writ­ ings. It has frequently been pointed out that early rabbinical tradition made Moses and his inspiration unique as compared with the other inspired writ­ ings. H e is said to have uttered every inspired prophetic writing as well as his own, and Philo's representing the inspiration of the other sacred writers as in a sense derived from Moses may be an echo of some Palestinian tradition we do not know. Philo, like what was apparently Palestinian tradition of the time, also divided the sacred Scriptures into L a w , the Prophets, and the H y m n s and other Writings, and viewed these all as inspired. But he sharply departs from the Jewish tradition preserved to us in the way he
41a 42 43

41a. Immut., 6. 42. This point must be elaborated on another occasion. 43. Cont., 25. Cf. the Prologue to Sirach, vojiog x a l JtQoqynral x a l x d akXa x d x a x ' avxov q fpto^oufhixoTa.




reserves the word vopoc, Torah, for the Pentateuch exclusively. P a u l can quote Isaiah, the Fourth Gospel can quote the Psalms, as VOJJOC, and his­ torians of rabbinical tradition agree that the word Torah was applied to the whole body of writings accepted as inspired, on the ground, apparently, that they were all revealed teaching about G o d . But this Philo does not do. H e seems to have a sharper sense of the secondary character of the other writ­ ings than did rabbinical tradition, so much so that when the writer of De fona (44) quotes the Psalms as VOJJOC, the fact is only another indication that Philo could not have written it. Rabbis would frequendy quote for proof a verse from each of the three divisions. Philo never. This extreme concentration on the Pentateuch is accentuated by the ab­ sence of any sense of a verbal tradition that could be appealed to alongside the written L a w . Heinemann has examined the question carefully, and has concluded that Philo's references to the "unwritten L a w " cannot be taken in any case as a reference to the "oral tradition" of Pharisaic Judaism. T h e most cursory examination of Philo will bear h i m out. Heinemann has found some traces of the content of tradition, especially in the Hypothetica, the laws of temple cultus, and of oath, but these seem taken, he establishes, from sources which had used the tradition rather than from the tradition direcdy. O n point after point the tradition would have helped Philo out of awkward situations had he k n o w n it. T h e amazing thing is, as H e i n e m a n n well demonstrates, that for Philo Judaism had no history or development or fundamentally important literature between Moses and his own time, a matter that is the more astonishing in that Philo is liberal in references to the history and literature of other peoples, especially of the Greeks. Heinemann's handling of the matter is so convincing that one need only say that it is demonstrated that Philo knows nothing of Jewish oral tradition, cer­ tainly nothing of it as Torah, an inspired parallel to the Pentateuch.
45 46 47 48 49

W h e n one visualizes this surprising reactionary attitude which saw the authority for Judaism only in the Pentateuch, however it might be inter­ preted, and which functioned in complete independence of the Pharisaicrabbinical tradition, one is struck by the possibility that Philo's attitude was influenced by the Sadducees. It is interesting to compare what little else we know of the Sadducees with Philo's positions. T h e points where H e i n e m a n n finds him in agreement with Palestinian tradition, the actual usages of the temple cultus, the strict conception of the oath, the dating and nature of certain offerings, the use of God's name in the temple, the regulation of the
44. I Cor. xiv, 2 i . 45. John x, 34. 46. E.g., G. F. Moore, Judaism, I, 248, 263. Strack in Realencyclopddie filr Protest. Theologie u. Kirche, IX (3d ed.), 767, 11. 35 ff.; Weber, Jiidische Theologie, 81. 47. Moore, op. cit., I, 239; Heinemann, Bildung, 528. 48. In Hebrew Union College Annual, IV, 149 ff.; Bildung, pp. 10, 476, 528, 540. 49. Heinemann, Bildung, 526 f.



temple ordeal for a w o m a n accused of adultery, are all matters that were largely the concern of the Sadducean group as high-priests. W e k n o w that the appeal of the Sadducees was primarily to m e n like Philo, that is to the wealthy a n d to m e n of great social distinction. Philo certainly belonged in that category. H e i n e m a n n has pointed out that in the strictness of his penal c o d e and in his treatment of the T a l o n he is distinctively reminiscent of Sadducean legal practice. W e k n o w further that the Sadducees denied the Pharisaic doctrine of predestination ("fate" as Josephus calls it) which Paul brought over into Christianity. It is at least, then, in harmony with the Sadducees that Philo consistently, in its Stoic form, repudiates determinism, to m a k e m a n a free moral agent. Eaton has interpreted Josephus as representing that the Sad­ ducees repudiated "divine providence." But this is quite another matter, as Philo himself shows by keeping the doctrine of providence while he rejects determinism. T h e Sadducees denied the resurrection of the body, an idea which also does not appear in Philo. H e does not go so far as they in saying that souls perish with their bodies, but his Greek notion of immortality, and all his ethical teaching, are quite without a sanction of rewards and punishments at a divine tribunal after death. T h e present life with its heavenly possibilities is Philo's great concern: virtue a n d mystic endeavor alike have their goal in a eudaemonism whose continuance into the next life is relatively incidental. T h e Sadducees rejected the angelology of the Phari­ sees. Just what the angelology of the Pharisees was we do not k n o w with any certainty, but it seems likely that it expressed itself in that type of angelic mythology found in Jewish writings of the period a n d in early rabbinical writings, where the angels h a d become such fixed personalities as, in many cases, to have names and distinct functions. Philo knows nothing of such an angelology; his angels are only Suva|j£ic of God, and not of a sort remotely to provoke or admit individual mythological elaboration. H e could not pos­ sibly have made room for a literal Gabriel or Michael in his thinking, and
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

50. Josephus, Ant., XIII, 298; XVIII, 1 7 . See Finkelstein, "The Pharsees" in Harvard Theo­ logical Rev., XXII (1929), p. 189, n. 6. I do not feel that Jerome's remarks about Philo in Vir. lllust., XI, are necessarily authentic. His story of Philo's trip to Rome under Claudius is marred by an account of his meeting Peter there and praising the work of Mark in Alexandria. But Jerome has the trip to Gaius right, and it may be that the other trip also occurred, and that the only addition to fact is the story of Philo's relations with Christian leaders. Jerome's statement that Philo was de genere sacerdotum is accordingly not to be taken too finally. Yet considering everything it seems very likely correct. If it is true, Philo's Sadducean tendencies would be fully explained at once. 5 1 . Heinemann, Bildung, 210, 229. 52. Ib., 379. 53. Josephus, B], II, 164; Ant., XIII, 1 7 3 . 54. Acts xxiii, 8. 55. Ant., XVIII, 1 6 ; BJ, II, 165. 56. Acts xxiii, 8. The passage is very unsatisfactory evidence and stands alone, but is univer­ sally so interpreted. See e.g., Finkelstein, op. cit., 235-240. 57. See G. F. Moore's Judaism, I, 401 ff.



allegorized away all resemblance of the Cherubim to that Palestinian tradi­ tion which seems to have been accepted and developed by the Pharisees. These are all the points we k n o w definitely about the Sadducees. Our evi­ dence for them is so slight that it is impossible to prove that Philo was in any sense influenced by them. But it is at least striking that Philo agrees with every one of the positions they are k n o w n to have taken, while if he was possibly not of priestly family he was at least of the same general social class to which they made their appeal. It is, of course, impossible to turn the argument and read any of Philo's positions back into the Sadducees, for he was obviously influenced by many other currents. W h a t their attitude was toward Greek civilization, for example, we do not know, though we suspect it was more liberal than that of the Pharisees. But whatever else was in Philo, his general approach to Judaism seems to have been colored by the Sadducees, and indeed he seems as close to them as Paul to the Pharisees. In no point is the resemblance more striking than in the fact that his devo­ tion to Judaism limits itself to an intense loyalty to the Pentateuch as Torah, to the temple, and to the nation, but to nothing else, whether later literature or oral tradition. T h e Pentateuch as T o r a h then teaches Philo his Judaism. It is very inter­ esting to note that Philo's Judaism, in contrast to Palestinian Judaism, was specific in doctrine as well as in prescription for conduct. T h e T o r a h "taught" the Palestinian Jew that God had created the world and man, and was par­ ticularly close in H i s relation with the Jews.- N o t h i n g else, except that the T o r a h was God's revelation, was it required that a Jew believe, and this was rather assumed than presented as formal articulus fidei. But Philo lived in an environment where a man's beliefs could not so readily be assumed, and so he had to formulate Jewish positions for proselytes w h o would have come from almost any Hellenistic circle. T h e T o r a h as he conceived it taught Greek philosophy, to be sure, but in spite of Philo's eclecticism, it taught, and could be allowed to teach, only certain doctrines of Greek philosophy. T h a t ultimate reality was a material $uoic of any sort, for example, could not for a moment be allowed. Orthodoxy, a notion of appalling history, first came into the Jewish thought world in Philo's environment. Philo revered the T o r a h on the ground that it was a revelation of the existence and nature of God, and of God's higher L a w of Nature. In spite of his endless concern with details of the letter, he studied the L a w for what he could make of it as a whole, rather than for its literal content. H e could logically have had this attitude to the whole without retaining respect for the letter as such. W h a t did Philo think of the specific laws as obligations? T h e giving of the specific laws was, he thought, an act of great mercy on the part of God and showed profound understanding of h u m a n needs on the part of Moses. It was not enough to lead the Israelites out of the bondage



to flesh which Egypt represented. Of course the m e n w h o are to receive sacred laws must first be cleansed just as physicians must first check a patient's disease before they can by food build u p his strength. T h e medi­ cine may keep the disease from killing the m a n , b u t a state of health is dependent m u c h more upon the building power of proper nourishment. So Moses led the people out where they would be free from taint and be im­ pressed with the fact that the laws he was to give them were "the clearest oracles of G o d . " T h e n he gave them divine v6\ioi Kal Aoyoi as their food by means of which they might not only live but live well. Philo loved the individual laws because they were full of gentleness a n d humanity, and taught m e n to be so. I n the De Specialibus Legibus, as he takes u p each law to explain it to the Gentile beginners, his enthusiasm never wanes. It was not only in composing the T o r a h as a whole, but in drawing u p each law that Moses wrote with his eyes upon the noArrcia T/jc [izyaXonoXz^c Philo was not content with thus praising the individual laws. H e was very careful to obey them. I n his great address to the Gentiles on the subject of the Legation to Rome Philo explained:
58 59 60 61 62 63

All men are guardians of their own customs; but this is true of the Jewish race in a peculiar sense. For the Jews regard their laws as God-given oracles, they are trained in them as a discipline from early age, and they have the commandments impressed like images in their souls. Accordingly, as their minds are constandy confronted with a clear vision of their shapes and forms, they never cease admir­ ing them.

T h e keeping of the L a w is here an essentially valuable thing ex opere operate*. T h e same appears m u c h more clearly in the two little companion writings, the De Benedictionibus and the De Exsecrationibus, writings which, I have elsewhere argued, are no part of the Exposition (Cohn printed them as parts of De Praemiis et Poenis), but are addresses, or together constitute an address in two parts, to Jews, possibly to Jewish farm­ ers. H e r e Philo talks as a revived Deuteronomist. In the De Benedictionibus his theme is that the EVTOAGCI Kal n p o c T O Y M a T a of the L a w should be in the Jew's mouth, heart, and hands. T h e blessings of the Messianic Age, which he n o w describes, are the reward of "those w h o obey God, a n d w h o always and everywhere observe H i s commandments and w h o harmonize the commandments with each part of their lives" ( § 9 8 ) . Happiness results from complete fulfilling of the L a w , for happiness is the

58. Decal., i o - i 2 . 59. Ib., 1 5 . 60. Ib., 1 3 . 6 1 . Ib., 1 7 . 62. Spec, ii, 105, 107. 63. Mos., ii, 5 1 . 64. Legat., 210 f.; cf. Decal., 1 5 . 65. §153 ff. See "Philo's Exposition of the Law and his De Vita Mosis," Harvard Theol. Rev., XXVII ( 1 9 3 3 ) , pp. 1 0 9 - 1 2 5 .



truest wisdom a n d prudence, a n d wisdom means the service of God, pru­ dence the proper regulation of h u m a n life ( § 8 1 ) . T h e spoken command­ ments are incomplete: only as they are translated by m e n into action in every phase of life does their beauty emerge from darkness into light ( § 8 2 ) . In the Messianic A g e no one "of those w h o have ordered themselves accord­
i n g to the L a w " (TGJV KOOJJOUJJEVGJV TOIC VOJJOIC) will die prematurely

( § 1 1 0 ) . T h e m a n ajjaSyjc Kal CKVOJJOC has no share in reason or number, but the m a n w h o cooperates with training a n d the sacred laws gets precisely that, which is fulness of days in quality and quantity ( § § m f . ) . Such a m a n gets his reward also in the public recognition of his virtue, a goal that Philo here puts forth as entirely valid and commendable ( § § 1 1 2 f.). T h e m a n who tries to be virtuous, that is w h o sets the sacred laws before h i m as t h e guide of the speeches and actions of his life, will even be rewarded by good health ( § § 1 1 9 f.). These, Philo concludes, are t h e euxai for the good m e n
who fulfill the laws in their acts (TOUC VOMOUC ipyoK £TTIT£AOOVT£C) ( § 1 2 6 ) .

H e then proceeds to discuss the curses of the £KVO|JOI Kal aQzo\io[ ( § 1 2 6 ) . T h e treatise De Exsecrationibus is on exactly the same level. T h e curses are directed against "those w h o disregarded t h e sacred laws" ( § 1 3 8 ) , " w h o leave the straight roads leading to truth" ( § 1 4 8 ) , for " t h e m e n of noble descent w h o have adulterated the coinage of their birth" ( § 1 5 2 ) , " w h o have despised the sacred laws of justice and piety and been seduced by polytheistic opinions" ( § 1 6 2 ) . Philo suggests a symbolic meaning of some of t h e laws he specifically mentions. T h e recurring seven days and seven years of nature should teach m e n the true rest periods. M e n should be aware of the deeper significance of such laws as those concerning salt, contracts, the altar of mercy, and the common hearth, for all were established through the number seven. T h e m e n Philo is denouncing have violated these laws, especially by being such greedy landlords that they have refused the Sabbath to m e n and the sabbatical year to the soil in their eagerness to get every penny. Such m e n will be destroyed. H e r e is a glimpse into a type of Hellenistic Judaism based upon a Deuteronomic conception of t h e T o r a h strange for Philo, though its existence in Egypt is to be inferred from the type of loyalty the Alexandrian Jews displayed under persecution. It is purely "normative" in its regarding obedience to the specific laws as a n end in itself, t h e cause of all blessings, but whose neglect would bring the most hideous catastrophes. Philo is perfectly in sympathy with this attitude; he can preach it vigorously, though it will appear not fully to represent his own. But this m u c h is clear. Much more as he may have seen in the L a w than his audience, h e could not have preached such a sermon without rank insincerity h a d h e not him66 67

66. On these laws see my Jewish Jurisprudence, pp. 54 f., 224. 67. Philo is clearly here speaking of Jewish landlords and not Roman. He seems to be re­ ferring to a contemporary group.



self believed that the L a w s w e r e in themselves good, a n d the observance of the specific commandments a literal obligation for the J e w . S u c h a conclusion is borne out w h e n P h i l o is seen turning to another g r o u p of A l e x a n d r i a n J e w s w h o called themselves Allegorists. T h e s e m e n carried to its logical conclusion the notion that Scripture contains a deeper m e a n i n g than the literal, indeed that the true m e a n i n g can be found only by allegory. H a v i n g found the deeper m e a n i n g they w e n t on to say that the literal m e a n i n g w a s useless a n d carried no obligation. H o w large an influ­ ence this g r o u p had in their environment there is n o w no w a y of telling, though presumably, from the notorious strictness of J e w s as they appeared to R o m a n s , and the extreme loyalty they showed to their traditions at A l e x ­ andria under G a i u s , it w o u l d seem that the extreme Allegorists must have appealed to only a limited circle. P h i l o definitely belongs to the majority in rejecting their conclusions, h o w e v e r m u c h allegory he m a y h a v e taken from them. H e says: There are some who, regarding laws in their literal sense in the light of sym­ bols of spiritual matters, are overpunctilious about the latter, while treating the former with easy-going neglect. Such men I for my part should blame for han­ dling the matter in too easy and off-hand a manner: they ought to have given careful attention to both aims, to a more full and exact investigation of what is not seen and to a blameless stewardship of what is seen. A s it is, as though they were living alone by themselves in a wilderness, or as though they had become disembodied souls, and knew neither city nor village nor household nor any com­ pany of human beings at all, overlooking all that the mass of men regard, they explore reality in its naked absoluteness. These men are taught by the sacred Word to be mindful of good repute, and to let go nothing that is part of the cus­ toms fixed by divinely empowered men greater than those of our time. It is quite true that the Seventh Day is meant to teach the power of the Unoriginate and the non-action of created beings. But let us not for this reason abrogate the laws laid down for its observance, and light fires or till the ground or carry loads or institute proceedings in court or act as jurors or demand the restoration of de­ posits or recover loans, or do all else that we are permitted to do as well on days that are not festival seasons. It is true also that the Feast is a symbol of gladness of soul and of thankfulness to God, but we should not for this reason turn our backs on the general gatherings of the year's seasons. It is true that receiving circumcision does indeed portray the excision of pleasure and all passions, and the putting away of the impious conceit, under which the mind supposed that it was capable of begetting by its own power: but let us not on this account repeal the law laid down for circumcising. A n d further we shall be ignoring the sanctity of the Temple and a thousand other things, if we are going to pay heed to noth­ ing except what is shown us by the inner meanings as resembling the soul. It follows that, exacdy as we have to take thought for the body, because it is the abode of the soul, so we must pay heed to the letter of the laws. If we keep and




observe these, we shall gain a clearer conception of those things of which these are the symbols; and besides that we shall not incur the censure of the many and the charges they are sure to bring against us.

T h e figure that the literal law is the body, the spiritual significance of the L a w is the soul leads Philo on from this to several further allegories (Leah, women's service in the Tabernacle, the women's fire kindled against Moab, the prayer of Isaac, the H i g h Priest as Logos) and he concludes that there are three things required by the Torah, "the necessaries, the clothing, and the fellowship," which are the higher obligation of natural or divine law, the physical garment of the higher principle in the specific laws, and the careful study by which one may come to see that the lower law is a reflec­ tion of the higher. T h a t is, one must seek to grasp the higher L a w while he fulfills the literal command and tries to understand the relation between the two, by which the act of obedience becomes in each case a symbol of some aspect of the higher Law. Philo is then undeviatingly loyal to the literal commands, and yet, for all his loyalty to the letter, his legal regularity was that of a symbolist. T h e sacramental or ritualistic symbolist has, as the real source of his ideas, not the rite itself, but a philosophy not necessarily, or usually, derived from the cult act. T h e appeal of the cult is in itself the appeal of emotional or aesthetic association rather than of idea, and the act is respected along with ideas essentially foreign to it because it is interpreted as a symbol of those ideas. T h e modern sacramental symbolist is often, though not always, quite as unaware as Philo that the symbolism which combines his two loyalties is a paradox. This is said not as a reflection on the symbolists, for no one can reproach the m a n whose solution of practical life can be analyzed as ulti­ mately a paradox. T o hold to an inspiring cultus while one's m i n d is open to philosophical speculation is one of the most sensible of dualistic solutions of life. Nonsense appears only as one attempts, not to assert, but to work out in elaborate detail, their symbolic identity. Beneath Philo's great mass of non­ sense the patient student comes to perceive a fundamentally practical and sane, not: to say beautiful, spirit. ' Philo was a fastidious observer of the Law. Yet, except in the little address On Blessings and Curses, his legalism was not the legalism of "normative" Judaism. Apart from the controversy between Pharisees and Sadducees over the validity of the oral tradition, all that we k n o w of normative Jewish piety, especially as that piety was immortalized for all classes in the great Psalter, indicates a sense of the ultimate and inherent value of obedience to the L a w
69 70




Cf. Cont.,


for this conception of the Law as an animal with body and 70. Mig., 105.


Ex. xxi, 10.



quite in itself. T h e difference between Philo in his three great commentaries and this type of legalism lies in an ultimate divergence as to the meaning and content of virtue. T h e normative point of view developed inevitably into rabbinism, which had primarily the legist's, not the philosopher's, ap­ proach to law and life. Many philosophers of significance have enriched the stream of Jewish tradition, but their speculations have not been in the main current. T h a t main current has from the beginning been channeled by the Jewish assumption that virtue was a matter of exactly, and sincerely, fulfill­ ing the commands of God, and the Jew has always been proud of the privi­ lege of doing so. By Jews the L a w has chiefly been treated as lawyers treat law, with the written code as a precedent for application rather than as a principle of ethics in the philosopher's sense. T h e Jew got his reward in the assurance that God was pleased with h i m for his obedience, and would mercifully help h i m back into the path if he had faltered but wanted sin­ cerely to be reinstated as an obedient child. Philo in general betrays none of this attitude to the Law, because his ethi­ cal motivation is primarily Greek. T r u e he could deal with the prescriptions of the code which touched the legal field as we usually conceive it, the field of crimes, contracts, torts, and inheritance. But when Philo left the court, or was not addressing a popular audience, he left his lawyer's approach to law behind, and became the ethical philosopher in the Greek sense. T h e validity of circumcision, of the food regulations, of the laws of purity, was based upon their being L a w of God, to be sure, but, as has appeared in the fore­ going quotation, also upon their symbolism for the life of true virtue in the Greek philosophic sense. W h e n he talks of virtue the Jewish virtue of obedi­ ence is never mentioned. In contrast with Jewish obedimce, Greek ethical thought began with the life of reason, itself in a sense divine, as the force which should guide and rule the lower aspects of a man's life. N o t what a m a n did was so important as the equilibrium he was able to maintain, whereby m i n d was free from sensuous domination, and ready to escape to God or Nature. It was an ethic grown out of a mystical metaphysic. T h e typical religious Jew has always lived, as far as possible, guided by the clear light of the personal God's specific^ instructions. T h e religious and philo­ sophical Greek lived in the dim radiation of cosmic rays which his reason tried to use as a light for life, or in the blinding light of ecstasy. In place of specific law the Greek had the great cardinal virtues and the ethical mean, to be achieved by self-control. In a word, while to the Jew God was the lov­ ing Father and virtue a summation of acts, to the Greek God was a meta­ physical entity and virtue a state of being. T o expound Philo's attitude toward ethics is outside the present investiga­ tion. H e r e it can only be said that Philo's attitude was that of the Greek. As such, however he might preach to the Jewish mob, or sincerely repudiate



as shocking the easy dismissal of literal obligation to which extreme Alle­ gorists were led; however much he might spend his life in symbolic repre­ sentation and fulfillment of the laws, to h i m a body of precepts demanding obedience was essentially opposed to the fundamental postulates of his ethical thought, or had only marginal significance. Mention has been made of the importance of the k i n g in Hellenistic think­ ing as a link between m a n and the cosmic or divine L a w , and so as being the integrating force in society to make it into a state. T h e king himself was thus important because the Greeks could think of the legal structure of the state in no other terms than as a divine institution. T h e laws of the state might be made by enactment of the (3ouAyj, but the Greek world was always keenly aware that a law was good according as it was a specific application of SiKyj. So it was always subject to oracular veto. In common parlance the just m a n in the state was the m a n w h o obeyed the law, and he was just in the eyes of the gods w h o obeyed the laws of the gods. N o one ever ques­ tioned the fact that the law of the state was valid only as it expressed the will of the gods to m e n , much as they might dispute the machinery by which laws were to be enacted. W h e n the Sophists presented an astonished world with their thesis that VOJJOC and <j>uoic, far from being complementary terms, were sharply opposed to each other, the inevitable consequence was to take men's interest away not from <p\JOK but vonoc. F o r without the sanction of $uoic, VOJJOC became automatically worthless. L a w was valuable to a Greek, whether he was always fully conscious of it or not, according as it explained to h i m $uoic, or the will of the gods, and he was really selfdeceived in supposing that SiKatoouvy) was essentially the quality of being vomnoc with reference to laws of the state; more deeply still the Greeks were thinking of SiKaioouv/] as lying in a man's conformity to nature, long before the Stoics crystallized the phrase. This was a constant assumption in the tragedies. T h e letter of our civil codes we respect: to obey it is SIK/). Yet here is a situation, as in the Antigone, for example, where m a n must recog­ nize a higher h\Kv\ or VOJJOC directly at variance with the law of the k i n g or state. T o do the higher SIKYJ involves the tragic clash with h u m a n VOJJOC. T h e basic protest was against the fact that the letter did not, as it should, represent SIK/) or the higher L a w . O n this ground the tradition arose of which H i r z e l has given the classic exposition, the tradition that the written law is as such inferior to the un71 72 73

7 1 . This is in spite of such practical definitions as the one of Demosthenes, that law is cruvdrix'n xolvt| of the city. The passage prefaces this by stating that law is a gift of the gods, Contra Aristog., I, 1 5 , 16; Xenoph., Memorab., I, ii, 42. 72. The argument of the Sophists as to the contrast of v6|Liog and S i x a i o a w n with (pVGiq is quite unintelligible if it was not made in opposition to a proverbial connecting of the two. 73. R. Hirzel, ""Aygacpog Nojxog," in Abhandlungen der sachsischen Gesellschaft, PhiloLHist. Classe, XX.



written law. T h e unwritten law might be regarded as the unformulated custom of the city, or it might be identified with the VOJJOC; Tyjc 4>UOSGK, or it might be both at the same time. But in any case the letter of the law, although it should be strictly enforced, must be checked by emeiKeia, an appeal from the letter to a broader and more vital SIK/J, if VOJJOC is to func­ tion as a vehicle of SiKaioouvy] rather than of injustice. T h e feeling of the inadequacy of written law as a guide to true SiKaioouvy) increased with the decline of t h e classic states and their submergence under Hellenistic mon­ archies. T h e Cynics flouted the laws of the state altogether: the Stoics toler­ ated them while they looked for a higher regimentation in Natural L a w . It would have been natural, in view of the general trend, for Platonists and Pythagoreans to have developed a theory that the written law was only a reflection or image of the Idea-Law, a n d to have tended like the rest to regard the written law as valuable only for those lower natures which could not rise to, a n d be guided by, the ideal. O u r information is so slight about Platonism in Philo's day that there is little significance in the fact that noth­ ing of t h e sort, t o m y knowledge, is at hand. But we do know that later Platonism was expressing itself in exactly this form. T o Proclus the vopoi aYpcMpoi in the usual sense of their meaning were inadequate. For the Greeks thought of them usually as being T<i IQY\ ; b u t customs, says Proclus, though they are a y p a ^ a , are still v6\xi\ia rather than VOJJOI. O i aAyjGcic vojioi need no writing, b u t abide within the souls of those w h o live according to them, and w h o are therefore v6[\o\ e ^ u x o i , in contrast with animals w h o obey
VOJJOI 4>UOIKOI, a n d w i t h ordinary m e n w h o obey VOJJOI TTOAITIKOI. A t this

point there is a break in the manuscript which goes on with what is obvi­ ously a discussion of the VOJJOI akY\Qdc, or the Cosmic L a w which lies be­ hind them. T h e passage is so much closer to Philo than the Stoic material that is ordinarily adduced in parallel, and Proclus is in general so little read, that I quote the following: In the case of the [divine and heavenly] elements Law is seen to be eternally [present] in the same things and unchangeably aligned according to a single [logos]; among men it rules according to the appointed seasons; among animals it fulfills the way of life that is natural for each. So then this Law must be re­ garded as divine, the link between the necessary laws which the Creator of the
74 75

74. fre6c; without the article. 75. This God who is GWO%ev<; T<DV elu-aQU-evcov VOJMDV is probably the same as Julian's Gallus who is the primal dampness, "not itself material, but the last immaterial cause which precedes matter. It [or he] is 6 VOEQOC; ftsog, the ovvo%£vq of the material and sublunar forms, united with the cause that is ordained for matter, yet not united in the sense that one thing is united with another, but like a thing that is gathered into itself" (Julian, V, 165D). A l x i a is here v6\ioq, and what Julian is doing is to see a law inherent in material nature which is subsumed in a spiritual Law. The law inherent in matter is the "necessary laws" of Proclus. Both aire attempts to combine Stoic Natural Law with a Platonic ultimate immaterial world



Timaeus (4ie) wrote into souls, and the laws which extend into every polity of the universe. . . . On account of this God let us be bold and say that a great destiny allotted in the world underlies the force of customs everywhere, and that many things come to pass according to it even in our own souls. And just as the true laws are images of the cosmic laws, although some laws go amiss and others being only rough sketches are a sharp remove from the originals (djtOJtrcoaeig exeivcov), so the customs in our lives are some of them likenesses of those in the universe (eoixota TOig xcov otaov), while others are only copies (etScotax) of them. But there is an undeviating force which sways our destinies and the honors and dishonors of the universe.

T h e meaning of the passage is on the whole clear. T o any Neo-Platonist the fact that h u m a n law, even in its best form, was but an image of a spiritual reality would have meant ipso facto that the earthly written law was inferior to the spiritual Law, and that- the m a n of spiritual ambition must rise above the codes and traditions of m e n to the true L a w . It was good Platonism to contrast "reality" with its inferior imitation in nouns and verbs, for that had been precisely the ground for Plato's rejection of the poets. T h e fact that this conception is found in Proclus in connection with the conception of v6[ioi ejji^uxoi in w h o m abide oi a\Y\Qdc vopoi makes it apparent that Proclus is throughout drawing upon the tradition that lay behind Philo's thinking. For that Proclus is giving here an idea originated by Philo cannot seriously be suggested. There must then have been a familiar notion on which Philo was drawing which discussed the written law as a Platonic image of the true law of God and nature, with the implication that as an image the written law was inferior to the heavenly o r ideal law, however accurate a n image it might or might not be. W h e n Philo insists that the Torah is a n image of this higher law he is using a double edged sword. If the Jewish law is an accurate copy of the divine L a w it is of course superior to the laws of Gentile peoples, which, in Proclus' terms, are only rough sketches of heavenly law if they do not miss it altogether. But at the same time Philo is indicating that the written law, even the Torah, is inadequate for a spiritually minded m a n , w h o would aspire, like Proclus, to become a VOJJOC efj^uxoc, not by obeying copies, but by getting ol aA/)0£tc vopoi to abide within his soul.

W a s Philo himself aware that his very praise of the T o r a h was in terms which indicated its inadequacy? Philo's own description of the T o r a h in this sense must be examined before the question can be answered.
and Law above matter. Philo shows (Spec, ii, 124) that he knew this term, or its equivalent when he says that it is a "law of necessity" that no mortal or earth-born thing can become immortal. That is, it is a condition and limitation of the mortal and material world, a fact which not even God the Creator and His Law can contravene. 76. Proclus, In Rem Publicam, ed. Kroll, II, 307, 11. 15 ff. 77. Rep., 601 a.



O n e of the most interesting statements in this connection is the following: Moses thought that it was beneath the dignity of the Torah to make the found­ ing of a city actually built by hands the point of departure for his writing; he looked up with the most accurate eyes of the mind to the magnitude and beauty of the universal legislation, and considered it too immense and divine for any earthly limitation. So he began with the creation of the Megalopolis, considering that the Torah was to be a superlatively accurate image (elxcov) of the polity of the universe.

T o this Platonic description Philo goes on to add that each individual law, in Pythagorean expression, is "directed toward the attunement of the uni­ verse," or "sings on pitch with the Logos of eternal nature." Again he says that the laws of Moses are "the finest of all laws, truly divine. . . . They are stamped with the seal of nature herself." In calling them (JC aXviBduQ 0doi VOJJOI Philo would seem to be identifying them with oi a\Y}Qdc VOJJOI, collectively 0£oc, described later by Proclus. But his class­ ing them afterwards as the product of the seal of nature, one of his favorite metaphors for Platonic imitation, shows that such was not in his mind. They are such excellent imitations that they are divine, but are not themselves the VOJJOC-AOYOC-GEOC. Indeed Moses, like the other Patriarchs, but to a degree that completely surpassed the rest, was himself the incarnation of the divine virtues, a VOJJOC sp^uxoc, and the virtues which, by being in him, made him vofjoc l\xi>\JXoc were obviously o! 6L\Y)QZ\C VOJIOI of Proclus. T h e legislation of Moses was but the projection of ansiKOvionaTa Kal mijy)[jaTa of these vir­ tues or laws, which, as patterns for the legislation, he bore about like images in his soul. God Himself is in another passage the napahz[y\xa apx^Tunov of the laws, the conceptual sun behind the visible sun, giving forth from the invisible source beams that are visible. T h e distinction is succinctly stated in the following:
79 80 81 82

Aixaico|i(XTa are different from vojxifia. For the former exist by nature, the latter by imposition. For what exists by nature is older than what exists by imposition, so justice (to 5ixaiov) is older than law (vojxog).

Philo must have had the Jewish L a w in m i n d as he wrote this. Beyond the v o j j i j j a or VOJJOI, even of the Jews, was the eternal and natural BIKCXIOV to which they should aspire. In spite of all the machinery he describes by which Moses prophesies the laws, Philo seems fundamentally to have considered the code to be but an
78. Mos., ii, 5 1 . 79. Ib., 52. 80. Ib., 1 2 , 14. 8 1 . Ib., 4 - 1 1 . 82. Spec, i, 279. 83. Sitzungsberichte der preussischen A\ademie der Wissenschaft, 1932, p. 79 (H. Lewy, "Neue Philontexte in der Uberarbeitung des Ambrosius"); also QG, iv, 184.




imitation of the true laws incarnate in the Patriarchs. T h e law that is in them is the aypacfoc VOJJOC, and by virtue of this they are themselves VOJJOI aypa<po[. This contrast between the unwritten laws and the written Philo freely applies to the written Torah, and no Greek-speaking person could have missed the fact that Philo had a model of L a w that stood much higher in his esteem than the Mosaic Code itself. In describing the Code as an image or copy of this higher L a w , Philo could not have been unconscious of the fact that, by his o w n philosophy, every copy belies the original in the very deceit of its resemblance. H e could ultimately have been no more content than Proclus with copy-law, even if that copy were the Torah. As a matter of fact he was not. It is one thing to recognize that an apolo­ gist has defended the value of some aspect of an institution to which he is in general loyal, and indeed that he is conscientious about observing its forms, and quite another to suppose that that aspect is really the source of his loyalty. T h e history of the Church is full of men, many of them mystics, for exam­ ple, w h o are loyal defenders and obedient servants of an ecclesiastical organi­ zation or cultus which at bottom had only a symbolic, if not an essentially quite extraneous, relation to their real religious life. Philo had no more sympathy with the Allegorists in their abandoning of the literal L a w than Erasmus with the Lutheran abandonment of the Church. A n d yet his spirit­ ual aspirations are as little to be explained by the literal L a w as Erasmus' piety by Church organization or scholastic theology. T h e very passage that has been quoted, where Philo so sharply rejects the Allegorists' abandonment of the letter of the law for its deeper meaning, shows that Philo was quite at one with them as to the real purport of the L a w . T h e letter is only the body; it is the inner meaning that is the soul. Keeping the letter is valuable chiefly for its giving the m a n who observes the L a w a good reputation among his compatriots, and because the observance itself helps one better to understand the symbols (oujjPoXa). T h e purest and most keen eyed class of men, those distinguished by cocjna rather than discipline (aoK/joic), pierce through beyond any impartation of knowledge in the form of nouns and verbs to the words of God that are seen as light is seen. T h e m a n w h o is equipped to be his o w n guide by the fact that reason has conquered sense, and by the fact that he has become one of those w h o "see" God, or in other words the VOJJOC S J J ^ X O C of Philo and Proclus, acts first and then listens.
85 87 88 89 90

84. Abr., 3 - 6 . On this see more fully the following chapter. 85. Ib., 1 6 . 86. Ib.; 275 f.; Decal., 1 ; Virt., 194. Philo knew the "customs" of a city as their vojxoi ctYQacpoi, but while he regards them as superior to the codes (Spec, iv, 149 f.) they jiave for him as little ultimate value as the various civil codes (Heres, 2 9 5 ) . 87. Praem., 29: Jtaaa slxobv OJXOOTTJTI evitaQavcoYtp ipevSexai T O 6\qx£TVKOV. 88. Mig., 89 ff. See above, pp. 82 ff. 89. Ib., 88 ff., espec. 93. 90. Ib., 46-52.

but are the Logos with w h o m the true mystic has immediate contact. though as if it were not there. Such a person has become the " m a n of God." F r o m this Philo returns immediately to elaborating what he has said about the two Powers of G o d .. 93 94 91. "you must first make yourself into a lot worthy of h i m . such a person as Moses is God. but on the contrary bringing them boldness with incorporeal realities. and which is nigh at hand. 25. are not the written books. for P h i l o describes Moses as an avriSooic Odac npovoiac. T h e m a n w h o is advancing from wickedness to virtue has the higher Power. the Logos in w h o m both meet. 94. that is. 59. For the ordinary wicked m a n . and the m a n w h o is fully ad­ vanced has the Ruling and Benefiting Powers both together. that is. A n d you would become so if you would r u n away from all hand made and voluntary laws. is described at the height of his initiation: he has walked out in the twilight to be with God. It is difficult to believe that the last sentences of the paragraph read in Aucher's Latin as Philo intended. But it speaks without the projection of words. as his God. Mut. leaving behind his h u m a n qualities and becomes possessed by G o d . QG. but are the divine command. and an imparting of discourse about the intelligibles contained within itself. the divine Logos. is a passage which follows a long discussion of the Powers of G o d . he acts according to his inner light and uses the L a w (the divine words and sacred admonitions) which he "hears" only as a check. 92. at this time he learns and teaches us that the sacred books of the Lord are not monuments of learning or of what is to be seen. Isaac. As one goes u p in the mystic flight. Moses could be G o d to the wicked.. Ib. 92 T h e interesting point for our purpose in this. w e understand. the Benefiting (elsewhere the Creative) Power. Philo explains. a part of a long description of Isaac's having the vision of the true Virtue. .. Conf. 55-59> espec. and talks to any one without uttered sound. 93. it would appear. and intelligible when read in view of the same mystic abandonment of the written Torah for immediate experience of God. w h o in this capacity is made equivalent to the lower Ruling Power of God.T H E TORAH 9i 91 T h a t is. or for initiation into the Mystery by Moses the hierophant. H o w is one then to achieve such an exalted posi­ tion? "If you want to have G o d as the lot of your mind. he learns that the written laws are not for him." by virtue of which achievement. 26. Pointing in the same direction." Philo answers. not at all withdrawing from those who speak with it or from intimate disciples. which admonishes the negligent. 140. w h o we shall see symbolized to Philo one of the highest of the mystic types. iv. is the fact that Philo has gone out of his way to state that the lesson of the matter is that the holy books of the Lord are not things which can be studied or seen.

at last to the Logos or God as the ultimate spiritual original. could be a possible help in the higher reaches. while it h a d nothing. So far there has appeared ample ground for suspecting that Philo might well have re­ vered the Code. E . since bad things cannot live and stand along with good things. but not with the idea that observance in itself could lead to God. LIGHT But the odd digression in the passage stands. F o r that passage and for a final judgment on Philo's attitude toward the precepts of the Code we must wait until we have gone on to study the Higher Mystery itself. ii. 22. if. T r u e the Jewish laws are 95 the clearest image of the polity of the cosmos.. at least. Mos. 51 f. Philo really felt that the written Code was not an objective basis for the higher Mystery. as statutory law. with Pantasopulos. 97 Only in comparison with "acute and seeing N a t u r e " could Philo have 95. A. It would be a complete break in the sense to see.9 2 B Y LIGHT. the passage as a rejection of civil law for Jewish L a w . even the written law of the Jews them­ selves. 96 But the whole objective of Philo's life was to get beyond all material images. 97. So there is no reason to think that highly as he praises the Jewish L a w he did not include even its statutes when he wrote: When the prudence of the acute and seeing Nature enters the soul as though it were coming into a country all the racial laws that are in it grow insanely angry and withdraw from worthy thinking. of this mystical ascent. and come through to the spiritual originals. At least if any one is willing to examine the powers of the specific laws he will find them aiming at the attunement of the universe and pitched in harmony with the Logos of eternal nature. T h e remark is actually a reminder of the great passage in the preceding treatise of the Allegory where Philo has described this "running away" from the L a w of statutes to the Powers and the Logos. and requires its abandonment. T h e L a w might well be kept as a series of observ­ ances. p. 96. beyond the material cosmos itself. 1 5 . T h e m a n w h o is going to achieve this exaltation is one w h o must r u n away from hand made laws. and had definitely to be transcended for the true experience of God. I n that sense one must r u n from the laws. and obeyed it. 1893 (Diss. Die Lehre vom naturlichen und positiven Rechte bei Philo Judaeus.). ii. of all things. as we are coming to see. W h a t Philo is rejecting is the very idea that a written law. to offer his higher spiritual life. Such a parenthetical remark would be quite in point. . W e can understand the little digression only if we regard Philo as stopping in the middle of his description of the spiritual rise through the Powers to God in order to remind the reader that this sort of spirituality has nothing to do with worship through obedience to any written law. QE. Pantasopulos..

" that is following God. 130 f. 68. Gen. he says in another connection. and bad. Mig. the k p o c Xoyoc.. an inspired formulation of God's purposes for the beginner. It was binding upon the m a n of higher experience in so far as he had still to live among his fellows. whose point is the honoring of G o d . But it was no longer as statute Philo's n o r m and objective. " W o r d s " are then of no significance. Philo would not be misunderstood. Philo. . xxvi. H e still dedicated his life to the L a w revealed by Moses. H e was perfectly sincere in praising Moses for eulogizing the careful legalism of the Levites. 99. it seems to me. 98. T h a t is.uxoi. 98 99 100 101 T h e T o r a h was then actually to Philo a source of instruction in specific conduct. of the Mystery. the T o r a h was essentially to h i m what he so often liked to call it. 100. but expresses his inner feeling only casually be­ cause of his fear of the "Allegorists'" position which had abandoned the Code altogether. but that. yvcjpi|joc. and for the vast majority of men who never get beyond the beginner's stage. at just the place where a legalist would have found opportunity to stress the value of obedience to the Mosaic Code Philo makes the passage really a praise of obedience to what we might call the "inner light. This Philo did not at all want to be understood as recom­ mending. but to h i m that L a w was the unwritten Logos of God. T h e aspiration of Philo centered in the hope of reproducing their experiences of God in his own life. Law. "Do­ ing the L a w " is then for the Sophos "doing the Logos. T h a t is. But it is swept away by the higher wisdom. was always the guardian of the words and covenant of God (Kal Aoycjv Kal Sta0/)Ky]c Oeou $uAa£). 101. 5. T h e value of the T o r a h for the m a n of higher experience was in its revelation of the experiences of the Patriarchs in becoming VOJJOI £|j\|. that it gave an exposition of the nature of God and of the mystic way to H i m . is a matter of the divine Logos enjoining and prohibiting specific conduct. is quite aware of the fact that he is thus discounting the value of Jewish laws. Sac. he goes on to explain.. T h e great value of the T o r a h was. as well as all other knowledge we get through the ears. "God's pupil" ($OIT/)T/)C.. even the Jewish Code could become an impediment. |ja0y)T/)c) has no need of expositions that mortals have g i v e n .T H E TORAH 93 called any great body of racial laws "bad." But in contrast with the higher reality. and in saying that 6 aoTzioc. Det. an understanding of which could be achieved only by allegorizing the actual words. W e must not neglect this traditional wisdom the fathers have handed down to us. "Abraham did all my law. a thing to be r u n away from. then." T h e traditions of the noble deeds of the past given by histories and poets are well enough for beginners. 78 f. which is all an allegory to show that the soul should comply with divine teaching. he admits." is discussed. is banished when the "sudden beam of self-taught wisdom" shines in upon the eye of the soul.

the true purport of t h e Torah. Eusebius goes on to identify the second class with the "Jewish philosophers" as described by Philo in his account of the Essenes. its mystic teaching. c). Evang." There is no reason to think that Philo was alone in doing so. 102 So Philo could at once be a loyal Jew and at the same time abandon t h e very foundations of what Professor Moore taught us to call "normative Judaism. 102. But Philo shows that Eusebius' distinction had wider implications. W e can now follow h i m into the Mystery which he found there.94 B Y LIGHT. . too highly exalted for the multitude. While the Lawgiver meant to lead the multitude on gendy by the precepts of the Laws as enjoined according to the literal sense. consisting of those who had acquired a habit of virtue.. Praep. he meant to exempt from this sense. LIGHT A better summary of Philo's attitude toward the L a w could not be found than the following statement of Eusebius: The whole Jewish nation is divided into two sections. x (378b. VIII. and required them to give attention to a philosophy of a diviner kind. H i s writings were designed to show to Jews already sympathetic with this pro­ cedure or to Gentiles looking for mystic ultimates. the other class. and to contemplation of the things signified in the meaning of the Laws.

and the W a y to God. stages metaphysically connected. . 62." H e speaks of the fact that those who were initiated into the Lesser Mysteries before the Greater had with the help of Reason. as it may be called. which lower apprehen­ sion will also appear a regular stage of mystical experience. 49. that is through H i s creative or ruling activity. worked u p the wild passions as one does in preparing food. This appears to mean that the Lesser Mystery was an apprehension of the Powers. the softener. Abr. It has already appeared that the second W a y was one which Philo found very inferior to the first. T r u e the mass of Jews lived their lives throughout on the basis and in the light of the written Laws. T h e "Allegorists" regarded the lower road as a blind alley. 1 2 2 . So it is interesting that in several passages Philo speaks of a "Lesser" Mystery in contrast with a "Greater. a life which. 2. in the sense that it prohibited those w h o took it from ever reaching the higher W a y . one that had to be abandoned if one hoped for the truth.. 3. T h e highest func­ tion of the lower W a y was that it might become an introduction to the higher Way. we have seen. T h e r e was the W a y of the un­ written L a w and Logos. Sac. possibilities. and so have suggested to h i m the possibility of living by the immaterial illumination. the revelation of God. we have seen thus far. T h e method for doing this was revealed through inspiration. the material world. though not the greatest. and it was hopeless to expect more of them. for as m a n traversed it he might come to recognize the distinc­ tion between the illumined material and the illumination itself. that is the life guided by those glimmerings of Reality reflected in material media in general. of God rather than an apprehension of pure Being. or of Sophia." H e points out that initiation under Moses is initiation into the "Greater Mys­ teries. A n d there was the W a y represented by those Powers that could be projected into. Cher. but so different from each other that they can almost be called contrasting. 1 2 8 i . w h e n properly developed. fell into two stages. a W a y that was characterized by its utter lack of contact or association with material existence. But Philo saw in the life of the letter. or of a Power. Yet the secondary W a y was not necessarily closed. had great. of the written L a w . T h e point of contrast between the Lower and Higher Mystery is that the person on the lower stage cannot approach God (TO ov) without the aid of something that goes out from H i m . the W a y .CHAPTER IV THE MYSTERY OF AARON T o Philo. Such a contrast was often expressed in Philo's environment by two suc­ cessive initiations within a single Mystery.. and repre­ sented in.

In all three accounts the fundamental idea is quite the same. Gig. at least. though not usually by that name. and then only when stripped of his distinguishing robes. H e goes over the ground again in the Exposition. T h e Mystery of Aaron is presented three times by Philo more or less in extense. he died to the flesh. T h e concern of the present chapter is with the Mystery of Aaron. still a Gentile inquirer into Judaism. who put off his physical nature and went into the darkness naked. since he throughout assumes that the reader. . But they suggest even more definitely that Philo thought of the Lower and Higher Mystery as an acceptable figure. Actually there are two distinct stages of the Mystery in his teachings. the Powers. T h e objec­ tive symbolism of the Higher Mystery was the holy of holies with the ark. his primer for proselytes. Pascher. T h e Mystery of Aaron got its symbolism from the great Jerusalem cultus. to express his own thought of the two ways of approach to God. sharply contrasted with each other as the Lower and the Higher. a level of spiritual experience which was no normal part of even the highpriesthood. and so had communion in a constant way with the Monad.g6 B Y LIGHT. Cf. the symbolism for the Lower Mystery was 4 4. the temple and the priest­ hood. 168 ff. T h e Mystery of Aaron was restricted to the symbolism of the Aaronic highpriest. yet he adds many new details of interest. of the Light-Stream. the term "Lower" could be used for several lower stages.5 5 . hierophant of the rites ( i c p o c f a v T / j c o p y t a v ) . pp. and when so blinded by incense that he could see nothing of the sacred objects within. but not so thoroughly. clad in simple white. this time for Jews of the inner group.. Again in the Quaestiones in Exodum he reviews the subject. as a result of which he became the true initiate (\I\JOTY\C). In a striking passage Philo contrasts this type of priest with Moses. being identified at each stage with the spiritual existence of that stage. T h e significance of this contrast between the two types of Mystery will appear more distinctly as we go on. Only once a year could the high-priest enter there. As the symbol of the Immaterial World. H e describes it in the De Vita Mosis. and at last ideally to God Himself. was the secret ark of the covenant. and was a worship of God from the point of view of the material world. will already have read the primer. Konigsweg. T h e Mystery of Moses abandoned the material world and led the worshipper above all material association. and in be­ coming reclothed in a spiritual body moved progressively upwards through the KOOJJOC voy)Toc. and hence was the worship of a deity or spiritual realm whose exist­ ence the high-priest recognized but could not share. 5 2 . and teacher of divine things (SiSaoKaAoc Octav). For general convenience we may distinguish them as the Mystery of Aaron and the Mystery of Moses. LIGHT These few references to the Lower and Higher Mystery would seem to indicate that while the Higher was a definite experience.

a n d the proper place of beginning is with the senses. and the table. Ib. T h e five outer pillars are. the five senses. T h a t is. or fifty without them.T H E MYSTERY OF AARON 97 based upon the parts of the tabernacle a n d the functions of the high-priest visible to the ordinary worshipper. See Badt's note here also. See Badt's note ad loc. facing outward b u t connected with what is within. symbol of the right-angled triangle. the means of connection between the m i n d and the outer world of matter. including the five outer ones. since the spirit in which a m a n offers his sacrifice determines its validity.I 3 5 6.. in another the twelve loaves. made of linen. the sevenbranched candlestick. and very fittingly for Philo's purpose. t h e whole subsequent experience is possible only for one w h o begins with a de­ vout frame of mind. Ib. T h e sacred precincts were the enclosed outer court. bearing. T h e three objects on the floor are also each symbolic. walled off but not covered. since the senses are. 7. Mos. I n the outer court stood the altar of sacrifice and the laver of puri­ fication. in this passage. or. in Philos Werke. purple. T h e description of the tabernacle in Exodus is the basis of Philo's remarks rather than t h e temple of Herod. the inner court and the holy of holies. T h e proportion of the tabernacle is elaborately described in terms of the number of "pillars. Ib. O n the floor of the chamber stand three objects. a n d embroidered with the three colors hyacinth. In discussing Philo's symbolism it will be well to follow each of the three accounts separately.. the four elements. at least. toward the tabernacle which shows h i m only its general shape a n d proportions. Ib. For the tabernacle is going to be found to represent the whole gamut of h u m a n perception from TCL aio0y)T<i to TGC vo/]Ta. a n d to take the details in the order in which they as objects would have been observed by one coming into the sacred precincts and advancing to the sanctuary. a n d five outer pillars. creative beginnings.. 7 I . 94. T h e altar is his z\jol$£\a the first requirement of mystical advance. as he stands reverendy in the outer court." fifty-five. As one enters the inner court he observes its walls and roof made up. by the linen and the three colors together. ii. I n the center is the altar of incense. and scarlet. . within which stood the tabernacle with two chambers. 88. but the altar symbolizes the proper intention of the m a n w h o approaches to sacrifice (/) npoaipeoic TOU npoo^epovroc). represent. 106 ff. 78 f. As the interpretation runs in the first passage. he explains.. 8. the altar of incense. symbol of 5 8 9 7 8 9 5.. or covered. the Pythago­ rean symbol of the perfection of the decade. to the priesthood. the outer court with its laver of purification and altar of sacrifice represents the preliminary re­ quirements for entering the Mystery. T h e candidate for further progress looks. T h e curtains. bread and salt. 9. of course. In the account w e are considering the laver is not mentioned. 80. as they are by great curtains embroidered in bright colors.

T h e details stand for the four elements. 105. vol. . ii. 104.. All of these are represented.9 8 11 B Y LIGHT. It was on this stage that the priesthood of Aaron ordinarily moved.. and the candlestick for the heavenly fire. A n experience of the cosmos. apparently six for each after the order of EzekieFs seraphim. 102 ff. or m / c u p a 9cou. others as the two hemispheres. 98. 18 f." So instead of reproducing this allegory Clement goes on to the other interpretation which Philo suggested but with additions. then. T h e inner court as a whole represents the first stage of spiritual progress. For he says that some interpret the cherubim as the two Bears. See Chap. T h e table. Ib. II. I. stands at the north. It would look as though Clement were draw12 13 14 15 16 17 18 io. 12.. who has reproduced the description of the tabernacle as here presented detail by detail. 1 7 . and five planets. T h e holy of holies itself contained the ark. Ib. the symbol of the mystical higher light. I I . symbolizing the nourishing and fertilizing power of the north w i n d . the source of light. v. T h e symbolism does not appear at first glance. onapjjaTiKoc. Mos. T h e seven-branched candlestick is on the south. into the material world. representing the heavens by specifically representing the sun.. T h e air is the nvcO|ja which feeds and nourishes the soul. and notes that the wings. Strom. T h e curtains are also the four ele­ ments. and so a symbol of heavenly nourishment and fertilization.)... H e tells us that another symbolic interpretation was in his day also current (TIV£C <|>aoiv). the altar of incense for earth and water. LIGHT 10 the gratitude (zvxapioTia) of earth and water or of all the things of the earth. 11. made together the zodiac. as being in a mystical state. But Philo does not think this the best explanation. moon. stops at describing the ark in terms of the Powers. would involve an apprehension of the world as it is in adoration of its Creator and as a symbol of the great spiritual forces. ii. 105. 99. on which Philo says was bread and salt. since the holy of holies be­ yond was closed to it. p. It is notable that Clemens Alexandrinus. namely that the cherubim of the ark represent the t w o hemispheres. the table and its burden for air. and the heavenly fire appears at once as the great system of order of the planets and as the source of light. • 16. 18. 6 (Stahlin. Ib. Ib. 349. with the sun at the center. Ib. however.. not bread and salt. the stage where the material world as a whole was experienced. H e says: " T h e things recorded in connection with the holy ark symbolize the details of that KOO\IOC VO/JTOC which is concealed and hidden away from the multitude. 1 3 . 14. Clement has "loaves" on the table. which Philo here explains as a symbol of God and the Powers in the way described #bove.. 15. T h e two lower elements are rising in prayer and worship. 101. Mos. The idea is clearly that the north wind was the rain bearer. by which we may fairly see the projection of the Aoyoc.

All alike see the chamber as a symbol of the worship of immaterial Reality by the material elements. 2 1 ... the tassels water. through the cosmos as philosophically and mystically interpreted. T h e robe Aaron wears represents the four elements. on 19 20 21 22 23 24 19. T h e flowers represent earth." ^This is quite what was to be expected after the symbolism of the temple. is "a likeness and imitation of the costnos. T h e regalia as a whole. It would seem that there was considerable variety in the way in which Jews made the objects in the temple represent the mystic rise from material confusion.1 1 6 . 1 0 9 . 1 1 9 . flowers. then he gives the symboli^iti. Antiq. Josephus too. and comes out with the same fundamen­ tal conception of the temple symbolism as a whole. for several reasons. and air. for air is naturally black. 1 1 7 . ii. Instead of bread and salt upon the table were twelve loaves. Ib. T h e three courts or chambers of the temple represent to h i m earth. furnished by sea. to the KOOJJOC v o y ] T o c and God. 29. First. but with quite a different treatment of detail. Ill. 24. T h e altar of incense had thirteen kinds of spices. 88. differs from Philo on too many details to have taken his material from Philo. Philo goes on to tell of the priestly dress. symbolic of the zodiac. First he describes the dress.. Mos. and the bells typify the attunement of these two. 23. ii. are the heavenly symbols. and bells. one which Philo also knew. But the very variety of detail is essentially important to us precisely because so strong a unity of purpose carries on through the variety. T h e significance of the priesthood which ministers in the cosmic temple Philo explains by pointing out the symbolism of the priestly robes. There. is a border of promegranate-shaped tassels. 2 0 7 . It is of hyacinth color to typify air. These all appear on the tunic which represents the sublunar sphere and its elements. 1 7 9 . earth. as will appear. It will be increasingly clear that the Mystery of Aaron brings the worshipper to share in this great cosmic praise and worship of God.. at the ankles.1 3 5 . that is the outer circle of the universe. This hyacinth robe stretches from t h e shoulders. sea. to the feet. BJ. . Immedi­ ately after his explanation of the temple in De Vita Mosis. V. and oupavoc. its details are likenesses and imitations of the details of the cosmos. 1 1 7 .1 8 3 . See the note in Philos Wer\e to this later passage. rather than upon Philo himself. 20. he says. ii. Philo repeatedly says this: Mos. and symbolized the offering of the elements to G o d : this is ulti­ mately like Philo. see the note in Philos Wer\e to Mos. T h e chamber repre­ sents the worship of God by the cosmos.. and hence suggests a single and a considerable move­ ment with wide divergences. while he interprets the symbolism of the curtain and the candlesticks quite in the same way. On the difficulty of harmonizing this with the Hebrew text.. T h e mantle over the shoulders represents heaven. Opif. 22.. where.2 2 1 . Ib.T H E MYSTERY OF AARON 99 ing from another Hellenistic account of the Mystery of Aaron.

and the Aoyog JtQoqpoQixog. but here we approach the most difficult element of the interpretation. See Liddell and Scott. from which the %6o\ioq vorjtoc. There is some dispute as to whether the gem called ajidQavSog by the ancients was actually what we call the emerald. Mos. 28. As a whole this breast­ plate. but Philo thinks a better explanation is that they represent the two celestial hemispheres. since the different color of each sign is a matter of cosmic significance.. but the seat of the uttered Aoyoc. Antiq. A reference to Heinze's still classic Die Lehre vom Logos. T h e zodiac appears in more detail on the priest's breastplate. of which the sensible [world] is constituted. Ib. called in the Septuagint the Aoyelov. representing the six signs of the zodiac proper to each hemisphere.. 27. but is also the governing rule by which the changes of seasons occur. 29. ad verb. Some propose to explain the emeralds as the sun and moon (and this is the school Josephus follows at this p o i n t ) . and also the Logos which has to do with visible things which are imita­ tions and likenesses of those forms. It is true that he does not say that there is a divine Aoyoc npo4>opiKoc and evSiaGeToc to correspond to the double h u m a n logos. then. 185. the other the stream flowing from it. we conclude. This Aoyoc is the ratio of numbers. The location of the former is in TO f|ye[A0vix6v. For Philo says: The breastplate is double not without reason. mouth. . it is the Natural L a w of the heavenly world which the breastplate represents as a whole. fixed. In accordance with this interpretation it was inevitable that six names should be engraved on each stone. is sufficient for this very familiar Stoic notion. and set u p a double divine Logos to correspond to the double h u m a n 80 25. but certainly such a meaning is implied. 126. LIGHT 25 either shoulder the priest wears a large emerald. for they are equal and unchanging in a way the sun and moon are not. In man there are respectively the Aoyog evSiddetoc. T h e different signs or animals of the zodiac are further symbolized by the different color of each stone. and all the other organs of speech. the one of which is in a sense the source. is made. There has been much discussion over why Philo did not make the comparison ex­ plicit. but prop­ erly divided into four rows to stand for the four seasons of the year into which the whole circle of the zodiac is divided. T h a t is. ii. 26 27 28 T h e breastplate has further important significance. 26. Ill. 124 £. making together the twelve signs of the zodiac. 29 Philo would seem here to be definitely projecting a Aoyoc evSidGeTOC and npo^opiKoc from the h u m a n to the divine realm. there is one Logos which has to do with the immaterial and prototypal forms.. for both in the universe and in man the Logos is double. 30. In the universe. is the tongue.100 BY LIGHT. represents that permanent.. Ib. 140 ff. 127. and truly divine Aoyoc (ratio) which appears in the realm of numbers. T h e breastplate has four rows of three stones each.

1 7 2 . 151 if. Keferstein. La doctrine du Logos chez Philon d'Alexandrie (Diss. Gfrorer and H e i n z e . 3 3 . think that the implication is quite sufficient that Philo did think of the double Logos.T H E MYSTERY OF AARON IOI 81 logos. So have students of Philo varied in their judgments. Konigsweg. nach den Objekten. To him the distinction "auf die Frage bezieht . and says that there is only the double manifestation or activity of the Logos. p. Aall. 35. 1923). pp. 232... the comparing of the lower divine Logos to h u m a n speech involved too sharp a suggestion of h u m a n organs to be applicable to Deity. D r u m m o n d insists that while there is a double divine Logos. Both arguments are to m e quite unconvincing. H e sees. Leipzig. Griech. as Brehier erects the opGoc Aoyoc into a similar cosmic principle. as was done by later Christian writers. . I n building u p his argu­ ment for the two forms of Logos. Philos Lehre von dem gottlichen Mittelwesen (Leipzig. Pascher does not use this passage. 36. H e thinks that Philo was aware of this and hence compares the double divine Logos with the double h u m a n logos. with Heinze. and that it is a matter of chance and of no importance that he did not make the comparison more explicit. . 92 ff. pp. Philos. Zeller denies the existence of a double Logos at all in Divinity. 34. 177 f. 197. I ( 1 8 3 5 ) . Op. but does not make the comparison go further to an actual divine Aoyoc rrpo^opiKoc. A . T h e one is the Logos-Monad. 3 3 . Geschichte der Logosidee. 39. 38. F. p. and the same Logos in its relation to the material world. Konigsweg. Zeller. is an ascent to and an identification of the mystic with the cosmic Logos of the Stoics. 37. cit. esp. In his opinion the second or Cosmic Logos of Philo is the Stoic Logos. ii (1903). agree with Zeller and Drum­ mond. In a striking passage this is explained as being based upon the 32 83 34 85 36 37 38 39 3 1 . a cosmic Logos. and Soulier. as will shortly appear. 1896). since he seems to suggest i t . 92 ff." Zeller's refuta­ tion of Heinze's argument is yery convincing. 32.3 7 . Philo Judaeus. So to Pascher the temple cultus and the priestly dress indicate that this type of worship. 423 f. I (Leipzig. T h e high-priest is certainly represented by Philo as the Logos. Though he does so later. mit denen er (the Logos) sich beschaftigt. 36. the Logos in its relation with the KOCJJOC VO/)TOC. p. . II. 1846). pp. the Mystery of Aaron.. 1876). d. Ill. Philo und die jiidisch-alexandrinische Theosophie. See my The Theology of Justin Martyr (Jena. from different reasons. 144. the other the Logos-Dyad. in contrast with the Logos of the Powers.. so described because in being clothed with material the second Logos is not simple and single immaterial substance as is the higher Logos. but relies upon deductions from the general purport of the argument of the Monad and D y a d . and yet the high-priest is not qualified to enter the holy of holies as his fixed and proper sphere. T h e question has become highly important for our subject because Pascher has based much of his discussion of the Mystery elements he treats in Philo upon precisely this distinction. pp. Les Idees. the Logos that is the law of material nature by the fact that it is the formal principle immanent in mat­ ter.

) is the bond of all things.1 1 2 . XI.) has put on the universe as a garment (for he has wrapped himself in earth and water and air and fire and their products). Apuleius. TOU OVTOC. 42.. Aoyoc. as a mystic-mythological conception. 61 ff. who is also Father of all things. Fug.. the high-priest cannot wear robes which indicate that his father was vouc.. A second glance at the passage will reveal that it has nothing to tell us of the usual symbolism of the priesthood. 52. I think. LIGHT fact that the Aoyoc rrpo^opiKoc is not fixed. he has had indestructible and most pure parents. Pascher. 24. however. and the individual soul puts on the body. Another passage also deals with the high-priest as Logos. so that he is righdy represented as "putting on the gar­ ments. through whom all things (ret oAa) were born. "He does not tear his garments" for the Logos of God (6 TOV OVTOC. not a philosophic one. See above. while he borrowed the mystic notion of the Logos as the ruler of the uni­ verse. he is in the Higher Mys­ tery. as has been said. c. 28 ff. Philo has been allegorizing the great passage on the cities of refuge as stages of religious experience. as will appear. and prevents them by its constriction from breaking apart and becoming sepa­ rated. And I explain his head's being anointed with oil by the fact that his mind (TO f|yefxovixov) is permeated with the illumi­ nation of brilliant light. Philo now has to explain the scriptural statement that the soul that goes to one of these cities must stay there until the high-priest dies. and holds together all the parts. asks Philo. blind us to the fact that if mythological systems had a cosmic Logos. born from God and Sophia. 41. and the mind of the wise man puts on the virtues.102 B Y LIGHT. pp. Konigsweg. In the three higher stages man has gone beyond the river and is in mystical union with the Powers or with the Logos. pp. And the stipulation that he "shall never put off the mitre" from his head indicates that he shall not take off the royal diadem. and Sophia for his mother. Gig. God as his Father. Aoyoc. while only the Aoyoc dveu <puvr\Q is a Monad. that is. In answer Philo specifies that it is not the highpriest whose robe signifies his double origin from the immaterial and mate­ rial realms. pp. but the high-priest41 42 39a. 249 ff. What highpriest is indicated. This diadem is the symbol not of absolute rule but of a marvelous vicegerency. 40 Pascher very rightly sees this conception of the Logos. 40. This must not. In contrast to such a mediator as the highpriest stands Moses. . not the high-priesthood assumed by a man. and indeed is explicitly contrasted with that symbolism. his mother aioS/joic: 89a because. 1 0 8 . to avoid setting up a distinct mythological cosmic Logos himself." And the oldest Logos of God (6 JtoeaPuTctTOc. In so far as he is the Logos. Philo has gone a long way. Just before. and his parallels with Isis are striking. Metam. but is a Dyad.. and below.

in his assumption of the t w o Logoi. a fact that has abun­ dantly come out in the discussion of the Aoyoc TOJJCUC. . is of twofold aspect. but explains that he means the four elements. has the power of presenting itself along with matter which is in no sense an inherent part of itself. It is. then. than to -carry what Philo says here of the Logos as priest over to apply to the Aaronic priesthood. T h e whole point of the Aoyoc npo^opiKoc and evSidSeroc of Stoic distinction was not to make t w o Aoyoi but to make clear that the Aoyoc projected in speech was only a projection of thought. In other words. Noth­ ing could be more inaccurate. if I may coin such a word. the very monadity of the Logos that makes it the bond of the universe. W h e n CHTTOC means " t w o " it is written SITTOI and used as a dual. T h e passage says in plain Greek only that the Logos. appear to m e n as a duality. and that speech was only a derivative manifes­ tation of thought. 43 While we are on this subject. when the Logos of God goes into matter we have the great cosmic dyad. for it is not the Logos in the world that is the dyad but the world as consisting of matter with the Logos. the World. Philo is led by the contrast to g o on to explain that this "highest" Logos put on the four ele­ ments as a garment. T h e Logos remains a monad. But he has already said that it was not this combination that he was calling Logos. T h e divine Logos does. W h e n Philo says that the Logos in TCJ TTCCVTI and the Logos of h u m a n nature is in each case CHTTOC.T H E MYSTERY OF AARON 103 hood of that Logos whose origin and nature is entirely immaterial in origin." T h e n e w combination is the cosmos. Pascher seems wrong throughout. and that dyad is the material world. just as the dyad speech is made u p of h u m a n logos plus sound. together a monad. It is because the high-priesthood was so fixed a symbol of the cosmos to Philo and his readers that he is forced to make the distinction and explain the relation here. a singular thing. to be sure. it may be well to consider briefly another 43. certainly the "highest" Logos by Brehier's and Pascher's distinctions. There is one Logos which can combine with matter to make the dyad. that is not to say that there are Suo Aoyoj. Philo is clearly saying that it is not the Aaronic high-priest about which he is talking. but the Logos. T h e conception of a double Logos in Pascher's sense also does violence to what Philo seems to have in mind by comparing the two stages of the heav­ enly Logos to the Aoyoc evcndQcroc and the Aoyoc npo<t>opii<6c of m a n . the Logos in its proper purity and the Logos as an immanent principle in the material universe. b u t that is only because the one Logos. Philo does say here that the Logos puts on the cosmos. and nothing that follows justifies calling the new combination a "Second Logos. It is obviously only the Logos "holding them together and keeping them from dissolution" that makes the elements into the cosmos. W h e n the logos goes out from m a n and becomes mixed with sound we have speech. 6 npeoPuTonroc TOU OVTOC Aoyoc. monad and dyad. and became the binding force within them. then.

says Philo. T h e true vision is not that of the aspects. T h e section in the De Vita Mosis which describes the breastplate as the symbol of the twofold representation of the Logos is followed by a discus­ sion of the U r i m and T h u m m i m . LIGHT passage. can have the vision of TO o v . Only the beginner sees the distinction. but to see. T h e true understanding for us of Philo's thought. Again. only the logos without utterance. But to isolate these occasional passages from the thought of Philo as a whole. the monad. the high-priest is being compared with the Aoyoc n p o ^ o p i K o c of h u m a n speech. Philo's language frequently echoes mythical and gnostic conceptions of definite stages of a divine pleroma.104 ^ Y LIGHT. that is the Logos clothed in the material elements. It was far from being.. F r o m the confusion and multiplicity of the world of our senses. though to one in any but almost the highest stage the vision of the Logos and the two chief Suvdjjeic still appears as three. and nothing here is contrary to our conclusion from other passages that that Aoyoc npo<j>opiKoc is the cosmos. Yet that vision of the Logos as One was not to be attained at a single leap by ordinary m a n . H e r e . the importance of the Mystery of Aaron. where the high-priest is described in terms of the word logos. the Aoyoc npocpopiKoc. it is a great step in advance to come to the vision of the cosmos as a great dyad. the Logos clothed in matter. But again and again Philo insists that the various stages of radiation. Philo agrees with the Septuagint in calling them SyjAcjoic and dAyjOeta. but cannot enter to consort with them (npoc a u T a <(>OIT5V) more than once a year. rrpo^opiKoc as a dyad is unstable. as we shall see. and now the Logos in the material garment. is the cosmic dyad. Gig. the Highest Mystery. T h e priest in the cosmic robes. T h e high-priest dwells always among the holy doctrines. because the 44 44. the monad. through all its various aspects and figures. 52. . T h e priesthood of Moses has already appeared a vastly superior thing. the h u m a n reason is compared with the high-priest. Hence the importance of the sym­ bolism of the temple. is because the Aoyoc. This. the Powers and KOOJJOC voypic. is to see his Logos. between God as above the monad. the Logos in its purity. is to illuminate the figures on which Philo was drawing. are all to be called Logos. There is a distinction between the sun and the radiation. the importance of the priesthood which God had Moses confer upon Aaron. but not the thought of Philo itself. as it seems to m e Pascher and also Brehier have essentially done. But the priesthood that would lead m e n into the cosmic harmony was a divinely instituted boon for humanity. and the Logos-monad. like the vision to which he aspires. O n that stage we still must linger for further details. Philo seems to me through all this to be working still from the point of view of deity as sun-radiation. but again not in such a way as to suggest a cosmic dyadic Logos. as One. T h e priest had these. and so become one with. Philo explains.

102. W h a t Philo intends is to remind the reader of the familiar fact that the k i n g or emperor was himself subject in his rule and law to the Logos and L a w of Nature. is the golden plate on which the four letters were engraved. means not the high-priest as an individual. Again Philo is comparing the great Logos to the two h u m a n logoi of Stoicism. during the actual time he is exercising his office. 49. but KCCO' OV xpovov lepaTai. T h e real ruler. or else taken as a reference to the rotation of priesthood practiced in Philo's day. U p o n his head the high-priest wears a cidaris. ii. he was so not in the complete and pure sense that the priest was. and the clause would normally mean "during the time when he was priest. But these are not t w o Logoi of God or Nature. There are still other interpretations of the cidaris to which we shall come. .T H E MYSTERY OF AARON 105 Logos of N a t u r e is itself both true and the revelation or manifestation of all things. 1 3 1 . The clause must then be translated as I have done. as it clothes itself in matter. . Ib. is a magnificent manifestation of the truth to men. that it betokened the fact that even the rule of the Logos in Nature was only a marvelous vicegerency. is God Himself. For the attunement of all things is the Goodness and the Power of His Mercy. Philo goes on to say. Ti TCDV OVTCOV) can endure without calling upon God. T h e two h u m a n logoi are copies of these and each has respectively one of these virtues: reason must be true. as here inter­ preted. I n so far as the priest represented this. 47. 48. and at the same time. This. 49 T h e priesdy robes have for their crowning symbol the fact that the Goodness and Merciful Power.. a n d on which the very existence of creation not only 45. Mos. they sayj indicated because nothing that exists (ou .) was. ii. . the Merciful Power. we assume. which would be by Pascher's and Brehier's reasoning the Aoyoc npo<|>opiKoc. 45 46 47 48 Above the cidaris. so that this clause would have no meaning when applied to him. 1 3 2 . ' I e g a a f l m ordinarily means to be a priest. to signify. Philo is not going to be caught saying that the priest at Jerusalem is a higher person than the Roman emperor. following Yonge and Badt in Philos Werkje. See above.. Philo's objective in the interpretation of the U r i m and T h u m m i m is clear. p.. for while the king was also a revelation of that L a w and Logos." The priesthood of Aaron and his early successors was for life. It is in the h u m a n realm that he will allow himself even figuratively to speak of Suo Aoycj. T h e Aoyoc. 128 ff. 46. Mos. speech must be a clear manifesta­ tion. are the aspects of the Logos which hold the created world together. that is the SuvajJic TTOHQTIKV) and its secondary manifes­ tation. by these letters the name of God (TOU OVTOC. T h e Logos in the material world is itself the truth. T/jc $\JOZUC. his superiority to all k i n g s . W e have already seen another interpretation of this cidaris. has itself both these virtues. for then his superiority to kings would have been for life. his sover­ eignty must be superior to kings'. Philo points out with his usual caution.

For it was neces­ sary that he who was consecrated to the Father of the world should use as a para­ clete His Son who is perfect in virtue to secure remission of sins and an abun­ dance of indestructible good things. of being in harmony with the great sweep and course of the universe. himself a litde cosmos. LIGHT depended but still depends. is dressed for the religious rites so that when he goes in to offer the ancestral prayers and sacrifices. As he puts on its imitation he ought straightway to become one who bears in his mind the original pattern. the pomegranate of water. Ib. the whole cosmos may go in with him by virtue of the symbols (jJU[iT||xata) whicn he wears: the long robe reaching to his feet a symbol of air. that was 0c6c. . symbols of the zodiac are the twelve stones upon his chest arranged in four rows of three stones in each row. from any bondage to pleasure. In passing it is notable that Philo has not forgotten to indicate by inserting the $ao( that his explanation is a traditional one in his Jewish environment. but as one w h o has at last achieved the ideal now popularly associated with the Stoics. it will be recalled. of living according to Nature. adorned in this fashion. and is a transformation of the worshipper into the Cosmic Being. 136-140. made u p of Logos and Matter. W e shall have to bear in mind as the Mystery of Philo becomes more clear the problem of whether we are dealing 52 50. 1 3 3 . as Badt righdy points out ad loc. and hence the world must constantly invoke Gsoc. Yet perhaps it is also to teach in advance one who would worship God that even though he may be incapable of making him­ self worthy of the Creator of the cosmos. ii. This was the Power.io6 BY LIGHT. Such a person shares in the cosmic communion of the world with the Creator. the ephod of the ouQavog. he yet ought to try unceasingly to be worthy of the cosmos. to be sure. but still oriented in a great har­ mony through God's Powers of Goodness and Mercy. or of mystical union with H i m . 50 51 One further section sets out in figurative but clear language that the preparation for this experience is purification from all material a n d fleshly concern. so that he is in a sense trans­ formed from being a man into the nature of the cosmos. while the breastplate as a whole represents the principle that holds together and rules all things. Mos. T h e purpose of all this imagery is indicated in Philo's o w n summary that follows: The high-priest.. That is the xoonoq. with the six characters engraved on each. not as an indi­ vidual. T h e significance of the Jewish priesthood and temple has been here set forth with unmistakable meaning. or deifi­ cation. the scarlet of fire. he wears in type the two hemispheres in the jewels on his shoulders. Philos Wer\e.. and becomes. the flowered hem of earth. if one may say so (and indeed one must say nothing false about the truth). 5 1 . 52. its savior or pre­ server.1 3 5 . It is a worship designed for those w h o are not worthy of association with God.

Paul is very cautious. In the latter type there seem to have been no rites of initiation. . and which he always bore carefully in mind. as in I Corin­ thians. but m e n who still apparendy had not yet definitely become proselytes. presented here purposely in a way to be intelligible to one who knew nothing of the doctrine before. etc. he yet ought to try unceasingly to be worthy of the cosmos. for throughout the Exposition Philo assumes that the reader has already read. As he puts on its imitation he ought straightway to become one who bears in mind the original pattern. T h e language may just as well be figurative. was given only the lower teaching. It may be well to stop for a moment with the interpretation of the same material made for slightly more advanced Gen­ tiles. It is impossible that Paul's distinction between "adults" and "babes" was based upon a sacramental distinction between those who had and those who had not been baptized. or a mystic gnosis of the Hermetic type. so that the person who had no such experience. This is the sort of Mystery Paul and the author of Hebrews make of the Christian teaching when they refuse meat to babes and will give them only milk. in the sense of an organization with formal initia­ tion. Apparently there were definite levels of spiritual achievement which he could recognize. it must here be pointed out that the robe and cosmic experience of the high-priest seem something in which the individual can definitely share. I have begun my discussion of the significance of the temple and priest­ hood with this passage from the De Vita Mosis because it is from a book written for Gentiles. however. This is not to be wondered at. T h e implication of those words would seem to be. a simplification of some of Philo's more elaborate sym­ bolism. Without yet attempting to answer the question as to which type of Mys­ tery Philo is teaching. the experience of the priest was in some way open to all who properly aspired. not that the high-priest alone puts on the robes but that there is a Mystery in which any one who would worship God may also put them on. In the foregoing quotation Philo has said that the signifi­ cance of the priestly worship is to teach in advance one who would worship God that even though he may be in­ capable of making himself worthy of the Creator of the cosmos. But it is clear that whether the ordinary aspirant went through a ceremony of investiture or not. H e r e it is at first surprising to find that the account is much less elaborate than the one in the De Vita Mosis. and we cannot decide at this point in which way we should take it. not to go into the deeper teaching with those not ready to receive it. or only the lower type. so that he is in a sense transformed.T H E MYSTERY OF AARON 107 with a Mystery proper. but definite levels of spiritual experience.

a u T o u Geloc Aoyoc. ad loc) has pointed out. Philos Wer\e. 57. Philo could have had no dealings with the temple at Leontopolis.. Spec. so that they could easily be described as singular or plural interchangeably. in a fixed fidelity based upon their common interest and conceptions.. which he set in that purest temple of the material substance (OG>iLOYiw. 1 1 0 . the one made with hands. I n either case they are the Logos seen in relation to particular matters. 2 1 5 . Ib. 6 n p c J T o y o v o c .. Philo goes on in the De Specialibus Legibus briefly to describe the tem­ ple. and speaks of the holy of holies as at the center. jtepaiOTaTryv mcmv ojiovoiag. i. as they get to k n o w each other and sacrifice together. T h e journey to this single temple has the double advantage of testing by the rigor and inconvenience of the journey the good faith of the worshippers. the De Vita Mosis. 67. exceed­ ingly beautiful. the Aoyoi." 55. 7 1 . pp. whose natures are unmixed with matter. Ib. Som.1 2 5 .. It is supported by the offerings 54 55 58 57 58 59 60 53. 200). Antiq. speaks of the creation of the material world after the image of the x6ajiog VOT\T6$: after the pattern of the conceptual light "God made the stars perceptible by the senses. T h e Jewish temple. Spec. d v a 9 y ) p a T a ) and the priests are the sub-deacons of the Powers. 72 f. for when the high-priest enters once a year he must so envelop himself with the smoke of incense that he can see nothing while he is there.. though God allowed only one such shrine to be built. They are divine images (6\yak\iaxa). for since there is only one God. and in the other passage are the Logos. A parallel passage throws some light. i. 56. the heaven. and at the same time of bringing together Jews from every quarter of the world a n d uniting them. 60. as Heine­ mann (note. 68-70: etc. I n this temple the stars are the votive offerings (ornaments.io8 B Y LIGHT. * so of the ground already covered Philo has a relatively slight sketch. LIGHT 6 or has available. or the images cf God. But it is notable. T h e temple has no sacred grove. the angels. he says that it is a symbol of the true temple. Apparcndy Judaism in the Diaspora was far indeed from being a unit. a n d adds many important details. 55." in Harvard Theological Review. H e can have b u t one temple. whose sanctuary is the o u p a v o c . H e mentions the temple in another passage briefly to say that there are t w o temples of God. here obviously the contemporary temple. W e need not worry about the fact that the priests in one passage are the angels. was God's concession to the laudable desires of the people for a more definitely available sanctuary. XXVI ( 1 9 3 3 ) . completely shut off from the public view. See my "Philo's Exposition of the Law and his De Vita Mosis. 74 f. 6 oujinac KOOHOC. or as Philo else­ where calls them.. Philo in Opif.i\ o v a t a ) . Ib. IV. and indeed seen by no one. As to the significance of the Jewish temple. the holi­ est part of the substance (ouoia here in the sense of material) of things that exist. 54. that Josephus reproduces the same argu­ ment for a single temple (Ap. But he reaffirms the main interpretation. II. . 163. i. 59. 58.. the h u m a n soul (/) AoyiKy) ^ux*)) and the KQQ\\OC I n the KOO^OC the priest is the Logos.

Ib. where three articles.a." Third. and the portents of the heaven foretell the weather. xixcov. Besides the value of such a robe for its mere impressiveness Philo gives three reasons for its cosmic significance. alooicov axejcnv). i. obviously show that we have here various actual interpretations from different types of thinkers. though the heavens furnish guidance to mariners with their stars. and sug­ gestive as it is of the Mystery. especially of the sun. and not for all mankind only.v. iii. Spec. First. the Jewish priest is a mediator for all mankind. 61 62 68 T h e fundamental interpretation of the temple and high-priesthood as a cosmic worship. Jewish worship has cosmic significance. the universe. as Philo has given it before. make his o w n life worthy of the universal nature (a£iov T/jc TGJV OAOJV 4>UO£GJC). ii. T O imb x d aldoia axejtaau. that the priest might.a. xxx. it adds little to our knowledge of the Mystery itself. T h e varieties of interpretation found in Philo. Philo goes on to describe the priests and their g a r m e n t s but again only summarizing or assuming knowledge of the description given in the De Vita Mosis. by constantly seeing it. to illumi­ nate and reveal. T h e robe of the high-priest represents the elements. Ib. Let the individual 61. he wears the robe that in his ministrations the whole cosmos may worship with him. Falsehood cannot enter heaven. Cf. The trousers (jteQiaxeA. for it is the function of heaven. 62. in worship of the Creator and Begetter. would be presented. On sacramental use of JteQi^cojxa see Plutarch.. and Clement. JteQi^cou. here appears as opening a good many possibilities of significance at which Philo only hints. 143 f. the third mystic in the true sense.. the Jewish high-priest is distinguished in that while priests of other religions function only for their o w n circle. as well as those of Josephus. that is. 1 . a Mystery of the Cosmos. Aemil. and the breast­ plate itself the Logos. make himself so in harmony with the cosmos as himself to become a microcosmos. the gar­ ment over the shoulder the oupavoc.. appear as the JteQitcofia (elc. Second. but also for the very universe itself. "For it is most proper that the one w h o is consecrated to the Father of the universe should offer to H i m also the Son. with appeal to many types of mind. and £COVTI. T h e dress of the high-priest is then a copy of the universe (jjljjyjua TOU TTCCVTOC). It is notable that one interpretation is definitely an attempt to get philosophical physics and metaphysics. The tunic (xixcov) is explained as serving the purpose of the £covn in Mos. Suidas. JteQicrxekfj. Paul. 82 f. Illuminating as is this section for our knowledge of the relation of Jews in the Diaspora to the temple. the twelve stones of the breastplate the zodiac. 95-97- . 82-97. the stones on the shoulders are the hemispheres. 63. T h e U r i m and T h u m m i m are different here as specifi­ cally representing the manifestation and truth of heaven.. are mentioned. the second seems of mythologicalgnostic background. If these hints were developed at more length an extraordinarily rich religion.T H E MYSTERY OF AARON 109 of the Jews from all over the world.

But the point of this passage is that Aaron and his successors are really still of two natures. and the fact that the motive of the sacrificer alone determines the value of the sacri65 66 64. 1 8 1 . to tell the truth. contrary to all appearances. the m a n who is between the h u m a n and divine natures because he shares in both. Himself a microcosm. . brief as it is. T h e mys­ tic in rising to the state of the high-priest rises from multiplicity to the dyad. i. 65. priest B Y LIGHT. like the De Vita Mosis. Philo's passage on the priesthood in the first book of De Specialibus Legibus. Philo indeed seems to be as­ cribing to Aaron the type of priesthood he usually reserves for Moses. must limit his time of mourning. T h e remainder of the first book of De Specialibus Legibus goes on to speak of the particular sacrificial laws.1 8 9 . sketches a highpriesthood which is essentially that of the dyad. but have it only as the cosmos has it. indeed. Into them we need not go in detail. i. that men may appease (iMaxcovtai) God through some mediator (8ia (xeaou rivog). LIGHT take his choice! T h e Mystery.Q\xaq) to men. See below. and that God may have some underservant (ujtoSidxavog tig) to use in abundandy stretching out His favors (ya. and hence to have become 0£ioi avGpcjnoi in a sense that not even this passage ascribes to the highpriest. is a digression. T h e higher priests will appear to have put off this lower side altogether. So he goes on to details of the legislation for the priesthood from this point of view: the fact that the priest must drink no wine. because he must share in a nature greater than human. be physically perfect. Philo explains to the Gentile reader the cheerfulness with which Jews pay the temple tribute. made up of Logos and matter. 144. as Pascher calls it. like all great religions. Philo is not Spec. T h e whole spirit in which the sacrifice is offered is stressed as being of far more importance than the animal offered. must marry a virgin of priestly family. then. have importance as practical legislation of the very highest type. Philo's business in this writing is to prove that the various special laws of Judaism do. and approach much nearer the divine nature. 64 This is the first appearance in our material of the notion of the 8 doc avGpcjnoc. and who is hence in a position to mediate the salvation of God to men. There the only mediator. 1 1 6 . page 255. but himself an offering and source of grace. T h e De Specialibus Legibus. goes on from this level to the higher priesthood in Som. be a creature bordering upon both natures (jiedoQiov d|i<poiv). It will by no means be the last. was in itself compre­ hensive. T r u e they have a share in the divine nature.. ii. In connection with this last it is notable that Philo considers that the high-priest may not go through the usual signs of mourning. still mixed with the lower nature. he is at one with the macrocosm. Spec.

This is the type of prayer of one w h o has come to k n o w a n d be at one with the universe. R. 68. and in praying for individuals.Ib. Spec. It seems to me to have gone through a good many hands. and afterwards the life is to consist of the noblest deeds. 178. As he is purified in the ceremonies he no longer walks upon the earth.T H E MYSTERY OF AARON 67 68 in fice. the moon. 70.. 202 f. 149. 72 For in truth the soul of one who loves God springs up from earth to heaven and with its wings flies about. 191.. It is by no means here or anywhere else a prayer to the universe. XXI (1926). esp. A n d the prayer which Philo goes on to teach m e n is a cosmic prayer. 74. I n praying for men. for them as a whole as well as their parts. Ib. Through this kingship each individual thing is ruled in accordance with justice. 204. God their captain and general has the kingship over them. Ib." Classical Philology.. T h e Stoic w h o could pray to the universe Philo viewed with quite as great horror as he 7 4 67. 2 7 1 . 1 5 than to PI a to. as well as for the races and indi­ viduals. especially 103 for this passage) has successfully laid the ghost of Posidonius in connection with this familiar thought. 290.. earth and its planets and animals. Ib. that in this case the notion can be dismissed as simply borrowed from the Phaedrus. 257 ff. Ib.2 1 1 . Jones ("Poseidonius and the Flight of the soul through the universe. i. The untimely death of Jones has cost Greek Philosophy one of its clearest and sanest minds. 2 0 9 . and for its parts. 1 . so that the faithful m a n is a model of social conduct.. after it has been disciplined with good and beneficial intentions. H e praises the laws for their conformity with Natural L a w . in which w e thank G o d for the universe as a whole.. one should pray for them as a whole. not a flight beyond it. is to be made holy ((baicocr&ai). Ib. 72. heaven and the heavenly bodies. which is both a whole and an assembly of parts. for the fact that the laws display a plan a n d a philosophic basis (TO upon/jOec Kal <t>iA6ooct>ov) for the ascetic control and general moral elevation of their purport and influence. a n d the air and its changes. 202 £. 7 1 . 71 So his hands and feet become the servants doing what things are honored by oo<p[a and VOJJOC. and that most sacred and perfecdy attuned company of the other stars.. Would that he had lived to complete the comprehensive work on Posidonius he was so capable of producing! I am not so sure. longing to be put in order with and to take part in the great dance of the sun. v. the seas and rivers. and to be closer to the type of Neo-Platonic Mystery preserved in Iamblichus De Mysteriis.. 69. 69 70 For the meaning is that in the first place the mind of the one who offers sacrifice. one that cannot be opposed or taken away. 262. The language recalls the Phaedrus (246c) of Plato. T h e goal of this worship is a life which merits no accusation since it has been attuned to the Laws and Commands of Nature. the seasons. especially as they inculcate justice in the minds of those w h o obey them. 277. b u t soars into the air. 73. however. 73 T h e notion of the flight is still definitely a union with the cosmos. 97 ff. and by wise and law-abiding m e n .

69. T h e immediate object of the sacrificial system seems to have been the con­ ciliation of the Merciful Power of G o d . viaic. whose beams always shine forth unquenched. T h e closing sections of the first book of the De Specialibus Legibus are highly important.6aacr8m x a l evcoaai. H e turns from this to talk of the other parts of the tabernacle or temple. 70. that is. H e does not explain himself specifically as to which is the old. ii. b u t to them we shall return after considering the Quaes­ tiones in Exodum. he sees in the eternally burning fire on the altar a unifica­ tion of the t w o . 7 ) . . Such actual prayers will be presented in Chapter X I . QE. i. In one striking passage. which the new. what he has been doing all along here is not allegory at all. It is useless to go through all the details again.. the most detailed source of all for the explanation of the Mystery of the temple and priesthood. 76. a usual synonym for mys­ tical Sophia. Ib. which is separated into parts.. 286-288. Philo gets this type. Philo mentions this three times. the suppliant's appeal is to this Power rather than to the lowest Powers. T h e first symbol in this realm is the table. 80.." Philo is putting. the Power of Negative and that of Positive Commands. Ib. the Allegorists. T o that we shall return. Ib. the universe.Ta Kal voyjra. Whatever the explanation of the "new" and "old. Tauchnitz. a passage which must be discussed in connection with the Greater Mystery. for what sensible light is for physical sight. But the higher sacrifice h e has in m i n d he makes clear. but the additional ones must be noted. remarking that h e is turning from the symbols of the incorporeals to the symbols of those things that are in sensu. Talc.112 B Y LIGHT. 294. It is made clear that Philo is drawing his material from other men. They seem referred to in the putatur of §76 (ed. 366. 286: Toixa M-EVTOI x a l S i a xovSe $ovkzxvx xaq jtaXaiac. 79. type of the material world. 265. Philo suggests a distinction between the old and the new sacrifices. 78. T h e cosmic experience was one in which m a n learned to pray with.. This light is Sophia. Ib. in here a hint that there is a Higher Mystery. 7 1 . is to the reason in its perception of TOC aou\ia. LIGHT viewed any other manifestation of atheism. U p o n this altar the sacred light (not fire as above) is kept unquenched. H e r e Philo has been talking of the Mystery of the ark and the holy of holies. Spec. by allegory. Apparently when one gets beyond the literal fulfillment of the L a w into the philosophic appreciation of God's relation to the universe including man. &Qu. the "fifth" in contrast to the constitu75 76 77 78 79 80 75. 229. in contrast to the ceremonial sacrifice. the gate to whose understanding is allegory. not to. 77. that LmoTv\[\Y\. p. For the higher type of sacrifice is one in which the altar is the grateful soul of the wise m a n compounded of perfect and undivided virtues. 1. foaiaic. T h e candlestick is made all of gold because the heaven is made u p of a single element.

T h e veil which divides the tabernacle indicates that the outer chamber is dedicated to the sublunar world. 105.. the harmony they achieve from being a copy of the incorporeal pattern. 92.. T h e holy of holies separated off by the veil represents the intelligible world. the other of something greater. Ib. Ib. their four colors. 91. 88. Ib. 99. while the pole binding all together signifies the fact that the ele­ ments are held together by an indissoluble b o n d . 89. 92.. 94. T h e ten curtains of the tabernacle indicate the usual significance to h i m of the decade. 2. 85. Ib. ii.8 1 .. the substance of the sensible world by the table. and indicates the ency­ clical studies. 86. the great regalia of the sacrifices and the white robe he puts on for his annual entrance into the holy of holies.. the four elements. 83. 104.. not several. H e comments interest­ ingly upon the two robes the high-priest is to wear. 90. T h e branches of the candlestick go off at an acute rather than a right angle because the zodiac cycle is of such angles.. T h e one is a robe of honor and glory. "The Great King" was the usual classical way of referring to the King of Persia. Ib. This is the literal significance. 84. and the other ornaments and details of the candlestick are likewise given cosmic symbolism. 7 6 . T h e one is proper for material ministration. 107. 83. Ib. Ib... Each branch of the candlestick has three cups as the three signs of the zodiac in each season. Ib. 75. 86. 93. 103. T h e olive oil of the lamp is the supply for the light of wisdom. 96. the inner to the aetherial essence. Ib. 88. Ib. 95. T h e altar of sacrifice calls properly for the offering not of victims and flesh.. Ib. 93 f.. Ib. It is notable that the priest in these robes does not 82 88 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 81. Ib.. T h e inner meaning is that the priest represents true opinion. he elaborately points out. . Ib..T H E MYSTERY OF AARON 81 ii3 tion of the rest of the universe from the four elements. but of a pure life. and glorified by participation in divine things. T h e lamp is to be kept burning from evening to morning to symbolize the stars. for honor and glory are the things held in esteem in the material realm. Also they signify that the high-priest is honored by men. Aaron and his sons have been initiated for the divine ministry and have become greater kings than the Great K i n g . so the tabernacle is designed to show the nature and substance of the sublunar world and its four elements. 97. 9 9 . QE.1 0 1 . As the in­ corporeal world is represented by the ark. Ib. like all kings they must thus be priests and serve God if they are to rule others. 89. The priestly function of the king will appear somewhat expanded in the treatment of Moses below. 84. 90. Exod. and became proverbial for the highest type of kingship. 98. Ib. and the fact that there is one tabernacle. 91. 85. Ib. and its colors likewise indicate the elements. 7382. the heaven by the candlestick.... as previously. has the same m e a n i n g . xxviii. 87. They are joined together to show that out of material multiplicity the cosmos is a u n i t ..

evSiaSexoc and rrpocfopiKoc. but that. no. This is a symbolum incorporeae intelligibilisque formae materiae. 108. ioi. T h e two shoulder pieces of Exod. but he himself is seated by God the F a t h e r .. QE... But there is a brief excur­ sus on the Logos as head of the world.. 7 are the two aspects of religion. n o . 105. Ib. in. piety to God and kindliness to m e n . Ib. 117-120. 104. 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 ioo. Ib.. T h e sym­ bolism is elaborated on several details. 106. rather than that he is just letting his imagination r u n wild. so frequently happens in Philo that it is impossible to discard any passage for its tangency. i n . xxviii. 108. slightly developed. Ib. 102. on the fact that the world is subject to him and beneath him. that will appear to be one of Philo's most impor­ tant concepts in the Higher Mystery. in that their virtues are stamped upon their successors.. . for the virtues of the Patriarchs are like the forms. Ib. H e r e is a notion. Closely as the symbolism of the Quaestiones in Exodum has followed the general plan of interpretation of the temple and the high-priest in Philo's other writings. 1 1 7 . T h e breastplate is l o g o s . of course. Ib. 123 f.11 4 B Y LIGHT. They are enclosed in gold as the elements are encircled by ether. 1 1 4 . 1 2 1 . 107. T h e higher significance of the white robe is not here explained. LIGHT represent truth or wisdom. it is double because there are two kinds of Xoyoc. T h e names of the Patriarchs are associated each with one of the stones be­ cause the twelve Patriarchs themselves represent stars. Their names are en­ graved on the stones like seals. Ib.. but throughout it is the h u m a n logos he seems here to have in m i n d . and while the interpretation in general follows the lines we have found else­ where. whether the whole passage or only the gloss (eo quod Christus dominus est) it is difficult to determine. 122. 112. H o w much of this is a Christian interpolation. ii.. but there are just enough references to the interpretations of "others" to make it much more probable here also that Philo's variations arise from his attempt to reproduce several current inter­ pretations. the L o g o s or the world of f o r m s . Ib. Sometimes the differ­ ence of detail may be regarded as sufficiently explained by Philo's own love of fanciful extemporization. T h e whole seems dragged into the context.. 1 1 3 . 109.. that is. Ib. 103. there is a striking divergence of detail. Ib. 109. T h e four rows of three jewels each on the breastplate are again the four seasons with three signs of the zodiac for each season. As Philo closes his description of the robes of the priest he continues to emphasize the cosmic symbolism of the details. also be­ cause logos is directed doubly toward divine and h u m a n things.. T h e last few sections deal with the plate of gold on which is engraved the sacred four letters. T h e two stones on the shoulder are again the hemispheres with the six signs of the zodiac on each. he adds many details of interest. Philo now goes on to the symbolism of the great robe of the high-priest. Ib.

and its contents will be discussed later. in­ cluding the Mystery of Aaron. For Philo's attitude toward the Mystery of Aaron one passage is highly revealing. But never does he ask his Gentiles to look for salvation in fulfilling the letter of Jewish Law.T H E MYSTERY OF AARON "5 There was certainly a variety of traditions as to the details of the Mystery of Aaron. and it was to this higher experience Philo would have conversion to Judaism lift the proselytes. as we shall see. In this connection it need only be pointed out that as great a Mystery as Philo has shown the Lesser Mystery to be. This is entirely in accord with the spirit of the De Specialibus Legibus. T h e Aaronic initiate knew that the immaterial world was there beyond. Philo is trying to bring the Gentiles into the Mystery of Moses. as was Aaron himself. that is. but all the traditions agree on this point. For high as the Mystery of Aaron could lift men. but rather with the L o g o s . H e r e it need only be empha­ sized that Philo has specifically pointed out to his readers that the Mystery of Aaron was a part of literal Judaism. from sharing in the realm of the incorporeal. i. It is all a part. and he has no interest in making literal Jews out of them. in the De Vita Mosis and the De Specialibus Legibus. but he was always shut in by material incense from any mys­ tical union. and so many times 112 113 1 1 2 . For their benefit he goes through the whole body of literal commands. quite distinct from the higher wor­ ship offered m e n by Moses. T h e passage is important for the Higher Mystery. In several passages Philo has appeared to be equating the high-priest not with the cosmos specifically. H e has twice explained the Mystery for Gentiles. and describes it all to them. See above. for the first time in the whole discussion of the Mystery. shut off. pp. explaining its majestic origin and value. 1 1 3 . W h a t he goes on to say has n o reference to the Mystery of Aaron. at least. even up to cosmic proportions. 229 f. himself moved beyond that type of Judaism into the "philosophic" Juda­ ism as he had himself become an initiate of Moses. was a Cosmic Mystery in which the initiate or worshipper rose to join in the hymn of the universe to its maker. T r u e understanding of the T o r a h by allegory had revealed to Philo the higher experience. But at the end of his discussion in the latter treatise he significantly says that the foregoing has been a discus­ sion of the laws established for the purpose of promoting piety by means of commands and prohibitions. Gentiles are not in­ vited to share in it. into what he here calls the "philo­ sophic" Judaism. that the service of the Jewish priesthood. the Mystery of God and the incorporeal P o w e r s . and all the temple except the holy of holies. H e says he must now go on to discuss the legislation which would produce piety by means of philosophic teaching and advice. as they obviously are in the Higher. Spec. it still left them material creatures. . but the Mystery of Moses. of the Judaism of the letter. Here. the Gentiles are considered. For Philo had. 100 fT.

Yet as before I can see n o justification for speaking of a "second" Logos. T h e high-priest is Logos here. This seems to m e on the whole to be mislead­ ing. 114 115 For a the cosmos is a t e m p l e i n w h i c h t h e h i g h . 102-105. that of the dyad clothed in matter. A glance at the passages. in addition to the passages already discussed. which we recognize as the "higher" Logos of Pascher. Mig. the Logos.2 1 9 . b u t the Logos as present in the cosmos. Som. . b u t the highest Logos. Philo here lets us see more clearly w h y h e speaks of the part for the whole. But never does Philo forget that the priest in his great robes is the Logos as clothed in matter. so the highest office of the priest is his representation of the most important part of the cosmos. points out the details of his ceremonial duties and vesture. H e is not a "second" Logos. T h e high-priest is the Logos. be­ cause for religious purposes that part of the cosmos was overwhelmingly the more important. As the Logos is the /JY^M°VIKOV of the universe. the priest. In one more passage the high-priest is again the Logos.). the only Logos. i. represented ra voyjTa. T h e signet is specifically the symbol of the ibia !§£G3V.6 JtQCOToyovog loyoq. T h e Bible. as 114. A s a type of the Logos the high-priest wears a regalia which in its highest part. In the universe the priest is the Logos. by his double presentation of r a v o y j T a and TOL aio0y)T<i brings m a n to recognize that the material world is formed after the likeness of the immaterial. sig­ nificantly called here 6 lepoc Aoyoc. . 2 1 4 .p r i e s t is. m a t e r i a l (alaQrytov) aurou fteiog. as distinct from the cosmos. the gold signet on his head engraved with the name of God. LIGHT has h e done this that commentators take the high-priest to be a fixed sym­ bol with Philo for the Logos. t h a t t h e w o r l d m a y w o r s h i p t o g e t h e r with m a n . . and he is designated as most significantly typifying the Logos. 1 1 5 .. H e puts o f f this robe and i s clothed i n luminous white linen for the inner service. that is the cosmos. W h a t the priest represents here again is the Logos clothed in matter. where Philo calls the high-priest the Logos. far indeed from the Logos as elsewhere described. as we have con­ cluded above.. a n d m a n w i t h the universe. where things of sense are left behind altogether. . with brief indication o f their cosmic symbolism. by the familiar fig­ ure of the part for the whole. as in all these passages. of w h i c h t h e o n e who imitation.n6 B Y LIGHT. This is far indeed from the Higher Mystery. will confirm this statement. in its lowest parts it signified the elements. offers u p t h e ancestral prayers and sacrifices is K e is c o m m a n d e d t o p u t o n the a f o r e s a i d tunic as a c o p y of t h e u n i v e r s a l c o s m o s (O&QCVOC. yet that Logos only as it presented itself in relation with the elements. T h e wor­ ship in which the high-priest leads is elaborately described as the cosmic h y m n . I n one passage Philo makes the identification.

or the cosmos as a whole. as Philo presents it. This seems to m e highly unlikely. and he assumes throughout that no greater sin could be conceived than that of confusing the created with the Creator. T h e Stoic saw union or harmony with the cosmos as har­ mony with the ultimate. As he has pointed out. but not of the Logos alone. It is a worship of one of the lower manifestations of God. represented that step as a Lower Mystery. Of course in sharing in this worship the essential step is to bring the h u m a n mind into harmony with the Logos that dominates matter. H e thinks that the fundamental notion of the Mystery. So the high-priest in his great robes is a representation of the Logos. however uncertain we may be as to the exact connection between these two expressions of Egyp- . If there were other mystic teachings which made the cosmic worship the first stage in the approach to God. and as a stopping place only for those who could go no higher than worship through visible symbols. T o adapt the Stoic conception to Philo's theism was a large task. the lifting of the initiate to move in time and sing in tune with the cosmos. were too generally in the air to denote any definite borrowing from Stoicism. and again the worship to which he brings m e n is to a share in the cosmic worship of God. or its imitation. was derived from that source.T H E MYSTERY OF AARON 117 that is the bond that connects the material world with God. Such phrases as "living according to nature. although officially in his robes he was the cosmos. he symbolizes the Logos in the cosmos. W a s there at hand a con­ ception of the ascent to God through the universe which could have attracted the Jews to such adaptation? If it has seemed necessary to reject Pascher's interpretation of the Logos dyad and the Cosmic Mystery as being essentially Stoic." upon which Pascher bases his claims. and so much did this out­ weigh all other aspects that Philo could call the high-priest the Logos. H i s Merciful Power. Philo sees it only as a way of joining in with the h y m n of all creation to the Creator who is infinitely beyond the world. In his section on the Mystery of the high-priest Pascher has concluded that on the level of the Aaronic Mystery Philo is almost purely Stoic. the whole conception would seem to have come to Hellenistic Jews originally from that Egyptian thought which we associate with Isis and the Hermetica. T h e point is that the Mystery of the Cosmos. and I cannot think that to Philo or to any other Jew it would have suggested itself as a desirable thing to attempt. it must be pointed out in gratitude that he has yet asked the above question and undoubtedly given the right answer to it. is essentially foreign to Stoicism in that union with the cosmos was itself but a stepping stone to the vision of the Creator. then there would have been incentive for Jews to have exercised their ingenuity to fit that scheme into the T o r a h by identi­ fying the lower stage with the rites at the temple. Relatively the elements are of slight significance.

so that it seems the cosmos (that is. the hzmzpoc 0£oc. and so. provided that he bears in mind what action is suited to the part he has to play. Konigsweg. by this. 5. 1 1 7 . Scott's translation. God. Man. the cosmos is one. while ultimately from God. governs all things. 58. Man's first step. in respect of the divine part of him. Corp. LIGHT tian piety. has been so fashioned that each of his two parts is made up of four elements. Asclepius. the Maker of the cosmos and of all things that are therein. and revering God's image (the cosmos). he becomes the means of right order to the cosmos. must here be reproduced. T h e n the soul rises up. X. a Power himself.. 14b. becomes one with the Powers. the ordered universe) has been righdy so named. Another Hermetic passage is strikingly suggestive of Philo's formulation of the mediating work of the high-priest as a cosmic priest: 116 117 118 God. is immediately from and in the cosmos in the same way as the cosmos is from and in God. is first. rendering praise and thanks in full measure to God. because man's composite structure has been thus ordered by God. Pascher. Rather than simply refer the reader to Pascher. There are other striking Hermetic passages which Pascher does not quote. Man appears to be made in the image of the cosmos and has ouurraGaa with it. the Master of eternity. where he sings with the stars the great hymn to the Father. I. is a single whole built up of diverse parts. which are above the oupavoc. as well as a conception (£vvoia) of the First G o d . T h e cosmic stage at which one becomes a part of. and the cosmos to him.n8 B Y LIGHT. 10. p. For there are two images of God. and knows the cosmos also. Poimandres. likewise singing their h y m n to God. the cosmos is second. And if man takes upon him in all its fullness the function assigned to him. 24—26a. Man knows himself. H e is made like them. and sings with. not unaware that he himself is a second image of God. but has made man as a composite being to govern in conjunction with Him. the universe as a whole is quite a part of the Hermetic preliminary to approaching the Powers. in order that he may be fully equipped on both sides. inasmuch as he. VIII. 1 1 8 . and provided that he recognizes what things he is to use for his own ends. . cf. the tend­ ance which is his special task. that is. For you must note that man. and man is another. and can hear also the Suvauxic. with some expansion. and to what things he in turn is to do service. A t the end he enters into God. T h e Hermetica show strikingly the place of the cosmic worship in the general rise to the Higher Mystery.. O n e striking passage describes the mystic as rising u p through one planetary circle after the other until he at last reaches the circle of the fixed stars. like the cosmos. would then logically be to come to the realization that he himself is thus urrc TOU KOOJJOU KCC! £V TCJ K o o u y . Since Pascher lays no stress upon the importance of the Powers in Philo's Mystery he has under-estimated the extent of the parallel here to Philo's whole scheme. man is third. Herm. which is composed of other 116. his arguments and evidence.

23 f. p. keeping it out of sight and touch.. For the primal principle is pure. being placed in a body. Thus it is that man. has been made mortal also in part..T H E MYSTERY OF AARON 119 and higher "elements. But the principle of knowledge of the nature that is conceptual. he is mortal. . they are strikingly different in avoiding precisely that mythological formulation of divinity which Pascher has made the center of his presentation. and reason. fire and water. but has a simple and jingle nature. In contrast the vestment of Osiris has no shadow or diversity. day and night. But the Isis robe they frequendy wear. earth. as Brehier has insisted. Yet there is one impor­ tant point to be recalled. God was one: H e worked and revealed himself through His light emanations." so to speak. Philo is primarily religious rather than philosophical in his writings. T h e r e can be no mistaking the similarity of Philo's cosmic Mystery with these Hermetic statements. Pascher. and simple. mind. though in part divine. he could yet have had no sympathy with that travesty of philosophy. he is found capable of rising to heaven. intellect. but in respect of his material part. especially in Egypt. 77. Metam. and the First and the Conceptual is unmixed. but always Philo is careful to deny ultimate reality to any distinctive manifestation of God. are subject to vari­ ous developments and in the course of their constant changes take on now this form. Pascher has quoted from Plutarch's De hide a passage so striking that I must repeat it after h i m : The vestments of Isis are of various colors. to be sure. which consists of fire. Chap. H o w long had Jews in the Diaspora. For the objects of sense. On this account initiates put on this robe only once. spirit. been so much under the influence of mystic thought that they interpreted their holy temple 1 1 9 . the type of mythological presentation to which we give the collective name of Gnosticism. 5 3 . flashes through the soul like lightning and offers itself in a single moment's experience to apprehension and vision. and air. that he may not leave forsaken and abandoned all things that are entrusted to his keep­ ing. water. for her power is extended over matter. now that. namely light and darkness. xi. If. the light-form (qxotosiSeg). 119 T h e passage he quotes from Apuleius is almost as striking. T h u s in the Aaronic Mystery Hellenistic Judaism has drawn into Jewish worship the point of view of Isis and the Hermetica. beginning and end. which becomes and assumes all sorts of forms (ndvxa ytyvojxevY|v xal oexo^Evrjv). he is closer to Plotinus than to any mythological conception of Deity. For all his Hermetic and Isiac roots. namely. life and death. However much Philo and his school were attracted to adopt the ideas and spiritual ascent of thoughtful Egyptians. which are always in use and ever lie ready to our hand. pure. 382c. Konigsweg. and remains on earth. p. and lay it down again. 120 120.

LIGHT and priesthood in such terms? Little as we k n o w of the history of such a development. and the Mystery of Aaron originally a product of Palestinian syncretism. pp. p.. since it is unthinkable that they owe the notion to Judaism.120 B Y LIGHT.. 1926. 20 ff. have frequently been pointed out. especially in connection with angelology. especially by G r e s s m a n n and Bousset. W h a t the Hermetic parallels definitely show us. Philonic scholars have long been aware that this allegory must be as old as the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon. As to this we can only say that. They show that Jews had long before Philo. the Mystery of Aaron had been develop­ ing. For some time before Philo. T h e fact that Josephus pre­ sents the Mystery of Aaron but not the Mystery of Moses suggests that the cosmic interpretation of the temple cultus was familiar in Palestinian Juda­ ism as the Higher Mystery was not. and which betrays a variety of ultimate sources. 122. In closing it must be pointed out that the Aaronic Mystery may not at all have arisen simply from Egyptian suggestion. lacking any early distinctive Palestinian tradition. 24. 123. Pascher. Traces of oriental solar astrol­ ogy in the later books of the Old Testament. (xviii. the matter must be left undecided. esp. 3rd ed. been influenced by this type of thought. For there it is stated: Upon his long high-priestly robe was the whole world pictured.) T h e little statement is priceless. since. at least originally. as P a s c h e r points out. a syncretistic product of some kind. Beiheft 5 ) . And the glories of the fathers were upon the graving of the four rows of precious stones And thy majesty was upon the diadem of his head. 122 123 121 1 2 1 . pp. Die Religion des ]udentums. 475 ff- . T h e extraordinary variety of detail and interpretation which Philo shows. for the author to have said this much he must have had much more to go with it. Orient. Konigsweg. 5 1 . 320 ff. passim. Die hellenistische Gestirnreligion {Alt. originating in those mystic ideas that later became popular in Egypt also. and in Palestine itself. T h e similar notions in the Hermetic tradition may well have been of oriental and not Egyptian origin. then. 1925. is that the Mystery of Aaron was. would then come from a widely current mode of thought.

and as they had lived without the code in immediate ex­ perience of God. but with the De Opificio Mundi.CHAPTER V ENOS. It is clear that Philo would not have taken us at once even to the Patri­ archs. A N D ABRAHAM IT has already appeared that Philo is by no means satisfied that the Jewish Law. and could have omitted this had it not been an important part of his presentation. and doctrine of God which the Mystery presupposes. T h e fact is that before one can go into the Mystery there are certain philo­ sophical points of view which the initiate must understand and accept. T h e Deity he worships is one that has projected His life into the universe and His will for m a n into the "elements of nouns and verbs. NOAH. ENOCH. It is obvious that Philo wrote the De Opificio to demonstrate that the cos­ mogony and philosophy of Moses was that taught by the Platonic and NeoPythagorean philosophers." But as the mystery of Aaron was throughout described as secondary to the Mys­ tery of the ark and the holy of holies. else what follows will be meaningless. T h e best plan in interpreting Philo's conception of what lay beyond the precepts and be­ yond the Mystery of the cosmic priesthood is to follow Philo's own method of presenting the higher Mystery to Gentile readers in the great Exposition and the Life of Moses. by first under­ standing the significance of the individual Patriarchs. For to Philo the way of approach to God in His immaterial aloofness had been revealed in the lives of the Patriarchs. They had become the VOJJOI ejjvpuxoi. but as the beginning of the Law. as a literal revelation of the will of God. So we shall try to come into the Mystery as Philo would have initiated us. T h e Exposition does not begin with their stories. For entrance into the Mystery the ideas developed there constitute the first essential step. can be an adequate approach to Deity. not as an introduction to the L a w in its higher sense. its first part. in which the Mosaic account of creation was treated. philosophy. Philo is not just beginning at the first part of Genesis. W i t h many details from the Timaeus Philo ex- . for he omits much of the Torah in the Exposition. so they became at once the patterns for the code and the revelation of the higher and direct way to God by which they themselves had achieved union with H i m . so the literal L a w was a thing designed for men in a material and essentially inferior state of being. Hence the point of beginning with the creation story is that Philo must first sketch the cosmogony. T h e exposition of the mystic higher teaching of the T o r a h was to Philo largely an exposition of their lives. the incarnations of the will of God and of the life and nature of God (for Philo k n e w no distinction between God's being and will).

Doxogr. See the elaborate proof in Spec. . that God exercises providence in the world. 1 7 5 . The refer­ ence if not to popular and unphilosophic atheism. that there is but one cosmos. but only what we might call an immanent presence and cooperation of God in the created world. For "he who has begun not by hearing these things but by learning them with his understanding. Parmenides. 69 ff. Fifth. To Jews Philo says that only one who is drunk can deny that God is the Creator and Father of the universe: Post. is possibly to the early atomists and other philosophers of qruoug whom Aristotle criticized because they explained creation or reality without a moving Cause (Metaph. as saying that the world is ayivryzoq x a l aiSioc. . and theology crystallized into a creed. 144. the uniquely existent. as the Prime Cause. ad he.. as has been said. will lead a blessed and happy life. he affirms that God is one. . W e know from his other writings. T h e book closes ( § § 1 7 0 . that providence here is not the Stoic providence which implied determinism. against the atomists of all periods. 1 7 2 . Third. II. to whom must of course be added Aristotle. for he will have become moulded by doctrines of piety and holiness. the starting point of what is to Philo the Jewish life. The Pythagoreans were divided on the subject. and Melissus. T h e Torah must for them have been made to teach something explicit along the lines of concep­ tions which could be assumed among traditional Jews. Second.1 7 2 ) with a doctrinal summary in which Philo insists that the story of Creation brings out four points. J. 984a if. not proof. First against the atheists. rather than a plurality or infinite number of KOOJJOI. against various schools he affirms that the material world had a beginning in its present form. Philo affirms that God exists and rules the world. . and those w h o denied His existence altogether. These would seem to be especially the Epicureans.. 3. against polytheists. which exhausts all matter. But for Gentiles God's very existence has to be proved.." p. 1 1 . Abr..122 BY LIGHT. See my "Neo-Pythag. 2." It is natural that Philo should have had to emphasize a correct conception of God from the Jewish point of view for converts. against the Epicureans. created through the instru­ mentality of the Logos. Source. T o the credal prerequisites for the Mystery which Philo laid down for 1 2 3 4 5 1. Diels.) suggests that Philo is referring here to the Sceptics. Aetius (Viae..). 5. both those in doubt about God's ruling. LIGHT plains that the first chapter of Genesis teaches that the material world has been created after the pattern of the immaterial.. Fourth. The approach is different in the Exposition.. Philo's writings for Jews are throughout concerned with expounding the nature of God and H i s relation to m a n and the created world: for Jews His existence and creative and ruling power need exposition.. Opif.. 32 ff. 4. iv. 332) lists Xenophanes. This thoroughly Platonic-Pythagorean creed (both schools agreed on all these points) is a necessary part of the Torah. but by God. Yet they denied not the existence of God but the possibility of our knowing about Him. i. and especially with m a n . Cohn (Philos Wer\e. and has stamped in his soul these marvelous and priceless forms (dhr\) (that is the five articles of this "creed").

but ability to pay the initiation fee. ouv \XY\TZ TcAeiTGJ \XY\TZ TXASIOGGJ TGJV MOJUO£GJC <poiTV)T&v Kal yvupiMGJv) has quite a different possibility of inter­ pretation.) admits the literal meaning of these calls to lynching for apostasy to idolatry. Just as realistic is Philo's denunciation of the people who would enter into mystic initiations. people whom. as in §§54 ff. and seasons. he returns at a later part of the Exposition. however. which must be avoided by one who would enter the Mystery of the Powers he has briefly been describing. Ib. Philo wanted to exclude from the Mystery of Moses. w h o urged the people to break down their exclusiveness and join in the popular celebrations. 3 1 9 . and sacrifices. 319 ff. not talking at random. 6a. There were evidently such Jews about him. AND ABRAHAM 123 Gentile converts. . i. T h a t is aside from our present pur­ pose. misleading doctrines and practices. seas. In any case it is notable that Philo criticized them not for keeping secret the true doctrine of God and the cosmos. It will be recalled that much of the De Opificio had been de­ voted to describing how the material world was created after immaterial patterns. NOAH. W h e n nature has revealed the secrets of philosophy to all who would see them in the stars. So "let no follower of Moses initiate anyone. 259 ff. pp. Even Heinemann (Bildung. T h e first perversion is that of false prophets who would lead one to wor­ ship the gods of the Gentiles. and which must have applied also to Jewish members of the Mystery. and in preferring pious Gentiles as incomparably superior to such Jews Philo is. who will pay for the initiation? T h e secrets should be given out to anyone worthy to receive them (rraoi TOTC a£iotc).ENOS. Spec. and only to anyone. T h a t passage is of interest here.. W h o then may approach for the mystic teaching? W h o are oi a£ioi? This is the question that Philo now proceeds to discuss." At first glance this passage would seem to indicate only that some Jews were being initiated into the pagan mysteries. In the other passage. at least from the negative 6 63. he makes good the omission. i. It seems to m e more natural that the reference should be to Jews w h o were celebrating a Jewish Mystery. ENOCH. air. H e is dis­ cussing the dangerous perversions. and we shall return to the subject. like those going to idolatry. 7 8 6. T h e passage that concerns us begins at De Speciali­ bus Legibus. temples. T h e false prophets are clearly Jews. 7. See below. libations. but in equating that truth with certain rites. 3 1 5 . Philo would here again lynch such a person. though this is not made one of the prime statements of creed at the end. . 225 ff. Their secret rites are an abomination. and in making the pre­ requisite for admission not the character or aspirations of the applicant. who are m e n to shut themselves off with the secrets of the universe and give them out to anyone.3 2 3 8.1 am sure. or himself be initi­ ated. But the last sentence quoted (fjyjSelc. and in the animals and fruits of the earth.

since both have variant forms of the same disease. God. It is impossible to say definitely whether Philo is simply m a k i n g a literary gesture in including this category. God must have personally shaped matter in creation. is in some doubt.124 B Y LIGHT. Spec. on the ground that the notion of an ever present and all seeing God makes m e n cautious.. 327 f.. 10. Ib. he says. 4th ed. 9 10 11 12 18 14 15 9. 13. As the castrati have made themselves into auop<{>oc. Since throughout this passage he seems to have realities in mind. Ib. Sextos' introduction to the poem is still closer to Philo than the poem itself. T h e principle of exclusion Philo sees established in the laws forbidding castrati to enter the temple. i. First those w h o reject not only the Forms but the very existence (unap£ic) of God. T h e fact that these and that harlots and bastards (who cannot be sure w h o is their father) are excluded opens the way for Philo to inveigh against the various types of atheists. T h e third group to be ruled out are the polytheists.) The ascription 14. Spec. LIGHT point of view. 1 1 . uAyj. 330. or is reflecting some popular sceptical flippancy whose language had become fairly conven­ tionalized. which are Forms. For atheists do not k n o w their Father. as Diels shows. Philo gives us five types of people whose philosophy would exclude them from sharing in the Mystery. T h e diffi­ culty is. the first require­ ment for admission is for the candidate to recognize the deity of Philo as H e works through the Powers and Forms. i. T h e second group to be excluded are the atheists. and wide circulation. I should suspect the latter to be true. 325. 54. T h e fourth and fifth excluded types he discusses together.. I n any case Philo rules such people out.. W h a t looked at first like a miscel­ laneous collection of allegorical fancies suddenly emerges as something very like a definite credal requirement. (Diels. T h e former are the people. Adv. IX. 324. these people would take away all the formal principles of the universe. T h e castrati are those w h o reject the Platonic-Pythagorean doctrine of F o r m s . pp. so m u c h so that its real origin had been forgotten. 320 f. Vorso\rat. self-love (4>iAauTia) T h e two seem at first to be the Stoics and Epicureans. T h a t is. 333 &> . Once started on this. that if the F o r m s are not recognized. 15. II. T h e widely divergent traditions of the authorship of the poem suggest a general popularity.. Certainly those incurably sunk in sin are excluded from "flee­ ing for refuge" to the fellowship. O n e is reminded of the striking poem ascribed to Critias by Sextus Empiricus. saying that one talks of H i m only for the benefit of ordinary m e n to keep them from doing wrong. and so are excluded. Ib.. Fragm. w h o in calling many gods "Father" show that they are children of a harlot and have n o way of knowing which of many possible ones was their father. Mathem. Ib. as Philo sees it. 1 2 . 331 f. through which to work. They are also castrati.. and could not have had the Powers.

Philo has an extended digest of the arguments of both.. T h e point of the whole section appears in the last paragraph of the book: We the disciples and pupils of the prophet Moses. as H e i n e m a n n has pointed out. See below. between wise and foolish. Those who deify the mind dwell upon the fact that it has marvelous powers. by set­ ting before them the philosophic postulates on which the whole Mystery is founded. T h e description of those who delight in and refine each sense a s the ultimate likewise might suggest Epicureans. pp. could bring one in. 16. the latter who have deified the unreasoning part. T h a t matter must wait for further discussion. the individual senses. After that the teaching would apparently be revealed slowly according to the individ­ ual's capacity. But here we may anticipate at least by saying that admission meant a defi­ nite renunciation of pagan religions in both the traditional and mystic forms. This is at first highly suggestive o f the Stoics. for Philo must h a v e k n o w n that v o u c and Xoyoc were no less divine terms to himself than to them. 345. 1 7 . . but. 17 Philo begins his Exposition of the true Judaism to Gentiles. but those who are ordered by the order that comes from the true God (6 &v { t e o g ) shall live an immortal life. and penetrates into all things." who put their ultimate trust for knowledge upon the h u m a n mind. coupled with the correct philosophical point of view. ENOCH. but accepted. T h e line was not drawn between Jew and Gentile. While on the subject of Philo's requirements for admission to the Mys­ tery and its teaching it may be well to refer to the fact that there is definite evidence that these requirements are to be taken literally. AND ABRAHAM 125 w h o have deified reason ( 0 A O Y i o p o c . it implied also piety and holiness to the true God and evidence of such a character that the initi­ ate would be fit for admission. he insists repeatedly. is by no means recognizably specific. unless these be not only understood. apparently. 259 ff. and has solved the prac­ tical and theoretical problems of nature. or. then. Only an honest desire. and that there was a Mystery of such definite organization as to m a k e "exclusion" much more than a figurative expression. and in the end no more was needed.ENOS. even as the Torah sets forth a necessary and philosophic teaching when it says that those who worship God are alive. For atheists are truly dead in their souls. and purification through the "sacred laws" of Judaism. shall not give over our quest of TO ov. NOAH. Ib. and yet the attack is hardly a direct one. though the Mystery was obviously designed to be preceded and helped by encyclical studies. v o u c ) . for we recognize that knowledge of Him is ultimate happiness and a blessed life. 18 T h e element of exclusiveness is made very sharp. It is impossible to go on. It would seem that he rather has in mind people of the type we now call "rationalists.

OUK£TI ©V/JTOC. had rarely followed these great philoso­ phers in their loyalty to abstractions and in their demand for reason. seems to have been more a failure of the Age to produce great intellectual successors of the early giants. the h u m a n being w h o had by his virtue raised himself. he himself met them with what they wanted by proclaiming: £yu 18.126 B Y LIGHT. Such m e n were inspiring as models. to relations with deity so far beyond those of ordinary people that he had become in a sense divine. as has been said. begins the review of their lives in which he explains h o w in them the true W a y to God has been revealed. and as eager for con­ crete and personal representations of truth. whose writings would continue to overshadow in our eyes the writings of m e n who only reflected the point of view of the masses. T h e mystery religions were engrossing the age with their graphic represen­ tations of ethical and metaphysical truths. Isis or Cybele were apprehensible in a way that the ideal KaAov. But the Hel­ lenistic Age. the De Abrahamo. 1 1 2 (Diels). F r o m the greatest periods of Greek thought it is apparent that the crowd was as unable to follow abstractions. 18 . was not. as in the Hellenistic Age. like the other distinctive aspects of the Hellenistic Age.?ht T h e Exposition assumes the success of the introduction in properly orient­ ing the mind of the reader. T h e great philosophers before him had tried to offer m a n reason and abstract principles as the sav­ ing force which would lead to the truth and the greater life. 'IooTyjc would do as an abstraction for the classic philosophers. avOpcjrroc. L. T h e Mystery itself is re­ vealed to Philo in the Patriarchs. A marked part of this tendency was the increasing regard for what was called the Oeioc. or been raised by God or the gods. as has been pointed out. T h e lives of the great sages of the past came to be regarded as being of more importance than their teachings.. T h i s change. but still more useful in popular eyes as mediators and saviors for other men. W e shall follow Philo by studying these patriarchs for their mystic significance. T h e next treatise after the De Opificio. Philo may n o w take the reader into the Mystic teaching as set forth in the great Torah of Moses. Every­ where the tendency was to put even ethical concepts into a concrete form. but became a god­ dess in Hellenistic Syria. Frg. By way of introduction to their lives as he interprets them it may be well to recall that Philo was neither the first nor the last m a n to look to h u m a n personalities as the source of revelation of divinity. S' uulv 0£oc a u ( 3 p o T o c . W h e n Empedocles went about among crowds w h o kept demanding of h i m a sign or a miracle. than any change in the masses themselves. or the $iAav9pcjn(a 0£ou. be­ cause by idealizing the philosophers as Seloi avGpojrroi people could more readily copy the concrete personality than they could m a k e practical judg­ ments in ethics by applying principles alone.

H e r e I shall only point out that the Pythagoreans. T h e Hellenistic W o r l d would have found room for either Plato or Plotinus. Dindorf. 21 Delatte suggests that this is an expansion of a notion which Iamblichus reports from Aristotle: 22 Aristode records in his work on the Pythagorean philosophy that in their secret teachings they preserved some such distinction as follows: of the reasoning animal there is God as one sort. the chastity of St.ENOS." A general study of the phenomenon of the Gdoq avGpcjrroc is most to be desired. So it was the timeless mob that gave the age its color. on the ground that Homer had first posited the king as being between gods and men. engraved in their hearts rather than in their minds. and which was never fully satisfied until it found the ideal 6 d o c avGpojnoc in Jesus of Nazareth.. the later lives of Plato. such are the inspirations of most of us. but such great m e n were not born. then. T h e bravery of William Wallace. VI. and the feeling that the problems of 19. and Porphyry's life of Plotinus. and a third that is of the sort repre­ sented by Pythagoras. in Homer. In looking for a personal incarnation of the virtues and divine life to which he aspired. pp. Schol. D e l a t t e gives us the two following quotations: 19 20 The Pythagoreans posited alongside God and man a distinct third class in their reverence for the king or the Wise Man. Rhet. III) A. . . Philo was. Plato and Aristotle felt that the highest law would be found only in a state which had a personal representative of divine law as an abso­ lute ruler if such a m a n could be found. 3 1 . 11. and to justify their conception of the king. the mystic achievements of Buddha. (W. Reverence for the Geloc avGpojrroc. with their reverence for the hazy figure of Pythagoras. For it is the way of the multitude at all times to get their ethical standards from a picture. 22. xiii. were especially active in building up the conception. 20. 1374b 1 1 . . to make room for their reverence for Pythagoras. But it must be recalled that even the greatest philoso­ phers had gone far toward admitting that abstract truth is best revealed in a personality. the patriotic devotion of Washington. Etudes sur la litterature Pythagoricienne. not Bravery. or the Good. Purity. Aristotle said: "Equity is . Francis. AND ABRAHAM 127 T h e picture is not essentially different from the idealized portrait of Apollonius of Tyana. 21. ENOCH. 17. of an ideal personality w h o m they can follow and imitate. De Pythagorica Vita. but had represented the king as yielding in honor to the Wise Man. NOAH. I. the purity of the Virgin Mary. 120 £. in harmony with the popular aspiration of his day and of all days. the having an eye not to the law but to the law maker. 340. man as another.

not the Greek Law of Nature. De Abrahamo follows De Opificio. It will appear that in the peculiar intimacy with which he associates that notion with the conception of the v o p o c . it begins: As well as we could we have analysed in our former treatise how the creation of the world was disposed. T h e striking parallel to his thought as found in Proclus has already been discussed. both from the multitude and the philosophers. in as much as these original men readily and easily used the legislation even in its unwritten form. but in order to exhort those who read them. . and so as the true v o p o i en^uxoi. F r o m the Greek point of view he saw the Patriarchs as incarnations of what Proclus calls o l aA/jOelc v o p o i . we shall postpone the consideration of the detailed laws. See above. and to lead readers to the like aspiration. though whether direcdy or indirectly is another matter. whom Moses has celebrated for two reasons: because he wished first to show that the laws of the code are not at variance with nature." The difference between Philo and normative tradition is beautifully clarified in this one point of contrast. But since it is now necessary in due order to investi­ gate the laws." but it was the Pharisaic traditional law. not merely to praise them. before a beginning had been made in writing down any of the particular laws. the Jews had actually produced. These latter laws are those men who have lived irreproachably and nobly. T h e great personalities of the Patriarchs could not have been so important to Philo had he not been able to orient them with both his loyalty to the T o r a h and to the Greek metaphysics and soteriology. 23 In the Exposition. but only study the records of the characters of the Jew­ ish Patriarchs. discussions of antiquities. qj^uxoc his in­ spiration must largely have come from the Pythagoreans. which are in a sense copies. he need not speculate. For these men were incarnate and vocal laws (8|xi|rux x a l A o y t x o l v o j a o i ) . which they had: see II Baruch lvii. If one really wanted to k n o w what the true sophos was or would be like. for w h o m the people of the day had long been wistfully looking. then. LIGHT personal salvation were to be solved in such a figure. In Jubilees the various Patriarchs are represented as teaching details of what Philo called the "Specific Laws. namely the deeds and words 01 23. In normative Jewish tradition the Patriarchs followed the "unwrit­ ten law. and second that those who wish to live according to the established Laws (of the Torah) are not confronted with a tremendous labor. Philo's Judaism was as m u c h gratified in the lives of the Patriarchs as his Greek mysticism and ethical aspiration. For the Jewish L a w as a whole was in his eyes an attempt to describe the ideal way of life of these first great protagonists. Geloi avSpunot. in order to investigate those more general laws which one might call their antecedent archetypes. It was Philo's triumphant boast that what the Greeks sought in ignorance. pages 87 £. So one could properly say that the laws of the Code are nothing but memoirs of the life of the ancients. whose virtues have been promulgated in the sacred scriptures. especially from the Pythagoreans. could have come to Philo.128 B Y LIGHT.

and Moses stands out by himself with all the conspicuousnesses Philo likes to give to the O n e that makes the six into seven. it seems to me. 16.. In itself the reference to people who admire the daooM-dTOUc. Philo tells us. As Shem in Sobr. symbolizes H o p e . and thus shows that he is looking to good rather t h a n evil. T h e only reason why Philo does not bring out this grouping more sharply. "trained himself in this virtue by means of that unwritten a n d self-taught L a w which nature has ordained. QG. does not do so. ovaiac. but Enos. and since Plato must have derived his sense of the irreconcilability of forms of opposites from the Pythagorean notion of opposites. Abr. As such he is given the honorable place of fourth in the great line of h u m a n gene­ alogy. Enoch. and N o a h are the first triad. many of w h o m he wants occasionally to use as types of mystical perfection. and is discussed merely as an introduction to Abraham. Abr. Isaac. but they were people who heard for themselves (a\rrr|xooi) and taught themselves (ofrtofjia'&ets). 65. See Det. while for chance offences they loudly implored God and propitiated Him with prayers and supplications in order that they might share in a perfect life purged of both deliberate and involuntary offences. Enos. the first on the list. 138 ff. on the supposition. AND ABRAHAM 129 of their active careers. *&80jJi6g). they shot their whole lives through with the fine order of law (ojtavTa TOV Piov T]i)V0[iT|dT]aav). They did nothing reprehensible of their own volition." Further a m a n w h o is hopeful excludes fear. i.. as well as the notion that good and evil. without any such leadership. T h e first triad is in the Exposition of relatively slight importance. H o p e is thus something highly advantageous which every law­ maker tries to put into the souls of his free subjects. a number. as opposite entities. Abraham. In his other writings Philo adds little to this discussion of Enos. that nature herself is the primary Law (jCQEOpuTCITOC. But it is quite likely that Philo had the number seven clearly in m i n d when he raised to prominence just the seven h e selected. x a l vorrede. 27. the reference seems more natural to Pythago­ reanism. though Philo. might seem a reference to Platonism as easily as to Pythagoreanism. 1 3 . who might well have emphasized this number. 26. . Enos. which two things (by Pythagoreanism) were completely irrecon­ cilable. is that to do so would be to cheapen the other Patriarchs.. 28. 24 Philo n o w considers the Patriarchs in detail. 25.. 2-6. 52-58.. NOAH. clove to what was in accordance with nature (axoXoudiav qniaECDe. 79 f. and Jacob the second.. Each represents a stage in the mystic's ascent. But since the ovaicu here are the numbers. ENOCH.ENOS. da^aodfxevoi). Abr. nor did they learn what to do or say from teachers. honored alike by Moses and those who "cleave to the immaterial and conceptual substances. as is indeed the fact." Enos is H o p e because 25 26 27 28 24.. are incapable of intermingling. There are seven great types of achievement in the Pentateuch. For they were not pupils or disciples of anyone. and.

LIGHT an attitude of hope is the first step in mystic achievement. not health.2 1 . is the "doorkeeper which nature has p u t at the gates leading into the Royal Virtues within.. These v6ftoi xat ajjev8covuM. for the convalescent is primarily getting away from his illness. in contrast to the bastard and falsely called rulers. This element is stressed even more strongly in Philo's summary of the Patriarchs at the end of the Exposition™ But it is clear that Philo thinks a person can live throughout his life on what is a n essentially transitional stage. Abr. But h e has not yet achieved this. 3 5 . 36. Praem. Ib. or sense perceptions. since G o d has translated them into immortal yLvv\. Post. the experience would be that of one w h o has left the life of m e n to achieve transformation in the mystical ascent.. H e r e appears a theme which will seem increasingly impor­ tant in the Mystery. a state of jjcravoia. It must have been in some such way as this that Enoch would have been commonly presented. Ib. cowardice for courage. 26. H e is not yet the perfect m a n standing very close to divine power. Ib. Such is the life of the recluse and student. and the like." 37. but w h o wander year after year in the desert of struggle.. appreciable only by the intellect. but never having reached the solution of his prob­ lems. d|xaoxavo|bievoi5 netdvoia xal PeA/racoais. repentance for sins and improvement. living away from men. because he is aware that the true regimentation of one's character involves "a genuine and well-lawed rulership which justly dominates all things. w h o have abandoned the sinful Egypt. T h a t is. since his actual translation could have offered no hope for any of his followers.4 3 . I n t h e Allegory* it would appear that the experi­ ence of Enoch was not so unusual. H e is the m a n w h o leaves ignorance for instruction. It is a stage of convalescence. 32. 4 1 . . 30. always seeking the truth.. 83. i." H e aims at a tranquil stability of soul by aspiring for the $avraoia TGJV KCCA&V. 3 1 . See the Appendix.130 B Y LIGHT. 34. It too is the life of the tribes of Israel. the conception of the mystic as a fugitve or emigrant from the confused world of sin inhabited by the great mass of humanity. a n end that came alike to h i m and Elijah. but simply represents the fact that those w h o are lovers of virtue escape from the sinful life of the m o b and are not found in it and by it. See below. Of Enoch Philo tells us in the Quaestiones that his repentance was specifi­ cally the purifying of himself from all injustice. i. Chapter VIII. and his reaching the pleni­ tude of perfect virtue. 31 32 34 35 36 1 80 29.. 86: "ex sensibili visibilique loco ad incorpoream et intelligibilem ideam. Abr. 25." 29 Enoch typifies the next step. 1 5 . 1 5 . QG. T h e dominant note of his character is his constant desire to get away from sin and sinful associates. 3 3 ..oi (XQ^ai must be the parts of the body or soul. 1 7 : fj em xoic.. Enoch's translation was from the realm of the visible into an incorporeal idea.

. Ib. auSaiuovia. the dycov. and became the founder of a new race of m e n . that is his conquest of the lower passions and per­ fection in virtue. But I do not think this really represents the point of Philo's contrast. 40. Ib. AND ABRAHAM Noah. the last of the first triad. Philo's account of the flood which destroyed Noah's contempora­ ries is one of his most brilliant descriptive passages. W h a t could be a clearer demonstration of KaXoKayaGla? By means of his justice. As such h e has con­ quered his lower passions. like the other two mem­ bers of this triad. in contrast to the first triad.3 5 . and with it the ultimate objective. NOAH. the second to those of people who are fully developed for the second struggle. T h e "moral m a n " has indeed done m u c h to live the life he does. he has won God's favor. T h e reward of such an achievement is that N o a h was exempt from the general calamity of the sinful race. then. Philo explains the relative imperfection by saying that Noah's achievement was that of having left sin and come to righteousness.. not a Abr. 46.. the second was able to rise above the circle of the earth and arrive at heaven. Ib. in which they will win a victory over the oppos­ ing passions. T h e real point appears in the review of the Patriarchs in De Praemiis et Poenis. only Isaac was thus perfect from the begin­ ning. 42. It will be well to remember the sacred dycov with the passions. 2 4 . for of the later triad.. thereby showing that the one righteous m a n is of more value than all the rest of corrupt h u m a n i t y . . which. Praem. 41. 40-45..2 6 . I n pos­ sessing justice he possesses all the other virtues. Praem. represents Justice. Though this is hinted at in the sacred dycov with the passions. 48. As is brought out in the later summary of the Patriarchs. 47. H i s superiority to the mass of sinners is freely recognized. 27-28. T h e first triad had virtues analogous to those of childhood. 3 2 .. Abraham was the first to get to truth. the domination of his lower members by his reason. F r o m all this N o a h was spared.ENOS. while the Patriarchs who followed were perfect from the beginning. 45. 39. but not the higher life in which those lower members are themselves forgotten or left behind as rea­ son turns to the immaterial realm for its sphere of activity. Noah's perfection in SiKaioouv/) was only a partial perfec­ tion as compared with that of the great triad to come. A n d yet. valued more highly by Philo than by the Protestants. Noah's achieve­ ment might be compared to that of the "merely moral m a n " so often preached against by Protestant clergymen. and is at the same time pleasing to God. N o a h would by this contrast appear to be the m a n w h o achieved the lower height of self-discipline and control. 22. means the abandoning of everything material and created. as we shall see. ENOCH. it 38 89 40 41 42 43 44 45 38. and has left once and for all the "confusion" of sinful society and of the life of conflict with his own lower nature.. 44. which will appear to be wrestling match but a race in which the victor runs away from the passions. 43. where it seems that. Abr.

of the greatest importance. Ib. 1 1 6 . was "a figure of the body which has been compelled 6 47 48 49 50 61 46. Philo's route for arriving at this goal has been circuitous. De Sobrietate. Philo gets this explanation. This was the height of Noah's achievement. and so while Moses got grace from 6 GJV a u r i c . In contrast with Moses. the Creative or Beneficent Power and the Royal Power. "God has given His good things to the universe as a whole and to its several parts. Ib. and into which all the wild animals were brought. 50. heaven. 77 £. then "without turning go to God's Powers and make yourself a suppliant to them. but both agree that morality which is an end in itself is defi­ nitely inferior to a life in which morality is regarded as a by-product of the experience of God. and all animals and plants. Immut. 49.. O n e small passage is. bi%a .1 1 0 . 48. earth. De Ebrietate. 109: Moses was pleasing xcp 8oQuq)OQOUniv(p JtQOCj TCDV SwdptECOV x a l a v x a w x a x d TO elvai \16vov voovuivcj). N o a h had it only from the subject Powers. ap­ parently one of the class that stands next below God.I 2 3 B Y LIGHT. F o u r other treatises of the Allegory take their departure from texts about Noah. T h e wisdom of N o a h was only a likeness of Moses' wisdom. sun." which H e has done not because H e judged the universe worthy of such a gift but by virtue of His own Beneficent Power. N o a h went only as far as the Powers. but actually they leave their texts so far behind in general discussions of the subjects that nothing much is added to our knowledge of the interpretation of the Patriarch himself. In view of the difficulty of understanding exacdy what was Philo's con­ trast between N o a h and the Patriarchs of higher achievement it is worth seeing what Philo says on the subject in some of his other writings. iii. De Agricultural." that is to the two Powers represented in that double title. are the grace of God.. even as they did with N o a h . Accepting Wendland's conjecture for reading §108. fire. 1 0 4 . he says. however. But if that is too great to be thought of. LIGHT may be added. A n d so the conclusion is clear for the Mystery. T h e ark. in which N o a h took refuge. Moses in contrast was pleasing to the O n e whose body-guard these two Powers are. but the end result is clear. 1 1 8 . Noah's having found grace with God is described as meaning that N o a h discovered that all things. T h e true goal for us all is to rise like Moses to 6 GJV or to o TOU OVTOC Aoyoc. 5 1 . and which can be conceived of apart from them only as pure Being. we learn. 47. In another brief and isolated passage N o a h is of praiseworthy constitution and origin. until they accept the constancy and genuineness of your service and appoint you to take a place among those who are well pleasing to them. In the Allegory* the question of Noah's achievement is canvassed. Ib. De Plantatione. LA. air. from the fact that N o a h was pleasing to "the Lord God. stars... H e has discovered that grace comes only from God and not from any aspect of creation. " T h e descendants of such a m a n are the virtues.

55. 92. 58. 99. 43.... the Quaestiones in Genesin. T h a t is. T h e Mystery itself becomes consistent al­ though the place in the Mystery of many Old Testament types is not always by any means certain. which from the context must have been some word for "cleansing. cf. and to Moses who went on to 6 &v auToc. and so has himself become a treaty between God and good m e n (men of reason) to be their possession and glory. QG. I should myself be inclined to think that Philo has understated himself in the Exposition rather than overstated himself in the Allegory. QG. must." This figure must be recalled when we come to the catacombs and find the great consistent type of deliverance of the sainted soul from the body to be N o a h emerging white robed from the ark. in contrast to Abraham who went on to the T r u t h . or high priest. . 54. NOAH. H e r e i t appears that the career of N o a h illustrates the great battle between the flesh with its appetites and the soul or mind.ENOS. Noah. t h e n . 43. the muddy slime is cleaned off as though b y a flood at the coming of a sweet flow and a drinkable stream. as a great model Patriarch. in Philo's mind. Noah. For the m e n of flesh are the enemies of those virtues which constitute the road to God and lead one along it. AND ABRAHAM 133 52 to m a k e room for the untamed and savage pests of the passions and vices. T h e passage in the Allegory would make it clear that N o a h went beyond the cosmic tokens to the Creative Power. Ib. he is their savior. 63 64 55 5 8 57 The flood is a symbol of spiritual dissolution." 59. the ark. the contrast between m e n w h o are of the flesh and those who are sons of G o d . T h e flood itself is the washing away of the sins. is the heir of the divine substance. T h e figure Philo has in m i n d . It is notable that both in the Allegory and in the Exposition N o a h was restricted so that he could recognize God only through cosmic tokens. i n contrast to the A r k of the Covenant which symbolizes as a whole the KOOUOC v o y j T o c . ENOCH. QG. In discussing the Mystery it is going to prove impossible to represent Philo as consistent in his symbolism. 99. When therefore we wish by the grace of the Father to discard and wash away all the sensible and corporeal things with which like swelling ulcers the intellect was infected.7 . 5 3 . as endowed w i t h virtue. 4. ii. 10.. 59 58 57. 1 5 . QG. Plant. Ib. 52. is of the s o u l of the mystic in his b o d y . 56. 1 . This spiritualis dissolutio seems to me not to represent Philo's original. Noah's ark is elaborately developed as representing the body. Plant. while the Exposition would suggest that he did not get to the immaterial world at all. This figure is much more elaborately worked out in our third and chief source for Noah. i. ii. have got beyond the universe to at least s o m e experience of the Immaterial. In contrast with the wicked race that must perish. ii.

This is the main experience of N o a h . T h e best figure for this complete renewal and use of the body is toward the end. 67.. QG. At last N o a h himself is ready to come forth from the ark. 46. and the body is saved with the soul. So he had been kept. as the intellect. ciborum exquisitione. but after he went out the command was that they increase and multiply. 62. with the result that by getting away from that which has been an obscuring veil the intel­ lect can direct its senses to naked and incorporeal natures. T h e proper intellect benefits the body by cutting off its worst desires.. D u r i n g his stay in the ark. 35.. the experience which Paul has not yet achieved. 63: Ib. but it is obvi­ ously the flowing into m e n of God's grace. But later it could stay away (because by the allegory there are those w h o can receive i t ) . 66. ii. as one who. 69. 65. QG.134 B Y LIGHT. Ib. without diminishing the source. but when God makes the soul "dry. 1 2 : "Quoniam si vini potu. that is during his period of purification. cadaveris gestatores sumus in corpore. feminarum ardenti desiderio et omnino molli lubricaque vita utamur. accord­ ingly bursts through every sort of (bodily) concupiscence. So N o a h comes to the uncreated Essence itself. So long as there was no one to receive this virtue. Ib. 61. Ib. ii. the spiritual drink of the divine fluid that will constantly reappear as a part of the mystic's experience. Si vero miseratus deus avertat vitiorum illuviem et aridam reddat animam. his business had been to purify himself of the body absolutely. 16. 49. to which he has always been the friend. See the Appendix. H e then begins to send out his virtue.." he quickens also the body by animating it with a purer soul. which goes out from h i m like the radiation of the sun. Yet N o a h is still in the ark. So long as m a n is indulging in sins the body is a corpse that has to be borne about. and in so doing symbolizes the intellect that wishes to spring up­ wards because of the desire for heavenly things. Ib. 67. 64.. though n o w purified from every sin. Ib. which means that the purified and glorified intellect returns to the body to regiment it completely with the new virtue. H e . 68.. Ib. This salvation of the body had been pointed out earlier as the ultimate ideal. from sexual intercourse. LIGHT Philo does not tell us what this purifying stream from God is. the last vestige of dark folly in his soul." This conception alone makes clear Paul's "redemption of the body" in Romans viii. like all the other inhabitants of the ark.. it returned to him w h o sent it out. 44. 1 1 . Throughout Philo has been careful to orient the experience of N o a h with 60 61 62 68 64 65 66 67 68 69 60. 25. 38-40.. Philo adds a few details of interest. and so Noah's virtue has become a common good to all who will receive the emana­ tions of wisdom. is still not developed positively so that his intellect is put into such a condition as to be wholly incorporeal. Ib. incipiet vivificare atque animare corpus mundiori anima. where N o a h is the farmer cultivating the body. cuius sapientia est moderatrix. . the dove. the body. But as the story develops further. W h e n the flood subsides h e sends out the raven.

the A r k of the Covenant. A n d those who become Wise Men (like Noah. 70 71 72 78 74 76 76 77 So the story of N o a h and the flood is a revelation of the Royal Road to God. (pvoaxfjg. Abraham. like Enos and Enoch. Ib.ENOS. the road of Sophia. QG. Ib. Ib. i. it will be recalled. the offering that represents the final achievement of one who has gone the whole course of the divine plan. 'IaxcofJ. Noah's experience is summed up in that he is represented as having been made into the equal. 99.. N o a h directs the sacrifices he makes after his emergence from the ark to the Creative and Beneficent Power. Abr. 74. however helpful they may be in explaining the mystic ascent. T h e ark of the body is contrasted with the ark of the immate­ rial Essence. we under­ stand) develop souls that can completely dominate their bodies. H i s offering is his purified sense life. but of that Primal A d a m who was the F o r m of the material Adam. but as a matter of fact each m a n laid 79 70. 76. and w h o was himself immaterial and in the likeness of the Logos. 4 1 . H e had risen above this as above all other earthly things. 1 2 . ENOCH.. Philo never wants to be caught m a k i n g the Powers into distinctive beings in the Gnostic sense.. Ib. H a v i n g passed through the stage where the Royal Power with its punitive and purging action has been predominant. Isaac virtue from natural endowment. Since he has been worked upon by both Powers N o a h is made into a microcosm and a m a n of God alike. not of the second A d a m who was made from clay in the second story of Creation. AND ABRAHAM 135 the God of the Mystery. 79. been represented as one of the vopoi e|i\puxoi. 77.. 16. ii. 73.. daxTjxixf]?. to the next great triad of Patriarchs. when Philo is briefly schematizing for Gentiles N o a h is relatively inferior. God who expresses Himself in the Logos with the two Powers. 56. The Law of Wisdom appears in QG. For he had in himself the elements and creative factors of the world. . the Road of the Mystery. in the Exposition. 72. NOAH. This is the sort of Man. 53. but also qualities peculiar to God Himself.. Ib. to w h o m L a w could not come as commands. and be­ come n o w pure. T h e purging flood was sent by the Ruling Power of God. 75.. Ib. Ib. and the story of Noah is the Law of Wisdom in Ib. 78. 5 1 . 75. But as before the Crea­ tive Power was present in the activity of the Royal Power. 7 1 ... 52: APQOMXM' crujApoXov 8i8aoxc&ixfj£ 6\QZxf\q ioxiv. Isaac. 78 Great as N o a h can be represented. though little was made of him as such. Ib. 4. ' I a a d x . though that Power did not act apart from the Benefi­ cent or Creative Power. and Jacob virtue achieved by effort. T r u e they too are distinguished from each other in that Abraham repre­ sents virtue derived from instruction. and Jacob are the fully perfect men. It will be recalled that he had also. 52. so now the latter is there with the Creative Power to receive the sacrifices.

Note especially the last sentence: E X TCDV avxov SuvdjiECOV dvaxQE^idcrag xf|v tyv%r\v 6 ftsog 6>. that is "Seeing God. They are. the highest possible achievement. are not those descended from them in the flesh but their spiritual successors. on the supposition that the 80. the second triad is marked by having come through with the help of the Powers to the end of the mystic Road. 81. For the true successors of the Patriarchs. First Abraham." This race has got the name of Israel. W e have at last got the general distinguishing feature of the great Patri­ archal triad." and is distinguished by the fact that it has the vision of God at the end of the mystic Road.i6 3 B Y LIGHT. but which comes clearly to mean that they have priestly power in the Mystery to bring others u p to their o w n experience. 53. the highest and greatest virtue. Whatever was the achievement of the first triad. N o t only are each of the three m e n all of virtue with especial emphasis upon one virtue. Abr. 83. Philo is n o w ready to go on to consider the three Patriarchs indi­ vidually. As such they are not only themselves holy. whether Jew or Gentile. and so he eagerly followed God and obeyed His commands. Abr. So the expression "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob" means God w h o through His Powers gives gracious and perfect gifts to the soul. 54. to which vision God draws the soul up the Road by the action of the divine Powers. but they are more than individual men. OIJTE .iav dv£u qwaecos r\ doxTJtfscDc.. For Philo goes on to explain that this august triad was made into "a royal priesthood and holy race. a n d then to those w h o got the vision.. 80 81 82 88 Abraham was zealous for piety. and only to those. el pur\ jtQofteM-s^Koftei'n qwaei T E x a l 8 t 8 a a x a ^ i a .eiov and iEQaTEVjiO. O U T S Y Q 8i§aaxo$. LIGHT claim to all three types of virtue and only was distinguished by the virtue that was predominant in his particular case. Tetaiayfrfjvai Svvaxov & q>voiq tm x&Qaq eaxlv £Xftsiv ixavr] bi%a T O V \IQ$BVV x a l d a x f j a a i O U T E aoxr)ai£.. as virtues. This is not a reference to the race of Israel." a phrase which Philo does not here elaborate. This sounds at first like the merest fancy. that the great Patriarchs had become so identified with the Powers of God that they became a medium for the giving of God's higher gifts to men. But it will be of interest to see h o w literally Philo meant just that.xfi ouvaTtoTSQa JtQdg SauTdv kmandar\xai. but are a "royal priesthood. are together the three x^PITSC. to agree with the Hebrew and LXX. 6 . as Cohn suggests. Ex. For the Mystery a highly important statement follows. w h o have themselves been thus elevated. but first to the Patriarchs. 56-59. 1 omit the x a i between |3aaiA. For actually each of the three types of virtue is impossible without the other t w o . each a x<zpK of God. which are Suvajjeic of God. Abr. and by having been given the vision of God. xix. 82.

Abr. 26 (Wachs. 88-94. pp. 910. T h e migration of Abraham from his home in Chaldea at the call of God is taken by Philo as the migration from erroneous opinion about the charac­ ter of G o d to recognition of the truth. Of the lot it will appear that the Platonic and Neo-Pythagorean conceptions are the ones Philo is chiefly following. It is to be noted that for Philo the act or attitude of Abraham which made h i m into this higher type is described as his follow­ ing God. W.. Philo repeats his point so often that his general meaning is un­ mistakable in spite of some difficult details. T h e VOJJOC. T h e Chaldeans.. ap.. 84 So Abraham is to be described as the vouoc £UA|/UXOC. T h e philosophy h e is ascrib85 86 87 84. 85. were people engrossed in astronomy to such an extent that they h a d n o notion of /] AopaToc Kal voyjTy) ouola. 11. I n developing such a thesis. Abr. T o call this all Stoicism is obviously a mistake. beginning from fig mQi£%ovoiv and continuing six lines. See A. For anyone who observes the order in nature and the cosmic polity which is beyond any verbal description learns. 60 f. Zoroaster (1901).eoav. V.). but just as much those indicated by the more evident signs of nature which the truest of the senses (sight) apprehends rather than the untrustworthy and uncertain sense of hearing. ENOCH. AND ABRAHAM 137 commands were not merely those published by speech and writing. Leban Abrahams (1859). obeying God's commands. Philo is somewhat limited by the actual story of Abraham's life as it is told in Genesis. Abraham's legendary conflict with his father may be a reflection of Zoroaster's similar conflict.ENOS. NOAH. fig Jieoiixouorv aod>|xol xal dQiftjucov dvaXoviai x x L The whole passage. 70. "Following G o d " is a Neo-Pythagorean concept as m u c h as conforming oneself to the material world is Stoic.. Jackson. b u t the work of G o d . Stobaeus. and committed himself to H i m in so complete a way that his life flowers in perfect virtue of inner adjustment and outer act.iaxa fiiajiovTJaavTEc. A b r a h a m migrated out from this into the dis­ covery that above the world was its Creator and Ruler. I. and imitating TA KaXd. 69. while "obeying God's commands" is a recognizable Jewish notion alongside the Platonic conception of imitating TA KaXa. V.. Zoroastrian Studies (1928). xivrjaeai xo&v daxeQcov dvafrevxeg vn€ka$w olxovojxEioftai xd Iv x6o*n*p 8uvdu. eu^uxoc. xxxix. and that the order of nature was not an inherent property of the material world. See also Jewish Encyclopedia. In all types of Judaism Abraham is celebrated as the hero who broke from polytheism for monotheism. The material has been collected in Beer. 26 ff. though not a word has been said. the statement: X c d S a i o i yaQ i v xoig fJ. The Apocalypse of Abra­ ham. The most difficult passage is in Abr. and Box. he says. conforming himself to the material uni­ verse which he could learn from observation. 87.dA. 86. See for example Hippodamus. is one w h o has found God. But he schematizes the material cleverly for his purpose. 19 ff. 1 9 . pp. 84-87. Chapters I and II. to make his life svvo\iov x a l EIQTJVIXOV by paying close regard to the imitation of T& xc&d. daxQOvouiav x a l Jtdvxa rale. is written . recognized only the visible ouola. IV. p. and so identified God with the world itself.

88 89 90 91 92 in by a late hand in one of the best mss. Whatever this might be made to appear to mean. 77 f. . W h e n Abraham left materialistic pantheism he went to Charran.. 90. to begin at the bottom to observe the world for himself. Ib. Evidence that Posidonius left the Stoic pantheism for a genuine theism is marshalled by Heinemann.. Heinemann's "evidence" only goes to prove that there is no reason for thinking that Posidonius ever took such a step. to the ex­ clusion of any personal divine agencies or rulerships.. 49. in going from them to Canaan. 88. Abr. for the right conception had removed the veil that made such a vision impossible. but Babylonian scholars would be amazed to learn that the Babylonians taught that TOV KOOJJOV auTov a v a l Gsov. 69. 88.. since without special action of God no m a n can get the Vision. whose pantheistic materialism is here and elsewhere sufficiently attested. 72 ff.3 1 2 . 79. since he could not with his physical sight endure the contemplation of the divine Light-Rays. for it is in­ credible that Philo thought of dQiftficov dvcdoYtat as material entities. 1 ." pp. Ib. But when he says that Abraham. The insertion of that clause makes nonsense of the passage. it could not have meant any departure from the regular Stoic doctrine. LIGHT ing to the "Chaldeans" is strange enough. But the senses are useless without the mind to interpret their perceptions. including. Abr. Source. Som. and in general the same doctrine of the panmaterial God (vii. since Diogenes Laertius simply lists Posidonius after Zeno and Chrysippus as teaching this doctrine. that distinguishes h i m preeminently from the Stoics. The only material he can quote of any cogency is the pseudo-Aristotelian De Mundo. 92. 70 f. I have indicated elsewhere. went from materialistic pantheism to theism he is attacking not the Chaldeans but the Stoics and scientists of his o w n environment. . is by no means to be taken indiscriminately as evidence for Posidonius' teaching. It is Philo's passionate sense of the contrast between theism and materialis­ tic pantheism. Mig. T O Jtoioiiv x a l T O Jtdaxov T O \xkv oljv Jtdaxov elvai TTJV obtoiov ouaiav TTJV uA/nv.. 1 4 8 ) . and which marks him. i. though even then God h a d to take the initiative in revealing Himself to Abraham. the land of the senses. he at once concluded that there must be a m i n d behind the visible universe as there is one behind the material aspects of a m a n . The only positive direct evidence available.. 9 1 . 1 3 4 ) does represent Posidonius as teaching 8vo d o x a i . W h e n Abraham's mind had thus been freed of false opinion. See also QG. and the clause a g . A n d yet his getting the right conception was followed by God's revealing Himself to Abraham... puts Posidonius in his doctrine of God directly with the founders of Stoicism. as fundamentally a Pythagorean Neo-Platonist. 76. expressed here and frequently throughout his writings. Cong.i 8 3 B Y LIGHT. Poseidonios. iii.. 47-60. which. 1 5 3 ff. 84. so that it could con­ sider the world. in my opinion. It may be that he is referring to Babylonian tradition. First he got this as a conception. See my "Neo-Pythag. for all his Stoic traces. It is true that Diogenes Laertius (vii. 89. dva^oviat is omitted in the Armenian translation. II. 178 ff. T O 8 s JtoioiJv T 6 V E V auTfl Xoyov T O V # E 6 V . Posidonius.. 3 0 8 . while the passage is quite coherent without it... then. Philo is of course right in saying that the Chaldeans were interested in astronomy and saw great power in the stars as controlling navTa. . For the statements in the text above see Abr.

see Leisegang. T h e h u m a n mind must 98 93. Index. which passivity is the only condition in which it can be saved. These two kinds of marriage are in contrast to each other. 81 ff. "reecho. ENOCH. 96 97 This explanation. 88. AND ABRAHAM 139 This vision was a "running u p " of his mind to a 4>uoic higher than the visible <j>uoic. 58.. H e has learned it from "men versed in natural philosophy ($UOIKO! avSpec) w h o interpreted this passage ingeniously. to signify that he had become the Sophos. and confused as the passage at first appears to be. Abr. and that the reason is moved and trained and benefited and in general put into a passive role. T h e next step is the union of Virtue with Abraham's own nature which is now oriented in his vouc. 95. T h e two terms are interchange­ able for the Female Principle formulation of the Light-Stream. For in the physical marriage it is the male who sows the seed and the female who receives it. Cf. NOAH. See above. although she might seem to be the wife. 99. is not original with himself. pp. Abr." For Philo's peculiar use of the word 98.v.. 17 ff. that of the Female Principle and that of the Powers. Ib. H e r e we meet for the first time in the story of the Patriarchs the peculiar bisexual functions of the Female Principle. while the reason. So his name was changed. 96.. which he saw. Perhaps what I have said is put in a false light by the verbal difficulty that vovc. though apparendy the husband. is grammatically a masculine word and doeTr| feminine. . "cause to echo. 97. s. has by nature the power of sowing seeds of good intentions and virtuous speeches." It is notable at once that mar­ riage with apzTY\ is marriage with Sophia. and with it the Being who is ruler and creator of both these natures. Ib. advance is a matter of the mystic marriage. it must be quoted: 93 94 95 The marriage in which pleasure unites people achieves the union of bodies. But in the union that takes place within souls Virtue. But if one will take off the darkening veil of words and look at the bare facts he will perceive clearly that Virtue is masculine by nature in as much as it sets in motion and dispenses and introduces noble ideas of noble actions and utterances. for he insists that Abra­ h a m typifies the virtuous mind (apparently because of his having achieved the correct notion of God) whose union with Virtue is here given divine protection. 94." or. Abraham's spiritual advance is going throughout to be developed according to both formulations. but the marriage which Sophia consummates unites Perfect Virtue with minds (koyiofxoi) that aspire for purity. Proem. Philo specifically tells us. actually re­ ceives the sacred and divine seeds. Philo is discussing the saving of Sarah from the lustful advances of the king of Egypt. By this passage.ENOS. and expositions of doctrines that are profitable for life. 100-102. The word is VJCTIXEI. the $uoic voyjTV).. H e thinks well to omit Abraham's apparent timidity in representing her as his sister..

the vouc 4>iAoocj|jaToc. masculine activity aspired to Sophia. as in the relation with Sarah as Virtue. But Sophia. and has come through to a properly integrated personality in Virtue. or the divine Powers'. and the consequent destruction of the cities of Pentapolis. 1 1 6 . with many digressions into which we need not go. H e desired to have relations with Sarah. 1 0 7 .. w h o gets Virtue herself by humiliation of the lower m i n d . as Sophia or dperyj.. But h e is the lower mind. T h e result is that n o w the m a n who has come into right conceptions of God has been met by divine power. Ib. Virtue does not wait until this battle between the two minds has been fought out. coming into it: e a s a n 100 For how could the divine Powers ever have endured to enter (a human habita­ tion or soul) at all. 103. the vision of God..140 B Y LIGHT. that of the master who is in a sense their pilot? And how could they have given the impression of being feasted and entertained if they had not recognized that their host was akin to them and a fellow servant who had rim for refuge to their own master? Fur­ ther it must be understood that at their very entrance all the parts of the house­ hold increased in goodness. . and to receive God as guest within himself. the m a n w h o had m a d e so good a start by getting his own vouc in a proper attitude toward God. It is Abraham. the Ruling and the Creative Powers 99. develops it into being itself virtuous. 100. and puts the lower m i n d into complete subjection. LIGHT put itself into such an attitude of passivity that it becomes female as over against the masculine activity of Sophia or apzTV). T h e descrip­ tion centers about the coming of the "three m e n " to Abraham's house.. Abr. the divine principle. and is then given Virtue. " Philo does not pull this allegorizing together.1 7 6 . Abraham is n o w ready for the next step. Ib. 101 T h e three visitors are the two Powers. *^ > assertive. unless they had known that like the well organized crew of a ship all the inhabitants were obedient to a single command. T h e impossibility of one's achieving Sophia in any other way than by thus playing the female role is well brought out by Philo's interpretation of the humiliation of the king of Egypt. or dpery). which fills his m i n d with good seeds. but its meaning is clear. O n e important passage repeats that God does not come into the soul of a m a n unless it is properly regimented under the mastership of the mind. but comes into a m a n when she sees that with her help the batde can be hopefully joined. for there was breathed upon them a breath of perfect virtue. the m i n d is developed by God's. while. 106. will have nothing to do with a person in w h o m the lower mind is so strong that it cannot be com­ pletely subdued. 101. T h e m a n who has come to the right opinion about God humiliates himself. T h e section is one of the least coherent of the treatise.

). xxxix. ENOCH. God will.). his sacrifice of Isaac. 1 2 6 . for m a n is a creature of sorrow while God alone has natural euSaiuovia. 203-205.. It must at least be noted that Philo in this is quite in accord with the . See above. 917 11. T h e birth of Isaac. 909 f. 105. . But Abraham is the m a n who rises above both of these lower incentives to aspire to God for His own sake. but the contrast of man and God is strikingly similar in each. give h i m euSouuovia. IV.. does not fit into his explanation of the development of Abraham's own character.ovia xsXeioxag saxl pico dvfrQCOJtivco . as he sees it.. NOAH. and can thus propitiate God and thereby escape p u n i s h m e n t .axslv elg inexovatav avafrcov x a l xov cpopcp XTJV TIYEM-OVIXTIV x a l SeajtoxtxTiv UaaxonEvov Egouaiav d g djtoxQOjtriv xo^daEcog. 27 (Wachs.. Wachs. as H e did to Abraham.. and which is the ultimate goal of all Pythagorean and Platonic morality and mysticism. though he clearly makes it a concomitant of virtue. 30 ff.1 2 5 . and a vision of them as one is vision of 6 OVTGK GJV. 201. Abr. 26. 1 2 ff. After a considerable digression on the significance of the five cities of the plain. xxxix.. M a n must then be ready to sacri­ fice his own aspiration for euSaipovIa in a complete dedication to make him­ self subject to God. .6H. elsewhere spoken of as the Aoyoc. 107. IV. Abr. 108 104 105 106 107 102... These appear as three to the beginner.. AND ABRAHAM 141 102 of God. It was probably discussed more fully in the lost De Isaaco.EVOV |xsxaA. though to the m a n w h o is more ad­ vanced the two Powers are recognized as only aspects of the One. to God. while m a n centers his atten­ tion not on the quest for happiness but on the complete dedication of him­ self. Hippodamus puts human hap­ piness in XTJ5cn.1 3 0 . H e describes the sacrificial scene with great feeling and power. The contrast appears strikingly in Hippodamus (ap. See especially §129: M%o\iox yag x a l xov xijg £USQYSXi86g \iov Swrdn-ecos POUA. . 25. pp. Abr. 6 \ikv <5v ftebq O U X E nafraw Jtaod xivog xdv dpexdv d y a ^ o g E Y E V E X O ovxe ImcruvaQ^apiEvag auxcp x a g xijxag sudaiixcov cpvosi yaQ rjv dyafrog xal yvozi £u8aiuxov xal asl Tjv xal Eaasixai xal o\58£Jtoxa vjioXEiapsi xoioijxog ECOV. O n e who cannot rise even to this height can at least appreciate that God punishes evil through His Ruling Power. T h e value of the threefold appearance is that some men who cannot rise to the full vision can yet aspire to the good things of God and be richly rewarded as he comes to appreciate the Creating and Benefiting Power of God. 202. ap. Abr. dqpftaoxog saw xal (pvoei d y a ^ g * 6 8 E dvO-Qcojtog < O I 5 X E x § tyvozi d Y a f t o g > O V X E xql yvazi Ev8aiM-cov. including all his joys. Yet it is not the natural property of man. d \izv yaQ Eu8aiu. On happiness as the goal of life and the end of virtue see also Euryphamus. 106. dilating upon the extraordinary love which Abraham had for Isaac as the son of his old age and as his only son. Stob. Even so. m a n never has happiness in the full and unmixed sense in which it appears in G o d . V. 'while Philo makes it a gift of God rewarding virtue. 103. a reward. 104. which might have given him large grounds for allegory. V. Abr.. with their connecting principal. and "laughter" means that highest euSaiuovia for which the good m a n aspires. Philo goes on to the next great event of Abraham's life. . . T h e boy represented ultimately "laughter. 1 1 9 .ENOS. but it must come as a gift from God. and as a boy of great inherent loveli­ ness." he says. Stob.

The incident also typifies for Philo the victory of the higher mind over the pleasure loving mind in the individual. LIGHT Philo feels that h e h a s represented the f u l n e s s of an went o n Abraham's c h a r a c t e r a s c o n c e r n s h i s r e l a t i o n t o G o d . For p i e t y a n d l o v e o f o n e ' s f e l l o w m e n (cpiAavdQCOJtia) b e l o n g t o t h e s a m e nature.142 With this description B Y LIGHT. By striving immediately and con­ sciously for the harmony w e can never achieve it. 208. . 1 1 0 A s t h i s c o n c e s s i o n w a s m a d e a l s o in t h e i n t e r e s t of Abraham is likewise s h o w n t o b e a m a n of peace. Along with piety is t h e p r o b l e m o f c h e r e l a t i o n w i t h o t h e r p e o p l e . Beginning w i t h apprehension of t h e existence of God as a true doctrine Abraham to regiment h i s o w n nature so that t h e m i n d w a s completely dominant. a n d t h e n h e w a s able t o g o o n t o a m y s t i c v i s i o n o f God i n His t r u e n a t u r e . b u t i s a l s o b r a v e a n d warlike. But p i e t y . and wisdom. Abr. n o . 108. bravery of 118 Abraham appeared in his fighting with the kings to rescue Philo h a s t h e story i n t h e m a i n correctly. Enduring happiness is a by-product from some interest which is in itself so engrossing that it dominates and thus harmonizes the entire personality.. 1 1 1 So t h e n 6 dcteiog i s n o t o n l y p e a c e f u l a n d cpiAoSfotaiog. It will be noticed that Sixaiotfuvrj is here often a generic term for virtue. a n d f r e e t o l o o k u p t o God. i n .. 1 1 3 . s e l f . peace. f u n d a m e n t a l a s i t i s . Ib. the mystic m a r r i a g e . T o God a s H e w a s n o w f u l l y a p p r e h e n d e d h e d e d i c a t e d h i s l i f e c o m p l e t e l y .. a n d was finally rewarded b y being given happiness i n God. 1 1 2 . 1 0 9 T h e r e m a i n i n g p a r t of t h e t r e a t i s e i s a c c o r d i n g l y d e v o t e d to showing how Abraham e x c e l l e d i n t h e f o u r c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s o f j u s t i c e . 208-209. Ib. H e w a s m e t w i t h t w o d i s p e n s a t i o n s : h e w a s s o l i d i f i e d i n his virtuous life b y the i m m e d i a t e action of Virtue within him.c o n t r o l . such but this is a d e q u a t e . 109. Ib. 225-244. says Philo. and s o w e m u s t look for each i n connection w i t h t h e s a m e individual. i s n o t a c o m ­ plete picture of t h e life of a character as Abraham. a n d o f t h e l e s s o n o f b r a v e r y h e is t r y i n g t o d r a w f r o m t h e best teachers of the Christian experience. Many 1 0 8 more things could be said o n the subject. b u t h e loses s i g h t of the r e c o r d e d e v e n t s . Abraham's justice appeared in his allowing Lot t o choose the part of t h e country h e preferred. e v e n t o t h e a b a n d o n i n g o f t h e q u e s t f o r h a p p i n e s s . n o t for the sake of were destroying. c o u r a g e . who have always insisted that the deepest joys of life are to be found by abandoning the conscious quest for happiness in an all-consuming aspira­ tion for a pure character and the right relation with God. Such teaching is psychologically sound.. t h e r i g h t r e l a t i o n w i t h God. Abr. 225. 1 1 2 fighting—for h e w a s not contentious a n d strife-loving — b u t w i t h a v i e w t o guaranteeing peace f o r t h e future w h i c h h i s adversaries The Lot. h i s h o l i n e s s t o w a r d God a n d h i s j u s t i c e t o w a r d m e n .

even to the rejection of drrdGeia. to return to an almost constant theme in the treatise. 257. Ebr. ENOCH. Abr. and overthrows tyranny and arbitrary rule to put in democracy (Abr. but took the mean rather than the extremes. H i s sexual abstemiousness was shown in that. As in all his dealings with the problems of asceticism and withdrawal from the world. Philo does not make much of the latter and indeed he could not. the conquest of the m i n d over the revolting m e m b e r s . in another mood virtue meant the golden mean.). here the higher mind which conquers them and introduces into the whole soul x6 evvo|Liov x a l fiixaiov dvxl JtaQavoniac. it is a 119 1 1 4 . desire. 261. is wisdom (<ppQVY\Q[Q or oo<t>ta). AND ABRAHAM *43 story. T h e last virtue which A b r a h a m has achieved by his devotion to God. lear. Ib. 1 1 8 . Abr. . appeared in two incidc-ts of Abraham's life. T h e kingship of the virtuous m a n is not by any means necessarily combined with authority in the political realm. 1 1 6 . in contrast to the law of the members. but Aristotle does not make a great point of the latter.. self-control. IIIOTIC. Eth. but is a gift of God. II. The four kings who ruled over the five kings of Sodom are of course the four passions. T h e result of ou$poo\JVY\ is that its possessor becomes a king. the power of the ideal m a n to give out legal regimentation and its benefits to others. 118 Philo does not explain w h o these "subjects" are: he seems rather to be speak­ ing freely of the natural leadership of the wise and virtuous over those who will look to h i m for guidance. T h e conception of ocj^poouvyj is clearly Aristotelian. for democracy was no conception really applicable for Philo to the soul in which mind is properly king. Philo comes to wisdom by praising Abraham's faith. H e does not subject his fellows by violence: 114 116 118 117 he becomes a source of evil to no man. to which passions the five senses contribute.. pleasure.. NOAH. and pain. It is the law of the whole which Philo has in mind.. is the queen of the v i r t u e s .. 1 1 9 . Abraham is the \6yoq. and when that was accomplished he had no more to do with her. and manifested to men. But it is to be noticed that Philo has not lost the opportunity to bring the discussion back to its point. and without being angry with nature for taking her due he endured the affliction mildly and gently. Cf. 1104b 24. 270. and the gift of peace and fine legal regimenta­ tion from such a m a n is an inner benefit passed on by the vonoc e n ^ x o c rather than an external authority. In fact we have here another of the frequent contradictions of Philo.ENOS. H e did not cultivate drrd0£ia. His emotional control appeared in his mourning for Sarah. while he had intercourse with Hagar. 1 1 5 . T h e third virtue. and it seems that in rejecting andOaia Philo is rather opposing the Stoic ideal than slavishly following Aristotle. but he did not mean the complete djtdfreia of the Stoic as over against life's experiences. for he proclaims to them peace and euvo^iia. 242). Philo used the word djtdfteia with favor when it was a matter of the warfare of the soul with passion and the lower mind (LA. it was only to get a child. 1 1 7 . 100-102. nor did he go into an uncontrolled grief. but rather makes all his subjects possess and use good things. 128 ff. In one mood he could talk of the complete destruction of the passions. 105 ff. x a l dSixiag. he vacillates between the two con­ ceptions of control and abnegation. Nic.

implied the notion of the ruler-ouTyjp. a n d so a direction of the soul into a safe a n d unshaken path. 88. a g a i n by G o d ' s help. 169. and of the true statesman saves the state {Laws 9622. 6 1 .). LA. G o d talked to A b r a h a m "no longer as though H e w e r e speak­ i n g w i t h a h u m a n being. of the heaven in the cosmos. 8 ff. P h i l o goes on to say. 120 B u t this list. 56. the Neo-Pythagorean (ap. 63. from w h i c h .. vii. 1 5 . A b r a h a m has ap­ peared to be the m a n w h o advanced from a right conception of G o d to achieving. 122. B y being thus rounded out he is m o r e than a m a n . Post. 5 ) . F a i t h is a hastening to G o d . he is in a sense on a plane of equality w i t h G o d .. iv.. 154. P h i l o concludes the treatise On Abraham w i t h the w o r d s : God adds to the multitude and magnitude of the praises of the wise man what might be regarded as the chief one. of the general in w a r .. by G o d ' s help. but as a friend w i t h a f r i e n d .. of the pilot saves the ship. Agr. in some sense divine. but does not say w h a t he meant by A b r a h a m ' s being "no longer a h u m a n being. he could g o on to a vision of G o d Himself. 176. Opif. Wachs. etc. cf." P h i l o is n o w ready to pull all these details together. of the ruler in a state. namely that "this man fulfilled the divine law and all the divine commandments" (Gen. by Hellenistic thought.. and was anxious to follow health-bringing and wholesome impulses. how can men regard the matter as anything but certain? Such was the 120. w e k n o w from Philo's other w o r k s . .. 156. I n order that the legal significance of the w h o l e conception m a y not be overlooked.. 298a ff. Spec. iii. the vouc. Stob. ideal V i r t u e in the regimentation of his inner life and suppression of his l o w e r m i n d .i 4 4 B Y LIGHT. a n d of G o d in the h e a v e n . On the pilot as savior see Praem. for whom vovg. for each of these 121 T o be a savior as these w e r e saviors. IV. 273. 88. " 122 T o be the vouoc £u\puxoc in the full sense w a s of course to be a savior. on the ruler as savior see Jos. of the general and physician saves the armies and patients.. Virt. Abr. and the vouc. God as savior. LIGHT complete trust in G o d to the exclusion of any trust in so-called material goods. a n d the Sophos is TCJ OVTI npGJToc TOO avSpcijTGJv yLvovc. xxvi.. 272. for he had been taught not by anything written but by the unwritten Nature. IV. a n d so becomes the captain of salvation for all m e n after h i m . itself a universal.. 1 2 1 . P h i l o develops the conception he is a p p l y i n g to A b r a h a m to the point of m a k i n g h i m m o r e than h u m a n . of vouc in the soul. is the saving principle in everything else.. A n d when G o d has borne witness to a thing. is to be m o r e than a m a n . T h i s g a v e h i m p o w e r to perfect himself in the great virtues.). 66 ff. Abr. H i s primacy a m o n g the race of m e n is analogous to the primacy of the pilot i n a ship. on the aocpog in time of war... 264 11. Cher. ii. and there is no reason to suppose that Philo was working directly from Plato here. B u t such action is w i s d o m . See my "Hellenistic Kingship. of the soul in the body. 27. The notion is of course first importantly encountered in Plato. 3 3 . n a m e d w a s the savior in his o w n p r o v i n c e . and. Opif. But a statement much more like Philo's is found in Diotogenes. The active principle of salvation in the soul is voug." pp.

the Road to a life lived beyond the written law in the L a w of God. the Royal Power. and alone. Philo does not say. which is the N a t u r e of God. ENOCH. and as such a savior of men. It was apparently a common thing among the Jews of Philo's day to regard Abraham as one w h o obeyed the Law. apparently. too. The loss of this section is to be deplored because it might well have described the faith of Abraham on that stage in a way which would have been closer to the remarks of Paul than we dare without evidence supply. It is certain. This conception of Abraham's character is made unmistakable in Philo's works for Jews. and there is no reason to infer. but many details throw him into irrelevant digres­ sions from the main thought. too. 2. T h e last contrast is striking.ENOS. in this opinion about Abraham. it might also have told us more of the significance of Melchizedek and so have thrown light upon the letter to the Hebrews and the mosaic of the scene in Santa Maria Maggiore. is being represented to the Gentile reader of the Exposition as a saving force by virtue of his having been vopoc. iii. QG. that our manuscripts are very defective. 275 f. H e says he has proved a position different from that held by some others. and develops it by giving a brief commentary on the narrative verse by verse. 125. Sections of the account permit him to trace a consecutive development in Abraham's character. . H i s great mystical achieve­ m e n t of having left the world of passion to rise. like the earlier Patriarchs. But Philo is not content with this conservative statement. NOAH. for a s i g n and is commanded to make the sacrifice. that the explanation of that call had followed the main lines of symbolism used in the Exposition? * Abraham is already out of Chaldaea.. or the VOJJOC Kal Geojioc a y p a ^ o c . and conversing with God when the story begins. then. that he was the first. I n the Quaestiones in Genesin Philo takes u p the story of the Patriarch. he was VOJJOC qj\puxoc. but my argument has shown that he was himself unwritten v6jxog xal fteqxog. Abraham prays to the lower Power. for one cannot imagine that Philo would have skipped great blocks of the story when he deals with such labor with every detail of the sections treated. T h e commentary as we have it takes u p Abraham at Gene­ sis xv. This is elaborately discussed for the significance of the sacrifice. a merciful x ^ P K from God. 124. to a vision of God through H i s Powers is an achievement at once inspiring to others. with permanent power to benefit men. Abr. pure of body. thus omitting the story of the call of Abraham from the Chaldeans. H e was. eH^uxoc. which is explained. not from that held by all others. Abraham was more than VOJJIJJOC. It is certain. AND ABRAHAM 145 128 life of the first man and founder of our race: some regard him as v6|mi0^. however. 7. vo|iijjoc. 2 125 123. T h e early stages of his development are lost. Abraham. It will be useless to try in this summary to present the details. and of immediate power to help others along the same Road.

and is m a d e a citizen of the world by the Royal Power. have therefore to be humiliated by Virtue.. and the encyclicals. . III.. but a stranger to be released and return t o God by the subjection o f the b o d y . 41. i n the same. 43. But this i s not extraordinary since the soul o f the Wise M a n i s not a proper habitant o f the body anyway. o r probably here the Royal Power. IB. A I T E Exposition (SEE A O E P. IB." and was 126 127 128 129 180 181 182 183 184 135 186 surrounded by light which knows n o darkness. 136. 139).e. LIGHT according t o the Scientific Commentators to w h o m Philo occasionally al­ ludes. 137. Hagar. 39 F. THIS IS C NE UN O L W E W U D RT N &QETT| T B M R L AOHR W R O SQ E T NY H N E N E S A D O E E EY N T E O F R 0O<PIA. Abraham's first vision of the Powers occurred o n the occasion when his name was changed.146 B Y LIGHT. IB. 127. and which reveals the very form of light as by a flash of lightning. O S N H B V.. But he can profitably have relation with and get results from the encyclical disciplines. and thence to God. that is he i s made according t o the likeness o f God. a s i n the case o f Noah. T h e whole i s made into the cosmic worship on a Pythagorean founda­ tion... and i n the preliminary stages m a n can have n o fruit from her. IB. 131. QG. 130. Abraham's bodily nature sets and the Spirit of God takes possession of h i m . we under­ stand the Logos. come i n to unite the divided personality o f soul and b o d y . then to the KOOHOC.sense a s the Cosmos i s i n that likeness... IB. 15. IB. IB. 135. voy]Toc. but as H e represents H i m ­ self in Intelligible Virtue herself. at sunset. 9. he had become "wholly eye. i. 20. So he becomes a force for other m e n in the way o f both the divine Powers.. S a r a h . IB.. IB. There i s a sense o f achievement in this begetting that sets itself u p as equal t o the real begetting by V i r t u e . 134. taking God for his leader and guide t o the comprehension of the knowledge of Essences and t o the formulation o f explana­ tions. 10. T h e flight of H a g a r is essen­ tially Abraham's own experience a s he i s temporarily led astray by this sense of achievement and only brought back to Virtue and Sophia by a miracle of the Logos who i s guiding h i m . 133. benefiting them and disciplining t h e m . 42. 27. the rays of God. It is the "Lord G o d " that appeared to him. 18. hence the two Powers.. 132. T h e last vestige of his offenses fall from him. After the sacrifice. In the full experience. T h e barrenness o f Sarah i s like the period when N o a h could not beget: until the soul i s fully purified i t cannot beget. IB. 187 126. not as H e i s . T h u s Philo interprets Abraham's relation with H a g a r .. I n this experience he is defi­ nitely purified from sin. Abraham has n o w i n turn risen from earth to heaven. T h e new n a m e meant that he had risen from knowledge o f the cosmos t o Wisdom about the Intelligible Existences. the Creative Power.. 23. 129. 25 FF. Sarah i s Virtue. 128. made into conformity with the two Powers. L o r d .. IB.

2. 1 4 1 . 142. T h e vision takes the form of the Three M e n . T h e oak itself is Sophia. Ib. Abraham. in the sense in which Sophia appears in Pascher's schematization of the Royal Road.ENOS. 143. 146. Sophia. Ib. iv. so that instead of representing the h u m a n attempts at the virtues that must die with the individual she is changed into Virtue herself. ENOCH." T h e feeding of the Three Men leads Philo to speak of 140 141 142 148 144 145 146 138. as H e showers incorporeal rays about the whole soul. Virtue is fertile and brings forth a n a t i o n . 44. By clever comparison to the olive tree Philo makes the oak. and will keep it as his slave and attendant.. H e r e the same experience as before is fundamentally repeated. N o w he returns to what we may call the "redemption of the body" theme and gives one of his clearest statements of what that m e a n s . T h e change of Sarah's name indicates that she too has been transformed from being the part to the whole. Ib. in accordance with this. as God fills the whole soul with his incorporeal light. So. 4. so H e sends a glory... God. sits and gets the vision as a symbol of the coming of incorporeal rays of L i g h t . . Under the tree. namely the possession of perpetual rulership of all terrestrial things. 45. properly F o r m . 144. 5 3 . T h e T h i r d Book closes with a strong statement of the power of the good m a n to save not only himself and his friends. the mediator in the vision between God and m a n . Ib. They are not m e n because Abraham worships t h e m . In contrast with the barrenness of the mortal virtue. Ib. "for it is the end of happiness to be near God. through the me­ dium of Form* the intellect is born as the prototype.. QG. 140. in which the rite is treated from many different angles. he is now able to beget with seed from God. 139. Mystically it is a symbol of the "redemption of the body. 3.. then. in Genesin opens with the incident of Mamre. 145. imitating the quiet of God. lb. but always be its prince and ruler. 5 1 . T h e Fourth Book of the Quaestiones. he explains. with great detail of description. A passage on circumcision follows.. cannot be comprehended by m a n or the cosmos. also a symbol of the Light of the universe.. with the result that he will never be dominated by the body. H a v i n g himself become filled with Sophia he can beget by h e r . Led by these rays." the stage where not only the spirit but the body is under the regulation of the Divine Logos so that every excrescence of sense is pruned a w a y . to become the re­ deemer and intercessor for all nations before God. NOAH. but strangers. AND ABRAHAM 147 H i s union here would appear to be with Sophia. and he addresses them in the singular for he n o w sees that the T h r e e are One. H e asks them to stay with him. from the corruptible to the incorruptible.. After the mystic experience God rewards the philosophic soul by 138 139 conferring a benefit upon it. Ib. Ib. 54. i . and to give them a share in his virtue and piety.

This remarkable conception is expounded in Ib.. 16.148 B Y LIGHT. 18. and that laughter typifies the joy of the ultimate mystical achievement. It was this clear vision of God as One that Mpses prayed for. in view of the Mystery. . appears as a trinity because of the weakness of the observers. 147 So. so the eye of the soul is at first unable to see one as one. 8. for the soul can now see the plan of God fully in the world. T h e Triad now come into Abraham's house.. H o m e r had said that all things are to be divided into threes." one object as two. 148. and recognize that various terms are only means of describing the nature of that radiation. perfect virtue. and the Pythagoreans had made the triangle an element in the knowledge of all things. 150. 1 5 1 . 10. truly and properly said. and never lose sight of. and proper speech. §§9. Philo explains. 1 2 . After this experience God keeps none of His plans hidden from Abraham." to take which is to feed on divine things (vesci divinis) . apparitions of the primal ministering Powers. See also. the measure of all things. 148 For as the eye. when it is weak. Ib. QG. the prime measure of both corporeal and incorporeal existence. iv. iii. the Radiating Deity. to see which is the goal of the contemplative life and of all v i r t u e . though a unity in Himself. 6. Ib.. all of which qualities of the host hasten to greet and serve the divine visitors. the ecstasy of receiving the r a y s . for he w h o reveals the secret to those w h o are untutored and unworthy destroys the law of perfection of the holy Mysteries. Knowledge of the Father and his Powers is hidden from the many. QG. often sees "double. Philo is too specific in denying the Powers any independent existence to have kept Sophia as such. T o follow his thought we must begin with. intelligible as well sensible. for from this guest flows out a perpetual flow in which the souls of prophets and angels delight as they eat the food of the voluntary law of pure Sophia that comes from G o d . 149. 152. for it is the joy of the nearness of God. QG. In this section we begin to see clearly at last that the divine radiation of Light is to be called Sophia or L a w interchangeably. consisting of "the Laws and Forms of Sophia. and that is the coming of God and His Powers into a m a n of purest soul. is the one God who. as it had been Spirit above. and must not be told to them. 9. 8. I cannot see room in the picture for Sophia as a distinct principle in contrast to the Powers. Because Abraham has 149 150 151 152 147. Philo can call this radiation by one or by a combination of the terms as the exigencies of a given allegory may demand. Sarah laughs at the promise of the Triad that she is to bear a son. 2 1 . LIGHT the fact that there is a sacred food of the intellect. iv. Happy is the m a n who entertains such a guest. but gets the vision of three. 19.

H e was really saved by the virtue. T h e Sophos is a stranger among men. ENOCH. which must be suppressed. This means." Lot is told to save himself by leaving the corruption of Sodom to go to the hills.. 154. that is to Sophia. by which the conception of the saving power of the Patriarch is well brought o u t . that he lived in the country of the Virtues. Ib. that is he lived in full the contemplative life. Ib. rejoicing always in the Father. 24-58. 5 1 . and is a priest above the madness of the wicked. he is a king ordained by God over other m e n . and of Abraham's later marriage to K e t u r a h . 147. 1 7 3 . T h a t is. but of Abraham.. Ib. Ib. 47. 160... Ib. 165. but if properly mastered it can be made as faithful as the soul... nourished by divine laws. Ib. Ib.. and it was to that Power that Abraham had addressed his prayer for the preservation of S o d o m . 53. only made Philo writhe in insignifi­ cant allegory. for the soul can so dominate it that the body shows forth an imitation of the powers of the soul—the idea again of the re153 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 1 5 3 . QG.. Lot saw only the "two" Powers. the birth of Isaac shows that he had reached a stage that 1 7 1 . 1 5 5 . for Philo. 162. . and when Lot fed them it was not the secret cakes of the Mystery which he gave them. Ib. T h e story now shifts to Lot at Sodom who was a character quite inferior to A b r a h a m . says Philo. 3 3 . but has not yet got away from material existence. Lot is by no means one of the great Patriarchs. 22. In a later section (§122) he states that Abraham's age at he was entirely beyond material things and corruption. 46. NOAH.. AND ABRAHAM 149 154 seen the incorporeal Light he becomes a dynamic force to excite a desire for virtue in others. It is the Royal Power that rains down the sulphur upon S o d o m . Ib. 48 £. 54.ENOS. 3 5 . 166. W i t h this the most important part of the story of Abraham for our pur­ pose is done. 75. 1 7 2 . where he would "change the mortal life into the life of immortality. 1 6 1 . 167. 59. After the vision of the Triad Abraham went to the "South" to live. as dead as a bronze statue. 164. iv. Ib.. not the Logos between t h e m . 61^70. T h e Powers do not want to enter his house as they did the house of A b r a h a m . 77. Ib.. 30. 169. he is seeking dominion over the b o d y . Ib. 156." But he is not ready for such a step. that is made it possible for him to sow the seed of happiness (Isaac). symbolizing that he is making progress. A few details of the rest of the discussion of Abraham are worth noting. 170. though it was the Logos w h o gave him the instructions later.. 158. Ib. H i s body is to h i m a corpse.. Ib. though we shall see reason for thinking that Lot was so regarded by other Jews in the Mystery.. 78. 168.. Ib. Ib.. T h e incident of Abraham's passing off Sarah as his sister to Abimelech. because he was "not yet perfectly purified. and the sections that treated the great chapters of Genesis on the birth and sacrifice of Isaac are lost. and irrigated from the perennial fountain of the Logos.. not of himself. and goes instead to a small city.. 159. Ib. Ib. 1 5 7 . 23. 76. 74. 163. Ib..

1 5 3 . T h e conception is that found in the Hermetica and in the Avesta. iii. which was symbolized by Sophia or the Powers. QG.. 83 f. 178 179 Philo has. IX. in the Pseudo-Aristotelian De Mundo. by following the story of Genesis line by line. 179. But the richness of detail is evident with which the character of Abraham had been elaborated to m a k e it conform to the Mys­ tery. and is truly its guardian and the one who drives out evil from i t . 180. and a dili­ gent cultivator of it [by the mystic ascent. Abraham's nature.QG. that is. iii. 180 174. while it generally follows the career of Abra­ ham.Ib. See below. not been able to dramatize the life of Abraham so effectively as he did in the free composi­ tion for the Gentiles. in the story of Abraham in the Quaestiones. which Philo is describ­ ing]. 1 1 . here he was added to his successors. while I have not noticed the term vouoc eu^uxoc. So. rather than in the Stoics of any period. iv. Chap. The wise man is the savior of the race. but which the higher mystic gets not as a cosmic derivation but directly from the immate­ rial Source. 177. and the con­ ception that Abraham was nourished by the stream of divine rays. for the meaning of the L a w of N a t u r e as Philo conceives it. and which was at the same time a law. 176. 178. iv. and in still greater detail. not of m e n . is the most human physician of our race. the term as used in the Exposition is more clearly explained. Particularly has the light symbolism come out with increasing emphasis. But this exposition. 90. T h e picture of Abraham is again drawn. Abraham was a prophet and imposed law. is changed into the Light Substance which is the L a w of Nature. the intercessor before God. apparently as their perma­ nent possession for salvation. and to represent him as a saving force for m e n to come. QG. Ib. but in the nature of the divine Stream. we understand. . and what are to be done. which incidentally coming into matter.150 174 B Y LIGHT. in the Allegory. It is not in the material world that Philo would find such a Law. By way of summary two brief statements may be quoted: 175 176 177 The man who is at once a lover of virtue because of his own nature. the one who seeks pardon for the sins of those akin to h i m . as Philo interprets it in one place. brings in parallel illustrations from all the other Patriarchs. 175. he was added to his people. and in Neo-Pythagoreanism. By this. divining what things are to be. 44. QG. Abraham was added to the incorporeal substances. in being changed into the likeness of the Immaterial Essences. makes it into a Cosmos. then. 10. LIGHT demption of the b o d y . W e must not look to Stoicism. full of days. For law is an invention of Nature.. so that it will be well to reserve that body of material as a whole for the summary of the Mystery.

NOAH. 188. but aligns the human good with the divine. 183.. in executing (noiouv) the L a w Abraham has executed the Logos. As in the Legum Allegoria he was listed among those without antecedents. thus. "So he not only follows God. iii. e cod. T h e passage is one of the best explanations we have of the V6|JOC l[\iivxoc conception. 127 ff. 4. Fragm. and so follows G o d .ENOS. and that Abraham's being accepted by Melchizedek indicated his having reached that stage in his development. Paris. 72. H e grows wine that produces in m e n the Sober Intoxication of divine ecstasy. Diels." Abraham "has kept all my l a w . xii.). But it answers none of our questions. 82. 5. " But since L a w is the divine Logos. . Vorso\r. This is another instance of Philo's talking in a theistic and Pythagorean way of "follow­ ing God. §99. 26.. p. ouxoc. 238. Iamblichus (Vita Pythag. Catena in Heb. A fragment from the lost section is preserved in Harris. LA. JiQog x6 •fretov ouxXCag. 1 182 188 184 185 186 187 188 189 100 181. Living ac­ cording to Nature. the great ultimate L a w of G o d . x x L Sc^ also §§174-176. AND ABRAHAM But a few passages can well be brought in here a s adding definitely t o the portrait.." But neither passage throws any light upon the significance of Abraham's coming to Melchizedek for the Patriarch's spiritual development. 50 ff. Gen." or "living according to Nature. IV. Melchizedek remains one of the many points on which we need more light. ScmSxacrxai xfjc. See above. XQV\OIO<Z.. 184. It is in this sense that the actions of the wise m a n are the AOYOI of God. he lived according to N a t u r e . Wachs. Philo always says "following nature" in the theistic and Pythagorean sense. ENOCH. Gen. he explains lest his readers think he has the Stoic concep­ tion of the term. 186.. takes place when the mind enters the path of virtue and moves in the course of the 6p6oc Aoyoc. xxxix." The good man is such 81a xav yvcoaiv xac. 6x1 Y & O I O V JtoioiioTv av&QGOJtot SXkoMv Jtoftev £nxoi>vx£c. Mig. p. Stob. and the ideal k i n g . In such a case "the actions of the wise m e n are indistinguishable from the A o y o i of God. Ib. i[ity\Jxoc in the Alle­ gory. col.. s o in the De Congressu his priesthood is that of the "self-taught. he steers his actions by virtue as a pilot his craft by the stars. heir of Being. Ib. pp. the opGoc Aoyoc. ioxl xfjg cptlocroqpCac. from Cramer. 182. For the fact that Abraham "went a s the Lord had spoken unto h i m " showed that he fulfilled the height of philosophy. A study of the deeds of Abraham.. i8g. xd eft r\ Jtaoa xcov ftscov.. 185. is. 910 11. a study of the Aoyoi-vonoi. 187. xal aQx^l o\vxy\ ioxl xal fMog ofotas auvxdxaxxai JIQOC. but the archeological material suggests that by another interpretation Melchizedek was priest according to the Cosmic Mystery. who follows the gods. says Hippodamus (ap. H e is the Logos. though the term does not appear." in a sense that is definitely not Stoic. T h e section that might have treated that part of Genesis is lost from the Quaestiones™ In the Allegory he is mentioned in only two passages. 190. 1 3 7 . xavxr\<. The letter to the Hebrews suggests that the Philonic interpretation was a current one. 580. It is strange that in the De Abrahamo n o mention has been made of Melchizedek. 45 D2) says that Pythagoras and his followers ajtavxa o a a JTEQI T O V jtQ&xxeiv fj \M\ JCQOLTTEIV SiOQi^ouaiv. rather than in the Stoic sense. but the conception is described in fact if not in name. Fragments. 19 ff. xxvi. Abraham does not appear specifically as the VOJJOC. The man is happy. 79 ff. xd axoXovfrelv xcp -frecp xal 6 \6yo<. V. 82. 1 .

SVF.. LIGHT In another passage Abraham is the type of the fact that euvoulcc is achieved by eliminating the passions. 603." H e is associated with Moses in a brilliant description. p.. Heres. 194. and has come to stand u n ­ changeably very near to the divine p o w e r . 17 f. So in Abraham are all the people of the world blessed. 192. T h a t is. This passage is quoted as a source for Stoicism by Arnim. III. 197. 3 1 . A s the Sophos h e radiates "most brilliant and star-like beams of virtues. Det. in itself a Stoic term for the Sophos (SVF. III. Abra­ h a m has discarded all kinship to the flesh. and leaving the false notions of the Chaldeans (the Stoics) for the true doctrine of G o d .. 118 f. and through them upon others. God has showered by grace (xapifeoGai) H i s gifts upon the Patriarchs. Heres. 127.. 159. 88. 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 191. Abraham as one w h o is raised above m e n into the immaterial life of God. 289. and who hence has become a savior and mediator of the higher L a w to men. Mig. to which w e shall return. 196.152 B Y LIGHT. Mig. 394). H e has fully realized the ideal of the Sophos. Post. 27.. is here used in the Stoic sense where it is made to mean "Son of God. 2 3 1 ... . of the soul of such a m a n as being a spark from which the dark souls of later genera­ tions can be k i n d l e d . See below. But I doubt that the explanation of evysvr\<." 195. purifying oneself from sins. appears to be the Abraham of the Allegory as well as of the Exposi­ tion and Quaestiones. 193. Cher. 55 ff.. Sobr.

so the loss of the De Isaaco is m u c h to be de­ plored. Ib.. The context goes on to show that Philo's reference is not to individual activities but to cosmic events. on the ground that they are virtuous actions. and as a pilot. 3 1 . But laughter is a visible and corporeal token of the invisible joy of the mind. A n d it happens that joy is the best and most beauti­ ful of the good states. . F o r he was named. Abraham] Joy (%aQa) is set forth as the reward of him who gains without a struggle the natural virtue (rfjv doEtrrv EX qpuaecog) and wins the victory.] even though they may not be pleasant. higher also than Jacob.e. the one by which the soul is entirely filled with contentment (EvfruuXa). the closing treatise of the Exposition. Laughter (yE^cog). It is w i t h some confidence then that w e turn to the s u m m a r y of I s a a c : 2 After Faith [i. I n the De Praemiis De Abrahamo 1 et Poenis. Both Yonge and Heinemann miss the point here in their translations. Isaac w a s obviously developed as a still higher type of existence than A b r a ­ h a m . as the Greeks would say. a n d w e h a v e not a single fragment. or to the pilot for what he has cast overboard. F o r just as a physician in great and dangerous illnesses sometimes cuts away parts of the body to effect the health of the rest of the body. A comparison of the s u m m a r y of the w i t h the treatise itself shows that without the treatise w e could h a v e k n o w n very w e l l its general purport from the s u m m a r y . but rather both are praised for having looked to and insured what was advantageous instead of what was pleasant. but as the Chaldeans called him.CHAPTER VI ISAAC A N D JACOB THE great Exposition w e n t on after the treatise On Abraham to e x p o u n d similarly the careers a n d characters of Isaac a n d Jacob. Praem.3 5 . Unfortunately these t w o treatises are lost. and rejoic­ ing in the permanence (5iauovr|) of the universe. 3. in the same way w e must ever marvel at the nature of the universe and be delighted at anything that is done in the world as being done without voluntary evil. One is to find joy in God as Father and Creator of the universe. 28-30. 2. Isaac. when storms arise casts out cargo with a view to the safety of the people aboard. putting our attention not on the question whether some particular circumstance results in personal unpleasantness. and in the universe itself. first as whatever happens is designed for the good of the whole. B u t it is possible to gather at least its general point of v i e w . rejoicing in G o d the Father and Maker of all things. So then Isaac was blessed n o less than his predecessor. and at the same time rejoicing in deeds that without evil are done [in the universe. and yet no blame is attached either to the physician for having mutilated the patient. and second in the permanence of the universe. Philo summa­ rizes the contents of the earlier books.. but rather o n the fact that after the manner o f a well-lawed city the world is guided and piloted safely. 3 i . though of course w i t h great loss of detail.

after which happiness comes as a child or offspring of virtue. Det. ap. first. 86 f. iii. V. nAaoua TOV 'IoaaK. Hippodamus. 1098a 1 6 : T O dvftgcomvov dvaftdv ilwxfjc. The confusion of parenthood. 5.. death to the passions.. since h e is completely. 8. natu­ rally. 53.. But the passage does not give the full significance of this joy. a n d of joy." W i t h this Aristotelian point of view h e combines the mystical one that happiness is a gift of God.. Mut. inasmuch as he is formed of the same material. §26: xaxxdv piov be xe\i\oi xol |n6vov d v a d o l I6VT85 aXka x a l eufiaijioveg. though h e sharply distinguished. 11.. 200 ff. For Isaac as Happiness see also LA.). LIGHT for he was free from anxiety and dejection. in the thoroughly Aristotelian definition: "Happiness is the exercise of per­ fect virtue in a perfect life." Quoted in my "Hellenistic Kingship.ovia as the context shows. LA. Stobaeum. Nic. 1 3 0 . epyov §£ TOU ayevvjTou vouioreov).docoaig kaxi TCOV avfrQCOJtCvcov dvaftaw. 60.. Nock. is an echo in Philo of one of the com­ monest elements in Hellenistic religions. Philo interprets Isaac as representing the type of character which is so exalted a n d perfect that he is the embodiment of euSaiuovia.154 B Y LIGHT. who in making the king used Himself as the Archetype. ap.. Cf. he enjoyed a life without pain or fear. a i x a euSaifxcov y£vr\xav a yaQ euSaijuovia xeXxitaac." p. TeA/noc. ib. See also Eth.232 f.. so that w e must consider Isaac n o t as t h e product of generation but as the work of the O n e without Beginning" ( o u yeveoecjc. IV. Compare the ideal king of Ecphantus: "He is like the rest [of mankind] indeed in his earthly tabernacle (axfivog). End. 1219a 3 8 : f| evfiaiixovia tcofjc.1 7 6 . F o r if "Isaac" 4 5 6 7 8 9 4. and without effort at one with the law of G o d or nature. between euSaipovia a n d y]Sovyj. QG. iii. exi b* I v |3icp xeXsCcp. 8. D . V. . ii. See Euryphamus. a n d representing Isaac as the direct child of G o d through Sarah. iv. 9. xsXziaq iv^Qyeia x a x ' aQexriv xeXeiav. 6. See A.. 1. 19 if. el bk Jikeiovq a l aQexa(. as did all schools but the Cyrenaic-Epicurean. xxxix. iv&Qyzia yivzxai x a x ' aQexriv. d jxev yaQ evfiaijiovia xeXsi6xaq iaxi pico dvdQCOJtfrvco (Wachs. The "human good" is of course eu8ai|u. to w h o m vir­ ginity has been miraculously restored. bk xaxxdv Piov. x a x d XT)V aQCaxTjv x a l xetaioxaxriv. Cher. 27 (Wachs. 1 7 . demanding. and he experienced not in the leapt any of the bitterness or wretchedness of life because his soul in every part was preoccupied by joy. 7. by which a hero's father would be called now God. Three lines below (1219b 2 ) it appears that XQ?)OK is interchangeable here with iviQyzia. The definition is an epitome of Aristotle's remarks about happiness. 76. and now a human being. W h a t h e means by euSaiuovi'a Philo makes plain elsewhere. Philo is so convinced that euSaiuovia comes as the crown or reward of virtue from God that h e frequendy is near to denying Abraham's paternity. Philo would appear from many passages in the Allegory to be at one with classical philosophers in m a k i n g euSaiuovIa the ultimate goal of all endeavor. 909. 82: XEXoxev r\ aQtxi\ xf|v evSaijioviav ' l a a d x .. 9 1 7 ) . Conversion (i933)> PP. F r o m this section it would appear that the De Isaaco developed as its cen­ tral theme the fact that Isaac was so completely at one with the power be­ hind the cosmos that he typified joy. For their emphasis upon eudaemonism he need have looked only at his Pythagorean models. Abr. " G o d is the creator of laughter that is good. x a l cruujtA. with reference to Isaac. See Eth. but he is fash­ ioned by the supreme Artificer.

and PouA/nmS are commended.coc. The coincidence is at least suggestive... Post. Det. he is the unprojected son of God who gives him to souls that are entirely devoted to peace as a soothing and comforting presence. 11 12 In another passage Abraham rejoices that he is to beget Isaac. 6 fevStafrexos vloc. 45. TO euScujiov yivog. where it is synonymous with. whose name is Abraham. Cf. and God would most accurately be called the father of Isaac. 12. the offspring of Sophia.. iii. Ebr. and yet bringing forth. Cher. dptaxTig xaW ewtateuov. Isaac. Evjtd^Eia is used here in the sense of the Stoics. Another contribution which h e made was the fact that h e reached so exalted a state not by effort or instruction. Som. x<XQd.dp£ia." according to the true witness of Sarah. Y\ avTO[ja0y)C oofyia. b u t he is apparently in error.. as a still higher representative of the same order. 431). vii. but some are changed from being women to being virgins. The phrase is also used of Adam in Opif. There is at least a possi­ bility that Philo developed the idea in a way so closely parallel to Christian doctrine about the birth of Jesus that Christian copyists suppressed the text. 17. The Jtdftsiai are condemned. and so bringing faith to m a n . See Diog. aXk* 6 auvcovuixoc. Mig. kingliness. G o d is the maker of laughter. but is a synonym of that best of the commendable emotions. 13... But it seems clear that as Abraham was to Philo a great savior of the race by being an incarnation of the cosmic order. 131: 6 avdQtojtoc. 60. b u t as one "self-taught." 10 Some of the virtues are ever virgins. 115 (SVF. 11. and by cutting off pain H e gives to Abraham gladness. like Sarah: for "it ceased to be with her after the manner of women" (Gen. Sobr. 255..ISAAC AND JACOB 155 means "laughter. " A n d H e gives the wise Abraham a share in H i s o w n title. . Mut. but to the man who aspires to achieve Sophia. 65... i. 88. brought them that euSaipiovia which transcends h u m a n effort. Indeed Isaac is the 15 16 17 10.. 14. joy. Ye7. 218 f. 30. 94. 148. Immut. 194. bsov TOV 8i56vxog aux6v \ieikiy\ia x a l efthiuiav elQTivixcoxdxaig tyv%aig. 134. 1). evA. and that impossibility makes it also impossible to judge h o w literally Philo believed that Isaac as the an­ cestor of the race was the miraculous son of God. xxi. not to the One who made the visi­ tation. Det. 16. laughter. Moses represents Sarah as conceiving at that time when God visited her in her solitude (Gen. for the T o r a h clearly indicates to Philo one of the holiest secrets of the Mystery for initiates. XOLQ&S. 4. 1... or closely allied to. namely that it is "the Lord w h o begat I s a a c " A s a result Isaac is not 18 a human being. 11) when she first conceived Isaac.. LA.. La. 124. III. but these ewidfreiai. xfjc. Mut. 15. 14 H o w far this allegory of Isaac as the son of G o d by a virgin was carried out in the De Isaaco it is impossible to know. It is interesting to note in this connection that in the story of Abraham in the Quaestiones the section dealing with the birth and sacrifice of Isaac has again disappeared." TO CXUTOSiSaKTOv Kal a\jTo\xaQkc yzvoc. 101. xviii.

35. Bug. for this conception is alluded to in connection w i t h Isaac in the De Praemiis Josepho et Poenis (§§36. Cong. and h a v e been changed into TO afyBapTOv Kal TCASGJTaTov y e v o c . 20. Bruta Ratione JJti. . From Plutarch.. and so h a v e received T/JV anovov LmoTY\\AY\v. QG. but is strongly hinted. drill.. 10. though both w e r e apx^Tunoi T/jc n a i S e i a c yjM&v Tunoi. G o d is its expounder. but from his birth he has discovered ready prepared Sophia from above showered down from heaven. . 59. F o r it was not a human being who was brought forth but a most pure concept. i.. ii. i. 23.." the auTojjaOyjc.. one greater than reason and truly divine. dnaGsc d S o c £v y c v s o a . 22 S o G o d taught A b r a h a m . I n another passage Isaac typifies self-taught knowledge which comes by nature. 21 T h i s self-taught k n o w l e d g e . 52. which he sucked in neat as he feasted. iii. Sac. P h i l o spoke of the possibility of re­ ceiving "the inheritance of Isaac. one noble by nature rather than by practices. Mos. i. 1 7 3 . g a v e one the r a n k of pupil. a n d to Jacob in w h o m these w e r e 6LOKY\TIKY\. a blessed event w h i c h 18. P h i l o continues. . and by means of the endowment showered upon him from above he was good and perfect from the beginning. 2 4 23 Isaac is the u n i q u e example of complete natural goodness. and labor. Cf. It is a k n o w l e d g e w h i c h rises spontaneously. though again h o w far it developed these allegorical expositions generations it is impossible to say. LIGHT stock example of those w h o have "dispensed w i t h the instruction of m e n a n d become apt pupils of G o d . but begat Isaac. the other that of son. W h a t benefit the m o r a l achievement of Isaac h a d for future is not elaborated. Det. T h e self-taught genus is a new entity.. not at all His admonish­ ment.crihig is to be taught by nature. Ib. 19. a n d the De ( § 1 ) . 2 1 ... and in contrast to the instructed knowledge of Abraham he needed only the grace of God. but by divine madness.156 B Y LIGHT. " H e is the exponent (KavcLv) of (pvoiKY] oocjna or of <J>uoiKy] apenrv). and it subsists not by virtue of human ratiocination. 76. . 22. W h a t P h i l o meant by the auTojjaOyjc Kal airroSiSaKToq oo$6c he carefully explained: 1 8 19 20 H e has not been improved by investigation. w e learn that to be auTOU. is so quick as to be something timeless. he is TO novov T h e De Isaaco must h a v e contained m u c h of this exposition of Isaac as the auTO|ja0y)C. 24. 46. 5 9 ) . Cf. the De Abrahamo ( § 5 2 ) . for Isaak by nature achieved TO XCXAOV. 38. in contrast w i t h A b r a h a m whose w i s d o m and virtue w e r e SiSaoKaAiKy). and so was in a constant state of that sober intoxication which goes with correctness of reason. 7. 991 f.. 160-162. 166 ff. and H i m s e l f sows the seed in one w h o is by nature ready to receive it. Abr. Som.

. This Allegory begins with the same conception of Isaac as that in the Allegory and Exposition: Isaac is mind. or what I am calling the Fe­ male Principle formulation. So I understand the cryptic "quae (sapientia) secundum virtutem sumit aquae similitudinem. 94. and result in the abiding presence of God. 93. the symbol of the setting of the material fight of the corporeal nature. but to the whole problem of the basic conceptions of the Mystery.3 1 . 2 9 . for Canaan means "stupid. 88 f. Again those w h o are but midway on the road to perfection. but is the nourishment of others. she suffers neither decrease nor in­ crease. cannot yet see God. the daughter of God. 25 26 The Self-Taught is nourished by no one. and mother of all things. that is. Actually the servant gets h i m a wife from the house of Nachor. H i s wife.. rejoicing always and daily in the Father. characterized chiefly by their perseverance (urto|Jovy)).ISAAC AND JACOB 157 would put an end to all spiritual labor. must be an emigrant out from such a concep­ tion. Ib. 29. the bounteous o n e .. Ib.. 6 Tyjc oofylac y j y q j ^ v . QG. 194-196. 103. Y\ auTopaGyjC oo<t>ia. 30.. Det.. T h e pitcher 29 30 81 32 33 25." is centered about his marriage. 33. not discontent with what is made in the world. but can apprehend Isaac.. Sophia. A t evening. the servant comes to the divine fountain." 32. 29 £. Mig. Ib. Rebecca w h o meets him there is Perseverance. 27 T h e picture of Isaac that emerges in the detailed commentary of the Quaestiones adds some striking features not only to the character of the Patriarch. completely satisfied that all things are done according to nature by divine providence for the salvation and preservation of the universe. especially of those people w h o are completely purged in soul. 28. inas­ much as he is competent to teach others though unable himself to be taught." H e could not himself go to Chaldea. 28 T h e story of Isaac. Fug. and educated by himself. as an allegory of the mystical achievement of those "who hasten to immortality. for that would be a desecration: it would indicate that he had gone back to the error of thinking that astronomy was the highest approach to contemplation of the invisible and incorporeal na­ ture. I am consistently translating sapientia as "Sophia. Mig. Ib. 3 1 . master instructor of himself. which flows out like water. and in all His works. like Abraham. . of the Light-Stream is the great allegory of Isaac in the Quaestiones. Such a m a n could not take a Canaanite woman as his wife. For Pascher has rightly noted that the chief source of our knowledge of the Mystery in terms of the Sophia formulation. in God. himself dis­ tinguished from indistinct things (distinctus ab indistinctis).. iv. the light of the soul..QG. 140. 27. 26. which means Quiet Light. 88. Sophia. 97." Cf. since she is Sophia. iv.

Yes. 43. the servant gives Rebecca. NO. They typify the fact that the mate­ rial universe is harmonized and ruled by the Logos as the m i n d in m a n should affect his material parts. voluntatem. so must m a n fill his soul from the fount of God. the rational as contrasted with the material. 36. T h e drink he gets is compared to the m a n n a of the wilderness. IV. Sophia is plainly identical with. So the m a n praises God that in going to the house he is to receive the W o r d of Virtue. IB. explaining to h i m the Road which leads to virtue and immaterial prosperity. or brings with her. and so stands quiet while the divine Logos speaks within him. Q A .i 8 5 BY LIGHT. obviously another symbol for the same experience. IB. et contemplationem. IB. I IS P OO T N L E U L S C R .. 34 86 86 87 88 89 "In accordance with the divine Mysteries" Philo allegorizes the earrings and bracelets. IN. if we were not prepared. the eternal Sophia. A D S O T T E W OE IS A ALG R T R P RI A.. E U E N H R.. As he drinks he recog­ nizes that it is not his own Sophia but the Sophia of God that he is getting. that is. in her father's house the beasts are separated from the place where the h u m a n beings. 35. LIGHT she carries contains the aquatn rerum. that is the Logos-Sophia. and that Rebecca can comprehend the unity of the Logos. but a m a n matured. the sort sowed by m a n . 98. the sexes.. After this drink he is no longer a boy. IB. 100. she says. F H OD 40. But this only means that here as elsewhere there is no metaphysical impor­ tance in the mythological allegory of the Stream as either the feminine Sophia or the masculine Logos. H H L O N LE OY O T E R A (§131). 112. virgin from any corruptible seed of desire in her mind.... and likewise.. A n d indeed Philo generalizes by stating that any m a n who tries to reach the heights in any other way than this which nature had ordained will only work his greater ruin. . 107 F. 41. QG.e. yet she received the pure seeds of divinity which the Father of All sows from above within us. 42. like the servant r u n n i n g to Rebecca we must r u n u p to Sophia to be filled with that true Sophia which God extends out as from a generous fountain. As she fills the pitcher. clever Sophia. IV. 38. which are seen secundum sapientiam. 102. legem. the incorporeal and intelligible seeds. 37. T h e figures have become badly confused. QG. 101. can find rest. She was virgin and beau­ tiful. 39. A t this point Philo stops to throw Abraham into the picture by explaining the fact that when the servant addresses the "God of A b r a h a m " the servant is imply­ ing that Abraham has been the intercessor through w h o m he is getting this mystical experience. the divine Logos.. i. H e understands the nature of his master. speaks without vocal organs. IB. IB. Apparently Abraham is the inter40 41 42 48 34. 113. with the divine Logos. where one may abandon all mortal and corrup­ tible things. 99. IB. IB. T h e servant asks for a place in the home of Rebecca's father. F RHR O (§125) P I O S E K O T E R A O T U H T VR U A B I G UT E N HL P A S F H O D F R T O I T E S EN intelligentia et sapientia.

For in Abra­ h a m are present the pure forms of justice and t r u t h . on the evening w h e n Rebecca was to arrive. from ignorance and disorder. 138. 45. Such a person is a God-bearer (deifer = Oeo^opoc).. Ib. 52. Ib. Ib. 121. they fly about the Father and Creator of the universe and call H i m Blessed. he says.. 49. Founder. Laughter free from sadness: he rejoices uninterruptedly and continually beyond all things made by God." It is a life with the F o r m that surpasses the Good. I n contrast to Rebecca. Ib. Ib. 47.. Ib. Laban is sense-perception. 48. 120. and so makes h i m master of terrestrial things. T h e experience of the servant is in a sense epitomized in the following: 46 47 48 They understand the true adoration who drink from that fountain not to be ap­ proached and touched because it is incorporeal. and the Best. as well as an escape from empty opinion.. Such are equipped with wings and soar aloft. See him in true and proper way entering into converse with Sophia at the well. so while she looks after the man. 114.. who is immune from great evils. Sophia. and Abraham is the servant's "City of Refuge. T h e r e is a good teaching for both. 136. at the marvel­ ous and divine fount which is called the fount of Vision. 115. the One who in true essence fills all things with His Powers {yirtutes) for the salvation (or security) of the uni­ verse.. Ib. 46.. . making his way with no uncertain steps to Sophia. he tends to the beasts.. 49 Rebecca is given to the servant who hastens by the right course to give her to the Seft-Taught. 55. Ib. 117-119. Isaac. I n this connection we are reminded that Philo is throughout talking of the Mystery.. that is. 54. 60 61 62 Open thy spiritual eyes. So "he w h o is removed from the consideration of visible things has it as his reward that he begins all alone to live a solitary life with the invisible God. She brings as servants the qualities that m a k e for steadfastness. God of Truth. 51.. for he has been initiated into the divine things to the extent that he is almost wholly possessed by God. 53. Oh Mind and behold him who is thy example. 139. For thou shalt see him preserved from indiscriminate and turbulent thoughts. but to the good m a n is given instruction that elevates h i m to heavenly greatness and sublimity. he is in­ spired or deified. and happy is he to w h o m Virtue comes as wife. 58 Such an experience is again a vision of the super-sensible world of H i m who is. Ib. Ib. tem­ porarily Reason. to meditate in the field. Isaac had gone out." law. 134. Ib. 50. 129. and j u d g e . H e is instructed by the divine L a w (certainly not the laws of Moses!) in h o w properly to produce fruits 64 55 44. for he distinguishes the sorts of teaching to be given to those with ears purged and those not purged. Ib.. that is.ISAAC AND JACOB 44 159 46 cessor stated by nature to be the unique m e d i u m of approach. 130. Omnipotent. and of the F o r m s .

at the setting of the light of visible opinion. daughter of God. mother of the Logos. F r o m the fact that Philo parallels Sophia with the source of the stream which waters Eden. Then: He is taught that the monuments of Sophia and of Vision are not the holy boo\s of the Lord but the divine command and the divine Logos. 145. 60 ff. T h e God who reveals Himself in the Powers has not once ap­ peared. and which is itself very near. and §141." Philo prays. for in Rebecca he has found Sophia again. Pascher has an illuminating discussion of the place of Sophia in the mys­ ticism of Philo. yet as though it were not there.i6o B Y LIGHT. and converse about the Intelligibles that are themselves concealed. and is but another figure. 142. man's mother and man's own wife in mystic rapture.. 146. Isaac.. 97. as usual with Philo. as Pascher indicates. which has be­ come the wedding chamber for the marriage of the Self-Taught with the eternal Virgin. 57. scatterer of the seeds that ennoble man. although his conclusions are not always convincing. According to Quaestiones in Genesin. pp. iv. T h e house is itself here the op0oc Xoyoa (recta ratio) of Sophia. 61. 58. for at the end it is evident that Isaac has married his own mother. surrounded by light and wearing the cosmos as a robe. 59. but herself having no mother. QG. for the union with the Logos. Perseverance. in which it appears that the Logos is the Son of God by Sophia. daughter of the Logos.. Pascher concludes that she is to 57 58 59 60 61 62 56.. which warns one who would fall away. Ib. Ib. the Self-Taught. but not to the unskilled or uninitiated. and gives the mystic confidence with the incorporeals. T h e wedding chamber is the house of Sarah. wife of God. T h e whole is an approach to the in­ corporeals and to God. "may I never cease." N o w Isaac is consoled for the loss of his mother. 1 0 8 . . to be revealed only to one who desires Sophia. and not as an old woman. Konigsweg. Ib. Rebecca comes to h i m and gets down from the camel as Sophia comes down to the mystic. 62. 56 It speaks without projection of words. It is at evening when this happens. iv. "from whose love. who achieves the mystic marriage with Sophia the ever Virgin. Sophia is herself the daughter of God and the first­ born mother of all things. Ib. She is veiled as are the inner secrets of the Mystery (quicquid est intus et in adyto). that is. Sophia. Here ends the amazing allegory of Isaac. we feel. LIGHT that are the immortal foods of the soul. T h e Sophia and Logos are adequate symbols of the Light-Stream. Ib. 143. It is the Father of Sophia that is now teaching h i m . 140. Mother of the Self-Taught. H e quotes the important passage. A greater jumble of sexes and incests could not be imagined.1 1 2 .. H e is the sub-ruler under God of the cosmos and is the bond which holds it together. but as one w h o is eter­ nally young in incorporeal beauty. De Fuga. 60.

which is their son. Interesting as is his material. for the mythology of his De Iside. T h e whole Stream was the Logos. who is the source of Sophia. Sophia could fit in incidentally as a lesser manifestation of the Logos. Plutarch has actually three sources. Philo keeps the Mystery of the Powers almost entirely distinct from that of Sophia. 63 6 65 Pascher's service has been distinguished in his analysis of the possible sources for the Sophia mystery. It will be noticed that Sophia and God mutually find delight in each other. but the writings of Philo seem to m e to indicate that they were all in process of combination at least by his time." but he has apparently not noticed that the stream here irrigates the plants and shoots of souls that love virtue. T h e point which the story of Isaac brings out most sharply is that we have here two distinct mythologies of the Light-Stream. Beside not agreeing with h i m in connec­ tion with the existence in Philo's thought of a Cosmic-Logos distinct from the Monad-Logos. 242. her son in the one passage. gj. like Plato's "nurse. Som. the Monad. the higher Logos. and the Sophia motif of which she is part. 97.. each of such importance that it has forced itself into the exegesis. as in the Logos and Powers formulation. 64. .. T h e Powers 06 63. and wears the cosmic robe. My own explanation would be to admit Philo's contradiction. And God the source in Sac. but when regarded from the point of view of the Patriarchs as mystic types it is at once apparent that for all of Sarah's mar­ riage with Abraham she. and that he had similarly confused the Persian sources with the Isiac. As Fug. one Egyptian. Konigsweg. If one began with the Logos symbolism. If one began with the Sophia symbolism. 64. consti­ tute a mystic mythology of ascent parallel to that of the Powers. is his own work it is now impossible to say. not two. the three fused and interpreted in mystic philosophy of Greek origin. and one Greek. 65. H o w m u c h the combination of the three mythologies. the Logos could be her son streaming into the cosmos. 68 f. one Persian. the Dyad. or their interpretation. pp. for ac­ tually there were no stages. ii. 66. he is the source and she the stream in De Fuga. But we have seen reason to question Pascher's second Logos. But as the Logos was the stream from Sophia.. but were all only figures of speech for his very real conception of the great light-streaming God. * Pascher would explain this contradiction by his theory of Philo's twofold Logos. and it might be called Sophia just as well. In a few passages there is a passing attempt at fusion. T e r m s for stages in the Stream were of relative unimportance. I do not think he has said the last word on the matter. that of Sophia and that of the Powers. and the lower Logos. and in finding close parallels in our frag­ mentary Isis remains. I feel that he has not recognized the problem of the two types of Mystery.ISAAC AND JACOB 161 Philo a goddess of the Earth. and account for it by the fact that the mytholo­ gies had no absolute value in Philo's mind in any case.

13 f. and Abr. 46. the "Olympian Stole. Fug. It must have been with this same significance of light that the principal priests wore white garments. 69. in all of w h o m the three elements are present. 10. an allegory of Rebecca. De hide et Osiride. Philo used both formulations in parallel simultaneously. an allegory of Sarah. Sophia appears here. male in her power to scatter divine seeds in the initi­ ates. pp. In comparison it is worth repeating that while Isis is in Plutarch the daughter and wife of God. Plutarch. and that both were in the process of assimilation by Greek thinkers. I n the allegory of Abraham. On this Pascher quotes the striking passage's.. If Plutarch is to be taken as guide (and w e have no other) it would appear that the Powers in Philo had their origin in an attempt to reconcile Jewish thought with Persian conceptions. 99-102.. though in each case it is seven. radiating out seven Powers: euvoia. xi.BY LIGHTS LIGHT do not appear at all in the story of Isaac because either mythology was indifferendy interchangeable with the other. T h e spectacle of Philo.. Pascher insists that Philo is in the same line as Plutarch in his handling of the material. 70. See above. O n the lower stage. it will be recalled. but not at all in the role which she obviously played as Isis. 14 f. This was apparently in anticipation. Ib. and many of them are strikingly reminiscent of Philo. A t the procession the next day it is notable that the initiates of both sexes wore linteae vestis candore puro luminosi. in accordance with which robe he must look joyful. suggests strongly that in Egypt the Persian description of the Light-Stream was being regarded as a parallel with the Isiac (perhaps they h a d been so regarded since the days of Ikhnaton or of the Persian conquest of Egypt). aA/jOcia.. Ib. oo$ia. which Apuleius could tell us about. TTAOUTOC. . It is notable that Philo goes out of his way to indicate that the latter allegory is one he has learned from other commentators and is not original (as I am confident little of Philo is) with himself. a n d that hence h e has much to tell us of the higher reaches of the Isis Mystery. and o TGJV km TOIC KotAoiq yjSeojv Syjuioupyoc. 68. it is in Persia that Plutarch finds the conception of Light. 4. where she could not remotely have been con­ ceived as fifth removed from the Source of the Light-Stream. one w h o is female in her relations with God." H e h a d a flanP ing torch in his right hand a n d his head was "crowned with white palms. for at the first stages of t h e initiation h e was given a robe representing the heaven.. mother of the Logos. and that the Sophia figure h a d the same relation with Isis. 7 1 . O r m u z d . euvopia. 48-52. These seven are not Philo's seven Powers. that he knows more of the higher mysteries than Apuleius cared to write down. Metamorphoses. 7 2 . indifferently because neither had more than figurative value. Isis herself first appeared to h i m in a robe representing the cosmos. a n d that w h e n Apuleius was transformed from being an ass he was first naked and then clothed with white linen. 47. Ib. a n d the Hermetica. 67 68 69 70 71 72 67.

But it seems to m e that his interpretation. however. that Philo himself felt highly antipathetic to the Isis myth and initiates. and a Female Principle conception. pp. inadequate as he is. without adequately fusing them. So I was adorned like the S u n . It is just as possible. Plutarch. those held by the ordinary native initiate. 78. W h a t happened at the later stages we do not know. A passage from Plutarch already q u o t e d throws light upon this confusion. 75. and that the priests of this rite wore the white linen robe also. 24. is that the Hellenistic dream of the Female Principle may well have been much older than its imposition upon the Egyptian legend of Isis. a tendency which there is no reason to ascribe to the influence of Isis. pp. reflects what Isis had long come to mean to many Greek initiates in Alexandria. of whatever origin. and indeed m u c h more likely. 77. 1 1 9 . and that he is content with treating them.ISAAC AND JACOB I6 3 whose leaves stuck out after the manner of rays. W h a t must always be borne in mind. Philo's similarities to the ascent there through Isis are striking. T o say that Philo was looking to Isis as interpreted by such m e n as Plutarch is thus dangerous. " T h e prayer that follows is addressed to Isis as the cosmic deity. p. and partly because of their relative unimportance to h i m anyway as 73. T h e r e we learn that the Isis robe was definitely a cosmic one. Ib. Apuleius has deliberately been so vague in his description that he gives the reader no clear conception of the mystic rites. partly because the two notions were not fused in his environ­ ment. See below. 270 ff. But Apuleius in general agrees with Plutarch in this: the priests of Isis wore the cosmic robe. father of Isis. See above. H e represents their significance in terms so philosophic that it is impossible to sift out the original. so much like the mystic ideas of Philo. is our only guide to the con­ ceptions behind these robes and rites. notions. 78 74 75 76 77 78 W h a t is clear is that a pleroma conception of the Light-Stream. . T h e r e are many things which Plutarch feels he must read into Isis. as parallels. T h a t is. W e might recall that a similar tendency existed in Orphism to make Greek goddesses into bisexual saviors. and since we k n o w that Female Principle best from Plutarch's account of Isis and from Apuleius. have both forced themselves upon the Judaism Philo represents. 25. however they explained their faith. W e have met the Orphic material before and shall meet it strikingly again.. De Iside.. Philo is definitely giving us a picture of ascent through Sophia which is clearly the Hellenistic dream of ascent through the Female Princi­ ple. Ib. like Plutarch. Ib. those of Oriris one of white linen. 16 74. and the Osiris robe the $GJTO£IS£C. apparently of Persian origin. 27. ff. but powerfully attracted by that Hellenistic notion of the Female Principle which also thrust itself upon Isis. 77.. See above. and these may well have in­ cluded the whole notion of the Female Principle as savior. except that it was an initiation into the rites of Osiris. purely Egyp­ tian. 76.

In that state he clings to Sophia. Such would be the scheme behind Philo. for He begat them. As Philo has softened the mythological element in the Logos-Powers cycle because it violated his monotheism. In this union the soul becomes identical with Sophia (as feminine). T h e great significance of Isaac. I believe. gives a number of instances in which God has fertilized women in the Pentateuch. that is. Konigsweg. who. It will have appeared 79. is now playing a masculine role in im­ pregnating the soul. abandon his sense life and cling to Wisdom (imoTY\[XY\). as it is brought out in the Quaestiones in Genesin has been expounded in his r^ystic marriage. For the mystic significance of this Sophia cycle Pascher quotes De Cherubim. repre­ sent Sophia or Virtue. Leah. each of w h o m at her impregnation "receives the divine seed from the Cause. . so he has not cared to m a r k out too clearly the function of Sophia as a hypostatic personality. But it must always be remembered that the lower stages melted into one as soon as the mystic had reached the Source and could see the Stream from above. Zipporah. So must the mystic. if Philo is himself doing more than using the terminology of the mysteries as a figure to bring out his much more philosophic conception of the ascent. that such a presentation would. 4) makes the idea behind all this clear. not to go into the points on which I agree or disagree with Pascher. I doubt. By this the rise of the mystic would seem to be that at first he purifies him­ self of bodily allegiance and so becomes virgin. as frequently). and to allegorize the wives of the ancient heroes. if he would experience this impregnation. for him.164 BY LIGHT. be taking the mythological element too literally and seri­ ously. for from that passage he concludes that God. as Pascher points out. but it is not thus clearly stated for the simple reason. T h e seeds H e scatters are the Forms of the immortal and virginal Virtues (Virtue and Sophia are here parallel. that he is drawing not at all di­ rectly upon the Isis cycle. and as figures of the ascent. but brings forth to one of her own lovers. but upon a long tradition in which the assimilation of mystic motifs had been aged and refined. w h o is preferred above all others who seek her favor. 88 ff. W h e n God begins to consort with a soul H e makes what was before a woman into a virgin (for God can have relations only with virginity) by removing the passions. and so can receive the Seeds of God direct in a higher mar­ riage with the Cause. 79 the incorporeal dwelling place of the incorporeal forms is the Father of all things." A passage in Jeremiah (iii. LIGHT mythologies. pp. This passage. Rebecca. as in the other cycles and mysteries. As the husband of Sophia God drops the seed of happiness for the race of mortals into good and virgin soil. As types they were helpful. For the possibility is before us here. 42-52. says Philo. Sarah.

Cf.. They are celestial light fighting with terrestrial light. 193. 83. xxvi. ii. The paragraph is obviously an abridgement. Ib. dominion over all earthly things. QG. iv. " T h e first thing this Light does is to discriminate good from bad. QG. Ib. H e has become the in­ strument upon which God plays using the Logos as a plectrum. "God" a name used because of benefits. which like the day and sun totally illuminate the thought and m i n d . 59. 164. W i t h every opportunity to do so. so the two sons in her womb are abundandy described as representing these two principles. and so he 80 81 82 83 84 85 8 6 87 88 89 90 80. 90.. H e comes to the question " W h y did the Lord when he visited Isaac show that H e was G o d ? " (Gen. God is truly m a d e manifest in the latter way because he gives out Sophia not as a king to subjects. A few later sections are of interest in connection with Isaac. 1 5 8 . 1 see no suggestion here for connecting the two cycles. 1 5 3 8 . in a section not preserved in the Armenian. 89. he here explains by saying that "Lord" is the name of a ruler and governor. This. It is notable that in this allegory. Isaac's losing his sight is. W h e n Abimelech saw Isaac having intercourse with Rebecca he was too imperfect to apprehend that what he was seeing was the mystic union where the mortal joins himself to the immortal forms which are in the likeness of God. Ib. virtue against vice.. which would have thrown Philo at once into a passage on the Powers if found in the A b r a h a m story. 1 5 7 . but as a benefactor among friends. Ib.. Re­ becca is made pregnant "with the Forms of Sophia. the other the mortal part below it.. and so the attainment of supreme happiness.. 87. 2 4 ) . as a Sophos. 160. which could easily have been made into the cosmic struggle of the East. Philo keeps to Greek religious motivation. Isaac is forbidden by God to go to Egypt. W h e n Isaac digs anew the wells of Abraham he is clearing the way to vision of the rays of light of Sophia. 178. T h e struggle between them is primarily the story of Jacob. and there may have been originally more about the Powers than now appears. one the immortal part of the cosmos above the moon. 1 7 7 ." the falling away of h u m a n sight as the prophet gets spiritual vision. 163. This section Aucher inserted between §195 and §196 of his edition. 88. O n e section is very interesting. 85. but only in the anonymous translation of a part of the QG published in Basel. 86. 182. Ib. because it shows how Philo is avoiding the Logos-Powers cycle for the Sophia cycle in interpreting Isaac. the immaterial forms against material forms. and will be treated later. 82.. "according to the allegorists. . iv. Ib. he is given. he is to migrate to the land God will show h i m . and the above is taken from paragraph 4. Ib. 81. Philo has not attempted it. 84. 188.. Ib. There are eleven paragraphs.ISAAC AND JACOB I6 5 that now in discussing the pregnancy and delivery of Rebecca Philo is still showing the significance of the soul made pregnant from God through Sophia by that elusive changing of sexes which runs through the cycle. This passage occurs in QG. iv. for that realm is the b o d y . LA.

For the blessing of Isaac. 92. 8 1 .. iii. Yet so many other passages insist upon the importance for Israel and the h u m a n race of the fact that these Patriarchs actually did live their great lives. By this beam the conceptual world 96 97 98 99 91. that I do not believe the passage reflects more than a passing mood of Philo. and seeing in them only an allegory of the ascent of the soul. Abr. ii. LIGHT 91 gives off a finely attuned sound in which Laws are m a d e k n o w n . Sac. iv. who suddenly m a d e shine upon h i m an incorporeal beam purer than aether.. 5. 97. Ib. It might be taken to mean that he is denying any mystic importance to the careers of the Patriarchs as historic figures. 52. See also Mos. Cf. 45.. a lover of the beautiful and good. appearing in various forms throughout Philo's writings: e. Ib. QG." T h e treatise De Jacobo is lost.. 2 1 2 . etc.. i. Mos. 64. 1 7 .... for his eager desire for illumination was met by God Himself. H e is anxious to bless the wicked son because he knows the good son is already taken care of.. virtue won by ascetic discipline. The term is a constant epithet of Jacob. though his character is not so exalted as either Isaac's or A b r a h a m ' s . In the De Praemiis Philo sum­ marizes his view of Jacob as 6 doKyjTyjc by saying that he has had experi­ ence of every part of h u m a n life. . 94.. 230. Some people have pierced this darkness by happy guesses to come to a belief in a single God and Creator. 76. Praem. O n e wonders h o w Philo meant this. LA. 98. 96. 94. H e ranked in the better order..i66 B Y LIGHT. is the blessing of G o d .§§36-51. and has spared no pains or labor to track out the great object of desire.. Ib. Praem. 42. of equality and humility. 49-51. H u m a n i t y and the cosmos he found veiled in ultimate darkness.. 1 8 . Isaac w h o hunts out the sinful m a n to ennoble him with the blessing of G o d was to Philo a symbol. Further on Philo warns the reader that the story has nothing to do with m e n at all. 198. 196. " H e was gen­ tle and a lover of mankind. 27. 95. because they were dopioroq. Post. as the blessing of a prophet. leaves him out altogether. 76. 89. but the wicked one can be saved only by Isaac's prayers. Det. Praem. and we have to gather its substance. 93. 59. Agr. truth. 5 2 . throughout the Allegory.g. In the Exposition: Abr.. 99. i. In the Exposition Jacob is contrasted with his father and grandfather in that he represents apery) dcK/jTiKK). 167. only from the summary in the De Praemiis and from casual references. 92 98 94 95 T h e career of Jacob is likewise allegorized according to the Mystery. did become the vouoi euipuxoi and hierophants for men. Ib.. was a protagonist of reason and the opponent of folly. 59. The list in Ebr. but one can­ not avoid thinking that Philo looked to h i m as a living and permanent reality. as in the case of the De Isaaco... but with symbols of souls and their parts. Jacob went m u c h beyond these people. 46..

is." T h e deceit of Isaac by Jacob throws Philo into a desperate allegory which attempts to represent Jacob as still the virtuous type throughout the incident. Cong. Jacob.. not by inference from a study of phenomena. a n d bearing the fruit of virtue. iv.Q aift^Qoe. "as say the silly detractors of Scripture w h o follow only the nouns and verbs. H e is to have the dew of heaven. Fug. 2 0 3 .. with nothing assist­ ing o r cooperating. Ib. 2 1 4 . Mig. T h e experience was achieved. Cf. n o . as all m e n should r u n from vice. 1 7 .. Ib. 88 f.. QG. the figure of all that is good as opposed to Esau. Cf. QG. virtuous conduct. says Philo. not actual pottage. it is clear that. it may be well to fit the passages together from the Quaestiones and the Allegory according to the Biblical story of Jacob's life.2 1 8 . H e is advised to go t o Laban. his life is one of struggle. LA. clothed in Esau's garment of external righteousness (even the worst m e n . Ib.. he was explained to Gentiles in terms of the mysticism of the Light-Stream. but by direct revelation. 129. £juXdMA|jaaa avvfi TOV vanxdv tt6a|AOv aviqjTivev frvioxoi>M' ' ov. is seen by means of Himself alone. I n looking to the allegorical writings of Philo for material about Jacob. Philo insists..... So from the beginning. 109. 192-194. Sac. 190 f. like the other Patriarchs. 1 3 5 . QG. 9 L . Immut. 105. not oloc e o n v . 23 ff. gifted with the Incorporeals.. 107. and the Quaestiones in Genesin. is master of the lower parts of the soul according to the L a w of the more just N a t u r e .2 1 1 . 1 6 3 . cf.. Ib. the Logos. Heres. even in the womb of Rebecca. which means that in the mystic advance a m a n may well spend some preliminary time in 1 0 1 102 103 104 106 106 107 108 109 110 100. Virt. W h e n Jacob is in danger from Esau he wisely runs away. iii.. as has been indicated. so God. E v . 1 0 1 .. and the fatness of the earth.: dXTJftEiav nexiaaiv oi x6v ftedv deep cpavxaaicoftevxec. 1 6 8 . as master of Esau.2 5 6 . &a<onaxog e^aupvTic. Mig. T h e pottage for which Esau sells his birthright is fleshly desire. breaks off early in Jacob's career.. Cf.. LA. for the material in the Allegory is very scattered. a light by its light. as we have it. T h e blessing that Isaac gives h i m is that he is a soul filled with Sophia and bedewed with Virtue. have some good points). 39 f. being H i s o w n effulgence ( e a u T o u $LYYOQ i v ) .. Jacob gives Isaac the food of the Mystery (cibum mysterit) . 1 0 1 . 208-210. 2 5 1 . 3 7 : xorfhxQCOTEQa ya. 1 7 6 . 104. iii. 106. Praem. LA. 44. H e . evil. Ebr. 2 1 3 . 108. 92. iii. 8 1 . control by the m i n d of the sense-life a n d the lower judgments. iv.1 7 5 . "Those mens are on the way to truth w h o apprehend God by divinity.ISAAC AND JACOB 100 167 was revealed to h i m as it is guided. the main point of which is summed up in the conception that. though even he saw of God only o n £OTIV. 102. For as the sun and stars are seen by their o w n light. <p<oxl <pa>c. 103. 62." Relatively little as Philo gives us of Jacob in what remains of the Exposi­ tion. 45 f. iv.

213 f. Ib. in the second place. Ib. 61-67. while only a sojourner in the life of the senses. not freed altogether from them. and the rest of the story of Jacob must be reconstructed from the Allegory. 115. 1 1 6 . 46 ff.. LIGHT 111 112 getting to understand his physical n a t u r e ...... what h e saw was a vision not from God but from God's attendant P o w e r s . even m u c h more those of sense. W h a t he finds is not God but the intermediate divine Logos (6 \xiooc. 35-40. Mig. Ib. 46. but has only come to the comprehension that there is a Deity beyond the material world.. Ib. ii7. 68 f. mys­ terious in nature. 121. Indeed it immediately appears that what he experiences as 6 \\LCOQ Xoyoc was not the Logos in its entirety. grow d i m . Cf.. Ib.Ib. 118.. Som. 70.. Jacob's coming up from the Well of the O a t h is the first point to be explained. This leads Philo into a remarkable passage on God as l i g h t . This vision could only mean that when the inexpressibly brilliant Light of the supreme and invisible God shines in the soul the secondary beams of Aoyoi.1 1 9 . T h a t is. Ib. 112. H e has yet to come to a masterful comprehension of the life of the senses. and. In short. Ib. 1 2 3 . 243. . and as having then "gone into a place" and lain down until the sun rose. but the Aoyoi. 1 2 2 . 1 1 3 . and the part fit to sing best the praises of G o d ... Philo is m a k i n g it very clear that the mystic experience of Jacob at this stage is the achieving of the lower Cosmic Mystery which we have discussed as the Mystery of Aaron. It is taken as the chief of Philo's second type of dreams. Aoyoc 0£ioc). 7 3 . It will be unnecessary to follow Philo through the devious ramifications of this allegory.. 239 f. but it is also the fourth element. H e r e the Quaestiones in Genesin break off. Fug.i68 BY LIGHT. and gets the power of prophecy. T h e r e are three preliminary points to be discussed before he comes to the dream proper. T h e fact that Jacob is on his way to H a r a n is indicative. that is.1 3 .. 1 1 9 . T h e well is of course W i s d o m (called 004/ia or imoTY\\iY\). Som. the heaven in the external world and the m i n d in m a n . 241 ff. the manifestation of the Logos in terms of recommendations and teachings which have become to him like sacred l a w s . 6 . 120. T h e r e he is to marry S o p h i a rather than one of the daughters of folly. Jacob's dream on the way to Laban is very elaborately expounded in De Somniis i. the highest representation of deity. the Hittite w o m e n . 2. that in which the m i n d comes so to move along with the universal m i n d that it becomes possessed by God (££ saurou KaT£X£°6<* <*1 6£0(|>opdoSai). 1 4 . that he is still. iv. God is only by remote approximation 113 y 1 K 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 in. QG. This indicates that Jacob has not arrived at God..1 8 8 . iv. 1 1 4 . 41-60.. Ebr. i. Ib. i.. though that Deity was still quite incom­ prehensible to h i m . T h e "place" where Jacob goes is the third preliminary point..3 4 . though he is by no means going to remain t h e r e . Each of these is in its own world the highest element. QG. 46 ff. 2 . 72. Ib. Jacob is described in the Biblical account as having gone up from the Well of the Oath to H a r a n .

1 2 6 . T h e m a n whose ultimate objective is to get the vision of God and rest upon the Logos begins by applying to his head. Ib. 1 3 5 . 1 1 5 . 1 3 1 . 147. 1 3 5 .. 127. Ib. 1 2 5 . 1 4 1 . i. Ib.1 3 2 . 75. still more accurately God is "older and more exalted" than any pattern.. So he dreams his dream. The Persian origin of the symbolism is unmistakable. and from m e n to G o d ... 134. Ib. T h e l a d d e r is the air reaching to the sky. Ib. Ib.. that of the archetypal and incorporeal beams of the reasonable source of God who brings m a n to perfection in initiation.. with God something too abstract even to be described by that figure. He cannot fit such an interpreta­ tion into his general concept of Jacob's development (§§118 £.1 1 7 . 1 3 2 . those ambassadors of God who are "the eyes and ears of the great k i n g .. 77-84.. and is light. T h e point is that there are two grades of Spiritual Light. and it is God's Logos which is the archetypal pattern of light.. the immortal Aoyoi.ea<p6Q0\> fteov. . one of the Xoyoi. Ib. but these Aoyoi come into the minds of 130 181 182 183 134 185 136 124. 128. 140.. 1 1 5 : a l aQXSTvnoi x a l daco^axoi dxxtveg xfjc. Ib.). 129. and when we bring our secret sins to H i m in repent­ ance H e purifies us and gives us inner peace by taking the sting from our consciences. 1 3 3 . 1 2 0 . Philo sums up his discussion of the Light of God. popularly called the angels. and that of the copies of these beams. Ib. one of the incorporeal intelligences. Xoyixfig JtTjY'HS TOU xeA.. It was this lesser type of vision that was given Jacob at this stage of his career. God and the Logos are with them in their work of saving souls from drowning in their bodily constitution.9 1 . the archetypal pattern of all light. Ib. After a long allegory that adds little to the argument. God as Light sees and knows all things. to his mind. 1 2 7 . 8 7 .. i. 144. Som. T h e Scriptural name "an­ gels" is m u c h better for them than the "demons" of the philosophers. and w h o is available only for those who entirely leave the flesh behind. 86.ISAAC AND JACOB 169 to be compared with the sun. 134.e. Ib. Philo admits that some allegorizers here have interpreted the passage as meaning that Jacob has got the full vision of the Logos-Beams. 130. Ib. while God is compared to light. God is Himself accessible only to the souls completely purified from the body. and upon it Jacob sees the Aoyoi of God. 136. 126. Actually. T o have access to that Light in the holy and sacred Mysteries (ai ayiai Kal izponpzndc TeAeTal) one must discard the light and knowledge of the senses So the Logos as Light brings the mystic complete refuge and salvation from his enemies (the impulses of the flesh). which teaches him what he should k n o w at this stage in preparation for the great wrestling match to c o m e . since nothing visible can be compared with His invisible nature. since they are truly messengers from G o d to men.. 124 125 128 127 128 129 Jacob's hard bed and pillow seem quite appropriate to the m a n eager for v i r t u e . " They are pure souls and exten­ sions of the universal mind into the universe.

Jacob is aware that Isaac's is a higher level. but as the incorporeal Being outside the heavens. Only after the later vision does he become the "See-er. only something which "he dreams about in an indistinct way" (duuSp&c civeiponoAei).1 7 2 . as one who is "taught. 1 5 9 .170 B Y LIGHT. T h e familiar assertion that Philo. those of Rulership (yjyenovia) and Beneficence (euspyeoia)..1 6 5 .. but the "God" of Isaac in Gen. W i t h the exception of Calvin's doctrine of "irresistible grace. and Philo's conception of the saving activity of God is unmistakable. Plant. Isaac. 138. and curiously that it is Abraham. . In the case of Abraham the Sophia motif came in as a parallel to the other. Som. T h e God of the Powers emerges sharply in the God who is at top of the ladder and speaks to Jacob. 1 6 6 . has always regarded God as powerless to help a m a n who does not first want to be helped. thought that spiritual rewards awaited only those who had in some way already purified them­ selves is a complete misconception." in need of the two Powers. and prays that he may some day reach i t . 1 3 ." needed only the latter.. with his Aoyoi and Aoyoc." "Israel. Ib. T h e dream has thus far taught us a good deal about Philo's conception of Jacob. as well as Philo. xxviii. T h e ladder illustrates also the fact that at this stage the mystic is in a very vacillating stage. Jacob is a m a n who has actually a long way to go before he can get the vision of God. 1 4 1 . even now. and needs both. who is there called Jacob's father. LIGHT 187 those still unwashed and cleanse them with their beautiful teachings. Further the relation of the Lower Mystery to the Higher in the life of the aspirant is made much more clear. 148." meets them on dieir level.. 1 5 7 £. while Isaac was described entirely in terms of Sophia. Still. 140. H e begins at first definitely in the Cosmic Mystery. as yet. For God reaches down by H i s Aoyoi to the "great unwashed. 1 4 9 . and who is God. T h e vision of the God of the Powers is. Philo went no further than this in what he required of an aspirant. But he is just now much closer to Abraham. In spite of the representations of Jacob as a m a n of virtue in contrast with his brother Esau. 90. not as present in the uni­ verse. It is notable also that Philo is shifting. and gives them the sort of help they need at that stage. not Isaac. he 188 139 140 141 1 3 7 . Ib." and the son of Isaac. in contrast to Christianity. and be worthy of the Higher Mystery. and indeed in this de­ scription of the dream we have a great enrichment of the Cosmic Mystery as represented in Aaron and the temple. the "self-taught. i. i. Abraham was.1 5 6 ." Christianity. from the Sophia formulation of the Light-Stream to the Logos-Powers formula­ tion. since he needed both legislative guidance and benefactions of grace to get along on his level. Philo points out that God is the "Lord G o d " of Abraham. Ib.. Som.. 139. Jacob is inter­ esting in that two conceptions of the Light-Stream are being blended even more closely than was done with Abraham to describe his mystical strug­ gles. up and down between the higher and lower t h i n g s . cf.

a n d lead h i m back to the land of his d r e a m s . Treatment of this part of Jacob's life is sporadic a n d fragmentary.. of the relation of the Lower Mystery to the H i g h e r . 1 8 4 . which could not be subject to space in any sense. Mig. So Jacob needed two wives and two concubines to help h i m through the various aspects of his complicated struggles. does not provoke Philo to this allegory. i. 255. vice versa. 1 3 5 . and in his final stage as the m a n purified by perfect virtue h e is going to be a saving influence among the nations of the earth. T h e two daughters are respectively the encyclical studies and philosophy.. even with Leah.ISAAC AND JACOB 142 171 needs n o longer fear. Jacob has n o w to proceed to H a r a n and the house of Laban.. as sophists insist. Before he is to be ready to go on to the immaterial realm. F o r Jacob seems really to have experienced the Cosmic Mystery. 123... his fine flavor per­ meating into and ennobling the lives of others as the odor of spices goes far out to sweeten the lives of m e n .. H i s problem about getting Laban's daughters in the order he desires represents the point ever at issue between the m a n who understands Natural L a w and the m a n w h o does not. if we turn from matter. Ib. 1 8 1 . and the "devotee of Sophia" (6 oo$(ac aoK/)Ty)c) knows that they must be taken in that order. 147. 1 5 2 . It is notable that Rachel. Cher. 1 7 7 . 149. of the existence of a realm beyond into which he has not yet penetrated. 46. to which Philo has devoted almost a whole book of the Allegory. 2 1 2 . though Genesis says the same of her. h a d to have more alli­ ances than this one. Isaac as the "Self-Taught" h a d h a d a sufficient mate in Sophia alone. G o d will be with him. Ebr. Ib.2 1 4 . 1 5 1 .. whose progeny was really the son of God. the region of sense and m a t t e r . Ib. T h e dream of Jacob. and it has brought us back again to the God of the Powers.. There is n o suggestion that his relations with these.. 7. The text is dubious here. 80 ff.1 8 3 . i. 145. h e has still much prepara­ tion to make. 146. Yet his present inadequacy is finally indicated by the fact that when he awoke he thought that " G o d was in the place. Mut.3 8 . LA. 2 5 . b u t Abraham. 1 7 4 ...5 3 . 1 7 8 .." showing that the true nature of God. Cong. not. 4 7 . 143 144 145 146 147 5 148 149 150 151 152 142. 1 7 3 . and only attributed to the earthly hus­ b a n d . Ib..1 8 8 .. can become pregnant in the divine Stream of b e a u t y . iii. LA. Abr. 134 ff. Som. 95 f. Post. For further notes on the progeny of Leah see Plant..1 7 6 . a n d in doing so has h a d ah intimation but n o more than that. for h e is promised the ultimate possession of vir­ t u e . were the mystic marriage such as Isaac h a d experienced. of the spiritual struggle which h e represented in the Mystery. W e too. and much more Jacob. was quite beyond his comprehension. 150. 144. . who is sense perception.. W e k n o w that Philo used the fact that " G o d opened the w o m b " for Leah as a symbol of divine and virginal impregnation. 148. I read TQ) for Wendland's xq). Cong. 1 4 3 . has told us a great deal of Philo's conception of the Patriarch.

Sac. a n d these are the hopeless part of the flock assigned to the sons of L a b a n . are willfully a n d stub­ bornly unreasonable. Jacob is a type of the fact that the good king and wise m a n is a shepherd. Agr... i. xxxi. It is described in De Somniis. T h e deceit by which Jacob got the better part of Laban's flocks is twisted by main force. 158. 190. For Jacob's dream is this time a vision of the Mystery i n its various stages. 45-48. but his thought was in general no less clear of the obligation of the sage thus to help other men. b u t to still others it speaks as friend to friend. T h i s dream and its interpretation are of great significance. like these. Laban becomes angry. and Jacob is warned i n a dream to r u n away. like that of Moses at the bush a n d of A b r a h a m at the sacrifice of Isaac. 180. Ib. i. h e is a type of the Greek. F o r the dream opens by Jacob's being addressed. like that of a k i n g . The allegory is here immediately concerned with the control or shepherding by reason of the lower elements of the human constitution. is of this highest type in which G o d speaks to h i m as a friend. 1 5 9 . as here (Gen. 1 9 2 . even to the point of quite misrepresenting the Biblical story. As Philo tells the story. I n another passage the motded sheep are explained as the symbols of the m i n d which has become impres­ sionable to the marks stamped in by the Seal. LIGHT In becoming a shepherd for Laban. God's approach to m a n is still the approach of God. Ib. to others it brings great benefit as a counsellor. are only ignorant.1 3 ) . 1 1 0 . to others it speaks what is helpful as a teacher to a pupil. They must be eliminated by the ascetic. T o these Jacob is the shepherd.172 BY LIGHT. 155. though it be made. by n a m e . or some aspects of one's constitution.. and in this sort of conversation it imparts many secret things which no uninitiated person may h e a r . Per­ sian. It is unreasoning m e n w h o need such a shepherd. 39-42. Som. 1 5 6 . and by careful training can be taught to align themselves with the higher life. 154. 42. 1 8 9 . 160. the purifying and disci­ plining of the body to m a k e h i m ready for the Greater Mystery to come. and Egyptian ideal of the "Good Shepherd. n .2 5 6 . which means that he has nothing to offer as a spiritual guide to all sorts of people. shows. Heres. 1 9 1 .. 1 5 7 . But other parts of m a n ." But he cannot tend all sorts of sheep. So Jacob is at last marked 168 164 166 168 167 168 159 160 153..1 9 5 . Plant. in order to make the incident typify the true effect of Jacob's mystic shep­ herding. N o w that the flocks have come increasingly into Jacob's possession.. T o some the mystic word (6 iepoc. b u t white ones: that is. his effect upon the flock was to make them manifest the pure white of truth instead of the modey h u e of those not yet developed in the Mystery. A 6 y ° C ) is a command. Jacob's experience here. as Agr.. through a n attendant a n g e l . since in connection with it Philo gives us one of the clearest of his pictures of the Mystery as a whole. . and other types of men. the device of the rods produced not striped or mottled sheep. that is. b u t some people. For the general allegory of Jacob this shepherding represents h i m doing the work for which he came to H a r a n .

199.. xxxi. the mystery group based upon friendship with God. the other which nourishes it and fills it full of rightful action. as leaders of their respective flocks. 162. then. This is not. 198. T h e variegated (noiKiAa) are marked not with a motley of forms and characters like the spots of unclean leprosy an emblem of the unstable life of the fickle mob.. W h a t he saw was the rams and he-goats mounting the females in the flock. and so makes the cosmos into the great rroiKiAjja. it is the inter­ course of Perfect Virtue with well-grown souls. some variegated.EVXOi. in contrast to Moses who deals with the archetypal natures. 166. he explains at length. One recalls the obvious cognate: "No longer do I call you servants. what it would first appear.cov oruvefiQiov. a formulation by which the Logos could appear to represent Sophia in masculine aspect. w h o are rushing with zeal to SIKGUOOUVV). and striped. 202. But these forms. Ib. not the intercourse of our irrational natures. T h e harmony and marks. 1 5 ) . . and to Sophia who marks out a variety of forms.ISAAC AND JACOB 173 as one of the $IAIKOC. an organ u p to that time clouded. Som. T h e white sheep are the souls who are in the Highest Mystery and so are excessively w h i t e . 196. that is. for all things that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you" (John xv. 198-200. variegated. or those people. white. T h e ram and he-goat. T h e intercourse which Jacob dreamed about was. for they are like unblurred light and the brightest possible effulgence. 2 f f . 0(aooc. as Philo points out in §201. some pure white. i. made k n o w n through the encyclical studies. Som. the master-builder of the tabernacle (Ex. but one which had no room for the Powers. some with ashcolored spots. Not Xevxoi but 6idA. T h e females represent those aspects of our nature. Ib.. It is. such as is a beam of the sun on an unclouded day at noon. T h e three types of offspring of the Logos or Sophia by h u m a n souls are the three grades of experience familiar to us from the three courts of the temple. 163. which means that now for the first time he can see with the eye of the mind. an intercourse which both purifies and nourishes. he here begins to enter the final experiences that have set the other Patriarchs off from mankind. our bodies.. for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends. are those of the cosmic forms. 164. It is throughout the Sophia formulation. a mixture of the LogosPowers formulation of the Stream with Sophia. i.. represent the two kinds of Logos. the intercourse of the Logos with souls that are fertile and virginal. T h e m a n who is in the stage of being an aspirant (6 aoKY\TY\c) has for his objective the forms 1 6 1 162 163 164 165 166 161. Ib. 165. are the work of Bezaleel. In §193 this group of Patriarchs is referred to as T O TCDV <pft. but the scattering of the seeds of Sophia. T h e offspring of this mystic marriage are of three sorts. In the dream Jacob is commanded to look and see. ) . as copies. the one which purifies the soul and emp­ ties it of sin. but are shaped with seemly lines and stamped images of a sort to produce together musical concord.

1 7 1 . Unless Philo is here quite inconsistent. son of God. 67-74. is contrasted with the representation Moses gave us in the three stages of the temple worship. O n e sees them in their perfection in the ordinance of the high-priest.. as such. By these figures it is repre­ sented that there is no one guilelessly and purely worshipping TO ov who has not 1 7 1 170 167. i. this group stands for the m e n who are in the stage of the Cosmic Mystery. By putting on this robe the highest element in man's tyvxh AoyiK/). where the beginner is sprinkled with ashes and water to remind him of his own humble and unworthy nature. i.. . made of such elements. as he got it in a dream when still not perfect. H e must k n o w himself. of incorruption (dqpdaoaia). But what Philo seems to be contrasting is the inadequacy of Jacob's dream symbolism to make clear the three stages of the Mystery as contrasted with the perfect symbolism of the complete temple service. and by putting off all arrogance. So before the priest can advance to the cosmic sacrifice he must first be reminded of ^human nothingness" (dvGpcjnivy] ouSeveia) by being sprin­ kled with water and ashes. It is quite clear that in contrast to the experience of pure Light of the first group. EutovCa seems to have been a synonym of %(or\. This com­ parison seems at first one between Jacob. and so he must begin by sharply visualizing his lowly estate.. Som. as the m a n who is 6 doK/jTyjc." For this the priest puts off the cosmic robe and puts o n one of white linen 168 169 which is a symbol of vigor. T h e second stage is the putting on of the cos­ mic robe to sacrifice in the inner court. the logos in man. T h e significance of these also is to be found in their symbolism of the Road to KaAoKayaGfa. the divine Logos. . was not one who had achieved final perfection in any way comparable to Moses. so that m a n in his highest aspect worships God together with the highest aspect of the cosmos. the house of Sophia. we understand. the y j y q j o v i K o v . T h e third stage is that of the "purely white. Laban thought that his children and cattle were his own. LIGHT as they appear in the sky and on earth. i. T h e m a n who has not yet achieved perfection (o aoKY\TY\c arz |jy]ncj TEACIOC) deals with these three stages.. the high-priest. who does go through it all. 209-212. or conceives them. For he is himself. is united with the y j y e u o v i K o v of the cosmos. . This sin is ascribed to Laban in Cher. 168. not knowing that as men we own nothing. T h e first stage is the purificatory sprinkling with ashes in the outer court. imperfectly. So here Jacob's representation of the Mystery. the sin which God hates most of a l l . and so has not gone through the whole experience. and the high-priest. 170.. in the cosmos. and of the most brilliant light (avyoeib&oxaxov (p&yyog) . Som. and in himself. 216 f. 203-208. They represent the beginning of Sophia. T h e third type of sheep in the vision are those with ash-colored spots ( o f onohozihdc pavroi). Som. 169.174 167 BY LIGHT. . that is.e. i.

Ib. then.. and is no longer attracted by those cousins of darkness. So when the mystic teaching (6 legog X6yog) has purified us with the sprinkling vessel prepared for our sanctification. 232. as people unable to look at the sun or moon think the rays from these bodies are themselves the bodies. ." W h a t or w h o . in a changed form. Perhaps here. the XaujtQa £adrig meant the Roman toga Candida. Yet this that is presented is not a copy. 1 7 7 . things which only bait. "I a m the G o d w h o was seen by thee i n the place of God. his §6£a. to the element of stability 175 176 177 178 179 1 7 2 . for G o d has ap­ peared to h i m . 1 7 6 . Only the incor­ poreal souls that attend God can see God in H i s essence. Som. or the ultimate experience.. But I think the reference is clearly'to the ItQoq Xoyog of the Mystery he is describing. 229. 178. i. but presents H i s radiat­ ing effluence. false opinions. 2 1 8 . and shining (XafJUtQOug)..ISAAC AND JACOB 175 first had to exercise a set determination in pouring contempt upon human mat­ ters. a n d said to h i m : "I a m the G o d of Bethel. Som. Ib. despising the presumptuous images made by mortals.. H e takes on the appearance of angels for the benefit of those still in the body: more accu­ rately H e does not change H i s unchangeable nature.. 1 7 5 .Polybius X. and has marked us with the variegated stripes by the secret formulae of true philosophy it leads into what is seemly and then makes us dis­ tinguished (biaor\\iovq). Joseph is himself a fascinating study in Philo's political theory. 239. 174. appearing to Jacob because he was not yet able to see the true G o d .." Some of the Septuagint manuscripts read this as obviously Philo's manuscript read. Ib. this means the Bible. T h e pillar which Jacob h a d set u p before h a d been dedicated to the image of this appearance. God came to Jacob. i. and finally he is illumined by the unshadowed and brilliant light of truth. 234-237.. is the G o d of the vision. and ruin him. 240. it is the Logos that is Geoc without the article. v. and this is true to the extent that G o d has to appeal to ordinary m e n in a form far from H i s true o n e . 1 . . as often. A brief discussion of Joseph follows as the man who without preliminary puri­ fication. but his career has no connection with the Mystery. b u t is itself the archetypal m o d e l .. . and does the text suggest two Gods? Philo indignantly repudiates the latter suggestion a n d asserts his monotheism. It will be recalled that in. 1 7 3 . conspicuous (ernqpaveig). Popular legend speaks of G o d as appearing in various forms all over the world to different people. T h e r e is only one G o d here or anywhere else w h o is called 6 Seoc. weaken. Ib. just put on the middle cosmic robe (§§219-224). 179.e. H i s m i n d has indeed been strengthened to the extent that it can n o w see the Leader of the Powers (6 yjyqjcLv nao&v T&v TOIOUTWV Suva|j£CJv). Next he sets as his objective incorruption. . Philo n o w proceeds to analyze the theophany itself. says the H e b r e w text. 172 178 174 Such a m a n has n o longer anything to fear from Laban. I n this one case it was the Logos that was the angel. T h i s seemed to h i m to be God. Ib. i. 226.

he can only r u n a w a y . i. for the encyclical studies and the quest for Sophia..2 7 . 184. Even the passions themselves have gone. but only ignorance... T h e dream suddenly stops here without mentioning the fact that God at the end commands Jacob to leave Laban. when the soul thus deserts it to r u n away beyond the river..176 180 B Y LIGHT. it had been the Cosmic Mystery. LA. iii. . that is. pro­ tests that there is no longer left to h i m intelligence of any kind. 182.. 214. Philo devotes sev­ eral pages to the flight in Legum Allegoria. Laban's two daughters. 241-249. It was the dedication of the results of encyclical studies. Jacob is n o w going into the final Mystery (reXeicjOig) and so leaves the house of the senses for that of the soul in its higher aspects. which stood. 185. 1 5 . Various fragments of 180. and for that it is highly valuable.1 7 . A n d it is to be noted that even in this isolated treat­ ment Philo does not say that Jacob put on the white robe of light as a result of the dream. and from h i m to learn to conquer the passions. iii. Ib. Ib. 27. 255 f. In the fuller treatment of Jacob it must have been rather a pre­ liminary vision and call. the Jordan. 1 8 1 .. little is left to show. in exactly the same way. as we have seen. for not until he had left Laban did he himself have the ultimate experience. the Leader of the Powers. 187. 182 188 184 185 186 187 188 However Philo may have dealt with the subsequent events in his extended analyses of the career of Jacob.2 7 . 20. 250 f. 1 5 . he is definitely now leaving the world of matter and sense for the spiritual world. Philo closes the allegory of the dream with an exhortation to his soul to go to Jacob. LIGHT 181 in the cosmos. the passions are now d e a d . Laban. See note ad loc. Ib. is to leave it robbed and impoverished. and so be able to take one's flocks (one's lower nature which has n o w become a flock quite rational and beautiful) and lead them back to the house of our F a t h e r . 186. as the body. Ib. His flight is over the river of the objects of sense.. N o w he has come through in the Higher Mystery to a vision of the Logos. Philo is treating the dream as an epitome of Jacob's whole experience and significance. 188. 183. T h e wise m a n may face the lesser temptations. For Jacob has taken with h i m the only virtues that were in the realm. 18. T h a t is. O n e is reminded at once that in the great allegory of the Cities of Refuge the divine Mystery in its higher experiences lay beyond a river. T h e effect upon the life of the body. by Colson and Whitaker. but when the objects of sense threaten h i m as a whole. here the world of virtue. for in leaving the body Jacob stole the teraphim of Laban and hid them. his wives. Ib. 2 1 . Mig. For it was Jacob's flight from Laban that represented his final leaving of the life of material things to go into the higher Mystery. Ib.. Only the m a n can do that to his lower nature w h o m God is leading into a vision of Himself in the unutterable Mysteries. W i t h these gone. In a word. Som.

is perceived by H i s o w n Light. T 6 V # E & V vnb EwtQEJCEGToVcov y. he says. 43-46. becomes a "Hearer. H e r e is one of the best groups of passages for Pascher's theory that the Lower a n d Higher Mysteries were distinguished respectively as the Mystery by which one hears about divine things. is G o d in H i s primary extension.. a n d t h e last descriptions of the family before the story of Joseph begins. Still there is sufficient to show that Philo must have gone on in the fuller stories of Jacob to m a k e this the great scene to which he has been all this time coming. i. Jacob sees God. 192." a n d the Mystery in which one gets the Vision. so as usual falls back upon the figure of the sun. 5 1 .. and his "sons" are hearers. or like Isaac." the Lower Mystery. where his ears are changed into eyes. a n d his reward is the vision of that which is alone worth seeing. 7 2 . 208.. It was in this scene that the " m a n of effort" (6 aoKY\TV\c) became the " m a n w h o sees God." Jacob came to see TO OVTGJC o v . not the nature of God b u t the fact of H i s existence. H e r e Philo uses Jacob as the type of those rare m e n w h o have gone beyond the "heavenly ladder. as to ours. b u t in the LightStream. the incident itself which gave h i m title to be one of the greatest Patriarchs is not fully explained. a n d the obvious fact that the career of Jacob is here to have its consummation. It was a vision of G o d in as m u c h as the Light-Stream.. 82. By such a vision.. Praem. b u t "has been called by the O n e Himself w h o is willing to reveal H i s o w n existence to the suppliant. aW o n tony.. So the vision appears to have united h i m 189 190 191 192 189.. 146 f. Cf. Mut. that is. 129." I n this last stage of the struggle for virtue he changes hear­ ing for sight. Fug. So I understand Post. God... one becomes united or identified with t h e object of the vision. 38 ff. In Conf. it is appar­ ently only another way of stating the fact that he has risen. Mig. like Abraham. Jacob has seen God.ISAAC AND JACOB 177 the next three chapters of Genesis are mentioned. the Logos. to the Logos. Conf. and is especially important because it probably gives us a digest of t h e lost De Jacobo. Ebr. h e specifically says. b u t in general t h e robbery of Laban. Som. Ebr. Jacob's vision was apparently a vision of G o d not fully or directly. H e has seen this not by inference from any of H i s created works. 191. o u x oloc COTIV. H e has all along been wrestling with his lower nature.. cf. apparently. T h e fullest description of Jacob's vision of G o d is in the De Praemiis. beyond the contemplation of G o d through H i s works. is fully "married" to Sophia. It is surprising that for all the n u ­ merous references to the great wrestling scene. . is impossible. Both figures appear in the Allegory. like the sun. a d d as little to Philo's respect for t h e Patriarch. a n d progress for perfection. becomes a "See-er. for that. 8if.. the terror of Jacob at the coming of Esau. T h a t is.6Xkovq 6\y6\izvoq top OQCOuivcp JtQoaxex^TJocDxai T E xai \ie\ieQioxm.. T h a t is. of Philo's more deliberate explanation as contrasted with the many casual and baffling refer­ ences in t h e Allegory. words for deeds." Philo feels that this needs some explanation. 92: 6 yo\Q 6QCOV 190. 83. But it was not the complete comprehen­ sion of God. to the immediate comprehen­ sion of G o d £auToO.

and for that very reason makes no point of it in the general discussion of the Allegory. But the end of his experiences is not by any means the total prostration of the body. M a n sees the Wise thing through Wis­ dom. an outer one that is embellished. Mig. For example. 1 5 ) Philo gives us a new interpretation of the rela­ tion between the inner court of the tabernacle and the holy of holies. 39 f. T h e passages are not altogether satisfactory. W e have had hints before that the final stage of the Mystery. T h e shrunken thigh is the reward of Jacob's having his lower nature finally reduced to subjection. and so got. Apparently Philo is here think­ ing of the high-priest as wearing the white robe under the cosmic robe. Praem.. A n d the high-priest has an inner robe of white linen. W e are quite in the dark as to how Philo explained the angel with w h o m Jacob wrestled. 146.. that is. A n d Sophia is not simply the organ of sight after the analogy of light. is a return to the body to live the rest of one's earthly life so much its master that the body itself becomes a spiritual vehicle as the perfect servant of the spirit. for by having seen " G o d as source (TOV GCOV apxEYovciraTOV o v ) he has become the First Begotten of the O n e without beginning" (TOV o v x v y j T o u yevvyjua npcImoTOv). xlviii. but enough is here to make it clear that in the experience Jacob at last reached the height of the Mystery. Som.. . says Philo. is a proper name for the L o g o s . T h e former is a symbol of the "without. 47 f. Conf. 195. . T o illustrate an allegory of Jacob's dying words (Gen..B Y LIGHT." T h a t is. LIGHT with the Logos. Sophia.. 63. refusing to tell God's name.1 3 2 . Either answer would fit a part of this passage. N o t even the ministering Powers tell us His proper name. the one who sees. since such an experience was not a regular part of the Mystery formulation. 1 3 0 . Post. A t the same time Philo says that Jacob "saw the divine light. when Jacob was wrestling with "the Invisible. In one passage Philo has been talking about the fact that God has no name. but she sees herself. i. It may well be that Philo did conceive of Jacob as going beyond the Powers to the Absolute. and it is that formulation that the Allegory is dedicated to expounding. 194. . or God Himself refusing to reveal H i s own? Precisely on this question we should like a more adequate statement from Philo himself." So the ark was gilded within and without. For from the 193 194 195 196 197 193. . or at least none that can be told to m a n . in this experience. and Israel. to a certain extent.. 196." he said: "Tell m e thy name. TO OV. and this combination seems here the ultimate attainment for m a n . Mut. their vision of God. 14." but the "Invisible" refused. after the mystic has abandoned the body to rise to a spiritual apprehension of God. W a s this "Invisible" one of the Powers." the latter of the "within. 197. Jacob sees Sophia by becoming identified with Sophia. was identified with the Logos or Sophia.

198 199 198. Mut. Indeed Philo can boast to the Romans that in the possession and practice of the Mystery of the Powers Israel has deserved to be called the "Race that Sees God.. 4-7. not hindered. A t least we are certainly forced again to see that the Mystery for Philo was not com­ plete until the glorified soul had been so brought back to face the problems of fleshly control and ethics. that in the end the Mystery solved. So the race Israel is benefited by the experience of its prototype. 199.4 6 ." In their experience the frustrations of philosophy have been done away. These are n o w the objects of Israel's vision. Legat. since these are beyond reasoned inference from phenomena.ISAAC AND JACOB 179 time of the wrestling with the angel Jacob has the strength both of the im­ material world in his soul. its dreams fulfilled. For philosophy has never been able to manifest the Powers. . 4 1 .. especially of man. in the body and the outer parts of the soul. the development of a fully rounded life in the flesh. far less could it contemplate the Divine Being w h o is beyond all beauty and goodness as we can formulate or conceive the t e r m s . and of the created world. Perhaps this obscure passage may throw some light later upon some of the iconographical problems.

we have been following that method of presenting the Mystery which was originally Philo's own. One can take the story of a Patriarch. we have been approaching the H i g h e r Mystery as Philo asked the Gentiles to do. for Philo's details have a way. of the lower Cosmic Mystery. and however slightly a pas­ sage may treat a given incident in one of the careers it fits with amazing precision into the story of the Patriarch as generally allegorized for the Mystery. Philo's allegory is proving to be very far indeed from sporadic.CHAPTER VII MOSES AS PRESENTED TO GENTILE INQUIRER THE AT this point it may be well to remind the reader of the general line of thought we are following. For a m a n like Jacob. and of Philo's attitude toward the Code. of obscuring the general drift of an argu­ ment. In expounding the Mystery which seems to underlie Philo's writings we are taking the method Philo himself used in presenting "true Judaism" to the prospective proselyte. There is an extraordinary unity of purpose that emerges. In following the Patriarchs. then. the various references to and allegorizations of the incidents in his career fit together into as orderly a picture as do the connected accounts of the others. of whom we have no connected allegory. Philo's allegory does not always r u n true. the explanation of Philo's notions of God and of Natural Law. though the invaluable summary in the De Praemiis et Poenis has shown that these lost works only elaborated the fundamental conception of the Patriarchs in the Exposition. skip from the Allegory to the Exposition. In the absence of the De Isaaco and De Jacobo we have had to rely almost entirely upon the more allegorical writings for the careers of these two Patriarchs. This fact must be borne in mind as one of the most significant evidences for the existence and importance of the Mystery. almost stereotyped. There is obvi­ ously a fixed. through the great Patri­ archs in whose stories the Mystery seemed revealed. in his own writings and in writings based upon them. There was m u c h that he saw in Abraham that he does not bring out for beginners in the De Abrahamo. interpretation of the Pentateuch which pre­ determines his interpretation of any given text. A n d that stereotyped inter­ pretation is the turning of the sacred narrative into the \zpbc Xoyoc of the Mystery according to a very precise formulation. and then to the Quaestiones. Philo himself could hardly have developed this great allegory of the . So after a few preliminaries. but the astonishing thing is to find that it does run true in the great majority of cases. One important detail should be pointed out. additional details which were found richly used in the Allegory and the Quaestiones.

O n the contrary he assumes throughout the Allegory and Quaestiones. As we go on into the character of Moses the same phenomenon will become still more striking. rather than present him as the first example of the Mystagogues. its whole argument and presentation are closer than even the Exposition itself to the thinking of a Gentile. XXVII ( 1 9 2 3 ) . 1 . Brehier did the great service of recognizing the parallelism between Philo's conception of royalty and the Pythagorean kingly fragments. It has repeatedly appeared that for the Mystery the hero and hierophant of greatest importance was Moses. i. Yet in the Exposition there was n o De Mose.. 3. See my "Philo's Exposition of the Law and his De Vita Mosis" Harvard Theological Re­ view. So our next task is to set forth Philo's ideas of Moses. As will shortly appear. Ib. 2. and then broken it up into the myriad incidental allusions and fragments that he offers.. So marked is this difference that scholars have in general been blinded to the fact that the Exposition is likewise intended for Gentiles. O n the whole it has seemed best to reserve Moses for his logically proper place. else his readers would have been at as great a loss to understand his purpose as mod­ erns have been. b u t as he tells the story of Moses' youth and develop­ ment he brings out by point after point the fact that Moses' character was the perfect representation of the ideal of kingly character. 1 0 9 .MOSES FOR GENTILES 181 Mystery de novo. W e r e the interpretation original with himself h e must have presented his thesis with demonstration and argument. Philo does not say so at the outset. and supposed that the reader would have read it before receiving the Exposition* It may well be that we too should have begun with it. Mos. 2 T h e first book is designed to show Moses as the ideal king. . ideas so exalted that one might have called the whole Mystery "the Mystery of Moses. Without some preliminary knowledge of the Mystery for a guiding thread they could not possibly have understood his purpose. though for Gentiles more advanced in their comprehension of the Jewish point of view.1 2 5 . and indeed the 3 1. as he writes for sympathetic Jews. as the great climax. that they will understand his objective since they too are initiates. Moses is equated more explicidy with such current conceptions as the ideal K i n g and the Hel­ lenistic Qdoc avBpunoc than was done in the case of the other Patriarchs. pp. Actually the brief review of his career in that treatise is so much like the De Vita Mosis that I have elsewhere argued that Moses was not represented by a separate treatise in the Exposition only because on another occasion Philo had already written the De Vita Mosis. and at the end declares that he has been showing what Moses did K a r a TTJV PaoiXetav. 334. although the general review of the Patriarchs in the De Praemiis et Poenis includes h i m after the others as the greatest of all." T h e De Vita Mosis was written "for those who ought not to be ignorant" about one who was in every way supremely great and perfect.

According to the De Vita Mosis. in laughing. then. 1 1 .. On beauty of form in the ideal king see my "Hellenistic Kingship. delight in teasing. Mos. 10. i. geometry. by the fine endowment of his nature.. and it was his eu|jop4>ia Kal eue^la which appealed to the princess when she had found h i m . obviously. From the first. W. and he went on quite by himself to penetrate into what was obscure. 10 As good athletes need little training. After he had mastered the usual fundamentals. The notion may well be ultimately Iranian. But as I have shown elsewhere that these fragments seem to represent the current Hellenistic ideal of kingship rather than the peculiar notions of a school. not original with h i m . 4. as the "Self-Taught. is to represent Moses. 3 1 . 9. 7 2 . For traces of this tradition in Hellenistic Judaism outside of Philo see Chapter X." p. but modesdy and with dignity (al&co xal GS\iv6xr\xa rtaoacpaivcov) he addressed himself to what he could see and hear that would benefit his soul. ij 19. ." W h a t Philo is doing.l82 B Y LIGHT." an idea which seems to have been the inspiration of the legend of the boy Jesus with the doctors in the t e m p l e . Zoroaster ( 1 9 0 1 ) . After he had been weaned he returned to the palace more developed than normal for his age (reXeioTcpoc T/JC yjAiidac). T h e interpretation is.. 7. 4 5 6 7 8 9 So he was thought worthy of a royal upbringing and training. arithmetic. Ib. V. some on their own accord from the neighboring districts and the sections of Egypt. the great Lawgiver. It was on this account that his parents tried to save him. See my "Hellenistic Kingship. For great natures make many fresh contributions to knowledge. "the £u<{>uy)C ^ivxh anticipates instruction and is improved by itself rather than by its teachers. he had surpassed the powers of these teachers.. 22. . Ib. . and music. LIGHT De Vita Mosis is one of our best sources for the notion. various teachers came from different countries. Jackson. and in other childish amusements.. was from his birth a child of finer aspect t h a n ordi­ nary people (ovpiv hvifyawzv aoTEiorcpav Y\ KOT' ISIGJT/JV). both the theory and the practice. It will be noticed that Philo claims that he is drawing not only on the Bible but also on the oral tradition of the Jewish elders for his story and interpretation." 5. since the same experience is narrated about Zoroaster. like Isaac. A complete list of Moses' studies is given. 8. for he anticipated their instruction and seemed to be using recollection rather than to be learning new things. Ib. 9. and the best trees little cultivation. they went on to teach h i m 11 lla 4. the (3aoiXe!a in terms of which Moses is described was quite in accord with the assump­ tions of Philo's Gentile neighbors. See A. w h o came from a distinguished ancestry. he definitely states. i. Mos. and did not.. 11 a. which he learned from Egyptians. In no great time. Mos. 6. 20 f. . p. some brought over from Greece by large fees. like a mere child. 7.

H e had astronomy from the Egyptians and Chaldeans both.. 1 5 . . ideals.. and asked themselves "what sort of mind this was that inhabited his body and was aYa\\iaTo<popo\j[X£voc. In all these studies he did not become a partisan of any single school. words." T o this comprehensive instruction he added the training of his mind to rule the body. "since his mind was incapable of receiving any falsehood. Assyrian literature from native teachers. Moses was distinguished in body and m i n d beyond 01 noAAoi.. whether it was h u m a n or divine or a mixture of the two. In Arabia. It is clear already that much as Philo had in mind the ideal king in the Pythagorean or current Hellenistic sense as he described the earlier Patriarchs. attuning theory and practice together. 40-47.3 9 .. with pointed allusions to the courtesy due a foreign bloc in a country. to such an extent that he was the model of Plato's Phaedrus. i. H e r e he has only raised the question of the divine nature of Moses' mind without answering it. he went on with his self-training. Naturally. and was exalted to majesty most of all in the apuovia of life between these two aspects of his nature. Ib. Ib. the Greeks taught him the rest of the encycli­ cal disciplines. 1 3 . Xoyia^og datelog. 17.. 16. and actions. he is here developing the parallel much more thoroughly. which trained him both in theory and practice for the best types of life. Philo describes elaborately the enslavement of the Jews in Egypt. 12 18 14 16 16 17 H e had within himself a teacher. T h e result was that his life was characterized by a perfect apjjovia of thoughts. 14. Mos. to get their different theories. For only a single objective 12. But in all his royal education he did not. instead of relax­ ing and enjoying the tranquillity of his retreat or trying to ingratiate him­ self with local leaders. 3 1 . it is obvious that Moses did not seem to h i m to be avOpun d o c . like many of the ambitious Jews the readers knew. Ib. 23 £. and directing him to reality rather than appearance. Ib. Ib.. 3 2 . forget his Jewish loyalties. his enemies flocked to the king and incited him so against Moses that flight was the only recourse. for he had no resemblance to ordinary men (01 TTOAAOI) but towered above them and was exalted to greater majesty (npoc TO u e y a ^ i o T s p o v ££yjp9ai). But while it is uncertain here whether Philo himself thought of Moses as Oeloc or UIKTOC. 27. says Philo. 29.MOSES FOR GENTILES I8 3 their priestly lore as hidden in the hieroglyphs." Philo has introduced a problem to which we shall return. and relates that Moses used all his influence with the authorities to mitigate the Israelites' hardships* W h e n Moses had killed one overseer. a charioteer with the horses so completely in control that he could bring out their valuable potentialities without danger from their violence. those who beheld him were as­ tonished at such a novel spectacle. but sought everywhere and only for the truth.

H e was to give them their freedom. T h e bush itself contained what might appear an image.) as a streaming projection of his royal nature by which he imparts the benefits of that nature to his subjects see my "Hellenistic Kingship.. and at H i s will all things will become articulate. though the suggestion may seem ridiculous to his readers. Moses was oriented in the L a w of Nature. avyoEibiaiegov TOV jtuQog ajiaaTQcbixouaa.. T h e story of the commission adds nothing important to the Biblical narrative until the question of Moses' ability i n public speaking arises. A king is honored by the title "shepherd of his people. . 84. 0£IO8EOTG. 57. for in the midst of the flame was u. in all of which G o d would be his aid. Philo naturally made capital of Moses having been a shepherd in Arabia.. cpcoc. 48. 18 B Y LIGHT. Plant. ." pp. H e points out the value of shepherding as a part of kingly training. 23.OQ(prj Tig jt£Qi*taM. 50. "telling to the multitude what he gets from you while you tell h i m TA 0 d a . On the king's speech (k6yo<. 1 2 1 .. T h e exodus at last begins with Moses as the / j y ^ M ^ v .g vjtETOJtnaev elx6va TOU ovxog slvai. a king's training ought to include the experience of being a practical shepherd of sheep.. 60-62..184 lay before him. Ib... a n d at once impressed Jethro. LIGHT XFJS qwoscog Xoyog. T h e divine represen­ tation began to exhort Moses to undertake the care of the Jews.TOV ayaX\xa. 65 \16voq eotlv doEtcov &QXT| t e This w a s at the same time to "follow the wholesome impulses of his soul. God tells Moses that H e is the creator of the windpipe a n d all other organs of speech." Like the typical king. in the same way that hunting trains a warrior. 7 1 . and acted as its inspired and irresistible instrument.. i. 22. 20. Moses 20 21 22 5 28 5 24 25 26 18. Ib. Ib. but without stopping for metaphysical allegorization. T h e appearance and $ouA/)n<z of Moses combined brought the rude shepherds to obey h i m . 25. 50-57.. Ib. Mos. Philo is here content to call this ekcov TOU OVTOC simply an angel. a n d so when Moses speaks "it will be as though a stream of words flowed from a pure fountain smoothly and evenly without impediment. 65-70. . Ib. r\v a v xi. Ib. 92-95." Aaron is to be simply an interpreter. W i t h all these elements from current descriptions of the kingly nature. the ogdog xal 7iy\yr\. 59. and lead them out of Egypt. . Ib. Ib. 2 1 ." and Philo concludes that.eaTaTT). " Philo's brilliant description of Moses' return to Egypt and of the plagues need not detain us. 19. 26. Cf. 24. T h e n came the burning bush and the beginning of Moses activities as ruler. the opGoc AoyoCo 19 T h e incident of Moses with the daughters of Jethro at the well is told to show h o w Moses regarded justice as an unconquerable power. The image was not the fire.

technical skill ( s m o r y j u a i ) . 149. con­ tempt for pleasure (yjSovcjv unxpo\|. Praem. Brehier has rightly pointed out that this is a definite rejec­ tion of the Pythagorean theory that one of the functions of the king was to be a military com­ mander.iai). 1 5 2 .. G o d r e w a r d e d h i m w i t h the wealth of the whole earth and sea. infantry.1 5 4 . and kindliness toward all men. Moses renounced a n u m b e r of the interests that spoil the rule of k i n g s ... 81 P h i l o goes on to say that the g o o d m a n is a l w a y s g i v e n a share in the treas27. 76: the king "claims the lion's share of the better elements of our common nature. and praise and honors. endurance (Kaprepiai). but be­ cause of his virtue and fineness of character. he like a good judge subjected his natural love for his children to the impartiality of his m i n d . Praem. H e committed to him the entire cosmos as a possession fit for His heir. which was guileless and pure in all things small and great. Wherefore each of the elements was made subject to Moses as master and altered its inherent properties to become subject to his commands." 3 1 . i. 54. toils ( n o v o i ) ." p. quoted in my "Hellenistic Kingship. justice (SiKaioouvai). . Mos. . cf. . i. 148. P h i l o tells us. F i r s t he put from him­ self all ambition to found a dynasty through his sons.. O n the same g r o u n d he w a s u n i q u e a m o n g rulers in refusing to m a k e himself personally rich. 28 T h i s is the b e g i n n i n g of a very important passage on the k i n g s h i p of Moses. 29 F o r his sole objective w a s the g o o d of his subjects. cf. of the rivers and all things else that are either elements or mixtures of elements. F o r by using his will power. Ib. 30. 54. Ib. 155 f. U p o n t a k i n g office. See Ecphantus. and by powerful fleets. discomforts (KaKorraGaai).. H e chose rather the w e a l t h of N a t u r e .MOSES FOR GENTILES I8 5 had received rulership and kingly power not like those who force themselves into rulership by shock troops. his magnanimity. legal censures arid punishments for sinners ( ^ o y a i KCCI naXw ouv v 6 | j ( j ) . keenness ( a y x i v o i a i ) . See Les Idees. for the righteous (Srraivoi KGCI Tijial KccropGouvTUV 80 A s Moses renounced material wealth for these higher values. KOX&OZK anapTavovTUv v6\i\\\o[). p. i.. instinct for the best ( n p o r p o n a l rrpoc f a (3£ATiCTa). 28. a n d in eschewing those external trappings of royalty universally deemed valuable by k i n g s a n d their councillors alike. 27 It w a s g i v e n also because of the nobility of his soul. 150 f. a g a i n according to L a w . n a m e l y abstemiousness (eyKpcnxiai).. comprehension ( o u v s o i c ) . Mos. and further because G o d who loves virtue and nobility gave it to him as a well deserved r e w a r d . . and cavalry. Mos. F o r as G o d thought Moses worthy to share in the portion H e had reserved for Himself. and his hatred of e v i l . 2 1 . self-control ( o c j ^ p o o u v a i ) . 29. a n d lavishness in that of w h i c h k i n g s ought truly to h a v e the lion's share (nAeoveKTdv).

162. The mss. of late Fourth Century origin. Yet Philo has not yet gone far enough. 21 (Wachs. We are driven to the alternative that either deiSf] has a meaning "invisible" not recognized in the lexicons. but Philo's notion that Moses took a share in God's cosmic rulership had a deeper inspiration than this. 92. p. or that the text must be changed as I have done. then?" Philo asks: Did Moses not enjoy the benefit of a still greater xoivcovux with the Father and Creator of all things in that he was deemed worthy of the same appellation? For he was called ftsbq xal fiaoiksvg of the race. xlviii." p. 33. 1420a 19. as Taylor thinks. T o be sure Philo had to give some account of Moses that would justify the stories of the nature miracles: but the account he gives was one quite in harmony with the thought-forms of his age. but perhaps no more than Victoria herself colored her age. i. and to have apprehended things unrevealed to mortal nature. See for example the statement ascribed to Philip of Macedon in Stobaeus. Mos. the language of Plato's Phaedo 79a. thus setting forth an ex­ tremely beautiful and divinely formed object as a model for those who wished to copy it. formless. The treatise is. xx. 36. All this can now be summarized with Philo in the sentence: 35 And forthwith since Moses was to be also the lawgiver. Mos. or who have even tried to do so. that is into the unseen and invisible substance which is the immaterial model of all things. freedom from natural calamity. long before that event he himself became the incarnate and vocal law (vo\ioq e'[M|wx6s te xal tayixog) by divine providence which appointed him for the future into a lawmaker with­ out his being aware of it. and Versailles in its prime.. The ideal king was in the Hellenistic world thought to be a man or deity so attuned to God that he brought his subjects cosmic peace. And he is said to have "entered into darkness (yvocpog) where God was" (Exod. for good or ill.iy\iOLTiwf\ was itself "formless" is nonsense.. It should throughout be borne in mind how close Philo is coming to deifying his hero. The translation of vojAog koyixog by "vocal law" is justified by the com­ mon Hellenistic notion that the king's business was to make articulate the divine realm and will into which he could penetrate. 3 1 9 ff. 2 5 4 ) : $iMutog 6 fJaadevg e7. Gentiles could have found no more exalted phrases to describe the kings whom they actually worshipped. the ways of their rulers. 158 f. by a singular coincidence. and editors agree upon dsiSfj. 33 84 82 Phiio goes on to describe how the people are wont to copy. as quoted in my "Hellenistic Kingship. where. i. if nothing more. good crops. There are also to be remembered the England of the later Stuarts. the Codex Bodlianus reads dEiSfj for di§fj. Philo seems reflecting here. but I have read di8fj.i86 B Y LIGHT. "What. IV. It will be recalled that the ideal king got his laws by his association through life with Zeus in the Minos. LIGHT ures of the world as he becomes a Koo|JonoAiT/)c. to an extent. Victorian England itself produced Victoria and her standards.eve.. 86 32. And he put himself and his life forward into the middle like a well executed sketch. 8eiv TOV p a a d e a . 34. 2 1 ) . On the king as the model see the pseudo-Aristotelian Rhetorica ad Alexandrum. 35. And happy are they who have stamped this image upon their own souls. directly or indirectly. For that the ouaia which was xcov OVTCOV JtaQabs.

while the Egyp­ tians were overwhelmed in the waves by a change of wind to the n o r t h . Ib. 243. T h e story of the exodus continues. De Legibus. given a rational explanation. but who cared for his people. H e spoke the truth about everything. de­ fects. honored justice and equality. 1 7 3 . to encourage the people. 43. 1 8 5 . T h e character of Philo's intended audience is amply revealed in Philo's selection of events a n d way of telling the story. even to letting the Edomites go unpunished for their unfriendliness. except in those cases where the revolts and lack of faith were at once corrected by Moses' miraculous power to give them food and water." This is Philo's v6|iog entyv%o<. xal Xoyw.. Miracles are everywhere softened. here his speech.6q in reverse order. or perhaps it was endowed with that power now for the first time to meet the emergency. Ib. 44.MOSES FOR GENTILES Moses is n o w fully a king by choice of the people and of G o d w h o arbi­ trated and approved.. 44 M/vnuovEveiv oxi OV&QCDJIOS c&v e?ouaiav eiA/ri<pev laodeov.. and still more to set forth clearly to all how much Moses had of piety and holiness both in things visible and in things hidden.. but to the chastisement which would make for his improve­ ment. i. 4 1 . Ib. Mos. . 179. 2 : "magistratum legem esse loquentem. tva Jtooaigfrcai xo&a \ikv xal fteia. b u t there to glorify the character of Phinehas. i. and with it the ultimate virtue of the race and the glory of the Jewish priest­ hood.Ib. 198. but too because God wished to honor the one H e had ordained as their leader. 38. God was merciful to the Israelites in the desert because of H i s inherent 37 38 39 equity and benevolence. and always dealt with a miscreant not with a view to his shame. N o n e of the set-backs. and Philo becomes so interested in the narrative that Moses appears only occasionally. 328. 176. cpcovfi 8e avfrQCOJtivxi XQT\xai. 37.. a power perhaps unknown. 40. III. H e was a m a n 41 who did not vaunt himself in the authority of his rulership. T h e wood which Moses threw into the waters of Marah 43 perhaps only showed a power given it by nature. and his Aoyoc. 42. Ib.. A t the passage of the Red Sea Moses was able to encourage his people during their terror by allocating (Siaveiuac) his vouc to associate invisibly with God.. 40 Moses was careful of every type of honorable obligation. 196. 42 For the most part Moses is lost in the story of the adventures of the Israel­ ites. 39. Ib.. or omitted. Also Cicero. A t the dividing of the Red Sea Moses' rod is mentioned b u t the reader is given to understand that the sea was parted by a stormy south wind of the kind which is k n o w n to produce the phenomenon. 1 6 3 . and weaknesses of the race is told. Ib. Only the sin of the young Hebrews with the daughters of Moab is told. legem autem mutum magistratum.

2 1 1 . 46 47 48 5 49 50 that he may by his legislative power command what ought to be done and pro­ hibit what ought not. priest. and by his prophetic power foretell what cannot be apprehended by reason. 14. but Philo omits entirely the conversation between Balaam and the animal. by his priesdy power manage divine as well as human matters. it is not strange that it should at God's command produce food. Mos. 269 ff.. 50. Ib. 5 1 . Balaam's ass sees the vision. T h e second book is designed to show that he was also the ideal lawgiver. T h e rock in Horeb or Rephidim which flowed water when struck by Moses' rod could do so either because the vein of an already existing spring was opportunely cut open.. 46. and as this is the function of law (ISiov vopou) the king is at once the vopoc. Ib. It is impossible to determine whether Philo here meant to identify manna specifically with millet or not. It may be that Philo's text of the LXX read x^vxQog for X O Q L O V at Exod. but who will be critical of tales that are too "tall. 334. by which he should receive the things naturally fine. LIGHT 45 T h e Manna was a shower of very line light grain. by which he should prosecute those who have dishonored virtue and condemn them as public enemies of the human race.i88 B Y LIGHT. Ib. 48. by his labors and by his distribution of rewards to his soldiers. These three are all really parts of his kingly office. 52 social mindedness (cpdavdocoma). for the perfect ruler must include them with the kingly office. 49.. by events in Egypt and during the wanderings of the people. love of good (qpdayoc&ia). but which also means any fine grains. 4. in which he proposes to tell of Moses acts in the kingly role. on the ground that equality must be honored and each man get his due. i. Ib. xvi. 9 f.. which means specifically millet. 47. As he summarizes his findings at the beginning of the second book he says that by Moses' education and rulership. Mos. N o w the office of lawgiver demands four qualities of character. Moses has appeared to be the true philosopher-king of the political theorists.. 202. 200: xevxQog. Ib. Philo has concluded his first book. 52. H e parallels with the fact that Egypt by the rising of the Nile gets its rain from the g r o u n d . 51 T h e king then must command and prohibit. 1 f. Ib.. ep^uxoc and the law is the PaoiXeuc SiKaioc.. hatred of evil ([naojtovrjQia).. i. 5 3 . or because water was put there for the first t i m e .. and prophet." especially in the case of a foreign people. ii. . 58 45. 187. and furnish them abundandy to be freely used by all who are worthy. Mos. T h e book is designed for Gentile readers w h o believe in divine providence. which teaches him to project into society judgments for the public good. and Moses explains that if the air under God can produce rain. justice (oixaioauvrj)..

vocal or articulate. but with God's creation of the great natural order. had more complete representation in the doctrine of creation. that it has had great influence upon all other legislation. then a code of actual legislation. In doing so Moses began with an account of the creation of the world. was not an abstraction. then the fundamental principles of the Decalogue. an incarnation of the great L a w of Nature. ultimately identical with the Logos. whose ideal prototypes he bore about like statues within his soul. for that vouoc. Philo ignores the difficulty that it was Aaron and not Moses who was made the priest. he could give them his life to copy. and of the relation of m a n to God and nature. . as to the Jews in Palestine.MOSES FOR GENTILES Moses revealed in his legislation that he was the only m a n who fully achieved all four of these virtues. then set the Patriarchs. it must be recalled from the second chapter. before them. T h e relative inferiority of the actual legislative code has already been discussed. Ib. then an explanation of the place of the ideal virtues in the L a w and the divine sanctions of the whole. H e could transmit his great personal endowment to the people. This L a w of Nature. and fragmentary fac­ similes of the paradigmatic law written within him. In doing all of this he was making AoyiKoc. the ideal king. the VOJJOC within him. for while he could not transfer his nature fully into their souls. but a spiritual entity. for the laws were copies and imitations of these virtues. Philo goes on briefly to show that the Jewish L a w is in harmony with nature. as expressed in Philo's phrase that the ideal virtues were "ideal prototypes borne about like statues" in Moses' soul. or as the ideal world of Platonism. Moses was the priest par excellence w h o taught Aaron what he had himself learned 54. had as his essential quality the fact that he was vo\\oc qjipuxoc. T h e entire Pentateuch was thus to Philo. than in any indi­ vidual commandment. for its ending is inconclusive.. T h e inevitability of pen­ alty for infractions of the natural order leads him into a rather extended account of N o a h and the destruction of his generation by the Flood. 10 f. T h e king as the ideal lawmaker was vouoc AoyiKoc (law become articulate) as well as ejivpuxoc. that Moses surpassed all lawmakers in beginning the statement of the L a w not with the creation in his own mind of an ideal city. T h e section is obviously fragmentary. W i t h this the discussion suddenly ends. the L a w of God given by Moses. W i t h this as his account of Moses. Moses. Its existence in itself might be conceived as an effluence of spiritual force and vouc from God. but his conception is quite clear. 54 T h e treatise goes on to describe Moses as the priest. Philo's remarks on Moses as lawgiver have been brief. the great VOMOI £u\puxoi. T h u s to be the incarna­ tion of this vopoc was to be the incarnation not only of the divine force which ruled the world but of the Platonic ideas.

to be sure. All that Philo says about the priest and his raiment was meant to be understood primarily and fully of Moses. vii. a n d w h o deems those properly worshipping Him to be worthy of privilege. is n o less fitting f o r a k i n g . priestly function. quod oportet eos. for without divine w i s d o m (eJtupQOGUVTj) the affairs of k i n g s a n d their subjects g o awry. ii. In QE. 56. military command. Philo's motive for representing the royal VOJJOC qi^vxoc as a priest is. For the Best must be honored by the best m a n . So. Now the k i n g bears the same relation to the state (jtotag) as God to the w o r l d .190 B Y LIGHT. likewise the k i n g is best i n the earthly a n d h u m a n realm. has been metamorphosed into a deity among m e n . palam per suum ministerium facientes. 105 Philo makes the following trenchant observation: "mihi videtur priscos reges simul et pontifices fuisse. while the k i n g w h o has a n absolute rulership. 61 (Wachs. ii. This element was an important part of the Pythagorean formulation of royalty which Philo is himself following. however. qui aliorum dominantur. 263 ff. but understood the interest Augustus had taken in the priesdy office in con­ nection with the founding of the Principate. Diotogenes lists three aspects of the kingly office. Mos. 66-68. i n order that w i t h perfect sacrifices a n d perfect comprehension of the wor­ ship of God he may entreat for the averting of evils and f o r participation i n good things f o r himself a n d his subjects f r o m Him w h o is merciful a n d harkens unto prayers. IV. per se colere deum officiose.. pp. not answer such p r a y e r s ? 55 The royal office was of course originally almost universally associated with. just as God is the Best of those things w h i c h are most honorable b y nature. or dependent upon." pp. not far to seek. But in representing Moses as the priest Philo had had to do violence to the Biblical record. For h o w could He w h o is propitious. and the state is i n the same ratio to the w o r l d as the k i n g is to God. First as to the connection of the priesdy office with the royal: A k i n g and lawmaker ought to supervise divine as well as h u m a n matters. a n d is himself Animate Law. In most of the praises of the king extant from Philo's period the ruler is in general not exhorted to per­ form the priesdy offices because the priesdy duties had been so generally rele­ gated to professional priests. in which Moses founds the priestly office. but is not himself otherwise connected with the priesthood. a n d the Governing Principle by one w h o is a governor. Hence the ideal k i n g and lawmaker m u s t have a share i n the chief-priest­ hood. 5 7 55. The king had primarily to see to it that the priests carried on their functions rather than himself to conduct sacrifices. legal administration. worship of the gods. In explaining the latter Diotogenes says: 56 The third duty. made as it is by a h a r m o n i z i n g together of m a n y different elements. For the state." 57.. 5. IV. LIGHT from God. Stobaeus. is a n imitation of the order a n d harmony of the w o r l d . and Philo may have assumed that his readers not only knew the tradition of the Egyptian and Homeric kings. See my "Hellenistic Kingship. that is. and the priesthood. .).

but h a d them stamped upon his m i n d . as a result of which h e was "one w h o loved G o d a n d was loved by H i m . 1 5 3 : 678611 fiv xfjg Tzkzifiz .. Philo has changed the story all about from t h e way it appears in Exodus a n d Leviticus. but the interpretations of that cultus as presented to Gentiles must be used cautiously as a basis for concluding the inner attitude of the Jews themselves. 75 £. his natural endow­ ments. Mos. then.. 59. a n d in this condition went u p upon the sacred m o u n t a i n . But it was Moses w h o was their "good guide." into t h e priestly office. H o w much this was true of Philo may be seen in his description of the horror with which he reacted to the news of the proposed violation of the temple by Gaius: Legat.. is obviously to remove it altogether from the Gentile reader and prospective convert as a literal obligation which he might feel called upon to fulfill.. Philo n o w goes into the long description of the tabernacle which Moses built after this sacred model. and the development of these endowments by philosophy. which is the same as that given more elaborately in the Exposition. T h i s was illustrated in the circumstance of Moses' second consultation with G o d on Sinai. it must be recalled. 62. Moses was fit for the priesthood because of his piety. The immediate purpose of such an interpretation of the ritualistic law. pre­ eminently the endowment of Moses. H e was first purified by complete abstinence from all that had to do with the body. or what h e calls their "initiation. For practical purposes he passed on the prerogatives to Aaron and his sons. 6 8 . Ib. It will be recalled that the Biblical narrative describes the incident of the golden calf at the end of Moses' first sojourn on Sinai. H e r e h e was not only given a vision of the immaterial forms. probably. Philo reverses the t w o groups of events. 186 ff..7 1 . a n d consecrate Aaron a n d his sons. Ib. Philo himself went to Jerusalem. as did. 61. avxov T E x a l TOI>£ afietapiSoug coQYiatev. Ib. 76. ii. all the other Alexandrian Jews who could possibly do so. Ib. Mos.. 60.MOSES FOR GENTILES 191 T h e priesthood of Moses was by current notion a necessary part of his kingship. ii. The passage here and in the Exposition may represent the attitude of many Jews of the Diaspora to the Jerusalem cultus. etc.. " So ideal a person h a d however still to be initiated ( u u o T a y u Y ^ v ) into the Mysteries. T h e burning of the sacrifice of Aaron by heavenly fire followed elaborate sacrifices by Moses and Aaron not thus consumed." and w h o continued to be the real inter­ cessor for t h e people. 74. a n d not at all a digression from Philo's representation of h i m as the Animate L a w . m a k e the robes. But it has been generally true in religious history that those most zealous in a symbolical interpre­ tation of religious rites and sacraments have also been deeply loyal to their actual and physical observance. According to his account it was after the first visit of Moses to Sinai 5 8 50 60 61 62 68 64 58.. a description w e have discussed in connection with the Mystery of Aaron. But for a Gentile this could hardly be represented as an essential part of the faith he was being urged to accept. 64. This cosmic priesthood and perfection was. . It was only after that matter was settled that Moses went back for further instructions and returned to build the taber­ nacle. 66 f. 63. a n d Philo describes in detail their instal­ lation. . . I n view of such an endowment Moses was the true High-priest. Philo was probably quite sincere in thus explaining away the necessity of the actual cult on the ground that it was only a symbol of a spiritual offering.

draw the conclusions here which seem implicit. Then when the guardian and intercessor had propitiated God (e^ev^eviadpievog 6 XTJSE^ODV x a l Jtaoairryrrig t o v f|YS[xova) he went down. 166. yet though the salvation was offered to all. but implies that they are strug­ gling along ineffectively. and priesthood were instituted. Moses' prophetic utterances took three forms. 189. Philo does not. did not depart at once. by Philo's rearrangement of events. the healing race. He admits that all men may make some progress toward xakox&YofKa. by which the divine virtues of mercy and beneficence were set forth in their great totality (oXa Si' OAGJV).axtr|c. pp. 78 ff. 66 This was going on. It remains for his remarks about Moses in other treatises to confirm the impression here that Philo did think that Moses. Philo has n o w developed the character of Moses as king. . 65 in as much as he was the mediator and intercessor (|xeaiTT]<. See above. the Road to euSaipiovla was opened especially to the feet of God's saving race (TO GeparreuTiKov auTou yivoc. For after God had told Moses on the m o u n t that the people had made the golden calf and were in revolt. the perfect Mystagogue. Philo passes over this first type of prophecy on the pretext that such utterances are beyond his 67 65. LIGHT that the tabernacle. cultus.). and here is the path to euoaifxovia. One of Philo's many clever litde turns to attract Gentiles to Judaism. 67. These virtues of God are the means by which all m e n can be trained in preparation for KaAoKayaSia. ii.192 B Y LIGHT. he puts the incidents con­ nected with the golden calf after Moses' second retreat to the mountain. was the eternal priest of Israel and of the world. for Gentiles at best only beginning in Judaism. who were especially consecrated as a result of their loyalty in this crisis. that is produced directly an utterance of God. but first he offered supplications and prayers for the people in which he begged for the pardon of their sins. I n the first he spoke £K npoocjTTOU TOU 0£oO. x a l 5iaM. legislator. But another mo­ tive seems to have been the emphasizing of Moses' supreme efficacy as the priest of Israel even after the priesthood of Aaron had been instituted. offering a mediation of which the temple cultus was only a cosmic reflection. 66.. Ib.). If Philo was himself a Sadducee and "of priesdy race" he would have been especially interested in thus subordinating the Levites. in a secondary position to the high-priesthood. T h e inference is that Moses' mediation was of a type vastly superior to that of­ fered in the temple cultus.. that state which to thoughtful Gentiles was the constant if re­ mote objective. Mos. In Judaism. T h e remaining section describes h i m as the supreme prophet of Israel. when the priesthood of Aaron was temporarily in complete collapse. O n e motive for this revisal of the Biblical order of events is obviously to put the tribe of Levi. and priest. confirmed by the heavenly fire which consumed the first offering. the ideals of men are fully realized. Moses.

I. ydo E C T I V 6 JtQOcpTjtrig EvSofrsv iwrn/oiivTOc... i. Philo selects four instances for his Gentile readers. I. Heres.MOSES FOR GENTILES 68 193 praise. the procuring of an oracular response from God in an emergency. See the preceding note. It is hard to see any reason. and the passage from Praem. 7 1 . oaa E V r a l e . was understood to be exclusive of the Decalogue (as Badt understands. T h e first is the incident from Leviticus. for Moses was the only source of record for this as for God's other direct statements.. . Mos.£XTEa T O \ J ftEOu. 2 7 7 ) . 2 1 3 . There is no reason for thinking that Moses' function as EQju/nvEUc. . ii. i. 1 9 1 .. 259. however. 3) the distinctive sorts of prophecy with Philo's classification of types of dreams (Som. an incident which had been made a precedent for general procedure in such cases. can well be taken in the same way: "The EQU/rvvEvg is the KQO(pr\xr\<. 1 9 1 . i f . ydg slaiv ol JtQoqpfjxai -OEOU xaxaxQCDuivou xoig E X E I V C O V oQYavoig Jioog 8r|A. "the £QU/ryvEig are the prophets of God who uses their organs. F o r he says that these utterances are made by Moses by kp\iv\vz\a rather than by npo<pY)T£. ii. 3 4 1 . Philos Werke.. as for example Heres. 69. Philo did not want to discuss Moses' relation to the direct utterances of God. Philo tells the story with his usual flourish." etc. obviously with intent. 1 3 8 . of God who makes the utterances echo from within. where it is commanded by G o d that the m a n w h o had blasphemed the name a n d word be stoned by the whole congregation. in Mos. 341. Mut. and it is by virtue of the third type that he is preeminently called a prophet. and since in QG.. 7. T h e passage cannot be taken as marking a real refinement in Philo's theory of inspiration.. 65: EQu/ryvEic. a n d that these are quite different things. The closest he comes to making the dis­ tinction elsewhere is in Praem. in the third type he himself gives utterance out of a state in which he is possessed by God. Legat. itself (i.oig dvaveYQaJtrai. Det. 39. Ib. Badt's paralleling (Philos Wer\e. also.. ii. So by calling the prophecy £K npoounov TOU OCOO by another name than prophecy.. but did want to fdiscuss the other aspects of Moses' prophetic character. 5 5 : EQUTTVEIJC. Mos." But in the parallel Spec. n. 1 9 1 . T h e second type of prophecy is when Moses asks G o d for an oracular response and gets one.. for he does not explain it here. ) is interesting but not illuminating... 196 he says that that state wherein God is the actor and the prophet is the instrument in the state by which God's laws are published. n.[a. and elsewhere in Philo's writings (Immut. iv. ii. 72. Spec. lEQalg |3i|3A. 70. xxiv. in spite of ib. i f . 49. . 126. is not of real significance for h i m . It seems impossible to understand what Philo could have meant by this dis­ tinction." Such would better accord with Philo's general usage.. Though this is exactly the description of the prophet as EQixryvEug else­ where. which in itself might be taken as meaning: "the SQU/nv£i>c. are en­ tirely synonymous. 1 8 8 ) . Mos. he can continue the discussion without reference to this particular type. T h e distinction. 99) JtQoqpT|TT|g and EQJXTIVEUC. is the JtQoqpT|TT]£ when God makes His utterance echo out from within him. and describes h o w this is 69 70 71 72 68. 2 ) . ii.coaiv (&v a v e$e'kr\oi(\. 10 ff. H i s real reason is that they had little bearing upon the character of Moses as a prophet. as even in the Mos. %QT|0"5 EVT£g 81' avxov (Mos. the fteov is certainly a possessive genitive.. 183-208. by which this sort of inspiration is the common description of a prophet. x a A. Under what he calls the second type of prophecy. ii. for excluding the Decalogue from the points covered by these three types of prophecy in view of the fact that Philo introduces the section by the words: JT&VT' elol %Qr\o\ioi.. 249. iv. iii.

LIGHT interpreted by Jews so stricdy that it led to what must have appeared to Gentiles as the lynching of such malefactors. Mos. 5 1 . and of the Jewish strict withdrawal from labor. were excused from this important part of Judaism by God Himself. This puts the matter on an entirely different footing among the Jews themselves from what it is represented to Gentiles. and goes on to represent God as saying that the same applies to those w h o are kept away from the sacrifices not only by a journey but by distant residence.. and this makes for war. but is addressed to Gentiles not so far along in their Jewish sympathies as the similar passage De Specialibus Legibus. 75.5 5 .2 3 2 . Philo alters the story to m a k e the point at issue not the uncleanness resulting from a dead body. but h e is careful also to point out that it kept the Jews respectful in their attitude toward the images re­ garded by Gentiles as their deities. 209-220. It does not appear that Jews still stoned Sabbath breakers. T h e story as told in N u m ­ bers ix. In speaking to Jews on the subject of idols Philo is by no means so benignandy tolerant. T h e third instance of prophecy by question and answer is a very interest­ ing explanation of the fact that Jews in the Diaspora. In QE. But the Gentile reader is given a highly attractive picture of the metaphysical justification and practical inspiration of the Sab­ bath as Jews observed it. ii. cut off from participa­ tion in the passover and its sacrificial rites in the temple. i. but implied general directions to apply to people who should be prevented by other causes from joining in the rites at Jerusalem. but the preoccupation of a fam­ ily when it is mourning the loss of one of its members. T h e passage is obviously directed to m a k e his readers from outside Judaism u n d e r s t a n d i n g ^ tolerant of the Jew­ ish lynching of apostates. if one curses the gods the heathen will likely retaliate by cursing the God of the Jews. . T h e oracular response of God not only covered. a description of the synagogue services. 6 . T h e second instance of prophetic question and answer selected by Philo gives Moses the authorization for stoning Sabbath breakers. xv. 3 2 . Mos.i 4 9 B Y LIGHT. he says.3 6 . for those should not be deprived of their full standing since a single country cannot 78 74 75 73. 2 3 1 .. for there is no application of the law to contemporary life here as in the case of blasphemy. where even the proselytes are invited to participate in an apostate Jew's execution. while the purpose of the Law is to teach Jews to know the way to peace. he gives two reasons for not blaspheming the pagan gods: first. See N u m .1 4 relates simply that God made provision that those who were unclean. Philo has se­ lected this incident to get a pretext for introducing a defense of the Jewish Sabbath. second. 5. Philo gives a free paraphrase of the scriptural command about "mourners" being allowed to sacrifice a m o n t h later. ii. this case. ii. the heathen are very angry when their gods are questioned. so tinat the Jew who curses heathen gods is in a sense guilty of cursing his own God because he has provoked others to do so.or away on a journey on the regular day of the Passover might cele­ brate it a month later. 74.

that in which Moses was immediately inspired by God for utterance. 258-269. Philo tells this story. Perhaps the subject had recendy been thrown u p into importance by a famous case in which Jews were in such disagreement that Philo felt obliged to defend for Gen­ tiles the interpretation that had prevailed. 61 f..2 4 5 . 288-292. Of these only the last brings out material on Moses worthy of note. 79. they throw little light upon Moses' character as a prophet. by the Father to leave the mortal life and be m a d e immortal (dnaGavcrnfeoGai). These distant residents could usually appear as well on the day fixed as a m o n t h later. 77. Ib. and total lack of supply on the seventh d a y . Ib.1 1 . the fidelity of the Levites at the time of the golden calf. perhaps "recalled" (jjeTaKAyjOelc). that this character became properly manifest. It relates the case of the inheritance of Zelophehad which the daughters wanted. Whatever the motive for the fourth selection. 246-257. Ib. and finally the circum­ stances of his death.MOSES FOR GENTILES 195 contain the race. Ib. (1929)9 . the raining of m a n n a with the remarkable double supply on the sixth day. T h e emphasis in this section is upon the fact that Moses foretold the future accurately: h e foretold the salvation of the Israelites and the destruction of the Egyptian host at the Red S e a . As Philo himself admits. 58. Mos. include the father as the first ascendant heir. 80. this matter of Jewish inheritance must have likewise been a prominent matter of discussion. the destruction of the apostates by earthquake and fire from h e a v e n ... Judaism. Moses had been a dyad. Since the other three instances of this type of prophecy were so obviously selected as of immediate importance for the problem of the Gentile reader." Moses was summoned. 275-287. that is into M i n d with especially sun-like brilliance (vouc yjAioei77 78 79 80 81 82 76 76. 82. 270-274. T h e point is that most will not appear at all. but still outside. I have dealt with this problem in my Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt pp. ii. xxvii.. Ib. they do not lose their 107) Tl|jy). See N u m . 81. 2 3 3 . but has to establish distant colonies in every direction. yet thereby Philo is assuring the Gentile reader. oOjia Kal tyvxh* but n o w was wholly transformed (oXov Si' OXGJV jj£0apno^6|i£voc. contrary to the Scriptures but in accordance with Greek law of Egypt. Philo has suddenly shifted ground. it is clear that the group as a whole is made u p of attempts to explain aspects of Judaism that would early have to be cleared u p for Gentile readers. for it was in the third type of prophecy. but his point is at the end where he explains the general law of inheritance in such a way as to make it.) into the nature of a monad. 78. T h e death of Moses was a "change.. Philo's f o u r t h selection of a prophecy by question and answer is not so obviously of immediate concern to a Gentile sympathetic to. 1 ..

Moses' successor. Cicero's way of expressing the notion of the VOJJOC spvpuxoc. namely to show Moses as the great vouoc. who should look to Moses as the archetypal pattern.. using Moses as the great type of this virtue. In the midst of these he composed hymns in every type of mode and interval. Moses began his final song of praise while still in the body.196 BY LIGHT. The angels would also be strengthened in their faith (biamoxovvxEq) if a man clothed in his mortal body could have a power of song like the sun. In such a matter he will not trust his own wisdom. in the course of discussing the great Greek virtues and their fundamental relation to the specific laws. He reproved them for theirj 83. along with the choral hymns of praisej to God. he made not a single false nbte. For the man selected is to be the pilot and governor of the people and must have greater than human wisdom for the task. But Philo's description is too remarkable for paraphrase: 83 84 85 86 He gathered together a divine company. When God had designated Joshua. but also. and. 85. but to the persons God should designate. the moon.. that is the elements of the universe and the most important parts of the cosmos (aftooioucc deTov. 61 ff. This matter completed. earth the hearth of mortals and heaven the house of immortals. is elaborated in the De Virtibus. 70. 5 1 ff. judged by their own technique. who pre­ sented his own life as a good model. mingled. since he must be endowed by God. and the sacred choir of the other stars. . LIGHT SeoraToc). as in all else. In this. 84. in matters of rulership in general. speaks of his last days as its supreme exemplification. 72. like an archetypal drawing. In this new state he prophesied the fate of each tribe. For upon his soul was clearly stamped the divine seal of KaXoKayaQia. The passage ties back all he has said about Moses in the Vita Mosis with the objective he has had throughout. namely earth and heaven. and could attune his soul to the divine musical instrument (ooyctvov). That is. whether king or private citizen. 86. comes to socialmindedness ($iAav0pcdma). we infer. Virt. 51 f. Ib. some of which prophecies are yet to be fulfilled." specifically as respects dealing with successors.. In order to sing this song with absolute perfection he gathered a mighty company. when he had taken his place (xayftEu. in order that men and ministering angels might hear.) in the aether. But Moses the hierophant. with definite reference to the Vita Mosis. Ib. and was solely concerned that the succession to his honors and to the rulership should go not necessarily to his sons or nephews. xal xa a^jvextixcotata \I£QX\ XOV xoqxou). namely the heaven and the whole cosmos.. Moses presented him to the people. men as learners that he might teach them a simi­ larly grateful attitude. Here Philo. Moses was to be the "norm and law for all later political leaders. Ib.. xa o t o i x e i a xov Jtavtoc. true emotions of good will to the Nation. must be selected by H i m . Here at the approach of death he acted differently from any other person. £UA|/UXOC. This section. and the angels as critics to watch how.

in spite of the fact that this is all the Moses that is presented to Gentiles m a k i n g their first inquiries about Judaism. a function which he continued even after his disembodiment. A m a n has sung the perfect song while yet in the body. T h e saving power of the earlier 89 90 88 87. Ib. the leader: he set the eternal verities before men in his utter­ ances and commands. and not to his people only. But he was more than that—he was their intercessor with God. and even the faith of the angels has been strengthened. In Moses the gulf between mortal and immortal. He shed his body which grew around him like the shell of an oyster. and while he rebuked them for their sins. and advice for the future based upon good hopes which were bound to be fulfilled. T h e Christian conception of Jesus goes farther and represents the Master as not only giving the great precepts and example for life. but goes on eternally through his eternal divinity and relationship with the Father. Ib. and noticed that he was gradually being disengaged from the elements with which he had been mixed.. ii.7 5 89. 76-79. laws. for he began where Abraham left off ).. Mos. D i d Philo think of Moses. who in life had all these virtues and was the incarnate representation of the divine forms as well as of the cosmic law. ^cofjc. ." As VOJJOC ejj^uxoc he was the model to his people for their government. he gave them such instructions and advice that the future became full of hopes which must be fulfilled. W h e n Moses had finished the song he began to be changed from mortal existence into immortal life (ex OVYITYJI. for his life was the true life. 192. and cultus. Even then he tarried long enough to offer final prayers for Israel. 7 3 . could not forget his loving kindness to the people. but as being the intercessor for men whose intercession and reconciling power did not end with his death. gave them warnings and corrections for the present. el<. but his life was greater than any of his utterances.. Moses was the model. 88. 90. and like the Christian conception of Jesus. but to all people. Like all the v6|joi ejj^uxoi (of w h o m with the possible exception of Isaac he was the greatest. who was the intercessor and savior of his people throughout life even to the point of mingling at his final deification the cosmic h y m n with loving inter­ cession for his people: did Philo think that such a Moses had finished his great work and was done. so that the race had left only the sacred laws he had taught and the inspiring memory of his personality ? It does not seem so. has been bridged. Such was the character and career of the "most holy m a n who ever lived. even as he was in the height of his grandeur. the cosmic and the human. imitate his life..MOSES FOR GENTILES 87 197 past sins. while his soul which was thus laid bare desired its migration thence. 174. aftdvatov (3iov). Post. His followers might well obey his injunctions but much more copy his spirit. Yet this great person.

91 .B Y LIGHT. p. the references to Moses and to the great emigration from Egypt m a k e it clear that h e was the savior of Judaism par excellence. Actually when we turn to the allegorical writings where the Mystery is being more explicitly set forth. 91. LIGHT Patriarchs has appeared a permanent x<*PK from God to m a n k i n d . and it would be strange if Philo did not think in the same way of Moses. 136. See above.

if we may rely upon even these quotations as righdy ascribed. S ^ x a o a v . 9. for obviously it would have taken us into the Mystery quite beyond what is given in the Allegory. and in the fragmentary material of the Quaestiones in Exodum. rather He appointed him to be god. should be his subjects and slaves. and to put the mate­ rial from both sources together as either may illuminate the successive events. however. H e endowed him not at all with the. 75. Fragments. 57. Rather he is a special type of incarnation: When God lent Moses to earthly things and permitted him to associate with them. its loss is the most serious of any of our Philonic losses. Sac. since Eusebius knew only the Quaestiones in Gen. 1 2 Moses is like Isaac and unlike Abraham and Jacob in that he is the SelfTaught. etc. Schurer doubts the ascription of the fragment. the mind. Further there are left only "a relatively few sections of the Quaestiones in Exodum.CHAPTER VIII THE MYSTIC MOSES IN one passage where Philo is talking about Moses he tells us that the diffi­ culties of the scriptural passage under discussion are too great for the present and must be left until he shall come to investigate "the whole prophetic life. 2. If it was. 8 1. going through great struggles of discipline. 5xav a v x o v Ixavol YEVcoixetta n v e t a Gai: Gig. at such time as we are fit to be initiated into it. p. it shows that Philo had quite as consistent and standardized an allegory of Moses and of the migration of the Israelites from Egypt as has appeared in the similar collection of mate­ rial for Isaac and Jacob.. he planned writing a special study of the subject. xfjv x o v jtQo<pT)Tixoii $lov jtovToc." I n either case it is clear that Philo has much more to say of Moses than h e tells in the Allegory. and decreed that the whole bodily realm and its leader. 3." Colson understands by this "the whole life of the prophet. and the Quaes­ tiones in Leviticum is represented only by two small fragments. and finally achieving the vision. So the only approach to the Moses for w h o m it will appear Philo makes such extraordinary claims is by a collection of the passages in which he is more or less incidentally de­ scribed in the Allegory. the best outline will be to treat the passages according to the order of the Biblical narrative. Harris. . and there is no drama of his leaving the body. et Exod. W e do not k n o w whether such a document ever was written. W h e n this material is p u t together.ordinary virtue of a ruler or king with which forcibly to rule the soul's passions.. As in their case. and if Colson is correct.

bodily life.1 1 4 . 7. Ib. This inci­ dent is elaborately allegorized. It was on this level as the complete mystic that Moses lived his entire life. make them fullfil their natural function. Conf. so much did he long for immaterial nature. For Moses was excellent (aordoc) at his very birth. he was never himself tinged with the Egyptian taint. T h e picture of the childish omniscience of Moses given in the De Vita Mosis is then a definite part of the conception. Mind. sneaked away from him. to straighten matters out. 16 ff. LIGHT T h e Patriarch as a special divine incarnation has been suggested in the miraculous conception of Isaac. H e was a stranger in the body." the divine Logos.. but when Moses was floating on the river in the little ark of bulrushes he wept for his imprisonment and for all others so shut in. W h e n Moses left Egypt it was to go only tem­ porarily to the Well of Wisdom in Midian for strength to fight the battle with the passions. 10. T h e whole experience of Midian was then not one of endowment. So he is definitely contrasted with Jacob who deserted Laban. 5. and bring them into his service. 4>06voc. 9.. that is to provide himself with a body. says Philo. who was Epicureanism with its doctrines of pleasure and atoms. Moses rushes in and protects the senses from this attack. N o a h went out of his way deliberately to build himself an ark. LA.. 6. T r u e he attacked the Egyptian. T h e final achieve­ ment of Abraham was but the starting point for Moses. Ib. 8. While Abraham and Jacob had so much to learn. 37 £. but that is only the attack of truth against falsehood. is not so clear. who entered Sarah's womb not from Abra­ h a m but from God. In Midian his first experience is to see the rude shepherds trying to prevent the seven daughters of Raguel-Jothar from watering their sheep. Mut. to go to the mystical experience. or to make a campaign against it. Moses was fully aware of the immaterial world and its nature at birth. not an episode in Moses' development. The account in LA. but of commission. Raguel-Jothar is the mind. Philo also contrasts Moses and Noah. iii. Fug.200 BY LIGHT. whose seven senses are trying to give spiritual nourishment to the perceptions. T h e mind that is able thus to rule its flock is one that has used the shepherd and king of the mind mentioned by Scripture in the words " T h e Lord is my shepherd. Moses was. iii. the sheep. but nothing so explicit has appeared as this about the birth of Moses. but are prevented from doing so by that all-pervasive evil spirit of the Greek World. . 148.. with the result that the mind is now able to regulate the lower life. the divine repre­ sentation sent into the confusion of Egypt.. Post. 106. 82. but seems an equally objective act for Moses. 174. Egypt. for apparently Moses was in some doubt as to whether to desert the body. Raguel-Jothar. It was there too that he got his commission to carry on the fight.. is surprised at the way in which the senses now function in bringing the sheep back quickly and properly at his 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4. 1 2 . indeed. 1 1 0 .1 5 .

16.. though that is usually inferred. and sows within him her seed. but as mere senses they do not apprehend what has affected them. Post. 1 1 5 . T h a t is. the mind. not something acquired by effort and aspira­ tion. ii. Ib. that is may feed on their improvement and even bring the winged and god-bearing and prophetic thing. They leave Moses to rush back to their father. 67. Jothar. and cryptic as are his remarks about it. and presents himself in feminine receptivity to Sophia. Philo sees fit to assume that she was not with them.. H e was like Isaac in being given Sophia or Logos as his spouse because Sophia was a fitting en­ dowment of his own "Self-Taught" nature. A n d Moses found her already pregnant from God when he married her. W h a t is the secret that lies behind these cryptic utterances ? T o understand it we must recall the concept of the mystic's rise through the Sophia formula­ tion of the Light-Stream. In this there have appeared to be two successive marriages. Philo tells us that in getting into the matter of the mystic marriage he is dealing with one of the inmost secrets of the Mystery. 43-46. one of the many illustrations we have encountered of the fact that apeTY\ as Sophia has intercourse with God. have to make a choice of Sophia before marrying her. Jacob. 7 5 . to t h e m . T h e daughters have been operated upon by reason (TO AoyiKov sISoc). he warns the reader against babbling the story to the uninitiated. if not the exact equivalent. In the first the mystic strips himself of all positive characteristics. Moses was so much greater than the other Patriarchs. says Philo. Zipporah. Ib. and so makes her represent something entirely different from what he sees typified in them. Sophia was his natural companion and endowment. 1 5 . like Abraham. that is of his masculinity. even than Isaa~. that while they all had to pray God for this impregnation of their wives. But in this marriage Moses did not. the senses. Moses is not explicitly equated with the Logos. but the allegory is definitely one of the saving activity of Moses who can come into the strug­ gle of a mind and quell the adversary. For the marriage of Moses to Zipporah must be... and bids them summon him that he may eat with them. Ib. LA. the mystic marriage with Sophia. 1 1 9 f.7 8 . 14. of the saving Logos. They tell h i m that it is Moses who stepped i n .. 47. It is notable that the account in Exodus does not state that Zipporah was one of the daughters who were tending the sheep. and thus brings forth progeny to God. reproves his daughters. 1 3 . Sophia comes to him now herself as the male. In the higher marriage the sexes are reversed. for having left Moses after he has done so much for them. Cher.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 201 behest. like all Philo's allegories of the marriages of the Patriarchs. not men.1 1 7 . Moses found his wife already pregnant without having to ask for it. 48. . and asks them how it occurred. 1 2 . and Aaron. It was God Himself who joined them in this marriage. he is clearly the agent. H e as masculine now 11 12 13 14 15 16 I I .

for God is her true spouse." because Moses has reached so high a stage of mystic union with God that he can function as God with Sophia. but is much better a type of the way in which the Good Shepherd will come in and shepherd our flock. This he does for Jethro like the opGoc Xoyoc. Som. H e does better when at Sinai he makes the vision of God his objective. the selftaught. to be the highest stage in Isis. 2 1 . 194 f. H e is warned off the holy ground of causation (o ainoAoyiKoc TOTTOC) by God who has reserved knowledge of this for divine natures. In Moses' marriage he is not feminine in the sense that he is being taught by Sophia. 1 6 1 . The text here is obviously corrupt. 18. T h e experience at the burning bush is variously explained. since H e calls him by n a m e . which represent the thoughts and commands of the bad shepherd. . and Wendland's conjectures do not help.. 19. 2 3 1 f. from Pascher's evidence. and discipline. H e . receiving her seeds. His relation to Jethro is indeed like Jacob's to Laban. In one passage Moses seems to be attempting as a m a n to solve the principle of cosmic cau­ sation when he approaches the burning bush with his shoes on. as it expressed itself in terms of the Sophia formulation. Sac. T h e allegory is an extended one of the divine power of salvation. H e told Moses that H i s n a m e is "I A m Being. For h u m a n convenience God is to be named the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. There one finally becomes identical with Osiris. perfection." "that he might recognize the existence of the things which it is impossible for a m a n who is not with God to appre­ h e n d . led into justice. i. and here is the guess as to the meaning of the "secret. Agr. and the divine care God exercises for those w h o come to H i m .. But h e finds her already pregnant by God. i. the Spouse of Isis. 50 f. 42-54. " In two passages it appears that while Moses could not learn the name of God. for that vision can be had only by incorporeal souls. A n d the mystic intercourse as male with Sophia as female is the sweet token of one's ultimate deification. is meeting her as a male meets a female. To make the sentence fit the context it must have read: Iv' &v dfiuvaxdv dvftQCOJtcp xaxaXapeiv \ix\ SVXI jte<?l fte6v. the Spouse of Sophia.1 6 5 . have to be put into order by Moses. Som. Philo does not say this... 17 1 8 19 20 21 17. he learned the fact that it is God's nature to Be. In another passage it is pointed out that God addresses Moses as a friend. that is KUpioc 6 Oeoc of three natures.. H e r e one becomes identical with God. Moses now begins to be shepherd of the flocks of Jethro. LIGHT has relations with her as feminine. Fug. God could not appear to Moses as H e is.202 B Y LIGHT. w h o appears in this allegory in his more usual bad odor. teaching. though even here he can only par­ tially succeed. But I strongly suspect that this was the hope of Mystic Judaism. H i s union with Deity is so complete that he can take God's place with her. T h e flocks. H o w then could Moses marry her? Only. 20. just as it appears likely.

rroiK)TiKyj. Moses would have been left to represent xd ov. We have no proof that Philo made any such identifications. 25. 6 Oeoc. for the Perfect M a n (o reXzioc. . pp. and Isaac. LA. By this Enos would have been the x6a(AO£ vanxdc. who was also the God of the Powers. and that if we had more explicit information it would appear that Jacob represented the Suvapic paoiAiK/j. K u p i o c 6 0e6c. Each Patriarch had all three "powers. as Philo does in almost every one of his writings. W h e n w e . In the next triad Abraham would have been. T h e passages lead us strongly to suspect that this G o d of three powers. would have been the highest of the three. Jacob the Ruling Power." though predominandy sharing in only one. slight as the evidence is... 22 28 24 25 Yet Moses feels himself unable to speak well enough to fulfil the mission on which God is sending him. al Jteoi Geov xai xcov tsQCoxaxcov avxou SwdjiECDv. Moses' life is throughout the life of the perfect m a n turned to war against the forces of evil in the world. Abraham the Suvapic. and Isaac the Logos. it does not at all weaken the pos­ sibility that Philo did so with his Powers. we notice that on the basis of the same allegory each of these three natures is a "power. Noah the Merciful Power. and hence must be taken as something more important in Philo's sources and thinking than its cryptic exposition would superficially indicate. 24. from the above. which when thrown away becomes a serpent. Mig. to the three great Powers of the Mystery. the Logos. Moses' first instinct is to r u n from it. but must grasp it by the tail and t u r n it again into discipline. Such may well have been the revelation to Moses at the bush. Identification of each of Philo's seven great Patriarchs with one of the seven Powers has already seemed a possibility. the Merciful Power. in between the two. but from such scattered hints as the above it would seem not at all unlikely. Enoch the Legislative Power. is none other than the God of the Mystery. not of one being perfected. Several explanations of his inability to speak 22. and Enoch.) proves nothing for Philo. And while the identification of each Sephira with a Patriarch in the Kabbalah (see below. look from this curious statement to De Abrahamo. can be too lightly discredited. 1 1 f. the middle of the three. since the same allegory of the incident is seen to have appeared in both the Allegory and the Exposition. pleasure. ii. the revelation of the Mystery in three terms.. or possibly Noah would have been the Legislative Power. I do not feel that the suggestion.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 203 T h e three Patriarchs are symbols of these three "natures" according to which God is Kupioc. I n a third passage we are told that at the bush Moses was engaged in "in­ vestigations of God and H i s most sacred powers. in which the Patriarchs shared.) must not r u n from pleasure like the m a n not yet made perfect. 23." SuvajJic. 367 f. but God recalls him. T h e rod which is transformed into a serpent during this scene at the bush is discipline. the Creative Power. Still the picture is of the experience and lessons of the m a n already perfect." a statement that would naturally be taken as referring. Mut. 88-93.5 5 . 76. T h e y are also X^PITSC for they have become divine gifts to men. 5 1 .

This mind must be led out of Egypt if i t is to get the vision. Heres. ny)YV) Aoy^v. has the power to d o this for man's higher nature. i. 205. . 63. but not himself "utterance. H e is the source of speech.. 192. 34. ii.. 277. T h e allegory of the passover i n the Quaestiones in Exodum is the same.204 BY LIGHT. 209. T h e passover and its perquisites 26 27 28 29 30 81 82 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 are signs of the good soul desiring perfection: for it is first necessary t o eradicate the sins. 38. 35. W i t h his vision of God thus clarified. 36. 8. 77. Heres. iii. 267. 69.. 207-209. One is that the sort of speech needed with the type of m a n Moses must face i s sophistic rhetoric. T h e promise is that Moses will receive a stream of God's Xoyoy. . 3 1 .. 161 f.. and with the practical assistance of Aaron.. Mig. 38-40. 165. LA. and so i s made into Xoyoc £vSia0£Toc. 258-260. T h e ceremony indicates the passing over from igno­ rance t o wisdom. under the inspiration of prophetic spirits. 32..9. Det. and the emigration o f the soul from the body. with Egypt his country. 27. represents the body i n its worst form. Philo allegorizes JtQo|3aTOV according to its possible relations with JtQOwvco. It represents the beginning o f a hard and bitter task. Som. 40. Ebr. Moses now goes to Egypt to begin his great work. QE." Israel. but that stream i s never formulated in words.. Sac.. 6 u-ev yaQ xovxo fiwryfrels McoDafjg ecrriv O V T O C . 266 f. Pharaoh repre­ sents all that i s bad in h u m a n nature. Mut. which at this stage is rather the mind capable of seeing. ii. T h e salvation he brings the Israelites i s one "where the helping principle (TO OUJJUCCXIKOV) of its own accord comes wholly from the outside to shield u s after our own faculties have been quite destroyed. when these have been expunged. 33.. Sac. 154. Som.. 4.. of mind from the senses. Mut. H e returns to Pharaoh. Captive in this country i s the "mind fond of seeing. Cong. 19." So the passover is a constant symbol with Philo for the abandoning o f the life of the passions and the beginning of the journey t o 6 OCJT/JP G e o c T h e lamb of the passover symbolizes the "forward step" one is about to t a k e . LIGHT are given. 30." divine and h u m a n restraint. but such rhetoric vanishes from one who has had a vision of the t r u t h . t o carry out and practise daily virtues. and i t i s Moses who. 37. LA. and requires the girding up of the loins. to struggle with him and ultimately destroy him. especially 80. 28. 1 2 f. Mig. . 76-85. 4. with Aaron. and hence. Sac. 29. but then. 25." H e i s i n ecstasy and s o has become a resistless stream of the beauties of Sophia.. Ib. a lover of pleasure who knows not G o d . Also Moses has become stamped by Sophia. he is one who "rejects both parents.. which he will pass on to Aaron to express i n utterance. Ib. 40 26. iii.

at least to see His image." that is the sensible world. 45. and also "the things beneath His feet. like the work of a brick of sapphire. they become an "ecclesia.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 205 As the people are thus united in the one great collective act of migration they are made one. as throughout the Mystery. For it well befits those who have become the comrades of Wisdom to desire to see TO ov. 'Ejuarniu/n is clearly here.. for Israel is not to be overwhelmed. Only by the good Power shutting out the bad altogether can the soul achieve its proper end. united not so much in body as in mind. In answer God com­ mands. When the death Angel smote the eldest sons of the Egyptians it did not smite Israel. this cosmos. and his acceptance of its postulates. setting before them Moses. 1 5 . intent. 46. LA. Ib. Ib. Conf. it consists in 41 42 43 44 45 going up to the aetherial heights with their reasonings. the type of existence beloved by God. but if they cannot do so. xxiv. 88-97. The passage is unique. I have followed Colson's admirable reconstruction of the text and have . to lead them on their way." The type of service to which TO ov calls them is not a menial one. the time of the fading of material light at the coming of immaterial illumination. one that is reenacted in every man. 95-97. and below the Logos the most perfect sensible product. by speculations of wisdom they have migrated to the happy state of immortal life. 43. 10. to the point of working it into his Old Testament allegory.) who come into every man at birth. and like the form of the firmament of heaven. Ib. 1 1 . ii.. 47. and spirit. but is to "emerge as from the depths. The passover is held at evening because of the usual significance of evening." So the Exodus is an allegory of how Moses can lead the soul out from its lower aspects and complications to the vision of God. 48. "Send forth the people that they may serve me." a church. For there they shall see the place which indeed is the Logos. Ib. There are two Virtutes (probably the Greek was Svvdfxeic. Exod. 42. which he is indicating by these words.. The passover is eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs as a symbol that they have left the pride of material life. and have gone over from desire to apathy. 10. but is very important for showing his knowledge of Persian thought. 22. N o t only is that mind engrossed in the complicated structures of pleasure.. so far as I recall in Philo. Here Moses describes Pharaoh as king of Egypt. or a tribe. The higher mind groans heavily at this subjection and cries to God the only savior. the benefiting and the destructive power. 34. or a people. from wickedness to virtue. The migration is to lead to the vision of the incorporeals. These together made the material world. 44. A n illuminating passage from this point of view is De Conjusione Linguarum. It is the story of Moses as the great hierophant and savior of the Mystery. and a great cosmic struggle is going on between them. §23 is an allegory of the destroying angel.. in which the angel is obviously the Persian Ahriman. but it takes the higher mind with its possibilities of Vision and enslaves it. the most sacred Logos. the synonym of 2oqpia. the lower bodily mind which is in revolt against God. 46 47 48 41. from being a multitude. where stands the undeviating and unchanging God.

destructive for t h e other. the Cutter. 203 f. especially 62. Exod. the three stages of the Mystery. 5 3 . 50. . This vestige of "confusion" which remained even after Israel had left Egypt accounted for the fact that the tribes wandered in the desert forty years instead of quickly coming through in three days to the "inheritance of Virtue" to which the threefold light of perception of things past.. xii. The context before and after this section makes it clear that the cloud is only another illustration of the Xdyoc. LIGHT As the story of the Exodus goes on it becomes evident that this is the alle­ gory which lies consistendy behind the great mass of isolated references to the details. Conf. They h a d still. second the Immaterial Stage which is collectively represented in the Logos. and third TO ov." It is the dragging influence of the "manifold" as contrasted with the single. yivoc. perish is the song of a mind that is beginning to see.. Ib. but it is Moses. 36. the death of the lower mind and its six sensuous manifestations. So by softening down the passions with Logos as they were taught to do by divine inspiration they could bake the cakes of the Lesser Mystery. LA. 52. of taking with them all sorts of herds. 39. Philo is careful to point out. 1 5 1 f. had already begun to make the division between the higher a n d lower aspects of h u m a n nature by standing between the t w o hosts as the pillar of fire. 59-62. and thus partake of those secrets into which one must be initiated before h e is ready for the secret cakes of the higher Mystery. a mixed or manifold company of "beast­ like and unreasoned teachings. 49 50 51 52 58 54 55 56 translated the neft* ov of §97 as "below whom" since Philo is going from the higher to the lower in his list so that the sense is better rendered by "below" than by the literal "after. 55. In leaving Egypt the Israelites made the great mistake. softening it as though it were food.206 B Y LIGHT. present.." or "opinions. 102. b u t the destruction of the Egyptian host was the destruction of the body. 1 1 1 . is not physical death. TO^eug. a n d future could otherwise have brought t h e m .. ii. b u t is the destruction of unholy doctrines and of the words that come from t h e m . Sac. T h e last stage is inaccessible to humanity. even after leaving bodily Egypt. Mig.. Heres. T h e Israelites are to go through. Conf. Philo points out. 1 7 2 . T h e tribes had come to the point where this was possible by the fact that the Logos. iii. or come to understand. Ib. T h e Israelites brought with them those hampering vestiges of the somatic nature." This passion which must still be softened is com­ pared to the dough the Israelites brought from Egypt a n d baked in the des­ ert. This death of the body. Ebr. first the cosmic stage. w h o will lead us to the two others. the mystery of G o d as revealed in the three Powers. 154 f. T h e h y m n that is sung when the Egyptians. 70." 49. the passions. led by t h e keenest vision. 54. TO 0£o4>iAe<. to "knead the savage and untamed passion by the aid of Logos the Softener. 1 5 3 . 5 1 . 56. a saving force for the one...

. to help in some emergency of fleshly temptation. but who is still so hampered by what might be called "somatic survivals" that he is unworthy and unable to come through to a higher experience. Each is a miracle of the mercy of God. with Miriam as leader. for all it was dead to h i m and he to it. there may seem confusion in Philo's representing the Israelites as having drowned the body and passions in the Red Sea. are typical of the struggle of a m a n who has renounced the lower life. "Horse and rider he threw into the sea" is the song sung to God at the destruction of the body and the bodily m i n d . But live from day to day on that plane? Never to feel "that the evil we would not. In a sense the body is dead. Something has freed the spirit in m a n to look beyond it and its needs. had to drag about with h i m the dead body. in spite of the high favor of God." T h a t is." O n e wonders whether Paul ever got the experience for which he. for example. So Paul. where m a n is trying to move out completely during his present life from bodily to spiritual orientation. for all that he is n o longer "dead in his sins. which. and occasionally there may come the Rapture of the great Illumination. "to wit. their very apparent contradiction arises from the vividness of their mystical experience and understanding. are groaning." and has had moments or hours of mystic exaltation. Even Jesus humbly asked. as Paul has it in Romans. 78-83. and by the purified senses. and yet still being obliged to fight them for the forty years of wandering. T h e 57 J 57. and to see that ideal realized in the great Savior or Saviors: it is oaite another to realize it consistently in oneself. miracles of grace to support the soul on the way. It is one thing to sketch the ideal stage by stage.. to claim consistent achievement of the goal. or. " W h y callest thou m e g o o d ? " It is for smaller m e n than either Paul or Philo. T h e r e is little chronological significance in the incidents here. was a heavy weight that had still not been entirely cast off or "redeemed. the redemption of the body. Agr. D u r i n g the period of struggle the mystic is aware that there are "showers of refreshing. the "perfecti" of all ages and religions.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 207 Moses the leader. and the Spirit with him. between death to the body in Baptism and the Redemption of the Body. It is the familiar ground where most men of mystic aspirations live. T h e con­ fusion is quite common in any experience. that we do"? Never to be almost suffocated by the de­ sires to which we had in a sense died? Philo is like Paul in being too much a realist in his mystic life not to k n o w that most of the fives of even the greatest mystics is spent wandering in the wilderness between the Red Sea and the Promised Land. and migrated out from it as the place of his setded abode. F a r then from m a r k i n g Paul or Philo as "confused" in their mystic presen­ tation. T h e years of wandering in the wilderness.

In Det. or the Manna.. iii. 167. LA. Ib. H e that would have God's grace otherwise. T h e contrast between the ordinary m a n in the wilderness getting food in portions and the perfect getting the Logos as a whole is expanded to represent t w o mystic stages. It comes after a testing time when there has been a scarcity of food.. Ib.. Ib. T h e difference between the experience of the Stream in its lower manifestations and that in 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 58. Fug. 64. Philo insists.'' Only a day's supply of such food is given at a time. faith. 169. the passions. 1 3 7 .. iii. LA.. get this spiritual food in portions (Sia \iipo\jc) : the souls of the more perfect get the Logos as a whole. and these. 66.. H e calls it both here. Moses as hierophant and prophet tells us it is the Logos. 162. T h e great passage on the manna is in Legum Allegoric*. T h e higher stage is where God acts directly to give the Logos as a whole. 163 f. the other of oil. 1 7 0 . W e ordinary m e n do. From this food came two cakes. 168. It is probably the former which he has in mind when he says that it falls only in the wilderness of passions and wickedness. nourishment o n the heavenly e m o T y j \xa\. 60. Fug. More than the Aoyoi and emoTKJuai. 1 7 1 . 67. and sense. ..208 BY LIGHT. spiritual illumi­ nation. 1 6 2 . 69. Cf.. Ib. LIGHT manna of the wilderness is repeatedly explained in the sense of such a merci­ ful dispensation... 1 1 4 . 174 f. Sophia. indeed. Ib. Mut. 61. Cf. T h e one stage is purificatory.. iii. is condemned to eat earth. lacks hope.1 1 8 the divine food is the Rock. Ib. the food is the Logos and Sophia. 138. 139.. but cannot know what it is. supervised by the lower divine agencies and angels and logoi. Ib.. 63. and because by daily rationing we are constantly reminded of our dependence upon God. There it is stated that Pleasure. 177 f.1 7 6 . Cong. the Logos. Heres. 169.. LA. There is some confusion in the passage as t o whether he means that the manna is the Logos or the lesser logoi. 59.1 7 4 . the snake of Eden. the heavenly Light-Stream itself as well as its lower and plural manifestations. T h e manna is white because of its being itself the light that illumines the soul. Only Moses can tell one what is the nature of this heavenly grace in the soul. chiefly because m a n is not capable of receiving the grace of God in a single torrential rush. but the food of the soul is heavenly: it consists of the Aoyoi that God pours out like rain from the exalted and pure element (<t>uoic) which m e n call "heaven. 1 7 5 . Ib. 70. Philo is confused here because ultimately the distinctions of personalities or agencies within the Logos or Light-Stream had n o significance. Ib. T h e logoi or angels are only lower manifestations of the single Stream. 1 6 1 . are synonymous.. 259 f. one of honey that sweetens the life. Fug. and the soul has grown so faint that the lower leaders of the soul want to give up the struggle and return to Egypt. 65. 1 9 1 . wisdoms. 62. 68. Ordinary m e n feel their souls brightened and sweetened by it. 1 7 3 . By allegory it is evident that this food is illumination. 176.. iii. and for several reasons.

72. that is. that timidity which drives many easily discouraged people back to pleasure. Ib. Again it is apparent h o w Moses is acting as the Savior-Hierophant for the wanderers.. in the one case the H i g h e r Mystery. is. In the fresco. T h e incident is given little more than parenthetic attention in the Alle­ gory. where one had the Logos at its source. Mig.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 209 its higher is important. of TO ov with the six Powers. to m a k e them see that toil was sweet. the tent 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 7 1 . . the specific virtues. by which one is introduced to Virtue. Post. the twelve tribes take the place of the twelve palm trees encircling the foun­ tains. 75. advices of Judaism.1 5 7 . 36 f. 73. says Philo. their souls.. These fountains are the springs of learning. Cong. T h e wood or tree cast into the waters was the Tree of Life.Ib. Since they are twelve in number they are parallel in symbolism with the zodiac and the Cosmic Mystery of the high-priest's robe. the Syju> oupYoc. a strange term even for Philo to apply to Moses. Ib. Israel. as it seems to me. Hence the distinction is that those who are learning make use of the wells of pre­ liminary instruction. though in the narrative it is he w h o is the Savior and throws in the wood at God's com­ m a n d . 183 f. the right and most nourishing Logoi. with its twelve fountains and seventy palm trees. indeed. at this stage.. 186. but there was no real merit in the figure of higher and lower personalities to represent the contrast. 1 5 5 . Each tribe is represented by a figure standing before his tent. a sweetening thing. but only by the springs of the Lower Mystery. This Savior was the Creator. 188 ff. which will be reproduced and more fully discussed in the next volume. In the De Vita Mosis. T h e Israel­ ites would indeed have been lost and returned to Egypt had not the Savior thrown into their lives. i. T h e bitterness was their apprehension for the future. and in the cosmic order. and hence it is Goodness and her body-guards. those w h o are adorned with complete virtue are crowned with palm leaves and fillets. T h e palm trees are the Mystery of the seven.. 76. and in the other case the Lower Mystery. the twelve trees are a symbol of the twelve tribes. T h e Israelites now go on to Elim. Fug. where m e n are using the lower agents of the Stream as revealed in the laws.. a bit of wood. we understand. 77. Philo points out.. 74. and of the seventy elders who received the divine and prophetic spirit.. 163 £. 185. the seventy palm trees of the seventy elders. and might easily escape notice if it were not that it seems to be certainly what lies behind one of the most difficult of the frescoes in the D u r a Syna­ gogue. W h a t Philo has in m i n d by the two experiences of the Logos and the logoi. After leaving the passions of Egypt the Israelites came to the bitter waters of Marah. 187. the tree that brings immortality. was not ready to camp by the palms.

T h e picture of the sharply cut peak at the top of the Powers suggests the way in which all the Powers head up in the Logos or Sophia. and candlestick of the Mystery of Aaron. 24. The Hebrew word is taken by com­ mentators to mean flint. It is at least possible that Philo has in m i n d this peaked triangle of Powers. Exod. and again G o d through Moses comes to their rescue. "Der Tierkreis in der Tradition und im Synagogenritus. More elaborately he allegorizes the words. LIGHT of the biblical encampment. 78.. literally. W i t h this harmonizes the fact that the twelve springs at Elim represented both the twelve tribes and the twelve signs of the zodiac in early rabbinic tradition. Philo explains this twice. See D. as I have illust/ated it in the Dia­ grams on pp. W i t h these details are shown the altar. T h e fresco would seem to agree with Philo in representing the scene at Elim as the incident when the tribes were taken into the Lower Mystery. LIX ( 1 9 1 5 ) . ii. xx. It is notable that Philo follows the general Jewish conspiracy of silence about the second incident of the rock (Numb. T h e soul. "Behold I will stand before thee there upon the rock in H o r e b " : 80 77a. 86.210 BY LIGHT. 29. p. xvii. apparently. xvii. appar­ ently. For the precipitous (dxQOTO^iog. 79.og is added. 80. . the rock of Meribah. T h e fresco stands beside another which represents the significance of the temple as admin­ istered by Aaron. LA. 7711 Again the Israelites are discouraged and mutinous because of their thirst and the hardships of the journey. 1 1 ) . Moses it is. 6. 10. Feuchtwang. pp. the twelve fountains of the Bible conceived as a unit." Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums. 243. 79 T h e passage is too slight to emphasize particularly except for the general identification of the rock and its stream with Sophia. 6. sharply cut) rock is the Sophia of God which H e cut off as the peak ( a x Q a ) and first of His own Powers. and the twelve man-tent units are arranged in a circle like that of the zodiac . and so was forbidden himself to enter the Promised Land. 1 5 . Exod. 241-267. but instead struck it in anger. This time it is the first incident of the water brought forth from the rock by Moses' rod. a huge figure in a peculiar checked garment. the rock of H o r e b . w h o stands by the central fountain. represented by the Israelites. where the detail that the rock was &xQOTOU. causing its twelve streams to flow out one into each of the surrounding tents. The phraseology comes from the reference to the incident in Deut. esp. is disorganized in the desert 78 and is gripped by the thirst of the passions until God sends down the stream of His own precipitous Sophia and quenches the thirst of the soul with unwavering health.round a central spring from which flow twelve streams. censers. where Moses was commanded to speak to the rock. and from which H e quenches the thirst of the souls that love God. while the reality beyond is fittingly indicated only by an arch through which nothing can at this stage be seen. viii. touching the fountain with his wand and thereby.

xvii. ii. Ib. It is quite evident that the Biblical scene was one that would appeal to men interested in striking illustrations of the mystic impartation of the Stream through the mediation of Moses as the Savior. in marked contrast to the high-priest. aAyjGeia). iii. 4. above the peak of Powers. . comes to the higher doctrines of the Mystery. in the second passage.. 86. But the two are more alike than dissimilar. 186. Sophia. 2 2 1 . Jethro. Hence the high-priest. in fact. am there and everywhere. and can live simply and con­ tinuously on that level. Aoyoc npofyopiKoc. Moses' father-in-law. Exod. logos and sound. contemplating TO ov. Moses sitting outside the camp is really then a type of the perfect mystic who. Ib. 82. I have filled all things (yet stand and remain in a fixed condi­ tion (ev ojxoicp) since I am unchangeable) before either you or any phenomena came into existence. Som. 83. Indeed he is that Logos itself. In this passage the m a n of puffed up conceit. W h e n Moses by holding u p his hands brought victory to the Israelites over Amalek he showed that the soul can triumph over mortal things only as the mind is borne aloft above t h e m .. the Egyptian 82 83 84 85 86 8 i . T h u s he is constituted Kcrra TOV uovaSa. but this time that Power is apxh> the source of Sophia.. 51 f. in accordance with the Monad. that of Rulership. LA. for the rock is in one case the highest Power. I am seated upon the highest peaked (&%QOT(XTT|) and eldest Power. w h o repre­ sents logos in speech. 45. T h e next incidents in the story are described rather with the purpose of showing the character of Moses and his relations to God than to illuminate the migration. 6 nxpioooc TU^OC. H e may be understood to be so in the first passage also. is amazed when he finds how Moses lives. and so is not fixed and stable. logos. and actually we shall find Moses at the rock to be one of the most common of our iconographical survivals. 50. from which the creation of phenomena is rained down and the stream of Sophia flows." 81 T h e two passages together do not make a picture clear in details. when he goes into the holy of holies.. So Moses who "sits alone" outside the c a m p is the Sophos withdrawn from the tempestuous sea of humanity. can have only occasional recourse to the sacred doctrines. with God. but logos projected with voice is not one but two. having gone beyond the experience of the Logos in the Cosmos. In another treatise Philo discusses the same scriptural pas­ sage and with the same interpretation. and re­ proaches h i m . only once a year. in the other it is again the Power that is most sharply peaked. for in both cases the rock is the highest Power as the flowing source of Sophia to men. H i s hands are supported in the effort by Aaron as Speech and by H o r as Light or T r u t h ($cjc. For the logos without speech is constant and one. Jethro is again 6 TU4>OC. Gig.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 211 This is equivalent to saying "I who am made manifest and am there. 84. 85.

20. LIGHT Proteus. but certainly the descriptions of Moses o n Sinai are meant to imply the supreme h u m a n experience of God. and need not all be discussed.212 86 B Y LIGHT. 80). For God is not Himself localized by the darkness or by any other time or place." thereby bringing out the continuity and suc­ cessiveness and unbrokenness of the attunement and union that come from ap­ propriating God to oneself. H i s Powers.. 7 2 ) . Loeb Classics. TQUtofrnxog. hearken unto Him. and urges them to leave Jethro's "empty opinion": he urges m e n to come. p. Orphica. Exod. p. cf. Deut. 2 1 .) that the visit of Dionysus to Egypt was part of the identification of Dionysus with Osiris. n. . Exod. iv. 90 91 89 Moses' own yearning to see a n d be seen by God was so intense that he left the people at the foot of Sinai to press on into the thick darkness where God was. I.) is 87 88 that they love God. 326. T h e most beautiful message Moses has for his mystic followers (role yvcjpiijoic.. . Ebr. XXV. 6 oofyoc. 1 . xviii. since perhaps the highest achievement w e can hope 92 98 94 86a." By these very words h e shows that he does not perceive God. those unmixed and purest and most brilliant conceptual beams of the Light-Bearing God. and cleave unto H i m . "Egyptian Proteus" is Homeric (Od. and he figures importandy in Orphic mythology (Hymn. the lesser lights would have been so eclipsed that h e could not have made this comparison. 14. 90. * rebuking Moses. a process described in Chapter X. It is hard to think that there could be any higher vision or communion with God than this.. 89. 94. for H e transcends the material universe though H e Himself made it and has filled the world with Himself. under his guidance. In trying to get beyond these Powers to the essence of Being (TO TI £OTI TO ov Kcrra TY]V ouolav) m a n is seeking the invisible. W h a t are in the world are H i s h\jva\xz\c. 1 1 . 91. The Library. "cleave to Him. References to the experience are of course frequent. 1 3 f. ad loc. which hold the universe together ac­ cording to the ratios (Aoyoi) of h a r m o n y . " which we may suppose involved the inflooding of the Light-Stream. h a d come to him. I n contrast Moses teaches m e n the true Law. Legat. 92.. 36-45. that is into the unapproachable and invisible conceptions (evvoiat) about TO ov. xx. Just what the identification orginally meant it is difficult from this phrase to reconstruct. for if the Light. xxx. 385. Abel. a quest that is doomed to failure though the attempt brings the greatest boon. Ib. to the "true faith dear to m a n . Vivid is the invitation Moses gives them to honor the Thrice Desired. III. 93. 3 5 5 . But Proteus in Egypt was a king who received Dionysus. The identification of Jothar with the "Egyptian Proteus" is the only survival I have found in Philo of the primitive identification of biblical figures with pagan deities. . .. Jethro thinks he has said something fine in saying that "the Lord is great beyond all gods. Post. H e has not got from the Many to the One. 88. v. 1 2 . 87. the One worthy of love: for he says. i. Post. Frazer suggests (Diodorus. One is reminded of Trismegistus.

Fug. or get knowledge of. "the bodies and things that are below Being" ( x a u£T<i TO o v ocLuaTa r e OJJOU Kal r r p a y M a T a ) . iii. 98. 102. i. that is God's "back parts. Moses recognized that the highest possible gift to mortals was to see. H i s incorporeality was a result of the experience. and h a d beheld "the unseen nature" (if) aeiSyjc.. 97. Moses.. 1 5 . T h e Sophos. can only hope to k n o w the things attendant and consequent upon God. Since n o w h e has "gone out from the body" Moses can 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 95. the symphony of a life in which ideal virtues are perfectly expressed in actions. h e showed his complete renunciation of the body. Geov lb.: avxaoxec. 164 £. I n this h e is contrasted with the m a n of gradual improvement.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 95 2 I 3 for is "to see that G o d is invisible. . LA. 36.2 0 .. like Abraham's. O n e can come to see G o d only through the Powers that range the universe... for h e would be absolutely blinded by the streaming Light if he tried to see the Dominant N a t u r e itself. was aware in advance of the inevitable failure of his attempt to see G o d . 7 . 100. God in his Being (o KOTOC TO elvai Geoc) can­ not be seen by mortals. Som. laxai. as typified by Moses in this experi­ ence. 8. since the music made h i m forget to eat for forty d a y s . Post. T h e substance ( o u o l a ) or quality (rToioTyjc) of God is inaccessible. X T | V 6 ' y\y2\iowixi\v ovaiav 6 PouXojievoc... 96.. 165-169. Hence his soul became a lyre in such perfect attunement with the virtues that as h e plucked a n d swept the strings he produced the most beautiful of all symphonies. but himself became a part of it." N o w the hierophant. Ib. and without material food. Conf.1 0 .ovda x a l EJt6jxeva x a l oaa n-exd x6v Yvcovai. yaQ iaxi aoqpqj xd &x6A. 104.. h e not only listened to the music. lb." Imperfect as was this experience. 1 6 . 1 0 1 . must be through the Powers. Post.. Sac. Mut. F o r his ap­ proach. a n d inferred God's exist­ ence from these resultants (£K T&V UTTOTE:AOU|J£VC«JV) of H i s n a t u r e . In a very similar way Philo in another passage discusses Moses' ambition to see God. 30-32.. While on the m o u n t Moses was a n incorporeal listener to the divine music of the Cosmos. 103. So when Moses saw the "back parts" of God he saw the Powers that follow upon a n d attend H i m ( a i enouevai Kal aKoAou0ai Suvajjac). 28 f. since God has so sepa­ rated true Being from what is created that w e cannot touch H i m even with the pure and immaterial projections of t h e intellect. 23-26. the fact that Moses h a d achieved it meant that h e h a d penetrated into "the invisible and immaterial substance" (if) a o p a x o c Kal a o c j j j a T o c o u o i a ) .. xaxafredaaoftai xqj KZQiavyzi xa>v dxxCvcov JCQIV 1 8 E I V JCTIQOC. For it was on the mount that h e came to "stand with" God. By t h e fact that Moses could five so long upon the vision of divine things.1 4 3 . 1 7 . $ u o i c ) . 1 4 1 . and his failure. only H i s existence (urrap£ic. share H i s immutability.) can be apprehended. 99. These things which are u e r a TO OV are defi­ nitely the Powers. Philo says. Immut.

). ii. Immut. and at the same time the unique superiority of the intellect in man's constitution. ii. LA. y&QOt. Ib. And he not only becomes an initiate (|Mx*TT|g). O n the M o u n t God stands. T h e glory of God appeared as flame. and so Moses gets grace directly from G o d . 109. the O n e who is attended by the Powers. ii. LA. I am convinced that xx\c. 46-48.. i n . T h e other men. but H e sends out H i s Powers to indicate His essence. the attributes preparatory for the vision. 106. but also the hierophant of the rites (leQoqpdvtTjg OQyicov) and teacher of divine things (8i8daxctXog deicov). has been lost before Jtdcrnc. H e is so united with Deity that his own logos now is in the form of light.. and this sort of r u n n i n g is a noble race (Spojjoc). The text is translated as it stands.. 27 f.. LIGHT go into the darkness where God is. and expresses itself. but there are a few individuals w h o like salamanders can live in fire. for Moses was pleasing to 6 i v a u T o c .. Ebr. goes into the holy of holies. Moses was thus called u p upon the mountain 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 118 that the mortal race might not be cut off from the incorruptible fades. 40. At first he took with h i m Aaron." the entire way to perfection. not in words but t h i n g s . 109 f. and there himself abides. 37.214 BY: LIGHT. With him then the divine spirit that leads along every Right Road abides. nothing but the pure intellect in m a n can go on to the vision. Philo has in m i n d here the supremacy of Moses to the other men. the invisible region (6 dei5T)<.. Enter­ ing there he abides while he is made perfect in the most sacred Mysteries (xekov[xevog xa<. goes beyond the heaven into God. a will for piety. N a d a b . 107. . which he will reveal to those whose ears have bejen purified ( a t o l g &xa xexadaQjxevoig uqpr)yrjoeTai). this was not God Himself but H i s Powers. 100. His being outside the body in this way is analo­ gous to the fact that the high-priest strips off the robe. Ib. 108. lEQCOTatag r e t a r d s ) .). H e was taken up upon the high mountain that was absolutely forbidden to others. 105 In pitching the tent outside the camp Moses has r u n away from himself to the knowledge of the O n e (i) TOU £voc emyvcjoic. that is the purest intellect went u p with true speech. In the Quaestiones in Exodum Philo has the same conception of the expe­ rience of Moses on the Mount. could not stand the rays from God. cf. or should be understood there. the garment of opinion and fantasy of the soul. 44. its beauty. leaving it behind for those w h o love external things. and that the divine and holy essence of things might not be exposed among the mob. 105. n o .. 1 1 3 . 54—56. Ib. and. 166.. QE. Moses. and divine aid or truth. w h o was pleasing to the Powers. in going up into this. for there is no motion possible for H i m . and that the meaning was that Moses acts with the Spirit to lead one along the "whole Road. iii. 54 f. QE. cf. 47. But proper as it is that one should start the journey to God with these. Mig. the very inner region of G o d . Moses is also in contrast to N o a h . and Abihu. 1 1 2 . Gig. and it was not really fire but only appeared to be s o .

1 3 1 . as mystagogue and as lawgiver. w h o appears to be in the Lower Mystery. See the whole passage. 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 114. Bezaleel is a copy. QE. than others. c£. Clearly it was through these experiences that Moses came to be the hiero­ phant supreme of Israel. For the significance of Moses as legislator w e are wholly dependent upon the Exposition. Ib..T H E MYSTIC MOSES 215 T h e clouds which the people saw were just a sign of the intelligibles. which has its source in Sophia. though he has been acting as such in anticipation since the incident of the Bush.. 2 3 . T h e point of the contrast is that some m e n have given to them a brighter Light-Stream.. Plant. b u t one w h o gets his stamp only through the medium of created t h i n g s . 1 2 1 . Moses on the contrary was initiated into the greater Mystery so that he apprehended both God and the Logos. Bezaleel can produce only copies since he had been deemed worthy of the secondary things ( 6 T&V Scinxpeluv aSiGJ0£ic). 117. iii. Bezaleel the material copies of the archetypes. a figure to be used in teaching t h e m . 119. gets his vision only from the created shadow. 36. ii. 52.. 1 1 5 .2 7 . Som. the master builder of the tabernacle.. 100. that is. and Moses' function as legislator of specific laws. God has al­ ready so exalted Moses that Moses himself needs a mediator between his person and material representations. LA. Kal cj>uAa£ TGJV TOU OVTOC opyiojv). i. . but only to interpret that legislation as a spiritual impartation of lex voluntaria. I n preparation for the production of the machinery of the Lower Mystery. the building. his is the Spirit that guides men on the Road.. 95-103. Ib. 1 1 6 . For all that occa­ sional allegories of much of the legislation appear scattered through the Allegory. stamped with the Logos to be s u r e . It is notable that the Allegory has litde or nothing to say of Moses as the author of the specific laws. while Bezaleel.. 102.. of the tabernacle. 1 2 2 .1 3 5 . T h e same idea appears in another treatise where Moses' experience has made h i m "keeper and guard of the rites of Being" ( 6 Teniae. ib. Ib. 120. 95 £." Again there is no diought of repre­ senting the legislation as such as being of importance. T h e Mystery presented in the Allegory is obviously moving beyond the specific commands in that realm which we have found many times suggested as the realm of the true Judaism. 118. Ib. play n o part in the Mystery'. This mediator is Bezaleel. that is one nearer the source. T h e Quaestiones mentions the giving of the law briefly. Hence Moses produces the arche­ types of the tabernacle. H e has direct vision of the Cause itself. T h e legislative office came to Moses according to the Allegory along with the prophetic office and the gift of Sophia. so that h e was "parent mind. H e can n o w give Israel leadership in two ways. and so producer of the archetypes. H e has the secrets. 206 f. Legislation in the traditional Jewish sense has no importance here. 34. Cong. the Code of Commands as such.

but the less perfect. 125. They projected their still lingering passions into the formation of the golden calf. 128. But they really had little immediate experience at Sinai of the great revelation. pp. Som.1 2 6 . 1 4 3 . 47. Heres. 129. QE. 1 5 8 . Post. 124. 1 2 4 . but speaks boldly to God for m e n in n e e d . and later at the descent of fire at the sacrifices. if we may hope to share in the higher t h i n g s . Heres. . 34. vii. and not only speaks for God to the people. for 128 124 125 126 127 128 129 180 123. Israel. H a d we in the Allegory a connected account of the incidents following the destruction of the calf. One of these incidents is too important for Philo to omit. 143. As they had the vision of the Logos they ate and drank. Ebr. and that the mountain had little for them except as it was brought to them by Moses. the incident of the sacrifice of Moses. that they were unable to receive the revelation even as mediated by Moses. It is to this provision that the Quaestiones at once goes on. would have done. must be destroyed: we must destroy our bodies. or one of the migration. makes the point not so clear as a stated allegory of the life of Moses. See above.. But the calf.1 9 . b u r n our pleasures.1 6 9 . 130. 191 f.. Moses and God talked together in recipro­ cal streams of utterance. Actually the people were so perverse. must take Moses. Post. By an incredible explanation of Lev. Over and over again it is brought out that the people were not ready. 2 1 . 1 2 7 . as in the Exposition. H e as the Sophos took God as his teacher. what of his flock at the foot of the mountain? They were having different experiences.. Philo represents the sacrifice of Moses. H e alone could bear the divine an­ nunciation of Sinai as a whole.. was "seen" by them. They are represented as having been in ecstasy at the appearance of God on Sinai. describing the significance of the ark as representing the Higher Mystery. 39. T h e great voice from Sinai. Mig. cf.. in which he put only the beast's breast upon the altar. where the treatment of each indi­ vidual text is the important matter rather than the connected exposition of the Mystery as such. 126. ii. This material we have already discussed. But the form of the Quaestiones. for H e must always thus temper H i s benefactions to the capacities of the recipient. still so tied to the body and its pas­ sions. as the vestige of the passions. as signifying that Moses is beyond any labor with the passions. i. LIGHT While Moses was thus being initiated in a way quite beyond the experi­ ence of anyone else.2l6 B Y LIGHT. Heres. because such a vision is food to the soul and gives it immortal life. it would undoubtedly have interpreted these incidents as the provision of the formal Mystery for the people. 1 7 . pulverize the "gods" of the material realm. since that voice was the outflowing of the Light-Stream of the L o g o s . God can speak to the mass of m e n only through Moses. 251. 95-100. Moses as a friend of God is the intercessor for the people. but this was an ecstasy of consternation.

1 3 7 . For it is written "I will take of the spirit that is on thee and lay it upon the seventy elders. the Spirit that is filled in every part with all things.1 5 9 . 16. 188 1 3 1 . 24 ff. 136. LA. Sobr. For it makes experts of all the followers and disciples ((poiTT)T<xl xal YVCOQ 14101) but is itself no whit diminished.. Similarly the belly. Obviously also a part of the installation of the Mystery is the explanation of the choice of the Seventy E l d e r s . aMjSeiav) 181 182 188 184 185 186 187 unless they partook of that all-wise spirit. So the fre­ quent giving of instruction to others involves practice and discipline for the in­ structor. . and cannot once for all dominate them and put away their desires. or the spirit of some other created being..T H E MYSTIC MOSES 217 h e has cut them off altogether. culminating in the descent of fire from the Glory of God. This whole contrast seems part of a great con­ trast that may well have existed in the tradition of the Mystery. For the fact is that they could not be elders in the true sense of the term (rrpoc. Age has nothing to do with one's hav­ i n g a claim to the title of Presbyter. then. the symbol of pleasure and appetite." But do not think that this taking of the spirit is a matter of cutting off a piece or severing. Such is the nature of Wisdom (s3tionr|[JiT)). I n contrast Aaron cannot wash the whole belly. 14. These elders were ordained by fire from Moses' Spirit. 16-20. it would be diminished by the process of cutting it up into so many pieces. as springs are said to be improved by drawing water from them. in spite of the fact that ordi­ nary m e n think that it is m e n of senior age w h o m one must regard as hierophants. So it is not surprising that this sacrifice. iii. for he must be content if he can control the passions by reason. Indeed they often con­ tribute to its improvement. But now the spirit that is upon him is the Wise Spirit. Lev. LA. for while he cannot do wholly without food. 1 4 1 . 134. Gig. If. he is freed from all dependence upon the belly.). the m a n still in the great battle with his lower n a t u r e . xi. T h e true Elder is a m a n w h o m the Sophos alone knows. 138-140. 138. as his forty days' fast on the mount showed. is one of the scenes chosen for representation at Dura. between the type of sacrifice Aaron could offer and that of the Higher Mystery. says Philo. T h e Sophos (Moses) rejects all m e n with the spirit of youthful rebellion in them what­ ever their age. but Aaron who sacrifices the shoulder with the breast is one who is still laboring with the passions. for though one fire should light ten thousand torches it would remain absolutely undiminished itself. 1 3 5 . it were Moses* own spirit. iii. 1 3 2 . by which he is brought to the perfection of knowledge. 1 3 3 . Numb. 1 3 3 . the divine Spirit. excellent. while those are Presbyters in heart and in mind who are his mystic disciples (yvcipinoi). For the report is that the springs are thus made sweeter.. is washed by Moses in his sacrifice. So Moses is the per­ fect m a n (0 TeXeioc. which was to be distributed to such a great crowd of disciples (yvcoQijioi). Ib. Rather it is like the process of taking fire from fire.1 3 7 . ix. the Spirit that is uncut and unsevered. while Aaron is the attendant and minister of holy things.

T h a t is a large generalization. T h e idea is introduced at a part of the narra­ tive which makes it seem that we have a glimpse into the organization of the Mystery. 154 £. the Spirit which was on Moses. Som. T h e scouts sent out for the people are the opGoc Xoyoc.. a great tree or vine. is none other than Sophia or the Logos. so brought back a single virtue. but at this stage is unable to appropriate it fully. For the passage seems to reflect a real doctrine of what might be called "patriarchal or Mosaic succession. £u<t>pocuvy). of the Higher Mystery.1 7 7 .. " 139 140 There is nothing inspiring in Israel's being forbidden entrance to Pales­ tine at this time. striking. they repre­ sent a very fixed convention of "succession of elders" within the organiza­ tion of the Mystery. appearing twice in two remote parts of the Allegory. so Philo does not discuss it. T h e vine is also supreme happiness. and must yet wander in the desert. 79 f. ii. Mig." H e r e the m i n d finds Virtue or Sophia. it is impossible for m e not to feel that. cf. Much as these two passages stand off alone by themselves. the Israelites can still not give up their love of the body. the Light-Stream. Indeed the joy of God is especially manifest at the time when people are beginning to turn from their sins to "follow of their own will the laws and injunctions of n a t u r e . and which passes on to his yvcjpiuoi to make them Presbyters in the true sense.. perhaps. of the h u m a n mind sent out into the country of Virtue along the "road of Philosophy. by the evidence we have as yet considered. and the sending of the spies to report on conditions in the Promised Land." T h e similarity of the conception to the very early doctrine that the presbyter or bishop in the Christian Church was a successor in just this way to the spirit that Jesus had given to the disciples is. 140. so I will leave the matter only with emphasizing that the passages. of which the scouts are able to bring back a portion." Of that there can be no doubt. to say the least. 1 7 0 . are strikingly similar to the Christian doctrine of "succession.. T h e next great event is the coming of the tribes to the borders of Palestine. It can only break off a fabulous bunch of grapes from the vine and bring it back. In spite of the founding at Sinai of the formal institutions of the tabernacle and the ark. and again describes the wander­ ing of the Israelites in the wilderness under the leadership of Moses.2l8 B Y LIGHT. exacdy as they stand. 224: the spies could not bring back the whole tree of virtue. not justified. As we come through the Philonic testimony to the other literary testimony and to the iconographical evidence for the Mystery it will appear most likely that the Mystery may have had a considerable organization which centered in its Presbyters w h o got their authority from being yvupiuot MOJUOEGJC. Mut. 139. a foretaste. This seems to represent the people as at last ready for a preliminary glimpse. so that the loss of a consecutive account of this part of Moses' activity is deeply to be deplored. . Heres. Evidence for the character of that organization is precisely what we most lack. LIGHT T h a t is.

for they are on their way to the mountain country. 1 4 5 . Immut. 168. It is the straight Road. It is quite true that such people only want to go through the land of the Edomites. the Road of the Logos to God.. Ib... Philo points out that they were bitten in the wilderness. ii. Only the grapes.. like the serpent of Eve. T h r o u g h the alle­ gory. 152 £. 147. 1 5 2 . the serpent of self-mastery (oGJ^poouv/)). may be in contrast to the Edomites. 144. There is n o point. 148. the virtues treasured also by h u m a n ideals. which are. Post. see the continuation of the allegory to §183. Again it is the Road of true philoso­ phy. as contrasted with the Edom­ ites. 1 5 4 . for what use have a people fed and watered from heaven for the food and hand-dug wells of the world.. Ib. Ib. since the conception is. they still have far to go. Since the command is to m a k e it "for 152 1 4 1 ." the "Royal Road. while God could give His grace quite as easily while one is surrounded. 162 £. In §§84 f. Ib. through Plato's Philebus and by many details in Aristode.. A t the command of G o d Moses makes a serpent of the opposite kind. In this passage Philo definitely con­ nects the mean with the symbolism of the number three in a way that shows he is thinking of the mean as it would have reached him in the Pythagorean tradition. will they not scorn to u s e . 141 142 1 4 8 144 145 146 1 4 7 148 149 150 151 H i g h as the Israelites. 148.1 4 5 . as Jesus explained to the w o m a n of Samaria. 160. 143. when he refers (Mig. 142. 150." the description seems more to resemble Pythagoreans than Aristode. 159 f. LA... but alone. and says that pleasure can attack one there quite as well as in the city. is the company of true followers of M o s e s going on the Royal Road of Sophia to G o d under the guidance of the opBoc. I n another reference this-Royal Road is commended to kings. 156. 1 4 2 . xx. in a multitude. .. 77. and still must strug­ gle with the love of matter and pleasure. Aoyoc. Certainly. Ib. in view of his marked dependence upon Pythagorean ethics as a whole. w h o are on the Road of Sophia or the Logos.1 5 8 . saying that running to the desert has solved no problems for him personally. Ib. iv. 1 7 . Spec. 146 f.) to the teachers of the "mean. Here Israel. sometimes with an angel as cupbearer. Ib. Moses is the hierophant of the journey. but the mean is recognizably that of the Pythagoreans rather than of Aristotle. T h e road is the flight for refuge to the uncreated (Y\ km TOV dyev/jTov Kcrra4>uyy)) . in drawing u p water by ropes from a well made by m e n when heaven itself gives us its unmixed draughts. traceable to the Pythagoreans. on which Moses leads u s .. 101 f. He goes on to one of his rare and most appealing personal passages.2 0 . sometimes without even that mediation between God and the thirsty soul. 1 5 1 . Numb.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 219 O n e extended and elaborate allegory is built upon the incident of the Israelites' asking passage through the country of the Edomites and being refused. 144.. They do not want to stop with the Edomites.. He was as apt to be "scattered" by desire there as anywhere else. the pleasures that bring the death not of the body but of the s o u l . 1 5 3 ." as being those who "follow the mild and social forms of philosophy. the people of this material world. 149. ethically. This is of course Philo's interpre­ tation of their being attacked by the serpents. and is again the road of the mean. T h e incident is a favorite one with Philo. of the m e a n . 146. The assumption that every mention of the ethical mean indicates Aristo­ telian influence is not at all warranted.

25. even to a multitude on an early stage of the Road. then. 1 5 3 . Som.. never gets into the Promised L a n d . 5. This is precisely Philo's meaning. H e has cer­ tainly learned of the "golden" virtue in this sense from neither the Bible nor Aristode. 1 6 1 . T h e class above h i m is the Sophos. ii. 1 5 5 . as always in such encounters. Mut. So he is become "the peaceful and manifest priest of G o d ." and. LA. In connection with this text of mediation Philo says that immutability appears in four kinds. 168 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 T h e migration. Philo seems to understand it of the higher priesthood of the upper Mystery both in this passage and in another treatise. Let h i m look and mark it w e l l ! " This is not a casual allegory. Ib. 106-109. T h e Israelites are soon back in sin.. is to look upon the beauty of ocj(j>poo\jvy|. 2 2 7 .220 B Y LIGHT.. third that of the Sophos. 7 3 . Mut. an echo of the succession of metals in Mithras.1 0 1 . .8 1 . The statement of Philo would then imply that the "golden" stage of virtue at the top of the ladder was not properly to be exhibited to the multitude. " It will be recalled that it was this performance of Phinehas which caused his being consecrated "everlasting priest. the type of priesthood represented by the holy of holies. gold is the symbol of the highest mystic achievement. as Philo describes it. and is. the "seventh" stage.2 3 7 . for he gives himself in place of the divine providence. and in doing so looked upon God. This is the priesthood that really can stand between m a n and G o d in the sense that Moses is said to have d o n e ... Agr. Aaron typifies (with the Aaronic priesthood." the higher mystic who fights sin with the Logos Cutter (Aoyoc T o p e u c ) . 154. one beholds God Himself. as its substantial repetition in another treatise s h o w s . H e prays to God for us that we may have the 6p0oc Aoyoc as a shepherd within our personal constitutions. 157. Salvation from pleasure. and fourth that of the m a n m a k i n g progress by effort. "in seeing this. and so. 158. the "serpent of Moses.. Is not the "gold. he has not yet left the material world. first the immutability of T O ov. v." As a son of Aaron. Agr. w h o is Moses. the Biblical implication is of course his holding the Aaronic high-priesthood. LIGHT thy self. Ebr. victorious. Heres. It is still he w h o can lead the soul out from the bodily regions. 156. A more definite statement of Moses' power as a divine savior could not be made.7 6 . representing the "Seeing Race. we understand) the last type.. ii. 7 8 ." the self-mastery Moses shows them for their salvation is peculiarly his own self-mastery. T h e mystic looked to the virtues of Moses. 67 ff. this time with the daughters of Moab. 209. H e is still in the cosmos. 44. second that of 6 T O U O V T O C Aoyoc." the real virtue of Moses of which he could show the Israelites only a brazen copy. 160. 9 5 . it is the Logos mediating for u s . 159. or of the earlier Iranian-Babylonian sources of Mithras? By this. 206. T h e serpent is of brass because this is as near to the golden virtue present in Moses as the people could come. though he has made m u c h progress. W h e n Moses stands between God and the people in Deut. T h r o u g h this later part of the wanderings of the tribes Moses is still the savior and hierophant.. Post. Phinehas is now the hero..

Ebr. vi. reads: 162 They went then to the well. but Philo says that at the well it was Moses who led the song. the rulers have dug it. the supreme achievement of the Israelites in the desert under the leadership of Moses is in Philo centered in a peculiar incident.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 221 T h a t is always the unattained goal. The kings of the nations have hewn it out. where Moses. xxi. and not kings whose power rests upon conquest. This could not be allowed. says Philo." ££apX£T£. but only kings. The promised land with its cities.) is allegorized as the great gift to the fully perfect. In place of their coming into Palestine. by conquer­ ing their own lower natures. to be d u g only by those w h o are so beyond the common herd that they are kings and leaders.1 8 . 1 6 . as we have seen. . not really in the Bible at all. but there is no sug­ gestion in either passage that the Israelites got there. In their kingdom. This allegory appears twice (Immut. after the familiar teaching of the day. in their lordship. Instead h e identifies those who are sharing in the song to Sophia at the well with the warriors and their captains who are mentioned later as being organized and numbered. "Gather together the people.. Perhaps this is because to Philo the Pen­ tateuch alone was the Torah. for the history of the Israelites in Canaan could hardly by the most imaginative treatment have been allegorized to typify the soul in its ultimate spiritual achievement. because it is made u p of two scenes put together. step. 1 7 5 ) . Fug. 163. the long anticipated. houses. as hierophant. 94-96.. I recall only one possible exception to this statement. 1 1 2 f. T h e song's theme is no longer that of the Red Sea. n o w leads the people. and I will give them water to drink. Ordinary people cannot dig the well of Sophia. I strongly suspect that the mystic allegory of the migration stopped there also. Yet the story would have had to stop somewhere. N u m b . This well is the one the Lord mentioned when he said to Moses. and Joshua must have emerged as one greater than Moses. So Philo ends the story without taking the tribes into Canaan. according to the translation of the Septuagint. pits.. where the destruction of the passions is celebrated. vineyards. but those w h o have become kings. For the leaders who dug the well prove to 163 162." Then Israel sang this song at the well: Lead ye the song to it: This Well. the achievement of Sophia that is being h y m n e d . Furthermore to go on from here would have involved discussing why Moses was unfit to lead the people on to the end. and olive gardens (Deut. and other people would have continued the story with Joshua as leader. T h e song adjures "lead ye the song. 10 £. T h e song is the song of the initiation into Sophia. A n d who are such kings? Philo does not ex­ plain. This is the well or stream of Sophia. N o w it is the greater.

H e r e there are three great scenes from the migration. it will be recalled. Ebr. had from the first been a special loan to men. 165 In these passages it is to be noticed that there are three great events marked off as the great stages of the migration. and of w h o m it is said that not one of them was off pitch. but according to all its modes and melodies. 45 f. This is particularly to be borne in m i n d as.1 1 8 . not according to a single part of music.. Philo refers to the record that Moses was allowed a vision of Canaan. 166. "Israel sang this song at the well.. the whole universe. Another and much briefer passage. those who were n u m ­ bered and marshalled. 270 f. with the conclusion that Moses came to possess the Land in his vision more truly than those w h o later entered i t ." that is to say at Wisdom (EKtoxr\\ir\). pointing to the well with his rod. to 168 164. and explains that apprehension of the highest things is a matter of vision. second the de­ struction of the Egyptians at the Red Sea. and third the consum­ mation at the well. beside which stands Moses in mystic garb. T h e gift they bring is the gift each m a n finds at his birth." he says. They are perfecdy attuned in their courage. Moses. and is omitted alto­ gether from this particular group of the pictures. again in quite a different treatise. Som. ii. When this is found all the people will sing. as some people do. . says Philo. But it meant noth­ ing immediately to the lives of the Israelites as a whole. has the same contrast between the well of this scene and the Red Sea. but each brought his gift to the Lord. At the Red Sea the song celebrated the destruction of the passions. 184 But the rout and destruction of the passions. 1 1 2 . LIGHT have associates and disciples ($omr)Tal Kal YVUO[\\O[).. T h e symbolism of the pictures fits perfectly widi the symbolism of the migration as Philo schematizes it. For Moses Sinai was of great importance. is not ultimate good (xeksiov dyo&ov): the discovery of Sophia is the surpassing good (VKEQ^OHOV xcAov). every m a n what he found. Mig. "For then. This is to get ahead of the story. while a good. neither rash nor afraid. which had formerly been hidden (since it is deep by nature) but now has been sought out and found by all. in a subse­ quent study. we approach the scenes painted at D u r a . perfect indeed in every virtue. These disciples and followers are also joining in the song of victory to the perfect and dominant Powers. and third a picture where a group of warriors are arrayed behind a desert waterhole. All that is left is to tell of the death of Moses.222 BY LIGHT. as a sign of his humiliation. second the destruction of the passions at the Red Sea. first the leaving of Egypt. A n d yet the story of the migration is ended. T h e fact that Moses did not go into the Promised L a n d is not to be taken. 165. First is the leaving of Egypt. For the law of Wisdom is that she shall irrigate the fields of reason in the souls of men who are lovers of vision.

169." Philo says. 103. 170. See above. 1 7 3 . ii. W h e n such a Moses was about to die he was translated back to God by the Logos. Heres. was in no sense divine. " Yet when the many passages are put together it is possible to make a remarkably rounded picture of die life of Moses as the great savior and hierophant of the Mystery." and so was rewarded only through God's P o w e r s . See above. ii. It would be easy to collect 1 group of passages to prove that Philo thought of Moses only as "the perfect man. iii. See above. LA. 109. 234. even in comparison with the other Patriarchs. 199. 94.. This time the hesitation is between the monotheism on the one hand. Ib. inasmuch as at that time he is in a state of ecstasy (IJIIfteid^eiv). cf. 175. " T h e perfect man. 174. which 170 111 1 1 2 173 174 175 169 167.) it might be assumed that this was all he meant to ascribe to Moses. H e n c e no one knows his grave: For who is able to perceive the translation to 6 S)V of the perfect soul? Indeed I do not suppose that the one who is having the experience is himself aware of his change to better things. Gig. 1 7 1 . such as why Moses' death occurred at the age of one hundred twenty years. 195 ff. and has become a middle type of existence between the unoriginate and the corruptible natures (n^Qopiov jyjc a y e v y j T o u Kal QQOLOTYIQ (pvozuc) W h e n it is recalled that Moses was.. T h e description of Moses' death both here and in the De Vita Mosis has suggested strongly that to Philo Moses was a God. 202. 168 H e is regarded by God as being quite as important as the entire Cosmos. p. But Philo does not develop the idea.. 24. 8-10. But on the question of the divinity of Moses Philo falls into one of his frequent vacillations between points of view which cannot be reconciled. Immut. 1 7 2 . pp. 189. 168. and it is these and many other points that he hoped to discuss in the treatise on Moses' life as a whole "at such time as we are fit to be initiated into i t .. Ebr. was a middle type of existence. F r o m these and from many other passages Moses would appear only as a m a n who in spite of his special gifts from God. Moses pleased God and so was worthy of grace directly from God. See above. 56 f. But in ib.. as we have seen.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 167 223 serve as the God over our lower natures. Som. 199. Many difficulties are unexplained in what Philo has told us. "most perfect" (jzXzioTaroc. for he has been exalted above ordinary humanity. Moses seems different from the high-priest in that the priest is this middle type of existence. Before closing the study of Moses some attention must be paid to this question. Som. H e has here just skipped the hard places. p. p. even the gift of a portion of the divine L o g o s . 232. while Moses is actually called God. 260-263. in con­ trast even to N o a h whose virtue was a "copy. .. Heres.. Sac." or the perfected m a n .

and this signifies the highest O n e . and has made able to soar beyond all e!5r) and yevn. Such is Moses to whom H e says. as has appeared. Philo. Ib. " So when Moses was about to die he did not "leave" in order to be "added" like the others. 6. though in contradistinction to 6 Qzoc. . Abraham. or God has taken from them. as by the Sabellians in Christian tradition. T h e problem of h o w one might be a monotheist and yet ascribe deity to various persons and divine principles was one of the great problems of the age. who are "added to" something better in the process. Deut. 178. Ordinarily the solution was made. 1 .. for there was no room in him for either adding or subtraction. But he was translated by the Word (ofjuxx) of 179 176. in line with the growing Neo-Platonic solu­ tion. 7. that the one God had a body-guard. but to a yLvoc. T h e philosopher's rever­ ence for the Absolute as the single Deity was strengthened by the Jewish insistence upon the one God. Into this incorruptible and perfect y£voc such people as Isaac are not added so much as translated ( u £ T a v i o T a v T a i ) . note 187. 3 1 . was entirely a creature of his age in this as in most else. W i t h this linguistic trick monotheists could justify gratifying their emotional urge to divine personalities and representa­ tions less remote than the abstraction TO OV. Ib. 177. 179. and in many passages Philo defends this posi­ tion by denying to the Logos any independent operation or existence. and to Moses any divine nature that was not a gracious gift to one w h o was essentially a m a n . First a passage must be considered as a whole which has already been discussed in p a r t . yet he is not added to a host. and on the other the popular tendency to deify great figures and heroes. and these passages must be taken as being quite as representative of Philo's position as the others. W e r e Philo put to the question to state his theoretical position he would unquestionably have stood by this interpretation of Moses as being only a m a n inspired. T h e passage begins with a discussion of virtue as a gift ordinarily made to virtuous men to take the place of the evil natures which they have eliminated from themselves. v. and has stationed beside Himself. they could be called Qzoi. Under the stress of his emotions he m a d e statements about the divinity of Moses which cannot be reconciled with the "gifted m a n " presentations of Moses' character. indeed inhabited. that is to fellowship with the company of angels. was Sopu^opoupevoc. But Philo did not live by theory.. Types of this are Abel. A n unfortunate lacuna of four lines in the papyrus text of the passage brings us without introduction to the following: 176 177 1 7 8 But there are some whom He has advanced higher. "stand here with m e . Isaac too abandoned the bodily elements. LIGHT Philo had from his Jewish ancestry and from the Neo-Pythagorean and Platonic traditions in philosophy. Sac.224 B Y LIGHT. On yevog see below. and Jacob. by the Logos. by Powers which were emanations of H i s own nature.1 0 .

H e quotes several parallel passages in which Philo comments upon Moses as being a "God to Pharaoh. For I know that deity gives and bestows. for by the same Word (Aoyog) He both made the universe and takes the perfect man from earthly things up into Himself. Exod. "I give thee as God to Pharaoh. Therefore it is said that no one knows his tomb. But it is said in the holy books. 180. But by no means. did God attach to him any common virtue of a ruler or king. no more than the counterfeit tetradrachm is a tetradrachm.. Thus you may learn that God regards the Sophos as of equal honor with the world. not passive. "For I give thee. but one of them is very important. His death did not involve a change of the essential Moses. the type of virtue by which one gains forcible control over the passions of the soul. Sac.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 180 225 that Cause by which the whole universe was created. not active. would not have sympathized with the Monophysites. Philo. The supreme di­ vine gift to other men is strength of this dominant mind to rule the body. it is especially the greatest divine gift to kings. which Philo is understanding as X6yo<. xxxiv. body plus even the dominant mind (vouc y]y£[JCJV). for deity is a plenum and is perfecdy balanced (laaitatog) in Himself. 183. For when Moses was appointed "God of Pharaoh" he did not actually (jtoog dWifteiav) become so. 1 8 1 . vii. but he dominated these as a master over slaves. the human element was so little a part of Moses that its loss was no change. An interesting premonition of the later Dyophysites. Nor do I think that the soul itself which had the experience was conscious of its being improved. it would appear from this passage. 1. but I cannot conceive of God as being given. Philo has just explained that God alone is truly Existent (£v TU eivai): 183 The case of Moses is in agreement with this. for he was so purely divine as to be changeless. That is. while true Being (TO oVrcog ov) has to be an active principle. 181 182 Taken by itself this passage could only mean that Moses was a deity who was made incarnate by a special decree of God." He says. . Deut. but was only accepted as such by opinion (56^Y]). Leisegang protests that this is by no means to be taken as a literal expres­ sion of Philo's view of Moses. The LXX has QfjjLia. 8-10." but a deity [here Moses] is not susceptible of subtraction or addition." Some of them are mere psychological allegories of the mind ruling the body. "as a god to Pharaoh. when God gave him as a loan to earthly things and suffered him to dwell with them. Rather God ordained him as deity (ei£ •fteov). 182. because at that moment it was in a state of inspired frenzy (ejudeid^ovaov). This incarnate deity had a full human complement. for who would be competent to apprehend the perfect soul's translation over to Being (jtQog TOV ovta). What then is to be inferred from these facts? That the Sophos is said to be God of the fool but he is not actually God." Anything that is given is passive. and decreed that all the region of the body and its dominant mind should be subject and slave to him. 5. H e was merely restored to TO ov. But Moses was a dominant principle even over the mind.

Dr. which meant his elec­ tion to the "seeing genus" (opcrriKov yevoc). My pupil. . 161 f. T O qpi?i6o*oqpov yivoq. had its seat in the soul which was changed from begotten t o unbegotten." or." the company of mystic initiates as above. etc. made him eternally virgin like the nature o f the seven... though he is not so actually and essentially ( t o e l v a i ) . LIGHT When he is compared with TO OV he will be found a man of God. 184 Leisegang is quite right in pointing out that when Philo is thinking in terms of his monotheism he was bound to contradict the deity of Moses. See also Soph. In the translation I follow the Greek where preserved. Philo is not to be read by those looking for detailed consistency. Mut. T O I A O W T I X O V Y&vog. while the second birth was unmixed and simple. not determined by space.. h e is not the God of nature to be sure. as Harris takes it. Tim. the divine birth. 50ie. For the protoplast (created o n the sixth day) was made out of earth and had a body. 1 3 . who is also Father of the universe. 84. Moses manifested an orderli­ ness in accordance with the recta lex ac norma ** of the G o d of nature w h o is immutable. 187. 46. T h e point to be decided is not whether Philo contradicts his statements of Moses' divinity b u t whether h e repeats them often enough so that one may assume that it really represents one of his attitudes toward Moses. 19 (the reference to LA.. ii. T h e first reason for which Moses was called u p is in order to show that his calling u p . but the "true Israel.. 40. must be an error). because it was inconsistent with his general philosophy. iii. p. The yzvoq is not Israel in general.. This g e n u s was elected a n d adorned just like t h e universe itself. Fragments. A few scattered sentences of the Greek are preserved. H e was called up o n the seventh day and differed in this from the protoplast. and unmoved. Antig. Leisegang's other passages are LA. I am frankly avoiding translation. as we called it. 6). and have little to tell about Philo's notion of the historical Moses. But I still think Philo meant what he said when he wrote the preceding passage. 43. Det. The first two of these are allegories of psychology again. Prob... Wherefore the "calling up." T h e "calling u p " of the prophet was indeed 1 8 5 186 187 1 a second birth better than the first. In one passage he points out that every m a n possessed by the love of G o d and w h o worships only TO ov is called not av0pcjrroc b u t Geoc. b u t he is dvOpcincjv 0 £ o c Again Philo discusses why Moses was called u p upon the m o u n t on the seventh d a y . and it has no mother. 186. 224 (Sac. I n that connection Philo makes several points. i.. QE. 1055.. but only a Father. 185.. The Greek must have been 6 dofroc. But Moses (called up o n the seventh day) was without 184. "so that like the genus. igd. and equally so. when he is compared to the fool he is thought by all seeming and appearance to be God. 1 9 c T O TCOV o*oq)i0TCOV yivoq.226 B Y LIGHT. The interpre­ tation he suggests here is "professional class. was analogous to the creation of the world. See Harris. ad loc. vopiog x a l Xoyoc. Benedict Einarson. T O Jtoi/nTixov Y&VOC. In using "genus" for yevoc. has called my attention to the obvious parallels in Plato: Repub. for the first birth took place in the flesh and had corruptible parents. 60 f. Mig.." 188.

H e acts for God in relation with Pharaoh and with the Israel­ ites alike. but the per­ fect m a n ( 0 TeAaoc) is the m a n of God as he gives blessings to the people. 193 And praying and blessing are not the function of an ordinary person. but "man of God" as an object of boasting and a benefit ( d u x ^ a ^ a i (bq)8?lT]fia). not distinctively Stoic. and who has dedicated himself to the Guide and Father of all things. have its ultimate origin in the Orphic usage. 92. 192. T'exepag ovopiaaiag jtQoaovou. b u t the treatise does illuminate the point further on." the TTOAUCIJVUIJOC. 1 3 5 : ev xe slvai fteov xal vouv xal el|naQu.. it will be recalled.. 19. but to his experience of God on Sinai.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 227 body. 191. 189 190 191 Oh thou who art worthy to be this extremely beautiful and holy substitution.dteafrai. 146. Dec. This. VII. T h e transcription of beautiful laws is the business of one w h o is reaching for divine things and has them always in his hand. p. In one of the passages adduced by Leisegang it is being explained that God is G o d only of the righteous. ii. . while H e is Lord and Master of the wicked. Philo says.. 193.. Deut. 18. refers not to Moses' translation at death. w h o was the last word in depravity. but of a man who disregards his kinship with creation. Accordingly the number six is assigned as proper for the earth born. a n d to the latter he is their pride and their great blessing as the mediator of God's blessings. " G o d is utterly unchangeable ( a T p e r r r o c ) . 254. Conf. So G o d would not be G o d to Pharaoh. 25 f. Mut.. prophet. but made Moses his God. where Philo seems to me to have Moses in mind as priest. La. the ordinary man] must be con189. and very likely does. as in the famous passage of Diog. 24 ff. There is nothing here t o tell of what that appointment meant to Moses himself. xxxiii. Philo uses the term to describe God and the Logos: Som. is within the power of ordinary humanity. but the most sacred nature of the seven for the other. 1 7 3 . i. Ib. See my Theology of Justin Martyr. The term is. See above. Ib. " m a n of G o d " because he prays for the people and blesses them. of course. 190. The Stoics made much use of the notion. 125 ff. LA. p. and king. 43. and "God of Pharaoh" because through h i m Egypt is punished for its crimes.EVnv xal Aia* jtoTAdc.. namely to substitute thyself for divine providence! But do not think *Hat he is "man" and "man of God" in the same sense: for he is "man" as God's possession (xtfjfia). Moses is also "many named. Mut. For one [sc. The word was frequently applied to deities by classical writers to indicate that their many aspects were shown in their being worshipped by many names. 94. 1. 192 T h e idea that Moses is a substitute for God is clearly running through Philo's mind. law-maker. For Philo c o m m e n t s upon the fact that Moses was the " m a n of G o d . N o n e of these functions. The sage is Jto^ucovupiog in Ebr. Philo's use of the term may... H e is called "Moses" because he is the interpreter of the divine oracles.

. but which. was really living in the conceptual virtues which are indistinguishable from the divine Aoyoi. T h e uncertainty is.. the quality of fixed unchangeableness. cf. For when he had left all mortal categories behind. 29. But if Moses was thus contrasted with God. the Patriarchs. like the other oofyoi.. he says. Philo goes on.228 B Y LIGHT. 77-82. 195 W h e n Moses on the mount was told by God "Stand thou here with me. 127 f. as has been stated. 28 ff. 197. Conf. he was quite as sharply contrasted with any m a n but the Patriarchs. but he is given strikingly the office of mediator between m a n and God. since it has been initiated into divine things and is the deifer." the words indicate that God gave Moses a share in H i s own nature. A n d yet Moses. For God wants even the most wicked men to have an intercessor (napaiTy]Ty)c) who will plead for them and so mitigate their punishment. even though the fool be a king. mixed with absolutely none of these things which exhibit a share in duality.. 105 f. p. Immut. so that he might be made akin to God and truly divine (ita ut fiat deo cognatus vireque divinus). ii. interpreting God's will to them. even while in the body. But Philo goes farther than this. It seems to me that what Philo had in mind was the Pythagorean notion of the rpirov y s v o c . 195. then. Was. Gig. but actually to procure the good for others is the function of a greater and more perfect soul. which never becomes naturalized to its new abode. 127. 198. 194 Moses is called 0e6c in as much as he is oofyoc. 196. and one that is truly filled with God (cog d^Yidcog deia^ouoT]). Moses is in all this still a human being. and averting the worst of God's wrath. 47 ff. But he who clings to the nature of unity is said to approach into God with a certain familiarity of kinship (cognativa quadam familiaritate). 30 f.. he was changed into divinity (transmutatur in divinum). Post. was different from ordinary m e n from the beginning. . Such souls come down to the earth at all only be­ cause they have a great love of learning and seeing. which was sufficiently vague 196 197 198 194. Mut. Conf. Moses Qzoc in Philo's mind? T h e answer must be yes and no. by the fact that his humanity was ultimately meaning­ less in his almost completely divine nature.. that of Philo's age. is like unity. and with all of them but Isaac.. and as such is the natural ruler of the fool.. Moses was called up to the top of the mount. QE. Philo would probably have been quite unable to have made his conception of Moses much more consistent than these various passages represent it. H e is contrasted with God in His pure existence. For he was the great example of a soul sent down to dwell in the body. There was only one Deity in the strict sense for Philo. LIGHT tent to be allowed to make use of the formula of blessing. "alone": because the prophetic intellect. 23. See above. bringing them the blessing of God.

that is to the universal principles of justice. i. or the universal and unchanging Laws of N a t u r e (auT<i Suxaia. Diotogenes. 43-49- . 105 f. and also as an alien and foreign thing which has come down from heaven to m a n . yet Geoc he frequently seemed to him. p. Ecphantus. has gone beyond any material or created manifestation of God to cleave to God alone.. Som. T h a t is. Moses was the Gcloc avGpcjnoc of current dreams. 190. W e recall that the Pythagorean king. 203.. leading it out from appearance to reality. T h e perfect m a n was a middle type of existence between the unoriginate and the corruptible n a t u r e s .T H E MYSTIC MOSES 229 for Philo to use. Philo triumphantly tells the world. If philosophers had tried to work out the notion. or. p. in their minds. See above. 227... was not the aligning of the conception with metaphysics. which are founded only upon seeming and probability. Agr. 183. 223. See above. W h a t precisely that meant Philo's contemporaries and successors seem to have defined as little as Philo. the avGpcjnoc GeoO. 228. 234. for that would have been irreverent nonsense to Philo. but the great fact that in the Gsloc avGpcjrroc the gulf between m a n and God was bridged. 201. 202. the union of divine and h u m a n nature that a Geloc avGpGJTioc could offer. as that Tp[TOV yivoc. Mos. especially in Moses. T h e important thing. 77.. 6 KaQapcjTCCTOC vouc. since Philo preferred to use the Biblical phrase. and the phrases already quoted come to mind as a parallel. Mut. they must have ended in as great philosophical absurdities as did later Christian at­ tempts to do so. and so has received God Himself for his por199 200 2 0 1 202 203 204 205 199. See above. p. W i t h o u t his leadership in this sense m e n live in all the divergencies manifest in the civil law of various cities. W h a t was this great succor (u<pz\Y\\ia) which the life of Moses had brought to m a n ? Of course one of his great benefits to the race was his foundation of the Jewish L a w . But the age needed. 200. 27. 26. T<Z Koiva Tyjc <t>uo£GK Kal aKivy]Ta). Conf. and as such Moses was Israel's. See above. I n contrast to these the ovvay^yv] Kuplou is not as sheep that have no shepherd. p. Philo said in one place that he would for the time leave the matter open whether to call Moses' m i n d h u m a n or divine or a mixture of the t w o . ii." p. and sought everywhere to find. Again "the seeds of h u m a n legislation were sown" by the fact that Moses. quoted in my "Hellenistic Kingship. p. As the legislator Moses is the Good Shepherd of the mind. So while Moses was not 6 Geoc. 205. See above. that the longing has been met in the Patriarchs. and all mankind's boast and succor. Jewish and Gentile alike. could be spoken of as one who was metamorphosed into a deity among m e n (0£oc £ v avGpdmoic n a p E O x a M c r n o T a i ) . The latter idea appears in Philo's passage about Moses' being different from ordi­ nary m e n from the b e g i n n i n g . 77-82. 204.

corrup­ tible substances. See Colson and Whitaker. 208. are not stored therein.. receive these things as the truly sacred Mysteries into your souls and babble them not to the uninitiated. has similarly glorified Moses as the ideal lawgiver." the "archetypal pattern" w h o m all other lawmakers should copy. Their life and religion were based upon what we would call a salvation which they had received from the great Models. appears in the Mystery of Juda­ ism. which is by no means the religion of the Jews in general. 62 f. For one man's virtue is a benefit to all. of w h o m Moses was the chief. Philo has just reviewed the catalogue of the Patriarchs when he goes on to say: Ye initiates. 70 f. Gold and silver. and which consisted not in obedience to the precepts. 207 T h e saving power of Moses and the Patriarchs is not limited to the giving of the written code. 206.230 206 B Y LIGHT. This salvation. or true essence of Judaism.. After a brilliant description of the freedom and virtue of the ideal Sophoi. for he puts into them a noble and intrepid m i n d . can establish them there. cannot have been the Jews in general. T h e influence of their personalities persists to Philo's own day. Failing this they protect themselves from corruption by retiring altogether from men. and lived accord­ ing to Law. . and live for the most part in seclusion from the mob. They were the few who went quite beyond ordinary Judaism to what seemed to Philo the essential and only true Judaism. T h e Exposition. ad loc. as we have seen. LIGHT t i o n . T r u e such men are rare. The praise of Levi is also a praise and description of Moses. In former times. Philo stops and n o t e s that some people might well ask w h o these ideal persons are or were that he is describing. O n e did not have to seek long in Alexandria for a Jew. 208 These men were not only free themselves: they filled also those they met with a free mind. he continues. lifting them up to a height beyond seasons and circumstances. Virt.. The transition from Moses to Levi makes this passage at first puzzling. Those men contemporary with Philo. himself the "norm and Law. exalted as they are. whose ears have been purified. and. he answers. as the descendant of Levi. Sometimes they turn aside from the crowd to spend their time in contemplation of N a t u r e (here God) and in prayer.1 3 4 . Prob. 207. Cong. but guard them as a treasure which you share among yourselves. but the finest of the true possessions. 1 3 1 . so that if pos­ sible life may be improved. the xcAox&yafKa of the Sophoi. there were people alive who used God alone as their guide. For the advice of a good man can raise up those who are prostrate in spirit. but in reproduction of the divine experience and characters of the model Sophoi. o 6p0oc Aoyoc. and even to our own day there are still men who are as though they had been stamped as images from an original model.

God thereupon opens up the heavenly treasure. cities. 2 1 2 . For 214 215 216 209. tribes. That is. Aaron. 3 ' Mig. stands Moses who was the "purer and more perfect mind initiated into the Great Mysteries (T<Z [xzyiXa (juoTyjpia nuyjQck). 191 f.. so that all the earthly channels are filled to overflowing. 214. the Logos and the universe. For in reality the just man is the foundation prop of the human race. The fact that a scriptural quota­ tion. Cher. Yet when I saw the prophet Jeremiah and recognized that he was not only an initiate but a capable hierophant I did not shrink from his company. has Qfju-a instead of Logos does not seem to me. to serve him as musical instruments or constructive tools serve a musician or craftsman. Moses is the lawgiving Logos (GeojjoGeTyjc Aoyoc). If ye meet with any of the initiated press him closely and cling to him lest he conceal from you some newer Mystery. 227 f. and intentions..T| for vht\v.. In contrast with those who infer God from His shadow. as Drummond recognized (Philo Judaeus. 120 ff. Moses is frequendy identi­ fied with the Logos. 210 211 212 Philo describes the function of Moses and Abraham. Moses and Abraham are here God's suppliant Logos. 2 1 5 . The ordinary type of good man is represented by Bezaleel. 216. or as sticks of wood serve a fire. and of Virtue. 100-103. the guide (rroBy]y£Ty)c). but here it seems to be made to explain the significance of Moses and Abraham. 23 ff. to leave the passions. 209 So Philo goes on to tell of the secret of God's intercourse with the Virgin Sophia which he learned from Jeremiah. II. The text is here divergent and difficult. and come to God the savior." and so exhorts man to leave that mother who deals in everything absurd. The simplest emendation is to read vX. and espe­ cially when God has given this individual along with the good character an irre­ sistible power (Suva^ig dvavtaycoviGTog). w h o leads the soul that comes to H i m out into unantici­ pated liberty. and pours down a torrent of t d dyafrd like rain and snow. words. and of that Third which is begotten of these. pp. 210." and who lifted his eyes directly to God.. For I myself have been initiated by the God-beloved Moses into the Greater Mysteries. "for he is the nurse and nurturer of good works. Posner's note ad loc. And he brings everything he has into the common stock and gives it without stint for the benefit (cbqpeXeia) of those who will use it: what he himself lacks he asks from God who alone has unlimited wealth. Mig. countries. Fre­ quendy the identification is made to clarify the conception of the Logos. Cf. 2 I 2 1 1 . and regions of the earth have enjoyed great happiness when a single individual has taken heed of xcAoxdya&ia. Ib. 48 f. iii. in Philos Wer\e. and Miriam. And God is accustomed to give these things and not to turn away from His own suppliant Logos. used by Philo as proof-text.. who learned from Moses while Moses learned from G o d . as to Colson . Cling to him until ye have mastered it clearly.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 231 knowledge of the Cause. and understand the whole as I have translated. The idea is common to both Stoicism and Judaism. LA. as intercessors and saviors of m e n : 218 Households. 268).

the Power of Mercy to the suppliant and worshipper. ad. T h e "spirit" in his case was "pure knowledge. This spark can be fanned up and made not only to give light to the blind. which every wise m a n naturally shares. Mig. the Unsevered. 2 1 7 . pp. the Spirit which fills all things full of itself. T h e Spirit which was on Moses and is thus communicated is "the Wise Spirit. and perhaps also of the and Whitaker.2 7 . because the savior God extends His all-healing medicine. calls m e n to a life of piety and SiKaioouv/). can take place." See above. Gig. For in the beautiful Exordium in which he urges the Gentiles to convert. 217 Philo explains more fully elsewhere h o w this kindling from the soul of the wise man. but to kindle and make blaze what is shrivelled. for sinlessness is a peculiarity of God (iSiov 0£oO). understanding. and Sophia. 2 1 7 ff." This Spirit is one that benefits (ci^eAouv) not injures. especially of Moses. the Admirable. H e says that Moses had the divine Spirit which he passed on to the seventy elders. "All the tribes of the earth will be blessed in thee. but passed it on as fire can light a great number of torches without itself being diminished. the Indivisible. The suppliant spreads it as a salve upon the wounds of the soul which folly and injustice and all the other evils like a sharp weapon have inflicted. It seems to be a general description of the experience of the initiate into the Mystery as well as that specifically of the presbyter. he describes how Moses. the Divine. the most holy. it is recorded: "I am compassionate upon them according to thy word. LIGHT when Moses on one occasion besought Him as a suppliant. but on the whole people. 2 2 . . 124. loc. and bids him use it for the salvation of those who are ill.. For so long as he is healthy we must not abandon hope of complete salvation (o(OTY]Qia). This passage has been considered in connection with the consecration of the "elders.. and to m a k e all things like itseE So we must pray that the just m a n may forever abide (Siauxvav) in the h u m a n race for the curing of illnesses." 218 T h e Exposition throws some light upon the representative character of the Saviour-Sage.232 B Y LIGHT. to prevent the reference in the passage from being a reference to the Logos. as all the race is blessed in Abraham. O n e should not be discouraged if he has been a sinner." Philo goes on to explain that God has mercy upon all m e n when a spark of virtue is left in one m a n to rekindle the others in w h o m the fire has gone out." Moses did not lose the spirit in giving it to others. 218. by which Moses as suppliant causes God to be compassionate not on himself alone." This statement has obviously the same force as the one [to Abraham]. and in being shared with others loses none of its "comprehension.

223 In one passage Philo has been developing his contrast between those who have God both as Lord and God... 224 This is not an address to one who is dead and gone.. but the hierophant of rites and the teacher of divine things which he will expound to those whose ears have been purified. Ib. and to be diligent and humble seekers for truth. 47. Ib. 221. . H e entered into the darkness.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 233 divine m a n (Seloc av/)p).. light. Philo sees in Moses an active and present power. so that they discover their true nature and do not stop as though anchored in their literal meaning? Oh thou hierophant. and those who use no discipline and come to God only as the Beneficent One. 185 f. even though he was a single individual. and with him the nation. H e brings them together and initiates them. he was Suva|j£t the whole race. here obviously Moses. H e continues: And is it not likely that even those whose minds are blinded to these and similar things should become keen of sight when eyes are given them for the most sacred oracles. 1 7 5 . teachings that exhort them to reject the ideas with which they were brought up. and the prayer to Moses for guidance.1 7 8 . and hasten to the magnificent spectacle. and such people Moses summons. Virt. for he was "equal in importance to the whole race. dissipate the mist from your eyes. for so is suSaijJovia to be f o u n d . God took Moses as H i s own. possible only for the initiate. initiated into the most sacred Mysteries. Som." Philo describes Moses as one with w h o m the Divine Spirit permanently a b o d e because he had divested himself of the created world and presented himself naked to God. 222. that you may apprehend all the spectacles and sounds which the President of the Games (6 dycovodETTig) has prepared for your benefit (dxpetaiot) .. But you souls who have tasted of divine love. 219. 223. that is as a source of both beneficence and discipline. or cannot do so. still do thou uphold us and help us and not cease to annoint us until thou hast initiated (\iVGXay(oy5)v) us into the hidden meaning of the sacred words and revealed those locked beau­ ties that are invisible to the uninitiated. though the eyes of our soul are closed because we do not desire to see. 54. H e gives them a teaching that will bind them together in love. the invisible re­ gion. Ib. T h e prudent m a n will re­ pent of his sin. fixed his yvu\\Y\ in h i m . This it is meet for thee to do. 53. 219 220 221 222 Then he began to worship God. 220. For in Moses the whole race has been accepted by God.. and annointing. put away your slow and hesitant timidity. and there abode. And he came to be not only \ivGTY\q. 164 £. for since Moses was the true worshipper and suppliant. 224. Gig. is precisely such a prayer as Christian mystics have for centuries been addressing to Christ. This is the higher state. i. rouse yourselves as from a deep sleep.

180 f. again for the Stoic the Sage was perfect in himself. he says. the (j$£Ay)ua. could still be imparted to an aspirant. unless their sin is quite incurable. Philo saw in the great vouoi euApuXoi. the ouT/jpiov of their characters were still available to the race in general. and achieve the ultimate goal of pagan. 63. was a dynamic force for others.) of the race. preeminently in Moses. who was often thought of as . the Spirit of Wisdom and T r u t h . but especially to those who would allow themselves to be initiated in the Greater Mysteries. XVIII (1925).entirely deified. was the God-man whose supplication with God had not been in vain. Jesus. with the result that the new initiate could thereafter live the life of Evoifizia and SiKaioouvir). . iv. His Spirit. Casey in Harvard Theological Review. the realization of the pagan dream. and compares their isola­ tion to that of an orphan. the Pythagorean Sage-King was so. But God has compassion upon them. as a sort of first fruits of all mankind. But if the Stoic Sage was not dynamic. endeavor. Philo has been describing the character of the Jewish race as contrasted with the other races. while for the Christian the Sage. because the Jewish race. 225 It has been asserted that the Christians transformed the Stoic doctrine of the Sage on two essential points: for the Stoic the Sage was a hypothesis. and in any case a transformation on either count was not original with Christianity. while for the Christian the Sage was a reality in Jesus Christ. p. 226 225. 226.234 B Y LIGHT. And the reason of this dedication is to be found in the highly prized justices and virtues of the founders (aQXY\ysTOvvxet. and so perfect a realization that the blessing. Spec. virtues which endure like immortal and everlasting plants that bring forth the fruit of salvation and benefit to their descendants in all things even though they may happen to have sinned. has been set aside to the Creator and Father. eu8ai|jov!a. Moses. LIGHT A passage occurs almost in passing which summarizes and fully confirms the fact that Philo was looking to the Patriarchs as the saviors for the race and the individual of Judaism. and later Christian.

with its philosophical and cosmological assumptions and its mystic goal. T h e conception that unites the whole is the Mystery. but by thoughtful Greeks who had found the Mystery of Isis in their environ­ ment as attractive a thing as Orpheus and Dionysus had proved to be in Greece itself. is by no means sporadically eclectic: it is the philosophy of an eclectic Neo-Pythagorean-Platonist. especially in ethics. It is necessary only to refer to the Hermetica as evidence for general interest in the same problem. Persia. seem to Plutarch but different approaches to the true nature of the Light-Stream. m u c h enriched by Pythagorean notions. T h e problem is at least as old as Philo. a deeper thinker than Plutarch. and it is in Platonism and Neo-Pythagoreanism that he would find the intellectual approach to the same Reality. . Yet there is a great unity of thought and purpose r u n n i n g through the allegory that cannot be denied. too sure. and the fact is that Philo. an allegory made u p not of detailed and disconnected flights to reconcile the scriptural narra­ tive and laws piecemeal with Greek Philosophy and mysticism. T h e T o r a h has been changed into a great allegory. who was born probably within a year or two of Philo's death. Cynic. Plutarch. T h e basic Neo-Pythagorean-Platonic philosophy has been fused with mystic notions from the Orphics. It seems that it would also be very rash to say that Philo himself was in any real sense a pioneer in the problem. or Skeptic fundamental points of view. Philo's philosophy. But behind the disconnected presentation there lies an elaborate schematization of the characters and words of the Bible according to a single objective. the problem of restating Isis and Persian mystic conceptions to conform to a Philonic type of philoso­ phy. T h e early steps in this direction are lost to us. T h e Light-Stream of Persia and that of Isis. with Stoic details but with a strong dislike of Stoic fundamentals. and Isis. shows us how m e n in his time were laboring on exactly this problem.CHAPTER IX THE W I T H SO MYSTERY much detailed allegory of the Patriarchs did Philo present the Mys­ tery. Fancy in individual points is certainly to be found in Philo. which is eclectic. that is to a fundamental Platonism. for all their different formula­ tions. T h e fusion was probably made not by Jews for the first time. but quite consistently antipathetic to the Stoic. one with many Stoic and Cynic details. H e is much too elaborate. H e would indeed be a rash m a n w h o considered Plutarch able to conceive de novo this great unity in the three sources of teaching. F r o m the Cyrenaics or Epicureans he will have not a word on any subject. shows the solution m u c h more nearly worked out than does Plutarch fifty years later.

In the Exposition he tries to bring Gen­ tiles into that Mystery without betraying in a single line that he had origi­ nated it. but is rather like Chrysostom or Jerome. W i t h this extreme conclusion Philo does not agree. that mystical ascent by marriage with Sophia is quite the same as ascent through Powers of the Logos. H e is drawing constantly on the "Allegorists" for his interpreta­ tions. such complete freedom from any necessity for justification. that Sophia and the Logos are identical. that the Allegorists were a group of people many of w h o m had gone to the logical end of the mystic position and had lost all sense of obligation to fulfil the letter of the particular laws.236 B Y LIGHT. It is assumed that his readers are for the most part thinking in terms of the Mystery. LIGHT too mature." Mystic Judaism is the ready made environment of his writings. are them­ selves initiates. In being initiates they are not disciples w h o m Philo has him­ self "begotten in Moses. to be working on the problem for the first time. and were living by and in the L a w of the im­ material realm alone. . with its still recogniz­ able components. in an advanced stage of assimilation into even the fourth milieu. A n d similarly Philo's confidence in identifying these conceptions with his Platonic and Pythagorean postulates is not a confidence that a pioneer could have achieved. In leaving their obligation to the material world they had left behind for babes the representation of divine will in the material me­ dium of nouns and verbs. His assumptions. Mig. Judaism. 89-94. h o w m u c h their works had already appeared in writing. for example. I cannot say. In his writings which explain the Mystery for Jews he is not by any means conscious of presenting them with something essentially new. Indeed Philo shows this whole mystic philosophy. Of this we can be sure. indeed many generations. as Philo shows. however. This assimilation too seems m u c h too mature to be the product of Philo as an innovator. it is a good thing to set the example for weaker brothers by complying with the restrictions still binding upon them. and since even the highest mystic does actually have to live in a sense in the material realm. an expounder of the deeper significance of concepts that are the accepted positions of the m e n of his environment. 1 1.. W h o these were. T h e working out of such a blend of mystic mythology and philosophy into this great system must have required many years. But the details of the Jewish Code are still of great importance for the life of ordinary people. not the product of his original genius. H e speaks of the Mystery as a common­ place to his readers. these are too assured and unargued to be the suggestions of a pioneer. H e is offering them nothing new." as Paul wrote those w h o m he had "begotten in Christ. T o be sure the L a w by which the mystics live is the L a w of the Logos. to have reached such assurance. he insists.

it is quite likely that. T h e adjustment of this doubly-conceived Mystery to Greek thought may well have begun from the first contacts in Alexandria. or even the strongly personal deity of Amos and Hosea. found in their en­ vironment that type of thought ready made which we can only describe by an extended hyphenization. if not before. especially in Alexandria.D. It may be well before we leave Philo to look back at the ground we have traversed. Into the Mystery we have followed Philo by his own route. T h e great conscious syncretistic movement we shall there describe was at an end by Philo's time. it is not surprising that it should have been followers of these schools who took the mystic teachings of Egypt most seriously. when a Jew went with this sort of Judaism from Alexandria to Ephesus or Tarsus in 50 B. . and rnust have been linguistic antiquarians to have kept the word God in their own use of it from meaning the Light-Stream. In Philo the Mystery is not only fully developed.. So mature is the Mystery that it may well have lost all localism and been quite as familiar among the Jews of Rome and Tarsus as in Alexandria itself.C. that for two centuries or more be­ fore Philo the Jews in Egypt. the route of the lives of the Patriarchs. W i t h the early stage of this process we shall deal in the next chapter. T h e Jews had early lost their sense of the meaning of the Hebrew original of the Scriptures. and fix the Mystery in our minds by study­ ing it from a new vantage point. As Plato and the Pythagoreans were the most sensitive of all Greek philosophers to Orphic conceptions. and with it the con­ notations of the Hebrew words for God. the existence of the Mystery quite independently of any Philonic invention. but ripe with the ripeness of very many years. the great lawgiver to the Jewish nation H e did remain. and he can assume that in his gen­ eration the true meaning of the T o r a h is the revelation of the Royal Road of the Light-Stream.T H E MYSTERY 237 All of this difference of point of view implies. But the tribal Yahveh he could not remain. T h e paralleling of Persian and Egyptian traditions about God as the LightStream may well have been a living force in Egypt consistently after the great work of Ikhnaton in that direction. Personal in H i s love for them God might remain. indeed specifically denotes. This ready made blend was the nearest thing to Judaism in their environ­ ment. he would have been heard with the same respect and credence that greeted Apollos in Christian Ephesus or Corinth a few years later. for it alone was a philosophy built upon the personal apprehension of an exalted and monotheistic Deity. or 1 0 A. It is quite possible and probable. They thought of God in the Greek language. so that the Greeks may have had these two presented to them in parallel immediately upon their setding in the country. when it came to explaining His nature in the Greek language. For all of its definitely Egyptian origin. then. a Persian-Isiac-Platonic-Pythagorean mystery.

T h e first triad of Patriarchs. These m e n may thus be treated as preliminary steps on the mystic ladder. But each Patriarch is really one who has achieved the end of the Mystery. and his coming out of the ark the great experience of de­ livery from material bondage that he might rise to saintliness for himself and saving power for others. or any one of them may be referred to as representing the ultimate experience. T h e passage dealing with Melchizedek is not found in the Quaestiones. 72. is Enos. LIGHT T h e Patriarchs. Abraham goes out from Chaldea. if it was included. Repentance. as Jacob runs from Esau. tnafl 8e a v T d a p d w TOV dftdvaTOv. 2 Abraham now goes through a series of experiences. Enos. from the life of unrestrained response to passions and perceptions. and the few references to him in the Allegory leave the significance of the incident rather undeter­ mined in Abraham's general spiritual development. Hope. to typify the first step. After this he has several 2. But N o a h is empha­ sized much more than the other two since his being confined in the ark represented the soul shut u p in the body with the passions through the time of purification. for this step may be identified. the second step is a definite renunciation of the somatic life. the r u n n i n g away from the life of dependence upon matter. Harris. It is through Abraham. at the bottom of the first column. and N o a h the achieve­ ment of SiKatoouv/) by the destruction of the passions. This step is also represented in the alle­ gory of the migration of the Israelites by the departure from Egypt. . One fragment reads: e d v 8e ajcofrdvTi u i v TIC. Philo also called it dying to the body. T h e flight is only one step in the preliminary emancipation from matter. Each of these represents a preliminary stage. through the fact that the section of the Quaestiones which might have given it is not preserved. p. or to mortal life. Fragments. or of mystic achievement. Enoch. Sometimes Philo groups them to show that each reveals a different aspect of the struggle to rise. from the life of confused thinking in which matter is regarded as the ultimate. T h e corresponding stage in the story of Abraham is lost. according to the necessities of tracing spiritual progress through the recorded incidents in the lives of the Patriarchs. what Paul would call dying to the body but what Philo more correctly calls killing the body. and Jacob that the Mystery is first fully developed. It may well have been the stage where he experienced the Cosmic Mystery. Enoch. are the great revelation of the higher Way. and N o a h . TOV -frvriTov piov.238 B Y LIGHT. and especially Moses. tacog o u/n8ejtOT8 £l5ev oipeTai. This is the stage in the migration represented by the drowning of the Egyp­ tians in the Red Sea. Isaac. though the Sophia-marriage theme is de­ veloped in connection with their marriages. Abraham and Jacob are treated from the point of view of ascent through the Powers to the Logos. But it may well have been omitted from the story of Abraham. for example. with either the'flight from the body or the going u p to the great final experience after the period of discipline.

So he begins to lay the foundations of higher advance. and a bastard achievement. xvii. 1 f. is the experience of begetting Isaac. and m a k e her pregnant. T h i s is represented by his relation with Hagar.T H E MYSTERY 239 visions of. his self. and this time. H a v i n g n o w himself be­ come full of seeds he can as masculine return to Sophia. for such virtue is always sterile. H i s spouse is no longer h u m a n virtue. Abraham's union with Sophia on the higher plane. achieved. it is Sophia w h o is tem­ porarily masculine and fills A b r a h a m with seeds. in comparison with the fruits of true knowledge. but divine Virtue. It is no wonder that he finds her sterile. H e must return with his new powers to become the complete master of the body. can be effected through such a relation. and this divine Virtue is very fertile when approached by one with Abraham's new powers. For he presents his h u m a n nature to Sophia. now feminine. Sophia. T h e first is his experience of the Royal Power. the Logos. when he has a marvellous inflooding of the divine Light. it is also union with Sophia. Ishmael. be humiliated. after serving their purpose. A t the same time he is progressing according to the Sophia cycle. 4. . their profit. They bring their incorporeal light into his house. His saving power for others has in8 4 3. but as yet she is the virtue achieved by h u m a n effort. by studying the encyclicals. as indicated by Sarah's changed name. Abra­ h a m can go on to a higher vision of the Powers. but it has become his perfect servant. Gen. Gen. a step symbolized by circumcision. as high a type of virtue as at this stage A b r a h a m could claim. the fruits of encyclical study are bastard. But before this happens there are a few other prelimi­ naries. Here he comes to the height of the Mystery by both formulations. T h e body is no longer dead to him. where he is masculine and she feminine. and Ishmael. put in their proper place. the Creative as well as the Royal. H e r e the last traces of his sin fall from him. like Jacob with Laban. w h o is Virtue. or Sophia. or he to it. God. H e is united with Sophia and at the same time sees beyond the two Powers to the T h i r d who unites the two. xv. T h a t is. H e has married Sarah. the perfect spiritual medium. not as masculine but as feminine. or at best preliminary. and in the later relations with Sarah. T h e encyclicals must. and n o w becomes a saving power for other men. But the union is not only with the Powers. These are carefully schematized. H e is united with them in the full mystical union. the preliminary union by which he is himself given potency to beget. in the incident of his name being changed. as H a g a r was humiliated for presump­ tion. or conversations with. or a preliminary one. W i t h the encyclicals mastered. T h e experience is figured in the oak of Mamre under which Abraham sits. and in seeing the T h i r d sees that the Three are One. H e is again bathed in Light. he sees both Powers.

and are the people in the cosmic stage of the Mystery. in its subservient capacity. It is interesting that the dream is explained at once as a preliminary revelation of the Logos-Powers and of Sophia. These three types. to get the first marriage with the disciplinary studies. T h e third are the beginners in the stage of repentance and first purification. His body is in a sense as dead to h i m as a bronze statue. the inner court of the cosmic robe and Cosmic Mystery. even though the fusion of the two was at least very imperfect. the impulses of the flesh.240 B Y LIGHT. Again the two strands are clumsily intertwined. to learn the encyclicals. But in his dream he appears to have ex­ perienced the Cosmic Mystery for the first time. the symbolism given by Moses is better than that Jacob got in a dream. T h e two are clearly distinct formulations of the ascent which Philo as a child of his age believed identical. but in another sense it is now made as fruitful. and to learn to rule his own lower nature. the sheep. and at the same time the different stages in ascent according to the Sophia formulation are carefully kept in parallel. Jacob has still much to do. those clothed in the blinding white of the Higher Mystery. LIGHT creased at each advance he has made. for its stages of progress are most clearly worked out according to the pattern of the Powers. H e here gets only the Logoi. and to have had that shadowy premonition of the immaterial world which went with the Cosmic Mystery. F r o m this vision of the Mystery Jacob goes on to its experience. for. corre­ spond to the three experiences of the temple. but he finds that his only real safety is in flight. A t the end of this disci­ pline he is ready to go on into the Mystery itself. Like Abraham. it will overcome him in the end. as the soul. They are still parallel formulations to him. But here our fragmentary account of his story fails us. T h e story of Jacob is the next best account of the ascent of the soul in the Mystery. and has shared the mystic meal with Isaac and received Isaac's blessing. This is of course what the Israelites experienced at the Red Sea. Jacob runs from Esau. and to become a shepherd of men. says Philo. and the great scene where . the outer court of purification. T h e second are those marked with the Forms like the Cosmos. only. T h e first are the white sheep. T h e story of Abraham is especially enlightening for the Mystery. the holy of holies with its white robe of light. if he stays to fight his lower nature. but distinct. as has been said. H i s first experience is the dream of the sheep of different markings. In his early encounters with Esau he had represented preliminary struggles of a naturally well intentioned m a n against fleshly evil and pleasure. and is given complete salvation from his enemies. H e must go to Laban's house­ hold as Abraham went to Hagar. and there begins his de­ velopment. H e has obviously had some contact with the Mystery already. he says. by which he comes to see the dif­ ferent offspring of Sophia or the Logos in contact with men.

This notion is identical with Paul's insistence that "when the law came. like Abraham. As "self-taught" he was one already born with the knowledge that saves. a n d the scene where the Israelites under Moses stop to sing at the well. a special incarnation. the epilogue to the mystical experience of Jacob is his return to the body to dominate it a n d use it as a perfectly functioning medium of the spirit." T h e thing of real importance is the great dominant figure of Moses. But Philo never takes them into the Promised L a n d ." They do. for the benefit of the race. the God-man and Savior. and de­ stroyed its passions in the Red Sea. sin revived. is not so much to show the Mystery itself." etc. seem to have gone through the two mystic stages. by the higher standard. . See Heres. They are throughout the symbol of life as lived by most m e n w h o are trying to live nobly. the period when they were learning self discipline to prepare them­ selves for the mystic achievement. They too left Egypt. then. Moses himself is like Isaac in being of a specially unique type of being. T h e other great allegory of the mystical ascent is the story of the migra­ tion of the Israelites. Problems are all exter5. he represents the tribes as singing the song of triumph at final mystical attainment. A t Elim it is hinted that they enter the Cosmic Mystery. needing no preliminary stages at all. 5 Moses similarly is from the first the "Self-Taught. vice. Yet we have enough hints to see that here Jacob reached the height of the mystery by both formulations. and became united with the Light-Stream as both Logos and Sophia. for he has revealed to them that what was innocent sense-act in Egypt is. Isaac had not to go through a period of discipline." H e is a loan from God. the marshalling of Israel as an army of warriors in companies under the captains. It should be noted that in one passage Moses does lead the Israelites from Egypt. T h e encyclical studies mean nothing to h i m : rather the boy Moses can teach the doctors of every land what their knowledge never suggested to them.T H E MYSTERY 241 Jacob wrestles with the angel and becomes the " m a n w h o sees G o d " and "perfect" is not preserved. vice. sense." "I had not known sin except the Law had said thou shalt not. as to depict Moses as the hierophant of those w h o are strug­ gling for mystical "perfection." H e r e by a combination of t w o incidents. T h e n they began a long period of wan­ dering. T h e great importance of the migration. and they come into the Higher Mystery of union with the immaterial world in the strange scene Philo de­ scribes as "the song at the well. 83-87. to Canaan. the realm of the body. he had to have noth­ ing in preparation. Like Abra­ ham. All he had to receive was the consummation in the mystic marriage with Sophia. b u t never get sufficiently disciplined to be able to go on into "perfection. but living from early years the "perfect" life. however. are aspiring for the mystic experience.

It was not a time when anything fundamental happened to the nature of Jesus. 7. It is precisely three of these scenes that I see in the panels at Dura. given his commission as supreme hierophant. though he gets higher than any other h u m a n being. but not inventing. that be­ tween the Logos and TO ov. but it was like Jesus' experience as marking the beginning of his call to his active career. A t the early stage when he is at the burning bush he already "takes pleasure by the tail" in the way of the final "redemp­ tion of the body. F o u r scenes might well represent the great significant aspects of Moses* mystic career: the scene at the Bush. In this sense it is that to Philo the Mystery is preeminently the Mystery of Moses. H e is never purified. . H e is concerned throughout. It will be recalled that this highly consistent allegory of the Patriarchs has appeared not only in the connected discussions of Abraham and Moses in the Exposition and De Vita Mosis. disciples. while in the mutilated fourth panel I strongly suspect that the scene was the getting of the L a w on Sinai. The public announcement theme is missing in Moses' solitary experience with God. T h a t plan seems not at all the creation of Philo. For ordinary men he is given the specific laws to guide them in their trials. and the assumption of Moses. so that those of all generations who come into the Higher Mys­ tery are initiates. O n the mount he is again attempting to see TO ov Itself. the scene on Sinai. Moses as the giver of the mystic T o r a h . LIGHT nal to him. Such a settled tradi­ tion. followers. of Moses. presented with the confidence and lack of argumentation conspicuous 6 7 6. T h a t is. with the problem of trying to go beyond the second great divide. as I have indicated in the Introduction. and in a com­ bination of the isolated allegories of the various anecdotes of the Patriarchs taken from their contexts in the Allegory and arranged in the order of the Biblical narratives. of his definite call to begin upon the work God had sent him to do. A t the bush he is trying to find the n a m e of God. For in this last scene he is taken back to God to sing the great song. For higher types of men h e is given the two Mysteries. the missing fourth. and he is given the whole divine scheme for the salvation of men. the allegories of the events in the lives of the Patriarchs. in the other of which he remains as the permanent great high-priest. This whole matter of the interpretation of the Dura frescoes must receive separate treat­ ment. But here his commission as hierophant is per­ fected." a thing which the other Patriarchs dared to attempt only after the last experience of the Mystery. are always true to a definite plan from which Philo rarely if ever deviates. rather. but also in the Quaestiones. and again with only partial success. that is His nature. such a notion is Adoptionism and heresy.242 B Y LIGHT. Philo thinks of Moses at the bush as traditional Christianity thinks of the baptism of Jesus. but a settled tradition of interpretation which Philo is freely drawing upon. It was a time of public confirmation of Jesus. incidentally to his own experience. one of which he commits to Aaron. and is. far from being sporadic as they appear on first reading.

original matter is made into the cosmos by the representation of the forms in matter. needing no fuel or sustenance from the outside. Actually since God's creative act. So God. T h e sun is itself unaffected. of a wide and established movement. not from one who is essentially a pioneer. This Stream is. T h e form with which it is infused is the lowest of the various emanations from God. God in relation. of course. could come only from one who is perhaps the greatest exponent. of w h o m nothing in h u m a n formulation can be predicated. shoots forth a great stream of radiation. not God in the fully proper sense of the term. As such it is God in extension. but its being is such as to give forth w a r m t h and life to the earth. T h e Patriarchs experienced the Mystery: it is Moses who formulated it and still presents it to m e n in the T o r a h and in his person. T h e latter three are "within the created realm. Geoc. under God's revelation and guidance. and the Platonic world of forms. undiminished by its radiation. or Virtue. Philo feels. So by whatever theory of "imitation" or "participation. yet on that account all the more real. and. although in His Being H e is completely self-contained and self-sufficient. Essentially matter is formless. since the sun is the best physical type of God's existence. the finest flower. Over against God is matter in that Platonic-Pythagorean sense which Aristotle adopted. while in His Being H e is the self-contained Absolute. T h e Stream as a whole is the Logos." T h e first two Powers distinguish the Creative and Royal or Ruling functions or aspects of the Stream. the divine legislative activity. Below these are secondary differentiations or Powers. or occasionally rrveuua. the divine actions of mercy. for it has become infused with form. For Deity. or Son of God. immaterial. by the science of the day. T h e cosmos is also . radiates from Himself a great stream of Light-Power. T h e n the Logos is itself differentiated into what Philo and other Greeks in Egypt and elsewhere called "Powers." that is they not only exist as immaterial entities. yet not 0 Geoc. According to this philosophy God is in H i s Being the Absolute One. yet all the earth is dependent upon it." or Logos-Cutter "division" Philo may approach the problem of creation. or rather the lowest point in God's single emanation. best compared to solar radiation. As Moses formulated it. in what did it consist? First it consisted in a great mystic philosophy of God and of His relation to the material world and to m a n . though in the mystic ascent they appear as three to a m a n approaching them from below.T H E MYSTERY 243 in Philo. As this Stream goes out from God it takes on differentiations of function. which from the h u m a n point of view seem almost existential differentiations. These two with the Logos itself make not three but one. For the sun is unchanging from century to century. matter is u n k n o w n in its original condition. com­ pletely self-contained. This Stream as a whole may be called Logos or Sophia. but are the aspects of the radiation of God which can come into the material world and express themselves there.

Yet the fact remains that above the material world. and such the relation of the material world to Deity visualized in the Mystery. "Above. the Stream exists in its unmixed purity. It is obvious that the essential difference between this conception and Neo-Platonism is not in the names for the different stages of the Light-Stream. the two cherubim are the two higher Powers. and the world is sustained by the Power of Mercy by which God acts within the material world to preserve it. T h e same is true of the other lower Powers. and indeed the very Powers that represent themselves within the visible cosmos are themselves separable from matter and not exhausted by their representation. 8 8. are to be found in matter as the three great Powers. LIGHT guided by the great legislative force of God which God sends down into the material world to be the L a w of Nature. or to run along it as a fugitive from the allurements of matter and sense to the peace and safety of immaterial reality. As this system was the inner secret of the Mystery. the tables of the law within the box are the Power of L a w . and of the Royal Road by which m e n could rise above matter into the immaterial realm. and the part may at any time be called by the name of the whole. in that secret and most holy symbol of the Jewish religion. are not: yet the Forms properly exist in the KOOJJOC VO/]TOC. a philosophy. the Creative Power and the Royal Power. and to be present in the material cosmos. for spatial categories have nothing to do with immaterial reality. the voice which came to Moses is the Logos." I say. or even than a concrete and holy symbol of the nature of Deity. the three which are really One. so it has been revealed to men by God. and not in the KOOJJOC aio0y|Toc. For the Mystery was also a great revelation to m a n of his own nature. Such is the Deity. but that is rather a matter of qualitative gradation than of space. for example. the fact that it has hidden away at its heart the symbolic revelation of the true nature of God. God's L a w and Mercy. of his need of salvation. the Logos may be said in so far to have put on the material robe. the true Wesen of Judaism. A n d through its great Savior or Saviors Mystic Judaism was a dy­ namic source of what later came to be called "saving grace. through Moses. By the fact that these lower manifestations of the Logos-Stream from God are present in the material world. the A r k of the Covenant. T h e sym­ bols of the ark represent the seven great manifestations of G o d : the box of the ark is the world of forms. but in the fact that matter is still visualized as only the recipient of the Stream. This is the inner secret of Judaism. T h e great Stream is ultimately a unit. while the O n e who is present and utters the voice is TO ov. then. . T h e Forms. and in no sense its own lowest manifestation. or TO ov. But the Mystery was more than a doctrine." N o t only could Mystic Judaism point the way: it could give m e n strength to walk along it. the mercy seat is the Power of Mercy.BY LIGHT. for all that it includes an infusion of the Stream.

Mig. and so does neither very clearly. But in the Allegory he is trying at the same time both to give a connected account. its shutting the soul down to the level of the senses and passions. Ib. indicated by the titles he gives to the successive studies. the m a n w h o has gone out of lower to higher things. W h e n Abraham has at last advanced to the place where he can leave Lot. and has access to the real Law.5 2 . .. he is ready. the de Migratione Abrahami and the Quis Heres. raise the question of the general qualities of the m a n who emerges from this h u m a n welter. quite behind.1 7 5 . but the L a w of the Logos which he has received. 1 1 . the mixing of values. In the de Confusione Linguarum Philo has been chiefly concerned with a description of the nature of h u m a n sin. If one follows these as representing what Philo considered the key notion of each book. Philo's purport is easy to miss by the fact that he is in a sense riding two by no means congenial horses at once. Such a m a n lives by the vision. 4 7 . the L a w of the Mosaic Code.. H e lives the life of Law. not to follow the Logos. which was given from Sinai in the "vision that was seen. not. he is given a great reputation among men. there is a definite development of thought. and to orient each verse as it comes. verse by verse. 9 10 11 9. however." His qualities are thereby fully developed. T h e intention of the work as a whole is. In the Quaestiones in Genesin he assumes knowledge of the Mys­ tery as a whole and can devote himself freely to writing simply a reference work of interpretation. A t the same time. he becomes a hierophant to instruct others in the Mystery). "Confusion" is the punishment of the race for its rejection of the doctrine of providence. T h e de Migratione praises. that is to become mystically identified with the Logos. H e visualizes the stories of the Patriarchs as a revelation of the Moses Mystery. 1 2 7 . in order to prove his point. his lower nature. Ib. in contrast to the wicked. A section of it from the de Confusione through the de Fuga may be analyzed for the light it throws on Philo's method of pre­ senting the Mystery. As a result of this experience he becomes a saving force in society. H e is driven to digression after di­ gression. 1 7 3 . he feels compelled to treat the account in Genesis word by word to show its bearing for his general purpose. and its self-sufficiency as contrasted with the humility it should have before God. obviously. but greater still he is made worthy of esteem.1 3 1 . T h e next two treatises. he is given a marvelous speech by which he can help others (i. and to interpreting many verses in terms of details that should logi­ cally appear at a later point in his argument. that is he is beyond the L a w as given in nouns and verbs. but to walk by his side.. not by verbal instruction. 10.T H E MYSTERY 245 It is interesting to see that the central theme of the Allegory is the develop ment of the Mystery.e. As a result his own acts are the logoi or vo|joi of God. and writes to develop this theme for Jews who are interested but need detailed instruction.

Ib. 2 1 . Ib. Philo. as contrasted with the life of m i n d or reason. and his migration is from the created to the uncreated. but which is perfecdy intelligible to us w h o are mystic pupils of Moses." the mind. 1 8 . 69-80.. 1 9 . 1 9 8 . first H a r a n . 13. by an elabo­ rate and devious consideration of M a s e k concludes that the m a n whose life is characterized by the blood-soul. cannot be the "heir" of divine things. must come out of the body. 123 f. and speech. 8 1 . This whole process is one in which G o d is the giver and the initiate only the receiver.. and mind. the place of the mind.2 1 5 .246 B Y LIGHT. 96-99.. a n d then to G o d Himself. speech. a thing which you (uninitiate) readers do not understand. 196-200. A m a n w h o has made this migration becomes the "Seer. T h e first verse of the Biblical section here to be treated leads Philo off into a digression on the different manners of speaking to God. . and indeed his very self in so far as he renounces his o w n thought processes. G o d is the beginning and the end. 3 (LXX). where one is preoccupied with a mystic comprehension of the universe. Heres. 17. 14. A t this point Philo puts in the long dis­ cussion of the Logos as at once the Divider and the principle of unity. 40-62. T h e Quis Heres takes u p the question of what sort of m a n is competent to undertake this journey out from humanity and to become the heir of divine things. T h e flight to G o d is a ransom by which our minds. Ib. but he has gone far beyond the physical heavens and stars. It is a going out from the senses. that is beyond the Stoic notion that the world itself is God. for he has gone out of himself. 16. 1 0 0 .. T h e treatises that follow go into details.. See Gen. This disposed of." the one w h o sees G o d . the great cleft between the material and immaterial worlds. LIGHT This all implies that the m a n w h o has "migrated" has gone out from the realm Pascher identified as the lower stage of the Mystery. a step taken by the aid of Sophia. and all should properly be used for God. A large number of instances of the presence of a fundamental division in the universe finally lead Philo to the conclusion that the incense of the temple cultus is the praise rising to the Creator from the cosmos as m a d e u p out of the four elements. xv. and what he takes he still owes to God and must give back to H i m .. itself drawing heavily upon a Pythagorean prototype. a section so important by itself that it is represented by a sub-title at the begin­ ning of the book. Ib. T h e "heir. the senses. Abra­ h a m has been brought out to see the stars. Ib. 20. A treatise on Rewards originally stood before the Heres. T h e basic principle and chief objective of the Mystery has n o w been sketched. are set free. T h e point of the section. 1 5 . sense. Mig. Between these two is the Logos. Ib.1 2 2 . slaves fugitive to God. is a discussion of the basic idea of the whole Mystery.. to the higher spiritual realms. simultaneously their divider a n d 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 20 21 12. Everything is n o w concentrated in God.8 5 .

claims that he was a student in both Stoic and Platonic schools..T H E MYSTERY 247 mediator. The school that was famous at the time for its encyclical preparation was the Pythagorean. I n this state the prophet speaks the view of Another. but could not be admitted into a Pythagorean school because of this lack. See Colson and Whitaker's interesting note in Vol. is described in contrast to the finite universe. Ib. So far Philo has been describing the ideal. begins at the bottom to explain h o w a novice might have a mystic experience through the Preliminary Studies. . T h e process begins with the perfection of the parts of the body and ends in the attainment of the divine Sophia." 23. Cong. Ib. for example.. the infinite immaterial. Ib. After considering a number of details Philo sums u p . Colson and Whitaker (IV. T h e migration is one out from the body and the passions. the de Congressu. they are represented by Hagar. 263-266. I. my "Neo-Pythagorean Source.. note f. 29. the coming of the divine Spirit.. 57-60. 201-229. and especially Moses is the prophetic ecstasy. 24. 26. pp. 239-248. p. not to opinion or false22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 22. 2 4 ." and the Cutter separates h i m off from what is evil." H e rises to the promised land. God." Various kinds o f ecstasy are de­ scribed. See my Theology of Justin Martyr. the land which is Sophia. 3 1 3 . 27. Jacob. as an Egyp­ tian. T h e normal beginning for one w h o is not like Isaac miraculously endowed with a special nature is in the Pythagorean encyclicals. Cong. Abraham. But the ecstasy of Noah. in which the light of one's own mind "sets" before the brilliance of the divine illumination.2 3 . 452) note that this is a Stoic encyclical. 30. But highly valuable as these are. It is the Sophos w h o is the "heir. without an encyclical education. For fuller discussion of this conception see. Isaac. Philo now returns to the description o f the migration of the "heir. 28. and the other by which h e fights off evil In addition he must take care of his body and train himself in rhetoric: but these are the concubines. T h e two parts divided are complementary and make a single whole. to unite all into a single entity.3 3 ... one which peacefully appropriates TOL npzofimtpa Kal Y\yz\xoyz\JovTa dyaOa. By an elaborate allegory of Rachel and Leah and Jacob's two concubines he con­ cludes that the beginner must provide himself with two types of mind. w h o was. Isaac. 34-38. and seem quite unjustified. They give no refer­ ences. Ib. xvi. 267-274... T h e next treatise. T h e reader must have felt that the Quis Heres left h i m little ground to hope that h e could share in such a Mystery. so that he gets "a sure and abiding vision of the Sophia of God." H e has begun with discarding the evil tendencies and notions of the soul and then he goes into the "ecstasy. Ib. Ib. Philo is n o w led by the idea of allegorizing wives and concubines into a section which adds little to his main point except that the aspirant must marry himself to true knowledge. of material nature and must mark only a temporary stage.3 1 6 . for he can go direct to Virtue a n d Sophia. the type quite beyond ordinary men. needs only one wife. but they need the Logos to turn the six into seven. 25. while no such preparation was demanded from young Stoics. 1 4 . Justin Martyr.

A considerable digression points out that this does not imply actually the abandonment of wealth or political office. Ib. 33. so long as it is borne always in mind that they are not to be the true wife. so the Encyclicals are truly delightful as a preparation. T h e following section is confusing because while the women of these stories are generally equated with Sophia. if he is to be a m a n of Vision of the Highest. 71-80. Sophia is. 36. 2. 32 33 34 35 T h e de Fuga et Inventione goes on from the treatise that has outlined the preliminary studies and the stage of affliction. Fug. 7-22. T o this type of flight Philo returns at the end of the treatise. A n d yet at the beginning one flies alike from the best. take Virtue or Sophia to himself and become pregnant from the divine seeds she will sow in him.. Ib. as disgusting and terrible. from the senses. and from the worst. since such rejection of earthly responsibility on the part of good m e n would leave the masses helpless in the hands of the wicked. herself gave Hagar to Abraham. . 139-150. This confusion is clarified by Pascher's analysis. It is one of Philo's most rambling books. Philo is now ready to discuss the stage in which one makes the great escape. Ib. Ib. and is so apalled that he runs from virtue.. and occurs when a person gets a sense of his unworthiness as com­ pared with true virtue.. Ib. he finds. It is still an uninstructed and instinctive flight. shame. Even these preliminary studies cannot begin in the frivolous period of youth. This is the point of the treatise.. and of temptation to return to the life of flesh. 36 37 38 39 31. as we have seen. fear. Flight. the fear lest the lower may overcome the higher in himself. 81-88. 38-62. hatred. really bisexual.. as for instance in its perceiv­ ing the real nature of geometrical concepts. T h e flight of H a g a r from Sarah is one of shame. T h e type of flight based upon fear comes when one really understands the danger to which the soul is subject from the material world and the senses. and takes in a great number of incidental subjects. who is through­ out Virtue or Sophia. 89-120. 38. after the encyclicals. A n d there is elaborate sugges­ tion that this stage is going to be one of toil. but lead Philo off on a long digression on the number ten. 37. Sarah. their being made pregnant is the receiving of Sophia. W e must fulfill our temporal obligation. along the Road to Virtue. 34. Ib. 32.2 4 8 B Y LIGHT.. because we cannot endure it. 5. Much more important for his present purpose are the other two types of flight. Cong. W h a t Philo means is that one must. those inspired by hatred and by fear. 35. 6. T h e flight of hatred is the flight of the soul or mind from the material universe.. Ib. to scatter divine seeds. LIGHT 31 hood.. 24-38. T h e ten years Abraham lived in Canaan before he took H a g a r symbolize this. 39. T h e mystic at this stage must go to Philoso­ phy which alone can interpret the encyclicals. She receives the seed from God as a female.. but at the same time has power to impreg­ nate her offspring. is from three motives.



In such a temporary state the soul is engaged in trying to understand the material and sensuous world. After a little one is ready to leave this stage (the one apparently in which Philo elsewhere puts the encyclical studies of the universe) and to return to Virtue-Sophia. Jacob, who is the type throughout this section, accordingly marries Sophia-Virtue, who here as else­ where is the androgynous figure, a female who scatters seed of her own nature in her temporarily feminine husband. So far the figures have been somewhat confused. Philo seems by .these three flights to indicate that the first stage of flight is a recoil from sin by reason of a rebuke from conscience as representation of the Good. After the sin and shame comes a hatred of sin and a flight from it, a great putting away of one's sinful acts. In itself this is not sufficient. Man must next study the whole nature of sin as represented in the material universe and as urged upon him by his senses. Without such an understanding he cannot go on, but he will temporarily be concerned with the lower rather than the higher, be living in a suspense between the two. T h e next stage is the ascent to Wisdom-Virtue, and the being impregnated with Sophia in the mystic mar­ riage with her. A t this point the ascent in terms of Jacob and the flight to Sophia breaks off. Mangey suspected a lacuna in which the higher stage would be more fully described, and though Wendland thinks not, it is very likely that such a passage did follow.

U p to this point the imagery has been chiefly that of the Female Principle type. But n o w Philo takes up a new Biblical setting, and develops quite a different picture of the Mystery. H e r e he deals with the Cities of Refuge. T h e Biblical passage is marred for Philo's use by the fact that the fugitive to the cities is a murderer, and so Philo confuses his real intent by a desperate allegory to show why the fugitive is a murderer. Apart from this element, Philo's argument is based upon the conception that life and death are matters of the presence or absence of virtue. T o live to virtue we must first die to sin, exchange mortality for an immortal life, go from the creature to G o d . God Himself is described not in terms of the Light-Sophia hierarchy but of the Logos and the two Powers, the Creating and Ruling. Man has been created partly by God (apparently in this section God is completely the equivalent of the Logos) and partly by the lower Powers, for the One made man's reason, the other his sensuous aspects. T h e true fugitive then is one who flees to an immaterial country, that is to God Himself, W h o compre­ hends but is not comprehended ( n £ p i £ x °v nepiex^Tai), ^ * ^ f g of all the universe. This country which God inhabits is His own wisdom (LmoTY\\iY\), and H e inhabits it as a native while the fugitive can never be more than a resident alien.
41 42 wv a n < s t i e r e u e 43 44

40. Ib., 50-52. 43. Ib., 75.

41. Ib., 53. 44. Ib., 76.

42. Ib., 58-64.



Philo goes on to devote some space to the character of the fugitive again. H e must be pure from the sin of thinking that God is in any sense the cause of evil, and he cannot be a lover of self. Suddenly Philo breaks into the adjuration:

Drive them out, then, Oh ye initiates and hierophants of the divine mysteries, drive out the souls that are mixed and just miscellaneously tossed together, those that have been mingled in confusion, the souls that are hard to purify or wash clean. Such souls go about with their ears unstopped, their tongues unchecked, and thus bear with them the ready instruments of their own misery that they hear and pratde forth all things which must not be heard or spoken.
46 47

In contrast those w h o k n o w about sins, w h o have a proper mouth, may use the Cities of Refuge from unintentional sins. Philo's preparation has been elaborate. N o w he has at last finished talking about the Mystery in general, and has given what sounds like the formula of expulsion of uninitiates. A t this point he should go on to tell the Mystery in its inner detail. I n m y opinion that is precisely the significance of what follows. F o r Philo goes on at once to the mystic significance of the Cities of Refuge. T h e Mystery which is presented as the Mystery of the Cities of Refuge is really the Mystery of the ascent to God through H i s Powers. Philo dis­ cusses the cities under four main topics: why the cities chosen should have been cities from the tribe of Levi; why six cities were chosen and what they represent; why they were divided into three on each side of the Jordan; and why the fugitives were to return at the death of the High-Priest. First the cities were cities of the tribe of Levi because the Levites are types of the true fugitives. They have done what the fugitive must do, stripped themselves of their bodies, of their unreasoning element (TO ctXoyov), by which is meant the senses, a n d of their power of speech (6 npofyopiKoc Aoyoc;). T h u s only their K a r a Siccvoiav Aoyoc, their higher reason, is left; they n o w live in a state that is according to monadity (rig Kcrrcc TV\V UOVOJOIV Siamg) and so can aspire purely and without distraction to the O n e . Second Philo discusses why there should have been six cities selected, and what is their meaning. T h e six cities are the Logos and his descending Powers; that is the first city is the Logos.itself, the second the Creative or

45. Fug., 80-84. Plato's Theaetetus 176 is quoted, and evidendy the thought of the Theaetetus has much influenced the entire passage. Parenthetically he puts in here (§78), 6Xk' ov ^cofj [liv l a x t v alcoviog r\ JTQOC; T O ov xaTacpuyn, ftavaxoc; 6' 6 djto TOVXOV SQaajiog. 46. The language is that of mystic ftiaaoi, and seems at the same time connected with Pythagoreanism, or was at least used by those who, in such matters, first used the common vocabulary, says Plutarch, De Fraterno Amore, 488B, C. 47. Fug., 85. 48. Ib., 88-92. In §§93 f. he also mentions briefly the priesdy significance of the Levites, but makes little of it.



Beneficent Power, the third the Royal or Ruling Power, the fourth is divine Mercy, the fifth and sixth together the legislation of God, for the fifth repre­ sents the body of specific positive commands in the Torah, the sixth the negative commands. T h e cities are beautifully arranged, Philo says, for all grades and sorts of people who aspire to be free from sin. So far as the Mystery is concerned, Philo's real understanding of the unintentional homi­ cide is that the homicide represents the m a n who aspires to be free from sin. T h e "unintentional homicide" who may flee to the city is figuratively a m a n who w ants to do what is right and is looking for strength to do so. T h e willfully malicious have no more place in the Mystery than the willful mur­ derer in the city of refuge. Yet among the people who want to do right there is every grade of spiritual gifts, and each aspirant must be treated according to his distinctive capabilities.
49 T

So he [Moses] urges the man able to run very swifdy to stretch out without stopping for breath to the most exalted divine Logos who is the source of Sophia, in order that by drawing from the flowing source he may discover for himself the prize of eternal life instead of death.

Philo is very specific. It is not the Logos as found in the cosmos to which the fugitive aspires, but the Logos in its unmixed purity, the source of Sophia, and for one w h o has achieved this height, the prize is the putting away of mortality and the putting on of eternal life (£cjkj) in the Logos. O n e has but to change the term Logos to Christ to have the famous passage in which Paul "stretches forward to the prize," the prize of putting off mortality for immortality. Philo goes o n :

And the one not so swift [Moses urges] to fly for refuge to the Creative Power, which Moses calls God, since by this Power the universe was arranged and set in order. For the one who apprehends that the universe was created has come into possession of a great good, knowledge (eJtiaTf||XT|) of the Creator, knowledge which at once prompts a created object to love the Creator.
52 53

Philo's second place of refuge is at once the Creative Power and the kmoTY\[iY\ of God, which, since imoTY\\iY\ is commonly a synonym of Sophia, and Sophia has just been mentioned as a derivative of the Logos, suggests the stage where the fugitive is identified with Sophia in the other formula­ tion of the Mystery. H e r e the prize is, then, that one learns really to love God, in a mystic union with H i s Sophia. The one who is still less facile [Moses urges to fly] to the Royal [Power]. For
49. Ib.,^ 94f. 52. fteoc; without the article. 50. Ib., 97. 53- Fug., 975 1 . Philip, iii, 8-16.



if the child is not regimented by good will for the Father, the subject is at least regimented by fear of the ruler, by Necessity which chastens him. Life on this stage is lived in a great sense of the majesty and force of the divine way, in a realization that one is bound by Necessity. W e recognize the distinction at once between the religion of the level of the Creative Power and that of the Royal Power when we notice that in the latter the religious impulse is based upon a mystical appreciation of the majesty of God and the servitude of man. In the former the mystic has risen to a reli­ gious experience based upon the love of God for man and of man for God. It was just such an advance the Arminians later tried to make in moving out from the stern majesty of the God of Calvin to the loving Father they preached. Philo goes on: But for the man who cannot reach these objectives (OQOI) which have been described, because they are too remote, other and nearer goals (xaajtrfjoec;) have been established, those of the Necessary Powers (OIMXUSIC; dvayxalai), namely Mercy, and the injunctions that prescribe what must be done, as well as the in­ junctions that prescribe what must not be done. For though he may have sinned formerly a man who assumes that Divinity (TO deiov) is not implacable, but is merciful by the kindliness of its nature, straightway repents in hope of pardon. And he who conceives of God as a Legislator is happy in obeying all God's in­ junctions. And the last type of man will find the last refuge, that is simply the avoidance of evil, even though he may not be able to share in the more desirable goods.

The description of the three lower Powers as avayKaiai is obscure, and I have no suggestion to make as to its meaning. Otherwise the statement is clear and highly illuminating. The man who cannot cross the river must live by the extensions of Deity made especially for man into the material realm. These are two-fold, the merciful activity of God which reaches down to men, and the Law in its positive and negative aspects which God has projected into the material of nouns and verbs in the Torah for human guidance. The distinction between the positive and negative commands was familiar in Judaism. Women as a lower order were exempt from obligation to many of the positive commands. Indeed no person was so sunk in material life that he could not understand a prohibition from some specific act. It demanded more understanding to grasp and fulfill such positive com­ mands as to love one's neighbor than the negative command not to kill him. Still higher was such an appreciation of God as to understand that H e was merciful and forgiving to one who had erred, but who sincerely wanted

54. Fug., 98.

55. Ib., 98 £.

56. G. F. Moore, Judaism, ii, 129.



to be forgiven and reinstated. All six of the cities represent a remarkable classification of the different mystic stages, or types of religious capacity. But it is highly significant that the group of Powers on the lower side of the river, the Laws and Mercy of God, represent an epitome of traditional Judaism as it has been presented to Jewish lads of all ages. T h e Jew had the Law, positive and negative, mercifully given h i m by God, and believed that God was kindly desirous of granting pardon to one who was sincerely try­ ing to fulfill the Law, but who inadvertently, or by sudden temptation, failed to keep it. T h e mercy of God went on and offered hopes for the Jewish race, later for the Jewish individual, in the future. Normative Juda­ ism has always centered in the merciful God w h o gave men the guidance of His Law. T h e interesting thing is that while Philo recognized normative Judaism, and could thus epitomize it, he put that Judaism definitely on the hither side of the river, and found his own true aspiration quite beyond. N o r m a ­ tive Judaism was of divine institution, but its appeal was directed only to men w h o could not go into the Mystery. T h e Mystery was no less Judaism than was normative Judaism for Philo; rather it so far transcended norma­ tive Judaism as to make normative Judaism at best a propaedeutic, something which need not detain the swift runner at all in his rush for God. H o w differendy Philo regarded the importance of the two sides of the river will appear shortly. Parenthetically it is in view of these lower stages that Paul's perplexing conclusion to his description of the flight to the goal becomes clear. H e has described the objective of the TSAEIOI, and then continues: Let us who are perfect have this objective in our minds (qpQOvco^iev); and if you have some other objective in mind, God has revealed this also to you. But on the level to which we have attained, by that standard let us order our lives.

Paul has not described the lower refuges, but he has recognized that not all m e n are of a nature to come through to the highest; they must content themselves with what Philo called lower Suvajjeic, and live in harmony with the level of spiritual life they are competent to reach. It is very important that Philo goes on to parallel in a brief digression the schematization of Powers as he found it in the Cities of Refuge with the A r k of the Covenant, the symbol he usually employed for God and the Powers. For in the ark, he explains, the positive and negative specific law was inside the box. Mercy was represented by the mercy seat, the Creative and Royal Power were the cherubim above them, while still above these two Powers was the Presence, the invisible divine Logos, which here is the
57. Philip, iii, 1 5 , 16.



eiKuv 0 £ o u , the oldest of all the v o / j r a , the nearest to God of all the Powers, so close that there is no interval between them at all. T h e Logos is the charioteer driving the Powers, and H e who utters the Logos is the passenger in the chariot telling the Logos where to drive. So, Philo concludes, the mystic w h o is entirely pure even from involuntary offences may have God Himself ( a u T o v T O V 0eov) as his inheritance and dwell in H i m alone, but those who still, even though against their will, commit offenses, have the six Cities of Refuge for their way of salvation. Philo has little to say of the mystic w h o goes beyond the cities to God Himself, for i t w?3 a n achievement that he reserved for his greatest heroes, if even Moses d i d actually achieve i t . But he i s careful to bring in at least an allusion to the supreme level of mystic aspiration, else his picture of the Mystery would be incomplete. T h e digression has then not only brought in this additional element, but i t has definitely linked the scheme of the cities with the inner symbol of the Mystery, the A r k of the Covenant. Philo has more to tell of the cities. H e has yet two of his main points to discuss. H e goes on to the third question, why the cities were divided with three o n each side of the Jordan. T h e three beyond Jordan are the Logos and the two Powers, far removed from the h u m a n race, and with them the universe as a whole has fellowship. But the three that are contingent upon the h u m a n race with its proclivity to sin are the lower three Powers, Mercy and the two types of Specific Laws. For, he explains very significandy:

What need is there of a prohibition for men who are not going t o d o wrong? Or of positive commands for those whose nature is not erring? Or of Mercy for those who have n o sin? But our race [the human race] has need of those by the fact that it is naturally inclined t o both voluntary and involuntary sin.

Again we have i t obviously implied that even the divine scheme o f Juda­ ism as i t was usually taught was one designed essentially for lower souls who had not the spiritual gifts, while just as obviously those w h o had the gifts had n o essential benefit from legalistic Judaism. H e r e certainly i s the point of departure o f the allegorists. It was not that i n contrast t o the legalistic literalists they saw a more philosophic meaning i n the T o r a h by means of their allegory, and s o rejected the letter as mythological and juvenile. T h e conflict was much deeper. They read into the T o r a h by allegory a distinctly non-Jewish type o f salvation, and s o they left the letter behind because i n the Mystery which allegory had revealed they had become superior t o the letter o f spiritual accomplishment. They had crossed the river Jordan, and i n one stage o r another o f the Mystery had n o need o f the laws. Philo went
58. Fug., 100-102. 59. Ib., 105.



with them into the Mystery, though he himself still feels the importance of keeping the laws. T h e rest of the book adds little to our picture, and need not be followed in detail. T h e fourth point about the cities brings out that they are really not temporary refuges, but may be inhabited by the fugitive so long as he keeps himself in contact with the Logos-Priest. W i t h this ends the section on flight. T h e discussion of discovery is concerned again with defining the types of persons w h o can rise to these heights. T h e highest type is the Self-Taught like Isaac, who finds without seeking. T h e next type seeks and finds, while two lower types are not within the possibilities of mystic achievement at all. W h a t is found is illumination and sweetening of the soul, and the con­ templative life (0£Gjpy]TiKoc 3 i o c ) , a life which achieves unmixed joy and the noetic beam that comes as from a flame. T h e third main division of the book discusses the symbol of the well or fountain. T h e yjyeiJoviKov, the en­ cyclical studies, the senses, Sophia, and God are discussed as fountains, and it is pointed out that we must not abide by the lower fountains but go to Sophia who will lead us higher. T h e book ends in an allegory of Ishmael, the type of product from one w h o has not yet reached the height. Such achievement is at best a sophistic affair. T h e Allegory, for all its rambling, has, then, for its main theme the presen­ tation of the Mystery. In this Mystery the great high-priest is Moses. T h e true priesthood is a matter of learning that nothing material is excellent, but that God as the Primal Cause deserves worship and honor. T h e Aaronic priest can alone of m e n enter the inner sanctuary because "in h i m alone resides the winged and heavenly yearning for those forms of good which are incorporeal and imperishable." T h e true high-priest "has received a drink of the eternal graces, and repays this preliminary draught by pouring out himself as the full libation of unmixed w i n e . " His wife is a virgin (Philo must have had in m i n d the marriage with Sophia) and his offspring are Aoyoi, e m o K o n o i and £<t>opoi of the affairs of nature, or are AeiToupyol Gsou, hastening to kin­ dle the flame. This they do by uttering Aoyoi nepl 6OI6T/]TOC, which come forth like sparks from flint. Their father, Moses, the true high-priest, is completely self-sufficient, able to do and to k n o w all things by himself. H e subsumes in himself the entire race. H e is less than God, but greater than man, partaking of both natures. His is preeminently the priesthood of the holy of holies, and as such he is not a man.
80 61 62 63 64 65 66

60. 62. 64. 65. 66.

See above, Chapter III. Ib., 176. Ib., 136. Som., ii, 183. The xaQizzq Ib., 184-186.

61. Fug., 139. 63. Ebr., 75. is here probably to be understood as xaQig.



Was he then God? I would not like to say, for the archprophet Moses was actually given this tide as his lot when he was called the God of Pharaoh. At least he was not man, but had a share of each extreme as though one were the pedestal, the other the head.

Such a Priesthood had the Jews in Moses, the N a t u r e beloved of God, who could lead them on the great Royal Road of the Mystery. Its symbolism has appeared throughout. It is the Mystery of the holy of holies, whose sym­ bol is the white robe of the m a n who has "put on immortality." It is the Mystery of the sacred marriage with Sophia; of the fugitive rushing past city after city of the divine Powers until he comes at last to the Logos. If pictures were devised to illustrate the Mystery artists might have made use of almost any scene of the Old Testament, for scarcely an inch of the Pentateuch, at least, has escaped Philo's allegory. But preeminently such pictures must have centered in Noah's coming out of the body, as his ark was called; in the meeting of Abraham with Melchizedek or with the T h r e e M e n ; in the courtship and marriage of Isaac; in the flight and the dream of Jacob, his departure from Laban and the wrestling with the angel; in Moses the selftaught youngster who got his commission at the burning bush and w h o became the great mystagogue of the Exodus, who got the L a w from God and gave it to Israel, and who was at last taken to God to sing H i s praises forever in the great song of the heavenly bodies. T h r o u g h it all the coming of a white-clad mystic to Sophia or to the three Powers must have been symbolized, and the contrast between the W h i t e Robe and the Robe of Aaron would appear, though these robes might be put together on the true priest as Philo sometimes describes h i m . Also the contrast would be shown between one who wore the white robe and the mass of people who did not. Is there evidence that any such organization of the Mystery existed as would have produced such an iconography? First it may be asked what was Philo's attitude toward the plastic arts. In one passage, an isolated statement in an irrelevant context, Philo stops to say that in talking about the Giants Moses has not turned into a mythmaker. Moses is too much a follower of truth to stoop to myths. It was on this ground, Philo adds, that Moses banished painting and sculpture from his commonwealth, since their attractive and charming artistry belies the t r u t h . T h e statement is not elaborated. In itself it seems only to mean that Moses took the same attitude toward plastic artists that Plato took toward the poets, and forbade all use of their arts. If this is Philo's general position, and he thought art and Judaism fundamentally opposed, it is curious that there are no other passages that say so since he has a good deal to say about
68 69 70

67. Som., ii, 187-189. On the deity of Moses see above, pp. 223 ff.

68. Conf., 95 f.

69. As in Mut., 43 f.

70. Gig., 58 f.



art. T r u e he denounces artistic productions sharply in a strongly Cynic re­ jection of all the refinements of life. T h e quest for beauty in material objects is a perversion of the true quest for immaterial beauty. F r o m the Platonic point of view he depreciates their value, because they are the creations of deceitful false opinion done by m e n w h o have never seen xa npoc aX^9eiav KaAa. They are only copies of the works of <J>uoic, and are not $uoeic themselves. But he admires their beauty and considers that many pictures and statues done by Greeks and barbarians, and set u p to ornament the cities, are more beautiful than even living m e n and w o m e n . Indeed their beauty is one of the most dangerously seductive of the appeals of paganism. H e knows the symbolism of the pagan iconography, and what that symbolism means to pagans, so m u c h so that Gaius' adopting the symbols of the gods for himself seems to Philo a real desecration. H e even warns Jews not to be disrespectful to pagan idols, and is proud to point out to Gentiles that Jews respect their "gods" although they reject them as objects of worship. H e is not uncritical in his artistic judgments. H e not only knows the inferi­ ority of copies to the original masterpieces, b u t speaks with assurance of h o w the h a n d of a given master is to be recognized in works of different types and sizes. So far from taking advantage of the texts against the m a k i n g of images for a general denunciation of art, he either allegorizes any specific meaning from the texts, making the "images" allegories of the worship of wealth, or he interprets the scriptural prohibition as applying only to images of pagan gods that can be used for idols. Certainly against decorative works of art, or symbolic ones, there is no invective that seems to have any literal significance (for I cannot take Philo's Cynic asceticism liter­ ally), except against images that are supposed to represent Deity and are used for cult purposes. A n iconography of the Jewish Patriarchs and their Mystery, in which God was symbolically represented by a hand, would not violate Philo's position in the least.
71 72 78 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 88

T r u e Philo does not mention such a Jewish iconography. But it is highly noteworthy that he does leave room for such an iconography, and shows a sympathy for works of art which is quite in contrast with our other records from the Jews of the time. For example Josephus wrote: The Greeks and certain other peoples believe it to be a good thing to set up
71. 73. 75. 77. 79. 81. 83. Som., ii, 52 ff.; cf. LA, ii, 75. 72.. Gig., 1 5 . Mig., 167; cf. Plant., 27. 74- Abr., 267. Spec, i, 29. 76. Legat., 98 ff. QE, ii, 5. 78. Mos., ii, 205. Opif., 1 4 1 . 80. Jos., 39. As Exod. xx, 4 and Lev. xix, 4. 82. Spec, i, 25 ff. LA, iii, 22; Decal., 7, 66 ff., 76, 1 5 6 ; Spec, i, ,21 f., 56; Virt., 2 2 1 ; Cont., 7.



images, and then they take pleasure in depicting their fathers, wives, or children; some moreover have pictures of persons who are in no way related to them, and others do so by reason of fondness for their slaves. So then what wonder is it if they seem similarly to honor lords and masters likewise. Furthermore it is not as though our legislator were prophetically commanding that the power of the Ro­ mans was not to be honored, but as though he recognized that this was a thing useful to neither gods nor men, and since [artistic representations] are proved by their inanimation to be inferior to animate beings, much more to God, he forbade the making of images.

T h e difference between this statement of Josephus and Philo's attitude toward works of art is at once striking. While Philo says nothing of pictures of Moses, or any Jewish Patriarch, at least his remarks do not make their tolerance completely out of the question as do those of Josephus. T h e passage is by no means unique in Josephus. "It was unlawful that there should be any such thing in the temple as images, or busts, or the representation of any living thing whatever," Josephus wrote of the golden eagle put on the temple by the Romans. T h a t the law was more general than this application he shows later: "It was not lawful for them [the Jews] to put an image of God, m u c h less of a man, in the temple, or even in any profane part of their country." As Kleinert remarks, Josephus carried his ideas from later Judaism back into the earlier period, and naively gave as one reason for the fall of Solomon's house that he made the images of brazen oxen (the cheru­ bim) in the temple, and of lions about his throne. If Josephus is any guide to sentiment in Palestine at the time, as he is universally taken to be, it is significant that when speaking to local Jews in Galilee he justified his com­ ing u p to Tiberias by saying that he was to lead them in destroying Herod's palace because it had been profaned by being decorated with images of animals. Indeed the populace was so sensitive on the matter that they raised a great protest against the prizes H e r o d offered in his games. These were sets of armor h u n g on some sort of wooden framework, and the Jews thought that images of men were being foisted upon them under the cover of the armor. Herod had to take the leaders of the Jews and show them the crude wooden framework, objects that made them laugh, before their sensi­ bilities were appeased. It has been generally thought from these passages in Josephus that all Jews had by the time of Christ so entirely got away from the primitive idolatry as to be completely averse to artistic representations of any animate beings, and especially of God. T h e discovery in D u r a of a synagogue filled
85 86 87 88 89 90

84. Cont. Ap., ii, 74 £. 85. BJ, I, 650. 86. Ib., II, 195. 87. In Herzog-Hauck, Realencyclop'ddie fiir protestantische Theologie, 3d Ed., Ill, 2 2 1 . See also Schiirer, Geschichte des jiidischen Voltes, 4th Ed., II, 89 f.
88. Ant., VIII, 195. 89. Vita., 65. 90. Ant., XV, 267-279.



with great frescoes forces us to conclude that the Judaism of D u r a had many elements in it that normative Judaism would have repudiated, at least in Josephus' time. Certainly the D u r a type of Judaism drew upon a tradition that regarded pictures differently from Palestine as Josephus describes it. T h e leaders of the Jews who made an official inspection of the trophies to make sure that h u m a n figurines were not hidden under the prize armor would hardly have returned to synagogues decorated like those of Dura. Philo has shown an interpretation of the Jewish L a w that forbids the use of idols, to be sure, but by no means the use of art in general. W h e n "those w h o make molten images," without any distinction are condemned with sorcerers and witches as practising the arts of Satan, and when Jews are later forbidden even to look at idols, Philo knows them by each of their charming details. T h e only passage, so far as I know, in any way kindred to Philo's statements is in the other great classic of Alexandrian Judaism, the Wisdom of Solo­ mon. H e r e image m a k i n g was represented as being the beginning of the gods themselves. T h e author suggests that some father who had a picture made of his dead child came to revere the picture because of its beauty, and so deified the child and founded a mystery for h i m which later got legal support. T h u s the gods arose out of artistic representations. Similarly m e n made statues of distant rulers to do them honor, and again the beauty of the statue leads to deifying the subject glorified by art. T h e author goes on to a denunciation of the sins that result from idolatry. T h a t is, Wisdom, like Philo, detests idolatry, but is keenly sensitive to the appeal of art. Still Wis­ dom does not go so far as Philo does in the appreciation of art. Philo's position as regards images has been pointed out in partial answer to a question: Is there evidence in Philo that the Mystery was so organized in Hellenistic Judaism that it might have produced such an iconography as that at D u r a ? This first answer has been inconclusive, but at least it has ap­ peared that Philo has an attitude toward art which might conceivably have admitted its development, while the non-Alexandrian, the k n o w n normative tradition, could not have tolerated it. Other material is interesting as to the question of whether Philo was speak­ ing of a definite type of Jewish cultus, or only of a mystic interpretation of the Scriptures. It has appeared in many passages that the language of cult groups, initiations, cult robes, secret doctrines is his normal medium. Even the mystic food has been mentioned, the cibum mysterii which Jacob gave to Isaac, and the "buried cakes" which Sarah prepared and Abraham shared with the three visiting Powers, and so was admitted into the final Mysteries (ai reAeiai TcAeTcu). Both these passages are so allegorized as to give no
91 92 93 94 95

91. I Enoch, lxv, 6. 92. xiv, 1 2 - 2 1 . 93. xiv, 2 2 - 3 1 . 94. QG, iv, 2 1 3 . See above, p. 167; for the high-priest's robe, p. 107. 95. Sac., 60.



direct inference of a mystic meal in a cult. And yet that there might well have b e e n a definite Mystery appears in the conclusion: It is written "make buried cakes" because the mystic teaching (6 leodc; u v u g t t j c ; Xoyoc;) about the Unbegotten and His two Powers must be concealed, since not everyone is able to guard the deposit (jcaoaxaTa{hr|XT|) of the sacred rites ( { t e l a

A similar declaration is: Further in a most excellent way Moses mentioned the "buried cakes" after the three measures, not only because knowledge and understanding of the Sophia of the Father and His two higher Powers are hidden from the many, but also be­ cause a matter of this kind must be concealed and not shown to all. It cannot be told to all since he who reveals the Secret to the imprudent and unworthy destroys and overthrows the law of perfection of the holy Mysteries.

Still more striking is the fragment: It is not permitted to speak out the sacred mysteries to the uninitiated until they shall have been purified with the perfect purification. For the uninitiated and the facile person (6 dvooyiaatoc; xal euxsQT|c;), since he is unable to hear or see immaterial and conceptual nature, is deceived by the thing which is made manifest to his sight and so casts reproach upon the irreproachable. To declare the Mysteries to the uninitiated would mean the destruction of the laws of the most sacred Mystery.

Here it is hard to think that Philo had not some definite ritualistic crite­ W e h a v e " l a w s " of the sacred Mystery (Geouoi* leges), something that could be made "manifest to the sight," and a "deposit of sacred rites," all in connection w i t h the Mystery of God and the Powers, and certainly not a reference to the Jerusalem cultus. Figurative use of terms f r o m the mysteries had been familiar f r o m Plato's t i m e for describing a philosophic mysticism, but t h i s seems to go beyond the figurative. Still m o r e definite is the following in its reference to a mystic Judaism:

It is strange that there should be a law in cities forbidding one to divulge the mystic secrets (uu<mx& |A\jarr|Qia) to the uninitiated, but that the true mysteries (al d^ndeic, xeksxai) which lead to piety and holiness, should be revealed to ears full of wickedness. One must not share everything with everyone, that is not teach­ ings and practices which are especially sacred. For there are many prerequisites which must be satisfied by people who aspire to share in these things. The first,
96. Sac., 60. 97. QG, iv, 8. 98. In R. Harris, Fragments, p. 69; the fragment appears twice in Dam., Par., and also in the Cod. Reg., and is assigned by both to QG, ii. £ . Brehier (Les Idees, p. vii, n. 2) declared this fragment to be identical with the foregoing, QG, iv, 8, but they are obviously only parallel and similar statements.

T H E MYSTERY greatest, and most essential prerequisite is piety and holiness with respect to the one and true (ovtcog ov) God, after they have put off their endless straying to statues and idols, images in general, and to mystic rites that are no rites, mysteries that are no mysteries. The second thing is that they must be purified with the sanctifying purifications in body and soul through the laws and customs of the fathers. Third they must furnish a reliable pledge that they are worthy of being welcomed into our fellowship in order that they may not, like intemperate youths, get drunk from surfeit and superabundance when they partake at the sacred table, and so be changed for the worse: to such people it is not permitted.
89 100

T h a t this is a Jewish group is clear not only from its tolerably reliable ascription to Philo but by the reference to the purification Sia vojiuv jTchrpiuv Kal yjGcjv. W h a t aspect of the T o r a h this meant I shall not risk guessing, b u t it is too familiar a form of reference in Philo to the T o r a h to be taken as anything else. It is interesting that the purification is to take place Sia, by means of the Torah, rather than Kara, according to it. T h e plain implication of the passage as it stands is that over against the "mys­ teries that are n o mysteries, the TeAeral areAeoToi," stood in Judaism a Mystery, one without idols, b u t with purificatory rites that accomplished what the others promised b u t failed to perform. This Mystery was a very secret one, to be revealed only to those w h o h a d given pledge of being worthy. A n d it involved a sacred table, communion at which was ex opere operate a dynamic force. If it involved terrible danger to one w h o was unfit to receive its operation, certainly it was as powerful to benefit those w h o came to it properly. O n e is strikingly reminded of the Corinthians w h o par­ took of the bread a n d cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, and so ate and drank to their damnation. F o r our immediate purpose the point is that Philo's words seem as strongly to reflect an actual "table" as do Paul's an actual bread and cup. T o o m u c h cannot be made of an isolated passage, especially when that passage is a fragment torn from its context. It is con­ ceivable that if w e h a d the context w e should see that Philo is speaking of what Gentiles are to be allowed to partake of the Passover, and that the mystic comparison is all rhetoric. F o r only proselytes w h o h a d gone through the traditional purification, circumcision a n d baptism, a n d the presenting of an offering to the Temple, were admitted to the paschal ceremony. It must be recalled that Philo lived before the destruction of the temple, and that the paschal meal was still a feast which could be celebrated only in

99. dvaMoicoftcDaiv seems to mean, "fall into a condition of change" in contrast with the ideal "unchangeableness." See a Hermetic fragment from Stobaeus in Scott, Hermetica, I, 384, 1. 27. Scott translates it here "changing from one thing to another." 100. Fragment, in Harris, Fragments, p. 7 5 ; Mangey, II, 658 f. Harris omits the first sentence as given by Mangey without giving a reason for doing so. The fragment is found in both Cod. Coislin (276, f. 205) and Damascenus, Parall. (782). In the former it is attributed to QE, i. 1 0 1 . G. F. Moore, Judaism, i, 330 f.

consuming the most holy food. so far as we k n o w . ii. T h e mystical character of the frescoes is something that must be pointed out in the next study of this series. there are unmistakable indications of such a group or ten­ dency as we should have been inclined hypothetically to assume in account­ ing for the newly found Jewish art. t h a n the annual Passover. w h o m he mentions as being the only living m e n w h o realize the ideal 103 104 102. yet Philo's range of observation is so great that he might have been speaking on that subject in the lost context. a Mystery with secret objects "manifest to the sight" of the initiates. T o be sure there are other stray details which perhaps should be introduced into the picture of this mystic Judaism. 40 f. pp. passim. G. however. and hyssop. LIGHT 102 Jerusalem. T h e r e is also a hint that the Jewish Giaooi were under rrpeopurepoi ordained into a mystic "patriarchal succession. meeting for the sacred meal every Sabbath. F. These seem to be the hermits contemporary with Philo." shrouded with secret meaning and sacramental power. T h e fact remains. See above. which o n l y the initiated could properly receive and guard. as Philo reveals it. one that goes quite beyond the conception of the meal in normative Judaism. governed by a body of laws with its own iepoc Aoyoc." T h e prejudices of this type of Judaism were by no means so active against pictorial art as those of their cousins in Palestine. W h a t seems highly probable in the passage. after they had been feasted spiritually upon allegorical commentary on the sacred L a w s . and together with this in the other passages just cited. Moore. Indeed if Jews were to have made a Mystery of their own. This would m a k e the requirements of Gentile admission to the Passover of minor concern to Jews in the Diaspora. salt. A n d the further fact remains that the passage seems to imply a more regular ceremony. c l a d in white garments. T h e fact is that some such mystic Judaism would have to be presupposed to account for the pictures revealed at D u r a . A n d it is in Philo that the basic charac­ ter of that Judaism is exposed. Judaism. See the Vita Contemplativa. 0 d a o p y i a .262 B Y LIGHT. Together these constituted a solemn napaKaraGyjKK). nothing would be more to be expected than that they should have done so by putting mystic meaning into the traditional rites of Judaism. T h e r e are the Therapeutae. that if the paschal meal is behind these words of Philo. bread. . 104. and r r p a y u a T a Upa. H e r e I can only indicate that within the Judaism of the Diaspora. their hands con­ cealed under their robes. a more usual mystic celebration. it is a frank turning of the rite into a "Mystery. an entrusted deposit. 2 1 7 £. is that the Jews actually did have a Mystery of their o w n in contrast to the false mysteries of paganism. 103. and included denunciations o n l y of objects of art regarded as actual representations of Deity and used as objects of wor­ ship.

the letter of the law. But of some things we may be sure. In our ignorance of the Therapeutae. and several striking hints of actual mystic organiza­ tion and initiation. This mystic philosophy with almost mo­ notonous reiteration brings all the incidents of the Pentateuch into an ac­ count of the Mystic Royal Road to God through the Powers or through Sophia. H e may have been with them only temporarily. T h e r e are also again to be recalled the "allegorists" who likewise allegorized scripture but who went too far for Philo by severing the body. Cont. the L a w was to Philo properly an animal made u p of b o t h . 78. and of the extent of their influence upon Philo and Alexandrian Judaism in general. 105 106 It seems that Philo must hereafter be treated as the great source from w h o m we learn of a Judaism so thoroughly paganized that its postulates and its objectives were those of Hellenistic mysteries rather than those of any Judaism we have hitherto known. pp. one that ultimately drew for its sources largely upon Orpheus. and seem in Philo's pages to be the reflection of a great tradition. though we do not k n o w the nature or extent of his connecdons with them. pictorial representation of sacred themes may have arisen. it 105. but they too may have been the source of much of his thinking. I would not like to appear to the reader to be unaware that it is difficult if not impossible to estimate the significance of Philo's writings as witness to Hellenistic Judaism in general.. are all thor­ oughly standardized. . it seems we can only surmise that they may have contributed much to the mystic thought he is expressing. Philo seems to have felt himself very close to the Therapeutae. First there is revealed in Philo an elaborate transformation of Judaism into a mystic philosophy. W i t h this mystical doctrine went a surprising leniency to pictorial representation. with no such reference to the Patriarchs. the stages of progress. T h e white robe. Further we k n o w that Philo was a m a n considered thor­ oughly sound by his contemporaries. 83 ff. that is according to the opGoc Xoyoc of n a t u r e . 62. who selected h i m as their ablest and most fitting representative in one of the greatest crises of their history. I take these to be the Therapeutae since the Essenes seem to be introduced later as additional examples of Stoic Liberty. as these were interpreted by the mystic phi­ losophers of Greek background.T H E MYSTERY 263 life of the Patriarchs. Prob. 106. Certainly these allegorists were not Philo's ideal. On this doctrine see above. the sacred table. For all its passionate Jewish loyalty. and who bear in their souls the images stamped upon them from the lives of the archetypal oo$ol. from the soul.. Isis. or he may have visited them frequendy. and Iran. and have had organizations where. T h a t is. its allegorical intent. the letter being no longer binding. as was Josephus with the Essenes. men who take God alone as their guide and live strictly according to the Law. and kept what we might n o w describe as a sort of lay brother affiliation with them.

presented in Jewish symbols and allegories. .264 B Y LIGHT. to be sure. but still a Hel­ lenistic dream of the solution of the problem of life by ascent higher and ever higher in the Streaming Light-Life of God. LIGHT was not fundamentally a Judaism with Hellenistic veneer: it was a Hellen­ ism.

the angel choir ceases for the day. In the Pseudo-Philonic De Sampsone the hero is developed as a type of "strength" in a way analogous to Philo's making the Patriarchs individually types of different virtues. of the Patriarchs. xxiii. First there are in some of the writings of the "apocryphal" class passages that are striking when read with Philonic ideology freshly in mind. and God buries h i m with H i s own h a n d "in the light of the world". for he had gone down to the place where is the light of the sun and m o o n : the light of his face overcame the brightness of the sun and moon. Light abides with God. xix. xxxvii." and the "light of the righteous. of the Logos and Sophia. 3. xii. 6. In spite of the fact that Philo's statements and mode of presentation almost invariably imply that he was drawing upon a rich tradition which had long been elaborated before him and which would already be familiar to his readers. Moses when coming down from H o r e b was covered with "invisible light. his conceptions of God. The Latin translation is very difficult to procure. the words of Samuel are going to "enlighten the people. Moses is gloriously changed and then dies. is not destroyed by God. God is light. Samuel as a boy of eight 1 1." apparendy their souls." he is changed and his m i n d "kindled". 10. of salvation.C H A P T E R X THE MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS A READER w h o has followed the argument to this point. More extended traces of analogy are to be found in the Pseudo-Philonic Biblical Antiquities: ix. James. God showed A b r a h a m the "torches of fire by which the righteous which have believed in m e shall be enlightened". 9. of the Royal Road are as strange as his doctrine of the higher L a w which transcends the Torah. published by SPCK. when the Israelites were punished for worshipping the calf.. xii. 5. xx. R. 3. xii. . 16. those w h o had been drawn into the affair against their will were distinguished from the others by the fact that their faces shone. 2f. 7. the birth of Moses was prophesied to Miriam in a dream by a " m a n in linen garments". when Joshua puts on Moses' "garments of wisdom and girdle of knowledge. liii. and w h o is familiar with the writings of Judaism. Must this mystic Judaism remain indicated to us only from Philo's allegory and with no external support? It does not seem so. 3. and he k n e w it not". must have been impressed with the great dif­ ference between the Judaism here expounded and any type of Judaism which h e has elsewhere encountered. i. xxii. "and when the truth enlightened Moses it was by a thorn bush that it enlightened h i m " . 1 9 1 7 . li. 2. though the mystic element we are looking for is absent. I have been dependent upon the version by M.

has not the "form of a m a n . when called u p by the witch of Endor. T h e Biblical Antiquities impresses one as being the production of an author. somnia. s. and Pseud. 1 4 ) . the fact that the birth of Moses was prophesied to Miriam i n a dream by a " m a n in linen garments. De Corona.). but iii. 3." I n the Egyptian religion the appearance of Isis and Osiris in dreams to give prophetic messages or warnings was a con­ stant feature. so far as w e can judge from the defective text that has come to us. The passages are collected and summarized conveniendy by Charles in his Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (hereafter abbreviated as Apoc. lxiv. ix. Ant. that I should be the mediator {arbiter) of H i s covenant" (i. 186. U. a n d if we think they may have had the same association in Hellenistic Judaism. 4 1 2 . b u t one to w h o m the mystic type of Judaism was sufficiently familiar so that its phrases continuously recur. " H e de­ signed and devised me. Some such may have been the original meaning of this whole series of "light" passages. G o d as "invisible light" and the experience of the Patriarchs as one of "illumina­ tion" is really no part of the author's o w n thought. 11. IX. is. v. 12 shows that the author thought of Moses as mediator only of the "commandments. Bib. Samuel. Lucan. II. See T. 1 5 3 . W e may be pardoned if these linen garments of the angels and Patriarchs suggest the same to us. 8. T h e Assumption of Moses has some points of analogy to the mystery in its glorification of Moses. Fontes Historiae Religionis Aegypticae (hereafter abbreviated as Fontes). 4. while linen was so much the distinctive garb of Osiris that the linen towel with which Jesus girt himself at the Last Supper at once suggested Osiris to m e n of the Second Century. 6." and "pre-existence" is too familiar a bit of apocalyptic machinery to be pressed here in isolation. though they are again scattered through a book which is otherwise quite un­ interesting in its unoriginal repetition of ordinary Jewish points of view. Hopfner. T h e frequent recurrence of the phrases makes it all the more necessary to assume an important group in Judaism to w h o m these conceptions were vital and significant. 1 0 . Index.. 5. LIGHT years is unable to "see the fire" as Moses did. I might say—into the lan­ guage of a m a n more conservatively Jewish than they.). himself a Jew of the normative type. a Hellenistic. indeed an 2 3 4 5 2. . the statement is striking.266 B Y LIGHT. a group so important that their phrases crept—unawares. for h e is arrayed in a white robe and hath a m a n d e upon it.. 16 ff. and H e prepared m e before the foundation of the world. so he can only hear God's voice. Tertul. and t w o angels leading him. / / Enoch. W h e n Moses is represented as saying." T h e frequent recurrence of light mysticism makes it very tempting to interpret the vision of Samuel clothed in the white robe with two attendant angels as a vision of the Logos and the two Powers. T h e ultimate origin of the material may be indicated in the first analogy cited.1 6 1 (Fontes. A book that seems contemporary with Philo.

H e has commanded that we eat the things that will be fitting for our souls. so that in all our usages we act equitably. so that we are masters of all our pleasures and desires. except that before the Fall A d a m could see into the open heavens. I have had to depend upon the text as there given.3 ) . 425 ff. T h e final picture is of God with the Light above Him. on the ground that by obedience alone can Israel retain her position as the "Chosen People" protected by God.3 .). 23-26). W i t h this conception is combined the oriental mythology of creation from the primal egg (xxv. it teaches justice. IV Maccabees has little of the Mystery in the sense that it includes the Logos or Sophia. so that with due reverence we worship the God who alone is (\JLQ\OV TOV ovta 0e6v). Still it is interesting to see that the view of God as Light had become so proverbial in Hellenistic Judaism as to be axiomatic even in an apocalypse." T h e association of God with Light is undeniably a part of the Judaism of this author. As such it is drawing upon many sources different from those of Philo. a phrase which here as often means not "nothing. Large conclusions cannot be drawn from so small a passage and so indirect a tradition.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 6 267 Alexandrine. 3 ) ." but "what has yet no being. Apoc. and behold the angels singing and the "gloomless light" (xxxi." God established a throne for Himself and then sent the Light to dwell above the throne. which can only mean superior to H i m in dignity. This appears most clearly in the account of creation. God was H i m ­ self in this great light (ibid. is filled with Light when God first calls h i m into existence "out of the invisible" (xxv. to be the highest of all things (xxv. it teaches us to practise courage. But at least it is interesting that as the text stands the highest reality is Light. 2 ) . 1. and Pseud. Therefore we eat no unclean meat: for believing our Law to be given by God." that is formless matter (xxiv. T h e story of crea­ tion which follows has little to our purpose. since I do not read Slavonic. . so that we can willingly endure pain. 5 ) .. and it teaches piety. 2 ) . God then went on to finish creation. we know also that the Creator of the world in His act of legislation was sympathetically disposed toward us by nature. For example while the Mosaic L a w is the basis of the heroes' religion and loyalty. obedience to the L a w is motivated by a sense of racial duty. at least in this one detail. xxvi. 1 . Adoil. there came forth a great age. it is revered from quite a different point of view from that of the author of / / / Maccabees. which seems to follow. and showed all creation. 4. which I had thought to create. In the latter. But it is strikingly similar to Philo in other respects. and H e has forbidden us to eat meats that will be contrary to our souls (v. "and as there is born light from light. II. T h e Egg. the Platonic conception of creation £K TGJV \XY\ OVTGJV. 6. 1 . In IV Maccabees the motive is stated: The Law teaches us self-control. apocalypse. as well as of Philo. and creation is done by a divin­ ity that was "in the midst of the Great Light. See the introduction by Forbes and Charles.

and those following it. achieve the character revealed in the greatest Patriarchs. F. as contrasted with those of / / / Maccabees. F e w commentators. See above.7 8 . 22. some would hinder us from such achieve­ ment. W i t h the Wisdom of Solomon we come to still more definite testimony to the fact that Philo's Judaism was not of a type peculiar to himself." Since we are here interested in the work only as a possible source of data to establish the existence of ideas in Judaism similar to those of Philo about the Mystery. 1. Aoyiopoc:) (vii. A n extended analysis of the book is quite impossible here. and the natural proper­ ties of things. p. in which God and our souls are working together with material things. Goodrick. Apoc. 7 8 9 T h e reader who turns to Wisdom from the Philonic material is at once struck by the fact that there are two references to the "Mystery. T h r o u g h the L a w man's reason can become pious (xvi. 3 ) . however. T. but some of its more striking points must be mentioned. Wisd. p.. Charles. " T h e analyses do not agree. 1 ) . like all men. LIGHT T h a t is. pp. T h e basis of this reward is that the "just m a n " (6 SiKatoc). 7 2 . ii. 7 ) . 9. W e follow the L a w and the religion of the Jews because such a religion "saves into eternal life with G o d " (xv.268 B Y LIGHT.. pp. 259. Some of these would help us to the great virtues. The Boo\ of Wisdom.. A. opinions have been urged break­ ing the work up into from two to seventy-nine parts. 1 4 ) . with variety of author­ ship and date. is made for incorruption ( a $ 0 a p o i a ) and in the 10 7. and these two sections are here treated independently. 1 ff. F r o m writers who insist that the book is a unit. Focke. Die Entstehung der Weisheit Salomos. though written per­ haps at different times by the same author. and so the m a n himself become a <p\\6oo$oc Geiou 3iou (vii. 1913. See above. and to take an atti­ tude toward images more like Philo's than that of any other Jewish writer. and Pseud. the L a w given by God is part of a great ounrrctOeia. S. 8. I. Wisdom has already been found to k n o w the Mystery of Aaron. 10." In the first reference the "Mysteries (nuoTyjpia) of G o d " are the reward of immortality awaiting the righteous. Philo at Rome was fully prepared to die hideously for the L a w : but his motives and loyalties were those of IV Maccabees. 120. there is no need to express one more opinion as to whether the work was written by one or many hands. For convenient summaries of the matter see: Holmes' introduction in R. into the true Philosophy. As Professor Porter quietly remarked. who. T h e motive of obedience has changed from the typically Jewish into the Philonic motive: by the L a w we come into the true regimen­ tation of our inner lives with the cosmic ou|jrra0£ia. H. can be called "of the type of Isaac" (6 'IoctKdoc. . 521 ff. Use of Wisdom has become m u c h complicated by the enormous variety of opinions about the unity of the book. have failed to be impressed with the difference between the ideas preceding chapter xi. T h e L a w simply explains the W a y of Nature.

T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 269 11 likeness of God's o w n distinctive qualities (EIKGJV xyjc ISiac I&IOTVJTOC. (both have ms. op.). This experience is itself the blessed visitation. Goodrick prefers the reading aiSiOTnroc. Wisdom does not describe the Patriarchs as a series of hierophants whose chief was Moses. T/JV yvGoiv auTyjc is for "Solomon" to tell h o w he came to k n o w it. Apo\ryphen und Pseudepigraphien des alten Testaments. though in the great allegory of the Patriarchs they are all symbols of 6 SiKctioc. 13. T h e passage must be exam­ ined somewhat in detail. and tried in H i s fiery furnace. Yet the fact that the Patriarchs and Moses do not appear as hierophants must not hide it from us that a striking analogy to their experience and function in the Mystery as Philo describes them is found in the picture of Solomon as mystic and mystagogue in Wisdom. cit. with the result that the righteous shine out and become sparks kindling others. Goodrick's note is also very valuable. For the author or authors of Wisdom Solomon defi­ nitely takes the place occupied by Moses in Philo's thought. Wisd. This is unmistakably a representation of the doctrine of immortality. vi.. 14. x. This may have been because the book is so much older than Philo that the elabo­ rate allegory of the Pentateuch had not yet been worked out. T h e second reference is much more important. for the subsequent rulership of the saints appears to indicate rulership in this world. as well as for its dissimilarity. 22. I will trace her out from the beginning of her coming into being. apparently with the divine fire. 15 T h e first step in this bringing etc TO qj<t>av£c. 1 5 . or it may sim­ ply mean that it was not within the author's purpose in so brief a work to try to tell all he knew. as a mystic teaching. See Siegfried's note ad loc. to the future judgment. T o prevent any misunderstand­ ing he first explains carefully that he is himself a mortal of the mortals in 1 1 . Wisd. for ISUSTTVTOC. because of the special action of Sophia in the career of each. vi." 1 2 . in terms of a light transformation. Kautzsch. support).. Ib. Such people are to be given rule over others. . And will not hide mysteries from you. Ib. and so trans­ lates "God created man to be imperishable. though I cannot agree with him in referring the x a i Q o g emattOJifjc. 12 13 14 "Solomon" begins the section by promising that he will tell the nature of Sophia and his experience of h e r : What Sophia is and how she had her beginning I will proclaim. Solomon is represented as the hierophant. But his interpretation is by no means an impossible one. is kept by God from the wiles of the devil.. And will bring out into the open her gnosis. a fact that is interesting for its similarity to Philo.. See the interesting note to the passage for text and interpretation by Goodrick. It gets still more importance when considered with the second reference to \i\JOTY\p\a. Either conclusion from the silence would be dangerous. 7. 22 ff. or is followed by the blessed visita­ tion. iii.

3 3 . 27. As such it was one of the qualities of Abraham (LA. Mig... Heres. Ib. H e was a "naturally gifted" child. a n d a friend of G o d . 7. is the idea of mystic ascent by marriage with Sophia. vii. as a setded terminus technicus} A n ­ other way "Solomon" has of saying the same thing is to state that h e was at the beginning a "good soul" joined to a "flawless body. as a result of which this marriage was consummated. a suit in which it is implied that he succeeded. 2 1 ff. 27. the king perfect in j u d g m e n t . Ib. In Mut. a nalc eu^uyjc. 7 5 ) . Cong." Journal of Biblical Literature. Perhaps the fine of development by which this came to be the distin­ guishing achievement of the Patriarchs was brought about because the Mys­ tery was first formulated in the tradition of Solomon's becoming the ideal king and vopoc £p\puxoc through receiving Sophia. Ib. vii. that it may be regarded.. 1 . A s h e h a d done.. 19.. 82. . LIGHT 16 origin.2 1 . a n d ac­ cordingly h e prayed mightily to God for her.. 28. 25. 19. 2. so h a d they. 22. 1 2 .. 19 f.6 .. 1 3 . if nowhere else. viii. Ib. and is the standing epithet of Reuben to connect him with the Mystery (Som. While m u c h of this ideol­ ogy is Jewish." But "Solomon" recognized that even so he could get Sophia only as a gift of G o d . it is die quality of a mystic capable of receiving alfteQioc. viii. viii. which latter word is so freely used by Philo for one compe­ tent to receive the Mystery.. 17. Ib. 14. was certainly not like ordinary men. 1 5 8 ) . vii. viii. iv. Wisd.1 2 . 20. Here. 102 Philo remarks: x6 evcpuec. Wisd. experience.. XLVIII (1929). 3 7 . Agr. 1 3 8 . I n another passage he ex­ plains that h e loved her from his youth u p a n d sought her for his bride. oo$(a. Sac.. Sac. T h e many pages that have been written to prove or disprove the connection of Sophia in this treatise with the thought of Philo would seem to have missed their decisive point. 176. It will be recalled that the perfection of the Patriarchs in the Mystery was most commonly indicated by the fact that they had become VOJJOI i\xty\JXoi. But "Solomon.. 1 . vii. I have tried to account for the similarity of the two traditions in my "Kingship in Early Israel. 38. a n d destiny. 2 3 . unmistakably enunciated. Ib. 64... 22.. viii.Q eoixev oodaEi... 98. 9 ... viii." if mortal in his constitu­ tion. a n d it is quite natural from what we have seen of Orphism a n d Isis that this formulation should appear before that of the Mithraic Powers. 26.1 7 .—TO u-ev ya. G o d is exhorted to send Sophia down from the throne of H i s glory to be Solomon's companion a n d guide. or specifically to receive Y\ alQLpioc. 169-205. 2 1 . 18. at least for Philo. Mut.. 120). Ib. ix. and in general of one fit for the Mystery (Mut. iii.. Ib.. T h e result is that h e has learned all the secrets of the universe. Hebrew speculation on Wisdom would be t h e easy starting point for 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 s 28 16. 24.. Ib. 68). 164f. 2 1 . Ib. its double entendre with the Greek vonoc qivpuxoc * obvi­ ous. TO 8e dxofj. Spec. T h e great prayer of "Solomon" is given. ix. 196. ajxeivov T O U Havftavovxoc. an idea we have found passim in Philo. ii. It is t h e formulation of the Jewish mystery according to the Female Principle.1 2 . a n d has become immortal. 1 7 . pp. viii. crocpia (Fug. 2 1 2 f...270 B Y LIGHT. Mut.

It is interesting in this earlier and less analytical list that Lot and Joseph were included. Wisd. 27. beneficent (eueoyetixov). vii. where more elaborately described in a later passage. I take it only as literary rroiKiXia that the Spirit. lover of man ((pddvftoawtov). As such she is said to be 29 80 D u t 81 32 88 84 thinking (voeoov). though Philo puts them at best much beneath the great exemplars. For some reason he is more impressed by the Stoic than by the Platonic parallel. 716D. Both of these are familiar as one of the special signs in Philo of the final mystic achievement. My own impression here is that the SpiritSophia is immaterial. i." W h a t is this Sophia. A t least they were all "saved by Sophia.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 271 assimilating the Female Principle. unfailing (daqpcAeg). 6. keen (6£u).. Holmes parallels both Plato (Laws. H e does not say that they all became vo|joi qivpuxoi. . be­ ginning as wind. fixed ((JePaiov). manifold (jtoXujxerjeg). vii. "marriage" with w h o m was so determining a factor in the lives of "Solomon" and the Patriarchs? Sophia is in the first place "Spirit. 1 8 . for that N a t u r e which is elsewhere abundantly specified as immaterial. Ib. In Stoic circles nvz\j\ia never lost its material association. inviolable (ajtYjuavtov). in philosophies that thought of ultimate reality as immaterial. 3 3 . came to betoken the immaterial quality of divine substance. ix. 1 7 . In the Hellenistic Jewish and Chris­ tian literature it becomes complicated by its obvious association with the H e b r e w ruah. all powerful (jtavTo5uvauov). unique in kind (\iovoyzv£c). as in Philo. In a given passage there is often litde appeal for its meaning beyond the reader's impression. lover of the good ((pdayaftov).. Wisd. 3 1 ." TTveuua.. pure. as 29. rrveuua itself was so often even in that connection described with its material attributes that in itself it presents one of the most baffling problems of late Greek and early Christian terminology. t 30. fine (KETCXOV).." and became "friends of G o d " and "prophets. care-free (dfxeouxvov). 32. in spite of the verbal difficulties. T h e attributes of the nvsuna within Sophia are obviously intended to be the attributes of Sophia herself. and especially fine. unchecked (dxcotarrov). clear (ocupeg). 6 ]ikv acoqpocov {te(p (plXoq) and a Stoic dictum in Philodemus (SVF. iv. unpolluted (duokuvtov). it is natural that others should have said so from what he wrote." specifically the Patriarchs from A d a m to Moses. is said to be "in" Sophia. It is implied that "Solomon's" experience is one typical of that of all m e n who have "gained knowledge of God's counsel. holy (Syiov). Wisd. 1 1 2 4 ) . mobile (eiixivYrrov). 22 f. 34. ii. all surveying (jcavejtiaxojtov). as they appear to be in the iconographical tradition. lucid (roavov). It is interesting to take these words and to try to trace out their origin. Since Sophia is defi­ nitely herself nveOua. Ib. one that spreads out through all spirits that are thinking. ix. while it was freely used. that mysterious conception of the late Greeks which.

She is then light. a n d N e o Platonic thought seems certainly what the author has in mind. Sophia is herself an effulgence from ever­ lasting Light (ajrauyaona 4>OJTOC diSiou). image. Philonic. fine. 10. b u t only a r ^ t c T/jc TOU 0 £ o u Suvdjjecjc Kal d r r o p p o i a TVJC TOU navTOKpcrropoc. inviolable. As such she is the Orphic novoy£v£c. to be descriptions of Sophia as light. her beam is sleepless (dKoi|jy)Tov TO £K TauTV)<. Ib. clear. F o r it appears in vii. 4>£YYOC. Wisd. Stoic as many of the terms may be. 42. TO acpftaQTOV qpcoc. vi. §6£y)c eiAiKpivvjc. "unique in k i n d . as in Philo the Stoic details are subordinated to the God. For such a Sophia. does appear in xviii. vii. mobile. 41. Ib. though that term does n o t appear. t h a t one of the most important contrasts between Sophia a n d ordinary light is that ordinary light can fade 86 37 38 8 9 40 41 away. I see no point in the fact that there are twenty-one titles here.. but in connection with Law. she is the Light-Stream from God's glory. b u t at least it is apparent that behind Sophia is a God w h o is the source of an effulgence that can be compared to breath or a Light-Stream. Holmes's "alone in kind. She is something anterior. vii. Ib. 36." N o t h i n g here would justify the assertion that the SuvajJiq 0£ou is an antecedent of the Powers of Philo. and into others it is easy to read ideas from other philosophies. 29. Ancient writers introduced numerological speculation often enough without our forcing it upon them. an £IKGJV. but n o t in the sense of physical light which fades. unpolluted." The word never meant "only born" except when used with such a word as "son" or "daughter. vii... Himself utterly different from the G o d of Stoicism.. LIGHT 85 has often been done by editors. She is radiant and unfading (\a\inpa Kal d f j d p a v T o q ) . yet the author does not want to have her confused with physical light. a n d as such she reflects to m e n as in a mirror H i s £ v £ p y s i a . She is fairer than the sun a n d superior to t h e stars. 37. 4. n p o T e p a . instead of light. T h e Stoic associations of many of them are striking. T h e "immaterial light" familiar in Gnostic. b u t indeed upon comparison with light she is found to be something anterior. whence Sophia with these qualities emanated. w h o would have been the ultimate Deity of Stoicism." and then the combination meant rather "only son" than "only born" . not Goodrick's "singly born.. 26. Yet she is to be chosen dvTl $CJTOC. 29.272 i5Y LIGHT.). 38. Accordingly I would understand t h e words already quoted.. of H i s goodness. 1 2 . and very likely from a different writer." is certainly the right meaning here and elsewhere. 25. 10. is very interesting. Indeed. 39. "the breath of the power of God a n d the clear effulgence of the Glory of the Almighty. F o r our purpose it is sufficient to find that this Sophia-spirit is a concept with these striking divine qualities. Sophia is certainly a light emanation. a n d then to enquire what such a list of quali­ ties implies as to the concept of Sophia that lies behind them. 42 35. Such must be the fundamental thought of Sophia. 40. It could only with uncertainty be brought over to apply here to Sophia. Editors have made this number a standard comment. lucid. vii. is here not the ultimate deity. Ib. This last word.

T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 273 W e are again reminded of Philo by the fact that she is unchanging (PePaioc). Albinus (Alcinous). 105.. T w o pas­ sages seem to refer to a L a w of Sophia. Ib. But in the first half of the book. It is thus not surprising to find Sophia closely identified with the giving of a higher L a w .. 49. F o r that God made all things by H i s W o r d is something Jews h a d been saying for years without meaning by the " W o r d " this effluent Stream. H e r e Wisdom shows us the early stage where the enrichment of thought made through the term Logos seems to be only beginning. in spite of the distinctively Greek conception in the adjective a^GapTov. be sent to h i m "because I a m . 44. See note 4 1 . p.. T h e Logos of G o d is being identified with Sophia.. i. Ib. b u t here the identification is timid a n d tentative. Test. xviii. though here it throws more light upon the word Logos than Sophia. Levi. has bid h i m build the temple "in imitation (|Jiuy)|ja) of the holy tabernacle which 48 49 50 or "only begotten son. It would be daring to claim for this phrase. 1 . T h e first of these is in the prayer of "Solomon" for the gift of Sophia. 1.. " which was given to the race of m e n ." 47 T h e identification is complete. a n d sharp ( o £ d a ) . 12. ix. 5. 4. xiv. though later the masculine Logos was often preferred. 46. where the written T o r a h could not have been understood.. Ps. the throne-mate of God. Ib. 22. Y\ navrcjv TCXVITIC. Prov. the indication is much more plain that Sophia brings to m e n an immediate impartation of the L a w . a n d her function of holding the universe together a n d ruling it. It is in connection with creation that the parallelism shows her to be identical with God's Logos: 48 44 45 46 " W h o makest all things by (£v) thy Logos A n d foundest m a n by T h y Sophia. ix. 7.was a light to the feet. 1 . Ib. etc. viii." On the Orphic usage see above. . 4. "the incorruptible light of the L a w . 47. in spite of his inadequacy for the task. which is the voOc of God. . vii. TOU Geou OTIOTKIM^C). viii. more than the familiar Jewish notion that the written L a w . the part w e are drawing upon exclusively for the Sophia doctrine. herself initiated into t h e wisdom of G o d (JJUOTIC Tyjc. 4. 50. 1 1 8 . It would seem that it was through the Sophia conception that Jews first introduced t h e Stream into their religion. 2 3 . 45. as does her role of being God's creative agent. T h e Stream never ceased to be the Sophia. vi. T h e L a w is referred to in the latter part of Wisdom in connection with a phrase already mentioned. cxix. Wisd. Introduc­ tion. 48. 43. Ib. makes her further like the Logos-Sophia of Philo. Wisd. .." G o d has made h i m king. inferior in understanding of judgment a n d laws. xix. H e prays that Sophia. "Solomon" goes on. T h a t she is voepa. above.

1 2 . Ib.. Baruch. Only with her presence and help can "Solomon" hope to be acceptable in his deeds and in his judgments. And all Sophia is the fulfilling of the Law. H e that taketh hold of the Law findeth Sophia. xv. and when she comes to him she gives h i m L a w . 20.. Cf. This cannot be a reference to any written Law. And love [of her] is the keeping of her Laws. Concern for her instruction is love [of her]. vi. LIGHT 51 T h o u hast prepared in advance from the beginning. 9—iv. 1 7 .1 9 . All these things [of Sophia] are the book of the covenant of God most High The Law which Moses commanded as an heritage for the assemblies of Jacob. the keeping of her Laws leads to a change into an incorruptible nature.. 57 55 56 H e r e Sophia is given as a result of obedience to the written Torah. See Box and Oesterley. T h e formulation is not exactly that of Philo.274 B Y LIGHT. Sophia comes down and tells the person especially en­ dowed with her inspiring company what are the Laws of God in a way not otherwise revealed. 52. which brings one near to God. 8. T h e L a w given by Sophia in Wisdom is a totally different thing. 305 f. O n e has only to glance at a normative Jewish work like Sirach to see the contrast. 4. ix. 1 . and so is given Sophia. All Sophia is the fear of the Lord. xix.. 9. 55. Ib. She certainly does not pre­ sent h i m with a roll of Torah. . 23. ix. ix. which leads to love of Sophia. 5 3 . especially iv. Ib. Wisd. Sirach. but the conception is basically identical. O n e begins with desire of Sophia's instruction. and there can be no doubt that the Laws are mystic revelations rather than the statutes of the T o r a h . 1 . Ib. 54. In the one case the m a n begins with obeying the written Law. which in turn leads to the keeping of her Laws (apparendy those first learned by her "instruc­ tions"). And incorruption brings one near to God. 56. I.. as she always is in normative Judaism." T h e only way in which "Solomon" can hope to fulfil this obligation is for God to help him by sending down Sophia to him. iii. Ib. And adherence to [her] Laws is the assurance of incorruption (dcpdaQaia).. 54 T h e steps here are those of a mystic ladder of L a w . Apoc. xxiv. 58.. and Pseud. for she was present with God at Creation and knows what is pleasing to God and what is right in H i s Laws (TI ZXJQIQ ev svToAalc oou) . in the other he prays God for Sophia. T h e second passage seems just as clearly a reference to Laws which can only be learned through the mystic association with Sophia: 52 53 For the beginning is the truest desire for her instruction. 58 5 1 . 57.

" T h e Orphic male-female deity was also the source of legislation. H e n o w says that the Israelites when in the desert also experienced death. Hopfner. such as the similarity to the Logos-Sophia of Philo in her relation to the beginner and mystic. 59 60 61 62 63 64 H e conquered the Anger. T h e relation which this L a w given by Sophia bears to the Torah is not suggested in Wisdom. Sophia is here definitely a streaming Light from God to reveal to the mystic the true L a w of God that alone can make the recipient kingly. 59. p. But the W r a t h did not long continue. is also the giver to m e n of higher civilization a n d the one w h o gave them law in place of u(3pic. 18 f. T h e author has been speaking of the destruction of the Egyptians. 60. 63. Indeed in the official description of Isis it is said "I a m Isis the queen of every region the one edu­ cated by H e r m e s . Diodorus. I n general the second part betrays no such fundamental similarity to the Mystery of Philo as does the first part. But by Logos did he subdue the Chastiser. and brings svvouia. But enough has been said to warrant assuming that Wisdom shows the Mystery in one of its earlier and most fascinating stages. above pp. the goddess of justice. 20. 62. In recollection of the oaths and covenants of the Fathers. The Orphic deity is 'Q'eau. not by the force of arms. 120. not by strength of body. Isis. He stood between and cut off the Wrath And obstructed his [the Wrath's] path to the living. Other details could be added. many details of which are suggestive of Philo. Realencyclopaedie. See above. I. IX.. 64. 1 7 . is a reference to t h e traditional Jewish L a w as cer­ tainly as the two passages we have been discussing are not. the great Stream of loving and protecting life to m e n a n d the universe. especially of the plagues in Egypt. 2 1 1 9 . 106.. But the two types of the L a w seem definitely present in the book: for ii. 61. For references see Roeder in PW. x. p. But a few details are striking. T h e second part of Wisdom has almost no mention of Sophia. her identification with the pillar of fire that led the Israelites. Wisd. It has already been noted in connection with the discussion of the Mystery of A a r o n that Wisdom k n e w this Mystery. 11. for it was opposed by a blameless (anenrrroc) m a n . 12.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 275 As to the origin of this conception I feel that the Female Principle is again the ultimate source. Fontes. For when the dead were now fallen in heaps upon one another. xviii. Wisd. 27. and whatsoever I have legislated (£VO[io0£Ty]oa) these things no one can abrogate. 22 ff. SiKaioouvyj. This is in brief the "Mystery of Sophia" which "Solomon" proclaims.ocpoQOC. . As such she was Thesmophoros or Thesmothetis. It goes on with allegory of the Patriarchs.

but by the Logos. of the type most familiar in / / and / / / Maccabees. which seems to m e unquestionably to antedate Philo and Josephus. one that is certainly non-Philonic in origin. 2 2 . Wisd. Wisdom has been treated sufficiently for our purpose. which is to show from the various survivals of Hellenistic Judaism that Philo's mysticism is not by any means to be understood as his own invention. It is very interesting that Philo interprets the incident in the same way as Wisdom. xviii. But the passage. the Logos. as in the Assumption of Moses and in II Enoch. For it was sufficient merely to put the Wrath to the test [sc. Philo.276 B Y LIGHT. N o w when another Death Angel. one of the few places where we can check our impression that Philo's alle­ gory came to him already stereotyped. In the sec­ tion immediately preceding it was the Logos w h o in sharp personification slew the eldest sons of the Egyptians. T h e importance of Wisdom is the fact that it shows a definite and elaborate Mystery of Sophia. 66. intercedes and saves them by his mere exhibition. in presenting the Avenger with those robes to frighten him away. But I have not noticed anyone who has pointed out that Aaron. as committed to the Israelites in the oaths and covenants of the Fathers. or whatever he might be called. T h a t we should have had some survivals of a normative legalism in Hellenistic Judaism was to be expected from Philo's constant reference to the "literalists. that is in the priestly office.2 5 . Heres. .. Other groups were so concerned with the apocalyptic hope and imagery that the Mystery appears. 201. by presenting him with these symbols]. these were the things feared. Ib. T h e Mystery of Aaron has seemed to be a different mystic tradition in Judaism from the Light-Stream Mystery of the Logos-Sophia. is of the greatest value in showing h o w m u c h Philo is drawing upon a more ancient tradition. And thy magnificence was upon the diadem of his head. T h e 66 67 65. LIGHT For upon the robe that reached to his feet was the whole world. It seems clear to m e that the story of Aaron's interven­ tion is but an elaboration of the first statement that the Punisher was sub­ dued not by strength of body or force of arms.. But we have learned this also from the material we have thus far exam­ ined: there was definitely a Hellenistic Judaism. and is in all probability dis­ tinctly pre-Philonic in time. And the glories of the Fathers upon the carving of the four rows of stone. 67. presented him with the Logos. in only casual details. To these the Destroyer yielded. 65 Commentators have long recognized that this description of Aaron's robes was to be understood in the light of Philo's and Josephus' accounts of their significance. attacks the Israelites." by whom the mystic meaning he found in the T o r a h was rejected. xviii. whose orientation was in a strict regard for the letter of the Law. 1 5 . and whose chief glory was its observance.

There all oriental science was said to have been first taught by Abraham. a n d Plato as well as Aristode. Judaism in immediate contact with Iran developed the same apolo­ getic. pp.. 19 ff. VUI. at a stage apparently earlier than Philo's. was designed. But the Sophia is the Light-Stream. b u t the mystic Judaism w e are investigating. not Moses or Isaac and the Logos. a title strongly reminiscent of Philo's so-called Exposi­ tion.) rejects Schiirer's early dates for dates in the first century B.. XIII. a n d even H o m e r a n d Hesiod. Strom. a n d seems from what Clement says. The dates of these writings. 50 for the reference. pp. cit. xii. are included in these passages. quite the same fundamentally as Philo's Logos. for example (Religion des Judentums (1926). yet definitely in the same line of development. Ypa<p7\c. 67a 68 69 70 67a. Exposition of the Writings of Moses. to have been similar to it in method. and appears. op. Praep. 68. and Sophia as an equivalent of the Logos-Stream is by n o w so familiar in Philo himself that the concep­ tion of Sophia in Wisdom can be accepted as a predecessor of at least a large part of t h e Philonic Logos. the writ­ ings of Aristobulus and of Alexander Polyhistor. being addressed to Ptolemy. Other quotations. Schurer has listed them and discussed them. p. T h e fragments are taken from a great iiyrcho^K TYJC MGJUO£GJC. b u t so far there has been n o conception of Hellenistic Judaism in which they could take a natural place. Religion des Judentums (1926). Aristobulus addressed his work to Ptolemy V I Philometor. his philosophic interest included more than that single school. W e can see for ourselves that for h i m Pythag­ oras. like Philo's Exposition for Gentile readers. as Schurer indicates.7 5 . 69. especially Aristobulus. See Schurer.C. n. Wisdom has done still more. 196." But Schurer is entirely right in saying that even the fragments left us show that. 7 3 . F r o m these fragments w e g e t some highly important information.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 277 apocalyptists are important for their echoing ideas which associate themselves at once in our minds with the Mystery. . Evang. x. T h e r e are two main sources for this material. but which are obviously phraseologi­ cal reflections from a type of thinking about Judaism essentially foreign to their own. T h e book. or take them. W e do not need to stop even here. Socrates. though in an earlier stage than that which Philo reveals. V. it has shown us Mystic Judaism it­ self. I confess that Schiirer's arguments still seem to me the most convincing. have been widely challenged. so was writing approximately 160 B. T h a t is. for Christian forgeries. to have been dedicated to proving "that the Peripatetic philosophy was derived from the L a w of Moses and the other prophets. as Schurer has assigned them. See Bousset. xiv. Solomon and Sophia are the heroes. Wisdom has shown us not a mystic Judaism. Eusebius quotes h i m in two passages. as Schurer has indicated. Bousset. 97. 70. Others would make them much later. though certainty is impossible.C. while tradition is united in pronouncing Aristobulus an Aristotelian. 5 1 6 .. or at least some aspects of it. T h a n k s to Eusebius there are still pre­ served a number of strange fragments from the writings of very much earlier Hellenistic Jews.

was the creation of Light. 72. And some members of the Peripatetic school aave said that Sophia is appointed (U%EW t d ^ i v ) to be the lantern. Ib. Praep. H e has a considerable allegory of the number seven. is definitely taken out r o m its Jewish setting a n d equated with Sophia as the pagan Light-Stream. at least to a part of it. since from her all light proceeds. he is an eclectic filled with the idealism and ethics of the same schools as those which most influenced Philo. say that Sophia existed before heaven and earth. and that we received Gnosis of the Truth. T h e creation of the first day. But Aristobulus shows that it was indeed a long tradition efore Wisdom and Philo. l e source of all light and the guide of the individual. 7 1 . Indeed in what of his writings we have he seems more interested in Socrates a n d Plato than in Aristotle. the forgetfulness and evil] were abandoned on the true Seventh. one of our forefathers. This indicates that [we went away] from the forgetfulness and evil of the soul. T h e seven is a symbol of the logos in m a n . as aforesaid. through his logos. receive the higher Gnosis. T h e plants and animals of the cosmos revolve in a cycle of sevens. Another aspect of the Mystery also appears in Aristobulus' treatment of Sophia.. by which m a n has knowledge of things h u m a n and divine. If my understanding of the text is correct Aristobulus is saying that if m a n abandons the forgetfulness and evil of the soul he can. and more colored by Pythagoreanism. But fortunately w e are in a position here to check h i m . T h a t is. H e quotes at consider­ ate length an Orphic poem of great interest. 72 r h a t is. H e concludes his discussion of the week (the seven days) with the following passage: 71 Homer says: And on the seventh day we left the river Acheron. he says. . [and that] the aforesaid things [i. 10 f. 1 2 . Ev. the logos. which means Sophia.. the famous statement of Proverbs viii. for by followng her men can make themselves free from trouble (dtdQa/oi) throughout their ives. Further examination reveals that he also was a direct predecessor of Philo in his regarding Judaism as a Mystery. XIII. This is as clear a parallel to Philo's Mystery as could be desired.e. which agrees with what has been said /efore. Aristobulus show. H e admits that he has m a d e i m e changes in it.278 B Y LIGHT. LIGHT drew upon Moses for their doctrines. Eusebius. 2 2 . O n e does not k n o w ow much earlier than Aristobulus was the date of the first suggesting of this lentification. . 2 7 .1 5 . Still more of the Mystery does. xii. More clearly and beautifully did Solomon.

and mortal eyes Have only mortal eyeballs. The figures throughout seem to m e Pythagorean.. latterly proclaimed to his son Musaeus. xv. Let not the former fancies of thy mind Deprive thee of the blessed number ten. "Influence des Mysteres sur le Judaisme Alexandrin avant Philon. He Towers up above creation. V. He sits established in the brazen heavens." but that seems too sweeping. But thou. look only on creation's Lord.. N o mortal eye May pierce to Him. weak. but 78 he [Orpheus] appears to repent of his error in that he wrote the following: I speak to those who lawfully may hear: Depart and close the doors all ye profane. The phrase really means that one's preconceptions must not hold one back from perfection. introduces the same lines by saying: "Orpheus. introduced three hundred and sixty gods. But look unto the Word Divine. tread well The Road. Musaeus. The author of the Pseudo-Justinian Cohortatio ad Gentiles. XXXVH (1924). The material has been excellently analyzed by Lucien Cerfaux. and the other legitimate auditors (ol Xowtol Yvricrioi) concerning the one and only God. child of the bright moon. 76.Ti alcov "blessed number 1 0 " seems a bit strained until one looks at Iamblichus. not probed it. where it is stated that the Pythagoreans called the alcov the 10. and his conclusion is accordingly of litde value. Lend me thine ear. the Self-Begotten: all Begotten things arise from One. Stromata. . The intelligible sphere Of your own heart set straight. missing in the De Monorchia. To translate <piA. your most elaborate polytheist (jcotarfrEOTnTOc. xiv. too weak To see great Jupiter reigning over all. tjfxcov). says the author of the Pseudo-Justinian De Monorchia (ii). 75 76 74 73. appears in the Cohortatio. Cerfaux's article has merely touched the whole problem. I have inserted here two introductory lines from Cohort. One He is. 74. Sending both chilling wars and tearful griefs. This work of Orpheus. xv. and fix In Him your mind." The first distich. 59.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 279 for the same verses are preserved in apparently their original pagan form as a quotation from the tract Testamenta of Orpheus. 36-48 (cited hereafter in this chapter only as Cerfaux) where earlier literature is discussed." Museon. and the first teacher. ad Gent. which I am glad to be able to use. pp. Yet Him I cannot see. In t h e same passage t h e idea occurs that God JtEQiY^VTiTai the cosmos. Theologumena Arith. His treatment of Philo shows no sense of the material that could be marshalled. who was as one might say. Cerfaux calls this "Le Hieros Logos Juif. A few of the lines are quoted by Clemens Alex. yet He Himself sees all. 75. And other than the great King there is none. But he has incidentally suggested many interesting points. as a symbol of cosmic perfection. In the Jewish Mystery the leQoq X6yo$ was always the Scriptures. for clouds forever Gird Him round about. for I have truths to tell.. 1 2 3 . He from His goodness gives to mortals Evil.

Musaeus. Yet a Road leads to Him. with the new matter italicized for convenience: I speak to those who lawfully may hear: Depart. that one can recog­ nize as what must have been at the bottom of Mystic Judaism. child of the bright moon. as I have dared to trans­ late it. and fix In Him your mind. Let not the former fancies of thy mind Deprive thee of the blessed number ten. He from his store of good Ne'er * sends dire evil down to mortal men. He plants His feet On the broad earth. by Nous Alone discerned. tread well The Road. All else by Him made perfect. That God can be the cause of evil was. but permeating all creation with His powerful rulership. one that seems to me genuinely pagan. and stretches His right hand To all the ends of ocean. H e is invisible to mortals. and have regard to Him alone Who is the immortal Framer of the World: For thus of Him our ancient story speaks: One He is. . The reward is the perfection of the "dear aeon" possibly. for it is to God that their thought is sent up. God is the great Ruler of all." Aristobulus has certainly cut out the name of Zeus! H e has completely altered the fragment into a call to the Mystery of Moses.. 1 77. He yet Remains by mortal eyes unseen. Though He Is ever present in His works. admits that he has made some changes in them. It is the sort of paganism. N o w it must be recalled that Aristobulus. or of the K O O M O C voyproc. Who flee the ordinances of the just. all ye profane. 77 This fragment is in itself a very interesting Orphic piece. Many of these lines are taken from the translations of Dods and Reith. is interesting to see how Aristobulus has corrected' this passage to make it accord with *llenistic Jewish thought by inserting the negative. and close the doors. H e actually says that he has taken out from them "the name of Zeus which runs through the poems. 78. as we have seen. utterly beyond creation in His being. The law divine announced to all mankind. But look unto the Word Divine. and around Tremble the mountain ranges and the streams. for I have truths to tell. the number ten. LIGHT Upon His golden throne. frequendy denied by Philo. and of Gifford. The depths. Lend me thine ear. and for that reason I have so expressed it. too. The lines must be quoted in his new redaction. the Perfect in Himself. in quoting these verses. Direct your heart To the intelligible sphere. of the blue and hoary sea. But thou. or seven. however.280 B Y LIGHT. the Road of the Divine Logos.

on high heaven unmoved Sits on His golden throne. e l u i | u-owoYevrig Tig djtOQQO)| qriftou ovoaftev XaXSaicov. How He from heaven all things in order rules." with Moses at the head. XIII. and end. His right hand H e extends O'er ocean's farthest bou*id. But God. a Chaldee sprout unique from heaven: For he was skilled to mar\ the sun's bright path.. Ev. 81. but guard thy tongue With care. 5. since Abraham was not "only begotten" in any way. Here its sense of "unique" is obvious. are the sole revealers of the mystic doctrine of 79. The footsteps and the mighty hand of God Whene'er I see. xii. And how in equal circle round the earth The starry sphere on its own axis turns. Taught by the two-fold tablet of God's Law. So runs the story of the men of old. mean. T h e Patriarchs. the eternal hills Tremble in their deep heart. Himself a heavenly being In all respects. and plants His feet On the broad earth. He perfects earthly things.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS Both love and hatred wait upon His steps And war and pestilence and tearful grief: For there is none but Him. my son. so dense a cloud In tenfold darkness wraps our feeble sight. my Son. is again strikingly reminiscent of Philo's treatment of Abraham. at the end. So tells that man from Water born. a n d the teaching it embodied is ascribed to Moses. here present upon earth. Abraham. And is Himself beginning. Nor dare I otherwise of God to spea\: In heart and limbs I tremble at the thought. . And how the might of force-born fire shines forth. to teach nothing contrary to what Moses has learned from God a n d transmitted in the Torah. "Avcodev is more general than I have translated it. the " M e n of Old. The meaning of ( i o w o Y C v n g has already been discussed. I'll show them thee. Orpheus is regarded as having drawn his mystery entirely from Moses. and as having dared. b u t ever so slighdy. as the one w h o saw G o d ruling. Him as He rules no mortal could behold Save one. and store this doctrine in thy heart?* 19 80 281 A number of points at once become clear from this fragment. 80. It is notable that Aristobulus has taken out the bronze heaven. All other things 'Twere easy to behold. T h e Orphic ideology has been slighdy toned down. could'st thou but first Behold Himself. Draw near in thought. nor can endure His mighty force. Praep. But H i m I cannot see. And how the winds career o'er sea and s\y. in contrast.

234. 246. . 85. its technique could not be so assured. They had turned to philosophy. 83 84 85 86 82. T w o hundred years before Philo. in Philo's day. that the Orphic poems were full of adulation of the Jewish Patriarchs. when Judaism was consciously bor­ rowing pagan notions. T h a t is. Ib. simply assert that they had the true Mystery. Since they could not join the mysteries of paganism they were making a counterattack by claiming that Orpheus himself admitted that he could teach only as Moses had revealed the truth to him. in that his version of Judaism is not favored by those people "devoid of power and intelligence. " T h e Jew's trust is in the holy laws of the mighty G o d . Jews have so long regarded themselves as having the true Mystery that the crude paralleling of Moses and Orpheus is no longer necessary. Praep. lacking in the original. 82 Additional light is thrown upon the Mystery at the early syncretistic stage by the Sibylline Boo\s. and his happy anticipation is of a time when good law shall come to m e n from the starry heavens. In the early stage. Ib. m. Aristobulus has taught us a good many surprising things. all the essential features of the Mystery as Philo reveals it are to be found in Aristobulus. T h e Mystic element is not toned down. and even. and justified themselves in retaining their Jewish loyalty by insisting that an allegorical reading of the scriptures showed that Moses was the true source of all Greek philosophic lore.. 284. Even at this stage Aristobulus shows the same difficulty as Philo. x. that the true Judaism was the Mystic Road of the Logos to God. 84. 5. 373 8. They did not care what Orpheus or Isis taught because they had got beyond the early stages of assimilation. But by his day there is litde reference to the mysteries. T h e point of view of these books is fundamentally that of normative Judaism. and lawlessness be done away. They had also turned to the mysteries and regarded salvation as escape from the lower tendencies of the soul in a higher Gnosis through Logos. and explain it as revealed in the Torah. Jews could. Ev. especially to Plato and Pythagorean numerology. 86. rather the presentation of the account as a secret to be revealed only to Musaeus and those worthy to be associated with him is intensified by the closing lines.. But obviously we are on an earlier stage.282 B Y LIGHT." who cling to literal Judaism. if we may accept with Schiirer the traditional date. though they still were thinking along the same mystic lines as the pagan mysteries.. Jews had begun to transform their Jewish doctrine of Wisdom into the mystic doctrine of Sophia as the Light-Stream. VIU. Philo can and does insist that the philosophers learned from Moses." but that means in reality "fulfilling the command of the mighty G o d . LIGHT the Logos-Road to God. Ib. by implication. Sib. 83. T h e Jewish objective may be described in Greek terms as "practicing justice and virtue...

N o stone carver's hand did make Him. i . 90 87. but to a consider­ able extent definitely Orphic. for most of the genealogy of the gods.. moulded in His likeness (ev elxovi) why do you vainly wander and follow not the straight Road as ye bear always in mind the immortal Creator? God is One. Ib.. Indeed the terms are not only Greek. even here. and Pseud. It is obviously of Greek-Jewish origin. the heaven and the sea. The notion was derived from the fact that the first four letters of dvroXiT]. The literary form.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 87 283 So "let us all ponder the law of the Most High God. The Jewish reverence for the N a m e is stressed. and [iZG'r\\i$Qi'r\ spell Adam. springs and rivers. 686. unquenchable fire. 573 ff. the Road consists of bearing in mind the immortal Creator. nor does some model formed from gold or ivory by the varied skill of man represent Him. The rest of Greek mythology seems quite as much accepted. See the note ad loc. 89. (XQXTOCj. For who being mortal can gaze on God with his eyes? Or who could bear to hear even the mere Name of the mighty heavenly God who rules the world? Who by His Logos created all things. Behind it lies scriptural allegory of the Philonic type. a great many syncretistic features ap­ pear." But it is to be noted that. in Charles. 1 3 . 88. More important is the description of God early in the book. hath revealed Himself as One who is and was before. Yet creation is by the Logos. 88 Ye men who have the form of God. Ib. Svoic.. is included in the story of the early part of world history. H e is One ( e k EOT'. days and nights. look only on creation's Lord.1 5 8 . One is struck by the similarity to the original Orphic form of the poem which Aristobulus adapted.. the first man fash­ ioned. south and north. The acrostic reappears in / / Enoch. Ib. A most interesting section. 8-28. see also 11. as Geffcken points out ad loc. Apoc. in general after the model of Hesiod. who is described in purely Greek terms." says that poem. 90. as shown in the acrostic of the four letters of Adam's name. dwelling in the ether. Orphic. mighty mother Tethys. He too fash­ ioned the form of mortal men and made the beasts and things that creep and fly. granting that this book belongs basically to "normative" Judaism in its orientation about the Law. Each then goes on to describe that God. as ye have always in mind the immortal Creator?" asks the Sibyl. yea and shall be hereafter. is itself an acceptance by Jewish thinking of the Greek mythological figure. ineffable. dfc 0£oc e o n novapxoc. Himself eternal. He is the God who fashioned the tetragram Adam. the sole ruler. xxx. 89 The Sibyl turns to denounce Egyptians for their abhorrent worship of snakes and cats. the twin­ kling stars. (Sibyl). But He. "Tread well the Road. who completes in his name east and west. invisible Himself but seeing all things. (II Enoch) by Forbes and Charles. 7 1 9 . self-sprung. "Why do ye vainly wander and follow not the straight Road. putting the highest message of Judaism into the mouth of a pagan Sibyl. 1 0 5 . the tireless sun and the full moon. for the four names are rearranged in the Sibyl passage mctrica causa.

shows how. Orphic. the Orphic Light-Stream. Orphic. too weak to see God ruling over all ( n a o i v yap 0V/)TOIC 6v/)Tal Kopai elolv £v 00001c. H e sees all things" (ouS£ TIC a u T o v e i o o p a a OVKJTCJV. a u r o c hi Y£ r r a v r a c o p a T a i . says the Etymolog. being mortal.. T h e T h i r d Book of the Sibylline Oracles. 248. the Orphic poem has bid its initiates look unto the Aoyoc 0 d o c . adds the declaration of the eternity of God. fr. after the Jewish reference to idols. m." The JIQCOT6YOVOC. fr. where Orphic notions are put into accord with Stoic pan­ theism.) with which He hears and ponders all things (Kern. But the passage belongs to that type of Judaism represented by Aristobulus. is brought in by the Sibyl immediately in connection with the Jewish statement of the impossibility of one's bearing to hear the N a m e "of the great heavenly God w h o rules the world" (oupccviou [lzyaXoio 0eoO KOOUOV K p a r e o v r o c ) . For both Aristobulus and the Sibyl the true Road was the looking to a superficially Judaized version of the God of the Orphic mystery. If the Sibyl goes on to speak of creation by the Logos. Frag. it should be pointed out that here is met the device. "Invisi­ ble Himself.. was following a definite Orphic conven­ tion of description of G o d . In the Orphic poem recorded by Eusebius (Praep.) with his eyes. is so called. Sibyl).284 B Y LIGHT. 1 6 5 ) . is himself aHtec^J&aYKTOc. of going on to list the details of creation as a part of describing H i m . Sibyl). If the book is a compilation. T h e Sibyl. A fuller statement appears in the following (fr. Ether "crowns" God in fr. H e is "Self-sprung" ( a u T o y e v y j c . and was patently revising Orphic texts to m a k e Jewish mystic utterances. I Ye* V E T O ) . 248b. can gaze on God with his eyes?" (TIC yap 0V/)TOC ecLv KcrnSdv Suvcnrai 0£ov 0 0 0 0 1 c ) : the Orphic poem asserts "all mortals have mortal eyeballs in their eyes. $dvng. Mag. Kern. i v alft^Qi <pdvxoc. frg. LIGHT Sibyl). after such assertions about God. ix) from Porphyry. See Kern. a Judaism which was drawing heavily upon Orphic sources for i t s basic conceptions. if he did n o t have this very Orphic poem before him. "because he first became visible in ether" (JIQCOTOC. roaming in ether (fr. 91 Before leaving the T h i r d Book. e v e n with Jews still centering their lives in t h e L a w . All the others marvelled at seeing the unhoped for beam (cpeYYO?) the ether which streamed from the frame of immortal Phanes. T h a t it is an Orphic form of prayer or h y m n is clearly attested. the notion of G o d ruling over all. 86): "No one has ever seen the First Born (JIQCOTOYOVOC. is also Orphic. auT04>uyjc. except sacred Night alone. 87). God h a d Himself become a Mystic conception. Orphic. doponroc opuuevoc a u r o c arravra. God as &ft£a<paTOc. H e like Aristobulus is m a k i n g Jewish changes and insertions. 248b. T h e last phrase. the ether is God's mind (voiic. do0ev£ec 8' 18 d v Ala TOV TTGCVTUV u e S e o v r a ) . . fr. There can be no question at all that the Sibylline forger. 7 5 ) . W i t h this device we shall have frequent meeting. 168). m 92. Frag. if it can be taken as a unit. (Kern.. the same 92 91. Ev. then goes on to ask "For who. God as "dwelling in the ether" (ald^Qi vaicov) is to be paralleled with the fact that the Orphics thought that the ether surrounded the universe (Kern.

. Do ye not tremble now And fear God. led by the m a n in "linen garment. 257 ff. Noted by M. pp. Text and meaning are both uncertain. Terry. Welt (1897)." as Lanchester takes it. it is questionable whether YVUOTY] should be understood as simply "the familiar friend. they are to receive incorruptible life ( a $ 0 i T o c <£|J>(3ioT£uav). Himself 92a. A m a n clad in linen is to lead the Egyp­ tians to the true worship in the n e w temple in Heliopolis. H i m who watches over you." is to supplant Isis as the future religion of Egypt. Almighty and invisible. Sib. F o r our purpose the only verses of interest are those which connect the Sibyl with Isis. T h e Fifth Book is regarded by editors as predominantly of the Second Century after Christ. T h e first frag­ m e n t is worth quoting entire: 93 Ye mortal men and fleshly. unborn." I n either case the Sibyl is closely allied with Isis. As the converts h y m n the incorruptible God. 1899. Quoted in Terry's translation: M. The One who is most high. Judaism. S. How quickly are ye puffed up. the One who knows. Granting the text. while the Judaism of each part is sufficiendy attested. I n line 53 the Sibyl is "IciSoc Y\ YVCJOT/J. Yet the fact that the Sibylline form of utterance is used suggests that it belongs to the syncretistic school. and which are very interesting. Friedlander. or "the one initiated into the gnosis. with dignity and sorrow. who are naught. IV. as the inevitable concomitant of the triumph of the religion of the immortal G o d . and contains some Christian traces. The all-observant witness of all things All-nourishing Creator. and a warning to men to cease their strife a n d recognize God. p. 93. 8. and the complete rejection of sacrifices a n d temples marks its Judaism as dubiously normative.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 285 is true of the Judaism of the compiler. Neither legalistic nor mystic elements appear to identify the work with either main branch of Judaistic thought in the Diaspora. 24 ff. 0£oc a<t>0nroc. seeing not The end of life. Who rules alone. The Sibylline Oracles. T h e Fourth Book is exclusively a list of the woes that have come upon past civilizations. supremely great. N e w York. 9211 Besides these three books. who has put In all things His sweet Spirit and has made Him leader of all mortals? God is one.. there are two important Sibylline Fragments that seem certainly Jewish. 58. But at the close of the book (lines 484-503) the end of Isis and Sarapis is mentioned. Judentum im vorchrisU grieck. and give H i m sacrifices there.

And mournful cares. the end of life. but not seen Is he himself by any mortal flesh. And ye in self-conceit and madness walk. come. The self-existent unbegotten one Who rules all things through all time. by a description of the nature of God. rules earth. Lo. who sends forth rains and winds. reverence ye him. Who alone is forever and has been From everlasting.286 BY LIGHT. Again we are in the Orphic atmosphere of the Third Book. For ceasing the true and eternal God To glorify. For what flesh is there able to behold With eyes the heavenly and true God divine. dealing out Unto all mortals in a common light The judgment. But why do I thus speak them one by one? He guides heaven. treasuring Wisdom in your hearts. O ye foolish mortals. Instead of beginning with a denunciation of men for not having followed the Road by gazing upon God. one who knows and cares for all things. Himself exists. H e is again Creator. he is clear to all And cannot err. LIGHT Alone beholding all things. cease Roving in darkness and black night obscure. Now. H e is . and storms of snow. Existing but as veins and flesh on bones. The author probably has the Road in mind for it appears further on. And the merited reward Of evil counseling shall ye receive. ye made your sacrifice Unto the demons that in Hades dwell. the sweet-looking light Of the sun shines with a surpassing glow. and it is con­ spicuous that. and lay hold Upon the Light. Who has His habitation in the sky? Not even before the bright rays of the sun Can men stand still. and ice. this fragment opens with a similar denunciation because men have not kept their eyes on the $[ou TLXOQ. straightforward path Ye went away and roamed about through thorns And thisdes. the ideas are definitely conventionalized. and holy hecatombs To offer Him. unless we have documents mutually dependent. And having left the true. And leave the darkness of night. know ye That God is one. men who are mortal born. This denunciation is followed as in the Third Book and the Orphic original of Aristobulus. Lo. do not always chase Darkness and gloom. Him who alone is ruler of the world.

we know. fr. T h e Right Straight Road is thus the Road of the Light. while in the Orphic poem Zeus is 6 nav-rcjv neSeuv. Further the mystic suggestion of the Spirit as the Guide of mortals is not Stoic T h e nvcupa seems here a variant of the Ophic OavKjc. 27: Kern. God H i m ­ self (as Light) is clear ( o a ^ / j c ) to all. Rom. 5: Kern. Homil. also appears below. O n e also recalls the Orphic couplet: "Men complete all things through the mighty help of the immortal God. through the wise impulse of the Spirit. T h e darkness one must leave and instead seize the Light. VI." One's instant reaction is to suggest "Stoic influ­ ence. XC&EI: Clem. a darkness. H e "alone rules. De Trinitate. while the whole plan of the poetic fragment is in general only a metrical variant of the Orphic original of Aristobulus. h o w could h u m a n eyes see God w h e n they cannot even gaze upon the sun? T h e implication that God is a light brighter than the sun is war­ ranted by what follows. and giving sacrifices and honors to God. again elaborated with reference to the weakness of h u m a n eyes of flesh. which would seem probably a reference to Isis. See above. F r o m God Himself the poem goes on to mention H i s manifestations." "God has put his sweet nveujja in all things and made it the leader of all mortals. M e n are given their trial in common light (£v $ai k o i v c j ) . 1 3 4 ) . the sweet light of the Sun (which is certainly here God. But the Orphic P h a n e s . the rain and wind and the rest. Orpheus calls the divine spirit Phanes.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 287 One. T h e Stoics did not invent the word Trveupia. as that identification. Instead of meeting this test. . £r. is here a y £ v y ) T o c instead of a u T o $ u v ) c or a u T o y e v y j C . Didym. O n this an interesting variant appears in the form of the question. W i t h this are two other new elements. shows that the idea is still purely Orphic. The date is indeterminable. 340. Such wandering was to leave the right Road (6p0y) T p i p o c £ U 0 e i a ) ." 94 95 96 In spite of the fact that oo$6c appears here.. As we treasure Sophia in our hearts we may /(now. ov $ a v n T a 'OQCPEUC." and is the navTOKpdnrup." and perhaps that explanation is the true one. N e w in emphasis is the facr that the Road is the Light of God in contrast to the common light of the sun. and I do not recall a case where the one God of all is said by Stoics to have put his Spirit into all things.. the people have strayed to the worship of chthonic demons. Alexandri. as before were mentioned H i s creatures. 96. though a u T o y s v y j c . T h e second Sibylline fragment of importance for us is the third fragment 94. dis­ cussed above. T h e familiar a o p a x o c opcjucvoc a u T o c anavxa reappears. was made by the Orphics. II. 95. though perhaps to the Orphic Persephone or Demeter.. oo$\a seems in the Sibyl the Hellenistic Jewish 00$ia. God is Himself the Spirit in Stoicism. to rove in darkness. the "sweet spirit" and "Sophia. 56 (p. not the sun already mentioned as similar to but beneath God) shines out in a way that surpasses everything (££oxoc). fteiov Jtveufxa. But it has no certainty. note 91.

LIGHT in Geffcken's edition. T h e Road itself appears to be Orphic. Memory is sharply personified as the inspiration of man's powers of praising God. God is in contrast Life (£uy|). For the end of the Road is Paradise. t h e All Ruler. So m e n must follow the Road (rpiPoc) and forsake idolatry with its dire end. Kern. H e rewards the good a n d punishes t h e bad. 129. xaiQE. The "Well on the Left" of the Orphic Tablets would most naturally be Forget­ fulness in contrast to Memory. 5. and is struggling to return to its former state." I n Orphism this seems to have represented the journey of the soul which belongs origi­ nally to the Y^VOC oA3iov. It is notable that in Philo. It is not sufficiently important to be quoted entire. d. 15). Plant. XaiQ<8>. The whole conception of "memory" as a means of mystic achievement might well have come to Plato from Orphism. T h e Road. fr. 8e£idv 68oUbOQ<c6v>: Kern. dwell ever in Para­ dise feasting on sweet bread from the starry heaven. T h e doctrine of the two ways as being the choice between light a n d dark­ ness. in Charles' Apoc. a n d joy sweeter than honey upon men. It will be recalled that in the Myth of Er. 100. for those w h o fear God inherit eternal Life. 8) and Deuteronomy (xxx.. One recalls the Platonic "Recollection" of the Phaedo. the souls drink of the waters of Indifference in the plain of Forgetfulness. w e have a n exhortation. and those w h o drink forget all things (Rep. Hence one must not deify cats and brute beasts (Kvci&aAa). or any such like objects. While these "gods" pour out only poison upon their worshippers. w e have seen. to for­ sake idolatry a n d choose t h e true Road that leads to t h e O n e G o d of t h e Streaming Light. fr. Only as one retains his pristine knowledge of x d vorixd can he adequately praise God. This well is a flowing source to quench 97 98 99 100 97. I n general it begins like t h e others with a description of God as the One. and is thus restored to the personality he was. Plato's whole doctrine of "Reminiscence. however. and the Creator of the most elaborately listed parts of the universe. Then they are ready for reincarnation. the blessed race. 621a). I n other tablets what seems to be the same experience is a matter of avoiding coming to t h e well on t h e left a n d reaching instead t h e well of Memory o n the r i g h t . that is. and Pseud. See the note by Forbes and Charles ad loc.. 99. appeared in / / Enoch. the "Well on the Right. after Jewish-Orphic lines. Again.288 B Y LIGHT. 15. 98. xxx." The soul trying to get back to heaven would try to drink from "Memory. spider-webbed idols. T h e idea was probably originally Orphic. 3 2 c. T r u e the doctrine of the two Roads is traced in Judaism back to Jeremiah (xxi. and H e pours out eternal Light incorruptible. So it tries to get away from the wheel a n d come through to the mystic goal. or moth eaten. f. 3 2 ." and the notion of memory as the help . serpents." in contrast to the drink of Forgetfulness that preceded incarnation. immediately in connection with t h e acrostic of Adam's name already mentioned as belonging to the group of ideas w e are considering as Orphic-Judaism. Again H e dwells in the ether. T h e very early golden plates of Orphism made it important that one "journey o n t h e right. The significance of this "Well of Memory" may be that the person is at last given full recollection of his former state. after the souls have chosen their lots and the Fates have sealed them in those lots. is also given important emphasis in the Orphic original of Aristobulus.

in Eusebius. seems pos­ sibly to suggest a mystic tendency. des jiid. 1 4 1 . T h e material he quotes was obviously regarded by Eusebius as at least of second-century origin. xxiii. Theodotus. Clem. however. T h e content of Cleodemus' volume can hardly be judged by this fragment. Incidentally the Orphic Road appears strikingly in the same myth (Rep. 104. wrote one book about the Jews. the ancestor of the Sophacians. a n d that Hercules married the daughter of one of these sons. of the time of Ptolemy I V (222-205 B. Clem. 102. seem direcdy in the line of the Mystery. I. IX. Strom.. I n it h e relates that the sons of A b r a h a m by Keturah helped Hercules in his fight against Libya a n d Antaeus. H e drew for his material largely from Greek-Jewish writers.. IX. cit. 240 f. among a great number of books on the geography a n d history of various countries. T h e sources of Alexander show the same discrepancies as those already described. Taken thence by Eusebius in Praep. Alex. Other sources quoted by Alexander. of whose date we k n o w only that he antedates Alex­ ander Polyhistor.C. Strom. was what Clement calls "the poet of Jewish tragedies.. of w h o m w e k n o w only that he antedated Alexander. . The author was probably also a Samaritan. 1 5 5 : 6 'E^exiTiXog 6 x w v 'Iovfiatxcov TQavcpSuDV jtoiTixri?. Eusebius. where the Road and the Stream seem interchangeable figures for spiritual ascent. xxix. 1 . Cleodemus or Malchus. Josephus. op. where G o d is the Stream of Light which m e n approach by the Road. only a single brief fragment r e m a i n s .. op. 1 5 3 . xxx-xxxiv.. See Schurer. seems to have been a Samaritan and not to bear upon our problem. seems to have come from this Orphic notion. IX.. Schurer.. a n d by her h a d a son Sophron. 103.. Antiq. Strom. but apparently still "literalist" in its point of view. An anonymous fragment in Eus. IX. xviii. Eusebius. Gesch. cit. xxii. For from him. I still agree with Schiirer in seeing no good reason for doubting the tradition.) wrote a "literalist" chronology." H o w many tragedies he wrote we do not know.. 621c). pp. Alex. Eupolemus wrote in the middle of the Second Century a more embellished account. Ev. xxiii...T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 289 spiritual thirst. as well as the imagery of this last Sibylline Fragment. b u t at least w e can see that he was writing as one w h o saw a definite relation between Greek a n d Jewish stories. III (1909). Demetrius. xxvi. xx. Praep. 619b. though some­ what from Greek opponents of the Jews. Alexander. Volkjes.3 . I. Another great source of knowledge about pre-Philonic Hellenistic Judaism is the group of fragments taken by Eusebius from Alexander Polyhistor. 101. shows interest in the con­ nection of the Patriarchs with astrology. of the early First Century B. the poetic historian. 481. p. Ezekiel. a n d indeed his text as quoted by Eusebius is largely a series of such quotations. but nothing definite can be said of h i m . xxi. 105. xvii. a n d is suggestive of the imagery of Philo. Ev. 472 ff. IX. H e was also literalistic in his treatment. xxi... xvii. for all of the quotations in 101 102 103 104 105 to Mystic achievement. Ev. Praep. I.C. I. another writer quoted by Alexander.

Ib. 55 has some interesting remarks upon the solar mysticism of the vision. F r o m this seat the entire cosmos was opened to Moses' view. O n e recalls Philo's description of the ascent of Moses. In the incident of the bush. the great king. God. 106 W h e n Moses was in exile in Midian he had. G o d explains to Moses that as a mortal he cannot see H i s face. cbtavft' 107. the regions under the earth. and future. according to Ezekiel. In royal state and learning nurtured m e . 441a. to make which possible the great K i n g Himself de­ scended. i n . and the heavens above. Cerfaux. T h e stars come in a great host to do obeisance at his knees. in which Moses' supreme moment was when he was united with the heavenly beings and bodies in the great hymn of the cosmos to G o d . a marvel­ ous vision. op. 6 5 dito ajiXdvxvcov eaW. Xoyoc. Indeed the K i n g even gave Moses H i s diadem a n d sceptre. b ) .. H e seemed to see on Sinai a great throne reaching to heaven upon which was a m a n of noble countenance wearing a diadem and holding a sceptre in his left hand. cit. 440c. p. with vision of the past. As he counted them he a w o k e . See above. as Cerfaux has pointed out. Moses' nature is taken u p to associate itself with the nature of the stars. Eusebius. and the idea is. The Exodus. Ev. . with H i s right hand.. H e r e is unmistakably the divine kingship of Moses set forth. the judge and guide of mortals. H e had. chap. present. beckoned Moses to come a n d take H i s place on the throne. H e is in the place of G o d ! H i s father-in-law interprets the dream for him. W e have not left the Orphic atmosphere at all. Ezekiel has indeed shown us a mystic origin for Philo's kingship of Moses. IX. LIGHT the Alexander fragments are from a single play. a royal education: The princess then through all my boyhood years. T h e conception of G o d has come directly from Orphic sources. xxix (440a-c). T h e fire in the bush is the Divine Logos shining out upon h i m : 107 108 109 110 6 V £K (3drou 001 QdoQ eKAdunxi 106. As I had been a son of her own womb.. but must only listen to the words. Praep. though Moses is being assimilated into the conception as not even Aristobulus had done. 109. says Ezekiel. I n the frag­ ments we have a portrait of Moses that strikingly supports the mystic Moses. according to Ezekiel. the astral mystery of Egypt. pp. 108.290 B Y LIGHT. TQOcpaiai PaaiAixaiai x a l JtaiSevnaoav vmoxvvfo'. except that it is n o w placed on Sinai. a kingship not only over m e n but over the entire cosmos. is exactly the divine throne we have met in the Orphic fragment. 111 Eusebius.. the circle of earth. T h e throne. as described by Ezekiel. explaining that it means h e is to be a great king. It is quite to be expected that the symbolic representation of Moses with the heavenly bodies should reappear in the iconography. no. xxviii (438a. 196 f. Ib. For.

while his teaching the priests the hieroglyphics led them to n a m e h i m Hermes. 118 T h e account goes on to describe h o w h e divided Egypt into nomes. 1 3 . Poimandres. Lucian. . if not. 1 5 (Fontes.. and machines for laying stones. 1 1 7 . Juvenal.. 26-28. 1 7 (Fontes. 114 115 116 117 1 1 2 .. Diodor. H e tells us that Moses was called by the Greeks Musaeus. and when h e h a d grown u p h e taught m e n many things. w h o were also given their special districts. H e was the teacher of Orpheus. 1 1 4 . 349. I. III. H e it was w h o invented the priestly writing. Moses' measures were so popular that h e was beloved by the people. CCLXXVII. IV. 209. Claudianus. likewise of the Second Century B. 4. Satirae. III. 96). Fabulae. that w e may reasonably suppose that the tragedies of Ezekiel were actually performed. HI. IX. Because of his popularity the Egyptians as a race adopted circumcision from h i m . Silvae. P. and Egyptian arms. tells us still more of the Orphic elaboration of Moses a n d brings in for the first time specifically Egyp­ tian motifs. These are striking details to find in a work that is traditionally dated in the Second Century before Christ. 49. It seems also important that Jews were so hellenized by that date that they were using Greek dramatic forms. 282. with its proper priests. Sic. Papinus Statius. V. 1 1 5 . that is the Egyptian Tat-Hermes. Plutarch. Ev. 1 1 3 . and contrivances for irrigation and for war. De Isid. and that at the burning bush h e met the Divine Logos. Eusebium. But here w e have it unmistakably that Moses was the great king w h o ruled as from the throne of God. 7 1 9 ) . Reitzenstein. and not without reason. I. Cassiodorus. Investigation has led m e to add Osiris. XII. All this. 101 f. in connection with the Jewish Mystery. Artapanus. xxvii. Osiris gave the Egyptians their laws and taught them the worship of the g o d s . Cf. it is explained. 54. 181 f. 2. 5.. w h o did the same thing. and honor h i m as a god.. was to m a k e the k i n g of Egypt for the first time secure in his rulership. 112 For he invented ships. Navig. H e thinks. and established a god for each nome. If Moses was the inventor of ships. V. De Isidis Navigio. dramatic presentation. and he invented philosophy. Praep. (Fontes II. n.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 291 T h e rest of the poem as Eusebius has preserved it is only a free treatment of the details in Exodus. a n d to H o r u s or H e r m e s . p. III. 3 1 4 ) . Ap. Cerfaux has pointed out that in m a k i n g Moses the giver of all inventions Artapanus has made h i m recognizably parallel to Isis.C.. ii. Hyginus Mythog. rightly takes this Second Century refer­ ence to the Egyptian Hermes as evidence for the early date of the Hermetic tradition. 1 1 6 . For the parallels are indeed striking. Isis was the inventor of sails. to set forth their traditions. as is probable. 595. a n d the patroness of sailing a n d sailors. Cerfaux has paralleled the drama of Ezekiel with the mystery drama of Adonis written by Philopator. like those of Philopator.

z. 155 ff. T h e sugges­ tion seems to me interesting but not quite warranted. 5. In addition he makes two references to "the Initiates" (01 uuorai) who had an account of Moses.. he uses it only as a miraculous charm. in w h o m all the virtues of the others were concentrated. he wrote it on a tablet and sealed it up. 724. 85. 29 ff. Ib. where he had learned the name of God. Osiris established the worship of the other gods and prescribed the rites for each. Cf. Hymn of los. H e suggests that the tablet of Moses was an imitation of this official tablet. I. Diodor. Cerfaux also suggests a parallel in the fact that when Moses returned from the burning bush. 4-7 eycb vo\iov<. Diodorus Sic. 49 f. Cerfaux has recalled a law of Ptolemy Philopator requiring that the initiates into the mysteries of Dionysus must reg­ ister the fact in the royal archives within a specified time by filing a sealed copy of the icpoc Aoyoc of the mystery with the initiate's name. For Moses does not file the tablet. Oxyr. I. Augustinus. 120. 16.. ap. Such a document can only be explica­ ble to us as the expression of a crude early stage of syncretism. Stromata. {Fontes. Mythographus Vaticanus III. II. bvvaxai jXETafrelvai. In the account of Moses given by Clement of A l e x a n d r i a the author is drawing almost exclusively upon Philo's De Vita Mosis. VII. Musaeus. and the instruments of agriculture. V. Albius Tibullus. PG.. 11. xxiii. 1380. 547. I. Pp. Pap.292 B Y LIGHT. Orpheus. dv^QCOJtoig edsu/nv xal &vo\ioftexy\oa S ovSele. 123. Osiris taught m e n the common dialect and discovered writing for t h e m . Civ. Migne. LXXVI. 19 {Fontes. 746). Hymn of Andros. 4 {Fontes. I. But he is drawing upon other sources. 24. 723. Isidorus Hispalensis. 119. given h i m by his 124 1 1 8 . V.. LIGHT 118 Isis was also the Lawgiver. N o t h i n g more outright or blunt could have been composed to claim for the Jewish leader the prerogatives of paganism. at least in spirit. iii.. 1 2 1 . xv. specifi­ cally identified with Hermes. xi.C. gave them onAa. . I. I. 124. for he quotes the poet Ezekiel and Artapanus.. 119 120 121 122 128 At least mention should be made of another witness to the Mystery. Etymolog. Cyril thought it a sign that Hermes' activities were derived from those of Moses that he found it written in a Hermetic source that Hermes had provided Egypt with its ditches for irrigation. v. I. Cyril Alex. 119 f. had given them laws (vojioi) and had named the regions of the country VOJJOI after these l a w s . 39. T h e writer is so far from literal Judaism that he was willing to m a k e Moses the founder of the cults of the other gods. Such a blanket identification meant to the reader that the writer was claiming for Moses that he was the mystic leader par-excellence. Sic. From these we learn that Moses had three names: Joachim. XVIII. earlier. Contra Julian. vii. than the adaptation by Aristobulus of the Orphic hymn. 646. 97. 148). Isis and Osiris taught men the t£xvcl\. IV. 96). VIII. XI. Dei. 122. Moses the great miracle worker is thus in the Second Century B. and given all the most recognizable and familiar functions of Isis and Osiris as well.

and Melchi. II. 10. II. I. Heliopolis is striking in its persistence. If it may be assumed that such representations of Moses were being com­ monly and openly made by Jews in Alexandria. 1 3 1 .. 265 f. Ev. Cont.. Joseph a sacred scribe ( i c p o Y p a n p a T e u c ) . F r o m the evidence before us it seems likely that the Egyptian attacks upon Moses did indeed contribute the detail of leprosy.. Geog. for the name appears also in Artapanus in connection with Moses. I. 95). 8. but taught that the Egyptians were wrong in m a k i n g animals gods. 126. 1 5 1 (Stahlin.. and which included Moses' ascension and probably some important development of his career and saving influence after he got to heaven under the name Melchi. 129. . 96. we have again light upon the character of those detractions of Judaism answered by Josephus. W e do not know that these "Initiates" were Jews. xxiii. 279. Josephus. For the extreme perversions of the syncretistic account of the Patriarchs there is litde explanation.. 1 3 3 . 290. but such. a n a m e he had in heaven which was given him. named Osarseph. 120. ) of the Egyptians. Ib. Ib. 238 ff. H e gives them respectively the Egyptian names of Tisithen and Peteseph. which made him a person with power to slay the Egyptian simply by his speech.. Praep. Moses. after his ascension. 132. II. 2 6 1 . XVI. But Chaeremon makes Moses and Joseph scribes ( y p a m i a T e T c . 126 126 127 128 129 130 181 T h e tradition connecting Moses with Heliopolis reappears in Apion's at­ t a c k .. 154 (Stahlin. xxvii. given h i m by Pharoah's daughter.. 1. but were actually counterattacks upon the Jewish at­ tempts to claim all the best of Graeco-Egyptian culture for the Jews through precisely this identification of Moses with the gods of the Nile. Josephus adds that the fact is that the Egyptians think Moses a wonderful and divine person.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 293 mother at circumcision. Eusebius. 3 5 . xxiii. Manetho explains. Again Clement tells us "the Initiates say that he slew the Egyptian by a word only. who led out a group of lepers in revolt and gave them a set of laws which were consistently the reverse of everything Egyptian: so all the kinds of animals sacred to the Egyptians were commanded by Moses to be killed in sacrifice. Ib. Ap. but it at least suggests the eternal priesthood of Melchizedek. and want in this way to claim h i m for themselves. 127. apparently by God.. Cont. and in view of the fact that Moses is the hero. in view of the other sources Clement is using for the chapter. 130. It suggests precisely those solar aspects of Egyptian religion that went into the structure of the Jewish Mys132 133 125. T h e name Osarseph was taken from Osiris. S t r a b o gives the more natural picture that Moses was a priest of the Egyptians. Ib." One cannot conclude much from these references except that Clement k n e w a group of "Initiates" who had an elaborate spiritualization of the life of Moses. Manetho makes of Moses a priest of Heliopolis. T h e significance of Melchi is not explained. Ib. is the obvious assumption. IX. Ap.. 6).

Corpus Apologet. 426. Hist. Otto. W h e n Sarapis had become sufficiently important in current thinking to demand assimilation by Jews in Egypt Joseph may have been chosen as his Jewish type because Joseph had not been sufficiently esteemed to get an earlier identification. xiii. n. 137. 1 f. he says: " T h e Egyptians worshipped Joseph the Hebrew. H e apparently repeats it as an accepted fact. It seems that there is enough material not only to prove the existence of Mystic Judaism. one which as such would not be a part of the general religious thinking of the people as were Isis and Osiris in native Egyptian circles. 4).v. T h e whole history of Israel is a history of the struggle to m a k e Jews into a people of an exclusive religion. 23 {apud Griechische Christl. 1030. T h e very pronouncements of the leaders in this 184 185 188 187 188 134. 136. and one must only guess at its origin and at the reason why no trace of it appears in the interpretations of Joseph by Philo. §5. ii.. But it is apparent that the Joseph-Sarapis identification gives us one more glimpse into the extraordinary Jewish syncretism that was of such long and important standing in Egypt. but the Christian tradition indicates a Jewish original. Jews had always been sensitive to the religions of their neighbors. for he makes no other such identifica­ tions. It was perhaps not by chance that the Jewish temple of Onias was founded in Leontopolis in the nome of Heliopolis. appearing in a straightforward list of gods. ii. rel. LIGHT tery. Perhaps it may be worth while to suggest that Sarapis was a deity of official manufacture by the early Ptolemies. IX. but which is worth mention. Schriftsteller. In a list of the gods of the various nations. 466. Eccl. and did not. Sarapis. . or Musaeus and Orpheus a m o n g Greeks in Egypt. but to m a k e possible a hypothetical reconstruction of the history of the movement. Some of the later writers are echoing Melito and Tertullian. Much of the foregoing material is collected by Otto in his note to the Melito passage. De errore prof. 1. Kirchengeschichte. S. N o further light can be thrown on the identification. IX. 8. and because Joseph's official position in Egypt m a d e him the natural one to choose for identification with the official cult.294 B Y LIGHT. O n e interesting detail that has made little impression on the main stream of the Mystery as it finally appears in Philo. since he furnished them with grain in the years of famine. So it appears also in Tertullian. Firmicus M a t e r n u s . any more than they would have originated an identification of Moses with Osiris. T h a t is only a guess. originate such an identifi­ cation. II. and obviously an original of exactly the type of syncretistic and mystic Judaism we are studying. who is called Sarapis. Certainly the pagans would not. Ad Nationes. Christ. seems not original with Melito. 135. This identi­ fication is first met in the Christian Apology of M e l i t o . p. is the repeated indication that Joseph was identified with Sarapis. 138. XI." T h e identification. Eusebius. (3d edition). R u f i n u s and Suidas.. 154.

for the earliest syncretism 139 140 139. . If so remote a contact with Greek civilization thus affected the Judaism of Jerusalem. It is clear from the legends of the captivity that the Jews who refused to follow the religious customs of their neighbors were very exceptional. pp. had been notorious for his "idolatry. Philo's violence toward apostates. In an atmosphere where Greek mythological. mystical. But the movement nearly collapsed when Jews even in Pales­ tine were subjected to the rather remote Greek influence of the Seleucids in Antioch. of his standing as the great founder of Jewish wisdom. show that many Jews were sincerely trying to observe normative Juda­ ism in the Greek world. All the later reaction and development could not rob Solomon." 140. n. to name only a few works of this charac­ ter. Judaism struck u p its claim in the same way. I." with none but the few purists to object. In contrast some Jews seem to have left Judaism altogether for pagan cults. 42. F. T h e middle course that was open was one of syncretism. G. 33 ff. and the k n o w n career of Philo's own nephew Alexander are evidence for the existence of such a seepage from Judaism. Judaism. and the new centering of Jewish worship in the Jerusalem temple was the great achievement of the Jewish priests for keeping Judaism exclusive in its cultus in Palestine. H o w many thus apostatized we cannot even guess. 84. 2 7 3 . See my Jewish Jurisprudence in Egypt. Moore. states "Outside the land of Israel most laws prescribing ritual purifications were not in force. 7 1 . and the persistence of the literalist-legalistic tradition. Solomon. the adoption of religious con­ cepts and values from the pagans into Judaism itself so that the Jews could have both paganism and a Jewish sense of separation at the same time. and by Philo's own address to ordi­ nary Jews On Blessings and Curses. II. and philosophic ideas were being freshly identified with the Egyptian concepts. 76. Their loss only tended to strengthen the sense of separation and cohesion in the Jews that remained. Unquestionably many Jews would try to do so. T h e Jews seem at the beginning to have been following Greek leadership rather than Egyptian. because of his many cults. while the mass of angelology and Babylonian mythology brought back by even the few loyalists who would return to rebuild Jerusalem indi­ cates h o w m u c h more extensive must have been the syncretism by Jews less devoted to their nation. T h e last chapter of / / / Maccabees. Their great­ est king. III. T h e new legalism of Judaism after the return.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 295 slow movement make it only too apparent that they were all along in a minority in their struggles to prevent the mass of Jews from accepting the gods of Canaan and Philistia alongside the religion of Yahveh. of the sort represented by the Hellenistic books / / and / / / Maccabees. II. what was to be expected of Jews cut off from Jeru­ salem altogether and living in remote Alexandria surrounded by Hellenistic civilization in its very highest representation? T h e Pharisees themselves ad­ mitted that the L a w could not be kept according to their standards outside Palestine itself.

Judaism had itself been talking of the two roads. just as Orpheus was the source of revelation of the true religion for his followers. Orphic literature was baldly rewritten to include references to Moses. a statement in Artapanus which Reitzenstein righdy regarded as of the greatest importance for show­ ing the antiquity of the Hermetic development. by the middle of the Second Century R. Along with the Orphic syncretism there came into Judaism. T h e Pythagoreans and Plato show such large elements of Orphism that it is only natural that devotees of Orpheus should have borrowed many ideas from these schools at an early date. and salvation consisted in leaving the material world to follow the true Road of Light that led to the welling source. before it could pose as the supreme religion with any conviction to itself or others. W e can hardly read Proclus' details back into Hellenistic Orphism. Particularly is the presence of the Geloc. but there is no antecedent reason for doubting that the Orphics might early have borrowed congenial philosophic ideas. and giving to him all the functions of Isis even to establishing the Egyptian cults for each nome of the country. as Aristobulus shows us. was teaching a monotheism headed by Zeus. cease identifying Moses with Orpheus or Musaeus. and of the O n e God. according to the one very important fragment adapted by Aristobulus. Already. H e was apparently a solar deity. But the Jewish syncretism was so closely following Greek models that as the Greeks fused Orphism and the Isiac mysteries. the great teacher of Judaism. though in a different sense. But Judaism must rise to a place where it had forgotten the origin of its own interpretation of itself. F r o m this the redeemed initiate finally drank. T h e combination of Orphism with philosophy was probably not original with either Aristobulus or Judaism. and that in taking over the Orphism of the day the Jews took over a mystery religion already well oriented with philosophy.C. Jewish claims to superiority could have made little impression so long as the books of the Old Testament remained unassimilated and uninterpreted in terms of the new conception. a source of radiation of light and life. Orpheus was thus easily identified with Moses. the fact that Aristobulus shows the two in such definite union makes it highly likely that he found them already thus mingled. which reappears repeatedly in the Sibylline books. Orphism. Aristobulus was making a beginning. LIGHT of which we have any knowledge is with Orphism. then. an eclectic Greek philosophy. T h a t they did so later is abundandy witnessed by such writers as Proclus. A t this early stage there was still m u c h to be worked out. H e was also Hermes. there had long been in Egypt a movement to identify Judaism with the mystic schools about . This process is largely lost to us. and the Orphic form of hymns became a Jewish convention.296 B Y LIGHT. Judaism at once followed by representing Moses as Osiris. Xoyoc in the Orphic poem itself an indication of the early date of the philosophizing of the Orpheus mystery.

T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 297 it. Philo and the author of Wisdom. when the mystic and philosophic ideas of the Greek world could have become completely naturalized within Judaism for Jewish thinkers. It will be recalled that Philo identified Jothar with the "Egyptian Proteus. at least that that is the period of the conventionalization of their form. This dropping of the identification. we only infer the incident from the fact that Philo's "Powers" point so definitely in that direction. writing with no sense of such syncretism. but since it probably was originally introduced according to the syncretistic technique we must assume a long history of the term before the mature presentation of the Wisdom of Solomon.C. here Solomon. Just when it came into prominent use we cannot say. but he now has them of his own right. but is interesting as an atavistic survival from the early syncretistic stage. But later writers could so easily have tampered with details that the Sophia passage cannot be given any definite significance for the history of the movement. But it was possible for Jews to write with the assurance of Wisdom and Philo only after such a long period." T h e identification was dubious in meaning. . and Sophia has come direcdy to mean the Light-Stream to Jewish writers and readers. 141 1 4 1 . p. H e had had all the functions of the mystic saviors of the Gentiles. has become the Qdoc avGpcjnoc of paganism. where conscious syncretism has disappeared. where such identifications were the whole basis of the interpretation of Judaism. is a long step from the primi­ tive syncretism of perhaps two centuries earlier. but the date of these books and their constituent parts is too uncertain to identify a date for Sophiaas-a l i n k between Jewish and pagan thought. Some such appears the general history of the movement. Aristobulus was quite aware that he had got Zeus out from and Moses into the Orphic fragment only by changing the Greek verses. 86a. My own impression is that the passages from the Sibyl which we have discussed are probably from the early Second Century B. and emergence of the Hebrew hero himself as a Ocloc avGpunoc. A t some time Iranian notions must have come into the Egyptian world and in turn been assimilated. as we have seen Sarapis came to be included through identifica­ tion with Joseph. T h e Iranian syncretism is lost. See above. and not by virtue of identification with one of the pagan gods. Sophia appeared in the Sibylline books. n. T h e native H e b r e w Chochma was a conception too obviously serviceable for syncretism to have long missed the attention of early harmonizers. along with the forthright interpretation of Jewish texts as signifying mystic conceptions. My impression is again that the Sophia passage is genu­ inely early. 2 1 2 . Wisdom also shows another important fact—the Hebrew hero. could think of Moses or Solomon as the mystic saviors without any sense that they were not speaking the idiom of Judaism.

and who was exhorting his people to do likewise. Yet by their insistence upon the Jewish formulation they kept alive their Jewish loyalty. But as to my main contention. which was fairly commonplace. T o some it was simply the iepek Aoyoc of the Mystery. perhaps." still it was definitely a "Moglichkeit. There would then have to be no direct literary connection be­ tween the two writings. In 1925 I published in the Harvard Theological Review a study of the Pseudo-Justinian Oratio ad Graecos. and he was on the whole inclined to stand his ground. 143. and to bring out some new points. though they were making every effort to bring as many Gentiles as possible to join with them on the great journey of the true Road. 1925. who gave it an extended review. By this time. which must be given a chapter by itself. . that the Oratio was the product of a proselyte to Hellenistic Judaism. and their Jewish distinctiveness. the other.298 B Y LIGHT. But to any w h o ac­ cepted the mystic interpretation the T o r a h was primarily a guide. Except for Professor H a r n a c k . true Salvation. XVIII. This addition now seems to me to be untenable. 442 £. But he admitted that while my hypothe­ sis was "eine blosse Moglichkeit." though it is identical in verbal form in the two documents. is a phrase which may well have been a standardized exhortation of popular preaching. there is one more document which seems to m e to be an important witness to the existence of mystic Judaism in the sense in which that term has been used. I had criticized in that article the interpretation of the document given earlier by Professor Harnack. Their separation had been preserved through this process by their clinging to the Torah. but the product of a Greek who had found satisfaction for his spiritual longings in a Philonic type of Judaism. T o others it was both a law to be practised and a Mystery. Theologische Literaturzeitung. pp. pp. Vol. But the Torah was no longer neces­ sarily L a w in the sense of the "literalists" who had always fought the mystic development. Harnack was not sure it 142. for I was as you are. though not essentially to change it. T h e two passages where they have verbal similarities are of a nature to prove nothing. 142 148 T h e thesis of the article was that the Oratio was not originally a Christian document at all. as it seemed to Pro­ fessor Harnack. LIGHT Jews were still Jews. and in view of what he said and of my own subsequent studies I would like definitely to modify my position. to the Light-Stream and its Source. the exhortation "Become as I am. 187-200. the study was apparently overlooked. For one of them is a list of vices." Pro­ fessor Harnack was hardly a m a n who could write several pages of criticism without being very instructive. through the great Saviors. Before going on to the liturgical evidence. Philo's Mystery seems not an isolated phenomenon in Jewish tradition. T o this I originally added the suggestion that the document was one which Paul had definitely in mind when he wrote Galatians.

T h e document opens with the traditional denunciation of the immoralities of the Greek gods and heroes.. Berlin Academy. There is. exhorting his former associates to find the same peace and exaltation which the change has meant to him. T o this subject the author adds nothing. W h e n the article was written I had not recognized the Mystery and its ramifications in Philo. and says that he rejected it with loathing. In spite of some duplication. a purely Greek polemic which was begun at least as far back as Xenophanes. T h e last chapter. that in the Codex Argentoratensis (burned in 1870). in which the immoralities of the Greek gods and of the Greek m a n n e r s are set forth. Spec. he justifies his opinion with a halfdozen vivid statements about Greek practices. Sitzungsberichte.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 299 was wrong. the 144 145 146 144. W i t h this evidence for authorship discredited. pp. it seems best to go over the ground again. there is no further tradition whatever to help us in identifying or dating the document. a German translation of which is published by Harnack. Only one Greek manuscript came down to us. iii. Philo was too discriminating to in­ clude all pagan life in these denunciations. but presents an excellent epitome of the usual argu­ ments. and in Harnack's "Die pseudo-jusjtinische Rede an die Griechen. i. T h e writer has remarkable power of going to the heart of what he discusses." It represents itself as a defence for t u r n i n g from the religion of the Greeks to the religion of the Logos.C. 146. in the statements of the Oratio about the Logos. But his sense of the contrast between the life of those in the Mystery and the darkened wretches who lived to the body is keen. 176. So far as the first four chapters of the Oratio are concerned. 8 ff. inveighed proverbially against pagan immorality. indeed. in which the Oratio received an impossible ascription to Justin Martyr. H e then discusses the current way of living among the Greeks.. they might have been written by a Greek sceptic or rhetorician at any time after the T h i r d Century B. to be sure.4 5 . ii. T h e document depends entirely upon its own testimony for its date and classification. 145. cit. but so did Philo. as in Som. T h e Oratio ad Graecos is to be found in the third volume of Otto's Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum. op. 634 ff. 1896. F r o m commenting upon the Greek religion and morality he turns in contrast to describe with equal pithi­ ness the high moral and spiritual character of his new faith. as well as his general sense of Jewish superiority in morals.. corresponding to a work of similar title ascribed to Justin by Eusebius. 3 7 . and need not detain us. There is also a Syriac recension. and so missed a good deal of the implications of the Oratio. a close resemblance to some of Justin's ideas. but that Justin was capable of saying so m u c h to the point in so small a compass is inconceivable. and I still feel convinced that it was right. and presents its case most vigorously. . 48 ff. The Christians.

it makes mortals become immortals. strifes. . the divine inspiration of the instruction. Even Plato. Come ye. and peremptorily as he banished Homer from his Re­ public. its Christian character has gone unchallenged. or any syllable that is distinctively Christian. through which every horror is born. so far as I have been able to ascertain. might well appear to be the product of any of the late Platonic or Eclectic mystics. And indeed the divine Logos has ceaseless care over us. enmities. And when the soul is relieved from the evils that flow about its neck. then. nor the haughtiness of high birth. These things captured me. Hellenistic Judaism. But the general tenor of the Oratio is against this. the power of the Logos. Oh thou soul which hast been permeated with the power of the Logos! Oh trumpet of peace in the soul torn by conflict! Oh city of refuge from terrible passioii! Oh teaching that quenches the fire within the soul! This instruction does not make us poets. from the sharp contrast of the gods and the Logos is that the document did not come from the pen of a pagan philosopher. It reads as follows: Henceforth. and puts it to flight. for I was like you. ye Greeks. Found with Christian writings. LIGHT fifth. For as a skilful snake-charmer makes the terrible serpent creep out of its hole. For it must be restored whence it departed. The translation is made from the text as printed by Harnack. human beings gods. and teaches us both the passwords of our King and divine acts. to my knowledge. set off such an antithesis as is here made between the gods of Greece and the Logos. our captain. and such like. They rather sought to find the Logos in mythology by allegorizing the ancient myths. for it fits in perfectly with the Logos idea of both Plutarch and Cornutus. So when lust has gone forth the soul becomes serene and calm. this obvious point has never been noticed. and be in­ structed by the divine Logos and learn the incorruptible King. and be instructed. does not desire strength of bodies and beauty of forms. For he. The Philosophers never. like the rest of the document. fiercely as he de­ nounced the gods. and with it the whole document. and from earth leads to the realms beyond Olympus. it returns to him who made it. come and partake of incomparable Sophia. and recognize His heroes who never slaughter with arms. And yet. 147 The first and most striking fact about this fine description of the power of the Logos to release the soul from the tyranny of the lower nature is that. it contains no hint of Christ. envy. But another school of thought. Become as I am now. intriguing. anger. but a pure soul fortified by holiness. The presumption. did scornfully reject the 147. but when it has been learned. it does not train us as philosophers.300 B Y LIGHT. so the Logos drives from the recesses of the soul the terrible sensual affections: first lust. is the only one in which positive remarks are made about the writer's own faith. or as skilful orators. preserved in the Timaeus their purified replicas as intermediate deities. At first sight the Logos-passage.

Ib. but he cannot revile them. If the document is to have any point. Such a denunciation of Greek gods is not found in Philo because of Philo's repeatedly avowed policy of treating with respect anything called a god by his neighbors. Except for the vague phrases which. T o the Jews the legends of the immoralities of the gods were of course particularly distaste­ ful. . H e can point out the error of calling such beings gods. ii. to say the least. 242 ff. there is not a word that suggests Christianity. for instance. similarly. were also used by Paul. "Learn the incorruptible king" (naOere (3aoiA£a a^Gaprov). 275. If the reading must stand it is very 148. 149. which he prefaced with quotations from the prophets. and Holy Spirit. C. the little section is as succinct a review of the essential features of Mystic Judaism" as could be made. So. completely at sea as to what in the world has so excited him. Athenagoras speaks as philosophically as possible. Apion. 256. 148 149 In contrast to its vagueness when viewed as a Christian document. A Greek proselyte would obviously not need to be so careful as a Jew. the author must give us the funda­ mental features of the religion he is preaching or the address to outsiders will leave them. and as much as he can from the Greek point of view in m a k i n g his criticisms of the Greeks. So the presence of the invective in such a document as I am taking this to be is entirely natural. we have recognized. They preached openly that such mythology must be rejected before a true knowledge of God was possible." and representing that "the gods married their own sisters. and the words Logos and Sophia. Josephus reproaches the Greeks for ascribing "sodomitical practices to the gods themselves.. T h e Greeks are exhorted to come and partake of the incomparable Sophia and be instructed by the divine Logos. and could freely have used the invectives of Greek sceptics and rhetoricians. More positive evidence for the nature of the Oratio is found in the Logospassage itself. cf. In the fifth chapter of the Oratio.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 301 mythology of the Greeks for a pure devotion to the Logos. This is precisely the paralleling of Sophia and Logos we have repeatedly met. this will prove to be an epitome of the new faith which the convert has found to be so superior to Greek religion. But when he contrasts their position with Christianity. Son. contriving this apology for their own strange unnatural lusts. whatever the sources of m u c h of his general argument. T h e paragraph is certainly not an epitome of Christianity as we k n o w it from any other document. ii. its doc­ trine of the Father. O n e could not for a moment question the Christianity of the document. O n e turns for comparison to Athenagoras' elegant plea for Christianity." In another passage Josephus refers to Plato's expulsion of the poets from the Republic for their teachings about the g o d s . the chapter ( X ) gives what was to h i m the most essential part of Christianity. ii.

though they are by n o means absent. to regard themselves as private citizens in contrast with the great kings. or the King. as for example the beauty of the boy Moses. but on account of his v i r t u e . These heroes. Moses is particularly one w h o received his apxh Kal (3aoiAda not by arms (onAa. the K i n g . p.. 1 8 2 . however wide their sway. Conf. 87 where the peaceful character of the Jewish saints brings peace even between men and animals. T h e Logos is the captain of the heavenly a n g e l s and is recognizable as the x P Suvauic. T h e Logos. 1 5 4 . including men. 5 3 . " A n d come t o recognize H i s heroes w h o do not slaughter with weapons" (oux onXo\c . w h o in contrast to the rulers a n d heroes of Greek tradition did not get their power by destructive warfare. our captain" is still the Logos. O n e is also strik­ ingly reminded of the passage in Wisdom just discussed where Aaron as the Logos-Priest subdued the Death-Worker oux onAcov kvzpyzlq. 152. 1 0 1 : cfrfffr' f|vioxov uiv elvai xcov ovvd^iecov xov X6YOV X X L See above. Wisd. LIGHT difficult: it would seem to mean that from the Logos or Sophia one can learn about God. is to be recognized through his peaceful heroes. but a pure soul fortified by holiness. 265-267. i. T h e rejection of a physi­ cal qualification is natural enough in a Mystery which was primarily a run­ ning away from the body. See above.. 174. etc.). 3 4 ) : cf. in comparison to God. F o r this it will be recalled that Philo more frequently uses the figure of the charioteer a n d pilot. in which. "For he. as Wisdom has it. 1 5 1 . Of course. Som. E. that is demigods. T h e ordinary mystic r a n away from the body. Cf. T h e captain's function is to be the guide and leader. T . 156. (Praem. .g..302 B Y LIGHT. Plant. i. w h o guide all things. See above.. Praem.). says the Oratio. ii. T h e conception corresponds exactly to the mystic Patriarchs of Philo. Philo tells kings whose titles are based upon conquest.. T r u e Philo frequendy emphasizes the beauty of the Patriarchs.). Mos. of God that fights with us as our ally (3oy)06c. the Patriarchs. But these are qualities that went with the setting up of the ideal vo[ioc eu\puxoc. 2 4 1 . of Heb. 157. This captain desires not bodily strength or beauty. xviii. <t>6vov £pya£ou£vouc. 66-68. Som. ii. or aristocratic birth.. 2 7 5 . 148. Philo is sparing about military figures for the Logos. p. 22. 6 x6aux>g tf|viox£ixaC xe x a i xvPeovaxai orooxriQfaoc. to their safety.. recall that peace-making aspect of the Patriarchs which Philo loved to bring out. . 10.. Fug. both the Logos as teacher of higher knowledge and God as K i n g are obviously ideas familiar in the Mystery. w h o would in the Mystery be mentioned after the Logos as the way to the Logos. p. the Logos is only \mapxoc> lieutenant. a choice soul was joined to a beautiful body. 1 5 3 . T h e rejection of aristocratic birth as a qualification recalls vividly Philo's insistence that the nobility of descent 160 151 152 158 £>L 154 155 156 157 150. Here fiyejicov. 155. w h o have received God as their portion.. I would see a Hellenistic origin for aQXHYOS *iS crcoxTiQiac.

and is connected so directly with the very heart of the Mystery that it would be sufficient in itself to establish a connection. It need hardly be said that the word is to be found in Greek only in passages dependent upon the Septuagint original. T h i s is a very difficult statement be­ cause of the variety of its possible meanings. Spec. the Law has called this the feast of the "Trumpet" an instrument of war. divine actions. 1 6 1 . . Ib. as I think it does. For if ouvG/jnaTa be read as "Covenant" it is still notably not to be learned from a scroll or code. 249 ff. 159. First he exclaims: " O h trumpet of peace in the soul torn by conflict!" O n e has only to t u r n to Philo again to see that he is referring to the Hellenistic Jewish interpretation of the "feast of the trum­ pet. T h e author of the Oratio n o w calls to m i n d several details of his n e w reli­ gion that are of significance. "has ceaseless care over us." Philo says. and teaches us both the passwords of our K i n g and divine acts" (rot T O U PaoiXewc Y)[\Qv ouvGyjuara Kal npaE. O r it may.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 303 from A b r a h a m was in itself n o qualification that put the Jew above a pious proselyte. along with npajeic Geiac. but is the sort of covenant that must be learned directly from the Logos. 160 As a second detail he exclaims. pp. with the appearance of the 4>UYa§£UTy)piov as a term for the Logos in his capacity of being a city of refuge from the passions. most forcibly of all the details. " O h city of refuge from the terrible pas­ sions!" O n e is struck." says the Oratio. 189. " O h teach­ ing that quenches the fire within the soul!" T h e notion of a teaching that stills the troubles of the soul is in itself definitely a reference to a doctrine 161 158. 192 (see 190). after pointing out that the trumpet is ordinarily a symbol of conflict: 158 159 Wherefore. LuvGyjjjaTa may mean collec­ tively "covenants. " T h e divine Logos. See above. as a name of significance.z\c Geiac)." Philo would have agreed with this statement of the Oratio in word and implication. or the precepts of the L a w . and so the meaning here be that the Logos teaches the Covenant of our King. the Jewish Covenant. 160. T h e conception is so gready elaborated by P h i l o . or filled with the Light-Stream.2 2 7 . I n either case the state­ m e n t harmonizes perfectly with mystic Judaism. as token of thanksgiving to God who is the maker and guard of peace. i. T h e next detail to which he alludes is just as certainly Philonic. T r u e euy^veia was to Philo "a m i n d purified by the perfect purifications. and refer to passwords and "divine acts" in the sense of cultus... So the mystic's soul has become permeated with the Suvajjic of the Logos." like ouvG/JKai. 1 8 7 . Sec especially the section on nobility in Virt. etc. have the mystical m e a n i n g I gave it in the first translation.

LA. and continues: 162 163 164 This Road you must understand to be philosophy. philoso­ phers. 100. and even its original good disposition (apeT/) TzXda. Post. 1 0 1 . It is a fire which the "teaching" can put out. eu^u'ia). Cong." giving a wicked work a divine n a m e . but as used here the words must refer to a kind of fire which has to be put out in order that the soul may be able to achieve its spiritual possibilities. 164. It is obviously a reference to some type of sin or defect which is so vividly conceived as to be compared to fire. as Philo thought. This then is the fire which the "Teaching" quenches. But he would entirely have understood what the writer meant when he spoke of a philoso162. or animate.. 165 Sophia and philosophy are indeed divine names to Philo. This instruction. This conception is elsewhere variously applied. For rhetoric and poetry belonged to the studies of youth. or skilful orators. Mig. 163.304 B Y LIGHT. In this Philo did not include philosophy. along with geometry and the whole of encyclical learning... and as such he would never have used the term in this connection. are in themselves of an inflammable nature. In the first place the translation is uncertain. and then called their villainy "sophia. nup en^ Xov. 18. 234 £. In one place he has been speaking of the Royal Road of the Mystery. For the irrational impulse. xa jraGy]. but it makes mortals immortals. A few passages in Philo make the meaning clear. the fire of the irrational impulse in the soul or the fire which that impulse kindles within the na0y] to the utter destruction of the better nature and hope of the individual. . Ib. which began only when these studies ended. its progress to that virtue. he continues.. Philo explains that the passions. 55. Agr. It is quite true that Philo uses the term "phi­ losopher" as meaning the Mystic. does not m a k e us poets. 165. continues the Oratio.. is a fire which kindles the passions but does not burn them u p . For these have practised the arts of words against the truth. h u m a n beings gods. which I have translated "the fire within the soul" is more difficult. the irrational impulse (in the soul) after the manner of fire.. Yet he is acquainted with a use of the term which puts it on exactly this level. LIGHT u of mystical power. not the philosophy that is pur­ sued by the present day sophistic group of men. Professor H a r n a c k doubted that in Hellenistic Judaism one could so belittle philosophers as to class them with rhetoricians. for it would more naturally be read "the living. iii. W h a t is consumed in the fire is the perfect virtue of the soul. and was really concerned with metaphysics and mysticism only. makes burst into flames until it consumes all the soul's properties. fire." In itself this would seem a reference to the Light-Stream. and leads from earth to the realms beyond Olympus. T h e last phrase. which V) aXoyoc bp\iY) nupoc TOV Tponov. npoKon/j. 248 £.

W h a t Harnack never noticed was that when the Syriac translator wanted to pass the document off as Christian. Philo would have agreed entirely that the instructions of the Mystery did not m a k e m e n into that kind of philosophers. A n d Philo would have agreed that the Mystery m a d e h u m a n beings into gods. our city of refuge. does give an excellent epitome of the salient points of Philo's Mystery. as he could easily do considering the number of elements Chris­ tianity h a d taken from the Mystery. would have recognized Christianity or k n o w n what the author was meaning by this description of mystic achievement. T h e others have abundantly demonstrated that the closing paragraph." w h o is our trumpet of peace. 4. 1. 629. a n d so ought H a r n a c k to have understood h i m . Not to press the possibilities of cult reference in the fteia SQya already discussed. so closely has the author followed Philo that one might have been justified in saying that it was a literary compilation m a d e from Philo's writings without giving evidence of being what it purported to be. is still drawing upon another source than Philo himself. a n d led t h e initiate from earth into t h e im­ material realm beyond Olympus. 166 161 166. our teaching that quenches the fire of the irrational impulse—this is not Christianity. he h a d to insert in the text a statement presumably by the author that his conversion was to the "Wisdom of the Christians" T h e fact is that without such an insertion the parallelism of the document to Philo is flawless. O n e turns from this analysis to try to find reasons for calling t h e Oratio Christian. a n d drives it away. But this religion of the Logos-Sophia. But with the appearance of the snake-charmer w e see that t h e author. A n d though he does not use the figure h e would have highly approved of speaking of the Logos as a snake-charmer which lures out the snake.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 305 phy that was o n t h e level of poetry a n d rhetoric. the K i n g with peaceful heroes. and frankly I can find not one. But without the last figure. the triumphant testimony of a Greek to the existence and power of a Jewish mystery doctrine. T h e Oratio stands as an independent wit­ ness of the thriving existence of the Jewish Mystery-teaching. 167. though he has given a splendid summary of t h e valuable points of the Mystery Philo has described at greater length. the teacher of passwords and "divine practices. p. T r u e so m u c h of the ideology of the Mystery did go over into Christianity that many of its ideas are also found in Christian writings. at least other than the writings of Philo which have come down to us. mortals into immortals. in which the Oratio should give an epitome of the religion of its author. N o one. the na6/] of the soul. so that the soul will be pure to m o u n t the blinding ascent to God. . See Harnack's article in the Sitzungsberichte of the Berlin Academy 1896. then or since. the highest heaven. T h e last figure of the snake-charmer is in some ways the most interesting of all.

Christian interpolations are retained b u t indicated by italics. O u r C r e a t o r a n d Savior. a n d g r e a t is T h y p o w e r . and thus brought to light a body of liturgy in the Apostolic Constitutions that was unmistakably Jewish. Philologische-Historische Klasse. but had no suggestion as to the milieu that would have produced such a liturgy. cxlvii. and the original study remains. Bousset published an amazing collection of fragments of Jewish liturgy. x x x v . I am indebted for knowledge of it to the all-seeing eye of Professor A. and when they are all before the reader discuss their total implications. D . I shall first give a transla­ tion of the texts. . Actually some of the material comes from the eighth book. T h e Fragments are so strikingly ap­ propriate to the thesis of this book that. 3. 1. analyzed it sufficiendy to prove its Judaism and Hellenism alike. 1 9 1 5 ( 1 9 1 6 ) . "Eine jiidische Gebetssamlung im siebentcn Buch der apostolischen Konstitutionen. H e pointed out the slight interpolations by which Christians had adapted them for their own purposes. Paderborn. they must be reproduced here entire. 1870). 435-485. 5. Nock of Har­ vard. pp. and of course left many other points still to be discussed. I have revised again carefully according to Funk's text (Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum. r i c h 4 1. T h e first fragment to be considered is the one first presented by Bousset: 1 2 3 FRAGMENT I Constitutiones V I I . Hereafter referred to by author and page. The fragments are given fundamentally after the translation of James Donaldson which appeared in his edition of the Apostolic Constitutions in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library (Edin. with indication of the passage in the Constitutiones whence it is taken.." in Nachrichten von der K.C H A P T E R XI THE MYSTIC LITURGY IN 1915 W . So far as I k n o w nothing has since been done with this material. G r e a t art T h o u . and I have retained the paragraph enu­ meration as made by Funk for the original chapters. 4. 1-10. with minor changes from Bousset's presentation. In the posthumous third edition of Bousset's own Die Religion des Judentums the editor m a d e no use of it. a n d of T h y u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e r e is n o n u m b e r . Indeed the first prayer turned out to include the Kedusha still used in Jewish liturgy. 2. W i t h fine methodol­ ogy Bousset selected the material of Jewish origin. little k n o w n . Ps. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. though obviously from a Judaism strongly Hellenized. I believe. Donaldson says that his version is only a close revision of an earlier translation b y Whiston. 1905). with incidental comment. O L o r d A l m i g h t y . Each Fragment is numbered here in series.

" 3. a n d compels all m e n t o cry o u t : " H o w great are T h y w o r k s . 10. i. since m a n h a s p o w e r over t h e m all by T h y a p p o i n t m e n t . i n t h e h o l y p l a c e . 1 3 . is b o u n d e d w i t h sand. T h e sea r a g i n g w i t h waves. a n d . h a n g i n g u p o n n o t h i n g . Ps. i n t h e n a m e of all t h e rest. 1 2 . but seems independent of that list since dQXoVyYeXoi and SuvdfXEig are here additional. b e i n g m a d e b y T h y L o g o s s h o w f o r t h t h e greatness of T h y p o w e r . a n d scattered t h e vital air all a b r o a d . t h r o n e s . ta\en out of the Gentiles. F o r h o w s h o u l d w e h a v e survived if w e h a d b e e n r e q u i r e d t o c o m e t o j u d g m e n t i m m e d i a t e l y . a n d f e e d i n g a flock of t e n t h o u s a n d creatures. " T h e chariot of G o d is t e n t h o u s a n d fold t h o u s a n d s of t h e m t h a t rejoice: t h e L o r d is a m o n g t h e m in Sinai. i n t h e f o r m of a n a r c h .T H E MYSTIC LITURGY 307 i n grace. xxxviii. Ps. 1 3 . a n d p o w e r s cry a l o u d . Job. t h e trees s h o w H i m t h a t m a k e s t h e m g r o w : all w h i c h creatures. principalities. a n d s h o w i n g H i m t h a t n a m e s t h e m . authorities. Dan. as t r e m b l i n g at T h y will. L o r d of S a b a o t h ! h e a v e n a n d e a r t h are full of T h y g l o r y " . " 5. 38. w h e n . a n d t h e h o l y s e r a p h i m . B u t Israel t h y c h u r c h o n e a r t h . cry o u t w i t h never-ceasing voices. O L o r d ! i n w i s d o m hast T h o u m a d e t h e m a l l : t h e e a r t h is full of T h y creation. F o r T h o u art 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 8 5. " 4. w i t h a full h e a r t a n d a w i l l i n g soul sings. This list recalls Col. 1 2 . a n d as a comfort against d a r k n e s s . d e c l a r i n g H i m t h a t n u m b e r s t h e m . t h r o u g h Christ. w h o u n i t e d t h e l a n d a n d w a t e r t o o n e a n o t h e r . 1 1 . " T h e r e is b u t o n e h o l y B e i n g t o P h e l m u n i " . 6. viii. t h e a n i m a l s declare H i m t h a t p u t s life i n t o t h e m . W h e r e f o r e every m a n o u g h t t o send u p a n h y m n f r o m his very h e a r t to T h e e . 4. cxlvii. " H o l y . "Blessed be t h e glory of t h e L o r d o u t of t h e very p l a c e . Ps. 6. long-suffering. e m u l a t i n g t h e heavenly p o w e r s n i g h t a n d day. after so m u c h long-suffering. Ps. 2. w e h a r d l y get clear of o u r w e a k n e s s ? 2. holy. civ. 3. a n d say. 24. Is. . T h e choir strikes us w i t h a d m i r a t i o n . 7. 8. a n d t h e o t h e r m u l t i t u d e s of t h e orders. 9. a n d invitest t h e m t o r e p e n t a n c e . xviii. 17. vi. d o m i n i o n s . a n d conjoined fire t h e r e w i t h for w a r m t h . w h o sing t o T h e e their t r i u m p h a l song. lxviii. for a d m o n i t i o n is t h e effect of T h y bowels of compassion. w h o dost desire t h e salvation of T h y creatures: for T h o u art g o o d by n a t u r e . declares T h y u n s h a k e n steadfastness. Ezek. T h e heavens declare T h y d o m i n i o n . t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e sixw i n g e d c h e r u b i m . holy. a r c h a n g e l s . A n d t h e b r i g h t host of angels a n d t h e intellectual spirits say. iii. a n d spar­ est sinners. a n d t h e bestower of m e r c y . 7. T h e h e a v e n k n o w s H i m w h o fixed it as a cube of s t o n e . 16. u p o n n o t h i n g . a n d t h e e a r t h shakes w i t h e a r t h q u a k e s .

15. w h o s e life is w i t h o u t w a n t . Thyself u n c o n f i n e d by a n y t h i n g . iv. whose Him. w h o s e t r u t h is i m m u t a b l e . LIGHT k i n d i n T h y benefits. of t h e creation. worthily towards bribes. w h o s e a r m y is very n u m e r o u s : 1 0 . a n d t h e r e is n o n e o t h e r besides T h e e " : 9. Deut. w h o s e gnosis is w i t h o u t b e g i n n i n g . Ps. as t h e cause. t h e G i v e r of laws. in three places in contemporary Jewish liturgy. a n d h i g h l y exalted. Rom. 39. 33. 436 f. ii. for it is n o t ours. Bousset began with this prayer because its Judaism. 3. and Father whose sentiments from of Christ. the God pious without sant. a n d stops t h e m o u t h s of lions. T h o u art H e w h o art in heaven. iii. w h o s e d o m i n i o n c a n n o t be t a k e n a w a y . with slight variation. 16. a n d o v e r t u r n s t h e host of enemies. For. for t h e r e is n o G o d besides T h e e a l o n e . H e w h o art in t h e sea. t h e P u n i s h e r of t h e u n g o d l y . O L o r d . a n d overrules t h e p o w e r of all t h i n g s . H e w h o art in finite t h i n g s . t o be able is p r e s e n t w i t h T h e e . a n d raises u p t h e sick. H e w h o art o n earth. w h o s e excellency is p e r p e t u a l . t h e Bestower of providence. for t h e y are sanctified by T h y h a n d s . 8. through and holy whose whom judgment adoration whose are immutable. every due to Thee nature. 22. vi. Dan. in the form in which it appears. " A n d t h o u shalt k n o w i n t h i n e h e a r t t h a t t h e L o r d t h y G o d H e is G o d i n h e a v e n above. Is.3o8 B Y LIGHT. . xi. a n d t h e R e w a r d e r of t h e 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 2 0 21 r i g h t e o u s . rational thanksgiving is everlasting. §3 corresponds so closely to the Kedusha. w h o s e s t r e n g t h is irresistible. promise and the Lord whose of those piety that is are is inces­ is is infallible. there is n o n e holy besides T h e e . t h e S u p ­ plier of w a n t . 19. 3. w h o s e k i n g d o m is w i t h o u t e n d . cxlv. F o r of T h y m a j ­ esty there is n o b o u n d a r y . pp. a n d tames w h a l e s . 20. b u t t h e oracle of T h y servant. w h o s e o p e r a t i o n is w i t h ­ o u t toil. 2 1 . xiv. 17. for T h y eternal p o w e r b o t h q u e n c h e s flame. 18. xxxiii. 16. w h o s e w o r k is n o t one of m e d i a t i o n . as he points out. invisible b y n a t u r e . h o l y above all h o l y b e i n g s . Bousset. t h e Creator. w h o s e d w e l l i n g is u n c h a n g e a b l e . w h o s e m o n a r c h y is w i t h o u t succession. t h e L o r d . had the best external attestation. I Sam. a n d u n s e a r c h a b l e i n T h y j u d g m e n t . w h o s e d u r a t i o n c a n never alter or fail. for T h o u art t h e F a t h e r of Sophia. T h o u art glorious. 3. a n d o n e a r t h b e n e a t h . Deut. t h e G o d of h o l y m e n . w h o s e h a b i t a t i o n is inaccessible. w h o said. t h e G o d of g n o s i s . that there can be no doubt 22 14. a n d casts d o w n a people n u m b e r e d i n their a r r o g a n c e . 5. 24 ff. I Tim. a n d beneficent in T h y bowels of compassion w h o alone art a l m i g h t y : for w h e n T h o u wiliest. of all the fragments. w h o s e greatness is u n l i m i t e d . by a M e d i a t o r .

£Ki<Ay]o!a. and appending the Christian termination. s. In spite of the fact that the Kedusha appears in this prayer. T h e only possible conclusion was that the prayer. But the certainly non-Christian " T h e Creator of creation by a Mediator. 2Sa T h e r e may be some question as to whether the phrase "made through thy Logos" (§5) should be regarded as Christian. and so was probably part of the original Jewish prayer. 23a. in the parallel passages. 2S Bousset thinks that 'IopayjA hk v\ kmyz\6c oou sKKAyjcia is a Christian alteration from 'IopayjA V) £0v63v. and that the Christians had taken it from the Jews. and the general theology of the fragments as it will emerge from the total collection. W e have already encountered a passage where the migration. as the cause" (for why thus avoid men­ tioning Christ?). T h e r e was some difficulty. . but it may also represent the earlier Jewish form. there is nothing in the rest of the prayer so specifi­ cally Jewish that a Christian could not have written it. the moving of the race out from Egypt into the Mys­ tery. This may be a Christian alteration.T H E MYSTIC LITURGY 309 that we have here a very early form of the Jewish prayer. But a glance at Leisegang's Index. was the transformation of the race into an "ecclesia. and since the angel classes given here and in the N e w Testament are all Jewish orders of angels. W h e n Bousset examined the rest of the prayer its general Jewish character became quite clear. will show how commonly that word was applied by Philo to the Jewish race. make it seem that the Logos reference was not Christian. T h e next phrase "taken out of the Gentiles" would most obviously seem to be a Jewish reference to the separa­ tion of the race away from the Gentiles. See above." Indeed it seems highly likely that early Christianity took that word for its collective com­ munity directly from Greek Judaism. Christian liturgists had adapted it to their pur­ poses by inserting "Christ" in §6. Bousset says. for while the present Jewish text names ophanim and chajjot with the seraphim. was at least as old as the Second Century of our E r a . 438. as a Jewish prayer. the text before us names besides the seraphim and cherubim the six classes of angels named in the N e w Testament. p. Bousset. A t first sight one would be tempted to italicize it as non-Jewish.v. p. is indeed able to trace the prayer back in Judaism to the middle of the Fourth Century. as well as the awkward way in which the. 205. This is of course possible. since we cannot be sure that the prayer as now used in synagogues has not gone through many changes in seventeen centuries. Bousset further pointed out that the sort of petition which in the Jewish liturgy today follows the Kedusha is the same sort of exhorta­ tion to Israel as that in the text given above ( § 4 ) . T h a t the Jews took the prayer from Christian liturgy could not be suggested. though it is not the sort of prayer one can imagine a Second or T h i r d Century Christian as 23. in the classes of the angels named. and God is the "Giver of L a w s " ( § 1 0 ) .

i. O L o r d A l m i g h t y . does do is to make it certain that the Christians of the time were borrowing from Jewish liturgy. on the Lord's by Thy the feast of Him resurrection conquered Him F o r by day. for t h e m e d i t a t i o n u p o n T h y laws. how he submitted in life. f r o m clay a n d b r i c k . Deut. 6. t h a t is. b u t a n o p p o r t u n i t y of piety. vii. t h e t r u e Israel. 5 5 .m a k i n g . a n d b e s t o w o n t h e m all sorts of g o o d t h i n g s . a n d d i d s t d e ­ liver t h e m o u t of t h e i r o n furnace. II Tim. 28. . T h o u didst enjoin t h e observation of t h e S a b b a t h . which may have been a proverbial formula. shows Christian redaction in the interest of orthodoxy. T h o u hast created t h e w o r l d by Christ. O L o r d . a n d hast 1 1 a p p o i n t e d t h e Sabbath i n m e m o r y thereof. 25. 1 8 . for t h e i r k n o w l 29 80 81 32 24. and died. 27. t h a t w e m i g h t c o m e i n t o t h e r e m e m b r a n c e of t h a t S o p h i a w h i c h w a s created by T h e e . 32. a n d didst bear t h e i r m a n n e r s i n t h e w i l d e r n e s s . viii. assemble life appeared is both to be made God and man. Deut. 22. For suggested emendation see the discussion below. 3 1 . by the fact that it embodies the Kedusha. 1-6. I T i . and rejoice has brought has and immortality to light. I Cor. 29. Acts xiii. 2 8 T h o u hast led the Gentiles t o Thyself for a p e c u l i a r p e o p l e . So the text as in Funk. xiv. i. F o r T h o u . Variant reading in d. tism. because t h a t o n t h a t d a y T h o u hast m a d e us rest f r o m o u r w o r k s . iv. 29. xv. LIGHT spontaneously writing. 30. a n d didst lead t h e m t h r o u g h t h e sea as t h r o u g h d r y l a n d . Once this most difficult point is definitely established. T h o u hast also a p p o i n t e d festivals for t h e rejoicing of o u r souls. xxxv. one can go on to investigate the extent of that borrowing with a freer hand. 3 . Exod. beloved of G o d . 10. F R A G M E N T II Constitutiones V I I . Gen. W h a t this prayer. T h o u didst give t h e m t h e L a w o r D e c a l o g u e . T h e next fragment is an even more idiomatically Jewish expression. t h e o n e t h a t sees G o d . which was pronounced by T h y voice a n d written w i t h T h y hand. Exod. 1 8 : a paraphrase of Deut. a n d didst r e d e e m t h e m o u t of t h e h a n d s of P h a r a o h . fteov Yevry&Eiaiig. xxxvi. 10. 20. 4. n o t affording t h e m a n occasion of idleness. account death™ 2 4 2. of a woman Himself He suffered power: of the who 26 on our bap­ for us which He appeared and demonstrated and rose again to celebrate on account in His on how He that we solemnly and 27 by Thy permission. account.3io B Y LIGHT. 26. b r o u g h t e s t o u r fathers o u t of t h e l a n d of E g y p t . 3 1 . Sophia as "created" comes from Prov. xx. a n d of those u n d e r h i m .

and man. seven days. which for all. after the praise of the Sabbath. who who Himself. That is a week of seven days. 34. This apparendy represents the cycle of seven seventh years. But only one quarter as much space as is devoted to the Sabbath is given to the Lord's Day. plus the previous cycles. 6. 36. and offer bless- Cause lived Thee. i. the God who unto ings. T h e original prayer has referred to the creation of Sophia. that is forty-nine years. a n d t h e seventh year. from the Mediator resurrection. seven months. T h e first large insertion is just as clearly extraneous to the original. us to rose again by Thee. T h e two main sections marked as Christian are obviously insertions. which makes approximately fifty years. of Mary Pontius the whole without Lawgiver. O n this account H e per­ m i t t e d m e n every S a b b a t h t o rest. that in identifying Christ with 3 3 . T h e latter one. t h a t m e n m i g h t h a v e n o occasion t o p r e t e n d i g n o r a n c e . the Lord's day commands has obscured O Lord. h a y i n g limited t h e m as w i t h i n a n h o l y precinct for t h e sake of t e a c h i n g t h e m t h e joy of t h e h e b d o m a d ." A Christian who would have written it de novo as it stands is inconceivable.T H E MYSTIC LITURGY 311 e d g e of T h y p o w e r . weakly asserts that the Lord's Day is more important than the Sabbath. 1 5 . creation™ a man. a n d t h e grateful praise t o G o d for t h e blessings H e has bestowed u p o n m e n . and by identifying Christ with Sophia the Christian redactor has an opportunity again to put in some lines from the Creed and to mention the Lord's Day. quite intelligible as a Christian appendix to the Jewish "Sabbatgebet. a n d seven h e b d o m a d s . Lev. First-born the Logos. Col.. 39 ff. 35. seven weeks. F o r t h e S a b b a t h is t h e ceasing of t h e creation. xxv. 5 . t h e i n q u i r y after laws. All which the Lord's day 83 84 85 excels. a n d t h e p r o h i b i t i o n of evils. a n d t h e cycle of these. a n d t h e seventh m o n t h . For this is the grace all other afforded of its greatness Bousset has called this a "Sabbatgebet. . xxiii. the dead. T o say the least. Cf. of the alone. O n this account w a s t h e r e a p p o i n t e d o n e h e b d o m a d . on account was crucified So that thanksgiving and died. the was born under the Protector." but unintelligible as the originally planned objective of the prayer. w h i c h is t h e fiftieth year for r e m i s s i o n . t h e c o m p l e t i o n of t h e w o r l d . and shows of the holily. T h e Christian has not noticed what Bousset has pointed out. The cycle of seven weeks. Pilate. the passage on the Lord's Day is an anti-climax. and of this small portion more than half is devoted to a brief creed. t h a t so n o o n e m i g h t be w i l l i n g t o send o n e w o r d o u t of his m o u t h i n a n g e r o n t h e d a y of t h e Sabbath.

But on the whole I agree with him that it is Jewish. this is not a familiar expression in Jewish prayers. Bousset recognized that this phrase was Philonic (p. 3 . to TOV TopayjX. n. to Y^vy]6eioy)c.312 B Y LIGHT. her" are part of the Christian insertion. the race beloved by G o d . 2 ) . of his seed according to the 40 by the birth 1 of born flesh. and hence judgment must wait for the rest of the material. 1 . n.* of a virgin alone. . Christ. T h a t is. The phrase reappears below in Fragment X. 1. but without the con­ ception of the Mystery of the True Israel he did not see that it was intimately connected with the idea of the sentence as a whole. indeed so reminiscent of the very heart of the Mystery. a n d h a s t h a d m e r c y o n Zion. and one manuscript. Israel. he has fallen into a heresy. a n d compassion o n J e r u s a l e m . See below. T h o u w h o h a s t fulfilled T h y p r o m i s e s m a d e b y t h e p r o p h e t s . ' " For I see the passage as an expression of the inner mystic joys of Judaism. 444. 39. as Bousset points out (p. 446. Rom. granting the change which makes the first phrase a reference to Sophia. the one that 'sees G o d . the true Israel. LIGHT Sophia. T h e r e is some problem in judging h o w m u c h of the sentence given imme­ diately after the first longer insertion (§20) is in its original form. But he also would change T a £0v/) to y)|iac. d o T h o u n o w . accept t h e p r a y e r s w h i c h p r o c e e d 37. ix. T h e problem cannot be resolved finally. 38. since. that I would keep the aAyjGivov which he rejected. Bousset suggests that by changing the auxou to auT/jc. H e certainly would not himself have spoken of KTioOdoa GO<P (a w h o was Christ. p. O L o r d G o d . and so m a k i n g the sentence refer to the Sophia just mentioned. there would be no need of supplying any intermediate material. 7. 41. or there were some other Jewish statements which origi­ nally stood between. specifically here a created being. Is. written by a more observant Christian.3 . . he would m a k e the section read: "For through her he has led us to Himself to be a peculiar people. the representation of Christ as a created being. ' " T h e last phrase is. for we have no way of knowing whether this sentence went on immediately after the last Jewish sentence before the Christian insertion. has changed the KTioScloyjc. i n t h e m i d s t of h e r . 40. i. Perhaps the words: "by exalting . . however. But this reading will depend for its justification upon the type of Judaism which the fragments as a whole are seen to reflect. that is the group that is beloved by G o d and 'sees G o d . b y e x a l t i n g t h e t h r o n e of D a v i d . xxxvii. and m a k e the sentence read: "For through her he has led us to Himself to be a peculiar people. who was 89 T h y servant. TOV aAy)0ivov 'IopcnfjA. 2 ) . 87 88 FRAGMENT Constitutiones III V I I . so thoroughly Philonic. 3 5 3 . which h e himself elsewhere is careful to deny.

xviii. F R A G M E N T IV Constitutiones V I I . a n d deliver. O M a s t e r A l m i g h t y . of Isaac at t h e W e l l of t h e O a t h . of E z r a at t h e r e t u r n . and above. For the Jewish origin of this phrase see Bousset's elaborate note. 48. 446. of Josiah i n P h a s s a . of M a t t a t h i a s a n d his sons i n t h e i r z e a l . of M a n a s s e h i n t h e l a n d of t h e C h a l d e a n s . of Moses i n t h e desert. it is incredible that a Christian of the time when the Apostolic Constitutions was written could have based all his precedents for prayer upon this list of the Patriarchs down to the Maccabees. Numb. of Jeptha i n t h e w a r before his rash v o w . of S a m s o n i n his thirst before t h e t r a n s g r e s s i o n . Heres. 44. 1 . 44 48 1. of Jacob i n B e t h e l . 2. w h e n h e w e n t o u t of t h e l a n d of t h e C h a l d e a n s . of A b r a h a m . of Z e r u b b a b e l . 4. of t h e t h r e e c h i l d r e n i n t h e fiery f u r n a c e . of D a v i d o n t h e threshing-floor of O m a n t h e Jebusite.. 275 f. as T h o u didst accept of t h e gifts of t h e righteous i n t h e i r generations. pp.2 5 . of S a m u e l in M i z p a h . of Elijah o n M o u n t C a r m e l . 42. w h i c h call u p o n T h e e i n T r u t h . W e give T h e e t h a n k s for all t h i n g s . Ps. the last Jewish period of grace. t h a t T h o u I \ J h a s t n o t t a k e n a w a y T h y mercies a n d T h y compassions f r o m u s . n. of N e h e m i a h at t h e r e b u i l d i n g of t h e w a l l s . I n t h e first place T h o u didst respect t h e sacrifice of A b e l . . of G i d e o n at t h e rock. xxxviii. of D a n i e l i n t h e d e n of l i o n s . of H e z e k i a h i n his sick­ ness. p. of J e h o s h a p h a t i n w a r . N o w also d o t h o u receive t h e prayers of T h y people w h i c h are offered t o T h e e w i t h gnosis. after his transgression. of Joshua t h e son of N u n i n G i l g a l . before his s i n . 446. 2 2 . 42a. xvi. a n d c o n c e r n i n g S e n n a c h e r i b . of M a n o a h a n d his wife i n t h e field. b u t i n 1 V every succeeding g e n e r a t i o n T h o u dost save.8 . and not gone on to mention the prayer or sacrifice of Christ or the achievements of the Apostles. of Solo­ m o n i n G i b e o n a n d i n J e r u s a l e m . On the mystic interpretation of this incident see Wisd. a n d assist.T H E MYSTIC LITURGY 313 f r o m t h e lips of T h y people which are of the Gentiles. 3 . of B a r a k a n d D e b o r a h i n t h e days of Sisera. 201. of Elisha at t h e b a r r e n f o u n t a i n . 43. of J o n a h i n t h e w h a l e ' s belly. of Jael in blessings. through Christ in the Spirit. a n d t h e fleeces. 1 8 . 4 2 42a As Bousset remarks. of A a r o n b e t w e e n t h e d e a d a n d t h e l i v i n g . a n d accept it as T h o u didst accept of t h e sacrifice of N o a h w h e n h e w e n t o u t of t h e a r k . of H a n n a h i n t h e tabernacle before t h e a r k . p. cxlv.

a n d h a t h freed u s f r o m f a m i n e . in t h e days of t h e j u d g e s . "from an evil tongue. a n d p r o d u c e s t it i n t o t h e l i g h t as a rational a n i m a l . n o w a n d ever. Literally. 5. T h o u takest care of us w h e n m a d e . a n d t h r o u g h all ages. through Jesus Christ. Ps. T h o u measurest o u t life t o u s . 46. I suspect that the text was originally "they" with reference to the whole patriarchal succession. F o r all w h i c h t h i n g s d o w e give T h e e t h a n k s t h r o u g h Christ. a n d a sight for c o n t e m p l a t i o n . w h o h a s given u s a n articulate voice t o confess w i t h a l . for m e n t o be t h a n k f u l ? T o d o it w o r t h i l y is impossible. xxxi. 6. Ps. 447). a n d t h e s m e l l i n g of v a p o u r s . i n t h e days of S a m u e l a n d of Elijah a n d of t h e p r o p h e t s . T h o u hast b r o u g h t u s i n t o b e i n g w h e n w e w e r e n o t . h a s delivered u s f r o m sickness. ending precisely with the Mac­ cabees. a n d a n a p p r o p r i a t e t o u c h . T h o u hast p r o c l a i m e d r e p e n t a n c e . 19.3*4 BY LIGHT. for T h o u didst assist i n t h e days of E n o s a n d E n o c h . and from the heresy of the mur­ derers of Christ. With the Christian interpolation out. and in our days Thou didst assist 4 5 46 us through Thy great High-Priest. a n d sustained u s . 4. Thou hast 47 sent Christ among men. "He" is naturally Judas Maccabeus. as indicated in the 45. H e r e again is the series of heroes of old. Thou hast made the Comforter to inhabit among us. i n t h e days of D a v i d a n d of t h e k i n g s . LIGHT a n d p r o t e c t : 2. T h o u hast instructed h i m b y T h y laws. i n t h e days of Judas Maccabeus a n d his b r e t h r e n . T h o u hast set angels over u s . a n d w h e n T h o u bringest o n a dissolution for a w h i l e . T h o u affordest u s f o o d . h a s p r e ­ served u s f r o m s l a n d e r . i n t h e days of E s t h e r a n d M o r d e c a i . A m e n . T h o u hast freed u s f r o m e r r i n g i g n o r a n c e . 20. G l o r y a n d w o r s h i p be t o T h e e for all these t h i n g s . A n d all these m e m b e r s dost T h o u f o r m f r o m a little d r o p i n t h e w o m b . F o r T h o u hast delivered u s f r o m t h e i m p i e t y of p o l y t h e i s m . a n d t h e h e a r i n g of sounds. F o r H e h a s delivered u s f r o m t h e s w o r d . 47. even m a n . Jesus Christ Thy Son. i n t h e days of J u d i t h . Bousset. or "Thou" with reference to God. W h e r e ­ fore w h a t life is sufficient. a n d feet for w a l k i n g . T h o u hast p r o m i s e d a resurrection. a n d a d d e d t o it a suitable t o n g u e t o b e a n i n s t r u m e n t like a p l e c t r u m . a n d h a n d s for w o r k . . a n d after t h e f o r m a ­ t i o n dost T h o u bestow o n it a n i m m o r t a l soul. i m p r o v e d h i m b y T h y statutes. i n t h e days of Moses a n d Joshua. a n d a p r o p e r taste. though in this case the Christian has not left it without the reference to Christ which the preceding prayer lacked. So Bousset takes it (p." Cf. w h a t l e n g t h of ages w i l l be l o n g e n o u g h . 7. 8. b u t t o d o it ac­ c o r d i n g t o o u r ability is just a n d r i g h t . T h o u hast p u t t h e devil t o s h a m e . 3 . being the unique God. xxxiii.

448. and hast given us the Teaching of Truth. who hast made us to Thy honor. Jesus Christ. 2 1 1 . i. mind (vovq) and sense perception. p.T H E MYSTIC LITURGY 315 text. 49 It is apparent at once that the thanksgiving in the prayer before us would have seemed to go into somewhat too great detail for Philo. it may be that the Savior there was the Logos. 448. It will be seen that these heroes are many of them included in a list of "priests" in Fragment X I . is the Logos. In that case the " H e " (of §3) who "delivered us from the sword" etc.. pp. A more tangible passage follows (§4) in which God is praised for having given men the different senses and the hands and feet. m £. "assisted us in the days" of each hero. (§3) is Judas Maccabeus." If the original Jewish prayer did not specifically state that the assistance of old came through the priesdy mediation of these men (who were or could be priests only in the mystic sense). For a thanksgiving for each of these individually it would not be unworthy for God to hear. not taking up the least and last details." etc. Spec. when the assisting "in our days" is done through the instru­ mentality of "the great High-Priest. For an understanding of the passage the Christian interpolation is suggestive. etc. the implication is that God "assisted us" through the instrumentality of each. See above. and that that Logos was working to save Israel through the heroes. Bousset has compared §7 with the following prayer from the Jewish Liturgy. Bousset follows Wendland in connecting this part of the prayer with a description of the proper way to pray given by Philo: 48 When thou givest thanks for an individual man. thinks that the " H e " who also delivered us from the sword. though the text simply states that "Thou. distribute thy thanksgiving in a rational way. our God. and which he thought could be better composed as he suggested. then his logos. the reader of the day so much understood the prayer that way that the Christian interpolator felt he was only carrying on the thought in bringing in the High-Priesthood of Christ. In the list of heroes. Otherwise. If a definite reference to the priesthood of these heroes of old has been taken out by the Christian from the Jewish prayer." that is God. p. His reasoning seems not fully convincing on that detail. first body and soul out of which the man is constituted. and the text would not need to be changed. 49. but the main divisions. one that comes immediately before the Kedusha de Sidra: 50 Blessed art Thou. 48. instead of " H e has delivered" the original probably read " T h o u hast. a thought that is made clear by the interpolation. . but it is pre­ cisely the sort of prayer he was accustomed to hear. 50. and hast separated us from the erring. and hast planted within us eternal life.

Similarly Philo uses nAavaoGai in various forms with reference to wandering from the mystic Road. 2-7. 54. Ebr. . 55. 1 5 7 .. 160. a n d b y T h y k n o w l e d g e T h o u searchest t h e t h o u g h t s of every o n e . a n d G o d of all beings. ix. 3 . w h o a l o n e a r t a l m i g h t y .. 55 V 2. Det. I Cor. w h o art merciful a n d c o m p a s s i o n a t e . a n d t h e L o r d . a n d w h o k n o w e s t t h e supplications t h a t a r e n o t u t t e r e d : for T h y p r o v i ­ d e n c e reaches as far as t h e i n m o s t p a r t s of m a n k i n d . 108. Jos." Philo has not exactly this phrase in combination. xxxiii. a n d b y w h o m every h e a r t is seen. Cong.. 5 3 . h o w t h e possession of riches is n o t everlasting. 1 3 1 . In some ways the most interesting Fragment of all is the following: 51 52 58 54 FRAGMENT Constitutiones V V I I .. but does say that ayvoia is the cause of all sin. are not Philonic. O u r eternal Savior. 10. "Ignorance which makes us wander" is then specifically the phraseology for the type of reprobation distinctive. iii... LIGHT T h e similarity is obvious and striking. Esther xiv.. a n d a b u n d a n t i n m e r c y . On the contrary it must be noted that the doctrines of a resurrection and of a personal devil in the prayer. 24. t h e K i n g of g o d s .3 i6 B Y LIGHT. the cause of halting progress and confu­ sion in contrast to the knowledge which shows the mystic "way of Salva­ tion. a n d of those before u s . IV Maccabees is sufficient evidence for the former. Ebr. a n d of Isaac. in Judaism." Ignorance is the thing that maims the part of the soul which sees and hears. O T h o u w h o hast a p p o i n t e d this p r e s e n t w o r l d as a r a c e c o u r s e i n righteousness. Fug. T h o u h e a r e r of t h e supplication of those t h a t call u p o n T h e e w i t h u p r i g h t n e s s . long-suffer­ i n g . Wisd. " T h o u hast separated us from the erring" is something quite different from " T h o u hast freed us from erring ignorance. 24 for the latter. a n d n a t u r a l j u d g m e n t . 52. a n d t h e G o d of o u r h o l y a n d b l a m e ­ less f a t h e r s . a n d t o w h o m every secret t h o u g h t is r e ­ vealed: t o T h e e d o t h e souls of t h e r i g h t e o u s cry a l o u d . a n d i n every r e g i o n of t h e w h o l e e a r t h t h e incense of p r a y e r a n d supplication is sent u p to T h e e .. t h e G o d of A b r a h a m . o u r 56 57 5 1 .g. E. 57. 183. ii. LXX. Exod. though they were familiar in Hellenistic Jewry. a n d hast o p e n e d t o all t h e g a t e of m e r c y . Yet I find in the nenAavyjuev/) ayvoia a slight but definite indication of Hellenistic thought as contrasted with the normative Judaism of the modern prayer. a n d of J a c o b . 2 1 . a n d hast d e m o n s t r a t e d t o every m a n b y i m p l a n t e d k n o w l e d g e . while sufficiendy Jewish. t h e o r n a m e n t of b e a u t y is n o t p e r p e t u a l . 16. t o w h o m every h e a r t is n a k e d . 56. T h o u F a t h e r of t h e blameless. a n d t h e a d m o n i t i o n s of t h e L a w . u p o n T h e e d o t h e h o p e s of t h e g o d l y trust. 1 2 . of the Mystery.

T h o u s h o w e d s t h i m Christ. a n d b y h i m speakest. an identification which Justin M a r t y r shows was early made by Christians from Hellenistic Judaism. xlviii. 65. £veo a . Gen. w h e n T h o u h a d s t g i v e n h i m Isaac. Exod. A n d so spakest T h o u t o Moses. before t h e p r o m i s e of t h e r e g e n e r a t i o n is accomplished. for reasons given below. . See Frag. a n d t h a t all is v a p o u r a n d v a n i t y . pp. T h o u w a s t t h e n called h i s G o d . 4. . 63. s a y i n g : " I w i l l b e a G o d t o t h e e . 1 5 and Gen. " 7. tim-COV 'ApQaan u-exajtoiouuivov xfiv 686V xfjc. " T h e consciousness of faith unfeigned" (ouvciSyjoic ttiotecjc avurrouAoc. d^/nveiag. a n d k n e w e s t h i m t o b e like h i m i n his character. T h o u a r t blessed for ever. a n d gnosis w a s t h e f o r e r u n n e r of h i s f a i t h . but I find myself here disagree­ ing with h i m on many points. 464. 14. 142 ff. 58.iYY "^ J the mystic transformation with which initiation culminates. a n d faith w a s t h e consequence of h i s g n o s i s . Bousset has discussed the prayer at length. Christian authorship is unthinkable. a n d didst teach h i m w h a t k i n d of state this w o r l d i s . 60. The text is dubious. s a y i n g : " B e ­ h o l d . M o r e o v e r . IX. JtaA. See my Theology of Justin Martyr." follows ms. p. a n d r e t u r n i n g w i t h t r u t h . 64. be either a Christian interpolation or else faith in the "Stoic" sense. " 6. T h a t it might be. 1 6 . according to h i m . 61. a rather than the text as given by Funk. p. 58 5 9 60 61 62 68 Except for the identification of Christ with Jacob's dream of the Logos. 59. "gnosis . 62. at t h e vision of t h e b u s h : " I a m H e t h a t i s . " A n d w h e n o u r father Jacob w a s sent i n t o Meso­ p o t a m i a . a n d is joyful. there is not a Christian syllable in this prayer. F o r f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g w h e n o u r forefather A b r a h a m laid c l a i m t o t h e w a y of t r u t h T h o u didst g u i d e h i m b y a vision. O T h o u great p r o t e c t o r of t h e posterity of A b r a h a m . gnosis. 6. faith in the Hellenistic Jewish sense has not occurred to him. This translation. a n d m y m e m o r i a l f o r generations of g e n e r a t i o n s . a n d m u l t i p l y t h e e ex­ c e e d i n g l y . xiii. this is m y n a m e for ever. a n d t h a t o n l y t h e g o o d conscience of faith u n f e i g n e d passes t h r o u g h t h e m i d s t of t h e heavens. as I think it is. §3) must. iii. a n d t o t h y seed after t h e e . a n d I w i l l increase thee. 1 7 . 1 5 . 356." 5. 4. A composite of Gen. F o r T h o u saidst: " I w i l l m a k e t h y seed as t h e stars of heaven. T O U jtQOJtdxoQOc. Dialogue. t h e soul itself exults i n h o p e .T H E MYSTIC LITURGY 317 s t r e n g t h a n d force a r e easily dissolved. Jena. 1923. A n d w i t h a l . takes h o l d of t h e r i g h t h a n d of t h e j o y w h i c h is t o c o m e . T h y faithful a n d h o l y servant. A t the suggestion of Rahlfs he has pointed out that several words in this prayer reflect the terminology of the Aquila translation of the O l d Testa64 65 58. a n d as t h e s a n d w h i c h is b y t h e sea-shore. xxii. I a m w i t h t h e e . xxviii.

1 7 . pp. r e n d e r e d 66. xxxiv.-Histor. which like the others is of Jewish origin. F o r by T h y t a k i n g t h o u g h t . 29 ff. which he finds distinctly those of Hellenistic Judaism. from Jews using the Aquila translation. a group distinct in the Consti­ tutions. This normative prayer was then retouched by mystic Jews. 2. t h e h e a v e n is fixed as a n a r c h over u s . There is one more Fragment in this group. or that the direct citations originally were given in the Aquila version. But what type of Jew would have been interested in turning back to the Septuagint? Obviously only a thoroughly Hellenized Jew. and that a paraphrase only reflecting Biblical terminology. O L o r d . a n d stretch o u t t h e h e a v e n . LIGHT m e n t . Yet an investigation of the direct citations in the Fragment showed that in all but this one case. For details see Bousset. t h e w o r l d is beautified. I Tim. w h o b y Christ hast m a d e t h e w h o l e w o r l d . d. Ges. a n d didst p u t i n t o t h e m a spirit of life. 67 i. a n d by H i m in t h e b e g i n n i n g didst r e d u c e i n t o o r d e r t h e disordered p a r t s . Philol. T o this we shall return in the general discussion of the prayers. T h e language that came into the prayey from Aquila but not in the form of direct citation escaped the redac­ tor. O L o r d .3 i8 66 B Y LIGHT. t h e K i n g of a g e s . but were corrected by Jews or Christians after the com­ position of the prayer to make them accord with the Septuagint. 1 9 1 5 . Klasse. T h e direct citations were put back into the Septuagint and the notion introduced that Jacob's vision was one of the Logos. Wissenschaft zu Gottingen. Each of these suggestions has serious difficulties. von der . Beiheft. i. F R A G M E N T VI Constitutiones V I I . 1-8. 67. Bousset and Rahlfs think then either that the Septuagint citations must have been put in later by the Christian redactor. T h e citations are too organically parts of the prayer to have been put in by a Christian who had altered the prayer as slightly as this prayer has been altered. w h o dividest t h e w a t e r s f r o m t h e w a t e r s by a f i r m a m e n t . w h o didst fix t h e earth. the Septuagint was exclusively followed. and only changed the Logos to Christ. pp. along with other mystic notions. as they seem to have taken the others in this group.. As a mere possi­ bility I should suggest that the prayer originated in a normative Hellenistic milieu. a n d i s . 465 ff. and Liitkemann and Rahlfs in Nachrichten ^. T h e Christians took the prayer from mystic Jews. Bousset goes on to a very interesting discussion of the ideas of the prayer. since the prayer shows such slight evidence of Christian redaction. Alterations of the direct citations from Aquila back to the Septuagint would seem to have been made by a Jew. T h o u art blessed. a n d didst accurately dispose t h e o r d e r of every creature.

b e i n g (£K TOU [XY\ OVTOC). i.T H E MYSTIC LITURGY 319 illustrious w i t h stars for o u r c o m f o r t i n t h e d a r k n e s s . Gen. w h o c a n possibly describe it. B u t as for t h e sea itself. w h i c h comes w i t h fury f r o m t h e ocean. A n d at t h e conclusion of t h e creation T h o u gavest direction t o T h y Sophia. A n d t h e firmament w a s exhibited i n t h e m i d s t of t h e abyss. t h e n o u r i s h e r s of those p l a n t s . a n d f o r m e d s t a reasonable creature as t h e citizen of t h e w o r l d . a n d b o t h t o air a n d w a t e r . T h o u didst deprive h i m of t h e life w h i c h s h o u l d h a v e b e e n his r e w a r d . b y its increase a n d d i m i n u t i o n s . b e i n g s t o p p e d b y t h e s a n d at T h y c o m m a n d ? F o r T h o u hast said: " T h e r e b y shall h e r waves be b r o k e n . " L e t u s m a k e m a n after o u r i m a g e . a n d t h e variety of several t r e e s . t h e r e d o t h e y rise a n d set for signs of t h e seasons a n d of t h e years. a n d bestowedst u p o n h i m his five senses. a n d T h o u didst b y o a t h call h i m t o a resurrection. t h e noise of t h e t h u n d e r . . Gen. a n d t h e s h i n i n g l u m i ­ naries. 69. T h e l i g h t also a n d t h e s u n w e r e b e g o t t e n for days. VII. a n d t h e m o o n for t h e c h a n g e of seasons. b u t h a d s t p r e p a r e d a soul o u t of n o t . O L o r d G o d . a n d loosedst 6 8 69 70 71 72 68. t o t h e air. 16. saying. 70. B u t w h e r e T h o u biddest t h e m . 72. " T h o u hast also m a d e it n a v i g a b l e for little a n d g r e a t creatures. a n d after o u r l i k e n e s s " . so n e i t h e r h a s she d i s d a i n e d t o exercise a different p r o v i d e n c e t o w a r d s every o n e . a n d didst set over h i s sensations a m i n d as t h e c o n d u c t o r of t h e soul. t h e s h i n i n g of t h e l i g h t n i n g . Y e t didst T h o u n o t destroy h i m for ever. a n d t h e d r y l a n d t o a p p e a r . 1 1 . F o r as she w a s n o t u n a b l e t o p r o d u c e different k i n d s . A f t e r w a r d s t h e k i n d s of t h e several a n i m a l s w e r e created—those b e l o n g i n g t o t h e l a n d . The phrase may well be an expression which we do not have elsewhere. a n d o n e w a s called N i g h t . yet r u n s b a c k a g a i n . 26. i. Job xxxviii. a n d hast exhibited h i m as t h e o r n a m e n t of t h e w o r l d . meaning that man is created the microcosm. See Fragm. T h e n d i d t h e e a r t h b e c o m e g r e e n . 7 1 . a n d t h e o t h e r D a y . 7. x6au. c o m p e n s a t i n g t h e w o r k of m e n . b u t laidst h i m t o sleep for a t i m e . preserve t h e i r u n c h a n g e a b l e course. a n d t h e p r o d u c t i o n of fruit. a n d t h e m o s t agreeable t e m p e r a t u r e of t h e a i r ? 8. 5. a n d i n n o t h i n g d e p a r t f r o m T h y c o m m a n d . a n d for ships. a n d w a s a d o r n e d w i t h all sorts of flowers. 4. 9. a n d t h e creative Sophia of T h y p r o v i d e n c e does still i m p a r t t o every o n e a suitable p r o v i d e n c e . i. w h o c a n w o r t h i l y declare t h e m o t i o n of t h e r a i n y clouds. a n d f o r m e d h i m a b o d y o u t of t h e four e l e m e n t s . 6. t o t h e w a t e r . a n d T h o u c o m m a n d e s t t h e w a t e r s t o b e g a t h e r e d t o g e t h e r . 3. i n o r d e r t o t h e supply of p r o p e r food. Gen. A n d besides all these t h i n g s . B u t w h e n m a n w a s disobedient. 5.ou y.6a\iov.

b y w h o m w e r e all t h i n g s . viii. 75. t h e first b y n a t u r e . 78. ever­ lasting sight. 50 ff.P r i e s t . didst T h o u also b e s t o w w e l l b e i n g : t h e G o d a n d F a t h e r of T h y o n l y Son. 1. F o r T h o u a r t Gnosis. but it is just as likely the source of the words in Ephesians iii. 74. Cf. VT. as f r o m t h e i r origin. b u t didst beget H i m before all ages b y T h y w i l l . 6-27. 77. 14. 342. a n d w i t h o u t b e g i n n i n g . 8. LIGHT Jesus Christ.. 80. t h e a n g e l of T h y g r e a t c o u n s e l . i. A fairly frequent expression in this liturgy (see Bousset 435. 6 and below. Perhaps this is a Christian interpolation. 79. See above. I Tim. 7. f r o m w h o m all t h i n g s c a m e i n t o b e i n g . i. w h o alone standest i n n e e d of n o t h i n g . i. w h o a r t a l w a y a n d i m m u t a b l y t h e s a m e .b e i n g (£K TOU \IY\ O V T O C ) i n t o b e i n g b y T h y o n l y S o n . w i t h o u t a n y agency. a n d T h y H i g h . p. n. t h e p o w e r s a n d a u t h o r i t i e s . 1 ) which vividly recalls Philo's distinctions in (puouc. 82. w h o a r t before created t h i n g s . w h o a r t t h e bestower of e v e r y t h i n g t h a t is g o o d . t h e b o n d of d e a t h . O eternal G o d . T h y p o w e r . Col. See above. MovoYEVTjg may have come from John i. I Cor. Col. which must be quoted at once: F R A G M E N T VII Constitutiones V I I I . 1 7 . 6. b u t t h e K i n g a n d L o r d of every intellectual a n d sen­ sible n a t u r e . w h o didst b r i n g all t h i n g s o u t of n o t . u n t a u g h t Sophia. ix. a n d b e y o n d all n u m b e r . t h e aeons a n d hosts. t h e o n l y Son. t h e first-born of every c r e a t u r e . 73 W i t h this prayer Bousset elaborately compares the great "It is very meet and right" prayer of Constitutions VIII. w h o a r t t h e t r u e G o d . 81. for b y t h e very s a m e t h a t T h o u bestowedst b e i n g . f r o m w h o m t h e w h o l e family i n h e a v e n a n d e a r t h is n a m e d . w h i c h h a t h n o b e g i n n i n g . Frag. I t is very m e e t a n d r i g h t before a l l t h i n g s t o s i n g a n h y m n t o T h e e . Is. t h e p r i n c i 7 4 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 73. 76. w h o a r t b e y o n d all cause a n d g e n e r a t i o n . See below. 1 5 . Col. a n d t h r o u g h H i m it is t h a t T h o u vouchsafest T h y suitable p r o v i d e n c e over t h e w h o l e w o r l d .320 B Y LIGHT. a n d T h y goodness. . F o r T h o u . Cf. G o d t h e L o g o s . O T h o u reviver of t h e d e a d . w h o only a r t u n b e g o t t e n . t h e l i v i n g Sophia. 6. through who is our hope. a n d w i t h o u t a r u l e r o r a m a s t e r . xii. §17. 1 5 . u n b e g o t t e n h e a r i n g . w h o b y H i m didst m a k e before all t h i n g s t h e c h e r u b i m a n d t h e s e r a p h i m . 16 is similar but not an exact parallel. i. L X X . didst m a k e all t h i n g s b y H i m . alone i n b e i n g . w h o w a s before all t h i n g s . 6. 18. pp.

i. s t r o n g a n d w e a k . w h o didst e n c o m p a s s this w o r l d . v. a n d w a t e r it w i t h c u r r e n t s . t h e s o u n d s of various sorts of flying c r e a t u r e s . a n d didst r e p l e n i s h t h e f o r m e r w i t h small a n d great l i v i n g creatures. didst b y H i m m a k e this visible w o r l d . for T h o u hast r e p l e n i s h e d T h y w o r l d . t a m e a n d w i l d . a n d didst r e n d e r t h e f o r m e r n a v i g a b l e a n d t h e latter fit for w a l k i n g . t h e life-giving air for i n h a l a t i o n a n d e x h a l a t i o n . a n d a d o r n e d it w i t h sweet-smell­ i n g a n d w i t h h e a l i n g herbs. w h i c h w a s m a d e b y T h e e t h r o u g h Christ. 87. Is. 16. b y m e a n s of t h e t o n g u e . a n d t h e m o o n t o r u l e over t h e n i g h t . yet didst T h o u every w a y b o u n d t h e m w i t h barriers of t h e smallest s a n d . Jer. d i d s t f u r n i s h it w i t h various p l a n t s . a n d p r e p a r e t h e n i g h t a n d t h e d a y . civ. w i t h m a n y a n d various living creatures. t h e a r c h a n g e l s a n d a n g e l s . 13. a n d all t h i n g s t h a t a r e t h e r e i n . w h i c h strikes t h e air. a n d t h a t w e m i g h t b e w a r m e d a n d e n l i g h t e n e d b y i t . xl. a n d o n its d e p a r t u r e didst b r i n g o n d a r k n e s s . w h o didst b r i n g t h e l i g h t o u t of T h y treasures. w h o d i d s t m a k e t h e w a t e r for d r i n k a n d for cleansing. 10. Gen. 2. w i t h rivers. F o r T h o u a r t H e w h o didst f r a m e t h e h e a v e n as a n a r c h . a n d o n every side m a d e s t a m i g h t y cavity for it. 22. w i t h t h e circuits of t h e years. w h o m a d e s t fire for o u r con­ solation i n d a r k n e s s . w h o didst separate t h e great sea f r o m t h e l a n d . 22. a n d t h e h e a r i n g . 11.T H E MYSTIC LITURGY 321 palities a n d t h r o n e s . w h o didst fix t h e firmament. a n d beau­ tify it w i t h flowers. Ps. 88. 85. Job xxxviii. for t h e s u p p l y of o u r w a n t . 9. 12. t h a t it m a y be easy t o seafaring m e n i n t h e i r v o y a g e s . b o t h t a m e a n d w i l d . . a n d stretch it o u t like t h e c o v e r i n g of a t e n t . a n d filledst t h e latter w i t h t h e s a m e . for t h e rest of t h e l i v i n g creatures t h a t m o v e i n t h e w o r l d . 14. t h e n u m b e r s of m o n t h s a n d days. a n d after all these. a n d s o m e t i m e s dost still it w i t h a c a l m . w h i c h c o n t a i n s seas of salt w a t e r s h e a p e d t o g e t h e r . t h e o r d e r of 83 84 8 5 8 8 87 88 83. a n d didst f o u n d t h e e a r t h u p o n n o t h ­ i n g b y T h y w i l l . for food a n d for labor. 7. 86. a n d didst b i n d it r o u n d w i t h m o u n t a i n s for t h e i m m o v a b l e a n d secure consistence of t h e e a r t h : 15. Gen. 8. Job xxvi. a n d for t h e affording of s o u n d s . t h e h e a r i n g perceives i t . Job xxxviii. a n d didst inscribe i n h e a v e n t h e choir of stars t o praise T h y glorious m a j e s t y . so t h a t w h e n speech comes i n t o t h e h e a r i n g a n d falls u p o n it. w h o didst establish t h e g r e a t d e e p . a n d sometimes dost s m o o t h it i n t o a p l a i n . w h o didst a p p o i n t t h e s u n i n h e a v e n t o r u l e over t h e d a y . a n d c r o w n it w i t h herbs. w i t h t h e noises of c r e e p i n g t h i n g s . i. a n d e n r i c h it w i t h seeds. s o m e t i m e s dost e n r a g e it w i t h a tempest. a n d m o i s t e n it w i t h springs t h a t never fail. w h o sometimes dost raise it t o t h e h e i g h t of m o u n t a i n s b y t h e w i n d s . 84. w h i c h co­ operates w i t h t h e air.

a n d tasted of t h e f o r b i d d e n fruit. b y t h e deceit of t h e serpent a n d t h e counsel of his wife. a n d a c c o r d i n g t o o u r likeness. 21.b e i n g (£K TOU \XY\ OVTOC). for t h e p r o d u c t i o n of t h e fruits a n d t h e s u p p o r t of living creatures. 19. A n d T h o u h a s t n o t o n l y created t h e w o r l d itself. h e m i g h t receive t h e r e w a r d of it. a n d let t h e m h a v e d o m i n i o n over t h e fish of t h e sea. t h e courses of t h e r a i n y clouds.J22 B Y LIGHT. T h o u allowedst h i m t h e privilege of e n j o y i n g all t h i n g s . A n d w h e n T h o u m a d e s t h i m . b u t T h o u d i d s t subject t h e w h o l e creation to h i m . T h o u didst w i t h a n o a t h call h i m t o a restoration again. 25. t h a t so h e m i g h t h a v e at h o m e a n d w i t h i n himself t h e seeds of divine k n o w l e d g e . . b u t hast also m a d e m a n for a citizen of t h e w o r l d . didst by Christ p l a n t a paradise i n E d e n . 20. a n d didst g r a n t h i m liberty t o p r o c u r e h i m ­ self food b y his o w n sweat a n d labors. i. t h a t i n case h e w o u l d k e e p t h a t c o m m a n d . b u t w h e n T h o u h a d s t increased his posterity to a n i n n u m e r a b l e m u l t i t u d e . t o g r o w . W h e r e f o r e also T h o u hast m a d e h i m of a n i m m o r t a l soul a n d of a b o d y liable t o dissolution—the f o r m e r o u t of n o t . Gen. w h i l s t T h o u didst cause all t h e fruits of t h e e a r t h t o s p r i n g u p . Job xxviii. T h o u gavest h i m a L a w i m p l a n t e d w i t h i n h i m . a n d over t h e fowls of t h e h e a v e n . A n d w h i l e T h o u didst accept t h e sacrifice of A b e l as a h o l y person. T h o u didst reject t h e gift of C a i n t h e m u r d e r e r of his 89 90 89. B u t w h e n h e d i s r e g a r d e d t h a t c o m m a n d . a n d t h e observation of r i g h t a n d wrong. i n h o p e s of greater blessings. O G o d A l m i g h t y . T h o u hast g r a n t e d h i m five senses a n d progressive m o t i o n : 18. didst loose t h e b o n d of d e a t h . e x h i b i t i n g h i m as t h e o r n a m e n t of t h e w o r l d (KOOUOU KOOUOV). LIGHT t h e seasons. i n t h e east. 90. a n d didst i n t r o d u c e h i m i n t o it. a n d those w h o d i d apostatize f r o m T h e e T h o u didst p u n i s h . B u t w h e n T h o u h a d s t laid h i m asleep for a w h i l e . as i n t o a r i c h b a n q u e t . n o r suffer h i m t o perish utterly. for T h o u . t h e d i s c e r n i n g of piety a n d i m p i e t y . A n d n o t this o n l y . w h i c h w a s i m m o r t a l i t y . for h e w a s T h y c r e a t u r e . for T h o u didst say to T h y S o p h i a : " L e t us m a k e m a n a c c o r d i n g t o o u r i m a g e . " 17. a d o r n e d w i t h all p l a n t s fit for food. a n d p r o m i s e h i m life b y resurrection. w h i c h b l o w w h e n c o m m a n d e d b y T h e e . those t h a t c o n t i n u e d w i t h T h e e T h o u didst glorify. only f o r b i d d i n g t h e tasting of o n e tree. T h o u hast also a p p o i n t e d t h e station of t h e w i n d s . 26. A n d w h e n T h o u h a d s t b r o u g h t h i m i n t o t h e paradise of pleasure. a n d t h e m u l t i t u d e of t h e p l a n t s a n d herbs. t h e latter o u t of t h e four e l e m e n t s — a n d hast given h i m as t o his soul r a t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e . 16. a n d t o r i p e n . a n d as t o his b o d y . Yet of T h y goodness T h o u didst n o t overlook h i m . T h o u didst justly cast h i m o u t of paradise.

b u t didst raise u p T h y h o l y servant Moses. xix. I Pet: iii. 23. cvii. T h o u didst a d o r n A a r o n a n d his posterity w i t h t h e priesthood. a n d didst a p p o i n t h i m t o be t h e h e i r of t h e w o r l d . T h o u didst accept Seth a n d E n o s . a n d d r o w n a n d destroy t h e E g y p t i a n s w h o p u r s u e d after t h e m .. a n d p u n i s h t h e E g y p t i a n s . 20. b u t didst snatch h o l y L o t o u t of t h e conflagra­ t i o n . 93. O L o r d . T h o u didst sweeten t h e bitter w a t e r w i t h w o o d . O L o r d . a n d m a d e it t h e equivalent of T h e e . x. a n d didst p u n i s h t h e H e ­ b r e w s w h e n t h e y sinned. t h e G o d of t h e universe. 34. didst n o t over­ l o o k t h e H e b r e w s w h e n t h e y w e r e afflicted b y t h e E g y p t i a n s . viii. a n d b y h i m didst give t h e w r i t t e n L a w for t h e assistance of t h e L a w of N a t u r e . T h o u . a n d t h e b e g i n n i n g of those t h a t w e r e t o c o m e . Cf. 26. a n d t h e avenger of those t h a t transgress t h e m . T h o u didst b r i n g w a t e r o u t 91 92 9 3 91. Is. a n d sometimes h o n o u r e d it m o r e t h a n t h e y o u g h t . a n d didst discover t o h i m T h y Christ. Gen. a n d didst s h o w t h a t t h e creation w a s T h y w o r k . a n d h a d sometimes esteemed t h e creation t o be self-caused ( a u T o i a o t T o v ) . for T h o u art t h e creator of m e n . suffer t h e m t o g o astray. b u t g r a n t e d s t h i m . 25. h o w e v e r . 92. a n d t h e r e w a r d e r of those t h a t observe t h e m . a n d didst divide t h e sea. a n d t h e supplier of w a n t . a n d didst translate E n o c h : 22. t h e g o v e r n m e n t over t h e E g y p t i a n s . T h o u didst p u n i s h t h e E g y p t i a n s w i t h a j u d g m e n t of t e n p l a g u e s . .T H E MYSTIC LITURGY 323 b r o t h e r . a n d didst t u r n a fruitful l a n d i n t o a salt lake for t h e w i c k e d n e s s of t h e m t h a t d w e l t t h e r e i n . as a r e w a r d of his chastity for T h y sake. b u t T h o u didst deliver t h e m . w h o m a d e s t Isaac t h e son of t h e p r o m i s e . a n d receive t h e m a g a i n w h e n t h e y r e t u r n e d t o T h e e . T h o u art H e w h o didst deliver A b r a h a m f r o m t h e impiety of his forefathers. a n d t h e giver of life. Ps. w h o didst r e n d e r T h y p a t i e n t servant Job t h e c o n q u e r o r of t h a t serpent w h o is t h e p a t r o n of w i c k e d ­ n e s s . T h o u . w h o didst k i n d l e a fearful fire against t h e five cities of S o d o m . o n a c c o u n t of t h e promises m a d e u n t o t h e i r f a t h e r . a n d b r i n g h i m i n t o E g y p t w i t h seventy-five souls. 6. w h o didst b r i n g t h e great flood u p o n t h e w o r l d by reason of t h e m u l t i t u d e of t h e u n g o d l y . as a n a b h o r r e d w r e t c h . LXX. didst n o t overlook Joseph. A n d w h e n m e n h a d c o r r u p t e d t h e L a w of N a t u r e . a n d t h e giver of laws. a n d didst increase his posterity to a m u l t i t u d e . 20. t h e e n d of t h e f o r e g o i n g generations. a n d Jacob t h e father of t w e l v e sons. w h o didst af o r e h a n d o r d a i n M e l ­ c h i z e d e k a n high-priest for T h y w o r s h i p . A n d besides these. 24. a n d didst b a n i s h a w a y t h e error of p o l y t h e i s m . Wisd. a n d didst deliver r i g h t e o u s N o a h f r o m t h a t flood i n a n a r k . T h o u didst n o t . a n d b r i n g t h e Israelites t h r o u g h it. w i t h e i g h t s o u l s .

a n d w i t h constant a n d l o u d voices. more probably. F o r all these t h i n g s . In pp. a n d a pillar of cloud b y d a y t o o v e r s h a d o w t h e m f r o m t h e h e a t .3 4 2 B Y LIGHT. Justin Martyr shows how this conception of Hellenistic Judaism. T h e Christian redaction of the original Jewish prayer has not included this idea. . T h o u didst declare Joshua t o b e t h e g e n e r a l of t h e a r m y . See my The Theology of Justin Martyr. glory b e t o T h e e . It is interesting that the Christian hymn or prayer begins with what the Jewish prayer has not hinted. T h o u didst r a i n m a n n a f r o m h e a v e n . principalities. w i t h t w a i n their