BY LIGHT, LIGHT

THE MYSTIC GOSPEL OF HELLENISTIC JUDAISM

T H E Y ARE O N T H E W A Y T O T R U T H W H O

APPREHEND

G O D BY M E A N S OF DIVINITY, L I G H T B Y ITS L I G H T

ERWIN R. G O O D E N O U G H

BY LIGHT, LIGHT
THE MYSTIC GOSPEL OF HELLENISTIC JUDAISM

AMSTERDAM

PHILO PRESS
1969

ERWIN RAMSDELL GOODENOUGH:

BY L I G H T , L I G H T . THE MYSTIC GOSPEL OF HELLENISTIC JUDAISM
FIRST PUBLISHED NEW HAVEN, CONN. 1 9 3 5 .

PHILO
4.

PRESS

PUBLISHERS

SINGEL 3 9 5 AMSTERDAM C 1969

ALL RIGHTS R E S E R V E D . REPRINT 1 9 6 8 OF THE EDITION NEW H A V E N 1935. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGUE CARD NUMBER 3 5 - 5 9 5 8 .

CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS INTRODUCTION I . T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY I I . T H E HIGHER L A W I I I . T H E TORAH I V . T H E MYSTERY OF AARON V . ENOS, ENOCH, NOAH, AND ABRAHAM V I . ISAAC AND JACOB V I I . MOSES AS PRESENTED TO THE GENTILE INQUIRER V I I I . T H E MYSTIC MOSES I X . T H E MYSTERY X . T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS X I . T H E MYSTIC LITURGY EPILOGUE: TRACES OF THE MYSTERY IN THE KABBALAH APPENDIX: L A W IN THE SUBJECTIVE R E A L M INDEX I : SUBJECTS AND N A M E S INDEX I I : GREEK WORDS INDEX I I I : PHILONIC PASSAGES INDEX I V : NON-PHILONIC PASSAGES

O I K Q I T Q I EMQI
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.

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

without realizing h o w "cross-grained" their study has been. 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. In this connection it must be remembered that their ancestors could never leave the gods of the Canaanites alone. to read the corpus in an attempt to find what Philo himself wanted the reader to learn. and still regard themselves as true Israelites. H o w far they succeeded in Palestine u p to the fall of Jerusalem. So it is not surprising. especially on the part of those who have been reading Philo for years. So long as they were faithful to the requirements of Yahveh they thought that they could satisfy the requirements of other gods as well. our records do not indicate. T h e Phari­ sees came forward in place of the ancient prophets to insist upon Jewish ideological exclusiveness. It is apparent that after the great revival of Ezra this was n o longer pos­ sible. Jewish children now had Greek . But their nature seems not to have changed. at least as regards cult practices. Yet even the Pharisees were full of foreign notions about angels. that he should emerge with a novel interpretation. 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. yet leave the reader quite at a loss for the content and purpose of the writings themselves. L o n g before the beginnings of the Pharisaic reaction Jews went over to Egypt in great and increasing numbers. 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. T h e great mass of the Israelites seem never to have suspected that to be Israelites meant to be in opposition to everything. the sinfulness of Greek literature and manners. when a student should try to do just this which seems never to have been done.6 B Y LIGHT. LIGHT ent treatises to each other. is that the new interpretation not only involves Philo. that was not pe­ culiarly their own. It seems to m e then that Jews in the Diaspora began very early to borrow ideas from their neighbors. determinism. but has a significance for the whole problem of the origin of Christianity which most students in that field will not welcome. 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. and were primarily thinking in Greek terms. 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. T h e Jews became a race with a single and exclusive cult. and the future life. W h a t must provoke initial resistance. but was apostasy from true Yahvism. It will clarify the reader's mind if that thesis is clearly stated at the outset. however attractive.

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

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

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

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

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. T h e sun was taken as the figure. This stream may be called a stream of light. Yet. 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. Or it could be. 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. T h e aspects are only convenient abstractions for our immediate purpose. It is not the sun. F r o m Plato's myth of the Cave on through the latest Neo-Platonists. But the stream itself is greater than any of these single aspects. it sends out its great stream of light and heat which makes life possible upon the earth. a self-sufficient existence. but is itself a unit. Independent of the world. yet it is in a sense the projection of the sun to us. or of creation. See Brehier's excellent discussion Les Idees. yet without need of fuel from outside itself. or it could inspire the mystical fervor with which Plato's passage is heated. to all appearances. 69 ff. for the stream from the sun is not a pluralistic collection of independent elements. the Absolute. Philo's Deity had somehow to be brought into rela­ tion with the world. as of course it still is. But the figure was constantly used. both. 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. or was so regarded by the ancients. like the God of later Neo-Platonism. a radiation or emanation from and of fiery nature. T h e arrauyaojja could then be a purely ontological theory in metaphysics. that orb which burns. as well as beyond the Good and all other categories. As light is brighter at the source. as to Plato. eter­ nally. it had reality. 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. In so far as a concept could be connected with the a n a u y a o n a from Reality. or as one api . . Plato's TO ayaOov. or of heat. or of life. in spite of the fact that H e was essentially beyond rela­ tion. Such a figure was universally taken in antiquity when the problem of the relation of the Unrelated had to be discussed. in as m u c h as in ancient thought light was a stream of fire coming from a fiery source. 1 T h e tendency was equally constant to break u p the Light-Stream from God into successive stages. a single and unique Being beyond even the Monad and the number One.

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

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

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

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

Orphism sought to get the same results as the Bacchanalia by a more tem­ pered cultus and a more philosophical mythology. the Son of the supreme God and "the Female Principle. T h e Giaooc. and hence of the necessity for regeneration in the sense of purification. Greeks learned first to look for an immediate experience of God which would be a sharing in the divine immortal nature. and so produces the Savior God Dionysus. Probably a large majority of the Greeks w h o were initiated into one . 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. two mythologies. and asserting each its own exclusive truth." Its white-clad initiates were free from the burden of the flesh. Here. as represented by the Bacchic and Orphic Giaooi. dif­ ferent though similar. and only as he can get out of that nature into the divine nature can he hope really to live. the notion of the possible share of m a n in divine nature by cult acts. was widely accepted." were kept. the sacraments offered in the widely scattered Giaooi. in Classic Greece herself there were." and into the very being of the savior the mystic can rise. 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. A divine savior is at hand to give h i m this life. If Plato could treat each with respect. 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. M a n is sinful by his very nature. and so be a foretaste of life after death. LIGHT life. in a wild way. of the possibility of attaining that salvation through cere­ monies. and the conception of the cosmic significance of the Savior God as the son of the supreme deity by the "Female Principle. as well as a way of escape from the cloying contamination of the "wheel. the less critical "average m a n " would have done so. powerful as were the attractions of the rites. T h e Orphics seem to have given the Greeks a "sense of sin" in the later meaning of that phrase. two sets of sacraments. T h e r e seems first to have arisen here the conception of the uncleanness of matter. But it is just as important to notice that strong as was the conviction of the truth of this theory of man. and were only awaiting the final deliverance. a chthonic deity." denouncing each other. 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." Demeter. of salvation as release from matter and union with divine nature. but that the mythology itself was rather sug­ gestive than definitive. Orphism and the Bacchic Giaooi were not rival "churches. T h e means thereto are at hand.i6 B Y LIGHT. 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. since life in the body is death. to be sure.

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

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

be documented. Taylor was quite uncritical. 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 X. Hymn L V I . W i t h i n this composite conception was also included the notion that it was the Fire or Light-Stream. Luv\) d deathless Provi­ dence. so far as I know. become the Light-Stream as represented in the mythology of Isis or Mithra. the Greeks would have been amazed at the suggestion that in adopting n e w mythologies. accepted Proclus' thesis that the later explanations of his school represented the original meaning of the hymns. under new influences. and 4>povy)oic. they were any less Greek than before. 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. but 24 a n 25 2 6 2 7 23. 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. T h e male-female is also Pallas Athene. There were. 26." the "Father and Mother of all. and n e w rites. is Dike. These were the great types of formulation. But such a notion cannot. The Mystical Hymns of Orpheus (reprinted 1896)." and "universal Mother. Dionysus is hailed as Adonis. 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. Hymn XXXII. . and the Oriental pleroma. and with Isis." and the fact that Dionysus is specifically born in fire (TTupoonopoc). She is eternal Life (alSioc. which has been dissolved in a conception of Deity that combines the notion of the universal genetrix with the power of impregnation. She is self-sufficient. is the fire breather (nupinvooc) and fire blazer ( T T U P I ^ S Y Y ^ C ) .T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 23 19 Magna Mater of Phrygia. and have been laying the ground for Proclus and his school. 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 for none of them was it ever dreamed of asserting an exclusive claim to the truth. It is with reference to the Light-Stream that I in­ terpret the almost constant allusion to these god-goddesses as the "torchbearer. 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. H e r e the Female Principle has indeed swallowed up all mystic mythology. w h o is likewise Mouvoyevyjc. It is notable for what is to come that this deity is also the 0£O|jo$opoc. N o n e of them was ever made into a creed. a virgin. Such thinking as that represented by Plutarch for Isis may well have been going on before Philo for Orphism. a translation. the Female Principle or bisexual type of formulation. 25. Fatherless. In the Hellenistic period. then. It is highly likely that this power of impregnation would be applied to the mystic impregnation of the initiate. with Aphrodite (Cytheria). Hymn XLII. Hymn LII." N a t u r e is all-gleaming (navauY^c). with copious notes from the very late Platonists. T h e Mithraic pleroma might also appear. male and female (Koupy) KOU K o p e ) . is the "Universal Queen" and all wise (navocxpoc). as said. 27. the source of legislation. 24.

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

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

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

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

PLATE I . GOD AND H I S POWERS AS REPRESENTED BY THE A R K OF THE COVENANT .

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

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

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

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

TO"GV BEiMG ii E O A<5y0 5 THE LOGOS POWER OF MERCY POSITIVE COMMAND NEGATIVE COMMAND PLATE I I . GOD AND H I S POWERS AS REPRESENTED BY THE CITIES OF REFUGE .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

T h a t they could in themselves have suggested the interpretation Philo gives them is of course impossible. It need only. Kupioc and 0£ck. or compatible with. are regarded with general consistency as representing the two Powers. In its final form as Philo represents it. Diog. or from the philosophical schools of Classic Greece. and the whole picture of Deity of which they are a part. it is notable that the borrowed con­ ceptions are thoroughly welded into the Jewish Scriptures. the Septuagint translation of the two H e b r e w words Yahveh Elohim.. are by etymology given significance as aspects (Kara TOLQ S u v a p s t c ) of the Stoic pan-Deity. A t the same time it is incredible that Philo. T h e probability is m u c h greater that such a borrowing of a foreign conception of Deity was a gradual process. VII.44 B Y LIGHT. 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. AIK/) will be discussed in the next chapter. 138 Inexact as are the Hermetic and magical parallels to Philo's conception. 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. should deliberately and without precedent have borrowed from them de novo these notions of deity completely at variance with the older Jewish tradition. La. all of whom. 1 3 3 . 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. H e has not a passage to quote to justify his elevating these two into supreme aspects of the Stoic Deity. . for his Cornutus reference (ch. a swing or drift which involved many people and a long time. as a Light-Stream is equally impossible. Grace and Justice. xv) only describes the Graces as great Powers along with the whole procession of Greek divinities. LIGHT Xapic and SiKyj. Certainly they did not come to h i m from any traditional Judaism we know. were an adaptation of conceptions from the reli­ gious world of Graeco-Egypt and Persia. they strongly suggest that Philo's Powers. 147. as the Graces here.be pointed out in general that wherever the Stoics may have borrowed the term Suvajjeic for. T h a t Jews could suddenly have accepted such an inter­ pretation without long having thought of God. w h o so repeatedly expresses the deepest abhorrence of contemporary mysteries. 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. however much philosophers in Egypt may have attempted to orient traditional deities with such philosophical conceptions as the KOOJJOC VOTJTOC. Brehier makes a great deal of the fundamental contrast between the beneficent and punishing functions of the t w o Powers of Philo. their particular allegorization of the Olympians. Stoicism.

III (1903). God's subordi­ nates." 1 3 7 . 140. p. 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. Of course Philo was not primarily interested in metaphysics." N o w it is entirely correct. 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. in spite of what he calls its ingenuity. 3 1 4 . 136 ff. we might say of him. he could m a k e the connec­ tion only by using a religious mythology of personal Powers. 136. as it seems to me. " H e dislikes D r u m m o n d ' s theory. 139.. 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. meaning that he succeeded in war. as w e shall see later.1 5 5 . if we know a man under strongly marked characters. 1 3 8 . . Les Idees. 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. This is a mode of language with which we are not familiar. G o d is Himself ctSeiKToc. 407 ff. H i s nature.Ta\Y\moc. 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 . Det. ii. except for the fact of H i s existence. without danger of being mistaken that it was not the philosopher. Brehier rather returns to Zeller a n d Heinze. fully refutes this explanation. see esp. Lond. I doubt if any134 185 136 187 1S8 139 140 134. Die Philosophic der Griechen. 136.T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 45 I n conclusion. 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 . Heres. 89. 244 ff. 1888. and yet. is aKa. 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. but the general. p. not by his philosophical but by his military abilities. Die Lehre vom Logos. 95: "He (God) may not do as absolute Being or universal Cause what nevertheless he does as Benefactor or moral Governor.. 1 4 1 . It will be seen that Philo used the Powers in a fundamental way in his mystic approach to God. that won the battle. 130.. D r u m m o n d . See p. 6 5 . Why Brehier should object to similarities to Spinoza here is hard to see in view of what he himself says on p. There has been much discussion of whether Philo in his use of the Powers was more a mystic than a 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. Philo Judaeus. 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. E. Ib. 1 3 5 .g. ii. historiquement bien posterieur. pp. Heinze. 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.

LIGHT one in the world ever was so interested. and the Prime Cause. or the Persian doctrine of Powers. as will appear. H e could not turn from Yahveh to Zeus. Plutarch turned to comparative mythology. and the Jews he represents. did recognize the inevitability of the Greek Absolute in any adequate thinking about God. H e himself. as of course we must. or vice versa. D r u m m o n d still seems to me the best guide. T h e solution was to Plutarch indifferently the mystic-sexual formulation. 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. and yet like the Greeks of his day he longed to approach the Unapproachable. Philo would have been insulted if any one had put his typology into the indifferent mixing pot of Plutarch. for all the . Comparative mythology meant nothing to Philo. O n this whole problem. which cannot be treated here." or by conceiving that the Stream presented itself as a series of quasi distinct stages or aspects. had adopted. as does Apuleius by implication. Philo's religious urge is obviously much more apparent than. H o w could this be done? T h e answer of his environment was ascent through mystical-sexual union with the "Female Principle. Aristode's or Kant's. 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. It is all typology. to find a schematization for approach to the Greek Absolute. Both of these conceptions of God Philo. T h e fact is that in Philo's Deity we have a conception fit primarily. shall we say. 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. Philo and Plutarch seem to m e to offer the most illuminating comparison. and the formulations are only h u m a n conveniences which quite fade away when one has reached the top of the ladder. But when we admit that Philo's interest was primarily ethical and mystical. and apparently many of his associates. the Absolute.4 6 B Y LIGHT. for description if not for source analysis. the ark. to meet the individual's hope for salvation. and the goal of his mystical aspiration. 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. or Ahura Mazda. and as we go on we shall see how deeply the conceptions penetrated all his thinking. But he. to Osiris. we have by no means justified belittling his serious philosophical pur­ pose. 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. a God who was the source and sanction of ethical idealism. But with Philo this is not true mythology. or to Dionysus as interpreted by Orpheus. So we shall not understand Philo either by sacrificing his philosophic in­ terest to his mysticism.

the Road to the Greek Absolute. In his exclusiveness he stands out as a Jew. It was for Chris­ tian theologians two centuries or more later to subordinate metaphysics to typology. found in his typology two definite things. .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. But he is a m a n of the Hellenistic Age in his attempt to keep typology subordinate to metaphysics.

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

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

Mos. N o w it is notable that Nature's "will" is the n o r m of the cosmos.. 2 3 5 . 26. Heres. Its parts are the four elements. or the material world is the aloOyjTK) ((juoic.. . i. i. 192. ii. or \jX\ky\. 249. 53.. 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. Spec. 1 2 2 .. 19." or "in the world" with no specific materialistic con­ notation. 20. Polit. Fug.g. W h e n Philo wishes to be more specific he distinguishes between the jjepioroc a n d the a\iip\0T0Q <t>uoic. 43.. iii.. T h e high­ est aspects of " N a t u r e " could never in any sense be inherent concomitants of Matter. In creation $uoic first created light. 164. Ib. LIGHT cedent monism behind this dualism was essentially blasphemous. i. Decal. Mos. 7. 4>uoic becomes the moving and creating cause in the material world. Heres. 37. 97. 1 1 . Spec. Abr. made h i m male and female.. Virt. Som. and of her giving the chameleon and polypus their protective colorings. b u t the e n d is G o d alone.. Opif..50 BY LIGHT. and by \o6tv\c. Congr. Praem. 194a 28. as w e speak of the "finest thing in nature. Ouoic is the material world which natural phi­ losophers study. 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.. 3 5 . i. 14. 1 5 2 . 1 4 3 . or e v e n refer specifically to the forms. 23. 1 1 1 . 1 7 0 . Opif. 128. 180. and apparently created the rest of the material world. 379b 25. iv. E. 184. 190. 1 7 2 . Praem. ii. ii. I n one passage he discusses nature as the beginning a n d end. ausc. 1 2 .1 7 2 . Mos. i. ii. Congr. 36.. 9. made h i m a gregarious creature. Heres.. 16. Heres. Migr. T r u e the phrase rot ev Tig $uoei is a common one for the natural world. 1 1 1 . 5. and which sup­ plies m e n with the "gifts of nature.. Sac. 1252b 3 2 ... Decal.. 52. a passage apparently reflecting Aristotle's language.. Spec.. 58. 27... 4. Ebr. Abr... 17. b u t the expression is found in strongly Neo-Pythagorean passages. 108.. in which great storms make inner wars. Spec. F r o m being the material world itself. b u t neither N a t u r e nor her will is in this sense identified with the cosmos. Meteor.. The passage recalls the mixing bowl of the Timaeus. 106. 2 1 . i.. Prob. Deed. w h o is y\ ap[oTY\ 4>uoic. iv. Phys. and clothing. 130. 266. a n d says that with m e n the beginning of perfection lies within our o w n nature." the fruits of the earth. for Philo speaks of Nature's allotting the scheme of fruit bearing to the different animals and plants. Heres. 1 3 . 129. or opar/). 8. 1 5 . Som. 10. 99 f. 1 2 1 f. 36. ii. 6.. Aristotle. 2 3 1 . gave m a n the five senses. 263. Spec. Prob. 1 1 7 . Such will appear to be Philo's generally consistent thought about the L a w of Nature. 1 3 2 . W i t h "divine skill" N a t u r e created m a n after mixing the elements. 103. 22. 4. 1 8 . cf. 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 . and seems often to be merely phraseological. Again there seems to be nothing specifically Stoic in this usage.

Spec. 28. viii. or profane.T H E HIGHER LAW 24 5i 25 26 material phenomena N a t u r e used the number seven. LA. 100. iii.. i. 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. Som.1 0 1 . "Per ordinem autem universus mundus et huius partes factae sunt": QG. 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. nourishes but is not nourished. They are distinct types of L a w . i. In another passage h e slips in the same way from God to nature. T h e cosmos is matter put in order under a divine regimentation. we must separate from our conception of God any trace of the created. Heres..1 6 . causes growth and decay..1 1 1 .1 7 3 . 1 1 5 . 9. ii. Cher. 9 8 . 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 . but there seems little confusion between them. 189... 198. 29. so the order of the universe makes unavoidable the inference that it is ruled by G o d . 14. 42: "magna est mundus iste civitas. 1 4 3 . I prefer keeping JiQUxaveiJOVTOc. yet participates in none herself. 1 1 5 3 b 32. the heavenly bodies. 162. a L a w within the material cosmos. ii. i. QE. 9 ff. Philo's sense of the law and order of the cosmos is k e e n . 8 . with Cohn to changing to JtQVxaVEiJOvrag with Heinemann. Spec. Post. 27. 64. As any one would be a fool who went into a well-ordered city and did not conclude that it must have good rulers. "She gives many gifts to men. 25. 1247a 10.. 34. Plant. Eud. Anim. H e has slipped from $uoic to Qzoc without the slightest sense of change.. Proem. Opif. Spec... 48 f. in creation 4>uoic can be used as a synonym for God. Spec. 26. T h e cosmos is a city. Eth. 659b 3 5 ." For she is unborn. Heres. Praem. LA." 33. which is a AoyiKy) QXJOK bound to m a n by the cement of $uoic. 30. and the Father who begat it directs it "by means of the L a w of N a t u r e . yet is herself unchanging. Fug. as well as the L a w of God since N a t u r e is God. i. i] \ikv yap \xzyaX6noXiQ ohz 0 KOOHOC SOTI Kai jjia XP*]Tai noAnxia 27 28 29 80 81 82 88 84 24. Nic. " Like Plato Philo is willing to concede to the popular rulers of h u m a n destiny. 1 7 1 . for 4>UOK was only a locution for God throughout.. mortal. viii. 302. changeable. ac legitima: necesse est autem istam politicae meliori lege uti. 1 3 . ut sit ei legislator ac legisdator. Sac. 205. it is clear that the term VOJJOC Tyjc $ u o £ U c might have a variety of meanings too. 39. creates but is uncreated. T h a t is. yet gives birth. Eth. i. Both types of natural L a w are to be found. Cf. i. So. . as Aristotle did.. Cf. 34. atque aequum est et conveniens. a dele­ gated sort of executive power in this divine rulership. Spec. ii. 33. ii. So it is not sur­ prising that first God and then QXJOK gave m a n his reasoning power. Philo concludes. 3 1 .. i. 28. 32. N a t u r e exercises providence. 34. Part. 1 0 2 . 645a 9. cf. W i t h this large variety of meanings for $uoic.

W h e n Philo speaks of Providence. If Philo has used Stoic terminology to express his thought. H e has much to say of the important powers of the different n u m ­ bers. 279: 6 d e o g x a i v6jbia)v e*axl jia(>d8eiY|xa aQX^xvnov. as the $o\j\v][ia ryjc <|>UO£GJC. who cannot do with matter what is beyond the law of its nature. as in Jos. 44.. 38. 156. w h o was in complete a n d transcendent contrast to "things. 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. is adduced as the best parallel. but compelling recognition from God. 60. 40.52 35 B Y LIGHT. 61 where Philo speaks of f| ev xfj qwaei xd|ic. 45. The Ephor of the universe is frequently A I X T J . T h e providence of God for 42 43 44 45 46 47 41 35. A n d the L a w of the universe is directly the product of G o d .. not an ordinance of God. Ib. ]os. i. 48. 82: "Quern ad modum urbs virtuosa per legem dicitur regi. with rulership always 86 37 38 39 40 K a r a VOJJOV Kal SiKyjv.Ib. 9. ii. which always assumes the existence o f the JtaQafteC- . but he nowhere ascribes the origin of their powers to God's creative act. x a i fj Jtavxdc. T h e meaning of the terms must in any given case b e determined not by their meaning in another source. cf. 1 5 . T h a t is.. it is H i s providence. 43. Provid. 46. Opif. to be able to receive benefits in a way comparable to God's power of bestowing t h e m . . or of Law. Specifically the most orderly city of the ancient world. his thought is not on that account Stoic. 1 3 . 46. the nature of matter is itself a law not only for itself. as a copy of God the archetype. Opif.. Agr. 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.. . similiter per providentiam regi mundus dicitur. Spec. he says. It is just as familiar in Neo-Pythagorean fragments... 2 3 . 39. Heres. 8. yet <j>uoic means something as different to t h e t w o as their concep­ tions of God are different. 29. their powers are determined by the " L a w of N a t u r e " . 128. 78.." If <j>uaic can mean God to both Philo a n d Stoicism. God is also the cosmic Ephor in Opif. i n . 1 1 .. ii. 5 1 . Sparta. fi xQiprai 6 x 6 o > o g . but more importantly it is the imitation of His nature. ii. Provid. 37.. Ib. X6yov xgeixxcov jtoXiTEia. Provid. good shepherd. but by their meaning in the writer at hand. This law of nature is the law of the nature of matter. LIGHT Kal VOJJCJ £v(. G o d is also t h e fatherruler.Opif. So it is not in the nature of creation. 49. There are other traces in Philo of a law of nature quite independent of God's creation.. F o r he sometimes speaks of a law of nature which conditioned God's act of creation. who knows and executes all things in it. a n d charioteer. 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.. 41. 47." 42. Abr. Much of this terminology can be paralleled in Stoic sources.. 36. and G o d is called the great Ephor of the Universe. In this he suggests the Timaeus. powers which G o d h a d in mind as H e ordered the cosmos. helmsman. . 3 5 .

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 . Philo und die judisch-alex." a law of which requires care for creation. Theosophie. Frag.) . a n d this. QG. i. 6 1 . VII. 300 f. as in Plato­ nism. 420. for it has absolute sovereign authority. 1 : "Quare puto legislationem (dei) sicut in navi optime a se constructa. and the system of numerical relationships. which drives a n d steers the universe like a charioteer or pilot. Jona. utiliter consulere. is in Philo m u c h more akin to die Stoic conception. Philo sharply repudiates. -21 (Frag. for exam­ ple. Pseudo-Philon. b u t which recoiled just as sharply from 49 50 51 52 Y U a x a . Parall. 1 7 1 . Indeed both Philo a n d Plato use it slightly. a n d when he does use it. 3 . 3 0 1 . 5 1 ." i." (Tauch. It was a position inherent in Platonism.e. 472 ff. 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 . See Gfroerer.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. Philo uses it as little as possible because it contradicts his o w n usual notion that all law is a product of God.. Evang. 42.. VIII. T h e law of matter. Heres. 6 5 3 ) . than fate or neces­ sity. 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. Opif.. T h a t G o d is the cause of all things. Provid. T h e origin of the nature of number must be taken as a n inadvertent anomaly in Philo as it is in Plato. 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 .. it appears. abundantly present in Philo's environment. but nowhere accounts for their origin. while it too appears as a condition­ ing force in Platonism. as being at hand for the Creator's use. Cf. Ed.. Praep. at least. I. it would seem. 52. xiv. a n d has characterized the great orthodox tradition of Christianity which shrank from setting u p any ultimate cosmic principle of evil. in Eusebius. Philo would certainly have said was God's o w n nature. Heres.. in which God's o w n action is conditioned by a L a w of Nature. however easy it might be to conclude fatalism from isolated statements. more primal. Mangey II." with which might be identified the cause "more ancient. to be taken as anything b u t incidental ex­ pression. in Joh.. 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. 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. to be a n emergency device for the purpose of theodicy. Oeopolc a K i v v Q T o i c These latter usages. Damasc. ii. to insist that Natural L a w is the L a w of G o d . superne universorum moderatricem supersedentem. " Even God's o w n kingship H e holds $UO£CJC. are not. Opif. 50. 48. Praem. Sacr. 748B. 63. T h e "Nature. mundum hunc ad salutem singulorum derigere et singulis quaecumque ubique sint. Philo is distinctly not a fatalist. T h e school seems not to have discussed that point. 49..

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

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

If Cicero goes on from this last passage to n o mystical flights himself. 70. in the world city. Poseidonios. Stob. If his argument frequently runs away from his data.6705 (Plut. 69. 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. Cicero. we understand. " I n the same definition Aoyoc 6doc might be used.. 10a (Wachs. II.56 BY LIGHT. Ill.. n o w with Nomos. and in such an identification the L a w of N a t u r e becomes a moral as well as physical force. So with Philo the great L a w of God or Nature is the opGoc Aoyoc. 36 (SVF. 1 6 1 . 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. . III.. See a number of interesting parallels in Zeller. 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*. Ebr. 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 . of the common possession of the universal ratio or recta ratio. He goes on to say. 23 (SVF. dqpftaQTog EV dftavaTCp 8iavoia TimcoftEig. vou. such as we find in Philo. 3 3 9 ) . Cicero. II. d. n. II. 55. Lactantius. and political terms are quite interchangeable. has also passages of Lactantius and Minucius Felix). 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. m e n are agnates and fellow-tribesmen of the gods. vii.. cf. while in another passage 70 71 72 67. p. Praem.3 2 3 has an extended exposition of the legal philosophy of Cicero to try to distinguish the Posidonian elements. vou-og) TCOV E V T(p xocFfico jtQOVoia Sioixouuivcov. Nat. n o w a moral. 72. n o w a universal mystical sense. 1. but as a city is built upon family relationships. Gr.. 130. Cicero. 68. I.ou Xoyoq r\ A. 7 1 . 2... vii. SVF. Heinemann. and VOJJOC. T h e term vopoc is specifically interchangeable with 6p8oc Aoyoc. 6 OQftog X6yo<. is iden­ tified n o w with the universal Logos. and with Nomos in now a civil. then. Ttoyog E S T ! ftEioc. 2 2 5 . Phil. 1 ) where the term JtaQa cpvcav is defined as T O JtaQa TOV OQCpov x a l x a x a (pvaiv Xoyov. Mig. De Legibus. 6 vofxog. . 48. 162. LIGHT only is the universe a single civitas common to gods and men. OQ^og Xoyog had been used .. as it expresses itself finally in Cicero. Deor. and was of a nature to do full justice to the mystical elements of his teachers. by virtue. I.. opGoc A6yoc. so. 9 1 3 . there is much light thrown on Cicero's point of view. it is rather because of his own personal character. cf. both as universal. 05 br\ vojxog EC?TIV. 67 T h e Stoic opGoc Aoyoc. goes back to Zeno himself. I. 142. i. 46. 68 69 Philo drew in part from much the same philosophical sources as Cicero. Prob. T h e one most striking feature for our present purpose is that A6yoc. individual. and not because he has not a philosophy fully capable of mystical inferences. II.og dipEufiTig 6 OQfrdg X6vog . and Minucius Felix tell us that that equation of natu­ ral and divine law. UJC' dftavaTOv (putfECOc. as Philo points out.

og telog $ v .. 75. and the variations and harmonious dances of the other stars. it is clear that the opGoc may be dropped at will. so all late editors read Xoyoq with Eusebius. As for example. dvayKaicog <ruv£|3ai/v£ xcjj Hoo\ioxo\uzr\ xQfjaftai JIOUXEIO. But all mss.og. yvooQitojXEVOg xalg xou r\kiov JtEQicpogaig xaxd xdv EV aQiftumg daaXsuxov xal pspaioxaxov xal ftsiov ovxcog Xoyov. og xuQicoxEQa xXriaEi jtQoaovou. 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. 1 7 4 : frsog t\ Xovog r\ vou-og ftEiog. Eusebius. 1 3 quotes the passage using loyog for vou-og. 29. 77. ii. See also Som. 8 f.6tovxo x a l xcjj jxpoaaYOQEvd-Evxi Ssovxcog Xoyeicp* \6y($ yaQ al XQOJtal x a l Exrioaoi &oai xsxayuivcp x a l Jtaytcp cruviaxavxai... avxr\ bk Saxiv 6 xfjg (pi3c?£Cog OQftdg taSyog. Le doctrine du Logos chez Philon d'Alexandrie.6g.. xgdrcag XEaaaQag. and vofiog are here quite interchangeable. 78 T h e passage of Philo which establishes best the opGoc Aoyoc as being uni­ versal L a w . 1 4 3 : IJCEI 8 S Jtacra KoXig svvo\ioq £X8i JtoA. 124 f. ii. and at the same time as identical with the universal Logos.. Jos. collecting and holding together all its parts. 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. Spec. 3 1 .T|frn. things mortal and divine. carrying on the irresistible course of nature. Still I think that the mss. should join in the first verse of the twenty-third Psalm. cf. agree on vou-og. 0 TKJC $UO£CJC opGoc Aoyoc.. and in addi­ tion H e leads the nature of heaven. Turin.. H e leads them according to as synonymous with fteoc. 223. Plant. dslog Xoyog. for the Father who created it made it the unbreakable bond of the universe. This is extended from the center to the limits. Pr. 78. e. Philo says. the revolutions of the sun and moon. 1 1 6 was quite right in pointing out that since the t w o terms were interchangeable the discussion had litde point. 62.. (without the article) just above in §128. Mos. Ib. Again vopoi are <j>uo£uc lepoi Aoyou So with Philo. 5>v Exdcrxrig OQog XQia tcp8ta. 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. or. v6u. 73. Opif.T H E HIGHER LAW 57 the law of the universe is defined substantially in the same way.ix£iav. It is significant that none of these has the article. 1 3 . 97. Philo has here used Xoyog by attraction from the priesdy A. Ev.OY£iov. 76. just below. VII. See also the parallelism in Jos. Prob.d£Exai ft£0"u. p. See also Prob. . ii. is the following: T h e universe. 237.. As. 1876. and it seems more likely that Christians would have changed an original vou-og to Xovog than vice versa. reading is preferable. 74. oQfrdg Xoyog. Haft' ov xd JtQoaTJxovxa x a l EJti|3dMovxa s x d a x o i g drt£VEu. Accordingly the term Aoyoc appears in many descriptions of natural phenomena where we should expect VOJJOC. It is clear that $865. fi x a l a v u j t a g 6 xoau. 6$£v EVnQU.. but the eternal Nomos of the eternal God is the most secure and stable support of all things. while the phrase opGoc Aoyoc is always to be taken with a legal implication.g. but here identified with Aoyoc <J>UO£GJC. Soulier. and from the extremities to the center..

But it was from God. It was the immaterial God who was the Tryjyy] vo^wv. Geschichte der Lehre von der Keim\raften. p. 240 f. LA. 80 with note ad loc. in which the opGoc of "right" angles is identified with the 6p06c of "right" reason. T h e Stoic terms can be used because the terms are themselves older than Stoicism and have no specific materialistic denotation. p. LIGHT SIXT] and n o m o s . 2 1 5 . T h e legal implication of the term seems not lost even when it appears as the source of the virtues. 80. a concomitant of the ultimate material substrate. and it was always qualitatively distinct from the matter it permeated. Agr. not from anything analogous to the Stoic "fire. that this implies an undeniable carrying over of the Stoic materialism. 150. see. 81. Cont.. so that it becomes the constituent element in the square. whose identification with op0oc Aoyoc and nomos is complete. Mos. Lehre vom Logos. especially of justice. God's L a w did in Philo's m i n d permeate and guide the universe as an immanent principle. Indeed the op0oc Aoyoc of Philo is the Logos in its legal aspect. usually called the Logos alone.... 1914. On this passage see Hans Meyer. It is rather the Light-Stream coming down into matter. 79 It is from this point of view that the Aoyoc Geloc can be called the Sionoc Kal Ku3^pvyjTy)c TOU navToc. by the fact that the 6p0oc Aoyoc guides the universe according to (Kara) justice and law. 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. i. 36. 5 1 . 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.. Similarly its legal force is felt when it is given a place in the Pythagorean scheme of the universe according to numbers. who received the guardianship of this sacred flock like a viceroy of the Great King. iii. ii. I cannot agree with Heinze. 83. 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. 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. 146. and treated the two thereafter in so loosely dualistic a form. 40.58 B Y LIGHT. H e r e then are God and H i s first-born Son. Som. by Badt in Philos Wer\e. Bonn. to conclude that the two are distinct. Plant. the Pythagorean symbol of justice. 82. the chief virtue.. . Cher." that it came. T h e identification of the L a w with the Logos is thus complete. O n e must not be misled. 1 2 1 .. for He has appointed TOV 6Q$6V avxov Aoyov xal JtQCOToyovov mov. 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.

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

Conf. pp. 89. T h i s is the sort of SiKir) familiar to readers of classical literature from H o m e r on. 95. brings t h e most terrible pun­ ishments to malefactors (such as the profane or incestuous). The text (§52) speaks of the Xoyog %r\q diSiou cpuaecoc. The Political Ideas of the Greeks. i. 186.. he speaks of "myriads" of such ephors.. 5 3 . It is obviously at times associated with the Suvajjic (3aoiAiKy) or vojjoOeTiKy)... Ehrenberg. Dike und Verwandtes. pp. A specific example is found in the per­ sistent enmity which SIK/J came to take toward Flaccus because he was eKvojjoc. and will take the chastisement of sinners as its proper (avyysveq) task. 170. a n d as another method of theodicy.. as the object against which sins are committed.. 412 ff." is the "cause of good things only and the cause of no evil thing. evil which could not have come from God. 1 9 2 1 . Themis. IV. pp. 89 Again the dread visitation of SiKyj. 2 1 2 ... the £$opoc. if sometimes 89. p. 189.. . and is used in the fragment. pp. iii. 56-225. 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 T h e weakness of Philo's theodicy has been shown. 90. 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. Les Idees. but knows that Dike. Hirzel. especially fire a n d flood. Mos. Plac. Mos. Mos. as the warden of peace and the one who furnishes richly and without stint all the good things of peace always to everyone everywhere. he did not actually believe in the existence of any force in the world beyond God's direct control. 1927. i. a n d not at all. 95. 167-240.6o B Y LIGHT. pp. 2 5 3 . Myres. ii. LIGHT "the means of salvation unmixed and not partaking in vengeance. Dec. Spec. Mig. in the way in which SiKyj followed the brothers of Joseph. iv. the closing sentences of the fragment quoted by Cohn in the Editio Motor. 1 1 6 . Mos. 1907. 176 ff. they will be exacted with abundant usury at what seems to her the proper time. John L . since 5bo] naturally hates evil. a n d consists chiefly in the fact that. 149. as well as Oedipus and the whole Persian race. Spec.1 2 1 . Jos. 5 5 . Cf. Conf. Dec. while Philo was convinced of the reality of evil. 106 f. F o r hiKY\.. Cf. 94. For stricdy speaking God is the President of peace.. 146. For it is right for the ministers and lieutenants of God. 128. Die Rechtsidee im fruhen Griechentum. 19. F o r the eye of hiKY] sees what occurs in even the most remote places. 93. Spec. 91. cf. 225. ii. 102. 5 4 102. In Spec. 147. 96. 162. if her punish­ ments are not inflicted at once. 201. as a reflection of current Greek manner of speech. 104. 326.. and especially the excursus on the JtdoEfiQOi." So G o d offers no asylum for evil doers. Prob. 19. No^iog is clearly meant. distinctively Stoic. and the ecpoQog of human affairs will not rest. 48. If the text has not been altered from what Philo wrote. as Brehier implies. 92. His JtaQe&QOS. but His subordinates are the leaders of wars. but it is right that the general security of everyone should be ascribed to the Great King. this is a most striking instance of the complete interchangeability of the two words. Brehier. Jos. iii. I need not go into the much discussed history of bint]. but by no means always. ii. as for captains in war to apply punishments to those who desert the ranks of the Just One. As a power of vengeance it appears in Philo for two reasons.

i. 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.ixr|. 368. 143. 279.. 140. I see no reason for supplying the word God. i. 1 1 1 . (Heres. 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. w h o r r a v r a opa Kal n a v r c j v a K o u e i . Conf. The reference to God as Sixaioc. i. 105. In Mos. 101 And SIK/J itself is not a l w a y s only the 102 hater o f evil. 5 5 . ii. 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. note 36. See above. I cannot feel that this expresses literally his ultimate philosophy. 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 . . the SiKaioc is a passing modifier apparently carried over by transposition... So when Philo says that God is unlike man in being able to make a geometrically perfect bisection. H i s theodicy is devoted to defending not the justice but the goodness o f G o d . 174. but one. iii. the fiuvajxic. p.. B u t in general G o d is 97. and as such is dxQifHodixaioc. Opif.. 194.. 98. (Heres. was more primary an expression of God's nature than the ruling emana­ tion. "champion of the just man. is so completely subordinate to G o d that SIKV) is often said t o be inflicted by divine w i l l . JtoiTiTtXT]. that is also true of G o d Himself. P h i l o has n o interest in vindicat­ i n g the justice of G o d a s such. Toi5 Sixaiou (Abr. Abr. To Philo this probably meant that the emanation primarily merciful. but even t o the endurance of the culprit: this H e does. 107. delegated f r o m G o d .. since the true perception learned that God's emanations were not many or divided. 99. sins upon the s i n n e r . 2 3 2 ) . (3aaiA. but JtQoaY©viaTT|c. God is not himself here fiixaioc. 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.T H E HIGHER L A W 61 it acts to relieve G o d of the responsibility o f direct action in punishment. 104 1 0 3 it sends help t o those in distress a s w e l l a s penalty to the malefactor. It is (fiAaperoc a s w e l l a s |jiooTT6vy]poc. 104. but only figuratively. But we have seen that all such statements have only suggestive value. 103.. 2 7 1 . statements w h i c h con­ 99 travene Philo's entire theodicy.. ii. Som. x a l JteQaai x a l oQOig TT|V TCOV cftcov jieQivQaapai cpuaiv. 279. the E p h o r . Ebr. ii. 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. Spec. p.. Heres. cf. 100. iii. 105 P h i l o did of course m a k e G o d personally the j u d g e . 52. 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 . 101. 76. 1 5 5 . 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 . 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 . in Leisegang's Index. 1 4 1 . as judge He is judge of Himself. 237. 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).o8ixaioc. 205. 1 6 3 ) . is a mistake: dutyfree. 106. Immut. the damsels a t the w e l l . Mos.. A n d if SiKy) is the all seeing. 128. the fivvajLUc. 80. 102. P h i l o tells us. LA.. 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 . 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. Vift. Som. 1 9 4 ) .. Spec. MOS." This is what is meant also when God is called <piA.

10: xd xQiu-axa xov X V Q I O U d^Tyfrivd. 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 . 1893. . 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. t h e n . 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 . Mfg.. V6IM$. I do not agree with him.. Tauchnitz Edition of Philo VI. p. 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. Pantasopulos. T O \ J fttov Sixaid ECTTIV. Ev. makes this passage and the above mentioned Heres. The nearest expres­ sions in the Old Testament are Ps. and God. was to be d e s c r i b e d by this t e r m . 186. xal evfrfic. 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 . but here the Greek reads dixaioc. pp. 1 0 9 or SiKaioouv/jc. 296f. xvQie. which seems exacdy what Philo is trying to avoid saying. VIII. Fragments. 10. cxix. I t h i n k . 163 (see note 105). Legat. but he was a b o v e the laws of the r e a l m . n o . 22 ff. u n e s c a p a b l e . 277. E V EiQ-nxai. 109. A t one 108. xiv.. 1 7 2 ff. i. 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 . " 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 . ii. Sixfl. in Philo's eyes. 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. xix. 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. Philo. oxi f| X Q I Q I C .. But neither is as fitting an original for Philo's statement as the Apocalypse passage. and then makes H i m the rryjYy) § i K a i o o u v / ) c .. T h e c o n f u s i o n i s here q u i t e deep. May Philo have had in mind the lost original of the Apocalypse of John. in that he is not c o r r u p t i b l e by b r i b e s . $E5ixaiG)uiva em xo aux6. and so deflecting it from its original application to God as an attribute. ii. aov. 8e X Q I O T V louaa Poapeuxfi XQiyzai xcp xfjg laoTnroc. so the w o r d " l a w . 4. ii. pious. Elias. 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.. " but these cannot be forced b a c k upon the n a t u r e of God. 272): jtevia xaft' eaurfiv u£v eXeov xQTI^t elg djiavoQfrcooav evfieiag. Spec.) Miinchen.. xal oaiog KVQioq. So to Philo. 52. beautiful. 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 . £ a u T ( j . and Ps. 2. in Euseb. the basis for stating that Philo regarded God as the model of justice. 7.a b i d i n g " was h a r d l y to be applied to Philo's God. 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. 32. which twice says dA/nftival xal 8ixaiai al XQiaEig o~ou (xvi. and h e n c e e s s e n t i a l l y a b o v e all law.62 v) ilvaoc |j£Ta 110 B Y LIGHT. and the l i k e . elc. Praep. Die Lehre vom naturlichen und positiven Rechte bei Philo Judaeus (Diss. 1 1 2 . ftelov yaQ f| Sixaioawn xal dfisxaaxov. LIGHT ttyiyyi cf>pov^O£CjJc. God has the imoTY\[iYi Kal Suvajjic "of the truly good. xix.. f| xQtcac. as the s o u r c e of l a w s . e n t i r e l y s u f f i c i e n t u n t o Himself. who was a b o v e even the Aoyoc-vojioc. 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 . Fragment. i n . j u s t . 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 . This latter quotation is traditionally referred to Deut. 1 3 7 : Aixaiog el. Som. 336. Harris. in the following statement (QE. together with a complete misunderstanding of Som. oftev xal E V E X E Q O I C . Kal S i K a i o o u v y j c 111 108 He governs ouv SIK/J. but is not. 2) ? Philo's form of reference suggests a non-canonical source. " T h e r e a s o n for t h i s is not far to seek. 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 .

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

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

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

In Spec. i. III (1932). T & X6y($frecDQT]Tdslg du-udrixoug xal djteQiYQdqpoug [xoipag. 1 3 1 . iv. Mut. Fragments. The last two would seem a summary of all the preceding. Spec. Heres. and the universal c a u s e of pres­ ervation (ocjT/ipiac) and duration. QE. the jjyjTyjp SiKcuoouv/jc. 47). 6 (Harris. where Philo makes the most of the text. 265. 130. T h e longest single discussion of this point is found in Quis Heres.cou. and inequality is the source of dfiixta. See Spec. i. 132. 204. 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." It is not surprising to find the notion in o t h e r writings of Philo. T h e ideas probably antedated Aris­ totle in Pythagoreanism. iv. Fragments." which begins by dividing all material things down to the "so called indivisible a t o m s . and were kept ever familiar in later times. 133.. TO elvai by making xd§iv e£ dxaSjiag xal e§ djtouov jtoioxTjxag xal dvonoicov ou. Mos. God is referred to as creating l o o T y j c . 2 3 1 . 134 133 and in H i s rulership as always being guided by i t . T h e immediate agent of the division is the Logos T o p e u c . 232: olg xd dppioxxovxa'xaQL^Exai Jtgog xd xfjg exdaxou ipuxfig o*xafru/r|u. For "the legal and equal are seeds of peace. in a note to his translation of this passage. by the universal presence in it of looryic. 134.evoc. "A neo-Pythagorean Source in Philo Judaeus. 166.. VI. T h e r e is no reason for assum­ ing an immediate use of Aristotle's text. if not the funda­ mental one. " 'Equality' put in place all things. All nature is full of cnKcuoouvy]. iv. of Philo. 145.66 129 BY LIGHT.2 4 8 . Harris.. 85. cf. p. p. 187 God is described as calling xd \xr\ ovxa etc. that we find Philo using \OOTY\C as one of the chief principles in the cosmos.2 3 8 . God is 6 laoxTjxog xal Jtavxog xoii dgiaxou br\\iiovoy6<z: Spec. 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 . 295. 2 5 3 .. xv. 1 0 ) . . " then goes on to divide the 0£Cjpy]Ta into parts for which Philo finds no n a m e s .exQcdv \o6xr\xi Jtap/ eavxq) xo dvaXoyov exdaxoig. I have examined this whole passage carefully elsewhere. which means that it is made law-abiding. It is of considerable importance for our purpose. cosmic Law. the "Cutter.oioxT}xag xal exsQOtoxrjxcov xauxoxTjxag xal e§ dxoivcovrixcov xal dvag noaxcov xoivcoviag xal dgu-oviag xal ex u. Spec. "and he divided them in the middle" (Gen. 328. Joseph Cohn. according to unshakable laws and ordi135 129. ii. 101. cf. Legat. xal 8iau. says that Aristotle's discussion lies behind these remarks of Philo. then. But inequality and greed give rise to war and are destructive of what things exist. 135. i. § 1 3 1 . 144. p. See the Tauchnitz Ed. Spec.ev dviaoxrixog laoxrixa ex be axoxoug qpcog egyaadfievog. 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 . 115-164. i." in Yale Classical Studies. LIGHT dred drachmas from one man would seem to be equal to the tax payment of a talent from another. and hence is used by Moses as the basis of all his laws.axa xal u-exga axafru. 1 3 0 . where laoxrig is T| Sixaiocarvrig 6\o%y\ xal nr\yr\.

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

speaking no longer as G o d to a man. 147. can ." Moreover the very words of God are oaths and laws of G o d and most sacred ordinances. 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. F o r H i s speech is an o a t h . Another of Philo's approaches to the cosmic L a w of G o d . or the meta­ physical L a w . n. LIGHT a real meaning w h e n he did distinguish between SiKaioouv/j and its mother or source. the very L a w and regularity of the divine N a t u r e . is by describing that L a w as the Oath of G o d . for there is nothing higher. Cf. for an oath is added to assist faith (mctecog evexa). ii. and this is especially characteristic of an oath. Some have said that it was inappropriate for H i m to swear. 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 . ii.produce in parallel to Philo's statement. 2. Decal. having their fixity and stead­ fastness in themselves. for only they h a v e the fixity of the divine nature that expresses itself in the universal L a w . and a proof of His sure strength is that whatever H e says comes to pass.. 147 Since A b r a h a m had faith in G o d . It would seem to be a corollary from this that all God's words are oaths receiving confirmation by accomplishment in a c t . it is true. 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 . and only God and one who is God's friend is faithful. Hierocles. guaranteeing by an oath w h a t H e h a d promised to h i m . 1 3 . 148. but by H i m ­ self. or so far as I k n o w any one else. but as a friend to a confidant. Spec. G o d responded by g i v i n g rrioric back in return to him. belongs precisely to 146. 84. 273. p. so that they are indistinguishable from o a t h s ? 146 G o d swears not by something else." Philo can hardy be w o r k i n g from Hierocles. Philos Wer\e. . A s a matter of fact there is nothing else w h i c h H e i n e m a n n . 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 . T h e r e is little likeli­ hood that Hierocles w o u l d himself have invented so important a conception.. 149.68 BY LIGHT. \OOTV\C. Sac. A n d what else are laws and ordinances but sacred ^oyoi of nature. It is in this sense that only G o d and the friend of G o d is TTIOTOC. but it seems obvious that he was w o r k i n g from Hierocles' sources. 91 ff. LA. Abr. 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 . S o m e of the more striking passages must be quoted: Justice and every virtue is ancestral law and ancient ordinance. iii. even as Moses is said to have been "faithful in all his house. 1 1 1 . as a Platonist deeply interested in Pythagorean material. 203 f.

. 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 ) . 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 ) .. Plant. all servants born in the house.. 42. 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. iv. would be the principal work of the divine Oath. Praem. at least to the extent of giving them the necessities of existence. an application which Philo by no means approves. A frag­ ment of Philo reads: yovlac f l u a ' OOTOC yap vojjoc Oeloc T S Kal ^UOIKOC. For to see to it that all things endure. 159.. Ant. Virt. II.. 1 5 2 . a L a w which is applied not only to G o d . 1 5 5 . Fragments. Memorabilia. Similarly rulership is by Nature's L a w properly concen­ trated in a single source. and even to require masters to nourish... ' 1 5 1 . 1 3 2 . 157. 421 ff. 154. Harris. which is especially and eternally respected among those people who always think in terms of God. 153. 1 3 2 .T H E HIGHER LAW 69 that school from which Philo drew most heavily. 19. which follows the Greek notion as expressed by Socrates. So to break the law of God is to transgress the m o T i c TOU Oslou opKou. Xenoph. 5 1 . they.. 156. 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 . Hierocles' dis­ cussion is interesting in full. Opif. Rom. 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. This inference from divine rulership is variously applied.. . Graec.. T h e powers of the various numbers are determined by Natural L a w . I quote from the edition in Mullach's Fragmenta Philos. As a background for Hebrews. VIII. 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. after Law. 158. Oath. H i s 151 152 158 154 155 156 157 158 159 150. and a glance at Hierocles' statements makes some interrelation seem to m e irrefutable. but I can quote only excerpts: 150 Law we have already described as the eternally unchanging activity (Ivigysia) of God. as though dispensed by Law. 1 3 . Legat. p. 2. I. Commentarius in Aureum Carmen. Whatever the material behind Philo and Hierocles. n o . but also to m e n to prevent the exposing of children by their par­ e n t s . 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. IV. ii. 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. 2 3 3 . and Dionysius Halicarnassus. Spec. 68.

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

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

Aristotle. espe­ cially of the schools of Plato and Pythagoras.CHAPTER III THE TORAH I N the discussion of Philo's view of the Higher L a w of God. loyal to the race as a whole. as the guide to mystic salvation. by implication. Spec. I have in mind the familiar writings of Herford. the L a w of Nature. T h e Jewish T o r a h was regarded essentially as God's revelation of Himself to Israel. Montefiore. and. Schechter. pp. 1 7 9 . H e was loyal to the Jewish group in Alexandria. Yet in Philo's writings there is a stress laid upon L a w as the approach to salvation that goes beyond these writers. Moore. with details found in Aristode which Aristotle may well have taken from those schools. and by orienting Jewish L a w with Natural L a w as the L a w of God. 2. and Solon. T h e Stream in which that L a w finds its place is of composite origin. nothing was found that was not familiarly Greek in its foundation. and in Philo's thinking in general. to give only the more familiar examples. or of the mystic search of the Hellenistic A g e . Franz Geiger. the Jewish L a w . Opinion at the time was divided among Jews as to whether that T o r a h was essentially limited to the 2 1. 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. the emphasis laid upon it. Israel's treasured "Teaching" on sacred subjects. are the result of the Jewish attempt to represent L a w . . 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. 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. but most of all loyal to the Jewish Law. Plato. N o more patent fact springs out of the pages of Philo than his loyalty to Judaism. in degree if not in kind. 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. Philon von Alexandreia als sozialen Denver. By magnifying Law. However the prominent position given to L a w in the Stream. T h e Jews had much of the best Greek thought with them in seek­ ing salvation in Law.1 8 1 . 102 ff. etc. the Jew could present his religion as the solution of the Greek problem. Abrahams. T h e Stoic ideal of living according to nature was real­ ized in the fulfilling of the L a w of Nature. iv. but the legal terminology and its implications are those of Greek thinkers.

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

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

T H E TORAH

75

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.

7

6

BY LIGHT, LIGHT

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

of Proverbs was TIC TGJV $OITK)TGJV MGJUOSGJC,
37

36

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.
38

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.

T H E TORAH

77

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.

78

BY

LIGHT, LIGHT
44

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.

T H E TORAH

79

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.

8o

B Y LIGHT, LIGHT

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

T H E TORAH

81

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.
64

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
65

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 .

82

BY LIGHT, LIGHT

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.

T H E TORAH

83

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

8

4

B Y LIGHT, LIGHT

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.
68

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

68.
soul.

Mig.,

89-94.

Cf. Cont.,

78

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

69.

Ex. xxi, 10.

T H E TORAH

85

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

86

B Y LIGHT, LIGHT

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.

T H E TORAH

87

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

88

B Y LIGHT, LIGHT

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.
76

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.
77

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.

T H E TORAH

89

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.
78

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).
83

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.

9

o
86

B Y LIGHT, LIGHT
84

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.

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

of this mystical ascent.9 2 B Y LIGHT. 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. 97 Only in comparison with "acute and seeing N a t u r e " could Philo have 95. 22. It would be a complete break in the sense to see. T r u e the Jewish laws are 95 the clearest image of the polity of the cosmos. beyond the material cosmos itself. at least. as statutory law. 96 But the whole objective of Philo's life was to get beyond all material images. 51 f. could be a possible help in the higher reaches. ii. Die Lehre vom naturlichen und positiven Rechte bei Philo Judaeus. I n that sense one must r u n from the laws. 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. Mos. ii. the passage as a rejection of civil law for Jewish L a w . E . 97. So far there has appeared ample ground for suspecting that Philo might well have re­ vered the Code. and obeyed it. of all things. 1893 (Diss. Such a parenthetical remark would be quite in point. since bad things cannot live and stand along with good things. LIGHT But the odd digression in the passage stands. Pantasopulos. 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. QE. W h a t Philo is rejecting is the very idea that a written law. at last to the Logos or God as the ultimate spiritual original. but not with the idea that observance in itself could lead to God. with Pantasopulos. 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. and had definitely to be transcended for the true experience of God. A. if. while it h a d nothing. p. 96. to offer his higher spiritual life.. 1 5 . and requires its abandonment. as we are coming to see. 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.). T h e L a w might well be kept as a series of observ­ ances. . Philo really felt that the written Code was not an objective basis for the higher Mystery. even the written law of the Jews them­ selves. 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..

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

H i s writings were designed to show to Jews already sympathetic with this pro­ cedure or to Gentiles looking for mystic ultimates. Evang. and required them to give attention to a philosophy of a diviner kind. the true purport of t h e Torah. c). consisting of those who had acquired a habit of virtue. too highly exalted for the multitude. W e can now follow h i m into the Mystery which he found there. 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. the other class. its mystic teaching. But Philo shows that Eusebius' distinction had wider implications." There is no reason to think that Philo was alone in doing so.. x (378b.94 B Y LIGHT. and to contemplation of the things signified in the meaning of the Laws. he meant to exempt from this sense. While the Lawgiver meant to lead the multitude on gendy by the precepts of the Laws as enjoined according to the literal sense. Eusebius goes on to identify the second class with the "Jewish philosophers" as described by Philo in his account of the Essenes. . 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. VIII. Praep.

the softener. Abr. w h e n properly developed. T h e highest func­ tion of the lower W a y was that it might become an introduction to the higher Way. of God rather than an apprehension of pure Being." H e speaks of the fact that those who were initiated into the Lesser Mysteries before the Greater had with the help of Reason. 3.. T h e r e was the W a y of the un­ written L a w and Logos. Sac. stages metaphysically connected. 1 2 2 . 62. we have seen thus far. which lower apprehen­ sion will also appear a regular stage of mystical experience. Yet the secondary W a y was not necessarily closed. T h e method for doing this was revealed through inspiration. Such a contrast was often expressed in Philo's environment by two suc­ cessive initiations within a single Mystery. This appears to mean that the Lesser Mystery was an apprehension of the Powers. the W a y . 2. 49. So it is interesting that in several passages Philo speaks of a "Lesser" Mystery in contrast with a "Greater. and the W a y to God. as it may be called. possibilities. we have seen. But Philo saw in the life of the letter. though not the greatest. T h e "Allegorists" regarded the lower road as a blind alley. one that had to be abandoned if one hoped for the truth. the material world.CHAPTER IV THE MYSTERY OF AARON T o Philo. that is through H i s creative or ruling activity. A n d there was the W a y represented by those Powers that could be projected into. for as m a n traversed it he might come to recognize the distinc­ tion between the illumined material and the illumination itself. It has already appeared that the second W a y was one which Philo found very inferior to the first. in the sense that it prohibited those w h o took it from ever reaching the higher W a y . and it was hopeless to expect more of them. the revelation of God. that is the life guided by those glimmerings of Reality reflected in material media in general." H e points out that initiation under Moses is initiation into the "Greater Mys­ teries. . and repre­ sented in. a life which. a W a y that was characterized by its utter lack of contact or association with material existence. had great. but so different from each other that they can almost be called contrasting. of the written L a w . or of a Power. T r u e the mass of Jews lived their lives throughout on the basis and in the light of the written Laws. worked u p the wild passions as one does in preparing food. or of Sophia. Cher.. 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 . fell into two stages. and so have suggested to h i m the possibility of living by the immaterial illumination. 1 2 8 i .

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aoyoc. In answer Philo specifies that it is not the highpriest whose robe signifies his double origin from the immaterial and mate­ rial realms. This must not. Aoyoc. blind us to the fact that if mythological systems had a cosmic Logos. 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. 42. And the stipulation that he "shall never put off the mitre" from his head indicates that he shall not take off the royal diadem. as a mystic-mythological conception. not the high-priesthood assumed by a man. the high-priest cannot wear robes which indicate that his father was vouc. I think. Metam. born from God and Sophia. and prevents them by its constriction from breaking apart and becoming sepa­ rated. LIGHT fact that the Aoyoc rrpo^opiKoc is not fixed. that is. as has been said. while only the Aoyoc dveu <puvr\Q is a Monad. A second glance at the passage will reveal that it has nothing to tell us of the usual symbolism of the priesthood. Pascher. Gig. In the three higher stages man has gone beyond the river and is in mystical union with the Powers or with the Logos. Konigsweg.) has put on the universe as a garment (for he has wrapped himself in earth and water and air and fire and their products). and the mind of the wise man puts on the virtues. 40 Pascher very rightly sees this conception of the Logos. 28 ff. he is in the Higher Mys­ tery.. and holds together all the parts. Philo has gone a long way. while he borrowed the mystic notion of the Logos as the ruler of the uni­ verse. and the individual soul puts on the body. In contrast to such a mediator as the highpriest stands Moses. he has had indestructible and most pure parents. who is also Father of all things. In so far as he is the Logos. 41. This diadem is the symbol not of absolute rule but of a marvelous vicegerency. . Just before. What highpriest is indicated. 61 ff. Fug.1 1 2 . 249 ff. See above. pp. 24. but is a Dyad. through whom all things (ret oAa) were born. asks Philo. so that he is righdy represented as "putting on the gar­ ments." And the oldest Logos of God (6 JtoeaPuTctTOc. c.) is the bond of all things. Apuleius. Philo has been allegorizing the great passage on the cities of refuge as stages of religious experience. to avoid setting up a distinct mythological cosmic Logos himself. 40. Another passage also deals with the high-priest as Logos. 52.102 B Y LIGHT. 1 0 8 . TOU OVTOC. 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. XI. however. not a philosophic one. and indeed is explicitly contrasted with that symbolism. "He does not tear his garments" for the Logos of God (6 TOV OVTOC. as will appear.. his mother aioS/joic: 89a because. and Sophia for his mother. but the high-priest41 42 39a. pp... God as his Father. and his parallels with Isis are striking. and below. pp.

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

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

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

with the six characters engraved on each. of living according to Nature.1 3 5 . but still oriented in a great har­ mony through God's Powers of Goodness and Mercy. is dressed for the religious rites so that when he goes in to offer the ancestral prayers and sacrifices. 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. the scarlet of fire. Such a person shares in the cosmic communion of the world with the Creator. but as one w h o has at last achieved the ideal now popularly associated with the Stoics. and hence the world must constantly invoke Gsoc. adorned in this fashion. to be sure. so that he is in a sense trans­ formed from being a man into the nature of the cosmos. not as an indi­ vidual. 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. he wears in type the two hemispheres in the jewels on his shoulders. symbols of the zodiac are the twelve stones upon his chest arranged in four rows of three stones in each row. and is a transformation of the worshipper into the Cosmic Being.. while the breastplate as a whole represents the principle that holds together and rules all things. . 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. 52. as Badt righdy points out ad loc. LIGHT depended but still depends. of being in harmony with the great sweep and course of the universe. the ephod of the ouQavog. or deifi­ cation.. that was 0c6c. its savior or pre­ server. himself a litde cosmos. 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. Ib. 5 1 . T h e significance of the Jewish priesthood and temple has been here set forth with unmistakable meaning. the flowered hem of earth.io6 BY LIGHT. it will be recalled. This was the Power. 1 3 3 . he yet ought to try unceasingly to be worthy of the cosmos. if one may say so (and indeed one must say nothing false about the truth). from any bondage to pleasure. That is the xoonoq. As he puts on its imitation he ought straightway to become one who bears in his mind the original pattern. ii. Philos Wer\e. and becomes. 136-140. Mos. or of mystical union with H i m . 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. made u p of Logos and Matter. 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. T h e purpose of all this imagery is indicated in Philo's o w n summary that follows: The high-priest. the pomegranate of water. It is a worship designed for those w h o are not worthy of association with God.

in the sense of an organization with formal initia­ tion. 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. 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. for throughout the Exposition Philo assumes that the reader has already read. Without yet attempting to answer the question as to which type of Mys­ tery Philo is teaching. 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. This is not to be wondered at. as in I Corin­ thians. 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. In the latter type there seem to have been no rites of initiation. so that the person who had no such experience. 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. It may be well to stop for a moment with the interpretation of the same material made for slightly more advanced Gen­ tiles. . he yet ought to try unceasingly to be worthy of the cosmos. But it is clear that whether the ordinary aspirant went through a ceremony of investiture or not. and we cannot decide at this point in which way we should take it. however. and which he always bore carefully in mind. a simplification of some of Philo's more elaborate sym­ bolism. etc. 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. but m e n who still apparendy had not yet definitely become proselytes. so that he is in a sense transformed.T H E MYSTERY OF AARON 107 with a Mystery proper. T h e implication of those words would seem to be. 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. not to go into the deeper teaching with those not ready to receive it. the experience of the priest was in some way open to all who properly aspired. or a mystic gnosis of the Hermetic type. Paul is very cautious. but definite levels of spiritual experience. or only the lower type. presented here purposely in a way to be intelligible to one who knew nothing of the doctrine before. was given only the lower teaching. 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.

1 2 5 . 54. the one made with hands. Philo could have had no dealings with the temple at Leontopolis. 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. the heaven. 6 oujinac KOOHOC.i\ o v a t a ) . Apparcndy Judaism in the Diaspora was far indeed from being a unit. Som. i. 56. 68-70: etc. 59. the De Vita Mosis. was God's concession to the laudable desires of the people for a more definitely available sanctuary. I n this temple the stars are the votive offerings (ornaments. But it is notable. jtepaiOTaTryv mcmv ojiovoiag. 163. 57. the Aoyoi. They are divine images (6\yak\iaxa)." 55. T h e temple has no sacred grove. or the images cf God. Antiq. completely shut off from the public view. 7 1 ." in Harvard Theological Review. here obviously the contemporary temple. LIGHT 6 or has available. i. W e need not worry about the fact that the priests in one passage are the angels. and at the same time of bringing together Jews from every quarter of the world a n d uniting them. 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. a n d adds many important details. As to the significance of the Jewish temple.io8 B Y LIGHT.. Philo in Opif. a u T o u Geloc Aoyoc. ad loc) has pointed out. XXVI ( 1 9 3 3 ) . * so of the ground already covered Philo has a relatively slight sketch. . II. 1 1 0 . Ib. It is supported by the offerings 54 55 58 57 58 59 60 53.. 2 1 5 . 60. so that they could easily be described as singular or plural interchangeably. A parallel passage throws some light. which he set in that purest temple of the material substance (OG>iLOYiw. I n either case they are the Logos seen in relation to particular matters. as Heine­ mann (note. the h u m a n soul (/) AoyiKy) ^ux*)) and the KQQ\\OC I n the KOO^OC the priest is the Logos. i.. whose sanctuary is the o u p a v o c .. in a fixed fidelity based upon their common interest and conceptions. as they get to k n o w each other and sacrifice together. pp. though God allowed only one such shrine to be built. T h e Jewish temple. Ib. that Josephus reproduces the same argu­ ment for a single temple (Ap. 58. Philos Wer\e. 74 f. 200). Spec. exceed­ ingly beautiful. But he reaffirms the main interpretation. or as Philo else­ where calls them. the holi­ est part of the substance (ouoia here in the sense of material) of things that exist. Ib. H e mentions the temple in another passage briefly to say that there are t w o temples of God. whose natures are unmixed with matter. and speaks of the holy of holies as at the center. IV.. Philo goes on in the De Specialibus Legibus briefly to describe the tem­ ple. 6 n p c J T o y o v o c . 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. 72 f. 67. for since there is only one God. the angels.. he says that it is a symbol of the true temple. See my "Philo's Exposition of the Law and his De Vita Mosis. 55. and in the other passage are the Logos. Spec. d v a 9 y ) p a T a ) and the priests are the sub-deacons of the Powers.. and indeed seen by no one. H e can have b u t one temple.

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

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

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

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

ii. and its colors likewise indicate the elements. xxviii. 98. The priestly function of the king will appear somewhat expanded in the treatment of Moses below. "The Great King" was the usual classical way of referring to the King of Persia.8 1 . 91. 7382. H e comments interest­ ingly upon the two robes the high-priest is to wear. and the fact that there is one tabernacle. 103.. and glorified by participation in divine things. the great regalia of the sacrifices and the white robe he puts on for his annual entrance into the holy of holies. 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.. Ib. 7 6 . for honor and glory are the things held in esteem in the material realm. 86.. 89.T H E MYSTERY OF AARON 81 ii3 tion of the rest of the universe from the four elements. Ib.. 97. Each branch of the candlestick has three cups as the three signs of the zodiac in each season. . Ib. They are joined together to show that out of material multiplicity the cosmos is a u n i t . 87. Ib. as previously. 84. the heaven by the candlestick. 92. 94. T h e olive oil of the lamp is the supply for the light of wisdom. 88. 96. Ib. 83... T h e one is a robe of honor and glory. Ib. 95. he elaborately points out. 2. Ib.. Ib. Ib. 85. and became proverbial for the highest type of kingship.. Ib. has the same m e a n i n g . their four colors. QE. the inner to the aetherial essence.. Ib... T h e holy of holies separated off by the veil represents the intelligible world. 83. 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. like all kings they must thus be priests and serve God if they are to rule others. 89. 9 9 . the other of something greater. T h e one is proper for material ministration. 90. 91.1 0 1 . Ib. 88. the four elements. and the other ornaments and details of the candlestick are likewise given cosmic symbolism. As the in­ corporeal world is represented by the ark. T h e ten curtains of the tabernacle indicate the usual significance to h i m of the decade. 84. and indicates the ency­ clical studies. 93 f. the substance of the sensible world by the table. 86. Ib. so the tabernacle is designed to show the nature and substance of the sublunar world and its four elements.. 99. T h e inner meaning is that the priest represents true opinion. 90. while the pole binding all together signifies the fact that the ele­ ments are held together by an indissoluble b o n d . but of a pure life.. Ib. T h e altar of sacrifice calls properly for the offering not of victims and flesh.. 85. 104. not several.. T h e lamp is to be kept burning from evening to morning to symbolize the stars. Exod. 93.. Ib. Aaron and his sons have been initiated for the divine ministry and have become greater kings than the Great K i n g . T h e veil which divides the tabernacle indicates that the outer chamber is dedicated to the sublunar world. Also they signify that the high-priest is honored by men. 105. This is the literal significance. 75. Ib. Ib. the harmony they achieve from being a copy of the incorporeal pattern.. 92. 107.

it is double because there are two kinds of Xoyoc. Ib. 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. but he himself is seated by God the F a t h e r . ioi. 1 1 3 . Ib. xxviii. They are enclosed in gold as the elements are encircled by ether.. i n . Ib. T h e sym­ bolism is elaborated on several details. 109... that will appear to be one of Philo's most impor­ tant concepts in the Higher Mystery. 1 2 1 . ii. n o .. 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. Ib. Ib. Sometimes the differ­ ence of detail may be regarded as sufficiently explained by Philo's own love of fanciful extemporization. Their names are en­ graved on the stones like seals. QE. and while the interpretation in general follows the lines we have found else­ where. 102. for the virtues of the Patriarchs are like the forms. As Philo closes his description of the robes of the priest he continues to emphasize the cosmic symbolism of the details. 104. whether the whole passage or only the gloss (eo quod Christus dominus est) it is difficult to determine. T h e two stones on the shoulder are again the hemispheres with the six signs of the zodiac on each. in. Ib. so frequently happens in Philo that it is impossible to discard any passage for its tangency. . there is a striking divergence of detail. T h e whole seems dragged into the context.. 117-120. LIGHT represent truth or wisdom. Ib. Ib. of course. on the fact that the world is subject to him and beneath him. T h e higher significance of the white robe is not here explained. 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 ioo.. T h e breastplate is l o g o s . T h e last few sections deal with the plate of gold on which is engraved the sacred four letters.. 123 f. 1 1 7 .. 109. 107.11 4 B Y LIGHT. 108. Philo now goes on to the symbolism of the great robe of the high-priest. 112. 1 1 4 . H e r e is a notion. but that. 122. Ib. also be­ cause logos is directed doubly toward divine and h u m a n things. T h e two shoulder pieces of Exod. 105. 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. Ib. slightly developed. that is. piety to God and kindliness to m e n .. he adds many details of interest. in that their virtues are stamped upon their successors... evSiaSexoc and rrpocfopiKoc. 108. 103. Ib. This is a symbolum incorporeae intelligibilisque formae materiae. no. T h e names of the Patriarchs are associated each with one of the stones be­ cause the twelve Patriarchs themselves represent stars. But there is a brief excur­ sus on the Logos as head of the world. H o w much of this is a Christian interpolation. rather than that he is just letting his imagination r u n wild. but throughout it is the h u m a n logos he seems here to have in m i n d . 106. the L o g o s or the world of f o r m s . 7 are the two aspects of religion.

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

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

although officially in his robes he was the cosmos.T H E MYSTERY OF AARON 117 that is the bond that connects the material world with God. It is a worship of one of the lower manifestations of God. is essentially foreign to Stoicism in that union with the cosmos was itself but a stepping stone to the vision of the Creator. he symbolizes the Logos in the cosmos. and again the worship to which he brings m e n is to a share in the cosmic worship of God. So the high-priest in his great robes is a representation of the Logos. As he has pointed out. T h e Stoic saw union or harmony with the cosmos as har­ mony with the ultimate. or the cosmos as a whole. 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. T o adapt the Stoic conception to Philo's theism was a large task. 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. Such phrases as "living according to nature. the lifting of the initiate to move in time and sing in tune with the cosmos. and so much did this out­ weigh all other aspects that Philo could call the high-priest the Logos. or its imitation. 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. and he assumes throughout that no greater sin could be conceived than that of confusing the created with the Creator. was derived from that source. 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. T h e point is that the Mystery of the Cosmos. H e thinks that the fundamental notion of the Mystery. If there were other mystic teachings which made the cosmic worship the first stage in the approach to God. This seems to m e highly unlikely. were too generally in the air to denote any definite borrowing from Stoicism. it must be pointed out in gratitude that he has yet asked the above question and undoubtedly given the right answer to it. however uncertain we may be as to the exact connection between these two expressions of Egyp- . as Philo presents it. but not of the Logos alone. represented that step as a Lower Mystery." upon which Pascher bases his claims. and as a stopping place only for those who could go no higher than worship through visible symbols. and I cannot think that to Philo or to any other Jew it would have suggested itself as a desirable thing to attempt. Relatively the elements are of slight significance. H i s Merciful Power. the whole conception would seem to have come to Hellenistic Jews originally from that Egyptian thought which we associate with Isis and the Hermetica.

14b. provided that he bears in mind what action is suited to the part he has to play. which is composed of other 116. and knows the cosmos also. and sings with. 5. and man is another. A t the end he enters into God. 10. a Power himself. Poimandres. Konigsweg.. rendering praise and thanks in full measure to God. Man. the tend­ ance which is his special task. I. cf. and the cosmos to him. T h e cosmic stage at which one becomes a part of. so that it seems the cosmos (that is. 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. God. which are above the oupavoc. Herm. . LIGHT tian piety. VIII. not unaware that he himself is a second image of God. Rather than simply refer the reader to Pascher.n8 B Y LIGHT. 24—26a. becomes one with the Powers. is first.. Man's first step. Scott's translation. is immediately from and in the cosmos in the same way as the cosmos is from and in God. where he sings with the stars the great hymn to the Father. likewise singing their h y m n to God. X. and so. For there are two images of God. because man's composite structure has been thus ordered by God. by this. 58. and to what things he in turn is to do service. the hzmzpoc 0£oc. and provided that he recognizes what things he is to use for his own ends. in order that he may be fully equipped on both sides. T h e Hermetica show strikingly the place of the cosmic worship in the general rise to the Higher Mystery. is a single whole built up of diverse parts. governs all things. the cosmos is one. while ultimately from God. There are other striking Hermetic passages which Pascher does not quote. and can hear also the Suvauxic. and revering God's image (the cosmos). he becomes the means of right order to the cosmos. inasmuch as he. like the cosmos. Man knows himself. the ordered universe) has been righdy so named. And if man takes upon him in all its fullness the function assigned to him. in respect of the divine part of him. 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. with some expansion. Corp. man is third. that is. the Maker of the cosmos and of all things that are therein. p. H e is made like them. the universe as a whole is quite a part of the Hermetic preliminary to approaching the Powers. the Master of eternity. Pascher. must here be reproduced. 1 1 8 . T h e n the soul rises up. Asclepius. the cosmos is second. as well as a conception (£vvoia) of the First G o d . 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. 1 1 7 . his arguments and evidence. but has made man as a composite being to govern in conjunction with Him. has been so fashioned that each of his two parts is made up of four elements. 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 . For you must note that man. Man appears to be made in the image of the cosmos and has ouurraGaa with it.

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

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

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. and could have omitted this had it not been an important part of his presentation. can be an adequate approach to Deity. 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. NOAH. ENOCH. For entrance into the Mystery the ideas developed there constitute the first essential step. not as an introduction to the L a w in its higher sense. by first under­ standing the significance of the individual Patriarchs. as a literal revelation of the will of God. For to Philo the way of approach to God in His immaterial aloofness had been revealed in the lives of the Patriarchs. Philo is not just beginning at the first part of Genesis.CHAPTER V ENOS. philosophy. 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. They had become the VOJJOI ejjvpuxoi. its first part. 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. W i t h many details from the Timaeus Philo ex- . 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. for he omits much of the Torah in the Exposition. but as the beginning of the Law. else what follows will be meaningless. It is clear that Philo would not have taken us at once even to the Patri­ archs. T h e Exposition does not begin with their stories. 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). A N D ABRAHAM IT has already appeared that Philo is by no means satisfied that the Jewish Law. 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. So we shall try to come into the Mystery as Philo would have initiated us. and doctrine of God which the Mystery presupposes. in which the Mosaic account of creation was treated." But as the mystery of Aaron was throughout described as secondary to the Mys­ tery of the ark and the holy of holies. and as they had lived without the code in immediate ex­ perience of God. Hence the point of beginning with the creation story is that Philo must first sketch the cosmogony. but with the De Opificio Mundi.

. 332) lists Xenophanes.. as saying that the world is ayivryzoq x a l aiSioc. . as the Prime Cause. not proof. Cohn (Philos Wer\e. First against the atheists. 984a if. the starting point of what is to Philo the Jewish life. both those in doubt about God's ruling. Philo affirms that God exists and rules the world. These would seem to be especially the Epicureans.. which exhausts all matter. Aetius (Viae. Diels. Source.. . against various schools he affirms that the material world had a beginning in its present form. The refer­ ence if not to popular and unphilosophic atheism. Second." It is natural that Philo should have had to emphasize a correct conception of God from the Jewish point of view for converts. 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. Abr. Fifth. and theology crystallized into a creed. created through the instru­ mentality of the Logos. W e know from his other writings. 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. 32 ff.) suggests that Philo is referring here to the Sceptics. Opif. II.. 144. To Jews Philo says that only one who is drunk can deny that God is the Creator and Father of the universe: Post. 69 ff. Doxogr. The Pythagoreans were divided on the subject. as has been said. .. 1 7 2 . the uniquely existent. LIGHT plains that the first chapter of Genesis teaches that the material world has been created after the pattern of the immaterial.. 1 1 . will lead a blessed and happy life. Yet they denied not the existence of God but the possibility of our knowing about Him. against polytheists. but by God. 3. Third. and especially with m a n . Fourth.122 BY LIGHT. and has stamped in his soul these marvelous and priceless forms (dhr\) (that is the five articles of this "creed"). 5. J. For "he who has begun not by hearing these things but by learning them with his understanding. Parmenides. and those w h o denied His existence altogether. This thoroughly Platonic-Pythagorean creed (both schools agreed on all these points) is a necessary part of the Torah. that there is but one cosmos. for he will have become moulded by doctrines of piety and holiness. he affirms that God is one. that providence here is not the Stoic providence which implied determinism. ad he. 4.." p. against the atomists of all periods. that God exercises providence in the world.. See the elaborate proof in Spec.1 7 2 ) with a doctrinal summary in which Philo insists that the story of Creation brings out four points. i. The approach is different in the Exposition. rather than a plurality or infinite number of KOOJJOI. T h e book closes ( § § 1 7 0 . 1 7 5 . But for Gentiles God's very existence has to be proved. to whom must of course be added Aristotle. 2. and Melissus. against the Epicureans. . See my "Neo-Pythag. T o the credal prerequisites for the Mystery which Philo laid down for 1 2 3 4 5 1. but only what we might call an immanent presence and cooperation of God in the created world.). 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. iv.

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

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

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

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. avOpcjrroc.126 B Y LIGHT. T h e next treatise after the De Opificio. OUK£TI ©V/JTOC. 18 . 1 1 2 (Diels). and as eager for con­ crete and personal representations of truth. seems to have been more a failure of the Age to produce great intellectual successors of the early giants. A marked part of this tendency was the increasing regard for what was called the Oeioc. or been raised by God or the gods. 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. Frg. T h e mystery religions were engrossing the age with their graphic represen­ tations of ethical and metaphysical truths. but still more useful in popular eyes as mediators and saviors for other men. the h u m a n being w h o had by his virtue raised himself.. as in the Hellenistic Age. 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. W h e n Empedocles went about among crowds w h o kept demanding of h i m a sign or a miracle. 'IooTyjc would do as an abstraction for the classic philosophers.?ht T h e Exposition assumes the success of the introduction in properly orient­ ing the mind of the reader. F r o m the greatest periods of Greek thought it is apparent that the crowd was as unable to follow abstractions. 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 lives of the great sages of the past came to be regarded as being of more importance than their teachings. the De Abrahamo. like the other distinctive aspects of the Hellenistic Age. L. T h i s change. was not. S' uulv 0£oc a u ( 3 p o T o c . he himself met them with what they wanted by proclaiming: £yu 18. W e shall follow Philo by studying these patriarchs for their mystic significance. Such m e n were inspiring as models. than any change in the masses themselves. or the $iAav9pcjn(a 0£ou. had rarely followed these great philoso­ phers in their loyalty to abstractions and in their demand for reason. Isis or Cybele were apprehensible in a way that the ideal KaAov. to relations with deity so far beyond those of ordinary people that he had become in a sense divine. as has been pointed out. Every­ where the tendency was to put even ethical concepts into a concrete form. but became a god­ dess in Hellenistic Syria. T h e Mystery itself is re­ vealed to Philo in the Patriarchs. But the Hel­ lenistic Age. Philo may n o w take the reader into the Mystic teaching as set forth in the great Torah of Moses. 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. as has been said.

and a third that is of the sort repre­ sented by Pythagoras. H e r e I shall only point out that the Pythagoreans. (W." A general study of the phenomenon of the Gdoq avGpcjrroc is most to be desired. the having an eye not to the law but to the law maker. 11. 120 £. not Bravery. 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. VI. NOAH. Rhet. in harmony with the popular aspiration of his day and of all days. to make room for their reverence for Pythagoras. 3 1 . then. T h e Hellenistic W o r l d would have found room for either Plato or Plotinus. on the ground that Homer had first posited the king as being between gods and men. 340. Aristotle said: "Equity is . but had represented the king as yielding in honor to the Wise Man. 20. Etudes sur la litterature Pythagoricienne. For it is the way of the multitude at all times to get their ethical standards from a picture. in Homer. pp. III) A. engraved in their hearts rather than in their minds. the patriotic devotion of Washington.ENOS. 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. 21. of an ideal personality w h o m they can follow and imitate.. man as another. such are the inspirations of most of us. the chastity of St. the later lives of Plato. with their reverence for the hazy figure of Pythagoras. were especially active in building up the conception. but such great m e n were not born. 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. In looking for a personal incarnation of the virtues and divine life to which he aspired. 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. and which was never fully satisfied until it found the ideal 6 d o c avGpojnoc in Jesus of Nazareth. Purity. xiii. 17. and to justify their conception of the king. So it was the timeless mob that gave the age its color. . . 22. AND ABRAHAM 127 T h e picture is not essentially different from the idealized portrait of Apollonius of Tyana. 1374b 1 1 . . T h e bravery of William Wallace. the mystic achievements of Buddha. ENOCH. De Pythagorica Vita. I. Philo was. Dindorf. and Porphyry's life of Plotinus. Francis. and the feeling that the problems of 19. or the Good. Reverence for the Geloc avGpojrroc. the purity of the Virgin Mary.

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

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

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

27-28. 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. valued more highly by Philo than by the Protestants. 40. while the Patriarchs who followed were perfect from the beginning. which will appear to be wrestling match but a race in which the victor runs away from the passions. that is his conquest of the lower passions and per­ fection in virtue.3 5 . he has won God's favor. It will be well to remember the sacred dycov with the passions. W h a t could be a clearer demonstration of KaXoKayaGla? By means of his justice. Ib. Abraham was the first to get to truth. Philo's account of the flood which destroyed Noah's contempora­ ries is one of his most brilliant descriptive passages. the dycov.. in which they will win a victory over the oppos­ ing passions. for of the later triad. which.. 42. Praem.. Philo explains the relative imperfection by saying that Noah's achievement was that of having left sin and come to righteousness. Noah's achieve­ ment might be compared to that of the "merely moral m a n " so often preached against by Protestant clergymen. As such h e has con­ quered his lower passions. and with it the ultimate objective. Noah's perfection in SiKaioouv/) was only a partial perfec­ tion as compared with that of the great triad to come. 3 2 . 41. I n pos­ sessing justice he possesses all the other virtues. . F r o m all this N o a h was spared. 47. But I do not think this really represents the point of Philo's contrast. like the other two mem­ bers of this triad. AND ABRAHAM Noah. and has left once and for all the "confusion" of sinful society and of the life of conflict with his own lower nature. 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. and is at the same time pleasing to God. not a Abr.. 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 . 48. 40-45. T h e real point appears in the review of the Patriarchs in De Praemiis et Poenis. Abr. only Isaac was thus perfect from the begin­ ning. T h e "moral m a n " has indeed done m u c h to live the life he does. 46. Praem. the second to those of people who are fully developed for the second struggle. 43.2 6 . it 38 89 40 41 42 43 44 45 38.. auSaiuovia.. then. the last of the first triad. where it seems that. in contrast to the first triad. A n d yet. means the abandoning of everything material and created. 39.. as we shall see. Though this is hinted at in the sacred dycov with the passions.ENOS. 22. 2 4 . NOAH. T h e first triad had virtues analogous to those of childhood. T h e reward of such an achievement is that N o a h was exempt from the general calamity of the sinful race. Ib. represents Justice. ENOCH. Ib. 45. 44. H i s superiority to the mass of sinners is freely recognized. the second was able to rise above the circle of the earth and arrive at heaven. the domination of his lower members by his reason. As is brought out in the later summary of the Patriarchs. and became the founder of a new race of m e n .

and which can be conceived of apart from them only as pure Being.1 1 0 . Ib. but the end result is clear. was "a figure of the body which has been compelled 6 47 48 49 50 61 46. O n e small passage is. T h e ark. De Plantatione. Accepting Wendland's conjecture for reading §108. 49. from the fact that N o a h was pleasing to "the Lord God. heaven. F o u r other treatises of the Allegory take their departure from texts about Noah. 1 1 6 . we learn. In the Allegory* the question of Noah's achievement is canvassed. and into which all the wild animals were brought. 1 1 8 . even as they did with N o a h ." 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. 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. and all animals and plants. fire. he says. Moses in contrast was pleasing to the O n e whose body-guard these two Powers are. T h e wisdom of N o a h was only a likeness of Moses' wisdom. air. the Creative or Beneficent Power and the Royal Power. N o a h had it only from the subject Powers. Ib. Philo's route for arriving at this goal has been circuitous. in which N o a h took refuge. De Ebrietate. In another brief and isolated passage N o a h is of praiseworthy constitution and origin. of the greatest importance. stars. 48. 50. LA. earth. N o a h went only as far as the Powers.. H e has discovered that grace comes only from God and not from any aspect of creation. 1 0 4 . LIGHT may be added. "God has given His good things to the universe as a whole and to its several parts. In contrast with Moses.I 2 3 B Y LIGHT. 5 1 . Philo gets this explanation.. Immut. however. Noah's having found grace with God is described as meaning that N o a h discovered that all things. 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. 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. T h e true goal for us all is to rise like Moses to 6 GJV or to o TOU OVTOC Aoyoc. De Agricultural. This was the height of Noah's achievement. then "without turning go to God's Powers and make yourself a suppliant to them. iii. are the grace of God. sun. De Sobrietate. A n d so the conclusion is clear for the Mystery. 77 £. bi%a . 47. But if that is too great to be thought of. 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)... and so while Moses got grace from 6 GJV a u r i c . ap­ parently one of the class that stands next below God. " T h e descendants of such a m a n are the virtues. 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. Ib." that is to the two Powers represented in that double title.

. while the Exposition would suggest that he did not get to the immaterial world at all. the Quaestiones in Genesin. have got beyond the universe to at least s o m e experience of the Immaterial. in Philo's mind. For the m e n of flesh are the enemies of those virtues which constitute the road to God and lead one along it. T h a t is. 10. the muddy slime is cleaned off as though b y a flood at the coming of a sweet flow and a drinkable stream. ii. T h e flood itself is the washing away of the sins.7 . I should myself be inclined to think that Philo has understated himself in the Exposition rather than overstated himself in the Allegory. . Noah. 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. is of the s o u l of the mystic in his b o d y . 99. QG. is the heir of the divine substance. 99.ENOS. This figure is much more elaborately worked out in our third and chief source for Noah.. Ib. AND ABRAHAM 133 52 to m a k e room for the untamed and savage pests of the passions and vices. T h e figure Philo has in m i n d . ENOCH. QG. 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." 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 .. 55. as endowed w i t h virtue. 54. ii. cf. 59 58 57. 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. Plant." 59. the ark. Ib. must. i. NOAH. 52. In contrast with the wicked race that must perish. ii. he is their savior. or high priest. as a great model Patriarch. 43. 92. 1 . the contrast between m e n w h o are of the flesh and those who are sons of G o d . In discussing the Mystery it is going to prove impossible to represent Philo as consistent in his symbolism. 63 64 55 5 8 57 The flood is a symbol of spiritual dissolution. t h e n . This spiritualis dissolutio seems to me not to represent Philo's original. 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 . QG. 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. 1 5 . 56. 5 3 . QG. 58. 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.. 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. 43. which from the context must have been some word for "cleansing. Noah's ark is elaborately developed as representing the body. Plant. Noah. 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

. " Philo does not pull this allegorizing together. Ib. 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.. 100. T h e m a n who has come to the right opinion about God humiliates himself.140 B Y LIGHT.1 7 6 .. the vision of God. But Sophia. or dpery).. for there was breathed upon them a breath of perfect virtue. 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. It is Abraham. 106. and is then given Virtue. the vouc 4>iAoocj|jaToc. and puts the lower m i n d into complete subjection. and the consequent destruction of the cities of Pentapolis. 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. Abr. Virtue does not wait until this battle between the two minds has been fought out. 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. unless they had known that like the well organized crew of a ship all the inhabitants were obedient to a single command. as Sophia or dperyj. and to receive God as guest within himself. 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. the divine principle. or the divine Powers'. 1 1 6 . while. 101. 1 0 7 . which fills his m i n d with good seeds. T h e descrip­ tion centers about the coming of the "three m e n " to Abraham's house. LIGHT put itself into such an attitude of passivity that it becomes female as over against the masculine activity of Sophia or apzTV). masculine activity aspired to Sophia. Ib. but comes into a m a n when she sees that with her help the batde can be hopefully joined. But h e is the lower mind. the Ruling and the Creative Powers 99. Abraham is n o w ready for the next step. 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. as in the relation with Sarah as Virtue. . 103. 101 T h e three visitors are the two Powers. T h e section is one of the least coherent of the treatise. 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. *^ > assertive. w h o gets Virtue herself by humiliation of the lower m i n d . but its meaning is clear. and has come through to a properly integrated personality in Virtue. develops it into being itself virtuous. with many digressions into which we need not go. H e desired to have relations with Sarah. the m i n d is developed by God's.

. After a considerable digression on the significance of the five cities of the plain. as he sees it. Philo goes on to the next great event of Abraham's life. 27 (Wachs. but it must come as a gift from God. to God. V. 26. On happiness as the goal of life and the end of virtue see also Euryphamus. but the contrast of man and God is strikingly similar in each. Even so. . The contrast appears strikingly in Hippodamus (ap.. T h e birth of Isaac. . 203-205.6H. 201. Stob.1 3 0 . Hippodamus puts human hap­ piness in XTJ5cn. IV. Abr. 1 2 6 . . xxxix. give h i m euSouuovia.. 106. ap. and can thus propitiate God and thereby escape p u n i s h m e n t . 1 1 9 . Abr. including all his joys. IV. 103. though he clearly makes it a concomitant of virtue. 'while Philo makes it a gift of God rewarding virtue.). his sacrifice of Isaac.1 2 5 . Wachs. AND ABRAHAM 141 102 of God. 917 11. These appear as three to the beginner. 104. 1 2 ff. ENOCH. 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. T h e boy represented ultimately "laughter." he says. O n e who cannot rise even to this height can at least appreciate that God punishes evil through His Ruling Power. and "laughter" means that highest euSaiuovia for which the good m a n aspires. 105. It was probably discussed more fully in the lost De Isaaco. NOAH. d \izv yaQ Eu8aiu. Abr. . 30 ff. 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. which might have given him large grounds for allegory. . 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. m a n never has happiness in the full and unmixed sense in which it appears in G o d . See especially §129: M%o\iox yag x a l xov xijg £USQYSXi86g \iov Swrdn-ecos POUA. V. 25. But Abraham is the m a n who rises above both of these lower incentives to aspire to God for His own sake. and which is the ultimate goal of all Pythagorean and Platonic morality and mysticism. for m a n is a creature of sorrow while God alone has natural euSaiuovia. elsewhere spoken of as the Aoyoc. Abr. 202.ENOS.. with their connecting principal..). dilating upon the extraordinary love which Abraham had for Isaac as the son of his old age and as his only son. does not fit into his explanation of the development of Abraham's own character. Abr.. 108 104 105 106 107 102. 107. See above.ovia xsXeioxag saxl pico dvfrQCOJtivco .EVOV |xsxaA. pp. It must at least be noted that Philo in this is quite in accord with the ..axslv elg inexovatav avafrcov x a l xov cpopcp XTJV TIYEM-OVIXTIV x a l SeajtoxtxTiv UaaxonEvov Egouaiav d g djtoxQOjtriv xo^daEcog. xxxix. and a vision of them as one is vision of 6 OVTGK GJV. 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. as H e did to Abraham.. God will. while m a n centers his atten­ tion not on the quest for happiness but on the complete dedication of him­ self. Stob. and as a boy of great inherent loveli­ ness. 909 f.. a reward. H e describes the sacrificial scene with great feeling and power. Yet it is not the natural property of man.. though to the m a n w h o is more ad­ vanced the two Powers are recognized as only aspects of the One.

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 . It will be noticed that Sixaiotfuvrj is here often a generic term for virtue. peace. 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 . Ib. 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. a n d f r e e t o l o o k u p t o God. 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. The incident also typifies for Philo the victory of the higher mind over the pleasure loving mind in the individual. 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. 109.. f u n d a m e n t a l a s i t i s . 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 . a n d was finally rewarded b y being given happiness i n God. Abr. 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. Enduring happiness is a by-product from some interest which is in itself so engrossing that it dominates and thus harmonizes the entire personality. 208-209.c o n t r o l . 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 . Abraham's justice appeared in his allowing Lot t o choose the part of t h e country h e preferred... 1 1 3 .. 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 . i s n o t a c o m ­ plete picture of t h e life of a character as Abraham. says Philo. 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 but this is a d e q u a t e . t h e r i g h t r e l a t i o n w i t h God. 108. Ib. 225. By striving immediately and con­ sciously for the harmony w e can never achieve it. b u t i s a l s o b r a v e a n d warlike. Such teaching is psychologically sound. 208. and wisdom. 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 . 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. n o t for the sake of were destroying. 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 . Abr. 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. 225-244.142 With this description B Y LIGHT. 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. n o . 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. the mystic m a r r i a g e . s e l f . 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 . But p i e t y . i n . 1 1 2 . 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. c o u r a g e . Ib.

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

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

Sections of the account permit him to trace a consecutive development in Abraham's character. But Philo is not content with this conservative statement. too. AND ABRAHAM 145 128 life of the first man and founder of our race: some regard him as v6|mi0^. . to a vision of God through H i s Powers is an achievement at once inspiring to others. the Road to a life lived beyond the written law in the L a w of God. 275 f. too. 2. Philo does not say. It will be useless to try in this summary to present the details. QG. and of immediate power to help others along the same Road. and develops it by giving a brief commentary on the narrative verse by verse. iii. however. and conversing with God when the story begins. or the VOJJOC Kal Geojioc a y p a ^ o c .. then. H i s great mystical achieve­ m e n t of having left the world of passion to rise. that the explanation of that call had followed the main lines of symbolism used in the Exposition? * Abraham is already out of Chaldaea. This conception of Abraham's character is made unmistakable in Philo's works for Jews. 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. 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. but my argument has shown that he was himself unwritten v6jxog xal fteqxog. Abr. is being represented to the Gentile reader of the Exposition as a saving force by virtue of his having been vopoc.ENOS. eH^uxoc. NOAH. Abraham prays to the lower Power. but many details throw him into irrelevant digres­ sions from the main thought. T h e commentary as we have it takes u p Abraham at Gene­ sis xv. It is certain. Abraham was more than VOJJIJJOC. apparently. Abraham. It is certain. T h e last contrast is striking. ENOCH. I n the Quaestiones in Genesin Philo takes u p the story of the Patriarch. the Royal Power. a merciful x ^ P K from God. in this opinion about Abraham. which is the N a t u r e of God. and alone. he was VOJJOC qj\puxoc. thus omitting the story of the call of Abraham from the Chaldeans. 125. H e was. 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. 2 125 123. vo|iijjoc. It was apparently a common thing among the Jews of Philo's day to regard Abraham as one w h o obeyed the Law. 124. with permanent power to benefit men. like the earlier Patriarchs. 7. H e says he has proved a position different from that held by some others. pure of body. and as such a savior of men. for a s i g n and is commanded to make the sacrifice. and there is no reason to infer. that our manuscripts are very defective. This is elaborately discussed for the significance of the sacrifice. which is explained. not from that held by all others. that he was the first. T h e early stages of his development are lost.

But he can profitably have relation with and get results from the encyclical disciplines. After the sacrifice.146 B Y LIGHT. 41." and was 126 127 128 129 180 181 182 183 184 135 186 surrounded by light which knows n o darkness. . and thence to God. 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. 25 FF. 42.sense a s the Cosmos i s i n that likeness. LIGHT according t o the Scientific Commentators to w h o m Philo occasionally al­ ludes. 132. 127. I n this experience he is defi­ nitely purified from sin. S a r a h .. at sunset. 131. 10. IB. 136. O S N H B V. 20. T h e last vestige of his offenses fall from him. IB. 187 126. It is the "Lord G o d " that appeared to him. but a stranger to be released and return t o God by the subjection o f the b o d y . IB. T h e whole i s made into the cosmic worship on a Pythagorean founda­ tion. IB. 134.. A I T E Exposition (SEE A O E P.. 139). a s i n the case o f Noah.. voy]Toc. 23. Abraham's bodily nature sets and the Spirit of God takes possession of h i m . 128. o r probably here the Royal Power. i. 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. 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. i n the same. IB. 130... the rays of God. 137. Abraham's first vision of the Powers occurred o n the occasion when his name was changed.. the Creative Power. IB. and is m a d e a citizen of the world by the Royal Power. 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 . have therefore to be humiliated by Virtue. but as H e represents H i m ­ self in Intelligible Virtue herself.. that is he i s made according t o the likeness o f God. 39 F. 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 . 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. Abraham has n o w i n turn risen from earth to heaven. IB. made into conformity with the two Powers. 9. benefiting them and disciplining t h e m . IB. Hagar. 43. 135. Sarah i s Virtue. he had become "wholly eye. So he becomes a force for other m e n in the way o f both the divine Powers. QG. hence the two Powers. 129. not as H e i s . 133. IB. come i n to unite the divided personality o f soul and b o d y ... and which reveals the very form of light as by a flash of lightning.. we under­ stand the Logos. then to the KOOHOC. 15. IB. and i n the preliminary stages m a n can have n o fruit from her. 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. 18.e. IB. and the encyclicals.. L o r d . In the full experience. III. T h u s Philo interprets Abraham's relation with H a g a r .. 27.

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

Happy is the m a n who entertains such a guest. 147 So. 10. in view of the Mystery. Knowledge of the Father and his Powers is hidden from the many. all of which qualities of the host hasten to greet and serve the divine visitors." one object as two.." to take which is to feed on divine things (vesci divinis) . 1 5 1 . 18. iv. 2 1 . the prime measure of both corporeal and incorporeal existence. 149. and never lose sight of. and that is the coming of God and His Powers into a m a n of purest soul. 19. 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. Ib.148 B Y LIGHT. Philo is too specific in denying the Powers any independent existence to have kept Sophia as such. truly and properly said. though a unity in Himself. and must not be told to them. for the soul can now see the plan of God fully in the world. 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. T o follow his thought we must begin with. and proper speech. intelligible as well sensible. See also. QG. the ecstasy of receiving the r a y s . 1 2 . as it had been Spirit above. 148. is the one God who. 148 For as the eye. It was this clear vision of God as One that Mpses prayed for. Ib. 8. H o m e r had said that all things are to be divided into threes. This remarkable conception is expounded in Ib. so the eye of the soul is at first unable to see one as one. QG. 9. Philo can call this radiation by one or by a combination of the terms as the exigencies of a given allegory may demand. and recognize that various terms are only means of describing the nature of that radiation. apparitions of the primal ministering Powers. . and the Pythagoreans had made the triangle an element in the knowledge of all things. I cannot see room in the picture for Sophia as a distinct principle in contrast to the Powers. Sarah laughs at the promise of the Triad that she is to bear a son. but gets the vision of three. iii. After this experience God keeps none of His plans hidden from Abraham.. 150. T h e Triad now come into Abraham's house. consisting of "the Laws and Forms of Sophia. and that laughter typifies the joy of the ultimate mystical achievement. 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 . 152. to see which is the goal of the contemplative life and of all v i r t u e . 8. when it is weak. Because Abraham has 149 150 151 152 147. often sees "double. 16. LIGHT the fact that there is a sacred food of the intellect.. iv. 6. QG. Philo explains. appears as a trinity because of the weakness of the observers. the measure of all things. §§9. perfect virtue. the Radiating Deity. for it is the joy of the nearness of God.

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

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. QG. the intercessor before God. 178 179 Philo has. 90. Chap. For law is an invention of Nature. the one who seeks pardon for the sins of those akin to h i m . iii. in being changed into the likeness of the Immaterial Essences. Abraham was added to the incorporeal substances. the term as used in the Exposition is more clearly explained. Abraham's nature. which was symbolized by Sophia or the Powers. iii. but in the nature of the divine Stream. rather than in the Stoics of any period. not of m e n . in the story of Abraham in the Quaestiones. and which was at the same time a law. makes it into a Cosmos. But this exposition. 180 174. 177. 175. but which the higher mystic gets not as a cosmic derivation but directly from the immate­ rial Source. that is. 1 1 . in the Allegory. brings in parallel illustrations from all the other Patriarchs. in the Pseudo-Aristotelian De Mundo. we understand. then. not been able to dramatize the life of Abraham so effectively as he did in the free composi­ tion for the Gentiles.Ib. while I have not noticed the term vouoc eu^uxoc. 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 what are to be done. he was added to his people. divining what things are to be. and is truly its guardian and the one who drives out evil from i t .. apparently as their perma­ nent possession for salvation. and to represent him as a saving force for m e n to come. so that it will be well to reserve that body of material as a whole for the summary of the Mystery. Ib. for the meaning of the L a w of N a t u r e as Philo conceives it. 1 5 3 . 83 f. By this.QG. 179. IX. 10.150 174 B Y LIGHT. So. The wise man is the savior of the race. W e must not look to Stoicism. T h e picture of Abraham is again drawn. 178. 44. and in still greater detail. here he was added to his successors. LIGHT demption of the b o d y . while it generally follows the career of Abra­ ham. QG. iv. It is not in the material world that Philo would find such a Law. T h e conception is that found in the Hermetica and in the Avesta. which incidentally coming into matter. is the most human physician of our race. Particularly has the light symbolism come out with increasing emphasis.. is changed into the Light Substance which is the L a w of Nature. See below. QG. and the con­ ception that Abraham was nourished by the stream of divine rays. Abraham was a prophet and imposed law. which Philo is describ­ ing]. iv. as Philo interprets it in one place. and a dili­ gent cultivator of it [by the mystic ascent. 176. and in Neo-Pythagoreanism. . 180. full of days. by following the story of Genesis line by line.

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

Post.. So in Abraham are all the people of the world blessed. 17 f. Cher.. 88. 603. purifying oneself from sins. 193. is here used in the Stoic sense where it is made to mean "Son of God. 192.152 B Y LIGHT. 55 ff. III. Sobr. and through them upon others. God has showered by grace (xapifeoGai) H i s gifts upon the Patriarchs. A s the Sophos h e radiates "most brilliant and star-like beams of virtues. 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 . T h a t is. III. 197. Abraham as one w h o is raised above m e n into the immaterial life of God. and leaving the false notions of the Chaldeans (the Stoics) for the true doctrine of G o d . and has come to stand u n ­ changeably very near to the divine p o w e r ... 394). SVF. . H e has fully realized the ideal of the Sophos.. 127. Mig. and who hence has become a savior and mediator of the higher L a w to men.. 2 3 1 . Heres. This passage is quoted as a source for Stoicism by Arnim. p. But I doubt that the explanation of evysvr\<. 194. Mig. 159. 118 f. to which w e shall return. 289. 27. Abra­ h a m has discarded all kinship to the flesh." H e is associated with Moses in a brilliant description. Det.. Heres. appears to be the Abraham of the Allegory as well as of the Exposi­ tion and Quaestiones." 195. in itself a Stoic term for the Sophos (SVF. 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 191. LIGHT In another passage Abraham is the type of the fact that euvoulcc is achieved by eliminating the passions. See below. 3 1 .. 196.

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. Ib. the closing treatise of the Exposition. but rather both are praised for having looked to and insured what was advantageous instead of what was pleasant. Unfortunately these t w o treatises are lost. so the loss of the De Isaaco is m u c h to be de­ plored. Philo summa­ rizes the contents of the earlier books. 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. 3 1 .e. Both Yonge and Heinemann miss the point here in their translations. Praem. first as whatever happens is designed for the good of the whole. but as the Chaldeans called him. or to the pilot for what he has cast overboard. 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. but rather o n the fact that after the manner o f a well-lawed city the world is guided and piloted safely. The context goes on to show that Philo's reference is not to individual activities but to cosmic events. So then Isaac was blessed n o less than his predecessor. as the Greeks would say. rejoicing in G o d the Father and Maker of all things. and yet no blame is attached either to the physician for having mutilated the patient. 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. 3. and as a pilot. and rejoic­ ing in the permanence (5iauovr|) of the universe. But laughter is a visible and corporeal token of the invisible joy of the mind. B u t it is possible to gather at least its general point of v i e w . Isaac w a s obviously developed as a still higher type of existence than A b r a ­ h a m .. a n d w e h a v e not a single fragment. I n the De Praemiis De Abrahamo 1 et Poenis.] even though they may not be pleasant. the one by which the soul is entirely filled with contentment (EvfruuXa). 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 . . Isaac. 3 i .3 5 . One is to find joy in God as Father and Creator of the universe. though of course w i t h great loss of detail. and second in the permanence of the universe. A n d it happens that joy is the best and most beauti­ ful of the good states. 2. and in the universe itself. 28-30. F o r he was named.. higher also than Jacob. 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. on the ground that they are virtuous actions.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. and at the same time rejoicing in deeds that without evil are done [in the universe. Laughter (yE^cog).

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

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

for Isaak by nature achieved TO XCXAOV.. and so was in a constant state of that sober intoxication which goes with correctness of reason. the De Abrahamo ( § 5 2 ) . but is strongly hinted. Bug. . 166 ff. . 2 4 23 Isaac is the u n i q u e example of complete natural goodness. a n d the De ( § 1 ) . 24.. iii. 35. and H i m s e l f sows the seed in one w h o is by nature ready to receive it. Ib. though again h o w far it developed these allegorical expositions generations it is impossible to say. 20. but begat Isaac. 160-162. ii. Bruta Ratione JJti. 23. for this conception is alluded to in connection w i t h Isaac in the De Praemiis Josepho et Poenis (§§36. and h a v e been changed into TO afyBapTOv Kal TCASGJTaTov y e v o c . F o r it was not a human being who was brought forth but a most pure concept. though both w e r e apx^Tunoi T/jc n a i S e i a c yjM&v Tunoi. is so quick as to be something timeless. Som. and in contrast to the instructed knowledge of Abraham he needed only the grace of God. drill. QG. one noble by nature rather than by practices. 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. 52. T h e self-taught genus is a new entity. P h i l o spoke of the possibility of re­ ceiving "the inheritance of Isaac. 38." the auTojjaOyjc. one greater than reason and truly divine. From Plutarch. 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). 76. g a v e one the r a n k of pupil.crihig is to be taught by nature. . It is a k n o w l e d g e w h i c h rises spontaneously. which he sucked in neat as he feasted.. P h i l o continues. 10. Cf. Mos. 21 T h i s self-taught k n o w l e d g e . 46. and labor. Cong. the other that of son. and by means of the endowment showered upon him from above he was good and perfect from the beginning. and so h a v e received T/JV anovov LmoTY\\AY\v.. " H e is the exponent (KavcLv) of (pvoiKY] oocjna or of <J>uoiKy] apenrv). i. G o d is its expounder. I n another passage Isaac typifies self-taught knowledge which comes by nature. 22 S o G o d taught A b r a h a m . Abr. 19.156 B Y LIGHT. 5 9 ) . 1 7 3 . 59. 991 f. and it subsists not by virtue of human ratiocination. Cf. i. i.. Det. w e learn that to be auTOU. 2 1 .. 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.. Sac. W h a t benefit the m o r a l achievement of Isaac h a d for future is not elaborated. not at all His admonish­ ment. a blessed event w h i c h 18.. a n d to Jacob in w h o m these w e r e 6LOKY\TIKY\. but by divine madness. dnaGsc d S o c £v y c v s o a . 22. 7. 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 from his birth he has discovered ready prepared Sophia from above showered down from heaven..

as an allegory of the mystical achievement of those "who hasten to immortality. 25 26 The Self-Taught is nourished by no one. 94.3 1 . but to the whole problem of the basic conceptions of the Mystery." H e could not himself go to Chaldea. iv. and in all His works. 194-196. Sophia. . Actually the servant gets h i m a wife from the house of Nachor. 6 Tyjc oofylac y j y q j ^ v . Again those w h o are but midway on the road to perfection.. H i s wife. must be an emigrant out from such a concep­ tion. 88. 88 f. 33. Ib. or what I am calling the Fe­ male Principle formulation. Fug. 3 1 . 93. 30. 140. So I understand the cryptic "quae (sapientia) secundum virtutem sumit aquae similitudinem. the servant comes to the divine fountain.. characterized chiefly by their perseverance (urto|Jovy)). the daughter of God. of the Light-Stream is the great allegory of Isaac in the Quaestiones.. master instructor of himself. iv. for Canaan means "stupid. and result in the abiding presence of God. inas­ much as he is competent to teach others though unable himself to be taught. especially of those people w h o are completely purged in soul. 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. himself dis­ tinguished from indistinct things (distinctus ab indistinctis).QG. 2 9 . the bounteous o n e .. I am consistently translating sapientia as "Sophia. 26. 29. Mig. 28 T h e story of Isaac. Y\ auTopaGyjC oo<t>ia. For Pascher has rightly noted that the chief source of our knowledge of the Mystery in terms of the Sophia formulation. Ib. T h e pitcher 29 30 81 32 33 25. cannot yet see God. Mig. but is the nourishment of others." Cf. not discontent with what is made in the world. Ib.. Rebecca w h o meets him there is Perseverance.ISAAC AND JACOB 157 would put an end to all spiritual labor.." 32.. QG. rejoicing always and daily in the Father. in God. and educated by himself. 29 £. completely satisfied that all things are done according to nature by divine providence for the salvation and preservation of the universe. A t evening. which means Quiet Light. since she is Sophia. This Allegory begins with the same conception of Isaac as that in the Allegory and Exposition: Isaac is mind. which flows out like water. and mother of all things. 27. that is. 103. Det. she suffers neither decrease nor in­ crease. like Abraham.. Sophia.. 97. Such a m a n could not take a Canaanite woman as his wife. 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. Ib. but can apprehend Isaac. the light of the soul. 28." is centered about his marriage. the symbol of the setting of the material fight of the corporeal nature.

. She was virgin and beau­ tiful. can find rest. IB. H e understands the nature of his master. obviously another symbol for the same experience. and so stands quiet while the divine Logos speaks within him.. or brings with her. F H OD 40. if we were not prepared. 34 86 86 87 88 89 "In accordance with the divine Mysteries" Philo allegorizes the earrings and bracelets. H H L O N LE OY O T E R A (§131). As he drinks he recog­ nizes that it is not his own Sophia but the Sophia of God that he is getting. in her father's house the beasts are separated from the place where the h u m a n beings. 107 F. 37. IV. A D S O T T E W OE IS A ALG R T R P RI A. 39. T h e drink he gets is compared to the m a n n a of the wilderness.. which are seen secundum sapientiam. the sexes. 42. the rational as contrasted with the material. speaks without vocal organs. . So the m a n praises God that in going to the house he is to receive the W o r d of Virtue. the eternal Sophia. et contemplationem. E U E N H R. but a m a n matured. Apparently Abraham is the inter40 41 42 48 34. the incorporeal and intelligible seeds.. 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. As she fills the pitcher. and likewise. where one may abandon all mortal and corrup­ tible things. IN. IB. 43. T h e figures have become badly confused. the sort sowed by m a n . QG. QG. Q A . 99. 113. 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. 101. IV. IB. After this drink he is no longer a boy. 100. NO. LIGHT she carries contains the aquatn rerum. 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. clever Sophia. 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. 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. yet she received the pure seeds of divinity which the Father of All sows from above within us. she says. IB..e. 36. 35.. IB. so must m a n fill his soul from the fount of God.i 8 5 BY LIGHT. virgin from any corruptible seed of desire in her mind. the divine Logos.. that is the Logos-Sophia. Yes. with the divine Logos. the servant gives Rebecca.. 102. 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. 38. legem. that is. Sophia is plainly identical with. IB. IB. T h e servant asks for a place in the home of Rebecca's father. and that Rebecca can comprehend the unity of the Logos. i.. 41. 98. I IS P OO T N L E U L S C R . 112. IB. voluntatem. explaining to h i m the Road which leads to virtue and immaterial prosperity.

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

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

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

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). Philo used both formulations in parallel simultaneously. . 13 f. that he knows more of the higher mysteries than Apuleius cared to write down. 46. O r m u z d . and many of them are strikingly reminiscent of Philo. 48-52. Ib. Metamorphoses. 14 f. 67 68 69 70 71 72 67. but not at all in the role which she obviously played as Isis. mother of the Logos. 99-102. 4. one w h o is female in her relations with God. in all of w h o m the three elements are present. an allegory of Rebecca. 7 2 . TTAOUTOC. 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. In comparison it is worth repeating that while Isis is in Plutarch the daughter and wife of God.. pp. Isis herself first appeared to h i m in a robe representing the cosmos. See above.BY LIGHTS LIGHT do not appear at all in the story of Isaac because either mythology was indifferendy interchangeable with the other. male in her power to scatter divine seeds in the initi­ ates. 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.. Pascher insists that Philo is in the same line as Plutarch in his handling of the material. I n the allegory of Abraham. This was apparently in anticipation. it will be recalled. Ib. Ib. and Abr. aA/jOcia. the "Olympian Stole. where she could not remotely have been con­ ceived as fifth removed from the Source of the Light-Stream. for at the first stages of t h e initiation h e was given a robe representing the heaven. in accordance with which robe he must look joyful. Fug.. 7 1 . though in each case it is seven. euvopia. it is in Persia that Plutarch finds the conception of Light. radiating out seven Powers: euvoia. 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. Plutarch. 70. On this Pascher quotes the striking passage's. and o TGJV km TOIC KotAoiq yjSeojv Syjuioupyoc. which Apuleius could tell us about.. 10. indifferently because neither had more than figurative value.. Sophia appears here. T h e spectacle of Philo. O n the lower stage. A t the procession the next day it is notable that the initiates of both sexes wore linteae vestis candore puro luminosi. and that the Sophia figure h a d the same relation with Isis. 47. oo$ia. an allegory of Sarah. 68. a n d the Hermetica. De hide et Osiride. and that both were in the process of assimilation by Greek thinkers. It must have been with this same significance of light that the principal priests wore white garments. a n d that hence h e has much to tell us of the higher reaches of the Isis Mystery." H e h a d a flanP ing torch in his right hand a n d his head was "crowned with white palms. xi. 69. These seven are not Philo's seven Powers.

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

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

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

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

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

. 120.. Mig. T h a t is. that he is still. 112. 70. Ib.. QG. 68 f. T h e r e he is to marry S o p h i a rather than one of the daughters of folly. though that Deity was still quite incom­ prehensible to h i m . 2. even m u c h more those of sense. what h e saw was a vision not from God but from God's attendant P o w e r s . but it is also the fourth element. Aoyoc 0£ioc). 41-60. Ib. Ib. 46 ff. the manifestation of the Logos in terms of recommendations and teachings which have become to him like sacred l a w s . the heaven in the external world and the m i n d in m a n . 1 2 3 . and the part fit to sing best the praises of G o d . Each of these is in its own world the highest element. In short.i68 BY LIGHT.. i. 35-40. Ib. Ib. the highest representation of deity. It will be unnecessary to follow Philo through the devious ramifications of this allegory. though he is by no means going to remain t h e r e . 6 . Ib. grow d i m . Fug.. T h e fact that Jacob is on his way to H a r a n is indicative. 243. 72. while only a sojourner in the life of the senses. 46 ff. and as having then "gone into a place" and lain down until the sun rose. Ebr. W h a t he finds is not God but the intermediate divine Logos (6 \xiooc. 1 1 3 . 241 ff. 121. Som... 1 1 9 . 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. 2 . QG. 1 1 4 . Som. This leads Philo into a remarkable passage on God as l i g h t . Jacob's coming up from the Well of the O a t h is the first point to be explained. This indicates that Jacob has not arrived at God. that is. mys­ terious in nature.1 3 . Ib. Indeed it immediately appears that what he experiences as 6 \\LCOQ Xoyoc was not the Logos in its entirety. but the Aoyoi..Ib.. and the rest of the story of Jacob must be reconstructed from the Allegory. 1 1 6 . iv.. . i. 115. 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 8 8 . and gets the power of prophecy. 1 4 . the Hittite w o m e n ... 118. Ib. and. Jacob is described in the Biblical account as having gone up from the Well of the Oath to H a r a n .3 4 . but has only come to the comprehension that there is a Deity beyond the material world. 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. 46.. 213 f.. LIGHT 111 112 getting to understand his physical n a t u r e . iv. H e r e the Quaestiones in Genesin break off. in the second place. not freed altogether from them. 1 2 2 . Cf. 61-67.1 1 9 . God is only by remote approximation 113 y 1 K 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 in. Ib. 7 3 .. Jacob's dream on the way to Laban is very elaborately expounded in De Somniis i. ii7. It is taken as the chief of Philo's second type of dreams. T h e r e are three preliminary points to be discussed before he comes to the dream proper. T h e well is of course W i s d o m (called 004/ia or imoTY\\iY\). T h e "place" where Jacob goes is the third preliminary point. H e has yet to come to a masterful comprehension of the life of the senses. 239 f...

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

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

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

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

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

216 f. This sin is ascribed to Laban in Cher. and so has not gone through the whole experience. By putting on this robe the highest element in man's tyvxh AoyiK/). the house of Sophia. this group stands for the m e n who are in the stage of the Cosmic Mystery. It is quite clear that in contrast to the experience of pure Light of the first group. made of such elements. 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. of incorruption (dqpdaoaia). that is. as the m a n who is 6 doK/jTyjc. 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. 1 7 1 . is united with the y j y e u o v i K o v of the cosmos. and by putting off all arrogance. son of God. T h e third type of sheep in the vision are those with ash-colored spots ( o f onohozihdc pavroi). in the cosmos. 168.. where the beginner is sprinkled with ashes and water to remind him of his own humble and unworthy nature. the high-priest. . . Unless Philo is here quite inconsistent. the sin which God hates most of a l l . and so he must begin by sharply visualizing his lowly estate.. Laban thought that his children and cattle were his own. They represent the beginning of Sophia. H e must k n o w himself. not knowing that as men we own nothing. is contrasted with the representation Moses gave us in the three stages of the temple worship. Som. i. or conceives them. was not one who had achieved final perfection in any way comparable to Moses. T h e significance of these also is to be found in their symbolism of the Road to KaAoKayaGfa. O n e sees them in their perfection in the ordinance of the high-priest. who does go through it all. T h e first stage is the purificatory sprinkling with ashes in the outer court. 209-212. .174 167 BY LIGHT. and of the most brilliant light (avyoeib&oxaxov (p&yyog) . For he is himself. 203-208. Som. and in himself.e. T h e second stage is the putting on of the cos­ mic robe to sacrifice in the inner court. 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. imperfectly. as such. the logos in man. the divine Logos.. so that m a n in his highest aspect worships God together with the highest aspect of the cosmos. as he got it in a dream when still not perfect. 67-74. EutovCa seems to have been a synonym of %(or\. 169. 170. This com­ parison seems at first one between Jacob. 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. i. i. i. we understand. So here Jacob's representation of the Mystery.. Som.. T h e third stage is that of the "purely white. and the high-priest. LIGHT as they appear in the sky and on earth. the y j y q j o v i K o v . ." 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.

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

1 5 . 27. 255 f. the passions are now d e a d . for not until he had left Laban did he himself have the ultimate experience. 186. which stood. 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. i. the Leader of the Powers. It was the dedication of the results of encyclical studies. 184. iii.. 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. pro­ tests that there is no longer left to h i m intelligence of any kind. and from h i m to learn to conquer the passions. that is.2 7 . 188. little is left to show. the Jordan. Even the passions themselves have gone. See note ad loc. T h e effect upon the life of the body. Som. For Jacob has taken with h i m the only virtues that were in the realm.. Ib.176 180 B Y LIGHT. Various fragments of 180. iii. 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. W i t h these gone. for in leaving the body Jacob stole the teraphim of Laban and hid them. 250 f. Philo devotes sev­ eral pages to the flight in Legum Allegoria. in exactly the same way. Ib.. 182. here the world of virtue. 1 8 1 . 187.. 2 1 . it had been the Cosmic Mystery. 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. as we have seen. Philo closes the allegory of the dream with an exhortation to his soul to go to Jacob. T h a t is. 241-249. T h e dream suddenly stops here without mentioning the fact that God at the end commands Jacob to leave Laban. but when the objects of sense threaten h i m as a whole. Philo is treating the dream as an epitome of Jacob's whole experience and significance. as the body. when the soul thus deserts it to r u n away beyond the river. 183. he is definitely now leaving the world of matter and sense for the spiritual world. is to leave it robbed and impoverished. 20. 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. he can only r u n a w a y .1 7 . In a word. . 214. by Colson and Whitaker. N o w he has come through in the Higher Mystery to a vision of the Logos. Mig. Ib. 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 . his wives. Laban. LA. for the encyclical studies and the quest for Sophia. 18.. Ib. 1 5 .. Laban's two daughters.2 7 .. LIGHT 181 in the cosmos.. T h e wise m a n may face the lesser temptations. His flight is over the river of the objects of sense. In the fuller treatment of Jacob it must have been rather a pre­ liminary vision and call. Ib. 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. but only ignorance. and for that it is highly valuable. Ib. 185.

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

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

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. 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 .4 6 . not hindered... 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. in the body and the outer parts of the soul. that in the end the Mystery solved. 4 1 . Mut. So the race Israel is benefited by the experience of its prototype. and of the created world. 198 199 198. its dreams fulfilled. For philosophy has never been able to manifest the Powers.ISAAC AND JACOB 179 time of the wrestling with the angel Jacob has the strength both of the im­ material world in his soul. These are n o w the objects of Israel's vision." In their experience the frustrations of philosophy have been done away. . 4-7. since these are beyond reasoned inference from phenomena. 199. Legat. Perhaps this obscure passage may throw some light later upon some of the iconographical problems. the development of a fully rounded life in the flesh. especially of man.

of obscuring the general drift of an argu­ ment. There is an extraordinary unity of purpose that emerges. For a m a n like Jacob. Philo's allegory is proving to be very far indeed from sporadic. almost stereotyped. There is obvi­ ously a fixed. 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. and of Philo's attitude toward the Code. 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. for Philo's details have a way. In following the Patriarchs. Philo himself could hardly have developed this great allegory of the . One important detail should be pointed out. This fact must be borne in mind as one of the most significant evidences for the existence and importance of the Mystery. and then to the Quaestiones. 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. One can take the story of a Patriarch. in his own writings and in writings based upon them. we have been approaching the H i g h e r Mystery as Philo asked the Gentiles to do. of whom we have no connected allegory. the explanation of Philo's notions of God and of Natural Law. Philo's allegory does not always r u n true. interpretation of the Pentateuch which pre­ determines his interpretation of any given text. then. skip from the Allegory to the Exposition. we have been following that method of presenting the Mystery which was originally Philo's own. 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. additional details which were found richly used in the Allegory and the Quaestiones. There was m u c h that he saw in Abraham that he does not bring out for beginners in the De Abrahamo. of the lower Cosmic Mystery. through the great Patri­ archs in whose stories the Mystery seemed revealed.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. So after a few preliminaries. but the astonishing thing is to find that it does run true in the great majority of cases. 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. 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.

Philo does not say so at the outset. XXVII ( 1 9 2 3 ) . O n the contrary he assumes throughout the Allegory and Quaestiones. 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. as he writes for sympathetic Jews. and indeed the 3 1. its whole argument and presentation are closer than even the Exposition itself to the thinking of a Gentile. i. Brehier did the great service of recognizing the parallelism between Philo's conception of royalty and the Pythagorean kingly fragments. 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. See my "Philo's Exposition of the Law and his De Vita Mosis" Harvard Theological Re­ view.. else his readers would have been at as great a loss to understand his purpose as mod­ erns have been.1 2 5 . 334. ideas so exalted that one might have called the whole Mystery "the Mystery of Moses. It has repeatedly appeared that for the Mystery the hero and hierophant of greatest importance was Moses. 3. . and then broken it up into the myriad incidental allusions and fragments that he offers. As we go on into the character of Moses the same phenomenon will become still more striking. Yet in the Exposition there was n o De Mose. as the great climax. Ib. 2 T h e first book is designed to show Moses as the ideal king." 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. 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.. W e r e the interpretation original with himself h e must have presented his thesis with demonstration and argument. As will shortly appear.MOSES FOR GENTILES 181 Mystery de novo. 1 0 9 . 1 . So our next task is to set forth Philo's ideas 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. and at the end declares that he has been showing what Moses did K a r a TTJV PaoiXetav. that they will understand his objective since they too are initiates. rather than present him as the first example of the Mystagogues. 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. So marked is this difference that scholars have in general been blinded to the fact that the Exposition is likewise intended for Gentiles. Mos. 2. O n the whole it has seemed best to reserve Moses for his logically proper place. 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.

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

ideals. Ib. those who beheld him were as­ tonished at such a novel spectacle. Moses was distinguished in body and m i n d beyond 01 noAAoi. it is obvious that Moses did not seem to h i m to be avOpun d o c . But while it is uncertain here whether Philo himself thought of Moses as Oeloc or UIKTOC. i. 17. For only a single objective 12.. In Arabia. Ib. Naturally. with pointed allusions to the courtesy due a foreign bloc in a country. 16. to such an extent that he was the model of Plato's Phaedrus. Xoyia^og datelog.3 9 ." 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. H e had astronomy from the Egyptians and Chaldeans both. attuning theory and practice together.. he is here developing the parallel much more thoroughly. 23 £. 3 2 . H e r e he has only raised the question of the divine nature of Moses' mind without answering it. to get their different theories. 27. 29. which trained him both in theory and practice for the best types of life. and actions. his enemies flocked to the king and incited him so against Moses that flight was the only recourse.. and was exalted to majesty most of all in the apuovia of life between these two aspects of his nature. Ib. 3 1 . . he went on with his self-training. In all these studies he did not become a partisan of any single school. whether it was h u m a n or divine or a mixture of the two. a charioteer with the horses so completely in control that he could bring out their valuable potentialities without danger from their violence. Assyrian literature from native teachers. forget his Jewish loyalties. Ib.. 1 5 .. But in all his royal education he did not.. 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). and asked themselves "what sort of mind this was that inhabited his body and was aYa\\iaTo<popo\j[X£voc. says Philo. but sought everywhere and only for the truth. T h e result was that his life was characterized by a perfect apjjovia of thoughts. instead of relax­ ing and enjoying the tranquillity of his retreat or trying to ingratiate him­ self with local leaders. the Greeks taught him the rest of the encycli­ cal disciplines. Ib. 1 3 . 12 18 14 16 16 17 H e had within himself a teacher. like many of the ambitious Jews the readers knew. 14. 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." 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. Mos. words. and directing him to reality rather than appearance.MOSES FOR GENTILES I8 3 their priestly lore as hidden in the hieroglyphs. 40-47. Philo describes elaborately the enslavement of the Jews in Egypt.

A king is honored by the title "shepherd of his people. 24. 2 1 . 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. Moses was oriented in the L a w of Nature. 60-62. for in the midst of the flame was u. r\v a v xi. Ib..TOV ayaX\xa.. in the same way that hunting trains a warrior." pp. "telling to the multitude what he gets from you while you tell h i m TA 0 d a . 50-57. 50. 7 1 . T h e n came the burning bush and the beginning of Moses activities as ruler. 92-95. a n d at once impressed Jethro.184 lay before him. God tells Moses that H e is the creator of the windpipe a n d all other organs of speech. 0£IO8EOTG.eaTaTT).. and lead them out of Egypt. The image was not the fire. 20. Ib. Ib.. 25. T h e divine represen­ tation began to exhort Moses to undertake the care of the Jews. in all of which G o d would be his aid. though the suggestion may seem ridiculous to his readers. Plant.OQ(prj Tig jt£Qi*taM. . Philo is here content to call this ekcov TOU OVTOC simply an angel. T h e bush itself contained what might appear an image. Ib. 23.g vjtETOJtnaev elx6va TOU ovxog slvai.." Like the typical king. 1 2 1 ." and Philo concludes that. Ib. 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. On the king's speech (k6yo<. and at H i s will all things will become articulate. LIGHT XFJS qwoscog Xoyog. T h e exodus at last begins with Moses as the / j y ^ M ^ v . 19. Ib. but without stopping for metaphysical allegorization. Ib.. 26.. 65 \16voq eotlv doEtcov &QXT| t e This w a s at the same time to "follow the wholesome impulses of his soul. 22. 18 B Y LIGHT. " Philo's brilliant description of Moses' return to Egypt and of the plagues need not detain us. . avyoEibiaiegov TOV jtuQog ajiaaTQcbixouaa. and acted as its inspired and irresistible instrument. Philo naturally made capital of Moses having been a shepherd in Arabia.) as a streaming projection of his royal nature by which he imparts the benefits of that nature to his subjects see my "Hellenistic Kingship. a king's training ought to include the experience of being a practical shepherd of sheep. H e points out the value of shepherding as a part of kingly training. . Moses 20 21 22 5 28 5 24 25 26 18.. 84." Aaron is to be simply an interpreter. 59.. Mos. 57. i. Cf. cpcoc. 65-70. W i t h all these elements from current descriptions of the kingly nature. H e was to give them their freedom. Ib. . T h e appearance and $ouA/)n<z of Moses combined brought the rude shepherds to obey h i m . 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 ogdog xal 7iy\yr\.. 48.

i. toils ( n o v o i ) . he like a good judge subjected his natural love for his children to the impartiality of his m i n d . . i.. See Les Idees. 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). 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 . 149. KOX&OZK anapTavovTUv v6\i\\\o[). but be­ cause of his virtue and fineness of character. Wherefore each of the elements was made subject to Moses as master and altered its inherent properties to become subject to his commands.iai).. See Ecphantus. H e chose rather the w e a l t h of N a t u r e . infantry.MOSES FOR GENTILES I8 5 had received rulership and kingly power not like those who force themselves into rulership by shock troops. keenness ( a y x i v o i a i ) .. 148. 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. self-control ( o c j ^ p o o u v a i ) . Praem. 1 5 2 . discomforts (KaKorraGaai)." 3 1 .. 76: the king "claims the lion's share of the better elements of our common nature. legal censures arid punishments for sinners ( ^ o y a i KCCI naXw ouv v 6 | j ( j ) . 27 It w a s g i v e n also because of the nobility of his soul. instinct for the best ( n p o r p o n a l rrpoc f a (3£ATiCTa). his magnanimity. P h i l o tells us. 29." p. F o r as G o d thought Moses worthy to share in the portion H e had reserved for Himself. technical skill ( s m o r y j u a i ) .. Mos. . for the righteous (Srraivoi KGCI Tijial KccropGouvTUV 80 A s Moses renounced material wealth for these higher values. 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. which was guileless and pure in all things small and great. quoted in my "Hellenistic Kingship. 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. Moses renounced a n u m b e r of the interests that spoil the rule of k i n g s . Mos. cf. and his hatred of e v i l . . i. p. Mos. 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.. Praem. and by powerful fleets.. 54. Ib. and kindliness toward all men. n a m e l y abstemiousness (eyKpcnxiai). 28.1 5 4 . comprehension ( o u v s o i c ) . F o r by using his will power. 29 F o r his sole objective w a s the g o o d of his subjects. U p o n t a k i n g office. endurance (Kaprepiai). . of the rivers and all things else that are either elements or mixtures of elements. 2 1 . 54. and cavalry. 150 f. 155 f. F i r s t he put from him­ self all ambition to found a dynasty through his sons. and praise and honors. justice (SiKaioouvai). con­ tempt for pleasure (yjSovcjv unxpo\|. a g a i n according to L a w . 30. cf. Ib. H e committed to him the entire cosmos as a possession fit for His heir. 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. 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.

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

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. i. and always dealt with a miscreant not with a view to his shame. honored justice and equality. 1 6 3 . but to the chastisement which would make for his improve­ ment. 44. Also Cicero..Ib. 179. H e was a m a n 41 who did not vaunt himself in the authority of his rulership. Only the sin of the young Hebrews with the daughters of Moab is told. or perhaps it was endowed with that power now for the first time to meet the emergency. H e spoke the truth about everything. Ib. N o n e of the set-backs. 176. given a rational explanation.. Ib. Miracles are everywhere softened. 37. 42." This is Philo's v6|iog entyv%o<. legem autem mutum magistratum. T h e wood which Moses threw into the waters of Marah 43 perhaps only showed a power given it by nature. 1 8 5 . b u t there to glorify the character of Phinehas. 40. 1 7 3 . 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. and with it the ultimate virtue of the race and the glory of the Jewish priest­ hood. 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. xal Xoyw. 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. 198. to encourage the people. tva Jtooaigfrcai xo&a \ikv xal fteia. 328. Ib. and weaknesses of the race is told.. 40 Moses was careful of every type of honorable obligation. 42 For the most part Moses is lost in the story of the adventures of the Israel­ ites. or omitted. T h e story of the exodus continues. .. even to letting the Edomites go unpunished for their unfriendliness. but who cared for his people. 2 : "magistratum legem esse loquentem. De Legibus.. 38. here his speech. 43.6q in reverse order. and his Aoyoc. while the Egyp­ tians were overwhelmed in the waves by a change of wind to the n o r t h . Ib. God was merciful to the Israelites in the desert because of H i s inherent 37 38 39 equity and benevolence.. a power perhaps unknown.. but too because God wished to honor the one H e had ordained as their leader. 196. 4 1 . III. de­ fects. and Philo becomes so interested in the narrative that Moses appears only occasionally.. 44 M/vnuovEveiv oxi OV&QCDJIOS c&v e?ouaiav eiA/ri<pev laodeov.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. 243. Mos. 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. cpcovfi 8e avfrQCOJtivxi XQT\xai. Ib. Ib. 39. i.

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

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

likewise the k i n g is best i n the earthly a n d h u m a n realm. to be sure. is n o less fitting f o r a k i n g . 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. See my "Hellenistic Kingship. 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. IV. legal administration. Now the k i n g bears the same relation to the state (jtotag) as God to the w o r l d . that is. Mos. 5 7 55. 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. ii. qui aliorum dominantur. priestly function. military command. For the state. pp. But in representing Moses as the priest Philo had had to do violence to the Biblical record. In explaining the latter Diotogenes says: 56 The third duty. quod oportet eos. but understood the interest Augustus had taken in the priesdy office in con­ nection with the founding of the Principate. 5. worship of the gods.. ii. 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. Hence the ideal k i n g and lawmaker m u s t have a share i n the chief-priest­ hood. In QE. So. LIGHT from God." 57. not answer such p r a y e r s ? 55 The royal office was of course originally almost universally associated with. All that Philo says about the priest and his raiment was meant to be understood primarily and fully of Moses. 105 Philo makes the following trenchant observation: "mihi videtur priscos reges simul et pontifices fuisse.190 B Y LIGHT. is a n imitation of the order a n d harmony of the w o r l d . For h o w could He w h o is propitious. palam per suum ministerium facientes. Philo's motive for representing the royal VOJJOC qi^vxoc as a priest is. This element was an important part of the Pythagorean formulation of royalty which Philo is himself following.. 61 (Wachs. while the k i n g w h o has a n absolute rulership. 56. vii. just as God is the Best of those things w h i c h are most honorable b y nature. a n d is himself Animate Law. a n d the Governing Principle by one w h o is a governor. and the priesthood. The king had primarily to see to it that the priests carried on their functions rather than himself to conduct sacrifices. Diotogenes lists three aspects of the kingly office. 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. . a n d w h o deems those properly worshipping Him to be worthy of privilege. Stobaeus. in which Moses founds the priestly office.). has been metamorphosed into a deity among m e n . For the Best must be honored by the best m a n . 66-68. but is not himself otherwise connected with the priesthood. 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. or dependent upon. however. not far to seek. per se colere deum officiose. 263 ff." pp. IV. and Philo may have assumed that his readers not only knew the tradition of the Egyptian and Homeric kings.

" and w h o continued to be the real inter­ cessor for t h e people. 6 8 . This cosmic priesthood and perfection was. 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. 63. 186 ff. m a k e the robes. pre­ eminently the endowment of Moses. The passage here and in the Exposition may represent the attitude of many Jews of the Diaspora to the Jerusalem cultus. a description w e have discussed in connection with the Mystery of Aaron. Philo himself went to Jerusalem. avxov T E x a l TOI>£ afietapiSoug coQYiatev.." into t h e priestly office. a n d Philo describes in detail their instal­ lation. 59. According to his account it was after the first visit of Moses to Sinai 5 8 50 60 61 62 68 64 58. Philo has changed the story all about from t h e way it appears in Exodus a n d Leviticus. Ib.MOSES FOR GENTILES 191 T h e priesthood of Moses was by current notion a necessary part of his kingship. and the development of these endowments by philosophy. But it was Moses w h o was their "good guide. Ib. I n view of such an endowment Moses was the true High-priest. 64. It was only after that matter was settled that Moses went back for further instructions and returned to build the taber­ nacle. 75 £. 60. " 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 i s was illustrated in the circumstance of Moses' second consultation with G o d on Sinai. then. Ib. or what h e calls their "initiation.. Mos.. Philo reverses the t w o groups of events.. probably. 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. 61. ii. 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 . 74. 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. but h a d them stamped upon his m i n d . a n d in this condition went u p upon the sacred m o u n t a i n . The immediate purpose of such an interpretation of the ritualistic law. 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. all the other Alexandrian Jews who could possibly do so. 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. it must be recalled. . But for a Gentile this could hardly be represented as an essential part of the faith he was being urged to accept. H e r e h e was not only given a vision of the immaterial forms. as did. 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. Philo n o w goes into the long description of the tabernacle which Moses built after this sacred model.. 66 f. . H e was first purified by complete abstinence from all that had to do with the body. Mos.. ii.7 1 .. which is the same as that given more elaborately in the Exposition. a n d consecrate Aaron a n d his sons. 76. 62. his natural endow­ ments. For practical purposes he passed on the prerogatives to Aaron and his sons. T h e burning of the sacrifice of Aaron by heavenly fire followed elaborate sacrifices by Moses and Aaron not thus consumed. Moses was fit for the priesthood because of his piety. 1 5 3 : 678611 fiv xfjg Tzkzifiz . etc. a n d not at all a digression from Philo's representation of h i m as the Animate L a w .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

like all Philo's allegories of the marriages of the Patriarchs. Moses found his wife already pregnant without having to ask for it. 1 1 9 f. 1 1 5 . 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. for having left Moses after he has done so much for them. that is may feed on their improvement and even bring the winged and god-bearing and prophetic thing. like Abraham. 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. 67.1 1 7 . have to make a choice of Sophia before marrying her. But in this marriage Moses did not. reproves his daughters. to t h e m . 7 5 . In the higher marriage the sexes are reversed.7 8 . In the first the mystic strips himself of all positive characteristics. 1 3 . that while they all had to pray God for this impregnation of their wives. They tell h i m that it is Moses who stepped i n . and asks them how it occurred. 48. 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. Moses was so much greater than the other Patriarchs. that is of his masculinity. not men. Zipporah. 1 5 . It was God Himself who joined them in this marriage. Moses is not explicitly equated with the Logos. the senses. 43-46. T h e daughters have been operated upon by reason (TO AoyiKov sISoc). Ib. 47. H e as masculine now 11 12 13 14 15 16 I I . and Aaron. Cher. and so makes her represent something entirely different from what he sees typified in them. Sophia comes to him now herself as the male. 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.. and sows within him her seed. They leave Moses to rush back to their father. and thus brings forth progeny to God. 1 2 . It is notable that the account in Exodus does not state that Zipporah was one of the daughters who were tending the sheep. Jacob.. and presents himself in feminine receptivity to Sophia.. LA. the mind. T h a t is. not something acquired by effort and aspira­ tion. but as mere senses they do not apprehend what has affected them. though that is usually inferred. the mystic marriage with Sophia. For the marriage of Moses to Zipporah must be. Post. In this there have appeared to be two successive marriages. Ib. he is clearly the agent. 16. even than Isaa~. of the saving Logos.. if not the exact equivalent. says Philo. Philo sees fit to assume that she was not with them. he warns the reader against babbling the story to the uninitiated. Jothar. and bids them summon him that he may eat with them. Sophia was his natural companion and endowment. Ib. . ii. and cryptic as are his remarks about it.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 201 behest. A n d Moses found her already pregnant from God when he married her.. 14. one of the many illustrations we have encountered of the fact that apeTY\ as Sophia has intercourse with God.

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

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. can be too lightly discredited. the Merciful Power. the Creative Power. pp. T h e passages lead us strongly to suspect that this G o d of three powers. 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. W h e n w e . Each Patriarch had all three "powers. Abraham the Suvapic. but from such scattered hints as the above it would seem not at all unlikely. 5 1 . al Jteoi Geov xai xcov tsQCoxaxcov avxou SwdjiECDv." a statement that would naturally be taken as referring. is none other than the God of the Mystery. Jacob the Ruling Power. Several explanations of his inability to speak 22. 22 28 24 25 Yet Moses feels himself unable to speak well enough to fulfil the mission on which God is sending him.) must not r u n from pleasure like the m a n not yet made perfect. LA. the Logos. By this Enos would have been the x6a(AO£ vanxdc. the revelation of the Mystery in three terms. in between the two. 76. Noah the Merciful Power." SuvajJic.. in which the Patriarchs shared. 88-93. Mut. and hence must be taken as something more important in Philo's sources and thinking than its cryptic exposition would superficially indicate. from the above. and Isaac the Logos. Mig. 23. Moses would have been left to represent xd ov. not of one being perfected. 367 f. Such may well have been the revelation to Moses at the bush." though predominandy sharing in only one. 1 1 f. for the Perfect M a n (o reXzioc. We have no proof that Philo made any such identifications. 25. rroiK)TiKyj. And while the identification of each Sephira with a Patriarch in the Kabbalah (see below. who was also the God of the Powers. ii. T h e y are also X^PITSC for they have become divine gifts to men. we notice that on the basis of the same allegory each of these three natures is a "power. Enoch the Legislative Power. 24. the middle of the three. T h e rod which is transformed into a serpent during this scene at the bush is discipline. but God recalls him.. and Isaac. look from this curious statement to De Abrahamo. and Enoch. or possibly Noah would have been the Legislative Power. In the next triad Abraham would have been. pleasure. 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. to the three great Powers of the Mystery. would have been the highest of the three. Identification of each of Philo's seven great Patriarchs with one of the seven Powers has already seemed a possibility. it does not at all weaken the pos­ sibility that Philo did so with his Powers. . Still the picture is of the experience and lessons of the m a n already perfect.. slight as the evidence is.) proves nothing for Philo. Moses' life is throughout the life of the perfect m a n turned to war against the forces of evil in the world. since the same allegory of the incident is seen to have appeared in both the Allegory and the Exposition. which when thrown away becomes a serpent. as Philo does in almost every one of his writings. 6 Oeoc.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 203 T h e three Patriarchs are symbols of these three "natures" according to which God is Kupioc. I do not feel that the suggestion.5 5 .

. One is that the sort of speech needed with the type of m a n Moses must face i s sophistic rhetoric. 25. i. Sac. 40. Captive in this country i s the "mind fond of seeing. 258-260. 192.. . ii. under the inspiration of prophetic spirits. 37. Mig. Also Moses has become stamped by Sophia. and the emigration o f the soul from the body. and requires the girding up of the loins." Israel. T h e ceremony indicates the passing over from igno­ rance t o wisdom. 154. Ib.. 33. iii. when these have been expunged. but such rhetoric vanishes from one who has had a vision of the t r u t h . and i t i s Moses who.. LIGHT are given. 205. 38.. 19. Mut. 76-85. Mig. 36. 266 f. LA. to struggle with him and ultimately destroy him. Cong. 209. 38-40. which he will pass on to Aaron to express i n utterance.9. Pharaoh repre­ sents all that i s bad in h u m a n nature. which at this stage is rather the mind capable of seeing. QE. but then.. . 1 2 f. Moses now goes to Egypt to begin his great work.. H e is the source of speech.. represents the body i n its worst form. It represents the beginning o f a hard and bitter task. and with the practical assistance of Aaron. Ebr. 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. Som. 40 26. T h e allegory of the passover i n the Quaestiones in Exodum is the same. 161 f. 63. LA. T h e promise is that Moses will receive a stream of God's Xoyoy. Ib. 267. 77. with Aaron." 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 . Mut.. Philo allegorizes JtQo|3aTOV according to its possible relations with JtQOwvco. 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. 27. ny)YV) Aoy^v. iii. but not himself "utterance. 28. especially 80. 4.204 BY LIGHT. Sac. but that stream i s never formulated in words. W i t h his vision of God thus clarified. 207-209." divine and h u m a n restraint. This mind must be led out of Egypt if i t is to get the vision. 34. H e returns to Pharaoh.. 3 1 . Sac. has the power to d o this for man's higher nature.. 165. 277. t o carry out and practise daily virtues. ii. . and so i s made into Xoyoc £vSia0£Toc. Det. 69. and hence. 6 u-ev yaQ xovxo fiwryfrels McoDafjg ecrriv O V T O C . he is one who "rejects both parents. 30. 32. 35.. Som. 4. of mind from the senses. a lover of pleasure who knows not G o d . Heres. 8." H e i s i n ecstasy and s o has become a resistless stream of the beauties of Sophia. Heres. with Egypt his country... 29.

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

T h e Israelites brought with them those hampering vestiges of the somatic nature. is not physical death. 5 1 . 102. but it is Moses. led by t h e keenest vision. 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. Sac. the death of the lower mind and its six sensuous manifestations. 154 f. perish is the song of a mind that is beginning to see. T h e tribes had come to the point where this was possible by the fact that the Logos. The context before and after this section makes it clear that the cloud is only another illustration of the Xdyoc. Conf. 203 f. 50... Exod. b u t is the destruction of unholy doctrines and of the words that come from t h e m . of taking with them all sorts of herds. 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.. to "knead the savage and untamed passion by the aid of Logos the Softener. Ebr. a mixed or manifold company of "beast­ like and unreasoned teachings." 49. Philo points out. Ib. LA. 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. second the Immaterial Stage which is collectively represented in the Logos. 1 5 3 . 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. xii. 54.. a n d future could otherwise have brought t h e m . and third TO ov. 70. destructive for t h e other. Heres. ii. or come to understand. TO^eug. T h e h y m n that is sung when the Egyptians. 39. 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. iii. the mystery of G o d as revealed in the three Powers. 52." or "opinions. a saving force for the one. the three stages of the Mystery. 1 1 1 . This death of the body.. even after leaving bodily Egypt. 36. Mig." It is the dragging influence of the "manifold" as contrasted with the single.. T h e Israelites are to go through. w h o will lead us to the two others. They h a d still. the passions. present. Ib. 1 5 1 f. especially 62. 5 3 . 56. softening it as though it were food. 55. the Cutter. b u t the destruction of the Egyptian host was the destruction of the body. Philo is careful to point out. 59-62.206 B Y LIGHT.. TO 0£o4>iAe<. Conf. yivoc." 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. T h e last stage is inaccessible to humanity. In leaving Egypt the Israelites made the great mistake. . 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. first the cosmic stage. 1 7 2 .

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

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

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

See D.round a central spring from which flow twelve streams. LIX ( 1 9 1 5 ) . but instead struck it in anger. ii. 7711 Again the Israelites are discouraged and mutinous because of their thirst and the hardships of the journey. the rock of H o r e b . It is notable that Philo follows the general Jewish conspiracy of silence about the second incident of the rock (Numb. as I have illust/ated it in the Dia­ grams on pp. Exod. a huge figure in a peculiar checked garment. and again G o d through Moses comes to their rescue. 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. "Der Tierkreis in der Tradition und im Synagogenritus. This time it is the first incident of the water brought forth from the rock by Moses' rod. and so was forbidden himself to enter the Promised Land.og is added.. Philo explains this twice. esp. Feuchtwang. 1 1 ) . represented by the Israelites. xvii. 1 5 . while the reality beyond is fittingly indicated only by an arch through which nothing can at this stage be seen. appar­ ently. 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. T h e soul. the rock of Meribah. 241-267. and candlestick of the Mystery of Aaron. and the twelve man-tent units are arranged in a circle like that of the zodiac . p. 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. T h e fresco stands beside another which represents the significance of the temple as admin­ istered by Aaron. 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. . "Behold I will stand before thee there upon the rock in H o r e b " : 80 77a. and from which H e quenches the thirst of the souls that love God. xx. where the detail that the rock was &xQOTOU. 79. 80. LA. W i t h these details are shown the altar." Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums. 6.210 BY LIGHT. 6. LIGHT of the biblical encampment. censers. where Moses was commanded to speak to the rock. 24. 243. Moses it is. 78. literally. the twelve fountains of the Bible conceived as a unit. For the precipitous (dxQOTO^iog. It is at least possible that Philo has in m i n d this peaked triangle of Powers. 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. pp. 29. 10. 79 T h e passage is too slight to emphasize particularly except for the general identification of the rock and its stream with Sophia. touching the fountain with his wand and thereby. The Hebrew word is taken by com­ mentators to mean flint. More elaborately he allegorizes the words. Exod. apparently. 86. w h o stands by the central fountain. 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. viii. xvii.

for the rock is in one case the highest Power. . 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. logos and sound. 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. LA. 6 nxpioooc TU^OC. in the other it is again the Power that is most sharply peaked. Moses' father-in-law. above the peak of Powers. Exod. But the two are more alike than dissimilar. and re­ proaches h i m . In another treatise Philo discusses the same scriptural pas­ sage and with the same interpretation. 86. 85. 82. Gig. only once a year. 4. Hence the high-priest. 50. For the logos without speech is constant and one. 45. comes to the higher doctrines of the Mystery. Jethro. H e may be understood to be so in the first passage also. 51 f. having gone beyond the experience of the Logos in the Cosmos. 2 2 1 . contemplating TO ov. with God.. 186. Som. 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. 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 . ii. T h u s he is constituted Kcrra TOV uovaSa." 81 T h e two passages together do not make a picture clear in details. 84.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 211 This is equivalent to saying "I who am made manifest and am there. but this time that Power is apxh> the source of Sophia. So Moses who "sits alone" outside the c a m p is the Sophos withdrawn from the tempestuous sea of humanity. iii. Moses sitting outside the camp is really then a type of the perfect mystic who. and can live simply and con­ tinuously on that level. Jethro is again 6 TU4>OC. when he goes into the holy of holies.. aAyjGeia). for in both cases the rock is the highest Power as the flowing source of Sophia to men. but logos projected with voice is not one but two. the Egyptian 82 83 84 85 86 8 i . I am seated upon the highest peaked (&%QOT(XTT|) and eldest Power. in fact. am there and everywhere. that of Rulership. In this passage the m a n of puffed up conceit. Sophia. xvii. logos. w h o repre­ sents logos in speech. is amazed when he finds how Moses lives. in the second passage... Ib. from which the creation of phenomena is rained down and the stream of Sophia flows. in accordance with the Monad. in marked contrast to the high-priest. 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. and actually we shall find Moses at the rock to be one of the most common of our iconographical survivals. Ib. 83. Indeed he is that Logos itself. Aoyoc npofyopiKoc. and so is not fixed and stable. can have only occasional recourse to the sacred doctrines.

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

) can be apprehended. Post. 36. T h e Sophos. 28 f. 1 6 . 30-32." Imperfect as was this experience.ovda x a l EJt6jxeva x a l oaa n-exd x6v Yvcovai. lb. 7 . 164 £. 102. Geov lb. and his failure. 104.2 0 .. 1 7 .. 1 5 . 165-169. Immut. 1 4 1 . 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. was aware in advance of the inevitable failure of his attempt to see G o d . and without material food. 98. Conf.. God in his Being (o KOTOC TO elvai Geoc) can­ not be seen by mortals. Philo says.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 95 2 I 3 for is "to see that G o d is invisible. 99. the symphony of a life in which ideal virtues are perfectly expressed in actions. that is God's "back parts. only H i s existence (urrap£ic. must be through the Powers.. 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. $ u o i c ) . but himself became a part of it. 103. Mut. LA. can only hope to k n o w the things attendant and consequent upon God. xaxafredaaoftai xqj KZQiavyzi xa>v dxxCvcov JCQIV 1 8 E I V JCTIQOC.. X T | V 6 ' y\y2\iowixi\v ovaiav 6 PouXojievoc. Som. i. I n this h e is contrasted with the m a n of gradual improvement. H i s incorporeality was a result of the experience. For it was on the mount that h e came to "stand with" God.. Moses recognized that the highest possible gift to mortals was to see. since the music made h i m forget to eat for forty d a y s . Sac... While on the m o u n t Moses was a n incorporeal listener to the divine music of the Cosmos. iii. By t h e fact that Moses could five so long upon the vision of divine things. 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 ) ." N o w the hierophant. laxai. T h e substance ( o u o l a ) or quality (rToioTyjc) of God is inaccessible... as typified by Moses in this experi­ ence. .1 0 . yaQ iaxi aoqpqj xd &x6A. 96. and h a d beheld "the unseen nature" (if) aeiSyjc. Post. 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).1 4 3 . "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 ) ... Since n o w h e has "gone out from the body" Moses can 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 95. 100. These things which are u e r a TO OV are defi­ nitely the Powers. Moses. 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 . share H i s immutability. 8. F o r his ap­ proach. or get knowledge of. O n e can come to see G o d only through the Powers that range the universe. 97. Ib. 1 0 1 . like Abraham's. Fug.: avxaoxec. In a very similar way Philo in another passage discusses Moses' ambition to see God. 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. h e not only listened to the music. h e showed his complete renunciation of the body.

1 1 2 . goes beyond the heaven into God. in going up into this. Gig.. cf. 46-48.. the very inner region of G o d . Ib. Immut. 108. and. QE. O n the M o u n t God stands. ii. With him then the divine spirit that leads along every Right Road abides. and it was not really fire but only appeared to be s o . for there is no motion possible for H i m . 47. 109. and Abihu. . the garment of opinion and fantasy of the soul. the O n e who is attended by the Powers. n o . could not stand the rays from God. But proper as it is that one should start the journey to God with these. T h e glory of God appeared as flame.214 BY: LIGHT. 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.. 100. 44. LA. 166. Moses is also in contrast to N o a h .). 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. Enter­ ing there he abides while he is made perfect in the most sacred Mysteries (xekov[xevog xa<. w h o was pleasing to the Powers. 106. The text is translated as it stands. leaving it behind for those w h o love external things. but H e sends out H i s Powers to indicate His essence. not in words but t h i n g s . iii.. I am convinced that xx\c. for Moses was pleasing to 6 i v a u T o c . ii. and that the meaning was that Moses acts with the Spirit to lead one along the "whole Road.. and so Moses gets grace directly from G o d . H e was taken up upon the high mountain that was absolutely forbidden to others. and there himself abides. y&QOt. a will for piety. T h e other men. N a d a b . and at the same time the unique superiority of the intellect in man's constitution. 37. this was not God Himself but H i s Powers. the invisible region (6 dei5T)<. its beauty. QE. and divine aid or truth. 107. and expresses itself. 54—56. H e is so united with Deity that his own logos now is in the form of light. LA. Ib. lEQCOTatag r e t a r d s ) . 109 f. At first he took with h i m Aaron. nothing but the pure intellect in m a n can go on to the vision. Ebr. 27 f. i n . His being outside the body in this way is analo­ gous to the fact that the high-priest strips off the robe. or should be understood there. goes into the holy of holies. 1 1 3 . 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. cf.. which he will reveal to those whose ears have bejen purified ( a t o l g &xa xexadaQjxevoig uqpr)yrjoeTai)." the entire way to perfection. 40. the attributes preparatory for the vision. Ib. but also the hierophant of the rites (leQoqpdvtTjg OQyicov) and teacher of divine things (8i8daxctXog deicov). Philo has in m i n d here the supremacy of Moses to the other men.).. and that the divine and holy essence of things might not be exposed among the mob. Mig. LIGHT go into the darkness where God is. 105. has been lost before Jtdcrnc. but there are a few individuals w h o like salamanders can live in fire. 54 f. and this sort of r u n n i n g is a noble race (Spojjoc).. ii. Moses. And he not only becomes an initiate (|Mx*TT|g).

117. ib. T h e legislative office came to Moses according to the Allegory along with the prophetic office and the gift of Sophia. and so producer of the archetypes. God has al­ ready so exalted Moses that Moses himself needs a mediator between his person and material representations. 206 f. Som. gets his vision only from the created shadow. H e has the secrets... 1 3 1 . T h e Quaestiones mentions the giving of the law briefly.. Cong. QE.. I n preparation for the production of the machinery of the Lower Mystery. i. w h o appears to be in the Lower Mystery.. 2 3 . b u t one w h o gets his stamp only through the medium of created t h i n g s . This mediator is Bezaleel. and Moses' function as legislator of specific laws. For the significance of Moses as legislator w e are wholly dependent upon the Exposition. 52. his is the Spirit that guides men on the Road.1 3 5 . of the tabernacle. 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.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 215 T h e clouds which the people saw were just a sign of the intelligibles. See the whole passage.. For all that occa­ sional allegories of much of the legislation appear scattered through the Allegory. 102. Ib. T h e point of the contrast is that some m e n have given to them a brighter Light-Stream. Ib. 34. H e has direct vision of the Cause itself. 36. as mystagogue and as lawgiver. 118. . 1 1 5 . 100. 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.. that is one nearer the source. Ib." Again there is no diought of repre­ senting the legislation as such as being of importance. iii. 120. 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 114. play n o part in the Mystery'. which has its source in Sophia. than others.. Ib. Hence Moses produces the arche­ types of the tabernacle. but only to interpret that legislation as a spiritual impartation of lex voluntaria. Plant. Legislation in the traditional Jewish sense has no importance here. H e can n o w give Israel leadership in two ways.2 7 . c£. 1 1 6 . Bezaleel can produce only copies since he had been deemed worthy of the secondary things ( 6 T&V Scinxpeluv aSiGJ0£ic). 119. LA. Clearly it was through these experiences that Moses came to be the hiero­ phant supreme of Israel. Moses on the contrary was initiated into the greater Mystery so that he apprehended both God and the Logos. 95 £. 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. ii. Bezaleel the material copies of the archetypes. the building. the Code of Commands as such. Kal cj>uAa£ TGJV TOU OVTOC opyiojv). though he has been acting as such in anticipation since the incident of the Bush. 1 2 2 . 1 2 1 . 95-103. the master builder of the tabernacle. Bezaleel is a copy. that is. a figure to be used in teaching t h e m . so that h e was "parent mind. while Bezaleel.

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

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

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

. while God could give His grace quite as easily while one is surrounded. Here Israel. but alone. 160.. the serpent of self-mastery (oGJ^poouv/)). LA.. T h r o u g h the alle­ gory. 1 4 5 . T h e incident is a favorite one with Philo. Post. 146 f. 101 f. 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. 159 f. 146.. the pleasures that bring the death not of the body but of the s o u l .. in view of his marked dependence upon Pythagorean ethics as a whole. It is the straight Road. sometimes without even that mediation between God and the thirsty soul. 148. Ib. Certainly. Numb. saying that running to the desert has solved no problems for him personally. which are. 168.1 5 8 . when he refers (Mig. the Road of the Logos to God. sometimes with an angel as cupbearer." as being those who "follow the mild and social forms of philosophy. on which Moses leads u s . 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." the "Royal Road. see the continuation of the allegory to §183. 150. Ib. Moses is the hierophant of the journey.. as Jesus explained to the w o m a n of Samaria. like the serpent of Eve. This is of course Philo's interpre­ tation of their being attacked by the serpents. 1 5 3 . Immut. w h o are on the Road of Sophia or the Logos. 144. Ib. Since the command is to m a k e it "for 152 1 4 1 . for what use have a people fed and watered from heaven for the food and hand-dug wells of the world. 148.. Spec. but the mean is recognizably that of the Pythagoreans rather than of Aristotle. Aoyoc. T h e road is the flight for refuge to the uncreated (Y\ km TOV dyev/jTov Kcrra4>uyy)) . will they not scorn to u s e . for they are on their way to the mountain country. as contrasted with the Edom­ ites. and still must strug­ gle with the love of matter and pleasure. Ib. through Plato's Philebus and by many details in Aristode. and says that pleasure can attack one there quite as well as in the city." the description seems more to resemble Pythagoreans than Aristode. Philo points out that they were bitten in the wilderness. Ib. ethically. 1 4 2 .2 0 . 77. He goes on to one of his rare and most appealing personal passages. Only the grapes. of the m e a n . I n another reference this-Royal Road is commended to kings.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. Ib. iv. traceable to the Pythagoreans. 143. 144..) to the teachers of the "mean. 1 5 2 . He was as apt to be "scattered" by desire there as anywhere else. in a multitude.1 4 5 . may be in contrast to the Edomites. . Again it is the Road of true philoso­ phy.. xx. They do not want to stop with the Edomites. and is again the road of the mean. since the conception is.. 156. ii.. It is quite true that such people only want to go through the land of the Edomites. The assumption that every mention of the ethical mean indicates Aristo­ telian influence is not at all warranted. 162 £. they still have far to go. the virtues treasured also by h u m a n ideals.. in drawing u p water by ropes from a well made by m e n when heaven itself gives us its unmixed draughts. 147. Ib. A t the command of G o d Moses makes a serpent of the opposite kind. 152 £. 1 7 . 1 5 1 . 1 5 4 . There is n o point. 149. 141 142 1 4 8 144 145 146 1 4 7 148 149 150 151 H i g h as the Israelites. the people of this material world. 142. In §§84 f.

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

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

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

. 94. Sac. while Moses is actually called God. in con­ trast even to N o a h whose virtue was a "copy. See above. Before closing the study of Moses some attention must be paid to this question. This time the hesitation is between the monotheism on the one hand. 234. 170. See above. Ebr. W h e n such a Moses was about to die he was translated back to God by the Logos. 168. Moses seems different from the high-priest in that the priest is this middle type of existence. pp. 8-10. See above. as we have seen. H e has here just skipped the hard places.) it might be assumed that this was all he meant to ascribe to Moses. But in ib. ii. Heres. ii. Many difficulties are unexplained in what Philo has told us. 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. It would be easy to collect 1 group of passages to prove that Philo thought of Moses only as "the perfect man. Ib. Immut. 24.. LA. . See above. 189. 56 f. Gig. 109." and so was rewarded only through God's P o w e r s . which 170 111 1 1 2 173 174 175 169 167. 1 7 3 . inasmuch as at that time he is in a state of ecstasy (IJIIfteid^eiv). 260-263. 199. was in no sense divine. 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. 174. But Philo does not develop the idea. even the gift of a portion of the divine L o g o s . " T h e perfect man. 195 ff. even in comparison with the other Patriarchs.. for he has been exalted above ordinary humanity. cf. 199. p. p. "most perfect" (jzXzioTaroc.. 1 7 2 . 202. 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. 168 H e is regarded by God as being quite as important as the entire Cosmos.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 167 223 serve as the God over our lower natures. Som. 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. 232. 1 7 1 .. iii. Moses pleased God and so was worthy of grace directly from God. Som. 169.. such as why Moses' death occurred at the age of one hundred twenty years. 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. was a middle type of existence. " 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 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 . p. 103." or the perfected m a n . 175. Heres.." Philo says.

" So when Moses was about to die he did not "leave" in order to be "added" like the others. 178. and to Moses any divine nature that was not a gracious gift to one w h o was essentially a m a n . "stand here with m e . 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. But he was translated by the Word (ofjuxx) of 179 176. 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. and this signifies the highest O n e . First a passage must be considered as a whole which has already been discussed in p a r t . or God has taken from them. by the Logos. 7. Philo. and has made able to soar beyond all e!5r) and yevn. they could be called Qzoi. that is to fellowship with the company of angels. was entirely a creature of his age in this as in most else.1 0 . for there was no room in him for either adding or subtraction. by Powers which were emanations of H i s own nature. 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. Deut. note 187. as by the Sabellians in Christian tradition. and these passages must be taken as being quite as representative of Philo's position as the others.. in line with the growing Neo-Platonic solu­ tion. 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 ) . but to a yLvoc. and Jacob. But Philo did not live by theory. that the one God had a body-guard. Such is Moses to whom H e says. though in contradistinction to 6 Qzoc. Abraham. who are "added to" something better in the process. 179. 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. Ordinarily the solution was made. 6. . 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. indeed inhabited. and has stationed beside Himself. and on the other the popular tendency to deify great figures and heroes. and in many passages Philo defends this posi­ tion by denying to the Logos any independent operation or existence. Sac. 3 1 . Isaac too abandoned the bodily elements. On yevog see below. 1 . 177.224 B Y LIGHT. Ib. v. as has appeared. T h e philosopher's rever­ ence for the Absolute as the single Deity was strengthened by the Jewish insistence upon the one God. was Sopu^opoupevoc.. LIGHT Philo had from his Jewish ancestry and from the Neo-Pythagorean and Platonic traditions in philosophy. Ib. Types of this are Abel. 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. yet he is not added to a host.

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

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

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

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

203. p. and all mankind's boast and succor. has gone beyond any material or created manifestation of God to cleave to God alone. 200. Mos. T h e important thing. they must have ended in as great philosophical absurdities as did later Christian at­ tempts to do so. I n contrast to these the ovvay^yv] Kuplou is not as sheep that have no shepherd.. 77. leading it out from appearance to reality. or. W h a t precisely that meant Philo's contemporaries and successors seem to have defined as little as Philo. 227. and also as an alien and foreign thing which has come down from heaven to m a n .. since Philo preferred to use the Biblical phrase. Again "the seeds of h u m a n legislation were sown" by the fact that Moses. 27. 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 . 6 KaQapcjTCCTOC vouc. or the universal and unchanging Laws of N a t u r e (auT<i Suxaia.. As the legislator Moses is the Good Shepherd of the mind. See above." p. See above. 77-82. yet Geoc he frequently seemed to him. 201. as that Tp[TOV yivoc. Som. quoted in my "Hellenistic Kingship. 204. ii. 105 f. 202. 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 . 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 . Jewish and Gentile alike. W e recall that the Pythagorean king. If philosophers had tried to work out the notion.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 229 for Philo to use. 234. Mut. and as such Moses was Israel's. for that would have been irreverent nonsense to Philo. T<Z Koiva Tyjc <t>uo£GK Kal aKivy]Ta). which are founded only upon seeming and probability. p. See above. i. Philo triumphantly tells the world. So while Moses was not 6 Geoc. especially in Moses. 190. See above. that the longing has been met in the Patriarchs. 228. in their minds. Moses was the Gcloc avGpcjnoc of current dreams. the avGpcjnoc GeoO. But the age needed. T h a t is. 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 . was not the aligning of the conception with metaphysics. but the great fact that in the Gsloc avGpcjrroc the gulf between m a n and God was bridged. the union of divine and h u m a n nature that a Geloc avGpGJTioc could offer. 223. 183. p. Ecphantus. 43-49- . that is to the universal principles of justice. 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. 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 ) . and sought everywhere to find. Diotogenes. p. and so has received God Himself for his por199 200 2 0 1 202 203 204 205 199. Agr. 205. and the phrases already quoted come to mind as a parallel. See above. 26. Conf...

receive these things as the truly sacred Mysteries into your souls and babble them not to the uninitiated. See Colson and Whitaker. T h e influence of their personalities persists to Philo's own day. for he puts into them a noble and intrepid m i n d . there were people alive who used God alone as their guide. Gold and silver. O n e did not have to seek long in Alexandria for a Jew. as the descendant of Levi. and live for the most part in seclusion from the mob. T h e Exposition. .. corrup­ tible substances. Failing this they protect themselves from corruption by retiring altogether from men. are not stored therein. 208. and even to our own day there are still men who are as though they had been stamped as images from an original model. of w h o m Moses was the chief. appears in the Mystery of Juda­ ism. This salvation. Virt. so that if pos­ sible life may be improved. The praise of Levi is also a praise and description of Moses.1 3 4 . 207 T h e saving power of Moses and the Patriarchs is not limited to the giving of the written code. the xcAox&yafKa of the Sophoi. 1 3 1 . has similarly glorified Moses as the ideal lawgiver. LIGHT t i o n . himself the "norm and Law. 70 f. For the advice of a good man can raise up those who are prostrate in spirit.. can establish them there. but in reproduction of the divine experience and characters of the model Sophoi. Cong. which is by no means the religion of the Jews in general. 62 f. T r u e such men are rare. In former times. whose ears have been purified. and lived accord­ ing to Law. or true essence of Judaism. he continues." the "archetypal pattern" w h o m all other lawmakers should copy. ad loc.. o 6p0oc Aoyoc.230 206 B Y LIGHT. he answers. cannot have been the Jews in general. exalted as they are. but guard them as a treasure which you share among yourselves. Prob. 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. 208 These men were not only free themselves: they filled also those they met with a free mind. lifting them up to a height beyond seasons and circumstances. 206. For one man's virtue is a benefit to all. The transition from Moses to Levi makes this passage at first puzzling. They were the few who went quite beyond ordinary Judaism to what seemed to Philo the essential and only true Judaism. Those men contemporary with Philo. 207. After a brilliant description of the freedom and virtue of the ideal Sophoi. and which consisted not in obedience to the precepts. as we have seen. 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. and. Their life and religion were based upon what we would call a salvation which they had received from the great Models. but the finest of the true possessions. Philo has just reviewed the catalogue of the Patriarchs when he goes on to say: Ye initiates.

209 So Philo goes on to tell of the secret of God's intercourse with the Virgin Sophia which he learned from Jeremiah. Moses is the lawgiving Logos (GeojjoGeTyjc Aoyoc). and intentions. If ye meet with any of the initiated press him closely and cling to him lest he conceal from you some newer Mystery. For in reality the just man is the foundation prop of the human race. Cf. That is. and espe­ cially when God has given this individual along with the good character an irre­ sistible power (Suva^ig dvavtaycoviGTog). Moses is frequendy identi­ fied with the Logos." and so exhorts man to leave that mother who deals in everything absurd. and understand the whole as I have translated.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 231 knowledge of the Cause.. 2 I 2 1 1 . The idea is common to both Stoicism and Judaism. and Miriam. or as sticks of wood serve a fire. the guide (rroBy]y£Ty)c). II. w h o leads the soul that comes to H i m out into unantici­ pated liberty. used by Philo as proof-text. as Drummond recognized (Philo Judaeus. "for he is the nurse and nurturer of good works. 120 ff. who learned from Moses while Moses learned from G o d . pp. but here it seems to be made to explain the significance of Moses and Abraham.T| for vht\v.. to serve him as musical instruments or constructive tools serve a musician or craftsman. and of Virtue. 23 ff. has Qfju-a instead of Logos does not seem to me. and regions of the earth have enjoyed great happiness when a single individual has taken heed of xcAoxdya&ia. The fact that a scriptural quota­ tion. to leave the passions. as to Colson . For I myself have been initiated by the God-beloved Moses into the Greater Mysteries. Ib. countries. The ordinary type of good man is represented by Bezaleel. 216. 227 f. 100-103. in Philos Wer\e. 191 f. stands Moses who was the "purer and more perfect mind initiated into the Great Mysteries (T<Z [xzyiXa (juoTyjpia nuyjQck). 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.. 48 f. Fre­ quendy the identification is made to clarify the conception of the Logos. iii. and pours down a torrent of t d dyafrd like rain and snow. 2 1 5 . as intercessors and saviors of m e n : 218 Households. 214.. 210 211 212 Philo describes the function of Moses and Abraham. God thereupon opens up the heavenly treasure. cities." and who lifted his eyes directly to God. 210. The text is here divergent and difficult. Cher. And God is accustomed to give these things and not to turn away from His own suppliant Logos. 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.. tribes. so that all the earthly channels are filled to overflowing. Posner's note ad loc. and of that Third which is begotten of these. 3 ' Mig. The simplest emendation is to read vX. Cling to him until ye have mastered it clearly. the Logos and the universe. 268). Aaron. LA. and come to God the savior. Moses and Abraham are here God's suppliant Logos. Mig. words. For 214 215 216 209. 2 1 2 . In contrast with those who infer God from His shadow.

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

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

63. XVIII (1925). Philo saw in the great vouoi euApuXoi. Philo has been describing the character of the Jewish race as contrasted with the other races. because the Jewish race. but especially to those who would allow themselves to be initiated in the Greater Mysteries. was the God-man whose supplication with God had not been in vain. unless their sin is quite incurable. 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. 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. Moses. and in any case a transformation on either count was not original with Christianity. and later Christian. But if the Stoic Sage was not dynamic. preeminently in Moses. was a dynamic force for others. could still be imparted to an aspirant. the Spirit of Wisdom and T r u t h . the (j$£Ay)ua. His Spirit. and achieve the ultimate goal of pagan. as a sort of first fruits of all mankind. iv. he says. endeavor. 226. the ouT/jpiov of their characters were still available to the race in general. and so perfect a realization that the blessing. 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. But God has compassion upon them. 226 225. has been set aside to the Creator and Father. Spec.entirely deified. who was often thought of as . while for the Christian the Sage was a reality in Jesus Christ.) of the race. 180 f. Jesus. the Pythagorean Sage-King was so. And the reason of this dedication is to be found in the highly prized justices and virtues of the founders (aQXY\ysTOvvxet. .234 B Y LIGHT. the realization of the pagan dream. p. with the result that the new initiate could thereafter live the life of Evoifizia and SiKaioouvir). and compares their isola­ tion to that of an orphan. while for the Christian the Sage. again for the Stoic the Sage was perfect in himself. Casey in Harvard Theological Review. eu8ai|jov!a.

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

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

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

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

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

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

and de­ stroyed its passions in the Red Sea. A t Elim it is hinted that they enter the Cosmic Mystery. a n d the scene where the Israelites under Moses stop to sing at the well. but living from early years the "perfect" life. and became united with the Light-Stream as both Logos and Sophia. for the benefit of the race.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. T h e other great allegory of the mystical ascent is the story of the migra­ tion of the Israelites. however. the realm of the body." "I had not known sin except the Law had said thou shalt not. It should be noted that in one passage Moses does lead the Israelites from Egypt. Yet we have enough hints to see that here Jacob reached the height of the mystery by both formulations. by the higher standard. T h e n they began a long period of wan­ dering. Moses himself is like Isaac in being of a specially unique type of being. 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. then. vice. T h e great importance of the migration. 83-87. he represents the tribes as singing the song of triumph at final mystical attainment. See Heres. seem to have gone through the two mystic stages. as to depict Moses as the hierophant of those w h o are strug­ gling for mystical "perfection. the marshalling of Israel as an army of warriors in companies under the captains. the God-man and Savior. All he had to receive was the consummation in the mystic marriage with Sophia. 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." They do. are aspiring for the mystic experience. he had to have noth­ ing in preparation. like Abraham. for he has revealed to them that what was innocent sense-act in Egypt is. is not so much to show the Mystery itself. sin revived. As "self-taught" he was one already born with the knowledge that saves." H e is a loan from God. the period when they were learning self discipline to prepare them­ selves for the mystic achievement." etc. Isaac had not to go through a period of discipline. 5 Moses similarly is from the first the "Self-Taught. sense. needing no preliminary stages at all. a special incarnation. to Canaan. vice. Problems are all exter5. This notion is identical with Paul's insistence that "when the law came. 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. They are throughout the symbol of life as lived by most m e n w h o are trying to live nobly. b u t never get sufficiently disciplined to be able to go on into "perfection. But Philo never takes them into the Promised L a n d . They too left Egypt." H e r e by a combination of t w o incidents. ." T h e thing of real importance is the great dominant figure of Moses. Like Abra­ ham.

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

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

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

that is to become mystically identified with the Logos. its shutting the soul down to the level of the senses and passions. H e is driven to digression after di­ gression. H e visualizes the stories of the Patriarchs as a revelation of the Moses Mystery. Mig. T h e next two treatises. in order to prove his point. he is given a great reputation among men. 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. A t the same time.1 3 1 . there is a definite development of thought. As a result of this experience he becomes a saving force in society. 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. he feels compelled to treat the account in Genesis word by word to show its bearing for his general purpose. W h e n Abraham has at last advanced to the place where he can leave Lot.e. but greater still he is made worthy of esteem. verse by verse. and has access to the real Law. raise the question of the general qualities of the m a n who emerges from this h u m a n welter.. in contrast to the wicked. T h e intention of the work as a whole is. but to walk by his side." His qualities are thereby fully developed. In the de Confusione Linguarum Philo has been chiefly concerned with a description of the nature of h u m a n sin. the m a n w h o has gone out of lower to higher things. the de Migratione Abrahami and the Quis Heres. and writes to develop this theme for Jews who are interested but need detailed instruction.. If one follows these as representing what Philo considered the key notion of each book. the L a w of the Mosaic Code. indicated by the titles he gives to the successive studies. not by verbal instruction. 1 2 7 . and its self-sufficiency as contrasted with the humility it should have before God.T H E MYSTERY 245 It is interesting to see that the central theme of the Allegory is the develop ment of the Mystery. not. 4 7 . "Confusion" is the punishment of the race for its rejection of the doctrine of providence. and to interpreting many verses in terms of details that should logi­ cally appear at a later point in his argument.5 2 . which was given from Sinai in the "vision that was seen. but the L a w of the Logos which he has received. 10. his lower nature. H e lives the life of Law. 1 1 . 9 10 11 9. obviously. But in the Allegory he is trying at the same time both to give a connected account. T h e de Migratione praises. he is given a marvelous speech by which he can help others (i. however. Such a m a n lives by the vision. . the mixing of values. 1 7 3 . quite behind. that is he is beyond the L a w as given in nouns and verbs. As a result his own acts are the logoi or vo|joi of God. and so does neither very clearly. and to orient each verse as it comes. not to follow the Logos.. Ib.1 7 5 . he becomes a hierophant to instruct others in the Mystery). Ib. he is ready. 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.

1 8 .246 B Y LIGHT." the one w h o sees G o d . 1 0 0 . where one is preoccupied with a mystic comprehension of the universe. 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. This whole process is one in which G o d is the giver and the initiate only the receiver. for he has gone out of himself. 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. Between these two is the Logos. 8 1 . xv. but he has gone far beyond the physical heavens and stars. and mind. and all should properly be used for God. 123 f. Ib. 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.. Ib. sense. T h e treatises that follow go into details. 14. . 1 9 . Ib. 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 "heir.. 3 (LXX). is a discussion of the basic idea of the whole Mystery. It is a going out from the senses. Philo. Ib. T h e basic principle and chief objective of the Mystery has n o w been sketched. Everything is n o w concentrated in God. but which is perfecdy intelligible to us w h o are mystic pupils of Moses. A t this point Philo puts in the long dis­ cussion of the Logos as at once the Divider and the principle of unity. 1 5 . Ib.1 2 2 . 16. 196-200. simultaneously their divider a n d 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 20 21 12. a step taken by the aid of Sophia. must come out of the body. A treatise on Rewards originally stood before the Heres. the place of the mind. Mig. T h e point of the section. This disposed of... Abra­ h a m has been brought out to see the stars. the great cleft between the material and immaterial worlds. and speech. a thing which you (uninitiate) readers do not understand." the mind. as contrasted with the life of m i n d or reason. Heres. speech. 40-62. See Gen. and indeed his very self in so far as he renounces his o w n thought processes. that is beyond the Stoic notion that the world itself is God. a n d then to G o d Himself. 13. first H a r a n ..8 5 . G o d is the beginning and the end. 96-99.2 1 5 . 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. and what he takes he still owes to God and must give back to H i m . slaves fugitive to God. 69-80. and his migration is from the created to the uncreated. 2 1 . the senses. T h e flight to G o d is a ransom by which our minds. Ib. 1 9 8 . are set free. 17. 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. cannot be the "heir" of divine things. to the higher spiritual realms... A m a n w h o has made this migration becomes the "Seer. 20.

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

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

T H E MYSTERY

249

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.
40

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.

250

B Y LIGHT, LIGHT

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:
45

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
48

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.

T H E MYSTERY

251

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.
50

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 :
61

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.

252

B Y LIGHT, LIGHT
54

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.
55

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
56

54. Fug., 98.

55. Ib., 98 £.

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

T H E MYSTERY

253

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.
57

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.

254

B Y LIGHT, LIGHT

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:
68

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.
59

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.

T H E MYSTERY

255

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.

256

B Y LIGHT, LIGHT

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.
67

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.

T H E MYSTERY

257

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.

258

BY LIGHT, LIGHT

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.
84

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.

T H E MYSTERY

259

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.

260

BY LIGHT, LIGHT

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
OQYia).
96

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.
97

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.
98

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:
rion.

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
101

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.

passim. 40 f. F. which o n l y the initiated could properly receive and guard. Together these constituted a solemn napaKaraGyjKK).262 B Y LIGHT." 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. H e r e I can only indicate that within the Judaism of the Diaspora. W h a t seems highly probable in the passage. is that the Jews actually did have a Mystery of their o w n in contrast to the false mysteries of paganism. T h e r e are the Therapeutae. 104." shrouded with secret meaning and sacramental power. A n d the further fact remains that the passage seems to imply a more regular ceremony. T o be sure there are other stray details which perhaps should be introduced into the picture of this mystic Judaism. This would m a k e the requirements of Gentile admission to the Passover of minor concern to Jews in the Diaspora. These seem to be the hermits contemporary with Philo. t h a n the annual Passover. LIGHT 102 Jerusalem. Indeed if Jews were to have made a Mystery of their own. one that goes quite beyond the conception of the meal in normative Judaism. G. an entrusted deposit. 2 1 7 £. ii. See above. 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 . 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 fact remains. pp. so far as we k n o w . and hyssop. after they had been feasted spiritually upon allegorical commentary on the sacred L a w s . w h o m he mentions as being the only living m e n w h o realize the ideal 103 104 102. c l a d in white garments. Moore. yet Philo's range of observation is so great that he might have been speaking on that subject in the lost context. bread. it is a frank turning of the rite into a "Mystery. A n d it is in Philo that the basic charac­ ter of that Judaism is exposed. and together with this in the other passages just cited. meeting for the sacred meal every Sabbath. that if the paschal meal is behind these words of Philo. Judaism. T h e mystical character of the frescoes is something that must be pointed out in the next study of this series. however. and included denunciations o n l y of objects of art regarded as actual representations of Deity and used as objects of wor­ ship. a Mystery with secret objects "manifest to the sight" of the initiates. See the Vita Contemplativa. a more usual mystic celebration. their hands con­ cealed under their robes. 103. T h e r e is also a hint that the Jewish Giaooi were under rrpeopurepoi ordained into a mystic "patriarchal succession. . and r r p a y u a T a Upa. 0 d a o p y i a . as Philo reveals it. 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. consuming the most holy food. governed by a body of laws with its own iepoc Aoyoc. salt.

Certainly these allegorists were not Philo's ideal. 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. 106. the letter being no longer binding. and of the extent of their influence upon Philo and Alexandrian Judaism in general. as these were interpreted by the mystic phi­ losophers of Greek background. and Iran. though we do not k n o w the nature or extent of his connecdons with them. and seem in Philo's pages to be the reflection of a great tradition. it 105. . with no such reference to the Patriarchs.. Isis. 83 ff. that is according to the opGoc Xoyoc of n a t u r e .. 78. and have had organizations where. or he may have visited them frequendy. its allegorical intent. pictorial representation of sacred themes may have arisen. For all its passionate Jewish loyalty. as was Josephus with the Essenes. Cont. Philo seems to have felt himself very close to the Therapeutae. H e may have been with them only temporarily. First there is revealed in Philo an elaborate transformation of Judaism into a mystic philosophy. the stages of progress. the L a w was to Philo properly an animal made u p of b o t h . 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. 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. but they too may have been the source of much of his thinking. from the soul. the sacred table. 62. and who bear in their souls the images stamped upon them from the lives of the archetypal oo$ol. W i t h this mystical doctrine went a surprising leniency to pictorial representation.T H E MYSTERY 263 life of the Patriarchs. and kept what we might n o w describe as a sort of lay brother affiliation with them. Further we k n o w that Philo was a m a n considered thor­ oughly sound by his contemporaries. men who take God alone as their guide and live strictly according to the Law. one that ultimately drew for its sources largely upon Orpheus. T h e white robe. On this doctrine see above. the letter of the law. and several striking hints of actual mystic organiza­ tion and initiation. In our ignorance of the Therapeutae. Prob. But of some things we may be sure. are all thor­ oughly standardized. 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. pp. it seems we can only surmise that they may have contributed much to the mystic thought he is expressing. 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. T h a t is.

presented in Jewish symbols and allegories. 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. . to be sure.264 B Y LIGHT.

and God buries h i m with H i s own h a n d "in the light of the world"." he is changed and his m i n d "kindled". xxxvii. 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. 2. God is light. xxii. 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. 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. Moses is gloriously changed and then dies. "and when the truth enlightened Moses it was by a thorn bush that it enlightened h i m " ." apparendy their souls. R. the words of Samuel are going to "enlighten the people. 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. published by SPCK. is not destroyed by God. i. 7. xx. Moses when coming down from H o r e b was covered with "invisible light. the birth of Moses was prophesied to Miriam in a dream by a " m a n in linen garments". of the Patriarchs. xii. 16. xii. the angel choir ceases for the day. when the Israelites were punished for worshipping the calf. The Latin translation is very difficult to procure. Samuel as a boy of eight 1 1. Must this mystic Judaism remain indicated to us only from Philo's allegory and with no external support? It does not seem so. 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". when Joshua puts on Moses' "garments of wisdom and girdle of knowledge. and w h o is familiar with the writings of Judaism. 3." and the "light of the righteous. xxiii. li. 5. Light abides with God. James. his conceptions of God. 3. 2f. of salvation. More extended traces of analogy are to be found in the Pseudo-Philonic Biblical Antiquities: ix. . though the mystic element we are looking for is absent. of the Logos and Sophia. liii.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. 1 9 1 7 . and he k n e w it not". 3. 9. of the Royal Road are as strange as his doctrine of the higher L a w which transcends the Torah.. xii. I have been dependent upon the version by M. 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. 10. xix. 6. First there are in some of the writings of the "apocryphal" class passages that are striking when read with Philonic ideology freshly in mind.

T h e Assumption of Moses has some points of analogy to the mystery in its glorification of Moses. that I should be the mediator {arbiter) of H i s covenant" (i. " H e de­ signed and devised me. II. though they are again scattered through a book which is otherwise quite un­ interesting in its unoriginal repetition of ordinary Jewish points of view. 12 shows that the author thought of Moses as mediator only of the "commandments. the fact that the birth of Moses was prophesied to Miriam i n a dream by a " m a n in linen garments. I might say—into the lan­ guage of a m a n more conservatively Jewish than they. 6. and Pseud." and "pre-existence" is too familiar a bit of apocalyptic machinery to be pressed here in isolation. 1 0 . 8. IX. LIGHT years is unable to "see the fire" as Moses did. 5. A book that seems contemporary with Philo.1 6 1 (Fontes. See T. 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.). Ant. ix. T h e Biblical Antiquities impresses one as being the production of an author. but iii. Fontes Historiae Religionis Aegypticae (hereafter abbreviated as Fontes). 1 4 ) .). and t w o angels leading him. 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. s. . himself a Jew of the normative type. 4 1 2 . v. 11. the statement is striking." I n the Egyptian religion the appearance of Isis and Osiris in dreams to give prophetic messages or warnings was a con­ stant feature. for h e is arrayed in a white robe and hath a m a n d e upon it. 186. a n d if we think they may have had the same association in Hellenistic Judaism." 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. a Hellenistic. 4. and H e prepared m e before the foundation of the world. Bib. Some such may have been the original meaning of this whole series of "light" passages. 1 5 3 . indeed an 2 3 4 5 2. The passages are collected and summarized conveniendy by Charles in his Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (hereafter abbreviated as Apoc. 3. so he can only hear God's voice.266 B Y LIGHT. somnia. 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. W h e n Moses is represented as saying. Samuel. Tertul. lxiv. when called u p by the witch of Endor. is. T h e ultimate origin of the material may be indicated in the first analogy cited. b u t one to w h o m the mystic type of Judaism was sufficiently familiar so that its phrases continuously recur. so far as w e can judge from the defective text that has come to us.. Index. 16 ff. De Corona. a group so important that their phrases crept—unawares. / / Enoch. W e may be pardoned if these linen garments of the angels and Patriarchs suggest the same to us. U.. Hopfner. has not the "form of a m a n . Lucan.

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

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

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

20. 82. is the idea of mystic ascent by marriage with Sophia..Q eoixev oodaEi. vii. 26. 2 1 ff.1 7 . crocpia (Fug. 22.. Heres. XLVIII (1929). Ib. TO 8e dxofj. 176... 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. ix. a nalc eu^uyjc. 1 . But "Solomon. Ib. Mut. 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. 2 3 . 64. experience. Ib." if mortal in his constitu­ tion. Ib. Mut. 2. which latter word is so freely used by Philo for one compe­ tent to receive the Mystery.270 B Y LIGHT.." Journal of Biblical Literature. Ib. Spec.6 . Ib. 1 3 . if nowhere else. 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. or specifically to receive Y\ alQLpioc. 1 3 8 . 19 f. its double entendre with the Greek vonoc qivpuxoc * obvi­ ous.1 2 . unmistakably enunciated... 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. 7. oo$(a. 17. viii. a n d has become immortal. Ib. Mig.... In Mut. Cong..1 2 . 3 3 . pp. 38. viii. a n d a friend of G o d . at least for Philo. 7 5 ) . the king perfect in j u d g m e n t . 1 . viii. 1 2 . 22.. 14. Wisd. 1 5 8 ) . ajxeivov T O U Havftavovxoc. As such it was one of the qualities of Abraham (LA.. and in general of one fit for the Mystery (Mut. ii. 19.. Wisd. 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. 98.. a n d destiny.. Ib. viii. 68). T h e result is that h e has learned all the secrets of the universe. so h a d they. 19. Ib... 3 7 . 28. 25.. A s h e h a d done. 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.. iv.. viii. H e was a "naturally gifted" child. 24. 9 . It is t h e formulation of the Jewish mystery according to the Female Principle. an idea we have found passim in Philo. iii.2 1 . LIGHT 16 origin. ix. 196. 2 1 . 27. T h e great prayer of "Solomon" is given. 2 1 2 f. 1 7 . 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. While m u c h of this ideol­ ogy is Jewish.—TO u-ev ya. it is die quality of a mystic capable of receiving alfteQioc. vii. 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... 2 1 . viii. a suit in which it is implied that he succeeded. that it may be regarded. 169-205. Sac. viii. 102 Philo remarks: x6 evcpuec. vii. Here. vii. Sac. Ib. and is the standing epithet of Reuben to connect him with the Mystery (Som. as a result of which this marriage was consummated.. . a n d ac­ cordingly h e prayed mightily to God for her. 27. 120). was certainly not like ordinary men. 18. I have tried to account for the similarity of the two traditions in my "Kingship in Early Israel." But "Solomon" recognized that even so he could get Sophia only as a gift of G o d .. 164f. Agr.

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

. fine. She is radiant and unfading (\a\inpa Kal d f j d p a v T o q ) . mobile. vii. image..). 1 2 . 40. LIGHT 85 has often been done by editors." is certainly the right meaning here and elsewhere.. n p o T e p a . Ib. 38. 29. though that term does n o t appear. a n d as such she reflects to m e n as in a mirror H i s £ v £ p y s i a . whence Sophia with these qualities emanated. lucid. Sophia is herself an effulgence from ever­ lasting Light (ajrauyaona 4>OJTOC diSiou). 4>£YYOC. vii. "the breath of the power of God a n d the clear effulgence of the Glory of the Almighty. 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. Holmes's "alone in kind. It could only with uncertainty be brought over to apply here to Sophia. vii. T h e Stoic associations of many of them are striking. F o r it appears in vii. 26. 10. vii. instead of light. Sophia is certainly a light emanation. an £IKGJV. vi. 37. 4. a n d then to enquire what such a list of quali­ ties implies as to the concept of Sophia that lies behind them. her beam is sleepless (dKoi|jy)Tov TO £K TauTV)<.272 i5Y LIGHT. She is then light. She is something anterior. b u t indeed upon comparison with light she is found to be something anterior. Accordingly I would understand t h e words already quoted. but n o t in the sense of physical light which fades. Indeed. w h o would have been the ultimate Deity of Stoicism. §6£y)c eiAiKpivvjc. not Goodrick's "singly born. Such must be the fundamental thought of Sophia. Ib. Ib. F o r our purpose it is sufficient to find that this Sophia-spirit is a concept with these striking divine qualities. T h e "immaterial light" familiar in Gnostic... 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. does appear in xviii. I see no point in the fact that there are twenty-one titles here. and very likely from a different writer. and into others it is easy to read ideas from other philosophies. 42 35. of H i s goodness. 25. as in Philo the Stoic details are subordinated to the God. 29. but in connection with Law. is here not the ultimate deity. she is the Light-Stream from God's glory. Himself utterly different from the G o d of Stoicism. Ancient writers introduced numerological speculation often enough without our forcing it upon them. As such she is the Orphic novoy£v£c." The word never meant "only born" except when used with such a word as "son" or "daughter. 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." and then the combination meant rather "only son" than "only born" . 36. She is fairer than the sun a n d superior to t h e stars." 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. This last word. 39. to be descriptions of Sophia as light. For such a Sophia. Editors have made this number a standard comment. Wisd. TO acpftaQTOV qpcoc. 42. clear. yet the author does not want to have her confused with physical light. Ib. "unique in k i n d . 10. Philonic.. unpolluted. is very interesting. a n d N e o Platonic thought seems certainly what the author has in mind. Yet she is to be chosen dvTl $CJTOC. Stoic as many of the terms may be. 41. inviolable.

Prov. " which was given to the race of m e n . 48. Albinus (Alcinous). viii. ix. 2 3 . above.. xiv. vi. be sent to h i m "because I a m . T h e Stream never ceased to be the Sophia. 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. 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. herself initiated into t h e wisdom of G o d (JJUOTIC Tyjc. makes her further like the Logos-Sophia of Philo. more than the familiar Jewish notion that the written L a w . Ps. 46. Introduc­ tion. 44.. 45. p. T h e first of these is in the prayer of "Solomon" for the gift of Sophia. the throne-mate of God.was a light to the feet." 47 T h e identification is complete. viii. T h e Logos of G o d is being identified with Sophia. a n d her function of holding the universe together a n d ruling it. 105. xviii. 5. 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. 1 . T h a t she is voepa. . TOU Geou OTIOTKIM^C). Y\ navrcjv TCXVITIC.. Wisd. though here it throws more light upon the word Logos than Sophia. It would seem that it was through the Sophia conception that Jews first introduced t h e Stream into their religion. T w o pas­ sages seem to refer to a L a w of Sophia. b u t here the identification is timid a n d tentative. though later the masculine Logos was often preferred." On the Orphic usage see above. 50. 47. where the written T o r a h could not have been understood. 12. . 1. 1 . in spite of his inadequacy for the task. in spite of the distinctively Greek conception in the adjective a^GapTov. which is the voOc of God.. the part w e are drawing upon exclusively for the Sophia doctrine.T H E MYSTERY IN NON-PHILONIC WRITINGS 273 W e are again reminded of Philo by the fact that she is unchanging (PePaioc). i. It is thus not surprising to find Sophia closely identified with the giving of a higher L a w . 1 1 8 . inferior in understanding of judgment a n d laws. vii. 43." G o d has made h i m king. 7. . It would be daring to claim for this phrase. Levi. as does her role of being God's creative agent. Ib. Ib.. H e prays that Sophia. 22. But in the first half of the book. See note 4 1 . Test. cxix.. "the incorruptible light of the L a w . xix.. 4. Wisd. a n d sharp ( o £ d a ) . T h e L a w is referred to in the latter part of Wisdom in connection with a phrase already mentioned. the indication is much more plain that Sophia brings to m e n an immediate impartation of the L a w . 4. 4. Ib. 49. ix. "Solomon" goes on. has bid h i m build the temple "in imitation (|Jiuy)|ja) of the holy tabernacle which 48 49 50 or "only begotten son. Ib. Ib. etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Him as He rules no mortal could behold Save one. mean. the " M e n of Old. since Abraham was not "only begotten" in any way. e l u i | u-owoYevrig Tig djtOQQO)| qriftou ovoaftev XaXSaicov. my son. And how in equal circle round the earth The starry sphere on its own axis turns.. Ev. my Son. is again strikingly reminiscent of Philo's treatment of Abraham. All other things 'Twere easy to behold. Abraham. to teach nothing contrary to what Moses has learned from God a n d transmitted in the Torah. at the end. The meaning of ( i o w o Y C v n g has already been discussed. . "Avcodev is more general than I have translated it. Taught by the two-fold tablet of God's Law. and end. on high heaven unmoved Sits on His golden throne. Praep. But H i m I cannot see. And is Himself beginning. so dense a cloud In tenfold darkness wraps our feeble sight. The footsteps and the mighty hand of God Whene'er I see. Nor dare I otherwise of God to spea\: In heart and limbs I tremble at the thought. And how the winds career o'er sea and s\y. T h e Orphic ideology has been slighdy toned down. 5. Orpheus is regarded as having drawn his mystery entirely from Moses. So runs the story of the men of old. Here its sense of "unique" is obvious.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. a n d the teaching it embodied is ascribed to Moses. and store this doctrine in thy heart?* 19 80 281 A number of points at once become clear from this fragment. I'll show them thee. nor can endure His mighty force. 81. but guard thy tongue With care. and as having dared. could'st thou but first Behold Himself. Draw near in thought. as the one w h o saw G o d ruling. XIII. It is notable that Aristobulus has taken out the bronze heaven. are the sole revealers of the mystic doctrine of 79. But God. And how the might of force-born fire shines forth. He perfects earthly things. T h e Patriarchs. How He from heaven all things in order rules. and plants His feet On the broad earth. 80. the eternal hills Tremble in their deep heart. in contrast. So tells that man from Water born. here present upon earth. Himself a heavenly being In all respects." with Moses at the head. b u t ever so slighdy. xii. a Chaldee sprout unique from heaven: For he was skilled to mar\ the sun's bright path. His right hand H e extends O'er ocean's farthest bou*id.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

109. I n the frag­ ments we have a portrait of Moses that strikingly supports the mystic Moses. Ezekiel has indeed shown us a mystic origin for Philo's kingship of Moses. and future. IX.. beckoned Moses to come a n d take H i s place on the throne. Indeed the K i n g even gave Moses H i s diadem a n d sceptre. op.. xxix (440a-c). As he counted them he a w o k e . H e r e is unmistakably the divine kingship of Moses set forth. a marvel­ ous vision. and the idea is. Ib. H e is in the place of G o d ! H i s father-in-law interprets the dream for him. LIGHT the Alexander fragments are from a single play. as described by Ezekiel. Ev. according to Ezekiel. a kingship not only over m e n but over the entire cosmos. no. a royal education: The princess then through all my boyhood years. In royal state and learning nurtured m e . T h e throne. i n . In the incident of the bush. 196 f. pp. Eusebius. H e had. chap.. For. T h e conception of G o d has come directly from Orphic sources. is exactly the divine throne we have met in the Orphic fragment. 6 5 dito ajiXdvxvcov eaW. G o d explains to Moses that as a mortal he cannot see H i s face. The Exodus. with vision of the past. O n e recalls Philo's description of the ascent of Moses. and the heavens above. Cerfaux. with H i s right hand. the great king. the regions under the earth. It is quite to be expected that the symbolic representation of Moses with the heavenly bodies should reappear in the iconography. present. God. says Ezekiel. Xoyoc. p. . b ) . 440c. 55 has some interesting remarks upon the solar mysticism of the vision. 111 Eusebius. 106 W h e n Moses was in exile in Midian he had. cit. except that it is n o w placed on Sinai. to make which possible the great K i n g Himself de­ scended. the astral mystery of Egypt. 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 . explaining that it means h e is to be a great king. though Moses is being assimilated into the conception as not even Aristobulus had done. Praep. but must only listen to the words.. TQOcpaiai PaaiAixaiai x a l JtaiSevnaoav vmoxvvfo'.290 B Y LIGHT. See above. according to Ezekiel. 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. W e have not left the Orphic atmosphere at all. As I had been a son of her own womb. 108. Moses' nature is taken u p to associate itself with the nature of the stars. xxviii (438a. Ib. cbtavft' 107. T h e stars come in a great host to do obeisance at his knees. the judge and guide of mortals. F r o m this seat the entire cosmos was opened to Moses' view. 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. 441a. the circle of earth. as Cerfaux has pointed out.

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

XI. V. LXXVI. Etymolog. ap. 746). 49 f.. v.. 29 ff..C. 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. Pp. in w h o m all the virtues of the others were concentrated. earlier. Oxyr. 11. he wrote it on a tablet and sealed it up. 1380. xi. XVIII. 5. 724.292 B Y LIGHT. I. gave them onAa. Hymn of los. LIGHT 118 Isis was also the Lawgiver. Albius Tibullus. 97. given h i m by his 124 1 1 8 . iii. xxiii. PG. at least in spirit.. In addition he makes two references to "the Initiates" (01 uuorai) who had an account of Moses. 4-7 eycb vo\iov<. Augustinus. Migne. had given them laws (vojioi) and had named the regions of the country VOJJOI after these l a w s . I. I. . 155 ff. 148). Civ. 120. Hymn of Andros. than the adaptation by Aristobulus of the Orphic hymn. 4 {Fontes. I. {Fontes. 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. 723. Sic. Dei. Isis and Osiris taught men the t£xvcl\. and given all the most recognizable and familiar functions of Isis and Osiris as well. 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. xv. vii. VIII. 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. I. Mythographus Vaticanus III. IV. VII. Osiris established the worship of the other gods and prescribed the rites for each. z. Cf. Isidorus Hispalensis. Such a document can only be explica­ ble to us as the expression of a crude early stage of syncretism. 119. Musaeus. I. and the instruments of agriculture. Ib.. dv^QCOJtoig edsu/nv xal &vo\ioftexy\oa S ovSele. 24. Diodorus Sic. For Moses does not file the tablet. II. where he had learned the name of God. for he quotes the poet Ezekiel and Artapanus. 1 2 1 . Stromata. 96). 547. 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. Orpheus. T h e sugges­ tion seems to me interesting but not quite warranted. 85. 16. Contra Julian. 39. bvvaxai jXETafrelvai. 646. 119 120 121 122 128 At least mention should be made of another witness to the Mystery. specifi­ cally identified with Hermes.. V. From these we learn that Moses had three names: Joachim. But he is drawing upon other sources. Moses the great miracle worker is thus in the Second Century B. I. 119 f. 124. 123. he uses it only as a miraculous charm. Osiris taught m e n the common dialect and discovered writing for t h e m . 122. 19 {Fontes. Such a blanket identification meant to the reader that the writer was claiming for Moses that he was the mystic leader par-excellence. Cyril Alex. Cerfaux also suggests a parallel in the fact that when Moses returned from the burning bush. Diodor. H e suggests that the tablet of Moses was an imitation of this official tablet. Pap.

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

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

for the earliest syncretism 139 140 139. G. Judaism. of the sort represented by the Hellenistic books / / and / / / Maccabees. of his standing as the great founder of Jewish wisdom. See my Jewish Jurisprudence in Egypt. 7 1 . T h e new legalism of Judaism after the return. In an atmosphere where Greek mythological. 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. III. 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. and by Philo's own address to ordi­ nary Jews On Blessings and Curses. and philosophic ideas were being freshly identified with the Egyptian concepts. Their great­ est king." 140. Judaism struck u p its claim in the same way. Solomon. 84. If so remote a contact with Greek civilization thus affected the Judaism of Jerusalem. T h e last chapter of / / / Maccabees. states "Outside the land of Israel most laws prescribing ritual purifications were not in force. 76. 2 7 3 . 33 ff. In contrast some Jews seem to have left Judaism altogether for pagan cults. II.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. and the persistence of the literalist-legalistic tradition. . Their loss only tended to strengthen the sense of separation and cohesion in the Jews that remained. I. 42. II." with none but the few purists to object. Unquestionably many Jews would try to do so. 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. H o w many thus apostatized we cannot even guess. 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. show that many Jews were sincerely trying to observe normative Juda­ ism in the Greek world. pp. T h e middle course that was open was one of syncretism. All the later reaction and development could not rob Solomon. to name only a few works of this charac­ ter. 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. T h e Jews seem at the beginning to have been following Greek leadership rather than Egyptian. n. because of his many cults. F. had been notorious for his "idolatry. mystical. Moore. 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. But the movement nearly collapsed when Jews even in Pales­ tine were subjected to the rather remote Greek influence of the Seleucids in Antioch. Philo's violence toward apostates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

etc. See above. and is connected so directly with the very heart of the Mystery that it would be sufficient in itself to establish a connection. and refer to passwords and "divine acts" in the sense of cultus. Ib. " 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." Philo would have agreed with this statement of the Oratio in word and implication. along with npajeic Geiac. So the mystic's soul has become permeated with the Suvajjic of the Logos. "has ceaseless care over us. T h e next detail to which he alludes is just as certainly Philonic. 1 6 1 . 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.2 2 7 . T h i s is a very difficult statement be­ cause of the variety of its possible meanings. . as a name of significance." like ouvG/JKai." Philo says. LuvGyjjjaTa may mean collec­ tively "covenants. 1 8 7 .. as token of thanksgiving to God who is the maker and guard of peace. divine actions. I n either case the state­ m e n t harmonizes perfectly with mystic Judaism. or filled with the Light-Stream. i. It need hardly be said that the word is to be found in Greek only in passages dependent upon the Septuagint original. 189. the Law has called this the feast of the "Trumpet" an instrument of war. the Jewish Covenant. 249 ff. but is the sort of covenant that must be learned directly from the Logos.z\c Geiac). Sec especially the section on nobility in Virt. have the mystical m e a n i n g I gave it in the first translation. or the precepts of the L a w . 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. after pointing out that the trumpet is ordinarily a symbol of conflict: 158 159 Wherefore. 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. For if ouvG/jnaTa be read as "Covenant" it is still notably not to be learned from a scroll or code. 159. Spec. " O h city of refuge from the terrible pas­ sions!" O n e is struck.. and so the meaning here be that the Logos teaches the Covenant of our King. pp. 160. T r u e euy^veia was to Philo "a m i n d purified by the perfect purifications. 160 As a second detail he exclaims." says the Oratio.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. " T h e divine Logos. T h e conception is so gready elaborated by P h i l o . most forcibly of all the details. 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. as I think it does. 192 (see 190). O r it may.

55. as Philo thought.. does not m a k e us poets. 164. 18. along with geometry and the whole of encyclical learning.304 B Y LIGHT. 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. makes burst into flames until it consumes all the soul's properties. nup en^ Xov. and as such he would never have used the term in this connection. But he would entirely have understood what the writer meant when he spoke of a philoso162. Cong. and was really concerned with metaphysics and mysticism only." giving a wicked work a divine n a m e . Philo explains that the passions. In the first place the translation is uncertain. For rhetoric and poetry belonged to the studies of youth. its progress to that virtue. 165 Sophia and philosophy are indeed divine names to Philo. npoKon/j. not the philosophy that is pur­ sued by the present day sophistic group of men. the irrational impulse (in the soul) after the manner of fire. This then is the fire which the "Teaching" quenches. 248 £. 100. is a fire which kindles the passions but does not burn them u p .. eu^u'ia). which began only when these studies ended. This conception is elsewhere variously applied. Post. It is a fire which the "teaching" can put out. For the irrational impulse. which V) aXoyoc bp\iY) nupoc TOV Tponov. It is quite true that Philo uses the term "phi­ losopher" as meaning the Mystic. Mig. LA. 1 0 1 . 234 £.. In this Philo did not include philosophy. which I have translated "the fire within the soul" is more difficult. and leads from earth to the realms beyond Olympus. iii. Agr. W h a t is consumed in the fire is the perfect virtue of the soul. In one place he has been speaking of the Royal Road of the Mystery. and then called their villainy "sophia. For these have practised the arts of words against the truth. h u m a n beings gods. This instruction. . 163.. continues the Oratio. A few passages in Philo make the meaning clear. and continues: 162 163 164 This Road you must understand to be philosophy." In itself this would seem a reference to the Light-Stream.. LIGHT u of mystical power. are in themselves of an inflammable nature. he continues. xa jraGy]. for it would more naturally be read "the living. T h e last phrase. or animate. Ib. or skilful orators. but it makes mortals immortals. philoso­ phers. It is obviously a reference to some type of sin or defect which is so vividly conceived as to be compared to fire. Professor H a r n a c k doubted that in Hellenistic Judaism one could so belittle philosophers as to class them with rhetoricians. Yet he is acquainted with a use of the term which puts it on exactly this level. and even its original good disposition (apeT/) TzXda. 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. fire.. 165.

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

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

Ps. 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 . but seems independent of that list since dQXoVyYeXoi and SuvdfXEig are here additional. a n d t h e bestower of m e r c y . viii. 1 3 . 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. Ps. 24. 8. A n d t h e b r i g h t host of angels a n d t h e intellectual spirits say. 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 . 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 . holy. " 5. 1 2 . 3. 1 3 . 38. a n d say. declares T h y u n s h a k e n steadfastness. "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 . i n t h e h o l y p l a c e . i n t h e n a m e of all t h e rest.T H E MYSTIC LITURGY 307 i n grace. 6. F o r T h o u art 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 8 5. 1 2 . cry o u t w i t h never-ceasing voices. T h e sea r a g i n g w i t h waves. cxlvii. w i t h a full h e a r t a n d a w i l l i n g soul sings. 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 . d o m i n i o n s . for a d m o n i t i o n is t h e effect of T h y bowels of compassion. t h r o n e s . 7. long-suffering." 3. 2. 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 . i n t h e f o r m of a n a r c h . h a n g i n g u p o n n o t h i n g . . 1 1 . " H o l y . 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. 6. 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 . Ps. T h e heavens declare T h y d o m i n i o n . ta\en out of the Gentiles. a n d as a comfort against d a r k n e s s . a n d . This list recalls Col. 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 . 17. 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 . 7. lxviii. is b o u n d e d w i t h sand. " 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. 9. a n d scattered t h e vital air all a b r o a d . vi. principalities. Ps. civ. 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. holy. a r c h a n g e l s . a n d p o w e r s cry a l o u d . authorities. iii. i. after so m u c h long-suffering. 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. w h o sing t o T h e e their t r i u m p h a l song. a n d spar­ est sinners. u p o n n o t h i n g . 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 " . a n d conjoined fire t h e r e w i t h for w a r m t h . a n d invitest t h e m t o r e p e n t a n c e . 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 . as t r e m b l i n g at T h y will. 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 . xviii. 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 . T h e choir strikes us w i t h a d m i r a t i o n . 10. " 4. w e h a r d l y get clear of o u r w e a k n e s s ? 2. Is. 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 . Job. xxxviii. 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 . " 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 " . 16. t h r o u g h Christ. Dan. 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. 4. Ezek. 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 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.3o8 B Y LIGHT. 19. 18. 16. iii. I Sam. a n d overrules t h e p o w e r of all t h i n g s . for t h e r e is n o G o d besides T h e e a l o n e . rational thanksgiving is everlasting. for it is n o t ours. xi. Bousset began with this prayer because its Judaism. w h o s e o p e r a t i o n is w i t h ­ o u t toil. w h o s e s t r e n g t h is irresistible. t h e Bestower of providence. xiv. the God pious without sant. there is n o n e holy besides T h e e . T h o u art glorious. O L o r d . Bousset. for t h e y are sanctified by T h y h a n d s . Deut. H e w h o art o n earth. that there can be no doubt 22 14. w h o s e a r m y is very n u m e r o u s : 1 0 . 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. 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 . a n d h i g h l y exalted. w h o s e gnosis is w i t h o u t b e g i n n i n g . H e w h o art in t h e sea. 15. 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 . Dan. Thyself u n c o n f i n e d by a n y t h i n g . in three places in contemporary Jewish liturgy. 8. 33. a n d raises u p t h e sick. §3 corresponds so closely to the Kedusha. by a M e d i a t o r . Is. had the best external attestation. 3. 22. . 39. Rom. xxxiii. H e w h o art in finite t h i n g s . of all the fragments. with slight variation. whose Him. h o l y above all h o l y b e i n g s . for T h o u art t h e F a t h e r of Sophia. b u t t h e oracle of T h y servant. 5. I Tim. 2 1 . for T h y eternal p o w e r b o t h q u e n c h e s flame. of t h e creation. a n d o v e r t u r n s t h e host of enemies. t h e G o d of g n o s i s . t h e G i v e r of laws. every due to Thee nature. t h e Creator. cxlv. promise and the Lord whose of those piety that is are is inces­ is is infallible. w h o s e greatness is u n l i m i t e d . a n d t h e r e is n o n e o t h e r besides T h e e " : 9. through and holy whose whom judgment adoration whose are immutable. invisible b y n a t u r e . 20. as t h e cause. a n d o n e a r t h b e n e a t h . 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. t h e L o r d . 3. in the form in which it appears. For. t h e P u n i s h e r of t h e u n g o d l y . 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 o m i n i o n c a n n o t be t a k e n a w a y . 24 ff. 3. F o r of T h y m a j ­ esty there is n o b o u n d a r y . 16. iv. ii. vi. T h o u art H e w h o art in heaven. w h o s e k i n g d o m is w i t h o u t e n d . w h o s e m o n a r c h y is w i t h o u t succession. w h o s e excellency is p e r p e t u a l . and Father whose sentiments from of Christ. as he points out. 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 . 17. pp. w h o s e d u r a t i o n c a n never alter or fail. worthily towards bribes. t o be able is p r e s e n t w i t h T h e e . w h o s e life is w i t h o u t w a n t . Deut. a n d tames w h a l e s . t h e S u p ­ plier of w a n t . a n d stops t h e m o u t h s of lions. w h o s e w o r k is n o t one of m e d i a t i o n . LIGHT k i n d i n T h y benefits. w h o said. w h o s e t r u t h is i m m u t a b l e . 436 f. Ps.

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

30. 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 . Gen. 6. 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 . 28. which was pronounced by T h y voice a n d written w i t h T h y hand. 22. Exod. and died. xiv. 27. 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. account. 3 1 . Once this most difficult point is definitely established. b u t a n o p p o r t u n i t y of piety. n o t affording t h e m a n occasion of idleness. 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. on the Lord's by Thy the feast of Him resurrection conquered Him F o r by day. 29. and rejoice has brought has and immortality to light. by the fact that it embodies the Kedusha. I Cor. t h a t is. xxxvi. 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 . assemble life appeared is both to be made God and man. how he submitted in life. which may have been a proverbial formula. 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. 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. i.m a k i n g . iv. For suggested emendation see the discussion below. Acts xiii. one can go on to investigate the extent of that borrowing with a freer hand. 10. 1-6. 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 . xv. account death™ 2 4 2. Sophia as "created" comes from Prov. T h o u didst enjoin t h e observation of t h e S a b b a t h . 20. II Tim. 1 8 : a paraphrase of Deut. beloved of G o d . 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 . t h e o n e t h a t sees G o d . xx. i. 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 . 26. 32. So the text as in Funk. LIGHT spontaneously writing. W h a t this prayer. xxxv. Deut. for t h e i r k n o w l 29 80 81 32 24. 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 . 25. 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 . Exod. T h o u hast created t h e w o r l d by Christ. viii. f r o m clay a n d b r i c k . . 29.3io B Y LIGHT. T h e next fragment is an even more idiomatically Jewish expression. I T i . 3 1 . t h e t r u e Israel. 10. Variant reading in d. F R A G M E N T II Constitutiones V I I . 5 5 . O L o r d . fteov Yevry&Eiaiig. tism. F o r T h o u . 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. 3 . vii. for t h e m e d i t a t i o n u p o n T h y laws. 4. 1 8 . 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 . a n d of those u n d e r h i m . shows Christian redaction in the interest of orthodoxy.

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

7. LIGHT Sophia. there would be no need of supplying any intermediate material. and hence judgment must wait for the rest of the material. ix. ' " T h e last phrase is. and so m a k i n g the sentence refer to the Sophia just mentioned. H e certainly would not himself have spoken of KTioOdoa GO<P (a w h o was Christ. Is. 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. 38. Christ. and m a k e the sentence read: "For through her he has led us to Himself to be a peculiar people. But this reading will depend for its justification upon the type of Judaism which the fragments as a whole are seen to reflect. to TOV TopayjX. the one that 'sees G o d . Bousset suggests that by changing the auxou to auT/jc. that is the group that is beloved by G o d and 'sees G o d .312 B Y LIGHT. who was 89 T h y servant. The phrase reappears below in Fragment X. and one manuscript. as Bousset points out (p. But he also would change T a £0v/) to y)|iac. d o T h o u n o w . written by a more observant Christian. to Y^vy]6eioy)c. 2 ) . i n t h e m i d s t of h e r . the true Israel. 1. p. 40. 3 5 3 . the representation of Christ as a created being. a n d h a s t h a d m e r c y o n Zion. specifically here a created being. xxxvii. . Bousset recognized that this phrase was Philonic (p.3 . or there were some other Jewish statements which origi­ nally stood between. has changed the KTioScloyjc. Perhaps the words: "by exalting . 1 . . granting the change which makes the first phrase a reference to Sophia. T h a t is. 444. of his seed according to the 40 by the birth 1 of born flesh. however. But on the whole I agree with him that it is Jewish. so thoroughly Philonic. the race beloved by G o d . accept t h e p r a y e r s w h i c h p r o c e e d 37. for we have no way of knowing whether this sentence went on immediately after the last Jewish sentence before the Christian insertion. O L o r d G o d . which h e himself elsewhere is careful to deny. indeed so reminiscent of the very heart of the Mystery. T h e problem cannot be resolved finally. since. a n d compassion o n J e r u s a l e m . 446. n. 87 88 FRAGMENT Constitutiones III V I I . 41. 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. this is not a familiar expression in Jewish prayers. 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 .* of a virgin alone. ' " For I see the passage as an expression of the inner mystic joys of Judaism. that I would keep the aAyjGivov which he rejected. 3 . i. 2 ) . See below. 39. 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 . Rom. her" are part of the Christian insertion. he has fallen into a heresy. Israel. he would m a k e the section read: "For through her he has led us to Himself to be a peculiar people. TOV aAy)0ivov 'IopcnfjA. n. .

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. 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. 201. and above. 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 . 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 Elisha at t h e b a r r e n f o u n t a i n . of M a n o a h a n d his wife i n t h e field. of E z r a at t h e r e t u r n . . 4. 2. Numb. 43. of B a r a k a n d D e b o r a h i n t h e days of Sisera. of Josiah i n P h a s s a .. 1 . of A b r a h a m . of Z e r u b b a b e l . 446. 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 . pp. of H a n n a h i n t h e tabernacle before t h e a r k .T H E MYSTIC LITURGY 313 f r o m t h e lips of T h y people which are of the Gentiles.8 . 44. 3 . 275 f. 48. 44 48 1. of Elijah o n M o u n t C a r m e l . 2 2 . 1 8 . xviii. 42a. after his transgression. and not gone on to mention the prayer or sacrifice of Christ or the achievements of the Apostles. Heres. 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 . cxlv. of Jael in blessings. 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 . 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 . of J o n a h i n t h e w h a l e ' s belly. of Moses i n t h e desert. a n d c o n c e r n i n g S e n n a c h e r i b . a n d t h e fleeces. 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. w h i c h call u p o n T h e e i n T r u t h . Ps. On the mystic interpretation of this incident see Wisd. of H e z e k i a h i n his sick­ ness. xvi. before his s i n . of Joshua t h e son of N u n i n G i l g a l . of J e h o s h a p h a t i n w a r . xxxviii. 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. through Christ in the Spirit. 42.2 5 . of Jacob i n B e t h e l . of Isaac at t h e W e l l of t h e O a t h . a n d deliver. of S a m u e l in M i z p a h . of D a n i e l i n t h e d e n of l i o n s . For the Jewish origin of this phrase see Bousset's elaborate note. O M a s t e r A l m i g h t y . n. of D a v i d o n t h e threshing-floor of O m a n t h e Jebusite. p. 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 assist. W e give T h e e t h a n k s for all t h i n g s . 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 . p. of Jeptha i n t h e w a r before his rash v o w . I n t h e first place T h o u didst respect t h e sacrifice of A b e l . 446. the last Jewish period of grace. 4 2 42a As Bousset remarks. 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 . F R A G M E N T IV Constitutiones V I I . of G i d e o n at t h e rock. 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 .

8. T h o u hast instructed h i m b y T h y laws. T h o u measurest o u t life t o u s . Literally. 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 . 447). 19. 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 . 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 . Thou hast made the Comforter to inhabit among us. So Bousset takes it (p. a n d w h e n T h o u bringest o n a dissolution for a w h i l e . LIGHT a n d p r o t e c t : 2. H e r e again is the series of heroes of old. xxxiii. 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 h a n d s for w o r k . 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 . T h o u hast p r o m i s e d a resurrection. a n d t h r o u g h all ages. . i n t h e days of D a v i d a n d of t h e k i n g s . i n t h e days of J u d i t h . I suspect that the text was originally "they" with reference to the whole patriarchal succession. even m a n . 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 . 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 a sight for c o n t e m p l a t i o n . a n d t h e s m e l l i n g of v a p o u r s . Ps. W h e r e ­ fore w h a t life is sufficient.3*4 BY LIGHT. F o r H e h a s delivered u s f r o m t h e s w o r d . 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. 6. T h o u hast set angels over u 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 . 7. 46. "from an evil tongue. T h o u affordest u s f o o d . h a s delivered u s f r o m sickness. h a s p r e ­ served u s f r o m s l a n d e r . in t h e days of t h e j u d g e s . xxxi. 5. as indicated in the 45. w h o h a s given u s a n articulate voice t o confess w i t h a l . a n d feet for w a l k i n g . 3 . though in this case the Christian has not left it without the reference to Christ which the preceding prayer lacked. Ps. T h o u hast p u t t h e devil t o s h a m e . ending precisely with the Mac­ cabees. i n t h e days of Moses a n d Joshua. 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. 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. 20. through Jesus Christ. 4. a n d t h e h e a r i n g of sounds. 47. a n d sustained u s . With the Christian interpolation out. 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 . 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 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 . i n t h e days of Judas Maccabeus a n d his b r e t h r e n . a n d a p r o p e r taste. a n d a n a p p r o p r i a t e t o u c h ." Cf. 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 . T h o u takest care of us w h e n m a d e . a n d h a t h freed u s f r o m f a m i n e . or "Thou" with reference to God. and in our days Thou didst assist 4 5 46 us through Thy great High-Priest. being the unique God. and from the heresy of the mur­ derers of Christ. Jesus Christ Thy Son. 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 . i m p r o v e d h i m b y T h y statutes. A m e n . Thou hast 47 sent Christ among men. Bousset. n o w a n d ever. "He" is naturally Judas Maccabeus.

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

though they were familiar in Hellenistic Jewry. 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 . 56. IV Maccabees is sufficient evidence for the former. iii. 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 . 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 . w h o art merciful a n d c o m p a s s i o n a t e . E. 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 .. xxxiii. 16. 24. 183. 2-7. Cong. w h o a l o n e a r t a l m i g h t y . 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... o u r 56 57 5 1 .. but does say that ayvoia is the cause of all sin.." Ignorance is the thing that maims the part of the soul which sees and hears. 55. a n d of J a c o b . ix. 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 . Fug. " 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. Wisd. Esther xiv. in Judaism. a n d n a t u r a l j u d g m e n t . T h o u F a t h e r of t h e blameless. 1 2 . . while sufficiendy Jewish. 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 .. ii.. 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. 3 . 160.3 i6 B Y LIGHT. Jos. 57. long-suffer­ i n g . On the contrary it must be noted that the doctrines of a resurrection and of a personal devil in the prayer.g. Ebr. Det. Ebr. 52. Exod. a n d of Isaac. I Cor. a n d t h e a d m o n i t i o n s of t h e L a w . 10. LIGHT T h e similarity is obvious and striking. t o w h o m every h e a r t is n a k e d . t h e K i n g of g o d s . 54. t h e G o d of A b r a h a m . 108. 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 5 7 . a n d t h e L o r d . a n d G o d of all beings. LXX. 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 ." Philo has not exactly this phrase in combination. 5 3 . "Ignorance which makes us wander" is then specifically the phraseology for the type of reprobation distinctive. 55 V 2. a n d a b u n d a n t i n m e r c y . 2 1 . O u r eternal Savior. of the Mystery. 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 . are not Philonic. 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 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 . Similarly Philo uses nAavaoGai in various forms with reference to wandering from the mystic Road. In some ways the most interesting Fragment of all is the following: 51 52 58 54 FRAGMENT Constitutiones V V I I . h o w t h e possession of riches is n o t everlasting. 1 3 1 . a n d b y w h o m every h e a r t is seen..

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

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

i. a n d t h e d r y l a n d t o a p p e a r . x6au. saying. 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 . t h e noise of t h e t h u n d e r . i. 70. a n d loosedst 6 8 69 70 71 72 68. 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 . B u t as for t h e sea itself. 6. c o m p e n s a t i n g t h e w o r k of m e n . w h i c h comes w i t h fury f r o m t h e ocean. 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 at t h e conclusion of t h e creation T h o u gavest direction t o T h y Sophia. preserve t h e i r u n c h a n g e a b l e course. 16. 26. Job xxxviii. a n d t h e m o o n for t h e c h a n g e of seasons. 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 . t h e n o u r i s h e r s of those p l a n t s . A n d besides all these t h i n g s . b y its increase a n d d i m i n u t i o n s . 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 . 9. yet r u n s b a c k a g a i n . 72. O L o r d G o d . Y e t didst T h o u n o t destroy h i m for ever.b e i n g (£K TOU [XY\ OVTOC). t o t h e air. 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. 4. Gen. B u t w h e n m a n w a s disobedient. w h o c a n possibly describe it. a n d t h e s h i n i n g l u m i ­ naries. a n d after o u r l i k e n e s s " . t o t h e w a t e r . 3. i n o r d e r t o t h e supply of p r o p e r food. 7 1 .6a\iov. 7. a n d bestowedst u p o n h i m his five senses. B u t w h e r e T h o u biddest t h e m . a n d t h e p r o d u c t i o n of fruit. 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 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 . 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 . 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 .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 . " 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. See Fragm. 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 . Gen. 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 t h e o t h e r D a y . 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 o n e w a s called N i g h t . The phrase may well be an expression which we do not have elsewhere. 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. a n d w a s a d o r n e d w i t h all sorts of flowers. 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. " L e t u s m a k e m a n after o u r i m a g e . 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 . 69. a n d b o t h t o air a n d w a t e r . meaning that man is created the microcosm. i. a n d T h o u didst b y o a t h call h i m t o a resurrection. 1 1 . b u t laidst h i m t o sleep for a t i m e . a n d t h e variety of several t r e e s . VII. . 5. 5.ou y. 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. a n d for ships. 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. 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 . t h e s h i n i n g of t h e l i g h t n i n g . Gen.

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

T H E MYSTIC LITURGY 321 palities a n d t h r o n e s . 88. w i t h rivers. w h o didst establish t h e g r e a t d e e p . 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 . 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 . 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 . for t h e s u p p l y of o u r w a n t . 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 . Ps. 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 . a n d m o i s t e n it w i t h springs t h a t never fail. a n d for t h e affording of s o u n d s . a n d e n r i c h it w i t h seeds. t h e h e a r i n g perceives i t . 16. 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 . i. 86. 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 separate t h e great sea f r o m t h e l a n d . 12. w h i c h strikes t h e air. a n d c r o w n it w i t h herbs. w h o didst fix t h e firmament. 8. a n d all t h i n g s t h a t a r e t h e r e i n . 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 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. a n d o n every side m a d e s t a m i g h t y cavity for it. Job xxxviii. 13. 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 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 . 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. 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. 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 . 22. a n d after all these. 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 . a n d beau­ tify it w i t h flowers. 7. 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 . 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 . t h e a r c h a n g e l s a n d a n g e l s . Jer. a n d filledst t h e latter w i t h t h e s a m e . Job xxvi. 87. Is. 10. 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 . t a m e a n d w i l d . w i t h t h e circuits of t h e years. Gen. for food a n d for labor. 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. 85. b y m e a n s of t h e t o n g u e . w h o didst e n c o m p a s s this w o r l d . 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 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. 22. 2. t h e n u m b e r s of m o n t h s a n d days. w i t h t h e noises of c r e e p i n g t h i n g s . didst b y H i m m a k e this visible w o r l d . a n d t h e h e a r i n g . b o t h t a m e a n d w i l d . 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. t h e s o u n d s of various sorts of flying c r e a t u r e s . w i t h m a n y a n d various living creatures. w h i c h co­ operates w i t h t h e air. i. 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 . 84. 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 . xl. 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 w a t e r it w i t h c u r r e n t s . 9. . t h e o r d e r of 83 84 8 5 8 8 87 88 83. 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 . Job xxxviii. 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 . civ. s t r o n g a n d w e a k . 11. 14. Gen. s o m e t i m e s dost e n r a g e it w i t h a tempest. 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. v.

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 . 21. 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. 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 . didst by Christ p l a n t a paradise i n E d e n . 20. T h o u didst w i t h a n o a t h call h i m t o a restoration again. as i n t o a r i c h b a n q u e t . 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.J22 B Y LIGHT. 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 . t o g r o w . n o r suffer h i m t o perish utterly. 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 . Yet of T h y goodness T h o u didst n o t overlook h i m . a n d as t o his b o d y . i n t h e east. only f o r b i d d i n g t h e tasting of o n e tree. Job xxviii. a d o r n e d w i t h all p l a n t s fit for food. a n d tasted of t h e f o r b i d d e n fruit. 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 . h e m i g h t receive t h e r e w a r d of it. 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 . t h e courses of t h e r a i n y clouds.b e i n g (£K TOU \XY\ OVTOC). 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 T h o u d i d s t subject t h e w h o l e creation to h i m . a n d didst i n t r o d u c e h i m i n t o it. 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. 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. 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. " 17. b u t hast also m a d e m a n for a citizen of t h e w o r l d . a n d a c c o r d i n g t o o u r likeness. didst loose t h e b o n d of d e a t h . a n d t h e observation of r i g h t a n d wrong. 25. Gen. 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 . for T h o u . LIGHT t h e seasons. 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 . w h i c h w a s i m m o r t a l i 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. a n d p r o m i s e h i m life b y resurrection. 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 . 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 . i. 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. 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 . 26. a n d over t h e fowls of t h e h e a v e n . O G o d A l m i g h t y . 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). 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. 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 . A n d n o t this o n l y . 16. T h o u didst justly cast h i m o u t of paradise. 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 . for h e w a s T h y c r e a t u r e . A n d w h e n T h o u m a d e s t h i m . 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. i n h o p e s of greater blessings. 90. 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 . b y t h e deceit of t h e serpent a n d t h e counsel of his wife. a n d t o r i p 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. 19.

T h o u didst n o t . a n d didst translate E n o c h : 22. Gen. T h o u didst sweeten t h e bitter w a t e r w i t h w o o d . A n d besides these. O L o r d . T h o u . T h o u didst b r i n g w a t e r o u t 91 92 9 3 91. 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 Jacob t h e father of t w e l v e sons. 23. 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 ) . a n d didst discover t o h i m T h y Christ. a n d didst divide t h e sea. a n d t h e supplier of w a n t . b u t g r a n t e d s t h i m . 24. 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 . didst n o t overlook Joseph. x. 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 . LXX. 20. . a n d didst increase his posterity to a m u l t i t u d e . 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. Cf. 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 . 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. 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 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 . 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 . 34. a n d p u n i s h t h e E g y p t i a n s . I Pet: iii. 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 m a d e it t h e equivalent of T h e e . 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 . 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 . t h e G o d of t h e universe. as a r e w a r d of his chastity for T h y sake. 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. as a n a b h o r r e d w r e t c h . b u t didst snatch h o l y L o t o u t of t h e conflagra­ t i o n . 25. h o w e v e r . a n d b r i n g t h e Israelites t h r o u g h it. a n d t h e giver of life. 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 . 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 . 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 . 6. 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 . xix. t h e e n d of t h e f o r e g o i n g generations. T h o u . 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 .. 92. cvii. 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 t h e avenger of those t h a t transgress t h e m . 93. Wisd. suffer t h e m t o g o astray. for T h o u art t h e creator of m e n . O L o r d . 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 didst a d o r n A a r o n a n d his posterity w i t h t h e priesthood. 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 . viii. 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 . 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 . b u t didst raise u p T h y h o l y servant Moses. 26.T H E MYSTIC LITURGY 323 b r o t h e r . b u t T h o u didst deliver t h e m . 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 . Is. T h o u didst accept Seth a n d E n o s . a n d t h e giver of laws. Ps. w i t h e i g h t s o u l s . 20.

the revelation of the Logos to Abraham. L o r d G o d of Sabaoth. a n d p o w e r s . T h o u