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.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so that n o w he too is a traverser of the W a y which the supreme G o d has created. T h e vision of all these comes after the first experience by which the mystic breathes into himself the Spirit of Qod. established by Law. 8. Eine Mithrasliturgie. H e carries a starry symbol and emits stars from his body. that is the greatest of the lesser divinities. Just what Isis typifies does not clearly appear. First the mystic is conducted through the pleroma described.. t o w h o m the lesser deity is besought to conduct the mystic.. the light god and the Logos. T h e n he sees "a younger God. 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. the type of the projection of divine light into the lower realm. Strengthened by this h e ad­ dresses God in magical light terms. through w h o m he produces Horus. with locks of fire. This experience of seeing the Greatest means at once death and birth to the mystic. . and finally he comes to the Greatest G o d . noble and good virgins. and wears trousers. Isis. 1 1 : iXsvotxox elg roftou Mai Styei avxdv jieQuiaxoihrxa <ftg ev 6 8 $ . and made the nuoryjpiov. aeavxdv xd Tcvsv\ia: ib." Each is hailed in the Liturgy by its magical name. the most holy guardians of the four pillars. 1.14 B Y LIGHT. Over against this general organization of the Light-Stream. has a wife. O u t of all this material it becomes clear that the W a y is important. the recipient of all coming into being" (TO T/JC. is clothed in a white chiton.X8 dbid xov deCou dxevi^cov etc. also with magical names.23 ff. stands the Female Principle type of formulation. LIGHT Tuxai of the heaven (or the universe. 1923. a n d with a fiery crown. the Cosmic Logos. Geoc. But there is no standardization of the pleroma. a type whose origin seems primarily to have been in Persia. and begs H i m to approach. IX. 10. p." This is Helios. T h e Greatest is also young. 10. fair of form. in which the mysticism of sex is fundamental. Beneath these seven goddesses are seven gods with the faces of black bulls. A . Ib. a n d the light-mysticism. sacred (icpai) and of the same type of existence as pivi|jippo<|>op. By fertilizing her Osiris could beget 7 8 9 10 7. $uoeuc GyjAu. 20 ff. Kal SEKTIKOV cmaoY\Q yzviotuc). 11. 53 ff. H o r u s would seem to be the Divine Stream as clothed in mat­ ter. H e is distinguished by the fact that h e traverses the Heavenly Road. the greatest of the gods. b u t not a specific formulation within the pleroma. Accord­ ing to Plutarch Osiris. T h e idea of the pleroma is important. as well as the general formulation of the supreme G o d beneath w h o m is the pleroma. De Iside. T h e highest of the lower deities is the mystic guide along the W a y through the pleroma to the Greatest. 11. clad in a white chiton and a scarlet chlamys. the sacrament or secret teaching. oupavoc). Immediately he is surrounded by light rays. 1 2 . Dieterich. 1 2 . 9. H e has golden hair. She is the "Female Principle in nature. with a light-glance. with linen garments and golden diadems. Above h i m is still 6 IIZYIOTOC. a golden crown. p.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


The cherubim of the ark appear with the same symbolism as the Powers. Deo.. Ib. 60.. 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. LIGHT sion immediately following. Colson and Whitaker's translation. through His Sovereignty He rules what H e has begotten. even Goodness and Sovereignty. all blend and be seen to be mutually interchangeable. as was suggested in the first passage con­ sidered. the same picture of Deity and the Powers appears con­ nected with the symbolism of the Cherubim at Eden. 58. Fug. the line would seem to be drawn between the higher and the lower Powers. for it is through Logos that God is both ruler and good. since all are but aspects of the single God. Cher. he says. Sovereignty and Goodness. For exceeding swift and of burning heat is Logos and chiefly so the Logos of the (Great) Cause. xviii. And in the midst between the two there is a third which unites them. 2. as the fiery sword is the symbol of reason. divided and united by God Himself. 56. 57 Philo goes on to urge his soul to mystic apprehension of these Powers. those aspects of Deity to which m a n may hope to rise. Philo immediately after the digres­ sion on the ark returns to these cities and says that three are placed on the hither. e^arrrojjevai TOU TGJV avGpciTTOJV erriK/jpou yevouc. T h e one in the middle of the three is called Being (obviously TO ov). TJ if. 166. 2. In Cherubim. T h e picture is one of God as revealed in the Logos and the two higher Powers. that is the Negative Commands. Abraham's "lifting u p his eyes" is the lifting of the eye of the mind in the vision of a prophet. . 59. T h e secondary Powers do not appear at all. 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 .. 3 . three on the further side of Jordan so as to symbolize the fact that the three lower Powers. 6 1 . Gen. W h e n fully apprehended the Powers will. 103 ff. in Heres.. 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. His highest and chiefest Pow­ ers are two. which are taken as symbols of the six emanations below TO OV. but in ecstasy he has learned the following: 56 The voice told me that while God is indeed one. the Cherubim are symbols. not as a name. 57. Logos. the Positive Com­ mands. while the three higher members belong to the celestial realm. for it alone preceded and outran all things.. and to go to them is to leave the world of mortality. conceived before them all. manifest above them all. for he has n o 58 59 60 61 55.3° 65 B Y LIGHT. are contingent upon m a n . and Mercy. 3 1 . Of these two potencies. Through His Goodness H e begat all that is.

1 3 4 . 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. still he was in sympathy with what the Physicist Commentators were trying to do. and drawing them u p to Himself as though with Body Guards. Heres.eig. but Philo's chief concern is with 68 62. the two wings that cover the face are the two elements that are higher. 64. 10. H e then compares the objects of Abraham's vision to the seraphim of Is.. appear frequently in Philo. 4. 63. 2 3 . 6. the one above them w h o speaks from the middle. to be sure. 5. according to Philo. But it is to the saving mystery that he returns. but the constructive type of fire by which unformed matter is given form. L o r d .. 7. Ib. earth and water.. Qzoc. quae prae se fert quicumque mortalis est naturae. Philo concludes. 1 2 : "Formam suam suarumque virtutum misit ad nos in auxilium adversus dolores st mala. for the two lower are the two lower elements. but Philo wanted to include it. that is to get science as well as saving doctrine from the Torah. had each six wings. Ib. vi. Ib. Opif. two in number according to the Greek text. seems thrust into his general train of thought. This fire penetrates all the unformed matter and by its operation separates out the elements. but to describe his type of existence. and w h o seem to have been quite specifically scientific in their interests. See also Conf. Ib." 68. Their explanation of the seraphim^ w h o are to Philo identical with cherubim. Ib. Cf. This Philo goes on to compare with the symbolism of the cherubim of the ark. In expounding the Neo-Pythagorean theory of creation by bisec:ion Philo hints at identifying the Powers with the Xoyoq xou. T h e seraphim.. So the vision of Abraham was very magnificent. while the wings that fly are the reconciling principles between them in that they bring the contraries together in the dux princeps. 9. the Physicist Commentators explain as being in opposition to each other. 3 1 2 . for he saw the Creator suspending the four elements from Himself. like the lower and higher elements." 68 64 65 66 67 T h e Physicist Commentators to w h o m Philo here refers.T H E GOD OF THE MYSTERY 3i 62 name. they had to be apportioned according to the ability of matter to receive Jiem. 66. air a n d fire (heaven). not the consuming destructive fire. 67. T h e six wings are themselves interpreted in cosmic significance. T h e fiery Power emanations from God account for the for­ mation of the material world.. Ib. were made of fire... and the Royal Power. 65.1 3 9 . and. Here the passive element in creation was too feeble to receive the full effect of God's 8uvdu.. T h e m e n on either side are sym­ bols respectively of the Creative Power. .euc. 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. and the Logos that is spoken. 8. These lower and higher sets of wings. and called cherubim by Philo. 1 ff.. T h e Body Guards are H i s Powers guarding the safety and preservation of H i s most perfect creation..

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

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

LIGHT 78 Lebreton. Opif. but sometimes as three. In LA.. i^br. . On the Powers as overpowering light-beams see also LA. 1. a Catholic writer on the origins of the doctrine of the Trinity. Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinite. Leisegang. for. Praem. Virt. ii.. 81. and indeed speaks of the "shadow" as "beaming forth" from the central <j>avTaoia (airauYa£o|j£vcjv arro TOUTOU OKI&V). 0e6c. 164.. iv. n. p. 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. P. 1922. iii. So the sun's rising £TnoKia£si the light of the stars. though Leisegang (Pneuma Hagion.. when knowledge of Existence shines in.. 37 ff. 30. T h e clearest expres­ sion of the idea is a comparison of God to the sun whose rising obscures the stars. n. are possible for Philo's generation because to the Greek a strong light "darkened" a lesser light. sometimes of one. 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. where the one G o d is described as manifesting H i m ­ self as a 4>avTaoia. 23. 82. while the "one in the middle" is the naTY\p TCJV OAGJV. p. 1919. Philo compares this ap­ pearance of three to a person casting two shadows. it so excessively illuminates everything as to darken what things had seemed brightest in themselves. 79 80 So when the conceptual beams of the shining God.. divided in itself. 3) points out that this axid is a Platonic imitation. Paris. 119 ff. it can see nothing else. 27. These "shining shad­ ows. Immut. in unclouded light." an impossible figure for moderns. a disconnected thing. 30.e. beams unmixed and pure and most luminous. 44. Abr. the Logos is itself a axid fteou. Jules Lebreton. Kupioq. as the Royal Power. Adler.. i. 195. 79.34 B Y LIGHT. But really all are one 82 has to be quite advanced as a mystic to get even a vision of the three. V." 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. as in the parable of the cave.. Fragments. The man who has completed the mystical journey (6 xe^eiog) sees the triad. as the Creative and Beneficent Power. 100. 81 Again when the h u m a n mind tries to rise to God the Great King. 102). note in Philos Wer\e. 58. 107.. 6 GJV. 78. shine in upon the eye of the soul. But I cannot see why he thus wishes to discard these when he accepts and quotes other passages almost as Christian. 80. its center filled out and complete in nature: QG. 3 2 .. Harris. just before it arrives at that goal "pure and untempered rays stream forth like a torrent. 3. Heilige Geist ( 1 9 1 9 ) . 77 ff. 96 (cf. 7 1 . though he admits his figure of "shadows" is misleading since there is no such thing as a shadow in deity. so that by its beams the eye of the understanding is dazzled (oKoroSiviav). quotes these passages. 2 1 1 ff. One who is still strug­ gling along in semi-obscurity (6 JtQOxojtTGOv) sees only a dyad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

103. 20. 108. Prob. 53. iv. 3 5 . 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. T r u e the phrase rot ev Tig $uoei is a common one for the natural world. Heres. 164.. and of her giving the chameleon and polypus their protective colorings.. Mos. or e v e n refer specifically to the forms. Heres.. 5. Som. Spec. 2 3 5 . 1 5 2 . ausc. i. 37. 194a 28. ii. 27. made h i m male and female." or "in the world" with no specific materialistic con­ notation. 1 1 . LIGHT cedent monism behind this dualism was essentially blasphemous. i. 1 1 7 . 14.. 9. 128.. gave m a n the five senses. 10.50 BY LIGHT.. 4. W h e n Philo wishes to be more specific he distinguishes between the jjepioroc a n d the a\iip\0T0Q <t>uoic. i. Abr. and apparently created the rest of the material world. Ebr. Ouoic is the material world which natural phi­ losophers study. Aristotle. Abr. cf. ii. 1 1 1 . or \jX\ky\. 58.. 1 5 . Such will appear to be Philo's generally consistent thought about the L a w of Nature. 4>uoic becomes the moving and creating cause in the material world. Decal. 1 3 . Fug. Spec. T h e high­ est aspects of " N a t u r e " could never in any sense be inherent concomitants of Matter. for Philo speaks of Nature's allotting the scheme of fruit bearing to the different animals and plants. 1 4 3 . Spec.. and clothing.. iii.. i. Som. In creation $uoic first created light. 180. Deed. i. W i t h "divine skill" N a t u r e created m a n after mixing the elements. Mos.. and by \o6tv\c. 184. Ib. a n d says that with m e n the beginning of perfection lies within our o w n nature. b u t the expression is found in strongly Neo-Pythagorean passages. 4. 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 . Opif.. 1 1 1 . 19. and seems often to be merely phraseological. F r o m being the material world itself. Spec.. 36. and which sup­ plies m e n with the "gifts of nature. Prob. 99 f. Migr. Its parts are the four elements. Again there seems to be nothing specifically Stoic in this usage. b u t neither N a t u r e nor her will is in this sense identified with the cosmos. 266. ii. 1 2 1 f. Praem. 2 3 1 . Polit. E. 2 1 . The passage recalls the mixing bowl of the Timaeus.. ii. 8. 130.. 1 2 2 . Virt. ii. Congr. 16. 17. 1 7 2 . 1 2 . 43. Phys. 1252b 3 2 . 22. 36. 1 7 0 . 97. 129.. Congr. 7. 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.. 52. b u t the e n d is G o d alone.g.. as w e speak of the "finest thing in nature. a passage apparently reflecting Aristotle's language. i. made h i m a gregarious creature. w h o is y\ ap[oTY\ 4>uoic..1 7 2 ." the fruits of the earth.... . N o w it is notable that Nature's "will" is the n o r m of the cosmos. 1 8 . Sac. 190.. Meteor.. I n one passage he discusses nature as the beginning a n d end. Heres. in which great storms make inner wars. 249. 263. Praem. or the material world is the aloOyjTK) ((juoic. Decal. 379b 25. 26. 6. 192. Opif.. Spec.. or opar/). 1 3 2 . Heres. Mos. 23. iv. 106. Heres.

. Plant. . 34. It is quite to be expected that Philo should speak of the L a w of N a t u r e as the regimentation of the material cosmos. Eth. i.. as well as the L a w of God since N a t u r e is God. Part. the heavenly bodies. we must separate from our conception of God any trace of the created.1 6 . 205. 1 3 . so the order of the universe makes unavoidable the inference that it is ruled by G o d . creates but is uncreated. "Per ordinem autem universus mundus et huius partes factae sunt": QG. 1 0 2 . 30. Spec. 8 . T h e cosmos is matter put in order under a divine regimentation. 48 f. Opif.. I prefer keeping JiQUxaveiJOVTOc. Heres. Both types of natural L a w are to be found. 34. 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 .1 7 3 ." For she is unborn.. and the Father who begat it directs it "by means of the L a w of N a t u r e . Fug. ut sit ei legislator ac legisdator. or profane. iii. 27. Spec. 659b 3 5 . but there seems little confusion between them. 162. Cher... 9 8 . viii. ii. mortal. Spec. Proem. i. "She gives many gifts to men. yet gives birth. 26. i. with Cohn to changing to JtQVxaVEiJOvrag with Heinemann. i. LA. Praem. 39. yet participates in none herself. atque aequum est et conveniens. 25.1 1 1 . which is a AoyiKy) QXJOK bound to m a n by the cement of $uoic. i. 1247a 10. for 4>UOK was only a locution for God throughout.. ii. They are distinct types of L a w . T h a t is. changeable. 28. Sac. 32. Eud. yet is herself unchanging. Nic. 198. 28. Eth. 33. 9 ff. 29. 302." 33. 3 1 . 1 1 5 . i. i] \ikv yap \xzyaX6noXiQ ohz 0 KOOHOC SOTI Kai jjia XP*]Tai noAnxia 27 28 29 80 81 82 88 84 24. As any one would be a fool who went into a well-ordered city and did not conclude that it must have good rulers. 64. 42: "magna est mundus iste civitas. i. Cf. H e has slipped from $uoic to Qzoc without the slightest sense of change. causes growth and decay. 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. 1 7 1 . Philo's sense of the law and order of the cosmos is k e e n . In another passage h e slips in the same way from God to nature. as Aristotle did. nourishes but is not nourished. a dele­ gated sort of executive power in this divine rulership.. So. Spec. Cf. Heres. 9. QE. in creation 4>uoic can be used as a synonym for God.1 0 1 . viii. Spec. ii. a L a w within the material cosmos.T H E HIGHER LAW 24 5i 25 26 material phenomena N a t u r e used the number seven. 14. W i t h this large variety of meanings for $uoic. it is clear that the term VOJJOC Tyjc $ u o £ U c might have a variety of meanings too. 100. 1 1 5 3 b 32. T h e cosmos is a city. Post.. 34.. 189.. N a t u r e exercises providence. Som. 645a 9. Philo concludes. Anim. LA. cf. " Like Plato Philo is willing to concede to the popular rulers of h u m a n destiny. 1 4 3 . So it is not sur­ prising that first God and then QXJOK gave m a n his reasoning power. ii.. ac legitima: necesse est autem istam politicae meliori lege uti.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the Tauchnitz Ed. All nature is full of cnKcuoouvy]. says that Aristotle's discussion lies behind these remarks of Philo. Joseph Cohn. 232: olg xd dppioxxovxa'xaQL^Exai Jtgog xd xfjg exdaxou ipuxfig o*xafru/r|u. God is referred to as creating l o o T y j c . 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 . cf. according to unshakable laws and ordi135 129. 166. 85. .. 134.cou. xal u-exga axafru. and the universal c a u s e of pres­ ervation (ocjT/ipiac) and duration. 6 (Harris. 145. 135. where laoxrig is T| Sixaiocarvrig 6\o%y\ xal nr\yr\. if not the funda­ mental one. 115-164. 187 God is described as calling xd \xr\ ovxa etc. xal 8iau. Heres. Legat. QE. p. where Philo makes the most of the text." in Yale Classical Studies.. i. and were kept ever familiar in later times. Spec. 295. III (1932).evoc. 204.66 129 BY LIGHT.exQcdv \o6xr\xi Jtap/ eavxq) xo dvaXoyov exdaxoig.2 4 8 . VI. iv. 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 . cosmic Law. iv. T h e immediate agent of the division is the Logos T o p e u c . i. For "the legal and equal are seeds of peace. Mut.oioxT}xag xal exsQOtoxrjxcov xauxoxTjxag xal e§ dxoivcovrixcov xal dvag noaxcov xoivcoviag xal dgu-oviag xal ex u. cf. 2 5 3 . 101. and inequality is the source of dfiixta. "and he divided them in the middle" (Gen. 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. T & X6y($frecDQT]Tdslg du-udrixoug xal djteQiYQdqpoug [xoipag. p. It is of considerable importance for our purpose. xv. 133. T h e ideas probably antedated Aris­ totle in Pythagoreanism. T h e longest single discussion of this point is found in Quis Heres. ii. 47). 134 133 and in H i s rulership as always being guided by i t . § 1 3 1 . 1 3 0 . iv. 130.2 3 8 . In Spec. Spec. 144. Mos. But inequality and greed give rise to war and are destructive of what things exist. The last two would seem a summary of all the preceding. " 'Equality' put in place all things. Fragments. 132.. "A neo-Pythagorean Source in Philo Judaeus. I have examined this whole passage carefully elsewhere. T h e r e is no reason for assum­ ing an immediate use of Aristotle's text. 1 0 ) . p. LIGHT dred drachmas from one man would seem to be equal to the tax payment of a talent from another. 2 3 1 . Harris. God is 6 laoxTjxog xal Jtavxog xoii dgiaxou br\\iiovoy6<z: Spec. which means that it is made law-abiding. then. Spec. 328. TO elvai by making xd§iv e£ dxaSjiag xal e§ djtouov jtoioxTjxag xal dvonoicov ou. 1 3 1 . by the universal presence in it of looryic. that we find Philo using \OOTY\C as one of the chief principles in the cosmos. i. " then goes on to divide the 0£Cjpy]Ta into parts for which Philo finds no n a m e s ." which begins by dividing all material things down to the "so called indivisible a t o m s . the jjyjTyjp SiKcuoouv/jc. and hence is used by Moses as the basis of all his laws. 265." It is not surprising to find the notion in o t h e r writings of Philo. of Philo..ev dviaoxrixog laoxrixa ex be axoxoug qpcog egyaadfievog. the "Cutter. See Spec. i. in a note to his translation of this passage.

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

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

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

Arist. ii. incest and pederasty. 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. intercourse during menstruation. Spec. he formulates the Natural L a w that justice is a matter of uniting equals with equals.. 170. Di\e und Verwandtes. QG. u x v w v a i x d ftu-ixxa ov% oaiov. Many of these ap160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 160. Ebr. iv. 163. ii. Agr. Ib. See the Appendix. Praeparatio Evangelica. Decal. LIGHT own theory of rulership accepts the principle. 47 ff. xiv. Athos from the same source as his protest against the bridge. 218. But adultery. Themis. 19. 27. 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. Fragment 14 in Harris. 166. Spec. Empedocles. 1 7 1 . the status quo of nature is to Philo guarded by Law.. 32. Fragments.. QG. iv. and hence he can say too that it is a Natural L a w that ignorance brings destruction. as in the breeding of mules. 37. 1 3 2 . 19. education brings safety. 1 1 7 ff. iv. In these he seems to imply that it is a Natural L a w that anarchy must inevitably destroy any kind of order. Spec. 49. 172. The same notion about the bridge over the Hellespont is expressed in almost identical words in Aeschylus' Persians. 46 ff.. Animal. See the Appendix. Hirzel. 23. 204. 735 ff. 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. 108. or with a barren woman. Athos. Heinemann in his note to Spec. I. Som. an inference from the fact that v/hile all other animals were created simul­ taneously male and female. 30.. for in doing so he h a d broken down the natural boundaries of sea and l a n d . however.. 162.7 o B Y LIGHT. 3 1 . 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 .QG. while his body is affected by the changes of seasons according to Natural L a w . Concupiscence is given m a n by this L a w to preserve his b o d y . 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 . The Greeks had the same feeling about canals as Philo expresses: see Herodotus. iii. Murder is against Natural L a w . Praem. 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 . but discussion of that point must be postponed to another study. Philo calls violations of Natural Law. Similarly it is a violation of the Laws of N a t u r e to get more than one crop a year from the soil.. while against the crossing of different types of animals. 37 ff. 164. 2 1 2 . 204 points out that this is rabbinic. iv. 141 ff. 174. 5 3 ... Rhet. p. 167. like with l i k e . H e does apply it. p. 46.. ii... and inter­ course for begetting children is a L a w of N a t u r e . ap. Prob. 74. 2 2 1 . Animal. 1 6 1 .. iv. 1373b 14 169. 48. i. iii. Fragment ap. 165. cf. Eusebius. Eve was created after Adam. as well as what we still call "unnatural" vice. . T h e Laws of Nature seem especially specific in regard to man's sexual life. QG. 168. while many who are slaves by civil law are not so by Natural L a w . QE. Cf. Like traditional Greek formulation of Natural Law. 173. I. 1 3 . VIII.

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

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

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

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



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

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




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



or TIC TGJV £K TOU Geiou

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

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

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

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



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

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




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

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



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

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



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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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




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

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




Cf. Cont.,


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


Ex. xxi, 10.



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



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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

consisting of those who had acquired a habit of virtue. Evang. the true purport of t h e Torah. its mystic teaching.. too highly exalted for the multitude. 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." There is no reason to think that Philo was alone in doing so. c). VIII. 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.94 B Y LIGHT. x (378b. and to contemplation of the things signified in the meaning of the Laws. H i s writings were designed to show to Jews already sympathetic with this pro­ cedure or to Gentiles looking for mystic ultimates. and required them to give attention to a philosophy of a diviner kind. the other class. While the Lawgiver meant to lead the multitude on gendy by the precepts of the Laws as enjoined according to the literal sense. 102. . he meant to exempt from this sense. Praep. Eusebius goes on to identify the second class with the "Jewish philosophers" as described by Philo in his account of the Essenes. But Philo shows that Eusebius' distinction had wider implications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God as his Father. Fug. and the mind of the wise man puts on the virtues. "He does not tear his garments" for the Logos of God (6 TOV OVTOC.) has put on the universe as a garment (for he has wrapped himself in earth and water and air and fire and their products). who is also Father of all things. Aoyoc. Philo has gone a long way. 249 ff. XI.. What highpriest is indicated. not the high-priesthood assumed by a man. and his parallels with Isis are striking. Metam. pp. Konigsweg. 1 0 8 . 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. the high-priest cannot wear robes which indicate that his father was vouc. In so far as he is the Logos. 28 ff. Gig.1 1 2 . 40 Pascher very rightly sees this conception of the Logos. while only the Aoyoc dveu <puvr\Q is a Monad. but is a Dyad. and below. 52. his mother aioS/joic: 89a because. See above. . 40. 42. so that he is righdy represented as "putting on the gar­ ments. A second glance at the passage will reveal that it has nothing to tell us of the usual symbolism of the priesthood. TOU OVTOC. not a philosophic one. Pascher. Apuleius. Another passage also deals with the high-priest as Logos. 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. 61 ff. Aoyoc. In contrast to such a mediator as the highpriest stands Moses.. In answer Philo specifies that it is not the highpriest whose robe signifies his double origin from the immaterial and mate­ rial realms. And the stipulation that he "shall never put off the mitre" from his head indicates that he shall not take off the royal diadem. while he borrowed the mystic notion of the Logos as the ruler of the uni­ verse. that is. 24." And the oldest Logos of God (6 JtoeaPuTctTOc. blind us to the fact that if mythological systems had a cosmic Logos. Just before. asks Philo. and holds together all the parts. as a mystic-mythological conception. however. This must not. c. pp. and prevents them by its constriction from breaking apart and becoming sepa­ rated.) is the bond of all things. he has had indestructible and most pure parents. pp. 41.102 B Y LIGHT. and the individual soul puts on the body. 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. as will appear.. In the three higher stages man has gone beyond the river and is in mystical union with the Powers or with the Logos. as has been said. but the high-priest41 42 39a. and indeed is explicitly contrasted with that symbolism. he is in the Higher Mys­ tery.. and Sophia for his mother. through whom all things (ret oAa) were born. This diadem is the symbol not of absolute rule but of a marvelous vicegerency. born from God and Sophia. I think. LIGHT fact that the Aoyoc rrpo^opiKoc is not fixed.

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

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

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

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

so that the person who had no such experience. Paul is very cautious. 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. a simplification of some of Philo's more elaborate sym­ bolism. for throughout the Exposition Philo assumes that the reader has already read.T H E MYSTERY OF AARON 107 with a Mystery proper. was given only the lower teaching. T h e language may just as well be figurative. not to go into the deeper teaching with those not ready to receive it. or a mystic gnosis of the Hermetic type. . As he puts on its imitation he ought straightway to become one who bears in mind the original pattern. 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. so that he is in a sense transformed. not that the high-priest alone puts on the robes but that there is a Mystery in which any one who would worship God may also put them on. In the foregoing quotation Philo has said that the signifi­ cance of the priestly worship is to teach in advance one who would worship God that even though he may be in­ capable of making himself worthy of the Creator of the cosmos. Apparently there were definite levels of spiritual achievement which he could recognize. Without yet attempting to answer the question as to which type of Mys­ tery Philo is teaching. etc. This is not to be wondered at. however. But it is clear that whether the ordinary aspirant went through a ceremony of investiture or not. T h e implication of those words would seem to be. and which he always bore carefully in mind. presented here purposely in a way to be intelligible to one who knew nothing of the doctrine before. H e r e it is at first surprising to find that the account is much less elaborate than the one in the De Vita Mosis. and we cannot decide at this point in which way we should take it. as in I Corin­ thians. In the latter type there seem to have been no rites of initiation. or only the lower type. 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. 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 definite levels of spiritual experience. the experience of the priest was in some way open to all who properly aspired. in the sense of an organization with formal initia­ tion. he yet ought to try unceasingly to be worthy of the cosmos. but m e n who still apparendy had not yet definitely become proselytes.

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

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

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

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

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

for honor and glory are the things held in esteem in the material realm. T h e altar of sacrifice calls properly for the offering not of victims and flesh. as previously. Ib. the four elements. and glorified by participation in divine things. and indicates the ency­ clical studies. 88. the great regalia of the sacrifices and the white robe he puts on for his annual entrance into the holy of holies. Ib. This is the literal significance. and its colors likewise indicate the elements. Ib. 95. 85. 97. 88. T h e veil which divides the tabernacle indicates that the outer chamber is dedicated to the sublunar world. the harmony they achieve from being a copy of the incorporeal pattern. Ib. . Ib. and became proverbial for the highest type of kingship.. 9 9 . T h e olive oil of the lamp is the supply for the light of wisdom. Exod... 89. 75.. 94. T h e branches of the candlestick go off at an acute rather than a right angle because the zodiac cycle is of such angles. T h e holy of holies separated off by the veil represents the intelligible world. Ib. QE. has the same m e a n i n g . 84. 91. 103. the inner to the aetherial essence. 104. 89. Ib.T H E MYSTERY OF AARON 81 ii3 tion of the rest of the universe from the four elements. Ib. Ib. 96. Ib. 107. 85. and the other ornaments and details of the candlestick are likewise given cosmic symbolism. while the pole binding all together signifies the fact that the ele­ ments are held together by an indissoluble b o n d .. ii.. 92.. xxviii. 83.1 0 1 . 86. The priestly function of the king will appear somewhat expanded in the treatment of Moses below. 105. Ib. so the tabernacle is designed to show the nature and substance of the sublunar world and its four elements. 7382. he elaborately points out. T h e lamp is to be kept burning from evening to morning to symbolize the stars. Ib. 2. like all kings they must thus be priests and serve God if they are to rule others. Each branch of the candlestick has three cups as the three signs of the zodiac in each season. Ib. 99. 87.. not several. 92. As the in­ corporeal world is represented by the ark. 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. Also they signify that the high-priest is honored by men. the other of something greater. H e comments interest­ ingly upon the two robes the high-priest is to wear.. 90. 7 6 . the heaven by the candlestick. 83. They are joined together to show that out of material multiplicity the cosmos is a u n i t .. 93. T h e inner meaning is that the priest represents true opinion. but of a pure life. Ib. 98. 86. their four colors. T h e one is a robe of honor and glory. Ib..8 1 ... T h e one is proper for material ministration. Ib. the substance of the sensible world by the table.. Ib. T h e ten curtains of the tabernacle indicate the usual significance to h i m of the decade. and the fact that there is one tabernacle. 91. "The Great King" was the usual classical way of referring to the King of Persia. 93 f. 90.. Aaron and his sons have been initiated for the divine ministry and have become greater kings than the Great K i n g ... 84.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This figure is much more elaborately worked out in our third and chief source for Noah. in Philo's mind. 1 . T h e flood itself is the washing away of the sins.ENOS. in contrast to Abraham who went on to the T r u t h . must.. QG. cf. ii.7 . 43. ii. 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. 99. have got beyond the universe to at least s o m e experience of the Immaterial. the Quaestiones in Genesin. 58. This spiritualis dissolutio seems to me not to represent Philo's original. as a great model Patriarch.. and so has himself become a treaty between God and good m e n (men of reason) to be their possession and glory. ii. the muddy slime is cleaned off as though b y a flood at the coming of a sweet flow and a drinkable stream. ENOCH. Ib. t h e n . 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. 52. Ib. 63 64 55 5 8 57 The flood is a symbol of spiritual dissolution. 4.. as endowed w i t h virtue. T h e figure Philo has in m i n d . 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. while the Exposition would suggest that he did not get to the immaterial world at all. AND ABRAHAM 133 52 to m a k e room for the untamed and savage pests of the passions and vices. I should myself be inclined to think that Philo has understated himself in the Exposition rather than overstated himself in the Allegory. i. the contrast between m e n w h o are of the flesh and those who are sons of G o d . In contrast with the wicked race that must perish. which from the context must have been some word for "cleansing. or high priest. Noah's ark is elaborately developed as representing the body. In discussing the Mystery it is going to prove impossible to represent Philo as consistent in his symbolism. 56. 10." 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. QG. 99. he is their savior. 5 3 . and to Moses who went on to 6 &v auToc. Plant. 54. QG. the ark. T h a t is." 59.. 92. is the heir of the divine substance. . NOAH. 55. 59 58 57. Noah. 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. 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. 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. 43. Plant. Noah. For the m e n of flesh are the enemies of those virtues which constitute the road to God and lead one along it. 1 5 . is of the s o u l of the mystic in his b o d y .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stob. Hippodamus puts human hap­ piness in XTJ5cn.. But Abraham is the m a n who rises above both of these lower incentives to aspire to God for His own sake. O n e who cannot rise even to this height can at least appreciate that God punishes evil through His Ruling Power. 909 f. Abr. and which is the ultimate goal of all Pythagorean and Platonic morality and mysticism.). does not fit into his explanation of the development of Abraham's own character. V. 103. 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. . including all his joys.. Philo goes on to the next great event of Abraham's life.. . It must at least be noted that Philo in this is quite in accord with the . NOAH. 917 11." he says. 107. for m a n is a creature of sorrow while God alone has natural euSaiuovia. T h e birth of Isaac. xxxix. See especially §129: M%o\iox yag x a l xov xijg £USQYSXi86g \iov Swrdn-ecos POUA. AND ABRAHAM 141 102 of God. give h i m euSouuovia. but it must come as a gift from God. The contrast appears strikingly in Hippodamus (ap. T h e boy represented ultimately "laughter. xxxix. Abr. though to the m a n w h o is more ad­ vanced the two Powers are recognized as only aspects of the One. 203-205.1 2 5 . which might have given him large grounds for allegory. ap. 108 104 105 106 107 102. Wachs. 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. 106. 1 1 9 . 105. 1 2 6 . 26.EVOV |xsxaA. d \izv yaQ Eu8aiu. 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.. 1 2 ff. 30 ff. After a considerable digression on the significance of the five cities of the plain. 201. Abr.ovia xsXeioxag saxl pico dvfrQCOJtivco . his sacrifice of Isaac.1 3 0 . See above. V.axslv elg inexovatav avafrcov x a l xov cpopcp XTJV TIYEM-OVIXTIV x a l SeajtoxtxTiv UaaxonEvov Egouaiav d g djtoxQOjtriv xo^daEcog. Even so. to God. Abr. .ENOS. ENOCH. On happiness as the goal of life and the end of virtue see also Euryphamus.. 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. elsewhere spoken of as the Aoyoc.. Yet it is not the natural property of man. though he clearly makes it a concomitant of virtue. while m a n centers his atten­ tion not on the quest for happiness but on the complete dedication of him­ self. as he sees it. . as H e did to Abraham. dilating upon the extraordinary love which Abraham had for Isaac as the son of his old age and as his only son. H e describes the sacrificial scene with great feeling and power. It was probably discussed more fully in the lost De Isaaco. and as a boy of great inherent loveli­ ness. IV. 104. These appear as three to the beginner. a reward.6H. 'while Philo makes it a gift of God rewarding virtue. Stob. 25.. God will. and can thus propitiate God and thereby escape p u n i s h m e n t . 202.). 27 (Wachs. but the contrast of man and God is strikingly similar in each. with their connecting principal. IV.. Abr. . and a vision of them as one is vision of 6 OVTGK GJV. m a n never has happiness in the full and unmixed sense in which it appears in G o d ... pp. and "laughter" means that highest euSaiuovia for which the good m a n aspires.

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. 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 . Enduring happiness is a by-product from some interest which is in itself so engrossing that it dominates and thus harmonizes the entire personality. 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. 225. Many 1 0 8 more things could be said o n the subject. 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. . 108. b u t i s a l s o b r a v e a n d warlike. i n .. Such teaching is psychologically sound. 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 . Abr... 225-244. Abraham's justice appeared in his allowing Lot t o choose the part of t h e country h e preferred. peace. 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. It will be noticed that Sixaiotfuvrj is here often a generic term for virtue. Ib. The incident also typifies for Philo the victory of the higher mind over the pleasure loving mind in the individual. By striving immediately and con­ sciously for the harmony w e can never achieve it. a n d f r e e t o l o o k u p t o God. But p i e t y . a n d was finally rewarded b y being given happiness i n God. 208. 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. 1 1 2 . c o u r a g e . such but this is a d e q u a t 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. Ib. 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 . 1 1 3 . i s n o t a c o m ­ plete picture of t h e life of a character as Abraham.. Abr. 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 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 . 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. s e l f . the mystic m a r r i a g e .142 With this description B Y LIGHT.c o n t r o l . n o . 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 . t h e r i g h t r e l a t i o n w i t h God. 1 1 2 fighting—for h e w a s not contentious a n d strife-loving — b u t w i t h a v i e w t o guaranteeing peace f o r t h e future w h i c h h i s adversaries The Lot. h i s h o l i n e s s t o w a r d God a n d h i s j u s t i c e t o w a r d m e n . Ib. and wisdom. 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 . 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 . n o t for the sake of were destroying. f u n d a m e n t a l a s i t i s . says Philo. 208-209. 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. 109.

T h e result of ou$poo\JVY\ is that its possessor becomes a king. x a l dSixiag. IIIOTIC. T h e kingship of the virtuous m a n is not by any means necessarily combined with authority in the political realm. 242). it is a 119 1 1 4 . and it seems that in rejecting andOaia Philo is rather opposing the Stoic ideal than slavishly following Aristotle. he vacillates between the two con­ ceptions of control and abnegation. 257. 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. H e did not cultivate drrd0£ia. 1 1 5 . T h e last virtue which A b r a h a m has achieved by his devotion to God. it was only to get a child. Nic. 1 1 6 . The four kings who ruled over the five kings of Sodom are of course the four passions. desire.. pleasure. but Aristotle does not make a great point of the latter. Eth. Abraham is the \6yoq. 100-102. AND ABRAHAM *43 story. H i s sexual abstemiousness was shown in that. 1 1 7 . but took the mean rather than the extremes. 128 ff. 1 1 8 . and manifested to men. 1 1 9 . It is the law of the whole which Philo has in mind. in another mood virtue meant the golden mean. Abr. Abr. Cf. II.ENOS. even to the rejection of drrdGeia. lear. H e does not subject his fellows by violence: 114 116 118 117 he becomes a source of evil to no man. Philo comes to wisdom by praising Abraham's faith. 270.. here the higher mind which conquers them and introduces into the whole soul x6 evvo|Liov x a l fiixaiov dvxl JtaQavoniac. and when that was accomplished he had no more to do with her. is the queen of the v i r t u e s . to return to an almost constant theme in the treatise. and without being angry with nature for taking her due he endured the affliction mildly and gently. Philo does not make much of the latter and indeed he could not.. appeared in two incidc-ts of Abraham's life. to which passions the five senses contribute. T h e third virtue. the conquest of the m i n d over the revolting m e m b e r s . 1104b 24.. for he proclaims to them peace and euvo^iia. . while he had intercourse with Hagar. but rather makes all his subjects possess and use good things. T h e conception of ocj^poouvyj is clearly Aristotelian. 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. and overthrows tyranny and arbitrary rule to put in democracy (Abr.. As in all his dealings with the problems of asceticism and withdrawal from the world. But it is to be noticed that Philo has not lost the opportunity to bring the discussion back to its point. 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. Ib. 261. is wisdom (<ppQVY\Q[Q or oo<t>ta). His emotional control appeared in his mourning for Sarah. In one mood he could talk of the complete destruction of the passions. in contrast to the law of the members. self-control. for democracy was no conception really applicable for Philo to the soul in which mind is properly king. 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. but is a gift of God. In fact we have here another of the frequent contradictions of Philo. 105 ff.). NOAH. ENOCH. and pain. Ebr. but he did not mean the complete djtdfreia of the Stoic as over against life's experiences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

197. SVF. to which w e shall return... purifying oneself from sins. 194. and through them upon others. 17 f.. 394).. and has come to stand u n ­ changeably very near to the divine p o w e r . See below. 192. Sobr. 159. LIGHT In another passage Abraham is the type of the fact that euvoulcc is achieved by eliminating the passions.. Mig. and leaving the false notions of the Chaldeans (the Stoics) for the true doctrine of G o d . Abra­ h a m has discarded all kinship to the flesh. Det. 127. III. 603.152 B Y LIGHT. 196. 88. God has showered by grace (xapifeoGai) H i s gifts upon the Patriarchs. Mig. Heres. ." 195. But I doubt that the explanation of evysvr\<. 3 1 . 118 f. III. Post. p. 193. appears to be the Abraham of the Allegory as well as of the Exposi­ tion and Quaestiones. A s the Sophos h e radiates "most brilliant and star-like beams of virtues. Cher. 55 ff. 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 191. T h a t is. Abraham as one w h o is raised above m e n into the immaterial life of God. So in Abraham are all the people of the world blessed. Heres. and who hence has become a savior and mediator of the higher L a w to men." H e is associated with Moses in a brilliant description. 27.. This passage is quoted as a source for Stoicism by Arnim. 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 . in itself a Stoic term for the Sophos (SVF. is here used in the Stoic sense where it is made to mean "Son of God.. 289. H e has fully realized the ideal of the Sophos.. 2 3 1 .

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

§26: xaxxdv piov be xe\i\oi xol |n6vov d v a d o l I6VT85 aXka x a l eufiaijioveg. Three lines below (1219b 2 ) it appears that XQ?)OK is interchangeable here with iviQyzia. For Isaac as Happiness see also LA.. who in making the king used Himself as the Archetype. 9. exi b* I v |3icp xeXsCcp. ap. 53. 909.. V. 1 3 0 . demanding. TeA/noc. as did all schools but the Cyrenaic-Epicurean. after which happiness comes as a child or offspring of virtue. Philo interprets Isaac as representing the type of character which is so exalted a n d perfect that he is the embodiment of euSaiuovia. 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. 8. 6. Det. by which a hero's father would be called now God. Hippodamus. F o r if "Isaac" 4 5 6 7 8 9 4. nAaoua TOV 'IoaaK. with reference to Isaac. Compare the ideal king of Ecphantus: "He is like the rest [of mankind] indeed in his earthly tabernacle (axfivog). since h e is completely. 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. The definition is an epitome of Aristotle's remarks about happiness. 1098a 1 6 : T O dvftgcomvov dvaftdv ilwxfjc.ovia as the context shows. ib. See Euryphamus. 76.154 B Y LIGHT. and now a human being. iii. iii. 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. but he is fash­ ioned by the supreme Artificer. 86 f. 1. d jxev yaQ evfiaijiovia xeXsi6xaq iaxi pico dvdQCOJtfrvco (Wachs. death to the passions. Mut. Nic. a n d representing Isaac as the direct child of G o d through Sarah. he enjoyed a life without pain or fear. IV. V. ap.. 19 if.. a n d of joy. Cf. xsXziaq iv^Qyeia x a x ' aQexriv xeXeiav. first. 200 ff.232 f. 82: XEXoxev r\ aQtxi\ xf|v evSaijioviav ' l a a d x . 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. For their emphasis upon eudaemonism he need have looked only at his Pythagorean models. See Eth. LIGHT for he was free from anxiety and dejection. See A.1 7 6 . though h e sharply distinguished. 9 1 7 ) . " G o d is the creator of laughter that is good. 7.. Nock. End. iv&Qyzia yivzxai x a x ' aQexriv. Cher. 1219a 3 8 : f| evfiaiixovia tcofjc. 8.). ." p. But the passage does not give the full significance of this joy. 27 (Wachs.. xxxix." W i t h this Aristotelian point of view h e combines the mystical one that happiness is a gift of God.." Quoted in my "Hellenistic Kingship. D ..docoaig kaxi TCOV avfrQCOJtCvcov dvaftaw. The confusion of parenthood. 60. QG. inasmuch as he is formed of the same material. 1 7 . Stobaeum. natu­ rally. x a x d XT)V aQCaxTjv x a l xetaioxaxriv. el bk Jikeiovq a l aQexa(. in the thoroughly Aristotelian definition: "Happiness is the exercise of per­ fect virtue in a perfect life. x a l cruujtA. 11. iv. 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. to w h o m vir­ ginity has been miraculously restored. between euSaipovia a n d y]Sovyj. and without effort at one with the law of G o d or nature. The "human good" is of course eu8ai|u. Abr. bk xaxxdv Piov. is an echo in Philo of one of the com­ monest elements in Hellenistic religions. 5. W h a t h e means by euSaiuovi'a Philo makes plain elsewhere. a i x a euSaifxcov y£vr\xav a yaQ euSaijuovia xeXxitaac. epyov §£ TOU ayevvjTou vouioreov). LA. Conversion (i933)> PP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plant. h e is a type of the Greek. . 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. through a n attendant a n g e l . are willfully a n d stub­ bornly unreasonable. b u t to still others it speaks as friend to friend.. T h i s dream and its interpretation are of great significance. Som. A 6 y ° C ) is a command. T o these Jacob is the shepherd.. 1 5 9 . 1 1 0 . n .1 3 ) . a n d these are the hopeless part of the flock assigned to the sons of L a b a n . and Egyptian ideal of the "Good Shepherd. It is described in De Somniis. 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. They must be eliminated by the ascetic. The allegory is here immediately concerned with the control or shepherding by reason of the lower elements of the human constitution. But other parts of m a n . So Jacob is at last marked 168 164 166 168 167 168 159 160 153. Sac. 190. which means that he has nothing to offer as a spiritual guide to all sorts of people. N o w that the flocks have come increasingly into Jacob's possession. like that of a k i n g . or some aspects of one's constitution. as here (Gen. 1 9 2 . 1 5 6 . 45-48. 1 9 1 . though it be made. Ib. the purifying and disci­ plining of the body to m a k e h i m ready for the Greater Mystery to come. God's approach to m a n is still the approach of God. Per­ sian. Jacob's experience here. It is unreasoning m e n w h o need such a shepherd. 154. to others it brings great benefit as a counsellor. 155. As Philo tells the story.. and in this sort of conversation it imparts many secret things which no uninitiated person may h e a r . the device of the rods produced not striped or mottled sheep. like that of Moses at the bush a n d of A b r a h a m at the sacrifice of Isaac. T h e deceit by which Jacob got the better part of Laban's flocks is twisted by main force.. 39-42. to others it speaks what is helpful as a teacher to a pupil. 180. LIGHT In becoming a shepherd for Laban. 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 . and other types of men. Agr. F o r the dream opens by Jacob's being addressed. Heres. 158. even to the point of quite misrepresenting the Biblical story. are only ignorant. like these. i.." But he cannot tend all sorts of sheep. b u t some people. and by careful training can be taught to align themselves with the higher life. by n a m e .. in order to make the incident typify the true effect of Jacob's mystic shep­ herding. For Jacob's dream is this time a vision of the Mystery i n its various stages. 1 8 9 . but his thought was in general no less clear of the obligation of the sage thus to help other men. i. that is.2 5 6 . 1 5 7 . 160.172 BY LIGHT. Jacob is a type of the fact that the good king and wise m a n is a shepherd. since in connection with it Philo gives us one of the clearest of his pictures of the Mystery as a whole. Laban becomes angry. and Jacob is warned i n a dream to r u n away. shows. is of this highest type in which G o d speaks to h i m as a friend.. Ib. 42. b u t white ones: that is. T o some the mystic word (6 iepoc. as Agr. xxxi.1 9 5 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).. 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. . Praem. P h i l o tells us. 29 F o r his sole objective w a s the g o o d of his subjects. comprehension ( o u v s o i c ) .MOSES FOR GENTILES I8 5 had received rulership and kingly power not like those who force themselves into rulership by shock troops. Mos. Ib. 28. and his hatred of e v i l . 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. 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). Moses renounced a n u m b e r of the interests that spoil the rule of k i n g s . toils ( n o v o i ) . 1 5 2 . he like a good judge subjected his natural love for his children to the impartiality of his m i n d .1 5 4 . 30. and cavalry. . H e committed to him the entire cosmos as a possession fit for His heir. i.. Ib. See Ecphantus. . i. Wherefore each of the elements was made subject to Moses as master and altered its inherent properties to become subject to his commands." 3 1 . 148. 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. Praem. a g a i n according to L a w . infantry. legal censures arid punishments for sinners ( ^ o y a i KCCI naXw ouv v 6 | j ( j ) . and praise and honors. endurance (Kaprepiai). his magnanimity. 54. 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. con­ tempt for pleasure (yjSovcjv unxpo\|. 29. See Les Idees. self-control ( o c j ^ p o o u v a i ) . technical skill ( s m o r y j u a i ) . p. Mos. . but be­ cause of his virtue and fineness of character.. quoted in my "Hellenistic Kingship. 76: the king "claims the lion's share of the better elements of our common nature. cf. Mos. 155 f. 149. n a m e l y abstemiousness (eyKpcnxiai). 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. discomforts (KaKorraGaai). keenness ( a y x i v o i a i ) . which was guileless and pure in all things small and great.iai). 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. U p o n t a k i n g office. 2 1 . 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 .." p. KOX&OZK anapTavovTUv v6\i\\\o[). i.. 150 f. for the righteous (Srraivoi KGCI Tijial KccropGouvTUV 80 A s Moses renounced material wealth for these higher values.. H e chose rather the w e a l t h of N a t u r e . F o r by using his will power. F i r s t he put from him­ self all ambition to found a dynasty through his sons.. and kindliness toward all men. justice (SiKaioouvai). 54. and by powerful fleets. cf. F o r as G o d thought Moses worthy to share in the portion H e had reserved for Himself. of the rivers and all things else that are either elements or mixtures of elements.

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

i. Ib. 39. 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. Only the sin of the young Hebrews with the daughters of Moab is told. to encourage the people. Ib. given a rational explanation. and with it the ultimate virtue of the race and the glory of the Jewish priest­ hood.. 40 Moses was careful of every type of honorable obligation. Ib. De Legibus. Ib. 2 : "magistratum legem esse loquentem.. H e spoke the truth about everything. Ib. 1 6 3 . 42. 243..Ib. Ib. 1 8 5 . T h e wood which Moses threw into the waters of Marah 43 perhaps only showed a power given it by nature. N o n e of the set-backs. honored justice and equality. 43.. cpcovfi 8e avfrQCOJtivxi XQT\xai. 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. here his speech. or perhaps it was endowed with that power now for the first time to meet the emergency. 1 7 3 . .. 38. b u t there to glorify the character of Phinehas. 44 M/vnuovEveiv oxi OV&QCDJIOS c&v e?ouaiav eiA/ri<pev laodeov. 179. legem autem mutum magistratum. de­ fects. 176. 196. and weaknesses of the race is told.. 42 For the most part Moses is lost in the story of the adventures of the Israel­ ites.. i. Also Cicero. Miracles are everywhere softened. but too because God wished to honor the one H e had ordained as their leader. God was merciful to the Israelites in the desert because of H i s inherent 37 38 39 equity and benevolence. tva Jtooaigfrcai xo&a \ikv xal fteia.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. 37.6q in reverse order. 328. even to letting the Edomites go unpunished for their unfriendliness. but who cared for his people.. 4 1 . T h e story of the exodus continues. 44. III. 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. Mos. and Philo becomes so interested in the narrative that Moses appears only occasionally. a power perhaps unknown. and his Aoyoc. 198. 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. 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. xal Xoyw. or omitted. but to the chastisement which would make for his improve­ ment. and always dealt with a miscreant not with a view to his shame." This is Philo's v6|iog entyv%o<. 40. while the Egyp­ tians were overwhelmed in the waves by a change of wind to the n o r t h . H e was a m a n 41 who did not vaunt himself in the authority of his rulership.

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

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

vii. Mos." pp. legal administration. however. 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. Hence the ideal k i n g and lawmaker m u s t have a share i n the chief-priest­ hood. a n d the Governing Principle by one w h o is a governor. while the k i n g w h o has a n absolute rulership. ii. per se colere deum officiose. 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. or dependent upon. Stobaeus. 5. But in representing Moses as the priest Philo had had to do violence to the Biblical record. See my "Hellenistic Kingship. The king had primarily to see to it that the priests carried on their functions rather than himself to conduct sacrifices. worship of the gods. In QE. that is. IV. ii. but is not himself otherwise connected with the priesthood. has been metamorphosed into a deity among m e n . 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. palam per suum ministerium facientes. For h o w could He w h o is propitious. and Philo may have assumed that his readers not only knew the tradition of the Egyptian and Homeric kings. a n d is himself Animate Law. For the Best must be honored by the best m a n . Philo's motive for representing the royal VOJJOC qi^vxoc as a priest is. to be sure. 56. 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. 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. Now the k i n g bears the same relation to the state (jtotag) as God to the w o r l d . LIGHT from God. quod oportet eos.). This element was an important part of the Pythagorean formulation of royalty which Philo is himself following. priestly function. a n d w h o deems those properly worshipping Him to be worthy of privilege. qui aliorum dominantur. is a n imitation of the order a n d harmony of the w o r l d . So. is n o less fitting f o r a k i n g . and the priesthood. not answer such p r a y e r s ? 55 The royal office was of course originally almost universally associated with. military command. In explaining the latter Diotogenes says: 56 The third duty. IV. Diotogenes lists three aspects of the kingly office. 66-68.190 B Y LIGHT. not far to seek. 61 (Wachs." 57. likewise the k i n g is best i n the earthly a n d h u m a n realm. 5 7 55. 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. For the state.. in which Moses founds the priestly office. 105 Philo makes the following trenchant observation: "mihi videtur priscos reges simul et pontifices fuisse. . but understood the interest Augustus had taken in the priesdy office in con­ nection with the founding of the Principate. just as God is the Best of those things w h i c h are most honorable b y nature. pp. All that Philo says about the priest and his raiment was meant to be understood primarily and fully of Moses.. 263 ff.

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

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

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

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

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

LIGHT SeoraToc). as in all else.. In order to sing this song with absolute perfection he gathered a mighty company. Moses' successor. in matters of rulership in general. comes to socialmindedness ($iAav0pcdma). and. Moses began his final song of praise while still in the body. but to the persons God should designate. When God had designated Joshua. like an archetypal drawing. 86.196 BY LIGHT. speaks of his last days as its supreme exemplification. Ib. xal xa a^jvextixcotata \I£QX\ XOV xoqxou). men as learners that he might teach them a simi­ larly grateful attitude. must be selected by H i m . the moon. and could attune his soul to the divine musical instrument (ooyctvov). but also. Ib. 61 ff. Moses presented him to the people. Virt. £UA|/UXOC. But Philo's description is too remarkable for paraphrase: 83 84 85 86 He gathered together a divine company. 72. since he must be endowed by God. 85. He reproved them for theirj 83. who should look to Moses as the archetypal pattern. along with the choral hymns of praisej to God. 5 1 ff.. judged by their own technique. whether king or private citizen." specifically as respects dealing with successors. when he had taken his place (xayftEu. In the midst of these he composed hymns in every type of mode and interval. and the angels as critics to watch how. namely earth and heaven. 84. some of which prophecies are yet to be fulfilled. and was solely concerned that the succession to his honors and to the rulership should go not necessarily to his sons or nephews. and the sacred choir of the other stars. 70.) in the aether. In this.. Ib. we infer. Here Philo. in order that men and ministering angels might hear. In such a matter he will not trust his own wisdom. earth the hearth of mortals and heaven the house of immortals. The passage ties back all he has said about Moses in the Vita Mosis with the objective he has had throughout. . Here at the approach of death he acted differently from any other person. that is the elements of the universe and the most important parts of the cosmos (aftooioucc deTov. mingled. he made not a single false nbte. In this new state he prophesied the fate of each tribe. For upon his soul was clearly stamped the divine seal of KaXoKayaQia. But Moses the hierophant. This matter completed. true emotions of good will to the Nation. Moses was to be the "norm and law for all later political leaders. who pre­ sented his own life as a good model. 51 f. is elaborated in the De Virtibus. For the man selected is to be the pilot and governor of the people and must have greater than human wisdom for the task. namely to show Moses as the great vouoc. That is. with definite reference to the Vita Mosis. in the course of discussing the great Greek virtues and their fundamental relation to the specific laws. Cicero's way of expressing the notion of the VOJJOC spvpuxoc.. This section. 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.. namely the heaven and the whole cosmos. using Moses as the great type of this virtue. xa o t o i x e i a xov Jtavtoc.

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

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

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

Moses was fully aware of the immaterial world and its nature at birth. he was never himself tinged with the Egyptian taint. 82. For Moses was excellent (aordoc) at his very birth. So he is definitely contrasted with Jacob who deserted Laban. While Abraham and Jacob had so much to learn. iii. and bring them into his service. It was there too that he got his commission to carry on the fight. 106. Fug. 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. make them fullfil their natural function. 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. says Philo. N o a h went out of his way deliberately to build himself an ark. Ib. 7. but nothing so explicit has appeared as this about the birth of Moses. but seems an equally objective act for Moses. H e was a stranger in the body. T r u e he attacked the Egyptian. It was on this level as the complete mystic that Moses lived his entire life. . LA. T h e final achieve­ ment of Abraham was but the starting point for Moses.1 5 . Moses was. The account in LA. 5. but of commission. not an episode in Moses' development. the sheep. is not so clear. 148. but that is only the attack of truth against falsehood. Ib. bodily life. T h e whole experience of Midian was then not one of endowment. Post. so much did he long for immaterial nature.. but are prevented from doing so by that all-pervasive evil spirit of the Greek World. who was Epicureanism with its doctrines of pleasure and atoms. or to make a campaign against it. Mind. Moses rushes in and protects the senses from this attack. that is to provide himself with a body. 10.1 1 4 . Raguel-Jothar. the divine repre­ sentation sent into the confusion of Egypt." the divine Logos. Raguel-Jothar is the mind. Mut.. who entered Sarah's womb not from Abra­ h a m but from God. 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. In Midian his first experience is to see the rude shepherds trying to prevent the seven daughters of Raguel-Jothar from watering their sheep. 16 ff. 8... Philo also contrasts Moses and Noah. indeed. for apparently Moses was in some doubt as to whether to desert the body. 1 2 . 37 £. iii.200 BY LIGHT. to go to the mystical experience. 6. Conf. to straighten matters out. Egypt. T h e picture of the childish omniscience of Moses given in the De Vita Mosis is then a definite part of the conception. 174. sneaked away from him. 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. whose seven senses are trying to give spiritual nourishment to the perceptions.. 1 1 0 . 4>06voc. 9.. LIGHT T h e Patriarch as a special divine incarnation has been suggested in the miraculous conception of Isaac. This inci­ dent is elaborately allegorized. with the result that the mind is now able to regulate the lower life.

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

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

and Enoch. ii. but must grasp it by the tail and t u r n it again into discipline.. And while the identification of each Sephira with a Patriarch in the Kabbalah (see below. T h e passages lead us strongly to suspect that this G o d of three powers. but God recalls him. Jacob the Ruling Power. By this Enos would have been the x6a(AO£ vanxdc. who was also the God of the Powers. Mut. pleasure. We have no proof that Philo made any such identifications." though predominandy sharing in only one. can be too lightly discredited.) must not r u n from pleasure like the m a n not yet made perfect. 1 1 f. Moses' first instinct is to r u n from it. the Creative Power. I do not feel that the suggestion.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 203 T h e three Patriarchs are symbols of these three "natures" according to which God is Kupioc. LA. slight as the evidence is. Such may well have been the revelation to Moses at the bush. al Jteoi Geov xai xcov tsQCoxaxcov avxou SwdjiECDv. Identification of each of Philo's seven great Patriarchs with one of the seven Powers has already seemed a possibility. T h e rod which is transformed into a serpent during this scene at the bush is discipline. In the next triad Abraham would have been. 24. 5 1 .5 5 . Still the picture is of the experience and lessons of the m a n already perfect. T h e y are also X^PITSC for they have become divine gifts to men. from the above. Noah the Merciful Power.) proves nothing for Philo. and Isaac the Logos. as Philo does in almost every one of his writings. Several explanations of his inability to speak 22. 367 f. W h e n w e . rroiK)TiKyj. 23.. the Merciful Power." a statement that would naturally be taken as referring. would have been the highest of the three. 88-93. is none other than the God of the Mystery. 6 Oeoc. we notice that on the basis of the same allegory each of these three natures is a "power. the revelation of the Mystery in three terms. and hence must be taken as something more important in Philo's sources and thinking than its cryptic exposition would superficially indicate. the Logos. to the three great Powers of the Mystery. K u p i o c 6 0e6c. for the Perfect M a n (o reXzioc. but from such scattered hints as the above it would seem not at all unlikely. since the same allegory of the incident is seen to have appeared in both the Allegory and the Exposition. 22 28 24 25 Yet Moses feels himself unable to speak well enough to fulfil the mission on which God is sending him. pp. Moses would have been left to represent xd ov. Mig. . and that if we had more explicit information it would appear that Jacob represented the Suvapic paoiAiK/j. the middle of the three. 25. Abraham the Suvapic. which when thrown away becomes a serpent. in between the two. and Isaac. Each Patriarch had all three "powers. it does not at all weaken the pos­ sibility that Philo did so with his Powers. not of one being perfected. or possibly Noah would have been the Legislative Power. in which the Patriarchs shared.. look from this curious statement to De Abrahamo. Moses' life is throughout the life of the perfect m a n turned to war against the forces of evil in the world. 76. Enoch the Legislative Power." SuvajJic. 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.

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

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

102. present. the passions.. T h e h y m n that is sung when the Egyptians. 1 7 2 . the three stages of the Mystery. 1 5 1 f. Conf." or "opinions. w h o will lead us to the two others. softening it as though it were food. to "knead the savage and untamed passion by the aid of Logos the Softener. 55. 50. 54. 59-62. Ib. 1 1 1 . even after leaving bodily Egypt. yivoc. the Cutter. first the cosmic stage. LA. 5 1 . . Conf." It is the dragging influence of the "manifold" as contrasted with the single. a mixed or manifold company of "beast­ like and unreasoned teachings. 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. and third TO ov. iii. or come to understand. T h e last stage is inaccessible to humanity.. 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. 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. Philo is careful to point out. 36. the death of the lower mind and its six sensuous manifestations.. b u t is the destruction of unholy doctrines and of the words that come from t h e m . Sac. destructive for t h e other. but it is Moses. xii.." 49. In leaving Egypt the Israelites made the great mistake. Mig. T h e Israelites brought with them those hampering vestiges of the somatic nature. 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. perish is the song of a mind that is beginning to see. the mystery of G o d as revealed in the three Powers. 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. a saving force for the one." 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. led by t h e keenest vision. TO 0£o4>iAe<. 154 f. 5 3 .. second the Immaterial Stage which is collectively represented in the Logos. Ib. TO^eug. 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.. This death of the body. Exod. a n d future could otherwise have brought t h e m . 203 f. Philo points out. Ebr. 70. of taking with them all sorts of herds. especially 62. T h e Israelites are to go through. 56. 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. They h a d still. 1 5 3 . ii.206 B Y LIGHT. 39. 52. b u t the destruction of the Egyptian host was the destruction of the body. Heres. is not physical death.

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

T h e one stage is purificatory. By allegory it is evident that this food is illumination. Fug. Ib. Ib. but cannot know what it is.. 169. 64. Moses as hierophant and prophet tells us it is the Logos. Mut. 168. 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. indeed. T h e logoi or angels are only lower manifestations of the single Stream.'' Only a day's supply of such food is given at a time. Ib... From this food came two cakes. get this spiritual food in portions (Sia \iipo\jc) : the souls of the more perfect get the Logos as a whole. nourishment o n the heavenly e m o T y j \xa\. More than the Aoyoi and emoTKJuai. 68. Ib. 176.1 1 8 the divine food is the Rock. In Det. chiefly because m a n is not capable of receiving the grace of God in a single torrential rush. Ordinary m e n feel their souls brightened and sweetened by it. T h e great passage on the manna is in Legum Allegoric*. 259 f. .. LA. 174 f. 1 1 4 . iii. Only Moses can tell one what is the nature of this heavenly grace in the soul. the Logos. lacks hope.. or the Manna. 169. spiritual illumi­ nation. 1 7 1 . 1 6 2 .. Cong. 1 3 7 .. LA.. the food is the Logos and Sophia. 60.. Heres. 1 7 3 . Cf.. 62. 63. 61. Ib. the other of oil. 162. 69.. Ib. and for several reasons. Philo insists. LA. 67. 65.1 7 4 . 167. 70.. W e ordinary m e n do.208 BY LIGHT. 1 7 0 . one of honey that sweetens the life. and sense. Sophia. It is probably the former which he has in mind when he says that it falls only in the wilderness of passions and wickedness. 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.. T h e manna is white because of its being itself the light that illumines the soul. 1 6 1 .. 59. 1 9 1 . Philo is confused here because ultimately the distinctions of personalities or agencies within the Logos or Light-Stream had n o significance. There is some confusion in the passage as t o whether he means that the manna is the Logos or the lesser logoi. wisdoms. H e that would have God's grace otherwise. are synonymous. and the soul has grown so faint that the lower leaders of the soul want to give up the struggle and return to Egypt. There it is stated that Pleasure. Ib. iii. 139. 177 f. and because by daily rationing we are constantly reminded of our dependence upon God. 138. 66. iii. is condemned to eat earth. supervised by the lower divine agencies and angels and logoi. the snake of Eden. the heavenly Light-Stream itself as well as its lower and plural manifestations. faith. 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. Cf. iii.1 7 6 . and these. 163 f. Fug. T h e higher stage is where God acts directly to give the Logos as a whole. Ib. Ib. Fug. H e calls it both here.. 1 7 5 . LIGHT manna of the wilderness is repeatedly explained in the sense of such a merci­ ful dispensation. the passions. It comes after a testing time when there has been a scarcity of food..

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

29. 6. More elaborately he allegorizes the words. and from which H e quenches the thirst of the souls that love God. esp. the rock of Meribah. where the detail that the rock was &xQOTOU. 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. W i t h these details are shown the altar. where Moses was commanded to speak to the rock. and the twelve man-tent units are arranged in a circle like that of the zodiac . literally. 1 1 ) . Philo explains this twice. 79. while the reality beyond is fittingly indicated only by an arch through which nothing can at this stage be seen. See D. 78. causing its twelve streams to flow out one into each of the surrounding tents. Exod. xvii. viii. 86. 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. 24. p. ii. T h e fresco stands beside another which represents the significance of the temple as admin­ istered by Aaron. 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. and candlestick of the Mystery of Aaron. Feuchtwang." Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums. "Der Tierkreis in der Tradition und im Synagogenritus. 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. apparently.. represented by the Israelites. the rock of H o r e b . censers. and again G o d through Moses comes to their rescue. It is notable that Philo follows the general Jewish conspiracy of silence about the second incident of the rock (Numb. the twelve fountains of the Bible conceived as a unit. 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.210 BY LIGHT. LIGHT of the biblical encampment. 10. T h e soul. LIX ( 1 9 1 5 ) . appar­ ently. Exod. It is at least possible that Philo has in m i n d this peaked triangle of Powers. 1 5 . w h o stands by the central fountain. . xvii. The Hebrew word is taken by com­ mentators to mean flint. The phraseology comes from the reference to the incident in Deut. Moses it is. 6. as I have illust/ated it in the Dia­ grams on pp. and so was forbidden himself to enter the Promised Land. This time it is the first incident of the water brought forth from the rock by Moses' rod. For the precipitous (dxQOTO^iog. 243. xx.og is added. touching the fountain with his wand and thereby. 241-267. but instead struck it in anger. LA. "Behold I will stand before thee there upon the rock in H o r e b " : 80 77a. 79 T h e passage is too slight to emphasize particularly except for the general identification of the rock and its stream with Sophia. pp. 80. a huge figure in a peculiar checked garment. 7711 Again the Israelites are discouraged and mutinous because of their thirst and the hardships of the journey.round a central spring from which flow twelve streams.

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

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

since the music made h i m forget to eat for forty d a y s . LA. 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 0 ." Imperfect as was this experience.. as typified by Moses in this experi­ ence." N o w the hierophant. F o r his ap­ proach. Post.. or get knowledge of. 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. Sac. 8. O n e can come to see G o d only through the Powers that range the universe.. Moses recognized that the highest possible gift to mortals was to see. 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. In a very similar way Philo in another passage discusses Moses' ambition to see God. iii. can only hope to k n o w the things attendant and consequent upon God. 100. 28 f. xaxafredaaoftai xqj KZQiavyzi xa>v dxxCvcov JCQIV 1 8 E I V JCTIQOC. Ib. h e not only listened to the music. Immut. 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.. Geov lb.. 96. 165-169. For it was on the mount that h e came to "stand with" God. 102.. "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 ) .. 103. 104. and h a d beheld "the unseen nature" (if) aeiSyjc. 1 5 . 1 4 1 . Moses. that is God's "back parts.. 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 ) . 7 .. $ u o i c ) .1 4 3 . 36.. 1 0 1 . must be through the Powers. only H i s existence (urrap£ic. 98. X T | V 6 ' y\y2\iowixi\v ovaiav 6 PouXojievoc. Post. the symphony of a life in which ideal virtues are perfectly expressed in actions. 99. H i s incorporeality was a result of the experience. 164 £. 97.. lb. 30-32.ovda x a l EJt6jxeva x a l oaa n-exd x6v Yvcovai. share H i s immutability. Since n o w h e has "gone out from the body" Moses can 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 95. I n this h e is contrasted with the m a n of gradual improvement. Som. These things which are u e r a TO OV are defi­ nitely the Powers. and without material food. While on the m o u n t Moses was a n incorporeal listener to the divine music of the Cosmos. Mut. Conf.2 0 . T h e Sophos. T h e substance ( o u o l a ) or quality (rToioTyjc) of God is inaccessible.. like Abraham's. i. 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 . 1 7 . .T H E MYSTIC MOSES 95 2 I 3 for is "to see that G o d is invisible. h e showed his complete renunciation of the body. Fug. was aware in advance of the inevitable failure of his attempt to see G o d . 1 6 . Philo says. By t h e fact that Moses could five so long upon the vision of divine things.) can be apprehended.: avxaoxec. yaQ iaxi aoqpqj xd &x6A. 23-26. laxai. and his failure. God in his Being (o KOTOC TO elvai Geoc) can­ not be seen by mortals. but himself became a part of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that is to fellowship with the company of angels. . indeed inhabited.. and Jacob. 178.1 0 . by the Logos. and in many passages Philo defends this posi­ tion by denying to the Logos any independent operation or existence. 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. and has stationed beside Himself. T h e philosopher's rever­ ence for the Absolute as the single Deity was strengthened by the Jewish insistence upon the one God. or God has taken from them. was entirely a creature of his age in this as in most else. but to a yLvoc. and to Moses any divine nature that was not a gracious gift to one w h o was essentially a m a n . But he was translated by the Word (ofjuxx) of 179 176. 3 1 . " So when Moses was about to die he did not "leave" in order to be "added" like the others. for there was no room in him for either adding or subtraction. "stand here with m e . 1 . and this signifies the highest O n e . Ib. who are "added to" something better in the process. 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. 7. they could be called Qzoi. Sac. Such is Moses to whom H e says. and on the other the popular tendency to deify great figures and heroes. Ordinarily the solution was made.. 179.224 B Y LIGHT. 6. On yevog see below. as has appeared. But Philo did not live by theory. 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. note 187. by Powers which were emanations of H i s own nature. in line with the growing Neo-Platonic solu­ tion. Deut. LIGHT Philo had from his Jewish ancestry and from the Neo-Pythagorean and Platonic traditions in philosophy. Types of this are Abel. though in contradistinction to 6 Qzoc. and has made able to soar beyond all e!5r) and yevn. v. Ib. and these passages must be taken as being quite as representative of Philo's position as the others. 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. 177. 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. as by the Sabellians in Christian tradition. that the one God had a body-guard. Isaac too abandoned the bodily elements. Abraham. 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. 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 ) . Philo. First a passage must be considered as a whole which has already been discussed in p a r t . was Sopu^opoupevoc.

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

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

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

A n d yet Moses. 127 f.. 198.228 B Y LIGHT. even while in the body. bringing them the blessing of God. and one that is truly filled with God (cog d^Yidcog deia^ouoT]). Philo would probably have been quite unable to have made his conception of Moses much more consistent than these various passages represent it. Such souls come down to the earth at all only be­ cause they have a great love of learning and seeing. and averting the worst of God's wrath. like the other oofyoi. the Patriarchs. Conf. Mut. But he who clings to the nature of unity is said to approach into God with a certain familiarity of kinship (cognativa quadam familiaritate).. Was.. was different from ordinary m e n from the beginning. he was changed into divinity (transmutatur in divinum). 77-82. 197. then. There was only one Deity in the strict sense for Philo. For he was the great example of a soul sent down to dwell in the body.. Immut. so that he might be made akin to God and truly divine (ita ut fiat deo cognatus vireque divinus). mixed with absolutely none of these things which exhibit a share in duality. 28 ff. 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. and with all of them but Isaac. 105 f." the words indicate that God gave Moses a share in H i s own nature. he says. ii. But if Moses was thus contrasted with God. Post. Conf. 29. 195. .. It seems to me that what Philo had in mind was the Pythagorean notion of the rpirov y s v o c . Moses was called up to the top of the mount. as has been stated. interpreting God's will to them. cf. but actually to procure the good for others is the function of a greater and more perfect soul. H e is contrasted with God in His pure existence. 47 ff. T h e uncertainty is. 23. 30 f. Philo goes on. since it has been initiated into divine things and is the deifer. he was quite as sharply contrasted with any m a n but the Patriarchs. "alone": because the prophetic intellect. but he is given strikingly the office of mediator between m a n and God. See above. 195 W h e n Moses on the mount was told by God "Stand thou here with me. LIGHT tent to be allowed to make use of the formula of blessing. which was sufficiently vague 196 197 198 194. For when he had left all mortal categories behind. was really living in the conceptual virtues which are indistinguishable from the divine Aoyoi.. which never becomes naturalized to its new abode. Moses is in all this still a human being. QE. is like unity. but which. Gig. the quality of fixed unchangeableness... Moses Qzoc in Philo's mind? T h e answer must be yes and no. p. But Philo goes farther than this. by the fact that his humanity was ultimately meaning­ less in his almost completely divine nature. and as such is the natural ruler of the fool. 127. 194 Moses is called 0e6c in as much as he is oofyoc. that of Philo's age. even though the fool be a king. 196.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

42. Ib., 58-64.



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

54. Fug., 98.

55. Ib., 98 £.

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



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

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



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

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

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



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

60. 62. 64. 65. 66.

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

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



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

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

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

68. Conf., 95 f.

69. As in Mut., 43 f.

70. Gig., 58 f.



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

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



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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 . however. a Mystery with secret objects "manifest to the sight" of the initiates. as Philo reveals it. pp. and hyssop." 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. so far as we k n o w . one that goes quite beyond the conception of the meal in normative Judaism. and together with this in the other passages just cited. T h e fact remains. it is a frank turning of the rite into a "Mystery. and included denunciations o n l y of objects of art regarded as actual representations of Deity and used as objects of wor­ ship. and r r p a y u a T a Upa.262 B Y LIGHT. See the Vita Contemplativa. yet Philo's range of observation is so great that he might have been speaking on that subject in the lost context. T h e r e are the Therapeutae. H e r e I can only indicate that within the Judaism of the Diaspora. 103. LIGHT 102 Jerusalem. consuming the most holy food. ii. a more usual mystic celebration. 104. their hands con­ cealed under their robes. bread. 0 d a o p y i a . T o be sure there are other stray details which perhaps should be introduced into the picture of this mystic Judaism. . w h o m he mentions as being the only living m e n w h o realize the ideal 103 104 102. Judaism. nothing would be more to be expected than that they should have done so by putting mystic meaning into the traditional rites of Judaism. G. an entrusted deposit. meeting for the sacred meal every Sabbath. t h a n the annual Passover. passim. A n d it is in Philo that the basic charac­ ter of that Judaism is exposed. This would m a k e the requirements of Gentile admission to the Passover of minor concern to Jews in the Diaspora. Indeed if Jews were to have made a Mystery of their own. that if the paschal meal is behind these words of Philo. salt. which o n l y the initiated could properly receive and guard. T h e r e is also a hint that the Jewish Giaooi were under rrpeopurepoi ordained into a mystic "patriarchal succession. F. 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. 2 1 7 £. T h e mystical character of the frescoes is something that must be pointed out in the next study of this series. These seem to be the hermits contemporary with Philo. after they had been feasted spiritually upon allegorical commentary on the sacred L a w s . governed by a body of laws with its own iepoc Aoyoc. Moore. A n d the further fact remains that the passage seems to imply a more regular ceremony. Together these constituted a solemn napaKaraGyjKK). c l a d in white garments. 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." shrouded with secret meaning and sacramental power. See above. 40 f.

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

.264 B Y LIGHT. LIGHT was not fundamentally a Judaism with Hellenistic veneer: it was a Hellen­ ism. 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. presented in Jewish symbols and allegories. to be sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

not Goodrick's "singly born. 42 35. §6£y)c eiAiKpivvjc." The word never meant "only born" except when used with such a word as "son" or "daughter. 10.. of H i s goodness. vii. and into others it is easy to read ideas from other philosophies. Sophia is herself an effulgence from ever­ lasting Light (ajrauyaona 4>OJTOC diSiou)." 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. but in connection with Law. 36.272 i5Y LIGHT. T h e "immaterial light" familiar in Gnostic.. and very likely from a different writer." and then the combination meant rather "only son" than "only born" . "the breath of the power of God a n d the clear effulgence of the Glory of the Almighty. an £IKGJV. 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. is here not the ultimate deity. She is radiant and unfading (\a\inpa Kal d f j d p a v T o q ) . F o r it appears in vii.. Yet she is to be chosen dvTl $CJTOC. Ib. F o r our purpose it is sufficient to find that this Sophia-spirit is a concept with these striking divine qualities. image. vii. 10. a n d then to enquire what such a list of quali­ ties implies as to the concept of Sophia that lies behind them. For such a Sophia. but n o t in the sense of physical light which fades. Ib. 37. Such must be the fundamental thought of Sophia. n p o T e p a . 29. 41. Philonic. instead of light. Wisd. She is then light. Editors have made this number a standard comment. 42." is certainly the right meaning here and elsewhere. b u t indeed upon comparison with light she is found to be something anterior. Sophia is certainly a light emanation. lucid. Indeed. 4>£YYOC. 25. inviolable. Ib. As such she is the Orphic novoy£v£c. clear.. is very interesting. 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. 29. Ib. mobile. 38. w h o would have been the ultimate Deity of Stoicism. does appear in xviii. unpolluted. her beam is sleepless (dKoi|jy)Tov TO £K TauTV)<. vi. It could only with uncertainty be brought over to apply here to Sophia. This last word. TO acpftaQTOV qpcoc. fine. a n d N e o Platonic thought seems certainly what the author has in mind. She is something anterior. Ancient writers introduced numerological speculation often enough without our forcing it upon them. 40.. Holmes's "alone in kind. "unique in k i n d . T h e Stoic associations of many of them are striking. vii.). yet the author does not want to have her confused with physical light. 39. Himself utterly different from the G o d of Stoicism. LIGHT 85 has often been done by editors. though that term does n o t appear. 26. she is the Light-Stream from God's glory. 1 2 .. to be descriptions of Sophia as light. vii. 4. She is fairer than the sun a n d superior to t h e stars. Stoic as many of the terms may be. whence Sophia with these qualities emanated. a n d as such she reflects to m e n as in a mirror H i s £ v £ p y s i a . 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. as in Philo the Stoic details are subordinated to the God. Accordingly I would understand t h e words already quoted. I see no point in the fact that there are twenty-one titles here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B u t w h e r e T h o u biddest t h e m . t h e noise of t h e t h u n d e r . t h e s h i n i n g of t h e l i g h t n i n g . Y e t didst T h o u n o t destroy h i m for ever. b y its increase a n d d i m i n u t i o n s . 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 . a n d o n e w a s called N i g h t . preserve t h e i r u n c h a n g e a b l e course. 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 . w h o c a n w o r t h i l y declare t h e m o t i o n of t h e r a i n y clouds. a n d 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 . 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 . a n d w a s a d o r n e d w i t h all sorts of flowers. 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 . 70. " T h o u hast also m a d e it n a v i g a b l e for little a n d g r e a t creatures. a n d 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 . 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 . x6au. a n d bestowedst u p o n h i m his five senses. See Fragm. 9. a n d t h e s h i n i n g l u m i ­ naries. 1 1 . a n d t h e variety of several t r e e s . 72. t o t h e w a t e r . . 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 ? 8.6a\iov. O L o r d G o d . t o t h e air. Gen. w h i c h comes w i t h fury f r o m t h e ocean. 26. a n d for ships. meaning that man is created the microcosm. 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. VII. 3.ou y. a n d T h o u didst b y o a t h call h i m t o a resurrection. A n d at t h e conclusion of t h e creation T h o u gavest direction t o T h y Sophia. a n d b o t h t o air a n d w a t e r . B u t w h e n m a n w a s disobedient.b e i n g (£K TOU [XY\ OVTOC). i. i. a n d loosedst 6 8 69 70 71 72 68. a n d t h e d r y l a n d t o a p p e a r . i n o r d e r t o t h e supply of p r o p e r food. 7. 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 . 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. 7 1 . 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. i. Gen. yet r u n s b a c k a g a i n . A n d besides all these t h i n g s . a n d t h e p r o d u c t i o n of fruit. w h o c a n possibly describe it. saying. b u t laidst h i m t o sleep for a t i m e . a n d t h e o t h e r D a y . 4. 69. " L e t u s m a k e m a n after o u r i m a g e . Job xxxviii.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 . 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 . t h e n o u r i s h e r s of those p l a n t s . a n d f o r m e d h i m a b o d y o u t of t h e four e l e m e n t s . c o m p e n s a t i n g t h e w o r k of m e n . Gen. 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. B u t as for t h e sea itself. 5. 5. 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 . 6. a n d t h e m o o n for t h e c h a n g e of seasons. 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 after o u r l i k e n e s s " . 16. 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 . The phrase may well be an expression which we do not have elsewhere.

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

Ps. 9. a n d t h e h e a r i n g . w h i c h strikes t h e air. 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 . d i d s t f u r n i s h it w i t h various p l a n t s . w h o didst establish t h e g r e a t d e e p . 88. w h o didst e n c o m p a s s this w o r l d . w i t h t h e circuits of t h e years. 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. a n d beau­ tify it w i t h flowers. t h e a r c h a n g e l s a n d a n g e l s . a n d o n every side m a d e s t a m i g h t y cavity for it. a n d didst r e n d e r t h e f o r m e r n a v i g a b l e a n d t h e latter fit for w a l k i n g . t h e h e a r i n g perceives i t . 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. 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 . 2. 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 . civ. 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 . t h e s o u n d s of various sorts of flying c r e a t u r e s . w h o didst b r i n g t h e l i g h t o u t of T h y treasures. 8. 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 . a n d e n r i c h it w i t h seeds. a n d w a t e r it w i t h c u r r e n t s . w i t h t h e noises of c r e e p i n g t h i n g s . v. 7. 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 . i. b y m e a n s of t h e t o n g u e .T H E MYSTIC LITURGY 321 palities a n d t h r o n e s . w h i c h co­ operates w i t h t h e air. 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 . 22. for food a n d for labor. i. 16. 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 . a n d c r o w n it w i t h herbs. 86. Gen. a n d s o m e t i m e s dost still it w i t h a c a l m . a n d o n its d e p a r t u r e didst b r i n g o n d a r k n e s s . w i t h rivers. 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 . t a m e a n d w i l d . 13. a n d sometimes dost s m o o t h it i n t o a p l a i n . a n d filledst t h e latter w i t h t h e s a m e . 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. s o m e t i m e s dost e n r a g e it w i t h a tempest. 85. 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. 11. xl. Is. didst b y H i m m a k e this visible w o r l d . 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 . 22. b o t h t a m e a n d w i l d . w h o didst separate t h e great sea f r o m t h e l a n d . 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 . Job xxxviii. . a n d all t h i n g s t h a t a r e t h e r e i n . t h e o r d e r of 83 84 8 5 8 8 87 88 83. 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 . t h e n u m b e r s of m o n t h s a n d days. 10. a n d after all these. a n d for t h e affording of s o u n d s . w h o didst fix t h e firmament. Job xxvi. 84. 87. w i t h m a n y a n d various living creatures. Jer. for t h e s u p p l y of o u r w a n t . 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 . Gen. 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 . Job xxxviii. a n d m o i s t e n it w i t h springs t h a t never fail. s t r o n g a n d w e a k . 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. 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 . 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. 14. 12. 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. 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. 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 . t h e d i s c e r n i n g of piety a n d i m p i e t y . a n d 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. a n d t h e m u l t i t u d e of t h e p l a n t s a n d herbs. T h o u didst justly cast h i m o u t of paradise. i n t h e east. h e m i g h t receive t h e r e w a r d of it. a n d didst i n t r o d u c e h i m i n t o it. 25.J22 B Y LIGHT. 16. 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. as i n t o a r i c h b a n q u e t . 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. only f o r b i d d i n g t h e tasting of o n e tree. a d o r n e d w i t h all p l a n t s fit for food. a n d t o r i p e n . 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 . a n d t h e observation of r i g h t a n d wrong. T h o u allowedst h i m t h e privilege of e n j o y i n g all t h i n g s . a n d tasted of t h e f o r b i d d e n fruit. b u t hast also m a d e m a n for a citizen of t h e w o r l d . .b e i n g (£K TOU \XY\ OVTOC). 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. LIGHT t h e seasons. w h i c h w a s i m m o r t a l i t y . 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 . A n d n o t this o n l y . didst by Christ p l a n t a paradise i n E d e n . Yet of T h y goodness T h o u didst n o t overlook h i m . i n h o p e s of greater blessings. b y t h e deceit of t h e serpent a n d t h e counsel of his wife. n o r suffer h i m t o perish utterly. 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 . B u t w h e n h e d i s r e g a r d e d t h a t c o m m a n d . a n d a c c o r d i n g t o o u r likeness. 20. O G o d A l m i g h t y . T h o u didst w i t h a n o a t h call h i m t o a restoration again. 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 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 . t h e courses of t h e r a i n y clouds. 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. 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 w h e n T h o u m a d e s t h i m . a n d p r o m i s e h i m life b y resurrection. a n d as t o his b o d y . 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. 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 . t o g r o w . 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 . a n d over t h e fowls of t h e h e a v e n . 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. 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 . 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). Job xxviii. for h e w a s T h y c r e a t u r e . 26. 90. 19. didst loose t h e b o n d of d e a t h . B u t w h e n T h o u h a d s t laid h i m asleep for a w h i l e . " 17. for T h o u . 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 . 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 . 21. 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 . Gen.

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

like that already found with Jacob (see above. of Praise. Amen. 97. a n d w i t h t w a i n flying. T h e c h e r u b i m a n d t h e six-winged s e r a p h i m . 96 97 94. the source of N a t u r e and N a ­ ture's Law. It is interesting that the Christian hymn or prayer begins with what the Jewish prayer has not hinted. It comes to a full stop with the Jewish Trishagion. T h o u didst afford t h e m a pillar of fire by n i g h t to give t h e m light. t h r o n e s . 96. which here appears as Christ. F o r all these t h i n g s . pp. holy. w i t h t w a i n c o v e r i n g t h e i r feet. as m e a t o u t of t h e a i r . 95. however. culminating in the consecration of the Eucharistic elements. a n d let all t h e people say it w i t h t h e m : " H o l y . T h o u didst r a i n m a n n a f r o m h e a v e n . a d o r e . a n d didst o v e r t h r o w t h e seven nations of C a n a a n b y