E.R. Good Enough - By Light, Light, The Mystic Gospel of tic Judaism | Greek Mythology | Mysticism


















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.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

noble and good virgins. p. By fertilizing her Osiris could beget 7 8 9 10 7. 1923. the type of the projection of divine light into the lower realm. Just what Isis typifies does not clearly appear. 11. aeavxdv xd Tcvsv\ia: ib. De Iside. the greatest of the gods.23 ff." Each is hailed in the Liturgy by its magical name. Kal SEKTIKOV cmaoY\Q yzviotuc). Eine Mithrasliturgie. the light god and the Logos. T h e vision of all these comes after the first experience by which the mystic breathes into himself the Spirit of Qod." This is Helios. . so that n o w he too is a traverser of the W a y which the supreme G o d has created. $uoeuc GyjAu.. Above h i m is still 6 IIZYIOTOC. 1 2 . O u t of all this material it becomes clear that the W a y is important. fair of form. is clothed in a white chiton. b u t not a specific formulation within the pleroma. has a wife. But there is no standardization of the pleroma. 9. 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. LIGHT Tuxai of the heaven (or the universe. clad in a white chiton and a scarlet chlamys. 10.14 B Y LIGHT. and made the nuoryjpiov. established by Law. a golden crown. Strengthened by this h e ad­ dresses God in magical light terms. She is the "Female Principle in nature. a n d with a fiery crown. 8. oupavoc). T h e highest of the lower deities is the mystic guide along the W a y through the pleroma to the Greatest. through w h o m he produces Horus. H o r u s would seem to be the Divine Stream as clothed in mat­ ter. Over against this general organization of the Light-Stream. Isis. the Cosmic Logos. a type whose origin seems primarily to have been in Persia. and begs H i m to approach. T h e Greatest is also young. in which the mysticism of sex is fundamental. the most holy guardians of the four pillars. 1. T h e n he sees "a younger God. Dieterich. t o w h o m the lesser deity is besought to conduct the mystic. This experience of seeing the Greatest means at once death and birth to the mystic. with linen garments and golden diadems. First the mystic is conducted through the pleroma described. with locks of fire. the sacrament or secret teaching.. with a light-glance. 1 2 . p.X8 dbid xov deCou dxevi^cov etc. 10. also with magical names. the recipient of all coming into being" (TO T/JC. 53 ff. Accord­ ing to Plutarch Osiris. Ib. H e is distinguished by the fact that h e traverses the Heavenly Road. Geoc. Beneath these seven goddesses are seven gods with the faces of black bulls. 11. Immediately he is surrounded by light rays. and finally he comes to the Greatest G o d . as well as the general formulation of the supreme G o d beneath w h o m is the pleroma. that is the greatest of the lesser divinities. H e carries a starry symbol and emits stars from his body. H e has golden hair. sacred (icpai) and of the same type of existence as pivi|jippo<|>op. a n d the light-mysticism. 1 1 : iXsvotxox elg roftou Mai Styei avxdv jieQuiaxoihrxa <ftg ev 6 8 $ . 20 ff. stands the Female Principle type of formulation. IX. T h e idea of the pleroma is important. A . and wears trousers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Philo compares this ap­ pearance of three to a person casting two shadows. so that by its beams the eye of the understanding is dazzled (oKoroSiviav). iv. though Leisegang (Pneuma Hagion. P. But really all are one 82 has to be quite advanced as a mystic to get even a vision of the three. as the Creative and Beneficent Power. T h e clearest expres­ sion of the idea is a comparison of God to the sun whose rising obscures the stars. 79.. 77 ff. note in Philos Wer\e. quotes these passages. 3) points out that this axid is a Platonic imitation. i^br. Immut.. sometimes of one. 6 GJV. 44. 81 Again when the h u m a n mind tries to rise to God the Great King. when knowledge of Existence shines in. 30.34 B Y LIGHT. V. Paris. LIGHT 78 Lebreton. Praem. 3. 1. a disconnected thing. 37 ff." 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. In LA. 58. shine in upon the eye of the soul. its center filled out and complete in nature: QG. 1922. 119 ff. 102).. 0e6c.. the Logos is itself a axid fteou. 96 (cf. are possible for Philo's generation because to the Greek a strong light "darkened" a lesser light. 80. 100. 107. divided in itself. Harris. where the one G o d is described as manifesting H i m ­ self as a 4>avTaoia. But I cannot see why he thus wishes to discard these when he accepts and quotes other passages almost as Christian.e. it so excessively illuminates everything as to darken what things had seemed brightest in themselves. in unclouded light. beams unmixed and pure and most luminous. So the sun's rising £TnoKia£si the light of the stars. iii. 79 80 So when the conceptual beams of the shining God. it can see nothing else. Leisegang. Adler. a Catholic writer on the origins of the doctrine of the Trinity. . 78. just before it arrives at that goal "pure and untempered rays stream forth like a torrent. though he admits his figure of "shadows" is misleading since there is no such thing as a shadow in deity.. as the Royal Power. Heilige Geist ( 1 9 1 9 ) ." an impossible figure for moderns. Virt. 164. n. 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. n. Fragments.. 195. 82. 7 1 . 3 2 . as in the parable of the cave. Abr. 23.. for.. Kupioq. 2 1 1 ff. Jules Lebreton. 81. ii. and indeed speaks of the "shadow" as "beaming forth" from the central <j>avTaoia (airauYa£o|j£vcjv arro TOUTOU OKI&V). Opif.. One who is still strug­ gling along in semi-obscurity (6 JtQOxojtTGOv) sees only a dyad. while the "one in the middle" is the naTY\p TCJV OAGJV. i. but sometimes as three. On the Powers as overpowering light-beams see also LA. Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinite.. These "shining shad­ ows. 1919. 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. p. The man who has completed the mystical journey (6 xe^eiog) sees the triad. p. 27. 30.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ebr. 142. 23 (SVF. vou-og) TCOV E V T(p xocFfico jtQOVoia Sioixouuivcov. n o w a moral. it is rather because of his own personal character. by virtue. 2. there is much light thrown on Cicero's point of view.. UJC' dftavaTOv (putfECOc. n. See a number of interesting parallels in Zeller. has also passages of Lactantius and Minucius Felix). 1 6 1 .ou Xoyoq r\ A. Lactantius. vii. 6 OQftog X6yo<. . 72.6705 (Plut. as Philo points out. T h e one most striking feature for our present purpose is that A6yoc.. 48. So with Philo the great L a w of God or Nature is the opGoc Aoyoc. Cicero. LIGHT only is the universe a single civitas common to gods and men. II. 3 3 9 ) . Deor. of the common possession of the universal ratio or recta ratio. goes back to Zeno himself. SVF. . Praem. and political terms are quite interchangeable. Ttoyog E S T ! ftEioc. Prob. and was of a nature to do full justice to the mystical elements of his teachers. 9 1 3 . is iden­ tified n o w with the universal Logos. n o w a universal mystical sense. De Legibus. 70. and VOJJOC. then. p. 05 br\ vojxog EC?TIV. 69. 46. i. Poseidonios.og dipEufiTig 6 OQfrdg X6vog . Stob. so. 130. d. vou. 1. OQ^og Xoyog had been used . and not because he has not a philosophy fully capable of mystical inferences. Ill. m e n are agnates and fellow-tribesmen of the gods.3 2 3 has an extended exposition of the legal philosophy of Cicero to try to distinguish the Posidonian elements. while in another passage 70 71 72 67. I. II. Gr. Cicero. 6 vofxog. II. T h e term vopoc is specifically interchangeable with 6p8oc Aoyoc. II. dqpftaQTog EV dftavaTCp 8iavoia TimcoftEig. individual. 36 (SVF. Mig. 7 1 . Even the Stoic necessity and providence were included in the same conception: so Chrysippus defines: Eiu-aQU-Evn EO*TIV 6 T O U xoau. I. 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 . but as a city is built upon family relationships. Phil. III.. Nat. 162. and in such an identification the L a w of N a t u r e becomes a moral as well as physical force. I. and with Nomos in now a civil.. 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. vii. 10a (Wachs. such as we find in Philo.. " I n the same definition Aoyoc 6doc might be used. cf. 67 T h e Stoic opGoc Aoyoc. If Cicero goes on from this last passage to n o mystical flights himself. 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.. He goes on to say. If his argument frequently runs away from his data. in the world city... 1 ) where the term JtaQa cpvcav is defined as T O JtaQa TOV OQCpov x a l x a x a (pvaiv Xoyov. Heinemann.56 BY LIGHT. and Minucius Felix tell us that that equation of natu­ ral and divine law. cf. T h u s the word opGoc is frequently omitted and Aoyoc alone p u t in formulae where we k n o w opGoc Aoyoc must have been understood by both Philo and his reader*. we understand. 2 2 5 . as it expresses itself finally in Cicero. opGoc A6yoc. 68 69 Philo drew in part from much the same philosophical sources as Cicero. both as universal.. 68. n o w with Nomos. 55. Cicero.

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

Agr.. 81.58 B Y LIGHT. 80 with note ad loc. Cher. On this passage see Hans Meyer. It is rather the Light-Stream coming down into matter.. iii. T h e legal implication of the term seems not lost even when it appears as the source of the virtues. . not from anything analogous to the Stoic "fire. p. 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. 146. God's L a w did in Philo's m i n d permeate and guide the universe as an immanent principle. Mos. O n e must not be misled. LIGHT SIXT] and n o m o s . 2 1 5 . especially of justice. p. 36. Indeed the op0oc Aoyoc of Philo is the Logos in its legal aspect. I cannot agree with Heinze." that it came. and it was always qualitatively distinct from the matter it permeated. 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. 1 2 1 . for He has appointed TOV 6Q$6V avxov Aoyov xal JtQCOToyovov mov. Geschichte der Lehre von der Keim\raften.. Plant. 79 It is from this point of view that the Aoyoc Geloc can be called the Sionoc Kal Ku3^pvyjTy)c TOU navToc. 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. T h e Stoic terms can be used because the terms are themselves older than Stoicism and have no specific materialistic denotation. 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. so that it becomes the constituent element in the square. Cont. i. the Pythagorean symbol of justice. ii. Bonn. LA. H e r e then are God and H i s first-born Son. usually called the Logos alone. and treated the two thereafter in so loosely dualistic a form. 5 1 . whose identification with op0oc Aoyoc and nomos is complete. who received the guardianship of this sacred flock like a viceroy of the Great King. a concomitant of the ultimate material substrate.. Lehre vom Logos.. the chief virtue. by the fact that the 6p0oc Aoyoc guides the universe according to (Kara) justice and law. T h e identification of the L a w with the Logos is thus complete. Similarly its legal force is felt when it is given a place in the Pythagorean scheme of the universe according to numbers. 40. 82. 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. 240 f. that this implies an undeniable carrying over of the Stoic materialism. by Badt in Philos Wer\e. 80. 150.. to conclude that the two are distinct. in which the opGoc of "right" angles is identified with the 6p06c of "right" reason. 1914. Som. It was the immaterial God who was the Tryjyy] vo^wv. see. But it was from God. 83..

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

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

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

pious.. Som.. xiv. Praep. together with a complete misunderstanding of Som. but here the Greek reads dixaioc. 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. The nearest expres­ sions in the Old Testament are Ps. Pantasopulos. xix. " he has been t a l k i n g of God as b e i n g d i f f e r e n t f r o m o r d i n a r y j u d g e s . ii. 296f. cxix. n o . who was a b o v e even the Aoyoc-vojioc. 1 0 9 or SiKaioouv/jc. in Philo's eyes. 8e X Q I O T V louaa Poapeuxfi XQiyzai xcp xfjg laoTnroc. Philo. T h e c o n f u s i o n i s here q u i t e deep. 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 . as the s o u r c e of l a w s . 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. xix. Fragments. So to Philo. Kal S i K a i o o u v y j c 111 108 He governs ouv SIK/J.. 32. VIII. xvQie. which seems exacdy what Philo is trying to avoid saying. in the following statement (QE. 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 .62 v) ilvaoc |j£Ta 110 B Y LIGHT. 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 . ii. ii. God has the imoTY\[iYi Kal Suvajjic "of the truly good. I t h i n k .. 277.) Miinchen. p. Sixfl. E V EiQ-nxai. elc. Spec. 1 3 7 : Aixaiog el. and so deflecting it from its original application to God as an attribute. A t one 108. aov. oftev xal E V E X E Q O I C . t h e n . 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 . Fragment. 109. Tauchnitz Edition of Philo VI. and the l i k e . makes this passage and the above mentioned Heres. i n . 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 . 272): jtevia xaft' eaurfiv u£v eXeov xQTI^t elg djiavoQfrcooav evfieiag. 186. Mfg. 1 1 2 . and h e n c e e s s e n t i a l l y a b o v e all law. 163 (see note 105). 22 ff. Harris. which twice says dA/nftival xal 8ixaiai al XQiaEig o~ou (xvi. the basis for stating that Philo regarded God as the model of justice. 1 7 2 ff. in Euseb. 10: xd xQiu-axa xov X V Q I O U d^Tyfrivd. while as we shall see hardly 112 SiKaioouv/j is the g r e a t way in w h i c h m a n can i m i t a t e and conform himself to God. £ a u T ( j . LIGHT ttyiyyi cf>pov^O£CjJc. i. Die Lehre vom naturlichen und positiven Rechte bei Philo Judaeus (Diss. 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 . But neither is as fitting an original for Philo's statement as the Apocalypse passage. pp. Ev. f| xQtcac. . xal oaiog KVQioq. e n t i r e l y s u f f i c i e n t u n t o Himself. 10.. " T h e r e a s o n for t h i s is not far to seek. Legat. xal evfrfic. " but these cannot be forced b a c k upon the n a t u r e of God.a b i d i n g " was h a r d l y to be applied to Philo's God. but is not. j u s t .. 2) ? Philo's form of reference suggests a non-canonical source. 1893. $E5ixaiG)uiva em xo aux6. As far as I can judge from so small a passage Philo seems to be making an Old Testament statement of the justice of God into a derivative statement that justice is a divine thing. This latter quotation is traditionally referred to Deut. was to be d e s c r i b e d by this t e r m . beautiful. ftelov yaQ f| Sixaioawn xal dfisxaaxov. and then makes H i m the rryjYy) § i K a i o o u v / ) c . Elias. in that he is not c o r r u p t i b l e by b r i b e s . T O \ J fttov Sixaid ECTTIV.. A k i n g m i g h t and s h o u l d be SiKaioc as he h a r m o n i z e d his l i f e w i t h the incoming Aoyoc-vonoc. but he was a b o v e the laws of the r e a l m . for I think that to Philo God as " j u s t " would be ultimately as a n o m a l o u s as the c o n c e p t i o n of God as " p i o u s . V6IM$. I do not agree with him. 4.. and Ps. 52. 7. 336. 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 . 2. 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. and God. u n e s c a p a b l e . so the w o r d " l a w . oxi f| X Q I Q I C . May Philo have had in mind the lost original of the Apocalypse of John.

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

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

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

85.2 4 8 . where Philo makes the most of the text. In Spec. 1 3 1 . .66 129 BY LIGHT.. " 'Equality' put in place all things. xal 8iau." which begins by dividing all material things down to the "so called indivisible a t o m s . cosmic Law. But inequality and greed give rise to war and are destructive of what things exist. LIGHT dred drachmas from one man would seem to be equal to the tax payment of a talent from another. 187 God is described as calling xd \xr\ ovxa etc. and inequality is the source of dfiixta. Fragments. T h e immediate agent of the division is the Logos T o p e u c . Joseph Cohn. 132. T h e r e is no reason for assum­ ing an immediate use of Aristotle's text. 101. cf.. " then goes on to divide the 0£Cjpy]Ta into parts for which Philo finds no n a m e s . T h e longest single discussion of this point is found in Quis Heres. the "Cutter. 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 . 1 0 ) . Spec. 133. 115-164. 204. 166. Legat. that we find Philo using \OOTY\C as one of the chief principles in the cosmos. ii. All nature is full of cnKcuoouvy]. which means that it is made law-abiding. For "the legal and equal are seeds of peace. 134. T & X6y($frecDQT]Tdslg du-udrixoug xal djteQiYQdqpoug [xoipag. the jjyjTyjp SiKcuoouv/jc.oioxT}xag xal exsQOtoxrjxcov xauxoxTjxag xal e§ dxoivcovrixcov xal dvag noaxcov xoivcoviag xal dgu-oviag xal ex u." It is not surprising to find the notion in o t h e r writings of Philo. and the universal c a u s e of pres­ ervation (ocjT/ipiac) and duration. iv. 145. of Philo. p. Harris. T h e ideas probably antedated Aris­ totle in Pythagoreanism. 328. says that Aristotle's discussion lies behind these remarks of Philo. and hence is used by Moses as the basis of all his laws. where laoxrig is T| Sixaiocarvrig 6\o%y\ xal nr\yr\. in a note to his translation of this passage. p.2 3 8 . See Spec. "A neo-Pythagorean Source in Philo Judaeus. 47). God is 6 laoxTjxog xal Jtavxog xoii dgiaxou br\\iiovoy6<z: Spec. Fragments. 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. according to unshakable laws and ordi135 129. Heres. Mut. i. VI. 134 133 and in H i s rulership as always being guided by i t . 6 (Harris." in Yale Classical Studies. i. 1 3 0 . The last two would seem a summary of all the preceding. 135. cf.. It is of considerable importance for our purpose. Mos. 295. i. iv. 2 5 3 . Spec.ev dviaoxrixog laoxrixa ex be axoxoug qpcog egyaadfievog. 232: olg xd dppioxxovxa'xaQL^Exai Jtgog xd xfjg exdaxou ipuxfig o*xafru/r|u. p. 144. Spec. 130. 265. and were kept ever familiar in later times. xv. See the Tauchnitz Ed. then. "and he divided them in the middle" (Gen. TO elvai by making xd§iv e£ dxaSjiag xal e§ djtouov jtoioxTjxag xal dvonoicov ou. iv. i.evoc. § 1 3 1 . by the universal presence in it of looryic. III (1932). 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 . I have examined this whole passage carefully elsewhere.cou. if not the funda­ mental one. 2 3 1 .exQcdv \o6xr\xi Jtap/ eavxq) xo dvaXoyov exdaxoig. God is referred to as creating l o o T y j c . QE..axa xal u-exga axafru.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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.

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

. could be a possible help in the higher reaches.. 51 f. It would be a complete break in the sense to see. 1893 (Diss. 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. and obeyed it. A. So there is no reason to think that highly as he praises the Jewish L a w he did not include even its statutes when he wrote: When the prudence of the acute and seeing Nature enters the soul as though it were coming into a country all the racial laws that are in it grow insanely angry and withdraw from worthy thinking. T r u e the Jewish laws are 95 the clearest image of the polity of the cosmos. and had definitely to be transcended for the true experience of God. of this mystical ascent. with Pantasopulos. So far there has appeared ample ground for suspecting that Philo might well have re­ vered the Code. 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. LIGHT But the odd digression in the passage stands. 1 5 . ii. p. even the written law of the Jews them­ selves. as we are coming to see. 96. Mos. ii. but not with the idea that observance in itself could lead to God. and come through to the spiritual originals. beyond the material cosmos itself.). 22. T h e L a w might well be kept as a series of observ­ ances. 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. Such a parenthetical remark would be quite in point.9 2 B Y LIGHT. QE. W h a t Philo is rejecting is the very idea that a written law. 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. and requires its abandonment. at least. of all things. 96 But the whole objective of Philo's life was to get beyond all material images. 97 Only in comparison with "acute and seeing N a t u r e " could Philo have 95. Die Lehre vom naturlichen und positiven Rechte bei Philo Judaeus. 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. Pantasopulos. while it h a d nothing. the passage as a rejection of civil law for Jewish L a w . to offer his higher spiritual life. since bad things cannot live and stand along with good things. 97. if. . E . I n that sense one must r u n from the laws. at last to the Logos or God as the ultimate spiritual original. as statutory law. Philo really felt that the written Code was not an objective basis for the higher Mystery.

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

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

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

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

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

and five planets. T h e air is the nvcO|ja which feeds and nourishes the soul.. It would look as though Clement were draw12 13 14 15 16 17 18 io. It was on this stage that the priesthood of Aaron ordinarily moved.. T h e inner court as a whole represents the first stage of spiritual progress. II. moon. apparently six for each after the order of EzekieFs seraphim. 349.9 8 11 B Y LIGHT. onapjjaTiKoc. v. • 16. But Philo does not think this the best explanation. symbolizing the nourishing and fertilizing power of the north w i n d . others as the two hemispheres.. namely that the cherubim of the ark represent the t w o hemispheres. . 101. All of these are represented. 6 (Stahlin. 14. 15. which Philo here explains as a symbol of God and the Powers in the way described #bove. T h e table. Ib. 102 ff. ii.. the altar of incense for earth and water.. 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.. 11. Mos. T h e holy of holies itself contained the ark. The idea is clearly that the north wind was the rain bearer. not bread and salt. T h e seven-branched candlestick is on the south. 12. as being in a mystical state. and so a symbol of heavenly nourishment and fertilization. and notes that the wings. Strom. p. and the heavenly fire appears at once as the great system of order of the planets and as the source of light. representing the heavens by specifically representing the sun. 1 7 . would involve an apprehension of the world as it is in adoration of its Creator and as a symbol of the great spiritual forces. or m / c u p a 9cou. T h e two lower elements are rising in prayer and worship. I. the stage where the material world as a whole was experienced. A n experience of the cosmos. T h e details stand for the four elements. 98. since the holy of holies be­ yond was closed to it.). ii. on which Philo says was bread and salt. with the sun at the center. then. the symbol of the mystical higher light. into the material world. and the candlestick for the heavenly fire. 18. Clement has "loaves" on the table. Ib. 104. Mos. It is notable that Clemens Alexandrinus. 1 3 ." So instead of reproducing this allegory Clement goes on to the other interpretation which Philo suggested but with additions. 105. by which we may fairly see the projection of the Aoyoc. Ib.. the source of light. stops at describing the ark in terms of the Powers. Ib. H e tells us that another symbolic interpretation was in his day also current (TIV£C <|>aoiv). vol. 99. LIGHT 10 the gratitude (zvxapioTia) of earth and water or of all the things of the earth. 18 f. made together the zodiac. T h e symbolism does not appear at first glance. 105. T h e curtains are also the four ele­ ments. Ib. For he says that some interpret the cherubim as the two Bears. stands at the north. I I . who has reproduced the description of the tabernacle as here presented detail by detail. See Chap.. the table and its burden for air. however.

. as will appear. symbolic of the zodiac. through the cosmos as philosophically and mystically interpreted.. is a border of promegranate-shaped tassels. then he gives the symboli^iti. Opif. for air is naturally black. This hyacinth robe stretches from t h e shoulders. differs from Philo on too many details to have taken his material from Philo. Ib. ii. and symbolized the offering of the elements to G o d : this is ulti­ mately like Philo. one which Philo also knew. Ib. and the bells typify the attunement of these two. T h e flowers represent earth. while he interprets the symbolism of the curtain and the candlesticks quite in the same way. BJ." ^This is quite what was to be expected after the symbolism of the temple. 29. and bells. furnished by sea. 2 0 7 . that is the outer circle of the universe. Philo goes on to tell of the priestly dress. 1 0 9 . T h e altar of incense had thirteen kinds of spices... where. It is of hyacinth color to typify air. 1 1 7 .1 3 5 . V. Josephus too. Ill. It will be increasingly clear that the Mystery of Aaron brings the worshipper to share in this great cosmic praise and worship of God. earth.2 2 1 . and hence suggests a single and a considerable move­ ment with wide divergences. to the feet. 22. It would seem that there was considerable variety in the way in which Jews made the objects in the temple represent the mystic rise from material confusion.1 8 3 . These all appear on the tunic which represents the sublunar sphere and its elements. he says. T h e chamber repre­ sents the worship of God by the cosmos. Mos. ii. T h e regalia as a whole. 1 7 9 . and comes out with the same fundamen­ tal conception of the temple symbolism as a whole. First he describes the dress. 20.1 1 6 . and oupavoc. is "a likeness and imitation of the costnos. ii. for several reasons. Philo repeatedly says this: Mos. Immedi­ ately after his explanation of the temple in De Vita Mosis.. On the difficulty of harmonizing this with the Hebrew text. and air. its details are likenesses and imitations of the details of the cosmos. 88. on 19 20 21 22 23 24 19. sea. All alike see the chamber as a symbol of the worship of immaterial Reality by the material elements. the tassels water. 1 1 9 . 2 1 . 1 1 7 . to the KOOJJOC v o y ] T o c and God. Instead of bread and salt upon the table were twelve loaves. T h e three courts or chambers of the temple represent to h i m earth. T h e robe Aaron wears represents the four elements.T H E MYSTERY OF AARON 99 ing from another Hellenistic account of the Mystery of Aaron. flowers.. 24. 23. Antiq. T h e mantle over the shoulders represents heaven. There. rather than upon Philo himself. at the ankles. but with quite a different treatment of detail. T h e significance of the priesthood which ministers in the cosmic temple Philo explains by pointing out the symbolism of the priestly robes. First. But the very variety of detail is essentially important to us precisely because so strong a unity of purpose carries on through the variety. see the note in Philos Wer\e to Mos. See the note in Philos Wer\e to this later passage... are the heavenly symbols.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. .io6 BY LIGHT. This was the Power. with the six characters engraved on each. As he puts on its imitation he ought straightway to become one who bears in his mind the original pattern. from any bondage to pleasure. 5 1 . of being in harmony with the great sweep and course of the universe. as Badt righdy points out ad loc. not as an indi­ vidual. made u p of Logos and Matter. to be sure. and hence the world must constantly invoke Gsoc. 1 3 3 . he wears in type the two hemispheres in the jewels on his shoulders. if one may say so (and indeed one must say nothing false about the truth). 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. its savior or pre­ server. Philos Wer\e. it will be recalled. the flowered hem of earth. but as one w h o has at last achieved the ideal now popularly associated with the Stoics. T h e significance of the Jewish priesthood and temple has been here set forth with unmistakable meaning. symbols of the zodiac are the twelve stones upon his chest arranged in four rows of three stones in each row. is dressed for the religious rites so that when he goes in to offer the ancestral prayers and sacrifices. and is a transformation of the worshipper into the Cosmic Being. ii. 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. 50 51 One further section sets out in figurative but clear language that the preparation for this experience is purification from all material a n d fleshly concern. so that he is in a sense trans­ formed from being a man into the nature of the cosmos. but still oriented in a great har­ mony through God's Powers of Goodness and Mercy. It is a worship designed for those w h o are not worthy of association with God.. or of mystical union with H i m . while the breastplate as a whole represents the principle that holds together and rules all things. Mos. the pomegranate of water..1 3 5 . he yet ought to try unceasingly to be worthy of the cosmos. himself a litde cosmos. the scarlet of fire. LIGHT depended but still depends. that was 0c6c. 136-140. adorned in this fashion. 52. Such a person shares in the cosmic communion of the world with the Creator. T h e purpose of all this imagery is indicated in Philo's o w n summary that follows: The high-priest. Ib. or deifi­ cation. the ephod of the ouQavog. 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. 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. That is the xoonoq. of living according to Nature. and becomes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 1 3 . 104. They are enclosed in gold as the elements are encircled by ether.. Ib... there is a striking divergence of detail. in. whether the whole passage or only the gloss (eo quod Christus dominus est) it is difficult to determine. Ib. Their names are en­ graved on the stones like seals. Ib. in that their virtues are stamped upon their successors. H o w much of this is a Christian interpolation. for the virtues of the Patriarchs are like the forms. ioi. 123 f. 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. 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. 102.11 4 B Y LIGHT. but he himself is seated by God the F a t h e r . on the fact that the world is subject to him and beneath him.. T h e breastplate is l o g o s . . T h e two shoulder pieces of Exod. QE. n o . but throughout it is the h u m a n logos he seems here to have in m i n d . 103.. T h e whole seems dragged into the context. so frequently happens in Philo that it is impossible to discard any passage for its tangency. Philo now goes on to the symbolism of the great robe of the high-priest. Ib. ii. also be­ cause logos is directed doubly toward divine and h u m a n things. Ib.. 109. that is. 1 1 7 .. piety to God and kindliness to m e n . that will appear to be one of Philo's most impor­ tant concepts in the Higher Mystery. 1 2 1 . 109. But there is a brief excur­ sus on the Logos as head of the world. Ib. Ib. 7 are the two aspects of religion. it is double because there are two kinds of Xoyoc. no. Ib. the L o g o s or the world of f o r m s . 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 ioo. but that. 122. As Philo closes his description of the robes of the priest he continues to emphasize the cosmic symbolism of the details.. and while the interpretation in general follows the lines we have found else­ where. 117-120. LIGHT represent truth or wisdom. rather than that he is just letting his imagination r u n wild. T h e names of the Patriarchs are associated each with one of the stones be­ cause the twelve Patriarchs themselves represent stars. T h e sym­ bolism is elaborated on several details. 105. Ib. Ib. 108. of course. T h e two stones on the shoulder are again the hemispheres with the six signs of the zodiac on each. T h e last few sections deal with the plate of gold on which is engraved the sacred four letters. 107. H e r e is a notion. Sometimes the differ­ ence of detail may be regarded as sufficiently explained by Philo's own love of fanciful extemporization. T h e higher significance of the white robe is not here explained. xxviii. 112.. This is a symbolum incorporeae intelligibilisque formae materiae. slightly developed.. 108.. he adds many details of interest. 106. i n . evSiaSexoc and rrpocfopiKoc. but there are just enough references to the interpretations of "others" to make it much more probable here also that Philo's variations arise from his attempt to reproduce several current inter­ pretations. Ib. 1 1 4 .

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

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

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

as well as a conception (£vvoia) of the First G o d . and revering God's image (the cosmos). God. the Maker of the cosmos and of all things that are therein. while ultimately from God. cf. because man's composite structure has been thus ordered by God. has been so fashioned that each of his two parts is made up of four elements. is immediately from and in the cosmos in the same way as the cosmos is from and in God. rendering praise and thanks in full measure to God. T h e cosmic stage at which one becomes a part of. For there are two images of God. and can hear also the Suvauxic. his arguments and evidence. Pascher. There are other striking Hermetic passages which Pascher does not quote. Man's first step. with some expansion. 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. VIII. Poimandres. is first. man is third. and knows the cosmos also. and man is another. T h e Hermetica show strikingly the place of the cosmic worship in the general rise to the Higher Mystery. T h e n the soul rises up. the cosmos is one. and the cosmos to him. X. 10. Rather than simply refer the reader to Pascher. so that it seems the cosmos (that is. but has made man as a composite being to govern in conjunction with Him. the cosmos is second. And if man takes upon him in all its fullness the function assigned to him.. by this. where he sings with the stars the great hymn to the Father. governs all things. Man. and so. p. and to what things he in turn is to do service. 14b. which is composed of other 116. the universe as a whole is quite a part of the Hermetic preliminary to approaching the Powers. provided that he bears in mind what action is suited to the part he has to play. Herm. like the cosmos. a Power himself. For you must note that man. inasmuch as he.n8 B Y LIGHT. Man appears to be made in the image of the cosmos and has ouurraGaa with it. 1 1 8 . Konigsweg. and provided that he recognizes what things he is to use for his own ends. Asclepius. that is. Another Hermetic passage is strikingly suggestive of Philo's formulation of the mediating work of the high-priest as a cosmic priest: 116 117 118 God. the Master of eternity. Scott's translation. in order that he may be fully equipped on both sides. the ordered universe) has been righdy so named. he becomes the means of right order to the cosmos. 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. 24—26a. which are above the oupavoc. the tend­ ance which is his special task. LIGHT tian piety. Corp. in respect of the divine part of him.. 5. is a single whole built up of diverse parts. I. H e is made like them. 58. A t the end he enters into God. 1 1 7 . must here be reproduced. . and sings with. 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 . becomes one with the Powers. likewise singing their h y m n to God. not unaware that he himself is a second image of God. the hzmzpoc 0£oc. Man knows himself.

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

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

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

Source. the starting point of what is to Philo the Jewish life.) suggests that Philo is referring here to the Sceptics. 332) lists Xenophanes. against the Epicureans. Parmenides. for he will have become moulded by doctrines of piety and holiness. Fourth. See my "Neo-Pythag. to whom must of course be added Aristotle. as saying that the world is ayivryzoq x a l aiSioc. 2. This thoroughly Platonic-Pythagorean creed (both schools agreed on all these points) is a necessary part of the Torah. that there is but one cosmos. Yet they denied not the existence of God but the possibility of our knowing about Him. Doxogr. 3.1 7 2 ) with a doctrinal summary in which Philo insists that the story of Creation brings out four points. 144. and especially with m a n . i. First against the atheists. not proof. against polytheists. the uniquely existent. 69 ff.). created through the instru­ mentality of the Logos. . 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 book closes ( § § 1 7 0 . 1 7 5 .122 BY LIGHT." p. .. J. ad he.. Cohn (Philos Wer\e. he affirms that God is one. 1 7 2 . Abr. but only what we might call an immanent presence and cooperation of God in the created world. that God exercises providence in the world. will lead a blessed and happy life. Third. LIGHT plains that the first chapter of Genesis teaches that the material world has been created after the pattern of the immaterial. These would seem to be especially the Epicureans. T o the credal prerequisites for the Mystery which Philo laid down for 1 2 3 4 5 1. The approach is different in the Exposition. iv.. Aetius (Viae.. both those in doubt about God's ruling. 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. 984a if.. which exhausts all matter. rather than a plurality or infinite number of KOOJJOI. that providence here is not the Stoic providence which implied determinism. 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. 1 1 . . and has stamped in his soul these marvelous and priceless forms (dhr\) (that is the five articles of this "creed"). but by God. Opif.. Philo affirms that God exists and rules the world. W e know from his other writings. Fifth.. as has been said. as the Prime Cause. and theology crystallized into a creed. For "he who has begun not by hearing these things but by learning them with his understanding. The Pythagoreans were divided on the subject. Diels. 32 ff. See the elaborate proof in Spec. against various schools he affirms that the material world had a beginning in its present form. The refer­ ence if not to popular and unphilosophic atheism. and those w h o denied His existence altogether. 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." It is natural that Philo should have had to emphasize a correct conception of God from the Jewish point of view for converts. 5. against the atomists of all periods. and Melissus.. Second. 4.. . But for Gentiles God's very existence has to be proved. II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. It is a stage of convalescence. I n t h e Allegory* it would appear that the experi­ ence of Enoch was not so unusual. LIGHT an attitude of hope is the first step in mystic achievement. appreciable only by the intellect.4 3 .130 B Y LIGHT. a state of jjcravoia. See below. Abr. But h e has not yet achieved this. since his actual translation could have offered no hope for any of his followers. 86: "ex sensibili visibilique loco ad incorpoream et intelligibilem ideam." 37.2 1 . See the Appendix. w h o have abandoned the sinful Egypt. living away from men. T h e dominant note of his character is his constant desire to get away from sin and sinful associates." H e aims at a tranquil stability of soul by aspiring for the $avraoia TGJV KCCA&V." 29 Enoch typifies the next step. 25. and the like. 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. Ib. cowardice for courage. QG. 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. since G o d has translated them into immortal yLvv\. i.. but never having reached the solution of his prob­ lems. 31 32 34 35 36 1 80 29. d|xaoxavo|bievoi5 netdvoia xal PeA/racoais. . 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. repentance for sins and improvement. H e is the m a n w h o leaves ignorance for instruction. in contrast to the bastard and falsely called rulers.. but w h o wander year after year in the desert of struggle. Such is the life of the recluse and student. It too is the life of the tribes of Israel. Praem.oi (XQ^ai must be the parts of the body or soul. 3 1 . Of Enoch Philo tells us in the Quaestiones that his repentance was specifi­ cally the purifying of himself from all injustice. and his reaching the pleni­ tude of perfect virtue. i. the conception of the mystic as a fugitve or emigrant from the confused world of sin inhabited by the great mass of humanity. not health. 34. T h a t is. H e is not yet the perfect m a n standing very close to divine power. H e r e appears a theme which will seem increasingly impor­ tant in the Mystery. 1 7 : fj em xoic. Ib. 26. 3 5 . These v6ftoi xat ajjev8covuM. for the convalescent is primarily getting away from his illness. 1 5 . It must have been in some such way as this that Enoch would have been commonly presented.. 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. a n end that came alike to h i m and Elijah.. 32. or sense perceptions. is the "doorkeeper which nature has p u t at the gates leading into the Royal Virtues within. Ib. 3 3 . 30.. 83. always seeking the truth. 4 1 . 1 5 .. Post. Enoch's translation was from the realm of the visible into an incorporeal idea. 36. Chapter VIII.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. Such teaching is psychologically sound. . 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 . 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 . 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 . 108.142 With this description B Y LIGHT. Many 1 0 8 more things could be said o n the subject. Abr. 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. 225-244.. 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. 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 . 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 . Abr. i n . 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. 1 1 2 . Beginning w i t h apprehension of t h e existence of God as a true doctrine Abraham to regiment h i s o w n nature so that t h e m i n d w a s completely dominant. By striving immediately and con­ sciously for the harmony w e can never achieve it. b u t i s a l s o b r a v e a n d warlike. But p i e t y . such but this is a d e q u a t e . 1 1 3 . the mystic m a r r i a g e . It will be noticed that Sixaiotfuvrj is here often a generic term for virtue.. 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 . t h e r i g h t r e l a t i o n w i t h God.. 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 . The incident also typifies for Philo the victory of the higher mind over the pleasure loving mind in the individual. a n d f r e e t o l o o k u p t o God. peace. 208. s e l f . Enduring happiness is a by-product from some interest which is in itself so engrossing that it dominates and thus harmonizes the entire personality. 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 fighting—for h e w a s not contentious a n d strife-loving — b u t w i t h a v i e w t o guaranteeing peace f o r t h e future w h i c h h i s adversaries The Lot. n o .. Ib. Abraham's justice appeared in his allowing Lot t o choose the part of t h e country h e preferred. a n d was finally rewarded b y being given happiness i n God. 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 . i s n o t a c o m ­ plete picture of t h e life of a character as Abraham. f u n d a m e n t a l a s i t i s . n o t for the sake of were destroying. Ib. 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. c o u r a g e . says Philo. 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. 109. Ib. 225. 208-209. and wisdom.c o n t r o l . 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 1 . A s the Sophos h e radiates "most brilliant and star-like beams of virtues. and has come to stand u n ­ changeably very near to the divine p o w e r . p. 289. Abra­ h a m has discarded all kinship to the flesh. Abraham as one w h o is raised above m e n into the immaterial life of God. 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 191.152 B Y LIGHT. Heres. and through them upon others." H e is associated with Moses in a brilliant description. 55 ff. Post. to which w e shall return. 196. in itself a Stoic term for the Sophos (SVF.. and who hence has become a savior and mediator of the higher L a w to men. is here used in the Stoic sense where it is made to mean "Son of God. This passage is quoted as a source for Stoicism by Arnim. 17 f. 197. 193. III.. LIGHT In another passage Abraham is the type of the fact that euvoulcc is achieved by eliminating the passions. of the soul of such a m a n as being a spark from which the dark souls of later genera­ tions can be k i n d l e d . See below. But I doubt that the explanation of evysvr\<. . 194. 118 f. 159. H e has fully realized the ideal of the Sophos. 88.. appears to be the Abraham of the Allegory as well as of the Exposi­ tion and Quaestiones." 195. Cher. 2 3 1 . Mig. and leaving the false notions of the Chaldeans (the Stoics) for the true doctrine of G o d . 127.. 192. 394). Mig. 603. Heres.. Sobr. Det.. SVF.. purifying oneself from sins. 27. So in Abraham are all the people of the world blessed. God has showered by grace (xapifeoGai) H i s gifts upon the Patriarchs. T h a t is.. III.

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

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

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

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

. H i s wife.. since she is Sophia. 33.. 94." is centered about his marriage. inas­ much as he is competent to teach others though unable himself to be taught. 28 T h e story of Isaac. Again those w h o are but midway on the road to perfection. 6 Tyjc oofylac y j y q j ^ v . 88. characterized chiefly by their perseverance (urto|Jovy)). 97. and result in the abiding presence of God. 103. 140. as an allegory of the mystical achievement of those "who hasten to immortality. 93.. the light of the soul. the symbol of the setting of the material fight of the corporeal nature. Such a m a n could not take a Canaanite woman as his wife. 29 £. 30. rejoicing always and daily in the Father. completely satisfied that all things are done according to nature by divine providence for the salvation and preservation of the universe. especially of those people w h o are completely purged in soul. So I understand the cryptic "quae (sapientia) secundum virtutem sumit aquae similitudinem. A t evening. 27. of the Light-Stream is the great allegory of Isaac in the Quaestiones. QG. she suffers neither decrease nor in­ crease. 26. 29. or what I am calling the Fe­ male Principle formulation. and in all His works. Det. Mig. the daughter of God. 88 f. 194-196. I am consistently translating sapientia as "Sophia.. for Canaan means "stupid. himself dis­ tinguished from indistinct things (distinctus ab indistinctis). Fug. 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.. and educated by himself. but to the whole problem of the basic conceptions of the Mystery. 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. like Abraham. Ib. T h e pitcher 29 30 81 32 33 25.. master instructor of himself. the bounteous o n e . cannot yet see God. This Allegory begins with the same conception of Isaac as that in the Allegory and Exposition: Isaac is mind. Y\ auTopaGyjC oo<t>ia. in God. but is the nourishment of others. Mig. Ib. must be an emigrant out from such a concep­ tion. and mother of all things. Sophia." Cf. which flows out like water. 28. For Pascher has rightly noted that the chief source of our knowledge of the Mystery in terms of the Sophia formulation.ISAAC AND JACOB 157 would put an end to all spiritual labor. Sophia. Actually the servant gets h i m a wife from the house of Nachor. 2 9 . but can apprehend Isaac." H e could not himself go to Chaldea. the servant comes to the divine fountain. not discontent with what is made in the world. iv.QG. that is. 25 26 The Self-Taught is nourished by no one.. which means Quiet Light. iv. . Rebecca w h o meets him there is Perseverance. Ib. Ib. 3 1 .." 32.3 1 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the mystic significance of this Sophia cycle Pascher quotes De Cherubim. says Philo. W h e n God begins to consort with a soul H e makes what was before a woman into a virgin (for God can have relations only with virginity) by removing the passions. for He begat them. In this union the soul becomes identical with Sophia (as feminine). . So must the mystic. as Pascher points out. that such a presentation would. 4) makes the idea behind all this clear. 88 ff. that he is drawing not at all di­ rectly upon the Isis cycle. but it is not thus clearly stated for the simple reason. As types they were helpful. is now playing a masculine role in im­ pregnating the soul. for him. for from that passage he concludes that God. each of w h o m at her impregnation "receives the divine seed from the Cause. so he has not cared to m a r k out too clearly the function of Sophia as a hypostatic personality. T h e seeds H e scatters are the Forms of the immortal and virginal Virtues (Virtue and Sophia are here parallel. not to go into the points on which I agree or disagree with Pascher. if he would experience this impregnation. 79 the incorporeal dwelling place of the incorporeal forms is the Father of all things. repre­ sent Sophia or Virtue. gives a number of instances in which God has fertilized women in the Pentateuch. In that state he clings to Sophia. Rebecca. For the possibility is before us here. and so can receive the Seeds of God direct in a higher mar­ riage with the Cause. As the husband of Sophia God drops the seed of happiness for the race of mortals into good and virgin soil. w h o is preferred above all others who seek her favor. T h e great significance of Isaac. LIGHT mythologies. It will have appeared 79. I believe. Zipporah. but brings forth to one of her own lovers. Konigsweg. As Philo has softened the mythological element in the Logos-Powers cycle because it violated his monotheism. 42-52.164 BY LIGHT. but upon a long tradition in which the assimilation of mystic motifs had been aged and refined. and to allegorize the wives of the ancient heroes. pp. 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. be taking the mythological element too literally and seri­ ously. who. that is. I doubt." A passage in Jeremiah (iii. Such would be the scheme behind Philo. This passage. as in the other cycles and mysteries. Sarah. 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. abandon his sense life and cling to Wisdom (imoTY\[XY\). as frequently). as it is brought out in the Quaestiones in Genesin has been expounded in his r^ystic marriage. Leah. 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.

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

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

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

Jacob's coming up from the Well of the O a t h is the first point to be explained.. but has only come to the comprehension that there is a Deity beyond the material world.. that he is still. the heaven in the external world and the m i n d in m a n . the manifestation of the Logos in terms of recommendations and teachings which have become to him like sacred l a w s . T h e r e he is to marry S o p h i a rather than one of the daughters of folly. Ib.. T h e r e are three preliminary points to be discussed before he comes to the dream proper..3 4 . Ib. 1 1 3 .1 8 8 . while only a sojourner in the life of the senses. that is. Fug. and gets the power of prophecy. T h e well is of course W i s d o m (called 004/ia or imoTY\\iY\). God is only by remote approximation 113 y 1 K 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 in.Ib.. H e r e the Quaestiones in Genesin break off. LIGHT 111 112 getting to understand his physical n a t u r e . Ebr.1 1 9 . 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).. i. Aoyoc 0£ioc). Jacob is described in the Biblical account as having gone up from the Well of the Oath to H a r a n . QG. but it is also the fourth element. 120.. It will be unnecessary to follow Philo through the devious ramifications of this allegory. 112. not freed altogether from them. 70. Ib.. 1 2 3 .. Ib. Mig. 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.. Ib. 1 2 2 . It is taken as the chief of Philo's second type of dreams. 1 4 . T h e fact that Jacob is on his way to H a r a n is indicative. Som. 41-60.1 3 . 72. and. 35-40.. Ib. W h a t he finds is not God but the intermediate divine Logos (6 \xiooc. but the Aoyoi. Each of these is in its own world the highest element. 121. T h a t is. T h e "place" where Jacob goes is the third preliminary point... even m u c h more those of sense. QG. 239 f. 118. 243. H e has yet to come to a masterful comprehension of the life of the senses. ii7. 1 1 6 . and as having then "gone into a place" and lain down until the sun rose.. 61-67. grow d i m . and the rest of the story of Jacob must be reconstructed from the Allegory. 7 3 . though that Deity was still quite incom­ prehensible to h i m .i68 BY LIGHT. Cf. Som. Jacob's dream on the way to Laban is very elaborately expounded in De Somniis i. 241 ff. . This leads Philo into a remarkable passage on God as l i g h t . 2. Ib. mys­ terious in nature. though he is by no means going to remain t h e r e . 213 f. Indeed it immediately appears that what he experiences as 6 \\LCOQ Xoyoc was not the Logos in its entirety. 68 f. and the part fit to sing best the praises of G o d . Ib.. 46. 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. Ib. iv... 46 ff. the Hittite w o m e n . 2 . in the second place. 1 1 9 . 115. 6 . 46 ff. what h e saw was a vision not from God but from God's attendant P o w e r s . i. In short. iv. the highest representation of deity. 1 1 4 .. This indicates that Jacob has not arrived at God.

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

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

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 . F o r Jacob seems really to have experienced the Cosmic Mystery. i. It is notable that Rachel. 147. not. as sophists insist.. which could not be subject to space in any sense. T h e dream of Jacob. whose progeny was really the son of God. Mut. I read TQ) for Wendland's xq). and only attributed to the earthly hus­ b a n d . 7. Ebr. 144.3 8 . Som. 134 ff... Ib. Cong. 1 3 5 . LA. 145. Post.. Ib.5 3 .. 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. W e too. Isaac as the "Self-Taught" h a d h a d a sufficient mate in Sophia alone. LA. iii. a n d in doing so has h a d ah intimation but n o more than that. of the existence of a realm beyond into which he has not yet penetrated. Abr. 2 5 ..2 1 4 . 1 7 3 . There is n o suggestion that his relations with these. if we turn from matter. Jacob has n o w to proceed to H a r a n and the house of Laban. 46. Cong. G o d will be with him. vice versa... Yet his present inadequacy is finally indicated by the fact that when he awoke he thought that " G o d was in the place.ISAAC AND JACOB 142 171 needs n o longer fear. was quite beyond his comprehension. For further notes on the progeny of Leah see Plant. 2 1 2 . Treatment of this part of Jacob's life is sporadic a n d fragmentary. 149. the region of sense and m a t t e r . can become pregnant in the divine Stream of b e a u t y .1 8 8 . Before he is to be ready to go on to the immaterial realm. Mig. and the "devotee of Sophia" (6 oo$(ac aoK/)Ty)c) knows that they must be taken in that order. and it has brought us back again to the God of the Powers. 4 7 . 1 5 1 .. 143 144 145 146 147 5 148 149 150 151 152 142. were the mystic marriage such as Isaac h a d experienced. even with Leah. 1 7 7 .. 146." showing that the true nature of God. Ib.. who is sense perception. 1 5 2 . a n d lead h i m back to the land of his d r e a m s . for h e is promised the ultimate possession of vir­ t u e .. i.1 8 3 .1 7 6 .. 1 4 3 . h e has still much prepara­ tion to make. 150. 123.. Ib. 255. 1 7 4 . to which Philo has devoted almost a whole book of the Allegory. 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.. 1 8 4 . The text is dubious here. though Genesis says the same of her. and much more Jacob.. W e k n o w that Philo used the fact that " G o d opened the w o m b " for Leah as a symbol of divine and virginal impregnation. 148. . b u t Abraham. T h e two daughters are respectively the encyclical studies and philosophy. of the relation of the Lower Mystery to the H i g h e r . 1 8 1 . h a d to have more alli­ ances than this one. has told us a great deal of Philo's conception of the Patriarch. of the spiritual struggle which h e represented in the Mystery. 1 7 8 . 95 f. So Jacob needed two wives and two concubines to help h i m through the various aspects of his complicated struggles. does not provoke Philo to this allegory. Cher. 80 ff.

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

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

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

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

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 . Ib. His flight is over the river of the objects of sense. 20. 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.. W i t h these gone. 1 5 . 184. LA. 2 1 . but when the objects of sense threaten h i m as a whole. T h a t is. T h e wise m a n may face the lesser temptations. T h e dream suddenly stops here without mentioning the fact that God at the end commands Jacob to leave Laban. 1 5 . iii. 214. 250 f. as the body. he is definitely now leaving the world of matter and sense for the spiritual world. Ib. 18. LIGHT 181 in the cosmos. little is left to show. Mig. here the world of virtue. Ib. Philo closes the allegory of the dream with an exhortation to his soul to go to Jacob. 183.. 241-249. 27. iii. pro­ tests that there is no longer left to h i m intelligence of any kind. Ib. as we have seen. that is. Laban's two daughters.. by Colson and Whitaker. Various fragments of 180. in exactly the same way. In the fuller treatment of Jacob it must have been rather a pre­ liminary vision and call. 1 8 1 .. N o w he has come through in the Higher Mystery to a vision of the Logos. See note ad loc. 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. 255 f. he can only r u n a w a y . 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. and from h i m to learn to conquer the passions. . For Jacob has taken with h i m the only virtues that were in the realm. 186.. i. Ib. but only ignorance. It was the dedication of the results of encyclical studies. 188. 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 not until he had left Laban did he himself have the ultimate experience. for in leaving the body Jacob stole the teraphim of Laban and hid them. In a word. Philo devotes sev­ eral pages to the flight in Legum Allegoria.. Ib.. the Leader of the Powers. Philo is treating the dream as an epitome of Jacob's whole experience and significance. and for that it is highly valuable. 187.176 180 B Y LIGHT.2 7 . when the soul thus deserts it to r u n away beyond the river. the Jordan. Even the passions themselves have gone.1 7 . 185. the passions are now d e a d . which stood. it had been the Cosmic Mystery. for the encyclical studies and the quest for Sophia.2 7 . 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. 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. is to leave it robbed and impoverished. T h e effect upon the life of the body. Laban. his wives. Som. 182.

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

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

. since these are beyond reasoned inference from phenomena. 198 199 198.4 6 . that in the end the Mystery solved. not hindered. Indeed Philo can boast to the Romans that in the possession and practice of the Mystery of the Powers Israel has deserved to be called the "Race that Sees God. in the body and the outer parts of the soul. These are n o w the objects of Israel's vision. 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 . Mut.. and of the created world. its dreams fulfilled. So the race Israel is benefited by the experience of its prototype. 4-7. For philosophy has never been able to manifest the Powers. Legat. Perhaps this obscure passage may throw some light later upon some of the iconographical problems.ISAAC AND JACOB 179 time of the wrestling with the angel Jacob has the strength both of the im­ material world in his soul. 4 1 . the development of a fully rounded life in the flesh. 199. especially of man." In their experience the frustrations of philosophy have been done away. 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..

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

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." 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. O n the whole it has seemed best to reserve Moses for his logically proper place. although the general review of the Patriarchs in the De Praemiis et Poenis includes h i m after the others as the greatest of all. So our next task is to set forth Philo's ideas of Moses. rather than present him as the first example of the Mystagogues. Mos. 2 T h e first book is designed to show Moses as the ideal king. W e r e the interpretation original with himself h e must have presented his thesis with demonstration and argument.MOSES FOR GENTILES 181 Mystery de novo. As we go on into the character of Moses the same phenomenon will become still more striking.. and at the end declares that he has been showing what Moses did K a r a TTJV PaoiXetav. that they will understand his objective since they too are initiates. 3. Without some preliminary knowledge of the Mystery for a guiding thread they could not possibly have understood his purpose. XXVII ( 1 9 2 3 ) . 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. else his readers would have been at as great a loss to understand his purpose as mod­ erns have been. It has repeatedly appeared that for the Mystery the hero and hierophant of greatest importance was Moses. and indeed the 3 1. and then broken it up into the myriad incidental allusions and fragments that he offers. ideas so exalted that one might have called the whole Mystery "the Mystery of Moses. its whole argument and presentation are closer than even the Exposition itself to the thinking of a Gentile. 1 0 9 . Brehier did the great service of recognizing the parallelism between Philo's conception of royalty and the Pythagorean kingly fragments. pp. O n the contrary he assumes throughout the Allegory and Quaestiones. 1 . 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. as he writes for sympathetic Jews. . though for Gentiles more advanced in their comprehension of the Jewish point of view. 2. See my "Philo's Exposition of the Law and his De Vita Mosis" Harvard Theological Re­ view. Yet in the Exposition there was n o De Mose. Philo does not say so at the outset.. 334. Ib. So marked is this difference that scholars have in general been blinded to the fact that the Exposition is likewise intended for Gentiles. As will shortly appear. i.1 2 5 . as the great climax. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that this character became properly manifest. by the Father to leave the mortal life and be m a d e immortal (dnaGavcrnfeoGai). (1929)9 ." Moses was summoned. they do not lose their 107) Tl|jy). 80.2 4 5 . I have dealt with this problem in my Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt pp.. and total lack of supply on the seventh d a y . and finally the circum­ stances of his death. 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 . 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. they throw little light upon Moses' character as a prophet. but his point is at the end where he explains the general law of inheritance in such a way as to make it.. the fidelity of the Levites at the time of the golden calf. 77. Moses had been a dyad. Philo has suddenly shifted ground. but has to establish distant colonies in every direction. 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. See N u m . that is into M i n d with especially sun-like brilliance (vouc yjAioei77 78 79 80 81 82 76 76. These distant residents could usually appear as well on the day fixed as a m o n t h later. include the father as the first ascendant heir. Ib. for it was in the third type of prophecy. Judaism. the destruction of the apostates by earthquake and fire from h e a v e n . 1 . contrary to the Scriptures but in accordance with Greek law of Egypt.MOSES FOR GENTILES 195 contain the race. 2 3 3 . 61 f.. 270-274. 81..) into the nature of a monad.. this matter of Jewish inheritance must have likewise been a prominent matter of discussion. 79. T h e death of Moses was a "change. 275-287. Mos. It relates the case of the inheritance of Zelophehad which the daughters wanted. Ib. Ib. Ib. perhaps "recalled" (jjeTaKAyjOelc). xxvii. 258-269. 58. Whatever the motive for the fourth selection. oOjia Kal tyvxh* but n o w was wholly transformed (oXov Si' OXGJV jj£0apno^6|i£voc. the raining of m a n n a with the remarkable double supply on the sixth day. 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. Philo tells this story. 246-257. Of these only the last brings out material on Moses worthy of note. yet thereby Philo is assuring the Gentile reader. 288-292. ii. 82. that in which Moses was immediately inspired by God for utterance.. 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. but still outside. T h e point is that most will not appear at all. Ib. As Philo himself admits.1 1 . 78.

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

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

136. 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. 91 .B Y LIGHT. p. LIGHT Patriarchs has appeared a permanent x<*PK from God to m a n k i n d . 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. 91.

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

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

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

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

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

28. 27.. T h e ceremony indicates the passing over from igno­ rance t o wisdom. and requires the girding up of the loins. which he will pass on to Aaron to express i n utterance. 63. 38.. 32. 77... Heres. 33. 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. 29.9. and with the practical assistance of Aaron. 8.. 4. One is that the sort of speech needed with the type of m a n Moses must face i s sophistic rhetoric. 34. especially 80. Ebr.. 19.. W i t h his vision of God thus clarified. 209. and i t i s Moses who. Som. Som.204 BY LIGHT. Captive in this country i s the "mind fond of seeing." H e i s i n ecstasy and s o has become a resistless stream of the beauties of Sophia. 154. i. 258-260. Det. 76-85. represents the body i n its worst form. but then. 207-209. Mig.. t o carry out and practise daily virtues. LIGHT are given. LA. 267. ii. 30. 1 2 f. Mut. 6 u-ev yaQ xovxo fiwryfrels McoDafjg ecrriv O V T O C . H e is the source of speech. LA. This mind must be led out of Egypt if i t is to get the vision. 35. Sac. 192. Mut. ny)YV) Aoy^v. Cong. with Aaron. 277." Israel. 4. with Egypt his country. but such rhetoric vanishes from one who has had a vision of the t r u t h . 69. Sac. 40 26. Philo allegorizes JtQo|3aTOV according to its possible relations with JtQOwvco. . . and so i s made into Xoyoc £vSia0£Toc. Ib. T h e promise is that Moses will receive a stream of God's Xoyoy. 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. Moses now goes to Egypt to begin his great work. 161 f. iii. . but that stream i s never formulated in words. under the inspiration of prophetic spirits. iii. ii. It represents the beginning o f a hard and bitter task. 25. when these have been expunged. and hence. Ib.. 40. 37. which at this stage is rather the mind capable of seeing. 38-40. 205. but not himself "utterance.. Heres." 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 ." divine and h u m a n restraint. has the power to d o this for man's higher nature. 3 1 . 36. to struggle with him and ultimately destroy him. Mig. Sac. Pharaoh repre­ sents all that i s bad in h u m a n nature. QE. H e returns to Pharaoh... of mind from the senses.. he is one who "rejects both parents. Also Moses has become stamped by Sophia. 165.. 266 f. 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. a lover of pleasure who knows not G o d .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for H e must always thus temper H i s benefactions to the capacities of the recipient. and later at the descent of fire at the sacrifices. 191 f. 1 2 7 . because such a vision is food to the soul and gives it immortal life. pulverize the "gods" of the material realm. Ebr. that they were unable to receive the revelation even as mediated by Moses. Post. where the treatment of each indi­ vidual text is the important matter rather than the connected exposition of the Mystery as such. but the less perfect. 1 5 8 . but this was an ecstasy of consternation. One of these incidents is too important for Philo to omit. but speaks boldly to God for m e n in n e e d . 39. as the vestige of the passions. As they had the vision of the Logos they ate and drank. See above. H e as the Sophos took God as his teacher. 130. 124.1 2 6 . Actually the people were so perverse. 95-100. ii. 125. for 128 124 125 126 127 128 129 180 123. 251. what of his flock at the foot of the mountain? They were having different experiences. Mig. 47. must be destroyed: we must destroy our bodies. H a d we in the Allegory a connected account of the incidents following the destruction of the calf.1 6 9 . vii. Moses and God talked together in recipro­ cal streams of utterance. Som. cf. 143. it would undoubtedly have interpreted these incidents as the provision of the formal Mystery for the people. Heres.. They are represented as having been in ecstasy at the appearance of God on Sinai. Moses as a friend of God is the intercessor for the people. H e alone could bear the divine an­ nunciation of Sinai as a whole. as in the Exposition.2l6 B Y LIGHT. Philo represents the sacrifice of Moses. since that voice was the outflowing of the Light-Stream of the L o g o s . makes the point not so clear as a stated allegory of the life of Moses. or one of the migration. would have done. b u r n our pleasures. if we may hope to share in the higher t h i n g s . 1 4 3 . 129. But they really had little immediate experience at Sinai of the great revelation. By an incredible explanation of Lev.1 9 . as signifying that Moses is beyond any labor with the passions.. and not only speaks for God to the people. 34. But the calf. 1 7 . still so tied to the body and its pas­ sions. pp. in which he put only the beast's breast upon the altar... Israel. LIGHT While Moses was thus being initiated in a way quite beyond the experi­ ence of anyone else. But the form of the Quaestiones. This material we have already discussed. the incident of the sacrifice of Moses. T h e great voice from Sinai. 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. 126. QE. It is to this provision that the Quaestiones at once goes on. and that the mountain had little for them except as it was brought to them by Moses. i. Post. describing the significance of the ark as representing the Higher Mystery. Over and over again it is brought out that the people were not ready. must take Moses. Heres. 128. 2 1 . 1 2 4 . Heres. . was "seen" by them..

iii. for while he cannot do wholly without food.." But do not think that this taking of the spirit is a matter of cutting off a piece or severing.). which was to be distributed to such a great crowd of disciples (yvcoQijioi). 24 ff. 1 3 7 . or the spirit of some other created being. while those are Presbyters in heart and in mind who are his mystic disciples (yvcipinoi). Sobr. between the type of sacrifice Aaron could offer and that of the Higher Mystery. But now the spirit that is upon him is the Wise Spirit. the Spirit that is filled in every part with all things. For it makes experts of all the followers and disciples ((poiTT)T<xl xal YVCOQ 14101) but is itself no whit diminished. iii. 16.1 3 7 . as his forty days' fast on the mount showed. culminating in the descent of fire from the Glory of God. and cannot once for all dominate them and put away their desires. says Philo. Similarly the belly. Rather it is like the process of taking fire from fire. the m a n still in the great battle with his lower n a t u r e . for he must be content if he can control the passions by reason. 16-20. then. For the report is that the springs are thus made sweeter. the divine Spirit. T h e true Elder is a m a n w h o m the Sophos alone knows. This whole contrast seems part of a great con­ trast that may well have existed in the tradition of the Mystery. is one of the scenes chosen for representation at Dura. while Aaron is the attendant and minister of holy things. Numb. T h e Sophos (Moses) rejects all m e n with the spirit of youthful rebellion in them what­ ever their age. 1 3 3 . it would be diminished by the process of cutting it up into so many pieces. For the fact is that they could not be elders in the true sense of the term (rrpoc. Indeed they often con­ tribute to its improvement. If. 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 . Gig. 136. excellent.. So it is not surprising that this sacrifice. . but Aaron who sacrifices the shoulder with the breast is one who is still laboring with the passions. aMjSeiav) 181 182 188 184 185 186 187 unless they partook of that all-wise spirit. These elders were ordained by fire from Moses' Spirit. So the fre­ quent giving of instruction to others involves practice and discipline for the in­ structor. the Spirit that is uncut and unsevered. 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. he is freed from all dependence upon the belly. Such is the nature of Wisdom (s3tionr|[JiT)). I n contrast Aaron cannot wash the whole belly. 1 3 5 . Age has nothing to do with one's hav­ i n g a claim to the title of Presbyter. 1 4 1 . So Moses is the per­ fect m a n (0 TeXeioc. for though one fire should light ten thousand torches it would remain absolutely undiminished itself.T H E MYSTIC MOSES 217 h e has cut them off altogether. by which he is brought to the perfection of knowledge. 1 3 3 . it were Moses* own spirit. Lev.1 5 9 . ix. is washed by Moses in his sacrifice. LA. 138. 188 1 3 1 . xi. 138-140. For it is written "I will take of the spirit that is on thee and lay it upon the seventy elders. 14. 134. LA.. the symbol of pleasure and appetite. as springs are said to be improved by drawing water from them. 1 3 2 . Ib.

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

146 f. they still have far to go. . 1 5 4 .. on which Moses leads u s . of the m e a n . for they are on their way to the mountain country. 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. iv. Certainly. Only the grapes.. as contrasted with the Edom­ ites. 77. 162 £. the people of this material world. 101 f. It is the straight Road.. Moses is the hierophant of the journey. the pleasures that bring the death not of the body but of the s o u l . saying that running to the desert has solved no problems for him personally. through Plato's Philebus and by many details in Aristode. Ib. 143.. 147. Post. in a multitude. T h r o u g h the alle­ gory. Spec.. and still must strug­ gle with the love of matter and pleasure. Numb. Ib. This is of course Philo's interpre­ tation of their being attacked by the serpents. 148.1 5 8 . 148." the "Royal Road. T h e incident is a favorite one with Philo. and is again the road of the mean. Ib.. the virtues treasured also by h u m a n ideals. 146. 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. There is n o point. 152 £. 1 4 2 . Ib. the Road of the Logos to God. the serpent of self-mastery (oGJ^poouv/)). 1 5 3 . 141 142 1 4 8 144 145 146 1 4 7 148 149 150 151 H i g h as the Israelites. LA. I n another reference this-Royal Road is commended to kings. 149. like the serpent of Eve. sometimes without even that mediation between God and the thirsty soul. since the conception is. Immut. see the continuation of the allegory to §183.. Ib. in view of his marked dependence upon Pythagorean ethics as a whole. He goes on to one of his rare and most appealing personal passages. Ib. Ib. 1 7 . T h e road is the flight for refuge to the uncreated (Y\ km TOV dyev/jTov Kcrra4>uyy)) . A t the command of G o d Moses makes a serpent of the opposite kind. 1 4 5 . In §§84 f. 1 5 1 . They do not want to stop with the Edomites.1 4 5 . may be in contrast to the Edomites." the description seems more to resemble Pythagoreans than Aristode. 144.) to the teachers of the "mean. w h o are on the Road of Sophia or the Logos. The assumption that every mention of the ethical mean indicates Aristo­ telian influence is not at all warranted.. but the mean is recognizably that of the Pythagoreans rather than of Aristotle. 168. Aoyoc. traceable to the Pythagoreans.. 159 f.. xx... ethically. sometimes with an angel as cupbearer. 1 5 2 . Since the command is to m a k e it "for 152 1 4 1 . which are. Again it is the Road of true philoso­ phy. ii.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. but alone. 142. will they not scorn to u s e . He was as apt to be "scattered" by desire there as anywhere else. for what use have a people fed and watered from heaven for the food and hand-dug wells of the world. 156. Here Israel. while God could give His grace quite as easily while one is surrounded. in drawing u p water by ropes from a well made by m e n when heaven itself gives us its unmixed draughts. when he refers (Mig. and says that pleasure can attack one there quite as well as in the city. 160. Philo points out that they were bitten in the wilderness. It is quite true that such people only want to go through the land of the Edomites. 150. as Jesus explained to the w o m a n of Samaria. 144.2 0 ." as being those who "follow the mild and social forms of philosophy.

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

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

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

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

by Powers which were emanations of H i s own nature. But Philo did not live by theory. as has appeared. "stand here with m e . Isaac too abandoned the bodily elements. Ordinarily the solution was made.. 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. that is to fellowship with the company of angels. T h e philosopher's rever­ ence for the Absolute as the single Deity was strengthened by the Jewish insistence upon the one God. 178. Types of this are Abel. Ib. But he was translated by the Word (ofjuxx) of 179 176. though in contradistinction to 6 Qzoc. 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. for there was no room in him for either adding or subtraction. 6. 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. 1 . was entirely a creature of his age in this as in most else. 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. by the Logos. On yevog see below. 3 1 . Abraham. was Sopu^opoupevoc. Such is Moses to whom H e says. 179. and these passages must be taken as being quite as representative of Philo's position as the others. in line with the growing Neo-Platonic solu­ tion. LIGHT Philo had from his Jewish ancestry and from the Neo-Pythagorean and Platonic traditions in philosophy. and in many passages Philo defends this posi­ tion by denying to the Logos any independent operation or existence. 7. and to Moses any divine nature that was not a gracious gift to one w h o was essentially a m a n . indeed inhabited. Sac. Ib. and on the other the popular tendency to deify great figures and heroes. 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. note 187. and has made able to soar beyond all e!5r) and yevn.1 0 .. and Jacob. . Deut. First a passage must be considered as a whole which has already been discussed in p a r t . as by the Sabellians in Christian tradition. who are "added to" something better in the process. or God has taken from them. and has stationed beside Himself. that the one God had a body-guard. v. but to a yLvoc. they could be called Qzoi. yet he is not added to a host. " So when Moses was about to die he did not "leave" in order to be "added" like the others. 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.224 B Y LIGHT. 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. and this signifies the highest O n e . 177.

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

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

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

23. Post.. and averting the worst of God's wrath. 47 ff. QE. Immut.. 127. like the other oofyoi. ii. But he who clings to the nature of unity is said to approach into God with a certain familiarity of kinship (cognativa quadam familiaritate). but he is given strikingly the office of mediator between m a n and God. he was quite as sharply contrasted with any m a n but the Patriarchs. For he was the great example of a soul sent down to dwell in the body. 77-82. even while in the body. 105 f. 30 f. But if Moses was thus contrasted with God. Moses is in all this still a human being. Philo would probably have been quite unable to have made his conception of Moses much more consistent than these various passages represent it. interpreting God's will to them. Was. the Patriarchs. There was only one Deity in the strict sense for Philo. but actually to procure the good for others is the function of a greater and more perfect soul. Such souls come down to the earth at all only be­ cause they have a great love of learning and seeing. 195 W h e n Moses on the mount was told by God "Stand thou here with me. which never becomes naturalized to its new abode. he was changed into divinity (transmutatur in divinum). Mut. . was different from ordinary m e n from the beginning. even though the fool be a king. 197.. which was sufficiently vague 196 197 198 194. cf. A n d yet Moses. 29. and with all of them but Isaac. p. since it has been initiated into divine things and is the deifer.. T h e uncertainty is. as has been stated. so that he might be made akin to God and truly divine (ita ut fiat deo cognatus vireque divinus). 28 ff. "alone": because the prophetic intellect. and one that is truly filled with God (cog d^Yidcog deia^ouoT]). mixed with absolutely none of these things which exhibit a share in duality. Gig. he says. 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. H e is contrasted with God in His pure existence. bringing them the blessing of God. Moses was called up to the top of the mount. 196.228 B Y LIGHT. See above.. is like unity. that of Philo's age. Conf. It seems to me that what Philo had in mind was the Pythagorean notion of the rpirov y s v o c . 198.. 195. 127 f. but which. by the fact that his humanity was ultimately meaning­ less in his almost completely divine nature." the words indicate that God gave Moses a share in H i s own nature. was really living in the conceptual virtues which are indistinguishable from the divine Aoyoi. For when he had left all mortal categories behind.. the quality of fixed unchangeableness. 194 Moses is called 0e6c in as much as he is oofyoc. But Philo goes farther than this. Moses Qzoc in Philo's mind? T h e answer must be yes and no. Philo goes on. LIGHT tent to be allowed to make use of the formula of blessing. then. Conf.. and as such is the natural ruler of the fool.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I n this state the prophet speaks the view of Another. note f. After considering a number of details Philo sums u p . Colson and Whitaker (IV." H e has begun with discarding the evil tendencies and notions of the soul and then he goes into the "ecstasy." H e rises to the promised land. It is the Sophos w h o is the "heir. claims that he was a student in both Stoic and Platonic schools. one which peacefully appropriates TOL npzofimtpa Kal Y\yz\xoyz\JovTa dyaOa. for he can go direct to Virtue a n d Sophia. T h e process begins with the perfection of the parts of the body and ends in the attainment of the divine Sophia. pp. 26. not to opinion or false22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 22.T H E MYSTERY 247 mediator. 1 4 . Ib. 34-38. 57-60. But highly valuable as these are. T h e next treatise. 452) note that this is a Stoic encyclical. For fuller discussion of this conception see. T h e two parts divided are complementary and make a single whole. Ib. But the ecstasy of Noah.. begins at the bottom to explain h o w a novice might have a mystic experience through the Preliminary Studies. Cong. 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.. the land which is Sophia. Justin Martyr. the coming of the divine Spirit.. T h e migration is one out from the body and the passions. 28." Various kinds o f ecstasy are de­ scribed. Abraham. p. See my Theology of Justin Martyr. needs only one wife." 23. 2 4 . Ib. 25.. 201-229. without an encyclical education. 3 1 3 . they are represented by Hagar. so that he gets "a sure and abiding vision of the Sophia of God. is described in contrast to the finite universe. w h o was. 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. They give no refer­ ences. 27. I. and seem quite unjustified. 24. Philo now returns to the description o f the migration of the "heir. 30. Isaac. God. my "Neo-Pythagorean Source. but could not be admitted into a Pythagorean school because of this lack. xvi. 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. the infinite immaterial. . Cong. 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. Ib. the de Congressu. the type quite beyond ordinary men.. to unite all into a single entity.3 3 .. for example. Ib. So far Philo has been describing the ideal. See Colson and Whitaker's interesting note in Vol. 29. in which the light of one's own mind "sets" before the brilliance of the divine illumination. while no such preparation was demanded from young Stoics. Isaac.2 3 . 263-266.3 1 6 . Ib. 267-274. of material nature and must mark only a temporary stage. 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. and especially Moses is the prophetic ecstasy. The school that was famous at the time for its encyclical preparation was the Pythagorean." and the Cutter separates h i m off from what is evil. 239-248. but they need the Logos to turn the six into seven.. as an Egyp­ tian.

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



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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

98. Here.. if nowhere else..Q eoixev oodaEi. Cong. a suit in which it is implied that he succeeded. 1 3 .." if mortal in his constitu­ tion. Mut. 1 7 . 169-205. Agr. 68). Sac. ix. 1 2 .. 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. 2 1 ff. is the idea of mystic ascent by marriage with Sophia. viii.. or specifically to receive Y\ alQLpioc. 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. Spec. 2 1 . 2 3 . as a result of which this marriage was consummated.1 2 . a n d ac­ cordingly h e prayed mightily to God for her." But "Solomon" recognized that even so he could get Sophia only as a gift of G o d . experience. As such it was one of the qualities of Abraham (LA.270 B Y LIGHT. 2. Ib. 7 5 ) . 19 f. 27.. the king perfect in j u d g m e n t . Wisd.. 120). Ib. 1 5 8 ) . so h a d they. Ib... Ib. 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. 18. oo$(a.. Ib. vii. crocpia (Fug. viii. Mig. 25. In Mut.. that it may be regarded.. It is t h e formulation of the Jewish mystery according to the Female Principle. A s h e h a d done. 38... was certainly not like ordinary men. Ib. 22. 24. 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. Heres. 7. 164f. 19. 82.1 7 . T h e great prayer of "Solomon" is given. 1 3 8 . 27. 2 1 . T h e result is that h e has learned all the secrets of the universe... Hebrew speculation on Wisdom would be t h e easy starting point for 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 s 28 16. Sac. a n d has become immortal. 14. While m u c h of this ideol­ ogy is Jewish. TO 8e dxofj.2 1 . Ib. viii. Ib.. 196. 22. 17. I have tried to account for the similarity of the two traditions in my "Kingship in Early Israel. Ib. XLVIII (1929). 26. 9 . 28. 3 3 . and in general of one fit for the Mystery (Mut. a nalc eu^uyjc. It will be recalled that the perfection of the Patriarchs in the Mystery was most commonly indicated by the fact that they had become VOJJOI i\xty\JXoi. 2 1 2 f. vii. and is the standing epithet of Reuben to connect him with the Mystery (Som. iv.. viii. iii. But "Solomon. 1 . a n d destiny. 1 . vii.. H e was a "naturally gifted" child. unmistakably enunciated. Wisd. 20.. 3 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. Mut..—TO u-ev ya. 176. at least for Philo. an idea we have found passim in Philo. pp. ix.. 64..1 2 . vii. viii. . a n d a friend of G o d . viii. ajxeivov T O U Havftavovxoc. Ib. LIGHT 16 origin." Journal of Biblical Literature. it is die quality of a mystic capable of receiving alfteQioc.6 . ii. its double entendre with the Greek vonoc qivpuxoc * obvi­ ous. viii. which latter word is so freely used by Philo for one compe­ tent to receive the Mystery. 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... 19. 102 Philo remarks: x6 evcpuec.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mythographus Vaticanus III. than the adaptation by Aristobulus of the Orphic hymn. xxiii. Pap. 646. 119 120 121 122 128 At least mention should be made of another witness to the Mystery. Civ. 119 f. specifi­ cally identified with Hermes. 122. 11. 24.292 B Y LIGHT. 123. 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. 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. Migne. 547. But he is drawing upon other sources. PG. had given them laws (vojioi) and had named the regions of the country VOJJOI after these l a w s .. 723. 19 {Fontes. 119. 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. Isidorus Hispalensis. II. I. 4-7 eycb vo\iov<. where he had learned the name of God. 85. Pp. .C. xi. I. vii. xv. Dei. 39. Augustinus.. I. iii. 16. Ib. Diodorus Sic. and the instruments of agriculture. I. H e suggests that the tablet of Moses was an imitation of this official tablet.. 96). bvvaxai jXETafrelvai. IV. Such a document can only be explica­ ble to us as the expression of a crude early stage of syncretism. LIGHT 118 Isis was also the Lawgiver. 148). for he quotes the poet Ezekiel and Artapanus. For Moses does not file the tablet. in w h o m all the virtues of the others were concentrated. Moses the great miracle worker is thus in the Second Century B. at least in spirit. I. 4 {Fontes. 29 ff. {Fontes. Such a blanket identification meant to the reader that the writer was claiming for Moses that he was the mystic leader par-excellence. dv^QCOJtoig edsu/nv xal &vo\ioftexy\oa S ovSele.. Albius Tibullus. Cf. earlier. he wrote it on a tablet and sealed it up. Etymolog. ap. 746). Osiris taught m e n the common dialect and discovered writing for t h e m .. Diodor. V. Cerfaux also suggests a parallel in the fact that when Moses returned from the burning bush. v. 124. Musaeus. z. Contra Julian. VIII. T h e sugges­ tion seems to me interesting but not quite warranted. 1 2 1 . Sic. 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. 5. Isis and Osiris taught men the t£xvcl\. gave them onAa. XI. I. 724. 120. 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. Hymn of los. I. 49 f. From these we learn that Moses had three names: Joachim. given h i m by his 124 1 1 8 . VII.. 155 ff. and given all the most recognizable and familiar functions of Isis and Osiris as well. Stromata. V. Osiris established the worship of the other gods and prescribed the rites for each. Hymn of Andros. 97. LXXVI. he uses it only as a miraculous charm. Cyril Alex. Orpheus. XVIII. Oxyr. 1380.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

are not Philonic. 1 3 1 . 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 . 2 1 . 3 . t h e K i n g of g o d s . o u r 56 57 5 1 . 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 . Jos. Fug. ii. Exod. a n d t h e L o r d . long-suffer­ i n g . though they were familiar in Hellenistic Jewry. " 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. Ebr. 160. 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 . 108. 1 2 . "Ignorance which makes us wander" is then specifically the phraseology for the type of reprobation distinctive. I Cor. 10.3 i6 B Y LIGHT. a n d n a t u r a l j u d g m e n t . 56. of the Mystery. E.. 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 .. . 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 . Cong. Esther xiv. 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 . 55. 24 for the latter.. t h e G o d of A b r a h a m . w h o art merciful a n d c o m p a s s i o n a t e . 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 . 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 . LIGHT T h e similarity is obvious and striking. LXX. T h o u F a t h e r of t h e blameless. Similarly Philo uses nAavaoGai in various forms with reference to wandering from the mystic Road. a n d G o d of all beings. 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. in Judaism. while sufficiendy Jewish. Det. a n d t h e a d m o n i t i o n s of t h e L a w . 57. t o w h o m every h e a r t is n a k e d . 24.g. 55 V 2. h o w t h e possession of riches is n o t everlasting. 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. 16. Wisd.. but does say that ayvoia is the cause of all sin. 54.. a n d b y w h o m every h e a r t is seen. xxxiii." Philo has not exactly this phrase in combination. IV Maccabees is sufficient evidence for the former. 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 . O u r eternal Savior. 183.. Ebr. In some ways the most interesting Fragment of all is the following: 51 52 58 54 FRAGMENT Constitutiones V V I I . a n d a b u n d a n t i n m e r c y . 52. a n d of Isaac. a n d of those before u s . ix. w h o a l o n e a r t a l m i g h t y . 2-7. the cause of halting progress and confu­ sion in contrast to the knowledge which shows the mystic "way of Salva­ tion.. iii." Ignorance is the thing that maims the part of the soul which sees and hears. 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. On the contrary it must be noted that the doctrines of a resurrection and of a personal devil in the prayer. 5 3 . a n d of J a c o b .. 1 5 7 .

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

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

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

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

w h o didst separate t h e great sea f r o m t h e l a n d . civ. w i t h t h e noises of c r e e p i n g t h i n g s .T H E MYSTIC LITURGY 321 palities a n d t h r o n e s . a n d sometimes dost s m o o t h it i n t o a p l a i n . t h e a r c h a n g e l s a n d a n g e l s . Is. Job xxxviii. 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 . b y m e a n s of t h e t o n g u e . v. w h i c h co­ operates w i t h t h e air. 84. 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. 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 . b o t h t a m e a n d w i l d . w h o didst a p p o i n t t h e s u n i n h e a v e n t o r u l e over t h e d a y . a n d 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 . 86. a n d m o i s t e n it w i t h springs t h a t never fail. w h o 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. 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. w i t h t h e circuits of t h e years. 12. 14. t h e h e a r i n g perceives i t . 9. 11. w h o didst fix t h e firmament. t h e n u m b e r s of m o n t h s a n d days. a n d after all these. a n d p r e p a r e t h e n i g h t a n d t h e d a y . 88. Gen. didst b y H i m m a k e this visible w o r l d . 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 for t h e affording of s o u n d s . 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 . d i d s t f u r n i s h it w i t h various p l a n t s . s o m e t i m e s dost e n r a g e it w i t h a tempest. 85. 2. 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 t h e h e a r i n g . Job xxvi. a n d beau­ tify it w i t h flowers. 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. w h o didst e n c o m p a s s this w o r l d . for food a n d for labor. 10. i. Job xxxviii. a n d didst inscribe i n h e a v e n t h e choir of stars t o praise T h y glorious m a j e s t y . a n d stretch it o u t like t h e c o v e r i n g of a t e n t . 22. Jer. 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. 7. 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 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 s u p p l y of o u r w a n t . s t r o n g a n d w e a k . 22. Ps. 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 . xl. w h o didst establish t h e g r e a t d e e p . t a m e a n d w i l d . t h e o r d e r of 83 84 8 5 8 8 87 88 83. 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 . 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. t h e s o u n d s of various sorts of flying c r e a t u r e s . a n d c r o w n it w i t h herbs. 16. a n d filledst t h e latter w i t h t h e s a m e . a n d t h e m o o n t o r u l e over t h e n i g h t . for T h o u hast r e p l e n i s h e d T h y w o r l d . t 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 . Gen. 8. a n d didst r e n d e r t h e f o r m e r n a v i g a b l e a n d t h e latter fit for w a l k i n g . a n d didst b i n d it r o u n d w i t h m o u n t a i n s for t h e i m m o v a b l e a n d secure consistence of t h e e a r t h : 15. a n d w a t e r it w i t h c u r r e n t s . w i t h m a n y a n d various living creatures. w h i c h strikes t h e air. 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 . 87. 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 all t h i n g s t h a t a r e t h e r e i n . . w i t h rivers. 13. a n d e n r i c h it w i t h seeds.

i n t h e east. T h o u didst justly cast h i m o u t of paradise. 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. t o g r o w . 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. 19. 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 . 90. b u t hast also m a d e m a n for a citizen of t h e w o r l d . a n d didst g r a n t h i m liberty t o p r o c u r e h i m ­ self food b y his o w n sweat a n d labors. a n d 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 a c c o r d i n g t o o u r likeness. 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 t o r i p e n . 25. didst by Christ p l a n t a paradise i n E d 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 didst i n t r o d u c e h i m i n t o it. a n d t h e observation of r i g h t a n d wrong. 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.J22 B Y LIGHT. i n h o p e s of greater blessings. a n d p r o m i s e h i m life b y resurrection. Gen. . LIGHT t h e seasons. 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 . a n d tasted of t h e f o r b i d d e n fruit. 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 . 20. 26. 16. O G o d A l m i g h t y . 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 . b y t h e deceit of t h e serpent a n d t h e counsel of his wife. i. n o r suffer h i m t o perish utterly.b e i n g (£K TOU \XY\ OVTOC). for h e w a s T h y c r e a t u r e . 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). b u t w h e n T h o u h a d s t increased his posterity to a n i n n u m e r a b l e m u l t i t u d e . T h o u didst w i t h a n o a t h call h i m t o a restoration again. 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 . w h i c h w a s i m m o r t a l i t y . 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 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 h o u hast g r a n t e d h i m five senses a n d progressive m o t i o n : 18. a n d as t o his b o d y . a n d over t h e fowls of t h e h e a v e n . didst loose t h e b o n d of d e a t h . 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. Yet of T h y goodness T h o u didst n o t overlook h i m . only f o r b i d d i n g t h e tasting of o n e tree. A n d n o t this o n l y . 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 . Job xxviii. 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. 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. " 17. 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 w h e n T h o u m a d e s t h i m . as i n t o a r i c h b a n q u e t . 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 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. h e m i g h t receive t h e r e w a r d of it. A n d w h i l e T h o u didst accept t h e sacrifice of A b e l as a h o l y person. t h e courses of t h e r a i n y clouds. 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 . 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 .

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