Homeric Scholarship

Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria: Evidence from Philo's
'Quarrelsome' Colleahues
Author(s): Maren R. Niehoff
Source: The Classical Quarterly , May, 2007, New Series, Vol. 57, No. 1 (May, 2007), pp.
166-182
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4493482
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4493482?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Classical Association and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Quarterly
This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Classical Quarterly 57.1 166-182 (2007) Printed in Great Britain 166
doi: 10.1017/S0009838807000158
HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE

EXEGESIS IN ANCIENT ALEXANDRIA:
EVIDENCE FROM PHILO'S
'QUARRELSOME' COLLEAGUES
Philo of Alexandria provides important, yet hitherto overlooked, evidence concer

ing the relationship between Homeric scholarship and Bible exegesis. While reject
critical inquiries into Scripture, he offers crucial glimpses into a now lost world
Jewish scholarship.' In this article I wish to draw attention to a group of lite
exegetes whom Philo dismissed as 'quarrelsome'.2 Despite the highly fragmen
character of the evidence we can reconstruct the academic profile of these exege
by comparing their work to the scholia on the Iliad.3 I shall argue that there w
Jewish exegetes who applied text-critical methods from Homeric scholarship to t
Hebrew Bible. Aristarchus was their model. Some ancient Jews regarded th
Scriptures as parallel to Homer's epics, addressing for the first time in Juda
serious text-critical issues.4
* This research was supported by the ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (grant

810/03). Margalit Finkelberg made valuable comments on a draft of this article and pro
materials from her private library. This article could not have been written without Ye
Liebes. I joined his study group on the Iliad, profiting immensely from his vast knowledge o
epic. Liebes also read a draft of this article, improving some of the translations and making
valuable comments. Last, but not least, I would like to thank the anonymous reader of the C
constructive comments.
1 Concerning Philo's position, see: A. Kamesar, 'The logos endiathetos and the logos
prophorikos in allegorical interpretation: Philo and the D-scholia to the Iliad', GRBS 44 (2004),
163-81, who points to a parallel between a Philonic allegory and material in the D-scholia; id.,
'Philo, Grammatike and the narrative aggada', in J. C. Reeves and J. Kampen (edd.), Pursuing the
Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament, suppl. 184 (Sheffield, 1994), 223, who stresses that 'Philo does
not practice an exegesis of the "classical" Alexandrian variety'.
2 Other literal exegetes will be treated in a separate monograph. Thus far, attention has been
paid to them by E. Stein, Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik in der spdthellenistischen Literatur (Lwow,
1935), 4-10; A. Kamesar, 'The literary genres of the Pentateuch as seen from the Greek
perspective: the testimony of Philo of Alexandria', Studia Philonica Annual 9 (1997), 170-1; M. J.
Shroyer, 'Alexandrian Jewish literalists', JBL 55.4 (1936), 261-84, whose analysis is severely
compromised by his identification of these exegetes with a party of pious and even fundamen-
talist Jews.
3 This reconstruction takes seriously into account the fact that only a select amount of ancient
sources has survived. Read against the grain, the extant writings throw at least some light on the
original variety. See also the fine theoretical discussion by A. K. Petersen, 'Alexandrian Judaism:
rethinking a problematic cultural category' (forthcoming, 2008), in J. Krasilnikoff and G. Hinge
(edd.), Alexandria as a Cultural Melting Pot of Antiquity, ASMA 9 (Aarhus, 2006); A. Kovelman,
Between Alexandria and Jerusalem: The Dynamic of Jewish and Hellenistic Culture (Leiden,
2005), 80-1, who uses Eus. PE 12.12.1-3 to reconstruct a literal Jewish reading of Gen. 2.21 in
the light of Plato's Symposium.
4 The possibility of critical Bible study in the Hellenistic period is often ignored; see e.g
E Siegert, 'Early Jewish interpretation in a Hellenistic style', in M. Saebo (ed.), Hebrew BiblelOld
Testament. The History of Interpretation (Gdttingen, 1996), 1.130-35, 164, who suggested that
the Jews were 'not infected by this critical spirit' of the Greek mind.

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS 167
Furthermore, the evidence from Philo suggests that Aristarchus e

in various scholarly circles.5 During the Augustan period Ariston
recorded and discussed Aristarchus' work, drawing new attent
producing a student as famous as Philo's contemporary Apion.6 Jew
in this scholarly discourse may throw new light on the intellectual
Greek readers.
Before analysing Philo's report about his 'quarrelsome' colleagues, we have to
appreciate his own views on the application of Homeric hermeneutics in order to
evaluate the nature and reliability of his testimony. While praising Homer as the
foremost poet, 'most highly esteemed among the Greeks', Philo hardly mentioned the
study of his works.7 Important insight, however, may be gained from an investigation
into the classical terms of Homeric scholarship, namely ?iqyr"Ta and Jir6propla. Philo
occasionally tolerated or even welcomed an inquiry into Scripture that was based on
these techniques of Homeric scholarship. This was the case when the questions did
not challenge the basic unity, value and authenticity of the canonical text.8 Suffice it
here to discuss two examples, both of which are taken from the context of man's
creation (LXX Gen. 1.26-7).
Philo approvingly mentions a q'rlCqa on man's place in the creation, which had
been discussed by some of his colleagues:
'E7TtLSyUEELE 6 'iV T t' T,)v al Tl-av, (' 7") ,v"o-`ar6v EUTLv Ipc vp7To T" rTOV, Ko"Crpov
Someone might inquire into the reason why it is that man was created last with regard to thepa
fLSvtOVuW, EtpyauaTO. A7YO rVAU 01) d T V/tow ~7ri srXE/ov qfga~vZvaVTES KClL 'r& KCLT
OaVTOV9 ws EVL W UT1)L VLE7 ETramp E/kE La7EWS- aKpL/3OvvTE , or TSp) aVTOi3 UVYYEVElCSr
PLETa5O.I6S 0 OEOS cLOpWS7Tw) TSp) AoytK?S, -7q'T tg aplOTS)(S "UpTWEW 57, Ot(E TW v a"AAwv
o0v0"VE1, 9V AA'C04 O1KELtoTa.TW KatO 9aATa'TW c w T a El KO/V O) STa) Ta VTp 7TpOLp.C/uaTO
/ovA'r7lE'S YEVOIJEvO av5TOv /I fEvO& aro p-qig7cL atW TpoS TE TON 57 V Kat To E) 7NV.
Someone might inquire into the reason why it is that man was created last with regard to the
creation of the cosmos for, as the holy writings reveal, the Creator and Father made him last
after all the others. Indeed, those who immerse themselves further in the Laws and investigate
5 Aristarchus' influence in scholarly circles must be distinguished from his influence on the
vulgate text of the Iliad. Didymus already distinguished between Aristarchus' readings and at
KoLval(schol. 11. 5.797) or a' qtbk "5ELS (schol. Il. 5.881). See also M. L. West, Studies in the Text
and Transmission of the Iliad (Munich-Leipzig, 2001), 50-2, 61-7; id., 'The textual criticism and
editing of Homer', in G. W Most, Editing Texts: Texte edieren, Aporemata 2 (G6ttingen, 1998),
99, where he stresses Aristarchus' influence on the numerus versuum; M. Finkelberg showed that
Aristarchus hardly influenced the readings of the Homeric text, while he did have a crucial
impact on the numerus versuum (M. Finkelberg, ' "She turns about in the same spot and watches
for Orion": ancient criticism and exegesis of Od. 5.274 = Il. 18.488', GRBS 44 (2004), 231-44;
ead., 'Regional texts and the circulation of books: the case of Homer', GRBS 46 (2006), 231-48;
see also K. McNamee, 'Aristarchos and "Everyman's" Homer', GRBS 22 (1981), 247-55; J. I.
Porter, 'Hermeneutic lines and circles: Aristarchos and Crates on the exegesis of Homer', in
R. Lamberton and J. J. Keaney (edd.), Homer's Ancient Readers.: The Hermeneutics of Greek
Epic's Earliest Exegetes (Princeton, 1992), 68-9.
6 West (n. 5), 46-85; P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972), 1.463-5.
7 Philo, Mut. 179, see also Abr. 10; Philo refers only in general terms to his 'reading and study
of the writings of the poets' (Congr. 74) in the context of his own instruction in grammar; see also
R. Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind. Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt
(Princeton-Oxford, 2001), 194-7; M. Finkelberg, 'Homer as a foundation text', in ead. and G. G.
Stroumsa (edd.), Homer, the Bible and Beyond (Leiden, 2003), 75-96.
8 For details, see M. R. Niehoff, 'Questions and answers in Philo and Genesis Rabbah', Studia
Philonica Annual (2007), forthcoming; on Philo's formulation of canonicity, see ead., Philo on
Jewish Identity and Culture (Tiibingen, 2001), 187-209; Siegert (n. 4), 172-6.

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
168 MAREN R. NIEHOFF
thoroughly and with all scrutiny, as much as is

God after giving man a share in his kinship with
of all gifts, did not begrudge him any of the oth
for him as for the most familiar and beloved cre
not lack anything needful to live and to live w
Philo has nothing but praise for these sc

by the highest degree of scrutiny and p
interpretation, paraphrasing not only the
subsequently provided for illustration.1'
suggests that they systematically applied th
'investigating ... into the things concerni
pdAwTara indicates that, as far as Philo w
certain limits of investigation. They seem
that are beyond human comprehension.
sympathized with them. He himself occ
stressing, for example, that 'necessarily o
particular crux in the Biblical text (Opif.
Bible must have been Jews. Pagans did not
the advent of Christianity.1' They moreo
their parable contains details about ban
contests which best fit the environment of
The method of Philo's favoured exeget
Homeric scholarship, namely the ?q7'T-
period especially in Alexandria.12 The par
the context of the verse rather than from a crux in the text itself. It is asked whether
9 My translations of Philonic texts are based on the critical edition of L. Cohn and P.
Wendland, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt (Berlin, 1896-1915).
10 I take the parable in Opif. 78, phrased in the usual terms KaOdrrEp and 7-v aV-rOv Tpd7Tov, to
be part of Philo's report on the exegetes. The difficulty of identifying the precise boundaries of
Philo's reports has been discussed in the context of allegorical exegetes by D. M. Hay, 'Philo's
references to other allegorists', Studia Philonica Annual 6 (1979-80), 52.
11 Greco-Egyptian stories about the Jews and their alleged expulsion from Egypt (such as
Manetho's and Apion's), nowhere contain a reference to the Biblical Exodus story and can thus
hardly be identified as 'counter-histories'; see esp. E. S. Gruen, 'The use and abuse of the Exodus
story', Jewish History 12 (1998), 93-122; P. Schifer, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the
Ancient World (Cambridge, MA, 1997), 15-33; J. G. Gager, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism,
Society of Biblical Literature monograph ser. 16 (Nashville-New York, 1972), 113-33. While
Plutarch, though sympathetic to the Jews, never quoted their Scriptures, Celsus' refutation of
Christianity significantly contains detailed discussions of the Book of Genesis (esp. Book 6 of
Contra Celsum). Longinus quoted Gen. 1.3 and paraphrased Gen. 1.9-10 (On the Sublime 9.9; see
also the valuable comments by W. R. Roberts, Longinus.: On the Sublime [Cambridge, 1899],
231-7).
12 On the genre, see esp. the excellent overview by A. Gudeman, AVUEts, RE 13, cols. 2511-29;
and the fine philosophical analysis by C. Jacob, 'Questions sur les questions: archeologie d'une
pratique intellectuelle et d'une forme discursive', in A. Volgers and C. Zamagni (edd.),
Erotapokriseis: Early Christian Question-and-Answer Literature in Context (Leuven, 2004),
25-54. Porphyry recalls: 'v r j MovaUEl 7 KaT 'r AAEViv pElaV voosg 'vv 7TpoPd3AAEUGOa
rI7Tr-qLTaat Ka\ rgL 7 tVOLava AvUELtS gvaTypbEU Oat (Porph. schol. on II. 9.682, in H. Schrader,
Porphyrii quaestionum Homericarum ad Iliadem pertinentium reliquiae [Leipzig, 1880], 141). See
also P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria.- An Exegete for his Time, suppl. to NT 86 (Leiden, 1997),
82-9, who pointed to phenomenological similarities between Homeric, Philonic, and rabbinic
techiques without, however, committing himself to a particular historical reconstruction.
Christian exegetes also applied the Greek r ~cypa technique, see: C. Zamagni, 'Existe-t-il une
terminologie technique dans les Questions d'Eusebe de Cesar6e?', in Volgers and Zamagni,
81-98.

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
the sequence of creation, with man placed at the end, may indicate
stake is the precise message conveyed by Scripture. The ,Avtos prov

exegetes is much to Philo's liking, because it confirms man's centra
beloved creature, a notion on which he himself elaborates (Opif. 79
Both the question and the solution are remarkable for their co
difficulty is identified in the Biblical text and no criticism is expresse
( q'r'za-ra tradition had been far more subversive. Aristotle confron

questions concerning the logical consistency, historical truth, and m
the Homeric epics.13 The first Jew known to have raised explicit qu
the Biblical text also proceeded in a more critical spirit. Demetriu
Jew flourishing probably during the last half of the third century, w
'... but someone may ask how the Israelites had weapons, seeing tha
unarmed'.14 He also asked 'why did Joseph give Benjamin a five-f
meal even though he would not be able to consume so much meat?'1
indicate that Demetrius addressed issues of apparent inconsistency
Biblical notice about the Israelites' war against the Amalekites see
the earlier information about their lack of weapons during the Exo
Joseph's measure to Benjamin appeared illogical in view of Ben
capacities. To be sure, Demetrius provided answers justifying th
remains remarkable, however, that he approached Scripture inte
consideration of its inconsistencies.
The question raised by Philo's exegetes instead looks as if it had been invented for
the sake of providing an interesting solution. It serves as a spring-board for an
interpretation which may have been ready beforehand. This feature fits the milieu in
Alexandria that saw an inflation of Homeric questions. Aristarchus complained
about this phenomenon, accusing its practitioners of 'wanting to invent /rqjltara'.16
Philo's literal exegetes seem to have belonged to an environment where questions were
no longer put to actual text-critical use, but rather served more general hermeneutic
purposes. In certain circles they had become something of a stylistic device. Philo's
exegetes thus did not participate in the discourse of hard-core Homeric criticism, but
rather belonged to a milieu that was loosely inspired by the scholarly methods without
rigorously applying them.
This observation is further supported by the fact that these exegetes show no
intellectual affinity to the Peripatos, the school most influential in text-critical
Alexandrian scholarship.17 The above quoted interpretation instead relies on Plato's
Timaeus, where man is presented as a creature endowed with divine reason and
13 Arist. Apor. Hom. in V. Rose, Aristotelis Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1886), frs. 142-79; see also N. J.
Richardson, 'Aristotle's reading of Homer and its background', in Lamberton and Keaney (n. 5),
30-40; M. Carroll, Aristotle's Poetics, c. XXV in the Light of the Homeric Scholia (Baltimore,
1895), 10-13.
14 Edition and translation (with my emendations) by C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Helle-
nistic Jewish Authors (Chico, 1983), 1.76 = Euseb. Praep. evang. 9.29.16 (r7TtIr-Ei^v E Tva r(0jS
o1 'IparqAiYat irAa 'uaXov Ivo7TAo\ 'EAO'SElSr). Demetrius' importance in terms of critical
scholarship has been stressed by Y. Gutman, The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature
(Jerusalem, 1969; Hebrew), 1.138-9; Kamesar (n. 1, 1994), 219-21.
'1 Holladay (n. 14), 1.70 = Euseb. Praep. evang 9.21.14 (&ta7opEdOat S' td a T rt 7TorE
'Iwac)75 BEVLa1LiV E7T o L O)dpt'roV rEvTa7Tvrhaalova kIEpLPa 5C'W KE [4'T 8vvajuE'vOV ac'vro
0Uoaa6Ta Ka-ravahcLaaL Kppa).
16 Schol. II. 10.372.
17 For details on the connection between Alexandrian scholarship and Aristotle, see below.

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
therefore inclined to contemplate the h

philosophy'.18 Their insistence on God's
who characterizes the demiurge in precise
were thus firmly anchored in Plato's appr
rigorous scholarship under the aegis of the
approach to Scripture, himself sharing a
tractates Questions and Answers on Genesi
examples of the kind of (j-Tr para that w
rather than actual text-critical problems.20
Another kind of scholarly inquiry into Sc
Philo's part. The nature of his reservat
discussion of an d&rTdp-rla that had been
man in our image and likeness' (LXX Gen
problem of the plural by adapting this ver
ElKdva OEOVo in Gen. 1.27. Philo thus para

dOq7u yEyEv1 at Y7 L KaT dEIKdOva EEO
emptively solving the problem by omitting
to the obvious difficulty that apparently o
(ATOp iUELE ' E'lr TcS OFK ar7T UKo07TO, Tg spk7TO

,LsoUpy o KaiOinTErp oTAAa aVE'yOinKEVa, hAA'
Awov ravrtd AEhyovTna '7TroL7aw' tEv avOpWTro
KaEtL e a YdIV rKatl )v eOtAatrav, OV;mEOn w E'E3l0hoq To avjvpybaovy0ro, vOpwclrrov U 2)paXc

OV OVTWS KELN 7 Tl'K7pY Ol OLOS O E 771O)r o o3L Ta ufkrpOeEWs ErEpl) atTpv p or9a' avroV
KaTaaEKEvaaEaLOa;
Should someone not without justification raise the difficulty why he (Moses) attributed the
creation of man only not to one demiurge as with all the others, but as if to many. For he
(Moses) introduces the Father of everything speaking thus: 'Let us create man according to our
image and likeness' (LXX Gen. 1.26). I would [rather] ask whether the One to whom everything
is subordinate is in need of anything whatsoever? He who had no need of any collaborator when
He created the heaven and the earth and the sea-should He not have been able to make such a
humble and perishable creature as man without helpers, just by Himself?! (Opif. 72)
The initial question raised here is presented in typically Aristotelian style: the verb
Jlmopgo is characteristic of Aristotle's dialectical enquiries and became especially
famous through his iTroptiar~ a "0L L pOptKa.21 N. J. Richardson stressed the influence
of the latter work on Alexandrian scholarship, identifying Callimachus' Aitia as a
18 Cf. Philo, Opif 77-8 to P1. Tim. 47A-B, 34A-35B; 41E-42D. Note that the expression -r
LAoao0las ... yEvos is unique to Plato and Philo until Plutarch also mentions it (Plut. Quaest.
Plat. 999E). See also D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos according
to Moses. Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 1
(Leiden, 2001), 201-3, 248-51.
19 See esp. D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Leiden, 1986).
20 I hope to provide a full analysis of Philo's Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus in
my planned monograph. In the meantime, see G. Bardy, 'La litterature patristique des
"quaestiones et responsiones" sur l'Ecriture sainte', RB 41 (1932), 212-17; D. M. Hay (ed.), Both
Literal and Allegorical. Studies in Philo's of Alexandria's Questions and Answers on Genesis and
Exodus (Atlanta, 1991).
21 Diog. Laert. 5.26 mentions six volumes, the fragments of which have been collected by
V. Rose. Note that the above expression drTop(aET E E d3'v r- appears in identical form in Arist.
Eth. Nic. 1.6.5.

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
work based on Aristotle's model.22 Furthermore, the above Jirrdp

Torah as a literary work, dwelling on its particular style. It is ask
'attributed' a particular expression to one of the characters and 'in
speech considered unusual. This approach closely parallels the
criticism in the spirit of Aristotle's Poetics, which has been identif
exegetical scholia and also in Aristarchus' work.23
Philo clearly was ambivalent about this To'rdpr-la. Instead of lavi
expounders, as he did in the previous case, he admits that their qu
without justification'. He furthermore reports their approach o
While he reported the full details of the previous question and an
even the parable, in this case he transmits only the question with
answer given by the literal exegetes themselves. Abruptly terminatin
instead formulates his own question in a highly pointed, if not
thus difficult to reconstruct the exegetes' own interpretation. We m
clue from Philo's apologetics. When sharply asking his readers whe
think of God, the creator of the whole cosmos, as someone in n
when it comes to the creation of man, Philo seems to give an ironi
the kind of claim that had been made, namely that God needed
creation of man.
Philo's own solution to the problem raised by the literal exegetes characteristically
reflects a Platonic spirit. Inspired by the Timaeus, he devotes all his exegetical efforts
to proving that the plural in ToL477wVEEv has ethical significance. God relied on 'others
as if on collaborators' so as to shun responsibility for man's evil inclinations (Opif.

75).24 Only man's spiritual aspects, he insists, were created in the Divine image, while
all his inferior qualities originated from God's assistants. Philo's theological Avats in
the image of Plato's Timaeus thus replaces the original solution of the literal exegetes,
who had been inspired by Aristotle's approach. This procedure conforms to a more
general tendency in Philo's work. On other important occasions he distanced himself
from the Aristotelian orientation prevailing in Alexandria, countering Peripatetic
influence among his fellow Jews.25 He advocated Plato rather than Aristotle as a
thinker congenial to Judaism. Philo was committed to upholding proper standards of
speaking about God, rejecting an inquiry into the Hebrew Bible that was not bound
by certain theological considerations. It now remains for us to investigate how he
reacted to a branch of literal exegesis that went, in his view, far beyond what was
proper.
22 N. J. Richardson, 'Aristotle and Hellenistic scholarship', in F. Montanari (ed.), Laphilologie

grecque d I'p1oque hellknistique et romaine (Geneva, 1993), 7-28.
23 N. J. Richardson, 'Literary criticism in the exegetical scholia to the Iliad: a sketch', CQ 30
(1980), 265-87; Richardson (n. 22), 23-5; Porter (n. 5), 74-80; D. Liihrs, Untersuchungen zu den
Athetesen Aristarchs in der Ilias and zu ihrer Behandlung im Corpus der exegetischen Scholien
(Olms, 1992), 13-17.
24 Cf. Tim. 41B-E, where the lower deities are said to be responsible for the inferior bodily
aspects of man. Being created themselves, they ensure that man will not be immortal. Philo, by
contrast, does not explain the origin and nature of God's collaborators.
25 See his polemics against Aristotelian views of creation, discussed by M. R. Niehoff, 'Philo's
contribution to contemporary Alexandrian metaphysics', in D. Brakke, A.-C. Jacobsen, and
J. Ullrich (edd.), Beyond 'Reception'. Mutual Influences between Antique Religion, Judaism and
Early Christianity (Frankfurt, 2006), 35-55.

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
Philo passed the following judgement on certa

acumen to the change of Abraham's and Sarah
AEyEcraL yap oTL '00 Kr76qOUcrTcatL r- ',vota urov

(Gen. 17.5). EvLOt oV o oi0v -rov ' ,thacrrlTExlO vwV KOa L, WLOUsv CETOELS 'a/oWtkotL 7Tpoa7TTEtV
JOEAO'VTwv Ot UaotCpaUL 1ttAAov q 7 pdytLaLUt Kat rTTOAEOV aK'PVKKTOV 7TOAEPOPvTWV 70TO
EpOrg r7Tav O' aa t TO7r EV7eTPE saYlp no ,E al 6OKEA i ablto ,a walwl be A a
KpnvTTEOcatL htAoardl e7rtpXovra m ETa aKpe tLO~ ErPEavr7S26 9an oaaVtrav Tr wE7T wageoA
ropoEpovatL, 8taq0EpOVTWS E TLS Trgv V3vopLcTOV (T.LaaETOUEL. r KalTTP77Tv 7)KOvuaa
XAEV6oVToS Kcl KaL aKEpToLOVVToS ov6po tLEp o KO gaE31oN, it E,'A/lcLa 0"ELv E LEtYaACLL
n-d Ka~tre7 TEprp Aovaat olWpEa, t"i~sa rero M vacw ^b c yesLcial 7thV8 Oc hJav 3pEYELV nTO atXElOV
<yadp> igrpoaO-der , "to by m Ans a, taOLXEOV 7TEPtLTr727 KaL tiTnagLV wic p. 7TpoUtETEL cao b
OavLaaCr77v s7ApKroqv E iOnEVh EV'pyEUOlav 7rapEUax7uOatt28 "T7V af3praL yvvasKa o6lpav f6ppav
ovotaahE 8& rONP CO 7tapaoayL W'v Kata oaa OLOtrLpo7T a VVEepwvr 7TvEVUTs Kwal EMoTrLCpK'ISW)V
tLea 8LEreL"t. Troi dEV OoV rpvoEVo/hAa3EtaS o ofK Els oLaKpav n WKE 7l pVa apo L OU p aoV 8ltK77v Cd7T
yap 1Ktpaas KaCL 7t s TVXOvf s an pOta)Ewr e Etr, aYrXVV s ~Ev, Lo h Laps KL ~v HKmOaprTOS
/17,aE KaOapo) OavLTW TEAEVT9'O7. 3LKCrLWS'( 8) LV '7VE~L~S 7TEp 7TOV) P7) KaN E"TEPOV TOES' aLTOLS^
,AJvat TLS v7Trovola EaKKO6aaPLLEV, vatLOAOyOVVTE9 Ka l a7TOSLKVVVTE -Tar AEY'tyLEva TaVTa

7TrLU'17s E27~4LTL' Ua a7rov.
For it is said that 'your name shall no longer be called Abram, but your name will be Abraam'
(LXX Gen. 17.5).
Some, however, of those who love quarrel and always wish to attach blame to blameless things,
not so much regarding external matters but the very meaning,29 and of those who wage an
undeclared war against holy things reproach by calumny, especially the changes of names, after
having deprecated by means of a detailed enquiry all the things which seem to them cannot be
preserved as appropriate in the literal sense, although these are in reality symbols of nature
which ever likes to hide.
I have just now heard from a godless and impious fellow who was jesting and railing violently,
having the effrontery to say: 'great and surpassing indeed are the gifts which Moses says the
Leader of all provided. For by the addition of a letter, one single alpha, a superfluous letter, and
again by the addition of another letter, a rho, He seems to have given from Himself an
extraordinarily great gift naming Sara the wife of Abraham Sarra by doubling the rho'. And at
the same time he continued to go in detail through all similar cases speaking breathlessly and
sneering [at them]. Not before long he paid the suitable penalty for his insanity. For a minor and
trivial allegation he rushed to the hanging buttress so that the filthy and impure fellow came not
even to a clean death.
Rightly then, in order to prevent anyone else being caught by the same [literal interpretations] we
26 Cohn/Wendland, ad loc., suggest a substantial emendation of the text adding o'K or

replacing CLETd by l'xa. Yet the manuscript text is grammatically correct, thus not warranting any
change, and its contents becomes perfectly clear when we consider the continuation of Philo's
criticism: he accuses the 'quarrelsome' Bible critics of having studied all the cases of name
changes thus grounding their attack on a broad and detailed analysis (Mut. 61). While Cohn's
conjecture was unfortunately accepted by the English translator Colson, it has rightly been
rejected by the French translator Arnaldez.
27 Cohn/Wendland, ad loc., put the expression aTroLXELC 7TEpLTTEVEL in brackets. I follow
Colson and Arnaldez, who accept the form restored by Markland, namely otOLXELOV 7TEPLTTO77.
We shall moreover see below that this expression fits well into the overall exegetical approach of
these exegetes.
28 Cohn/Wendland, ad loc., suggest a lacuna, assuming that Philo must initially have pointed
to the etymological explanation of Abraham's name. This is possible, but not at all necessary.
29 The expression oi3 acTpauLL ,uAAov i) 7TpdyoLaa is highly unusual. Colson translated 'not so
much to material things as to actions and ideas' (Philo in Ten Volumes, Loeb Classical Library
[Cambridge, MA, 1981], 5.173). My own translation instead reflects the Stoic distinction between
cwv7r, the actual word spoken, arl/LLVEvov irp7ayta, the meaning understood by the hearer
and TvyXLvov, the actual object spoken of (SVF 2.166). Throughout his discussion of the
changes of names Philo stresses the underlying meaning conveyed by them, see esp. his reference
to ra 8~E TVYXvLvovTa implied in the change from Zd'pa to dappa (Mut. 77).

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
wish to eliminate the underlying meanings, explaining from natural princ

these things which have been said [in Scripture] are worthy of most seriou
(Mut. 60-2)
Philo evidently dislikes the above mentioned exegetes to such a degree that his
rhetoric obscures their actual activities. It is exceedingly difficult for the modern
reader to recover the precise features of their work. Initially therefore, we have to
analyse Philo's own comments, which form the editorial layer and must be
distinguished from the exegetes' self-image. Only after appreciating the particular
thrust of Philo's criticism can we begin to analyse the few bits of actual information
that he provides. It will thus be possible to reconstruct a particular scholarly approach
to the Bible that is reflected in Philo's report, albeit in a highly distorted manner.
Philo provides both a general criticism of these exegetes and a report about one
member. Both of them teem with accusations. Characterizing the whole group, he
says that they 'love quarrel and always wish to attach blame to blameless things'. They
are also said to 'reproach by calumny' and 'deprecate by means of a detailed enquiry'.
All of these terms are highly loaded, suggesting that these exegetes are sinful Jews
who cause internal strife by adopting an outsider's perspective on the Hebrew Bible.
Initially, the term tLAarrqEXOlyOtvwv refers in Philo's writings predominantly to Jews
who fail to show sufficient loyalty to their fellow-Jews either by rejoicing over their
misfortunes or generally behaving as complete strangers.30 Philo says that joining the
Jewish community implies, among other things, becoming friendly with men, while
those who 'rebel from the holy laws' become 'quarrelsome' (Virt. 182). He clearly
expects that Jews foster unity among each other. The harmony of the community may
be disturbed, Philo complains, when some 'lovers of quarrel' compare the story of
Isaac's binding to cases of child sacrifice in Greek and barbarian culture (Abr. 178).
Philo rejects such a comparison, making considerable efforts to show the unique value
of the Biblical story. Certain literal interpretations were thus identified by Philo as
stemming from 'quarrelsome' quarters of the Jewish community. Their exegesis was in
his eyes equal to other activities of disloyalty and deserved to be uprooted.
Philo moreover describes the exegetes as 'attaching blame to blameless things'. The
terms fowftos and ~Luw~os- regularly occur in Philo's writings in the context of
sacrifice, identifying priests and animals as either ritually fit or unfit.31 In some
contexts, however, Philo extends his discussion to the metaphorical realm, speaking
of spiritual blamelessness. Besides some general statements,32 he repeats one specific
theme: blameless is the soul that acknowledges God as the cause of everything,
preserving His gifts undamaged and perfect.33 The arts and sciences, Philo insists,
must also be recognized as having their cause and ultimate purpose in God (Her. 116).
They are gifts which must not be harmed by putting them to irreverent use. When
Philo thus accuses some Jewish exegetes of 'attaching blame to blameless things', he
implies that they profane Scripture which had been donated as a gift by God. The
canonical text, naturally pointing to God's sovereignty, has in his view been damaged
by a kind of exegesis that gives too much consideration to human judgement.
30 See esp. Mos. 1.248; Spec. 1.241; Jos. 226; Fuga 5. Two of the ten occurrences refer to
hostility shown by non-Jews to Jews (Virt. 34; In Flacc. 52). For the analysis of Philonic key-terms
I rely on P. Borgen, K. Fluglseth and R. Skarsten, The Philo Index: A Complete Word Index to the
Writings of Philo of Alexandria (Leiden, 2000).
31 Philo, Spec. 1.117, 166, 242, 259, 268; Mut. 233; Somn. 2.185.
32 Philo, All. 3.141; Cher. 85; Sobr. 11.
33 Philo, All. 1.50; Her. 114-23.

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
Calumny, &8apoA,, is another characte

This term is especially significant, beca
Philo's writings it refers to slanders atta
infamous Egyptians.34 The topical contex
andria which led to a pogrom of the Jews
particular kind of literal exegesis, Philo h
perspective. In respect to their scholarly a
and unpleasant of contemporary Egyptia
be too close to Apion, who was both a le
head of the hostile Egyptian embassy t
belong to Apion's circle? Even if such a co
that calumny was a grave sin in his eye
accusing Moses of having made up oracl
which was in their view nothing but nep
the literal exegetes, whose interpretation
similarly rebelling against their own tradi
The last charge mentioned in this cont
enquiry'. The verb qavAlw is unique in
exceptional degree of irritation. The exp
occurring only on two other occasions in t
refers to the exegetes discussed above, na
created last (Opif. 66). As we saw, Phil
compliment. Furthermore, the expressi
education embraced by school-learning' (
reading and writing, Philo explains, the s
detailed investigation of the things [writ
'most highly esteemed among the Gre
admits.36 His description seems to reflect
the study of Homer and other poets. Ph
scholarship, describing the Jewish exeg
scholarship and Biblical exegesis thus s
'detailed inquiry' may also hint at the exe
scholars applying the methods of Greek l
Philo's report about one particular litera
enable us to locate this group more pre
exegete in question relies on the LXX, ref
names of Abraham and Sarah. He eviden
himself. Moreover, this exegete seem
Alexandria, because he 'just now heard
34 Philo, Jos. 66; Mos. 1.46; In Flacc. 33, 89; L

Egyptians as ultimate Other, see Niehoff (n. 8
local perspectives in Philo of Alexandria', in
otism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-Ro
79-105.
35 The expression 'detailed inquiry' significantly occurs also in the context of Egyptian-Jewish
tension in Alexandria, referring to Egyptians searching for Jews and investigating them (In Flacc.
90, 96). There is thus once more a semantic connection between the practices of the Jewish literal
exegetes and the actions of Egyptian anti-Semites. The term, however, occurs also in a more
neutral philosophical context, see e.g. Cher. 129 and Sacr. 85.
36 Philo, Mut. 179, see also Abr. 10.

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
moreover indicates that he has been executed not too long ago.3
expected to recognize the case and to be familiar with the circ
himself does not specify the cause, instead suggesting a general con
blasphemous hermeneutics and execution. The latter was in his vi
punishment. The fact that only 'a minor and trivial allegation' was p
official trial implies that Divine providence was at play. Philo's
resembles to a striking degree his presentation of Flaccus, the R
Alexandria under Tiberius. In his case, too, he said nothing about th
instead used it to teach a lesson in Divine providence. He suggeste
tried and executed by the Romans, because he had maltreated the Je
used the Roman court as an instrument of retribution. The historica
must have been rather different, the Romans having their own reason
Flaccus. Philo clearly wished to set up this figure as a sign of assura
that no enemy of the Jews will go unpunished for long. The sa
'quarrelsome' contemporaries from within the Jewish community.
enemies of the Jewish nation who bring similar punishment on them
Having appreciated Philo's general attitude and rhetoric, we are n
to analyse his report about the methods of the literal exegetes.
information we receive about their work is their refusal to read the
Philo complains that they attach blame 'not so much regarding ext
to the very meaning' (Mut. 60). They miss the real intention of Scrip
do not recognize the 'symbols of nature which ever likes to hide' (i
to mend the damage they have caused by pointing to 'the under
explaining from natural principles and showing that these things
said [in Scripture] are worthy of most serious attention' (Mut. 6
according to nature is in Philo's writings a regular term for an alle
Scripture. He sometimes approvingly mentions allegories by VULoK
literal exegetes criticized by Philo obviously belong to the opp
neglect of allegory is not accidental, but represents a conscious app
about them in another context that they 'are unwilling to apply
inward facts of things and follow after truth'.40
Philo provides also some positive clues into their method. His accu
'reproach by calumny, especially the change of names' conv
information (Mut. 60). It implies that these exegetes focused on
such as the change of names. They studied references to a particula
out Scripture. This is precisely what the exegete, who was execut
37 Scholars generally understood Philo to refer to suicide (Colson, ad loc.;

Hay [n. 10], 92). A parallel case in Spec. 3.161 may support this view. Anoth
proves far more relevant, because hanging appears here in precisely the sam
'unclean death' (Aet. 20). In this passage Philo explicitly enumerates hangin
dying that come to men not 'from within themselves' (Js ?avTr&v), but 'from outside' (trr6 78 ETv
CKTdS). Execution rather than suicide is also meant in Mut. 62, where Philo mentions a 'minor
and trivial allegation'.
38 See esp. In Flacc. 147-52, discussed by P. van der Horst, Philo's Flaccus.: The First Pogrom.
Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 2 (Leiden,
2003), 219-29; Niehoff (n. 8), 40-1, 133-6.
39 See e.g. Abr. 99, discussed by M. R. Niehoff, 'Mother and maiden, sister and spouse: Sarah
in Philonic Midrash', HThR 97 (2004), 431-3.
40 QG 3.53 treating the same interpreters of the change of Abraham's and Sarah's names. (This
passage is only preserved in an Armenian translation, transl. R. Marcus in Loeb Classical
Library suppl. vol. 1).

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
done: 'he continued to go in detail throug

approach was based on a broad and compa
Hebrew Bible was studied in its entirety a
expressions or similar cases. Philo's report
being used among Jews. Its initial occurrenc
highly significant. It suggests that the appl
deep acculturation to the Hellenistic environ
a method of Homeric scholarship that cam
oao qvt'ELw.41 Aristarchus was the foremos
James I. Porter has shown, he rejected all
within the corpus of the Homeric text (see
Homeric expressions and their parallels with
(7oto7-LtKOV 00s).43 He also studied name
occurrences in other passages of the Iliad.44
'studied homonyms' (schol. Il. 2.837-8).
A further piece of evidence emerges when
... all the things which, it seems to them, c
literal sense' (Mut. 60). The crucial expression
8cau ?ELv 80KE^. It is only here that Philo
context.45 It is not a technical term of Hom
have referred to an exegetical technique
colleagues, but also by Homeric scholars. T
Philo's reference to EVtrrpE7T supports th
ations of fittingness or appropriateness wer
a particular item in Scripture could be 'pres
scholars in Alexandria who studied Script
word in question conformed to certain st
canonical text as a piece of literature to w
analysis can be applied. Sometimes, as in th
exegetes were highly critical, suggesting
maintained.
The precise meaning of their method can best be appreciated by looking at parallel
cases in the scholia. The term E,3rpETErs is characteristic of the bT scholia, where it is
often used to justify the text as poetically and morally appropriate, especially in such
cases where serious exegetical problems had arisen.47 The true cause of the Trojan
War was discussed in such terms. Several scholiasts were acutely aware of the fact that
the Cypria provided an alternative approach, suggesting that Zeus planned the war
41 Porph. Quaest. Hom. II. 297, quoted and discussed by Porter (n. 5), 70-7. C. Schaublin,
'Homerum ex Homero', MH 34 (1977), 221-7, suggested that this exegetical maxim was rather
widespread in the imperial period and not confined to the grammatikoi.
42 Porter (n. 5), 70-4, argued against R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship from the
Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford, 1968), 231, for the probability of the
Aristarchan origin of the maxim.
43 Schol. II. 1.499; see also 9s o80s airJ in schol. Il. 5.734-6; similarly in schol. II. 5.299,
5.684.
44 E.g. schol. Il. 5.708.
45 The verb occurs thirty-three times throughout Philo's work, otherwise referring to salvation
in a historical or ethical sense (see eg. Abr. 98, 177; Leg. 328).
46 The scholiasts use it only once in the general sense of salvation (schol. II. 20.335); see index
by H. Erbse, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Berlin, 1983), 6.309.
47 E.g. schol. II. 8.362, 139-40, 9.316, 334-6; 20.94-5.

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
against Troy and incited the Trojans by setting up a beauty cont

Athena and Aphrodite in which Paris, the judge, preferred the latte
the war emerged as Hera's revenge for her insult. Homer, by contra
tension between Zeus and Hera prompted the war. Troy was actually
city, which he, however, surrendered to Hera, who insisted that her d
and its inhabitants must at least have some visible effect (1. 4.25
scholiasts, including Aristarchus, stressed Homer's ignorance of the
the Cypria,49 a scholiast in the bT tradition tackles what was in
difficulty in the Homeric text:
8ta TL 6t Atkv ZE's 1Htav, -q 6E` Hp a TpELs r ULIv )EXELt 7TTOAELS kc O

'EAA-qlvas, 06 E ip/apov; E'SEL yap Ta KpELaUovas TO)v EaLTA4a TW
qOLAT'Ta?.
why did Zeus say that he has one [beloved city], while Hera says she has thr
even having Greek [cities], while he has a barbarian one, for necessarily th
have the best ones as his beloved [cities]. (schol. II. 4.51--2)
This drordprlta derives from the assumption of a strict hierarchy amon

The highest god must therefore be associated with the greater numbe
quality of cities. Given the philhellenic spirit of the scholiasts in the bT t
also implies Greek cities for Zeus.S5 The Homeric text, however, vio
sensitivities, associating Troy with Zeus. For the scholiast it was incon
Zeus should have been on the side of the barbarians. Homer's sympa
opponents of the Greeks and his lack of an overt nationalism were si
clashing with the exegete's own world view. On the other hand, the scholi
preserve the Homeric text rather than accept the version of the Cypria. T
is solved by reference to propriety:
P-7TEoF A Tt EV7TPEI?7 3OvA6/TLEVOS 7TEpLqE-vcLL aUTI tTII (lta lOJ TS lOpyIS 6I

OVX qv 0 61160o5 ) avararaTTEL, O ?pa 6 A. TO 1u?7 TpOTtq7qOIvatl T77s A?poTJr S ?
TO) KOAAhoVS TOi Tpwoatv XaA,&rawtv, ETMlTrq6ES TavTasr ( bltv avTl7v TS TOr
7TEpt aS TO ToLSaKa 7T KKaT T/lV EAEIv-qV YEYOVEV
one must say that the poet, wishing to bestow upon her a becoming reason for her w
the one which myth had fabricated, namely that she was angry at the Trojans be
not been preferred to Aphrodite in the beauty contest, purposefully said that she lik
on account of which the wrong concerning Helen was done. (schol. II. 4.51-2)
The scholiast suggests that Homer chose his version wisely, thus dismissing the one
found in the Cypria. This explanation is subsequently expanded, either by the same
scholiast or some colleague in the same tradition. It is argued that the Cypric version
cannot be reconciled with the story about Hera's borrowing of Aphrodite's belt in
48 Cypria 1, apud Proclus, Chrestomacy I (ed. H. G. Evelyn-White).

49 Schol. II. 4.32, 4.51, 4.52; see also the fine discussion by A. Severyns, Le cycle 'pique dans
l'icole d'Aristarque (Liege-Paris, 1928), 261-4, showing that Homer in fact knew the alternative
version, which was, however, vehemently rejected by Aristarchus, who wished to preserve the
Homeric epic from any contamination by such mythic material.
50 The philhellenic orientation of the bT scholia is conspicucus right from the beginning, see
schol. II. 1.1, 2; see also schol. II. 11.197, 15.618, 16.814-15, 17.220-32; for broader discussion
and other references, see M. Schmidt, Die Erkliirungen zum Weltbild Homers und zur Kultur der
Heroenzeit in den bT-Scholien zur Ilias (Munich, 1976), 56-7; id., 'The Homer of the scholia:
what is explained to the reader?', in E Montanari (ed.), Omero tremila anni dopo (Rome, 2002),
172-3.

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
order to seduce her husband, because, if in

the beauty contest, she would not be on
Moreover, the Homeric version is praised
he was willing to surrender the only belove
The notion of poetic propriety also played
This is the case, for example, when Pose
15.212-17). The exegetical crux is the ten
(vEEoual8ES V7rrodEiow) and his immed

Ovtfk). Aristarchus rejected lines 212-17
threats. His motivation, as recorded by Ari
aF)ur%orom tIsaeS
s 70th70e elne 0nil'let
cha7 70bothhimrko
0i7 cT L w
VC)thir t vT ruth71X01
aOnE7V7aL atw us' (I0i7L
, 15.2617 sirt
Ei7Enti [o lnAe
Kcid Kareathri
7h1)a a
rOEUWLV KaCl Ta KLa7aC 771 a&L.OLOpw 7TpOELEt7m yap 'VtEpEu'1oqEtS' ;o(w' oLo1'L%
ETCEA-qEr77Ot3ES TtEpEI 'ar7tELACru'. 0 TE HO0ELt5WV ErTrTC7aL 0g7 o1 K E1S~ ri-TAog ELGEratL
19S at6AEoWV, a aA 0o01) o p.0 EKCE 70) rL(a1 ra 701 AXLAaa rE7TapVvEt ro19 Tpwal. ra TE
TjV OEW1V 16potcaL7a pE7EVTrVOXE* E r &6dr T OEoptaXtaS , avuvapoiaa 7)1v EvavrTovtuEvWv
7OL9 fap/i3pols OEO9, OVKTL Er7T1777aS q WS OUtE 7C; 'EP5 OUEE 7 ''HbEpp-^rp T "UoC . "EAEv ISL
Ta 7r7 7TrpO7'17UEw, EAA' EEKa 777- qa1tKa7arTcaLEW t3povov 7TapEtlAq0Ev avrovS.
From this line until 'let him know this, that between us' (I/. 15.217) six lines are athetised,
because they are cheap, both in composition and in authorial intention. [Poseidon] having
started by saying 'indignant I shall withdraw', as if repenting, attacks 'I shall utter a threat.'
Poseidon knows that in the end he [Zeus] will not spare the city, but he assisted the Trojans only
for the purpose of giving honour to Achilles. Someone transferred the names of the gods from
the theomachia (II. 20.33-6), associating [the names of] their opponents with the barbarian gods,
while no longer understanding that the things pertaining to sacking a city were of no concern
for Hermes and Hephaestus, but [the poet] has mentioned them only for the purpose of
opposition. (schol. II. 15.212A)
Aristarchus argues that lines 212-1

text. He identifies a rather incompete
speech containing the threat. The latt
and Hephaestus from II. 20.33-6, wit
into a context entirely out of charact
view, have appealed to these gods as p
does not explicitly say what Aristarc
not mention Hermes' and Hephaestus'
way, is not at all discussed in this con
on her plan to sack the city (II. 15
15.211-17 as 'cheap', because they con
with the context. Indignation and sh
followed immediately by angry threat
of Troy and could therefore not hav
should be spared. Aristarchus impli
appeal to Zeus, asking him to 'honou
agreed to her request, nodding assen
invoke further reprimands from Her
for the Trojans (II. 5.19-27). It is th
51 For a survey of the discussion on athe

52 Aristonicus has long ago been establish
see: Liihrs (n. 23), 4-5 and bibliography th
53 11. 2.505.

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
shared by all the actors of the Homeric plot, especially when they
All of these considerations led Aristarchus to suggest an unusually
six verses.
A scholion from the bT tradition presents a radically different view, countering

Aristarchus' judgement of Ev'-EAE by an emphatic affirmation of the lines' poetic
propriety:
EVUx-qova -7,-v c7TaAAayq7v OptE'TaL, EtcLTavaWI''wV ,7V OPY77, Et U ITEPOYWS KKat 4XLtAAEV~S
TWV) 5' a"AAwv, a, a !LOt EUTLt7) oJOErOvvt5'L ot" rrp' -Tp ON yT p N -'a7TEtA-q; a' A rL/'LEv co
EWTrpErrws E'KUT7OvaL OEAEL. El 8E'JKOVUEV dw-'c9AEwL'Lr "IAttooS, r 7W vg6v L7TLtTEU; TEL ,a Kat'
A'yatk.4vwv 'JAAM pOL a xvov UEXos oE9Jv EUrrETaL, KalTro Etw4 7Taprp KaAxav-ros. .AAwg -E
3EL vTErTraXfjOlvat T ' AA ' Or VyV I UE"V KE'.
He (the poet) set up a becoming relief [of emotions], withholding the anger until the end, as also
Achilles says 'but of everything else that is mine' (1. 1.300). Six lines are athetised. For why is
there the threat? But we say that he [the poet] befittingly wishes to [present him] as being out of
his mind. If he heard that Ilios will be sacked, how does he now show disbelief? But
Agamemnon [similarly said] 'dreadful grief for you will be mine', and yet he knew it from
Calchas. Otherwise it is necessary to [admit] that this verse contradicts 'But in fact I will yield for
now' (il. 15.211). (schol. Il.15.212B)
The scholiast shows a fine literary sensitivity, w

of katharsis in tragedy. Homer, he insists, pres
carefully postponing the expression of anger. Th
thus not a logical contradiction, as Aristarch
tension that is purposefully built up.54 The scho
of protracted anger. Achilles initially declared t
instead accept Agamemnon's decision to take he
in a seemingly subservient mood that Agamem
given. Then, however, Achilles threatens mutin
participate in the war. This parallel case suppo
authenticity of II. 15.212-17. Both passages ar
They portray a troubled character whose emoti
unusually coerced by external circumstances. Re
fashion, but only in an extraordinary way.
Philo's 'quarrelsome' colleagues must be apprec
Homeric scholarship. Their judgement that cert
of Abraham's and Sarah's names, cannot be main
prevalent exegetical considerations among Gre
proper textual solution or to withdraw to all
verses. Gen. 17.5 and 17.15 were considered sp
been omitted from the manuscript, but instead
literal exegetes probably marked such verses in
obelus, while separately discussing the reasons for
54 See similarly: M. van der Valk, Researches on t

1964), 2.426.
55 The scholia often distinguish between Aristarchus' atheteses and what appear to be
Zenodotus' emendations. See esp. schol. II. 8.385-7a: adOETroVTa7 atlrXO TpELS ... 7jOEEL 85i KaL
ApLUrrooqva. Zrlvood8070o o06E E'ypaev. Similarly in schol. II. 8.528; schol. II. 8.371-2 (rrapJ
Z7lvo5dTW"
II. oVK
10.240 (ov' S Ev T-rqaav o 860oiv);
Zqvo86drov [urTXoL]); schol. II.The
schol. II. 15.610-4b. 9.416a-b (o;58 ErapJ
precise nature ZlvoOd'6r
of Zenodotus' wdEdpETo; schol.
work is still controversial in modern scholarship, see E Montanari, 'Zenodotus, Aristarchos and

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
Philo's 'quarrelsome' colleagues were thus

not follow the path of the bT scholiasts w
the face of Aristarchus' atheteses. Instead,
was not EV'rPE7TS, thus using a virtually

latter rejected, for example, 11. 1.29-30, b
TotavTa AE'-yEw. Aristarchus also rejected R
AEyELy 'ayaOdv EaUL yvvaltK t tuyEaO
adopted Aristarchus' approach, applying
commitment to textual criticism, it is no
intensely. Preceding modern Bible critic
Alexandrian exegetes inevitably aroused
community.56
Placed in the context of Homeric scholars
evidence. His description of one particular
rejecting particular verses. According to
17.15, because he found the letters alpha
Abraham's names, utterly superfluous (aTo
the notion of God donating a gift of this
relied on a linguistic observation that wa
other words, the exegete initially noted a s
add any new information. His doubts abou
by the impression that, in terms of content
ideas. Taken together, these two considerat
The procedure of this Jewish exegete c
Aristarchan scholarship. Aristarchus ren
category. Erbse's index shows almost an e
them relating to Aristarchus' work.58 It be
athetesis. Aristarchus athetized, for examp
(the verse) "But his sister rebuked him ha
Dietrich Liihrs stressed that Aristarchus'
a two-fold consideration, namely a lingu
the ekdosis of Homer', in Most (n. 5), 1-21, wh

both Zenodotus and Aristarchus were engaged in
cf. the view that Zenodotus did not eliminate lin
West (n. 5), 38-45; H. van Thiel, 'Zenodot, Arist
'Der Homertext in Alexandria', ZPE 115 (1997),
ancient commentators were in reality commenta
56 There are signs that some methods of H
rabbinic exegetes in Palestine of the first few c
Palestine2 (New York, 1962), 20-47; A. A. Hal
(Hebrew), Tarbiz 31 (1962), 157-69, 264-80; P.
"Moses our teacher": late antique exegesis of th
Rutgers, P. van der Horst et al. (edd.), The Use
1998), 130-2; id., 'Why no textual criticism in
culture of the Rabbis', in G. J. Brooke (ed.), Jewis
Studies suppl. 11 (Oxford, 2000), 175-90.
57 Philo, Mut. 61 (quoted above in the extensiv
58 See also Liihrs (n. 23), 18-148. His analysi
focused too narrowly on cases of redundant ver
examined many scholia where an expression oth
the references in Erbse's index, however, confi
refers to a particular category of athetesis.

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
vation of improper content. Aristarchus was thus inclined to suspec

series of consecutive verses, if these showed signs of superfluity
language and of content.
Two examples may suffice here to illustrate the background o
some' exegete. The first pertains to Theano's prayer in the temple o
reported with some redundancy.
WV Ea ) EVXOkEI-7q, < CLVE"VEVE E 6IJ aAAaV A7407>:

a'OErELatl, O't rTPOV OV';B'V TO'E T' VY70La Ka o0K 17LLEVOV" KaTO )EYv
ZEV' EI7TLJEflLOL KaTaVEV"WV. Kat\ E$'jV 3; E'Eyof`VOV w3 at /1EV P
vETracL 7TEptLcrlOs 0 TrXOS. yEAolta E KatL\7 aVcVEUOVa AO'qvd.
'Thus she prayed and Pallas Athene threw back her head as a token of den
[This verse] is athetised, because the phrase added for ornament is
uncustomary. It is in contrast to the opposite [scene where] Zeus confirm
(KaTavEWcwv).59 Since the same idea is repeated subsequently, 'Thus the
6.312), the verse is clearly superfluous. And Athena throwing her head bac
is ludicrous. (Schol. II. 6.311)
II. 6.311-12 drew Aristarchus' attenti

repetition. Their opening was linguistic
versus cws at ( Ev ' 7qVXOV70. While ve
prayer as well as Athena's negative respo
of Theano and the women of Troy, u
Aristarchus identified verse 311, rath
Homeric usage. In his view it becomes Ho
the case of assent, as he did in II. 1.527 w
used metaphorically, as the opposite of
context of Theano's prayer to Athena's s
possibility of a metaphorical meaning. O
back also appeared ludicrous. When the
and the literal meaning implied both re
and common sense, athetesis was the on
Another example may illustrate how
ations with judgments of content:
acL71Evra 8' 3E"O1KE < EE AEVK0AEVOV Hp-l>: COETratTL dW 7TEpTTOrS Kat Evavrlov T EXwV?
EMrLEqpE L y p ' wS &pa wvo7avoU S 'EpLVEV " 'aXEcOoV av'8-v', d 46AOV6tL Ka l\ 7rapauxovuaL"
rotoLTro yap 7TroL7T17"T ('r v iEV aptI47qAov Of 7KE<V> VOEO WTEP ErT7P ?qwEV'.
'the goddess, white-armed Hera, provided him [the horse Xantes] with human speech' (II.
19.407)
(This verse) is athetised as superfluous and containing a contradiction. It is in discord with (the
verse) 'After he had thus spoken, the Erinyes held back his voice' (II. 19.418) - thus they clearly
had also granted [speech]. Of this kind is the poet: 'the god who brought him to light, made him
disappear' (II. 2.318). (schol. II. 19.407)
Aristonicus provides two reasons for Aristarchus' athe

diction. The former consideration is no longer explain
reasoning was surely the following: verse 407 is redund
initiating the horse's speech, while according to vers
59 This is not a quotation of II. 2.527, but a paraphrase.

60 See also Ltihrs (n. 24), 111-12.

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC
speaking (rrpog'-q). Aristarchus athetized

the former contained also a contradiction t
stop the horse's human speech. Aristarch
principle that the god who has initiated an
previous state. On his view, Homer canno
animal state to the Erinyes, while Hera gav
indeed been instrumental in the initial stag
the end of the episode.
Philo's 'quarrelsome' colleague adduces sim
to the fact that the letters alpha and rho
superfluous. Their change of names, as repo
change at all, as the sound of the names rem
exegete considers the contents of the verses
of his criticism, especially the formulation
which Moses says the Leader of all provid
considered the idea conveyed in Gen. 17.5,
ways of speaking about God. He was co
attributed to God the ridiculous notion of d
of a single, superfluous letter.
This judgement has a clearly Aristarchan
larger context of the group of literal exeg
Philo said about them that they rejected ce
and 17.15, which could, in their view, 'not
sense'. Philo did not mention any reason f
attacking their whole approach. It would s
the individual exegete, which he subsequentl
athetesis in question. In the same way as
athetesis by Aristarchus, but on other occ
reasons for doing so, Philo initially reported
'cannot be preserved' and then adduced the
by one particular exegete.
If my analysis is correct, we have evidence
exegesis in Alexandria that was inspired b
there were Jewish scholars who judged cert
article one example of this critical schola
discussed in my full treatment of the topic
now lost world of Jewish Bible scholarsh
extremely rich and engaged in a meaningfu
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem MAREN R. NIEHOFF

msmaren@mscc.huji.ac.il

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:08:37 UTC

Homeric Scholarship

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Homeric Scholarship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria: Evidence from Philo's

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4493482

This content downloaded from