Philo of Alexandria On Virtues: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Philo of Alexandria Commentary)

Philo of Alexandria On Virtues

Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series General Editor

Gregory E. Sterling Associate Editor

David T. Runia Editorial Board

harold w. attridge – ellen birnbaum – john dillon annewies van den hoek – alan mendelson thomas tobin, s.j. – david winston

VOLUME 3

Philo of Alexandria On Virtues Introduction, Translation, and Commentary

By

Walter T. Wilson

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2011

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Philo, of Alexandria. [De virtutibus. English] On virtues / Philo of Alexandria; introduction, translation and commentary by Walter T. Wilson. p. cm. – (Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series, ISSN 1570-095X ; v. 3) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes. ISBN 978-90-04-18907-2 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Virtues–Early works to 1800. 2. Jewish ethics–Early works to 1800. 3. Conduct of life–Early works to 1800. I. Wilson, Walter T. II. Title. BJ1521.P4613 2011 296.3'699–dc22 2010036405

ISSN 1570-095X ISBN 978 90 04 18907 2 Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

This book is dedicated to the memory of DAVID M. HAY (–)

CONTENTS

General Introduction. The Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series Gregory E. Sterling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Place of the Treatise in the Philonic Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Place of the Treatise in Philo’s Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Title and Integrity of the Treatise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of the Treatise’s Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Character and Aim of the Treatise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Nachleben of the Treatise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 8 10 16 23 37

TRANSLATION PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA ON VIRTUES On Courage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Humanity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Repentance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Nobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 55 79 83

COMMENTARY On Courage, Chapters –: Courage in Peacetime (§§ –) . . . . . . . 93 On Courage, Chapters –: Courage in Wartime (§§ –) . . . . . . . . 119 On Humanity, Chapters –: The Death and Succession of Moses (§§ –) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 On Humanity, Chapter : Introduction to the Survey of Laws (§§ –) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 On Humanity, Chapter : On Lending at Interest (§§ –) . . . . . . . 205

viii

contents

On Humanity, Chapters –: Prompt Payment of Wages (§ ); Seizing a Pledge (§ ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Humanity, Chapter : Agricultural Produce for the Poor (§§ –) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Humanity, Chapter : Priests (§ ) and the Dispossessed (§ ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Humanity, Chapter : Sabbatical and Jubilee Laws (§§ –) On Humanity, Chapters –: Proselytes and Metics (§§ –) On Humanity, Chapter : Enemies and War Captives (§§ –) On Humanity, Chapter : The Animals of Enemies (§§ –) On Humanity, Chapter : Indentured Servants and Slaves (§§ –) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Humanity, Chapter : Newborn Animals (§§ –). . . . . . . . On Humanity, Chapter : Mother Animals and Their Young (§§ –) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Humanity, Chapter : Draught Animals (§§ –) . . . . . . . . . On Humanity, Chapters –: Cultivated Plants (§§ –) . . . . On Humanity, Chapters –: The Ruling Classes (§§ –) . .

219 227 237 245 255 265 275 283 291 305 319 325 341

On Repentance (§§ –) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 On Nobility (§§ –) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions and Translations of De virtutibus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Ancient Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modern Scholarly Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

419 419 419 420

Index of Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Biblical Passages Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Philonic Texts Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Ancient Texts Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Greek Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

449 449 451 455 463 471 477

general introduction THE PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA COMMENTARY SERIES

Philo of Alexandria (c.  bce–c.  ce) was a member of one of the most prominent families of the large and influential Jewish community in Alexandria. We know more about his brother and his family than we do about Philo. His brother, Julius Gaius Alexander, held a responsible governmental position (Josephus, AJ ., ; .–, .) and became known to the emperor’s family through Herodian intermediaries (Josephus, AJ .–). His praenomen and nomen suggest that the family was associated in some way with Julius Gaius Caesar. It may be that Caesar granted Roman citizenship to Alexander’s grandfather for assistance during the Alexandrian War (– bce). Alexander made the most of his position and became exceptionally wealthy (Josephus, AJ .). Josephus reported that he covered nine of the temple doors in Jerusalem with gold and silver (BJ .–), an act of patronage that attests his immense resources as well as his commitment to Judaism. Alexander’s standing is confirmed by the roles of his two sons. The archive of Nicanor suggests that Marcus Julius Alexander was active in the import-export business that moved goods from India and Arabia through Egypt to the West. He married Berenice, the daughter of Herod Agrippa I and later partner of the emperor Titus, but died prematurely c.  ce (Josephus, AJ .–). His brother had one of the most remarkable careers of any provincial in the first two centuries of the Roman Empire. Tiberius Julius Alexander moved through a series of lower posts until he held governorships in Judea, Syria, and Egypt. When he backed Vespasian in the Flavian’s bid for the throne, his career quickly rose to its apex: he served as Titus’ chief of staff during the First Jewish revolt in – ce (Josephus, BJ .–.; .) and as prefect of the praetrorian guard in Rome after the war (CPJ b). While his career strained his relationship with his native Judaism to the breaking point (Josephus, AJ .; Philo, Prov. and Anim.), it attests the high standing of the family. The most famous member of this remarkable family was paradoxically probably the least known in wider circles during his life. This is undoubtedly due to the contemplative nature of the life that he chose. His choice

x

general introduction

was not total. He may have had some civic function in the Jewish community. At least this would help to explain why the Alexandrian Jewish community selected him to lead the first Jewish delegation to Rome after the pogrom in Alexandria in  ce, a delegation that probably included his brother and nephew of later fame (Legat. , ; Anim. ). The political arena was not, however, where his heart lay; he gave his heart to the life of the intellect (Spec. .–). He undoubtedly received a full education that included training in the gymnasium, the ephebate, and advanced lectures in philosophy. The final training was of enormous importance to his intellectual formation. While he knew and made use of different philosophical traditions such as Stoicism and Pythagorean arithmology, his basic orientation was Platonic. Middle Platonism (c.  bce – c.  ce) had become a vibrant intellectual movement in Alexandria in the first century bce, especially in the work of Eudorus (fl.  bce). Philo became convinced that Plato and Moses understood reality in similar ways, although he was unequivocal about who saw it most clearly. His commitment to Judaism is evident in his training in the LXX: he knew it with the intimacy of one who lived with it from the cradle onwards. He also knew the works of some of his Jewish literary predecessors such as Aristobulus, Pseudo-Aristeas, and Ezekiel the tragedian. He was aware of a significant number of other Jewish exegetes to whom he alluded, but always anonymously (Opif. , , and Migr. –). The most probable social setting for his literary work is a private school in which he offered instruction in much the same way that philosophers and physicians did. One of the ways that he taught was through writing. His treatises constitute one of the largest corpora that has come down to us from antiquity. We know that he wrote more than seventy treatises: thirtyseven of these survive in Greek manuscripts and nine (as counted in the tradition) in a rather literal sixth century Armenian translation. We also have excerpts of another work in Greek and fragments of two more in Armenian. The lost treatises are known from references to them in the extant treatises, gaps in his analyses of the biblical texts in the commentary series, and testimonia. The treatises fall into five major groups: three separate commentary series, the philosophical writings, and the apologetic writings. The three commentary series are Philo’s own literary creations; the philosophical and apologetic series are modern constructs that group conceptually similar but literarily independent treatises. The heart of the Philonic enterprise lay in the three commentary series. Each of these was an independent work with a distinct rationale and

the philo of alexandria commentary series

xi

form. The most elementary of the three is the twelve book Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus that cover Gen :–: and Exod :–:. As the title suggests, Philo used a question and answer format to write a running commentary on the biblical text. The questions are often formulaic, but demonstrate a close reading of the text. The answers typically introduce both literal and allegorical interpretations. Although earlier Jewish authors such as Demetrius (FF  and ) and Aristobulus (F ) used the question and answer device, they did not write zetematic works. The closest literary parallel to Philo’s commentary series is the series of zetematic works which Plutarch composed. The pedagogical character of the format and the listing of multiple interpretations suggest that Philo’s Questions and Answers were written for beginning students in his school who needed to learn the range of possible readings. The Allegorical Commentary shares some features in common with the Questions and Answers, but is profoundly different. Like the Questions and Answers these treatises use the question and answer technique in a running commentary. Unlike the Questions and Answers, the format is no longer explicit but is incorporated in a more complex form of exegesis. Literal readings are largely ignored; instead the focus is on allegorical interpretations which are expanded through the introduction of secondary biblical texts (lemmata). The scope is also different: the Allegorical Commentary is confined to Genesis :–:. While these expansions give the treatises a meandering feel, there is almost always a thematic unity that makes the treatise coherent. Philo was by no means the first Jewish author to use allegory: earlier Jewish writers such as Aristobulus and Pseudo-Aristeas had used allegorical interpretation; however, they did not write allegorical commentaries. Philo’s allegorical commentaries are closer in form to commentaries in the philosophical tradition, e.g., the Platonic Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary, Plutarch’s On the Generation of the Soul in the Timaeus, and Porphyry’s On the Cave of Nymphs. Yet even here there are considerable differences; for example, Philo’s treatises have more thematic unity than his pagan counterparts. If the Questions and Answers were for beginning students, the Allegorical Commentary was most likely composed for advanced students or other exegetes in the Jewish community. It certainly places much greater demands on the reader, as any modem reader who has worked through them can attest. The third series, the Exposition of the Law, is different yet. It is not a running commentary, but a systematic exposition of the law of Moses. It

xii

general introduction

focuses on literal readings and largely ignores allegorical possibilities. Its scope extends beyond Genesis and Exodus to include the entire Torah. Philo wrote an introduction to the Exposition in the form of a biography in the two volume Life of Moses. The work is similar in function to Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus which introduces readers to the Enneads. Philo organized his understanding of the law in three parts (Praem. –). The first part deals with creation, demonstrating the harmony between the cosmos and the law. The second part is the historical or biographical section that consists of biographies that show how the ancestors embodied the law before it was given to Moses. The third and most complex part is the legislative. Just as some later rabbis, Philo worked through the decalogue and then used each of the ten commandments as a heading to subsume the remaining legislation in the Torah. Unlike the later rabbis, he added a series of appendices under the headings of virtues. He brought the series to a conclusion in a treatise On Rewards and Punishments in direct imitation of the end of Deuteronomy. The series was probably intended for a Jewish audience that included but was not limited to the school. If the three commentary series accentuate Philo’s role within the Jewish community, the last two groups of his treatises reflect his efforts to relate to the larger world. The philosophical works use Greek sources and philosophical genres to address some of the major philosophical issues Philo and his students confronted. The apologetic works were probably written—for the most part—in connection with the events of – ce. They were designed to assist Philo in his efforts to represent the Jewish community to the authorities. This expansive corpus is the single most important source for our understanding of Second Temple Judaism in the diaspora. While some of the esoteric and philosophical aspects of his writings reflect a highly refined circle in Alexandria, the corpus as a whole preserves a wide range of exegetical and social traditions which enable us to reconstruct a number of beliefs and practices of Jews in the Roman empire. The difficulty that we face is the limited evidence from other Jewish communities. This can be partially solved by expanding the comparisons to early Christian writings which were heavily indebted to Jewish traditions. As is the case with virtually all Second Temple Jewish texts composed in Greek, Philo’s corpus was not preserved by Jews but by Christians who found his writings so irresistibly attractive that they gave him a post mortem conversion. In some Catenae he is actually called “Philo the bishop.” A number of important early Christian authors are deeply indebted to

the philo of alexandria commentary series

xiii

him: Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Ambrose in particular. While there is no solid evidence to show that New Testament authors knew his writings, they certainly knew some of the same exegetical traditions that he attests. His writings therefore serve both as a witness to some exegetical traditions of first century Christians and as a source for some second century and later Christians. One of the factors that made Philo so attractive to Christians was the way that he combined Greek philosophy, especially Middle Platonism, with exegesis. The eclectic nature of his thought and the size of his corpus make his writings a particularly important source for our understanding of several Hellenistic philosophical traditions. The combination of Middle Platonism and Jewish exegesis also makes Philo important for the study of Gnosticism, especially for those scholars who argue that the second century Christian Gnostic systems had significant antecedents in Jewish circles. It is remarkable that in spite of the obvious importance of these writings and their complexity, no series of commentaries has been devoted to them. The present series is designed to fill that void. Each commentary will offer an introduction, a fresh English translation, and a commentary proper. The commentary proper is organized into units/chapters on the basis of an analysis of the structure of each treatise. Each unit/chapter of the commentary will address the following concerns: the context and basic argument of the relevant section, detailed comments on the most important and difficult phrases, passages where Philo treats the same biblical text, the Nachleben of Philo’s treatment, and suggestions for further reading. There will be some variation within the series to account for the differences in the genres of Philo’s works; however, readers should be able to move from one part of the corpus to another with ease. We hope that in this way these commentaries will serve the needs of both Philonists who lack sustained analyses of individual treatises and those who work in other areas but consult Philo’s works. Most of the volumes in this series will concentrate on Philo’s commentaries. It may seem strange to write and read a commentary on a commentary; however, it is possible to understand the second commentary to be an extended form of commentary on the biblical text as well. While Philo’s understanding of the biblical text is quite different from our own, it was based on a careful reading of the text and a solid grasp of Greek philosophy. His commentaries permit us to understand how one of the most influential interpreters of the biblical text in antiquity read the text. The fact that his reading is so different from ours is in part the

xiv

general introduction

fascination of reading him. He challenges us to enter into a different world and to see the text from another perspective. Gregory E. Sterling University of Notre Dame

PREFACE

Even by Philonic standards, De virtutibus is a rather long and miscellaneous treatise, covering everything from the harmony of the cosmic spheres to the ethics of warfare to the particulars of cheese production. In the course of preparing this commentary, I have learned a great deal, not least of all from conversations with friends, students, and colleagues. At the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in , I gave a presentation on my plans for the commentary, receiving sage advice from the panelists, Greg Sterling, David Runia, David Konstan, and James Royse. Specific chapters were subsequently presented at sessions of Emory University’s graduate New Testament colloquium, with Peter Bing, John Weaver, and Te-Li Lau serving as respondents. I am grateful as well to Gail O’Day and Patrick Grey for the opportunity to contribute a programmatic essay on De humanitate to the Festschrift they edited for Carl Holladay. Greg Sterling also reviewed the finished manuscript of the commentary and made a number of helpful suggestions. Mention should also be made of the hard-working staff at Brill press, especially Liesbeth Hugenholtz, and at TAT Zetwerk, Johannes Rustenburg. Finally, I am indebted to my research assistants for this project, Christina Davis, William Johnson, and Tiffany Walker. To one and all my sincere thanks. This volume of the Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series is dedicated to the memory of David Hay, former Professor of Religion at Coe College and an important scholar in both Philonic and Pauline studies (see StPhAnn  [] ). This seemed only appropriate, since it was his idea that I write the commentary in the first place. Although it is not part of De virtutibus, Philo’s reflections in Cher. – capture the spirit of the treatise quite effectively: “For all created things are assigned as a loan to all from God, and none of these particular things has been made complete in itself, so that it should have no need at all of another. . . . Thus through reciprocity and combination, even as a lyre is formed of unlike notes, God meant that they should come to fellowship and concord and form a single harmony, and that a universal give and take should govern them, and lead up to the consummation of the whole world. Thus love draws lifeless to living, unreasoning to reasoning, trees to people, people to plants, cultivated to wild, savage to

xvi

preface

tame, each sex to the other. . . . Thus each, we may say, wants and needs each; all need all, so that this whole, of which each is a part, might be that perfect work worthy of its architect.” Atlanta May , 

ABBREVIATIONS

In general, the abbreviations used for biblical and ancient texts and for modern scholarly literature follow the guidelines set out in D.L. Petersen et al., eds., The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody: Hendrickson, ) and in The Studia Philonica Annual  () –.

Abbreviations of Subtreatises within De virtutibus Fort. Hum. Nob. Paen.

De fortitudine De humanitate De nobilitate De paenitentia

Abbreviations of Philonic Treatises Abr. Aet. Agr. Anim. Cher. Conf. Congr. Contempl. Decal. Det. Deus Ebr. Flacc. Fug. Gig. Her. Hypoth. Ios. Leg.

De Abrahamo De aeternitate mundi De agricultura De animalibus De cherubim De confusione linguarum De congressu eruditionis gratia De vita contemplativa De decalogo Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat Quod Deus sit immutabilis De ebrietate In Flaccum De fuga et inventione De gigantibus Quis rerum divinarum heres sit Hypothetica De Iosepho Legum allegoriae

xviii Legat. Migr. Mos. Mut. Opif. Plant. Post. Praem. Prob. Prov. QE QG Sacr. Sobr. Somn. Spec. Virt.

abbreviations Legatio ad Gaium De migratione Abrahami De vita Mosis De mutatione nominum De opificio mundi De plantatione De posteritate Caini De praemiis et poenis Quod omnis probus liber sit De providentia Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini De sobrietate De somniis De specialibus legibus De virtutibus

Other Abbreviations G-G

GLAJJ

LSJ

PAPM PCH

PCW

H.L. Goodhart and E.R. Goodenough. “A General Bibliography of Philo Judaeus.” Pages – in E.R. Goodenough, The Politics of Philo Judaeus. New Haven: Yale University Press, . M. Stern, ed. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, –. H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, H.S. Jones, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon. th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, . R. Arnaldez, J. Pouilloux, C. Mondésert, eds. Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie. Paris: Editions du Cerf, –. L. Cohn, I. Heinemann et al. Philo von Alexandria: die Werke in deutscher Übersetzung. Breslau: Marcus Verlag, –; reprinted Berlin: de Gruyter, – . L. Cohn, P. Wendland, S. Reiter, eds. Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt. Berlin: G. Reimer, –; reprinted Berlin: de Gruyter, .

abbreviations PLCL

SVF

xix

F.H. Colson, G.H. Whitaker (and R. Marcus). Philo in Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes). Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; London: Heinemann, –. J. von Arnim, ed. Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. Leipzig: Teubner, –; reprinted New York: Irvington, .

INTRODUCTION

. The Place of the Treatise in the Philonic Corpus There is general agreement that De virtutibus belongs to a set of treatises conventionally known as the Exposition of the Law, the most carefully structured and thematically cohesive of Philo of Alexandria’s three commentary series.1 Much like the first four books of Josephus’ Antiquitates judaicae, the Exposition essentially treats the entire contents of the Pentateuch, though it does so in a more systematic fashion, a fact signaled in part by the significant number of prefatory and transitional statements inserted into the text. An examination of the most important of these statements not only indicates how Philo has organized the various treatises of the Exposition but also provides some insight as to the commentary’s major themes and aims.2 The introduction to the first treatise of the Exposition, De opificio, begins by asserting the superiority of Moses’ legislation over that of other lawgivers (§§ –). Specifically, by starting with an account of creation, he was able to demonstrate that his law is in harmony with the cosmos. Anyone who observes his law, then, is “a citizen of the cosmos, directing his actions in relation to the rational purpose of nature, in accordance with which the entire cosmos is also administered” (§ ). The introduction to De Abrahamo opens with a reference to “the preceding treatise” in which “the creation of the world has been set forth in detail” (§ ). Since the book of Genesis includes much more than an account of this event, however, in his “examination of the law in regular sequence” Philo must postpone a review of the legislation itself until he has had an opportunity to narrate the lives of the patriarchs (§§ , ). This is essential, he tells us, because these lives are in fact archetypes, “laws endowed with life and reason,” of which the written laws are copies.

1 For a description of the other series, the Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin et Exodum and the so-called Allegorical Commentary, see the General Introduction. 2 For what follows, see Sandmel , –; Morris , –; Borgen ; Borgen , –. Regarding the place of De virtutibus in the Exposition, the manuscript tradition is of little value, though see n.  below.



introduction

Moses made a permanent record of the patriarchs’ virtues in the scriptures in order to show that the statutes he enacted accord with nature. Specifically, the written laws are “memorials” of the lives of ancient men who secured a perfect life by living in accord with nature (§§ –). In the same vein, the conclusion to the treatise refers to Abraham as “himself a law and an unwritten statute” (§ ; cf. Mos. .; .). The introduction to De Iosepho alludes to previous treatises on those patriarchs to whom Moses assigned a special place: “I have described the lives of these three, the life which results from teaching, the life of the self-taught, and the life of practice” (§ ). As comparison with Abr.  indicates, the reference here is to works on Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, each of whom represents a different means of acquiring virtue (cf. Mos. .). The second and third treatises of this trio have been lost, while Philo carries the series forward by describing a fourth kind of life, that of the statesman.3 Having recounted in “the preceding treatises” the lives of the “founders of our nation and in themselves unwritten laws” (Decal. ), Philo then devotes a major section of the Exposition to reviewing the written laws, beginning with the general laws (De decalogo), then the particular statutes dependent on each of them (De specialibus legibus). The basic principle informing the survey is articulated in the introduction to the latter: the ten commandments, examined at length “in the preceding treatise,” are “the main heads under which are summarized the special laws” (Spec. .; cf. Decal. , ; Spec. .).4 This principle guides the structure of the commentary until we reach Spec. .–, where the discussion moves in a different direction. Besides assigning various laws to each of the commandments separately, it is also possible, Philo says, to show that the decalogue in its entirety accords with certain “generally beneficial” virtues: “for each of the ten oracles individually and all in common stimulate and exhort us to prudence and justice and godliness and the rest of the choir of the virtues” (.). Philo claims to have already adequately covered three members of this troop, the “queen,” known alternatively as piety or holiness, as well

3 Abr. – also sketches the lives of Enosh, Enoch, and Noah, representing hope, repentance, and justice respectively. When the second, higher triad (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and Joseph are included, the total number is brought up to seven, a holy number for Philo (Geljon , –); cf. Praem. –, where the seventh figure is not Joseph, but Moses. 4 Cf. PAPM .–; Hecht .

the place of the treatise in the philonic corpus



as prudence and moderation.5 The next task, then, is to elaborate on those laws that most clearly exemplify the virtue of justice, a topic which occupies the remainder of the treatise (.–).6 The introduction to De virtutibus begins by stating that, since the topic of justice has already been discussed, it is possible to dilate on the virtue “next in sequence,” namely, courage (§ ). After doing so, Philo announces the next subject as humanity, the virtue he thinks is most akin to piety (§ ).7 At the beginning of De praemiis et poenis, Philo looks back at the commentary in its entirety, explaining that the Pentateuch consists of three kinds or genres of discourse: () the cosmological, which deals with the creation of the cosmos; () the historical, which records good and bad lives from the past; and () the legislative, which is further divided into the ten general headings and the enactments of specific laws (§§ –). Philo then states that since all of these matters “and further the virtues he assigned to peace and war have been discussed as fully as was needful in the preceding treatises,” he can “proceed in due course” to the topic of rewards for obedience and punishments for disobedience (§ ). Finally, a word needs to be said regarding De vita Mosis, especially since the cross-references in Virt.  and Praem.  assume that the audience is familiar with this two-volume treatise.8 Indeed, as Runia (, ) points out, Philo has assumed from the very beginning of the Exposition that his readers are knowledgeable about the life and accomplishments of the author whose work he is expounding, which is precisely what De vita Mosis provides. However, as most experts concur, this treatise is not actually part of the Exposition, but functions in relation to it as a kind of companion piece.9 Further evidence for this relation can be found in Mos. .–, which contains statements similar to those 5

Cf. Cohen , –. Presumably Philo includes the discussion of justice here, rather than in De virtutibus, so that the books would not be too unequal in length. See Morris , ; Runia , ; Royse , ; Sterling , –. 7 The cross-references in Virt. – and  are presumably to De specialibus legibus – (Royse , ). 8 In addition, the account of Moses’ death and succession in Virt. – supplements the brief description of his death at the end of De vita Mosis (.–). 9 None of the Exposition’s introductory statements refer to it, and the treatise itself has no statements indicating its place in the sequence. In addition, its length and design differ from those of De Abrahamo and De Iosepho. See Goodenough ; Colson, PLCL .xiv– xvi; Morris , –; Geljon , –. For the opposing view, see Nikiprowetzky , –. 6



introduction

in Opif. – and Praem. –. Here Philo explains that the Pentateuch falls into two parts, the historical, which can be further divided into the cosmological and the biographical, and that part which consists of commands and prohibitions (.–). Moses included the former in part in order to show that those who observe the law follow nature and live in accordance with the structure of the cosmos (., ). In relating his laws to the foundation of the cosmos rather than to the founding of some “man-made city,” Moses’ legislation is superior to that of other lawgivers (., ).10 Looking at these various editorial frames and transitional statements as a whole, then, it is obvious that Philo wanted to link the treatises of the Exposition together in a way that his readers could easily follow: (De vita Mosis I–II) First Part: On Creation De opificio mundi Second Part: On History De Abrahamo [De Isaaco] [De Iacobo] De Iosepho Third Part: On Legislation General laws: De decalogo Specific laws: De specialibus legibus .–. Virtues: De specialibus legibus .—De virtutibus Rewards and punishments: De praemiis et poenis

In addition to indicating its particular place in the sequence of treatises that comprise the commentary, consideration of these editorial frames and transitional statements prompts certain observations regarding the function and contribution of De virtutibus within the Exposition as a whole. First, it is a priority for Philo to show that in framing his laws Moses created legislation that was of universal scope and significance. For example, as we have seen, he asserts that since these laws are in harmony with the cosmic order, those who follow them can achieve the goal of living in accord with nature.11 Philo’s recourse to the virtues as a structural and

10 It is also superior insofar as in conveying his commands and prohibitions to the people Moses relied not on compulsion but on exhortation, i.e., reason (.–). 11 For Philo’s concept of natural law, see Niehoff , –; Martens , – . Both draw comparisons with Stoic sources.

the place of the treatise in the philonic corpus



thematic device in presenting the laws is consistent with this assertion insofar as virtue discourse, expressed in various forms, enjoyed a prominent place in the moral, legal, political, and philosophical thought of the time. Extended use of such discourse contributes to his aim of showing how the highest ideals of the prevailing culture are embodied by the Jewish patriarchs and set forth in the Mosaic laws. This has the effect of configuring the Jewish community, one formed by these laws, not as an ethnic group, but as a nation guided by the best philosophical principles12 and constituting the best polity, or πολιτεα,13 which, as such, accords with the divine, cosmic polity.14 Because citizenship in this polity depends not on nationality or ties of kinship, but “on virtues and laws which propound the morally beautiful as the sole good” (Spec. .; cf. .), Philo can even envision a day when each nation would abandon its particular customs and “turn to honoring our laws alone” (Mos. .). In fact, according to Philo it was Moses’ intention that through his legislation “households and cities, nations and lands, and the whole human race might advance to the highest well-being” (Virt. ; cf. Spec. .). Second, the contribution of virtue discourse to the Exposition is not restricted to De virtutibus. As we have seen, the section organized according to the virtues actually begins in the immediately preceding treatise, that is, with the discussion of justice in Spec. .–. As with the rest of De specialibus legibus, what Philo offers in this section is not a running commentary on scripture but a systematic analysis of its contents. Therefore, certain laws are left undiscussed,15 while others are discussed from more than one angle.16 As we have also seen, when introducing that section in Spec. .–, Philo mentions a whole “choir” of virtues, namely, wisdom, justice, piety (known also as holiness or godliness), and moderation, to which he later adds courage (Virt. ) and humanity (Virt. ). Of these six, the first five would have been immediately recognizable as proper members of the philosophical (especially Platonic)

12

Opif. ; Mos. .; Decal. ; Virt. ; Nikiprowetzky , –. Spec. .; Virt. ; cf. Spec. ., ; Virt. ; Praem. ; Wolfson , .– . For the various connotations that the term πολιτεα could have, see Kasher , –. 14 Decal. –; cf. Opif. ; Ios. –; Spec. .; .. 15 Lev :–:; Num :–; Deut :–, etc. 16 See the Parallel exegesis for Virt. –. 13



introduction

canon,17 and references to different formulations of this canon are scattered throughout the Exposition.18 The description in Spec. .– is of particular interest in this regard, because here Philo explains how education in virtue is a priority evident not only in scripture, but also in the ongoing life and practice of the communities that study it: “each seventh day there stand wide open in every city thousands of schools of prudence, moderation, courage, justice, and the other virtues,” which, he says, are treated under two main heads: “one of the duty to God as shown by piety and holiness, and the other of the duty to people as shown by humanity and justice” (cf. Mos. .). It is probably safe to assume that one of Philo’s aims in writing the Exposition was to encourage and facilitate this practice. In the same vein, it is apparent that the application of virtue discourse to major segments of text extends into the earlier portions of the Exposition. For example, when making the transition to the virtue section in Spec. ., Philo asserts that he has already discussed piety/holiness, wisdom, and moderation, which would explain why they are not the subject of specially designated sections. Presumably, what he means by this is that these three virtues pertain to Spec. .–. as a whole, though he may also think that certain laws in the survey pertain more to one virtue than to others.19 At any rate, with this statement Philo signals to his readers that all of the virtues of the canon were somehow addressed by Moses when framing his legislation. It should also be noted that the use of virtues as an organizing device extends into the biographical sections of the Exposition as well. For example, De Abrahamo contains a major section that expounds on the patriarch’s piety (§§ –), then his humanity/justice (§§ –), and then finally his courage (§§ –). Such a move is hardly surprising, since Philo often holds the patriarchs up as exemplars of virtue (e.g., Abr. ). As is frequently noted, despite its name, the Exposition of the Law exposits on more than laws, combining an interest in historical origins and historical biography with an interpretation of the Mosaic legislation. The thematiz-

17 E.g., Plato, Lach. d; Prot. b, b; Gorg. c. The most well-known version of the canon, prominent especially in Platonic and Stoic circles, included prudence, justice, moderation, and courage. Further, North . 18 E.g., Opif. ; Abr. , ; Mos. .; Praem. , . Cf. the commentary on Virt. , ; also the Analysis/General comments for Virt. –. 19 Cf. PCH .; PAPM .–; also see below, n. .

the place of the treatise in the philonic corpus



ing of virtue represents an important way in which these two categories of discourse, the historical and the legislative, complement and reinforce one another. Third, in both its general orientation and specific commentary, the Exposition is seen to exhibit apologetic motives. By this I mean that it embraces a broad set of strategies establishing the excellence of Judaism in response, either explicitly or implicitly, to challenges originating from the non-Jewish host culture.20 For example, as we saw earlier, Opif. – and Mos. . assert the superiority of Moses’ legislation to that of other lawgivers, the primary reference most likely being to Plato’s Respublica and Leges, works in which the Alexandrian appears to have been well-versed.21 From his perspective, it only stands to reason, then, that non-Jews seeking virtue know and honor the Mosaic law (e.g., Mos. .–, ; Spec. .) and that non-Jewish legislators copied from the Pentateuch when framing their own laws (e.g., Spec. .; Virt. ). It is important to remember that such claims are being made in an environment in which the Mosaic law was sometimes criticized for enjoining peculiar or parochial customs.22 According to Philo’s view, by contrast, the reason why the Jews have become “like an orphan” among the nations is because of the rigorous manner in which they observe the highest standards of virtue (Spec. .–), and it is probably only out of envy that certain Greek authors have expressed malice towards Moses (Mos. .–). Philo’s apologetic tone becomes even more explicit in a passage like Spec. .. As he explains there, offering prayers and sacrifices to God on behalf of all humanity is an essential aspect of the cult that Moses established. It therefore astonishes him “to see that some people venture to accuse of inhumanity the nation which has shown such a profound sense of fellowship and goodwill to all people everywhere” (cf. Virt. , discussed below).23 Given that the largest single section of De virtutibus endeavors to demonstrate the humanity of Moses, his laws, and those who follow them, attention to such apologetic dynamics is essential to the interpretive task.

20 Cf. Hecht ; Conzelmann , –; Alexandre a; Pearce ; Barclay . 21 For references to these texts, see PLCL .–. For comparisons with other lawgivers, cf. Spec. .–; .. 22 See part  of the Introduction. 23 Cf. Leonhardt-Balzer .



introduction . The Place of the Treatise in Philo’s Life

In order to grasp their full import, it is essential to bear in mind that Philo’s claims about the law were not mere theoretical ruminations, but emanated from an intense personal involvement in the struggle of the Alexandrian Jewish community for civil rights.24 In Spec. .–, he complains about being drawn into a sea of worries concerning the Jewish πολιτεα. While it is difficult to be certain, many scholars take this as a reference to the civil unrest of – ce.25 In this case, the composition of the Exposition belongs to a period late in Philo’s life, sometime after he led the embassy to Gaius, which he later described as “a campaign on behalf of our polity” (Legat. , cf. –). The crisis necessitating such diplomatic action had historical roots extending back almost to the foundation of Alexandria itself.26 Since the early days of the Ptolemaic era, Jews there had enjoyed the right to organize as a “quasi-independent and self-governing communal organization,” referred to as a πολτευμα by most modern and some ancient authors.27 The rights intrinsic to such an institution, which must have been essential to the preservation of the community’s native customs, continued to be respected under Roman rule, a fact displayed perhaps most palpably in a stele erected in the city by Augustus.28 Significantly, the monument linked official confirmation of the Jews’ civil rights with an acknowledgement of the military service they had rendered representatives of Rome, in this case troops serving under Julius Caesar in / bce.29 In fact, the event commemorated by the emperor would have been just one in a series of armed interventions by Jewish forces in Egyptian politics, usually in ways that aligned Jewish interests with those of Rome.30 The Alexandrian populace, denied its own governing body and despising Roman control generally, resented such interventions and the 24

Philo belonged to a wealthy and politically prominent family. See Morris , – ; Schwartz . 25 Cohn , –; Morris , –; Runia , ; van der Horst , –; cf. Terian , . In addition, Borgen (, –) notes parallels that the Exposition (especially its last four treatises) shows with In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium, both written late in Philo’s life. The suggestions of Cohen  also accord with such a dating. 26 For what follows, see especially Tcherikover –, .–. 27 Dawson , . 28 Josephus, C. Ap. ., ; cf. Ant. .; Philo, Flacc. . 29 Cf. Kasher , –. 30 Tcherikover –, .–, –; Smallwood , ; Barclay , –.

the place of the treatise in philo’s life



special privileges accorded the Jews. Reflective of the mood were various anti-Jewish histories of Egypt depicting them as impious invaders from the East who viciously destroyed entire cities and desecrated sacred sites.31 The situation was exacerbated further by the efforts of some elite, Hellenized Jews to obtain citizenship in the Alexandrian polis, a status closely associated with the acquisition of Greek culture, as signified especially through a gymnasium education.32 The imposition of the λαογραφα, or poll tax, beginning in / bce, from which Roman citizens and citizens of Greek cities were exempt, would have created powerful social and economic incentives for them to do so. Indeed, for elite Jews living in Alexandria but lacking Alexandrian citizenship payment of the tax would have been “a mark of extreme political and cultural degradation.”33 Jewish ambitions to improve their situation, however, met with fierce opposition from Alexandrian Greeks, who feared the “corruption” of their city’s citizen body.34 These disputes regarding the Jews’ civic standing came to a head in the pogrom of  ce, during which the Roman prefect Flaccus (egged on by some of the city’s Greek leaders) proclaimed the Jews to be “aliens and foreigners,” a move that, in Philo’s estimation, represented an attempt “to destroy our polity” (Flacc. –).35 The communal rights of the Jews would be reinstated by Claudius some two-anda-half years later, though with the caveat that they were no longer to seek the privileges of Greek citizenship, thereby effectively barring them from future access to the gymnasium.36 In such a volatile environment, Philo followed a strategy that we can assume was embraced by most Alexandrian Jewish elites, one that sought rapprochement with Roman rule and the benefits this could provide.37

31

On the narratives of Manetho, e.g., see Josephus, C. Ap. .–, –; GLAJJ .–. Further, Kasher , –; Conzelmann , –. 32 Tcherikover –, .–; Smallwood , –; Barclay , , , – . 33 Tcherikover –, . (cf. .–; also Kasher , s.v. laographia). Beginning in / ce, the Roman government recognized a new class, ο π γυμνασου, Greekeducated inhabitants living outside one of the πλεις who paid the poll tax at a reduced rate: Tcherikover –, .. 34 Tcherikover –, ., –; Barclay , –. 35 Smallwood , –; Barclay , –. 36 Tcherikover –, .–; .–; Kasher , –; Barclay , –; cf. Josephus, Ant. .–. 37 Cf. Barraclough , –; Dawson , –; Niehoff , s.v. Rome/ Romans.



introduction

Accordingly, it was incumbent upon him to configure Judaism’s relationship with the empire in as positive a light as possible, for example, by making complimentary statements about Rome’s leaders and their achievements (e.g., Legat. –; cf. Flacc. –). More important, in a writing like the Exposition, Philo also endeavors to construct an image of Judaism that makes such a political and cultural strategy plausible. This would have involved examining the Mosaic tradition through the eyes of its “significant others,”38 demonstrating how it establishes the best polity by standards embraced by the Roman ruling classes and is therefore deserving of respect in a world dominated by Roman power. From this perspective, we can see that the Exposition is much more than Philo’s commentary on the Pentateuch; it is also a “commentary on the actual history of the community to which he belonged.”39 Much like the Egyptian Jews of Moses’ time, the members of this group were anxious for citizenship and equal rights (Mos. .). The image of their foundational texts, figures, and events provided by the Exposition would have been particularly relevant in an environment where the acquisition of social status and civil rights was closely tied with being culturally Greek. It is not surprising that in his apologetic reconfiguration of Jewish law and history, Philo’s appropriation of Greek culture is carried out in a manner familiar from contemporary modes of Roman political and moral discourse.

. The Title and Integrity of the Treatise The exposition of the Mosaic law in De virtutibus does not consist of a continuous commentary or a unified thematic argument, but is divided into a number of discreet sections or subtreatises.40 In the definitive critical edition of the text prepared by Leopold Cohn together with Paul Wendland,41 its contents are presented as follows: a. Περ νδρεας, De fortitudine (= Fort. –) b. Περ φιλανρωπας, De humanitate (= Hum. –) 38

Dyck , . Dawson , . 40 As Royse (, ) notes, the contents of De specialibus legibus and De praemiis et poenis “similarly consist of more or less independent sub-treatises, which have varying textual histories.” Cf. Sterling , . 41 PCW .–. Cf. Wendland ; Cohn , –. 39

the title and integrity of the treatise



c. Περ μετανοας, De paenitentia (= Paen. –) d. Περ εγενεας, De nobilitate (= Nob. –) This arrangement has been followed in subsequent translations of the work, including the one prepared by F.H. Colson for the Loeb Classical Library.42 It is important to note, however, that Cohn was the first editor to organize the contents of the treatise this way. In the editio princeps of Philo’s works prepared by Adrien Turnebus in , for example, the subtreatises are presented as independent works separated by other treatises, and in the order De humanitate, De fortitudine, De paenitentia, and De nobilitate,43 while in Thomas Mangey’s  edition, De fortitudine, De humanitate, and De paenitentia appear together (and in that order), but De nobilitate is presented as a separate section after De praemiis et poenis.44 Such dissimilarity in the critical editions can be accounted for when we inspect the manuscript tradition for De virtutibus, which exhibits considerable variation in terms of both the ordering of the subtreatises and their placement within the Philonic corpus.45 This can be seen readily in an examination of those witnesses that preserve at least three of the sections. Below, the subtreatises are listed in the order in which they appear in each of these witnesses using the letter designations assigned above. When no separation occurs between letters, the subtreatises follow one another continuously, while a slash indicates that they are separated by one or more other Philonic works. An asterisk indicates that only a portion of the subtreatise has survived.46

42

PLCL .–. Cf. PCH .–; PAPM .–. = G-G . De humanitate is printed after De vita Mosis, De fortitudine after De iustitia (= Spec. .–), and De nobilitate after De vita contemplativa, while (as Runia ,  explains) De paenitentia follows De humanitate without any break or title. This order was followed by the edition published by Pierre de la Rouière in  (= G-G ), the first major edition to be accompanied by a Latin translation. 44 This was the case despite Mangey’s reliance on ms S, for which see below. The –  edition of C.E. Richter (= G-G ) follows this placement for De nobilitate, as does the English translation prepared by C.D. Yonge in –. 45 For a conspectus of the approximately forty mss containing all or parts of De virtutibus, see PCW .v–xv; G-G –. It is not extant in either the Latin or Armenian versions of Philo’s works. The only significant discovery made since the publication of PCW is a thirteenth-century palimpsest, Atheniensis Bibl. Nat. gr. , which contains De paenitentia + De nobilitate, surrounded by treatises from the Allegorical Commentary. See Alexander . 46 This is a selective and corrected version of the chart in Hilgert , –. Cf. Runia , –; Royse , –. 43



introduction

Manuscripts (Family) Seldenianus XII (S) Parisinus gr.  (C) Monacensis gr.  (A) and three other mss Petropolitanus XX A a (P) Laurentianus plut. LXXXV. (F) Vaticano-Palatinus gr.  (G) Cantabrigiensis Coll. S. Trin. B, Venetus gr.  (H) and nine other mss Leeuwardensis gr.  Escurialensis Y,I, Oxoniensis Coll. Novi 

Contents abcd bcd a/bc* b/a/d abc/bc*/d* bc*/abd bc/a/d bc*/a/d bc*/abc/abc bc*/a b/b/d/a

Evidently, there was a proclivity with the scribes to treat the four sections as self-standing, detachable units. Hence the confusing results. In many cases, the amount of material separating subtreatises in a manuscript is considerable. For example, in ms G (Vaticano-Palatinus gr. ), “bc*” and “abd” are separated by seventeen treatises, including many treatises which are not from the Exposition.47 Yet, for all their diversity, at least two tendencies in the manuscripts can be detected. First, in most of the witnesses De humanitate is immediately followed by De paenitentia. Second, in all but one manuscript, De nobilitate (when it occurs) follows after the other subtreatises, even if it appears independently of them. Still, as the table shows, there is only a single manuscript that supports Cohn’s arrangement of the subtreatises, though, dating from the tenthor eleventh-century, Seldenianus Supra  (ms S) is among the best and oldest of the Philonic manuscripts.48 As the commentary will show, it offers a host of distinct, sometimes idiosyncratic, textual readings over against the rest of the tradition.49 Runia goes so far as to describe it as a “remarkable” but “extremely erratic manuscript,” that is, as the product 47

While the mss usually connect the sections of De virtutibus with other works of the Exposition (e.g., B, E, O, and V place De fortitudine between De vita Mosis and De Iosepho), this is not always the case. For example, in ms G, again, “bc*” is preceded by Spec. .– and followed by Spec. .–, while “abd” is preceded by the Legatio ad Gaium and followed by De fuga et inventione. Cf. Barthélemy , –. In Eusebius’ catalogue (Hist. eccl. ..), De virtutibus is preceded by Quis rerum divinarum heres and followed by De mutatione nominum. See further Runia , –. 48 See PCW .viii–x; G-G . 49 In deciding between textual variants, in his edition Cohn shows a clear preference for ms S, especially from §  onwards, where a fewer number of mss preserve the text. For some of the perils accompanying this decision, see Runia , –; cf. Royse , –.

the title and integrity of the treatise



of “that dangerous phenomenon, an independent and semi-intelligent scribe.”50 Further evidence of its distinctiveness can be found in the large number of subheadings it inserts throughout the work.51 One might question, then, why Cohn and Wendland assigned so much value to it in determining the composition of our treatise. The answer comes from the corroborating testimony provided by Clement of Alexandria, who in book  of his Stromata draws extensively on De virtutibus, excerpting and paraphrasing from its four subtreatises in the same sequence we find them in ms S (see part  of the Introduction). This agreement between two independent sources, one of them written only a century and a half after the original autograph, must be taken seriously in any reconstruction of the treatise’s contents.52 Unfortunately, despite the weight of such evidence, matters become complicated when we examine another element of the treatise’s transmission history, namely, the titles assigned to it by the manuscripts. Here again diversity is the rule.53 Φλωνος περ γ ρετν ς σν λλαις ν!γραψε Μωυσ$ς περ νδρεας κα φιλανρωπας κα μετανοας bek: περ ρετν &τοι περ νδρεας κα εσεβεας κα φιλανρωπας κα μετανοας:—περ νδρεας m: το( ατο( Φλωνος το( )βραου περ ρετν &τοι περ νδρεας κα εσεβεας κα φιλανρωπας κα μετανοας: περ νδρεας vo: Φλωνος περ ρετν &τοι νδρεας κα εσεβεας κα φιλανρωπας κα μετανοας f: το( ατο( περ ρετν, νδρεας κα εσεβεας κα μετανοας κα φιλανρωπας hp: περ ρετν &τοι περ νδρεας κα εσεβεας a: το( ατο( Φλωνος περ νδρας g: περ νδρεας

s:

The title adopted by Cohn (Φλωνος περ ρετν ς σν λλαις ν!γραψε Μωυσ$ς &τοι περ νδρεας κα εσεβεας κα φιλανρωπας κα μετανοας) is a construct, based primarily on S and on Eusebius’ designation for the treatise in Hist. eccl. .. (περ τν τριν ρετν 50 Runia , –. The manuscript is also unique in appending to the treatise an incomplete commentary on Philo’s De mandato decimo. See Cohn . 51 See the apparatus in PCW  for §§ , , , , , , , , , , , , . Many of these are also found in the margin of G2. 52 Mention should also be made of P. Vindob. G , a papyrus of the fifth century, which contains pieces of Virt. – and –. See Harrauer –. As Royse (, –) explains, it appears to agree almost completely with S. 53 See PCW ..



introduction

ς σν λλαις ν!γραψε Μωυσ$ς),54 and adding from the other manuscripts &τοι, so as to form a two-part title, and, more notably, the ref-

erence to a subtreatise on piety coming immediately after the subtreatise on courage. As to the placement of the section on piety, Cohn and Wendland took their cue from the opening sentence of Virt. : Τ+ν δ εσεβεας συγγενεστ,την κα δελφ+ν κα δδυμον /ντως )ξ$ς 1πισκεπτ!ον φιλανρωπαν (“Next we must consider humanity, which is most closely

related to piety, its sister and twin.”). They took this, together with the references to piety in the manuscript titles, as sufficient warrant for positing a lacuna between §§  and , wherein originally stood a section Περ εσεβεας.55 It is important to note that despite its ubiquity in the titles, this is a ghost work, never actually appearing in the texts themselves.56 Although four fragments attributed to a lost Philonic treatise Περ εσεβεας have been found in the Sacra parallela, they indicate nothing about the work’s original literary setting or relationship to other Philonic writings, and so are of little value for the current discussion.57 While it is entirely possible that Philo actually penned a De pietate as part of a larger book, most scholars have expressed reservations concerning Cohn and Wendland’s rationale for situating such a work within De virtutibus.58 As Runia puts it, the introduction of piety into the manuscript titles is best explained “as a deduction on the basis of the transmitted text, rather than a fossilized reference to a lost part of the treatise,” that is, as the result of copyists drawing a false inference from the opening words of § .59 Some copyists even inserted Περ εσ!βειας (F) or Περ εσ!βειας κα φιλανρωπας (HP) as a subtitle before § . In a somewhat more logical editorial move, the scribe of ms G inserted the subtitle Περ εσ!βειας before

54

Cf. Jerome, De vir. ill. : de tribus virtutibus liber unus. As Colson (PLCL .) notes, the phrase ς σν λλαις ν!γραψε Μωυσ$ς was probably not meant as part of the title, but as a note to avoid the impression that Moses acknowledged only three virtues. 55 PCW .xxvi–xxviii, ; PCH .–. Cf. Wendland , ; Cohn , –. Massebieau (, –) conjectured that the lost De pietate originally functioned as a transitional work between De vita Mosis and De humanitate. 56 Hilgert , . 57 For the first three fragments, see Harris , –. For the complex history of the fourth, see Royse ; Royse , –. He further conjectures that De pietate once stood as an independent treatise of roughly fourteen pages in a third-century papyrus codex of Philo’s works. 58 E.g., Schürer , ; Colson, PLCL .xiii–xiv; Royse , –. In support of the theory, see especially Sterling , –. 59 Runia , . Similarly, Schürer , ; Colson, PLCL .xiv.

the title and integrity of the treatise



§ , prompted no doubt by the references to eusebeia in §§  and .60 However, it would be rash to conclude that the formulation of Virt.  necessarily refers to an earlier discussion of piety. In Abr. ; Decal. –; Spec. .; Virt.  and elsewhere, Philo presents eusebeia and philanthr¯opia as complementary pairs, and so a reference to the former in the introduction to a discussion of the latter would not be unexpected.61 Remember that neither Clement nor ms S provide evidence of a section on piety. As Royse (, ) points out, Cohn’s idea that such a section formed part of De virtutibus “requires that both S and the source used by Clement were defective at exactly the same point,” while Colson thinks “Cohn should at least have noted that if it had perished in the second century, its reappearance in the next century only to perish again after some hundred years requires some explanation” (PLCL .xiv). These points, together with the fact that at Spec. . Philo states that he has already discussed eusebeia,62 lead us to the conclusion that if a Philonic De pietate did exist, its original place was not in our treatise.63 We can conclude this section by noting briefly that the phrase περ ρετν also occurs in some of the manuscript titles for Philo’s Legatio ad Gaium.64 There is also some evidence that this work and the In Flaccum were individual contributions within a five-volume series entitled Περ ρετν,65 while some of the manuscripts for De vita contemplativa refer to it as the fourth book of the ρετν or of the περ ρετν.66 Despite such designations, which have long puzzled scholars, these treatises have no particular association with our De virtutibus.67 Note also references to 2σιτης in §§ , ,  and to 3σιος in § . In Decal. , Philo identifies eusebeia as the source of the other virtues, and the introduction to De paenitentia (§ ) has a reference to it as well (cf. Spec. .). Thus piety represents something of a theme for the treatise as a whole; cf. Runia , . See further on Virt. . 62 As Colson (PLCL .xi–xii) suggests, most likely the principal reference here is to the treatment of the first four commandments of the decalogue in the first two books of De specialibus legibus. Note that eusebeia is used twenty-five times in those books (see especially Spec. .; cf. Decal. –). 63 As Royse (, ) points out, it “is easier to imagine the loss of some folios at the beginning or end of a work than in the middle.” He therefore proposes that De pietate occurred after De nobilitate, though this theory encounters many of the same problems as Cohn’s, and has the further difficulty of not explaining why the majority of manuscript titles have the section on piety listed second. 64 See PCW .lviii–lx, . 65 See Eusebius, Eccl. hist. ..; ..; Smallwood , –; Morris , – . 66 See PCW .ix–x, . 67 Royce , ; cf. Borgen , –. 60 61



introduction . Analysis of the Treatise’s Contents

As we have seen, De virtutibus contains four discreet sections.68 Their basic contents can be summarized as follows.69 The first section, De fortitudine, opens with a transitional statement that connects the section with the subtreatise on justice in Spec. .– . The analysis of courage itself is divided into two parts, the first on peacetime courage (§§ –), the other on wartime courage (§§ –), flanked by an introduction (§§ –) and conclusion (§§ –). Philo announces that the type of courage to be discussed is not the sort of reckless brutality admired by the ignorant masses, but courage as a form of knowledge located in the soul and cultivated by the practitioners of wisdom, whose overriding concern is the common good (§§ –). Philo explicates the meaning of this courage in peacetime first by identifying the different scenarios in which it is exhibited (§§ –), then by giving examples of how the law teaches and trains its followers to behave courageously in such situations (§§ –). Virt. – reviews the circumstances calling for true courage, and what resources those who embody this virtue draw on when rising up to face them. Against poverty, to begin with, they are armed, not with the wealth that is “blind,” but with the wealth of nature, which protects the body, and the wealth of wisdom, which abets the soul’s assimilation to God (§§ b– ). Disgrace they overcome by winning not the praise of the thoughtless masses, but the praise earned by the virtuous elite when they demonstrate excellence of character (§ ). Physical blindness is compensated for by the superior vision that prudence furnishes the intellect (§§ –). And physical disease is alleviated by the health of the soul, which occurs when the virtue of moderation prevents the part of the soul that reasons from being overwhelmed by passion (§§ –). Philo now quickly mentions two forms of discipline prescribed by the law for cultivating this virtue. The first of these is evidenced by the various provisions (which he claims to have already covered) having to do with simplicity and the rejection of vanity (§§ –). The second is evident in Moses’ intent to insulate his male followers from any unnatural taint of unmanliness, even going so far as to forbid them from wearing women’s clothes (§§ –; cf. Deut :). 68 As a way of acknowledging the integrity of each section, in the commentary I use the abbreviations Fort., Hum., Paen., and Nob. when referring to their contents. 69 Cf. PCH .–; PAPM ., –, , ; Alexander .

analysis of the treatise’s contents



The discussion of wartime courage opens with an overview of the criteria established by the law concerning the selection of recruits for military service (§§ –), complemented by an historical exemplum showing how a force thus constituted excels in war (§§ –). Like their civilian counterparts, Mosaic soldiers demonstrate courage principally when their souls’ ability to reason is not distressed by any passion that might distract them from their duty to the state. Moses allows two kinds of exemption from the armed forces. First, since vice is contagious, and cowardice is a vice virtually impossible to cure, those deficient in valor are excused (§§ –; cf. Deut :). Further exemptions are granted to anyone who has recently built a house, planted a vineyard, or become betrothed (cf. Deut :–), a practice based not only on the principle of humanity (§§ –), but also on the need to prevent the army from being debilitated by the presence of men whose minds are strained by a lurking desire for absent pleasures (§§ –). Philo asserts that an army of soldiers created in accordance with these principles, and thus healthy in both body and soul, will be invincible on the battlefield (§§ –). Proof of this assertion is provided with an exemplary historical tale in which the Alexandrian recounts the incident at Baal Peor and the Israelites’ war with the Midianites (cf. Num , ). The latter’s strategy, we hear, was to seduce the former away from their piety, the greatest source of their unity (§§ –). Although twenty-four thousand of the Israelite youths were seduced and led into idolatry, their souls ensnared by passion for sex (§§ –), God’s swift punishment on them deterred the rest from a similar fate (§ ). Inspired by their leader to defend the cause of piety, a picked force of twelve-thousand soldiers wreaked vengeance on the Midianites, annihilating their foes without losing a single man, proof that they had God as an ally (§§ –). Philo concludes by drawing a general lesson from the narrative: in times of both peace and war, those who are courageous in practicing the virtues of justice and holiness are assured of divine aid and the eudaimonia it brings (§§ –; cf. Lev :, –; Deut :, ). The second section, De humanitate, has three parts, showing how humanity is embodied and effected by Moses himself (§§ –), by the legislation that he established for the nation (§§ –), and by the classes ruling that nation (§§ –). In a continuation of and conclusion to the narrative in De vita Mosis, the lawgiver is seen to be a model of humanity in two sets of events that occurred as his earthly life drew to a close (§§ –). The first proof of



introduction

his philanthr¯opia has to do with the events surrounding his succession (§§ –). Recognizing the superiority of divine judgment, Moses did not appoint one of his family members as heir, or even the virtuous Joshua, but left the decision to God (§§ –; cf. Num :–). This is the only appropriate practice, he explains, for a nation which is the suppliant of the one true and eternal God (§§ –). Further evidence of Moses’ humanity is to be found in his final messages as leader (§§ –). Once the selection of Joshua had been approved by God, Moses joyously commissioned and charged him before the people, delivering a speech that would go on to become a standard for future rulers (§§ –; cf. Num :–; Deut :–). He then sang a hymn, expressing his thanks to God and his goodwill for the people, teaching his followers the importance of gratitude and astounding the celestial hosts with his cosmically harmonized music (§§ –; cf. Deut :–). Finally, his soul did not depart its earthly home until he uttered prayers to God on behalf of each of the twelve tribes, indicating their essential kinship with God as suppliants (§§ –; cf. Deut :–). In the second part of the subtreatise, Philo reviews a representative selection of laws that he thinks Moses left behind for the people in order to foster humanity in their relationships with others (§§ –). As explained in an introductory transition statement (§§ –), the survey is organized according to different categories of referents: people (§§ –), animals (§§ –), and plants (§§ –). The first subsection, in turn, presents laws concerning interactions with fellow Jews (§§ –), then non-Jews (§§ –), then slaves (§§ –). With regard to fellow Jews, Moses’ followers are forbidden to lend on interest to those who are poor; by doing so they accumulate something better than material wealth, the wealth of virtue (§§ –; cf. Exod :; Lev :–; Deut :–; :–). The wages of the poor are to be paid on the same day, lest they become disheartened (§§ ; cf. Lev :; Deut :–). Creditors may not enter the homes of their debtors to seize a pledge (§ ; cf. Deut :–). Gleanings from the harvests of grain, grapes, and olives must be left for the poor to gather. This way they are not reduced to extreme want, and in their generosity the landowners show they understand that the most essential contributions to the harvest come from nature (§§ –; cf. Lev :–; :; Deut :–). The first fruits of agricultural produce and domesticated animals must be rendered to the priests, an act of piety as well as humanity (§§ ; cf. Lev :–; Num :–; Deut :; :–). A stray animal should be returned to its owner (§ ; cf. Deut :–). Every seventh year arable

analysis of the treatise’s contents



land is to be left fallow, so that the poor may pick whatever grows there (§§ –; cf. Exod :–; Lev :–). In addition, every fiftieth year private properties must be returned to their original owners (§§ –; cf. Lev :–). So concludes the survey of provisions pertaining to fellow Jews (§ ). The first category in the subsection on non-Jews is proselytes, who are to be accorded every privilege and form of assistance, so that they might become, in effect, part of a single harmonious organism (§§ –; cf. Lev :–; Deut :–). Next, in a rumination on resident aliens, Philo takes Deut :– to mean that Jews must live peaceably with Egyptians and not hold a grudge against them, even though they treated the Jews cruelly after initially welcoming them as strangers. Egyptian children of the third generation are even eligible to become proselytes and join the Jewish polity (§§ –). The third and final unit of the subsection on non-Jews concerns the treatment of enemies. In times of war, an enemy army should be offered terms of peace before launching a (defensive) attack against it (§ ; cf. Deut :–). If someone wishes to marry a woman taken captive in war, she must be granted thirty days to grieve. This not only shows mercy on her misfortune, it also checks unbridled lust. In the case of subsequent divorce, she cannot be enslaved, but must be set free (§§ –; cf. Deut :–). Even the beast of one’s enemy must be treated kindly: if it collapses under its burden, assistance must be offered; if it strays, it must be returned to its owner (cf. Exod :–; Deut :–). Through obedience to such laws, one both learns not to take pleasure in the misfortunes of others and takes steps towards ending the feud (§§ –). Such reconciliation, Philo says, is representative of the intent behind Moses’ legislation more generally, namely, to promote concord and fellowship among individuals, peoples, and even the entire human race (§§ –). The last type of human referents are indentured servants and slaves. Those born free but reduced to forced servitude for whatever reason are to be liberated in the seventh year (§§ –; cf. Exod :; Deut :–). All runaway slaves are to be treated as suppliants and afforded temporary protection (§ ; cf. Deut :–). The second category of referents in the survey of laws promoting humanity is animals (§§ –). Moses’ sense of fairness extended even to creatures devoid of speech and reason (§ ); by practicing gentleness towards them, his followers learn to show humanity in fuller measure towards beings like themselves (§ ). Thus the law forbids them from killing newborn domesticated animals until they are at least



introduction

eight days old (cf. Lev :) and, by implication, from killing their own newborn infants (§§ –). Killing a mother animal and its offspring on the same day is also forbidden (cf. Lev :); this includes also pregnant animals and, by implication, pregnant women (§§ –). Furthermore, they are not to cook a lamb in its mother’s milk (§§ – ; cf. Exod :; :; Deut :) or muzzle a threshing ox (§ ; cf. Deut :). Finally, they are not to yoke an ox and an ass together for plowing (cf. Deut :) and, by implication, not to treat non-Jews unjustly (§§ –). The third and final category of referents in the survey of laws is plants (§§ –). Moses extends fairness even to those living things that lack a soul (§§ ). So, for example, the destruction of all food-producing plants is prohibited, even those growing on enemy territory (cf. Deut :). To do otherwise both curtails nature’s purpose for them and shows short-sightedness, since the foe of today can become the friend of tomorrow (§§ –). Additionally, during the first three years after planting, practical steps should be taken to help ensure that the plants reach maturity and bear fruit (§§ –; cf. Lev :–). Having completed the survey of laws, Philo now explains in the third and final section of the subtreatise that one of their important implications is to curb arrogance, pretentiousness, and insolence within the polity, vices that are prominent especially among the ruling classes (§§ –). To counteract this, those in positions of authority are taught by Moses to remember God with gratitude and to “make power,” that is, to imitate God’s benevolence and use whatever virtues they possess to make those around them more virtuous (§§ –; cf. Deut :– ). In so doing, they will avoid the fate of the pretentious man, who for his offenses will be handed over to God for punishment (§§ –; cf. Num :). The third and shortest subtreatise in De virtutibus is De paenitentia (§§ –). The main theme is set forth in the opening paragraph: in his humanity, Moses exhorts “all people everywhere” to repent and join his polity (§ ). While the best state is a god-like perfection, the second best is achieved when one turns from sin to a blameless life (§§ –). The description of Moses’ summons occupies the balance of the subtreatise, which examines the transformation experienced by proselytes from three different perspectives. First, they reject idolatry and worship the one true God (§§ –). Second, they are instantly transformed from a life of complete vice to a life of complete virtue, having abandoned the worst of polities for the best (§§ –). Third,

analysis of the treatise’s contents



the nature of the proselyte’s entire personal constitution is re-ordered, so that thought, words, and deeds are in harmony, as represented by the heart, mouth, and hands of Deut :. It is only this sort of person who is acceptable to God as a suppliant, that is, one who has chosen God, just as the Israelites chose God under Moses (§§ –; cf. Deut :–). The fourth and final subtreatise in De virtutibus is De nobilitate (§§ –). It has two major parts (§§ –, –), framed by an introduction (§§ –) and a conclusion (§§ –). The introduction announces the subtreatise’s two-part thesis: the virtuous alone are noble, even if their lineage happens to be ignoble, while the wicked have no claim to eugeneia, even if they happen to come from an illustrious family (§§ –). The first major section (§§ –) elaborates on the second part of the thesis. The fool born from a noble line estranges himself from the moral excellence of his ancestors (§ ), sullies his family’s reputation (§ ), and deserves to be cut off (§ ), his forebears’ health, strength, and virtue being of no use to him (§§ –). Personified Nobility then delivers a speech informing such individuals of her condemnation (§§ –). This is followed by a set of biblical examples illustrating how degenerate sons can be born to good parents. The first three, Cain (§§ –), Ham (§§ –), and Adam (§§ –), belong to humankind in general, while the last two are peculiar to Jewish history (§ ): of Abraham’s sons all but Isaac were found unworthy (§ ), while of Isaac’s sons, only the younger was well-pleasing (§§ –). The second major section (§§ –) takes up the first part of the thesis, providing examples of virtuous children born to ignoble parents (§ ). The longest discussion here (and the longest of any figure in the subtreatise) is assigned to Abraham (§§ –). Rejecting his father’s idolatry, he sought out the one true God and acquired faith, together with the other virtues, thus becoming “a standard of nobility for all proselytes” (§ ). Abraham’s female counterpart is Tamar, who similarly abandoned idolatry for the cause of piety (§§ –a). The list is rounded out with Zilpah and Bilhah. Although they were concubines, they rose to the status of married women and gave birth to sons who were treated equally with those born to Jacob’s legitimate wives (§§ b–). Philo concludes by affirming that the law judges all persons according to their own conduct and not that of their ancestors (§§ –). The presence of sections on repentance and nobility in a treatise entitled De virtutibus raises certain interpretive questions, since Philo nowhere identifies these concepts as virtues, and these two sections



introduction

(especially the former) are significantly shorter than those that precede. In addition, these two sections lack formal introductions comparable to those of the other sections (see part  of the Introduction), while the section that immediately precedes them, De humanitate, lacks a formal conclusion, unlike De iustitia and De fortitudine.70 For these reasons, most interpreters agree in treating De paenitentia and De nobilitate as appendices or adjuncts to De humanitate.71 This is particularly evident with the section on repentance (§§ –), whose contents can be understood in part as an elaboration of §§ – and , which also discuss proselytes. Perhaps the most obvious connection in this regard occurs in § , where Philo’s plea that “as many did not think fit to worship the Founder and Father of all from the beginning, but later welcomed the rule of one over the rule of many, should be considered our closest friends and relatives,” echoes the argument in § , that Moses inculcated humanity in his followers by commanding them to love proselytes “as friends and relatives.” Meanwhile, the main thesis of De nobilitate (§§ –), that true nobility rests not on birth but on piety and virtue, amplifies certain comments made about Moses (§ ) and the Israelites (§ ) in De humanitate. At the same time, these two subtreatises may also be interpreted as adjuncts not only to De humanitate, but also to presentation of Mosaic virtue in the Exposition more generally. From this perspective, they can be seen to be elaborating on the basic argument that membership in “the best of all polities” (§ ) is defined not in ethnic or national terms, but more decisively in religious and moral terms. This argument, according to which the Jewish ethnos resembles a philosophical movement or a state founded on philosophical principles, is consistent with Philo’s broader aim of demonstrating the universal scope and significance of the Mosaic law (see part  above). De paenitentia contributes to this by depicting the polity’s members as individuals who have made a choice to live an amended life and engage in processes of moral correction. For proselytes, this is represented by the choice they make for religious enlightenment and moral transformation when converting to Judaism. For those who are already members of the polity, this involves deciding to repent

70

Sterling , . E.g., PCW .xxvii–xxviii; PCH .; Morris , –. By the same token, while they are not virtues per se, the sections on repentance and nobility continue the topically organized structure of the treatise, each topic functioning as a key word for organizing illustrative material, drawn mostly from the Pentateuch. 71

the character and aim of the treatise



of any transgressions they may have committed. Philo concentrates on the former, since their presence in the community demonstrates the significance of choice as a defining feature of the polity most dramatically, the sudden and sweeping nature of their transformation testifying to the excellence of its laws and institutions. De nobilitate, in turn, argues that the Mosaic polity does not belong to the race of Israel by birth, but to those who commit themselves to holiness and virtue. By showing Mosaic nobility to consist not in having the right ancestors but in making the right choices, the message of De nobilitate reinforces and complements that of De paenitentia, and it is significant that Philo’s two most prominent examples of noble individuals born of ignoble families, Abraham and Tamar, are proselytes (§§ –).72 Insofar as the observation that the Jewish polity attracted converts from the non-Jewish world was a feature of Jewish apologetic rhetoric,73 Philo’s emphasis in this regard may provide a clue as to his aims in writing, a topic to which we now turn.

. The Character and Aim of the Treatise As the analysis above has shown, over three-fourths of De virtutibus is devoted to humanity and ancillary topics. Seeing how Philo is here introducing “a newcomer to the classical list of virtues,”74 questions arise as to what would have motivated him to devote such a long and rather involved section to the subject and what criteria he may have observed in the selection and organization of its contents. Contemporary scholarship has generally tended to take Philo’s arguments about philanthr¯opia in this section as a contribution to the broader apologetic agenda of the Exposition discussed above.75 The following comments from Katell Berthelot’s monograph, which includes the fullest 72

Differently, Cohn (PCH .) imagined De paenitentia as a summons for nonJewish readers, having been convicted by the arguments in De humanitate, to embrace the true faith, while in De nobilitate Philo turns to his fellow Jews, encouraging them to accept proselytes as equals. For a critique, see PLCL .xv–xvii. For his part, Colson (PLCL .xvii–xviii), judging it to be a work of inferior quality, suggested that De nobilitate did not originally belong to De virtutibus, though the evidence of Clement’s Stromata speaks against this; see part  above. 73 See, e.g., Josephus, C. Ap. ., , , with Barclay , –, –, –. 74 Konstan , . On the same page he writes: “I do not know of a passage in which it is explicitly included in a list of virtues.” 75 E.g., van Veldhuizen ; Dautzenberg ; Borgen a.



introduction

and most recent treatment of De humanitate, are typical: “The presentation of the humanity of the Mosaic law represents the heart of the philonian refutation of certain accusations made by pagan authors. Whether Philo mentions the humanity of the legislator or of the legislation, in both cases it is Moses as well as the law that are defended.”76 Above all, Philo intends to refute the sorts of charges expressed, for example, in Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. /..–, according to which “the Jews . . . alone of all nations avoided dealings with any other people and looked upon all men as their enemies.” Thus when organizing themselves as a nation, “they made their hatred of humanity into a tradition, and on this account had introduced utterly outlandish laws: not to break bread with any other people, nor to show them any good will at all.”77 In estimating the impact of such accusations, it is important to bear in mind the broad significance of philanthr¯opia as a cultural value in Greco-Roman antiquity.78 Here Plutarch, who uses the term frequently, is representative. For him, the concepts of philanthr¯opia, civilization, and Hellenism were “almost inseparable.”79 In Phil. ., for instance, he praises Aratus as the leader who first lifted the Achaeans from semibarbaric obscurity to a state of power and prominence, something he accomplished by “establishing a Hellenic and humane polity” (πολιτευσ,μενος 4Ελληνικ+ν κα φιλ,νρωπον πολιτεαν) for the people. In a case like this, being humane and being Greek are virtually synonymous, particularly when it comes to determining the arrangements by which an ethnos organizes itself.80 As the work of Plutarch further illustrates, humanity also had a place in the philosophical argot of the era.81 One of the more important areas in which the concept figured, for exam-

76

Berthelot , . Many scholars believe that Diodorus’ source was Posidonius; see GLAJJ .–, –. On the “misoxenia/misanthr¯opia motif,” see Schäfer , –; Isaac , –; Pearce  –; also the commentary on Virt. . 78 For surveys, see Tromp de Ruiter ; Le Déaut ; Luck ; Hiltbrunner ; Spicq , .–; Pearson . 79 Martin , ; cf. Aalders , . The Latin humanitas is likewise often associated with culture and civilization, e.g., Nikolaïdis –; Hiltbrunner , –; Nickel . 80 In Plutarch philanthr¯ opia can refer to such things as courteousness, sociability (especially with one’s social inferiors), and clemency, though most prominently it is used to describe “an act of kindness or generosity” (Martin , ). The term is sometimes associated with the virtues of justice and piety, as Konstan (, ) observes. He also notes the frequency with which the term is used by Polybius and Diodorus Siculus. 81 E.g., Hirzel , –. 77

the character and aim of the treatise



ple, was in the promulgation of Stoic universalistic ideals.82 Within such a climate, then, charges of inhumanity can be understood as part of a broader effort to marginalize Jews culturally, politically, and intellectually. According to Berthelot, Philo’s response to such calumny consisted in “affirming that the philanthr¯opia taught by Moses’ law aims at the entirety of creation and not at the Jewish people alone. Indeed, the texts accusing the Jews of misanthr¯opia are about the attitude of Jews regarding non-Jews, and not the relationships of Jews among themselves.” Thus in “De virtutibus, he particularly seeks to demonstrate that the impact of the philanthr¯opia prescribed by Mosaic laws is not limited to the Jewish community but extends to other categories of people as well.”83 The challenge that presents itself, then, is “to prove that Moses’ law prescribes philanthr¯opia towards every individual, even though it does not in fact usually legislate for the category ‘every man’.”84 Accordingly, one of Philo’s priorities is to demonstrate the “universality” of Mosaic philanthr¯opia by showcasing provisions of the law that encourage Jews to practice philanthr¯opia in their interactions with non-Jews. As we have already seen, the Exposition exhibits clear signs of apologetic discourse.85 At the same time, what the topic of philanthr¯opia contributes to this discourse may be more complicated than Berthelot’s comments suggest. In particular, the question of the referents of Mosaic humanity in the Exposition (that is, the recipients or beneficiaries of humane action carried out by Jews) is one that warrants further scrutiny. We may begin with three sets of preliminary observations. The first set has to do with the broader literary setting of De humanitate. Outside of this subtreatise, there are thirty-two occurrences of philanthr¯opia in the Exposition. When examined in terms of referent, these fall under four basic headings.86 In four cases, the referent is not specified. We are told, for example, that those who aspire to virtue must cultivate this trait, but with no indication as to the group or individuals towards whom humanity should be directed (Spec. .; cf. Mos. .; Spec. .; .). In another four cases, the referent is ambiguous. For 82 E.g. Baldry , –, –; Wright ; Schofield , –. Also see the commentary on Virt. . 83 Berthelot , –. 84 Berthelot , . 85 See Part  of the Introduction. 86 This does not include the three occasions in which it is divine, not human, philanthr¯opia that is under discussion: Abr. ; Mos. .; Virt. .



introduction

example, in Spec. ., Philo explains that it is a mark of humanity to share good things with the “worthy” ( ξιοι), which might conceivably include non-Jews along with Jews, though this is not specified (cf. Spec. .; .; .). In over half the cases, there is little doubt that the referents are fellow Jews.87 For example, on a half-dozen occasions the referents are Jewish priests (Spec. .; .; .) or members of their households (Spec. ., , ). There are even occasions when Philo can imply that the philanthr¯opia Jews are expected to observe in their interactions with one another does not apply to their interactions with other people.88 This leaves us with only a few passages where the referents might belong to Berthelot’s “other categories of people” (Abr. , ; Ios. ). Looking at the presentation of humanity in the Exposition as a whole, then, its application to non-Jews does not appear to be a prominent feature. A second set of observations can be made regarding De humanitate itself. As we have seen, the main body of the subtreatise is a survey of Mosaic laws that Philo thinks promote humanity, organized according to the categories of people, animals, and plants. Concentrating on the question of referents here, we find references to non-Jews only in §§ –, –, and §§ – (assuming that 1χρο refers to non-Jews). In sum, then, less than one fourth of the subtreatise concerns humanity as it is expressed by Jews towards non-Jews. In addition, the first mention of non-Jews does not occur until almost half-way through the subtreatise. Finally, no reference is made to non-Jews in either the Introduction (§§ –) or the Conclusion (§§ –) of the subtreatise. It is significant that analyses such as Berthelot’s spend comparatively little time discussing these sections, though it is fair to assume that at least some of Philo’s reasons for writing would be communicated in one or both of them. A third set of observations can be made regarding Virt. , one of the few places where the apologetic profile of the Exposition becomes explicit: “So let those devious slanderers continue to malign the nation as being prone to inhumanity (μισανρωπ7α) and accuse the laws of encouraging uncongenial and unsocial (κοιν8νητα) practices, when these laws obviously grant a share of mercy even to herds of cattle, and the people through the guidance of customs learned from their earliest 87 Besides what follows, see Ios. ; Mos. .; .; Decal. ; Spec. ., , , , , ; ., . 88 E.g., compare Spec. .; .– with Spec. .–; ., .

the character and aim of the treatise



youth amend any disobedience in their souls to a civilized disposition.” It is noteworthy that in countering the charge of misanthr¯opia and stating positively what it is that the law promotes, Philo says nothing here about the interaction of Jews with non-Jews. This statement concludes a section of the subtreatise dealing with Lev :, which prohibits sacrificing a mother animal and its offspring on the same day (§§ –). Philo contends that this statute inspired the leaders of other nations to introduce the law that prohibits executing a pregnant woman condemned to death until after her child is born. So non-Jews are indeed the beneficiaries of Mosaic philanthr¯opia, but not as the result of any law about how Jews ought to treat them. Rather the Mosaic law itself serves as a model that inspires other lawmakers to be more humane in dealing with their own people. Taken together, these observations indicate that Philo’s presentation of Mosaic humanity in fact incorporates a broad range of referents and social situations, including many that are internal to the Jewish community. If we were to identify a common denominator for all of this material, it seems that in each case Philo expounds on a situation in which we see, not Jews interacting with non-Jews, but those who possess means, power, or authority interacting with those who do not: landowners pay day-laborers their wages on time, victorious soldiers grant their female captives a period of mourning, farmers do not muzzle their oxen when they tread out the grain, and so on. This particular type of social dynamic is reflected also in the treatise’s Introduction (§§ –) and Conclusion (§§ –), comprising about one third of the subtreatise, which deal with how persons in positions of authority, especially political authority, understand and use their power.89 In the former, Moses makes “humane” rather then selfish decisions about the choice of a successor to lead the nation. In the latter, the ruling classes are exhorted to abstain from insolence and to instead imitate God by using their resources to promote the common good. Attention to this dimension of Philonic philanthr¯opia suggests a different line of inquiry for investigating the Exposition, especially given the fact that the concept of humanity figured prominently in various forms of contemporaneous political discourse. To take just one example: in the literature on kingship (περ βασιλεας), humanity is generally included

89 Note how the Conclusion opens with the language of 9γεμονα (§§ –), recalling the principal issue addressed by the Introduction (§§ , , ).



introduction

among the desiderata of the ideal ruler.90 This attribute comes to expression especially when he protects the weaker from the stronger, when he dispenses benefits to those who most need them, and when he observes restraint in executing the powers of his office. By honoring this virtue in his own character he sets an example for others to follow, and so humanity becomes a moral qualification for the ruling classes generally. Among Philo scholars, E.R. Goodenough contributed as much as anyone to our understanding of this literature.91 In terms of its relevance to the Exposition, however, he restricted himself largely to De Iosepho.92 Among other things, this meant that relatively little attention was paid to the theme of philanthr¯opia (the term does not even appear in the index to his book on Philo’s politics). Another consequence was that relatively little attention was paid to how the sorts of virtues extolled in the kingship literature figured in other forms of political discourse. In fact, however, there are any number of different generic possibilities that might repay consideration in this regard. One genre that seems to have particular potential for comparative analysis is “the account of constitutional origins.”93 Much like the Exposition, examples of this kind of discourse draw extensively on the language of virtue, applying it both to the state’s rulers and to the laws that they establish. One of the fullest examples of this genre is the Antiquitates romanae of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, published beginning in  bce, a work that describes the origins of the Roman ethnos with particular attention to its founders and the polity they established. As he explains in the preface (..–..), Dionysius is writing in part to refute certain strains of antiRoman propaganda, according to which Rome was founded, in essence, by a band of misfits (e.g., ..–).94 His thesis, to the contrary, is that from the beginning Rome was led by men fit to rule, in other words, men preeminent in virtue.95 The elaboration of such a thesis, he says, ought 90

See, e.g., Isocrates, Ad Nic. ; Dio Chrysostom, Or. ., ; ., ; ., ; .; Musonius Rufus, frg. ..; Let. Arist. . Further, Hadot . 91 Goodenough . 92 Goodenough , –. 93 Examples of this genre might include Aristotle’s Athenian Constitution and Xenophon’s Constitution of the Lacedaemonians; book  of Cicero’s Republic; and some of Plutarch’s biographies, such as those of Lycurgus and Numa. Also Josephus, Jewish Antiquities –, for which see Feldman , xxiv–xxix. 94 Cf. Weißenberger . For the background of such propaganda, see Deininger , –. 95 That such men ought to rule their inferiors is “a universal law of nature” (Ant. rom. ..).

the character and aim of the treatise



to be of interest to anyone interested in ruling well, since what is being described is the best politeia, based on the judgments of the best leaders, especially the first kings of Rome, and especially Romulus.96 As he puts it in .., the aim is for his readers to learn “that Rome from the very beginning, immediately after its founding, produced infinite examples of virtue in men whose superiors, whether for piety or for justice or for life-long moderation or for warlike valor, no city, either Greek or barbarian, has ever produced.” His history will show that the institutions and customs of Roman society are not accidents of history, but in fact embody the intentional design of its founder, the superiority of whose vision and plan for the state is proven through time as it overcomes all manner of ordeals and obstacles. Of course what Dionysius provides us is hardly an unbiased account. On the contrary, it is apparent that he has extended considerable energy reworking his source material. This is a project that entails an apologetic reconstruction of Roman origins, which are idealized especially according to the principles of Greek political culture. According to Emilio Gabba, Dionysius has accessed this culture especially through the writings of Isocrates, who, not coincidentally, wrote several kingship treatises.97 Dionysius’ efforts in this regard follow what Gabba refers to as “the political theory proclaiming Rome’s Greekness.”98 Specifically, in demonstrating how the Roman state realizes Greek ideals, Dionysius hopes to legitimize Rome as a civilizing power, one whose ascendancy is morally deserved and whose politeia is justifiably a universal politeia.99 Toward this end, Dionysius employs a range of narrative strategies, each meant to prove the essentially Greek character of Rome’s first kings and the constitutional order that they established.100 One of these strategies involves associating specific persons and events in Roman history with a set of conventional Greek virtues, which function as recurring themes of moral assessment. In Dionysius’ retelling, these virtues also represent the standards according to which the Roman politeia was founded. Specifically, in establishing institutions for the state, Romulus believed that good government rested on “first, the favor of the 96 Cf. Ant. rom. ... Dionysius’ interest in amplifying the role of the founder figure is evident, e.g., when the comparatively lengthy account in Ant. rom. ..–.. is compared with its counterpart in Livy, Ab urb. cond. ..–... 97 For what follows, see Gabba ; Gabba . 98 Gabba , . 99 Cf. Martin ; Luraghi . 100 Cf. Cary , xi–xxviii.



introduction

gods . . . next, moderation and justice . . . and, lastly, bravery in war” (..) Recognizing that none of these is the effect of chance, he held that it is “good laws and the emulation of worthy pursuits” that “render a state pious, moderate, devoted to justice, and brave in war” (..).101 As David Balch has shown, these statements belong to a larger section of the Antiquitates that demonstrates how the particular measures adopted by Romulus for regulating the nation fostered such virtues.102 The survey begins with a section on humanity (..–..),103 followed by a section on piety (..–..), and a section on justice and moderation (..–..). The next section records “other deeds reported of this man, both in his wars and at home,” referring to his role in the rape of the Sabine women (..–..) and his leadership in the resulting wars (..–..). The manner in which Dionysius treats the first of these virtues is of particular interest to the current discussion. In the first book of the Antiquitates, it is introduced in a way that that seems to be programmatic: “Such, then, are the facts concerning the origin of the Romans which I have been able to discover after my reading very diligently many works . . . Hence, from now on let the reader forever renounce the views of some who make Rome the retreat of barbarians, fugitives, and vagabonds, and let him confidently affirm it to be a Greek city—which will be easy when it is seen to be the most social (κοινοτ,την) and humane (φιλανρωποτ,την) of all cities” (..; cf. ..). Dionysius will go on to use the terms φιλανρωπα and φιλ,νρωπος over seventy times, narrating how various institutions, laws, and measures enacted by Roman leaders embody and effect this virtue, creating the impression that humanity pervades and permeates Roman society. One of the ways that he does this is by showing how the virtue applies to an array of different referents, including many familiar from our analysis of De humanitate: the poor the hungry the dispossessed/landless debtors foreign residents

..; ..; ..; ..; .. ..; ..– ..–; ..; ..; ..– ..–; ..–; ..– ..; ..; ..–

101 Cf. ..: “men of bravery, justice, and the other virtues are the result of a polity that has been established wisely.” See also ..; ... 102 Balch , –. 103 The section makes no mention of philanthr¯ opia per se, though comparison with .. (quoted below) makes such an identification feasible.

the character and aim of the treatise slaves clients enemies, captives seditious groups



..; .. ..–.. ..–; ..; ..; ..; ..; .. ..; ..

Among other things, this catalogue is of interest inasmuch as it represents a virtual check list of what ancient political theorists generally identified as the principal sources of social instability.104 And this connects precisely to a point that Dionysius makes repeatedly in his history. On occasion after occasion, the Romans are shown encountering various threats to their social order involving one or more of these groups. And in each case we learn that because those with means or authority are guided in their interactions with these groups by philanthr¯opia, the crisis is resolved in a manner that preserves civic unity. In contrast to other states, which are forever fractured by stasis, the Romans have established constitutional constraints on potential abuses of power that could destabilize their society. Indeed, “so secure was the Romans’ concord (2μνοια), which owed its birth to the regulations of Romulus, that they never in the course of six hundred and thirty years proceeded to bloodshed and mutual slaughter, though many great controversies arose between the populace and their magistrates concerning public policy” (..).105 The cumulative effect of this narrative pattern functions as a guarantee (as Dionysius sees things) of the Romans’ moral excellence, evidenced in the strength, stability, and longevity of their politeia. It is no wonder that Roman rule comes to be admired and emulated by other nations, as we hear in a summary statement about Rome’s second king: “By these means (that is, by fostering acts of philanthr¯opia) Numa came to be beloved of his subjects, the example of his neighbors, and the theme of posterity. It was owing to these measures that civil dissension never broke the concord (2μνοια) of the state” (..–). Transitions in political leadership represented another common and much discussed source of social volatility.106 Consistent with the priorities mentioned above, it is significant that narrating these sorts of scenarios provides occasions for both Dionysius and Philo to demonstrate how 104

See, e.g., Finley , –; cf. Eckstein , –. Romulus recognized that the attributes among the citizens most important for preserving the state were courage in military affairs and unanimity (2μοφροσ:νη) in civil affairs, the latter depending on “the moderate and just life of each citizen” (..; cf. ..–..). 106 For a list of primary texts, see Talbert and Stepp, . 105



introduction

their respective founder figures observe philanthr¯opia. Philo does this in the Introduction to De humanitate, which explains that as Moses neared death he did not choose one of his relatives to succeed him as leader of the Israelites, but left the decision to divine judgment. God then selects a man who, because he is supreme in virtue, will maintain good order (ενομα) for the people (§§ –).107 Dionysius raises the issue of political succession on a number of occasions, which provide him with opportunities to explain how the Romans avoided the particular uncertainties associated with hereditary kingship.108 The succession narrative of Numa in ..–.. is in many regards prototypical. We are told that he ascended the throne not by force or on account of any personal relationship with Romulus, but because he was elected to the office by the Roman Senate owing to his superior wisdom. Later these procedures are institutionalized for the entire state. Indeed, among Rome’s “most humane laws” is the provision that its magistrates are to rule only with the consent of those governed (..; cf. ..–; ..). On the other hand, the antithesis of this ideal is embodied in the violent reign of Rome’s last king, Tarquinius “the Arrogant” (..; cf. ..). Similar language is employed in the Conclusion to De humanitate to summarize the treatise’s contents. Indeed, in Philo’s interpretation, the primary motivation behind Moses’ directives to the people on humanity was to set those in high office “beyond the reach of arrogance and pretentiousness” (§ , cf. §§ –) so as to protect the civic body. Another key to the success, and especially the growth, of the Roman state was the liberal policy it followed in granting citizenship to nonRomans, especially refugees, defeated populations, and freed-persons: In the course of time they contrived to raise themselves from the smallest nation (;νος) to the greatest . . . not only by their humane (φιλανρ8πσχρς) action of any kind with fair-sounding titles (§ ). Much like the courageous man of § , the women intend to convert their δοξα into εIκλεια

on courage –: in wartime, §§ –



through “excellent” conduct (§§ –, cf. § ). Their ριστεα, however, is counterfeit, in contrast to that of the twelve-thousand Israelites chosen for battle in § . Both groups hope that their actions will reap benefits (Bφ!λειαι) for their respective countries (§§ , , cf. § ). The women’s aim is to secure victory without bloodshed (ναιμωτ), having received assurances that they will succeed “merely by being seen” (ατ μνον HφεAσαι, § ). But, in the end, both the Midianite commanders and their female provocateurs fall victim to the same fate they had intended for their enemy. On the battlefield, the Israelite army mows down many myriads “with scarcely a shout” (ατοβοε, § ), achieving precisely the sort of bloodless (ναιμωτ) victory its enlistment procedures were designed to produce (§ ). The reason for this, of course, is that the soldiers champion the cause of eusebeia (§§ , ) against the forces of asebeia (§ ). But more than this, their enemy constitutes a shocking inversion of the gender polarity upon which the law’s regimen of andreia is predicated. The Midianite men explain to the women that by prostituting their bodies it will be female action that overcomes the enemy (§ ). However, even if their ruse meets with success, it will in fact constitute for the men a Pyrrhic victory. Since it will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion by women and not men, the latter are forced to acknowledge that “it is our sex . . . which will fall to defeat” (§ ). Conversely, Israelite courage is defined in overcoming this anomaly through the destruction of masculine women, who usurp male prerogatives, and their effeminate men, who acquiesce to female activity in, of all places, international warfare. In this retelling of the biblical story, then, Philo reshapes the character of Mosaic andreia in ways that would have been more congenial with the discursive systems of imperial power.

Detailed Comments () § . human affairs occur in two times, in peace and in war. In encomiastic discourse it was conventional to divide the praise of someone’s exploits into those of peacetime and those of wartime (Menander Rhetor, Epid. .–), though only the latter would properly fall under the heading of courage (Epid. .). Philo, however, has argued that the virtue is valuable under both sets of circumstances; cf. Contempl. . For the similar division that Cicero makes in his analysis of courage, see the Analysis/General comments on §§ –. Comparison may also be



commentary

made with Josephus’ summary of the law in book  of the Antiquitates, which covers first civil laws (.–), then provisions for the military (.–); cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..; ..; ..–; ..; ... For the basic distinction, see also Hum. . regarding the others mention has already been made. As Colson (PLCL .–) notes, what Philo has in mind here is difficult to say, though the primary reference may be to the immediately preceding treatise, whose treatment of justice reviews first laws of peacetime (Spec. .–), then those pertaining to warfare (Spec. .–). In addition, the (far less systematic) presentation of eusebeia (see § ) in book  of De vita Mosis demonstrates the relevance of that virtue in peace (Mos. ., , , ) and in war (Mos. ., ); cf. Abr. . The similar statement that Philo makes in his overview of the Exposition in Praem.  is somewhat easier to interpret, since presumably it refers not only to these texts, but also to De fortitudine itself, with its obvious division of peacetime (§§ –) and wartime (§ –), as well as the less obvious division between peacetime (§§ –) and wartime (§§ – ) in De humanitate (cf. Abr. , ). he celebrates in many places of the legislation. For references to andreia elsewhere in Philo’s oeuvre, see the Parallel exegesis to Fort. – . Also see on §§ –. the following prefatory comment. Other elements of the so-called Deuteronomic war code are taken up in Hum. –, –. Fort. – contains an extended, occasionally verbose, meditation on Deut :–, which grants four possible deferments from military service. While the allowance of such exemptions would have been a standard practice in the ancient world (cf. ANET .–; –.–, – ; Plato, Leg. c), the Mosaic army would have faced special challenges in this regard. As Nelson (, ) points out, in the worldview projected by Deuteronomy, those serving in the military “are not landless invaders, but a settled population with houses and vineyards.” The “citizen soldiers” comprising such a nonprofessional army would have much to lose, especially when confronted with a numerically and technologically superior opponent (Deut :). In this regard the provisions of vv. – assume a realistic stance regarding the possibility of causalities. (a) § . When he prepares the muster roll. In the biblical text, exemptions are granted on the eve of battle, after the size and composition of the enemy’s forces have been determined (Deut :–). In Deut : and , the LXX replaces “officers” in the original with γραμματεAς as

on courage –: in wartime, §§ –



those addressing the army (QT LXII  has “judges”), which may have prompted Philo to connect the deferments with the task of drawing up the roll of soldiers. As a practical matter, such a connection would certainly be more logical, at least in the case of the first three deferments (Deut :–), since those to whom they applied would be known in advance of the battle (cf. Rofé , ). For this use of κατ,λογος, see Aristotle, Ath. pol. .; Josephus, Ant. .; cf. Abr. . Such a roll was important not only for ascertaining the total number of soldiers but also for assigning them to their particular units, e.g., Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ... Generals, of course, had to be careful to select only the most fit and stalwart men, e.g., Plato, Crit. e–b; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..; ... Potential enlistees for the Roman army were required to appear before a recruiting board, the probatio, which assessed the young men’s physical, intellectual, and legal qualifications. In Egypt, this process was associated with a census known as the epikrisis (Le Bohec , –; further, Stauner , –; Peretz , –). there are some whom he excuses . . . to begin with, the quivering and cowardly. In Plato’s Leges, if a man called up for armed service fails to present himself out of cowardice, he is to be prosecuted by the military authorities (a–b). For practical reasons Moses’ law grants such men an exemption. Roman standards of military recruitment also excluded certain categories of persons, though these tended to be such “social undesirables” as slaves, criminals, and the members of certain “degraded” occupations like innkeepers, fowlers, and bakers (Phang , –). Like Josephus (Ant. .), Philo treats the last of the biblical exemptions in Deut :– first, perhaps because of his interest in exploring the “psychological” motivations behind the provisions; see also §§ –. At any rate, : continues the theme of fear from :–: the scribes say to the soldiers, “What man is there who fears and is cowardly in his heart (2 φοβο:μενος κα δειλς τ@$ καρδ7α)? Let him go and return to his house, lest he make cowardly (δειλι,ν@η) the heart of his brother like his own” (cf. Judg :). Such soldiers are fearful despite the assurances given them by the priests in vv. – that they are in fact fighting a sacred war (note especially μ+ φοβεAσε in v. ); cf. QM X –; XV –. In Philo, the cowardice of such men is a matter not of their failure to respond to the priests’ encouragement, but of their innate “softness,” a term often applied to cowards (e.g., Xenophon, Symp. .; Aristotle, Eth. nic. ..; Virt. vit. .; Demosthenes, Or. .; Plutarch, Apoph. lac. a). In terms of the biblical provision’s wording, Philo retains only δειλς (cf. δειλα in §§ , , ), though φοβ!ω will be used in § .



commentary

overcome by their innate softness. In his descriptions of Mosaic andreia, Philo is careful to distance the courageous from any association with μαλακα, a quintessentially feminine characteristic (e.g., Edwards , –; Williams , s.v. mollitia; cf. on §§ –). For example, in §§ –, the one who endures poverty bravely is contrasted with those who have been “softened” for want of valor. Here potential army recruits emasculated by softness are to be rejected, another point on which civilian and military forms of courage approximate one another (see the Analysis/General comments). cause alarm in the other combatants. In contrast to the exemptions of Deut :–, where the issue is the rights of individuals in certain liminal situations, Deut : is meant to prevent the psychological effect of fear within the ranks. Philo replaces the very rare δειλιανω of the LXX with δ!ος . . . 1μποιεAν, for which cf. Mos. .; Josephus, Bell. .. According to Josephus, cowards are excluded from the army lest they “turn to flight during the encounter and aid the enemy” (Ant. .); cf. m. Sot. :. § . the vice of one man is likely to be reproduced in his neighbor. For the language, cf. Her. , where the soul is likened to a block of wax (cf. Plato, Theaet. c–d, c–a): “if it is obedient and appropriately submissive it allows the imprints to sink deep into it, and thus reproducing (ναμαξαμ!νη) the shape of the seal indelibly preserves the forms stamped upon it.” Cf. on Hum.  and . For the possibility of reproducing the vices of one’s opponent, see Migr. . the ability to reason is confounded by apprehensiveness. Reasoning power, an essential component of civic courage (Fort. , –), is put to the test in situations of combat. Like their civic counterparts (Fort. , ), Mosaic soldiers also need to exercise φρνησις (see on § ). Philo appears to have been acquainted with the Stoic definition of γωνα as the species of fear one feels when confronted with a matter that is δηλος (“uncertain, obscure,” cf. § ), e.g., Decal. ; Praem. ; cf. Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .–; SVF ., , ; Josephus, Ant. .. to call cowardice discretion. According to the Aristotelian analysis in Virt. vit. ., cowardice has a certain element of ελ,βεια to it. For δειλα as a deficiency of courage, see on § . § . to prevent their own interests from being harmed by the unmanliness. Unmanliness, either in the troops (e.g., Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..) or in their generals (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..), constitutes one of the most common sources of defeat.

on courage –: in wartime, §§ –



While cowards might be accustomed to disguising their νανδρα as “the need for safety” (§ ; cf. Plutarch, An. corp. b), this vice is in fact as debilitating in civilian contexts as it is in military ones (cf. §§ , ). a shiftless throng is not an advantage. Cf. the “throngs of thoughtless persons” in § . he withholds those who lack valor and lose heart. The scenario depicted in this paragraph is loosely based on Deut :: “Do not let your heart become faint, do not fear, do not be confounded, do not turn your face from them.” no general would compel men suffering from physical illnesses to go to war. στρατηγς is Mangey’s ( ) emendation for στρατηγοAς (V2OFGK2H2) and στρατηγο:ς (ceteri) in the mss. Bodily infirmities would incapacitate a soldier for field service, e.g., Polybius, Hist. ..; Baldwin . § . cowardice is also an illness. If those suffering from physical illnesses are excluded from participating in war (§ ), the same applies all the more to those suffering from cowardice (cf. Det. ), since such illnesses of the soul are both more harmful and more difficult to cure (cf. Spec. .; and Plutarch’s treatise, Animine an corporis affectiones sint peiores). Closely related is the “disease” of effeminacy, since it likewise robs the soul of courage (Contempl. ). Other soul-sicknesses include ignorance (see on § ), deceit (e.g., Spec. .), and vice in general (e.g., Det. ). Cf. Plato, Crat. c: “Now deilia signifies the soul’s being bound by a strong shackle (desmos), for lian (too much) is a degree of strength. Therefore deilia signifies the strongest of the soul’s shackles” (further, Plato, Soph. e; Resp. d–e; Aristotle, Eth. nic. ..–; SVF ., ). Counteracting this is s¯ophrosyn¯e, which represents the means and state of health in the soul (see on §§ –). So, even if their bodies have been worn out by physical illness, those whose souls are vigorous and healthy can contribute to the common good (§ ). unless God happens to heal it. For Philo, Moses the lawgiver is the best of physicians for the maladies of the soul. In some few cases (as with Moses himself), these diseases are exscinded altogether, while in others they are cured with “saving medicines” so as to assuage their influence (Leg. .; Det. ; Deus ; Ios. ; Decal. ; Aune , – ; cf. Dio Chrysostom, Or. .; Niehoff , –). Plutarch, meanwhile, contends that God heals the vices of wrongdoers by sending them punishments, which are administered like medicine to a patient (Sera f–a, f; cf. Quaest. rom. e–f). And in a very different context, we hear from Onasander that the general’s speech to his army



commentary

after a defeat is supposed to “cure” the troops of the despondency in their hearts, much like a physician ministers to diseases in the body (Strat. .–). everything is possible with God. God alone can do all things (Somn. .; cf. Opif. ; Somn. .; Ios. ; Abr. , ; Spec. .; Gen :; Matt :; Mark :; Luke :). (b) § . they demonstrate a patriotic and eager and intrepid disposition. The citizens of §  similarly demonstrate courage when they direct their valorous efforts towards what is most beneficial for the common interests of their homeland. bound by any compelling circumstances. According to Deuteronomic ideology, since the spoils of war are gifts from God, it would be illogical for the dangers of war to prevent one’s enjoyment of such material gain (Nelson , ). Functionally, the discharge allowances of Deut :– , to which Philo now turns, are related to the genre of “futility curses” (cf. Deut :–; Bruin ), which concern actions that might contravene the natural order of things or the expected sequence of events: “such exemptions were based on the notion that persons in certain liminal or threshold states would present a special danger if they took part in a sacral enterprise” (Nelson , ). Philo, by contrast, focuses on the laws’ humanitarian (§ ) and psychological (§§ –) aspects. For Greco-Roman parallels, see on §§ –. § . if someone, he says, has recently built a house. Philo breaks up the parallelism of his source, dropping Deut :b, b, and b, condensing the three-fold question + command structure into a single conditional sentence, and postponing the reasons for the exemptions until § ; cf. Agr. . From the wording of Deut :a, only ο>κα is retained. Philo’s rendering of 1γκαινζω (“dedicate”) in the LXX with ε>σοικζω may in fact better approximate the meaning of the Hebrew original (Nelson , ). Josephus (compare his νεωστ δειμαμ!νους with Philo’s νεωστ δειμ,μενος) interprets the provision to mean that the man should be allowed at least one year to enjoy his new home (Ant. .; cf. Deut :), while m. Sot. : includes not only a man who has recently built a house, but also a man who has recently purchased or inherited one or received one as a gift. or has just planted a vineyard. Philo alters 1φ:τευσεν μπελνα in Deut : to μπελνα φυτε:σας. He also adds a note explaining that this is a vineyard the man has planted himself, contrasting with m. Sot. :, which includes not only those “who sink (the shoots) into the ground,” but also a man who has bought or inherited a vineyard or has

on courage –: in wartime, §§ –



received it as a gift. Philo further changes “he has not enjoyed it” (MT: “he has not rendered it profane;” cf. Lev :–) to “he has yet to have an opportunity of profit from it.” Josephus, Ant. . and m. Sot. : expand the provision’s application to include fruit orchards. or has betrothed himself to a maiden. Philo replaces μεμν=στευται γυναAκα in the LXX with παρ!νον 1γγυησ,μενος (cf. Hum. ). Presumably, he would have disagreed with m. Sot. :, which states that it makes no difference whether the woman is a virgin or a widow, or even a deceased childless brother’s widow awaiting the levir. Philo also changes “he has not taken her” to “he has not married her.” Josephus states that the statute applies to men who have recently married as well as to men who are betrothed (Ant. .; cf. Deut :). let him be released from all military service. In the biblical scenario, exemptions are made on the eve of battle: each man to whom they apply is to “go and return to his house” (Deut :, , , ). Philo envisions instead the exemptions being applied when the muster roll is prepared (see on § ), and so the qualified men do not leave home in the first place. the humanity of the law. ms A reads φιλανρ8πως 2μο(, while all others have φιλανρωπαν 2μο(. Cohn (PCW .), following Wendland (, ), conjectures φιλανρ8πως 2μο( κα στρατηγικς on the basis of Clement’s reading of this passage at Strom. ..– (for which see the Nachleben below): το:τους φεAσαι τ$ς στρατεας 2 φιλ,νρωπος κελε:ει νμος, στρατηγικς μEν . . . φιλανρ8πως δE . . . . Colson (PLCL .–, ), pointing out the unnatural reading thus created, suggests instead φιλανρωπ7α νμου, citing the correction at Spec. . (see PCW .) as a parallel. Mention may also be made of Spec. ., where φιλανρωπαν 2μο( in M (the only extant ms) is similarly corrected to φιλανρωπ7α νμου (see PCW .). This is done for two reasons. The first of these, the humanitarian reason (§ ), follows on the biblical text, while the second, the psychological reason (§§ –), is Philo’s addition. The former anticipates sections of De humanitate that address wartime affairs; see on Hum. –, – . § . others should not take without toil the possessions of those who labored for them. The humanity of the law in this case is expressed in the assumption that those who labor for something should be allowed a hope (1λπς) of profiting from it. Frustrating that expectation by allowing it to pass to someone who has had no part in the work is χαλεπς (“harsh, grievous”); cf. Agr. .



commentary

for one to build a house and another to inhabit it, for someone to plant and someone who did not plant to reap the fruits, for one to court and another to marry without courting. Philo paraphrases the reasons given in Deut : “lest he die in the war and another man dedicate it” (v. ), “lest he die in the war and another man enjoy it” (v. ), “lest he die in the war and another man take her” (v. ). The terminology varies little from that of § . The verb ο>κοδομ!ω is from Deut :. Perhaps Philo uses μν,ομαι (“to woo, court”) here to highlight the “laboring” involved; cf. Agr. ; Fug. ; Ios. . so that they ought not to render vain the hopes of those expecting good things in their lives. ms A reads οδες, while all others have ο δεAν. Mangey (, ) corrects this to ο δ!ον, while Cohn (PCW .) retains the majority reading as an instance of the Attic use of δεAν for the participle (Cohn , ; cf. PLCL .–). In addition, only A has χρηστC τ,, while the rest read χρηστC τν. Colson (PLCL .) suggests χρ$σιν τν. § . strained by longing for the enjoyment of the things taken from them. The second reason for the provisions of Deut :– is now given: those with new undertakings are likely to be distracted by the desire to enjoy them. As we saw with the civil dimension of andreia, because the courageous practice contentedness and self-sufficiency they have only few needs (see on §§ –). Moses does not go so far as Plato, who denied soldiers the right to private wealth, property, and even families (Resp. e–b), though in Philo’s interpretation he did recognize that under certain circumstances such things might divert them emotionally from their service to the state. Although it is much shorter in length, Josephus’ exposition of these laws in Ant. . exhibits some interesting similarities in language with our passage (see also on §§ , ), e.g., compare Philo’s π φ!ροι (F), and φ!ρειν (GH2). Given the instability of the text at this point, Colson’s suggestion of περ τι κηραινο:σ@η π,ος ψυχ@$ (PLCL .– ; cf. .) is acceptable, since it better conveys the parallel structure of the sentence and accords with Philo’s proclivity for περ with κηρανω, e.g., Ebr. ; Decal. ; Spec. .,  (also with π,ος); Praem. ,  (also with π,ος); Prov. .. (c) § . captains and generals. Officers can be commissioned only after the appropriate discharges have been made. The point of departure is Deut :b: “they shall appoint commanders of the army as leaders of the people.” Philo replaces the unclear “they” of the provision (Nelson , ) with Moses himself, the nation’s 9γεμ8ν (§ ). The titles used here, λοχαγς and στρατηγς, were standard ranks in the Greek military, the former receiving twice the normal soldier’s pay, the latter four times as much (Xenophon, Anab. ..; .., ; cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..; ..). In Plato’s Leges, generals are elected from a preliminary list of candidates (all of whom have served or are serving in the armed forces) compiled by the Guardians. The three generals thus chosen then compile a list of candidates for election as



commentary

company commanders (c–e). Onasander, meanwhile, urges that a general be chosen on account of his virtues; in particular, he must be “moderate, self-controlled, vigilant, frugal, hardened to labor, alert, and free from avarice” (Strat. .; cf. Smith ). good health with respect to his reasoning ability . . . full of noble prudence. As argued in §§ –, the good health of the soul, that is, σωφροσ:νη, occurs when its reasoning facility is in control, thus preserving its capacity for φρνησις, “the mightiest of our attributes” (cf. also §§ , ). This ability to reason well is put under particular stress by the vagaries of war (§ ), when the effects of the disease of cowardice become most evident (§ ). As Plutarch explains, if they are to succeed, soldiers, and especially their officers, need to act “with eagerness (προυμα; cf. Fort. ) and reason (λογισμς; cf. Fort. , ),” rather than “with hesitation and delay” (Brut. .; cf. Tim. .; Comp. Ages. Pomp. .). According to Isocrates, the best general is not the one who achieves success through a single stroke of good fortune, “but one who, though loaded with many difficult responsibilities of all sorts, has always discharged them with honesty and wisdom” (Antid. ). Ps.-Plato, Def. a defines courage both as boldness in obedience to φρνησις and as “the state which stands on guard over correct reasoning (λογισμν Hρν) in dangerous situations.” Similarly, Cicero concedes that physical training in preparation for military service is advantageous, but only so that the body will obey the judgments of reason more efficiently, since ultimately it is prudent counsel that determines victory (Off. .). Hence the successful leader busies himself with courage that is “true and wise” (.). Intellectually self-reliant, he can discern the most sensible way to manage risks and dangers (.), recognizing that it is “the rational cause that makes men great” (.). inspecting the body to see if it is whole . . . the soul to see if it is full of bravery and valor. Josephus boasts that the Mosaic army is comprised of “all who excel in strength (K8μη; cf. Fort. , ) of their bodies and in valor (ετολμα; cf. Fort. , , ) of soul” (Ant. .); cf. QM VII . postures and movements. For the varieties of these, see Asclepiodotus, Tact. .–. prefers death with glory to a disgraceful life. The type of glory cherished by Moses’ soldiers resembles that of the sage in Fort.  insofar as it is predicated not on what most people take to be courage (§§ –), but on nobility of spirit. The Midianite women, by contrast, seek glory through shameful actions (§ ).

on courage –: in wartime, §§ –



§ . in surpassing greatness. The odd phrase 1κ πολλο( το( περιντος (PLCL .: “sufficient and more than sufficient”) is one of Philo’s favorites (though cf. Josephus, Ant. .), e.g., Mos. ., . without loss of blood. As Tacitus observes, with the Romans it was “a great matter for pride in the event of victory, if the battle were fought without the expenditure of Roman blood” (Agr. .). Cf. Mos. .; Praem. ; Josephus, Bell. .. () § . the sacred books contain an especially clear proof. In Numbers, the account of the Baal Peor incident is positioned in such a way to show that “even the new generation of valiant Israelites was not immune to pagan tendencies” (Levine , ). In De fortitudine, it functions as evidence of their courage and “unrivalled might” (§ ) in overcoming threats to the nation’s piety. Num  is comprised of two parts, vv. – (JE) and vv. – (P). The former relates how at Shittim Israelite men began having sexual relations with the women of Moab, who then led them into idolatry. The latter tells the story of an aristocratic Midianite woman who has sexual relations with the son of an Israelite clan leader. The chapter concludes with God commanding Moses to slay the Midianites “because they deceived you at Peor and through Cozbi” (v. ). The conflation of the two enemy nations, though confusing, is understandable given the alliance they had formed earlier in the narrative (Num :–). In the version of the story Philo offers in Mos. .– (for which see the Parallel exegesis below), no reference is made to the Moabites or the Midianites, the conflict being waged against Balak, who is simply presented as king “of a great and populous portion of the East” (.). In the version of the story here, Philo draws on the biblical narrative in a very selective manner, omitting references to Balaam, Phinehas, etc., basing the story principally on :– , , –; :–, , –, and , focusing on its themes of seduction and revenge. The Arabians, whose ancient name was the Midianites. This historical detail (absent from the parallel account in De vita Mosis), the only item that tethers Philo’s otherwise generic retelling of the biblical story to any specific time or place, offers an important clue regarding his geopolitical bearing. In the Roman imagination, Arabia was a barbarian, Eastern nation given to extravagant luxuries and populated by robbers (e.g., Strabo, Geogr. ..; .., –; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..–; ..; Pliny, Nat. ..–). In his depiction of Augustus’ victory at Actium, Virgil had included “all Arabians” (Aen. .– ; see on § ) among the vanquished. Most likely, this is an allusion



commentary

to the military support Antony received at the time from certain Arabian kings, one of whom was later led in the triumphal procession in Rome (Cassius Dio, Hist. rom. ..; cf. Gurval , ). The addition of this detail helps to solidify the integration of Philo’s Jews into the ethos and execution of imperial power. Jewish courage and warfare not only exhibit the same moral logic as their Roman counterparts, but at decisive moments in their respective histories the two nations have also proven their superiority in defeating a common enemy. Also cf. on § . If there is any biblical basis for the connection that Philo draws here, perhaps it might be the reference to ΑραβM Μω,β in Num : (cf. Jdt :–). Cf. Ant. ., where Josephus explains that the eponymous city of Rekem, one of the Midianites’ five kings (see Num :), “ranks highest in the land of the Arabians.” While Philo does not refer specifically elsewhere in the Exposition to the Midianites, in the Allegorical Commentary, Midian stands for the nurse of things bodily (Conf. ; cf. Mut. –), an interpretation which is not incongruous with their presentation here; cf. esp. §§ , . the highest and oldest Cause . . . the Creator and Father of all things . . . the One and truly Existent. The same three divine epithets are also used in Hum. – to contrast Jewish beliefs with pagan idolatry; see the commentary there for further discussion. For God as “Creator and Father,” see also on Hum. ; cf. Nob. –. having devoted themselves. For Philo’s belief that Israel is especially assigned or allotted to God, see Birnbaum , –, who examines also Spec. ., ; Legat. . laid down all manner of traps. For this translation, rather than “made all possible attempts,” see PLCL .; Aristophanes, Vesp. ; Cassius Dio, Hist. rom. ... convert them from holiness to impiety. In Philo’s interpretation, this is the issue upon which the entire conflict hinges, inasmuch as andreia in war “resides in a single-minded dedication to defending piety, undistracted by any other concern” (Konstan , ). In De fortitudine, as throughout the Exposition, Philo simply assumes that the distinguishing national feature of the Israelites is their holiness, in which they offer reverence and honor to God (see also §§ , , ). Their hosiot¯es is closely aligned with their eusebeia, for which see on §§ , . Indeed Philo uses the two terms so frequently in parallel constructions that they seem to be practically interchangeable (e.g., Opif. , ; Mos. ., ; ., , ; Decal. , ; Spec. ., ; .. ; .; .; Nob.

on courage –: in wartime, §§ –



; cf. Plato, Euthyphr. b). For him, piety is not simply a pious attitude, but an orientation that entails 2σιτης πρς εν (Abr. ), that is, knowing and following God (Abr. –; Decal. –), the goal of which is assimilation to God and the divine order (see on Fort. ). Cf. Sterling , –, –. having said and done countless things. A reference to the story of Balak and Balaam in Num –, for which see Mos. .–; cf. Feldman . The former’s alliance with the elders of Midian is described in Num :–. no hope of deliverance. Colson (PLCL .) corrects πογνσι in PCW . to πγνωσις. Cf. Mos. ., . they contrived a stratagem of the following kind. Num : and Mos. .– attribute the idea to Balaam (cf. b. San. a). Here Philo probably has in mind Num :–: “Treat the Midianites as enemies and smite them, because they are enemies to you by the deceit by which they deceived you at Peor” (cf. :–). § . You see how boundless is the number of the Hebrews. According to Num :, “Moab feared the people greatly because they were many.” Cf. on Hum. . a defense more troubling than their number is their concord. According to Polybius, a state owes its preservation to two things, “courage against the enemy and concord among the citizens” (Hist. ..; cf. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..). the . . . source of that concord is their opinion that there is one God, from which . . . they have obtained a unifying and unbreakable friendship. In Aristotle, Eth. eud. .., 2μνοια is identified as the form of friendship that exists in civic bodies (cf. Eth. nic. ..; also on Hum. ). Plato had similarly underscored the observance of φιλα between citizens as being expressive of their unity (e.g., Leg. c–d; Morrow , –; further, Plutarch, Praec. ger. rei publ. d; Dio Chrysostom, Or. .; .). According to Philo, the laws of Moses establish principles of justice conducive to the concord of the community that observes them (Decal. ; cf. Plato, Resp. d). The community’s concord and friendship are evident especially when its members gather for worship (Spec. .; Praem. ), since true friendship is based not on bonds of blood or affection, but on “the willingness to serve God, and that our every word and deed promotes the cause of piety” (Spec. .; cf. Mos. .; Paen. ; Sterling , –). Josephus agreed that the 2μνοια of the Jews derived from their common δξα περ εο( (C. Ap. .). Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..: the sorts of



commentary

friendships that prove to be “unbreakable” are most often formed among individuals who receive the same education and sacrifice to the same gods. For the δξα of God’s unicity, see especially Opif. . As Runia (, ) notes, “many philosophers in Philo’s time would have agreed that God was one, though not in a manner that would have elicited his full agreement” (further, Kenney ). Opposing this are the false doctrines of polytheism, for which see on Nob. . § . the pleasure of sex. The basic assumption guiding Balaam’s advice to Balak is that “there is nothing to which a man more easily falls captive than women’s beauty” (Mos. .). As long as it is directed towards procreation, Philo sees nothing morally objectionable to sexual desire (e.g., Ios. ). The problem is that it all too often leads to the desire for physical pleasure, “which is the starting point of wicked and lawless deeds” (Opif. ; cf. Runia , ; Gaca ). For 9δον=, see also on Hum. , . youth by nature slips into intemperance. Although Num : simply states that “the people” profaned itself with the daughters of Moab, Philo assumes that it is the Hebrew youth who are guilty, seeing “how natural it is for youth to lose its footing” (Ios. ). This is particularly true when it comes to the bodily passions (Her. ; Ios. ; cf. Legat. ), which render one susceptible to the lures of a prostitute (Spec. .). Josephus makes a similar assumption, though he specifies that it is the youth in the Israelites’ camp (Ant. .). Cf. T. Reub. :: “the spirit of procreation and intercourse . . . with which come sins through fondness for pleasure . . . was the last in the creation and the first in youth, because it is filled with ignorance; it leads the young person like a blind man into a ditch and like an animal over a cliff.” The vice of κρασα (the opposite of 1γκρ,τεια, for which see on Hum. ; cf. Paen. ) is subjected to a thorough analysis by Aristotle in book  of the Ethica Nicomachea. As he explains, it is manifested especially in relation to bodily desires and pleasures (..). Cf. Opif. , . § . the names of harlotry or adultery. Num : states that at Shittim the Israelite men began having improper sexual relations with Moabite women. The original reference was most likely to intermarriage and/or concubinage, though subsequent interpreters read all manner of sexual intrigue into the statement (Levine , , –). The LXX, in using 1κπορνε(σαι, appears to take the sexual acts in question as harlotry (Wevers , ; note the use of πρνη in Mos. .), and in §§ –

on courage –: in wartime, §§ –



Philo will describe the women as though they were prostitutes. According to Mos. ., the means by which they ensnared the Hebrew youths was by prostituting themselves for hire. The translation of Num : is also noteworthy in this regard. According to the original, Zimri “brought a Midianite woman to his brothers,” that is, as his bride, whereas the LXX states that he “brought his brother to a Midianite woman,” that is, for prostitution (Wevers , ). According to the allegorical interpretation of the passage in Somn. .–, Shittim stands for “thorns” that pierce the soul, while the daughters of Moab are the senses, the daughters of the mind, with which the soul has lewd and lascivious intercourse, “as though they were harlots and courtesans.” As with the longer version in Mos. .–, in retelling this story our author betrays a special interest in its element of seduction: “Philo here links a commonplace of Hellenistic ethics—the problem of reason’s subversion by passion—with the specifically Jewish concern to follow the customs of the ancestors” (Dawson , , referring to Mos. ., ). you will transform fleeting disgrace into ageless and unending glory. The soldiers selected by Moses also prefer renown to disgrace (§ ), though in contrast to the Midianite women their souls are free from any of the passions that might hinder them from acting virtuously (§ ); cf. § . you will be keeping your souls virgin. What is promised the Midianite women constitutes a perversion of Philo’s concept of the virgin soul, that is, a soul undefiled by licentious passions, e.g., Cher. ; Migr. ; Somn. .; QE .; Wilson , –. § . this war will have an extraordinary distinction in being brought to a successful conclusion by women and not by men. The participation of women in military affairs was a theme that fascinated ancient writers. Numerous stories about such participation, most of them involving elements of treachery and seduction, are preserved in Plutarch’s Mulierum virtutes (e.g., see on § ); cf. Graf . See also the tale of Tarpeia in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..–... As Humble () notes, Greek historians ordinarily associated such transgressions of gender roles with the barbarian world, e.g., Herodotus, Hist. .; Xenophon, Anab. ..–. In reality, of course, women often contributed positively to the operations of war, for example, by digging trenches or sharpening tools (e.g., Polyaenus, Strat. .), or, in more desperate situations, by climbing to the rooftops and throwing tiles down on the invaders (e.g., Strat. .–). Women were even known to lead armies



commentary

into battle; among Hellenistic women it is Ptolemaic queens who are most often credited with such activity (Loman ). it is our sex, we admit, that will fall to defeat. In a society in which women take on the responsibilities of war, it is inevitable that “humility and slavery are fastened upon the men” (Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..–; cf. Herodotus, Hist. .). The need to restrict the role of women in society and control female sexuality was an ongoing object of male anxiety in early imperial times (e.g., Edwards , –). This imperative, of course, came to expression in various forms, including patterns of invective that characterized female agency in the political and/or military domains—and the sexual license thought to accompany such incursions—as portents of moral decline and social upheaval (e.g., Sallust, Bell. Cat. ; Lucan, Bell. civ. .–; cf. Wyke , –; Gurval , –). As we saw earlier, imperial ideology, particularly that associated with Actium, projected male ambivalence toward female otherness onto the culture of the vanquished enemy, mapping gender dominance onto the structure of Eastern conquest (see the Analysis/General comments). will achieve the victory completely, and beyond that . . . PCW . prints ο?σει (cf. Cohn , –), while the mss have περιο(σαι (SG) or περαι8σει (V2OF). Colson (PLCL .–) corrects to π!ρα δ ο?σει. Other conjectures include περιο(σαι Nξετε (Mangey , ) and περιποι=σει (Wendland , –). § . having never . . . tasted proper learning. That is, education for virtue, including in this instance especially the virtue of moderation, e.g., Mut. ; Ebr. ; Spec. .; Plato, Leg. d–b, e; Musonius Rufus, frg. ..–. they had simply pretended to a disposition of moderation. The women’s acquiescence to the men’s plans falsifies any claim they might have made to the s¯ophrosyn¯e that Philo had argued in §  constitutes a basic dimension of courage. Their souls are therefore plagued by harmful passions and desires. Not only do they fail in this regard, but through their actions they also subvert the s¯ophrosyn¯e of the Hebrew youth, a point made explicitly by Josephus (Ant. .). As Philo explains in Spec. ., the harlot is a “stranger to decency and modesty and moderation and the other virtues. . . . Each thing she says and does is for the hunting of youth, while she incites her lovers each against the other by offering the shameful prize of herself to the highest bidder.” dressing themselves up with expensive clothes and necklaces . . . and taking pains to make their natural beauty more attractive. The

on courage –: in wartime, §§ –



Midianite women’s extravagance contrasts with the contentedness and thrift of the courageous sage described in §§ –, whose virtues drive πολυτ!λεια from his soul. It contrasts even more pointedly with the decorum of the Mosaic women described in §§ –, who are trained (note σκ!ω in §§  and ) in proper adornment, that is, in adornment which accords with physis. As a rule, prostitutes wore more elaborate clothes and jewelry than other women in order to attract clients (e.g., Xenophon, Mem. ..; Plautus, Most. –; Lucian, Dial. meretr. ). Indeed, in certain cities a woman was only allowed to wear gold jewelry, a flowery dress, or clothes with purple borders if she accepted the name of a public hetaira (Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. .; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. .bis..; Athenaeus, Deipn. b; cf. Dalby ). According to Ps.-Philo, L.A.B. :, the Midianite women were stationed before the men “naked and adorned with gold and precious stones,” while Josephus simply states that they were instructed to “increase their appeal” (Ant. .). For evidence of prostitution in Roman Egypt, see Bagnall . § . with lewd glances and beguiling words and licentious postures and movements. Much like soldiers (cf. § ), the women must adopt particular “postures and movements” when engaging the enemy. As Philo explains in Sacr. , the harlot is recognizable not only for her appearance, but also for her comportment. Everything from her gait to the roll of her eyes is used as “bait to entice the souls of the youth; her look is one of boldness and shamelessness; her neck is held high; she assumes a stature beyond what is natural; she grins and titters; the hair on her head is woven in vain and elaborate ways; under her eyes are pencil lines; . . . her expensive clothes are brightly colored with flowers; bracelets and necklaces and every other feminine ornament wrought of gold and jewels hang round her; her breath is laden with fragrant scents” (cf. Congr. ; Fug. ; Spec. .; .). Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Paed. ..; Athenaeus, Deipn. a. having ensnared the souls of those who joined with them. Men are lured to a prostitute’s pleasures like an animal to a trap or a fish to a hook (Opif. , cf. –; Spec. .; .–; Plato, Tim. d; Phaedr. a; further, Wilson , ). As an example of bravery and “political shrewdness” among women, Plutarch relates the story of Aretaphila, the unwilling wife of a despot, who “dangled as bait” her beautiful daughter before the despot’s brother, “a young man and easy prey to such pleasures,” thereby leading to the despot’s demise (Mul. virt. e–e).



commentary

Num : (cf. :) simply states that the Midianites acted deceitfully in the affair of Baal Peor. According to Mos. .–, Balaam’s idea was that the Midianite women would be instructed to withhold their pleasures from the Hebrew youth, using their beauty and enticing speech as lures to ensnare them. Overcome with desire, they would be incapable of resisting the women’s invitation to worship pagan deities. Mos. . would seem to suggest either that Balak ignored this part of the plan or that it was only afterwards that the women were permitted “to have intercourse with whom they would.” Josephus’ version of the encounter goes even further in maximizing its novelistic potential. After an initial dalliance with the Hebrew youth, the Midianite women make plans to depart. Overcome with weeping and “terrible dejection,” the young men implore them to stay and become their wives, in response to which the women give a fairly long speech, indicating that they will do so only if they receive certain assurances, namely, that the men agree to abandon their dietary laws and sacrifice to pagan gods, which they proceed to do (Ant. .–; cf. b. San. a; Sifre Num. , ). invited them to make in honor of things wrought by hand offerings that should not have been offered. Philo draws on similar language when describing the golden calf incident (Mos. .; Spec. .). Num :– states that the people offered sacrifices to “their idols,” though only Baal Peor is mentioned. Whatever happened, the transgression was serious enough that “the Lord became very angry with Israel.” the One and truly existing God. See on § . § . had not the beneficent and merciful God taken pity on their misfortune. Because God is humankind’s benefactor and savior, as well as merciful by nature, he moderates any punishment that must be inflicted on it; see Opif. , with Runia , –. According to Num :, it was on account of Phinehas’ action that God did not “consume the children of Israel.” God . . . exacted punishment on those who had lost their senses, twenty-four thousand altogether. In the LXX, Moses is commanded to make a public example of all the leaders of the people (presumably by executing them; cf. the MT: “impale them in the sun”) in order to assuage the Lord’s wrath (Num :). Moses then instructs the people also to execute anyone in Israel who had been joined to Baal Peor (:). Then, after Phinehas kills Cozbi and Zimri, we hear that “the plague was stopped among the children of Israel,” a plague that took the lives of twenty-four thousand people (:b–). Given how abruptly it is introduced, it is not entirely clear whether πληγ= here refers to the events

on courage –: in wartime, §§ –



of :–a (cf. y. San. d) or to some divinely-sent scourge (as in Exod :; :; :; Num :; :; etc.), though the wording of : suggests the former: “Cozbi . . . who was smitten (πεπληγυAαν) on the day of the plague (πληγ$ς) at Peor” (cf. vv. –). The former is certainly the case in Mos. .–, , where Philo interprets the deaths as the result of human punishments (cf. Mut. ). Specifically, Phinehas’ action sets an example for those Israelites “zealous for self-restraint and godliness,” who purge their nation of its defilement by killing the twentyfour thousand apostates in a single day. The brief statement Philo makes here in Fort.  is more ambiguous, leaving open the possibility that the latter might be involved. In his account, Josephus combines the possibilities: those imitating Phinehas killed many of the transgressors, while a disease sent by God destroyed the rest (Ant. .–). In Ps.Philo, L.A.B. : meanwhile, God sends an angel to kill the twenty-four thousand after Phinehas’ deed, in order to protect him from them; cf. y. San. b. overwhelmed as by a torrent. For the imagery, see on § . warning them through fear. It is often the case that individuals not only obey but also learn through fear, e.g., Mos. .; Spec. .; ., ; Praem. ; cf. Plato, Phaed. d; Protag. d–d; Glad , , . Cf. Deus : “I observe that all the exhortations to piety in the law (see below) refer either to our loving or our fearing the Existent.” § . the leader of the nation . . . selected and enrolled a thousand men of merit from each tribe. Now that the nation’s internal problems have been resolved, it can turn its attention to wreaking vengeance on its external enemies for their treachery (Mos. .). In contrast to Num :– and :–, which has Moses responding to God’s command to attack the Midianites and ordering the people to send out a thousand men from each of the tribes (cf. Judg :–), here, as in Mos. . (also Josephus, Ant. .), Moses both initiates the punitive war and selects the soldiers himself (cf. on §§ –). This accords with a general tendency in De Vita Mosis, where the different aspects or offices of the protagonist’s kingship are shown to include not only lawgiver, priest, and prophet (Mos. .–), but also 9γεμ8ν (“leader, general”); see ., , , , , , ; ., , , ; cf. Feldman . Mos. . also explains why Moses decides to limit the avenging force to twelve thousand: a larger army might prove unwieldy to manage, and it would be advantageous to keep the other fighters in reserve. Philo also adds that before dispatching the troops Moses offered favorable sacrifices. For the process of selecting and enrolling an army for a mission, cf. Xenophon,



commentary

Hell. ..; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..; ..; ..; ..; Dionysius of Halicarnassis, Ant. rom. ..; Appian, Bell. civ. .; .. reciting the doctrines on piety into the ears and the souls of his subjects. I adopt the simple form of the text proposed by Colson (PLCL . ): τοAς Bσ τC DπEρ εσεβεας δγματα κα ταAς ψυχαAς τν Dπηκων 1π7,δων. Cohn (PCW .) prints τοAς Bσ τC DπEρ εσεβεας δγματα κα τCς ψυχCς τν Dπηκων το:τοις 1π,γων, though B2MV2OFH2 read ταAς ψυχαAς, V2O lack το:τοις, and all the mss have 1π,δων (= 1π7,δων; Wendland conjectures 1παρων). Besides these textcritical considerations, the adopted reading accords better with Spec. .: in order to imprint holiness in their minds, Moses constantly recites (1π7,δει) doctrines concerning the unicity and lordship of God to those zealous in piety. This concept most likely originates with the Phaedo, which explains how those who are pious recite to themselves truths about the soul as though they were incantations (Plato, Phaed. d), the ideal teacher in such matters functioning rather like a charmer (Phaed. e– a); cf. Plutarch, Conj. praec. c; Fac. orb. lun. c. For δγματα here, cf. Fort. ; and for a summary statement of such doctrines, see Opif. – . The substance of Moses’ pre-battle exhortation to the troops is given in Mos. .–: the purpose of their contest, he tells them, is not to win dominion or to acquire booty, but to defend the cause of piety and holiness. His words were such that they “kindled the gallantry of their souls to a flame,” inspiring them to face the enemy “with indomitable resolution” (.). Similarly, according to Cassius Dio, when addressing his troops on the eve of the battle of Actium, Augustus included himself among those whose words and deeds evidence superior piety, while casting aspersions on the eusebeia of Antony (Hist. rom. ..; ..). For eusebeia, see on § . to exact punishment for the trap they had devised. For this use of ναπρ,σσω + δκη, cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..; ..; ..–; ... For μηχαν,ομαι + 1ν!δρα, cf. Spec. .; Josephus, Ant. .. § . arrayed against many myriads. Cf. Num :a: “And they arrayed themselves against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses.” Philo replaces παρετ,ξαντο 1π with ντιταχ!ντες πρς. The size of the Midianite force is not indicated in the biblical account, though judging from the numbers assigned the booty in :– (e.g., thirty-two thousand virginal females), one could infer that it was quite large. Jose-

on courage –: in wartime, §§ –



phus refers to a “countless mass” of Midianites, adding the curious comment that they, anticipating the approach of the Israelite army, secured the passes of the land by which they expected it to attack (Ant. .– ). experience and valor. Perhaps Philo mentions the former to distinguish the fighting group from the weak-willed youths of §§ –; cf. Mos. .. Dionysius of Halicarnassus uses the same two terms to describe a cohort of soldiers who are past the age for compulsory military service (Ant. rom. ..–; cf. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..). As Plutarch explains, the lack of experience “both engenders rashness in a man, and robs a man of courage” (Comp. Per. Fab. .); cf. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ... launched their assault on the thick ranks, killed those who stood in their way, and laid waste both the closely formed columns and all those waiting to fill the gaps . . . leaving none of the young men . . . alive. The accounts of the Israelite victory over the Midianites in Mos. . and Josephus, Ant. . reflect the succinctness of the biblical record, which simply states that “they slew every male” (:). For battlefield descriptions similar to the one here, cf. Abr. –; Mos. .–; Spec. .; Polybius, Hist. ..–; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..–; QM IX –. with scarcely a shout. The Jewish men out-do the Midianite women, who had hoped to achieve victory over Israel at their first appearance “without even trying” (§ ). Cf. Abr. , ; Mos. ., , ; .; Prob. . Generals usually sent their armies into battle shouting, e.g., Onasander, Strat. .–; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ... They also killed the women who had assented to the men’s unholy plans, but took the maidens alive. The unholy γνμαι of the Midianites can be contrasted with the γν8μη of the Israelites zealous for service in § ; cf. Schmid , . According to LXX Num , the Israelites “slew every male” among the Midianites (v. ), that is, every male combatant (see Wevers , ), taking “all the booty and all their spoils, from people up to cattle” (v. , cf. v. ). Upon the army’s return, Moses berates the officers for allowing the women to live, since they had played an instrumental role in the Baal Peor affair (vv. –). He then commands them to kill every male captive (the LXX drops “among the little ones” from the Hebrew text, which presumably took v.  to refer to the killing of all the Midianite men) and every sexually active female captive (v. ).



commentary

Only those females who had not had relations with a man are to be kept alive (v. ; the Hebrew text adds “for yourselves;” cf. Deut :– ; Judg :–). In Mos. ., Philo omits the scene from Num :– altogether, stating that both the virginal females and the young boys among the Midianites were shown mercy on account of their “tender age.” As Feldman (, ) suggests, Philo may have dropped the reference to killing every male child because it would have brought to mind the decree of Pharaoh in Exod :,  (cf. Mos. .). Here in Fort. , the status of non-combatant Midianite males is left unstated. Josephus does likewise, stating that the Israelites slew the inhabitants of the land together with their wives, sparing only the maidens (Ant. .). According to Cicero, showing leniency to vanquished enemies is among the basic obligations of the courageous leader (Off. .). Indeed, it was important to the Roman national self-image generally that this temperament be displayed by its fighting forces. Polybius sums up the expected deportment in Hist. ..: “Good men ought to be stern and high-spirited in combat, noble and high-minded when worsted, but moderate and merciful and humane when victorious.” Further, Winkler . The treatment of female war captives is also a topic in Hum. – . § . they lost none of their own men but returned . . . unwounded and whole. With the war over and the booty distributed, the army officers muster the men and report to Moses that “not one is missing from us” (Num :; cf. Wevers , ). Here, as well as in Mos. ., Philo takes this to mean that they returned unhurt as well; cf. Mut. ; Josephus, Ant. . (“unscathed”). In Ebr. –, Philo takes the ο διαπεφ8νηκεν of Num : as a reference to the one who lacks nothing in andreia, that is, his courage contains no element of either cowardice or recklessness (see on § ; cf. Conf. ). Tg. Ps.-J. Num : gives the text a moral sense: during the war not one of the Hebrew soldiers sinned with a Midianite woman. In /– bce, Augustus authorized military aggression against Arabia, noted as an imperial achievement in Res gest. divi Aug. .. In his account of the expedition, Strabo notes that in one engagement the Arab army lost ten thousand men, the invasionary force only two (Geogr. ..–; cf. Bowersock , –; Isaac , –, –). In Philo’s reimagining of the Israelite victory over the Arabs/Midianites, soldiers schooled in the Mosaic law achieve a similarly impressive victory, though, without suffering a single casualty, they are able to do the Romans one, or two, better.

on courage –: in wartime, §§ –



the joy of victory. To win a battle without suffering any causalities would be a cause for joy, e.g., Josephus, Bell. .; cf. Polybius, Hist. ..; ..; Onasander, Strat. .. § . the cause of these things was . . . the eagerness to undertake valiantly the fight on behalf of piety. Philo’s accounting for the Israelites’ success reflects an historiographical tradition of combat description (popular especially with Roman authors) in which victory is attributed not to factors like numerical superiority, better generalship, or good fortune, but to the exceptional virtue of the combatants themselves (Lendon ). Such descriptions were wont to analyze battlefield outcomes in “psychological” terms, that is, with respect to the condition of the participants’ ψυχα (cf. Fort. –, –). Polybius, Hist. ..–, for example, explains that Roman military success depends on a combination of ρετ= and εψυχα (cf. ..–; ..–; ..; ..; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..), while Julius Caesar accentuates a clutch of virtues, including courage, greatness of spirit, obedience, and self-control (Bell. gall. .; cf. Plutarch, Caes. .). Inspired by the doctrines that Moses had recited into their souls (see on § ), the Hebrew soldiers exhibit proper courage by acting as defenders of piety, displaying faithfulness to both God and their leader (cf. Mos. .–, –, discussed below in Parallel exegesis). During the golden calf incident, the Levites, out of the same eagerness to defend the cause of piety, had acted similarly, responding to Moses’ summons like troops responding to their general’s signal, slaying all those guilty of apostasy (Mos. .–; cf. Abr. ; Spec. ., ; .; .). Elsewhere Philo singles out eusebeia as the greatest of the virtues (e.g., Abr. ; Mos. .; Spec. .; cf. on Hum. ; Paen. ). In this he differed from other thinkers, who characterized it as a part of justice (e.g., Plato, Euthypr. e) or as one in a list of virtues (e.g., SVF ., ). As he put it, “the supreme source of all that exists is God, just as piety is the supreme source of virtues” (Decal. ). The proper understanding and appropriation of virtue, then, depends on the proper understanding of—and reverence for—God and God’s governance of the world (Sterling , ). In Eth. nic. .., Aristotle had argued that “the courageous person endures and acts in accord with courage for the sake of what is noble.” David Konstan suggests that here Philo adapts this view to his biblical source, substituting eusebeia for to kalon. However, “he also means something more, namely that God allies himself with those who are faithful to him, and it is thanks to His intervention and support that the Hebrews are triumphant” (, ). Indeed,



commentary

it was only through such support that they could defeat such a numerically superior foe (cf. §§ , ). In this, Philo’s position can be compared with other “theologies of victory” being promulgated in the Greco-Roman world, according to which battlefield success proves superior piety (Fears ). The views of Dionysius of Halicarnassus would have been typical in this regard. Recognizing how “the gods take a hand in all actions, and especially in those relating to war,” the Romans were careful to initiate hostilities only when the reasons for doing so could be defended as “pious and just” (Ant. rom. ..–; cf. ..; ..). Because the motives for their wars were always “most holy,” the gods were propitious to them, granting them many victories (..–), which served as evidence of their piety (..). More generally, pietas figures prominently in imperial canons of virtues, as a way of signalling the emperor’s devotion to the state and the gods upon whom its welfare ultimately depends (e.g., Res gest. divi Aug. .; cf. Wallace-Hadrill ; Noreña ). God also fights on the front lines. The parallel account of the battle in Mos. .– makes no mention of divine intervention in its outcome. As Philo goes on to explain (cf. § ), God’s participation in the Israelites’ wars is in fact invisible, consisting of guidance for the soldiers’ minds and energy for their bodies; cf. Praem. . In other situations, it is not God but justice that serves as an ally, e.g., Mos. .; Spec. .; Praem. . The inspiration for the choice of προαγωνζομαι (literally, “to fight before”) here might be Deut :: “For it is the Lord your God who goes before with you (προπορευμενος με Dμν) to fight your enemies with you, in order to save you” (note the interaction with Deut :– in §§ –); cf. :; :; :; :, . Note also how Deut : (see on § ) promises that the Lord will deliver up the nation’s enemies “before you” (πρ προσ8που σου); cf. :; :; :; :. For Deuteronomy’s ideology of the divine warrior, see Miller , –. Greco-Roman mythology, of course, frequently represents gods intervening in human battles (e.g., Homer, Il. .–) or rousing human combatants (e.g., Il. .; .; .; .). In Virgil’s depiction of the battle of Actium, for example, Augustus leads the Italians into battle “with the senators and people, with the Penates and great gods” (Aen. .–) against a cadre of perverse Oriental deities and suprahuman forces of chaos (.–). The outcome of the battle is ultimately determined by the intervention of Apollo, so that “all Egypt and India, all Arabians, all Sabaeans turned their backs in flight” (.–); cf. on §§ , . In this re-imagining, then, both the emperor’s reverence for the ancestral gods and their support for

on courage –: in wartime, §§ –



him are demonstrated conclusively in a paradigmatic military conquest over the forces of an alien social and religious order; cf. Gurval , –. § . none of their friends were killed. The term φλος could be used of a military ally (e.g., Xenophon, Hell. ..; Demosthenes, Or. .; Josephus, Ant. ., , ), though this statement has no obvious connection with the biblical text. Perhaps Philo is thinking that each tribe’s warriors were allies to those from the other tribes. neither their number nor physical power was diminished. 1λαττω!ντων is Cohn’s correction (PCW .) for 1λαττω!ντες (S), 1λαττω!ντος (G), 1λαττω$ναι (VOF), and 1λαττωεAσαν (ceteri) in the mss. () § . For that reason. §§ – conclude both the war narrative and the entire subtreatise. Those who support the cause of virtue are assured of God’s saving powers in times of both peace and war. the Exhortations. Elsewhere ο προτρεπτικο refers to Deuteronomy (Agr. , ; Fug. , ; Mut. , ; works by that title are attributed to Antisthenes and Posidonius: Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .; ., ), though the thought behind §§ – is actually based (loosely) on a combination of Lev :, – and Deut :,  (cf. :). These texts are similar in that each belongs to a catalogue of blessings/promises and curses/threats (Lev :– and Deut :– respectively) meant to motivate compliance with the law. Both catalogues figure prominently in the treatise that immediately follows ours, De praemiis et poenis, especially §§ –; cf. Borgen , –; Josephus, Ant. ., , –; m. Meg. :. If you practice justice and holiness and the other virtues. In Lev : and Deut :, the precondition for receiving divine blessings is not the cultivation of virtue but obedience to the Lord’s commandments. Versions of the so-called canon of two virtues (for which see on Hum.  and Paen. ) like the one here are meant to summarize virtuous living in general. As Philo explains in Abr. , “the nature which is pious is also humane, and the same person will exhibit both qualities, holiness towards God and justice towards people” (cf. Spec. .; Mos. .). In Theaet. b (which Philo quotes in Fug. ), Plato correlates practicing these virtues with the imitation of God: “one becomes like God when he becomes just and holy, with understanding” (cf. Euth. e; Crito b; Resp. b). For this particular formulation of the canon, see also Deut : (quoted in Sacr. ); : (quoted in Sobr. ; Mut. ); Wis :;



commentary

Luke :; Eph :; Epictetus, Diatr. ..; Plutarch, Adul. amic. a; Ps.-Musonius Rufus, Epist. .. Philo refers to it again at the end of the subtreatise (§ ). you will live a life without war and forever peaceful. Lev :b– a: “And you will dwell in safety on your land, and war will not go through your land. And I will give peace in your land; and you will lie down, and there shall be no one making you afraid.” In the biblical context, these verses refer to freedom from civil strife, while those which follow (see below) refer to the defeat of external enemies (Milgrom , –). In Praem. , Philo offers a more literal rendering of Lev :, adding the explanation that war will not ravage the land because Israel’s enemies will perceive that she has justice as an “irresistible ally.” if war does break out, you will prevail over your enemies easily, God commanding your armies unseen. The aid God sends the Israelites in defeating their foes is real, even if it is invisible (e.g., Mos. .). Deut : promises that God will convert an orderly enemy force into packs of terrified deserters: “The Lord your God will deliver up your enemies who have withstood you, beating them before you; they shall come out against you one way and shall flee seven ways from before you.” Lev :– promises victory even against a numerically superior foe: “You will pursue your enemies, and they will fall before you by slaughter. And five of you will pursue a hundred, and a hundred of you will pursue myriads. And your enemies will fall before you by the sword.” After offering a more literal rendering of the Leviticus passage in Praem. , Philo joins to it in §  the “oracle” of Num :, according to which “there shall come forth a man” to lead the Hebrews in battle and conquer their enemies. For Philo’s messianic ideas, see Hecht ; Borgen . As Mendelson (, ) observes, in articulating the benefits of moral conduct in Fort. –, “Philo does not simply encourage his readers to cling to what is just and holy because virtue is intrinsically good. Instead he spells out . . . the quid pro quo which human beings can expect to operate in their lives. God’s role in the interchanges . . . is active and interventionist.” This contrasts with the perspective of De praemiis et poenis, where in describing divine rewards and punishments the Alexandrian is generally reluctant to involve God directly, relying more on the action of intermediaries. whose concern it is to save the good. Given Philo’s interaction with Deut  throughout this part of the treatise (cf. on § ), the likely source of this language is Deut : (cf. Num :): “For it is the Lord your God

on courage –: in wartime, §§ –



who goes before with you to fight your enemies with you, in order to save you (διασσαι DμOς).” Note also the reference to God’s “saving powers” in § . § . if a well-equipped army of both infantry and cavalry attacks you with many myriads, or if, having previously seized your fortified positions . . . Lev :– provides no particular description of the hostile forces, while Deut : refers to them simply as “your enemies who have withstood you.” For Philo’s elaboration of the enemy’s size and composition, we can compare several passages in Deuteronomy, composed after the style of prebattle exhortations, which depict the Israelites defeating a superior foe with divine assistance, e.g., :–; :–; :–; :–; :–. See especially Deut : (“They are a nation great and numerous and more powerful than us, and they have cities great and fortified up to heaven.”) and : (“If you should go forth to war against your enemies and see horse and rider and a people more numerous than you.”). do not be terrified and fearful. The command to “fear not” is a regular part of such exhortations; see Deut :; :; :; :. § . like a cargo ship . . . which a violent wind will . . . overturn . . . like rain and snow on ears of corn. In a kind of parable (Feldman , ; cf. Niehoff , –), divine activity is likened to the weather, whose forces can either thwart human activities or support them. Navigating a trading vessel could be dangerous if the winds were not right, e.g., Flacc. , ; cf. Det. ; Conf. –; Spec. .; .; Wilson , . withered from drought and lack of water, so that they are revived and produce fruit in fullness. The human food supply is susceptible to all manner of destructive forces, “sometimes rain storms, sometimes droughts, or countless other violent changes in nature” (Spec. .; cf. .; Xenophon, Oec. .–), yet providence assures that everyone has enough to eat (see on § ). Similar imagery is used in Hum. , . § . it is essential to embrace. δεA . . . περι!χεσαι is Cohn’s (PCW . ) emendation for ε (or α>ε) . . . περι!χεται in the mss. what is just and holy. See on § . those to whom the divine is an ally are exceedingly fortunate, while those to whom it is an enemy are extremely unfortunate. Since God alone is fortunate (Spec. .), those who wish to be fortunate as well must have him as their ally; this means doing what is well-pleasing to God (Abr. ; cf. Opif. ; Ebr. ; Somn. ). Philo would have been in general agreement with Plato, according to whom “there are two



commentary

patterns set up in reality. One is divine and supremely fortunate; the other has nothing of God in it, and is the pattern of the deepest misfortune.” The evildoer fails to perceive how his unjust practices “make him grow more and more like the one, and less and less like the other” (Theaet. e–a; cf. Tim. e; Leg. a, b; Ps.-Plato, Min. b). For more on eudaimonia (“good fortune, well-being”), see on Hum. . For the contrast with kakodaimonia, see on Nob. .

Parallel Exegesis Fort. – can be compared with the more critical, more esoteric treatment accorded Deut :– in Agr. –. Philo begins by introducing the topic of spiritual warfare: only those who have achieved perfection of soul can withstand the onslaught of “massed bodies of sins” (§ ). This is why in times of war Moses instructs certain types of individuals to remain at home, so that they can acquire greater skill and strength through practice (§§ –). This sets the stage for an imaginary debate regarding the literal meaning of the law between one of the law’s supporters and a “malicious critic,” with the latter making the lengthier and more potent arguments: those with something to defend will actually make for better soldiers (§ ); their possessions will be of no value if they are vanquished, and their absence from the battlefield makes that outcome more likely (§ ); it is unfair for some to enjoy themselves with peacetime activities while others endure the hardships of war (§§ –); it is in fact more onerous to see one’s property captured by the enemy than to die defending it, since then it will still pass to one’s heirs (§§ –). While conceding that the letter of the law perhaps suggests such considerations, Philo does not so much respond to these points as change the subject, proceeding to explore the law’s inner meaning through allegorical exegesis. At this level, what the law concerns are the faculties of the soul (§ ). The man betrothed to a maiden is the beginner, who looks forward to one day marrying paideia; the one who has planted a vineyard stands for those who are progressing, that is, they are still cultivating prudence; and the one who has just built a house represents those who have recently achieved perfection (§ ). The Alexandrian contends that none of these groups should engage in warfare with the sophists (§ ), even the newly perfect, since they are still insufficiently practiced in virtue and unconscious of their wisdom (§§ –; cf. SVF .–).

on courage –: in wartime, §§ –



Philo’s most detailed account of Numbers  +  occurs in Mos. . –. As in De fortitudine, emphasis is placed on the elements of seduction and revenge, though this version differs in assigning a greater role to Moses, in failing to mention divine involvement in the victory, and in its discussion of the “pious” apportionment of the booty (cf. Begg ). Following Num :, Philo attributes the idea for the affair of Baal Peor to Balaam, who counsels Balak to use the beauty of the young women in his kingdom as bait, to lure the Israelites to sin and impiety (.–). The women have considerable success with this until Phinehas, seeing one of his compatriots shamelessly consorting with a prostitute, kills them both, an act which, at the command of Moses, others copy, resulting in the deaths of all those who had taken part in the idolatry (.–; cf. Leg. .; Mut. ). The purging complete, Phinehas is rewarded with the blessings of peace and priesthood (.; cf. Num :–; Post. –; Ebr. –; Conf. ; Spec. .–). With the nation’s domestic troubles resolved, Moses turns his attention to those responsible for plotting the affair. From each tribe he dispatches a thousand troops, all under the command of Phinehas (cf. Num :; Josephus, Ant. .), against Balak, exhorting them “to defend piety and holiness” (.–). The Israelites not only win the battle without suffering a single casualty (Num :–), they utterly demolish the cities of Balak’s realm, putting all the adult men and women to death (.–; cf. Mut. ; no mention is made of the death of Balaam and the five kings of Midian in Num :; cf. Josephus, Ant. .). Consequently, upon their return, Moses does not berate the officers for allowing the women to live, as Num :– describes, but instead praises them for their exploits and for placing their spoils in the common stock (.–a). After the soldiers are purified by the high priest (cf. Num :–, ; also :–; no mention is made of Eleazar’s instructions in :–), Moses distributes the booty, half going to the combatants, the other half to the reserve troops (.b–; cf. Num :–, –;  Kgdms :). He then decides that a first fruit offering ought to be made from the spoil, the combatants contributing one item out of every five-hundred to the high priest, the non-combatants one out of every fifty to the Levites (.; cf. Num :–; Migr. ; Her. ). The officers of the army then volunteer to make a special dedication of all the gold ornaments they had plundered (Num :–; cf. Ebr. –), which is taken as evidence of their eusebeia (.– ).



commentary Nachleben

In Strom. .. (see the Nachleben for Fort. –), Clement had identified two canons of virtues, with eusebeia serving as their capstone. On one of the few instances in which he departs significantly from the order of his source (cf. part  of the Introduction), Clement passes over Fort. – , , , – (see below) to the summary of Israel’s monotheistic belief in Fort. , which he extracts and divides. Strom. .. gives a summary of what eusebeia (cf. Fort. , ) teaches, namely, “to worship and honor the highest and oldest Cause.” Strom. .. then explains that the law abets this pedagogical process by putting justice and wisdom (cf. ..) into the mind by teaching abstinence from idolatry and “devotion to the Maker and Father of all things.” Clement continues by borrowing the phrase δξα φ Pς οQα πηγ$ς from Fort. , though for him δξα refers not to Israel’s monotheistic “doctrine,” but to the “opinion” he had just expressed in ... For Strom ..–.. and its use of Fort. –, ,  see the Nachleben for Fort. –. Immediately after the discussion of Deut : (.. –), Clements offers his comments on Deut :–, beginning with a quotation of the biblical text based on Philo’s paraphrase in Fort.  (..). He offers the same two reasons for the law that Philo does, but reverses their order. First, there are military considerations. Men set on their desires are of little use in war, “for they prepare themselves to face dangers without hesitation if they are free in their impulses” (..; cf. Fort. : “with free and unbound impulses they might prepare themselves to face dangers without hesitation.”). Second are humanitarian concerns (for the use of φιλανρ8πως here, see on Fort. ). Since the affairs of war are δηλα, it was deemed unjust “for one not to have use of his own labors and for another to take without toil what belongs to those who work” (..; cf. Fort. : “since the outcomes of war are uncertain, others should not take without toil the possessions of those who labored for them.”). The section concludes by observing how the law exhibits courage of the soul when it legislates that “he who has planted ought to reap the fruit, and he who builds a house ought to inhabit it, and he who is engaged ought to marry, for it does not provide vain hopes” (..). This sentence utilizes a fair amount of material from Fort. , though it expresses the latter’s negative outcomes (e.g., “for one to build a house and another to inhabit it”) in positive terms and inverts the order of the first two items. The theme of hope is reinforced in .. with quotations from Prov : and :.

on courage –: in wartime, §§ –



Clement compresses Philo’s retelling of Numbers  +  into a single paragraph (..–..; cf. Origen, In Num. hom. .–), using largely his own words, though note σωφροσ:νη (cf. Fort. ), κρασα, 9δον= (cf. Fort. ), δελε,ζω (cf. Fort. ), στρατ=γημα (cf. Fort. , ), and, at the end of ..: “fear with its warning pulled back those at risk” (cf. Fort. : “God . . . pulled back those at risk . . . warning them through fear.”). As van den Hoek (, –) notes, for Philo, “it is God who conducts the saving action (Virt. , , –), but using φβος as subject, Clement has the Hebrews themselves gain mastery over their enemies.” The victors are then described as those “valiantly undertaking the fight on behalf of piety” (..), borrowing a phrase from Fort. . The section concludes with a pair of scripture quotations (Prov :; :) elaborating on the themes of piety and fear (..) and a benediction drawn from Barn. :–, b (..). Further reading: Begg ; Feldman ; Niditch ; Wilson a.

ON HUMANITY CHAPTERS 1–4 THE DEATH AND SUCCESSION OF MOSES (§§ 51–79)

Analysis/General Comments The presentation of Mosaic philanthr¯opia in De humanitate falls into three major sections. The first demonstrates the humanity of the lawgiver (§§ –), the second the humanity of his laws (§§ –), and the third the humanity of the ruling classes of the nation for which these laws were established (§§ –). For a more detailed overview of the subtreatise’s contents, see part  of the Introduction. In describing the humanity of the lawgiver, Philo concentrates on certain events that occurred at the end of his life. The Pentateuch preserves two accounts of Moses’ death and succession, Num :– and Deut :–:. The former explains how leadership of the Israelites in military affairs (note especially the language of v. ) is transferred to Joshua. God instructs Moses to ascend a nearby mountain to view the promised land: “once you have seen it, you shall be gathered to your people” (vv. –). This prompts Moses to ask God to appoint his successor, lest the people “be like sheep without a shepherd” (vv. –). He is then told to take Joshua and “lay your hands upon him” in the presence of Eleazar and all the people (vv. –). As v.  goes on to explain, however, Joshua’s command will be subordinate to the oracular authority of the priesthood: unlike Moses, he will not know God’s will directly. The passage concludes with a brief description of the commissioning ceremony itself (vv. –). The latter is a far longer and more complex composition, interweaving various materials concerning Moses’ “threefold succession” (Talstra ), that is, materials concerning Joshua, the law, and the Song of Moses. As with the previous account, Joshua’s role is principally military in nature. Moses informs the people that he will not be crossing the Jordan to lead the conquest of Canaan. Responsibility for this falls instead to Joshua, who is charged to be “strong and bold” (:–). The appointment is ratified by a second ceremony, in which God commissions Joshua before Moses in the tent of meeting (vv. –, ). In addition, between commissioning ceremonies, Moses



commentary

writes down the law in a book and transmits it to the Levitical personnel, who are to read it before the people every seventh year (vv. –; cf. vv. –). And during the second ceremony itself, God instructs Moses to write down a song and teach it to the Israelites “as a witness for me against them” when they turn to other gods after entering the promised land (vv. –; cf. vv. –, where the same function is ascribed to the book of the law). Chapter  then records the song itself, which recounts Israel’s history with Yahweh in terms of divine adoption and blessings (vv. –), Israel’s apostasy (vv. –), the resulting declaration of divine punishment (vv. –), and finally a reversal (vv. –), in which God decides instead to destroy Israel’s enemies and “vindicate his people” (see Nelson , –). The hymnic review is framed by invocations of a heavenly audience (vv. –, ). After teaching the song to the people (vv. –), Moses is instructed by God to ascend Mount Nebo where he will die (vv. –, repeating the announcement of Num :–). But before doing so, he proclaims his final blessing on each of the twelve tribes (:–), much like Jacob before him (cf. Gen :–), though with an emphasis on the law (:, ). Moses then follows God’s instructions (:–) and after dying is interred in the land of Moab, though “no one knows his burial place to this day” (:). Philo’s retelling of these events in De humanitate is organized around two “proofs” of the humanity that Moses demonstrated as his life drew to a close (note the structural use of δεAγμα in §§ , , and ), the first concerning the choice of his successor (§§ –), the second concerning the messages that he delivered to help ensure the people’s welfare (§§ – ). () A brief introduction (§§ –) to these proofs has a two-fold purpose. First, it reminds the reader of the intimate relationship that philanthr¯opia enjoys with eusebeia. This anticipates one of the section’s major arguments: the humanity evidenced by Moses towards his people is an expression of his reverence for God (see also §§ , ) and as such is communicated through specific acts of piety, especially prayer, supplication, and thanksgiving (§§ –, –). Second, it expressly identifies the story that follows as an addendum to De vita Mosis (see part  of the Introduction), which concluded with only a very brief description of Moses’ death (.–). In this regard it is important to note that the last major section of De vita Mosis (.–) assembles material meant to present its protagonist as a prophet, and many of the themes apropos of that presentation continue in Hum. – (e.g., §§ , –). (a) The first proof (§§ –) describes and explains the decisions

on humanity –: death & succession of moses, §§ –  that Moses made about how his successor would be selected. In its basic plot the story is reminiscent of episodes in the final, “prophetic” section of De vita Mosis where Moses defers judgment in a difficult matter to God (., , , ). Philo explains that when he learned of his impending death, Moses did not, like most rulers, look from among his sons or nephews for a successor (§§ –). (b) Nor did he choose his friend and pupil Joshua, even though there was ample evidence of his virtue and goodwill for the nation (§§ –). (c) Instead, he decided to beseech God to make the decision, since God alone can accurately discern the character of a person’s soul (§§ – ). (d) Rounding out the rather spare narrative are Philo’s speculations as to this decision-making process, set in the form of an exchange between Moses and an imaginary interlocutor (§§ –, cf. §§ , ). Three reasons in particular are proffered. First, Moses believed that divine wisdom is more reliable than human judgment. Second, by leaving the decision to God he was following the historical precedent set when he himself had been appointed to lead the people. Third, he recognized that the decision at hand was a weighty one, the nation’s pre-eminence in piety being contingent upon its good leadership. (a) The second proof (§§ –) describes the last three messages that Moses delivered in his earthly life, each of which confers an important benefit on the nation. First, he commissions Joshua before the people and exhorts him on the art of ruling well (§§ –). In so doing he provides a model for future leaders. (b) In §§ –, he offers a hymn to God, which serves as a model of thanksgiving for the people to follow. Also present are celestial witnesses, who are astounded at how Moses could join his soul so harmoniously with the movements of the universe. (c) Finally, as his soul migrates from his body, Moses offers intercessory prayers to God on behalf of each of the twelve tribes (§§ –). These prayers express his understanding of the nation’s kinship with God, especially as suppliants. Descriptions of the immortality and ascent that Moses achieves upon his death (§§ , , –) act as assurances of the authority of his words, though throughout the main point is that Moses’ final concerns were not about his own destiny but about the well-being of the state. In retelling this story, Philo draws extensively on both of the Pentateuchal accounts summarized above, especially in the following paragraphs:

 §  §§ – §§ – §§ – §  §§ –

commentary Num :– Num :– Num :–

+

Deut :– Deut :– Deut : Deut :–

The basic ordering of events, then, is canonical, with the commissioning of Joshua (§§ –) serving as the linchpin between Num  and Deut –, though Philo may have been anticipating the latter as early as § , which mentions the ruler’s responsibility to protect the nation from the error of idolatry (cf. Deut :, ; :–, ). Even as he maintains the outline (and sometimes the actual wording, e.g., §§ , ) of the biblical record, Philo has reshaped the source material in some significant ways. Perhaps most obviously, all references to the conquest, and indeed all historical and geographical particulars of any kind, have been expunged. With no land to conquer and divide, Joshua now emerges as a moral, not a military, leader. The criteria of succession are recast as a matter not of battlefield prowess but of virtue and wisdom more generally. Also expunged are all biblical references to Eleazar, the priests, and the tent of meeting. No indication is given that the authority bequeathed to Joshua is in any way qualified or shared, though §  at least indirectly suggests that after Moses’ death a new division of labor will be in effect. In §  (cf. §§ , , ), Philo also goes out of his way to explain that when considering the choice of a successor Moses was not motivated by nepotism, introducing a theme that has no obvious basis in the biblical text. This addition reinforces the connection between Hum. – and the final chapters of De vita Mosis (see .– ). It also contributes to one of the major themes of De virtutibus, namely, that in its fundamental character and priorities the Jewish nation is based not on blood but on virtue (see part  of the Introduction). If the “heir” of Moses is chosen with consideration for the latter, then the people he leads are assured of being the “heir” of divine blessings (§§ , ). Finally, no mention is made of the law, so that all treatment of that part of Moses’ legacy is postponed until the review in §§ –. Ultimately, then, each of the four offices embodied by Moses as leader of the nation (Mos. .; Praem. ) is shown in De humanitate to be transferred in some way: the office of king to Joshua, that of high priest to Moses’ nephews, while his work as lawgiver is conveyed by the law itself. Finally, Moses’ prophetic legacy also appears to be preserved, though not

on humanity –: death & succession of moses, §§ –  by his successor (see on §§ , ), but by his final blessings for the people, oracular pronouncements which they believe “will be fulfilled” (§ ; cf. Mos. .–). The succession account was a popular and flexible genre in antiquity. Besides the actual appointment of the successor, standard features include consultation with divine authorities, words of encouragement for the successor, and indications as to the outgoing leader’s final bequests, legacies, and/or blessings. Besides the numerous examples from political, historical, and philosophical sources surveyed by Talbert and Stepp (), see Xenophon, Cyr. ..– and  Macc :–. The genre overlapped considerably in form and content with that of the testament (for which see von Nordheim , –). Along these lines Hum. –  may be compared especially with the (much more somber) Testament of Moses, which is also heavily dependent on Deut – (cf. Ps.Philo, L.A.B. :–). The characterization of Moses’ encouragement for Joshua as paraenesis (§ ) would also have been in keeping with the occasion projected by such sources insofar as this type of exhortation was generally deemed to be appropriate for someone assuming a new role (Gammie ). In particular, a number of ancient texts present themselves as instruction from a dying or deceased king to his successors regarding proper rule (Perdue ). In biblical literature, the best example of such a succession speech is the “testament” of David ( Kgs :–; cf. Porter , –). In Greco-Roman literature, royal instructions are often delivered at the beginning of a new king’s reign, e.g., Isocrates, Ad Nicoclem; Dio Chrysostom, Or. . Philo’s narrative in Hum. – also bears comparison with accounts that celebrate the noble death of a philosopher, especially Plato’s Phaedo (cf. Döring ). Like Socrates, Moses is as exemplary in death as he was in life, facing the end of bodily existence with serenity, confident in what he has taught his followers about the immortality and ascent of the soul.

Detailed Comments () § . piety, its sister and twin. In part  of the Introduction, the evidence that De humanitate was originally preceded by a treatise “On Piety” was reviewed and found wanting. Other explanations need to be offered, then, as to why Philo mentions eusebeia at this juncture. To begin with, it is worth noting that the term occurs twice near the end of De fortitudine (§§ , ; and cf. 2σιτης in §§ , , , and



commentary

3σιος in § ), and so its presence here might represent an effort to help

link De humanitate with the preceding subtreatise. It is also relevant to recall the foundational role that Philo assigns this virtue: just as God is the source of all that exists, piety is the source (ρχ=) of all virtues (Decal. ; cf. Josephus, C. Ap. .). It stands to reason, then, that Philo might want to introduce the discussion of a virtue by explaining the nature of its relationship to this source (which is the case also with the subtreatise that immediately follows; see Paen. ). Such an approach would be particularly apropos in the case of humanity: elsewhere he speaks of the two together as “queens of the virtues” (Hum. ), the “two main heads” of human responsibility (Spec. .), and summaries of the two tables of the decalogue (Her. ). Virtue in its full sense necessarily attends to both (Decal. ) and thus the two are mutually implicating: “The nature that is pious is also humane, and the same person will exhibit both qualities, holiness towards God and justice towards others” (Abr. ; cf. Demosthenes, Or. .; Polybius, Hist. ..; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..; ..; Pausanius, Graec. descr. ..; Winston , –). The pairing of piety and humanity, then, represents something of a thesis for our treatise, which will go on to demonstrate how both the lawmaker himself (Hum. ) and the laws that he established (Hum. ) embody this two-fold ideal (cf. Völker , –). As for the former, it is important to note that in our section Moses is displayed engaging in various acts of piety, including prayer, supplication, and thanksgiving (§§ –, –). Further, Sterling . the prophet of our laws. Only S has 2 προφ=της τν νμων. All other mss have 2 πατ+ρ τν νμων. Although neither phrase occurs elsewhere in Philo’s corpus, the former is more likely to be the original reading, since () he generally associates Moses’ role as prophet with the promulgation of the “oracles,” that is, the sacred books of the law (e.g., Mos. .–; Decal. –, ) and () Hum. – is a continuation of De vita Mosis, which concludes by examining a series of events demonstrating Moses’ prophetic capabilities (.–), and the announcement of this role for Moses here anticipates elements of the story that follows (e.g., §§ , ). In ancient Judaism various texts (rooted especially in Deut :) eulogized Moses as the original or greatest prophet of the Jews (e.g., Decal. ; QG .; .; Josephus, Ant. .; Ginzberg , .; ., –). fellowship. For κοινωνα and its relationship with philanthr¯opia, see on Hum. .

on humanity –: death & succession of moses, §§ –  a beautiful model. As a νμος ;μψυχος (Mos. .; .; cf. Abr. – ; Ios. ; Nob. ), Moses not only establishes and enforces the law, his moral character sets an example from which others can learn what is right (cf. Hum. , ). In this he fulfills what would have been generally expected of the ideal ruler (Klassen ) who, inasmuch as he imitates the heavenly ruler, “reproduces the divine image” on earth (Goodenough , ). Philo is obviously familiar with such themes, though, as Wayne Meeks observes, his appropriation of them is distinctive inasmuch as “Moses’ paradigmatic office is founded upon a mystic vision,” the one that he has after ascending Sinai (, ). Having beheld “the form of virtue in perfection” and “the archetypal essence of everything that exists,” Moses himself becomes an image “beautiful and godlike” that others can behold and imprint on their own souls (Mos. .–; cf. Exod :; Post. –; Somn. .; QE .; further, Mack ). § . the care and protection of each and all of his people. De vita Mosis had concluded by noting the “concern and protection for each and all” that Moses extended to his people (.), a sentiment that is resumed here (see the next note). On 1πιμ!λεια, see § . the two treatises that I wrote. That Philo composed De humanitate in part as a supplement and conclusion to De vita Mosis, and on the relationship of the latter to the Exposition, see part  of the Introduction. He makes reference to that treatise also in Praem. . In lieu of δυσ, CG2 read τρισ, in agreement with the division of De vita Mosis in the mss; see Royse , , . excellence of character. As one of the defining virtues of the noble, ruling classes (e.g., Philo, Mos. .; Legat. ; Xenophon, Ages. .; Musonius Rufus, frg. ..–.), it is not surprising that καλοκγαα figures prominently in the succession story; see also §§ , , ; Nob. , , , . a distinct seal . . . a divine impression. Philo frequently employs the imagery of the seal and impression to explain the relationship between intelligible and sense-perceptible realities, specifically, how the latter are created or shaped as copies of the models provided by the former, adapting metaphors familiar especially from the writings of Plato (Tim. e, c–d; Theaet. c–a) and Middle Platonism (Runia , – ; Dillon , ). Popa () notes how such imagery indicates the similarities between a paradigm and its corresponding replica(s), even as it marks the difference between the oneness or transcendency of the former and the multiplicity and transience of the latter. For Philo’s own explanation of the metaphor, see Spec. .–. One of the places



commentary

where it figures prominently is in his interpretation of the creation story. The human being modeled after the divine image, for instance, can be construed as “a kind of idea or genus or seal” (Opif. , cf. , ; and for complications attending the use of the metaphor in this instance, Runia , –; see also Opif. –). For a different application, cf. Mos. ., where we learn that the model of the sanctuary was stamped on Moses’ mind. It is also possible to speak of divine virtues and moral truths being “impressed” on the soul through obedience to Moses and his laws (Spec. ., ; .; .; and see on Fort. ; Hum. ). (a) § . clear pronouncements. The first proof (§§ –) of Moses’ humanity focuses on the decisions he made concerning the selection of a successor to lead the people. In Deut :, , Moses is informed directly by God that the time for him to die has drawn near (cf. Deut. Rab. .), though this occurs only after Moses has commissioned his successor before the people (:–). More likely Philo is following the sequence of events in Num :–, which begins with a divine pronouncement regarding Moses’ death (vv. –), though he fails to mention its explanation as to why Moses was being forbidden to continue with the Israelites into the promised land, that is, because of his disobedience in the wilderness of Zin (Num :–; cf. Mos. .–). According to the basic scenario of the testamental genre, the eponymous patriarch will have foreknowledge of his impending death, which is sometimes explicitly attributed to divine revelation, as in T. Levi :; T. Abr. :–; cf. Xenophon, Cyr. ... migration. On μεταν,στασις, see on § . one intention and prayer. This contrasts with the prayers that Moses offers in §§ – and –. On the desirability of male heirs in antiquity, see Wilson , . children as heirs. The succession of kings and emperors was ordinarily determined by familial relation, either biological ties or legal adoption, e.g., Legat. –; Josephus, Ant. .; Bell. .; .; Tacitus, Ann. .. Further, Evans ; and on § . One of the problems perceived in the institution of monarchy was that kings will typically want their children to inherit the rule even if they are not worthy (Aristotle, Pol. ..). In Legat. , Philo approves of the fact that the emperor Augustus received sovereignty “not through lineal succession as a portion of his inheritance but because he himself became a source of veneration.” Later in De humanitate Joshua is explicitly identified as Moses’ κληρονμος (§ ). For rules of inheritance among “commoners,” see,

on humanity –: death & succession of moses, §§ –  e.g., Num :– (the passage that immediately precedes the account of Joshua’s succession) and cf. Hum. . In Plato’s Leges, a father is expected to bequeath his estate to one of his sons, though it may be whichever of them “he deems worthy to be his heir” (c–a). On Greco-Roman practices of inheritance see Lacey , –; Fox . two sons. Exodus reports that Moses had two sons, Gershom and Eliezer (:–). According to Cher. , Zipporah was found to be pregnant with the former (Exod :–) “through no mortal agency,” though it is unclear if and how this singles him out for any special purpose. At any rate, neither he nor his brother were found to be suitable for the priesthood (Mos. .). goodwill for kin. The εIνοια of Moses (§ ) and his successor (§ ) is directed above all at the nation. ενοας συγγενικ$ς is Mangey’s (, ) emendation (followed by PCW .) for ενοας συγγενεας (S) and ενοα (γ,πη A) συγγενικ$ (ceteri) in the mss. under suspicion. According to some rabbinic traditions, Moses had hoped to appoint one of his sons to take his place, but God deemed them unworthy “because they concerned themselves little with the Torah” (Ginzberg , .). Feldman (, ) mentions additionally the rabbinic tradition that identified Gershom as the youth who reported the prophesying of Eldad and Medad to Moses in Num :–, a narrative in which Joshua also plays a role. nephews. There are substantial biblical narratives describing how Aaron and his four sons (Exod :) were consecrated to serve God as priests; see esp. Exod :–:; Lev :–:. The older two die not long afterwards, when they offer “unholy fire” before the Lord (Lev :– ; Num :–; cf. Philo, Mos. .). When Aaron himself dies, he is succeeded in the office of high priest by his son Eleazar (Num :– ; Deut :). The question, though, is why Philo bothers to mention Moses’ nephews in this context at all. While both Aaron (Num :; Deut :) and Eleazar (Num. :, , –) are mentioned in the accounts that serve as his principal sources in Hum. –, no indication is given that the latter is being entertained as a possible successor to Moses. In attempting to discern Philo’s motive in § , considerations regarding the literary relationship of De humanitate to De vita Mosis (as discussed above) may provide a clue. The description of Moses’ death with which the latter concludes (Mos. .–) is immediately preceded by an account of the rebellion of Korah (Num ), which in Philo’s interpretation is spurred by the charge that Moses had bestowed the priesthood on his brother and nephews because of their relation to



commentary

him (.–; cf. .; .–). The outcome of that story proves that Moses had in fact not given precedence to his own family but had selected them according to “the piety and holiness that he observed in their characters” (.). The concern to show that Jewish leadership is determined by virtue, not nepotism, carries over into Hum. –. § . difficult for the same person. The career of Moses himself had demonstrated that for the offices of king and priest to be combined in the same person was not only feasible but desirable (Mos. .; and on his priesthood, .–). And historically, of course, such a combination would not have been uncommon, as Philo acknowledges in Legat. ; cf. Leg. .–; Mos. .; QE .; further, Goodenough , –  (who sees the combination as an aspect of the ideology of Hellenistic kingship). But within the narrative world of the Exposition, it seems that Moses is unique in this regard, presumably because he alone has been initiated into the mysteries of the priesthood by God himself (Mos. .). Feldman (, ) conjectures that with his statements here Philo may have in mind the specific example of John Hyrcanus; see Josephus, Ant. .–. the care of people. Ancient political theorists agreed that kingship is the art of caretaking, 9 1πιμελητικ= (e.g., Plato, Pol. d–e), and so 1πιμ!λεια figures naturally in a narrative about royal succession (see also §§ , , , , ). It is generally classified among the “royal” virtues, (e.g., Legat. , ; Ep. Arist. ; Isocrates, Ad Nic. ; Dio Chrysostom, Or. .–), representing a particular expression of the king’s humanity (e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. .–; .). (b) § . He had a friend. In Spec. ., Philo complains that most people, since they are led only by their own desire, enter into both friendships and enmities without forethought, recklessly exchanging one for the other. He espouses instead a philosophical view, according to which the true basis of friendship is not pleasure or utility but virtue (cf. Aristotle, Eth. nic. ..; ..; Cicero, Amic. .–; .). That extreme care must be taken in choosing one’s friends was a moral cliché (Sir :–; :–:). True friendships are rare (Cicero, Amic. .– ; ., ), requiring time and intimacy (Aristotle, Eth. nic. ..– ). One will therefore have only few friends (Aristotle, Eth. nic. ..– ; ..–; Plutarch, De amicorum multitudine). Particular care must be taken in this regard by those in positions of power, since they are often the object of flattery or treachery (Plutarch, Praec. ger. rei publ. f–b). The “friends of the king” were accorded special honors and often served in important capacities for the government (cf. Flacc. ;  Chr :;

on humanity –: death & succession of moses, §§ –   Macc :; :; :; Ep. Arist. ; Josephus, Ant. .; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..; Samuel , –). Thus the choice of friends is among the king’s most important decisions, and he must be especially careful that his relatives earn their offices through merit, not kinship (Isocrates, Ad Nic. –, –; Dio Chrysostom, Or. .–, –). By the same token, if a king has no friends, he exposes himself to the charge of being a tyrant (Cicero, Tusc. .; Dio Chrysostom, Or. .–). who had been his pupil. For Moses as a teacher with “pupils,” see Mos. ., ; Spec. ., , ; and on Hum. . Joshua. The son of Nun is a secondary character in the Philonic corpus. He is mentioned briefly in Mos. . as the Rπαρχος who leads the battle against the Amalekites (cf. Exod :–), while Moses took “a more important part in the fight” (cf. the somewhat more generous portrait in Josephus, Ant. .). He is not mentioned at all in the account of the spying mission (cf. Num –) in Mos. .–, though in Mut. , Philo explains that the name that Moses gives him (Num :) means “safety of the Lord,” a name for the best possible state (cf. also Ebr. ; QE .). Here and in what follows his qualifications as successor are shown to derive largely from his association with Moses. a heavenly and undefiled and divine love. According to the Stoic definition, ;ρως is a disinterested and educative impulse whose sole end is friendship (Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .; cf. SVF .–). Philo expresses the same thought also in Abr. ; Spec. .. Elsewhere he speaks of the Israelites as a community of friends (Mos. ., , , ; ., , ), and of their adherence to practices that foster φιλα, e.g., Spec. .–; Praem. . The basis of their common bond, of course, is their worship of the one God (Spec. ., ; Fort. ). Speaking of proselytes in Paen. , he avers that those who embrace “the rule of one” and become friends of God must be embraced as “our closest friends and relations.” shared the same roof and table. The bonds between friends are strengthened if they regularly seek out each other’s society and have a shared life, including commonality of counsel, possessions, etc. (Aristotle, Eth. nic. ..; Plutarch, Amic. mult. a). Friendship implies κοινωνα (Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .) and living out the maxim κοινC τC φλων (Aristotle, Eth. nic. ..; Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .). In Prob. –, Philo offers their “custom of sharing roof, life, and board” as proof of the Essenes’ humanity and fellowship. Cf. Sterling , .



commentary

receiving the oracles. In Exod , Moses goes to the mountain to receive the commandments accompanied by Joshua his “attendant” (vv. –), but when he draws near to the Lord he is instructed to come alone (v. ). QE . interprets this last verse to mean that “when the prophetic mind becomes divinely inspired and filled with God, it becomes like the monad” (cf. Decal. ; Mos. ., ). On Philo’s theory of inspiration, see Mos. .–; cf. Decal. ; Praem. ; Winston . The Alexandrian’s overall presentation of Joshua tends to preclude any notion that he had a share in Moses’ mystical experiences or prophetic abilities, though cf. QE .. provided other services as well, . . . being . . . his lieutenant. Friends, of course, render services to each other (Aristotle, Eth. nic. ..; ..), and according to the biblical record Joshua was Moses’ ερ,πων (Exod :; cf. Num :). Philo’s designation, Rπαρχος, could serve as both a military (as in Mos. .) and political (e.g., Cassius Dio, Hist. rom. .; Arrian, Anab. ..) title. Drawing on Exod :–, Spec. . explains how Moses also appointed δι,δοχοι to assist in the responsibilities of governing. sharing in the affairs of state. For this use of συνδιοικ!ω, see Spec. .; Aristotle, Ath. pol. .; .. Before succeeding Augustus on the throne, Tiberius had served as a “partner in his powers” (Tacitus, Ann. .; cf. Seutonius, Tib. .). § . his excellence of character in both words and deeds including . . . his goodwill for the nation. Because Moses possesses the qualities of leadership most fully, he is able to discern them in others. Mos. .– explains Moses’ own appointment to the kingship. He did not assume office by force, but was selected by God on account of his virtue, his καλοκγαα, and his εIνοια towards all the people (.). Accordingly, he seized every opportunity “in both word and deed” to advance the common good and benefit his subjects (.; for the harmony of speech and action, see on Paen. ). As an important instance of this, Philo points out that Moses did not seek to designate his sons as δι,δοχοι, instead allowing the power of reason “to subdue any natural affection he had for his children” (.). Later it became necessary to squelch rumors that he had chosen family members for the priesthood out of fraternal rather than national εIνοια (Mos. .– ). In reading §§ –, it is important to bear in mind that εIνοια and φιλα are virtual synonyms (Sterling , ; e.g., Aristotle, Eth. nic. ..; ..). Thus we can see that the true test of Joshua’s friendship with

on humanity –: death & succession of moses, §§ –  Moses (§ , cf. § ) is his “friendly” disposition towards the people, while Moses’ friendship with Joshua trumps any “friendly” sentiments he has for his family (§ ). reckoning him to be good when in truth he was not. In general, rulers ought to be chosen not by lot (cf. Plato, Resp. a; Leg. b–e), but by applying “the strict test of truth” (τ+ν κριβ$ β,σανον τ$ς ληεας), which is to be carried out by the people, and then ratified by God (Spec. .–). Here by contrast the responsibility belongs to God alone, who discerns matters κριβς (Hum. ). One of the areas in which divine judgment surpasses its human counterpart is in the task of choosing leaders (QG .). This is because in their thinking human beings tend to focus “on what is likely and convincing and contains much that is reasonable, but not on the unadulterated truth, putting their trust in appearances rather than in God” (Opif. ; cf. Ebr. ; Praem. ; Aet. ). the standards of human judgment are likely to be indistinct and uncertain. A topic on which Philo discourses in Deus – (cf. Prov. .). Human beings by and large possess little capacity for consistency in the standards (κριτ=ριοι) by which they make judgments (γνμαι) and enter into relationships, but are subject to a variety of internal and external sources of instability (βεβαιτης). Foreseeing all future events, and piercing into the recesses of all things, including human souls (cf. Hum. ), God’s judgment suffers from no such defect or uncertainty. For his part, Socrates did nothing νευ τ$ς τν εν γν8μης, so as to confer on others only benefits (Xenophon, Mem. ..). We are later informed that Joshua had been approved by κριτ=ριοι εAοι (§ ; and on the need for divine rather than human judgment in this affair, cf. also §§ , , ). (c) § . beseeched and implored. According to Num :–, Moses asked God to appoint his successor (cf. Abot R. Nat. , ; Sifre Num. –; Sifre Zuta ). Although this is the only place where καικετε:ω is used in the Philonic corpus (cf. Josephus, Ant. .), elsewhere Moses is portrayed as beseeching God, for example, in Mos. ., where he asks what should be done with the man who blasphemed the name of the Lord (Lev :–). De vita Mosis actually relays several incidents in which the leader of the people, lacking confidence in his own ability to decide a difficult case, defers to divine standards and entreats God to act as judge, each case being presented as evidence of Moses’ prophetic vocation (., , ; cf. Mos. .; Spec. .; Hum. , ). In this Philo differs from Josephus, who seems to be embarrassed by such episodes (Feldman , ).



commentary

the overseer of the invisible soul. A rather distinctive theological feature of the Exposition is the designation of God as overseer of all, ;φορος το( παντς (Abr. ; Ios. ; Spec. .), a role associated especially with the execution of divine justice in human affairs (Ios. , ; Decal. , ; Spec. ., ; Nob. ). In this capacity God perceives the thoughts, fears, and intentions of the human soul, even though it is “invisible” to all others, e.g., Abr. ; Ios.  (also with δι,νοια; cf. Homer, Il. .; Od. .; .); Hum. . Elsewhere Philo uses the synonym 1ππτης (Hypoth. .; cf.  Macc :; Let. Arist. ; Musonius Rufus, frg. ..–; Epictetus, Diatr. ..). The idea of an all-surveying deity was wide-spread (e.g., Job :; :; Ps :;  Macc :; Josephus, Bell. .; Sent. Pythag. ; Plutarch, frg. ) and became a topic of philosophical, especially Stoic, reflection as well. In a treatise entitled SΟτι π,ντας 1φορ7O τ εAον, for example, Epictetus argues that since all human minds are attached to God “like parts and offshoots of his being,” God perceives and oversees every action “as something belonging to him and sharing in his nature” (Diatr. .; cf. Dobbin , –). Philo can similarly argue that the human soul is an inseparable fragment or extension of the divine soul, e.g., Opif. ; Det. ; Deus  (cf. Tobin , –). For the concept that the soul, like God, is invisible, see also Ios. ; Mos. .; cf. Plato, Tim. d; Phaed. b, d. best suited for command. The δι,δοχοι of Spec. . chosen to assist Moses in governing the people are similarly the “best” (ριστνδην), in other words, possessed of “good sense, ability, justice, and godliness” (cf. Mos. .; Spec. .; Hum. ). care for his subjects like a father. Inasmuch as the business of kingship is 1πιμ!λεια νρ8πων (§ ), it functions as a criterion in the selection process. Moses himself had been chosen to care for the people (Hum. ; Mos. .), which he did throughout his life (Hum. , cf. §§ , ). The particular image of the king caring for his subjects like a father was wellknown. Besides Ios. ; Mos. .; Spec. .; cf. T. Mos. :; Homer, Od. .–; Aristotle, Eth. nic. ..; Seneca, Ep. .; Dio Chrysostom, Or. .; .; Cicero, Resp. .–; Stevenson . lifting up his pure . . . hands to heaven. Philo elaborates on Num :, which simply has, “And Moses said to the Lord.” Raising one’s hands to heaven would have been a familiar posture for prayer, including thanksgiving (Abr. ) and petitionary (Mos. .) prayers, as well as oaths (Spec. .). Cf. Deut : (perhaps Philo’s inspiration here); Pss :; :; :; Lam :;  Macc :; Josephus, C. Ap. .. The

on humanity –: death & succession of moses, §§ –  idea that the hands thus lifted up to heaven (understood to be the purest part of existence; see § ) ought to be “pure,” that is, purged of impious intentions, would also have been familiar, e.g.,  Tim :; Josephus, Bell. .; Seneca, Nat. quaest. , pref. . as one might put it figuratively, virgin. As Cher. – explains, God converses with mortals whose nature is “truly virginal,” into whose “virginal soil” the Father of all things and the Husband of wisdom deposits “the seed of good fortune” (cf. Wilson , –). The Exposition is distinct in including far fewer instances of allegorical interpretation than Philo’s other commentary series, though there are scattered references to meanings in the biblical text beyond the literal or obvious (e.g., Opif. ; Abr. , , ) and on occasion we even encounter a full-blown allegorical exposition (e.g., Ios. –). For some of the reasoning behind the application of such τροπικς language, see Post. –. § . the Lord God of the spirits and of all flesh. The LXX translator of Num : rendered “the spirits of all flesh” in his source to “the spirits and all flesh” (as in Num :), creating a distinction that would not have been discordant with Philonic anthropology. Like others (see BGAD, s.v. πνε(μα a), the Alexandrian understood the human personality to be a composite of πνε(μα and σ,ρξ, e.g., Opif.  (cf. Gen :); Gig. –,  (cf. Gen :); Deus –; Her. –. He follows the text of LXX Num : closely, except for replacing 1π τ$ς συναγωγ$ς with 1π τ$ς πλη:ος (συναγωγ= occurs nowhere in the Exposition; see PAPM .–). The following verse, however, has been completely rewritten, with only ποιμ=ν retained (cf. Agr. ; Post. ). No doubt Philo found its military connotations (for the language, cf. Deut :– ; Josh :;  Sam :, ; :) inappropriate for his version of the story, in which the conquest of Canaan plays no part. care and protection. Philo regularly joins 1πιμ!λεια and προστασα to summarize the responsibilities of leadership (e.g., Ios. , ; Hum. ), including Moses’ responsibilities as shepherd (Mos. .) and father (Ios. ). Shepherds, of course, were expected to exercise “care” in tending their flocks (e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. .). a shepherd. ποιμ!να is Cohn’s (PCW .) emendation for ποιμ!νος (C2FG1HP) and ποιο:μενος (SC1G2A) in the mss. Biblical authors frequently liken rulers to shepherds ( Sam :;  Chron :; etc.) and of course Moses himself had been a shepherd (Exod :; cf. Mos. .–; Agr. –; Ps.-Philo, L.A.B. :; Josephus, Ant. .–). Indeed, not only is shepherding a kind of training ground for kingship, but “the only perfect king . . . is one who is skilled in the knowledge of shepherding”



commentary

(Mos. .). Also see Philo, Ios. – (cf. Homer, Il. ., etc.); Plato, Pol. d, e–b; Aristotle, Eth. nic. ..; Xenophon, Cyr. ..; Dio Chrysostom, Or. .; .–. Meanwhile, the image of sheep without a shepherd was a common metaphor for a helpless or defeated people, e.g.,  Chr :; Jdt :; Matt :; cf. Ezek :–; Zech :–; :; Josephus, Ant. .;  Bar. :. The condition of such a flock deteriorates quickly into confusion and disorder (Somn. .–). scattered. PLCL . (with n. ) prints σπορ,δην, which is in all the mss except S, which has 1π /ρους. PCW . prints σπορ,ς, while PCH . has σπορCς 1π /ρους, positing an allusion to  Kgdms :. For discussion see Cohn , . Besides the fact that there is nothing grammatically objectionable about σπορ,δην, Philo only rarely refers to the book of Kings (cf. Deus , ), and such an allusion adds little to the narrative here. (d) § . My lord. A ruler could be referred to as δεσπτης (e.g., Spec. .–) inasmuch as his relation to the state is analogous to that of a master to his household (Spec. .; cf. Aristotle, Pol. ..–), though Philo rarely refers to Moses as such (e.g., Mos. .; cf. .). someone would ask. §§ – interrupt the retelling of the biblical narrative with an imagined exchange between Moses and an anonymous onlooker, repeating a fair amount of the material from §§ –. For this manner of question and answer, cf. Her. –; Mos. ., ; Decal. –. It is also a feature in some of the Platonic dialogues, e.g., Leg. d–b. Cf. Nikiprowetzky , –; Conley , –. they are naturally the primary heirs. Moses’ action exemplifies one of the major theses of De nobilitate (§§ –), namely, that superior lineage is not necessarily a guarantee of superior virtue. This is supported with biblical examples (§§ –) of sons who profited nothing from the excellence of their fathers, in some cases being disinherited for their vice and depravity. Instead, only the one who demonstrates virtue is truly noble and “approved as heir” (δοκιμασες κληρονμου, § ; cf. §§ , ). Further, see on § . § . proof of complete virtue. Since most people honor virtue with their words but not with their actions, the only way to determine someone’s true character is through various tests (Abr. –; cf. Sir :– ;  Macc :). Indeed, virtue only becomes conspicuous and meritorious as one overcomes challenges and adversities (e.g., Seneca, Prov. .; .–; further, Fitzgerald , –). Philo is also familiar with the idea that God tests for virtue, e.g., Leg. .–; .; cf.  Macc :; Josephus, Ant. .. The concept of ρετ+ τ!λεια was associated

on humanity –: death & succession of moses, §§ –  especially with Aristotle, for whom eudaimonia itself could be defined as “complete virtue in action” (Eth. nic. ..; ..; ..). Philo’s ideal ruler must also possess this if he is to make decisions that result in wellbeing for his people (see on § ). With the addition of this comment in § , it becomes clear that Joshua is in possession of the same three essential qualities exhibited by Moses when he was appointed king by God (see Mos. .): καλοκγαα (§ ), εIνοια for the people (§ ), and virtue. the all-wise. Philo often alludes to the philosophical commonplace that the sage alone is king: Post. ; Sobr. ; Migr. ; Mut. ; Somn. .; Abr. ; Prob. ; QG .; cf. Musonius Rufus, frg. ..– .; Epictetus, Diatr. .., ; Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .; Goodenough , –; also on Paen. ; Nob. . The term π,νσοφος, however, is familiar, not from philosophy (though cf. Heraclides Ponticus, frg. ), but from the poetry of the tragedians, e.g., Aeschylus, Suppl. ; Euripides, Herc. . The epithet is applied to Moses also in Abr. ; Mos. .; Spec. .; ., , . Hum.  goes on to explain that his successor will need this quality as well. On Moses as a “super-sage,” see Winston a. § . leads countless multitudes . . . to good fortune. If an individual’s decisions regarding virtue and vice have consequences for his or her own fortune (see Nob. ), then those of a king are of even greater moment, since he determines the course of “great and populous cities with all their inhabitants, and the constitutions of the cities and the management of matters private, public, and sacred” (Spec. .; cf. Xenophon, Cyr. ..; Musonius Rufus, frg. ..–). Hence the considerable attention paid in ancient literature to the art of ruling well (see Hadot  for sources). For his part, Moses’ highest aspiration was to provide through his laws not only for the well-being of his own people but for that of the entire human race as well (Hum. ). His teachings may be regarded as the truest and best philosophy precisely because through them people can obtain good fortune (Mos. .). The law accomplishes this because, in contrast to other philosophies, its teachings put belief into practice (Mos. .). Further, Völker , –; Runia . In his Antiquitates, Josephus agrees in identifying eudaimonia as the law’s standard and aim (e.g., ., ). This is summed up in Moses’ farewell address to the people (.–), especially its concluding appeal: “I have compiled for you both laws and a constitution . . . If you guard their orderliness you will be judged the most fortunate of all people” (.; cf. Feldman –, –, ).



commentary

a pilot with knowledge and skill. Since ruling well is an art, indeed “the most noble of the arts” (QG .), kingship should be assigned to the one who is demonstrably most skilled at it. The analogy of a wise ruler to a trustworthy captain was a commonplace: besides Leg. .–; Spec. .; QG .; cf. Ps.-Phoc. ; Dio Chrysostom, Or. .; .. On the importance of the pilot, see Paen. . a leader who is all-wise. In Wis , the world’s rulers are exhorted to heed King Solomon and “learn wisdom” (v. ) since “the desire for wisdom leads to sovereignty” (v. ). Wisdom is among the desiderata of the ideal ruler in the kingship literature as well, e.g., Isocrates, Ad Nic. – ; Let. Arist. , ; cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..– ..; Plutarch, Numa .; Goodenough , –. good order for his subjects. Among the most important benefits that a leader can provide is ενομα (e.g., Plato, Leg. b; Aristotle, Pol. ..; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..; ..; ..), which is associated with good and just government generally (e.g., Plutarch, Lyc. .; .; Numa .; .). In part, the good order that he bestows on his subjects reflects the good order accompanying his assumption to office. This is another reason why the true king is the sage, since he receives dominion not by force of arms but as a gift and acknowledgement from God for his superior virtue. On this basis he brings peace and good order to those who follow him (Abr. ; cf. Spec. .). § . Wisdom existed . . . before the whole universe came into being. In order to determine who possesses the wisdom necessary for ruling well, it is best to turn to wisdom herself. The allusion to Prov  (cf. Ebr. ) is appropriate to the current context inasmuch as the self-encomium of Sophia there underscores her role in statecraft: “Through me kings reign and potentates decree justice. Through me nobles become great and monarchs rule the earth” (:–). The source of this power is identified in the stanza that follows, which announces the origin of Sophia in primordial times and her unique role in God’s creative activity: “The Lord brought me forth, the beginning of his ways for his works. He established me before the age, in the beginning, before He made the earth” (:– ; cf. Kayatz , –). Through wisdom, then, the principle that orders the civil realm is predicated on and an extension of the principle that orders creation. These assertions went on to be the subject of a significant amount of reflection in the Second Temple period. Besides Det. ; Her. ; see also Wis :, , –; :, ; :–, ; Sir :; QH IX ; Q XXVI ; Früchtel , –. Sophia’s long history affords her unique insight into human nature, certainly better than that

on humanity –: death & succession of moses, §§ –  acquired by Moses in his “long” test of Joshua’s virtue (§ ). those who love her sincerely, purely, and genuinely. Prov : goes on to explain what is required of those who would attain Sophia and thus rule well: “I love those who love me, and those who seek me will find me.” On this reciprocal love, see Fox , –; and cf. Wis :, –; :; Sir :. Solomon, of course, loved wisdom above everything else (Wis :), and learned from her δλως (:). Elsewhere Philo speaks of wooing wisdom δλως κα κααρς (Ebr. ; cf. Ios. ; Spec. .; Hum. ). On “virtuous” er¯os, see Wilson , –. § . my own experience. Philo here briefly summarizes the call of Moses in Exod :–:. That episode is punctuated by four objections raised by Moses in response to the divine summons (:, ; :, ), which are interpreted here as “prayers and supplications” (similarly, Josephus, Ant. .). The version of the story narrated in Mos. .– reports only the second and the fourth objections, taking Moses’ refusal as a sign of his α>δ8ς (.). While Philo does not ignore the first and the third objections altogether (see, respectively, Fug.  and Leg. .), the fourth objection, that Moses was “slow of speech and tongue,” earns special attention (e.g., Sacr. ; Det. ; Migr. –; Her. ): Moses did not become king through strength of arms, or an account of his wealth or his gifts of speech, but because he had “God alone for his heritage” (Praem. ). Certain rabbinic interpreters were less kind in their appraisal of Moses’ reluctance, suggesting that God punished him for his obstinacy by transferring the priesthood from him and his descendants to Aaron and his line. Other traditions explain that he was urged to undertake the mission for seven days, relenting only when shown all the future generations of Torah scholars who would be dependent on him (Ginzberg , .–). The reluctance of a prospective leader to assume command is also an element in some Greco-Roman succession accounts, e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..–. distinct oracles . . . were plainly declared. For this oracular language, cf. Mos. .; .–; Decal. ; also see on Hum. , , . prayer and supplication. Note how ποτνι,ομαι, αρ!ω, and 1πιτ=δειος occur both here and in § ; also καικετε:ω (§ ) and κετε:ω (§ ); 1πιμελ!ομαι (§ ) and 1πιμ!λεια (§ ). Clearly Philo wants to paint the appointments of Moses and of Joshua as parallel incidents. For the supplication language, see on Hum. . For more on Philo’s prayers, see Borgen . § . without the involvement of human judgment. According to Spec. ., rulers are to be chosen according to the “free choice” of



commentary

“the whole people.” This freedom is only apparent, however, as we learn from Praem. : God appointed Moses king “by the free judgment of his subjects,” that is, God “created in them the willingness to choose him.” Cf. on § . the most populous of all nations. A nation’s populousness was generally seen as an indication of its success (e.g., Fort. ; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..). According to Deuteronomy, the Israelites were “as numerous as the stars of heaven” (:; :; cf. Gen :; :;  Kgs :; and for the actual number of the wilderness generation, Exod :; Num :; :), which in : is interpreted as a sign of divine blessing. Philo similarly associates the nation’s size with its unique role: when Moses turned away from the Egyptians to join the Israelites, he is rewarded “with the kingdom of a more populous and stronger people, the very people which was destined to be consecrated out of all others to offer prayers forever on behalf of the human race for its deliverance from evil” (Mos. ., cf. .; Spec. .; and for a very different explanation of Jewish fecundity, Spec. .). The vastness of their population seems to have been part of the pagan perspective on Judaism as well, e.g., Josephus, C. Ap. ., with Barclay , . the truly Existent. §§  and  present three divine titles that elsewhere Philo deploys both individually and as a group (e.g., Fort. ) when distinguishing the God of the Israelites from false, pagan deities: 2 Uν /ντως (cf. Exod :; Opif. ; Abr. ; Mos. .; Decal. ; Spec. ., –; .; Fort. ; Hum. ; Paen. , ; Nob. ), “the Creator and Father of all” (cf. Hum. ; Nob. –), and “the highest and oldest Cause” (see below). § . the most respected philosophy. That Moses was the first and/or best philosopher, and that as such Greek philosophers borrowed from his wisdom, was a staple of Hellenistic Jewish apologetics, e.g., Artapanus, frg. .; Aristobulus, frg. .; .; .; Josephus, C. Ap. .–; . (cf. the Nachleben for Fort. –). For his part, Philo held that Moses was the quintessential “philosopher king” (Mos. .), having attained “the very summit of philosophy” (Opif. ). It therefore stood to reason that Greek philosophers of both past and present had “received their virtueloving opinions directly from Moses as from a source” (QG .; cf. .; .; .; further, Elter –, –). The most “respected” philosophy, then, is that which, like Moses’, is predicated on a critique of polytheistic religion (e.g., Cicero, Nat. d. .–; cf. Attridge ) and makes knowledge of the one true God possible; see Post. –; Spec. .–.

on humanity –: death & succession of moses, §§ –  the highest and oldest Cause. In the Mosaic context, philosophical endeavors are associated broadly with the “search for the true God” (e.g., Spec. ., –; .; .), which takes place above all in the study and practice of the law, e.g., Mos. .–; Decal. –; Spec. .– , . Further, Nikiprowetzky , –. This entails in the first place not mistaking any part of the universe for its creator (Decal. ), since “its cause is God, by whom it has come into being, its matter the four elements, from which it was compounded, its instrument the word of God, through which it was framed, and the motive . . . the goodness of its architect” (Cher. ; cf. Spec. .; .; Nob. ; Plato, Tim. e, c–e, e; Runia , –). the error associated with created gods. There are several places in the Exposition where Philo voices concern about Jews who have abandoned the God of their fathers for pagan idols, e.g., Spec. .; Praem. ; further, Sandelin . The most insidious form of this threat is Egyptian animal worship, since it honors lifeless images rather than “the everliving God,” transforming the souls of worshippers into the nature of the beasts they worship (Decal. –; cf. Spec. .–; .; also Wis :–; Let. Arist. –; Niehoff , –). Paradigmatic in this regard is the golden calf incident, which Philo interprets in part as a crisis in leadership brought on when Moses temporarily took leave of the people (Mos. .–, –; Spec. .; .–). Specifically, when he was summoned to the mountain, “the vices that spring up in the ruler’s absence” took hold of them (Spec. .) and they began behaving “as though authority had ceased to exist” (Mos. .). As in the account of Moses’ death and succession in Deuteronomy (see, e.g., :, ; :–, ), the prospect of the permanent absence of that authority raises a concern that such vices might reappear. the necessary quality of eternality. Among all peoples the Jews stand alone in their “service of the uncreated and eternal” God, refusing to worship idols, which are “created and naturally liable to destruction” (Spec. .; cf. Opif. ; Decal. ; Spec. ., ; Nob. ). Indeed, there is nothing in the sense-perceptible realm that possesses the same temporal status as God, because there is nothing in that realm that has been assigned eternality. Instead the entire sense-perceptible realm “is in a process of becoming and changing and never remaining in the same state” (Opif. ; cf. Plato, Tim. d–c). (a) § . Joshua, the disciple and imitator. The second proof (§§ –) of Moses’ humanity describes the three messages that he delivered before



commentary

his death, beginning with the two-part commissioning speech in §§ – . In lieu of Ιησο(ς in the rest of the mss, G2 has Ιωσο:ας, evidence perhaps for the tampering of Jewish interpolator; the same occurs in § . Further, Runia , –; Royse , ; both responding to Barthélemy , –. See also on Paen. . In the rubrics of philosophical pedagogy, students were expected to imitate the model set by their teacher, e.g., Seneca, Ep. .–; Billerbeck ; Wilson , –. In the Exposition, Philo conceives of Judaism as a philosophical school, one whose “disciples and followers” study the wisdom of the law (Spec. ., , ; ., ; and see on § ). Accordingly, he conceives of Joshua not simply as a king but (like his predecessor: Mos. .) a philosopher-king, in which case comparison may be made with succession stories such as those recounted in Iamblichus, Vit. Pythag. .–; Cicero, Acad. .–; cf. Mejer , –. Josephus similarly underscores Joshua’s status as Moses’ student, e.g., Ant. . (Joshua “made Moses his teacher of piety”); . (he had received from Moses “a complete education”). According to rabbinic traditions, Joshua was acknowledged as the people’s teacher when Moses, his “father and teacher,” died (Ginzberg , .–; cf. m. Abot :). See also on Hum. . For φοιτητ=ς used of a student in a philosophical school, cf. Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .; SVF ., . Moses was not downcast . . . Depression is a characteristic of the wicked (Spec. .). The countenance of the sage, by contrast, is marked by joy and gladness, not depression and scowling (cf. Praem. ). Like others (e.g., Plutarch, Vit. pud. e; cf. Josephus, Ant. .), Philo associates κατ=φεια with λ:πη (Decal. ; cf. Abr. ; Ios. ; Praem. ), the latter being one of the four basic irrational passions identified by the Stoics (Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .–; SVF .–) and characterized as a “shrinking” of the soul (Cicero, Tusc. .). As such, it is a form of false judgment to be extirpated; cf. Graver , –. . . . that his sons or nephews were not chosen. According to Sifre Deut. , Moses was saddened by the fact that one of his sons had not been appointed to lead the people, while other rabbinic sources explain that it was Moses’ sincerest desire that Joshua be appointed his successor, e.g., Sifre Num. ; Sifre Zuta . § . filled with indescribable joy. In Josephus’ version of the farewell address to the people, Moses rejoices at the people’s “good things” (Ant. .). On a number of occasions, Philo’s treatment of χαρ, is familiar from the Stoic doctrine of επ,ειαι, the positive emotions of the fully rational person (Mut. , , ; Congr. ; Det. ; Abr. ; QG

on humanity –: death & succession of moses, §§ –  .; ., ), joy, along with caution and well-wishing, generally being among them (see SVF .–; also Seneca, Ep. .–; .; Plutarch, Virt. mor. b; further, Inwood , –; Graver , –). Indeed, joy is the best of these good emotions because it “expands” the soul (Migr. ; cf. Plutarch, Virt. mor. a; Cicero, Tusc. .). It can be an appropriate expression of one’s philanthr¯opia, when things go well for others (Migr. ). It could also be understood as a reward for virtue, e.g., Praem. , –, . According to certain rabbinic traditions, Moses spent his final hours full of joy gazing at a vision of the heavenly Temple (Ginzberg , .–), while other traditions have him mourning over the fact that he would not be allowed to enter the holy land (Ginzberg , .). taking Joshua by the right hand. Philo omits the divine command in Num :–,  for Moses to lay his hands upon Joshua and invest him with some of his spiritual δξα. Cf. Deut : (Joshua “was filled with the spirit of knowledge, for Moses had laid his hands upon him.”). For Philo, the basis of Joshua’s leadership is his possession not of the spirit or of prophetic authority (cf. Sir :; Josephus, Ant. ., ; Justin Martyr, Dial. ; Tg. Ps.-J. Num :), but of virtue. brought him before the assembled multitude. Philo continues to summarize Num :–, though without any mention of Eleazar or his oracular authority (for which cf. Exod :; Lev :; Deut :), to which Joshua is to submit. In Philo’s version of events Joshua is never “presented” to the priests (for which cf. Num :; :) but only to the people. In his parallel account, by contrast, Josephus constantly associates Joshua with Eleazar as a way of suggesting the former’s piety, e.g., Ant. .; ., , , , , . not concerned about his own end. For the expression, cf. Sir :; Menander, Mon. . Facing the prospect of death with equanimity is a manifestation of one’s commitment to a virtuous rather than physical life (e.g.,  Macc :;  Macc :). In the Greco-Roman world, it is Socrates especially who is paradigmatic in this regard. On his last day he “seemed happy . . . meeting death fearlessly and nobly” (Plato, Phaed. e, cf. d), demonstrating the principle that “the true philosophers practice dying, and death is less terrible to them than to any other men” (e). Foundational to the agenda of Hellenistic philosophy generally were efforts to undermine the sorts of conventional beliefs about death that might trigger emotional distress (Nussbaum ). As Epictetus puts it, the sage ought to face dire prospects “with a smile, cheerful and serene” (Diatr. ..–; and cf. his reflections on ελ,βεια in .). Or from



commentary

Epicurus: “The correct recognition that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable” (Ep. Men. ). Further, Fitzgerald , – ; Droge and Tabor , –. he reveled lavishly. The sage “luxuriates” in his virtues, e.g., Spec. .; .; Hum. . he was about to become immortal. See on § , which the statements here anticipate and summarize. tranquility in his soul. The greatest obstacle to achieving tranquility is overcoming the fear of death and the desire to remain in the body. This is accomplished by recognizing that with death the soul changes for the better, not the worse (Plutarch, Tranq. b; cf. Seneca, Tranq. .–). § . released from life in the body. Philo’s description (cf. Leg. .; Plant. ) reflects the Platonic view, according to which death is the release or separation (παλλαγ=) of the soul from the body, and being dead is the state in which “the soul is separated from the body and exists alone by itself,” undisturbed by any of the perceptions or emotions that arise from the body (Phaed. c, cf. d–e, b, c; Bostock , – ). See also on §§ , . he . . . proceeded to report the oracular pronouncements of approval. Philo does not narrate God’s response to Moses’ request (Num :– ), but has Moses convey the response to the people during the subsequent commissioning ceremony, for which see Num :–. Aaron’s appointment had been similarly based on τC χρησ!ντα λγια (Mos. .). Leaders would sometimes be required to undergo a “scrutiny” (δοκιμασα) to determine whether they met the qualifications for a particular office (e.g., Lysias, Or. ). to which they gave assent. Num : reads, “And you shall put some of your glory upon him, so that the children of Israel will hearken to him (ε>σακο:σωσιν ατο().” § . courageous and exceptionally strong in formulating good policies. For the content of the commissioning speech, Philo turns to Deut :: “Be courageous and strong (νδρζου κα ?σχυε); for you shall go in before this people into the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give to them, and you shall give it to them for an inheritance.” The terms νδραγαα and νδραγαζομαι are ordinarily associated with warfare (e.g., Mos. ., , , ; ., ; Spec. .; .; .; cf.  Macc :, ; :; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..; ..; ..; Ps.-Plutarch, Apoph. lac. b; Goodenough , –), and so the use of the latter here would accord with the biblical scenario of impending conquest. Philo, however, opts not to develop the mili-

on humanity –: death & succession of moses, §§ –  tary connotations, but immediately associates the courage expected of Joshua with the promulgation of wise policy. This interpretation brings to mind especially Fort. , which argues explicitly against bellicose forms of courage in favor of civic ones. Individuals properly exhibit this virtue by offering prudent counsels that advance the public good. exhortation. Philo elsewhere refers to the contents of Deuteronomy as παραιν!σεις, e.g., Spec. .; .; Agr.  (cf. Mos. .; Decal. , ; Hum. ; Gammie , ), though he can also use προτρεπτικο (see on Fort. ). Further, Engberg-Pedersen . The exhortation of a kingship treatise could also be designated paraenesis (e.g., Isocrates, Ad Nic. –; Dio Chrysostom, Or. ., ). making sound judgments. The formula ε>σηγεAσαι γν8μην can be used of a proposal that is introduced to a political body, e.g., Det. ; Ios. ; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ... Compare especially Josephus, Ant. ., where it is not Joshua alone, but Joshua together with Eleazar and the elders who are appointed by Moses to put before the people the best possible proposals after he is gone. his affection . . . for the nation. PCW . follows the majority of mss with φιλοεν!ς. S reads φιλεον 1ς, though it fits the “nationalistic” context of §§ –a less clearly. A has φιλοκεν!ς. § . Moses had also received an oracle. Moses received a divine oracle regarding his own appointment as king (§ ); he now receives one regarding the appointment of Joshua. The LXX translation of Num : departs from its source by adding a second charge to the commissioning speech that Moses is to make before the people: “you shall give [Joshua] a charge (1ντελ@$) before all the congregation, and you shall give a charge (1ντελ@$) concerning him before them.” Philo now proceeds to summarize the latter, still drawing on Deut , though adding little that was not already stated in § . the care of the nation. See on § . without fear. Central to the biblical appeal is for Joshua not to fear: μ+ φοβο(, μηδE δειλα (Deut :, cf. :). would look to Moses for their archetypal model. Just as Moses “looked upon” Joshua when commissioning him (§ ), so future leaders will “look upon” Moses as their model. The presentation of moral models plays a vital role in ancient exhortation and instruction. Besides Abr. –; Ios. ; Spec. .; cf. Isocrates, Evag. ; Josephus, Ant. .; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..; Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .; further, Wilson , –, –. For the formula παρ,δειγμα . . . ποβλ!πουσι, see Plato, Resp. c: those inquiring after the true



commentary

nature of the virtues seek out individuals who embody those virtues and “look upon them as types and models, so that whatever we discern in them of good fortune . . . will necessarily apply to ourselves, in the sense that whoever is like them will have the portion that is most like theirs” (cf. c; Tim. a; and above, on § ). deprive their successors of good counsels out of envy. The problem of envy is a topos of paraenetic literature (e.g., Isocrates, Demon. ; Ps.Phoc. –, with Wilson , –). A concern sometimes raised is that it might interfere with one’s willingness to aid others and exhort them to virtue (e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. /.–). Envy was also classed among the typical vices of rulers and the ruling classes (e.g.,  Macc :; Herodotus, Hist. .; Seneca, Tranq. .; Plutarch, Numa .; and as a succession topic, Josephus, Bell. .). Accordingly, warnings against envy are a staple of Greco-Roman orations on political harmony, e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. ., ; .. prepare and train. As in § , Moses holds up his life as an archetype and model so as to prepare and train others, though here it is not his subjects but their future rulers. admonitions and exhortations. In Spec. ., Philo distinguishes “admonitions and exhortations” from direct commands as part of what Moses imparts in scripture, specifically in Deuteronomy. The pairing of Dπο=κη and παρανεσις was conventional (e.g., Polybius, Hist. ..; Strabo, Geogr. ..; Ps.-Plutarch, Lib. ed. c). § . to rouse those who have lost their resolve . . . and instill in them a noble and intrepid spirit. Paraenetic instructors embraced various approaches in their teaching—censure, praise, encouragement, and so on—depending on the particular situation or needs of their students (Glad , –), thereby manifesting a “philanthropic” pedagogy (Clement of Alexandria, Paed. ..–..). What Philo describes here accords especially with consolation, a mode of paraenetic discourse whose main purpose is to instill fortitude in its recipients as they overcome the grief and uncertainty accompanying the loss of a loved one (for a review of the literature, see Kassel ). It is part of Moses’ profile as the ideal teacher in the Exposition that he offers encouragement to the Israelites when they are disheartened, e.g., Mos. .–. The terms ναππτω and κατ,πληκτος are found also in Mos. ., where it is the spies who encourage the Israelites not to be fainthearted. In Fort.  and , possession of a disposition that is κατ,πληκτος is listed among the requirements for military service. (b) § . the heir of his command. In his will, Augustus named

on humanity –: death & succession of moses, §§ –  Tiberius “heir” to the throne (Seutonius, Aug. .–; Cassius Dio, Hist. rom. ..–). Gaius, in turn, is κληρονμος to be 9γεμ8ν after Tiberius (Philo, Legat. ). he began to hymn God with a song. §§ – describe “The Song of Moses” (Deut :–). In Deut :–, Moses is instructed by God to write down a poem (cf. Josephus, Ant. .) for the people of Israel (the more indeterminate νρωποι of §  may reflect Deut :). This is to serve as a witness against them when they break covenant in the promised land and turn to other gods. Philo mentions this function for the song only in passing (§ , cf. § ), concentrating instead on its more hopeful elements (e.g., Deut :). The final words attributed to Moses in T. Mos. :–:, replete with warnings about the nation’s apostasy, capture the tone of the biblical text more accurately. Philo assumes that singing occurs in two ways, not only as an activity of the voice, but especially as an activity of the mind. It therefore can influence and improve the soul (e.g., Spec. .) and advance the pursuit of virtue (e.g., Plant. ), especially the virtue of eusebeia (Spec. .). Further, Feldman ; Leonhardt , –. The song of Moses is the “great song” (e.g., Det. ) or the “greater song” (e.g., Sobr. ), that is, in contrast to the song at the sea (Exod :–, for which see Mos. .). For =ρ (cf. Spec. .; .). The soul emanates from the aether (Leg. .; cf. Josephus, Bell. .) and it is to the aether that the soul of the sage returns after death (Her. ; cf. Wilson , ). It is the purest and holiest of all substances (Mos. .; .), the substance of heaven, and so distinct from the four elements out of which the sublunary world is made (QE ., ; though for inconsistencies in Philo’s theory of aether, see Dillon , –). Further, Waszink . the hierophant. According to Mos. .–, as Moses passed from mortal to immortal life, he was in a state of possession (κατασχεες) and prophesied (εσπζειν) in the form of oracles (χρησμο) to each of the tribes (cf. .–; Josephus, Ant. .). His role as revealer parallels or overlaps with his role as prophet elsewhere, e.g., Decal.  (God choose “his prophet Moses . . . as of all the best suited to be hierophant;” cf. Mos. .), though on other occasions it is associated with his role as priest (e.g., Spec. .–) or lawgiver (e.g., Spec. .; Hum. , , –; cf. Paen. ). Perhaps Wolfson (, .–) is correct in supposing that the prophetic role is primary, encompassing the other roles (cf. Meeks , –). At any rate, it is on Sinai that Moses’ status as supreme hierophant is realized (Goodenough , –) and, as Meeks observes (, –), Philo’s description of that event parallels and anticipates the description of his death (see Mos. .–; .–). Both the foundational and culminating events of Mosaic kingship are predicated on mystical ascent. He is no ordinary leader, then, but a “leader on the way” for those who aspire “to ascend in their thoughts to the aethereal height” (Conf. ). condemnations for their past sins. The Song includes an indictment of the people for the apostasy they will commit after God has given them

on humanity –: death & succession of moses, §§ –  the promised land (Deut :–). Philo refers to these events from his own perspective. By contrast, when the Song itself surveys the “past,” the focus is on the nation’s blessings (vv. –), not its sins. admonitions and counsels for the present. After delivering the Song to them, Moses implores the people to take its warnings to heart, so that they might “observe and do all the words of this law” (Deut :). As we have seen, Philo postpones any mention of such words until §§ – so as to make a clear distinction between the lawgiver and his law. Philo often pairs νουεσαι and σωφρονισμο in a way that makes them nearly synonymous, e.g., Leg. .; Post. ; Deus  (also with ;λεγχος); Ebr. ; Migr. . The latter refers literally to teachings of or appeals for moderation or sound judgment (cf. Engberg-Pedersen , –). Paul, at least, would have agreed that admonition can be conveyed through hymns and songs (see Col :, with Pokorn´y , ). good hopes for the future. The only “good hopes” expressed by the Song have to do with the bloody destruction of the nation’s enemies. Although she is deserving of punishment, Israel will be vindicated, so that no one might suppose that the God of Israel is weak (Deut :– ). (c) § . holiness and humanity. §§ – describe Moses’ third and final message, intercessory prayers on behalf of each of the twelve tribes. The pairing of hosiot¯es and philanthr¯opia (cf. Decal. ; Spec. .) hearkens back to the treatise’s introduction, § , where the latter was identified both as a “highway” to the former and as the “sister and twin” of piety. §  had indicated that the Song was intended for both angels and people. to change from mortal existence to immortal life. The biblical account simply states that Moses ascended Mount Nebo to be “gathered to his kin” (Deut :). Philo interprets this in terms of his basic thanatological principle: “The death of worthy persons is the beginning of another life. For life is twofold; one is with a corruptible body; the other is without the body and incorruptible” (QG .). Because it has been made in the divine image, the rational part of the soul participates in the realm of the immortal, e.g., Opif. , ; Deus ; Spec. .. Its immortal existence begins when the soul “removes its habitation from the mortal body and returns as if to the mother-city from which it originally removed its habitation to this place. For when it is said to a dying person, ‘Thou shall go to thy fathers’ (Gen :), what else is this than to represent another life without the body, which only the soul of the sage



commentary

ought to live?” (QG .). This depiction of psychic “return” (see below) presupposes the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul, familiar from Pythagorean-Platonic traditions. Philo also seems to take for granted that such return is to be attained only by the wise (a notion that may have originated with Chrysippus: Dillon , –). And even among the wise it is possible to maintain a differentiation in terms of one’s experience of the afterlife, inasmuch as immortality is conceived as a matter of cultivating reason and virtue (e.g., Opif. –; Spec. .). The disembodied souls of most of the virtuous dead join the company of angels (Sacr. ; QG .; and cf. § ), though in cases of exceptional virtue the soul may rise higher, to the realm of the intelligible (Sacr. –; QG .; cf. Her. ). And beyond this, there are a few, including especially Moses himself, who advance higher still, being drawn into the very presence of God (Sacr. ; QE .); cf. Plato, Phaedr. a–a; Deut. Rab. .. Further, Wolfson , .–; Burnett . Plato’s arguments for the immortality of the soul are laid out most methodically in the Phaedo (for which see Bostock ; and for a broader survey, Guthrie ). For evidence regarding the development of these theories in Middle Platonism, see especially book  of Cicero’s Tusculanae disputationes (with Douglas ) and book  of the same author’s De republica (with Dillon , –). The concept of the soul’s immortality made an impression on a number of Hellenistic Jews besides Philo; cf. Wis :; :; :– (with Winston , –);  Macc :; Ps.-Phoc. –, –; Josephus, Ant. ., ; Bell. .; .; . (further, Cavallin , –). and gradually became aware. As David Winston has argued, in Philo’s view the mode of prophetic inspiration enjoyed by Moses was unique inasmuch as it was not, as it was with Noah or the patriarchs, “a product of psychic invasion and displacement” (, ). The inspired state, then, does not render him unaware or passive. Cf. QE . (on Exod :): “whatever soul comes too near in desiring the vision of God does not perceive when it is being consumed. But as for that (soul) which stands far off at a distance, no longer do the tongues of flame burn it but warming it moderately, they kindle it with vitality. This is said in reference to the dissolution and rapture of the most perfect and prophetic mind.” Also cf. QE .. the disjoining. Abr.  summarizes Philo’s understanding of the afterlife: “death is not the extinction of the soul but its separation and disjoining (δι,ζευξιν) from the body and its return to the place whence it came . . . from God.” Cf. Fug. ; Plato, Phaed. b; and above, on § .

on humanity –: death & succession of moses, §§ –  the elements out of which he was composed. In concert with the prevailing philosophical and scientific opinion, Philo holds that the human person is a composite being, created from the same four elements as the cosmos itself (e.g., Opif. ; Decal. ; cf. Plato, Tim. e, c, b; Gross , –). Elsewhere, following Gen :, he describes the human body as a mixture of earth and water (e.g., Opif. –; Spec. .). The body reverts back into these elements at death, while “the soul whose nature is rational and celestial will depart to find a father in the aether” (Her. ; cf. Spec. .; Plato, Tim. e; Cicero, Tusc. .–). For this use of συγκερ,ννυμι, cf. Plato, Tim. a;  Cor :. His body, like a shell, was being removed from around him. Cohn (PCW .) adds περιπεφυκτος after δκην on the analogy of Ios. , but the text makes sense without the emendation. In that passage the mortal body is also described as an /στρεον, literally, an oyster shell, a metaphor derived from Plato, Phaedr. c; cf. Resp. d–a. his soul . . . longed for its migration. For μεταν,στασις, cf. § . When the soul undergoes its migration from the body, the latter resolves into the elements out of which it was made (Migr. –). Philo likens Moses’ Sinai ascent to a migration to a divine city, a region beyond the heavens where “there is no place but God” (QE .). In the Phaedo, Plato speaks of death as the departure (μετοκησις) from the body (c) for a “journey abroad” (ποδημα: e, b–d; cf. Apol. e), while Cicero can assert that, by imitating the harmony of the heavenly realm of the spheres with their music, some of the sages “have gained for themselves a return to this region, while others have obtained the same reward by devoting their brilliant intellects to divine pursuits” (Resp. .). § . his departure. The one who had led the Exodus of his people (e.g., Mos. ., ; .) now undergoes his own ;ξοδος from life in the body, this time leading the way for those “making a path to heaven” (QE ., cf. .; Mack ). For the term used in reference to death, cf. Wis :; :; Luke :; and esp. Josephus, Ant. .. set out for his destination. Literally “colony” or “settlement” (ποικα). Philo regularly likens the Exodus to a colonizing emigration (Mos. ., , , etc.), bringing the story into accord with the conventions of Greco-Roman historiography (see Weinfeld , –; Wilson ; and for the terminology of §§ –, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..). This language is then also applied figuratively to the journey of the sage’s soul after death. Just as the soul “emigrates” from heaven into the body at birth (Opif. ; cf. Nob. ), it undertakes a return journey



commentary

upon death, taking the body as a place not to dwell but to sojourn, “as in a foreign land” (Her. ; cf. QG .). Thus the one who had led the Israelites to their new home now returns to his home, heaven (cf. Mos. ., also with ποικα). Philo can also use this imagery to describe the emigrations of the soul in its search for virtue and the true God (esp. Abr. –), which he will apply later to the experience of the proselyte (Hum. ; Nob. ; cf. Praem. , ). with harmonious prayers. After 1ναρμονοις PCW . prints ριμκ!της, and παAς (cf. Straus ), and he is not adverse to using such terms interchangeably (e.g., Spec. .). Besides discussing the institution itself, the Alexandrian often draws on the imagery of freedom/slavery when constructing his allegories of the soul, e.g., Prob. –; for overviews, see Heinemann , –; Garnsey , –. It is important to bear in mind that patterns of slave ownership were not consistent across the empire, and regional peculiarities would have shaped Philo’s exposure to the institution: “Although domestic slavery was not uncommon in the moderately prosperous households of Roman Egypt, and freedmen in some contexts played a role in management, there is little reason to believe that chattel slaves made a significant contribution to the agricultural labour force” (Rowlandson , ). gentleness and humanity. That Moses extended justice to slaves is a refrain of the Exposition of the Law, e.g., Spec. .; .–, –; .–. It would have been taken as evidence of a city’s humanity that its laws and customs afforded even slaves certain rights or protections, e.g., Demosthenes, In Mid. ; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..; ... For the pairing of φιλανρωπα with 9μερτης, cf. Spec. .; ., ; Nob. ; Demosthenes, In Mid. ; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..; Josephus, C. Ap. .. § . laborers. Julius Pollux explains that the term $τες refers to “free men who because of poverty must serve (δουλευντων) to repay money” (Onom. .). Those who have fallen into such debt-bondage, or ητεα, are to be differentiated from slaves, since their loss of status is not permanent (e.g., Isocrates, Or. .; cf. Euripides, Alc. –; Plato, Euth. c–d; Harris , –). Of course just such a perception would have been commonplace, inasmuch as $τες performed the same menial jobs as δο(λοι (e.g., Aristotle, Pol. ..). must not endure anything unworthy of the freedom to which they were born. The indentured Israelite must not be reduced to the “servitude of a slave” (δουλεα ο>κ!του: Lev :; cf. Deut :). Exactly how such service might have differed qualitatively or quantitatively from that of a slave is difficult to say (see Philo’s attempt to fill in this gap at Spec. .), though in terms of its social bearing the prohibition would have resonated with both Greek and Roman lawmakers, who were similarly concerned to prevent the permanent loss of free status among their citizens. Solon famously outlawed the lending of money on the security of the borrower’s person (Aristotle, Ath. pol. .; Harris ). Roman

on humanity : servants and slaves, §§ –



law similarly protected plebs from enslavement to their creditors; those who fell arrears were liable instead to forced labor until their debts were paid off, but they could not be chained or sold as slaves (e.g., Livy, Ab urb. cond. ..; ..–; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..–). the uncertainty of fortune. Reflection on the vicissitudes of human experience and the universality of suffering represented one of the enduring themes of ancient wisdom, for example, Isocrates, Demon.  (“Taunt no one with his calamity, for fortune is common to all and the future is unseen.”); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..; .. (τ!κμαρτον πρOγμα τ:χη); cf. Ps.-Phoc. , – (with Wilson , –, –); Philo, Spec. .; also on § . short-term loans. The expression 1φημερινν δανεων may not be as unusual as Colson (PLCL .) suggests, inasmuch as an 1φημερς was the ledger of debtors and their debts kept by a money-lender (δανειστ=ς), as in Plutarch, Vit. aere al. d. A struggling borrower would presumably make many appearances in such a record. setback. Literally, an “attack” or “assault.” Ambiguity concerning the term’s application here generated a number of different readings in the manuscript tradition, none of them particularly appealing. Besides προσβολ$ς in S, A, variants include προβολ$ς (“projection”) in H, P; περιβολ$ς (“covering”) in C, G2; παραβολ$ς (“comparison,” followed by Mangey , ) in F; and δουλεας (“slavery”) in G1. Whatever the term’s meaning, it probably refers back in some way to the μεταβολ= that had concluded the previous sentence. a full reprieve in the seventh year. The temporary reprieve (1κεχειρα) afforded slaves every seventh day anticipates the full reprieve that Exod : and Deut : prescribe for them in the seventh year (Spec. .– ; cf. Mos. .). § . in some other way. Reading (with the preference expressed in PLCL .) F τοAς τρπον in G1. PCW . prints F τρπον with S. Other mss have πρ τν (A) or πρς τν (ceteri). six year’s time of service. Manumission for deserving slaves was conventional in Roman urban society (see, e.g., Bradley , –), a practice that must have struck many of its observers as unnatural (see the defense mounted on its behalf by Dionysius of Halicarnassus in Ant. rom. ..–), though even a Greek author could advise masters to promise slaves liberation after a specified period of time, in order to “make them work willingly” (Ps.-Aristotle, Oec. ..). Cicero’s comments in Phil. . give some evidence that there may have been a certain expectation for slaves to be manumitted after six years of service, though it is



commentary

questionable to what extent this ideal was actually observed (Wiedemann ). If a six-year term was in fact conventional, it is odd that Jewish authors like Philo and Josephus (see Ant. .) failed to point out the similarity of Roman practice with the provisions in Exod : and Deut :. On manumission in Roman Egypt, see Taubenschlag , – . On the practice of corporate manumission in Jewish synagogues, see Harrill , –. are to return to the former liberty of which they were deprived. No mention is made of the subcase presented in Exod :– and Deut :–, according to which the indentured Israelite can waive his right to freedom in the seventh year and opt for permanent subservient status, in order to stay with the family he acquired during his term of service; cf. Leg. .; Cher. –; Josephus, Ant. .. () § . even a slave of the third generation. Proceeding to the chapter’s second example of Mosaic humanity for slaves, Philo now has in mind primarily individuals who have been born into slavery as opposed to those driven into temporary servitude by economic hardship, the former presumably being more likely to run away. Although he maintains elsewhere that slaves who serve well can look forward to liberation (Spec. .; and see the discussion of Roman manumission above), here he seems to take for granted that at least some slaves (and their children) will endure their status for life. Probably these are assumed to be foreign-born slaves, though the distinction drawn in Spec. .– is not applied here. In Spec. . (cf. .), Philo recognizes the difference between a house-born slave (ο>κογεν=ς) and one that has been bought with money (ργυρ8νητος). merciless and savage. “[T]he sadistic cruelty with which some Roman slave-owners visited their slaves is notorious” (Bradley , ). For the image of the cruel master, see Spec. .; Seneca, Ira .; cf. Hezser , –. he has fled to your hearth as to a temple. For the hearth as a sanctuary for suppliants, see LSJ, s.v. 1φ!στιος. Temples would have been common places for people to seek refuge (e.g., Spec. .; .), including most notably runaway slaves (e.g., Prob. –; Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. .; Llewelyn , –). In some cases an inscription would be posted promising asylum (Drijvers , –). The logic informing this sacred practice could be reformulated as a general rule of conduct, as in Instr. Ankh. .: “Do not cast a slave into the hands of his master.” The law in Deut :– describes a slave who has “attached himself ”

on humanity : servants and slaves, §§ –



to the reader, perhaps as a tenant farmer or hired hand; the reader is not to “afflict him,” that is, enslave him. By contrast, Philo assumes that the runaway will stay with the one to whom he has fled only temporarily. for the purpose of a genuine reconciliation. A slave might seek out a friend of his master (or a freedman a friend of his patron) for intercession after committing some misdeed, as we see in Pliny, Ep. . and (possibly) Paul’s letter to Philemon; cf. Lampe . By introducing this as the slave’s objective in fleeing, Philo fundamentally reconfigures the scenario of Deut :–, where the slave hopes to escape not only his master but also his slave status. changing masters. Plutarch knows of “a law for slaves who have lost hope of freedom, permitting them to ask for their current master to be exchanged for a more reasonable one” (Superst. d). Of course no law would have permitted a slave to flee in order to do so. Indeed, the Romans prescribed penalties for anyone who failed to hand a fugitive over to his master or to a magistrate (Llewelyn , –; and for Roman Egypt, Taubenschlag , –). Cf. Leg. ., where Philo reads Deut : as an allegory of the soul that flees its former masters, ignorance and the passions, to become a slave of wisdom.

Parallel Exegesis In contrast to Hum. –, Philo’s previous discussions of manumission in the Exposition retain the ethnic distinctions delineated in the biblical sources (cf. m. Qidd. :–). Among the Mosaic provisions that establish “gentleness and humanity” according to Spec. .– is the law that requires Israelites to set their indentured brethren free after six years. This is to be done out of the sense of kinship (συγγ!νεια) that they ought to feel for one another. In their servitude the latter are to be treated not as slaves (even though this is the name usually used for them), but as $τες and μισωτο (§§ –). As such, they should be given sufficient food and clothing, and not burdened, threatened, or overworked like an animal (§ ). In the seventh year they should be sent away with adequate provisions (see Deut :–), which will serve as a safeguard against the whole process of indebtedness and indentureship repeating itself all over again (§§ –). A bit later there is Spec. .–, which follows the sequence of laws in Lev :–. Fellow Israelites in want are to be extended interest-free loans. If they default on their loans, they are to be treated as μισωτο and not as though they were slaves “by nature”



commentary

(φ:σει). If they cannot provide the ransom price for their freedom right away, they are to be released either after six years of servitude or in the jubilee, whichever occurs first (Josephus, Ant. . also attempts a harmonization of the sabbatical and jubilee years, though in a different way). On the other hand, the law does permit the purchase of foreignborn slaves (who are presumably slaves “by nature,” cf. Garnsey ) in order to furnish “that most indispensable possession, domestic service” (§ ).

Nachleben Clement gives a compressed summary of Hum.  and  in Strom. .., ignoring Hum.  and  but following his source in dropping any ethnic references found in the biblical legislation: anyone reduced to servitude by poverty or debt is to be granted a reprieve (1κεχειρα) in the seventh year. Clement is much freer when dealing with § , essentially rewriting the law so that it no longer specifically concerns slaves at all. Picking up on Philo’s identification of the runaway as κ!της, he generalizes Deut :– as a prohibition not to hand over (1κδιδναι) any suppliant for punishment (..a). The unit concludes with a list of quotations from Proverbs :, :; :; :; :. In C. Cels. ., Origen cites Exod : as evidence for the superiority of the Mosaic law over the laws of other nations, while Basil takes its sixyear term of servitude to stand figuratively for the period required for the expiation of sins (Ep. .). Eusebius compares the law with Plato, Resp. c, which discourages Greeks from enslaving fellow Greeks (Praep. ev. .). Wiedemann (, ) notes that many Christians manumitted deserving slaves at Easter, after they had served for six years (referring to Gregory of Nyssa, Or.  and Codex Theodosianus ..). On the corporate manumission of slaves in early Christianity, see Harrill , –. For manumissio in ecclesia, see Herrmann-Otto , –. Further reading: Berthelot , –; Garnsey , –; Harrill ; Hezser ; Wiedemann .

ON HUMANITY CHAPTER 17 NEWBORN ANIMALS (§§ 125–133)

Analysis/General Comments With § , our author segues from the discussion of Mosaic laws he thinks promote humanity in dealing with other people to a section which focuses on the fair treatment of animals (§§ –; see the Analysis/General comments for chapter ). That this immediately follows a chapter on the treatment of slaves (§§ –) is hardly surprising, given the functional similarity of the two groups in the elite mind, for example, Aristotle, Pol. ..: “the usefulness of slaves diverges little from that of animals; bodily service for the necessities of life is forthcoming from both, from slaves and from domestic animals alike.” That Philo shared this opinion is evident from texts like Deus ; Mos. .; and Spec. .. For him the principal distinction between animals and slaves is that the former are λογος, devoid of speech and reason (cf. Opif. ; Spec. ., ; .). The use of this appellation, however, was not universally endorsed, and in fact signals our author’s position in a longstanding philosophical debate (Dierauer ; Sorabji ). For their part, Platonists marshaled a variety of arguments meant to demonstrate that animals are in fact possessed of reason, albeit in imperfect forms. Since human beings have a kinship in reason with animals, they ought to extend them justice; see especially Plutarch, De sollertia animalium; Porphyry, De abstinentia (which draws in part on Theophrastus’ theory of animal sacrifice; see Clark ); Sextus Empiricus, Pyrr. .–. This view was contested by the Epicureans, who held that while domestic beasts may live in some sort of co-operative agreement with their human masters, all animals are by nature irrational (Lucretius, De rerum nat. .–; Porphyry, Abst. .–; cf. Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .). The most rigorous objections to the Platonic position, however, came from the Stoa, where λγος represented “the categorical boundary marker between humans and animals” (Gilhus , ), the latter acting in accordance not with reason but with their natural constitutions (SVF .–). Since people have no community in reason with animals,



commentary

they have no community in justice with them either (SVF .–; Marcus Aurelius, Med. .; cf. Aristotle, Eth. nic. ..; Pohlenz , .–). Philo’s familiarity with this debate is evidenced by his De animalibus, in which his nephew Alexander rehearses many of the stock arguments of the New Academy, only to be refuted by his uncle, who draws heavily on Stoic traditions (Terian ). The latter concludes: “To elevate animals to the level of the human race and to grant equality to unequals is the height of injustice. To ascribe serious self-restraint to indifferent and almost invisible creatures is to insult those whom nature has endowed with the best part” (Anim. ). This conviction has important implications for understanding Philo’s stance in this section of De humanitate. What makes these provisions of the law noteworthy is not any affinity that humans have with the animal world but rather the ontological distance separating the two groups. The practice of Mosaic humanity is so pervasive and all-encompassing that it extends even to human interactions with “almost invisible creatures.” Thus to the structural dichotomies stated at the beginning of §  can be added the categories of rational vs. irrational. Stoic arguments for the irrationality of animals played a role in their concept of teleological anthropocentrism: animals exist for the sake of human beings and their primary purpose is to serve them, e.g., Cicero, Fin. .; Epictetus, Diatr. ..–; ..–; SVF .–; cf. Xenophon, Mem. ..; Dierauer , –. Philo expresses a similar view at various points in the Exposition, e.g., Mos. .–; .; Spec. . (“irrational creatures are intended to be ready for the use and service of people”); .–. The theme of humankind’s sovereignty over the animals figures especially in his account of the creation (Jobling ; Borgen ). Adam is appointed to rule over all earthborn creatures as God’s Rπαρχος (Opif. ; cf. Praem. ). This dominion over the animals is so complete that he is even given authority to assign their names (Opif. ). At the same time, Philo’s inclinations at this point in De humanitate accord with various Jewish traditions that enjoined mercy for animals, as evidenced, e.g., in Prov :; T. Zeb. :;  En. :–:; Ps.-Phoc. – ; Josephus, C. Ap. .–. However, in order to understand the logic that informs the reflections in Hum. –, we must turn to Pythagorean opinions concerning kindness to animals, which have been helpfully reviewed by Berthelot . Although she does not discuss this particular passage, Iamblichus, Vit. Pythag. . would be representative of what she calls

on humanity : newborn animals, §§ –



the a minori ad maius argument: Pythagoras “ordered abstinence from living things for many other reasons, but mainly because the practice tended to promote peace. For once human beings become accustomed to loathe the slaughter of animals as lawless and contrary to nature, they would no longer make war, thinking it even more unlawful to kill a human being.” A similar report of Pythagoras’ teaching on the subject is given by Porphyry, Abst. ..: “One who abstains from all animate creatures, even those that do not make a social contract with him, will abstain all the more from harm to his own kind” (cf. ..). Following such a rule in the treatment of animals, Porphyry says, safeguards and expands the observance of justice between people. Comparable is Plutarch, Esu carn. f–a, where kindness to animals is presented as a kind of “training” in humanity: “Who could wrong a human being when he found himself so gently and humanely posed towards other non-human creatures?” Cf. Plutarch, Inim. util. c; Quaest. conv. e– b; Sollert. e–f, a; Cato .; further, de Fontenay . For his part, Philo does not employ these sorts of arguments in an effort to reject animal sacrifice or the consumption of animal flesh, but he does assume a similar analogy between behavior towards animals and behavior towards other people, maintaining that the law “extends such fairness to irrational animals so that by practicing on species of different kinds we might exercise humanity even more abundantly” (Hum. ). This manner of training in virtue is seen as a distinctive advantage of the Mosaic law over the laws of other nations (§§ –; cf. Josephus, C. Ap. .). After a transitional statement in § , Philo presents five statutes he thinks illustrate the “fairness and gentleness” that the law extends to animals: §§ – . It forbids killing newborn animals until they are at least eight days old (Lev :); it forbids, by implication, the exposure of infants. §§ – . It forbids killing a mother animal and its offspring on the same day (Lev :), including also pregnant animals; it forbids, by implication, executing pregnant women. §§ – . It forbids cooking a lamb in its mother’s milk (Exod :; :; Deut :). §  . It forbids muzzling a threshing ox (Deut :). §§ – . It forbids yoking an ox and an ass together for plowing (Deut :); it forbids, by implication, treating the people of other nations unjustly.



commentary

Looking at the section as a whole, several observations can be made. To begin with, insofar as the laws presented are cast in the form of prohibitions, it is probably more accurate to say that Moses does not so much promote “fairness and gentleness” (§§ , ) as he does curtail unfairness and brutality (cf. §§ , , ). As one would expect of an ancient discussion of animals, assertions regarding the correct understanding of nature (§§ , , , , , , , ), of food (§§ , , , , , , , , ), and of sacrifice (§§ , , , , ) occur with some regularity. In addition, the focus on the mother-child relationship in §§ – affords Philo an opportunity to exposit on the role of philanthr¯opia in family ethics and of the law in teaching familial affection (§ , cf. § ). His main point, however, is communicated in the sorts of arguments a minori ad maius mentioned above, which are placed at the end of the discussion for the first (§§ –), second (§§ –), and fifth (§ ) laws (note that the treatment of the third, fourth, and fifth laws is relatively brief) and so serve an important structural role in the section. Chapter  can be outlined as follows: () The transitional statement in §  segues from the section dealing with different categories of people to the category of irrational animals. (a) The chapter proper opens with a summary of Lev :: the newborns of domesticated animals are off limits for immediate use, either as food or for sacrifice (§ ). (b) Moses is then made to speak directly to one of his followers, arguing that such a measure both accords with the life of reason and selfcontrol (§ ) and prevents unnecessary pain from being inflicted on the mother (§ ). So, to avoid rendering her breastmilk useless, a gift prepared with great foresight by nature, she should be given the newborn for at least the first seven days (§§ –). () Philo then turns to address his readers, especially those parents who have failed to see that this measure was established to teach them to show greater affection within their own families and not contravene the laws of nature by killing their own newborns (§§ –).

Detailed Comments () § . relations and strangers, friends and enemies, slaves and free persons. Before proceeding to the discussion of animals, Philo recapitulates some of the major categories that had structured the previous sec-

on humanity : newborn animals, §§ –



tion (§§ –; cf. part  of the Introduction). According to Xenophon, in his teaching Socrates endeavored to benefit “both house and household, relatives and friends, city and citizens” (Mem. ..). Philo similarly underscores the ubiquity of Moses’ teaching, though in contrast to Xenophon’s rhetorically expansive list, his is based on social contrasts. For similar dichotomies, cf. Spec. .; .; Plato, Resp. b; Aristotle, Oec. ..; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..; Dio Chrysostom, Or. /.; Gal :; Col :. The subsequent discussion will add the dichotomy of rational/irrational. fairness and gentleness. Philo never speaks of the obligation to extend philanthr¯opia as such to plants and animals, reserving the term for relations between νρωποι (Berthelot , ; cf. Josephus, C. Ap. .– ; Plutarch, Esu carn. a). The implication would seem to be that treating non-human subjects properly contributes only indirectly to philanthr¯opia, as a form of practice or training (cf. on § ). The pairing of 1πιεικ=ς and Zμερος (for the latter, see on § ) occurs at the beginning of the following chapter as well (§ , cf. § ) and so plays a structural role in the text. The former term also connects this section thematically with the section that follows, on plants; see §§ , . irrational animals. The primary distinction between animals and people is that the former lack λγος; see the Analysis/General comments above. Cf. §§ , , . to draw some benefit. As Colson (PLCL .) observes, τι χρηστν in G1 and PCH . is grammatically preferable to τινος χρηστο( in the other mss and PCW .. as from a free-flowing stream. Plutarch utilizes the same imagery when describing the fair treatment of animals in Cato .: “Law and justice we naturally apply to people alone; but when it comes to beneficence and generosity (χ,ριτας, cf. χ,ρισαι in Hum. ), these often flow in streams from gentleness (9μερτητος) like water from a rich stream (πηγ$ς) even down to irrational animals.” As an example of such χρησττης, he mentions the owner who looks after his horses and dogs even after they have passed their prime. For his part, Philo’s use of the metaphor anticipates the argument in §§ – that the “stream” of mother’s milk ought to be allowed to flow to its offspring. In lieu of εμενο(ς in the mss, Mangey (, ) conjectured εν,ου (followed by PCH .), though as Colson (PLCL .) observes, the former can also be applied to a bounteous flow of water, as in Aeschylus, Pers. .



commentary

(a) § . domestic herds, particularly sheep, goats, and oxen. Philo can use Zμερος not only of “gentle” people (as in § , cf. §§ , , , ) but also of “tame” animals (§§ , ) and “cultivated” plants (§§ , , , ) insofar as they live peacefully with human communities and contribute to human life; cf. Opif. ; Spec. ., ; Praem. ; Jobling , . Only the tamest of animals (including the three mentioned here) are fit for sacrifice (Spec. .–; cf. Lev :–, –; Gilhus , ). Although he occasionally argues that even wild creatures exist for the sake of people (e.g., Mos. .–; Spec. .–), when discussing human responsibility to the non-human world Philo usually restricts its scope to domesticated animals and cultivable plants, e.g., Opif. –; Deus ; Mos. .. Similarly, when discussing human responsibilities to animals, Plato mentions only the “tame” sort, such as sheep, goats, and oxen (e.g., Leg. d; cf. Aristotle, Pol. ..; Porphyry, Abst. ..). to refrain from the immediate use. The question of who will have the use or enjoyment (πλαυσις) of what nature provides runs throughout the chapter; cf. §§ , , . Philo here refers to Lev :, though its provision for a seven-day waiting period is not mentioned until § : “Regarding a calf or a sheep or a goat, when it is born, it shall be under its mother seven days, but on the eighth day and beyond it will be acceptable for a sacrificial gift, a burnt offering for the Lord.” Exod : communicates a similar rule for a firstborn calf, sheep, or draft animal, except that they must be given up on the eighth day; cf. Spec. .–; Josephus, Ant. .. neither for food nor for reason of offering sacrifices. The former is Philo’s addition to Lev : (see on § ), rendering its provision more general in application. A similar interpretive move will be made during the discussion of Lev : in § . pleasure of the belly . . . unpleasantness of the soul. The translation tries to convey the parallelism of Philo’s thought (though the sentence structure is awkward: PLCL .); separating the newborn from its mother at birth corrupts both the body and soul of the perpetrator. Moralists influenced by Pythagorean traditions maintained that most people do not kill animals in order to survive, but for the pleasure (9δον=) that accompanies eating them. Such habits tend to aggravate the bestial (ηρι8δης) side of human nature (cf. Philo’s Bμ$ς . . . ψυχ$ς earlier in the paragraph) while weakening its gentle (Zμερος) side: Plutarch, Sollert. e–f; cf. Esu carn. d; Porphyry, Abst. ..–; ..; ..–; Seneca, Ep. .; Philo, Spec. .–, –; and §  below.

on humanity : newborn animals, §§ –



(b) § . My good man. Hum. – (following the punctuation in PCW .– rather than PLCL .–) takes the form of an imagined address to a fellow Jew in need of further instruction regarding the significance of the biblical injunction against sacrificing newborns; cf. the exchange in §§ –. poverty and want can force people to do many of the things they do not want to do. In making his case for vegetarianism, Plutarch concedes that primitive people may have been driven to eat flesh by a scarcity of food (Esu carn. c–d, cf. f; Porphyry, Abst. ..; ..; ..), but that situation hardly applies to his readers: “How many plants grow for you! What vintages you gather! What wealth you may draw from the fields and what pleasant sustenance from the trees!” Cf. Ovid, Met. .– . Philo emphasizes the abundance of food available to people at Fort. ; Hum. . your obligation is to prevail in self-control. In its Mosaic operations, a crucial function of the sacrificial cult is to exemplify and instill 1γκρ,τεια, expelling from its participants desire, pleasure, and greediness, e.g., Spec. ., , , , . The same applies to the Pentateuch’s dietary legislation, e.g., Spec. .–, , . This virtue figures prominently also in Chaeremon’s account of the Egyptian priests, most of whom “abstained altogether from animate foods” (Porphyry, Abst. ..–..). appointed to the finest company, under the command of nature’s right reason. Stoic doctrine defined 1γκρ,τεια as “a disposition never overcome in that which concerns right reasoning (λγον Hρν)” (Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .; cf. Aristotle, Eth. eud. ..–; Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. .). For the martial imagery, cf. Hum. ; Paen. . § . the natural affection mothers have towards their young. The Stoa held both that nature creates in parents an affection for their offspring and that this affection is the ultimate source of all associations: “from this impulse is developed the sense of mutual attraction which unites human beings as such.” This impulse is so fundamental that it is evident even among animals in the way they bear and raise their young. See Cicero, Fin. .– (cf. Epictetus, Diatr. ..–; Plutarch, Sollert. anim. a; Aristotle, Hist. anim. .; Columella, Rust. ..– ; ..;  Macc :–); and on the role of parental affection in the Stoic’s ο>κεωσις doctrine, Blundell . It was widely agreed that nature instilled this affection especially in mothers, both through the experience of pregnancy and labor pains, (e.g., Aristotle, Eth. nic. ..; Plutarch,



commentary

Am. prol. a;  Macc :–) and from the act of breast-feeding (e.g., Ps.-Plutarch, Lib. ed. d). the breasts, whose flowing suffers a blockage of the efflux. If the milk is left unused it will begin to curdle in the breasts (Hippocrates, Epid. ..; Aristotle, Hist. anim. .) and the mother can become ill (Aristotle, Hist. anim. .; cf. Dean-Jones , –). Soranus recommends that a mother who is not going to nurse should bind her breasts and apply heat, so as to dry up the milk (Gyn. .–, cf. .). For this use of 1πρροια, cf. Dio Chrysostom, Or. .. § . at least for the first seven days. Lev : (cf. Exod :) stipulates that the newborn animal “shall be under its mother seven days, but on the eighth day and beyond it will be acceptable for a sacrificial gift.” In Leviticus we encounter various kinds of seven-day ritual periods (e.g., :; :). In this case it symbolizes that the animal has reached “maturity,” that is, by this time any defects invalidating it for sacrifice could be detected (b. Hul. a). The waiting period may also have had something to do with the ritual impurity associated with birthing (cf. :–; :). At the same time, “experience probably also taught that the accumulating milk might be problematic for the mother animal” (Gerstenberger , ), a point that Philo will develop at some length. Columella recommends that a newborn lamb be left with its mother to suckle for at least two days (Rust. ..); if the lamb is taken away thereafter to be slaughtered, the mother should be given the offspring of other ewes to nurse, so that the surviving lambs will have sufficient sources of milk (..). streams which nature has rained into the breasts. For the imagery, cf. Opif. ; Spec. .; Aet. –; Plutarch, Am. prol. f–a. In Hum.  (see below), Philo similarly assumes that the sole purpose of the mother’s milk is to feed its young (cf. Agr. ; Sobr. ; Porphyry, Abst. ..). To frustrate this purpose prevents the animal from living in accordance with its natural function and perverts the aspect of nature it embodies (cf. Spec. .–; Epictetus, Diatr. ..–; Beagon , –). Among the mss, S alone reads πηγ,ς with no additional clarifiers; C has πηγCς το( γ,λακτος, G1 has πηγCς τCς το( γ,λακτος, and the rest have πηγCς τCς 1ντς ε?σω το( γ,λακτος (which Mangey ,  takes as a corruption of πηγCς παγ!ντος ε?σω το( γ,λακτος); see the discussion in Cohn , . prepared with great foresight. Ordinarily Philo emphasizes how creation has been prepared specifically for the benefit of humankind (e.g., Opif. –; Spec. .; see the Analysis/General comments above), though on occasion he can widen the scope to include the animal world

on humanity : newborn animals, §§ –



more generally. For example, in Spec. . he celebrates how “the land has richly provided all that it yields for the sustenance of the various kinds of animals without number, both tame and wild, sustenance not only to be enjoyed on the spot and for the moment, but also for later, through the foresight of animal-loving nature.” For Philo it is axiomatic that the creator takes thought for what has been created. Cf. Opif. –, , ; Spec. .; Praem. , ; Aet. –; Prov. .–. For this specific endowment, comparison may be made with Ps.-Plutarch, Lib. ed. c–d: in its πρνοια (cf. Hum. ), nature assures that the same animal that gives birth to a newborn is also able to feed it, even providing a “double source of nutrition.” § . that which does not exist is brought into being. Not a statement to be taken in the strict sense (cf. Decal. ), since for Philo nothing comes into being out of the non-existent (Aet. ). Rather all living things derive from (and return to) not τ μ+ /ν but the four elements (e.g., Spec. .; cf. Plato, Tim. e–a). every tender creature. The reading πOν Yπαλνυχον ρδουσα is preserved only in S. The other witnesses have 1ν YπαλοAς μ!λεσι δο(σα (AP2) or 1ν Yπαλ, μα δ ο[σα (ceteri). LSJ, s.v. Yπαλνυχος includes the reference here as dubia lectio. simultaneously drink and food. According to ancient science, the menstrual blood that had nourished the embryo in the womb is concocted over the course of the pregnancy into milk for breast-feeding the newborn after partition (e.g., Aristotle, Gen. anim. .; Hippocrates, Epid. ..; Plutarch, Am. prol. f–a; King , –, ). Like the blood from which it is derived, the milk has two components, namely, a watery substance, whey, and a thicker and more nourishing ingredient, curds (Aristotle, Hist. anim. .; Soranus, Gyn. .–; Galen, De san. tuen. .; Dean-Jones , –; Aly ), the mixture varying according to the species (Aristotle, Hist. anim. .; .). those cruel mistresses, thirst and hunger. For the imagery, cf. Mos. .; Spec. .. According to Contempl. , it is nature itself that has set them up as δ!σποιναι. () § . murderous intentions towards your infants. Philo’s invective draws in part on the image of the child-slayer, familiar especially from Greek tragedy, e.g., Aeschylus, Ag. –; Euripides, Herc. fur. – ; Med. –; Iph. Aul. ; cf. Josephus, Ant. .; Lebeck , –. When Moses’ parents left him on the banks of the Nile they realized that what they had done was tantamount to murder (Mos.



commentary

.–), even if circumstances compelled them to do so (cf. Josephus, Ant. .; Bell. .). in order to expose them. Infant exposure was widely practiced in both the Greek and Roman worlds, apparently by rich and poor alike (Eyben ; Patterson ; Riddle , –, –). Jewish and Christian moralists stood practically alone in their categorical rejection of such conduct, e.g.,  En. :; Ps.-Phoc. –; Josephus, C. Ap. .; Sib. Or. .–; .–; Did. :; Apoc. Pet. ; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..; Tacitus, Ann. .. The extent to which infanticide was nevertheless still practiced among Jews of the time is debated; see Reinhartz ; Schwartz . For the beginnings of the anti-exposure tradition in Exod :–, see the Parallel exegesis below. Aristotle knows of certain localities where exposure is frowned upon (Pol. ..; cf. Aelian, Var. hist. .; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..), while Dionysius of Halicarnassus reports that Romulus forbid the exposure of all male infants and the firstborn of all female infants, except in cases where the child was born deformed (Ant. rom. ..–; cf. ..). The latter may reflect “late-republican Roman anxiety about the prevalence of exposure” (Harris , ), though the evidence for this is admittedly thin. Certain Stoic philosophers spoke out against infanticide as a contravention of nature, e.g., Musonius Rufus, frg.  (with Geytenbeek , –). Epictetus points out that even sheep and wolves do not abandon their offspring (Diatr. ..–); cf. Seneca, Contr. ..; Tacitus, Germ. .; Pliny, Nat. ..; Stobaeus, Anth. .. (Hierocles). Of particular interest for the study of our passage are Philo’s statements in Hypoth. ., which set the prohibition of abortion (which was often linked with exposure as a moral problem) in parallel with the prohibition of mistreating newborn animals: those obedient to the law “are not to frustrate the generative power of men by surgery, or that of women through abortifacients or other means; they are not to treat animals contrary to what is appointed by God or even by a law-giver—they are not to destroy their seed or defraud their offspring.” Although the connection is not drawn out as clearly as it is in De humanitate, it seems that the Alexandrian still sees the two forms of conduct as logically and morally analogous. § . towards whom will you come to have goodwill . . .? Another kind of a minori ad maius argument (cf. Analysis/General comments above): if parents cannot treat their own children humanely how will they learn to treat anyone with εIνοια (cf. § ; Spec. .)? Porphyry also deplores the de-humanizing aspects of infanticide; parents who murder their children surpass even wild animals in cruelty (Abst. ..).

on humanity : newborn animals, §§ –



§ . took care concerning the irrational animals. The first human was established by God over the terrestrial world “as a kind of charioteer and pilot, so that he could guide and steer earthly affairs, taking care (1πιμ!λεια) of animals and plants like a governor (Rπαρχος) acting on behalf of the first and great King” (Opif. ). Insofar as his heirs fulfill this commission, they act as agents of divine providence; cf. Opif. –, . Even more . . . was this established on your account. Philo lays out his hermeneutical principle in Spec. .: “For you will find that all this scrutiny of the animal is a symbol intimating in a figure the reformation of your own character, for the law does not prescribe for irrational creatures but for those possessed of mind and reason.” The principal aim of Moses’ legislation regarding the treatment of animals is the edification of those who observe it. Thus an important task for the interpreter is to discern what lesson or implication can be drawn from such legislation for human morality; cf. Let. Arist. ;  Cor :–. As Berthelot points out (, –), the sort a minori ad maius argument employed here (cf. Analysis/General comments) is Philo’s “trump card” in his argument regarding Mosaic humanity, and he will have occasion to use it again (see especially the summary argument in § ), though it can be found outside of De humanitate as well, for example, QE . (on Exod :): “For who would disregard any human being, with whom he has a single natural kinship, when he has been taught by the divine law and is accustomed not to disregard even a beast?” Comparison may also be made with b. B. Mes. b, which draws a conclusion qal wahomer: what is true of oxen (they should not be muzzled when threshing) is all the more true of people (workers should not be deprived of their food). if not by nature then at least by instruction. This is a variation on the observation Philo makes elsewhere that the attainment of virtue requires three elements, namely, nature, instruction, and practice (e.g., Abr. – ; Ios. ; Mos. .; Praem. ; cf. Plato, Resp. a; Aristotle, Pol. ..; Xenophon, Mem. ..; Ps.-Plutarch, Lib. ed. a–b; Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .). Here, however, physis refers principally not to the nature residing in the individual (cf. Fug. ), but to the individual’s ability to learn from nature; cf. Post. ; Ios. ;  Cor :, with Schrage , .–. Moses would have been ideally situated to pass on such learning, having been instructed himself in the most essential tenets of nature through the divine oracles (Opif. ). available in the most convenient places. The number and location of the female’s breasts vary depending on the specific needs of the individual species (Aristotle, Hist. anim. .; Part. anim. .).



commentary

the lawgiver looks to see with great foresight. As Philo had explained earlier in the chapter, the female’s ability to produce breast-milk at the appropriate time was provided by nature “with great foresight (1κ πολλο( το( προμηο(ς), perceiving from afar” what the newborns would require (§ ). The foresight embodied in Moses’ laws accords with and acts to secure that of nature; cf. Spec. ..

Parallel Exegesis Exod :– describes a situation in which during the course of a fight between two men one of them (presumably inadvertently, cf. m. B. Qam. :) strikes a pregnant woman resulting in a miscarriage. If the woman survives, the assailant must pay compensation for the lost offspring; if she does not, he must pay “life for life” (cf. Josephus, Ant. .; Houtman , .–). In the LXX version, by contrast, the penalty is determined not by the condition of the mother but by the status of her fetus. If it is “imperfectly formed” the assailant pays the fine, but if it is “perfectly formed,” then he must be executed (cf. Feldman , –; Wevers , –; on the question of the fetus’ formation, cf. Soranus, Gyn. .; m. Nid. :–). Philo deals with this law at Spec. .– (cf. Heinemann , –), in conjunction with his exposition of the decalogue’s commandment against murder (Spec. .–). The passage opens with a paraphrase of the text, though Philo imagines the assailant fighting directly with the pregnant woman (§ ; cf. Congr. ; Josephus, Ant. .). He then proceeds to the main topic: the ordinance, he says, carries with it the prohibition “of something else more important,” namely, infant exposure, reasoning that if destroying a fetus, which is still part of its mother, is forbidden, then the destruction of a newborn, which has become an independent organism, is even more reprehensible (§§ , –; cf. Josephus, C. Ap. .). Philo emphasizes throughout that such crimes break the laws of nature and frustrate the child’s ability to partake of the gifts nature intends for it (cf. Plutarch, Am. prol. d; Pliny, Nat. hist. .). After accusing parents who practice infanticide of being pleasure-lovers and misanthropes (§§ –), he offers a graphic description of the different ways in which they murder their children outright (§ ) or abandon them in a deserted place, where they will most likely be devoured by wild animals (§ ; cf. Ps.-Phoc. ; Seneca, Contr. ..). Perhaps some traveler will take the foundling and raise it (§ ; cf. Dio Chrysostom, Or. .; Longus, Daphn. .;

on humanity : newborn animals, §§ –



ordinarily, of course, it would be brought up in slavery, e.g., Pliny, Ep. .–), though even in this case the kindness shown the infant by a stranger only serves to bring into relief the callousness of its parents, who “must be judged the cruelest and most ruthless” of human beings (§ ). Cf. Niehoff , –.

Nachleben In Strom. ..–.., Clement draws selectively on Hum. , , and , adding several comments regarding the superiority of the law. Right away he recognizes the philosophical pedigree of his source material: “It seems to me that Pythagoras took his concept of gentleness towards irrational animals from the law.” This contributes to Clement’s broader thesis that the Greeks were dependent on Moses for their understanding of virtue (van den Hoek , ). Philo’s paraphrase of Lev : from Hum.  is then given, with a note that the injunction on breast-feeding “nurses” (νατρ!φων) its adherents in gentleness (..). Philo’s second reference to the law (in Hum. ) is then given, accompanied by a onesentence summation of Hum. –: to tear the newborn away from its supply of milk dishonors physis (..). The tone of .. is familiar from the invective of Hum. –, though it is aimed not at parents but “the Greeks” who commit infanticide, even as they inveigh against the law (perhaps anticipating Hum. ). The final section (..–..) draws on Hum. : if the law prohibits the offspring of irrational animals from being separated from their mothers, this applies even more so to human offspring, who should never be exposed, a norm to be learned if not from nature then at least by instruction. Most patristic authors accepted the Stoic view that animals lack reason and therefore have no community in justice with human beings, e.g., Tertullian, Res. –; Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. opif. –; Ambrose, Noe .; Augustine, Mor. eccl. ..–; Lib. .–. Rather, they were created to serve people: “their life and death are subordinated to our use” (Augustine, Civ. .; cf. Gen. litt. .; Origen, C. Cels. .–). Only on rare occasions is this viewpoint challenged, e.g., John Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. .–; Lactantius, Inst. ... Further, Sorabji , – ; Clark . Early Christian objections to exposure focused especially on the threat of subsequent incest, the assumption being that many abandoned children would be forced into a life of prostitution, e.g., Justin,  Apol. ;



commentary

Minicius Felix, Oct. ; Tertullian, Apol. .– (cf. Nat. .); Boswell , –. Clement assures his readers that each abandoned child has a special guardian angel to rear him or her (Ecl. ). Further reading: Berthelot ; Dierauer ; Gilhus ; Sorabji ; Terian .

ON HUMANITY CHAPTER 18 MOTHER ANIMALS AND THEIR YOUNG (§§ 134–144)

Analysis/General Comments Chapter  is a continuation of chapter  (note the summary in § ), adding two more rules relating to the treatment of mother animals and their offspring. The first, like the law reviewed in Chapter , is a sacrificial rule (Lev :), while the second is a dietary one (Exod :; :; Deut :). In his exposition of these regulations, Philo develops two points familiar from the previous section: first, that the law educates its followers to respect the proper purpose of the food that nature has provided; second, that by observing laws enjoining fairness to animals they learn to be even more humane in dealing with other people. At the same time, this chapter is longer than its predecessor and its argumentation more involved, as several new implications are drawn out. Its contents can be summarized as follows. () The next example of Moses’ effort to promote gentleness is the command against sacrificing a mother animal and its offspring on the same day. There are two conceivable motives for such brutality, both of which must be rejected. This cannot be considered a legitimate sacrifice, since it is in fact a source of defilement, and it cannot be considered a proper meal, since it is motivated by gluttony and a perverse desire for aberrant pleasures. The repulsiveness of the act is dramatized with matching examples of personification: the flame of the altar flees the unholy sacrifice and extinguishes itself, while the roasting limbs of the two animals break out into speech, castigating the voracity of their killer (§§ –). (a) Our author then infers that this law was also meant to forbid Jews from sacrificing pregnant animals; even if the fetus does not have the same status as a newborn, it still possesses the potential to become one. Then, taking this interpretation as sufficiently established, he goes on to make two claims regarding its significance. First, he suggests that observance of the implied law reinforces observance of the stated law, arguing a minori ad maius, that is, if a being that is not yet a living animal



commentary

is safeguarded in this manner, a creature endowed with its own body and soul will be protected with even greater seriousness. Second, he contends that the lawgivers of other nations were inspired by this law to be more humane in dealing with their subjects, ordering that a pregnant woman condemned to death must not be executed until she has delivered her child (§§ –). (b) This is then taken as a demonstration of the superiority of Moses and his legislation. While other lawgivers extend fairness to people (having learned this from one of Moses’ laws!), he excels them by extending this principle to animals, cognizant of the fact that by “practicing” thus on irrational creatures his followers would accustom themselves to be even more humane in dealing with rational ones. Thus criticisms that accuse Jews of being inhumane are not only unjustified but ironic, insofar as laws like this foster humanity both within the Jewish community and in other nations (§§ –). () The capstone to Philo’s argument is the set of laws that make it illegal to boil a lamb in its mother’s milk. Moses has two reasons for issuing these commands. First, to cook an animal in the substance intended to nurture it represents an abuse of nature’s gifts. Second, since milk from other sources is readily available, there is no excuse for engaging in such merciless conduct (§§ –). What connects this section with the one that precedes is that both discuss laws that have something to do with the treatment of animal offspring and their mothers. It is noteworthy that in De humanitate Philo does not address familial humanity directly, but only indirectly, through the discussion of fairness to animals.

Detailed Comments () § . gentleness and fairness. The scribe responsible for S added a subheading to chapter  (Φλωνος περ γ’ ρετν\ περ 9μερτητος κα 1πιεικεας) that would have been more suitably placed before chapter , which similarly opens with a reference to the virtues of 9μερτης and 1πιεκεια. That chapter also discusses a sacrificial rule concerning mother animals and their offspring (see on § ). Tg. Ps.-J. on Lev : argues that this law encourages people to follow God’s example and “be merciful on the earth.” forbidding them to sacrifice a mother and its offspring together on the same day. Lev : reflects ancient taboos about mixing parents and children: “You shall not slaughter an ox or sheep and its (ατ$ς) young

on humanity : animals and their young, §§ –



on the same day.” The Greek rendition of the law departs from its source in applying the prohibition not to both parents (cf. QT LII –), but only to the mother (cf. b. Hul. b). Philo makes this explicit with μ=τηρ, even as he generalizes as to the type of sacrificial animal involved. The use of συγκατα:ω would appear to restrict its application further, as in Josephus, Ant. .: “The law forbids us to sacrifice an animal on the same day and in the same place with its parent.” Cf. Philo’s )ν καιρκεAος so completely that no conflict ever arises for them between personal and communal interests (b–c). For the more immediate context of Philo’s statement, though, we must turn to the Stoic doctrine of ο>κεωσις (Pembroke ; Striker ; Annas , –), according to which human beings possess a natural inclination to develop attachments with other people. The basis for this is the instinctive concern they have for their offspring, from which “is developed the sense of mutual attraction which unites human beings as such . . . The mere fact of their common humanity requires that one person should feel another one to be akin to him” (Cicero, Fin. .). This feeling of “appropriation” or “familiarization” is then taken as foundational for understanding the responsibilities of communal life and the implementation of justice. Among the psychological devices developed for cultivating such universal other-regard, perhaps the most famous was an image sketched by Hierocles, where the moral relationships between the self and others are depicted as a set of concentric circles (Stobaeus, Flor. .). The innermost circle is drawn around the individual, the next around the immediate family, and so on, with the outermost circle representing the entire human race. The individual’s task within this schema is to “bring the circles somehow towards the center,” drawing each group into a closer sphere of affinity and obligation, treating uncles and aunts like parents, cousins like siblings, and so on. Eventually, as Brad



commentary

Inwood puts it, “one’s feeling of concern and love for all mankind would be rendered equal in intensity with one’s concern and love for oneself ” (, ). Once individual needs are seen as continuous with the needs of humanity, it is only logical that such world-citizens will be inclined to share all of their goods (γαC π,ντα) with those who need them, even with people they do not know or who live in a different city (SVF .). It is important to remember, however, that since what ultimately binds the members of this community together is the faculty of reason that they all possess, the moral circumference of Stoic ο>κεωσις does not embrace irrational animals. The Pythagoreans saw things differently, arguing that people who achieve ο>κεωσις with all animate creatures will be less likely to commit injustice against any particular species of animal, especially their own kind (Porphyry, Abst. ..–; cf. ..; ..; Iamblichus, Vit. Pythag. .). § . malign the nation as being prone to inhumanity. As part of the Exposition’s broader agenda of demonstrating the humanity of the Mosaic law (see parts  and  of the Introduction), Philo also has occasion to point out how some of its various provisions have the effect of curbing its opposite, μισανρωπα. This pertains specifically to the fifth commandment (Decal. ) and the laws concerning oaths (Spec. .), newborns (Spec. .), slaves (Spec. .), and gleanings (Hum. ). Like all Alexandrian Jews, he had first-hand experience of anti-Jewish slander (e.g., Flacc. –; Legat. –), including the accusation of inhumanity: “it leads me to wonder, how some people dare to accuse of inhumanity the nation that has shown a profound a sense of fellowship and goodwill to all people everywhere” (Spec. .; cf. Ios. ). The Contra Apionem testifies to the malevolence and persistency of this cultural stereotype. There we see Josephus refuting charges from no less than three sources, Lysimachus (.), Apion (.), and Apollonius (., ), to the effect that Jews are misanthropes who follow an unsociable and inhospitable way of life (cf. Ant. .–; .; .; .; .). References to Jewish endogamy, dietary laws, and cultic exclusivity figure prominently in such anti-Jewish rhetoric, e.g., Philostratus, Vita Apoll. .: “the Jews have long been in revolt not only against Rome but against all humanity . . . a race that has made its own a life apart (βον μικτον), that has no share (κοιν=) with the rest of humanity in the pleasures of the table or in their libations or prayers or sacrifices.” Cf. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. /..– (Posidonius); .. (Hecataeus); Tacitus, Hist. ..–; Juvenal, Sat. .–; and for the “misoxenia/misanthr¯opia motif,” see Schäfer , –; also Feldman

on humanity : animals and their young, §§ –



, –; Berthelot , –; Isaac , –. Like Philo, Josephus counters in part by arguing that Moses taught his followers humanity through his laws regarding the fair treatment of animals (C. Ap. .). Indeed, the theme of philanthr¯opia figures prominently in how Josephus organizes his apologetically-oriented presentation of the law in Contra Apionem, especially in .– (see Wilson , – ). He sums up many of his main points in the treatise’s conclusion, maintaining that the laws “teach not impiety but the most genuine piety, encourage not inhumanity but the sharing (κοινωνα; cf. on § ) of possessions, hating injustice and tending to justice, banishing sloth and extravagance, teaching us to be independent and hardworking” (., cf. .). uncongenial and unsocial practices. The Jews, of course, would not have been the only group accused by its critics of being unsociable or inhospitable; see, e.g., Isocrates, Antidos.  (on the Athenians); Plutarch, Lyc. . (on the Spartans). Cf. Isaac . customs learned from their earliest youth. The acquisition of virtue depends on three elements: nature, instruction, and practice (see on Hum. ). The last of these was addressed in the preceding paragraph: 1ν τοAς νομοιογεν!σιν σκ=σαντες. Now we hear that the Jews also heed Moses’ instruction on humanity, represented here by νμιμοι, as in Sobr. . The use of the term (found only here in De humanitate) with reference to the instruction of youth is reminiscent of Leg. d–d, where Plato reflects on what sort of unofficial “customs” ought to be observed in the rearing of children. If their upbringing is too lenient, he says, they grow up to be “morose and irascible.” But if it is too severe, they become “meanspirited and inhumane, and thus unfit to associate with others” (d: the sole use of μισ,νρωπος or μισανρωπα in the treatise). Instead, it is best to pursue a middle way, one that will cultivate virtue (cf. Phaed. d–e). amend any disobedience in their souls to a civilized disposition. Stoicism identified the irrational passions of the soul as different forms of “disobedience” to reason (SVF ., ). Desire, for example, is a “longing disobedient to reason” (/ρεξιν . . . πει$ λγσητικν), possessing only the faculty of nourishment (De an. .–); cf. Sprague ; Murphy . For his part, Philo uses the observation that plants are inanimate as a way of carrying the a minori ad maius argument articulated in Hum.  a step further. If the followers of Moses are accustomed to treating even inferior beings like plants with mercy, they will be all the more reluctant to commit injustices against their fellow human beings. As Berthelot (, ) notes, Philo advances a similar argument earlier in the Exposition when discussing the sabbatical year legislation: “If the different parts of the earth which cannot share in any sensations of pleasure or pain yet have been granted rest, how much more must this be the case with people, who possess the faculty of sense-perception which is common also to the irrational animals, but also the special gift of reason” (Spec. .). In addition to the sources mentioned above (see Analysis/General comments for chapter ), cf. Porphyry, Abst. ..: “Someone who does not restrict harmlessness to human beings, but extends it also to the other animals, is more like the god; and if extension to plants is possible, he preserves the image even more.” And according to Iamblichus, the followers of Pythagoras were taught “not to harm or destroy a cultivated and fruitful plant, and in like manner, not to harm or destroy a living being harmless by nature to the human race” (Vit. Pythag. .; cf. Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .).

Parallel Exegesis Near the end of his survey of Mosaic laws that exemplify the virtue of justice (Spec. .–), Philo discusses laws pertaining to warfare (.–). In .–, he provides a relatively full explanation of Deut :–, elaborating on elements of the text not mentioned in Hum. –. He begins with a paraphrase of Deut :a: justice is observed (cf. Josephus, Ant. .) when the fertile fields and fruitbearing trees of a hostile polis (cf. Hum. ) are not destroyed (.).

on humanity –: cultivated plants, §§ –



A reformulation of the rhetorical question in :b follows: why should one commit hostilities against a living thing whose nature and fruits are Zμεροι, and that has demonstrated no ill will towards humankind (.; cf. Hum. )? He proceeds to point out that these trees are necessary because they supply the attackers with the provisions they need to sustain the siege and achieve victory (cf. Deut :a: “you shall eat of it”); it is not only people but also plants who must pay annual tributes to their lords (.; cf. Hum. ). The discussion concludes with a quick reference to Deut :: trees that do not bear fruit or have lost the power to produce fruit may be cut down to build siege works, ladders, and towers (.). A very different interpretation is developed in Agr. –, where the trees of Deut : are allegorized as intellectual activities dealing with logic (τ λογικν). The mind is to use these to build a barrier preserving those activities that delve into the nature of things (τ φυσικν) and into moral responsibilities (τ Wικν). For the philosophia tripertita, see on Fort. . In Plant. –, Philo offers an extended meditation on Lev :– , in which the cultivated tree is interpreted allegorically as a person’s moral purpose, which must be pruned of its vices (cf. Leg. .). Those who are still at a preliminary stage in their training must engage in the husbandry of the soul. First they must migrate to the promised land, that is, to the way of wisdom (§§ –). Next it is necessary to remove any uncleanness that might harm the trees that have been planted in the soul’s orchard (§§ –). The tree of friendship, for instance, must be pruned of the vices associated with courtesans and flatterers (§ – ), while the tree of piety must be pruned of superstition and fraud (§§ –). Jacob is then held up as an exemplar of the soul that can train itself (§§ –). In §§ –, Philo interprets the three years of Lev : to mean that the soul’s fruit must remain uncorrupted through past, present, and future. Next we are to learn from Lev : that only fruit (that is, virtue) that has achieved the level of perfection associated with the number four is worthy as an offering of thanks and praise to God (§§ –; cf. Somn. .–). Finally, the fruit of the fifth year in Lev : is taken as a reference to the sense, through which the fruits of instruction supply nourishment to the mind, and to Issachar, the fifth son, whose name means reward (§§ –).



commentary Nachleben

The arguments of Hum. – form the basis for Clement’s discussion of Deut : in Strom. ... He follows the generalizing interpretation of the law that Philo had given in the first sentence of §  rather closely, except for changing the subject of the sentence from Moses to 2 χρηστς λγος (cf. Hum. , ). In lieu of the rationale Philo had provided for the law in the second half of the paragraph, Clement adds a spiritualizing interpretation that anticipates the allegory of ..– (see below): it is not right to destroy any kind of cultivated fruit, “neither fruit of the soil nor fruit of the soul.” He then quotes Philo’s restatement of the law itself from the beginning of Hum. , though without mentioning the amplification of the text that follows in §§ –. The basis for Clement’s reflections on Lev :– in Strom. ..– .. is Hum. –. He essentially skips the introductory comments of Hum. , noting instead that “even farmers derive advantage from the laws in such things” (..). He then proceeds to cite the first half of §  verbatim, afterwards jumping to the beginning of § , loosely following Philo’s summary explanation of Lev :, including the explanation that the fourth-year sacrifice of produce is to be understood as first fruits (..). Appended to this in ..– is Clement’s own, allegorizing interpretation of Lev :–. The three years of husbandry are taken as a reference to the three years of catechetical instruction required of initiates, while the fourth-year sacrifice is taken as a reference to the canon of four virtues which catechumens consecrate to God through their conduct. During their instructional period, they are to eradicate the growths and weeds of sin so that the “shoot of faith” might grow strong. Having done so, they can then aspire to ascend to “the fourth abode of the Lord,” for which see van den Hoek , –. On the whole, patristic authors accepted the Stoic view that human beings have no particular moral obligations to observe in their use of plants since the latter lack the faculty of sense-perception. “Christ,” writes Augustine, “judged that we have no community in justice (societas iurus) with beasts and trees, and sent the devils into a flock of swine, and withered a tree by his curse, when he had found no fruit in it” (Mor. eccl. ..; and on the inability of plants to feel: Civ. .; further, Sorabji , –). For similar arguments regarding the treatment of animals, see the Nachleben for chapter . Further reading: Hasel ; Isager and Skydsgaard, .

ON HUMANITY CHAPTERS 22–24 THE RULING CLASSES (§§ 161–174)

Analysis/General Comments This section constitutes the third and concluding part of De humanitate. Humanity is seen to characterize the founder of the Jewish politeia (§§ –), its laws (§§ –), and now, its ruling classes, those with a special responsibility to follow Moses’ example in leading the people and ensure that the constitution he established is upheld. Note in particular how the section opens with the language of 9γεμονα (§§ – ), recalling the main problem raised in §§ – (see §§ , , ). As discussed in the Introduction (part ), it is not surprising that issues relating to this problem would figure prominently in a presentation on philanthr¯opia, since it was a virtue applicable especially to those in positions of authority. At this juncture in the presentation, the Alexandrian’s objective is to show how the Mosaic law teaches “the great” to abstain from those vices most apt to cause them to use their power inhumanely, and instead to imitate God by employing their resources to promote the common good. In Philo’s mind, this is an important implication of the legislation that he has just finished surveying (see § ). It was conventional in ancient political thought to locate the origins of social conflict in a class struggle between the haves and the have-nots. Remedying such situations involved diagnosing the vices peculiar to each side. The rich, of course, corrupted by their wealth, tended towards decadence, avarice, and insolence, while the neediness of the have-nots left them envious of the rich and prone to subversive tendencies. A top priority for any lawmaker, then, was to develop forms of civic organization that alleviated such tensions. This was often accomplished through forms of moral education aimed at the rich, and especially intended to foster among them “a proper and salutary attitude towards property and, consequently, towards their poor fellow citizens” (Fuks , ; cf. Ober , –). In the ideal state proposed in Plato’s Leges, for example, the discrepancy between rich and poor is minimized through a system of fixed



commentary

property allotments (c–a, etc.). In states that have already been established, however, where the discrepancy will always be great and such drastic measures are impractical, it appears that the survival of the community will depend on a different principle, namely, the willingness of the rich to share (κοινωνεAν) their wealth and property with havenots whose situation has become critical. This they will do voluntarily, out of a sense of fairness, or 1πιεκεια (d–e; cf. Fuks , – ). Such social sharing is often depicted by means of virtue discourse as well. According to Dio Chrysostom, for example, if the king is truly to become the savior and guardian of his people he must govern in such a way that “his prudence avails to help even the imprudent . . . his moderation serves to restrain even the immoderate . . . his justice gives of itself even to the unjust, and his courage is able, not only to save the less valiant but even to fire them with greater courage” (Or. .; cf. below on § ). Similarly, Plutarch held that by educating his own character to be moderate and well-ordered, a ruler trained the character of the citizen body to be likewise (Praec. ger. rei publ. a–b, f). Indeed, it is “the noblest end of any polity” for its king to inculcate “a blessed life of friendship and concord” in his subjects. He does this especially by displaying his own life as “a conspicuous and shining example of virtue” (Numa .). As an example of this sort of leadership, Xenophon holds up Agesilaus, who “prided himself less on reigning over others than on ruling himself, less on leading the people against their enemies than on guiding them all to virtue.” This occurred insofar as the people imitated the qualities that he exemplified (Ages. .). Philo’s exposition on humanity as exhibited by the ruling classes can be divided into three parts. () With the survey of laws completed, Philo informs us that the teachings they embody have the effect of curbing arrogance, pretentiousness, and insolence within the polity, vices that plague especially the ruling classes (§§ –). () The bulk of the section, §§ –, is devoted to reflections on Deut :–, which serves as both a rhetorical capstone and a hermeneutical key for the material in the subtreatise as a whole. From it the Alexandrian deduces a description of the sources, symptoms, and cure for these spiritual afflictions. A superabundance of worldly wealth causes its possessors to become “puffed up” (§ ). However, if they remember God, the divine light of virtue will dispel the vices that darken their souls (§ ). Such remembrance has a two-fold effect. First, they will give thanks to God (§ ). Second, they will imitate God’s munificence

on humanity –: the ruling classes, §§ –



(§ ) and “make power,” that is, make others around them more virtuous (§ ) by dispensing benefits of common utility (§§ , ). In the course of the discussion Philo contrasts two options for the social use of power: some individuals enrich and aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbors, while some impart what strengths they have to others so as to enhance the public good. () Finally, the characteristics and fate of the “pretentious man” are described with reference to Num :. His actions not only fail to foster the common good, they are offensive to God. Since his spiritual maladies are beyond cure, he will be handed over to God for punishment (§§ – ). In its underlying priorities, the section as a whole is reminiscent especially of Plato, Leg. a–d and e–a. The former passage contrasts the arrogant man, whose pride brings chaos and ruin to himself and his community, with those who honor the gods and emulate the divine to the extent that they embody the virtues (see on § ). The latter argues that the highest honor belongs not to those who simply embody wisdom, moderation, and the other virtues, but to those who are also able and willing to impart these virtues to others with a generous spirit. Elements of Philo’s argument are also reminiscent of the Stoic doctrine of ο>κεωσις, for which see on Hum. . In Fin. .–, for example, Cicero argues that everyone is imbued with a natural inclination to be a protector of the human race and to benefit as many people as possible, especially through the communication of wisdom.

Detailed Comments () § . Taming the minds of those living under his polity. Here Philo sums up one of the main points to be deduced from his survey of the laws. Moses’ intent in offering this instruction (Dφ=γησις; cf. § ) was to “tame” or “civilize” (1ξημερο(ν) the citizens of his politeia (cf. Prob. ). This is familiar from one of the principal goals of philosophical instruction, namely, “to civilize and amend (μεαρμζειν; cf. Hum. ) the intractable and untutored elements of the human character” (Plutarch, Alex. fort. a; cf. De esu e; Cicero, Off. .). The concept also has a place in political discourse, where the malleability of the human character is similarly presupposed, for example, Plutarch, Pomp. .: “by nature man neither is nor becomes a wild or an unsocial creature, but is transformed by the unnatural practice of vice, whereas he may be



commentary

civilized by new customs and a change of place and life . . . even wild beasts put off their fierce and savage ways when they partake of a gentler mode of life” (cf. Plato, Leg. a; Isocrates, Ad Nic. ). In order for human communities to succeed, such customs must be established and enforced by the people’s leaders (e.g., Plutarch, Quaest. rom. f; Tim. .), whose first responsibility is to “tame” themselves (Philo, Mos. .; Plutarch, Numa .). One of the few rulers who actually lived up to such standards was Numa; under his reign, “not only was the Roman people tamed (9μ!ρωτο) and charmed by the righteousness and mildness of their king, but also the surrounding cities,” so that the entire region experienced peace, concord, and prosperity (Plutarch, Numa .). he cut them off from arrogance and pretentiousness. Pretentiousness (λαζονεα) belongs to those passions of the soul which must be “tamed” by the power of reason ( Macc :–). As a vice, it is the functional opposite of philanthr¯opia, as Philo indicates in Spec. . (see Parallel exegesis below; cf. Spec. .–; Gnom. Epict. ). In his opinion, some of the provisions of the law were established specifically to abate it, e.g., Spec. ., ; .. In Decal.  it is coupled with arrogance (Dπεροψα) as one of the leading sources of social instability and conflict. It is incumbent upon those in high office, therefore, “to hate pretentiousness as a thing pernicious and utterly evil” (Spec. ., cf. .; Ios. , ; T. Ios. :). § . pretentiousness arises even in trivial and obscure persons . . . yet it does not undergo much growth. Insolence is not likely to be exhibited by the working poor, says Lysias, “but by those who possess far more than the necessities of life . . . For the wealthy purchase with their money escape from the risks that they run, whereas the poor are compelled to moderation by the pressure of their want” (Or. .–). The same passage points out that the strong and the young are also more likely to commit acts of hybris, for which see below. it is obvious in the great, who . . . have . . . riches and honors and magistracies. Those who are wise do not pride themselves in such precarious possessions as wealth, health, honors, or high office, but put their trust solely in God (Abr. –; Spec. .). Pretentiousness was a vice associated with the ruling classes, and especially with those consumed with the pursuit of power and fame: “Let kings and royal stewards and those who would be foremost in their cities and hold office engage in money-getting. These are driven to it, their ambition and pretentiousness and vainglory compel them, engaged as they are in giving banquets, bestowing favors, paying court, sending gifts, supporting armies, buying

on humanity –: the ruling classes, §§ –



gladiators” (Plutarch, Cupid. divit. e; cf. Sera b; Pel. .; Philo, Spec. .–; Wis :). Pretentiousness ranks among the more offensive traits of the tyrant, e.g., Decal. ;  Macc :; Herodotus, Hist. .; Dio Chrysostom, Or. .; Lucian, Cat. . become intoxicated and act offensively. Intoxication abets hybris: “men are more insolent when drunk” (Aristotle, Pol. ..; cf. Plato, Leg. a; Plutarch, Sept. sap. conv. a; Philo, Abr. –; Mos. .; Spec. .). This reality posed a significant social and legal problem for the ancient Greeks: “the social dangers of drunken violence, committed above all by the upper classes during and after their symposia, were taken very seriously indeed from archaic times onwards, and produced notable legislation” (Fisher , –, and s.v. drink and hybris). For the metaphorical application of this language to arrogance more generally, cf. Plato, Leg. d: the vices of the shameful man include “anger, lust, insolence, ignorance, covetousness, and extravagance; and these also— wealth, beauty, strength, and everything which intoxicates a man with pleasure and turns his head.” For this use of 1μπαροιν!ω, cf. Philo, Ios. ; Contempl. ; Flacc. ; Josephus, Ant. .; Lucian, Cat. . over-indulgence begets insolence. The saying, “Over-indulgence is bred by wealth, and insolence by over-indulgence,” was attributed to Solon, one of the Seven Sages (Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .). Philo was particularly fond of the sentiment expressed in the second part of the saying, of which he offers sundry versions in Post. ; Agr. ; Abr. ; Mos. ., ; Spec. .; Flacc. ; cf. Pindar, Ol. .; Theognis, El. ; Herodotus, Hist. .; Menander, Mon. ; Ps.-Phoc. ; Josephus, Ant. .. That the gnome may have originated in symposial culture, see Mathieu . In the moral evaluation of antiquity, hybris encompassed both an arrogant, self-assertive disposition (Cairns ) as well as the sorts of insulting actions expressive of such a disposition (Fisher , s.v. brutality, verbal insults). For Aristotle, hybris “consists in causing injury or annoyance whereby the sufferer is disgraced, not to obtain any other advantage for oneself besides the performance of the act, but for one’s own pleasure.” Such pleasure derives from showing one’s superiority over the victim. “That is why the young and the wealthy are given to insolence” (Rhet. ..). For the association of hybris with wealth, see also Rhet. ..; Plato, Leg. b–c; Demosthenes, Or. ., ; Lysias, Or. .– (quoted above); Ober , –; Fisher , s.v. wealth and hybris. In biblical literature, the problems posed by the vice are surveyed most fully in the book of Proverbs; see :; :; :; :;



commentary

:; :, ; :; :–; :, ; :; :; :; :. As a distinguishing vice of the upper classes, it was included among the major sources of civic unrest and social upheaval. As Aristotle observes, “when the men in office show insolence and greed, people rise in revolt against one another and against the constitutions that afford the opportunity for such conduct” (Pol. ..). Elsewhere he analyzes the problem in more explicitly economic terms. As a rule, he says, the poor will accept their lot and keep quiet only so long as they are not treated insolently by the rich. However, given the latter’s general proclivities, rulers must be vigilant in preventing such conduct (Pol. ..; cf. ..; .., ; Plato, Leg. c; Ober , –; Fisher , s.v. stasis). Philo’s familiarity with such discourse is evident in Mos. .–, where he attributes the stability and longevity (and hence superiority) of the Mosaic constitution in part to its founder’s recognition that “insolence is the enemy of law.” Accordingly, the need to curb hybris was basic to his work as a lawgiver; cf. Decal. , ; Spec. .; ., , , ; Hum. . Lycurgus was similarly determined to banish hybris from his state, establishing policies according to which the citizens would “seek preeminence through virtue alone” (Plutarch, Lyc. .–). () § . most excellently does Moses the hierophant exhort them. For Moses’ role as the supreme revealer (cf. § ), see on § . Philo sometimes refers to the contents of Deuteronomy as “exhortations,” or παραιν!σεις; see on § . he gives them a reminder. A recurring Deuteronomic refrain is the admonition to “remember” (:; :; :; :; :; :, , ; :; etc.). Deut :– (cf. :–) contributes to this theme with an appeal for the people not to forget (μ+ 1πιλ,@η) their dependence on God and the lessons they learned in the wilderness while they are flourishing in the promised land. Such forgetfulness threatens the very basis of their relationship with God since it engenders covenantal disobedience (:), pride (:), false self-reliance (:), and idolatry (:–). Philo concentrates on the second of these. His Dπμνησις may derive from μνησ=σ@η in Deut : (cf. :). Cf. Spec. .–: “indeed it is proper in wealth to remember your poverty, in distinction your insignificance, in high offices your position as a commoner.” Such reflection abets the practice of virtue, since “people who having had both good and ill before their eyes have rejected the ill and are enjoying the good, necessarily have a grateful character.” See also Spec. ., ; and for the general sentiment, Wilson , –.

on humanity –: the ruling classes, §§ –



excessive satiety of the belly and an extravagant surplus of houses and possessions and cattle. A paraphrase of the scenario set forth in Deut :–: “when you have eaten and are full, and built fine houses and dwelt in them, and your oxen and sheep have multiplied, and your silver and gold have multiplied, and everything that you have has multiplied.” These are the very items which Moses, in contrast to all other rulers, chose to eschew for himself, even though he could have possessed all of them in abundance: “In dress and food and other aspects of life, he made no exaggerated gesture so as to render his dignity more majestic” (Mos. .–). Strabo explains the historical origins of hybris in Geogr. ..: “In ancient times the world was full of barely-meal and wheatmeal, as now of dust; and fountains then flowed, some with water, others with milk and likewise with honey, and others with wine, and some with olive oil; but, by reason of their satiety (πλησμον$ς) and luxury, people fell into insolence.” they immediately lose control over themselves. Cases like that of Alcibiades must have been all too common. As long as he remained under the tutelage of Socrates, he was able to keep his unseemly vices in. But once he was on his own and enjoyed a measure of success, he became “proud in birth, confident in wealth, puffed up with power, and much yielding to temptation” (Xenophon, Mem. ..–). being lifted and puffed up. See Deut : (cf. :), where the people are told to beware, lest “you be exalted in heart” (Dψω@$ς τ@$ καρδ7α). For φυσ,ω, see on § . Cf. Josephus, Ant. ., where Moses warns the Israelites not to act insolently (1ξυβρσαι) on account of the wealth they will acquire after crossing the Jordan. to never utterly forget God. Philo’s 1κλαν,νω (cf. Congr. ; Mos. ., , ; Spec. .; Paen. ) may represent an effort to convey the reinforced verb of Deut : (1Cν λ=@η 1πιλ,@η, κτλ.). § . God, the intelligible sun. In Somn. .–, Philo explains that the term Zλιος can be used in several senses, not only as a figure for God, but also as a figure for the mind, sense-perception, or the logos. The imagery employed here is best-known from the myth of the cave (Plato, Resp. a–a), and especially from the metaphor of the sun (Resp. b–c; cf. Wheeler ) which helps to introduce it. Just as the sense-perceptible world is illuminated by the power of the sun, the intelligible world is illuminated by the form of the good, “that which gives truth to the things known and the power (δ:ναμιν) to know to the knower” (d). Cf. Opif.  (“The intelligible surpasses the visible in brilliance and brightness just as much, I believe, as sun surpasses



commentary

darkness.”); Ebr. ; Abr. ; Spec. .; .. Plutarch is also fond of the metaphor, e.g., Is. Os. a; E Delph. d–e; Def. orac. c, d–e; Fac. e; Quaest. plat. f–a; cf. Plotinus, Enn. .., . The symbolism of light in general plays a prominent role throughout the corpus Philonicum (Klein , –; Nikiprowetzky ). In this instance the Alexandrian may be somewhat overeager in his efforts to deploy the imagery, since its contribution to the surrounding argument seems rather tenuous. Perhaps the point is that although those in high positions may be “visible” (περιφανεται, § ) to the public, they are actually living in the darkness of their vices and need to be converted to the light, much like those who become proselytes (see on Paen. ). Or perhaps the Platonic idea that those illuminated by the form of the good are endowed with δ:ναμις connects with the exposition of Deut : in §§ –. Note that what must be the original reading, ες 2 νοητς, is supported only by S; the other mss avoid such Platonizing language with εοποητος or something similar. the gloom of the passions and vices is dispelled. “In the gloom of night, the eyes are dimmed and seem nearly blind”—similarly, when the soul “focuses on what is mixed with obscurity, on what comes to be and passes away, it opines and is dimmed, changes its opinions this way and that, and seems bereft of understanding.” But when it turns its attention to “something illuminated by truth and what is, it understands, knows, and apparently possesses understanding” (Plato, Resp. c–d). Compare Philo’s reflections in Leg. .: “Just as the sun when it has risen fills the gloom of the air with light, so virtue also, when it has risen in the soul, illuminates its mist and scatters its deep darkness.” The imagery underscores how the development of virtue depends upon the prior act of God; without the gift of divine light, human souls toil in the darkness (Mendelson , ). the form of exceedingly brilliant virtue. Just as the rising sun fills the heavens with light, “the rays of virtue . . . cause the whole region of the understanding to be flooded with pure brilliancy” (Plant. ). Also see on Paen. . For the “light” cast by virtue, cf. Leg. .; Conf. –; Migr. ; Her. ; Somn. .; Nob. ; Arius Didymus, Lib. phil. sect. .; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..; Plutarch, Numa .; Plotinus, Enn. ..–. § . eliminate arrogance. When functioning properly, the law of a state “does away with violence, eliminates insolence (Rβριν κααιρν), reproves folly, chastises wickedness, and in private and public relations helps all who are in need” (Dio Chrysostom, Or. .).

on humanity –: the ruling classes, §§ –



bear the remembrance of God as an image in their minds. For this use of γαλματοφορ!ω, see on Nob. . strength to make power. This resumes the exposition of Deut :– begun in § . In their complacency, the people might start to imagine that the prosperity they are enjoying in the promised land is the result of their own efforts: “Do not say in your heart, my strength and the might of my hand has made for me this great power. But you shall remember the Lord your God, that he himself gives you strength to make power” (:–). Given the context, it is likely that δ:ναμις here refers to wealth (cf. :–; Wevers , ), and this is the meaning assigned by Philo when interpreting the passage elsewhere (Sacr. –; Agr. ). In §§ –, by contrast, ποι$σαι δ:ναμιν has nothing to do with acquiring material goods, but with imparting virtues to others and thereby imitating God. will consider the personal weakness which he had. Philo explains in Spec. . (cf. QE .) that leaven is forbidden from the temple sacrifices (Lev :) on account of the rising it produces, signifying that no one approaching the altar “should be lifted and puffed up by pretentiousness.” Instead, “gazing on the greatness of God, let him gain a perception of the weakness which belongs to the creature, even though he may surpass others in prosperity; and . . . let him reduce the exaltation of boastful presumption, purging treacherous conceit.” give thanks. In Sacr. –, Deut :–, – is similarly understood as being addressed principally to those who fail to honor God, either because their affluence has caused them to forget the spirit of thankfulness or because they arrogantly attribute whatever success they have achieved to themselves. For the distinctive emphasis we encounter on εχαριστα in Philo’s oeuvre, see on Hum. . The operations of the sacrificial cult in particular were designed to inculcate gratitude, e.g., Spec. ., –, –. unthankfulness is akin to arrogance. Ingratitude, like arrogance, will ultimately be punished by God, e.g., Opif. ; Deus , ; QG .. Cf. on §§ –. § . those who do not fully discern the significance. Philo is not afraid to contrast his interpretations with those of others who, he thinks, have missed the deeper or true intent of scripture, e.g., Conf. , ; Sobr. ; Plant. ; Abr. , ; cf. Hay . Many people endeavor to effect the opposite of the benefits which they have received. As Philo sees it, Moses’ instruction for the rich defies the prevailing moral logic of the world, according to which the pursuit



commentary

of social goods like wealth and status is construed in competitive terms, being acquired for oneself only at the expense of others. For the “limited good” perspective, see Gilmore ; Lawrence , –. they become the cause of disgrace and dishonor to others. As Plutarch observes, to point out a neighbor’s faults under any circumstances is likely to cause pain, “but when a man intermingles praise of himself with censure of another, and uses another’s disgrace to secure glory for himself, he is altogether odious and vulgar, as one who would win applause from the humiliation of another” (De laude a); cf. Betz . § . prudent . . . moderate . . . brave . . . just. Philo invokes the traditional canon of primary virtues, familiar from Platonic and Stoic literature (North ), as well as elsewhere in his corpus. At Abr. , for example, he asserts the tetrad’s superiority to wealth and reputation (cf. Opif. ; Leg. .–; Sacr. ; Cher. ; Post. ; Agr. ; Ebr. ; Prob. ; Mos. .; QG .; Jastram ; and see on Paen. ). In a famous passage, he describes the sabbath as the time Jews have set aside for studying philosophy and “the principles of virtue’s lore.” Every seventh day, therefore, “there stand wide open in every city thousands of schools of prudence, moderation, courage, justice, and the other virtues” (Spec. .–). As we have seen, the canon also partly informs the structure of the Exposition itself; see Spec. . and part  of the Introduction. to make their neighbors shrewd . . . self-controlled . . . noble . . . just. In the ideal state of Plato’s Leges, the highest honors are awarded to moderation, prudence, and any virtue “which the possessor can communicate to others as well as display in his own person” (e). The responsibility for doing so falls especially on those with means and ability. The good judge, for instance, “will secure (παρασκευ,ζοντα) for those who are good both the permanence and the increase of what is just” (d). Plutarch observes that on occasion even tyrants can wield their power towards virtuous ends. Having obtained sovereignty illegally, they turn out to be mild and beneficent to the people. Hieron and Peisistratus, for example, “maintained good order everywhere, promoted husbandry, and made (κατασκευ,σαντες) the people everywhere moderate and hardworking, instead of derisive and loquacious” (Sera a). Cf. also Dio Chrysostom, Or. . (quoted in the Analysis/General comments). For these . . . are powers. In Rhet. .., Aristotle defines virtue as “the power (δ:ναμις) to provide and preserve good things, a power productive of many and great benefits, in fact, of all things in all cases.” Accordingly, the greatest of the virtues are judged to be justice, courage, and liberality, since it is through them that one’s role as a benefactor to oth-

on humanity –: the ruling classes, §§ –



ers is most fully developed. (Note the different understanding of δ:ναμις in relation to virtue at work in Eth. nic. ...) This understanding of the virtues as powers or capacities is probably indebted to Plato; see, e.g., Hipp. min. d–e; Resp. a–b, b–d, b; Leg. a–b; cf. Ps.Plato, Def. b; Isocrates, Panath. ; Epictetus, Ench. ; Plutarch, Dion .; Numa .; Let. Arist. ; Philo, Migr. ; Fug. ; Mut. – ; Spec. .. incapacity and weakness . . . are alien to an excellent character. Plutarch argues that causing harm is incompatible with that which is good: “By its nature anger is the farthest removed from favor, wrath from goodwill, hostility and the spreading of terror from humanity and compassion; for to the one set belongs virtue and power, and to the other weakness and vice.” Those possessed of the former set are enabled to follow God’s example and bestow favors on others (Suav. viv. d–e). Similarly, in one of his kingship orations, Dio Chrysostom argues that only the virtuous are truly powerful. On the other hand, anyone given to lawlessness, licentiousness, and insolence is “a weaker man than the lowliest beggar” (Or. .–; cf. Höistad , –). § . to imitate God as much as possible, neglecting none of the things contributing to such assimilation. The Middle Platonic and Neoplatonic identification of the telos (i.e., 2μοωσις εκεωσις, for which see on Hum. . § . most wealthy, most honored, most beautiful, most vigorous. Even though a man may be possessed of matchless courage, strength, beauty, and wealth, if there is “within him nothing but injustice and insolence . . . such a life is obviously not happy but wretched” (Plato, Leg. d–e). For this list of attributes, cf. Plato, Leg. c; Xenophon, Cyr. ..; Plutarch, Tranq. an. e; Frat. amor. a; Eusebius, Praep. ev. d (= Ariston, frg. ).



commentary Parallel Exegesis

Among the regulations set down for those appointed to act as judges under the Mosaic politeia (Spec. .–) is the rule not to show favor to the poor when rendering a decision (Exod :). Before explaining the provision itself, Philo is prompted to remind his readers that its author is someone “who has filled practically his whole legislation with injunctions to show mercy and humanity, issuing severe threats against the haughty and pretentious” (.). Indeed, Moses agreed with the ancient tradition (cf. Aelian, Var. hist. .) that the greatest good for humankind is to imitate God, and that in no action do people resemble God more than when they are generous with one another (.). The rich then, ought not prance about in an insolent and boastful manner, but should use their wealth to alleviate the plight of the poor. Likewise the strong should support the weak (.), while the wise should “banish a grudging spirit” and benefit their neighbors, especially the young, by imparting their knowledge to them (.).

Nachleben Clement moves without transition from the discussion of Lev :– (Strom. ..–..) to the quotation of Deut : (Hum. ), passing over the introductory material in §§ – and lightly reworking Philo’s initial explanation of the verse in § : “if your affairs are enlightened (φωτισ@$), if you have received and acquired strength in knowledge (1ν γν8σει), make power” (..). Clement proceeds to offer an explanation of his own, namely, that the verse shows how the good things of life are God’s gifts, whose recipients, acting as “ministers of divine grace,” are obligated to sow such benefits by making those around them more virtuous. This is illustrated with reference to the same qualities listed in Hum. , though goodness is promoted from the last to the first position, while prudence is demoted from first to fourth (..). In .., Clement states that all this applies to 2 γνωστικς, who, being made after the likeness and image of God, imitates God and neglects nothing that might contribute to his assimilation to God (see Hum. ). This is coupled with a second list of virtues, which represent the means by which this assimilation occurs: self-restraint, endurance, justice, control of the passions, sharing, and benefaction. The quotation of Matt : that follows in .. indicates not only the status of those who achieve this

on humanity –: the ruling classes, §§ –



goal (“greatest in the kingdom”) but also the means by which they do so (“who shall do and teach”); in this way they give gifts of the same kind that they have received (see Hum. ), that is, gifts of common utility (see Hum. ). Material from Hum. –, including the quotation of Num :, is used to introduce the paraphrase of Philo’s treatise on metanoia, which immediately follows in ..–... Further reading: Fisher ; Fuks ; Helleman , –; Ober .

ON REPENTANCE (§§ 175–186)

Analysis/General Comments For the function of this section within the treatise, and its relationship to De humanitate, see parts  and  of the Introduction. There it was suggested that De paenitentia contributes to Philo’s broader argument regarding the superiority of the Jewish ethnos by showing how its polity consists of individuals who have made a choice to live a virtuous life and engage in processes of moral correction. For proselytes, this is constituted by the choice they make for religious enlightenment and moral amendment. For Jews, it is represented by the decision they make to repent of any wrongdoing. In his descriptions, Philo concentrates on the former, since the experience of proselytes demonstrates the significance of choice as a defining feature of the polity most dramatically, the sudden and sweeping nature of their transformation testifying to the excellence of its laws and institutions. See also the Analysis/General comments for De nobilitate. At its root, the concept of μετ,νοια involves a change (μεταβολ=) or turning (τροπ=) of some kind (Abr. –; cf. Spec. .; Praem. , –). In keeping with ordinary Hellenistic usage, this may simply be the reversal of a previous judgment or a change of mind, often accompanied by regret, e.g., Hum. ; cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ..; Plutarch, Sera d; Behm , –. More often, metanoia is for Philo, as for most Jewish authors, an explicitly religious concept, signifying a decision that brings about a change in one’s relationship with God. In the majority of cases, what is being described is the repentance of Jews for transgressions against the law (cf. Isa :; Jer :; :; Sir :–; :), the sort of change familiar from the all too frequent appeals in scripture for the people to “turn” or “return” to God (στρ!φω and cognates; see Bertram ; Nave , –; cf. Ios. ; QG .). Philo portrays this as a change through which “the maladies of the soul” are healed (for the medical analogy, cf. on § ), the whole-burnt sin-offering symbolizing the “wholly sound frame of mind” to which the penitent aspires (Spec. .; cf. Mos. .; Spec. ., , ; Praem. ). The Day of Atonement is a particular occasion



commentary

in the life of the community for “purification and escape from sins” through repentance (Spec. .). At the same time, metanoia can also be used to describe the conversion of non-Jews to Judaism (cf. Jos. Asen. :; :–). Here Enoch is representative; forgetting his previous life and abandoning his home and country, he is “transferred” from ignorance to instruction, from vice to virtue, from an old life to a new one (Abr. –; Praem. –; QG .; cf. Sir :; see Parallel exegesis). The metanoia of Caleb similarly represents “a total change of the man himself,” both heart and soul (Mut. –). Although the language of conversion is not applied to him directly, the manner of his description in Nob. – shows that in his search for God Abraham serves as “a standard of nobility for all proselytes” as well (§ ). The same may be said for the description of Tamar in Nob. – (Birnbaum , ). In connection with this, it should be noted that Philo did not always feel it necessary to utilize the language of μετ,νοια when speaking of proselyte conversion. In Mos. ., for example, 1πηλ:ται are described as those who “have changed (μετεβ,λοντο) to a sound mind,” while later in the same treatise he expresses the wish that someday the peoples of every nation will make a similar change and honor the laws of Moses alone (Mos. .; cf. Spec. .). Elsewhere in the Exposition proselytes are likened to settlers who have left their native land and “traveled to a fine new home” (§ ). As is frequently observed, metanoia occupies a rather uneasy place in the history of Greco-Roman moral thought, a fact of which our author must have been aware (see the references in Further reading). While the Philonic sage will repent of any sins that he has committed (Leg. .; Fug. ), the Stoic sage will not need to repent in the first place, since he cannot give false assent to anything. It is only inferior persons, rather, those who do things badly, who have to deal with regret (SVF .; cf. Cicero, Tusc. .; Mur. ; Epictetus, Ench. ; Seneca, Ben. ..–; Marcus Aurelius, Med. ., ). The Stoics further categorized μεταμ!λεια, a concept closely related to μετ,νοια (cf. Ios. ; Spec. .; QG .; .; Fulkerson ), as a species of λ:πη, and as such incompatible with the life of wisdom (SVF ., ; cf. Aristotle, Eth. nic. ..). Yet even a Stoic like Seneca could acknowledge that for those who fall short of perfection “the most dependable change toward integrity comes from repentance” (Nat. , pref. ; cf. Ira ..–; Ep. .–), and Plutarch can describe metanoia as an act of reason working through

on repentance, §§ –



the conscience to chastise and reform the soul (Tranq. an. f). Seen in this light, the case can be made that repentance is in fact necessary for moral improvement, and that the ability to engender repentance in others is a requisite of the successful moral instructor (Virt. mor. c; cf. Adul. amic. a, c). With regard to the latter, the change that Socrates was able to effect in Alcibiades was often seen as exemplary: “by convicting (1ξελεγχομ!νου) him of his faults he turned (;στρεφε) his heart” (Adul. amic. f; for the numerous versions and interpretations of this scene in antiquity, see Graver , –). Similarly, in the Cebetis tabula, the path to true paideia and well-being goes through metanoia, by which individuals are cured of all their vices and enabled to consort with all the virtues (.–.; .–.; cf. Jaeger , –). Hierocles of Alexandria could even go so far as to assert that repentance “is the very beginning of philosophy: the flight from both senseless deeds and words and the first preparation for a life that is without regret” (In aureum carmen .; translation from Sterling , –). Even if they did not utilize the language of repentance per se, the pedagogical curricula embraced by many philosophers demonstrated comparable methods and aims. Long (, –), for example, has shown how Epictetus, inspired especially by Socratic models, in designing his lectures drew on a combination of protreptic and elenctic forms of discourse so as to compel his students to “rethink their ethical beliefs and convert to a fundamental change of outlook and behavior” (, ). Of course Epictetus’ rationale for such communication rests on a basic anthropological assumption, namely, that his students, like the large majority of people, being immoral, ignorant, and unhappy, stand in need of such amendment and need to be told so frankly (e.g., Diatr. .. and often). Philosophers were not shy either when it came to depicting the dramatic results that their teaching could achieve. Seneca, for example, describes for Lucilius the “sudden change” that he has experienced in himself: “I feel . . . that I am being not only reformed but transformed. I do not yet, however, assure myself . . . that there are no elements left in me which need to be changed . . . And indeed this very fact is proof that my spirit is altered into something better—that it can see its own faults, of which it was previously ignorant” (Ep. .–). As this statement indicates, the processes of fault-finding and correction did not end with the animus transfiguratus. The Epicurean and Pythagorean traditions in particular evidence extensive and multidimensional networks of correctional practices involving the participation of all group members (for the



commentary

former, see Philodemus’ Περ παρρησας, with Glad , –; for the latter, Iamblichus, Vit. Pythag. .–; .; .; Carm. aur. –, with Thom , –). De paenitentia contributes to the overall presentation of the Mosaic polity in the Exposition by depicting its members as individuals who have made a choice to live an amended life and engage in processes of moral correction. For proselytes, this means a choice for the moral transformation they undergo when converting to Judaism. For those who are already members of the polity, this means “changing” any transgressions that they have committed. The subtreatise’s focus is on the former, since their presence in the community demonstrates the significance of choice as a defining feature of the polity most dramatically. This is a polity that is defined not simply in ethnic or national terms, but more decisively in social, religious, and moral terms (cf. Michel ). In this the polity resembles a philosophical group or a state founded on philosophical principles (cf. part  of the Introduction). Given this focus, it is perhaps not all that striking that Philo does not explicitly associate the process of proselyte conversion with the ritual of circumcision (cf. Spec. .–; Cohen , –; and for the problem of uncircumcised proselytes in QE ., see Nolland ). The composition of De paenitentia may be analyzed as follows. () The character and scope of the lawgiver’s philanthr¯opia are, Philo says, further manifested in the invitation he extends to “all people everywhere” to join his polity and enjoy “everything in it,” implying that those who accept the invitation will have the same status as native-born Jews (§ ). () The rationale for repentance is explained in terms that indicate its general significance for the polity and, indeed, for all humankind. While the ideal for mortals is a god-like perfection, the reality is that all people sin and require some means of amendment. Those who are wise recognize the benefits of correction (§§ –). () The description of Moses’ summons to humanity is resumed in § . The balance of the subtreatise discusses three different aspects of the proselyte’s moral amendment (cf. Dietrich , –). It is interesting to note that the same three aspects are included in the (much shorter) description of Tamar in Nob.  in the same order and employing similar metaphors: upon seeing the light of truth, she deserts to the Israelite camp, where she becomes God’s servant and suppliant. The use of a similar schema here suggests that Philo understands conversion generally to entail three basic components: the acceptance of

on repentance, §§ –



monotheism, moral reform, and a new identity predicated on one’s relationship to God (cf. Borgen , –). (a) To begin with, those who accept Moses’ invitation are initiated into the truth of monotheism. Rejecting the idolatrous fables of their youth, they now honor the “Founder and Father of all,” and so are befriended by God and God’s worshippers as they emerge “from deepest darkness to behold a most brilliant light” (§§ –). (b) With this change in religious belief, there is a change in the moral comportment of the proselyte, who forsakes not only his former gods but also his former vices, deserting the worst polity in order to join the best. Just as a shadow follows a body, “the whole company of virtues” immediately and of necessity follows one who learns to honor God (cf. Völker , –, –). Contrasting lists of virtues and vices dramatize the extent of this transformation (§§ –). (c) The final aspect of the proselyte’s amendment is evident in the re-ordering of his entire personal bearing, so that thought, words, and actions are now in harmony, concepts represented figuratively by the reference to heart, mouth, and hands in Deut :. Only such an integrated self is acceptable and valuable as a “true servant and suppliant” to God, who has chosen the proselyte just as the proselyte has chosen him, a notion derived from Deut :– (§§ –). Because the choice that the proselyte makes is the same choice that Israel made under Moses, he is equal in value to an Israelite. Indeed, insofar as he makes this choice, he becomes “equal in value to a whole nation” (§ ). The ongoing debate about the nature and extent of Judaism’s status as a proselytizing religion need not detain us here (for varying assessments of the evidence for Jewish proselytizing during this period, see McNight ; Feldman , –; Goodman, ; Cohen , –). What Philo discusses in this subtreatise contributes little to our understanding of the means by which non-Jews became attracted to Judaism, the various types and levels of attachment that non-Jews could have with Jewish communities, or the social processes through which they became proselytes. The Alexandrian is obviously proud of the fact that his religion attracts Gentile converts and feels that they should be accorded a warm welcome (cf. Josephus, C. Ap. .; also the Analysis/General comments for chapters –). Nevertheless, what interests him here is not the life of the typical proselyte but the proselyte as an ideal moral type, that is, the individual who undergoes an immediate and total moral transformation as the result of choosing a new and superior way of life. The claim that proselytes come into possession of the whole set of virtues “at once”



commentary

(ε:ς, § ; cf. ^μα in § ) is redolent in particular of certain Stoic beliefs regarding the sage, whose transition from a state of complete vice to a state of complete virtue was thought to be sudden and instantaneous (see on § ). Associating membership in the Mosaic polity with such an ideal demonstrates both its character as a community of moral choice and the capacity of its laws to foster such amendment.

Detailed Comments () § . fond of virtue, fond of honor, and . . . fond of humanity. The same three epithets are used of God in Opif. , cf. ; Mut. . followers of piety and justice. Within the so-called canon of two virtues, the first form of excellence (usually eusebeia or hosiot¯es) pertained to “vertical” morality, that is, obligations owed to the gods, parents, and the dead, while the other (usually dikaiosyn¯e or philanthr¯opia) encompassed the “horizontal” dimension, that is, obligations owed to friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens. The scheme serves Philo particularly well as a way of explaining the organization of the decalogue, its first table of commandments naming duties towards God, the second duties towards humanity (Her. ; cf. Decal. –; Berger , –; Sterling , –). See further on Fort.  and Hum. . For the particular formulation of the canon cited here, see also Praem. ; cf. Spec. .; Hypoth. .; Let. Arist. , ; Isocrates, De pace –; Panath. , , ; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..; Seneca, Ep. .. Josephus utilizes it often, e.g., Ant. .; ., ; .; .. Philo uses ζηλωτ=ς and cognate terms elsewhere in the Exposition to describe the process of striving for virtue, e.g., Abr. ; Spec. .; .; Fort. ; Nob. , ; Praem. ; further, Seland , –. as before the victorious, the great prizes. “For where the prizes offered for virtue are greatest, there are found the best citizens” (Thucydides, Hist. ..; cf. Demosthenes, Or. .). Examples of athletic imagery abound in the Philonic corpus; for the full metaphorical field, see Pfitzner , –; Harris , –. For the usage here, see especially Praem. , –, , , ; cf. Wis :;  Macc :; Plato, Phaedr. b– e; Resp. c, c–d; Aristotle, Eth. nic. ... the best of polities. Philo makes the same characterization in Spec. .. What constituted such a polity was, naturally enough, a topic of vital interest among political theorists, e.g., Plato, Resp. b–c; Leg. a; Aristotle, Pol. ..–.

on repentance, §§ –



() § . remembrance . . . recollection. Philo usually differentiates μν=μη from ν,μνησις by making reference to Ephraim, whose name

symbolizes the former and means “fruit-bearing,” and Manasseh, whose name symbolizes the latter and means “out of forgetfulness.” Although remembrance is younger, it is superior, because it keeps every memory “fresh and distinct” in the mind and so prevents one from committing an error out of ignorance (Leg. .–; cf. Sobr. –; Migr. –; Congr. –; Mut. –). Of course what Philo says here has nothing to do with the Platonic theory of anamn¯esis, for which see Phaed. e– a, with Franklin  (cf. Phaedr. c–a; Resp. a); and for the theory’s reception in Middle Platonism, Dillon , , –. For the importance accorded the training of the memory in Pythagorean regimens of self-criticism, see Thom , –. in the second order are the things that effect correction. In the moral hierarchy, the “unbroken perfection of virtues stands nearest to divine power.” Ranking second to this is repentance, “just as a change from sickness to health is second to a body free from disease” (Abr. ; cf. Somn. .). This is because even after the penitent are restored, the “scars and impressions” of their old transgressions remain imprinted on their souls (Spec. .; cf. Abr. ; Plato, Gorg. d–a; Winston , – ). For this use of 1πανρωσις, cf. Aristotle, Eth. nic. ..; Epictetus, Diatr. ... recovery from illnesses. Repentance elsewhere is likened to being healed or cured of a disease, e.g., Leg. .; .; Ios. ; Spec. ., , ; Praem. ; cf. Isa :; Hos :; Plutarch, Sera d–e; Lat. viv. d–e. Medical imagery is pervasive in Philodemus’ Περ παρρησας; see Konstan , –. For more on the “philosophical art of soulhealing,” see Nussbaum , – and passim. following upon forgetfulness. 1κγινομ!νη is Cohn’s (PCW .) emendation for 1γγενομ!νη (SF) and 1γγινομ!νη (ceteri) in the mss. Mangey (, ) conjectures 1κ λ=ης 1γγινομ!νη. § . to never sin at all belongs to God, and perhaps also to a godlike man. No doubt the individual with the best claim to the title theios an¯er in Philo’s opinion would have been Moses, “the holiest of those yet born” (Mos. .; cf. Josephus, Ant. .). At the same time, it has to be acknowledged that even a perfect man cannot escape from sin inasmuch as he, like all people, is a created being (Spec. .; cf. Mos. .; also Fug. : “To do no sin is peculiar to God; to repent, to the sage.”). The attribution of sinlessness points instead to the ideal sage as envisaged by Stoic thinkers. Incapable of error or of assenting to anything



commentary

false (Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .–), even Zeus cannot surpass him in virtue (Plutarch, Comm. not. a); cf. SVF .–. For a close reading of Paen. , see Holladay , –. For the Philonic doctrine that God does not experience repentance, see especially Deus ; QG ., with Alexandre , . to change from sin to a blameless life. In this the patriarchs, and especially Abraham, serve as models for future generations. Not only did they commit no deliberate offenses, but when “chance led them wrong they besought God’s mercy and propitiated him with prayers and supplications, and thus secured a perfect life” (Abr. ). For the language of “change,” see Analysis/General comments; also Sterling , . not altogether ignorant about what is beneficial. Since responding to correction can often be difficult, it is sometimes necessary to remind those receiving it of the benefits it confers, e.g., Plutarch, Adol. poet. aud. a; Iamblichus, Vit. Pythag. .; Glad , –; Konstan , s.v. συμφ!ρω; cf. Paen. ; Josephus, Ant. .; Crook , –. The concept of moral choice was a critical one in Stoic philosophy. It is not simply the fact that the sage always acts virtuously. Rather, “he always chooses what has to be chosen.” And what has to be chosen “refers to the benefits (Bφελ=ματα) which follow from being virtuous. The good, virtue, is the only source of that which is truly beneficial to life. That is the essence of virtue, and therefore the virtuous man’s acts of choice never fail to be beneficial” (Long , –; cf. Gourinat ). (a) § . initiates them into his mysteries. Moses’ promulgation of the law is likened to the work of a mystagogue, who reveals divine secrets to the initiated, e.g., Cher. , –; Sacr. , ; Somn. .; Mos. .; QG .; cf. Riedweg , – (also note Moses’ designation as hierophant in Hum. , , and ). In this he is made to look like one of the philosophers, who often employed the vernacular of the mystery cults to convey the sense of awe and illumination that accompanied the teaching they offered (Wilson , –). In Phaed. c, for instance, Plato characterizes training in the cardinal virtues as a kind of ritual purification that prepares one for philosophical τελετα; cf. Phaedr. b–c; Plutarch, Is. Os. a, d–e; Epictetus, Diatr. ..– ; Riedweg , –. he summons them by offering conciliatory and friendly instructions. In their efforts to reform the character of those under their care, philosophical guides gave a great deal of thought to the manner in which they employed modes of correction, blame, reproof, and so on. For correction to be effective, and least likely to cause harm or resentment, it had to be

on repentance, §§ –



offered in a spirit of friendship, that is, out of a genuine desire to benefit the recipient. The correctional practices prescribed by Philodemus in Περ παρρησας, for example, are explicitly viewed as an extension of “the ethic of friendship” cultivated within the Epicurean community (Glad , , cf. –). mythical fabrications which parents and nurses . . . engraved upon their . . . souls. Book  of Plato’s Respublica envisions the sort of education that the ideal state will provide for its young. First of all, nurses and mothers will agree not to expose their children to false μ(οι, that is, stories that convey a false image of what the gods are really like (d). Such discretion is necessary because a child is “delicate” (Yπαλς), that is, his or her soul is “most malleable and takes on any pattern (τ:πος) one wishes to impress on it” (a; for the imagery, cf. on Hum. ). The Mosaic polity in comparison not only protects its members from false stories about the divine (see the references on Hum. ), it can also “deprogram” those whose souls have already been deluded by such fabrications. Such unlearning represents a challenge, however, since “the instructors of sin are legion, nurses and tutors and parents and the laws of cities, written and unwritten, which extol what should be derided” (Her. ; cf. Spec. .). Yet, as Plutarch observes, even those who have been corrupted by a poor upbringing and immoral companions still can choose to repent and reform themselves (Sera d– e). § . things which are not gods. For Philo’s critique of idolatry, see esp. Decal. –; further, Wolfson , .–; Sandelin ; Niehoff , –; see also on Hum. . For the formulation here, cf. Mos. .;  Kgdms :; Jer :; :; :; Acts :; Gal :; Josephus, Ant. .. the Founder and Father of all. Elsewhere God is the “Founder and Maker” (Spec. ., ) or the “Father and Maker” (Decal. ; Spec. .; .; cf. Plato, Tim. c, with Runia , –) of all things; cf. Elliott , –. Royse (, ) conjectures that the original reading here is preserved by S, δημιουργν, which a copyist uncomfortable with Platonic concepts changed to πατ!ρα, which is found in CG2H2 (cf. Somn. .). welcomed the rule of one over the rule of many. Philo disparages polytheism as πολυαρχα elsewhere in Spec. .; .. The undesirability of a divided command was axiomatic in both warfare and government, e.g., Thucydides, Hist. ..; Xenophon, Anab. ..; Josephus, Ant. .; cf. Philo, Conf.  (citing Homer, Il. .–). For



commentary

the Alexandrian this principle is evidenced in God’s rule of the heavens. In particular, the first commandment and the laws it summarizes establish “the monarchical principle by which the cosmos is governed” (Decal. , cf. ; Spec. .; .). Tamar is a prototypical proselyte insofar as she unlearns the errors of her idolatrous upbringing by becoming schooled in this principle (Nob. ). Philo often emphasizes the oneness of the God whom converts from paganism now worship (e.g., Somn. .; Spec. ., ; .; Nob. –, ; QE .). This serves as the most effective guarantee of the unity they share with native-born Jews (Guerra , –). our closest friends and relations. The convert not only turns away from the mythical fabrications and the πολυαρχα of polytheism, but in doing so turns his kinfolk “into mortal enemies” (Spec. .). For the social acceptance to be extended proselytes by the Jewish community, see on Hum. . The basis of the friendship that the members of the community have with one another is the friendship that they have with God (see below); cf. Spec. ., ; Fort. ; Sterling . In extending friendship to converts, the members of the community demonstrate the same fondness for humanity (§ ) and friendly disposition (§ ) as Moses himself (Ware , –). a character friendly to God. Plato’s ideal politeia is crafted by the philosopher-kings with the aim of making the character (_ος) of each citizen as dear to God (εοφιλ=ς) as possible (Resp. d, cf. e). The translation “friendly to God” attempts to show the correlation of εοφιλ!ς with φιλτ,τους and φιλαν earlier in the sentence. In Paen. , the term is juxtaposed with φιλεος (“lover of God”). See also on Hum. ; cf. Nob. . being previously blind, they had recovered their sight. According to Stoic doctrine, all but the sage are morally blind. Even those who are close to attaining virtue but have yet to achieve it are no less mired in vice than those who are a long way from it, “and just as the blind are blind even if they are going to recover their sight a little later, so those who are making progress continue to be stupid and depraved until they have attained virtue” (Plutarch, Comm. not. a; for ναβλ!πω with this sense, see SVF .). coming from deepest darkness to behold a most brilliant light. The experience of moving from darkness into light or of recovering one’s sight was frequently invoked to describe events of spiritual or intellectual enlightenment. The soul’s power to learn is likened by Plato to an eye that has to turn (στρ!φειν) from the darkness of ignorance to “the brightest

on repentance, §§ –



thing that is,” namely, the good (Resp. c, cf. e–a). Like initiates in a mystery (cf. μυσταγωγ!ω in § ), students of philosophy could be said to “have seen a great light, as though a shrine were opened” (Plutarch, Virt. prof. d–e; cf. Seneca, Ep. .–). Similarly, the eyes of initiates into the Mosaic mysteries are anointed by the sacred guide until they behold “the hidden light of hallowed words” (Somn. .). In the same vein, the proselyte’s experience of conversion entails being rescued “from the darkness . . . from the foundations of the abyss” (Jos. Asen. :, with Chesnutt , ; cf. Sir :; T. Gad :). For Philo, Abraham is again prototypical: “opening the soul’s eye as though after a deep sleep, and beginning to see a pure beam instead of deep darkness, he followed the light and discerned what he had not beheld before,” that is, divine providence (Abr. ). Tamar likewise glimpsed “a little ray of truth” when she emerged from the dark (Nob. ). For Philo’s light imagery, see on Hum. . (b) § . standing in awe of things created before the Uncreated and Creator. Recognizing the objects of the world for what they were, that is, created and ephemeral things, the Jewish nation corrected the fundamental error being committed by the rest of humanity, “choosing instead the service of the Uncreated and Eternal” (Spec. .). For the divine epithet γ!νητος, see also Mos. .; Decal. ; Nob. . ochlocracy . . . democracy. Besides cities built with stone and timber, there are cities that people “carry about established in their souls” (Conf. ). The best of such soul-cities adopts for its constitution democracy, since such a polity is ruled by law and honors >στης (Conf. ; cf. Plato, Resp. c; Ps.-Plato, Menex. b–a; Aristotle, Pol. ..). In this context, “equality” means that each part of the soul will possess the status and power appropriate to it, that is, the passions and senses will be subject to the rule of reason (cf. on Fort. –). Such a soul will be free of revolt and turmoil (Abr. –). For Philo’s other statements on the superiority of democracy, see Agr. ; Deus ; Spec. .. Its counterfeit is “rule by the mob,” that is, rule based on inequality and lawlessness (Conf. ; cf. Opif. ; Fug. ; Somn. .; Decal. ). Further, Goodenough , –; Barraclough , –. In Praem. , Philo stresses the need for recent converts to avoid the /χλος and its many vices and distractions. knowledge . . . prudence . . . self-control . . . justice . . . bravery. Prefacing the usual tetrad (see on Hum. ) here is 1πιστ=μη, which may function as a kind of meta-virtue, reflecting the idea that the virtues are forms of knowledge (and hence teachable), e.g., Plato, Meno c–d; Prot.



commentary

b; Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .–; cf. Philo, Det. ; Congr. . For the corresponding list of vices, cf. Opif. ; Post. ; Agr. ; Her. ; Plato, Resp. b, b. § . to desert to virtue. Proselytes leave behind not only friends and family, but also their homeland, and so can be spoken of as “refugees deserting to the camp of piety” (Spec. .; cf. Post. ; Somn. .; Nob. ; Praem. , ). From this point forward, the text of De paenitentia is preserved only in S, C, and G2. See PCW .xxviii, . a shadow . . . follows a body that is in the sun. For this figure, cf. Decal. ; Hum. ; also the imagery of illumination in § . the honoring of the God who exists. At Sinai God forbade the worship of other deities, summoning everyone “to honor the God who truly exists, not because he himself was in need of such honor . . . but because he wanted to lead the human race . . . to the primal and most perfect good” (Decal. ). Cf. on Hum. , . § . proselytes. References in the Torah to gerim (“strangers” or “aliens”) are usually rendered in the LXX with προσ=λυτοι (Wevers , , ), which Philo takes to mean proselytes, though his more customary designation for such individuals is 1π=λυτοι or related terms (e.g., Hum. –; Nob. ; cf. Birnbaum , ). at once. Stoic doctrine made no allowance for degrees or intermediate states of virtue and vice (e.g., Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .; Long and Sedley ,  explain this as a manifestation of the Stoics’ monistic psychology). Thus the soul that is making progress “deals in absolute badness right up to its acquisition of the absolute and perfect good.” At that point the sage “changes (μεταβαλ8ν) in a moment from the greatest possible worthlessness to an unsurpassable virtuous character, and has suddenly shed all the vice of which he failed to remove even a part over a considerable time” (Plutarch, Virt. prof. c–d; cf. Comm. not. e, e, quoted below, a, quoted above; further, SVF .–). This state supervenes only after much progress and without the sage’s awareness (Philo, Agr. ; Plutarch, Comm. not. e, b). The transition of Philo’s proselyte to a life of virtue is similarly instantaneous and complete, though it occurs as a matter of conscious choice, when he accepts and is accepted by God. Cf. Praem. ; Winston , . moderate, self-controlled, modest, gentle, kind, humane, reverent, just, high-minded, lovers of truth, superior to the love of goods and pleasure. The amended life that non-Jews attain through admission to the Mosaic polity encompasses a whole spectrum of the sorts of virtues to which people in the Greco-Roman world aspired generally. For a similar

on repentance, §§ –



list, see Musonius Rufus, frg. ..– (cf. ..–; ..–): “God’s command and law is that we be just, kind, beneficent, temperate, high-minded, superior to toils, superior to pleasures, free of all envy and malice.” Cf. Josephus, Ant. .; and on Hum. , . With regard to its internal structure, the first nine items in Philo’s catalogue are single terms, beginning and ending with words that have the same stem (σ8φρων and μεγαλφρων). This is followed by the compound terms ληεας 1ραστα and κρεττους χρημ,των κα 9δον$ς. If the latter is taken as naming two qualities, the total tally of virtues is brought up to twelve, a number of significance elsewhere in the Exposition, especially with reference to the twelve tribes and the twelve signs of the zodiac, e.g., Opif. ; Mos. ., , , ; Spec. .; ., ; Praem. . The arrangement of items within the list reflects some of the same terminological connections drawn by Philo in De humanitate. For example, σ8φρων is associated with 1γκρατ=ς in Hum. , while Zμερος is paired with χρηστς at Hum.  (cf. § ), and χρηστς with φιλ,νρωπος at Hum. , . undisciplined, shameless, unjust, irreverent, small-minded, quarrelsome, friends of falsehood and perjury. It was customary to juxtapose a list of virtues with a list of corresponding vices so as to dramatize the breadth of difference between opposing choices or ways of life, for example, Epictetus, Diatr. ..– (cf. ..–): “You have but to will a thing and it has happened, the reform has been made . . . Instead of shameless, you will be self-respecting; instead of faithless, faithful; instead of dissolute, self-controlled.” Cf.  Macc :–; Gal :–; Col :–; QS IV –; Ceb. tab. .–.; Dio Chrysostom, Or. .– ; Julius Pollux, Onom. .–; Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .. Philo uses virtue/vice lists to delineate the convert’s moral transformation also in Abr.  (quoted in Parallel exegesis); see also Sacr. –; Mut. ; cf. on Nob. . The Alexandrian was especially adept at crafting vice catalogues, most famously at Sacr. , but for comparable rolls see also Post. ; Agr. ; Praem. , ; Prov. .. The Stoics held that those who have yet to achieve the perfection of the sage “are all in the same degree vicious and unjust and unreliable and foolish” (Plutarch, Comm. not. e). Lists like the one here show Philo’s basic view of the nonJewish world to be similar. Further, Vögtle , –; Kamlah , –. The list here is coordinated, though only partially, with the preceding list of virtues (cf. Alexandre , ). The lead terms, κλαστος and σ8φρων, form a conventional antithesis (cf. Plato, Leg. a–c; Philo,



commentary

Nob. ; etc.), while νασχυντος contrasts with α>δ=μων, δικος with δκαιος, σεμνος with σεμνς (though at this point the order changes), and Hλιγφρων with μεγαλφρων, while “friends of falsehood and perjury” counters “lovers of truth.” As with the catalogue of virtues, the first set of items consists of single terms (though there are only six to match the previous nine), followed by a set of compound terms. Once we move beyond the first of the latter, however, the structure of the list quickly deteriorates, as our author cannot help but dilate on the non-proselytes’ overindulgence in food, drink, and sex. Critiques of extravagant banqueting abound in the Philonic corpus, e.g., Opif. –; Ebr. –; Somn. .–, –; Ios. –; Spec. .; ., ; Contempl. –; cf. Wendland , –; further, Edwards , –, . (c) § . to amend our life. One of the principal goals of philosophical instruction is “to civilize and amend (μεαρμζειν) the intractable and untutored elements of the human character” (Plutarch, Alex. fort. a); cf. Hum. . he says that this matter is not excessive nor far removed. In Philo’s interpretation, Deut :– is addressed not only to Jews who have broken their covenant with God (cf. Mut. –), but also to non-Jews who would join this covenant. In its original context, Deut  conveys Moses’ assurance to the Israelites that they will be restored from the exile to which they will have been sentenced (cf. Praem. ) once they “return to the Lord.” Deut :– both encourages and challenges them to do so, arguing that the terms of the covenant are neither unintelligible nor inaccessible (Tigay , –): “Because this commandment which I command you today is not excessive (Dπ!ρογκος) nor is it far (μακρ,ν) from you. It is not in the heaven above . . . nor is it beyond the sea (π!ραν τ$ς αλ,σσης) . . . The word is very near (1γγ:ς . . . σφδρα) you, in your mouth and in your heart and in your hands to do it.” Philo abbreviates the citation by dropping the pair of indirect questions in vv.  and . He also changes the subject of the discourse from 9 1ντολ+ αRτη (presumably a reference to the rest of Deuteronomy) to τ πρOγμα, so that what is now “near” is not the law per se, but the proselyte’s opportunity to convert and follow the law. Elsewhere, he takes “this commandment” as a reference to the good (Post. ; Somn. .; Praem. ) or to virtue (Prob. ). Bar :–, meanwhile, takes it as a reference to wisdom, while in Rom :– the text is subjected to a christological reading (cf. Koch , –; Bekken ). nor at the ends of the earth, nor across the great sea. PLCL . (cf. Cohn , –) explains that the insertion of γ$ς οIτε π!-

on repentance, §§ –



ραν, which is supported by none of the mss, is justified by parallel Philonic constructions where the reference to sea in Deut : is similarly expanded to include both land and sea. It is worth noting, however, that Philo can cite the text without such expansion (Post. ) and that variations exist in the formulae employed for the expanded version, the closest to ours being Praem.  (π!ραν αλ,ττης F 1ν 1σχατιαAς γ$ς), which reverses the order of items, and Mut.  (περ,των γ$ς κα αλ,ττης), which lacks 1σχατιαAς; cf. Somn. .; Spec. .. For 1σχατιαAς αλ,ττης, cf. Aelius Aristides, Panath. .. mouth is a symbol of speech, heart of intentions, and hands of actions; in these there is good fortune. The same symbolic meanings are drawn from Deut : in Post. ; Somn. .; Praem. ; Prob.  (cf. Leg. .; .; Spec. .). In Mut. –, Philo explains that Moses mentions these three parts of the human person because they correspond to the three basic categories or venues of human morality (cf. Conf. ; Congr. ; Mos. .; Spec. .). When they are brought into accord for the good, one achieves eudaimonia (cf. Praem. ). Of the three, to be wrong in the area of intentions is the least serious but the most difficult to reform, while to be wrong in the area of actions is the most serious and therefore warrants the most severe punishments. Philo offers an interpretation of Deut :– in Praem.  that closely approximates the one given in Paen. –, except for an addendum further defining the eudaimonia achieved through the three-fold harmony as wisdom and prudence, the former standing for the worship of God and the latter for the management of human life (cf. Deut :; and for the canon of two virtues, see on § ). Further, Cohen , –. § . when they are at odds with one another. Because the disposition of the wicked man is inherently discordant, he comes to despise the virtuous and everything that they think, do, or say, “for it is impossible and unviable that concord should ever come into being from harmony and disharmony” (QG .). The sophists are a particularly egregious example of individuals whose words do not correspond with their choices or their actions (e.g., Post. ). this harmony. When someone’s teaching about virtue conforms with his practice, he seems “to be genuinely musical, producing the most beautiful harmony (Yρμοναν), not on the lyre or some other pleasurable instrument, but actually rendering his own life harmonious (σ:μφωνον) by fitting his deeds to his words” (Plato, Lach. d, cf. e; Aristotle, Pol. ..; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..; Epictetus, Ench. ; Plutarch, Stoic. rep. b; Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .). For Philo,



commentary

of course, Moses’ life is a special instance of such harmony (Mos. .), and in this he sets an example for his followers (Mos. ., cf. .; Ios. ; Spec. .; Hum. ; QE .). In C. Ap. .–, Josephus extols Moses’ special accomplishment as a legislator by highlighting his ability to put deeds into harmony with words, thereby making the truth of his doctrines more accessible to the masses, educating them through both verbal instructions and training in character (cf. Barclay , –). beloved by God and a lover of God. Those who are God-lovers are also God-beloved, since any affection one expresses for God is necessarily reciprocated (Abr. ; Prob. ; cf. Her. ; Paen. ). The descendents of Abraham and Sarah comprise the most beloved by God of all nations (Abr. ; cf. Birnbaum , –), while the love between God and Moses, evident especially through the execution of latter’s priesthood, was unsurpassed (Mos. .; cf. Hum. ). According to Mos. ., certain people joined the Jews in their departure from Egypt because they were attracted to the nation’s God-beloved quality (cf. Hypoth. .). You chose God today to be God to you, and the Lord chose you today to be a people to him. The block of laws presented in Deut – concludes in :– with Israel and God making mutual declarations of acceptance. Deut :a + a is quoted here with only minor modifications. The citation of v. a alters σου to σοι, while in the citation of v. a, σε and περιο:σιον (cf. Exod :; Deut :) are dropped, and the order of ατδων N) HνομασεAσαν. For διονομ,ζω (“distinguished by name, widely known”), cf. Contempl. ; Legat. . High birth, of course, would be one of the more important reasons why a person’s name would be widely known, e.g., Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ... § . creatures mortal and perishable. Cf. Marcus Aurelius, Med. .: “We must pass at last to the same bourne whither so many wonderful orators have gone, so many grave philosophers . . . so many heroes of old, and so many warriors, so many tyrants . . . men of large minds, lovers of toil, men of versatile powers . . . and many another such of humanity’s perishable and transitory life.” Further, Wilson , –. uncertain and fleeting. All things human—beauty, health, strength, wealth—are uncertain and fleeting (Ios. –); cf. Plutarch, Praec. ger. rei publ. f; Suav. viv. b; further, Wilson , –, –; and on Hum. . § . Being in a way His image on account of the ruler in his soul, the mind. An allusion to Gen :– (for other places where this text is made to coalesce with Gen :, cf. Opif. –; Det. –; Plant. –; Her. –; Spec. .; Tobin , –). For Philo, the term “image” in the biblical passage is used with reference to the νο(ς, the capacity for knowledge and thought, which holds the place of ruler (9γεμ8ν) in the soul much like God is the ruler of the cosmos (Opif. , cf. Opif. ; Mos. .; Spec. .; Plato, Tim. c; Phaedr. c; Aristotle, Mund. .a; Plutarch, Is. Osir. a). As Runia (, ) notes, “in Philo nous is very often in effect equivalent to the rational part of the soul and is responsible for guiding the soul in its entirety, including its senses and passions.” He also notes Det.  as an important parallel. Philo frequently equates Adam with mind in his allegorical expositions (Leg. ., ; .; Cher. ; etc.). to keep that image untarnished. According to Ps.-Plutarch, frg. , nobility is not a matter of wealth or ancient ancestral reputation. Rather “the one begotten from virtue grows in his father’s image (ε>κονζεται), since it is goods of the soul which are transmitted to descendents. And this is what nobility truly is, assimilation to morality.” Adam’s actions contrast with those of Tamar, who managed to keep her life “untarnished” (§ ). For the use of κηλδωτος here, cf. Wis :. by adhering as far as possible to the virtues of his creator. As Lilla (, ) observes, Philo’s κα 3σον οQν τε _ν is reminiscent of the expression κατC τ δυνατν in Plato’s famous definition of the telos in



commentary

Theaet. a–b: “That is why a man should make all haste to escape from earth to heaven; and escape means becoming as much like God as possible; and a man becomes like God when he becomes just and pious, with understanding.” For Philo’s 1ξομοωσις doctrine, see on Hum. . he eagerly chose false and shameful and evil things. Philo presents the first sin as a matter of human “choice” in Opif.  as well, though there both Adam and Eve are implicated: “They passed by the tree of immortal life . . . through which they could have enjoyed the fruits of an age-long life of good fortune, and chose (ε]λοντο) that ephemeral and mortal existence, not a life but a time span full of misfortune.” he exchanged an immortal life for a mortal one and, forfeiting blessedness and good fortune, promptly changed to a life of pain and misfortune. Opif.  explains that it is on account of bodily pleasure (9δον=) that the first couple “exchange the life of immortality and good fortune for the life of mortality and misfortune.” As Runia (, ) notes, the immortality that they forsake is understood by Philo as a spiritual condition, applicable to the soul and not the body; cf. Spec. .; Zeller , –. He also notes the structural role played by the eudaimonia/kakodaimonia pair in Philo’s account of the fall (, ). The accompanying moral change that the two undergo (“from innocence and simplicity of character to cunning”) in Opif.  (also with μετ!βαλεν) is left out of the description here. For the pains they had to endure, cf. Gen :–; Opif. . (g) § . among the founders of the race. The account proceeds from examples common to all humanity to those peculiar to the Jewish people. As Philo observes in Praem. , of the three founders of the race only Jacob was blessed in all his children. PCH . proposes that παδων or πογνων has fallen out after ρχηγετν, since it would be improper to refer to such figures as “founders” of the race. On the other hand, as Colson (PLCL .) notes, it may be that Philo is using the term more loosely, that is, in the sense of “ancestors” (cf. Nob. , ). convicted . . . by their conscience . . . the one and only court. Even the well-born become as slaves when their conscience convicts them of injustice (Prob. ). The conscience is established in the soul like a judge, examining and correcting all of a person’s thoughts and deeds. The followers of Moses abet its proper functioning through their study of philosophy (Opif. ; cf. Det. ; Spec. .). For the judicial imagery, cf. Plant. ; Conf. ; Decal. ; Plato, Gorg. e; Lysias, In Andoc. ; Demosthenes, Or. .; Aeschines, In Tim. ; and for a survey of relevant texts from the Exposition, see Bosman , –.

on nobility, §§ –



§ . of the many offspring only one was named heir. Abraham bequeathed his real wealth, the perfect virtues, to his true-born and wise son, Isaac, while “the bastard thoughts bred of his concubines” received only the mundane duties relegated to secular education. These have as their mothers either Hagar, whose name means sojourning, since she only sojourns with wisdom, or Keturah, whose name means incenseburning, since she offers the fragrance but not the substance of learning’s food (Sacr. –; cf. QG .–). For other references to Gen :–, see Leg. .; Conf. ; Migr. ; Praem. . Josephus interprets the passage to mean that Abraham sent his sons and grandsons to found colonies. He also preserves a legend attributed to Cleodemus (also known as Malchus) according to which three of the sons accompanied Heracles in his campaign against Libya and Antaeus, and that the hero married one of their daughters, who bore him a son (Ant. .– ). (h) § . approved as heir. The final negative example concerns the sons of Isaac. For the legal terminology, cf. Isaeus, Men. . For the principles that Moses followed in choosing his heir, see Hum. –. two twins who bore no likeness to one another. Josephus deduced from Gen :– that Jacob resembled Esau in everything except hairiness (Ant. .). [except in the hands and in these only on account of a particular plan]. Colson (PLCL ., –) follows PCW . (cf. Cohn , ) in bracketing these words as spurious. While it is difficult to disagree with their description of the addition as inept, it should be pointed out that there is nothing in the manuscript tradition to support this conclusion, and accepting this identification forces us to assume that Clement’s use of ο>κονομα in Strom. .. (see the Nachleben below) is coincidental; cf. QG .. the younger was obedient . . . the elder was disobedient. Efforts to vilify Esau (the progenitor of the Edomites) appear early and often in ancient texts (e.g., Obad :; Mal :–;  Ezra :; Ps.-Philo, L.A.B. :; Rom :–; Heb :–; Gen. Rab. ., –), while Jacob becomes a paragon of virtue (cf. Jub. :–; :–; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen :). Philo goes so far as to claim that the twins represent “two contending natures of good and evil” (Sacr. ; cf. Congr. ; Praem. ; QG ., , ), Esau being named after his folly, Jacob after his practice of things excellent (Sacr. ; cf. Leg. .; Ebr. –; Sobr. ; Somn. .; Abr. ; Ios. ). Esau is depicted as “disobedient and stiffnecked by nature” (Congr. ), a man “of fierce temper and lust,” who



commentary

“armed the irrational part of the soul to war against the rational,” while his brother is “gentle and humane, a lover of excellence of character, of equality and humility . . . the champion of reason and antagonist of folly” (Praem. ). Further, cf. Migr. –; QG .–, –. For Esau’s γροικα (Leg. .; cf. Praem. ; Gen :), cf. SVF .. For the identification of Esau with Rome, see Hadas-Lebel , –; Bakhos . he surrendered his inheritance to his junior. Jacob’s acquisition of his brother’s birthright (πρωτοτκια) is likened to the victory of the sage over passion (Leg. .–) or of “labor striving for the good . . . over the craving that pursues evil” (Sacr. , cf. –, , , ; Leg. .). In QG ., Philo explains that the deal Jacob struck in Gen :– should be construed not as an act of greed but as an effort to relieve his brother of the sort of abundant wealth that leads wicked men to sin! then seeking to murder his brother. As in Mos. ., Philo collapses the story of how Jacob acquired his brother’s birthright (Gen :–) with the story of how he acquired his brother’s blessing (Gen :–). It is only after the second incident that Esau plans to kill Jacob (Gen :). grieve his parents. Jub. :– preserves a tradition according to which Isaac withdrew his preference for Esau (Gen :) on account of the wickedness he committed after Jacob stole his blessing: “Now I love Jacob more than Esau because he has increasingly made his deeds evil. And he has no righteousness because all of his ways are injustice and violence. And now my heart is vexed on account of all his deeds. And neither he nor his seed is to be saved for they will be destroyed from the earth” (vv. –). Cf. QG ., . § . for the younger they offered prayers. Of course, the blessing in Gen :– is pronounced by Isaac alone. Perhaps Philo reasons that since Jacob was obedient to both of his parents (§ ; cf. QG .), both would have offered prayers on his behalf. he would serve his brother. Referring to Gen : (cf. :; :): “And by your sword you will live, and to your brother you will be enslaved.” For Philo this illustrates how “that which is base and irrational is by nature a slave,” while in contrast those who pursue virtue enjoy not only liberty, but also leadership and sovereignty (Leg. .; cf. Prob. –). The law of nature dictates that the latter will have “all fools in subjection” (Prob. ). In the case of a fool like Esau, such slavery constitutes a blessing, since through it his inner tumult and rebellion becomes subservient to the lover of self-control (Congr. –; cf. QG

on nobility, §§ –



., ). If he had in fact consented to become the sage’s slave (see § ), his ignorance, insolence, and unruly passions would have been amended through admonition and correction (Leg. .–; cf. Prob. ; Garnsey , –). As it is, by refusing such servitude he suffers “anarchy in the soul” (QG .). it is good for the fool not to live under his own authority. For this use of ατεξο:σιος, cf. Epictetus, Diatr. .., , , . § . the prizes given to those who come second in the contests for virtue. The highest prize in virtue is awarded to those whose ruling impulses are “of free and noble birth,” who embrace what is excellent on their own and not in imitation of others (Abr. ). The image of virtue as a prize, particularly a prize worth having for its own sake, was common, e.g., Plato, Phaed. c; Ps.-Plato, Def. a; Aristotle, Eth. nic. ..; ..; Philo, Mos. .; Spec. .. For Philo’s athletic metaphors, see on Fort. ; Paen. . he acted stubbornly. S reads ααδησ,μενος (cf. Hum. ), while the other witnesses have either παυαδσας (HP) or παυαδι,σας (FG2); cf. Plato, Apol. a. fled from such excellent authority. It is not Esau who flees, of course, but Jacob (Gen :; cf. Migr. –; Fug. –; Somn. .; QG .–). Perhaps our author has in mind Gen :–, where Esau leaves Canaan for Edom (note that the passage is immediately followed by a record of Esau’s descendants). the cause of great reproaches both to himself and to his descendants. Jub. :–: relates an extra-biblical account (cf. Amos :) in which Esau attacks Jacob with a mighty throng, only to be killed by his brother in battle. As a result, the sons of Esau “bowed their necks” to “the yoke of servitude” (cf. Gen :) and became servants for Jacob’s sons until they went down into Egypt; cf. T. Jud. :–. For his part, Philo has little to say about Esau’s descendants, though the incident in Num :–, where the Edomites refuse the Israelites’ request for safe passage, is recounted in Mos. .–; cf. Post. ; Gig. ; Deus –, , , ; Migr. ; Spec. .. his life, one not worth living. In QG ., Philo points to Gen : (“Behold, I am about to die . . . ”) as evidence that Esau, that is, the wicked man, “hastens to death every day, reflecting on and training for dying.” Cf. Plato, Gorg. b: it is better for a corrupt person not to be alive at all, since he necessarily lives badly. For the cliché of “a life not to be lived,” see Ios. ; Prob. ; Flacc. ; Aeschines, In Tim. ; Lysias, In Andoc. ; Teles, frg. A.; ..



commentary

(a) § . others belonging to the opposite and better class. Here the treatise segues from examples of wicked individuals sprung from good ancestry (§§ –) to examples of good individuals sprung from wicked ancestry (§§ –), illustrating the first part of the subtreatise’s thesis in § . Over half of the section is devoted to a single case, that of Abraham (§§ –). (b) § . a Chaldean by birth. Abraham’s Chaldean origins are indicated in Gen :, ; :. The study of the stars came to be so closely associated with his home country that eventually “Chaldean” denoted astrologers of any nationality; see Herodotus, Hist. .; Strabo, Geogr. ..; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..–; ..; ..; Cicero, Div. ..; Arrian, Anab. ..; Josephus, C. Ap. .; Sib. Or. .–. As Philo notes in Migr. , the renown of the Chaldeans in this regard is “quite beyond that of other peoples.” It is likely that Jewish apologists emphasized the Chaldean roots of their nation as a response to slanders that its origins were in fact Egyptian; see Josephus, Ant. .–; Roitman . Philo points out that Moses was not only Chaldean (Mos. .), but also schooled in both Chaldean and Egyptian forms of astrology (Mos. .–). According to Josephus, Abraham was responsible for introducing astrology as well as mathematics to the Egyptians (Ant. .–). For Abraham as Kulturbringer, see also Ps.-Eupolemus, frg.  and Artapanus, frg. , with Holladay , – . For conceptions of Abraham as an astrologer among Greco-Roman authors, see Siker , –. For more on Philo’s conceptions of Abraham in general, see Sandmel . γ!νος is Cohn’s (PCW .) emendation for γ!νει (FE) and γ!νους (ceteri) in the mss. whose father was an astrologer. Post-biblical sources identify Terah as either an idol priest or an idol maker, e.g., Jub. :–; Apoc. Abr. :– (cf. Josh :). According to Philo, he represents Socratic self-knowledge. When he and Abraham migrate to Haran (Gen :), the place of the senses, they dissociate themselves from the speculations of astrology in order to examine their own nature as human beings. The report that Terah died in Haran (Gen :) explains why his name means “scentexploring,” since he explored but did not come to possess virtue, having failed to join Abraham in his further migration from self-knowledge to the knowledge of God (Somn. .–; Abr. –; cf. Migr. –; Congr. –). its branches of knowledge. τC μα=ματα here would include especially varieties of mathematical knowledge, which were necessary to and closely associated with the astral sciences e.g., Juvenal, Sat. .–;

on nobility, §§ –



cf. Plato, Resp. e. In Philo’s court, astronomy is the “queen” of the sciences (Congr. –). As he explains in Abr. , the Chaldeans investigate “numerical order” as it applies to both the revolutions of astral bodies and the alterations of meteorological occurrences, supposing that “the course of the phenomena of the world is guided by influences contained in numbers and numerical proportions.” For a sense of some of the actual mathematics involved in ancient astronomy, see Evans , –. As a student of astrology, Abraham himself can be aptly referred to as a μαηματικς (Mut. ; cf. Somn. .; Mos. .; Praem. ; QG .). who believe the stars and entire heaven and universe to be gods. The characterization of the Chaldeans’ worldview proffered in Migr.  turns them into proto-Stoics: “These men surmised this visible universe to be the only thing in existence, either being itself God or containing God in itself as the soul of the whole. And they made fate and necessity divine.” Cf. Her. ; Somn. .–; Abr. ; Wolfson , .–, ; .–. A number of prominent Stoics, most notably Posidonius, defended the practice of astrological divination, lending it a degree of intellectual respectability (Barton , –; Jones ). For Philo’s own conception of the astral bodies, see on Hum. –. § . what could be more heinous. It is not simply the case that the Chaldeans are misguided. Rather, because they attribute “to that which is created the powers of the Creator” and persuade others to worship God’s works rather than God, their doctrine is the source “of great evils and impiety” (QG .); cf. Abr. ; Wis :–; Sib. Or. .–. the One and Oldest and Uncreated and Creator of all. For God as “the One,” see on Hum. . For “the Uncreated and Creator,” see on Paen. . Comparable statements are made in Fort. ; Hum. –, . § . Having a conception of these things. Philo explains how Abraham inferred the truth of monotheism from his contemplation of the heavenly bodies in Abr. : “opening the soul’s eye as though after a deep sleep, and beginning to see a pure beam instead of deep darkness, he followed the light and discerned what he had not beheld before, a charioteer and pilot presiding over the world.” According to Josephus, it was actually Abraham’s perception of irregularities in the heavenly movements that led him to acknowledge “the power of their commander” (Ant. ., with Feldman , –). Cf. Jub. :–; Apoc. Abr. :–; Ps.Philo, L.A.B. :; Gen. Rab. .. he left his country and race and paternal home. See Gen : (“Go out from your land and from your kin and from the house of your father . . . ”). Abraham’s second migration not only further separates him from



commentary

his homeland, it drives him into the wilderness (Gen :), a venture he undertakes without complaint “since those who seek God and yearn to find Him love the solitude which is dear to Him” (Abr. ). In his abandonment of all prior associations (cf. Abr. , with Borgen , –), Abraham resembles a proselyte; cf. on Hum. ; Paen. . the deceptions of the polytheistic opinion. For Philo’s critique of polytheism, see on Paen. . For the expression πολ:εος δξα, see Opif. ; Her. ; Decal. ; Praem. . Tamar is similarly said to turn from polytheistic worship in § . For the monotheistic opinion, see on Fort. . things both intelligible and perceptible. The distinction is Platonic, e.g., Phaed. b; Tim. c; Resp. d–e; cf. Opif. , ; Abr. , ; Mos. .; Dec. ; Spec. .–, ; .. if he departed the deception would also depart. Before he could obtain a clear vision of the God who for so long had remained imperceptible, Abraham first had to have “departed and changed his habitation” (Abr. –). Indeed, what he accomplishes is “the best of all migrations,” the passage of the soul from trusting in the heavens to trusting in the One who guides the heavens (Her. –; cf. Migr. –, –). Ancient interpreters agreed that when Abraham left his homeland he also left its polytheistic ways, e.g., Jdt :–; Jub. :–; Ps.-Philo, L.A.B. :; Josephus, Ant. .–. For the imagery of vain thoughts “emigrating” from the mind, see also Ebr. . § . the oracles he received. According to Philo, Abraham received not only an oracle directing him to leave Haran (Gen :–), but also an earlier one that had directed him to Haran in the first place, corroborating his initial comprehension of God’s existence (Abr. , ). the Existent. Like future proselytes, Abraham is driven by a desire to know τ /ν (cf. Abr. ; Paen. ; Praem. ). With such knowledge comes an understanding of God’s beneficence and providence (Spec. ., ). Cf. Fort. , . As Philo explains in Contempl. , the Existent “is better than the good, purer than the One, and more primordial than the Monad.” receiving clearer perceptions . . . of his existence and providence. Abraham did not see God, rather “the Lord was seen by Abraham” (Gen :), that is, Abraham apprehended only what God deigned to reveal of his nature (Abr. –). Specifically, what appeared to him at this point was not the Existent, the Cause of all, but rather God’s sovereign power, that which Scripture refers to as “the Lord” (Mut. –; cf. Sacr. – ; Abr. –; Völker , –; Sandmel , –). In

on nobility, §§ –



Praem. –, Philo draws a distinction between individuals who have inferred the Creator from the movements of the heavenly bodies and those (like Jacob) who through divine revelation have been granted a vision of God, not of God’s true nature, to be sure, but of God’s existence; cf. Det. . Philo takes for granted a necessary correlation between the reality of God’s existence and the reality of God’s providential activity in the created order; cf. Opif.  and Ebr. , with Frick , –. § . the first person who is said to have believed in God. Because Abraham is “first” in faith (cf. Gen :), he is “the first, the founder of the nation,” a role further signified by the title “elder” (Abr. –, cf. ). His status is akin to that of the sage, who is “the first of the human race, as a pilot in a ship or a ruler in a city or a general in war, or again as a soul in a body and a mind in a soul, or once more heaven in the world or God in heaven” (Abr. ). According to Josephus, Abraham was the first who dared to declare that God was the one δημιουργς of the universe (Ant. .). there is one Cause above all, and . . . it exercises providence over the universe. In Somn. .–, Abraham abandons astrology in order to worship “the first Cause of all things” (cf. Nob. ). That God’s ongoing providential activity in the world can be logically deduced from his relationship to it as the Cause of its existence is suggested also at Prov. ., cf. ., –; Opif. , ; Decal. ; Spec. .; Praem. ; Frick , –. faith, the most certain of the virtues. Cohn (PCW .) follows Mangey (, ) in printing πστιν in lieu of 1πιστ=μην (cf. §§ , ) in the mss. De Abrahamo concludes with an extended meditation on Gen : (§§ –). The patriarch put his trust not in such precarious things as health, wealth, fame, or noble birth, but in God, the Cause of all things, thus acquiring “the one sure and infallible good” (§ ) and attesting to his possession of “the queen of the virtues, faith in the Existent” (§ ; cf. Her. ; Sterling , ). Further, Deus ; Migr. –; Her. –; Praem. –; cf. Neh :–; Sir :;  Macc :; Rom :–; Heb :–; Jub. :–. The certainty of Abraham’s faith contrasts with the uncertainty of human fortune and experience described in § . he was deemed a king. After Sarah died, Abraham approached the sons of Heth about purchasing a burial cave in which to lay her body (Gen :–; cf. Jub. :–; Josephus, Ant. .). Their desire, however, was to simply give him a tomb: “No, lord; rather hear us. A king (Hebrew: “prince”) from God are you among us . . . ” (Gen :; cf. Wevers ,



commentary

). In its original context, such an ascription probably reflected the exaggerated politeness that often accompanied legal negotiations of this sort (Tucker ). For Philo, however, it serves as proof that Abraham is a sage, since the sage alone is king. Possessing each of the virtues, he rules over those who lack them (Mut. –; cf. on Paen. ). As such, Abraham alone is nobly born, having been adopted by God himself (Sobr. –) and able to practice the most noble of the arts, the art of ruling (QG .). What impressed the Hittites was not the patriarch’s material resources (he was only a sojourner after all; Gen :), but the kingship he displayed in his mind (Mut. ), evidenced by the fact that he did not grieve excessively over his wife’s death (Abr. ). Since his kingdom is a gift from God and not won through force of arms (see Nob. ; cf. Praem. ), it confers numerous benefits on its citizens (Abr. ). Sandmel (, ) notes that the rabbis also regarded Abraham as a king, though their starting point was Gen :. his mind being that of a king. Kings were expected to exhibit a certain “nobility of mind,” e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ... For the Stoic paradox that the sage alone is king, see on Hum. ; Paen. . As Philo explains in Prob. , noble souls display a certain kingly quality. The mss read φρον=ματος Uν βασιλικο(. Owing to the odd grammatical structure, Mangey (, ) conjectures μεστς or Dππλεως after φρον=ματος (cf. Hum. ), while Colson (PLCL .) suggests λαχ8ν. § . whenever he was possessed, everything changed for the better, his looks, his appearance, his stature, his postures, his movements, his voice. Inspiration was sometimes thought to be accompanied by certain physical transformations. According to Virgil, for example, when the Sibyl began to deliver her prophecies “suddenly neither countenance nor color was the same . . . her heart swells with wild frenzy and she is taller to behold, nor has her voice a mortal ring” (Aen. .–; cf. Lucan, Bell. civ. .–; Lucian, Jup. trag. ). Similarly, every time Moses was inspired, he was “transfigured into a prophet” (Mos. .) and became “another man, changed in both outward appearance and mind” (Mos. ., cf. .; Her. –). Further, Berchman , –. on his words persuasiveness, and on his hearers comprehension. Levison (, –) observes that in this description Abraham is presented not only as the ideal prophet but also as the ideal orator (cf. Cicero, Orat. .). Josephus similarly lauds the patriarch’s powers of persuasion (Ant. ., , –). For the orator speaking like one “possessed,” cf. Appian, Bell. civ. ...

on nobility, §§ –



§ . isolated from all family and friends. Abraham gave up not only his native land but also his native tongue, “the tongue of sky-prating astrology,” in order to learn the language of reason, living the life of an immigrant and stranger (Somn. .–). Accordingly, he severed all ties with “fellow-clansmen or wardsmen or schoolmates or comrades or blood relations on father’s or mother’s side or country or ancestral customs or community of nurture or home life,” since any one of them might have distracted him from his search for the true God (Abr. ). On the virtues of the solitary life, see the Parallel exegesis on De paenitentia. See also on Hum. . kinship with God. In the corpus Philonicum, the familial relationship that human beings enjoy with God is established through the inbreathing of the divine spirit (Opif. ) or, more often, through the possession of reason, e.g., Opif. , ; Decal. ; Spec. .; Praem. . Prophetic figures (like Abraham, see below) evidence a special kinship with God since they have been “changed into the divine” (QE .); cf. Plato, Tim. c; Prot. a; Resp. b; Leg. d–a; Graffigna . stationed in the best order among the prophets. Attention is drawn throughout the section to Abraham’s inspired status and oracular experiences (see also §§ , , ; cf. Philip , –). In Her. , –, Philo interprets the ;κστασις that fell upon the patriarch in Gen : as evidence of his prophetic inspiration, a fact confirmed by Gen :. He describes how while Abraham was in such a state, his mind was “evicted at the arrival of the divine spirit,” resulting in a state of “ecstasy and divine possession and madness” (§§ –); cf. QG .; ., . For the accounts of Abraham’s prophetic visions in Genesis Rabbah, see Sandmel , –. obtaining his rule not by arms . . . but by the election of God. In this he is like Moses, the ideal ruler; cf. Mos. .; Hum. –; Praem. . the lovers of piety. Cf. Abr. : “He who was a follower of piety (cf. on Paen. ), the highest and greatest virtue, made every effort to follow God and to be obedient to the things commanded by him.” On eusebeia, see on Fort.  and Hum. . For the expression “lovers of piety,” see also Spec. .. § . a standard of nobility for all proselytes. In abandoning both the idolatry and the associations of his youth, Abraham becomes a prototype for future proselytes (Nob. , ; cf. Hum. ; Paen. –). Accordingly, many of his accomplishments mirror those of a convert to Judaism. Most important, he “amends” his way of life (Nob. ; cf. Paen. ), learns the truth (Nob. ; cf. Hum. ), begins to worship the One



commentary

God (Nob. –; cf. Hum. ), the Existent (Nob. ; cf. Paen. ), and Father (Nob. , ; cf. Paen. ), and thus travels “to a fine new home” and polity (Nob. ; cf. Hum. ; Paen. , ). Borgen (, –) suggests that Abraham may have been seen as a model for the experience of proselytes also in his reception of the divine spirit (§ ). For Abraham as the first convert, cf. b. Suk. b; Str-B .; Porton , . traveled to a fine new home. For this language, see on Hum. . (c) § . women as well. As noted in the Analysis/General comments for De paenitentia, the description of Tamar in Nob.  (which has little basis in the biblical text) presents in condensed form the three different facets of conversion outlined in Paen. –, indicating that she, too, functions for Philo as a “standard” for proselytes (§ ); cf. b. Sot. a. Particular emphasis is laid on how she, like Abraham, spurned pagan idols (cf. § ) to worship the one Cause (cf. § ; further, Petit , ). Note also the similarities between Nob.  and Paen. –, including especially the similar ways in which εοφιλ=ς, μαα, and μοναρχα are used. § . a woman from Palestinian Syria. This is contradicted by other post-biblical authors (Jub. :; T. Jud. :; cf. Gen. Rab. .; Menn , –, ), who identify Tamar as an Aramean woman, presumably reasoning that the matter in which she was “more righteous” than Judah (Gen :) was her insistence not to intermarry—as he had (Gen :–)—with a Canaanite, going so far as to trick her own father-in-law into having sexual relations with her (cf. Ps.-Philo, L.A.B. :, with Polaski ). In contrast, it would appear that “Philo assumes that, since she is not said like Rebekah and Rachel and Leah to come of the line of the patriarchs, she belonged to the idolatrous people around” (PLCL ., cf. ). He assumes also that she was born of free parents (§ ). Since the biblical account states nothing explicitly about her ancestry or upbringing, Tamar would not seem to provide a particularly good example of a noble person born of ignoble lineage (§ ); it is her husbands, not her parents, who are said to be wicked. For the designation “Palestinian Syria,” see Abr. ; Prob. ; Herodotus, Hist. .; .; .; Josephus, Ant. .. emerging from deep darkness, she was able to see a small ray of truth. Cf. on Paen. . she deserted to piety. Cf. on Paen. . service and supplication. Cf. on Paen. . the one Cause. Cf. Fort. ; Hum. .

on nobility, §§ –



§ . married to two brothers in turn, both of them wicked. See Gen :– (also with πονηρς). T. Jud. :– explains that in their wickedness the brothers were goaded by the treacherous schemes of their mother. She devised such schemes against Tamar because she “was not the daughter of Canaan as she was.” On Er and Onan, cf. Leg. .–; Post. –; Deus –. her lawful husband. For this use of κουρδιος, see Homer, Od. .; also Hum. . in accord with the law of inheritance. When his elder brother dies without leaving an heir, Onan takes his place as Tamar’s husband, in keeping with the law of levirate marriage. See Deut :–, with Weisberg ; cf. Spec. .; and for the rabbinic discussion, Belkin , –  (who treats also Spec. .–); for discrepancies between Gen  and the deuteronomic passage, see Menn , –. For his part, Philo makes no reference to the levirate law, representing the arrangement instead as an 1πιδικασα, which under Athenian law was a formal claim to an inheritance. If a deceased man left a daughter but no sons, the estate would fall to her, but only as its 1πκληρος. A male relative who wanted to claim the inheritance would have to claim the daughter as well, since “[p]ossession of her estate cannot ideally be separated from her hand in marriage” (Todd , ). The discussion of the law in Todd , – does not make it clear if the claimant would necessarily be the deceased’s next of kin (as PLCL . states), though the fact that the deceased could nominate a husband for his daughter in his will would seem to suggest that different types of arrangements were possible. There was also an expectation that the husband of the 1πκληρος would give her a son: “If she were to die childless, then presumably . . . he would inherit the property by default. This might therefore provide some temptation to onanism” (Todd , ; cf. Plutarch, Sol. .–). This last point might account for why Philo employs the term here. The reading adopted by PCW ., κατ 1πιδικασας νμον, is found in none of the mss, though S has κατ 1πιδικασαν νμου, while the others have κα ;χοντι 1πιδικασας νμου. she still kept her own life untarnished. Elsewhere Philo subjects the story of Tamar to elaborate, sometimes strained, allegorical interpretation (cf. Petit ). We learn that her name means palm tree, a sign of the mind’s victory over the body, Er, which is slain (Leg. .). When she presents herself as a harlot (Gen :–), this is virtue making trial of the lovers of learning, to see which of them will remove her veil and behold her beauty (Congr. –). Judah, the mind bent on purchasing



commentary

piety, gives her a pledge of steadfastness, consistency, and discipline (cf. Gen :), his failed inquiries as to her whereabouts (Gen :–) demonstrating that in all the region governed by that which is morally excellent there is no soul that plays the harlot (Fug. –; for different interpretations of the three items given in pledge, cf. Mut. –; Somn. .–). Widowed of the human pleasures, she receives divine impregnation in the form of seeds of virtue and thereby bears noble deeds (Deus ). Here, in contrast, Tamar’s purity is evidenced in her remaining unaffected by the moral depravity of her husbands. a source of nobility for all those who came after her. Having failed to give his third son, Shelah, to Tamar in marriage (Gen :, ), Judah has two sons with her himself, Perez and Zerah (Gen :–), who continue the family line (cf. Gen :; Num :–). (d) § . Handmaids born beyond the Euphrates. Zilpah and Bilhah, who together represent the final example (§§ b–), belonged to the house of Laban, in the city of Nahor, in Mesopotamia (Gen :; cf. Hess , ). They are identified as Leah and Rachel’s respective παιδσκαι (Gen :, ; :, , –, ; :–), rendered here with ερ,παιναι (cf. Josephus, Ant. .). given as a dowry to their mistresses when they married. That the maids constituted the brides’ dowries (cf. Spec. .) is Philo’s interpretation of Gen :, , which states that Laban gave them to his daughters as wedding gifts; cf. Demosthenes, Or. .. passed over from the status of concubines to the name and manner of married women. Gen : (cf. Rosen-Zvi ) refers to Bilhah as Jacob’s παλλακ= (cf. Sacr. ; Migr. ; Her. ; Congr. –). In the ancient Near East, a man usually established a relationship with a concubine when his legal wife did not bear offspring; if she later did have children, they would have priority in the inheritance over those born of the concubine (Rainey , –). In the Roman world, by contrast, a concubine was a woman “living in an avowed monogamous relationship with a man who did not have a legal wife” (Treggiari , ). Any children resulting from the union were illegitimate and as such had no legal claim on their father’s property (Treggiari , ). Not surprisingly, most concubines were either slaves or freedwomen (Rawson ). Perhaps Philo inferred from Gen : that Zilpah and Bilhah had achieved the status of γυναAκες (for similar elevations, cf. Josephus, Ant. .; .; Feldman a, –; Niehoff , –), and some Roman men did end up eventually marrying their concubines (Treggiari , –). Yet, in commenting on the verse elsewhere Philo still refers

on nobility, §§ –



to the two as concubines (Deus –). According to Congr. , – , one pair of Jacob’s partners were “freeborn legitimate wives,” while the other pair were “slaves and concubines.” Josephus, meanwhile, maintains that the latter “were in no way slaves but only subordinates” (Ant. .), while T. Naph. :– asserts that their father was in fact a free and nobly born Chaldean who had been taken captive and then purchased by Laban, who gave him one of his slaves as a wife. envy does not dwell in the souls of sages. Sages never grudge good things to others but banish envy from their souls, e.g., Spec. .; cf. .; Praem. ; Völker , ; and see on Hum.  and . Envy constitutes an obstacle to attaining virtue both for oneself and for others, e.g., Plato, Leg. a: “We want everyone to compete in the struggle for virtue in a generous spirit . . . The envious man, who thinks he has to get the better of others by being rude about them, makes less effort himself to attain virtue and discourages his competitors by unfair criticism.” Cf. Dio Chrysostom, Or. /.–: the sage uses reason to purge his mind of envy, jealousy, and greed out of his eagerness “insofar as he can, to aid all people” (cf. Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. .). § . the baseborn children . . . were treated no differently than the legitimate. The sons born of Leah and Rachel are legitimate, while those of Bilhah and Zilpah are not (Leg. .; Deus ; Sobr. ; Her. ). Bilhah’s name means “swallowing,” signifying the soul that gives birth to perishable, not divine, offspring, while Zilpah’s name should be interpreted as “a walking mouth,” that is, the power of sophistic rhetoric (Leg. .–; .; Congr. –). In Greek legal custom, typically a νος is the child born of a concubine and acknowledged as such by the father; thus “the nothos can have a patronymic but is not a legitimate (gn¯esios) offspring” (Patterson , ). The idealized portrait of family affairs presented in §§ – would have had the effect of counteracting anxieties harbored among ancient people about the social status of children born from such unions; see Byron . the common father of them all showed the same goodwill to those born of different mothers. This contradicts Gen :, which states not only that Jacob loved Joseph more than all his other sons, but that Joseph’s brothers knew this and hated Joseph for it; cf. Ios. . the stepmothers . . . abolished hatred for their stepchildren. The stereotype of the lethal stepmother was well established in the early empire: “it was . . . assumed that in her heart she hated her stepchildren and was secretly plotting their demise” (Gray-Fow , ; e.g., Juvenal, Sat. .–; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ..; Lucian, Abdic. ;



commentary

Tacitus, Ann. .; Quintilian, Inst. ..; cf. Spec. .). Contrariwise, the most famous example of a good stepmother in Philo’s time would have been the younger Octavia, sister of Augustus and fourth wife of Mark Antony, who raised her own children alongside the children of his second and third marriages (Gray-Fow , ). § . the stepchildren honored their stepmothers. For the obligation to honor one’s stepmother, see Spec. .–; Wilson , . It was not always observed, e.g., Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. ... though considered half-brothers. μ!ρει 9μσει is Cohn’s (PCW .) emendation for μ!ρει Zμισυ (S), μ!ρει Zμισυ τ$ μξει (G2), μ!ρει τ$ μξει (F), and μνη τ$ μξει (HP) in the mss. to show a halved affection. S reads 1φ 9μισεα στ!ργειν, while the remaining mss have 1φ 9μισεας στοργ$ς. From this point on the text of F is mutilated, its place in Cohn’s apparatus being taken by its twin, Vaticanus gr.  (PCW .xxviii, ). harmony and unity. Readers familiar with Genesis  would be quick to challenge such claims. Note in particular verse , where Joseph brings back a “bad report” about his illegitimate brothers to their father (cf. T. Gad :–; Gen. Rab. .; also Jos. Asen. :–). In Ios. –, Philo follows the narrative of that chapter rather closely, taking due notice of the envy, hatred, and bitterness that Joseph’s brothers harbored against him. More often, though, he underscores the twelve’s harmony (Sobr. ; Somn. .–; Mos. .; Spec. .; Praem. –, –), and can even assert that, unlike his father and grandfather, Jacob “met with no mishap in any part of his household” (Praem. ). () § . Should one, then, have any share with those . . . Reading ;τι τονυν μεταδοτ!ον ατο( τοAς with PLCL . and SG2H2, against PCW . and Vat.  (see above), which have τ τονυν μεταδοτ!ον τοAς. As Colson notes, in Philo’s writings this verb is used only with the genitive. rightly be considered enemies of both the Jewish nation and of all people everywhere. For the subtreatise’s universalizing tendencies, evident especially in §§ –a, see Analysis/General comments. Philo concludes with two brief points: those who claim the nobility of their ancestors as their own undermine the cultivation of virtue (§ ); in keeping with justice, the law judges all persons individually, with no respect for their family relations or history (§ ; cf. Spec. .). § . avenging justice. For the tradition that Δκη wreaks vengeance on those who transgress the law, see Post. ; Spec. .; Plato, Leg.

on nobility, §§ –



a (cf. on Hum. ), e; Epin. e; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. /..; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. ... Compare also Plato, Leg. d, according to which Retribution (Ν!μεσις), the messenger of Justice and overseer of all things, visits judgment on children who are disobedient to their parents. On the role of the Furies in Greek thought, see Maharam . Further, Alexandre , – .

Parallel Exegesis The treatise Quod omnis probus liber sit is an extended defense of the Stoic paradox that the virtuous alone are free, since they alone are free from the domination of the passions and cannot be persuaded or compelled to do wrong (cf. Galloway , –). As a basic principle, this parallels and supplements the argument developed in De nobilitate that the virtuous alone are noble (even if they are not free, § ), and at certain points the concepts of freedom and nobility overlap, e.g., Prob. ,  (quoted above), , , , . As in De nobilitate, Philo illustrates his thesis with numerous examples (see especially Prob. – ). However, unlike our text, the vast majority of these examples are derived from non-biblical sources (though cf. the reference to Esau in § ), and so the text as a whole has a more “secular” tone. For a similar concentration of biblical examples we must turn to the treatise that immediately follows De virtutibus in the Exposition, De praemiis et poenis. Philo explains that once they have been trained in the law, the citizens of Moses’ polity are sent out to be tested in the “sacred arena” of virtue. The obedient are rewarded as “true athletes” while the disobedient are shamed and punished (§§ –). Such rewards and punishments may be classified under individuals, families, cities, countries, and so forth (§ ). Honors paid to individuals are treated first, beginning with the so-called lesser trinity, Enosh (§§ –), Enoch (§§ –), and Noah (§§ –). For his righteousness, the last of these receives a two-fold prize, salvation from destruction and responsibility for all living creatures, since “the Creator judged it right that the same man should end the condemned and begin the innocent generation.” Next comes the greater trinity, whom, Philo notes, all belong to the same family (§§ –). Abraham’s reward for learning the truth of God’s existence is faith in God. Because he has learned to believe in God he has learned to disbelieve in everything else, especially everything



commentary

found in the sense-perceptible world, and so he is allowed “to gaze and soar beyond not only material but all immaterial things, and to take God for his sole stay and support” (§§ –). For Isaac, the one who acquired virtue “through nature,” the reward is joy, which consists in a life free from fear and grief (§§ –; thus representing the opposite of Cain in Nob. ). And Jacob, “the man of practice,” who shunned no toil or danger in his pursuit of the truth, has for his crown the vision of God, “the conceptual world ruled by its charioteer” (§§ – ). When he turns to rewards given to families, Philo insists that this type pertains only to Jacob, since he alone fathered only good children, while of the many children born to his grandfather all but one was found to be unworthy, and one of his father’s sons turned out to be “wild and indocile, brimful of fierce temper and lust” (§§ –). This family tree is then subjected to allegorical interpretation. Abraham passed from ignorance to knowledge, and ignorance is multiform; there are therefore many offspring for him to discard. Isaac represents the naturally-gifted soul, which lies on the border between virtue and vice; once it matures, however, the two separate. Finally, the soul that has not only good nature and good instruction, but also practice in virtue “becomes the plenitude of virtues” (§§ –).

Nachleben Clement paraphrases small portions from De nobilitate in Strom. ..– .., which is organized in terms of three comparisons, and in ..– .., which gives some concluding reflections on the worthiness of the sage. A transitional sentence (“But nobility itself is exhibited in choosing and practicing what is best.”) serves to contrast the concept of nobility with that of pretentiousness, which had just been discussed in ..– .. (see the Nachleben for De paenitentia; and for the language of choosing, cf. Nob. ). As with the previous section, those passages from Philo that Clement does draw on entail biblical allusions. Unlike his source, he refers to some of the (male) biblical figures by name. First there is a comparison of Adam and Noah (reversing the non-canonical order of the presentation in Nob. –). He begins by wondering what benefit (cf. /φελος in Nob. ) Adam derived from the nobility he inherited from God. Although his father was no mortal (..; cf. Nob. ), “he eagerly chose shameful things . . . and neglected those that are true and excellent, on which account he exchanged an immortal

on nobility, §§ –



life for a mortal one” (..). Clement follows the text of Nob.  closely, shortening the lists (“false and shameful and evil things” becomes “shameful things,” while “those that are good and excellent and true” becomes “those that are true and excellent”) and altering Wλγησεν to Wμ!λησεν. More interesting are two additions: when he made his choice Adam was actually “following his wife” (cf. Strom. ..–..), and the exchange he experienced was “not forever” (cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. ..–; ..–). His counterpart is Noah, though interest is expressed not in his progeny (as in Nob. ), but in his origin, which “was not the same as Adam’s” (..). Nevertheless, he was saved (cf. Nob. ) through a divine visitation (1πισκοπ=; cf. Nob. ) because he had dedicated himself to God. Next Isaac is compared with Abraham’s other sons. Clement follows the text of Nob.  almost verbatim, except for changing ποδεχη to διαδ!χεται, and dropping the reason why the other sons were not found to be worthy heirs, namely, that they reproduced none of their father’s attributes. Finally, the twin sons of Isaac himself are compared in .., using language drawn from the beginning of Nob.  and the end of Nob. . The younger son was “well-pleasing,” though only to his father, not both parents, and so is the recipient of “his” prayers. Descriptions of the elder’s disobedience and the selling of his birthright are dropped, leaving only the statement that he served the younger, since “it is the greatest good for the fool not to live under his own authority,” a slightly modified version of Philo’s axiom in Nob. . A concluding paragraph announces that the “plan” (see the text-critical note on § ) evidenced by these events was “prophetical” insofar as it proves that all things belong to the sage, a Stoic tenet backed up with a citation of Gen : (cf. Sacr. ). This text, Clement says, conveys two teachings. The first is that the readers should desire one thing only, God’s mercy, through which the promises made to the worthy are realized (..–..). The second is that the sage is a king, another Stoic tenet, this one backed up with a citation of Gen : (cf. Nob. – ). The section concludes with the observation that the subjects of the sage obey him voluntarily on account of his desire for virtue (cf. Nob. ). Of all the biblical narratives alluded to in this subtreatise, Philo’s influence on the reception history of the Cain narrative was perhaps most profound. As Quinones (, ) puts it, “the greatest revolution . . . in the history of the Cain-Abel theme was the first, when the biblical brothers were transformed by Philo and later by Augustine into universal, rival, and contending principles.” Cf. Didymus Caecus, Comm. Gen.



commentary

– (with Geljon ); Ambrose, De Cain et Abel (with Savon , .–, –); and chapter  of Augustine’s De civitate Dei. Further, Glenthøj ; Schrenk , –. Further reading: Alexandre ; Böhm , –; Byron ; Holtz , –; Schuhl , –; Vessey ; Wendland , –.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Editions and Translations of De virtutibus Arnaldez, R. et al. . De virtutibus. Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie . Introduction et notes de R. Arnaldez. Traduction de P. Delobre, M.-R. Servel, A.-M. Verilhac. Paris: Editions du Cerf. Cohn, L. . Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. . Berlin: G. Reimer; reprinted Berlin: de Gruyter, . Cohn, L. et al. . Philo von Alexandria: die Werke in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. . Breslau: Marcus Verlag; reprinted Berlin: de Gruyter, . Colson, F.H. . Philo, vol. . LCL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; London: Heinemann. Harris, J.R. . Fragments of Philo Judaeus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mangey, T. . Philonis Judaei opera quae reperir potuerunt omnia, vol. . London: W. Humphrey. Yonge, C.D. –. The Works of Philo Judaeus.  vols. London: H.G. Bohn; reprinted Peabody: Hendrickson, . Other Ancient Texts Most Greek and Latin texts and translations are cited in accordance with the Loeb Classical Library. Note also the following: Aristotle, De nobilitate P.-M. Schuhl et al. Aristotle: De la richesse, De la prière, de la noblesse, du plaisir de l’éducation. Textes et Documents . Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, . Artemidorus, Oneirocritica R.J. White. The Interpretation of Dreams (Oneirocritica) by Artemidorus: Translation and Commentary. Park Ridge: Noyes, . Carmen aureum J.C. Thom. The Pythagorean Golden Verses. RGRW . Leiden: Brill, . Clement of Alexandria, Stromata O. Stählin. Clemens Alexandrius: Stromata.  vols. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, –. Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica J. Dillon and J. Hershbell. Iamblichus: On the Pythagorean Way of Life. SBLTT . Atlanta: Scholars, . Menander, Monostichoi S. Jaekel. Menandri Sententiae. BT. Leipzig: Teubner, .



bibliography

Menander Rhetor D.A. Russel and N.G. Wilson. Menander Rhetor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, . Mishnah J. Neusner. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, . Musonius Rufus C.E. Lutz. Musonius Rufus: ‘The Roman Socrates’. YCS . New York: Yale University Press, . Old Testament Pseudepigrapha J.H. Charlesworth. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.  vols. Garden City: Doubleday, , . Porphyry, Ad Marcellam K. O’Brien Wicker. Porphyry the Philosopher: To Marcella. SBLTT . Atlanta: Scholars, . Porphry, De abstinentia G. Clark. Porphry: On Abstinence from Killing Animals. London: Duckworth, . Qumran Library F. García Martínez. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. nd ed. Leiden: Brill, . Septuagint A. Rahlfs. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, , . Sextus, Sententiae H. Chadwick. The Sentences of Sextus: A Contribution to the History of Early Christian Ethics. TS . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, . Stoa J. von Arnim. Stoicorum veterum fragmenta.  vols. Leipzig: Teubner, – ; reprinted New York: Irvington, . Talmud I. Epstein. The Babylonian Talmud.  vols. London: Soncino, –. Teles E.N. O’Neil. Teles, the Cynic Teacher. SBLTT . Missoula: Scholars, . Modern Scholarly Literature Aalders, G.J.D. . Political Thought in Hellenistic Times. Amsterdam: A.M. Hakkert. ———. . Plutarch’s Political Thought. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. Adam, T. . Clementia Principis: Der Einfluß Hellenistischer Fürstenspiegel auf den Versuch einer rechtlichen Fundierung des Principats durch Seneca. Kieler Historische Studien . Stuttgart: E. Klett. Alaux, J. . Fratricide et lien fraternal: quelques repères grecs. Quaderni di storia :–. Alexander, M. . A Rhetorical Analysis of Philo’s De uirtutibus. Euphrosyne :–.

bibliography



Alexander, P.J. . A Neglected Palimpsest of Philo Judaeus: Preliminary Remarks editorum in usum. Pages – in Studia Codicologica. Edited by K. Treu. TU . Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Alexandre, M. . Le lexique des vertus: vertus philosophiques et religieuses chez Philon: μετ,νοια et εγ!νεια. Pages – in Philon d’Alexandrie et le langage de la philosophie. Edited by C. Lévy. Monothéismes et Philosophie. Turnhout: Brepols. ———. a. Apologétique judéo-hellénistique et premières apologies chrétiennes. Pages – in Les apologistes chrétiens et la culture grecque. Edited by B. Pouderon; J. Doré. Théologie Historique . Paris: Beauchesne. Allison, D.C. . The Jesus Tradition in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. ———. . Testament of Abraham. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter. Alon, G. . Jews, Judaism and the Classical World. Jerusalem: Magnes. Alston, R. . The City in Roman and Byzantine Egypt. London: Routledge. Aly, A.A. . Testing Women’s Milk. Pages – in Sciences exactes et sciences appliquées à Alexandrie. Edited by G. Argoud, J.-Y. Guillaumin. SaintEtienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Etienne. Amir, Y. . Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien. FJCD . Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Annas, J. . The Morality of Happiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. . Platonic Ethics, Old and New. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Arora, U.P. . Greeks on India: Skylax to Aristoteles. Bareilly: Isgars. Asheri, D. . Leggi greche sul problema dei debiti. Studi classici e orientali :–. Attridge, H.W. . The Philosophical Critique of Religion under the Early Empire. ANRW II..:–. Aune, D.E. . Mastery of the Passions: Philo,  Maccabees and Earliest Christianity. Pages – in Hellenization Revisited: Shaping a Christian Response within the Greco-Roman World. Edited by W.E. Helleman. Lanham: University Press of America. Austin, M.M. and P. Vidal-Naquet. . Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece. Berkeley: University of California Press. Baer, R.A. . Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female. ALGHJ . Leiden: Brill. Bagnall, R.S. . A Trick a Day to Keep the Tax Man at Bay? The Prostitute Tax in Roman Egypt. BASP :–. ———. . Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bailey, J.N. . Metanoia in the Writings of Philo Judaeus. SBLSP :–. Bakewell, G. . Lysias  and Lysias : Metics and Athenian Citzenship in the Aftermath of the Thirty. GRBS :–. Bakhos, C. . Figuring (out) Esau: The Rabbis and Their Others. JJS :– . Balch, D.L. . Two Apologetic Encomia: Dionysius on Rome and Josephus on the Jews. JSJ :–. Baldry, H.C. . The Unity of Mankind in Greek Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



bibliography

Baldwin, B. . Medical Grounds for Exemptions from Military Service at Athens. Classical Philology :–. Balsdon, J.P.V.D. . Romans and Aliens. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Baltzly, D. . The Virtues and ‘Becoming Like God’: Alcinous to Proclus. OSAP :–. Barclay, J.M.G. . Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. . Apologetics in the Jewish Diaspora. Pages – in Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities. Edited by J.R. Bartlett. London: Routledge. ———. . Flavius Josephus: Against Apion. Leiden: Brill. Barker, A. . Greek Musical Writings, vol. : Harmonic and Acoustic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barney, R. . A Puzzle in Stoic Ethics. OSAP :–. Barraclough, R. . Philo’s Politics: Roman Rule and Hellenistic Judaism. ANRW II..:–. Barthélemy, D. . Est-ce Hoshaya Rabba qui censura le ‘Commentaire Allégorique’? A partir des retouches faites aux citations bibliques, étude sur la tradition textuelle du Commentaire Allégorique de Philon. Pages – in Philon d’Alexandrie. Lyon – Septembre : colloques nationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Barton, T. . Ancient Astrology. London: Routledge. Batten, A. . God in the Letter of James: Patron or Benefactor? NTS :– . Baumgarten, A.I. . Myth and Midrash: Genesis :–. Pages – in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, vol. . Edited by J. Neusner. SJLA . Leiden: Brill. Baumgarten, J.M. . The Laws of #Orlah and First Fruits in the Light of Jubilees, the Qumran Writings, and Targum Ps. Jonathan. JJS :–. ———. . A Qumran Text with Agrarian Halakhah. JQR :–. Beagon, M. . Roman Nature: The Thought of Pliny the Elder. Oxford: Clarendon. Begg, C.T. . Israel’s Treaty with Gibeon According to Josephus. OLP :– . ———. . Josephus’ and Philo’s Retelling of Numbers  Compared. ETL :–. Behm, J. . μετανο!ω, μετ,νοια. TDNT :–. Bekken, P.J. . The Word is Near You: A Study of Deuteronomy :– in Paul’s Letter to the Romans in a Jewish Context. BZNW . Berlin: de Gruyter. Belkin, S. . Philo and the Oral Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ———. . Levirate and Agnate Marriage in Rabbinic and Cognate Literature. JQR :–. Belletti, B. . La dottrina dell’assimilazione a Dio in Filone di Alessandria. Rivista di Filosofia Neoscolastica :–.

bibliography



Ben-Ze"ev, A. . Aristotle on Emotions Towards the Fortune of Others. Pages – in Envy, Spite and Jealousy: The Rivalrous Emotions in Ancient Greece. Edited by D. Konstan, N.K. Rutter. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Berchman, R.M. . Arcana Mundi: Prophecy and Divination in the Vita Mosis of Philo of Alexandria. SBLSP :–. Berger, K. . Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu. WMANT . Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Bergsma, J.S. . The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran: A History of Interpretation. VTSup . Leiden: Brill. Bergsma, J.S. and S.W. Hahn. . Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan (Genesis :–). JBL :–. Bernstein, M.J. . The Employment and Interpretation of Scripture in QMMT. Pages – in Reading QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. Edited by J. Kampen, M.J. Bernstein. Atlanta: Scholars. Berthelot, K. . Philo and Kindness towards Animals (De virtutibus – ). SPhA :–. ———. . Philanthrôpia Judaica: le débat autour de la ‘misanthropie’ des lois juives dans l’antiquité. JSJ . Leiden: Brill. Bertram, G. . στρ!φω, κτλ. TDNT :–. Betz, H.D. . De laude ipsius (Moralia A–F). Pages – in Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature. Edited by H.D. Betz. SCHNT . Leiden: Brill. Beyenka, M.M. . Saint Ambrose: Letters. New York: Fathers of the Church. Bietenhard, H. . Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spätjudentum. WUNT . Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Billerbeck, M. . Le Cynisme idéalisé d’Épictète à Julien. Pages – in Le Cynisme ancien et ses prolongements. Edited by M.-O. Goulet-Cazé, R. Goulet. Paris: Pr. Universitaires de France. Birnbaum, E. . The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes. StPhilMon . Atlanta: Scholars. Blanchetière, F. . Au coeur de la cité: le chrétien philosophe selon l’A Diognète –. RevScRel :–. Blumenfeld, B. . The Political Paul: Justice, Democracy and Kingship in a Hellenistic Framework. JSNTSup . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Blundell, M.W. . Parental Nature and Stoic Ο>κεωσις. Ancient Philosophy :–. Böhm, M. . Rezeption und Funktion der Vätererzählungen bei Philo von Alexandria: Zum Zusammenhang von Kontext, Hermeneutik und Exegese im frühen Judentum. BZNW . Berlin: de Gruyter. Bolgiani, F. . L’ascesi di Noé: A proposito di Theoph., Ad Autol., III, . Pages – in Forma Futuri: Studi in onore del cardinale Michele Pellegrino. Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo. Bord, L.-J. . ‘You Shall not Go into his House’: The Law of Deuteronomy :– in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Laws. Pages – in Inicios, paradigmas y fundamentos. Entre Ríos, Argentina: Editorial Univ. Adventista del Plata.



bibliography

Borgen, P. . ‘There Shall Come Forth a Man:’ Reflections on Messianic Ideas in Philo. Pages – in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J. Brownson et al. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. . Heavenly Ascent in Philo. Pages – in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth, C.A. Evans. JSPSup . Sheffield: Sheffield University Press. ———. . Jesus Christ, the Reception of the Spirit, and a Cross-National Community. Pages – in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology. Edited by J.B. Green, M. Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. . Man’s Sovereignty over Animals and Nature According to Philo of Alexandria. Pages – in Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman. Edited by T. Fornberg, D. Hellholm. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. ———. . Philo of Alexandria: A Systematic Philosopher or an Eclectic Editor? SO :–. ———. a. Philanthropia in Philo’s Writings: Some Observations. Pages –  in Biblical and Humane: A Festschrift for John F. Priest. Edited by L.B. Elder et al. SPHS . Atlanta: Scholars, . ———. . Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time. NovTSup . Leiden: Brill. ———. . Two Philonic Prayers and Their Contexts: An Analysis of Who is the Heir of Divine Things (Her.) – and Against Flaccus (Flac.) –. NTS :–. Bosman, P. . Conscience in Philo and Paul: A Conceptual History of the Synoida Word Group. WUNT .. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Bostock, D. . Plato’s Phaedo. Oxford: Clarendon. Boswell, J. . The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance. New York: Pantheon. Bowersock, G.W. . Roman Arabia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bradley, K. . Seneca and Slavery. Classica et mediaevalia :–. ———. . Slavery and Society at Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brooks, R. . Support for the Poor in the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture: Tractate Peah. BJS . Chico: Scholars. Bruin, W.M. de. . Die Freistellung vom Militärdienst in Deut. XX –. VT :–. Burford, A. . Land and Labor in the Greek World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Burnett, F.W. . Philo on Immortality: A Thematic Study of Philo’s Concept of παλιγγενεσα. CBQ :–. Byron, J. . Noble Lineage as a Response to Enslavement in the Testament of Naphtali .–. JJS :–. Cairns, D.L. . Hybris, Dishonour, and Thinking Big. JHS :–. Calabi, F. . Les sacrifices et leur signification symbolique chez Philo d’Alexandrie. Pages – in ‘Car c’est l’amour qui me plait, non le sacrifice . . .’:

bibliography



Recherches sur Osée : et son interprétation juive et chrétienne. Edited by E. Bons. JSJSup . Leiden: Brill. Cancik, H. . The History of Culture, Religion, and Institutions in Ancient Historiography: Philological Observations Concerning Luke’s History. JBL :–. Cardellini, I. . Die biblischen Sklaven-Gesetze im Lichte des keilschriftlichen Sklavenrechts. BBB . Königstein: Peter Hanstein. Carmichael, C.M. . On Separating Life and Death: An Explanation of Some Biblical Laws. HTR :–. Cary, E. . The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, vol. . LCL. London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Caster, M. . Lucien et la pensée religieuse de son temps. Paris: Budé. Cavallin, H.C.C. . Life After Death: Paul’s Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in I Cor . Part I: An Enquiry into the Jewish Background. Lund: Gleerup. Chesnutt, R.D. . From Death to Life: Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth. JSPSup . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Chirichigno, G.C. . Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East. JSOTSup . Sheffield: JSOT. Chroust, A.-H. . A Comment on Aristotle’s On Noble Birth. Wiener Studien :–. Clark, G. . The Fathers and the Animals: The Rule of Reason? Pages –  in Animals on the Agenda: Questions about Animals for Theology and Ethics. Edited by A. Linzey, D. Yamamoto. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Cohen, N.G. . Agrippa I and De Specialibus Legibus IV –. StPhilAnn :–. ———. . Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse. BEATAJ . Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Cohen, S.J.D. . The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cohn, L. . Die Philo-Handschriften in Oxford und Paris. Philologus :– . ———. a. Zur indirekten Ueberlieferung Philo’s in der älteren Kirchenväter. Jahrbücher für Protestantische Theologie :–. ———. . Einteiling und Chronologie der Schriften Philos. Philologus Supplbd. .:–. ———. . Neue Beiträge zur Textgeschichte und Kritik der Philonischen Schriften. Hermes :–. Cohoon, J.W. and H.L. Crosby. . Dio Chrysostom: Discourses –. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Colpe, C. . Himmelfahrt. RAC :–. Conley, T.M. . Philo’s Rhetoric: Argumentation and Style. ANRW II..: –. Conzelmann, H. . Gentiles, Jews, Christians: Polemics and Apologetics in the Greco-Roman Era. Minneapolis: Fortress. Cooper, A. . The Plain Sense of Exodus :. HUCA :–.



bibliography

Crawford, M. . Debt, Debt redemption. Pages – in Brill’s New Pauly, vol. . Leiden: Brill. ———. . Nobiles. Pages – in Brill’s New Pauly, vol. . Leiden: Brill. Crook, Z.A. . Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. BZNW . Berlin: de Gruyter. Dalby, A. . Siren Feasts: A History of Food and Gastronomy in Greece. London: Routledge. ———. . Levels of Concealment: The Dress of Hetairai and Pornai in Greek Texts. Pages – in Women’s Dress in the Ancient Greek World. Edited by L. Llewellyn-Jones. London: Duckworth. D’Arms, J.H. . Control, Companionship, and Clientela: Some Social Functions of the Roman Communal Meal. EMC :–. Dautzenberg, G. . Mt ,c und die antike Tradition von der jüdischen Misanthropie. Pages – in Studien zum Matthäusevangelium: Festschrift für Wilhelm Pesch. SBS. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk. Dawson, D. . Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Berkeley: University of California Press. Dean-Jones, L. . Women’s Bodies in Classical Greek Science. Oxford: Clarendon. de Fontenay, E. . La philanthrôpia à l’épreuve des bêtes. Pages – in L’animal dans l’antiquité. Edited by B. Cassin, J.-L. Labarrière. Paris: Vrin. Deininger, J. . Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland – v. Chr. Berlin: de Gruyter. Delia, D. . Alexandrian Citizenship during the Roman Principate. APAACS . Atlanta: Scholars. Delling, G. . στοιχ!ω, κτλ. TDNT :–. Denniston, J.D. . The Greek Particles. nd ed. London: Duckworth. Desmond, W.D. . The Greek Praise of Poverty: Origins of Ancient Cynicism. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Dierauer, U. . Tier und Mensch im Denken der Antike: Studien zur Tierpsychologie, Anthropologie und Ethik. Studien zur antiken Philosophie . Amsterdam: B.R. Grüner. Dietrich, E.K. . Die Umkehr (Bekehrung und Busse) im Alten Testament und im Judentum. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Dillon, J. . The Middle Platonists:  BC to AD . Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Dittenberger, W. . Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae.  vols. Hildesheim: Olms. Dixon, S. . The Meaning of Gift and Debt in the Roman Elite. EMC :– . Dobbin, R.F. . Epictetus: Discourses Book I. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Döring, K. . Exemplum Socratis: Studien zur Sokratesnachwirkung in der kynisch-stoischen Popularphilosophie der frühen Kaiserzeit und im frühen Christentum. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Douglas, A.E. . Cicero: Tusculan Disputations I. Chicago: Bolchazy-Carducci.

bibliography



Dowd, S. . The Theological Function of Petitionary Prayer in the Thought of Philo. PRSt :–. Dowling, M. . Proverbs :– in the Christology of the Early Fathers. IBS :–. Downing, F.G. . Philo on Wealth and the Rights of the Poor. JSOT :– . Drijvers, H.J.W. . A New Sanctuary at Palmyra. Archaeology :–. Droge, A.J. . Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture. HUT . Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Droge, A.J. and J.D. Tabor. . A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom Among Christians and Jews in Antiquity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. Dué, C. . The Captive Woman’s Lament in Greek Tragedy. Austin: University of Texas Press. Dyck, A.R. . A Commentary on Cicero, De Officiis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ———. . Evidence and Rhetoric in Cicero’s Pro Roscio Amerino: The Case Against Sex. Roscius. CQ :–. Dyck, J. . Philo, Alexandria and Empire: The Politics of Allegorical Interpretation. Pages – in Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities. Edited by J.R. Bartlett. London: Routledge. Eckstein, A.M. . Moral Vision in The Histories of Polybius. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. . Pharos and the Question of Roman Treaties of Alliance in the Greek East in the Third Century BCE. CP :–. Edwards, C. . The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, D.R. . The Social, Religious, and Political Aspects of Costume in Josephus. Pages – in The World of Roman Costume. Edited by J.L. Sebesta, L. Bonfante. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Ehrhardt, A.A.T. . Imperium und humanitas: Grundlagen des römischen Imperialismus. Studium Generale :–. Eilberg-Schwartz, H. . The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Elliott, J.H. .  Peter. AB B. New York: Doubleday. Elman, P. . Deuteronomy :–: The Beautiful Captive Woman. Women in Judaism (on-line journal) vol. , no. . Elter, A. –. Gnomologiorum Graecorum historia atque origine. Bonn: C. George. Engberg-Pedersen, T. . Paraenesis Terminology in Philo. Pages – in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen. Edited by D.E. Aune et al. NovTSup . Leiden: Brill. Erdkamp, P. . Agriculture, Underemployment, and the Cost of Rural Labour in the Roman World. CQ :–. Evans, J. . The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy. New York: Oxford University Press. Evans, J.K. . The Role of Suffragium in Imperial Political Decision-Making. Historia :–.



bibliography

Eyben, E. . Family Planning in Graeco-Roman Antiquity. Ancient Society –:–. Fears, J.R. . The Theology of Victory at Rome: Approaches and Problems. ANRW II..:–. Feldman, D.M. . Birth Control in Jewish Law. nd ed. New York: Schocken. Feldman, L.H. –. Josephus as a Biblical Interpreter: The #Aqedah. JQR :–. ———. . Josephus’ Portrait of Noah and Its Parallels in Philo, Pseudo-Philo’s ‘Biblical Antiquities’, and Rabbinic Midrashim. PAAJR :–. ———. –. Josephus’ Portrait of Jacob. JQR :–. ———. . Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ———. . Philo’s Views on Music. Pages – in Studies in Hellenistic Judaism. Edited by L.H. Feldman. AGAJU . Leiden: Brill. ———. . Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. : Judean Antiquities –. Leiden: Brill. ———. a. Josephus’ Portrayal (Antiquities .–) of the Benjaminite Affair of the Concubine and its Repercussions (Judges –). JQR :– . ———. . Philo’s Interpretation of Joshua. JSP :–. ———. . The Death of Moses, According to Philo. EstBib :–. ———. . Philo’s Version of Balaam. Henoch :–. ———. a. Questions about the Great Flood, as Viewed by Philo, PseudoPhilo, Josephus, and the Rabbis. ZAW :–. ———. . Moses the General and the Battle against Midian in Philo. JSQ :– . Ferguson, E. . Spiritual Sacrifice in Early Christianity and its Environment. ANRW II..:–. ———. . The Art of Praise: Philo and Philodemus on Music. Pages – in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by J.T. Fitzgerald et al. NovTSup . Leiden: Brill. Ferguson, J. . Moral Values in the Ancient World. London: Methuen. Ferrari, G.R.F. . Listening to the Cicadas: A Study of Plato’s Phaedrus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Finley, M.I. . The Alienability of Land in Ancient Greece: A Point of View. Eirene :–. ———. . Politics in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Finn, R. . Asceticism in the Graeco-Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fiore, B. . The Theory and Practice of Friendship in Cicero. Pages – in Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship. Edited by J.T. Fitzgerald. SBLRBS . Atlanta: Scholars. Fisher, N.R.E. . Hybris: A Study in the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Fitzgerald, J.T. . Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Cat-

bibliography



alogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence. SBLDS . Atlanta: Scholars. Fitzgerald, W. . Labor and Laborer in Latin Poetry: The Case of the Moretum. Arethusa :–. Foerster, W. and J. Hermann. . κλ$ρος, κτλ. TDNT :–. Fox, M.V. . Proverbs –. AB A. New York: Doubleday. Fox, R.L. . Aspects of Inheritance in the Greek World. History of Political Thought :–. Franklin, L. . Recollection and Philosophical Reflection in Plato’s Phaedo. Phronesis :–. Frick, P. . Divine Providence in Philo of Alexandria. TSAJ . Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Früchtel, U. . Die kosmologischen Vorstellungen bei Philo von Alexandrien. ALGHJ . Leiden: Brill. Fuhs, H.F. . Aus der Befreiung Leben: Erwägungen zum geschichtlichen Credo in Dtn ,–. Pages – in Schrift und Tradition: Festschrift für Josef Ernst. Edited by K. Backhaus, F. Untergaßmair. Vienna: Schöningh. Fuks, A. . Social Conflict in Ancient Greece. Jerusalem: Magnes. Fulkerson, L. . Metameleia and Friends: Remorse and Repentance in Fifthand Fourth-Century Athenian Oratory. Phoenix :–. Furnish, V.P. . II Corinthians. AB A. New York: Doubleday. Gabba, E. . Studi su Dionigi da Alicarnasso: La costituzione di Romolo. Athenaeum :–. ———. . Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gaca, K.L. . Philo’s Principles of Sexual Conduct and their Influence on Christian Platonist Sexual Principles. SPhA :–. Gale, M.R. . Virgil On the Nature of Things: The Georgics, Lucretius and the Didactic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gallant, T.W. . Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece: Reconstructing the Rural Domestic Economy. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Galloway, L.E. . Freedom in the Gospel: Paul’s Exemplum in  Cor  in Conversation with the Discourses of Epictetus and Philo. CBET . Leuven: Peeters. Gammie, J.G. . Paraenetic Literature: Toward the Morphology of a Secondary Genre. Semeia :–. Garnsey, P. . Non-Slave Labour in the Roman World. Pages – in NonSlave Labour in the Greco-Roman World. Edited by P. Garnsey. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. ———. . Grain for Rome. Pages – in Trade in the Ancient Economy. Edited by P. Garnsey, K. Hopkins, C.R. Whittaker. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. . Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. . Philo and Slave Theory. Scripta classica Israelica :–. ———. . Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



bibliography

———. . The Middle Stoics and Slavery. Pages – in Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography. Edited by P. Cartledge, P. Garnsey, E. Gruen. Berkeley: University of California Press. Geljon, A.C. . Philonic Exegesis in Gregory of Nyssa’s De Vita Moysis. StPhilMon . Providence: Brown Judaic Studies. ———. . Philonic Elements in Didymus the Blind’s Exegesis of the Story of Cain and Abel. VigChr :–. Gelzer, M. . The Roman Nobility. Oxford: Blackwell. Gerstenberger, E.S. . Leviticus. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Geytenbeek, A.C. . Musonius Rufus and Greek Diatribe. rev. ed. Assen: van Gorcum. Gilhus, I.S. . Animals, Gods and Humans: Changing Attitudes to Animals in Greek, Roman and Early Christian Ideas. London: Routledge. Gilmore, D.G., ed. . Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. Ginzberg, E. –. Studies in the Economics of the Bible. JQR :–. Ginzberg, L. . Legends of the Jews. Reprint.  vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Glad, C.E. . Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy. NovTSup . Leiden: Brill. Glenthøj, J.B. . Cain and Abel in Syriac and Greek Writers. CSCO . Leuven: Peeters. Goldenberg, D.M. . Antiquities IV,  and , Compared with Early Rabbinic Law. Pages – in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Edited by L.H. Feldman, G. Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University. Goodenough, E.R. . The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship. YCS :–. ———. . Philo’s Exposition of the Law and his De vita Moysis. HTR :– . ———. . By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism. New Haven: Yale University Press. ———. . The Politics of Philo Judaeus (with a General Bibliography of Philo by H.L. Goodhart, E.R. Goodenough). New Haven: Yale University Press. Goodman, M. . Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon. Görgemanns, H. . Beiträge zur Interpretation von Platons Nomoi. Zetemata . München: Beck. Gottwald, N.K. . ‘Holy War’ in Deuteronomy: Analysis and Critique. RevExp :–. Gourinat, J.-B. . La ‘prohairesis’ chez Epictète: décision, volonté ou ‘personne morale’? Philosophie Antique :–. Graf, F. . Women, War, and Warlike Divinities. ZPE :–. Graffigna, P. . Tra il doppio e l’unita: parentela (συγγ!νεια) tra uomo e Dio in Filone d’Alessandria. Koinonia :–. Graver, M.R. . Stoicism and Emotion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gray-Fow, M.J.G. . The Wicked Stepmother in Roman Literature and History. Latomus :–.

bibliography



Gross, J. . Philons von Alexandrien Anschauungen über die Natur des Menschen. Diss. Tübingen. Gruen, E.S. . Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Guerra, A.J. . The One God Topos in Spec. Leg. .. SBLSP :–. Gurval, R.A. . Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of a Civil War. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Guthrie, W.K.C. . Plato’s Views on the Nature of the Soul. Pages – in Plato: A Collection of Critical Essays, vol. . Edited by G. Vlastos. New York: Anchor. Gutsfeld, A. . Milk. Page  in Brill’s New Pauly, vol. . Leiden: Brill. Haas, P.J. . Mishnah-Tosefta Maaser Sheni. Pages – in The Law of Agriculture in the Mishnah and the Tosefta. Edited by J. Neusner. HdO /. Leiden: Brill. Hadas-Lebel, M. . Jerusalem Against Rome. ISACR . Leuven: Peeters. Hadot, P. . Fürstenspiegel. RAC :–. Hall, R.W. . Plato. London: Allen & Unwin. Hamilton, J.M. . Social Justice and Deuteronomy: The Case of Deuteronomy . SBLDS . Atlanta: Scholars. Hands, A.R. . Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Haran, M. . Seething a Kid in its Mother’s Milk. JJS :–. Hardie, P.R. . Tales of Unity and Division in Imperial Latin Epic. Pages –  in Literary Responses to Civil Discord. Edited by J.H. Molyneux. Nottingham: University of Nottingham Press. Harland, P.J. . Menswear and Womenswear: A Study of Deuteronomy :. ExpTim :–. Harrauer, H. –. Ein neuer Philo-Papyrus mit περ φιλανρωπας. Analecta Papyrologica –:–. Harrill, J.A. . The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity. HUT . Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Harris, E.M. . Did Solon Abolish Debt-Bondage? CQ :–. Harris, H.A. . Greek Athletics and the Jews. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Hasel, M.G. . The Destruction of Trees in the Moabite Campaign of  Kings :–: A Study in the Laws of Warfare. AUSS :–. ———. . Military Practice and Polemic: Israel’s Laws of Warfare in Near Eastern Perspective. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press. Hay, D.M. . Reference to Other Exegetes. Pages – in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus. Edited by D.M. Hay. BJS . Atlanta: Scholars. Hecht, R.D. . Preliminary Issues in the Analysis of Philo’s De Specialibus Legibus. StudPhil :–. ———. . The Exegetical Contexts of Philo’s Interpretation of Circumcision. Pages – in Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel. Edited by F.E. Greenspahn, E. Hilgert, B.L. Mack. Chico: Scholars.



bibliography

———. . Philo and Messiah. Pages – in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by J. Neusner, W.S. Green, E.S. Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heinemann, I. . Philons Griechische und Jüdische Bildung: Kulturvergleichende Untersuchungen zu Philons Darstellung der Jüdischen Gesetze. Breslau: Marcus; reprinted Hildesheim: G. Olms, . Helleman, W.E. . Philo of Alexandria on Deification and Assimilation to God. SPhA :–. Hennig, D. . Immobilienerwerb durch Nichtbürger in der klassischen und hellenistischen Polis. Chiron :–. Herrmann, F.G. . φνος in the World of Plato’s Timaeus. Pages – in Envy, Spite and Jealousy: The Rivalrous Emotions in Ancient Greece. Edited by D. Konstan, N.K. Rutter. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Herrmann-Otto, E. . Ecclesia in re publica: Die Entwicklung der Kirche von pseudostaatlicher zu staatlich inkorporierter Existenz. Europäisches Forum . Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Heskel, J. . Cicero as Evidence for Attitudes to Dress in the Late Republic. Pages – in The World of Roman Costume. Edited by J.L. Sebesta, L. Bonfante. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Hess, R.S. . Nahor (Place). ABD :. Hezser, C. . Jewish Slavery in Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hilgert, E. . A Review of Previous Research on Philo’s De Virtutibus. SBLSP :–. Hill, H. . Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the Origins of Rome. JRS :– . Hiltbrunner, O. . Humanitas. RAC :–. Himmelfarb, M. . A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hirzel, R. . Plutarch. Leipzig: Dieterich. Hobbs, A. . Plato and the Hero: Courage, Manliness and the Impersonal Good. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Höistad, R. . Cynic Hero and Cynic King: Studies in the Cynic Conception of Man. Uppsala: Carl Bloms. Holladay, C.H. . Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology. SBLDS . Missoula: Scholars. ———. . Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. : Historians. Chico: Scholars. Holtz, G. . Damit Gott sei alles in allem: Studien zum paulinischen und frühjüdischen Universalismus. BZNW . Berlin: de Gruyter. Houtman, C. , , . Exodus. HCOT.  vols. Kampen: Kok. Humble, N. . Reality and Ideology in the Representation of Women and War in Xenophon. AncWor :–. Hunt, A.S. and C.C. Edgar. . Select Papyri II. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Inwood, B. . Hierocles: Theory and Argument in the Second Century AD. OSAP :–. ———. . Ethics and Human Action in Early Stoicism. Oxford: Clarendon.

bibliography



———. . Politics and paradox in Seneca’s De beneficiis. Pages – in Justice and Generosity: Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy. Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium Hellenisticum. Edited by A. Laks, M. Schofield. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Irwin, T. . Plato’s Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Isaac, B.H. . The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. . The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Isager, S., and J.E. Skydsgaard. . Ancient Greek Agriculture: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Jaeger, W. . Scripta Minora I. Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura. Jagersma, H. . The Tithes in the Old Testament. Pages – in Remembering All the Way. Edited by A.S. van der Woude. OtStSup . Leiden: Brill. Jamesdon, M.H. . Sacrifice and Animal Husbandry in Classical Greece. Pages – in Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity. Edited by C.R. Whittaker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jastram, D.N. . Philo’s Concept of Generic Virtue. SBLSP :–. Jobling, D. . ‘And Have Dominion . . .’: The Interpretation of Genesis ,  in Philo Judaeus. JSJ :–. Jones, A. . The Stoics and the Astronomical Sciences. Pages – in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Edited by B. Inwood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, A.H.M. . The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History. Edited by P.A. Brunt. Oxford: Blackwell. Jones, J.R.M. . Testimonia Numaria: Greek and Latin Texts concerning Ancient Greek Coinage, vol. . London: SPINK. Kamlah, E. . Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen Testament. WUNT . Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kasher, A. . The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights. TSAJ . Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kassel, R. . Untersuchungen zur griechischen und römischen Konsolationsliteratur. Zetemata . München: Beck. Katz, P. . Philo’s Bible: The Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in Some Philonic Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kayatz, C. . Studien zu Proverbien –. WMANT . Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Keel, O. . Das Böcklein in der Milch seiner Mutter und Verwandtes: Im Lichte eines altorientalischen Bildmotivs. OBO . Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. Keith, A.M. . Engendering Rome: Women in Latin Epic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kenney, J.P. . Monotheistic and Polytheistic Elements in Classical Mediterranean Spirituality. Pages – in Classical Mediterranean Spirituality: Egyptian, Greek, Roman. Edited by A.H. Armstrong. New York: Crossroad. Kern, P.B. . Ancient Siege Warfare. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kidd, J.E.R. . Alterity and Identity in Israel. BZAW . Berlin: de Gruyter.



bibliography

King, H. . Hippocrates’ Woman: Reading the Female Body in Ancient Greece. London: Routledge. Kister, M. . Some Aspects of Qumranic Halakhah. Pages – in The Madrid Qumran Congress. Edited by J.L. Barrera, L.V. Montaner. STDJ .. Leiden: Brill. Klassen W. . The King as ‘Living Law’ with Particular Reference to Musonius Rufus. SR :–. Klein, F.-N. . Die Lichtterminologie bei Philon von Alexandrien und in den Hermetischen Schriften. Leiden: Brill. Knauf, E.A. . Zur Herkunft und Sozialgeschichte Israels: ‘das Böckchen in der Milch seiner Mutter’. Biblica :–. Koch, D.-A. . Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Konstan, D. . Friendship and Monarchy: Dio of Prusa’s Third Oration on Kingship. SO :–. ———. . Philo’s De virtutibus in the Perspective of Classical Greek Philosophy. SPhA :–. Konstan, D. et al. . Philodemus: On Frank Criticism. SBLTT . Atlanta: Scholars. Kramer, S.N. . The Sumerians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Krauss, S. . The Name of Moses. JQR :. Kuhn, H.W. . Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil. SUNT . Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Labuschagne, C.J. . ‘You Shall Not Boil a Kid in its Mother’s Milk’: A New Proposal for the Origin of the Prohibition. Pages – in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A.S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His th Birthday. Edited by F. García Martínez, A. Hilhorst, C.J. Labuschagne. VTSup . Leiden: Brill. Lacey, W.K. . The Family in Classical Greece. London: Thames and Hudson. Lampe, P. . ‘Sklavenflucht’ des Onesimus. ZNW :–. Lapin, H. . Early Rabbinic Civil Law and the Social History of Roman Galilee: A Study of Mishnah Tractate Baba" Mesii#a". BJS . Atlanta: Scholars. Laporte, J. . Eucharistia in Philo. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity . New York: E. Mellen. ———. . Sacrifice in Origen in the Light of Philonic Models. Pages –  in Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy. Edited by C. Kannengiesser, W.L. Petersen. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Lasserre, G. . Lutter contre la paupérisation et ses conséquences: Lecture rhétorique de Dt ,–. ETR :–. Lattke, M. . Hymnus: Materialien zu einer Geschichte der antiken Hymnologie. NTOA . Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lausberg, H. . Handbook of Literary Rhetoric. Leiden: Brill. Lawrence, L.J. . An Ethnography of the Gospel of Matthew: A Critical Assessment of the Use of the Honour and Shame Model in New Testament Studies. WUNT .. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

bibliography



Lebeck, A. . The Oresteia: A Study in Language and Structure. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Le Bohec, Y. . The Imperial Roman Army. London: Batsford. Le Déaut, R. . ΦΙΛΑΝΘΡΩΠΙΑ dans la littérature grecque jusqu’au Nouveau Testament. Pages – in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, vol. : Ecriture sainte—Ancien orient. Studi e Testi . Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Lendon, J.E. . The Rhetoric of Combat: Greek Military Theory and Roman Culture in Julius Caesar’s Battle Descriptions. Classical Antiquity :– . Leonhardt, J. . Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria. TSAJ . Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Leonhardt-Balzer, J. . Jewish Worship and Universal Identity in Philo of Alexandria. Pages – in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World. Edited by J. Frey, D.R. Schwartz, S. Gripentrog. AJEC . Leiden: Brill. Levine, B.A. . Numbers –. AB A. New York: Doubleday. Levison, J.R. . Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to  Baruch. JSPSup . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. ———. . Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings of Philo Judaeus. JSJ :–. Lewis, J.P. . A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature. Leiden: Brill. Lewis, N. . Life in Egypt under Roman Rule. Classics in Papyrology . Atlanta: Scholars. Lilla, S.R.C. . Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lindberg, D.C. . Theories of Vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Llewelyn, S.R. . New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Lohfink, G. . Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrtsund Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas. SUNT . München: Kösel-Verlag. Loman, P. . No Woman No War: Women’s Participation in Ancient Greek Warfare. G&R :–. Long, A.A. . The Early Stoic Concept of Moral Choice. Pages – in Images of Man in Ancient and Medieval Thought: Studia Gerardo Verbeke ab amicis et collegis dicata. Edited by F. Bossier et al. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. . Cicero’s Politics in De officiis. Pages – in Justice and Generosity: Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. . Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Oxford: Clarendon. Long, A.A., and D.N. Sedley, . The Hellenistic Philosophers.  vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Luck, U. . φιλανρωπα, κτλ. TDNT :–. Luraghi, N. . Dionysios von Halikarnassos zwischen Griechen und Römern. Pages – in Formen römischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfängen



bibliography

bis Livius. Edited by U. Eigler et al. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Mach, M. . Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit. TSAJ . Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Mack, B.L. . Imitatio Mosis: Patterns of Cosmology and Soteriology in the Hellenistic Synagogue. SPh :–. Maharam, W.-A. . Furiae. Pages – in Brill’s New Pauly, vol. . Leiden: Brill. Malherbe, A.J. . Antisthenes and Odysseus, and Paul at War. HTR :– . Maloney, R.P. . The Teaching of the Fathers on Usury: An Historical Study on the Development of Christian Thinking. VigChr :–. Marcus, J. . A Note on Markan Optics. NTS :–. Martens, J.W. . Unwritten Law in Philo: A Response to Naomi G. Cohen. JJS :–. ———. . One God, One Law: Philo of Alexandria on the Mosaic and GrecoRoman Law. SPAMA . Boston: Brill. Martin, D.B. . Slavery and the Ancient Jewish Family. Pages – in The Jewish Family in Antiquity. Edited by S.J.D. Cohen. Atlanta: Scholars. Martin, H. . The Concept of Philanthropia in Plutarch’s Lives. AJP :– . Martin, P.M. . Rome, cité grecque dressée contre les barbares, d’après les ‘excerpta’ de Denys d’Halicarnasse. Pallas :–. Massebieau, L. . Le classement des œuvres de Philon. Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Sciences Religieuses :–. Mathieu, J.-M. . Hybris-démesure? philologie et traduction. Kentron :– . Mattern, S.P. . Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate. Berkeley: University of California Press. McDonald, W.C. . The ‘Nobility of Soul’: Propertius Contra Horace? Rivista di cultura classica e medioevale :–. McGinn, T.A.J. . Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Ancient Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKnight, S. . A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. Minneapolis: Fortress. Méasson, A. . Du char ailé de Zeus à l’Arche d’alliance: Images et mythes platoniciens chez Philon d’Alexandrie. Paris: Etudes augustiniennes. Meeks, W.A. . The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. NovTSup . Leiden: Brill. ———. . Moses as God and King. Pages – in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of E.R. Goodenough. Edited by J. Neusner. SHR . Leiden: Brill. Meggitt, J.J. . Paul, Poverty and Survival. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Méhat, A. . ‘Apocatastase’, Origène, Clément d’Alexandrie, act. , . VigChr :–. Mejer, J. . Diogenes Laertius and His Hellenistic Background. Hermes . Wiesbaden: Steiner.

bibliography



Mendelson, A. . Philo’s Dialectic of Reward and Punishment. SPhA :– . Menn, E.M. . Judah and Tamar (Genesis ) in Ancient Jewish Exegesis: Studies in Literary Form and Hermeneutics. JSJSup . Leiden: Brill. Michel, A. . La métanoia chez Philon d’Alexandrie: De Platon au JudéoChristianisme en passant par Cicéron. Augustinus :–. Michelini, A. . SΥΒΡΙΣ and Plants. HSCP :–. Milgrom, J. , , . Leviticus. AB .  vols. New York: Doubleday. Miller, J.L. . Measures of Wisdom: The Cosmic Dance in Classical and Christian Antiquity. Visio: Studies in the Relations of Art and Literature . Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Miller, P.D. . The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. HSM . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Millett, P. . Lending and Borrowing in Ancient Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Momigliano, A.D. . Camillus and Concord. CQ :–. Montanari, E. . Rappresentazioni simboliche della “nobilitas” in età repubblicana. Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni :–. Moorhead, J. . Cooking a Kid in its Mother’s Milk: Patristic Exegesis of an Old Testament Command. Augustinianum :–. Morris, J. . The Jewish Philosopher Philo. Pages – in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. , part . Edited by E. Schürer, G. Vermes et al. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Morrison, D. . Politics as a Vocation, According to Aristotle. History of Political Thought :–. Morrow, G.R. . Plato’s Cretan City: A Historical Interpretation of the Laws. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Morton, A.G. . Pliny on Plants: His Place in the History of Botany. Pages –  in Science in the Early Roman Empire: Pliny the Elder, his Sources and Influence. Edited by R. French, F. Greenaway. London: Croom Helm. Murphy, D. . Aristotle on Why Plants Cannot Perceive. OSAP :– . Najman, H. . Cain and Abel as Character Traits: A Study in the Allegorical Typology of Philo of Alexandria. Pages – in Eve’s Children: The Biblical Stories Retold and Interpreted in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Edited by G.P. Luttikhuizen. Themes in Biblical Narrative . Leiden: Brill. Nardi, E. . Procurato aborto nel mondo greco-romano. Milan: Giuffrè. Nave, G.D. . The Role and Function of Repentance in Luke-Acts. SBLAB . Atlanta: SBL. Nelson, R.D. . Deuteronomy. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Neusner, J. . Tradition as Security: Scripture, Mishnah, Tosefta and Midrash in the Talmud of Babylonia: The Case of Tractate Arakhin. SFSHJ . Atlanta: Scholars. ———. . The Halakhah of the Oral Torah: A Religious Commentary. Introduction and vol. , part . SFSHJ . Atlanta: Scholars. Newman, L.E. . The Sanctity of the Seventh Year: A Study of Mishnah Tractate Shebiit. BJS . Chico: Scholars.



bibliography

Newsom, C. . Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. HSS . Atlanta: Scholars. Nickel, R. . ‘Humanitas’ und Humanität. Der altsprachliche Unterricht, Latein, Griechisch :–. Niditch, S. . War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. a. War, Women, and Defilement in Numbers . Semeia :– . Niehoff, M. . Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture. TSAJ . Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Nielsen, E. . Law, History and Tradition: Selected Essays by Eduard Nielsen. Copenhagen: Gad. Nikiprowetzky, V. . Le commentaire de l’écriture chez Philon d’Alexandrie. ALGHJ . Leiden: Brill. ———. . Thèmes et traditions de la lumière chez Philon d’Alexandrie. SPhA :–. ———. . Etudes philoniennes. Paris: Cerf. Nikolaïdis, A.G. –. A Note on the Relationship between Philanthropia and Humanitas. Platon –:–. Nolland, J. . Uncircumcised Proselytes? JSJ :–. Noort, E. . Das Kapitulationsangebot im Kriegsgesetz Dtn : ff. und in den Kriegserzählungen. Pages – in Studies in Deuteronomy: In Honour of C.J. Labuschagne. Edited by F. García Martínez et al. Leiden: Brill. Noreña, C.F. . The Communication of the Emperor’s Virtues. JRS :– . North, H. . Canons and Hierarchies of the Cardinal Virtues in Greek and Latin Literature. Pages – in The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan. Edited by L. Wallach. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ———. a. Sophrosyne: Self-Knowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek Literature. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Nussbaum, M.C. . The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ober, J. . Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power of the People. Princeton: Princeton University Press. O’Brien, D.P. . A Comparison between Early Jewish and Early Christian Interpretation of the Jubilee Year. Pages – in Studia Patristica . Edited by M.F. Wiles, E.J. Yarnold. Leuven: Peeters. O’Brien, P.T. . Thanksgiving in Pauline Theology. Pages – in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Edited by D.A. Hagner, M.J. Harris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ogden, D. . Controlling Women’s Dress: gynaikonomoi. Pages – in Women’s Dress in the Ancient Greek World. Edited by L. Llewellyn-Jones. London: Duckworth. Oppenheimer, A. . The #Am Ha-Aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. ALGHJ . Leiden: Brill.

bibliography



Parisinou, E. . The ‘language’ of Female Hunting Outfit in Ancient Greece. Pages – in Women’s Dress in the Ancient Greek World. Edited by L. Llewellyn-Jones. London: Duckworth. Patterson, C.B. . Not Worth the Rearing: The Causes of Infant Exposure in Ancient Greece. TAPA :–. ———. . Those Athenian Bastards. Classical Antiquity :–. Pearce, S. . Belonging and Not Belonging: Local Perspectives in Philo of Alexandria. Pages – in Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period. Edited by S. Jones, S. Pearce. JSPSup . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. ———. . The Land of the Body: Studies in Philo’s Representation of Egypt. WUNT . Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Pears, D. . Courage as a Mean. Pages – in Essays on Aristotle’s Ethics. Edited by A.O. Rorty. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pearson, B.A. . Philanthropy in the Greco-Roman World and in Early Christianity. Pages – in The Emergence of the Christian Religion. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. Pembroke, S.G. . Oikeiôsis. Pages – in Problems in Stoicism. Edited by A.A. Long. London: Athlone. Perdue, L.G. . The Death of the Sage and Moral Exhortation: From Ancient Near Eastern Instructions to Graeco-Roman Paraenesis. Semeia :–. Peretz, D. . Military Burial and the Identification of the Roman Fallen Soldiers. Klio :–. Pestman, P.W. . Loans Bearing No Interest? Journal of Juristic Papyrology –:–. Petit, M. . Exploitations non bibliques des Thèmes de Tamar et de Genèse . Pages – in ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΙΝΑ: Hellénisme, judaïsme et christianisme à Alexandrie. Mélanges offerts au P. Claude Mondésert. Paris: Cerf. Pfitzner, V.C. . Paul and the Agon Motif: Traditional Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature. NovTSup . Leiden: Brill. Phang, S.E. . Roman Military Service: Ideologies of Discipline in the Late Republic and Early Principate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Philip, F. . The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology: The Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit upon Gentiles in Judaism and in the Early Development of Paul’s Theology. WUNT .. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Pilhofer, P. . Presbyteron Kreitton: Der Altersbeweis der jüdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte. WUNT .. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Pohlenz, M. . Die Stoa: Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung. th ed.  vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Pokorn´y, P. . Colossians. Peabody: Hendrickson. Polaski, D.C. . On Taming Tamar: Amram’s Rhetoric and Women’s Roles in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum . JSP :–. Pons, J. . La référence au séjour en Egypte et à la sortie d’Egypte dans les codes de loi de l’Ancien Testament. ETR :–. Popa, T.M. . Functions of the Typos Imagery in Philo of Alexandria. Ancient Philosophy :–.



bibliography

Porter, J.R. . The Succession of Joshua. Pages – in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies. Edited by J.I. Durham, J.R. Porter. Richmond: John Knox. Porton, G.G. . The Stranger Within Your Gates: Converts and Conversion in Rabbinic Literature. CSHJ. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pressler, C. . The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws. BZAW . Berlin: de Gruyter. Quinones, R.J. . The Changes of Cain: Violence and the Lost Brother in Cain and Abel Literature. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rainey, A. . Concubine. EJ 2 :–. Rawson, B. . Concubinage and Other De Facto Marriages. TAPA :– . Reed, A.Y. . Abraham as Chaldean Scientist and Father of the Jews: Josephus, Ant. .–, and the Greco-Roman Discourse About Astronomy/ Astrology. JSJ :–. Reinhartz, A. . Philo on Infanticide. SPhA :–. ———. . Philo’s Exposition of the Law and Social History: Methodological Considerations. SBLSP :–. Rendtorff, R. . The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation. OTS. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Reydams-Schils, G. . Philo of Alexandria on Stoic and Platonic PsychoPhysiology. Pages – in Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosophy. Edited by F. Alesse. SPA . Leiden: Brill. Rhodes, P.J. . A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford: Clarendon. Rickert, G. . ΕΚΩΝ and ΑΚΩΝ in Early Greek Thought. ACS . Atlanta: Scholars. Riddle, J.M. . Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Riedweg, C. . Mysterienterminologie bei Platon, Philon und Klemens von Alexandrien. UaLG . Berlin: de Gruyter. Robinson, G. . Das Jobel-Jahr: Die Lösung einer sozial-ökonomischen Krise des Volkes Gottes. Pages – in Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch zu seinem . Geburtstag. Edited by D.R. Daniels, U. Gleßmer, M. Rösel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Rofé, A. . The Laws of Warfare in the Book of Deuteronomy: Their Origins, Intent and Positivity. JSOT :–. ———. . The Tenth Commandment in the Light of Four Deuteronomic Laws. Pages – in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition. Edited by B.-Z. Segal, G. Levi. Jerusalem: Magnes. Röhr, J. . Beiträge zur antiken Astrometereologie. Philologus :–. Roitman, A.D. . ‘This People are Descendants of Chaldeans’ (Judith :): Its Literary Form and Historical Setting. JBL :–. Römer, W.H.P. . Randbemerkungen zur Travestie von Deut ,. Pages –  in Travels in the World of the Old Testament: Studies Presented to Professor M.A. Beek. Edited by M. Heerma van Voss et al. Assen: Van Gorcum.

bibliography



Rosen, R.M. and I. Sluiter, eds. . Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity. Mnemosyne Sup. . Leiden: Brill. Rosen-Zvi, I. . Bilhah the Temptress: The Testament of Reuben and ‘The Birth of Sexuality’. JQR :–. Rosivach, V.J. . The System of Public Sacrifice in Fourth-Century Athens. ACS . Atlanta: Scholars. Roskam, G. . Plutarch on Self and Others. Ancient Society :–. Rowlandson, J. . Landowners and Tenants in Roman Egypt: The Social Relations of Agriculture in the Oxyrhynchite Nome. OCM. Oxford: Clarendon. Royer, J.P. . Le Problème des dettes à la fin de la république romaine. Revue historique de droit français et étranger :–, –. Royse, J.R. . The Oxyrhynchus Papyrus of Philo. BASP :–. ———. . Philo’s Division of His Works into Books. StPhAnn :–. ———. . The Text of Philo’s De virtutibus. StPhAnn :–. ———. . The Works of Philo. Pages – in The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Edited by A. Kamesar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Runia, D.T. . Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato.  vols. Amsterdam: VU Boekhandel. ———. . Underneath Cohn and Colson: The Text of Philo’s De virtutibus. SBLSP :–; reprinted in Runia , –. ———. . Verba Philonica, ΑΓΑΛΜΑΤΟΦΟΡΕΙΝ, and the Authenticity of the De Resurrectione Attributed to Athenagoras. VChr :–; reprinted in Runia , –. ———. . Philo in Early Christian Literature. CRINT .. Assen: van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. . Philo and the Church Fathers. VChrSup . Leiden: Brill. ———. a. Why Does Clement of Alexandria call Philo ‘the Pythagorean’? VigChr :–. ———. . Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses. PACS . Leiden: Brill. ———. . Eudaimonism in Hellenistic-Jewish Literature. Pages – in Shem in the Tents of Japhet: Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism. Edited by J.L. Kugel. JSJSup . Leiden: Brill. ———. . Philo and Hellenistic Doxography. Pages – in Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosophy. Edited by F. Alesse. SPA . Leiden: Brill. Safrai, S. . Relations between the Diaspora and the Land of Israel. Pages – in The Jewish People in the First Century, vol. . Edited by S. Safrai, M. Stern. CRINT. Philadelphia: Fortress. Safrai, Z. . The Economy of Roman Palestine. London: Routledge. Salamone, G. . La ‘concordia’ militare nelle monete romano-imperiali. Rivista italiana di numismatica :–. Saller, R.P. . Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Samuel, A.E. . The Ptolemies and the Ideology of Kingship. Pages – in Hellenistic History and Culture. Edited by P. Green. Hellenistic Culture and Society . Berkeley: University of California Press.



bibliography

Sandelin, K.-G. . The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria. Temenos :–. Sandmel, S. . Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Sasson, J.M. . Ritual Wisdom? On Seething a Kid in its Mother’s Milk. Pages – in Kein land für sich allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert zum . Geburtstag. Edited by U. Hübner, E.A. Knauf. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Savon, H. . Saint Ambrose devant l’exégèse de Philo le juif.  vols. Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes. Schäfer, P. . Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Schmid, W.T. . On Manly Courage: A Study of Plato’s Laches. Carbondale: University of Illinois Press. Schmidt, H. . Die Anthropologie Philons von Alexandreia. Würzburg: K. Triltsch. Schmitt-Pantel, P. . Le festin dans la fête de la cité grecque hellénistique. Pages – in La fête, Pratique et Discours. D’Alexandrie hellénistique à la Mission de Besançon. Centre de Recherches d’Histoire Ancienne . Paris: Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Besançon. Schmitz, T. . Bildung und Macht: Zur sozialen und politischen Funktion der zweiten Sophistik in der griechischen Welt der Kaiserzeit. München: Beck. Schofield, M. . The Stoic Idea of the City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schrage, W. . Der erste Brief an die Korinther. EKKNT .  vols. Zürich: Benziger Verlag. Schrenk, S. . Kain und Abel. RAC :–. Schultz, J.P. . Angelic Opposition to the Ascension of Moses and the Revelation of the Law. JQR :–. Schultze, C. . Dionysius of Halicarnassus and his audience. Pages – in Past Perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing. Edited by I.S. Moxon et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schürer, E. . A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, div. , vol. . New York: C. Scribner’s Sons. Schwartz, D.R. . Did the Jews Practice Infant Exposure and Infanticide in Antiquity? StPhA :–. ———. . Philo, His Family, and His Times. Pages – in The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Edited by A. Kamesar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schwartz, E. . Bal Tashchit: A Jewish Environmental Precept. Environmental Ethics :–. Schweizer, E. . χοϊκς.TDNT :–. Scodel, R. . The Captive’s Dilemma: Sexual Acquiescence in Euripides’ Hecuba and Troades. HSCP :–. Scott, A. . Origen and the Life of the Stars: A History of an Idea. OECT. Oxford: Clarendon. Scott, I.W. . Is Philo’s Moses a Divine Man? StPhAnn :–.

bibliography



Seland, T. . Establishment Violence in Philo and Luke: A Study of NonConformity to the Torah and Jewish Vigilante Reactions. Biblical Interpretation Series . Leiden: Brill. Sheppard, A.R.R. –. Homonoia in the Greek Cities of the Roman Empire. Ancient Society –:–. Shorey, P. . Plato: The Republic. LCL. London: Heinemann. Siker, J.S. . Abraham in Graeco-Roman Paganism. JSJ :–. Smallwood, E.M. . Philonis Alexandrini: Legatio ad Gaium. nd ed. Leiden: Brill. ———. . The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. SJLA . Leiden: Brill. Smith, C.J. . Onasander On How to be a General. Pages – in Modus Operandi: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Rickman. Edited by M. Austin, J. Harries, C. Smith. London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London. Smith, H.S. . A Note on Amnesty. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology :– . Solignac, A. . Pèlerinages. Dictionnaire de spiritualité /:–. Sorabji, R. . Animal Minds and Human Morals: The Origins of the Western Debate. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Spicq, C. . Theological Lexicon of the New Testament.  vols. Peabody: Hendrickson. Sprague, R.K. . Plants as Aristotelian Substances. ICS :–. Stafford, E. . Masculine Values, Feminine Forms: On the Gender of Personified Abstractions. Pages – in Thinking Men: Masculinity and its SelfRepresentation in the Classical Tradition. Edited by L. Foxhall, J. Salmon. London: Routledge. ———. . Worshipping Virtues: Personification and the Divine in Ancient Greece. London: Duckworth. Stauner, K. . Das offizielle Schriftwesen des römischen Heeres von Augustus bis Gallienus. Bonn: Habelt. Sterling, G.E. . Philo and the Logic of Apologetics: An Analysis of the Hypothetica. SBLSP :–. ———. . The Bond of Humanity: Friendship in Philo of Alexandria. Pages – in Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship. Edited by J.T. Fitzgerald. SBLRBS . Atlanta: Scholars. ———. . Universalizing the Particular: Natural Law in Second Temple Jewish Ethics. StPhilAnn :–. ———. . Was There a Common Ethic in Second Temple Judaism? Pages –  in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J.J. Collins, G.E. Sterling, R.A. Clements. STDJ . Leiden: Brill. ———. . ‘The Queen of the Virtues’: Piety in Philo of Alexandria. SPhA :–. ———. . Turning to God: Conversion in Greek-Speaking Judaism and Early Christianity. Pages – in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay. Edited by P. Gray, G.R. O’Day. NovTSup . Leiden: Brill.



bibliography

Stern, D. . The Captive Woman: Hellenization, Greco-Roman Erotic Narrative, and Rabbinic Literature. Poetics Today :–. Stevenson, T.R. . The Ideal Benefactor and the Father Analogy in Greek and Roman Thought. CQ :–. Stirling, L.M. . Gods, heroes, and ancestors: sculptural decoration in lateantique Aquitania. Aquitania :–. Straus, J.-A. . La terminologie de l’esclavage dans les papyrus grecs romaines trouvés en Egypte. Pages – in Actes du colloque  sur l’esclavage. Annales Litteraires de l’Université de Besançon . Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Striker, G. . The Role of oikeiosis in Stoic Ethics. OSAP :–. Sullivan, K.P. . Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament. AGAJU . Leiden: Brill. Talbert, C.H. and P.L. Stepp. . Succession in Mediterranean Antiquity, Part : The Lukan Milieu. SBLSP .:–. Talstra, E. . Deuteronomy : Confusion or Conclusion? The Story of Moses’ Threefold Succession. Pages – in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. Edited by M. Vervenne, J. Lust. BETL . Leuven: Leuven University Press. Tarn, W.W. . Alexander the Great.  vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taub, L. . Ancient Meteorology. London: Routledge. Taubenschlag, R. . The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri. nd ed. Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Tcherikover, A. (in collaboration with A. Fuks) –. Corpus papyrorum Judaicarum.  vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Terian, A. . Philonis Alexandrini De Animalibus: The Armenian Text with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Chico: Scholars. ———. . The Priority of the Quaestiones among Philo’s Exegetical Commentaries. Pages – in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus. Edited by D.M. Hay. BJS . Atlanta: Scholars. ———. . Back to Creation: The Beginning of Philo’s Third Grand Commentary. StPhilAnn :–. Thom, J.C. . ‘Don’t Walk on the Highways’: The Pythagorean Akousmata and Early Christian Literature. JBL :–. ———. . The Pythagorean Golden Verses. RGRW . Leiden: Brill. Tigay, J.H. . Some Archaeological Notes on Deuteronomy. Pages – in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman, A. Hurvitz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. ———. . Deuteronomy. JPSTC. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Tobin, T.H. . The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation. CBQMS . Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America. Todd, S.C. . The Shape of Athenian Law. Oxford: Clarendon. Tracy, S.V. . I.G. II 2 : Contributors of First Fruits for the Pythaïs. BKP . Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain.

bibliography



Treggiari, S. . Concubinae. PBSR :–. ———. . Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Oxford: Clarendon. Trigg, J.W. . The Charismatic Intellectual: Origen’s Understanding of Religious Leadership. CH :–. Tromp, J. . The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary. SVTP . Leiden: Brill. Tromp de Ruiter, S. . De vocis quae est ΦΙΛΑΝΘΡΩΠΙΑ significatione atque usu. Mnemosyne :–. Tucker, G.M. . The Legal Background of Genesis . JBL :–. Turnbull, R.G. . The Role of the ‘Special Sensibles’ in the Perception Theories of Plato and Aristotle. Pages – in Studies in Perception: Interrelations in the History of Philosophy and Science. Edited by P.K. Machamer, R.G. Turnbull. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Tyrrell, W.B. . Amazons: A Study in Athenian Mythmaking. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Tzounakas, S. . The Personified Patria in Cicero’s First Catilinarian: Significance and Inconsistencies. Philologus :–. Usher, S. . The Style of Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the ‘Antiquitates Romanae’. ANRW ..:–. van den Hoek, A. . Clement of Alexandria and his Use of Philo in the Stromateis: An Early Christian Reshaping of a Jewish Model. VigChrSup . Leiden: Brill. ———. . Philo and Origen: A Descriptive Catalogue of Their Relationship. StPhilAnn :–. van der Horst, P.W. . Philo’s Flaccus: The First Pogrom. PACS . Leiden: Brill. VanderKam, J.C. . Enoch: A Man for All Generations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. van der Toorn, K. . Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel. SHCANE . Leiden: Brill. van Kooten, G.H. . Paul’s Anthropology in Context. WUNT . Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. van Veldhuizen, M.D. . ‘Philanthropia’ in Philo of Alexandria: A Scriptural Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Notre Dame. Vasantharao, C. . The Right to Life in Human Discourse: Emphasis on Animal Life. Religion and Society :–. Veness, R. . Investing the Barbarian? The Dress of Amazons in Athenian Art. Pages – in Women’s Dress in the Ancient Greek World. Edited by L. Llewellyn-Jones. London: Duckworth. Verboven, K. . The Economy of Friends: Economic Aspects of Amicitia and Patronage in the Late Republic. Collection Latomus . Bruxelles: Latomus. Vermes, G. . A Summary of the Law by Flavius Josephus. NovT :– . Vessey, D.W.T.C. . The Stoics and Nobility: A Philosophical Theme. Latomus :–. Vischer, L. . Die Zehntforderung in der Alten Kirche. ZKG :–.



bibliography

Vischer, R. . Das einfache Leben: Wort- und motivgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Wertbegriff der antiken Literatur. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Vögtle, A. . Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament. NTAbh .–. Münster i.W.: Aschendorff. Völker, W. . Fortschritt und Vollendung bei Philo von Alexandrien: Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Frömmigkeit. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. von Albrecht, M. . Das Menschenbild in Jamblichs Darstellung der pythagoreischen Lebensform. Pages – in Jamblich: Pythagoras. Legende— Lehre—Lebensgestaltung. Edited by H.-G. Nesselrath et al. SAPERE . Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. von Nordheim, E. . Die Lehre der Alten: . Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Judentum der hellenistisch -römischen Zeit. ALGHJ . Leiden: Brill. Wallace-Hadrill, A. . The Emperor and His Virtues. Historia :–. Wander, B. . Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten: Studien zum heidnischen Umfeld von Diasporasynagogen. WUNT . Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Ware, J.P. . The Mission of the Church in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism. NovTSup . Leiden: Brill. Warnach, W. . Selbstliebe und Gottesliebe im Denken Philons von Alexandrien. Pages – in Wort Gottes in der Zeit: Festschrift Karl Hermann Schelkle zum . Geburtstag. Edited by H. Feld, J. Nolte. Düsseldorf: Patmos. Wasserman, E. . The Death of the Soul in Romans : Sin, Death, and the Law in Light of Hellenistic Moral Psychology. WUNT .. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Waszink, J.H. . Aether. RAC :–. Watson, A. . International Law in Archaic Rome: War and Religion. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Wegner, J.R. . Philo’s Portrayal of Women—Hebraic or Hellenic? Pages –  in ‘Women Like This’: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the GrecoRoman World. Edited by A.-J. Levine. SBLEJL . Atlanta: Scholars. Weinfeld, M. . The Promise of the Land. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. . Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: Magnes. Weisberg, D.E. . The Widow of Our Discontent: Levirate Marriage in the Bible and Ancient Israel. JSOT :–. Weiss, R. . Courage, Confidence, and Wisdom in the Protagoras. AncPhil :–. Weißenberger, M. . Das Imperium Romanum in den Proömien Dreier Griechischer Historiker: Polybios, Dionysios von Halikarnassos und Appian. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie :–. Wendland, P. . Philo und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe. Pages – in Beiträge zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie und Religion (with O. Kern). Berlin: Reimer. ———. . Philo und Clemens Alexandrinus. Hermes :–.

bibliography



West, M.L. . The Flood Myth in Ovid, Lucian, and Nonnus. Pages –  in Mitos en la literatura griega helenística e imperial. Edited by J.A. López Férez. Madrid: Ed. Clásicas. Wevers, J.W. . Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis. SBLSCS . Atlanta: Scholars. ———. . Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. SBLSCS . Atlanta: Scholars. ———. . Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus. SBLSCS . Atlanta: Scholars. ———. . Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers. SBLSCS . Atlanta: Scholars. Wheeler, S.C. . Plato’s Enlightenment: The Good as the Sun. HPhQ :– . White, K.D. . Roman Farming. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Whitehead, D. . The Ideology of the Athenian Metic. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Whittaker, C.R. . The Poor. Pages – in The Romans. Edited by A. Giardina. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Whittaker, J.C. . Alonia: The Ethnoarchaeology of Cypriot Threshing Floors. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology :–. Wiedemann, T.E.J. . Greek and Roman Slavery. London: Croom Helm. ———. . The Regularity of Manumission at Rome. CQ :–. Williams, C.A. . Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, G.D. . Banished Voices: Readings in Ovid’s Exile Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, R.R. . Genealogy, Genealogies. ABD :–. Wilson, W.T. . Love without Pretense: Romans :– and Hellenistic-Jewish Wisdom Literature. WUNT .. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. . The Mysteries of Righteousness: The Literary Composition and Genre of the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. TSAJ . Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. . The Hope of Glory: Education and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Colossians. NovTSup . Leiden: Brill. ———. . Urban Legends: Acts :–: and the Strategies of GrecoRoman Foundation Narratives. JBL :–. ———. . Sin as Sex and Sex with Sin: The Anthropology of James :–. HTR :–. ———. . The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. a. Pious Soldiers, Gender Deviants, and the Ideology of Actium: Courage and Warfare in Philo’s De fortitudine. SPhA :–. ———. . The Constitution of Compassion: Political Reflections on Philo’s De humanitate. Pages – in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay. Edited by P. Gray, G.R. O’Day. NovTSup . Leiden: Brill. Winkler, K. . Clementia. RAC :–. Winston, D. . The Wisdom of Solomon. AB . New York: Doubleday. ———. . Philo’s Ethical Theory. ANRW II..:–. ———. . Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press.



bibliography

———. . Two Types of Mosaic Prophecy according to Philo. JSP :–. ———. . Philo’s Doctrine of Repentance. Pages – in The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion in Memory of Horst R. Moehring. Edited by J.P. Kenney. BJS . Atlanta: Scholars. ———. a. Sage and Super-Sage in Philo of Alexandria. Pages – in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman, A. Hurvitz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. ———. . Philo and the Rabbis on Sex and the Body. Poetics Today :–. Winston, D. and J. Dillon. . Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria. BJS . Chico: Scholars. Wolfson, H.A. . Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wolters, R. . Die Kreditkrise des Jahres  n. Chr. Litterae numismaticae Vindobonensis :–. Wörrle, M. . Stadt und Fest im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien: Studien zu einer agonistischen Stiftung aus Oinoanda. München: Beck. Wright, B.G. . #Ebed/Doulos: Terms and Social Status in the Meeting of Hebrew Biblical and Hellenistic Roman Culture. Semeia /:–. Wright, M.R. . Cicero on Self-Love and Love of Humanity in De Finibus . Pages – in Cicero the Philosopher. Edited by J.G.F. Powell. Oxford: Clarendon. Wyke, M. . Augustan Cleopatras: Female Power and Poetic Authority. Pages – in Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus. Edited by A. Powell. London: Bristol Classical Press. Zanker, P. . The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Zeller, D. . Charis bei Philon und Paulus. SBS . Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. . Notiz zu den ‘immerfließenden Quellen der göttlichen Wohltaten’. SPhA :–. ———. . The Life and Death of the Soul in Philo of Alexandria: The Use and Origin of a Metaphor. SPhA :–.

INDEX OF SOURCES It should be noted that the first three sections of these indices do not contain all references, but only include those texts cited or discussed in some detail. Page numbers joined by a dash indicate a reference on each of the pages concerned, not necessarily a continuous discussion. Index of Biblical Passages Cited Genesis : : : : : : : : : : : :

           

Exodus : : :– :– : : :– :–

       

Leviticus :– : : : : :– : : :

 ,  ,  , – –    

: : : :– :– :– : : : :– : : :– :b–a :– : Numbers : :– : : :– : :b– : :– : :– :– : : :– :

,  –,       –                  ,       

 : : : : : Deuteronomy : : :– : :– : :– : : : : : : : :– :– : : : : :– : : : : :– : : :– :– : :– : :– :– : : : :– :–

index of sources  –                – ,       , –      –     ,     ,   ,    

: :– : : :– : : :– :– :– : : : : :– : :– : :– : :– : :– : : : : : : :

    , –     , –    –    , –        –    

Proverbs :– : :– : :

    

Tobit :



Wisdom : :

 

index of sources



Sirach : :

 

 Maccabees :– :

 , 

Baruch :



 Corinthians :–



 Corinthians :–:



Index of Philonic Texts Cited De opificio mundi            –                      ,           ,      Legum allegoriae .  .–  .–  .–  .  .–  .  . 

De cherubim   –   

     

De sacrificiis  –  –  

     

Quod deterius    –

   

De posteritate Caini       De gigantibus  

 

Quod deus immutabilis sit –     



index of sources

De agricultura – –  

–   

De plantatione   – 

   

De ebrietate  

 

De sobrietate  –

 

De confusione linguarum         De migratione    

   

Quis heres   – –    –   

     –     

De congressu  – – – 

    

De fuga  

 

De mutatione nominum   –    –    De somniis . . .– .– . .– . .–

     ,   

De Abrahamo    –  – –   –  –      

                 , 

index of sources –      –    

   ,       ,  , 

De Iosepho    –   

      

De vita Mosis . . . .– . . . .– .– . . . . .– . . . .– . . . . . . .

   –                     



. . . . . .

     , 

De decalogo   –     –

      – 

De specialibus legibus .  .  .  . ,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .–  .–  .  .  . ,  .  .–  .  .  .  .–  . 



index of sources

De specialibus legibus (continued) . ,  . ,  .  . ,  .–  .  .  .– – .  .  .  .–  .–  .– ,  .–  .–  .  . – . ,  . ,  .–  .– – .–  .–  .–  .– – De praemiis et poenis –          –  –  –  –    –   –   –         

 –  Quod probus  – 

     

De vita contemplativa   –    In Flaccum –    

    

Hypothetica . .

 

Legatio ad Gaium       De animalibus 



Quaestiones in Genesim .  . – .  . ,  .  .  .  . – .  .  .  .  .  . 

index of sources Quaestiones in Exodum .  . 

. . .

  , ,  

Index of Ancient Texts Cited (a) Greek and Roman texts Aristides Quintilianus Musicus .  Aristotle Ethica nicomachea .. – ..  ..  ..–  ..–  ..  ..  ..  De nobilitate frg.   Politica ..  ..  ..  ..  ..–  ..  ..  Rhetorica ..  ..  ..  .. – ..  Ps.-Aristotle De mundo   Oeconomica ..  De virtutibus et vitiis . 

Arrian Anabasis ..–



Cassius Dio Historiae romanae ..–  Cicero Academica .  De amicitia .–  In Catilinam .  De finibus .–  .  De officiis .  . , ,  .  .  De republica .  Tusculanae disputationes .  Columella De re rustica ..



Democritus fragmenta 



Demosthenes Orationes .



 Dio Chrysostom Orationes .  .–  .  .  .– – .  .  .  /.–  Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica ..  ..  ..–  ..– – /..–  ..  Diogenes Laertius Vitae philosophorum .  .  . ,  .  .  .  Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitates romanae ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  .. – ..  ..–  ..–  .. ,  ..  ..  ..  .. –

index of sources ..– .. Epictetus Diatribai ..– . ..– ..–

 –

   

Epicurus Epistula ad Menoeceum   Gnomologium Epicteteum   Herodotus Historiae .



Hierocles of Alexandria In aureum carmen .  Iamblichus De vita Pythagorica .  . – .  Isocrates Antidosis  Ad Demonicum   De pace 

  – 

Julius Pollux Onomasticon .



Juvenal Satirae .–



index of sources Lucian De sacrificiis 



Lysias Orationes . .– .

  

Marcus Aurelius Meditationes .  Musonius Rufus fragmenta ..–  ..–  Onasander Strategicus . .–

 –

Philostratus Vita Apollonii .



Plato Cratylus e c Critias d Gorgias b–d Laches d d–e Leges b–d d d–e a–b b e

           

a e–e d–e b–c a c d–d e–c c–a d Phaedo e e c b–d e Politicus b Respublica a d–c e a d–e c–e b–c b a d a c d c–d d c e–a b–b Theaetetus a–b b e–a Timaeus c e

                            –    –   –  –  –

 Ps.-Plato Definitiones a e

index of sources

 

Plutarch Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur f  De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute a ,  c  Amatorius a–b  An seni respublica gerenda sit e–f  Brutus .  Cato .  De cohibenda ira c  a  De communibus notitiis contra Stoicos e  a  Comparatio Lycurgi et Numae .  Comparatio Periclis et Fabii Maximi .  Crassus .  De cupiditate divitiarum e – De esu carnium a–b – c–d  e – f–a  a  De Iside et Osiride c  De laude ipsius a 

Lycurgus .–  Mulierum virtutes e–e  Numa .  .  Pericles . – Philopoemen .  Pompeius . – Quaestiones convivales a  Quaestiones romanae f  De sera numinis vindicta d–e  a  De sollertia animalium e–f  f  De Stoicorum repugnantiis e  e–f  c–d  Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum d–e  De superstitione d  Quomodo quis suos in virtute sentiat profectus c–d  d–e  Ps.-Plutarch De liberis educandis c–d  fragmenta   Polybius Historiae .. ..

 

index of sources .. .. Porphyry De abstinentia .. .. ..–.. Ad Marcellam 

 

 ,   

Seneca De beneficiis ..  ..  ..  Epistulae morales .–  .  .  .  .  Naturales quaestiones , pref.   ..  Sententiae Pythagoreorum  –   Sophocles Ajax –

Tacitus Agricola . Annales . . Historiae . Teles fragmenta . .



   

 

Theophrastus De causis plantarum ..  ..–  ..  Characteres .  .  Historia plantarum ..  Thucydides Historiae ..



Valerius Maximus Memorabilia .–   Varro De re rustica ..– ..

 

Stoicorum veterum fragmenta .  .  .  . 

Virgil Aeneid .– .– .–

  , 

Strabo Geographica .. ..

Xenophon Agesilaus .



Stobaeus Florilegium .



 



index of sources

Xenophon (continued) Anabasis ..  Cyropaedia ..–  Memorabilia ..–  ..  ..  ..  Oeconomicus .–  (b) Jewish texts Dead Sea Scrolls Q  ii –  Q  ii –  QMMT B   B – – Q LXIII –  QT LII   LXII    Enoch :–

.  .–  .–  .  .  .  .  .  .  . – .  .  . – .  .  . – . ,  .  . ,  . , – . – Bellum judaicum .–  .  Contra Apionem . – .  .–  .–  . , ,  . 



Genesis Rabbah .  Joseph and Aseneth :  :  Josephus Antiquitates judaicae .  .  .  .  . 

Jubilees : :– :–:

  

Letter of Aristeas  ,    Mishnah Baba Mesia : : Maaser Sheni :

  

index of sources Peah : Sotah :



(c) Christian texts  –

Ps.-Philo Liber antiquitatem biblicarum : 

Arnobius of Sicca Adversus nationes . 

Ps.-Phocylides Sentences /  / 

Augustine De civitate Dei .  De moribus ecclesiae catholicae ..  Quaestiones Heptateuchum Exod : 

Sifre Deuteronomy    

Basil Homiliae .

Talmud Hullin a Sanhedrin a

Didascalia apostolorum . 



 

Targum Ps.-Jonathan Lev :  Testament of Job :  Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Testament of Reuben :  Testament of Gad :  Testament of Judah :–  Testament of Zebulon : 

Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica .. – Origen Homiliae in Numeros .  In Jesu Nave .  (d) Egyptian texts Instruction of Amenemope .–  Instruction of Ankhsheshonqy . 

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS Aalders, G.J.D.,  Adam, T.,  Alaux, J.,  Alexander, M.,  Alexander, P.J.,  Alexandre, M., , , , , , , , ,  Allison, D.C., ,  Alon, G.,  Alston, R., – Aly, A.A.,  Amir, Y.,  Annas, J., ,  Arora, U.P.,  Asheri, D.,  Attridge, H.W.,  Aune, D.E.,  Austin, M.M.,  Baer, R.A.,  Bagnall, R.S., ,  Bailey, J.N., ,  Bakewell, G.,  Bakhos, C.,  Balch, D.L.,  Baldry, H.C.,  Baldwin, B.,  Balsdon, J.P.V.D.,  Baltzly, D.,  Barclay, J.M.G., –, , , , –, , ,  Barker, A.,  Barney, R.,  Barraclough, R., ,  Barthélemy, D., , ,  Barton, T.,  Batten, A.,  Baumgarten, A.I.,  Baumgarten, J.M., ,  Beagon, M.,  Begg, C.T., , , ,  Behm, J., 

Bekken, P.J.,  Belkin, S., , ,  Belletti, B.,  Ben-Ze"ev, A., ,  Berchman, R.M.,  Berger, K.,  Bergsma, J.S., –, –,  Bernstein, M.J.,  Berthelot, K., –, , , , , , , , , , , ,  Bertram, G.,  Betz, H.D.,  Beyenka, M.M.,  Bietenhard, H.,  Billerbeck, M., ,  Birnbaum, E., , , –, , , ,  Blanchetière, F.,  Blumenfeld, B., ,  Blundell, M.W.,  Böhm, M., ,  Bolgiani, F.,  Bord, L.J., ,  Borgen, P., , , , , –, , , , , , ,  Bosman, P.,  Bostock, D., ,  Boswell, J.,  Bowersock, G.W.,  Bradley, K., –,  Brooks, R., , – Bruin, W.M.,  Burford, A., , , ,  Burnett, F.W.,  Byron, J., ,  Cairns, D.L.,  Calabi, F., ,  Cancik, H.,  Cardellini, I., 



index of modern authors

Carmichael, C.M.,  Cary, E.,  Caster, M.,  Cavallin, H.C.C.,  Chesnutt, R.D., ,  Chirichigno, G.C.,  Chroust, A.H.,  Clark, G., ,  Cohen, N.G., , ,  Cohen, S.J.D., –, ,  Cohn, L., , –, , , , –, , , , , – , , , , , , – , , , , , , ,  Cohoon, J.W.,  Colpe, C.,  Colson, F.H., , , –, , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, ,  Conley, T.M.,  Conzelmann, H., ,  Cooper, A.,  Crawford, M., ,  Crook, Z.A.,  Crosby, H.L.,  Dalby, A., ,  D’Arms, J.H.,  Dautzenberg, G., ,  Dawson, D., –, ,  Dean-Jones, L., – de Fontenay, E.,  Deininger, J.,  Delia, D.,  Delling, G.,  Denniston, J.D.,  Desmond, W.D.,  Dierauer, U., –,  Dietrich, E.K., , ,  Dillon, J., , , , , ,  Dittenberger, W., ,  Dixon, S.,  Dobbin, R.F., 

Döring, K.,  Douglas, A.E.,  Dowd, S.,  Dowling, M.,  Downing, F.G.,  Drijvers, H.J.W.,  Droge, A.J., ,  Dué, C.,  Dyck, A.R., ,  Dyck, J.,  Eckstein, A.M., , ,  Edgar, C.C., – Edwards, C., , , ,  Edwards, D.R.,  Ehrhardt, A.A.T.,  Eilberg-Schwartz, H., – Elliott, J.H., ,  Elman, P., , ,  Elter, A.,  Engberg-Pedersen, T., ,  Erdkamp, P.,  Evans, J.,  Evans, J.K.,  Eyben, E.,  Fears, J.R., ,  Feldman, D.M.,  Feldman, L.H., , , , , , , , –, , , , , –, , , –, , , ,  Ferguson, E., , ,  Ferguson, J., , ,  Ferrari, G.R.F., ,  Finley, M.I., ,  Finn, R., ,  Fiore, B.,  Fisher, N.R.E., ,  Fitzgerald, J.T., ,  Fitzgerald, W., ,  Foerster, W.,  Fox, M.V.,  Fox, R.L., ,  Franklin, L.,  Frick, P.,  Früchtel, U., , 

index of modern authors Fuhs, H.F.,  Fuks, A., –,  Fulkerson, L.,  Furnish, V.P.,  Gabba, E.,  Gaca, K.L.,  Gale, M.R.,  Gallant, T.W., , ,  Galloway, L.E.,  Gammie, J.G., ,  Garnsey, P., , , , , , ,  Geljon, A.C., –,  Gelzer, M.,  Gerstenberger, E.S., ,  Geytenbeek, A.C.,  Gilhus, I.S., , , , ,  Gilmore, D.G.,  Ginzberg, E.,  Ginzberg, L., , , , – Glad, C.E., , , , , –  Glenthøj, J.B.,  Goldenberg, D.M.,  Goodenough, E.R., , , , , , –, , , ,  Goodman, M.,  Görgemanns, H.,  Gottwald, N.K.,  Gourinat, J.B.,  Graf, F.,  Graffigna, P.,  Graver, M.R., –,  Gray-Fow, M.J.C., – Gross, J.,  Gruen, E.S.,  Guerra, A.J., ,  Gurval, R.A., , , ,  Guthrie, W.K.C.,  Gutsfeld, A.,  Haas, P.J.,  Hadas-Lebel, M.,  Hadot, P., ,  Hahn, S.W.,  Hall, R.W., 



Hamilton, J.M.,  Hands, A.R.,  Haran, M., , ,  Hardie, P.R.,  Harland, P.J.,  Harrauer, H.,  Harrill, J.A., , ,  Harris, E.M., ,  Harris, H.A., ,  Harris, J.R.,  Hasel, M.G., , ,  Hay, D.M.,  Hecht, R.D., , ,  Heinemann, I., , , , , ,  Helleman, W.E., ,  Hennig, D.,  Hermann, J.,  Herrmann, F.G., ,  Herrmann-Otto, E.,  Heskel, J., – Hess, R.S.,  Hezser, C., , ,  Hilgert, E., , , ,  Hill, H.,  Hiltbrunner, O.,  Himmelfarb, M.,  Hirzel, R.,  Hobbs, A., , ,  Höistad, R., ,  Holladay, C.H., ,  Holtz, G., , ,  Houtman, C., , , , ,  Humble, N.,  Hunt, A.S., – Inwood, B., , , – Irwin, T., ,  Isaac, B.H., , , , , , , –, – Isager, S., –, ,  Jaeger, W.,  Jagersma, H.,  Jamesdon, M.H.,  Jastram, D.N.,  Jobling, D., , 



index of modern authors

Jones, A.,  Jones, A.H.M.,  Jones, J.R.M.,  Kamlah, E.,  Kasher, A., , – Kassel, R.,  Katz, P., – Kayatz, C.,  Keel, O.,  Keith, A.M.,  Kenney, J.P.,  Kern, P.B., –,  Kidd, J.E.R., ,  King, H.,  Kister, M., ,  Klassen, W., ,  Klein, F.N.,  Knauf, E.A.,  Koch, D.A.,  Konstan, D., –, , , , , , – Kramer, S.N.,  Krauss, S.,  Kuhn, H.W.,  Labuschagne, C.J., – Lacey, W.K.,  Lampe, P.,  Lapin, H.,  Laporte, J., ,  Lasserre, G.,  Lattke, M.,  Lausberg, H.,  Lawrence, L.J., ,  Lebeck, A.,  Le Bohec, Y.,  Le Déaut, R., ,  Lendon, J.E.,  Leonhardt, J., , – Leonhardt-Balzer, J.,  Levine, B.A., ,  Levison, J.R., ,  Lewis, J.P.,  Lewis, N., , , , , –  Lilla, S.R.C., , 

Lindberg, D.C.,  Llewelyn, S.R., – Lohfink, G.,  Loman, P.,  Long, A.A., , , , ,  Luck, U.,  Luraghi, N., ,  Mach, M.,  Mack, B.L., ,  Maharam, W.-A.,  Malherbe, A.J., ,  Maloney, R.P.,  Mangey, T., , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , – Marcus, J., , , , ,  Martens, J.W., ,  Martin, D.B.,  Martin, H.,  Martin, P.M.,  Massebieau, L.,  Mathieu, J.M.,  Mattern, S.P.,  McDonald, W.C.,  McGinn, T.A.J.,  McNight, S.,  Méasson, A.,  Meeks, W.A., , , ,  Meggitt, J.J.,  Méhat, A.,  Mejer, J.,  Mendelson, A., , , – Menn, E.M., – Michel, A., ,  Michelini, A.,  Milgrom, J., , , , , – , , –, , , , – Miller, J.L., , ,  Miller, P.D.,  Millett, P., , , , , ,  Momigliano, A.D.,  Montanari, E.,  Moorhead, J.,  Morris, J., , , , , , 

index of modern authors Morrison, D.,  Morrow, G.R., , , ,  Morton, A.G.,  Murphy, D.,  Najman, H.,  Nardi, E.,  Nave, G.D., , ,  Nelson, R.D., , , , , , , , –, , , , , ,  Neusner, J., ,  Newman, L.E., ,  Newsom, C.,  Nickel, R.,  Niditch, S., ,  Niehoff, M., , , , , , , , , , , ,  Nielsen, E.,  Nikiprowetzky, V., , , , , , ,  Nikolaïdis, A.G.,  Nolland, J.,  Noort, E.,  Noreña, C.F., ,  North, H., , , ,  Nussbaum, M.C., , ,  Ober, J., , –,  O’Brien, D.P.,  O’Brien, P.T.,  Ogden, D.,  Oppenheimer, A.,  Parisinou, E.,  Patterson, C.B., ,  Pearce, S., , , ,  Pears, D.,  Pearson, B.A.,  Pembroke, S.G.,  Perdue, L.G., ,  Peretz, D.,  Pestman, P.W.,  Petit, M., – Pfitzner, V.C., , ,  Phang, S.E.,  Philip, F., 



Pilhofer, P.,  Pohlenz, M.,  Pokorn´y, P.,  Polaski, D.C.,  Pons, J.,  Popa, T.M.,  Porter, J.R.,  Porton, G.G., ,  Pressler, C.,  Quinones, R.J., ,  Rainey, A.,  Rawson, B.,  Reinhartz, A., ,  Rendtorff, R.,  Reydams-Schils, G.,  Rhodes, P.J.,  Rickert, G.,  Riddle, J.M.,  Riedweg, C.,  Robinson, G.,  Rofé, A., , ,  Röhr, J.,  Roitman, A.D.,  Römer, W.H.P.,  Rosen, R.M., ,  Rosen-Zvi, I.,  Rosivach, V.J.,  Roskam, G., ,  Rowlandson, J., , , , , ,  Royer, J.P., ,  Royse, J.R., , –, , , , , , , ,  Runia, D.T., , , –, , , , , , , –, , – , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , –, – Safrai, S.,  Safrai, Z., ,  Salamone, G.,  Saller, R.P.,  Samuel, A.E.,  Sandelin, K.G., , 



index of modern authors

Sandmel, S., , , , , – Sasson, J.M.,  Savon, H.,  Schäfer, P., ,  Schmid, W.T., ,  Schmidt, H.,  Schmitt-Pantel, P.,  Schmitz, T.,  Schofield, M., ,  Schrage, W.,  Schrenk, S.,  Schuhl, P.M., ,  Schultz, J.P.,  Schultze, C.,  Schürer, E., ,  Schwartz, D.R., , , – Schwartz, E.,  Schweizer, E.,  Scodel, R., ,  Scott, A., ,  Scott, I.W.,  Sedley, D.N., ,  Seland, T.,  Shorey, P.,  Siker, J.S.,  Skydsgaard, J.E., ,  Sluiter, I., ,  Smallwood, E.M., –, ,  Smith, C.J.,  Smith, H.S.,  Solignac, A.,  Sorabji, R., , –, ,  Spicq, C., , ,  Sprague, R.K.,  Stafford, E.,  Stauner, K.,  Stepp, P.L., ,  Sterling, G.E., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Stern, D., ,  Stevenson, T.R.,  Stirling, L.M.,  Straus, J.A.,  Striker, G.,  Sullivan, K.P., 

Talbert, C.H., ,  Talstra, E.,  Tarn, W.W.,  Taub, L.,  Taubenschlag, R., , , , – Tcherikover, A., –, ,  Terian, A., , , ,  Thom, J.C., , , ,  Tigay, J.H., , ,  Tobin, T.H., ,  Todd, S.C.,  Tracy, S.V.,  Treggiari, S.,  Trigg, J.W.,  Tromp, J.,  Tromp de Ruiter, S.,  Tucker, G.M.,  Turnbull, R.G.,  Tyrrell, W.B.,  Tzounakas, S.,  Usher, S.,  van den Hoek, A., –, , , –, , , , , ,  van der Horst, P.W.,  VanderKam, J.C.,  van der Toorn, K.,  van Kooten, G.H., ,  van Veldhuizen, M.D.,  Vasantharao, C.,  Veness, R., – Verboven, K.,  Vermes, G.,  Vessey, D.W.T.C., , ,  Vidal-Naquet, P.,  Vischer, L.,  Vischer, R.,  Vögtle, A.,  Völker, W., , , , ,  von Albrecht, M.,  von Nordheim, E.,  Wallace-Hadrill, A.,  Wander, B., 

index of modern authors Ware, J.P.,  Warnach, W.,  Wasserman, E.,  Waszink, J.H.,  Watson, A.,  Wegner, J.R.,  Weinfeld, M., , ,  Weisberg, D.E.,  Weiss, R.,  Weißenberger, M.,  Wendland, P., , –, , , , , ,  West, M.L., ,  Wevers, J.W., , , –, , , , –, , , , , , , , , , – Wheeler, S.C.,  White, K.D., –, , ,  Whitehead, D.,  Whittaker, J.C.,  Wiedemann, T.E.J., , , 



Williams, C.A., ,  Williams, G.D.,  Wilson, R.R.,  Wilson, W.T., , –, , , , , , , , , , , –, , , –, , , , , , , , , –, , , , – ,  Winkler, K.,  Winston, D., , , , –, , , , ,  Wolfson, H.A., , , , , , , – Wolters, R.,  Wörrle, M.,  Wright, B.G.,  Wright, M.R.,  Wyke, M., ,  Zanker, P.,  Zeller, D., , , –, 

INDEX OF SUBJECTS Aaron, , ,  Abel, – Abraham, , , , , , , , –, , , –,  Actium, , , , ,  Adam, , , –, –, – aether, –, ,  Alexandria, x, , ,  aliens, , , –, , , –, ,  allegory, , ,  almsgiving,  ancestry, , –, , –,  angels, –, – anger, , , , ,  animals, , , , , , , –, , , –, –  passim, –, – anthropomorphization, –,  apologetic, , , –, , ,  Arabia, –, ,  arrogance, , , , , – , –, – assimilation, , , , , ,  astrology, –, ,  athletics, , ,  Baal Peor, , ,  Balaam, , , –, ,  Balak, , , –, ,  banishment,  banqueting,  benefaction, , , –, , –, , –, ,  Bilhah, , – blessings, , –, , – , –, , 

blindness, –, , ,  breezes, – Cain, –, – canon of virtues, , , , – , , , , ,  captives, , –, –,  cave, myth of the, ,  Chaldeans, –,  chariot, myth of the, , , , ,  cheese, – choice, , –, , –, , , – circumcision, ,  civil rights, –, ,  class struggle,  clothing, –, –, , –, , ,  coins, , , ,  concubines, , , , – consolation,  cosmic dance,  courage, – passim cowardice, –, , , – , –, ,  Cynics, ,  debt, , –, –, – , –, –, – decalogue, , , ,  deferments, military, –, –  democracy, , ,  deposits, , – desire, –, , –, , –, –, , , –  dew, – disease/illness, –, –, , –, –, , , , 



index of subjects

divine warrior,  divorce,  Edomites,  Egypt, –, , , , , , , , –, –, – , –, , –, , , ,  Eleazar, , , , , , ,  endurance, , , , ,  enemies, , , –, –, –, , , –, ,  Enoch, , ,  Enosh, ,  envoys, –, ,  envy, , , –, , –, , – Epicureans, , , , ,  Er, myth of,  Esau, –,  exposure, , – farming, , , –, , –, – fear, –, –, , ,  fetus, , , –, –  first fruits, , –, , , –,  flatterers, , , ,  flood, the, – food, –, , , , – , , , –, – , –, , , –  forgetfulness, , –,  four (number), ,  fratricide,  freedmen/freedwomen, , , , ,  friendship, , –, , , , , , –, , ,  fugitives, , , , 

gentleness, , , , –, , , , –, , – ,  gleaning, , , , , , ,  golden calf incident, , ,  greed, , –, , , , , , , , ,  grief, , –, , –, , ,  Guardians, the, , , ,  gymnasium, x,  Hagar, ,  Ham, – harmony, , , , , – , –, , –,  harmony of the spheres, , – ,  harvest, , –, , , , ,  health, –, , –, , , –, , , , ,  hierophant, ,  high-spiritedness, , ,  holiness, , –, , , , , , , , , , , ,  hospitality, ,  humanity, – passim idolatry, , , , –, –, , , , , ,  illiberality, , –, , – , ,  image of God, , , , ,  imitation, , , , , – , , , , –, , –, , ,  immortality, , , , , , , , –, , ,  inheritance, –, , , , , , –

index of subjects insolence, –, –, , , ,  inspiration, , , – intercession, ,  intoxication,  Isaac, , , , –, , – , – Jacob, , , , , , –, , –,  Joseph, , – Joshua, , –, –, , , –, , , –  joy, , –, ,  jubilee, , , , –,  Judah, – justice, , –, –, , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , ,  kingship, , , , –, – , , , , , , , ,  kinship, , , , , , , , –, ,  laborers, –, , , , –, , ,  landlessness, , , , , , –, , ,  lending, , –, , , ,  leniency, , –,  light, –, , –, ,  liminality, , ,  list of virtues/vices, , –, , –, –,  lost property, , – manumission, –, , –  martial imagery, ,  medical imagery, , 



mercy, , , , , , , , –, , , ,  metics, – Midianites, –, –, , ,  milk, , –, , , –  moderation, , –, –, , , , , , , ,  music, –, , ,  mysteries, , ,  nature, , –, , , , –, –, –,  Noah, , , –, –, – nobility, – passim Numa, , –, ,  Octavia,  offerings, , , , , , ,  officers, , , –, –, ,  Olympic games,  oneness, , ,  Overseer, ,  oxen, –, , – parable,  passions, , , , , – , , , , , , , , , , , ,  personification, , –, ,  Phinehas, , , –,  piety, , –, –, –, , –, –, , , , –, , , –, , , , , , , –, – Pindar,  plants, –, , –, –  passim pleasure, , , , , , –, , –, , – , , , –



index of subjects

pledge, –,  plunder, , , – Plutus, ,  poor, the, , , – passim, , –, , , , ,  poverty, , , , , , , , , , ,  prayer, –, , , , – , , , , , , , , ,  pretentiousness, , –, , –, ,  priests, , , –, , – , , , –,  prophets, –, , –, , , , , – proselytes, , , , , – , –, , –, , , ,  prostitutes, , , , , – , , , , ,  providence, , –, , , , – prudence, , , , , , , – , , , , , , , , ,  pruning, , , – Pythagoreans, , , , , – , , , , –, , , –, , , ,  rain, , , , ,  reaping, , , ,  reason, –, –, –, , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , –,  reciprocity, , , ,  recklessness, , –, , , ,  reconciliation, , , , , ,  remembrance, , ,  repentance, – passim Romulus, –, , 

ruling classes, – runaways, , – sabbath, , –, , , ,  sabbatical, , , , –, ,  sacrifice, , –, , , –, , , –, , ,  Schadenfreude,  seal, , – seasons, , –,  Seldenianus,  self-sufficiency, –, ,  sense-perception, , , , , – sex, , ,  shepherd, ,  sieges, , , , ,  sight, , –, , ,  singing, – slaves, –, , , , , , , –, , , , , , , – softness,  solitude, –, ,  Solon, , ,  Sophia, – stars, , , –, , –  Stoicism, , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , –, , –, –, , – , , , , ,  succession, , , , –, , –, ,  sun, the, , –, , – suppliants, , , , , , , , –, , –  Tamar, , , , –, , , , , , –

index of subjects teleological anthropocentrism, , ,  temples, , , , – Terah,  testament, ,  thankfulness,  thank-offering,  thanksgiving, , , – threshing, , –,  tithes, –, ,  tranquility,  trees, , –, , , – , , , , –, – 

vanity, , , , , 

universalism, , , , , , , ,  unwritten laws, , , 

Zeno, , , ,  Zilpah, , –



wages, , –, ,  war code, , ,  wealth, –, , , , – , –, –, –, – widows and orphans, , , , , , , ,  wisdom, , , , , , , , –, , , , , – , , , –, , , , , , , , –, , 

INDEX OF GREEK TERMS γαλματοφορ!ω, ,  γαπ,ω, ,  γ,πη, ,  γωνα,  δι,φορα,  δικος,  δοξα, ,  α>=ρ,  α]ρεσις, ,  κρασα, , ,  λογος,  ν,μνησις,  νδραγαα,  νδρεα, , , , , , , –

, , , , –, , , ,  νελευερα,  νελε:ερος, ,  παρχ=, ,  ποικα, –, ,  ρετ=, –, , , , , , ,  Yρμονα, ,  σ!βεια,  σκ!ω, , ,  τυφα, , , – φεσις, ,  γενναAος,  γν8μη, , , ,  δειλα, , –,  δεκ,τη, ,  δημιουργς,  δι,νοια, , ,  δικαιοσ:νη,  Δκη,  δξα, –,  δουλοπρεπ=ς, ,  δο(λος, – δ:ναμις, –

1γκρ,τεια, , , , ,  1γκρατ=ς,  ;νος, – ε>ρ=νη,  ;κστασις,  1λεημοσ:νη,  ;λεος,  1λπς,  1ν!χυρον, ,  1νομματω, – 1ξομοωσις, , , ,  ;πηλυς, ,  1πιδικασα,  1πιεκεια, , , , , ,

, , 

1πιεικ=ς, ,  1πιμ!λεια, , , –, ,



1πιυμα, ,  1πιστ=μη, , , , ,  1πιχαιρεκακα, –,  ;ρως,  εγ!νεια, , , , –, –

, 

εγεν=ς, , ,  εδαιμονα, , , , –,

, , , 

εεργετ!ω,  εIκλεια,  εκρασα, ,  ελ,βεια, ,  εIνοια, , , ,  ενομα, ,  εσ!βεια, –, , , , –

, –, , , , –, , , , , ,  ετολμα, ,  εχαριστα, ,  ;φορος, ,  1χρς, , 



index of greek terms

ζηλωτ=ς,  9γεμονα, ,  9γεμ8ν, , , , ,  9δον=, , , , ,  _ος,  Zμερος, –,  9μερτης, , , –, ,

,  αρσαλετης,  εοσ!βεια,  ητεα,  ρασ:της, ,  υμς, , , ,  υσα,  εροφ,ντης, , , ,  κ!της, ,  >στης,  κακοδαιμονα, , ,  καλοκγαα, , , , ,

, , , 

καρτερα, – κ,τοικος,  κληρονμος, ,  κοινων!ω, ,  κοινωνα, , , , , –

, , ,  κσμος, ,  κτ$σις,  λαμπρς,  λογισμς, –, , ,  λγος, , , ,  λ:πη, , , , ,  μαλακα, ,  μεγαλοφροσ:νη, , ,  μεγαλοψυχα,  μελ!τη,  μεταμ!λεια,  μεταν,στασις, , ,  μετ,νοια, , , , –,



μ!τοικος, 

μισανρωπα, –,  μισς,  μισωτς,  μν=μη,  νος,  νο(ς,  ξ!νια,  ο>κεωσις, , , ,  ο>κονομα,  2μνοια, , , , – 2μοφροσ:νη, ,  Hξυωπα, ,  Hργ=,  3σιος, ,  2σιτης, , , , –, –

, , 

Hφελημα, 

παιδεα, , ,  παρανεσις, , ,  π,ροικος, ,  πατ=ρ,  π!νης, , , , ,  πνε(μα, ,  πολιτεα, , , , –, , ,

, , , –

πολτευμα, ,  πολυαρχα, – πολυτ!λεια, ,  πρνοια,  προνομ=,  προνομα,  προσ=λυτος, –, –,

–, , 

πτωχς,  K8ξ, 

σ,ρξ, ,  σκαιτης,  σοφα, , ,  στ,σις, ,  στοιχεAον,  στρ!φω, , 

index of greek terms σωφροσ:νη, , , , –,

, , , , , , ,  σ8φρων,  τ,ξις, ,  τκος, – Rβρις, –, –, –,

–

Dπακο:ω,  Rπαρχος, –, ,  Dπερηφανα,  Dπεροψα,  Dπμνησις,  Dπομον=, – φαντασα,  φνος,  φιλανρωπα, , –, , –

, –, –, –, , – passim, , 



φιλα, , , –,  φιλοξενα,  φλος, , ,  φβος,  φρνησις, , , , , ,

, , , 

φ:σις, , , , , –,

, ,  χαρ,,  χ,ρις, , ,  χρηστς, , , ,  χρησττης, , ,  ψυχ=, , , ,  Bμτης,  Bφελεα,  Bφ!λημα, 