The Studia Philonica Annual, XIX, 2007

THE STUDIA PHILONICA ANNUAL Studies in Hellenistic Judaism THE STUDIA PHILONICA ANNUAL Studies in Hellenistic Judaism...

Author: D.T. Runia | G.E. Sterling (Eds.)

77 downloads 1731 Views 5MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

THE STUDIA PHILONICA ANNUAL Studies in Hellenistic Judaism


Editors David T. Runia Gregory E. Sterling


Volume XIX

2007

Editors: David T. Runia Gregory E. Sterling

Associate Editor David Winston Book Review Editor Ronald Cox

Society of Biblical Literature Atlanta

THE STUDIA PHILONICA ANNUAL Studies in Hellenistic Judaism The financial support of C. J. de Vogel Foundation, Utrecht Queen’s College, University of Melbourne University of Notre Dame University of Toronto is gratefully acknowledged

Copyright © 2007 by the Society of Biblical Literature All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, Society of Biblical Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA ISBN: 978-1--58983-295-4 ISSN : 1052-4533

The cover photo, Ezra Reads the Law, is from a wall painting in the Dura Europos synagogue and used with permission from Zev Radovan (www.BibleLandPictures.com).

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

THE STUDIA PHILONICA ANNUAL STUDIES IN HELLENISTIC JUDAISM Editorial Board Editors: David T. Runia, Queen’s College, University of Melbourne Gregory E. Sterling, University of Notre Dame Associate editor: David Winston, Berkeley Book review editor: Ronald Cox, Pepperdine University Advisory board Thomas H. Tobin S.J., Loyola University, Chicago (chair) Harold Attridge (Yale University) Katell Berthelot (CNRS, Aix-en-Provence) Ellen Birnbaum (Cambridge, Mass.) Peder Borgen (Oslo) Annewies van den Hoek (Harvard Divinity School) Pieter van der Horst (Zeist, The Netherlands) Adam Kamesar (Hebrew Union College) Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer (University of Munich) Carlos Levy (University of Paris IV-Sorbonne) Maren Niehoff (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) Robert Radice (Sacred Heart University, Milan) Jean Riaud (Catholic University, Angers) James R. Royse (San Francisco State University) Torrey Seland ( School of Mission and Theology, Stavanger, Norway) Folker Siegert (University of Münster) Abraham Terian (St. Nersess Armenian Seminary) The Studia Philonica Annual accepts articles for publication in the area of Hellenistic Judaism, with special emphasis on Philo and his Umwelt. Contributions should be sent to the Editor, Prof. G. E. Sterling, Executive Dean of the Faculty, College of Arts and Letters, 100 O’Shaughnessy, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA; email: [email protected]. Please send books for review to the Book Review Editor, Dr. Ronald Cox, Religion Division, Pepperdine University, 24255 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90263-4352, email: [email protected]. Contributors are requested to observe the “Instructions to Contributors” located at the end of the volume. These can also be consulted on the Annual’s website: http://www.nd.edu/~philojud. Articles which do not conform to these instructions cannot be accepted for inclusion. The Studia Philonica Monograph series accepts monographs in the area of Hellenistic Judaism, with special emphasis on Philo and his Umwelt. Proposals for books in this series should be sent to Prof. Gregory E. Sterling, Executive Dean of the Faculty, College of Arts and Letters, 100 O’Shaughnessy, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA; email: [email protected].

CONTENTS* ARTICLES Joan E. Taylor, Philo of Alexandria on the Essenes: A Case Study on the Use of Classical Sources in Discussions of the Qumran-Essene Hypothesis.................................................................... Lucia Saudelli, La hodos anô kai katô d’Héraclite (Fragment 22 B 60 DK/33 M) dans le De Aeternitate Mundi de Philon d’Alexandrie............................................................................ Andrew Dinan, The Mystery of Play: Clement of Alexandria’s Appropriation of Philo in the Paedagogus (1.5.21.3–22.1)......................

1

29 59

SPECIAL SECTION: PHILO AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS John J. Collins, Introduction ...................................................................... 81 Florentino García Martínez, Divine Sonship at Qumran and in Philo ...................................................................................................... 85 Hindy Najman, Philosophical Contemplation and Revelatory Inspiration in Ancient Judean Traditions............................................... 101 Katell Berthelot, Zeal for God and Divine Law in Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls ................................................................................. 113 Loren T. Stuckenbruck, To What Extent Did Philo’s Treatment of Enoch and the Giants Presuppose a Knowledge of the Enochic and Other Sources Preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls?......................... 131 BIBLIOGRAPHY SECTION D. T. Runia, E. Birnbaum, K. A. Fox, A. C. Geljon, H. M. Keizer, J. P. Martín, R. Radice, J. Riaud, D. Satran, G. Schimanowski, T. Seland, Philo of Alexandria: An Annotated Bibliography 2004..... 143 Supplement: A Provisional Bibliography 2005–2007................................ 195 BOOK REVIEW SECTION Kenneth Schenck, A Brief Guide to Philo Reviewed by James W. Thompson......................................................... 205 Katell Berthelot, L'«humanité de l'autre homme» dans la pensée juive ancienne Reviewed by Jean Riaud ......................................................................... 206

viii

contents

Bibleworks7: Software for Biblical Exegesis and Research Reviewed by Ronald R. Cox.................................................................... R. Hirsch-Luipold (ed.), Gott und die Götter bei Plutarch. Götterbild— Gottesbilder—Weltbilder Reviewed by David T. Runia.................................................................. Pierluigi Lanfranchi, L'Exagoge d'Ezéchiel le Tragique. Introduction, texte, traduction et commentaire Reviewed by Jean Riaud ......................................................................... John M. G. Barclay (ed.), Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire Reviewed by Steven Weitzman ............................................................. Mark A. Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus Reviewed by John S. Kloppenborg........................................................ Jean Riaud (ed.), L’étranger dans la bible et ses lectures Reviewed by David T. Runia..................................................................

210

212

215

219 221 223

News and Notes .......................................................................................... 225 Notes on Contributors............................................................................. 229 Instructions to Contributors................................................................. 233

* The editors wish to thank the typesetter Gonni Runia once again for her tireless and

meticulous work on this volume. They also wish to thank Tamar Primoratz (Melbourne) for her assistance with the bibliography, and Kindalee DeLong for the outstanding work she has done in the Philo of Alexandria office at the University of Notre Dame, and Daniel Smith, also at the University of Notre Dame, for proof-reading the final copy.

The Studia Philonica Annual 19 (2007) 1–28

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA ON THE ESSENES: A CASE STUDY ON THE USE OF CLASSICAL SOURCES IN DISCUSSIONS OF THE QUMRAN-ESSENE HYPOTHESIS

JOAN E. TAYLOR

The issue of whether the site of Kh. Qumran, on a plateau by the Dead Sea, was occupied by Essenes during the late Second Temple period continues to divide scholars. Archaeologists and historians both for and against the Qumran-Essene hypothesis appeal to the classical sources in support of their arguments, the important evidence being that of Philo of Alexandria, Josephus and Pliny the Elder. Fundamental in terms of making the association between the site of Qumran and the Essenes has been the evidence of Pliny. Pliny writes (Hist. Nat. 5.15, 4/73): ab occidente litora esseni fugiunt usque qua nocent, gens sola . . . socia palmarum, “in the west [of the Dead Sea] the Essenes flee all the way from the shores which are harmful, a type of people alone . . . in the company of palms”; infra hos engada oppidum fuit . . . inde masada, “below them was the town Engedi . . . from there Masada.”1 While in modern scholarship questions have been raised as to whether Pliny has been read correctly,2 it is worth remembering that already in the nineteenth 1 The connection between the Dead Sea and the Essenes was also made by Synesius (c. 400 c.e.), citing Dio Chrysostom (c. 100 c.e.): the Essenes were “a whole happy city by the Dead Water (παρὰ τὸ νεκρὸν ὕδωρ), in the interior of Palestine, [a city] lying somewhere close by Sodom” (Synesius, Dion 3.2). Solinus (fl. 230–240 c.e.) in his Collectanea 34.1–12, reflects Pliny, while Epiphanius (c. 375 c.e.) places ᾿Οσσαῖοι on the other side of the Dead Sea within the regions of Nabataea and Peraea (Pan. 19.1.1; 19.2.2; cf. Pan. 53.1.1. See also Martianus Capella, c. 400 c.e., De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii (Satyricon) 6.679. 2 The usual understanding is that Pliny situates Essenes in terms of a movement from the source of the Jordan to the south, see Roland de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), 133–137; Geza Vermes and Martin Goodman, eds., The Essenes according to the Classical Sources (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 3 n. 19; John J. Collins, “Essenes,” ABD 2, 619–626, at 620. For the argument that Pliny refers to the Essenes as being physically above and west of Engedi see Jean-Paul Audet, “Qumrân et la notice de Pline sur les Esséniens,” RB 68 (1961): 346–387 and the eloquent response by Christian Burchard, “Pline et les Esséniens: à propos d’un article récent,” RB 69 (1962): 533– 569, but see also Robert A. Kraft, “Pliny on Essenes, Pliny on Jews,” Dead Sea Discoveries 8 (2001):

2

Joan E. Taylor

century the region west of the Dead Sea and north of Engedi could be associated with the Essenes on the basis of his text; it was not identified as such until after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. For example, in 1864 Christian D. Ginsburg wrote in his essay on the Essenes that “the majority of them settled on the north-west shore of the Dead Sea.”3 William Hepworth Dixon, who visited the area, stated in 1866 that the “chief” seats of this sect [of the Essenes] were pitched on the western shores of the Dead Sea, about the present Ras el Feshka.”4 The question for nineteenth century explorers of the region was about the extent of Essene settlement within this region: that is, whether it extended far into the Buqeià or to the edge of Engedi. Felicien de Saulcy situated Essenes as far west as Mar Saba monastery,5 while Lieutenant Lynch wondered about them in the Wadi Sedeir just north of where ancient Engedi was located.6 It was therefore inevitable that when the site of Kh. Qumran was excavated and understood to date from the second century b.c.e. to first century c.e.,7 the 255–261, esp. 258. Pliny of course may have been wrong; he places Tarichaea south of the Sea of Philoteria, perhaps confusing it with Galilee. 3 Christian D. Ginsburg, The Essenes: Their History and Doctrines; The Kabbalah: Its Doctrines, Development and Literature (London: Routledge and Paul, 1955), 26, reprint of The Essenes: Their History and Doctrines (London: Longman and Green, 1864). 4 William Hepworth Dixon, The Holy Land (2nd ed.; London: Chapman and Hall, 1866), I, 279–280, cf. Joseph B. Lightfoot, “On Some Points Connected with the Essenes,” in id. The Epistles of St. Paul iii. The First Roman Captivity. 2. The Epistle to the Colossians, 3. Epistle to Philemon (1875), 114–179, at 146: “The home of the Essene sect is allowed on all hands to have been on the eastern borders of Palestine, the shores of the Dead Sea, a region least of all exposed to the influences of Greek philosophy.” 5 Félicien de Saulcy, Narrative of a Journey Round the Dead Sea and in the Bible Lands in 1850 and 1851, (2 vols. ed. Edward de Warren; London: Richard Bentley, 1853), I, 152–156: “Pliny informs us that the Essenians inhabited the western coast of the Asphaltic Lake” (155–156). De Saulcy found near Mar Saba a cave and pieces of mosaic tesserae he associated with the Essenes. 6 William F. Lynch, Narrative of the United States’ Expedition to the River Jordan and the Dead Sea (7th ed.; Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard, 1850), 294, reports of a party from Jerusalem “creeping like mites along the lofty crags descending to this deep chasm. Some of our party had discovered in the face of the precipice near the fountain, several apertures, one of them arched and faced with stone. There was no perceptible access to the caverns, which were once, perhaps, the abode of the Essenes. Our sailors could not get to them; and where they fail, none but monkeys can succeed. There must have been terraced pathways formerly cut in the face of the rock, which have been worn away by winter torrents.” Lynch appears to call the spring Ein Sudeir the fountain of “Ain Jidy,” and writes of part of the “Wady Sudeir” being “below Ain Jidy,” 289, with the wadi going down towards the Dead Sea. 7 Prior to excavation, the site of Qumran had not been associated with the Essenes because it was thought to date from a later time and to be military in character, e.g. Charles W. M. Van der Velde, Memoir to Accompany the Map of the Holy Land (Gotha: Leipsic, 1856), 257: “The ruins called Ghomran are those of a small fortress which has been built to guard the pass above; and around it, on the E. and S., a few cottages have stood, which probably afforded shelter to the soldiers, the whole having been surrounded by a wall for defence.” The comment by Lena Cansdale that “[b]efore the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 no connection had been made between the

Philo of Alexandria on the Essenes

3

question of whether it was in some way associated with the Essenes would be raised. With the classical sources at hand, Roland de Vaux, excavator of Qumran, noted that peculiarities of the site—large rooms suitable for communal eating, sizeable pools that would fit the requirements of ritual purification baths, a cemetery with largely adult male skeletons, and so on—seemed to match an identification that the complex was occupied by Essenes.8 However, as is well known, the identification of the site as Essene has been both bolstered and complicated by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These immediately pointed scholars in the direction of an Essene identification, prior to the excavation of the site. Key sectarian texts, particularly the Serekh (1QS), were found to fit with what appeared in the classical descriptions of the Essenes, though this also created conventions on how the classical sources were read.9 The Essene identification was made almost instantly the scrolls arrived in Jerusalem: Millar Burrows recorded in his diary for March 19, 1948 that he worked on the “Essene manuscript” at the American School.10 The Essene hypothesis was most persuasively explicated by André Dupont-Sommer, and became the standard view.11 The union of Qumran, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Essenes can seem harmonious, but some—such as Florentino García Martínez—have sought to account for differences between the classical sources on the Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls by suggesting a separation between a hypothetical Qumran group and the wider Essene school.12 Similiarly, Gabriele Boccaccini concludes that the Dead Sea Scrolls community was “a radical and minority group within Enochic Judaism,”13 but that also this type of Judaism was itself essentially Essene by 200 b.c.e. This may well be so, but to what extent has a coherent and holistic Essene identity been established on the basis of what is written in classical sources? Scholars who have challenged the identification of Qumran as an Essene site have done so also by using the classical sources as the benchmark for sect of the Essenes and the ruined, ancient settlement of Qumran” (Qumran and the Essenes: A ReEvaluation of the Evidence (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr/Paul Siebeck, 1997) 19 is therefore misleading. 8 De Vaux, op. cit. (n. 2), 126–138. 9 Up until the discovery of the Scrolls, these sources could be read in diverse ways. For an examination, see Siegfried Wagner, Die Essener in der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion vom Ausgang des 18. bis zum Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts (Berlin: A. Töpelman, 1960). 10 Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Secker and Warburg, 1956), 279. 11 André Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (transl. by Geza Vermes of Les Écrits esséniens découverts près de la mer Morte; Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1961). 12 Florentino García Martínez, “Qumran Origins and Early History: A Groningen Hypothesis,” Folio Orientalia (1988): 113–136. 13 Gabriele Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 162.

4

Joan E. Taylor

establishing the true identity of who the Essenes were.14 For example, in a recent examination of the archaeology, Yizhar Hirschfeld has stated: Another important point concerns the presence of animal bones at what is purported to be an Essene site. Josephus (Ant. 15: 371) says that the Essenes lived “a Pythagorean way of life,” which was ascetic and characterised mainly by vegetarianism. It is absurd to think that the inhabitants of Qumran, who were obviously meat eaters, could also have been Essenes.15

Josephus states in Ant. 15.371 that the way of life practised by the Essenes was introduced to Greece by Pythagoras, but can one extrapolate from this that Josephus thought that the Essenes were entirely identical to Pythagoraeans and therefore vegetarians,16 any more than one can extrapolate that the Pharisees really were Jewish Stoics on the basis of Josephus’ comments in Life 12? As every ancient historian well knows, the writing of current affairs or history in antiquity could be openly polemical, propagandistic, selective or exaggerated, and not intended to provide a coolly comprehensive, impartial body of evidence that can be used to create a coherent identity for a group. One need only look at Strabo’s summary of Jews and Judaism (Geogr. 16.2.35–39) for an example: all Jews are vegetarians and practice both male and female circumcision. Strabo wished to show the Jewish rulers and law as having a fundamentally tyrannical nature, and elements of his description are subsumed into this rhetorical end. Alternatively, in terms of positive rhetoric, when Josephus writes of the Essenes that “they have longevity, as most of them live over a hundred years” (War 2.151) this should alert us to other hyperbolic elements of his description, but it cannot be used to argue against the Qumran-Essene hypothesis on the basis of the entirely non-centenarian skeletons excavated in the cemetery.17 In this case Josephus’ apparent creation of a feature of Essene 14 For a review of alternative theories see Magen Broshi and Hanan Eshel, “Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Contention of Twelve Theories,” in Douglas R. Edwards, ed., Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches (London–New York: Routledge, 2004), 162–169. 15 Yizhar Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 111. 16 Pythagoras himself was said to have sacrificed a hecatomb after discovering his theorem of the right-angled triangle, see Diogenes Laertius, Vitae 8.12, though Laertius goes on to report the common view that Pythagoras eschewed the eating of meat, see also Athenaeus, Deipn. 10, and Cicero, De Natura Deorum 3.36. Ginsburg, op. cit. (n. 3), 19–20 and others long ago refuted the Pythagoraean-Essene proposition. Importantly, Josephus considered the influence to have gone from Jews to Pythagoraeans, not the other way around, see Apion 1.165; 2.168. 17 While the sample size in the cemetery of Qumran is small and inconclusive, the majority of the excavated skeletons are of adult males. However, they are not generally old. In the northsouth oriented graves de Vaux excavated in the regimented part of the cemetery, universally agreed to be contemporaneous with the Qumran settlement and most likely of any part to be


5

identity—they all live past a hundred years—reflects a notion that longevity accompanies a healthy and good lifestyle. Recent studies on Josephus’ description of the Essenes in War 2 by Steve Mason have made the rhetorical dimensions of his work abundantly clear.18 As was pointed out by de Vaux, none of our classical authors was Essene; each witness is located in the position of an outsider in relation to the group he describes.19 The only contemporary writer who claimed to have had more intimate knowledge of the Essenes was Josephus, who apparently undertook instruction by all the Jewish philosophical schools while he tried to choose which of the three schools he should accept as authoritative for rulings in his own life (Life 10–11). However, he did not support the Essene rulings, but conducted himself in public office according to the rulings of the Pharisees (Life 12). His description of Essene life in War 2.119–161 may not have derived entirely from his own observations but rather from sources.20 As a non-Jew, Pliny must have been dependent purely on what he had heard or read about Essenes, and it has Essene (Periods I–II), of 27 N-S graves opened randomly (tombs 1–3, 5–8, 12–31), where age could be determined, there was one skeleton of 15–16 years (15), two in their twenties (24: 2, 28), eight or nine in their thirties (6?, 12, 16: 1, 16: 2, 20, 23, 26, 27, 30), five or six in their forties (5, 6?, 7, 8, 13, 31) and only four who were fifty or over (21, 22, 24: 1, 25); see Jonathan Norton, “Reassessment of the Controversial Studies on the Cemetery”, in Jean-Baptiste Humbert and Jan Gunneweg, Khirbet Qumrân et ‘Aïn Feshkha II (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 2003), 107–27. None of these are young children, but two may be female (22, 24.1). 18 Steve Mason, “What Josephus Says about Essenes in His Judean War,” in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson (ed. Stephen G. Wilson and Michel Desjardins; Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2000), 434–467. Mason explores matters further in “What Josephus Says about the Essenes in His Judean War,” online at http: orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Mason00–1.shtml and orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/ orion/programs/Mason00–2.shtml. He concludes that Josephus’ rhetoric on the Essenes is deeply Josephan and bound to his rhetoric on the Judaeans in general, so it would preclude him using a group as apparently evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which Mason reads as being antiJerusalem priesthood, dualistic, apocalyptic and so on. While in 1QS and other texts the priests feature as a key group, Josephus makes nothing of any priestly hierarchy in terms of the Essenes. Since Josephus should have mentioned this, given his own priestly interests, Mason’s conclusion is that the Essenes of Josephus and the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls are not to be equated. 19 De Vaux, op. cit. (n. 2), 138. 20 As proposed by Roland Bergmeier, Die Essener-Berichte des Flavius Josephus: Quellenstudien zu den Essenertexten im Werk des judischen Historiographen (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993), though, for critique, see Mason, “What Josephus Says about the Essenes in His Judean War: Part 1” at http:orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Mason00–1.shtml. The proposition that Josephus and Hippolytus (Haer. 9.18–28) used the same source independently, as argued by Morton Smith, “The Description of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosophumena,” HUCA 29 (1958): 273–313, and Matthew Black, “The Account of the Essenes in Hippolytus and Josephus,” in The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology (ed. William D. Davies and David Daube; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), 172–182, was refuted by Christoph Burchard, “Die Essener bei Hippolyt, REF. IX 18, 2–28, 2 und Josephus, Bell. 2, 119–161,” JSJ 8 (1977): 1–41.

6

Joan E. Taylor

been suggested that Pliny’s source was possibly a lost work by Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa.21 While Philo of Alexandria may have had contact with Essenes when he visited Jerusalem, verbal and substantive correlations with Josephus, Ant. 18.18–22, indicate that Philo and Josephus may both have used a common Hellenistic Jewish source.22 Be that as it may, excavation of sources is not a means to establish better “facts” for an Essene identity, since the sources themselves may have been constructed from anecdotal evidence and what today would be termed “urban myths.” Later authors could insert more reliable information into unreliable sources, rather than modify reliable sources for the sake of their own rhetoric. In addition, as I have argued elsewhere, the rhetorical can also be historically true.23 In 1997 Martin Goodman asked for a careful defence of the Qumran-Essene hypothesis to be made: “it is up to proponents of the Essene hypothesis to make their case.”24 However, arguments both for and against the Qumran-Essene hypothesis both equally depend on determining who the Essenes actually were. We need to read and interpret the classical texts, which are helpfully collected for our use by Geza Vermes and Martin Goodman,25 soundly. Moreover, it is a prerequisite in the exercise that we accept that these can tell us something historically true about the Essenes, or else there is no point in engaging with them at all. We cannot reject any part of the information they provide (including the longevity of the Essenes) without careful argument which would explain how an author came to present them in a certain way inconsistent with historical reality. More importantly, it is fundamental to recognise that we are not in the realm of simple truth or falsehood; the truth our authors tell need not be whole. In other words, I would predicate a discussion on Essene identity with a conditional statement: if what the classical authors say is true, yet partial (selective) and shaped by their rhetorical interests, then what can we say about Essene identity?

21 Stephen Goranson, “Posidonius, Strabo, and Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa as Sources on Essenes,” JJS 45 (1994): 295–298. 22 So Smith, op. cit. (n. 20), 278–279 and Randal A. Argall, “A Hellenistic Jewish Source on the Essenes in Philo, Every Good Man Is Free 75–91 and Josephus, Antiquities 18.18–22,” in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. Randal A. Argall, Beverly A. Bow and Rodney A. Werline; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2000), 13–24. Given that Philo wrote about Essenes in a missing treatise preceding De Vita Contemplativa (see Contempl. 1), Josephus’ source may have been this, for all we know. 23 Joan E. Taylor, Jewish Women Philosophers of First-Century Alexandria – Philo’s “Therapeutae” Re-considered (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 7–20. 24 Martin Goodman, “A Note on the Qumran Sectarians, the Essenes and Josephus,” JJS 46 (1995): 161–166, at 164. 25 Vermes and Goodman, op. cit. (n. 2).


7

In addition there is a problem in understanding the texts. Each author had his own idiosyncratic use of language and his own rhetorical interests that cannot easily be recognised without knowledge of the whole work in which such material lies. In order to explore these points, the present discussion focuses on the earliest of our three main witnesses: Philo of Alexandria, who wrote a good thirty years before Josephus.

Philo of Alexandria As one of the leaders of the Jewish community in Alexandria during the late 30s and early 40s, Philo was contemporary to the Essenes and in a position to obtain accurate information about them.26 In two surviving portions of treatises, Philo deals with the Essenes in some detail. The passages are found in Quod Omnis Probus liber sit (“Every Good Man is Free”) 75–91, and the Apologia pro Iudaeis (in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica 8.11.1–18), a work usually considered part of the Hypothetica. Philo mentions the Essenes briefly also at the beginning of De Vita Contemplativa as being the subject of a lost, preceding treatise on the active life of philosophy.27 Philo notes at the beginning of Prob. that it was originally the second part of a work, the first part being titled “Every Bad Man Is a Slave.” The issues here are philosophical, the paradoxical propositions Stoic.28 From the internal evidence of the treatise, Philo seems to have intended the work for a largely Greek-educated audience: there are only five references to Scripture, but a large number to Greek literature, which is highly esteemed.29 On the very first page, there is a reference to “the most sacred company of Pythagoraeans” (Prob. 2) and later “the most holy Plato” (Prob. 13). Sophocles’ words are “as any from the Pythian god” (Prob. 19). Moses gets a mention as “the law-giver of the Jews” (Prob. 29), but—strangely—without quite the same dazzling compliments, and one senses that Philo is trying to impress, by wit, language, intelligence and erudition, a largely non-Jewish

26 For a survey of the life and treatises of Philo, see Jenny Morris, “The Jewish Philosopher Philo,” in Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC–AD 135), (new English version rev. and ed. by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Martin Goodman, III/2; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), 809–870, and for Philo as a leader of the Jewish community in Alexandria see Ellen Birnbaum, “A Leader with Vision in the Ancient Jewish Diaspora: Philo of Alexandria,” in Jewish Religious Leadership: Image and Reality, I (ed. Jack Wertheimer; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 2004), 57–90. 27 See Taylor, op. cit. (n. 23), 68–72. 28 See the introduction to the work in PLCL IX, 2–9; Morris, op. cit. (n. 26), 856. 29 Morris, op. cit. (n. 26), 856.

8

Joan E. Taylor

audience skilled in Stoic philosophy, who hide behind the ostensible addressee “Theodotos” (Prob. 1). The Hypothetica is very fragmentary and the rhetorical dimensions are therefore difficult to ascertain, but as a whole it seems to have been designed to make a case for the Jews against the “Greek” lobby in Alexandria who were determined to present Alexandrian Jews—and Judaism—in the foulest light. Both the “Greeks” and the Jews of Alexandria sent delegations to Gaius Caligula, in 39 c.e., and then again to Claudius, in 4 c.e., in which they presented their cases before the emperors.30 In both cases, the Essenes are not shown as some peculiar sect that is unrepresentative of what most Jews think, but as a kind of apogée of excellence within the Jewish philosophia. As such, while it is important to Philo that his claims be true, more or less, he has no interest in giving us a warts-and-all introduction to the Essenes, but rather he presents them in ways that will strike positive chords of recognition in terms of the philosophically-educated audiences he seems, in both works, keen to impress.

Quod Omnis Probus liber sit Prob. on the whole does not contain many references to Essene particularities that are not immediately recognisable as examples of philosophical perfection within the Greek tradition.31 Therefore we would expect to hear that the Essenes love virtue, do not care about money or reputation or pleasure, that they are pious, ascetic, controlled, orderly, enduring, frugal, simple-living, content, humble, respectful of the law, steady and humanity-loving (77, 83–84). We would also expect that they spurn property-ownership and hoarding of money (Prob. 76), and have a sense of community. The pooling of possessions was not an uncommon philosophical ideal: Plato advocated it already for the guardians of the city in his Republic (3.416d, 5.462c), and the Pythagoraeans apparently practised this (Iamblichus, De Pyth. Vita, 167–169). There is also the sense that Philo is describing what he knew of all pious Jews: going to synagogue on the Sabbath, studying the law, practising virtue, and so on (Prob. 80–81). Still, there are a few points to note within Philo’s glowing resumé where Philo is drawing some attention to peculiarities. A number of these are strongly 30 Morris, op. cit. (n. 26), 866–868. The Hypothetica may have formed part of a dossier meant to counter the accusations of scholars such as Apion (see Josephus, Ant. 18.259–60; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 2.5.2–5). 31 Cf. Doron Mendels, “Hellenistic Utopia and the Essenes,” HTR 72 (1979): 207–222, who has argued that the Essenes themselves may have modelled their society on Hellenistic utopia.


9

related to material in Josephus. The Essenes do not own slaves (Prob. 79; cf. Ant. 18.21). They practice allegorical exegesis, according to an ancient tradition (Prob. 82; cf. Ant. 18.11, 20). The Essenes do not swear oaths (Prob. 84; cf. War 2.135). They are particularly concerned with purity (Prob. 84; cf. Ant. 18: 19; War 2.129). They live by themselves in separate communes (Prob. 85; Hypoth. 11.1, 5; Ant. 18.21). They have common clothes and meals (Prob. 86, cf. 91; Hypoth. 11.4–5, 10, 12; Ant. 18.20; War 2.122, 129–132). They look after the sick and elderly as parents (Prob. 87; Hypoth. 11.13; cf. Ant. 18.21). Overall there is nothing particularly problematic in terms of reading Philo’s text concerning these features. Elsewhere, however, Philo’s language can be ambiguous. At the very beginning of the description of the Essenes, for example, Philo has pointed out a common observation that philosophical goodness is found all over the world. He then notes: And also not devoid of goodness is Syria Palaestina, which is inhabited by no small part of the populous nation of the Jews. They refer to certain people among them, over 4000 in number,32 by the name of ᾿Εσσαῖοι. According to my opinion this is not an accurate form of Greek language, but it would derive from ὁσιότηϛ,33 “holiness,” because with them they have become above all attendants of God (θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ) not by sacrificing animals, but by being worthy to render their minds holy (ἱεροπρεπεῖϛ τὰϛ ἑαυτῶν διανοίαϛ κατασκευάζειν ἀξιοῦντεϛ) (Prob. 75).

At certain points in Probus Philo anticipates reaction; for example, regarding a statement of Zeno’s, Philo describes certain (non-Stoic?) people jeering and laughing (Prob. 54). In terms of the name of the Essenes, it is the Stoics in Philo’s audience who might well have chortled at the understatement regarding the imprecise Greek etymology of the word ᾿Εσσαῖοι. Diogenes Laertius notes that there were five excellences of language: pure Greek, lucidity, conciseness, appropriateness and distinction, and that among the vices of usage “barbarism is

32

The same number is given by Josephus, Ant. 18.20. The two words at the end of the sentence, παρώνυμοι ὁσιότητοϛ are slightly problematic: παρώνυμοi may be an adjective meaning “derivative” or “formed with a slight change from a word,” but it appears in the masculine plural, and it does not really work to think that Philo is reflecting ᾿Εσσαῖοι in the plural: “they are derivative of holiness.” It is usually translated, however, as if the word appears in Greek as a masculine singular, so the Loeb edition has: “a variation . . . of ὁσιότης” to indicate that the word ᾿Εσσαῖοι derives from the word ὁσιότηϛ. The alternative reading of παρώνυμοι is as an optative active form of the verb παρωνυμέω, third person singular, with the meaning of either “it is synonymous with” or “closely deriving from.” We find this very verb used elsewhere in Philo’s corpus in the same way at Her. 97 where the Chaldeans’ name in meaning “is synonymous with equability” (ὁμάλοτεϛ) or in Abr. 271, where the names are almost identical in sound. In the case of the Essenes, the Optative would have been used by Philo to indicate hesitancy, introduced by the expression κατ᾿ ἐμὴν δόξαν, “according to my opinion,” and hence I have translated it “it would derive from.” 33

10

Joan E. Taylor

the violation of the usage of Greeks of good standing” (Vitae 7.59). To get from ὁσιότηϛ, “holiness” or “piety,” to ᾿Εσσαῖοι, with only a sigma and an iota shared by both words, would have indicated some barbaric deformity, regardless of a similarity in pronunciation: the true form would have been ὅσιοι, “holy ones.” Philo uses precisely this word later on, when he writes of τὸν . . . τῶν Ἐσσαίων ἢ ὁσίων ὅμιλον, “the throng of the Essaioi or “holy ones” (Prob. 91).34 Philo seems to subvert negative reaction by stating his true opinion couched in ironic understatement. At first sight it is a very poor card to play rhetorically to introduce a perfect example of goodness with a note that Jews got their Greek wrong. But Philo cleverly uses precisely this point again towards the close of his description of the Essenes. He writes: “In such a way philosophy without overexactness of Greek names turns out athletes of virtue” (Prob. 88). Philo then makes a virtue out of his concession to the Jews’ laxity of Greek language; he turns an apparent negative into a positive, accepting a lack of Greek exactness in the name of the group only to emphasise that substance is more important than mere superficiality of language. In the Hypothetica Philo does not even begin to go down this route. There he writes that the Essaioi are called (καλοῦνται) by this name “in my opinion” (παρὰ . . . μοι δοκῶ) because of their exceeding holiness (8.11.1).35 The point about inexact Greek is avoided, though it may be implied. His rhetorical strategy here is simply to pass over the problem in silence. He could have done the same in Prob., but he chose to make the issue explicit, and address it defiantly in the face of potential critics. Philo clearly thought the name was garbled Greek, but here he was probably wrong. In the later Aramaic dialect of Christian Syriac there existed a fairly common word which could reflect Jewish Aramaic usage of the preceding centuries (lack of attestation being accounted for by the fact that the surviving sources for Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the appropriate time are thin). In Syriac a holy person may be called a h>asya (emphatic).36 This word translated Greek ὅσιοϛ in the Syriac Peshitta (Acts 2:27; 13:35; Titus 1:8), and would explain

34 Stephen Goranson, “Others and Intra-Jewish Polemic as Reflected in Qumran Texts,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, ii (ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam; Leiden–Boston: Brill, 1999), 534–551, has suggested that the authors of the sectarian scrolls called themselves: osei ha-torah, “doers of the Torah,” but see Lightfoot, op. cit. (n. 4), 128. 35 Note that Philo’s Essenes do not call themselves ᾿Εσσαῖοι as a self-reference. In Prob. 75 it is the Jews in general that call “certain people among them by the name”: λέγονταί τινεϛ παρ᾿ αὐτοῖϛ ὄνομα Ἐσσαῖοι. Likewise in Hypoth. 11.1 they “are called,” καλοῦνται, Ἐσσαῖοί, cf. Jos. War 2.119: Ἐσσηνοὶ καλοῦνται. 36 Robert Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 150.


11

the usage of Epiphanius, who called ᾿Εσσαῖοι by the name of ᾿Οσσαῖοι.37 Accordingly, it has been suggested that perhaps there was an equivalent Jewish Palestinian Aramaic form, even though it is not attested.38 If this were the case, then Philo would have heard an explanation of the meaning of the word ᾿Εσσαῖοι and—being unfamiliar with Aramaic—assumed it was an explanation of Greek etymology.39 For Philo, in Prob., the Essenes are worthy of a designation related to holiness “because with them they have become above all attendants of God (θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ) not by sacrificing animals, but by being worthy to render their minds holy” (Prob. 75). The term θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ is absolutely key in understanding the meaning of Philo here. In Philo’s writings this term repeatedly refers to cultic attendants of a deity, generally to priests and Levites in the Jerusalem Temple (Det. 160, Leg. 3.135, Sacr. 13, 118–119, 127, cf. 120, Ebr. 126, Contempl. 11; Fug. 42, Mos. 2.135,149, 274, cf. Mos. 2.67).40 Philo also uses the word ironically. When Gaius Caligula decks himself in the regalia of the Roman god Mars, Philo scoffs at how his minions had to be “the θεραπευταί of this new and unknown Mars” (Legat. 97).41

37 Lightfoot, op. cit. (n. 4), 118. According to Epiphanius the ᾿Οσσαῖοι—so-called—were Jews in Nabataea, Ituraea, Moabitis and Arielitis and regions on the other side of the Dead Sea who became influenced by “Elchasai” at the time of Trajan (Pan. 19.1.1–19.5.4; 30.1.3), after which some became known as Σαμψαῖοι (Pan. 19.2.2), a sect that continued to live in Nabataea and Peraea. 38 For discussion see Marcel Simon, Jewish Sects at the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), transl. by James H. Farley of Les sectes juives au temps de Jésus (1960), 49–50; Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC–AD 135), (new English version rev. and ed. by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Matthew Black, ii; Edinburgh 1979), 558– 559. Alternatively, Geza Vermes, “The Etymology of ’Essenes,’” RQ 2 (1960): 427–443, has supported the suggestion that the word derives from Aramaic ‘asayya, “healers,” though against this proposal see Frank M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies, rev. ed. (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1961), 51–52 and, long ago, Lightfoot, op. cit. (n. 4), 116–117. 39 Josephus also uses this term (Ant. 13.311, 15.371, 17.346; War 1.78, 2.113, 567, 3.11). His alternative usage of ᾿Εσσηνοί (Ant. 13.171–72, 298, 15.372, 18.18–22; War 2.119, 158, 160, 5.145; Life 10–12) may derive from knowledge of the same word being used as a designation of the priests of Artemis of Ephesus, who had to observe strict rules of purity for a year (cf. Pausanias 8.13.1, SIG 352.6, 363.10; British Museum inscription 578c7; Arch. Delt. 7.258), see the discussion by John Kampen, “A Reconsideration of the Name “Essene” in Greco-Jewish Literature in Light of Recent Perceptions.” HUCA 57 (1986): 61–81 = id. The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism: A Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees (SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 24; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), Chapter 4, and id. “The Cult of Artemis and the Essenes in Syro-Palestine,” Dead Sea Discoveries 10 (2003): 205–220. 40 Taylor, op. cit. (n. 23), 55–59. 41 He can use the term to mean “ministers” symbolically: gluttonies as the θεραπευταί of the intemperate and incontinent soul (Ebr. 210). The θεραπευταί of the sun, moon and planetary powers are in grave error (Decal. 66).

12

Joan E. Taylor

This language is by no means unique to Philo, though, interestingly, it is not paralleled in the LXX. In epigraphy, literature and papyri this terminology is attested as far back as Plato.42 On the basis of this meaning of “[cultic] attendant” or “minister”—with a specific reference at times to priests and Levites—Philo can use the word θεραπευτήϛ symbolically to refer to someone who “attends” God by means of a good, ascetic, wise and devoted life, one which (using the double-entendre) “heals souls” (cf. Plant. 60; Ebr. 69; Mut. 106; Congr. 105; Fug. 91; Migr. 124; Sacr. 127; Contempl. 1; Spec. 1.309; Virt. 185–186; Praem. 43–44).43 As such, the Essenes are immediately placed in a category that Philo deems ultimately good in terms of the human relationship to the Divine: the true cultic attendants of God who are deemed worthy to prepare their minds as sacrifices. This activity does not take place exclusively in the Temple, as does the activity of the attendants of God there, but can take place anywhere, as a result of the dedication of the mind to God. Such a comparison makes a rhetorical point, but are we to read from it that the Essenes as an entire group spurned animal sacrifices as a theological policy? It is frequently interpreted to mean precisely this.44 Nevertheless, already some time ago a note of caution was voiced by Ralph Marcus, who noted that Philo’s words did not mean that the Essenes disapproved of animal sacrifices at all; such a reading was based “upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the two ancient sources which deal with the problem.”45 Frank Moore Cross has written of Philo here: “This may be taken to mean that the Essenes repudiated the sacrificial system. It need not be. The conviction that ‘obedience is better than sacrifice, hearkening (to the voice of the Lord) than the fat of rams’ (1 Sam. 15: 22) is

42

For examples, see Taylor, op. cit. (n. 23), 59. Ibid., 59–61. It should be noted that Philo’s θεραπευταί living near Lake Mareotis, outside Alexandria, are very unlikely to be related to the Essenes. Both the Essenes and the people of the Mareotic group are “attendants of God” by Philo’s definition of philosophical excellence, but there are various features of Philo’s Mareotic group that are distinctively different from what he states about the Essenes: theirs was a contemplative rather than an active life; they are situated in a completely different place to the Essenes of Syria Palaestina; and they are characterised by having women participants in the school, when Philo believed that the Essenes did not allow women, for which see below. As I have argued, they are more likely to be an extreme, ascetic off– shoot of the allegorical school of exegesis in Alexandria. 44 For example, Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, rev. 4th ed. (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1995), 21; Vermes and Goodman, op. cit. (n. 2), 5; Simon, op. cit. (n. 38), 74–75; Per Bilde, “The Essenes in Philo and Josephus,” in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (ed. Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson; Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Suppl. Series 290; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1998), 35; Cansdale, op. cit. (n. 8), 29. 45 Ralph Marcus, “Pharisees, Essenes and Gnostics,” JBL 63 (1954): 157–161 at 158, and see also Todd Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (Cambridge– New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 118. 43


13

shared by prophet and priest in old Israel, and might have been expressed by a pious Jew of the later period, whatever his party.”46 If we look at Philo’s text closely, it is apparent that the contrast that is made here is between two types of service offered by attendants of God. Philo distinguished between what priests do in the Temple (offer animal sacrifices) and what Essenes do in terms of their service (preparing their minds for God). This dichotomy differentiates Essenes as better servers of God, in Philo’s esoteric view, but it does not invalidate the need for sacrifices in the Temple, nor in fact does it mean that no Essenes were serving priests (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.22; War 2.111, 131). We are here in the world of Philo’s poetic imagery: the Essenes are not in their daily living behaving as priests offering animal sacrifices to God in the Temple, and yet they are truly God’s attendants by continually offering the spiritual sacrifice of their minds. Reading this from the perspective of rhetoric, it is also clear that Philo, in creating the Essenes as an example of “the good,” would have been highly unlikely to state at the outset that this pinnacle of goodness within Judaism spurned the entire sacrificial system of the Jerusalem Temple, if not the Temple itself. While Philo agreed with much of the exegesis of the extreme allegorisers of Alexandria who really did spurn Temple sacrifices and festivals, he did not accept their practice. Instead, Philo believed there should be a balance between outward action and inner meanings and advocated both: “we shall be ignoring the sanctity of the Temple and a thousand other things, if we are going to pay heed to nothing except what is shown us by the inner meaning of things” (Migr. 92), he wrote, against the extreme allegorisers.47 The Temple system was necessary as a kind of training (Her. 123), and one should participate in it so as not to cause any offence to others (Ebr. 87), even though Philo accepted that the real and true sacrifice was bringing oneself to God (Spec. 1.269–272) by piety (Mos. 2.107) because “God takes pleasure from altars on which no fire is burned, but which are visited by virtues” (Plant. 108). Philo’s words in Probus 75 are therefore consistent with what we find elsewhere in his work, where true spiritual sacrifice is emphasised, but Philo never accepted that this meant invalidating the need for actual sacrifice. Additionally, an anti-animal sacrifice reading sets up an unnecessary dissonance with what Josephus writes in regard to the Essenes. In the most likely reading of Antiquities 18.1948 Josephus states that “while sending votive offerings 46

Cross, op. cit. (n. 38), 100–101. See David Hay, “Putting Extremism in Context: The Case of Philo, De Migratione 89–93,” SPhA 9 (1997): 126–142; Taylor, op. cit. (n. 23), 143–145. 48 Greek manuscripts of Josephus do not have οὐκ here, despite the Latin version and epitome. For discussion, see Beall, op. cit. (n. 45), 115, 164; Boccaccini, op. cit. (n. 12), 183, n. 21. 47

14

Joan E. Taylor

(ἀναθήματα στέλλοντεϛ) to the Temple, they [the Essenes] perform sacrifices with very different49 purifications (θυσίαϛ ἐπιτελοῦσιν διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν), which they hold as a custom (ἃϛ νομίζοιεν), and because of this they perform the sacrifices by themselves, keeping away (εἰργόμενοι)50 from the common precincts (τοῦ κοινοῦ τεμενίσματοϛ).51 Additionally, the Essenes are conspicuous by their presence in the Temple at certain points of Josephus’ narrative (War 1.78–80; 2.562–7; Ant. 13.311–13).52 The sending of special gifts to the Temple indicates that, for Josephus, they wished to honour it (and had the money to do so in terms of sending votive gifts). In his view the Essenes kept away from the common precincts (τοῦ κοινοῦ τεμενίσματοϛ)—which would refer to the Court of the Gentiles where most people were permitted—but nevertheless not the Temple proper, and one is therefore led to imagine that Essene priests engaged in Essene sacrifices separately to one side of the altar.53 The main point was that the Essenes had particular practices of purification/purity (ἁγνεία) that entailed some kind of separation from others. Randal Argall has argued that whereas Josephus reflects the source he probably shares with Philo quite accurately at this point, Philo in Prob. simply avoids the question of how the Essenes perform sacrifices separately “since it reflects negatively on the group he seeks to commend,” and points out that Philo, like Josephus, insists on the importance of purity for the Essenes at a later

49

Note the comparative intensification which can be read as superlative “most different.” Louis H. Feldman, Josephus Antiquities XVIII–XX (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965), 17, translates the word εἰργόμενοι as “excluded,” which means reading a passive rather than the perfectly appropriate middle form. There appears no reason to read a passive when this would mean that the Essenes were excluded by others on account of their particular concern with purity, when fastidiousness with purity would mean that the Essenes themselves must surely have wanted to keep away from those who did not share their customs for fear of being rendered impure. 51 As Beall has concluded from his examination of this passage, “both Josephus and Qumran literature present a picture of a group that did offer sacrifices, though with a greater concern for ritual purity in the process,” Beall, op. cit. (n. 45), 119. See also Kenneth A. Matthews, “John, Jesus and the Essenes: Trouble at the Temple,” Criswell Theological Review 3 (1988): 101–126 at 105–114; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Essenes and the Temple: A Reappraisal,” in id. Studies in Qumran Law (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 59–62; Albert I. Baumgarten, “Josephus on Essene Sacrifice,” JJS 45 (1994): 169–183. 52 As noted by Matthew Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament (London: T. Nelson, 1961), 40. 53 How this may relate to Josephus’ mention of an Essene Gate in Jerusalem (War 1.144–145) remains elusive, cf. Bargil Pixner, “An Essene Quarter on Mount Zion,” in Studia Hierosolymitana in onore di P. Bellarmino Bagatti (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1986), 245–287; Yigael Yadin, “The Gate of the Essenes and the Temple Scroll,” in Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City 1968–1974 (ed. Yigael Yadin; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1976), 90–91; Boccaccini, op. cit. (n. 12), 28–29. 50


15

point in his treatise.54 In Prob. 84, when Philo lists how the Essenes demonstrate their love of God by many proofs, he lists as the first example: “by continuous and repetitive purification (συνεχῆ καὶ ἐπάλληλον ἁγνείαν) the whole of life.” Philo’s language seems to stress a certain never-ending repetition of ablutions for the sake of this purity that would distinguish the Essenes from the practices of pious Jewish Alexandrians like himself. The comment of Prob. 75 is not the only place in which Philo’s language is easily misunderstood. When Philo launches into a list of armaments that Essenes did not manufacture (Prob. 78) it is easy to assume that Philo means to indicate that Essenes did not themselves carry any weapons, or engage in war, i.e. that they were pacifists.55 However, this is not what Philo says and it contrasts with Josephus, who writes that on their journeys, Essenes carried arms to protect themselves against robbers (War 2.125). Prob. 78 reads: You would not find one maker of arrows, spears, daggers, a helmet, breastplate, or shield among them, nor on the whole an armourer or engineer or one making business of anything for war, but the [professions listed] do not slip towards evil as much as [one making business] of those things for peace. For the [Essenes] do not dream of a trading market or retail business or ship-owning, eliminating the startingline towards greed.

The verb that governs all this is ἐπιτηδεύοντα “one making business.” Philo is in full rhetorical mode here, in stating that the Essenes have nothing to do with making instruments of war,56 but even less to do with products for peace, because they avoid the latter as inducements towards what seems to be a greater evil than war, namely greed. The starting-line, ἀφορμή, of the race towards greed they remove entirely, ἀποδιοπομπούμενοι (cf. Post. 72). There is a certain wit or irony here. While many might expect an ascetic philosopher beyond worldly concerns to spurn associations with war, these philosophers also spurn associations with peace. Philo makes war and peace counter-balance each other in dualistic imagery that is actually designed to emphasise the fact that the Essenes are not commercial businessmen. The point of all this is that they are disengaged from acquiring wealth. They are ignorant of commerce, they would

54

Argall, op. cit. (n. 22), 20. So Beall, op. cit. (n. 45), 144, n. 80, and see Simon, op. cit. (n. 38), 62–65, who wondered if Essene teaching changed on this point. Josephus mentions an ᾿Εσσαῖοϛ named John who was a military leader in Galilee (War 2.567; 3.11), but Mason has pointed out that this may mean “a man from Essa” (Ant. 13.393 = Gerasa, War 1.104), “What Josephus Says,” op. cit. (n. 17), 428. 56 As noted by Vermes and Goodman, op. cit. (n. 2), 4 n. 34. Philo creates a visual image of a man decked with armour and weapons, using plural for the multiple weapons and singular, appropriately, for his helmet, breastplate and shield. 55

16

Joan E. Taylor

not even dream of it (Prob. 78), literally, because it induces greed, which is the true enemy in the minds of the attendants of God. Read with an awareness of Philo’s rhetoric, sure evidence for Essene pacifism evaporates. Philo is making a different point, that the Essenes did not engage in any manufacturing industries for profit because they are entirely alienated from the world of commerce. In Philo’s rhetoric in Prob. they are detached from the world of money just as they are detached from the world of the city (Prob. 76), and yet one senses the hyperbole at work. Philo also indicates that the individual Essenes earned money, which they would then deposit into a communal fund (Prob. 86; Hypoth. 11.4, 10). We do not need to limit Essene work here very much in Philo’s treatise, only Essene interest in the struggle for profit-making per se.57 Philo notes that the Essenes labour in agricultural and artisanal work (Prob. 76). In the Hypothetica Philo mentions cultivators, shepherds, and bee-keeping (11.8) as well as artisanal crafts (11.9). This coheres with Josephus, who would write, just after his comment that the Essenes have a different ritual of purification for their sacrifices in the Temple: βέλτιστοι δὲ ἄλλωϛ [ὁι] ἄνδρεϛ τόν τρόπον καὶ τὸ πᾶν πονεῖν ἐπὶ γεωργίᾳ τετραμμένοι: “Otherwise, best are [the] men who have directed their way and all to work hard in agriculture” (Ant. 18.19). It is as if Josephus is announcing a truism, and he has characterised all good Jews as doing precisely this at the end of Against Apion: what could be better than “to attend to crafts and agriculture” (2.294)?58 Josephus tries to balance a possible negative concerning the Essenes’ peculiar Temple practice by emphasising they are best among men, by reference to an ideal of simple labour in agricultural cultivation. Hyperbole aside, Josephus did not think all Essenes everywhere were farmers and had no other occupations. He sees Essenes earning money (Ant. 18.22), and in War 2.129 he mentions τέχναι—crafts, artisanal skills—in which the Essenes were proficient. He cannot have imagined the Essenes living within “every city” (War 2.124) as farmers, and when Josephus writes of individual Essenes they are teacher-prophets (War 1.78; 2.113; Ant. 13.311–313; 15.370– 379; 17.346–348). In War 2.140 he notes their humility and honesty in public office. Both Philo and Josephus place information about Essene occupations within rhetorical structures in which the main emphasis is on the simplicity of the Essene lifestyle, uninvolved in the world of commerce, trade and gain. In Prob. 76 Philo states that the Essenes live in villages and shun cities because of the iniquities found in city life, but Philo in the Hypothetica writes that the Essenes live in “many cities of Judaea and many villages” (11.1), which 57 Likewise, there is no reason to doubt that Philo thought that the Essenes could have been collectively quite prosperous. 58 Plutarch (Cato the Elder 2.1, 3.1–4) defines agriculture as the ideal Roman pursuit, as noted by Mason, “What Josephus Says,” Pt. 1, op. cit. (n. 17), 5.


17

coheres with Josephus, War 2.124. The isolated setting of the Essenes in Probus adds to their characterisation as being very focused on the spiritual life, avoiding any distraction.59 Philo’s personal view is expressed in De Vita Contemplativa 19: “For every city, even the best governed, is full of noise and innumerable disturbances which no one who has ever once been led by Wisdom can endure.” Therefore, Philo is satisfied in Prob. to situate Essenes away from the city in order to confirm their concentration. Finally, in the passage, Philo describes at length how the Essenes never got into trouble with any vicious rulers in Syria Palaestina (Prob. 89–91). The favour of kings is a point he stresses in the Hypothetica 11.18, where great kings give them many honours. This is not at all a case of Philo’s ambiguity, but curiously his point is frequently overlooked. In Josephus also Herod the Great honours the Essenes by exempting them from a vow of loyalty imposed on his subjects, after an Essene prophet named Menahem predicted that Herod would rule over the Jews (Ant. 15.371–379, 17.345–348). In other words, both Philo and Josephus describe the Essenes as favoured by the Herodian dynasty. The reception of royal favours would have marked the Essenes out as the chosen school of rich and powerful rulers: people who were rewarded for their support of the Herodian dynasty. The suggestion that the Essenes could be the school dubbed the “Herodians” in the Gospels (Mark 3:6; 12:13, cf. 8:15; Matt. 22:16) is then, on the basis of both Philo and Josephus, very plausible.60 It is at the end of Philo’s description of the Essenes in Probus also that we get some sense of a Jewish identity that does not quite fit with the Graeco-Roman model of a philosophical school of thought that both Philo and Josephus both use to present the excellent Essenes to their non-Jewish audiences. Philo writes of the Essenes as being αὐτονόμοϛ (Prob. 91). Where Philo uses this word elsewhere in his writings (Somn. 2.100, 293; Jos. 136, 242) it carries the sense of “selfgoverning” or “independent of outside rule” and it is a strong word to employ. This reminds us that—in contrast to Graeco-Roman philosophical schools of thought—in Judaism the focus of philosophical discussion and exegesis is the Law (Torah) and how it should be practised in everyday life. The Mosaic law was not only a guide for belief or morality or for what took place in the Temple but the judicial basis of the law of the Land of Israel in operation throughout

59 There is no mention of isolation specifically in Ant. 18, but, in contrast to what he wrote in War, the work of the Essenes is here identified by Josephus as agricultural, which would normally imply that they lived in rural settlements. As such, it may be a motif found in a common source which Philo modified in the Hypothetica. 60 Hartmut Stegemann, The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, John the Baptist and Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans 1998), 267–268.

18

Joan E. Taylor

countless village and town courts.61 Likewise, Josephus presents the Essenes as having an independent jurisdiction: the Essenes had their own court made up of no less than one hundred men (in Jerusalem?) to decide verdicts, and they could even pass a sentence of death for blasphemy (War 2.143–145). Such attestations may caution us against imagining that there were very many other groups of a similar nature that could claim the same kind of judicial autonomy.62 While in terms of theology there may have been a vast multiplicity of “sects,” in terms of recognised legal interpretation it seems surprising that there were as many as three (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes), and it may be that we should then arrange our possible heterodox “sects”—all twenty-four of the minim according to Rabbi Yohanan (y Sanh. 29c)—into these three legal paradigms rather than positing unknown judicially independent schools of thought unmentioned by ancient authors.63 Even when Josephus forces a Fourth Philosophy out of the zealous Pharisees tending towards insurgency, they do still follow Pharisaic judgements, γνώμαι (Ant. 18.23). After all, it is the Pharisees who “are considered the most accurate interpreters of the law” by the populace (as opposed to the Herodian dynasty?) and therefore hold the position of the leading school (War 2.162; Ant. 18.17). Had the Essenes then marked out a geographical area of jurisdiction separate from the dominant school? In the region of Syria Palaestina as a whole, each πόλιϛ had its own legal code and civil administration that governed also the villages in its territory. If Philo is right, then recognition of Essene legal independence might well explain why Synesius (reflecting terminology in Dio Chrysostom?) used the word πόλιϛ to describe Essene settlement by the Dead Sea; i.e., it was a place with its own law. For models of comparison with the Judaean schools of law, the Graeco-Roman philosophical schools may provide only partial correspondences, despite the efforts of both Philo and Josephus to fit them into these conceptual boxes. We may be better served by looking forward in time to the schools of law within Sunni Islam—Malaki, Hanifi, Shafi’i and Hanbali—which impact not only on jurisprudence but also lifestyle, including consumption of food. Greek and Roman law had no comparable phenomena; the

61 See Shemuel Safrai and Moriz Stern, eds., The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Georgraphy, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974), 377–419, and the discussion of private law 504–533. 62 Cf. Goodman, op. cit. (n. 24), and id. “Josephus and Variety in First-Century Judaism,” The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Proceedings 7.6 (2000): 201–213. 63 As I have argued elsewhere, John the Baptist may well have been close to the Pharisees; he need not be considered independent of their legal tradition, see Joan E. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 155–211.


19

two schools of Roman jurists—the Sabinians and the Proculians—provide no real comparison.

The Hypothetica In the Hypothetica—or the Apologia—Philo emphasises the same virtues of frugality and asceticism and repeats some of the features of the Essenes noted above in Probus, with particular emphasis on κοινωνία, the “life in common” or “fellowship.” Apart from its apologetic dimension, the rhetorical context of Hypothetica—which would furnish a reason to explain why this is important—is only partially understood. The extant work is fragmentary, comprising at most only two short extracts from a bipartite treatise.64 It seems that various features of Mosaic law were identified, and illustrated, hence the relevant section begins: “Our lawgiver prepared (ἤλειψεν)65 many of the pupils towards community life/ fellowship (κοινωνία)” (11.1). Given this emphasis there are a few idiosyncrasies in terms of the identity of the Essenes that appear here alone. While the Essenes are identified as being part of a tradition so ancient as to trace its origins to Moses (i.e., fundamental Judaism), Philo notes that new members come into an Essene community because of “a zeal for virtue and philanthropy” (11.2). They are not born into it: “for them the choice of life is not by birth—for birth is not of free will.” There are, therefore, no children or young men among them, but rather all are τέλειοι—mature—and, more than that, ἄνδρεϛ καὶ προϛ γῆραϛ ἀποκλίνοντεϛ ἤδη, “men indeed already inclining towards 64 See the introduction by Colson, op. cit. (n. 28), 407–413. For an exploration of the relationship between Josephus and the Hypothetica, see Gregory E. Sterling, “Universalizing the Particular: Natural Law in Second Temple Jewish Ethics,” Studia Philonica Annual 15 (2003): 64– 80. Sterling identifies a common ethical tradition reflected in the Hypothetica, Josephus’ Against Apion and in the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. The similarities between the Hypothetica and Against Apion have been noted by several authors, see John Barclay, Flavius Josephus, Against Apion. Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2006), Appendix 5, who suggests that the section on the Essenes in fact comes from a different work altogether, the Apologia. Porphyry (De Abstinentia 4.11) ascribes to Josephus a description of Essenes found in the second part of a work he names πρὸϛ τοὺϛ Ἕλληναϛ, To the Greeks. However, alternatively perhaps Porphyry here wrongly attributed Philo’s Apologia (= Hypothetica) to Josephus; Philo’s account of the Essenes (i.e. Hypoth. 11.1–13) is in the second part of the work Eusebius refers to as ἡ ὑπὲρ Ἰουδαίων ἀπολογία (Praep. Evang. 8.10.19) and adding πρὸϛ τοὺϛ Ἕλληναϛ to this title would not be inappropriate. 65 The verb ἀλείφω literally means “to anoint with oil” but in Philo’s usage (e.g. Prob. 111, Flacc. 5) it may be translated as “prepare” or “train.” This metaphorical use of the word is derived from the fact that gymnasts would be anointed with oil in preparation for a contest. For the full list of instances of ἀλείφω in Philo’s extant work, see Peder Borgen, Kåre Fuglseth and Roald Skarsten, The Philo Index: A Complete Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 15.

20

Joan E. Taylor

old age” (Hypoth. 11.3).66 There may well be something historical in this, but Philo’s reasons for insisting on the advanced age of Essenes fits with his own interests. Philo himself was suspicious of people who endeavoured to live ascetic lives at an early age. In De Fuga et Inventione (30–38) Philo insists that you have to first prove yourself in business and ordinary life, noting that Levites have to work until they are fifty years old. People who are youthful and unready for a spiritual life will fail: “we arrive at the court of divine service and turn away from this austere way of living more quickly than we came, for we are not able to bear the sleepless observance, the unceasing and relentless toil” (Fug. 40). Therefore, in Hypoth. 11.3 Philo links the Essenes’ sublimation of the body’s desires with this advanced age, not with exceptional virtue, whereby “they are no longer inundated (κατακλυζόμενοι) by the flood of the body nor led by the passions.” Philo then discusses the community life in terms of how it is manifested in an Essene group: “None by any means continues to possess (ὑπομένει κτήσασθαι) his own things altogether—neither a house, nor a slave, nor a plot of land, nor herds (of cattle or sheep), nor anything other provided and furnished by wealth—but all things are placed publicly67 in common at once, everyone reaping the benefits (Hypoth. 11. 4). Philo then provides an image of an older man who has acquired considerable wealth and property giving his possessions to the community for the entire body to benefit.68 The community lives together, with common meals, serving the good of everyone there, and they delight in various diverse occupations as much as gymnasts in competitions (11.5–7); specific occupations Philo identifies (11.8–9) having been discussed above. All wages are given to a treasurer, who buys whatever is required (11.10). Commonality is stressed strongly (11.11), which also includes common clothing (11.12) and the common expense of caring for the sick (11.13).

66 Philo reinforces their elderliness when he states: “For they take whatever exercises they practice to be more useful and sweet to soul and body than those of [athletic] contests, not quite being in the prime of the body’s youth” (Hypoth. 11.7). This also continues athletic/gymnastic language already signalled by the word ἀλείφω. Like Philo, Pliny would imply that the men who become Essenes and live without any women (sina ulla femina), are reasonably mature, already having endured the fluctuations of fortune (Pliny, Nat. Hist. 5.17.4 (73)). 67 Here μέσον, literally “in the middle.” Perhaps Philo is indicating a declaration in an assembly, as in Acts 5: 1–11; for further see Justin Taylor, “The Community of Goods among the First Christians and among the Essenes,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. David Goodblatt, Avital Pinnick and David R. Schwartz; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 147–161. 68 What happens to any slaves is passed over here.


21

At this point during this eulogy of ideal κοινωνία Philo makes a grand exception, signalled by the word ἔτι, “however, yet,” with the strengthening particle τοίνυν. However, most sharply seeing the very thing, alone or great, that was certain to shatter the community life, they beg off marriage (γάμον παρητήσαντο)69; by means of this indeed to fashion self-control most excellently. For none of the Essenes has (lit: leads) a wife (’Εσσαίων γὰρ οὐδεὶϛ ἄγεται γυναῖκα) . . .” 70

The sense is that even with the pooling of possessions for the sake of the community life, previously stated, women are not included. The Essenes do not have wives, but it is not stated by Philo that these older men who have acquired property have never had wives. Their alienation from married life is presented as positive, while the situation of a married man with children is presented in very negative terms. Women are selfish, jealous, and distracting. Because of the importance of community life in this piece, the essentially problematic issue of women’s objection to this life is stated: when women have children they object to κοινωνία, so that men become slaves rather than free (11.16–17). This notion of the slavery of a man to a woman is found also in Probus, where a male master of a pretty little slave girl ends up fawning on her and being, for all intents and purposes, her slave (Prob. 38–40), thanks to her beauty and charming speech, which become weapons of mass destruction (ἑλεπολειϛ71) against weak souls, “mightier than all the machines which are constructed for the overturning of walls” (Prob. 38). In War 2.121 Josephus comments that Essenes are trying to protect themselves against women in a different way. The problem here is women’s licentiousness, since women are generally adulterous. While such gynophobia may indeed have been Essene, or in sources used by our extant authors, both Philo and Josephus may be imposing their own rationale for Essene celibacy.72 It should be noted also that all the authors configure Essene identity as only applying to men: the androcentrism is a given. If we turn to Josephus for comparison it is striking how Josephus’ language is considerably more ambiguous than either Philo’s or Pliny’s. In War 2 he presents two types of Essene men: one type is not married, and the other is married for procreation purposes. Josephus begins by stating that since the Essenes strongly 69 The verb παραιτέομαι in Philo indicates that there is something one is released from by entreaty, e.g. Flacc. 31. 70 “For no Essene takes a wife,” translates Colson. 71 “City-destroying.” 72 The Christian author Hippolytus writes that the Essenes “do not trust women in any way” (Ref. Haer. 9.18). For comparable comments in Josephus, see Mason, “What Josephus Says,” op. cit. Adv. (n. 17), 434–435.

22

Joan E. Taylor

reject any pleasure and passion, they view marriage with disdain.73 In place of their own children they choose out (ἐκλαμβάνοντεϛ does not mean “adopt”) other people’s children, to teach them, treating them as their own kin; this reflects the closeness of the teacher-student relationship in antiquity, since students, having been accepted for instruction, could co-habit with a teacher and serve his needs.74 Josephus then insists that marriage is accepted by Essenes as a whole: “marriage and what succeeds from it is not abolished (ἀναιροῦντεϛ)” (War 2.121). There is no indication he means it is only acceptable for other Jews who are not Essenes, but rather this bald comment is a signal at the start of his discussion of a topic he would return to, namely that the Essenes reject passion, but one order is married: “there is also another order of Essenes, alike in mode of living, customs and law with the others, differing in opinion concerning marriage” (War 2.160). This group of men marry to continue the human race. They insist that the girls they marry have already had three menstrual periods, to show they can conceive children, and they do not have sex with them when they are pregnant (cf. Apion 2.199, 202). In every other way, they are the same as the Essenes who are not married.75 However, we are not told the ages of the two orders, nor are we told that all the Essenes who spurn marriage and teach students have always been celibate and unmarried. Josephus simply does not give the information that would create a holistic picture. What Josephus tends to do in his description is establish the marriagedisdaining Essenes as the prototype, with the other group a kind of modification. He focuses on the unusual (celibate males) as the standard model, which coheres with what we find in other classical sources.76 Taken independently, nowhere 73

See discussion in Beall, op. cit. (n. 45), 111–112. In a Q saying, “the sons of the Pharisees” appear to be students of the Pharisees (Matt. 12: 27; Luke 11: 19), see Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (3rd ed.; London: SCM Press, 1969), 177; Taylor, Immerser, op. cit. (n. 63), 102–103. 75 It would follow that men left their wives for a marriage-disdaining order once the women were past the age of child-bearing, since if marriage is only justified for the necessity of procreation, how would they have justified it after this was no longer possible? 76 Mason, on the other hand, suggests that Josephus may have invented the marriageendorsing type of Essenes, “What Josephus Says,” op. cit. (n. 17), 447–450. He does not read War 2.121 as a preliminary tag to alert the reader to a further discussion, but as a note that Essenes accepted marriage only outside the Essene school (447–448). However, it would have been surprising for Josephus to invent something that complicates his description without adding anything to his rhetoric on the Essenes. Additionally, according to Mason’s reading, Josephus would contradict something he has stated earlier. Rather, the minimisation of the married Essenes—with an acknowledgment of their existence—may well reflect Josephus’ recognition that the simple male celibate model of Essenes he found in Philo or elsewhere did not adequately reflect the Essenes he had surely encountered. In War 2 Josephus provides more material on the Essenes than we find anywhere else. Details such as the exact type of wrap the women wore in the purification bath (War 2.161) could hardly be expected in a fantasy. 74


23

does Josephus in War state anything in terms of which order is the larger or prototypical one, but rather, in putting them first, Josephus identifies the marriage-rejecting order as more important. When Josephus states that the marriage-endorsing Essenes are “like-minded on way of life, and customs and law” (War 2.160) with the others, does he really mean they lived in communities with shared possessions, or is he meaning to imply an adoption of Essene law— even an education and entry process—without the entire communal package? Did they send their children to the marriage-rejecting Essenes for education? How did the two orders relate? We are left with partial truth from which we can create a variety of models. In Antiquities, completed some fifteen years after War, Josephus describes women not being included among communal male Essene groups in terms very similar to Philo. He writes that they “do not bring wives into their [shared] possessions (κτῆσιν)” (Ant. 18.21), because of the discord (στάσιϛ) this may produce. In Philo’s Hypothetica, the verb κτάομαι is used in preference to the noun: the Essenes do not continue to possess (ὑπομένει κτήσασθαι) private items (11.4), but he discusses women later on, and at length, as a qualification. However, what both Philo and Josephus actually insist on here is that the Essenes did not have a “community of wives,” a frequently-repeated motif in Greek philosophical systems, including Stoicism (Diogenes Laertes, Vitae 7.131), ever since Plato advocated that there should be a community of wives and children held in common in the ideal philosophical city (Rep. 423e, 457d, 458c–d, 460b–d, 540, 543). This ideal appears also in the utopian description of the “children of the sun” by Iambulus (Diogenes Siculus, 2.58.1), where sharing of wives fits in with a sharing of property, eschewing of slavery, common meals, frugality and uniformity of dress.77 It is therefore important to state categorically in the case of the Essenes that women are not shared in the possessions of the community or kept individually by a member of a community. It is this, then, that the Essenes reject, despite their communal life, because of the discord or strife it may produce, which would “shatter the community life.” Josephus states that the Essenes “live by themselves,” not implying a location in the wilderness but rather that any wives are excluded. Nevertheless, the apparent reading is that there were men who had wives among their “possessions” already before choosing the celibate, communal lifestyle with other men who do the menial tasks women would normally do, like preparing bread and other food (Ant. 18.22). For Josephus, this may seem at first sight inconsistent with what he wrote in War 2, but given that Josephus refers readers back to his fuller treatment there (Ant. 13.171–172, 298; 18.18) it is unlikely that Josephus himself thought he was being inconsistent at all. A model which would have the option of married male 77

Mendels, op. cit. (n. 31), 211–215.

24

Joan E. Taylor

Essenes—or others—separating from wives to embrace a celibate and communal lifestyle after having children would not clash with his previous description, but one of a married Essene who was also living in a commune would do so. Josephus’ married Essenes are therefore unlikely to have been communedwellers but men in normal societal contexts, presumably following Essene law applicable to these contexts. In directly addressing the issue of celibacy in a life of ascetic philosophy, Philo appears to have an eye to a current debate in which the value of celibacy was increasingly advocated in Stoic circles.78 However, for Philo—as a Jew—it was a qualified good.79 Given the argument about the practice taking place in Graeco-Roman philosophy it was no wonder that a Jewish group might have been called upon as an illustration of how Judaism had anticipated the phenomenon and exceeded all, but while Philo could use the Essenes to illustrate selfcontrol, ἐγκράτεια, Philo himself believed strongly that it was important for men to fulfil the commandment of God to multiply (Det. 147–148, cf. Gen. 1:28; m.Yeb. 6:6; b.Yeb. 63a). He states outright in Praem. 108–109 that “all genuine attendants (θεραπευταί) of God will fulfil the law of Nature for the procreation of children.” In the specific case of the Essenes, that most of them had produced children prior to a life of celibacy is implied in a conditional clause to address the case of certain men who may not have managed to do so: “Even if (κἂν εἰ) the older men, however, happen to be (τύχοιεν) childless . . .” they are looked after as if they were fathers to the others in the community (Hypoth. 11.13). Practically speaking, all the Essenes he portrays live as if they are childless, in that they do not rely on their physical children but on others in the community for care. In his description of the group of celibate Jewish ascetics usually known as the “Therapeutae” (literally “attendants”) in De Vita Contemplativa, Philo implies that the men who have joined this community have already fulfilled their divine duty to procreate, in that—on going off they “abandon their belongings to sons or daughters” (Contempl. 13), and leave “brothers/sisters, children, wives, parents . . .” (Contempl. 18). Likewise in the Hypothetica, read on its own terms, Philo means to provide a 78 The first-century Stoic Musonius Rufus would not recommend marriage or the bearing of children for the ascetic life of philosophy (On Training, Discourse 6); sexual activity was allowed purely for production of offspring (On Sexual Indulgence, Discourse 12), a view expressed also by his fellow Stoic Epictetus, in De Natura. This position seems to have been arrived at after a long debate with the Cynics, who could advocate eschewing marriage altogether, see Will Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7 (2nd ed.; Cambridge– New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 47–104. Pythagoraeans could be equally renunciative; the Pythagoraean Apollonius of Tyana, according to Philostratus, vowed lifetime celibacy and, in a late tradition, Pythagoras expresses the view that sex was not conducive to health (Diogenes Laertius, Vitae 8.9). This particular ascetic practice can be traced back to Plato’s later work (Laws 838a, 841b–c). 79 See Taylor, op. cit. (n. 23), 258–259.


25

picture of men who have properly fulfilled their roles in the world—acquiring property in its fullest sense (including women and children)—prior to a celibate life in community with other males alone. In other words, the comment of Hypoth. 11.14, that “none of the Essenes has/leads a wife,” is relative to the community into which the man comes, in his maturity. For Philo, any married life (configured as appallingly fraught) these men tending to old age may have had prior to their celibate life in community is not classified as “Essene” at all, as is the case also with Pliny and with the Essenes of Josephus’ Antiquities. New members join this κοινωνία as mature adults tending towards old age by choice, not by birth; it is not a case of raising up children within the κοινωνία, within a family, but this does not imply that no Essene ever had children prior to being an Essene. Josephus presents a more complex picture. Philo’s model creates a paradigm of the extraordinary (exemplary mature/ aged celibate men devoted to community life and self-control) within the milieu of the wider Graeco-Roman world. It links the description of the Essenes in both Philo and his source material to a particular genre in antiquity Philo knew well. Graeco-Roman philosophers pointed to exceptional philosophers in other traditions to show that virtue, self-control and philosophical excellence were found among the “Barbarians” outside Graeco-Roman culture (Contempl. 21; Prob. 73– 74, 92–97). These extraordinary models of excellence could include the Persian magi, the gymnosophists (“naked wise men”) of India, the Sarmanae (Buddhist monks), Babylonian and Assyrian “Chaldeans” and Celtic and Gallic Druids, the ultimate source discussion on these being Aristotle’s lost Magicus and Sotion’s Succession of the Philosophers (Diogenes Laertius, Vitae 1.1–11, cf. Clem. Alex., Strom. 1), and Megasthenes” Indika (cf. Strabo, Geogr. 15.1.59–60). Porphyry, in De Abstinentia 4, would gather together a collection of extraordinary ascetics, from Egyptian priests (from Chaeremon, On the Egyptian Priests) to Indian Brahmins and Sarmanae, including the Essenes of Josephus’ War 2 as part of the illustrative package. The tendency for authors to simplify descriptions of the Essenes into the celibate type alone is clearly demonstrated by Porphyry (4: 11–12), who omits the marriage-endorsing Essenes despite their appearance at the end of his source. In none of these summaries of ideal philosophers do we get a holistic or even necessarily very accurate description of the groups in question.80 In other words, Philo’s paradigm of “entirely mature male celibate” Essenes is not a complete picture, and we can turn to Josephus for a more nuanced though ambiguous view. Philo’s Essenes are detached from their context within 80 Note that Burchard, op. cit., (n. 2), 560–564, does not think Pliny’s description, by contrast, situated the gens of the Essenes within this paradigm, but rather within the context of other people identified by the word gens in his work, such as the Hyperboreans, a gens felix (Hist. Nat. 4.12.89–91).

26

Joan E. Taylor

Judaean society, and from any sector of that society that may have followed Essene law and philosophy, which is not considered by Philo as part of the Essene category. As I have argued elsewhere, Philo’s “Therapeutae” are likewise detached from their intellectual and social context within the allegorical school of exegesis in Alexandria and are presented as living a separate existence.81 Philo, in his extant texts on the Essenes, gives no evidence of knowing an association between this school and the Dead Sea, but there is in fact a very powerful reason for him to have avoided noting any Essene settlement at such a place: the Dead Sea was considered a noxious locality because of its air.82 Strabo has sooty smoke coming out of the lake and tarnishing metal (Geogr. 16.2.42). In order to compliment the Essenes, Pliny specifically stresses that they “flee all the way from the shores which are harmful” (Hist. Nat. 5.15, 4/73). Philo was particularly conscious of the need to breathe good air (Gig. 10) and in the case of the “Therapeutae,” Philo extols the group’s chosen locality at length precisely because of its health-giving breezes, which blew from both the Mediterranean Sea and Lake Mareotis (Contempl. 22–23).83 While Philo is content to characterise his Essenes as living healthily away from city life in Probus, he does not situate them in any place exactly. If he ever did situate some Essenes by the Dead Sea in any writing now lost, Philo would have had to insist, as Pliny did, that they were a fair distance away from the shores, so as not to imply that they lacked good judgment concerning air. Mention of their wide distribution was clearly an easier course; there was no reason for Philo to focus on any one specific community. Philo also creates an image of a great number of (celibate, aged, male) Essene communes. When Philo gives the number of Essenes as being over 4000 (Prob. 75, as also Ant. 18.20), the emphasis is on just how very many of them there were. The word he uses in Prob. 91, ὅμιλοϛ, “crowd” or “throng,” implies this, and we find large numbers very strongly emphasised in Hypoth. 11.1: Moses trained μυρίουϛ “multitudes” of his pupils for a life of community, namely the Essenes, and “they dwell in many cities of Judaea, and many villages, and in great and much-populated throngs” (Hypoth. 11.1, cf. 11.5). In conclusion, Philo’s Essenes are numerous, autonomous, old, male, celibate and representative of the goodness and truth of the fundamental principles of 81

Taylor, op. cit. (n. 23). This is a view that persisted until modern times, see Daniel the Abbot (1106–1108), 27, 38, transl. William F. Ryan, in John Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099–1185 (London: Hakluyt Society, 1988). In the fifteenth century Father Felix Fabri was told that no one should visit the lake because the stench from the sea makes you vulnerable to infection, sickness and death: Felix Fabri, Evagatorium in Terrae Sanctae, Arabiae et Egypti peregrinationems, ii (ed. C. D. Hassler; Stuttgart: Stuttgard.-Literarischerverein, 1843), 236a. 83 See Taylor, op. cit. (n.23), 75–81. 82


27

Jewish law and philosophy. Philo does not see the Essenes as a small, isolated and marginal pacifist sect out of step with mainstream Judaism, or even alienated from the Temple; rather they are the very opposite. They are honoured by the Herodian dynasty (and perhaps other rulers)—therefore endorsed by the rich and powerful—and they represent an important legal school, whose laws are binding within their areas. The mature-to-elderly men of the Essene school in Philo’s treatises are assumed to have had children prior to their joining Essene communes, thus fulfilling their proper obligation to multiply according to Mosaic law. After this, they pool possessions and embark on an austere, hard life of artisanal or farming labour of various types (e.g. including shepherding and bee-keeping)—not for material gain—while they focus their minds on God. They are also concerned with continual purifications. They do not allow wives to enter into the fellowship of their communes, and spurn the “community of wives” concept even though all possessions are shared. Philo’s texts on the Essenes need to be read with close appreciation of his language and his rhetoric. We can probe the text and arrive at some aspects of Essene identity and clues to aspects of this identity, but we need to do this with a careful understanding of the rhetorical packaging of the information. We can probably glean no more than a few details about the historical Essenes, details that are curious and largely related to how they behaved rather than what they actually believed. This gives us a basic framework only. Absence of any mention by Philo of a group of people governed by Essene law—Josephus’ married Essenes—does not by any means indicate that such people did not exist. Given the education of newcomers and the agedness of Philo’s actual Essenes, his discussions presuppose there were at least Essene-friendly others in the wider context of Judaean society from which the new commune-dwellers were drawn. However, the presentation of a wider social context is simply not useful in the rhetoric. Likewise, Philo’s lack of specific mention of the Dead Sea as a locality for Essenes—if he knew of their existence there—can be explained also by considering his rhetorical concerns. Philo used the Essenes as a rhetorical tool. He did not intend to give a completely comprehensive view of Essene life, nor did he necessarily have access to accurate details about every aspect of their identity. While it is axiomatic in this discussion that Philo presented truth, broadly defined, it is also the case that he used common models of philosophical excellence, with a dusting of the extraordinary, to cause his Roman and Hellenistic audiences to wonder at the excellence of Judaism as a whole. In terms of the arguments regarding the Qumran-Essene hypothesis, this discussion demonstrates that archaeologists and historians wishing to understand Philo’s presentation of the Essenes cannot read a translation of Philo’s texts on this group in isolation, without a clear knowledge of his language, rhetoric

28

Joan E. Taylor

and his works as a whole. The quarrying of snippets of Philo’s discussions—in which he is at times ambiguous or very strongly rhetorical in his language—has resulted in false apprehensions about what he has written. Small bits of Philo’s works are claimed as arguments by proponents of theories either for or against the Qumran-Essene hypothesis, without due care. While it remains sparse, there is very interesting and important information embedded in Philo’s descriptions of the Essenes, material that can cohere quite well with Josephus. This needs to be looked at with fresh eyes.84 Wivenhoe, England

84 This paper was read in the Tuesday seminar series at the Oriental Institute, Oxford; at the Department of Biblical Studies, Sheffield University; and at Trinity College, University of Melbourne. I am grateful to Martin Goodman, Jorunn Øklund, David Runia, David O’Brien and Andrew McGowan for their invitations and to all the participants in the seminars for stimulating questions and comments. I would also like to thank Steve Mason and John Barclay for generously sharing information and ideas, and Steve Mason in particular for a critique of this paper prior to its submission.


La hodos anô kai katô d’Héraclite (Fragment 22 B 60 DK / 33 M) dans le De Aeternitate Mundi de Philon d’Alexandrie∗

LUCIA SAUDELLI

Avant-Propos Cet article représente le premier moment d’une étude plus ample consacrée à la réception et à la transmission de la pensée d’Héraclite d’Ephèse (Ve s. av. notre ère) par Philon d’Alexandrie (15 av.–50 de notre ère environ), le principal représentant du judaïsme hellénistique alexandrin. Dans le corpus philonien d’écrits exégétiques, apologétiques et philosophiques, sont repérables des citations (partielles), des paraphrases et des réminiscences d’au moins une dizaine de fragments d’Héraclite, que les éditeurs des textes présocratiques Hermann Diels et Walther Kranz (1951– 1952)1 attribuent à des sources postérieures. L’Editio Maior des fragments et des témoignages sur Héraclite par Miroslav Marcovich (1967)2 et les plus ∗ Nous voudrions exprimer toute notre reconnaissance aux spécialistes éminents de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études et de Paris IV–Sorbonne qui nous ont assistée dans la réalisation de ce texte: tout d’abord notre directeur de thèse, M. Philippe Hoffmann, pour sa méthode rigoureuse et ses conseils judicieux, mais aussi et surtout M. Carlos Lévy, pour ses observations précieuses et ses critiques savantes, et en outre, M. Alain Le Boulluec, pour son attention constante et ses corrections ponctuelles. Toutes les traductions françaises que nous proposons dans cette étude sont les nôtres. 1 Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Griechisch und Deutsch (édd. Hermann A. Diels et Walther Kranz; Berlin: Weidmann, 1951–1952; 14e éd., Berlin: Weidmann, 1974) (dorénavant: DK), I 139–190; Les Présocratiques (trad. fr. de Jean-Paul Dumont; Paris: Gallimard, 1988), 129–187. 2 Heraclitus, Greek Text with a Short Commentary (Editio Maior) (éd. Miroslav Marcovich, Merida: Los Andes University Press, 1967 (dorénavant: M); Eraclito. Frammenti (trad. it. abbr. e agg. a cura di Piero Innocenti; Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1978). La réimpression la plus récente, avec Addenda et Corrigenda et une bibliographie sélectionnée (1967–2000), est Heraclitus, Greek Text with a Short Commentary (éd. Miroslav Marcovich; Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 2000). Voir, en outre, Héraclite, Fragments (éd. Marcel Conche; 4e éd., Paris: PUF, 1998); Héraclite ou la séparation (édd. Jean Bollack et Heinz Wismann; (3e éd., Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 2001); Héraclite, Fragments [Citations et témoignages] (éd. JeanFrançois Pradeau; 2e éd.; Paris: GF Flammarion, 2004).

30

Lucia Saudelli

récents Heraclitea par Serge N. Mouraviev (1999)3 fournissent un cadre encore non exhaustif—des passages philoniens où l’on relève la présence explicite ou implicite d’Héraclite. Si l’on passe alors à la masse imposante de la littérature secondaire sur l’Alexandrin,4 on s’aperçoit de la carence d’études critiques consacrées à Philon en tant que témoin de la sagesse fragmentaire et énigmatique d’Héraclite, de la tradition doxographique des Ier s. av.–Ier s. de notre ère, et de l’interprétation médioplatonicienne des Présocratiques. Dans le cadre nébuleux de la doxographie d’époque hellénistique et impériale, Philon occupe cependant une place non négligeable dans le processus de transmission du matériau doxographique postérieur à Aristote, mais précédant les Placita Philosophorum5 et les sources principales des fragments des Présocratiques: les apologistes et hérésiologues chrétiens d’un côté, les philosophes médioplatoniciens et néoplatoniciens de l’autre. Cet article constitue la première partie d’une enquête autour du fragment d’Héraclite 22 B 60 DK / 33 M: ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω μία καὶ αὑτή («une et la même la route vers le haut vers le bas»). La recherche présente d’abord une analyse approfondie du texte de Philon, De aeternitate mundi 104–112, et ensuite un dossier de témoignages pré-philoniens sur la doctrine héraclitéenne: des études philologiques qui sont subordonnées à la compréhension de l’interprétation philosophique du fragment d’Héraclite. Le témoignage de Philon devra alors être mis en relation avec ceux des apologètes chrétiens et des philosophes païens des premiers siècles de notre ère, pour pouvoir finalement revenir à la signification originaire du dictum d’Héraclite.

3 Heraclitea, II (Traditio), A (Témoignages et citations), 1 (D’Epicharme à Philon d’Alexandrie) (éd. Serge N. Mouraviev; Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag 1999), chap. 59 (Philo Judaeus Alexandrinus), T326–T343. D’autres textes devront figurer dans le volume II.B. (Traditio. Allusions et imitations) qui est encore in fieri (sur la différence entre les sections A et B de Traditio, voir vol. II.A.1., x). 4 Cf. Roberto Radice and David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: An annotated Bibliography 1937–1986, (VCSup 8: Leiden: Brill, 1988); David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: An annotated Bibliography 1987–1996, with addenda for 1937–1986, (VCSup 57: Leiden: Brill, 2000). Voir, en outre, James R. Royse, “Heraclitus B 118 in Philo of Alexandria," SPhA 9 (1997): 211–216. 5 Cf. Doxographi Graeci (éd. Hermann A. Diels; Berlin: Reimer, 1879 et nombreuses réimpressions depuis lors), 45 ss. Sur la question, voir Jaap Mansfeld and David T. Runia, Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, Volume I. The Sources (PhilAnt 73; Leiden–New York–Köln: Brill, 1997).

Heraclitus' Fragment 22 B 60 in De Aeternitate Mundi

31

1 Le Témoignage de Philon sur Héraclite: Status Quaestionis En se fondant sur les recherches d’Hermann Diels (1879) au sujet des Doxographi Graeci, Geoffrey S. Kirk (1954)6 n’indiquait pas tant comme responsable possible de la (con)fusion entre les doctrines des présocratiques Héraclite et Empédocle le passage platonicien du Sophiste 242 d–e, que la tradition d’origine aristotélicienne (De caelo A 10, 279 b 14), transmise par les doxographies postérieures, à travers Théophraste dans un premier temps, puis par le biais des Vetusta Placita. Ensuite, à l’époque hellénistique, elle aurait été influencée, au moins dans une certaine mesure, par l’interprétation stoïcienne du “cycle cosmique," parvenue au péripatéticien Sotion d’Alexandrie et alourdie par le pythagoricien Héraclide (Lembus), auteur d’une épitomé des Successions (des philosophes) de Sotion, où Empédocle et Héraclite étaient présentés comme successeurs de Pythagore. Mais ce sont sans doute les enquêtes de Jaap Mansfeld (1985)7 qui représentent un tournant dans le milieu de la recherche sur la doxographie d’époque hellénistique et romaine. Il refuse l’hypothèse de Diels et Kirk8 et inclut Philon parmi les sources explorées. En s’appuyant sur l’article pionnier de Walter Burkert (1975),9 qui le premier avança la thèse d’un centon médioplatonicien à la base de l’interprétation pythagorico-platonicienne d’Héraclite et d’Empédocle chez des auteurs comme Plutarque, Clément, Plotin et Hiéroclès, Mansfeld situe les origines du centon platonicien sur la descente de l’âme dans la vie corporelle et sa remontée au lieu d’origine à l’époque pré-philonienne et en milieu alexandrin, en postulant comme source un (ou plusieurs) auteur(s) anonyme(s) appartenant à la toute première phase du Moyen platonisme. Mansfeld analyse le centon médioplatonicien qui revient dans plusieurs traités de Philon et qui concerne la doctrine de l’âme, illustrée par l’interrelation d’images et de citations tirées

6 Heraclitus. The Cosmic Fragments (éd. Geoffrey S. Kirk; London: Cambridge University Press, 1954), 20 ss., surtout 25. 7 Jaap Mansfeld, “Heraclitus, Empedocles, and Others in a Middle Platonist Cento in Philo of Alexandria," VChr 39 (1985): 131–156; idem, Studies in Later Greek Philosophy and Gnosticism (London: Variorum Reprints, 1989), II, VII, VIII, XIV; idem, Heresiography in Context. Hippolytus’s Elenchos as a Source for Greek Philosophy (Leiden–New York–Köln: Brill, 1992). 8 Mansfeld, Hippolytus, 23–24, n. 17; 40–42, n. 54. 9 Walter Burkert, “Plotin, Plutarch und die platonisierende Interpretation von Heraklit und Empedokles," dans Kephalaion. Studies in Greek Philosophy and its Continuation offered to Prof. C. J. De Vogel (éds. Jaap Mansfeld and Lambertus M. De Rijk; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975), 137–146.

32

Lucia Saudelli

d’Homère, des Orphiques, de Pythagore, d’Héraclite, d’Empédocle, de Platon et même d’Aristote. En conférant un rôle fondamental à l’oxymore du “vivre la mort et mourir la vie," qui constitue la deuxième partie du fragment 62 DK d’Héraclite, Mansfeld10 en étudie les occurrences dans les traités philoniens. Il repère dans De aeternitate mundi 109–111 la seule allusion de Philon à la première partie du fragment 62 DK, et précisément, dans la transformation réciproque et successive des éléments cosmiques qui, «au moment où ils semblent mourir, deviennent immortels», que l’Alexandrin utilise pour interpréter (Heraclitus ex Heraclito) le fragment 36 DK, dont il cite verbatim la première partie. Mansfeld11 ne relève pas, toutefois, la référence à un autre fragment héraclitéen dans le même passage de Philon, repéré, en revanche, par Dieter Zeller (1995)12 dans un plus récent article sur la métaphore de la vie et de la mort de l’âme à l’intérieur de la spéculation philonienne. Dans cette étude, l’hypothèse de Mansfeld—de l’existence d’une composition écrite, alexandrine et pre-médioplatonicienne de fragments héraclitéens, empédocléens et platoniciens—est mise en discussion en raison de la faiblesse des analogies entre les témoignages de Philon, Plutarque, Clément, Plotin et Hiéroclès. Zeller13 reconnaît et signale, cependant sans approfondir, la paraphrase du fragment 60 DK d’Héraclite (ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω μία καὶ ὡυτή: «une et la même la route vers le haut vers le bas»)14 dans De aeternitate mundi 109, fragment qui semble pourtant jouer un rôle capital dans le témoignage philonien sur la doctrine d’Héraclite.

10

Mansfeld, “Heraclitus," 145–146. Le fragment 60 DK d’Héraclite n’est mentionné ni dans Mansfeld, “Heraclitus," ni dans le résumé de l’article dans Mansfeld, Hippolytus, 314–315. 12 Dieter Zeller, “The Life and Death of the Soul in Philo of Alexandria: The Use and Origin of a Metaphor," SPhA 7 (1995): 19–55, spéc. 40–46. 13 Zeller, “The Life and Death of the Soul in Philo," 42. 14 Le passage philonien Aet. 109 n’est pas inclus parmi les témoignages sur Héraclite rassemblés dans les Vorsokratiker par Diels et Kranz, qui considèrent la Refutatio omnium haeresium (IX 10, 4) attribuée à un écrivain de Rome du IIIe s. de notre ère comme la source du fragment 60 DK, et le traduisent comme suit: «Der Weg hinauf hinab ein und derselbe». Le passage philonien avec la référence à Héraclite apparaît, en revanche, dans l’Editio Maior des fragments et des témoignages sur Héraclite par Marcovich, Fr. 33 (d2) M: τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδὸν ἄνω καὶ κάτω, et dans les plus récents Heraclitea par Mouraviev, II. A. 1, T331, avec la traduction française «même chemin vers le haut et vers le bas». 11


33

2 Le De Aeternitate Mundi et la Référence à la Doctrine Héraclitéenne La présente recherche se concentre sur la référence à Héraclite dans le De aeternitate mundi, un traité incomplet, rangé parmi les “Essais philosophiques” de Philon, mais dont l’attribution à l’Alexandrin a été mise en doute parce qu’un seul manuscrit, le Vaticanus graecus 381, indique à la fin du texte: Φίλωνος ἰουδαίου περὶ ἀφθαρσίας κόσμου, et que le traité est absent de la liste des œuvres de Philon fournie par Eusèbe de Césarée (Hist. Eccl. II 18). Puisque, en outre, la doctrine selon laquelle le monde est incréé et incorruptible est dénoncée par Philon dans d’autres traités (Opif. 7; Somn. 2.283; Conf. 114) et apparemment défendue dans Aet., la question de son authenticité se rencontre de temps en temps dans les introductions, dans les discussions et dans les articles concernant les écrits de Philon.15 Le but de cette recherche est d’étudier le fragment 60 DK et la doctrine d’Héraclite dans l’argument des contraires d’ Aet. L’étude procédera de la manière suivante: d’abord une analyse philologique du contexte citateur du fragment 60 DK révélera qu’il y a une référence directe et indirecte à Héraclite dans Aet. 104–112 (§§2. 1–5); ensuite, l’enquête passera de Philon aux sources chronologiquement antérieures, selon l’ordre progressif de pertinence des témoignages pré-philoniens: sur le fragment 60 DK d’Héraclite (§3); sur la doctrine héraclitéenne (§4); sur la spéculation philosophique parallèle ou apparentée, sans référence explicite à Héraclite (§5). Les conclusions, enfin, résumeront les résultats de la recherche pour esquisser la valeur du témoignage de Philon sur le fragment 60 DK d’Héraclite, dont le sens à l’intérieur de l’œuvre de l’Alexandrin sera compris seulement après que l’analyse aura été étendue aux autres traités philoniens. Quant au sens originaire du fragment héraclitéen, il sera compris seulement après la comparaison du témoignage de Philon avec les sources postérieures.

15 Pour le status quaestionis, voir Philo in Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes) (éds. Francis H. Colson, George H. Whitaker (and Ralph Marcus); London: LCL, 1929– 1962), IX 172–183; Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie (éds. Roger Arnaldez, Jean Pouilloux, Claude Mondésert, Paris: Cerf, 1961–1992) (dorénavant: PAPM), 30, 11–70; mais surtout David T. Runia, “Philo's De aeternitate mundi: The problem of its interpretation," VChr 35 (1981), réimpr. dans David T. Runia, Exegesis and Philosophy. Studies on Philo of Alexandria, (Aldershot: Variorum, 1990) VIII, 105–151; en outre, Roald Skarsten, Forfatterproblemet ved De Aeternitate Mundi i Corpus Philonicum (The problem of authorship of De Aeternitate Mundi in Corpus Philonicum), (Dr. Philos dissertation; Bergen: University of Bergen, 1987); idem, “Some Applications of Computers to the Study of Ancient Greek Texts: a Progress Report," Symbolae Osloenses 66 (1991): 203–220; David T. Runia, Philo and the Church Fathers. A Collection of Papers (Leiden–New York–Köln: Brill 1995), 225, 261.

34

Lucia Saudelli

2.1 De aeternitate mundi 104 ou l’Introduction de l’Argument des Contraires La préoccupation de Philon dans le De aeternitate mundi est de démontrer l’ἀφθαρσία du cosmos,16 problématique inséparable de celle de sa γέ(ν)νησις dans la culture grecque, mais prioritaire par rapport à la deuxième dans ce traité, dont le texte conservé est principalement consacré à la réfutation de la position démocrito-épicurienne de l’atomisme “athée," et surtout de la doctrine stoïcienne des conflagrations et des renaissances cosmiques. L’un des arguments utilisés pour rejeter la théorie de la fin périodique du monde des Stoïciens (Aet. 89 ss.)—déjà mise en doute ou abandonnée par les médio-stoïciens Boéthos de Sidon, Panétius et Diogène [de Babylone] (Aet. 76–77)—est celui des contraires. À ce propos, Philon recourt à la spéculation héraclitéenne sur la transformation continue et réciproque des éléments matériels, laquelle, pourtant, avait été adoptée et développée par le Stoïcisme.17 Philon lui-même, Leg. 3.7 et Spec. 1.208, juxtapose la parole d’Héraclite (χόρος καὶ χρηαμαύνη) à celle des Stoïciens. Après avoir discuté la doctrine de Chrysippe, selon laquelle le feu réduit à l’état élémentaire, c’est-à-dire à lui-même, l’ordonnance du monde (Aet. 94–103), Philon aborde la thématique de la nature des opposés, en affirmant que «des contraires qui sont en couple, il est impossible que l’un existe et l’autre non (Τῶν ἐν ταῖς συζυγίαις ἐναντίων ἀμήχανον τὸ μὲν εἶναι, τὸ δὲ μή)» (Aet. 104), et donc c’est à tort que certains parlent de «conflagrations et palingénésies (ἐκπυρώσεις καὶ παλιγγενεσίας)» (Aet .107), en résolvant les quatre éléments en un seul, le feu. Cela montre que la présence d’Héraclite dans le traité précède l’allusion au fragment 62 DK, la paraphrase du 60 DK et la citation partielle du 36 DK, qui apparaissent respectivement dans les paragraphes 109–111 d’ Aet. Reprenons alors depuis le début l’argument des contraires de Philon, qui suit l’exposition de la doctrine du stoïcien ancien Chrysippe (Aet. 94– 103) et dont la finalité est de la réfuter (Aet. 104): Outre les arguments déjà exposés, on pourrait encore se servir, en tant que preuve, de celui que voici, qui attirera même ceux qui choisissent de ne pas poursuivre la querelle au-delà de la mesure. Des contraires qui sont en couple, il est impossible que l’un [des deux membres] existe et l’autre non; en effet, si le blanc existe, il est nécessaire que subsiste aussi le noir, avec le long le court, 16 La question εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος occupe la réflexion philosophique et doxographique depuis Aristote (Top. A 11, 104 b 1–8; De cael. A 10, 297 b 3 ss.) jusqu’à Aétius (II 4). 17 Voir Diogène Laërce, 5.88; 7.142, 174 ; 9.15. Cf. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (éd. Hans Von Arnim; 4 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1903–1924, réimpr. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1964) (dorénavant: SVF) II 421, 576, 594, 603, 617.


35

avec le pair l’impair, avec le doux l’amer, avec le jour la nuit et ainsi de suite pour tous les couples du même type. Mais une fois que la conflagration aura eu lieu, il arrivera quelque chose d’impossible; en effet, l’un des membres qui sont en couple subsistera, tandis que l’autre n’existera pas.18

L’incipit de l’argument des contraires montre clairement le rapport d’ Aet. 104 avec Her. 207–214, où Philon, en commentant le partage des animaux de Gen. 15:10, qui précède le pacte entre Dieu et Abraham, fait suivre un long catalogue d’oppositions d’un résumé de la doctrine “mosaïco-héraclitéenne” de la division de toute chose en contraires. Selon l’interprétation philonienne de l’identité des contraires d’Héraclite: «un, en effet, est l’objet composé des deux contraires: lorsqu’ il est divisé, les contraires apparaissent (ἓν γὰρ τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν τῶν ἐναντίων, οὗ τμηθέντος γνώριμα τὰ ἐναντία)» (Her. 213). Le but de Philon, en l’occurrence, est de démontrer que cette doctrine a une origine biblique, puisqu’elle est fondée sur le récit de Gen. 15:10: «en effet, c’est une ancienne découverte de Moïse le fait que d’une même entité se réalisent les contraires qui ont avec elle le rapport de sections (παλαιὸν γὰρ εὕρεμα Μωυσέως ἐστὶ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἐναντία τμημάτων λόγον ἔχοντα ἀποτελεῖσθαι)» (Her. 214). Bien que Philon ne fasse pas encore référence à Héraclite, il semble donc évident que le début de l’argument des contraires d’ Aet. 104 introduit et prépare l’allusion et la citation des fragments héraclitéens (Aet. 109 ss.). 2.2. De aeternitate mundi 107–108 ou la Demonstration Anti-Stoïcienne Voici la suite de la réfutation de la doctrine stoïcienne des conflagrations et des palingénésies à travers l’argument des contraires (Aet. 107–108): (107) On ne peut que s’étonner de ceux qui n’ont à la bouche que conflagrations et palingénésies, non seulement à cause des arguments que l’on a exposés, par lesquels on les a convaincus d’avoir des opinions fausses, mais aussi et surtout pour la raison qui suit. Il y a, en effet, quatre éléments dont le monde est composé: la terre, l’eau, l’air, le feu; pour quelle raison, ayant choisi arbitrairement le feu parmi tous, ils disent que les autres se résoudront en celuici seulement ? Il est nécessaire, en effet, pourrait-on dire—et pourquoi pas ?— [qu’ils se résolvent] en air, ou bien en eau ou bien en terre. Car même en ceux-ci [éléments] il y a des puissances prédominantes. Mais personne n’a dit que le monde se transforme en air, eau ou terre; il serait alors également plausible de dire qu’il ne se transforme pas en feu non plus. (108) Il faut assurément aussi, 18

Philon d’Alexandrie, Aet. 104: Δίχα τοίνυν τῶν εἰρημένων κἀκείνῳ χρήσαιτ´’ ἄν τις εἰς πίστιν, ὃ καὶ τοὺς μὴ πέρα τοῦ μετρίου φιλονεικεῖν αἱρουμένους ἐπισπάσεται. τῶν ἐν ταῖς συζυγίαις ἐναντίων ἀμήχανον τὸ μὲν εἶναι, τὸ δὲ μή· λευκοῦ γὰρ ὄντος ἀνάγκη καὶ μέλαν ὑπάρχειν καὶ μεγάλου βραχὺ καὶ περιττοῦ ἄρτιον καὶ γλυκέος πικρὸν καὶ ἡμέρας νύκτα καὶ ὅσα τούτοις ὁμοιότροπα. γενομένης δ´’ ἐκπυρώσεως, ἀδύνατόν τι συμβήσεται· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἕτερον ὑπάρξει τῶν ἐν ταῖς συζυγίαις. τὸ δὲ ἕτερον οὐκ ἔσται.

36

Lucia Saudelli après avoir compris l’isonomie qui existe dans le monde, avoir peur ou avoir honte de déclarer la mort d’un si grand dieu; il y a, en effet, une réciprocité prédominante des quatre puissances qui mesurent leurs échanges selon les règles de l’égalité et les limitations de la justice.19

La démonstration par laquelle Philon a l’intention de réfuter la doctrine de la conflagration universelle se construit sur la base du postulat de l’équilibre existant entre les quatre éléments du cosmos (pré-platonicien): terre, eau, air et feu. Il s’agit d’une égalité qui est le symbole de la justice cosmique des anciens poètes et savants, et que Philon métaphorise en employant le terme politique ‘isonomie’.20 Selon l’Alexandrin, en vertu d’une telle loi d’égalité-justice, qui règle, souveraine, les échanges entre les quatre puissances des éléments, aucun d’entre eux ne peut prédominer sur l’autre, et pour cette raison, le feu ne peut pas prévaloir contre les autres éléments, comme c’est le cas dans l’embrasement universel des Stoïciens. Aux quatre éléments (στοιχεῖα) de la cosmologie platonicienne, Philon associe des «puissances prédominantes (ὑπερβάλλουσαι δυνάμεις)», tout comme dans le passage du fragment philonien Deo (10),21 où l’on retrouve

19 Philon d’Alexandrie, Aet. 107–108: (107) Θαυμάσαι δ’ ἄν τις τοὺς τὰς ἐκπυρώσεις καὶ παλιγγενεσίας θρυλοῦντας οὐ μόνον ἕνεκα τῶν εἰρημένων, οἷς ἀπελέγχονται ψευδοδοξοῦντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ δι’ ἐκεῖνο μάλιστα. τεττάρων γὰρ ὄντων στοιχείων, ἐξ ὧν ὁ κόσμος συνέστηκε, γῆς, ὕδατος, ἀέρος, πυρός, τίνος ἕνεκα πάντων ἀποκληρωσάμενοι τὸ πῦρ τὰ ἄλλα φασὶν εἰς τοῦτο μόνον ἀναλυθήσεσθαι δέον γάρ, εἴποι τις ἄν,—πῶς οὔκ —εἰς ἀέρα ἢ ὕδωρ ἢ γῆν ὑπερβάλλουσαι γὰρ καὶ ἐν τούτοις εἰσὶ δυνάμεις. ἀλλ’ οὐδεὶς ἐξαεροῦσθαι ἢ ἐξυδατοῦσθαι ἢ ἀπογεοῦσθαι τὸν κόσμον εἶπεν, ὥστ´ εἰκὸς ἦν μηδὲ ἐκπυροῦσθαι φάναι. (108) Χρὴ μέντοι καὶ τὴν ἐνυπάρχουσαν ἰσονομίαν τῷ κόσμῳ κατανοήσαντας ἢ δεῖσαι ἢ αἰδεσθῆναι τοσούτου θεοῦ κατηγορεῖν θάνατον ὑπερβάλλουσα γάρ τις τῶν τεττάρων ἀντέκτισις δυνάμεων ἰσότητος κανόσικαὶ δικαιοσύνης ὅροις σταθμωμένων τὰς ἀμοιβάς. 20 On retrouve la même acception physique et cosmologique du terme ‘isonomie’ dans la tradition pythagoricienne qui fait référence à Alcméon, ap. ps.-Plutarque, Physic. 911 A et Stobée, IV 37; à Philolaos, ap. Aétius, Plac. II 5, 3; et chez Timée de Locres, De natura mundi 217; le terme revient, en outre, dans SVF II 617 (= Philon d’Alexandrie, Spec. 1.209). Pour les occurances d’ ‘isonomie’ chez Philon, cf. Françoise Frazier, “Le principe d’égalité chez Philon d’Alexandrie," Ktema 31 (2006): 304–305. 21 Philon von Alexandrien, Über die Gottensbezeichenung «wohltätig verzehendes Feuer» , Rückübersetzung aus dem Armenischen, deutsche Übersetzung und Kommentar von Folker Siegert (Tübingen: Mohr, 1988), 23 ss.; Folker Siegert, “Le fragment philonien De Deo. Première traduction française avec commentaire et remarques sur le langage métaphorique de Philon," dans Philon D’Alexandrie et le langage de la philosophie, Actes du Colloque international organisé par le Centre d’études sur la philosophie hellénistique et romaine de l’Université de Paris XII–Val de Marne, Créteil, Fontenay, Paris, 26–28 Octobre 1995 (éd. Carlos Lévy; Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), 183 ss.; idem, “The Philonian fragment De Deo. First English Translation," SPhA 10 (1998): 1–33.


37

une référence implicite aux “physiciens” présocratiques Empédocle et Héraclite. L’un des lieux bibliques commentés par Philon, Deo («A propos du nom de Dieu: feu dévorant par bienveillance (ἐπ’εὐεργεσίᾳ πῦρ ἀναλίσκον), dans la vision des trois garçons apparus à Abraham dans la pose de midi: Quand il leva les yeux, il vit, etc. (Gen. 18:2)») est la vision d’ Is. 6: 2: le Seigneur sur un trône élevé et entouré par des Séraphins à six ailes, dont «deux [sont] pour couvrir les pieds, deux pour couvrir le visage et deux pour voler.» Le commentaire philonien de ce verset biblique concerne le thème principal du fragment, c’est-à-dire le rapport entre Dieu et les Puissances divines à travers lesquelles Il crée et conserve l’univers: «Cependant le prophète dit aussi que les puissances cachées des quatre éléments sont symboliquement représentées par quatre ailes—elles entourent à la manière d’un mur le visage et les pieds—, et [les puissances] de la haine et de l’amour, ce sont les deux ailes étendues vers le haut qui s’envolent vers le Chef suprême. Car entre la guerre et la paix (πολέμου . . . καὶ εἰρήνης)—en d’autres termes (ἑτέροις ὀνόμασι), entre l’amour et la haine (φιλίαν καὶ νεῖκος), lui seul est le médiateur» (Deo 10).22 La référence implicite aux principes empédocléens de l’union et de la séparation, φιλία et νεῖκος, identifiés avec l’un des couples de contraires héraclitéens (πόλεμος εἰρήνη)—lequel est présent dans le catalogue des contraires d’ Her. 208–212, mais qui n’apparaît que dans le fragment 67 DK d’Héraclite, cité dans la postérieure Refutatio omnium haeresium (IX 10, 8)— conduit à penser que, pour Philon, les puissances «cachées» (Deo 10) et en même temps «prédominantes» (Aet. 107) des éléments cosmiques appartiennent à la philosophie présocratique. 2.3 De aeternitate mundi 109 ou les Réminiscences Présocratiques Le développement d’ Aet. se poursuit avec la description du processus continu et éternel de transformation matérielle, sur la base duquel la disparition ou la dissolution d’un élément, c’est-à-dire sa ‘mort,' est en réalité une transformation en autre chose (Aet.109): Comme, en effet, les saisons de l’année se remplacent en succession cyclique en se cédant la place les unes aux autres selon les périodes des années qui ne cessent jamais, de la même manière les éléments du monde aussi dans leurs 22 Siegert, “Le fragment philonien De Deo," 190, 215–216. Le passage de Deo (10) n’apparaît, ni parmi les témoignages du fragment héraclitéen 67 DK, rassemblés dans l’Editi Maior d’Héraclite (Fr. 77 M), ni dans le plus récent recueil Heraclitea, II. A. 1, T326– T343.

38

Lucia Saudelli transformations réciproques—phénomène au plus haut point paradoxal—au moment où ils semblent mourir, deviennent immortels en prolongeant leur course, puisqu’ils se remplacent toujours et continuellement selon la même route vers le haut et vers le bas.23

Le passage philonien contient une référence implicite à deux fragments héraclitéens. Précisément, θνῄσκειν δοκοῦντα ἀθανατίζεται («au moment où ils semblent mourir, deviennent immortels») est une réminiscence de la première partie du fragment 62 DK d’Héraclite: ἀθάνατοι θνητοί, θνητοὶ ἀθάνατοι («Immortels mortels, mortels immortels»); et τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδὸν ἄνω καὶ κάτω («la même route vers le haut et vers le bas») est une paraphrase du fragment 60 DK: ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω μία καὶ ὡυτή («une et la même la route vers le haut vers le bas»). Les deux fragments seront cités, selon la transcription considérée comme la plus fidèle au texte originaire d’Héraclite, dans la Refutatio omnium haeresium (IX 10, 6 et 4) au IIIe s. de notre ère. Philon représente le premier témoignage historico-littéraire (non pas littéral) sur les deux célèbres aphorismes d’Héraclite,24 qui sont étroitement liés dans le passage d’ Aet. 109: l’identité entre «immortels mortels, mortels immortels» est exprimée par l’Alexandrin à travers la «route vers le haut et vers le bas»: le chemin réversible de ‘vie’ et de ‘mort’ cyclique des éléments du cosmos.25 La comparaison philonienne entre la succession périodique des saisons26 et la transformation des éléments cosmiques27 fond la perspective temporelle avec la perspective spatiale, l’image du cercle et celle de la 23 Philon d’Alexandrie, Aet. 109: Καθάπερ γὰρ αἱ ἐτήσιοι ὧραι κύκλον ἀμείβουσιν ἀλλήλας ἀντιπαραδεχόμεναι πρὸς τὰς ἐνιαυτῶν οὐδέποτε ληγόντων περιόδους, [εἰς] τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον [τίθησι] καὶ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ταῖς εἰς ἄλληλα μεταβολαῖς, τὸ παραδοξότατον, θνῄσκειν δοκοῦντα ἀθανατίζεται δολιχεύοντα ἀεὶ καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδὸν ἄνω καὶ κάτω συνεχῶς ἀμείβοντα (Frr. 33 (d2), 47 (d2) et 66 (b) M; Heraclitea, II. A. 1, T331). 24 Philon fait explicitement référence à la deuxième partie du fragment 62 DK d’Héraclite dans Leg. 1.107 et QG 4.152; le fragment 60 DK apparaît, en revanche, dans Somn. 1.153, Mos. 1.31 et Jos. 136. Pour l’ensemble des testimonia des fragments 62 et 60 DK d’Héraclite, voir Frr. 47 et 33 M; Heraclitea, II. A. 1, 2, 3, 4, passim. Aux témoignages sur Héraclite rassemblés dans les deux recueils les plus complets, il faut ajouter aumoins la référence au fragment 60 DK chez Clément d’Alexandrie, Strom., VIII 8, 24, sur laquelle J. Pépin, “Clément d’Alexandrie, les Catégories d’Aristote et le fragment 60 d’Héraclite," dans Concepts et Catégories dans la pensée antique (Paris: Vrin, 1980), 271–284. 25 J. Pépin, “«Immortels mortels, mortels immortels». Le fragment 62 d’Héraclite," dans Idées grecques sur l’homme et sur dieu (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1971), 39, parle de trois applications de loi universelle de la vie-mort d’Héraclite et de la pensée de son époque: «une application cosmique, au niveau des éléments matériels; une application anthropologique, vraie des âmes et des corps; une application théologique enfin, concernant la relation entre les dieux et les hommes». 26 Cf. QE 2.77. 27 Cf. Prov. 2.60–61, 100, 102; QE 2.81.


39

droite orientée vers le haut et vers le bas. Philon conçoit la ὁδὸς ἄνω καὶ κάτω comme le chemin parcouru par les éléments matériels: feu, air, eau, terre, dont l’extinction est en réalité la transformation de l’un en l’autre. Dans ce sens il utilise l’expression d’ ‘échange’ ou de ‘remplacement en succession cyclique’ (κύκλον ἀμείβουσιν; ἀμείβοντα), laquelle, d’une part, renvoie à la tradition interprétative de Théophraste28 de l’ (ἀντ)αμοιβὴ entre le feu et toutes choses du fragment 90 DK d’Héraclite, cité par Plutarque (De E 388 D),29 et d’autre part, apparaît dans le De universi natura I 12 du pseudo-pythagoricien Ocellus (IIe–Ier s. av. notre ère).30 Un autre mot-clé du passage est le verbe δολιχεύω, qui revient dans d’autres traités de Philon31 avec le même sens de ‘faire une longue course’ et donc ‘prolonger la course’ (spatiale) ou ‘le cours’ (temporel) de l’existence. Il ne peut que rappeler les célèbres fragments empédocléens, où les dieux (θεοί) sont définis δολιχαίωνες (31 B 21 et 23 DK): «longévifs»32 est l’épithète qui leur confère le primat par “rang” parmi les êtres engendrés, qui «en courant les uns au travers des autres, deviennent les choses différentes: d’autant ils changent par le mélange (δι’ ἀλλήλων δὲ θέοντα | γίγνεται ἀλλοιωπά· τόσον διὰ κρῆσις ἀμείβει)» (31 B 21 DK).33

28 22 A 1 DK (πυρὸς ἀμοιβὴν τὰ πάντα: «toutes choses sont échange de feu»). Voir infra, §4. 29 22 B 90 DK (πυρός τε ἀνταμείβεσθαι πάντα [ἀνταμοιβὴ τὰ πάντα Diels] καὶ πῦρ ἁπάντων: «toutes choses sont échange de feu et le feu de toutes choses»). 30 Voir infra, §5. 31 Opif. 44 et 113; Plant. 9; Mos. 1.118; Decal. 104; Spec. 1.172, etc. 32 L’adjectif composé est un hapax, synonyme de μακραίων (cf. 31 B 115 DK), lequel indique que pour Empédocle les dieux ne sont pas immortels, comme les divinités homériques, mais bénéficient d’une vie plus longue que celle des hommes. L’opposition mise en acte par Empédocle, en effet, n’est pas entre les hommes et les dieux, mais entre les choses mortelles et les éléments immortels, car ils sont respectivement les composés et les composants de tous les étants. Voir Empédocle (éd. Jean Bollack; Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1965), III 118–119. L’adjectif dolichaiôn figure aussi dans la colonne a (ii) 2 du Papyrus de Strasbourg, contenant les nouveaux vers d’Empédocle. Cf. L’Empédocle de Strasbourg [P. Strasb. Gr. Inv. 1665–1666] (éds. Alain Martin et Oliver Primavesi; Berlin–New York: De Gruyter, 1999). 33 Cf. aussi les fragments 31 B 8, 17 et 26 DK. Le passage philonien montre une flagrante analogie surtout avec l’introduction au fragment 115 DK des Katharmoi («Purifications») d’Empédocle dans la Refutatio omnium haeresium (VII 29), où le thème de l’incarnation des âmes-démons comme punition divine, qui les oblige à passer d’un corps à l’autre, est lié à la physique des éléments et des principes. Empédocle donne à ces derniers le nom de «dieux (θεοὺς)»: «quatre sont mortels, feu eau air et terre (τέσσαρας μὲν θνητούς, πῦρ ὕδωρ γῆν ἀέρα), deux, en revanche, immortels et inengendrés, lesquels se combattent à travers l’univers, la Haine et l’Amour (δύο δὲ ἀθανάτους, ἀγεννήτους, πολεμίους ἑαυτοῖς διὰ παντός, τὸ Νεῖκος καὶ τὴν Φιλίαν)» (Cf. aussi l’introduction au fragment 31 B 16 DK dans Ref. omn. haer. VII 29).

40

Lucia Saudelli

Bien qu’il ne soit pas la source majeure des citations verbatim des fragments d’Héraclite et d’Empédocle, Philon fournit la première interprétation de la doctrine présocratique qui associe le devenir cyclique des éléments cosmiques à celui de l’âme. Outre Deo 10, Aet. 109 révèle donc le contact de Philon avec la tradition responsable de la (con)fusion entre les doctrines d’Héraclite et d’Empédocle, commencée vraisemblablement par Aristote (De caelo A 10, 279 b 14) et aggravée ensuite à travers la “pythagorisation” des deux Présocratiques à l’époque médioplatonicienne. De plus, le passage philonien d’ Aet. 109, à l’intérieur duquel on a repéré l’allusion à deux fragments héraclitéens et des réminiscences empédocléennes, montre aussi une certaine ressemblance avec le fragment du «poète tragique» (Euripide, Frag. 839, 8–14 Nauck): «rien ne meurt des choses qui naissent, mais l’une de l’autre se différenciant, révèlent une autre forme (θνῄσκει δ’οὐδὲν τῶν γιγνομένων, διακρινόμενον δ’ ἄλλο πρὸς ἄλλο μορφὴν ἑτέραν ἀπέδειξεν)».34 Ce même texte d’Euripide est cité trois fois au cours du traité (Aet. 5, 30 et 144), et dans le dernier cas il est employé pour démontrer que «si chacun [des éléments] séparément se transforme en la nature du voisin, (scil. le monde) acquiert l’immortalité (εἰ δ´’ ἕκαστον ἰδίᾳ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ γείτονος μεταβάλλει φύσιν, ἀθανατίζεται)» (Aet. 144). Philon comprend le sens cosmique de la mort des éléments de l’univers comme la renaissance de la vie et inversement, et il le conçoit comme la succession temporelle et spatiale, cyclique et rectiligne qui constitue la vie du cosmos tout entier.35 Le point de doctrine ici présentée sous-entend une interprétation médioplatonicienne d’anciens poètes et savants présocratiques, comme le montre surtout l’étude de Mansfeld (1985).36 2.4 De aeternitate mundi 110–111 ou la Citation d’Héraclite Dans la suite de l’argument, Philon s’étend sur l’explication détaillée de la «route vers le haut et vers le bas (ὁδὸς ἄνω καὶ κάτω)», en mentionnant, finalement, le nom d’Héraclite et en citant un autre fragment (Aet.110–111): (110) La route ascendante, donc, part de la terre; en effet, quand celle-ci se liquéfie, se tranforme en eau, à son tour l’eau, quand elle s’évapore [se change] 34 Tragicorum Veterum fragmenta, 5. Euripides (éd. Richard Kannicht; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 880–881. Le même fragment (Euripide, fr. 839 N) est cité par Philon dans Leg. 1.7. D’ailleurs, on retrouve déjà chez Platon (Gorg. 492 e) une citation d’Euripide d’inspiration héraclitéenne (fr. 638 N) juste avant une référence pythagoricienne (τίς δ’οἶδεν, εἰ τὸ ζῆν μέν ἐστι κατθανεῖν, τὸ κατθανεῖν δὲ ζῆν;). 35 À ce sujet, voir Aryeh Finkelberg, “On Cosmogony and Ekpyrosis in Heraclitus," AJPh 119:2 (1998): 208. 36 Mansfeld, “Heraclitus," 131–156.


41

en air, et l’air, quand il se raréfie [se change] en feu; inversement, la [route] descendante [part] du sommet: le feu en disparaissant s’éteint en air, lorsque l’air en disparaissant se condense en eau, et l’eau en s’épaississant se transforme en terre. (111) Héraclite aussi a donc raison lorsqu’il dit: “pour les âmes la mort c’est de devenir de l’eau, pour l’eau la mort c’est de devenir de la terre”; en pensant, en effet, que l’âme est le souffle (vital), il fait allusion au fait que la fin de l’air est la naissance de l’eau, et que [la fin] de l’eau est à son tour la naissance de la terre, car il nomme ‘mort’ non pas la destruction en direction de n’importe quoi, mais la transformation en un autre élément.37

Le passage explique la signification que Philon donne à la «route vers le haut et vers le bas» d’Héraclite: la transformation de chaque élément en l’autre dans un processus réversible du plus lourd au plus léger, du plus bas au plus haut, et vice versa, selon un cycle de mutations réciproques, successives et continues. La mention explicite du nom d’Héraclite concerne l’âme (ψυχή), concept-clé qui justifie et explique l’utilisation du terme ‘mort’ en référence aux éléments matériels: la fin d’un élément en tant que tel est sa transformation en l’autre, non pas en n’importe quel autre, mais en celui qui le suit dans la double course sur le même chemin (Aet. 58) représentée par la «route vers le haut et vers le bas». La nature de la ψυχή que Philon attribue à Héraclite dans Aet. 110–111 est d’être proprement du πνεῦμα. En effet, chez les Stoïciens, qui reprennent les conceptions d’Homère et des Présocratiques comme Héraclite,38 le «souffle» est ce qui assure et maintient l’organisation corporelle,39 et selon

37 Philon d’Alexandrie, Aet. 110–111: (110) ἡ μὲν οὖν προσάντης ὁδὸς ἀπὸ γῆς ἄρχεται· τηκομένη γὰρ εἰς ὕδωρ [μετα]λαμβάνει τὴν μεταβολήν, τὸ δ᾿ ὕδωρ ἐξατμιζόμενον εἰς ἀέρα, ὁ δ´ ἀὴρ λεπτυνόμενος εἰς πῦρ· ἡ δὲ κατάντης ἀπὸ κεφαλῆς, συνίζοντος μὲν πυρὸς κατὰ τὴν σβέσιν εἰς ἀέρα, συνίζοντος δ´ ὁπότε συνθλίβοιτο εἰς ὕδωρ ἀέρος, ὕδατος δὲ [τὴν πολλὴν |ἀνάχυσιν] κατὰ τὴν εἰς γῆν πυκνουμένου μεταβολήν. (111) εὖ καὶ ὁ Ἡράκλειτος ἐν οἷς φησι· „ψυχῇσι θάνατος ὕδωρ γενέσθαι, ὕδατι θάνατος γῆν γενέσθαι“· ψυχὴν γὰρ οἰόμενος εἶναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὴν μὲν ἀέρος τελευτὴν γένεσιν ὕδατος, τὴν δὲ ὕδατος γῆς πάλιν γένεσιν αἰνίττεται, θάνατον οὐ τὴν εἰς ἅπαν ἀναίρεσιν ὀνομάζων, ἀλλὰ τὴν εἰς ἕτερον στοιχεῖον μεταβολήν. (Fr. 66 (b) M; Heraclitea, II. A. 1, T331). 38 Cf. Les Philosophes Hellénistiques, II. Les Stoïciens (éds. Anthony A. Long & David N. Sedley; tr. fr. par Jacques Brunschwig et Pierre Pellegrin; Paris: GF Flammarion, 2001), 281 ss. 39 Sur la conception stoïcienne du pneuma: dispositif, physique (ou naturel) et psychique, cf. SVF II 716; 879; 885 et le commentaire de Jean–Baptiste Gourinat, Les Stoïciens et l’âme (Paris: PUF, 1996), 20. Sur la conception de Dieu et de l’âme comme pneuma, le premier étant intelligent et ardent (πνεῦμα νοερὸν καὶ πυρῶδες), et la seconde, chaude (πνεῦμα ἔνθερμον), voir Ian G. Kidd, Posidonius, II. The Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 408–9 (fr. 100), 409–412 (fr. 101), 525–7 (fr. 139).

42

Lucia Saudelli

les Sceptiques, il caractérise l’âme ‘pneumatique’ d’Héraclite.40 Il s’agit donc de la matière et de la région qui s’étend de la partie la plus humide de l’air atmosphérique au feu des corps célestes41—car, pour Philon (Mos. 2.154), l’air se transforme naturellement en feu—ou plutôt du souffle chaud, très subtil et très rapide, qui représente une étape intermédiaire des transformations de l’unique substance universelle d’Héraclite.42 Malgré l’hésitation philonienne entre un modèle d’âme simple et un modèle d’âme composée,43 et l’identification et la distinction de l’âme (ψυχή) et de l’intellect (νοῦς)44—comme dans Fug. 134, où c’est l’intellect qui est défini comme «souffle (πνεῦμα)», ou alors dans Leg. 3.161, où l’âme est «éthérée (αἰθέρος)»—généralement pour Philon l’âme est composée d’air, dont elle s’alimente et où elle vit, tandis que l’intellect, la partie divine et hégémonique de l’âme (Opif. 69), c’est-à-dire l’âme «intellective et raisonnable (νοερᾶς καὶ λογικῆς)» (Spec. 4.123), est constitué de l’éther le plus pur.

40 À propos de la discussion concernant l’authenticité du fragment héraclitéen 67a DK (= Hisdosus Scholasticus, ad Chalcid. Plat. Tim (note au commentaire du Timée 34 b ss. de Calcidius, de anima mundi) [cod. Paris. Lat. 8624, sec. XII, f. 2], Marcovich (Fr. 115 M) suppose qu’il est parvenu à Hisdosus Scholasticus (1100 environ) à travers les Sceptiques comme Aenésidème, qui attribuaient à Héraclite la conception de la diffusion pneumatique de l’âme individuelle dans le corps, de manière qu’il était possible à cette âme individuelle de communiquer avec l’Âme cosmique par le biais des sens. 41 Cf. Gábor Betegh, ”On the Physical Aspect of Heraclitus’ Psychology”, Phronesis 52 (2007) : 13ss. 42 Cf. le fragment 31a DK d’Héraclite cité par Clément d’Alexandrie: πυρὸς τροπαὶ πρῶτον θάλασσα, θαλάσσης δὲ τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ γῆ, τὸ δὲ ἥμισυ πρηστήρ («mutations du feu: d’abord mer, ensuite de la mer une moitié terre, l’autre moitié souffle enflammé»), sur lequel Kirk, 318–319, Finkelberg, 208–209, nn. 30–31 et Betegh 20. 43 Sur la tripartition de l’âme, cf. Leg. 1.70 ss. et 3.114 ss.; Conf. 21; Migr. 66 s.; Spec. 1.146, 1.148 et 4.92 ss.; Virt. 13; QG 2.59 et 4.216; QE 1.12 et 2.100. Sur la conception de l’âme partagée en deux (rationnelle et irrationnelle) ou huit parties (la moitié irrationnelle divisée en sept parties et la rationnelle étant indivisée), cf. Opif. 117; Leg. 1.11; Det. 168; Agr. 130; Her. 230; Mut. 110 (= SVF II 833); QG 1.75 (= SVF II 832); QE 2.33. 44 Pour l’emploi philonien de ψυχή dans le sens d’intellect, Valentin Nikiprowetzky (Philon d’Alexandrie, De Decalogo, PAPM, 23, 108, n. 3) signale Opif. 82; Leg. 1.88–90; Deus 46; Her. 88; Somn. 1.30, 33, 35; Plant. 18; QG 2.18 et 4.74. Voir Anita Méasson, Du char ailé de Zeus à l’Arche d’Alliance. Images et mythes platoniciens chez Philon d’Alexandrie (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1986), 319, qui repère plusieurs descriptions de l’âme données par Philon en autant d’images tirées des divers dialogues de Platon; Gretchen Reydams-Schils, “Philo of Alexandria on Stoic and Platonist Psycho-Physiology: The Socratic Higher Ground," Ancient Philosophy 22 (2002): 125–147, sur les différentes conceptions (platonicienne, stoïcienne ou mixte) de l’âme et les métaphores respectives utilisées par Philon.


43

Selon Philon, en effet, chaque élément cosmique caractérise une sphère de l’univers et ce qu’elle contient,45 mais l’air, qui a son propre lieu46 et ses propres êtres,47 nourrit tous les vivants, puisque même ceux qui se trouvent dans les sphères des autres éléments sont animés par la respiration et la perception sensorielle.48 En ce sens pour Philon la ψυχή est le ‘souffle,' c’est-à-dire le principe vital du corps vivant, et la λογικὴ ψυχή (νοῦς), propre au genre humain, la substance divine et immortelle qui le gouverne et le dirige: si l’âme est donc de l’air, l’intellect sera proprement de l’éther, puisqu’il a reçu en partage une substance plus pure et meilleure, celle des «natures divines (θεῖαι φύσεις)» (Deus 46). Toutefois, si dans Her. 282 il est dit que, contrairement au corps qui se décompose en ses quatre éléments, l’âme intellective et céleste fera retour à «l’éther le plus pur comme au père (πρὸς αἰθέρα τὸν καθαρώτατον ὡς πατέρα)» (Her. 283), ailleurs (Det. 83) Philon assigne à l’âme rationnelle un pneuma immatériel.49 Dans Aet. 111, en revanche, Philon s’intéresse à l’âme dans son aspect matériel, et donc à sa nature pneumatique, en vertu de laquelle la substance de l’âme ne s’éteint pas, mais se transforme en un autre élément, selon le processus réversible de mutation des éléments cosmiques de la doctrine héraclitéenne. La citation d’Héraclite dans Aet. 111 représente en effet la première partie du fragment 36 DK: ψυχῆισιν θάνατος ὕδωρ γενέσθαι, ὕδατι δὲ θάνατος γῆν γενέσθαι («pour les âmes la mort c’est de devenir de l’eau, pour l’eau la mort c’est de devenir de la terre»), dont Clément d’Alexandrie (IIe– IIIe s. de notre ère), qui le reproduit en entier dans les Stromates (VI 2, 17, 1– 2), en donnera la conclusion: ἐκ γῆς δὲ ὕδωρ γίνεται, ἐξ ὕδατος δὲ ψυχή («mais de la terre naît l’eau et, de l’eau, l’âme»). 45 Sur l’oscillation de Philon entre un modèle cosmique à quatre éléments et un modèle à cinq, cf. J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists: A Study of Platonism, 80 B.C. to A. D. 220 (London: Duckworth, 1977), 170. Sur le lien entre les genres d’êtres vivants, les éléments matériels et les régions cosmiques, qui a son origine dans le Timée (31 b 5 ss.) platonicien et plusieurs variantes à l’époque médioplatonicienne, voir Méasson, 279–280 et passim; David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato; PhilAnt 44; (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 497. 46 Aet. 33; Spec. 1.85; Mos. 2.118; QE 2.117. 47 Aet. 45; Plant. 12; Gig. 8; Spec. 2.45 et 4.118; Prov. 2.97 48 Somn.1.136; Virt. 6; Mos. 2.148; Prov. 2.67 et 73. 49 Dillon, The Middle Platonists, 175. Ainsi dans Plant. 18, Philon affirme que, contrairement à tous les autres philosophes qui ont essayé d’assimiler l’intellect ou l’âme rationnelle de l’homme à un élément (éther), Moïse ne l’a identifié à rien de créé, en vertu de sa nature divine. Philon, en effet, interprète le pneuma de Gen. 1:2 comme l’air qui monte de la terre ou bien la science réservée au sage (Gig. 22), et celui de Gen. 2:7 comme le souffle vital ou l’esprit divin qui “anime” l’homme (Opif. 135; Leg. 1.33 ss.; Det. 80 ss.; Spec. 4.123; QG 2.59).

44

Lucia Saudelli

Philon anticipe donc l’Alexandrin chrétien dans la restitution textuelle, bien que partielle, de ce fragment, que Clément (Strom. VI 2, 17, 1–4) insère dans une sorte de centon composé de vers d’Orphée, d’Héraclite, d’Athamas le Pythagoricien et d’Empédocle, et avant une citation platonicienne (Axioch. 367 b 8).50 Le passage de Clément51 est significatif et utile pour envisager le type de source qui est à la base du témoignage de Philon, Aet. 111, lequel cite la première partie du même fragment avant Clément, la Refutatio omnium haeresium et les autres testimonia.52 Il s’agit, effectivement, d’un centon médioplatonicien du type de ceux qui sont étudiés par Mansfeld (1992),53 une sélection de citations tirées d’anciens poètes et savants, rapportées l’une à la suite de l’autre pour montrer l’analogie terminologique et spéculative de leur réflexion et, donc, leur appartenance à une même spéculation philosophico-religieuse, dont il représenteraient les évolutions successives: l’orphisme-pythagoricien hérité par Platon. 2.5 De aeternitate mundi 112 ou la Conclusion de l’Argument des Contraires Voici le passage qui suit la mention et la citation d’Héraclite et conclut l’argument philonien des contraires (Aet. 112): Certes, puisque cette égalité souveraine est conservée toujours inviolable et permanente, comme cela n’est pas seulement vraisemblable, mais aussi nécessaire, étant donné que l’inégal est injuste, que l’injuste est le descendant du vice, et que le vice est banni de la maison de l’immortalité, tandis qu’il a été montré que le monde est chose divine en vertu de sa grandeur et maison des dieux sensibles, donc, affirmer qu’il se corrompt est le propre de ceux qui ne voient pas la concaténation de la nature et l’étroite succession des réalités.54 50 Fr. 66 (a) M; Heraclitea, II. A. 2, T643. Cf. aussi Clément d’Alexandrie, Les Stromates, Stromate VI, (SC 44; éd. Patrick Descourtieu; Paris: Cerf, 1999), 92–95. L’inspiration orphique de la doctrine d’Héraclite, répétée par Clément plus bas (Strom. VI 2, 27, 1), est ici discutable. Les vers orphiques (fr. 226 Kern) du passage en question, appartiennent probablement aux Rhapsodies orphiques, que Luc Brisson (Orphée, poèmes magiques et cosmologiques (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1993), 169, date du Ier ou IIe s. de notre ère. Dans ce cas, ce serait Héraclite qui aurait influencé le ps.-Orphée et non pas vice versa, comme le soutient Clément en introduisant le fragment héraclitéen après l’orphique et en supposant l’emprunt d’Héraclite à Orphée. Cf. Pradeau, 284. 51 Cf. Eusèbe de Césarée, Praep. Ev. X 2, 6; XI 11, 7. 52 Fr. 66 M. 53 Mansfeld, Hippolytus, 307–312, lequel cependant n’inclut pas le passage en question (Strom. VI 2, 17, 1–4) parmi les trois centons considérés dans le chapitre consacré à Clement. 54 Philon d’Alexandrie, Aet. 112: ἀπαραβάτου δὴ καὶ συνεχοῦς τῆς αὐτοκρατοῦς ἰσονομίας ταύτης ἀεὶ φυλαττομένης, ὥσπερ οὐκ εἰκὸς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀναγκαῖον, ἐπεὶ τὸ μὲν


45

La conclusion confirme la critique philosophique de Philon à l’ἐκπύρωσις stoïcienne, laquelle avait pourtant incorporé la théorie cosmogonique et cosmologique d’Héraclite. La finalité de l’argument d’ Aet. 104–112 est de montrer, en revanche, que la doctrine héraclitéenne des contraires implique leur égalité, expression de la justice cosmique selon laquelle tout a été divisé en parties égales et contraires et tout procède par des transformations régulières et équilibrées. Et cela exclut la prévalence du feu sur les autres éléments, et donc les conflagrations et palingénésies du monde des spéculations stoïciennes. Philon défend ici l’incorruptibilité du cosmos—l’immortalité si l’on considère un vivant (Aet. 95, 144)—selon l’analogie entre la vie du monde et celle de l’âme, en ayant recours à la doctrine héraclitéenne des transformations matérielles. Selon Héraclite, en effet, la ‘mort’ d’un élément est sa transformation en autre chose, et donc la mort de l’âme, qui est du pneuma, est sa transformation en eau, c’est-à-dire la ‘naissance’ de l’élément suivant selon l’ordre de succession de «la route vers le haut et vers le bas». Dans l’horizon théorique d’une éternité relative ou post creationem du monde,55 l’Alexandrin réfute la doctrine de la conflagration universelle en démontrant son inconsistance, d’abord à travers l’autorité d’Héraclite, le plus ancien tenant de la cosmogenèse et de la cosmophtorèse (Aet. 109–111), ensuite avec la référence ironique à la doctrine stoïcienne de la chaîne de causes qui constitue le destin.56 Selon Philon, affirmer la corruption du monde signifie ne pas voir «la concaténation de la nature et l’étroite succession des réalités» (Aet. 112). Il s’agit, en tout cas, d’un retournement de la position héraclités-stoïcienne contre elle-même.57 Le choix, l’interprétation et l’utilisation des fragments d’Héraclite, à l’intérieur de l’un des arguments philoniens contre la doctrine stoïcienne de la fin périodique du monde, suggèrent qu’ Aet. 104–112 dépend d’une source influencée par la doxographie et la philosophie médioplatoniciennes.

ἄνισον ἄδικον, τὸ δ´ ἄδικον κακίας ἔγγονον, κακία δ´ ἐξ οἴκου τῆς ἀθανασίας πεφυγάδευται, θεῖον δέ τι μέγεθος ὁ κόσμος καὶ οἶκος θεῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀποδέδεικται, τὸ δὴ φάσκειν ὅτι φθείρεται μὴ συνορώντων ἐστὶ φύσεως εἱρμὸν καὶ πραγμάτων συνηρτημένην ἀκολουθίαν. 55 Sur ce sujet, voir Gregory E. Sterling, “Creatio Temporalis, Aeterna, vel Continua? An Analysis of the Thought of Philo of Alexandria," SPhA 4 (1992): 15–41. 56 SVF I 89; II 336, 340, 341, 349, 356, 351, 913, 917, 921, 939, 944, 945, 997, 1000. 57 La même technique argumentative, consistant à réfuter les Stoïciens à travers leurs propres arguments, est utilisée par Plutarque. Cf. Les Stoïciens (éds. Émile Bréhier et Pierre M. Schuhl; Paris: Gallimard, 1962), 87 ss., 126 ss.

46

Lucia Saudelli 3 Témoignages Pré-Philoniens sur le Fragment 60 DK d’Héraclite

Bien que le Timée de Platon ait eu une grande fortune à l’époque hellénistique, et que sa lecture stoïco-platonicienne ait exercé une influence capitale sur l’interprétation allégorique du texte biblique donnée par Philon,58 le traité De aeternitate mundi révèle la présence prédominante d’une certaine tradition aristotélicienne. Cela est suggéré non seulement par l’estime pour Aristote (Aet. 10) et la mention de Péripatéticiens comme Théophraste (Aet. 117) ou Critolaos (Aet. 55 et 70), mais aussi par la référence à Héraclite. Si l’on fait exception pour l’expression ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω, μία, qui revient dans le traité hippocratique De nutrimento 4559—considéré par Diels et Kranz comme une Imitation (22 C 2 DK)—et le passage de Cicéron, De natura deorum II 84, 60 où la transformation des éléments cosmiques n’est pas associée à la mention explicite d’Héraclite, le seul témoignage du fragment héraclitéen 60 DK antérieur à celui de Philon se trouve chez Diogène Laërce. Il s’agit vraisemblablement d’un extrait de l’Epitomê des opinions des Physiciens61 (ou opinions physiques)62 de Théophraste, le scholarque péripatéticien dont dépend la doxographie postérieure. Le fragment biodoxographique tiré de Théophraste, dans les Vies et doctrines des philosophes illustres de Diogène Laërce,63 témoigne de l’attribution à Héraclite d’une 58 Cf. Gretchen Reydams-Schils, Demiurge and Providence. Stoic and Platonist Readings of Plato’s Timaeus (Turnhout: Brepols 1999), 135–165. 59 De nutrim. 45 (= Fr. 33 (c) M): ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω, μία (cf. De nutrim. 18: φαρμακείη ἄνω καὶ κάτω, καὶ οὔτε ἄνω οὔτε κάτω). Roberto Radice, Filone di Alessandria, Tutti i trattati del Commentario allegorico alla Bibbia (éd. Roberto Radice; Milano: Bompiani, 2005), 449, n. 31, affirme que Philon «s’ispira ai principi della medicina ippocratica, in cui sovente sono ravvisabili influenze eraclitee». Sur l’influence de l’école et du style d’Héraclite dans plusieurs traités du Corpus Hippocraticum (comme le De victu I ou, justement, le De nutrimento), voir Eraclito. Testimonianze e imitazioni (éds. Rodolfo Mondolfo e Leonardo Tarán; Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1972), 220 ss. La répartition des quatre qualités (chaud, humide, froid et sec) entre les quatre éléments (feu, eau, air et terre), remonterait, en revanche, au médecin sicilien Philistion, contemporain de Platon. Cf. Les Philosophes Hellénistiques, 266, n. 3. 60 Cicéron, De nat. deor. II 84 (= Fr. 33 (d1) M): Et cum quattuor genera sint corporum, vicissitudine eorum mundi continuata natura est. Nam ex terra aqua, ex aqua oritur aër, ex aëre aether, deinde retrorsum vicissim ex aethere aër, inde aqua, ex aqua terra infima. Sic naturis iis ex quibus omnia constant sursus deorsus, ultro citro commeantibus mundi partium coniunctio continetur. 61 Kirk, 20 ss. 62 Jaap Mansfeld, “Physikai doxai et Problêmata physika (et au-delà) ," Revue de métaphysique et de morale 97 (1992): 328. 63 Diogène Laërce IX 8–9 (= 22 A 1 DK; Fr. 33 (d) M; Heraclitea, II. A. 1, T204): (8) Καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ μέρους δὲ αὐτῷ ὧδε ἔχει τῶν δογμάτων πῦρ εἶναι στοιχεῖον καὶ πυρὸς ἀμοιβὴν τὰ


47

doctrine physique des transformations réciproques et continues des éléments cosmiques selon un chemin réversible vers le bas (feu-air-eauterre) et vers le haut (terre-eau-air-feu), adoptée ensuite par les Stoïciens, comme le montre Diogène lui-même dans la section consacrée à la doctrine stoïcienne des changements cosmiques.64 Selon la notice de Théophraste-Diogène (9.8–9), pour Héraclite toutes choses sont «échange (ἀμοιβή)» d’une seule substance, c’est-à-dire le feu,65 et elles viennent à l’existence «par raréfaction et condensation (ἀραιώσει καὶ πυκνώσει)» et «selon la contrariété (κατ´ἐναντιότητα)», puisqu’elles apparaissent et disparaissent sous l’action respective de deux couples de principes: «Des contraires, donc, celui qui conduit à la venue à l’existence (γένεσιν) est appelé guerre et discorde (πόλεμον καὶ ἔριν), tandis que celui [qui conduit] à la conflagration (ἐκπύρωσιν) [est appelé] accord et paix (ὁμολογίαν καὶ εἰρήνην),66 et la transformation (μεταβολὴν) [elle-même] est [appelée] “route vers le haut vers le bas” (ὁδὸν ἄνω κάτω), et le monde est en devenir selon elle». La différence principale, par rapport au passage de Philon, est justement l’attribution à Héraclite de la théorie de la «conflagration» (ἐκπύρωσις) universelle, interprétation adoptée par les Stoïciens et, à travers eux, par les auteurs chrétiens.67

πάντα, ἀραιώσει καὶ πυκνώσει γινόμενα. σαφῶς δ´ οὐδὲν ἐκτίθεται. γίνεσθαί τε πάντα κατ´ ἐναντιότητα καὶ ῥεῖν τὰ ὅλα ποταμοῦ δίκην, πεπεράνθαι τε τὸ πᾶν καὶ ἕνα εἶναι κόσμον γεννᾶσθαί τε αὐτὸν ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ πάλιν ἐκπυροῦσθαι κατά τινας περιόδους ἐναλλὰξ τὸν σύμπαντα αἰῶνα τοῦτο δὲ γίνεσθαι καθ´ εἱμαρμένην. τῶν δὲ ἐναντίων τὸ μὲν ἐπὶ τὴν γένεσιν ἄγον καλεῖσθαι πόλεμον καὶ ἔριν, τὸ δ´ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν ὁμολογίαν καὶ εἰρήνην, καὶ τὴν μεταβολὴν ὁδὸν ἄνω κάτω, τόν τε κόσμον γίνεσθαι κατ´ αὐτήν. (9) Πυκνούμενον γὰρ τὸ πῦρ ἐξυγραίνεσθαι συνιστάμενόν τε γίνεσθαι ὕδωρ, πηγνύμενον δὲ τὸ ὕδωρ εἰς γῆν τρέπεσθαι καὶ ταύτην ὁδὸν ἐπὶ τὸ κάτω εἶναι. πάλιν τε αὖ τὴν γῆν χεῖσθαι, ἐξ ἧς τὸ ὕδωρ γίνεσθαι, ἐκ δὲ τούτου τὰ λοιπά, σχεδὸν πάντα ἐπὶ τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἀνάγων τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς θαλάττης αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπὶ τὸ ἄνω ὁδός. Cf. Diogène Laërce, Vies et doctrines des philosophes illustres (éd. Marie Odile Goulet-Cazé; Paris: Le Livre de Poche, 1999), 1053 s. 64 Cf. Diogène Laërce 7.142 (= SVF I 102); et sur la doctrine stoïcienne de la διακόσμησις, qui reflète celle des transformations élémentaires, cf. 7.137 et 155. Dans Prov. 2.61–61, Alexandre, l’interlocuteur de Philon, attribue à Empédocle la même disposition des éléments cosmiques en raison de leur commutation réciproque. 65 Cf. 22 A 5 DK et B 90 DK. 66 La confusion, dans ce passage, des doctrines d’Héraclite et d’Empédocle est signalée par Marcovich dans le commentaire au Fr. 33 (d) M. 67 Anthony A. Long, “Heraclitus and Stoicism," dans Stoic Studies (Cambridge–New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 35–57, soutient que l’on ne peut pas prouver que l’appropriation d’Héraclite par Cléanthe (et par les Stoïciens) dépend de Théophraste (et des Péripatéticiens). Il est certain, toutefois, que la doxographie postérieure a incorporé des éléments stoïciens dans l’interprétation théophrastienne d’Héraclite.

48

Lucia Saudelli

Le passage de Diogène illustre une explication de la doctrine d’Héraclite dans les limites d’une conception physique des changements de l’univers ou du cycle cosmique,68 c’est-à-dire, en termes et concepts propres à l’appropriation stoïcienne d’Héraclite.69 L’examen du témoignage de Théophraste ap. Diogène, qui ne fait aucune référence à la psychologie héraclitéenne, conduit à conclure que Philon avait à sa disposition un autre matériau doxographique sur Héraclite, et, précisément, les fragments sur la nature et l’existence de l’âme, sur lesquels se fondent la citation et l’interprétation d’Héraclite dans Aet. 109–111.

4. Témoignages pré-Philoniens sur la Doctrine Héraclitéenne Si l’on exclut les passages du Corpus Hippocraticum (De nutrim. 45) et de Cicéron (De nat. deor. II 84), qui ne mentionnent pas explicitement Héraclite, l’extrait de Théophraste ap. Diogène Laërce (9.8–9) est le seul témoignage pré-philonien du fragment 60 DK. Outre cela, la tradition philosophico-doxographique a conservé et transmis de nombreux témoignages sur Héraclite qui montrent une certaine relation avec la doctrine de la «route vers le haut et vers le bas», et que l’on peut utiliser pour comprendre l’interprétation du fragment 60 DK donnée par les auteurs postérieurs, y compris Philon. Le premier et le plus célèbre témoignage à analyser est Aristote, De caelo A 10, 279 b 12–17 et 280 a 11–23,70 qui témoigne de la première identification effective entre les doctrines d’Empédocle et d’Héraclite. Pour le Stagirite (De caelo, 279 b 12 ss.), les deux Présocratiques auraient partagée la doctrine selon laquelle le monde est «engendré (γενόμενον)», mais en même 68

Mansfeld, Hippolytus, 302, n. 206. Cf. Aétius I 7, 33 = SVF II 1027: «Dieu est intelligent, feu artisan qui procède avec méthode (ὁδῷ) [c’est-à-dire, selon un chemin progressif et systématique] à la production du monde». 70 Aristote, De caelo A 10, 279 b 12–17; 280 a 11–23 (= 22 A 10 DK; Heraclitea, II. A. 1, T170): (279 b 12) Γενόμενον μὲν οὖν ἅπαντες εἶναί φασιν, ἀλλὰ γενόμενον οἱ μὲν ἀΐδιον, οἱ δὲ φθαρτὸν ὥσπερ ὁτιοῦν ἄλλο τῶν συνισταμένων, οἱ δ’ ἐναλλὰξ ὁτὲ μὲν οὕτως ὁτὲ δὲ ἄλλως ἔχειν, φθειρόμενον, καὶ τοῦτο αἰεὶ διατελεῖν οὕτως, ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὁ Ἀκραγαντῖνος καὶ Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος. [. . .] (280 a 11) Τὸ δ’ ἐναλλὰξ συνιστάναι καὶ διαλύειν οὐδὲν ἀλλοιότερον ποιεῖν ἐστὶν ἢ τὸ κατασκευάζειν αὐτὸν ἀΐδιον μέν, ἀλλὰ μεταβάλλοντα τὴν μορφήν, ὥσπερ εἴ τις ἐκ παιδὸς ἄνδρα γινόμενον καὶ ἐξ ἀνδρὸς παῖδα ὁτὲ μὲν φθείρεσθαι ὁτὲ δ᾿ εἶναι οἴοιτο· δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι καὶ εἰς ἄλληλα τῶν στοιχείων συνιόντων οὐχ ἡ τυχοῦσα τάξις γίγνεται καὶ σύστασις, ἀλλ’ ἡ αὐτή, ἄλλως τε καὶ κατὰ τοὺς τοῦτον τὸν λόγον εἰρηκότας, οἳ τῆς διαθέσεως ἑκατέρας αἰτιῶνται τὸ ἐναντίον. Ὥστ’ εἰ τὸ ὅλον σῶμα συνεχὲς ὂν ὁτὲ μὲν οὕτως ὁτὲ δ’ ἐκείνως διατίθεται καὶ διακεκόσμηται, ἡ δὲ τοῦ ὅλου σύστασίς ἐστι κόσμος καὶ οὐρανός, οὐκ ἂν ὁ κόσμος γίγνοιτο καὶ φθείροιτο, ἀλλ´ αἱ διαθέσεις αὐτοῦ. 69


49

temps «éternel (ἀΐδιον)» et «corruptible (φθαρτὸν)», car tantôt dans un état, tantôt dans l’autre. L’argumentation aristotélicienne (280 a 11) se poursuit avec le recours à une comparaison fort significative: comme l’homme naît du garçon et le garçon de l’homme, de la même manière un état du monde succède à l’autre, sans que l’on puisse parler de ‘naissance’ et ‘corruption’ du cosmos, mais seulement de ses états particuliers. Dans ce sens, selon Aristote, pour les deux Présocratiques la vie du monde, comme celle de l’homme, est le tout incorruptible (ou cycle éternel) composé de parties corruptibles (ou phases temporaires). L’analogie de ce témoignage avec Philon, Aet. 58 ss., et surtout avec Aet. 109, est évidente: les éléments du cosmos, comme les saisons de l’année, juste au moment où ils semblent mourir, deviennent immortels, en se cédant la place au cours de la même «route vers le haut et vers le bas». C’est toujours Aristote, d’ailleurs, qui témoigne d’un aspect fondamental de la doctrine héraclitéenne des transformations élémentaires, c’est-àdire la théorie des exhalaisons, dans un passage qui est la source du fragment 7 DK d’Héraclite, dans le De sensu et sensibilibus 5 443 a 21–29.71 La différence entre la vapeur, qui est «une sorte d’humidité (ὑγρότης τις)», et l’exhalaison fumeuse, qui est «quelque chose de commun à l’air et à la terre (κοινὸν ἀέρος καὶ γῆς)», s’inscrit dans la polémique aristotélicienne contre les prédécesseurs—y compris Héraclite—qui ont soutenu la nutrition des astres au moyen des exhalaisons humides.72 Parmi les prédécesseurs du Stagirite, Héraclite représente le tenant de la doctrine des exhalaisons, partie intégrante non seulement de la théorie des transformations matérielles, mais aussi de la conception héraclitéenne de l’âme, comme le montre encore Aristote, De anima A 2, 405 a 25.73 Ce pas71 Aristote, De sensu et sensib. 5 443 a 21–29 (= Fr. 78 (a) M; Heraclitea, II. A. 1, T191): δοκεῖ δ´ ἐνίοις ἡ καπνώδης ἀναθυμίασις εἶναι ὀσμή, οὖσα κοινὴ γῆς τε καὶ ἀέρος [καὶ πάντες ἐπιφέρονται ἐπὶ τοῦτο περὶ ὀσμῆς]· διὸ καὶ Ἡράκλειτος οὕτως εἴρηκεν, ὡς εἰ πάντα τὰ ὄντα καπνὸς γένοιτο, ῥῖνες ἂν διαγνοῖεν (22 B 7 DK), , οἱ μὲν ὡς ἀτμίδα, οἱ δ’ ὡς ἀναθυμίασιν, οἱ δ’ ὡς ἄμφω ταῦτα· ἔστι δ’ ἡ μὲν ἀτμὶς ὑγρότης τις, ἡ δὲ καπνώδης ἀναθυμίασις, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, κοινὸν ἀέρος καὶ γῆς· καὶ συνίσταται ἐκ μὲν ἐκείνης ὕδωρ, ἐκ δὲ ταύτης γῆς τι εἶδος. La doctrine de l’odeur comme une sorte d’exhalaison rappelle, en outre, le fragment 98 DK d’Héraclite cité par Plutarque (De fac. 943 E). Il est probable, en effet, qu’Héraclite ait supposé que l’âme se constitue en respirant ou inspirant une substance homogène: elle serait donc une exhalaison qui se nourrit d’exhalaisons. Cf. Pradeau, 288. 72 Cette polémique sera reprise par les objections de Plotin à la théorie stoïcienne de l’échange de matière entre la terre et le ciel du Traité 40 (Enn. II 1), 2, 11–12, Sur le ciel, où l’on retrouve une allusion au fragment 6 DK d’Héraclite, cité par Aristote, Metereologica B 2, 354 b 23–355 a 21 (= Fr. 58 (a) M; Heraclitea, II. A. 1, T190). 73 Aristote, De anima A 2, 405 a 25 (= 22 A 15 DK Fr. 66 (f1) M; Heraclitea, II. A. 1, T189): καὶ Ἡράκλειτος δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναί φησι ψυχήν, εἴπερ τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν, ἐξ ἧς τἆλλα

50

Lucia Saudelli

sage est extrêmement important pour reconstruire le cadre aristotélicien de la doctrine des transformations matérielles d’Héraclite, à l’intérieur de laquelle le concept d’ ‘exhalaison’ joue un rôle fondamental. Aristote, en effet, témoigne non seulement de la doctrine héraclitéenne des changements d’état de l’unique substance matérielle74—laquelle est «comme un fleuve qui coule en cercle vers le haut et vers le bas»75—, mais rapporte aussi que l’âme est pour Héraclite «l’exhalaison dont les autres chose se composent (τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν, ἐξ ἧς τἆλλα συνίστησιν)», en soudant, de cette manière, la cosmologie et la psychologie héraclitéennes. Après Aristote, c’est le scholarque péripatéticien Théophraste76 qui arrange le matériau doxographique et attribue à Héraclite, associé au pythagoricien Hippase de Métaponte, la doctrine selon laquelle l’ἀρχή est le feu, toutes choses se produisent à partir de celui-ci, à travers des processus physiques de condensation et raréfaction, et toutes choses se résolvent en celui-ci. L’intérêt pour l’ ἀρχή des Présocratiques, regroupés par similarité de doctrine, et notamment pour la conception “physique” de l’univers qui se produit à partir de lui-même et qui se résout en lui-même, montre que les Péripatéticiens font d’Héraclite un fils de son temps (VIe–V e s. av. notre ère)

συνίστησιν· καὶ ἀσωματώτατόν τε καὶ ῥέον ἀεί· τὸ δὲ κινούμενον κινουμένῳ γινώσκεσθαι· ἐν κινήσει δ´’ εἶναι τὰ ὄντα κἀκεῖνος ᾤετο καὶ οἱ πολλοί. 74 Aristote, De caelo Γ 1, 298 b 29–33 (Heraclitea, II. A. 1, T154): «d’autres encore disent que tout devient et s’écoule, qu’il n’y a rien de stable et qu’une seule chose demeure, celle à partir de laquelle toutes les choses sont naturellement engendrées par métamorphose (ἐξ οὗ ταῦτα πάντα μετασχηματίζεσθαι πέφυκεν); c’est ce que semblent vouloir dire Héraclite d’Ephèse et beaucoup d’autres»; Aristote, Phys. Γ 5, 204 b 22–205 a 9 et Met. K 10, 1066 b 34–1067 a 10 (Heraclitea, II. A. 1, T182): «Héraclite affirme qu’un jour tout devient feu (le même discours s’applique à l’un, que les philosophes de la nature posent à côté des éléments), puisque tout se transforme d’un contraire à l’autre (πᾶν γὰρ μεταβάλλει ἐξ ἐναντίου), par exemple du chaud au froid». 75 Aristote, Metereologica A 9, 347 a 2–3 (sans référence explicite à Héraclite): ὥσπερ ποταμὸν ῥέοντα κύκλῳ ἄνω καὶ κάτω. 76 Théophraste, fr. 225 (I, p. 406, 15 Fortenbaugh et al. = fr. doxogr. ex Opin. Phys. 1), Dox. 475–6 Diels (= 22 A 5 DK; Heraclitea II. A. 1., T199): ῞Ιππασος δὲ ὁ Μεταποντῖνος καὶ ῾Ηράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος ἓν καὶ οὗτοι (sc. ἔλεγον εἶναι) καὶ κινούμενον καὶ πεπερασμένον, ἀλλὰ πῦρ ἐποίησαν τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ ἐκ πυρὸς ποιοῦσι τὰ ὄντα πυκνώσει καὶ μανώσει καὶ διαλύουσι πάλιν εἰς πῦρ, ὡς ταύτης μιᾶς οὔσης φύσεως τῆς ὑποκειμένης· πυρὸς γὰρ ἀμοιβὴν εἶναι φησιν ῾Ηράκλειτος πάντα. ποιεῖ δὲ καὶ τάξιν τινὰ καὶ χρόνον ὡρισμένον τῆς τοῦ κόσμου μεταβολῆς κατὰ τινα εἱμαρμένην ἀνάγκην. Le terme utilisé par Théophraste en opposition à πύκνωσις (‘condensation’) est μάνωσις (‘rarefaction’), tandis que Diogène Laërce emploie le substantif ἀραίωσις (‘rarefaction’) dans le passage sur Héraclite (9.9) et le verbe ἐξαραιόω (‘raréfier’) à propos de la doctrine stoïcienne (7.143).


51

et de sa patrie (l’Ionie), en lui attribuant une conception “génétique” du tout, et donc une théorie cosmogonique.77 Les Stoïciens, pour leur part, examinent en détail et valorisent les passages des transformations matérielles du cycle cosmique héraclitéen, y compris la doctrine des exhalaisons et la conception de l’âme, comme le montre le témoignage du stoïcien ancien Cléanthe ap. Arius Didyme ap. Eusèbe de Césarée, Praep. Ev. 15.20, 2, qui relie la doctrine de l’ ‘âmeexhalaison’ du stoïcien ancien Zénon à celle d’Héraclite. Afin de démontrer la double nature de l’âme: perceptible et percevante, matérielle et intelligente, Cléanthe fait référence au fragment 12 DK d’Héraclite: «à ceux qui entrent dans les mêmes fleuves affluent d’autres et autres eaux. Les âmes aussi, d’autre part, s’exhalent des natures humides (ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμβαίνουσιν ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ. καὶ ψυχαὶ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ὑγρῶν ἀναθυμιῶνται)».78 Selon l’étude de Leonardo Tarán (1999),79 le fragment 12 DK, donné par Eusèbe, qui cite Arius Didyme (Ier s. av. notre ère), lequel rapporte les propos de Cléanthe parlant de Zénon, témoigne de l’application stoïcienne de la doctrine du changement universel d’Héraclite à l’âme. Avec l’intention de faire remonter à Héraclite une doctrine proprement stoïcienne, Cléanthe ne citerait pas verbatim des fragments héraclitéens,80 mais confirmerait l’attribution à Héraclite d’une conception de l’âme comme exhalaison, et précisément, comme une exhalaison continue de la matière humide. Quant aux autres fragments “du fleuve," ils apparaissent dans les contextes stoïco-platonisants de Sénèque et du grammairien Héraclite, qui citent le fragment 49a DK («dans le mêmes fleuves nous entrons et nous n’entrons pas, nous sommes et nous ne sommes pas (ποταμοῖς τοῖς αὐτοῖς 77

Finkelberg, 204. Cléanthe ap. Arius Didyme (fr. 39, Dox. 470 s. Diels) ap. Eusèbe de Césarée, Praep. Ev. XV 20, 2 (= SVF I 141; 519 = Fr. 40 (a) M; Heraclitea II. A. 1, 189–190): περὶ δὲ ψυχῆς Κλεάνθης μέν, τὰ Ζήνωνος δόγματα παρατιθέμενος πρὸς σύγκρισιν τὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους φυσικούς, φησὶν ὅτι Ζήνων τὴν ψυχὴν λέγει αἰσθητικὴν ἀναθυμίασιν, καθάπερ Ἡράκλειτος. Βουλόμενος γὰρ ἐμφανίσαι ὅτι αἱ ψυχαὶ ἀναθυμιώμεναι νοεραὶ ἀεὶ γίνονται, εἴκασεν αὐτὰς τοῖς ποταμοῖς λέγων οὕτως· «ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμβαίνουσιν ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ. καὶ ψυχαὶ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ὑγρῶν ἀναθυμιῶνται.» (22 B 12 DK) ἀναθυμίασιν μὲν οὖν ὁμοίως τῶι Ἡρακλείτωι τὴν ψυχὴν ἀποφαίνει Ζήνων, αἰσθητικὴν δὲ αὐτὴν εἶναι διὰ τοῦτο λέγει ὅτι τυποῦσθαί τε δύναται τὸ μέγεθος τὸ μέρος τὸ ἡγούμενον αὐτῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ὄντων καὶ ὑπαρχόντων διὰ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων καὶ παραδέχεσθαι τὰς τυπώσεις· ταῦτα γὰρ ἴδια ψυχῆς ἐστι. Cf. Eusèbe de Césarée, La préparation évangélique, Livres XIV–XV (SC 338; éd. Éduard des Places; Paris: Cerf, 1987), 324–327. 79 Leonardo Tarán, “Heraclitus: The River-Fragments and their Implications," Elenchos 20:1 (1999): 9–52, surtout 22–36. 80 Tarán, 27. 78

52

Lucia Saudelli

ἐμβαίνομεν τε καὶ οὐκ ἐμβαίνομεν, εἶμέν τε καὶ οὐκ εἶμεν)»), et de Plutarque, qui cite, en revanche, le fragment 91 DK («il n’est pas possible, en effet, de descendre deux fois dans le même fleuve (ποταμῷ γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμβῆναι δὶς τῷ αὐτῷ)»), en interprétant le changement des eaux du fleuve comme le symbole du flux de la réalité.81 Les fragments “du fleuve” sont utiles pour comprendre l’interprétation d’Héraclite donnée par Philon dans plusieurs traités82 et dans Aet. 109–111: la doctrine héraclitéenne de la ‘mort’ de l’âme comme transformation en l’élément eau. Et une interprétation médioplatonicienne comme celle de Philon, Aet. 104 ss. est témoignée par Plutarque, De E 392 C 8–D 4. En présentant un compte rendu de la doctrine du flux universel de l’être, en effet, Plutarque fait allusion au fragment 76 DK d’Héraclite sur les transformations matérielles («mort de feu [est] naissance d’air, et mort d’air naissance d’eau (πυρὸς θάνατος ἀέρι γένεσις, καὶ ἀέρος θάνατος ὕδατι γένεσις)»),83 qui sera cité, au cours du siècle suivant, même par le rhéteur médioplatonicien Maxime de Tyr (41.4) et par le stoïcien romain Marc Aurèle (4.46).

81 Simplicius, In Phys. A, p. 77, 28–33 Diels, comme Plutarque, connaît le fragment héraclitéen non pas directement, mais à travers une source intermédiaire, qu’il faut mettre en relation avec la théorie héraclitéenne du flux perpétuel connue par Cratyle, Platon et Aristote. Sur l’attribution à Héraclite de la doctrine du πάντα ῥεῖ, cf. Platon, Crat. 401 b 10 ss.; 402 a 8–10 et 411 a 7 ss.; 439 b 10 ss.; Phil. 42 e 7 ss.; Thaet. 152 c 8 ss., 155 e 3 ss., 156 c 3– 8 et 157 a 7 ss., mais aussi 160 d 5 ss., 168 b 2–6, 177 c 6 ss., 179 d 1 ss. et 182 c 2 ss.; Phaed. 90 b 4 ss.; cf. Aristote, Top. A 11, 104 b 20–22; De an. A 2, 405 a 28; Met. A 6, 987 a 32; Γ 5, 1010 a 7–15 et Γ 8, 1012 b 22; K 6, 1063 a 10–b 6; M 4, 1078 b 13; Phys. Θ 3, 253 b 9 et Θ 8, 265 a 2; E 4, 228 a 6; Met. B 3, 357 b 26; Pol. Γ 3, 1276 a 34. Selon Jaap Mansfeld, “Cratylus 402 a– c: Plato or Hippias?," Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy (Assen–Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1990), 84–96, les passages “jumeaux” de Platon et Aristote dériveraient d’une source commune: le livre du sophiste Hippias (fin Ve s. av. notre ère), la source la plus ancienne des témoignages et des citations d’Héraclite concernant l’image du fleuve de la réalité, rapprochés des fragments d’anciens poètes où la métaphore du fleuve représente l’origine des choses. 82 Runia, Philo and the Timaeus, 260–261, montre, en effet, que Philon combine l’image du fleuve de Timée 43 a–d avec d’autres images bien connues de la tradition philosophique, comme celle du flux perpétuel de la réalité sensible d’Héraclite (cf. Ios. 140–142, Conf. 105 ou Somn. 1.192 et 2.258), en affirmant que le lien aperçu, par Philon, entre cette doctrine et Tim. 43 a–d est correct, car c’est le background héraclitéen de l’image du fleuve que Platon utilise dans le dialogue en question (mais aussi dans les autres). 83 Cf. aussi Plutarque, De primo frig. 949 A.


53

5 Textes pré-Philoniens Parallèles ou Traitant de Sujets Apparentés à la Doctine Héraclitéenne, sans Référence Explicite à Héraclite L’examen des témoignages pré-philoniens sur la doctrine héraclitéenne des transformations élémentaires a montré qu’Aristote est l’initiateur du catalogue des opinions physiques et psychologiques d’Héraclite, bien que déjà chez Platon il soit possible de repérer des allusions à des doctrines présocratiques, comme celle du mouvement des éléments cosmiques vers le haut et vers le bas.84 Dans Philèbe 43 a, à propos du fait que nous éprouvons nécessairement du plaisir ou de la douleur, Platon fait référence aux anciens savants—y compris Héraclite85—: «comme le disent les sages; car toutes les choses coulent toujours vers le haut et vers le bas (ὡς οἱ σοφοί φασιν· ἀεὶ γὰρ ἅπαντα ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω ῥεῖ)». Dans les dialogues platoniciens, en effet, ἄνω est souvent associé et opposé à κάτω dans la locution ‘en tout sens—dans tous les sens,' et l’expression ἄνω κάτω indique le mouvement de tous les êtres (Phaed. 90 c) et des éléments cosmiques (Tim. 58 b) vers le haut et vers le bas.86 En outre, un témoignage de Plutarque (De facie 943 E) sur Xénocrate (161 Isnardi), sans mentionner explicitement Héraclite, ni aucun autre Présocratique, présente un cadre cosmologique où l’on retrouve aussi bien les mouvements vers le haut et vers le bas des éléments, que leurs transformations en ce qui est plus raréfié ou plus dense. C’est pourquoi l’on peut supposer qu’une interprétation des doctrines cosmogoniques et psychogoniques des Présocratiques selon des catégories “bipolaires” était déjà en en vigueur à l’intérieur de l’ancienne Académie. À des Académiciens anciens comme Xénocrate pourrait faire allusion Aristote, De caelo, Γ 303 b 19 ss.,87 le premier qui a attribué explicitement à Héraclite une psychologie fondée sur la physiologie, c’est-à-dire la conception de l’âme comme exhalaison. En ce qui concerne la philosophie post-aristotélicienne, dans le chapitre 4 du De mundo pseudo-aristotélicien (Ier s. av. notre ère ?), qui précède celui sur l’éternité et la perfection du cosmos—où l’on trouve la citation du fragment 10 DK d’Héraclite dans le contexte de l’harmonie des contraires (396 a 33 ss.)—, l’auteur s’étend sur la description des phénomènes sublunaires. Le premier est celui des exhalaisons (De mundo 394 a 13–14), dont 84

Jacques Brunschwig dans Diogène Laërce, 1053, n. 7. Cf. Platon, Thaet. 152 e; Crat. 402 a–c. 86 Platon, Œuvres complètes, t. XIV, partie I (A–Λ), Lexique de la langue philosophique et religieuse de Platon par Éduard des Places (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1970), 55. 87 Margherita Isnardi Parente dans Senocrate-Ermodoro. Frammenti (éd. Margherita Isnardi Parente; Napoli: Bibliopolis, 1982), 378. 85

54

Lucia Saudelli

«l’une est sèche et fumeuse, car elle jaillit de la terre, tandis que l’autre est humide et vaporeuse, car elle s’exhale de la nature humide (ἡ μέν ἐστι ξηρὰ καὶ καπνώδης, ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἀπορρέουσα, ἡ δὲ νοτερὰ καὶ ἀτμώδης, ἀπὸ τῆς ὑγρᾶς ἀναθυμιωμένη φύσεως)». Et si le De mundo pseudo-aristotélicien présente une théorie des exhalaisons marines et terrestres, la doctrine des changements réciproques et successifs des éléments apparaît dans le De universi natura I 12–13 attribué à Ocellus Lucanus. Il s’agit d’un écrit pseudo-pythagoricien (Ier s. av. notre ère ?) en faveur de l’incorruptibilité du monde et contre la doctrine stoïcienne des conflagrations et des renaissances cosmiques, que Philon (Aet. 12) déclare avoir lu et qu’il relie à la tradition aristotélicienne. Le ps.-Ocellus (De univ. nat. I 12) affirme que les quatre éléments matériels, «le feu, l’eau, la terre et l’air; en effet, ils échangent leur limite successivement et continuellement, certes, non pas selon le lieu, mais par transformation (πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ γῆ καὶ ἀήρ· ὅρον γὰρ ἀμείβουσιν ἐφεξῆς καὶ συνεχῶς, οὐ μὴν τόν γε κατὰ τόπον ἀλλὰ τὸν κατὰ μεταβολήν)», car le feu se transforme en air, l’air en eau, l’eau en terre et vice versa jusqu’au feu (De univ. nat. I 13).88 La ressemblance entre le passage du ps.-Ocellus et Philon, Aet. 109–111, qui contient la mention d’Héraclite et la référence à trois fragments héraclitéens, constitue une preuve de l’influence de la tradition pseudo-pythagoricienne de matrice aristotélicienne sur le traité philonien. D’autres parallèles sont repérables dans la spéculation stoïcienne, dont la coexistence polémique avec la tradition platonicienne—aussi bien celle de l’ancienne Académie que celle de la nouvelle Académie “sceptique”—est amplement illustrée par Cicéron au Ie s. av. notre ère. Que les Stoïciens aient professé une théorie des évaporations des eaux, Cicéron en témoigne dans le De nat. deor. II 26–27, où le stoïcien Balbus parle aussi de la nutrition des astres grâce à la vapeur qui s’élève des étendues d’eau.89 Et la doctrine stoïcienne des vapeurs marins et des exhalaisons terrestres qui alimentent les astres divins90 s’inscrit dans le processus plus général de la transformation cyclique des éléments d’Héraclite. 88 Ocellus Lucanus, Neue philologische Untersuchungen (éd. Richard Harder; Berlin: Weidmann, 1926), I 11–25. 89 Cf. Cicéron, De natura deorum 2.40 (et 118), analysé par Carlos Lévy, “Lucrèce et les Stoïciens," Présence de Lucrèce. Actes du Colloque tenu à Tours (3–5 décembre 1998), Centre de Recherches André Piganiol, Collection Caesarodunum XXXII bis (éd. Rémy Poignault; Tours, 1999), 92. 90 Cf. Ps.-Plutarque, Plac. phil. 889 D (= SVF II 690; Heraclitea, II. A. 1, T275): «Héraclite et les Stoïciens [partagent l’opinion selon laquelle] les astres se nourrissent de l’exhalaison terrestre (Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ τρέφεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας ἐκ τῆς ἐπιγείου


55

Si déjà dans un fragment cité par Stobée Zénon présentait la conception stoïcienne de la consubstantialité de la nature ignée de l’âme avec celle des astres,91 que Macrobe fait remonter à Héraclite,92 Cicéron, Tusculanae Disputationes 1.42–43, en suivant Panétius, relie la matière légère et chaude de l’âme au mouvement vers le haut, et la doctrine des exhalaisons à celle de la pénétration de l’âme dans le ciel: «l’âme sort de cet air [. . .] Et si elle demeure incorrompue et semblable à elle-même, nécessairement elle s’enlève de telle manière qu’elle pénètre et coupe tout ce ciel (animus evadat ex hoc aëre [. . .]. Qui si permanet incorruptus suique similis, necesse est ita feratur, ut penetret et dividat omne caelum hoc)». Le passage des Tusculanes illustre en effet la doctrine du “vol” de l’âme depuis la terre jusqu’à la partie la plus pure du ciel, en vertu de sa nature de «souffle enflammé (inflammata anima)»—comme le soutenaient les Stoïciens depuis Zénon jusqu’à Posidonios93—et en vertu de son mouvement tensionnel: les éléments dont elle est constituée, c’est-à-dire air et feu, actifs et pneumatiques, «n’ont rien qui tende vers le bas et ils cherchent toujours à gagner les lieux d’en haut (Nihil enim habent . . . proni et supera semper petunt)» (ibid.).94 Cicéron témoignerait, ainsi, de la jonction entre la théorie physique des éléments, d’origine présocratique, avec les spéculations cosmologiques et

ἀναθυμιάσεως)». Sur les exhalaisons terrestres comme nourriture des astres, cf. SVF I 501, 504, II 579, 593, 650, 652, 655–656, 658–659, 661–664, 677, 690, 1145–1146, 1149; Cicéron, De nat. deor. 2.43 et 83; Sénèque, Quaest. nat. 2.5, 1–2; Cornutus, Comp. theol. gr. 17. Philon, quant à lui, fait allusion à la théorie des exhalaisons terrestres et marines qui montent vers le haut, c’est-à-dire dans l’air, dans Prov. 2.61 ss. et 2.110; Somn. 1.144; Mos. 2.105 et QG 3.15. 91 Stobée, I 25, 213 (= SVF I 120), cité dans Lévy, 93. 92 22 A 15 DK. 93 Diogène Laërce 7.157. Sur la théorie aristotélicienne du mouvement, par nature, du feu vers le haut et de la terre vers le bas, cf. Aristote, Phys. E 6, 230 b 10. Sur la conception stoïcienne des deux éléments actifs (feu et air), substances pneumatiques sans poids qui se soutiennent elles-mêmes et qui soutiennent les deux éléments passifs et matériels (terre et eau), cf. SVF I 99; II 406, 418, 439, 444, 841. L’origine des concepts stoïciens de τόνος (‘tension’) et τονικὴ κίνησις (‘mouvement tensionnel’) est d’ailleurs la παλίντονος [ou παλίντροπος] ἁρμονίη (‘harmonie rétroverse,' c’est-à-dire ‘tendue d’un extrême à l’autre’) de l’arc et de la lyre du fragment 51 DK d’Héraclite. Cf. Long, 52–53). En effet, comme l’affirme Willem J. Verdenius, “Heraclitus’ Conception of Fire," dans Kepha–laion, 4, pour Héraclite, la tension continue entre les opposés est une forme de vie éternelle. 94 Ainsi pour Philon, le mouvement «selon nature (κατὰ φύσιν)» (Aet. 30) des éléments légers «par nature (φύσει)» (Aet. 115)—l’air et le feu—est vers le haut. Cf. la référence de Philon (Cont. 3) à ceux qui ont appelé «l’air Héra, en vertu de l’action de se soulever et de se lever dans l’air jusqu’aux hauteurs (Ἥραν δὲ τὸν ἀέρα παρὰ τὸ αἴρεσθαι καὶ μετεωρίζεσθαι πρὸς ὕψος)».

56

Lucia Saudelli

psychologiques du Moyen Stoïcisme95 et du Moyen Platonisme pythagoriciens.96

Conclusions L’analyse de la citation et de l’interprétation du fragment 60 DK d’Héraclite dans De aeternitate mundi 109 et l’étude de la documentation pré-philonienne, destinée à en éclairer la valeur, ont produit les résultats suivants: Aristote est le premier à assimiler la doctrine d’Héraclite et celle d’Empédocle sur l’incorruptibilité du monde à travers la corruptibilité de ses phases (De cael. A 10, 279 b 12 ss.) et à affirmer que pour Héraclite l’âme provient de l’ «exhalaison» (De an. A 2, 405 a 25–29); Le fragment 60 DK d’Héraclite sur la «la route vers le haut et vers le bas» apparaît dans l’épitomé des Opinions des physiciens par Théophraste (ap. Diogène Laërce 9.8–9), où il est interprété en sens physique, selon la doctrine cosmogonique et cosmologique de la transformation cyclique des éléments matériels; Le Stoïcisme ancien (Zénon et Cléanthe ap. Eusèbe de Césarée, Praep. Ev. 15.20, 2) se réclame de la doctrine héraclitéenne de l’âme comme «exhalaison» et le Stoïcisme postérieur professe la doctrine de la nutrition des astres à partir de l’évaporation de l’eau (Cicéron, De nat. deor. 2. 40) et de l’exhalaison de la terre (ps.-Plutarque, Plac. phil. 889 D), lesquelles s’inscrivent dans le “cycle cosmique” héraclitéen; À la fin de l’époque hellénistique, et précisément dans la période à peine antérieure à la spéculation de Philon (Ier s. av. notre ère), le platonisme pythagoricien redivivus contamine aussi bien la tradition péripatéticienne (ps.-Ocellus, De univ. nat. 1.12–13) que la stoïcienne (Panétius ap. Cicéron, Tusc. Disp. 1.42–43), et la théorie physique des transformations élémentaires et des exhalaisons se fond avec la doctrine de la survie de l’âme. 95 John Glucker, “A Platonic Cento in Cicero," Phronesis 44:1 (1999): 30–44, suggère que la source du célèbre passage cicéronien du De divinatione 1.115 sur l’éternité et l’omniscience de l’âme—auparavant attribué à Posidonius—serait quelque platonicien pythagorisant inconnu, contemporain ou à peine antérieur à Cicéron, auquel remonterait la réunion de plusieurs éléments pythagoriciens repérables dans les différents dialogues de Platon. 96 Dans le discours de Pythagore d’Ovide, Métamorphoses, 15.143 ss., le thème de l’immortalité de l’âme est traité à travers le concept héraclitéen de la fluidité universelle, dont les illustrations sont le cycle de succession des ages (ou saisons de la vie) et le cycle de transformation des éléments matériels.


57

Voici l’arrière-plan philosophique qui est à la base du témoignage philonien sur Héraclite dans Aet. 104–112: la rencontre de la doxographie péripatéticienne et stoïcienne tardives avec la littérature des διαδοχαὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων (Successions des philosophes),97 et encore plus probablement avec celle des περὶ αἱρέσεων (Sur les écoles de pensée),98 prépare et produit, dans le cadre de la renaissance du platonisme pythagoricien à Alexandrie entre le Ier s. av. et le Ier s. de notre ère,99 la redécouverte des Présocratiques, considérés comme les Antiqui dépositaires de la divine sagesse concernant la nature et l’existence du cosmos et de l’âme.100 Les sources pré-philoniennes de la doctrine attribuée à Héraclite dans Aet. 109–111 laissent penser qu’à l’époque de Philon la cosmologie et la psychologie héraclitéennes étaient soudées sur la base de la théorie des exhalaisons. Quant aux sources post-philoniennes, à savoir la doxographie d’Aétius —reconstruite à travers les extraits des Placita Philosophorum d’auteurs tels que ps.-Plutarque, Théodoret et Stobée—elles attribuent à Héraclite une conception de l’âme universelle et individuelle comme «exhalaison».101 Les Aetiana témoignent donc de la diffusion, au cours du Ier s. de notre ère, d’une interprétation d’Héraclite où la doctrine cosmologique des exhalaisons est fusionnée avec la doctrine psychologique de l’âme individuelle. Dans cette interprétation, c’est l’âme qui descend dans le monde sensible et remonte à l’Âme, en parcourant le chemin réversible de la ὁδός τε ἄνω κάτω, à laquelle même Plotin fera allusion dans le Traité 6 [Enn. IV 8], 1, 13 et, après lui, le néoplatonicien Jamblique (De an., ap. Stobée I 49, 39) et le sophiste chrétien Énée de Gaza (Theophr. p. 5 Boissonade = PG 85, 877 C). Philon représente ainsi un témoignage non négligeable sur Héraclite, car il est antérieur aux sources majeures des fragments héraclitéens—l’apologète 97

Mansfeld, Hippolytus, 25–26 et 40–42, n. 54. Cf. John Glucker, Antiochus and the Late Academy (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 174 ss., 333 ss.; Alain Le Boulluec, La notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque: IIe–IIIe siècles (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1985); David T. Runia, “Philo of Alexandria and the Greek Hairesis-Model," VChr 53:2 (1999): 117–147. 99 Mansfeld, Hippolytus, 20 ss. 100 Sur la relation complexe de Philon avec le Médioplatonisme, voir la discussion de David T. Runia, Davis Winston, Gregory E. Sterling et Thomas H. Tobin dans SphA 5 (1993). 101 Ps.-Plutarque, Plac. phil. IV 3 (= 22 A 15 DK; Heraclitea II. A. 2, T462): Ἡράκλειτος τὴν μὲν τοῦ κόσμου ψυχὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἐκ τῶν ἐν αὐτῶι ὑγρῶν, τὴν δ᾿ ἐν τοῖς ζώιοις ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκτὸς καὶ τῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀναθυμιάσεως ὁμογηνῆ; Théodoret, Graec. affect. cur. V 23 (Heraclitea II. A. 2, T464): ὁ δὲ Ἡρακλειτος τὰς ἀπαλλαττομένας τοῦ σώματος εἰς τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ἀναχωρεῖν ψυχὴν ἔφησεν, οἷα δὴ ὁμογενῆ τε οὖσαν καὶ ὁμοούσιον. 98

58

Lucia Saudelli

chrétien Clément d’Alexandrie, la Refutatio omnium haeresium et le philosophe médioplatonicien pythagorisant Plutarque—et il reflète l’interprétation philosophique dans laquelle cosmologie, psychologie et théologie héraclitéennes fusionnent dans l’unique doctrine du cycle cosmique, où la ‘mort’ des éléments l’un dans l’autre garantit la ‘vie’ du tout. La superposition du plan physiologique et du plan anthropologique et le parallélisme entre macrocosme et microcosme sont caractéristiques de la pensée d’Héraclite et de celle de son temps. Le témoignage philonien d’Aet. 109–111 prouve alors que l’on peut attribuer à Héraclite aussi bien une matérialité qu’une immortalité de l’âme. La ψυχή d’Héraclite, en même temps cosmique, divine et humaine, devient ainsi l’emblème de la spéculation sur le cycle universel, doctrine qui rencontrera sa plus grande fortune—via Philon—dans les premiers siècles de notre ère, époque durant laquelle se développe et se diffuse la réflexion philosophique médioplatonicienne, aussi bien païenne, que chrétienne, gnostique et hermétique, sur la nature, la vie et le destin de l’âme. Cette recherche a montré que «la même route vers le haut et vers le bas (τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδὸν ἄνω καὶ κάτω)» d’Aet. 109 représente une composante importante du témoignage philonien sur la doctrine héraclitienne. C’est pourquoi une plus ample recherche sur la citation et l’interprétation du fragment 60 DK d’Héraclite dans les autres traités de Philon devra être menée. Seules l’analyse approfondie à l’intérieur du corpus philonicum et l’étude comparative avec les autres sources de la doctrine héraclitéenne fourniront une contribution scientifique à la définition du sens et du rôle de la pensée d’Héraclite dans le rapport entre philosophie et exégèse, qui caractérise la spéculation judéo-hellénistique de Philon. Cette enquête pourra non seulement mettre en lumière la contribution de la sagesse philosophique d’Héraclite à l’exégèse philonienne de l’Écriture mosaïque, mais aussi révéler la contribution de l’exégèse philonienne de l’Écriture mosaïque à la connaissance et à la compréhension de la sagesse philosophique d’Héraclite. L’étude du témoignage de Philon à l’intérieur du panorama philosophique de son époque et de son milieu, et du rapport de l’Alexandrin avec la tradition interprétative d’Héraclite, contribueront, enfin, à la compréhension de la signification originaire du dictum de l’ «Obscur». École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris, France Università degli Studi «Carlo Bo», Urbino, Italia


THE MYSTERY OF PLAY: CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA’S APPROPRIATION OF PHILO IN THE PAEDAGOGUS (1.5.21.3–22.1)

ANDREW DINAN

Among the thousands of citations and allusions found in Clement’s extant corpus, the three hundred or so from Philo are conspicuous, especially when one considers that the name of the Jewish exegete appears only four times, twice modified by a puzzling epithet.1 When the difficult business of identifying probable citations had largely been completed, scholars could more confidently probe the manner in which Clement used Philo, the purposes that motivated this appropriation, and the influence of Philo’s scriptural exegesis upon Clement’s own project, all important questions in their own right and especially in light of Clement’s pioneering role in the Christian engagement with Jewish and Hellenic wisdom.2 It became much easier to tackle these issues with the publication in 1988 of Dr. Annewies van den Hoek’s Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the Stromateis,3 which goes a long way toward systematically “weeding out” Stählin’s A version of this paper was presented at the 2005 meeting of the North American Patristics Society in Chicago. I have benefited from the observations of those in attendance. I am grateful to the reviewers of this article and to the editors of this journal. 1 In the work of Wilhelm Krause, Die Stellung der frühchristlichen Autoren zur heidnischen Literatur (Vienna: Herder, 1958), 124–30, one can find tables that document the astonishing number of citations found in the extant works of Clement, who in this regard is by far the most prolific early Christian author. For an investigation into Clement’s habits of citation, see Annewies van den Hoek, “Techniques of Quotation in Clement of Alexandria: A View of Ancient Literary Working Methods,” VC 50 (1996): 223–243. See also David T. Runia, “Why Does Clement of Alexandria Call Philo ‘The Pythagorean’?” VC 49 (1995): 1–22. Philo’s name appears at Strom. 1.5.31.1, 1.15.72.4, 1.23.153.2, 2.19.100.3, and perhaps at 1.21.141.3 (but see Runia, 17 n. 4). 2 For a survey of these efforts, see David T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (CRINT 3; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993), 132–156. See also Eric Osborn, “Clement and Philo: Quiet Conversion and Noetic Exegesis,” SPhA 10 (1998): 108–124; idem, Clement of Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 81–105. 3 Annewies van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the Stromateis (VCSup 3; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988).

60

Andrew Dinan

index of Clement’s citations from Philo and enables us to discern almost vividly the author of the Stromateis working at his desk, making his way through Philo’s texts, not in a servile or mechanical fashion but adapting, modifying, and reworking what he finds, often quite subtly.4 In the present paper I wish to contribute to this discussion by considering an example of Clement’s appropriation of Philo in the Paedagogus, a work traditionally thought to have been composed after the Protrepticus and prior to the Stromateis.5 The Protrepticus is an exhortation to receive salvation in Christ. The Stromateis consists of an assemblage of notes on diverse subjects, from the role of Greek philosophy to the character of the true Christian gnostic. The Paedagogus concerns ethics: it offers general 4 For the expression “weeding out,” see Van den Hoek, “Techniques of Quotation,” 230. For the expression “working at his desk,” cf. J. C. M. van Winden, “Quotations from Philo in Clement of Alexandria’s Protrepticus,” VC 32 (1978): 208; Van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria, 20; Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 145 n. 45. 5 For a chronology of Clement’s works, see André Méhat, Étude sur les ‘Stromates’ de Clément d’Alexandrie (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1966), 54, who gives 197 as a possible date for the Paedagogus. I cite the Greek text of Clement according to the edition of Otto Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus I: Protrepticus und Paedagogus (reed. Ursula Treu; 3rd ed.; GCS 12; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1972); II: Stromata Buch I–VI (reed. Ludwig Früchtel, suppl. Ursula Treu; 4th ed.; GCS 52; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1985); III: Stromata Buch VII und VIII, Excerpta ex Theodoto, Eclogae Propheticae, Quis Dives Salvetur, Fragmente (reed. Ludwig Früchtel; 2nd ed.; GCS 17; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970). For the Paedagogus I have also consulted Clément d’Alexandrie: Le Pédagogue, Livre I (introd., notes by Henri-Irénée Marrou, trans. by Marguerite Harl; SC 70; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1960); Livre II (trans. Claude Mondésert, notes by Henri-Irénée Marrou; SC 108; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1965); Livre III (trans. Claude Mondésert and Chantal Matray, notes by Henri-Irénée Marrou; SC 158; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1970); the more recent edition by Miroslav Marcovich, with the assistance of J. C. M. van Winden, Clementis Alexandrini Paedagogus (Leiden: Brill, 2002); and the text found in PG 8:247–684. In the case of the Stromateis, I have also consulted the SC editions, particularly the more recent ones: Les Stromates, Stromate IV, (introd., text, notes by Annewies van den Hoek; trans. by Claude Mondésert; SC 463; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2001); Stromate V, vol. 1 (introd., text, index by Alain Le Boulluec; trans. by Pierre Voulet; SC 278; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1981), vol. 2 (comm., bibl., index by Alain Le Boulluec; SC 279; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1981); Stromate VI (introd., text, trans., notes by Paul Descourtieux; SC 446; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1999); Stromate VII (introd., text, trans., notes by Alain Le Boulluec; SC 428; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1997). I provide my own English translations of passages from Clement, although I have benefited from the translations of Simon P. Wood, Christ the Educator (FC 23; New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1954); W. Wilson in ANF 2 (ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; rev. A. C. Coxe; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979); G. W. Butterworth, Clement of Alexandria: Exhortation to the Greeks, The Rich Man’s Salvation, To the Newly Baptized (trans. G.W. Butterworth; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919); John Ferguson, Clement of Alexandria: Stromateis Books One to Three (FC 85; Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1991). I also wish to acknowledge my use of the on-line subscription version of the TLG, Regents of the University of California, www.tlg.uci.edu.

Clement of Alexandria’s Appropriation of Philo in the Paedagogus

61

principles of Christian morality as well as frank discussions of practical matters confronting Christians in cosmopolitan Alexandria at the turn of the third century. My concern is with a passage relatively early in the first book of the Paedagogus (1.5.21.3–22.1)—well before the discussion of specific moral questions—in which Clement comments upon Gen 26:8. According to the scriptural account, during a famine Isaac sought refuge in Gerar with Abimelech, king of the Philistines, where he, like his father Abraham, concealed his wife’s identity only to have it subsequently discovered.6 Abimelech indeed was quite surprised when he peered through a window and saw Isaac “playing” (παίζοντα) with Rebecca: παρακύψας δὲ Αβιμελεχ ὁ βασιλεὺς Γεραρων διὰ τῆς θυρίδος εἶδεν τὸν Ισαακ παίζοντα μετὰ Ρεβεκκας τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ (LXX).7 Clement offers three interpretations of this prophetic verse,8 each of which involves a Christian μυστήριον:9 according to the first, the play of the patriarch and his wife denotes the joy and celebration of those who are children in Christ (Paed. 1.5.21.3–22.1); Clement next develops an allegory concerning ecclesiology, according to which Christians (Isaac) laugh because they have been freed from death along with the Church (Rebecca), who patiently helps them attain salvation (Paed. 1.5.22.2–23.1); in the third reading Isaac is a τύπος τοῦ κυρίου (Paed. 1.5.23.1– 2), whose mystical laughter signifies the joy of those redeemed by the Lord’s blood. The first of these is of interest to me in this paper, for it has long been recognized that Clement here has taken specific language from Philo’s De Plantatione (169–70).10 Indeed, Stählin and Marcovich (like Migne) print the relevant Philonic text in their respective apparatus, while Cohn and Wendland print the relevant Clementine text in theirs. But editors of Clement’s works have also suggested that another Philonic 6

For Abraham’s concealment of Sarah’s identity, see Gen 12:10–20, 20:1–18. I cite the LXX according to Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta: id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (Stuttgart: Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935). I cite the New Testament according to Barbara Aland et al., The Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993). Translations of New Testament passages are from the NRSV. 8 Cf. Paed. 1.5.22.2: τὸ ὑπὸ τῆς προφητείας μηνυόμενον. 9 Each interpretation contains a word with the root μυστ-: τῆς παιδιᾶς τὸ μυστήριον (Paed. 1.5.21.3); ἡ μυστικὴ παιδιά (1.5.22.2); ἐγέλα δὲ μυστικῶς (1.5.23.2). 10 See Jean Daniélou, “La typologie d’Isaac dans le Christianisme primitif,” Bib 28 (1947): 363–393, esp. 382–384; idem, Message évangélique et culture hellénistique aux IIe et IIIe siècles (Tournai: Desclée & Co., 1961), 219–221; Paul Heinisch, Der Einfluss Philos auf die älteste christliche Exegese (Munich: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Buchhandlung, 1908), 201– 205; Walther Völker, Der wahre Gnostiker nach Clemens Alexandrinus (TU 57; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1952), 516–517; and especially Hermann Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens von Alexandrien (Ph.D. diss., Kiel, 1963), 70–73. 7

62

Andrew Dinan

passage, Quaestiones in Genesim 4.188, be compared with this section of the Paedagogus. I wish to show more specifically how Clement appropriates the first of these Philonic passages and to argue that he has been influenced by the second as well. This involves a close analysis of Clement’s language as well as an investigation into broader aspects of his thought. I also wish to show that in this passage Clement, with the help of Philo as well as Heraclitus, a philosopher whose obscure profundity was appealing to both Alexandrians, hints at one of his more daring theological notions, viz., that God plays. Much of the first book of the Paedagogus is dedicated to an exposition of the title.11 It consists, that is, of an argument that the Logos is the παιδαγωγός, that παιδαγωγία is an apt model for the moral life of Christians, and that Christians are fittingly regarded as children. Clement’s succinct formulation at the beginning of the fifth chapter confirms what has been implicit in the previous four: “We are the children,” οἱ παῖδες ἡμεῖς.12 The burden of the ensuing chapters is to show that παῖδες and other words denoting children—παιδία, νήπιοι—are not pejorative, contrary to what some of Clement’s opponents held.13 He marshals several arguments to substantiate this claim. For example, he appeals to etymology: the word νήπιος, he says, is not comprised of the privative νη- and ἔπος (one who does not speak),14 but of νέος and ἤπιος (a gentle youth).15 He appeals to common parlance: in the Attic dialect the word παιδίσκαι is a compliment, used of good, beautiful, free, young women;16 and the words παιδεία and παιδαγωγία, though based on the word child, nevertheless denote “life’s most noble and perfect (τελεώτατα) treasures.”17 But he is especially concerned to show that scriptural references to children in no way denote 11 Paed. 1.5.12.1: ἡ παιδαγωγία παίδων ἐστὶν ἀγωγή. According to Marrou, Le Pédagogue, 20–21, the word παιδαγωγός and its cognates appear 163 times throughout the Paedagogus, more than 80 times in the first book alone. That the title was given by Clement is apparent from his remarks at Strom. 6.1.1.3. 12 Paed. 1.1.12.1. Earlier in the book Clement twice uses the expression ὦ παῖδες ὑμεῖς (1.1.1.1, 1.2.4.1). Cf. also the use of νήπιοι at 1.2.6.5. 13 The anti-Gnostic dimension to Clement’s exaltation of childhood is discussed by Marrou, Le Pédagogue, 29–34. It is most explicit in the sixth chapter (Paed. 1.6.31.1ff). For a distinction between παῖδες and νήπιοι, see Paed. 1.7.53.1. 14 Paed. 1.5.20.1. Clement pointedly brands those who allege the νη to be privative the “children of the grammarians,” γραμματικῶν παῖδες. 15 Paed. 1.5.19.1. For a discussion of Clement’s etymologies, see Ursula Treu, “Etymologie und Allegorie bei Klemens von Alexandrien,” StPatr 4 (ed. Frank L. Cross; TU 79; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961): 191–211; and Annewies van den Hoek, “Etymologizing in a Christian Context: The Techniques of Clement and Origen,” SPhA 16 (2004): 122–168. 16 Paed. 1.5.14.1. 17 Paed. 1.5.16.1.


63

their ignorance but rather point up an especially favorable disposition toward God: of course there is Christ’s well-known injunction to become like little children (Matt 18:3), which, Clement says, is a recommendation to imitate their simplicity;18 but there are other passages that reveal the commendable tenderness, sincerity, innocence, eagerness, willingness to forgive, and dependence upon God that are found in children.19 Clement’s concern with childhood, however, has broader, i.e., ecclesial, implications, for in contrast to the crooked, hard-hearted ancient race of the Jews, Christians as a whole are forever young and tender,20 and they dwell in an eternal springtime.21 As partakers in the Logos they have a share in immortality and in wisdom, the ever-blooming flower that never wilts.22 With a citation from the closing chapter of Isaiah, Clement indicates that Christians are children in relation to their mother, the Church.23 Moreover, he notes that as the neediness of young animals prompts the affection of their parents, so the Father welcomes, assists (βοηθεῖ), regenerates with his Spirit (πνεύματι), and adopts those who have taken refuge in him.24 For Clement, then, spiritual maturation involves becoming childlike, not in spite of, but even in a certain sense because of, the neediness and dependence proper to such a condition.25 This conviction, indeed, is apparent in the hymn that is

18

Paed. 1.5.12.4: τὴν ἐν παισὶν ἁπλότητα εἰς ἐξομοίωσιν παρακατατιθέμενος ἡμῖν. E.g., Matt 19:13–14, cited at Paed. 1.5.12.3. See also Paed. 1.5.17.1–2, 1.5.19.3. 20 Paed. 1.5.19.4: “For the old race was crooked and stiff-necked, but we are the new people, a chorus of youngsters, delicate as a child,” ἡ μὲν γὰρ γενεὰ ἡ παλαιὰ σκολιὰ καὶ σκληροκάρδιος, χορὸς δὲ νηπίων, ὁ καινὸς ἡμεῖς λαός, τρυφερὸς ὡς παῖς. 21 Paed. 1.5.20.4. Editors of the Paedagogus point out that this passage recalls Pericles’s funeral oration (as reported by Aristotle, Rhet. 1365a31, 1411a2), in which the Athenian statesman says that the loss of young people in the Peloponnesian War is like the deprivation of springtime. Clement’s description of the eternal springtime in which Christians dwell is especially interesting: “To us belongs the prime of life, this ageless time of youth, when we are always mentally alert, always young, always gentle, and always new; for those who have a share in the new Logos must be new,” καὶ ἔστιν ἡμῖν τὸ οὖθαρ τῆς ἡλικίας ἡ ἀγήρως αὕτη νεότης, ἐν ᾗ πρὸς νόησιν ἀεὶ ἀκμάζομεν, ἀεὶ νέοι καὶ ἀεὶ ἤπιοι καὶ ἀεὶ καινοί· χρὴ γὰρ εἶναι καινοὺς τοὺς λόγου καινοῦ μετειληφότας. (1.5.20.3). According to LSJ the word οὖθαρ, which appears only here in Clement’s extant works, properly refers to an animal’s udder and eventually to a woman’s breast but was also used metaphorically. It is especially appropriate to the image of the Church as mother, which Clement shortly thereafter introduces (1.5.21.1). 22 Paed. 1.5.20.4–21.1. 23 Paed. 1.5.21.1: ῾Τὰ παιδία ̓, φησίν, ̔αὐτῶν ἐπ ̓ ὤμων ἀρθήσονται καὶ ἐπὶ γονάτων παρακληθήσονται· ὡς εἴ τινα μήτηρ παρακαλέσει, οὕτως κἀγὼ ὑμᾶς παρακαλέσω ̓ (Isa 66:12–13). 24 Paed. 1.5.21.2. 25 Cf. Paed. 1.5.17.1–2. 19

64

Andrew Dinan

found at the end of the Paedagogus.26 Clement’s effusive praise of childhood stands out not only in the literature of Greco-Roman antiquity but even by comparison with the more favorable assessments found among early Christian authors.27 At this point Clement invokes Isaac: “I for my part also associate Isaac with the word child,” ἐγὼ καὶ τὸν ᾿Ισαὰκ εἰς παῖδα ἀναφέρω (1.5.21.3). Yet despite the emphatic ἐγώ it is precisely here that one can detect a nearly verbatim appropriation of Philo.28 Clement’s first interpretation is the following: when supermundane wisdom (Abimelech) observes laughter (Isaac) playing with patient expectation (Rebecca),29 he glimpses the mystery of play (τῆς παιδιᾶς τὸ μυστήριον): I for my part also associate Isaac with the word child. Isaac means laughter. The meddlesome king saw him playing with his wife and helper Rebecca. In my opinion the king (named Abimelech) seems to be a kind of supermundane wisdom, gazing down upon the mystery of play. Rebecca, as they say, means patient expectation. O prudent play! Laughter is helped by patient expectation, while the king is an overseer. The spirit of children in Christ exults when they conduct themselves with patient expectation. This is the divine play. This is the kind of sport that Heraclitus says his Zeus plays. For what other activity is appropriate for the one who is wise or perfect than playing and rejoicing over

26 For a discussion of Clement’s striking development in the Paedagogus of the theme of childhood, with particular attention to the concluding hymn, see Friedrich Quatember, Die christliche Lebenshaltung des Klemens von Alexandrien nach seinem Pädagogus (Vienna: Verlag Herder, 1946), 95–108, esp. 106–108. For a discussion of the hymn, see Annewies van den Hoek, “Hymn of the Holy Clement to Christ the Saviour,” in Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: a Critical Anthology (ed. Mark Kiley; London: Routledge, 1997), 296–303. 27 See Odd M. Bakke, When Children Became People: The Birth of Childhood in Early Christianity (trans. B. McNeil; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), who concludes that “Clement’s positive use of children in his argumentation represents a novelty in the ancient world, where childish behavior was commonly used as a negative example” (63). Bakke argues that Greek and Roman authors tended to view childhood as a time of irrationality, passion, weakness, and cowardice. Although some, especially in early Greek culture, did emphasize the innocence of childhood, nevertheless children were not held up as “positive paradigms in order to persuade adults to imitate this quality” (21). According to Bakke, “In the philosophical tradition, children were portrayed, along with other weak groups, as the negative counterfoil to the free male urban citizen” (21). On the other hand, Suzanne Dixon, The Roman Family (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 100, 104– 105, notes that among the Romans and in Christian hagiography children were often prized for their mature qualities, such as seriousness, studiousness, and gravity, i.e., for being an adult, a puer senex. In light of this, it is striking to observe that in the Paedagogus Clement emphasizes the virtues of childhood qua childhood and of children qua children, not insofar as children exhibit qualities associated with adults. 28 Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens, 70. 29 At Strom. 4.25.161.2, however, “Rebecca” means “glory of God.” See Treu, “Etymologie und Allegorie,” 197; Van den Hoek, “Etymologizing in a Christian Context,” 131.


65

the patient expectation of the good and the management of the good, all the while celebrating a festival with God?30

The immediate import of this passage is that the word παίζοντα predicated of Isaac in the scriptural account is yet another proof that the condition of being a παῖς is good. Isaac’s childlike behavior supports Clement’s understanding of what it means to be a Christian. The Christian, like a child, should rejoice, full of hope, secure in the Lord’s providential care. But the passage has, I suggest, deeper meaning. The key is the allusion to Heraclitus, the shadowy pre-Socratic philosopher from Ephesus who, as Hermann Wiese and others have shown, appears at pivotal moments and in surprising ways throughout Clement’s works.31 Here he is invoked to articulate a μυστήριον—the mystery of divine play.32 With the allusion to this fragment (DK 52), which has been dubbed the “most enigmatic of Heraclitean riddles,”33 Clement not only links childhood and play with the wise and perfect person, but he even hints that God plays. Now it is true, of course, that Clement does not explicitly state that God plays; he merely remarks that a certain Greek philosopher speaks about his (ἑαυτοῦ) Zeus playing a game, which Clement associates with Isaac’s divine 30 Clement, Paed. 1.5.21.3–22.1: ἐγὼ καὶ τὸν ̓Ισαὰκ εἰς παῖδα ἀναφέρω· γέλως ἑρμηνεύεται ὁ ̓Ισαάκ. τοῦτον ἑώρακεν παίζοντα μετὰ τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ βοηθοῦ, τῆς ̔Ρεβέκκας, ὁ περίεργος βασιλεύς. βασιλεύς μοι δοκεῖ ( ̓Αβιμέλεχ ὄνομα αὐτῷ) σοφία τις εἶναι ὑπερκόσμιος, κατασκοποῦσα τῆς παιδιᾶς τὸ μυστήριον· ̔Ρεβέκκαν δὲ ἑρμηνεύουσιν ὑπομονήν. ὢ τῆς φρονίμου παιδιᾶς, γέλως [καὶ] δι ̓ ὑπομονῆς βοηθούμενος καὶ ἔφορος ὁ βασιλεύς. ἀγαλλιᾶται τὸ πνεῦμα τῶν ἐν Χριστῷ παιδίων ἐν ὑπομονῇ πολιτευομένων καὶ αὕτη ἡ θεία παιδιά. τοιαύτην τινὰ παίζειν παιδιὰν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Δία ̔Ηράκλειτος λέγει. τί γὰρ ἄλλο εὐπρεπὲς ἔργον σοφῷ καὶ τελείῳ ἢ παίζειν καὶ συνευφραίνεσθαι τῇ τῶν καλῶν ὑπομονῇ καὶ τῇ διοικήσει τῶν καλῶν, συμπανηγυρίζοντα τῷ θεῷ; 31 For studies of Clement’s Heraclitean citations, see Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens; William R. Crockett, Clement of Alexandria and the Pre-Socratics: A Study in the Relation Between Faith and Culture (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1971), 112–174; P. Valentin, “Héraclite et Clément d’Alexandrie,” RSR 46 (1958): 27–59. See also Karl Reinhardt, “Heraklits Lehre vom Feuer,” Hermes 77 (1942): 1–27; and several of the studies of Serge N. Mouraviev, e.g., “New Readings of Three Heraclitean Fragments (B 23, B 28, B 26),” Hermes 101 (1973): 114–127; idem, “Clément, Protreptique 34, 2ss. = Héraclite, Fr, B 15,” REA 78 (1976): 42–49. Clement’s Heraclitean citations are collected, translated, and annotated in S. Mouraviev, Heraclitea: édition critique complète des témoignages sur la vie et l’œuvre d’Héraclite d’Éphèse et des vestiges de son livre (5 parts; Sankt Augustin: Aψademia Verlag, 2000), II.A.2.477–517. Clement’s intellectual debt to the Ephesian is a theme of Osborn, Clement of Alexandria, esp. 16–18, 145–146. 32 For an investigation into the use of the word μυστήριον in Clement’s writings, see H. G. Marsh, “The use of ΜΥΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ in the writings of Clement of Alexandria with special reference to his sacramental doctrine,” JTS 37 (1936): 64–80. 33 Charles H. Kahn, The Art and thought of Heraclitus: An edition of the fragments with translation and commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 227.

66

Andrew Dinan

play. But several considerations lead to the conclusion that Clement invokes the Heraclitean fragment in order to suggest that God plays. 1) If Isaac’s play is divine, this must be because play is somehow associated with the true God, not Zeus. 2) Not long after this passage Clement cites scriptural texts that refer to Christ as a child,34 and he exclaims: “Oh, the great God, oh, the perfect (τελείου) child!”35 This language not only confirms that childhood can in a certain sense be a perfection,36 but it also means that when Clement says that play is fitting for the one who is perfect (τελείῳ), this implies that play is not unbecoming to Christ. 3) Clement elsewhere states that the descriptions of Zeus by pagan poets and prose authors can actually lead the intellect toward God.37 Indeed, in the fifth book of the Stromateis Clement introduces several passages from the Greek poets and philosophers that speak of Zeus, because he believes that these authors were, often unknowingly, speaking of God.38 Therefore the Heraclitean aphorism at Paed. 1.5.22.1 not only confirms that pagans can utter truths,39 but it also points to a sublime notion about God. Heraclitus’s statement about “his Zeus” playing is a hint of the mystery that God plays. Indeed, the full ramifications of this suggestive, and even prophetic, Heraclitean citation are apparent only to the perceptive reader. Heraclitus interprets the Scripture and hints at a bold theological claim.40 34

Paed. 1.5.24.1–4. ὠ τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ, ὠ τοῦ τελείου παιδίου, Paed. 1.5.24.3. 36 Cf. Paed. 1.6.34.2: “But being young in Christ is a perfection, by comparison with the Law,” ἡ δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ νηπιότης τελείωσίς ἐστιν, ὡς πρὸς τὸν νόμον. Much of chapter 6 consists of a meditation on 1 Cor 3:1–2, where Paul tells the Corinthians that because he could not speak to them ὡς πνευματικοῖς ἀλλ ̓ ὡς σαρκίνοις, ὡς νηπίοις ἐν Χριστῷ, he had to give them γάλα rather than βρῶμα to drink. Clement goes to great lengths to show that milk does not indicate immaturity: “Thus the perfect milk is perfect nourishment, and it leads to unending perfection,” oὕτω γοῦν τελεία τροφὴ τὸ γάλα ἐστὶ τὸ τέλειον καὶ εἰς τέλος ἄγει τὸ ἀκατάπαυστον (Paed. 1.6.36.1). 37 ὁ γὰρ διὰ τῶν ποιημάτων καὶ καταλογάδην συγγραμμάτων ᾀδόμενος Ζεὺς τὴν ἔννοιαν ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν ἀναφέρει (Strom. 5.14.101.4), “For the Zeus that is hymned in poetry and prose leads our thought up to God.” 38 Strom. 5.11.70.2–3, 5.14.101.2–3, 5.14.114.4, 5.14.116.1. For another instance of Clement drawing upon Heraclitus’s reference to Zeus, cf. Strom. 5.14.115.1: οἶδα ἐγὼ καὶ Πλάτωνα προσμαρτυροῦντα ̔Ηρακλείτῳ γράφοντι· ̔ἓ ν τὸ σοφὸν μοῦνον λέγεσθαι οὐκ ἐθέλει καὶ ἐθέλει Ζηνὸς ὄνομα, ̓ “I know that Plato also corroborates that line from Heraclitus, ‘the one, the wise thing alone, is unwilling and willing to be named Zeus.’” Cf. Crockett, Clement of Alexandria, 151–152. 39 Cf. the scholiast’s comment on this passage: οὐχ ὡς ἀποδεχόμενος τὸν ῞Ελληνα μῦθον ταῦτα παρατίθησιν τὰ περὶ τοῦ Διός, ἀλλ ̓ ἵνα δείξῃ, ὅτι καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ ῾Ελλήνων πλαττόμενα οὐκ ἔξω λογισμοῦ καὶ τοῦ εἰκότος προφέρεται. 40 Cf. Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens, 71–72: “Heraklit erscheint demnach hier, ohne daß es expressiv verbis gesagt würde, als Prophet christlicher Wahrheit im außerjüdischen 35


67

The exalted position accorded to Heraclitus in this passage is entirely consistent with the role he exercises throughout Clement’s works, where he not only criticizes Greek religion41 but even assists in scriptural exegesis42 and bears witness to important Christian teachings such as the necessity of faith,43 the purification by fire,44 and the immortality of the soul.45 Clement in fact calls the Ephesian philosopher γενναῖος, a term reserved in his works for a select few,46 and he is clearly attracted to Heraclitus’s enigmatic style.47 In addition to the present passage, Clement cites him favorably on at least three other occasions in the Paedagogus.48 Nevertheless this passage is almost unique among the roughly four dozen Heraclitean citations found in Clement’s works, for Clement here allows the Ephesian philosopher to articulate a notion that Clement himself neither develops nor makes explicit. This passage contains, in fact, the most direct reference in Clement’s extant works to the theme of divine play,49 and it evidently perplexed the copyists of the two principal manuscripts, who on four occasions altered forms of παιδιά to corresponding forms of παιδεία. But the notion that God plays, as Hugo Rahner has shown,50 was latent in certain passages of Bereich.” Cf. also Wiese, 291 n. 3; Reinhardt, “Heraklits Lehre vom Feuer,” 2–3; Crockett, Clement of Alexandria, 118; Mouraviev, “Heraclitus AP. Clem. Strom. I 70.3: A Neglected Fragment?” in Atti del symposium Heracliteum 1981 (ed. L. Rossetti; 2 vols.; Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1983), 1.30. 41 Protr. 1.2.2, 2.22.1–2, 2.34.5, 4.50.4. 42 Paed. 2.10.99.5. 43 Strom. 2.2.8.2, 2.5.24.5, 5.13.88.5. See also Strom. 2.4.17.4. 44 Strom. 5.1.9.4. 45 Strom. 4.22.144.3. 46 Strom. 2.2.8.1. 47 Strom. 5.8.50.2. 48 Paed. 2.2.29.3, 2.10.99.5, 3.1.2.1; and perhaps at 3.8.44.2. 49 Elsewhere in the Paedagogus, in fact, the words παιδιά and παίζειν often have negative connotations. Clement uses them in connection with a vain game of dice (3.11.75.2), those who are too fond of joking (2.7.57.3), and inane behavior with birds (3.4.30.1), all of which are to be avoided. The Israelites, he notes, are said to have played senselessly (ἀλόγως ἔπαιζον) while rebelling against God (1.11.97.1; cf. Exod 32:6; 1 Cor 10:7). Cf. also Paed. 3.11.72.2 (= Isa 3:16). But Clement does not entirely censure the occasional playful jest (2.7.57.1, cf. Strom. 7.4.24.5), and he refers to a kind of ball-game that is not unprofitable for character development (3.10.50.1). Moreover, two passages in his other works are especially interesting: at Protr. 11.111.1 the word refers to the first human being playing freely in paradise like a child (ὁ πρῶτος ὅτε ἐν παραδείσῳ ἔπαιζε λελυμένος, ἔτι παιδίον ἦν τοῦ θεοῦ); at Strom. 7.5.28.3 Clement obliquely implicates the divinity in play when he cites Plato’s description of a human being as a “toy of God,” παίγνιον θεοῦ (cf. Leg. 803c). 50 Hugo Rahner, Man at Play (trans. Brian Battershaw and Edward Quinn; New York: Herder & Herder, 1967). Rahner devotes an entire chapter to “The Playing of God” (11–25), in which he discusses Heraclitus DK 52, as well as the passages cited below from Plato, Gregory Nazianzus, and Maximus the Confessor. In the second chapter, “The Playing of

68

Andrew Dinan

Plato,51 it can be found in Scripture,52 and it would eventually become a part of the Christian tradition, notably in passages in Gregory of Nazianzus,53 Maximus the Confessor,54 and Thomas Aquinas.55 Moreover, this idea can also be found in Philo, to whom we now turn. Editors of Clement’s text have pointed to similarities between this passage of the Paedagogus and a section toward the end of Philo’s de Plantatione in which the Jewish exegete, in connection with the account of Noah’s drunkenness in Gen 9:20–21,56 offers five arguments in support of the notion that the wise man will drink heavily (οἰνοῦσθαι) but will not become a messy drunk (ληρεῖν ἐν οἴνῳ).57 Philo specifies that these arguments owe much to the philosophers; the Lawgiver’s statements on drunkenness he reserves for a later treatise.58 In the third argument Philo derives μεθύειν (drunkenness) from μέθεσις (relaxation), and argues that the relaxation occasioned by drinking is beneficial to the wise soul.59 Unlike fools (ἄφρονες), who sin when they drink, the wise and prudent (ἔμφρονες) become more pleasant companions under the influence of wine.60 This is because Man” (26–45), he takes up the Isaac-Rebecca allegory found in Philo and Clement, which he “want[s] to rescue from oblivion, for it is indeed a pearl of great price” (42). 51 Leg. 644de, 803c. 52 According to Rahner, Man at Play, 19–23, although the Hebrew text of Prov 8:30–31 refers to Divine Wisdom as a child playing or dancing before the Creator, the LXX and the old Latin version only mention rejoicing; but in Jerome’s Latin translation the notion of playing was again made explicit. 53 Or. 7.19 (PG 35:777c); Carm. 1.2.2 v. 590 (PG 37:624a). The scholiast at Paedagogus 1.5.22.2 (the second of Clement’s three interpretations of Gen 26:8) refers to the latter passage. 54 Ambig. 261a–263b (PG 91:1408c–1416d). 55 Commentary on the Sentences I, d. 2 (expositio textus). This is cited and discussed in Josef Pieper, Leisure, the Basis of Culture (trans. G. Malsbary; South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 1998), 18. 56 The LXX reads: Καὶ ἤρξατο Νωε ἄνθρωπος γεωργὸς γῆς καὶ ἐφύτευσεν ἀμπελῶνα. καὶ ἔπιεν ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου καὶ ἐμεθύσθη καὶ ἐγυμνώθη ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ. 57 Plant. 142. Cf. QG 2.68. I cite the Greek text of Plant. according to PCW. I have also consulted PLCL, vol. 3 (LCL 247, F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker) and PAPM 10 (Jean Pouilloux). I provide my translations of passages from Philo; I have of course benefited from those in PLCL as well as the older version of C. D. Yonge, in The Works of Philo (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002). 58 Plant. 141–42. Cf. Ebr. 1. See the introduction to Plant. in PLCL 3:209. 59 Plant. 165. For the notion of the relaxation of the soul as proper to the true gnostic, cf. Strom. 6.12.99.3–4. 60 Plant. 166: “When the reasoning capacity of fools is slackened, the result is a greater flood of sins, but in the case of sensible people the result is an enjoyable, stress-free state, full of good-cheer and levity,” μεθίεται δὲ ὁ μὲν τῶν ἀφρόνων λογισμὸς εἰς πλειόνων χύσιν ἁμαρτημάτων, ὁ δὲ τῶν ἐμφρόνων εἰς ἀνέσεως καὶ εὐθυμίας καὶ ἱλαρότητος ἀπόλαυσιν. Cf. Somn. 2.164–65.


69

wisdom is not marked by sadness but by peace and joy, which lead to play and laughter,61 which, according to Moses, constitute the perfection of wisdom (τέλος σοφίας).62 But Philo specifies that he is speaking not of the foolish play of children (νηπίοις ἄνευ φρονήσεως) but of the dignified (σεμνότητι)63 and virtuous (σπουδῇ)64 play of those grown hoary with age and good sense. At this point he introduces Isaac, the self-taught man, playing with Rebecca. This is Isaac, which means laughter, who fittingly plays with constancy, which the Hebrews call Rebecca. A commoner is not permitted to see the soul’s divine play; yet a king may do so, beside whom wisdom has resided for a very long time (if, that is, she has not resided in him for his whole life). This man is named Abimelech, who stooped at the window, the wide-open, light-bearing eye of the intellect, and saw Isaac playing with his wife Rebecca. For what other activity is appropriate for the wise man than playing, rejoicing, and celebrating with the constancy of excellence?65

61

Plant. 167: “Moreover, one must also say that the form of wisdom is not gloomy and harsh, or tense with worry and sadness. The opposite is true. It is gracious and peaceful, full of cheer and joy, which has often induced people to joke and to play, not in an uncouth fashion but with dignity and virtue, a game that resounds harmoniously, like a tuned lyre accompanied by voices.” πρὸς δὲ τούτοις κἀκεῖνο λεκτέον, ὅτι οὐ σκυθρωπὸν καὶ αὐστηρὸν τὸ τῆς σοφίας εἶδος, ὑπὸ συννοίας καὶ κατηφείας ἐσταλμένον, ἀλλ ̓ ἔμπαλιν ἱλαρὸν καὶ γαληνίζον, μεστὸν γηθοσύνης καὶ χαρᾶς· ὑφ ̓ ὧν πολλάκις προήχθη τις οὐκ ἀμούσως παῖξαί τι καὶ χαριεντίσασθαι, παιδιὰν μέντοι τῇ σεμνότητι καὶ σπουδῇ καθάπερ ἐν ἡρμοσμένῃ λύρᾳ φθόγγοις ἀντιφώνοις εἰς ἑνὸς μέλους κρᾶσιν συνηχοῦσαν. 62 Plant. 168. 63 For the contrast between dignified action and the behavior of boys or young men, cf. Spec. 1.3; Legat. 42, 167; Mos. 1.20. 64 Cf. Cher. 8, where Philo again emphasizes that Isaac’s games are not childish (οὐ τὰς παίδων) but divine (θείας) and serious (οὐκ ἄνευ σπουδῆς), and see the note on this passage by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, PLCL, 2.482, who detect a possible allusion not only to Gen 26:8 but also to Gen 21:9 (ἰδοῦσα δὲ Σαρρα τὸν υἱὸν Αγαρ τῆς Αἰγυπτίας, ὃς ἐγένετο τῷ Αβρααμ, παίζοντα μετὰ Ισαακ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτῆς). Philo may be suggesting that Sarah enjoined Abraham to banish Ishmael and Hagar because Sarah saw Ishmael and Isaac indulging in childish, as opposed to dignified, play. Elsewhere Philo cautions that Isaac’s name does not mean laughter that arises from physical play but denotes an intellectual joy and good-cheer (Abr. 201). See also at n. 87 below. 65 Plant. 169–70: οὗτός ἐστιν ᾿Ισαάκ, ὃς ἑρμηνεύεται γέλως, ᾧ παίζειν μετὰ τῆς ὑπομονῆς, ἣν ῾Ρεβέκκαν ̔Εβραῖοι καλοῦσιν, ἁρμόττει. τὴν δὲ θείαν παιδιὰν τῆς ψυχῆς ἰδιώτῃ μὲν οὐ θέμις ἰδεῖν, βασιλεῖ δὲ ἔξεστιν, ᾧ πάμπολυν χρόνον παρῴκησεν, εἰ καὶ μὴ πάντ ̓ ἐνῴκησε τὸν αἰῶνα, σοφία. προσαγορεύεται οὗτος ᾿Αβιμέλεχ, ὃς διακύψας τῇ θυρίδι, τῷ διοιχθέντι καὶ φωσφόρῳ τῆς διανοίας ὄμματι, τὸν ̓Ισαὰκ εἶδε παίζοντα μετὰ ῾Ρεβέκκας τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ. τί γὰρ ἄλλο ἐμπρεπὲς ἔργον σοφῷ ἢ τὸ παίζειν καὶ γανοῦσθαι καὶ συνευφραίνεσθαι τῇ τῶν καλῶν ὑπομονῇ;

70

Andrew Dinan

The point of the passage is to show that Isaac’s play, i.e., the play of a wise man, proves that the customary effect of consuming wine, viz., relaxation, is consonant with virtue.66 The similarities between this passage and the passage from the Paedagogus are readily apparent: Clement, like Philo, offers the etymologies of the names of Isaac and Rebecca;67 like Philo, he sees play as an activity befitting the wise man; like Philo, he appears to grant Abimelech a privileged vantage point and a special relationship to wisdom; and Clement has appropriated from Philo individual words and entire phrases, notably the expression “divine play,” (θείαν παιδιάν), perhaps the phrase ὢ τῆς φρονίμου παιδιᾶς,68 and certainly most of the concluding sentence: Philo: τί γὰρ ἄλλο ἐµπρεπὲς ἔργον σοφῷ ἢ τὸ παίζειν καὶ γανοῦσθαι καὶ συνευφραίνεσθαι τῇ τῶν καλῶν ὑποµονῇ; Clement: τί γὰρ ἄλλο εὐπρεπὲς ἔργον σοφῷ καὶ τελείῳ ἢ παίζειν καὶ συνευφραίνεσθαι τῇ τῶν καλῶν ὑποµονῇ καὶ τῇ διοικήσει τῶν καλῶν, συµπανηγυρίζοντα τῷ θεῷ;

For this reason it is natural to suppose that Clement is working either with Philo’s text before him or from notes taken from the same. But because Clement appropriates Philo for his own purposes—the latter is arguing that drinking is legitimate, the former that Christians should embrace the designation “children”—he makes several changes to the Philonic text. The reasons for most of these changes are not difficult to understand. For example, whereas divine play according to Philo occurs in the ψυχή of the wise man, Clement locates it in the πνεῦμα of those who are children in Christ.69 This is in keeping with the christological character of 66 “This makes it clear that he will even get drunk, because drunkenness builds character and confers beneficial relaxation,” ἐξ ὧν ὅτι καὶ μεθυσθήσεται δῆλόν ἐστι τῆς μέθης ἠθοποιούσης καὶ ἄνεσιν καὶ ὠφέλειαν ἐργαζομένης (Plant. 170). Cf. also Plant. 171: “In a similar way when the wine flows freely it makes the passionate person more passionate, but the balanced person more friendly and gracious,” οὕτως οὖν καὶ ὁ ἄκρατος ἀναχυθεὶς τὸν μὲν πάθεσι κεχρημένον ἐμπαθέστερον, τὸν δὲ εὐπαθείαις εὐμενέστερον καὶ ἵλεω μᾶλλον ἀπειργάσατο. Philo may be influenced here by Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1176b. For the association between Isaac and drunkenness, viz., the sober drunkenness that results from wisdom, cf. Fug. 166. 67 Scholars have long debated the source for Philo’s etymology Rebecca—ὑπομονή/ ἐπιμονή. In a thorough study, Valentin Nikiprowetzky, “Rébecca, vertu de constance et constance de vertu chez Philon d’Alexandrie,” Sem 26 (1976): 109–136, shows that Philo either was dependent on an Alexandrian exegetical tradition or derived it himself from the particular circumstances of her unusual pregnancy. 68 This may have been derived from Philo’s statement that children without prudence (ἄνευ φρονήσεως, Plant. 168) do not play this game. 69 Cf. Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens, 71.


71

many of Clement’s borrowings from Philo in the Stromateis.70 Moreover, Clement specifies that this play leads to rejoicing (ἀγαλλιᾶται), a word with profound significance in Scripture, where it often appears in connection not only with εὐφραίνομαι and its composita (as in Clement’s passage) but occasionally even with the Holy Spirit.71 Thus in the next chapter of the Paedagogus (1.6.32.2–3) Clement refers to Luke 10:21, where Jesus rejoices in the Holy Spirit and praises the Father for revealing to children (νηπίοις) what he has hidden from the wise: Clement remarks that Jesus’s exultation and joy (ἀγαλλιώμενος καὶ ὑπερευφραινόμενος) are like the lisping of young children (οἱονεὶ συντραυλίζων τοῖς νηπίοις).72 Clement therefore associates Isaac’s joy—and thus the joy of Christian childhood—with Christ’s exultation in the Holy Spirit. Again, to Philo’s remark that the wise person finds joy τῇ τῶν καλῶν ὑπομονῇ, Clement adds the expression καὶ τῇ διοικήσει τῶν καλῶν, συμπανηγυρίζοντα τῷ θεῷ. The second clause I will take up later in this paper. The word διοικήσει in the first clause is used elsewhere by Clement as a synonym for Providence.73 Here it seems to indicate that the Christian can rejoice with childlike confidence, secure in the knowledge of God’s good governance of the world. Furthermore, to Philo’s statement that play is appropriate for the wise person (σοφῷ), Clement adds the words “and perfect” (καὶ τελείῳ). One of the themes of this section of the Paedagogus is in fact the meaning of perfection.74 Still further, whereas Philo remarks that Isaac rejoices μετὰ ̔Ρεβέκκας τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ, Clement offers μετὰ τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ βοηθοῦ, τῆς ̔Ρεβέκκας. Clement subsequently writes—something which also is not in Philo—that Isaac is helped (βοηθούμενος) by Rebecca. Although they are absent from 70

Van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria, 227; Osborn, “Philo and Clement,” 114–117. In the New Testament it is used inter alia of the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:47 καὶ ἠγαλλίασεν τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου), Abraham (John 8:56), the newly baptized (Acts 16:34), and those present at the wedding feast of the Lamb (Rev 19:7). Thus it indicates the joy conferred by the presence of Christ. At Strom. 4.7.47.4 and 4.20.129.4, Clement cites verses from 1 Pet (4:13, 1:8, respectively) that also contain this word. He is keenly aware of the connotation in the Psalms of this word and its composita: cf. Protr. 10.107.1 (Ps. 69:5); Strom. 1.1.8.3–4 (Ps 50:9–14), 2.13.59.3 (Ps 125:5), 6.6.49.3 (Ps 15:9 = Acts 2:26), 6.16.145.5 (Ps 117:24). Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, “ἀγγαλλιάομαι, ἀγαλλίασις,” TDNT (eds. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich; trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; 10 vols.; Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964– 1976), 1.19–21. 72 Paed. 1.6.32.2–3. Although the verb τραυλίζω is found occasionally in the TLG, the compound συντραυλίζω used by Clement appears to be a hapax. 73 Cf. Strom. 2.2.4.2, 2.23.144.1, 4.6.40.3, 4.7.52.4 (διοικέω), 4.23.148.2 (διοικέω). 74 Cf. Paed. 1.5.18.4, 1.5.24.3, and many passages in the sixth chapter of Paed. 1. Cf. also Paed. 1.10.93.3 for the pairing of σοφός and τέλειος. It is interesting to observe, however, that just prior to the passage appropriated by Clement, Philo says that play and laughter constitute the perfection of wisdom (τέλος σοφίας). See also n. 86 below. 71

72

Andrew Dinan

this section of De plantatione and from the Genesis passage itself, Clement seven times uses the word βοηθός or its cognates in this section of the Paedagogus (1.5.21.2–22.2). These words recall the biblical description of Eve as Adam’s helper (Gen 2:18),75 and they underscore that for Clement the dependence of children is not a negative quality. Recall that a few lines earlier Clement had argued that the weakness of human beings (ἀσθένειαν) prompts God’s affection and assistance (βοήθειαν); it is something pleasing, sweet, and delightful (κεχαρισμένον, ἡδύ, τερπνόν), and it need not induce shame.76 Thus with this word Clement emphasizes that Isaac’s play is not a solitary enterprise; it requires a helper, or a playmate. Rebecca’s role in Clement’s allegory is, therefore, to underscore the dependence of the childlike Christian upon God, while in Philo’s interpretation she serves to underscore the permanence of Isaac’s state, the very quality that prevents the play of the virtuous soul from being frivolous. For Philo, after all, Isaac is self-sufficient (αὐτηκόου καὶ αὐτομαθοῦς καὶ αὐτουργοῦ).77 Clement’s frequent use of forms of βοηθός contrasts with these three compounds of αὐτός. Finally, Clement’s understanding of the word ὑπομονή surely differs from Philo’s. Following Jean Daniélou, who argues that it denotes “l’espérance chrétienne,”78 I have rendered it “patient expectation,” for in the Stromateis Clement frequently cites the Pauline use of the word ὑπομονή, according to which patience attends, and even gives rise to, hope.79 In Philo, by contrast, the word denotes “constancy” or “steadfastness.”80 Thus 75 Clement several times uses the word βοηθός in his discussions of marriage, e.g., Strom. 3.12.82.3, 3.18.108.1. Cf. also Paed. 3.3.19.1. It is interesting to note that Philo elsewhere contrasts the marriage of Rebecca and Isaac (as well as the marriages of the other patriarchs) with the ordinary, physical marriage of Adam and Eve (Cher. 40–47); he notes there that Isaac did not “know” Rebecca as Adam “knew” Eve. At QG 4.145 Philo refers to Rebecca as “ever-virginal Constancy” (Marcus trans.). But cf. the remarks of Dorothy Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women (BJS 209; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 132–140. Clement also several times uses the word βοηθός in connection with God: Protr. 1.7.6; Paed. 1.9.86.2 (Ps 77:35); Strom. 6.6.51.1 (cf. Ps 9:10). 76 Paed. 1.5.21.2. 77 Plant. 168. But cf. Strom. 1.5.31.3, where Clement also describes Isaac as αὐτομαθές. 78 Daniélou, “La typologie,” 383. 79 Although Clement at Strom. 2.18.79.5 (= Chrysippus, Fr. mor. 275 von Arnim) states that ὑπομονή, which some call καρτερία, is the knowledge of what should and should not be endured, in later passages of the Stromateis he clearly modifies the Stoic definition on the basis of St. Paul’s epistles, where the word is often associated with hope. Cf. Strom. 2.22.134.4 (Rom 5:4), 4.5.19.4 (Rom 15:4), 4.7.46.2 (Rom 8:25), 4.22.145.1 (Rom 5:3–4). 80 Nikiprowetzky, “Rébecca, vertu de constance,” argues that Philo does not use the words ὑπομονή and ἐπιμονή in the sense that the LXX or New Testament do, i.e., they do not mean “attente” or “espérance.” At Plant. 169–170, he says, the word ὑπομονή means “steadfastness” and the expression τῇ τῶν καλῶν ὑπομονῇ means “steadfastness of excellence.” He suggests that Plant. 169–170 be interpreted in conjunction with Congr. 37–38,


73

for Philo the biblical incident indicates the joy found in the godlike stability and permanence of virtue, while for Clement it denotes childlike delight in God’s providential care and in his gracious favors. For Philo Isaac exemplifies the wise, self-taught man, whose solemn play proves that wisdom has a lighter side and therefore that the wise man can get drunk. For Clement Isaac is a model child, whose play confirms that Christians should revel in their status as children. It is not so easy, however, to account for some of the other changes that Clement makes to the Philonic text, notably the description of the king as a busybody (περίεργος) and the claim that the king looks down upon (κατασκοποῦσα) the mystery of play. These two Greek words have decidedly negative connotations elsewhere in Clement’s works; they seem to indicate a disordered interest or an improper gaze.81 They are especially odd here, not only because Clement, like Philo, associates the king with wisdom, but especially because Clement associates him with Christ. In fact he dubs the king ὑπερκόσμιος σοφία, an expression which in the Protrepticus refers to Christ.82 One might perhaps characterize Abimelech’s action in the scriptural account as meddlesome, but it is difficult to see why Clement

where Philo invokes the same etymology: Isaac, the self-taught man, receives Rebecca as his wife so that he can possess the gifts of God forever. Indeed, elsewhere in Philo the union of Isaac and Rebecca denotes the soul yoked to goodness (Post. 62). At Plant. 169– 170, therefore, the word emphasizes the stability and the perpetuity of Isaac’s play. Cf. Sly, Philo’s Perception, 157: “Rebecca is an aspect of Isaac’s character, usually constancy, steadfastness or patience. As such she adds an element of permanence to her husband’s wisdom.” 81 Of the roughly two-dozen instances in which Clement uses περίεργος (or cognates), all but eight of which are found in the Paed., most pertain to a disordered interest in luxuries, such as dyes (Paed. 2.8.69.5), glassware (Paed. 2.3.35.3), food (Paed. 2.1.7.5), wine (Paed. 2.2.20.4), jewelry (Paed. 2.10.104.1), hairstyle (Paed. 3.2.11.2), or other sensual pleasures (Strom. 2.20.119.5). Such excessive concern is irrational and the result of custom (Protr. 10.99.1). Two passages involve a curious — and reprehensible — glance. At Strom. 4.19.121.2 Clement praises the Pythagorean woman Theano for her witty reply to the insolent man who was gazing at her περιέργως; at Paed. 3.5.33.2 he paraphrases Matt 5:28— “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust (πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτήν) has already committed adultery with her in his heart”—with the following: ὁ γὰρ ἐμβλέψας, φησί, περιεργότερον ἤδη ἥμαρτεν. Thus the word περιεργότερον is equivalent to πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτήν. But two passages which seem to lack a decidedly negative connotation are Strom. 1.21.145.6, where it refers to making a careful determination of a date and year, and Strom. 6.11.94.5, where it denotes a great interest in the meaning of a scriptural passage. Again, the use of κατασκοποῦσα is somewhat perplexing, especially with the object μυστήριον, because elsewhere in Clement’s works this verb refers to those who have wrongly been enticed to gaze at women (Paed. 2.2.33.4, 3.4.27.3). 82 Protr. 1.5.4.

74

Andrew Dinan

added these two words, which are found neither in the scriptural account nor in this passage from Philo. In addition to the parallels with De plantatione, however, there are resemblances between the Paedagogus passage and a section of Philo’s Quaestiones in Genesim (4.188) where the Jewish exegete comments more directly on the meaning of Isaac’s play. Clement certainly knew and used the Quaestiones in Genesim.83 Although the literal meaning of the game, Philo says there, is “lawful commerce with one’s wife,” the deeper meaning is as follows:84 Not every game is blameworthy but sometimes it is virtuous and praiseworthy, for it is a sign of the innocence and sincerity of the pure festiveness of the heart.85 For the age of playfulness is guileless and without cunning, whence ‘boy’ was first named. And from this, in accordance with (our) interpretation, the festive enjoyments of perfect men86 which are worthy and virtuous are called a ‘game.’

This play can be indulged in by those who are virtuous.87 Human beings play, but so do the daimones or angels, the stars, and the cosmos. But Philo does not stop there; he then alludes to a tradition according to which even God is said to play: Moreover, it is said that even the Father and Creator of the universe continually rejoices in His life and plays and is joyful, finding pleasure in play which is in keeping with the divine and in joyfulness. And He has no need of anything nor does He lack anything, but with joy He delights in Himself and in His powers and in the worlds88 made by Him.

Because the wise man, then, aspires to be like God, which Philo here characterizes as self-sufficiency, he too will indulge in joyful play. Philo concludes the solutio by invoking the now familiar etymologies of the names Isaac and Rebecca89 and by noting that Abimelech, who in De 83

See Van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria, 210, and 177–208. The English translations as well as the suggestions in subsequent footnotes for the original Greek are those of Ralph Marcus in PLCL, Suppl. 1 (LCL 380). I have also consulted PAPM 34b (Mercier, Petit). 85 σημεῖον τῆς ἀκακίας καὶ ἁπλότητος τῆς καθαρῶς εὐωχουμένης καρδίας. For similar language, cf. Clement, Paed. 1.5.14.2. 86 τελείων. 87 οἱ σπουδαῖοι. 88 But cf. the note in PAPM, where this word is rendered in the singular. 89 “Rightly, therefore, and properly does the wise man, believing (his) end (to consist in) likeness to God, strive, so far as possible, to unite the created with the uncreated and the mortal with the immortal, and not to be deficient or wanting in gladness and joyfulness in His likeness. For this reason he plays this game of unchangeable and constant virtue 84


75

plantatione is the host of wisdom, here represents only the “progressive man” who cannot fully glimpse this play.90 In the absence of the original Greek—most of this work is preserved only in Armenian, although this particular section also appears in the old Latin version—it is difficult to confirm specific verbal appropriations, but I believe that Clement has been influenced by this passage as well as the one from De plantatione. It is only here, after all, and not in De plantatione, that Philo gives the etymological link between παῖς and παίζειν which is implicit throughout Clement’s passage, although Philo curiously says that the former word derives from the latter (a child is a player), while Clement’s passage is predicated on the reverse (one who plays is childlike). It is here, again, and not in De plantatione, that Philo characterizes childhood as a time of simplicity; recall that in De plantatione he disavows the foolish games of children91—Isaac’s game, he says there, is not that of a νήπιος but of the

with Rebekah, whose name is to be interpreted in the Armenian language as ‘Constancy’” (Marcus trans.). 90 “But the progressive man, as if looking from a window, sees it but not the whole of it and not the mingling of both alone. For this there is need of the especially sharp-sighted eyes of one accustomed (to seeing) from a distance and of those who are accustomed to see” (Marcus trans.). 91 Although Philo’s works are replete with favorable references to athletic competitions—the verb παίζειν is found only at Plant. 167, 169, but the word παιδιά appears on twenty occasions, according to P. Borgen, K. Fuglseth, R. Skarsten, eds., The Philo Index (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000)—nevertheless Philo rarely commends playful sport as a laudable activity. The word παιδιά can refer to a common pastime involving nuts (Opif. 50) or to playful swimming (Prov. 2.65), but also to inappropriate and dangerous music (Spec. 2.193) and even to the subversive diversions of Helicon, who prejudiced Gaius against the Jews (Legat. 168). Again, while play is a component of blameless, even laudable, drinking parties (Somn. 2.167), Lady Pleasure seductively offers unsupervised games (ἀπαιδαγώγητοι παιδιαί) (Sacr. 23). It is possible to discern a constant theme in the many passages in Philo’s works that contain the word παιδιά: it typically indicates a pastime unfit for a serious man. Therefore Moses, who did not indulge in play even as a child (Mos. 1.20), ordained that the leisure of the Seventh Day be devoted to philosophy rather than games (Mos. 2.211). The pious intellect is zealous for divine rather than earthly beauty; the latter is trivial, like a game (Mos. 1.190). Philo laments those who trivialize what should be taken seriously and are serious about mere diversions (Spec. 1.314). On the other hand, Philo greatly values the competitive dimension to athletic contests. He is, in fact, an invaluable source for our knowledge of Greek athletics, according to the study of Harold A. Harris, Greek Athletics and the Jews (eds. I. M. Barton and A. J. Brothers; Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1976), who argues that Philo eagerly attended athletic contests (cf. Cher. 81; Prob. 26; Harris, Greek Athletics, 66) and probably received athletic training as a child (Greek Athletics, 72). But Harris cites only one passage in which Philo alludes to athletes enjoying their sport (Hypoth. 11.6). Philo’s suspicion of παιδιά is not inconsistent with his fondness for ἀγῶνες: the latter foster moral fortitude, the former for the most part merely confer pleasure.

76

Andrew Dinan

aged.92 It is perhaps from here, again, that Clement has drawn his festal language: Clement’s συμπανηγυρίζοντα, by which he specifies that the Christian celebrates a festival together with God (τῷ θεῷ),93 does not appear in the passage from De plantatione, but it recalls the expressions “festive enjoyments” and “pure festiveness of the heart” found in QG 4.188.94 Furthermore, perhaps the reduced stature of Abimelech in QG 4.188 gave rise to the oddities noted above in Clement’s depiction of the king. Now none of these by itself is definitive proof of influence, but taken together they do point to this. What I find more convincing, however, is that it is only in the passage from QG that Philo explicitly states that God plays—something altogether bolder than the expression “divine play” that is found in De plantatione—and it is only here that he says that man’s imitation of God involves indulging in play. Philo curiously appeals to an 92 For Philo’s understanding of the virtues of old age and the vices of youth, see the lengthy exegesis at Sobr. 6–29 of Gen 9:24 (Noah realized what his younger son, ὁ νεώτερος, had done). Philo shows there that Moses often calls people young (νέος) because they have a revolutionary spirit (νεωτεροποιία), and old (πρεσβύτερος) because they are worthy of esteem (Sobr. 16). Ishmael is a child (παιδίον, cf. Gen 21:14–16) with respect to Isaac, who is perfect in virtue (Sobr. 8); the latter obtains wisdom (Sobr. 9), the former obtains sophistry and is put to flight along with his mother because though a bastard he was seen playing with Isaac as though he were Isaac’s equal (Sobr. 8; cf. Gen 21:9). But cf. Sacr. 76–79, where Philo discusses why the first division of the sacrifice of first-fruits to the Lord is said to be νέα (Lev 2:14). Philo there contrasts those who, steeped in worn-out myths, are obsessed with tradition, with those who grasp the swift and timeless power of the ageless God and can receive from him what is always fresh and new. 93 See Völker, Der wahre Gnostiker, 516–520. Philo offers an extensive treatment of festivals (ἑορταί) at Spec. 2.41ff. Cf. Mos. 2.211 (cited in n. 92): the Seventh Day includes a festival (πανηγυρίζειν) but no games (παιδιαῖς). 94 But the word συμπανηγυρίζοντα, which is rather rare in Greek literature, may have been added in order to make an association with Isa 66:10: εὐφράνθητι, Ιερουσαλημ, καὶ πανηγυρίσατε ἐν αὐτῇ, πάντες οἱ ἀγαπῶντες αὐτήν (LXX). Cf. Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 2.57 (Ziegler), who refers to Isa 66:10 with the compounds συνευφραίνεσθαι καὶ συμπανηγυρίζειν. Indeed, Clement had cited Isa 66:12–13 in the previous paragraph (Paed. 1.5.20.1; see above n. 23). This would mean that Clement is simultaneously lifting a line from Philo and modifying it on the basis of an association with the scriptural verse. It would also indicate that Clement associates the play of Christians with the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The only other use in Clement’s corpus of the word συμπανηγυρίζειν occurs at Protr. 9.82.6 (cf. Heb 12:22, πανηγύρει), again in connection with childhood: the πρωτότοκος ἐκκλησία is comprised of many good children who celebrate a festival along with countless angels. Another proof that Clement has at least two texts on his desk, Philo and the LXX, is his use at Paed. 1.5.22.3 (in the second of his three interpretations) of the genitive τῆς θυρίδος, “through the window.” This is the reading of the LXX. But if the reading in PCW (accepted by PLCL) is correct, Philo has written the dative, τῇ θυρίδι. Yet it is interesting to observe that while Clement and Philo both offer διακύψας, the LXX has παρακύψας, and in a note on her translation of this line, Marguerite Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie: La Genèse (2d ed.; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1994), 211, refers to ἀνακύψας.


77

unnamed authority for God’s play: “it is said that even the Father and Creator of the universe . . . plays.” I suggest that this enticing reference prompted Clement’s citation of Heraclitus, a figure highly regarded not only by Clement but also by Philo. While it is striking that Clement allows the Ephesian philosopher, who was not universally esteemed by early Christian writers,95 to point to such a sublime μυστήριον as the playing of God, this is surely due in no small part to what he found in Philo, who on several occasions, including at least four times in the Quaestiones in Genesim, cites Heraclitus in connection with the deeper meaning of scriptural passages.96 It is even possible that Philo himself alludes to the Heraclitean fragment at QG 4.188. If so, he has either significantly altered it or he was aware of a later version, for Heraclitus probably did not call God “the Father and Creator of the universe,” a phrase that Ralph Marcus identifies as “a common locution in Philo.”97 Hippolytus, who is thought to provide the ipsissima verba of DK 52, offers the following version: αἰὼν παῖς ἐστι

95 Tatian, who many scholars believe was one of Clement’s teachers (cf. Strom. 1.1.11.1–2), mocks Heraclitus’s arrogance and the grotesque manner of his death (Or. 3). On the other hand, Justin dubs Heraclitus a Christian because the Ephesian lived “with logos” (1 Apol. 46). For the early patristic attitude to Heraclitus and other pre-Socratic philosophers, see Robert M. Grant, “Early Christianity and Pre-Socratic Philosophy,” in Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday (ed. S. Lieberman; 3 vols.; Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1965), 1.357–384. 96 For Philo, see especially QG 4.1; Leg. 1.108; Somn. 1.6; Fug. 179; Mut. 60, and cf. QG 2.5; Aet. 109. Philo, like Clement, claims that Heraclitus was dependent upon, and even stole from, Scripture. Cf. QG 3.5, 4.152; Her. 214; Clement, Strom. 2.5.24.5, 5.1.9.4, as well as the Heraclitean citations in Strom. 5 chapter 14, where Clement strives to show the dependence of the Greeks upon what he terms “barbarian philosophy.” Both Philo and Clement associate Heraclitus with the depths, i.e., the deeper meanings of Scripture or profound notions about God (Philo, Fug. 179; Somn. 1.6; Clement, Strom. 5.88.5). Neither Clement nor Philo views the Ephesian primarily as a natural scientist. There has been to date no comprehensive study of Philo’s Heraclitean citations, but they are collected in Mouraviev, Heraclitea, II.A.1.237–253. See also José Pablo Martín, “Sobre Heraclito y la naturaleza que ama ocultarse,” Methexis 7 (1994): 107–111; D. Zeller, “Life and Death of the Soul in Philo of Alexandria: The Use and Origin of a Metaphor,” SPhA 7 (1995): 19–55; Jaap Mansfeld, “Heraclitus, Empedocles, and Others in a Middle Platonist Cento in Philo of Alexandria,” VC 39 (1985): 131–156; idem, “Two Heraclitea in Philo Judaeus,” in Atti del Symposium Heracliteum, 1.63–64; as well as the many comments in Marcovich, Heraclitus: Greek Text with a Short Commentary (Merida: The Los Andes University Press, 1967). Additionally, for a discussion of the complicated textual history of Heraclitus, DK 118, which Philo (as well as Clement, Paed. 2.2.29.3) cites, see James Royse, “Heraclitus B 118 in Philo of Alexandria,” SPhA 9 (1997): 211–216. 97 Marcus suggests καὶ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων for the original Greek. This expression goes back to Plato Tim. 28c, a passage that was seized upon by Philo as well as by Clement. Philo, however, finds precedent for this expression in Gen 4:26 (Abr. 9).

78

Andrew Dinan

παίζων, πεσσεύων· παιδὸς ἡ βασιληίη.98 Marcovich suggests that the αἰών of this fragment was misinterpreted by the Stoics to mean “God (Zeus; Aeon) or the Demiurge.”99 Perhaps Philo’s passage reflects this. At any rate, a recent study has shown why Philo, if he was aware of the Hippolytean version, would have considered the word αἰών inadequate to refer to God’s play.100 Finally, we must ask why Clement’s paraphrase of the fragment is so peculiar.101 If my argument is correct, that Clement, as a close reader of Philo and a fellow admirer of Heraclitus, was prompted by QG 4.188 to cite Heraclitus, why does he claim that Heraclitus’s Δία plays a game, when, as we have seen, Philo predicates such play of “the Father and Creator of the universe,” and in Hippolytus’s version it is predicated of αἰών? Like Philo, Clement had reasons to avoid the word αἰών here:102 its use by the gnostics; its association with mystery religions; its negative connotation in some

98 Haer. 9.9.4: “(Human) age is a child playing, playing dice (or draughts): a child has the kingly power!” (cited and translated in Marcovich, Heraclitus, 490, 493). A paraphrase of this fragment found in Lucian (Vit. auct. 14) also predicates the play of αἰών (cf. Marcovich, Heraclitus, 490–492). 99 Marcovich, Heraclitus, 493. This is especially evident in Proclus, in Tim. I, which Marcovich cites (Heraclitus, 491): Proclus mentions that some have said that the demiurge plays while fashioning the world (κοσμουργεῖν). According to Marcovich the Stoic “misinterpretation” was probably influenced by Il. 15.362–363, where Homer uses a simile of a child playing with sand in order to evoke Apollo’s destruction of Argive fortifications. Plutarch (E Delph. 21, 393e) and Philo (Aet. 42), however, both disavow this as an image of divine activity. For the earliest use in Greek literature of the word παίζω, see Od. 6.100, 7.291, where it refers to Nausica playing with a ball; Od. 8.251, 23.147, where it refers to dancing; and Od. 6.106, where it refers to the nymphs, the daughters of Zeus, playing in the mountains. The word παιδιά does not appear in the Homeric epics. 100 Philo’s use of αἰών, αἰώνιος is thoroughly investigated in the fifth chapter of Helena M. Keizer, Life Time Entirety: A Study of ΑΙΩΝ in Greek Literature and Philosophy, the Septuagint and Philo (s.I.: s.n., 1999?). Keizer concludes that for Philo, “Aiōn in both the Biblical and the philosophical sense pertains to what God has created” (246). Moreover, in the LXX, as Keizer shows in Chapter four, the word αἰών refers to the “temporal horizon” of created reality; only with the expression πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος does one have the notion of transcending created reality (204). 101 Cf. the remarks of Wiese, Heraklit bei Klemens, 72–73. 102 See Hermann Sasse, “αἰών, αἰώνιος,” TDNT, 1.197–208; Marcel Le Glay, “Αἰών,” in LIMC (eds. H. C. Ackerman and J.-R. Gisler; 8 vols.; Zurich: Artemis, 1981–), 1.399–411; G. W. H. Lampe, “αἰών,” PGL, 55–56; Dominic J. Unger, St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies (rev. John J. Dillon; ACW 55; New York: The Newman Press, 1992), 131 n. 2; Christopher Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiquity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997), 137–138; Glen W. Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990), 22–28; Arthur D. Nock, “Αἰών,” in Arthur D. Nock, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (ed. Zeph Stewart; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 1.377–396.


79

New Testament passages; the association, particularly evident in Alexandria, between this word and the cult of the emperor; its association with τύχη, which is implicit in the verb πεσσεύω that also appears in the Hippolytean version.103 Clement may indeed have been aware of, and deliberately altered, the Hippolytean version.104 But it seems more likely that he was aware of a version of this fragment that contained a reference to Ζεύς, and that he opted to retain this. It would be strange for Clement on his own to have introduced the word Zeus. This would indicate, then, that Clement has not sanitized the fragment by removing the name of the pagan divinity, although he has somewhat distanced himself from the original expression by speaking of “his” i.e., Heraclitus’, Zeus. Clement, characteristically, preferred to express the notion of divine play obliquely, by means of the Heraclitean reference to Zeus, rather than directly, in part because he believed that Greek philosophers like Heraclitus had discerned and expressed not without divine assistance profound notions which, if understood correctly, could lead to an understanding of God, and in part because he believed that “the mysteries are transmitted mysteriously,” τὰ μυστήρια μυστικῶς παραδίδοται.105 There was no need to polish or to improve the citation, and it was even advantageous to mention Heraclitus by name. Similarly, later in the Paedagogus (3.1.2.1), in order to indicate another μυστήριον, viz., the divinization of human beings, Clement cites what has been considered to be a truncated version of Heraclitus DK

103 Marcovich, Heraclitus, 494, suggests that the word πεσσεύω probably indicates “a fortuitous or meaningless action,” a notion that Clement certainly did not want to evoke. Marcovich, in fact, includes Philo, Mos. 1.31 as a possible reminiscence of DK 52: Philo says that nothing is less stable than τύχη, which plays dice (πεττευούσης) with human affairs. Cf. Rahner, Man at Play, 11, who remarks that the notion of God the Creator playing hints at “the metaphysical truth that the creation of the world and of man, though a divinely meaningful act, was by no means a necessary one so far as God himself was concerned.” 104 Certainly this explanation is preferable to the notion that errant forms of citation necessarily reflect sloppy scholarship or faulty memory. For some cogent remarks on reevaluating the accuracy of ancient citations, see John Whittaker, “The Value of Indirect Tradition in the Establishment of Greek Philosophical Texts or the Art of Misquotation,” in Editing Greek and Latin Texts (ed. John N. Grant; New York: AMS Press, 1989), 63–95; and David T. Runia, “The Text of the Platonic Citations in Philo of Alexandria,” in Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition: Essays Presented to John Whittaker (ed. Mark Joyal; Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997), 261–291. 105 Cf. Strom. 1.1.13.4: “But in fact the mysteries are transmitted mysteriously so that they may be in the mouth of the speaker and the one to whom they are spoken, not so much verbally as intellectually,” ἀλλὰ γὰρ τὰ μυστήρια μυστικῶς παραδίδοται, ἵνα ᾖ ἐν στόματι λαλοῦντος καὶ ᾧ λαλεῖται, μᾶλλον δὲ οὐκ ἐν φωνῇ, ἀλλ ̓ ἐν τῷ νοεῖσθαι.

80

Andrew Dinan

62106—ὀρθῶς ἄρα εἶπεν ̔Ηράκλειτος· ̔ἄνθρωποι θεοί, θεοὶ ἄνθρωποι. λόγος γὰρ ωὐτός — ̓ despite the plural “gods” in the citation. All of this suggests, then, that while Clement was writing this section of the Paedagogus, he was influenced by at least two different Philonic passages. Although he appropriated from Philo specific etymologies, verbatim language, and a prominent theme, and although he even took his cue for the citation of Heraclitus from Philo’s anonymous citation, Clement significantly reworked what he found in order to develop a christological reading of the Genesis passage, to corroborate his understanding of childhood, and to hint at one of the most mysterious claims in his extant works—that God plays. Ave Maria, FL

106 But cf. the remarks of Kornèl Steiger, “Heraclitus: A Forgotten Fragment (Clement Paed. III, 1, 5.),” Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae Sectio Philosophica et Sociologica 18 (1984): 121–129. Cf. also Philo, Leg. 1.107; QG 4.152, who cites a version of the latter portion of DK 62.


PHILO AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS: INTRODUCTION

JOHN J. COLLINS

The writings of Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls represent opposite extremes of Judaism in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. Accordingly, a comparison offers an opportunity to test the coherence of Judaism in this period. There are scholars, notably Jacob Neusner, who would deny any coherence, and speak of Judaisms as if they were different religions, but if that approach were justified there would be no reason to speak of Judaism at all: the plural Judaisms presupposes that the singular Judaism is a coherent concept. Even a cursory glance at Philo and the Scrolls shows that both attach enormous importance to the Torah of Moses and claim to derive their main theological ideas from it. The Torah and its interpretation provide a frame of reference for both the Alexandrian philosopher and the sectarians of the new covenant. Their ways of relating to that frame, however, are informed by cultural and contextual assumptions that are very different. The four essays presented here are in no way a systematic treatment of the relation between Philo and the Scrolls. They are simply probes, chosen because of the interests of the contributors. The comparisons they make are of different kinds. Florentino Garcia Martinez reviews the motif of divine sonship in the Scrolls and in Philo. The usage in the Scrolls follows that of the Bible, referring to Israel, or the king, or the messiah. Philo’s usage is quite different. Abraham is said to be God’s son by adoption, but more significantly, the Cosmos and the Logos are Sons of God. To be sure, Philo does not comment on the classic royal/messianic passages such as Psalm 2, but the contrast is indicative of his greater interest in cosmology rather than history. The scrolls have an interest in cosmology too, but they do not use the language of sonship in this context. The contrasting usage of this motif is certainly significant, but it may also be somewhat misleading. Both the Scrolls and Philo allow that at least some human beings may be divine in some sense. Both are important witnesses to early Jewish mysticism, in their different ways. So while their use of the motif of divine sonship is

82

John J. Collins

very different, there may still be some analogies in the ways that human beings are thought to share in divinity. Loren Stuckenbruck raises a different kind of question. Both Philo and the Scrolls draw on the biblical story of the sons of God from Gen 6:1–4. But was Philo familiar with any of the post-biblical elaborations of this story that we find in 1 Enoch or the Scrolls? Here again, one is first struck by the differences. Philo’s interest in the story is allegorical and paradigmatic. First Enoch and the Scrolls retain a more mythological discourse. For Philo, the giants, who are not clearly distinguished from the fallen angels, are the “earth-born” lovers of pleasure. Yet, Stuckenbruck suggests that Philo’s interpretation of Gen 6 “accords in some ways with that of other Jewish interpreters of the passage.” He finds parallels for Philo’s contrast of Abraham and Nimrod, as positive and negative illustrations for the giants, in the fragments of Pseudo-Eupolemos. (Admittedly, Nimrod is not mentioned explicitly in the latter source, but the giants are associated with Babylon and the building of the tower.) While Philo is not interested in the chronology of the giants, he assumes a story-line that associates giants with developments in Babylon after the Flood. Moreover, Stuckenbruck argues, both Philo and the Book of the Watchers regard the giants as a “malum mixtum,” an improper combination of heavenly and earthly. They represent what human beings become when they abandon the life of the spirit for that of the flesh. Finally, Stuckenbruck detects an analogy between Philo and the treatise on the two spirits in 1QS. For both, human nature is composite, and good and bad may be equally matched, although the power of the good ultimately outweighs that of the bad. Stuckenbruck in no way denies the considerable differences that remain, but he suggests that Philo may have been familiar with the kind of anthropology known from the treatise, although he put his own stamp on it. The analogies with PseudoEupolemos seem to me more specific than those with the Book of the Watchers or the treatise, but the possibility of shared exegetical traditions with the Scrolls cannot be discounted. Katell Berthelot makes some surprising observations in her discussion of the motif of zeal in Philo and the Scrolls. It is no surprise that zeal for God’s law is commended in the Scrolls, even while it is recognized that zeal can also be manifested in the doing of evil. Somewhat surprising is the absence of reference to Phinehas. As Berthelot notes, Phinehas was taken as a model by the Hasmoneans, and this may in part account for his absence from the Scrolls. Whether his violent action “could not fit within the psychological-religious framework of the members of the community,” as she also suggests, seems to me more doubtful. As she also agrees, their zeal is similar in many respects to that of Phinehas. Philo also recognizes that

Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Introduction

83

there is a zeal for wickedness as well as for rightousness. But most surprising is the philosopher’s wholehearted commendation of the zeal of Phinehas (and of Simeon and Levi), and his argument that all who have a zeal for virtue should be permitted to act as vigilantes. Whether one can infer that there was a practice of vigilantism in the service of the Torah in Philo’s time seems to me doubtful. Berthelot is surely right when she cautions that Philo’s pronouncements have a rhetorical character, and there is no evidence that he condoned vigilante action in practice. But this aspect of his rhetoric is noteworthy nonetheless. It is remarkable that the people who fantasized about a future war between the sons of light and sons of darkness were more explicit in counseling restraint in the present than was the Hellenized philosopher in Alexandria. Finally, Hindy Najman’s discussion of the association of the desert with revelation touches on a theme of central importance for the yahad that receives significant attention also from Philo. In both cases, the importance of the desert derives from the Exodus story: traditionally, this was the locus of the revelation to Moses. The significance of the desert is explained in different ways. In the Scrolls, as in the Hebrew prophets, the desert is paradigmatic. It represents a new exodus and a new beginning. In Philo, the emphasis is more on having an environment conducive to contemplation. But contemplation has its place in the Scrolls too, although its character is less intellectual than in Philo, or perhaps intellectual in a different way. The covenanters, like Philo, use the language of perfection. For both Philo and the Scrolls, perfection was mediated by the study of the Torah of Moses. There is some structural similarity in the pursuit of holiness and perfection in these diverse branches of Judaism. No one wishes to deny that Philo and the Scrolls remain very different. But they also have much in common. They have a common basis in the Torah and its interpretation. They may have some common exegetical traditions, although much remains to be explored in this regard. They have a surprising affinity in the high value placed on zeal for the law. They both testify to the pursuit of spiritual perfection, even if they understand it in somewhat different ways. While the findings of these essays are modest, they are surely sufficient to suggest that the possibility of further affinities between the sectarians of the new covenant and the philosopher of Alexandria is well worth exploring. Yale Divinity School


DIVINE SONSHIP AT QUMRAN AND IN PHILO

FLORENTINO GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ

I have recently completed a study of the concept of divine sonship at Qumran in which I looked at the three categories in which texts that speak of divine sonship in the Hebrew Bible are commonly grouped: 1) the angelic “sons of God”; 2) Israel, “son of God”; 3) the king, “son of God.” I wished to show, with the help of some selected texts, the progress (or the modifications) that we can register in the Dead Sea Scrolls in each one of these categories with respect to the idea of divine sonship.1 To these three classical categories I have added a fourth that is not found in the Hebrew Bible, but which appears in some Qumranic texts: 4) the Messiah, “son of God.” In this short presentation I will give a summary of the conclusions of this study, and then proceed to compare these conclusions with some aspects of the idea of divine sonship I have found in the writings of Philo of Alexandria. The point of the exercise, as I understood it, was to look at the materials from Philo with the eyes of somebody trained in another field and used to reading other texts. First, then, the conclusions of the study of the Qumran texts.

This paper was presented at the meeting of the Philo seminar in Philadelphia and intends to start conversations across disciplines. I thank Hindy Najman for her kind invitation to participate in the discussion. 1 Now published as “Divine Sonship at Qumran: Between the Old and the New Testament,” in Biblical Traditions in Transmission. Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb (eds Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lieu; JSJS 111; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 109–132. This study has been reprinted in Qumranica minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 64; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 261–283.

86

Florentino García Martínez Divine Sonship at Qumran

(1) The angelic “sons of God” The expression “sons of (the) God(s)” (µyhla[h] ynb),2 used as a collective name to designate angelic beings in Gen 6:2, 4 and Job 1:6, 2:1, and 28:73 is not used at Qumran, where it is usually replaced by “sons of heavens” (µymv ynb), both in the Hebrew texts4 and in the texts in Aramaic.5 In the Hebrew Bible, the divine sonship of the angels represents either an echo of the original plurality of divine beings, an adaptation of the Canaanite divine council, or the remains of an already surpassed mythology.6 It was used more as a taxonomic element intended to underline its appurtenance to the celestial order and its distinction from the realm of humans than to indicate a father-son relationship. The occasional and very restricted survival of this terminology within the angelology of Qumran seems to have the same function. This appears most clearly when considering one of the most frequently used generic names for the angels: µyla (divine beings). The name appears more than 50 times (20 in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice). 7 The name µyla underlines the heavenly nature of the angels, leaving aside the theme of divine sonship. The same happens with other divine names that are used of angels, including µyhwla. At Qumran, the angels are not “sons of God,” but their heavenly nature is strongly underlined.8 On this point, the texts from Qumran are no

2 There is abundant literature on the topic. Among the classic studies, see Werner Schlisske, Gottessöhne und Gottessohn im Alten Testament. Phasen der Entmythisierung im Alten Testament (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft von Alten und Neuen Testament; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973). Among the more recent studies, see Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990). 3 And originally in Deut 32:8, as proved by a copy of Deut from Cave 4 (4Q37, 4QDeutj) which uses it (as the LXX) where MT has changed it to “sons of Israel.” See Eugene Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 90. 4 See 1QS 4:22; 11:8; 1QH 11:2; 2 i 10; 4Q181 1:2; 4Q416 1,12; 4Q418 2+2ca–c, 4; 69 ii 12. 5 See 1Q20 2:5; 2:16; 5:3; 6:8; 4Q546 14,4. 6 See E. T. Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods. The Divine Council in Cannanite and Early Hebrew Literature (Harvard Semitic Monographs 24; Chico: Scholars Press, 1980). 7 See Carol A. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. A Critical Edtion (Harvard Semitic Studies 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 23–29. 8 On Qumranic angelology see Maxwell J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran (JSPSS 11; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).

Divine Sonship at Qumran and in Philo

87

different from the rest of the Jewish literature of the time and show the same general development of the angelology of the period.9 Other aspects of Qumran angelology, however, show us a clear development because they extend angelic characteristics to humans. This is the case, for example, of Noah who was “not like a man, but like the children of the angels of heaven,”10 or of Moses, “who spoke like an angel with his mouth” (whypm rbdy ˚almkw) as it is said in 4Q377 1 ii 11,11 or whom God “made him like a God” (µyhwlal wnntyv), as it is asserted in 4Q374 2 ii 6.12 At Qumran, a human person (an exceptional one, of course) can be equal to angelic beings, “the sons of God.” And the same thing happens with the members of the group, the “sons of light,” who are somehow equated with the angels. The communion between angels and men is expressed in the texts as “sharing the lot” (lrwg), a term that appears more than one hundred times in the preserved texts and that reveals the ultimate origin of this belief: the dualistic thinking of the group in which humanity is divided into two camps: “sons of light” and “sons of darkness.”13 In the eschatological war both “lots” are associated with the angelic host,14 which is intended to endure forever,15 and fight one against the other.16 The language of election and inheritance used in these texts and the references to communal structures show us that this communion with the angelic world is the exclusive privilege of the members of the community who partake of the heavenly

9 See Gerhard Delling, “Die Bezeichnung ‘Söhne Gottes’ in der jüdischen Literatur der hellenistisch-römischen Zeit,” God's Christ and His People (eds. Jacob Jervell and Wayne A. Meeks; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget i Aarhus, 1977), 18–281 and Brendan Byrne, “Sonship of God in the Intertestamental Literature,” in "Sons of God" – "Seed of Abraham." A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background (Analecta Biblica 83; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico 1979), 18–70. The most complete overview is given by M. Mach, Entwicklungstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992). 10 As it is said in 1 Enoch 106:5 and confirmed in 1QapGen 2:1. 11 The text has been published by James C. VanderKam and Monica Brady in Moshe Bernstein et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXVIII: Miscellanea, Part 2 (DJD 28; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 205–217; 213. 12 The text has been published by Carol A. Newsom in Magen Broshi et al., Qumran Cave 4. XIX: Parabiblical Texts 2 (DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 99–110; 102. 13 See 1QS 3:13 – 4:26. 14 The association of the impious with the host of evil angels is even expressed with the terminology of “sonship,” since the expression ‫“ בני בליעל‬sons of Belial” is found five times: 4Q174 1:8; 4Q286 7 ii 6; 4Q386 1 ii 3; 4Q525 25,2 and 11Q11 6:3. 15 See 1QS 11:7–8. 16 See 1QM 1:10–11.

88

Florentino García Martínez

cult, fight together the eschatological battle, and use angelic language to express their community with the angelic “sons of God.” (2) Israel, “son of God” The idea that a clan, a tribe or an entire people has a special relationship with its own god is something common in the Semitic world. This idea is frequently expressed with the metaphor of sonship, which does not intend to express any genetic relationship.17 The themes which express this special relationship of God with the people of Israel in terms of sonship are many, and all of them underline its metaphorical character: the father-creator,18 the father-corrector,19 the father-helper in danger,20 and the father full of tenderness21 are the most frequent. The motifs are formulated in terms of election, covenant and the promise of inheritance (of the land of Israel). Exod 4:22 expresses the same motif in terms of primogeniture: “Israel is my first-born son,” and Jer 31:9 announces the renewal of this relationship in terms of the new covenant: “For I am ever a father to Israel, Ephraim is my first-born.” Even in the most solemn and strong expression of the divine sonship of Israel in Deut 14:1 (“You are the children of YHWH your God,” µkyhla hwhyl µta µynb), the rest of the sentence makes clear that the metaphor does not imply any genetic relationship but expresses rather the peculiar relationship of Israel with God in the context of election and the covenant: “For you are a people consecrated to YHWH your God: YHWH your God chose you (rjb) to be his treasured people from among all other peoples on earth.” The use of this metaphor continues, of course, in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In one of the prayers from the composition known as Words of the Luminaries (a prayer intended to be recited on Thursday) we read:22

17 The “canticle of Moses” in Deut 32 is a good example, with a significant concentration of the uses of the metaphor. 18 For example, Isa 64:7: “But now, YHWH, You are our father; we are the clay, and You are the potter. We are all the work of your hands.” 19 For example, Deut 8:5: “Bear in mind that YHWH your God disciplines you just as a man disciplines his son.” 20 For example, Wisdom 2:18: “For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.” 21 For example, Hos 11:1: “I fell in love with Israel, when he was still a child; and I have called (him) my son ever since Egypt.” 22 Published by Maurice Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4. III (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 137–177, translation by Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 414.


89

Behold, all the peoples are like nothing in front of you; they are reckoned as chaos and nothing in your presence. We have invoked only your name; for your glory you have created us; you have established us as your sons in the sight of all the peoples. For you called Israel “my son, my first born” and have corrected us as one corrects a son. (4Q504 1–2 iii 3–7)

Besides this reproduction of the data of the Hebrew Bible, I think that at Qumran we can ascertain two lines of development of the idea of the divine sonship of Israel. On the one hand, we can observe the use of the metaphor at an individual level to express the inner relationship with God not of Israel as such, but of a single person. On the other hand, the extension of the divine sonship of Israel tends to be restricted to the members of the group only. A good example of the first line of development is found in the Apocryphon of Joseph (4Q372)23 where the protagonist appeals directly to the theme of sonship: And he said: “My father and my God (yhlaw yba), do not abandon me into the hands of gentiles, do me justice, so that the poor and afflicted do not die . . . And your tenderness is great and great is your compassion for all who seek you; they are stronger than me and all my brothers who are associated with me.” (4Q372 1:16–20)

The protagonist, the eponymous ancestor of the tribes of the North, presents himself in an anguishing situation, in exile, surrounded by enemies, and having recourse to God as saviour, appealing directly to the theme of “sonship.” The narrative context of the composition as a whole makes clear that the Patriarch represents the people and contains a clear polemic against the Samaritans and their pretension to being the true descendants of the Patriarch. The true descendants of Joseph are, however, in a situation of exile, and in this situation each one of them may call upon God for salvation as Joseph did. This prayer, calling God “my father,” has preserved the oldest attestation of the expression by a person other than David.24 Another text in which the same expression appears is 4Q460, where we can read at the end of a section: “[. . .] for you have not abandoned your servant (hkdb[l) [. . .] my Father and my Lord (ynwdaw yba)” The “servant” 23 Published now by Eileen M. Schuller in Moshe Bernstein et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXVIII (DJD 28; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 165–197, as 4QNarrative and Poetic Composition. 24 The origin of the expression is to be found in ‫אבי אתה אלי ישועתי וצור‬from Ps 89:27, which put it in the mouth of David, and corresponds to the use of “father” in the Nathan oracle, 2 Sam 7:14. On the position of this composition within the context of Second Temple prayers, see Eileen M. Schuller, ‘The Psalm of 4Q372 1 within the Context of Second Temple Prayer,’ CBQ 54 (1992): 67–79.

90


could be the collective Israel, of course; but it seems to me more likely that he is no other than the individual who speaks in the first person in line 2 of the fragment, who does something “in Israel” in line 3, and who considers himself a servant of God, to whom he appeals in line 6.25 These two texts and the references to God’s paternity in the Hodayot illustrate the first of the two tendencies: the use of the theme of sonship to express the inner relationship with God at a personal level. The second tendency, to restrict divine sonship to the members of the group (the same to whom the divine angelic sonship has been extended), is a logical and unavoidable consequence of the premises articulated by two basic documents: the Damascus Document appropriates “Israel” as a designation of the group, and the Rule of the Community transforms the concept of covenant into “the covenant of the community.” In other texts of a more eschatological character, such as the War Scroll or the Rule of the Congregation, after the destruction of all “sons of darkness” the “new covenant” and “the covenant of the community” will be co-extensive with “Israel” and it will form “all the congregation of Israel.” At this moment, of course, all the sons of Israel will be “sons of light,” and consequently “sons of God.”26 (3) The King, “son of God” In the Hebrew Bible the king is the only individual who is called “son of God.” This special relationship of the king with God has been explained in many ways: as a divinization of the king, influenced by the model of Egyptian religion;27 as due to the influence of the Assyro-Babylonian idea of the king as “image of God;”28 as a result of the “divine adoption” of the

25 4Q460 9 i 5–6. The text has been published by Erik Larson in Philip S. Alexander et al., Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Miscellanea, Part 1 (DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 382. 26 For a detailed treatment of this point, see Florentino García Martínez, “Invented Memory: the ‘Other’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumranica minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 63; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 187–218. 27 By H. Donner, Adoption oder Legitimation: Erwägungen zur Adoption im Alten Testament auf dem Hintergrund der altorientalischen Rechte (Aufsätze zum Alten Testament aus vier Jahrzehnten; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994); Helmut Merklein, “Ägyptische Einflüsse auf die messianische Sohn-Gottes-Aussage des Neuen Testaments,” GeschichteTradition-Reflexion. FS Martin Hengel (eds H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger and P. Schäfer; 3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) III: Frühes Christentum, 21–48, applies this ideas to the New Testament. 28 By J.-G. Heintz, “Royal Traits and Messianic Figures: A Thematic and Iconographic Approach,” in The Messiah. Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 52–66.


91

king at the moment of his enthronement;29 or as a simple intensification of the divine sonship of Israel within the context of the covenant.30 Whatever the explanation, there is no doubt at all that this “divine sonship of the king” expresses a very peculiar relationship of the king with the divinity.31 The classic proof-texts with respect to this “divine sonship of the king” are those provided by the royal Psalms (Ps 2, Ps 110 [at least according to the interpretation of the LXX] and for some scholars Isa 9:1–6) on the one hand,32 and on the other the oracle of Nathan on the Davidic dynasty preserved in 2 Sam 7:14, repeated in 1 Chron 17:13–14 and 22:10–11, and clearly evoked in Ps 89:27–30, to which 1 Chron 28:9–10 alludes when David transmits the instructions for the building of the temple to Solomon, and 2 Chron 7:17–20 after the dedication of the temple.33 At Qumran we find some echoes of these biblical texts on the divine sonship of the king, but the motif of divine sonship itself has disappeared. In the Words of the Luminaries, for example, there is a clear allusion to Nathan’s oracle without the language of sonship:34 And you chose the land of Judah and established your covenant with David so that he would be like a shepherd, a prince over your people, and would sit in front of you on the throne of Israel forever. (4Q504 1–2 4:6–8)

On the other hand, we find other texts, such as 4Q174,35 where the language of sonship of the biblical text has been preserved, but where the

29 By Roland de Vaux, “L’adoption divine, ” in Les Institutions de l’Ancien Testament. (Paris: Cerf, 1958), 1:171–173. 30 By Brendan Byrne, "Sons of God“ – "Seed of Abraham,” 17–18. 31 The topic has been studied from many different perspectives. See Trygve N.D. Mettinger, King and Messiah. The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (Lund: Gleerup, 1976). The study of Gerald Cook, “The Israelite King as Son of God,” ZAW 73 (1961): 202–225, in spite of its age, is still valuable. 32 For a classic statement on the royal ideology of Israel in its oriental context, see Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh (trans. G. Anderson; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1955), and his The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, (2 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962). 33 The most complete study of the dynastic oracle and of its interpretation is Kenneth E. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998). 34 Edited by Maurice Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4.III (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 143–144; translation by Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 415. 35 Published by James M. Allegro, Qumrân Cave 4.I (DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 53–57. See the study by George Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran. 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985). The text is now considered to be part of a larger composition, part of which is also 4Q177; see Annette Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata.b) (STDJ 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994).

92


biblical text is applied not to an existent king but to the king expected at the end of times:36 And “YHWH declares to you that he will build you a house. I will raise up your seed after you and establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me.” This (refers to the) “branch of David” who will arise with the Interpreter of the law who will rise up in Zion in the last days. (4Q174 1–3 1:10–12)

These texts prove that the mythological language of the royal Psalms and the dynastic oracle of Nathan have provided the textual basis for the development of the messianic idea also at Qumran, and have contributed definitely to the formulation of the expectation “at the end of times” of a royal Messiah, “son of God.” The last category of texts to be dealt with refers, in my opinion, to the same figure, also using the language of sonship, thereby allowing us to suggest that the title “son of God” could also be used as a messianic title at Qumran. (4) The Messiah, “son of God” The first of the texts which applies the language of divine sonship to the expected “anointed” is a disputed text in the Rule of the Congregation (1QSa 2:11-14):37 “This is the assembly of the famous men, [those summoned to] the gathering of the community when [God] begets the Messiah with them.” According to this reading and reconstruction of the text, the language of sonship is applied directly to the expected Messiah, who is “begotten” or “fathered” by God within the community. The key word, dylwy, is of uncertain reading and is very much disputed.38 In my opinion, 36

The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 136. The text was edited by D. Barthélemy in D. Barthélemy – Józef T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD 1; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 108–118. Translation in The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 127. 38 The reading ‫ יוליד‬is the one of the first editor, Barthélemy, and the excellent photographs in my possession confirm it. But Barthélemy, following a suggestion of Milik, understands the word as a copyist’s error for ‫יוליך‬, which would give to the whole sentence the meaning “au cas où Dieu mènerait le Messie avec eux” (DJD 1, 117). Yigael Yadin, “A Crucial Passage of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” JBL 78 (1959): 238–241, reads ‫יועדו‬, and J. Licht, The Rule Scroll. A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1965) (Hebrew), 27, lists eight different readings and prefers ‫“ יתודו‬will unite,” which is the reading followed by Lawrence Schiffman, The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. A Study of the Rule of the Congregation (SBLMS 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 53–54. Emile Puech, “Préséance sacerdotale et Messie-Roi dans la Règle de la Congrégation (1QSa ii 11–12),” RevQ 63 (1996) : 351–365, proposes to read ‫ יתגלה‬and interprets the sentence “quand sera révélé le 37


93

however, it represents the best reading and in view of the use of ˚ytdly in Ps 2, it is quite normal. The next text (4Q369) is unproblematic in terms of uncertain readings, but its fragmentary character leaves us uncertain as to whom the language of sonship (indicated by the use of rwkb ˜b “first born,” the phrase “and you made him for you a first-born son,” and the expression wnbl bak “like a father to his son”) is being applied.39 Two different interpretations of the protagonist’s identity have been proposed. The first sees him as an individual figure that will arise to guide and rule the Israel of the end of times.40 The second sees this figure as a collective expression for Israel.41 The strongest argument with respect to this collective interpretation is the use of yrkb ynb in Exod 4:22, and the application in ancient Jewish literature of some of the motifs that appear in our text to Israel. The strongest argument with respect to the individual and messianic interpretation is the influence of Ps 89:27–28, where we find three of the elements appearing in the text applied to the king: God will make him “first-born” (rwkb), he will establish him as the most exalted king on earth, and the king will call God “father.” If we add to these elements from Ps 89 a possible parallel with another fragmentary Qumran text where the same expression yrkb also appears, I think that the balance ultimately inclines us towards the individual and messianic interpretation. Prince Messie parmi eux.” Hartmut Stegemann, “Some Remarks to 1QSa, to 1QSa and to Qumran Messianism, ” RevQ 65–68 (1996) : 478–505, suggests to read ‫יואכלו‬, “When they eat together, and the messiah is together with them.” All these readings seem to me very difficult palaeographically, and clearly inferior to the original reading of the first editor. 39 4Q369 1 ii 4–10. The text has been edited by Harold Attridge and John Strugnell, in Harold Attridge et al., Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts Part 1 (DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 356–357. 40 The editors remark: “The prayer or prophecy mentions a place, most likely Jerusalem, and a ‘prince’ or ‘ruler’ (cf. line 7) whose identity remains obscure. If there is only one figure involved, he is to ‘establish God’s name’ in a special place (line 1); have descendants who will have an eternal possession (line 4); be purified by God’s judgments (line 5); enjoy the status of God’s son (line 6), as well as heavenly glory (line 8). Such an individual may be either a biblical figure such as Abraham or David, or, more likely, an eschatological messianic figure.” (DJD 13, 358). The messianic interpretation has been defended strongly by Craig A. Evans, “A Note on the ‘First-Born Son’ of 4Q369,” DSD 2 (1995): 185–201 and in “Are the ‘Son’ Texts at Qumran Messianic? Reflections on 4Q369 and Related Scrolls,” in Qumran-Messianism (eds James H. Charlesworth et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 135–153. Also by Marc Philonenko, “De la ‘Prière de Jésu’ au ‘Notre Père’ (Abba, targum du Psaume 89,27; 4Q369 1,21–12; Luc 11,2,” RHPR 77 (1997): 133–140, and Geza Xeravits, King, Priest, Prophet. Positive Eschatological Protagonist in the Qumran Library (STDJ 47; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 89–94. 41 Strongly defended by James L. Kugel, “4Q369 ‘Prayer of Enosh’ and Ancient Biblical Interpretation,” DSD 5 (1998): 119–148.

94


4Q458, published as 4QNarrative A,42 the expression appears without any context. In the best preserved fragments (4Q458 1), however, we find another expression, “the beloved” (dydyl in line 1, and dydyh in line 2), which could refer to the same personage, as well as the expression “anointed with the oil of kingship” twklm ˜mvb jyvm (4Q458 2 ii 6) which clearly refers to the royal Messiah, because, as the editor notes, “the establishment of his kingdom is apparently connected with both the destruction of the uncircumcised referred to in line 4 and the establishment of righteousness among the chosen people of God.”43 In spite of the uncertainties brought about by poor preservation, therefore, these texts also show that the language of sonship was applied to the royal Messiah as an extension of the sonship language originally applied to the king. Also 4Q246, the famous “son of God” text, now published under the official title 4QApocryphe de Daniel ar, applies the language of sonship to the Messiah:44 He will be called son of God, and they will call him son of the Most High. . . His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all his paths in truth and uprightness. The earth (will be) in truth and all will make peace. (4Q246 ii 1–6)

Although the word “anointed” does not appear in this Aramaic text, the messianic interpretation of its exalted protagonist is now generally accepted.45 Together with the other texts quoted, 4Q246 offers us the proof not only that the sonship terminology of the king as “son of God” was transferred to the future Messiah at Qumran, but that the title “son of God” could be applied to the Messiah without the need to specify its character as “anointed.” 42 4Q458 has been published by Erik Larson in Philip S. Alexander et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXVI: Miscellanea, Part 1 (DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 353–365. 43 Ibid., 360. 44 Published by Emile Puech in George Brooke et al., Qumran Cave 4. XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 165–184. 45 See the presentation of part of the very abundant bibliography originated by the text (before and after the official publication) in Johannes Zimmermann, “Observations on 4Q246—The ‘Son of God,’” in Qumran Messianism (eds James H. Charlesworth et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 175–190. In the same volume John J. Collins strongly defends the messianic character of the text in the section “Messiah and Son of God” (107– 112) of his contribution, “Jesus, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 100–119. Even the editor of the fragment, who in the official edition left open the possibility of a negative interpretation of the protagonist, accepts now its messianic character: Emile Puech, “Le ‘Fils de Dieu’ en 4Q246,” Eretz Israel 26 (1999): 143–152 (FS F.M. Cross). “Ceux-ci conviennet mieux, il faut le reconnaître, au roi messie, ainsi que la séquence en rapport avec la victoire eschatologique du roi à la tête de son peuple, car il n’y a pas de royaume sans roi” (149).


95

The analysis of the Qumran texts on divine sonship shows that it is applied to selected individuals, that it is extended to the individual members of the community, that it is not used of historical kings but applied to the expected eschatological king, and that it has become one of the characteristics of the expected King Messiah. What about Philo? We now turn to him to look for elements which develop or add some new aspects to the idea of sonship in the Hebrew Bible.

Divine Sonship in Philo As a result of the influx of Greek philosophical ideas and Roman juridical praxis, sonship in Philo is a much more complex phenomenon than in the Hebrew Bible.46 Perhaps the most complete typology of sonship is the one given in Mut. 147, when Philo comments on Gen 17:16, the promise of God to give Abraham a son (τέκνον):47 So much for His saying that He will give one, but the word actually used in this passage, “bairn,” (τέκνον) is used not without care or consideration. He wishes to show that the child is not alien (ὀθνεῖον) or suppositious (ὑποβολίμαιον), nor again adopted (θετὸν) or bastard (νόθον), but the truly genuine (γνήσιον) and free-natured offspring (ἀστεῖον) of a free-born soul. For “bairn” (τέκνον) derived from “bearing” (τόκον) is used to bring out the affinity which is the natural tie between parents and children. (Mut. 147)

No less than six adjectives are referred here to the word “child” (“bairn” in the PLCL translation), covering the whole gradation from ὀθνεῖος “alien” to γνήσιος “genuine.” An important position in the list is taken by θετός, the “adopted,” which represents a category unknown in the Hebrew Bible, but that Philo will use to attribute divine sonship to select individuals.48 The best known case is Abraham.49 In a famous passage in Sobr. 56, Philo writes, using different terminology:50 46 For an excellent overview of sonship in Philo, see Cristina Termini, “Tipologías de filiación en Filón de Alejandría,” in Filiación: Cultura pagana, religión de Israel, orígenes del Cristianismo (eds J.J. Ayán Calvo et al.; Estructuras y procesos: Serie Religión; Madrid: Trotta, 2005), 131–167. 47 Translations are taken from PLCL, here vol. V, 217–19. 48 For a detailed analysis of the terminology of adoption, see James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God. An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of ΥΙΟΘΕΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus (WUNT 2.Reihe 48; Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 13–57; see 39–45 for the word group τίθεσθαι. Philo uses the adjective θετός also in Agr. 6, Congr. 23 and Flacc. 9. 49 See Samuel Sandmel, Philo’s Place in Judaism. A Study of the Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature (Augmented Edition; New York: KTAV, 1971). 50 PLCL III, 473.

96

Florentino García Martínez And therefore He says plainly of Abraham, “shall I hide anything from Abraham My friend?” (Gen 18:17). But he who has this portion has passed beyond the bounds of human happiness. He alone is nobly born, for he has registered God as his father and become by adoption His only son (ἃτε θεὸν ἐπιγεγραμμένος πατέρα καὶ γεγονὼς εἰσποιητὸς αὐτῷ μόνος υἱός). (Sobr. 56)

The topic of divine adoption in Philo in general, and the example of Abraham in particular, has been amply studied and needs no further comment.51 I will simply underline the parallel with the “angelification” of selected individuals we have found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Philo uses here the Graeco-Roman category of adoption to achieve the same results that the Scrolls have reached by applying angelic language to select individuals (and to the members of the community). Together with divine adoption, the two most innovative elements (in my opinion) in the theme of divine sonship in Philo are the consideration of the cosmos as son of God, and his description of the Logos as πρωτόγονος. I will briefly comment on both. 1. The Cosmos as Son of God Philo is well aware of the potentiality of the metaphor of sonship. In Deus 31 he applies it both to the sensible world and to the intelligible world, the κόσμος νοητός.52 We can read there:53 For this universe, since we perceive it by our senses, is the younger Son of God (νεώτερος υἱός θεοῦ). To the elder son, I mean the intelligible universe, He assigned the place of first-born, (τὸν γὰρ πρεσβύτερον—νοητὸς δ’ ἐκεῖνος—) and purposed that it should remain in His own keeping. (Deus 31)

The distinction between the two worlds is clear and it serves to underline not a chronological priority (time belongs only to the sensible word), but the fact that the intelligible world derives directly from the first cause and remains in God.54 But this priority of the intelligible world does not imply that the sensible world is without value. In another text, Philo quotes Prov 8:22 to associate wisdom with the generation of the sensible world, which he calls “beloved,” ἀγαπητός:55 51

See the treatment by Scott, Adoption, 88–96 and Termini, “ Tipologías,” 135–140. On the Philonic expression, see the comments of David T. Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses (Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 1; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 136. 53 PLCL III, 25–27. 54 See the excursus of Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos, 151–152, and in more detail his Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Philosophia Antiqua 44; Leiden: Brill, 1986). 55 PLCL III, 333–35. 52


97

The Architect (δημιουργός) who made this universe was at the same time the father of what was thus born, whilst its mother was the knowledge possessed by its Maker. With His knowledge God had union, not as men have it, and begat created being. And knowledge, having received the divine seed, when her travail was consummated bore the only beloved son who is apprehended by the senses, the world which we see. (Ebr. 30–31)

Here Philo mixes the usual metaphor of the Hebrew Bible (God as Maker of the World) with the metaphor of fatherhood and the language of sonship, which in the Bible is never applied to the creation of the world. In the same way that the Greco-Roman idea of adoptive sonship has allowed him to qualify Abraham as son of God, Greek philosophical ideas have provided the basis for the application of the idea of sonship to the world. This is not a general assumption, but in this case can be proved directly with a quote. In the brief summary of the Timaeus of Plato that Philo has included in Aet. 15 we can read: But this subtlety of theirs is not so good or true an idea as the view before mentioned, not merely because throughout the whole treatise he speaks of the great Framer of deities (τὸν θεοπλάστην) as the Father and Maker and Artificer (πατάρα μὲν καὶ ποιητὴν καὶ δημιουργὸν) and this world as His work and offspring (ἔργον δὲ καὶ ἔγγονον) a sensible copy of the archetypal and intelligent model. (Aet. 15)56

We can only guess the reasons why Philo (who, as Runia indicates, clearly prefers the Biblical metaphor of the “maker,” ποιητής, which underlines the difference between creator and creature and the relationship between the sensible world as a copy of the intelligible world)57 introduces also the metaphor of the cosmos as son of God. But the more dynamic metaphor of a father-son relationship certainly allows him to introduce the possibility of a return to God. As he says in Spec. I, 41:58 This universe has been my teacher, to bring me to the knowledge that Thou art and dost subsist. As Thy son, it has told me of its Father, as Thy work of its contriver (καὶ ὡς υἱὸς ἀναδιδάξας με περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ὡς ἔργον περὶ τοῦ τεχνίτου).

2. The Logos πρωτόγονος The last element of Philo’s use of the language of sonship I wanted to underline is his qualification of the Logos as “first-born,” πρωτόγονος, a 56

PLCL IX, 195. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, 424. 58 PLCL VII, 123. 57

98


qualification that is closely related to his definition of the intelligible world as “older son” because the intelligible world is in the Logos and somehow is identical with the Logos, though without exhausting it. “In the same way the cosmos composed of the ideas would have no other place than the divine Logos who gives these (ideas) their ordered disposition,” it is said in Opif. 20 in Runia’s translation.59 For the Logos Philo uses only the specific title πρωτόγονος, avoiding the use of the Biblical πρωτότοκος (the LXX translation of the Hebrew rwkb), which he reserves for the firstborn of men and animals. Philo gives this title to the Logos when describing some of its more important functions.60 In Agr. 51, quoting Psalm 23, he says:61 This hallowed flock He leads in accordance with right and law, setting over it His true Word and Firstborn Son (αὑτοῦ λόγον καὶ πρωτόγονον υἱόν) Who shall take upon Him its government like some viceroy of a great King; for it is said in certain place: “Behold I AM, I send My Angel before thy face to guard thee in the way” (Exod 23:20) (Agr. 51).

The function here attributed to the Logos, the first-born son, is that of guidance of the cosmos as ὓπαρχος of God, who is the Shepherd of the whole universe. The use of Exod 23:20 as a proof text for this idea is interesting, because the function of the Angel/Logos is no longer to guide and protect the people of Israel through the desert, but to conduct κατὰ δίκην καὶ νόμον the whole cosmos as God’s lieutenant. In Conf. 62–63, one of the few texts in which the Logos is presented as acting as Demiurge, Philo comments on Zech 4:12, and playing with the double meaning of the Greek translation of semah, ἀνατολῆς, he says of the Logos:62 But if you suppose that it is that Incorporeal one (ἀσώματον ἐκεῖνον), who differs not a whit from the divine image, you will argue that the name of “rising” (ἀνατολῆς) assigned to him quite truly describes him. For that man is the eldest son (πρεσβύτατον υἱὸν), whom the Father of all raised up, and elsewhere calls him His first-born (πρωτόγονον), and indeed the Son thus begotten followed the ways of his Father, and shaped the different kinds, looking to the archetypal patterns which the Father supplied. (Conf. 62–63)

59

Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos, 51, and see his comments, 142–143. It is used in Post. 63, Agr. 51, Conf. 63, 146, Fug. 208, Somn. 1:215. See Peder Borgen, et al., The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria (Eerdmans – Brill: Grand Rapids – Leiden, 2000), 303. 61 PLCL III, 135. 62 PLCL IV, 45. 60


99

The Logos is “begotten” (γεννηθείς) by God and acts imitating (μιμούμενος) the divine way. Its function here is to shape the individual species following divine models. Finally, Philo uses the same title of πρωτόγονος when describing the priestly functions of the Logos, as High Priest who brings the cosmos to God. We can read in Somn. I, 215:63 For there are, as it is evident, two temples of God: one of them this universe, in which there is also as High Priest His First-born, the divine Word (ἀρχιερεὺς ὁ πρωτόγονος αὐτου θεῖος λόγος), and the other the rational soul, whose Priest is the real Man (ἕτερον δὲ λογικὴ ψυχή, ἧς ἱερεὺς ὁ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἄνθρωπος). (Somn. 215)

And, of course, in the beautiful passage Conf. 145–147, where the many names of the Logos are listed, πρωτόγονος is the first one. And this Logos will play an essential role as mediator in the intellectual, moral and religious transformation of men, which makes them sons of God. But the analysis of this beautiful passage must to be left for others who are more competent. Catholic University Leuven University of Groningen

63

PLCL V, 413.


PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEMPLATION AND REVELATORY INSPIRATION IN ANCIENT JUDEAN TRADITIONS

HINDY NAJMAN

I begin by first considering Jewish communities in late antiquity, speaking Greek on one side of the divide and Aramaic or Hebrew on the other. I think it is important, when we want to try to speak about late ancient Judaism, that we don’t fracture the deep and interesting discourse between these contemporaneous communities. But neither do I want to ignore the significant differences between the various communities in late ancient Judaism. Indeed, it is often assumed that the Judean communities of late Second Temple times that speak Greek and those that speak Aramaic (writing in Hebrew and in Aramaic) inhabit separate worlds—that is, the idiom and the conceptual frameworks are so different that we ought to speak of them as separate. To be sure, it is a convenient claim for those of us who want to focus on a particular language or a circumscribed geographical area. And of course, there are significant differences in degrees of interaction with Greek culture and thought. In addition, we must not overlook bilingualism across the communities. Still the two communities share important concepts, understandings of the divine, inherited traditions, and even genres. In this brief essay I want to begin to explore the conceptions of the revelatory in the writings of Philo of Alexandria and the Dead Sea Scrolls.1 I will argue that there is significant overlap between these corpora. This essay is dedicated to the memory of my colleague and friend David Hay. Professor Hay’s work on Philo’s interpretation and his discussions of Philonic inspiration, both in the Allegorical Interpretations and in The Contemplative Life, served as an inspiration to me in this essay. The generosity and kindness he showed me early in my career encouraged me to continue working on the writings of Philo of Alexandria. I first thought of organizing the SBL session on Linguistic Border Crossing, which resulted in this thematic section of the annual, in response to a presentation he gave on his commentary on The Contemplative Life at SBL a few years ago. May his memory be recalled as a blessing and may the contribution of his scholarship continue to illuminate our work and the work of the next generation of Philo scholars.

102

Hindy Najman

Before I consider some of the texts, I want to first address the question of whether we can speak of persistent prophecy in late Second Temple Judaism. Although prophecy, as a dominant aspect of revelation, is often said to have been removed from the Second Temple Jewish community2 in mid-to-late Second Temple Judaism, it is clear from the texts that we have from this period that the communities did not understand themselves to be without ongoing revelation.3 This study is intended in part to shed light on the claim that revelation did not cease in the Second Temple period, but was understood to persist even outside of the space of Jerusalem and temple practice. To be sure, the destruction was never overcome, even for the temple community. It is clear that the rebuilding of the Second Temple was not understood as a complete recovery from exile. Ezra 3:12–13 is a very poignant example—where we are reminded of the loss of that first destruction even at the point of the greatest joy and celebration: 12

Many of the priests and Levites and the chiefs of the clans, the old men who had seen the first house, wept loudly at the sight of the founding of this house. Many others shouted joyously at the top of their voices. 13 The people could not distinguish the shouts of joy from the people’s weeping, for the people raised a great shout, the sound of which could be heard from afar.

By emphasizing the way in which the Second Temple period was considered incomplete, we can better understand much later Second Temple claims—found, notably, in the Dead Sea Scrolls—that deny or even 1 There are important connections between this essay and my recently published essay entitled “Towards a Study of the Uses of the Concept of Wilderness in Ancient Judaism,” in Dead Sea Discoveries 13 (2006): 99–113. These are both intended to anticipate my forthcoming monograph entitled Prophetic Ends: Concepts of the Revelatory in Late Ancient Judaism. The quotations in English from the writings of Philo of Alexandria are taken from PLCL. Dead Sea Scrolls translations are taken from The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (eds Florentino García Martinez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar; Leiden: Brill, 1997, 1998). I have, in certain cases, modified the Colson translation on the basis of the Greek in consultation with the critical edition of PCW, and in certain cases I have modified the translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2 E.g., Josephus’ c. Ap. 1.37–41 and t. Sota 13.2–4. 3 See Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Times (eds Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak; London and New York: T&T Clark, 2006). See also John Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988); Michael Fishbane, “Hermeneutics of Scripture in Formation,” in The Garments of Torah: Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), 18; and Elliot R. Wolfson, “The Hermeneutics of Visonary Experience: Revelation and Interpretation in the Zohar,” Religion (1988): 312 (full article: 311–345). See also Wolfson’s discussion in Through a Speculum that Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), ch. 7.

Philosophical Contemplation and Revelatory Inspiration in Ancient Judea 103 challenge the Second Temple, and instead claim that their community is still in exile (never having returned from Babylon). More generally, we can better understand Second Temple claims—found, as we shall see, both in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in Philo—that revelation occurs only after one has withdrawn from the city to the wilderness. For this claim builds on the idea, central to many strains of Second Temple Judaism, that revelation can still occur—or, perhaps, can only occur—in the wasteland, and can therefore persist after the destruction of the city and its temple. *** Withdrawal to the desert as a preparation for revelation in Ancient Jewish texts is found in many texts in Second Temple times.4 In Philo of Alexandria’s De Decalogo, wilderness is depicted as a locus for withdrawal from corruption and for soul purification. Philo raises the question as to why God gave the law to Israel in the desert. Presumably this question arises because it is natural for Philo and his Greek–speaking audience to assume that legislation occurs in cities—that the polis is the proper locus for all political acts. In his first answer, Philo explains that the people must withdraw from the pride that brings “divine things into utter contempt.” In the second answer he says the following (De Decalogo 10-11): God had a second reason [for giving the law in the wilderness] in mind. Those who were about to receive the sacred laws had to cleanse and wash away the stubborn stains inflicted on the cities by the mixed and promiscuous throng of people. But this purging could not take place unless one was separated from the city. Furthermore, this could not occur immediately, but only after a long period of time, after the deep-set marks of former wrongdoings became dim, faded from memory and disappeared.

The law is the foundation of a new, pure city. As such, it must be given precisely in the desert, not in the city. For every existing city is full of corruption, and the purification can only happen after withdrawal from the city.5 Thus, the desert is a place of isolation from the corruption of the cities governed by human laws. Only in that meditative and isolated place of 4

See George J. Brooke, “Isaiah 40:3 and the Wilderness Community,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies (eds George J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 117–132; John J. Collins, “The Yahad and ‘The Qumran Community,’” in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb (eds Charlotte Hempel and Judith Lieu; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 81–96, and Sarianna Metso’s response, “Whom Does the Term Yahad Identify?” in the same volume, esp. 213–235. 5 See Steven Fraade’s excellent discussion of the negative view of cities in ancient Jewish and pagan texts in Enosh and His Generation: Pre-Israelite Hero and History in Postbiblical Interpretation (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984), 207n and 219.

104

Hindy Najman

withdrawal is it possible to attain the purification necessary for founding a city governed by divine law. We can also see this use of the concept of wilderness in Philo’s description of the Therapeutae (Contempl. 2.18–20): 18

When, therefore, men abandon their property without being influenced by any predominant attraction, they flee without even turning their heads back again, deserting their brethren, their children, their wives, their parents, their numerous families, their affectionate bands of companions, their native lands in which they have been born and brought up, though long familiarity is a most attractive bond, and one very well able to allure any one. 19 And they depart, not to another city as those do who entreat to be purchased from those who at present possess them, being either unfortunate or else worthless servants, and as such seeking a change of masters rather than endeavoring to procure freedom (for every city, even that which is under the happiest laws, is full of indescribable tumults, and disorders, and calamities, which no one would submit to who had been even for a moment under the influence of wisdom), 20 but they take up their abode outside of walls, or gardens, or solitary lands, seeking for a desert place, not because of any ill-natured misanthropy to which they have learnt to devote themselves, but because of the associations with people of wholly dissimilar dispositions to which they would otherwise be compelled, and which they know to be unprofitable and mischievous.

Philo praises the Therapeutae for living a life which is holy and pure6 and in accordance with the Law of Nature.7 The recovery of holiness is attributed to their withdrawal, their focus on the law, and the ritual healing the soul. This is only after they have removed themselves from the distractions and corruptions of earthly possessions treasured by pride and arrogance. This severe critique of city life is also important for any study of the concept of wilderness. Withdrawal to the desert, then, becomes a road to the recovery of a past that is pure, holy and linked to the original creation of the cosmos, which, according to Philo, was created in accordance with the Law of Nature. By considering Philo’s understanding of what desert life may bring, we might be able to understand better how desert was conceived across linguistic boundaries in late Second Temple Judaism. It can help us understand why it is in the desert that purification and the giving of the correct interpretation of the law will occur, according to the Qumranic text, The Community Rule. 6 Compare Josephus’ discussion of purity and holiness in the desert community of Essenes in The Jewish War 2.129 and 142. 7 See Hindy Najman, “The Law of Nature and the authority of Mosaic law,” in SPhA 11 (1999): 55–73; idem, “A Written Copy of the Law of Nature: An Unthinkable Paradox?” in Stamped with the Seals of Nature: SPhA 15 (2003): 51–60; idem, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 70–107.

Philosophical Contemplation and Revelatory Inspiration in Ancient Judea 105 In the Dead Sea Scrolls, “desert” or “uninhabited space” is understood as a place where correct adherence to the law can be achieved. And by living according to the law in all of its exact and correct interpretations, members of the desert community can be part of the new covenant, as promised in Jeremiah 31:31. This new covenant is constructed “in the land of Damascus,”8 that is, in the wilderness, either literal or metaphorical (CD 6): 2

. . . But God remembered the covenant of the forefathers. Blank And he raised from Aaron men of knowledge and from Israel 3 wise men, and made them listen. And they dug the well: “A well which the princes dug, which 4 the nobles of the people delved with the staff.” The well is the law. And those who dug it Blank are 5 the converts of Israel, who left the land of Judah and lived in the land of Damascus, 6 all of whom God called princes, for they sought him, and their renown has not been repudiated 7 in anyone’s mouth. Blank And the staff is the interpreter of the law, of whom 8 Isaiah said: “He produces a tool for his labour.” Blank And the nobles of the people are 9 those who came to dig the well with the staves that the sceptre decrees, 10 to walk in them throughout the whole age of wickedness, and without which they will not obtain it, until there arises 11 he who teaches justice at the end of days. Blank But all those who have been brought into the covenant 12 shall not enter the temple to kindle his altar in vain. They will be the ones who close 13 the door, as God said: “Whoever amongst you will close my door Blank so that you do not kindle my altar 14 in vain!” They should take care to act in accordance with the exact interpretation of the law for the age of wickedness; to keep apart 15 from the sons of the pit; to abstain from wicked wealth which defiles, either by promise or by vow, 16 and from the wealth of the temple and from stealing from the poor of the people, making widows their spoils 17 and murdering orphans; to separate unclean from clean and differentiate between 18 the holy and the common; to keep the Sabbath day according to its exact interpretation, and the festivals 19 and the day of fasting, according to what was discovered by those who entered the new covenant in the land of Damascus; 20 to set apart holy portions according to their exact interpretation . . .

A prolonged and extensive period of exile, which is not merely a punishment but also a separation from sinfulness, is a pre-requisite (1QS 8.12–14): And when these have become /a community/ in Israel 13 /in compliance with these arrangements/ they are to be segregated from within the dwelling of the men of sin to walk to the desert in order to open there His path. 14 As it is written (Isa 40:3) “In the desert, prepare the way of ****, straighten in the steppe a roadway for our God.”

8

See Michael A. Knibb, “Exile in the Damascus Document,” JSOT 25 (1983): 99–117 and “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,” Heythrop Journal 17 (1976): 253–272.

106

Hindy Najman

Moreover, the community formed in Jerusalem must withdraw from the transgressive “men of sin” in order to prepare themselves for the way of God. The members of this community experience a spiritual transformation through meticulous adherence to Mosaic Law, in isolation from those who do not obey the law, or who obey it in a twisted form. In both Hebrew and Greek texts from this period, we can see how withdrawal from the city functions as purification and holiness in preparation for revelation. Both in the case of Philo and in The Community Rule, the depicted desert communities undergo purification in a location that is not far from the city (Jerusalem or Alexandria9). Nevertheless, in both cases there is a kind of separation off from the city which enables a kind of purification (in Qumranic idiom) or a cleansing of the soul from the corrupt surroundings (in the case of Philo’s description in The Contemplative Life). *** I will now turn to the role that prayer plays in the concept of the revelatory. In his depiction of the Therapeutae, Philo likens their prayers to those of the prophet and the prophetess, Moses and Miriam. Their voices are said to be perfectly harmonious as they utter perfectly inspired prayer, participate as citizens of the heavens, and achieve the perfect contemplation of nature (i.e., the divine in this world); Contempl. 2.83–90: 83

And after the feast they celebrate the sacred festival during the whole night; and this nocturnal festival is celebrated in the following manner: they all stand up together, and in the middle of the entertainment two choruses are formed at first, the one of men and the other of women, and for each chorus there is a leader and chief selected, who is the most honourable and most excellent of the band. 84 Then they sing hymns which have been composed in honour of God in many metres and tunes, at one time all singing together, and at another moving their hands and dancing in corresponding harmony, and uttering in an inspired manner songs of thanksgiving. . . 85 . . .they join together, and the two become one chorus, an imitation of that one which, in old time, was established by the Red Sea, on account of the wondrous works which were displayed there. . .87 When the Israelites saw and experienced this great miracle, which was an event beyond all description, beyond all imagination, and beyond all hope, both men and women together, under the influence of divine inspiration, becoming all one chorus, sang hymns of thanksgiving to God the Saviour, Moses the prophet leading the men, and Miriam the prophetess leading the women. . . 90 This then is what I have to say of those who are called Therapeutae, who have devoted 9 As David T. Runia argues in “The Idea of the Reality of the City in the Thought of Philo of Alexandria,” JHI 38 (2000): 361–379, Philo has no simple answer to the question of withdrawal: it is a matter of what works for the individual, and what works for the Therapeutae evidently did not work for Philo, who returned to the city after trying to live in the desert. See also Valentin Nikiprowetzky, “Le theme du désert chez Philon d’Alexandrie,” Études philoniennes (1996): 293–308.

Philosophical Contemplation and Revelatory Inspiration in Ancient Judea 107 themselves to the contemplation of nature, and who have lived in it and in the soul alone, being citizens of heaven and of the world, and very acceptable to the Father and Creator of the universe because of their virtue, which has procured them his love as their most appropriate reward, which far surpasses all the gifts of fortune, and conducts them to the very summit and perfection of happiness.

Discourse with the divine redeems the members of the desert community from the imperfection of their souls. Philo does not speak of his own time as an exile; neither does he reject the Second Temple. Instead, he speaks of the struggle to recover perfection through the path of the Law of Moses, which is a universal, cosmic and perfect copy of the Law of Nature. For Philo, imperfection lingers in the souls of those who have not separated themselves from corruption and who are living amidst the arrogance of human beings who mistake themselves for gods. This imperfection can be overcome by imitating exemplary figures and by living according to the Law of Nature, that is, the Mosaic Law.10 I would like to suggest that Philo’s comparison to Moses and Miriam’s inspiration at the Red Sea is about actualizing self-taught knowledge into knowledge of the law of Moses, which is the perfect copy of the perfect, cosmic Natural Law.11 The prayers of the Therapeutae are themselves perfect expressions of their own contemplation of nature and the honoring of God. Through these prayers, in which they actualize their own potential divinity, the Therepeutae come to see God,12 just as Israel did at the Red Sea after the Exodus from Egypt. This is possible for the Therapeutae because of their withdrawal from the things of the city, from attending to their bodies, in order to become only soul (ψυχῇ μόνῃ).13 By way of comparison, in the Scrolls we find many expressions of prayer that are understood to transport the community into angelic discourse.

10 See my discussion in “A Written Copy of the Law of Nature: An Unthinkable Paradox?” (n. 8). 11 For Philo, imperfection can be overcome by imitating exemplary figures and by living according to the Law of Nature, that is, the Mosaic Law. Thus one expression of Natural Law is Mosaic Torah, but so is the exemplar Abraham or Moses. 12 Ellen Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes (BJS 290; SPhM 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). 13 Cf. the end of Mos. 2.288 where Moses is said to be transformed from a twofold nature of soul and body into a single unity of mind. It might be argued that the concepts mind and soul in the writing of Philo of Alexandria should be taken as isomorphic (discussion with Brad Inwood, 2006.)

108

Hindy Najman

Those praying are said to ascend in prayer and to envision the heavenly realm (1QS XI 7–9):14 7

. . . To those whom God has selected he has given them as everlasting possession; and he has given them an inheritance in the lot of 8 the holy ones. He united their assembly to the sons of the heavens in order to form the council of the Community and a foundation of the building of holiness to be an everlasting plantation throughout all 9 future ages . . .

Through these prayers, they acquire knowledge of the divine and are able to articulate, in colorful and intricate imagery, the details of their vision (4Q403 frag. 1 I 39–46): Chant to the powerful God 40 with the chosen spiritual portion, so that it is [a melo]dy with the joy of the gods, and celebration with all the holy ones, for a wonderful song in eter[nal] happiness. 41 With them praise all the fou[ndations of the hol]y of holies, the supporting columns of the most exalted dwelling, and all the corners of his building. Si[ng] 42 to Go[d, aw]esome in power, [all you spirits of knowledge and of light], to [exal]t together the splendidly shining vault of [his] holy sanctuary. 43 [Praise hi]m, divine spirits, prai[sing for ever and e]ver the main vault of the heig[ht]s, all [its] b[eams] and its walls, a[l]l 44 its [struct]ure, the work of [its] construc[tion. The spi]rits of the hol[y] of holies, the living gods, [the spi]rits of everlasting holine[ss] above 45 all the ho[ly ones in the wonderful vaults, marvel of splendour and majesty, and wonderful is the gl]ory in the most perfect light, and the kno[wledge] 46 [. . . in all the wonderful sanctuaries. The spirits of the gods are around the residence of the king of truth and justice. Al]l [its walls]

4Q403 frag. 1 II:1–16 1

perfect light, the multicolouredness of a most holy spirit [. . .] 2 high places of knowledge, and at his footstool [. . .] 3 the appearance of the glorious form of the chiefs of the kingdom of the spirit[s of . . .] 4 his glory. And in all their movements the gates of [. . .] 5 the flashing of lightning ? [. . .] . . . to crush. The gods of [. . .] 6 among them run g[o]ds like the appearance of coals [of fire ..] 7 going around. The spirits of the holy of holies [. . .] 8 of the holy of h[o]lies, spirits of the gods, et[ernal] vision [. . .] 9 and the spirits of the gods, in the forms of flames of fire around [. . .] 10 wonderful spirits. And the tabernacle of utmost height, the glory of his kingdom, the inner shrine [. . .] 11 and he sanctified for the seven exalted holy ones. And the voice of the blessing of the chiefs of his inner shrine [. . .] 12 And the voice of the blessing {is heard} is glorified when the 14 See Esther Chazon, “Human and Angelic Prayer in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Esther Chazon; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 35–47; idem, “Liturgical Communion with the Angels at Qumran,” in Sapiential, Litugical and Poetical Texts from Qumran (eds Daniel K. Falk, Florentino García Martinez and Eileen M. Schuller; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 95–105; Elliot R. Wolfson, “Seven Mysteries of Knowledge: Qumran Esotericism Recovered,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (eds Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 177–213.

Philosophical Contemplation and Revelatory Inspiration in Ancient Judea 109 gods hear it, and the foundations of [. . .] 13 of the blessing. And all the decorations of the inner shrine hurry with wonderful psalms in the inner sh[rine. . .] 14 wonder, inner shrine to inner shrine, with the sound of holy multitudes. And all their decorations [. . .] 15 And the chariots of his inner shrine praise together, and their cherubim and the[ir] ofanim bless wonderfully [. . .] 16 the chiefs of the construction of the gods. And they praise him in his holy inner shrine. Blank [. . .]

Their prayers are likened to sacrifices, as the words of prayer are said to be the offerings of their tongues and their lips (1QS 10.14ff.):15 14

. . . I shall bless him with the offering that issues from my lips in the row of men. 15 . . . 22 . . . The fruit of holiness will be on my tongue, profanity 23 shall not be found on it. With hymns shall I open my mouth and my tongue will continually recount both the just acts of God and the unfaithfulness of men until their iniquity is complete. 24 I shall remove from my lips worthless words, unclean things and plotting from the knowledge of my heart. . ..

*** It is also important to note that study of authoritative literature and holy writings is understood as part of the revelatory experience, both in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and in Philo’s discussion of the study sessions of the Therapeutae. In the scrolls, the Teacher is the exemplary interpreter who has access to inspired interpretations which are, according to the community members, uniquely correct readings of the text.16 He is recalled or invoked as a sectarian leader who can tap into the correct meaning which is actualized through communal ritual as well as through meditation over the texts themselves. The Torah, after the members have properly prepared themselves for membership and for the spiritual exercise of Torah study, then becomes the way in which the members can achieve holiness (hcwdq)

15

See also 1QS 9.3–5. Cf. Pesher Habakkuk, esp. columns 2 and 7. Invoking the inspired instruction of the Teacher of Righteousness can be a way of authorizing the community’s own new practices, much like “the law of Moses” served this function for Ezra in Ezra-Nehemiah; cf. Hindy Najman, “Torah of Moses: Pseudonymous Attribution in Second Temple Writings,” in The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity. Studies in Language and Tradition (ed. Craig A. Evans; JSPSS 33; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 202–216. See my most recent discussion of the role of the exemplar in ancient Jewish traditions, “How Should We Contextualize Pseudepigrapha? Imitation and Emulation in 4Ezra,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino Garcia Martinez (eds Anthony Hilhorst, Emile Puech, Eibert Tigchelaar; Leiden: Brill, 2007, forthcoming). 16

110

Hindy Najman

and wholeness (jwmymt), as they recover the intimacy with the divine that they had lost as a result of punishment, sinfulness, suffering and exile.17 Let me briefly compare Philo’s discussion of the Therapeutae in his description of their reflection over the reading of the text, applying it to their day-to-day lives. Mosaic Torah serves as a guide for the Therapeutae (Contempl. 2.77–78): His [the leader of the group—in his discussion of the holy writings] audience listens with ears pricked up and eyes fixed on him always in exactly the same posture, signifying comprehension and understanding by nods and glances, praise of the speaker by the cheerful change of expression which steals over the face, difficulty by a gentler movement of the hand. The young men standing by show no less attentiveness than the occupants of the courses. The exposition of the sacred scriptures treats the inner meaning conveyed in allegory. For to these people the whole law book seems to resemble a living creature with the literal ordinances for its body and for its soul the invisible mind laid up in its wording.

They seek the vision and achieve that vision that is lost to their city dwellers (Contempl. 2.11): But it is well that the Therapeutae, a people always taught from the first to use their sight, should desire the vision of the Existent and soar above the sun of our senses and never leave their place in this company which carries them on to perfect happiness.

They are able to imitate the model that is given in the Torah of Moses by studying the law and by achieving perfect happiness. The interpretations are possible because of their withdrawal from corruption, achievement of spiritual purification, contemplation and study, and self–direction towards God, as they are citizens of the heaven and of the cosmos (Contempl. 2.90). *** But, could one not ask: is this not a merely accidental convergence, with Dead Sea Scrolls coming out of one background and Philo out of another? To be sure, much of the Philonic tradition about philosophical contemplation can be contextualized in his Greek, philosophical context and rich heritage. Similarly, much can be said to locate the community of the Judean desert within a solely Judean context. The point I wish to make, however, by juxtaposing these two corpora is not that they share a single conception of revelation, but rather that significant elements of their conceptions are shared. Moreover, the juxtaposition 17 Again, as I mentioned earlier, this punishment is depicted as part of an extended exile and suffering from the destruction of the First Temple.

Philosophical Contemplation and Revelatory Inspiration in Ancient Judea 111 enables us to develop a broader framework for understanding Second Temple Judaism. For we see how both sets of texts express the possibility of bridging the gap between, on the one side, loss, imperfection, exile and suffering, and, on the other, revelation, inspiration and spiritual ascent. Each responds in its own way to the ongoing problems posed by the destruction of the First Temple, which was never overcome and which sets the scene for so much of Second Temple Judaism. Accordingly, both the differences between the corpora and what is shared between these traditions are essential for understanding Judean traditions in antiquity on both sides of the linguistic divide.18 University of Toronto

18 Many thanks to Paul Franks, Sean Freyne, Robert Kraft, Steve Mason, Eva Mroczek and Zuleika Rodgers for their helpful conversation on earlier drafts of this paper.


ZEAL FOR GOD AND DIVINE LAW IN PHILO AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

KATELL BERTHELOT

To tackle the issue of zeal in Philo’s work and the Dead Sea Scrolls may seem quite strange or ill-chosen. The term “zeal” immediately evokes the Zealots described by Josephus and some kind of violent action, whereas the community connected to the Scrolls, although known as pious and rigoristic, has long been considered peaceful, mainly because it is identified with the Essenes, who are described as peaceful by Philo and Josephus.1 Concerning the Alexandrian exegete and philosopher, he is certainly known as a pious Jew, but until the publication of Torrey Seland’s book, Establishment Violence in Philo and Luke: A Study of Non-Conformity to the Torah and Jewish Vigilante Reactions,2 and even since then, he has hardly been perceived as a Zealot (in the broad sense of the term). Recently Christophe Batsch has tackled the issue of Phinehas’ zeal in both Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls, to conclude that Philo did not support the Zealots at all, in spite of his admiration for Phinehas. Concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls, Batsch writes that:3 “le terme hanq, à Qoumrân, n’a pas évolué vers le sens de zèle vengeur ou de fanatisme guerrier au service de la Loi, que la mise en valeur de la hanq de Pinhas a pu lui attribuer dans d’autres milieux. S’il y a bien une évolution par rapport aux sens attestés en hébreu biblique, elle s’exprime dans le cadre du dualisme qumrânien : la hanq y désigne la passion mise au service du bien comme du mal. Non seulement n’y a-t-il donc là aucun indice d’un rapprochement conceptuel entre Qoumrân et les Zélotes, mais en outre la représentation de la hanq qui se dégage des écrits de Qoumrân va à l’encontre d’une adhésion au modèle du prêtre-combattant à l’image de Pinhas aux Shittim.” 1 On this issue, see C. Batsch, “Le ‘pacifisme des Esséniens’ : un mythe historiographique,” RQ 83 (21/3) (2004): 457–468. 2 Leiden: Brill, 1995. See also the following articles: “Saul of Tarsus and Early Zealotism. Reading Gal 1,13–14 in Light of Philo’s Writings,” Biblica 83/4 (2002): 449–471; “(Re)presentations of Violence in Philo,” in Society of Biblical Literature 2003 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 117–140. 3 Batsch, La guerre et les rites de guerre dans le judaïsme du deuxième Temple (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 145–160 (quotation 148).

114

Katell Berthelot

As a matter of fact, if one follows Morton Smith or Richard A. Horsley,4 neither the Dead Sea Scrolls5 nor Philo could have had anything to do with the Zealots, because the latter did not come into existence as a party until the winter of 67–68 c.e., or (more correctly) the year 66 c.e.6 Even if one remains convinced by Martin Hengel’s reading of Josephus and considers the year 6 c.e. the beginning of the zealot movement under the leadership of Judas the Galilean,7 it hardly makes any difference as far as the Dead Sea Scrolls are concerned, since most of them were written (versus copied) before the first century c.e. With regard to Philo, there is no indication in his work that he ever was aware of the existence of a political party like that of the Zealots.8 But the issue of individual zeal for the Torah is a different issue altogether, that must be clearly distinguished from the question of the Zealots, and even from the issue of nationalism or the longing for freedom from alien rule.9 Beyond the confusion between Zealots as a political party and zeal for the Law as a religious feeling that could lead individuals to retaliate against Jews considered unfaithful to the Law, several aspects of Batsch’s conclusions can and need to be challenged. A more careful analysis of the Qumran 4 See M. Smith, “Zealots and Sicarii: Their Origins and Relations,” HTR 64 (1971): 1– 19; R. A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence. Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 77–89. For Horsley’s detailed bibliography on these issues, see ibid., p. 328, n.9, and especially “The Zealots: Their Origin, Relationships and Importance in the Jewish Revolt,” NT 28/2 (1986): 159–192. He considers that there is no evidence for a sustained and organized movement of violent resistance to Roman rule known as “the Zealots” at the time of Jesus, which is also the time of Philo. 5 Concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls, see for example A. Oppenheimer, “Zealots,” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2:1007–1010. He writes that “it is virtually impossible to identify [the Zealots] with the community at Qumran. (. . .) Furthermore, although the Qumran community’s members clearly recognized the rightful place of zeal (. . .), like other Jews before them (cf. 1 Mc. 2.49–64), the term does not seem to have been part of a self-designation as it was for the Zealot movement,” (1009). 6 See C. Mézange, Les Sicaires et les Zélotes. La révolte juive au tournant de notre ère (Paris: Geuthner, 2003), 123–136. 7 See M. Hengel, The Zealots. Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989). 8 At the end of BJ, Josephus mentions the fact that some Sicarii made their way to Alexandria after the fall of Masada. But they were captured by the Alexandrian Jewish community who would not tolerate their sedition (BJ 7.409–419). These events are much later than Philo, but the reaction of the Alexandrian Jewish community in Josephus’ time may not have been very different in Philo’s days. 9 This distinction is clearly made by Mézange, Les Sicaires et les Zélotes, 34. Even Hengel distinguishes between the Zealots and zeal as a readiness to avenge every form of sacrilege, which he considers a typical element of piety in late Judaism. See The Zealots, 177–183.

Zeal for God and Divine Law in Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls

115

texts that use the terms anq / hanq (qana’ / qin’ah, “zeal / jealousy”) can provide us not only with a better understanding of this notion in the community writings, but also with an explanation as to why Phinehas is not used as a model. Finally, the issue of religious zeal may be an interesting test case in order to cross linguistic boundaries and underscore both the unity and diversity of Judaism and Jewish religious sensitivity at the turn of the common era. As a matter of fact, religious zeal is a phenomenon that occurs not only in Judaism, but in other religions as well. There is a fortiori no reason to doubt that it existed in Jewish communities regardless of the language that was spoken there. Moreover, during the Hellenistic and Roman period, Jews shared common biblical references that included examples of religious zeal. The question which may be asked is whether Greek speaking Jews tended to express their religious zeal in a way that differed from that of Jews who spoke or wrote in Hebrew/Aramaic. To analyze the notion of zeal in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in Philo may help us to catch a glimpse of the answer.

1. “Zeal” in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) The two biblical characters who most aptly personify zeal are Phinehas (Num 25) and Elijah (1 Kg 18:20–40).10 But—as rightly noted by Batsch—the name of Phinehas is hardly mentioned at all in the DSS. It appears only twice, in 4Q522 9 ii 7—probably in the expression “the sons of Phinehas”— and in 6Q13 4, in which a similar expression can be read, but in a broken fragmentary context. In these two texts, nothing is said about Phinehas’ zeal. According to Carolyn J. Sharp, a positive allusion to Phinehas and his punitive action against Zimri and Cozbi may nevertheless be found in 4QMMT C 31.11 The expression “it will be reckoned to you as righteous– ness” (hqdxl ˚l hbçjnw) in C 31 can be found only in Gen 15:6 and in Ps 10 Jehu is another example of pious zeal, although he is not beyond reproach. See V. M. Smiles, “The Concept of “Zeal” in Second-Temple Judaism and Paul’s Critique of It in Romans 10:2,” CBQ 64/2 (2002): 282–299; Mézange, Les Sicaires et les Zélotes, 146–147; L. H. Feldman, “Remember Amalek!” Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in the Bible according to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2004), 193–216. On the tradition that identifies Phinehas with Elijah, the latter being presented as high priest, see R. Hayward, “Phinehas—the same is Elijah: The Origins of a Rabbinic Tradition,” JJS 29 (1978): 22–34. 11 “Phinehan Zeal and Rhetorical Strategy in 4QMMT,” RQ 18/2 (1997): 207–222. See also DJD X. Qumran Cave 4. V. Miqsat ma‘ase ha-Torah (ed. E. Qimron and J. Strugnell; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 63 and 84.

116

Katell Berthelot

106:31. Whereas Gen 15:6 refers to Abraham’s trust in God’s promise, Ps 106:31 clearly alludes to Phinehas’ zealous intervention as told in Num 25. Carolyn J. Sharp argues that since the authors of 4QMMT deal at length with the issue of forbidden unions,12 they must have had Phinehas in mind while using the expression “it will be reckoned to you as righteousness” in C 31. If one agrees with her convincing argumentation, it shows that Phinehas’ zeal was seen positively in at least one text that deeply influenced the community(ies) behind the DSS. As far as Elijah is concerned, there is only one Qumran text that mentions his name, 4Q382 (2 3; 5 1; 40 2). Fragment 5 (l.1) refers to an answer given by Elijah to Ahab. But the text is so fragmentary that no firm conclusion can be drawn. Conversely, the words linked to the root anq (qn’) are not rare in the DSS. The DSS Concordance13 gives 47 occurrences, few of which are hypothetical reconstructions. Some of them correspond to the same text, as in the case of passages from 1QS that are to be found in 4Q257–260. Interestingly enough, at least half of the occurrences come from “sectarian” texts or from texts that share their ideology and vocabulary to a certain extent. After having analyzed the texts that help us understand the nature of God’s “jealousy” or “zeal,” I will focus on the use of the terms anq / hanq in the Community Rule, the Hymns and a few other texts, in which human zeal is at stake. Divine jealousy or zeal The idea of a jealous God, who harshly punishes the unfaithfulness of his people, is a well-known biblical concept.14 In this context, God’s zeal/jealousy (hanq) is often associated with “wrath” (hmj15 or πxq16), 12 It is not clear whether the forbidden unions in 4QMMT consist in unions between Israelites and foreigners, as in Num 25, or between priests and lay Israelites who were forbidden to them. Sharp considers the first interpretation to be correct, but both can sustain her thesis. The issue of forbidden unions is in itself a sufficient argument to connect C 31 with Phinehas, regardless of the precise scope of the prohibition. 13 Ed. by M. G. Abegg with J. E. Bowley and E. M. Cook, in consultation with E. Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 2:656. 14 On the meanings of the terms anq / hanq in the Bible, see B. Renaud, « Je suis un Dieu jaloux ». Évolution sémantique et signification théologique de qine’ah (Paris: Cerf, 1963); Mézange, Les Sicaires et les Zélotes, 137–149. For this traditional use of the terms anq / hanq at Qumran, see for example 4Q368 2 6 and 11Q19 II 12. Concerning the jealousy of Israel, aroused by the nations, see 4Q371 1a–b 11 and 4Q372 1 12. 15 The association of hanq and hmj (both attributed to God) is particularly frequent in the Book of Ezekiel; see Ezek 5:13; 16:38; 16:42; 23:25; 36:6; 38:18–19. See also Zech 8:2.


117

“anger” (πa),17 “fury” (hrb[)18 or “vengeance” (µqn).19 Sometimes the expression “the fire of (God’s) zeal/jealousy” is used, as in Ezek 36:520 and Zeph 1:18 and 3:8.21 When the term hanq is associated with one of these words, God’s zeal generally implies the will to destroy his people or his people’s enemies. But in the case of Israel, God’s mercy often compensates for his zeal, so that Israel is forgiven and not utterly destroyed. God’s zeal for his people may even be referred to in the context of the restoration of Zion, as in Zech 1:14–17 and 8:2. All these aspects of God’s zeal are present in the Qumran texts too. For instance, Dibre haMe’orota contains at least one occurrence of the term hanq that perfectly reflects the biblical use. First, in col. iii, the speaker who addresses God says: “For that reason you have poured on us your wrath (hktmj) [and] your [jealou]sy (hkt[anq) with all the heat of your anger (lwkb hkpa ˜wrj).”22 The word hanq cannot be read on the fragment any more, but is nevertheless very probable in this context, and all the more so if one compares this passage to col. v, l.4–5. There God’s jealousy towards his people is described in the following terms: “And their land, too, was made desolate by their enemies. For your wrath (˚tmj) and the heat of your anger (hkpa ynwrj) [were po]ured out in the fire of your jealousy (hktanq çab), to make it desolate, with no one traveling through or returning. But in spite of all this you did not reject the seed of Jacob, nor despise Israel to destruction, annulling the covenant with them.”23 As in the biblical texts, God’s jealousy or zeal for his people is closely associated with anger and destruction, but the latter is not total. The same association appears in a passage of Barki Nafshi, a thanksgiving hymn in which the speaker celebrates God’s mercy towards his people: “(. . .) his anger (wtrb[) was not enkindled against them, nor did he destroy them in his fury (wnwrjb µlk alw). Although all the fury of his wrath did not tire (wtmj wnwrj lk π[y alw), he did not judge them with the fire of (his) zeal (tanq çab). Blank He judged them with much mercy. The 16

See Zech 1:14–15. See Dt 29:19; Ezek 5:13; Zeph 3:8. 18 See Ezek 38:19; Zeph 1:18. 19 See Is 59:17. 20 Ezek 36:5 : ytrbd ytanq çab. Compare with Ezek 38:19 : ytrbd ytrb[ çab ytanqbw. 21 Zeph 1:18 : ≈rah lk lkat wtanq çab. Zeph 3:8 : ≈rah lk lkat ytanq çab. 22 4Q504 1–2 iii 10–11 (Puech col. xiv). See DJD VII. Qumrân Grotte 4. III (4Q482– 4Q520), (ed. M. Baillet; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 141; É. Puech, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future (Paris: Gabalda, 1993), 564; D. T. Olson (ed.), in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Volume 4A. Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers (ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; Tübingen – Louisville: Mohr Siebeck – Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 128–129. 23 4Q504 1–2 v 4–8 (Puech col. xvi). See Baillet, ibid., 145; Puech, ibid., 565; Olson, ibid., 130–133. 17

118

Katell Berthelot

judgments of his affliction were to test them (. . .).”24 These lines imply that God’s wrath, closely linked to his zeal/jealousy (hanq), should have led to the destruction of the sinners, who were spared in extremis because of God’s mercy. The vocabulary used in this text and in Dibre haMe’orota 1–2 v 4–5 is strongly reminiscent of Zeph 1:18 and 3:8, two passages that evoke God’s fiery zeal against all the inhabitants of the world. In some Qumran texts, God’s jealousy or zeal for his people is linked to vengeance, as in Shirot ‘Olat haShabbata, in which one reads in a somewhat broken context: “[. . .] his [me]rcies for eternal compassionate forgiveness; but in the vengeance of his jealousy (wtanq tmqnbw) [. . .].”25 It is difficult to know whether God will avenge himself on the holy ones if they pervert their way or avenge them on their enemies.26 But the former possibility seems more probable, if one takes the waw to mark an opposition with what precedes immediately and if one considers Is 59:17 a possible background. Is 59:17 is the only verse in the Hebrew Bible in which God’s jealousy (hanq) is paralleled with vengeance (µqn), and it appears in the context of God’s reaction against the iniquities of his people. Conversely, a passage in 4QPrayer A, which also associates jealousy and vengeance, seems to consider them as directed against the enemies of the group that addresses God in the second person: “[. . .] the zeal for your true judgments and the vengeance of (tmqnw hktma yfpçm tanq) [. . . a]ll our enemies and your [. . .].”27 The speaker is probably confessing his faith in God’s justice, that will lead to the punishment of the group’s enemies. The idea that God is “zealous” for his own judgements (µyfpçm) may seem odd, but a passage from the Community Rule provides another example of such a zeal.28 According to 1QS II 15, the priests and the Levites are to curse the person who becomes a member of the covenant with duplicity, and pronounce the following words: “May God’s anger (la πa) and (His) zeal for His judgements (wyfpçm tanqw) consume him (the hypocrite) for everlasting destruction.” Once again, zeal, anger and destruction are associated, and “zeal” is more precisely described as “zeal for (God’s) judgments.”

24 4Q434 1 i 5–7. See M. Weinfeld and D. Seely (ed.), DJD XXIX. Qumran Cave 4. XX. Poetical and Liturgical Texts 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 270. 25 4Q400 1 i 18. See C. Newsom (ed.), DJD XI. Qumran Cave 4. VI. Poetical and Liturgical Texts 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 176. 26 For C. Newsom, the fate of the wicked is at stake; ibid., 183. But the text only alludes to those “who pervert the way,” and their identity is unclear. 27 4Q449 1 4. See E. Chazon (ed.), DJD XXIX. Qumran Cave 4. XX. Poetical and Liturgical Texts 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 391. 28 See also 1QHa V 5.


119

Since God is generally taken as a model by the pious, the way God’s zeal is characterized is highly significant.29 Thus, the similarity between God’s hanq and the zeal that prompted Phinehas to kill the impious Jew who betrayed the covenant, or Elijah to slaughter the priests of Baal, should come as no surprise. As a matter of fact, Phinehas’ zeal is not only similar to, but is actually identified with God’s jealousy, since it is written that Phinehas “was jealous with (God’s) jealousy among the children of Israel.”30 Phinehas somehow opened himself to God’s fiery zeal for punishment and acted as God’s hand. In 1QS and 1QHa, there are also numerous similarities between God’s zeal/jealousy (hanq) and the zeal attributed to the pious ones. For instance, they are zealous for God’s judgments just as God himself is.31 Therefore, the assumption that the zeal shown by the members of the community—and especially their leaders—differs from that of Phinehas must be questioned. Is it correct to write, as Christophe Batsch does, that it runs counter to the model of Phinehas at Shittim? Human Zeal in the DSS God’s zeal is always just and holy, even when it implies destruction. But zeal is in itself neutral and can be applied either to good or evil things, without presupposing a dualistic system of thought.32 In the Bible, hanq or anq expresses the eagerness of pious men to punish the wicked and the unfaithful ones,33 but sometimes it refers to jealousy as a passion or a vice that is condemned.34 Similarly, in the DSS, zeal is often seen in a positive light, its “object” being—for example—divine judgments or decrees. But the word hanq can also be pejorative and mean envy,35 or designate a zeal for wickedness.36 What, then, is the relationship between the godly zeal shown by Phinehas and Elijah and the zeal attributed to the pious in the DSS? 29 See also Mézange, Les Sicaires et les Zélotes, 146: “Par nature le zèle humain s’affirme identique au zèle divin ; il se modèle sur lui. On peut s’attendre à retrouver, à l’échelle humaine, les caractéristiques qui définissaient la hanq divine.” 30 ytanqb larçy ynb ta ytylk alw µkwtb ytanq ta wanqb larçy ynb l[m ytmj ta byçh (. . .) sjnyp (Num 25:11). 31 And so could be the angels, if that is how 4Q286 2 3 is to be understood. 32 Pace Batsch, La guerre, 148. 33 Apart from Phinehas and Elijah, see for example 2 Kgs 10:16; Ps 69:10; 119:139. 34 See for example Gen 26:14; 30:1; Num 5:14; Ezek 35:11; Ps 37:1; 73:3; Prov 3:31; 14:30; 23:17; 24:1,19; Eccl 4:4. 35 See for example 1QS X, 18 and 4Q416 2 ii 11. The context and the exact meaning of hanq in 4Q174 4 2 are unclear. 36 See for example 1QS IV, 10; 4Q258 II, 5; 1QHa X, 31.

120

Katell Berthelot

Let us first consider the Community Rule. In 1QS IV, 2–5, a section belonging to the Treatise of the Two Spirits, one reads concerning the spirit of light: These are their ways in the world: to enlighten the heart of man, to straighten out in front of him all the ways of true righteousness, and to make his heart fear the judgments of God; and (it is) a spirit of humility and patience, of abundant compassion, of eternal goodness, of understanding, of insight, of potent wisdom which trusts in all the deeds of God and depends on his abundant mercy; and a spirit of knowledge in all the plans of action, of zeal for the sentences of justice (qdx yfpçm tanqw), of holy plans with a steadfast purpose, of abundant mercy to all the sons of truth (. . .).

The spirit of light helps the sons of truth to develop the qualities listed above. As a consequence, every one of them should be full of “zeal for the sentences of justice.” Conversely, the spirit of darkness, who is the exact opposite of the spirit of light, is associated with a “zeal for arrogance” (˜wdz tanq, 1QS IV, 10). This opposition is further elaborated upon: Evil deeds are an abomination to truth and all the ways of truth are an abomination to evil. (There is) an ardent conflict (byr tanq; literally: a zeal for conflict) between all their judgments (˜hyfpçm lwk l[), since they do not walk together (wklhty djy awl ayk). God, in the mysteries of his understanding and in the wisdom of his glory, has set an end for the existence of evil, and at the appointed time for visitation he will obliterate it for ever (1QS IV 17–19).

In this third passage, the “zeal for conflict” (byr tanq) can be looked upon as either positive or negative. From the point of view of truth, the ardent conflict against evil is necessary and positive; but not so concerning the fight led by evil against truth. This “zeal for conflict” will ultimately lead to the annihilation of evil, but only at the hands of God. Still, the connection between zeal, conflict and the destruction of evil must be underlined. All these elements are present in the biblical stories of Phinehas and Elijah too (in which evil is synonymous with idolatry). In another section of the Community Rule, 1QS IX, 21–24, zeal appears as a quality attributed to the Instructor (Maskil): And these are the regulations of behavior for the Instructor during these times, concerning his love and his hatred. Everlasting hatred against the men of the pit in clandestine spirit. He shall leave to them property and labor of hands, as a slave does to the one who rules over him, and like one oppressed before the one who dominates over him. He shall be a man zealous for the decree and for its time (wt[w qwjl anqm çya), for the day of revenge (µqn µwyl). He shall perform (God’s) will in all that his hand should tackle and in all that he controls, as (God) commanded (. . .).

As in the texts quoted above that mention God’s jealousy together with “vengeance,” the Instructor’s zeal for God’s decree and its time are closely


121

associated with the “day of revenge,” which probably corresponds to God’s punitive action against the “men of the pit.” But the Instructor’s ardent desire to see the wicked punished does not authorize him to express his hatred or to commit acts of violence against them. The “day of revenge” is eschatological, and the zeal of the holy ones must be disciplined until then. Another passage makes it even clearer: I will not be jealous with a wicked spirit (h[çr jwrb anqa awl), and my soul will not desire wealth of violence ; and I will not be involved in any dispute (or conflict, byr) with the men of the pit until the day of vengeance (µqn µwy d[). However, my anger (aypa) I will not remove from unjust men, nor will I be appeased until he carries out (his) judgment (fpçm). I will not hold anger towards those who turn away from transgression, but I will have no mercy for all those who deviate from the Way. I will not comfort those who are being obstinate until their way is perfect. I will not retain Belial within my heart (. . .) (1QS X, 18–21).

To envy the wicked or to plot against him with the desire to seize his wealth is blameworthy, and this kind of jealousy is to be distinguished from the pious zeal which must inspire the sons of truth. In this passage, the anger that inflames the Instructor until the judgement of God is fulfilled corresponds to the zeal for the day of revenge mentioned in IX, 23. His implacable anger and his ardent desire to see the sons of the pit punished, his zeal for the decree and for the day of revenge connect the Instructor to Phinehas and Elijah, whose zeal against Zimri and the prophets of Baal was implacable too. The only difference is the belief shared by the Instructor and the members of the community that they must refrain from taking the initiative of the punishment and leave everything in God’s hands. As explicitly said in 1QS IV, 17–19, only at “the appointed time of the visitation” will God destroy injustice and punish those who commit iniquity. In a sapiential text that contains a list of sentences concerning the wise man, a slightly different perspective emerges: “A man of knowledge obtains wisdom. Vacat An upright man takes pleasure in judgement. Vacat A man of truth re[joices in a prov]erb. Vacat A mighty man is zealous for ([. . .] l anqy lyj çya), [. . . h]e is an adversary to all who shift boundaries (lwbg ygysm lwkl byr l[b aw[hw]).” 37

37 4Q424 3 7–9. See S. Tanzer (ed.), in DJD XXXVI. Qumran Cave 4. XXVI (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 342–343. The expression “sons of righteousness” (qdx ynb) l.10 possibly indicates that the text belongs to the writings of the community. S. Tanzer also points out to the expression t[d ypdwr, “those who pursue knowledge” (4Q424 3 2), as one which may “reflect a sectarian usage” (DJD XXXVI, 336). See also G. Brin, “Studies in

122

Katell Berthelot

In this case, zeal seems to lead the wise to look for the possibility to unmask the wicked. The conflict (byr) will not be avoided. Unfortunately, the text does not specify how far one should go in one’s fight against sinners, by which means, and so on. Turning now to the Hymns, one notices that the speaker presents himself as actively opposing the wicked in a dispute (or conflict, byr): “I have become a man of contention to the mediators of error (tw[t yxylml byr çya hyhaw), [but a man of pea]ce to all who contemplate uprightness. I have turned into a zealous spirit (hanq jwrl hyhaw) against (dgnl) the seekers of flat[tering things]” (1QHa X, 14–15). The “conflict” (byr) and the “spirit of zeal” (hanq jwr) against the speakers’ adversaries appear as something positive. Similarly, one reads in 1QHa VI, 13–15: You make me approach your insight, and the closer I come to it, the more ardently I oppose (l[ ytanq) all those who act wickedly and the men of deceit 38 (hymr yçnaw [çr yl[wp); for all who approach you do not rebel against (what comes out of) your mouth and all who know you do not change your words. (. . .) All iniquity [and] wickedness you obliterate (dymçt) for ever, and your justice is revealed to the eyes of all your works.

Finally, a third passage associates zeal and “annihilation:” And I, the Instructor, have known you, my God, through the spirit which you gave in me, and I have listened loyally to your wonderful secret through your holy spirit. You have [op]ened within me knowledge of the mystery of your understanding, and the source of [your] power, [. . .] according to the abundance of kindness, and zeal for annihilation (hlk tanqw) and . . . [. . .] and the majesty of your glory to eter[nal] light [. . .] (1QHa XX 11–15).

It is difficult to know whether the expression “zeal for annihilation” (hlk tanq) refers to God’s zeal, as revealed to the speaker, or to the latter’s zeal. The former hypothesis is slightly more probable, since the whole passage refers to the knowledge of the mysteries of God, to God’s power, wisdom, majesty and so on. Even if the second hypothesis were correct, the existence of a “zeal for annihilation” within the speaker would not imply

4Q424, Fragment 3,” VT 46 (1996): 271–295 (esp. 292–293). On the interpretation of the expression “to shift boundaries” in ancient Judaism, see M. Kister, “Some Aspects of Qumranic Halakhah,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (STDJ 11); Leiden: Brill, 1992), 574–576. It is understood metaphorically and means “to alter/change the ancestral customs.” But in the context of 4Q424, in which ll.9– 10 allude to poverty and charity, a more literal—or social—understanding of the expression may be more relevant. 38 Compare with 1QS IX, 8.


123

that he would be allowed to destroy the wicked. As in 1QS, it could simply refer to his ardent desire to see the wicked destroyed by God. Thus, although there are some nuances between 1QS and 1QHa, one may conclude that the zeal which the members of the community are supposed to show is very similar to that of Phinehas except for one important aspect: even when their zeal leads them to oppose their adversaries—who are also considered the enemies of God—, the members of the community do not allow themselves to undertake a violent action against the wicked, because vengeance and judgment belong to God alone, and are to come only at the appointed time, in the eschaton.39 The absence of reference to Phinehas in most of the DSS could be explained by a desire to avoid referring to a figure that the Hasmonean dynasty had taken as a model and promoted to the rank of spiritual ancestor. But the lack of reference to Phinehas more probably follows from the way his zeal led to actual violence and punitive action. This could not fit within the psychologicalreligious framework of the members of the community. However, the absence of reference to Phinehas should not conceal the fact that the zeal for the decrees of God within the members of the community is similar in many respects to that of Phinehas.

2. “Zeal” in Philo’s Works Philo’s works contain numerous references to Phinehas, who is abundantly praised for his godly zeal against Zimri and Cozbi (Num 25).40 But, as in the Bible and the DSS, “zeal,” ζῆλοϛ, is in itself neither positive nor negative. In Philo’s eyes, there exists a zeal for wickedness, vice and error as well as a

39 On the eschatological dimension of God’s zeal in the Bible, see Mézange, Les Sicaires et les Zélotes, “La dimension eschatologique du zèle,” 169–172. According to him, the Zealots tried to imitate this aspect of God’s zeal too (177–189). Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1QM clearly shows that the members of the community expected to fight their adversaries at the end of times and to defeat them with the help of God (however, the terms anq / hanq are not to be found in 1QM). One wonders whether they considered the war of 66–70 the expected eschatological war, and whether they fought against the Romans, possibly joining the Sicarii in Masada (where some scrolls that may have originated from Qumran have been found). We have no conclusive evidence, but the fact remains that the Qumran site was destroyed by the Romans in 68 c.e. and that the Essenes seem to have disappeared after the war. 40 See L. H. Feldman, “The Portrayal of Phinehas by Philo, Pseudo-Philo and Josephus,” JQR 92/3–4 (2002): 315–345; Seeland, Establishment Violence, 103–136.

124

Katell Berthelot

zeal for virtue and truth.41 The latter is closely connected to zeal for God and Torah, although Philo admits that some pagan wise men show zeal for virtue too (Spec. 2.45), and that philosophy arouses in the spirit a zeal for the harmonious order that reigns in the heavenly realm (Spec. 2.230). As in the Bible, human zeal is often associated with anger and violence when it is directed at evil. According to Spec. 4.14, for instance, “everyone who is inspired with a zeal for virtue (ζῆλοϛ ἀρετῆϛ) is severe of temper and absolutely implacable against menstealers, who for the sake of a most unrighteous profit do not shrink from reducing to slavery those who not only are freemen by birth but are of the same nature as themselves.”42 This harshness is in accordance with the biblical rule that advocates the death penalty against kidnappers.43 Philo consistently advocates the death penalty whenever the Law of Moses commands it.44 Moreover, in the case of idolatry and apostasy among Jews, which must be punished by death, religious zeal for God and for the enforcement of the divine decrees generally leads to violence and, more precisely, to punishment on the spot. This is clearly shown by the example of Phinehas, which Torrey Seeland has analyzed at length. Christophe Batsch opposes Seeland’s analysis by arguing that the word ζῆλοϛ appears only in the Philonic passages that deal with the allegorical interpretation of the Phinehas episode.45 But he is mistaken, because he fails to understand the literary coherence of passages such as Mos. 1.300–304 and Spec. 1.54–57, two narrative texts in which the zeal of Phinehas is clearly referred to. In Mos., Philo links Zimri’s forbidden union with Cozbi to 41 Zeal for wordly pleasures and wealth, for vice, wickedness and so on: see Det. 165; Post. 99; Ebr. 36 ; Conf. 10; Her. 179; Mut. 93; Somn. 2.148; 2.274; Abr. 41; Mos. 1.325, 2.55, 2.169; Spec. 1.79, 1.312, 2.170, 2.240, 3.11, 4.89, 4.91; Contempl. 70. Zeal for God, for virtue, good, truth and so on: see Leg. 1.34; Post. 46; Agr. 105 ; Ebr. 21; Sobr. 26; Conf. 52; Migr. 164; Congr. 16, 162, 166; Mut. 199; Somn. 1.121; 2.176; 2.235; Abr. 4, 33; 60; Mos. 1.153; Spec. 2.259, 3.126–128, 4.14, 4.124; Virt. 15, 194; Praem. 11, 15; Prob. 12, 22, 64; Contempl. 68; Hypoth. 11.2. Note especially the idea of zeal for piety (εὐσεβεία) in Ebr. 84, Somn. 2.106, Spec. 1.30, 1.186 and Virt. 175, of zeal for atheism in Mos. 2.193 and 196, and Ptolemy’s zeal for the Law of Moses in Mos. 2.31. The references to the zeal of Phinehas will be given below. See also Seeland, Establishment Violence, 126–128. 42 All English translations are by F. H. Colson (LCL). 43 See Ex 21:16; Dt 24:7. 44 See in particular Hypoth. 8.7.1–2. For unclear cases, such as false oaths, see Ex 20:7b, Lev 19:12, Spec. 2.26–28 and 252–254. 45 See Leg. 3.242; Post. 183; Conf. 57; Mut. 108. Two other passages, Ebr. 73 and Virt. 34–41, deal with the story of the war against the Midianites, but without referring explicitly to Phinehas’ zeal or without referring to Phinehas at all (in Virt.). See Batsch, La guerre, 158–159. Note that in Ebr. 74, Philo alludes to the fact that Phinehas may appear as a murderer, but he dismisses this opinion as wrong and “feminine.”


125

idolatry.46 As a consequence, Phinehas, who is described as “full of righteous anger,” kills them both. Then Philo writes: This example being observed by some of those who were zealous for continence and godliness they copied it at the command of Moses,47 and massacred all their friends and kinsfolk who had taken part in the rites of these idols made by men’s hands (. . .). To none of their convicted blood-relations did they show pity (. . .). And, therefore, they kept in their own hand the act of vengeance, which in the truest sense was laudable to its executors (§303).

The motive of the killing is clear: the victims have committed idolatry. Those who carry out the killing are described as showing zeal for selfcontrol (or moderation in sensual pleasures, ἐγκράτεια) and piety (or fear of God, θεοσέβεια)—two virtues that stand in opposition to Cozbi’s crimes (fornication on the one hand and idolatry on the other hand)—, thereby imitating (μιμέομαι) the example of Phinehas. Logically, this means that Phinehas himself was full of zeal for continence and piety. Batsch’s argument that the notion of zeal is missing because the verb ζηλόω is used instead of the noun ζῆλοϛ can simply not be taken seriously.48 Finally, even if one leaves Phinehas himself aside, §303 unambiguously shows that Philo expresses warm support to those who were zealous to punish the unfaithful Israelites and killed them on the spot. Similarly, in Spec. 1.54–57, a passage that deals with apostasy, Philo vehemently condemns those who “betray the honor due to the One” (§54), and maintains that: it is well that all who have a zeal for virtue (ἅπασι τοῖϛ ζῆλον ἔχουσιν ἀρετῆϛ) should be permitted to exact the penalties offhand and with no delay, without bringing the offender before jury or council or any kind of magistrate at all, and give full scope to the feelings which possess them, that hatred of evil and love of God which urges them to inflict punishment without mercy on the impious (. . .) (§55).

At the beginning of §56, Philo illustrates his point through the example of Phinehas, which he introduces with the following sentence: “There is recorded in the Laws the example of one who acted with this admirable courage” (ἀναγέγραπταί τιϛ ἐν τοῖϛ νόμοιϛ τὸ καλὸν τοῦτο τόλμημα τολμήσαϛ). 46

§302.

See the association of “offering a sacrifice” (to idols) and “visiting a prostitute” in

47 Τοῦτο θεασάμενοί τινεϛ τὸ παράδειγμα τῶν τὴν ἐγκράτειαν καὶ θεοσέβειαν ἐζηλωκότων προστάξαντοϛ Μωυσέωϛ ἐμιμήσαντο. 48 See Batsch, La guerre, 152, n.103. Actually, he seems to understand ἐζηλωκότων as a noun meaning “l’ardeur du ressentiment,” and not as an active perfect participle of the verb ζηλόω.

126

Katell Berthelot

Thus, Phinehas is an example—indeed, the example—of those who are zealous for virtue in the sense explicated in §55.49 Note also that §57 describes Phinehas’ action as “the result of zeal self-prompted and wholehearted,” using the word σπουδή, which in this case is synonymous with ζῆλοϛ. 50 To say, as Batsch does, that this text contains no reference to Phinehas’ zeal, is really to miss the point. Batsch further argues that the verb νομίζω in §55 (in: νομίσανταϛ αὐτοὺϛ ὑπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ τὰ πάντα γεγενῆσθαι) indicates that Philo reports the words of the murderers, while himself disowning them. But what about §54 and the beginning of §55, in which Philo speaks for himself? What about §§56–57? In short, what about the warm approval consistently given by Philo to Phinehas and those who act like him, not only here but in the other texts as well? The way Philo formulates his sentence in the second part of §55 does not invalidate in the least what he says everywhere else in connection to Phinehas and the Israelites who killed their parents and fellows out of pious zeal for God. What is more, Phinehas is not the only example of zeal leading to homicide that Philo mentions with approbation. The way Simeon and Levi take their revenge on Shechem and his people (Gen 34) is also considered by Philo an example of commendable zeal. True, in this case, zeal is mentioned in the context of an allegorical reading of the biblical text (Mut. 199). But not so in the case of Philo’s praise of the punitive action undertaken by the Levites (Ex 32). Once again, he explicitly connects the killing of the Israelites who became idolaters with godly zeal: Then this same tribe, (. . .) fired with zeal by their heart-felt hatred of evil, every man of them filled with rage, frenzied, possessed, took arms as if at one signal, and despising all thoughts of danger mowed down their foes drunk with the twofold intoxication of impiety and wine. (. . .) This51 shows that not every kind of homicide is culpable but only that which entails injustice, and that as for the other kinds if it is caused by an ardent yearning [literally : desire and zeal] for virtue (κατὰ πόθον καὶ ζῆλον ἀρετῆϛ) it is laudable and if unintentional it is free from blame (Spec. 3.126–128).

49 V. Nikiprowetzky is thus wrong in considering §§54–55 “une sorte d’introduction (et de commentaire justificatif) à l’épisode de Phinéès qui est narré ensuite” (Le commentaire de l’Écriture chez Philon d’Alexandrie, [Leiden: Brill, 1977], 226). It is the other way round: after having dealt with the proselytes (in §§51–53), Philo tackles the issue of apostasy, and puts forward his ideas about the way the apostates should be punished. Only to illustrate his point does he introduce the example of Phinehas, and not the opposite. Moreover, even if Philo’s text is not strictly speaking “halakhic,” in this context it is not purely “philosophical” either (pace Nikiprowetzky, ibid.). 50 Similarly, concerning Ex 32, Philo uses either ζῆλοϛ (Spec. 3.126, 128) or σπουδή (Spec. 1.79). On this episode, see below. 51 I.e., the existence of Levitical cities.


127

Zeal for virtue can therefore justify homicide, when virtue is synonymous with obedience to the Law and homicide is motivated by “hatred for evil,” namely hatred for apostasy and idolatry. Finally, let us consider the case of the false oath in which God’s name is used. According to Philo, the death penalty will be enforced, either at the hands of men or—if they fail in their duty—through divine intervention (the uncertainty about the agent of the punishment follows from the silence of the biblical texts).52 Philo considers that the former will most probably occur, since “there are thousands who have their eyes upon him full of zeal for the laws, strictest guardians of the ancestral institutions (μυρίοι γὰρ ἔφοροι, ζηλωταὶ νόμων, φύλακεϛ τῶν πατρίων ἀκριβέστατοι) . . .” (Spec. 2.253). The word ζηλωτήϛ should not mislead us; as in other passages of Philo’s works, it does not refer to Zealots, but, more generally, to those who are full of zeal for or against something. In this case, it designates people who are zealous for the Mosaic laws and defend the sanctity of God’s name. The following lines make clear that the penalty to be enforced by the zealous guardians of the laws against the perjurer is death. Philo justifies his halakhic position by using an a fortiori argument. Since lack of respect for one’s father and mother is punished by death (Ex 21:15, 17), all the more so in the case of someone who lacks respect for God himself. However, another interpretation—involving another kind of punishment—was conceivable. Thus, this passage reflects Philo’s personal stand and shows that he wholeheartedly approved of zealous Jews murdering someone who had blasphemed by using God’s name in a false oath. On a theoretical level, it is thus beyond doubt that Philo advocated the killing on the spot of Jews who publicly apostatized, committed idolatry or uttered blasphemy. His works probably testify to such a practice in his days, although not necessarily in Alexandria itself (he may have heard of such cases abroad, either in the diaspora or in Judea).53 But Philo’s commentary of the Law of Moses is not devoid of rhetorical aspects, which 52

See above, n. 44. On this far-reaching problem, see J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain (Paris: Geuthner, 1914), 2:156–159; E. R. Goodenough, The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt: Legal Administration by the Jews under the Early Roman Empire as Ascribed by Philo Judaeus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929), 34–37; I. Heinemann, Philons griechische und jüdische Bildung. Kultuvergleichende Untersuchungen zu Philons Darstellung der jüdischen Gesetze (Breslau: M. & H. Marcus, 1932), 223–228; G. Alon, “On Philo’s Halakha,” in Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1977), 112–124; V. Nikiprowetzky, Le commentaire de l’Écriture, 224–228. That Romans would not have permitted a lynching does not mean that some Jews did not occasionally practice it. 53

128

Katell Berthelot

should not be underestimated. It is therefore difficult to claim with any degree of certainty that, in a concrete situation, Philo would have gone so far as to advocate the killing of a Jew caught worshipping a foreign god or blaspheming. This issue must be left open, but one should not ignore the weight of the evidence contained in Philo’s works themselves, which definitely points towards what Torrey Seeland calls “vigilantism.”54 Philo’s comments on the episode in Num 25 and on other biblical passages show that, had he commented on 1 Maccabees and Mattathias’ slaying of the apostate in Modiin, he would certainly have approved of it. The question of Philo’s assessment of the Zealots (as described by Josephus) is a different issue altogether, because—as already underlined in the introduction—zeal and Zealots are two different things. Moreover, the motivation of the Zealots does not seem to have been exclusively linked to faithfulness to the Torah, rejection of idolatry and condemnation of apostasy. The Zealots also had a political agenda, and this Philo never considers a legitimate reason to kill somebody on the spot. Zeal for freedom or for national independence is not mentioned anywhere in Philo’s works.

Conclusion Zeal is an important notion both in the DSS and in Philo. Although zeal or jealousy is not in itself a religious notion, both hanq and ζῆλοϛ often receive a religious connotation and are used in religious contexts. Religious zeal implies faithfulness to the commandments of God and to the covenant. It imitates God’s zeal or jealousy for His people, His desire that His people keep the covenant. Therefore, religious zeal is often directed against those who threaten the covenant, especially the impious and the apostates among the people. However, unfaithfulness to the covenant can be characterized as (impious) zeal too. Zeal can thus be either positive or negative, holy or ungodly, without necessarily implying a dualistic system of thought. The specificity of the DSS in respect to Philo does not so much lie in their dualistic worldview as in the two following points: 1) In most cases in the DSS, the people against whom the righteous must be zealous are the enemies of the community, the “seekers of flattering things” or the “sons of the pit,” who could be pious Jews too (but with a different understanding of halakha), whereas for Philo holy zeal mainly had to be directed at apostates, blasphemers and those who publicly indulged in idolatry. This 54

See especially the conclusion of chapter 3 in Establishment Violence, 180–181.


129

difference of “target” is easy to understand if one keeps in mind the fact that the community/ies associated with the DSS considered itself/themselves the very guardians of God’s covenant with Israel. 2) But the members of the Yahad did not think that God had allowed them to undertake some violent punitive action against their adversaries, and left vengeance and punishment to God alone, whereas Philo expressed warm support to those who chose to kill the transgressors on the spot. However, to conclude that the leaders of the community behind 1QS were more lenient than Philo would be to miss the point. First, we do not know whether Philo would have put his theoretical discourse into practice had he been confronted with a real situation of apostasy among the Jews of Alexandria. While it may be exaggerated to consider his nephew Alexander an apostate, the fact remains that Philo adopted a rather lenient attitude towards him. Second, the restraint advocated in 1QS is part of a general theological reflection on eschatology and theodicy, and follows from the need to explain the sufferings of the righteous by referring to the mysterious plans of God, who puts his people to the test before He delivers and glorifies them. Finally, when the faithful ones are only a minority and the “sons of darkness” a majority, even common sense teaches that it may be counter-productive to try to kill all the impious, and the idea that one should wait for a clear signal from God comes as no surprise. CNRS Aix en Provence France


TO WHAT EXTENT DID PHILO’S TREATMENT OF ENOCH AND THE GIANTS PRESUPPOSE A KNOWLEDGE OF THE ENOCHIC AND OTHER SOURCES PRESERVED IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS?

LOREN T. STUCKENBRUCK

In his work De gigantibus Philo’s exegesis of Genesis 6:1–4 broaches several themes familiar to us through Jewish apocalyptic and sapiential literature composed before his time, that is, from the late fourth century until the late second century b.c.e. It is the aim of my paper to focus on two areas of comparability between Philo, who composed his works in Greek, and the early apocalyptic and Sapiential traditions composed in Aramaic and Hebrew. In particular, we shall inquire into two themes: (1) how these sources handled the story about the “sons of God,” “daughters of humanity,” and their gargantuan progeny and, following from this, (2) the extent to which Philo’s statements relating to human nature bear any similarity with reflections on human nature in some of the Dead Sea documents. In the end, we are concerned with whether or not Philo can be shown to have had any tradition-historical contact with apocalyptic (in particular, the Enochic traditions) and sapiential forbears who composed their interpretations of biblical tradition in Hebrew and Aramaic. Before venturing into the comparison at hand, a brief note on the treatment of “Enoch” in Philo is in order. Philo’s view of the prediluvian figure seems highly different from the Enoch we meet in the 1 Enoch literature and related traditions that refer to him (e.g. Book of Giants and Jubilees). This difference relates to the way Philo’s paradigmatic use of Enoch, whose name is interpreted in relation to the Hebrew hē n followed by a pronominal suffix –k, thus meaning “your favour/grace” (χάρις σου, Conf. 123; Post. 35– 36,1 41; κεχαρισμένος, “gifted one” Abr. 17). This explanation of the name is due to Philo’s wish to present Enoch as an example of “repentance” (μετάνοια), that is, “one who changed from the worse life to the better” 1 Though this “Enoch” is the one mentioned in Gen. 4:17 as the son of Cain, not the Enoch of 5:18 the decendent of Seth.

132

Loren T. Stuckenbruck

(Abr. 17). The transference of Enoch, which some traditions took as a euphemism for death (e.g. TgOnq) while others understood as a reference to his ascension without death (e.g. 1 En. 12:1–2; 71:1–4, 5–16; TgPs–Jon; TgNeof; cf. Jub. 4:23–25), implies for Philo a “turning and changing” (μετάθεσις . . . καὶ μεταβολήν, Abr. 18). That is, in Enoch there was an “old reprehensensible life” (τὸν ἀρχαῖον καὶ ἐπιλήπτον . . . βίον) that had to be blotted out (19): he passed “from ignorance to instruction, from folly to sound sense, from cowardice to courage, from impiety to piety, . . . from voluptuousness to self-control, from vaingloriousness to simplicity” (24).2 Philo thus distinguishes Enoch, for him a repentant one, from Noah— whose name he interprets as “rest” or “just” (ἀνάπαυσις . . . δίκαιος, 27; cf. Leg. 3.77–783)—who became “perfect” (τέλειος, 34), as “repentance” (μετάνοια) comes up second behind “perfection” (τελειότης, 26). By way of contrast, we may point out that there is not a hint amongst Enochic and related traditions that the patriarch was anything other than righteous his entire life. Thus with respect to Enoch’s early life, Philo’s exegesis or source of information has little in common with the apocalyptic tradition. Is one, therefore, to infer that Philo must not have been aware of any further ideas associated with the patriarch and transmitted in apocalyptic writings extant from the period in Hebrew and Aramaic? Our consideration of Philo’s “giants” in his De gigantibus suggests that a categorically negative answer to such a question would be misleading. The treatise De gigantibus is best known for Philo’s distinction between three types of people: those who are (1) earth-born, (2) heaven-born, and (3) God-born (60–61). He comes to this distinction while discussing the reference to “giants” from Gen 6:4. Dismissing that the biblical text should in any way be associated with “the myths of the poets” (58 and 60—perhaps an allusion to Hesiod’s Theogony), Philo adopts a more widespread criticism of mythological accounts of religion known among the Greek philosophers (e.g. Xenophon; Plato;4 cf. Herodotus, Hist. Prologue and passim) and taken over to some degree by contemporary Jewish thinkers (e.g. Josephus, Ant. I.15). In this way, Philo departs from much of the Jewish literature (apocalyptic and sapiential) which regarded Gen 6:1–4 as a real story, that is, 2 For a brief discussion, see also James C. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1995), 150–151. 3 In this passage, Philo incorporates some of the language applied to Enoch to Noah himself, saying that the latter recognises the “gift/grace of God,” though not as one who has rested “from sinful and unrighteous acts” (ἀδικημάτων καὶ ἁμαρτημάτων). This contrasts, of course, with what Abr. 17 relates about Enoch as one who repented. 4 On the early development of this critique, see W. Rösler, “Die Entdeckung der Fiktionalität in der Antike,” Poetica 12 (1980): 283–319.

Philo’s Treatment of Enoch and the Giants and the Dead Sea Scrolls

133

one about rebellious angels, human daughters, and evil progeny. As Peder Borgen has rightly argued, Philo’s strong statements about myth suggest his awareness of a “misconception on the side of some persons.”5 To be sure, Philo does seem to draw on a text that refers to ἄγγελοι instead of “sons of God” (Gen 6:2);6 as such these “angels” correspond to what “the philosophers” also have designated as “demons” and “souls” (6). However, whereas the philosophers have directed their interest towards discarnate, incorporeal beings, Philo wishes his emphasis to fall on how this all relates to human experience in his reading of Genesis 6. To this extent, Philo’s approach to the passage, as elsewhere in his writings, is allegorical (see Somn. 1.102): the earth-born are those people who indulge in bodily pleasures (τῶν σώματος ἡδονῶν); the heaven-born are lovers of learning such as the arts and knowledge in whom the mind (νοῦς), which is heavenly in nature, is primarily active; the God-born, on the other hand, have little at all to do with the visible world, as they are “priests and prophets who have refused to accept membership in the commonwealth of the world and to become citizens therein” and rise wholly above the realm of senseperception in their existence. In light of this classification, the “angels” and “giants” of Gen 6, who are not clearly distinguished from one another, function as a negative foil: they signify those “souls” which have abandoned themselves to the gratification of and seduction by bodily appetites. A closer reading, however, makes clear that Philo’s exegetical reading of Gen 6 is not simply concerned with different types of people, who at any given time are acting within one of the three type-casting classifications. Philo’s treatise functions as exhortation; it implies that his explanation for the story about the giants should inspire people to orient themselves around the incorporeal world of ideas. Human experience, for Philo, is more complex than his own classifications allow. His implied readers are not simply of one sort or another. Indeed, “the bad and the good,” he maintains, “are knit in a twin existence” and may even be “equally matched in times and numbers” (56–57). Each person, on account of having a body, has to negotiate between the good and the bad;7 as such, humans are

5 P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria. An Exegete for His Time (NTSupp 86; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 106. Philo’s statement, “it is no myth at all about giants that he sets before us” (60), firmly echoes his earlier warning in de Gig. 7, “Let no one suppose that what is here said is a myth,” which implies knowledge of those who treat the story as such. 6 A reading widely shared; cf. the edition of J. W. Wevers, Genesis (SVTG I; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 108. 7 On the basis of Gig. 4, one might infer that Philo co-ordinates the good and the bad, respectively, with the masculine and feminine.

134


“compound beings” (cf. 62).8 Thus, the person’s “soul,” which can be tempted to go astray, is not to be diverted by the love-lures of pleasure (ἡδονή), but rather to “gaze upon virtue (ἀρετή),” thus mitigating the potentially compromising effects of living in the body. Philo’s description of humans as having a compound existence is analogous to what he reads in Gen 6 about the giants. However, the situation for humans and giants is not entirely the same. Whereas “giants” represent the complete absorption of souls into an existence dominated by somatic appetites, humans whose minds or souls focus on virtue can actually temper the pleasures of the body; for such people, a compound existence does not ultimately have to be detrimental.9 The difference between humans and giants emerges more clearly if we take the Quaestiones et solutions in Genesim into account (1.92). In answer to the question on Gen 6:4, “Why were the giants born from angels and women?,” the text draws attention to the giants’ excessive body size and specifies that “their creation was a mixture of two things, of angels and mortal women.” Whereas “the substance of angels is spiritual,” they are capable of imitating “the forms of men” and can thus “know” women sexually in order to sire offspring. The giants, then, are the embodiment of what happens when “parental (masculine) virtue” has been absorbed into “maternal depravity” (cf. a similar disregard for the feminine in Gig. 4–5); one gains the impression here that for Philo, “giants” exemplify a mixture gone irretrievably wrong, while humans do not, in principle, have to be so far down the path. The analogy between giants and humans emerges only when humans, who in the text can be designated as “bodies,” have become “wicked and evil.” Of the three classifications, Philo focuses on the God-born and the earth-born, perhaps implying that most of his readers are struggling with existence somewhere in between! Philo provides examples of both. Abraham starts out as “a man of heaven,” that is, he corresponds to the “heaven-born” soul.10 This state is reflected by the patriarch’s initial name, 8 On humanity’s composite or mixed nature (the rational and irrational), see esp. QE 2.33 and, further, Her. 167, 232; Cong. 26. 9 Commenting on Gig., L. R. Wickham thus infers, “That human bodies and immaterial spirits should intermingle is, for Philo, not an unnatural controversion of divine ordinances; human beings simply are earthly flesh and immaterial, pre-existent spirit”; cf. Wickham, “The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men: Genesis VI 2 in Early Christian Exegesis,” in J. Barr et al., Language and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis (Oudtestamentische Studiën 19; Leiden: Brill, 1974), 135–147 (here p. 142). 10 Abraham’s former association with astrology (ἀστρονομία) as a Chaldaean may be the reason why Philo chooses him as an example of one who is “heaven-born.” Philo declares elsewhere (Abr. 68–71; cf. Migr. 184–91; QG 3.1; Virt. 212, and Her. 96–99) that the Chaldaeans’ interest in the movements of the stars was a focus on the visible, rather than


135

“Abram,” which Philo interprets to mean “uplifted father,” in whom the mind (νοῦς) is oriented towards “the upper world of heaven” (Gig. 62; cf. Leg. 3.83; Mut. 66; Abr. 82; QG 3.4; and Cher. 4). However, the change of the patriarch’s name to “Abraham” signals an even further movement upward, away from the interest in celestial prognostications that for Philo characterised the Chaldaeans from whence Abraham came.11 Taking the biblical text of Gen 17:1–5 as his point of departure, Philo associates the name change to Abraham with God’s declaration to Abraham that “I am your God; walk before me according to my pleasure, and show yourself blameless” (Gen. 17:1). Philo reasons that in the text God becomes Abraham’s God in a special sense, so that he becomes “a man of God.” His new name, accordingly, is taken to mean “the elect father of sound,” that is, “the good man’s reasoning” (Gig. 64; cf. Cher. 7; Mut. 66; Abr. 82; and QG 3.43). Whatever the etymology behind the name,12 Philo’s point is that in Abraham, reason, which has God as its only owner, guides speech in such a way that the person can swerve neither to the right nor to the left. Abraham, then, functions as an example of one who successfully negotiates the bad by remaining on the good, that is, the King’s, way without distraction. By contrast, Philo refers to Nimrod as an example of those “children of the earth” who “have turned the steps of the mind out of the path of reason and transmuted it into the lifeless and inert (ἄψυχος καὶ ἀκίνητος) nature of the flesh” (66). Citing the description of Nimrod in Gen 10:8 (“he began to be a giant in those days”), Philo credits Nimrod as the beginner of the desertion of the mind from reason to the flesh. (Indeed, for Philo, the name

the invisible, world. By distancing Abraham from any claim that he was the founder of astronomy (emphasizing the Chaldaean interest therein instead), Philo may have been at odds with earlier claims of the second century b.c.e. that positively credited Abraham as a founder of astronomy (Artapanos, in Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9.18.1 and Pseudo-Eupolemos, in Praep. Ev. 9.17.2–9 and 18.2); cf. Christian Noack, Gottesbewußtsein. Exegetische Studien zur Soteriologie und Mystik bei Philo von Alexandria (WUNT 2.116; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2000), 43–47. 11 Samuel Sandmel, Philo’s Place in Judaism. A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1956), 144–145 n. 213 finds an exception for this in Leg. 3.83–84, where “Abram” is favourably regarded. However, while the interpretation in this passage is indeed more positive in tone than the other passages, Philo still associates “Abram” with a state when “the mind . . . turning away from what is base . . . explores what is divine (τὸ θεῖον),” no longer able to “continue to entertain the principles it imbibed originally, but in its desire to improve itself seeks to change its abode for a better one.” 12 On the possibility that Abraham reflects the combination ’b (father) + brr (select) + h am(on) (noise), see Lester L. Grabbe, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation. The Hebrew Names in Philo (Brown Judaic Studies 118; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 126–127.

136


Nimrod means “desertion” αὐτομόλησις.13) Nimrod stands for those in whom the neutral, heavenly mind (νοῦς), also referred to as the soul (ψυχή), descends into a state that is overwhelmed by the flesh. Nimrod is further credited as the founder of the Babylonian kingdom, so that he is connected more directly than in the biblical story with the tower of Babel. In light of Gen 6:1–4, the designation “Babylon,” understood as “alteration” or “change” (66; cf. Conf. 1), links up with and corresponds to the downward fall made by “the angels” and manifested in abandonment to fleshly existence exemplified by the “giants.” Nimrod, in effect, is an example of opposition to God, a point made explicitly in Quaestiones in Genesim 1.82 where Philo presents his interpretation as “the truth of the story about the giants and Titans.”14 Philo’s examples of the God-born and earthly-born are intended to strengthen his view that Genesis 6 is not ultimately a mythological narrative about different beings, heavenly and earthly, but rather is concerned with the situation humans find themselves in, by mere fact of a bodily existence. Humanity “by nature” is not, however, defined as a “body” or “flesh,” but rather, as “soul” or “mind.” It is this core of the human being which has to negotiate between what is fleshly, on the one hand, and what is heavenly, on the other. For Philo, of course, it is bad for the mind to be fused with or dragged down by the flesh, a condition which the giants represent. Thus the possibility exists that Philo’s anthropology was shaped by an essentially bipartite soul (rational and irrational, respectively; cf. Her. 167, 232; Cong. 26; QE 2.33) as reflected in many parts of Plato’s Timaeus (61c7; 65a5; 69c7, d5, e1; 72d4).15 Interestingly, despite his allegorising exegesis, the interpretation of Gen 6:1–4 by Philo in De gigantibus accords in some ways with that of other Jewish interpreters of this passage. This is especially clear if one compares Philo’s categorically negative branding of “the angels” and “the giants” with the early Enochic traditions which largely blame the rebellious watchers for the bad state the world has got into (1 En. 6–16, 86–88; Jub. 5:3– 11, 7:21–25, cf. 10:4–7; and Book of Giants). The same attitude—whether this be in relation to the fallen angels, their gargantuan progeny, or both—is reflected in numerous other early Jewish writings which insist that, for reason of the evil they caused, they were held to account and punished by 13 This meaning is probably derived, in turn, from an etymology that derives nmrd from the verbal root m-r-d meaning “to rebel” (as in b.Pes. 94b) 14 This passage further, and enigmatically, states that the name “Nimrod” is to be translated as “Ethiopian”; concerning the problem, see Grabbe, Etymology, 130. 15 As argued by David Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Philosophia Antiqua 44; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 299–311.


137

God (Sir. 16:7; Wis. Sol. 14:6; Sib. Or. 2.227–232; 3 Macc. 2:4; 3 Bar. 4:10; CD ii 19–20; 4QExhortation Based on the Flood=4Q370 i 6). While this element of Philo’s understanding is not surprising, his use of Abraham and Nimrod, respectively, as positive and negative illustrations for the “giants,” suggests that he may have been aware of some traditions against which the early Enochic writings may have been formulated. First, we note that Philo’s description of Abraham serves, after all, as a contrast to “the giants.” Though Abraham’s relation to giants is not a theme broached by the Enochic (or any other) apocalyptic sources,16 it does occur in a euhemeristic source commonly called “Pseudo-Eupolemos.” According to the second of Eusebius’ citations of Pseudo-Eupolemos (fragment 2), the learned Abraham’s lineage is traced back to the pre-diluvian giants.17 Though the giants are additionally described as known for their “impiety” (ἀσεβεία), their connection with Abraham does not imply an altogether negative view. We may ask: Does Philo betray the knowledge of a tradition that relates Abraham to the giants and, if so, is he by deliberate contrast attempting to distance Abraham from them categorically? Of course, it could be argued that Abraham is so commonly understood as an ideal patriarch from whom Israel derives her identity as God’s elect people that, once the giants are interpreted negatively, it becomes a necessity that he be cast as one who is of an entirely different nature. Moreover, Philo’s description of Abraham in De gigantibus may be less an immediate function of the argument at hand than a reflection of what he generally says of Abraham in his other writings. Philo’s appeal to Abraham as one who is “heaven-born,” then, may merely reflect his intention to uphold the patriarch by default. Second, Philo’s description of Nimrod assumes a biblical story-line that the “giants” referred to in Gen 6:4 survive the deluge. Though Philo himself does not seem concerned with the chronology of the narrative, we may nevertheless ask: what kind of narrative do his statements presuppose? Here, instead of a contrast, we meet up with a view that corresponds with the same Pseudo-Eupolemos source just mentioned. The same PseudoEupolemos fragment that mentions Abraham’s ancestry back to the giants also tells of a certain Belos who, having escaped death, came to dwell in Babylon, where he built a tower to live in. Without doubt, the text alludes to the famous tower of Babel described in Gen 11:1–10. Furthermore, it is 16 If anything, the earlier sources, which denied an embodied existence to the giants after the deluge, were more immediately concerned with contrasting the giants from the figure of Noah; so, for example, in 1QapGen ii–iii and 1 En. 106–107. 17 For the Greek text and brief commentary, see Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume 1: Historians (Texts and Translations 20; Pseudepigrapha Series 10; Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1983), 170–187.

138


hard to ignore the possibility that the text, which attempts to co-ordinate biblical with Hellenistic cultural heroes of antiquity, is in some way alluding to the biblical Nimrod. The other fragment commonly associated with “Pseudo-Eupolemos” (fragment 2) likewise connects “giants” with the building of a tower. These giants, who are said to have founded Babylon, “were saved from the flood.” Now, Philo’s association of the pre-diluvian “giants” with the post-diluvian “giant” Nimrod would, one may argue, have been suggested by the occurrence of the term γίγας in his Greek translation of Gen 6:4 (plural) and 10:8 (singular), respectively. Though Philo does not seem to be interested in shaping his exegesis in relation to questions of biblical chronology per se, his singling out of Nimrod as an example of a wayward “giant” (in relation to the “giants” referred to as the offspring of “the angels” and “daughters of men”) suggests, I think, an awareness on his part of a tradition that was likewise associating this figure with the “giants” mentioned in Gen 6:4. If Philo knew the tradition of Pseudo-Eupolemos at all, we may assume that he used it discriminatingly: on the one hand, unlike that tradition, he distances Abraham altogether from the giants (and, in doing so, he follows the general direction that would have been taken by many other Jewish traditions of his day); on the other hand, like that tradition, he assumes a story-line that associates the post-diluvian Nimrod with the pre-diluvian giants. While this does not leave us in a position to postulate a dependence on early Jewish apocalyptic traditions per se, our cursory observations thus far do place Philo within the web of debate that already, during the second century b.c.e., was concerned with the nature and function of the biblical giants.18 The possible relation of Philonic exegesis to Enochic tradition is, however, strengthened if we take in account what both relate about the nature of the giants. Like Philo, especially in the passage at Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim (1.92), the author of the Book of Watchers at 1 Enoch 15– 16 had a particular scorn for the offspring of the fallen angels and women of the earth as a malum mixtum; they embodied a joining together of separate realms, “spiritual” and “somatic,” which in principle should be kept distinct. In comparing Philo with the apocalyptic tradition, one should keep in mind his way of distinguishing between human nature and “giants”: the giants represent what humans become when they abandon the spiritual existence in the mind or soul for that of the flesh, just as humans 18 On this, see Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “The ‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’ of Genesis 6:1–4 in the Second and Third Century b.c.e. Jewish Interpretation,” DSD 7 (2000): 354–377 (esp. 358–370).


139

may rise above the soma to participate in what is incorporeal. Whereas the soul of a human being can overcome temptation brought by somatic pleasures, a “giant” is typecast as irretrievably earthly-born. Humans, as the “giants,” may be mixture, but they are not, sui generis, a bad mixture. Similarly, the Enochic giants are irreversibly evil; because they are a reproachable mixture of the angelic spirit and human flesh, their doom is assured. The Enochic tradition does not go further to reflect for us about human nature. If anything, however, and unlike Philo, the apocalyptic texts assume that human beings are endowed with bodies, while there is no indication of their “souls” being immortal in any sense. His view of human nature notwithstanding, Philo’s way of understanding the giants comes closer to that of the Book of Watchers than any other extant early Jewish text. Tempting though this hypothesis is, I am not yet convinced that this incontrovertibly links Philo to apocalyptic tradition, since other writers who may have shared views about the giants with either Philo or Book of Watchers have not provided sufficient details to allow more precise comparisons to be made. If, however, we suppose that Philo was at least aware of a view being circulated in his day that the pre-diluvian giants were a bad mixture, then we do not go far wrong. If we speculate, furthermore, about where or in what context Philo may have encountered such a view about the giants, then an acquaintance with the apocalyptic tradition, which, though composed in either Hebrew or, more probably Aramaic, may already have been rendered into Greek by or during the first century c.e., cannot be dismissed out of hand. What are the implications of the present discussion of “the giants” in Philo and the Enochic tradition for the understanding of human nature? We note, with the recent work of Archie Wright, that the early Enochic traditions and Philo have very different approaches to the question of human nature in their considerations of the “giants.” Whereas the Book of Watchers and Jubilees regard the spirit-residue of the giants after their punishment as an external threat to human beings, Philo thinks of giants as internal irrational vices with which humans must contend by reason of their fleshly existence.19 What precisely are these “gargantuan” vices for Philo? Because they are encountered within the human being, are they necessarily part of human nature itself, so that the term “giants,” on one level, is simply a metaphorical way of talking about discord that occurs within humans when they are overwhelmed by “pleasures relating to the body” (Gig. 34)? Philo’s language is difficult to systematise on this point (in addition to 19 Archie T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits (WUNT 2.198; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2005), 214.

140


many others!). However, without taking anything away from human accountability, Philo can maintain in De opificio mundi (160) that pleasure (ἡδονή) “makes use of myriads of champions and defenders who have taken up for her care and defense”; and, in De gigantibus itself (35), he can exhort his readers by saying, “Welcoming the friendly frugality of virtue rather than the things which belong to the body, let us destroy (καταλύωμεν) the vast and innumerable crowd of merciless foes.” It is thus possible that Philo wants it both ways: on the one hand, vices are indelibly part of what humans, because they are souls that have acquired bodies, have to deal with; on the other hand, vices can be forces to be gotten rid of. In either case, Philo thinks that, although good and bad coexist in a person, the good is far more powerful (Gig. 57); it is for this that Abraham provides a supreme example (62–64). Philo’s reflections on human nature, as just considered, may seem remote from the realm of Jewish apocalyptic and sapiential ideas composed in Hebrew and Aramaic. However, the account he gives of internal and external forces of good and bad in De gigantibus is not altogether unlike what we encounter in some statements within the Treatise on the Two Spirits (hereafter Treatise) incorporated into the Community Rule (1QS) at iii 13–iv 26. The similarities between Philo and the Treatise may be listed as follows: (1) For both Philo and the Treatise, human nature is composite. The Treatise (at iv 15–18) maintains that God has apportioned the deeds of humans “in equal measure (db dbb) until the last time and has put eternal enmity between their divisions; abhorrence of truth are the deeds of injustice, and abhorrence of injustice are all the ways of truth. There is a violent conflict concerning all their judgements since they cannot walk together.” As we have seen, Philo holds that the bad and the good, since they come before us knit in a twin existence, may be equally matched in times and numbers (Gig. 56). Philo may have picked up an existing Jewish anthropology (humans as τῆς μικτῆς καὶ συνθέτου φύσεως, Her. 183), and, if David Runia’s analysis is correct, may have dressed it up through influence of Plato’s Timaeus. 20 (2) For both Philo and the Treatise, the power of the good outweighs that of the bad, and both refer to this in terms of the potential within human beings. Thus according to both it is possible for some people to be more successful than others in overcoming what is bad. However, whereas Philo may think it possible for the mind to gaze on virtue and overcome the passions associated with the body (even in this life), the Treatise, while implying that people are going to attain to different levels of purity, appeals to a time of 20

Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, 406–411 and 527.


141

divine visitation for the ultimate solution: the conflict between powers in the human beings shall continue in principle until the end when “God will finish off (lhtm) every spirit of injustice” from the innermost parts of human flesh, “cleansing it by the spirit of holiness from all deeds of wickedness” (iv 20–21). (3) Similar to Philo’s discussion of vices, the Treatise is not always clear about whether language about “the spirit of injustice” is a metaphorical way of referring to human activity in and of itself or to an external, invasive power. This would be especially true of the virtue and vice lists in iv 2–14, in which the spirits of truth and iniquity are, respectively coordinated with a number of activities. (4) Broadly speaking, Philo and the Treatise deal with human nature in a rich and complex manner and, as such, stand apart from the wide range of Jewish traditions that come down to us from the Second Temple period.21 As is well known, many texts, both amongst the Dead Sea documents and other sapiential and apocalyptic literature limit their discourse about human beings to bifurcatory social classifications. By distinguishing between “the righteous” on the one side and “the wicked” on the other, these materials adopt language that treats humans as acting wholly either one way or the other at any given time. Philo and some of the Dead Sea texts, however, reflect an anthropology that explores the conflict between wickedness and righteousness, between good and bad, within and in relation to human nature itself. Profound differences, however remain: (1) Whereas the Treatise conceives of a list of virtues and vices (iv 2–8 and 9–14, respectively), for Philo, in De gigantibus, virtue (ἀρετή) is in the singular, while vices are multiple, just as “the daughters of the earth began to be many” (Gig. 1, 18, 26–27, 53; cf. also Conf. 15).22 (2) For Philo, the term “flesh” (σάρξ), which in De gigantibus arises from his treatment of Gen 6:3 and Lev 18:6, operates as a negative category, as it is that which obstructs divine wisdom from flowering in the soul (19, 29, 32–36),23 while in the Treatise the term bśr,

21 Possible, though slight, exceptions to this may be Ben Sira and Musar le-Mevin; see my study, “The Interiorisation of Dualism in the Human Being in Second Temple Judaism: The Treatise on the Two Spirits (1QS iii 13–iv 26) in its Tradition-Historical Context,” forthcoming in eds. Eric Myers, Armin Lange and Randall Styers, Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World (Leiden: Brill, 2007). 22 See, however, Philo’s Virt., in which ἀρεταί are treated in the plural. 23 I am hesitant, therefore, to agree with Jörg Frey, e.g. in “Die paulinische Antithese von ‘Fleisch’ und ‘Geist’ und die palästinisch-jüdische Weisheitstradition,” ZNW 90 (1999): 45–77 that Philo, though emphasizing σῶμα far more than σάρξ, does not provide as relevant a Jewish background for the Pauline “flesh”–“spirit” antithesis (cf. Rom. 8:5–8; Gal. 5:3,17,19) as a number of texts from the Dead Sea (e.g. 4Q418 frg. 81, 1–2; 4Q416 frg. 1, 10–13; 4Q417 frg. 1 col. i 15–18; 1QS col. v 23–24//4Q261 frg. 1, 2–6//4Q258 col. ii 2–4; cf.

142


though infused by the spirit of iniquity, is an inextricable part of human nature; the spirit of iniquity will be dislodged from this “flesh” in its innermost parts at the time of God’s visitation (iv 20). Our comparisons between Philo’s De gigantibus and early Enochic tradition, on the one hand, and with the Treatise on the Two Spirits, on the other, suggest how much of Philo’s own work has welded together traditions— not necessarily genetically linked—into his own flexible web of ideas. While the fallen angels traditions in the early Enoch literature did not reflect very much on what the story about the giants has to do with human nature, neither did the Treatise on the Two Spirits attempt to integrate, beyond faint echoes, its cosmic, psychological, ethical, and anthropological oppositions into the watcher tradition. Philo, in bringing these ideas together, albeit in an almost idiosyncratic way, provides at least a place to start when we reflect on the implications of one of the earlier traditions on the other. While Martin Hengel, for example, has famously emphasized the Hellenisation of Judaea-Palestine during the first century,24 our comparisons at least raise the possibility that Hebrew and Aramaic traditions— whether by means of oral tradition, translation, or as transmitted written traditions—could have been exerting an influence, profound or not, in the other direction, even among Alexandrian Jewry of the first century c.e. Durham University, UK

also 1QS vi 17, 22//4Q258 col. ii 8; vii 20–21//4Q259 col. ii 4; viii 19//4Q258 col. vii 3; and ix 3, 14–15, 18//4Q259 col. iii 10). 24 Martin Hengel, The “Hellenization” of Judaea in the First Century after Christ (London: SCM Press, 1989).


BIBLIOGRAPHY SECTION PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 2004 D. T. Runia, E. Birnbaum, K. A. Fox, A. C. Geljon, H. M. Keizer, J. P. Martín, R. Radice, J. Riaud, D. Satran, G. Schimanowski, T. Seland

2004* F. Alesse, ‘Il luogo del nous: alcuni aspetti dell’antropologia di Filone Alessandria,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi (eds.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 105–122. This bibliography has been prepared by the members of the International Philo Bibliography Project, under the leadership of D. T. Runia (Melbourne). The principles on which the annotated bibliography is based have been outlined in SPhA 2 (1990) 141–142, and are largely based on those used to compile the ‘mother works,’ R-R and RRS. The division of the work this year has been as follows: material in English (and Dutch) by D. T. Runia (DTR), E. Birnbaum (EB), K. A. Fox (KAF), A. C. Geljon (ACG); in French by J. Riaud (JR); in Italian by H. M. Keizer (HMK) and R. Radice (RR); in German by G. Schimanowski (GS); in Spanish and Portuguese by J. P. Martín (JPM); in Scandinavian languages (and by Scandinavian scholars) by T. Seland (TS); in Hebrew (and by Israeli scholars) by David Satran (DS). Once again this year there has been close co-operation with L. Perrone (Bologna/Pisa), indefatigable editor of Adamantius (Origen studies). I am also grateful both to authors who have helped me in gaining access to items not easily available to me in Australia and to colleagues who have drawn my attention to bibliographical material which I missed or who have helped me locate obscure items. They include this year Giovanni Benedetto, Pieter van der Horst, Alan Kerkeslager, Sarah Pearce and Dieter Zeller. My research assistant in Melbourne, Tamar Primoratz, helped me greatly in updating the database. Once again I am extremely grateful to my former Leiden colleague M. R. J. Hofstede for once laying a secure foundation for the bibliography through his extremely thorough electronic searches. The bibliography, however, remains inevitably incomplete, because much work on Philo is tucked away in monographs and articles, the titles of which do not mention his name. Scholars are encouraged to get in touch with members of the team if they spot omissions (addresses below in “Notes on Contributors”). In order to preserve continuity with previous years, the bibliography retains its own customary stylistic conventions and has not changed to those of the Society of Biblical Literature. *

144

The Studia Philonica Annual 19 (2007)

Only the intellect in the human being carries the divine stamp, and for this reason, even though it is imprisoned in the body, it is not a victim of the fall that afflicts the soul. This fact determines the consistent novelty with which Philo conceives the human being in a tripartite form (and not bipartite as the Greek philosophy teaches, even if he does not abandon this position entirely), i.e. body, soul, intellect. For the last-mentioned component the term nous is used, but sometimes also the term pneuma. This tripartite anthropology is also present in the philosophy of the 1st and 2nd cent. c.e., and especially in Plutarch, for whom the analogies with Gig. 12 in the author’s view are particularly evident. A specifically Philonic treatment of the role and place of the nous is found in Leg. 1.39ff., where the psychological doctrine finds a projection in narrative form in the figures of Moses, Aaron and Pharaoh. Certainly the identification of Aaron with the irrational soul is coloured by the notion of the logos prophorikos (cf. Migr. 78, Det. 39), a kind of subordinate logos, which can also be the source of deception (as in Ebr. 70), even if it is linked to the dianoia. An English summary of the article is found on p. 319 of the volume. (RR)

M. Alesso, ‘La alegoría de la serpiente en Filón de Alejandría: Legum Allegoriae II, 71–105,’ Nova Tellus 22 (2004) 97–119. The paper discusses Leg. 2.71–105 where Philo analyses four episodes in the Pentateuch: the snake that tempts Eve in Eden (Gen 3), Moses’ stick which turned into a snake (Exod 3:4), the death of Israelites in the route to the Red Sea and the recovery of some of them through the bronze snake (Num 21:4–9) and, finally, Jacob’s last words to his sons, ‘Dan shall be a serpent by the way’ (Gen 49:17). (JPM)

M. Alesso, ‘La génesis del tiempo en Filón de Alejandría,’ Circe 9 (2004) 16–30. The philosophical thought of Philo conflates the notion of time as unlimited and eternal (the Greek way of thinking about time) and the doctrine of revelation (Hebrew thinking). He is indubitably in debt to Plato’s Timaeus when the philosopher affirms that time was created in order for the world to be the mobile image of eternity, but also to the broad tradition on the ‘hebdomad’ when expounding the biblical seven days of the creation of the world. (JPM)

J. A. Antón-Pacheco, ‘El universalismo judeo-helenístico en Filón de Alejandría y Pablo de Tarso,’ Convivium 17 (2004) 167–177. Philo of Alexandria and Paul of Tarsus are the two most outstanding representatives of Hellenistic-Judaic universalism. This universalism can be enclosed in the wider frame of the koiné, whose central characteristic is ecumenism. Two trends work together for the generation of Philo and Paul's universalism: the Hellenic contribution (essentially stoicism) and the Hebrew one (particularly that coming from the sapiential tradition). In the centre of his thought Philo places the idea inherited from sapiential Judaism according to which the Torah is Law of nature, without however abandoning the concept of observance. In Paul’s case what impels his universalism is his interpretation of Christianity. (JPM)

Bibliography of Philonic Studies 2004

145

F. Avemarie, ‘Juden vor den Richterstühlen Roms. In Flaccum und die Apostelgeschichte im Vergleich,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach /Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 107–126. The NT scholar Avemarie compares Philo’s In Flaccum with Luke’s Acts (see also the companion article by Van der Horst). Local conflicts between Jewish Christians, nonChristian Jews and the Roman representatives are mentioned in Cyprus (Acts 13:6-12), Philippi (ch. 16), Thessalonica (ch. 17), Corinth (ch. 18), Ephesus (ch. 19), Jerusalem (ch. 21) and Caesarea (Acts 23:33–24:27). It is interesting to observe that the term used, Ioudaios, characterizes rather different persons and positions. Occasionally Acts show a kind of antiJudaism but with much fewer consequences than in the anti-Judaic conflicts in Alexandria. In contrast to Philo, Luke pictures the representatives of the Roman power rather realistically, one could say as involved in quite ‘mundane’ every day occurrences. This is connected with a reduced emphasis on their religious positions and their administration. All in all, Luke grants the Roman officials only a supporting role. (GS)

C. Batsch, ‘Le “pacifisme des Esséniens,” un mythe historiographique,’ Revue de Qumran 21 (2004) 457–468. The author observes that it has long been scholarly practice to bracket virtually automatically the terms ‘Essenes’ and ‘pacifists’ and that even after the publication of the Qumran manuscripts, scholars defend a pacifism that is an essential feature of the Essenes. Recent research on Qumran has started to distance itself from this theory of ‘Essene pacifism,’ but this rejection is taking place without debate or critical argument. In this historiographical study the author analyses the ancient sources on which the theory is based: Philo (Prob. 75–91; Contempl.) and Flavius Josephus. From this analysis it emerges that the thesis is based on successive assimilations of the Essenes to the Therapeutae, and then to the Pythagoreans. (JR)

M. A. Beavis, ‘Philo’s Therapeutae: Philosopher’s Dream or Utopian Construction,’ Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 14 (2004) 30–42. Contrary to the argument in Engberg-Pedersen’s 1999 article (see summary in SPhA 14:146) that Philo’s De Vita Contemplativa is a fictional account of the ideal society, Philo’s presentation points to the historical reality of the Egyptian-Jewish contemplatives. This article shows how Philo’s description of the Therapeutae resembles Hellenistic utopian conventions, particularly Iambulus’ account of the Islands of the Sun (Diodorus Siculus 2.55–59). The differences between the Heliopolitans and the Therapeutae are due to the realization that the latter are an actual community of ascetics known to Philo (Contempl. 1). (KAF)

146


R. Bees, Die Oikeiosislehre der Stoa. I Rekonstruktion ihres Inhalts, Epistemata: Würzburger Wissenschaftliche Schriften 258 (Würzburg 2004), esp. 77–84. In this monograph on the doctrine of oikeiosis in the Stoa, the author examines as a source Philo’s De animalibus, in which Philo investigates the question whether animals have reason or not. The German scholar Karl Reinhardt had claimed that the passage, in which it is argued with Stoic arguments that animals do not have reason, is heavily influenced by Posidonius. This view is refuted by Bees, who concludes that the work cannot be regarded as influenced by Posidonius. (ACG)

K. Berthelot, L’«humanité de l‘autre homme» dans la pensée juive ancienne, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 87 (Leiden–Boston 2004), esp. 107–151, 231–239. The study analyzes how humanism was conceived of in different philosophical schools during the Hellenistic and early Roman period, and how these ideas were debated in ancient Jewish thought. The term humanism (l’humanité) refers to the idea that every person has duties towards his/her fellow human beings, for the sole reason that they all share a common nature or are bound by a form of kinship. The book also tries to determine to what extent Gen 1:26–27 (creation of human beings in God’s image) and Lev 19:18 (the commandment to love one's neighbour, who is like oneself) could be interpreted in a humanistic way by ancient Jewish writers. Two sections of the book are specifically devoted to Philo’s thought on the question. It is too simple to say that Philo explicates Jewish ethical ideas by means of Greek philosophical language. Often he subverts these concepts and gives them an entirely different connotation. In particular the author examines the concepts of koinônia, oikeiôsis, sungeneia and homoiôsis, with particular emphasis on the exegesis of crucial texts such as Gen 1:26–27; 2:7; 9:6. The analysis includes a discussion of Philo’s attitude to slavery, esp. in the light of his encomium of the Essenes. It emerges that his views are marked by a strong loyalty to Scripture, which even leads him to subvert his own views. The intimate connection between obedience to the Law and moral excellence (aretê) has as a consequence that humanism as understood by Philo cannot include solidarity with the wicked. The universalism of Philo’s ideas remain very limited, esp. since his understanding of the creation of the human being ‘according to the image’ is interpreted above all in terms of the relation between human beings and God (and not so much in terms of inter-human relations). (DTR)

E. Birnbaum, ‘Portrayals of the Wise and Virtuous in Alexandrian Jewish Works: Jews’ Perceptions of Themselves and Others,’ in W. V. Harris and G. Ruffini (eds.), Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 26 (Leiden–Boston 2004) 125–160. Through their portrayals of wise and virtuous people, the Letter of Aristeas, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the writings of Philo reflect Jews’ perceptions of themselves and others. The Letter of Aristeas takes a dual stance in sometimes viewing Jews and non-Jews as equally wise and virtuous and sometimes seeing Jews as superior to non-Jews. Based on the latter stance, Birnbaum suggests that the work may be ‘a Jewish Diaspora fantasy’ intended chiefly to bolster Jews’ confidence but perhaps also to impress non-Jews (p. 137). In the Wisdom of Solomon (whose provenance is debated), the wise and virtuous are


147

identified completely with the Jews and their ancestors, non-Jews are ignorant of God, and relations between the two groups are only hostile. Recognizing wise and virtuous people among both Jews and non-Jews, Philo sometimes appears to view Jews and non-Jews as equals. At other times, however, he sees Jewish wise and virtuous figures as superior to non-Jewish ones and sometimes claims that the entire Jewish nation surpasses all others. Despite such claims, Philo also distinguishes among different kinds of Jews, such as literal and allegorical biblical exegetes. Philo never includes his Alexandrian contemporaries among the non-Jewish wise and virtuous, who instead seem to be ideal figures of long ago and/or far away. The author suggests that while Philo could ideally accept the equality of Jews and non-Jews, the turbulence of current events may have led him to present the Jews as superior to everyone else. (EB)

E. Birnbaum, ‘A Leader with Vision in the Ancient Jewish Diaspora: Philo of Alexandria,’ in J. Wertheimer (ed.), Jewish Religious Leadership: Image and Reality (New York 2004) 1.57–90. Philo’s role as a leader is often overlooked even though he was an important figure in the Alexandrian Jewish community, as shown by his participation in a delegation to the Roman Emperor Caligula. To illuminate this role, Birnbaum reviews the political situation in 1st cent. Alexandria and discusses Philo’s life, character, works, intended audiences, and ideas. Philo’s ideas about God, virtue, and the Jews constitute the vision which informed his teachings. Central to the imagining of Philo as a leader is an understanding of his different intended audiences, because these audiences may indicate whom he influenced or wished to influence. The section entitled ‘Philo’s Messages to Different Groups’ presents Philonic teachings that might have been directed toward a mixed group of Jews and nonJews, Jews alone, the Alexandrian Jewish community specifically, and Philo’s own inner circle of like-minded Jews. In discussing Moses, Joseph, and Pharaoh, Philo reflects the leadership qualities that he did and did not value. Although he wished to reach a broad audience, Philo was probably most influential with the philosophically sophisticated Jews in his own circle, and his works were neglected by later Jews for centuries. Nonetheless his writings reveal his pride in and commitment to the entire Jewish nation. (EB)

M. Böhm, ‘Abraham und die Erzväter bei Philo: Hermeneutische Überlegungen zur Konzeption der Arbeit am CJHNT,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 377–395. The article presents central reflections from the author’s Habilitation thesis Rezeption und Funktion der Vätererzählungen bei Philo von Alexandrien. Zum Zusammenhang von Kontext, Hermeneutik und Exegese im frühen Judentum (Berlin 2005). The study forms part of the larger German research project Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti in Jena. The figure of Moses is an example for Philo’s exegeses of the patriarchs and matriarchs of Israel in his writings. The author shows that Philo is an independent writer, but she also underlines the independence of the three exegetical parts of his writings (Exposition of the Law, Allegorical Commentary and the Quaestiones). She includes in her analysis direct exegesis of the texts, but also the more paraphrased thematic characterizations of the patriarchs

148


(esp. Abr. 90–98). These passages show a clear orientation towards interested non-Jewish outsiders: only vague ideas about the contents of Scripture are taken for granted. (GS)

D. Boyarin, ‘By Way of Apology: Dawson, Edwards, Origen,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 16 (2004) 188–217, esp. 196–202, 208–211. Philo’s understanding of the theoretical epistemological problem posed by Gorgias, that truth is contingent on speakers, hearers and situations, and his proposed solution are seen to be an important model for Origen. (KAF)

M. H. Burer, The Historical and Cultural Background of Divine Sabbath Work and its Relationship to Key Controversy Passages in the Gospels (diss. Dallas Theological Seminary 2004). The question that the dissertation aims to answer is: ‘what background evidence is there for God's working on the Sabbath, and how does that background help the interpreter understand Jesus' actions on the Sabbath throughout the Gospels?’ In the third chapter a detailed listing and discussion is given of relevant passages in contemporary literature, including the LXX and Philo. (DTR; based on author’s summary in DAI-A 6502, p. 556)

A. Cacciari, ‘Presenze filoniane nelle Omelie su Numeri di Origene,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi (eds.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 217–230. In the search for Origen’s sources, identifying in not too generic terms how much the Christian exegete was in Philo’s debt is definitely not an easy thing to do. The disagreements emerging in the evaluation of any points of contact are a warning that we should try out different methodological approaches, in order to reduce to a minimum the risk of overvaluing or playing down Philonic influences that may be encountered in Origen’s writings. Attempts to identify a systematic thought process in the two authors, starting out from the identification of lines of dependency, do not always seem to give convincing results or be solidly grounded. The investigative approach that seems to be most convincing consists in giving priority to the biblical texts that both authors comment on, and using these texts as a concrete guideline for a series of parallel findings in the corpus of the two Alexandrian authors. Origen’s Homilies on Numbers offer numerous interesting possibilities for this kind of research, highlighting analogies and points of contact, above all in the field of interpretatio nominum, arithmological exegesis and literary forms. (HMK, based on author’s summary)


149

F. Calabi, ‘Les sacrifices et leur signification symbolique chez Philon d’Alexandrie,’ in E. Bons (ed.), «Car c’est l’amour qui me plait, non le sacrifice…» Recherches sur Osée 6:6 et son interprétation juive et chrétienne, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 88 (Leiden–Boston 2004) 97–117. The paper gives a general presentation of how Philo treats sacrifices. On the one hand, he emphasizes their importance in literal terms as elements of cultic observance in accordance with Levitical norms. On the other, he interprets them allegorically as symbols. They are endowed with meaning which exceeds the simple acts involved: they have reference to the monad, to the cosmos, to the excellence of moderation. Sacrifices can thus refer to divine greatness, to the perfection of his creation, and to excellence which human beings should acquire. They thus constitute signs, messages and linguistic elements, expressing a reality in a non-verbal language and concealing a meaning that is different to what appears on the surface. Allegorical interpretation of sacrifices enables them to be seen as tools both for understanding truth and for obtaining knowledge of reality. (DTR)

F. Calabi, ‘Ordine delle città e ordine del mondo nel De Decalogo di Filone alessandrino,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi (eds.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 139–158. This article, concentrating on the treatise De Decalogo, maintains that for Philo the Decalogue is not so much a set of ethical rules, but rather an ontological and political foundation, as well as a self-revelation of God. The individual is set in a broader context which transcends his individuality. Obviously, the commandments are formulated in the second person singular in order that each person should feel directly and personally involved, but the message is directed at the people as a whole: the transmission of the law makes sense in the sphere of interaction between human beings, between human beings and God, and between human law and natural law. It is no coincidence that this communication was made by God directly to all the people together and that it happened in the desert far away from the city, in the midst of miracles. The revelation of the law thus appears to be much more a self-revelation of God and a political foundation than the construction of a set of individual ethics, an element which is practically absent. The attention given to the self-revelatory aspects of God present in the Decalogue is almost inextricably interwoven with its being natural law. However, this does not lessen the importance of compliance with the special laws for which the ten commandments provide the basic and more general principles. (HMK, based on the author’s summary)

F. Calabi, ‘Tra Platone e la bibbia: ontologia e teologia in Filone d’Alessandria,’ Oltrecorrente No. 9, October (2004) 47–59. The article discusses Philo’s thinking, characterized by his grafting Platonist-Aristotelian thought on to the biblical tradition, as a decisive moment in the transformation of classical ontology into theology. Philo deals with the themes of causality of the first principle and the Ideas as thoughts of God, hence with the problems of unity and plurality of the first principle, transcendence and immanence, and the modes of action, knowability, de–scribability and nameability of God. Calabi’s hypothesis is that Philo tries to overcome

150


the philosophical difficulties by introducing a distinction between points of view; she observes a continuous oscillation in Philo’s work between, on the one hand, the presentation of the Powers and the Logos as modes of action of God or even as autonomous entities, and on the other hand, their presentation as human forms of knowledge, modes of approaching the first principle. Philo realizes a sort of doubling effect by distinguishing between Ideas within the mind (Logos) of God and Ideas, which thanks to their creation, have obtained an existence outside it. Do we have here two separate levels of being, or rather two different ways of looking at the same thing? The author opts for the latter vision, with reference to and discussion of many Philonic passages (e.g. from Opif. and Mut.). (HMK)

F. Calabi, ‘Ruoli e figure di mediazione in Filone di Alessandria,’ Adamantius 10 (2004) 89–99. The author discusses the question of a demonology in Philo: whether in Philo there are mediating beings between God and man. Her answer is that rather than speak of mediators, one may speak of roles of mediation in Philo, performed by created beings, viz. angels, who are souls (living in the air) charged with specific functions. The central text is Gig. 6–8. Calabi holds that for Philo, souls, demons and angels are different names for the same beings, depending on the different choices made by them. The mediating role of angels is in answer to a need of mankind for help, consolation, revelation, and punishment. Calabi also discusses Opif. 72–75, interpretation of the plural ‘let us make human beings’ in Gen. 1:26: Philo ascribes a specific role in the work of creation to angels, viz. the creation of the human being’s imperfect part (open for evil), as distinct from the general role in the work of creation, ascribed to the Powers, viz. the creation of the (imperfect) world as a whole. (HMK)

N. Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism and the People of God. The Significance of Abraham Traditions for Early Judaism and Christianity, Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series 273 (London 2004), esp. 19-40. The monograph is a revised version of the author’s dissertation (Sheffield 1993; see RRS 9313). Its thesis is that the traditions of Abraham’s rejection of idolatry and embracing of monotheistic faith are very significant for an understanding of Paul’s argument in his letters to the Galatians and the Romans, and the debates in the communities to which he writes. Excluding the rabbinic texts, Calvert-Koyzis focuses on The Book of Jubilees, the works of Philo, the Pseudo-Philonic Biblical Antiquities, Josephus’ Antiquities, and the Apocalypse of Abraham. Then she turns to the Letter to the Galatians and the Letter to the Romans. Concerning Philo, after having sketched the main tenets of his life and work, the author deals with the interpretation of Abraham in the works of Philo. Abraham is here found to stand for those things that made the Jews distinctive from their Gentile neigh– bours: monotheistic faith and obedience to the Mosaic Law. Abraham’s role is to represent the foundational monotheist. (TS)

M. Carden, Sodomy: A History of a Christian Biblical Myth (London– Oakville 2004), esp. 61–70. Philo plays an important role in this monograph devoted to the reception of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen. 19 (together with the outrage at Gibeah in Judges 19–21) in Jewish and Christian traditions up to the Reformation. Philo is the exception to the general


151

trend of Jewish exegesis to read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in terms of injustice, lawlessness and hostility to outsiders. The author in fact considers ‘Philo to be the inventor of the homophobic reading of Genesis 19’ (p. 61). This conclusion is based on an examination of Philonic texts, particularly Abr., which provide a theological grounding not only for homophobia but also for genocide. Examination of Philo’s allegories, however, show that his interpretation of male and female roles leads to contradictions. Attention is also given to the interpretation of Lot and his family in QG. Carden notes that Origen appears to know Philo’s reading of the Sodom story (p. 133). But he does not explain how it happens that Philo’s homophobic interpretation is continued in the Christian tradition. (DTR)

J. Carleton Paget, ‘Jews and Christians in Ancient Alexandria from the Ptolemies to Caracalla,’ in A. Hirst and M. Silk (eds.), Alexandria, Real and Imagined, The Centre for Hellenic Studies, King’s College London, Publications 5 (Aldershot-Burlington 2004) 143–166. After discussing the limitations of our sources, the author turns to how Jews and Christians responded to their Alexandrian environment. Although some Jews, like the author of the Letter of Aristeas and Philo appear to have felt quite at home in the city, it was also important to them to maintain a distinctive identity, central to which was the Greek translation of the Bible. Both writers emphasize the openness of Jewish culture to the outside world and the compatibility of Jewish and Greek intellectual traditions. Jewish sources sometimes reflect the influence of contemporary Greek philosophers and exegetes, but we have little evidence of who these figures were. Despite signs that Jews felt at home in Alexandria, Philo also reveals a sense of alienation from the culture, especially when he discusses proselytes, aspects of Alexandrian life, and the violent uprising against the Jews. Other Jewish works too suggest that not all Jews felt at home in Alexandria and some pagan writers express hostility toward the Jews. Alexandrian Christians maintained continuities with earlier Jews through their shared Greek Bible, biblical exegesis, and interactions with Greek intellectual tradition. Nonetheless, Christians rejected Jewish practices and focused on a broader range of biblical books. Despite impressions of cultural interaction and openness, both Jewish and Christian sources convey a sense of hostility in Alexandria between Jews and pagans, Christians and pagans, and later Jews and Christians. (EB)

N. G. Cohen, ‘The Mystery-Terminology in Philo,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 173–187. The article gives a preliminary analysis of Philo’s mystery terminology, concentrating primarily on the term μυστήριον and related words. First a number of unspecific usages are examined, including those which refer the knowledge of God and the Torah as ‘mysteries.’ Then a larger group of passages are analyzed in which ‘mystery terminology’ is used in the context of philosophical allegorization of the biblical text, including those in which reference is made to the process of (attempting) to gain knowledge of God. The author concludes that there can be no question of any kind of ‘mystery religion.’ Philo uses this kind of terminology metaphorically. He does not have in mind any kind of secret esoteric lore, but he is keen to avoid criticism from fundamentalist–literalists. For him the ‘Great

152


Jewish Mysteries’ are God's absolute unity and incorporeality, combining Judaism and Platonism. The article concludes with some remarks on what can be said about Philo’s ‘mystical experience.’ (DTR)

F. Conti Bizzarro, ‘Nell’officina di Polluce,’ in G. Abbamonte, F. Conti Bizzarro and L. Spina (eds.), L'ultima parola : l'analisi dei testi : teorie e pratiche nell'antichità greca e latina: atti del terzo colloquio italo-francese coordinato da Luigi Spina e Laurent Pernot: Napoli 13–15 marzo 2003 (Napoli 2004) 75–83. Analysis of two paragraphs (1.40-41) from the Onomasticon of Pollux (2nd cent. c.e.), which list terms of praise suitable to be used with reference to a sovereign, i.e., in a logos basilikos. Conti Bizzarro quotes passages from Philo containing these same terms: notably Decal. 42, which has εὐπρόσιτος and εὐέντευκτος, the latter term prior to Pollux being found only in Philo (but it may have been inserted in the Onomasticon by a later epitomator rather than by Pollux himself). (HMK)

C. P. Cosaert, ‘The Use of “agios” for the Sanctuary in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Philo, and Josephus,’ Andrews University Seminary Studies 42 (2004) 91–103. Scholars disagree about whether the background of Heb 6:19–20 should be understood as the high priest’s entry into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement or as part of the inauguration of the entire sanctuary. The dispute rests upon whether ta hagia in Heb 6:19 refers to the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary or to the sanctuary in general. To illuminate the Hebrews usage, Cosaert examines how hagios is used in extra-biblical Greek Jewish literature—namely, the Sibylline Oracles, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Psalms of Solomon, Philo, and Josephus. He concludes that when used alone, ta hagia in this literature refers only to the entire sanctuary and never just to the Holy of Holies. The background of the Hebrews passage would therefore seem to be the inauguration of the whole sanctuary. The evidence of Philo supports Cosaert’s conclusion: to refer to the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary Philo uses adytois (sic, p. 98) or ta hagia tôn hagiôn. (EB)

N. Dax Moraes, ‘Tradição e transformação: a Torah como fundamento do mundo em Fílon de Alexandria,’ Metanoia. Primeiros escritos em filosofia (on-line) 6 (2004) 7–30. The contribution studies the senses of the term logos in Philo, with references to its antecedents and their influence. The result of the combination of hellenistic and biblical traditions is not without originality. One of the most creative ideas is the convergence of the divine Logos, the foundation of creation, and the writings of Moses. Through the path of the Torah, one can obtain knowledge of the world and the Logos, and then reach true knowledge of God, which is always dependent on the grace and self-revelation of the same God. (JPM)


153

N. Dax Moraes, ‘Logos eterno e Logos perpétuo em Fílon de Alexandria,’ Idéias. Revista do Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas da Universidade Estadual de Campinas 11.2.2 (2004) 25–38. The author briefly discusses texts and scholarly interpretations of the idea of the divine logos according to Philo. It contains elements of Platonic and Stoic traditions in addition to the Biblical perspective of the word as creative power. The logos is the mediator between the eternity of God the creator and the perpetuity of his creative work, an idea which reappears in Christian and Neoplatonist philosophers. (JPM)

R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr, Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus JudaeoHellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004). The book records the proceedings of the first conference held in Germany to be devoted largely to the thought of Philo. It was organized as the First International Symposium of the Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti project under the leadership of the two editors of the volume. In a valuable introductory section entitled ‘Philo und das Neue Testament — Das Neue Testament und Philo. Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen,’ the editors outline the aims of the project and the conference, and also give a valuable overview of Philo’s importance for the Christian tradition, including interesting remarks on Luther’s knowledge of Philo and on the extensive use of Philo made by Hugo Grotius. The programme of the actual conference as represented in its proceedings falls into four parts: (a) three papers surveying the field of Philo and the New Testament; (b) twelve articles presented in six pairs, with a Philonist and a New Testament scholar looking at a common theme from the viewpoint of their own specialization; (c) two further articles on separate subjects; (d) three detailed readings of Philonic texts, the results of workshops held at the conference. Every effort was made to ensure that the scholarly conversation was reciprocal and bi-directional in its approach. The papers are summarized under the heading of their author in the present bibliography. See also the review article on the volume by D. T. Runia in SPhA 17 (2005) 141–152. (DTR)

P. Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: the Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids 2004), esp. 87–93. In this revised second edition of his 1991 Chicago dissertation the author argues against the view that Paul should be seen as the founding father of Christian asceticism. Rather, the discussion between him and the Corinthians should be seen against the background of the Stoic–Cynic debate about the advantages and disadvantages of marriage. In the lengthy chapter Deming gives a detailed account of this debate as it emerges in a rich array of sources. One of these is Philo. In a brief survey those texts are emphasized in which the influence of Stoic marriage discussions can be discerned. However, there are also texts which reveal Cynic motifs, for example in his depictions of the model philosophers, the Essenes and the Therapeutae. Philo is thus able to accommodate a number of differing points of view. But in his various pronouncements on the desirability of contributing to the civic obligations of the community and trying to escape them, he verges on inconsistency. (DTR)

154


J. M. Dines, The Septuagint, Understanding the Bible and its World (London–New York 2004). This compact but detailed introduction addresses the complex issue of what the Septuagint (LXX) comprises, and includes chapters on descriptions of its origins in the Letter of Aristeas and Aristobulus; questions about its dating, location, and purpose; accounts of the Septuagint in Philo, Josephus, rabbinic sources, and various Christian sources; later Jewish and Christian texts of the Greek Bible; language and style of the LXX; interpretive uses of the LXX in Jewish and Christian sources, including a brief comparison of the LXX and the Masoretic text; and modern scholarly approaches to the LXX. Philo is discussed for his account of the origins of the LXX (pp. 64–70) and his interpretive use of it (pp. 140–41). With his suggestion that the translators were divinely possessed and his claim that they each separately arrived at the identical translation, Philo is the first to emphasize the miraculous and supernatural character of the LXX. He also offers ‘the first sustained interpretation of the LXX’ (p. 141) and considers the Greek Pentateuch (and probably the rest of the Greek Bible) to have equal authority to the Hebrew original. (EB)

G. Dorival, ‘Polysémie et contrarieté de sens chez Philon d’Alexandrie: le cas de kairos et de logos,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi (eds.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 289–294. The author commences by setting out the basic meaning of kairos, the fixed moment, the given or the right time, and of logos, the word or reason. The meanings are found in Philo, but there are also new significations which find their point of departure in ancient usage. He examines the meaning which kairos assumes in Spec. 1.56–64, Post. 122–123, Mut. 265 and QG 1.100. For logos he limits his enquiry to the passages where the Alexandrian exegete comments on the book of Numbers: Cher. 14–17; Leg. 3.148–150, 242; Somn. 2.170– 171; Conf. 56; Ebr. 72–75 ; Mut. 107–109; Post. 182–184; Spec. 1.9–31; Sacr. 66–67; Leg. 3.102– 103. (JR)

L. H. Feldman, “Remember Amalek!” Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in the Bible, according to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus, Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 31 (Cincinnati 2004). This study deals with the question of how the total elimination of the Amalekites (Deut 25:29, 1 Sam 15:3) is interpreted by Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus. The exegesis of the elimination of other groups—with or without God’s command—is also discussed: the perishing of all animals and human beings in the flood (Gen. 6), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:20–19:29), the murder of the Egyptian first-born (Exod 12:29), the extermination of the seven nations of Canaan (Deut 7:1-5), the revenge for the rape of Dinah by Simeon and Levi (Gen 34), the annihilation of the nations of Sihon and Og (Num 21:20–35), the complete destruction of the people in Jericho (Josh 6:21), the extermination of the priests of Nob (1 Sam 21:1–7), and Phinehas’ zealotry (Num 25:6-15). These stories raise questions of divine morality. Philo finds solutions in allegorical exegesis, regarding the struggle between the Israelites and the Amalekites as one between passion and mind. The revenge on the Hivites by Simeon and Levi is also interpreted allegorically. In other cases he argues that wicked people deserve punishment (the Flood, Sodom, the Egyptian


155

first-born). Philo nowhere refers to God’s command to exterminate the nation of Canaan or the extermination of the priests of Nob. He also does not deal with the episode of the destruction of Jericho. He deals extensively with the story of Phinehas, and although Phinehas committed an illegal action, he is praised overwhelmingly by Philo. Comparing Philo, Pseudo-Philo and Josephus, Feldman concludes that Philo ‘adamantly defends the principle that the innocent should not suffer for the sins of the guilty. He is likewise concerned with maintaining good relations with the non-Jews, and so he must answer those who charge the Jews with hating non-Jews’ (p. 224). He also has to be careful to justify the actions of God and of the Israelites. (ACG)

L. H. Feldman, ‘Philo, Pseudo-Philo, Josephus and Theodotus on the Rape of Dinah,’ Jewish Quarterly Review 94 (2004) 253–277, esp. 255-261. In his treatment of the story of the revenge meted out by Simeon and Levi for the rape of their sister Dinah (Gen 34), Philo offers an allegorical exegesis, explaining Shechem as a symbol of toil and Dinah as a symbol of justice (Migr. 223–225, Mut. 193–200). In this way he avoids the issue of Simeon and Levi’s deceit and guilt. He denigrates Shechem and praises Simeon and Levi. Philo favours conversion of Gentiles to Judaism and he knows about frictions between Jews and non-Jews in Alexandria. Therefore, he ‘would surely have found it impolitic to recall the details of an incident in which Jews demanded conversion and then were guilty of perfidy once it had been agreed to’ (p. 261). (ACG)

E. Filler, ‘Notes on the Concept of Woman and Marriage in Philo,’ Iyyun 53 (2004) 395–408. This article attempts to evaluate Philo’s concept of woman as understood by his attitude towards marriage. It claims that Philo’s essentially positive view of marriage and the complexity of his estimation of woman are incompatible with Daniel Boyarin’s view that for Philo the highest form of human existence is spiritual rather than physical. The author reflects on the allegorical significance which Philo attributes to the coupling of Adam and Eve, namely, the union of intelligence and sensation, and his views on womankind, misfortune, mental perfection, the creation of physical man and future generations, pairing-up of men and women, abstinence, and contemplation. The conclusion is reached that Philo recognized a value in marriage beyond the instrumental value of procreation. (DS; based on the author’s summary)

F. Frazier, ‘Une «biographie allégorique» chez Philon?: sur l'emploi de l’interprétation allégorique dans le «De Josepho»,’ in B. Pérez-Jean and P. Eichel-Lojkine (eds.), L’allégorie de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 43 (Paris 2004) 255–286. In the De Iosepho, Philo associates the allegorical method with a certain kind of biography, a method which has unusual features. The author compares Abr. and Ios., which are not straightforward accounts of biographical events, but both constitute a bios. These ‘allegorical biographies’ are based on a first kind of basic allegory which extracts from the biblical account a symbolic figure and reconstructs it through a rewriting of the narrative. To this basic task a ‘second allegorization’ is added, involving detail, which is attached to each episode and varies its function from the one treatise to the other. A comparison of the treatises’ structure allows the tensions inherent in Ios. to be observed: the tension between the ideal figure of the politician drawn in the narrative and inspired in particular by

156


Hellenistic theories on good government, and the allegorical commentaries, which emphasize the difficulties and the relative worth of the political world, a tension which also arises between the figure-symbol and the biblical patriarch whose destiny is part of God’s purpose. (JR)

L. E. Galloway, Freedom in the Gospel. Paul’s Exemplum in 1 Cor 9 in Conversation with the Discourses of Epictetus and Philo, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 38 (Leuven–Paris–Dudley MA 2004), esp. 103–148. In this monograph based on a 2001 Emory dissertation (on which see SPhA 16:241) the author includes a chapter on ‘Freedom in the Works of Philo.’ Philo is seen as continuously engaging the Cynic-Stoic tradition by means of his allegorical method. Against the background of the philosophical discussion, the theocentric character of freedom is emphasized. The mind, after being liberated from the tyranny of passion and wrongdoings, has God for its master. Regarding wealth, Philo does not value the Cynic’s call to a life of renunciation. Although Prob. reflects strong agreement with Stoic teachings, it also reflects Philo’s overarching concern that the vision of God must be the goal of the person who is free. Such a person is no longer called God's slave, but rather his friend. The chapter ends with observations on the realization of such freedom in community life, notably in the communities of the Therapeutae and the Essenes. Philo’s views draw heavily on his own social location as a wealthy male of some eminence in a patriarchal society. (DTR; partly based on a summary provided by D. Zeller)

A. C. Geljon, ‘Philo van Alexandrië over de jeugd van Mozes,’ Hermeneus 76 (2004) 182–191. Translation in Dutch of the account of Moses’ birth and youth as recounted in Mos. 1.1– 24 accompanied by a short introduction and brief explanatory notes. (ACG)

R. Goldenberg, ‘Religious Formation in Ancient Judaism,’ in J. van Engen (ed.), Educating People of Faith (Grand Rapids 2004) 29–47. In a book devoted to understanding the education of people of faith, Goldenberg considers Philo, the Qumran community, and early rabbinic texts in order to discern their ultimate goals of religious education, ways the goals were achieved, the role of others in helping to achieve the goals, and implied ideas about the sources themselves based on their notions of these goals. Philo’s ultimate goal was the ecstatic state of ‘sober intoxication,’ attained through observance and deep, philosophical understanding of the Mosaic laws. Training for this goal involved Greek and Jewish education. Although Philo felt strong social obligations, he did not indicate the basis of these obligations. ‘The driving force’ of his life would seem to involve educating disciples through writing or personal example. Nevertheless, for him the religious quest was essentially solitary. The ultimate goal of the Qumran community was to belong to this community, a goal seen not as an achievement but a divine gift. People joined after they were already educated but membership involved ‘a lifetime of disciplined perfection’ (p. 37). In contrast to the relative isolation of Philo and the Qumran community, the rabbis sought maximum involvement in the community. Their ultimate goal was twofold: for the rabbis themselves, it was to immerse themselves in and transmit learning of Torah; for the community, it was to live in accordance with rabbinic teaching. All three sources reflect elite classes, address literate adults, and virtually ignore the training of children. (EB)


157

P. Graffigna, ‘Modelli di vita felice. Felicità e stabilità in Filone d’Alessandria,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi (eds.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 193–215. The question of a good life was among the most seriously debated issues in the GrecoRoman period. This article aims to analyze the theme of a good life and happiness in Philo’s works. What emerges is that happiness, whether termed eudaimonia or makariotês, is, for Philo, the goal towards which the life of every wise and virtuous human being must aspire. The lives of Abraham, Moses, and the Therapeutae are examples of good lives. The philosophical background here is Stoicism, but also Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Happiness occupies pride of place in Philo’s ethics, in which God enjoys a perfectly happy and contented life and human beings should strive to be like Him, restore the connection of kinship with Him and stand before Him in the same condition of immobility in which He himself lives. Happiness thus finds a corresponding element in stability (eustatheia), an important virtue, the model for which is God and which is accurately reflected by the Patriarchs in their lives. The lives of the Patriarchs and the Therapeutae are the true paradigms of a happy life, because in each of them therapeuein, theôrein and eudaimonein are equivalents, in both the Platonic and Aristotelian sense: the genuine therapeia, the one directed towards God, leads to the stability of contemplation which, in its turn, brings contentment in life. For Philo, however, unlike Plato and Aristotle, this is all part and parcel of the practice of the highest virtue, eusebeia. Stability (eustatheia) thus has a central role in Philo’s ethics and is determined by apatheia, galênê, eirênê, eudaimonia: it defines man’s ideal state, the original perfection which he must strive to attain, and which consists in recognizing one’s own ontological ‘being for God’: for this reason, those who succeed in being eustathês are necessarily also eudaimôn and eusebês. (HMK, based on the author’s summary)

J. Hammerstaedt, ‘Textkritische und exegetische Anmerkungen zu Philo, De Specialibus Legibus II 39–70,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 359–373. These annotations focus on a text which was chosen by the organizers as a passage for a joint reading: the section on the ‘seventh day’ in the De specialibus legibus. Four subjects are dealt with: the question of the seven as cube and square in §40 (see also Opif. 91–94); the festive character of every day in §42, referring to Num 28:3; the relationship between vices and virtues, §42; and the behaviour of those ‘who practise wisdom’ (§§43–45). The article explores philological and theological problems, and puts various instruments of research in modern Philonic scholarship to a practical test. (GS)

W. V. Harris and G. Ruffini, Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 26 (Leiden–Boston 2004). While only one essay in this collection mentions Philo directly (see the listing of ‘Portrayals of the Wise and Virtuous,’ by E. Birnbaum), this book contains several essays on Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt that will interest scholars of Philo. (EB)

158


D. M. Hay, ‘Philo’s Anthropology, the Spiritual Regimen of the Therapeutae, and a possible Connection with Corinth,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 127-142. The paper argues that an examination of the spirituality of the Therapeutae can shed significant light on Philo’s rather abstruse exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 in terms of a double creation of humanity. The life of the soul that this community practises can be read as a kind of nearly realized eschatology. Although no direct historical link can be established, there are clear parallels between Paul’s affirmations in 1 Cor 15:44–49 and Philo’s double creation of humanity, just as there are between the Corinthians whom Paul addresses and Philo’s Therapeutae. In both cases praxis and theory shed light on each other. Reading Philo’s treatises helps us understand the kind of spiritual problems that Paul was attempting to address. (DTR)

B. Heininger, ‘Paulus und Philo als Mystiker? Himmelsreisen im Vergleich (2Kor 12,2–4; SpecLeg 3,1–6),’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 197–204. Heininger compares the Pauline narrative in 2 Corinthians with Philo’s mystic descriptions in Spec. III. He also takes into account contemporary texts such as Apuleius of Madaura (De deo Socratis). The heavenly journey proves to be valuable like a traditional linguistic game (‘Sprachspiel’) that was often used from Plato onwards. One can see, however, that Paul and Philo describe their ‘extraordinary experiences’ in a quite different way. This is not surprising due to their divergent historical and cultural settings. (GS)

J. Herzer, ‘Die Inspiration der Schrift nach 2 Tim 3,16 und bei Philo von Alexandrien,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 223–240. In this study the author offers a short sketch of the doctrine of scriptural inspiration as seen in the exegesis of 2 Tim. 3:16. Two questions are central: the relationship between the New Testament texts and the writings of Philo on the one side, and the consequences on the other. Herzer rejects the traditional interpretation of H. Burkhardt that the texts provide evidence for the doctrine of infallibility (esp. Praem. 55). In reality the characterization of Moses as hermeneutês shows the concept of a twofold hermeneutics: the prophet Moses as interpreter of the divine word and the hermeneutics of the exegete who is interpreting (allegorically) the scriptural evidence under the powerful influence of the divine spirit. The author concludes that the common view of the theme of ‘Holy Spirit in scriptural inspiration’ as having been taken by the author of the Pastoral epistle from Hellenistic


159

Judaism is unverifiable. It is more likely that the author of 2 Timothy has developed his own idea in controversy with his opponents. (GS)

I. Himbaza, Le Décalogue et l’histoire due text. Études des formes textuelles du Décalogue et leurs implications dans l’histoire du texte de l’Ancient Testament, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 207 (Fribourg–Tübingen 2004), esp. 98, 167–171. When Philo lists the ten commandments, he does not cite the actual text of their contents. In Decal. 36, however, we find a direct quotation of the 6th to 8th commandments. With regard to the two versions of the Decalogue, the question is raised whether Philo follows Exodus or Deuteronomy. The fact that he does not cite the Decalogue literally allows the conclusion that the prohibition of its citation was already part of Rabbinic texts that were current in the 1st cent. c.e. (JR)

A. Hirst and M. Silk, Alexandria, Real and Imagined, The Centre for Hellenic Studies, King's College London, Publications 5 (Aldershot-Burlington 2004). Only a limited number of essays in this volume deal with Philo directly (see the listing of articles by J. Carleton Paget, J. Rowlandson and A. Harker, and M. B. Trapp.), but this book contains various essays on ancient Alexandria that will interest Philo scholars. (EB)

R. Hoppe, ‘Gerechtigkeit bei Matthäus und Philo,’ in R. Kampling (ed.), „Dies ist das Buch . . .“. Das Matthäusevangelium. Interpretation—Rezeption— Rezeptionsgeschichte. Für Hubert Frankemölle. FS Frankemölle (Paderborn 2004) 141–155. The New Testament scholar Hoppe analyses the term dikaiosynê against the philosophical horizon of ancient ethical teachings. Already in Plato, dikaiosunê reflects more than the natural order: ultimately, it is established in an anthropological/theological sense. Due to a number of texts dealing with God’s dikaiosunê the subject is fundamental in the writings of Philo, who emphasizes that it has its origin in God. It is seen as a gift of God to humanity and is connected with the order of the creation and the Torah. It plays an important part in the virtues which are incorporated from the Greek tradition and encourages human beings to be self-sufficient and free of acquisitiveness. This liberates them from the troubles of the world and empowers judgment. The true wise man represents himself as a doer of justice in his practical experience. Although Matthew and Philo are not directly connected, both show in their use of the term dikaiosunê the close relationship between the milieus of Judaism in Palestine, Hellenistic Judaism and the world of the first Christians. (GS)

P. W. van der Horst, ‘Philo’s In Flaccum and the Book of Acts,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus JudaeoHellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 95–105. The Jewish puppet king Agrippa I plays a role in both the book of Acts and in In Flaccum, the major difference being that in the work of Luke this king is a theomachos, a persecutor of the earliest Christian community, while in Philo’s work he is the opposite: he

160


intervenes on behalf of the persecuted Jews in Alexandria. It is as if Luke had read Flacc. and reversed the roles. Parallels between Acts and Flacc. further include the matter of names of synagogues (Acts 6:9; Flacc. 53); the details of the sea voyages of Agrippa and Flaccus (Flacc. 26, 152–156) and the one by the apostle Paul (Acts 27-28); the location of synagogues in the vicinity of water (Flacc. 122; Acts 16:13) etc. (DTR; based on author’s summary)

P. W. van der Horst, ‘Philo and the Rabbis on Genesis: Similar Questions, Different Answers,’ in A. Volgers and C. Zamagni (eds.), Eratapokriseis. Early Christian Question-and-Answer Literature in Context, Biblical Exegesis and Theology 37 (Leuven 2004) 55–70. The paper was delivered as part of a Colloquium on early Christian use of Questionand-answer literature held in Utrecht, The Netherlands, in October 2003. Van der Horst first makes some remarks on the use of the Quaestiones genre in the Jewish-Hellenistic tradition. Philo’s only extant predecessor is Demetrius the Chronographer, who uses the genre to deal with problems in the biblical text. There may have been others, but if so, they have been lost. He then asks whether it is meaningful to compare Philo with the rabbis. The answer is no and yes. There is no rabbinic literature which specifically deals with the biblical text in the manner of Philo's Quaestiones. But the rabbis did deal with implicit problems in scripture, to which they gave answers, and in this sense it makes sense to compare Philo and rabbis. Moreover, they share common assumptions in their attitude to the biblical text. Van der Horst explains these by drawing on the work of Kugel in his book Traditions of the Bible (see SPhA 13:267). The most important is the assumption of the cryptic nature and hidden meanings of the sacred text. In the final part of the paper, five examples of common problems tackled by both Philo and the rabbis are analyzed. The Philonic texts dealt with are QG 1.16, 35, 45, 75–76, 86. In spite of the profound differences in the solutions proposed by Philo and the rabbis, they do have common ground through the fact that they wrestled with the same problems posed by the biblical text. One of the most striking differences is Philo's use of Greek philosophical themes (e.g. the immortality of the soul). But such divergence, the author concludes, is less weighty than the striking convergence in the nature of the questions asked. (DTR)

L. W. Hurtado, ‘Does Philo Help Explain Christianity?,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 73–92. In the first part of his paper Hurtardo deals with the relationship between Philo and NT authors and reaches the conclusion that no direct relationship is possible. In the second part, referring to recent scholars, especially Peder Borgen and John Barclay, Hurtardo shows how Philo is important for obtaining knowledge of Judaism in the Diaspora, the context in which Christianity has emerged. He emphasizes that Philo has to be understood in his own cultural and religious setting. The final part is devoted to two features of early Christianity that are distinctive in comparison with the Roman-era Jewish setting: the programmatic conversion of Gentiles without requiring Torah-observance, and the devotion to Jesus as divine. Hurtardo concludes that in Philo there is no impetus for these features. Philo can explain early Christianity because he tells so much about Graeco-


161

Roman Judaism. Philo displays a commitment to the religious beliefs of his ancestors and is also engaged in his cultural environment. He is in some respects comparable to Paul, but cannot be used to explain the distinctive features of early Christianity. (ACG)

S. Inowlocki, ‘The Reception of Philo’s Legatio ad Gaium in Eusebius of Caesarea’s works,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 16 (2004) 30–49. The author examines Eusebius’ use of Philo’s Legat. in the Demonstratio evangelica and in the Historia ecclesiastica. In these works Eusebius refers to Philo’s treatise in three passages: DE 8.2 403aff., HE 2.5.7 and HE 2.6.2. In the first passage, Eusebius narrates the sacrilege committed by Pilate, referring to both Philo and Josephus. Inowlocki discusses some problems arising from this passage, especially the discrepancies between the versions of Philo, Josephus, and Eusebius. Although the bishop’s account does not correspond to Philo’s wording in Legat., he does refer to the treatise. Because of his apologetic purpose, Eusebius reshapes Philo’s words. In HE 2.5.7, where Eusebius refers to Philo’s account of Sejanus’ hate for the Jews and Pilate’s misdeeds against them, he paraphrases Philo’s words because the report was too sympathetic to the Jews. In HE 2.6.2 Eusebius cites Legat. 346 literally. Inowlocki concludes that, employing several techniques (paraphrasing, summarizing, citing carefully), Eusebius uses Philo for his own apologetic purposes, and makes the information that the Jewish writer offers subservient to his theological views. (ACG)

S. Inowlocki, ‘Eusebius of Caesarea’s Interpretatio Christiana of Philo’s De vita contemplativa,’ Harvard Theological Review 97 (2004) 305–328. This article deals with Eusebius’ interpretation of the description of the Therapeutae that Philo gives in Contempl. Making use of Philo’s report, Eusebius wants to demonstrate that the Therapeutae are the first Christians in Egypt. In his exploitation of Philo’s account, he makes use of several techniques; he paraphrases, summarizes and quotes it. This variation is due to his apologetic aim. Eusebius has a high esteem for Philo, who is presented as nearly converted to Christianity. He also reports about a meeting between Philo and Peter in Rome. By demonstrating that the Therapeutae are Christians, Eusebius validates the apostolic authority of the Alexandrian see. At the same time, with the aid of Philo he legitimates the catechetical schools in Alexandria and Caesarea, which he implicitly traces back to Peter and Mark. (ACG)

H. Jacobson, ‘A Philonic Rejection of Plato,’ Mnemosyne 57 (2004) 488. Points out a rare case where Philo disagrees with Plato. In Somn. 1.232–233, Philo, in discussing God’s immutability, notes the old story that the divinity toured the cities in order to examine human wickedness. This is an allusion to Homer Od. 17.485, which Plato firmly rejects in his passage on true theology at Rep. 380d–381d. For Philo, however, it is educationally beneficial and should be exploited. (DTR)

H. Jacobson, ‘Philo, Lucretius, and Anima,’ Classical Quarterly 54 (2004) 635–636. Points out that Philo’s description of the nous as the ‘soul of the soul’ in Opif. 66 is paralleled in Lucretius DRN 3.275, where the animus is called the anima animae. It should not be concluded that Philo drew on the Latin poet. It is more likely that both are dependent on an earlier Greek source of Epicurean provenance. (DTR)

162


A. Kamesar, ‘The Logos Endiathetos and the Logos Prophorikos in Allegorical Interpretation: Philo and the D-Scholia to the Iliad,’ Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 44 (2004) 163–181. Philo offers the earliest extensive evidence of the logos endiathetos, or ‘internal logos,’ and the logos prophorikos, or ‘uttered logos.’ Most often symbolized in his thought by the brothers Moses (as logos endiathetos) and Aaron (as logos prophorikos), this doctrine of the two logoi is generally attributed to the Stoics. Kamesar argues that Philo was influenced not only by the doctrine itself but also by an allegorization found in the D-scholia to the Iliad, Greek sources that explain Homeric phrases and myths but also contain later, more developed exegetical material. In the Homeric interpretation, the two logoi are symbolized by two brothers, Otus and Ephialtes, known as the Aloadae, and one brother is associated with learning, the other with nature. These associations may possibly reflect the widely attested pairing of (or conflict between) rhetoric and philosophy. The D-scholia additionally include an interpretation of the brothers, or logoi, as restraining anger, Ares, who is later freed by Hermes, logos or reason. Kamesar believes that the interpretation of the Aloadae in the D-scholia may be traced to the Stoa of Diogenes of Babylon and his immediate successors or like-minded circles. (EB)

C. Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis. 2 vols., Handbook of Patristic Exegesis 1 (Leiden–Boston 2004), esp. 176–183. In this comprehensive survey of the entire field of Patristic literature, a brief section is devoted to Philo in the chapter on Patristic Hermeneutics. Perhaps surprisingly it focuses on Philo’s views on the literal interpretation of the scriptural text. The author cites the view of the editors and translators on the French translation series that ‘the literal value of Torah was of such importance for Philo that it induced him to rethink the very notion of allegory’ (p. 176). Kannengiesser illustrates Philo’s combination of literal and non-literal exegesis with various texts mainly drawn from the Quaestiones. In the case of QE, he argues that there is a difference between those texts where he uses the distinction ad litteram and ad mentem, which make use of allegory, and those where he advances beyond the literal by linking it with the contemplation of the cosmos or with ethical evaluations. In these texts he speaks primarily about ‘symbols’. (DTR)

E. Kessler, Bound by the Bible: Jews, Christians and the Sacrifice of Isaac (Cambridge 2004) passim. The study examines the various interpretative traditions of the Aqedah (sacrifice of Isaac) in both Jewish and Christian texts from the perspective of a two-way encounter between the traditions. The method followed is text-based rather than author-based, so Philo's views, which are regularly cited, occur throughout the study; see the list of references on pp. 215 and 219. (DTR)

G. Korting, Das Vaterunser und die Unheilabwehr. Ein Beitrag zur §pioÊsion-Debatte (Mt 6,11/Lk 11,3), Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen NF 48 (Münster 2004), esp. 248–256, 637–694. This comprehensive investigation (790 pages) aims to investigate the understanding of the otherwise not attested Greek word §pioÊsion of the Pater Noster prayer and to suggest a new conjecture. The first section is a presentation of the various previous efforts of understanding this term, drawing especially on the literature published in the years 1970–


163

2000, demonstrating that no single understanding has received support from a majority of scholars. In the second section the author sets forth a new hypothesis, suggesting that §pioÊsion should be read as §p‹ =Êsion, probably to be translated as ‘das Brot als Sühnmittel, als Mittel der Unheilsabwehr oder der Befreiung.’ In the third and last section, the author investigates the use of =Êsion in works from Homer to the Byzantine period. Included in Section Two (pp. 248–56) is an investigation of the term =Êsion in the works of Philo (Somn. 1.95, 97, 114; Ios. 185; Spec. 3.204; Virt. 89), in which Korting suggests that Philo’s use of Manna as ‘unheilsabwehrender’ Logos might have influenced the early church through Hellenistic Judaism on its way to understanding Jesus as the liberating Bread. In the last section, Philo is dealt with on pp. 637-694, a section that is mainly concerned with an exposition of Somn. 1.95, 97, 114. (TS)

A. Kovelman, ‘Continuity and Change in Hellenistic Jewish Exegesis and in Early Rabbinic Literature,’ Review of Rabbinic Judaism 7 (2004) 123– 145. The transition from biblical to rabbinic literature coincided with the emergence of the Greco-Roman novel, a literary revolution that gave rise to ‘serio-comical genres.’ In contrast to epics, these genres lack distance between the past and contemporary reality and they often have their origins in folklore. Rabbinic literature reflects the serio-comical genre and contributes to it. In the rise of this genre, Alexandrian exegesis played a crucial role. Both the Letter of Aristeas and Philo emphasize the solemnity of Mosaic Law, especially through their allegorizations, and criticize writers that render the Law frivolous. Kovelman suggests that Philo’s allegorization of Eve’s creation (Leg. 2.19) and the creation of man (Opif. 76, 134) expresses criticism not of the literal meaning of the Bible but rather of the Platonic myth of the androgyne, which the rabbis embraced. He notes that ‘in shattering the naiveté of the epic, Alexandrians paved the way for irony and laughter,’ found in rabbinic literature (p. 135). The two literatures address similar problems such as the separation of the Jews from other peoples. Unlike Pseudo-Aristeas and Philo, however, who had to grapple seriously with the Stoic idea of the freedom and equality of all humanity, the rabbis did not have to reconcile Jewish Law with philosophy; for them, God’s will behind the separation was sufficient explanation. See also the summary of M. Niehoff’s response to this article. (EB)

R. S. Kraemer (ed.), Women’s Religions in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook (New York 2004). A substantially expanded and completely revised edition of the source-book published in 1988 and originally called Maenads Martyrs Matrons Monastics. See further RRS 8840. (DTR)

C. Kraus Reggiani, ‘La presenza di Dio nella storia secondo Filone di Alessandria,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi (eds.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 9–13. The introductory part of Legatio ad Gaium contains a section (§§3–7) which introduces a number of themes which are fundamental to Philo’s ethical-theological philosophy and continually recur in his other works, including the allegorical treatises. These themes are

164


examined in the order that they occur: (1) the existence of divine providence; (2) the meaning of the name Israel; (3) the transcendence of God; (4) the theory of the divine Powers. Although these themes appear to have no visible link with the work for which they provide a premise, in fact their presence justifies the classification of the Legat. (and Flacc.) as historical-philosophical works. Philo inserts into his ethical religious perspective a negative event which he himself had witnessed, the pogrom in Alexandria in 38 A.D., and makes use of it in order to deduce the continuous and providential presence of God in human affairs. (RR; based on author’s summary)

C. Kraus Reggiani, ‘L’inebriamento spirituale in Filone di Alessandria,’ in M. Perani (ed.), Una manna buona per Mantova - Man Tov le-Man Tovah: Studi in onore di Vittore Colorni per il suo 92 (Firenze 2004) 41–47. ‘Among the may themes treated by Philo, there is perhaps no other more useful for understanding the manifold directions of Philo’s thought than that related to the vineyard, the vine, wine, its use and abuse, and drunkenness (p. 42).’ This article, focusing on Plant. 140ff., shows how the concept of ‘sober drunkenness’ exemplifies Philo’s thought, its basic anthropologic concepts (humanity’s aim is God), and its originality as compared to Greek philosophical thought (for Philo, human intellect needs the grace of God). Sober drunkenness is the spiritual joy or agitation of the human mind elevated towards God, as represented by Isaac (‘laughter’, Leg. 1.82–4) or Hannah (‘grace’, Ebr. 145–49) respectively. (HMK)

S. Krauter, Bürgerrecht und Kultteilnahme. Politische und kultische Rechte und Pflichten in griechischen Poleis, Rom und antikem Judentum, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 127 (Berlin 2004). This study deals with the relation between civic rights and participation in the (local) cults in the Greek cities, in Rome and in ancient Judaism: to what extent did a stranger have the rights and obligations to participate in the local cults? How are the ancient religions to be perceived concerning exclusivity and compulsiveness? The author presents a very competent and penetrating analysis of his sources, providing an interesting study of these issues relevant for students of Judaism as well as of early Christianity. Diaspora Judaism is dealt with on pp. 265-279 and focuses on the Greek cities, while pp. 369–386 look at the organization of Jewish Diaspora communities. Then pp. 403-418 deal with patr¤w and mhtrÒpoliw in the works of Philo. Discussing the political theory of Philo as well as his teaching of nature and his messianology, he also presents interpretations of Mos. 1.34–36; Legat. 156f.; Flacc. 45f. and Legat. 281. The main thesis of this work is that the admission to local cults was not in general associated with membership in a particular ethnic group. In addition Judaism practised a relative openness towards non-Jews. Hence Judaism was a ‘ganz normale’ religion at that time. (TS)

G. Lacerenza, ‘Fra Roma e Gerusalemme: l’immagine di Puteoli e dei Campi Flegrei in Filone Alessandrino e in Flavio Giuseppe,’ in L. Cirillo and G. Rinaldi (eds.), Roma, la Campania e l‘Oriente cristiano antico. Atti del Convegno di Studi, Napoli 9–11 ottobre 2000 (Naples 2004) 97–128. A discussion of the passages in Philo and Josephus where reference is made to the town of Puteoli (also named Dikaiarcheia) or the adjoining area (the Campi Phlaegrei): Josephus’ BJ 2.103-104; Ant. 17.328–329; 18.159–161 (a passage speaking about Philo’s brother


165

Alexander, alabarch of Alexandria and father of Tiberius Julius Alexander); 18.248–249; 19.5–6; Vita 3.13–16; Philo Flacc. 26–27; Legat. 185–86 and Legat. 14. The information about a Jewish community in Puteoli (cf. Acts 28:13), mainly to be derived from Josephus, is not very substantial nor very certain. In any case, at least four persons of importance in Jewish history of the Hellenistic epoch made their way through Puteoli: King Agrippa I, Herod Antipas, Philo himself, and Josephus. (HMK)

R. A. Layton, Didymus the Blind and His Circle in Late-Antique Alexandria (Urbana, Ill. 2004), esp. 144–151. Didymus’ reading of Abraham’s migration (Gen 12) is based on Philo’s interpretation. For both exegetes Abraham’s journey is a model of the road leading to perfection. Didymus also considers Abraham as an example of the ascent of the soul which is narrated in the Psalms. Although Didymus bases himself on Philo, he does alter the conception of perfection. For Philo, to become perfect is to become wise and to acquire the virtues of the cultured sage. In Didymus the migration aims at the perfection of the Christian ascetic involved in spiritual combat. The Christian exegete uses Philo’s material in ways that are appropriate to his own circle. In addition to Philo, Didymus is also inspired by Jubilees and Origen in his exegesis of Abraham. (ACG)

J. Leonhardt-Balzer, ‘Creation, the Logos and the Foundation of a City: a Few Comments on Opif. 15-25,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 323–344. The article presents the results of a workshop on Philo’s exegesis of ‘Day one’ of creation in Opif. 15–25. After a brief introduction, the passage is divided into five sections and a text, translation and commentary are presented. The translation is systematically compared with those of Whitaker (LCL) and Runia (PACS). The final part is devoted to interpretation. Philo’s use of the metaphor of seal and the imagery of the founding of a city give rise to a number of problems. The passage in its entirety is unique in Philo’s œuvre. It is noted that §§21–23 differ from what precedes and follows, which suggests it might be an insert. Philo’s methods of exegesis conform to the scientific standards of his time. His inclusive reading of the text transforms both Platonic and biblical ideas, but it is the biblical texts that always take precedence. (DTR)

J. Leonhardt-Balzer, ‘Der Logos und die Schöpfung: Streiflichter bei Philo (Opif. 20–25) und im Johannesprolog (Joh 1,1–18),’ in J. Frey and U. Schelle (eds.), Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 175 (Tübingen 2004) 295–315. This article discusses some similarities between the conceptions of the Logos in the writings of Philo and in the Prologue of John. In spite of the different approaches to the idea, both authors refer to the very same text in Gen 1. Both offer a comparable vision of divine revelation and communication in the beginning of Creation. Both show that the function of the Logos is the true explanation: in Philo the explanation of creation, in John the explanation of the Divine creator. Both unite the deep conviction that the Logos always

166


depends on his Father. Both use the concept of the Logos in the manner of the Wisdom literature. Nevertheless there are strong differences: for example, Philo would never refer to a Logos who becomes flesh. Many more differences emerge in the discussion of points of detail. It could be argued, however, that in the 1st century a prevalent tradition concerning the exegesis of Gen 1 exists which makes use of the notion of the Logos in the exegesis of the story of the creation. Greek philosophy, Jewish Wisdom literature and biblical exegesis combine together in the notion of the Logos in a creative way. It allows historical events to be framed by their universal importance. (GS)

C. Lévy, ‘«Mais que faisait donc Philon en Égypte?» À propos de l’identité diasporique de Philon,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi (eds.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 295–312. The author replies to the question posed in the paper’s title by surveying the evidence in the Philonic corpus. Philo lived in Egypt because this was the country chosen by his ancestors as their domicile, where the Law had been translated into Greek so that it could become known to the whole of humanity. According to the author Philo does not espouse any idea of a mystical association with the land of Israel which creates an obligation to reside there. He lives in Egypt not because of error but because of flight, for the point of departure is the reality of Egyptian life and the bridge that is sought is the activity of the divine Logos, of which the Law is the concrete expression. (JR)

J. Lierman, The New Testament Moses, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.173 (Tübingen 2004). This study examines the ways in which the New Testament characterizes the relationship of Moses to Israel and to the Jewish people. Besides the NT, the author uses other sources, among whom is Philo, whose views on Moses are briefly presented throughout the study. In Mos. Moses is portrayed as king, philosopher, lawgiver, high priest, and prophet. His role as prophet was the foundation of Moses’ leadership of Israel. Inspired by God, he was also the author of the law. Philo avoids the impression that Moses was divine, but at the same time he presents Moses as being of a different order than other mortals. The saying that Moses is as ‘god’ (Exod 7:1) has to be qualified. Moses’ death is described as a pilgrimage from earth to heaven. (ACG)

W. Loader, The Septuagint, Sexuality and the New Testament. Case studies on the Impact of the LXX on Philo and the New Testament (Grand Rapids 2004). Philo plays a prominent role in this compact but well-research monograph. Loader’s method is based on the close examination of texts, in the first instance comparing the LXX with its Hebrew original, then analyzing Greek texts in the New Testament, Philo and other Second Temple authors to see how they treat the scriptural text. The case-studies examined deal with the areas of male–female relations and sexuality. They are the Decalogue, the creation account in Genesis 1–3 (with 5:1–3 added), and the injunctions on divorce in Deut. 24. In each case Philonic texts are discussed. His interpretation of the Decalogue and esp. the tenth commandment reflects influences from Plato and the Stoics,


167

but it is clear that the LXX is the basis for his exposition. Philo’s use of Genesis 1–3 is extensive. Loader focuses on those texts that relate to his understanding of sexuality. He follows the LXX in highlighting the hierarchy that exists between male and female. Women are seen as a curse not so much in relation to 3:16, but through their creation in 2:21–25 and ultimately 1:26. ‘Philo necessarily portrays human beings, but especially women, as flawed by nature, particularly because of their sexuality’ (p. 69). As for Deut 24, Philo’s reading shows a shift of focus away from pollution to morality. (DTR)

L. M. Macia, ‘Messianic figures according to the Judeo-Hellenistic Historiographers Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus,’ Sefarad 64 (2004) 363–395. In this paper the author analyses the image of the Messiah as depicted by the JewishHellenistic writers Philo and Josephus. Philo’s image is basically of an eschatological nature which clearly is at least partly dependent on Hellenistic philosophical concepts. In the works of Josephus, however, several types can be distinguished, all having in common the human nature of the Messiah and his influence on historical events. (DS; based on author’s summary)

S. Mancini Lombardi, ‘La versione armena del Legum Allegoriae: osservazioni su alcune particolarità lessicali,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi (eds.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 253–265. After a brief discussion of the problems of dating in relation to the so-called Hellenizing school of Armenian translations, the article examines the Armenian translation of the Legum allegoriae from the linguistic point of view. Particular attention is paid to the transposition into Armenian of some key terms in Philo’s exegesis. This involves three different translation processes: usually the translator has a fixed correspondence between a Greek term and its Armenian equivalent; sometimes, however, he uses the same Armenian word to render two different Greek words which need to be distinguished, e.g. idea and eidos; but on other occasions he analyses the Greek term and uses more than one Armenian word to render it. It is particularly the last method that makes the Armenian version of Philo’s text so distinctive. (RR; based on author’s summary)

S. Mancini Lombardi, ‘La traduzione dei composti greci nella versione armena del Legum allegoriae di Filone Alessandrino,’ in V. Calzolari, A. Sirinian and B. L. Zekiyan (eds.), Dall’Italia e dall’Armenia. Studi in onore di Gabriella Uluhogian (Bologna 2004) 285–295. The language used in the Armenian translation of Legum allegoriae should not be considered exclusively in terms of the parameters of the so-called Hellenizing school. The linguistic traits that are present in the translation reveal a dialectical relation consisting of similarities and differences with the classical language. The Armenian version of Leg. has to be viewed in the linguistic framework formed by the other Armenian translations of Philo. Elements of contrast between these versions and those attributed to the initial phase

168


of the school of Hellenizing translation which is typified as ‘pre-Hellenizing’ allow some questions to be asked about the relative dating of certain Hellenizing writings. (DTR; based on author’s summary)

J. P. Martín, Teófilo de Antioquía. A Autólico, Introducción, texto griego, traducción y notas, Fuentes Patrísticas 16 (Madrid 2004) passim. This bilingual edition of Ad Autolycum considers Philo to be an important antecedent of the Antiochian theological school to which its author Theophilus belongs. More than 300 Philonic passages are mentioned in order to elucidate the text of the Christian author. Lexical and ideological continuity stand out in subjects like creatio ex nihilo (p. 69), the theological meaning of monarchia (p.115), the allegorical use of the term trias (p. 115), the relation of human beings and animals before the change to sin and salvation (p. 141), the concept of eternal life (p. 169, 189), a non-eschatological conception of metanoia (p. 139), the correlation between nomos physeôs and Torah (p. 139), and many others. (JPM)

A. M. Mazzanti, ‘Creazione dell’homo e rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi (eds.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 75–103. The author focuses on one of the fundamental problems of Philo’s theological thought. If the work of creation is a manifestation of the divine nature, how can one explain the origin of evil in the world and in history? She does not pose the problem in this explicit way, but this aporia is undoubtedly present in the exegesis of the various figures of the anthrôpos that emerge in the creation of the human being (the human being fashioned, made according to the image, ‘inbreathed’ by the divine pneuma). In the view of the author these figures lead to a basic opposition between the celestial and the terrestrial human being. This original duality explains the negativity of history, in which it should be understood that ‘the genesis of historical reality is marked by a prevailing negativity’ (p. 98). This viewpoint is also present in the Qumran writings and in Hermetic thought. However, the author asks, what is the relation between the negativity of history and the absolute positivity of God? Is it because God revealed himself to humanity that it has become wicked? It is suggested that the meaning of history—above all for Philo in the historical treatises—should be considered in a salvific and eschatological perspective. (RR)

A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi, La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004). The volume contains the papers of the seventh conference of the Italian group of scholars carrying out research on Origen and the Alexandrian tradition (led by Lorenzo Perrone; see esp. its impressive journal Adamantius). This conference, held in Bologna in September 2003, was the first exclusively devoted to the thought of Philo. It contains 19 papers, almost all of which focus on Philo and are summarized in this bibliography. English summaries of the articles are provided on pp. 313–326. (DTR)


169

A. H. Merrills, ‘Monks, Monsters, and Barbarians: Re-defining the African Periphery in Late Antiquity,’ Journal of Early Christian Studies 12 (2004) 217–244. The description of desert monastics by ecclesiastical historians of the 4th, 5th, and even 6th centuries—e.g. Eusebius, Rufinus, Sozomen, and Evagrius Scholasticus—stands in a long tradition of writings about others on the periphery. Though this tradition can be traced as far back as the Epic of Gilgamesh and includes the Bible, Herodotus’s account of northern peoples, and Tacitus’ account of the Germani, a more direct influence is Philo’s description of the Therapeutae. A common aim of these pre-Christian writers is to use their depictions of people on the periphery to critique practices and norms of the centre. Philo, for example, contrasts the simplicity of the Therapeutae in dress, diet, sex, and living quarters with the excesses of people in Greece, Rome, and Egypt. Later Christian writers use the same genre of writings about people on the periphery and their social, dietary, sexual, communicational, and physical peculiarities, but with different goals. These goals include presenting ascetic monastic communities as ideals, criticizing heretics through presentation of the orthodox monastic ascetics, and showing how widely the new Christian faith had spread—even into the peripheral desert. (EB)

I. Miller, ‘Idolatry and the Polemics of World-Formation from Philo to Augustine,’ Journal of Religious History 28 (2004) 126–145. Taking its cue from Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum (1620), the paper examines the association of idolatry with erroneous ideas about the natural world in the writings of lateantique Jewish and Christian authors. It focuses on two polemical genres. The first of these is the hexaemeral commentaries composed by Philo, Basil of Caesarea and Augustine. These thinkers used their commentaries and expositions of the six days of creation in order to revise or refute philosophical errors in natural philosophy, making use of various critiques of idolatry in so doing. In discussing Opif., Miller notes in particular those passages which contain polemic against wrong ways of thinking (notably §§7, 13, 45). The second genre is heresiology, initiated by Irenaeus and adapted by Augustine to refute Gnostic and Manichaean cosmological myths and disregard for the creation account in Genesis. (DTR)

L. Miralles Macia, ‘La figura del mesías según los historiadores judeohelenísticos Filón de Alejandría y Flavio Josefo,’ Sefarad 64 (2004) 363–395. The article analyzes some messianic texts in Philo, Josephus and others. It observes that, in Philo, only Praem. 95–97 alludes to an individual figure of the Messiah, and compares it with related passages of the LXX, the Masoretic text, Qumran and NT. The author concludes that Philo uses elements of the messianic tradition testified by Daniel 7, but without proposing a person with messianic characteristics. The author thinks (see p. 369 n. 20) that in the bibliography on this subject not much has not been said after Schürer and that his observations on an implicit messianism in Philo still command respect. (JPM)

B. Motta, La mediazione estrema. L‘antropologia di Nemesio di Emesa fra platonismo e aristotelismo (Padua 2004), esp. 87–99. In discussing Nemesius’ doctrine of the human being as a border-line figure (methorios), the author states that it is important to take into account the Philonic background, which is the decisive source for the conception. She includes in the discussion earlier treatments of this theme by Jaeger and Skard, as well as the more recent study of Runia. Nemesius does

170


not take over the ontological dualism of Philo, but only welcomes a radical dualism in the ethical sphere. Some comments are also made on the relation between Philo and Gregory of Nyssa, as it affects our view of Nemesius’s sources (cf. p. 104). (DTR)

H. Najman, ‘Early Nonrabbinic Interpretation,’ in A. Berlin and M. Zvi Brettler (eds.), The Jewish Study Bible (New York 2004) 1835–1844. Biblical interpretive works that preceded and differed from rabbinic writings range from ‘self-effacing’ retellings, translations, and commentaries to the self-conscious, highly individualistic works of Philo and Josephus. Retellings like Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon address legal and literary issues raised implicitly by the Bible. Translations like the Targums, which may date back to Ezra’s time, also include interpretations that address implicit difficulties. A commentary like Pesher Habakkuk distinguishes between Bible and interpretation and claims divine authority for both. Unlike these texts addressed to Jews alone, Philo had to authorize Mosaic Law and Judaism itself for both Jews and non-Jews in the recently established Roman Empire. He did so by attributing universal significance to creation, the patriarchal narratives, and Mosaic Laws, especially with the help of allegorical interpretation, Plato’s Timaeus, and the concept of the unwritten law of nature. Philo wrote self-consciously in the first person but also recognized other sources of authority, including Moses, behind his interpretations. Though Josephus claimed to convey the details of Scripture alone, his writings abound with interpretations that often present Jewish tradition in a morally favorable light. He too wrote in his own voice but also presented himself as a divine messenger. (EB)

M. Neher, Wesen und Wirken der Weisheit in der Sapientia Salomonis, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 333 (Berlin– New York 2004), esp. 155–163. The problem this author tries to solve in this monograph (based on his 2003 Marburg dissertation) is the question of whether in the Sapientia Salomonis there is already an understanding of Wisdom as a hypostasis, or if its personalized descriptions of Wisdom are primarily to be understood as poetic metaphors. On pp. 155–163 he focuses on ‘Das Vermittlungsproblem bei Philo.’ Here he deals with the intermediate figures in Philo, that is especially the Logos, but also the ‘powers’ (dynameis), which in fact are manifestations in the world of the Logos. In trying to describe these closer, however, he finds in Philo primarily the use of metaphorical language. On the other hand, Philo also uses language of hypostasis. Hence Philo’s solution of the problem demonstrates that the Wisdom in Sapientia Salomonis is to be understood as a ‘Zwischenstufe’ on the road to a full hypostasis understanding, a road on which Proverbs 8 represents a beginning and which reaches its goal in the Jewish-Alexandrian theology of Philo. Hence the Sapientia Salomonis is to be dated before Philo (p. 162). (TS)

G. W. E. Nickelsburg, ‘Philo among Greeks, Jews and Christians,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 53–72. The article presents a general introduction to Philo and his writings. Part I describes Philo’s life, his writings, his education, and the manner of his scriptural interpretation. Nickelsburg emphasizes that Philo is a man of two worlds: he studies and interprets the


171

Jewish Bible, but at the same time he is educated as a Greek, and participates in Greek culture. In Part II the author touches briefly on some elements that Philo has in common with other contemporary Jews, and also on some ways in which he is unique, such as his attitude towards Scripture and his use of allegory. Part III is devoted to Philo’s influence on early Christianity. (ACG)

M. Niehoff, ‘Response to Arkady Kovelman,’ Review of Rabbinic Judaism 7 (2004) 146–151. The author responds to and critiques the article of A. Kovelman summarized above. In contrast to scholars who either ignore Alexandrian Jewish exegesis or try to harmonize Philo with Palestinian rabbinic exegesis, Kovelman carries on the tradition of J. Freudenthat who contends that Alexandrian Judaism must be appreciated on its own terms. Niehoff questions, however, Kovelman’s broad association of Bible with epic and rabbinic literature with comic novel. She also believes that he has not fully explained how PseudoAristeas and Philo, ‘the very exegetes who most distanced themselves from everything comic [, …] became the harbingers of a more comic approach to Scripture’ (p. 149). Philo’s allusions to frivolous writers imply that other Alexandrian exegetes had quite different approaches. Niehoff suggests that these other exegetes may themselves have been ‘the crucial bridge between biblical epic and Talmudic farce’ (ibid.). Philo’s objections were not in fact to the frivolity of the literature but rather to the diminishing of divine power implied in the literal understanding of the Bible. In general, Kovelman has introduced stimulating ideas that need stronger supporting evidence and analysis. (EB)

M. R. Niehoff, ‘Mother and Maiden, Sister and Spouse: Sarah in Philonic Midrash,’ Harvard Theological Review 97 (2004) 413–444. Whereas Josephus minimizes Sarah’s importance in his reconstruction of the biblical account, Philo stresses her significance, sympathetically defends her rationality and virtue, appreciates and praises her achievements, and idealizes her as an exemplary wife and competent Jewish woman, albeit in a patriarchal framework. In his literal treatment three episodes in the life of Sarah are examined: her sojourn in Pharaoh’s house (Gen. 12), her decision to offer Hagar to Abraham (Gen. 16), and the visit of the messengers at Mamre (Gen. 18:1–15). In his allegorical treatment, Philo draws freely on existing exegetical and Pythagorean Athena traditions (Ebr. 60-61; Mut. 141–143; Mos. 2.210). (KAF)

C. Noack, ‘Haben oder Empfangen: Antithetische Charakterisierungen von Torheit und Weisheit bei Philo und Paulus,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 283–307. Both Philo and Paul are witnesses to the impressive creativity of Hellenistic Judaism. The author tries to show that the two contemporaries are comparable with common approaches to problems (‘Problembezügen’) and similar situations (‘Problemlagen’), even though they are living in quite different sociological circumstances. The paper’s starting point is a Philonic text at Congr. 130, where Philo distinguishes between souls who boast in ‘having,’ as compared with those who place value on ‘receiving.’ This is compared with

172


three Pauline texts: 1 Cor 1-4; Phil 3; 2 Cor 2:14–7:4. Paul and Philo interact with both the exegesis of holy texts and their readers. The common element is how they can guide the readers and hearers to a spiritual and sober lifestyle (compare the stylistic device of the Diatribe). The author restricts himself especially to the problem of the antithetical characterization of foolishness and wisdom which is connected to human experience and ethical behaviour and is unfolded in lists of evil deeds and virtues (‘Laster- und Tugendkataloge’). (GS)

K.-H. Ostmeyer, ‘Das Verständnis des Leidens bei Philo und im ersten Petrusbrief,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 265–281. While there are some similarities concerning the views of suffering in the works of Philo and 1 Peter, the differences are more obvious and even more important. First, concerning Philo: while to Philo suffering can be described as a general condition of being human, there are also two other forms of sufferings; suffering as punishment, and undeserved suffering. These do not come from God; indeed, suffering comes never directly from God. The other suffering is to be fought against: ‘mannhafter Kampf im Leiden ist das Ideal’ (p. 270). In 1 Peter, however, there are similar views, but the differences are first and foremost evident concerning the undeserved suffering. The community of 1 Peter is suffering: how is this to be understood? One of the differences of view is that the suffering of the Christians according to 1 Peter may be described as coming from God, or at least in accordance with the will of God. Suffering becomes one of the ways of communicating with God, and a mark of belonging to God. This kind of suffering is not, according to the author, to be found in Philo. (TS)

A. Passoni Dell’Acqua, ‘Alessandria e la Torah,’ Riceche Storico Bibliche 16 (2004) 177–218. Survey article on Alexandrian Jewish literature from the LXX to Philo, paying particular attention to the conception of the Torah and its practical application as expressed in this literature. Alongside Philo, an important source text for this article is the Letter of Aristeas. In Alexandria for the first time the Bible, especially the Torah, is approached as a literary text (canon defined, translated, interpreted, all as in the philological tradition of the Alexandrian Museum and Library). The author touches on the context of the origin of the LXX: the synagogue, Alexandria, the Ptolemies, the close contacts between the diaspora/Alexandria and Jerusalem, the translators coming from Jerusalem, and the work in progress in this period of establishing an official Hebrew text of the Scriptures. She discusses the implications of ‘Torah’ translated as nomos, the central place of the Scriptures in JewishHellenistic literature (translations, re-elaborations), the Torah seen not only as Jewish but rather as universal law, the problems in establishing the place and time of origin of many Jewish-Hellenistic works, and the adaptation of the LXX translation to the Alexandrian environment, so that the LXX can be seen as an interpretation of the biblical text (e.g. through the lexical choices, and the titles given to the Biblical books). The author then focuses on the interpretation of the second commandment (regarding idolatry) in Alexandrian Judaism, among others in Philo. As a conclusion, faithfulness to the Torah turns out to be a leading characteristic of Alexandrian Jewish literature. As for the daily practice in the Egyptian diaspora (for which papyri are a good source), Jews appear to be recog-


173

nizable as such only by their adherence to the Torah (not e.g. by dress or names). In Alexandrian Jewish literature, the Torah functions as a model for life and a source of a living, re-interpretable (not static) tradition. (HMK)

P. Pavone, ‘TÚ payhtÒn, materia preesistente o intero creato?,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi (eds.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 123–136. According to the author the doctrine of creation is the ‘coping stone’ for the entire edifice of Philo’s thought. In it the ‘logical and ontological’ relation between God the creator and his creation are central. Restricting the scope of his enquiry, Pavone concentrates his analysis on the term tÚ payhtÒn in Opif. 8–9, where the order of the universe is reduced to the two factors of the active and the passive cause. The term itself can be taken in two different ways: either as ‘pre-existent passive’ or as ‘non-pre-existent’. In the second meaning the account of creation in Opif. would not be incompatible with a form of creatio ex nihilo. The doctrine of the simultaneity of the divine creative process also presses in this direction, as well as that of its unicity, in which the pathêton would fulfil a double role: it would indicate the potentiality for divine creation, and at the same time it would prefigure ‘the final result of the divine activity,’ i.e. the cosmos (p. 137). These two realities, potential and actual, do not contradict each other, but are ‘the two sides of the same medallion’ (ibid.). (RR)

S. Pearce, ‘Jerusalem as ‘Mother-city’ in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria,’ in J. M. G. Barclay (ed.), Negotiating Diaspora. Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire, Library of Second Temple Studies 45 (London 2004) 19–36. This essay explores what Philo intended by applying the language of mhtrÒpoliw (‘mother-city’) and époik¤a (‘colony’) to the relationship between Jerusalem and Jews. Pearce rejects the assertion, made by Kasher (RR 8527) and Niehoff (see SPhA 16:249), that Diaspora Jews saw Jerusalem as their true homeland and the place to which they owed greatest allegiance. While devotion to the Jerusalem temple was central to Philo, an exegesis of Flacc. 46 and Legat. 281–284 against the broader contours of Philo’s thought shows that Philo did not claim the centrality of Jerusalem over other homelands and Alexandria in particular. Rather, Philo’s language is influenced by the Greek Bible and his Pentateuch-centric piety. (KAF)

S. Pearce, ‘King Moses: Notes on Philo’s Portrait of Moses as an Ideal Leader in the «Life of Moses»,’ in E. Gannagé et al. (edd.), The Greek Strand in Islamic Political Thought: Proceedings of the Conference held at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, 16–27 June 2003, = Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Josephe Beirut 57 (Beirut 2004) 37–74. The theme of the conference for which this contribution was prepared was the Greek and Christian roots of the Islamic tradition of the ideal and virtuous ruler. The paper focuses on the work that was perhaps the most important influence on early Christian models of ideal rule, the Life of Moses by Philo. It commences with some general considerations on how Philo presents Moses, followed by some comments on the work itself and its place in the Philonic corpus. It is argued that the work was most likely originally independent of the Exposition of the Law, but that there is a clear association

174


with the latter series, as indicated by internal cross-references. The remainder of the article consists of a fairly literal translation followed by extensive comments on the following passages: Mos. 1.1–2, 8, 20–24, 25–29, 32, 48, 148–162, 243, 249; 2.1–20. (DTR)

S. Pessin, ‘Loss, Presence, and Gabirol's Desire: Medieval Jewish Philosophy and the Possibility of a Feminist Ground,’ in Women and Gender in Jewish Philosophy (Indianapolis 2004) 27–50. As far back as the Pythagorean ‘Table of Opposites,’ the feminine principle is seen as the negative counterpart of the masculine. One finds what Pessin calls ‘the feminine-asloss dynamic’ in such philosophers as Plato, Aristotle, Philo, and Maimonides as well as in kabalistic writings. In contrast to these thinkers, Solomon Ibn Gabirol (d. 1056) provides grounds for evaluating the feminine in a positive way. Unlike his philosophical predecessors he offers a positive evaluation of matter, usually associated with the feminine, links matter to the divine, and sees the passive stance as the positive erotic desire to be completed, in implicit contrast to the masculine erotic desire for power. To illustrate the subordination of female to male in Philo’s thought, Pessin focuses especially on his allegorization of Adam and Eve in Book II of Leg. and observes that ‘it is not merely subordination or suppression, but the demise of the feminine other that marks the Adamic vitality’ (p. 37). (EB)

R. M. Piccione, ‘De Vita Mosis I 60-62: Philon und die griechische paide¤a,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 345–357. The author aims to show by means of a concrete example the extent to which Philo blends background material from Greek literature with Jewish theological motifs in a synthesis full of allusions. The example is found in the Life of Moses, where he speaks about the role of the shepherd practised by Jethro in Midian. Philo is aware that in his description he has to reach out to a wide readership. For this reason he does not use the famous biblical shepherd David as an example, but brings into play the classical background of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia and its tradition. The role of shepherd was treated with disdain by many people in the ancient world, notably in Egypt (cf. Agr. 51), although it was favoured in the Platonic tradition. It certainly contrasts with the conception of the divine king such as we find in Hellenistic-Roman ideology, so we may conclude that Philo was clever in exploiting the theme of paideia as it had developed in the Xenophontic tradition. (DTR)

P. Pontani, ‘Incontro di lingue e culture: le vicende di alcuni lessemi greci nelle traduzioni armene da Filone,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi (eds.) La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003) Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 267–287. The study aims to investigate how the Armenian translation can contribute to our knowledge of the reception of Philo’s thought and writings. It focuses on a group of terms belonging to the semantic field of the ‘law’ (nomos, themis, thesmoi and their compounds


175

and derivatives), confining the investigation to those treatises where both original Greek and the Armenian version are available. The various renderings of the Greek terms are listed and compared with those in earlier and contemporary Armenian translations, with the aim of determining which factors influenced the translators’ choices. Although they often reflect a practice that developed over time, i.e. a conventional system of correspondences, the choices appear to be less mechanical than is often thought. In general the translators seem to be aware of the particular connotations intended by Philo. The choices made reflect a number of different factors, including the translator’s personal linguistic and hermeneutical sensitivities, but also external influences, such as the contribution of the Greek exegetical tradition, earlier literature translated into Armenian, and the context. Many correspondences were found when comparing the translation of terms within the corpus, but also differences, which suggests that the Armenian translation of Philo’s works was produced by more than one person. (RR; based on author’s summary)

U. Poplutz, Athlet des Evangeliums. Eine motivgeschichtliche Studie zur Wettkampfmetaphorik bei Paulus, Herders Biblische Studien 43 (Freiburg 2004), esp. 174–202. The author examines Paul’s use of a metaphor which was commonly used at the time of the Ancient Greeks (agôn = contest) and traces its development. ‘Sport and games’ played an exceptional role in the world of the Greeks, which is why the word agôn came to be used in a metaphorical way. It represents the battle of the wise against adversity and for virtue. In this study the main emphasis falls on Paul’s use of this metaphor. But an entire section of the work is also devoted to its background both in Greek and Hellenistic-Jewish literature, including a fairly long section on Philo. The author first notes the difference between his approach, involving the allegorization of the lives of the Patriarchs and that of Greek sources. The role of the agôn can be quite precisely determined in Philo’s schematic ontology in between irrationality and rationality on the one hand, and passion and virtue on the other. It is a struggle to attain piety and well-being (eudaimonia) by means of moral effort. There follows a discussion of the specific prizes that the spiritual athlete gains, with discussions of the terms athlon, brabeion and stephanos. Finally it is noted that Philo’s metaphor is based on his own experience of sport in daily cultural life. (TS)

R. Radice, ‘Considerazioni sulle origini greche dell'allegoria filoniana,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi (eds.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 15–32. The author traces the origins of Philo’s allegorical method in the Stoic sphere, and more specifically in the distinction between allegory and allegoresis, i.e. between allegory as a practice and systematic allegory, in the form of a science, which in his view can be found in Chrysippus. However, although the early Stoics explained myth in terms of philosophical doctrine, they apparently did not give full credibility to the poets as authors and disseminators of myth. This was the contribution of the Middle Stoa (and especially Posidonius), with their theory of the golden age of humanity and the perfect wisdom of the poets. The third part of the study focuses on the allegorists in both the Stoic and the Peripatetic sphere, and also other exponents who take on certain essential features of allegoresis, such as the systematic use of etymology, the specific aim of apologetics, the attention made to non-Hellenic material and the adoption of originally Stoic methods by

176


non-Stoic philosophers. All these elements came together, in different degrees, in Alexandrian Judaism, which developed them in an original manner, particularly in the total identification of philosophy with allegoresis. Its distinctive feature is its systematic and comprehensive nature, including doctrines of creation and theology. Because of these features, Jewish-Alexandrian allegory pre-empts much of the exegsis produced by later Christian authors. (RR)

I. Ramelli , G. Lucchetta and R. Radice, Allegoria. Vol. 1, L’età classica, Temi metafisici e problemi del pensiero antico. Studi e testi 98 (Milan 2004), esp. 40ff., 269–273. The method of systematic allegory expressed by Chrysippus in SVF 2.1009 finds echoes in Philo, which demonstrates a line of continuity between the two authors. At the same time there are significant differences, which can be traced back to the fact that the Bible is conceived as an organic text of philosophical wisdom. This means that Philonic allegory can be more systematic and more complete, but less dependent on etymology. Above all it is able to be innovative from the philosophical viewpoint, which distinguishes it from classical Greek allegory that is limited to the confirmation of already existing doctrines. (RR)

P. Richardson, Building Jewish in the Roman East, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 92 (Waco TX–Leiden 2004), esp. 151–185. A reprint and light revision of RR 9369 as part of a collection of essays which focuses on bridging the gap between archaeological and literary evidence, particularly in relation to buildings which have a religious function. (KAF)

E. Roberts, Philo, Paul, Stoic Paradox (diss. Brown University 2004). This thesis demonstrates that Philo of Alexandrias and Paul of Tarsus make significant use of the Stoic paradoxes, which are a set of ethical beliefs that go against common opinion (Cicero, Paradoxa Stoicorum). It shows that Philo employs the philosophy and philology of the paradoxes in his biblical exegesis and that Paul relies upon philosophical assumptions similar to those of the paradoxes. Although the Stoic focus on the singular good of virtue does not find linguistic expression in Paul, his focus on the singular good of a life in Christ points toward a similar structure of thought. Four aspects of the thesis are of particular interest to Philonic studies: (1) the identification of eleven instances where Philo replicates the Stoic formula ‘virtue is the only good,’ (2) a comparison between the discussions of the paradox ‘the sage alone is free’ in Philo, Prob., and Cicero, Paradoxa Stoicorum, (3) an evaluation of current debates on Philo’s view of wealth (Mealand 1978, Schmidt 1983, Phillips 2001) with attention to Philo’s use of the paradox ‘the sage alone is rich,’ (4) a discussion of Philo’s application of the paradox ‘the sage alone is king’ to the figures of Moses, Abraham, and Adam. (DTR; based on a summary supplied by the author)

G. Roskam, ‘An Unknown Light Enlightened: On an Enigmatic Passage in Philo of Alexandria (QG 3.18),’ Rheinisches Museum 147 (2004) 428–430. The third of the allegorical explanations given by Philo at QG 3.18 in order to explain why Sarah did not bear children to Abraham is rather obscure. The author suggests that the text may be better understood if it is seen to refer to the Stoic doctrine of the σοφὸς


177

διαλεληθώς, i.e., when the sage instantaneously changes from wickedness to virtue even though he is at first unconscious of the change. Suggestions are made on how the Armenian may have obscured the meaning. (DTR)

J. R. Royse, ‘Jeremiah Markland’s Contribution to the Textual Criticism of Philo,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 16 (2004) 50–60. Jeremiah Markland’s name occurs frequently in the textual apparatus to PCW. This essay explores who the reclusive Markland was and how his emendations and conjectures came to be included in Mangey’s edition. Quite a few of the notes attributed to him in the PCW edition of De opificio mundi stem not from Mangey’s edition but from his handwritten notes in his personal copy of Mangey. Eighteen passages where a reading is attributed to Markland in the PCW edition of Opif. are examined to show that sometimes he was the source of the emendation, and contrary to Cohn’s assumption, sometimes Mangey was. (KAF)

D. T. Runia, ‘Philo of Alexandria,’ in G. R. Evans (ed.), The First Christian Theologians: an Introduction to Theology in the Early Church, The Great Theologians (Malden MA–Oxford–Carlton 2004) 77–84. A chapter is devoted to Philo in this volume on Patristic theology as part of the section entitled “Rival Traditions: Christian Theology and Judaism.” It is not inappropriate to call Philo ‘the first theologian’ (Bousset). His thought is more theocentric than what we find in Greek philosophy. Moreover the Alexandrian Hellenistic Judaism that Philo represents tends to approach religious faith in a dogmatizing frame of mind, as illustrated by the ‘creed’ found at the end of Opif. The article proceeds to outline the main themes of Philo’s thought on the nature and activity of God. It ends with a brief discussion of the critique of Philo’s theology by the fifth-century monk Isidore of Pelusium. (DTR)

D. T. Runia, ‘A Neglected Text of Philo of Alexandria: First Translation into a Modern Language,’ in E. G. Chazon, D. Satran and R. A. Clements (eds.), Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 89 (Leiden 2004) 199–207. The article, written as a contribution to the Festschrift for Michael Stone on his 65th birthday, starts out by observing that the Greek text of QE 2.62–68, virtually the only part of this work to survive in a manuscript tradition in the original language, has been curiously neglected. It is not included in Petit’s edition of the fragments of the Quaestiones, it is omitted in the TLG and in the Norwegian Complete Greek Word Index to Philo’s writings, and it has never been translated into a modern language (from the Greek). The author proceeds to present a fairly literal English translation of the seven chapters. It includes a small number of comments on the Armenian translation, for which the author was assisted by Prof. James Royse. The article concludes by stating that, although the Armenian translation suggests a number of readings that may improve what is found in the Greek text, it should not be concluded that the Armenian translation gives access to a better text than that found in the manuscript tradition. (DTR)

178


D. T. Runia, ‘Clement of Alexandria and the Philonic Doctrine of the Divine Power(s),’ Vigiliae Christianae 58 (2004) 256–276. The paper, written as a contribution to the Festschrift for the Australian Patristic scholar Eric Osborn, offers a comprehensive examination of how Clement appropriates the Philonic doctrine of the divine powers. It first examines the biblical basis of the doctrine, in which Pauline influence is superimposed on Genesis. It then successively treats the subject in the areas of theology, cosmology and the doctrine of creation, including the creation of humanity. For Clement experience of the divine power (usually in the singular) leads to knowledge of God (to the extent possible) and intimacy with Him through the Son. Clement’s Philonic heritage has enabled him to develop a positive and above all a dynamic theology. (DTR)

D. T. Runia, ‘Etymology as an Exegetical Technique in Philo of Alexandria,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 16 (2004) 101–121. The paper was presented at the 2003 SBL conference in Atlanta as part of a seminar on Etymology and Allegory organized by the Hellenistic Moral Philosophy and Early Christianity Program Unit. The paper aims to give an overview of how Philo makes use of etymology as an allegorical technique in his exegesis of scripture. It commences by pointing out the excellent research done by Lester Grabbe on Philo’s Hebrew etymologies in his 1988 monograph (RRS 8829). After some remarks on the distribution of etymologies in Philo’s three main exegetical works, it outlines the method in its essentials and demonstrates that an etymological allegorical interpretation consists of four component parts which can be presented in any order: the Hebrew word, its translation into Greek, its symbolism represented by the translation, and a justification of the symbolism. This use of etymology is based on a consistently held general theory of language. Brief comments are then made on the nine cases where Philo gives Greek etymologies of Hebrew names. Next there is a discussion on how Philo makes use of etymologies in his exegesis, particularly in his allegories. It is suggested that it would be useful to have a complete list of all the names, their usage and symbolism and the texts where they are used. The final two sections discuss the source of Philo’s etymologies (he is certainly dependent on earlier exegetical traditions) and the relation of his practice to Greek allegorizing. There are some parallels to what Philo was doing, but they lack the systematic coherence of his achievement. (DTR)

D. T. Runia, ‘Quaestiones in Exodum 2.62–68. Supplement to the Philo Index,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 16 (2004) 229–234. A companion piece to the translation of this passage published in the Stone Festschrift (see above). The author notes that the text of QE 2.62–68 is missing in F. Petit’s collection of the Greek fragments of the Quaestiones, and for this reason its vocabulary has not been taken up in either the TLG or the Norwegian Philo Index. He proceeds to make the index, following exactly the same methodology and layout as the Norwegians and completing the number of examples in their index (for example, ἀμιγής occurs 45 times in the Norwegian index and there is one example in QE 2.63, so the total 46 is placed after the word). He also notes that it is surprising that such a short extract should contain five words that occur nowhere in Philo’s writings and no less than 25 which occur less than ten times. None, however, are particularly suspicious. (DTR)


179

D. T. Runia, E. Birnbaum, K. A. Fox, A. C. Geljon, H. M. Keizer, J. P. Martín, R. Radice, J. Riaud, D. Satran, G. Schimanowski and T. Seland, ‘Philo of Alexandria: an Annotated Bibliography 2001,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 16 (2004) 235–280. This year’s installment of the yearly annotated bibliography of Philonic studies prepared by the members of the International Philo Bibliography Project primarily covers the year 2001 (86 items), with addenda for the years 1987–2000 (12 items), and provisional lists for the years 2002–04. (DTR)

D. T. Runia and G. E. Sterling (eds.), The Studia Philonica Annual, Vol. 16, Brown Judaic Studies 339 (Providence RI 2004). This volume in the continuing series contains four general articles, a special section entitled Etymology and Allegory with an introduction and three articles, two review articles, one scholarly instrumentum on Philo, the usual bibliography section, and fifteen book reviews. In addition there is the annual News and Notes section. See the summaries elsewhere in this bibliography. (DTR)

H. Savon, ‘Remploi et transformation de thèmes philoniens dans la première lettre d’Ambroise à Just.,’ in B. Gain, P. Jay and G. Nauroy (eds.), Chartae caritatis: Études de patristique et d’Antiquité tardove offertes à YvesMarie Duval (Paris 2004) 83–95. A dozen of Ambrose’s letters can be regarded as Christian reformulations of Philonic treatises. The author concentrates on a letter addressed to a certain Justus who had asked Ambrose about the half-drachma which the Hebrews had to pay pro redemptione animae suae. The first part of the letter at least emerges as a revision and Christianization of Her. 133–160. (JR)

B. Schaller, ‘Adam und Christus bei Paulus. Oder: Über Brauch und Fehlbrauch von Philo in der neutestamentlichen Forschung,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 143–153. The prevailing attempt to interpret the Pauline Adam-Christ typology in 1 Cor 15:44–49 from a Philonic background, particularly the text in Leg. 1.31, and to present it as a Christian adaptation is in the opinion of the author a good example of New Testament scholars’ misuse of parallels. Many of them argue that the ontological motifs of Philo were reshaped into a temporal structure and received an eschatological orientation. But in the view of the author the two thinkers deal quite differently with the twofold report of the creation of man in Gen 1:26 ff. and Gen 2:7. There are two main differences. Paul sees no distinction between the two human beings created in Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7, whereas Philo does. More importantly the pneumatic human being is never identified with the first human being, but the latter is linked with the ‘earthly Adam’ of Gen 2:7. The author concludes that a

180


crucial piece of evidence for regarding Paul as the earliest date of a knowledge of Philo and his ideas in contemporary Jewish circles of Diapora is invalidated. (GS)

G. Schöllgen (ed.), Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, Band 20 (Stuttgart 2004). H. Ohme, art. Kanon I (Begriff), 1–28, esp. 7–8 (Canon I, as concept); K. S. Frank, art. Klausur, 1233–57, esp. 1239 (seclusion).

G. Schöllgen (ed.), Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, Lieferungen 162–163 (Stuttgart 2004). H. O. Maier, art. Kleidung II (Bedeutung), 1–60, esp. 29–30 (Clothing II, meaning); A. Faivre, art. Kleros (kl∞row), 65–96, esp. 75–76 (lot, inheritance); M. Becker, art. Klugheit, 98–175, esp. 140–144 (cleverness, practical intelligence); A. Lumpe, art. Königsweg, 217– 222, esp. 218–219 (Royal highway); L. Fladerer and D. Börner–Klein, art. Kommentar, 274– 329, esp. 300–302 (Commentary; section on Philo by D.B.–K.).

D. S. Schwartz, ‘Did the Jews Practice Infant Exposure and Infanticide in Antiquity?,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 16 (2004) 61–95. This article takes as its starting point a critical examination on recent scholarship on the question of whether infant exposure and infanticide was practiced and approved among Jews in antiquity. Claims put forward by Adele Reinhartz (RR 9267) have been uncritically taken over by the scholars T. Ilan, C. Hezser, and M. R. Niehoff (see SPhA vol. 16, p. 249). The author proceeds to review the literary and archaeological sources. Concerning Philo, he shows that Niehoff’s treatment does not support the latter’s claim that Philo approved of child sacrifice or condoned infant exposure. (KAF)

A. F. Segal, Life after Death: a History of the Afterlife in Western Religion (New York 2004), esp. 368–375. The chapter entitled “Sectarian life in New Testament Times” describes how the two different views on the afterlife in Jewish society—resurrection of the body and immortality of the soul—begin to be blended together. A section of this chapter is devoted to Philo. In his beliefs on life after death, Philo can perhaps be considered representative of the new Jewish intellectual class, who are well attuned to Greek philosophical traditions and able to understand the Bible and Judaism in the light of Greek philosophy. Philo was strongly indebted to Platonic ideas on the immortality of the soul. It is he in fact who crafted the notion of the immortal soul which is so familiar in Western tradition, building on the Platonic heritage. There are some passages in Philo which hint at the more native Jewish tradition of bodily resurrection, but these are not developed and he avoids the standard vocabulary for this view. Most often he regards death as the soul’s liberation from the prison of the body. The discussion concludes (p. 375): ‘Philo . . . was able to harmonize Judaism with Greek philosophy. For him, both said the same, when each is seen in its finest light .’ (DTR)


181

T. Seland, ‘The Moderate Life of the Christian Paroikoi: A Philonic Reading of 1 Pet 2:11,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 241–264. Postulating a Philonic reader well versed in the works of Philo, this study asks how such a reader would possibly read 1 Pet 2:11, and especially its anthropological part (11b). Such a reader would have recognized several important terms as common to Philo and 1 Peter 2:11. Furthermore there is close to nothing in 1 Peter 2:11 that would problematize the understanding inherent in a reader’s Philonic symbolic universe of thought. However, such a reader would certainly find various interpretations in recent research on 1 Pet 2:11 strange or strained. (TS)

T. Seland, Paulus i Polis. Paulus’ sosiale verden som forståelsesbakgrunn for hans liv og forkynnelse [Paul in Polis: Paul’s Social World as Background for Understanding his Life and Teaching], Kyrkjefag Profil 4 (Tapir 2004), esp. 204–210. A thoroughly revised version of the preliminary edition of a textbook published in 1998; see SPhA 13:275. Philo and Josephus are presented on pp. 204–210, but the author also draws on Philo’s works in describing several aspects of the Diaspora at the time of Paul. (TS)

G. Sellin, ‘Einflüsse philonischer Logos-Theologie in Korinth: Weisheit und Apostelparteien (1Kor 1–4),’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/ Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 165–172. In a brief article the author responds to the criticism made of some of his studies on the background of the opponents of Paul in Corinth as portrayed in 1 Cor 1–4 (see RRS 8694add, 9279, 9681; also the articles of Seland and Zeller in the same volume summarized in this bibliography). The author clarifies and develops his arguments for the religious and historical background in the exegesis of 1 Cor. 1–4. Two related questions are put forward: is it possible that actual human persons could fulfil the role and function of the Logos? If so, how can such an identity with the Logos be understood? The author continues to answer the first question in the affirmative and endeavours to underline and to strengthen his theses. (GS)

182


J. Sfarmeni Gasparro, ‘Mosè e Balaam, Propheteia e Mantiké. Modalità e segni della rivelazione nel De Vita Mosis,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi (eds.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 33–75. Philo’s wish in the De vita Moysis is to trace out a ‘true’ image of Moses, basing it on the one hand on the ‘autobiographical’ scriptures of the Lawgiver himself and on the other hand on the ancient oral traditions. The aim of this article is to cast some light on the question of revelation and prophecy as related, by analogy and by contrast, to the phenomenon of divination, the latter meant as a set of techniques for pursuing the knowledge of phenomena and events which lie beyond the normal, rational means of investigation and which also reveal the action of superhuman powers. On analyzing Mos. and parallel Philonic texts, we can detect a masterly construction built by the author in order to bring out the true prophet as the interpreter of premonitory signs of the future, a mouthpiece for the revelation of the one God, in contrast with the mantis-goês (Balaam) operating on the contemporary religious scene. In the prophet, the gift of direct inspiration, guaranteeing the truth of the message, and the exercise of his rational faculties in the comprehension of the same message are combined in a close symbiosis. This makes the prophet a sage, with a set of ethical and religious prerogatives. The prophetic event in Philo’s perspective has the characteristics of an ecstatic and at the same time invasive experience, as the human intellect stands back before the manifestation of the divine Spirit, which uses its ‘interpreter’ as a tool. Nevertheless, its significance is of a rational nature, because of the very basis of Moses’ revelation, the divine Logos, of which the Judaic law is the expression. This law has a universal value because it is essentially identical to the natural law which regulates the whole of cosmic life. (HMK)

F. Siegert, ‘Die Inspiration der Heiligen Schriften: Ein philonisches Votum zu 2 Tim 3,16,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 205–222. The focus of this article concerns not the question of whether 2 Tim 3:16 in some way is dependent on similar thoughts from Philo, but rather the question of what we can find in the works of Philo concerning the doctrine of Inspiration. In considering ‘what was Holy Scripture in 1st cent. Israel?’ the author deals with the terms graphê and graphai. For Philo this is primarily the Nomos. He then investigates Philo’s reception of the Aristeas legend and his expansion of the same. In a fourth section he deals in more detail with the specific theory of Inspiration in Philo, concluding that he in fact cherishes both a kind of ‘Personalinspiration’ and an inspiration of the written texts of the Scriptures. In the last section the author surmises that we might even find a kind of ‘Inspiration of the reader’ evidenced in the works of Philo. (TS)


183

F. Siegert, ‘Der Logos, «älterer Sohn» des Schöpfers und «zweiter Gott». Ein Erinnerung an Philon,’ in J. Frey and U. Schelle (eds.), Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 175 (Tübingen 2004) 277–294. This rich and highly compressed article argues that the track associated with the Hellenistic-Jewish concept of the logos leads us closer to the centre of Johannine Christology than others connected with speculations on angels, high priests and so on. Ideas such as we find in Philo would have been orally communicated; texts are only a secondary witness. The article proceeds to discuss a number of theological themes which link Hellenistic Judaism of the Philonic type to the Gospel of John. Among these are the relation between sophia and logos, the various kinds of divine triads (God and the two powers, God–Logos– cosmos), rules that regulate the language used of God, the use of theos with and without the article, the true centre of Johannine Christianity which lies in the pronouncement of the incarnation, and the disappearance of logos-speculation in Judaism. Siegert makes numerous striking observations and claims, including the one that Philo’s Judaism is more spiritualized than Christianity, that ‘Christianity is nothing else than Hellenistic Judaism which has been reorganized around the pronouncement of the incarnation’ (p. 288), and that there is only one such pronouncement in the Philonic corpus, namely at QG 2.4, where the ark is the embodiment of the intelligible cosmos. (DTR)

F. Siegert, ‘Sara als vollkommene Frau bei Philon,’ in R. Kampling (ed.), Sara lacht … Eine Erzmutter und ihre Geschichte. Zur Interpretation und Rezeption der Sara-Erzählung (Paderborn 2004) 109–129. Although the article has as its chosen theme the figure of Sarah in Philo’s works, it focuses mainly on preliminary issues relating to Philo’s exegetical method. In relation to the question of the inspiration of scripture Siegert first discusses the growth of the ancient legend of the Letter of Aristeas. He then discusses the inspiration of Moses, but also that of the Major Prophets. In scripture, Sarah is presented as the ideal woman. Finally, Siegert poses the question of the inspiration of the readers. (GS)

H. J. Spierenburg, ‘Philo Judaeus over filosofie, wijsheid en intelligentie,’ Prana: Tijdschrift voor spiritualiteit en randgebieden der wetenschappen 142 (2004) 82–85. In this final contribution on Philo’s thought published not long before his untimely death, the author focuses on the doctrine of God, the stream of wisdom that emanates from Him, and the relationship between that wisdom and human intelligence. The article ends with a quote from Agr. 65: ‘the house of wisdom is the true home of the wise person’. (DTR)

G. E. Sterling, ‘The Place of Philo of Alexandria in the Study of Christian Origins,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 21–52. The author’s task was to set the scene for the conference on the relation between Philo and the New Testament. His approach is positive and optimistic. Although he is convinced

184


that there are no direct connections between Philo and the New Testament, he nevertheless argues that there are many traditions which they share. Philo is not as isolated within Judaism as we might think. At least two Jewish authors are demonstrably dependent on him: Josephus and the author of 2 Enoch. Others share traditions with him. Philo was also known to a number of pagan intellectuals. As for New Testament writers, Sterling focuses on four texts where he detects the use of Platonizing traditions reminiscent of what we find in Philo: the Corinthian correspondence, Hebrews, Luke-Acts and the Gospel of John. He is particularly intrigued by the correspondences between Philo’s exegesis of Gen. 1:1–5 and the use made of the same passage by the Evangelist in John 1:1–5. Is it not likely that they shared the same Platonizing tradition? In his view this hypothesis has to be worked out in more detail. In short, Sterling argues that Philo’s treatises fill some of the gaps in our knowledge left by the New Testament documents. The extent to which this can happen depends on how we see Philo’s place in Judaism. (DTR)

G. E. Sterling, ‘Was there a Common Ethic in Second Temple Judaism?,’ in J. J. Collins, G. E. Sterling and R. A. Clements (eds.), Sapisential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of the Orion Center, 20–22 May 2001 (Leiden–Boston 2004) 171–194. Citing Philo’s description of synagogues as schools of ethical instruction (Mos. 2.216), Sterling asks whether such instruction was typical in the Second Temple period, whether it was uniform, and, if so, to what extent and whether instruction in the Diaspora was similar to or different from that in Israel. A comparison of Philo’s Hypothetica, Josephus’s Contra Apionem, and Pseudo-Phocylides reveals significant similarities in the selection of laws, particularly in the way these are clustered in each text. Sterling identifies nine clusters pertaining to ‘sexuality, violations of others, a household code, disregard of others, concern for others, burial practices, reproductive practices, scales and measurements, and . . . laws that protect animals’ (pp. 176, 180). He suggests that behind the three sources lay a shared body of oral teachings and that the synagogue was the most likely place for this instruction. Sterling then compares the Diaspora sources with the Damascus Document, Temple Scroll, and Halakhic Letter (4QMMT). Despite differences regarding openness to the outside world and focus on the concept of holiness, he finds similarities between the two sets of sources in their selection of laws based on Lev 19–20 and Deut 22, and in laws, such as kinds of forbidden marital intercourse, based on common exegetical traditions. He therefore concludes that while the evidence does not support the existence of a common written code, Israel and the Diaspora shared significant ethical teachings. (EB)

G. A. G. Stroumsa, ‘Christ’s Laughter: Docetic Origins Reconsidered,’ Journal of Early Christian Studies 12 (2004) 267–288. According to the early Docetic theologians, Jesus did not really die on the cross but only appeared to do so. For first-century Jews, Isaac was an example of one who had almost been sacrificed but not quite. For the Church fathers, Isaac became a typos of Christ. Some traditions describe Christ as laughing in heaven, while Simon of Cyrene is crucified in Christ’s place. The author argues that the laughter of Christ is a reference to the Philonic etymology of Isaac as ‘laughter’. It is noted that Philo too claims that Isaac is a son of God, not of Abraham, and that his mother Sarah was a virgin when she conceived him. (ACG)


185

K. P. Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels: A Study of the Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament, Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 55 (Leiden-Boston 2004), esp. 216–219. Philo’s allegorical treatment of Gen 6.1–4 at Gig. 1–18, 58–61 and QG 1.92 is examined in the context of a broader investigation of the relationship between humans and angels in the literature of the late Second Temple and early Christian period. (KAF)

J. E. Taylor, Pythagoreans and Essenes: Structural Parallels, Collection de la Revue des Etudes Juives 32 (Paris 2004), esp. 89–91. Taylor investigates the question of whether Pythagorean communities and their way of life were an important source of Essene and Christian practices. In discussing the Essene practice, Justin Taylor (not to be confused with his name-sake Joan Taylor) uses Philo’s Prob., Josephus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls as sources. The author also refers to Philo’s description of the Therapeutae in Contempl. and notes some common points and differences between, on the one hand, Philo’s Therapeutae and Therapeutrides and on the other, Pythagorean and Essene traditions. Philo, for instance, never mentions the theme of purity. The author concludes that the parallels between the Pythagorean and the Essene ways of life can be explained by the influence of the former on the latter. (ACG)

J. E. Taylor, ‘The Women “Priests” of Philo’s De Vita Contemplativa. Reconstructing the Therapeutae,’ in J. Schaberg, A. Bach and E. Fuchs (eds.), On the Cutting Edge. The Study of Women in Biblical Worlds. Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (London 2004) 102–122. Philo’s highly rhetorical presentation of the Therapeutae and Therapeutrides is characterized by what E. Schüssler Fiorenza has called ‘slippages’, or ‘small kernels of reality indicating the real-life struggle of women that are embedded in an androcentric text’ (p. 102). The presence of women among the Therapeutae was a problem for Philo’s overall purpose to depict the Jewish group as superior to comparable groups in the Greco-Roman world, among whom women philosophers were sometimes ridiculed or were expected to be wives and mothers as well as philosophers. Philo deals with the problem by omitting mention of the Therapeutrides in some contexts and by portraying these women as ‘mostly elderly virgins’, who sat separately from the men, were modest, and were celibate by choice. The last description suggests an implicit contrast with Greco-Roman cultic figures who were required to be celibate. Through ‘slippages’ in Philo’s account, however, one can view the senior Therapeutrides as equal to the men; they were ’mothers’, or honored figures in the group, who participated equally with the men in cultic and ecstatic song and the partaking of food, which associated them with the priests at the temple service. This association is especially striking because in the temple service in Jerusalem not only could women not be priests but they could only observe the service from a special area. (EB)

186


C. Termini, ‘Dal Sinai alla creazione: il rapporto tra legge naturale e legge rivelata in Filone di Alessandria,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi (eds.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 159–191. Rashi’s Commentary on Genesis opens with a question: if the Law is the culmination of God’s revelation to Israel, why does the Torah start with Genesis and not for example with Exod 12:2, which is the first command of God on the celebration of the Pascha? This question is implicitly posed and answered by Philo, who affirms that the Patriarchs too, well before Moses, lived in perfect conformity with the Law. In this sense the laws of nature embodied in the Patriarchs have an archetypal value, of which the Torah is a copy, albeit a perfect one. In his thought Philo has three objectives: (1) to lay a philosophical foundation for the Mosaic laws; (2) to give them the aspect of universality; (3) to show their value for the political and cultural world in which he lived. For these purposes he uses a fairly vague terminology (nomos physeôs, nomos empsychos, agraphos nomos, thesmos), which allows frequent interaction with various spheres (ethical, political, scientific) along the lines of Cicero’s De legibus. Contrary to Cicero, however, Philo does not allow for a conception of law that has the possibility of error in the transition from rational principle to written text. Instead he traces a direct relationship between the natural law and the Law of Moses, because God is the author of both. Philo thus endows the Mosaic Torah with a universal value and the patriarchs play a central role in the argument. They achieve a rational knowledge of the natural laws, whereas the process of revelation is reserved for Moses, enabling the transition from rational law engraved in the soul to written text to be protected. (RR)

C. Termini, ‘Taxonomy of Biblical Laws and filotexn¤a in Philo of Alexandria: A Comparison with Josephus and Cicero,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 16 (2004) 1–29. The Decalogue stands out because it is a direct revelation from God and has a double function. Each precept describes a specific law (nÒmow) and becomes a rule (kefãlaion) by which to classify a series of analogous, particular laws, according to a principle of genera and species. The Decalogue thus becomes the basis for cataloging all of the Torah’s precepts and the foundation of Philo’s reorganizing and reworking of the legal material of the Pentateuch in De Decalogo and De specialibus legibus. Philo’s taxonomic method is compared with Josephus and Philo’s taxonomic categories are shown to demonstrate affinities to Cicero. Philo can be considered the first author in Jewish literature of the HellenisticRoman age who gave preeminence to the Decalogue. (KAF)

F. Thome, Historia contra Mythos. Die Schriftauslegung Diodors von Tarsus und Theodors von Mopsuestia im Widerstreit zu Kaiser Julians und Salustius’ allegorischem Mythenverständnis, Hereditas. Studien zur Alten Kirchengeschichte 24 (Bonn 2004), esp. 142–148. This study examines the question of whether the allegorical interpretations of emperor Julian exerted a negative influence on the anti-allegorical exegesis of the Antiochene exegetes Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. A translation is given of Theodore’s


187

preface to Ps 118. This preface is directed against allegorical interpreters and is partly devoted to Philo and Origen. Theodore claims that Philo was the first to use the pagan method of allegorical reading in the interpretation of scripture. Thome concludes that the allegorical interpretation of Julian probably encounters resistance in Diodore and encourages him to emphasizes the historical meaning in his exegesis of scripture. Theodore follows his master Diodore. (ACG)

M. A. Tolbert, ‘Philo and Paul: The Circumcision Debates in Early Judaism,’ in F. Crüsemann (ed.), Dem Tod nicht glauben. Sozialgeschichte der Bibel. Festschrift für Luise Schottroff zum 70. Geburtstag (Gütersloh 2004) 394–407. After having briefly sketched the origins of the Jewish circumcision practice, Tolbert deals with Philo and Paul. Drawing primarily on QG 3.47–50 and Migr. 89–93, she presents the various arguments of Philo for the observance of circumcision (to prevent disease, to increase fertility, and the function of excision of the pleasures). But as circumcision is only for men, Philo maintains its importance as a gender boundary, and furthermore, its symbolic and literal meanings should not be played out against each other. Paul, on the other hand, unlike Philo, makes no attempt to keep the spiritual and the literal together, but sees the two at war with each other. Furthermore, the symbolic view espoused by Paul not only eliminates the insider/outsider boundary functions of circumcision but also eliminates the gender boundary Philo preserves. Finally, Tolbert has some suggestions as to how and where Paul arrived at his view, namely among the Jews of Damascus. (TS)

L. Troiani, ‘Natura e storia politica in Filone d’Alessandria,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi (eds.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 1–8. Political history in Philo is, on the one hand, dependent upon the particular angle from which the public life of the city was observed and the status of the same: in his time Alexandria was one of the largest metropolitan cities of the Roman empire, and, thanks to the papyri and literary texts, it is well known how turbulent and unstable the political situation was. On the other hand, his philosophical conception assigned to politics a role that is brought out very effectively by the beginning of Legatio ad Gaium and theorized in the treatise De Iosepho. Since politics is a direct emanation of the sensible world subject to the Tyche, and precariousness and inconstancy are inherent to politics, history consists in a succession of misunderstandings and failures to comprehend. Philo’s interest in political history serves to probe the question of Nature as opposed to Tyche and thereby reach a greater understanding of the same. (HMK, based on author’s summary)

H. Tronier, ‘Markusevangeliets Jesus som biografiseret erkendelsesfigur [The Jesus of Mark’s Gospel as a Cognitive Figure Turned into a Figure of Biography],’ in T. L. Thompson and H. Tronier (eds.), Frelsens biografisering [Salvation Biographized] (Copenhagen 2004) 237–271. In this article, H. Tronier tries to demonstrate his view that the Gospel of Mark is to be read as an allegorical work, written according to the same allegorical principles that Philo uses, for example, when he interprets the biblical narratives on Abraham and Moses. It is

188


the author’s hypothesis that Mark applied an allegorical strategy and way of constructing narratives in order to write into the story of Jesus a Pauline theology. The procedure, according to Tronier, is comparable to the way in which Philo writes into his biblical and ethnic stories a philosophical terminology in order to make them ‘philosophical.’ Mark thus makes Paul’s ideology ‘Jesuanic’ in a similar way as Philo made the philosophy of his time Jewish/biblical through using the allegorical method. (TS)

G. Uluhogian, ‘Un testo medievale armeno su Filone,’ in A. M. Mazzanti and F. Calabi (eds.), La rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: natura, legge, storia. Atti del VII convegno di studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la traditione alessandrina (Bologna 29–30 settembre 2003), Biblioteca di Adamantius 2 (Villa Verruchio 2004) 249–253. The medieval Armenian Book of Causes, which is still largely unpublished, is a collection of writings on the occasions or ‘causes’ of the composition of the main works of ancient Christian and secular culture. The author and editor Grigor Vardapet (13th cent.) intended it as a kind of manual of the history of literature. The author of the writings relating to Philo is Dawit’ K’obayrec’i, an important personage in the Armenian church between 1150 and 1220. The article presents an Italian version of his unpublished introduction to the biography and works of Philo known in the Armenian environment. (RR; based on author’s summary)

A. Volgers and C. Zamagni (eds.), Eratapokriseis. Early Christian Question-and-Answer Literature in Context. Proceedings of the Utrecht Colloquium, 13–14 October 2003, Biblical Exegesis and Theology 37 (Leuven 2004). This volume will be of particular value to those making a detailed study of the genre of the Question and Answer, including the contribution of Philo. Only the article of P. W. van der Horst deals with Philo specifically, but other contributions discuss him incidentally. See further the review by D. T. Runia in SPhA 18 (2006) 228–230.

J. A. Waddell, ‘Will the Real Judaism Please Stand up? Ritual Selfdefinition as Ideological Discourse from Qumran to Jerusalem,’ Henoch 26 (2004) 3–23. The Essenes at Qumran (the yahad) had a practice of facing the sun in daily prayer at sunrise. Waddell addresses whether this practice should be understood as part of a wider Hellenistic worship of the sun (as Morton Smith claims) or as something more specific to the yahad. To support his argument that the yahad did not pray to the sun itself, as one might understand from Josephus (BJ 2.128), Waddell considers Philo’s description of the Therapeutae (Contempl. 89), who also faced the sun at dawn. Examining such texts as Jubilees, 4QMMT, and Habakkuk Pesher, Waddell underscores the importance of calendar disputes between the Essenes as a whole and the Jerusalem priesthood. Taking into account the Groningen Hypothesis, he believes that the yahad at Qumran separated from the parent Essene movement because the latter continued to send votive offerings to the Jerusalem temple. The practice of facing the sun in prayer at sunrise would position the worshippers with their backs to the moon and also to Jerusalem. This practice should therefore be understood not as reflective of a wider Hellenistic worship but instead as an expression of the commitment of the yahad to the solar-sabbatical calendar rather than the


189

lunar calendar followed by the Jerusalem priesthood and as opposition to the Jerusalem priesthood itself. (EB)

S.-K. Wan, ‘Abraham and the Promise of Spirit: Points of Convergence between Philo and Paul,’ in E. G. Chazon, D. Satran and R. A. Clements (eds.), Things Revealed; Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone. (Leiden 2004) 209–224. An analysis of Philo’s treatment of mystical Abraham as a proto-proselyte suggests points of contact with Paul’s eschatological use of Abraham in Gal. 3:1–14, even if the portraits are painted on entirely different canvases, Philo’s schema being based on the Hellenistic model of contemplation, whereas Paul’s perspective is eschatological. (KAF)

K. L. Waters, ‘Saved through Childbearing: Virtues as Children in 1 Timothy 2:11–15,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004) 703–735. In this study the author interprets 1 Tim 2:11–15 as an allegory in which the virtues faith, love, holiness, and temperance are portrayed as the children of those women in Ephesus who will be saved. On pp. 716–719, he attempts to substantiate this highly allegorical interpretation by drawing on the allegorical interpretations of Philo. He here finds similar interpretations of virtues as being described as children in Leg. 3.180–181, 2.82, 3.68, Congr. 13–23, Her. 50 and others. He argues that Philo demonstrates that the idea of virtues and vices as children (particularly of the soul) occurred in the context of the Genesis narrative, and was in currency at the time of Timothy’s author and earlier. (TS)

F. Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London 2004), esp. 236– 252. Central to this monograph is the observation that Paul and his fellow Jews read the same scriptural texts, the Torah and the Prophets. As a Jew, Paul is thus a reader of scripture alongside others, and his theology is inter-textual in form. The author deals with Philo in several sections, but especially with his interpretations of Abraham on pp. 236– 252. This represents a part of a larger section that discusses the picture of Abraham in Jubilees, in Philo, Paul, and the Genesis texts, thus investigating just this three-sided conversation between scripture, Pauline texts and non-Christian Jewish texts that is so central to the methodology of this study. (TS)

C. Werman, ‘God's House: Temple and Universe,’ in R. Deines and K.W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 309–320. In Second temple Judaism there are two main streams of thought in relation to the temple. The one tends to view the universe as God’s temple and mainly negates the earthly temple and sacrifices, the other affirms these. At the same time the positive view towards the concept of temple is accompanied by denunciation of the Second temple. Against this background Philo’s views on the temple are examined. The author comes to

190


the unexpected conclusion that Philo stands closer to a text such as 4QFlorilegium from the land of Israel (her formulation) than those of the Hellenistic-Jewish Diaspora which take a negative view of the Jerusalem temple (such as Stephen’s speech in Acts 7). Both affirm temple and sacrifices, the difference between them lying in what they identify as the superior temple, in Philo’s case the universe, for the Qumran document the future earthly temple. (DTR)

J. Wyrick, The Ascension of Authorship: Attribution and Canon Formation in Jewish, Hellenistic, and Christian Traditions, Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature 49 (Cambridge–London 2004), esp. 82–83, 257–59, 266–67. To understand the modern Western notion of authorship, Wyrick examines narratives about the history of texts in Jewish, Greek, and Christian traditions and considers implications of these views for the development of canons. He focuses especially on Second Temple and rabbinic sources, Alexandrian scholarship, and early Christian writers, particularly Augustine. Among these writers, Josephus is a key figure because he expressed the differences between Jewish and Greek perspectives, criticized the Greek approach, and influenced later Christian ideas of authorship. Philo is discussed briefly for his treatment of human vs. divine authorship of the Pentateuch, his position on valid and invalid oracles (based on Leg. 3.119), and his account of the miraculous translation of the Septuagint. (EB)

A. Yarbro Collins, ‘The Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14:64,’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (2004) 379–401. At Mark 14:64 Jesus is charged with committing blasphemy, even though he does not utter the Divine Name (v. 62). In exploring understandings of blasphemy in the cultural context of Mark, m. Sanh. 7.5, Josephus, and the Community Rule of Qumran say one is not guilty of blasphemy unless one pronounces the Name. However, Philo is important because, like the Sadducees, he shows a broader understanding of blasphemy. Legat. 26, 44– 46, Somn. 2.18, and Mos. 2.37–38 (Philo’s exegesis of Lev 24:10–23) show that a human can commit blasphemy by claiming a divine status or greater degree of authority and power than one has the right to do. (KAF)

D. Zeller, ‘Philonische Logos-Theologie im Hintergrund des Konflikts von 1Kor 1–4?,’ in R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 1. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Eisenach/Jena, Mai 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen 2004) 155–164. As one of the papers presented at a Symposium in Jena in 2003, this article is for the most part a discussion with G. Sellin and some of his views concerning 1 Corinthians. Sellin replies to some of this criticism in the same volume (pp. 165–172, see summary above). Zeller’s criticism is especially directed at the understanding of the various groups in Corinth as influenced by Alexandrian Judaism. This has especially been the case with the Apollos group, but Sellin tries to understand also the Christ party in light of the same background. Zeller criticizes his view of Apollos as one who understands himself as a mediator between God and the Christians, comparable to the role of Logos in the works of Philo. Zeller finds this view untenable, and tries to substantiate this by dealing with Sellin’s interpreation of Philo, focusing especially on issues like anthropos theou as a type,


191

Logos as God’s anthrôpos, on ‘Idiomenkommunikation’ between the perfect ones and Logos, and the Logos as ‘place’. (TS)

Extra items from before 2004 J. A. Arieti and P. A. Wilson, The Scientific & the Divine: Conflict and Reconciliation from Ancient Greece to the Present (Lanham, Md etc. 2003). In their preface, the authors identify several approaches to the relationship between science and religion: denying the divine, denying science, understanding the divine as compatible with science, viewing science and religion as completely distinct spheres, and declaring the ways of God to be unknowable. Part One has chapters on the problem posed by science and religion, the nature of human reason, ancient and modern science, the origin of scientific attempts to explain the world, and pagan philosophers’ attempts to reconcile science and religion through their understanding of God. Part Two is devoted to attempts from antiquity (Plato) through the end of the 20th century to reconcile science and religion. In this section Philo earns a chapter of his own. With On the Creation as their focus, the authors explain that Philo grounds ethics in physics when he claims that Mosaic Law derives from the creator of the whole universe, and he thus views Jewish law as having universal significance. The authors discuss how Philo interprets the biblical creation account in terms of Plato’s Timaeus, and they observe that his notion of God goes beyond the realm of Platonic ideas. Philo’s efforts ‘to reconcile the best scientific theories of his era with revealed religion’ were continued in the Middle Ages by Jewish, Christian, and Islamic philosophers who grappled with Aristotelian science (p. 151). (EB)

J. M. G. Barclay, ‘Apologetics in the Jewish Diaspora,’ in J. R. Bartlett (ed.), Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities (London 2002). Barclay points out the ambiguities and difficulties presented by use of the term ‘apologetics.’ In his original History, E. Schürer viewed Jewish apologetic literature as primarily defensive in refuting anti-Jewish claims, and he distinguished between apologetics and propaganda, which sought either to proselytize or to create a positive impression of Jews. In his revision of Schürer, M. Goodman, influenced by V. Tcherikover’s seminal article, acknowledges that much Jewish apologetic literature may have been intended for Jews and not aimed at Gentiles at all. Goodman also distinguishes between general Jewish apologetics and different kinds of ‘missionary’ purposes that include information, education, apologetics, and proselytization. As Barclay observes, apologetics may be direct or indirect. The term ‘apologetics’ raises complex issues related to actual and implied readers of Jewish works, oral and written apologetics, and apologetics and proselytism. Some scholars with a Christian perspective may overlook that so-called apologetic literature may have a variety of aims, as suggested by Goodman, not just full proselytism. Although Barclay mentions Philo only in passing, his article has direct relevance for the questions of Philo’s audience(s) and intentions. (EB)

M. R. Barnes, ‘Eunomius of Cyzicus and Gregory of Nyssa: Two Traditions of Transcendent Causality,’ Vigiliae Christianae 52 (1998) 59–87, esp. 71–73. In his work Against Eunomius Gregory criticizes Eunomius’ understanding of dynamis. According to Gregory Eunomius presents God’s dynamis as separate from God himself,

192


being independent and possessing creative power. To Gregory this separation seems to be Philonic and based on material in Philo’s writings. Against this view he argues that a productive capacity is natural to God, and that God’s transcendence includes the capacity to create. (ACG)

A. T. Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth. Jewish background and Pauline Legacy, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 176 (Sheffield 1999), esp. 56–64. This study deals with Paul’s understanding of idol food in 1 Corinthians, and includes a section on the background to Paul’s attitude, as well as an investigation of the early Christians’ understanding of Paul’s attitude to idol food, ranging from the Book of Acts to patristic authors in the third century CE. The section on Philo (56–65) is rather brief, dealing only with a few texts. Cheung argues, however, that it is highly unlikely that Philo would approve of the eating of idol food. Surprisingly these Philonic texts play no role in the rest of this study. (TS)

L. H. Feldman, ‘Conversion to Judaism in Classical Antiquity,’ Hebrew Union College Annual 74 (2003) 115–156. This article investigates the evidence for the considerable increase in the number of Jews between 586 b.c.e and the first century c.e. Dealing with the question of how many Jews there were in the Hellenistic-Roman period, Feldman uses Josephus and Philo as sources. Although we do not know the exact number of the Jews, it was very large: Philo remarks that there are a million Jews in Egypt (Flacc. 43). The explanation for the increase in the number of Jews has to be found in voluntary conversion to Judaism. Judaism was not a missionary religion but the Jews were well disposed towards attracting converts. Philo shows a favorable attitude toward conversion of non-Jews to Judaism. He portrays, for instance, Tamar (Gen 38:6–30) as being converted from polytheism to the belief in one God (Virt. 220–225), even though there is no biblical basis for this event. People were attracted to the Jewish faith for various reasons, and especially for the economic advantages it might bring. This article has been reprinted in Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (Leiden 2006). (ACG)

C. Leduc, ‘Ego et ses trois sœurs (germaine, utérine, consanguine): Athènes et Sparte, VIe s.-IVe s. av. J.-C.,’ in M. Garrido-Hory and A. Gonzalès (eds.), Histoire, Espaces et Marges de l’Antiquité. Hommages à Monique Clavel-Lévêque 1 (Besançon 2003) 249–291. The article makes reference to a Philonic text which refers to the prohibition of marriage between brothers and sisters from different marriage relationships (Spec. 3.22). If the Athenian ordinances allow marriage with a half-sister on the father’s side and those in Sparta with a sister on the mother’s side, this is because the two cities have regulated the question of the transmission of the paternal lineage in quite a different manner. (JR)


193

L. Perrone, ‘The “Jewish Constitution”: Biblical Judaism as a Political Model in Origen’s ‘Contra Celsum’,’ Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum— Journal of Ancient Christianity 7 (2003) 310–328. Origen is indebted to Hellenistic-Jewish apologetics, especially as found in Philo and Josephus, but this does not prevent him from presenting a new version of the traditional depiction of a ‘philosophical people,’ which defends the role of the legislator of the Jewish people and of the Jewish ‘constitution’ stemming from him. (DTR; based on author’s summary)

M. Philonenko, ‘L’échanson et le cratère,’ Comptes Rendus Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres 2003 (1), 335–348. Philo speaks in negative terms of the grand cup-bearer of Plutarch, who ‘partook of drunkenness’ (Somn. 2.158). In opposition to this grand cup-bearer he places on three occasions (§§ 183, 190, 249) another cup-bearer, the ‘cup-bearer of God’ who, according to the author’s analysis of three passages, is the archetype of Pharaoh’s cup-bearer and, at an even higher level, a figure of the Logos. (JR)

U. Schnelle, M. Labahn and M. Lang (eds.), Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus. Band I/2 Texte zum Johannesevangelium (Berlin–New York 2001). The project of revising Wettstein’s collection of parallels to the New Testament is continued with a compendious volume on the Gospel of John (see below under G. Strecker). Once again no author is used more often to illuminate the Gospel text than Philo. There are 303 Philonic extracts, listed on pp. 917–921. For example for John 1:1 the following passages are cited: Leg. 1.19, 1.65; Her. 172; Leg. 2.15; Somn. 1.211; Cher. 27; Fug. 51; Leg. 2.86; QG 2.62; Somn. 1.65–66, 229–230, 239–241 (and also many cross-references to passages cited under other lemmata). For John 1:3 23 we have: Fug. 12; Leg. 1.41, 3.175; Fug. 94–95, 109; Leg. 3.96; Sacr. 8, 65; Cher 125, 127; Aet. 53; Opif. 20–21, 24; Her. 36. Once again brief attention is given to the context of the Philonic passages, but there is no explanation of the tertium comparationis. (DTR)

G. Strecker, U. Schnelle and G. Seelig (eds.), Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus. Band II Texte zur Briefliteratur und zur Johannesapokalypse. 2 vols. (Berlin–New York 1996). The project carried out at the University of Halle aims to present a new updated version of the famous collection of texts from Greco-Roman writings offering parallels to and contextual information for the New Testament, compiled by Jacob Johann Wettstein and published in Amsterdam in 1751–1752. The Greek and Latin source material which the collection offers explicitly includes Hellenistic-Jewish texts. These are in fact presented first for every New Testament lemma. For the method used see further the Introduction by Seelig (p. IX–XXIII). The first part treats the contents of the New Testament from the Letters of Paul to Revelation. Remarkably no author is cited more often than Philo. The 284 passages from his works are listed on pp. 1806–1809. The texts are cited mainly in the German translation of Cohn–Heinemann–Theiler, but for important sections the Greek is added in brackets. A short note on the context of the passage precedes the citation, but the

194


collection gives no commentary and also no indication of the tertium comparationis which underlies the citation. Presumably readers are meant to work this out for themselves. (DTR)

J. Ulrich, Euseb und die Juden: Studien zur Rolle der Juden in der Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea, Patristische Texte und Studien 149 (Berlin–New York 1999), esp. 88–100. In a lengthy excursus, the author of this habilitation thesis (Erlangen 1997) gives a detailed survey of the portrayal of Philo in the works of Eusebius. Besides his relevance for Jewish historiography, the writings of the Alexandrian author are cited at length in his Praeparatio evangelica and Historia ecclesiastica. Philo is significant especially for his exegetical contribution and because of his methodological approaches. Eusebius naturally underlines the Platonic doctrine of the Logos, which he widely adopts. For the Christian reader, the selection of the citations suggest a Christian understanding of the doctrine about the ‘second cause’. Finally, the ascetical living community of the Therapeutae is declared to be a proto-Christian community. Nevertheless, it is important to note that for Eusebius Philo always remains the highly esteemed ‘Hebrew’ and ‘Jew’ and is not converted into a Christian himself. (GS)


SUPPLEMENT A Provisional Bibliography 2005–2007 The user of this supplementary Bibliography of very recent articles on Philo is once again reminded that it will doubtless contain inaccuracies and red herrings, because it is not in all cases based on autopsy. It is merely meant as a service to the reader. Scholars who are disappointed by omissions or are keen to have their own work on Philo listed are strongly encouraged to contact the Bibliography’s compilers (addresses in the section Notes on Contributors).

2005 J. A. Arieti, Philosophy in the Ancient World. An Introduction (Lanham MD 2005), esp. 299–310. H. Attridge, ‘Philo and John: Two Riffs on One Logos,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 17 (2005) 103–117. C. Batsch, La guerre et les rites de guerre dans le judaïsme du deuxième Temple (Leiden–Boston 2005). K. Berthelot, ‘“Ils jettent au feu leurs fils et leurs filles pour leurs dieux”: Une justification humaniste du massacre des cananeens dans les textes juifs anciens?’ Revue Biblique 112 (2005) 161–191. M. Böhm, Rezeption und Funktion der Vätererzählungen bei Philo von Alexandria. Zum Zusammenhang von Kontext, Hermeneutik und Exegese im frühen Judentum, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 128 (Berlin–New York 2005). A. P. Bos, ‘Philo van Alexandrië en de Griekse filosofie,’ in R. W. Munk (ed.), Filosofie Jodendom Joodse filosofie (Budel, The Netherlands 2005) 9–22. L. Brisson, Introduction à la philosophie du mythe. I Sauver les mythes (Paris 2005), esp. 86–89. F. Calabi, Filone di Alessandria De Decalogo, Philosophica 24 (Pisa 2005). L. Carlsson, Round Trips to Heaven. Otherworldly Travelers in Early Judaism and Christianity, Lund Studies in History of Religions 19 (Stockholm 2005). R. R. Cox, By the Same Word: The Intersection of Cosmology and Soteriology in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity and ‘Gnosticism’ in the Light of Middle Platonic Intermediary Doctrine (diss. University of Notre Dame 2005). S. Denningmann, Die astrologische Lehre der Doryphorie: eine soziomorphe Metapher in der antiken Planetenastrologie, Beiträge zum Altertumskunde 214 (München–Leipzig 2005), esp. 123–146.

196


J. Dillon, ‘Cosmic Gods and Primordial Chaos in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy: the Context of Philo’s Interpretation of Plato’s Timaeus and the Book of Genesis,’ in G. H. van Kooten (ed.), The Creation of Heaven and Earth: Re-interpretations of Genesis 1 in the Context of Judaism, Ancient Philosophy, Christianity, and Modern Physics, Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions 8 (Leiden–Boston 2005) 97–108. A. C. Dinan, Fragments in Context: Clement of Alexandria’s Use of Quotations from Heraclitus (Philo of Alexandria, Plutarch, Greece) (diss. Catholic University of Washington 2005). J.-J. Duhot, ‘Métamorphoses du logos. Du stoïcisme au Nouveau Testament,’ in G. Romeyer Dherbey and J.-B. Gourinat (eds.), Les Stoïciens, Bibliothèque d’Histoire de la Philosophie (Paris 2005). E. Eliasson, The Notion of That Which Depends on Us in Plotinus and its Background (diss. Uppsala 2005). L. H. Feldman, ‘Philo’s Account of the Golden Calf Incident,’ Journal of Jewish Studies 56 (2005) 245–264. A. C. Fellows, Growth of Religion as Affected by Culture: How the Greek and Jewish Diaspora Cultures Preserved in Philo of Alexandria’s Writings have Influenced the Development of Christianity (diss. Boston University 2005). K. Fuglseth, Johannine Sectarianism in Perspective : A Sociological, Historical, and Comparative Analysis of Temple and Social Relationships in the Gospel of John, Philo, and Qumran, Novum Testamentum Supplements 119 (Leiden–Boston 2005). A. C. Geljon, ‘Divine Infinity in Gregory of Nyssa and Philo of Alexandria,’ Vigiliae Christianae 59 (2005) 152–178. R. Goulet, ‘Allégorisme et anti-allégorisme chez Philon d’Alexandrie,’ in G. Dahan and R. Goulet (eds.), Allégorie des poètes allégorie des philosophes: études sur la poétique et l’herméneutique de l’allégorie de l’Antiquité à la Réforme (Paris 2005) 59–87. S. Grindheim, The Crux of Election: Paul’s Critique of the Jewish Confidence in the Election of Israel, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuem Testament 2.202 (Tübingen 2005), esp. 69–75. C. T. R. Hayward, Interpretations of the Name Israel in Ancient Judaism and Some Early Christian Writings: From Victorious Athlete to Heavenly Champion (Oxford 2005). A. Hilhorst, ‘‘And Moses Was Instructed in All the Wisdom of the Egyptians’ (Acts 7:22),’ in A. Hilhorst and G. H. van Kooten (eds.), The Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 59 (Leiden–Boston 2005) 153–176.

Supplement: Provisional Bibliography 2005–2007

197

M. Himmelfarb, ‘The Torah between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Difference in Antiquity,’ in C. Bakhos (ed.), Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 95 (Leiden– Boston 2005) 113–129. R. Hirsch-Luipold, ‘Der eine Gott bei Philon von Alexandrien und Plutarch,’ in R. Hirsch-Luipold (ed.), Gott und die Götter bei Plutarch. Götterbilder — Gottesbilder — Weltbilder, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 54 (Berlin 2005) 141–168. S. Inowlocki, ‘Quelques pistes de réflection au sujet de la mystique de Philon d’Alexandrie,’ in A. Dierkens and B. Beyer de Ryke (eds.), Mystique: la passion de l’Un, de l’Antiquité à nos jours, Problèmes d’histoire des religions 15 (Brussels 2005) 49–59. A. Kerkeslager, ‘The Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros from the Violence in Alexandria in 38 c.e.’ The Studia Philonica Annual 17 (2005) 49–94. J. Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford 2005). G. H. van Kooten, ‘The ‘True Light which Enlightens Everyone’ (John 1:9): John, Genesis, the Platonic Notion of the ‘True, Noetic Light,’ and the Allegory of the Cave in Plato’s Republic,’ in G. H. van Kooten (ed.), The Creation of Heaven and Earth: Re-interpretations of Genesis 1 in the Context of Judaism, Ancient Philosophy, Christianity, and Modern Physics, Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions 8 (Leiden– Boston 2005) 149–194, esp. 153–155. A. Kovelman, Between Alexandria and Jerusalem: the Dynamic of Jewish and Hellenistic Culture, The Brill Reference Library of Judaism 21 (Leiden– Boston 2005). R. A. Kraft, ‘Philo’s Bible Revisited: the ‘Aberrant texts’ and their Quotations of Moses,’ in F. García Martínez and M. Vervenne (edd.), Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovanisensium 192 (Leuven 2005) 237–253. D. Krause, ‘Keeping it Real: the Image of God in the New Testament,’ Interpretation 59 (2005) 358–369. J.-L. Labarrière, La condition animale. Études sur Aristote et les Stoiciens (Leuven 2005). C. Lévy, ‘Deux problèmes doxographiques chez Philon d’Alexandrie: Posidonius et Enésidème,’ in A. Brancacci (ed.), Philosophy and Doxography in the Imperial Age, Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere «La Colombaria» Studi 228 (Florence 2005) 79–102.

198


J. P. Martín, ‘Teoría, técnica y práctica de la hermenéutica en Filón,’ in A. J. Levoratti (ed.), Comentario Bíblico Latinoamericano, Antiguo Testamento I (Estella 2005) 95–104. J. P. Martín, ‘Corrientes hermenéuticas de la época patrística,’ in A. J. Levoratti (ed.), Comentario Bíblico Latinoamericano, Antiguo Testamento I (Estella 2005) 105–127. E. F. Mason, The Concept of the Priestly Messiah in Hebrews and Second Temple Judaism (diss. Notre Dame 2005). L. Miralles Maciá, ‘“Thíasoi” y “syssítia” esenios : la perspectiva helenística de Filón de Alejandría acerca de la organización esenia,’ Miscelánea de Estudios Árabes y Hebraicos 54 [Sección de Hebreo] (2005) 27–42. H. Morowitz, ‘The Debate between Science and Religion: Exploring Roads less well Traveled,’ Zygon 40 (2005) 51–56. M. R. Niehoff, ‘Response to Daniel S. Schwartz,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 17 (2005) 99–101. E. F. Osborn, Clement of Alexandria (Cambridge 2005), esp. 81–105. M. Pesthy, ‘‘Mulier est instrumentum diaboli’: Women and the Desert Fathers,’ in A. Hilhorst and G. H. van Kooten (eds.), The Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 59 (Leiden–Boston 2005) 351–362. F. Philip, The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology: The Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit upon Gentiles in Judaism and the Early Development of Paul’s Theology, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuem Testament 2.194 (Tübingen 2005), esp. 100–119. M. Pucci Ben Zeev, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/117 CE: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights, Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 6 (Leuven–Dudley, MA 2005). I. Rosen–Zwi, ‘Joining the Club: Tannaitic Legal Midrash and Ancient Jewish Hermeneutics,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 17 (2005) 153–160. J. R. Royse, ‘Three More Spurious Fragments of Philo,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 17 (2005) 95–98. D. T. Runia, ‘A Conference on Philo in Germany,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 17 (2005) 141–152. D. T. Runia, E. Birnbaum, K. A. Fox, A. C. Geljon, H. M. Keizer, J. P. Martín, R. Radice, J. Riaud, D. Satran, G. Schimanowski, and T. Seland, ‘Philo of Alexandria: an Annotated Bibliography 2002,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 17 (2005) 161–214. D. T. Runia and G. E. Sterling (eds.), The Studia Philonica Annual, Vol. 17, Brown Judaic Studies 344 (Providence RI 2005). K. Schenck, A Brief Guide to Philo (Louisville 2005).


199

G. Schöllgen (ed.), Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, Lieferungen 164–166 (Stuttgart 2005). A. Lumpe, art. Kontemplation, 485–498, esp. 490–492 (Contemplation; includes section on Therapeutae); W. Speyer, art. Kopf, 509–535, esp. 524–525 (Head); D. Wyrwa, art. Kosmos, 614–761, esp. 652–661 (Cosmos).

C. Scholten, ‘Unbeachtete Zitate und doxographische nachrichten in der Schrift De aeternitate mundi des Johannes Philoponos,’ Rheinisches Museum 148 (2005) 202–219. T. Seland, Strangers in the Light: Philonic Perspectives on Christian Identity in 1 Peter, Biblical Interpretation Series 76 (Leiden–Boston 2005). A. Serandour, ‘On the Appearance of a Monotheism in the Religion of Israel (3rd century BC or later?),’ Diogenes 52 (2005) 33ff. F. Shaw, ‘The Emperor Gaius’ Employment of the Divine Name,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 17 (2005) 33–48. R. Skarsten, P. Borgen, and K. Fuglseth, The Complete Works of Philo of Alexandria: A Key-Word-In-Context Concordance. 8 vols. (Piscataway NJ 2005). G. E. Sterling, ‘“The Jewish Philosophy”: the Presence of Hellenistic Philosophy in Jewish Exegesis in the Second Temple Period,’ in C. Bakhos (ed.), Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 95 (Leiden–Boston 2005) 131–153. G. E. Sterling, ‘‘Day One’: Platonizing Exegetical Traditions of Genesis 1:1–5 in John and Jewish Authors,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 17 (2005) 118–140. C. Termini, ‘Tipologías de filiación en Filón de Alejandría,’ in J. J. A. Calvo, P. de N. Benlloch and M. A. Esnaola (eds.), Filiación: Cultura pagana, religión de Israel, orígenes del cristianismo. Actas de las I y II Jornadas de Estudio «La filiación en lo inicios de la reflexión cristiana», Colección Estructuras y Procesos: Serie Religión (Madrid 2005) 73–88. S. Vidal, Filón de Alejandría, Los terapeutas, De vita contemplativa, Texto griego con introducción, traducción y notas (Salamanca 2005). J. P. Ware, The Mission of the Church in Paul’s Letter to the Philipians in the Context of Ancient Judaism, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 120 (Leiden–Boston 2005), esp. 131–143. E. Wasserman, The Death of the Soul in Romans 7: Sin, Death, and the Law in Light of Hellenistic Moral Psychology (diss. Yale University 2005). S. Weitzman, Surviving Sacrilege: Cultural Persistence in Jewish Antiquity (Cambridge Mass. 2005), esp. 58–75. W. T. Wilson, ‘Pious Soldiers, Gender Deviants, and the Ideology of Actium: Courage and Warfare in Philo’s De Fortitudine,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 17 (2005) 1–32.

200


A. T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1–4 in Early Jewish Literature, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuem Testament 2.198 (Tübingen 2005), esp. 191–219. A. T. Wright, ‘Some Observations of Philo’s De Gigantibus and Evil Spirits in Second Temple Judaism,’ Journal for the Study of Judaism 36 (2005) 471– 488. B. G. Wright, ‘Translation as Scripture: The Septuagint in Aristeas and Philo,’ in W. Kraus and R. G. Wooden (eds.), Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (Atlanta 2005) 45– 59.

2006 Aa.vv., Le Décalogue au miroir des Pères, Cahiers de Biblia Patristica (Turnhout 2006). J. Annas, ‘Recent Work on Plato’s Timaeus,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 18 (2006) 125–142. A. Birkan-Shear, ‘"Does a Serpent Give Life?" Understanding The Brazen Serpent According to Philo and Early Rabbinic Literature,’ in I. H. Henderson and G. S. Oegema (eds.), The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity, and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity (= FS Charlesworth), Studien zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Band 2 (Gütersloh 2006) 416–426. E. Birnbaum, ‘Two Millennia Later: General Resources and Particular Perspectives on Philo the Jew,’ Currents in Biblical Research 4 (2006) 241– 276. P. Borgen, ‘Crucified for His Own Sins—Crucified for Our Sins: Observations on a Pauline Perspective,’ in J. Fotopoulos (ed.), The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune, Novum Testamentum Supplements 122 (Leiden–Boston 2006) 17–36. P. R. Bosman, ‘Conscience and Free Speech in Philo,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 18 (2006) 33–47. M. Broze, ‘Les Enseignement de Sylvanos et la parole tranchante. Jeux de mots et assonances plurilinguistiques,’ Apocrypha 17 (2006) 79–86. C. Carlier, La Cité de Moïse, Monothéismes et Philosophie (Turnhout 2006). N. G. Cohen, ‘La dimensión judía del judaísmo de Filón. Una elucidación de De Spec. Leg. IV 132–150,’ Revista Bíblica 68 (2006) 215–240. S. Di Mattei, ‘Moses’ Physiologia and the Meaning and Use of Physikôs in Philo of Alexandria’s Exegetical Method,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 18 (2006) 3–32.


201

S. Di Mattei, ‘Paul’s Allegory of Two Covenants (Gal. 4.21–31) in Light of First-Century Hellenistic Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutic,’ New Testament Studies 52 (2006) 102–122. L. H. Feldman, Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (Leiden–Boston 2006). M. Frenschkowski, ‘Studien zur Geschichte der Bibliothek von Cäsarea,’ in T. J. Kraus and T. Nicklas (eds.), New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World (Leiden–Boston 2006) 53–104. K. Fuglseth, ‘The Reception of Aristotelian Features in Philo and the Authorship Problem of Philo’s De Aeternitate Mundi,’ in D. Brakke, A.-C. Jacobsen and J. Ulrich (eds.), Beyond Reception. Mutual Influences between Antique Religion, Judaism, and Early Christianity, Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity 1 (Frankfurt 2006) 57–67. M. E. Fuller, The Restoration of Israel: Israel’s Re-gathering and the Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke-Acts, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 138 (Berlin 2006), esp. 82–102. A. C. Geljon, ‘Philo en de kerkvaders,’ Schrift no. 223 (2006) 26–30. A. C. Geljon, ‘Philo of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa on Moses at the Burning Bush,’ in G. H. van Kooten (ed.), The Revelation of the Name YHWH to Moses, Themes in Biblical Narrative, 9 (Leiden–Boston 2006) 225–236. A. Grafton and M. Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge MA 2006). M. Hadas-Lebel, Jerusalem against Rome, Interdiscipinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 7 (Leuven 2006). G. Hata, Nottoraretta Seisho (Kyoto 2006), esp. 128–134. P. Heger, ‘Sabbath Offerings according to the Damascus Document — Scholarly Opinions and a New Hypothesis,’ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 118 (2006) 62–81. P. W. van der Horst, ‘Two Short Notes on Philo,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 18 (2006) 49–55. S. Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 64 (Leiden– Boston 2006). A. P. Johnson, ‘Philonic Allusions in Eusebius, PE 7.7–8,’ Classical Quarterly 56 (2006) 239–248. H. M. Keizer, ‘Philo en het Nieuwe Testament,’ Schrift no. 223 (2006) 21–25. A. Kerkeslager, ‘Agrippa and the Mourning Rites for Drusilla in Alexandria,’ Journal for the Study of Judaism 37 (2006) 367–400.

202


A. Kerkeslager, ‘Jews in Egypt and Cyrenaica 66-c. 235 CE’ in S. T. Katz (ed.), Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume 4: The Late Roman Period (Cambridge 2006) 53–68. D. Konstan, ‘Philo’s De virtutibus in the Perspective of Classical Greek Philosophy,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 18 (2006) 59–72. G. H. van Kooten, The Revelation of the Name YHWH to Moses: Perspectives from Judaism, the Pagan Graeco-Roman World, and Early Christianity, Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions 9 (Leiden– Boston 2006). A. Le Boulluec, Alexandrie antique et chrétienne. Clément et Origène, Collections des Études Augustiniennes Série Antiquité 178 (Paris 2006). C. Lévy, ‘Philon et les passions,’ in L. Ciccolini (ed.), Receptions antiques: Etudes de littérature ancienne (Paris 2006) 27–41. G. P. Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 58 (Leiden–Boston 2006). M. R. Niehoff, ‘Philo’s Contribution to Contemporary Alexandrian Metaphysics,’ in D. Brakke, A.-C. Jacobsen and J. Ulrich (eds.), Beyond Reception. Mutual Influences between Antique Religion, Judaism, and Early Christianity, Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity 1 (Frankfurt 2006) 35–55. C. O’Brien, ‘Platonism and the Tools of God,’ Trinity College Dublin Journal of Postgraduate Research 6 (2006) 60–72. P. K. Pohjala, Similarities of Redaction of the Gospel according to Matthew with Texts of Philo of Alexandrinus (Liskeard, Cornwall 2006). I. Ramelli Il basileus come nomos empsychos tra diritto naturale e diritto divino. Spunti platonici del concetto e sviluppi di età imperiale e tardo-antica, Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano per gli studi filosofici 34 (Naples 2006), esp. 89–91. D. G. Robertson, ‘Mind and Language in Philo,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 67 (2006) 423–442. J. R. Royse, ‘The Text of Philo’s De virtutibus,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 18 (2006) 73–101. D. T. Runia, ‘Philo – een introductie,’ Schrift no. 223 (2006) 3–11. D. T. Runia, E. Birnbaum, K. A. Fox, A. C. Geljon, H. M. Keizer, J. P. Martín, R. Radice, J. Riaud, D. Satran, G. Schimanowski, and T. Seland, ‘Philo of Alexandria: an Annotated Bibliography 2003,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 18 (2006) 143–204. D. T. Runia and G. E. Sterling (eds.), The Studia Philonica Annual, Vol. 18, Society of Biblical Literature (Atlanta 2006).


203

K. O. Sandnes, ‘Markus – en allegorisk biografi?’ Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 69 (2006) 275–297. G. Schimanowski, Juden und Nichtjuden in Alexandrien: Koexistenz und Konflikte bis zum Pogrom unter Trajan (117 n. Chr.), Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 18 (Berlin 2006) esp. 117-139 B. Schliesser, Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4: Genesis 15:6 and its History of Reception in Second Temple Judaism and Paul. A Contribution to the Pauline Concept of Faith (Saint Paul the Apostle) (diss. Fuller Theological Seminary 2006). T. Seland, ‘Philo, Magic and Balaam: Neglected Aspects of Philo’s Exposition of the Balaam Story,’ in J. Fotopoulos (ed.), The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune, Novum Testamentum Supplements 122 (Leiden–Boston 2006) 333–346. P. D. Steiger, Theological Anthropology in the Commentary ‘On Genesis’ by Didymus the Blind (Egypt) (diss. Catholic University of America 2006). G. E. Sterling, ‘"The Queen of the Virtues": Piety in Philo of Alexandria,’ The Studia Philonica Annual 18 (2006) 103–123. G. J. Steyn, ‘Torah Quotations Common to Philo, Hebrews, Clemens Romanus and Justin Martyr: What is the Common Denominator?,’ in C. Breytenbach, J. C. Thom and J. Punt (eds.), The New Testament Interpreted: Essays in Honour of Bernard C. Lategan, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 124 (Leiden–Boston 2006) 135–151. H. P. Thyssen, ‘Philosophical Christology in the New Testament,’ Numen: International Review for the History of Religions 53 (2006) 133–176. J. L. Tinklenberg de Vega, ‘A Man who Fears God’: Constructions of Masculinity in Hellenistic Jewish interpretations of the Story of Joseph (Josephus, Philo) (diss. Florida State University 2006). T. H. Tobin S.J., ‘The World of Thought in the Philippians Hymn (Philippians 2:6–11),’ in J. Fotopoulos (ed.), The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context. Studies in Honor of David E. Aune, Novum Testamentum Supplements 122 (Leiden–Boston 2006) 93– 104. H. Tronier, ‘Markus – en allegorisk komposition om Jesu vej,’ Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 69 (2006) 298–306. G. Veltri, Libraries, Translations, and ‘Canonic’ Texts: The Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 109 (Leiden-Boston 2006). U. Volp, Die Würde des Menschen. Ein Beitrag zur Anthropologie in der Alten Kirche, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 81 (Leiden–Boston 2006), esp. 77–81.

204


2007 M. Landfester and B. Egger (eds.), Geschichte der antiken Texte. Autoren– und Werklexicon, Der Neue Pauly Supplemente Band 2 (Stuttgart 2007), esp. 456–459. M. R. Niehoff, ‘Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria: Evidence from Philo’s ‘Quarrelsome’ Colleagues,’ Classical Quarterly 57, no. 1 (2007) 166–182. M. R. Niehoff, ‘Did the Timaeus Create a Textual Community?,’ Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 47 (2007) 161–191, esp. 170–177. S. J. K. Pearce, The Land of the Body: Studies in Philo’s Representation of Egypt, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuem Testament 204 (Tübingen 2007). A. Piñero, Literatura judía de época helenística en lengua griega. Desde la versión de la biblia al griego hasta el Nuevo Testamento (Madrid 2007), esp. 123–132. D. T. Runia, ‘Philo in the Reformational Tradition,’ in R. Sweetman (ed.), In the Phrygian Mode: Neocalvinism, Antiquity and the Lamentations of Reformed Philosophy, Christian Perspectives Today (Lanham etc. 2007) 195–212.


BOOK REVIEW SECTION

Kenneth Schenck, A Brief Guide to Philo. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2005. 170 pages. ISBN 0-664-22735-X. Price $24.95. Because the extensive corpus of Philo’s works have survived the centuries when the writings of other ancient witnesses did not, Philo is of major importance for the reconstruction of several aspects of Hellenistic thought. Schenck indicates that the historian is left to fill in a vast puzzle with the pieces at hand, of which Philo’s works are a major part. Thus, Philo is a treasure to be mined by scholars in several disciplines. Church historians read Philo to discover the predecessors to Alexandrian Christianity. Historians of philosophy read Philo as a witness to Middle Platonism and Neopythagoreanism. New Testament scholars search Philo for significant parallels to Paul, John, and Hebrews. However, for the specialists in these disciplines Philo is ancillary for larger research interests. Those who use Philo to answer the questions of their own disciplines rarely see the larger picture of this Jewish philosopher’s life and works. Schenck has written an excellent guide that will help the beginning student of Philo and scholars who turn to Philo to resolve issues in their own line of inquiry to navigate the Alexandrian’s corpus. The book is carefully organized. After introducing the alternative views of Philo in chapter one, Schenck presents an overview of Philo’s life and writings in chapter two, gleaning biographical information from the varied works and dividing Philo’s works into three separate categories (commentaries, apologetics, philosophy). Chapter three discusses Philo as a Jew in a Gentile world. Schenck shows that Philo, unlike many of his contemporaries, remained loyal to Jewish practices, but also appreciated Hellenistic philosophy and the arts. Chapter four offers a helpful discussion of Philo’s relation to other Hellenistic Jewish writings and to philosophical literature and a summary of the major themes in Philo’s philosophy and ethics. Chapter five is a nuanced treatment of Philo’s relationship to Christianity. He gives a judicious treatment of Philo’s relation to Paul, John, and Hebrews, updating previous discussions on the topic. Chapter six, a brief treatise by treatise summary of Philo’s works, will be useful to nonspecialists. Readers will also benefit from the topical index of the major

206


themes in Philo in chapter 7 and the glossary of terms at the end. The bibliography is a helpful guide to the secondary literature on Philo. Schenck has provided an accessible and accurate presentation of the life and thought of Philo. With the helpful bibliography, he also provides a foundation for the reader to explore Philo’s thought in greater depth. Since no one has provided a comprehensive guide to Philo in the last two decades, this book is an important contribution to the literature on the Jewish philosopher. James W. Thompson Abilene Christian University

Katell Berthelot, L'«humanité de l'autre homme» dans la pensée juive ancienne. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 87. Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2004. ix + 304 pages. ISBN 90-04-13797-1. Price €129, $174. Cet ouvrage fait suite à une première publication du même auteur, intitulée Philanthrôpia judaica. Le débat autour de la 'misanthropie' des lois juives dans l'Antiquité, parue chez le même éditeur et dans la même collection. Se situant sur le terrain de l'histoire des idées philosophiques et théologiques, K. Berthelot aborde la question de l'apparition et du développement d'une éthique humaniste dans la philosophie gréco-latine et dans la pensée juive ancienne, à l'époque dite «du second temple». C'est donc l'humanisme «considéré du point de vue de son rôle dans la conception entre les êtres humains» qui, comme elle le précise dans l'introduction, retient son attention tout au long de ce volume dans lequel nous retrouvons, comme dans le précédent, une familiarité constamment entretenue avec les auteurs étudiés et une connaissance critique de la littérature secondaire. Le premier chapitre est consacré à l'étude du thème de la bienveillance éprouvée par l'être humain vis-à-vis de son semblable dans les textes des philosophes grecs et romains. Il s'agit de savoir si les différentes écoles philosophiques encourageaient à pratiquer la philanthrôpia vis-à-vis des autres hommes. Des questions posées à ces écoles, du long et patient commerce que K. Berthelot a entretenu avec chacune d'entre elle, il apparaît que la quasi-totalité des écoles philosophiques préconisaient de pratiquer la bienveillance vis-à-vis de tout homme, mais la question du caractère naturel de cette bienveillance les divisait, et ce en raison de l'ambiguïté du concept de nature. Toutes les écoles ne considéraient pas la solidarité humaine comme naturelle au sens d'innée, mais la présentaient cependant comme naturelle en tant que la nature constitue également un idéal

Book Review Section

207

normatif: l'homme doit s'efforcer de développer cette disposition naturelle. Mais cette bienveillance vis-à-vis d'autrui n'est-elle pas conditionnée par le comportement de celui-ci? N'y a-t-il pas des catégories d'hommes exclus de ce lien d'humanité qui s'accompagne de devoirs? La bienveillance à l'égard de l'autre n'est-elle possible que si nous reconnaissons en lui un être rationnel? Les réponses données à ces questions par les philosophes anciens sont examinées par K. Berthelot qui les résume dans la conclusion de ce chapitre. Le second chapitre aborde la question, magistralement traitée, de la portée de «l'humanité de l'autre homme» dans la pensée juive ancienne. Trouvons-nous dans le judaïsme ancien une réflexion éthique fondée sur le concept de nature ou de condition humaine, comparable à ce que l'on observe dans les textes philosophiques grecs et latins? La «règle d'or», que l'on rencontre dans des textes grecs du IVe siècle avant notre ère, est formulée tantôt de manière négative et tantôt de manière positive: «Ne fais pas à autrui ce que tu ne voudrais pas que l'on te fit»; «Fais pour autrui ce que tu voudrais que l'on fit pour toi». Elle n'apparaît dans les textes juifs qu'à partir du IIe siècle avant notre ère, et presque uniquement dans des textes rédigés en grec. Faut-il expliquer cette apparition par une influence grecque? Peut-être, mais elle peut relever tout autant d'une évolution interne du judaïsme, et la présence de la règle dans un texte ne garantit pas nécessairement l'adoption d'une éthique humaniste; sa portée doit être appréciée dans le contexte de la pensée de chaque auteur.Ceci précisé, on peut affirmer qu' une éthique humaniste juive existe dans l'Antiquité. Comme exemple de cette éthique retenu par K. Berthelot, mentionnons le texte connu sous le titre Les sentences de Phocylide qui n'est pas l'œuvre du poète ionien du VIe siècle avant notre ère, mais d'un auteur juif, dénommé Pseudo-Phocylide qui vivait vers la fin du premier siècle avant J.-C., ou au premier siècle après. Dans son oeuvre, poème gnomologique, composé de 230 vers, cet auteur qui adopte une forme littéraire et un style grecs, reprend telles quelles certaines idées de la culture grecque qui lui paraissent compatibles avec l'enseignement du judaïsme comme la notion d'une condition humaine commune imposant à chacun des devoirs de solidarité élémentaires vis-à-vis des plus démunis. Il en va autrement de la pensée de Philon, longuement et excellemment présentée par K. Berthelot. Elle analyse les notions de koinônia (sens de la sociabilité), de syngeneia et d'oikeiotès (parenté) dans l'oeuvre de l'Alexandrin, précise les devoirs d'humanité qui découlent, selon lui, du fait que l'être humain est destiné à vivre en société, devoirs qui varient en fonction du type de relation dans laquelle est engagé l'individu. Mais, précision importante, pour Philon, si l'homme est naturellement sociable, c'est parce

208


que c'est ainsi que Dieu l'a créé et que Dieu lui demande de vivre. La nature a, certes, une valeur normative mais dans la mesure où elle est l'expression de la volonté de Dieu. Lorsqu'il présente les différents liens sociaux dans lesquels l'individu est engagé, Philon décrit une situation stable, dans laquelle les devoirs sont hiérarchisés et pensés en fonction de la parenté, et lorsqu'il traite de la parenté humaine universelle et de ses consquences, il préfère le terme syngneia à celui d'oikeiotès, cher aux Stoïciens. Cette syngeneia universelle que l'Alexandrin ne rattache jamais clairement aux données de la Genèse s'enracine, selon lui, et ici il est tributaire de la pensée péripatéticienne et stoïcienne, dans la nature rationnelle commune à tous. Ne reposant explicitement que sur la définition de l'homme comme un être rationnel et mortel, cette parenté n'a pas que des conséquences éthiques limitées, et ne peut être mise en balance avec ce que prescrit la lettre de la Loi aux enseignements de laquelle Philon fait appel de préférence pour apprendre aux Juifs la philanthrôpia. De plus, comme le montre fort bien K. Berthelot, une «parenté supérieure» joue un rôle important dans sa pensée, la parenté fondée sur les vertus, elles-mêmes inséparable de l'observance des lois. Cette parenté unit ceux qui confessent le Dieu unique et obéissent à sa Loi. Reposant sur la ressemblance morale et spirituelle, elle s'apparente par conséquent à la philia, terme que Philon n'emploie jamais pour décrire les relations entre les hommes en général. Sans se confondre avec le lien de parenté qui unit entre eux les Israélites, elle le recoupe cependant (cf. Virt., 35). Proche de Philon, l'auteur de IV Maccabées auquel K. Berthelot consacre plusieurs pages, fait référence à la nature humaine ou à l'appartenance au genre humain. Cette référence ne peut avoir qu'une valeur très faible sur le plan de l'éthique, car il est clair pour l'auteur de cette oeuvre qu'en aucun cas la Loi ne peut être enfreinte au nom de la solidarité humaine, et tout aussi clair qu'elle ne peut l'être au nom de l'amour que l'on porte à ses proches. L'éthique de IV Maccabées est fondée sur la Loi. Comme dans la Genèse, la référence à la création de l'être humain à l'image de Dieu (Gn l, 26-27) sert à fonder un commandement éthique majeur, et qu'en Gn 9, 6, dans le contexte du récit du déluge, la création de l'homme à l'image de Dieu est invoquée lorsqu'il s'agit de fonder l'interdiction du meurtre et la condamnation qui pèse sur quiconque versera le sang de l'homme, K. Berthelot pose dans le troisième chapitre la question des implications éthiques de «l'hmanité de l'autre homme» en lien avec la définition de l'homme comme créature de Dieu. Pour traiter cette question, elle propose un lecture des principales interprétations de Gn 1, 26–27 et 2, 7 dans la littérature juive de l'époque hellénistique et romaine. Dans un premier temps, elle regroupe et commente les textes qui ont trait à la domination de l'homme sur le monde, à l'intelligence dont l'homme, créé à

Book Review Section

209

l'image de Dieu, est doté, à l'immortalité, car il est présenté en Gn 2, 7 comme le dépositaire d'une parcelle du souffle divin. Au terme de cette lecture, on remarque que, dans ces diverses interprétations, le récit de la création n'est guère pris pour fondement direct des commandements éthiques valables dans les relations humaines. Quelques textes seulement illustrent la portée éthique d'une lecture humaniste de ce récit. Ce sont notamment le Targum du Pseudo-Jonathan sur Dt 21, 22–23 et le Livre des secrets d'Hénoch. Gn 9, 6 a fait aussi l'objet de relectures. Les Jubilés et le Livre des Antiquités bibliques y font référence, mais ne font que reproduire le verset, et l'idée que l'on puisse déduire un commandement éthique du fait que l'homme soit créé à l'image de Dieu n'apparaît nulle part ailleurs dans ces deux livres. En revanche, les échos de Gn 9, 6 dans l'oeuvre de Philon sont infiniment plus complexes, remarque K. Berthelot qui nous fait découvrir les lectures que fait de ce texte l'Alexandrin dans les traités où il le cite. Un certain nombre de textes prônent l'imitatio Dei. K. Berthelot retient le Siracide, la Lettre d'Aristée, la Sagesse de Salomon, les prédication judéohellénistiques sur Jonas et sur Samson (Sur Jonas; Sur Samson), et, bien sûr, l'oeuvre philonienne. Cette enquête sur l'existence d'une éthique humaniste dans le judaïsme ancien s'achève sur une dernière question, celle des interprétations de Lv 19, 18. Deux traductions de ce verset sont possibles, selon que l'on accorde une valeur adverbiale ou une valeur adjectivale à l'expression finale ˚wmk «comme toi». Dans le premier cas, ˚wmk qualifie le verbe, et on comprend l'injonction à aimer le prochain comme une injonction à l'aimer comme on s'aime soi-même. Dans le deuxième cas, ˚wmk qualifie le nom «prochain». On comprend alors que c'est le prochain lui-même qui est semblable à soi; le commandement de l'amour est motivé par cette ressemblance. K. Berthelot n'ignore pas que les deux traductions posent des problèmes grammaticaux d'ordre syntaxique, reconnaît que les deux traductions doivent être considérées comme possibles, et que l'une et l'autre se rencontrent dans les interprétations des textes juifs anciens qu'elle présente dans son dernier chapitre. Nous n'hésitons pas à un seul instant à remercier chaleureusement de nous avoir donné cette enquête si bien conduite sur la portée exacte de «l'humanité de l'autre homme» dans la pensée juive de l'époque hellénistique et romaine. Jean Riaud Université Catholique de l’Ouest Angers

210

The Studia Philonica Annual 19 (2007) Bibleworks7: Software for Biblical Exegesis and Research. Norfolk, Va.: Bibleworks, LLC, 2006. $300 (standard price includes Works of Philo in Greek).

In recent years, Bible software companies have provided Philonists with a huge boon for their research, namely a digital version of Philo’s extant Greek writings derived from the Philo Concordance Group (PCG) Database, which was the basis for Borgen et al., The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria (Eerdmans and Brill, 2000; reviewed in SPhA 12 (2000) 205–206). This database, based upon text editions by Cohn and Wendland, Colson (Hypoth. and Prov.), Petit (QG, QE), and Paramelle (QG), and which includes substantive morphological tagging by the PCG, makes it possible for programs such as Logos Bible Software, Accordance (for Mac), and Bibleworks to provide a Greek text of the Alexandrian’s works that can be read, searched, analyzed and exported with most of the same tools these programs bring to bear on the Tanakh, LXX and New Testament. For purposes of this review, we focus on the Greek text of Philo made available in Bibleworks 7 (BW7), a Microsoft Windows based software program. It is not appropriate here to advocate one Bible research program over another because, for one thing, they do many of the same things and do them relatively similarly. For another, users of a specific software program tend to be very loyal to their own brand and tend to argue (often passionately) for the superiority of their own program. This reviewer chose BW7 simply because it is most familiar to him. BW7 provides the Greek text of Philo, a fully lemmatized version of the same, and the public domain C. D. Yonge English translation in its standard software edition (i.e., it is not necessary to purchase an additional module to have access to Philo’s corpus). Also included in this standard edition are various editions of the Hebrew/Aramaic Tanakh (incl. BHS4corr), Rahlf’s Septuagint, the Greek NT (incl. NA27/UBS4), the Latin Vulgate, the Targumim (Aramaic), the Works of Josephus (in Greek, Latin and Whiston’s English), Apostolic Fathers (in Greek, Latin and English), along with numerous Bible translations in many modern languages (from Swedish to Swahili). In the case of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, each has morphological tags and is fully lemmatized. There are also several Lexical-Grammatical reference works including: Hebrew and Aramaic Lexica by BDB and Holladay; Greek Lexica by Gingrich/Danker, Newman, and the Abridged LSJ; as well as several grammars focusing on biblical texts. These tools include hyperlinks to biblical references that allow one to see (by placing the mouse pointer above the link) the text of the reference in its original language and in translation. Also available, each for an additional fee, are modules containing such

Book Review Section

211

major resources as LSJ (9th revised edition), BDAG, Koehler, Baumgartner and Stamm’s Hebrew/Aramaic lexicon, and the Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts. BW7 provides its user a number of ways to access Philo’s writings. One can read, paragraph by paragraph (following the standard sectioning available in printed editions), the Greek and English texts next to each other (along with a list of the Greek words in the paragraph in their lexical form and with morphological explanation). Or one can continuously scroll the Greek text or English text alone. One can also, without removing from view the paragraph under investigation, easily access lexical aids (including most of the lexica and grammars mentioned above) and receive information about a specific word simply by pointing to it with the mouse. One can also write user notes alongside the text(s) and save them so that they are then attached to that respective paragraph or treatise. They are accessible whenever one returns to that passage and can be edited or deleted as the user sees fit. Also visible (without hiding the current paragraph) is a column containing the most recent word search, listing all the treatises and sections where that word is found. Word searches can be done (in Greek or English) from this column by entering in the word (or words or part of a word or a phrase, etc.). One can also select a word (or phrase) directly from the main text(s) displayed and search for it either in its current morphological form or for any occurrence of the word, regardless of morphology. BW7 is exceptionally fast in its searches (it takes about a second to locate and list all the occurrences of a common preposition in Philo’s complete Greek corpus). It also provides the ability for statistical analysis, being able to show how many times (in percentage or raw numbers, and with graphs) a word or phrase appears in one, some or all of Philo’s treatises (including section by section break down, if requested). This is only some of the functionality available for Philo’s writings, and there is considerably even more functionality available for the Greek and Hebrew Biblical texts. In every instance the display of Greek (or Hebrew) is clear and easy to read. BW7 comes with its own, quite legible font, but the user can choose a number of other fonts for display or for exporting text, including Unicode. Exporting text is easy and the ability to choose a userfriendly font allows one to copy a word or several lines (or more) and paste it directly into any word processing or presentation program. It is important to note that all software has a learning curve involved that requires patience, especially for the more complex types of searches. While this is especially true for Bibleworks, the basic and most frequent actions require minimal skill and can be done within minutes of beginning

212


to use the program. Other more complex actions can be discovered through the exhaustive electronic help manual readily available from the menu bar or, perhaps best, by patient trial and error. Also noteworthy is that the Philonic corpus only recently became available to Bibleworks (and the other Bible software programs) and the Greek lemmatization is not completely finished; hence, a few words lack morphological analysis or lexical explanation. However, patches with updates to the Philo text are available free of charge on an “as available” basis and are easily downloaded. BW7 publishers are not far from having a complete and fully proofed Greek text; until then, the mostly complete and mostly proofed text currently available makes this program a very worthwhile addition to any Philonist’s electronic library. Ronald R. Cox Pepperdine University Malibu

R. Hirsch-Luipold (ed.), Gott und die Götter bei Plutarch. Götterbild— Gottesbilder—Weltbilder, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 54. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin–New York 2005. x + 287 pages. ISBN 3-11-018479-6. Price €88, $119. Last year in the pages of this Annual, the editor of the volume under review announced the beginning of a research project entitled “Religious Philosophy and Philosophical Religion in the Early Imperial Period.” The project will focus on developments in a strand of religious thought in early Imperial Platonism, with special attention to be paid to the two major figures Philo and Plutarch. A preview of what the Project promises can be gained from the present volume, a collection of papers from a conference held in 2005. The sponsors of the conference were the Göttingen Postgraduate Seminar (Graduiertenkolleg) and the International Plutarch Society. The present volume has the theme of the conference as its title, while the sub-title recalls the larger theme of the the Seminar as a whole (Images of the gods—Images of God—Images of the world. Polytheism and Monotheism in the ancient world). The volume contains eleven papers, seven in German and four in English, preceded by an Introduction (also in German) by the editor which introduces the theme and summarizes the individual contributions. Clearly a lot of thought has gone into the ordering of the papers. They are pre-

Book Review Section

213

sented in two groups. The first group is brought under the heading “The images of God in the philosophical tradition and Plutarch’s God.”1 Ferrari gives a compact comparison of the views of Plutarch and Plato on the nature of God. The articles of Brenk and Opsomer on Plutarch’s philosophical theology complement each other, the former primarily moving forward from earlier Middle Platonists to Plutarch, the latter looking at the later Platonist tradition and moving back in time to Plutarch’s views. Pérez Jiménez and Frazier turn their attention to the more personal aspects of Plutarch’s God, both in his nature and in his relation to human beings. In Frazier’s view he can be characterized as gracious, which is more personal than the benevolence of Plato’s Demiurge, but is far removed from the love of the Christian God. The second group of papers receives the heading “The Gods of the religious tradition and Plutarch’s God.”2 The emphasis moves from predominantly philosophical analysis to discussions on how Plutarch’s theology relates to the gods of traditional religion. The first paper by Hirsch-Luipold focuses on the one God in Philo and Plutarch and sees important parallels between them in their approach to religious philosophy. Görgemanns analyzes the theology in the Dialogue on Love, and especially the notable encomium of Eros, placing particular emphasis on its literary and rhetorical models. Stadter discusses the information that Plutarch gives on his own patron god Apollo, while Van der Stockt goes to the other extreme of the theological spectrum and examines the role of Chthonic deities in his works. The starting-point for Feldmeier’s article is the god Osiris, who in De Iside is “King of the dead,” but leads the souls to a blessed life, giving rise to comparison with the “God of the living” in the New Testament. Finally, Graf gives a general presentation of Plutarch’s views on divine images, including a comparison with what we know about Porphyry’s lost Περὶ ἀγάλματων. It will not have escaped the reader’s attention that the comparison between Plutarch and Philo occupies a highly strategic position in the book. 1 Franco Ferrari, “Der Gott Plutarchs und der Gott Platons” (13–25); Frederick E. Brenk, “Plutarch’s Middle-Platonic God: About to Enter (or Remake) the Academy” (27– 49); Jan Opsomer, “Demiurges in Early Imperial Platonism” (51–109); Aurelio Pérez Jiménez, “δικαιοσύνη als Wezenszug des Göttlichen” (101–109); Françoise Frazier, “Göttlichkeit und Glaube. Persönliche Gottesbeziehung im Spätwerk Plutarchs” (111–137). 2 Rainer Hirsch-Luipold, “Der eine Gott bei Philon von Alexandrien und Plutarch” (141–168); Herwig Görgemanns, “Eros als Gott in Plutarch’s ’Amatorius‘” (169–195); Philip A. Stadter, “Plutarch and Apollo of Delphi“ (197–213); Reinhard Feldmaier, “Osiris: Der Gott der Toten als Gott des Lebens (De Iside Kap. 76–78)” (215–227); Luc Van der Stockt, “‘No Cause for Alarm‘: Chthonic Deities in Plutarch” (229–249); Fritz Graf, “Plutarch und die Götterbilder” (251–266).

214


It is in fact placed in the omphalos position. As the first paper in the second group, it forms a transition from the more philosophical papers to those concentrating on the history of religions. I think it can be assumed that this central position is deliberate. The author, who is also the editor of the volume, places a great deal of emphasis on the strong convergences that he sees between the two thinkers—despite the manifest differences—in three areas: (1) the link they both establish between religious tradition, which they fully espouse in their lives, and a philosophical interpretation of that religion in primarily Platonic terms; (2) the shared hermeneutical method of using allegory and symbolism for the interpretation of religious traditions, in which the personal and historical God of Jewish tradition tends to become transcendentalized in Philo and the transcendent God of Academic tradition tends to become more personal and historical in Plutarch; (3) the shared view that God is not only immaterial and transcendent, but also forms a unity and stands in contact with the world of physical reality and human beings. For Hirsch-Luipold these convergences are not just the result of both thinkers living in almost the same epoch. He concludes that there must be a more direct point of contact, which he sees in the shared Egyptian connection, in the case of Philo his residence in Alexandria, in the case of Plutarch his great interest in Egyptian history and religion, and especially the link through his Egyptian teacher Ammonius. This view is certainly attractive. Its difficulty is that there is a distinct lack of evidence. Even if we could be sure of the hypothesis of Boyancé and Theiler (not mentioned) that behind Philo’s commentaries (and esp. Opif.) there is a distinctive brand of Alexandrian Platonism perhaps to be associated with Eudorus, many uncertainties remain. How are we to explain, for example, that Philo makes the doctrine that the Ideas are the thoughts of God central to his reinterpretation of the Timaeus, but Plutarch rejects it (strongly emphasized in the article of Ferrari)? The answer that Philo is constrained to this view through his interpretation of the opening verses of Genesis 1 is insufficient. The advance that Hirsch-Luipold makes is to emphasize the importance of shared philosophical views through the influence of a religious perspective. The example that I found particularly persuasive is the combination of transcendentalist and immanentist views of God. Both thinkers strongly emphasize God’s transcendence, but at the same time do not wish to deny his involvement with the world and with human beings. The solution of a layered theology as found elsewhere in Middle Platonism, does not appeal to them because it imperils God’s essential unity. I find much to admire and recommend in Hirsch-Luipold’s discussion. Because he is making a positive comparison, he perhaps draws the two

Book Review Section

215

authors closer together than their very differing backgrounds allow. Plutarch would have been bemused by Philo’s unwavering loyalty towards the lawgiver Moses. Plato could never have the same authority for Philo that he had for Plutarch. Hirsch-Luipold appeals to the text at Prob. 13, where Philo speaks of the ἱερώτατος Πλάτων, but it is an isolated text in a philosophical treatise, and even the reading is controversial (all but one manuscript read λιγυρώτατος, which must surely be regarded as the lectio difficilior). Further research needs to be carried out on what exactly the terms φιλοσοφία and φιλόσοφος mean for both authors. It is to be agreed that the attempt by Dillon in his seminal The Middle Platonists to present both authors just as philosophers, though admirable, was not wholly successful. I would still want to go further than Hirsch-Luipold and would decline to call Philo a Middle Platonist in the strict sense at all. The hard-bound book is neatly produced, but for the price one might have expected slightly more elegant typesetting (the use of inappropriately sized small capitals becomes wearisome, both in the footnotes and in the Index of authors). I came across the occasional misprint; the most disturbing one is found on p. 161: visio die instead of visio dei. But content is more important than the details of presentation. We may conclude that graduate teaching is in good hands in Göttingen at present and we look forward to further results from this exciting project being carried out by HirschLuipold and his team. David T. Runia Queen’s College The University of Melbourne

Pierluigi Lanfranchi, L'Exagoge d'Ezéchiel le Tragique. Introduction, texte, traduction et commentaire. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 21. Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2006. x + 390 pages. ISBN 90-0415063-3. Price €145, $195. Les historiens fixent la naissance d'un véritable théâtre juif au XVIe siècle, lorsque le communautés ashkénazes de l'Italie du Nord développèrent une forme de spectacle originale à partir de la tradition médiévale du Purim Spiel. Mais, remarque P. Lanfranchi, «un témoignage exceptionnel et unique prouve que les Juifs se sont mesurés avec le théâtre bien avant la Renaissance. Il s'agit d'une tragédie sur l'exode des Hébreux intitulée Exagoge, écrite en grec entre la moitié du IIIe et la moitié du Ier siècle av. n. è. par un juif nommé Ezéchiel» (2). Cette tragédie a retenu l'attention de l'auteur qui lui a consacré le présent volume.

216


Dans l'introduction (1–99) sont excellemment formulées les questions que tout lecteur des dix-sept fragments de l'Exagoge ne manque pas de se poser, et les réponses qui lui sont données, prudentes et solidement fondées, lui permettent de les redécouvrir et d'en faire une lecture totalement nouvelle, car Lanfranchi a su replacer Ezéchiel dans le contexte de la vie intellectuelle du judaïsme hellénistique et montrer, en même temps, sa sensibilité aux problèmes poétiques du genre tragique. Cette démarche, adoptée par notre auteur, nous permet de comprendre comment, en diaspora, terme qui n'est que très rarement employé dans la littérature judéo-hellénistique, «être juif et poète à la manière des Grecs n'était ni un paradoxe ni une déviation aberrante» (7). Entrons dans les précisions. Faut-il s'étonner qu'Ezéchiel ait intitulé sa tragédie Ἐξαγωγή et non pas Ἔξοδoς, comme dans le livre de la Bible grecque? Non, car Ezéchiel n'est pas le seul à adopter ἐξαγωγή pour caractériser l'exode des Hébreux. Aristobule l'emploie pour définir le livre de l'Exode. Philon fait de même (Migr. 14; Somn. I, 117; Her. 14; 251; QE I, 7). Nous ne trouvons dans les sources anciennes aucune donnée biographique concernant Ezéchiel. Il n'est mentionné ni par Philon qui semble pourtant avoir connu l' Exagoge ni par Flavius Josèphe qui, il est vrai, ne prêtait pas beaucoup d' attention aux écrivains juifs de langue grecque. La seule chose que nous connaissons de l'auteur de l'Exagoge est son nom, Ezéchiel, un anthroponyme assez rare non seulement à l'époque hellénistique et romaine, mais déjà dans la Bible. D'où la question posée par Lanfranchi: ce nom est-il un «nom réel ou un pseudonyme»? Remarquant fort à propos que la pseudépigraphie, phénomène fort répandu à l'époque hellénistique et romaine, pas seulement chez les auteurs juifs, répond à des exigences spécifiques, qui ne sont pas celles d'Ezéchiel le tragique, notre auteur estime qu'il semble probable que l'auteur de l'Exagoge ait gardé son propre nom, qu'il a vécu à une époque comprise entre la moitié du IIIe siècle et la moitié du Ier siècle avant notre ère, probablement à Alexandrie. Des savants ont émis des doutes sur la nature «tragique» de l'oeuvre d'Ezéchiel et ont posé la question du genre littéraire auquel cette pièce appartient. Ces dix-sept fragments sont-ils «une tragédie qui n'est pas tragique»? Lanfranchi aborde sereinement les questions littéraires que posent ces fragments, mais seulement après s'être magistralement débarrassé des préjugés liés à la notion moderne de «tragique». Il examine les diverses tentatives faites pour placer les fragments de l'Exagoge dans la structure hypothétique de la tragédie telle qu'elle devait être, et se demande si Ezéchiel a conçu son oeuvre pour être lue ou représentée. Il accepte l'hypothèse que l'Exagoge a été écrite non seulement pour un public de lecteurs, mais également pour des spectateurs. Ceci l'entraîne à tenter de

Book Review Section

217

reconstituer l'occasion et l'endroit où la représentation devait avoir lieu, et, pour ce faire, à aborder une question plus large, à savoir quelle était l'attitude du judaïsme de l'époque hellénistique et romaine à l'égard du théâtre. Le dossier rassemblé dans le chapitre II montre clairement que les attitudes juives vis-à-vis du théâtre étaient multiples. Flavius Josèphe et la littérature rabbinique témoignent de l'hostilité à l'égard des spectacles notamment dans les milieux palestiniens. En revanche, des inscriptions ainsi que les écrits de Philon attestent la fréquentation des théâtres de la part des Juifs de la diaspora. Reste à savoir en quel lieu était représentée l'Exagoge: dans un théâtre public comme n'importe quelle pièce d'un auteur païen, ou bien dans un espace plus proprement juif. Lanfranchi examine les deux possibilités et donne sa préférence à celle qui présente le moins d'inconvénients et de difficultés, à savoir un contexte juif. Mais quelle est la structure communautaire juive qui pouvait servir de lieu de spectacle pour l'auditoire d'Ezéchiel? L'hypothèse selon laquelle l'Exagoge aurait pu être représentér dans les synagogues ou les locaux adjacents a été avancée. Faute de témoignages précis, on ne peut la retenir comme solidement fondée. Lanfranchi constate que, pendant toute l'antiquité, l'organisation des spectacles dramatiques n'est pas liée exclusivement à l'existence d'un théâtre permanent, et que même si à l'époque hellénistique on assiste à une multiplication des théâtres en pierre, ceux-ci n'ont pas remplacé le théâtre en bois dont la scène et les sièges en bois étaient aisément démontables. Cette constation, tirée du monde païen, l'amène à croire qu'une communauté juive ne disposant pas d'un théâtre en pierre pouvait fort bien organiser la mise en scène de l'Exagoge dans un espace communautaire. Quant à connaître l'occasion de sa représentation, on retiendra l'hypothèse avancée par notre auteur qui, sur la base d'une lecture minutieuse du texte, estime que la pièce pouvait être jouée dans «les manifestations, collatérales et non nécessairement institutionnelles, qui accompagnaient les fêtes religieuses, notamment la célébration de la Pâque» (68). Le dernier chapitre de cette fort remarquable introduction est consacré à «la transmission du texte». L'histoire de cette transmission est marquée par une double sélection: la première opérée au Ier siècle avant notre ère par Alexandre Polyhistor qui citait Ezéchiel dans une compilation qui avait trait à l'histoire et aux coutumes juives. Avant que cette compilation ne disparût, Eusèbe l'utilisa largement dans le livre IX de sa Préparation évangélique, en extrayant les 269 trimètres iambiques qui sont tout ce qui reste de l'oeuvre d'Ezéchiel. Des vers de l'Exagoge se retrouvent chez Clément d'Alexandrie et chez le Pseudo-Eustathe. Lanfranchi présente avec une acribie exemplaire les considérations ethnographiques et paradoxographiques d'Alexandre, ainsi que les préoccupations apologétiques de Clément et d'Eusèbe, qui

218


ont conditionné les choix des citations de l'Exagoge. En nous aidant à comprendre les critères qui ont orienté ces auteurs dans leur sélection, et à suivre les différents passages du texte d'Ezéchiel d'un auteur à l'autre, notre auteur rend possible l'interprétation de l'Exagoge. La seconde partie de ce volume comprend le texte de l'Exagoge, sa traduction accompagnée de notes philologiques et d'un commentaire. P. Lanfranchi a reproduit la section de la Préparation évangélique IX, 28, 1-IX, 29, 16) dans laquelle sont cités les fragments de la tragédie. Le texte de l'Exagoge est celui édité par Bruno Snell dans Tragicorum Graecarum fragmenta, volume I, Göttingen, 1971, 288–301. Chaque fragment est traduit. La disposition en vers correspondant au grec a été gardée, comme elle l'avait été par H Jacobson et E. Vogt. La traduction qui suit de près le grec sans jamais verser dans le charabia, est très agréable à lire. Elle est éclairée par de nombreuses notes philogogiques qui soulignent son lien avec le texte de la Bible, nous renvoient aux auteurs grecs des tragédies classiques et, bien sûr, à la littérature du judaïsme hellénistique. Les philoniens ne manqueront pas de remarquer les références à Philon, reprises dans le très précieux «Appendice I: Parallèles entre l'Exagoge et la Vie de Moïse de Philon» (297–298). Le commentaire met en valeur le sens de chaque fragment, signale si Ezéchiel suit le texte du livre de l'Exode ou s'il s'en écarte ou omet tel ou tel passage. À titre d'exemples, signalons les renseignements fournis sur «la localisation de Madian dans l'exégèse juive de l'époque hellénistique» (151– 156), sur «l'Ethiopie dans la tragédie grecque et dans la littérature géographique de l'époque hellénistique et les données 'géographiques' de l'Exagoge» (156–162), et attirons l'attention sur les pages consacrées au rêve de Moïse (180–199). Aussi bien dans les notes philologiques que dans le commentaire le lecteur dispose d'une mine d'une exceptionnelle richesse. Outre l'Appendice I déjà mentionné, un second Appendice retrace l'histoire de la recherche sur l'Exagoge. Une bibliographie exhaustive (339– 368), un index des sources et un index des auteurs cités dans l'Appendice II, complètent ce volume impeccablement édité. Son auteur a droit à toutes les félicitations, car il fait honneur à la recherche savante. Jean Riaud Université Catholique de l’Ouest Angers

Book Review Section

219

John M. G. Barclay (ed.), Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire. London: T&T Clark, 2004. 184 pages. ISBN 0826466664. Price $140. While originally referring to Israelite/Jewish communities living outside the land of Israel, the term “diaspora” is now widely used in the humanities to refer to scattered ethnic groups living in a colonial or post-colonial context. Negotiating Diaspora, a slim collection of papers initially presented at the University of Glasgow in 2001, casts itself as an effort to import questions and concepts from diasporic studies in this broader sense back into the study of the ancient Jewish diaspora. The two essays in the first of the book’s three sections have very narrow foci but touch on the larger question of how Jews in the first century understood and coped with the dislocation of diasporic existence. The subject of Margaret William’s “Being a Jew in Rome” is a ritual practice imputed to the Jews by Roman sources: Sabbath fasting. Since the Sabbath is not a day of fasting in later Jewish tradition, most scholars assume that the testimony of writers like Horace and Ovid reflects a Roman misunderstanding of Jewish behavior. Williams makes a good case for taking the Roman sources at their word but is less convincing when explaining Sabbath fasting as an effort by war captives in Rome to commemorate the capture of Jerusalem on the Sabbath in 63 b.c.e. and 37 c.e. One of the texts she cites to support the plausibility of Sabbath fasting, Jub. 50 from the second century b.c.e., would seem to indicate that this practice, if it was a practice, predates Roman rule and need not be understood as a specifically diasporic custom. Sarah Pearce’s contribution, “Jerusalem as Mother-City in the Writings of Philo,” reexamines what Philo meant when he referred to Jerusalem as the Jews’ “mother city.” Such language might seem to cast Jerusalem as the only legitimate homeland of the Jews, relegating other Jewish communities like that in Alexandria to a subordinate status. But Pearce, reading Philo against the backdrop of the Hellenistic concept of colonization, rejects such a reading, arguing that Philo’s conception of Jerusalem as a “mother-city” need not have precluded a simultaneous allegiance to other cities like Alexandria. Pearce’s argument nicely counterbalances the point made by Williams. While the latter endeavors to illustrate how diasporic Jews looked beyond their immediate surroundings to Judea, using Sabbath practice to foster a sense of connection to a distant ethnic center, Pearce shows how the image of that center left room for Jews to feel at home in other settings. The second section, shifting forward in time to the third through fifth centuries c.e., teases out the ambiguities of epigraphic and archaeological

220


sources. Alexander Panayotov surveys the evidence for Jewish life in the territory of modern Bulgaria between the third and sixth centuries c.e., finding trace evidence of how Jews integrated into the larger hellenized society of the region while retaining a distinctive cultural identity—their “double consciousness” reflected in the dual Greek and biblical bynames borne by some Jews in this region. Paul Tribelco’s study focuses on a Greek formula common at the end of funerary inscriptions from Phrygia in central Asia Minor, “he or she will have to reckon with God,” which he interprets as evidence of a porous social boundary between Jews and Christians in this region. As both of these studies emphasize, the inscriptional evidence is often ambiguous—it can often be impossible to distinguish a Jewish from a Christian inscription, for example. But this by itself does not constitute particularly compelling evidence that Jewish (and Christian) identity in this time and place was especially fluid or hybrid, as John Barclay’s introduction would infer (5). To adapt an old scholarly saw, ambiguous evidence is not necessarily evidence of ambiguity. The two essays in the book’s final section focus on Josephus as a diasporic author operating in a political and social context shaped by Roman rule. James McLaren uses Josephus’ portrait of Judas, the founder of the “Fourth Philosophy,” to illustrate how the historian shaped his narratives to distance himself from the Jewish Revolt. John Barclay’s essay shows how Josephus shrewdly emphasized the contrast between the Jews and the Egyptians not only to counter a common association of the two peoples but also to help align the Jews with the values of their Roman rulers. Both essays reflect a broader trend in the field to read Josephus’ writings not just as a source for Jewish history but as a cunning effort to maneuver within a Roman political framework. While Negotiating Diaspora does not live up to the theoretical ambition of its introduction, it does make good on its promise to offer a “snapshot” of the current study of ancient Jewish diasporic life, helpfully underscoring the limits of the literary and inscriptional sources even as it reaches beyond those limits to construct a slightly more nuanced picture of that life. Its effort to bridge between the study of ancient Judaism and “diasporic studies” in the more generic sense deserves consideration by scholars of Philo seeking new perspectives from which to view his compositions. Steven Weitzman Indiana University, Bloomington

Book Review Section

221

Mark A. Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 134. Cambridge–New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. xvii + 285 pages. ISBN 05-2184647-1. Price £50, $90. This volume continues and expands upon the author’s earlier The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), in which Chancey, who teaches at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, argued persuasively on the basis of a survey of archaeological sites that the Galilee of Jesus’ day was largely, perhaps overwhelmingly Jewish. While the 2002 monograph (a revision of his 1999 Duke dissertation) argued mainly from archaeology, Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus is concerned with the same general issue of Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, but devotes chapters to the presence of the Roman Army (ch. 2), architectural styles (ch. 3), Roman institutions and urban design (ch. 4), the use of Greek (ch. 5), numismatics (ch. 6), and art (ch. 7). Throughout, the argument is that the extent of hellenization has been greatly exaggerated and that Martin Hengel’s dictum that all Judaism is Hellenistic Judaism must be qualified. One important instrument in Romanization was the presence of the Roman army. But as Chancey argues, it is doubtful that legionaries were stationed in the Galilee until well after the conclusion of the First Revolt. Legio II Traiana probably did not arrive in the Galilee until the early second century, being replaced about 130 c.e. by VI Ferrata. This implies, of course, that the ‘centurion’ reported to have encountered Jesus in Q 7:1–10 cannot have been a Roman. Chancey urges that he was likely one of Antipas’s troops—no doubt Gentile, but not Roman. Likewise, he argues that the allusion to angaria or military requisitioning in Matt 5:41 does not necessarily imply the presence of Roman soldiers but might have been employed by auxiliary forces. Chancey’s conjectures on Q 7:1–10 and Matt 5:41 may be granted, but what he does not appear to consider is that the presence in Galilee of auxilia and of non-Jewish mercenaries of Antipas would also have had a hellenizing effect—not as dramatic an effect as the stationing of a legion, but an effect nonetheless. As far as architecture is concerned (ch. 3), Chancey notes that philoromaios Herod the Great built typically Roman installations at Caesarea Maritima and that in the Galilee, even if the theatre at Sepphoris dates from after the First Revolt, there is evidence of a stadium at Tiberias and a hippodrome at Tarichaeae, as well as agorai (Q 7:31) and plateiai (Q 13:23– 24). But Chancey is keen to deny the presence of Roman cults in the area. Thus he suggests that the incense shovel excavated at Bethsaida Julias might simply have been used for fumigation rather than for the imperial cult. One wonders, however, whether a city named in honour of the

222


emperor’s wife and whose coinage regularly shows a tetrastyle temple on the reverse was so unacquainted with the Roman cult. What Chancey shows effectively is that the strongest influence of Graeco-Roman architectural styles can be seen in basilical synagogues, which begin to appear in the first century c.e. and become quite common thereafter (ch. 4). Thus ‘hellenization’ is present, but typically adapted to local practices. Chapter Seven considers the issue of the use of Greek in the Galilee. The data is extremely slim since no papyri or other documentary sources have survived and datable inscriptions are relatively few in number, as Chancey admits. He also must concede that the majority of Galilean inscriptions are Greek—in 1971 Eric Meyers (Jewish Ossuaries [BibOr 24]; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1971) estimated that 65% of ossuaries are in Greek, a further 10% are bilingual, and 25% are Hebrew or Aramaic—and the inscriptions from Beth She’arim are overwhelmingly Greek (80%). It may indeed be that the Beth She’arim coffins all date from after the first century c.e., but it at least bears consideration that those buried there chose Greek rather than Aramaic as the language of memorialization. It also bears consideration that at least since the Ptolemaic period, as the Zenon papyri show, Greek was an important administrative language in the Galilee and that the one early Christian document that likely came from the Galilee— the sayings Gospel Q—was clearly composed in Greek, not Aramaic. Chancey is perhaps right to reject as insufficiently documented claims to the effect that the use of Greek was widespread in the Galilee, but his implication, that it was not widespread, is equally lacking in support. With respect to numismatics (ch. 6) and art (ch. 7) Chancey points to the general avoidance of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic imagery (except under Agrippa I), no doubt a reflection of local sensibilities. All this means that a traveler to the Galilee would probably recognize quickly that they were in a cultural zone distinct from the Sharon Plain, or the areas around Tyre or Sidon. To this extent, Chancey’s argument that the extent of hellenization has been exaggerated is convincing. But what is lacking in his argument is the employment of a model of cultural interaction that takes into account not only the ‘gross’ features of culture, but also the much more subtle ones. For example, what can be gleaned of contract and lease law from the Aramaic and Hebrew documents from Nahal Hever and from the comments of later Palestinian rabbis is completely in accord with the structure of contracts and leases known from Ptolemaic Egypt and elsewhere in the Empire. Administrative structures for tax collection and the courts, control of the markets, and the civic administration of Tiberias and Sepphoris were modeled on practices that we know to have existed in Greek cities and as Moshe Weinfeld (The Organizational Pattern and the Penal

Book Review Section

223

Code of the Qumran Sect [NTOA 2; Fribourg: Editions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986]) argued, even the structure of the community at Qumran displays structural similarities to Greek voluntary associations. Thus our traveler would perhaps have also appreciated the more subtle ways in which Jewish Palestine had been hellenized. John S. Kloppenborg University of Toronto

Jean Riaud (ed.), L’étranger dans la bible et ses lectures. Lectio divina. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2007. 458 pages. ISBN 978-2-204-08312-6. Price €32. During the past eight years the research group “La Bible et ses lectures,” led by Jean Riaud at the Catholic University of Angers, has been very active in investigating themes in biblical interpretation which shed light on the world of the Bible and its Umwelt. The present volume collects together nineteen papers all written in French on the theme of “the stranger in the Bible,” divided into four sections, together with an introduction and a preliminary paper. The scope of the volume can be seen from the following list of its contents (the titles have been translated into English): “Preface” by the editor Jean Riaud (9–16). Prologue L. Colonna d’Istria and P. Louis, “The stranger in the land of Sumer at the time of the 3rd Dynasty of Ur” (17–52). Part I: Old Testament readings M. Bertrand, “The stranger in the biblical Laws” (55–84); C. Pichon, “The figure of stranger in the cycle of Elijah” (85–101); G. Verkindère, “Israel and the Nations” (103–125); P. Mottard, “The stranger: from the Hebrew Bible to the Septuagint” (127–163). Part II: New Testament readings C. Grappe, “Jesus and the Syro-Phoenician woman: a key passage in the passage to a new concept of the relation to the stranger” (167–183); P. Haudebert, “The Samaritan stranger (Luke 17:18) in the work of Luke” (185–194); R. Kieffer, “The encounter of Peter and Cornelius in the Acts of the Apostles” (195–204); X. Leveils, “Jewish identity and Christian faith: the place of the stranger in the people of God (1st to 4th cent.)” (205–245). Part III: Extra-biblical readings P. L. Lanfranchi, “Moses the stranger: the image of the xenos in the Exagoge of Ezechiel the tragedian” (249–260); D. Hamadovic, “On the border of alterity: the status of the resident stranger among the Essenes” (261–304); M. Hadas-Lebel, “Excluded and included groups in Philo of Alexandria” (305–314); M. Alexandre, “The relationship to strangers in Judaism according to Josephus” (315–342); E. Starobinski, “The stranger in Rabbinic literature” (343–362); M. Scopello, “Gnostics and the stranger” (363–381).

224

The Studia Philonica Annual 19 (2007) Part IV: A cultural posterity A. Richard, “The figure of Caspar, the black king, in the Adoration of the Magi in Flanders in the 15th century” (383–412); M. Berder, “The figure of the stranger in the libretto of Verdi’s Nabucco,” (413–425); A. Bouloumié, “The myth of the King Magi in Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar by Michel Tournier” (427–440); “’Love without limits‘: Prologue by Simone Weil” (441–442); A.-A. Devaux, “Towards an interpretation of the Prologue by Simone Weil” (443–455).

The attention given to the thought of Philo is limited. In a brief contribution, Prof. Mireille Hadas-Lebel first points out the sense of exclusion felt by the Jewish community of Alexandria in the events of 38 c.e. She then outlines the groups that Philo excludes from the holy congregation in his exegesis of the Law (texts found mainly in Spec.). Inclusion is based not upon heredity, but a life of virtue and faith. The article concludes with the citation of some texts on the human being as “stranger upon the earth.” Being a stranger is most definitely not synonymous with exclusion, since the stranger can be accepted in the community as a proselyte. Exclusion only takes place when defiance is shown against God through folly. These important themes deserve further treatment in a more thorough study. There is much that Philonists can learn from the remaining articles in this impressively broad collection. For example, the learned article on the stranger in Josephus by Monique Alexandre contains analyses of various Hellenistic-Jewish texts, including a number of Philonic passages. The volume is therefore warmly recommended. Its accessibility, however, would have been enhanced by the inclusion of indices. David T. Runia Queen‘s College The University of Melbourne


NEWS AND NOTES Philo of Alexandria Group of the Society of Biblical Literature The Philo of Alexandria Group of the Society of Biblical Literature convened for two sessions on 19 and 20 November 2006 in Washington, D.C., during the Annual Meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion. The first session in the Philo Seminar was devoted to reconsidering the relationship between Philo and later Jewish liturgical and interpretive traditions. The session was co-organized together with the History and Literature of Early Rabbinic Judaism. The theme of the session was Reception of Philo of Alexandria in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity: The Question Revisited. The session was a very lively with over one hundred people in attendance. The presenters each considered ways in which Philonic traditions can be said to be congenial to and connected to later rabbinic traditions, but none of the presenters argued for explicit dependence of philonic interpretation on later rabbinic traditions. James Kugel compared interpretive and conceptual developments in Philo and comtemporaneous Second Temple interpretations. He also considered later rabbinic interpretations of themes from Genesis. Maren Niehoff spoke about shared methodological assumptions in the Philonic traditions, preserved in Armenian and Genesis Rabbah. Daniel Boyarin addressed Hellenistic influences on Rabbinic interpretation and debate, even in the later traditions incorporated in the Babylonian Talmud. Finally, Judith Newman discussed liturgical developments in Philo’s discussion of the Therapeutae and later trajectories that Philo’s writings anticipated. The presentations generated very lively discussion about Philo’s presentation of his own inspiration as an interpreter and the question of cross-cultural influence in Rabbinic and Greco-Roman traditions. The second session of the SBL Philo Group opened with a brief memorial to David Hay. The presider, Greg Sterling, made some remarks and read a word of appreciation from Mary, David’s wife. The group then observed a moment of silence in honor of David. Three presentations followed. Thomas Tobin summarized his analysis of the argument in Legum allegoriae. Annewies van den Hoek offered a response. Steven Di Mattei Items of general interest to Philo scholars to be included in this section can be sent to the editor, David Runia (contact details in Notes on Contributors below).

226


then provided a fresh analysis of the use of the physikôs language in Philo's treatises. A lively discussion of both papers and the response followed. The next meeting of the Philo of Alexandria group will be at the Annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Diego, CA on November 17–20, 2007. Both sessions will focus on the figure of Abraham in Philo’s writings, with the second concentrating on the treatise De Abrahamo. Hindy Najman, University of Toronto Gregory E. Sterling, University of Notre Dame

International Conference ‘Philon d’Alexandrie: un penseur à l’intersection des cultures gréco-romaine, orientale, juive et chrétienne’ An international conference on Philo, entitled ‘Philon d’Alexandrie: un penseur à l’intersection des cultures gréco-romaine, orientale, juive et chrétienne’ took place in Brussels, 26–28 June 2007. It was organized by Sabrina Inowlocki and Baudouin Decharneux, within the framework of the Centre Interdisciplinaire d’Étude des Religions et de la Laïcité (CIERL) at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB). David T. Runia (University of Melbourne) and Carlos Lévy (Paris IV-Sorbonne) also contributed to the organization of this event. After a presentation of the general topic by S. Inowlocki (FNRS-ULB) and B. Decharneux (FNRS-ULB), David T. Runia initiated the conference with a paper entitled ‘Why Philo is an Important Thinker.’ This paper was followed by three sessions chaired by B. Decharneux, Michèle Broze (FNRSULB) and Aude Busine (FNRS-ULB) respectively. In the first seesion, M. Broze presented a paper on ‘L’Égypte de Philon d’Alexandrie: approche d’un discours ambigu’ and Martin Goodman (Oxford) spoke on ‘Philo at Rome.’ In the afternoon, Joanna Weinberg (Oxford) gave a presentation on ‘The Judaism rediscovery of Philo in the Renaissance’ and Thomas Gergely (ULB) on ‘Philon et la halakha.’ Two other papers were given on that day: Katell Berthelot (CNRS-Maison Méditerranéenne des Sciences de l’Homme) on ‘Grecs, Barbares et Juifs dans l’œuvre de Philon’ and Ellen Birnbaum on ‘Who celebrated on Pharos with the Jews? Conflicting Philonic Currents and Their Interpretation.’ The first morning session of the second day was chaired by Fabien Nobilio (FNRS-ULB). It started with a paper by Lambros Couloubaritsis (ULB) entitled ‘Le statut de l’allégorie chez Philon d’Alexandrie.’ He was followed by Olivier Munnich (Paris IV-Sorbonne) on ‘La fugacité de la vie humaine: étude d’un motif traditionnel (De Iosepho 127–130),’ and Francesca Alesse (CNR – Istituto per il Lessico Intellettuale Europeo e la Storia delle

News and Notes

227

Idee) on ‘Prohairesis in Philo of Alexandria.’ The second part of the morning session was chaired by C. Lévy. It consisted of two speakers: Francesca Calabi (Universita di Pavia), who spoke on ‘Le repos de Dieu chez Philon,’ and Maren Niehoff (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) whose paper was entitled ‘Recherche homérique et exégèse biblique à Alexandrie.’ In the afternoon, the first session was presided by Th. Gergely. It consisted of three speakers: C. Lévy on ‘La notion de signe chez Philon d’Alexandrie’; José Zamora (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) on ‘L'âme du sage chez Philon d'Alexandrie (De Cherubim, 98–112)’; and Folker Siegert (Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, University of Münster), whose paper was entitled ‘Philon et la philologie alexandrine. Aux origines du fondamentalisme chrétien.’ Two papers were given during the second afternoon session chaired by K. Berthelot: Lucia Saudelli (E.P.H.E.-Sorbonne-University "Carlo Bo,” Urbino) on ‘Les fragments d’Héraclite et ses implications dans le corpus philonicum’ and Sharon Weisser (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) on ‘La figure du prokoptôn chez Philon ou la proximité de la sagesse.’ The third and final day was presided by Benoît Beyer de Ryke (ULB). The first morning session started with Monique Alexandre (Professeur honoraire, Paris IV-Sorbonne) on ‘Monarchie divine et dieux des nations.’ She was followed by Jérôme Moreau (Université de Lyon) on ‘La pistis d'Abraham (Quis rerum divinarum heres sit, 90–101)’ and S. Inowlocki on ‘La reception chrétienne de Philon comme apologiste.’ The second part of the morning was chaired by S. Inowlocki. It consisted of three speakers: Albert Geljon (Christelijk Gymnasium, Utrecht) on ‘Philo’s Influence on Didymus the Blind’; F. Nobilio on ‘L’esprit et le temps. Comparaison entre Philon d’Alexandrie et l’Évangile de Jean’; and Peter Tomson (Faculté Univesitaire de Théologie Protestante) on ‘Le temple céleste: pensée platonisante et orientation apocalyptique dans l’Épître aux Hébreux.’ The conference ended on the conclusions made by Th. Gergely. The proceedings will be published by Brepols (Monothéismes et Philosophie series) in 2008. Sabrina Inowlocki Université Libre Brussels

228

The Studia Philonica Annual 19 (2007) Summer workshop ‘Philon von Alexandria im Gespräch’

This summer the research group Ratio Religionis (on which see The Studia Philonica Annual 18 (2006) 233f., www.ratioreligionis.uni-goettingen.de) organized a three-day-workshop about Philo of Alexandria. It was held in Reinhausen/Göttingen, Germany, from 21–23 August 2007. Participants were: Prof. Dr. Herwig Görgemanns (Heidelberg), Dr. Rainer HirschLuipold, Prof. Dr. Reinhard Feldmeier, Prof. Dr. Ilaria Ramelli (Mailand), Dr. Balbina Bäbler, Christian Meimbresse, Ralph Sedlak (Tübingen), Janina Schulz, Dr. Ilinca Tanaseanu-Döbler, Tobias Thum, PD Dr. Reinhard Weber, Dr. Beatrice Wyss. Every member of the group presented a work of Philo (Opif., Abr., Migr., Ios., QG and Leg.), of which selected passages were read and discussed. The focus of the workshop was on how Philo linked biblical exegesis with philosophical interpretation. Three lectures given by invited specialists dealt with wider topics (Aristoboulus and Hellenistic Jewish literature, Origen’s allegorical exegesis, religion vs. philosophy in Philo). The reading and discussion, which took place in a friendly and casual atmosphere, enabled the participants to gain a deeper insight in Philo’s work and mind Dr. Beatrice Wyss Göttingen


NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS Katell Berthelot is a researcher at the CNRS (National Center for Scientific Research) in Aix en Provence, France. Her postal address is MMSH - CPAF. 5 rue du chateau de l'horloge. BP 647. 13094 Aix en Provence Cedex 2. France. Her electronic address is [email protected]. Ellen Birnbaum has taught at several Boston-area institutions, including Boston University, Brandeis, and Harvard. Her postal address is 78 Porter Road, Cambridge, MA 02140, USA; her electronic address is [email protected]. John J. Collins is Holmes Professor of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School. His postal address is Yale Divinity School, 409 Prospect, New Haven, CT 06511, USA; his electronic address is [email protected]. Ronald R. Cox is Assistant Professor and Seaver Fellow in the Religion Division, Pepperdine University. His postal address is Religion Division, Pepperdine University, Malibu, California, 90263-4352, USA; his electronic address is [email protected]. Andrew Dinan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Classics and Early Christian Literature, Ave Maria University. His postal address is Department of Classics and Early Christian Literature, Ave Maria University, 5050 Ave Maria Blvd., Ave Maria, FL 34142 USA; his electronic address is [email protected]. Kenneth A. Fox is Associate Professor of New Testament at the Canadian Theological Seminary in Toronto. His postal address is Canadian Theological Seminary, 30 Carrier Drive, Toronto ON M9W 5T7, Canada; his electronic address is [email protected]. Florentino García Martínez is Research Full Professor at the Theological Faculty, Catholic University of Leuven, Ordinary Professor at the Theological Faculty of the University of Groningen, and Director of the Qumran Institute, University of Groningen. His postal address is SintMichiesstraat 6, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; his electronic address is [email protected].

230


Albert C. Geljon teaches classical languages at the Christelijke Gymnasium in Utrecht. His postal address is Gazellestraat 138, 3523 SZ Utrecht, The Netherlands; his electronic address is [email protected]. Heleen M. Keizer is Dean of Academic Affairs at the Istituto Superiore di Osteopatia in Milan, Italy. Her postal address is Via Guerrazzi 3, 20052 Monza (Mi), Italy; her electronic address is [email protected]. John S Kloppenborg is Professor and Chair of the Department for the Study of Religion and the Centre for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto. His postal address is Trinity College, 6 Hoskin Avenue, Toronto M5S1H8, Canada; his electronic address is john.kloppenborg@ utoronto.ca José Pablo Martín is Director of Studies at the Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, San Miguel, Argentina, and Senior Research fellow of the Argentinian Research Organization (CONICET). His postal address is Azcuenaga 1090, 1663 San Miguel, Argentina; his electronic address is [email protected]. Hindy Najman is Associate Professor in the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto. Her postal address is 4 Bancroft Ave, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1C1, Canada; her electronic address is [email protected]. Roberto Radice is Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Sacred Heart University, Milan. His postal address is Via XXV Aprile 4, 21016 Luino, Italy; his electronic address is [email protected]. Jean Riaud is Professor in the Institut de Lettres et Histoire, Université Catholique de l’Ouest, Angers. His postal address is 24, rue du 8 mai 1945, Saint Barthélemy d’Anjou, France; his electronic address is [email protected]. David T. Runia is Master of Queen’s College and Professorial Fellow in the School of Fine Arts, Classics and Archaeology at the University of Melbourne. His postal address is Queen’s College, College Crescent, Parkville 3052, Australia; his electronic address is [email protected].

Notes on Contributors

231

David Satran is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Comparative Religion, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. His postal address is Department of Comparative Religion, Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel; his electronic address is [email protected]. Lucia Saudelli is a Ph.D. Student, Department of Religion Sciences and Systems of Thought, École Pratique des Hautes Études of Paris (France) and Department of Ancient Philosophy, University of Urbino (Italy). Her postal address is 3, avenue Secrétan, 75019 Paris, France; her electronic address is [email protected]. Gottfried Schimanowski is Research Fellow at the Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum in Münster, Germany. He also works as Schulreferent in the Saarland region of Germany. His postal address is Mittelstaedter Strasse 19, 72124 Pliezhausen, Germany; his electronic address is gschimanow@ gmx.de. Torrey Seland is Professor of New Testament, School of Missions and Theology, Stavanger, Norway. His postal adress is School of Missions and Theology, Misjonsveien 34, 4024 Stavanger, Norway; his electronic address is [email protected]. Gregory E. Sterling is Executive Associate Dean of the Faculty, College of Arts and Letters and Professor in New Testament, Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame. His postal address is Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame IN 46556, USA; his electronic address is [email protected]. Loren T. Stuckenbruck is B.F. Westcott Professor of Biblical Studies in the Department of Theology and Religion at Durham University, UK. His postal address is Dept. of Theology and Religion, Abbey House/Palace Green, Durham DH1 3RS, United Kingdom; his electronic address is [email protected] Joan E. Taylor is Adjunct Senior Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, University of Waikato, New Zealand, and also Honorary Research Fellow in the Dept. of History, University College London. Her postal address is 14 Friars Close, Wivenhoe, CO79NW, Essex, England; her electronic address is [email protected].

232


James W. Thompson is the Onstead Professor of New Testament in the Graduate School of Theology, Abilene Christian University. His postal address is ACU Box 29453, Abilene, TX 79699, USA; his electronic address is <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]. Steven Weitzman is Irving M. Glazer Chair of Jewish Studies, Professor of Religious Studies, and Director of the Robert A. and Sandra S. Borns Jewish Studies Program at Indiana University, Bloomington. His postal address is Borns Jewish Studies Program, 326 Goodbody Hall, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA; his electronic address is [email protected] David Winston is Emeritus Professor of Hellenistic and Jewish Studies, Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley. His postal address is 1220 Grizzly Peak, Berkeley CA 94708, USA; his electronic address is davidswinston@ comcast.net.


INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTRIBUTORS

Articles and Book reviews can only be considered for publication in The Studia Philonica Annual if they rigorously conform to the guidelines established by the editorial board. For further information see also the website of the Annual: http://www.nd.edu/~philojud 1. The Studia Philonica Annual accepts articles for publication in the area of Hellenistic Judaism, with special emphasis on Philo and his Umwelt. Articles on Josephus will be given consideration if they focus on his relation to Judaism and classical culture (and not on primarily historical subjects). The languages in which the articles may be published are English, French and German. Translations from Italian or Dutch into English can be arranged at a modest cost to the author. 2. Articles and reviews are to be sent to the editors as email attachments. For the formatting of submitted material the following formats can be accepted: (a) Apple Macintosh, formatted in Word. (b) Microsoft Windows formatted in Word. (c) Users of Nota Bene or Word Perfect are requested to submit a copy exported in a format compatible with Word.

Manuscripts should be double-spaced, including the notes. Words should be italicized when required, not underlined. Quotes five lines or longer should be indented and may be single-spaced. Preferred Greek and Hebrew fonts are the GreekKeys system (American Philological Association), Linguists Software fonts (Greek and Hebrew), or the fonts developed by SBL. Unicode systems are strongly to be encouraged for ease of conversion. In all cases it is imperative that authors give full details about the word processor and foreign language fonts used. Moreover, if the manuscript contains Greek or Hebrew material, a pdf version of the document must be sent together with the word processing file. If this proves difficult, a hard copy can be sent by mail or by fax. No handwritten Greek or Hebrew can be accepted. Authors are requested not to vocalize their Hebrew (except when necessary) and to keep their use of this language to a reasonable minimum. It should always be borne in mind that not all readers of the

234


Annual can be expected to read Greek or Hebrew. Transliteration is encouraged for incidental terms. 3. Authors are encouraged to use inclusive language wherever possible, avoiding terms such as “man” and “mankind” when referring to humanity in general. 4. For the preparation of articles and book reviews the Annual follows the guidelines of The SBL Handbook of Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies, Hendrickson: Peabody Mass., 1999. A downloadable pdf version of this guide is available on the SBL website, www.sbl-site.org. Here are examples of how a monograph, a monograph in a series, an edited volume, an article in an edited volume and a journal article are to be cited in notes (different conventions apply for bibliographies): Joan E. Taylor, Jewish Women Philosophers of First-Century Alexandria—Philo’s ‘Therapeutae’ Reconsidered (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 123. Ellen Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes (BJS 290; SPhM 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 134. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, ed., Eve’s Children. The Biblical Stories Retold and Interpreted in Jewish and Christian Traditions (Themes in Biblical Narrative 5; Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2003), 145. Gregory E. Sterling, “The Bond of Humanity: Friendship in Philo of Alexandria,” in Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship, (ed. John T. Fitzgerald; SBLRBS 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 203–223. James R. Royse, “Jeremiah Markland’s Contribution to the Textual Criticism of Philo.” SPhA 16 (2004): 50–60. (Note that abbreviations are used in the notes, but not in a bibliography.)

Submissions which do not conform to these guidelines will be returned to the authors. 5. The following abbreviations are to be used in both articles and book reviews. (a) Philonic treatises are to be abbreviated according to the following list. Numbering follows the edition of Cohn and Wendland, using Arabic numbers only and full stops rather than colons (e.g. Spec. 4.123). Note that De Providentia should be cited according to Aucher’s edition, and not the LCL translation of the fragments by F. H. Colson. Abr. Aet. Agr. Anim. Cher. Contempl. Conf. Congr. Decal.

De Abrahamo De aeternitate mundi De agricultura De animalibus De Cherubim De vita contemplativa De confusione linguarum De congressu eruditionis gratia De Decalogo

Instructions to Contributors Deo Det. Deus Ebr. Flacc. Fug. Gig. Her. Hypoth. Ios. Leg. 1–3 Legat. Migr. Mos. 1–2 Mut. Opif. Plant. Post. Praem. Prob. Prov. 1–2 QE 1–2 QG 1–4 Sacr. Sobr. Somn. 1–2 Spec. 1–4 Virt.

235

De Deo 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 I, II, III Legatio ad Gaium De migratione Abrahami De vita Moysis I, II De mutatione nominum De opificio mundi De plantatione De posteritate Caini De praemiis et poenis, De exsecrationibus Quod omnis probus liber sit De Providentia I, II Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum I, II Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim I, II, III, IV De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini De sobrietate De somniis I, II De specialibus legibus I, II, III, IV De virtutibus

(b) Standard works of Philonic scholarship are abbreviated as follows: G-G

PCH

P CW

PLCL

PAPM

Howard L. Goodhart and Erwin R. Goodenough, “A General Bibliography of Philo Judaeus.” In The Politics of Philo Judaeus: Practice and Theory (ed. Erwin R. Goodenough; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938; repr. Georg Olms: Hildesheim, 1967), 125–321. Philo von Alexandria: die Werke in deutscher Übersetzung, ed. Leopold Cohn, Isaac Heinemann et al., 7 vols. (Breslau: M & H Marcus Verlag, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1909–64). Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, ed. Leopoldus Cohn, Paulus Wendland et Sigismundus Reiter, 6 vols. (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1896–1915). Philo in Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes), English translation by F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker (and R. Marcus), 12 vols. (Loeb Classical Library; London: William Heinemann, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929–62). Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie, French translation under the general editorship of Roger Arnaldez, Jean Pouilloux, and Claude Mondésert (Paris: Cerf, 1961–92).

236

The Studia Philonica Annual 19 (2007) R-R

RRS SPh SPhA SPhM

Roberto Radice and David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: an Annotated Bibliography 1937–1986 (VCSup 8; Leiden etc.: Brill 1988). D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: an Annotated Bibliography 1987– 1996 (VCSup 57; Leiden etc.: Brill 2000). Studia Philonica The Studia Philonica Annual Studia Philonica Monographs

(c) References to biblical authors and texts and to ancient authors and writings are to be abbreviated as recommended in the SBL Handbook of Style §8.2–3. Note that biblical books are not italicized and that between chapter and verse a colon is placed (but for non-biblical references colons should not be used). Abbreviations should be used for biblical books when they are followed by chapter or chapter and verse unless the book is the first word in a sentence. Authors writing in German or French should follow their own conventions for biblical citations. (d) Journals, monograph series, source collections and standard reference works are to be be abbreviated in accordance with the recommendations listed in The SBL Handbook of Style §8.4. The following list contains a selection of the more important abbreviations, along with a few abbreviations of classical and philosophical journals and standard reference books not furnished in the list. ABD AC ACW AGJU AJPh AJSL ALGHJ ANRW APh BDAG B ib O r BJRL BJS BMCR BZAW BZNW BZRGG CBQ

The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. New York etc. 1992. L’Antiquité Classique Ancient Christian Writers Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums American Journal of Philology American Journal of Semitic Languages Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt L’Année Philologique Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian literature. 3d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Bibliotheca Orientalis Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Brown Judaic Studies Bryn Mawr Classical Review (electronic) Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte The Catholic Biblical Quarterly

Instructions to Contributors CBQMS CC CIG

237

The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Monograph Series Corpus Christianorum, Turnhout Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Edited by A. Boeckh, 4 vols. in 8. Berlin 1828–77. CIJ Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum. Edited by J. B. Frey, 2 vols. Rome 1936– 52. CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin 1862–. CIS Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Paris 1881–1962. C Ph Classical Philology C PJ Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. Edited by V. Tcherikover and A. Fuks, 3 vols. Cambrige Mass. 1957–64. CQ The Classical Quarterly CR The Classical Review CRINT Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum CPG Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Edited by M. Geerard, 5 vols. and suppl. vol. Turnhout 1974–98. CPL Clavis Patrum Latinorum. Edited by E. Dekkers. 3rd ed. Turnhout 1995. CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium DA Dissertation Abstracts DBSup Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément. Paris 1928–. DSpir Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, 17 vols. Paris 1932–95. EncJud Encyclopaedia Judaica, 16 vols. Jerusalem 1972. EPRO Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain FrGH Fragmente der Griechische Historiker, Edited by F. Jacoby et al. Leiden 1954–. GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, Leipzig GLAJJ M. Stern, Greek and Latin authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols. Jerusalem 1974–84. GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies HKNT Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, Tübingen HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Tübingen HR History of Religions HThR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JHI Journal of the History of Ideas JHS The Journal of Hellenic Studies JJS The Journal of Jewish Studies JQR The Jewish Quarterly Review JR The Journal of Religion JRS The Journal of Roman Studies JSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Periods JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

238 JSOTSup JSP JSSt JThS KBL KJ LCL LS J MGWJ Mnem NCE NHS NT NTSup NTA NTOA NTS OL D OTP PAAJR PAL PG PGL PhilAnt PL PW PWSup RAC RB REA REArm REAug REG REJ REL RGG RhM RQ RSR Str-B SBLDS

The Studia Philonica Annual 19 (2007) Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha and Related Literature Journal of Semitic Studies The Journal of Theological Studies L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros, 3 vols. 3rd ed. Leiden 1967–83. Kirjath Sepher Loeb Classical Library A Greek-English Lexicon. Edited by H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. S. Jones. 9th ed. with revised suppl. Oxford, 1996. Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Mnemosyne New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. New York 1967. Nag Hammadi Studies Novum Testamentum Supplements to Novum Testamentum New Testament Abstracts Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies The Oxford Latin Dictionary. Edited by P. G. W. Glare. Oxford, 1982. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York–London, 1983–85. Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research Philon d’Alexandrie: Lyon 11–15 Septembre 1966. Éditions du CNRS, Paris 1967. Patrologiae cursus completus: series Graeca. Edited by J. P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1912. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Edited by G. W. H. Lampe. Oxford 1961. Philosophia Antiqua Patrologiae cursus completus: series Latina. Edited by J. P. Migne. 221 vols. Paris, 1844–64. Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Real-Encyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. 49 vols. Munich, 1980. Supplement to PW Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum Revue Biblique Revue des Études Anciennes Revue des Études Arméniennes Revue des Études Augustiniennes Revue des Études Grecques Revue des Études Juives Revue des Études Latines Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 7 vols. 3rd edition Tübingen, 1957–65. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie Revue de Qumran Revue des Sciences Religieuses H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 6 vols. Munich 1922–61. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

Instructions to Contributors SBLMS SBLSPS SC Sem SHJP SJLA SNTSMS SR SUNT SVF TDNT THKNT TRE TSAJ TU TWNT VC VCSup VT WUNT ZAW ZKG ZKTh ZNW ZRGG

239

Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Series Sources Chrétiennes Semitica E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Revised edition, 3 vols. in 4. Edinburgh 1973–87. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Society for New Testament Studies. Monograph Series Studies in Religion Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. Edited by J. von Arnim. 4 vols. Leipzig, 1903–24. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Grand Rapids 1964– 76. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, Berlin Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Berlin Texte und Studien zum Antike Judentum Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Berlin Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 10 vols. Stuttgart 1933– 79. Vigiliae Christianae Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae Vetus Testamentum Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte

The Studia Philonica Annual, XIX, 2007

The Studia Philonica Annual, XVIII, 2006

Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, Vol. XVII, 2005 (Brown Judaic Studies 344)

Annual Review of Psychology Vol 58 2007

Studia Pindarica

Studia orfickie

Studia z Psychologii Dziecka

Studia Patristica Vol. XXVI

Tolkien Studies: An Annual Scholarly Review (Volume IV, 2007)

Technology Issues for Financial Executives - 2007 Annual Report

Annual Review of Law and Social Science (2007 Vol 3)

Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2007, Volume 3

Studia Philosophica Wratislaviensia

Annual Review of South Asian Languages and Linguistics: 2007

Brood XIX

Brood XIX

Agypten und Levante XIX Egypt and the Levant XIX

Studia Bioetica nr 2 2010

Detail annual

Studia Philologica nr 1 2011

Studia Philosophia nr 3 2010

The Jewish Law Annual Volume 16 (Jewish Law Annual)

The Jewish Law Annual: Volume 15 (Jewish Law Annual)

The Jewish Law Annual Volume 17 (Jewish Law Annual)

2007

2007,

Naval Annual

2007

The Jewish Law Annual Volume 14 (Jewish Law Annual)

The Abingdon Preaching Annual 2003 (Abingdon Preaching Annual)

The Studia Philonica Annual, XIX, 2007

The Studia Philonica Annual, XVIII, 2006

Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, Vol. XVII, 2005 (Brown Judaic Studies 344)

Annual Review of Psychology Vol 58 2007

Studia Pindarica

Studia orfickie

Studia z Psychologii Dziecka

Studia Patristica Vol. XXVI

Tolkien Studies: An Annual Scholarly Review (Volume IV, 2007)

Technology Issues for Financial Executives - 2007 Annual Report

Annual Review of Law and Social Science (2007 Vol 3)

Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2007, Volume 3

Studia Philosophica Wratislaviensia

Annual Review of South Asian Languages and Linguistics: 2007

Brood XIX

Brood XIX

Agypten und Levante XIX Egypt and the Levant XIX

Studia Bioetica nr 2 2010

Detail annual

Studia Philologica nr 1 2011

Studia Philosophia nr 3 2010

The Jewish Law Annual Volume 16 (Jewish Law Annual)

The Jewish Law Annual: Volume 15 (Jewish Law Annual)

The Jewish Law Annual Volume 17 (Jewish Law Annual)

2007

2007,

Naval Annual

2007

The Jewish Law Annual Volume 14 (Jewish Law Annual)

The Abingdon Preaching Annual 2003 (Abingdon Preaching Annual)

Recommend Documents