Shem in the Tents of Japhet: Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

SUPPLEMENTS TO THE

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF JUDAISM Editor J O H N J. C O L L I N S T h e Divinity School, Yale University

Associate Editor FLORENTINO GARCIA MARTINEZ Qumran Institute, University o f Groningen Advisory Board P. A L E X A N D E R - J. D U H A I M E - A . H I L H O R S T - P . W . V A N D E R HORST A . K L O S T E R G A A R D PETERSEN J. SIEVERS -

M . A . KNIBB — J . T . A . G . M . V A N RUITEN

G. STEMBERGER -

V O L U M E 74

J. TROMP

SHEM IN THE TENTS OFJAPHET Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism

BY

J A M E S L. K U G E L

BRILL LEIDEN • B O S T O N • K O L N 2002

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in Publication data Kugel, James L. Shem in the tents ofJaphet: essays on the encounter o f Judaism and Hellenism / [edited] by James L. Kugel. p. cm. — (Supplements to the Journal for the study o f Judaism, ISSN 1384-2161 ; v.74) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 9004125140 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Judaism—History—Post-exilic period, 586 B.C.-210 A.D.—Congresses. 2. Greek literature, Hellenistic—Jewish authors—History and criticism— Congresses. 3. Hellenism—Congresses. I. Kugel, James L. II. Series. B M 1 7 6 .S47 2002 296.3'9—dc21 2002021592

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Kugel James L. : Shem in the Tents o f Japhet: Essays on the Encounter o f Judaism and Hellenism / by James L. Kugel. - Leiden ; Boston; K o l n : Brill, 2002 (Supplements to the journal for the study ofJudaism ; Vol. 74) ISBN 90-04-12514-0

ISSN ISBN

1384-2161 90 04 12514 0

© Copyright 2002 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in anyform or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy itemsfor internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriatefees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 DanversMA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN T H E NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS

Preface

vii

List o f Contributors

ix

1. W e r e the Greeks Different? I f so, H o w and W h y ? A L B E R T I.

1

BAUMGARTEN

ISSUES O F L A N G U A G E

2. Bilingual J e w s and the G r e e k Bible A L B E R T I.

13

BAUMGARTEN

3. C o n t e x t a n d C o n n o t a t i o n . G r e e k W o r d s for Jewish C o n c e p t s in Philo N A O M I G.

31

COHEN

H E L L E N I S M IN J E W I S H W R I T I N G S

4. Hellenism in the Fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish Authors. R e s o n a n c e a n d Resistance C A R L R.

65

HOLLADAY

5. A p o c a l y p t i c E s c h a t o l o g y in Philosophical Dress in the Wisdom of Solomon J O H N J.

93

COLLINS

6. Philo a n d the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n o n Creation, Revelation, a n d P r o v i d e n c e : T h e H i g h - W a t e r M a r k o f Jewish Hellenistic Fusion

109

DAVID WINSTON

7. E u d a i m o n i s m in Hellenistic-Jewish Literature DAVID

T.

131

RUNIA

8. Josephus b e t w e e n R a b b i n i c Culture a n d Hellenistic Historiography CHAIM

159

MILIKOWSKY

THE

R E C E P T I O N OF JUDAISM B Y THE G R E E K FATHERS

9. O n e o f U s o r O n e o f T h e m ? Christian R e c e p t i o n o f Philo the J e w in Egypt DAVID

T.

RUNIA

203

VI

CONTENTS

10. Assessing Philo's Influence in Christian Alexandria: T h e Case o f Origen

223

ANNEWIES V A N DEN H O E K

11. " V a n i t y o f Vanities"? S o l o m o n ' s T r i l o g y and the Patristic Subversion o f Scripture

241

NICHOLAS CONSTAS

Index

261

PREFACE

T h i s v o l u m e contains the papers presented at t w o conferences. T h e first, at Bar Ilan University o n J a n u a r y 6, 1998, was entitled " S h e m in the Tents o f J a p h e t I: Jewish Writings in G r e e k in S e c o n d T e m p l e T i m e s . " T h e s e c o n d , at H a r v a r d University o n M a y 13, 1999 b o r e the title: " S h e m in the Tents o f J a p h e t II: A C o n f e r e n c e o n Hellenism and J u d a i s m . " T h e essays o f Baumgarten ("Bilingual J e w s " ) , C o h e n , H o l l a d a y , Collins, W i n s t o n , R u n i a ( " E u d a i m o n i s m " ) a n d M i n k o w s k y were presented at the first c o n f e r e n c e . T h o s e o f Baumgarten ( " W e r e the Greeks Different?"), R u n i a ( " O n e o f U s o r O n e o f T h e m ? " ) , van d e n H o e k a n d Constas w e r e delivered at the H a r v a r d c o n f e r e n c e . F o r this v o l u m e , the essays have b e e n arranged in four sections. Albert Baumgarten's reflections o n the difference b e t w e e n the Greeks a n d other c o n q u e r i n g p e o p l e s in antiquity serve as an introduction. Baumgarten's s e c o n d essay and that o f N a o m i C o h e n deal with issues o f bilingualism, a n d the linguistic p r o b l e m o f expressing Jewish ideas in Greek. T h e third section treats the influence o f Hellenistic cul­ ture in various Jewish writings o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d , pri­ marily Philo (Winston a n d R u n i a ) , but also the historians and poets w h o s e w o r k has survived o n l y in fragments (Holladay), the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n (Collins a n d W i n s t o n ) a n d Josephus (Minkowsky). T h e final section brings together three essays o n the reception o f Jewish traditions b y the G r e e k Fathers o f the Christian C h u r c h . T w o o f these (Runia, van den Hoek) deal with the reception o f Philo. Constas's essay deals with aspects o f patristic interpretation, in O r i g e n

and

G r e g o r y o f Nyssa. T h e t w o conferences that gave rise to this v o l u m e were m a d e p o s ­ sible b y the generosity o f M r . Dennis M e h i e l , a n d I w o u l d like to express m y gratitude to h i m here.

LIST OF C O N T R I B U T O R S

Albert Baumgarten, Bar Ilan University, R a m a t G a n , Israel N a o m i C o h e n , Haifa University, Haifa, Israel J o h n J. Collins, Y a l e University, N e w H a v e n , C T Nicholas Constas, H a r v a r d University, C a m b r i d g e , M A A n n e w i e s van d e n H o e k , H a r v a r d University, C a m b r i d g e , M A Carl R . H o l l a d a y , E m o r y University, Atlanta, G A C h a i m Milikowsky, Bar Ilan University, R a m a t G a n , Israel D a v i d R u n i a , L e i d e n University,

Netherlands

D a v i d W i n s t o n , Graduate T h e o l o g i c a l U n i o n (California), Emeritus

1

W E R E IF

T H E GREEKS

DIFFERENT?

SO, H O W A N D W H Y ?

ALBERT I. BAUMGARTEN

i T h e J e w s o f Antiquity w e r e well aware that they h a d b e e n

subject

to a series o f w o r l d empires. After the exile to Babylonia, the Persians h a d taken center stage as the great w o r l d p o w e r , a n d w e r e to b e replaced b y the Greeks. After the b r i e f interlude o f M a c c a b e a n inde­ p e n d e n c e , J e w s w e r e subject to R o m a n rule. A principal

expression

o f this awareness was the m e t a p h o r o f four beasts = w o r l d empires 1

(e.g. D a n 7—8), revised as necessary to c o m p l y with reality. E a c h o f these w o r l d empires shaped the nature o f subsequent Jewish

history,

for g o o d o r b a d , f r o m the edict o f Cyrus allowing the J e w s to return to Jerusalem, o r the likely Persian contribution to the codification o f the T o r a h ,

2

to R o m a n termination o f Jewish i n d e p e n d e n c e

nating in the

destruction

culmi­

o f the J e r u s a l e m T e m p l e . In this sense,

there was nothing n e w o r special a b o u t the transfer o f p o w e r w h i c h t o o k p l a c e with the c o n q u e s t o f A l e x a n d e r a n d the rule o f his suc­ cessor k i n g d o m s . O n e imperial p o w e r was replacing another as o v e r ­ l o r d o f the J e w s , as h a d h a p p e n e d at least o n c e centuries a g o a n d w o u l d continue to o c c u r for even l o n g e r

afterwards.

It might take s o m e time to adjust to the n e w order; the rise a n d fall o f empires o r dynasties might awake d o r m a n t eschatological h o p e , as at the tfime o f the civil w a r from w h i c h Darius e m e r g e d as vic­ torious, as reflected in the first nine chapters o f Z e c h a r i a h a n d

the

p r o p h e c i e s o f H a g g a i . T h e r e w o u l d likely b e s o m e local winners

and

losers: those

t o o closely identified

with the

old regime might

be

d e m o t e d , while locals with the foresight to have w o n the c o n f i d e n c e

1

See O . Irshai, "Dating the Eschaton," Apocalyptic Time (ed. A.I. Baumgarten; Leiden, 2000), 115 and bibliography, n. 6. See E.J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, M A / N e w York, 1988), 30-31. 2

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

2

o f the n e w rulers might b e elevated. T h e n e w imperial p o w e r w o u l d c o n t i n u e s o m e aspects o f the administration o f its predecessors, but also likely introduce s o m e n e w turns to the w a y J e w s w e r e g o v e r n e d , thus c h a n g i n g the course o f Jewish history. O n the w h o l e , h o w e v e r , e x p e r i e n c e d hands w h o e n j o y e d the allegiance o f the native p o p u ­ lation w e r e never t o o abundant, a n d a p r o v e n m e t h o d o f g o v e r n i n g was n o t easily discarded.

3

A n d yet, the t w o centuries o f G r e c o - M a c e d o n i a n reign in the L a n d o f Israel o c c u p y a special place in o u r imagination. T h i s e p o c h is n o t usually u n d e r s t o o d as a result o f o n e other transfer o f p o w e r a m o n g many. Indeed, w h e n conceiving that era, scholars often e m p l o y m o d e l s w h i c h derive f r o m m o d e r n e x p e r i e n c e a n d b a s e d o n seem­ ingly u n i q u e characteristics

o f the m o d e r n w o r l d . T h e r e is an

un­

spoken assumption b e h i n d m u c h o f m o d e r n scholarship: the ancient Jewish response to G r e e k culture was s o m e h o w fundamentally ilar to aspects o f the c o n t e m p o r a r y Jewish response to the

sim­

univer-

salist c o s m o p o l i t a n culture o f m o d e r n i t y (despite the essentially modern 4

character o f universalist c o s m o p o l i t a n i s m ) . T h e description b y e a c h scholar o f the nature o f the ancient p r o b l e m a n d the solution a p p r o ­ priate then displays a basic similarity to the w a y that scholar saw the m o d e r n p r o b l e m , a n d to the sorts o f solutions favored b y that scholar to the m o d e r n issues. I c o u l d easily offer a list o f scholars who

have written o n the response o f J e w s a n d Hellenistic culture to

e a c h other (Bickerman, M o m i g l i a n o , T c h e r i k o v e r , H e n g e l , F e l d m a n a n d G r u e n , for example) demonstrating this aspect o f their w o r k in detail.

3

5

For an intriguing challenge to the conventional view that ancient empires con­ tinued the practice o f their predecessors with few if any innovations, see S. Schwartz, " O n the A u t o n o m y o f Judaea in the Fourth and Third Centuries B.C.E.," JJS 45 (1994), 157-168. For a brilliant description o f the usual choices for identity available to m o d ­ erns, and the sometimes desperate search for other alternatives, see E. Gellner, Language and Solitude: Wittgenstein, Malinowski and the Habsburg Dilemma (Cambridge, 1998). For Jews in particular, and many o f the scholars w h o dealt with topics under discussion here were Jewish, the dilemma Gellner depicts had few geographic lim­ its, and was not confined to the boundaries o f the Habsburg empire. Although I decline to offer such a comprehensive analysis here, I intend to write a detailed discussion o f the contributions o f Bickerman, intended to elucidate the connection between the historian and his work. See, for now, A.I. Baumgarten, "Bickerman, Elias Joseph," Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. J.H. Hayes; Nashville, 1999), 1.126-127. According to M . Smith, "Elias J. Bickerman," in E.J. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History Part Three (Leiden, 1986), xi, Bickerman wanted to be remem­ bered only for his scholarship, hence he ordered his executors to burn his private 4

5

3

W E R E T H E GREEKS DIFFERENT?

Y e t , such an illustration m i g h t well p r o v o k e the m o s t b o r e d a n d h e n c e devastating

o f all reactions: so what! T h e r e is n o t h i n g n e w

a b o u t discovering the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n past a n d present in w o r k o f a historian. T h e victory o f the relativists, such as E . H . C a r r , What is History—summed

u p in the slogan that "the best guide to under­

standing the history written is to k n o w the historian"—is complete.

6

virtually

T o cite o n e recent e x a m p l e , related to the t o p i c u n d e r

discussion here, E. G r u e n introduces his b o o k as follows: Some Israeli friends have twitted me for approaching the subject from the skewed perspective o f a liberal, secular, diaspora Jew. I plead guilty to the characterization; others can judge how skewed is the perspective. 7

G r u e n is r e s p o n d i n g to attempts to relativize his w o r k b y relating it to his personal loyalties b y a c k n o w l e d g i n g these perspectives,

but

c o u n t e r i n g that such c o m m i t m e n t s m a y even b e useful, a n d certainly d o n o t prevent h i m f r o m having something beneficial a n d i m p o r ­ tant to say, f r o m w h i c h others (even those with different allegiances) m a y also profit. If the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the historian a n d his o r her history is t o o banal to pursue, questioning o f unspoken assumptions is a different matter. T h e y usually s e e m so o b v i o u s to the scholars w h o operate o n the basis o f such assumptions that they are rarely c o n s i d e r e d crit­ ically b y those scholars w h o e m p l o y t h e m . Y e t , f r o m the perspective

papers without being read. T h e enigma in Bickerman's case therefore seems sufficiently interesting to be worth the effort o f explanation. Compare M . Himmelfarb, "Elias Bickerman and Judaism and Hellenism," The Jewish Past Revisited: Reflections on Modern Jewish Historians (ed. D . N . Myers and D.B. Ruderman; N e w H a v e n / L o n d o n , 1998), 199—211. Himmelfarb concedes, however, that she did not see the most important source for describing Elias Bickerman from this perspective: the autobiographies o f his father, Joseph, and brother, J a c o b , pub­ lished by the latter as Two Bikermans (New York, 1975). See Himmelfarb, "Elias Bickerman," 209, n. 17. As Elias Bickerman himself was reticent in supplying bio­ graphical information that would help place his work in a particular context (order­ ing his private papers burned was not the only step—he was invited to contribute to the family collection o f autobiographies, but refused) the accounts supplied by his father and brother are the best available evidence. See also A . Momigliano, "The Absence o f the Third Bickerman," Essays on Ancient and Modem Judaism (Chicago, 1994), 2 1 7 - 2 2 1 . 6

M a n y if not all o f us r e c o m m e n d that our students read works such as Carr's, What is History? H o w many o f us also recommend that our students read the pas­ sionate attack against Carr by J.H. Hexter, " T h e Historian and His Society: A Sociological Inquiry, Perhaps," Doing History (London, 1971), 7 7 - 1 0 6 , arguing that knowing the historian is irrelevant and that there is a quality to g o o d historical work which rises above the personal commitments o f the historian? Heritage and Hellenism (Berkeley, 1998), ix. 7

4

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

o f a different

(usually subsequent) generation, living u n d e r

different

conditions a n d facing other issues, these unspoken assumptions fre­ quently s e e m blatantly tendentious, dated a n d irrelevant. T h e y often the first to g o in the n e w r o u n d

o f revisionism. It

are

therefore

seems w o r t h asking w h e t h e r G r e e k rule was as n o v e l for its time as the universalist c o s m o p o l i t a n culture o f m o d e r n i t y has b e e n for the past century? Is the unspoken analogy b e h i n d so m u c h o f scholar­ 8

ship c o r r e c t ? A full answer to this question w o u l d require an analy­ sis o f modernity b e y o n d both the limits o f this p a p e r and m y a c a d e m i c competence. Therefore,

in o r d e r to r e d u c e

the

discussion to rea­

sonable terms, I ask a simpler question: w e r e the Greeks

significantly

unlike o t h e r ancient w o r l d c o n q u e r o r s w h o p r e c e d e d o r t h e m , a n d if so h o w and w h y .

followed

9

ii O n e w i n d o w o f insight into these issues is to consider w h o was per­ c e i v e d as the designated outsider,

10

social c o n t a c t (such as eating o r

marriage) with w h o m was d e e m e d dangerous, a n d w h o s e ways w e r e n o t to b e a p e d . Ezra a n d N e h e m i a h , for e x a m p l e , s t o o d g u a r d o v e r the walls o f Jerusalem (in b o t h the literal a n d

figurative

senses), deter­

m i n e d to guard the boundaries o f the Jewish people, as they understood t h e m . T h e dangerous outsiders from their perspective w e r e local p e o ­ ples: A m m o n i t e s , M o a b i t e s , Ashdodites a n d

the

proto-Samaritans.

8

This unspoken assumption got substantial support from fact that Greeks and Greek culture occupied a central place in western style education that was an essen­ tial element o f the new universal culture o f modernity. This made the Greek connec­ tion with modern universalism even more self-evident. Thus, to the extent that the new universalism was either problematic or desirable, it inevitably involved the Greeks. For purposes o f this article I leave aside entirely the other side o f the ques­ tion: what, if anything, was different about the Jews as compared to other nations o f the near east that might explain a different Greek reaction, to the extent that the Greek reaction to the Jews was distinctive. See, however, P. Schafer, Judeophobia: Attitudes towards the Jews in the Ancient World ( C a m b r i d g e / L o n d o n , 1997), and the lively discussion this b o o k has generated, such as R . Goldenberg, " O n the Origins o f Anti-Semitism and the Problem o f Blaming the Victim," JSQ 6 (1999), 2 5 1 - 2 6 0 ; C. Hayes, 'Judeophobia: Peter Schafer on the Origins o f Anti-Semitism," JSQ 6 (1999), 261-273; P. Schafer, "Response to Christine Hayes and Robert Goldenberg," JSQ6 (1999), 2 7 4 - 2 8 1 . 9

10

It may not be superfluous to note that this role is never vacant, and is always occupied by some group in every culture, for as M . T h o m p s o n , R . Ellis and A. Wildavsky, Cultural Theory (Boulder/San Francisco, 1990), 4 stress: "to destroy the other is to murder the self."

W E R E T H E GREEKS DIFFERENT? The

5

Persians, the imperial p o w e r , did n o t figure at all in these cal­

culations. I n d e e d , to the extent the Persians w e r e i n v o l v e d in w o r l d o f Ezra a n d N e h e m i a h they w e r e patrons, w h o h a d Ezra his charter o f privileges and a p p o i n t e d N e h e m i a h to The

the

granted office.

situation was n o t m u c h different in R o m a n times. T h e his­

tory o f the p r o b l e m a t i c relations b e t w e e n the J e w s a n d their n o n Jewish

l o c a l n e i g h b o r s is w e l l k n o w n , as is the

conjunction o f

circumstances w h i c h m a d e this hostility a factor in the outbreak o f the G r e a t R e v o l t . L o c a l feuds w e r e at least as significant as the w a r against

the imperial p o w e r .

1 1

Political tension b e t w e e n J e w s

and

R o m a n s w o u l d b e c o m e high, but w e r e there e n o u g h R o m a n s in Palestine to p o s e a social a n d cultural d i l e m m a ?

12

In the Hellenistic era, b y w a y o f contrast, there w e r e m a n y warn­ ings issued against walking in the ways o f the gentiles, as in the b o o k o f Jubilees, but these outsiders w e r e n o t usually m e n t i o n e d b y n a m e . F o r e x a m p l e , w h i c h gentiles w e r e the p a r a d i g m for those w h o erred b y following a lunar calendar (Jub. 6:35—36)? T h i s is virtually i m p o s ­ sible to determine, as virtually all the p e o p l e s o f the

Mediterranean

basin o f that era e m p l o y e d a lunar calendar. In a similar vein, w h i c h gentiles w e r e s o m e J e w s imitating w h e n they refused to circumcise their sons (Jub.

1 5 : 3 3 - 3 4 ) ? S o m e t i m e s , h o w e v e r , the nature o f gen­

tile ways to b e a v o i d e d is so explicit that it seems clear that the Greeks w e r e intended, as in the denunciation o f those gentiles w h o w e n t naked (Jub.

3:31).

P e r h a p s the political c i r c u m s t a n c e s m a d e discretion

necessary.

Perhaps the literary nature o f m a n y o f the works o f the Hellenistic era, p s e u d e p i g r a p h a

o f different

sorts such as D a n i e l , E n o c h

and

Jubilees, required a degree o f obscurity lest the recent origin o f the works seem t o o blatant.

13

W h a t e v e r the explanations, it is interest­

ing that works explicitly c o n n e c t e d with M a c c a b e a n victory, such as 1 a n d 2 M a c e d o m e n t i o n the Greeks b y n a m e a n d their ways as those to b e a v o i d e d b y loyal J e w s (see further b e l o w ) . T h u s , unlike

11

For a convenient summary o f these issues see M . Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt Against Rome A.D. 66-70 (Cambridge, 1987), 13-14. For an account o f the R o m a n presence in Palestine in the first century, cor­ rectly stressing its minimal nature see E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (Harmondsworth, 1993), 15-32, esp. 2 7 - 3 1 . For an incisive analysis o f the significance o f the literary convention o f pseudepigraphy, see M . Bernstein, "Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls: Categories and Functions," Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. Chazon and M . Stone; Leiden, 1999), 1-26. 12

13

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

6

other ancient imperial rulers o f the J e w s , the Greeks w e r e p e r c e i v e d as a social a n d cultural p r o b l e m . Analysis o f the other side o f this c o i n yields similar results. I f w e inquire w h i c h J e w s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d to have apostatized

b y adopt­

ing foreign ways, behavior for which these " b a d " Jews were d e n o u n c e d a n d even penalized, the answer for the days o f Ezra a n d

Nehemiah

w e r e the local aristocrats, interested in marrying with families o f their social peers a m o n g the n e i g h b o r i n g nations (Ezra 9:2). N e h e m i a h m a r k e d the b o u n d a r y against these J e w s in the clearest w a y possi­ ble b y purifying the r o o m in the T e m p l e w h i c h h a d b e e n given to T o b i a h b y his relative, the high priest, w h e n N e h e m i a h cleared the r o o m o f T o b i a h ' s effects ( N e h

13:8-9).

In R o m a n times the situation was a bit m o r e c o m p l e x . Sicarii a n d Zealots

14

attacked R o m a n targets (Josephus,

War 7.258), as well as

J e w s w h o m they p e r c e i v e d to b e apostate collaborators War

(Josephus,

7 . 2 5 4 - 2 5 7 ) . T y p i c a l o f the m i x o f objectives was the attack b y

the Sicarii at M a s s a d a against the J e w s o f Ein G e d i a n d other neigh­ b o r i n g towns (Josephus,

War 4 . 4 0 2 - 4 0 5 ) . T h e i r objective, a c c o r d i n g

to Josephus (who m a y not b e wholly reliable, as his intent to d e n o u n c e the Sicarii is evident w h e n e v e r he mentions this group) was to secure fresh supplies. T h e s e same Sicarii d i e d at the e n d o f a defense o f Massada

against R o m a n siege, w h i c h lasted a b o u t three

T h u s , political warfare

months.

15

c o m b i n e d with attacks against collaborators,

as well as with e c o n o m i c motives. Participating in the religion

and

culture o f the R o m a n s , h o w e v e r , was never the crucial issue o r rea­ son

for o p p o s i t i o n .

M u c h the same was true o f the "eighteen d e c r e e s "

promulgated

b y a g r o u p at the nationalist e n d o f the spectrum in the years lead-

14

Following M . Smith, "Zealots and Sicarii: Their Origins and Relations," HTR 64 (1971), 1—19, M . Stern, "Zealots," Encyclopedia Judaica Yearbook, 1973 (Jerusalem, 1974), 135-152. and others, w h o take their lead from the terminology in Josephus, I would divide carefully between Sicarii = members o f the fourth philosophy and zealots. O n Josephus's account o f the siege o f Massada see S.J.D. Cohen, "Massada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains and the Credibility o f Josephus," JJS 33 (1982), 3 8 5 - 4 0 5 ; M . Stern, " T h e Suicide o f Elazar b . Yair and his followers at Massada and the 'Fourth Philosophy'." Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (eds. M . Amit, I. Gafni and M . D . Herr; Jerusalem, 1991), 3 1 3 - 3 4 6 (Hebrew). For a convenient summary o f the archeological evidence and its implications, with recent bibliography, see H . Eshel, "Masada: History," Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L . H . Schiffman and J.C. VanderKam; Oxford, 2000), 1.519-521. 15

7

W E R E T H E GREEKS DIFFERENT?

ing u p to the Great R e v o l t . T h e various versions o f these decrees preserved in rabbinic sources indicate that the objective o f these p r o ­ hibitions was to increase the distance b e t w e e n J e w s a n d foreigners. Y e t the foreign ways p r o s c r i b e d have little to d o with the and e v e n less with R o m a n

culture.

Romans

16

Matters w e r e significandy different at the time o f the

Hellenistic

empires, during the days o f the persecutions o f A n t i o c h u s I V , in par­ ticular. Apostates, willing to w o r s h i p a c c o r d i n g to the ways o f the gentiles, w e r e killed (1 M a c e 2 : 2 3 - 2 6 , 47) a n d children left c u m c i s e d b y their parents w e r e forcibly entered into the

uncir-

covenant

o f A b r a h a m (1 M a c e 2:46). Sinners w e r e supposedly never allowed to get the u p p e r h a n d (1 M a c e 2:48). A c c o r d i n g l y , it was n o t acci­ dental that those w h o a d o p t e d this p o l i c y t o o k Phinehas and Elijah— paradigms o f zeal f r o m the Bible, w h o s e targets w e r e apostates such as Z i m r i a n d A h a b ( N u m 2 5 : 1 - 1 5 a n d

1 Kings

18:18)—as their

heroes (1 M a c e 2:26, 5 4 , 58). D e n u n c i a t i o n s against J e w s w h o a c c e p t e d the culture o f the gen­ tiles is a key element in the o p e n i n g sections o f 1 M a c e , but while the practices d e n o u n c e d are characteristically G r e e k (gymnasium and r e m o v a l o f marks o f c i r c u m c i s i o n , 1 M a c e 1 : 1 4 - 1 5 ) they are

not

named

are

as G r e e k . In 2 M a c e 4 : 1 2 - 1 5 , h o w e v e r , G r e e k ways

explicitly identified as enticing J e w s , priests in particular, to aban­ d o n the traditions o f their ancestors. A variation o n this a r g u m e n t c a n b e f o u n d in at least t w o different sources f r o m the era. In a w o r l d g o v e r n e d b y the principle o f m e a ­ sure for measure, those apostate J e w s w h o a d o p t e d the ways o f the Greeks will b e punished b y the Greeks, w h o will b e c o m e their ene­ mies and turn against t h e m . T h i s was the penalty suffered b y the Hellenizing priests o f Jerusalem o f the generation o f A n t i o c h u s I V , a c c o r d i n g to 2 M a c e 4 : 1 6 . A similar c o n c l u s i o n emerges f r o m

an

analysis o f a sectarian source. T h e princes o f J u d a h are d e n o u n c e d towards the e n d o f the ideological section o f the D a m a s c u s D o c u m e n t (CD VIII: 3 - 2 l b ) .

1 6

1 7

T h e s e princes h o p e for healing, but they

are

O n the eighteen decrees see I. Ben-Shalom, The School of Shammai and the Zealots' Struggle against Rome (Jerusalem, 1993), 2 5 2 - 2 7 2 (Hebrew). M y interpretation o f this text takes its point o f departure from that suggested by J. M u r p h y - O ' C o n n o r , " T h e Critique o f the Princes o f Judah ( C D VIII, 3-19)," RB 79 (1972), 2 0 0 - 2 1 6 . Note that I only use passages from the A text, on the pos­ sibility that M u r p h y - O ' C o n n o r is correct in his argument that the A text was directed against the new ruling family, and that this denunciation was then re-worked as 17

8

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

really rebels. In fact (as o p p o s e d to the claim o f these princes), they have n o t forsaken

the ways o f the faithless,

having defiled

them­

selves. Q u o t i n g the verse in D e u t 3 2 : 3 3 , "their w i n e is the v e n o m o f serpents a n d the cruel h e a d o f asps," the author o f the D a m a s c u s D o c u m e n t explained that the serpents w e r e the kings o f the nations, a n d w i n e their ways (i.e. the ways o f the gentile kings, a d o p t e d b y the Jewish rulers), while the h e a d o f the asps was the c h i e f o f the kings o f the rulers.

18

Greeks, w h o will w r e a k v e n g e a n c e u p o n the Jewish

T h a t is, the Jewish rulers will p a y the appropriate price for

their sins: those foreign, i.e. Greek, kings w h o s e ways they a p e d will b e the source o f their destruction. In sum, the p r o b l e m with the G r e e k o v e r l o r d was n o t the

same

as with other imperial masters: it was n o t o n l y e c o n o m i c , political or

military,

but h a d important

religious a n d cultural c o m p o n e n t s .

J e w s therefore felt the n e e d to m a r k the b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n selves a n d Greeks m u c h m o r e than they felt that n e e d with

them­ other

imperial p o w e r s . J e w s w h o w e r e stringent a b o u t such matters also t o o k care to o p p o s e fellow Jews w h o m they p e r c e i v e d as having b e e n s e d u c e d b y G r e e k "culture.

19

T h i s c o m p a r i s o n o f the

Greeks

with

other empires suggests that there was something different a b o u t them.

in W h a t might that difference have b e e n ? T h i s is a c o m p l e x question w h i c h requires a detailed and n u a n c e d answer. F o r purposes o f this

ammunition against internal apostates in the B text. O n the various suggestions for understanding this text see further P.R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1983), 156-172. Against M u r p h y - O ' C o n n o r , see espe­ cially S.A. White, " A Comparison o f the ' A ' and 'B' Manuscripts o f the Damascus Document," i?Q^48 (1987), 5 3 7 - 5 5 3 ; J.J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York, 1994), 8 0 - 8 2 . Note that at this stage o f the argument in C D VIII, those w h o suffered pun­ ishment at the hands o f the Greek king were the princes o f Judah, as they have been the subject throughout the preceding section, and the "builders o f the wall" have not yet been mentioned. Cf. B. Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk (Jerusalem, 1986), 137 (Hebrew). C o m p a r e the Greeks in Egypt according to Herodotus. Although G r e c o Macedonian rule in Egypt would occur two centuries after Herodotus, and Greeks living there in his day were mostiy mercenaries or traders, their way o f life pro­ voked the Egyptians. Egyptians, who were par excellence a people that did not eat cows (Hdt. 2.18, 41) would not kiss a Greek, or use a knife, spit or cauldron belong­ ing to a Greek, or even taste the flesh o f an o x (which Egyptians did eat) that had been cut by a Greek knife (Hdt. 2.41). This was because Greeks ate cows. 1 8

19

W E R E T H E GREEKS DIFFERENT? paper,

9

I w o u l d like to suggest o n e direction in w h i c h to look. I

believe a first avenue o f insight is already implicit in the discussion a b o v e . E v e n before there w e r e G r e e k empires there was an

exten­

sive G r e e k D i a s p o r a , w h i c h w o u l d g r o w in numerical terms a n d in cultural a n d political i m p o r t a n c e with the arrival o f the

Hellenistic

k i n g d o m s . T h i s D i a s p o r a w o u l d e n c o u r a g e an o n - g o i n g interest in ethnography (evident already in H e r o d o t u s in the fifth century B.C.E.), and p r o m o t e critical reflection about native G r e e k beliefs, with i m p o r ­ tant implications for the g r o w t h o f G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y a n d G r e e k cul­ ture in g e n e r a l .

20

W i t h the

flourishing

o f the Hellenistic m o n a r c h i e s

G r e e k institutions w e r e established for the n o w vast D i a s p o r a . T h e s e institutions w e r e o p e n to n e w c o m e r s , such as the famous a n d m u c h discussed A n t i o c h e n e s o f J e r u s a l e m (2 M a c e 4 : 9 ) .

21

These demo­

graphic facts help explain w h y G r e e k culture was such a potent force, far b e y o n d the cultures o f the w o r l d empires w h o p r e c e d e d o r suc­ c e e d e d the Greeks. G r e e k interest in foreign p e o p l e s w e n t b e y o n d curiosity o r ethnog­ raphy. T h e i r determination

to create a uniform "scientific" frame­

w o r k for the history o f other nations was such that they allowed themselves to rewrite the history o f the nations a m o n g s t w h o m they lived. T h e outlines o f the past e m b o d i e d in the H o m e r i c epics w e r e taken as the c o n t e x t into w h i c h the past o f other nations h a d to b e placed.

22

T h e transparent hellenocentrism o f this construct p r o v o k e d

a disdainful oriental reaction, d e n o u n c i n g the Greeks as n e w c o m e r s o n the scene a n d H o m e r as an author n o t w o r t h y o f such author­ ity. E v i d e n c e o f this response c a n b e f o u n d in the works o f M a n e t h o , Berossus, J o s e p h u s and Philo o f B y b l o s .

2 0

23

U n d e r these circumstances,

T h e role o f Ionian Greeks and those from Magna Graeca in pre-Socratic thought—before philosophy was brought down to the market place in Athens, and focused on moral and political issues—has long been noted. See already G.S. Kirk and J.E. Raven, The Presocratic Philosophers (2nd ed.; Cambridge, 1960), 73. See fur­ ther the more comprehensive account o f the contribution o f the Near East to Greek culture in W . Burkert, 77^ Orientalizing Revolution: The Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Period (Cambridge M A , 1992). See the important posthumous contribution on this topic by M . Stern, "The Founding o f the Gymnasium, the Transformation of Jerusalem into a Polis and the Rise o f Menelaus," %ym (5752), 233-246 (Hebrew). See, in particular, E.J. Bickerman, "Origines Gentium," Religions and Politics in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (eds. E. Gabba and M . Smith; C o m o , 1985), 3 9 9 - 4 1 8 . See R . A . Oden, "Philo o f Byblos and Hellenistic Historiography," PEQiWO (1978), 115-126, w h o does not acknowledge his substantial debt to Bickerman's "Origines Gentium." See also A.I. Baumgarten, The Phoenician History of Philo of 21

2 2

23

10

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

it is plausible to c o n c l u d e that a p e o p l e willing to rewrite the his­ tory o f their host nations might also dare to reform the religion o f their subject nations (1 M a c e 1 : 4 1 - 6 2 ; 2 M a c e 6 - 7 ) , e v e n t h o u g h ancient empires rarely, if ever, intervened in the beliefs o r practices o f their subjects, so l o n g as they did n o t e n d a n g e r p u b l i c o r d e r .

24

w Triangulation is a technique n o t limited to determining g e o g r a p h i c location. It has applications in the humanities a n d social sciences. I f a matter w h i c h seems w o r t h y o f attention b a s e d o n the

unspoken

assumptions o f o n e scholarly e r a — v i e w e d in light o f the tendencies, prejudices a n d experience peculiar to that e p o c h , also remains i m p o r ­ tant to a later generation, based o n a s o m e w h a t different style o f analysis—that set o f questions is likely to b e m o r e than a passing fancy. A n issue o f lasting significance has b e e n identified, w h i c h will c o n t i n u e to stimulate scholarly attention o v e r generations. I believe that the examination offered here indicates that there was s o m e t h i n g different: a b o u t the Greeks, w h i c h m a d e their inter­ action with other p e o p l e s special, a n d n o t the same as the experi­ e n c e with previous o r later ancient w o r l d empires. W h e n

unique

aspects o f the Greeks are c o m b i n e d with peculiar characteristics o f J e w s a n d J u d a i s m the b l e n d p r o d u c e d a cultural, political, intellec­ tual a n d religious a m a l g a m o f great p o w e r in antiquity,

a n d ulti­

mately o f monumental impact o n b o t h Jews and Greeks. This amalgam continues to challenge a n d enrich critical scholarship, as well as p r o ­ vide an endlessly rich resource f r o m the past to nourish c o n t e m p o ­ rary reflection o n the nature o f individual a n d collective identity.

25

Byblos: A Commentary (Leiden, 1981), 82~83. Note, however, that these oriental authors (and the author o f 2 Mace) all wrote in Greek. Some even expressed pride o n their achievements in presenting their native tradition in Greek to a wider audience. See e.g. Josephus, Ant. 20.263. Thus, the Greek language itself was not the heart o f the problem. C o m p a r e the thesis, fundamental to E.J. Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees (Leiden, 1979), xii—xiii, according to which ancient empires only reformed their own religions, never those o f their subjects. In Bickerman's opinion, this makes the actions o f Antiochus I V in Jerusalem an exception to the rule which requires spe­ cial explanation, which Bickerman proceeds to offer. I would like to thank Professor H . Cancik-Lindemaier o f Tubingen University for comments on an earlier version o f this paper that helped sharpen m y conclu­ sions. Responsibility for these conclusions, o f course, remains mine. 2 4

2 5

ISSUES O F

LANGUAGE

2

BILINGUAL JEWS

A N D T H EG R E E K

BIBLE*

ALBERT I. BAUMGARTEN

i

Bilinguals h a v e the potential o f p l a y i n g a u n i q u e role. Fluent in t w o languages, they c a n translate f r o m

o n e to the

other. A s languages

e n c o m p a s s a n d express a w h o l e cultural o u t l o o k , bilinguals m a y also b e biculturals, a n d c a n thus serve as tradents f r o m o n e cultural text to another, h e l p i n g t o lay the f o u n d a t i o n s for a fresh

con­

synthesis.

I n d e e d , in historical e x p e r i e n c e , y o u n g bilinguals h a v e often b e e n in the first w a v e o f cultural

c h a n g e , l e a d i n g others in staking o u t

b o u n d a r i e s o f a n e w identity.

1

the

T h i s p a p e r is i n t e n d e d t o e x p l o r e the

, \

* A n early version o f this paper was presented at the Symposium o n Figures Bibliques: Hermeneutique juive et chretienne a I'epoque hellenistique et romaine, co-sponsored by the Hebrew University and b y the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CRF), held in Jerusalem, Israel, in April 1990. M y thanks are due to D r . G . Bohak of T e l Aviv University for a number o f helpful suggestions in response to a much later version. Responsibility for the contents is, o f course, mine. See B. Anderson, Imagined Communities (2nd ed.; L o n d o n / N e w York, 1991), 9 0 - 9 3 and 118-120. For a discussion o f Moses that would fit well into Anderson's per­ spective—as the son o f foreign slaves, raised as an adopted child in the imperial culture, and then leading his native people to freedom—see J. Meleze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt (Princeton, 1995), 1 4 - 1 6 . There is a substantial literature o n bilingualism as a linguistic and social phe­ nomenon in the modern world. See, for example, F. Grosjean, Life with Two Languages (Cambridge, M A , 1982); C . Hoffmann, An Introduction to Bilingualism (2nd ed. L o n d o n / N e w York, 1991); S. Romaine, Bilingualism (Oxford, 1995). As these stud­ ies emphasize, bilinguals need not necessarily be bicultural. That potential is not always realized, but m y principal concern in this paper is with examples (ancient and modern) in which that possibility is actual. A m o n g the first to apply the insights o f modern study o f bilingualism to the ancient Jewish evidence was M . Silva, "Bilingualism and the Character o f Palestinian Greek," Biblica 61 (1980), 198—219. Silva's expertise was study o f ancient languages. For a meeting o f the perspectives written by a scholar whose training was in the study o f the modern phenomenon see B. Spolsky, 'Jewish Multilingualism in the First Century: A n Essay in Historical Sociolinguistics," in J.A. Fishman, ed., Readings in the Sociology of Jewish Languages (Leiden, 1985), 3 5 - 5 0 . For a fascinating analysis o f the issues, intended to undo some o f the anachronisms introduced into the dis­ cussion by modern linguistic romanticism and nationalism, see S. Schwartz, "Language, 1

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

14

attitudes o f ancient bilingual J e w s towards the translation o f the dation

document

o f Jewish experience and

authority—the Bible, and M y o b j e c t i v e is not gual, the (which was

extent the

the

the

T o r a h in p a r t i c u l a r — i n t o

to take u p the

o f bilingualism in

one

area to a n o t h e r (the

has

b e e n investigated b y others, and

Greek.

question o f just w h o was either d i r e c t i o n ,

first l a n g u a g e learned, and

foun­

ultimate s o u r c e

w h i c h the

or

its

of

2

bilin­

variety

second)

from

D i a s p o r a vs. Palestine, for e x a m p l e ) . T h a t the

e v i d e n c e for at least s o m e

H e b r e w / G r e e k bilingualism seems i n c o n t r o v e r t i b l e .

3

R a t h e r , as

out-

Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine," Past and Present, 148 (1995), 3 - 4 7 . A major focus o f Schwartz's study is the role o f Aramaic, not prominent in my discussion below, which concentrates on the Greek Torah. In antiquity, bilingualism was usually highly valued. Thus, according to Herodotus 2.154, Psammetichus took steps to have selected Egyptian children learn Greek, in order to create a class o f interpreters. For Greek/Latin bilingualism see the syn­ thesis in H.I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (New York, 1956), 3 4 2 - 3 5 7 . T o cite a few Jewish examples o f the esteem usually accorded to bilingualism, speak­ ing seventy languages was a supposed requirement for membership in the Sanhedrin, b. Sank. 17a. Philo, Corf. 13 asserted that learning many languages made you p o p ­ ular with those w h o spoke these languages., Josephus, AJ 20.264, turned the con­ vention on its head when he asserted that among Jews knowing many languages was not as highly valued as being an expert in the Torah, and explained that if knowing many languages were such a distinction h o w was it that many bilinguals were slaves. Herodotus's account o f the steps taken to produce interpreters should be c o m ­ pared with the rabbinic tradition about the permission granted the members o f the Patriarchal house to study Greek, necessary in order to enable them to serve as representatives o f the Jews to the R o m a n government, t. Sot. 15.8 (241-242, Lieberman) and b.B.K. 83a. For one possible example o f the implementation o f this policy see Libanius, Epist. 1078 and the discussion in M . Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Volume Two: From Tacitus to Simplicius (Jerusalem, 1980), 582 and 596. As the argument below will indicate, these Jews could read and write in both languages. This is a very high standard o f bilingualism even in modern terms (see e.g., R o m a i n e , Bilingualism, 11—19), not to speak o f the ancient world, in which lit­ eracy was far less extensive. O n literacy in antiquity see further the revisionist con­ clusions o f W . V . Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, 1989). It may therefore be no accident that while one important pool o f ancient bilinguals were slaves, forced by their circumstances to master a second language (see Josephus, AJ 20.264), the few ancient H e b r e w / G r e e k writing bilinguals w h o can be named were all o f aristocratic or priestly origins. Josephus, to be discussed more fully below, may stand as a telling witness to the social circumstances which produced these relatively rare individu­ als. For an analysis o f Josephus's educational development—stressing the gap between what he knew when writing JW and what he learned later, by the time he wrote Ant. and Ag.Ap., and indicating the advances Josephus made in his knowledge dur­ ing that period, both on the Jewish and Hellenic side—see S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (Leiden, 1990), 2 3 - 5 7 . 2

3

See esp. the summary article o f S. Lieberman, responding to critique o f his earlier work by other scholars, S. Lieberman, " H o w M u c h Greek in Jewish Palestine," in A . Airman, ed., Biblical and Other Studies (Cambridge, M A , 1963), 123-141. From

15

BILINGUAL JEWS A N D T H E GREEK BIBLE

lined a b o v e , I b e g i n with a recognition o f the special role bilinguals c a n play, a n d therefore ask a b o u t the attitudes o f ancient

Hebrew/

G r e e k bilinguals towards the translation o f the Bible a n d the

Torah

into G r e e k f r o m that perspective. I presume that the attitude o f these bilinguals towards the translation o f the T o r a h should merit special attention, as it was a matter within their realm o f special linguistic c o m p e t e n c e . F u r t h e r m o r e , as the translation o f the T o r a h was expression o f an o u t l o o k o n the relationship b e t w e e n the Jewish

an and

G r e e k worlds, a relationship to w h i c h these bilinguals likely m a d e a unique a n d leading contribution, their perspective o n that e n d e a v o r is o f particular interest.

II

A c c u r a t e translation o f the T o r a h into Greek^ is essential for a n y o n e who

wants to live based o n it in a G r e e k speaking e n v i r o n m e n t ,

in

w h i c h access to the H e b r e w original is n o t widely available. F o r that reason, it is n o surprise to find the Letter of Aristeas—an

a c c o u n t writ­ 4

ten to legitimate a n d praise the Septuagint b y relating its history — celebrating the exactness o f the w o r k d o n e b y the translators: As the books were read, the priests stood up, with the elders among the translators and from the representatives o f the "Community," and with the leaders o f the people and said, "Since this version has been made rightly and reverently, and in every respect accurately, it is good that this should remain exactly so, and that there should be no revision."

another perspective see J.N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? (Leiden, 1968). T h e renewed investigation o f Greek and Latin loan words in rabbinic texts, begun by D . Sperber, w h o published initial results in topical dictionaries such as A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature (Ramat Gan, 1984), promised detailed analyses o n which firm conclusions could be drawn. O n Sperber's results see R . Katzoff, Review o f Sperber, Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 20 (1989), 195-206. For a recent summary o f the state o f the question see A . Wasserstein, "Non-Hellenized Jews in the Semi-Hellenized East," Scripta Classica Israelica 14 (1995), 111—137. M u c h like Schwartz, "Language, Power and Identity," 12~31, Wasserstein stresses the role o f Aramaic, alongside Hebrew and Greek. For further bibliography on ancient bilingualism see also above, n. 1. 4

T h e reasons for the translation o f the T o r a h into Greek—royal initiative or community need—have been much debated, but they are beyond the interests o f this article. For a recent discussion o f the matter, within the context provided by e x p a n d i n g k n o w l e d g e o f Persian and Ptolemaic imperial p o l i c y , see M e l e z e Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 9 9 - 1 0 6 .

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

16

There was general approval o f what they said, and they commanded that a curse should be laid, as was their custom, on anyone who should alter the version by any addition or change to any part o f the writ­ ten text, or any deletion either. This was a good step taken, to ensure that the words were preserved completely and permanently in perpe­ tuity. (Aristeas 310-311) T h e reader o f Aristeas is s u p p o s e d to p r e s u m e that the local priests, the representatives o f the " C o m m u n i t y , " as well as the leaders o f the p e o p l e i n c l u d e d s o m e bilinguals, w h o s e testimony to the a c c u r a c y o f the translation was thus meaningful. Philo o f A l e x a n d r i a described the w o r k o f the translators in a similar vein: Sitting here in seclusion . . . they became as it were possessed, and under inspiration, wrote, not each several scribe something different, but the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invis­ ible prompter. Yet who does not know that every language, and Greek especially, abounds in terms, and that the same thought can be put in many shapes by changing single words and whole phrases and suit­ ing the expression to the occasion? This was not the case, we are told, with this law o f ours, but the Greek words used corresponded liter­ ally with the Chaldean, exactly suited to things they indicated . . . The clearest proof of this is that if Chaldeans have learned Greek, or Greeks Chaldean, and read both versions, the Chaldean and the translation, they regard them with awe and reverence as sisters, or rather one and the same, both in matter and in words, and speak o f the authors not as translators but as prophets and priests o f the mysteries, whose sin­ cerity and singleness o f thought has enabled them to go hand in hand with the purest o f spirits, the spirit o f Moses. (Mos. 2.37-40) Philo's o w n k n o w l e d g e o f H e b r e w has b e e n the

subject o f m u c h

scholarly debate, with s o m e magnifying its extent and others minimalizing it.

5

5

Perhaps Philo thought o f himself as o n e w h o

mastered

See, for example, S. Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria—An Introduction (New York, 1979), 131. T h e current consensus favors minimalizing Philo's knowledge o f Hebrew. See Schwartz, "Language, Power and Identity," 3 8 - 3 9 . Thus, Schwartz notes, Philo was not always careful to distinguish between Aramaic and Hebrew, both o f which he often called "Chaldean." At times, Josephus too did not differentiate between Hebrew and Aramaic, calling both "Hebrew." Aristeas 11 warned against this con­ fusion. Ancient evidence indicates that locals, learned in the finer distinctions between peoples and languages did not conflate Phoenician and Syrian into one, and insisted on their separate identity. See the discussion in A.I. Baumgarten, The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary (Leiden, 1981), 2 3 2 - 2 3 5 . By these standards, Aristeas's warning is thus one additional indication, if one were needed, that the "real" author o f this pseudepigraph was Jewish, while Josephus was often thinking and writing in non-Jewish terms. Philo's conflation shows just h o w far he was from intimate personal knowledge o f Hebrew and Aramaic.

17

BILINGUAL JEWS A N D T H E GREEK BIBLE

b o t h C h a l d e a n a n d G r e e k , a n d c o u l d thus speak o n the basis o f his o w n k n o w l e d g e , o f the translators as prophets a n d priests o f the m y s ­ teries, w h o p r o d u c e d a w o r k in w h i c h the n o r m a l distinction b e t w e e n translation and original was irrelevant. In any case, whether

Philo

was speaking for himself o r not, his praise o f the G r e e k T o r a h k n e w n o b o u n d s . It was a miracle in every sense o f the w o r d , a result o f direct divine revelation, p e r f o r m e d b y prophets, and celebrated b y an annual festival at the site (Mos. 2.41—42). O r d i n a r y (i.e. h u m a n ) limitations thus did n o t apply to the G r e e k Bible, as bilinguals gladly attested. V

Hi

^

W h e n o n e turns f r o m authors the extent o f w h o s e bilingualism is o p e n to s o m e d o u b t , such as Philo, to those w h o s e mastery o f b o t h languages was b e y o n d question, the picture changes. I n d e e d , rather than ratifying the a c c u r a c y o f the translation o f the T o r a h , as o n e might e x p e c t based o n the c o m m e n t s a b o v e , it was called into ques­ tion. B e n Sira's grandson, in the p r o l o g u e to the translation o f his grandfather's w o r k , is a c o n v e n i e n t p o i n t o f departure.

Introducing

his o w n translation, he a p o l o g i z e d for its inadequacies, but explained that these faults w e r e n o t his alone: For what the same work, but differ not Translation Law

was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly sense when translated into another language. Not only this even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest o f the books a little as originally expressed.

is a difficult task, a n d n o t even the translation o f the

was i m m u n e from its imperfections.

6

6

Note the statement attributed to R . Judah b . Ilai in t. Meg. 4:42 (364, Lieberman): "one w h o translates a verse literally is a liar, while one w h o adds is a blasphemer." The difficulties o f translation were a theme among intellectuals o f oriental origin in the G r a e c o - R o m a n world. C o m p a r e Philo o f Byblos, F. Gr. H. 790 F 2.10.8 on the ambiguities o f the translation from Phoenician into Greek, as a result o f which Greeks erred in their understanding o f Phoenician history. For a similar comment in an Egyptian context see Corpus Hermeticum 16.1: "Hermes . . . said that to those who c o m e upon m y books their composition will seem absolutely straightforward and clear, although on the contrary, it is obscure and hides the sense o f the words. It will be yet more obscure when the Greeks later get the idea o f translating the books from our language into theirs. A complete distortion o f the text and total obscurity will result." For these authors (unlike Ben Sira's grandson, R . Judah b . Ilai or Josephus, to be discussed below), the difficulties o f translation were invoked in the service o f

18

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

O n a practical level, the testimony o f J o s e p h u s is o f great import. In his version o f the Letter of Aristeas, c o m p o s e d o v e r t w o centuries after the translation o f Ben Sira, Josephus i n t r o d u c e d m a n y changes.

7

O n e o f these c o n c e r n s events w h e n the translation was presented to the J e w s o f Alexandria, a n d should b e c o m p a r e d carefully with the original cited a b o v e :

8

and all o f them, including the priest and the eldest o f the translators and the chief officers o f the community, requested that, since the trans­ lation had been so successfully completed, it should remain as it was and not be altered. Accordingly, when all had approved this idea, they ordered that if anyone saw any further addition made to the text of the Law or anything omitted from it, he should examine it and make it known and correct it, in this they acted wisely, that what had once been judged good might remain forever. (AJ 12.108-109) A t first sight, Josephus w o u l d seem to b e rewriting Aristeas in his o w n w o r d s , but nevertheless not altering the effective m e a n i n g :

9

all p r e ­

sent agreed that n o c h a n g e should ever b e m a d e in the translation o f the T o r a h . Josephus continues, h o w e v e r , that if a n y o n e saw any­ thing w r o n g with the text o f the G r e e k T o r a h he was to c o r r e c t it a n d restore the original. T h i s advice is n o t w h o l l y consistent with what was just stated: Josephus did not counsel the person w h o believed he h a d f o u n d an error to consult the authoritative c o p y o f the trans­ lation supposedly deposited in Alexandria, a n d o f w h i c h a c o p y was given to the Jewish leaders (Aristeas 309). T h e identification o f the error a n d its c o r r e c t i o n w e r e b o t h d o n e o n private initiative.

That

is, J o s e p h u s is here continuing in the footsteps o f Ben Sira's grand­ son in his p e r c e p t i o n o f the difficulties o f translation, informing us o f the attitude and practice o f a bilingual ancient J e w towards the G r e e k T o r a h . T h e difficulties o f translation w e r e such a n d so preva­ lent that, a c c o r d i n g to Josephus, w h e n a bilingual Jew believed he h a d

more general anti-Greek sentiments. For a fuller discussion o f this oriental antiGreek reaction see my other article in this volume, "Were the Greeks Different,?" above, 9. S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome (Leiden, 1979), 3 4 - 3 5 . See E.J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, M A , 1988), 106. T h e difference between Josephus and Aristeas, his source, was also noted by I. Gruenwald, " T h e Polemic Concerning the Translation o f the Torah into Greek," Teudah 4 (5746), 70 [in H e b r e w ] , but its significance was not realized. See also R . Marcus's comment in his translation o f Josephus in the L C L series, V I I , 55, n.d. Compare A . Pelletier, Flavius Josephe, adapteur de la Lettre dAristee (Paris, 1962), 187—189. See above, n. 7. 7

8

9

BILINGUAL JEWS A N D T H E GREEK BIBLE

19

f o u n d a mistake in the G r e e k text, o n the basis o f his knowledge o f the H e b r e w original (whatever that H e b r e w version m i g h t h a v e b e e n : the a g r e e m e n t o f that H e b r e w text with the M a s o r e t i c version c a n ­ n o t b e taken for granted) he emended the G r e e k on his own to c o n f o r m to his n o t i o n o f the H e b r e w . Evidence o f another ing

who

sort indicates that J o s e p h u s w a s n o t

for h i m s e l f a l o n e , b u t

circle o f a n c i e n t thought

1 0

speak­

rather reflecting the p r a c t i c e o f a w i d e

bilingual J e w s .

they k n e w the

"Private

emendation," by

c o r r e c t reading, was c o m m o n

readers in

the

transmission o f G r e e k a n d Latin w o r k s . F o r the G r e e k Bible, its prin­ cipal practitioners s h o u l d h a v e c o m e f r o m the ranks o f J e w i s h bilin­ guals, w h o c o r r e c t e d the

G r e e k to the

best o f their k n o w l e d g e to

c o r r e s p o n d t o their text tradition a n d understanding The

i m p a c t o f this "perversity

o f ancient

Bible c a n b e t r a c e d in s o m e detail.

11

o f the H e b r e w .

revisers" o n the

Greek

It is explicitly attested t o b y

1 0

I should emphasize that Josephus did not display this attitude towards the Greek Pentateuch because he regarded it as illegitimate or inferior. While a num­ ber o f the attitudes he displayed, in AgAp. in particular, made him a full fledged participant in oriental anti-Greek sentiments (see above, n. 6), he regarded the Greek Bible as a worthy endeavor to communicate Jewish History to the Greeks, an effort which he saw the ancient translators as having accomplished only in part and which he intended to complete in his works. Josephus therefore considered the Greek Bible an important precedent for his o w n writings. See Josephus, AJ 1.9-12: Besides these motives there were two further considerations to which I had given serious thought, namely whether our ancestors, o n the one hand, were willing to communicate such information, and whether any o f the Greeks, o n the other, had been curious to learn our history. I found then that the second o f the Ptolemies, that king w h o was so deeply interested in learning and such a collector o f books, was particularly anxious to have our law and the political constitution based thereon translated into Greek; while, o n the other side, Eleazar, w h o yielded in virtue to none o f our high priests, did not scruple to grant the monarch the enjoyment o f a benefit, which he would certainly have refused had it not been our traditional custom to make nothing o f what is g o o d into a secret. Accordingly, I thought that it became me also both to imitate the high priest's magnanimity and to assume that there are still today many lovers o f learning like the king. For even he failed to obtain all our records: it was only the portion containing the L a w which was delivered to him by those w h o were sent to Alexandria to inter­ pret (translate) it. 11

See E.J. Bickerman, " S o m e Notes o n the Transmission o f the Septuagint," Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Part One (Leiden, 1976), 150-157. E. T o v , The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (2nd ed.; Jerusalem, 1997), 11 describes four stages in the development o f the text o f the L X X . T h e second stage was characterized by: "a multitude o f textual traditions resulting from the insertion o f corrections (mainly towards the Hebrew) in all known scrolls in the pre-Christian period, and to a lesser extent in the first century C . E . " T o v is describ­ ing the practice o f private emendation, to which Bickerman referred, from a different

20

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

O r i g e n , w h o c o m p l a i n e d bitterly that as a result o f this process the tradition o f p r o p e r names in the T o r a h and Prophets was often h o p e ­ lessly d e f o r m e d (Commentary on John, 6.41; GCS 1 0 . 1 5 0 - 1 5 1 ) .

1 2

In sum,

in his treatment o f Aristeas, Josephus has taken an ancient text and reinterpreted it as m e a n i n g what he and his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s

have

b e e n d o i n g , without a c k n o w l e d g i n g the g a p b e t w e e n the original a n d that p r a c t i c e .

13

iv In the b a l a n c e o f this p a p e r I w o u l d like to utilize k n o w l e d g e o f the attitude o f bilingual J e w s towards the G r e e k T o r a h , as expressed in their practice o f private e m e n d a t i o n , as the foundation o n w h i c h to p r o p o s e a n e w interpretation o f a g r o u p o f rabbinic passages w h i c h have b e e n m u c h discussed. T h e rabbinic traditions c o n c e r n i n g the translation o f the T o r a h into Greek, " w h e n the T o r a h was trans­ lated for K i n g P t o l e m y , " have b e e n the subject o f scholarly attention since the b e g i n n i n g o f the a c a d e m i c study o f J u d a i s m . T h e y consist o f various lists o f passages in w h i c h the translators supposedly c h a n g e d the G r e e k a w a y from a literal rendering o f the H e b r e w . T h e s e lists are enigmatic a n d offer little explanation o f their contents a n d o v e r ­ all p u r p o s e .

O n e item, the modification o f the translation o f L e v

11:6 is explained as having a political objective, but the other items have n o n e . Earliest scholarly efforts w e r e d e v o t e d to determining precise contents o f these lists o r list, on

14

the

while m o r e recent efforts focus

the readings in the G r e e k Bible b e h i n d these passages,

15

or on

perspective. Note that T o v ' s second stage was coming to an end in the first cen­ tury C.E., around the time Josephus was composing Ant. See further E. T o v , " T h e Rabbinic Traditions Concerning the 'Alterations' Inserted into the Greek Pentateuch and their Relation to the Original Text o f the L X X , " Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 15 (1984), 7 5 - 7 6 . For another example o f this practice by Josephus see my discussion o f his interpretation o f the obligation o f parents to teach their children the Torah as a commandment to teach children to read, AgAp. 2.204, in A.I. Baumgarten, "Literacy and the Polemics Surrounding Biblical Interpretation in the Second Temple Period," in J. Kugel, ed., Studies in Ancient Midrash (Cambridge, M A , 2001), 3 4 - 3 5 . See especially V . Aptowitzer, "Die rabbinischen Berichte iiber die Entstehung der Septuaginta," Haqedem 2 (1909), 11-27, 102-122; 3 (1910), 4 - 1 7 . T o v , "Alterations," 6 6 - 6 9 . As T o v is disinterested in determining the "origi­ nal" list behind the different variations he simply conflates all these versions and 12

13

14

15

BILINGUAL JEWS A N D T H E GREEK BIBLE

the

reasons m o t i v a t i n g

each

individual

change.

1 6

Not

21

surprisingly,

c o n s i d e r i n g the inherent obscurity o f the lists a n d their lack o f any clues, I k n o w o f o n l y t w o attempts, to b e discussed m o r e fully b e l o w , to c o n s i d e r the lists as a w h o l e . To

u n d e r s t a n d these a c c o u n t s , h o w e v e r , o n e must b e g i n b y r e c ­

o g n i z i n g that they c o m e in t w o versions: o n e a simple list o f places in w h i c h the

translation was c h a n g e d

(hereafter, V e r s i o n A ) ,

1 7

the

s e c o n d a m i r a c u l o u s description o f the p r o c e s s o f translation f o l l o w e d b y the list o f the c h a n g e d translations (hereafter, V e r s i o n B; V e r s i o n B is thus a miracle

1 8

story plus V e r s i o n A ) ,

with the

miracle

story

deals with fifteen passages in all, which he believes represent the "central tradition" (ibid., 66): G e n 1:1, 1:26, 2:2, 5:2, 11:7, 18:12, 49:6; Exod 4:20, 12:40, 24:5, 24:11; Num 16:15; Deut 4:19, 17:3, 14:7 = Lev 11:6. T h e lists are usually treated as a grab-bag o f verses, compiled from groups o f verses, some groups originating in divergent manuscript readings or in an attempt to close gaps in the biblical text, others in theological considerations (particularly to dispel any hint that the Bible might support belief in more than one G o d ) , and yet others in political concerns o f various sorts. T h e reasons proposed for the changes then vary from group to group. See, for example D . Barthelemy, "Eusebe, la Septante et 'les autres'," Etudes d'histoire du texte de Vancien testament (Gottingen, 1978), 187-193; G . Veltri, Eine Tora fiir den Konig Talmai (Tubingen, 1994), esp. the sum­ mary, 107; A . D . Wasserstein, " O n Donkeys, Wine and the Uses o f Textual Criticism: Septuagintal Variants in Jewish Palestine," in I. Gafhi, A . O p p e n h e i m e r and D . Schwartz, eds., The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World—Studies in Memory of Menahem Stem (Jerusalem, 1996), 119*-142*; D . Wasserstein, "Ptolemy and the Hare: Dating an O l d Story About the Translation o f the Septuagint," Scripta Classica Israelica 17 (1998), 7 7 - 8 6 , esp. 82, w h o characterizes the lists as a bringing together o f a num­ ber o f free-floating elements. Note, finally, that T o v concedes the varied background of the examples which comprise these lists in his comments, "Alterations," 8 2 - 8 9 . 1 6

17

T h e earliest sources for Version A are Mek. Bo, Parasha 14 ( 5 0 - 5 1 , HorowitzRabin): *nhrb -nrao onanno in« n n . . . cnan p » n iatr ~KDR h*rw aenm p r n vmpn isr mrrm chm D I K nt&PK franca tro DTT?K rh& IOPD m rcsro .-pan rranpa ma prism ,Dnsc a© rr?3Ri mrm ran ;P2®n nvn rrnen "won am bD'i V33 rim m©K nK n©o np'i ,oi3» npj? D D I S - D I niu inn o a « 3 "o ,^nxb bd7 Ttirb ama yrh^ T I phn im ,rwn onn im man vh ,m« $m DTSTI ••n noiai nhnn nrvx rwi t> anDi xravb rwwh n is vh h larai .cra:;n ,

,

.mso man H i m rue wba See also y. Meg. 1.11.7Id T h e earliest source containing Version B is b. Meg. 9a. tin ,wr\2 warn crmvn j r a n ,n"ip\ wm orse? "['pan "-n^rn n©i?a srcrn .•Dm ne?a mm ^ ram en ? TTTKI nnw nntf "?3 ^ 03331 . p r o no ^ an ? nmn •TrfrN i"? mroi .nn« run ? J'TD lo^om ,n^i? T I K I nna ^ 3^3 Kin -pra vrnpn jra rapn rar ^iraon nvn nnzn ^©n nvn ^ T B T D I tfxn DTR n©PK . n w n ara inn DSK3 ""D /psnps nia pnxm ,ansc •© n b 3 K i rrriN nnn mra ISTD ,IK~D 1 8

1

1

1

•*D 30101 ,D1t«l ^ D T D T I V33 nKl TTKD« nN HOD np l ,0138 npi? DJfirOl 112? •*CDio»r n» rftizn m»n miR ms"i» -IK©31 D H S Q p & 3 132?'' I O N ^xiw TT p^n im ;mm ana im non , I T nba vh ^an© 'enow ^3 1*7 i 3 T D i push vrci ^ I D » onn« • m'?« "nnyi p^pn ta"? i"wh amK i m » v

1

,

,

,

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

22

apparently serving as c o n f i r m a t i o n o r sanction for the actions o f the translators in c h a n g i n g those places, at the v e r y least. T h a t is, while the m i r a c l e story m a y have o t h e r functions

(see further b e l o w ) ,

its

m i n i m a l role in its c o n t e x t in V e r s i o n B is to indicate divine a p p r o v a l for

the

changes

remarkable.

made

b y the

translators. A s s u c h ,

V e r s i o n B is

It shares the t h e m e o f m i r a c u l o u s translation with sto­

ries t o l d b y P h i l o a n d

numerous

church

fathers,

19

b u t while these

latter authors all lived b y the translation into G r e e k a n d thus n e e d e d to assert its authority, the R a b b i s w h o told V e r s i o n B d i d n o t live b y that text at all, b u t rather b y the H e b r e w original as they inter­ preted it.

20

Perhaps this c o n s i d e r a t i o n will e x p l a i n the fact that while

V e r s i o n B shares the t h e m e o f a miracle story with Philo a n d Christian authors, it d o e s n o t e m p l o y it for the will b e

discussed m o r e fully b e l o w ,

the

ancient

same p u r p o s e . A s

miraculous

happenings

in

V e r s i o n B sanction the actions o f the translators in c h a n g i n g specific passages rather than functioning as authorization

for the translation

as a w h o l e . W h a t then c o u l d have b e e n the p u r p o s e o f V e r s i o n B ? T h e objectives o f those w h o t o l d V e r s i o n A are n o clearer. W h y

\th>a ,na® ran« 'nbrfrw inm® ^ s o / u n » n rim t> HDTO $bi phnn

mrsx

TIE?K an "from Dmrrn n ipnto now T h e only scholar I have seen w h o notes clearly the difference between Versions A and B, and is sensitive to its significance, is Veltri, Eine Tora, 1 9 - 2 0 . O n these traditions see A . Pelletier, Lettre d'Aristee a Philocrate (Paris, 1962), 78-98. For that reason I find it hard to comprehend the view o f those scholars, e.g. M . Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (New York, 1951), 83, w h o assert that the story o f the separation o f the scholars and the miraculous agreement o f their translations began in the rabbinic world and spread from there to Christian authors. This expla­ nation seems implausible: Philo, Mos. 2.37, cited above, already writes o f the seclu­ sion o f the scholars, w h o then wrote the same text word for word, as though dictated to each b y an invisible prompter. Admittedly, in this context Philo means the iso­ lation o f the translators from the pollution o f everyday life and their c o m m u n i o n with the elements, but his version could serve as a basis for someone to assert the separation o f the translators from each other. Philo clearly antedates the Rabbinic Versions A and B. Philo also has a more obvious motive than rabbinic authorities for needing to validate the sanctity o f the Greek translation. For these reasons I consider him (or some other Alexandrian Jew) a more likely source for the origin o f the tradition o f the isolation o f the scholars, and its appearance in Version B to be derivative. For a different and more convincing account o f the spread o f the miracle story, from Alexandrian Jews to Jewish Palestine see D . Barthelemy, "Pourquoi la T o r a h a-t-elle ete traduite en G r e c ? " Etudes, 325. In b. Meg. 9a R . Judah b . Ilai (a tanna, who lived in the mid- second century C.E.) is the tradent o f Version B. This same R. Judah visited Alexandria. Barthelemy suggests that perhaps R . Judah learned the tradition behind Version B while there.

.rmra

1 9

2 0

23

BILINGUAL JEWS A N D T H E GREEK BIBLE

should s o m e o n e have c o m p i l e d and preserved a simple list o f rela­ tively few passages w h e r e the G r e e k differs f r o m the H e b r e w , par­ ticularly in light o f the n u m e r o u s places w h e r e the t w o texts d o n o t agree? W h a t might b e special a b o u t these places to merit such notice? T h i s question is even m o r e p u z z l i n g as in contrast to V e r s i o n B n o claim for divine sanction o f any sort is b e i n g asserted. One

further consideration should guide the investigation: in spite

o f the natural t e n d e n c y to focus o n V e r s i o n B as the m o r e plete tradition,

21

com­

o n e must c o n s i d e r the possibility that V e r s i o n A

p r e c e d e d V e r s i o n B. T h a t is, the miracle story m a y b e a later addi­ tion to an already existing list, a n d the version with the miracle story is n o t necessarily the original. T h i s possibility is, in fact, e n h a n c e d b y other considerations. V e r s i o n A is f o u n d in sources w h i c h b e l o n g to earlier strata o f rabbinic literature (a T a n n a i t i c source a n d Palestinian

the

T a l m u d ) , while V e r s i o n B is first f o u n d as a baraita in

the B a b y l o n i a n T a l m u d a n d e v e n later w o r k s .

22

T h i s consideration

is, admittedly, far from decisive but it should serve as a

reminder

o f the possibility that the fuller a c c o u n t in V e r s i o n B m a y b e a later elaboration o f an existing

tradition.

v Numerous

d i f f e r e n c e s exist b e t w e e n the

M a s o r e t i c text

o f the

Pentateuch a n d the Septuagint translation. W h y m i g h t those R a b b i s who

c o m p i l e d V e r s i o n s A a n d B have selected o n l y a few o f these

differences for special attention? Is there o n e explanation w h i c h unites this apparent g r a b - b a g o f divergent verses t o g e t h e r ?

23

I f o n e w e r e to

j u d g e o n the basis o f V e r s i o n B alone the answer m i g h t seem clear a n d straightforward,

as p r o p o s e d b y I. G r u e n w a l d :

a n d preserved V e r s i o n B i n t e n d e d

24

those w h o told

to assert the legitimacy o f the

e n d e a v o r o f translating the T o r a h into Greek. G o d H i m s e l f a p p r o v e d

2 1

See e.g. Gruenwald, "Polemic," 6 5 - 7 8 . For a brief history o f scholarship on the relationship o f the two versions see T o v , "Alterations," 67. Version B also has the advantage o f being found in the Babylonian Talmud, in b. Meg. 9a, and the Babylonian Talmud remains the rabbinic source most widely studied by traditional Jews. See further Veltri, Eine Tora, 24. See above n. 16. Gruenwald, "Polemic," 65—78. 2 2

2 3

2 4

24

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

this p r o j e c t b y granting it a miraculous seal o f approval. W h e n w e r e m i n d ourselves, as G r u e n w a l d demonstrates, that there were s o m e w h o regarded the translation o f Scripture into another language as a desecration o f the s a c r e d ,

25

that provides us with a plausible c o n ­

text for the telling o f a miracle story to assert the opposite c o n c l u ­ sion. Nevertheless, Gruenwald's explanation ignores V e r s i o n A a n d does not d o full justice to the c o m p l e x i t y o f V e r s i o n B. It omits any consideration o f the list o f places in w h i c h the G r e e k translation differed from the H e b r e w , yet this issue is crucial to the miracle story in V e r s i o n B. If the p u r p o s e o f V e r s i o n B was to extend divine approval to the translation, then w h y list the places in w h i c h the translators d i d n o t offer a literal rendering o f the H e b r e w ? T h i s w o u l d seem to interfere with the supposed objective o f the story. O n e might therefore reformulate the understanding o f the story (on G r u e n w a l d ' s behalf) and c o n c l u d e that the p u r p o s e o f those w h o told V e r s i o n B was to assert that even though the translators c h a n g e d specific places they did so with divine approval, h e n c e the p r o j e c t was legitimate. O n e might g o further, perhaps

entire

(again o n

G r u e n w a l d ' s b e h a l f ) , a n d argue that the goal o f the miracle story was to claim that only certain deviations b e t w e e n the G r e e k a n d the H e b r e w h a d divine approval while all others did not, but b o t h these conclusions, h o w e v e r , weaken the effect o f the miracle story as a w h o l e , if its real p u r p o s e was to maintain the legitimacy o f transla­ tion o f Scripture into G r e e k . It is w o r t h r e m e m b e r i n g , as n o t e d a b o v e , that Philo a n d Christian authors—anxious, e a c h for their o w n reasons, to assert the authority o f the translation into G r e e k — k n e w nothing o f places w h e r e the translators did not offer a literal ren­ dering.

26

In a similar vein, the Letter of Aristeas c l a i m e d that the trans­

lation was r e c o g n i z e d b y the J e w s and their leaders as b e i n g perfect, in other w o r d s absolutely accurate, with n o deviations from the orig­ inal (Aristeas, 310). A c o m p a r i s o n o f V e r s i o n B with accounts definitely written to assert the authority o f the G r e e k translation shows the former's weakness as a story intended to a c c o m p l i s h that p u r p o s e ,

2 5

Gruenwald, "Polemic," 7 1 - 7 5 . See also A . Wasserstein, "Septuagintal Variants," 121*-122*. Philo's praise o f the accuracy o f the translation, Mos. 2.40, quoted above, is worth recalling. A bilingual person, he asserts, would regard the original and the translation with awe and reverence as sisters or "rather one and the same both in matter and words." 2 6

25

BILINGUAL JEWS A N D T H E GREEK BIBLE

a n d indicates that while V e r s i o n B m a y have b e e n told to legitimate the translation o f the T o r a h into G r e e k that explanation

does not

a c c o u n t for all its aspects, a n d d o e s n o t b e g i n to explain V e r s i o n A , w h i c h lacks the miracle story

entirely.

27

A n o t h e r attempt to explain the lists as a w h o l e has b e e n b y E. T o v .

2 8

made

A c c o r d i n g to T o v , the R a b b i s w e r e aware o f the read­

ings to b e f o u n d in the "original" manuscript o f the Septuagint. M o s t o f these readings w e r e c o r r e c t e d in the archetype o f all manuscripts k n o w n to us in o r d e r to c o n f o r m to the M a s o r e t i c text. T h e binic lists, h o w e v e r , preserved a n u m b e r o f such "original"

rab­

readings

and offer us a witness to the G r e e k T o r a h as first p r e p a r e d b y the translators.

29

T o v ' s assertions seem rather far-fetched

a n d m o r e in

the nature o f u n p r o v e n assumptions. T h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e that the R a b b i s k n e w a set o f "original" readings otherwise almost c o m p l e t e l y lost, a n d if such a list existed the R a b b i s seem to b e the least likely g r o u p to possess it. O n the w h o l e , the R a b b i s s e e m e d little interested in the G r e e k B i b l e .

30

O n c e it h a d passed into the hands o f the Chris­

tians, the G r e e k Bible was a source o f awkward embarrassment: e a c h side in the Jewish-Christian discussion c o u l d n o w p r o d u c e its o w n written e v i d e n c e to support its c l a i m s .

31

T h e k n o w l e d g e o f "original"

2 7

Gruenwald, "Polemic," 76 states that he chose to focus on the account I have called Version B as a matter o f convenience, simply because it is fuller. W h e n he comes to treat what I call Version A he asserts that it agrees with the claims o f Version B, "Polemic," 77. This, however, is less than fully candid. Version A agrees with B only when one has begun with B as the original, and not merely as a mat­ ter o f convenience. Taken by itself Version A makes no claim whatsoever for the legitimacy o f the translation o f the T o r a h into Greek. It merely states that when the T o r a h was translated—whether that was a g o o d or bad thing in the opinion o f those w h o told Version A is unstated—the following changes were made by the translators. For an interpretation o f Version B according to which its objective was to argue for divine approval o f the divergences in the specific cases noted, but make no claim whatsoever concerning the legitimacy o f the translation as a whole, treating it rather as a necessary but unavoidable evil, see Aptowitzer, "Berichte," Haqedem 3 (1910), 12-16. See above n. 12. See T o v , "Alterations," 76. See A . Wasserstein, "Septuagintal Variants," 123*—125*. Compare Veltri, Eine Tora, 109 w h o has a higher evaluation o f the degree o f interest o f the Rabbis in the Greek Bible from its earliest phases, but nevertheless considers it impossible to demonstrate that Versions A or B go back to a different original text type in Greek, as argued by T o v . For a discussion o f the competition between Jews and Christians in which each side produced its written p r o o f to its claims see A.I. Baumgarten, "Justinian and 2 8

2 9

3 0

3 1

26

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

readings in the L X X w h i c h T o v attributes to the R a b b i s is thus entirely out o f character. Furthermore,

w h y w o u l d the R a b b i s care

a b o u t the authentic text o f the Septuagint; o f w h a t interest was this matter to them; did they care e n o u g h a b o u t the Septuagint to cause t h e m to preserve the lists f o u n d in o u r sources? A s a final indication in favor o f the distance b e t w e e n the R a b b i s and

the

G r e e k text o n e s h o u l d n o t e the

argument advanced

by

D . Wasserstein c o n c e r n i n g the modification o f the n a m e o f the hare in L e v 11:6 a n d D e u t 14:7, as n o t e d a b o v e the o n l y c h a n g e in trans­ lation in the rabbinic lists for w h i c h they supplied an

explanation.

32

A c c o r d i n g to the R a b b i s , this c h a n g e was m a d e to a v o i d offending the king, b e c a u s e Ptolemy's wife o r m o t h e r was n a m e d rabbit (logos). T h i s is incorrect. T h e possible offensive translation c o n c e r n e d the n a m e o f the father o f the f o u n d e r o f the dynasty, P t o l e m y I (Lagos). T h e rabbinic a c c o u n t is therefore

out o f t o u c h with the reality o f

the P t o l e m a i c context, a n d an explanation w h i c h originated in that c o n t e x t has degenerated. I f the R a b b i s d i d n o t preserve correctly the circumstances b e h i n d the o n e c h a n g e w h o s e reason they supposedly r e m e m b e r e d , the likelihood that they k n e w a g r o u p o f original read­ ings in the G r e e k T o r a h is small. In sum, evaluating previous attempts to discover a single m o t i v e b e h i n d the formation o f the lists, Veltri c o m e s to the reluctant c o n ­ clusion that n o o n e reason c a n b e discovered. T h e lists have their origin in the exegetical traditions o f the R a b b i s , a n d the lists have a distinctly " r a b b i n i c " character. Appropriately, m a n y items take u p difficulties in scripture addressed elsewhere in rabbinic literature, a n d e m p l o y rabbinic exegetical t e r m i n o l o g y freely. Nevertheless, the items o n the list are there for a series o f different

reasons.

33

vi T h e discussion o f private

emendation

elaborated

a b o v e offers

an

alternate c o n t e x t for Versions A a n d B, preferable in m y o p i n i o n to

the Jews," in L. Landman, ed., Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein Memorial Volume (New York, 1980), 3 7 - 4 4 . These circumstances are the basis for the suggestion o f Barthelemy, "Eusebe, la Septante et 'les autres'," 191, that one reason for the presence o f cer­ tain items on the list o f passages "altered for King Ptolemy" was to deflect Christian interpretations o f these verses. D . Wasserstein, "Ptolemy and the Hare," 77—85. Veltri, Eine Tora, 107-111. 3 2

3 3

BILINGUAL J E W S A N D T H E G R E E K BIBLE

27

other suggestions offered thus far. I p r o p o s e that the R a b b i s w h o told Versions A a n d B w e r e addressing their natural constituency o f Palestinian J e w s (at least s o m e o f w h o were bilingual) c o n c e r n i n g private e m e n d a t i o n , a practice well attested a m o n g t h e m (unlike the hypothetical "original" version posited b y T o v as the context for the lists). T h e p u r p o s e o f these lists, I submit, was to put s o m e limits o n the t e n d e n c y o f these bilingual J e w s to i m p r o v e the G r e e k Bible in a c c o r d a n c e with their understanding o f the H e b r e w . E a c h item o n the lists m a y b e there for a different reason, but the lists as a w h o l e w e r e intended to teach this audience that there w e r e certain dis­ crepancies w h i c h were original ( V e r s i o n A ) a n d / o r even h a d divine sanction ( V e r s i o n B), h e n c e should b e u n t o u c h e d . B o t h V e r s i o n A and Version B thus b e c o m e fully meaningful (in contrast to Gruenwald's explanation). W h e t h e r o r n o t rabbinic notions o f original readings w e r e histor­ ically c o r r e c t b y o u r standards is irrelevant. F o r whatever reason(s) a n d b y whatever process they arrived at that c o n c l u s i o n , m y sug­ gestion is that the R a b b i s responsible for Versions A a n d B were c o n v i n c e d that they k n e w a g r o u p o f readings in the L X X w h i c h o u g h t to b e preserved against private e m e n d a t i o n , a n d they tried to achieve this goal through the lists o f deviations w h i c h w e r e in the T o r a h as translated for K i n g Ptolemy. O n e further p o i n t should b e n o t e d in support o f this suggestion. Private e m e n d a t i o n o f the G r e e k T o r a h , a c c o r d i n g to T o v , nourished in the era p r i o r to the destruction o f the T e m p l e , a n d c a m e to a close at the e n d o f the first century C . E .

3 4

Josephus, w h o wrote at

the e n d o f the first century C . E . a n d w h o s e c o m m e n t s o n private e m e n d a t i o n were a p o i n t o f departure a b o v e , thus fits well into the c h r o n o l o g i c a l context. In a similar vein, D . Wasserstein has suggested that the rabbinic accounts o f the translation o f the T o r a h for K i n g P t o l e m y w e r e c o m p i l e d b e t w e e n 70 a n d 1 3 2 ,

35

m o r e o r less at the

same time. If D . Wasserstein's dating is correct, understanding the rabbinic traditions o n the G r e e k Bible as a response to private e m e n ­ dation makes excellent c h r o n o l o g i c a l sense, as they were

addressing

an issue still current at that time, the same time at w h i c h Josephus wrote.

See above, n. 11. D . Wasserstein, "Ptolemy and the Hare," 83.

28

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

O n e final question n e e d b e asked: o n the interpretation p r o p o s e d , did the rabbinic effort succeed? D i d rabbinic intervention preserve the readings o n this list from private e m e n d a t i o n (or, in a kind o f b o o m e r a n g effect, did rabbinic e n d o r s e m e n t o f these readings cause t h e m to b e re-introduced into the manuscript tradition o f the G r e e k Bible, after they h a d already b e e n r e m o v e d ) ? T h e e v i d e n c e , as sur­ v e y e d b y T o v , suggests that if m y suggestion o f rabbinic motives is correct it was largely ineffective. O f the fifteen Biblical passages T o v considers as f o r m i n g the central tradition o f the rabbinic list only five o r at m o s t six are reflected in the manuscript tradition o f the L X X , while the other nine are f o u n d in n o n e o f the extant M S S . o f the L X X .

3 6

Accordingly, in discussing these examples, T o v attempts

reconstructions o f the G r e e k renderings w h i c h are reflected in the rab­ binic a c c o u n t .

37

A n attempt to discover the reasons for the apparent failure o f the intention I have attributed to the rabbinic list w o u l d pile specula­ tion o n speculation, h e n c e should b e a p p r o a c h e d with extreme cau­ tion. I w o u l d suggest, h o w e v e r , that if the c h r o n o l o g i c a l s c h e m e outlined a b o v e is correct, the R a b b i s w o u l d have intervened fairly late in the process, well towards the e n d o f the era o f private e m e n ­ dation, after m o s t o f the " d a m a g e " h a d b e e n d o n e . T h e i r efforts might have suited the o l d p r o v e r b o f closing the barn d o o r after the horse has b e e n stolen.

38

vii W h a t p r o m p t e d these ancient bilinguals to b e so critical o f the trans­ lation o f the T o r a h , to the extent that I suggest that R a b b i s believed that they n e e d e d to b e c u r b e d ? O n e part o f the answer m a y b e the pride felt b y elite bilinguals in mastering t w o languages.

39

T h u s , such

bilinguals are often fervent o p p o n e n t s o f c o d e switching (introducing

3 6

T o v , "Alterations," 7 3 - 7 6 . Ibid., 7 6 - 8 2 . I prefer this suggestion to its converse, which strikes me as perverse: combin­ ing the chronological evidence for the end o f the era o f private emendation with the date o f the rabbinic lists and then explaining the end o f private emendation as a result o f rabbinic intervention. Note, for example, Josephus's evident pride in his accomplishments in Greek, AJ 20.262-263. See also above, n. 2. 3 7

3 8

3 9

29

BILINGUAL JEWS A N D T H E GREEK BIBLE

w o r d s o r terms from o n e language into phrases in the o t h e r ) , though

40

their o w n practice m a y n o t always live u p to those

even stan­

dards. Perhaps this j u d g m e n t a l b e n t o f very high level bilinguals has its origins in a crucial stage o f acquiring another language: the real­ ization that the n e w language is an i n d e p e n d e n t tem, with its o w n l e x i c o n a n d syntax,

a n d separate sys­

a n d usually e m p l o y e d in a

specific context. T h i s stage is critical b o t h for those w h o learn a sec­ ond

language later in life, a n d those w h o g r o w u p speaking two o r

m o r e languages,

as p r o v e n b y the w o r d g a m e s bilingual

children

play, in w h i c h they m e r g e w o r d s , constructions, o r grammatical forms f r o m t w o languages for h u m o r o u s o r mischievous effect. T h e wit in these games is based o n the recognition that items from t w o systems w h i c h should b e kept separate are b e i n g j o i n e d . A bilingual o f that degree o f a c c o m p l i s h m e n t , w h o has l a b o r e d to o v e r c o m e that hur­ dle a n d successfully internalized

that recognition, m a y b e especially

critical o f those less effective at the

endeavor.

41

A c c o r d i n g l y , it is n o t surprising to learn that ancient bilingual J e w s disappointed the author o f Aristeas o r Philo o f A l e x a n d r i a

42

in their

attitude towards the G r e e k T o r a h . R a t h e r than c o n f i r m i n g its a c c u ­ racy, they insisted o n the difficulties o f translation and gave practi­ cal expression to this o u t l o o k b y constant

attempts to i m p r o v e

the

translation b y private e m e n d a t i o n . W h i l e full-fledged p r o o f remains elusive in the absence o f n e w e v i d e n c e , I p r o p o s e that the

rabbinic

accounts o f the changes in the T o r a h as translated for K i n g P t o l e m y are best u n d e r s t o o d

in this c o n t e x t a n d

against this b a c k d r o p ,

as

addressed to this a u d i e n c e o f bilinguals and as an attempt to regu­ late their disposition to c o r r e c t the G r e e k T o r a h . I f m y suggestion is a c c e p t e d , the extent to w h i c h bilinguals contradicted the c o n c l u ­ sions attributed to t h e m b y Aristeas a n d Philo is e v e n greater.

4 0

For an ancient example o f opposition to code switching see Neh 13:24, as explained by Spolsky, "Jewish Multilingualism," 36. O n this aspect o f bilingualism see Grosjean, Life with Two Languages, 186, 206-207 and Hoffmann, Introduction, 7 9 - 8 8 . In an informal survey, not meant to be more than anecdotal, I inquired o f fel­ low English speakers w h o live in Israel h o w many o f them read the subtitles in Hebrew in American movies, thus checking up on the work o f the translators and noting their frequent howling errors. Virtually all conceded that this was their practice. T h e gap between Philo's claims and the attitudes o f high level bilinguals such as Josephus may serve as yet one further indication that Philo's knowledge o f Hebrew was not extensive. Compare above, n. 5. 4 1

4 2

30

A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

F r o m a n o t h e r p o i n t o f v i e w , to return to the perspective

with

w h i c h this article b e g a n , the j u d g m e n t a l attitude o f bilinguals towards the translation o f the T o r a h m a y b e a reflection n o t o n l y o f the effort required to speak a n d write b o t h l a n g u a g e s ,

43

but also o f the

p e r m a n e n t dissonance felt b y bilinguals b e t w e e n the t w o languages they k n o w a n d the t w o cultures these languages represent.

Under

those circumstances, o n e , w h o has l a b o r e d to o v e r c o m e that hurdle a n d successfully internalized that recognition, m a y b e especially crit­ ical o f those less effective at the e n d e a v o r , truly at h o m e in neither linguistic n o r cultural c o n t e x t .

44

In this sense, the attitude o f bilin­

guals towards the G r e e k version o f the T o r a h m a y b e o n e indica­ tion ( a m o n g o t h e r s )

45

o f the awkwardness they felt in sitting at

the

m e e t i n g p o i n t o f cultures.

4 3

See Josephus's comments o n his labors to learn Greek, marred at least in part when speaking Greek by his inability to overcome the accent associated with the language o f his youth, AJ 20.263. Anderson, Imagined Communities, 92~93, quotes Bipin Chandra Pal describing the pain o f a native Indian educated in English in India and England, w h o was "as much a stranger in his o w n native land as the European residents." O n the anomie experienced by bilinguals, their sense o f not really belonging to one world or the other, see also Hoffmann, Introduction, 146-148. See, for example, Josephus's awkward silence concerning Jewish hopes o f national redemption as expressed in the b o o k o f Daniel, AJ 10.210. Compare, also, the delicate balance o f polemic and apologetic in Josephus's treatment o f the fail­ ure o f Greek historians to mention the Jews, a major theme o f AgAp. 4 4

4 5

3

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION. GREEK WORDS F O R J E W I S H C O N C E P T S IN P H I L O NAOMI

G.

COHEN

W e are gathered today to discuss aspects o f the p h e n o m e n o n o f the straddling o f Jewish a n d G r e e k cultures in Hellenistic Jewish litera­ ture. I intend to deal with a very small aspect o f this—with s o m e G r e e k w o r d s ; a n d m o r e specifically, first, how certain w o r d s acquired idiosyncratic connotations in Hellenistic Jewish literature, a n d s e c o n d , what the details o f their m e t a m o r p h o s i s indicate respecting ideational and cultural developments in Hellenistic Judaism. I k n o w that this is a tall order, but all I wish to d o t o d a y is to present a m e t h o d o l o g y — replete with the appropriate examples, for the p r o o f is in the details. It is almost redundant to state that Philo was a religious thinker. W h a t e v e r else he m a y have b e e n , he in any event was eminently that. But what is rarely c o n s i d e r e d is the n o less o b v i o u s fact that w h e n he discoursed a b o u t matters o f religion it was n o t "religion in general" that he was thinking about, but m o r e particularly, religion as he c o n c e i v e d it to b e , in terms o f his o w n , the Jewish

tradition;

a n d the m o s t basic stage in w h i c h this is reflected is v o c a b u l a r y . W h i l e the writings o f any great thinker take o n a life o f their o w n w h i c h often goes b e y o n d the c o n c e r n s and the c o n s c i o u s intention o f their author, a n d in the final analysis the lasting significance o f their w o r k lies in this latter message, at the same time an i m p o r ­ tant d i m e n s i o n o f their writings is missed unless their w o r d s are also read in the same semantic field in w h i c h they were written;

and

respecting Philo, I a m c o n v i n c e d that this is the indispensable master key to understanding his writings as his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s read them. W h e n reading his w o r k , it is important to bear in m i n d that a significant n u m b e r o f w o r d s w h o s e connotation, w h e n they were used b y J e w s in Jewish contexts t o o k o n a specifically Jewish

meaning,

w h i c h t h o u g h related to their general c o n n o t a t i o n , is n o t the same. I h o p e to s h o w that Philo f o u n d m u c h o f what I shall henceforth term the " J u d e o - G r e e k " v o c a b u l a r y ready to hand, a n d that in the

32

NAOMI

G. COHEN

appropriate contexts these w o r d s were automatically understood with­ o u t further a d o b y the c o m m u n i t y o f users in their specific "JudeoG r e e k " c o n n o t a t i o n — a t the same time without losing sight o f the fact that this did not replace their general c o n n o t a t i o n . T o q u o t e G . W . H . L a m p e ' s statement respecting the connotation o f G r e e k words in patristic writings, in the introduction to his A Patristic Greek Lexicon, "It m u s t . . . o n n o a c c o u n t b e s u p p o s e d that the ordinary senses o f such a w o r d are a b s e n t . . . and have b e e n replaced b y a n o t h e r . . . the c o r r e s p o n d i n g entry in L i d d e l a n d

S c o t t is, as it w e r e , taken as

1

read . . Z ' T h i s is exactly what I have in m i n d respecting the "JudeoG r e e k " w o r d s n o w to b e discussed. D a v i d R u n i a , in his recent b o o k , Philo in Early Christian Literature, has n o t e d a n o t insignificant n u m b e r o f w o r d s w h i c h he calls verba Philonica "that are c o m m o n in Philo but f o u n d n o w h e r e else in p r e Christian G r e e k a n d that are then taken o v e r b y the C h u r c h fathers f r o m their reading o f Philo's w o r k s . "

2

W h i l e this is a related

facet

o f w h a t I intend to discuss here, it is n o t the same thing; for w h a t I h o p e to b e able to s h o w is the c o n v e r s e : that respecting several rather c o m m o n G r e e k words—VOLIOC;, voLioGecria, napadoaiq, 5iKaioaiL)vri, aocpia, a n d Xoyoq—Philo tion ready to h a n d — a n d

86y|ia,

found a Judeo-Greek connota­

these are merely exemplia gratia. A l t h o u g h

this is t o d a y often a c c e p t e d in p r i n c i p l e ,

3

it is still almost

entirely

disregarded in practice in Philonic studies. A

s e c o n d p o i n t w h i c h b e c a m e evident as I p r o c e e d e d , is that

s o m e w h a t later these w o r d s underwent yet another

metamorphosis.

In early Christian writings they w e r e again redefined in a c c o r d with the n e w needs o f Christian

theology, and

since

Hellenistic-Jewish

texts, including Philo, have survived virtually exclusively thanks to their adoptive Christian foster h o m e s , the Christian re-definitions o f the

" J u d e o - G r e e k " terms h a v e

at least until fairly recently

been

a c c e p t e d as their p r i m a r y c o n n o t a t i o n s b y scholars o f these texts. T h i s , I suggest, helps to explain w h y these w o r d s have heretofore so often b e e n misconstrued b y scholars o f Philo. I, for o n e , have f o u n d it fascinating

1

to d i s c o v e r h o w this redefinition

of common

G . W . H . Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961), introduction, vii. David Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature (Minneapolis, 1993), 108. See e.g. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 154: " T h e achievement o f Philo and his predecessors is to create a new language, what [E.F.] Osborn, ("Philo and Clement," Prudentia 19 [1987] 35-49:40), called the 'language o f biblical hellenism.'" 2

3

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION

33

" J u d e o - G r e e k " terms pinpoints s o m e o f the central theological issues in the early days o f Christianity, at the time that it still l o o k e d u p o n itself as a form o f Judaism, and was still d e v e l o p i n g its o w n sepa­ rate identity in terms o f a Jewish frame o f reference. A l r e a d y s o m e fifty years a g o , H a r r y Austryn W o l f s o n , in his m o n ­ umental w o r k , Philo, p o i n t e d to the use o f G r e e k w o r d s in specifically Jewish connotations. H e there n o t e d inter alia, that, In the Greek translation o f the Bible when the translators came to translate the various Hebrew terms for G o d , they did not attempt to coin new Greek terms; they borrowed terms already used in Greek religion. Elohim becomes Qeoq, even though the Greek term had already various connotations in Greek religion. Adonai and Jehovah,.. . (became) Lord (Rupioq), even though in Greek literature that term is used as an epithet o f various gods. Shaddai becomes TtocvxoKpcacop (= Almighty), even though, again, in Greek literature that term is used o f Hermes . . . The expression El Elyon (Gen 14:20; Ps 78:35), the most high G o d , is translated by 6 8eoq 6 vyiGioq, even though in Greek that expression is used o f Zeus . . . 4

A t the same time Wolfson also pointed out that since all the Hellenistic Jewish writers before Philo d e n o u n c e polytheism, its m y t h o l o g y a n d its mysteries, the a d o p t i o n o f an appellation used b y the Greeks for a G r e e k deity did not m e a n religious syncretism, but was only a recourse to the c o n v e n i e n c e o f language. Clearly the t e r m i n o l o g y has not merely been adopted, but also adapted. It has b e e n given an idiosyn­ cratic " J u d e o - G r e e k " c o n n o t a t i o n . A n d as for p e o p l e in general at all times, so t o o , for the G r e e k speaking J e w specific context was the overriding determining factor respecting c o n n o t a t i o n .

JVomos A n e x a m p l e respecting w h i c h there is general consensus is the use o f the G r e e k w o r d v6[ioq as a standard translation for the H e b r e w term T o r a h

(n~lin)

in Hellenistic Jewish literature. It is used regu­

larly in this m a n n e r b y the Septuagint w h o s e cultural frame o f ref­ erence

4

5

was first a n d foremost Jewish a n d b y a n d large

remained

Harry Austryn Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1947), 12—13. At least o f the books o f the Pentateuch which is technically "the" Septuagint proper. 5

34

NAOMI G. COHEN

faithful to its a v o w e d aim o f rendering the biblical text into G r e e k as literally as possible. H e n c e respecting w o r d s w h o s e semantic range is n o t the same in the t w o languages, in the Septuagint it is normally the G r e e k w o r d w h i c h a c q u i r e d the H e b r e w c o n n o t a t i o n rather than the

reverse.

Because o f the popularity o f the Septuagint it c o u l d n o t but h a d a m a r k e d influence o n the dissemination

have

a n d a d o p t i o n o f its

particular " J u d e o - G r e e k " vocabulary. NOJLIO^, the w o r d under present consideration, is an excellent illus­ tration o f this. N o t e that what has c h a n g e d here is n o t the

mean­

ing o f T o r a h , but that o f N6|i.oc; w h i c h in G r e e k means " L a w , " but in " J u d e o - G r e e k " has m e t a m o r p h o s e d to include the entire contents o f the Pentateuch—stories,

poetry, et al. 6

It has b e e n p o i n t e d o u t , that the use o f the w o r d NOUOQ for T o r a h was felicitous because even in the original G r e e k the w o r d already h a d divine associations; a n d this t o o is an important p h e n o m e n o n u n d e r present consideration—that

aspect o f the

o n the w h o l e the

idiosyncratic " J u d e o - G r e e k " c o n n o t a t i o n was a natural outgrowth o f normative G r e e k usage—a conscious or u n c o n s c i o u s adaptation o f a particular facet o f it to the needs of expressing things Jewish in Greek.

No/uoOema A t the same time, side b y side with the Septuagint, a n d n o t entirely d i v o r c e d from it, was another not less important source for "JudeoG r e e k " — t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a Hellenized conceptualization o f J u d a i s m w h i c h expressed itself from within a frame of reference which was primarily Hellenistic rather than Jewish. T h e use o f the w o r d NouoGeam in " J u d e o - G r e e k " m o r e o r less as a s y n o n y m for that facet o f N6|ioc; = T o r a h , w h i c h c o n n o t e s the " M o s a i c C o d e o f L a w , " " T h e Laws o f M o s e s " is a case in point. W h i l e it is not f o u n d at all in the Septuagint

the term is f o u n d in

its general c o n n o t a t i o n as "constitution" in Plato's oeuvre s o m e thirtyfive times and in Aristotle's works fifteen times. Clearly, its use in Philo's writings close to forty times as a n o u n ,

6

See Alan Segal, "Torah and Nomos in Recent Scholarly Discussion," in Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 13 (1984), 1 9 - 2 8 (and repr.: The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity [Atlanta, 1987], 131-145).

35

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION

a n d even m o r e often in v e r b f o r m , o f reference—the o f the Jewish

7

clearly reflects a Hellenized frame

conceptualization o f the T o r a h as the

p e o p l e , a n d it o b v i o u s l y entered the

constitution

"Judeo-Greek"

l e x i c o n in o r d e r to fill the n e e d o f thoroughly H e l l e n i z e d J e w s

to

define their T o r a h in G r e e k p h i l o s o p h i c t e r m i n o l o g y . I n d e e d its p r i m a r y locus in surviving Hellenistic-Jewish other than Philo is in highly H e l l e n i z e d contexts. It refers

writings to

the

T o r a h in 2 M a c e 6:23, w h i c h recounts the story o f the o l d priest Eleazar's h e r o i c fortitude during the religious persecution w h i c h trig­ g e r e d the M a c c a b e a n revolt, a n d it is also f o u n d in the very simi­ lar a c c o u n t in 4 M a c e 5:35 and id. 1 7 : 1 6 .

8

I hardly n e e d

remind

the reader that b o t h o f these are highly H e l l e n i z e d c o m p o s i t i o n s — the first a p p e a r a n c e

o f the terms IcmSaiauoc; and 'EAAnvicyuxx; is in

2 M a c e , while p o p u l a r Mace. The

Hellenistic p h i l o s o p h y is a hallmark o f 4

same is true for the writings

f o u n d four times. T w o o f these, Ant. exchanges between Demetrius

P t o l e m y Philadelphus

respecting

o f Josephus

12.36 a n d id. and

w h e r e it is 110 refer

to

his c h i e f librarian

the p r o p o s e d translation o f the

Bible,

9

and

C. Ap. 2.170 is a brief for Judaism in a Hellenistic frame o f reference. M i g h t I conjecture in passing that its rarity in the N e w T e s t a m e n t

10

11

should b e explained n o t o n l y b e c a u s e b y a n d large the audiences to w h i c h the N T b o o k s w e r e addressed,

e v e n w h e n they w e r e

speaking, w e r e for the m o s t part n o t philosophically

Greek

sophisticated.

P r o b a b l y at least as i m p o r t a n t is the fact that the authors o f the N T h a d n o desire to e n h a n c e the value o f the T o r a h in the hearts o f their readers. O n the contrary, m o r e often than not, w h e n the T o r a h is m e n t i o n e d , the context is o n e o f rejection.

7

A n d even more often yet as vouo9eTr)<; to refer to Moses the Lawgiver. In 2 Mace 6:23 the Torah is referred to as xfjq a^iac, Kod GeoKuaxoi) vouoGeoioti;, in 4 M a c e 5:35 as vouoGecuocc;, and id. in 17:16 as xr\c, Geiocq vo(xo08oiaq. T h e same is the case in Aristeas 30 and in id. 3 1 2 - 3 1 3 where, like here, the context is an exchange between Demetrius and Ptolemy respecting the proposed translation; and this is all the m o r e significant in light o f the fact that the author seems to have been sensitive to the different nuance o f the Greek words v6|j.o<; and vouoGecnoc, for in Aristeas 45 where it is the High Priest Eleazar w h o is represented as speaking, the term used to refer to the Torah as a whole is Nou.oq: f] TOU ayiox) vouou u£Taypa(pr|, and similarly vouo<; is also used in id. 3 0 9 - 3 1 0 , where again the speaker is the Jewish community and their leaders. 8

9

1 0

A n d the remaining instance, Ant. 6.93, is a stylized passage where the locu­ tion TO Getov rather than 6 Geoq is used. Romans 9:4 has vouoGeaiot, while in James 4:12 the vo|a.o0£Tnc; is actually G o d . 11

36

NAOMI G . COHEN Be that as it m a y , in any event, o n c e the term entered the "Judeo-

G r e e k " l e x i c o n it apparently b e c a m e t h o r o u g h l y naturalized

as a

" J u d e o - G r e e k " term, a n d apparently filled a real need, for the term vouoGecria = T o r a h is c o m m o n in L a m p e ' s Patristic Greek

Tlapddooig

2

Lexicon}

(Paradosis)

A n o t h e r J u d e o - G r e e k term v e r y i m p o r t a n t

to the d e s c r i p t i o n o f

J u d a i s m is Paradosis. A l t h o u g h in the rare instances w h e r e it appears in the Septuagint it means, "to b e b r o u g h t into captivity," in other Hellenistic-Jewish sources its m e a n i n g is a function o f the w o r d ' s m o s t c o m m o n G r e e k c o n n o t a t i o n , "a h a n d i n g d o w n , transmission." A . I . Baumgarten, in his " T h e Pharisaic P a r a d o s i s "

14

13

writes that "the

use o f Paradosis across independent sources indicates that we are deal­ ing with a technical term that refers to the regulations observed by the Pharisees but not written in the law of Moses." W h i l e this statement is o f course true, it is t o o narrow, for although the Pharisaic tradition was indeed referred to as Paradosis, the Paradosis was not a Pharisaic m o n o p o l y . A s Sanders, Schiffman, a n d

others

have p o i n t e d out, there was a b r o a d area o f consensus a m o n g the p e o p l e respecting the "ancestral traditions,"

15

a n d this w o r d clearly

refers to that b o d y o f traditional practices c o m m o n to the rank a n d file o f J e w s c o m m i t t e d to Judaism. In b o t h M a t t h e w 15:2 and M a r k 7:3, although it is the Pharisees w h o fault the early Christians for not observing a c o m m a n d m e n t defined as b e l o n g i n g to the Paradosis, specifically, the ritual washing o f hands before eating, it is evident from the context that this c o m -

12

Those instances of the over 600 times of its occurrence in TLG which I checked, belong to writings later than Philo and bore this Judeo-Greek connotation. W . Bacher, Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Palastinas und Babyloniens (Leipzig, 1914), 3, associates this with the Hebrew miDO. A.I. Baumgarten, " T h e Pharisaic Paradosis," HTR 8 0 / 1 (1987), 63-77:66. See also before him, e.g. Friedrich Buechsel ThDNT 2 (1964), 172, s.v. llapdSocuc;; J.M. Baumgarten, " T h e Unwritten Law in the Pre-Rabbinic Period," JSJ 3 (1972), 7-29, particularly 12-16, 27; and recently S. Mason, Flavins Josephus on the Pharisees (Leiden, 1991), 2 3 0 - 5 , 289-293. See e.g. Lawrence Schiffman, "Qumran and Rabbinic Halakha," in S. Talmon, ed., Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (Sheffield, 1991), 139, and simi­ larly E.P. Sanders Judaism, Practice and i M g f (Philadelphia, 1992), 48, 4 5 0 - 4 5 1 , 465, and passim. 13

14

15

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION

mandment

( o f the

Paradosis) is n o t v i e w e d

e v e n b y these early Christians,

37

as exclusively Pharisaic

for w e r e a d in M a r k 7:3:

(3) The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition [= Paradosis] o f the elders (KpocTotivxec; Since

"all

the J e w s "

TT|V

are

7tapd8oaiv xcbv

here

npec^vxepmv).

mentioned

side b y side w i t h

"the

Pharisees" they are o b v i o u s l y n o t identical with t h e m . In a like m a n ­ ner,

Matt

Pharisees ypa\i[iaxeiq)

1 5 : 1 - 6 opens with and teachers and

o f the

the

statement

that,

"Some

o f the

L a w c a m e to J e s u s " ( O a p i a a i o i

the prescriptions

m e n t i o n e d there, the

KOCI

injunctions

to w a s h the h a n d s b e f o r e eating, a n d o n e o f the traditional details o f the laws o f oaths a n d c o n s e c r a t i o n s , are o f c o u r s e not biblical. T h e s e prescriptions as well as others w h i c h are i n v e i g h e d against elsewhere in the N e w T e s t a m e n t b e l o n g to the c a t e g o r y o f "ancestral customs o f the So

elders." t o o , in

16

all three

Paradosis (riapd8ocn<;)

17

o f the

instances

in w h i c h the

is f o u n d in J o s e p h u s

that it refers to the ancestral traditions. Ant. itly refer Pharisees,

to the and

traditional practices

the

use

o f the

term

1 8

the

noun

context

13.297 a n d 4 0 8 explic­

considered obligatory b y in Ant.

form

indicates

10.51 is

the

anachronistic

which makes this instance o f the terminus technicus all the m o r e significant.

16

Gal 1:14 uses the idiomatic term xoov rcaxpiiccov \x,ox> 7iapa86oecov, to refer to the commandments, both o f biblical and o f non-biblical origin, whose fulfillment Jews considered to be mandatory. Even the somewhat paradoxical use o f the verb form (7iape5coKa) in 1 C o r 15:3-5, in connection with the core o f Christian belief, may very possibly also reflect an attitude towards Paradosis which the author wished to transfer to the Christian framework. Josephus does not use the verb form napaSiScoai in a specifically "Jewish" connotation. Mason found some 238 instances o f the verb form in Josephus' writ­ ings in a variety o f connotations, o f which only approximately fifteen have the meaning "to pass o n a tradition," and six or seven o f these latter have nothing to do with Jewish nomoi [Mason, Josephus, 2 3 4 ] . I therefore think we can safely follow his conclusion that the verb form 7tapa8i8oo(i.i did not usually take o n the JudeoGreek connotation exhibited b y riapd8(ooi<; [Paradosis)—even though it too is used where Josephus refers to the transmission o f Jewish laws. 17

1 8

V i z . Ant. X 5 1 , xfj xcbv TtpEoBwepoov neiGop-evoq. . . napa86a£i; Ant. 13.297 t d 8' EK 7tapa86aecoi; xcov rcaxepcov |xf| xnpeiv; AJ 13.408 K a x d xf|V rcaxpcpav rcapdSoaiv. All o f them are found in those parts o f the Antiquities where Greek helpers are not in evidence. For methodological considerations in evaluating the connota­ tion o f this term in Josephus' writings, see m y Philo Judaeus, endnote M : IlapdSooic; in Josephus—Methodological Problems, as well as my article 'Josephus and Scripture," JQR 5 4 / 4 (1964), 3 1 1 - 3 3 2 .

38

NAOMI G. COHEN

*

Philo uses this technical term t w i c e .

19

In Ebr. 120, there is a midrashic

play o n the w o r d s o f the Septuagint text in G e n 27:20, b y means o f w h i c h he asserts that G o d ' s revelation is a shortcut to the attain­ m e n t o f virtue. (120) Thus (Isaac) asks "what is this which thou hast found quickly, my son?" marvelling at the speed with which the virtuous disposition has been attained. The receiver o f God's benefit answered rightly, "it is what the Lord G o d delivered (rcocpeScoKEv) to m e " (Gen 27:20). For paradoseis and instructions (7tapoc56rj£i<; y a p icai u<pr|yr|o-£i) when they come through human channels are slow, but those that come through God are exceeding swift outrunning even the swiftest movement o f time. 20

The

v e r b rcapeScoicev (Paredoken) f o u n d here in the Septuagint to G e n

27:20: o 7tape8coKev ie6pio<; 6 0e6<; aou means delivered, while rcapdSoaeic; (paradoseis) are what are delivered, w h i c h in this context c o u l d hardly m e a n anything else but traditions. T h e midrashic play o n w o r d s thus has the Patriarch J a c o b declare that the divinely imparted "traditions a n d instructions" (7tapa86o£i<; ydp m i u
* The

other Philonic passage w h i c h uses the w o r d napadociq,

Leg.

4 . 1 4 9 - 1 5 0 . Philo here argues that "the ancestral customs (eOn

is Spec.

rcoVcpia) . . . are not to b e despised because their transmission is with­ out written r e c o r d (dypacpo^ awcov f| rcapdSoan;)." A s I have already

19

In order to avoid misunderstanding let me state at the outset that I am only too aware that the exact relationship between what Philo terms "ancient" or "unwritten" traditions, "traditions o f the fathers" (7capd8oai<; xcov Ttaxepoov) et. sim., and what are called "rabbinic regulations" in traditional halakhic terminology is a thorny question and it is doubtful whether this relationship is susceptible to an entirely definitive treatment in the present state o f our knowledge. T h e matter is discussed at length in Cohen, Philo Judaeus, chs. 9 and 10, 2 4 2 - 2 8 7 : 2 5 0 - 2 8 6 , and endnote N , 3 1 5 - 3 1 9 . 2 0

T h e Greek w o r d {)(priyr|0£i<; is found neither in the Septuagint nor in the N T . A study o f Philo's use o f it justifies its being rendered as "instructions"; cf. Spec. Leg. II 256, III 125, I V 1 4 0 - 1 4 1 , 218 and Virt. 15, 141.

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION p o i n t e d o u t at length in m y b o o k ,

2 1

39

the passage contains

several

terms w h i c h together f o r m a mutually explanatory unit. Section 149 uses the midrashic interpretation o f D e u t 19:14 famil­ iar to m a n y o f us from rabbinic midrash, w h i c h e x p o u n d s this verse as referring

to the b i n d i n g status o f "the

ancient

c u s t o m s " (xcov

dpxcucov eGcov): 2 2

[ l ] (149) Another commandment o f general value is, " T h o u shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmarks which thy fathers have set up (Deut 19:14)." N o w this law, we may consider, applies not merely to allot­ ments and boundaries o f land in order to eliminate covetousness but also to the preservation o f the ancient customs (xcov dpxoucov eOcov). 23

Philo quotes D e u t 9:14 here it in the same m a n n e r in the

a n d in Post.

Caini 8 9 ,

2 4

expounding

in b o t h places, and the verse is also used

s a m e c o n n o t a t i o n in the

Damascus Document—e.g.

1.16

a n d 5.20. In Spec. 4.149 the "ancient customs"

(TCGV

dpxaicov eGcov) are equated

by Philo in the i m m e d i a t e continuation with (dypcxcpoi vouoi) "unwrit­ ten laws", for section 149 continues immediately: [2] (149 cont'd) For customs are unwritten laws (dypacpoi vojxoi), the decisions approved by men o f old (Soyuaxa rcaAmcov dv5pcov) not inscribed on monuments nor on leaves o f paper which the moth destroys, but on the souls o f those who are partners in the same cit­ izenship (xfjc; atjxfjq rcoXvieia*;). 25

[3] (150) For children ought to inherit from their parents, besides their property, ancestral customs (e0r) rcdxpux) in which they were reared and have lived even from the cradle, and not despise them because they have been handed down without written record (dypacpo<; awcov f) 7tapd5oai<;).

21

Philo Judaeus, His Universe of Discourse (Frankfurt, 1995), 250ff. T h e numbers in square brackets accompanying the quotations in this chapter [1] [2] etc. are brought to facilitate reference in the ensuing discussion. As Wolfson, et al. have pointed out, in rabbinic sources there is frequently a conflation o f this verse with Prov 22:28. For this tendency see Richard T . White, "The House o f Peleg in the DSS," in Philip R . Davies and Richard T . White, eds., A Tribute to Geza Vermes, Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History (JSOT 100; Sheffield, 1990) 92, n. 42. M T WTHXT] t>2) im, but L X X : d eoxnaav o( naxepeq GOV, which is the reading in both M T and the L X X in Prov 22:28 TOJJ junk ( L X X renders M T Prov = M T o( naxipec, GOV). See below in the context o f the discussion o f the word Xoyoq. LSJ, s.v. noXmia—"citizenship, daily life o f a citizen, body o f citizens, con­ stitution o f a state." 22

23

24

25

40

N A O M I G. C O H E N

F o l l o w i n g is a list o f the expressions used here as c o r r e s p o n d i n g terms, without Philo finding it necessary to explain this correspondence. xcov dpxocicov £0cov are o f course £0r|; £0r| = dypacpoi V O U C H ; dypacpoi v6(xoi = 86y|j.axa nahxiGiv dvSpcov . . . xr\q av)xf|<; noXixeiaq 86yuaxa rca^aicov dv8pcov . . . xfj<; ax)xr\c, Tio^iXEiac; — £0r| Jtdxpia £0r| ndxpia = dypacpoc; auxcov f| 7rapd8oai<; llapa56aei(; a n d Soyuocxoc (to w h i c h I shall turn next) are terms w h i c h refer to that b o d y o f traditional practices w h i c h w e r e c o n s i d e r e d obligatory b y the rank and file o f c o m m i t t e d Jews (including o f course the Pharisees, but n o t t h e m exclusively) a n d w h i c h were eventually i n c o r p o r a t e d into the halakhic c o m p o s i t i o n s o f the Oral Law. In paragraph [3] the "ancestral customs (e0n 7r.dxpioc)" are described as having b e e n " h a n d e d d o w n without written r e c o r d (dypacpoc, auxcov f| rcapdSocic;)." T h e s e are "the ancient c u s t o m s " (xcov dp%cucov e6cov) m e n t i o n e d in p a r a g r a p h

[ 1 ] , a n d d e s c r i b e d in p a r a g r a p h

[2] as

dypacpoi vouoi = "unwritten laws,'" which are 56y|a.axa rcaAoucov dvSpoov . . . vr\q avxr\q 7toA-ixeia<; = "the decisions a p p r o v e d b y m e n o f o l d . "

Soyfia ( d o g m a ) T h e c o n n o t a t i o n o f the w o r d 86yucx (dogma) in Philo is almost uni­ versally misunderstood, because o f the m e a n i n g it acquired in patris­ tic literature where it c a m e to signify primarily articles o f faith. W h i l e this is the m e a n i n g w h i c h b e c a m e the standard a n d virtually exclu­ sive c o n n o t a t i o n o f the w o r d in m o d e r n E u r o p e a n languages as well as in m o d e r n H e b r e w , in the ancient w o r l d , dogmata w e r e not pri­ marily articles o f faith, but "rules," or "decisions o f recognized author­ ities," w h o e v e r in the particular context they m a y have b e e n . B o t h meanings o f the w o r d dogma are well r o o t e d in classic a n d Hellenistic G r e e k usage, but in Philo the juridical aspect o f the term, w h i c h spelled out what must b e "done," is the d o m i n a n t

meaning.

Since in the context o f the discussion o f the w o r d TCapdSoaic; (in Spec. 4.149) I have b r o u g h t an e x a m p l e o f Philo's use o f the w o r d Soyjiia, a n d I shall also return to Philo's use o f this w o r d shortly in c o n j u n c t i o n with the discussion o f the w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n A-oyoov KCCI Soyuaxcov, at this point I shall confine myself to its usage elsewhere. A T L G search indicates that the w o r d 86y|ia is f o u n d in Plato

41

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION

forty-one times, a n d fourteen times in Aristotle. II

26

Aristotle's Politics

1269a8 contains m a n y o f the terms found in Philo's Spec. Leg.

4.149-150.

2 7

I n d e e d it is, so to speak, its mirror i m a g e , negative val­

ues b e i n g assigned to the very terms w h i c h in the section from Philo just q u o t e d , Philo has given a positive valence. Aristotie's Politics II 1269a reads: And in general all men really seek what is good, not what was cus­ tomary with their forefathers (ov TO rcdxpiov); and it is probable that primitive mankind . . . were just ordinary foolish people . . . so that it would be absurd for us to abide by their rules (ev idiq TOUTGOV Soyuetcw). Moreover even written codes o f law (xoix; yeypaixuevoxx;) may with advantage not be left unaltered. A s for Plato, although Plato's Republic 5 3 8 c , and his Laws 6 4 4 d are cited b y Liddel a n d Scott in illustration o f the c o n n o t a t i o n : "that which seems to one, opinion or belief" in actual fact this is not their m e a n ­ ing in these passages. A reading o f the G r e e k text shows that the dogmata referred to are, like for Philo, "rules" o r m o r e exactly, "tradi­ tional rules of conduct" w h i c h P l a t o — a n d Philo in his w a k e — c o n s i d e r to b e normative. W e read in Republic 5 3 8 c :

28

29

You know that there are certain rules (86y|iaxa) about the right and the seemly (Ttepi 8IKOUCOV KCCI KCCA,COV) which were taught us in child­ hood, and under their parental authority we have been brought up, obeying and honouring them. 30

There are also opposite habits (erciTriSe-uuma) o f pleasure which flatter and attract the soul, but do not influence those o f us who have any sense o f right, and continue to honour these ancestral traditions (xd rcdxpux) and obey them. 31

T h e dogmata, w h i c h here t o o are termed "ancestral traditions" (xd rcdxpioc), must m e a n "rules," for they are to b e "obeyed" (7cei0ap%ouaiv)

2 6

I have not checked out its connotation in each instance because my aim n o w is merely to show that this was a connotation found in their writings. Quoted above in the context o f the discussion o f 7iocpd8oai<;. O u r rendition is a retranslation o f the Greek, based upon but not slavishly adhering to that o f B. Jowett, The Dialogues of Plato, 2 vols. (1892, repr. with intro­ duction, N e w York, 1937). Jowett, here, vol. I, 798, has "principles." Jowett: here, ibid., "justice and honour." Greek: aXk' E K e w a xiucocu xd rcdxpia KOU E K E I V O K ; rceiGapxovaiv. Jowett's ren­ dition: "and they continue to obey and honour the maxims o f their fathers." 2 7

2 8

2 9

3 0

3 1

NAOMI G . COHEN

42

a n d o b e d i e n c e refers to actions, n o t to thoughts; a n d n o t e that that their opposite are called "habits" (£7mn8euucxTa)—also an activity, n o t an i d e o l o g y . In Plato's Laws 6 4 4 d also, the dogmata refer to rules of conduct. It is even explicidy stated that w h e n they are e m b o d i e d in a decree (86yu,a) b y the State, they are called L a w (vouoc,). . . . there is reflection about the good or evil o f them (viz.—the above mentioned things), and this, when embodied in a decree (86yu.oc) by the State, is called Law ( K O W O V v6|0.o<; erccovouacrcai). T h e w o r d S6yu.cc hardly

ever appears in the

Septuagint,

the

clear instances b e i n g in the b o o k o f Esther (twice) a n d in the half o f the b o o k o f Daniel, w h e r e it is quite c o m m o n .

3 2

only first

In these pas­

sages it translates either the Persian loan w o r d m (Dai) o r its A r a m a i c equivalent DWD (Te'em) b o t h o f w h i c h m e a n "regulation, statute, decree, ordinance."

33

N e e d I r e m i n d the reader that this Persian l o a n w o r d c a m e to b e used in rabbinic H e b r e w for Jewish law, w h e r e Dot Moshe c a m e to m e a n "Biblical L a w , " and Dot Tehudit and also Dot Tisra'el is used to refer to "Jewish c u s t o m o r rabbinic l a w " ? F o r e x a m p l e , in rabbinic literature Dat Moshe ve'Tehudit refers to the traditionally b e h a v i o r o f married w o m e n , a n d rTHTH TWU m

appropriate

mm^n

a wife " w h o transgresses the L a w o f M o s e s a n d Jewish

refers to custom."

34

In B T Megillah 12a the w o r d Dat is q u o t e d f r o m M T Esther 1:8 a n d homiletically e x p o u n d e d as referring to the ordinances o f T o r a h a n d the Septuagint to this verse ( M T Esther 1:8 = L X X 2:8) renders M T Dat

as Nomos—which,

equivalent for T o r a h .

as w e saw a b o v e , is the usual J u d e o - G r e e k 3 5

W e thus find M T Dat r e n d e r e d in the S e p ­

tuagint b o t h as Dogma a n d as Nomos—with

the c o n n o t a t i o n o f Dat

in b o t h contexts b e i n g the same.

3 2

George Morrish, A Concordance of the Septuagint (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, orig. published London, 1887, repr. 1976), lists Esther 4:8, 9:1, and Daniel 2:13; 3:10,12,29; 4:3; 6:8,9,10,12,13,15,26 as well as a v. 1. in Ezek 20:26, which I have not found. T h e M T has either m or DJJB. (There are also two v. I. in Esther 4:8+S#3, 9:1+S#3, and Joseph Ziegler, ed. Ezechiel Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Greacum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis, X V I / 1 , 2, (durchges. Aufl. mit einem Nachtrag, v. D . Fraenkel, Gottingen, 1977), 175, cites 8oy|iaaiv for Ezek 20:26a instead o f Souaaiv ( L u c ) . See: J. Schiipphaus, ???, in G. J. Botterweck and H . Ringgren, eds., ThDOT (trans, o f ThWAT) (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986), vol. Ill, 346-347. See e.g. B T Ketuboth 72a. A n d in B T Sukkah 56b and Pesahim 96a apostasy is called man m . 33

3 4

35

43

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION

It is also clear f r o m the m a n n e r o f its use in J o s e p h u s a n d in the NT

that in " J u d e o - G r e e k " the w o r d Soyucx h a d c o m e to signify the

same thing as the w o r d m

a n d the A r a m a i c DJftD—promulgation, reg­

ulation, decree, ordinance—irrespective is w h a t it m e a n s C. Ap.

o f the source o f authority.

in such c o n t e x t s as J o s e p h u s , Ant.

This

15.136 and

1.42. In Luke 2:1 a n d Acts 17:7 Caesar's decrees are called

xd 56yu.axoc while in Acts 16:4 the Soyuaxa referred to are "the deci­ sions r e a c h e d b y the apostles a n d elders in J e r u s a l e m . "

36

It was natural for Hellenistic Jewish parlance to a d o p t the G r e e k w o r d 56yfxa, w h i c h is a literal translation o f the Persian l o a n w o r d m a n d the A r a m a i c DKD as the G r e e k l o c u t i o n for (traditional Jewish) ordinances. T h e c o n n o t a t i o n a l fit must have a p p e a r e d to t h e m be

to

very close i n d e e d , a n d the literature shows that dogma, dogmata

was used as a G r e e k l o c u t i o n for religious c o m m a n d m e n t s (often but n o t always, those specifically r a b b i n i c ) .

37

It is o n l y in patristic, medieval, a n d later, in m o d e r n writings, that the w o r d dogma c a m e to m e a n "principles," "tenets," o r "the elements o f a doctrinal system" almost exclusively.

38

A n d e v e n in patristic lit­ 39

erature, as e v i d e n c e d b y the entry in L a m p e , Patr. Lex.,

it still s o m e ­

times preserved the c o n n o t a t i o n "precept, o r d i n a n c e " o f M o s a i c L a w .

AiKocioavvri

(Dikaiosyne)

A n o t h e r G r e e k w o r d w h i c h u n d e r w e n t similar m e t a m o r p h o s e s , first into " J u d e o - G r e e k " and then again in the C h u r c h , is AiKaioouvn (Dikaiosyne). Since I have already discussed it at great l e n g t h ,

3 6

40

I shall

T h e remaining two instances in the N e w Testament, i.e. C o l 2:14ff. and Eph 2:15, should also be understood in a similar manner; the dogmata being promul­ gated, here too, by the Jewish (religious) authorities in Jerusalem. A somewhat sim­ ilar suggestion was proposed b y M . Dibelius and H . Greeven, An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon (Tubingen, 1953+3), 3 1 - 3 2 , and this has also been recognized by P.M. O'Cleirigh, " T h e Meaning o f D o g m a in Origen," in: E.P. Sanders, ed., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (London, 1980), 207-210. For a summary o f other explana­ tions, see: Wesley Carr, " T w o Notes on Colossians," JTS N . S. 24 (1973), 4 9 2 - 3 . The oft discussed suggested link between Ephesians and Colossians is irrelevant to our present concerns. For further discussion, see Philo Judaeus, 296-7 = endnote G : T h e term %eip6ypacpov in C o l 2:14. Cf. A Oepke, ThDN7; vol.11 5. v. 56yucc, 2 3 0 - 1 . This is noted by O'Cleirigh, " D o g m a in Origen," 2 0 5 - 6 . In note 40 he also remarks that "the distinction between philosophical and juridical spheres o f mean­ ing in the usage o f dogma is not absolute but oscillates between more and less." Lampe, Patr. Lex., s.v. 56yfitx D 3. See my Philo Judaeus, Chapter V , 106-128, et passim, and before this, in my 37

3 8

39

4 0

44

NAOMI G . C O H E N

n o w merely summarily state m y c o n c l u s i o n : n a m e l y that although Philo sometimes used this G r e e k w o r d to indicate o n e o f the four cardinal G r e e k virtues, he also sometimes used it in its c o n n o t a t i o n — a s a technical term for faithful

Septuagint

a d h e r e n c e to T o r a h

statutes irrespective o f whether they are ethical o r ritual. T h i s is a rendering o f the H e b r e w term np*72S before the c o n n o t a t i o n o f the H e b r e w w o r d c a m e to m e a n "charity" exclusively. E v e n t h o u g h in Christianity

the term

SiKaioauvn u n d e r w e n t

a

metamorphosis from "works" to "faith," and to "justification b y faith" as o p p o s e d to "justification b y w o r k s , " the N T still reflects its ear­ lier J u d e o - G r e e k c o n n o t a t i o n even as it seeks to c h a n g e it. F o r e x a m ­ ple, it is this p o i n t e d c h a n g e in the c o n n o t a t i o n o f the w o r d u n d e r present consideration: SiKaioauvn w h i c h is the major thrust o f R o m 3:21 w h i c h a n n o u n c e s the Pauline o p t i o n o f "righteousness

through

faith." T h e operative w o r d is now. R o m a n s 3:21

reads:

41

(21) B u t now apart f r o m l a w , a righteousness f r o m G o d (%copi<; v o n o u 8iKaioat)vr| 6eot>) has b e e n m a d e k n o w n etc.

In sum: Inner Christian

theological d e v e l o p m e n t s altered the

con­

notations o f b o t h Dogma a n d Dikaiosyne f r o m their normative m e a n ­ ing in 'Judeo-Greek" as a directive respecting "doing" to one respecting "believing"—the same ideological assumptions b e i n g involved in the case o f b o t h w o r d s .

42

Zcxpia (Sophia) and Aoyoq

(Logos)

T h e remaining t w o w o r d s w h i c h I shall discuss are Zoquct (Sophia) a n d Aoyo<; (Logos). It will b e m o s t c o n v e n i e n t to begin with a few remarks a b o u t t h e m together, for scholarship usually associates b o t h o f t h e m with the p h i l o s o p h i c a n d mystic dimension o f Philo's works exclusively, a n d this in spite o f the well k n o w n but mostiy disre­ g a r d e d fact that a m o n g the m a n y connotations o f these w o r d s in

article, " T h e Jewish Dimension o f Philo's Judaism," JJS 3 8 / 2 (1987), particularly 181-185. A n d cf. also Matt 3:15, noted by E.A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (from 146 B.C. to A.D. 1100) (New York, 1887), s.v. SiKaioawn = eK7tA,ripcoai<; xcov evxoXcov. See also, O'Cleirigh, " D o g m a in Origen," 2 0 1 - 2 1 6 . 4 1

4 2

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION

45

Hellenistic Jewish literature, side b y side and often intertwined with their t h e o s o p h i c dimension, they also very often refer to the tents o f the

Philo's c o n c o m i t a n t dimension

43

con­

Torah. use o f these w o r d s in b o t h their

mystical

and to refer to the b o d y o f T o r a h , n e e d n o t surprise us

for as Evelyn Underhill,

a foremost scholar o f Christian mysticism

p o i n t e d out l o n g a g o , it is mistaken to think that the life o f the mys­ tic is necessarily "an o p p o s i t i o n to, a n d an implicit criticism of, the c o r p o r a t e a n d institutional f o r m o f religious l i f e . "

44

A n d in a similar

vein, she writes elsewhere that " N o t h i n g perhaps has so m u c h c o n ­ d u c e d to the

m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . . . o f the mystics as the

tendency

to . . . regard t h e m as the representatives o f a type o f religion hos­ tile to all c e r e m o n i a l w o r s h i p . "

45

R e s p e c t i n g Jewish mysticism in particular, to realize that these are n o t mutually exclusive frames o f reference w e n e e d o n l y recall

the

l o n g list o f halakhic giants o v e r the ages w h o , while they w e r e fully c o m m i t t e d to a life lived in strict a c c o r d with the halakhah, w e r e at the same time also practicing savants in the sphere o f Jewish mys­ tic lore. Several r a n d o m examples o v e r the ages: R a b b i Akiva, the R a m b a n , R a b b i J o s e p h C a r o , the M a h a r a l o f Prague o f Golem fame, and the G a o n o f V i l n a . In the introductory

chapter o f G e r s h o m S c h o l e m ' s classic Major

Trends in Jewish Mysticism,

he writes that:

All Jewish mystics . . . are at one in giving a mystical interpretation to the Torah; it is to be regarded as the living incarnation o f the divine Wisdom . . . It is not merely the historical law o f the Chosen People, although it is that too; it is rather the cosmic law o f the Universe, as God's wisdom conceived it. 46

43

See David Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati, 1985), particularly chapter III; id., Philo o f Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, The Giants and Selections (New York-Toronto, 1981), intro., 35ff.; id., "Was Philo a Mystic?" in: J. Dan and F. Talmage, eds., Studies in Jewish Mysticism (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), 15-41. Winston's approach differs from that o f E.R. Goodenough, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven, 1935). O n the subject o f Philo and mysticism see also: Hans Jonas, Von der Mythologie zur mystischen Philosophic (Gottingen, 1966), and particularly his "The Problem of Knowing G o d in the Thought of Philo o f Alexandria" [in Hebrew], in Commentationes Judaico Hellenisticae in Memoriam Ioannis Lewy (Jerusalem, 1949), 65-84. Evelyn Underhill, The Essentials of Mysticism (New York/London/Toronto, 1920), 26. In her preface to The Mystics of the Church (New York: Schocken, repr., 1964, 1971). Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (London, 1955), 13-14. 44

45

46

46

NAOMI G. COHEN

T h o u g h I very m u c h d o u b t that G e r s h o m S c h o l e m h a d Philo in particular in m i n d , nevertheless, c o u l d this b e any closer to Philo's conception o f Torah

as

Wisdom,

and as the

C o s m i c L a w o f the

Universe?

Zocpia/noDIl/ Torah ( S o p h i a / H o k h m a / T o r a h ) outside of Philo B o t h the G r e e k w o r d ccxpia (Sophia) a n d the H e b r e w w o r d riQDn (Hokhma) have l o n g histories. T h e primary m e a n i n g o f b o t h w o r d s was simply skill in handicraft a n d arts,

47

w h i c h is w h y they c o u l d b e

c o n c e i v e d o f as G o d ' s "craftsman" through w h o s e a g e n c y the w o r l d was created. O v e r a millennium before the flowering o f Hellenistic Judaism,

the idea that W i s d o m was an intermediary

mental in the creation o f the w o r l d was apparently

force instru­ an

axiomatic

facet o f the " w o r l d v i e w " o f the Semitic speaking peoples. It is already attested in ancient Canaanite s o u r c e s , that Proverbs 3:19, 8:22ff., et al. pre-existent

49

48

a n d it is in line with this

describe PIDDn ( L X X : Xoqna) as a

creation o f G o d , instrumental in the creation o f the

w o r l d . H e n c e it should not b e surprising to discover that Alexandrian a n d Palestinian Jewish tradition were at o n e in envisioning

Wisdom

(nQDn/Zcxpicc) b o t h as having a special relation to G o d a n d His cre­ ation, a n d as b e i n g identified with the T o r a h .

5 0

F o l l o w i n g are sev­

eral e x a m p l e s f r o m p r e - P h i l o n i c Hellenistic-Jewish literature w h e r e Zocpia is represented

and

b o t h as a primeval

rabbinic creation

a n d at o n e a n d the same time as a s y n o n y m , o r at the very least as a metaphora, for T o r a h .

For early uses o f noDPT: Exod 35:10, 25; 36:1-2 etc.; for coquet: Homer, II. 15:412; X e n . , Mem. 4.2.33. See e.g. William Foxwell Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore, 1946), 282ff., w h o pointed this out long ago. I have not included e.g. Prov 9:10, J o b 28:28, Ps 111:10 because although they too are in line with this conceptualization they need not necessarily be under­ stood in this manner. See at length: Wolfson, Philo, vol. I, and from a different perspective, Urbach, Sages, Ch. 12, 2 8 6 - 7 , 198-9 and 212-213 (Heb. ed.: 2 5 4 - 5 , and also 175 and 188-9). Although G . Scholem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem, 1974), 9, mentions Prov 8, J o b 28, W i s d o m o f Solomon 7:25, and the Slavonic Enoch in this context, he denies any connection between the Hellenistic and the Palestinian developments, arguing, in m y opinion, less than convincingly, that the former developed "through the influence o f Greek philosophical speculations on the Logos," and the latter inde­ pendently, "through rabbinic exegesis o f the words o f Scripture." 4 7

4 8

4 9

5 0

47

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION

Wisdom of Ben Sira T h e W i s d o m o f B e n Sira, a Palestinian w o r k , written in H e b r e w not very l o n g before the H a s m o n e a n uprising,

51

opens with the categor­

ical statement that Wisdom was created b y G o d before all else, a n d that while it has b e e n v o u c h s a f e d to all, in the f o r m o f c o m m a n d ­ ments it is the special p r o v i n c e o f " t h e m that love H i m . " T h u s in C h a p t e r O n e (1:1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 26) w e read inter alia: (1) All Wisdom cometh from the Lord, And is with Him forever. (4) Before them all, was Wisdom created. . . (8) O n e there is, greatly to be feared, T h e Lord sitting upon His throne; (9) He Himself created her [Wisdom], and . . . poured her out upon all His works; (10) U p o n all flesh in measure, But without measure doth He grant her to them that love him. (26) If thou desire Wisdom, keep the commandments (eTCi0i)ur|0a<; aocpiav 8iaTT|pT|o"ov ivxoXaq) . . . A n o t h e r , even m o r e u n e q u i v o c a l e x a m p l e from B e n Sira is chapter 24 w h e r e Wisdom emerges from the " G o d h e a d , " is diffused through­ out the w o r l d , a n d then b e c o m e s Israel's inheritance: 5 2

(1) Wisdom praiseth herself, and is honoured among her p e o p l e . . . (3) "I came forth from the mouth o f the Most High, and as a mist I cov­ ered the e a r t h . . . (7) With all these (nations) I sought a resting place, (8) Then the Creator o f all things gave me commandment, And He that created me, fixed my dwelling place (for me); And He said: Let thy dwelling place be in Jacob, And in Israel take up thy inheritance" (Cf. M T Deut. 32:9 yi^ni ^nn b*rw ,IDU ' n p ^ n D). 53

54

I

A n d then, immediately after this, the passage continues in verses 9 - 1 1 with the identification o f ante-mundane Wisdom (Eoqua =

ilQDn)

personified, with that w h i c h is Israel's possession: 5 1

Ben-Sira's grandson, w h o translated the b o o k into Greek, gives the date o f his coming to Egypt in the thirty-eighth year o f the reign o f Euergetes, (viz. Euergetes II). Israel is o f course meant. Greek: ev ueaco Xaov ocoTrji;; Heb.: TOP. W i s d o m is here described as emerging from the " G o d h e a d " and being diffused over the earth. This calls to mind the famous rabbinic midrash to the effect that G o d went to each nation and offered it the Torah before the Sinai epiphany, which shows yet once again that in spite o f the late date o f the sources in which they are expressed, the traditions upon which at least some o f the rabbinic midrashim are based are early indeed. See B T Avodah ^ara 2b, Sifre Deut. rtDIDH riND (to Deut 33:1), sect. 343 (395-6), and the many parallels listed there. 5 2

5 3

5 4

NAOMI G. COHEN

48

(9) He created me from the beginning, before the world; the memorial of me shall never cease. (10) . . . Moreover in Zion was I established. (11) In the Holy City likewise He caused me to rest, and in Jerusalem was my authority. A n d finally, verse 23 spells out the equation: Primeval W i s d o m is the " L a w o f M o s e s " : (23) All these things are the book o f the covenant o f G o d Most High (P(P?io<; 5ioc9r|Kn<; 6£ot> byictov), "The Law which Moses commanded, (as) an heritage for the assemblies of Jacob" ( L X X . : v6|xov Bv EVTEIAXXTO i)|xiv Mcoi)0fi<;, KAjipovouiav auvaycoYcat; IC
D e u t 33:4 q u o t e d here is the final verse o f the Pentateuch,

and as

J a c k T . Sanders, in his Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, has noted, "in Ben Sira 2 4 , W i s d o m is not a law giver, but rather is [italics origi­ nal] the law, . . . W i s d o m is b e i n g identified with T o r a h . . . " ,

5 6

and

what is n o less relevant, is the point m a d e already at the beginning o f the twentieth century b y B o x and Oesterley in their note to the edition o f Ben-Sira found in Charles, APOT, that "the w a y in w h i c h this identification is taken for granted

shows that Ben Sira is not

expressing a n e w truth, but o n e which in his time had already b e c o m e generally a c c e p t e d . "

57

Wisdom of Solomon T h e syllogism found in W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n 6 : 1 7 - 1 8 associates Wisdom with "her l a w s " — w h i c h in context points to the Laws o f the T o r a h . T h e passage, w h i c h speaks for itself, reads: (6:17) [Wisdom's, Sophia's] true beginning is desire o f instruction; and the care for instruction is love [of her]; (18) and love [of her] is obser­ vance o f her laws (TT|pr|o~i<; voficov avxr\q); And giving heed to her laws (VOJJXDV) is the possession o f immortality (|3£|3aictxn<; dcpBapaiaq).

Heb.: p " ^ ^ m s "ISO n*7» * » . J.T. Sanders, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom (Chico, Calif., 1983), 49. Another example in Ben Sira o f the association o f Torah and Wisdom is Ben Sira 19:17-24. The list is not exhaustive. See, R.H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1913), 2 volumes, vol. 1, 369, note (by Box and Oesterley) to 15:1. For a survey o f the relationship between " w i s d o m " and " T o r a h " in ancient sources see: M . Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism I (London/Philadelphia, 1974), 160ff., esp. 168. 55

56

57

49

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION

T h e Wisdom of Solomon also uses the w o r d s Aoyoc,

58

a n d Eoqna (Logos,

Sophia) in apposition to e a c h other in 9 : 1 - 2 ; and since the evxoXctiq, w h i c h are m e n t i o n e d there in verse 9, is a terminus technicus for T o r a h c o m m a n d m e n t s in Hellenistic-Jewish p a r l a n c e ,

59

this latter verse also

ascribes knowledge o f T o r a h c o m m a n d m e n t s to p r e m u n d a n e

Wisdom.

T h e relevant verses in the Wisdom of Solomon, chapter nine read: (1) O G o d o f the fathers, and Lord who keepest Thy mercy, W h o madest all things by thy

Word (ev A,6ycp COD);

60

(2) And by Thy Wisdom (xr\ cocpicc GOV) formedest man . . . (9) And with Thee is Wisdom, which knoweth Thy works, and was present when Thou wast making the world (napoDoa ore enoieic, TOV K O O U O V ) ; And which understandeth what is pleasing in Thine eyes, And what is right according to Thy commandments (ev evToXaiq GOV).

Rabbinic Sources Since the date o f the redaction o f rabbinic midrashic

compendia

indicates precious little respecting the antiquity o f any particular tra­ dition,

61

it is certainly n o t amiss to include an illustration from rab­

binic m i d r a s h — o n e o f the m a n y equations o f W i s d o m (riDDn) with Torah

(min).

F o r e x a m p l e , Mekhilta,

Parshat Be'shalakh, Masekhta

d'

Shira ( E x o d 15:16), 9, and parallels, unhesitatingly uses P r o v 8:22 as its p r o o f text for T o r a h ; and this is so in spite o f the fact that the relevant w o r d in the biblical verse is actually Torah

62

(mm).

Wisdom (HQDn)—not

W e read there:

5 8

T h e word will be discussed next. A g o o d illustration o f this is its use in the Jerusalem Synagogue inscription o f Theodotus. See Frey, CIJ II 1404; Lea Roth-Gerson: The Greek Inscriptions from the Synagogues in Eretz-Israel (Jerusalem, 1987), 76-77 [in Hebrew], where it is dated to Herodian times; see also Philo Judaeus, 2 2 1 - 2 . Cf. also the similar personification o f "the all-powerful W o r d " (6 7tavTo8wan.6<; GOV A-oyoq) in id., 18:15. See Philo Judaeus, Chapter T w o , 3 3 - 7 1 . See H.S. Horovitz, ed., Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishma'el, completed by LA. Rabin (Frankfurt, 1931), 148 and notes ad loc. T h e text o f the midrash states: I K I p ] rmmK 5 9

6 0

61

6 2

pD:n hm) ~ D T I n w i

rr 'td pp mnp] rmnn . . . pp A n d see also Gen. Rab. 1,4,8, for Prov 8:22 and id. 10 for Prov 3:19. For additional sources equating the nODPI mentioned in Prov 8:22~3 with Torah, see e.g. Tanhuma, Buber, Gen. 1:1, section 5, and parallels in notes ad l o c ; Tanhuma Numbers 7:1, section 19, and parallels in note 95; and Sifre Deuteronomy (Finkelstein/Horowitz edition), 70, Parshat Ekev (to Deut 11:10) 37, and additional parallels in the notes. A n d see: H . Albeck, Genesis Rabbati (Heb.), (Jerusalem, 1940), endnote, 272-274 (to page 192, n. 17) for the thesis that this equation o f \10DU with Torah was a contributory factor to the

50

NAOMI G. COHEN

Four were called p p (kinyan = possession) . . . the Torah is called p p , as it is said (Prov 8:22) "The Lord possessed me (HQDn = Wisdom), as the begin­ ning of His way" i m i rPBRn rup 'n

77z£ wora? A d / o g (Logos)/ToraA outside of Philo Like £o
Septuagint.

Xoyoq (Logos) in Classic Greek Sources R e g u l a r G r e e k usage at least sometimes used logos as a s y n o n y m for nomos. F o r e x a m p l e , Plato, Laws I V 7 2 3 c 2 - 3 reads: . . . and that throughout the whole of this work o f legislation (vouoO£aioc<;) every single law (pavxbc, xot> Xbyox>) should have a suitable preamble . . . A n d cf. also the var. lect. to nomos in the Pseudo-Platonic Definitiones 4 1 5 b 7: No|io9exT|<; 7ionxf|(;

VOUIGV

(var. lect. Xoyav)

KOCG'

ovq

5ei

7ioA,iTeueo0ai.

In the Septuagint T h e w o r d Xoyoq in L X X E x o d 20:1 and D e u t 9:10, 10:4, refers to the c o m m a n d m e n t s in the D e c a l o g u e , while in E x o d 3 5 : 1 , it means T o r a h c o m m a n d m e n t s in general. S o t o o L X X E x o d 34:28 as well

,

adoption o f the term • QDn = Sages—viz. experts in T o r a h knowledge in rabbinic sources. O n the other hand some rabbinic sources set HQDn and T o r a h as c o n ­ trasting constructs; see for example, Lamentations Rabbah 2:9: "If someone tells you there is wisdom among the gentiles—believe him . . . there is T o r a h among the gen­ tiles—do not believe him, as it is written, 'Her king and her princes are exiled among the nations, the law is no more' (Lam 2:9)." Solomon Buber, Lamentations Rabbah, (Vilna, 1899; Tel-Aviv, 1964), 114.

51

C O N T E X T AND CONNOTATION

as D e u t 31:12, w h i c h latter prescribes the septennial reading o f the Law,

has: "follow carefully all the words o f this L a w (navxaq

Xoyovq

xohq

xov vou,ou xouxoa))." It is obviously not the literal " w o r d s "

w h i c h are indicated, but b y m e t o n y m y , "all the Likewise, L e v 8:36,

63

commandments."

refers to "all the things w h i c h G o d c o m m a n d e d , "

a n d while the few instances f o u n d in N u m b e r s are n o t

relevant,

respecting the b o o k o f D e u t e r o n o m y , in addition to the

instances

just noted, it is w o r t h m e n t i o n i n g D e u t

1:18,

64

12:28,

65

where

the

w o r d Xoyoq means " c o m m a n d m e n t s , " a n d note particularly id. 32:46 ( L X X : rcdvxctc; xovq Xoyovq xovxovq, epov, a ivxeiXeiade Xoyovq xov vo\iov

ovq iyco 8icc|iapxr|po|icu ufxiv cr\\i-

xoiq vioiq ujicov cpuXdooeiv Kai rcoieiv rcdvxac, xovq xovxov;

D'13in

M T : DTT7 DD2 TJJD

rmr\ minn n m ho m rmixh narh

m msn

d d ^ d refers to the " D i v i n e T o r a h c o m m a n d m e n t s . "

bzb

w h e r e t o o it

Aoyoq (Logos) and Zcxpia (Wisdom) = Torah in Philo After this introduction Philo's use o f the w o r d s locpict a n d Aoyoc, n o t only as an appellation for a property o f G o d , a pre-mundane Divinely created i n c o r p o r e a l b e i n g i m m a n e n t in the w o r l d , but also for the T o r a h , the Law(s) o f M o s e s follows naturally. W h i l e this is n o t an entirely n o v e l insight, it is all t o o rarely taken into

consideration

w h e n reading Philo's works.

Aoyoq

(Logos)

Following are s o m e examples o f Philo's use o f the w o r d Aoyoc; (Logos) as a s y n o n y m for T o r a h , a n d T o r a h C o m m a n d m e n t s . First, note passages such as the following which refer specifically to the D e c a l o g u e . T h u s Dec. 32 states: The (xobq

63

ten w o r d s (A-oyoi) o r oracles, in reality laws o r statutes . . . 8eK0c

Xoyovq r\ x p r i a n o t x ; ,

vououi;

il

Oeaumx;

7ip6<;

&Ar|0Eiav

ovxac,)

This is the only instance o f this word in the entire book o f Leviticus. L X X : K a i ivxeikd\n\v b[iiv . . . navxac, xohc, Xoyovq, ovq rcovfioxTe; M T : m^KT \msn im unarm tail...nam L X X : cpi)Xdoaco K a i CXKOUE K a i 7tovr|G£i<; 7tdvTa<; xovq Xoyovq, ovq eycb evxiXXou a i CTOI; M T : -pxo OS* T D » H^KH DH3T1 ta riK nPOttfl I D © Note the addition o f 7covf|0"£K; in the L X X rendition. 64

65

52

NAOMI G . C O H E N

A n d similarly, Quis Heres 167—8 reads: (167) Again are not the slabs of the ten general laws (voucov) which he calls tables . . . cut by the Divine Legislator . . . (168) Further the ten words on them, divine ordinances (5eKa A,6ycov, oi icopicoc; eioi Geauoi) . . . Following are t w o m o r e examples, a m o n g m a n y , in w h i c h the plural form ^oyoi (logoi) refers to biblical c o m m a n d m e n t s . Post Caini 89 reads: (89) These boundaries were fixed not by the creation to which we belong but by sacred commandments (A,6yoi K a i Geioi) which are older than us and all that is mundane. For the Torah (6 v6uo<;) has made this clear where it solemnly enjoins upon each one o f us not to adul­ terate the coinage o f virtue (TO dpeTfjc; vouiaua), using these words: "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's boundaries, which thy fathers set up" (Deut 1 9 : 1 4 ) . . . 66

Nomos here is o f course T o r a h , a n d as I have already n o t e d a b o v e w h e n discussing the w o r d Paradosis, Philo uses D e u t 19:14 b o t h here a n d in Spec. 4 . 1 4 9 in the same m a n n e r as is standard in rabbinic sources a n d in the D a m a s c u s D o c u m e n t (e.g. 1.16 a n d 5.20): as a biblical " p r o o f text" for the c o m m a n d m e n t to preserve the ancient Jewish traditions. T h e context points to the w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n Xoyoi Kai Geioi b e i n g a hendiadys — "sacred c o m m a n d m e n t s . " Similarly Fuga 2 0 0 reads: (200) In the next place they dig, not as did the wise Abraham and Isaac, wells (Gen 21:30, 26:18), deep sources o f (Torah) Knowledge (£maTt||j,r|) from which draughts of commandments (AxSyoix;) are drawn . . . " W a t e r " as a m e t a p h o r for T o r a h is a c o m m o n i m a g e in Philo, a n d in this he is at o n e with b o t h rabbinic midrash a n d the D a m a s c u s D o c u m e n t (3.15-16 and 6.2-10).

67

The singular form of the word Aoyoq (Logos) in Philo Before p r o c e e d i n g , a w o r d c o n c e r n i n g the singular form: Aoyoc;. Is the singular f o r m also used as a locution for T o r a h ?

6 6

6 8

T h e question,

Literally, "commandments and sacred" or "words and Divine." For a fuller discussion o f "water" as a metaphor in Jewish tradition, see Philo Judaeus, 163-164, 2 1 4 - 2 1 5 and n. 29. This question was raised by David Runia in the discussion period following my lecture at the conference. 6 7

6 8

53

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION

w h i c h was raised in the discussion p e r i o d following m y lecture

at

the c o n f e r e n c e , is i m p o r t a n t , b e c a u s e i f o n l y the plural f o r m is f o u n d — v i z . Aoyoi for the C o m m a n d m e n t s — t h e n

the singular f o r m

w o u l d still b e understood exclusively in its t h e o l o g i c a l / p h i l o s o p h i c a l connotation. I have therefore studied it carefully and c a n categori­ cally state that the singular form Aoyoc;, b o t h with a descriptive adjec­ tive as well as b y itself, is also used as a c o m m o n e n o u g h r e c o g n i z e d term for the T h e term

and

Torah.

lepoc, A,6yo<; (Hieros Logos)—viz.

the singular f o r m Aoyoc;

with the defining adjective Tepoc; = " H o l y " is f o u n d in Philo's works a b o u t forty times in the connotation: H o l y T o r a h o r H o l y Scripture. Following are two instances in illustration, o n e from the Leg. AIL, and the other from Spec.—highly

69

different portions o f Philo's oeuvre.

Leg. All. 3.11 states: For the Sacred W o r d [= Torah] (6 iepoc; Xoyoq) enjoins that at three seasons o f the year every male is to show himself before the Lord the God o f Israel (icopun) xot» Geoft 'IcpocriA.) [Deut 16:16]. I begin the s e c o n d quotation from Spec. 1.215 with the o p e n i n g o f section 2 1 4 , o f w h i c h it is a direct continuation. T h e T o r a h is first referred to b y the phrase lepaic; ypacpaic;, and then in section 2 1 5 , the same biblical passage referred to is called 6 iepoc; A,6yoc,. Philo states in Spec. 1 . 2 1 4 - 2 1 5 : (214) And I expect the same question will present itself to not a few of those who read the Holy Scriptures [= Torah] (iepouc; ypoccpocic;) with their understanding . . . (215) The Sacred W o r d [= Torah] (6 iepoc; Xoyoq) therefore, thought good that the altar of G o d . . . To

c o m p l e t e the picture I also quote the following instance

where

the singular f o r m Aoyoc; alone, without any defining adjective, is used as a term for T o r a h . Spec. 4 . 1 3 0 states: (130) . . . the place also received its name from the disaster which befell them, for it was called "Monuments o f Lust" ( M T : nWTf m~Qp)— lust than which no greater evil can exist in the soul, as the Logos (6 Aoyoc;) [= the Torah] teaches us.

6 9

While I have looked up only about half o f them, I found no exceptions. Following is the listing I received from TLG: AL (= Leg. AIL) 1.76; 2.105; 3.11, 36, 110, 118, 162; Sacr. 55,72; Post. 153; Plant. 94; Ebr. 95, 143; Migr. 17, 85, 90; Her. 95, 185, 207, 259; Congr. 78, 85, 108; Fug. 196; Mut. 215; Somn. 1.53, 81, 141, 191, 206, 226, 229, 245; 2.23, 64, 272; Abr. 47,71, 206; Spec. 1.215; 2.23, 80.

54

NAOMI G . C O H E N

(. . . cbq Kai TO %copiov anb Tot> rcepi auToix; naQovc, xr\v mwvv\iiav EKA,TI9TI

Xapeiv.

y a p "Mvf||j.aTa xr\q envQviiiac," fiqo-UK e c m v ev yx>%f\, KaOarcep

e8(8ac;ev 6 Xoyoq, ueic^ov KaKov.)

Since, as C o l s o n has n o t e d a d l o c . Spec. 4 : 1 2 6 - 1 3 1 , this is a para­ phrase o f what is narrated in chapter eleven o f the B o o k o f N u m b e r s , especially w . 3 1 - 3 4 , pace C o l s o n , w h o has translated it as "story," it c o u l d here hardly m e a n anything other than T o r a h .

7 0

The Word Combination Xoycov Kai doyfiaxcov N o t less significant is Philo's use o f the w o r d s Aoyoq a n d Soyucc in c o m b i n a t i o n as: Xoycov Kai Soyiiaicov. A l t h o u g h these w o r d s are f o u n d m a n y times in c o m b i n a t i o n in Philo, this is n o t so in either

Plato

o r Aristotle. I f o u n d that while the single w o r d s Xoyoc, a n d 86yu.a a p p e a r

in

Plato a n d Aristotle often e n o u g h , the semantic unit Xoycov Kai 8oyumcov is absent.

71

Further, as w e have just seen, Xoyoi sometimes

means "biblical c o m m a n d m e n t s " in Hellenistic-Jewish literature, includ­ ing the Septuagint a n d Philo, a n d the m e a n i n g o f Soyuata is "reg­ ulations" b o t h there and elsewhere. H e n c e it is hardly surprising to find

the phrase Xoycov Kai Soyudxcov in Philo to b e an i d i o m indi­

cating s o m e t h i n g like "biblical laws a n d other regulations," logoi indi­ cating the biblical laws, a n d dogmata all the other "regulations" w h i c h a J e w was e x p e c t e d to a d h e r e .

to

72

Nevertheless, while it is tempting to associate the

combination

Xoycov Kai Soyumcov with the rabbinic c o m b i n a t i o n : ]3D"in WP'H'ltn, this is irrelevant to the subject u n d e r present consideration. In any event o n e must also b e a r in m i n d that the d e m a r c a t i o n

Krvmyn

or

in either the J u d e o - G r e e k o r the J u d e o - A r a m a i c

7 0

between

(biblical o r rabbinic), is far f r o m b e i n g crystal clear traditions.

A n d the philosophical connotation does not, o f course, come into question. Although these two words d o appear in the same general context in Plato, Definitiones (- 'Opoi) 412 a 9 - 1 0 , ibid., 415 b - c , and Aristotle, Fragm. 1 p.1.11, they are not semantic units. It is only in the patristic literature that the combination Soyurx and 0£cbpT||j.a (sometimes 0ecopia) becomes c o m m o n , and see further below. A seeming exception to this, Mos. 2.212, actually supports this hypothesis if it is understood as a satiric play on words. " T h e word-catchers and the sophists" w h o are here said to sell 86y|xaTa Kai Xoyoix; are contrasted with "the true philosophy," viz. Judaism. 71

7 2

55

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION

Following are several examples o f this idiosyncratic w o r d c o m b i ­ nation (Xoycov K a i Soyadxcov) in Philo's oeuvre. I begin with a passage from de Opificio Mundi since this is o n e o f Philo's most philosophical compositions, and hence its appearance here is all the m o r e significant. Opif. 1 5 3 - 1 6 9 deals with the G a r d e n , the Serpent and the Fall. Sections 1 5 7 - 1 5 8 state: (157) . . . Following a probable conjecture one would say that the ser­ pent spoken o f is a fit symbol o f pleasure . . . (158) The lover o f plea­ sure . . . is so weighted and dragged downwards that it is with difficulty that he lifts up his head, and is tripped up by intemperance (xf|<; dcKpaoiaq).

N o w c o m e s the relevant statement: ( m m o u xe CVUK oupdviov xpocpr|v x\v opeyei xoic; cpiXoGeduoai 8ia Xoycov Kai 8oyudxcov cocpta W h e n this sentence is rendered in the light o f the connotations just suggested for these w o r d s , o n e finds a brief for keeping the mandments

com­

contrasted with the profligate life. In contrast I bring

C o l s o n ' s rendering o f the relevant p o r t i o n first, for c o m p a r i s o n : (157) . . . Following a probable conjecture one would say that the ser­ pent spoken of is a fit symbol o f pleasure . . . (158) The lover o f plea­ sure . . . feeds not on heavenly nourishment, which wisdom by discourses and doctrines (8id Xoycov Kai 8oy|a.dxcov aocp(a) proffers the lovers o f contemplation . . . M y translation: (157) . . . Following a probable conjecture one would say that the ser­ pent spoken of is a fit symbol o f pleasure . . . (158) The lover o f plea­ sure . . . feeds not on heavenly nourishment, that which Eocpia (= Torah) proffers the "lovers of contemplation" (cpiXoGeauooi) through the agency of laws and regulations (8id Xoycov K a i Soyuaxcov) . . . 73

I repeat, only w h e n rendered in this m a n n e r is it a meaningful state­ ment: a brief for keeping the c o m m a n d m e n t s vis-a-vis the profligate life, while otherwise the passage reads like n o m o r e than sanctimo­ nious verbiage.

cpiXoGeauoci = "lovers o f seeing" - Israel are the "seers o f G o d . '

:

56

NAOMI G . C O H E N

*

A s e c o n d e x a m p l e is Spec. 2. 61—63. Philo here defines J u d a i s m in philosophical terms, subsuming the " C o m m a n d m e n t s " under the tra­ ditional four cardinal virtues. Since in the ancient w o r l d "philoso­ phy"

was not confined to the pursuit o f speculative k n o w l e d g e a n d

in Philo's d a y w o u l d have b e e n defined as the search for the best recipe for living the g o o d life, it is n o t unduly forced for Philo to call the Sabbath gatherings in the Synagogues a n d H o u s e s o f Study, schools o f p h i l o s o p h y , w h o s e object is the inculcation o f the classic virtues. The

passage as a w h o l e means very little w h e n the w o r d s Xoycov

K a i 8oyaaTcov are rendered, as they have b e e n b y C o l s o n , as "the principles of virtue's lore" in the first instance a n d as "truths and princi­ ples" in the s e c o n d , but it is meaningful w h e n , but only w h e n , the idiosyncratic w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n Xoycov K a i Soyadxcov is rendered as " c o m m a n d m e n t s a n d regulations." Spec. 2 . 6 1 - 6 3 reads: (61) When He forbids bodily labour on the seventh day, He permits the exercise o f the higher activities. These are the study o f those things which, through the agency of "commandments and regulations" (od 8td Xoycov Kai 8oyumcov), lead to virtue. It bids us to turn to the study o f philo­ sophy improving thereby the soul and the dominant mind. (62) So each seventh day there stand wide open in every city, thou­ sands o f schools o f good sense, temperance, courage, justice and the other virtues, in which they sit in order quietly, with ears alert and with full attention . . . 74

(63) There are, so to speak, two overall headings which encompass the innumerable commandments and regulations (Xoycov Kai 8oyuxxTcov) . . .

*

S o t o o , Philo's lament at the very beginning o f Spec. 3 w h i c h is f o u n d in the m i d d l e o f his survey o f the discrete c o m m a n d m e n t s a c c o r d ­ ing to the rubrics o f the D e c a l o g u e in the Specialibus Legibus. W e read there: " T h e r e was a time w h e n I h a d leisure for p h i l o s o p h y . . . w h e n

7 4

This fits the frame o f reference o f the equation o f Greek "virtues" with Mosaic laws, about which I wrote in " T h e Greek Virtues and the Mosaic Laws in Philo," SP 5 (1993), 9 - 2 3 , and in Chapter I V o f Philo Judaeus.

57

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION

m y constant c o m p a n i o n s w e r e Geioic, del Xoyoic, . . . K a i 86y|aaaiv . . . " F o r Geioic, del Xoyoic, recall the Xoyoi K a i Geioi hendiadys in Post. Caini 15

89 = Divine Commandments. In view o f the context here, can the c o n ­ notation o f Geioic, del Xoyoic,. . . K a i 56y|iaoiv b e anything other than "divine c o m m a n d m e n t s and ordinances"?

locpia

— (Wisdom)

M a n y o f the instances w h i c h I f o u n d o f Philo's use o f the

term

Xocpia/'Wisdom in the c o n n o t a t i o n T o r a h are f o u n d in conjunction with a f o r m o f the w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n 86yaa K a i Gecbpr||j.a. Since the exigencies o f time and space preclude discussing this i d i o m at any length, following are a few w o r d s a b o u t it en passant.

76

A T L G (Thesaurus Lingua Graeca) search respecting the w o r d s Soyfia and Gecopr||ia separately, reveals that while each o n e o f these w o r d s is very c o m m o n , this is n o t so for the c o m b i n a t i o n o f the t w o as a semantic unit. W h i l e this is f o u n d some sixteen times in Philo, it is vir­ tually absent in Plato and Aristotle. W h e n considered together with the contexts in w h i c h the w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n 86y|ia and Gecoprjaa appear in Philo, o n e can hardly escape the c o n c l u s i o n that like Xoycov K a i SoyuoVccov just discussed at s o m e length, so t o o the w o r d c o m b i n a ­ tion Soyuct K a i Gecopr|ua, is also an instance o f ' J u d e o - G r e e k " idiomatic terminology. T h e following e x a m p l e in w h i c h the w o r d 2091a = Wisdom is in m y v i e w used in the sense: T o r a h , illustrates this use o f the idio­ syncratic w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n 86yaa K a i Gecbpruia as a " J u d e o - G r e e k " locution. H e r e t o o , w h e n the w o r d s are u n d e r s t o o d in this m a n n e r the passage is meaningful, but otherwise it hardly reads as anything m o r e than prolix verbiage. T h e probability that the dogmata and theoremata of Eocpia/ Wisdom d o i n d e e d refer to the traditional Jewish ordinances (dogmata) o f T o r a h and their theoretical underpinnings

(theoremata)—which together

are

said to c o m p r i s e the "heavenly d o c t r i n e " = T o r a h (Logos)—is further increased b y the consideration that it is M o s e s w h o is here described as making the prayer. W e read in Plant. 5 2 :

7 5

It is quoted above in connection with the discussion o f the plural form A,6yot (logoi) as referring to biblical commandments. For a fuller discussion, see Philo Judaeus, Chapter Seven, part two, particularly 203-217. 7 6

NAOMI G . COHEN

58

(52) . . . (Moses') . . . prayer runs thus: "Initiate us, like children just beginning to learn, by means o f the ordinances and reasonings o f Wisdom's/Torah's dogmata and theoremata (aocpiaq 8oyudxcov Kai Gecopn|xdxcov), . . . plant us in a high and heavenly doctrine (Xoycp)." 77

I k n o w that s o m e will say that the argument is circular, but that is the nature o f any d e c i p h e r i n g o f language. T h e o n l y " p r o o f " p o s ­ sible is that the net result p r o v i d e s a satisfactory

meaning which

repeats itself in diverse contexts. A n o t h e r e x a m p l e is Congr. 7 9 - 8 0 respecting w h i c h the identification o f Eotpioc/ Wisdom as a referent for T o r a h is sophisticated but n o n e the less clear. It reads:

78

(79) A n d indeed just as the encyclica contribute to the acquisition o f philosophy ((piXoacxpia), so does philosophy to the acquisition o f Sophia (Zocpia = Wisdom). For philosophy is the cultivation o f Sophia (in\.x"(\o£vaiq aocpiaq), and Sophia (Wisdom) is the knowledge o f things divine and human and their causes. A s C o l s o n has n o t e d , the statement, "Sophia (Wisdom) is the k n o w l ­ e d g e o f things divine a n d h u m a n and their causes" is a Stoic defini­ tion,

79

but this d o e s n o t p r e c l u d e a " J u d e o - G r e e k " c o n n o t a t i o n here

as well, for Philo loves double entendre. A n d the p u n c h line c o m e s in the i m m e d i a t e continuation: " A n d therefore just as the culture o f the schools (f| eyicuKAaoc;

UOUCIKTI)

is (the b o n d servant) to p h i l o s o ­

p h y , so must p h i l o s o p h y b e the b o n d s e r v a n t o f Sophia (Wisdom)." In this passage, Sophia (Wisdom), w h i c h has here b e e n given its Stoic definition, "the k n o w l e d g e o f things divine a n d h u m a n

and

their causes," must refer to something other than cpiXooocpia (phi­ losophy) per se, for it is stated that cpiXooocpict has b e e n subordinated to it. J o h n D i l l o n has suggested the reference to b e to t h e o l o g y . a m c o n v i n c e d that it must have m e a n t

80

I

" T o r a h " specifically, since

for Philo a n d his c o n t e m p o r a r y Jewish readers true w i s d o m was b y

77

As we have just seen, this "doctrine" (Xoyoq/logos) is a reference the Torah. O u r reading is similar to Wolfson's but differs from that of Amir. See Wolfson, Philo I, 149-50 and II, 212, and Yehoshua Amir, "Authority and Interpretation o f Scripture in the Writings o f Philo," in: Martin Jan Mulder, ed., Mikra, (Maastricht/ Philadelphia, 1988), 439. In his endnote, ad l o c , 579—cf. S.V.F. II 36, cited by Cicero, De Off. II 2, 5 in a form very close to that found here: "Sapientia autem est, ut a veteribus philosophis definitum est, rerum divinarum et humanarum causarumque, quibus eae res continentur, scientia." John Dillon, The Middle Platonists: A Study of Platonism 80 B.C. to A.D. 220 (London, 1977), 141. 7 8

79

8 0

59

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION

definition "the truth" as revealed in the T o r a h , a n d O r i g e n ' s para­ phrase o f the

statement lends additional

c r e d e n c e to this

under­

standing o f the Philonic passage. O r i g e n states: " A s a general education is p r o p a e d e u t i c to p h i l o s o p h y so p h i l o s o p h y itself should o n l y b e p r o p a e d e u t i c to Christianity . . . "

8 1

Is this n o t an adaptation

o f the

Philonic syllogism, u n d e r s t o o d in the m a n n e r just suggested, with T o r a h substituted b y Christianity?

82

*

In closing, I wish to p o i n t out that w h a t has b e e n n o t e d respecting the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the c o n n o t a t i o n o f the w o r d s Eocpicc and Aoyoc, in Christian sources is n o t in itself n e w . W h i l e , as w e have seen, for the J e w the H e b r e w equivalent o f Xotpict (Wisdom), HftDn (hokhma), was axiomaticalfy identified with the T o r a h , for the Christian,

Wisdom

became Jesus, o r at the very least Christianity. T h i s is well expressed b y R o w a n G r e e r in a b o o k o n early biblical interpretation

83

where

he writes that, . . . we must recognize that when the redeemer is identified with "the first-born o f all creation" (Col 1:15), the biblical text involved is cer­ tainly Prov 8:22, where "Wisdom" is created by G o d to be his agent in creating the world. For the Jew, "Wisdom" was to be identified with the Torah (Sirach 24:23). Thus it is easy to see why, for the Christian, Wisdom is Jesus. W e are . . . dealing . . . with . . . the trans­ formation o f Wisdom, a Jewish exegetical theme. Likewise, E . A . S o p h o c l e s '

Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine

M

Periods, w h i c h covers the p e r i o d b e t w e e n 146 B . C . E . to 1100 C . E . , notes that 6 Geioc, Xoyoq o r simply 6 Xoyoq at first m e a n t the h o l y writ, Scripture; a n d later the Christian

doctrine in particular; a n d

in a similar vein, L a m p e , Patr. Lex., s.v. A-oyoc, notes u n d e r the

first

set o f meanings such c o n n o t a t i o n s as Scripture as a w h o l e , a pas­ sage o f Scripture; and then, apparently as a d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m there,

81

Origen, Ep. ad Greg. 4.80ff. [Sources chretiennes). A n d this is all the more relevant in view o f the proverbial influence o f Philo's works on Origen; for which see e.g. O'Cleirigh, " D o g m a in Origen," 2 1 0 - 2 1 1 . Authored jointly with James Kugel, Early Biblical Interpretation, (Philadelphia, 1986), 162. (New York, 1887.) 8 2

8 3

8 4

60

N A O M I G. C O H E N

a c o m m a n d o f divine authority, a n d finally, Christ incarnate

with­

out qualification. A t the very beginning o f the essay I suggested that the a d o p t i o n o f s o m e o f the J u d e o - G r e e k terminology w h i c h I have surveyed today b y early Christianity to express its o w n agenda in the language o f J u d a i s m explains w h y these w o r d s have so often b e e n misconstrued b y scholars o f Philo. It also reflects s o m e o f the central theological issues at the time w h e n Christianity still l o o k e d u p o n itself as a f o r m o f Judaism d e v e l o p i n g its o w n identity in terms o f a Jewish

frame

o f reference. Dikaiosyne very early underwent a metamorphosis from " w o r k s " to "faith," a n d in patristic literature—and eventually in all m o d e r n lan­ guages including m o d e r n Hebrew—Dogma c o m e to m e a n articles o f faith exclusively rather than regulations o f c o n d u c t . Respecting Sophia, since for a J e w Wisdom (Sophia) was a s y n o n y m for T o r a h , the rev­ olutionary thesis that Jesus h a d b e c o m e a " n e w T o r a h " was expressed in terms w h i c h for the Christian believer m a d e it a direct continu­ ation o f what w e n t before—Jesus became Wisdom (Eocpia) incarnate. A n d as for Aoyoc,, it lost its c o n n o t a t i o n o f " T o r a h L a w " a n d c a m e to b e identified with a single aspect o f Sophia also c o m i n g to b e "applied without qualification to Christ

incarnate."

85

T h i s is an excellent illustration o f o n e o f the axioms o f the his­ tory o f ideas, viz. that the introduction o f even very n e w ideas is very often a c h i e v e d b y their association with current "truths"—and i n d e e d in o r d e r for it to gain a c c e p t a n c e , what is n e w must also in a very real sense b e a continuation o f s o m e aspect o f what w e n t before. T h e s e J u d e o - G r e e k w o r d s were adapted b y early Christianity to express its o w n agenda in the language o f Judaism, using a sin­ gle facet o f their Jewish meaning, a n d transforming it. T h e s e w o r d s p i n p o i n t and illustrate several o f the central theo­ logical issues at the time w h e n Christianity, while still l o o k i n g u p o n itself as a f o r m o f Judaism, was d e v e l o p i n g its o w n identity from within a Jewish frame o f reference, a n d it is also n o w clear w h y they have b e e n misconstrued b y Philonic scholarship w h i c h until recently functioned largely from within the frame o f reference o f Christian theology.

See Lampe, Patr. Lex., s.v. Xbyoq.

61

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION

W h i c h brings us full circle b a c k to the b e g i n n i n g o f m y presen­ tation,

for just

as early Christianity

adopted and

adapted J u d e o -

G r e e k t e r m i n o l o g y to express its o w n a g e n d a w h i c h was from

contemporary Judaism,

different

l o n g before this, Hellenistic J u d a i s m

h a d a d o p t e d a n d adapted these very G r e e k w o r d s to express their o w n unique c o n c e r n s . T h i s has recentiy b e e n p o i n t e d out b y R u n i a , in an article Philo's Vita Contemplativa, w h e r e he writes,

on

86

87

What the terms "excellence, goodness, contemplation and felicity" actually refer to in terms o f the activities of the Therapeutae them­ selves stands, one must suspect, at some remove from the epistemic ideals o f Greek philosophy. . . . All this gives the final sentence (of the Philonic treatise) . . . a characteristically Philonic double face. T h e Therapeutae are called "citizens of heaven and the cosmos," and they devote their lives to the study o f "nature and what it contains" . . . What they actually contemplate. . . are the text and doctrines of the Jewish scriptures [italics mine], together with ancient expository writings which included allegorical interpretation. 88

89

90

C o u l d there b e any clearer illustration o f w h a t I have argued in the present

study?

W h i c h brings us to a third a n d final point: i m p o r t a n t

as Philo's

works m a y b e in the larger c o n t e x t o f religious p h i l o s o p h y , it is n o w d o u b l y clear that high o n Philo's o w n specific a g e n d a was the p r e ­ sentation

o f a b r i e f for a c o m m i t m e n t to J u d a i s m

which included

the obligation to study a n d to practice the T o r a h c o m m a n d m e n t s . T h i s he argued in the language o f a t h o r o u g h l y H e l l e n i z e d J e w to a thoroughly Hellenized audience.

8 6

Runia, D.T., " T h e Reward for Goodness: Philo, de Vita Contemplativa 90," The Studia Philonica Annual, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism (= Brown Judaic Studies 312), I X (1997), 3-18:16. These terms are used in the Philonic treatise in its description of the Therapeutae. Vita 90 (final section). Ibid. Vita 29. 87

88

8 9

90

H E L L E N I S M IN J E W I S H

WRITINGS

4

H E L L E N I S M IN T H E F R A G M E N T A R Y H E L L E N I S T I C JEWISH AUTHORS: RESONANCE A N D RESISTANCE

CARL R.

The

HOLLADAY

fragmentary Hellenistic J e w i s h authors, w h o s e w o r k s span s o m e

h u n d r e d years o r m o r e f r o m the late third c e n t u r y B . C . E . o n w a r d , p r o v i d e clear e x a m p l e s o f J e w s interacting with Hellenistic culture.

1

T h e y serve as i m p o r t a n t witnesses to the c o m p l e x p r o c e s s o f cultural assimilation that m a n y J e w s e x p e r i e n c e d during the H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n period. One

2

reason for their i m p o r t a n c e is their relatively early date. Sev­

eral o f t h e m are reliably d a t e d in the m i d - s e c o n d c e n t u r y B . C . E .

3

A

4

few o f t h e m are possibly as early as the late third c e n t u r y B . C . E . A s J e w i s h writings in this p e r i o d g o , they are a m o n g the earliest datable writings. But apart f r o m their relatively early dating, they also exhibit fascinating variety. A m o n g these texts w e find J e w i s h authors writing tragic a n d e p i c p o e t r y , as well as narrative texts that i n c l u d e a w i d e range o f literary traditions, including c h r o n o g r a p h y , national r o m a n c e , e t h n o g r a p h y , allegorical interpretation

o f Scripture, to m e n t i o n o n l y

1

English translations o f these texts are readily available in J.H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [ = 0 7 ? ] (Garden City, N Y , 1985), 2.775-918. For Greek texts with English translation, see C . R . Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors [= FHJA] (4 vols.; Chico, Calif, and Atlanta, Ga., 1983-96). See the very helpful discussion o f assimilation, acculturation, and a c c o m m o d a ­ tion as analytical categories in J . M . G . Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 B.C.E.-117 C.E.) (Edinburgh, 1996), 8 2 - 1 0 2 . T h e following authors are usually dated in the mid-second century: Eupolemus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, Artapanus, Ezekiel the Tragedian, and Aristobulus. B. BarK o c h v a dates Pseudo-Aristeas in the late second century, ca. 116-113, and PseudoHecataeus some 10-20 years later [Pseudo-Hecataeus O n the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora [Berkeley, 1996], 1 2 2 - 4 2 ) . Other narrative texts are harder to date. Theophilus and Cleodemus Malchus (first century B.C.E., i.e., before Alexander Polyhistor); Thallus (perhaps as late as the mid- to late first century C.E.); Justus o f Tiberias (late first century C.E.). Theodotus the epic poet and the pseudonymous Greek poets are dated in the second to first century B.C.E. 2

3

4

Those w h o are sometimes dated as early as the third century B.C.E. include Philo the Epic Poet (third to second century B.C.E.) and Demetrius the Chronographer. Artapanus is sometimes given a late third-century dating.

66

CARL R . HOLLADAY

the m o s t o b v i o u s ones. H e r e w e see an openness to e x p e r i m e n t with new

literary genres that differ quite markedly f r o m those f o u n d in

the Bible. Y e t another remarkable feature

o f these writings is the

extent to w h i c h they interact with Hellenistic culture. T h e y p r o v i d e a series o f b a r o m e t r i c readings o f the ways Greek-speaking J e w s read a n d interpreted Hellenistic culture. In these texts, w e get s o m e sense o f w h i c h Hellenistic values mattered to them. W e also catch a glimpse o f w h a t G r e e k texts they w e r e reading a n d w h i c h ones they c o n ­ sidered i m p o r t a n t

e n o u g h to imitate. Because there

are so m a n y

specific instances w h e r e the biblical tradition is b e i n g recast into a different m o d e , w e are able to see points o f r e s o n a n c e as well as resistance. In s o m e instances, the Jewish tradition seems to have lent itself quite readily to b e i n g recast using Hellenistic m o d e s o f expres­ sion; in others, n o t so readily. In this p a p e r , w e will e x a m i n e s o m e o f those "translation m o m e n t s " that show these Greek-speaking authors struggling to m a k e sense o f s o m e aspect o f their o w n tradition

as

they seek to restate it in a Hellenistic m o d e .

Engaging Hellenism We

should r e m i n d ourselves o f h o w extensively the Hellenistic spirit

pervades these texts. T h i s is true o f s o m e m o r e than others, to b e sure, but the frame o f reference for m a n y o f these authors is the Hellenistic w o r l d b r o a d l y c o n c e i v e d . W i t h o u t a d o u b t , they are stand­ ing within the biblical tradition as they l o o k o u t o n t o this w o r l d , but the h o r i z o n s o f their w o r l d extend well b e y o n d the tents o f S h e m . The

p o e t i c texts serve as a useful b a r o m e t e r in this regard. T h e

p s e u d o n y m o u s poetic texts s h o w us the G r e e k poets that were thought to b e w o r t h y o f emulation: H e s i o d , Aeschylus, S o p h o c l e s , Euripides, P h i l e m o n , Diphilus, a n d M e n a n d e r . T h e s e w e r e the figures to w h o m verses heralding the o n e G o d w e r e attributed. I f it c o u l d b e s h o w n that these e m i n e n t G r e e k authors sang the praises o f the o n e G o d , so

m u c h the better for the Jewish tradition.

5

T h e o d o t u s , w h o re­

casts the G e n 3 4 a c c o u n t o f the rape o f D i n a h in the f o r m o f epic p o e t r y , has intimate familiarity with the G r e e k epic tradition.

5

6

His

See H . Attridge, "Fragments o f Pseudo-Greek Poets," in Charlesworth, OTP 2.821-30. See F. Fallon, "Theodotus," in Charlesworth, OTP 2.785-93; Holladay, FHJA 2.51-204. 6

67

RESONANCE A N D RESISTANCE

p o e t r y is full o f H o m e r i c phrases, and there are indications that he is equally familiar with A p o l l o n i u s o f R h o d e s a n d Callimachus. H e n o t o n l y knows these authors, but he k n o w s t h e m well. W h e n he c h o o s e s to render the slaying o f H a m o r a n d S h e c h e m b y Levi and S i m e o n , an episode described quite briefly in the Bible, he e m p l o y s imagery d r a w n

from the

G r e e k e p i c tradition.

7

S o effective is his

appropriation o f this language that the scene evokes all the terror o f a H o m e r i c battle scene. Philo the Epic Poet, w h o s e p o e m On Jerusalem e m p l o y s language so o b s c u r e as to make it virtually untranslatable, appears to b e operating within a tradition o f Hellenistic e p i c p o e t r y 8

that p l a c e d a high p r e m i u m o n such language. T h e p o e t Ezekiel, w h o rendered the story o f the e x o d u s into the f o r m o f a G r e e k tragedy, shows intimate acquaintance with Euripides and Aeschylus, as well 9

as with H e r o d o t u s . His k n o w l e d g e o f the conventions o f tragic poetry is far from elementary.

T h e p o e t i c text that g o e s u n d e r the

name

P s e u d o - O r p h e u s shows a similar level o f familiarity with the G r e e k p o e t i c tradition. one

10

A s with the other p s e u d o n y m o u s p o e t i c texts, this

t o o knows the significance o f attaching belief in the o n e G o d

to a figure as r e n o w n e d a n d influential as O r p h e u s . W h i l e the Jewish redactions o f the original p a g a n version o f the p o e m d o n o t exhibit the same level o f stylistic skill, their authors are n o t clumsy poets. T h e y t o o k n o w the p r o p e r p o e t i c c o n v e n t i o n s a n d are skillful e n o u g h to appropriate

this monotheistic c l a i m a n d present A b r a h a m

and

M o s e s as its rightful, original o w n e r s . T h e narrative tradition presents its o w n examples as well. Demetrius the C h r o n o g r a p h e r n o w h e r e mentions his authorial m o d e l s , n o r is it as clear, as it is in the case o f the poets, that he is directly d e p e n ­ dent o n G r e e k s o u r c e s .

11

But there are g o o d g r o u n d s for thinking

that he is b e i n g influenced b y the Hellenistic historiographical

tra­

dition, c h r o n o g r a p h y in particular. Berossus a n d M a n e t h o appear to

7

Frg. 8 (Holladay, FHJA 2.124-27). See H . Attridge, "Philo the Epic Poet," in Charlesworth, 077* 2 . 7 8 1 - 8 4 ; Holladay, FHJA 2.205-99. See R . G . Robertson, "Ezekiel the Tragedian," in Charlesworth, OTP 2.803-19; Holladay, FHJA 2.301-529; also H . Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel (Cambridge, 1983). See M . LaFargue, "Orphica," in Charlesworth, OTP 2 . 7 9 5 - 8 0 1 ; Holladay, FHJA 4. See J. Hanson, "Demetrius the Chronogapher," in Charlesworth, OTP 2.843~54; Holladay, FHJA 1.51-91. 8

9

10

11

68

CARL R. HOLLADAY

have established his intellectual horizons, a n d he m a y well have writ­ ten with Eratosthenes in mind. H o w to classify Artapanus still remains a mystery, b u t he seems awfully close to the r o m a n c e literature.

12

Hellenistic

national

W e d o n o t have to k n o w the genre o f his w o r k

to b e able to discern his Hellenistic horizons. M o u s a i o s a n d

Orpheus

serve as important reference points for understanding M o s e s . Egyptian traditions also figure prominently in his respective portraits o f A b r a h a m , Joseph,

a n d M o s e s . N o n - b i b l i c a l traditions are freely

incorporated

into these portraits. O n e o f the m o s t telling o f such traditions is his account o f Moses' imprisonment E g y p t to free the

Egyptians.

13

b y P h a r a o h w h e n he returns to

In v e r y short

compass, Artapanus

rehearses M o s e s ' miraculous escape from prison, c o m p l e t e with earth­ quake, automatic d o o r openings, a n d a confrontation b e t w e e n M o s e s a n d P h a r a o h w h e r e the irreverent king is struck d e a d , o n l y to b e revived b y M o s e s . E c h o e s o f Euripides' Bacchae are h e a r d out this e p i s o d e .

14

through­

W h e t h e r Euripides served as a source for Artapanus,

or whether h e is merely e m p l o y i n g a well-established literary c o n v e n ­ tion that was so w e l l - k n o w n and w i d e l y used that n o specific source n e e d b e sought, in either case Artapanus fished in non-biblical waters for this tradition. In several o f these texts w e find explicit efforts to c o m b i n e biblical genealogies with other genealogies. O n e o f the m o s t intriguing e x a m ­ ples o c c u r s in P s e u d o - E u p o l e m u s , w h o incorporates

complementary

genealogies f r o m B a b y l o n a n d G r e e c e into the biblical lineage that runs from E n o c h and Methuselah finally to A b r a h a m .

15

S o m e h o w , the

biblical figures Cush, M i z r a i m , and C a n a a n are traceable to the Baby­ lonian m y t h o l o g i c a l figure Belus, and figures f r o m G r e e k genealogies, notably K r o n o s a n d Atlas, are interwoven with B a b y l o n i a n a n d b i b ­ lical genealogies. W e thus learn that Belus a n d K r o n o s are the same, and that A d a s and E n o c h are the same. Such interweaving o f genealo-

12

See J J . Collins, "Artapanus," in Charlesworth, OTP 2 . 8 8 9 - 9 0 3 ; Holladay, FHJA 1.189-243. Frg. 3.23-26 (Holladay, FHJA 1.218-21). For a full discussion o f the use o f this topos by Greek and R o m a n writers, see R . Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia, 1987), 21, especially the references given in note 15 on page 147. A more detailed treatment is given in his Harvard dissertation, " T h e Literary Genre o f the Acts o f the Apostles" (1979), 5 4 - 9 0 . See R . Doran, "Pseudo-Eupolemus," in Charlesworth, OTP 2.873-82; Holladay, FHJA 1.157-87. 13

1 4

15

69

RESONANCE A N D RESISTANCE

gies presents m a n y p r o b l e m s . A r e the parenthetical

identifications

traceable to A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor rather than Pseudo-Eupolemus him­ self?

16

A n d w h a t is the p o i n t o f fusing such disparate genealogies?

W e are n o t sure. Even with all o f the confusion a n d ambiguity, s o m e things are

relatively clear. P s e u d o - E u p o l e m u s ,

rehearsal o f the

at the

e n d o f his

a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s o f A b r a h a m , feels c o m p e l l e d to

introduce other traditions, o r w h a t "the Babylonians say" a n d

what

"the Greeks say." F o r h i m , it is n o t e n o u g h simply to rehearse the biblical story o r even to retell it in an amplified version. T o give it further c r e d e n c e , it needs to b e supplemented with other national traditions; or, at least, these national traditions c a n b e a d d u c e d to c o m p l e m e n t a n d reinforce, w h a t is f o u n d in the biblical story. N o such "syncretistic" tendencies (if this is the right w a y to charac­ terize what w e find in Pseudo-Eupolemus) are present in E u p o l e m u s .

17

Perhaps the closest thing w e find is his claim that S o l o m o n gave to K i n g S o u r o n o f T y r e a g o l d e n pillar that was erected in the

tem­

ple o f Z e u s in T y r e (Frg. 2.18). F o r the m o s t part, E u p o l e m u s ' w o r l d is defined b y the biblical text. His p r e o c c u p y i n g interest is the tem­ ple

o f S o l o m o n — t h e circumstances that led to its construction

and

the actual construction itself. Just as the C h r o n i c l e r embellishes the a c c o u n t o f the building o f S o l o m o n ' s temple f o u n d in 1 K i n g s , so does Eupolemus embellish b o t h accounts. T h e net effect o f his account is a grander, m o r e elaborate One

temple.

o f the most intriguing instances illustrating E u p o l e m u s ' engage­

m e n t with Hellenistic culture is the set o f letters e x c h a n g e d b e t w e e n S o l o m o n a n d the kings o f E g y p t a n d T y r e respectively (Frg. 2 . 3 1 . 1 34.3).

18

T h e y have a biblical basis, since 1 K g s 5 a n d 2 C h r 2 r e c o r d

exchanges b e t w e e n S o l o m o n a n d H i r a m , king o f T y r e , b u t the b i b ­ lical version o f these e x c h a n g e s is n o t cast in explicit epistolary f o r m . Rather, they are presented as " e x c h a n g e s , " although they w o u l d have o c c u r r e d as s o m e f o r m o f royal c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . Eupolemus, however, recasts the letters e x c h a n g e d b e t w e e n S o l o m o n a n d H i r a m ( S o u r o n in Eupolemus) and presents t h e m as Hellenistic letters, c o m p l e t e with

16

As suggested by B . Z . Wacholder in the meeting o f the Hellenistic Judaism G r o u p at the Annual Meeting o f the Society o f Biblical Literature in San Francisco, November 22, 1997. See F. Fallon, "Eupolemus," in Charlesworth, OTP 2.861-72; Holladay, FHJA 1.93-156. See Holladay, FHJA 1.118-23. 17

1 8

70

CARL R. HOLLADAY

formal greetings a n d well prescribed content. T h e epistolary elements reflect E u p o l e m u s ' familiarity with Hellenistic literary c o n v e n t i o n s , a n d he uses t h e m effectively to present

S o l o m o n as a king highly

respected b y his peers in other countries. E u p o l e m u s goes b e y o n d the biblical a c c o u n t in presenting a similar set o f letters e x c h a n g e d b y S o l o m o n and the king o f Egypt (Vaphres). T h e y t o o are presented as formal, Hellenistic letters, crafted a c c o r d i n g to the c o n v e n t i o n s o f Hellenistic royal c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . O n c e again, they have the

effect

o f u n d e r s c o r i n g S o l o m o n ' s superior status to the n e i g h b o r i n g king. In supplying this additional set o f letters, E u p o l e m u s is following the standard practice o f Hellenistic historians w h o routinely

composed

letters a n d other archival d o c u m e n t s to include in their works. E u p o l e m u s d o e s n o t explicitiy cite Hellenistic sources o n w h i c h he d e p e n d e d . N o r is it clear that he has used particular authors as m o d e l s . Y e t , his use o f this Hellenistic c o n v e n t i o n is quite revealing. T h e s e four letters have the effect o f e n h a n c i n g S o l o m o n ' s status as an international figure and showing the n e i g h b o r i n g kings' deferential treatment o f S o l o m o n . In addition, they succeed in advancing Eupole­ m u s ' theological agenda. H e presents S o l o m o n as acting in response to the c o m m a n d o f the supreme G o d , the G o d M o s t H i g h w h o cre­ ated heaven and earth, and b o t h kings (Souron m o r e so than Vaphres) a c k n o w l e d g e the greatness, if n o t the supremacy, o f S o l o m o n ' s G o d . P s e u d o - H e c a t a e u s , w h o s e status as a Jewish author is n o w m o r e firmly

established b y Bezalel B a r - K o c h v a ' s recent m o n o g r a p h , p r e ­

sents yet another variation o f this same p h e n o m e n o n .

1 9

Bar-Kochva

has m a d e a c o n v i n c i n g case for reading Pseudo-Hecataeus as a Jewish writing strongly influenced b y the G r e e k tradition

o f ethnography.

E v e n t h o u g h o n l y b r i e f excerpts o f his w o r k On the Jews survive, they deal with topics that roughly c o r r e s p o n d to m a j o r sub-sections o f Hellenistic e t h n o g r a p h i c works: origo-archaeologia, g e o g r a p h y , customs, a n d history o f rulers.

20

I f P s e u d o - H e c a t a e u s ' w o r k d o e s b e l o n g to the

genre o f Hellenistic ethnography, this w o u l d suggest that his m o d ­ els i n c l u d e d n o t o n l y his namesake H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a b u t also his closer c o n t e m p o r a r i e s Megasthenes a n d Agatharcides o f C n i d u s . Pseudo-Hecataeus'

e n g a g e m e n t with Hellenistic culture

presents

yet another variation. H e is especially eager to portray the cordial

19

See note 3 above; also R . Doran, "Pseudo-Hecataeus," in Charlesworth, OTP 2.905-19; HoUaday, FHJA 1.277-335. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 217. 2 0

71

RESONANCE A N D RESISTANCE

relations b e t w e e n the J e w s

and

H e l l e n i s t i c rulers,

most

notably

A l e x a n d e r the G r e a t a n d P t o l e m y I Soter. T h e latter is presented as the e m b o d i m e n t o f h u m a n e generosity w h o e x t e n d e d very favor­ able terms to J e w s w h o w i s h e d to migrate f r o m Syria to E g y p t after the battle o f G a z a in 3 1 2 B . C . E . T o illustrate Jewish tenacity in observing their ancestral laws u n d e r duress, P s e u d o - H e c a t a e u s cites an instance w h e n Jewish soldiers refused to participate in the restora­ tion o f a Babylonian temple o f Bel that had been ordered b y Alexander the G r e a t .

21

U n d e t e r r e d b y the threat o f h e a v y fines a n d severe p u n ­

ishment, they s t o o d fast until A l e x a n d e r e x e m p t e d t h e m f r o m

the

task a n d p a r d o n e d t h e m for their insubordination! Pseudo-Hecataeus also heralds the role o f J e w s in the military c a m p a i g n s o f A l e x a n d e r a n d his successors, citing the famous incident o f M o s o l l a m u s , the Jewish soldier, w h o with his sharp-shooting archery skills single-hand­ edly e x p o s e d the unreliability

o f pagan

divination.

22

Yet

another

episode c o n n e c t i n g Jewish history directly to A l e x a n d e r the G r e a t is r e p o r t e d b y P s e u d o - H e c a t a e u s . H e says that A l e x a n d e r the

Great

a d d e d the district o f Samaria to the J e w s ' territory as a reward for "the consideration a n d loyalty s h o w n to h i m b y the J e w s . "

23

P s e u d o - H e c a t a e u s ' e t h n o g r a p h i c interests doubtless led in

many

different directions, but these few instances are e n o u g h to s h o w a rather consistent effort o n his part to c o n n e c t Jewish history directly with that o f A l e x a n d e r the G r e a t a n d his i m m e d i a t e successors. T h e legendary nature o f these episodes notwithstanding, they are i m p o r ­ tant indicators o f the n o r m a t i v e status o f Hellenistic tradition

and

culture. A l e x a n d e r the G r e a t a n d his P t o l e m a i c successor P t o l e m y I Soter are personalities o f sufficient stature a n d u n q u e s t i o n e d i m p o r ­ tance in the Hellenistic w o r l d that they define the w a y P s e u d o Hecataeus constructs his e t h n o g r a p h i c history o f the Jewish p e o p l e . Like other nations, they t o o c a n trace their r o o t s — a n d their rights— to the founder o f Hellenistic culture himself. T h e y are fully legitimate participants in the Hellenistic w o r l d . T h e i r migration f r o m Syria to Egypt was voluntary. T h e y c a m e at the invitation o f P t o l e m y I Soter, a n d their status there was entirely legitimate, b o t h from the Hellenistic side a n d

2 1

2 2

2 3

the J e w i s h

side. After all, it was a J e w i s h h i g h

See Frg. 1.192 in Holladay, FHJA 1.308-9. Frg. 1.201-204 (Holladay, FHJA 1.312-15). Frg. 2.43 in Holladay, FHJA 1.316-17.

priest,

CARL R. HOLLADAY

72

Ezechias, a m a n o f i m p e c c a b l e credentials, w h o led the migration. One

o f the things that gives their history special credibility is the

way

it c a n b e linked with A l e x a n d e r himself. T h e i r civic rights are

traceable to h i m . Jewish soldiers served with distinction during his, a n d his successors', military campaigns. T h r o u g h it all, h o w e v e r , they r e m a i n e d faithful to their ancestral traditions a n d d i d so in ways that w e r e k n o w n to A l e x a n d e r himself. W h e n they refused to participate in his o r d e r to restore a B a b y l o n i a n temple o f Bel, h e

relented,

e x e m p t i n g t h e m from the o r d e r a n d e v e n p a r d o n i n g their insubor­ dination. H e r e w a r d e d their steadfast loyalty b y giving t h e m the dis­ trict o f Samaria a n d d i d so tribute-free. P s e u d o - H e c a t a e u s ' primary w o r l d o f residence is Jewish. O n e o f the key figures in his w o r k is the Jewish high priest Ezechias. T h e city o f Jerusalem,

its surrounding regions, the temple a n d its sup­

porting buildings all remain o f focal interest to Pseudo-Hecataeus. H e r o i c features o f Jewish life are important to h i m , even as he stresses their religious fidelity. Y e t t h r o u g h it all there runs a Hellenistic thread. F o r all o f his i m m e r s i o n in Jewish life a n d tradition, it is also crucial for h i m to demonstrate continuity with Hellenistic tra­ dition. In another fundamental

sense, Hellenistic values related

to

political realities a n d cultural heroes w e r e vitally important to PseudoHecataeus. The

same c a n b e said for A r i s t o b u l u s .

24

W h e t h e r w e think o f h i m

primarily as a p h i l o s o p h e r o r as a biblical c o m m e n t a t o r , w e c a n n o t i g n o r e the extent o f his indebtedness to Hellenistic culture. O n e o f the things that distinguishes h i m f r o m the rest o f these authors is his use o f allegorical m e t h o d s o f interpretation. T h e r e are m a n y clear resonances b e t w e e n his use o f allegory a n d that o f Stoic interpreters o f H o m e r , b o t h his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s a n d his p r e d e c e s s o r s . features o f his allegorical interpretation

25

Certain

remain unclear, but there is

strong scholarly support for seeing Stoic influence o n Aristobulus at this point. In the tradition Aristobulus is designated Peripatetic, e v e n t h o u g h distinctive Aristotelian characteristics are h a r d to detect. C o n ­ ceivably, this designation m a y b e traceable to strong c o n c e p t u a l links b e t w e e n certain p o r t i o n s o f Aristobulus a n d Pseudo-Aristotle's De

2 4

See A . Y . Collins, "Aristobulus," in Charlesworth, OTP 2 . 8 3 1 - 4 2 ; Holladay, FHJA 3. See Holladay, FHJA 3.73. 2 5

RESONANCE A N D RESISTANCE

26

mundo.

73

O n e scholar has e v e n suggested that Aristobulus himself

authored this otherwise unidentified text that p r o b a b l y dates to the first century B . C . E .

2 7

a n d that eventually c a m e to b e i n c l u d e d in the

Aristotelian corpus. A p a r t f r o m Aristobulus' exegetical m e t h o d and its indebtedness to Hellenism, w e c a n also m e n t i o n his literary h o r i z o n s as well. H e t o o k n o w s the i m p o r t a n c e o f q u o t i n g well-known G r e e k figures a n d texts. H e is the earliest witness w h o quotes the O r p h i c p o e m w e n o w des­ ignate as P s e u d o - O r p h e u s , although exactly w h i c h version he quotes remains disputed. H e is well enough acquainted with Aratus' Phamomena a n d the fame it enjoys in the Hellenistic w o r l d to q u o t e several lines from its o p e n i n g s e c t i o n .

28

T o s h o w the i m p o r t a n c e o f Sabbath obser­

v a n c e a n d to demonstrate its respectability he quotes several G r e e k authors,

including H o m e r , Linus, a n d Aeschylus, to n a m e o n l y a

few. S o m e o f the lines are authentic but heavily redacted; others are p s e u d e p i g r a p h i c creations. Y e t Aristobulus k n o w s the weight these names

carry in the p o p u l a r consciousness a n d the

corresponding

i m p o r t a n c e that attaches to Jewish history a n d tradition if plausible c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n these celebrated G r e e k figures a n d J u d a i s m c a n be

s h o w n . In fact, he exhibits an enviable degree o f c o n f i d e n c e in

b e i n g willing to assert that Pythagoras a n d Plato actually g o t their w i s d o m from reading the G r e e k Scriptures. E v e n so, he k n o w s w h i c h figures

matter in this ancient version o f culture wars.

T h i s rehearsal is selective, a n d closer analysis o f m a n y o f these texts w o u l d reveal even d e e p e r c o n n e c t i o n s with Hellenistic traditions. T h e y all write in Greek, s o m e m o r e easily a n d m o r e fluently than others, but G r e e k is their t o n g u e , m a y b e even their native t o n g u e . W i t h few exceptions, their Bible is the Septuagint. T h i s m e a n s that they are already e x p e r i e n c i n g the biblical story o n e step r e m o v e d f r o m the H e b r e w , and, as w e all k n o w , it is a very different story in m a n y fundamental

respects. After all, o n l y the Septuagint version o f

the ages o f the patriarchs makes D e m e t r i u s ' c h r o n o l o g i c a l calcula­ tions even b e g i n to s o u n d credible within a Hellenistic e n v i r o n m e n t that c o u n t e d national histories b y millennia.

2 6

As suggested by H . Attridge in the Hellenistic Judaism G r o u p at the Annual Meeting o f the Society o f Biblical Literature in San Francisco, November 22, 1997. See Holladay, FHJA 3.93-94 n. 155. Frg. 4.6 (Holladay, FHJA 3.170-73). 2 7

2 8

74

CARL R. HOLLADAY

W h a t strikes us a b o u t these authors, then, is h o w t h o r o u g h l y they are e n g a g i n g Hellenistic culture. S o m e w h e r e , p r o b a b l y in

grammar

schools, the Jewish poets have learned to read H o m e r ,

Euripides,

a n d Aeschylus, and they are n o w using t h e m as m o d e l s for their o w n creative literary w o r k .

29

T h e r e are strong indications that they feel the

pressure—and attraction—of G r e e k intellectual life. T h e likes o f H e c a taeus, Eratosthenes,

Megasthenes, and Agatharcides o f C n i d u s

are

setting expectations for them, and they are responding in turn. Various streams o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l traditions are i n f o r m i n g t h e m ,

including

N e o - P y t h a g o r e a n i s m , various forms o f Platonism, Peripateticism, a n d Stoicism, a n d they are b e i n g directly influenced b y these

traditions.

W h a t , then, d o w e see as w e l o o k m o r e closely at these

texts?

T h e y are b u y i n g heavily into Hellenism, but are they b u y i n g w h o l e ­ heartedly? O r , are they b u y i n g uncritically? A n d , w h e n they b u y , d o they k n o w w h a t they are purchasing? A n d at w h a t price? F r o m these texts I have selected s o m e specific cases that m a y serve as useful gauges for getting at these questions. I have attempted

to

locate s o m e specific "translation m o m e n t s " w h e r e w e c a n see these authors struggling with certain aspects o f their Jewish heritage, try­ ing to m a k e sense o f it for themselves a n d p r e s u m a b l y for others as they render it into an identifiably Hellenistic f o r m .

Pseudo-Orpheus: God and Evil "And

f r o m g o o d d o e s [ G o d ] give mortals

a n d tearful sufferings."

30

e v i l — b o t h chilling w a r

S o wrote an u n k n o w n A l e x a n d r i a n p o e t ,

perhaps as early as the third century B . C . E .

3 1

T h e p u r p o r t e d speaker

is O r p h e u s , the r e n o w n e d mythical singer o f G r e e c e , w h o in this p o e m speaks o f a transcendent,

invisible G o d w h o eludes

human

k n o w l e d g e . H e also speaks o f h i m as " o n e " a n d "self-generated," to w h o m the existence o f all things is traceable. T h e clear o b j e c t o f

2 9

O n the place o f these authors in elementary school curricula, see D . Thompson, "Language and Literacy in Early Hellenistic Egypt," in P. Bilde, et al., Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt (Aarhus, 1992), 3 9 - 5 2 . These are verses 14 and 16 o f Pseudo-Orpheus. See Holladay, FHJA 4.152-53 and annotations o n this verse, as well as the comments o n this verse in subsequent recensions. This assumes that Recension A is a pagan composition and not a Jewish pseudepigraph. See Holladay, FHJA 4.67. 3 0

31

RESONANCE A N D RESISTANCE

75

such praise is n o n e other than Z e u s , "master o f the universe," w h o presides o v e r the c o s m o s f r o m his heavenly throne. A t s o m e point, this p o e m fell into the hands o f a Jewish reader, m o s t likely in A l e x a n d r i a , w h o f o u n d it irresistible. T h e n o t i o n o f one

G o d w h o was responsible for creating the universe a n d w h o

presided in heavenly d o m i n i o n o v e r the c o s m o s so resonated with the biblical tradition that the p o e m h a d to b e appropriated for Jewish use a n d edification. A t least t w o stages o f redaction are c l e a r — o n e portraying "a u ni q ue figure . . . an offshoot o f the C h a l d e a n r a c e " as the sole recipient o f this divine revelation, another portraying " o n e b o r n in the u n d e r g r o w t h " as having r e c e i v e d this k n o w l e d g e f r o m God

o n a "two-tablet l a w . "

3 2

In this w a y , A b r a h a m a n d

Moses

b e c o m e purveyors o f this u n i q u e revelation. Not

everything in the p o e m resonated so easily with the biblical

tradition. F o r o n e thing, the figure so described was explicitly n a m e d Z e u s (v. 24); for another, he was said to b e responsible, in s o m e way,

for inflicting evil u p o n mortals ( w . 14 & 16).

Fortunately, w e are able to trace the recensional history o f this p o e m with s o m e degree o f c o n f i d e n c e , a n d w e are able to see h o w e a c h o f these assertions w a s treated b y s u b s e q u e n t J e w i s h

(and

Christian) redactors. T h e line referring to Z e u s is simply omitted b y the t w o redactors o f the " A b r a h a m i c " a n d " M o s a i c " versions o f the p o e m . Simple e n o u g h . T h e claim a b o u t G o d ' s role in inflicting evil u p o n h u m a n k i n d has a m o r e fascinating history. It is retained b y the first Jewish redactor with only slight modification. T h e s e c o n d Jewish redactor, h o w e v e r , finds it so p r o b l e m a t i c that he turns the line into an unqualified denial: " A n d he himself o u t o f g o o d things d o e s n o t enjoin evil o n mortal m e n ; but grace a n d hatred a c c o m ­ p a n y h i m . " Similar revisionism is seen in the textual tradition o f the first r e c e n s i o n .

33

W h y w o u l d the first Jewish reader find the assertion u n p r o b l e m a t i c a n d the s e c o n d o n e feel c o m p e l l e d to resort to such drastic revision? T h e first Jewish r e d a c t o r m a y have f o u n d n o t hing troubling a b o u t

3 2

Recension B is usually referred to as the "Abrahamic" recension, Recension C as the "Mosaic" recension. Jewish authorship o f both recensions is certain. O n the recensional history o f the p o e m and the authors o f its compositional stages, see Holladay, FHJA 4 . 4 8 - 6 4 . See the table o f textual variants in Holladay, FHJA 4.251, and the discussion o f v. 14 on pp. 162-65. T h e following discussion draws on the information in the annotations in this section. 3 3

76

CARL R. HOLLADAY

attributing evil to G o d , since the biblical tradition frequently presents God

as the source o f b o t h g o o d a n d evil. In fact, C l e m e n t cites D e u t

32:39 w h e r e G o d says, "I kill and I m a k e alive; I w o u n d a n d I heal; a n d n o o n e c a n deliver from m y h a n d " to s h o w h o w these verses are resonant with the biblical tradition. c o u l d b e cited as w e l l . At

O t h e r passages f r o m the Bible

34

this point, the biblical tradition

resonates with the

Homeric

tradition w h e r e G o d is u n d e r s t o o d as the o n e w h o afflicts h u m a n k i n d with ills

35

o r as the giver o f b o t h g o o d a n d e v i l .

36

T h e H o m e r i c view

is captured especially well in the m o r a l allegory w h e r e Z e u s is p o r ­ trayed as having t w o jars, o n e f r o m w h i c h he dispenses ills, the other blessings;

37

or, a c c o r d i n g to o n e tradition, three jars, t w o filled with

evil gifts, the other with blessings.

38

T h e H o m e r i c v i e w p o i n t is also

well represented a m o n g other poets, including T h e o g n i s , mus,

40

Pindar,

41

Aeschylus,

42

and M e n a n d e r .

the g o d s are "givers o f g o o d things," their a e g i s .

45

44

43

39

Mimner-

In H e s i o d , even though

b o t h g o o d and evil are u n d e r

T h e y c a n afflict humans with various ills, e.g., p o v e r t y ,

especially as retribution

of wrongdoing.

46

47

A s w e c a n see, the first Jewish redactor h a d b o t h the Bible a n d a well-established G r e e k tradition traceable to H o m e r o n his side a n d thus saw n o n e e d to alter the verse. T h e s e c o n d Jewish redactor, in spite o f the strength o f these t w o traditions,

m a y have b e e n m o r e

heavily influenced b y another, equally strong tradition Plato. T h e H o m e r i c v i e w is sharply criticized b y P l a t o

3 4

traceable to 48

w h o insists

Isa 45:7; A m o s 3:6b; J o b 2:10; 5:17-18; 9:17; 10:8; 12:13-25; 13:26; cf. Exod

4:11. 35

II. 15.109; Od. 2 0 . 1 9 9 - 2 0 3 ; cf. II. 2.419-20; h.Cer. 147, 216. Od. 4.236-37; 8.62-63; 15.488-89; cf. //. 16.250-52. II. 24.525-33. T h e allegory o f the jars o f Zeus is variously appropriated, e.g., Plutarch Mor. 24B, 105C, 6 0 0 D . T h e theme recurs in Hesiod Op. 9 0 - 1 0 4 . Esp. 133; also 155-58, 171-72, 2 3 0 - 3 2 , 4 6 3 - 6 4 , 5 9 1 - 9 2 ; cf. 165-66. Frg. 2.15. Isthm. 5.52. Niobe Frg. 154a. 15; TrGF 2.488; 2.489. Epitr. 1085-86. Theog. 633, 664. Op. 6 6 7 - 6 9 ; Th. 2 1 8 - 2 0 , 900, 905. Op. 638, 717-18. Op. 2 1 3 - 4 7 . Resp. 3 7 9 A - E . 36

37

3 8

3 9

4 0

41

4 2

4 3

4 4

4 5

46

47

4 8

77

R E S O N A N C E A N D RESISTANCE

that G o d , b e i n g only g o o d , c a n n o t b e the source o f evil: " . . . for the g o o d w e must assume n o other cause than G o d , but the cause o f evil w e must l o o k for in other things a n d n o t in G o d . "

4 9

Citing

H o m e r ' s use o f the allegory o f the jars o f Z e u s as e r r o n e o u s p o e t i c folly, Plato rejects the saying (not f o u n d in H o m e r ) that " Z e u s is dis­ penser alike o f g o o d a n d o f evil to m o r t a l s . "

50

T h e sentiments o f the

s e c o n d Jewish redactor are also reflected in other Hellenistic Jewish texts, e.g., Ep. Arist. 2 0 5 ,

51

w h i c h e c h o e s the Platonic critique o f the

H o m e r i c view, but especially in Philo w h o consistently distances G o d from evil in any f o r m . The

52

p r o b l e m generated

s o m e a m b i v a l e n c e a m o n g the

Stoics.

Chrysippus is said to have sided with H e s i o d ' s j u d g m e n t that Z e u s sends calamities u p o n m o r t a l s ,

53

t h o u g h insisting that the g o d s use

such events to punish the w i c k e d , thereby p r o v i d i n g a lesson for everybody else.

54

H e r e is a case, then, w h e r e a clearly d o c u m e n t e d biblical sentiment a b o u t G o d ' s role in relation to evil is taken in o p p o s i t e directions b y t w o Greek-speaking J e w s p r o b a b l y operating in r o u g h l y the same setting. W h a t makes this case especially interesting is that the bibli­ cal sentiment resonates with o n e stream o f G r e e k tradition yet stands in tension with another, equally reputable stream o f G r e e k tradition. W e find different versions o f the p o e m r e s p o n d i n g to e a c h . T h i s illustrates particularly well the complexities a n d ambiguities that w e r e i n v o l v e d in rendering the biblical tradition into plausible G r e e k forms. It serves as a salutary r e m i n d e r that the Hellenistic tradition itself was far f r o m static a n d that hellenizing the biblical tradition c o u l d result in t w o diametrically o p p o s e d theological view­ points.

49

Resp. 379C. Resp. 379E; cf. Tim. 29E-30A; Pseudo-Plato Epin. 978A. Cf. Ep. Arist. 231. Qu. Gen. 1.100; Sacr. 17 §63; Det. 32 §122; Post. C. 23 §80; Conf. 31 §161, 35-36 § 1 7 9 - 8 1 ; Fuga 13 §70, 15 §§79-80; Mut. 39 §221; Opif. 24 §75; Spec. kg. 4.35 §187; Prov. 2.53; cf. Prob. 12 §84 (of the Essenes); however, cf. Leg. alleg. 3.34 §§104-6. Op. 2 4 2 - 4 3 . Plutarch Moral. 1040B-C; cf. Moral. 1048E-F; 1049A-B; 1049D-E; 1 0 5 0 C - D . 50

51

52

53

5 4

78

CARL R. HOLLADAY

Aristobulus: The Sabbath and God's Resting T h e r e is s o m e indication that Greek-speaking J e w s e x p e r i e n c e d spe­ cial difficulty w h e n they sought to explain Sabbath o b s e r v a n c e a n d the related n o t i o n o f G o d ' s resting o n the Sabbath. F r o m o u r b o d y o f material, this is especially evident in Aristobulus, Frg. 5, a frag­ m e n t d e v o t e d exclusively to this question. T h e fragment is t o o l o n g to q u o t e in full, so w e give only the first part: Following on this is the fact that G o d , who made and furnished the whole universe, also gave us a day o f rest—because o f the toilsome life everyone has—the seventh day, but which, in a deeper sense, might also be called first, that is, the beginning o f light through which all things are seen together. And the same thing could be applied metaphor­ ically to wisdom as well, for all light issues from it. And some mem­ bers o f the Peripatetic school have said that it occupies the position of a lamp; for, by following it continually, they will remain undisturbed their entire life. But Solomon, one o f our ancestors, said more clearly and more eloquently that it was there before heaven and earth. A n d this is actually in harmony with what was said above. N o w , as for what is shown plainly in our code o f laws, namely, that G o d "ceased" working on the seventh day, this does not, as some suppose, substan­ tiate the view that G o d no longer does anything, but rather means that once he had "ceased" the arrangement o f his works, that they were thus arranged for all time. For it signifies that "in six days he made both the heaven, the earth, and everything in them," that he might show the times and proclaim the order by which one thing pre­ cedes another. For, once he arranged all things, he thus holds them together and presides over their movements. Our law code has clearly shown us that the seventh day is an inherent law of nature that serves as a symbol o f the sevenfold principle established all around us through which we have knowledge o f things both human and divine. A n d indeed all the world comprising all animal and plant life as well revolves through periods o f seven; but that the seventh day is called the Sabbath means that it is a day of rest. Homer and Hesiod, who took their information from our books, plainly show that the seventh day is holy. (Then follows quotations attributed to Homer and Hesiod pertaining to the number seven.) 55

M u c h in this remarkable passage remains unclear. But o n e thing is quite clear: Aristobulus' n e e d to demonstrate the philosophical respect­ ability o f S a b b a t h o b s e r v a n c e a n d to explain the biblical claim that God

"rested."

This is my translation from FHJA 3.177-89.

RESONANCE A N D RESISTANCE

79

W a l t e r m a y b e right in suggesting that Frg. 5 is a f o r m o f c o m ­ mentary o n G e n 2 : 2 - 3 ,

3 6

although it is w o r t h noting that the o n l y

explicit biblical reference m a d e t h r o u g h o u t 2 0 : 1 1 . M o r e o v e r , in G e n 2 : 2 - 3 the

the discussion is E x o d

operative term

is Kata^atico

whereas the term Aristobulus introduces as n e e d i n g s o m e explana­ tion is d7t07cauco. Later w h e n he explains the

significance o f the

Sabbath, he uses dvd7r.oa)oi<;, w h i c h d o e s n o t o c c u r in L X X Genesis in c o n n e c t i o n with the Sabbath, whereas it is the usual term e m p l o y e d in E x o d u s .

57

H o w e v e r , as he p r o c e e d s with his explanation he uses

Katomauco a n d this m a y b e e n o u g h to link his exposition with

the

Genesis text. A s s u m i n g that W a l t e r is c o r r e c t a n d that G e n 2 : 2 - 3

prompts

Aristobulus' remarks in Frg. 5, w h a t is w o r t h noting for o u r pur­ poses is his disclaimer, "this d o e s not, as s o m e suppose, substantiate the v i e w that G o d n o l o n g e r d o e s anything." W h o d o e s Aristobulus have in m i n d w h e n he alludes to those w h o will misconstrue G o d ' s "rest" to m e a n that after creating the w o r l d G o d ceased to b e active? C o u l d it b e a reference to the p a g a n caricature o f the Jewish G o d as lazy, as reflected in the tradition later cited b y Celsus that after creating the w o r l d , G o d n e e d e d a h o l i d a y because he was t i r e d ?

58

O r , are the " s o m e w h o s u p p o s e " this questioners in s o m e a c a d e m i c setting w h e r e philosophical topics are b e i n g discussed? To

b e sure, there was n o single Hellenistic c o n c e p t i o n o f G o d

with w h i c h the n o t i o n o f a "resting G o d " might have conflicted. O n the contrary, it resonated quite well with certain G r e e k c o n c e p t i o n s o f G o d . In s o m e respects, it m i g h t recall images o f inactivity o r pas­ sivity associated with Aristotle's U n m o v e d M o v e r , although belief in creation a n d providential care o f the w o r l d certainly separate biblical G o d from Aristode's G o d .

5 6

57

5 9

the

Plato was another matter, however,

N . Walter, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos (Berlin, 1964), 3 0 - 3 1 . Exod 16:23; 23:12; 31:15; 35:2, where both Kaxanavmc, and dvaTtcroaK; are

used. 5 8

Origen, Against Celsus 6.61, where Celsus claims that after creating the world, G o d "exacdy like a bad workman, was worn out, and needed a holiday to have a rest" (Stern, GLAJJ, 2.290, 305 notes on § 61). Similarly, Rutilius Namatianus (beg. 5th cent. C.E.), "Each seventh day is condemned to ignoble sloth, as 'twere an effeminate picture o f the g o d fatigued" (Stern, GLAJJ, 2.663-64, notes o n § 392). Stern refers to H . Schenkl, Rhein. Museum 66 (1911), 394ff. Also, see L.H. Feldman and M . Reinhold, Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings (Minneapolis, 1996), 366-73. See D . Ross, Aristotle (6th ed.; London, 1995), 184-91. 5 9

80

CARL R. HOLLADAY

especially since the Timaeus offered a c o s m o g o n y that presented s o m e striking parallels to the Genesis creation story. W h i l e the d e g r e e to w h i c h Aristobulus reflects awareness o f Plato's Timaeus is a matter o f some debate, this m a y b e an instance where he does s o .

60

Specifically,

Tim. 4 2 e 5 ~ 6 describes the D e m i u r g e as having " m a d e all these ordi­ n a n c e s " after w h i c h he " r e m a i n e d in his o w n a c c u s t o m e d nature" (Kai 6 Liev Sf| oatavxa xauxa 8iaxdc;a<; euevev ev xco eauxou Kaxd xporcov TiGei).

61

W h a t Plato m e a n s is far from clear. G o r n f o r d , contrasting

this passage with G e n 2:2, denies that " r e m a i n e d " (eiievev) here means "rest o r cessation o f activity." Instead,

"the m e a n i n g seems to b e

that the D e m i u r g e left these further operations to the created g o d s , confining himself to his o w n proper activity."

62

In response to Cornford,

R u n i a rightly observes that " t h o u g h [eu£vev] d o e s n o t indicate a total cessation o f activity, it d o e s i m p l y a retirement

o n the part o f the

d e m i u r g e f r o m the tasks o n w h i c h he has b e e n e n g a g e d , a n d this fits perfectly into the

Timaeus'' mythical f r a m e w o r k . "

63

It d o e s n o t

seem i n c o n c e i v a b l e , then, that Aristobulus k n o w s this passage

from

the Timaeus, o r at least knows discussions that m i g h t i m p l y that the D e m i u r g e , after

having finished the first stage o f creation, lapsed

into s o m e f o r m o f inactivity. Aristobulus's response is brief, although it should b e n o t e d that a l o n g e r version o f his explanation appears to b e preserved in C l e m e n t Stromateis (Frg. 5 b ) .

6 4

A c c o r d i n g to the shorter version, " O n c e [ G o d ]

h a d ' c e a s e d ' the arrangement

o f his works, they w e r e arranged for

all t i m e . " T h e l o n g e r version gives a slightly different twist: " [ G o d ' s ] having ' c e a s e d ' [means] that he h a d arranged to preserve intact for all time the original arrangement o f the created o r d e r , a n d that e a c h o f the things created h a d 'ceased' b e i n g part o f the primordial c h a o s . " H e further explains, with specific reference to E x o d 2 0 : 1 1 , that G o d w a n t e d to " s h o w the times a n d p r o c l a i m the o r d e r b y w h i c h o n e thing p r e c e d e s the other. For, o n c e he arranged all things, he thus holds t h e m together a n d presides o v e r their m o v e m e n t s . "

6 0

65

H e r e , as

See D . T . Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Amsterdam, 1983), 1.78. Jowett's trans, in E. Hamilton and H . Cairns, The Collected Dialogues of Plato (Bollingen Series 71; Princeton, NJ, 1969), 1171. F.M. Cornford, Plato's Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato Translated with a Running Commentary (London, 1937), 147. Runia, Philo . . . Timaeus, 1.219. See FHJA 3.182-83. Strictly speaking, Lxexanoieto should be rendered "alter" or "remodel." For this 61

6 2

6 3

6 4

6 5

RESONANCE A N D RESISTANCE

elsewhere, Aristobulus

anticipates the m u c h

81

fuller

discussion

that

o c c u r s in Philo Leg. all. 1.5-7. Like Aristobulus, Philo k n o w s the p o s ­ sible ways G o d ' s not

"resting" c a n b e misconstrued, a l t h o u g h he d o e s

m e n t i o n specific p r o p o n e n t s o f such views. Philo's

is given with specific reference

to G e n 2 : 2 - 3 ,

explanation

a n d h e draws o n a

p h i l o l o g i c a l distinction. T h e t e r m KaxccTtauco, Philo insists, w a s a felic­ itous c h o i c e b y M o s e s , b e c a u s e it carried a causal sense: " t o cause to rest," that is, " t o b r i n g to a rest, to b r i n g to a c o n c l u s i o n . " T h a t he did

n o t e m p l o y the t e r m 7cocuco in its m i d d l e f o r m ,

eTtcxuacxxo, is a

significant distinction for Philo, for that w o u l d h a v e i m p l i e d that G o d himself actually "rested" o r c e a s e d b e i n g active. T h i s is an impossi­ bility for Philo w h o thinks that G o d ' s creative activity is n o t t e m ­ poral but eternal.

66

reason, Stephanus and Valckenaer proposed that ov be added, yielding " . . . thus he holds things together and does not alter them." Yet, as Philo Leg. all. 1.5-7 indi­ cates, G o d can b e understood as continuing to b e active after the initial creation, with ongoing responsibility for the movements o f the various parts o f the cosmos. See FHJA 3.229 n. 139. T h e passage is worth quoting in full: rcpcoTOV ovv e|386Lrri imepa Kcaarcauoac; TTIV TGW GvnTcov a w x a a i v b\p%exa\ exepcov Geioxepcov Sicmmcbaeax; • navexm yap ovb'moxe jioicbv 6 Qebq, aXX' roonep i'Siov TO lcaieiv nvpbq Kai %xbvoq TO \|/r>%eiv, oikcoc; Kai Qeov TO rcoietv K a i noXv ye \iaXXov, oaq) Kai Toiq aXXoiq owcaow dpxn TOV 8pav eaxiv. ev uivToi K a i TO (pdvat "KaxETiauaev," oi>%i "eitatxraTo" • navei \iev yap Ta 8oKovvTa TcoieTv OTJK evepyowxa, ov navexai 8e noicov avxbq. 816 K a i eTticpepei "KaTertavasv dw T i p ^ a T o " . o a a u l v yap Tai<; fi(xeTepai<; T£%vai<; SnuiotipyeiTat, TeA,eico0evTa ioTaTai Kai itevei, b a a 8e e%iaxr\\ir) Geoxi, nepaTtoGevTa naXiv KiveixaiTa yap xiXr\ avx&v kxepwv eiaiv dp%at, olov f||iipa<; xeXoq VVKXOC, dp%f|, Kai (ifjva 8e K a i e v i a w o v evicTaiaivovq rcepaTa 8r|7ioD TCOV E^IIKOVTCOV {)7roA,ri7iTeov • yeveaic; TE a t ) (pGeipoixevcov exepcov Kai ipGopd yevvcoLievcov aA,A,cov a7C0TeA,eiTai, COOTE aXrfikq eivai TO Xeyb\ievov o n 6 6

GvfiaKei 8' o\)88v TCOV yvyvouevtov, SiaKpivo^evov 8 ' aXXo npbq aXXo uopcpryv kxepav anedeifyv. M y modified translation o f Colson and Whitaker (LCL) is as follows: "First, then, on the seventh day, having concluded the formation o f mortal things, he begins the configuration o f other things more divine. For G o d never rests from creating, but just as it is characteristic o f fire to burn and o f snow to melt, so also is it char­ acteristic o f G o d to create; and even much more so, since he is the source o f action for all other things. In fact, it [or, Moses] well says 'he brought to rest' ( K a T e n a u c e v ) not 'he rested' (enavaaxo); for while he brings to rest (navei) the things that seem (themselves) to create though not actually in operation, he himself does not rest from creating. Thus he also adds to the expression 'he brought to rest' (KaTenavoev) the words 'the things he began' (cbv rjp^aTo). For whereas things that are produced by our (own) skills, once finished, stand still and remain as they are, things pro­ duced b y G o d ' s skill, once completed, begin to move again; for their endings are the beginnings o f other things, just as the end o f day is the beginning o f night, and the openings o f a month and o f a year must naturally b e regarded as limits that

82

CARL R. HOLLADAY

Theodotus: Circumcision and Endogamy A n o t h e r interesting case (or set o f cases) is supplied b y T h e o d o t u s who

renders G e n 3 4 into the f o r m o f epic poetry. T h e Bible sup­

plies the basic story line, but T h e o d o t u s exercises considerable free­ dom

as he re-casts the biblical story into p o e t i c form.

close those which have elapsed; birth again is accomplished through other things decaying, and decay through fresh births, showing the truth o f the saying (Euripides, Frg. 839): 'Nothing born does ever die, Its severed parts together fly, A n d yield another shape.' Also, see D . Winston's translation in Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, the Giants, and Selections [ T h e Classics o f Western Spirituality; N e w York, 1981], 107.) Elsewhere, Philo is similarly insistent o n G o d ' s continuing activity, esp. Cher. 8 7 - 9 0 . Discussing the perfect nature o f G o d , Philo introduces Moses' references to the Sabbath, noting that it means "rest." T h e n emphasizing that it signifies not human rest, but G o d ' s rest, Philo sees an important principle: "For in all truth there is but one thing in the universe which rests, that is G o d . But Moses does not give the name o f rest to mere inactivity. T h e cause o f all things is by its nature active; it never ceases to work all that is best and most beautiful. God's rest is rather a working with absolute ease, without toil and without suffering." Philo then mentions the various parts o f the universe—sun, m o o n , etc., that continually move, but insists that they d o so because they get fatigued. G o d , by contrast, does not experience fatigue. "Since then weariness is the natural cause o f change in things that turn and vary, and since G o d turns not and changes not, H e must be by nature unwearying. But a being that is free from weakness, even though he is mak­ ing all things, will cease not to all eternity to be at rest, and thus rest belongs in the fullest sense to G o d and to H i m alone." (trans. Colson & Whitaker, [LCL]). Naturally, Sabbath observance occupies Philo in a number o f places. At times, he stresses the importance o f human inactivity (Migr. Abr. 16 § 91; Her. 35 § 170; Fuga 31 § 173). At other times, the sanctity o f the number seven is his primary focus [Opif. 43 § 128; Qu. Gen. 2.41). That he is perfectly capable o f discussing Gen 2:2-3 without feeling the need to explain G o d ' s "resting" is seen in Decal. 20 § 9 6 - 1 0 1 , where he comments on the fourth commandment. Noting the peculiarities of Jewish practice in observing Sabbath, he cites the Genesis creation account as a rationale for Sabbath observance. His exposition is quite straightforward. H e men­ tions the biblical reference to God's ceasing from work on the seventh day (xr\ 8' e(386(XTi 7t0U)O"dLi£vov xcov epycov) but provides no discussion o f "rest." Instead, he takes the cycle o f God's "working and resting" as a paradigm that embodies the two complementary sides o f life, the practical and the contemplative, and proposes this divine paradigm as worthy o f human emulation. Similarly, in Post. 18 § 6 3 - 6 5 , discussing the paradox o f the younger Israel taking precedence over the "firstborn," he cites G e n 2:2~3, followed by Gen 2:4. H e takes the latter to refer to the first day o f creation, thus illustrating h o w seven, while following six, can actually occupy the primal position: "in value [it] takes precedence o f every number, in nothing differing from o n e . " On 2.59.

the Sabbath as the birthday o f the world, see Mos. 1.206-7; also Spec. leg.

RESONANCE A N D RESISTANCE

In

Frg

reports

4, w e have

that H a m o r

portion o f land."

67

Polyhistor's

introductory

83

paraphrase

which

r e c e i v e d J a c o b hospitably, e v e n " g i v i n g h i m

a

H e also supplies s o m e o t h e r n o n - b i b l i c a l details:

D i n a h a n d J a c o b ' s wives w e r e w o o l - w o r k e r s ; D i n a h w e n t t o the city o f S h e c h e m at the time o f a "great festival" b e c a u s e she w a n t e d

to

see the city. T h e n w e have T h e o d o t u s ' summary Eu^eM- 8e TOV TOV 'Eituxop vibv

(or is it Polyhistor?):

i86vxa EpaaGiyvai auxfjc; K a i dprcdaavxa

cbc; e m n o v StaKouiaat K a i cpGeipai aurfyv. avQiq 8 E ovv xtp rcaxpi eXBovxa npbq xov 'IaKcbp dixetv avxriv 7tp6<; yduoi) Koivcoviav. W h e n Shechem, the son o f Hamor, saw her, he loved her; and, seiz­ ing her as his own, he carried her away and raped her. A n d after­ wards, when he came with his father to J a c o b , he sought her as a partner for marriage.

68

T h e L X X version (Rahlfs) o f G e n 3 4 : 2 ~ 4 o n w h i c h T h e o d o t u s ' sum­ m a r y is b a s e d is as follows: K a i ei8ev auxriv IA>X£LI 6 vibq

Euuxop 6 Xoppaioc; 6 ctpxcov xr\q yr\q K a i

taxpcbv otuxryv £Koiur|0r| iiex' ax)xf|<; K a i ExarcEivcoaEV ax>xr\v. K a i npoaeaxev xi] \|/t>xfi Aiva^ xr\q Qvyaxpbq IaKcoP K a i fiydnrioev xr\v 7iap0£vov K a i eA,dA,r|O E V K a x a xf|v 8 i d v o i a v xf|<; nap%vov xov 7tax£pa avxov And

Xeycov Aafie

ax>xf\. einev

8 E 2/u%£|i, npbq Eiiixcop

(xoi xriv 7iai8(aKr|v xavxriv EI<; yt>vaiKa.

Shechem, the son o f H a m o r the Ghorraios (Hivite), the ruler o f

the land, saw her, and taking her, he lay with her and humiliated her. A n d he devoted himself to the soul o f Dinah, the daughter o f Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke to her in a manner befitting the girl's desire ( N R S V : spoke tenderly to her; lit., according to the desire o f the girl to her). And Shechem spoke to Hamor, his father, saying, "Get

me this girl for a wife."

Here I am indebted to David Runia's very helpful discussion in Philo of Alexandria and the T i m a e m of Plato (Amsterdam, 1983), 1.219-20. In particular, he notes (cor­ rectly, I think) Mut. 46 as a clear case o f influence from the Timaeus: " T h e last three words [of the quotation] disclose the discreet presence o f Plato's words in the background. A proper understanding o f the creational account leads to the con­ clusion that in Moses' view there can be n o talk o f a demiurgic retirement in the manner suggested b y Plato (even if it should be mythically intended). G o d ' s selfsufficient transcendence entails that his creatorship does not pose a threat to his immutability" (220). O n Philo's view o f creation as eternal rather than temporal, see Winston, Philo, 13-21. In G e n 33:19, J a c o b bought the plot o f land from the sons o f H a m o r for 100 pieces o f money. FHJA 2 . 1 1 4 - 1 7 . 6 7

6 8

84

CARL R. HOLLADAY

T h e o d o t u s ' paraphrase loses s o m e o f the n u a n c e o f the L X X a n d is in certain respects a harsher depiction o f S h e c h e m ' s actions. Like the L X X , T h e o d o t u s reports the initial incident for what it was: the rape o f a y o u n g girl, but the Bible's report o f S h e c h e m ' s

subsequent

a m o r o u s overtures is omitted b y T h e o d o t u s . Instead, a c c o r d i n g to T h e o d o t u s , S h e c h e m r a p e d her, then immediately asked his father to get her as his wife. Especially worth noting, for our purposes, is h o w T h e o d o t u s achieves this shift o f portrayal.

W h i l e his s u m m a r y

captures the essence o f

the biblical narrative, it departs rather c o n s p i c u o u s l y f r o m the f o r m . T h e L X X reports that S h e c h e m "saw her . . . t o o k her, lay with her, and violated her" (ei5ev ocoxfiv . . . ?uxP©v auxnv . . . £Koi|ir|6r| jxet amriq . . . exaneivoaaev straightforward.

ax>xr\v). T y p i c a l o f the Septuagint,

the language is

69

T h e o d o t u s uses i S o v m for L X X ei5ev, but for the other substitutes language

verbs

with a distinctively e p i c , especially H o m e r i c ,

flavor. His expression " l o v e d her" (epocaGfivai a\)tfj<;) e c h o e s H o m e r ' s use o f epa|iai, w h e r e it is always used o f sexual p a s s i o n . her as his o w n "

(apTtdaavxa

70

"Seizing

ax; e a v i o v ) also e c h o e s H o m e r , w h e r e

ap7ta£co is used o f sexual seizure.

71

" C a r r i e d her a w a y " (8iaKO(i(aai)

is n o t as obviously H o m e r i c , although KO|O,I^CO o c c u r s in H o m e r in the sense "carry away as b o o t y . "

7 2

" R a p e d her" (cpOeipai amr\v)

is

also less specifically H o m e r i c , although the term is used in the sense " s e d u c e " in D i o C h r y s o s t o m and Lysias. As

already n o t e d , since this is a s u m m a r y

o f T h e o d o t u s rather

than a quotation f r o m actual lines o f his poetry, w e d o n o t k n o w whether the language is his o r Polyhistor's. In either case, what is clear is h o w t h o r o u g h l y the language o f the L X X has b e e n

recast.

In Frg. 5, T h e o d o t u s gives a p o e t i c version o f G o d ' s c o v e n a n t with A b r a h a m in G e n 1 7 : 9 - 1 4 . It o c c u r s within the context o f his depiction o f the rape o f D i n a h w h e r e c i r c u m c i s i o n plays an i m p o r ­ tant role b o t h in the Bible a n d in T h e o d o t u s ' a c c o u n t . In fact, in the previous fragment, J a c o b has just spoken a b o u t the

69

importance

Examples of K O I U & V meaning "to have sex with" can be found in Gen: 19:32-35; 26:10; 30:15-16; also cf. 19:4; 2 K g (= 2 Sam) 13:14; TCOTEWOOV in the sense o f sexual violation, Deut 21:14; 2 K g (= 2 Sam) 13:12,14; Ezek 22:10-11; possibly Gen 31:50. //. 3.446; cf. 20.223; also //. 16.182, 208. //. 3.444. II. 2.875; 11.738. 70 71

72

85

R E S O N A N C E A N D RESISTANCE

o f e n d o g a m y . In Frg. 5, J a c o b appears to b e speaking, and the topic is circumcision (nepixo^ir\q). H e speaks four lines o f hexameter "Oq nox\ inei 7tdTpr|<; e^riyaye 8iov 'APpad|i, avxbq an' oi)pav60£v KcxA,£a' d v E p a jravxi cruv a d p K ' cx7ioa\)A.fiaai 7t6a0ri<; ano,

acx£\i(f£.q 8E

TETUKTCU,

Kcd p

enei Qebq avxbq

verse:

OIKCO

ixekeccev EEUIE.

That one (God) once, when he led the noble Abraham out of his fatherland, He himself from heaven called the man with all his house T o strip off the flesh from the foreskin, and thus he accomplished it And it remains unchanged since G o d himself uttered it. H e r e again, the Bible provides the springboard, but little m o r e . T h e r e is hardly any sense in w h i c h G e n 1 7 : 9 - 1 4 is b e i n g paraphrased in these verses. Rather, T h e o d o t u s is taking a biblical episode and re­ casting it poetically. As before, his acquaintance with the G r e e k epic tradition is clear. T h e phrase "he led the noble A b r a h a m out" ( e ^ y a y e Siov 'Appadji) is virtually identical to Od. 8.494 fjyaye Sioq 'Oouaaeuc,, although

" n o b l e O d y s s e u s " functions

as the

subject, w h e r e a s

in

T h e o d o t u s " n o b l e A b r a h a m " is the object o f the verb. Portraying A b r a h a m this w a y is an o b v i o u s departure from the L X X , since the term oioc, does not o c c u r in the L X X . It is, h o w e v e r , frequently used as an honorific epithet b y epic poets, especially H o m e r , but also b y Callimachus and A p o l l o n i u s o f R h o d e s , and w h e n referring to m o r ­ tals it usually means " n o b l e " o r "illustrious." Similarly, an' oupavoGev echoes the epic tradition. T h e phrase occurs several times in H o m e r .

7 3

T h e w o r d oupavoGev appears in H o m e r , A p o l l o n i u s o f R h o d e s , and Callimachus, but occurs o n l y o n c e in the

LXX.

7 4

W h e n it c o m e s to depicting the act o f circumcision in a h e x a m ­ eter line, T h e o d o t u s faces a greater challenge. T h e w o r d i n g o f L X X G e n 17:11 obviously poses problems for the poet: Kai 7t£piTuvn0f|aea0£ xf|v adpKa xr}q aKpoPuoxiaq u|j,cov. T h e line he p r o d u c e s , h o w e v e r , is n o t a b a d rendering: odpK' a7toouA,fiaai rcoaGnc, d7co. H e is able to retain adpK' from the L X X , but uses his ingenuity in c o m i n g u p with d7uocn)A,fjcjai, "to strip away." T h e term is used in Pindar for plundering spoils o f w a r ,

73

7 4

75

75

but, as o n e w o u l d expect, has n o clear

II 8.365; 21.199; Od. 11.18; 12.381; note esp. Zzbq 4 M a c e 4:10. P. 4.110.

o<>pav60£v //. 17.548.

86

CARL R. HOLLADAY

counterpart in the epic poets for describing surgical action o n the male genitalia. N o r does it o c c u r in the L X X . Similarly, the term for foreskin (rcooGri) has n o counterpart in the L X X , n o r in H o m e r for that matter, although

it d o e s o c c u r e l s e w h e r e

76

Here,

again,

T h e o d o t u s is operating with his o w n ingenuity. T h e term for " a c c o m p l i s h e d " (exiXeooev),

the epic aorist o f xeAia),

also occurs in H o m e r , Apollonius o f R h o d e s , a n d Gallimachus. T h e term for the p e r m a n e n c e o f the c o v e n a n t o f circumcision (aox£|j.(pr|c;), is also attested in H o m e r , Apollonius, Theocritus, and N o n n u s , but does not o c c u r in the L X X . Similarly, the w o r d for "uttered" (eeucev), is the epic and lyric f o r m o f eircev and occurs frequently in H o m e r . As w e have seen, then, T h e o d o t u s ' depiction o f the c o v e n a n t o f circumcision that G o d m a d e with A b r a h a m offers yet another e x a m ­ ple o f h o w the biblical narrative is re-cast into G r e e k i d i o m . It is based o n G e n 1 7 : 9 - 1 4 , but the biblical text serves little m o r e than a springboard. In only the remotest sense d o e s T h e o d o t u s attempt to paraphrase the biblical account. Instead, his task is to take the essence o f the biblical story and render it into hexameters. H e d o e s so in ways that clearly e c h o the G r e e k epic tradition. Since s o m e o f the phrasing h a d already w o r k e d well in hexameter verse previously, T h e o d o t o u s appropriates it virtually u n c h a n g e d .

Here

Theodotus

shows that he is n o t only familiar with epic conventions for depict­ ing h e r o i c figures, but that he also c a n use t h e m

adroitly.

T h e o d o t u s thus succeeds quite nicely in c o n v e y i n g the gist o f the biblical a c c o u n t ; in fact, he does m o r e . H e accents important fea­ tures emphasized in the biblical account, either in G e n 17 o r else­ where: the divine origin o f the c o m m a n d m e n t to circumcise and its consequent p e r m a n e n c e . T h e biblical content is there, but the liter­ ary f o r m is conspicuously Greek. T h e language appears to b e c h o ­ sen with care, and whether T h e o d o t u s intended his readers to hear e c h o e s o f H o m e r , A p o l l o n i u s , and Callimachus

o r whether

these

authors merely supply h i m the language and phraseology, the effect is the same: the biblical story is not merely a c c o m m o d a t i n g to the G r e e k tradition, it is n o w conveying it. T h e m o r e w e read these Greek-speaking Jewish authors, the m o r e w e are struck with the freedom they seem to have exercised in recast­ ing the biblical story. T h i s m a y strike us as b o l d literary license

Dioscorides (Medicus) 4.153; Rufus Onom. 102; Oribasius Fr.

87

R E S O N A N C E A N D RESISTANCE

because w e assume that something like o u r L X X existed as a fixed text w h i c h these authors read a n d then chose t o embellish to o n e degree o r another. W a s this necessarily the case? Perhaps w e should assume

a m u c h m o r e fluid textual tradition o f the L X X than is

sometimes the case w h e n w e w o r k with these texts. E v e n i f w e assume a fairly fixed f o r m o f the G r e e k Bible, espe­ cially the Pentateuch, h o w should w e construe these various forms o f rewriting o r paraphrasing that w e encounter? C o n t e m p o r a r y

prac­

tice a m o n g the Hellenistic poets themselves m a y p r o v i d e us a clue. A p o l l o n i u s ' masterpiece the Argonautica offers a useful analogy: The central poetic technique o f Apollonius is the creative reworking of Homer. While the Hellenistic poet takes pains to avoid the repetitiveness characteristic o f Archaic epic, Homer is the main determina­ tive influence on every aspect o f the poem, from the details o f language to large-scale narrative patterns, material culture, and technology (e.g. sailing) which is broadly 'Homeric'. 77

If T h e o d o t u s is operating in the same tradition, w e m a y have a bet­ ter understanding o f what appears to us as a rather

extraordinary

degree o f literary license. T a k i n g a classical text a n d recasting it the w a y T h e o d o t u s d o e s , rather than reflecting p o o r l y o n the e x e m p l u m , m a y b e a w a y o f h o n o r i n g it. It m a y b e a w a y for Greek-speaking Jews to s h o w t w o things: (a) that they possessed a classic, canonical text, every bit as h o n o r a b l e as H o m e r ; a n d (b) that they h o n o r e d it best n o t simply b y transmitting it u n c h a n g e d but b y glossing it, ampli­ fying it, recasting it in language o f the m o s t eminent G r e e k authors themselves. O n e o f the m o s t striking instances o f literary recasting o c c u r s in Fragment 8, the final fragment

o f T h e o d o t u s ' w o r k preserved b y

Polyhistor. It describes the slaying o f H a m o r a n d S h e c h e m b y Levi a n d S i m e o n in w h i c h they avenge their sister's defilement. T h e b i b ­ lical counterpart is G e n 3 4 : 2 5 - 3 1 . Polyhistor's introductory

summary

encapsulates G e n 34:25, a n d the following seven lines o f verse amplify G e n 3 4 : 2 6 , w h i c h succinctiy describes the killing: xov xe ELUicop K a i IX>%£|J. xov mov a\>xot> djteKxeivav ev axoucm |j.a%a{pa<; K a i eA,a(3ov xr|v Awav hi xot» OIKOI) xou 5A>X£|J. K a i ec;fjA.0ov.

OCD

(3rd ed.), 125.

88

CARL R. HOLLADAY

And they killed Hamor and Shechem his son with the mouth o f the sword, and they took Dinah from the house o f Shechem and departed. T h e o d o t u s ' rendition o f this episode is n o t only longer, but also m u c h more

dramatic:

"Q<; T O T E 5f| Z-u|o,£0)v (lev 'Eu.d>p copcroaEv en' ccuxov KkxtfLJk xe oi Keq>aXr\v, 8£ipfiv 8' ekev ev %epl Xaif\ Xei\\f£ 8' ext craoapcyuaav, mei novoq aXkoc, opcbpei. xocppa 8E Kai Aemv \ievoq ao%£%oc, eXkafie %aur\q youvcov cmx6|j,evov 2/u%£|x aarcexa uapyrivavxoc. r\kace 8e KA,r|'{8a uiar|v, 8u 8e ^((poq o^u ajtA-dyxva 8id axepvcov, Xine 8e yv>xt\ 8e\iac, evQiq. So then Simeon lunged for Hamor himself And struck his head, seized his throat with his left hand But let go as it gasped, since another task arose. Meanwhile, Levi, with unbounded strength, grabbed (Shechem's) locks of hair While Shechem, clutching his knees, raged furiously. And he struck the middle o f his collarbone, and the sharp sword pierced The internal organs through the breastbone and his life left his body immediately. In a m a n n e r similar to T Levi 6:4, T h e o d o t u s depicts t w o separate struggles—Simeon

against H a m o r

and

L e v i against S h e c h e m . B y

separating the t w o brothers and giving each his o w n o p p o n e n t , T h e o ­ dotus heightens

the dramatic

effect: t w o fights are

depicted, e a c h

e n d i n g in a death. S i m e o n strikes H a m o r ' s h e a d a n d then appar­ ently strangles h i m , while Levi slays S h e c h e m b y driving a s w o r d through drawn

his chest. T h e entire scene is e t c h e d with vivid imagery, a l m o s t entirely

f r o m the

towards H a m o r is reminiscent

e p i c tradition. S i m e o n ' s

o f c o m b a t scenes in H o m e r

m e n in battle rush towards e a c h o t h e r .

78

lunging where

T h e imagery o f one person

striking another's h e a d and seizing his throat also draws heavily o n language f r o m the e p i c tradition.

79

Levi's " u n b o u n d e d strength" (uivoc; aaxexoc;) recalls H o m e r i c lan­ guage,

78

80

as d o e s the i m a g e o f "loose-flowing hair."

81

T h e image o f

Cf. //. 14.401 (Trojans and Achaeans); also 11.92, 217; 15.726; 16.258. Cf. Od. 12.412; also, examples o f the head or throat being attacked in con­ texts o f struggle, cf. //. 3.371; 13.202; 14.412; 18.177; Od. 22.472. Od. 2.85; 3.104; 20.19 (Cyclops); also //. 5.892. //. 14.175; 23.141; also 10.15. 79

80

81

89

RESONANCE A N D RESISTANCE

S h e c h e m o n his knees, clutching at the knees o f Levi, recalls i m a g e o f L y c a o n clutching the knees o f Achilles his slayer.

82

the

In fact,

pleading for m e r c y as o n e clings to the knees o f o n e ' s enemies is a recurrent m o t i f in H o m e r and A p o l l o n i u s o f R h o d e s .

8 3

Being struck

in the c o l l a r b o n e is also an i m a g e from c o m b a t scenes in H o m e r .

8 4

T h e sharp sword (£i<poc; 6t]v) is a frequendy mentioned w e a p o n o f war in H o m e r ,

8 5

and "life leaving the b o d y immediately" (7dm 8e yx>%r\

5e|iac; euOuc;) is also a phrase with distinctive H o m e r i c resonance. In these aforementioned cases scarcely any o f the language occurs in the L X X . A t virtually every p o i n t in this description T h e o d o t u s is drawing o n a c o m p l e t e l y different

set o f images, m o s t o f them

well d o c u m e n t e d in the G r e e k epic tradition, most notably in H o m e r , but also in A p o l l o n i u s a n d Callimachus. T h e characters are biblical, but litde else is. T h e texture o f the story is G r e e k epic. T h e reader (or hearer) sees S i m e o n c h o k i n g H a m o r a n d S h e c h e m o n the g r o u n d b e g g i n g for m e r c y as he clutches the knees o f Levi, but the sounds and images are those o f the T r o j a n W a r , the wanderings o f Odysseus, a n d the A r g o n a u t s . W h a t

e m e r g e s b e f o r e us in 5 a is a literary

palimpsest: with Levi, S i m e o n , H a m o r , and S h e c h e m b e i n g repainted in H o m e r i c colors and hues. T o summarize, T h e o d o t u s presents us with yet another anomaly. A t o n e level, the biblical story is b e i n g recast into a G r e e k m o l d . T h e content o f the story is biblical, but the f o r m has m o v e d well b e y o n d that o f the Genesis narrative. It is not just a matter o f the Genesis narrative b e i n g rendered into hexameter verse. S o m e t h i n g else happens. A t another level, the G r e e k story—the Iliad, the Odyssey, Jason and the Argonauts—is b e i n g recast as well, a n d the images from these stories are n o w b e i n g i n c o r p o r a t e d into the biblical story, so that they are effectively b e i n g c o n v e y e d b y the biblical story itself. This m a y n o t have b e e n T h e o d o t u s ' intention, but it h a d that effect. T h e o d o t u s also exemplifies another a n o m a l y w e often

encounter

in these texts: an inverse correlation b e t w e e n degree o f Hellenization a n d a liberal spirit. Q u i t e often, w e assume that the greater o n e ' s willingness to a d o p t Hellenistic literary forms a n d recast the biblical

II. II. 77. II.

21.64-135, 24.357; Od. 5.146, 579; 21.116-18;

esp. 21.65. 22.339, 3 4 2 - 4 3 , 3 6 5 - 6 6 ; Apollonius o f Rhodes Arg. 4.82, 1013. 8.325; 21.117; 22.324. also 16.340.

90

CARL R. HOLLADAY

story into a Hellenistic m o d e , the m o r e liberal o n e ' s t h e o l o g i c a l outlook; or, the m o r e willing o n e is to blur the boundaries b e t w e e n Judaism

a n d Hellenism, to m e r g e the personalities o f S h e m

and

Japheth. T h e r e c o u l d hardly b e a better e x a m p l e o f a Jewish writer w h o has mastered G r e e k literary conventions than T h e o d o t u s . B y re-cast­ ing the story o f the rape o f D i n a h as G r e e k epic, he indicates his willingness to experiment with n e w literary forms. H e feels n o c o m ­ pulsion to stick with narrative as his genre o f c h o i c e . N o r d o e s he feel c o m p e l l e d to adhere to biblical imagery. H e feels perfectly free to d r a w his language f r o m the G r e e k epic tradition a n d substitute its w o r d s a n d phrases for those in the biblical text. N o t h i n g is lost, as far as he is c o n c e r n e d , in modifying the biblical s t o r y — n o w embell­ ishing, n o w sharpening it. In a certain sense, the biblical characters take o n a G r e e k identity: A b r a h a m b e c o m e s the " n o b l e A b r a h a m , " etched in colors reminiscent o f G r e e k heroes. T h e story o f the conflict b e t w e e n J a c o b a n d H a m o r resulting f r o m S h e c h e m ' s rape o f D i n a h is told in ways that reactivate images o f the T r o j a n W a r and Odysseus' wanderings. W e see S i m e o n and Levi slaying H a m o r a n d S h e c h e m , but they are faint images o f the biblical characters. T h e y take o n the life a n d m o v e m e n t s o f H o m e r i c characters. In this, and

many

other ways, the texture of the story b e c o m e s Greek. Y e t the message it conveys remains staunchly Jewish. Like the biblical account, T h e o d o t u s insists o n circumcision as a non-negotiable mark o f ethnic identity. H a m o r ' s family will have to b e c i r c u m c i s e d — n o debate. B y exten­ sion, there c a n b e n o intermarriage b e t w e e n J e w s a n d non-Jews. W e see v e r y little, if any, indication o f a liberal spirit in T h e o d o t u s . H e knows S h e m , a n d what makes h i m S h e m , a n d while he has spent a g o o d bit o f time dwelling in the tents o f J a p h e t h , he k n o w s that they are n o t his real h o m e ; or, at least, he keeps his distance u n d e r the tents.

Conclusion W e d o well to r e m e m b e r the obvious: the evidence o f the fragmen­ tary Hellenistic Jewish authors is fragmentary. W e o n l y have pieces from m u c h larger w h o l e s , a n d even those w e have at s e c o n d o r third hand. T h e c o r r u p t state o f the text at m a n y points also requires us to b e cautious. Y e t in spite o f the fragmentary, a n d sometimes corrupt,

R E S O N A N C E A N D RESISTANCE

91

state o f the evidence, w e are able to identify s o m e o f the contours o f these texts. O n e thing that emerges clearly across the b r o a d spec­ trum o f these texts is the serious e n g a g e m e n t with Hellenism. A s w e have seen, b o t h the extent a n d depth o f this e n g a g e m e n t are strik­ ing. A n d yet the ways they engage Hellenism are far from uniform. T h i s is not simply to say that s o m e e n g a g e d Hellenism while others resisted it, o r even that a single writing exhibits different levels o f resonance a n d resistance. Rather, they help us to see s o m e o f the complexities s y m b o l i z e d b y the h y p h e n a t e d expression "HellenisticJewish." T h e y r e m i n d us that neither J u d a i s m n o r Hellenism was a single, constant p h e n o m e n o n , but rather that e a c h was a c o m p l e x set o f beliefs a n d traditions that c o u l d c h a n g e , d e p e n d i n g u p o n the time

a n d p l a c e . F o r J e w s , then, to " b e c o m e H e l l e n i z e d " did n o t

always have predictable results. In fact, the forms this t o o k c o u l d sometimes b e p o l a r opposites, even within a single author o r within a single text. It b e h o o v e s us, then, to press for finer distinctions, even to ask m o r e refined questions. T h e m o r e w e understand b o t h sides o f the h y p h e n — H e l l e n i s m a n d J u d a i s m — t h e m o r e likely w e are to under­ stand the limits a n d possibilities o f e a c h for a c c o m m o d a t i n g to the other.

5 A P O C A L Y P T I C E S C H A T O L O G Y IN P H I L O S O P H I C A L DRESS IN T H E W I S D O M O F S O L O M O N

J O H N J.

COLLINS

Jewish apocalyptic literature was primarily written in A r a m a i c H e b r e w in the land o f Israel, at least in the earliest phase

and

o f its

d e v e l o p m e n t . W h i l e the b o o k o f D a n i e l a n d the various b o o k s o f E n o c h w e r e n o v e l in their context, a n d c a n b e v i e w e d as responses to the advent o f Hellenism in Israel, they w e r e expressed in tradi­ tional Semitic i d i o m , partly derived f r o m the Bible a n d partly reach­ ing b a c k to m y t h o l o g i c a l themes a n d motifs that are already attested in the pre-Israelite cultures o f the s e c o n d millennium B . C . E . T h e r e w e r e s o m e a n a l o g o u s d e v e l o p m e n t s in the

Greek-speaking Jewish

D i a s p o r a . T h e Jewish Sibylline Oracles, w h i c h first a p p e a r in the sec­ ond

century B . C . E . , replicate s o m e themes o f the a p o c a l y p t i c liter­

ature, such as the division o f history into periods a n d the prediction o f a c o m i n g j u d g m e n t , while expressing t h e m in the i d i o m o f the 1

sibyl, the G r e e k prophetess o f disaster. Later, in the p e r i o d after 70 C.E.,

the Jewish Sibylline Oracles b e c o m e m o r e markedly apocalyptic,

including predictions o f the destruction

o f this w o r l d ( B o o k 5) and

the resurrection o f the d e a d ( B o o k 4). A t the same time, w e find a number and

o f Jewish 2

2 Enoch.

apocalypses written in G r e e k , such as 3 Baruch

T h e s e D i a s p o r a apocalypses are

typically h e a v e n l y

ascents, rather than historical predictions in the m a n n e r o f Daniel, a n d their focus is o n the afterlife

o f the individual rather than o n

the restoration. But like all apocalypses, their i d i o m is m y t h o l o g i c a l a n d they are works o f imagination rather than o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l rea­ soning. In short, a p o c a l y p t i c literature was n o t exclusively o r p e c u ­ liarly Semitic in its linguistic expression. It remains true, h o w e v e r ,

1

J.J. Collins, " T h e Sibylline Oracles," i n J . H . Charlesworth, ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols; N e w York, 1983, 1985), 1.317-472. J.J. Collins, " T h e Genre Apocalypse in Hellenistic Judaism," in D . Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (Tubingen, 1983), 5 3 1 - 4 8 . 2 Enoch is only preserved in Slavonic. 2

94

JOHN J. COLLINS

that this literature is m o r e typical o f the land o f Israel than o f the D i a s p o r a in the Hellenistic and R o m a n periods. C o n v e r s e l y , while the

influence

o f G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y c a n b e f o u n d o c c a s i o n a l l y in

H e b r e w a n d A r a m a i c c o m p o s i t i o n s f r o m this time, it is far characteristic o f the Jewish a r o u n d the turn o f the

literature e m a n a t i n g f r o m

more

Alexandria

era.

T h e p r o b l e m that I want to discuss in this essay is n o t

primarily

a matter o f the expression o f apocalyptic ideas in G r e e k , but

the

i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f apocalyptic ideas into a kind o f literature that was heavily influenced b y G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y . M y e x a m p l e o f this kind o f literature is p r o v i d e d b y the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , w h i c h I take to have b e e n written in A l e x a n d r i a a r o u n d the m i d d l e o f the first c e n ­ tury C . E .

3

T h e b o o k has b e e n described as a logos protreptikos? o r

didactic exhortation,

o r alternatively as an encomium that describes

a n d c o m m e n d s w i s d o m . T h e designation encomium is suggested pri­ 5

marily b y the m i d d l e section o f the b o o k (6:22—9:18) w h i c h purports to tell " w h a t w i s d o m is a n d h o w she c a m e to b e . " W i s d o m is p o r ­ trayed in terms often used for the Stoic L o g o s , as a spirit that holds 6

all things together a n d orders all things w e l l . T h e philosophical c o n ­ text o f the b o o k , h o w e v e r , is n o w r e c o g n i z e d as M i d d l e w h i c h c o m b i n e s elements transcendent deity.

7

o f Stoicism with the

Platonism,

Platonic idea o f a

W i s d o m here is n o t itself the deity, b u t is "a

breath o f the p o w e r o f G o d , and a p u r e e m a n a t i o n

o f the glory o f

the A l m i g h t y . . . a reflection o f eternal light, a spotless mirror o f the w o r k i n g o f G o d " ( 7 : 2 5 - 2 6 ) . W i s d o m mediates b e t w e e n G o d a n d the

3

See D . Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43; N e w York, 1979), 2 0 - 2 5 . I demur only at Winston's statement that "the apocalyptic vision in which the author describes the annihilation o f the wicked with such ferocious passion (5:16-23) could only be called forth by a desperate historical situation in which the future o f the Jewish community o f Alexandria (and for a while even that o f Palestine) was dan­ gerously threatened . . ." J . M . Reese, Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and its Consequences (Analecta Biblica 4 1 ; R o m e , 1971), 119-21; Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 18. P. Bizzetti, II Libro delta Sapienza (Brescia, 1984) 157. See the review o f Bizzetti by Winston in CBQ 48(1986), 5 2 5 - 7 . Wis 8:1. See H . Hiibner, "Die Sapientia Salomonis und die antike Philosophic," in idem, ed., Die Weisheit Salomos im Horizont Biblischer Theologie (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1993), 5 5 - 8 1 ; H . Engel, " ' W a s Weisheit ist und wie sie entstand, will ich verkunden.' Weish 7,22-8,1 innerhalb des egkomion tes sophias (6,22-11,1) als Starkung der Plausibilitat des Judentums angesichts hellenistischer Philosophie und Religiositat," in G . Hentschel and E. Zenger, eds., Lehrerin der Gerechtigkeit (Leipzig, 1991), 6 7 - 1 0 2 ; C . Larcher, Le Livre de la Sagesse ou la Sagesse de Salomon (Paris, 1984), 4 7 9 - 5 1 8 . Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 33. 4

5

6

7

APOCALYPTIC

ESCHATOLOGY

c o s m o s and b e t w e e n G o d a n d humanity:

95

"in every generation

she

passes into h o l y souls a n d makes t h e m friends o f G o d a n d p r o p h e t s " (7:27). T h e workings o f w i s d o m in history are e x p o u n d e d in chapters 1 0 - 1 9 , w h e r e the success o f the heroes o f biblical history is attrib­ uted to the g u i d a n c e o f w i s d o m , b e g i n n i n g with A d a m , w h o m she delivered from his transgression. T h e r e is, then, a c o h e r e n t p h i l o s o ­ phy

that is p r e s u p p o s e d in this b o o k . It is true that the c o h e r e n c e

is strained b y the fact that the

righteous

are identified with

the

Israelites a n d the w i c k e d with their enemies in the re-telling o f the story o f the E x o d u s . But while a stubborn strand o f ethnic particu­ larism shines t h r o u g h

in this narrative, it is n o t o p e n l y a c k n o w l ­

e d g e d . T h e r e are n o explicit references to Israel, o n l y "the righteous," "a h o l y p e o p l e a n d blameless r a c e " o r " y o u r [ G o d ' s ] children." The

hortatory aspects o f the b o o k are m o s t clearly in e v i d e n c e in

the o p e n i n g section, 1:1—6:21. T h i s section begins a n d ends with an exhortation to justice, but m u c h o f it is taken u p with a

contrast

b e t w e e n the righteous a n d the w i c k e d . T h e w i c k e d explain their rea­ soning in a l o n g speech in 1:16-2:24; but then articulate their dis­ m a y in another speech in 5 : 1 - 2 3 , w h e n the j u d g m e n t is revealed.

8

It is primarily this j u d g m e n t scene in chapter 5 that raises the ques­ tion o f the integration o f apocalyptic ideas in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n .

Apocalyptic Motifs in the Wisdom of Solomon 1—5 As several scholars have n o t e d , the j u d g m e n t scene in W i s 5 is m o d ­ 9

eled o n the b e g i n n i n g o f the servant s o n g in Isa 5 2 : 1 3 - 5 3 : 1 2 . In Isa 5 2 : 1 3 - 1 5 , w e are told that the servant shall b e lifted u p ,

and

that he shall startle nations a n d kings shall shut their m o u t h s because o f h i m . In the o p e n i n g verses o f chapter

53 a n o n y m o u s

speakers,

p r e s u m a b l y the kings o f the earth, express their a m a z e m e n t that o n e so

despised should b e exalted. T h e transformation

servant b e c a m e a p a r a d i g m o f the transformation

8

o f the o f the

despised righteous

O n the structure o f this section o f the book see M . Kolarcik, The Ambiguity of Death in the Book of Wisdom 1-6 (Analecta Biblica 127; R o m e , 1991), 2 9 - 6 2 . G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Cambridge, Mass., 1972), 6 8 - 9 2 ; L. Ruppert, "Gerechte und Frevler (Gottlose) in Sap 1,1-6,21: Z u m Neuverstandnis und zur Aktualisierung alttestamentlicher Traditionen in der Sapientia Salomonis," in Hiibner, ed., Die Weisheit Salomos, 22-32. 9

96

JOHN J. COLLINS

in a p o c a l y p t i c literature. It is reflected in D a n

11-12, where

the

martyrs o f the M a c c a b e a n era are called maskilim, an allusion to the servant

song, w h i c h begins hinneh yaskil

shall p r o s p e r " ) .

10

c

abdi ( " b e h o l d m y

servant

W h e r e the servant m a d e m a n y righteous, the maskilim

m a k e m a n y understand ( D a n 11:33). In the e n d , they are lifted u p to shine like the stars in heaven. A closer parallel to the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n is f o u n d in the Similitudes o f E n o c h (1 Enoch 3 7 - 7 1 ) , w h i c h was also p r o b a b l y c o m p o s e d in the first century C . E . 1 En 62 describes the dismay that will c o m e u p o n the kings o f the earth w h e n they see the S o n o f M a n sitting o n his throne o f glory. T h e S o n o f M a n in the Similitudes was never a lowly figure, but he is h i d d e n for a time, a n d the powerful d o n o t believe in h i m until they see h i m in glory. T h e y r e c o g n i z e that if this figure is glorified, their

self-understanding

was ill-founded. W i s 5 d o e s n o t d e m o n s t r a b l y d e p e n d o n

either

D a n i e l o r the Similitudes, but it makes a similar use o f Isa 5 2 - 5 3 : the righteous at first seem to b e o f n o a c c o u n t , but eventually they are revealed in glory. M o r e o v e r , this chapter resolves the

conflict

b e t w e e n the unjust a n d the righteous that was described in W i s 2. T h i s passage (2:12—20) brings to m i n d the suffering o f the

servant

o f the L o r d in Isa 5 3 . ( T h e righteous m a n is called pais theou, w h i c h m a y m e a n servant

as well as child o f G o d . ) T h i s

figure

is repre­

sentative o f those w h o are exalted, to the a m a z e m e n t o f their ene­ mies, in W i s 5. T h e exaltation o f the righteous m a n in W i s 5 is expressed in lan­ guage familiar f r o m the H e b r e w and A r a m a i c a p o c a l y p t i c literature: " H o w has he b e e n r e c k o n e d a m o n g the sons o f G o d , and his lot is a m o n g the h o l y o n e s " (5:5). T h e sons o f G o d a n d the h o l y ones are the angels. C o m p a r e the claim o f the hymnist in the H o d a y o t f r o m Qumran:

" Y o u have purified the corrupt spirit f r o m great

sin so

that h e c a n take his p l a c e with the host o f the h o l y ones a n d c a n enter into c o m m u n i o n with the sons o f h e a v e n " ( 1 Q H 1 1 : 2 1 - 2 2 ) o r again : " F o r y o u r glory y o u have purified m a n from sin . . . to b e c o m e united with the sons o f y o u r truth in the lot o f y o u r h o l y o n e s " (1QH

19:10—11). T h e Epistle o f E n o c h promises the righteous that

" y o u will have great j o y as the angels in h e a v e n . . . for y o u will b e c o m p a n i o n s to the host o f h e a v e n " (1 En 1 0 4 : 2 - 6 ) . T h e Epistle also d e v e l o p s the theme o f the mistaken understanding

o f the w i c k e d :

See J J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, 1993), 385.

APOCALYPTIC

97

ESCHATOLOGY

But when you die, the sinners say about you, As we die, the right­ eous have died, and o f what use to them were their deeds? Behold, like us they have died in sadness and in darkness, and what advan­ tage do they have over us? From now on we are e q u a l . . . I say to you, you sinners, Y o u are content to eat and drink, and strip men naked and steal and sin and acquire possessions and see good days. But you saw the righteous, how their end was peace, for no wrong was found in them until the day o f their death. T h i s passage is very close to the false reasoning o f the w i c k e d in Wis

2, w h e r e they pursue a life o f self-indulgence a n d

exploitation

in the belief that " w e w e r e b o r n b y m e r e c h a n c e , and hereafter w e shall b e as t h o u g h

we had

n e v e r b e e n " (2:2). T h i s r e a s o n i n g

is

declared to b e false, because "they did n o t k n o w the mysteries o f God"

(2:22), o r realize that w h e n the righteous s e e m e d to die they

w e r e really in p e a c e . In light o f these parallels,

Lothar

Ruppert

has argued that W i s

2 : 1 2 - 2 0 a n d 5 : 1 - 7 are a distinct source, w h i c h he calls a " d i p t y c h , " originally c o m p o s e d in H e b r e w o r A r a m a i c in the land o f Israel, but b r o u g h t to E g y p t and translated into G r e e k before it was i n c o r p o ­ rated into the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n .

1 1

H e supposes that this d o c u ­

m e n t served as p r o p a g a n d a for a hasidic-apocalyptic g r o u p , that was critical o f the Hellenistic leanings o f the p r o t o - S a d d u c c e e s . I d o u b t that such a d o c u m e n t c a n b e reconstructed

f r o m the W i s d o m o f

S o l o m o n . T h e passages in question are very well e m b e d d e d in their contexts. It is likely that the author h a d an apocalyptic source, quite possibly c o m p o s e d originally in H e b r e w o r A r a m a i c , but he must have adapted it for his purposes, and n o t simply inserted it. M o r e o v e r , the idea o f immortality, as w e find it in W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , d o e s n o t take the f o r m o f resurrection, even the resurrection o f the spirit that is envisioned in the early E n o c h literature, and this argues against the simple i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f a Semitic apocalyptic source. A l s o , the apocalyptic overtones o f the o p e n i n g chapters o f W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n are n o t c o n f i n e d to R u p p e r t ' s alleged diptych. A l r e a d y in chapter 1 w e find that D e a t h is personified in a m a n n e r that recalls the

figure

o f M o t in Ugaritic myth, w h i c h in turn is reflected in biblical pas­ sages such as Isa 25:7, w h e r e G o d is said to swallow u p death for­ ever. T h e startling statement that " G o d did n o t m a k e d e a t h " (Wis

11

L. Ruppert, Der leidende Gerechte (Wurzburg, 1972), 70—105; "Gerechte und Frevler," 15-19.

98

J O H N J.

COLLINS

1:13) m a y p e r h a p s b e illuminated b y the m y t h o l o g i c a l pre-history o f death. T h e adversaries o f Baal in the Ugaritic myth, D e a t h a n d Sea, are uncreated, a n d in m u c h o f the H e b r e w Bible G o d ' s w o r k in cre­ ation consists o f mastering primeval adversaries a n d confining t h e m . T h e n o t i o n o f a " k i n g d o m o f H a d e s " (1:14) recalls the k i n g d o m o f Belial in the D e a d Sea S c r o l l s .

12

There

are also apocalyptic o v e r ­

tones to the c o n c e p t o f "the mysteries o f G o d . " T h e w o r d raz, m y s ­ tery, figures prominently in Daniel a n d again in the D e a d Sea Scrolls, w h e r e w e read in several texts o f "the mystery that is to b e . "

1 3

In

the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n the c h i e f mystery o f G o d is immortality. T h e fact that the apocalyptic motifs in W i s 1-5 are n o t c o n f i n e d to the s u p p o s e d diptych argues that the author w a s conversant with a range o f apocalyptic sources, but adapted t h e m freely for his purpose. R u p p e r t contends that despite the use o f G r e e k philosophical ter­ m i n o l o g y in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , the thought o f the b o o k is still d e t e r m i n e d

b y biblical a n d Jewish traditions. T h i s , h o w e v e r , is

only half the story. W h a t w e n o w have in W i s 1-5 is n o t an a p o c ­ alypse, b u t a w i s d o m text that attempts to make a philosophically c o h e r e n t argument. T h e philosophical sources o f the b o o k must b e a c k n o w l e d g e d just as fully as the Jewish, apocalyptic sources. W e have n o t e d that the plot against the righteous m a n in the W i s 2 calls t o m i n d the servant p o e m o f Isa 5 3 , b u t it also has a notable parallel in a G r e e k philosophical discourse, the test case o f the truly 14

just m a n offered b y G l a u c o n in the s e c o n d b o o k o f Plato's Republic.

G l a u c o n argues that w e must imagine the just a n d the unjust in their p u r e states: the just must n o t o n l y b e the best o f m e n , b u t must b e t h o u g h t to b e the worst. M o r e o v e r , "the just m a n w h o is thought unjust will b e scourged, racked, b o u n d — h e

will have his

eyes burnt out; a n d at last, after suffering every kind o f evil, h e will b e i m p a l e d " (Republic 3 6 1 ) . Socrates' rejoinder t o G l a u c o n o c c u p i e s m o s t o f the Republic, b u t significantly for o u r p u r p o s e , it culminates in B o o k

10 with a discourse o n "the greatest prizes a n d rewards

w h i c h await virtue." " A r e y o u n o t aware," asks Socrates, "that the soul o f m a n is immortal a n d imperishable?" (Republic 10.608). Socrates p r o c e e d s t o argue for the immortality

12

o f the soul o n the g r o u n d s

1 Q M 14:9; 1 Q S 1:23-24; 2:19. 1 Q S 11:3; 4 Q Instruction (4Q415-18) passim. See J.J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London, 1997), 40; Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville, 1997), 121-3. Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 195. 13

14

APOCALYPTIC

99

ESCHATOLOGY

that n o evil corrupts o r destroys the soul. In light o f immortality, the advantages

o f the w i c k e d are inconsequential. Socrates

argues

that justice attains rewards in this life, but "all these are as nothing, either in n u m b e r o r greatness in c o m p a r i s o n with those other rec­ o m p e n s e s w h i c h await b o t h the just a n d the unjust after death" (614). Plato brings the Republic to a close b y narrating the m y t h o f Er, the Pamphylian, w h o died o n the batde-field but returned to life

after

twelve days a n d told o f the j u d g m e n t o f the d e a d a n d the process of

reincarnation. T h e i m m o r t a l i t y o f the

soul is also crucially i m p o r t a n t

in

the

W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n . In 8 : 1 9 - 2 0 S o l o m o n boasts that "a g o o d soul fell to m y lot, o r rather b e i n g g o o d I entered an undented

body."

T h e language recalls the m y t h o f Er, w h e r e Lachesis, daughter o f Necessity initiates a n e w cycle o f mortality b y p r o c l a i m i n g : "Let h i m to w h o m falls the first lot first select a life to w h i c h he shall cleave o f necessity" (Republic 617E). T h e W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n d o e s n o t envision reincarnation, a n d never addresses the question o f the pre-existence o f the soul. W i s 8:20, " b e i n g g o o d I entered an undefiled b o d y , " w o u l d s e e m to identify the p e r s o n primarily with the soul. Similarly in 9:15 w e read that "a perishable b o d y weighs d o w n the soul," a n d idea that is paralleled in b o t h Plato a n d P h i l o . reference to b o d i l y resurrection,

15

T h e r e is never any

o r i n d e e d to resurrection

o f any

sort. Y e t , the h o p e o f the righteous is full o f immortality (3:4) a n d they only seem to die; they are said to "five forever" a n d their reward is with the L o r d (5:15). It seems clear then that the immortality envi­ sioned b y the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n is immortality o f the soul. In the Republic, Socrates tries to persuade G l a u c o n o f the i m m o r ­ tality o f the soul b y rational argument. In the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , immortality is classified a m o n g the mysteries o f G o d . Despite the apocalyptic overtones o f the w o r d mystery, h o w e v e r , the b o o k gives n o a c c o u n t o f angelic revelation such as w e find in Enoch o r D a n i e l . T h e understanding o f revelation in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n is m o s t clearly stated in the introduction to S o l o m o n ' s prayer in 8:21: "But I p e r c e i v e d that I w o u l d n o t possess w i s d o m unless G o d gave her to m e — a n d it was a m a r k o f insight to k n o w w h o s e gift she w a s . " T h i s is n o t Platonic reasoning, but neither is it a p o c a l y p t i c revela­ tion. W i s d o m helps the natural reasoning faculty; it d o e s n o t simply supersede it f r o m

above.

Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 207.

100

J O H N J.

COLLINS

T h e W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n does not fully share Plato's understanding o f immortality, even apart from the issue o f reincarnation. A c c o r d i n g to Plato, all souls are immortal,

a n d they c a n n o t b e dissolved b y

evil o r wickedness. In the Jewish b o o k t o o , G o d m a d e all and presumably Death,

all souls, for immortality.

a n d e x p e r i e n c e it. Righteousness

things,

But the w i c k e d invited

is immortal,

but

unright­

eousness apparently is not. P s e u d o - S o l o m o n is at pains to m a k e clear that the souls o f the righteous are in the h a n d o f G o d a n d that they live forever. But he says little o f the fate o f the w i c k e d . In the j u d g ­ m e n t scene in chapter 5 they lament that their wealth has vanished like a s h a d o w , a n d " w e also as s o o n as w e w e r e b o r n , ceased to b e , a n d w e h a d n o sign o f virtue to s h o w but w e r e c o n s u m e d in o u r wickedness" (5:13). T h e h o p e o f the u n g o d l y is like thistledown,

or

s m o k e in the w i n d . All o f this w o u l d seem to suggest that the w i c k e d simply cease to exist; contra Plato, their souls are dissolved b y their wickedness. In fact, the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e o f p u n i s h m e n t to sin is a recurring t h e m e in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , especially in chapters 1 1 - 1 9 . It is entirely appropriate,

then, that as the w i c k e d believed

that they w o u l d b e dissolved, so they

are.

But if the w i c k e d simply cease to exist, h o w are w e to a c c o u n t for the j u d g m e n t scene in chapter 5, w h e r e they are clearly present after death to witness the exaltation o f the righteous? I suggest that this a p o c a l y p t i c j u d g m e n t

scene plays a role similar to that o f the

M y t h o f Er in Plato's Republic—it is a fable o r myth, i n t r o d u c e d to facilitate

the discussion.

16

W e usually assume that j u d g m e n t

in a p o c a l y p t i c texts should b e taken m o r e literally. T h a t

scenes

assumption

is o p e n to question. It is characteristic o f apocalyptic texts that they juxtapose

slightly different

visions o f the

end-time.

(For

example,

there are four such visions in Daniel 7 - 1 2 . ) In the t e r m i n o l o g y o f Ian R a m s e y , they are n o t "picture m o d e l s , " that aspire to exact c o r ­ r e s p o n d e n c e with reality, but "disclosure" o r " a n a l o g u e " m o d e l s that try to c o n v e y a "structure, o r w e b o f relationship."

17

T h e y are v e n ­

tures in imagination that try to give c o n c r e t e expression to matters that are b e y o n d h u m a n experience. In this respect, the status o f the

16

Cf. Plato, Laws 4.713: " M a y I still make use o f fable to some extent, in the hope that I may be better able to answer your question?" I.T. Ramsey, Models and Mystery (London, 1964), 1—21; compare B.E. Meland, Fallible Forms and Symbols (Philadelphia, 1976), 26, 130; M . Black, Models and Metaphors. Studies in Language and Philosophy (Ithaca, N Y , 1962), 2 1 9 - 4 3 . 17

APOCALYPTIC

101

ESCHATOLOGY

j u d g m e n t scene in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n m a y not b e so different from that o f similar scenes in D a n i e l o r E n o c h . T h e difference is that in the apocalypses these visionary scenes are the o n l y m e a n s o f expressing transcendent realities. T h e W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , h o w e v e r , also e m p l o y s philosophical language w h i c h attempts to express these realities in a m o r e precise a n d

accurate w a y , a n d w h i c h provides

s o m e criteria against w h i c h the visionary language c a n b e measured. T h e personification

o f Death, and

the k i n g d o m o f H a d e s ,

also

a p p e a r s o m e w h a t less full-bodied in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n than they d o in p r o p h e t i c a n d apocalyptic texts. W i s d o m o n l y hints that there is a negative p o w e r that is s o m e h o w i n d e p e n d e n t

of God. We

are n o t told w h e r e D e a t h c o m e s from. T h e devil also makes a brief a n d enigmatic a p p e a r a n c e in explaining the origin o f evil in 2:24: " B y the devil's e n v y death entered into the w o r l d . " But there is n o real place for a devil in the w o r l d v i e w o f the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , and even death is an a n o m a l y . G o d , w e are told, created all things eis to einai, that they m a y exist, a n d the forces o f the c o s m o s tend to the preservation o f life. T h e r e is n o k i n g d o m o f H a d e s u p o n earth. T h e personification o f D e a t h a n d the m e n t i o n o f the devil are also figurative

language, ways o f expressing the negative forces, w h i c h the

author wants to disassociate

from G o d and wisdom. Whatever

m y t h o l o g i c a l o v e r t o n e s , D e a t h is spiritualized h e r e . brought

a b o u t b y the w o r d s a n d

its

It is a state

d e e d o f the u n g o d l y . It is o n l y

e x p e r i e n c e d b y those w h o are o f the p o r t i o n (meris) o f D e a t h , b y the righteous, w h o o n l y seem to die. Ultimately,

not

it is a state o f

n o n - b e i n g . D e a t h is not quite d e - m y t h o l o g i z e d here, since it is in fact personified. But it d o e s n o t enjoy the vivid m y t h o l o g i c a l life that it did in Ugaritic myth, o r that Belial enjoys in the D e a d Sea Scrolls.

The Divine Warrior We

find

another venture in m y t h o l o g i c a l language with apocalyptic

overtones in W i s 5 : 1 7 - 2 3 . T h i s passage God

18

of

as D i v i n e W a r r i o r , a constellation o f motifs that can b e traced

b a c k to the storm-theophany ond

describes a t h e o p h a n y

millennium.

18

o f Baal in Canaanite texts o f the sec­

T h i s i m a g e r y h a d b e e n c l a i m e d for the G o d o f

See especially F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), 145-94.

102

J O H N J.

COLLINS

Israel f r o m an early p o i n t in such texts as D e u t e r o n o m y 33

and

J u d g e s 5. It h a d also i n f o r m e d the celebration o f the E x o d u s in the Psalms, w h i c h sometimes suggest a divine attack o n the

sea. (Ps

7 7 : 1 6 - 2 0 : "the waters saw y o u , they w e r e afraid, the very d e e p trem­ b l e d . . . y o u r arrows flashed o n every side . . . the earth trembled a n d s h o o k " ) . T h e i m m e d i a t e source o f this i m a g e r y in W i s 5 is f o u n d in Isa 59:15—20. T h e r e the L o r d saw that there was n o justice and set o u t to redress the situation. " H e put o n righteousness like a breast­ plate, a n d a helmet o f salvation o n his head; he put o n

garments

o f vengeance for clothing and w r a p p e d himself in fury as in a m a n d e . " W e are assured that his adversaries will b e f o r c e d to p a y a c c o r d i n g to their deeds. Paul H a n s o n has m a d e a persuasive case that this text reflects dissensions in the Jewish c o m m u n i t y in the early postexilic p e r i o d .

19

T h e oracles o f Isa 5 6 - 6 6 reflect the views o f a party

that felt itself increasingly disenfranchized and called o n G o d to c o m e to their aid: " O that y o u w o u l d r e n d the h e a v e n a n d c o m e d o w n " (Isa 6 4 : 1 ) . H a n s o n categorizes this material as p r o t o - a p o c a l y p t i c , a n d i n d e e d this i m a g e r y also figures p r o m i n e n t l y in later a p o c a l y p t i c texts f r o m the Hellenistic and R o m a n era (e.g. the o p e n i n g chapter

o f 1 Enoch). T h e i m a g e r y o f Isa 59 is r e p r o d u c e d with m i n o r modifications in W i s 5: " h e will put

o n righteousness

as a breastplate,

and

wear

impartial justice as a helmet; he will take holiness as an invincible shield, a n d sharpen stern wrath for a s w o r d . " O u r question here is w h e t h e r the understanding o f this material is altered b y its n e w c o n ­ text in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n . T h e p r i m a r y difference w o u l d s e e m to lie in the i n v o l v e m e n t o f creation. W i s 5:16 says that G o d will a r m all creation to repel his enemies, a n d 5:20 affirms that creation will j o i n h i m in his fight. T o s o m e d e g r e e , the i n v o l v e m e n t o f cre­ ation is already i m p l i e d in the traditional i m a g e r y o f the D i v i n e W a r r i o r . In J u d g e s 5 w e are told that the stars fought f r o m h e a v e n against Sisera. In Psalm 77 the clouds p o u r e d d o w n water and light­ ning illuminated the w o r l d w h e n G o d led Israel through the sea. All o f this, h o w e v e r , is u n d e r s t o o d as a miraculous departure from the n o r m a l workings o f nature. T h e future intervention

o f the D i v i n e

W a r r i o r , as envisioned in Isaiah 5 9 , is similarly a departure f r o m the w o r k i n g o f nature, the action o f a deity w h o intervenes in this

P.D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia, 1975), 113-34.

APOCALYPTIC

ESCHATOLOGY

103

w o r l d to reverse its course. In the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , in contrast, creation itself is p r o g r a m m e d to ensure the implementation o f justice. T h e role o f creation in i m p l e m e n t i n g the j u d g m e n t o f G o d is illus­ trated in the a c c o u n t o f the E x o d u s in W i s 1 6 - 1 9 . T h e story o f the e x o d u s is taken to s h o w that "creation, serving y o u w h o m a d e it, exerts itself to punish the unrighteous, a n d in kindness relaxes o n b e h a l f o f those w h o trust in y o u " (16:24). P s e u d o - S o l o m o n draws here o n Stoic c o s m o l o g y , in w h i c h the elements admit o f different degrees o f tension o r relaxation.

20

N o t h i n g n e w is created, but ele­

ments are modified o r interchanged. A g a i n in the last chapter o f the b o o k w e are told that "the w h o l e creation in its nature was fash­ i o n e d a n e w , " in a c c o r d a n c e with G o d ' s c o m m a n d s , so that his chil­ dren w o u l d n o t b e h a r m e d ( 1 9 : 6 ) .

21

T h i s is n o t the n e w h e a v e n a n d

n e w earth o f apocalyptic visions, h o w e v e r . " F o r the elements c h a n g e d places with o n e another as o n a harp the notes vary the nature o f the rhythm, while e a c h n o t e remains the s a m e " (19:18). T h e c o s ­ m o s is a closed system, although it admits o f infinite variation. Philo also uses the idea o f tension a n d slackening to explain changes in nature. T h e b o w that G o d sets in the clouds after the f l o o d indi­ cates that "in the laxness a n d force o f earthly things there will n o t take p l a c e a dissolution b y their b e i n g c o m p l e t e l y l o o s e n e d to the p o i n t o f incongruity n o r will there b e force u p to the p o i n t o f caus­ ing a break" (QG 2.63). G o d also p r o v i d e d the m a n n a b y c h a n g i n g a r o u n d the elements (Mos 2 . 2 6 6 - 7 ) .

2 2

W e might infer f r o m these statements a b o u t the role o f nature in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , that justice must ultimately prevail in the c o s m o s . Just as the E x o d u s ends with a reshuffling o f the elements so that the Israelites are sustained a n d their enemies are u n d o n e , so, w e might think, must it also b e at the e n d o f history. In W i s 18:15 w e are told that, o n the eve o f the E x o d u s , " y o u r almighty w o r d l e a p e d f r o m heaven, f r o m the royal throne, into the midst o f the land that was d o o m e d , a stern warrior carrying the sharp s w o r d o f y o u r authentic c o m m a n d , a n d s t o o d a n d filled all things with death" (by killing the first-born o f the Egyptians). T h i s i m a g e brings to m i n d the vision o f J o h n o f Patmos in R e v e l a t i o n 19:

2 0

Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 300. O n the exegetical aspect o f this passage, and the implied understanding o f Genesis 1 and Exodus 14, see P. Enns, Exodus Retold. Ancient Exegesis of the Departure from Egypt in Wis 10:15-21 and 19:1-9 ( H S M 57; Atlanta, 1997), 112-18. Ibid., 3 3 0 - 1 . 21

2 2

104

JOHN J.

COLLINS

Then I saw the heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war . . . He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called the W o r d of G o d . . . From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations . . . T h e contexts o f the t w o scenes, h o w e v e r , are very different.

The

militant intervention o f the W o r d in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n rep­ resents an incident in history. In Revelation it signals the e n d o f his­ tory, a n d the c o m i n g o f the final j u d g m e n t . It is not apparent, h o w e v e r , that the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n

actu­

ally envisions an e n d o f history. T h e j u d g m e n t scene in chapter five c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d as the j u d g m e n t o f the d e a d . It does n o t require that history, and this w o r l d as w e k n o w it, have passed away. Neither d o e s Philo s e e m to have envisioned an e n d o f this w o r l d . T h e w o r l d is n o t indestructible, for Philo, since it "has b e c o m e what it is, a n d its b e c o m i n g is the beginning o f its destruction," but he allows that it m a y b e m a d e i m m o r t a l b y the p r o v i d e n c e o f G o d (Deed. 58). Elsewhere he refers to the v i e w o f s o m e philosophers that " t h o u g h b y nature destructible it will never b e destroyed, b e i n g held together b y a b o n d o f superior strength, namely the will o f its M a k e r " (Her. 246). T h i s w o u l d seem to c o n f o r m to the view o f Plato in the Timaeus (41 A ) , that "all that is b o u n d m a y b e u n d o n e , but only an evil b e i n g w o u l d wish to u n d o that w h i c h is h a r m o n i o u s a n d h a p p y . "

23

In such

a v i e w o f the w o r l d there is ultimately litde place for apocalyptic eschatology such as w e find in Revelation o r 4 Ezra. Philo, h o w e v e r , makes a place for traditional Jewish eschatology. In his treatise De praemiis et poenis, Philo first discourses o n the penal­ ties that await those " w h o have b e e n s e d u c e d b y the polytheistic creeds w h i c h finally lead to atheism a n d have forgotten the

teach­

ing o f their race a n d o f their fathers in w h i c h they were trained from their earliest years" (162). T h e discussion is part o f an exposi­ tion o f the laws o f M o s e s , and so the reference is clearly to

the

Jewish p e o p l e . If these p e o p l e repent, says Philo, following L e v 26:40, they will find favor with G o d . " E v e n though they dwell in the utter­ m o s t parts o f the earth, in slavery to those w h o led t h e m away c a p ­ tive, o n e signal, as it w e r e , o n e day will bring liberty to all. T h i s c o n v e r s i o n in a b o d y to virtue will strike awe into their masters, w h o

2 3

Plato is speaking o f the creation o f the lesser gods, w h o are not indestructible but are promised immortality.

APOCALYPTIC

105

ESCHATOLOGY

will set t h e m free, a s h a m e d to rule o v e r m e n better than themselves" (164). T h e y will then b e gathered to their a p p o i n t e d p l a c e , while the curses will b e turned against their enemies. " T h e r e will c o m e forth a m a n , " says Philo, citing Balaam's O r a c l e , " a n d leading his host to w a r he will subdue great a n d p o p u l o u s nations" (95). H a r r y W o l f s o n c o n c l u d e d from these passages that "the solution f o u n d b y Philo for the Jewish p r o b l e m o f his time was the revival o f the o l d p r o p h e t i c promises o f the ultimate disappearance o f the D i a s p o r a . "

24

But even

W o l f s o n also n o t e d that "the depiction o f the messianic age in Philo is quite evidently c o l o r e d with Stoic p h r a s e o l o g y . " Philo formulates

repeatedly

his antitheses in terms o f the virtuous a n d the w i c k e d ,

rather than o f ethnic particularism.

His G o d is o n e "to w h o m all

must b e l o n g w h o follow truth unfeigned instead o f mythical figments" (Praem. 162). T h o s e w h o are killed in the messianic w a r are " s o m e fanatics w h o s e lust for w a r defies restraint o r r e m o n s t r a n c e " (94) and those w h o receive the eschatological blessings are "those w h o follow God Yet

a n d always and everywhere cleave to his c o m m a n d m e n t s " (98). this treatise is remarkable

for its lack o f allegorical interpreta­

tion. Philo, like the author o f W i s d o m , h a d a stubborn streak o f eth­ nic particularism that was n o t entirely dissolved b y his universalizing p h i l o s o p h y . His m a i n

emphasis

is certainly

o n the

conversion o f

humanity to virtue, w h i c h he identifies with the stipulations o f M o s a i c law,

but he at least affirms

the ingathering o f the exiles a n d

messianic age, even if they are far f r o m the center o f his

the

thought.

It m a y b e that the author o f W i s d o m also affirmed t h e m , insofar as they w e r e f o u n d in the T o r a h , but he makes n o m e n t i o n o f t h e m in his b o o k . T h e c o s m o s is p r o g r a m m e d to deal with

unrighteous­

ness w h e n it arises, but the o n l y definitive resolution o f the p r o b l e m is f o u n d in the respective fates o f righteous a n d w i c k e d after death. T h e w o r l d v i e w o f the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , a n d o f Philo, is ulti­ mately very different from that o f the apocalypses e m a n a t i n g from the land o f Israel. In the apocalypses, history has a pattern, but wis­ dom

a n d justice are absent for l o n g stretches. T h i s idea is beauti­

fully expressed in the Similitudes o f E n o c h , in 1 En 4 2 : Wisdom found no place where she could dwell, and her dwelling was in heaven. Wisdom went out in order to dwell among the sons of men, but did not find a dwelling; wisdom returned to her place and

H.A. Wolfson, Philo (Cambridge, Mass., 1948), 2.407.

106

J O H N J. COLLINS

took her seat in the midst o f the angels. And iniquity came out from her chambers; those whom she did not seek she found, and dwelt among them, like rain in the desert, and like dew on parched ground. S u c h a retreat o n the part o f W i s d o m w o u l d b e unthinkable in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n . In the apocalypses, the collaboration o f nature in punishing the w i c k e d is deferred until the eschatological p e r i o d . In the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , it is an o n g o i n g feature o f c o s m o s a n d history. E v e n in the height o f his sharp p o l e m i c against the perver­ sity o f Canaanites and Egyptians, the Alexandrian author maintains his faith that the c o s m o s is in h a r m o n y with its maker.

Epilogue A s I n o t e d at the b e g i n n i n g o f this essay, the contrast

between

W i s d o m a n d the apocalypses is n o t simply a matter o f the transla­ tion o f H e b r e w thought into Greek. It is m o r e a matter o f genre, a n d the c h o i c e o f genre is influenced to s o m e degree b y historical setting. T h e m o s t o b v i o u s counterpoint to the withdrawal o f W i s d o m in the Similitudes o f E n o c h is f o u n d in Ben Sira 2 4 , a text origi­ nally written in H e b r e w , in Jerusalem, before the M a c c a b e a n revolt, w h i c h claims that W i s d o m did n o t retire to heaven but pitched its tent in Israel. Ben Sira differs sharply f r o m the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n o n the issue o f immortality, but his understanding o f nature is rather similar, if less systematic. T h e H e b r e w sage also saw the c o s m o s as the i m p l e m e n t o f G o d . H e speaks o f "winds created for v e n g e a n c e " a n d claims that wild animals and even "the s w o r d that punishes

the

u n g o d l y " never disobey the divine c o m m a n d . T h e righteous a n d the wicked experience nature differendy, as is also the case in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n : " A l l these [elements] are g o o d for the godly, but for the sinners they turn into evils" (Sir 39:27). B e n Sira shows little interest in national restoration, e x c e p t in a prayer

in chapter

36

w h i c h is o f very doubtful authenticity. Like his Alexandrian c o u n ­ terpart, he believes that divine justice is i m p l e m e n t e d in history o n an o n g o i n g basis. O n the other hand, Egyptian J u d a i s m w o u l d n o t always maintain its c o n f i d e n c e in the justice o f c o s m o s a n d history. B o t h the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n a n d Philo were products o f a l o n g process o f cultural assimilation, a n d reflected a stratum o f Jewish society that h a d b e e n very successful in Hellenistic a n d R o m a n Egypt. T h a t success is

APOCALYPTIC

107

ESCHATOLOGY

reflected in their confident t h e o l o g y o f nature, w h e r e b y the c o s m o s ensures the triumph o f the righteous. B y the time these authors wrote in the early R o m a n p e r i o d , h o w e v e r , that success was in j e o p a r d y . It m a y well b e that the bitter p o l e m i c against Gentiles in W i s 1 1 - 1 9 reflects the Caligula.

25

outbreak

o f hostilities

in A l e x a n d r i a in the

time o f

But m u c h w o r s e was to c o m e . T h e Jewish c o m m u n i t y in

A l e x a n d r i a was battered b y v i o l e n c e in 6 6 C . E . and virtually w i p e d out in the suppression o f the great D i a s p o r a revolt in the time o f Trajan. It is o n l y in the p e r i o d after 70 C . E . that w e get an a p o c ­ alyptic literature from Egyptian J u d a i s m that foresees the

destruc­

tion o f this w o r l d . T h e m o s t vivid expression o f the n e w , despairing, v i e w o f the w o r l d is f o u n d in the fifth Sibylline Oracle. T h e r e

again,

nature is enlisted to punish the w i c k e d : "a great star will c o m e from heaven to the w o n d r o u s sea a n d will b u r n the d e e p sea and B a b y l o n [ R o m e ] itself a n d the land o f Italy," because o f the destruction o f the H e b r e w s (Sib. Or. 5 : 1 5 8 - 6 1 ) . But this is n o t a h a r m o n i o u s

re­

a r r a n g e m e n t o f the elements such as w e f o u n d in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n . T h e Sibyl c o n c l u d e s with a batde o f the stars a m o n g them­ selves, instigated b y G o d : Heaven itself was roused until it shook the fighters. In anger it cast them headlong to earth. Accordingly, stricken into the baths o f ocean, they quickly kindled the whole earth. But the sky remained starless. {Sib. Or. 5:527-31). History is reflected in nature. T h e destruction o f nature mirrors

the

destruction o f the Jewish c o m m u n i t y in Egypt. It is a sad irony that a c o m m u n i t y that h a d p l a c e d so m u c h c o n f i d e n c e in the g o o d n e s s a n d o r d e r o f the c o s m o s should in the e n d b e driven to such a vision o f despair.

2 5

So S. C h e o n , The Exodus Story in the Wisdom of Solomon. A Study in Biblical Interpretation (Sheffield, 1997), 125-49.

6

PHILO A N D THE W I S D O M OF S O L O M O N

ON

CREATION, REVELATION, AND PROVIDENCE: THE

HIGH-WATER M A R K OF JEWISH HELLENISTIC FUSION

DAVID

WINSTON

Introduction In his grand p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o m m e n t a r y o n the Pentateuch,

Philo

generally retains the biblical t e r m i n o l o g y a n d i d i o m in the v e r y process o f transposing that text into a philosophical key. G r e e k p h i l o ­ sophical terms jostle freely with biblical locutions, and the reader is defdy beguiled into discovering G r e e k philosophical doctrine beneath the literal shell o f the scriptural narrative. N o philosophical teach­ ing appears to b e t o o abstruse to withstand the subtle interweaving o f traditions represented b y Philo's distinctive b l e n d o f divergent out­ looks. W h e n the disparate elements o f his bicultural heritage are not u n d u l y recalcitrant,

Philo often s u c c e e d s in fusing t h e m into

an

impressive unity that conceals their underlying dissonance. In a n u m ­ b e r o f instances, h o w e v e r , the Jewish c o m p o n e n t in the Philonic m i x resists total integration,

a n d in spite o f s o m e subtle modifications

i n t r o d u c e d here and there in o r d e r to diminish the jarring

effect,

what is peculiarly Jewish a n d normative c a n n o t b e given u p . T h u s the Jewish c o n c e p t o f repentance was a n o t i o n that was virtually non-existent o r at best o n l y marginal in G r e e k philosophical thought. Y e t Philo makes a valiant a n d almost desperate effort to retain it in his scriptural c o m m e n t a r y , a n d even in biblical passages w h e r e there is scarcely a trace o f it h e nonetheless feels constrained to introduce it into the text. A l t h o u g h he seeks assiduously to assimilate it to his o w n philosophical a p p r o a c h to Judaism,

traces o f his ambivalence

are readily detected in his writing. H e generally emphasizes the sec­ o n d a r y rank o f repentance in the hierarchy o f virtue, explicitly refers to the scars o f o l d misdeeds, a n d clearly indicates the lengthy intel­ lectual process that p r e c e d e s c o n v e r s i o n to a better life. Revealing,

110

DAVID

WINSTON

t o o , is his casual reference to repentance

as an irrational e m o t i o n ,

a v i e w that follows inevitably f r o m the fundamental

philosophical

principles o f his ethical theory. H e was u n d o u b t e d l y h e l p e d to s o m e extent b y his awareness

o f a Neopythagorean preoccupation

self-examination that was later taken u p b y the R o m a n Stoa, we

clearly have here a striking e x a m p l e o f the pervasive

that characterize m u c h o f his writing. In the present p a p e r ,

with 1

but

tensions

2

I h a v e f o c u s e d m y attention o n

several

themes in Philo's thought that resist an easy b l e n d i n g o f their Jewish and G r e e k elements. M y main c o n c e r n will b e his theory o f p r o p h e c y , perhaps the m o s t c o m p l e x illustration o f Philo's inner tensions,

and

his partially veiled attempt to camouflage his true intent. Since m u c h in the interpretation o f Philo's doctrine o f p r o p h e c y turns o n

his

c o n c e p t i o n o f creation, I have included a b r i e f a c c o u n t o f this trou­ b l e d Philonic teaching as well. F o r if it should b e the case that Philo held a doctrine o f eternal creation, a necessary c o n s e q u e n c e o f this w o u l d b e that G o d ' s revelation o f himself must b e part o f a c o n ­ tinuous

p r o c e s s . I will c o n c l u d e with

an

examination

o f Philo's

thoughts o n divine p r o v i d e n c e , w h i c h must r e c o n c i l e his n o t i o n o f cyclic

history with Jewish

messianic d o c t r i n e . Finally, in o r d e r

to

b r o a d e n the framework o f m y analysis o f Philo, I shall c o m p a r e his formulations o f the issues m e n t i o n e d a b o v e with those o f his p r o b ­ ably near c o n t e m p o r a r y , the author o f the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n .

Creation W e begin with a brief a c c o u n t o f the creation doctrine o f the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n . T h e author states explicitly that G o d created the w o r l d 3

" o u t o f formless matter" (e£ djiopcpoi) UA,TIC;), a n d there is consider­ able e v i d e n c e that makes it unmistakably clear that this formless mat­ ter was c o n s i d e r e d b y h i m to b e eternal, a n d n o t itself created b y God.

1

4

M o r e important for o u r purposes is W i s d o m ' s understanding

Epictetus 3.10.2; Seneca De Ira 3.36.1-4. For a full discussion, see D . Winston, "Philo's Doctrine o f Repentance," in The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion, In Memory of Horst R. Moehring, ed. John P. Kenney (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 2 9 - 4 0 . Wis 11:17. See D . Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43. Garden City: Doubleday, 1979) 38-39. 2

3

4

111

CREATION, REVELATION, A N D P R O V I D E N C E

o f the nature o f G o d ' s creative act. V a r i o u s indications p o i n t to the strong possibility that he c o n c e i v e d o f creation as an eternal process. The

m o s t remarkable

feature

o f his description o f W i s d o m is his

depiction o f her as an eternal effluence o r emanation o f G o d ' s p o w e r a n d glory ( W i s 7 : 2 5 - 2 6 , 2 9 - 3 0 ) , a N e o p y t h a g o r e a n n o t i o n that even the m o r e philosophically ambitious Philo was reluctant

to express

explicitiy, preferring instead to use locutions that o n l y i m p l i e d it.

5

Unlike Ben Sira (1:4; 24:9) w h o asserts that G o d has created W i s d o m , he says n o t a w o r d a b o u t her creation, describing her instead in the present tense as a divine radiance, o f w h i c h o n e w o u l d have to say m o r e precisely that she is "ever b e i n g p r o d u c e d a n d in a state o f having b e e n p r o d u c e d , " to use a late formulation e m p l o y e d b y the fifth century Neoplatonist P r o c l u s . Now,

6

since the p h i l o s o p h i c a l matrix in w h i c h this text seems to

b e e m b e d d e d is M i d d l e Platonist, it should b e n o t e d that with the e x c e p t i o n o f Plutarch a n d Atticus, the M i d d l e Platonists d e n i e d that Plato h a d taught the t e m p o r a l creation o f the w o r l d , instead that the description given in the

maintaining

Timaeus was only for the

sake o f "clarity o f instruction." F o r m o s t Platonists, there c o u l d b e n o adequate explanation o f w h y G o d should wait b e f o r e b e g i n n i n g to i m p r o v e the eternal formless matter. M o r e o v e r , since the

author

o f W i s d o m c o n c e i v e s o f Sophia as a c o n t i n u o u s e m a n a t i o n

o f the

G o d h e a d , a n d since it contains the p a r a d i g m a t i c F o r m s o f all things a n d is the instrument o f creation, it is reasonable to p r e s u m e that its creative activity is also c o n t i n u o u s a n d that he thus holds a d o c ­ trine o f eternal creation. Nevertheless, i n a s m u c h as the author o f W i s d o m is m o r e o f a rhetorician than a p h i l o s o p h e r , o n e c a n n o t b e certain that the p h i l o s o p h i c a l reasoning o f M i d d l e Platonism deci­ sively shaped his position o n this question. O d d l y e n o u g h , although Philo was m u c h m o r e the p h i l o s o p h e r than the author o f W i s d o m , he writes with an evidently deliberate ambiguity c o n c e r n i n g the p r i m o r d i a l matter f r o m w h i c h G o d c o n ­ stituted the o r d e r e d universe. Y e t , as I have s h o w n elsewhere, to attribute to h i m the v i e w that G o d created preexistent matter out o f n o t h i n g w o u l d n o t only contradict his explicit statement in Aet. 5 that " n o t h i n g c o m e s into b e i n g f r o m the nonexistent a n d nothing is

5

Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 38, 185-86.

6

In Plat. Tim. 290.25.

112

DAVID

destroyed into the nonexistent,"

7

WINSTON

but w o u l d also b e i n c o n g r u o u s with

his w h o l e language o f creation. T h e argument that G o d created the c o s m o s because H e did n o t b e g r u d g e a share in His o w n excellence to an existence that in itself h a d n o t h i n g fair o r lovely w o u l d c o m ­ pletely miss the mark if this "unlovely existence" was itself directly created

b y G o d . I n d e e d , P h i l o virtually

says as m u c h w h e n

he

poignantly states that: it was not the matter subjected to his creative activity, material inan­ imate, discordant and dissoluble, and what is more in itself perishable, irregular, and unequal, that G o d praised, but the works o f his own art accomplished by a power unique, equal, and uniform and through knowledge one and the same. (Her. 160) Logically, as I have attempted to s h o w elsewhere, G o d is, for Philo, indirectly the

source o f p r i m o r d i a l matter, b u t Philo w o u l d have

recoiled f r o m ascribing it to His direct creative activity, just as he recoiled from ascribing even the "shaping" o f matter directly to G o d . T h e alternative v i e w that primordial matter is for Philo an eternal entity b y the side o f G o d , is, I think, p r e c l u d e d b y the fact that Philo describes it as "in itself perishable" (Her. 160). In his descrip­ tion o f preexistent matter, Plato emphatically notes that it " d o e s n o t admit o f destruction" (Tim. 5 2 b : cpGopdv ou 7upooSe%6|iEvov).

8

In sum, inasmuch as G o d ' s creative act is transtemporal and instan­ taneous, its description as an o r d e r e d s e q u e n c e o f c o s m o g o n i c events is o n l y a function o f the finite h u m a n m i n d seeking analytically to distinguish its logical stages. A l t h o u g h G o d ' s creation o f the universe, in a c c o r d a n c e with this analytical m o d e l , involves a series o f logical m o m e n t s , the term " c r e a t i o n " is p r o p e r l y applied o n l y to the

for­

m a t i o n o f the universe as a w h o l e . W e must n o w determine the precise nature o f G o d ' s

atemporal

creative act a c c o r d i n g to Philo. A l t h o u g h his formulation o f this issue is n o w h e r e u n a m b i g u o u s l y stated, there are a n u m b e r o f strong indi­ cations that he held a doctrine o f eternal creation. T o b e g i n with, if Philo w e r e to a d o p t the v i e w that G o d ' s creative act h a d a begin­ ning, this w o u l d stand in o p e n contradiction to o n e o f the

funda­

mental and oft-repeated principles o f his o w n philosophical worldview,

7

Cf. Spec. 1.266. Tim. 52b: cpGopdv ov jrpoo8ex6(j.evov. See D . Winston, Philo of Alexandria (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), 7 - 2 1 . 8

113

CREATION, REVELATION, A N D PROVIDENCE

that G o d is u n c h a n g e a b l e .

9

A l t h o u g h often inconsistent in

minor

matters, Philo shows himself t o o c o m p e t e n t a student o f p h i l o s o p h y to contradict himself in so flagrant a m a n n e r . T h i s contradiction is further sharpened

b y his statement that " G o d a n d his beneficent

p o w e r s ever m a k e it their business to transmute the faultiness o f the w o r s e w h e r e v e r it exists a n d c o n v e r t it to the better" (Spec. 4.187). Since, a c c o r d i n g to the alternate v i e w o f a creatio continua, primordial matter exists eternally b y the side o f G o d , the D e i t y must have b e e n eternally i m p r o v i n g it b y transforming it into a c o s m i c order. A l t h o u g h the a b o v e considerations, in m y o p i n i o n , are in them­ selves sufficient to establish

that Philo's doctrine is o n e o f eternal

creation, there are t w o further passages that help to c o n f i r m it. In Leg. 1.20, c o m m e n t i n g o n G e n 2:4, " w h e n it c a m e into b e i n g , " Philo notes that Scripture d o e s n o t define " w h e n " b y a determining limit, "for the things that c o m e into b e i n g (tot ywoiieva) t h r o u g h the First C a u s e , c o m e into b e i n g with n o determining limit" (d7tepvypd(pa)c;). Now,

if the act o f creation b e g a n at an instant o f G o d ' s c h o o s i n g ,

it c o u l d n o l o n g e r b e d e s c r i b e d as taking p l a c e

(XTuepiypdcpcoc;,

10

since,

t h o u g h indeterminate a parte post, it is clearly determinate a parte ante, 11

i.e., it has a 7tepiypa(pr| o r nipaq

marking it o f f f r o m w h a t p r e c e d e d

it. Similarly, in QG 1.1, c o m m e n t i n g again o n G e n 2:4, Philo says that this verse "appears viding a refutation

to indicate indeterminate

time, thus p r o ­

disconcerting those w h o sum u p the n u m b e r o f

years, f r o m w h i c h p o i n t they believe the c o s m o s c a m e into b e i n g . " T h i s seems to b e a clear attempt o n Philo's part to assert that cal­ culation o f the anno mundi is in principle impossible, and the efforts o f those w h o seek to establish it t h r o u g h an analysis o f Scriptural c h r o n o l o g y are futile. T h i s c a n o n l y b e so if the process o f creation is n o t m e r e l y c o n t i n u o u s , b u t has in fact n o beginning.

Revelation W e are n o w ready to consider the doctrine o f revelation. T h e distinc­ tive features

o f the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n ' s n o t i o n o f revelation

are

r o o t e d in its c o n c e p t i o n o f W i s d o m as a divine hypostasis, felicitously

9

Cher. 90; Spec. 3.178; Deus 26; etc.

10

Cf. Sacr. 59.

11

Cf. Arist. Phys. 218a25: TO 6e vt»v Jtepac;

icxi.

114

DAVID WINSTON

defined b y Oesterly and B o x as "a quasi-personification o f an attribute p r o p e r to G o d , o c c u p y i n g an intermediate sonalities a n d abstract b e i n g s . "

12

position between per­

It is only in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n

a n d Philo, w h e r e S o p h i a is c o n c e i v e d as an eternal divine e m a n a ­ tion, that she appears in this f o r m for the first time in Hellenistic Jewish writings. I n d e e d , W i s 7:25 is the earliest attestation o f the term

djtoppoia, effluence,

applied to L o g o s / S o p h i a , although it is

very likely that the n o t i o n o f a divine outflow was already e m p l o y e d b y adherents o f the M i d d l e S t o a .

13

In 7 : 2 2 - 2 4 , the author describes W i s d o m b y a series o f twentyo n e epithets (7 X 3, a triple perfection), b o r r o w e d largely f r o m Stoic p h i l o s o p h y . Like the

Stoic deity, W i s d o m is an intelligent

breath

(7rveuLia voepov) that pervades (SirjKei) a n d permeates (%copei) all things

14

But her i m m a n e n c e in the c o s m o s is c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d b y the author's insistence that she nonetheless enjoys a symbiotic relationship with G o d , a c o n d i t i o n o f u n b r o k e n intimacy with the divine (8:3). It c a n thus b e said that there is an aspect o f G o d ' s essence in everything a n d in the h u m a n m i n d preeminentiy; yet for all that, this essence remains

inseparable

from

G o d . T h e o n l y c o m p a r a b l e c o n c e p t in

ancient Jewish thought is Philo's similar n o t i o n o f an

all-penetrating

divine L o g o s that reaches into e a c h individual's m i n d , thereby c o n ­ verting it into an extension o f the divine m i n d , albeit a v e r y frag­ mentary

one.

1 3

But if W i s d o m is pervasively present in all things, a n d a b o v e all in the operations o f h u m a n reason, what is the significance o f h u m a n ­ ity's h o t pursuit o f her a n d the n e e d for special supplication to the L o r d that H e dispatch her f r o m His heavenly throne (9:10)? T h e issue here is o n e o f perspective. Since W i s d o m is b o t h

immanent

a n d transcendent, these m o d e s o f description are readily interchange­ able, d e p e n d i n g o n the focus o f the writer. T h i s d o u b l e aspect will also explain w h a t often appear to b e patentiy c o n t r a d i c t o r y state­ ments c o n c e r n i n g h u m a n c o n s c i e n c e in the writings o f Philo. T h u s in Decal. 8 7 , it is emphatically described as "every m a n ' s birth fel­ l o w a n d h o u s e - m a t e . " In several passages it is clearly identified with

12

W . O . E . Oesterly and G . H . Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue (London: Pitman, 1911), 169. Cicero Nat. D. 2.79; cf. Div. 1.110; Seneca Ep. 120.14. SVF 2.416, 1021, 1033; Posidonius F 100 Kidd. Det. 90; Gig. 27; Leg. 1.37-38; cf. M . Aurelius 8.57; Corp. Herm. 12.1. 13

14

15

115

CREATION, R E V E L A T I O N , A N D P R O V I D E N C E

h u m a n reasoning o r as the true m a n within the s o u l .

16

S o m e schol­

ars, h o w e v e r , are impressed b y the m a n y passages w h e r e the tran­ s c e n d e n c e o f the c o n s c i e n c e is a p p a r e n d y upheld. M o s t e m p h a t i c is Deus 1 3 5 - 3 8 w h e r e c o n s c i e n c e , identified with the H i g h Priest, is described in quasi mystical terms as entering the soul like a p u r e ray o f light, to reveal o u r h i d d e n sins in o r d e r to purify a n d heal us. I f this interpretation

w e r e correct, it w o u l d m e a n that for Philo,

m a n ' s i m m a n e n t p o w e r s o f reasoning are ultimately inadequate for applying ethical n o r m s a n d that without the timely invasions o f G o d ' s transcendent

gift, h u m a n beings w o u l d b e morally adrift. T h e fact

is, h o w e v e r , that the language used b y Philo is n o t at all unparal­ leled in R o m a n Stoics like M . Aurelius a n d S e n e c a . T h e latter, for e x a m p l e , begins at o n e p o i n t b y saying that "it is foolish to p r a y for s o u n d understanding w h e n y o u c a n acquire it f r o m y o u r s e l f . . . G o d is near y o u , he is with y o u , he is within y o u . . . " W i t h i n the briefest c o m p a s s , h o w e v e r , the language o f i m m a n e n c e suddenly shifts almost imperceptibly to that o f transcendence: If you see a man who is unterrified in the midst o f dangers, untouched by desires, happy in adversity . . . Will you not say: "This quality is too great and too lofty to be regarded as resembling this petty body in which it dwells? A divine power has descended upon that man." When a soul rises superior to other souls . . . it is stirred by a force from heaven. . . . Therefore a greater part o f it abides in that place from whence it came down to earth. Just as the rays of the sun do indeed touch the earth, but still abide at the source from which they are sent, even so the great and hallowed soul, which has come down in order that we may have a nearer knowledge o f divinity, does indeed associate with us, but still cleaves to its origin . . . (Ep. 41.1-2, 4 - 5 ) Interestingly, Seneca's vivid simile, w h i c h p r o b a b l y derives from the M i d d l e Stoa, recurs m u c h later in the writings o f S c h n e u r Z a l m a n o f I i a d i , founder o f H a b a d Hasidism, w h o cites it from the Kabbalistic tract Pardes Rimmonim (1548) o f M o s e s C o r d o v e r o o f Safed. It is significant that the author, unlike B e n Sira, n o w h e r e explic­ itly identifies W i s d o m with T o r a h , a n d with the e x c e p t i o n o f a brief historical reference in 18:9 makes virtually n o mention o f the sacrificial cult. His statement that " l o v e for W i s d o m means the keeping o f her laws" (6:18) is a m b i g u o u s a n d p r o b a b l y refers to the statutes o f nat­ ural law. All w e have from h i m in this regard is but a passing allusion

Deus 50; Post. 59; Det. 23; Fig. 131.

116

DAVID

WINSTON

to Israel's mission o f bringing the imperishable light o f the law to the w o r l d (18:4). V e r y likely he b e l i e v e d with Philo that the teach­ ings o f the T o r a h w e r e tokens o f divine W i s d o m , a n d that they w e r e in h a r m o n y with the law o f the universe a n d as such implant all the virtues in the h u m a n p s y c h e .

17

H e c o n c e i v e s o f W i s d o m as

a direct bearer o f revelation, functioning through the workings o f the h u m a n m i n d , a n d supreme arbiter o f all values. She is clearly the archetypal T o r a h (the

illin

PIDTIp

o f the Kabbalists), o f w h i c h the

M o s a i c l a w is but an i m a g e . W h e n he insists that unless G o d send his W i s d o m d o w n from o n high humanity w o u l d n o t c o m p r e h e n d G o d ' s will (9:17) he is certainly implying that the T o r a h is in n e e d o f further interpretation for the disclosure o f its true m e a n i n g , inter­ pretation

that W i s d o m alone is able to p r o v i d e . T h e author

thus

closely approximates the position o f Philo, in w h o s e view, even before the Sinaitic revelation, the Patriarchs w e r e already constituted voiroi e[i\\fX)%oi, living e m b o d i m e n t s o f divine W i s d o m . Similarly, in W i s 10, S o p h i a h a d already served as a personal guide to six righteous heroes who

lived b e f o r e the Sinaitic revelation.

In Philo's g r a n d synthesis, the c o n c e p t o f divine revelation was b o u n d to b e o n e o f its m o s t sensitive elements. A l t h o u g h the H e l l e n i c elevation o f p h i l o s o p h i c reason to a p r e e m i n e n t position appears to have c a p t u r e d Philo's m i n d a n d heart very early o n , o n e senses n o inner crisis in his religious w o r l d view. T h e p r i c e he must p a y for this m e r g i n g o f disparate a n d ultimately divergent a n d at times c o n ­ tradictory a p p r o a c h e s , is a deliberate measure o f ambiguity in his m o d e o f exposition that diverts the reader's attention f r o m the sharp edges o f his construction o f reality. I n a s m u c h as the issue o f divine revelation is at the c o r e o f the M o s a i c tradition, it is o n l y to b e e x p e c t e d that the ambiguity inherent in Philo's analysis o f M o s a i c p r o p h e c y should reflect his deepest ambivalences. Since the original publication o f m y essay, " T w o T y p e s o f M o s a i c Prophecy,"

18

a full a c c o u n t o f Philo's c o n c e p t i o n o f scriptural inspi­

ration has b e e n published b y H e l m u t Burkhardt,

17

19

a response to m y

Cf. Josephus Ant. 1.24; Pseudo-Aristeas 161; 4 M a c e 1:16-17; 5:25-26; Philo Opif. 3; Mos. 2.52. D . Winston, " T w o Types of Mosaic Prophecy According to Philo of Alexandria," Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 4 (1989), 4 9 - 6 7 . H . Burkhardt, Die Inspiration heiliger Schriften bei Philon von Alexandrien (Basel: Brunner Verlag Giessen, 1988). 18

19

117

CREATION, REVELATION, A N D P R O V I D E N C E

essay b y J o h n L e v i s o n , by Yehoshua Amir.

2 1

20

a n d a modification o f his original position

I shall therefore first briefly summarize m y ear­

lier p a p e r a n d then try to r e s p o n d to the n e w studies just m e n t i o n e d . In m y analysis o f Philo's classification o f the divine oracles that c o n ­ stitute all o f Scripture (Mos. 2 . 1 8 9 - 9 1 ) , I attempted to s h o w that his first c a t e g o r y o f oracles, those "spoken b y G o d in his o w n person, with his p r o p h e t for interpreter," p r o b a b l y refers to the particular laws, n o t including the D e c a l o g u e as such, w h i c h he frequentiy tells us elsewhere was not "delivered through a spokesman o r interpreter."

22

Since Philo's o n l y c o n c e r n at this p o i n t in his b i o g r a p h y o f M o s e s was to explain w h y he was g o i n g to confine himself to the p r e d i c ­ tive p r o p h e c i e s spoken b y M o s e s in his o w n p e r s o n while "possessed o f his o w n a c c o r d " (it) ouxou Kaxac>%£0£vxoc;) (Philo's third c a t e g o r y o f oracles), a n d those laws that e m e r g e d f r o m a process o f question and answer (Philo's s e c o n d category), he simply referred to most o f the rest o f the laws without adding the further distinction that n e e d e d to b e drawn between the particular laws and the D e c a l o g u e . H o w e v e r , inasmuch

as the particular laws, a c c o r d i n g to Philo, o n l y spell out

the ten s u m m a r y principles o f the D e c a l o g u e , the latter is at least i n c l u d e d implicitiy. Burkhardt (and originally also A m i r ) is o f the o p i n i o n that the first category o f oracles refers o n l y to the D e c a l o g u e , but that i n a s m u c h as the particular laws are i n c l u d e d in the D e c a l o g u e a n d w e r e inter­ p r e t e d b y M o s e s , it c o u l d b e said that the D e c a l o g u e t o o was given by

G o d with M o s e s as interpreter. But while it is reasonable

to

assume that in referring to all the laws excluding those i n v o l v e d in the

question

and

answer

p r o c e s s , Philo m a y h a v e l u m p e d

them

together with the D e c a l o g u e , since they are at least implicitiy included in it, it seems to m e unreasonable

to assume that he w o u l d refer

specifically to the D e c a l o g u e in a m a n n e r that elsewhere explicitly excludes it.

2 0

23

J. Levison, " T w o Types o f Ecstatic Prophecy according to Philo," Stadia Philonica Annual 6 (1994), 8 3 - 8 9 . Y . Amir, "Authority and Interpretation o f Scripture in the Writings o f Philo," in Mikra, eds. M o r t o n J. Mulder and Harry Sysling (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 4 2 1 - 5 3 . Spec. 3.7; cf. Proem. 2; Deed. 19. In a later publication ("Authority and Interpretation," 437), Amir suggests that the first category "is undoubtedly the one that gives all the verses o f the T o r a h the character o f oracles. Perhaps because Philo is not concerned here with this first cat­ egory, but wants to get on to the third, he seems to have been somewhat careless 2 1

22

2 3

118

DAVID WINSTON

Philo's description o f the first a n d third categories o f oracles deliv­ ered b y M o s e s yields t w o types o f p r o p h e c y , hermeneutical o r noetic a n d ecstatic, the latter b e i n g m e d i a t e d through possession, the

for­

m e r through the prophet's noetic response to the divine v o i c e , w h i c h is seen b y Philo as a figure for rational soul. A s for the s e c o n d cat­ e g o r y o f oracles, inasmuch as there is n o clear indication in Philo's text that the evBouauxajioc; o f M o s e s w h e n he is p o s i n g his questions to the deity involves the kind o f possession that takes h i m out o f himself, it w o u l d seem that b o t h question a n d answer in the

four

cases cited b y Philo are exemplifications o f noetic p r o p h e c y , in w h i c h , as w e shall see, the prophet's m i n d is n o t o n l y not p r e e m p t e d , actually appears to seize the initiative. M o r e precisely, the side is p r e n o e t i c , o r a preliminary

but

question

state o f the noetic, m a r k e d

by

intellectual perplexity a n d uncertainty. In any case, Philo's m o m e n ­ tary restriction o f the use o f the term " p r o p h e c y " largely to the pre­ dictive m o d e l o f inspiration

conveniently enables h i m to focus the

reader's gaze almost exclusively o n ecstatic p r o p h e c y , a n d thus allows h i m to deal with the noetic type with almost casual lack o f c o n c e r n . W e are driven to a distant but singular passage in Decal. 32—35 if w e wish to seek out his understanding o f the latter f o r m o f p r o p h e c y . Philo's descriptions o f ecstatic possession are rhetorically elaborated in a series o f passages in w h i c h it is emphatically asserted that in that state the prophet's sovereign m i n d is entirely p r e e m p t e d b y the divine Spirit, so that he b e c o m e s a passive m e d i u m for the Deity's message. A close examination,

h o w e v e r , o f Philo's description o f M o s e s '

predictive p r o p h e c y reveals that while he has a d o p t e d the m o r e rad­ ical f o r m o f G r e e k ecstatic p r o p h e c y as his m o d e l with regard to the predictive p r o p h e c i e s o f A b r a h a m and B a l a a m ,

24

this is n o t the case

with those o f M o s e s . H e r e there is n o explicit reference to the dis­ placement o f the prophet's mind, to his ignorance o f his o w n prophetic w o r d s , o r to the fact that G o d p r o m p t s the w o r d s that he speaks. If this interpretation is correct, it w o u l d readily fit the pattern o f

in his definition, for if it is supposed to include the entire content o f Mikra, we might object that G o d does not speak in the first person throughout the Bible." In light o f Amir's suggestion, I am n o w inclined to entertain the notion that the first category includes not only all the laws but also the creation story (Koauo7toua) and the historical narratives (yzyzakoyvKov). Since the latter are interspersed with quo­ tations from G o d , it might be inferred that they were transmitted to Moses by G o d in his own person. Her. 2 6 4 - 6 6 ; Mos. 1.274-91. 2 4

119

CREATION, REVELATION, AND PROVIDENCE

uniqueness that frames Philo's portrait o f M o s e s , for it is n o w evi­ dent that not o n l y is M o s e s ' legislative p r o p h e c y unique, but even his predictive p r o p h e c y , a gift he otherwise shares with N o a h a n d the Patriarchs,

25

is likewise unique, since it is not as with the latter,

a p r o d u c t o f p s y c h i c invasion a n d displacement. It should b e n o t e d that Levison has c o r r o b o r a t e d m y interpretation through a detailed analysis that demonstrates

the integral c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n M o s e s '

e m o t i o n a l state, his experience o f inspiration and his utterance before the p e o p l e o f Israel. Levison, h o w e v e r , takes issue with m y assertion that Philo invokes the n o t i o n o f ecstatic possession o n l y to explain the ability o f the p r o p h e t to predict the future. H e notes that M o s e s '

announcement

o f the Sabbath a n d the c o m m a n d to slaughter the leaders responsi­ ble for the fiasco o f the g o l d e n calf are speeches a b o u t the present. But as for the c o m m a n d to slaughter the instigators o f the g o l d e n calf w o r s h i p , Philo himself admits that it was m o r e o f an exhorta­ tion than an oracular saying,

26

and as for his a n n o u n c e m e n t o f the

Sabbath, it is c o u c h e d in Scripture as a prediction. W h e n all the chieftains o f the c o m m u n i t y told M o s e s that o n the sixth day the p e o ­ ple gathered

d o u b l e the a m o u n t o f f o o d , he said to them:

"This

is what the L o r d meant: T o m o r r o w is a day o f rest, a h o l y Sabbath o f the L o r d . " T h i s a n n o u n c e m e n t is c o r r o b o r a t e d b y G o d in v. 2 9 : " M a r k that the L o r d has given y o u the Sabbath; therefore H e gives y o u t w o days' f o o d o n the sixth day." It should b e noted that although in E x o d 16:5, G o d tells M o s e s that o n the sixth d a y the p e o p l e will receive " d o u b l e the a m o u n t they gather e a c h d a y , " H e d o e s not indicate that the seventh day is the Sabbath. Levison further argues that Philo, in his a c c o u n t o f M o s e s ' a n n o u n c e m e n t o f the

Sabbath,

explicitly connects the m i n d o f M o s e s a n d the divine spirit: " F o r the m i n d , " says Philo, " c o u l d n o t have m a d e so straight an aim if there was not also the divine spirit guiding it to the truth itself."

27

According

to Levison, this suggests "that M o s e s ' ecstatic p r o p h e t i c inspiration can engage a n d quicken the m i n d , leading it to the truth . . . T h e r e m a y b e , then, a closer relationship b e t w e e n hermeneutical p r o p h e c y a n d ecstatic p r o p h e c y than W i n s t o n has suggested."

2 5

2 6

27

28

Her. 2 6 0 - 6 1 . Mos. 2.270. Mos. 2.265.

Levison "Two Types of Ecstatic Prophecy," 89.

28

120

DAVID WINSTON

It seems to m e , h o w e v e r , that Levison misreads Philo's intentions here. W h a t Philo is saying is that M o s e s ' a n n o u n c e m e n t o f the S a b ­ bath d a y was n o t so m u c h conjecture

as G o d - s e n t inspiration. In

general, says Philo, conjectures are closely akin to predictive p r o p h e ­ cies, insofar

as b o t h are

n o t the

" o w n " k n o w l e d g e , a n d therefore But a l t h o u g h

certain result o f an

individual's

r e m a i n uncertain until c o n f i r m e d .

predictive p r o p h e c y is n o t the

result o f o n e ' s o w n

k n o w l e d g e , inasmuch as it is disclosed b y the divine spirit, it is k n o w n with certainty. In the case o f M o s e s , his conjecture was c o n f i r m e d for h i m t h r o u g h a mildly ecstatic f o r m o f divine inspiration. W e r e M o s e s left to his o w n devices, he c o u l d at best o n l y have a n n o u n c e d his " c o n j e c t u r e " to the p e o p l e , but he c o u l d n o t have

announced

the S a b b a t h as a certainty. M o r e o v e r , it is Philo himself w h o explic­ itly tells us that in the third kind o f oracles that he is here recount­ ing " G o d has given to M o s e s o f his o w n p o w e r o f f o r e k n o w l e d g e (7tpoyvrooTiicric, ouvdcLrecoc;) a n d b y this he will reveal future

events."

29

F u r t h e r m o r e , in his introductory remarks to his description o f M o s e s here as p r o p h e t , Philo notes that the p r o p h e t declares b y inspiration (0£O7u£n) w h a t c a n n o t b e a p p r e h e n d e d

b y reason (Xoyiairco).

30

This

is further reinforced b y Philo's statement, w h e n speaking o f J a c o b ' s predictive p r o p h e c y (evOouoicovtoc,), that " a p p r e h e n s i o n o f the future d o e s n o t b e l o n g to T h e question,

man."

31

h o w e v e r , remains:

W h y d i d Philo include in

his

third kind o f p r o p h e c y w h a t he himself admits is really o n l y a case o f exhortation rather than prediction? T h e answer, I believe, lies in the fact that Philo is here p r o b a b l y w o r k i n g with an exegetical tra­ dition that g r o u p e d together examples o f M o s a i c statements for w h i c h there a p p e a r to b e n o indications in Scripture that G o d h a d

first

i n f o r m e d h i m c o n c e r n i n g these matters. T h u s , although the g o l d e n calf e p i s o d e d i d n o t really fit the predictive pattern, he i n c l u d e d it nonetheless, since it u n d o u b t e d l y a p p e a r e d in m o s t o f the lists that w e r e before h i m .

29

3 2

Mos. 2.190. Mos. 2.187. Her. 261. " T h e Mekilta adduces more than ten cases, where we find locutions like "as the Lord has spoken," "this is what the Lord said," yet scripture does not appear to inform us when these things were said. If one compares God's words to those o f Moses in the scriptural passages adduced by the Mekilta, he will immediately notice that, according to the Mekilta, Moses did not hesitate in most o f these cases 30

31

3 2

CREATION, REVELATION, A N D PROVIDENCE In sharp contrast

121

to ecstatic p r o p h e c y , divine v o i c e o r n o e t i c

p r o p h e c y d o e s n o t render its recipient passive. A l t h o u g h n o separate a c c o u n t is given b y Philo o f this m o d e o f M o s a i c p r o p h e c y , w e m a y discern its nature from his a c c o u n t o f the giving o f the D e c a l o g u e , w h i c h must serve us as the p a r a d i g m for p r o p h e c y through the divine voice.

3 3

G o d , w e are there told, is n o t as a m a n

tongue, and windpipe.

34

needing

mouth,

R a t h e r H e created a rational soul full o f

clearness a n d distinctness that shaped the air a r o u n d it into a ing fire, s o u n d i n g forth an

articulate v o i c e .

3 5

flam­

T h e articulate v o i c e

was activated b y the p o w e r o f G o d , w h i c h created in the souls o f all another kind o f hearing far superior to that o f the physical organ. " T h e latter is but a sluggish sense, inactive until aroused b y

the

i m p a c t o f the air, but the hearing o f the m i n d possessed b y G o d (evGeoi) 8iavoia<;) m a k e s the first

advance

and

g o e s o u t to

meet

the c o n v e y e d meanings ((pGdvei 7tpoD7tavTa>aa xoi<; A-eyoia-evon;) with the swiftest s p e e d " (Decal. 35). It is clear f r o m this description that the inspired m i n d that perceives this special rational soul created b y G o d , far f r o m b e i n g p r e e m p t e d o r r e n d e r e d passive, is rather narily q u i c k e n e d and

extraordi­

sharpened.

F o r the n o t i o n o f a m i n d to m i n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n in o r d e r

to

explain the divine v o i c e at Sinai, Philo was i n d e b t e d to the M i d d l e Platonic tradition. T h e Platonists h a d b e e n exercised b y the n e e d to explain the nature o f Socrates' famous daimonion o r sign, a n d o n e o f the interpretations r e c o r d e d b y Plutarch is very similar to that a d o p t e d by Philo.

36

S o m e scholars, h o w e v e r , have seen a contradiction between

Philo's statement in Decal. 33 a n d 4 6 that the rational soul created b y G o d for the c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f the D e c a l o g u e " s o u n d e d forth an articulate v o i c e " ((pcovT^v evapGpov) a n d the statement in Mig. 47—49 that the w o r d s o f G o d , unlike those o f mortal beings, are seen as light is seen, n o t b e i n g d i v i d e d into n o u n s and verbs a n d the parts

to alter God's own words and transmit only their intention." (A.J. Heschel, Theology of Ancient Judaism [London: Soncino Press, 1965]), 2.154, 161-65 [in Hebrew]. See H.A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Phibsophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 4th rev. ed. 1968), 2.37. Cf. Deus 83; Mig. 4 7 - 5 2 ; Sac. 78; Sextus Math. 9.178-79: "But if G o d is gifted with speech, he employs speech and has organs o f speech, such as lungs and wind­ pipe, tongue and mouth. But this is absurd and borders on the fairy-tales of Epicurus." See also Aristobulus, fr. 4, Holloday 3.163. Cf. Mekilta Bahodesh 9, Lauterbach 2.266. De gen. 588d. ' 33

34

35

36

DAVID WINSTON

122

o f s p e e c h in general as the h u m a n v o i c e i s .

37

It is very likely, h o w ­

ever, that while the conceptuality o f the L o g o s d o e s n o t consist o f articulate w o r d s , w h e n it is c o m m u n i c a t e d to the h u m a n m i n d it is p e r c e i v e d in a c c o r d a n c e with the latter's finite capacities. T h u s it appears f r o m Decal. 3 3 - 3 5 that the rational soul created b y G o d , w h i c h is full o f clearness a n d distinctness, in itself consists o f n o n articulate thought, though subsequentiy it shapes the air into a flaming fire that sounds forth an articulate v o i c e equally audible to the far­ thest, as well as the nearest. But this articulate v o i c e is then v e y e d directiy to the m i n d s o f the p e o p l e t h r o u g h an vision.

38

con­

intellectual

I f this is correct, then even the intellectual vision o f M o s e s

is n o t o n the metalinguistic level o f the L o g o s itself.

39

In light o f the general thrust o f Philo's p h i l o s o p h i c a l thought, it is very likely that he understands

n o e t i c p r o p h e c y to refer to the

activation o f m a n ' s higher m i n d o r his intuitive intellect, b y m e a n s o f w h i c h h e grasps the fundamental

principles o f universal b e i n g

v i e w e d as a unified w h o l e . T h i s unified vision o f the w o r l d o f intel­ ligible F o r m s constitutes for Philo an inherent characteristic o f the human

m i n d , t h o u g h for m o s t p e o p l e m u c h effort

is o r d i n a r i l y

required to actualize it. W h e n it does o c c u r , h o w e v e r , o n e achieves direct k n o w l e d g e o f the D i v i n e . Philo therefore u n d o u b t e d l y under­ s t o o d the p r o p h e t i c revelation through w h i c h M o s e s attained to his understanding o f the L a w , as an intuitive grasp o f the higher divine realities, the fundamental principles o f b e i n g , a n d the natural laws that constitute its

37

structure.

40

See Hans Leisegang, Der heilige Geist (Leipzig: Teubner, 1919), 2 1 9 - 2 1 ; F.N. Klein, Die Lichtterminologie bei Philon von Alexandrien und in den hermetischen Schrifien (Leiden: Brill, 1962), 4 5 - 5 0 ; A . Kamesar, "Philo and the Literary Quality o f the Bible: A Theoretical Aspect o f the Problem," JJS 46.1-2 (1995), 58, n. 15. Cf. Decal. 46, where it is said that the flame became articulate speech, in the language familiar to the audience, but so clearly and distinctly were the words formed that the people seemed to see rather than hear them. See D . Winston, "Aspects o f Philo's Linguistic Theory," Stadia Philonica Annual 3 (1991), 109-25, and esp. n. 40. Cf. Mek. Bahodesh 9, Lauterbach 2.267; PRK 12.25, Mandelbaum 224 Tanhuma Titro 96: "Even Moses heard in accordance with his capacity." T h e statement o f R . Judah the Patriarch in the Mekilta apparently inter­ prets the word [D'Sn] as referring to an intellectual vision. See A J . Heschel, Theology of Ancient Judaism (London: Soncino Press, 1965), 2. 269, 273 (Hebrew). For the Kabbalistic view that what the prophets received was in accordance with their indi­ vidual capacities, and the notion that prophecy is not an external action but an immanent force, see the sources cited by Heschel 277-79. T h e Stoics had similarly assimilated the wise man to the priest and prophet (D.L. 7.119; SVF 3.605; Cicero Div. 2.129). Cf. E. Brehier, Les idees philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d'Alexandrie (Paris: J. Vrin, 1950), 219. 3 8

3 9

4 0

123

CREATION, REVELATION, A N D PROVIDENCE

T o support o u r interpretation o f Philo's theory o f noetic p r o p h e c y we

turn to several passages f r o m The Migration of Abraham. A t Mig.

80, Philo notes that thoughts are n o t h i n g else than G o d ' s w o r d s o r speech, "for without the p r o m p t e r

(TOX>

imoPoAicoc;) speech will give

forth n o utterance, a n d m i n d is the p r o m p t e r o f speech, as G o d is of mind."

41

M o r e o v e r , interpreting E x o d 4:10 ("from the time thou

hast b e g u n to speak to thy servant"), he speaks o f G o d ' s flashing into M o s e s the light o f truth b y m e a n s absolute K n o w l e d g e and W i s d o m .

4 2

o f the u n d y i n g w o r d s o f

T h e divine illumination o f M o s e s '

m i n d is thus m e d i a t e d through a vision o f the eternal F o r m s . T h e passages referred

to a b o v e lead us b a c k to a

characteristic

trait o f Philo's mystical vision, its inherentiy bipolar perspective, w h i c h consistently allows t w o alternative m o d e s o f describing h u m a n intel­ lectual activity. F r o m the divine perspective, the higher workings o f the h u m a n m i n d , w h e n it has assimilated itself to the L o g o s , m a y a p d y b e ascribed to the divine p o w e r , w h i c h is their true source, a n d it m a y b e said that G o d is p r o m p t i n g t h e m f r o m within, t h o u g h f r o m the h u m a n perspective they m a y reasonably b e assigned to the individual h u m a n m i n d that appears to b e p r o d u c i n g t h e m .

43

Levison

is thus unduly impressed b y those passages in w h i c h Philo e m p h a ­ sizes w h a t appears to b e a source o f inspiration that is external to h u m a n beings. H e thus claims that: Philo's attribution o f the mind's ascent to the divine Spirit, explicitly in Plant. 24 and Gig. 31, and implicitly in Spec. Leg. 3.1, has significant implications for his understanding o f inspiration. Despite the mind's affinity with the Logos, external aid is necessary for the ascent o f the mind; it does not occur naturally. The divine Spirit is necessary to conquer the enemy o f divine ascent, earthly cares. 44

Similarly, he writes that "the Spirit p r o m p t s the m i n d to e m b r a c e a higher level o f m e a n i n g . Philo's e x p e r i e n c e , w h i c h underlies this m o d e l o f inspiration consists o f b e i n g led b y an external divine aid to solve exegetical c o n u n d r u m s . "

41

45

M o r e o v e r , he sees in Philo's

Cf. Det. 66—67; Brehier, Les idees philosophiques et religieuses, 103, n. 4. Mig. 76. Cf. Praem. 54, where Philo writes that: "it was G o d w h o appointed Moses by the free judgment o f his subjects, G o d who created in them the willingness to choose him as their sovereign." J. Levison, "Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings o f Philo Judaeus," Journal for the Study of Judaism 26.3 (1995), 293. Ibid., 307. 42

4 3

4 4

45

124

D A V I D WINSTON choice o f the preposition "upon" to describe the divine spirit's rela­ tionship to Bezalel, in lieu o f the conception o f Bezalel's being filled with the divine spirit, a subtle rebuttal o f Stoic conceptions o f the spirit, according to which the human spirit or soul was part and par­ cel o f the cosmic spirit. . . . In contrast to the perspective o f Stoicism, namely that the human soul is inherently inspired by virtue o f its char­ acter as pneuma, Philo contends that the cosmic pneuma is a sup­ plement that temporarily imparts wisdom when it comes upon human beings. 46

47

T h e fact is, h o w e v e r , that Philo has explicitiy a d o p t e d the very Stoic formulation

o f the h u m a n soul that Levison thinks he is

H e designates

the h u m a n intellect as an imprint,

effulgence o f the L o g o s , of

the

divine ether.

49

4 8

refuting.

o r fragment,

or

or, as he occasionally puts it, as a p o r t i o n

Admittedly, in a n u m b e r

o f passages,

Philo

tends to contrast the Stoic n o t i o n o f the m i n d as a p o r t i o n o f ether with the m o r e reverent characterization

o f it b y M o s e s as a

cast (eK|iayeiov eu,(pepeq) o f the divine i m a g e . be

taken to m e a n

50

that Philo wishes to guard

faithful

But this should n o t against turning

the

h u m a n m i n d into a part o f G o d . Philo is o n l y attempting to indi­ cate that the description o f the h u m a n m i n d as ethereal p n e u m a is to b e u n d e r s t o o d o n l y metaphorically a n d is n o t m e a n t to i m p l y that it is a c o r p o r e a l substance

in the Stoic m a n n e r .

51

M o r e o v e r , as I

have already indicated a b o v e , Philo's m a n y references to the divine spirit as c o m i n g from a b o v e (avcoOev) o r f r o m without (e^coGev) are equally characteristic o f S e n e c a and p r o b a b l y derive f r o m the M i d d l e Stoa.

52

A l t h o u g h Burkhardt's a p p r o a c h to Philo's theory o f scriptural inspi­ ration differs considerably from m i n e in m a n y details, its overall c o n ­ clusions are surprisingly similar to m y o w n . A c c o r d i n g to Burkhardt (and A m i r ' s earlier formulation different

46

o f this matter), Philo e m p l o y s t w o

c o n c e p t i o n s o f p r o p h e c y , o n e in w h i c h p r o p h e c y is syn-

Actually, in Gig. 27, Philo is no longer referring to Bezalel but to the Spirit that was upon Moses, for which he cites N u m 11:17 (xov TtveuuocTOc; iov kia aoi). J. Levison, "Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings o f Philo Judaeus," 279. See n o w his summary view o f Philo's theory o f prophecy in John R . Levison, The Spirit in First Century Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 137—60. Opif. 146; Praem. 163. Leg. 3.161; QE 2.46. Mut. 223; Det. 83; Plant. 18. See D . Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1985), 28-30. Mos. 2.69; Virt. 217; Congr. 130; Somn. 1.119. 47

48

49

50

51

52

CREATION, REVELATION, AND PROVIDENCE

125

o n y m o u s with hermeneia, the other in w h i c h it is distinguished from it. T h e former derives from Plato's theory o f poetic inspiration, w h i c h speaks o f an ecstatic state in w h i c h the prophet's m i n d is displaced, the other from Posidonius' mantic theory in w h i c h "the soul is clair­ v o y a n t o f itself because o f its kinship with the g o d s . " T h e s e t w o c o n ­ ceptions, says Burkhardt, are not mutually exclusive, but they bear distinctive emphases, the o n e focusing o n the divine origin o f prophecy, the other taking a c c o u n t o f the h u m a n intermediation involved in its transmission. Scriptural inspiration, it turns out, belongs not to ecstatic p r o p h e c y but to the kind in w h i c h the p r o p h e t speaks in his o w n right. Burkhardt then cites a plethora o f passages that d e m o n ­ strate that the M o s a i c authorship o f Scripture c a n n o t b e d e t a c h e d from his o w n personality, but is rather its fullest expression. M o s e s is said to have possessed all the virtues without w h i c h he c o u l d never have c o m p o s e d the Scriptures.

53

I n d e e d , it was M o s e s ' status as a

54

vouoc, euiiruxoc, that qualified h i m to b e c o m e the true legislator p a r excellence. In Mos. 1.4, Philo calls the sacred b o o k s "the wonderful m o n u m e n t s o f his w i s d o m that he has left b e h i n d h i m . " In Spec. 4.105 w e are told that "as M o s e s always adhered to the principles o f numerical science, w h i c h he k n e w b y close observation to b e a p a r a m o u n t factor in all that exists, he never enacted any law great o r small without calling to his aid and, as it w e r e , a c c o m m o d a t i n g to his enactment its appropriate n u m b e r . " Even m o r e d i r e c d y per­ sonal is the statement that the p r o p h e t i c legislator "used to incite and train all his subjects to fellowship, setting before t h e m the m o n ­ u m e n t o f his o w n life like an original design to b e their beautiful m o d e l " (Virt. 51). It is highly significant that the inspired translation o f Scripture means for Philo keeping p a c e with the spirit o f M o s e s . T h e authors o f the L X X are n o t so m u c h translators as "prophets a n d priests o f the mysteries, w h o s e sincerity a n d singleness o f thought has enabled t h e m to g o h a n d in h a n d with the purest o f spirits, the spirit o f M o s e s " (Mos. 2.40). T h e literary quality o f M o s e s ' authorship

of

Scripture is clearly revealed in Philo's attempt to explain the m a n ­ ner in w h i c h M o s e s structured his text in o r d e r to demonstrate his [literary] excellence:

53

Mos. 2.11.

54

Mos. 2.4.

126

DAVID WINSTON

W e must now give the reason, why Moses began his law book with the history, and put the commands and prohibitions in the second place. He did not, like any historian, make it his business to leave behind for posterity records of ancient deeds for the pleasant but use­ less entertainment (\|mxaY(Qyr|aou) that they give. 55

H e wished to s h o w that the C r e a t o r was also the Legislator, a n d that he w h o follows the law will live in h a r m o n y with nature.

56

More­

over, unlike those legislators w h o b e g i n b y issuing orders without preliminary w o r d s o f exhortation, as t h o u g h they w e r e addressing slaves rather than free m e n , a practice characteristic o f tyrants, M o s e s instead suggests a n d a d m o n i s h e s rather than c o m m a n d s a n d

his

numerous instructions are a c c o m p a n i e d b y forewords and afterwords.

57

Burkhardt's detailed analysis o f the various passages just cited a n d m a n y others as well is an i m p o r t a n t

c o n t r i b u t i o n to o u r

under­

standing o f Philo's theory o f scriptural inspiration. His basic a p p r o a c h , h o w e v e r , in the evaluation o f Philo's three types o f p r o p h e c y a n d their application to the larger issue o f inspiration is fraught

with

difficulty, inasmuch as he is constrained artificially to c o n n e c t M o s e s ' interpretation cles.

58

o f the particular laws with the third category o f ora­

M o r e o v e r , a n d even m o r e important, predictive p r o p h e c y , in

m y o p i n i o n , is clearly the w r o n g p a r a d i g m for the p r o p h e t i c origin o f the laws. T h e latter are arrived at b y means o f a divine inspira­ tion that elevates the m i n d to its highest intellectual level, thus enabling it to achieve a m a x i m u m degree o f clearness a n d distinct­ ness. F o r Philo, this constitutes an i m m a n e n t divine causality that allows h i m to describe M o s e s as the interpreter o f G o d " w h o p r o m p t s f r o m within (ev8o0ev v>nr\xo\)Vxo<;) what he should say" (Praem. 55). In predictive p r o p h e c y , o n the other hand, the p r o p h e t must acquire k n o w l e d g e that is inaccessible to the h u m a n m i n d even w h e n it func­ tions at its highest intellectual level. T o obtain it, M o s e s , a n d he alone, has the capacity to induce in himself a mildly ecstatic state in w h i c h "he is n o longer in himself," in o r d e r to access the knowl­ e d g e f o u n d only in the L o g o s a n d is available only in this manner.

5 5

See Kamesar, "Philo and the Literary Quality o f the Bible," 59. Cf. Opif. 1-3; Abr. 6. Mos. 2.47-51. Since the conclusion o f Scripture, which Philo describes as its crowning con­ summation, is a narrative account o f Moses' prophecy o f this own death (written by him as redactor), and belongs to the third kind o f prophecy, Burkhardt infers that all o f Scripture must therefore belong to that prophetic category. 5 6

57

5 8

CREATION, R E V E L A T I O N , A N D P R O V I D E N C E

127

Finally, w e turn to A m i r , w h o n o w appears to derive M o s e s ' for­ mulation o f the particular laws from the first category o f oracles described b y Philo. " T h e relationship between what c o m e s to M o s e s , " he writes, . . . and what he gives out [as hermeneut] cannot be disentangled. There is more o f Moses' own personality in Tora than the concept o f "interpreter" can cover. . . . Philo conflates the intrahuman and suprahuman aspects. . . . What the soul receives directly from G o d is not a hearing but a seeing, a voice that does not express itself in verbs and nouns, and so cannot be received discursively, still less written down as a text. 59

T h i s c o m e s very close to m y o w n position, although I w o u l d char­ acterize what the soul receives directly from G o d m o r e specifically as an "intuitive" intellectual vision, but o n e that is c o n c e i v e d lin­ guistically, since, in m y o p i n i o n , its original metalinguistic

divine

nature must b e a c c o m m o d a t e d to the finite h u m a n m i n d o f the p r o p h e t . A s for A m i r ' s assertion that it c a n n o t b e written d o w n , I w o u l d have to a d d that this is true, as I have n o t e d elsewhere, in the sense that w h e n the w o r d s are within the master dialectician's m i n d , they are part o f an intellectual vision deriving from a primary principle and their signification is thus transparentiy clear to h i m , but w h e n in his attempt to c o m m u n i c a t e them to others, they take o n the f o r m o f uttered s o u n d o r the written w o r d , they b e c o m e c l o u d e d b y a veil o f ambiguity a n d uncertainty.

60

Providence W e turn finally to the doctrine o f divine p r o v i d e n c e . In T h e W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , W i s d o m is s y n o n y m o u s with P r o v i d e n c e , controlling his­ torical events and in e a c h generation guiding the friends o f G o d and inspiring the prophets. In a fine o d e to W i s d o m ' s saving p o w e r in history ( 1 0 : 1 - 2 1 ) , the author assimilates the o l d covenantal salvation history with its miraculous a n d sudden divine irruptions to the i m m a ­ nent divine ordering o f h u m a n events as m e d i a t e d b y the continu­ ous activity o f W i s d o m . It is her generation b y generation election o f h o l y servants (7:27) that structures the life o f Israel.

5 9

Y . Amir, "Authority and Interpretation o f Scripture in the Writings o f Philo," 437-40. Winston, "Aspects o f Philo's Linguistic Theory," 125, n. 40. 6 0

128

DAVID

WINSTON

A l t h o u g h Philo sometimes uses the term " W i s d o m " s y n o n y m o u s l y with L o g o s , it is the latter that generally takes o v e r all o f its func­ tions. E x t e n d i n g itself f r o m the center o f the universe to its furthest b o u n d s a n d f r o m its extremities to the center again, the L o g o s runs nature's u n v a n q u i s h e d course, j o i n i n g a n d b i n d i n g fast all its parts. Constituting the unbreakable b o n d o f the universe, it mediates a n d m o d e r a t e s the threatenings o f the o p p o s i n g elements, so that the uni­ verse m a y p r o d u c e a c o m p l e t e h a r m o n y .

61

A t Deus 176, w e are told

that the w o r l d is a d e m o c r a c y b e c a u s e the L o g o s p r o p o r t i o n s to e a c h race a n d n a t i o n its d u e . It has b e e n p o i n t e d o u t that the

term

" d e m o c r a c y " as used b y Philo is e q u a t e d n o t with a specific

form

o f g o v e r n m e n t but rather with a general principle o f j u s t i c e .

62

In

another passage, Philo tells us that . . . all that strikes a false note in human life is the work o f inequal­ ity, but all that maintains its fitting order is that o f equality, which in universal being is most properly called the cosmic order, in cities democracy, the best regulated and most excellent of constitutions, in bodies, health, and in souls, moral virtue. Inequality, on the other hand, is the cause o f sickness and vices. {Spec. 4.237) Vlastos has n o t e d that the founders o f G r e e k scientific thought c o n ­ c e i v e d o f c o s m i c equality as the guaranty o f c o s m i c justice. A l c m a n taught that w h a t preserves health is equality b e t w e e n the p o w e r s (ioovouioc)—moist a n d dry, c o l d a n d hot, bitter a n d sweet, a n d the rest—and the prevalence o f o n e o f them p r o d u c e s disease.

63

Heraclitus'

n o t i o n that "the w a y u p a n d d o w n is o n e a n d the s a m e "

6 4

means

that the s u m total o f u p w a r d changes in the universe equals

the

d o w n w a r d o n e s , a n d Philo puts the same interpretation o n this frag­ ment. H e speaks o f "reciprocation" (dveicciaic,) and interchange a c c o r d ­ ing to the standards o f equality a n d the b o u n d s o f j u s t i c e .

65

In the Deus passage cited a b o v e ( 1 7 3 - 7 6 ) , Philo emphatically denies the n o t i o n that the fortunes o f e m p i r e are a matter o f c h a n c e :

61

Fug. 112; Her. 2 3 4 - 3 6 ; Plant. 9 - 1 0 . Wolfson, Philo, 2.390; Erwin R . Goodenough, The Politics of Philo Judaeus (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, repr. 1967), 86-90. D . K . B4. D . K . B80. Aet. 108-09; cf. Cher. 109-12..See G. Vlastos, "Equality and Justice in Early Greek Cosmologies," in Studies in Presocratic Philosophy, ed. D.J. Furley and R.E. Allen (London: Roudedge & Kegan Paul, 1970), 1.56-91. 6 2

6 3

6 4

65

129

CREATION, R E V E L A T I O N , A N D P R O V I D E N C E

Greece was once in full flower, but the Macedonians took away its power. Macedonia flourished in its turn, but when it was divided into portions it grew feeble until it was utterly extinguished. Before the Macedonians the affairs o f the Persians enjoyed success, but a single day destroyed their great and mighty empire. . . . For the divine Logos, which most men call Fortune, runs a circular course. Accordingly, in its perpetual flux it makes distribution city by city, nation by nation, country by country, giving to these what belonged to others, and to all what belonged to all, and exchanging only from time to time the possessions o f each, so that the whole world should like one city main­ tain the best of constitutions, democracy. 66

T h e r e was the well-known Greek g n o m i c saying

K T U K X O I ; TOC

a n d H e r o d o t u s h a d l o n g a g o n o t e d that " h u m a n wheel

(TCUKAOI;)

dvSpcoTtiva

affairs

67

are o n a

w h i c h in its turning d o e s n o t suffer the same m a n to

have g o o d fortune f o r e v e r . "

68

T h e i m m e d i a t e source o f Philo's state­

ment, however, w o u l d appear Phalerum q u o t e d b y P o l y b i u s

69

to b e the remark

o f Demetrius o f

to the effect that cruel Fortune, " w h o

always defeats o u r reckonings b y s o m e n o v e l stroke," h a d but tem­ porarily lent its blessings to the Persians and w o u l d in its o w n g o o d time take t h e m b a c k a n d give t h e m instead who

to the M a c e d o n i a n s ,

w o u l d b e c o m e the n e w masters o f almost the w h o l e w o r l d . In

Polybius' writings Fortune (T\)%r|) generally refers to the incalculable element in h u m a n affairs, that w h i c h resists rational analysis, a n d is thus c o n c e i v e d as an i m p e r s o n a l force. T h e r e are m a n y passages, h o w e v e r , w h e r e Fortune is personified a n d p o r t r a y e d as

punishing

injustice ( 1 5 . 2 0 . 5 - 8 ; 2 9 . 2 7 . 1 1 - 1 2 ) but it is a b o v e all Polybius' descrip­ tion o f R o m e ' s unique rise to w o r l d p o w e r in less than fifty three years (1.4.4) that best illustrates fortune's purposive action, although there are also passages (1.63.9) w h e r e this rise is seen as part o f a rational historical process o f cause and effect. A p p a r e n t i y Polybius was ultimately unable in his o w n m i n d to assimilate R o m e ' s m e t e o r i c rise to p o w e r to a rational process pure and simple, and found himself resorting o n o c c a s i o n to a teleological c o n c e p t i o n o f Fortune's activ­ ities in order to explain this overwhelmingly impressive historic event.

6 6

70

Cf. Jos. 131-32, 144; Mos. 1.31, 41; QG 4.43. Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, ed. E.L. Leutsch and P.G. Schneidewin (Hildesheim: G . O l m , 1958), 2.492. 1.207; cf. Aristode Eth. nic 1.10, 1100b4; Plutarch Mor. 103f. 29.21; cf. Diodorus 31.10. T h e interpretation o f Polybius' concept o f T y c h e is much debated. I have fol­ lowed that o f F.W. Walbank, Polybius (Berkeley: University o f California, 1972) 67

6 8

6 9

7 0

130

DAVID

WINSTON

Unlike Polybius, w h o s e formulations, as w e have just seen, reveal a considerable degree o f ambivalence, Philo's c o n c e p t i o n o f the w o r l d historical process w o u l d appear to b e m o r e strictly i m p e r s o n a l .

71

The

s e q u e n c e o f w o r l d empires is d e t e r m i n e d b y a c o s m i c principle o f equality, a fundamental

characteristic o f the divine L o g o s . W h e n e v e r

this principle is violated a n d s o m e city o r nation arrogates to itself m o r e than its p r o p e r share o f p o w e r a n d possessions, a redistribu­ tion takes p l a c e that eliminates the dislocation that h a d

momentar­

ily disturbed the balance o f the divine e c o n o m y . Philo sees this as a cyclic

" d a n c e " o f the L o g o s in w h i c h persistent imbalances

inequalities

and

that continuously invade the c o s m i c o r d e r are p e r i o d i ­

cally redressed. But if this d a n c e o f the L o g o s involves a "perpetual flux" (del pecov), h o w is it to b e r e c o n c i l e d with Philo's belief in the ultimate advent o f a messianic age? T h e answer appears to b e that the rotational

equality that rules the present c o s m i c era will ulti­

mately b e r e p l a c e d b y a steady-state f o r m o f equality. T h e ideal nat­ ural law e m b o d i e d in the M o s a i c T o r a h will then g o v e r n all

the

nations o f the w o r l d , so that there will n o l o n g e r b e any dislocations in the divine e c o n o m y a n d h e n c e n o n e e d for p e r i o d i c redistribu­ tions. In short, the fundamental

principle o f equality that charac­

terizes the L o g o s will n o t b e r e p l a c e d o r diminished in any w a y , although its m o d e o f o p e r a t i o n will b e modified. But although it is thus possible to r e c o n c i l e Philo's p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n c e p t i o n o f divine p r o v i d e n c e with the Jewish apocalyptic messianic vision, he clearly sensed the sharp tension b e t w e e n these t w o conceptualizations, for he restricted his c o m m e n t s o n the f o r m e r to a few b r i e f passages in Praem. 1 6 3 - 7 2 , a n d even there his denationalizing and p s y c h o l o g i z ­ ing a p p r o a c h entailed a far-reaching modification o f the Jewish v i e w .

72

5 8 - 6 5 . See also G . W . Trompf, The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought (Berkeley: University o f California, 1979), chaps. 1 and 2. For a different view, see Wolfson, Philo, 2.421-23. See Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology, 5 5 - 5 8 ; and Richard Hecht, "Philo and Messiah," in Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, J. Neusner, W . S . Green, E. Frerichs, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 139-68. 71

72

7

E U D A I M O N I S M IN HELLENISTIC-JEWISH L I T E R A T U R E DAVID

T.

RUNIA

1. Introduction T h e title o f this collection o f papers, and o f the S y m p o s i u m at w h i c h they w e r e first presented, is a play o n the biblical injunction, p r o ­ n o u n c e d b y N o a h o n waking up from his drinking b o u t , that Japheth should dwell in the tents o f S h e m ( G e n 9:27). A tradition o f nearly t w o millennia is thus b e i n g c o n t i n u e d , n a m e l y that this text b e explained o r exploited in terms o f the relation b e t w e e n G r e e k and Semitic o r Jewish culture. F o r myself, c o m i n g from the far North, the biblical version is m o r e appropriate. I regard myself as a descendent o f J a p h e t h w h o is privileged to p a y a visit to o n e o f the strong­ holds o f S h e m . F o r m y subject, h o w e v e r , the reversal o f the m o t i f b y the editor is particularly

appropriate.

Hellenistic J e w s , such as

Philo, resident in the G r e e k stronghold o f Alexandria, w e r e truly sons o f S h e m living in the tents o f Japheth. T h e y w e r e heavily re­ liant o n the translation o f the T o r a h into Greek, w h i c h a c c o r d i n g to the interpretation o f R a b b i J u d a h ,

1

this biblical verse allowed.

T h e Septuagint translation will play an important role in the argu­ m e n t o f m y paper, albeit mainly in a negative sense. But first I should introduce what the theme o f m y p a p e r will b e . M y intention is to take the reader o n an excursion through

the

terrain o f the history o f ideas, focusing in particular o n the relation b e t w e e n G r e e k ideas a n d Jewish ideas. W h e n t o d a y I speak a b o u t G r e e k ideas, I m e a n in the first place those ideas that w e r e devel­ o p e d in the splendid tradition o f G r e e k philosophy. W e should n o t forget, h o w e v e r , that in ancient G r e e k culture ideas w e r e certainly n o t c o n f i n e d to p h i l o s o p h y only. Writers such as the rhetoricians

and historians also m a d e important

s o m e respects these contributions m a y have b e e n m o r e

1

Midrash Rabbah 36.8.

tragedians,

contributions.

In

influential,

132

DAVID T. RUNIA

because o n e should never forget that p h i l o s o p h y was a rather elitist and h i g h b r o w activity in the ancient w o r l d . In the case o f Jewish ideas, w e o f course first think o f the biblical r e c o r d , in w h i c h a great n u m b e r o f potent ideas are to b e found. B e y o n d the T a n a k h there are the further rich traditions o f Judaism, in w h i c h G r e e k speaking J u d a i s m has a m o d e s t place. H e r e t o o ideas make their presence felt. In the case o f Hellenistic Judaism, h o w e v e r , there is special c o m ­ plicating factor. T h e m e d i u m o f discourse h a d b e c o m e the

Greek

language, a n d that m e a n t that ideas w e r e expressed b y means o f the same G r e e k terms that were d e v e l o p e d in the G r e e k culture

men­

tioned a b o v e . J a p h e t h h a d thus truly m a d e his presence felt in the tents o f S h e m . O u r subject is o n e very G r e e k idea and the w a y it percolates through into Hellenistic Jewish culture. I call this idea e u d a i m o n i s m . T h e term is derived from the G r e e k w o r d eudaimonia, w h i c h is usu­ ally translated as "happiness," but w h i c h , for reasons that will b e c o m e clear during m y paper, I prefer to render

"well-being." T h e idea

has to d o with the evaluation o f a h u m a n life. If a life measures u p to certain criteria, such as g o o d n e s s , success, prosperity etc., it (or its possessor) m a y b e called eudaimon, w h i c h w e might translate as "fortunate"

o r "flourishing" (again it is better to a v o i d the

term

" h a p p y " ) . T o g e t h e r with arete (virtue o r excellence), eudaimonia is the key term in G r e e k philosophical ethics. In the Bible, h o w e v e r , it is totally absent. W e c o u l d not, therefore, find a clearer case o f a theme w h e r e J a p h e t and S h e m have followed quite separate paths. I f there­ fore w e should find that eudaimonism has gained a place in Hellenistic Jewish thought, as is in fact the case, then w e have hit u p o n a very significant e x a m p l e o f Japheth finding his w a y into the tents o f S h e m . This penetration is the theme o f m y paper. M o r e c o n c r e t e l y , m y p r o g r a m will b e as follows. First I

shall

explain in m o r e detail what e u d a i m o n i s m involves and w h y it has obtained a central place in G r e e k thought. T h e n various Hellenistic Jewish writers—notably

Philo and Josephus—will b e e x a m i n e d in

o r d e r to determine to what extent and h o w they make use o f the theme. T h e task in the final part o f the p a p e r will then b e to eval­ uate this usage and to ascertain h o w m u c h these authors have b e e n influenced in their thinking b y G r e e k m o d e s o f thought.

EUDAIMONISM IN HELLENISTIC-JEWISH

LITERATURE

133

2. Eudaimonia and eudaimonism in Greek thought It is necessary to begin with the w o r d eudaimonia itself. It is a rather unusual term, absent in H o m e r and H e s i o d , but c o m i n g into p r o m i ­ n e n c e in the

6th a n d

5th centuries B . C . E . T h e first clue to its

significance is given b y the e t y m o l o g y o f the w o r d .

2

It consists o f

three c o m p o n e n t s . T h e first is the w o r d eu meaning "well," the adverb linked to the adjective

agathos, " g o o d . " T h e s e c o n d c o m p o n e n t is

daimon, from w h i c h the English w o r d " d e m o n " is derived. This n o u n is m o s t likely derived from the r o o t v e r b 5a(to, m e a n i n g "distribute," and so means something like "distributor" o r "divider." T h e daimon is the super-human p o w e r w h o exerts a decisive influence o n

the

course o f a person's life. U n d e r the influence o f later developments w e are inclined to see the relation hierarchical, men.

3

b e t w e e n g o d s and d e m o n s as

i.e. d e m o n s o c c u p y i n g a position b e t w e e n g o d s

and

But in order to understand the e t y m o l o g y o f eudaimonia this

v i e w is quite misleading. G o d s (theoi) and daimones b o t h refer to forces b e y o n d the h u m a n sphere. In o u r context it is best to take them as largely s y n o n y m o u s . T h e third c o m p o n e n t is the suffix "ia"

which

converts the adjective eudaimon into the n o u n eudaimonia. S o a literal translation o f the term might b e something like "well-god-ness." W h a t m e a n i n g d o e s this unusual term wish to c o m m u n i c a t e ? It is well k n o w n that archaic G r e e k thought c o m b i n e d a d e e p reli­ giosity with a rather pessimistic or even fatalistic perspective o n h u m a n existence. M e n and w o m e n are in n o w a y in control o f their o w n destiny. T h e i r fate or lot is determined

b y h o w the g o d s are dis­

p o s e d towards them. If this disposition is positive, then they are eudaimones. T h e opposite, kakodaimonia, is e x p e r i e n c e d w h e n the deity is ill-disposed, for whatever reason. T h e n disaster strikes. Let m e give t w o examples from G r e e k tragedy. D u r i n g the Antigone o f S o p h o c l e s it b e c o m e s clear that A n t i g o n e ' s resolve to bury her brother will lead to her death. T h e response o f the chorus is: Fortunate (eudaimones) are they whose life has no taste o f evils. For those whose house is shaken by the gods escape no kind of d o o m that creeps over more than a single generation. (Ant. 583—585)

2

For the etymology o f eudaimonia see further R . Holte, Art. "Gliick (Gliickseligkeit)," Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum 11 (1981), 2 4 6 - 2 4 9 . I am not aware o f a thor­ ough philological and historical study o f the term. Plato's Symposium was particularly influential in this development; cf. 202d-203a. 3

134

DAVID T. RUNIA

T h e royal house o f T h e b e s is struck b y kakodaimonia, w h i c h brings a b o u t a concatenation o f disasters. T h e reverse m a y also h a p p e n : the g o d s m a y grant eudaimonia. T h i s w o u l d create a h a p p y ending, 4

and so predictably happens less often in tragedy. But it d o e s o c c u r . A t the e n d o f Euripides' Electra the divine D i o s c u r i address the play's heroine: You, betake yourself to the Isthmus' narrow neck o f land and go to the fortunate (eudaimon) rock o f Gecrops. For when you have fulfilled the fated d o o m o f a murderer, you will flourish (eudaimoneseis), released from these evils. (El. 1288-1291) W h a t is essential in early G r e e k thought is the c o n v i c t i o n that w h a t happens to a person in his o r her life, whether for g o o d o r for ill, is not determined b y that person. In the quotes a b o v e I have delib­ erately translated eudaimon with "fortunate." T h i s rendering seems to indicate rather nicely that o n e ' s life is determined b y the fate o r luck that o n e receives at the hands o f the g o d s . N o w it is precisely at this p o i n t that G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y , w h e n it starts to d e v e l o p out o f archaic G r e e k thought, raises a strong a n d highly successful v o i c e o f protest. It c a n n o t b e the case, the philoso­ phers claim, that the fate o f h u m a n beings is d e p e n d e n t o n the w h i m s a n d caprices o f a deity. A s living beings e n d o w e d with logos (reason), humans have to have at least a measure o f c o n t r o l o v e r their o w n destiny. T h e philosophers c o m e up with a radical solu­ tion. T h e daimon that is responsible for distributing the g o o d life is to a large extent internalized with the h u m a n person himself. N o o n e states this solution m o r e c o m p a c d y than the philosopher Heraclirus. In a famous fragment he states: man's ethos (his character o r his w a y 5

o f thinking a n d doing) is his daimon. Plato develops this line o f think­ ing further. A t the e n d o f his celebrated c o s m o l o g i c a l dialogue, the Timaeus, he indicates h o w h u m a n life should b e . T h i s is an extremely significant passage in G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y a n d o f vital i m p o r t a n c e for o u r topic, so it should b e q u o t e d at s o m e length: With regard to the most sovereign kind o f soul within us we should think as follows: that the god has given it to each person as a daimon

4

For the role o f eudaimonia and kakodaimonia in Aristotle's famous theory on tragedy see Poet. 1450a 17 (I reject the athetosis o f the Oxford Classical Text) and cf. 1455b28 [eutychia, atychia). Fr. B l 19 Diels-Kranz. 5

EUDAIMONISM IN HELLENISTIC-JEWISH LITERATURE

135

[usually translated as "guardian" or "guiding spirit"] . . . If a man is preoccupied with his desires or his ambitions and spends all his time engaged in such pursuits, he will necessarily think mortal thoughts and become mortal himself. . . If on the other hand he occupies himself with love o f learning and true thoughts and so grasps the truth and thinks immortal and divine things, it is wholly necessary that he will obtain immortality to the extent that human nature can participate in it. By constantly attending to his divine part and keeping the daimon that dwells within him well ordered, he will be supremely eudaimon . . . When he has brought his thoughts in conformity with the harmonies and revolutions o f the heavens, he will reach the goal (telos) o f the best life (aristos bios) offered to men by the gods, both now and for the future. 6

The

reference to the e t y m o l o g y o f eudaimon a n d the play o n w o r d s

c o u l d n o t b e m a d e m o r e clearly. T h e cultivation o f the m i n d that Plato advocates o c c u r s t h r o u g h p h i l o s o p h y o f course, but w e should note h o w Plato expresses this. H e envisages a process w h e r e b y the m i n d c o n f o r m s to the m o t i o n s o f the heavens, b e c a u s e there divine is m o r e strongly present than in h u m a n s

the

themselves, w h o s e

h e a d m a y (or m a y not) b e inclined to the heavens, but w h o s e feet for the time b e i n g are firmly r o o t e d to the g r o u n d . Elsewhere, in a formulation

that summarizes

the

a b o v e thesis in a single

phrase,

Plato affirms that m a n ' s g o a l in life should b e " b e c o m i n g similar to g o d (homoidsis theoi) to the extent p o s s i b l e . "

7

Against this b a c k g r o u n d I n o w w a n t to outline briefly w h a t six essential features

the

o f G r e e k e u d a i m o n i s m are w h i c h in m y v i e w 8

w e n e e d to take into consideration for o u r theme t o d a y . Firstly, w e note that the g o o d state that the term eudaimonia c o n v e y s is intrinsi­ cally linked to the n o t i o n o f a h u m a n life. T h i s was quite evident in the passages from S o p h o c l e s and Plato cited a b o v e . A life is j u d g e d to b e eudaimon o n the basis o f certain criteria w h i c h are a matter o f

6

Tim. 9 0 a - c (slightly abbreviated and adapted). Theaet. 176b 1-2; the phrase was to become the standard Platonist formulation of the goal o f human existence. There is no definitive m o n o g r a p h o n Greek eudaimonism. T h e study by M . Heinze, Der Euddmonismus in der griechischen Philosophie: erster Abhandlung Vorsokratiker, Demokrit, Sokrates (Leipzig, 1883) is limited and out-dated. A competent overview with reference to many texts is given by J. Ritter, Art. "Gliick, Gliickseligkeit," Historische Worterbuch der Philosophie, vol. 3 (Darmstadt, 1974), 6 7 9 - 6 9 1 . For more extended treatments o f specific authors (esp. Aristotle) see: A . Kenny, Aristotle on the Perfect Life (Oxford, 1992); J. Annas, The Morality of Happiness (Oxford, 1993); A . A . Long, "Stoic Eudaimonism," in J.J. Cleary and D . Shartin, eds., Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy, vol. I V (Lanham, Maryland, 1989), 77—101. 7

8

136

D A V I D T . RUNIA

discussion and dispute, such as excellence, success, achievement, p r o s ­ perity and so o n . T h e s e criteria, it is important

to note, have

an

element o f objectivity. Eudaimonia is not a matter o f h o w o n e feels at the m o m e n t o r at the present time. This is w h y o n e should o n prin­ ciple a v o i d the rendering "happiness" and the c o r r e s p o n d i n g adjec­ tive " h a p p y , " because these terms are in m o d e r n usage

irreparably

subjective, and usually (though not always) also indicate a transient 9

state. A better rendering is "well-being," even though it obviously misses the religious connotations present in the original term as c o n ­ v e y e d b y the e t y m o l o g y .

10

S e c o n d l y , the life that eudaimonia describes is the good life, and this means that it is the life that is to b e striven for. G o o d n e s s in G r e e k thought is a b o v e all associated with finality, the end result o f a process o r an action. This notion o f a goal that w e should strive for in o u r lives is expressed in G r e e k b y means o f the technical term telos (goal o r end-point). T h e term is related to teleios, m e a n i n g perfect o r c o m ­ plete. T h e best life is a life that is c o m p l e t e in a meaningful sense. S u c h completeness, it should b e noted, can also involve a temporal aspect. W e recall the famous w o r d s o f the early G r e e k sage and law­ giver S o l o n : " c o u n t n o o n e fortunate and blessed until he is d e a d . " T h e Greeks k n e w that the turns and changes o f life are m a n y and varied. W e m a y think w e are d o i n g well, but the disasters that hang­ ing o v e r us m a y b e so great that, w h e n they have taken place, it will have to b e c o n c l u d e d that o u r life is and will remain

ruined,

u

kakodaimdn.

Thirdly, so far eudaimonia merely gives a framework o f reference. It has to b e filled in, and this is w h e r e the G r e e k philosophers dis­ agree with e a c h other. E a c h p h i l o s o p h e r (and e a c h philosophical school) defines for himself what the telos o f h u m a n life is. V a r i o u s lines o f o p i n i o n c a n b e discerned. T h e hedonists seek the e n d in pleasure. T h e m o r e rigorously inclined stress the importance o f virtue o r excellence, b o t h with regard to character and intellectual achieve­ ment. T w o other favorites are peacefulness (or f r e e d o m from dis-

9

I am not convinced by the attempt o f R . Kraut to rescue the standard ren­ dering, " T w o Conceptions o f Happiness," Philosophical Review 68 (1979), 167-197. As argued by B. Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (London, 1985), 34, w h o defends the rendering "well-being," "since it is a matter o f the shape o f one's whole life." Herodotus 1.32. T h e issue is discussed, with explicit reference to Solon, by Aristotle Eth. Nic. 1.9-10, 1100a5ff. 10

11

EUDAIMONISM IN HELLENISTIC-JEWISH

LITERATURE

137

turbance) and self-sufficiency. T h e s e can b e c o m b i n e d with the two earlier options in different ways. Fourthly, each G r e e k ethical system o f thought, almost without exception, has a theological component. Divine bliss represents the ideal, to w h i c h h u m a n s should aspire, even if it is never w h o l l y within their reach. It is agreed that humankind

can never fully attain the

blissful immortality o f the g o d s . But the w a y to reach the goal is to b e c o m e as similar to the g o d s as o n e can, precisely the Platonic for­ mulation w e n o t e d just before. Fifthly, G r e e k e u d a i m o n i s m undeniably has an individualistic ele­ ment. T h e g o o d life that o n e strives to attain is o n e ' s o w n . Certainly o n e should n o t take this t o o narrowly. Families, communities, cities c a n also flourish, b e eudaimon. M o r e o v e r personal well b e i n g is never a matter m e r e l y o f a person's o w n situation, but involves others a r o u n d h i m o r her, such as a spouse, children, friends etc. Even so, there c a n b e n o d o u b t that e u d a i m o n i s m focuses m o r e o n the self than o n the other. Sixthly and finally, w e must observe that the g o o d life that G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y holds out to its followers is n o t just a matter o f theory. It is to b e striven for and achieved. A major issue in G r e e k ethics is whether the g o o d life is in fact at all times achievable for the g o o d person. Stoics are a d a m a n t that it is; followers o f Aristotle are m o r e pessimistic (or realistic, d e p e n d i n g o n o n e ' s view). In order to reach the goal o n e needs to engage in philosophical discussion and carry out spiritual exercises.

12

A s a striking e x a m p l e , let m e quote

an e x a m p l e from an unlikely source, the hedonist and materialist philosopher Epicurus. In his letter o n ethics he c o n c l u d e s with the following w o r d s : Exercise yourself in these and related precepts day and night both by yourself and with your friend. Then you will never be disturbed [the famous Epicurean goal o f ataraxia] while awake or while dreaming, but you will live as a god among men. For a man who lives amid immor­ tal good things does not resemble a mortal being in any way. (Letter to Menoecus, Diogenes Laertius 10.135) M a n y o f the features o f what I m e a n b y G r e e k e u d a i m o n i s m can b e illustrated b y this text, even though the term eudaimonia in fact

12

This has been strongly emphasized in recent years by the French scholar P. Hadot; see Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault (Oxford, 1995), esp. 8 1 - 1 2 5 .

138

DAVID T. RUNIA

does not o c c u r in it. T h e theological c o m p o n e n t is particularly strik­ ing w h e n o n e considers Epicurus' (not w h o l l y deserved) reputation for

atheism.

13

Before w e turn to our Jewish authors there is o n e c o m p l i c a t i n g factor w h i c h has to b e dealt with. A s w e n o t e d a b o v e , G r e e k thought is p r o f o u n d l y aware o f the difference b e t w e e n the divine and

the

h u m a n realm. F r o m H o m e r o n w a r d s it was c o n v e n t i o n a l to use another term for the existence o f the g o d s . T h e y are makares, "bliss­ ful" o r "supremely blessed." F r o m this w o r d a m o r e c o m m o n adjec­ tive is d e v e l o p e d , makarios, usually translated in English as "blessed." In earlier G r e e k thought there is often a difference in usage b e t w e e n makarios, w h i c h is applied to the gods and h u m a n s living like g o d , and eudaimon, w h i c h relates to h u m a n beings in all their h u m a n vul­ nerability.

14

A s time goes o n , h o w e v e r , the distinction appears to

fade, a n d the t w o terms are often j o i n e d together as synonyms. I a m stuck with two p r o b l e m s . Firsdy there is the p r o m i n e n t use o f makarios in so-called macarisms o r beatitudes, p r o n o u n c e m e n t s o f the f o r m "makarios is he o r she w h o . . . " S u c h statements are very c o m ­ m o n , both in Greek literature, and in the Bible (Jewish and Christian). I a m afraid

that I will have set aside this aspect o f m y

15

theme.

O b v i o u s l y there is s o m e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the practice o f p r o ­ n o u n c i n g beatitudes and the theme o f "well-being" a n d the

good

life, but I c a n n o t dwell o n this in m y lecture. M y s e c o n d p r o b l e m is o n e o f translation. I a m unsure h o w best to translate makarios. English d o e s n o t have a distinction b e t w e e n selig a n d gesegnete in G e r m a n , zalig and gezegend in D u t c h . O n e has little alternative but to use the conventional translation "blessed," but, as will e m e r g e later o n , I w o u l d prefer to reserve this term for another G r e e k w o r d . Let this then b e sufficient in order to explain what I m e a n b y G r e e k e u d a i m o n i s m . W e shall n o w see whether this potent philo­ sophical idea p r o v e d attractive to Jews w h o spoke and thought

in

Greek.

13

His name gave rise to the rabbinic term for the impious and godless person, the apikoros. Aristode makes this distinction in his Mcomachean Ethics, 1.10, 110lal4—21, as interpreted by A. Kenny, Aristotle on the Perfect Life, 34 (n. 8). Ample material collected by F. Hauck in TDNT s.v. makarios, I V 362-370. 14

15

EUDAIMONISM IN HELLENISTIC-JEWISH LITERATURE

139

3. Eudaimonia in the writings of Philo P r o c e e d i n g n o w to Hellenistic-Jewish

authors, w e c o m m e n c e with

the m o s t Hellenized o f t h e m all, the great exegete a n d philosopher Philo o f Alexandria. In dealing with his evidence I a m g o i n g to have to b e highly selective, because his writings are copious, and the theme o f eudaimonia is very c o m m o n . T h e lexical evidence makes this clear: eudaimon and related terms o c c u r a b o u t 2 0 0 times, kakodaimon etc. nearly 5 0 times, makarios etc. a b o u t 60 times.

16

W e shall focus o n

s o m e texts that are b o t h striking and central to his c o n c e r n s , taking into a c c o u n t the various kinds o f works that make u p the Philonic corpus.

17

T h e first t w o texts c o m e from apologetic works. Philo wishes to present t w o Jewish groups as the living e m b o d i m e n t o f t w o ideal ways o f life. T h e mysterious sect o f the Therapeutae

w h o live just

outside Alexandria pursue the life o f contemplation. After giving a l o n g description o f their w a y o f life, Philo c o n c l u d e s as follows: Let this account suffice for the Therapeutae, who have embraced the contemplation (theoria) o f nature and what it contains, and have lived a life o f the soul alone, citizens o f heaven and the cosmos, truly com­ mended to the father and maker o f the universe by their excellence (arete), which has procured for them his friendship and set it before them as the most fitting reward for their goodness (kalokagathia), a gift superior to all prosperity and attaining to the very summit o f felicity (eudaimonia). (Contempl. 9 0 ) 18

T h e s e m e n and w o m e n , b y b e i n g e n g a g e d in contemplation, d e v e l o p such arete (excellence) that G o d rewards t h e m with his friendship and they thereby attain eudaimonia. This term is the final w o r d o f the treatise. Philo c o u l d not have emphasized it m o r e . Unfortunately

the

c o m p a n i o n treatise o n the active life is lost, but w e d o have a sum­ m a r y o f its argument elsewhere.

19

16

T h e g r o u p w h o represent the ideal

N o w easily accessible in P. Borgen, K. Fuglseth, and R . Skarsten, The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria, Lemmatised & Computer-Generated (Grand Rapids, 2000 ), 138, 168, 191. Excellent overview o f the Philonic corpus by J. Morris in the revised Schiirer, ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M . Goodman, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Christ, vol. 3 (Edinburgh, 1987), 826-868. For the interpretation o f this difficult text and a defense o f the translation see my article, " T h e Reward for Goodness: Philo, De Vita Contemplativa 90," in D . T . Runia and G.E. Sterling, eds., Wisdom and Logos: Studies in Jewish Thought in Honor of David Winston [= The Studia Philonica Annual 9 (1997)] (Atlanta, 1997), 3-18. As part o f Philo's philosophical treatise Prob. (75-91). O n the basis o f termi2

17

18

19

140

D A V I D T . RUNIA

o f the active life are the Essenes in Palestine. H e r e t o o the

final

w o r d s o f the passage are noteworthy. T h e s e athletes o f excellence s h o w spiritual f r e e d o m to a high degree. P r o o f is that n o n e o f the cruel tyrants o f the l a n d — n o d o u b t H e r o d is m e a n t — c o u l d d o t h e m harm: Defeated by the goodness (kalokagathia) o f these men, these tyrants all treated them as self-governing and free by nature, praising their com­ mon meals and their fellowship (koinonia) which is superior to every description, regarding it as the clearest indication o f a perfect and highly felicitous life {bios eudaimon). (Prob. 91) H e r e t o o the idea o f eudaimonia is used as a climax. It c a n hardly b e d o u b t e d that it is a crucial c o n c e p t for Philo in presenting

his

two groups o f Jewish heroes. T h e s e c o n d Philonic e x a m p l e is his major exegetical w o r k w h i c h is today generally k n o w n as the Exposition o f the L a w .

2 0

T h e basic

s c h e m a o f the eleven c o n n e c t e d treatises o f this w o r k is significantly related

to his presentation

o f the t w o idealized groups

examined

a b o v e . Philo argues that d e v o t i o n to G o d and his L a w results in the excellences o f piety (eusebeia) and justice (dikaiosune), w h i c h in turn are r e w a r d e d b y the life o f well-being (eudaimonia), as exemplified in the blessings a n d promises a c c o r d e d the Patriarchs and the p e o p l e o f Israel. Philo is giving exegesis o f Pentateuch, but for h i m this is far from b e i n g an a c a d e m i c exercise. If families a n d cities and

lands

and the entire h u m a n race should follow the lead o f M o s e s , supreme felicity (eudaimonia) w o u l d b e the result (Virt. 119). S o far this sce­ nario is n o m o r e than the subject o f prayer, as Philo has to admit in the context o f the turbulent anti-Jewish atmosphere o f Alexandria, but he is c o n v i n c e d that o n e day it will b e c o m e a living reality.

21

W e turn n o w to a few passages from this l o n g work, each o f w h i c h involves the theme o f eudaimonia. It begins with a c o m m e n t a r y o n

nological and thematic parallels with Contempl. I would argue that the Prob. pas­ sage is a summary o f the lost companion piece, but this must remain somewhat speculative. O n the general structure o f the work see P. Borgen, "Philo o f Alexandria—a Systematic Philosopher or an Eclectic Editor?" Symbolae Osloenses 71 (1996), 115-134. But Borgen does not elaborate sufficiently on the overall thematic structure o f the work. I am drawing here on unpublished work presented at the European Aassociation o f Jewish Studies conference in T o l e d o , Spain, in July 1998. Cf. also Mos. 2.44 (though this work is a general introductory portrait o f the great lawgiver Moses, not part o f the Exposition o f the Law). 2 0

2 1

EUDAIMONISM IN HELLENISTIC-JEWISH

LITERATURE

141

the creation a c c o u n t o f Genesis 1-3, w h i c h gives the L a w its philo­ sophical foundation. T h e first m a n A d a m is presented as reaching the limit o f well-being before b e i n g p l u n g e d into kakodaimonia w h e n he s u c c u m b s to the temptations o f desire (Opif. 1 5 0 - 1 5 6 ) . In the final paragraph Philo sums u p his

findings:

He that has learnt these things . . . and has engraved their wonder­ ful and priceless forms on his soul, namely (1) that G o d exists and subsists, (2) that as true Being he is one, (3) that he has made the cos­ mos and (4) has made it unique . . . conforming it to himself in accor­ dance with his uniqueness, and (5) that he always exercises providence over that which has come into being, will lead a blessed (makarios) and fortunate (eudaimon) life, for he has been marked by the doctrines o f piety and holiness. (Opif. 172) Philo next shows h o w the three Patriarchs through their exemplary lives were "living laws" before the L a w was h a n d e d d o w n to M o s e s . This trinity gave birth to the nation o f Israel, w h o s e n a m e "he that sees G o d . "

2 2

means

It should b e r e c o g n i z e d , Philo continues:

that he to whom it is given not only to obtain knowledge o f all the other aspects o f nature, but also to see the Father and Maker o f the universe, will advance to the very peak o f felicity (eudaimonia). For noth­ ing is higher than G o d , and he that has extended the eye o f his soul to reach him should pray that he remain and stand firm in him. (Abr. 58) After this Philo turns to the L a w itself, first e x p o u n d i n g the D e c a l o g u e and then explaining the further injunctions that fall under the ten chief headings. F r o m the

flood

o f material and the frequent

refer­

ences to the theme o f eudaimonia I concentrate o n his treatment o f the first t w o c o m m a n d m e n t s , w h i c h he tends to take together. H o w it is possible that p e o p l e c a n make a n d worship graven images? T h e best o f prayers and the goal o f well b e i n g is to b e c o m e similar to G o d . This means that y o u idolaters should pray to b e c o m e like y o u r images, so that y o u will gather supreme felicity with eyes that d o not see and ears that d o n o t hear (Decal. 73). Philo is o f course b e i n g deeply sarcastic. N o t that G o d needs to b e w o r s h i p p e d , for H e is in n e e d o f nothing. But H e wished to guide the h u m a n race so that they should find the best g o a l o f life, k n o w l e d g e o f H i m w h o truly

2 2

O n Philo's etymology for Israel see the study o f E. Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo's Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes (Atlanta, 1996), esp. 61—90.

142

D A V I D T . RUNIA

IS, the first and most perfect G o o d [Decal. 81). In the first o f the treatises On the Special Laws Philo returns to this theme. M o s e s ban­ ishes from his congregation all those w h o d e n y G o d ' s existence o r deify other things such as h u m a n reason. Philo then ends the trea­ tise with a magnificent passage. But we, the intimates and disciples o f Moses, shall not give up our search for the One who IS, regarding the knowledge o f him as the goal o f well-being (eudaimonia) and also as age-long life, just as the Law too says that all those who "cleave to G o d shall live" (Deut 4:4), laying down a compelling and philosophical doctrine. For truly those who deny G o d are dead in their souls, whereas those who have taken service in the ranks o f the G o d who IS live an immortal life. (Spec. 1.345) After the Special Laws have b e e n explained, Philo turns to a treat­ m e n t o f a n u m b e r o f excellences (or virtues) w h i c h the L a w enjoins, but c a n n o t b e p l a c e d under the individual c o m m a n d m e n t s

because

they are c o m m o n to t h e m all. T h e aretai that he discusses are jus­ tice, c o u r a g e , humanity, repentance

and true nobility o f birth.

23

In

each case Philo argues that the practice o f excellence will result in the life o f eudaimonia. I cite o n e passage from the section o n repen­ tance, in w h i c h Philo paraphrases the well-known text D e u t 3 0 : 1 1 - 1 4 : He says that this thing [they seek] is neither over-heavy nor at a great distance . . . so that it is impossible to take, but is very near, located in three parts o f our own constitution, mouth and heart and hands, by which is symbolized words and intentions and actions; for the mouth is the symbol o f speech, the heart o f intentions and the hands o f actions, and in these three lies well-being (to eudaimonein). For when­ ever word is in agreement with judgment, and intention with practice, life is praiseworthy and perfect, but whenever they are at strife with each other, life is imperfect and blameworthy. If a person does not forget this harmony, he will be pleasing to G o d , thus becoming G o d loving and God-beloved at the same time. (Virt. 183—185) Just as in the case o f the T h e r a p e u t a e , d e v o t i o n to G o d as s h o w n in true excellence results in divine friendship and the realization o f a g o o d life. In the final treatise Philo describes the rewards and blessings that are held out to those w h o o b e y and carry out the

2 3

commandments

Perhaps piety [eusebeia) was also included, but this depends on how the textual tradition o f Virt. is interpreted.

EUDAIMONISM IN HELLENISTIC-JEWISH L I T E R A T U R E

143

o f the L a w , b o t h at the individual and the collective level, together with the punishments a n d curses that follow w h e n these are ignored. O n c e again the themes o f eudaimonia and kakodaimonia play an essen­ tial role in the argument. A b r a h a m , the m a n o f trust in G o d (pistis) b e c o m e s truly eudaimon a n d thrice makarios because he accepts G o d as his sole support [Proem. 30). T h e p e o p l e triumph o v e r their ene­ mies because they have c h o s e n for G o d ( D e u t 26:17 again) and eudai­ monia prevails, consisting b o t h o f theoretical w i s d o m in the service o f G o d a n d practical w i s d o m in the regulation o f h u m a n

affairs

[Proem. 81). C o m m e n t a t o r s have often b e e n struck b y the eschatological a n d even messianic promises related in the final part, w h i c h seem out o f keeping with Philo's m o r e spiritual emphasis elsewhere in his writings.

24

Partiy the explanation is that he is giving exegesis

o f texts in Leviticus a n d D e u t e r o n o m y . But w h y does he c h o o s e to d o this? T h e reason is that these promises are o n e kind o f prize o r reward for the life o f excellence a n d d e v o t i o n to G o d a n d His L a w . T h e s e are counterbalanced, h o w e v e r , b y the prizes, w h i c h represent spiritual gifts, given to individuals such as the patriarchs, as in the case o f A b r a h a m n o t e d a b o v e , w h o b e c o m e s eudaimon because o f his trust in G o d . Finally w e briefly turn o u r attention to Philo's m o s t extensive a n d famous w o r k , the Allegorical C o m m e n t a r y . T h e stories a b o u t

the

early history o f h u m a n k i n d a n d the patriarchs in Genesis are c o n ­ verted into an elaborate allegory o f the soul, in w h i c h it is revealed h o w the soul has to c h o o s e b e t w e e n life a n d death, b e t w e e n g o o d a n d evil, b e t w e e n virtue a n d wickedness, b e t w e e n serving G o d o r loving oneself a n d o n e ' s o w n desires. T i m e and time again eudaimonia sums up the positive side o f this disjunction. T a k e for e x a m p l e the contrast b e t w e e n A b e l a n d C a i n . C o m m e n t i n g o n G e n 4:8 Philo writes: [Cain] the soul that has removed from itself the principles o f love o f excellence and love o f G o d has died to the life o f excellence. So that Abel, highly paradoxical though it may seem, both has been killed and lives. He is removed from the mind o f the fool, but he lives the life of well-being in G o d [eudaimon bios). (Det. 48)

2 4

For two differing interpretations o f Philo's limited messianic eschatology see D . Winston, Philo's Mystical Theology (Cincinnati, 1985), 5 5 - 5 7 ; P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (Leiden, 1997), 2 6 0 - 2 8 1 .

144

D A V I D T . RUNIA

F o r a final text w e return to the theme o f p e a c e and war. This c a n also b e related to the state o f the soul. W h y does M o s e s sit

"far

from the c a m p " ( E x o d 33:7)? T h e reason, w e read, is that: Scripture wishes to intimate that the wise man is a sojourner migrates from war to peace and from the camp o f mortality and fusion to the divine life o f peace and devoid o f war which is the session o f souls who are rational and fortunate (eudaimones). (Ebr.

who con­ pos­ 100)

T w o texts from the twenty-one b o o k s o f the Allegorical C o m m e n t a r y 25

represent merely a sample. Examples c o u l d b e multiplied ad libitum, but it is time to m o v e o n .

4. Other Hellenistic-Jewish texts It is necessary also to l o o k at other Hellenistic-Jewish writers. After all, it is quite possible that Philo is n o t typical o f Hellenistic J u d a i s m in general, even if he is certainly its most famous

representative.

A first rather startling result o f research in this area is that, with the e x c e p t i o n o f Josephus, the term eudaimonia and related w o r d s d o not o c c u r in these writers at all. T h e r e is not a single case!

26

If w e

relax o u r standards s o m e w h a t and include the use o f the term maka­ rios as indicating s o m e f o r m o f e u d a i m o n i s m , then w e d o have s o m e examples, but even here occurrences are rather rare if, as p r o p o s e d earlier, w e exclude macarisms. I briefly m e n t i o n three texts. (a) In Joseph and Aseneth the heavenly messenger addresses Aseneth a n d calls h e r blessed b e c a u s e the ineffable mysteries h a v e

been

revealed to her (16:7). Blessed t o o are all those w h o like her attach themselves to G o d in repentance, for they will partake o f the mar­ velous h o n e y c o m b . T h e theme o f repentance links this text to the Philonic passage w e cited earlier.

27

(b) In the Sibylline Oracles there are a b o u t ten references to blessed p e o p l e and a blessed t i m e .

28

M o s t o f these are eschatological, set in

a time w h e n p r o p h e c i e s will c o m e to pass and the Jews will b e vin­ dicated against their enemies.

25

Note for example the reference to eudaimonia in the final words o f three trea­ tises, Post. 185, Ebr. 224, Somn. 1.256. Excluding rare cases where eudaimonia means "prosperity," e.g. Testament of Job 35:4, 41:4, Artapanus at Eusebius PE 9.18.1. Virt. 183-185. 2.179, 3.1, 371, 770, 4.192, 5.71, 107, 249, 414. 26

27

28

145

EUDAIMONISM IN HELLENISTIC-JEWISH L I T E R A T U R E

(c) In 4 M a c c a b e e s the author, a p r o f o u n d l y Hellenized J e w , inter­ prets o b e d i e n c e to the L a w in terms o f the philosophical doctrine o f reason's mastery o f the passions. Blessedness is stated to b e the reward o f the defiant priest Eleazar, his wife and seven sons. It t o o is thought o f in future terms: it is the prospect o f an immortal life to b e lived b e y o n d death, i.e. b e y o n d the dreadful a n d fatal torture w h i c h they underwent o n a c c o u n t o f their loyalty to the L a w a n d the traditions o f their p e o p l e . T h e final author to b e c o n s i d e r e d is Josephus, w h o m I wish to include as a Hellenistic-Jewish writer, although his b a c k g r o u n d is o b v i o u s l y v e r y different

f r o m that o f P h i l o a n d the

author

of

4 M a c c a b e e s . Just as in the case o f Philo, b o t h the term a n d c o n ­ cept o f eudaimonia are frequently e n c o u n t e r e d in his t w o major works (eudaimon etc. 154 times, kakodaimon 4 times, makarios etc. 35 times). Admittedly in a large n u m b e r o f cases the term hardly means m o r e than prosperity o r faring well, a n d is o f n o philosophical significance. But this is n o t the case for all texts. I shall concentrate o n the o p e n ­ ing passage o f the Antiquities, in w h i c h Josephus outiines the guiding ideas o f his a c c o u n t . History, in his view, has to have a lesson,

29

namely that men who conform to the will o f G o d , and do not ven­ ture to transgress laws that have been excellently laid down, prosper in all things beyond belief, and for their reward are offered felicity (eudaimonia) from God. (Ant. 1.14) T h e same idea is ascribed to the lawgiver M o s e s . In justifying the fact that he devotes so m u c h space to natural p h i l o s o p h y (for e x a m ­ ple in his paraphrase o f the creation a c c o u n t ) , Josephus explains: [Moses] thought it above all necessary for one who would order his own life aright and also legislate for others, first to study the nature of G o d , and then, having become a student o f his works with the mind, to imitate to the extent possible the very best model o f all and try to follow it. . . [He must be] taught that G o d . . . grants those who follow Him a felicitous life (eudaimon bios), but involves those who step outside the path o f excellence in great disasters. (Ant. 1.19—20) A few lines later Josephus gives another explanation o f the rationale b e h i n d reward a n d

2 9

punishment:

Translations are based on that o f H. St. J. Thackeray in the L o e b Classical Library (first published 1930).

146

DAVID T. RUNIA

Our legislator, having shown that G o d possesses the very perfection of excellence (arete), thought that men should try to participate in it, and inexorably punished those who did not agree with or believe these injunctions. (Ant. 1.23) T h e similarity o f these ideas to what w e f o u n d in Philo's Exposition o f the L a w is very striking. Josephus has clearly m a d e a study o f Philo's De opijicio mundi, a n d p r o b a b l y the Exposition o f the L a w in its entirety.

30

It w o u l d seem that the idea o f eudaimonia was o n e o f

Philo's themes that appealed to h i m , so that he gave it a place o f p r o m i n e n c e right at the beginning o f his l o n g w o r k . T h e s e texts give full support to Steve M a s o n ' s assertion: "Josephus presents J u d a i s m as a p h i l o s o p h y that offers a definite response to the h u m a n

quest

for euSaiLiovicc. Happiness is granted b y G o d to those w h o observe his l a w s . "

31

5. The results so far against the biblical background W e can summarize the results o f o u r investigation into HellenisticJewish literature so far. In the case o f Philo a n d Josephus a f o r m o f e u d a i m o n i s m is clearly present and plays a p r o m i n e n t role in their thought. Outside these t w o authors the idea seems to b e scarcely present at all. W e only f o u n d it in a handful o f d o c u m e n t s , all o f w h i c h are strongly influenced, in o n e w a y o r another, b y the i m p e ­ rialism o f G r e e k culture. W h y is it so rare? The

answer to this question is, I believe, n o t far to seek. T h e

f o u n d a t i o n o f Jewish thought a n d culture in this p e r i o d was the T a n a k h , the H e b r e w Bible. Greek-speaking J e w s read the Bible in the Septuagint translation. T h e term eudaimonia is entirely absent from this version, while the term makarios is c o n f i n e d to macarisms. M o r e importantly, the G r e e k idea o f e u d a i m o n i s m , as I outlined it earlier, is w h o l l y missing. I w o u l d argue that it is foreign to biblical thought, if I m a y use this rather general phrase to c o v e r the w i d e spectrum o f writings in the T a n a k h . Fundamental to the H e b r e w Bible is the

30

Rightly pointed out by Thackeray in his notes to the Loeb translation. These texts are surprisingly not commented on by T . W . Franxman, Genesis and the 'Jewish Antiquities' of Flavius Josephus (Rome, 1979), despite his keenness to adduce parallels between Philo and Josephus. S.N. Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-critical Study (Leiden, 1991). 31

EUDAIMONISM IN HELLENISTIC-JEWISH

LITERATURE

147

covenantal relationship that G o d undertakes with his c h o s e n p e o p l e . G o d makes his conditions k n o w n through

the L a w and

prophets.

Israel has undertaken to o b e y , for it has c h o s e n life and n o t death. Its reward is formulated in terms o f promises and blessings, in short shalom, p e a c e . D i s o b e d i e n c e to G o d and his L a w is a breaking o f the agreement, in short sin. T h e central idea, w h i c h stands in c o n ­ trast to the idea o f e u d a i m o n i s m , needs a label, and I w o u l d sug­ gest the term eulogism, b y w h i c h I m e a n the idea o f a h u m a n life that is g o o d because h u m a n s receive blessings from G o d , and gives praise to H i m in return. I derive the term from the G r e e k eulogia, "speaking well of, blessing," the term that is so central to the Pen­ tateuch, from the creation a c c o u n t at the outset to the blessing o f M o s e s at its conclusion. Perhaps w e might better speak o f barakism, for the basic idea is Jewish and biblical, expressed in the H e b r e w w o r d barak. But e u d a i m o n i s m and eulogism make a neater contrast. After all, w e are speaking mainly G r e e k today in the tents o f Japheth. T h e majority o f Hellenistic-Jewish writings r e m a i n

contentedly

within the confines o f this biblical thought w h i c h I have

outiined.

F o r this reason eudaimonia and e u d a i m o n i s m are w h o l l y absent. O n l y a very restricted n u m b e r o f authors d o make use o f it, and it is n o accident that these are the writers w h o are most profoundly influenced b y Hellenism, o r have strong apologetic motives for making use o f Hellenistic ideas. F o r e m o s t a m o n g these is Philo, the Hellenized J e w par excellence. It is o n Philo that I will n o w chiefly concentrate.

6. The problem of terminology and content T h e term eudaimonia and the idea o f e u d a i m o n i s m , w e argued a b o v e , plays a central role in Philo's writings, in his apologetic presentation o f the Therapeutae

and the Essenes, in the grand scheme o f his

Exposition o f the L a w , in the detailed allegorical interpretation o f the Genesis narrative. T h i s is unmistakably

a sign o f Hellenistic

influence. But h o w significant is it? It is possible to give a counter-argument. It might b e argued that the presentation so far has b e e n t o o p r e o c c u p i e d with terminology. O f course Philo talks a b o u t eudaimonia almost o n every p a g e . But what does he m e a n b y it? H a s the philosopher Wittgenstein not taught us that m e a n i n g lies in the use o f a w o r d , n o t in the w o r d itself? H a v e w e n o t learnt from the penetrating criticisms m o u n t e d against

148

DAVID T. RUNIA

works such as the monumental Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited b y Kittel and Friedrich, w h i c h treated terms as

quasi-meta­

physical items and paid insufficient attention to the contexts in w h i c h they w e r e u s e d ?

32

Is it not possible that a p r e o c c u p a t i o n with ety­

m o l o g i e s and parallel usage in authors b e l o n g i n g to a quite different tradition m a y in fact put us o n the w r o n g track? R e c e n d y N a o m i C o h e n has published an important b o o k o n Philo, in w h i c h she undertakes to introduce us to his "universe

o f dis­

c o u r s e . " H e r study explores the nature o f Philo's Jewish c o m m i t ­ m e n t as it emerges from his idiosyncratic synthesis o f Jewish

and

G r e e k frames o f reference. Its thesis is that the basic parameters o f Philo's thought stand m u c h closer to that o f the 1 st century R a b b i s (if w e m a y use the term) than is generally thought. O n e o f the key m o v e s in her argument is the claim that w e have to d e c o d e Philo's use o f terminology. K e y G r e e k terms that he uses o v e r and o v e r again c a n have a Jewish "meta-meaning." Sophia, w i s d o m , for e x a m ­ ple, m a y m e a n T o r a h o r T o r a h lore; dikaiosune, usually translated "justice," m a y m e a n "observance o f the L a w " ; logoi, w h i c h in G r e e k can mean

any n u mber

m a n d m e n t s , and so o n .

o f things, c a n refer simply to the

com­

3 3

It is certainly to m y m i n d a plausible idea that certain

Greek

terms in Philo m a y have special Jewish undertones, but this topic c a n n o t b e pursued n o w . W h a t w e n e e d to d o is determine

whether

it is relevant to o u r subject. C o u l d it b e the case that eudaimonia has special Jewish connotations? Is it n o t possible that Philo might wish to indicate b y means o f it the promise held out b y G o d to the p e o ­ ple o f Israel, namely that, if they o b e y the c o m m a n d m e n t s , "it m a y g o well with t h e m and they m a y live l o n g in the land w h i c h the L o r d G o d gives t h e m " ( D e u t 5:16, cf. 5:33, 6:3 etc.). T o put

the

matter very boldly: is it not possible that b y eudaimonia Philo m a y m e a n something like the biblical shalom? I f this w e r e the case, then w e really should not speak o f e u d a i m o n i s m in his thought at all. It is really eulogism under a different label, n o d o u b t used for a p o l o ­ getic purposes. T h i s line o f enquiry meshes well with an earlier a p p r o a c h to o u r theme w h i c h w e find in two eminent G e r m a n interpreters from the

3 2

Most famously by J. Barr in The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961). N . G . Cohen, Philo Judaeus: his Universe of Discourse (Frankfurt, 1995), esp. 178-224. See also her article in this volume. 3 3

EUDAIMONISM IN HELLENISTIG-JEWISH

LITERATURE

149

first half o f this century. W a l t e r V o l k e r ends his m o n o g r a p h o n reli­ gious a n d m o r a l progress a n d perfection in Philo with a section o n eudaimonia. After analyzing the various passages in w h i c h Philo uses the term he c o n c l u d e s : Thus in the end eudaimonia flows together with immortality, and it is identical with standing steadfast, with j o y , with peace, with repose. These are all merely descriptions for the attitude o f the pious person who dedicates himself wholly to God. This has nothing more to do with the Greek conception o f eudaimonia . . . It is the Jewish outlook which emerges loud and clear, the pious person who serves G o d and fulfils his commandments . . . Around this nucleus are grouped a whole range o f theories, conceptions, terms derived from philosophy. They make the conception o f eudaimonia rather fluctuating and hard to pin down . . , 3 4

Earlier the eminent classicist Eduard Schwartz was even m o r e severe. Philo is portrayed as a superficial soul w h o converts majestic bibli­ cal themes into p s y c h o l o g i c a l trivialities. T h e presentation o f G r e e k philosophical ethics is full o f contradictions, w h i c h can easily and simply b e resolved if o n e views t h e m from Jewish perspective, as in the case o f eudaimonia, w h i c h has to b e read in terms o f D e u t 30:20, cleaving unto G o d and c h o o s i n g for life instead o f d e a t h .

35

7. The eudaimonia of God W h a t this line o f thinking amounts to is the following: the language is e v i d e n d y the language o f Japheth, but if its m e a n i n g is taken into a c c o u n t , it emerges that Philo remains safely within the tents o f S h e m . This v i e w entails that Hellenism does n o t penetrate to the c o r e o f his t h o u g h t ,

a n d that the i d e a o f e u d a i m o n i s m is n o t

significandy present. C a n this a p p r o a c h b e a c c e p t e d ? T h e argument I have put forward is b y n o means easy to respond to. W h a t it amounts to is this: Philo says A but really means B. H o w c a n w e p r o v e that w h e n he say A , he really means A ? W h a t w e n e e d is evidence that e u d a i m o n i s m actually has penetrated to the c o r e o f his thinking. I a m c o n v i n c e d that such e v i d e n c e is available.

34

W . Volker, Fortschritt und Vollendung bei Philo von Alexandrien: eine Studie zur Geschichte der Frommigkeit (Leipzig, 1938), 344-345 (my translation). E. Schwartz, "Aporien im vierten Evangelium," Nachrichten der koniglichen Gesellschqft zu Gottingen (1908), 497-560, esp. 541-542. 35

150

D A V I D T . RUNIA

In his exploitation o f the G r e e k idea o f eudaimonia Philo makes a fur­ ther m o v e w h i c h I have so far not m e n t i o n e d . T h i s step is decisive proof, in m y view, that G r e e k thought has entered into the m a r r o w o f his b o n e s . T h e r e are at least fifteen passages, scattered

through­

out b o t h the Exposition o f the L a w a n d the Allegorical C o m m e n t a r y , in w h i c h Philo states in the clearest terms that God himself is eudaimon. In the m o s t famous o f these texts this idea is presented as a m o s t necessary principle (dogma) for the practitioners o f p h i l o s o p h y : G o d alone truly holds a festival. He alone is joyous and glad and rejoices. He alone enjoys peace unmixed with war. He is without grief and fear and without share in evil, without weakness or pain, full o f unmixed felicity (eudaimonia). His nature is completely perfect. O r rather G o d is the summit and end (telos) and limit o f felicity, participating in nothing outside himself for improvement, but sharing what belongs to him to individuals from the fountain of beauty, himself. (Cher. 86) In explaining the essence o f Jewish piety in his account o f the Embassy to Gaius, his w o r d i n g is even m o r e h y p e r b o l i c : Israel has been taught to look beyond what is created and see what is uncreated and divine, the first G o o d and Beautiful and Felicitous (eudaimon) and Blessed (makarion), and, if I am to speak the truth, what is Superior to the good, more Beautiful than beauty, more Felicitous than felicity, more Blessed than blessedness, and if there be any Perfection still greater than these. (Legat. 5) Lots o f capitals seem appropriate here. Philo is d o i n g his utmost to accentuate the absolute transcendence o f G o d , using what in later scholastic p h i l o s o p h y is called the via eminentiae: o n e takes character­ istics o f the physical a n d the intelligible realms o f reality a n d affirms that G o d possesses these in even greater, o r perhaps better, in absolute measure.

36

W h y is this particular argument so important? It is n o t just that such a c o n c e p t i o n o f divine felicity is totally absent from the H e b r e w Bible.

37

T h e r e is also a philosophical p o i n t at stake. I f eudaimonia is

defined as the attitude o f the pious person, consisting o f fearing a n d o b e y i n g a n d serving a n d pleasing a n d cleaving to G o d , then it is quite illogical to state that G o d himself is eudaimon. This w o u l d m e a n

3 6

Cf. the similar text at Opif. 8. For the via eminentiae outlined in a Platonist handbook almost contemporary with Philo, see Alcinous, Didaskalikos 10.6. This also applies to the N e w Testament, with two minor exceptions: 1 T i m . 1:11, 6:15. 3 7

151

EUDAIMONISM IN HELLENISTIC-JEWISH L I T E R A T U R E

that he w o u l d have to fear and o b e y and serve himself e t c .

38

The

only w a y out w o u l d b e to say that there are t w o w h o l l y different kinds o f eudaimonia, for G o d and for humankind. But this is emphat­ ically n o t the direction in w h i c h Philo wishes to g o . A s was n o t e d earlier in the paper, the G r e e k gods w e r e traditionally regarded as makares, blessed. T h e eudaimonia o f the individual was d e p e n d e n t o n the extent to w h i c h the d e i t y — w h o e v e r it h a p p e n e d to b e in G r e e k polytheism—was well disposed towards h i m . This m a y r e m i n d us o f the blessings o f eulogism, with the vital difference that in the bibli­ cal w a y o f seeing things h u m a n k i n d praises G o d for his g o o d n e s s , but does not declare him blessed in the absolute sense o f being makar­ ios o r eudaimon himself. B y emphasizing G o d ' s eudaimonia, Philo j o i n s the ranks o f G r e e k philosophers w h o regard the divine as represent­ ing the ideal o r m o d e l to w h i c h h u m a n k i n d scious imitation. H u m a n k i n d

should aspire in c o n ­

attains the goal o f h u m a n felicity b y

b e c o m i n g as similar to G o d as can b e achieved, i.e. the doctrine o f homoiosis theioi, assimilation to the d i v i n e .

Platonic

39

F o r this reason I think it is important that Philo in the Exposition o f the L a w t w i c e , w h e n e x p o u n d i n g the first a n d

second com­

m a n d m e n t s , emphasizes that the goal o f o u r life should b e knowledge o f h i m w h o IS. T o b e sure, this is in the first p l a c e m e a n t to b e antithetic to those w h o d e n y G o d ' s existence. H u m a n k i n d c a n k n o w that G o d is, but c a n n o t k n o w G o d ' s essence. T o reach that level w o u l d m e a n that h u m a n k i n d was n o t similar to G o d , but identical with h i m , an impossible doctrine. But b e t w e e n existence and essence lies a fertile g r o u n d for reflection o n G o d ' s attributes. T h e task and goal is to serve G o d a n d b e c o m e his friend, b y m o d e l i n g oneself o n what G o d is and o n his wonderful attributes. F o r e x a m p l e the injunction to b e steadfast in G o d means that the wise person should aim to emulate G o d ' s immutability and total reliability. T h e n he will b e c o m e a theios aner, a divine m a n , just like Philo's great h e r o M o s e s . T o m y k n o w l e d g e Philo never speaks o f a theia gune, a divine w o m a n , but it is clear that w o m e n c a n follow the e x a m p l e o f Sarah, w i s d o m personified.

40

3 8

3.205ff. to support the view that

3 9

176b at Fug. 63. See further my 1986 ), 341—343. monograph, op. cit. (n. 32) 214,

Philo puts forward a similar argument at Leg. G o d cannot swear oaths, only to reject it. Philo quotes Plato's celebrated passage Theaet. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Leiden, As N . Cohen has pointed out in her recent 4 0

2

152

D A V I D T . RUNIA

It is interesting to observe that J o s e p h u s , o u r other H e l l e n i z e d author, does n o t part c o m p a n y with Philo o n this point, but, b e i n g a m u c h less philosophical soul, he scarcely develops it properly. A s n o t e d a b o v e , in his preface J o s e p h u s states that an eudaimon bios accrues to those w h o follow G o d as m o d e l through excellence (arete). H o w is this d o n e ? B y participating, w e read a few lines later, in G o d ' s perfect excellence. Surely w e m a y c o n c l u d e that G o d himself possesses c o m p l e t e eudaimonia, even if this is n o t said in as m a n y w o r d s . W e note t o o that the Jewish adapter o f the third Sibylline Oracle also calls G o d "blessed" in the o p e n i n g line o f his p o e m .

4 1

After this i n v o c a t i o n the o p e n i n g lines ask w h y h u m a n k i n d , in p o s ­ session o f the divine f o r m as G o d ' s i m a g e , does n o t follow the right path, w h i c h involves always r e m e m b e r i n g its i m m o r t a l creator. T h e reference to G e n 1:26 is unmistakable. F o r Philo t o o this text is the biblical basis for the homoiosis doctrine. W e have here perhaps a clue that the d o c u m e n t should b e l o c a t e d within A l e x a n d r i a n Judaism, roughly c o n t e m p o r a r y with P h i l o .

42

8. Why does Philo accept eudaimonism in his thought? Philo possesses an unconditional loyalty to J u d a i s m a n d was a d e d ­ icated expositor o f Scripture. A s w e have seen, in the grand s c h e m e

and also discussed with me in private conversation, the concept o f imitatio Dei is also present in the rabbinic tradition. She cites B T Shabbat 133b: " A b b a Saul inter­ preted, ' A n d I will be like him' (Exod 15:2): be thou like Him: just as H e is gra­ cious and compassionate, so be thou gracious and compassionate." This is still far removed from Greek eudaimonism. Closer, perhaps, is another text in the B T Sotah 14a, where o n the basis o f Deut 13:5 humans are exhorted "to walk after the Shekhinah, i.e. the attributes o f the Holy O n e , blessed is H e . . . " Even so, however, there can be no question o f humans attaining, or even aspiring, to the divine state. T h e remainder o f the text speaks about clothing the naked, visiting the sick, and so on. 4 1

T h e opening lines 3.1-12 reveal a remarkable synthesis o f Jewish and Hellenistic epithets for G o d . See J.J. Collins in J.H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: vol. 1 Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (London, 1983), 355: "There can be no doubt that Sibylline Oracles 3 was written in Egypt. Within Egypt the work has usu­ ally been located in Alexandrian Judaism. However, there is reason to believe that it was written in the circles associated with the priest Onias, founder o f the tem­ ple at Leontopolis." Earlier V . Nikiprowetzky had concluded on the basis o f a thor­ ough study {La troisieme Sibylle, Paris-The Hague, 1970, x) that this b o o k showed affinities with the religious tendencies o f the Therapeutae as described by Philo in his De vita contemplativa. 4 2

EUDAIMONISM IN HELLENISTIC-JEWISH L I T E R A T U R E

153

o f his E xp os i t i o n o f the L a w , he follows the m a i n c o n t o u r s o f b i b ­ lical thought. D e v o t i o n a n d o b e d i e n c e to the L a w will b r i n g as its prize p e a c e a n d prosperity, despite current appearances to the c o n ­ trary. W h y , then, does he interpose the themes o f excellence

and

well-being, those c h i e f features o f G r e e k e u d a i m o n i s m , in the tradi­ tion he wishes to follow? T w o answers are t o o superficial to really satisfy. A first reason is Philo's great love for G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y . It exerted such an attraction o n h i m that it p r o v e d irresistible. H e was s e d u c e d b y its doctrines o f logos a n d physis, rationality a n d nature. A varia­ tion o f this a p p r o a c h credits h i m with a c o n v e r s i o n to J u d a i s m .

In

his y o u t h he d e v o t e d himself to the study o f the liberal arts a n d l o n g c o n s o r t e d with lady p h i l o s o p h y herself. But at a certain stage he b e c a m e c o n v i n c e d that the true mistress, w i s d o m , was to b e l o c a t e d in the traditions o f his o w n p e o p l e , in the b o o k s o f the law­ giver M o s e s .

4 3

T h i s m e a n t that he h a d f o u n d his life's w o r k . But

p h i l o s o p h y ' s influence b y that time was ineradicable, a n d it shows. A s e c o n d reason c a n b e l o c a t e d in the social a n d cultural

situa­

tion in w h i c h Philo f o u n d himself. H e was an intellectual leader in a c o m m u n i t y u n d e r threat. His writings always h a v e an apologetic m o t i v e . H e w i s h e d to s h o w that Jewish thought is respectable, o r even m o r e than that. It c a n m a t c h G r e e k thought o n its o w n g r o u n d . In o r d e r to c o n q u e r his ideological adversaries he f o u n d it necessary to b o r r o w s o m e o f their instrumentaria, the conceptuality o f p h i l o ­ sophical thought. P h i l o s o p h y supplies h i m with a language o f rea­ son in o r d e r to demonstrate the inherent superiority o f the w i s d o m lying c o n c e a l e d in the L a w o f M o s e s .

4 4

B o t h answers contain important kernels o f truth, b u t the historian o f ideas remains unsatisfied. S u c h answers are t o o general. W e n e e d to k n o w m o r e specifically w h a t the attraction o f G r e e k e u d a i m o n i s m for Philo was. M y answer w o u l d p r o c e e d a l o n g the following lines. A s was n o t e d a b o v e , Philo accepts the general c o n t o u r s o f the Jewish v i e w o f the life d e v o t e d to the service o f G o d , resulting in a l o n g a n d g o o d life.

4 3

This scenario is suggested by J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists (London, 1977, 1996 ), 141. For Philo's use o f philosophy as a "language o f reason" see V . Nikiprowetzky, Le Commentaire de I'Ecriture chez Philon d'Alexandrie: son caractere et sa portee; observations philologiques (Leiden, 1977), 181-192. 2

4 4

154

DAVID T. RUNIA

H e is also able to e x p o u n d the m e a n i n g o f the c o m m a n d m e n t s that are to b e o b e y e d in order to receive G o d ' s p r o m i s e . But Philo is left with a p r o b l e m : there still remains

a gap between what

he

encounters in the L a w and what he regards as required for his o w n situation in the intellectual environment o f Alexandria. H e wants to k n o w in particular what kind of person he has to be in order to o b e y the L a w and realize the g o o d life for himself and those a r o u n d h i m . His answer to this further question is given with the aid o f G r e e k conceptuality: he has to b e a person in possession o f arete, o f virtue o r excellence, o f sound m o r a l insight. M o r a l excellence in G r e e k thought is a disposition to d o the right thing at the right time. This is possible because man's character has b e e n s c h o o l e d b y logos, b y insight into what o n e is and what o n e should d o . T o s o m e extent Philo orients his treatment o f the excellences towards his Jewish tra­ ditions: piety (eusebeia) and humanity (philanthrdpid) are given a m o r e central place than they receive in G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y .

45

O t h e r features

o f e u d a i m o n i s m are less easily r e c o n c i l e d to biblical thought,

but

Philo nevertheless feels the n e e d to make use o f them. T h r e e such features are

central.

First, Philo accepts and works with an analysis o f h u m a n nature. H u m a n s are m a d e u p o f a c o m b i n a t i o n o f soul and b o d y , each with its o w n needs. T h e s e needs cause conflict and it costs m u c h effort to achieve the h a r m o n y required for the g o o d life. Philo emphasizes time and time again the tension that exists b e t w e e n the d e m a n d s o f reason and the d e m a n d s o f the passions. O b e d i e n c e to the

com­

m a n d s o f reason and the L a w are essential if the g o o d life is to b e attained. T h e anthropological analysis makes clear, h o w e v e r , w h y such o b e d i e n c e is often so difficult to put into practice. S e c o n d l y , the role o f the logos is crucial. This is the m o s t funda­ mental and c o m p l e x c o n c e p t o f all in G r e e k philosophy, and in Philo it is further c o m p l i c a t e d b y the association o f logos with G o d a n d the L a w . Logos basically means that there is o r d e r and structure in the w o r l d , that the w o r l d is the kind o f place that c a n b e

under­

stood a n d lived in with the aid o f reason. It is o n this a c c o u n t ,

45

As Dillon {The Middle Platonists, 150) notes, there is a canon o f two virtues in Greek philosophy. But Nikiprowetzky {Commentaire, 186) is right to note their con­ nection in Philo's mind with the two tables o f the Law. See further H . Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Cambridge, Mass., 1947, 4th ed. 1968 ), 213-215. 4

EUDAIMONISM IN HELLENISTIC-JEWISH LITERATURE

155

a c c o r d i n g to Philo (and J o s e p h u s c o n c u r s with h i m o n this), that the M o s a i c L a w c o m m e n c e s with the creation a c c o u n t .

46

Humankind

possesses logos; it enables p e o p l e to achieve a h a r m o n y o f b o d y , soul a n d m i n d . It is primarily through the logos, Philo is c o n v i n c e d , that h u m a n k i n d is akin to the divine, for it is created a c c o r d i n g to the i m a g e o f G o d , w h i c h (or w h o ) is the Logos. Because o f the Logos something o f G o d ' s felicity is achievable b y humans. It is b y means o f logos that excellence is d e v e l o p e d , a n d so the g o o d life is achieved. O u r actions should b e actions based o n logos. Y e t there is also a c o r ­ r e s p o n d e n c e with the logoi, the c o m m a n d s o f the L a w . U n d e n i a b l y w e feel a tension here w h i c h is inherent in Philo's thought,

and

w h i c h every interpreter stumbles across. T h e logoi are given, they are to b e o b e y e d . But at the same time they are r o o t e d in the univer­ sal logos w h i c h pervades all o f G o d ' s creation. T h i s means there is a reason for them. Philo feels a needs to understand this logos, this rationale. H e r e , surely, he really does feel the enticements o f G r e e k philosophy. Thirdly, something o f the individualistic emphasis o f G r e e k eudai­ m o n i s m c o m e s through in Philo's thinking. Israel represents

both

G o d ' s p e o p l e a n d the individual p e r s o n w h o emulates the patriarch in "seeing G o d . "

4 7

T h e g o o d life is a c h i e v e d through the excellence

that o n e develops in response to the logos and the c o m m a n d s o f the L a w . T h e Allegorical C o m m e n t a r y concentrates a b o v e all o n the j o u r n e y o f the soul in quest o f G o d , for to k n o w G o d is the ulti­ mate quest a n d the source o f well-being. O n e senses that this is the epicenter o f Philo's spirituality,

48

a powerful idea w h i c h was to b e

further d e v e l o p e d in later Alexandrian Christian thought. T h e s e three elements, the analysis o f h u m a n nature, the role o f the logos, a n d the emphasis o n the quest for G o d in the life o f the

46

Cf. Philo, Opif. 3 (where logos is expressed in terms o f the law o f nature, nomas physeos), Josephus, Ant. 1.21-24. In her excellent study cited above (n. 22) E. Birnbaum examines the question of Philo and Israel above all from the perspective o f the universalist/particularist dilemma. A similar inquiry could be done on the relation between the individual and the collective entity in his thought. Suggestive remarks are found in Y . Amir, Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien (Neukirchen—Vluyn, 1983), 21-22. See further D . Winston's fine portrait o f Philo's spirituality, "Philo and the Contemplative Life," in A. Green, ed., Jewish Spirituality from the Bible through the Middle Ages, (World Spirituality: an Encyclopedic History o f the Religious Quest 13) (New York, 1988), 198-230. 47

48

156

D A V I D T . RUNIA

individual, are all c o m p o n e n t s o f G r e e k e u d a i m o n i s m . F o r Philo they serve the crucial function o f helping h i m to fill the g a p b e t w e e n his loyalty to Judaism and his situation as an intellectual in the Alexandrian metropolis. T h e r e is such a thing as the g o o d life. It consists o f serv­ ing a n d emulating G o d . It can b e attained through excellence o f character a n d through the study b o t h o f Scripture a n d o f the w o r l d in w h i c h w e live. This formulation o f the g o o d life c o u l d n o t have b e e n a c h i e v e d without a significant contribution o f G r e e k p h i l o s o ­ p h y a n d its fundamental idea o f eudaimonia.

9. Shem in the tents of Japheth Let us return, finally a n d very briefly, to o u r o p e n i n g theme o f the relationship b e t w e e n S h e m a n d Japheth. It was n o t e d then h o w p o w ­ erful a n d influential ideas can b e . E u d a i m o n i s m is clearly such an idea. O n l y a few surviving Hellenistic-Jewish authors felt attracted to it, c h i e f a m o n g w h o m was Philo. T h e challenge o f this confer­ ence is m a k e s o m e kind o f j u d g m e n t a b o u t the desirability a n d value o f the kind o f appropriation

o f G r e e k ideas that Hellenistic Jews

such as Philo m a d e . It w o u l d not b e o p p o r t u n e to give a definitive verdict o n such a huge and c o m p l e x issue. But t w o final c o m m e n t s , o n e in a critical vein, the other m o r e positive, m a y b e considered appropriate. A crucial part was played in o u r argument b y Philo's willingness to speak a b o u t the eudaimonia, the felicity o f G o d . This is a t o p i c that should give us pause for thought. I myself a m inclined to fol­ l o w biblical eulogism rather than G r e e k e u d a i m o n i s m o n this point. G o d is the living G o d in the sense that he gives life. H e himself does not have a life in a sense that w e can understand in a m e a n ­ ingful way. Philo's e u d a i m o n i s m is better o f f without this super-struc­ ture, but it w o u l d involve s o m e rethinking o n his part, since the idea o f " b e c o m i n g similar to G o d " is central to the G r e e k tradition o f e u d a i m o n i s m to w h i c h he is attracted. O n this p o i n t Philo d i d not, I believe, a d o p t a sufficiently critical stance towards received ideas in G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y .

4 9

49

O f course one has to take into account the "theology o f Exodus," as furnished at Exod 3:14 by the L X X translation o f God's self-revelation in terms o f Being. Philo is very much aware o f the transcendence o f Being, but nevertheless at least

EUDAIMONISM IN HELLENISTIC-JEWISH L I T E R A T U R E

157

W h a t a b o u t the role o f p h i l o s o p h y , p r o b a b l y the m o s t character­ istic o f all the discoveries a n d inventions o f J a p h e t h , in all this? Philosophy involves reflection o n the structure o f reality, o n the w o r l d and the p l a c e o f h u m a n beings in it. E u d a i m o n i s m is a typical p r o d ­ uct o f such reflection. I think reflection o f this kind should b e e n c o u r ­ aged. In using and practicing p h i l o s o p h y w e c a n learn f r o m others, even those w h o d o n o t share o u r religious c o n v i c t i o n s . Philo m a y have g o n e t o o far in s o m e respects, but the a i m was laudable. T h e R a b b i s w e r e t o o critical o f h i m a n d his writings, a j u d g m e n t w h i c h led to a p r o f o u n d a n d long-lasting neglect o f his c o n t r i b u t i o n

to

Judaism.

partially follows Greek philosophy in trying to fill in what Being entails. See fur­ ther my Utrecht inaugural address, "Platonism, Philonism, and the Beginnings o f Christian Thought," in Philo and Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers (Leiden, 1995), 1-24.

8

JOSEPHUS

BETWEEN RABBINIC C U L T U R E A N D

HELLENISTIC

CHAIM

HISTORIOGRAPHY

MILIKOWSKY

T o w a r d s the e n d o f his m a g n u m o p u s , The Antiquities of the Jews ( B o o k 1

2 0 , 2 6 3 - 5 ) , J o s e p h u s is extolling his o w n praises. H e tells his read­ ers o f the pains he has taken to a c q u i r e the learning o f the G r e e k s (the w o r d s used are grammaton a n d poietikon) a n d to u n d e r s t a n d all elements o f the G r e e k l a n g u a g e . H e then c o n t i n u e s with a delight­ ful e x p l a n a t i o n , w h i c h in that c o n t e x t c a n o n l y c o m e to justify w h y h e f o u n d it necessary t o b e g i n the study o f G r e e k l a n g u a g e a n d lit­ erature at the relatively a d v a n c e d a g e w h e n h e b e g a n t o write his books.

2

" F o r o u r p e o p l e , " h e says, " d o e s n o t favor those w h o learn

the languages o f m a n y different p e o p l e s . . . But they give credit f o r w i s d o m to those a l o n e w h o h a v e an e x a c t k n o w l e d g e o f the l a w a n d w h o h a v e the capability o f interpreting the h o l y w r i t i n g s . "

3

A n d then

1

This paper is essentially the lecture I gave at the conference o f which this vol­ ume contains the proceedings. It is with some trepidation that I present it for pub­ lication inasmuch as I tread in a field in which I d o not feel secure. I have added haphazard annotation and two appendices at the end. Enough has been written o n many o f the subjects I touch that I could easily have doubled o r tripled the extent o f annotation. Just about all o f these subjects are also discussed in m y introduction to Seder O l a m (see note 48), and there one will find much fuller footnotes. That Josephus took part in a delegation to R o m e in his twenty-sixth year [Vita 13-16), during the procuratorship o f Felix (c. 5 2 - 6 0 C.E.), only proves he knew Greek well enough—or at least better than his peers—so that it made sense to send him to try to rescue the priests w h o were transported in bonds to R o m e . It does not prove that he had in any formal way studied Greek language, literature o r rhetoric. See the opposing position presented b y L . H . Feldman, "Torah and Greek Culture in Josephus," Torah U-Madda Journal 1 (1997), 75. (Concerning this point, I am in basic agreement with Seth Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics [Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, 18; Leiden, 1990], 36, n. 44, but he overstates the case. True, as Schwartz notes, Josephus does not state he went to plead before the emperor, but he also does not say he went to help them, as Schwartz puts it. He went to "save" them, and this can only mean b y force o r b y pleading and the use o f personal contacts. T h e former is improbable and the latter necessitates a competent knowledge o f Greek). 2

3

It should b e noted that these two categories—"knowledge o f the law" and

GHAIM

160

Josephus continues,

MILIKOWSKY

"Consequently,

though m a n y have

laboriously

u n d e r t a k e n this training, scarcely t w o o r three h a v e s u c c e e d e d , w e r e i m m e d i a t e l y well r e w a r d e d for their p a i n s . " A t first g l a n c e , it seems that the

"training" (askesin) to w h i c h

alludes in this last sentence refers to w h a t he m e n t i o n e d in the diately p r e c e d i n g

sentence—the

"interpretation o f the

"knowledge

o f the

t e n c e he d o e s speak explicitly o f the learning o f the

w h e n he

"pains he has

G r e e k s . " I w o u l d like to

says that scarcely t w o

capability o f interpreting the

" h a v e the

but

rather he

is c l a i m i n g that o n l y t w o

"an

e x a c t k n o w l e d g e o f the

h o l y writings," a n d

law"

and

the

or

no

acquire

o r three h a v e s u c c e e d e d , he

the

and

the

p r e v i o u s sen­

taken to

o r three J e w s " h a v e an

he

imme­

and

suggest therefore

c l a i m i n g that o n l y t w o law"

law"

h o l y writings." H o w e v e r , that sentence has

explicit m e n t i o n o f training o r e d u c a t i o n , while in the

the

who

4

that

is

not

exact knowledge o f h o l y writings,"

three J e w s b e g a n

with

ability o f "interpreting

the

then a d d e d to that capability G r e e k l e a r n i n g .

5

"interpretation o f the holy writings"—conform exactly to the rabbinic categories o f mishnah and midrash. T h e translation here generally follows that o f Feldman in the L o e b edition (Josephus, Vol. I X , Jewish Antiquities, Books X V I I I - X X , ed. and tr., L. Feldman [Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, 1969], 527-9) with some modifications o f my own. T h e passage which Feldman translates as two sentences in English is actually formulated as one very long sentence. Consequently, the connection between study­ ing Greek language and literature in 264 and the "training" referred to in 265 is closer than it appears from the translation. Lee Levine {Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? [Seattle, 1998], 78) understands the thrust o f this entire passage in a radically different manner: according to Josephus, knowledge o f Greek among native-born Jerusalemites was very c o m m o n and Josephus is only excep­ tional in his Jewish knowledge. I d o not think this interpretation o f the passage can stand: it seems quite clear that Josephus' study o f Greek is subsequent to his acquir­ ing o f Jewish learning. I assume that Levine's interpretation is based upon the part o f Josephus' sentence I did not quote in the text, where he explains that the Jews do not favor those w h o learn the language o f many peoples "because they consider that this sort o f accomplishment is c o m m o n , not only to ordinary freemen, but also to slaves, w h o wish to pursue it." It is, however, clear from the context that Josephus is contrasting both "freemen" and "slaves" to "our people," i.e. the Jews, and there­ fore the passage cannot be taken as an indication that this sort o f accomplishment was c o m m o n to Jews. Similarly, in his review o f Do You Know Greek? b y J.N. Sevenster, the eminent classicist David M . Lewis rejected Sevenster's interpretation o f Josephus' statement, which is very similar to that offered by Levine. According to Lewis, all that can be deduced is "that linguistic proficiency can be acquired irrespective o f social class" {Selected Papers in Greek and Roman History [Cambridge, 1997], 386 = Journal of Theological Studies 20 [1969], 586). Josephus has a serious rhetorical problem here. O n the one hand, he has to tell his readers what a won­ derful j o b he has done learning Greek though he started at such a late age. But on the other hand he has to explain why he began at such a late age, and his best ploy—which I assume is also true—is to explain that Jews look down at those w h o 4

5

RABBINIC CULTURE A N D HELLENISTIC H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y

161

T o put it m o r e plainly, Josephus is not boasting that his Jewish learning is greater than that o f all the J e w s in the w o r l d other than the t w o o r three w h o are similar to h i m . R a t h e r he is boasting that o f those J e w s w h o are proficient in Jewish learning, m a n y have also attempted to achieve proficiency in G r e e k learning, but only he, Josephus, a n d t w o o r three others, have s u c c e e d e d . (It seems quite plausible, in fact, that he has specific p e o p l e in m i n d here.) I think a similar a n d c o m p l e m e n t a r y n o t i o n is f o u n d in a state­ m e n t o f Josephus a few lines earlier. F e l d m a n translates there: " F o r m y compatriots admit that in o u r Jewish learning I far excel t h e m " (20.263). A g a i n , this seems to i m p l y quite clearly that Josephus is claiming a proficiency in Jewish learning a b o v e all other Jews, but actually the issue is m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d . In fact, Feldman's phrase "Jewish learning" does not exist in the Greek. T h e w o r d paideian, "learning," is there, but the w o r d s Feldman translated as "Jewish" are epichorion hemonf w h i c h means " o u r c o u n ­ try." It is true that J o s e p h u s does not really have "Jewish" as an adjective as w e d o , but he does often use the descriptive term " o f the J e w s " w h e n w e w o u l d use the adjectival form, a n d consequently the question must b e raised w h y Josephus does n o t d o so here. I suspect therefore that J o s e p h u s is contrasting the learning o f "the native country," that is, the sort o f learning w h i c h takes p l a c e in J u d e a , with the learning o f the " c o m p a t r i o t s , " the homoethnon, w h o live here in R o m e . H e is n o t claiming then that he is the m o s t learned o f all Jews, but rather that he is the m o s t learned in J u d e a n learning o f all the Jews w h o live in R o m e . T h i s c o n f o r m s with his immediately p r e c e d i n g sentence, that there is n o o n e w h o c o u l d have rendered such accurate treatises to the G r e e k w o r l d . J o s e p h u s does n o t say that n o o n e else c o u l d have written such accurate treatises o n Jewish history; he says that n o o n e else c o u l d have written such accurate treatises o n Jewish history for the Greeks.

have the goal o f achieving proficiency in languages since that can be, and is, reg­ ularly done by simple freemen and even by slaves. T h e contradiction between the difficulty o f learning Greek and the triviality o f learning Greek in inherent to his argument and that is why the passage has been so troublesome to interpret. See also the interpretation o f J.A. Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Society o f Biblical Literature M o n o g r a p h Series, 25; Missoula, Montana, 1979), 3 3 - 3 4 , w h o correctly calls the interpretation o f this passage "notoriously difficult" (50, n. 32). 6

There is a textual problem regarding this phrase but it is not related to our basic point.

GHAIM

162 There

MILIKOWSKY

seems to b e n o g o o d

r e a s o n n o t to take the

claim o f

J o s e p h u s , that he was originally only e d u c a t e d in Jewish matters a n d started applying himself to G r e e k language a n d literature only at a m u c h later age, at face value. T h o u g h a n u m b e r o f scholars, a m o n g t h e m T e s s a Rajak in an e x t e n d e d discussion,

7

have suggested that

J o s e p h u s is simply applying a standard a p o l o g y - t y p e passage to fore­ stall possible critics, the parallels cited are n o t that c o n v i n c i n g , a n d not d i r e c d y applicable. N o t e especially that J o s e p h u s is n o t claiming that h e d o e s n o t k n o w G r e e k well n o w at the time o f the

compo­

sition o f Antiquities, but rather that at o n e time he d i d n o t k n o w G r e e k well, but he has since l a b o r e d h a r d a n d has learned it. A t any rate, it appears to m e that w h a t J o s e p h u s is d o i n g here is attesting to his o w n e n d e a v o r at fusion: C o m i n g to R o m e with a high level o f Jewish l e a r n i n g — o r rather, with w h a t h e c o n s i d e r e d to b e a high level o f Jewish l e a r n i n g — h e d e v o t e d l o n g hours

and

great efforts to achieve proficiency in G r e e k learning. W i t h o u t tak­ ing t o o seriously his claim that he is o n e o f the only t w o o r three J e w s w h o are proficient in b o t h m o d e s o f learning, nonetheless, I think w e c a n see this passage as attesting to t w o aspects o f J u d a e a n culture. (1) It was n o t customary for J e w s in J u d e a , at least n o t J e w s b e l o n g i n g to the same social g r o u p i n g to w h i c h J o s e p h u s b e l o n g e d , to receive a typical Hellenistic e d u c a t i o n in G r e e k language a n d lit­ erature while in their y o u t h . (2) A t later stages in their lives, a cer­ tain n u m b e r o f J e w s o f J o s e p h u s ' time d i d attempt to c o m b i n e Jewish learning with G r e e k learning, with, o f c o u r s e , varying degrees o f success. So if w e w e r e to try to use J o s e p h u s as e v i d e n c e for o n e side o f the classic c o n t r o v e r s y c o n c e r n i n g the penetration o f Hellenistic cul­ ture in Jewish Palestine during the centuries surrounding the b e g i n ­ ning o f the C o m m o n

Era—what

I w o u l d call the

Hengel—Stern

8

d e b a t e — w e w o u l d quickly see that the b o t h sides c o u l d c l a i m sup­ p o r t f r o m this passage. In the final analysis, t h o u g h , since a

7

good

T . Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia, 1984), 47. See Menahem Stern's classic review o f Martin Hengel's Judentum und Hellenismus, which appeared originally in Qiryat Sefer 46 (1971), 9 4 - 9 9 [in Hebrew], and which was reprinted in his collected essays, Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (Jerusalem, 1991), 5 7 8 - 5 8 6 [in Hebrew]. It cannot be overemphasized that the question o f the penetration o f Greek culture and learning cannot be assimilated to the question o f the penetration o f the Greek language; see Rajak's perceptive c o m ­ ments o n this point (above, n. 7), 53. 8

RABBINIC CULTURE A N D HELLENISTIC H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y

163

case c a n b e made-—though it c a n n o t b e p r o v e n — t h a t m a n y o f those J e w s w h o attempted to fuse together Jewish a n d Hellenistic learning did so in R o m e o r in other capitals o f the R o m a n E m p i r e , I w o u l d say that the h o n o r s g o to the Stern position. In other w o r d s , I sus­ pect that most o f us w o u l d agree that if Josephus w o u l d have remained in Jewish Palestine, he w o u l d n o t have spent all those years study­ ing G r e e k language a n d literature.

*

*

*

But o u r subject here is n o t the penetration o f Hellenistic culture into Jewish Palestine, but the d y n a m i c s o f the fusion b e t w e e n Hellenistic culture a n d Jewish learning in J o s e p h u s himself. J o s e p h u s makes it clear, in that passage w e just discussed at such great length, that he b e g a n his study o f G r e e k language a n d litera­ ture n o t l o n g before, clearly after he arrived in R o m e . In that c o n ­ text I find it astonishing that he has n o hesitation in m a k i n g such statements as " R o m e is n e v e r m e n t i o n e d in the works o f H e r o d o t u s o r T h u c y d i d e s " (Ag.Ap. 1.66) o r " H o m e r never used the G r e e k w o r d 'nomos'" {Ag.Ap. 2.155). E v e n m o r e remarkable is the entire e n d o f the treatise Against Apion, from 2.220 to 2.275: he exhibits there e x c e p ­ tional proficiency in the customs, laws, literature a n d history o f G r e e k culture in general a n d the various G r e e k states in particular. I w o u l d argue therefore—and o f course this is n o t a n e w claim—that at least a g o o d part o f Apion is b a s e d u p o n J o s e p h u s ' r ewor king o f earlier Jewish c o m p o s i t i o n s . O u r picture o f Hellenistic Jewish culture is seriously skewed b y the fact that so m a n y w o r k s o f J o s e p h u s a n d Philo w e r e preserved b y Christian copyists for their o w n reasons, but w e h a v e n o other c o m p l e t e b o o k b y any o t h e r k n o w n author.

9

H o w e v e r , f r o m the lit­

tle w e k n o w o f the Hellenistic Jewish fragments,

10

we can conclude

that only a small fraction o f that literary heritage has b e e n preserved.

9

Thus we have the Letter of Aristeas, the Book of Wisdom, 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees, all by unknown authors. All o f these, other than Aristeas, were pre­ served as part o f the Bible in various manuscripts o f the Septuagint. They have been conveniendy collected by Carl Holladay in a series o f vol­ umes entitled Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, 4 vols. (Chico, California and Atlanta, Georgia, 1983-1996). 10

164

CHAIM

MILIKOWSKY

Additionally, there are tantalizing hints in Philo o f earlier exegetes o r even schools o f exegetes w h o p r e c e d e d h i m a n d to w h o m he is at times reacting. I w o u l d g o further a n d argue that w e should iden­ tify three m a i n foci o f Hellenistic Jewish prose writing, the histori­ ans, the exegetes a n d the apologists. The

11

historians are o f course ably represented b y those

fragments

I just m e n t i o n e d . I suspect t h o u g h that the historians are o v e r - r e p ­ resented a m o n g the surviving fragments o f Hellenistic Jewish culture. In other w o r d s , even though, aside from Philo, fragments o f n o other exegetical w o r k stemming from Hellenistic J u d a i s m have survived, I think

a good

12

case c a n b e m a d e that actually m o r e Hellenistic

Jewish exegetical c o m p o s i t i o n s existed than Hellenistic Jewish historiographical c o m p o s i t i o n s . But b y o n e o f those vagaries o f history, m a n y o f o u r fragments o f pre-Philonic Hellenistic Jewish literature have c o m e to us b y m e a n s o f A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor, a G r e e k author w h o lived in the first century B . C . E . , and, just a b o u t b y definition, a G r e e k non-Jewish author w o u l d p r e s e r v e — i n d e e d , find c o h e r e n t — o n l y historiographical works a b o u t the history o f the J e w s , a n d n o t exegetical works explicating the Bible. In addition to the historians a n d the exegetes, there are also the apologists. I suspect that m u c h o f the e n d o f Apion is taken f r o m an earlier Jewish a p o l o g e t i c w o r k . In addition to the simple implausibility n o t e d a b o v e , that J o s e p h u s c o u l d attain such an extremely high level o f erudition a n d expertise in all aspects o f G r e e k culture in the p e r i o d that passed b e t w e e n his settling into his n e w R o m a n dwelling a n d his p u b l i c a t i o n o f Apion, there is an additional telling point. In the o p e n i n g paragraphs o f Apion, J o s e p h u s details his purposes in writing the b o o k . H e notes three objects: (1) to answer those w h o claim that the Jewish nation is o f recent vintage b e c a u s e it is n o t m e n t i o n e d b y the G r e e k historians; (2) to p r o v e that it is ancient b y

11

Some o f Philo's works are best considered philosophical works, and it is o f course quite possible that other philosophical works were in existence. I doubt how­ ever if there existed an extensive genre in antiquity of Jewish philosophical writing, in the same sense that there existed Jewish historical writing, Jewish exegetical writ­ ing and Jewish apologetic writing. I see no logic in Walter's inclusion o f Demetrius and Aristeas under the rubric of exegete—they must be considered historians—and Aristobolus is best incorpo­ rated under apologetics; see N . Walter, ed., Judische Schriften aus hellenistisch-romischer %eit, vol. 3, Unterweisung in lehrhqfter Form, Part 2, Fragmente jiidisch-hellenistischer Exegeten: Aristobulus, Demetrius, Aristeas (Giitersloh, 1975). 12

RABBINIC CULTURE A N D HELLENISTIC

HISTORIOGRAPHY

165

q u o t i n g non-Jewish authors w h o m e n t i o n the Jewish nation; a n d (3) to answer those w h o lied a n d slandered the Jewish p e o p l e . And

i n d e e d , as o n e reads through Apion, o n e sees that he sticks

very closely to these goals. H o w e v e r , after he c o m p l e t e s his defense o f the J e w s against the liars a n d slanderers, he includes t w o addi­ tional sections, n o t m e n t i o n e d at all in his introduction: a descrip­ tion o f the Jewish t h e o c r a c y a n d a quite forceful attack o n G r e e k beliefs a n d customs. O n e c o u l d claim that in the m i d d l e o f writing, he d e c i d e d to enlarge the s c o p e o f the b o o k , in a c o m p l e t e l y u n d e ­ termined trajectory. But this w o u l d m e a n that he never even set for himself the goal o f studying Greek customs—in order to attack t h e m — but he just h a p p e n e d to h a v e all these facts at his fingertips,

and

while writing Apion d e c i d e d to focus all his energies for an attack o n G r e e k culture. T h e i m p r o b a b i l i t y o f this reconstruction is, I think, o b v i o u s . M u c h m o r e likely is the suggestion that a previously-unknown-to-Josephus c o m p o s i t i o n , w h i c h dealt explicitiy with the contrast b e t w e e n Jewish a n d G r e e k m o r e s , c a m e to his hands after he h a d already started writing Apion, a n d he a d d e d these t w o unplanned-for sections based u p o n his reworking o f this c o m p o s i t i o n .

* Not

*

*

for a m o m e n t d o I wish to suggest that J o s e p h u s was simply a

m e c h a n i c a l copyist artificially c o m b i n i n g sources w h i c h h e examined.

13

barely

H o w e v e r , I a m suggesting—and I will return to this

p o i n t o v e r a n d o v e r in the course o f this p a p e r — t h a t it is mislead­ ing to analyze any feature o f J o s e p h u s ' c o r p u s without at least rais­ i n g the source-critical q u e s t i o n . W a s the passage u n d e r

scrutiny

c o m p o s e d b y J o s e p h u s o r d i d he simply i n c o r p o r a t e an earlier source into his w o r k ? O f course, the very fact that J o s e p h u s i n c l u d e d an earlier source indicates that in s o m e sense he m a d e it his o w n . N o n e ­ theless, there is a w o r l d o f difference b e t w e e n the act o f inclusion

1 3

This was the attitude towards Josephus exemplified some eighty years ago in G. Holscher's famous article, "Josephos" (2), Realencyklopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschqft, eds. A . Pauly, G. Wissowa & W . Kroll, vol. 9.2 (Stuttgart, 1916), cols. 1970ff. Holscher has been strongly attacked, especially during the last few decades. Further in the paper we shall defend some specific points made b y Holscher.

CHAIM

166

(and revision) o f an

MILIKOWSKY

earlier s o u r c e a n d

the

act o f c o m p o s i t i o n . T o

take, for e x a m p l e , that section of Apion w h i c h w e are presently dis­ cussing, the description o f the J e w i s h t h e o c r a c y , let us s u p p o s e that there are contradictions b e t w e e n w h a t J o s e p h u s writes here a n d w h a t h e writes in various other works, especially in that section of Antiquities within w h i c h h e describes the L a w o f M o s e s .

1 4

W o u l d not our

per­

spective b e radically different if w e s u p p o s e that this section of Apion is a revision o f an earlier w o r k than if w e s u p p o s e that it was n e w l y composed by Josephus?

15

It is o f c o u r s e true that m u c h o f the the of

study o f G r e e k a n d the

20th

Quellenkritik so d o m i n a n t

Latin literature in the

c e n t u r y was

extremely

dubious.

19th a n d

in

early part

Conclusions about

a

text's sources w e r e often suggested o n the m o s t flimsy e v i d e n c e , a n d e v e n m o r e invidiously, these c o n c l u s i o n s t e n d e d itself o f any p u r p o s e tion against the

and

search

meaning.

to e m p t y

H o w e v e r , v e r y often

the

text

the

reac­

for a text's sources was excessive. In

more

r e c e n t t i m e s — a n d this is true for m a n y J o s e p h e a n scholars as well as for G r e e k more

clear

and

Latin literary studies in general—it has

that o n e must attempt to c o m b i n e the

illuminating aspects o f e a c h

approach.

best

become

and

most

1 6

1 4

A n d indeed such contradictions d o exist. See, for example, the material cited by S. Belkin, " T h e Alexandrian Source for Contra A p i o n e m II," JQR 27 (1936-37), 1-32. O n e has to tread carefully with this article, as is generally the case with Belkin's scholarship, but a number o f his points are well taken. Thus I have hesitations regarding the methodology o f articles such as that o f T. Rajak, " T h e 'Against Apion' and the Continuities in Josephus's Political Thought," Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives (JSP Sup 32; Sheffield, 1998), 222—246. T h e quite radical discontinuities she identifies—see her summary on p p . 242 and 2 4 3 — do not to m y mind even need to be explained: they stem from the simple fact that the description o f the theocracy in Apion is Josephus' revision o f an earlier source. (Her o w n emphasis on "the c o m m o n ground between Against Apion and the later works" seems to be belied b y her own previous analysis). See also D . R . Schwartz, "Josephus o n the Jewish Constitutions and Community," Scripta Classica Israelica 1 (1983-1984), 3 0 - 5 2 , w h o notes several noteworthy discontinuities among the vari­ ous political statements Josephus makes. A noteworthy example o f a too facile use o f this part o f Apion can be found in L . H . Feldman, "Josephus as a Biblical Interpreter: T h e 'Aqedah'," JQR 75 (1984-85), 225, n. 39. Feldman wishes to show there h o w Josephus "displays his knowledge o f Plato," but in the ensuing list, six o f the seven passages he notes stem from this apologetic section o f Apion (2.1682.257) where Plato is indeed quoted and referred to extensively, and his only other p r o o f is the passage in the beginning o f Apion (1.7) where Josephus asserts that the Greek world is modern and which may be based upon Timaeus 2 2 b - c , though Plato is not quoted. 1 5

16

See, for example, the comments o f W . H . Stahl concerning scholarship o n the

RABBINIC CULTURE A N D HELLENISTIC H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y

167

W i t h regard to J o s e p h u s , I c a n d o n o better than to q u o t e w h a t T h o m a s G o u d has written in his article entitled Josephus Antiquities 1 9 . "

17

" T h e Sources o f

H e is dealing there with the famous extended

passage in J o s e p h u s w h i c h discusses in great detail the m u r d e r o f Caligula a n d the accession o f Claudius in 41 C . E . Since the begin­ ning o f scholarly interest in R o m a n history, it has b e e n r e c o g n i z e d that J o s e p h u s utilized at least o n e written source in that discussion, a n d m a n y have speculated o n the identity o f that source. T h e ques­ tion o f the identity o f this source is o f n o relevance to o u r subject, but his c o n c l u s i o n is, I think, w o r t h y o f q u o t e : "But this is n o t to suggest that J o s e p h u s simply turned f r o m o n e source to another with n o thought for w h a t he was d o i n g . I n d e e d , t h r o u g h o u t w e see h i m manipulating the m a t e r i a l . . . m a k i n g direct c o m m e n t o n the tradi­ tions he has at h a n d . " A n d in the larger c o n t e x t o f J o s e p h u s

and

his sources, Steve M a s o n w r o t e : " T o s u m m a r i z e : it is clear that J o s e p h u s used sources. . . . T h a t he used t h e m as an anthologist a n d n o t as an author, h o w e v e r , is a p r o p o s i t i o n m a d e untenable b y sev­ eral m a j o r

studies."

18

In o u r specific instance—returning to the e n d o f Apion—this d o u ­ ble realization, that J o s e p h u s m a d e extensive use o f a hypothetical earlier Hellenistic a p o l o g e t i c source, but also m o l d e d it to his needs, makes it difficult to identify w h a t p r e c e d e d J o s e p h u s a n d w h i c h c o m ­ ments are his. Nonetheless, this r e c o g n i t i o n gives us a richer under­ standing b o t h o f earlier Hellenistic J u d a i s m

as well as o f J o s e p h u s '

relationship to that tradition.

Neoplatonists: " T h e rash Quellenforschungen o f the nineteenth century were for the most part foolhardy guesses in the dark . . . but in the present century . . ." (Macrobius, Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, tr. and ed. W . H . Stahl [New York, 1952], ix). A good example o f the double approach can be found in K . S . Sacks, Diodorus Siculus and the First Century (Princeton, 1990). For many centuries Diodorus' importance was limited to his usefulness as a quarry for earlier authors, but Sacks shows the many ways that Diodorus expresses his o w n ideas and beliefs. Historia 45 (1996), 482. It is unfortunate that G o u d did not make use o f Daniel Schwartz's extended analysis o f this book which appeared in his monograph on Agrippa I; see D . R . Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum, 23; Tubingen, 1990), 1—38. Schwartz emphasizes Josephus' fidelity to his sources—see, for example, his note on Pelletier's work concerning Josephus' adaption o f Aristeas (p. 176)—but o f course agrees that Josephus often molded these texts and revised them. S. Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (Studia Post Biblica 39; Leiden, 1991), 46. See also S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome [Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, 8; Leiden, 1979], 2 1 - 6 6 . 17

18

168

CHAIM

MILIKOWSKY

T h a t J o s e p h u s m a d e extensive use o f this earlier Hellenistic a p o l o ­ getic source a n d also, as w e shall see, o f other earlier sources with­ out m e n t i o n i n g t h e m b y n a m e n o r even hinting at their existence should n o t surprise us. T h e claim that the use o f earlier sources without m e n t i o n i n g them b y n a m e is necessarily objectionable b e h a v ­ ior w o u l d n o t b e a c c e p t e d in the ancient w o r l d : they simply did n o t have the same cultural notions a b o u t plagiarism that w e have today. E v e n m o r e importantly, it is clear f r o m J o s e p h u s himself that this is his m o d e o f operation. O n e e x a m p l e was just m e n t i o n e d : in b o o k 19 o f Antiquities, Josephus has obviously used either o n e o r two R o m a n historical sources, but there is n o hint o f such usage in the text itself. A n e v e n m o r e famous e x a m p l e c o m e s f r o m J o s e p h u s ' use o f 1 M a c ­ cabees. I d o n ' t think there is a n y o n e w h o doubts whether

Josephus

used 1 M a c c a b e e s , t h o u g h discussion still continues whether he also h a d the H e b r e w version o r o n l y the G r e e k version a n d whether c o p y h a d the entire text as it is in front o f us. Y e t , J o s e p h u s o n c e mentions a b o o k called 1 M a c c a b e e s .

his

never

1 9

In fact, just about the only non-biblical Jewish b o o k w h i c h Josephus mentions is the Letter of Aristeas in Antiquities 12, 100. In this, as w e just n o t e d , J o s e p h u s is following the n o r m o f ancient m o d e s o f c o m ­ position; rarely d o ancient historians note their sources. T h u s W a l b a n k p o i n t e d o u t m a n y years a g o , in a classic article o n Polybius, h o w u n i q u e Polybius is, that he cites other authors constantly.

20

A n d , in

an article published n o t l o n g a g o , it was p o i n t e d o u t that w e have a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e h u n d r e d and fifty fragments

from the history o f

N i c h o l a s o f D a m a s c u s , w h o was in fact o n e o f J o s e p h u s '

19

primary

See the summary o f research and conclusions o f I. Gafni, " O n the Use o f I Maccabees by Josephus Flavius," %ion 45 (1980), 8 1 - 9 5 [in H e b r e w ] . F. W . Walbank, "Polemic in Polybius," in Selected Papers: Studies in Greek and Roman History and Historiography (Cambridge, 1985), 262. See also P.G. Walsh, Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge, 1963), 114: "Ancient historians from Herodotus onwards rarely tell us explicitly the sources followed. T h e normal pro­ cedure was to name an authority only in criticism o f his account, or when indi­ cating alternative versions o f an event described." ( M y thanks to Erich Gruen w h o provided this reference.) A crucial distinction must be made here between histori­ ans w h o deal almost exclusively with the events o f their o w n lifetime or a genera­ tion or so earlier, o f w h o m Thucydides is o f course the classic example, and between historians w h o also (or only) deal with earlier periods. T h e former base themselves, as Thucydides says explicitly, on their own knowledge and what they investigated first-hand, while the latter must be dependent upon written sources, even if they do not mention them. See the recent full discussion by J. Marincola, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge, 1997), 9 5 - 1 1 7 . 2 0

RABBINIC CULTURE A N D HELLENISTIC H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y

169

sources for his history o f the M a c c a b e a n dynasty a n d Hellenistic his­ tory in general, a n d o f these o n e h u n d r e d a n d fifty fragments, n o t o n e cites any earlier s o u r c e .

21

In fact, h o w e v e r , the situation with regard to J o s e p h u s is a bit m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d : he d o e s cite non-Jewish sources a n o t insignificant number o f times.

22

But, as w e n o t e d a b o v e , o f non-biblical Jewish

b o o k s , only the Letter of Aristeas is cited b y n a m e , t h o u g h this d o e s not

m e a n that J o s e p h u s d i d n o t use any other non-biblical Jewish

b o o k s . O n the contrary, he used 1 M a c c a b e e s , a n d quite clearly this was n o t the o n l y such b o o k he used. W e have here therefore a very interesting situation: o n the o n e h a n d J o s e p h u s just a b o u t disregards post-biblical J e w i s h literature, b u t o n the

other

entirely hand,

w e are c o n v i n c e d that h e was b o t h aware o f a n d used s o m e o f this literature. T h i s is n o t the p l a c e to delve in the implications o f this c o n c l u ­ sion. I m e r e l y wish to p o i n t o u t that a perspective such as that o f M i c h a e l Stone w h o asks w h y the sages o n the w h o l e s e c o n d temple literature is misleading:

23

disregarded

this disregard is already m a n ­

ifest in J o s e p h u s , a n d n o t singular to the sages.

*

After this l o n g a n d i m p o r t a n t

*

*

aside, let us return to Apion. I have

already a r g u e d that J o s e p h u s m a d e use o f a Hellenistic Jewish a p o l o ­ getic source in the last part o f this w o r k . C a n w e say anything else a b o u t the various other sources J o s e p h u s used in this w o r k ? I think we can.

21

M . Toher, " O n the Use o f Nicolaus' Historical Fragments," Classical Antiquity 8 (1989), 162. For a list and short discussion o f all Greek authors used in Antiquities, see S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, 18; Leiden, 1990), "Appendix C : Greek and Greco-Oriental Authors in AJ," 227-232, and for a discussion o f the non-Jewish sources cited in the first half o f Antiquities, see J.E. Bowley, 'Josephus's Use o f Greek Sources for Biblical History," Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben %ion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. J.C. Reeves and J. Kampen (Journal for the Study o f the Old Testament Supplement Series, 184; Sheffield, 1994), 202-215. M . E . Stone, "Introduction," Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M . E . Stone ( C o m p e n d i a R e r u m Iudaicarum ad N o v u m T e s t a m e n t u m II.2; Philadelphia, 1984]) xxi. 22

23

170

GHAIM MILIKOWSKY

Especially n o t e w o r t h y for o u r question is an inconsequential-byitself-but-nonetheless-significant

inconsistency b e t w e e n t w o parts o f

the b o o k . In the third section (the purely apologetic section w h e r e Josephus reacts to anti-Semitic statements that he attributes to M a n e t h o a n d A p i o n ) , Josephus claims that the Egyptian king A m e n o p h i s m e n ­ tioned b y M a n e t h o never existed and is purely a n d simply an inven­ tion (1.230). But in the s e c o n d section o f the b o o k , w h i c h is dedicated to citing non-Jewish authors w h o mention the Jews, he quotes M a n e t h o (1.94ff.), sums up the regnal years o f the Egyptian kings n o t e d b y M a n e t h o , a n d includes the years o f A m e n o p h i s a m o n g t h e m .

24

It is

hard to imagine that an individual author w h o was himself study­ ing a n d investigating M a n e t h o c o u l d c o m e to t w o such conflicting conclusions in such close proximity. Let us g o o n to o n e passage especially important for us w h i c h is f o u n d in that same s e c o n d section of Apion. T h i s section consists in its entirety o f eight quotes from various non-Jewish authors. Aside from o n e q u o t e , all others m o r e or less c o n f o r m to the stated pur­ p o s e o f this section, to s h o w that non-Jewish authors w e r e aware o f the role that the Jewish p e o p l e played in w o r l d history already at an early date. H o w e v e r , o n e quote, the last (1.155ff.), stemming from the " P h o e n i c i a n writings," does not fit in. It makes n o m e n t i o n o f the J e w s o r o f Judaism. T r u e , N e b u c h a d n e z z a r is m e n t i o n e d in the q u o t e a n d his date is set b y recourse to the list o f Phoenician kings, but Josephus h a d already established N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s date in the previous q u o t e , the seventh, from Berossus, w h o himself h a d m e n ­ tioned the Babylonian capture o f the Jews in J o s e p h u s ' sixth quote. T h e r e seems to b e n o reason for an author w h o is keen to p r o v e the antiquity o f the Jews b y means o f quotes from non-Jewish authors to cite this passage from the " P h o e n i c i a n writings" if the itself neither

passage

mentions the Jews n o r tells us anything a b o u t their

antiquity. Furthermore, in this section o f Apion, Josephus makes t w o errors, neither that earthshaking, but w h i c h nonetheless impart to us cru. cial information a b o u t the literary structure o f this w o r k . (1) After Josephus has c o m p l e t e d quoting M a n e t h o , he sums u p the total n u m ­ b e r o f years a c c o r d i n g to M a n e t h o (1.103); this sum, h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t equal the total o f all the individual kings listed in the q u o t e from

There are, by the way, three kings with the name Amenophis in that list.

RABBINIC CULTURE A N D HELLENISTIC H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y

171

M a n e t h o . (2) A few paragraphs further (1.145), Josephus introduces the s e c o n d q u o t e from Berossus b y saying that the latter will cor­ roborate J o s e p h u s ' previous statement a b o u t the temple, that it was destroyed b y N e b u c h a d n e z z a r and rebuilt after Cyrus b e g a n his reign. H o w e v e r , the q u o t e itself mentions neither the destruction o f the temple n o r its rebuilding. As I have already noted, n o n e o f these p r o b l e m s o n their o w n are o v e r w h e l m i n g , and each o n e c a n b e addressed locally, in its o w n context. Nonetheless, w h e n w e stop to consider that o u r close read­ ing o f this section o f Josephus' Contra Apionem has disclosed four m o r e or-less serious p r o b l e m s , o n e must w o n d e r if they all stem from a c o m m o n ground.

25

I think the m o s t p r o b a b l e explanation o f these anomalies a n d p u z ­ zles is that Josephus based this section of Apion u p o n a source w h o s e explicit objective was not—as is that o f Josephus himself—to s h o w the antiquity o f the Jews, but to arrange a detailed c h r o n o l o g y o f the history o f the Jews. T h i s hypothetical author utilized for this pur­ pose all the e v i d e n c e that he c o u l d find in the various treatises he h a d at h a n d w h i c h dealt with the other ancient N e a r Eastern p e o ­ ples, that is, the histories o f the Egyptians, the Babylonians a n d the Phoenicians. ( W e will call this hypothetical c o m p o s i t i o n the c h r o n o graphy source.) T h i s conjecture will explain satisfactorily h o w the p r o b l e m s w e raised in J o s e p h u s ' w o r k d e v e l o p e d .

26

R e g a r d i n g the error w e n o t e d that the summation Josephus gives for the M a n e t h o passage does n o t equal the total n u m b e r o f years listed in the passage, quite clearly Josephus first q u o t e d from

the

chronography source an extensive citation from M a n e t h o , but Josephus skipped a line while q u o t i n g the citation. H e then q u o t e d from the c h r o n o g r a p h y source the summation o f all the figures, w h i c h was given in o r d e r to establish the n u m b e r o f years that passed from the

2 5

T o recapitulate the four problems: (1) the contradiction between this section o f Contra Apionem and the next section regarding the question if Amenophis ever existed; (2) the citation o f the misfit Phoenician source which does not mention the Jews; (3) the inconsistency between the individual numbers and the summation in Manetho's chronology; (4) Josephus claims that the quote from Berossus will confirm the biblical account o f the destruction and rebuilding o f the temple but it actually does nothing o f the sort. A number o f the problems we raised can be explained by simply assuming Josephus is using more than one source in his composition o f Apion, but others point more specifically in the direction o f a chronography source. 2 6

172

CHAIM MILIKOWSKY

E x o d u s until the beginning o f the A r g i v e dynasty. Since the list o f the kings o f Egypt a n d the summation w e r e b o t h quotes from this c h r o n o g r a p h i c a l source, Josephus never p e r f o r m e d any calculation himself w h i c h w o u l d have led h i m to discover his c o p y i n g error. T h e c h r o n o g r a p h y s o u r c e a c c e p t e d totally the veracity o f the M a n e t h o passage, and therefore at this p o i n t in Apion Josephus raises n o doubts a b o u t the historicity o f the Egyptian king A m e n o p h i s , as he does later w h e n he is using the apologetic source, w h i c h did not a c c e p t the veracity o f the M a n e t h o passage. T h e grounds for the other error, the misleading introduction to the s e c o n d quote from Berossus, are also o b v i o u s . T h e c h r o n o g r a ­ p h y source used the q u o t e from Berossus for a specific c h r o n o l o g i ­ cal p u r p o s e — i n o r d e r to justify the date that he h a d already given for the destruction o f the temple and its rebuilding. His prefatory c o m m e n t to the quote from Berossus said something like the

fol­

lowing: " M y date for the destruction o f the temple b y N e b u c h a d ­ nezzar a n d its rebuilding b y Cyrus is c o n f i r m e d b y this passage f r o m Berossus." Josephus, for w h o m the date itself was not important a n d w h o was n o t p a y i n g m u c h attention to the context, latched o n t o the fact that these introductory c o m m e n t s a p p e a r e d to b e saying that the citation from Berossus c o n f i r m e d the actual fact o f the destruc­ tion a n d the rebuilding. H e did n o t realize that the citation was rel­ evant o n l y for the date itself, a n d was useful only after these t w o actions, that is, the destruction and the rebuilding, h a d already b e e n c o n n e c t e d to N e b u c h a d n e z z a r a n d Cyrus. T h i s same

explanation

also unravels for us the strange puzzle o f the citation o f the Phoenician source, w h i c h is cited b y Josephus in spite o f the fact that it makes n o m e n t i o n o f the Jews o r o f Judaism. In the c h r o n o g r a p h y source w h i c h Josephus used, this passage i n d e e d h a d absolutely n o direct relevance to Jewish history, and was cited only to date Nebuchadnezzar a n d Cyrus. Josephus, following exactly the arrangement o f the q u o ­ tations w h i c h appeared in this hypothetical c h r o n o g r a p h i c a l source rather blindly, also q u o t e d this passage, even t h o u g h it has n o rel­ evance for his o w n specific objective. W e c o n c l u d e therefore that this section o f Apion is a reworking o f an earlier c h r o n o g r a p h i c a l source, w h o s e primary objective was the c h r o n o l o g i c a l reconstruction o f Jewish history, based u p o n Hellenistic c o m p o s i t i o n s from the East. I think it worthwhile n o w to explore the different ideological c o n ­ texts w h i c h control the construction o f these t w o different works, the

RABBINIC CULTURE AND HELLENISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY

173

s e c o n d section o f J o s e p h u s ' Apion, o n the o n e hand, and this c h r o n o graphy source u p o n w h i c h it was built, o n the other. J o s e p h u s ' entire w o r k is in a m o d e o f heavy apologetics, w h i c h often has a displeasing ring to o u r m o d e r n and p o s t - m o d e r n ears. But there c a n b e n o d o u b t that the s e c o n d section o f Contra Apionem is the most awkward. H e r e this J e w o f Palestine, a J u d e a n aristocrat, a Jerusalem-based priest feels the n e e d to p r o v e to the cultural elite o f R o m e that the Jews have existed already for quite s o m e time! A n d w h i c h nations are used to testify to the antiquity o f the Jews, w h i c h cultures are considered b y this J e w to b e so obviously ancient that there c a n b e n o d o u b t that their testimony will b e a c c e p t e d ? By o n e o f the ironies o f history, it is n o n e other than the three na­ tions w h i c h are so often contrasted

and o p p o s e d to Israel in

Bible—the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the

the

Canaanites-Phoenicians.

I think with just a little bit o f imagination w e c a n

reconstruct

quite clearly w h a t is g o i n g o n in J o s e p h u s ' m i n d . H e r e this m o r e or less Jewishly learned aristocrat is suddenly thrust into a completely n e w cultural milieu, o n e with w h i c h he h a d just a b o u t n o contact in J u d e a , and only peripheral contact through his earlier travels. H e is aware o f h o w little he knows o f this c o m p e t i n g culture and sets out to study it sufficiently so that he can c o m p o s e literary works in b o t h its language and its i d i o m . E v e n after approximately

twenty

years in R o m e , he is still acutely aware o f h o w h a p h a z a r d is his grasp o f Hellenistic culture a n d still feels the n e e d to s h o w to every­ o n e a r o u n d h i m that his cultural heritage has existed for such a l o n g time. Q u i t e clearly, he is r e s p o n d i n g to specific stimuli: s o m e o n e d o u b t e d the antiquity o f the Jews, and instead o f simply taking this d o u b t to b e a sign o f the doubter's i g n o r a n c e , Josephus feels the n e e d to p r o v e the antiquity o f the Jews b y recourse to the Greekwriting authors o f the J e w s ' n e i g h b o r i n g countries. T h e logic here is very interesting: Josephus is sure in his o w n m i n d that the Bible is m u c h older than any o f the writings he is quoting, that is, it is m u c h older than M a n e t h o , Berossus o r the Phoenician writings, but simply citing the Bible, as he did in Antiquities, and saying, " H e r e it is, this proves o u r antiquity," is n o t sufficient. T h e biblical story o f the J e w s needs to b e vindicated b y c o m p o s i ­ tions written in Greek. W h a t can w e say a b o u t the author o f the c h r o n o g r a p h y source which Josephus

used? W e l l , first o f all, he h a d an

extraordinary

library. I suspect though that it w o u l d b e m o r e exact to say he h a d

174

CHAIM MILIKOWSKY

access to a great library.

His use o f M a n e t h o , Berossus a n d

the

P h o e n i c i a n writings is singular. It has b e e n p o i n t e d o u t b y m a n y that in spite o f the quite clear intentions o f M a n e t h o a n d Berossus to c o m p o s e their b o o k s as a corrective to the i n c o r r e c t information a b o u t their respective countries, Egypt and B a b y l o n , w h i c h was f o u n d in the histories c o m p o s e d b y G r e e k authors, just a b o u t n o attention was p a i d to their c o m p o s i t i o n s in the subsequent centuries. In fact, the quotations o f these authors in Apion f o r m a sizable p r o p o r t i o n o f w h a t has survived f r o m their writings. T h i s emphasis u p o n the library o f the c h r o n o g r a p h y source leads m e o f course to suggest that it was written in A l e x a n d r i a . I simply d o u b t if c o m p l e t e copies o f M a n e t h o , Berossus o r this P h o e n i c i a n source w e r e to b e f o u n d in R o m e o r any p l a c e outside o f the East. A l e x a n d r i a is the o b v i o u s — t h o u g h o f course n o t certain—locale for its c o m p o s i t i o n . M u c h m o r e important is its sense o f security in k n o w i n g exactiy w h o the J e w s are and w h e r e exactly they fit into the universal his­ torical narrative. O n e o f the mainstays o f the study o f classical a n d Hellenistic historiography has b e e n the idea that Alexander's advances a n d conquests in the East w e r e the cause o f r e n e w e d G r e e k inter­ est in the East, a n d that o n e o f the fruits o f this interest was the creation o f a n e w genre o f historiography, the universal history, w h i c h had, as o n e o f its m a i n elements, the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a c o m p a r a ­ tive c h r o n o l o g y .

2 7

O u r reconstructed

chronography source which

J o s e p h u s used fits perfectiy into this intellectual context. In o r d e r to establish

firm

datings for all o f Jewish history, he n e e d e d to

find

a n c h o r points in other p e o p l e ' s history. I assume that he k n e w clas­ sical G r e e k a n d Hellenistic historiography, a n d also k n e w that they barely m e n t i o n e d any figure w h o also figured in the biblical histor­ ical narrative, a n d so they c o u l d n o t b e used as a n c h o r s .

28

2 7

Anthony Grafton has recently argued that comparative chronology was extremely strong in ancient Athens, and that the Hellenistic conquests were not a crucial fac­ tor in its development (A. Grafton, "Tradition and Technique in Historical Chro­ nology," Ancient History and the Antiquarian: Essays in Memory of Amaldo Momigliano, ed. M . H . Crawford and C . R . Ligota [Warburg Institute Colloquia, 2; London, 1995], 15-31). It is-also true that Eratosthenes and the genuine Appolodorus did not use those books we are discussing, that is Berossus and Manetho, w h o presented native Egyptian and Babylonian chronological traditions. Nonetheless, I still think that the push to the East, and the contact with other cultures which resulted from that push, was very significant for the development o f the universal history. 2 8

T h e one exception to this is o f course Cyrus w h o was mentioned—very promi-

RABBINIC CULTURE AND HELLENISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY

175

H a v i n g access to these since lost works, that is, Berossus, M a n e t h o , and the P h o e n i c i a n writings, he used t h e m to place Jewish

history

in a universal context. H e isolated three specific points o f close c o n ­ tact b e t w e e n Israel and the surrounding

nations—the e x o d u s from

Egypt, the P h o e n i c i a n help for K i n g S o l o m o n in building the temple a n d the B a b y l o n i a n destruction

o f the

first

first

temple—which

are, in addition to b e i n g points o f c o n t a c t b e t w e e n Israel a n d

the

nations, also the three m o s t significant points o f Israelite history dur­ ing this entire p e r i o d . U s i n g these a n c h o r points as his base,

he

p r o b a b l y then c o n t i n u e d a n d filled in all the specific c h r o n o l o g i c a l details o f Jewish history, o n the basis o f the biblical data. A n d so, at the end, he h a d a c o m p l e t e c h r o n o l o g y o f the J e w s i n c o r p o r a t e d into a universal w o r l d c h r o n o l o g y .

2 9

T h e difference b e t w e e n the mind-set o f this c h r o n o g r a p h y source a n d that o f J o s e p h u s seems to m e to b e i m m e n s e . T h e m a j o r psy­ c h o l o g i c a l motivation for J o s e p h u s ' reworking o f the

chronography

source is the insecurity o f a n o u v e a u G r e e k o u t to p r o v e that his p e o p l e is also worthy o f note. T h e author o f the c h r o n o g r a p h y source, in contrast, has n o d o u b t that the universal history will b e enriched b y the addition o f an additional c o l u m n , that o f the J e w s .

*

*

30

*

M y emphasis until n o w has not b e e n o n finding elements o f Hellenistic culture in J o s e p h u s ' writings. Q u i t e often that type o f an e n d e a v o r c a n b e futile. T h e r e is o f course a great deal o f value in and

c o u n t i n g all the

Hellenistic motifs a n d

detailing

all the J e w i s h

non-

nently in fact—by Herodotus, and is therefore encountered very often in the entire Greek historiographical tradition. But, as is well known, Herodotus was hazy and unclear on chronology in general, and it is therefore difficult to use Herodotus as an anchor for anything having to d o with chronology. L. Troiani, Commento Storico al "Contro Apione" di Giuseppe (Pisa, 1977), 39—40, 105, has suggested that Josephus used a manual o n ancient history from which he culled his citations, and offers the intriguing suggestion that Josephus has acciden­ tally retained the title o f this work in Apion 1.134. It is possible, however, that his evidence would also conform to the suggestion that Josephus is using, not a Polyhistorstyle compilation, but a historiographical monograph focusing on chronological syn­ chronizations relating Jewish history to world history. M y image o f the "column" is taken from that classic o f comparative chronol­ ogy, the Canons o f Eusebius, within which the chronologies o f the various nations are in fact arranged in parallel columns. 2 9

3 0

176

CHAIM MILIKOWSKY

Hellenistic motifs, but it not that o b v i o u s h o w to evaluate these mat­ ters. Additionally, it is sometimes quite difficult to distinguish between a purely Hellenistic idea a n d a Jewish idea presented in Hellenistic garb.

31

W h a t I have b e e n trying to d o in this p a p e r a n d what will b e o n e o f the foci in m y discussion o f J o s e p h u s ' Jewish Antiquities is the attempt to isolate various trends in J o s e p h u s ' reading a n d in his library. T h e history o f the b o o k s o n e reads is the history o f that per­ son's m i n d . But before I attempt to continue this p r o j e c t o f reconstructing J o s e p h u s ' library in the context of Antiquities, I must m a k e s o m e m o r e general remarks

a b o u t the extent o f Hellenization present in this

w o r k . M u c h has b e e n written o n this t o p i c a n d m y remarks will b e mainly bibliographical in nature. M o s t n o t e w o r t h y a n d profuse are the rather extended series o f articles o n J o s e p h u s ' portraits o f various biblical figures p r o d u c e d b y Louis F e l d m a n .

32

T h e r e c a n b e n o d o u b t that he has identified sev­

eral recurring characteristics in J o s e p h u s ' characterizations o f these different figures w h i c h o w e m u c h to Hellenistic t o p o i . In addition, there have b e e n several fruitful

recent studies b y M a r e n Niehoff,

w h i c h have analyzed the Hellenistic motifs a n d narrative techniques in J o s e p h u s ' rewritten

story.

33

W e l l p r i o r to Feldman's series o f studies, there is the classic arti­ cle o f Isaac H e i n e m a n n o n J o s e p h u s ' m e t h o d .

34

H e i n e m a n n detailed

m a n y manifest Hellenistic elements, especially erotic ones, in Josephus' retelling o f the biblical story. M o v i n g b a c k in time, there a p p e a r e d the less w e l l - k n o w n study o f Martin Braun, 35

Hellenistische Geschichtschreibung,

31

Griechischer Roman und

w h i c h , in spite o f its rather expan-

Josephus' description o f the sects is o f course a classic example o f this ten­ dency to present Jewish concepts in Hellenistic forms. Just recently many o f his essays have been collected in two volumes: Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley, 1988), and Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 58; Leiden, 1998). I d o not know if all o f Feldman's essays were collected in these two volumes nor do I know if the essays were revised before republication. M . Niehoff, The Figure of Joseph in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums, 16; Leiden 1989); M . Niehoff, " T w o Examples o f Josephus' Narrative Technique in His 'Rewritten Bible'," JSJ 27 (1996), 3 1 - 4 5 . "Josephus' Method in the Presentation o f Jewish Antiquities," %ion 5 (1940), 180-203 [in Hebrew]. (Frankfurter Studien zur Religion und Kultur der Antike, 7; Frankfurt, 1934). 32

33

34

35

RABBINIC CULTURE AND HELLENISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY

s i v e - s o u n d i n g title, is basically a study o f novelistic elements

177

in

Antiquities, m o s t specifically the wife o f Potiphar story. T h e wide-ranging erudition a n d insightful analysis o f these schol­ ars, especially the last t w o , H e i n e m a n n a n d Braun, is something to b e h o l d . A n d I feel singularly unqualified to c o m m e n t o n m u c h o f what they write. Nonetheless, I d o want to make s o m e remarks a b o u t o n e specific element generally taken to indicate Hellenization in Josephus—that is his occasional insertion o f an acute erotic element in the biblical narrative. T h e incident I wish to discuss is the meeting o f M a n o a h ' s wife, that is, Samson's m o t h e r , with the angel. In the biblical story, this meeting, in a n d o f itself, has absolutely nothing even remotely hinting o f the erotic. Y e t Josephus (Antiquities 5.276ff.) loads u p this very short divine p r o c l a m a t i o n with a jealous husband, a tall a n d c o m e l y youth, an explanation o f the angel's s e c o n d c o m i n g in o r d e r to relieve M a n o a h ' s suspicions—in short, all the characteristics o f a j u i c y Jewish-Hellenistic novella with a virtuous ending. It is o f course possible that Josephus, for whatever reasons, thought that this was a g o o d story w h i c h n e e d e d to b e enlivened a n d so decided to make the angel into a potential seducer. But I must i m m e ­ diately a d d that if Josephus h a d b e e n driven b y such motivations, there are other stories in the Bible w h i c h are eminently m o r e suit­ able for such erotic additions. T h u s , for e x a m p l e , if w e take the inci­ dent o f J o s e p h and Potiphar's wife—in spite o f all the material Braun cites, in the final analysis there is very little o f the erotic in J o s e p h u s ' retelling, i n d e e d even less than is f o u n d in the T e s t a m e n t o f J o s e p h , as Braun himself notes. T u r n i n g to the exploits o f that great biblical admirer o f w o m e n , K i n g D a v i d , J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t o f the meeting o f D a v i d with Abigail as well as the a c c o u n t o f his meeting with Bat-Sheba are b o t h m o r e o r less c o m p l e t e l y d e v o i d o f any erotic element. Just think h o w easy it w o u l d b e to fit b o t h o f these stories into a Hellenistic r o m a n c e context: the virtuous chaste wife w h o s e evil husband dies a n d mar­ ries the fair y o u t h and then the h e r o w h o has fallen from grace because o f his love for a w o m a n but returns to the b o s o m o f the divine, a n d their love even b e c o m e s vindicated a n d blessed b y hav­ ing the fruit o f their u n i o n b e c o m e his heir.

Braun's more famous b o o k is, o f course, History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature (Oxford, 1938).

178

CHAIM MILIKOWSKY

I find it extremely difficult to f a t h o m w h y an author motivated to a d d an erotic element to the biblical narrative w o u l d p i c k the m e e t i n g o f M a n o a h ' s wife with the angel, a n d n o t any o f these other incidents. But if w e postulate that J o s e p h u s is n o t the o n e w h o a d d e d the erotic elements to the story o f M a n o a h ' s wife m e e t i n g the angel, but rather has taken it o v e r from an earlier Hellenistic novella, every­ thing makes perfect sense. T r u e that the m e e t i n g with the angel has n o erotic element, but the larger biblical context o f the entire S a m s o n story has o f course an extremely p r o m i n e n t erotic c o m p o n e n t . T h i s hypothetical novella t o o k as its subject the entire S a m s o n story, w h i c h begins with the angelic encounter. N o w w e are referring to a very c o n s c i o u s artistic m o d e o f c o m p o s i t i o n , and it is easy to understand h o w the subsequent S a m s o n and Delilah plot-line caused the author to insert into the b e g i n n i n g o f the novella additional erotic elements c o m p l e t e l y alien to the biblical text. T h i s author was n o t interpret­ ing the Bible, n o r was he writing a b o o k o f history: he was creat­ ing a story.

36

*

*

*

A g a i n I a m emphasizing J o s e p h u s ' d e p e n d e n c e u p o n written c o m ­ positions. I n d e e d , I a m c o n v i n c e d that there existed in the

ancient

w o r l d hundreds o f J e w i s h - G r e e k works w h i c h w e r e lost forever with the extinction o f the J u d e o - G r e e k synthesis in late

antiquity.

Part o f this c o n v i c t i o n I h a v e stems f r o m m y researches Josephus'

3 6

into

c h r o n o l o g y , o r better yet, into J o s e p h u s ' c h r o n o l o g i e s ,

As is well-known, in the ancient world the lines between fiction and history were not clearly demarcated, as they generally are nowadays, and very often works which were meant by their authors not to be taken as historically reliable were moved by their various audiences into the category o f history. (A not-quite-com­ parable situation developed in the medieval European world). A paradigmatic exam­ ple o f this fluidity is Augustine's statement about Apuleius' Golden Ass, "Apuleius either reported or invented his transformation into the shape o f an ass" (Civitas Dei 18.18). What'is for us the classic Latin novel is for Augustine a possibly true story. This is a fascinating subject which has particular relevance to questions o f genre and audience reception with regard to midrash and I hope to return to it in the future. Excellent overtures to the subject can be found in Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World, ed. C . Gill and T.P. Wiseman (Austin, 1993) and in R . Morse, Truth and Convention in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1991).

RABBINIC CULTURE AND HELLENISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY

179

specifically his c h r o n o l o g i e s in the Antiquities of the Jews. Earlier I dis­ cussed at length m y hypothesis c o n c e r n i n g the Hellenistic Jewish c h r o n o g r a p h y w h i c h was used b y Josephus in the s e c o n d section o f Apion. N o w I wish to speak o f what I have f o u n d in Antiquities. M a n y have n o t i c e d that J o s e p h u s ' c h r o n o l o g i c a l data is often c o n ­ tradictory, a n d o n e o f the o b v i o u s solutions has always b e e n the p o s ­ sibility that he used a multiplicity o f s o u r c e s .

37

T h a t this is i n d e e d

the correct solution b e c o m e s absolutely indisputable after o n e looks at all the e v i d e n c e . T h u s , to take o n e e x a m p l e , for the p e r i o d b e t w e e n e x o d u s from Egypt a n d the building o f the first temple, Josephus gives us t w o explicit numbers in various places, 5 9 2 a n d 6 1 2 ; other passages pre­ sume o n e o f these t w o figures; a n d a third figure, 6 3 0 , is p r e s u m e d b y t w o additional passages. Additionally, w e can determine w h i c h differences in reconstructing the history o f this p e r i o d led to these differences, and, perhaps m o s t interestingly o f all, n o n e o f these three figures c o n f o r m to the s u m m a t i o n at w h i c h w e arrive if w e a d d u p all the individual numbers Josephus notes for the p e r i o d from M o s e s to S o l o m o n .

3 8

T h e multiplicity o f c h r o n o g r a p h i c a l sources used b y Josephus is important for us for t w o reasons. First o f all, I a m c o n v i n c e d that an intense c o n c e r n with c h r o n o l o g y is itself a result o f contact with Hellenistic c u l t u r e .

39

But m o r e i m p o r t a n t for us is the fact that

J o s e p h u s ' use o f multiple sources, as well as his casual, o r should I say p r o m i s c u o u s , transition from o n e source to another, in his var­ ious works must b e taken as p r o v e n . T h e only scenario w h i c h c a n explain the contradictions is that Josephus h a d available to h i m a n u m b e r o f Jewish c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o m p o s i t i o n s . A t any o n e point, he h a d n o preference for any o n e o f these c o m p o s i t i o n s . S o m e t i m e s he w o u l d r e m e m b e r w h i c h o f these c o m p o s i t i o n s he h a d used previ­ ously a n d w o u l d continue to use it, but at other times he w o u l d for­ get, a n d simply insert the summations o f a conflicting c h r o n o l o g y .

3 7

Another possibility is the differences are due to scribal errors and a third is that he counted the numbers differently at different times. See Appendix 1 for a more detailed discussion. I discuss this question extensively in m y introduction to Seder O l a m (see n. 48). Especially noteworthy is the fact that later Jewish culture, from the third century on, produced very few works which had a concern with biblical chronol­ ogy (or indeed with any chronology) as their focal point, though the centrality o f the Bible itself did not diminish in any way. 3 8

3 9

180

CHAIM MILIKOWSKY

*

*

*

A few paragraphs earlier, I n o t e d a n u m b e r o f scholars w h o have dealt with aspects o f Hellenization in Josephus a n d I remarked that I was g o i n g backwards in time. I w o u l d like to continue m o v i n g b a c k n o w to a very important study o f Josephus, immensely flawed, but nonetheless extremely significant—Holscher's article o n Josephus in Pauly W i s s o w a .

40

Holscher's study has b e e n for m a n y decades the w h i p p i n g b o y o f J o s e p h e a n scholarship. Based u p o n the c o m m o n scholarly p a r a d i g m o f the day, he set u p an exceedingly sharp contrast b e t w e e n the intellectual w o r l d o f a Palestinian

priest, o n the o n e h a n d ,

and

Hellenistic culture, o n the other. Since he saw indications o f Hellenistic culture in every n o o k a n d cranny o f J o s e p h u s ' w o r k , he c a m e to the conclusion that Josephus was simply a relatively witless copyist o f earlier Hellenistic c o m p o s i t i o n s and not m u c h o f an author. F o r us o f course this p a r a d i g m n o l o n g e r holds, a n d w e can eas­ ily imagine that m a n y aspects o f Hellenistic culture w o u l d have b e e n well-known to an aristocratic priest in J u d e a , a n d c o u l d have b e e n u s e d b y h i m w h e n a d d r e s s i n g a n o n - J e w i s h , intellectually audience. A d d i n g to this point the fact that Josephus h a d

elite

already

spent s o m e twenty years in R o m e before Antiquities appeared, case that J o s e p h u s was a m e c h a n i c a l c o l l e c t o r o f earlier

the

sources

simply vanishes. In spite o f this valid criticism o f H o l s c h e r , I think that the w o r l d o f scholarship has unjustifiably o v e r l o o k e d s o m e important

arguments

he m a d e . T h e arguments to w h i c h I a m referring d o not focus u p o n specific aspects o f Hellenistic culture. T h u s , w e c o u l d argue for hours if it is p r o b a b l e that Josephus himself h a d read through Stoic philo­ sophical manuals a n d k n e w those technical terms and phrases w h i c h c r o p u p here a n d there in his b o o k s . Questions like these are not, b y their very nature, capable o f resolution. T h e r e are basically t w o arguments o f Holscher's, w h i c h I at least find c o n v i n c i n g , a n d neither has m u c h to d o with Hellenistic cul­ ture p e r se. O n e is the fact that Josephus transliterates the

names

o f biblical 'figures a n d places in very different ways in different parts o f his c o m p o s i t i o n s . W e all k n o w that transliteration is a tricky busi-

4 0

See n. 13.

RABBINIC CULTURE AND HELLENISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY

181

ness, a n d I will b e the first to admit that I often a m careless

and

transliterate the same n a m e in different ways. But the differences in these c a s e s

are

minor: Josephus

has

completely varying

letter

identifications in different parts o f his works. T o give o n e e x a m p l e w h i c h is n o t taken from H o l s c h e r , but from a note o f T h a c k e r a y : biblical H e b r o n is presented in Josephus variously as N a b r o , N e b r o n , G i b r o n (with a gamma), H e b r o n 41

chi).

(asprirated) and

Chebron

(with a

T h a c k e r a y simply cites this as a d a t u m , but I think if w e mull

o v e r this fact, and a d d to it m a n y similar facts, it tends to lead us to the c o n c l u s i o n that a variety o f written works are o p e n in o f J o s e p h u s a n d he is using different ones at different

front

times.

T h e s e c o n d a r g u m e n t has to d o with the astonishing expertise a n d familiarity w h i c h is found in Josephus' compositions c o n c e r n i n g Egypt. T h e r e is n o reason w h y a Jerusalem priest taken to R o m e after the rebellion w o u l d have at his

fingertips

m a n y facts a b o u t

Egyptian

t o p o g r a p h y a n d the like. O f course, if the subject c a m e u p , he c o u l d take out s o m e rolls from the palace library a n d read u p o n it, but H o l s c h e r ' s e v i d e n c e c o m e s f r o m places w h e r e n e e d to insert any details a b o u t Egyptian

life.

there w o u l d b e

no

42

In light o f all o f the a b o v e , I have b e c o m e c o n v i n c e d that Josephus used a variety o f Jewish-Hellenistic works, a n d i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e m in different ways in his c o m p o s i t i o n s . But, in the final analysis, let us n o t forget that these are his c o m p o s i t i o n s and n o t anthologies.

*

*

*

T h e title o f this p a p e r p r o m i s e d a discussion o f J o s e p h u s

between

Hellenistic culture and rabbinic culture, but u p to this p o i n t I have focused solely u p o n o n the e v i d e n c e for Hellenistic culture. It is n o w

4 1

Josephus, Vol. TV, Jewish Antiquities, Books I—IV, ed. and tr., H . St. J. Thackeray (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, 1967), 84, note a. I have found a number o f additional indications o f specific stances with regard to Egypt which make litde sense in the context o f Josephus himself. T h e most indicative is I think Antiquities 1.161, where Abraham goes to Egypt, not only because o f the famine, but also because he wishes to see if the Egyptian priests have bet­ ter notions about the gods than he has. See also Antiquities 2.39 where Potiphar is said to give Joseph the "learning that became a free man," and 2.286 where Moses is made to say to Pharaoh that he does not "despise the wisdom o f the Egyptians." 4 2

CHAIM MILIKOWSKY

182

therefore time to turn to the question o f J o s e p h u s in the c o n t e x t o f rabbinic culture a n d learning. A g a i n , I a m n o t g o i n g to enumerate

items w h i c h m a y p o i n t to

s o m e sort o f a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d rabbinic intellec­ tual endeavors. T h e listing o f parallels b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d

rab­

b i n i c literature is a worthwhile enterprise, a n d it has b e e n d o n e , in various contexts, b y R a p p a p o r t , translation o f B o o k s

1-10,

44

43

b y W e i l l in his notes to the F r e n c h

a n d a great deal c a n b e learnt 5

G i n z b e r g ' s notes to his classic Legends of the Jews}

from

O f course, m u c h

still remains to b e d o n e . But lists o f this sort d o n o t allow us to m a k e any definitive statements a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' cultural w o r l d . Q u i t e obviously, the a p p e a r a n c e

o f an exegetical tradition

in a rabbinic

w o r k d o e s n o t m e a n that it is a rabbinic tradition. E v e n m o r e than it makes sense to talk o f c o m m o n J u d a i s m

in the legal sphere, it

makes sense to talk o f a c o m m o n g r o u n d o f exegetical traditions, as i n d e e d J i m K u g e l a n d others have s h o w n so w e l l .

46

H o w then c a n J o s e p h u s b e p l a c e d in the c o n t e x t o f rabbinic cul­ ture? It has b e e n c l a i m e d that J o s e p h u s presented a variant picture o f J u d e a in Antiquities as o p p o s e d to the picture he presented in his Jewish War b e c a u s e he wished to curry favor with the rabbinic party then b e c o m i n g d o m i n a n t in J u d e a .

47

T h i s w o u l d fit well with

the

n o t i o n that there is e v i d e n c e o f rabbinic culture in Antiquities, but that d o e s n o t m e a n that there necessarily is such e v i d e n c e . In truth, h o w e v e r , I d o think there is such evidence. C o r r e s p o n d i n g to the a r g u m e n t

4 3

m a d e a b o v e c o n c e r n i n g J o s e p h u s a n d Hellenistic

S. Rappaport, Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus (Frankfurt, 1930). Oeuvres completes de Flavius Josephe, Vols. 1-2, tr. J. Weill (Paris, 1900-1926). 7 vols. (Philadelphia, 1909-1938). See, most recendy, J.L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, 1998). This argument, generally identified with the late Morton Smith, has its pro­ ponents and also its opponents. See D . R . Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees," JSJ 14 (1983), 1 5 7 - 1 7 1 ; S. M a s o n , "Josephus o n the Pharisees Reconsidered: A Critique o f Smith/Neusner," Studies in Religion 17 (1988), 4 5 5 - 4 6 9 ; D . Goodblatt, " T h e Place o f the Pharisees in First Century Judaism: T h e State o f the Debate," JSJ 20 (1989), 12-30; S. Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (Studia Post-Biblica, 39; Leiden, 1991); D . S . Williams, "Morton Smith on the Pharisees in Josephus," JQR 84 (1993), 2 9 - 4 2 . As many o f these studies note and as I remarked above in a different context, the source-crit­ ical question makes it very difficult to determine what exactly is Josephus' position on a specific question. In the final analysis, I d o not think the argument can be settled conclusively, and each scholar's stance is based to a large extent on his intu­ itive response. 44

4 5

4 6

4 7

RABBINIC CULTURE AND HELLENISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY

183

culture, that m u c h c a n b e learnt a b o u t his relationship to Hellenistic culture b y isolating a n d analyzing the Hellenistic sources for his var­ ious c o m p o s i t i o n s , the argument will n o w b e m a d e that Josephus used a w o r k o f rabbinic literature. T h i s claim sounds absurd o n the face o f it. After all, it is agreed that the earliest rabbinic c o m p o s i t i o n is the M i s h n a h a n d that was edited a b o u t 2 0 0 C . E . Furthermore,

the generally a c c e p t e d schol­

arly consensus is that the M i s h n a h was not authoritatively

written

d o w n until centuries later. H o w then c o u l d J o s e p h u s use o f w o r k o f rabbinic literature? It is i n d e e d to m y m i n d c o r r e c t to say that the M i s h n a h is the earliest rabbinic c o m p o s i t i o n , a n d there was n o truly rabbinic w o r k c o m p o s e d a n d written in the first century C . E . But there was a w o r k w h i c h was written a n d c o m p o s e d during that p e r i o d w h i c h has close affinities with early rabbinic literature a n d w h i c h b e c a m e , after revi­ sion a n d redaction, part o f the rabbinic corpus. T h i s w o r k is Seder O l a m a n d I believe that i t — o r rather an earlier non-extant

hypo-

thetically conjectured p r o t o - S e d e r O l a m — w a s used b y J o s e p h u s .

48

Seder O l a m is an exegetical c h r o n o g r a p h y w h i c h pertains just a b o u t exclusively to the biblical p e r i o d . It begins with the creation o f A d a m a n d continues until the biblical p e r i o d c o m e s to an end, which happened, according to Seder O l a m , precisely w h e n the Persian w o r l d - m o n a r c h y ceased a n d the G r e e k w o r l d - m o n a r c h y b e g a n , that is, w h e n A l e x a n d e r the G r e a t c o n q u e r e d the N e a r East.

49

T h e first sentence o f S e d e r O l a m already tells us o f its essential c o n c e r n s : " F r o m A d a m until the f l o o d there passed o n e

thousand

six h u n d r e d a n d fifty-six years." It is n o t a self-contained history; it can o n l y b e used as an adjunct to the Bible, a n d k n o w l e d g e o f the

4 8

T h e ensuing description and discussion is based upon my extended study o f this work. M y critical edition of, commentary on and introduction to Seder O l a m is in press, and will be published by the Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History. After the biblical chronology is completed, four short unrelated passages o f less than twenty lines in all are included: (1) a concise chronological summary o f the second temple period detailing h o w long the Persians, the Greeks, the Hasmoneans, and the Herodians reigned, (2) a concise chronological summary focusing upon the intervals that elapsed between the four wars that the Romans and the Jews fought from the first century B.C.E. through the second century C.E., (3) a very strange list o f "eight Greek kings" (many o f w h o m are unknown to us), and (4) a c o m ­ parison o f the chronological and calendrical details o f the destructions o f the two temples. 4 9

184

CHAIM MILIKOWSKY

latter is assumed. U s i n g the events o f the Bible as its base, it c o n ­ cerns itself with c h r o n o l o g i c a l questions a n d deals with dates ages. T h e following is o n l y a very small sampling o f the

and

numerous

issues t o u c h e d u p o n in this w o r k : the n u m b e r o f years f r o m the f l o o d until the dispersion, the age o f Isaac at the time o f the binding, the age o f J a c o b w h e n he arrived at L a b a n ' s h o u s e , the n u m b e r o f years the children o f Israel r e m a i n e d in Egypt, the n u m b e r o f years they were subjugated, the n u m b e r o f years R e h o b o a m observed the T o r a h , the year o f A h a z i a h ' s reign within w h i c h Elijah a s c e n d e d to h e a v e n and

the y e a r o f J e h o i a k i m ' s

reign within w h i c h

Nebuchadnezzar

b e g a n to reign. All these dates, as well as the d o z e n s o f other dates detailed in S e d e r O l a m w h i c h are

n o t explicitly r e c o r d e d in

the

Bible, w e r e generated b y the investigation a n d scrutiny o f the b i b ­ lical text, i.e. b y exegetical means. In addition, S e d e r O l a m devotes s o m e effort to synchronizing the regnal lists o f the k i n g d o m s o f J u d a h a n d Israel a n d to resolving various contradictions b e t w e e n the b i b ­ lical b o o k s o f K i n g s a n d C h r o n i c l e s . S e d e r O l a m is a unique w o r k in the rabbinic c o r p u s , a n d its pat­ terns o f narrative a n d exposition are n o t c o m p a r a b l e to that o f any other rabbinic w o r k . C o n s e q u e n d y it has b e e n difficult to situate it within any specific c o n t e x t o f rabbinic literature. A c c o r d i n g to a rabbinic tradition found in the Babylonian T a l m u d ,

50

it was R a b b i Y o s e , a sage o f the s e c o n d century o f the c o m m o n era, o f the generation immediately p r e c e d i n g R a b b i J u d a h the Patriarch, w h o "taught" Seder O l a m . Ostensibly, if this attribution is a c c e p t e d a n d that S e d e r O l a m is identified with the Seder O l a m w e have, then it is o f course i n c o n c e i v a b l e that in the first century J o s e p h u s used the w o r k w h i c h w e k n o w as S e d e r O l a m . Nonetheless, t h o u g h I a m c o n v i n c e d that this attribution is c o r ­ rect a n d that the Seder O l a m to w h i c h the T a l m u d refers is the Seder O l a m w e have, I a m also confident that J o s e p h u s used S e d e r O l a m , o r rather, as I expressed it a b o v e , an earlier p r o t o - S e d e r O l a m from w h i c h o u r Seder O l a m was derived and w h i c h it follows closely. O n the basis o f a n u m b e r o f considerations, I have c o n c l u d e d that w h e n the T a l m u d says that R a b b i Y o s e "taught" S e d e r O l a m this does n o t rnean that he c o m p o s e d it in the sense o f a m o d e r n author c o m p o s i n g a b o o k , but that he transmitted it. T h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n -

5 0

This tradition is asserted by Rabbi Yohanan and is found twice in the Babylonian Talmud, Yebamot 8 2 b and Mddah 46b.

RABBINIC CULTURE AND HELLENISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY

185

tinuum o f the entire biblical p e r i o d existed as a c o m p l e t e w o r k before R a b b i Y o s e ' s time; he "taught" it to his students a n d a d d e d his o w n c o m m e n t s . T h i s revised Seder O l a m was the w o r k w h i c h b e c a m e part o f the rabbinic c o r p u s , w h i c h was q u o t e d extensively in T a l m u d , a n d w h i c h was transmitted to future

the

generations.

T h e justifications for this reconstruction are to m y m i n d i n c o n ­ testable, Olam.

5 2

51

a n d I present t h e m at length in m y introduction to Seder

In short, the analysis o f b o t h the text itself a n d the cultural

context o f this w o r k leads us to the c o n c l u s i o n that its basic struc­ ture was c o m p o s e d towards the e n d o f the first century o r begin­ ning o f the s e c o n d century o f the c o m m o n e r a .

53

It was this original

c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o m p o s i t i o n , w h i c h w e call p r o t o - S e d e r O l a m , w h i c h was used b y Josephus. It is i m m e d i a t e l y a p p a r e n t that any attempt to c o n c l u d e that Josephus used Seder O l a m b y means o f an analysis o f exegetical a n d c h r o n o l o g i c a l traditions w h i c h appear in b o t h texts must o v e r c o m e several serious m e t h o d o l o g i c a l hurdles.

54

First o f all, these exegetical

traditions m a y h a v e b e e n d e r i v e d f r o m the Bible

independently

b y a n u m b e r o f different exegetes, including o f course possibly J o s e ­ phus himself a n d the author o f Seder O l a m himself, o r any o f their sources. Furthermore, even if w e w o u l d claim that any o n e specific exeget­ ical o r c h r o n o l o g i c a l statement should b e attributed to o n e specific originator—in

other w o r d s , it is n o t p r o b a b l e that a n u m b e r o f

different p e o p l e w o u l d independently c o m e to the same c o n c l u s i o n o n the basis o f the biblical text—even then, this statement c a n have b e e n transmitted during the course o f time to m a n y different p e o ­ ple, a n d again there is n o n e e d to assume any literary relationship b e t w e e n any t w o works w h i c h contain this statement. Nonetheless, in spite o f these considerations, I a m c o n v i n c e d that there are persuasive g r o u n d s for suggesting that there is a literary relationship b e t w e e n Seder O l a m and Josephus.

5 1

T h e outcome o f following discussion focusing on the relationship between Josephus and Seder O l a m was in fact a contributing-factor in the generation o f this reconstruction, but the basic outlines o f my general conclusions about Seder Olam were formulated well before I began my close readings o f exegetical-chronological traditions c o m m o n to Seder O l a m and Josephus. See n. 48. See Appendix 2, where I present a short summary o f my arguments. For simplicity's sake, in the following discussion I will be referring to Seder Olam, though I mean proto-Seder Olam. 5 2

5 3

5 4

186

CHAIM MILIKOWSKY

Josephus, Antiquities 10.18Iff., contains a n u m b e r o f very strange historical c l a i m s :

55

[181] for on the fifth year after the destruction o f Jerusalem, which was the twenty-third o f the reign o f Nebuchadnezzar, he made an expedition against Goele-syria; and when he had possessed himself o f it, he made war against the Ammonites and Moabites; [182] and when he had brought all those nations under subjection, he fell upon Egypt, in order to overthrow it; and he slew the king that then reigned, and set up another; and he took those Jews that were there captives, and led them away to Babylon. A c c o r d i n g to Josephus, in the 23rd year o f N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , he c o n ­ q u e r e d C o e l e - S y r i a , a n d then A m m o n a n d M o a b . Afterwards he entered Egypt, defeated it, replaced its king, captured the J e w s w h o were there a n d b r o u g h t t h e m to B a b y l o n . T h e s e conquests are n o t k n o w n from the Bible n o r from any other source, a n d in fact, J o h n Bright, in his History of Israel, c a n n o t make heads o r tails o f t h e m .

56

M a r c u s , in his notes to the L o e b edition, states that these conquests seem to b e J o s e p h u s ' invention a n d suggests that they are derived from Jeremiah's

p r o p h e c i e s against the nations.

57

T h e r e is i n d e e d

s o m e truth to M a r c u s ' suggestion, but it is n o t a sufficient explana­ tion in a n d o f itself. It does not explain the exact date Josephus gives for these conquests, N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s 23rd year, w h i c h c a n n o t b e dependent u p o n Jeremiah's prophecies against the nations. Furthermore, additional nations are m e n t i o n e d in those chapters o f Jeremiah,

and

w h y are they n o t also m e n t i o n e d b y Josephus? Let us n o w l o o k at Seder O l a m , chapter 26: In the twenty-third year o f Nebuchadnezzar, Tyre was given into his hand, and he swept away all the Jews who were in Ammon, M o a b , and in the area surrounding the Land o f Israel, "seven hundred and forty-five persons" (Jer 52:30). In the twenty-seventh year o f Nebuchad­ nezzar, Egypt was given into his hand, "and he carried off its multi­ tude, and despoiled it and plundered it, and it was the wages for his army" (Ezek 29:19), and he exiled Jeremiah and Baruch to Babylon.

5 5

T h e translations o f Josephus in the next few pages are based upon the Whiston translation with some modifications. J. Bright, A History of Israel, second edition (Philadelphia, 1972), 352. Josephus, V o l . V I , Jewish Antiquities, Books I X - X I , ed. and tr., R . Marcus (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, 1966), 259. 5 6

5 7

RABBINIC CULTURE A N D HELLENISTIC H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y

187

N o t e the astonishing agreement with Josephus: (1) A m n i o n and M o a b a n d other surrounding nations are c o n q u e r e d b y N e b u c h a d n e z z a r in his twenty-third year; (2) immediately after this conquest, the c o n ­ quest o f Egypt is m e n t i o n e d ; (3) as part o f the story o f the c o n q u e s t o f Egypt, J e w s are taken into captivity. N o t o n e o f these three points o f agreement is explicit in the Bible. T h e r e are also differences b e t w e e n Seder O l a m a n d Josephus, a n d several o f these differences are significant. First o f all, in Seder O l a m , the c o n q u e s t o f the nations in N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s twenty-third year is a c c o m p a n i e d b y the capture o f the J e w s w h o live a m o n g these nations, a n d is explicitiy c o n n e c t e d to J e r 52:30, w h i c h i n d e e d m e n ­ tions a captivity o f Jews in N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s twenty-third year. Since J o s e p h u s d o e s not even m e n t i o n the capture o f J e w s at this point, there is n o reason a n y o n e w h o reads J o s e p h u s alone w o u l d think to c o n n e c t it to J e r 52:30. Furthermore, a c c o r d i n g to Seder O l a m , the conquest o f Egypt was in N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s twenty-seventh year a n d is c o n n e c t e d t o E z e k , c h a p t e r

2 9 , w h i c h is e x p l i c i t l y d a t e d

to

N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s twenty-seventh year. T h i s is w h y the story o f the conquest o f Egypt follows the story o f the c o n q u e s t o f A m m o n a n d M o a b , e v e n t h o u g h in the p r o p h e c i e s a b o u t the nations,

Egypt

appears first. In addition, J o s e p h u s mentions C o e l e - S y r i a , but this geographic area is not m e n t i o n e d in the prophecies about the nations. Presumably, this place n a m e is his paraphrastic rewrite o f the p l a c e n a m e T y r e w h i c h appears in S e d e r O l a m .

5 8

Seder O l a m t o o k it

from Ezekiel; it appears there as the p l a c e w h e r e N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s soldiers h a d to w o r k hard, a n d for w h i c h they received as reward the spoils o f Egypt. A l s o the m e n t i o n o f the taking o f the J e w s from E g y p t to B a b y l o n , w h i c h makes n o real sense in J o s e p h u s — a n d is definitely not taken from the p r o p h e c i e s a b o u t the nations—has a v e r y clear p u r p o s e in Seder O l a m . It is part o f a larger, a n d most fascinating, exegetical c o m p l e x in S e d e r O l a m ; he s o m e h o w h a d to get J e r e m i a h

from

Egypt to B a b y l o n in o r d e r that he can return to Israel in the days of Gyrus.

5 8

59

A reason for the revision can easily be suggested: all other place names in the list o f conquests are names o f larger geographical areas, not names o f cities, and therefore Josephus changed the name Tyre to the name o f larger geographical area within which Tyre is contained. According to Seder Olam, Jeremiah the prophet was among those who returned to Judea and signed the covenant (see Neh 10:3). 5 9

188

CHAIM MILIKOWSKY

In the light o f this analysis, there c a n b e n o d o u b t that J o s e p h u s ' formulation o f these traditions is secondary w h e n c o m p a r e d to that o f Seder O l a m . Quite clearly, Josephus h a d as his source either Seder O l a m o r a text very similar to it. A n u m b e r o f the original elements were excised—specifically, the capture

o f the J e w s from the areas

surrounding Israel a n d the date o f the c o n q u e s t o f E g y p t — a n d o n e c o m p o n e n t was a d d e d , the description o f the death o f the king o f Egypt a n d the a p p o i n t m e n t o f his replacement, w h i c h was i n d e e d taken from Jeremiah's p r o p h e c i e s a b o u t the nations. N o t e that w e have surmounted the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l obstacles n o t e d a b o v e b y c o m p a r i n g , n o t isolated traditions,

b u t literary contexts

wherein a n u m b e r o f traditions are c o m b i n e d together. Let us n o w l o o k at another parallel w h e r e exegetical a n d c h r o n o ­ logical statements n o t based u p o n a simple reading o f the biblical text are c o m b i n e d together, Seder O l a m , C h a p t e r 2 5 , a n d Antiquities 10.97ff. First, let us cite the texts. Seder O l a m : And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand" etc. (Dan 1:2), "and he bound him in fetters to take him to Babylon" (2 Chr 36:6). He immediately died in his imprisonment, to fulfill what is said, "With the burial of an ass he shall be buried, dragged and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem" (Jer 22:19). "And he exiled all Jerusalem and all the princes and all the mighty men o f valor, ten thousand exiles" (2 Kgs 24:14), "three thousand and twenty-three Judaeans" (Jer 52:28), "and from Benjamin and the other tribes seven thousand exiles. All o f them mighty men and makers o f war" (2 Kgs 24:16). Antiquities:

[96] N o w a litde time afterwards, the king o f Babylon made an expe­ dition against Jehoiakim, whom he received [into the city], and this out o f fear o f the foregoing predictions o f this prophet, as supposing that he should suffer nothing that was terrible, because he neither shut the gates, nor fought against him; [97] yet when he was come into the city, he did not observe the covenants he had made; but he slew such as were in the flower of their age, and such as were o f the great­ est dignity, together with their king Jehoiakim, whom he commanded to be thro before the walls, without any burial; and made his son Jehoiachin king o f the country and o f the city: [98] he also took the principal persons in dig­ nity for captives, three thousand in number, and led them away to Babylon; amo whom was the prophet Ezekiel, who was then but young. A n d this was the end o f king Jehoiakim, when he had lived thirty-six years, and of them reigned eleven. But Jehoiachin succeeded him in the king­ dom, whose mother's name was Nehushta; she was a citizen of Jerusalem. He reigned three months and ten days.

RABBINIC C U L T U R E A N D HELLENISTIC H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y

189

Both texts say that J e h o i a k i m died at the time o f the conquest o f the city b y N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , that his b o d y was thrown in front o f the gates o f Jerusalem (this is based u p o n Jer 22:19), a n d that dur­ ing the course o f this w a r with J e h o i a k i m , three thousand J e w s were taken captive. T h e exegetical presuppositions underlying these state­ ments are extremely c o m p l e x a n d I c a n n o t g o into t h e m here. Let it suffice to say that they c a n n o t b e reconstructed o n the basis o f J o s e p h u s ' statements but c a n b e from Seder O l a m . I will note just o n e crucial point. M a r c u s , in his c o m m e n t a r y , notes that the n u m ­ b e r o f three thousand captives is taken from J e r 5 2 : 2 8 w h i c h does i n d e e d m e n t i o n three thousand captives,

60

but there is nothing in

that verse w h i c h connects it to the time o f the death o f J e h o i a k i m , a c o n n e c t i o n explicit a few lines earlier in Seder O l a m . N o t e espe­ cially J o s e p h u s '

statement that the three t h o u s a n d

captives w e r e

important persons, again a datum not f o u n d in Jer 52:28, but explicit in the immediate following passage in Seder O l a m , w h e r e this exile c

is c o n n e c t e d to 2 K i n g s 2 4 : 1 6 , "ha-kol gibborim oseiy milhamah" ("all o f t h e m mighty m e n a n d makers o f w a r " ) . T h e last o c c a s i o n o f a close parallel b e t w e e n a series o f c h r o n o ­ logical a n d exegetical statements f o u n d in b o t h S e d e r O l a m

and

in Josephus is also, to m y eyes, extremely impressive. T h e r e is not the slightest hint in the historical b o o k s o f the Bible that w h e n N e b u c h a d n e z z a r p l a c e d Jerusalem under siege in his ninth year, this was his s e c o n d siege o f Jerusalem. But b o t h Seder O l a m ,

Chapter

26, a n d Josephus, Antiquities 10.108ff., tell us that in his eighth year N e b u c h a d n e z z a r besieged Jerusalem. Seder O l a m : At that time Zedekiah rebelled against the king o f Babylon, and put his trust in the king o f E g y p t . . . In the eighth year o f Zedekiah the army o f the king o f Babylon came against Jerusalem. "The army o f Pharaoh came out o f Egypt, and when the Chaldeans who were besieg­ ing Jerusalem heard news o f them they withdrew from Jerusalem" (Jer 37:5). And the army o f Pharaoh swept away Gaza and returned to Egypt. Antiquities:

[108] N o w when Zedekiah had preserved the league o f mutual assis­ tance he had made with the Babylonians for eight years, he broke it, and revolted to the Egyptians, in hopes, by their assistance, o f

Marcus (above, n. 57), 120, note a.

190

CHAIM MILIKOWSKY overcoming the Babylonians. [109] When the king o f Babylon knew this, he made war against him: he laid his country waste, and took his fortified towns, and came to the city Jerusalem itself to besiege it: [110] but when the king o f Egypt heard what circumstances Zedekiah his ally was in, he took a great army with him, and came into Judea, as if he would raise the siege; upon which the king o f Babylon departed from Jerusalem, and met the Egyptians, and joined battle with them, and beat them; and when he had put them to flight, he pursued them, and drove them out o f all Syria.

Both write

that an E g y p t i a n

a r m y left E g y p t to

fight

against

N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s army, that N e b u c h a d n e z z a r h a d to raise the siege o f Jerusalem, but in the e n d the Egyptian a r m y returned to Egypt, not b e i n g able to s u c c e e d against N e b u c h a d n e z z a r . T h e r e is little c h a n c e that this historical reconstruction, w h i c h is b a s e d u p o n J e r 3 7 : 5 - 7 , was devised i n d e p e n d e n d y b y Seder O l a m a n d Josephus. N o t e especially the fact that b o t h date this siege to N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s eighth year, a feature Jeremiah

w h i c h c a n n o t b e derived d i r e c d y f r o m

the

text.

In dealing with these close parallels b e t w e e n Josephus a n d Seder O l a m , w e c a n e x c l u d e the possibility that Seder O l a m is d e p e n d e n t u p o n J o s e p h u s , for as w e have s h o w n o n a n u m b e r o f o c c a s i o n s in the discussion, Seder O l a m often retains the original biblical-exegetical c o n t e x t w h i c h c a n n o t b e reconstructed o n the basis o f J o s e p h u s ' w o r d s alone. W h a t a b o u t the possibility that b o t h are using a third source? T h i s is o f course a classic counter-claim to just a b o u t any attempt at source criticism o f t w o extant works: perhaps there was a third w o r k that they b o t h used. In o u r case, since w e are dealing with extensive passages from t w o chapters in Seder O l a m , a n d since there is nothing in Seder O l a m ' s language w h i c h needs to b e c h a n g e d in o r d e r to postulate that it was J o s e p h u s ' source, I w o u l d c o u n t e r that this third source was simply that earlier version o f Seder O l a m discussed a b o v e a n d w h i c h w e call p r o t o - S e d e r O l a m . T o c o n c l u d e : I suspect that J o s e p h u s ' greatest attainment was his successful ability to p r o v i d e himself with a first-rate Jewish

library,

w h i c h i n c l u d e d works exhibiting acute Hellenization as well as works b e l o n g i n g to the p r o t o - r a b b i n i c o r early rabbinic culture o f J u d e a . I have tried to u n c o v e r s o m e o f these w o r k s — w h o s e use h e tried so assiduously to hide—as part o f o u r continuing efforts to understand the cultural contexts o f Judaism in the Hellenistic and R o m a n periods.

APPENDIX ONE

T H E C H R O N O L O G Y OF ISRAEL F R O M T H E E X O D U S UNTIL THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE A C C O R D I N G T O JOSEPHUS In three different passages Josephus tells us in a most precise and definitive m a n n e r h o w m a n y years passed b e t w e e n the e x o d u s from Egypt a n d the building o f the first temple: the o n l y p r o b l e m is that he gives us t w o different

figures.

In Antiquities 8.61 he writes that

5 9 2 years passed, while a c c o r d i n g to Antiquities 2 0 . 2 3 0 a n d Against Apion 2.19 this p e r i o d lasted 6 1 2 years. O t h e r passages also allow us to infer h o w l o n g he b e l i e v e d this p e r i o d lasted. T h u s , Antiquities 10.147 tells us that 1062 years elapsed from the e x o d u s until the destruction o f the temple a n d 4 7 0 f r o m its construction until its destruction, w h i c h leaves 5 9 2 years b e t w e e n the e x o d u s a n d the c o n ­ struction. This c h r o n o l o g i c a l d a t u m is also the g r o u n d for J o s e p h u s ' statement in Antiquities 7.68 that 5 1 5 years passed from the days o f J o s h u a until D a v i d ' s c o n q u e s t o f Jerusalem.

61

S o w e see that three c h r o n o l o g i c a l statements in Josephus

either

cite o r are based u p o n o n e c h r o n o l o g i c a l s c h e m e , that 5 9 2 years passed b e t w e e n the e x o d u s from Egypt a n d the building o f the first temple, a n d t w o c h r o n o l o g i c a l statements cite a s e c o n d c h r o n o l o g i ­ cal s c h e m e , that 6 1 2 years passed b e t w e e n the e x o d u s from Egypt a n d the building o f the first t e m p l e .

62

T h e s e explicit contradictions have, o f course, b e e n n o t e d b y m a n y . S o m e o f the foregoing material was cited b y T h a c k e r a y , a n d it led h i m to claim that 'Josephus has n o consistent s c h e m e o f Biblical chronology."

6 1

63

This h o w e v e r w o u l d b e a logical c o n c l u s i o n only w e r e

A d d to these 515 years the forty years in the desert, the thirty-three years o f David from the conquest o f Jerusalem until his death, and the four years o f Solomon until he began building the temple, and we arrive at 592 years from the exodus until the construction o f the temple. I have no idea h o w the authors o f these chronological schemes dealt with 1 Kings 6:1, which states explicitly that this period lasted 480 years. Was it simply lacking in their text or did they somehow manage to explain it away? So in his comment to Antiquities 7.68: Josephus, V o l . V , Jevuish Antiquities, Books 6 2

6 3

CHAIM MILIKOWSKY

192

J o s e p h u s to present i n c o m p a t i b l e data t h r o u g h o u t . G i v e n that statements in other, a n d

different

parts o f J o s e p h u s '

oeuvre

agree with

two each

three o t h e r statements in different parts o f J o s e p h u s ' o e u ­

vre agree with e a c h other, a m o r e p r o b a b l e inference is that J o s e p h u s is using t w o its

s c h e m e s o f biblical c h r o n o l o g y , e a c h o n e

consistent

on

own. But

the

this is still n o t

the

entire story. Antiquities 9.180

tells us

exile f r o m S a m a r i a o c c u r r e d 9 4 5 years after the e x o d u s a n d

years plus seven m o n t h s a n d k i n g d o m . If w e subtract the subtract the o f the

76 years r e m a i n i n g to

temple until his d e a t h ,

months and

seven days after

64

division o f

S o l o m o n after the

the also

construction

w e are left with 6 3 0 years (plus seven

seven days) for the

temple building.

the

s e c o n d n u m b e r f r o m the first a n d

that 240

p e r i o d b e t w e e n the

exodus and

the

65

V—VIII, ed. and tr., H . St. J. Thackeray (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, 1966), 395, note c. According to Josephus (Antiquities 8.211), Solomon reigned eighty years, and not forty years as the Massoretic text o f the Bible has it. M u c h more troublesome is a passage attributed to Josephus b y Clement: "Flavius Josephus the Jew, w h o composed the history o f the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year o f Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventynine; then from that to the tenth year o f Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year o f Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years" (Strom., 1.21.147.2). O f the three chronological assertions included in this passage, it is the first which interests us. (The second was taken from Bellum 6.437 and the third is simply pred­ icated upon easily-discovered R o m a n chronological data). It does not appear explicidy in the Josephean corpus, nor have I discovered any way it can be derived from any chronological datum included in the Josephean corpus. Quite possibly, some mistake crept into this passage during transmission. Note that the number in the last chronological statement, which purports to sum up the entire period, does not equal the aggregate o f the first three statements. Since the second statement is explicit in Josephus and the third is chronologically correct, the mistake must have fallen in the second statement or in the summation. (Hardwick's discussion [ M . E . Hardwick, Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature Through Eusebius (Brown Judaic Studies, 128; Atlanta, 1989), 31] is not helpful. H e misrepresents the text, plus he mistakenly asserts that Moses led the Israelites out o f Egypt when he was 40, though the biblical text [Exod 7:7] says explicitly he was 80). At any rate, it is clear that Clement did not take this passage directly from Josephus since the cal­ culation continues until the tenth year o f Antoninus (177 C.E.), and so it must have been composed by a chronographer w h o was active in this year, some thirty or forty years before Clement's time. For the various speculations concerning this chronographer, see the note in Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, O . Stalin and L. Friichtel, ed., Books I - V I , third edition (Griechische christliche Schriftsteller, 52; Berlin, 1960), 91, and add to the list o f references W . Christ, "Philologische Studien 6 4

6 5

RABBINIC CULTURE AND HELLENISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY

193

O u r first conclusion is therefore that Josephus used three different c h r o n o l o g i c a l sources, o n e w h i c h c l a i m e d that from the exodus to the temple was 5 9 2 years, a s e c o n d w h i c h c l a i m e d that it was 6 1 2 years and a third w h i c h c l a i m e d that it was 6 3 0 years. T u r n i n g n o w to the m o r e speculative attempt o f explaining the d e v e l o p m e n t o f these c h r o n o l o g i c a l assertions, w e must o f course b e ­ gin b y looking at what J o s e p h u s himself has to say a b o u t the details o f this p e r i o d . I n d e e d W e i l l in his c o m m e n t a r y to Antiquities tells us that he did exactly this. H e sifted through the relevant parts o f Books 5 - 7 o f Antiquities a n d f o u n d that the sum o f all the years Josephus notes for the p e r i o d b e t w e e n the entry into the land o f Israel and the c o n q u e s t o f Jerusalem b y D a v i d is 5 0 4 , while J o s e p h u s writes in Antiquities 7.68 that this p e r i o d lasted 515 y e a r s .

66

T h o u g h it should

n o t surprise us w e r e w e to find that Weill is unequivocally correct, a n d that the c h r o n o l o g i c a l particulars o f the p e r i o d u n d e r question conclusively contradict the aggregate sums presented b y Josephus, in truth they c a n b e m a d e to c o n f o r m with e a c h other. Y e t the very w a y that w e will s h o w their agreement proves that Josephus did n o t generate any o f these aggregate sums b y calculating sums from the data he himself cited in his historical retelling o f the p e r i o d from M o s e s to S o l o m o n . Weill notes that o n e j u d g e , A b d o n the son o f Hillel, is m e n t i o n e d b y Josephus but Weill did n o t include h i m in his list because Josephus does not tell us h o w m a n y years he j u d g e d . T h i s is surely a care­ less error o n the part o f Josephus, a n d w e must therefore a d d his eight years (Jud 12:13) to Weill's calculation. Furthermore, Josephus m a d e a n o t h e r careless b l u n d e r , o n e w h i c h W e i l l d i d n o t c a t c h . Josephus simply skipped T o l a the son o f Puah, o n e o f the not-veryp r o m i n e n t j u d g e s m e n t i o n e d in the B o o k o f J u d g e s , w h o served as j u d g e twenty-three years (Jud

10:1-2).

A d d i n g these thirty-one years to the 5 0 4 years calculated b y Weill, w e arrive at 5 3 5 years from the entry into the land until the c o n ­ quest o f Jerusalem, still n o t the 5 1 5 years J o s e p h u s asserts. T o determine the actual basis for this J o s e p h e a n c h r o n o l o g y , w e must l o o k m o r e carefully at o n e item in Weill's list—the regnal years

zu Clemens Alexandrinus," Abhandlungen der kmiglichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschqften, Philos.-philol. Klasse, X X I Abt., Ill Band, 1901, p . 508. Above (n. 44), vol. 2, 9 0 - 9 1 . As pointed out above, this statement of Josephus agrees with the claim that from the exodus until the temple building was 592 years. 66

194

CHAIM MILIKOWSKY

o f Saul. W e i l l follows the

G r e e k m a n u s c r i p t tradition

o f Antiquities

6 . 3 7 8 a n d attributes to Saul forty years. H o w e v e r , the Latin trans­ lation reads "twenty y e a r s " a n d in Antiquities 1 0 . 1 4 3 , J o s e p h u s states e x p l i c i d y that Saul r e i g n e d twenty years. A s R a p p a p o r t a r g u e d years ago,

there is g o o d

reason to believe that "twenty y e a r s " is c o r r e c t ,

a n d the r e a d i n g "forty y e a r s " f o u n d in all manuscripts at 6 . 3 7 8 c a n v e r y plausibly b e attributed to a scribe o r to scribes w h o w i s h e d to m a k e J o s e p h u s ' text c o n f o r m

to the explicit statement

T e s t a m e n t that Saul r e i g n e d forty years (Acts 8 : 2 1 ) .

in the N e w

67

G o n s e q u e n d y , w e must subtract the extra twenty years that W e i l l attributes to Saul from the 5 3 5 year total, a n d t h e n — l o a n d b e h o l d — w e h a v e s u c c e e d e d in h a r m o n i z i n g the c h r o n o l o g i c a l details J o s e p h u s presents for the p e r i o d f r o m J o s h u a t o D a v i d a n d his statement Antiquities 7.68 that 5 1 5 years passed f r o m the days o f J o s h u a

in until

D a v i d ' s c o n q u e s t o f Jerusalem. A s n o t e d a b o v e , i f w e a d d to these 5 1 5 years the forty years in the desert, the thirty-three years o f D a v i d f r o m the c o n q u e s t o f J e r u s a l e m

until his death, a n d the four years

o f S o l o m o n until h e b e g a n b u i l d i n g the t e m p l e , w e arrive at 5 9 2 years from the exodus until the construction o f the temple. Accordingly, the

genesis o f o n e o f the

three

different

chronological

specified a b o v e is u n a m b i g u o u s l y a c c o u n t e d f o r .

sources I

68

6 7

A b o v e (n. 43), 5 1 . T h e arguments o f B . Z . Wacholder, Eupolemos: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature (Cincinnati and N e w York, 1974), 108, against Rappaport are not convincing. Furthermore, neither realized that Josephus's division o f Saul's reg­ nal years into two periods in 6.378, one while Samuel was alive and the other after he died, clearly comes to explain the very difficult verse at 1 Sam 13:1, which states that Saul reigned for two years: the two years are those years that Saul reigned after Samuel died. (Note that Josephus does not say that Saul and Samuel reigned together for 18 years which would justify the division into two regnal periods; he only asserts that one period was while Saul was alive and the other after he died). See also Clement (Strom. 1,21, 111,4-112,4), w h o states that Samuel died two years before Saul and that Saul reigned twenty years. 6 8

A completely different reconstruction o f these 592 years was presented b y J. Hughes, Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology (Journal for the Study o f the O l d Testament Supplement Series, 66; Sheffield, 1990), 67, 2 4 5 - 2 4 6 , 270. T h o u g h proffered in a very self-assured manner, it is wrong. (1) According to Hughes' reconstruction, the aggregate total comes to 591 years and six months, which, Hughes suggests, Josephus rounded up to 592 years. There can however b e litde doubt that in summing up years the natural preference would be to delete a surplus six months and not to add a fictional six months, but even more indica­ tive against Hughes is the fact that Josephus often includes the number o f months when noting aggregate sums o f years (see e.g. Antiquities 10.143, 147, 185, 11.112, 20.232). (2) Within his 591 years and six months Hughes incorporates eighteen years o f anarchy after Joshua which Josephus does not include in the proper posi-

RABBINIC CULTURE AND HELLENISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY

195

G i v e n t h o u g h that w e s u c c e e d e d in c o o r d i n a t i n g the various data only b y attributing to J o s e p h u s t w o unintentional errors, it b e c o m e s clear that it was n o t J o s e p h u s himself w h o p e r f o r m e d

these calcula­

tions a n d formulated these c h r o n o l o g i c a l statements. W e must rather conclude

that J o s e p h u s i n c l u d e d

in his w o r k s

summations

taken

f r o m free-standing c h r o n o l o g i c a l sources. T h e disparity b e t w e e n the position o f this c h r o n o l o g i c a l source, w h i c h has 5 9 2 years from

the

tion in his retelling o f the biblical narrative, i.e. after the death o f Joshua (Antiquities 5.117), but much later when summarizing the various modes o f government before Saul became king (6.84). A n d then Hughes has to perform the further legerdemain o f excising from his summing-up the eight years o f subjugation to the Assyrians mentioned explicitly by Josephus in his consecutive retelling o f the biblical story (5.180). Since Hughes imagines that Josephus himself calculated the 592 years from the chronological data included in Antiquities, he has to surmise a rather illogical sequence o f events: while calculating the years from Moses to the temple, upon coming to Joshua's death, Josephus remembers that later on in Antiquities he has an eighteen-year period, includes it, returns to his narrative, and decides to exclude the eight years o f subjugation to the Assyrians. (3) Again, assuming that Josephus himself calculated the 592 years, what does Hughes think Josephus did when he recapitulated the years and saw that he included A b d o n but not his years o f gov­ ernment? According to Hughes, he simply skipped A b d o n , but this is to impute to Josephus a level o f imbecility which is b e y o n d the bounds o f possibility. True Josephus at times misunderstands his sources, contradicts himself and is sloppy in his presentation, but no one reading his own b o o k and coming across a careless mistake which created an immediately visible impossibility—i.e. a judge with no years o f judging—would take this impossibility to be historically true. Thus, once it has been seen that the 592 years can be reconstructed both simply and ele­ gantly—by adding the years T o l a and A b d o n governed which are in all versions o f the Bible but were inadvertendy skipped by Josephus and by attributing to Saul a reign o f only twenty years and not forty years (and o f course skipping the eigh­ teen years mentioned in Antiquities 6.84)—then Hughes' reconstruction can be safely assigned to the scrap heap. In general, Hughes' monograph suffers from a surfeit o f self-confidence. For example, he has no hesitation in suggesting that chronologists in the days o f the second temple had completely accurate records o f the period that passed from the destruction to their own time (pp. 235-237), in spite o f the fact that there is not one shred o f evidence in favor o f this suggestion—other than some very speculative reconstructions—and quite a bit o f evidence against it. His mode o f dealing with the counter evidence is very indicative and is analogous to his treatment o f Josephus: the counter evidence is all schematic and, to Hughes' mind, quite obviously anyone interested in presenting a schematic chronology will not hesitate to ignore his imagined chronologically-accurate "temple records" and present a chronology which differs widely from the these records. What he does not realize is that a chronologer w h o wishes to show God's scheme in the history o f the world cannot afford to ignore records everyone takes to be accurate, and the point o f the exercise is to show God's presence using the data at hand. O f course, some molding and revising o f the material is acceptable, but there can be no wholesale rejection o f data accepted by the community. O n this subject I can d o no better than recommend the classic treatment o f Gershom C o h e n on schematology and symmetry in Jewish literature (Abraham Ibn Daud, The Book of Tradition, ed. G . D . Cohen [Philadelphia, 1967]).

196

CHAIM MILIKOWSKY

e x o d u s until the building o f the temple, a n d that other c h r o n o l o g i ­ cal source w h i c h has 6 1 2 years for this same p e r i o d was c o n v i n c ­ ingly explained some o n e hundred and forty years ago b y v. Niebuhr.

69

H e n o t e d that s o m e ancient c h r o n o l o g i c a l sources attribute twenty years to Saul a n d others forty years, a n d suggested that the 5 9 2 - y e a r c h r o n o l o g y is based u p o n a twenty-year reign for Saul while the 6 1 2 - y e a r c h r o n o l o g y is based u p o n a forty-year reign for Saul.

70

Still

unexplained is the third c h r o n o l o g i c a l source w h i c h has 6 3 0 years from the exodus until the building o f the temple. Interestingly enough, the key w h i c h allows us to justify this claim c o m e s from Josephus himself. W h e n discussing the beginning o f the m o n a r c h y in Antiquities 6.84, Josephus rapidly surveys the various types o f g o v e r n m e n t w h i c h h a d prevailed from the days o f M o s e s until the anointing o f Saul, a n d mentions eighteen years o f anarchy b e t w e e n the death o f J o s h u a a n d beginning o f the Judges. T h e s e eighteen years are n o w h e r e m e n ­ tioned in J o s e p h u s ' retelling o f the biblical history w h e r e they b e l o n g , b e t w e e n the death o f J o s h u a and the reign o f the first j u d g e Othniel (Antiquities 5 . 1 1 7 - 1 8 4 ) , but if w e a d d t h e m to the 612-year e x o d u s temple c h r o n o l o g y w h i c h w e have already elucidated, w e arrive at the third a n d last c h r o n o l o g i c a l s c h e m e to w h i c h Josephus attests, that 630 years passed from the exodus until the building o f the temple. T h e s e analyses indicate very clearly that w e should n o t denigrate the value o f the c h r o n o l o g i c a l schemes f o u n d in Josephus w h e n they are contradictory. O n the contrary, their value is magnified b y the inconsistencies a n d disagreements. J o s e p h u s has preserved for us, inadvertently to b e sure, evidence o f the widespread activity a n d dili­ g e n c e o f early Jewish chronographers, w h o disputed a m o n g them­ selves h o w should the biblical data be used to c o m p u t e the c h r o n o l o g y o f Israel.

6 9

M . v. Niebuhr, Geschichte Assur's und Babel's seit Phut (Berlin, 1857), 349. That we claimed above that Josephus only knows o f a twenty-year reign for Saul is irrelevant to our argument here. After all, we are by n o means claiming that Josephus generated all or even any o f these chronological schemes, and indeed we already saw that the N e w Testament knows o f a forty-year reign for Saul. 7 0

RABBINIC CULTURE AND HELLENISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY

197

Chronological Chart of 592 Years Between the Exodus and the Building of the Temple According to Josephus Moses

40

Joshua

25

Subjugation Othniel

8 40

Subjugation

18

Ehud

80

Shamgar

1

Subjugation

20

Barak

40

Subjugation Gideon Abimelech

7 40 3

Tola

23

Jair

22

Subjugation

18

Jephthah

6

Ibzan

7

Elon

10

Abdon Subjugation

8 40

Samson

20

Eli

40

Samuel

12

Saul

20

David

40

Solomon Total

4 592

APPENDIX T W O

SEDER O L A M AS A FIRST O R S E C O N D C E N T U R Y COMPOSITION I c a n n o t o f course present here the full regalia o f m y arguments that S e d e r O l a m was a first o r s e c o n d century c o m p o s i t i o n , b u t I will list t h e m in o u d i n e f o r m . T h e first three chapters o f the i n t r o d u c ­ tion to S e d e r O l a m deal with these matters in great detail. 1. S e d e r O l a m in its present f o r m must b e c o n s i d e r e d part o f the rabbinic c o r p u s . T h e names o f rabbinic sages are cited nineteen times in the c o m p o s i t i o n , a n d it contains a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e hun­ d r e d parallels to other rabbinic works. 2. T h e historiographical a n d c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n c e r n s o f S e d e r O l a m are n o t e n c o u n t e r e d in any other rabbinic w o r k . A s m a n y schol­ ars have n o t e d , rabbinic literature in general has n o interest in historiographical o r c h r o n o l o g i c a l matters. T h e past q u a past is o f n o interest for the sages and an involvement with reconstructing durations, intervals and dates w h i c h in themselves have n o m o r a l o r religious significance c a n n o t b e f o u n d in rabbinic literature.

71

3. T h e m o d e s o f exegesis f o u n d in Seder O l a m are radically different f r o m those c o m m o n to midrashic literature. S e d e r O l a m d o e s n o t disregard g r a m m a r ,

c o n t e x t o r logic w h e n reconstructing

dates

a n d ages. N o r c a n o n e find in S e d e r O l a m just a b o u t any story­ lines n o t explicit in the biblical text.

72

4. Analysis o f the h u n d r e d o f so parallels to Seder O l a m in other rabbinic works indicates that very often S e d e r O l a m preserves a m o r e original f o r m o f the parallel, never c a n it b e s h o w n that the version in Seder O l a m is s e c o n d a r y to the parallel, a n d o c c a -

71

Contrast, for example, the passage in the Babylonian Talmud Megilla 14b-15a where the chronology o f Jacob's life from his blessing by Isaac until his marriage to Rachel is reconstructed and the conclusion drawn that he was punished for those years he spent with Laban not fulfilling the biblical commandment o f " H o n o r thy father and mother," but was not punished for the years he was studying with Eber. Thus, Seder O l a m does not present us with the dates o f any stories about Abraham not. explicit in the Bible, such as Abraham and the idols or Abraham in the furnace. 7 2

RABBINIC CULTURE AND HELLENISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY

199

sionally it c a n even b e p r o v e n that the parallel text is specifically d e p e n d e n t u p o n Seder O l a m . 5. It c a n b e s h o w n that the m o d e o f c o m p o s i t i o n generally postu­ lated for m o s t rabbinic works, i.e. that w e should speak m o r e o f editors w h o c o m p i l e treatises consisting primarily o f collections o f earlier passages rather than o f authors w h o create something n e w , d o e s not apply to Seder O l a m . It is not a collection o f isolated chronological statements but rather is largely the conscious achieve­ m e n t o f a single p e r s o n (or g r o u p o f p e o p l e ) . T h e stylistic and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l consistencies throughout

the w o r k , the cross-

references b e t w e e n various chapters a n d the very fact that an interrelated c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n t i n u u m is p r o v i d e d for the

entire

biblical p e r i o d all reflect a single guiding principle at w o r k f r o m beginning to end. 6. O f the nineteen names o f sages f o u n d in Seder O l a m , nine are o f R a b b i Y o s e . T h i s d a t u m indicates, o n the o n e hand, that there is a special relationship b e t w e e n R a b b i Y o s e a n d Seder O l a m , and, o n the other hand, that he c a n n o t b e the author o f Seder O l a m (for w h y w o u l d h e cite himself). 7. Seder O l a m ' s reconstruction o f the Persian p e r i o d seems to pre­ suppose that the destruction o f the s e c o n d temple h a d occurred.

already

73

8. T h e c o n s e q u e n c e o f all o f the a b o v e is that Seder O l a m must b e at its base a non-rabbinic c o m p o s i t i o n strongly influenced b y intel­ lectual c o n c e r n s w h i c h w e r e peripheral to the e m b r y o n i c rabbinic culture but w h i c h was in the course o f time i n c o r p o r a t e d into

7 3

M y formulation here is more tentative than the formulations o f m y previous conclusions. I have not succeeded in determining any way that Seder O l a m could conclude that the Persian world-monarchy lasted 52 years without previously con­ cluding that the second temple period lasted 420 years. (As is well know, these two bits o f data, which form the basis o f all rabbinic chronology as well as the count­ ing o f the years anno mundi [according to the creation o f the world] still in use in the Jewish world today, are radically different than the reconstructions accepted by present-day, as well as ancient, historians). Inasmuch as Seder Olam's statements about the Persian period are an integral part o f his chronological continuum and seem to belong to the earliest stratum o f the work, this earliest stratum must be post-destruction. If, however, it could be demonstrated that Seder Olam's conclu­ sion about 52 years o f Persian dominance were not predicated o n a 420-year dura­ tion for the second temple or that this datum is not part o f the earliest stratum o f Seder Olam, then it would be possible that the origin o f Seder O l a m precedes the destruction o f the temple. Seder Olam's chronology o f the Persian period is dis­ cussed at length in my commentary to Chapter 28, Appendix 2.

200

CHAIM MILIKOWSKY

the rabbinic corpus. R a b b i Y o s e was the transmitter o f this c o m ­ position, a n d to it he a d d e d his o w n c o m m e n t s . T h e s e c o m m e n t s , w h i c h were then formally attributed to R a b b i Y o s e , were inserted into the text o f Seder O l a m , a n d it c o n t i n u e d to b e transmitted through the course o f Jewish

history.

THE RECEPTION GREEK

OF JUDAISM BY T H E FATHERS

9

O N E CHRISTIAN

O F U S O R O N E O F

RECEPTION

O F PHILO

THEM?

T H EJ E W I N

EGYPT

DAVID T . RUNIA

1. Two papyrus codices and a snippet The

finds

that have b e e n m a d e

b y archaeologists in the land o f

Egypt during the past t w o centuries have b e e n m a n y a n d

spectac­

ular. But few have b e e n as remarkable as the find m a d e m o r e than a century a g o in the t o w n o f C o p t o s ( n o w Qift, a b o u t 6 0 0 k m south o f C a i r o ) , to b e precise in 1889. It is an intriguing story, so allow m e to give s o m e details.

1

W h i l e excavators w e r e e n g a g e d in u n c o v ­

ering a G r e c o - R o m a n h o u s e , it was n o t i c e d that o n e o f the walls gave a h o l l o w s o u n d w h e n tapped. W h e n it was carefully

opened

u p , a papyrus c o d e x b o u n d in leather was f o u n d in a niche w h i c h h a d clearly b e e n carefully p r e p a r e d for the p u r p o s e o f c o n c e a l i n g the b o o k .

2

W h e n e x a m i n e d , it was d i s c o v e r e d that the contents o f

the c o d e x w e r e t w o c o m p l e t e treatises o f Philo o f A l e x a n d r i a , is the Heir of Divine Things? a n d

Who

On the Sacrifices of Abel and Cain, in

that order. T h o u g h encrusted in salt crystals, the c o d e x was in excel­ lent shape. It consisted o f four quires o f papyrus sheets b o u n d together, forty-four in total, w h i c h yields a b o o k o f eighty-nine pages (the final sheet was stuck o n the binding). S o m e w h a t unusually, it h a d

1

two

I am indebted for this account to C . H . Roberts, Buried Books in Antiquity, Arundell Esdaile Memorial Lecture, 1962 (London, 1963), w h o based it o n Scheil's original report o f the find, (V. Scheil, "Deux traites de Philo OIAQNOX IIEPI TOY TIE O TQN 0EIQN EXTIN KAHPONOMOX H IIEPI THX EIX TA IXA KAI ENANTIA TOMHX OIAQNOZ IIEPI rENEXEQX ABEA KAI QN AYTOX TE KAI O AAEAOOX IEPOYPrOYXI'," Memoires pub lies par les membres de la Mission Archeologique Frangaise au Caire 9.2 [1893] iii-viii, 151-216 [plus 4 plates]). See also the description in J. van Haelst, Catalogue des Papyrus Litteraires Juifs et Chretiens (Paris, 1976), 251. As described in Roberts, Buried Books in Antiquity, 11. See, further, o n the story: T . C . Skeat, " T h e Oldest Manuscript o f the Four Gospels?" New Testament Studies 43 (1997), 24—25, w h o concludes: "although there is no reason to doubt the truth of the story, it must be taken, like all dealer's stories—in this case quite literally— cum grano salis." 2

204

DAVID T. RUNIA

c o l u m n s o f text o n e a c h p a g e (normally papyrus c o d i c e s o n l y h a d one).

T h i s was possible b e c a u s e , as c a n b e seen in the

illustra­

tion p r o u d e d b y the editor, the pages are almost square in size. T h e format indicates a b e t t e r - p r o d u c e d b o o k than the average. O n e is t e m p t e d to speak o f a deluxe edition. A c c o r d i n g to papyrologists the handwriting

o f the c o d e x points to a dating in the s e c o n d half o f

the third century.

3

T h e c o d e x ' s b i n d i n g has yet to b e m e n t i o n e d . A s

c a n b e seen in the illustration, the b o o k was b o u n d with a leather c o v e r w h i c h has b e e n beautifully preserved. T h e size c a n b e envis­ aged b y taking a v o l u m e from the L o e b Classical Library and increas­ ing its width b y half as m u c h again ( o f course the m o d e r n v o l u m e is m u c h thicker). It is clear that the b i n d i n g is quite different f r o m w h a t w e are used to. In m o d e r n terms it resembles a cross b e t w e e n a b i n d i n g a n d a p o u c h . T h e bindings o f s o m e o f the N a g H a m m a d i a n d B o d m e r c o d i c e s w e r e similar.

4

In terms o f the history o f the

b o o k , the Philo C o p t o s c o d e x is a remarkable find. T h e distinguished papyrologist C o l i n R o b e r t s has c l a i m e d that "it is b e y o n d reason­ able d o u b t the earliest b o u n d b o o k extant." Now

5

w e m a y b e certain that the author o f the contents o f the

c o d e x was Jewish, but was its o w n e r also Jewish? T h i s was almost certainly n o t the case. T h e r e are a n u m b e r o f reasons for this. In the first p l a c e the G r e e k text c o p i e d o u t in the c o d e x contains

a

n u m b e r o f abbreviated single w o r d s , such as 0 S (with a l o n g stripe a b o v e the t w o letters) for theos, KS for kyrios, YE for huios, UNA for 6

pneuma a n d so o n . T h e s e are examples o f the so-called nomina sacra, abbreviations used for sacred n a m e s a n d a limited n u m b e r o f other 7

c o m m o n terms. T h e y are characteristic o f Christian scribes. Jewish scribes did n o t use them. T h e writer w h o p r o d u c e d the c o d e x was therefore a Christian. It is very likely that its o w n e r was a Christian

3

There are some differences o f opinion on this issue; see V a n Haelst, Catalogue des Papyrus Litteraires Juifs et Chretiens, 251. See the illustrations in H . Blanck, Das Buch in der Antike, Beck's Archaologische Bibliothek (Munich, 1992), 8 9 - 9 1 . Roberts, Buried Books in Antiquity, 14. See the remarks o f C o h n in L. Cohn, P. Wendland, and S. Reiter, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, 6 vols. (Berlin, 1896—1915), l.xlii, based o n Scheil. Because they are specifically Christian and not Jewish, the origin o f these abbre­ viations has given rise to much discussion: see C . H . Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt, Schweich Lectures o f the British Academy 1977 (London, 1979), 2 6 - 4 8 ; H . Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church (New Haven, 1995), 70-74; L.W. Hurtado, " T h e Origin o f the Nomina Sacra: a Proposal," JBL 117 (1998), 6 5 5 - 6 7 3 . 4

5

6

7

CHRISTIAN RECEPTION OF PHILO THE JEW IN EGYPT

205

as well. T h e fact that the b o o k is a c o d e x also supports this c o n ­ clusion. It is well k n o w n that the early Christian c o m m u n i t y strongly supported the use o f c o d i c e s a n d p l a y e d a significant role in

the

transition f r o m the scroll to the c o d e x w h i c h was c o m p l e t e d b y the e n d o f the fourth

century.

8

T h e r e is another remarkable aspect o f the Philo c o d e x w h i c h surely clinches the question o f its o w n e r s h i p . In o r d e r to reinforce leather binding, strips o f previously used papyrus

the

h a d b e e n glued

o n t o it. W h e n r e m o v e d , these yielded three fragments o f a c o d e x o f the Gospels. T w o contain brief passages from the G o s p e l o f M a t t h e w , the other a substantial section f r o m the G o s p e l o f Luke. In a very recent study o f these fragments

it has b e e n argued that the

codex

f r o m w h i c h they derive "has a very g o o d claim to b e regarded as the oldest k n o w n c o d e x o f the four G o s p e l s . "

9

W h y then was the c o d e x h i d d e n ? T h e fact that the o w n e r was a Christian furnishes us with a vital clue. B o o k s are h i d d e n for at least t w o reasons, w h i c h in s o m e circumstances m a y b e interconnected: because their owners regard t h e m as p r e c i o u s a n d d o n o t w a n t t h e m to b e destroyed, o r b e c a u s e they d o n o t w a n t to b e caught

with

t h e m in their possession. T h e s e t w o reasons also apply to other secret storages o f b o o k s , such as the Q u m r a n scrolls and the N a g H a m m a d i c o d i c e s . T h e hypothesis p u t forward b y C o l i n R o b e r t s o n the basis o f the dating o f the c o d e x to the s e c o n d half o f the third century seems to m e very p l a u s i b l e .

10

H e argues that the o w n e r m a y have

b e e n the victim o f the final w a v e o f persecutions carried o u t in n a m e o f the E m p e r o r D i o c l e t i a n , w h i c h t o o k p l a c e just before the triumph o f the C h u r c h in 312 and was later k n o w n as the Great Persecution.

11

T h e o w n e r k n e w that that the b o o k w o u l d identify h i m as a Christian, a n d so he hid it. T h e fact that it was n o t later r e c o v e r e d must m a k e us fear the worst for his fate. Briefly I should also m e n t i o n t w o other Philonic papyri.

Some

years later a s e c o n d Philonic c o d e x was d i s c o v e r e d in the t o w n o f Oxyrhynchus midway between Coptos and

8

the

Nile Delta.

The

See further C.H. Roberts and T . C . Skeat, The Birth of the Codex (Oxford, 1983); A. Blanchard, ed., Les debuts du Codex, Bibliologica 9 (Turnhout, 1989). T . C . Skeat, " T h e Oldest Manuscript o f the Four Gospels?" 30. H e argues for the hypothesis that P4, P64 and 67 all come from the same codex. Roberts, Buried Books in Antiquity, 13. This persecution was more severe in Egypt than elsewhere; for the destruc­ tion o f Coptos at the hands o f Galerius in 2 9 3 / 4 , cf. A . K . Boardman, Egypt after the Pharaohs 332 B.C.-A.D. 642 (Berkeley, C A , 1986) 44. 9

10

11

206

DAVID T. RUNIA

surviving remains—fifteen

folios (folded single sheets) a n d five frag­

m e n t s — a l l o w the original contents to b e reconstructed with a rea­ sonable measure o f a c c u r a c y .

12

It must have a m u c h larger

codex,

consisting o f nearly 4 0 0 pages and containing the c o m p l e t e text o f at least seven Philonic treatises, all (or almost all) b e l o n g i n g to the Allegorical C o m m e n t a r y .

T h e text is written in a single c o l u m n ,

w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d s to the m o r e usual m e t h o d o f p r o d u c i n g a c o d e x . T h i s c o d e x t o o contains the characteristic nomina sacra o f a Christian c o d e x , a n d is also to b e dated to the third century ( p r o b a b l y the second half).

13

T h e third papyrus is quite different f r o m the other t w o . It c o n ­ sists o f a m e r e snippet, a p i e c e o f papyrus measuring n o m o r e than 12 b y 6.3 c m . W e have n o idea w h e r e it c a m e f r o m o r h o w it f o u n d its w a y to Berlin. It was o n l y published five years a g o , w h e n it was identified as containing a few lines f r o m Philo's allegorical treatise 14

On the Unchangeability of God.

E v e n t h o u g h it is so tiny, w e c a n still

b e pretty sure that it is a Christian papyrus. Because it is written o n b o t h sides, it must c o m e from a c o d e x , a n d despite its negligi­ ble length, it t o o contains a nomen sacrum ( 0 Z for theos in the b o t t o m line v e r s o ) . T h e publisher

o f the

fragment

dates it to the

seventh century, but it is very likely to b e earlier.

sixth-

15

2. Our subject and program On

the basis o f w h a t w e have so far discussed the following m a y

b e c o n c l u d e d . In provincial Egypt, at a considerable r e m o v e f r o m

12

For a listing o f the fragments, published in five different places, see V a n Haelst, Catalogue des Papyrus Litteraires Juifs et Chretiens, 25 If. I follow the reconstruction o f J.R. Royse ("The Oxyrhynchus Papyrus o f Philo," Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 17 [1980], 155-165), w h o postulates the following contents: De sacrificiis, Legum allegoriae I—II, De pietate, De ebrietate I—II, De posteritate, Quod deterius. O f these works only De pietate may have fallen outside the Allegorical Commentary. Royse thinks it was part o f De virtutihus, i.e. belonging to the Exposition o f the Law; but see my comments in "Underneath Cohn and Colson: T h e Text o f Philo's De Virtutibus," Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 30 (1991), 131 f., (reprint, Runia, Philo and the Church Fathers, [Leiden, 1995] 98-100). Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 32 See the comments o f Hunt at P.Oxy. 9.1173, = vol. 9 (1912), 16-17. W . Brashear, "Literary and Sub-Literary Papyri from Berlin," in A . BiilowJacobsen, ed., Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists, Copenhagen, 23-29 August, 1992 (Copenhagen, 1994); the identification was made by R . Daniel. M y colleague, the papyrologist Arthur Verhoogt, kindly informs me that it is 13

14

15

CHRISTIAN RECEPTION OF PHILO THE JEW IN EGYPT the m e t r o p o l i s o f A l e x a n d r i a , texts o f a Jewish

207

author w e r e pur­

chased a n d o w n e d b y Christians. W e k n o w n o t h i n g a b o u t these p e o ­ ple, but in the o n e case the b o o k must have been a precious possession. Philo's writings survived because they w e r e preserved b y the Christian c o m m u n i t y . A son o f S h e m f o u n d favor in the eyes o f the sons o f J a p h e t h , a n d this c o m p e n s a t e d for the fact that h e h a d lost it in the eyes o f his o w n p e o p l e . But these sons o f J a p h e t h w e r e

different

from the ones that Philo a n d his compatriots h a d k n o w n . T h e y did n o t regard the biblical tradition as foreign a n d bizarre, b u t rather regarded themselves as its heirs, the n e w Israel. T h e sons o f S h e m o f their o w n time had, in their view, given u p their birthright. All the m o r e strange, it might seem, that they apparentiy w e n t to so m u c h trouble to preserve the writings o f the J e w Philo. T h e subject o f this article is part o f the b r o a d e r t h e m e

o f the

reception o f Philo's thought a n d writings in the Christian tradition,

16

n a m e l y the reception that Philo the J e w e n j o y e d in Christian Egypt. T h i s t h e m e allows us to p l a c e the e v i d e n c e o f the Philonic papyri w h i c h has just b e e n e x a m i n e d in a b r o a d e r perspective. T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , a m i n o r c o m p l i c a t i o n in relation to the b r o a d e r theme o f o u r c o n f e r e n c e . A r e there in fact tents o f J a p h e t h in Egypt at all? T h e case o f A l e x a n d r i a is e x c e p t i o n a l . A s a M a c e d o n i a n

colony,

w h o s e citizen b o d y was emphatically G r e e k , it was hardly consid­ ered Egyptian at all, as is indicated b y the fact that in the

ancient

w o r l d it was described as A l e x a n d r i a ad Aegyptum a n d n o t in Aegypto. F o r this reason

Philo c a n b e said to have dwelt in the

J a p h e t h . But E g y p t p r o p e r , a n d

tents o f

especially its southern part,

has

always b e e n associated in the biblical tradition with the third son o f Noah, Ham.

1 7

S o o u r t h e m e has to b e slightiy r e w o r d e d : w e shall

e m b a r k o n an examination o f h o w a famous son o f S h e m fared in b o t h the

tents o f J a p h e t h a n d

of Ham

in the

centuries

after

his

death.

very difficult to date literary hands exactly, and the papyrus may well belong to the 3rd or 4th century. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum III 3 (Assen-Minneapolis, 1993); see also Runia, Philo and the Church Fathers: a Collection of Papers. Cf. Ps 77:51 ( L X X ) , " A n d he smote every first-born in Egypt, first fruit o f their labors in the tents o f Ham," and the discussion by E. Isaac in the Anchor Bible Dictionary 3.31. 16

17

208

DAVID T. RUNIA

M y p r o g r a m for the rest o f the p a p e r falls into four parts. First I will give a brief a c c o u n t o f Philo's survival in Egypt. T h i s story will b e told at a rather general level. Thereafter I will shift m y atten­ tion to t w o specific test-cases o f fourth-century

Egyptian Christians

w h o w e r e well acquainted with Philo's writings a n d m a k e reference to h i m in their writings, beginning with D i d y m u s o f Alexandria, a n d then turning to Isidore o f Pelusium. Finally I will d r a w s o m e c o n ­ clusions a n d return to the papyri with w h i c h w e b e g a n . T h r o u g h o u t o u r focus will b e o n Philo's status as a J e w in a Christian

environ­

ment. W a s he regarded as " o n e o f us," an insider w h o h a d b e e n a d o p t e d into the Christian

fold a n d c o u l d even b e regarded as a

Christian, o r was he still thought o f as " o n e o f t h e m , " an outsider w h o was a representative

o f a rival religion? A s w e try to reach an

answer o n this question, w e shall have to take into a c c o u n t the fate o f J e w r y a n d J u d a i s m in Egypt in the first centuries o f o u r era. It will e m e r g e in o u r investigations that direct c o n n e c t i o n s c a n b e m a d e b e t w e e n Philo's career in Egyptian Christianity a n d the varying for­ tunes o f the Jewish communities in Egypt during the same p e r i o d .

3. The story of Philo's survival in Egypt: three strands First, therefore, w e turn to the story o f Philo's reception a n d sur­ vival in Christian Egypt. It is a story that in fact consists o f three separate strands. T h o u g h interconnected, they are best told apart. T h e first strand is the legend o f Philo Christianus. F r o m the sec­ o n d century o n w a r d s the c h u r c h o f Alexandria a n d its b i s h o p w e r e i m m e n s e l y powerful and influential. Y e t , because it is n o w h e r e m e n ­ tioned in the N e w Testament o r early Christian d o c u m e n t s , the ori­ gins o f the c h u r c h were unacceptably o b s c u r e . In his Ecclestiastical History Eusebius fills in the missing gaps b y reporting the story that the c h u r c h was f o u n d e d b y M a r k , the evangelist a n d disciple o f the apostle Peter.

18

T h e J e w Philo has an important role to play in this

story. D u r i n g his embassy in R o m e he is r e c o r d e d as having m e t the a p o s d e Peter. M o r e o v e r his writings offer e v i d e n c e a b o u t

the

first Egyptian Christians. Famously Eusebius interprets Philo's a c c o u n t o f the T h e r a p e u t a e

Eusebius HE 2 . 4 - 5 .

in his De vita contemplativa as describing early

CHRISTIAN RECEPTION OF PHILO THE JEW IN EGYPT Christians w h o are already living a kind o f ascetic life in

209 anticipa­

tion o f the m o n a s t i c life that was to flourish in Egypt in later c e n ­ turies.

19

Later authors d e v e l o p the theme further. A c c o r d i n g to J e r o m e ,

Peter a n d Philo f o r m e d a friendship, a n d this was the reason that Philo was so laudatory a b o u t M a r k ' s followers in A l e x a n d r i a . Epiphanius reports that Philo p a i d a visit to the c o m m u n i t y o f Christians at Lake M a r e o t i s , was given lodgings a n d participated in their Easter celebrations.

20

T h e s e a c c o u n t s f o r m part o f the l e g e n d o f Philo

Christianus.

21

Philo was a c o n t e m p o r a r y o f the Aposties. H e h a d contact with s o m e o f them, was sympathetic to the early Christian m o v e m e n t , and m a y have even b e e n c o n v e r t e d to Christianity.

22

T h e origins o f this leg­

e n d p r i o r to Eusebius are o b s c u r e , but there are indications that it h a d an A l e x a n d r i a n origin a n d m a y have b e e n p r o p a g a t e d in a lost work o f Clement o f Alexandria.

23

Its significance should certainly n o t

be exaggerated. M o s t Christian intellectuals must have b e e n aware o f the fact that Philo was a J e w a n d that he was a witness to events that o c c u r r e d at the beginnings o f the Christian c h u r c h rather than 24

a convert.

A l t h o u g h later b i o g r a p h i c a l sources c o n t i n u e to tell the

story into Byzantine times, I d o n o t k n o w o f any d o c u m e n t in w h i c h the Alexandrian c h u r c h actually claims Philo for its o w n . Nevertheless the very circulation o f the l e g e n d must have h e l p e d to give this par­ ticular J e w a favorable position in Christian tradition, b o t h in Egypt a n d elsewhere. It was a position w h i c h was n o t available to J e w s in the s e c o n d century a n d later. The

s e c o n d strand o f o u r a c c o u n t is the story o f the survival o f

Philo's writings. T h e r e is n o t h i n g legendary a b o u t this. Philo's writ­ ings did for the m o s t part survive.

19

25

W e have nearly fifty o f them, a

Eusebius HE 2.16-18. Jerome, De vir. ill. 8, 11; Epiphanius Adv. Haer. 1.29.5. For a full account see Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 3—7; the relevant texts are found in "Testimonia de Philone," in Filone di Alessandria nella prima letteratura cristiana: Uno studio d'insieme, a cura di R. Radice, eds. D . T . Runia and R . Radice (Milan, 1999), 3 6 5 - 4 4 5 . For an account o f Didymus' use o f Philo, see Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 197-204. This is found in its most extreme form in the story o f Philo and John the Evangelist in Ps.Prochorus, Acta Johannis 110-112, ed. T . Zahn (Erlangen, 1880); cf. also Photius Bibl. 103. As I argue at Philo in Early Christian Literature, 7 against J.E. Bruns ("Philo Christianus: the Debris o f a Legend," HThR 66 [1973], 141-145.) Eusebius is careful to make this clear. For a fuller account, see Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 16-31 (with 2 0

21

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

210

DAVID T. RUNIA

vast c o r p u s available to us in the original G r e e k , o r in

Armenian

a n d Latin translations. It is well k n o w n that these works survived because Christians regarded t h e m as useful a n d t o o k the trouble to ensure that they w e r e preserved. T h i s process o f reception a n d trans­ mission is usually associated with the Episcopal Library o f Caesarea. W e m a y b e certain that all the Philonic writings w e still possess w e r e present in that library. It is very p r o b a b l e that they w e r e derived f r o m copies taken there b y O r i g e n , w h e n he m o v e d from A l e x a n d r i a to Caesarea in 233 C . E . A famous manuscript, n o w located in V i e n n a , records the fact that the fourth-century b i s h o p Euzoius h a d the works o f Philo transferred to durable p a r c h m e n t

codices.

26

T h i s was

the

basis for the Byzantine textual tradition, o n w h i c h o u r critical edi­ tions are based. But it w o u l d b e a mistake to c o n c l u d e that the role o f A l e x a n d r i a a n d E g y p t in this process o f reception a n d transmission was limited. In the first p l a c e there is the crucial aspect o f the original rescue o f Philo's writings. Unfortunately this rescue is s h r o u d e d in mystery. It is n o t a matter o f accident that the entire b o d y o f Jewish-Hellenistic literature, w h i c h must have b e e n very substantial, has vanished almost without

trace. A l r e a d y in Philo's time the J e w i s h

A l e x a n d r i a a n d the rest o f Egypt was u n d e r

community

in

considerable political

threat. After Philo's death the situation gradually w o r s e n e d a n d c a m e to a h e a d in the Jewish revolt o f 1 1 5 - 1 1 7 C . E . , in w h i c h thousands o f J e w s w e r e killed. T h e s e tragic events caused the Jewish c o m m u ­ nities in E g y p t to fall into m a r k e d

decline, from w h i c h they o n l y

gradually r e c o v e r e d during the following centuries. It must b e imag­ ined that Philo's library a n d the holdings o f the s c h o o l o r s y n a g o g u e with w h i c h he was associated w e r e destroyed. It is apparent that s o m e o n e , o r s o m e institution, m a d e a very deliberate effort to res­ cue the Philonic c o r p u s f r o m the disaster just m e n t i o n e d . It is very likely that this rescue mission was carried

o u t b y Pantaenus

and

other m e m b e r s o f the A l e x a n d r i a n c h u r c h w h o w e r e associated with

schematic diagram on p . 18); and concentrating on the role o f the Caesarean library, see Runia, "Caesarea Maritima and the Survival o f Hellenistic Jewish Literature," in A. Raban and K . G . Holum, eds., Caesarea Maritima: a Retrospective after Two Millennia, Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 21 (Leiden, 1996), 4 7 6 - 9 5 . T h e famous cross in C o d . Vind. Theoi. Gr. 29; see the illustration at Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 21. T h e same fact is mentioned by Jerome in his biographical notice on Euzoius, De vir. illus. 113. 2 6

CHRISTIAN RECEPTION OF PHILO THE JEW IN EGYPT the so-called Catechetical s c h o o l .

27

211

T h e first Christian w h o explicitly

names Philo a n d makes extensive use o f his writings was a p r o m i ­ nent m e m b e r o f this s c h o o l , C l e m e n t , w h o w o r k e d in A l e x a n d r i a from a b o u t 175 to 2 0 0 C . E . F r o m this g r o u p o f c o m m i t t e d Christian exegetes a n d theologians the trail leads, via O r i g e n , to Caesarea. In the s e c o n d p l a c e there is the d a n g e r o f what m i g h t b e called Pan-Caesareanism.

W h e n evaluating the text o f the C o p t u s c o d e x ,

the editors o f Philo, C o h n a n d W e n d l a n d , n o t e d that it deviated lit­ tle f r o m the text as transmitted t h o u g h the manuscript tradition

and

c o n c l u d e d that the c o d e x itself must have b e e n p r o d u c e d b y a scrip­ torium in C a e s a r e a .

28

But this is surely an implausible hypothesis.

T h e r e is n o n e e d to suppose that all Philonic texts in later anti­ quity c a m e f r o m Caesarea, a n d certainly n o t those that w e r e in cir­ culation in southern E g y p t o n l y fifty years after O r i g e n ' s death.

It

is m u c h m o r e likely that copies continued to b e p r o d u c e d in Alexandria for m a n y years and that interested Egypt w e r e supplied f r o m t h e r e . For

Christians in the r e m a i n d e r o f

29

the third strand o f o u r story w e turn to the reception that

Philo's thought

e n j o y e d in A l e x a n d r i a n

and Egyptian

Christianity

and the i m p a c t that it m a d e o n its exegesis a n d t h e o l o g y . T h i s theme is far t o o large to deal with in a few paragraphs.

M o r e o v e r it is

m o r e closely e x a m i n e d in the chapter contributed b y A n n e w i e s van d e n H o e k . S o all I shall d o is briefly sketch a few m a j o r lines o f development. The

30

story starts in the s e c o n d century. A l t h o u g h it m a y b e sup­

p o s e d that Philo's a m a l g a m o f biblical exegesis a n d Platonism w o u l d

27

T h e hypothesis o f D . Barthelemy, "Est-ce Hoshaya R a b b a qui censura le 'Commentaire Allegorique'? A partir des retouches faites aux citations bibliques, etude sur la tradition textuelle du Commentaire Allegorique de Philon," in Philon d'Alexandrie. Lyon 11-15 Septembre, 1966 (Paris: C N R S , 1967), 4 5 - 7 8 . O n Philo and the Christian school of Alexandria, see further: A. V a n den Hoek, "The 'Catechetical' School o f Early Christian Alexandria and Its Philonic Heritage," HThR 90 (1997), 59-87. L. Cohn, P. Wendland, and S. Reiter, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, (Berlin, 1896-1915), l.xlix. Cf. T . C . Skeat, " T h e Oldest Manuscript o f the Four Gospels?", 25: "the over­ whelming probability must be that a manuscript written in Egypt was written in that country." O n the distribution o f books in Egypt see R.S. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity (Princeton, 1993), 102-105. I am in effect summarizing chapters 7 to 11 o f Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature] 28

2 9

30

DAVID T. RUNIA

212

have a p p e a l e d to the Christian

G n o s t i c teachers in s e c o n d century

A l e x a n d r i a such as Basilides and Valentinus, there is n o c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e to p r o v e decisively that they w e r e acquainted with h i m . A s w e just saw, the first Christian writer to m e n t i o n Philo is C l e m e n t . B y m o d e r n standards his extensive but scarcely a c k n o w l e d g e d use o f Philo w o u l d b e regarded as plagiarism. C l e m e n t appears to have lit­ tle o r n o c o n t a c t with c o n t e m p o r a r y J e w s .

31

J u d a i s m is for h i m pri­

marily a theological position. Philo is r e g a r d e d as a valuable source for a p o l o g e t i c purposes, defending the antiquity o f the J e w s

against

p a g a n detractors. A t the same time he also furnishes useful exeget­ ical material, especially in his allegorical c o m m e n t a r i e s . O r i g e n c o n ­ tinues this tradition o f quiet appropriation. H e o n l y mentions Philo three times b y n a m e in all his surviving works, but n u m e r o u s Philonic themes a n d exegetical techniques are a b s o r b e d in such a w a y that from this time o n w a r d s they b e c o m e part o f the Christian

tradition.

O r i g e n appears to have had m o r e contact with c o n t e m p o r a r y Judaism than C l e m e n t , but m o s t o f these contacts p r o b a b l y o c c u r r e d his m o v e to C a e s a r e a .

32

after

In the fourth century this A l e x a n d r i a n tra­

dition is c o n t i n u e d b y D i d y m u s the Blind. B y this time, h o w e v e r , d o g m a t i c controversy was starting to take over from exegesis and apologetics as the chief activity o f Alexandrian theologians. T h e fourth century in Egypt is d o m i n a t e d b y the strug­ gle between Arianism and N i c e n e o r t h o d o x y , the former set in m o t i o n b y the A l e x a n d r i a n priest Arius, the latter c h a m p i o n e d b y the p u g n a ­ cious b i s h o p o f the same c h u r c h , Athanasius. It is n o t easy to give both

figures

a secure p l a c e in o u r a c c o u n t . T h e writings o f Arius

have n o t survived, so it is h a r d to tell w h a t Philo m i g h t have m e a n t for h i m . R o w a n Williams, in his superb b o o k o n A r i u s ,

33

argues that

Philo c a n help us understand h i m , because w h a t he in fact d o e s is attempt to cut through the G o r d i a n knot o f A l e x a n d r i a n t h e o l o g y , w h i c h resulted

31

w h e n p r e d e c e s s o r s such as C l e m e n t a n d

Origen

As noted by R . V a n den Broek, "Juden und Christen in Alexandrien im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert," in J. van Amersfoort and J. van Oort, eds., Juden und Christen in der Antike (Kampen, 1990), 111. Jerome's statement at C. Ruf. 1.13, cited by C . Haas, (Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict [Baltimore, 1997], 105), is too vague. See the monograph o f N . R . M . de Lange, Origen and the Jews: Studies in JewishChristian Relations in Third-Century Palestine, University o f Cambridge Oriental Publications 25 (Cambridge, 1976). R . Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (London, 1987). 32

33

CHRISTIAN RECEPTION OF PHILO THE JEW IN EGYPT unreflectingly

t o o k o v e r assumptions

case o f Athanasius

o f Philonic t h o u g h t .

213 34

In

the

w e d o have an extensive c o r p u s c o v e r i n g four

weighty t o m e s o f M i g n e . Philo's n a m e never appears. Athanasius is persistently

hostile to J u d a i s m as a theological position, because it

denies b o t h the incarnation

o f G o d a n d the doctrine o f the trinity.

It is difficult to imagine Athanasius b e l o n g i n g to those c h u r c h fathers w h o w e r e p r e p a r e d to see Philo as a Christian avant la lettreP V a r i o u s kinds o f evidence—literary, p a p y r o l o g i c a l a n d

epigraphi-

c a l — p o i n t to a m a r k e d revival o f the fortunes o f Jewish c o m m u n i ­ ties in A l e x a n d r i a a n d elsewhere in E g y p t during the fourth

century.

J e w s and Christians shared m a n y attitudes, but, as Christopher H a a s has perceptively noted, the very p r o x i m i t y o f their i d e o l o g y c o u l d easily exacerbate the differences b e t w e e n t h e m c o m m u n i t i e s into c o n f l i c t .

36

a n d bring the

two

T h e p o w e r - h u n g r y y o u n g b i s h o p Cyril

continues the theological anti-Judaism o f Athanasius, but n o w feels the n e e d to make it a pretext for direct political action, leading to the dreadful anti-Jewish riots o f A l e x a n d r i a in 414—415. Cyril writes m u c h m o r e than his predecessor. N o less than ten M i g n e v o l u m e s are required for all his works. T h o u g h his exegesis reveals traces o f Philonic i n f l u e n c e , Philo.

38

37

he t o o makes n o t a single reference to the J e w

T h i s is n o t the

case for o n e o f Cyril's c o r r e s p o n d e n t s ,

a

priest n a m e d Isidore stationed in the t o w n o f Pelusium, with w h o m w e will shortly make better

acquaintance.

After this, f r o m the fifth century o n w a r d s , the e v i d e n c e o f Philo's presence in Egyptian Christianity tapers off. W e m a y b e sure that he c o n t i n u e d to b e read. In the early sixth century t w o who

brothers,

b o t h studied in Alexandria, furnish e v i d e n c e that they read

least s o m e o f his writings

(or extracts f r o m t h e m ) . Z a c h a r i a s

39

at of

M y t i l e n e records material f r o m Philo o n the question o f the eternity o f the c o s m o s . P r o c o p i u s o f G a z a , w h e n c o m p i l i n g a

commentary

o f the O c t a t e u c h , quotes Philonic material extensively, t h o u g h never

3 4

R . Williams, Arius, 124, cited in Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 193. As I argue in Philo in Early Christian Literature, 196. Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiquity, 123. Cf. F. Petit, "La Chaine grecque sur la Genese, miroir de l'exegese ancienne," in G . Schollgen and C . Scholten, eds., Stimuli. Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum: Festschrift fur Ernst Dassmann, Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum Erganzungsband 23 (Munich, 1996), 247. I have checked this on the T L G E C D - R O M . T h e family relation is not entirely certain. O n Zacharias and Procopius and their use o f Philo see further Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 210. 35

3 6

37

3 8

3 9

214

DAVID T. RUNIA

citing h i m b y n a m e . A century later the glorious p e r i o d o f Egyptian Christianity c

c o m e s to an abrupt end, w h e n the M u s l i m c o n q u e r o r

A m r ibn a l - A s entered Alexandria and raised the flag o f M u h a m m a d

a b o v e its walls. T o m y k n o w l e d g e Philo plays n o role whatsoever in C o p t i c Christianity,

40

but I w o u l d b e delighted to b e c o r r e c t e d o n

this point. T h e great medieval Jewish p h i l o s o p h e r M a i m o n i d e s spent m o s t o f his life living a n d w o r k i n g in Egypt. H e w o u l d have surely b e e n fascinated with Philo's writings a n d thought, if he h a d

come

across t h e m , but there is n o t the faintest p i e c e e v i d e n c e to suggest that he h a d e v e n heard o f his distant Jewish-Egyptian predecessor.

4. Didymus the blind T h e a c c o u n t I have just given o f Philo's fortunes in Egypt has o p e r ­ ated at a high level o f generality. In o r d e r to focus m o r e closely o n o u r t h e m e , it will b e a g o o d idea n o w to take a close l o o k at t w o fourth-century

Christians w h o b o t h m e n t i o n Philo quite often

and

have clearly m a d e detailed study o f his writings. W h a t was their atti­ tude to Philo: was he " o n e o f us" o r " o n e o f t h e m ? " Until just o v e r fifty years a g o , D i d y m u s the blind was a relatively o b s c u r e figure a m o n g the c h u r c h fathers. h i m in the ecclestiastical historians 41

Men.

Chapters

are d e v o t e d to

and in J e r o m e ' s Lives of Famous

O n e gets the impression that he was regarded as a kind o f

cult figure. T h o u g h b l i n d — h e lost his sight b e f o r e he r e a c h e d

the

age o f p r i m a r y s c h o o l — h e nevertheless was able to follow the

full

course o f literary, mathematical, p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d theological stud­ ies, b e c o m i n g o n e o f the m o s t distinguished theologians o f his time. T h e s e a c c o u n t s m e n t i o n a great n u m b e r o f writings, b u t almost all h a d b e e n lost. T h e n , all o f a sudden in 1 9 4 1 , another papyrus

find

spectacular

at T o u r a (just south o f C a i r o ) b r o u g h t to light

the

extensive remains o f five biblical c o m m e n t a r i e s , c o n t a i n i n g in total m o r e than 2 0 0 0 pages o f text. T h e s e have n o w all b e e n p u b l i s h e d . W e c a n thus read for ourselves the exegesis o f D i d y m u s , a n d

4 0

42

can

T h e brief article on Philo by W . H . C . Frend in the Coptic Encyclopedia, ed. A . S . Atiya (New York, 1991), 6.1956-58, makes no mention o f any influence on the Coptic Church. Socrates HE 4.24, Sozomen HE 3.15, Jerome De vir. ill. 109. For an up-to-date overview o f the transmission and publication o f all Didymus' writings, see n o w Biblia Patristica vol. 7 (Paris, 2000), 13—43. 4 1

4 2

CHRISTIAN RECEPTION OF PHILO THE JEW IN EGYPT confirm

that he stands in the tradition

o f the great

215

Alexandrian

exegetes C l e m e n t a n d O r i g e n . D i d y m u s m a y b e regarded as the last great representative

o f the A l e x a n d r i a n s c h o o l .

43

Until the T o u r a find, there was n o indication that D i d y m u s was acquainted with the writings a n d thought o f Philo. But in the texts that w e n o w have he refers to Philo explicitiy o r implicitiy o n eight occasions,

44

the tradition

and it has b e c o m e clear h o w d e e p l y he is i n d e b t e d to o f Christian

A l e x a n d r i a n exegesis w h i c h in so m a n y

respects built o n the foundations laid b y Philo. W h a t interests us m o s t in o u r present c o n t e x t is the w a y that D i d y m u s refers to Philo a n d the attitude that c a n b e discerned b e h i n d his w o r d s with regard to his Jewishness. Let us l o o k at a few o f these texts. The

majority o f the references are to b e f o u n d , as m i g h t b e ex­

p e c t e d , in the Commentary on Genesis. W h e n e x p o u n d i n g the birth o f C a i n a n d A b e l in G e n 4 : 1 - 2 , D i d y m u s writes ( 1 1 8 . 2 4 - 1 1 9 . 5 Nautin): "And she [Eve] added to give birth to the brother o f Cain, Abel (Gen 4:2)." Philo wishes them to be twins from the same conception. That is why, he says, to the words "she gave birth to Cain" are attached the words "she added to give birth to his brother Abel." Whether he is right or not is for the reader to examine and judge. It is possible that they were born separately at different times . . . What Philo has said in his allegory on this passage will be known to the lover o f learn­ ing ((^ikoKaXoq), but nevertheless we must expound it as best we can. The soul, when it tumbles into oversight and failure, gives birth to a wicked progeny . . . A s it happens w e c a n n o t find this explanation in o u r extant Philonic c o r p u s . It is consistent with Philo's views elsewhere, a n d D i d y m u s states it with such c o n f i d e n c e that w e m a y surmise that it is derived from a lost w o r k .

45

H e then goes o n to explain the difference between

the professions o f the t w o brothers

(119.15-23):

In the matter o f birth Scripture has placed Cain first, since the chrono­ logy requires this, but in their professions it gives first place to the righteous one. The occupation o f Abel is more noble and honorable than that o f Cain, for ensouled creatures differ from what is soulless

4 3

There is n o comprehensive modern monograph on Didymus. Listed at Runia, Philo and Church Fathers, 231; texts at Radice-Runia, "Testimonia de Philone," 396-99. For an account o f Didymus' use o f Philo, see Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 197—204. As argued b y J . R . Royse, "Cain's Expulsion from Paradise: the Text o f Philo's Congr. 171," JQR 79 (1989), 223-225. 4 4

45

216

DAVID T. RUNIA

in the order o f nature. And Philo rightly stated that those who are to take command over others and themselves should first be educated in the art o f the shepherd. But Cain was not described as a "farmer" (yecopyoc;), but as "working the earth" (Gen 4:2). For he was not noble in the manner o f Noah, who is called "farmer" (Gen 9:20) and not "worker" (epyaxern;). In the c o m m e n t s o n the t w o professions w e r e c o g n i z e t w o exegeti­ cal themes that are p r o m i n e n t in Philo's De sacrificiis a n d De agricul­ tural

F o r the former Philo is explicitiy m e n t i o n e d again, for the

latter the source is not given, but it certainly c o m e s f r o m Philo. A few pages later Philo is twice m e n t i o n e d as a valuable source for the interpretation o f biblical n u m b e r s

a n d names ( 1 3 9 . 1 0 - 1 4 ,

147.15-18): If one wishes to give the passage (Gen 4:18) an anagogic interpreta­ tion, one should take one's start from the interpretation o f the names, making sure to do this without pedantry (\|/uxpo^oy£iv). Philo has given an explanation of these matters, which the lover o f learning (
Esp. Sacr. 5 0 - 5 1 , Agr. 1-7.

CHRISTIAN RECEPTION OF PHILO THE JEW IN EGYPT

217

ing to the letter or apart from the preliminary training o f the intro­ ductory studies . . . D i d y m u s , it seems, wants to have it b o t h ways. T h e

interpretation

o f Paul in Galatians in terms o f f r e e d o m a n d slavery has c a n o n i c a l authority a n d must n o t b e neglected. It is clear, h o w e v e r , that he in fact prefers the Philonic interpretation in w h i c h Sarah

represents

perfect virtue a n d H a g a r the preliminary stage o n the path towards it. T h e same interpretation is also f o u n d in D i d y m u s ' Commentary on Ecclesiastes, w h e r e he again explicitly refers to Philo a n d again shows a strong attachment to the Philonic interpretation.

47

W h a t d o these texts tell us a b o u t D i d y m u s ' attitude to Philo's Jewishness? It is perhaps indicative that o n every o c c a s i o n that he refers to Philo, he simply n a m e s h i m a n d does n o t a d d an epithet indicating that he is a J e w o r a H e b r e w .

4 8

O n o n e o c c a s i o n he is

a n o n y m o u s l y described as " o n e o f the sages e n g a g e d in M o s a i c learn­ ing."

49

T h i s phrase does n o t necessarily refer to a J e w ; it c o u l d also

b e applied to a Christian exegete. It looks very m u c h as if D i d y m u s assumes that Philo has b e e n a b s o r b e d b y the Christian c o m m u n i t y a n d is r e g a r d e d as " o n e o f us," a valued m e m b e r o f the

anterior

exegetical tradition, w h o s e Jewishness is in fact quite irrelevant. A c c o r d i n g to o u r sources D i d y m u s was a loyal supporter o f N i c e n e o r t h o d o x y . H e was n o t a great polemicist. W e k n o w that he w r o t e works against the M a n i c h e a n s a n d against Christian heretics, but n o anti-Jewish writings have b e e n r e c o r d e d .

50

Nevertheless he remains

a child o f his time a n d his situation. T h e r e are n u m e r o u s references to J e w s a n d J u d a i s m in his writings. H e often alludes to the J e w s ' rejection o f Jesus during his lifetime, a n d also to J u d a i s m as a t h e o ­ logical position. T h e J e w s read the Scriptures a c c o r d i n g to the let­ ter a n d n o t a c c o r d i n g to its spirit. T h i s c a n obviously n o t b e said o f the spiritual Philo. B y w a y o f contrast, it is instructive to observe how

47

D i d y m u s refers to the other great Jewish writer w h o w r o t e in

Comm. in Eccl 275-276; on this text see A. Henrichs "Philosophy, the Handmaiden of Theology," Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 9 (1968), 437—450. For a detailed analysis o f the use o f epithets in connection with Philo see Runia, "Philonic Nomenclature," SPhA 6 (1994) 1-27 (= Runia, Philo and the Church Fathers, 25-53). Comm. in %acch. 320.6-9. There is no treatment of Didymus in the comprehensive account of Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (l.—ll.Jh.), Europaische Hochschulschriften Reihe X X I I I , Band 172 (Frankfurt-Bern, 1982). 4 8

49

5 0

218

DAVID T. RUNIA

G r e e k , Josephus.

O n t w o occasions he cites h i m a n d calls h i m

"a

certain Jewish writer o f history," w h o records the disasters that befell the J e w s

after J e s u s ' death a n d

thus vividly illustrates h o w G o d

rejected t h e m o n a c c o u n t o f their w r o n g d o i n g s .

51

T h e contrast with

D i d y m u s ' use o f Philo is clear. In his case there is n o n e e d to stress his Jewishness. Effectively he has b e c o m e " o n e o f us."

5. Isidore of Pelusium T h e s e c o n d C h u r c h Father w h o m I w a n t to l o o k at in a little m o r e detail is less w e l l k n o w n . H e is the priest a n d Pelusium, w h o lived f r o m a b o u t 365 to 4 3 5 .

5 2

m o n k Isidore o f

His life thus partially

overlaps with that o f D i d y m u s , but he is a b o u t fifty years y o u n g e r . H e m a y well have m e t D i d y m u s while studying in A l e x a n d r i a in his y o u t h , b u t there is n o direct e v i d e n c e to c o n f i r m this.

53

Isidore was

priest o f the c h u r c h o f Pelusium, in the eastern part o f the Nile delta close to the coast ( n o w the t o w n o f T i n e h east o f the Suez Canal). In d u e course he b e c a m e e m b r o i l e d in conflict with the c h u r c h hier­ archy a n d retired to a monastery outside the t o w n . F r o m this l o c a ­ tion h e e n g a g e d in a vast c o r r e s p o n d e n c e with his

contemporaries,

ranging f r o m statesmen a n d bishops (including, as w e saw, Cyril) to local p e o p l e in his i m m e d i a t e n e i g h b o r h o o d . A collection o f almost e x a c d y 2 0 0 0 letters survives. Until recently access to this c o l l e c t i o n was difficult, b u t fortunately it is n o w b e i n g o p e n e d u p , so that the riches o f its e v i d e n c e o n c o n t e m p o r a r y subjects c a n b e m o r e easily explored.

54

Isidore d o e s n o t refer to Philo often in this h u g e c o r p u s o f let­ ters.

51

55

In fact o n l y four letters m e n t i o n h i m b y n a m e . But his c o r -

Comm. in ^acch. 5.29.2, Comm. in Eccl. 345. O n Isidore see n o w the comprehensive monograph o f P. Evieux: Isidore de Peluse, Theologie Historique 99 (Paris, 1995). Evieux {Isidore de Peluse, 79f.) concludes that, although Isidore corresponds with a number o f people called Didymus (including a priest), there is no positive evi­ dence that any o f these was Didymus the blind. See n o w Evieux (Isidore de Peluse) and the first volume o f the new edition, Isidore de Peluse Lettres Tome I Lettres 1214-1413, Sources chretiennes 422 (Paris 1997). Alas, the new T L G E C D - R O M still does not contain the electronic text o f Isidore's Letters. O n accounts o f Isidore's use o f Philo, see Runia "Philo o f Alexandria in Five Letters o f Isidore o f Pelusium," in D . T . Runia, D . M . Hay and D . Winston, eds., Heirs of the Septuagint. Philo, Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity: Festschrift for Earle 5 2

5 3

5 4

55

CHRISTIAN RECEPTION OF PHILO THE JEW IN EGYPT

219

r e s p o n d e n c e is o f great interest for o u r theme. A large n u m b e r o f his letters are c o n c e r n e d with explaining matters o f biblical e x e g e ­ sis. In at least fifteen o f these Isidore makes use o f material taken directly f r o m Philo's writings.

I n this r e s p e c t h e

continues

the

A l e x a n d r i a n tradition. But in m o s t cases the usage is n o t a c k n o w l ­ edged.

56

In o n e case, Philo supports

a b o l d interpretation o f the

G r e e k w o r d [ir\noxe in Isa 6:10 as cited b y Jesus at M a t t

13:15. In

this letter Philo is described as having a reputation for w i s d o m , b u t his Jewishness is n o t m e n t i o n e d . sophical t h e m e

57

Similarly in a letter o n the p h i l o ­

o f pathos, Philo is cited as e v i d e n c e together

with

D e m o s t h e n e s a n d J o s e p h u s . Isidore cites the famous bon mot a b o u t Philo's Platonist

tendencies—either

Plato p h i l o n i z e d o r Philo pla-

t o n i z e d — b u t d o e s n o t say that h e is a J e w .

5 8

O f far greater interest is a letter o n the theological subject o f the Trinity. It is t o o l o n g to q u o t e in its entirety, b u t the o p e n i n g w o r d s give a g o o d impression o f its a r g u m e n t .

59

I admire the truth for the way in which she has induced the souls o f intelligent men to go so far as to combat the preconceived opinion they have o f their own doctrines. For the teaching o f the truth has embedded the concept o f the holy Trinity so clearly and lucidly in the Old Testament too for those who wish to observe it that Philo, though a Jew and a zealous one at that, in the writings which he left behind comes into conflict with his own religion. When he examines the words spoken by G o d , "in the image o f G o d I made man (Gen 9:6)," he was constrained and compelled by the truth also to recognize the divine Logos as G o d . What is the case? Even if he calls him "second," who is coeternal with the Father and higher than number and time, fail­ ing in this way to reach precision, nevertheless he did gain a con­ ception o f another person.

Hilgert, BJS 230 [= The Studia Philonica Annual 3 (1991)] (Atlanta, 1991) 295-319; repr. in Runia, Philo and Church Fathers, 126-143, with text, translation and com­ mentary o f the five most important letters; and Philo in Early Christian Literature, 204-209. See the lists at L. Friichtel, "Isidor von Pelusion als Beniitzer des Clemens Alexandrinus und anderer Quellen," Philologische Wochenschrift 58 (1938), 6 1 - 6 4 , 764-768; Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 205; U . Treu "Art. 'Isidor II (von Pelusion)'," RAC vol. 18 (Stuttgart, 1998), 998. It is quite likely that more mater­ ial is still to be found. Ep. 2.270 (PG 78) = 770 Evieux. Ep. 3.81 = 881 Evieux. Ep. 2.143 = 643 Evieux. For a complete translation see Runia, "Philo o f Alexandria in Five Letters o f Isidore o f Pelusium," 3 0 0 - 3 0 3 . 5 6

57

58

59

220

DAVID T. RUNIA

M u c h o f the letter concentrates o n Philo's position. H e is emphati­ cally a J e w , but o n e w h o r e c o g n i z e d a n d anticipates—albeit n o t pre­ cisely—the Christian doctrine o f the Trinity. B o t h the J e w s a n d the Greeks (followed b y the heretics) have strayed f r o m the truth, the f o r m e r in n o t r e c o g n i z i n g three persons, the latter in multiplying the single substance a n d lapsing into polytheism. But is it n o t far t o o b o l d to argue that the o r t h o d o x doctrine was already clearly present

in the

O l d Testament?

O n c e again, r e m a r k a b l y ,

Isidore

appeals to Philo. If someone should object "why were these doctrines not proclaimed clearly and explicitly from the very beginning?" my answer would be that both as demonstration and as teaching it was pellucidly clear to men o f intelligence and understanding, as indeed it was to the wise Philo. Philo here is emphatically a J e w , but a very special o n e , a J e w w h o was privileged t h o u g h his o w n ability to see s o m e t h i n g o f the truth. H o w special Philo's position c a n b e g a u g e d from that fact that Isidore elsewhere makes n u m e r o u s strongly anti-Judaic statements.

60

Many

are primarily theological. Nevertheless they p r o b a b l y reflect the w o r s ­ ening relations b e t w e e n J e w s a n d Christians at this time. T h e final letter is also o f great interest b e c a u s e it directly reflects c o n t e m p o r a r y interaction b e t w e e n Christians a n d J e w s . Isidore cer­ tainly h a d s o m e c o n t a c t with J e w s , but these contacts a p p e a r to have b e e n rather limited. O n l y t w o letters are certainly addressed to J e w s .

61

In this letter he c o r r e s p o n d s with a local priest Athanasius, w h o has just h a d a discussion with a J e w a n d w h o needs s o m e a p o l o g e t i c ammunition: If the Jew who according to your report disagreed with you is o f the opinion that the lawgiver spoke his words with no more than the lit­ eral meaning, tell him that the ignorance o f you Jews is refuted by two o f your own writers who lived after the coming o f Christ, Philo the master o f speculative thought and Josephus the great historian. O f these the former turns almost the entire O l d Testament into alle­ gory . . . It would be unjust for the Jews to reject the testimonies o f men who among themselves have a reputation for wisdom. 62

6 0

O n Isidore's relations to Judaism see the succinct remarks o f Treu "Art. 'Isidor II (von Pelusion)'," 9 9 7 - 9 9 8 ; see also H . Schreckenberg, Die christlichen AdversusJudaeos-Texte, 365-367. According to Evieux, Isidore de Peluse, 21 (plus two which are questionable). Ep. 3.19 = 819 Evieux. 6 1

62

CHRISTIAN RECEPTION OF PHILO THE JEW IN EGYPT

221

"Speculative thought" refers to the practice o f allegorical interpre­ tation o f scripture. T h e example o f Philo thus refutes the Jewish view­ p o i n t that the Bible should only b e read a c c o r d i n g to the letter. Is Philo " o n e o f us" o r " o n e o f t h e m " for Isidore? T h e

answer

has to b e n u a n c e d . Isidore is clearly sympathetic to Philo a n d sees h i m as an ally against b o t h theological J u d a i s m a n d

contemporary

Jews. In exegesis his material can b e taken o v e r without c o m m e n t . Y e t , differendy than in the case o f D i d y m u s , Philo's Jewishness d o e s receive significant emphasis in certain contexts. In the final analysis, w e have to c o n c l u d e , he does remain " o n e o f t h e m . " But he is a special case.

6. Some conclusions, and back to the papyri In this p a p e r w e have followed the fortunes o f the J e w Philo in the land o f Egypt, o n the edge o f w h i c h he himself h a d lived, in the centuries following his death. O u r theme has b e e n S h e m in the tents o f J a p h e t h a n d H a m . T h e results w e have reached, based o n the evidence that is available to us, present a c o m p l e x picture. It has b e c o m e clear that Philo's greatest value, a n d the p r i m e rea­ son for his survival, was the contribution that he c o u l d make in the area o f biblical interpretation. A s D i d y m u s tells us explicitiy, he was a valuable exegetical resource. N o t o n l y does give assistance

with

individual themes, but he also e m b o d i e s a spiritual a p p r o a c h to scrip­ ture w h i c h was widely admired. This involved use o f the allegorical m e t h o d a n d included the selective use o f philosophical ideas adapted to the biblical context. Because Philo's m e t h o d s a n d m a n y o f his themes were taken over, there is n o n e e d to emphasize that he was a J e w . U p to the time o f D i d y m u s at least, he appears to have b e c o m e , in a majority o f cases, simply " o n e o f u s . "

63

B y the fourth century the situation starts to c h a n g e . T h e fortunes o f the Jewish c o m m u n i t y in Egypt i m p r o v e , a n d this leads to ten­ sions with the n o w d o m i n a n t Christian c h u r c h a n d its

supporters.

A l t h o u g h o u r evidence is rather meager, w e m a y extrapolate

from

the writings o f Isidore (and p e r h a p s also f r o m the silence o f the

6 3

A n important exception is the apologetic use made o f Philo by Origen in his great work Contra Cetsum; see 4.51, 6.21. But even here Philo is not explicitiy referred to as a Jew.

DAVID T. RUNIA

222 patriarch Cyril) a n d

c o n c l u d e that Philo's Jewishness

increases

in

significance. M o r e often n o w , he reverts to b e i n g " o n e o f t h e m . " E v e n so, h o w e v e r , he is a very special case. H e c a n e v e n b e i n v o k e d as a p o l o g e t i c a m m u n i t i o n

against his o w n p e o p l e .

Finally let m e return to the subject with w h i c h I began, the Philonic papyri. A s w e saw, all three w e r e in all likelihood p r o d u c e d

and

o w n e d b y Christians. It is w o r t h l o o k i n g o n c e m o r e at their c o n ­ tents. It is rather striking that all three contain treatises b e l o n g i n g to Philo's Allegorical C o m m e n t a r y . least Jewish

64

T h i s l o n g w o r k is clearly

the

(and also m o s t difficult) part o f Philo's (more. It is a

remarkable fact, for e x a m p l e , that the terms 'IouSocioc, a n d 'Iouoocucoc, d o n o t o c c u r in these nineteen treatises at all. It w o u l d n e e d a keen theological m i n d to discern that they w e r e in fact o f Jewish

origin.

Because it is preserved in its entirety, the C o p t o s papyrus also records the c o l o p h o n s o f the t w o works it contains. In b o t h cases Philo is named

as the author, without any further epithet.

65

O f course w e

k n o w nothing specific a b o u t the o w n e r s o f these papyri. T h e y w e r e p r e s u m a b l y provincials, but whether they w e r e professionals o r a m a ­ teurs in the areas o f exegesis a n d t h e o l o g y w e simply d o n o t k n o w . A l l o w m e , therefore, to e n d this presentation o n Philo in Egypt with the following speculative thought. I w o u l d n o t b e in the least sur­ prised if the o w n e r s o f these papyri simply assumed that its author was a Christian interpreter o f scripture. I f I a m right, then in their case w e have a clear answer to o u r question. F o r these

Egyptian

Christians Philo truly was " o n e o f us."

With possible exception o f a section De pietate from De virtutibus. See above n. 12. See Scheil, " D e u x traites de Philo," 187, 215.

10 ASSESSING PHILO'S INFLUENCE IN CHRISTIAN ALEXANDRIA:

T H ECASE

O F ORIGEN*

A N N E W I E S V A N DEN H O E K

Preliminaries In a b r o a d sense, this article confronts m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s e n c o u n t e r e d in c o m p a r i n g multiple sources o r multiple literary tra­ ditions a n d in describing the c o m m o n g r o u n d a m o n g them.

This

c o m m o n g r o u n d c a n b e v i e w e d in either passive o r active terms. A p e r c e i v e d similarity c a n b e regarded as the influence o f o n e author o n another or, o n the contrary, as adaptation o f an author b y another. T h e r e are other options as well; the t w o writers m a y b e c o n n e c t e d b y an intermediary writer o r b y an e x t e n d e d tradition.

Furthermore,

the t w o authors m a y well n o t have b e e n directiy linked but have d r a w n o n a c o m m o n s o u r c e .

may

1

T h e r e are different techniques to determine w h e t h e r o n e is deal­ ing with influence, adaptation,

tradition,

or a c o m m o n

source. It

should b e d e t e r m i n e d h o w similar the a p p a r e n d y c o m m o n material is. I f it is a clear-cut b o r r o w i n g , o n e must e x a m i n e h o w this mate­ rial is inserted into the n e w c o n t e x t a n d determine w h a t kind o f alterations are m a d e w h e n b o r r o w i n g s o c c u r in their n e w environ­ ment. I f n o quotations, allusions, o r e v e n less defined references are present,

o n e c a n l o o k at the c o n c e p t s a n d thought patterns,

and

w h e t h e r they d e v e l o p in c o m p a r a b l e ways. W h a t e v e r the techniques for c o m p a r i s o n are, s o m e c o m m o n g r o u n d should b e available that makes the c o m p a r e d texts o r ideas c o m p a r a b l e .

* Many thanks g o to the participants o f the conference at Harvard for their con­ structive remarks, which sharpened the focus o f this article. These and related questions are also addressed in my Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the Stromateis. An Early Christian Reshaping of a Jewish Model. Supplements to Vigiliae christianae III, (Leiden, 1988), 19-22, 220-223; and in "Techniques o f Quotation in Clement o f Alexandria. A View o f Ancient Literary Techniques," in Vigiliae christianae, vol. L / 3 , (1996), 223-243. 1

224

ANNEWIES VAN DEN HOEK

In a n a r r o w e r sense, this study attempts to assess in a c o m p r e ­ hensive w a y the i m p a c t that o n e Jewish author o f the first century c o u l d have h a d o n Christian writers s o m e h u n d r e d fifty years to t w o h u n d r e d years later. T h e authors also h a p p e n e d to b e the first to q u o t e a n d e m p l o y their Jewish predecessor. T h e Jewish author was Philo—also n a m e d the Alexandrian o r Jewish Philo to

distinguish

h i m f r o m other Philos, such as Philo o f Biblos, Philo o f Larissa o r Philo o f Eleusis. Philo Alexandrinus is p r o b a b l y the " S h e m in the tents o f J a p h e t h " par excellence, a n d his principal tent mates w e r e the Christian authors C l e m e n t a n d O r i g e n . C l e m e n t equally received the epithet "the A l e x a n d r i a n , " to distinguish h i m f r o m all the other Clements. H e was highly G r e e k in upbringing, a n d he was search­ ing for ways to relate his G r e e k b a c k g r o u n d to a biblical framework, in particular that o f the L X X . Philo's primary role was to p r o v i d e biblical a n d exegetical g u i d a n c e in a G r e e k context for C l e m e n t , w h o for this reason c o u l d well b e called the "Japheth in the tents of Shem." In this article the focus o f attention will b e o n a s e c o n d J a p h e t h to Philo's S h e m , w h o also w o r k e d in Alexandria, a generation C l e m e n t . His n a m e is O r i g e n , a n d he never received the

after

epithet

" A l e x a n d r i a n " although he was b o r n in A l e x a n d r i a a n d lived there for o v e r forty years. H e spent the last t w o d e c a d e s o f his life, h o w ­ ever, in C a e s a r e a — n o t

constantly, because he traveled a r o u n d ,

but

Caesarea was his main residence since he h a d b e c o m e a p e r s o n a n o n grata in his h o m e t o w n . H o w it c a m e a b o u t that Philo's works w e r e k n o w n to these early Christian Alexandrians w e still d o not k n o w . W h a t h a p p e n e d between Philo's death a n d the appearance

o f the first Christian groups in

Alexandria is equally uncertain. It is clear, however, that b o t h Clement a n d O r i g e n h a d access to m o s t o f Philo's works; they m e n t i o n h i m explicidy a n d give ample p r o o f o f b o r r o w i n g f r o m h i m . It is evi­ dent, in fact, that Philo's works were preserved for posterity b y these Christian authors, especially b y O r i g e n , w h o t o o k Philo's works with h i m to Caesarea, w h e r e they were preserved after his death in a library set u p b y Pamphilus a n d Eusebius. Investigating the interrelationship

o f t w o prolific authors such as

Philo a n d O r i g e n is n o simple task, a n d the p r o b l e m s i n v o l v e d are daunting. In the case o f C l e m e n t , the situation was s o m e w h a t eas­ ier since the C l e m e n t i n e corpus o f surviving writings is relatively

225

THE CASE OF ORIGEN

2

small, a n d m o s t o f what is left is preserved in its original G r e e k . In O r i g e n ' s case, n o t only is the quantity o f writings m u c h m o r e exten­ sive, b u t also the preservation o f m a n y is in Latin translation, w h i c h creates special p r o b l e m s in m a k i n g c o m p a r i s o n s . I n addition,

many

o f O r i g e n ' s works—especially his biblical c o m m e n t a r i e s — n o l o n g e r 3

exist whether in the original o r in translation. T h e b o o k s that w o u l d have b e e n m o s t valuable in relation t o Philo, the c o m m e n t a r i e s o n the Pentateuch a n d , in particular, o n Genesis are n o w r e d u c e d to fragments k n o w n from catenae. T h e fragments o n Genesis are nonethe­ less substantial; they still fill fifty c o l u m n s o f the M i g n e edition. I f preserved, h o w e v e r , the c o m m e n t a r y c o u l d well have c o v e r e d hun­ dreds u p o n h u n d r e d s o f pages.

Objective and Method F r o m the outset, it should b e e m p h a s i z e d that n o attempt will b e m a d e to characterize O r i g e n merely o n the basis o f phrases that h e b o r r o w s f r o m Philo o r a n y other writer. O r i g e n is o n e o f the great t h e o l o g i c a l m i n d s o f all times, a n d s h o u l d b e read, studied,

and

e n j o y e d in his o w n right; he is an i n d e p e n d e n t thinker a n d exegete a n d c a n n e v e r b e c o n s i d e r e d the s u m o f his q u o t a t i o n s .

4

O n the

other hand, h e is an important link b e t w e e n P h i l o — a n d thus Jewish traditions—and Late Antiquity. Eusebius a n d the C a p p a d o c i a n s o w e d m u c h to O r i g e n in that r e s p e c t .

2

5

O r i g e n ' s works also m a y have

Editions o f Clement's works: Otto Stahlin, Ludwig Fruchtel, Ursula Treu, Clemens Alexandrinus I—IV, Die Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte (Leipzig/Berlin, 1905-1985). Sources chretiennes (Paris, 1943—). (Text, French trans­ lation and commentary b y various authors; vols. 2, 23, 30, 38, 70, 108, 158, 2 7 8 - 2 7 9 , 428, 446, 463 [Strom. 3 is forthcoming]). For a comprehensive survey o f editions o f Origen's works, see Maurice Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Corpus Christianorum ( T u r n h o u t , 1974—), v o l . I and Supplement. O f great practical value is also the sigla list in Biblia Patristica: Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la litterature patristique (Paris, 1975—). T h e formulation goes back to Eric Osborn in a different context, but it is applicable to this situation as well. Prof. Osborn has written extensively o n the rela­ tionship between Philo and the Christian Alexandrians—in particular, Clement; see his "Philo and Clement," in Prudentia 19 (1987), 3 5 - 4 9 ; "Philo and Clement: Citation and Influence," in Lebendige Uberlieferung. Festschrift for H.-J. V o g t , ed. N . el-Khoury a. o . (Beirut and Ostfildern, 1992), 228~243; "Philo and Clement: Quiet Conversion and Noetic Exegesis," The Studia Philonica Annual, vol. X (1998), 108-124. Already in Antiquity Origen was recognized as a conduit o f Philonic thinking, 3

4

5

226

ANNEWIES VAN DEN HOEK

played a role in transmitting Philo to the Latin West, through writers such as A m b r o s e , Augustine, J e r o m e , Rufinus a n d Calcidius. T h u s although w e p r o b a b l y should not overemphasize Philo's role in O r i g e n in an absolute sense, w e should n o t underestimate

the significance

o f the Philonic element either, simply because o f the dispersion a n d influence o f O r i g e n ' s works t h r o u g h o u t Antiquity a n d far into

the

Middle Ages. The

objective here is to gain further insight into the nature o f the

relationship b e t w e e n O r i g e n a n d Philo a n d to assess the extent a n d nature o f Philo's role in O r i g e n ' s w o r k . T h i s kind o f c o m p a r i s o n c a n b e d o n e in various ways but it seems i m p o r t a n t to m a k e use o f as m u c h material as possible rather than t h r o u g h isolated, e m b l e m a t i c cases; seeing m a n y passages brings to the surface patterns o f usage that are i m p o r t a n t for a b a l a n c e d j u d g e m e n t . T h e r e are perils in an "inclusive" c o m p a r a t i v e m e t h o d that should b e a v o i d e d ; points o f c o m p a r i s o n should n o t b e v i e w e d with tunnel vision o r — w h a t h a v e called p a r a l l e l o m a n i a .

6

Further, in d r a w i n g o n the

others

analyses

o f others o n e must b e aware that the presuppositions with w h i c h scholars c o m e to the battlefield often influence their results.

7

Scholars

w h o h a v e dealt with the relationship b e t w e e n O r i g e n a n d Philo have primarily disagreed w h e t h e r O r i g e n was i n d e b t e d to Philo in mat­ ters o f biblical interpretation, in matters o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l speculation, o r possibly in a c o m b i n a t i o n o f the t w o . T h i s is a w i d e l y d e b a t e d issue, w h i c h should b e kept in m i n d from the start. The

m o s t important question in terms o f m e t h o d o l o g y , h o w e v e r ,

was to k n o w h o w to c o m p a r e the t w o authors, what to c o m p a r e in them, a n d w h a t to use as a starting p o i n t . D a v i d R u n i a has dedi­ cated various publications to the relationship b e t w e e n O r i g e n

and

Philo. H e already identified passages in w h i c h the relationship c o u l d be established with s o m e certainty,

8

partiy w o r k i n g f r o m references

for example, by Theodore o f Mopsuestia; see David T . Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature (Assen, 1993), 173. This term is used by Eric Osborn, see above note 4. David Runia described this phenomenon and listed scholars who viewed Origen's works from either an allegorical and exegetical or else from a systematic and the­ ological perspective; they rated Philonic influence o n Origen according to these views, which resulted in a much higher regard for Philo's influence o n Origen for the second group than for the first; see D . Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey. Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad N o v u m Testamentum, section 3, Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature, vol. 3, (Assen, 1993), 169.; idem, Philo and the Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers. Supplements to Vigiliae christianae, vol. 32 (Leiden, 1995), 122-123. D . Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature (Leiden, 1995), 161-162; idem, Philo 6

7

8

THE CASE OF ORIGEN

227

c o m p i l e d in the C o h n - W e n d l a n d edition o f P h i l o .

9

Cohn-Wendland

listed three places w h e r e O r i g e n mentions Philo b y n a m e , a n d R u n i a f o u n d thirteen other places w h e r e O r i g e n m e n t i o n e d a predecessor o r a reference to another source w h i c h appears to have b e e n Philo. In the course o f m y investigations, I have b e e n able to a d d

more

citations o f predecessors w h o must b e Philo, bringing u p the

num­

b e r to a r o u n d

twenty.

R u n i a also indicated that m o r e detailed w o r k c o u l d b e d o n e o n individual themes that O r i g e n takes o v e r and adapts f r o m Philo. A n attempt is m a d e

to follow

u p o n this suggestion, to o p e n u p

the

material, a n d to p r o v i d e a b r o a d e r basis for study b y presenting a survey o f parallels. W h e n presented critically, a c o m p r e h e n s i v e assem­ blage o f parallels c a n have value as a resource; other p e o p l e will b e able l o o k o v e r m y shoulder, agree o r disagree, but, at any rate, see the p r i m a r y material a n d d r a w their o w n conclusions. I will give a brief sketch o f h o w this survey was undertaken. First an i n d e x was m a d e o f all the Philonic material in O r i g e n : that m e a n s a systematic presentation o f all the material that was to b e f o u n d in previous publications, as well as s o m e n e w finds. T h e i n d e x is based o n the m a j o r text editions o f the works o f b o t h O r i g e n a n d Philo. T h o s e o f O r i g e n c a m e o u t in the G C S (Berlin

1899-).

1 0

Since the twelve v o l u m e s w e r e either b a d l y i n d e x e d o r n o t i n d e x e d at all, it was necessary to leaf t h r o u g h t h e m p a g e b y p a g e .

Then,

o n the Philonic side, the critical notes o f the C o h n - W e n d l a n d edi­ tion (Berlin 1896—) provided parallels in O r i g e n .

11

The Cohn-Wendland

edition d o e s have several indexes but n o p r o p e r i n d e x l o c o r u m ; here again D a v i d R u n i a ' s w o r k c a m e t o the rescue, since s o m e years a g o he published their references in an i n d e x .

12

T h u s , at the basis o f this

e n d e a v o r w e r e these t w o b i g c o r p o r a , G C S a n d

Cohn-Wendland.

1 3

and the Church Fathers (Leiden, 1995), 120-121; idem, "Filone e i primi teologi cristiani," in Annali di storia dell'esegesi 1 4 / 2 (1997), 355-380. Philonis Alexandrini Opera quae supersunt, ed. L. C o h n and P. Wendland, vols. I - V I I (Berlin, 1896-) Origenes Werke I - X I I , Die Griechischen christiichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, vols. 2 - 3 , 6, 10, 22, 2 9 - 3 0 , 33, 35, 38, 40, 41 (Leipzig, 1899-). Philonis Alexandrini Opera quae supersunt, vols. I—VII. D . Runia, " A n Index to Cohn-Wendland's Apparatus Testimoniorum," in The Studia Philonica Annual, vol. I V (1992), 8 7 - 9 6 . Practical problems often occurred in retracing passages that were not num­ bered according to the current major editions. Dealing with older editions—that is, from the 16th to the early 19th centuries—is sometimes challenging. In this respect special thanks g o to Gloria Korsman and Cliff Wunderlich o f the Andover-Harvard library for their continuous support in finding sources. 9

10

11

12

13

228

ANNEWIES VAN DEN HOEK

O t h e r text editions, such as o f the works o f Philo published the direction o f the University o f L y o n , w e r e m a d e use o f . e x a m p l e is Marguerite

14

under

A good

Harl's edition o f Heres, w h i c h has a para­

graph o n the transmission

o f the text a n d its Christian r e c e p t i o n .

15

M y i n d e x has the format o f a "catalogue raisonee" a descriptive cat­ a l o g u e , in w h i c h every passage is briefly analyzed in (one hopes) a reasonable w a y . B e l o w , s o m e examples o f the various categories will b e given, in w h i c h passages a n d parallels are s u m m a r i z e d , a n d d e g r e e o f d e p e n d e n c y is assessed.

16

the

Philo's passage is first taken o n

its o w n a n d is followed b y a description o f O r i g e n ' s passage. A b r i e f conclusive assessment usually follows. T h e d e g r e e o f d e p e n d e n c y is rated passage b y passage in tabular f o r m ; every h e a d i n g consists o f a c o l u m n o f O r i g e n ' s works, a s e c o n d c o l u m n with potential paral­ lels in Philo, a n d a third c o l u m n with a g r a d e .

17

In establishing the degree o f d e p e n d e n c y , the p o i n t o f c o m p a r i ­ son in b o t h authors has to b e defined. Since the w o r k is largely b a s e d o n selections m a d e b y others, the criteria for selection

had

varying degrees o f inclusiveness. In general, it turned o u t that the C o h n - W e n d l a n d edition was m u c h m o r e solidly b a s e d than the var­ ious editions o f the G C S . O n the other hand, C o h n - W e n d l a n d missed a n u m b e r o f important passages. T h o s e w h o identified a specific par­ allel are n o t e d in parentheses beside the reference. T h e next

step

then was to l o o k at the c o n t e x t in w h i c h the parallels appeared,

to

determine h o w a n d w h y Philo a n d O r i g e n elaborated o r allegorized, a n d especially whether there w e r e biblical quotations i n v o l v e d . T h e process is a little schizophrenic, for o n e always has to send o n e ' s brain in t w o directions. F o r the assessment a n d grading, an attempt was m a d e to follow a few rules consistently. First, etymologies w e r e r e g a r d e d with skep­ ticism until certain standards w e r e met. Since etymologies are v e r y c o m m o n and widespread, they are b y themselves inadequate to p r o v e

14

Les (Euvres de Philon d'Alexandrie, R . Arnaldez, J. Pouilloux, G. Mondesert eds. (35 vols; Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1961-). Marguerite Harl, Philon d'Alexandrie. Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit. Les (Euvres de Philon d'Alexandrie, vol. 15 (Paris, 1966), 154-162. T h e catalogue as a whole has been published in The Studia Philonica Annual, vol. X I I (2000), 4 4 - 1 2 1 . T h e full catalogue also has a reverse index, in which Philo's works c o m e first and Origen is in second position. T h e commentary, in this case, is omitted, since it would be duplication. 15

16

17

229

THE CASE OF ORIGEN

a relationship

b e t w e e n t w o specific authors. I f an e t y m o l o g y , h o w ­

ever, o c c u r s in c o m b i n a t i o n with an allegorical interpretation, then there is m o r e solid g r o u n d t o see a c o n n e c t i o n . S e c o n d , caution must b e used in dealing with allegorical interpretations; an allegory o n its o w n d o e s n o t necessarily indicate d e p e n d e n c y , b u t w h e n an allegory is linked with a specific biblical quotation, a relationship seems p r o b ­ able. T h i r d , the kind o f biblical quotation in itself c a n b e an indi­ cator.

Origen

q u o t e d s o m e outlandish

texts in his h o m i l i e s : f o r

e x a m p l e , f r o m Leviticus o r the b o o k o f N u m b e r s . I f they h a d n o t o c c u r r e d previously in the Christian tradition b u t o n l y in Philo, that t o o c o u l d b e c o u n t e d as useful e v i d e n c e . T h u s , the assessment o f the relationship

b e t w e e n Philo a n d O r i g e n is based o n a c o m b i n a t i o n

o f w h a t I h o p e c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d objective elements. T h e grades run from " A " t o " D . " T h e letter " A " m e a n s certain d e p e n d e n c y , because n o t o n l y d o e s the passage have a Philonic char­ acter b u t also O r i g e n explicidy indicates that h e b o r r o w s f r o m s o m e ­ o n e . T h e Philonic element o f the passage d o e s n o t have t o involve a literal quotation to receive an " A . " In three o f these cases O r i g e n mentions Philo b y n a m e , a n d in the others h e refers either to a pre­ decessor o r m o r e vaguely t o " s o m e o n e . " It h a d to b e whether

there was a difference b e t w e e n the indications

determined "predeces­

sor" a n d " s o m e o n e " w h e n in b o t h cases Philo is i n t e n d e d .

18

N o t all

references t o "predecessors" are, o f course, references t o Philo; there w e r e other writers w h o m O r i g e n c o n s i d e r e d predecessors, a n d n o t all predecessors c a n b e identified. A l t h o u g h h e never quotes h i m b y n a m e , C l e m e n t is clearly o n e o f these p r e d e c e s s o r s .

19

T h e letter " B " refers to passages w h e r e d e p e n d e n c y is highly p r o b ­ able even t h o u g h O r i g e n d o e s n o t explicitly indicate that he is b o r ­ r o w i n g f r o m s o m e o n e . Further d o w n the line is the letter " C , " w h i c h indicates that while a relationship b e t w e e n O r i g e n a n d Philo is p o s ­ sible, the case c a n n o t b e p r o v e n . " D " c a n either b e a philosophical c o m m o n p l a c e , w h i c h p r o v i d e s n o e v i d e n c e for a relationship, o r else

18

In two instances, Origen's wording is identical or very close to Philo's text: see. Mat.Com 15.3 and Num.Hom 22.4; in the first verbatim quote, Origen also men­ tions Philo b y name; the other is without a reference but still receives an " A . " Otherwise Origen presents Philo's thoughts in his o w n words. Since verbatim quotes are so rare, it seems unnecessary to create a category for them. See m y "Origen and the Intellectual Heritage o f Alexandria; Continuity o r Disjunction?" in Origeniana Quinta, Robert J. Daly, ed., (Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 40-50. 19

230

ANNEWIES VAN DEN HOEK

a case in w h i c h there is clearly n o relationship at all. S o m e t i m e s n o clear-cut assessment

can b e m a d e , a n d therefore

an "in b e t w e e n "

grade, such as " A / B " o r " B / G " is given. T h i s rating system m a y b e t o o severe in s o m e cases. W i t h o u t the indication o f a predecessor, m a n y passages given an " A " w o u l d have received a m u c h l o w e r grade. F o r e x a m p l e , b o t h Philo a n d O r i g e n are f o n d o f the e t y m o l o g y o f Egypt as the w o r l d o f senses, sometimes 20

c o n n e c t e d with the n u m b e r five.

Initially, this seemed to b e a c o m m o n ­

place, meriting a grade o f " C . " Eventually, h o w e v e r , O r i g e n brings u p this Egyptian unit in c o n n e c t i o n with a reference to predecessors. In this case, an " A " was clearly merited—especially since there was another element present that only Philo h a d in c o m m o n with O r i g e n . E v e n without the extra element, all the other o c c u r r e n c e s o f the Egyptian unit also h a d to b e u p g r a d e d as well to remain

consistent.

T h e r e is another situation in which c o m m o n p l a c e s can b e upgraded. W h e n they o c c u r in clusters, it seems m u c h m o r e likely that O r i g e n did have something Philonic in m i n d ; in such cases, they receive a higher rating because o f their accumulation a n d sometimes even their sequence. In general, h o w e v e r , the system seems effective because o f its relatively rigorous criteria. C a u t i o n is necessary in building a solid foundation for a study o f the relationship b e t w e e n these o r any t w o ancient authors.

21

Examples

T o s h o w h o w the system works I include a range o f examples, since the p r o o f o f the p u d d i n g is in the eating. T h e first e x a m p l e is o f special interest because o f the w a y O r i g e n addresses the issue o f b o r ­ rowing; he n o t only mentions predecessors but also confronts

the

very m o d e r n p r o b l e m o f plagiarism. 1. Ex.Hom

13.3 ( G C S )

Mos. 2.88 ( C W )

"C"

Philo interprets the multicolored fabrics o f the tabernacle ( E x o d 26). T h e four colors relate to the four elements o f the c o s m o s : earth,

2 0

See example below in Origen, Mum.Hom. 26.4. T h e abbreviations in the headings refer to those w h o identified the parallels: G C S : Die Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte; C W : Cohn-Wendland; R : Runia; v d H : van den Hoek. 2 1

231

THE CASE OF ORIGEN

water, air, a n d fire. O r i g e n c o m p a r e s the fabrics with the elements n o t only o f the w o r l d but also o f the h u m a n b o d y (. . . quattuor elementorum, ex quibus et mundus et corpus humanum tenent ftguram, id est aeris, ignis, aquae et terrae). O r i g e n prefaces the simile with the intriguing observations that " S o m e o f o u r predecessors have also spoken a b o u t these things, and as it is n o t p r o p e r to steal other p e o p l e ' s ideas, I think that it is c o n v e n i e n t that o n e — i f o n e acknowledges it—uses fully what

has

b e e n well said b y s o m e o n e else" (de his dixerunt quidam ante nos, et sicut non decet aliena furari, ita conveniens puto bene dictis alterius abuti fatentem). Unfortunately, O r i g e n , w h o seems to b e so c o n c e r n e d a b o u t pla­ giarizing, fails to n a m e those predecessors. Philo c o u l d have b e e n intended, but Josephus (Ant. 3.183; B.J. 5.212) a n d C l e m e n t are also candidates. C l e m e n t h a d used Philo extensively in his treatment o f the temple a n d the vestments o f the high priest; see Strom. 5.32.3 a n d v a n d e n H o e k , Clement, 116fT. N o n e o f these possible sources, h o w e v e r , refer, as O r i g e n does, to the h u m a n b o d y . O r i g e n ' s c o m ­ ments a b o u t predecessors are inadequate to determine w h o m he h a d in m i n d ; he c o u l d even have b e e n drawing o n a c o m b i n a t i o n o f sources. T h u s , in spite o f O r i g e n ' s apparent scrupulousness, uncer­ tainty c a n n o t b e dispelled. T h e following series o f examples then p r o c e e d s in a descending order from clear d e p e n d e n c y to n o d e p e n d e n c y at all. 2. Mat.Com

10.22 ( G C S )

Ebr. 2 0 8 ( C W ) ( R )

"A"

Philo discusses gluttony a n d drunkenness and mentions Pharaoh, w h o usually stands for things c o n n e c t e d with the b o d y . Q u o t i n g G e n 4 0 : 2 0 , Philo expands o n the celebration o f Pharaoh's birthday, a day that stirs u p passions a n d desires a n d is c o n n e c t e d allegorically with perishability. O r i g e n , w h o refers to o n e o f his predecessors, also quotes the b i b ­ lical text a n d lashes out against those w h o revel in their birthdays, taking H e r o d as a convenient c o m p a n i o n for Pharaoh. O r i g e n reveals indebtedness to Philo w h e n he says: " o n e o f o u r predecessors n o t i c e d Pharaoh's

birthday,

r e c o r d e d in Genesis, a n d stated that it is the

w i c k e d person w h o , loving matters o f birth, celebrates his birthday. W e , h o w e v e r , w h o take o u r starting p o i n t f r o m that p e r s o n (Philo), d o not find a birthday celebrated b y a righteous p e r s o n in any scrip­ tural passage" (Exr|pr)ae a£v ovv xiq xcov 7tp6

TILICGV

xr\v avayeypaLiuivriv ev

232

ANNEWIES VAN DEN HOEK

T e v e o e i xou Oapacb yeveGXiov K a i Svnyriaaxo oxi 6 <pauA,oc, xd yeveoecoc, dyarccov 7r.pdyuaxa eopxd^ei yeveGA-iov. 'Hudc, 8e cat' hceivox) xax>xr\v ebpovxec, dcpopLrryv in

ouSeindc, ypacpfjc, eupoiiev hub S i K a i o u yeve0A,iov dyoiievnv.)

See also Gen.CatB(VG 3. Num.Hom

26.4 (GCS)

12,129.132), Lev.Hom 8.3, a n d Reg.Hom. 1. 8. Migr. 18; Post. 155 ( v d H )

"A"

E t y m o l o g y o f Egypt as i m a g e o f b o d i l y pleasures. L e a d i n g out o f Egypt means leading out o f the realm o f sense p e r c e p t i o n and sen­ suality into the places o f virtuous life: . . . t o 8 i a K p i v a i xa xe Qvnxd xf|<; \|n)xiic, Kai xd dcpGapxa Kai xd pxv o c a xepi xaq ocbfiaxoc, f|5ovd<; Kai xdc, aXkac, rcaGcov duexpiac, Gvnxd ovxa Aiyurcxcp KaxaA-uceiv, 7tepl 8E xa>v d(pGdpxoov a7tov8riv 7ioirioaaGai, onax; (iexd xcov dvapaivovxcov ei<; xd<; dpexric; 7t6A,eic; SiaKOLiioGii. . . (Migr. 18); see also Her. 3 1 6 . V a r i o u s other passages deal with Egypt as sense p e r c e p t i o n o r passions o f the b o d y in a different Mut.

context: Agr. 64; Ebr. 2 0 8 ; Migr.

77; 151;

174; Somn. 2 . 1 0 9 .

O r i g e n brings up the idea that g o i n g out o f Egypt can b e under­ s t o o d in t w o ways "as already often has b e e n said b o t h b y o u r pre­ decessors a n d b y us" (et a prioribus nostris et a nobis saepe iam dictum est). H e then presents the same twofold interpretation o f Philo: the darkness o f sins contrasts with the light o f understanding, a n d earthly intercourse

is o p p o s e d to a spiritual disposition. O t h e r places in

O r i g e n ' s works, w h e r e the theme c o m e s u p are, for e x a m p l e : 3.3,

Ex.Hom

E z . Sel. 30.4, a n d Gen.Hom 16.2.6.

If O r i g e n h a d n o t m e n t i o n e d predecessors, it w o u l d have b e e n hard to p r o v e d e p e n d e n c y o n Philo, since, as O r i g e n indicates, it was a c o m m o n p l a c e ; the indication, therefore seems to b e a general reference to Philo's idea and not to a certain passage. C l e m e n t alludes to the i m a g e at various occasions but n o t with all the c o m p o n e n t s m e n t i o n e d here, see Strom. 1. 30.4; 2. 4 7 . 1 ; 8 8 . 2 ; 7.40.2. 4. Gen.Cat B (12.116)

Congr. 151 ( C W ) ( v d H )

"A"

In the H a g a r a n d Sarah story, in a passage in w h i c h Sarah is said to have b e e n w r o n g e d ( G e n 1 6 : 4 - 5 ) , Philo interprets H a g a r as the l o w e r forms o f training a n d Sarah as k n o w l e d g e a n d w i s d o m (see also Congr. 154). T h e interpretation follows the general thrust o f Philo's treatise. O r i g e n refers to the same biblical text a n d seems to question the interpretation: "that w h i c h is said b y s o m e o n e in o r d e r for us to

233

T H E CASE O F O R I G E N

search a n d find is n o t m a d e clear carefully that virtue was naturally d i s h o n o r e d w h e n she gave birth to preparatory studies; but she was n o t at all d i s h o n o r e d b y A b r a h a m , but b y her slave . . . " (E7UTn8£c; OIL)K

£oa9Tyv{o0T)

TO

bnb xivoq, iva fjLieiq ^TiTnoavtec; evpcoLiev, oxi rcecpDicev

axuid^eaGai apex% f | v i K a xd 7ipo7cai8e{)Li.aTa yevvriari • or) navxaq

VKO

XOX>

'A(3paocu,, 6XX' r\xoi bitb xr\q TtaiSiaKTic;. . .). O r i g e n gives a distorted v i e w o f Philo's interpretation, but it seems clear that the " s o m e o n e " is Philo. Similarly Gen.Cat B ( P G 12, 113). 5. Gen.Hom 14.3 ( G C S )

Opif. 24; QG 1.4 ( v d H )

"A/B"

Philo maintains that the noetic w o r l d is the logos o f G o d actually creating the w o r l d . T h e noetic city is the intellectual capacity o f the architect w h o plans to f o u n d the city. Origen, w h o is speaking about the digging o f wells and the Philistines, w h o fill t h e m up makes a little detour w h e n he refers to creation. H e states that G o d created everything, a n d that s o m e even a d d e d that G o d created a n d rules everything through

his w o r d [aliquanti

etiam hoc addiderunt quod Deus cuncta per verbum suum et fecerit et regat et Verbum Dei sit, quo cuncta moderentur). T h u s O r i g e n refers to opinions o f other interpreters. In d o i n g so, it is likely that he h a d Philo in m i n d , since he refers to other passages f r o m the same section o f Philo's w o r k . 6. Num.Hom

26.2 ( G C S )

Ebr. 116 ( C W ) ; Conf. 55 ( v d H )

Philo mentions the agreement

"B"

o f warriors in the L X X version o f

N u m 3 1 : 4 9 ~ 5 0 ("none o f t h e m was in discord") a n d adds a m o r a l allegory. Interestingly,

the v e r b 8ia(pcoveco, w h o s e basic m e a n i n g is

"to b e o u t o f tune" o r metaphorically "to disagree," c a n have

an

additional m e a n i n g "to fail to answer roll-calls." T h i s m a y explain the apparent discrepancy b e t w e e n the M T a n d the L X X . T h e M T reads: " . . . y o u r servants have c o u n t e d the m e n o f w a r w h o

are

u n d e r o u r c o m m a n d , and there is n o t a m a n missing from us." T h e H e b r e w verb I p S in the Niphal c a n m e a n "to b e missing" a n d in the Q a l "to pass in r e v i e w " o r "to muster." Philo c o m p a r e s the har­ m o n y o f the soldiers to a musical instrument a n d subsequentiy

to

the h a r m o n y o f the soul, a n d it is clear that his allegorical inter­ pretation only works in c o n n e c t i o n with the G r e e k v e r b .

22

With thanks to Christopher Frechette for his help with the Hebrew.

234

ANNEWIES VAN DEN HOEK

O r i g e n quotes the same biblical text, w h i c h was n o t d o n e b y any o f his Christian predecessors, and also has a c o m p a r i s o n to an instru­ m e n t and its h a r m o n y . 7. Gen.CatB

( P G 12, 124)

Her. 51 ( C W ) ; Congr. 7 ( v d H )

"B"

Philo interprets the story o f L e a h and R a c h e l ( G e n 2 9 , 31). H e alle­ gorizes their productivity and barrenness in terms o f virtue; the soul b e c o m e s pregnant and the objects o f sense are barren. T h e text and its allegorical application often o c c u r in Philo, see also Mut.

132;

2 5 5 ; Post. 135. In the passage from De congressu, G o d is said to o p e n the w o m b w h i c h is ever-virginal (. . . d7to5i8ouoa xcp X T I V deutdpGevov ur|xpav, coc, (pnoi Mayuaf|<;, dvoi^avxi). O r i g e n cites the same biblical text, w h i c h h a d not b e e n used before in Christian circles. H e also applies the story to the soul, saying that G o d o p e n e d Leah's w o m b to give birth to h o l y (i.e. m o s t virtuous) p e o p l e . O r i g e n then adds that a c c o r d i n g to the spiritual l a w o f the soul G o d o p e n s the w o m b , in order that she w h o is g o i n g to b e his m o t h e r m a y bear the L o g o s o f G o d ('I5cbv 8e Kupioc, 6 Qebq, oxi uiaeixcci Aeia, rivoi^e xf|v |ir|xpav auxfic,. A v o i y e i irnxpav erai dyicov yevvrioei Kaxd 8e xovTCveuiTaxiKovvouov yv%r\c, dvoiyei irnxpav, i v a yevvr|OT| 0 e o u Aoyov f| ecouivri auxou |ir|xr|p). Unless the reference to virginity is coincidental, Philo m a y have inspired O r i g e n , w h e n he applied the i m a g e to M a r y giving birth to the L o g o s . 8. Lev.Hom

7.6 ( G C S )

Agr. 131ff. ( C W )

"B/C"

Philo c o m m e n t s o n ruminating animals with u n c l o v e n h o o f o f L e v 11:4. H e c o m p a r e s their ruminations with the soul, disregarding

the

issue o f clean a n d unclean animals. R u m i n a t i o n stands for the soul that listens a n d goes o v e r speculations o n e b y o n e ; see also Spec. 4. 106f. O r i g e n refers to the previous verse o f the same passage (Lev 11:3), w h i c h speaks about ruminating animals, in this case with c l o v e n hoof. H e c o m p a r e s the animal to calling b a c k the literal m e a n i n g to get at the spiritual meaning, ascending from the visible to the invisible sense. See also O r i g e n , Cels 6.16 and Dt.Cat ( P G 12, 8 1 2 ) . This biblical text had b e e n c o m m e n t e d o n b y various Greek-speak­ ing authors a n d is a kind o f topos. See, for e x a m p l e , the Letter of Aristeas 1 5 3 - 1 5 7 (rumination

is m e m o r y o f the wonderful deeds o f

THE

235

CASE OF ORIGEN

G o d ) , and Barnabas 10. 11 (those w h o keep the w o r d o f the L o r d a n d ruminate o n it; see also C l e m e n t , Strom. 5 . 5 1 . 4 - 5 , w h o refers to the Letter of Barnabas). C o m p a r e further Irenaeus, Haer. 5.8.3 and Clement, Paed. 3.76; Strom. 7.109.2ff. N o n e o f the a b o v e parallel O r i g e n ' s treat­ m e n t as closely as Philo d o e s (especially in Dt.Cat 9. Num.Hom

25.3 ( G C S )

Mut.

65 ( C W )

[ P G 12, 8 1 2 ] ) .

"C"

Philo gives a justification for changes o f names in biblical texts. T h e s e changes, such as f r o m A b r a m to A b r a h a m , are indicators o f m o r e powerful meanings; a small letter c h a n g e stands for greater entities, a n d things that are visible i m p l y intellectual realities (aXka tot xoiama Xapaicrfipec; 5a)vaLiea)v elai, (3paxei<; jxEydA-cov, aiaGnxoi vonxcov, cpavepoi &8r|Axov). See also QG 3.43. O r i g e n states that changes o f names are not fortuitous but d o n e for a reason; they are related to the h u m a n c o n d i t i o n a n d make a n a m e m o r e suitable for the p e r s o n b e i n g n a m e d . O r i g e n goes o n giving examples for pages; see also Gen.Cat B ( P G 12, 115), w h e r e a justification is m o r e clearly stated. A l t h o u g h in general terms O r i g e n m a y have h a d Philo in m i n d , the parallel is n o t close e n o u g h to p r o v e it. 10. Lev.Hom 5.4 ( G C S ) Philo c o m p a r e s the

Her. 311

"C"

soul o f the inquisitive

p e r s o n with an

oven

(Kp{(3ocvo<;, also KA-(Pavo<;). T h e b a c k g r o u n d text is G e n 15:17; see also QG 3.15. T h e c o n n o t a t i o n is positive. O r i g e n cites the rare text f r o m L e v 7:9, in w h i c h various c o o k ­ ing vessels are m e n t i o n e d , n o t o n l y clibanus, but also craticula a n d sartago (see also Augustine for the p u n :

Carthago-sartago [Corf. 3.1]).

O r i g e n also refers to H o s e a 7:6, in w h i c h the w o r d clibanus o c c u r s . Like Philo, O r i g e n c o m p a r e s the h u m a n ' s heart o r soul with an o v e n but gives the idea a negative

connotation.

Philo does n o t e m p l o y L e v 7:9 o r H o s 7:6, a n d O r i g e n does n o t cite G e n 15:17 (as far as his surviving works show). T h e y use a sim­ ilar i m a g e but give it different overtones. 11. Lev.Hom 6.2 ( G C S )

Leg. 3.69; QG 1.53

"C/D"

Philo refers to the tunics o f skin ( G e n 3:21) in their s y m b o l i c m e a n ­ ing as the natural skin o f the b o d y . H e uses the i m a g e in a neutral

236

ANNEWIES VAN DEN HOEK

sense in QG 1.53 but negatively in Leg. 3.69 (Philo speaks a b o u t 8epiidxivo<; oyKoc;, weight o f skin). In O r i g e n ' s h o m i l y , the i m a g e is used in a negative w a y against G n o s t i c ideas, in w h i c h tunics o f skin represent d e a d b o d i e s ; c o m ­ pare also C l e m e n t , Strom. 3.95.2, similarly in an anti-Gnostic c o n ­ text. C l e m e n t refers to a certain Cassianus as his source. For C l e m e n t a n d O r i g e n it is less the quality o f the b o d y than h u m a n b e h a v i o r a n d the h u m a n c o n d i t i o n that is linked to death. Imagery based o n the tunics o f skin is widespread, see also Irenaeus, Haer. 1.5.5; Tertullian, Res. 7, therefore d e p e n d e n c e o n Philo is n o t likely. See also O r i g e n , Cels. 4.40; Gen.Cat B ( P G 12, 101). 12.

Gen.Hom 1:11

( G C S ) Plant. 28

"D"

A philosophical c o m m o n p l a c e , in w h i c h an animal o r a h u m a n being is called a m i c r o c o s m . See D e m o c r i t u s , fr. 34 (xov ocuxov xporcov Kai ev xcoi dvOpctmcoi uiKpcoi KOOLTCOI ovxi Kaxd xov AnLioKpixov xauxa Oecopouvxai.... dA,A,d Kai xo ^coiov oiov ixiKpov xiva KOOLIOV eivai cpaoiv avSpec, 7caA,aioi 7iepi cpuoiv ucavoi); see further Aristotle, Physica 2 5 2 b ; G a l e n , De usu partium 3.10. Philo expresses the idea rather frequendy but uses a different adjec­ tive; he calls a h u m a n b e i n g

Ppaxuc,

KOOUOC,; a n d conversely he notes

that others call the c o s m o s a b i g "fellow," see Her. 155 (uiyav 8e avOpamov ecpaoav xov KOOUOV eivai); further: Abr. 7 1 ; Migr. 2 2 0 ; Opif. 82;

Post. 58; Mos. 2.127; 135. O r i g e n ' s t e r m i n o l o g y is: minor mundus, p r e s u m a b l y c o r r e s p o n d i n g

to

LiiKpoq KOCJLTOQ in

Greek.

Conclusions M a n y observations c o u l d b e m a d e a b o u t these parallel passages in Philo a n d O r i g e n , but s o m e results o f this investigation c a n b e expressed in tabular form. The

total n u m b e r o f passages u n d e r review was 3 0 4 from O r i g e n 23

a n d 2 4 9 from P h i l o . T h e passages rated " A " o r " B " clearly are o f greater interest than those given a " C " o r " D . " O f the 3 0 4 passages

2 3

In absolute terms more Philonic material was present, but since Origen fre­ quently referred to the same passages, duplications have been eliminated. T h e num­ bers in the full catalogue (see footnote 16) only differ slighdy.

237

THE CASE OF ORIGEN

from O r i g e n ,

109 fell in the categories " A " and " B , " that means

that about 4 2 % o f the indications o f the critical editions h a d a highlyp r o b a b l e relationship with P h i l o .

24

O f those 109 passages, twenty h a d

the extra reinforcement o f b e i n g c o n n e c t e d with an "ancestor"

or

" s o m e o n e " before O r i g e n . A s already indicated in s o m e o f the e x a m ­ ples, being an "ancestor" a n d being a " s o m e o n e " had different c o n n o ­ tations. T h e "someones" tend to appear w h e n there was a disagreement a n d O r i g e n c o u l d n o t subscribe to Philo's position. T h e s e highly-likely b o r r o w i n g s derived from twenty-two o f the thirty-six preserved works o f Philo ( 6 1 % ) , as can b e seen in the fol­ l o w i n g tabulation: T o t a l n u m b e r o f passages i n v o l v e d in the

com­

parison b e t w e e n O r i g e n a n d Philo: O r i g e n 3 0 4 , o f w h i c h twenty are rated " A " a n d 109 " B . " T o t a l " A " + " B " is 129 ( 4 2 % ) . Philo 2 4 9 . Passages rated " A " + " B " are d r a w n from twenty-two b o o k s o f the Philonic corpus, o f w h i c h a total o f thirty-six works have b e e n pre­ served:

25

Leg.

10 (4)

Somn.

QG

+ 10

Det.

+4 +2

Opif.

+9

Abr.

2

Migr.

+ 8 (2)

Spec.

2

Her.

+7 +6

QE Fug.

+2

Corf. Post.

5 (3)

Agr.

Gig.

+ 5 (1)

Sacr.

1 (1) 1

Mos.

4 (4)

Virt.

1

Congr.

+ 4 (1)

1 (4)

Ebr.

+ 4 (1)

Mut.

(4)

Deus

+4

Contempl.

(2)

Sobr.

+4

Cher.

(1)

Origen's selection from Philo has similarities with Clement: for e x a m ­ ple, the frequency o f De posteritate, De congressu, a n d De vita Mosis. Dissimilarities

include the virtual a b s e n c e o f De cherubim a n d

the

p r o m i n e n t position o f De opificio mundi in O r i g e n ' s list, a w o r k that is n o t well represented in C l e m e n t .

2 4

95 passages were rated " B , " and another 28 " B / C " ; half o f the latter were counted as " B . " Although the total o f " A " + " B " comes to 129, the number in the tabulation is lower since duplications have been eliminated. T h e plus sign (+) indicates that 2 5

238

ANNEWIES VAN DEN HOEK

T h e subject matter o f the b o r r o w i n g s c a n b e divided into bibli­ cal interpretations and allegories, o n the o n e hand, and philosophi­ cal c o n c e p t s , o n the other. This is, o f course, a rather schematic and artificial division, since biblical allegories frequendy have p h i l o s o p h ­ ical o r ethical c o m p o n e n t s ; in fact, m o s t o f t h e m relate to issues like b o d y a n d soul, g o o d and evil, voluntary and involuntary sins, perishibility o f the material world, and so o n . In the same w a y ,

the

philosophical excursus are not purely philosophical either, since they frequendy involve biblical texts. T h e allocation into o n e g r o u p o r the other is thus a matter o f w h e r e the center o f gravity falls. T h e t w o m a i n groups w e r e then divided into subgroups. T h e b i b ­ lical allegories w e r e s u b d i v i d e d into m o r a l allegories, t y p o l o g i e s , anthropomorphisms,

e t y m o l o g i c a l and numerical

speculations

allegorical theory. T h e s e c o n d g r o u p was divided into

and

speculation

o n the creation o f the w o r l d , o n the c o n c e p t o f G o d , and

other

c o m m o n philosophical issues. T h e results are again tabulated. I also c o m p a r e d the results based o n taking " A " and " B " together

with

the results c o m i n g from g r o u p " A " alone. It is interesting to see whether o n e c o u l d have obtained the same results from the initial sixteen passages that D a v i d R u n i a h a d listed (which c o u l d later b e e x t e n d e d to o v e r twenty). If that w e r e the case, a lot o f w o r k c o u l d have b e e n a v o i d e d . Group "A" alone

Groups "A" and "B" together

Bible + allegory

52%

Bible + allegory

76%

theory o f allegory

10%

theory o f allegory

2%

philosophical questions

19%

philosophical questions

12%

creation

14%

creation

8%

God

5%

God

2%

T h e tabulation, h o w e v e r , shows that the o u t c o m e s were significandy different—efforts

to g o b e y o n d a small sampling w e r e n o t

entirely

in vain. In g r o u p " A " + " B , " w h i c h h a d m o r e than six times as m a n y passages as " A " alone, a substantial shift o c c u r r e d — a b o v e all strengthening the category o f biblical interpretation and

allegoriza-

tion. A l t h o u g h the issues involving creation d w i n d l e d from 14 to 8%, they still f o r m a substantial unit, showing that Philo was important

in some instances Origen referred to Philo or a predecessor explicidy; this sign equals " A " in the general system. Numbers between brackets stand for the rating "B/C."

239

THE CASE OF ORIGEN

for O r i g e n ' s treatment o f creation. T h e larger p o o l o f material then provides a better b a l a n c e d a n d m o r e differentiated assessment o f the relationship b e t w e e n the t w o authors. The

" A passages" are v e r y revealing in o n e particular

respect,

namely, in clarifying h o w O r i g e n himself p e r c e i v e d Philo's role. O n m o r e than o n e occasion, and most notably in his responses to Celsus,

26

O r i g e n stressed Philo's i m p o r t a n c e for the interpretation o f scripture, and, in particular, for his allegorization o f the law. O r i g e n also a d d e d that Philo was successful a n d e v e n highly regarded b y G r e e k p h i l o s o ­ phers. H e did so to c o u n t e r Celsus' a r g u m e n t that the m o s t capa­ ble J e w s a n d Christians allegorized their stories as a last resort

and

out o f embarrassment b e c a u s e the stories w e r e silly. O r i g e n ' s o w n p e r c e p t i o n o f Philo seems to c o i n c i d e with his o w n practices. N o t o n l y did h e stress Philo's i m p o r t a n c e for interpreta­ tion o f scripture a n d allegorization o f law, but the statistics also reveal that this was the sort o f material he usually b o r r o w e d f r o m

him.

N o t o n l y did he use Philo as a theoretical m o d e l , o n w h i c h he c o u l d rely a n d w h i c h h e c o u l d call to his defense w h e n Christian biblical interpretation c a m e u n d e r attack, but he also d r e w o n Philo as a limitless resource for practical purposes. Philo taught h i m well, a n d O r i g e n was c a p a b l e o f setting o f f o n his o w n to b r i n g these meth­ ods to full fruition, m o r e i n d e b t e d but also m o r e i n d e p e n d e n t any Christian writer before h i m .

26

Cels 4.51; Cels 6.21; Cels 7.20. See also Mat.Com 15.3.

than

11

"VANITY S O L O M O N ' S

O F

VANITIES"?

T R I L O G Y A N D T H E

SUBVERSION

O F

NICHOLAS

PATRISTIC

SCRIPTURE

CONSTAS

Introduction Plundering the sacred treasures o f the Greeks has b e e n a venerable Jewish pastime from Philo to Freud. W h i l e such spoils w e r e often said to b e little m o r e than decorative ornaments, they w e r e n o t with­ o u t their p o w e r o f attraction, a n d m a n y a H e b r e w soul was i n d e c o ­ rously b e g u i l e d b y the spiritual seductions o f Hellenism. In a p o e m entitled " O f the J e w s ( A . D . 5 0 ) , " the A l e x a n d r i a n G r e e k p o e t C o n stantine Cavafy imaginatively m u s e d o n the fate o f a certain discusthrower n a m e d Ianthis, an A l e x a n d r i a n J e w

struggling—somewhat

disingenuously—to establish his identity with o n e foot in the

syna­

g o g u e a n d the other in the g y m n a s i u m . " M y m o s t valuable days," Ianthis declares, "are those w h e n I give u p the pursuit o f sensuous beauty, w h e n I a b a n d o n the elegant a n d severe cult o f Hellenism, with its over-riding d e v o t i o n to corruptible white limbs, a n d b e c o m e the m a n I w o u l d w a n t to remain forever: a son o f the J e w s . " T o this "pious declaration" the G r e e k p o e t adds that Ianthis " d i d n o t remain anything o f the kind. T h e H e d o n i s m a n d A r t o f A l e x a n d r i a kept h i m as their d e d i c a t e d s o n . "

1

Needless to say, n o t e v e r y e n c o u n t e r b e t w e e n A l e x a n d r i a

and

Jerusalem c o n c l u d e d with the faith o f the latter yielding to the d e c a ­ d e n c e a n d aestheticism o f the former. I f the oil o f the

1

gymnasium

T h e p o e m , written in 1912, is cited from the translation by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard, CP. Cavafy: Collected Poems (Princeton, 1992), 98; cf. 2 4 2 - 4 3 . In a study concerned with the theft o f sacred treasures, it is worth noting that Cavafy protested the removal o f the "Elgin marbles" to London; see his "Give Back the Elgin Marbles," and " M o r e o n the Elgin Marbles," in George Papoutsakis, ed., Prose (Athens, 1963), 9 - 1 2 ; 17-22 [in Greek]; cf. P.M. Fraser, "Cavafy and the Elgin Marbles," Modem Language Review 58 (1963): 6 6 - 6 8 . I am thankful to Peter Jeffreys for these references.

NICHOLAS CONSTAS

242

glistened seductively o n "corruptible white l i m b s , " it c o u l d also shine with meridian splendor o n the h e a d o f A a r o n (cf. Ps 133:2), a n d b e at length overtaken b y a still greater brilliance in the b r a z e n lamps o f the temple (cf. 1 M a c e 4:50). H o w e v e r , with the rise a n d i m p r o b ­ able triumph o f Christianity o v e r the prevailing cultural a n d politi­ cal systems o f late antiquity,

the dialectical posturing o f Hellenism

a n d J u d a i s m was increasingly upstaged b y this " n e w [third] class," w h i c h "neither r e c o g n i z e d the g o d s o f the Greeks n o r o b s e r v e d the superstitions o f the J e w s . " Instead, it shamelessly vaunted its h y b r i d descent f r o m the p r o m i s c u o u s crucible f o r m e d b y b o t h .

2

Christian

thinkers, in other w o r d s , disrupted and redefined the traditional polar­ izations o f Hellenism and Judaism, vigorously laying c l a i m to b o t h traditions while offering allegiance to neither. In m o v i n g f r o m binary t o tertiary s c h e m e s , these

thinkers c r o s s e d a d i v i d i n g line in

the

organization o f cultural a n d religious thought. S u c h a m o v e served to create a critical framework in w h i c h the n e w "third class" c o u l d construct its o w n identity b y appropriating,

reconceptualizing, a n d

thereby subverting, the sacred treasures o f its t w o c h i e f c o m p e t i t o r s . By the fourth century o f the Christian

era, the n o t i o n o f a c o n ­

tentious triangle f o r m e d b y Hellenism, Judaism, a n d Christianity was firmly

e n t r e n c h e d within Christian discourse. In a s e r m o n designed

to p o p u l a r i z e the complexities o f the fourth-century Trinitarian c o n ­ troversy, Basil o f Caesarea (ca. 3 2 9 - 3 7 9 ) suggested to his c o n g r e g a ­ tion

that the protracted

Christian

dispute a b o u t the nature o f the

divine b e i n g was actually a struggle b e t w e e n Hellenism a n d J u d a i s m , with N i c e n e o r t h o d o x y e n d e a v o r i n g to establish itself s o m e w h e r e in b e t w e e n the t w o . In the sermon's o p e n i n g lines, Basil d e c l a r e d that ' J u d a i s m wars against Hellenism, and b o t h w a g e w a r o n Christianity, as the Egyptians a n d the Assyrians w a g e d w a r o n e a c h other

and

also o n I s r a e l . . . such is the w a r b e i n g w a g e d o n the true faith, o n

2

T h e quotation in the previous sentence is taken from the Epistle to Diognetus 1: "[. . .] neither recognizing those w h o are considered to be gods by the Greeks nor observing the superstition o f the J e w s . . . this new race o f men or way o f life," and Clement o f Alexandria, Stromateis 6.5: "[Christians are] from both Hellenic paideia and that o f the law being gathered into one race." T h e earliest reference to Christians as a "chosen race" is 1 Peter 2:9. O n these themes, see G . Stroumsa, Barbarian Philosophy: The Religious Revolution of Early Christianity (Tubingen, 1999), 8 - 4 3 ; and, more generally, E.G. Weltin, Athens and Jerusalem. An Interpretative Essay on Christianity and Classical Culture (Atianta: Scholars Press, 1987). O n the use o f these categories in modernist thought, see Stephen Prickett, "'Hebrew' and 'Hellene' as a Principle of Literary Criticism," in Rediscovering Hellenism: The Hellenic Heritage and the English Imagination, ed. G . W . Clarke, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 137-59.

243

VANITY OF VANITIES

o n e front b y Sabellius, a n d o n the other b y A r i a n i s m . "

3

T h e sacred

persons o f the Sabellian Trinity, it will b e recalled, w e r e but fleeting epiphanies o f the o n e a n d o n l y G o d , a Christian theological posi­ tion w h i c h Basil construes

as a f o r m o f J u d a i s m . Basil

elsewhere

explicitiy identifies the t w o , stating that "Sabellianism is J u d a i s m , " a n d that " w e should shudder at this heresy as m u c h as w e d o at Judaism."

4

T h e o p p o s i n g heresy o f Arianism, o n the other h a n d , is

m a d e b y Basil to a p p e a r o n the homiletical stage w e a r i n g the mask o f Hellenism. A s is well k n o w n , Arius, a fourth-century presbyter o f Alexandria, h a d d e n i e d the absolute but n o t relative divinity o f the Christian savior, a n d was subsequently slandered b y his o p p o n e n t s for having i n t r o d u c e d a p a n t h e o n ship into the Christian faith.

o f g o d s a n d a plurality o f w o r ­

I n v o k i n g the rhetorical

categories o f

Hellenism a n d J u d a i s m was a c o n v e n i e n t a n d effective w a y to frame the Christian debates, and Basil s u m m e d u p his Trinitarian tract On the Holy Spirit b y noting that, " o n the o n e h a n d are those w h o c o n ­ fuse the persons a n d revert to J u d a i s m ; o n the other are those w h o o p p o s e the natures, a n d (§77).

are

swept a w a y into G r e e k p o l y t h e i s m "

5

G r e g o r y o f Nyssa (ca. 3 3 5 - 3 9 4 ) elevated his brother Basil's p o i n t e d rhetorical triangle into a systematic principle w h i c h he uses to o r g a ­ nize m u c h o f his thinking. G r e g o r y ' s Catechetical Oration, for e x a m p l e , is a p o p u l a r h a n d b o o k o f Christian teaching in the f o r m o f a sus­ tained, dialectical response to the theological extremes o f J u d a i s m and Hellenism. In p l a c e o f Sabellius a n d Arius, G r e g o r y introduces

the

philosophers and the prophets, a n d h e articulates a Christian d o c ­ trine o f G o d in the stammering,

3

equivocal idiom o f Greek

reason

Contra Sabellianos et Arium et Anomoium (= h o m . 24, P G 31.600). Basil, ep. 210: "Sabellianism is Judaism which is being imported under the appearance o f Christianity into the preaching o f the Gospel" (St. Basil, Letters, 3.203 [trans. R.J. Defarrari, L C L , Cambridge, Mass., 1986]), and id., ep. 189 [= Gregory o f Nyssa?]: "Against [Sabellianism] we hold forth our customary armor o f defense, even the truth, by showing that we shudder at such a heresy as much as at Judaism" (St. Basil, Letters 3.53). Ed. B. Pruche (Angers, 1947), 257; cf. Basil, ep. 210: "It must be clearly under­ stood that as one w h o does not acknowledge the community o f [God's] essence falls into polytheism, so he w h o does not grant the individuality o f the persons is carried off into Judaism" (St. Basil, Letters 3.211). See also Gregory Nazianzus, Or. 20.6, where Arianism is described as "Jewish reductionism" (SC 270 [Paris, 1980], 70, lin. 13); cf. id., Or. 2.37 (SC 247 [Paris, 1978], 138, lin. 13). T h e equation o f Arianism with Judaism occurs frequently in Athanasius, on which see R . Lorenz, Arius Judaizans? (Gottingen, 1979). 4

5

244

NICHOLAS CONSTAS

a n d Jewish

revelation.

In o n e o f his m a n y m e t h o d o l o g i c a l digres­

sions, G r e g o r y notes that "truth passes in the m e a n b e t w e e n these t w o c o n c e p t i o n s , destroying e a c h heresy, and yet a c c e p t i n g w h a t is useful to it f r o m e a c h " (§3; cf. § 5 ) .

6

In b o t h rhetoric a n d reality, the interaction o f Hellenism, J u d a i s m , and

Christianity was a matter that greatly p r e o c c u p i e d Christian

thinkers o f late antiquity, especially those living in the G r e e k east. T h i s p a p e r studies that interaction as it u n f o l d e d in the G r e e k Chris­ tian exegesis o f the H e b r e w scriptures (a descriptive c a t e g o r y that itself contains the three terms in question). O f all the sacred trea­ sures o f antiquity, the H e b r e w scriptures were a m o n g the most greatly p r i z e d a n d therefore a m o n g the most intensely contested. T h a t c o n ­ test was e n a c t e d primarily

through strategies o f textual interpreta­

tion a n d the history o f exegesis is therefore a p r o m i s i n g site in w h i c h to study the process w h e r e b y the Christian "third class" e n d e a v o r e d to outflank a n d displace its venerable religious precursor. In addition to their struggle for ownership o f the H e b r e w scrip­ tures, Greek speaking Christians e x p e n d e d similar energies with respect to the writings o f H o m e r and Plato. B y the beginning o f the Christian era, the H o m e r i c epics a n d the Platonic dialogues h a d b e e n the sub­ jects o f extensive interpretation and h a d u n d e r g o n e a process o f can­ onization similar to that o f the H e b r e w Bible. It m a y n o t b e w i d e o f the m a r k to assert that the c a n o n i z a t i o n o f these works a n d their o n g o i n g interpretation w e r e as i m p o r t a n t to G r e e k culture a n d reli­ g i o n as the authority a n d study o f the Bible was for the Jews.

The

parallel status o f these t w o corpora has recentiy b e e n described as a

6

I cite this work from the English translation by W . M o o r e and H . A . Wilson in vol. 5 o f The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (London, 1892; repr. Grand Rapids, 1983), 4 7 7 - 7 8 ; for the Greek text, see P G 45.17D and 2 0 D . See also Gregory Nazianzus, Or. 2.37, w h o offers a slight variation o n this theme: "There are three theological maladies: atheism, Judaism, and polytheism, one o f which is patronized by Sabellius, the other by Arius . . . my position avoids their extremes, remaining within the limits o f piety" (SC 247 [Paris, 1978], 138, lin. 15); id., Or. 29.2: " T h e opinions about G o d which hold pride o f place are three in number: atheism, polytheism, and monotheism" (SC 250 [Paris, 1978], 178, lins. 1-2). While studies on the Hellenism o f the Cappadocians exist in unbecoming excess, I know o f no major study dealing with the Cappadocians and Judaism. T h e most recent and otherwise excellent study o f Basil by P. Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley, 1994), does not include any references to Jews or Judaism in its index. Note that the father o f Gregory Nazianzus is generally said to have been a Jewish convert to Christianity, cf. C . Bonis, "Was the Father o f Gregory Nazianzus o f Greek or Hebrew Origin?" in Kathegetria: Essays Presented to J. Hussey (Athens, 1988), 173-78.

245

VANITY OF VANITIES " d o u b l e helix" underwriting

the e m e r g e n c e o f Christian identity in

a kind o f "double-translation process, in w h i c h the H e b r e w Scriptures a p p e a r n o w in G r e e k garb, while G r e c o - R o m a n culture is subsumed to the B i b l e . "

7

In the following paper, I e x a m i n e the early Christian

appropria­

tion (and subversion) o f these t w o corpora through the G r e e k patris­ tic interpretation o f " S o l o m o n ' s T r i l o g y , " i.e., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, a n d the S o n g o f S o n g s , three Jewish b o o k s w h i c h m a n y Christians believed h a d anticipated the tripartite division o f classical G r e e k phi­ l o s o p h y . W i t h i n this general framework, m y p r i m a r y focus will b e o n the b o o k o f Ecclesiastes as it was situated a n d interpreted in the c o n t e x t o f S o l o m o n ' s trilogy b y t w o early Christian exegetes: O r i g e n o f A l e x a n d r i a (ca. 1 8 5 - 2 5 4 ) a n d his fourth-century

disciple G r e g o r y

o f Nyssa. I argue that, unlike Proverbs o r the S o n g o f S o n g s , E c c l e ­ siastes was particularly

resistant to hermeneutical

reception

within

early Christian theology, a n d that its reception was secured o n l y after it h a d b e e n reframed within the contentious triangle described a b o v e . W h e n seen f r o m the belated Christian angle, b o t h H e b r a i c w i s d o m (i.e., S o l o m o n ' s trilogy) a n d H e l l e n i c p h i l o s o p h y (i.e., the tripartite division o f the p h i l o s o p h i c a l curriculum) a p p e a r e d to b l e n d a n d blur, eventually b e c o m i n g indistinct,

because

" s o m e t h i n g greater

S o l o m o n " h a d n o w taken their p l a c e (cf. M a t t

than

12:42).

I. Origen of Alexandria It w o u l d b e difficult to exaggerate the influence o f O r i g e n o n the G r e e k patristic exegetical tradition, and it will b e helpful at this p o i n t to set forth

the basic features o f O r i g e n ' s exegesis as they relate

specifically to m y t h e m e . In B o o k I V o f his On First Principles, O r i g e n contrasts the true, "spiritual" m e a n i n g o f scripture with its relatively

7

Stroumsa, Barbarian Philosophy, 43; cf. R . Lamberton, Homer the Theologian (Berkeley, 1986), and the earlier work o f F. Buffiere, Les mythes d'Homere et la pensee grecque (Paris, 1956). See also Basil's manifesto Ad Adulescentes ( " T o Y o u n g M e n , O n the Benefits to be Derived from the Writings o f the Greeks") (St. Basil, Letters, 4.378-435 [LCL, Deferrari and McGuire]), and the insightful essay by E. Fortin, "Christianity and Hellenism in Basil's the Great's Ad Adulescentes," in Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought. Essays in Honour of A.H. Armstrong, ed. H.J. Blumenthal and R.A. Markus (London, 1981), 189-203. L. Schucan, Das Nachkben von Basilius Magnus A d Adulescentes: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des christlichen Humanismus (Geneva, 1973), maps the later history o f Basil's tract which was interpreted both as a defense of, and an attack on, the Greek classics.

246

NICHOLAS CONSTAS

false literal m e a n i n g , w h i c h he tends to denigrate as the "fleshly" o r " b o d i l y " m e a n i n g . O r i g e n h a d earlier described the p r i m o r d i a l

fall

o f spirit into flesh, a n d against this metaphysical b a c k c l o t h the b o d ­ ily sense o f scripture is u n d e r s t o o d to b e at considerable r e m o v e f r o m the truth o f its spiritual signification. O r i g e n argues, m o r e o v e r , that fixation o n the fleshly sense o f scripture is a categorically 'Jewish" weakness, a n d he defines the disjunction b e t w e e n the literal a n d the spiritual as c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n J u d a i s m Christianity.

and

8

T a k i n g the spiritual h i g h g r o u n d was, o f course, to m a k e a virtue o u t o f necessity, i n a s m u c h

as Christian exegetes h a d to legitimize

themselves o n the basis o f a text w h i c h they shared with their Jewish neighbors. T h r o u g h the use o f allegory, o r "spiritual exegesis," as h e preferred to call it, O r i g e n c o u l d simultaneously a d v a n c e a n u m b e r o f critical agendas. In the first p l a c e , spiritual exegesis was a w a y to read Jewish scripture f r o m a uniquely Christian p o i n t o f view. It was also a w a y to challenge the legitimacy o f Jewish interpretations a n d to u n d e r m i n e the authority o f Jewish interpreters. T h r o u g h spiritual exegesis, O r i g e n was further e n a b l e d to m a k e a sophisticated c l a i m to o w n e r s h i p o f the scriptures themselves, a n d at the same time to argue the legitimacy o f that claim before the p a g a n p u b l i c . In

the

e v e r - e x p a n d i n g universe o f allegorical exegesis, O r i g e n was c a p a b l e o f e v e n greater audacity, and having p l u n d e r e d the sacred treasures o f Palestine, h e p r o c e e d e d to ransack the schools o f Hellas. H e did so preeminentiy through his spiritual exegesis o f S o l o m o n ' s trilogy.

II. Solomon's Trilogy T h e c a n o n i c a l s e q u e n c e o f Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, a n d the S o n g o f S o n g s was seen b y O r i g e n as b e i n g directly relevant to the p r o p e r spiritual interpretation o f the b o o k s themselves. T h e structural unity that O r i g e n p e r c e i v e d in this sequence was further c o n s o l i d a t e d for

8

For an introduction to Origen's exegetical method, see B. Daley, "Origen's De Principiis: A Guide to the Principles o f Christian Scriptural Interpretation," in Nova et Vetera: Patristic Studies in Honor of T.P. Halton, ed. J. Petruccione (Washington, D . C . , 1998), 3 - 2 1 . See also D . Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley, 1992). Note that Origen's spiritual reading o f Hebrew scrip­ ture was also a way to combat both Gnostic and Marcionite calumniation o f the G o d o f Israel and the Christian literalism o f Biblical fundamentalists, anthropomorphites, and millenarians (De Prin. IV.2-3).

247

VANITY OF VANITIES

h i m at another level in the p e r s o n o f S o l o m o n , the putative inspired author. O r i g e n was n o t the first to posit and exploit these c o n n e c ­ tions, although he set the t o n e for subsequent c o m m e n t a r i e s o n these b o o k s , including that b y T h e o d o r e t o f Cyrrhus (ca. 3 9 3 - 4 9 6 ) , w h o was otherwise an undeviating A n t i o c h e n e literalist famously at o d d s with all things A l e x a n d r i a n .

9

O r i g e n discusses the nature a n d significance o f S o l o m o n ' s trilogy in the p r o l o g u e to his Commentary on the Song of Songs. Written s o m e ­ time b e t w e e n 2 4 0 and 2 4 5 , the ten v o l u m e Commentary was consid­ ered b y m a n y to b e his masterpiece. O f the ten v o l u m e s , o n l y the first

three have survived in a Latin translation b y Rufinus,

with t w o o f O r i g e n ' s homilies o n the

along

S o n g preserved in a Latin

translation b y J e r o m e , w h o notes that, unlike the solid f o o d o f the Commentary, the homilies w e r e diluted lactations for " b a b e s a n d suck­ lings." In the third chapter o f the expansive prologue to the Commentary, O r i g e n skillfully c o m b i n e s the tropes o f spiritual exegesis with sweep­ ing historical revisionism in o r d e r to exalt the genius o f his o w n faith o v e r a n d against those o f his Jewish a n d G r e e k rivals.

10

O r i g e n begins these negotiations b y suggesting that S o l o m o n ' s tri­ logy, w h e n p r o p e r l y u n d e r s t o o d , is a s y m b o l i c unity e n c o m p a s s i n g the

three b r a n c h e s

o f G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y . O r i g e n identifies

these

branches as ethics, physics, a n d enoptics, although h e himself prefers to call t h e m

the

m o r a l , the natural, a n d the introspective.

11

The

9

Theodoret discusses Solomon's trilogy in the preface to his Commentary on the Song of Songs (PG 8 1 . 4 5 D - 4 8 C ) ; cf. J.-N. Guinot, L'Exegese de Theodoret de Cyr (Paris, 1995), 6 3 4 - 4 4 ; cf. 4 6 6 - 8 4 (= "La polemique anti-painne"), and 4 8 4 - 5 2 2 (= "La polemique anti-juive"). Writing just before Origen, Hippolytus o f R o m e (d. 235) suggested a straight-forward trinitarian schema: Proverbs was the book o f the Father's wisdom; Ecclesiastes the book o f the Son's sojourn on earth; and the Song o f Songs that o f the j o y and consolation o f the Holy Spirit; see his Interpretatio Cantica canticorum 1.1—5 ( C S C O 264, vol. 16 [1965], 23); the work survives only in Georgian. O n the history o f the Song's interpretation, see R . Murphy, The Song of Songs (Minneapolis, 1990), 11-41. For a literary reading o f Origen's commentary indebted to Roland Barthes, see Patricia C o x Miller, "'Pleasure o f the Text, Text o f Pleasure': Eros and Language in Origen's Commentary on the Song o f Songs," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 54 (1986): 241-53. 10

Trans. R.P. Lawson, Origen: The Song of Songs, Commentary and Homilies, A C W 26 (New York, 1956). T h e Latin text o f the Commentary has been edited by L. Bresard, et al., S C 735—76 (Paris, 1991), and that o f the homilies by O . Rousseau, SC 37 (Paris, 1955). See also, I. Hadot, "Les introductions aux commentaires exegetiques chez les auters Neoplatoniciens et les auteurs Chretiens," in Les Regies de ^Interpretation, ed. M . Tardieu (Paris, 1987), 9 9 - 1 1 9 , esp. 112-19. For a detailed discussion o f this question, see M . Harl, "Les trois livres de 11

248

NICHOLAS CONSTAS

three-fold division o f the p h i l o s o p h i c a l c u r r i c u l u m , while n o t e x a c d y biblical, is well attested a m o n g the Stoics in a tradition g o i n g all the way

b a c k to Z e n o .

1 2

O r i g e n , h o w e v e r , claims that the

Greeks

had

actually plagiarized the three-fold division o f p h i l o s o p h y directly f r o m the

trilogy o f S o l o m o n .

1 3

O r i g e n further

assures us that

Solomon

h a d h i m s e l f b e e n taught these principles b y the v e r y W i s d o m o f G o d (cf.

1 C o r 1:24), the Christ o f w h o m the wise king was b u t a p r o ­

visional type. In this remarkable, i n d e e d breathtaking turn o f events, G r e e k phi­ l o s o p h y has

been subordinated

to J e w i s h

wisdom, and

the

son o f

D a v i d has b e e n typologically assimilated to the s o n o f M a r y . H a v i n g seen to these arrangements, O r i g e n can n o w fully disclose the d y n a m i c m o v e m e n t f r o m the literal to the spiritual, a pattern o f m o r a l , intel­ lectual, a n d religious c o n v e r s i o n w h i c h his J e w i s h a n d G r e e k sources

Salomon et les parties de la philosophie dans les Prologues des Commentaires sur le Cantique des Cantiques (d'Origene aux chaines exegetiques grecques)," in Texte und Textkritik: Eine Aufsatsammlung, ed. J. D u m m e r (Berlin, 1987), 2 4 9 - 6 9 ; cf. S. Leanza, "La classificazione dei libri salomonici e i suoi riflessi sulla questione dei rapporti tra Bibbia e scienze profane, da Origene agli scrittori medioevali," Augustinianum 14 (1974): 6 5 1 - 6 6 ; and Patricia C o x Miller, "Origen and the Bestial Soul: A Poetics o f Nature," Vigiliae Christianae 36 (1986): 118—20. See Hans Friedrich von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta II (Leipzig, 1968), no. 3 7 - 4 4 , cited in Harl, p . 252, n. 14. Clement, apparentiy under the influence o f Philo, had earlier suggested a similar, four-fold schema for the "philosophy o f M o s e s , " cf. Stromateis 1.176, and the texts cited and discussed b y J. Danielou, "Clement o f Alexandria and the Primitive Tradition," in id., Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture. Trans. J.A. Baker (Philadelphia, 1973), 4 8 - 6 8 ; cf. Theodoret, Commentary on the Song of Songs: "Proverbs offers ethical benefit to those w h o desire it; Ecclesiastes interprets the nature o f visible things. . . the Song o f Songs teaches the mystical coupling o f the bride and the bridegroom, so that the entire Solomonic trilogy is a sort o f ladder having three rungs: the ethical, the physiological, and the mystical" (PG 81.48AB). 12

13

This argument is first found in the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus (ca. 150 B.C.E.) (fragments in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 7.14; 8.10; 13.12; Clement, Strom. 1.342; 5.595; 6.632) and Josephus (Contra Ap. 2.168, 257), and was widely exploited by Christian apologists, cf. Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 44: "Plato took this from the prophet Moses, for Moses is more ancient than all the Greek writers, and everything that both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality o f the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplations o f heavenly things, or doctrines like these, they have received from the prophets" (trans. L . W . Barnard, A C W 56 [New York, 1997], 53); Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos 31; and Theophilus, Ad Autolycum 3.16. Origen repeats this claim in Contra Celsum 4.21 and 6.43 ( H o m e r has plagiarized Moses), as does Gregory o f Nyssa in his sixth homily on Ecclesiastes: "Certain sec­ ular philosophers, becoming thieves, no doubt, o f what is ours, have divided between them the thought presented in this saying [i.e., Eccl 3 : 1 ] " (trans. Hall, p . 101, cited below, n. 22). O n the whole subject, see A J . Droge, Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture (Tubingen, 1989).

249

VANITY OF VANITIES

h a d u n d e r s t o o d o n l y faintly a n d in part. After the basic m o r a l train­ ing in Proverbs, o n e must detach oneself from the vanities o f the visible w o r l d described in Ecclesiastes, in o r d e r to attain u n i o n with Christ o n the b e d o f c o n t e m p l a t i o n envisioned in the S o n g o f Songs. In a rhetorical gesture toward m o r e familiar biblical images, O r i g e n points out that the prefigured

exemplifies the Gen

"three-fold

structure o f divine p h i l o s o p h y was

in the lives o f A b r a h a m ,

Isaac

and J a c o b . "

Abraham

o b e d i e n c e in w h i c h m o r a l p h i l o s o p h y consists (cf.

1 2 : 1 - 4 ) . Isaac, o n the other h a n d , is the paradigmatic

expo­

nent o f natural p h i l o s o p h y , digging wells a n d searching out the roots o f things (cf. G e n 2 6 : 1 2 ) . a n d he earned

the n a m e

14

J a c o b practices the "inspective science, o f Israel f r o m his c o n t e m p l a t i o n in

the

things o f G o d and saw . . . ladders reaching u p from earth to h e a v e n " (cf. G e n 2 8 : 1 0 , 17; 3 2 : 2 ) .

15

O r i g e n underscores the fact that all three

patriarchs lived in tents (cf. H e b 11:9), w h i c h he interprets as a sign that those w h o apply themselves to divine p h i l o s o p h y should n o t b e invested in the earth, but must b e always " m o v i n g o n , n o t so m u c h f r o m place to p l a c e , as f r o m the k n o w l e d g e o f inferior matters to that o f perfect o n e s . " O r i g e n ' s interpretation o f Proverbs, Ecclesiastes a n d the S o n g o f Songs, as marking the progressive stages in the ascent o f the

mind

from the sensible to the intelligible was an eisegetical triumph that h a d an extraordinary i m p a c t o n the w o r k o f subsequent interpreters. In b o t h east and west, passages f r o m O r i g e n ' s Commentary w e r e rou­ tinely a n t h o l o g i z e d a n d readily available to subsequent in a chain stretching f r o m late antiquity through

the

generations Renaissance.

H a v i n g established the basic principles o f O r i g e n ' s spiritual e x e g e ­ sis, a l o n g with his revisionist reading o f S o l o m o n ' s trilogy, w e m a y

14

Lawson, 4 4 - 4 5 ; cf. 1 Kings 4:33, where Solomon is portrayed as speaking o f "trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out o f the wall; he spoke also o f beasts, and o f birds, and o f reptiles, and o f fish." Origen, De Principiis 2.11.5-7, believes that after death the souls o f the righteous will be taught the mysteries o f the natural world, including "the meaning o f the diversity among animals, and for what cause each genus is divided into many species, and why certain properties are attached to certain roots and herbs." Gregory the Wonder­ worker, in his paraphrase o f Ecclesiastes, notes that Solomon "wisely penetrated the whole nature o f the earth," and understood "the natures o f things" (trans. Slusser, p. 128, cited below, n. 24). For this interpretation o f Israel, cf. Origen, Horn. Gen. 15.3 ( G C S 29.130.1; trans. R . Heine, F O T C 71 [Washington, D . C . , 1982], 206); id., Horn. Num. 11.4.3 (ed. L. Doutreleau, SC 442 [Paris, 1999], 38); Eusebius, Praep. ev. 11.6; Philo, Ebr. 20.82 (Israel = horasis theou). 15

250

NICHOLAS CONSTAS

n o w turn to the b o o k o f Ecclesiastes as it was situated a n d inter­ preted within that trilogy b y O r i g e n a n d G r e g o r y o f Nyssa.

III. The Book of Ecclesiastes W i t h i n the three-fold structure o f "divine p h i l o s o p h y , " the b o o k o f Ecclesiastes forms the central hinge, a n d it was o f crucial i m p o r ­ tance in O r i g e n ' s system o f spiritual p e d a g o g y a n d mystical ascent. In terms o f its actual contents, h o w e v e r , Ecclesiastes did not read­ ily fit into Origen's tidy tripartite schema. W h i l e the b o o k o f Proverbs i n d e e d teaches ethics, and while it is n o t unreasonable

to suggest

that the S o n g o f Songs m a y actually b e c o n c e r n e d with mystical union, it is not immediately clear h o w Ecclesiastes serves as a trea­ tise o n physics. Nevertheless, it h a d to b e situated within the unfold­ i n g p r o c e s s o f ascent, a n d b o t h O r i g e n a n d

G r e g o r y o f Nyssa

a c c o m p l i s h e d this b y focusing their exegetical energies almost exclu­ sively o n the n o t i o n o f the "vanity" o r "futility" o f all creation. In the p r o l o g u e to the Commentary o n the S o n g o f Songs, O r i g e n argues that the purpose o f Ecclesiastes is to "teach that all visible a n d c o r p o r e a l things are fleeting a n d brittle; a n d o n c e the

seeker

after w i s d o m has grasped that these things are so, he is b o u n d to spurn a n d despise them; r e n o u n c i n g the w o r l d . . . he will reach out for things unseen and eternal." A s such, O r i g e n considers Ecclesiastes to b e an admittedly peculiar f o r m o f physics, a science o f nature that displaces nature b y emphasizing its futility and transience. Largely o n the rhetorical weight o f its o p e n i n g a n d c o n c l u d i n g exhortation, " V a n i t y o f vanities, all is vanity" (Eccl 1:2; 12:8), O r i g e n makes the entire b o o k o f Ecclesiastes c o n f o r m to the crucial, liminal stage o f b o d i l y a n d intellectual "purification . . . through w h i c h o n e learns the difference b e t w e e n things corruptible a n d things incorruptible;

[a

stage in w h i c h the soul is] cleansed in all its habits a n d able to p r o ­ c e e d to pure c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f the d i v i n e . "

16

O r i g e n ' s remarks in the p r o l o g u e to the Commentary o n the d e e p e r m e a n i n g o f Ecclesiastes, outlined a b o v e , are understandably H a v i n g summarily inserted

16

brief.

the s e c o n d b o o k o f S o l o m o n ' s trilogy

Lawson, 4 3 - 4 4 ; cf. Theodoret, Commentary on the Song of Song: "Ecclesiastes inter­ prets the nature o f visible things, and teaches us about the vanity o f the present life, so that we might learn h o w all things in the present are subject to death, and thus despise them, and desire the future things which last forever" (PG 81.48A).

251

VANITY OF VANITIES

within a larger pattern o f interpretation, he embarks u p o n his c e n ­ tral p r o j e c t w h i c h is the spiritual exegesis o f the S o n g o f S o n g s . It is w o r t h noting that O r i g e n additionally c o m p o s e d a set o f scholia o n Ecclesiastes surviving o n l y in a handful

o f fragments.

He

also

alludes to, cites and c o m m e n t s o n various passages f r o m Ecclesiastes throughout

his writings (e.g., E c c l 2:14: " T h e wise m a n ' s eyes are

in his h e a d " ) , although he d o e s n o t contradict o r depart f r o m

the 1

basic interpretation that he outlined in the prelude to the Commentary}

F o l l o w i n g O r i g e n , the n o t i o n that the b o o k o f Ecclesiastes c o m ­ prised a kind o f Christian physics was taken u p b y G r e g o r y o f Nyssa in his Commentary on the Song of Songs, a collection o f fifteen homilies written a r o u n d

390.

1 8

In the p r o l o g u e , G r e g o r y subjects

Origen's

theme o f tripartition to a range o f variations, m o s t notably his devel­ o p m e n t a l theory that the b o o k s o f S o l o m o n ' s trilogy reflect three distinctive ages o f the spiritual life. A l o n g these lines, Proverbs is said to b e a p r i m e r for spiritual infants w h o are c o a x e d a l o n g b y "childish trinkets."

19

Ecclesiastes, o n the other h a n d , is for the matur­

ing soul that recognizes the vanity o f the w o r l d and desires virtue instead. In the fourth h o m i l y , G r e g o r y returns to the t h e m e o f the vanity o f the w o r l d , and he notes that the " f o r m o f the w o r l d " is itself the very "vanity o f vanities" (Eccl 1:2) because it is unstable and "passing a w a y " (1 C o r 7:31; cf. E p h 4:17). T h e w o r l d , he says, is a "field" (cf. M a t t 13:38) o f appearances d e v o i d o f substance,

and

the " p o w e r s , " w h i c h at S o n g 2:7 are said to b e present in that field, are n o t the physical forces o f nature, but the intelligible natures o f heaven.

20

W h e n the earthly d e t a c h m e n t o f those heavenly p o w e r s is

reproduced and

17

actualized in the h u m a n soul through

the life o f

S. Leanza, L'esegesi di Origene at libro dell'Ecclesiaste (Reggio Calabria, 1975). See J.B. Cahill, " T h e Date and Setting o f Gregory o f Nyssa's Commentary on the Song o f Songs," JTS 32.2 (1981), 4 4 7 - 6 0 . Trans. C . McCambley, Gregory of Nyssa: Commentary on the Song of Songs (Brookline, 1987), 45; cf. A . Jacobs, "Solomon's Salacious Song: Foucault's Author Function and the Early Christian Interpretation o f the Canticum Canticorum," Medieval Encounters 4.1 (1998), 1-23, w h o focuses on Origen and Gregory o f Nyssa. Note that Nyssa also divided the stages o f the spiritual life into five distinctive moments, following the five divisions o f the Psalter, see his treatise On the Inscriptions of the Psalms, trans. R . Heine (Oxford, 1995), 13-15; and M.-J. Rondeau, "Exegese du Psautier et anabase spirituele chez Gregoire de Nysse," in Epektasis, ed. J. Fontaine and C . Kanengiesser (Beauchesne, 1972), 5 1 7 - 3 1 . McCambley, Gregory of Nyssa, 105; cf. Origen, Commentary 3.10 (Lawson, 203-5), who interiorizes the "field" within the soul o f the bride w h o must cultivate its inner powers, or alternatively as the "husbandry o f G o d " (1 C o r 3:9), i.e., the " c o m m o n 18

19

2 0

NICHOLAS CONSTAS

252

virtue, G o d ' s will is d o n e " o n earth as it is in h e a v e n " ( M a t t 6:10), a n d at that m o m e n t the soul enters, in full stature, into the c h a m b e r o f divine

mysteries.

bridal

21

G r e g o r y h a d previously addressed these themes m o r e directiy

and

at greater length in a series o f eight homilies o n Ecclesiastes deliv­ e r e d s o m e t i m e b e f o r e the spring o f 3 8 1 . T h e s e homilies, w h i c h vary c o n s i d e r a b l y in length, offer a selective, allegorizing exposition o f the biblical text from chapter 1:1 through chapter 3 : 1 3 . briefer n o t i c e in the

22

A s with Gregory's

Commentary, the t h e m e o f the vanity o f creation

p r o v i d e s the m a j o r h e r m e n e u t i c a l principle for his h a n d l i n g o f the text in the

homilies.

Before turning to Nyssa's homilies, it is w o r t h n o t i n g that a para­ phrase o f Ecclesiastes, u n a n i m o u s l y attributed b y the m a n u s c r i p t tra­ dition

to

G r e g o r y Nazianzus,

Wonderworker

(ca. 2 1 0 - 2 7 5 ) ,

is in fact 2 3

the

work o f Gregory

a native o f C a p p a d o c i a

who

the had

studied u n d e r O r i g e n in Palestinian Caesarea. U p o n returning to his native land, G r e g o r y befriended the h o u s e h o l d o f the elder a m o n g whose grandchildren

Macrina,

was G r e g o r y o f Nyssa, w h o w r o t e

the

Life of Gregory the Wonderworker, p e r h a p s o n the basis o f s o m e o f his

practice o f the Church's faith and way o f life." Elsewhere, Origen notes that the human heart is a field entrusted to the angels for cultivation (Horn. Num. 11, ed. L. Doutreleau, S C 442 [Paris, 1999], 30). Evagrius, scholion 291 on Prov 24:27, notes that " O u r Lord in the Gospels called the world a 'field' (Matt 13:38), but here (i.e., Prov 24:27) Solomon calls the contemplation o f the world a 'field.' This is because the field in the Gospels is that o f the human being compounded o f soul and body, for the human being is sensible. But the field mentioned here signifies only the intellect, which is intelligible and compounded out o f the intelligible principles o f the world, into which pure hearts may enter" (ed. P. Gehin, S C 340 [Paris, 1987], 382); cf. id., scholion 38 on Eccl 5:7-8 (ed. P. Gehin, S C 397 [Paris, 1993], 130). 2 1

M c C a m b l e y , Gregory of Nyssa, 47. T h e homilies were the focus o f the Seventh International Colloquium o n Gregory o f Nyssa (St. Andrews, 5 - 1 0 September, 1990), which produced an English translation along with 17 supporting studies, ed. S.G. Hall, Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on Ecclesiastes (Berlin and N e w York, 1993). A critical edition o f the Greek text is available in Gregorii Nysseni Opera, vol. 5, ed. P. Alexander (Leiden, 1962), 2 7 7 - 4 4 2 ; reprinted with an introduction, notes, and a facing page French translation b y F. Vinel, Gregoire de Nysse, Homelies sur L'Ecclesiaste, S C 416 (Paris, 1996). See also M . Hirshman, " T h e Greek Fathers and the Aggada o n Ecclesiastes: Formats o f Exegesis in Late Antiquity," Hebrew Union College Annual 59 (1988): 147—51 ("Gregory o f Nyssa: Oratory and Exegesis"). 2 2

2 3

T h e paraphrase was known and cited by both Jerome and Rufinus, and pas­ sages from it are scattered throughout the sixth-century exegetical chain on Ecclesiastes compiled b y Procopius o f Gaza (ed. S. Leanza, C C S G 4 [1978]). O n Gregory the Wonderworker and the Cappadocians, see Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea, 11-14.

253

VANITY OF VANITIES grandmother's pares

recollections. In o n e episode o f the Life, Nyssa c o m ­

the saint's w i s d o m in arbitrating a p r o p e r t y dispute to

the

famous j u d g e m e n t o f S o l o m o n (§50; cf. 1 K i n g s 3 : 1 6 - 2 8 ) . T h e wis­ d o m o f the saint, w h o miraculously dried u p a marshy lake that h a d b e e n at the center o f the dispute, is said to have b e e n vastly supe­ rior to that o f S o l o m o n , a n d Nyssa states that " S o l o m o n himself w o u l d n o t dispute

as to the first prize in this c o m p a r i s o n " (§54).

Nyssa d o e s n o t m e n t i o n the saint's paraphrase o f Ecclesiastes, w h i c h was a largely successful attempt to r e n d e r

the semiticisms o f the

Septuagint into s m o o t h , elegant G r e e k . A t the same time, the saint also w o r k e d s o m e w o n d e r s o n the

text's c o n c e p t u a l indelicacies,

although the relationship b e t w e e n these latter changes a n d the tent o f Nyssa's eight homilies has n o t yet b e e n

studied.

con­

24

H a v i n g n o t e d G r e g o r y the W o n d e r w o r k e r ' s use o f the

Origenist

tradition, w e m a y n o w turn to G r e g o r y o f Nyssa's cycle o f eight ser­ m o n s o n Ecclesiastes. T h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

o f Gregory's preaching

remain unclear, although it has b e e n surmised that he delivered these sermons during G r e a t L e n t o f 3 8 1 , i.e., shortly before the C o u n c i l o f Constantinople, w h i c h m e t during M a y , J u n e , a n d J u l y o f that year.

25

G r e g o r y begins the first h o m i l y b y b o l d l y laying c l a i m to

Ecclesiastes as a w h o l e . F r o m his p o i n t o f view, Ecclesiastes is a rev­ elation offered uniquely to the c h u r c h , the ecclesia. It " l o o k s , " as he says, "exclusively to the c h u r c h , " e m b o d y i n g the spirit o f Christ in a particular m o d e o f relation to the ecclesia (horn. 1, p . 34). T h i s remarkable

fact is n o t asserted a b o u t any other b o o k o f the Bible,

all o f w h i c h , with the singular

e x c e p t i o n o f Ecclesiastes,

contains

material that is extraneous to the life o f the c h u r c h in its "struggle toward godliness" (horn. 1, p p . 3 3 - 3 4 ) . G r e g o r y repeats this affirmation

2 4

T h e paraphrase, together with the vita, were recently translated by M . Slusser, F O T C 98 (Washington, D . C . , 1998); cf. F. Vinel, "La Metaphrasis in Ecclesiasten de Gregoire le Thaumaturge: entre traduction et interpretation, une explication de texte," Cahiers de Biblia Patristica I (Strasbourg, 1987), 191-216; and J. Jarick, Gregory Thaumaturgos' Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes (Atlanta, 1990). M . Starowieyski, "Le Livre de l'Ecclesiaste dans l'antiquite chretienne," in Hall, Gregory of Nyssa, 415, following the dating of J. Danielou, "La chronologie des oeuvres de Gregoire de Nysse," Studia Patristica 7 (1966): 159-69; but cf. Vinel, Gregoire de Nysse, 16-20, w h o argues for a slightly earlier date (ca. 378-79). Note that the later Byzantine lectionary includes not Ecclesiastes, but Proverbs in its cycle o f Lenten readings, undoubtedly for the moral instruction o f baptismal candidates. J. Bernardi, Le Predication des peres cappdociens (Montpellier, 1968), does not mention the homilies o n Ecclesiastes in his chapter on Gregory's Lenten preaching (pp. 2 6 5 83) or anywhere else in this otherwise admirable study. 25

254

NICHOLAS CONSTAS

at the b e g i n n i n g o f his s e c o n d h o m i l y : "It is to us that the Ecclesiast speaks. Let us then hear his w o r d s , w e w h o are the ecclesia" (horn. 2, p. 48, 53).

26

G r e g o r y ' s belief that Ecclesiastes is a w o r k addressed

by

Christ

d i r e c d y to the Christian c o m m u n i t y is b a s e d partly o n O r i g e n ' s the­ o r y that the titles and attributes o f Christ s y m b o l i z e specific m o d e s o f divine c o m m u n i c a t i o n and intention relative to the capacities o f the r e c e i v e r .

27

H e r e , h o w e v e r , the n o t i o n o f ecclesiastical exclusivity

stands in m a r k e d contrast to G r e g o r y ' s subsequent a c k n o w l e d g m e n t that Ecclesiastes is at the same time a w o r k o f singular difficulty.

G r e g o r y c o m p a r e s the

exegetical

effort necessary to ascertain

the

m e a n i n g o f Ecclesiastes to a contest a n d a struggle: Indeed, one could think o f express in words what great involves for the contestants, thoughts, using their skill as argument overthrown (horn.

every hyperbole and still not properly struggles the contest with this scripture as they fight for a foothold for their athletes so that they may not find their 1, p. 33).

T h e principle challenge, o f course, was the pessimistic a n d

indeed

nihilistic n o t i o n that the universe is n o t o n l y a p l a c e o f vanity,

but

the very "vanity o f vanities," a position that s e e m e d n o t o n l y to den­ igrate creation b u t to indict b y implication the very C r e a t o r (horn. 1, trans, p . 36). F o r early Christian thinkers, this was a t h e o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m o f the highest order, and a r o u n d that textual irritant the pearl o f patristic exegesis o n Ecclesiastes t o o k shape. F o r his part,

2 6

This christological and ecclesiastical reading is widespread throughout the later scholia and catenae, cf. Evagrius, scholion 1 o n Eccl 1:1: " T h e ecclesia o f pure souls is the true knowledge o f ages and worlds, and o f the judgment and providence within them; the 'Ecclesiast' is Christ w h o engenders this knowledge" (Gehin, SC 397, 58); id., scholion 3 o n Prov 1:2: "This is why it says ' H e [i.e., Solomon] reigned in Israel: to know instruction and wisdom.' 'Wisdom' is knowledge o f bodies and bodiless natures, and the judgement and providence contemplated within them. 'Instruction' is moderation o f passions perceived in the passionate and irrational part o f the soul" (Gehin, S C 340, 92). See also the Catena Hauniensis in Ecclesiasten 1,1.1, and 1,2: "If it is the 'Ecclesiast' w h o speaks, then the things said are worthy o f the ecclesia. . . Let the ear o f the ecclesia be opened, for it is to her that the Ecclesiast speaks" (ed. A. Labate, C C S G 24 [1992], 3-4). Procopius o f Gaza begins his Catena in Ecclesiasten with Gregory's above-mentioned affirmation ( C C S G 4 [1978], p . 5, lins. 14-16). 2 7

See, for example, Origen, Commentary on John I, trans. J. Trigg, Origen (London and N e w York, 1998), 114-15; 125-49; cf. Basil, Adversus Eunomium 1.7 (ed. B. Sesboue, SC 299 [Paris, 1982], 188-92), w h o uses Origen's theory o f the divine names to refute Arian linguistic positivism. For a study o f Nyssa's theory o f language, see M . Canevet, Gregoire de Nysse et I'hermeneutique biblique. Etude des rapports entre le langage et la connaissance de Dieu (Paris, 1983).

255

VANITY OF VANITIES

G r e g o r y seeks to neutralize this p r o b l e m b y asserting the traditional distinction b e t w e e n the visible a n d the invisible, w h i c h he

parallels

to that obtaining b e t w e e n the b o d y a n d the soul. E a c h element, he says, has its o w n p r o p e r value a n d f o r m o f existence. T h e o n e is mortal a n d subject to death, while the other is i m m o r t a l a n d impas­ sible. O n e looks t o w a r d the present, the other "extends to eternity," a n d he c o n c l u d e s that " o n e o u g h t n o t to l o o k to this life o f the senses, w h i c h c o m p a r e d with true life is unreal a n d insubstantial" (horn. 1, trans, p . 3 7 ) .

28

B y p l a c i n g creation within a w i d e r h o r i z o n

o f value, the p r o b l e m h a d b e e n solved. T h e vanity o f creation, in other w o r d s , is n o t absolute but o n l y relative to the p e r m a n e n c e a n d meaningfulness

o f that w h i c h is b e y o n d creation. H u m a n

m o r e o v e r , have an infinite

beings,

desiring capacity w h i c h "all the works

w r o u g h t u n d e r the sun" (Eccl 1:14) c a n never satisfy, "neither shall the eye b e satisfied with seeing, n o r the ear filled with hearing" (Eccl 1:8; cf. horn. 1, p . 44), but o n l y b y the infinite G o d . T h e senses b y themselves, therefore, are " n o t a safe yardstick o f the g o o d " (horn. 5, p . 87), a n d those w h o a l l o w their gaze to b e c o m e fixed solely o n the illusory surfaces o f creation are d r a g g e d i n e x o r a b l y into

noth­

ingness, because the "soul o f the fool, w h i c h has b e c o m e a b o d y l o v i n g a n d fleshlike thing, in l o o k i n g at these things looks at nothing; for clarity o f vision o f these things is truly darkness" (horn 5, p . 9 1 ; cf. horn. 2, p . 5 9 ) .

29

G r e g o r y ' s reconceptualization o f the vanity o f creation as relative to the transcendence o f the creator is nicely s u m m a r i z e d b y his c o n ­ temporary

Evagrius Ponticus (ca. 3 4 5 - 3 9 9 ) . O r d a i n e d

to the

dia-

c o n a t e b y Nyssa's b r o t h e r Basil, Evagrius served G r e g o r y Nazianzus during the latter's b r i e f tenure as a r c h b i s h o p o f C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , and eventually entered m o n a s t i c life in Egypt w h e r e he d e v o t e d himself

2 8

Gregory returns to this theme in the sixth homily (p. 100), where he states that, " o f the things that are, one part is material and sensory, and one part is intel­ lectual and immaterial. O f these, the non-bodily part is superior to sensory per­ ception . . . [because] sense, which can apprehend the material nature, cannot naturally pass beyond the heavens to what is invisible" (cf. h o m 8, p . 130). It is worth noting that there is one element within the world that contradicts and subverts its inherent futility, namely, the Eucharist, in which the infinite is merged with the temporal. Gregory suggests that those souls w h o are "lovers o f the flesh" can only be cured by the spiritual flesh o f the Eucharist, since "he says, 'my flesh is really food, and m y blood is really drink' (John 6:55). T h e one w h o loves this flesh will not b e c o m e a flesh-lover, and the one w h o regards the blood in this way will be pure from sensual b l o o d " (hom. 8, p . 132). 2 9

256

NICHOLAS CONSTAS

to the study o f O r i g e n ' s works. In his scholion o n Ecclesiastes

1:2

("Vanity o f vanities said the Ecclesiastes, vanity o f vanities all is van­ ity"), Evagrius states that: T o those who have entered the spiritual ecclesia and who have con­ templated the nature o f created beings, this verse says, " D o not think that this is the ultimate end that is set aside for you in the promises," for all these things are "vanity o f vanities" with respect to the knowl­ edge o f G o d himself. For just as medicines are in vain after perfect health, so too the knowledge of the principles o f the ages and o f worlds is in vain after one has attained the knowledge o f the Holy Trinity. 30

W i t h the e c o n o m y o f a g n o m i c utterance suited to m e m o r i z a t i o n b y the hermits a n d solitaries for w h i c h it was written, Evagrius has here succinctly c a p t u r e d

the teaching o f his predecessors: the

Christian

c h u r c h as the d o m a i n o f the Ecclesiast, the c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f the physical w o r l d as a stage within spiritual ascent, a n d its relativization in v i e w o f a greater g o o d that is at o n c e therapeutic a n d epistemological. Finally, in a m a n n e r highly reminiscent o f O r i g e n , G r e g o r y ' s atti­ tude t o w a r d the material w o r l d is at o n e p o i n t revealingly paralleled to his attitude t o w a r d literalist readings o f scripture.

In his inter­

pretation o f Ecclesiastes 3:5 ( " T h e r e is a time for t h r o w i n g stones"), G r e g o r y is critical o f those w h o " l o o k o n l y to the literal m e a n i n g a n d support the superficial interpretation o f the w o r d s , " a n d w h o w o u l d apply to Ecclesiastes 3:5 the " l a w o f M o s e s " (alluding to E x o d 19:13; L e v 20:2). "It is n o t right," he says, "to take the l a w literally in that w a y , a c c o r d i n g to the i m m e d i a t e sense" (horn. 7, p . 111), a n d " i f s o m e o n e stands b y the m e r e letter, I d o n o t k n o w h o w w h a t is w o r t h y o f G o d m a y b e u n d e r s t o o d in the l a w " (ibid., 114). T h i s contrast illustrates o n c e again the unique character o f Ecclesiastes as a site for focused religious debate. Reinterpreted

as the

"Book of

Christian Physics," Ecclesiastes c o u l d e p i t o m i z e the tension b e t w e e n the letter a n d the spirit, the struggle b e t w e e n the physical a n d metaphysical, a n d

as such e n c o d e d s o m e o f the

core

the

contentions

b e t w e e n the c h u r c h a n d the synagogue.

3 0

Gehin, S C 397, 5 8 - 6 1 ; cf. id., scholion 3 on Eccl 1:11: "If there is 'no m e m o ­ rial o f the first things,' h o w is it that David says, 'I remembered the days o f old' (Ps 142:5), and, 'I remembered the eternal years' (Ps 76:6)? Perhaps forgetfulness o f all these things shall occur when rational nature shall accept the Holy Trinity, for then ' G o d will be all in all' (cf. 1 C o r 15:28). For if the perceptions o f objects that occur in the intellect lead the mind toward remembrance o f those objets, and

257

VANITY OF VANITIES

Conclusion: Hermeneutics and Metaphysics Between the literal sense o f scripture and the physical f o r m o f the universe, b o t h O r i g e n a n d G r e g o r y o f Nyssa saw d e e p structural affinities. F o r b o t h c o m m e n t a t o r s , their (somewhat differing) estima­ tion o f the literal a n d the historical was closely related to their c o n ­ ceptions o f materiality a n d o f c o r p o r e a l e m b o d i m e n t . T h e text o f scripture a n d the texture o f the universe together constitute a unified field o f meaning whose boundaries were determined b y the confluence o f hermeneutics, ethics, a n d o n t o l o g y . O r i g e n ' s basic

hermeneutical

p a r a d i g m , r o o t e d in a d e c o u p l i n g o f the sensible a n d the intelligi­ ble, was largely an extension o f his doctrine o f creation as separa­ tion from the divine source o f m e a n i n g a n d life. By designating the literal m e a n i n g as the " b o d i l y m e a n i n g " o f scripture, O r i g e n is attest­ ing to its discontinuity a n d distance from its eternal spiritual truth. T h i s o p p o s i t i o n also informs O r i g e n ' s attitude t o w a r d J u d a i s m and, to a lesser extent, Hellenism, religious a n d cultural traditions that he claims are unable to transcend their respective c o m m i t m e n t s to the literal text o f scripture a n d the physical texture o f the w o r l d . Origen's p r e o c c u p a t i o n with the b o o k o f Ecclesiastes, a n d his press­ ing n e e d to situate it within his larger p h i l o s o p h i c a l

framework,

assumes a heightened sense o f u r g e n c y w h e n v i e w e d in this larger context. O r i g e n ' s "natural s c i e n c e " o f un-natural reversals a n d super­ natural displacements was at the heart o f his entire philosophical enterprise. T h e various oppositions that served h i m so well, along with the tension a n d energy c o i l e d within them, all s e e m e d to b e e n c a p ­ sulated in the m e m o r a b l e verses that o p e n e d a n d closed this o n e lit­ tle b o o k : " V a n i t y o f vanities, all is vanity" (Eccl 1:2; 12:8). It was a fulcrum that gave h i m leverage against the rational laws o f G r e e k science a n d the sacred laws o f M o s e s , neither o f w h i c h from his point o f v i e w were able to discern the path o f ascent a n d escape from their o w n finite strictures. O b e d i e n c e to the laws o f either tradition was but a proverbial beginning, a n d n o t the e n d o f Christian life. F o r Origen, the hermeneutical problems associated with Ecclesiastes resonate with epistemological p r o b l e m s in his a n t h r o p o l o g y and his if the mind which has beheld G o d is separated from all perceptions, it follows that the mind which has received the Holy Trinity has forgotten all created things" (ibid., 6 0 - 6 2 ) ; cf. Nyssa on Eccl 1:11 (hom. 1, p . 46). See also A . Labate, "L'esegesi di Evagrio al libro deU'Ecclesiaste," in Studi in Onore di A. Ardizzoni (Messina, 1979), 485-90.

258

NICHOLAS CONSTAS

christology, a n d this w o u l d p r o v e to b e his u n d o i n g . H a v i n g d u g a pit for his cultural a n d religious neighbors, he p r o c e e d e d to fall into it himself (cf. E c c l 10:8), o r at least was p u s h e d in b y later Christians w h o d i d not share his disdain for the g o o d n e s s o f G o d ' s c r e a t i o n .

31

F o r O r i g e n , b o t h the materiality o f the w o r l d a n d the b o d y o f the savior tend to i m p e d e o n e ' s k n o w l e d g e o f the eternal W o r d

imma­

nent within t h e m . T h e W o r d m a d e flesh is only revelatory

when

and to the extent that it ceases to b e flesh. T h e b o d y , like the w o r l d in w h i c h it is situated, is but a p o o r vehicle for, a n d certainly n o t the

o b j e c t of, divine

revelation. T h e

incarnation, in other w o r d s ,

reveals a pre-existing truth, but it in n o w a y realizes truth as s u c h .

32

G r e g o r y o f Nyssa struggled with m a n y o f these same issues, a n d o v e r the course o f his career he m o v e d a w a y f r o m the dualism o f mind

and

b o d y (evident in his early works) in the

direction

of a

m o r e unitive understanding o f the h u m a n p e r s o n as an inter-depen­ dent c o n j u n c t i o n

o f the

t w o . T h i s was n o t unrelated to

adjustments in his t h e o l o g y a n d c o s m o l o g y . Perhaps o n e

corollary indication

o f G r e g o r y ' s desire to distance himself f r o m the legacy o f O r i g e n is the fact that in his homilies o n Ecclesiastes he never explicitly c o n ­ strues this w o r k in the

context

o f Origen's

dematerializing three-

stage ascent. A n d w h e n he p o n d e r s the reduplication o f the phrase "vanity o f vanities," he contrasts it with " w o r k o f w o r k s " ( N u m 4:47) a n d " h o l y o f holies" ( E x o d 2 6 : 3 3 - 3 4 ) , but n o t with the m o r e o b v i ­ ous " S o n g o f S o n g s " (horn.

1, p p . 3 5 - 3 6 ) .

3 3

I f O r i g e n was quick to dismiss the theological potential o f matter a n d the physical w o r l d , along with the w o r t h o f those w h o m he stig-

31

Origen's theology, cosmology, and anthropology were condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553; cf. J. Meyerdorff, " T h e Origenist Crisis o f the Sixth Century" in his Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (New York, 1975), 4 7 - 6 8 . In his attempt to be more Greek than the Greeks, Origen appears to have gone too far, and was largely condemned for revivifying a host o f "Hellenic myths," Justinian, Liber adversus Origenem ( A C O III [Berlin, 1940], 189-90). O n which see M . Harl, Origene et la fonction revelatrice du verbe income (Paris, 1958). This is all the more intriguing in light o f Basil, In principium Proverbiorum: " W e know o f 3 treatises by Solomon: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song o f Songs, each one composed for a particular purpose (skopos). Proverbs is for the correction and amendment o f our vices, and for generally teaching a right manner o f living. Ecclesiastes touches on the logic o f nature (physiologia), and reveals to us the vanity o f this world, so that we d o not imagine that transient things are worthy o f our attention, or that vain things are worthy o f the soul's concern. T h e Song o f Songs indicates the manner o f the perfection o f the soul, for it describes the union o f the bride and groom, i.e., the intimacy o f the soul with G o d the W o r d " (= horn. 12, P G 31.388AB). 3 2

3 3

259

VANITY OF VANITIES

matized

as earthly a n d carnal, G r e g o r y was m u c h m o r e

cautious.

G r e g o r y ' s critique o f the literal reading o f Eccl 3:5, m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , is based n o t o n a philosophical dualism b e t w e e n the letter a n d spirit, but

o n a system

o f ethics a n d

t h e o d i c y . Speculative

the

meta­

physics yields to right practice and action. G r e g o r y o f course acknowl­ e d g e d that, with

respect

to G o d , the

realm o f matter a n d

sense

perception w h e n taken only at face value was ephemeral a n d mislead­ ing. H o w e v e r , the created irreducible m e d i u m

o r d e r for G r e g o r y was nevertheless the

o f contemplative

reflection,

a dynamic place o f

encounter between the created soul and the uncreated G o d . course in "Christian physics" taught an "art

3 4

Gregory's

a n d a m e t h o d , so to

speak, o f successful living" ( h o m . 6, p . 98). T h e aim o f w h i c h was to "raise the m i n d a b o v e sensation, to persuade it to a b a n d o n

all

that seems great a n d splendid in the w o r l d o f existence, a n d to catch a glimpse t h r o u g h the eyes o f the soul o f those things w h i c h unattainable t h r o u g h sense p e r c e p t i o n "

( h o m . 1, p . 3 4 ) .

35

are

Without

such training, the sensible w o r l d threatened to b e c o m e a closed sys­ tem, an e m p t y signifier, leading the m i n d to confusion a n d

igno­

rance. F o r G r e g o r y , the h u m a n spirit must b e liberated, n o t

from

the physical b o d y o r f r o m the material w o r l d , but f r o m the

irra­

tional d o m i n a t i o n o f the senses a n d the limitation o f h u m a n ing a n d desire to finite objects. "Let n o o n e s u p p o s e , " he "that the w o r d s 'vanity o f vanities'

are an indictment

mean­

affirmed,

o f creation"

( h o m . 1, p . 36).

3 4

Cf. Evagrius, scholion 1 on Prov 1.1: " A 'proverb' is a saying which through sen­ sible things signifies intelligible things" (Gehin, SC 340, 90); and id., scholion 270 on Prov 24.13: " T h e one w h o 'eats honey' is the one w h o profits from the reading o f the sacred scriptures. But the one w h o discerns the intelligible principles o f being from things themselves, from which the apostles and the prophets likewise discerned them, 'eats the honey-comb.' Anyone w h o wishes may eat honey, but to eat the honey-comb is only for the pure" (ibid., 364). Gregory's diatribe against both usury and slavery (hom. 4, pp. 72~84), prompted by Eccl 2:7-8: "I got slaves and slave-girls . . . I gathered both silver and gold," suggests that his is a form o f mysticism not at all disengaged from a critique o f societal oppression and injustice; cf. M . Bergada, "La condemnation de l'esclavage dans Homelie I V " in Hall, Gregory of Nyssa, 185—96. 3 5

INDEX OF M O D E R N AUTHORS

Albeck, H., 49n Albright, W.F., 46n Alexander, P., 252n Allen, R.E., 128n Altman, A., 14n Amir, Y., 58n, 117, 118n, 127n, 155n Amit, M . , 6n Anderson, B., lOn, 30n Annas, J., 135n Aptowitzer, V . , 20n, 25n Arnaldez, R., 228n Atiya, A.S., 214n Attridge, H., 66n, 73n Bacher, W . , 36n Bagnell, R.S., 21 In Baker, J.A., 248n Barclay, J . M . G . , 65n Bar-Kochva, B., 70 Barnard, L.W., 248n Barr,J., 148n Barthelemy, D . , 21n, 22n, 21 In Baumgarten, A.I., In, 2n, 9n, 16n, 20n, 25n, 36 Belkin, S., 166n Ben-Shalom, I., 7n Bergada, M , 259n Bernardi, J., 253n Bernstein, M . , 5n Beuchsel, F., 36n Bickerman, EJ., In, 2, 3n, 9n, lOn, 18n, 19n Bilde, P., 74n Birnbaum, E., 141n, 155n Bizzetti, P., 94n Black, M . , lOOn Blanck, H., 204n Blumenthal, H.J., 245n Boardman, A . K . , 205n Bohak, G., 13n Bonis, C., 244n Borgen, P., 139n, 140n, 143n Botterweck, G.I., 42n Bowley, J.E., 169n Box and Oesterley, 48 Brashear, W . , 206n Braun, M . , 176, 177 Brehier, E., 122n, 123n

Bresard, L., 247n Bright, J., 186 Bruns, J.E., 209n Buber, S., 49n, 50n Bulow-Jacobson, A., 206n Burkert, W . , 9n Burkhardt, H., 116, 117, 126n Cahill, J.B., 25In Cairns, H., 80n Canevet, M . , 254n Carr, E.H., 3 Carr, W . , 43n Cavafy, C , 241 Charles, R . W . , 48n Charlesworth, J.H., 65n, 67n, 68n, 69n, 72n, 93n, 152n Chazon, E., 5n Cheon, S., 107n Clarke, G . W . , 242n Cleary, J.J., 135n Cohen, G . D . , 195n Cohen, N., 37n, 38n, 39n, 43n, 52n, 56n, 57n, 148, 151n, 152n Cohen, S.J.D., 6n, 18n, 167n Cohn-Wendland, 204n, 227, 228 230n Collins, A . Y . , 72n Collins, J.J., 8n, 68n, 93n, 96n, 98n, 152n Colson, F.H., 5 4 - 5 6 , 58, 8In, 82n Cornford, F.M., 80 Crawford, M . H . , 174n Cross, F.M., 10In Daley, B., 246n Daly, R.J., 229n Dan, J., 45n Daniel, R., 206n Danielou, J., 248n, 253n Davies, P.R., 8n, 39n Dawson, D . , 246n Deferrari, R.J., 243n deLange, N . R . M . , 212n Dibelius, M . , 43n Dillon, J., 58, 153n, 154n Doran, R., 68n, 70n Doutreleau, L., 249n, 252n Droge, A.J., 248n Dummer, J., 248n

262

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

el-Khoury, N., 225n Ellis, R., 4n Engel, H., 94n Enns, P., 103n Eshel, H., 6n Evieux, P., 218n, 219n, 220n Fallon, F., 66n, 69n Feldman, L., 2, 79n, 159n, 160n, 161, 166n, 176 Fishman, J.A., 13n Fitzmyer, J.A., 161n Fontaine, J., 25In Fortin, E., 245n Fraenkel, D . , 42n Franxman, T . W . , 146n Fraser, P.M., 2 4 I n Frend, W . H . C . , 214n Frerichs, E., 130n Fruchtel, L., 192n, 219n, 225n Fuglseth, K., 139n Furley, D.J., 128n Gabba, E., 9n Gafni, I., 6n, 2In, 168n Gamble, H., 204n Geerard. M . , 225n Gehin, P., 252n, 254n, 256n, 259n Gellner, E., 2n Gill, C., 178n Ginzberg, L., 182 Goodblatt, D . , 182n G o o d e n o u g h , E.R., 128n G o o d m a n , M . , 5n, 139n G o u d , T., 167 Grafton, A., 174n Green, A., 155n Green, W . S . , 130n Greer, R . , 59 Greeven, H., 43n Grosjean, F., 13n, 29n Gruen, E., 2, 3, 168n Gruenwald, I., 18n, 2 3 - 2 4 , 25n, 27 Guinot, J.-N., 247n Haas, C , 212n, 213 Hadas, M . , 22n Hadot, P., 137n Hall, S.G., 248n, 252n Hamilton, E., 80n Hanson, J., 67n Hanson, P., 102 Hardwisk, M . E . , 192n Harl, M . , 228, 247n, 248n, 258n

Harris, W . V . , 14n Hauck, F., 138n Hay, D . M . , 218n Hayes, C., 4n Hecht, R . , 130n Heine, R., 249n, 2 5 I n Heinemann, I., 176, 177 Heinrichs, A., 217n Heinze, M . , 135n Hellholm, D . , 93n Hengel, M . , 2, 48n, 162, 163 Hentschel, G., 94n Herr, M . D . , 6n Heschel, A.J., 12In, 122n Hexter, J.H., 3n Himmelfarb, M . , 3n Hirshman, M . , 252n Hoffmann, C . , 13n, 29n, 30n HoUaday, C.R., 65n, 67n, 68n, 69n, 70n, 7In, 72n, 73n, 74n, 75n, 78n, 121n, 163n Holte, R., 133n Holum, K . G . , 21 On Horovitz, H.S., 49n Holscher, G., 165n, 180, 181 Hiibner, H., 94n, 95n Hughes, J., 194n, 195n Hurtado, L.W., 204n Irshai, O . , In Isaac, E., 207n Jacobs, A., 25In Jarick, J., 253n Jeffreys, P., 241n Jonas, H., 45n Jowett, B., 41n, 80n Kamesar, A., 122n, 126n Kampen, J., 169n Kanengiesser, C., 2 5 I n Katzoff, R., 15n Keeley, E., 241n Kenney, J.P., 11 On Kenny, A., 135n, 138n Kirk, G.S., 9n Kittel and Fredrich, 148 Kolarcik, M . , 95n Kraut, R., 136n Kugel, J., 20n, 59n, 182 Labate, A., 257n LaFargue, M . , 67n Lamberton, R . , 245n

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS Lampe, G . W . H . , 32, 36, 43, 59, 60n Landman, L., 26n Larcher, C . , 94n Lawson. R.P., 247n, 249n, 250n, 25In Leanza, S., 248n, 2 5 I n 252n Leisegang, H., 122n Leutsch, E.L., 129n Levine, L., 160n Levison, J., 117, 119, 120, 123n, 124n Lewis, D . M . , 160n Liddel and Scott, 32 Lieberman, S., 14n Ligota, C.R., 174n Long, A . A . , 135n Lorenz, R . , 243n Marcus, R., 18n, 186, 189 Marincola, J., 168n Markus, R.A., 245n Marrou, H.I., 14n Mason, S., 37n, 146, 167, 182n M c Cambley, C., 25In, 252n Meland, B.E., lOOn Meleze Modrzejewski, J.M., 13n, 15n Meyerdorff, J., 258n Millar, F., 139n Miller, P.C., 247n, 248n Momigliano, A., 2, 3n Mondesert, C , 228n M o o r e , W . , 244n Morris, J., 139n Morrish, G., 42n Morse, R., 178n Mulder, M.J., 58n, 117n Murphy, R., 247n M u r p h y - O ' C o n n o r , J., 7n, 8n Neusner, J., 130n Nickelsburg, G . W . E . , 95n Niebuhr, v., M . , 196 Niehoff, M . , 176 Nikiprowetzky, V . , 152n, 153n, 154n Nitzan, B., 8n O'Cleirigh, P.M., 43n, 44n, 59n Oden, R.A., 9n Oepke, A., 43n Oesterly and Box, 114 Oppenheimer, A., 2 I n Osborn, E.F., 32n, 225n, 226n Papoutsakis, G., 2 4 I n Pelletier, A . , 18n, 22n, 167n Pervo, R., 68n

263

Petit, F., 213n Prickett, S., 242n Pruche, B., 243n Pouilloux, J., 228n Raban, A., 21 On Rabin, LA., 49n Radice, R., 209n, 215n Rajak, T . , 162, 166n Ramsey, I.T., lOOn Rappaport, S., 182, 194 Raven, J.E., 9n Reiter, S., 204n, 21 In Reese, J.M., 94n Reeves, J.C., 169n Reinhold, M . , 79n Ringgren, H., 42n Ritter,J., 135n Roberts, C , 203n, 204, 205 Romaine, S., 13n, 14n Rondeau, M.-J., 2 5 I n Ross, D . , 79n Rousseau, O . , 247n Rousseau, P., 244n, 252n Royse, J.R., 206n, 215n Runia, D . , 32, 52n, 61, 80, 83n, 139n, 157n, 206n, 207n, 209n, 210n, 211n, 213n, 215n, 217n, 218n, 219n, 226, 227, 230n, 238 Ruppert, L., 95n, 97, 98 Sacks, K.S., 167n Sanders, E.P., 5n, 36, 43n Sanders, J.T., 48 Sandmel, S., 16n Schafer, P., 4n Schenkl, H., 79n Schiffman, L., 6n, 36 Schneidewin, P.G., 129n Scholem, G., 45, 46 Schollgen, G., 213n Scholten, C , 213n Schreckenburg, H., 217n, 220n Schiipphaus, J., 42n Schwartz, D . , 2In, 166n, 167n, 182n Schwartz, E., 149 Schwartz, S., 2n, 13n, 14n, 15n, 16n, 159n, 169n Segal, A., 34n Sevenster, J.N., 15n, 160n Shartin, D . , 135n Sherrard, P., 24In Silva, M . , 13n Skarsten, R., 139n

264

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Skeat, T . C , 203n, 205n, 21 In Slusser, M . , 249n, 253n Smith, M . , 2n, 6n, 9n, 182n Sophocles, E.A., 44n, 59 Sperber, D . , 15n Spolsky, B., 29n Stahl, W . H . , 166n, 167n Stahlin, O . , 225n Starowieyski, M . , 253n Stern, M . , 6n, 9n, 79n, 162n Sterling, G.E., 139n Stone, M . , 5n, 169 Stroumsa, G., 242n, 245n Sysling, H., 117n Talmage, F., 45n Talmon, S., 36n Tcherikover, V . , 2 Thackeray, H . St. J., 145n, 146n, 181, 191, 192n T h o m p s o n , D . , 74n T h o m p s o n , M . , 4n Toher, M . , 169n T o v , E., 19n, 20n, 2In, 23n, 2 5 - 2 8 Treu, U., 219n, 225n Trigg, J , 254n Troiani, L., 175n Trompf, G . W . , 130n Underhill, E., 45 van Amersfoort, J., 212n van den Broek, R., 212n van den Hoek, A., 211, 223n, 229n, 230n VanderKam, J.C., 6n V a n Haelst, J., 203n, 204n, 206n

van Oort, J., 212n Veltri, G., 2In, 22n, 23n, 25n, 26 Verhoogt, A., 206n Vermes, G., 139n Vinel, F., 252n, 253n Vlastos, G., 128 Volker, W . , 149 von Arnim, H.F., 248n Wacholder, B . Z . , 69n, 194n Walbank, F.W., 129n, 168 Walsh, P. G., 168n Walter, N., 79, 164n Wasserstein, A . , 15n, 2In, 25n Wasserstein, D . , 2In, 26, 27 Weill, J., 182, 193, 194 Weltin, E. G., 242n Whitaker, G . H . , 8In, 82n White, R . T . , 39n White, S.A., 8n Wildavsky, A., 4n Williams, B., 136n Williams, R., 212, 213n Wilson, H.A., 244n Winston, D . , 45n, 82n, 83n, 94n, 99n, 103n, HOn, 11 In, 112n, 116n, 122n, 124n, 127n, 130n, 143n, 155n, 182n, 218n Wiseman, T.P., 178n Wittgenstein, L., 147 Wolfson, H.A., 33, 46n, 58n, 105, 121n, 128n, 154n Zahn, T., 209n Zenger, E., 94n Ziegler, J., 42n

INDEX OF

Alexandria, 18, 75, 94, 107, 131, 139, 140, 154, 174, 2 0 7 - 2 1 5 , 218, 219, 241; anti-Jewish riots in, 213 A m m o n , 186, 187 Ammonites, 4, 186 apocalyptic ideas, 9 3 - 1 0 7 ; in the Wisdom o f Solomon, 9 5 - 1 0 6 Argonauts, 90 Arianism, 212, 243 Ashdodites, 4 Assyrians, 195n, 242 Babylon, 1, 68, 174, 186-190 Babylonian, chronological tradition, 174n; destruction o f first temple, 175; exile, 1; temple o f Bel, 71, 72 Babylonians, 69, 171, 173, 189 bilinguals, 13, 15, 29, 30 Bodmer C o d e x , 204

SUBJECTS

Diaspora, 9, 14, 93, 94, 105, 106 dogma, 4 0 - 4 4 , 54, 60, 150; as articles o f faith, 40, 43; as rules, 4 0 - 4 3 dogma kai theorema, 57, 58 Egypt, 8n, 69, 71, 74, 106, 107, 172, 175, 179, 181, 186-191, 203, 203-214, 221, 222, 230, 232, 255 Egyptian, chronological tradition, 174n Egyptians, 68, 106, 171, 173, 242 Ein Gedi, 6 emanation, 94, 111, 114 encomium, 94 endogamy, 85, 90 Enoch, Books of, 5, 93, 97, 99, 101 Essenes, 140, 147 Eucharist, 255n eudaimonia, 131-157 eulogia, 147, 151

Caesarea, 210, 211, 224; Episcopal Library of, 210 Canaanites, 46, 101, 106, 173 Catena Hauniensis in Ecclesiasten, 254n Chaldean, 16 Chaldeans, 189 Christianity, 33, 44, 59, 60, 155, 242, 2 4 4 - 2 4 6 ; Egyptian, 205, 2 0 7 - 2 2 2 , 224; Coptic, 214 chronography source, 171—173, 195, 196 Church Fathers, 22, 32, 213 circumcision, 5,7, 82, 8 4 - 8 6 Coele-syria, 186, 187 Coptos, 203, 205; C o d e x , 2 0 3 - 2 0 6 , 211, 222 creation, 46, 102, 103, 110-113, 238, 239, 254, 257; eternal, 111-113; o f Wisdom, 47, 48; vanity of, 255

Forms, 111, 122, 123 Fortune, 129

daimon, 133, 134 Dat, 42, 43 Dead Sea Scrolls, 98, 101 Death, personified, 101 Decalogue, 5 0 - 5 2 , 56, 117, 141 Demiurge, 80 Devil, 101 Dikaiosyne, 4 3 - 4 4 , 60, 148

Hasmoneans, 183n Hasmonean uprising, 47 Hebron, 181 Hengel-Stern debate, 162, 163 Herodians, 183n Hieros Logos, 53 hokhma (see also Wisdom, Sophia), 46, 47, 49, 59

genealogies, 68, 69 G o d , Hebrew terms for, 33; as source o f evil, 74—77; resting on Sabbath, 7 8 - 8 1 ; as Divine Warrior, 101-104; eudaimonia of, 150—152 Great Revolt, 5, 7 Great Persecution, 205 Greek, ethnography, tradition, 9, 70, 71; epic tradition, 66, 67, 8 5 - 9 0 ; epistolary tradition, 69, 70; genealogies, 68; historical tradition, 67, 174; narrative tradition, 67; poetic tradition, 67; romance literature, 68; rule, 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 183; tragedy, 67, 133, 134; apologetic literature, 167, 168

266

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

immortality, 99, 100, 106, 135, 137, 142, 145, 149, 255 Jason and the Argonauts, 89 Jerusalem, 1, 4, 7, 9, 27, 48, 72, 175, 186, 188, 189, 191, 193, 241 Jewish, apologetic works, 164, 165, 169 Jews, bilingual, 14, 18-20, 27; response to Hellenistic culture, 2, 5-10, 65-91 Judaism, 10, 33, 60, 109, 132, 157, 212, 217, 221, 2 4 2 - 2 4 4 , 246, 257; Hellenistic, 31, 34, 35, 46, 61, 90, 91, 132, 144, 152, 167, 172, 182, 190; Egyptian, 106, 107, 164 Judea, 161, 162, 173, 180, 182, 190 Judeo-Greek lexicon, 31—61 Kabbalists, 116 kakodaimonia, 133, 134, 136, 139, 141, 143, 145 Law, 17, 34, 42, 51, 116, 117, 122, 126, 127, 130, 141-143, 145-148, 153, 154, 159, 160, 239, 256, 257; Mosaic code o f (see also Torah), 34, 43, 48, 49, 51, 104, 105, 116, 153, 155, 166, 257; natural, 115, 122 logon kai dogmaton, 54—57 logos, 4 4 - 4 5 , 4 9 - 5 4 , 57, 60, 114, 122-124, 126, 128, 130, 134, 148, 153-155; as G o d , 219; as Torah, 53, 54; in classical Greek sources, 50; in the Septuagint, 50, 51; in Philo, 5 1 - 5 4 logos protreptikos, 94 Maccabees, 1, 5, 35, 96, 106, 169 makarios, 138, 139, 141, 143-145, 150, 151 Manicheans, 217 Massada, 6 Messianism, 105, 110, 130, 143 Middle Platonism, 94, 111, 121 Mishnah, 183 M o a b , 186, 187 Moabites, 4, 186 mysticism, 44, 45, 250 Myth o f Er, 99, 100 Nag Hammadi codices, 204, 205 nature, 102, 103, 153, 250 Neopythagorianism, 74, 110, 111

N e w Testament, 35, 37, 43, 44, 194, 208 Nicene orthodoxy, 212, 217, 242 nomina sacra, 206 nomos, 33, 34, 42, 50, 52; translated as "Law," 34, 42; translated as "Torah," 33, 34, 52 nomothesia, 34 oracles, 117-120, 127 Oxyrhynchus, 205 Paradosis, 3 6 - 4 0 Patriarchs, 73, 116, 119, 140, 141, 143, 249; as embodiments o f Wisdom, 116 Pelusium, 213, 218 Peripateticism, 72, 74, 78 Persians, 1, 5, 129, 183, 199 Pharisees, 36, 37, 40 Philo Christianus, 208, 209 Philo Coptos codex, 204 philosophy, 9, 35, 44, 55, 56, 58, 59, 94, 98, 105, 109, 111, 112, 116, 122, 131, 134-138, 141, 146, 149-151, 153-157, 238, 245, 2 4 7 - 2 5 0 , 257 Phoenician, 171,175; writings, 170, 173-175 Platonism, 74, 121, 211, 219 pneuma, 124 preexistent matter, 110—113 prophecy (see also Revelation), 110,124, 126; ecstatic, 118, 119, 121, 125; hermeneutical, 118, 119; legislative, 119; noetic, 118, 121-123; Mosaic, 116; predictive, 118-120, 126 providence, 110, 127-130, 141 Qift, 203 Qumran scrolls, 205 repentance, 109, 142 resurrection, 99 revelation (see also prophecy), 75, 99, 113-127, 258 Romans, 1, 5-7, 183n, 245 R o m e , 107, 129, 161-163, 173, 174, 180, 181, 208 Sabellianism, 243 Sabbath, 73, 7 8 - 8 1 , 119, 120 Sadducees, proto-, 97

INDEX OF SUBJECTS Samaritans, p r o t o , 4 Seder Olam, 183-190, 198-200 Septuagint (see also Torah, trans, o f ) , 15-30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 42, 44, 48, 50, 54, 73, 74, 79, 8 3 - 8 7 , 89, 90, 125, 131, 146, 224; private emendation of, 19, 20, 27, 28 Sicarii, 6 Slavonic Enoch, 46n Sophia (see also hokhma, Wisdom), 4 4 - 5 1 , 55, 5 7 - 6 0 , 111, 114, 148 Stoa, Middle, 114, 124; R o m a n , 110, 115 Stoicism, 74 Stoics, 72, 77, 94, 105, 114, 115, 122n, 124, 137, 180, 248; cosmology of, 103; definition o f sophia in, 58; self-examination in, 110; Logos in, 94 Tanakh, 132, 146 te'em, 42, 43 telos, 136, 150 Therapeutae, 61, 139, 142, 147, 208

267

Torah (see also Law), 1, 14, 20, 35, 42, 48, 51, 53, 59, 60, 105, 116, 130, 184; as W i s d o m , 46, 48, 49, 51, 57, 58, 148; translation into Greek (see also Septuagint), 14-30, 33, 131; translated as nomos, 33, 34 Toura, 214, 215 Trinitarian controversy, 242 Trinity, 219, 220, 256; Sabellian, 243 Tyre, 69, 186 Ugaritic myth, 97, 98 verba Philonica, 32 W i s d o m (see also hokhma, Sophia) 4 6 - 5 1 , 5 7 - 6 0 , 94, 95, 99, 105, 106, 111, 114-116; as divine hypostasis, 113; as logos, 128; synonymous with providence, 127 world empires, 1, 9, 10, 183 Zealots, 6

INDEX OF

Aaron, 242 A b d o n , 193, 195n, 197 Abel, 143, 215 Abigail, 177 Abimelech, 197 Abraham, 6 7 - 6 9 , 75, 8 4 - 8 6 , 90, 118, 143, 181n, 198n, 233, 235, 249 Achilles, 89 A d a m , 141, 183 Aeschylus, 66, 67, 73, 74, 76 Agatharcides o f Cnidus, 70, 74 Ahab, 7 Ahaziah, 184 Akiva, Rabbi, 45 Alcman, 128 Alexander Polyhistor, 65n, 69, 83, 84, 87, 164 Alexander the Great, 1, 71, 72, 174, 183 Ambrose, 226 Amenophis, 170, 17 In, 172 A m r ibn al- As, 214 Antiochenes, 9 Antiochus I V , 7, lOn Antoninus, 192n Apion, 170 Apollonius o f Rhodes, 67, 8 5 - 8 9 Appolodorus, 174n Apuleius, 178n Aratus, 73 Aristeas, 164n Aristobulus, 65n, 72, 73, 7 8 - 8 1 , 164n, 248 Aristode, 34, 4 1 , 54, 57, 73, 79, 137 Arius, 212, 243 Artapanus, 65n, 68 Athanasius, 212, 213 Adas, 68 Atticus, 111 Augustine, 178n, 226 c

PERSONS

Bat-Sheba, 177 Belus, 68 Ben Sira, 17 Berossus, 9, 67, 68, 170, 17In, 172-175 Bezalel, 124 Canaan, 68 Cain, 143, 215, 216 Calcidius, 226 Caligula, 167 Callimachus, 67, 8 5 - 8 7 , 89 Caro, Joseph, 45 Celsus, 79, 239 Chrysippus, 77 Claudius, 167 Clement o f Alexandria, 76, 80, 192, 209, 211, 212, 215, 224, 229, 231 Cleodemus Malchus, 65n Cush, 68 Cyril, 213, 218, 222 Cyrus, 1, 171, 172, 174n, 187

c

Baal, 101 Balaam, 118 Barak, 197 Baruch, 186 Basil o f Caesarea, 242, 243, 255 Basilides, 212

Darius, 1 David, 177, 191, 192n, 193, 194, 197 Delilah, 178 Demetrius o f Phalerum, 129 Demetrius the Chronographer, 65n, 67, 73, 164n Demosthenes, 219 Didymus (the Blind) o f Alexandria, 208, 209n, 212, 2 1 4 - 2 1 8 , 221 Dinah, 66, 83, 84, 88, 90 D i o Chrysostom, 84 Diocletian, 205 Diodorus, 167n Dioscorides Medicus, 86n Diphilus, 66 Eber, 198n Ehud, 197 Eleazar, 35, 145 Eli, 197 Elijah, 7, 184 Elon, 197 Enoch, 68, 69 Epicurus, 137 Epiphanius, 209 Eratosthenes, 68, 74, 174n

INDEX OF PERSONS Eupolemus, 65n, 69, 70 Euergetes, 47n Euripides, 6 6 - 6 8 , 74, 82n Eusebius, 175n, 208, 209, 224, 225 Euzoius, 210 Evagrius Ponticus, 255 Eve, 215 Ezechias, 72 Ezekiel, 188 Ezekiel the Tragedian, 65n, 67 Ezra, 4 - 6 G a o n o f Vilna, 45 Gideon, 197 Gregory Nazianzus, 243n, 252 Gregory o f Nyssa, 243, 245, 2 5 0 - 2 5 9 Gregory the Wonderworker, 249n, 252, 253 Hagar, 216, 217, 232 Haggai, 1 H a m , 207, 221 Hamor, 67, 83, 8 7 - 9 0 Hecataeus o f Abdera, 70, 74 Heraclitus, 128, 134 Hermes, 17n Herod, 231 Herodotus, 8n, 9, 67, 129, 163, 175n Hesiod, 66, 7 6 - 7 8 , Hiram o f Tyre, 69, 70 Homer, 9, 7 2 - 7 4 , 76, 77, 78, 8 4 - 8 9 , 163, 244, 248n Hippolytus o f R o m e , 247n Ibzan, 197 Isaac, 38, 184, 198n, 249 Isidore o f Pelusium, 208, 213, 2 1 8 - 2 2 1 J a c o b , 38, 83, 84, 85, 90, 120, 184, 198n, 249 Jair, 197 Japheth, 90, 131, 132, 149, 156, 207, 221, 224 Jehoiachin, 188 Jehoiakim, 184, 188, 189 Jephthah, 197 Jeremiah, 186, 187 Jerome, 209, 21 On, 226, 247, 252n Jesus, 37, 59, 60, 217, 219, 248, 249, 253, 254 John the Evangelist, 209n John o f Patmos, 103 Joseph, 68, 177, 18In Josephus, 6, 9, 17n, 18-20, 27, 29n,

269

37, 43, 132, 145, 146, 152, 155, 159-197, 2 1 8 - 2 2 0 , 231 Joshua, 191, 194-197 Judah b . Ilai, Rabbi, 17n, 22n Judah the Patriarch, Rabbi, 131, 184 Justinian, 258n Justus o f Tiberias, 65n Kronos, 68 Laban, 184, 198n Leah, 234 Levi, 67, 8 7 - 9 0 Linus, 73 Lysias, 84 Macrina, 252 Maharal o f Prague, 45 Maimonides, 214 Manetho, 9, 67, 170-175 Manoah, 177, 178 Marcus Aurelius, 115 Mark, the Evangelist, 208, 209 Mary, mother o f Jesus, 234 Megasthenes, 70, 74 Menander, 66, 76 Methuselah, 68 Mimnermus, 76 Mizraim, 68 Moses, 16, 35n, 67, 68, 75, 81, 82n, 117-127, 144, 145, 179, 181n, 192n, 193, 195n, 196, 197, 248n Moses Cordovero, 115 Mosollamus, 71 Mousaios, 68 Nahmanides, 45 Nebuchadnezzar, 170, 171, 172, 184,186, 187, 189, 190 Nehemiah, 4~6 Nicholas o f Damascus, 168 Noah, 119, 131, 207, 216 Nonnus, 86 Odysseus, 85, 89, 90 Oribasius, 86n Origen o f Alexandria, 20, 59, 211, 212, 215, 2 2 4 - 2 3 7 , 239, 2 4 5 - 2 5 4 , 256-258 Orpheus, 67, 68, 74 Othniel, 196, 197 Pamphilus, 224 Pantaenus, 210

270

INDEX OF PERSONS

Paul, the Apostle, 216, 217 Peter, the Apostle, 208, 209 Pharaoh, 68, 18In, 231 Philemon, 66 Philo o f Alexandria, 16, 17, 22, 29, 3 1 - 3 5 , 3 8 - 4 1 , 4 4 - 4 6 , 5 0 - 6 1 , 77, 81, 82n, 99, 103-106, 109-130, 132, 139, 145, 163, 164, 203, 2 2 4 - 2 3 9 ; Allegorical Commentary, 143, 150, 155, 206, 222; Exposition of the Law, 146, 150, 151, 153, 206n Philo the Epic Poet, 65n, 67 Philo o f Byblos, 9, 224 Phinehas, 7 Photius, 209n Pindar, 76, 85 Plato, 34, 40, 41, 54, 57, 73, 76, 77, 79, 80, 9 8 - 1 0 0 , 134, 135, 166n, 219, 244, 248n Plutarch, 111 Polybius, 129, 130, 168 Potiphar, 18 In Proclus, 111 Procopius o f Gaza, 213, 252 Psammetichus, 14n Pseudo-Aristeas, 65n Pseudo-Aristotle, 72, 73 Pseudo-Eupolemus, 65n, 68, 69 Pseudo-Hecataeus, 65n, 7 0 - 7 2 Pseudo-Orpheus, 67, 73-75 Ptolemy I Soter, 26, 71 Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 20, 26, 27, 29, 35 Pythagoras, 73 Rachel, 198n, 234 R e h o b o a m , 184 Rufinus, 226, 247, 252n Rufus, 86n Rutilius Namatianus, 79n

Sabellius, 243 Samson, 177, 178, 197 Samuel, 194n, 197 Sarah, 216, 217, 232 Saul, 194, 195n, 196, 197 Schneur Zalman o f Liadi, 115 Seneca, 115 Shamgar, 197 Shechem, 67, 83, 84, 8 7 - 9 0 Shem, 66, 90, 131, 132, 149, 156, 207, 221, 224 Simeon, 67, 88-91 Solomon, 69, 70, 78, 99, 175, 179, 191n, 192-194, 197, 2 4 5 - 2 4 7 , 249n, 252n, 253 Solon, 136 Sophocles, 66, 133, 135 Souron o f Tyre, 69, 70 Tatian, 248n Thallus, 65n Theocritus, 86 Theodoret o f Cyrrhus, 247 Theodotus, 65n, 66, 8 2 - 9 0 Theognis, 76 Theophilus, 65n, 248n Thucydides, 163, 168n Tobiah, 6 Tola, 193, 195n, 197 Valentinus, 212 Vaphres, 70 Vespasian, 192n Yohanan, Rabbi, 184n Yose, Rabbi, 184, 185, 199, 200 Zacharias o f Mytilene, 213 Zedekiah, 189, 190 Z e n o , 248 Zeus, 69, 75-77 Zimri, 7

INDEX

Genesis 1-3 1:1 1:26 2:2 2:2-3 2:4 3:21 4:1-2 4:2 [ L X X ] 4: 8 4:18 [ L X X ] 5:2 5:3-5 [ L X X ] 9:6 9:20 [ L X X ] 9:27 11:7 12:1-4 14:20 15:17 16 16:4-5 17 17:9-14 17:11 [ L X X ] 18:12 19:4 [ L X X ] 19:32-35 [ L X X ] 21:30 26:10 [ L X X ] 26:12 26:18 27:20 [ L X X ] 28:10 28:17 29 30:15-16 [ L X X ] 31 31:50 [ L X X ] 32:2 33:19 34 34:2-4 [ L X X ] 34:25-31 40:20 49:6

141 21n 21n, 152 21n, 80 79, 81, 82n 82n, 113 235 215 216 143 216 21n 216 219 216 131 21n 249 33 235 216 232 86 84-86 85 21n 84n 84n 52 84n 249 52 38 249 249 234 84n 234 84n 249 83n 66, 82 83 87 231 21n

O F BIBLE

Exodus 3:14 [ L X X ] 4:10 4:11 4:20 7:7 12:40 15:2 15:16 16:5 16:23 19:13 20:1 [ L X X ] 20:11 23:12 24:5 24:11 26 26:33-34 31:15 33:7 34:28 [ L X X ] 35:1 [ L X X ] 35:2 35:10 35:25 36:1-2

156 123 76n 21n 192n 21n 152n 49 119 79n 256 50 79, 80 79n 21n 21n 230 258 79n 144 50 50 79n 46n 46n 46n

Leviticus 7:9 8: 36 [ L X X ] 11:3 11:4 11:6 20:2 26:40

229 235 51 234 234 20, 2 I n . 256 104

Numbers 4:47 11:17 [ L X X ] 11:31-34 16:15 25:1-15 31:49-50 [ L X X ]

229 258 124n 54 21n 7 233

INDEX OF BIBLE

272 Deuteronomy 1:18 [ L X X ] 4:19 5:16 5:33 6:3 9:10 [ L X X ] 10:4 [ L X X ] 11:10 12:28 [ L X X ] 13:5 14:7 16:16 [ L X X ] 17:3 19:14 21:14 [ L X X ] 26:17 30:11-14 30:20 31:12 [ L X X ] 32:9 32:33 32:39 32:46 [ L X X ] 33 33:1 33:4

51 21n 148 148 148 50 50 49n 51 152n 21n, 26 53 21n 39, 52 84n 143 142 149 51 47 8 76 51 102 47n 48

Judges 5 10:1-2 12:13

102 193 193

1 Samuel 13:1

194n

1 Kings 3:16-28 4:33 5 6:1 18:18

69 253 249n 69 191n 7

2 Kings 13:12 [ L X X ] 13: 14 [ L X X ] 24:14 24:16

84n 84n 188 188, 189

Isaiah 6:10 25:7 45:7 52-53 53

219 97 76n 96 96, 98

52:13-53:12 56-66 59 59:15-20 64:1

95 102 102 102 102

Jeremiah 22:19 37:5 37:5-7 52:28 52:30

188, 189 189 190 188, 189 186, 187

Ezekiel 20:26 [ L X X ] 22:10-11 [ L X X ] 29 29:19

42n 84n 187 186

Hosea 7:6

235

Amos 3:6

76n

Zechariah 1-9

1

Psalms 76:6 77 77:16-20 78:35 111:10 133:2 142:5

256n 102 102 33 46n 242 256n

Proverbs 1:1 1:2 3:19 9:10 8 8:22 8:22-3 8:22ff. 22:28 24:13 24:27

245, 246, 249-251 259n 254n 46, 49n 46n 46n 49, 59 49n 46 39n 259n 252n

Job 2:10 5:17-18 9:17

76n 76n 76n

273

INDEX OF BIBLE 10:8 12:13-25 13:26 28:28

76n 76n 76n 46n

Daniel

Song of Songs 2:7

245, 246 251

Lamentations 2:9

50n

1:8 1:11 1:14 2:7-8 2:14 3:1 3:5 10:8 12:8

245, 246, 249-259 252 250, 2 5 1 , 256, 257 255 256n, 25 7n 255 259n 251 248n 256, 259 258 250, 257

Esther 1:8 4:8 [ L X X ] 9:1 [ L X X ]

42 42 42n 42n

Ecclesiastes 1:1-3:13 1:2

1:2 2:13 [ L X X ] 3:10 [ L X X ] 3:12 [ L X X ] 3:29 [ L X X ] 4:3 [ L X X ] 6:8 [ L X X ] 6:9 [ L X X ] 6:10 [ L X X ] 6:12 [ L X X ] 6:13 [ L X X ] 6:15 [ L X X ] 6:26 [ L X X ] 7-8 7-12 11-12 11:33

5, 4 2 , 9 3 , 99, 101 188 42n 42n 42n 42n 42n 42n 42n 42n 42n 42n 42n 42n 1 100 96 96

Ezra 9:2

6

Nehemiah 10:3 13:8-9

187n 6

2 Chronicles 2 36:6

69 188

APOCRYPHA Wisdom of Solomon 1:1-6:21 1:13 1:14 1:16-2:24 2:2 2:12-20 2:22 2:24 3:4 5 5:1-7 5:1-23 5:5 5:13 5:15 5:16 5:17-23 5:20 6:17

110, 163n 95 97-98 98 95 97 96, 97 97 101 99 95, 96, 100, 102 97 95 96 100 99 102 101 102 48

6:18 6:22-9:18 7:22-24 7:25 7:25-26 7:27 7:29-30 8:1 8:3 8:19-20 8:20 8:21 9:1-2 9:9 9:10 9:15 9:17 10-19 10 10:1-21 11-19

115 94 114 46n, 114 94, 111 95, 127 111 94n 114 99 99 99 49 49 114 99 116 95 116 127 100

274

INDEX OF BIBLE

11:17 16-19 16:24 18:4 18:9 18:15 19:6 19:18

HOn 103 103 116 115 103 103 103

Ben Sira (Sirach)

18, 47 47 47, 111 47 47 47 47 48n 106 47 47 47 47 111

1:1 1:4 1:8 1:9 1:10 1:26 19:17-24 24 24:1 24:3 24:7 24:8 24:9

24:9-11 24:23 36 39:27

47, 48 48, 59 106 106

1 Maccabees

5, 168, 7 10 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 242

1:14-15 1:41-62 2:23-26 2:26 2:46 2:47 2:48 2:54 2:58 4:50

2 Maccabees 4:9 4:12-15 4:16 6-7 6:23

5, 35 9 7 7 10 35

NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew 6:10 12:42 13:15 13:38 15:1-6 15:2

205 252 245 219 251, 252n 37 36

1 Corinthians 1:24 3:9 15:28 7:31 15:3-5

248 251n 256n 251 37n

Galatians Mark

1:14 4:24

7:3

36, 37

Luke

205 43

Ephesians

255n

Colossians

2:1

2:15 4:17

37n 216

43n 251

John 6:55

1:15 2:14 ff.

Acts 8:21 16:4 17:7

194 43 43

59 43n

1 Timothy 1:11 6:15

150n 150n

Romans 3:21 9:4

44 35n

Hebrews 11:9

249

275

INDEX OF BIBLE James 4:12

35n

Revelation 19

103, 104 103

1 Peter 2:9

242n

D E A D SEA S C R O L L S A N D R E L A T E D T E X T S Damascus Document (CD) 1.16 3.15-16 5.20 6.2-10 8.3-2 l b

7, 8 39, 52 52 39, 52 52 7

1QH Thanksgiving Hymns 11:21-22 19:10-11

96 96

1QM 14:9

War Scroll 98n

1QS Community Rule 1:23-24 2:19 11:3

98n 98n 98n

4Q Sapiential Text A 415-18

98n

O L D T E S T A M E N T PSEUDEPIGRAPHA Aristobulus Frg. 5

78, 79

3 Baruch

93

1 Enoch 37-71 42 62 104:2-6

93, 102 96 105 96 96

2 Enoch

93

Joseph and Aseneth 16:7

144

Jubilees 3:31 6:35-36 15:33-34

5 5 5 5

Letter of Aristeas (Let. Aris.; Aristeas, Ep. Arist)

11 30 45 153-157 205

15, 18, 20, 29, 163n, 168, 169 6n 35n 35n 234 77

231 309-310 309 310 310-311 312-313

77n 35n 18 24 15-16, 35n

Pseudo-Aristeas 161

116n

3 Macabees

163n

4 Maccabees 1:16-17 4:10 5:25-26 5:35 17:16

145, 163n 116n 85n 116n 35 35

Sibylline Oracles (Sib. Or.) 2.179 3.1 3.1-12 3.371 3.770 4 4.192 5 5.71

93, 152 144 144 152 144 144 93 144 93, 107 144

276 5.107 5.158-61 5.249 5.414 5.527-31

INDEX OF BIBLE 144 107 144 144 107

Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs 35.4 144n 41.4 144n Testament of Joseph

Testament of Job 35:4 41:4

144fn 144fn

17

Testament of Levi (T. Levi) 6:4 88

PHILO De Abrahamo (Abr.) O n the Life o f Abraham 6 47 58 71 206

237 126n 53n 141 53n, 236 53n

De aeternitate mundi (Aet.) O n the Eternity o f the W o r l d 5 111 108-109 128n De agricultura (Agr.) O n Agriculture 1-7 64 13 Iff.

216, 237 216n 232 234

De cherubim (Cher.) O n the Cherubim 86 87-90 90 109-112

237 150 82n 113n 128n

De confusione linguarum (Conf.) O n the Confusion o f Tongues 237 13 14n 31 77n 35-36 77n 55 233 De congressu eruditionis gratia (Congr.) O n the Preliminary Studies 237 7 234 78 53n 79-80 58 85 53n

108 130 151 154

53n 124n 232 232

De decalogo (Decal.) O n the Decalogue 19 117n 20 82 32 51 32-35 118 33-35 122 33 121 35 121 46 121, 122n 58 104 73 141 81 142 87 114 De ebrietate (Ebr.) O n Drunkenness 20.82 95 100 116 218 143 208 224

206n, 237 249n 53n 144 233 38 53n 231, 232 144n

De fuga et inventione (Fug., Fuga) O n Flight and Finding 237 13 77n 15 77n 31 82n 63 151n 112 128 131 115n 196 53n 200 52

INDEX OF BIBLE De gigantilws (Gig.) O n Giants 237 114n, 124n 27 31 123 De Iosepho (Ios., Jos.) O n Joseph 129n 131-132 129n 144 De migratione Abrahami (Mig., Migr., Mig. Abr.) T h e Migration o f Abraham 237 16 82n 17 53n 18 232 47-49 121 121n 47-52 123n 76 77 232 80 123 53n 85 53n 90 151 232 236 220 De mutatione nominum (Mut.) O n the Change o f Names 237 39 77n 46 83n 65 235 234 132 174 232 53n 215 124n 223 255 234 De opificio mundi (Opif) O n the Creation 146, 237 126n 1-3 116n, 155n 3 150n 8 24 77n, 233 82n 43 236 82 124n 146 141 150-156 55 153-169 55 157-158 141 172 De pietate O n Piety

206n, 222n

De plantations (Plant.) O n Planting 9-10 128n 124n 18 24 123n 28 236 57-8 52 94 53n De posteritate Caini (Post., Post C, Pos Caini) O n the Posterity o f Cain 206n, 237 82n 18 77n 23 236 58 115n 59 39, 52 89 234 135 53n 153 155 232 144n 185 De praemiis i°A poenis (Praem.) O n Rewards and Punishments 104 117n 2 30 143 54 123n 126 55 143 81 94 105 105 95 104, 105 162 124n 163 130 163-172 164 105 De providentia (Prov.) O n Providence 77n 2.53 De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (Sacr.) O n the Sacrifices o f Abel and C 203, 206n, 216, 237 77n 17 216n 50-51 53n 55 113n 59 53n 72 121n 78 De sobrietate (Sobr.) O n Sobriety 237

277

278 De somniis (Somn.]) O n 1.53 1.81 1.119 1.141 1.191 1.206 1.226 1.229 1.245 1.256 2.23 2.64 2.109 2.272

INDEX OF BIBLE Dreams 237 53n 53n 124n 53n 53n 53n 53n 53n 53n 144n 53n 53n 232 53n

De specialibus legilms (Spec., Spec. Leg.) O n the Special Laws 237 1.214-215 53 53n 1.215 112n 1.266 1.345 142 2.23 53n 2.59 82n 56 2. 6 1 - 6 3 53n 2.80 38n 2.256 3 56 3.1 123 3.7 117n 3.125 38n 113n 3.178 4.35 77n 4.105 125 234 4. 106f. 4:126-131 54 4.130 53 4 . 1 4 0 - 141 38n 4.149-150 38, 41 4:149 39, 40 4:150 39 4.187 113 38n 4.218 4.237 128 De virtutibus (Virt.) O n the Virtues 206n, 222n, 237 15 38n 51 125 119 140 141 38n

183-185 217

142, 144n 124n

De vita contemplativa (Contempt, Vita) O n the Contemplative Life 208, 237 59n 29 61n, 139 90 De vita Mosis (Mos) O n Moses 1.4 1.31 1.41 1.206-7 1.274-91 2.4 2.11 2.37 2.37-40 2.40 2.41-42 2.44 2.47-51 2.52 2.69 2.88 2.127 2.135 2.187 2.189-91 2.190 2.212 2.265 2.266-7 2.270

the Life o f 237 125 129n 129n 82n 118n 125n 125n 22n 16 24n, 125 17 140n 126n 116n 124n 230 236 236 120 117 120 54n 119n 103 119n

Legatio ad Gaium (Legat.) O n the Embassy to Gaius 5 150 Legum allegoriae (Leg., Leg. all, Leg. alleg.) Allegorical Interpretation 237 1.5-7 81 1.20 113 114n 1.37-38 53n 1.76 53n 2.105 3.11 53 3.34 77n 53n 3.36 3.69 235, 236 53n 3.110

279

INDEX OF BIBLE

3.118

53n

3.161 3.162 3.205ff.

124n 53n 15 In

Questiones et solutiones in Exodum (QE) Questions and Answers on Exodus 237 2.46

124n

Questiones et solutiones in Genesin (QG, Qu. Gen.) Questions and Answers on 237 Genesis 113 1.1 1.4 233 236 1.53 77n 1.100 82n 2.41 2.63 103 3.15 235 3.43 235 129n 4.43 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit (Her.) W h o Is the Heir? 203, 237 82n 35 234 51 53n 95 155 236 160 112 167-8 52 53n 185 53n 207 128n 234-36

246 259 260-61 261 264-66 311 316

104 53n 119n 120 118n 235 232

Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat (Det.) That the Worse Attacks the Better 206n, 237 23 115n 32 77n 48 143 66-67 123n 83 124n 90 114n Quod Deus sit immutabilis (Deus) That G o d Is Unchangeable 206, 237 26 113n 50 115n 83 121n 135-38 115 173-176 128 176 128 Quod omnis probus liber sit (Prob.) That Every G o o d Person Is Free 12 77n 75-91 139n 91 140

JO SEPHUS Antiquitates judaicae (A.J., Ant.) Jewish Antiquities 20n, 159, 162, 166, 169n, 173, 176, 177, 179, 180, 182 19n 1.9-12 1.14 145 145 1.19-20 155n 1.21-24 146 1.23 116n 1.24 181n 1.161 181n 2.39 181n 2.286

3. 183 5-7 5.117 5.117-184 5.180 5.276ff. 6.84 6.93 6.378 7.68 8.61 8.211 9.180 10.51 10.97ff. 10.108ff

231 193 195n 196 195n 177 195n, 196 35n 194 191, 193, 194 191 192n 192 37n 188 189

280 10.143 10.147 10.181ff. 10.185 10.210 11.112 12.36 12.100 12.108-109 12.110 13.297 15.136 19 20.230 20.232 20.262-263 20. 263 20.263-5 20.264

INDEX OF BIBLE 194 191, 194n 186 194n 30n 194n 35 168 18 35 37 43 168 191 194n 28n 9n, 30n, 161 159 14n

Bellum Judaicum (B.J.; War) Jewish War 14n, 182 231 5. 212 6.437 192 7.254-257 6 6 7.258

Contra Apion (C. Ap.) Against Apion (Ag. Ap) 14n, 19n, 30n, 163-167, 169-174, 179 1.7 166n 1.66 163 43 1.42 1.94ff. 170 1.103 170 1.134 175n 1.145 171 1.155ff. 170 1.230 170 2.19 191 163 2.155 248n 2.168 2.168-2.257 166n 2.170 35 2.204 20n 2.220-2.275 163 2.257 248n Vita The Life 13-16

159n

EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS

Augustine Civitas Dei The City of God 18.18 178n Confessions 3.1

On the Holy Spirit 77 235

Barnabas 10.11

235

Basil of Caesarea Ad Adulescentes ( " T o Y o u n g M e n , O n the Benefits to be Derived from the Writings o f the Greeks") 245n Adversos Eunomium 1.7

254n

Contra Sabellianos et Arium et Anomoium 243 Epistles 189 210

In principium Proverbiorum 258n

243n 243n

243

Clement Paedagogus (Paed.) Christ the Educator 3.76 235 Stromateis (Strom.) 1.21. 111.4-112.4 1.21.147.2 1. 30.4 1.176. 1(2) 1.342 2. 47.1 2.88.2 3.95.2 5. 32. 3 5.51.4-5 5.595 6.5 6.632 7.40.2 7.109.2ff.

194n 192 232 248n 248n 232 232 236 231 235 248 242n 248n 232 235

INDEX OF BIBLE Didymus the Blind In Genesim (In Gen) O n Genesis 118.24-119.5 119.15-23 139.10-14 147.15-18 235.25-31 236.7-11

215 215 215 216 216 216 216

Commentarii in Ecclesiasten (Comm. in Eccl.) 217 275-276 217n 345 218n

Gregory of Nyssa Catechetical Oration §3 §5

243, 244 244 244

Commentary on the Song of Songs §4

251 251

On the Inscriptions of the Psalms Sermons on Ecclesiastes (Hom.) 1

Commentarii in ^achariam (Comm. in £ach.) 5.29.2 218n 320.6-9 217n Epiphanius Adversus haereses (Adv. Haer.) Against Heresies 1.29.5 209n Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica (Hist. Eccl, HE) Ecclesiastical History 208 2.4-5 208 2.16-18 209 Praeparatio evangelica (Praep. Evang., Praep. Ev., PE) 7.14 248n 8.10 248n 9.18.1 144n 11.6 249n 13.12 248n Evagrius Scholia 1 o n Prov. 1:1 1 o n Prov 1:2 270 o n Prov. 24:13 291 o n Prov. 24:27 1 o n Eccl 1:1 3 o n Eccl 1:11 38 o n Eccl 5:7-8 Gregory Nazianzus Oratio in laudem Basili (Or.) 2.37 20.6 29.2

259n 254n 259 252n 254n 256 252n

243n, 244n 243n 244n

281

251 252 253-255, 257n, 258, 259 254, 255 259n 255 248n, 255n, 259 256 255n

Life of Gregory the Wonderworker §50 253 §54 253 Gregory the Wonderworker Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes 249n, 252, 253 Hippolytus of Rome Interpretatio Cantica canticorum 1.1-5 247n Irenaeus Adversus haereses (Haer.) 1.5.5 5.8.3

236 235

Isadore of Pelusium Epistles (Ep.) 2.143 2.270 3.19 3.81

219n 219n 220n 219n

Jerome Adversus Rufinum 1.13

212n

De viris illustribus (De vir.) On Illustrious Men 8, 11

210n, 214 209

282 109 113 Justin Martyr 1 Apology 44

INDEX OF BIBLE 214n 210n

248n

Justinian Liber Adversus Origenem 258n Origen Commentary on Matthew (Comm. Matt., Mat.Com) 10.22 231 15.3 229n, 239n Commentary on John (Comm. Jo) 254n 6.41 20 Commentary on the Song of Songs 247, 250 3.10 251n Contra Celsum (Cels) Against Celsus 4.21 248 4.40 236 4.51 22In, 239n 6.16 234 6.21 22In, 239n 6.43 248n 6.61 79n 7.20 239n De Principiis (De Prin.) On First Principles 2.11.5-7 249n IV 245 IV.2-3 246n Epistula ad Gregorium Thaumaturgum (Ep. ad Greg.) 4.80ff. 59n Fragmenta ex catenis in Deuteronomium (Dt. Cat B) 235 Fragmenta ex catenis in Genesim (Gen. Cat B) 232, 234, 236

Homilae in Genesim (Horn. Gen., Gen. Horn) 1:11 236 14.3 233 15.3 249n 16.2.6 232 Homilae in Exodum (Horn. Ex., Ex.Hom) 3.3 232 13.3 230 Homilae in Leviticum (Horn. Lev., Lev. Horn.) 5.4 235 6.2 235 7.6 234 8.3 232 Homilae in Numeros (Horn. Num., Num. Horn.) 11 252n 11.4.3 249n 22.4 229n 25.3 235 26.2 233 26.4 230n, 232 Homilae in 1 Reges (Horn. Reg, Reg. Horn.) 1.8 232 Selecta in Exechielem (Sel. Exech., Ez. Sel) 30.4 232 Procopius of Gaza Catena in Ecclesiasten

254n

Ps. Prochorus Acta Johannis 110-112

209n

Tertullian De resurrectione camis (Res.) The Resurrection of the Flesh 1 236 Theodoret Commentary on the Song of Songs 247n, 248n, 250n

INDEX OF BIBLE

283

RABBINIC T E X T S Mishnah

183

Yebamot 82b

184n

Tosefta Megillah (t. Meg.) 4:42

17n

Ketubbot (b.Ketub.) 72a

42n

Sotah (t. Sot.) 15:8

14n

Sotah 14a

152n

Bava Kama (b.B.K.) 83a

14n

Sanhedrin (b. Sanh.) 17a

14n

Avodah ^ara 2b

47n

Niddah 46b

184n

Talmud, Babylonian Shabbat 133b Pesahimfb. Pesah) 96a Sukkah 56b Megillah (b. Meg.) 9a 12a 14b-15a

123 152n

42n

42n

2In, 22n, 23n 42 198n

Talmud, Jerusalem Megillah (y. Meg.) l,ll,71d

123 21n

MIDRASHIC COMPOSITIONS Genesis Rabba 1 4 72 73 Lamentations Rabba 2:9 Midrash Rabbah 36.8

49n 49n 49n 49n

50n

131

Mekhilta deR. Yishma'el Bo 14 21n Be'shallakh 9

49

Bahodesh 121n, 122n

Midrash Tanhuma Genesis 1:1

49n

Numbers 7:1

49n

Yitro 96

122n

Seder Olam

25 26

159n, 179n, 183-190, 198-200 188 186, 189

Sifrei Deuteronomy 70 343

49n 47n

284

INDEX OF BIBLE CLASSICAL A N D HELLENISTIC JEWISH T E X T S

Aeschylus Niobe Frg. 154a 15 Alcinous Didaskalikos 10.6

Democritus Frg. 34

236

Diodorus 31.10

129n

76n

150n

Diogenes Laertius 10.135

137

Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica (Arg.) 4.82, 1013

87 89n

Dioscorides (Medicus) 4.153

86n

Apuleius The Golden Ass

178n

Epictetus 3.10.2

HOn

Aratus Phaenomena

73

Euripides Bacchae Electra (El.) 1288-1291 Frg. 839

134 82n

Galen De usu partium 3.10

236

Herodotus (Hdt) Histories 1.32 1.207 2.18 2.41 2.154

136n 129n 8n 8n 14n

Aristotle Nichomachean Ethics 1.9-10, 1100a5ff. 1.10, 1100b4 1.10, 1101al4-21

136n 129n 138n

Fragments (Fragm.) I

54n

Physica (Phys.) 218a25 252b

113n 236

Poetics (Poet.) 1450a17

134n

Politics II 1269a8

41

Cicero De divinatione (Div.) 1.110 2.129 De natura deorum (Nat. D.) 2.79 De officiis (De Off.) II 2, 5 Corpus Hermeticum 12.1 16.1

115n 122n 115n 58n

114n 17n

Hesiod Opera et dies (Op.) Works and Days 90-104 76n 213-47 76n 242-43 77n 638 76n 667-69 76n 717-18 76n Theogonia (Theog., Th.) Theogony 218-20 76fn 633 76n 634 76n 900 76n 905 76n Homer hCer 147, 216

76n

INDEX OF BIBLE Illiad (II.) 2.419-20 2.875 3.444 3.446 3.371 5.146 5.579 5.892 8.325 8.365 10.15 11.92 11.217 11.738 13.202 14.175 14.401 14.412 15.109 15.412 15.726 16.182 16.208 16.250-52 16.258 16.340 17.548 18.177 20.223 21.64-135 21.65 21.116-18 21.117 21.199 22.324 23.141 24.357 24.525-33

89 76n 84n 84n 84n 88n 89n 89n 88n 89n 85n 88n 88n 88n 84n 88n 88n 88n 88n 76n 46n 88n 84n 84n 76n 88n 89n 85n 88n 84n 89n 89n 89n 89n 85n 89n 88n 89n 76n

Odyssey (Od.) 2.85 3.104 4.236-37 8.62-63 8.494 11.18 12.381 12.412 15.488 89 20.19 20.199-203 22.339

89 88n 88n 76n 76n 85 85n 85n 88n 76n 88n 76n 89n

22.342-43 22.365-366 22.472

89n 89n 88n

Libanius Epistles 215

14n

Marcus Aurelius Meditations 8.57

114n

Menander Epitrepontes (Epitr.) 1085-86

76n

Mimnermus Frg. 2.15

76n

Philo of Byblos F 2.10.8

17n

Philo the Epic Poet On Jerusalem

67

Photius Bibliotheca (Bibl.) 103

209n

Pindar Isthmionikai (Isthm.) Isthmian Odes 76n 5.52 P. 85n 4.110 Plato Laws 644d I V 713 I V 723c 2 - 3

41, 42 100 50

Republic 361 379a-e 379c 379e 538c 608 614 617e

98-100 98 77n 77n 77n 41 98 99 99

Symposium 202d-203a

133n

286

INDEX OF BIBLE

Theaetetus (Theaet.) 176b1-2

135, 151n

Timaeus (Tim.) 22b-c 29e-30a 41a 42e5-6 52b 90a-c

80, 111, 134 166n 77n 104 80 112 135

Plutarch Moralia (Mor.) 24B 103f. 105C 600D 1040B-C 1048E-F 1049A-B 1049D-E 1050C-D

76n 129n 76n 76n 77n 77n 77n 77n 77n

Polybius 1.4.4 1.63.9 15.20.5-8 29.21 29.27.11-12

129 129 129 129n 129

Proclus On Plato's Timaeus (In Plat. Tim.) 290.25 11 In. Pseudo-Aristotle De Mundo

73

Pseudo-Hecataeus On the Jews

70

Pseudo-Orpheus 14 16 24

74n, 75 74n, 75 75

Pseudo-Plato Definitiones 412a 9 - 1 0 415b-c 415b 7

54n 54n 50

Epinomus (Epin) 978a RufuS

Onom. 102 Seneca De Ira 3.36.1-4 Epistulae morales (Ep.) Epistles 41.1-2 41.4-5 120.14 Sextus Empiricus Adversus mathematicos (Math.) 9.178-79 Sophocles Antigone (Ant) 583-585 Tatian Oratio ad Graecos 31 Theodotus Fragment 8 Theophilus Ad Autolycum 3:16 Theognis Elegies 133 155-58 165-66 171-72 230-32 463-64 591-92 Xenophon Memorabilia (Mem.) 4.2.33