kugel - shem in the tents of japhet, essays on the encounter of judaism and hellenism (supplements...

DeLL

Stamp

SUPPLEMENTS T O T H E

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF JUDAISM

Editor

J O H N J. C O L L I N S The Divinity School, Yale University

Associate Editor

FLORENTINO GARCIA M A R T I N E Z

Qumran Institute, University o f Groningen

Advisory Board

P. ALEXANDER - J. DUHAIME - A . H I L H O R S T - P . W . V A N DER HORST

A. KLOSTERGAARD PETERSEN - M.A. KNIBB — J . T . A . G . M . V A N RUITEN

J. SIEVERS - G. STEMBERGER - J. TROMP

V O L U M E 74

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

B R I L L L E I D E N • 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 of 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.

BM176 .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; Koln : Brill, 2002

(Supplements to the journal for the study of Judaism ; Vol. 74) ISBN 90-04-12514-0

ISSN 1384-2161 ISBN 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 any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written

permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that

the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910

DanversMA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

C O N T E N T S

Preface vii List o f Contributors ix

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

ISSUES OF L A N G U A G E

2. Bilingual Jews and the Greek Bible 13 A L B E R T I. B A U M G A R T E N

3. Context and Connotat ion. Greek W o r d s for Jewish

Concepts in Philo 31 N A O M I G . C O H E N

HELLENISM IN J E W I S H W R I T I N G S

4. Hellenism in the Fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Resonance and Resistance 65 C A R L R . H O L L A D A Y

5. Apocalypt ic Eschatology in Philosophical Dress in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n 93

J O H N J. COLLINS

6. Philo and the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n on Creation, Revelation, and Providence: T h e High-Water Mark o f Jewish Hellenistic Fusion 109 D A V I D W I N S T O N

7. Eudaimonism in Hellenistic-Jewish Literature 131

D A V I D T . R U N I A

8. Josephus between Rabbin ic Culture and Hellenistic Historiography 159 C H A I M M I L I K O W S K Y

T H E R E C E P T I O N OF JUDAISM BY THE G R E E K FATHERS

9. O n e o f Us or O n e o f T h e m ? Christian Recept ion o f Philo the J e w in Egypt 203 D A V I D T . R U N I A

VI CONTENTS

10. Assessing Philo's Influence in Christian Alexandria:

T h e Case o f Or igen 223 ANNEWIES V A N DEN H O E K

11. "Vanity o f Vanities"? Solomon ' s Tri logy and the Patristic Subversion o f Scripture 241 N I C H O L A S CONSTAS

Index 261

P R E F A C E

This volume contains the papers presented at two conferences. T h e first, at Bar Ilan University on January 6, 1998, was entitled "Shem in the Tents o f Japhet I: Jewish Writings in Greek in Second Temple Times ." T h e second, at Harvard University on M a y 13, 1999 bore the title: "Shem in the Tents o f Japhet II: A Conference on Hellenism and Judaism." T h e essays o f Baumgarten ("Bilingual Jews"), Cohen , Holladay, Collins, Winston, Runia ("Eudaimonism") and Minkowsky were presented at the first conference. Those o f Baumgarten ("Were the Greeks Different?"), Runia ("One o f Us or O n e o f T h e m ? " ) , van den H o e k and Constas were delivered at the Harvard conference.

For this volume, the essays have been arranged in four sections. Albert Baumgarten's reflections on the difference between the Greeks and other conquering peoples in antiquity serve as an introduction. Baumgarten's second essay and that o f Naomi C o h e n deal with issues o f bilingualism, and the linguistic p rob lem o f expressing Jewish ideas in Greek. T h e third section treats the influence o f Hellenistic culture in various Jewish writings o f the Second T e m p l e period, primarily Philo (Winston and Runia), but also the historians and poets whose work has survived only in fragments (Holladay), the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n (Collins and Winston) and Josephus (Minkowsky). T h e final section brings together three essays o n the reception o f Jewish traditions by the Greek Fathers o f the Christian Church. 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 Origen and Gregory o f Nyssa.

T h e two conferences that gave rise to this volume were made possible by the generosity o f M r . Dennis Mehiel , and I would like to express m y gratitude to him here.

L I S T O F C O N T R I B U T O R S

Albert Baumgarten, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel N a o m i Cohen , Haifa University, Haifa, Israel J o h n J. Collins, Yale University, N e w Haven, C T Nicholas Constas, Harvard University, Cambridge , M A Annewies van den Hoek , Harvard University, Cambridge , M A Carl R . Holladay, Emory University, Atlanta, G A Cha im Milikowsky, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel David Runia, Leiden University, Netherlands

David Winston, Graduate Theologica l Union (California), Emeritus

1

W E R E T H E G R E E K S D I F F E R E N T ?

I F S O , H O W A N D W H Y ?

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

i

T h e Jews o f Antiquity were well aware that they had been subject

to a series o f world empires. After the exile to Babylonia, the Persians

had taken center stage as the great world power , and were to be

replaced by the Greeks. After the brief interlude o f Maccabean inde

pendence , Jews were subject to R o m a n rule. A principal expression

o f this awareness was the metaphor o f four beasts = world empires

(e.g. D a n 7—8), revised as necessary to comply with reality. 1 Each o f

these world empires shaped the nature o f subsequent Jewish history,

for g o o d or bad, from the edict o f Cyrus allowing the Jews to return

to Jerusalem, or the likely Persian contribution to the codification o f

the Torah , 2 to R o m a n termination o f Jewish independence culmi

nating in the destruction o f the Jerusalem Temple . In this sense,

there was nothing new or special about the transfer o f power which

took place with the conquest o f Alexander and the rule o f his suc

cessor kingdoms. O n e imperial power was replacing another as over

lord o f the Jews, as had happened at least once centuries ago and

would continue to occur for even longer afterwards.

It might take some time to adjust to the new order; the rise and

fall o f empires or dynasties might awake dormant eschatological hope,

as at the tfime o f the civil war from which Darius emerged as vic

torious, as reflected in the first nine chapters o f Zechariah and the

prophecies o f Haggai. There would likely be some local winners and

losers: those too closely identified with the o ld regime might be

demoted, while locals with the foresight to have w o n the confidence

1 See O . Irshai, "Dating the Eschaton," Apocalyptic Time (ed. A.I. Baumgarten; Leiden, 2000), 115 and bibliography, n. 6.

2 See E.J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, M A / N e w York, 1988), 30-31 .

2 ALBERT I. BAUMGARTEN

o f the new rulers might be elevated. T h e new imperial power would

continue some aspects o f the administration o f its predecessors, but

also likely introduce some new turns to the way Jews were governed,

thus changing the course o f Jewish history. O n the whole , however,

experienced hands w h o enjoyed the allegiance o f the native popu

lation were never too abundant, and a proven method o f governing

was not easily discarded. 3

A n d yet, the two centuries o f Greco-Macedonian reign in the Land

o f Israel o c c u p y a special place in our imagination. This epoch is

not usually understood as a result o f one other transfer o f power

among many. Indeed, when conceiving that era, scholars often employ

models which derive from modern experience and based on seem

ingly unique characteristics o f the modern world. There is an un

spoken assumption behind much o f modern scholarship: the ancient

Jewish response to Greek culture was s o m e h o w fundamentally sim

ilar to aspects o f the contemporary Jewish response to the univer-

salist cosmopoli tan culture o f modernity (despite the essentially modern character o f universalist cosmopoli tanism). 4 T h e description by each

scholar o f the nature o f the ancient p rob lem and the solution appro

priate then displays a basic similarity to the way that scholar saw

the modern problem, and to the sorts o f solutions favored by that

scholar to the modern issues. I could easily offer a list o f scholars

w h o have written on the response o f Jews and Hellenistic culture to

each other (Bickerman, Momigl iano , Tcherikover, Hengel , Feldman

and Gruen, for example) demonstrating this aspect o f their work in

detail. 5

3 For an intriguing challenge to the conventional view that ancient empires continued the practice of their predecessors with few if any innovations, see S. Schwartz, " O n the Autonomy of Judaea in the Fourth and Third Centuries B.C.E.," JJS 45 (1994), 157-168.

4 For a brilliant description of the usual choices for identity available to moderns, 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 who dealt with topics under discussion here were Jewish, the dilemma Gellner depicts had few geographic limits, and was not confined to the boundaries of the Habsburg empire.

5 Although I decline to offer such a comprehensive analysis here, I intend to write a detailed discussion of 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 remembered only for his scholarship, hence he ordered his executors to burn his private

W E R E THE GREEKS DIFFERENT? 3

Yet , such an illustration might well provoke the most bo red and

hence devastating o f all reactions: so what! There is nothing new

about discovering the connect ion between past and present in work

o f a historian. T h e victory o f the relativists, such as E .H. Carr, What is History—summed up in the slogan that "the best guide to under

standing the history written is to know the historian"—is virtually

comple te . 6 T o cite one recent example, related to the topic under

discussion here, E. Gruen introduces his b o o k as follows:

Some Israeli friends have twitted me for approaching the subject from the skewed perspective of a liberal, secular, diaspora Jew. I plead guilty to the characterization; others can judge how skewed is the perspective.7

Gruen is responding to attempts to relativize his work by relating it

to his personal loyalties b y acknowledging these perspectives, but

countering that such commitments may even be useful, and certainly

d o not prevent him from having something beneficial and impor

tant to say, from which others (even those with different allegiances)

may also profit.

If the connect ion between the historian and his or her history is

too banal to pursue, questioning o f unspoken assumptions is a different

matter. T h e y usually seem so obvious to the scholars w h o operate

on the basis o f such assumptions that they are rarely considered crit

ically by those scholars w h o employ them. Yet , from the perspective

papers without being read. The enigma in Bickerman's case therefore seems sufficiently interesting to be worth the effort of 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; New Haven/London, 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, Jacob, published by the latter as Two Bikermans (New York, 1975). See Himmelfarb, "Elias Bickerman," 209, n. 17. As Elias Bickerman himself was reticent in supplying biographical information that would help place his work in a particular context (ordering his private papers burned was not the only step—he was invited to contribute to the family collection of autobiographies, but refused) the accounts supplied by his father and brother are the best available evidence. See also A. Momigliano, "The Absence of the Third Bickerman," Essays on Ancient and Modem Judaism (Chicago, 1994), 217-221.

6 Many if not all of us recommend that our students read works such as Carr's, What is History? H o w many of us also recommend that our students read the passionate attack against Carr by J.H. Hexter, "The Historian and His Society: A Sociological Inquiry, Perhaps," Doing History (London, 1971), 77-106, arguing that knowing the historian is irrelevant and that there is a quality to good historical work which rises above the personal commitments of the historian?

7 Heritage and Hellenism (Berkeley, 1998), ix.


o f a different (usually subsequent) generation, living under different

conditions and facing other issues, these unspoken assumptions fre

quently seem blatantly tendentious, dated and irrelevant. T h e y are

often the first to go in the new round o f revisionism. It therefore

seems worth asking whether Greek rule was as novel for its time as

the universalist cosmopoli tan culture o f modernity has been for the

past century? Is the unspoken analogy behind so m u c h o f scholar

ship correct? 8 A full answer to this question would require an analy

sis o f modernity beyond both the limits o f this paper and my academic

competence . Therefore, in order to reduce the discussion to rea

sonable terms, I ask a simpler question: were the Greeks significantly

unlike other ancient world conquerors w h o preceded or fol lowed

them, and if so h o w and why . 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

ceived as the designated outsider, 1 0 social contact (such as eating or

marriage) with w h o m was deemed dangerous, and whose ways were

not to be aped. Ezra and Nehemiah, for example, stood guard over

the walls o f Jerusalem (in both the literal and figurative senses), deter

mined to guard the boundaries o f the Jewish people, as they understood

them. T h e dangerous outsiders from their perspective were local peo

ples: Ammoni tes , Moabites , Ashdodites and 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 essential element o f the new universal culture of modernity. This made the Greek connection 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.

9 For purposes of this article I leave aside entirely the other side of the question: what, if anything, was different about the Jews as compared to other nations of 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 (Cambridge/London, 1997), and the lively discussion this book has generated, such as R. Goldenberg, "On the Origins o f Anti-Semitism and the Problem of Blaming the Victim," JSQ 6 (1999), 251-260; C. Hayes, 'Judeophobia: Peter Schafer on the Origins of Anti-Semitism," JSQ 6 (1999), 261-273; P. Schafer, "Response to Christine Hayes and Robert Goldenberg," JSQ6 (1999), 274-281 .

1 0 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 . Thompson, R. Ellis and A. Wildavsky, Cultural Theory (Boulder/San Francisco, 1990), 4 stress: "to destroy the other is to murder the self."


T h e Persians, the imperial power , did not figure at all in these cal

culations. Indeed, to the extent the Persians were involved in the

world o f Ezra and Nehemiah they were patrons, w h o had granted

Ezra his charter o f privileges and appointed Nehemiah to office.

T h e situation was not m u c h different in R o m a n times. T h e his

tory o f the problematic relations between the Jews and their non-

Jewish loca l ne ighbors is well k n o w n , as is the con junc t ion o f

circumstances which made this hostility a factor in the outbreak o f

the Great Revolt . Local feuds were at least as significant as the war

against the imperial p o w e r . 1 1 Political tension between Jews and

R o m a n s would b e c o m e high, but were there enough R o m a n s in

Palestine to pose a social and cultural d i l emma? 1 2

In the Hellenistic era, by way o f contrast, there were many 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 were not usually mentioned by name.

For example, which gentiles were the paradigm for those w h o erred

by following a lunar calendar (Jub. 6:35—36)? This is virtually impos

sible to determine, as virtually all the peoples o f the Mediterranean

basin o f that era employed a lunar calendar. In a similar vein, which

gentiles were some Jews imitating when they refused to circumcise

their sons (Jub. 15:33-34)? Sometimes, however, the nature o f gen

tile ways to be avoided is so explicit that it seems clear that the

Greeks were intended, as in the denunciation o f those gentiles w h o

went naked (Jub. 3:31).

Perhaps the political circumstances made discretion necessary.

Perhaps the literary nature o f many o f the works o f the Hellenistic

era, pseudepigrapha o f different sorts such as Daniel, Enoch and

Jubilees, required a degree o f obscurity lest the recent origin o f the

works seem too blatant. 1 3 Whatever the explanations, it is interest

ing that works explicitly connected with Maccabean victory, such as

1 and 2 M a c e d o mention the Greeks by name and their ways as

those to be avoided by loyal Jews (see further below). Thus, unlike

1 1 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.

1 2 For an account of the Roman presence in Palestine in the first century, correctly stressing its minimal nature see E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (Harmondsworth, 1993), 15-32, esp. 27-31.

1 3 For an incisive analysis o f the significance o f the literary convention of pseude-pigraphy, 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.


other ancient imperial rulers o f the Jews, the Greeks were perceived

as a social and cultural problem.

Analysis o f the other side o f this coin yields similar results. I f we

inquire which Jews were considered to have apostatized by adopt

ing foreign ways, behavior for which these "bad" Jews were denounced

and even penalized, the answer for the days o f Ezra and Nehemiah

were the local aristocrats, interested in marrying with families o f their

social peers a m o n g the neighboring nations (Ezra 9:2). Nehemiah

marked the boundary against these Jews in the clearest way possi

ble by purifying the r o o m in the Temple which had been given to

T o b i a h by his relative, the high priest, when Nehemiah cleared the

r o o m o f Tobiah ' s effects (Neh 13:8-9) .

In R o m a n times the situation was a bit more complex . Sicarii and

Zea lo ts 1 4 attacked R o m a n targets (Josephus, War 7.258), as well as

Jews w h o m they perceived to be apostate collaborators (Josephus,

War 7 .254-257) . Typical o f the mix o f objectives was the attack by

the Sicarii at Massada against the Jews o f Ein Gedi and other neigh

boring towns (Josephus, War 4 . 402 -405) . Their objective, according

to Josephus (who may not be wholly reliable, as his intent to denounce

the Sicarii is evident whenever he mentions this group) was to secure

fresh supplies. These same Sicarii died at the end o f a defense o f

Massada against R o m a n siege, which lasted about three months . 1 5

Thus, political warfare combined 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 Romans , however, was never the crucial issue or rea

son for opposit ion.

M u c h the same was true o f the "eighteen decrees" promulgated

by a group at the nationalist end o f the spectrum in the years lead-

1 4 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, who take their lead from the terminology in Josephus, I would divide carefully between Sicarii = members of the fourth philosophy and zealots.

1 5 O n Josephus's account of the siege of Massada see S.J.D. Cohen, "Massada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains and the Credibility of Josephus," JJS 33 (1982), 385-405; M . Stern, "The Suicide of 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), 313-346 (Hebrew). For a convenient summary of 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.


ing up to the Great Revol t . T h e various versions o f these decrees

preserved in rabbinic sources indicate that the objective o f these pro

hibitions was to increase the distance between Jews and foreigners.

Yet the foreign ways proscribed have little to d o with the R o m a n s

and even less with R o m a n culture. 1 6

Matters were significandy different at the time o f the Hellenistic

empires, during the days o f the persecutions o f Antiochus IV , in par

ticular. Apostates, willing to worship according to the ways o f the

gentiles, were killed (1 M a c e 2 :23-26 , 47) and children left uncir-

cumcised by their parents were forcibly entered into the covenant

o f Abraham (1 M a c e 2:46). Sinners were supposedly never allowed

to get the upper hand (1 M a c e 2:48). Accordingly , it was not acci

dental that those w h o adopted this policy took Phinehas and Elijah—

paradigms o f zeal from the Bible, whose targets were apostates such

as Zimri and A h a b ( N u m 25 :1 -15 and 1 Kings 18:18)—as their

heroes (1 M a c e 2:26, 54, 58).

Denunciations against Jews w h o accepted the culture o f the gen

tiles is a key element in the opening sections o f 1 M a c e , but while

the practices denounced are characteristically Greek (gymnasium and

removal o f marks o f circumcision, 1 M a c e 1:14-15) they are not

named as Greek. In 2 M a c e 4 : 1 2 - 1 5 , however , Greek ways are

explicitly identified as enticing Jews, priests in particular, to aban

don the traditions o f their ancestors.

A variation on this argument can be found in at least two different

sources from the era. In a world governed by the principle o f mea

sure for measure, those apostate Jews w h o adopted the ways o f the

Greeks will be punished by the Greeks, w h o will b e c o m e their ene

mies and turn against them. This was the penalty suffered by the

Hellenizing priests o f Jerusalem o f the generation o f Antiochus IV ,

according to 2 M a c e 4:16. A similar conclusion emerges from an

analysis o f a sectarian source. T h e princes o f Judah are denounced

towards the end o f the ideological section o f the Damascus Documen t

( C D VIII : 3 - 2 l b ) . 1 7 These princes hope for healing, but they are

1 6 O n the eighteen decrees see I. Ben-Shalom, The School of Shammai and the Zealots' Struggle against Rome (Jerusalem, 1993), 252-272 (Hebrew).

1 7 M y interpretation of this text takes its point of departure from that suggested by J. Murphy-O'Connor, "The Critique o f the Princes of Judah (CD VIII, 3-19)," RB 79 (1972), 200-216. Note that I only use passages from the A text, on the possibility that Murphy-O'Connor 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


really rebels. In fact (as opposed to the claim o f these princes), they

have not forsaken the ways o f the faithless, having defiled them

selves. Quot ing the verse in Deut 32:33, "their wine is the v e n o m

o f serpents and the cruel head o f asps," the author o f the Damascus

D o c u m e n t explained that the serpents were the kings o f the nations,

and wine their ways (i.e. the ways o f the gentile kings, adopted by

the Jewish rulers), while the head o f the asps was the chief o f the

kings o f the Greeks, w h o will wreak vengeance upon the Jewish

rulers. 1 8 That is, the Jewish rulers will pay the appropriate price for

their sins: those foreign, i.e. Greek, kings whose ways they aped will

be the source o f their destruction.

In sum, the p rob lem with the Greek overlord was not the same

as with other imperial masters: it was not only economic , political

or military, but had important religious and cultural components .

Jews therefore felt the need to mark the boundary between them

selves and Greeks much more than they felt that need with other

imperial powers. Jews w h o were stringent about such matters also

took care to oppose fellow Jews w h o m they perceived as having been

seduced by Greek "culture. 1 9 This compar ison o f the Greeks with

other empires suggests that there was something different about them.

in

What might that difference have been? This is a complex question

which requires a detailed and nuanced answer. For purposes o f this

ammunition against internal apostates in the B text. On the various suggestions for understanding this text see further P.R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1983), 156-172. Against Murphy-O'Connor, see especially S.A. White, "A Comparison of the 'A ' and 'B' Manuscripts of the Damascus Document," i?Q^48 (1987), 537-553; J.J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York, 1994), 80 -82 .

1 8 Note that at this stage of the argument in C D VIII, those who suffered punishment at the hands of the Greek king were the princes of Judah, as they have been the subject throughout the preceding section, and the "builders of the wall" have not yet been mentioned. Cf. B. Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk (Jerusalem, 1986), 137 (Hebrew).

1 9 Compare the Greeks in Egypt according to Herodotus. Although Greco-Macedonian rule in Egypt would occur two centuries after Herodotus, and Greeks living there in his day were mostiy mercenaries or traders, their way of life provoked 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 belonging to a Greek, or even taste the flesh of an ox (which Egyptians did eat) that had been cut by a Greek knife (Hdt. 2.41). This was because Greeks ate cows.


paper, I wou ld like to suggest one direction in which to look. I

believe a first avenue o f insight is already implicit in the discussion

above. Even before there were Greek empires there was an exten

sive Greek Diaspora, which would g row in numerical terms and in

cultural and political importance with the arrival o f the Hellenistic

kingdoms. This Diaspora would encourage an on-going interest in

ethnography (evident already in Herodotus in the fifth century B.C.E.),

and promote critical reflection about native Greek beliefs, with impor

tant implications for the growth o f Greek philosophy and Greek cul

ture in general. 2 0 With the flourishing o f the Hellenistic monarchies

Greek institutions were established for the n o w vast Diaspora. These

institutions were open to newcomers , such as the famous and much

discussed Antiochenes o f Jerusalem (2 M a c e 4 :9) . 2 1 These d e m o

graphic facts help explain why Greek culture was such a potent force,

far beyond the cultures o f the wor ld empires w h o preceded or suc

ceeded the Greeks.

Greek interest in foreign peoples went beyond curiosity or ethnog

raphy. Their determination to create a uniform "scientific" frame

work for the history o f other nations was such that they allowed

themselves to rewrite the history o f the nations amongst w h o m they

lived. T h e outlines o f the past embod ied in the H o m e r i c epics were

taken as the context into which the past o f other nations had to be

p laced . 2 2 T h e transparent hellenocentrism o f this construct provoked

a disdainful oriental reaction, denouncing the Greeks as newcomers

on the scene and H o m e r as an author not worthy o f such author

ity. Evidence o f this response can be found in the works o f Manetho ,

Berossus, Josephus and Philo o f Byblos . 2 3 Under these circumstances,

2 0 The 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 further 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).

2 1 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 of Menelaus," %ym (5752), 233-246 (Hebrew).

2 2 See, in particular, E.J. Bickerman, "Origines Gentium," Religions and Politics in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (eds. E. Gabba and M . Smith; Como , 1985), 399-418.

2 3 See R.A. Oden, "Philo o f Byblos and Hellenistic Historiography," PEQiWO (1978), 115-126, who does not acknowledge his substantial debt to Bickerman's "Origines Gentium." See also A.I. Baumgarten, The Phoenician History of Philo of


it is plausible to conclude that a people 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 1:41-62; 2 M a c e 6 -7) , even though

ancient empires rarely, if ever, intervened in the beliefs or practices

o f their subjects, so long as they did not endanger public order . 2 4

w

Triangulation is a technique not limited to determining geographic

location. It has applications in the humanities and social sciences. I f

a matter which seems worthy o f attention based o n the unspoken

assumptions o f one scholarly era—viewed in light o f the tendencies,

prejudices and experience peculiar to that epoch , also remains impor

tant to a later generation, based on a somewhat different style o f

analysis—that set o f questions is likely to be more than a passing

fancy. A n issue o f lasting significance has been identified, which will

continue to stimulate scholarly attention over generations.

I believe that the examination offered here indicates that there

was something different: about the Greeks, which made their inter

action with other peoples special, and not the same as the experi

ence with previous or later ancient world empires. W h e n unique

aspects o f the Greeks are combined with peculiar characteristics o f

Jews and Judaism the blend p roduced a cultural, political, intellec

tual and religious amalgam o f great power in antiquity, and ulti

mately o f monumental impact on both Jews and Greeks. This amalgam

continues to challenge and enrich critical scholarship, as well as p ro

vide an endlessly rich resource from the past to nourish con tempo

rary reflection on the nature o f individual and collective identity. 2 5

Byblos: A Commentary (Leiden, 1981), 82~83. Note, however, that these oriental authors (and the author of 2 Mace) all wrote in Greek. Some even expressed pride on 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 of the problem.

2 4 Compare 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 IV in Jerusalem an exception to the rule which requires special explanation, which Bickerman proceeds to offer.

2 5 I would like to thank Professor H. Cancik-Lindemaier of Tubingen University for comments on an earlier version o f this paper that helped sharpen my conclusions. Responsibility for these conclusions, of course, remains mine.

ISSUES O F L A N G U A G E

2

B I L I N G U A L J E W S A N D T H E G R E E K B I B L E *

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

i

Bilinguals have the potential o f playing a unique role. Fluent in two

languages, they can translate from one to the other. As languages

encompass and express a whole cultural outlook, bilinguals may also

be biculturals, and can thus serve as tradents from one cultural con

text to another, helping to lay the foundations for a fresh synthesis.

Indeed, in historical experience, young bilinguals have often been in

the first wave o f cultural change, leading others in staking out the

boundaries o f a new identity. 1 This paper is intended to explore the

, \

* An early version o f this paper was presented at the Symposium on Figures Bibliques: Hermeneutique juive et chretienne a I'epoque hellenistique et romaine, co-sponsored by the Hebrew University and by the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CRF), held in Jerusalem, Israel, in April 1990. M y thanks are due to Dr. G. Bohak of Tel Aviv University for a number of helpful suggestions in response to a much later version. Responsibility for the contents is, of course, mine.

1 See B. Anderson, Imagined Communities (2nd ed.; London/New York, 1991), 90-93 and 118-120. For a discussion of Moses that would fit well into Anderson's perspective—as the son of 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), 14-16.

There is a substantial literature on bilingualism as a linguistic and social phenomenon 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. London /New York, 1991); S. Romaine, Bilingualism (Oxford, 1995). As these studies emphasize, bilinguals need not necessarily be bicultural. That potential is not always realized, but my principal concern in this paper is with examples (ancient and modern) in which that possibility is actual.

Among the first to apply the insights o f modern study of 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 of ancient languages. For a meeting of the perspectives written by a scholar whose training was in the study of the modern phenomenon see B. Spolsky, 'Jewish Multilingualism in the First Century: An Essay in Historical Sociolinguistics," in J.A. Fishman, ed., Readings in the Sociology of Jewish Languages (Leiden, 1985), 35-50. For a fascinating analysis of the issues, intended to undo some o f the anachronisms introduced into the discussion by modern linguistic romanticism and nationalism, see S. Schwartz, "Language,


attitudes o f ancient bilingual Jews towards the translation o f the foun

dation document o f Jewish experience and the ultimate source o f

authority—the Bible, and the T o r a h in particular—into Greek. 2

M y objective is not to take up the question o f just w h o was bilin

gual, the extent o f bilingualism in either direction, or its variety

(which was the first language learned, and which the second) from

one area to another (the Diaspora vs. Palestine, for example). That

has been investigated by others, and the evidence for at least some

H e b r e w / G r e e k bilingualism seems incontrovertible. 3 Rather, as out-

Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine," Past and Present, 148 (1995), 3-47. A major focus o f Schwartz's study is the role of 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 of interpreters. For Greek/Latin bilingualism see the synthesis in H.I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (New York, 1956), 342-357. T o cite a few Jewish examples of the esteem usually accorded to bilingualism, speaking seventy languages was a supposed requirement for membership in the Sanhedrin, b. Sank. 17a. Philo, Corf. 13 asserted that learning many languages made you popular with those who spoke these languages., Josephus, AJ 20.264, turned the convention 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 how was it that many bilinguals were slaves.

Herodotus's account of the steps taken to produce interpreters should be compared with the rabbinic tradition about the permission granted the members of the Patriarchal house to study Greek, necessary in order to enable them to serve as representatives of the Jews to the Roman government, t. Sot. 15.8 (241-242, Lieberman) and b.B.K. 83a. For one possible example of the implementation of 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.

2 As the argument below will indicate, these Jews could read and write in both languages. This is a very high standard of bilingualism even in modern terms (see e.g., Romaine, Bilingualism, 11—19), not to speak of the ancient world, in which literacy was far less extensive. On literacy in antiquity see further the revisionist conclusions o f W . V . Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, 1989). It may therefore be no accident that while one important pool of ancient bilinguals were slaves, forced by their circumstances to master a second language (see Josephus, AJ 20.264), the few ancient Hebrew/Greek writing bilinguals who 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 individuals. For an analysis of 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 during that period, both on the Jewish and Hellenic side—see S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (Leiden, 1990), 23-57.

3 See esp. the summary article of S. Lieberman, responding to critique of his earlier work by other scholars, S. Lieberman, "How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine," in A. Airman, ed., Biblical and Other Studies (Cambridge, M A , 1963), 123-141. From

BILINGUAL JEWS AND THE GREEK BIBLE 15

lined above, I begin with a recognition o f the special role bilinguals

can play, and therefore ask about the attitudes o f ancient H e b r e w /

Greek bilinguals towards the translation o f the Bible and the T o r a h

into Greek from that perspective. I presume that the attitude o f these

bilinguals towards the translation o f the Torah should merit special

attention, as it was a matter within their realm o f special linguistic

competence . Furthermore, as the translation o f the T o r a h was an

expression o f an outlook o n the relationship between the Jewish and

Greek worlds, a relationship to which these bilinguals likely made a

unique and leading contribution, their perspective o n that endeavor

is o f particular interest.

Accurate translation o f the T o r a h into Greek^ is essential for anyone

w h o wants to live based o n it in a Greek speaking environment, in

which access to the Heb rew original is not widely available. For that

reason, it is no surprise to find the Letter of Aristeas—an account writ

ten to legitimate and praise the Septuagint by relating its history 4 —

celebrating the exactness o f the work done by the translators: As the books were read, the priests stood up, with the elders among the translators and from the representatives of the "Community," and with the leaders of 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). The renewed investigation o f Greek and Latin loan words in rabbinic texts, begun by D . Sperber, who 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 on which firm conclusions could be drawn. O n Sperber's results see R. Katzoff, Review of Sperber, Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 20 (1989), 195-206. For a recent summary of the state of the question see A. Wasserstein, "Non-Hellenized Jews in the Semi-Hellenized East," Scripta Classica Israelica 14 (1995), 111—137. Much 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 The reasons for the translation o f the Torah 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 expanding knowledge o f Persian and Ptolemaic imperial pol icy, see Meleze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 99-106 .

II


There was general approval of 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 of the written text, or any deletion either. This was a good step taken, to ensure that the words were preserved completely and permanently in perpetuity. (Aristeas 310-311)

T h e reader o f Aristeas is supposed to presume that the local priests,

the representatives o f the "Communi ty , " as well as the leaders o f the

people included some bilinguals, whose testimony to the accuracy o f

the translation was thus meaningful. Philo o f Alexandria described

the work 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 invisible 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 suiting the expression to the occasion? This was not the case, we are told, with this law of ours, but the Greek words used corresponded literally 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 of the authors not as translators but as prophets and priests of the mysteries, whose sincerity and singleness of thought has enabled them to go hand in hand with the purest of spirits, the spirit of Moses. (Mos. 2.37-40)

Philo's o w n knowledge o f Heb rew has been the subject o f m u c h

scholarly debate, with some magnifying its extent and others mini-

malizing it. 5 Perhaps Philo thought o f himself as one w h o mastered

5 See, for example, S. Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria—An Introduction (New York, 1979), 131. The current consensus favors minimalizing Philo's knowledge of Hebrew. See Schwartz, "Language, Power and Identity," 38-39. Thus, Schwartz notes, Philo was not always careful to distinguish between Aramaic and Hebrew, both of which he often called "Chaldean." At times, Josephus too did not differentiate between Hebrew and Aramaic, calling both "Hebrew." Aristeas 11 warned against this confusion. 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), 232-235. By these standards, Aristeas's warning is thus one additional indication, if one were needed, that the "real" author of this pseudepigraph was Jewish, while Josephus was often thinking and writing in non-Jewish terms. Philo's conflation shows just how far he was from intimate personal knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic.


both Chaldean and Greek, and could thus speak on the basis o f his

own knowledge, o f the translators as prophets and priests o f the mys

teries, w h o produced a work in which the normal distinction between

translation and original was irrelevant. In any case, whether Philo

was speaking for himself o r not, his praise o f the Greek Torah knew

no bounds. It was a miracle in every sense o f the word , a result o f

direct divine revelation, performed by prophets, and celebrated by

an annual festival at the site (Mos. 2.41—42). Ordinary (i.e. human)

limitations thus did not apply to the Greek Bible, as bilinguals gladly

attested.

V

Hi ^

W h e n one turns from authors the extent o f whose bilingualism is

open to some doubt, such as Philo, to those whose mastery o f both

languages was beyond question, the picture changes. Indeed, rather

than ratifying the accuracy o f the translation o f the Torah , as one

might expect based on the comments above, it was called into ques

tion. Ben Sira's grandson, in the prologue to the translation o f his

grandfather's work, is a convenient point o f departure. Introducing

his own translation, he apologized for its inadequacies, but explained

that these faults were not his alone:

For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed.

Translation is a difficult task, and not even the translation o f the

Law was immune from its imperfections. 6

6 Note the statement attributed to R. Judah b. Ilai in t. Meg. 4:42 (364, Lieberman): "one who translates a verse literally is a liar, while one who adds is a blasphemer." The difficulties of translation were a theme among intellectuals o f oriental origin in the Graeco-Roman world. Compare 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 come upon my 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 of 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 of


O n a practical level, the testimony o f Josephus is o f great import. In his version o f the Letter of Aristeas, c o m p o s e d over two centuries after the translation o f Ben Sira, Josephus introduced many changes. 7

O n e o f these concerns events when the translation was presented to the Jews o f Alexandria, and should be compared carefully with the original cited above : 8

and all of them, including the priest and the eldest of the translators and the chief officers of the community, requested that, since the translation 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)

At first sight, Josephus would seem to be rewriting Aristeas in his own words, but nevertheless not altering the effective meaning: 9 all present agreed that no change should ever be made in the translation o f the Torah . Josephus continues, however , that if anyone saw anything wrong with the text o f the Greek T o r a h he was to correct it and restore the original. This advice is not wholly consistent with what was just stated: Josephus did not counsel the person w h o believed he had found an error to consult the authoritative c o p y o f the translation supposedly deposited in Alexandria, and o f which a c o p y was given to the Jewish leaders (Aristeas 309). T h e identification o f the error and its correction were both done on private initiative. Tha t is, Josephus is here continuing in the footsteps o f Ben Sira's grandson in his perception 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 Greek Torah . T h e difficulties o f translation were such and so prevalent that, according to Josephus, when a bilingual Jew believed he had

more general anti-Greek sentiments. For a fuller discussion o f this oriental anti-Greek reaction see my other article in this volume, "Were the Greeks Different,?" above, 9.

7 S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome (Leiden, 1979), 34-35 . 8 See E.J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, M A , 1988), 106. The

difference between Josephus and Aristeas, his source, was also noted by I. Gruenwald, "The Polemic Concerning the Translation of the Torah into Greek," Teudah 4 (5746), 70 [in Hebrew], but its significance was not realized. See also R. Marcus's comment in his translation of Josephus in the LCL series, VII , 55, n.d. Compare A. Pelletier, Flavius Josephe, adapteur de la Lettre dAristee (Paris, 1962), 187—189.

9 See above, n. 7.


found a mistake in the Greek text, on the basis o f his knowledge o f

the Hebrew original (whatever that Hebrew version might have been:

the agreement o f that H e b r e w text with the Masoretic version can

not be taken for granted) he emended the Greek on his own to conform

to his notion o f the H e b r e w . 1 0

Evidence o f another sort indicates that Josephus was not speak

ing for himself alone, but rather reflecting the practice o f a wide

circle o f ancient bilingual Jews. "Private emendation," by readers

w h o thought they knew the correct reading, was c o m m o n in the

transmission o f Greek and Latin works. For the Greek Bible, its prin

cipal practitioners should have c o m e from the ranks o f Jewish bilin

guals, w h o corrected the Greek to the best o f their knowledge to

correspond to their text tradition and understanding o f the Hebrew.

T h e impact o f this "perversity o f ancient revisers" on the Greek

Bible can be traced in some detail. 1 1 It is explicitly attested to by

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 number of 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 own 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, on the one hand, were willing to communicate such information, and whether any o f the Greeks, on the other, had been curious to learn our history.

I found then that the second o f the Ptolemies, that king who was so deeply interested in learning and such a collector of books, was particularly anxious to have our law and the political constitution based thereon translated into Greek; while, on the other side, Eleazar, who yielded in virtue to none o f our high priests, did not scruple to grant the monarch the enjoyment of a benefit, which he would certainly have refused had it not been our traditional custom to make nothing of what is good 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 of learning like the king. For even he failed to obtain all our records: it was only the portion containing the Law which was delivered to him by those who were sent to Alexandria to interpret (translate) it.

1 1 See E.J. Bickerman, "Some Notes on the Transmission of the Septuagint," Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Part One (Leiden, 1976), 150-157.

E. Tov, 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 . The second stage was characterized by: "a multitude of textual traditions resulting from the insertion of 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 describing the practice of private emendation, to which Bickerman referred, from a different


Origen, w h o complained bitterly that as a result o f this process the

tradition o f proper names in the Torah and Prophets was often hope

lessly deformed (Commentary on John, 6.41; GCS 10 .150-151) . 1 2 In sum,

in his treatment o f Aristeas, Josephus has taken an ancient text and

reinterpreted it as meaning what he and his contemporaries have

been doing, without acknowledging the gap between the original and

that pract ice. 1 3

iv

In the balance o f this paper I would like to utilize knowledge o f the

attitude o f bilingual Jews towards the Greek Torah , as expressed in

their practice o f private emendation, as the foundation on which to

propose a new interpretation o f a group o f rabbinic passages which

have been m u c h discussed. T h e rabbinic traditions concerning the

translation o f the Torah into Greek, "when the T o r a h was trans

lated for K ing Ptolemy," have been the subject o f scholarly attention

since the beginning o f the academic study o f Judaism. T h e y consist

o f various lists o f passages in which the translators supposedly changed

the Greek away from a literal rendering o f the Hebrew. These lists

are enigmatic and offer little explanation o f their contents and over

all purpose. O n e item, the modification o f the translation o f Lev

11:6 is explained as having a political objective, but the other items

have none . Earliest scholarly efforts were devoted to determining the

precise contents o f these lists or list, 1 4 while more recent efforts focus

on the readings in the Greek Bible behind these passages, 1 5 or o n

perspective. Note that Tov's second stage was coming to an end in the first century C.E., around the time Josephus was composing Ant.

1 2 See further E. Tov , "The Rabbinic Traditions Concerning the 'Alterations' Inserted into the Greek Pentateuch and their Relation to the Original Text of the L X X , " Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 15 (1984), 75-76.

1 3 For another example o f this practice by Josephus see my discussion o f his interpretation of the obligation of 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), 34-35 .

1 4 See especially V . Aptowitzer, "Die rabbinischen Berichte iiber die Entstehung der Septuaginta," Haqedem 2 (1909), 11-27, 102-122; 3 (1910), 4 -17 .

1 5 Tov, "Alterations," 66-69 . As T o v is disinterested in determining the "original" list behind the different variations he simply conflates all these versions and


the reasons motivating each individual change . 1 6 N o t surprisingly,

considering the inherent obscurity o f the lists and their lack o f any

clues, I know o f only two attempts, to be discussed more fully below,

to consider the lists as a whole .

T o understand these accounts, however, one must begin by rec

ognizing that they c o m e in two versions: one a simple list o f places

in which the translation was changed (hereafter, Version A ) , 1 7 the

second a miraculous description o f the process o f translation followed

by the list o f the changed translations (hereafter, Version B; Version

B is thus a miracle story plus Version A ) , 1 8 with the miracle story

deals with fifteen passages in all, which he believes represent the "central tradition" (ibid., 66): Gen 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.

1 6 The lists are usually treated as a grab-bag of verses, compiled from groups of 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 God), and yet others in political concerns of various sorts. The 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 summary, 107; A . D . Wasserstein, "On Donkeys, Wine and the Uses of Textual Criticism: Septuagintal Variants in Jewish Palestine," in I. Gafhi, A . Oppenheimer 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 Old Story About the Translation of the Septuagint," Scripta Classica Israelica 17 (1998), 77-86, esp. 82, who characterizes the lists as a bringing together of a number of free-floating elements. Note, finally, that T o v concedes the varied background of the examples which comprise these lists in his comments, "Alterations," 82-89.

1 7 The earliest sources for Version A are Mek. Bo, Parasha 14 (50-51, Horowitz-Rabin): *nhrb -nrao onanno in« n n . . . cnan p » n iatr ~KDR h*rw aenm prn vmpn isr mrrm chm D IK 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 oa«3 "o ,^nxb bd7 Ttirb ama yrh^ T I phn im ,rwn onn im man vh ,m« $m D T S T I ••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 1 8 The 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 en1? TTTKI nnw nntf "?3 ^ 03331 .pro no ^ an1? nmn •TrfrN i"? mroi .nn« run1? J'TD loôm ,n i? T I K I nna ^ 3^3 Kin -pra vrnpn jra rapn rar îraon nvn nnzn ^©n nvn ^TBTDI tfxn DTR n©PK . n w n ara inn DSK3 ""D /psnps nia pnxm ,ansc •© nb3Ki rrriN nnn mra ISTD ,IK~D •*D 30101 ,D1t«l ^ D T D T I V33 nKl TTKD« nN HOD npvl ,0138 npi? DJfirOl 112? •*CDio»r n» rftizn m»n miR ms"i» -IK©31 DHSQ p & 3 132?'' I O N ^xiw TT p^n im ;mm ana im non , I T nba vh ân©1 'enow ^3 1*7 i3TDi push vrci ^ I D » onn« • ,m'?« "nnyi p^pn ta"? i"wh amK i , m , »


apparently serving as confirmation or sanction for the actions o f the

translators in changing those places, at the very least. That is, while

the miracle story may have other functions (see further below), its

minimal role in its context in Version B is to indicate divine approval

for the changes made by the translators. As such, Vers ion B is

remarkable. It shares the theme o f miraculous translation with sto

ries told by Philo and numerous church fathers, 1 9 but while these

latter authors all lived by the translation into Greek and thus needed

to assert its authority, the Rabbis w h o told Version B did not live

by that text at all, but rather by the Heb rew original as they inter

preted it. 2 0 Perhaps this consideration will explain the fact that while

Version B shares the theme o f a miracle story with Philo and ancient

Christian authors, it does not employ it for the same purpose. As

will be discussed more fully be low, the miraculous happenings in

Version B sanction the actions o f the translators in changing specific

passages rather than functioning as authorization for the translation

as a whole . Wha t then could have been the purpose o f Vers ion B?

T h e objectives o f those w h o told Version A are no clearer. W h y

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

.rmra TIE?K an "from Dmrrn n ipnto now The only scholar I have seen who notes clearly the difference between Versions

A and B, and is sensitive to its significance, is Veltri, Eine Tora, 19-20. 1 9 O n these traditions see A. Pelletier, Lettre d'Aristee a Philocrate (Paris, 1962),

78-98. 2 0 For that reason I find it hard to comprehend the view of those scholars, e.g.

M . Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (New York, 1951), 83, who assert that the story o f the separation o f the scholars and the miraculous agreement of their translations began in the rabbinic world and spread from there to Christian authors. This explanation seems implausible: Philo, Mos. 2.37, cited above, already writes of the seclusion o f the scholars, who then wrote the same text word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter. Admittedly, in this context Philo means the isolation o f the translators from the pollution o f everyday life and their communion 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 of 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 of the scholars, and its appearance in Version B to be derivative.

For a different and more convincing account of the spread of the miracle story, from Alexandrian Jews to Jewish Palestine see D . Barthelemy, "Pourquoi la Torah a-t-elle ete traduite en Grec?" 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.


should someone have compi led and preserved a simple list o f rela

tively few passages where the Greek differs from the Hebrew, par

ticularly in light o f the numerous places where the two texts do not

agree? What might be special about these places to merit such notice?

This question is even more puzzling as in contrast to Version B no

claim for divine sanction o f any sort is being asserted.

O n e further consideration should guide the investigation: in spite

o f the natural tendency to focus o n Version B as the more c o m

plete tradition, 2 1 one must consider the possibility that Version A

preceded Version B. That is, the miracle story may be a later addi

tion to an already existing list, and the version with the miracle story

is not necessarily the original. This possibility is, in fact, enhanced

by other considerations. Version A is found in sources which belong

to earlier strata o f rabbinic literature (a Tannaitic source and the

Palestinian Talmud) , while Version B is first found as a baraita in

the Babylonian Ta lmud and even later works . 2 2 This consideration

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

o f the possibility that the fuller account in Version B may be a later

elaboration o f an existing tradition.

v

N u m e r o u s differences exist b e t w e e n the M a s o r e t i c text o f the

Pentateuch and the Septuagint translation. W h y might those Rabbis

w h o compi led Versions A and B have selected only a few o f these

differences for special attention? Is there one explanation which unites

this apparent grab-bag o f divergent verses together? 2 3 I f one were to

judge o n the basis o f Version B alone the answer might seem clear

and straightforward, as p roposed by I. Gruenwald: 2 4 those w h o told

and preserved Version B intended to assert the legitimacy o f the

endeavor o f translating the Torah into Greek. G o d Himself approved

2 1 See e.g. Gruenwald, "Polemic," 65-78. For a brief history of scholarship on the relationship of the two versions see Tov , "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.

2 2 See further Veltri, Eine Tora, 24. 2 3 See above n. 16. 2 4 Gruenwald, "Polemic," 65—78.


this project by granting it a miraculous seal o f approval. W h e n we remind ourselves, as Gruenwald demonstrates, that there were some w h o regarded the translation o f Scripture into another language as a desecration o f the sacred, 2 5 that provides us with a plausible con text for the telling o f a miracle story to assert the opposite conclusion. Nevertheless, Gruenwald's explanation ignores Version A and does not do full justice to the complexity o f Version B. It omits any consideration o f the list o f places in which the Greek translation differed from the Hebrew, yet this issue is crucial to the miracle story in Version B. If the purpose o f Version B was to extend divine approval to the translation, then why list the places in which the translators did not offer a literal rendering o f the Hebrew? This would seem to interfere with the supposed objective o f the story. O n e might therefore reformulate the understanding o f the story (on Gruenwald's behalf) and conclude that the purpose o f those w h o told Vers ion B was to assert that even though the translators changed specific places they did so with divine approval, hence the entire project was legitimate. O n e might go further, perhaps (again on Gruenwald's behalf) , and argue that the goal o f the miracle story was to claim that only certain deviations between the Greek and the Heb rew had divine approval while all others did not, but both these conclusions, however, weaken the effect o f the miracle story as a whole , if its real purpose was to maintain the legitimacy o f translation o f Scripture into Greek. It is worth remembering, as noted above, that Philo and Christian authors—anxious, each for their own reasons, to assert the authority o f the translation into Greek—knew nothing o f places where the translators did not offer a literal rendering. 2 6 In a similar vein, the Letter of Aristeas claimed that the translation was recognized by the Jews and their leaders as being perfect, in other words absolutely accurate, with no deviations from the original (Aristeas, 310). A comparison o f Version B with accounts definitely written to assert the authority o f the Greek translation shows the former's weakness as a story intended to accomplish that purpose,

2 5 Gruenwald, "Polemic," 71-75. See also A. Wasserstein, "Septuagintal Variants," 121*-122*.

2 6 Philo's praise of the accuracy of 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."


and indicates that while Version B may have been told to legitimate

the translation o f the T o r a h into Greek that explanation does not

account for all its aspects, and does not begin to explain Version A ,

which lacks the miracle story entirely. 2 7

Another attempt to explain the lists as a whole has been made

by E. T o v . 2 8 Accord ing to T o v , the Rabbis were aware o f the read

ings to be found in the "original" manuscript o f the Septuagint. Mos t

o f these readings were corrected in the archetype o f all manuscripts

known to us in order to conform to the Masoretic text. T h e rab

binic lists, however, preserved a number o f such "original" readings

and offer us a witness to the Greek T o r a h as first prepared by the

translators. 2 9 T o v ' s assertions seem rather far-fetched and more in

the nature o f unproven assumptions. There is no evidence that the

Rabbis knew a set o f "original" readings otherwise almost completely

lost, and if such a list existed the Rabbis seem to be the least likely

group to possess it. O n the whole , the Rabbis seemed little interested

in the Greek Bible . 3 0 O n c e it had passed into the hands o f the Chris

tians, the Greek Bible was a source o f awkward embarrassment: each

side in the Jewish-Christian discussion could n o w produce its own

written evidence to support its claims. 3 1 T h e knowledge 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. When he comes to treat what I call Version A he asserts that it agrees with the claims of 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 matter of convenience. Taken by itself Version A makes no claim whatsoever for the legitimacy of the translation o f the Torah into Greek. It merely states that when the Torah was translated—whether that was a good or bad thing in the opinion of those who told Version A is unstated—the following changes were made by the translators.

For an interpretation of Version B according to which its objective was to argue for divine approval of the divergences in the specific cases noted, but make no claim whatsoever concerning the legitimacy of the translation as a whole, treating it rather as a necessary but unavoidable evil, see Aptowitzer, "Berichte," Haqedem 3 (1910), 12-16.

2 8 See above n. 12. 2 9 See Tov, "Alterations," 76. 3 0 See A. Wasserstein, "Septuagintal Variants," 123*—125*. Compare Veltri, Eine

Tora, 109 who has a higher evaluation of the degree of interest of 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 Tov .

3 1 For a discussion of the competition between Jews and Christians in which each side produced its written proof to its claims see A.I. Baumgarten, "Justinian and


readings in the L X X which T o v attributes to the Rabbis is thus

entirely out o f character. Furthermore, why would the Rabbis care

about the authentic text o f the Septuagint; o f what interest was this

matter to them; did they care enough about the Septuagint to cause

them to preserve the lists found in our sources?

As a final indication in favor o f the distance between the Rabbis

and the Greek text one should note the argument advanced by

D . Wasserstein concerning the modification o f the name o f the hare

in Lev 11:6 and Deut 14:7, as noted above the only change in trans

lation in the rabbinic lists for which they supplied an explanation. 3 2

Accord ing to the Rabbis , this change was made to avoid offending

the king, because Ptolemy's wife or mother was named rabbit (logos). This is incorrect. T h e possible offensive translation concerned the

name o f the father o f the founder o f the dynasty, Ptolemy I (Lagos).

T h e rabbinic account is therefore out o f touch with the reality o f

the Ptolemaic context, and an explanation which originated in that

context has degenerated. I f the Rabbis did not preserve correctly the

circumstances behind the one change whose reason they supposedly

remembered, the likelihood that they knew a group o f original read

ings in the Greek T o r a h is small.

In sum, evaluating previous attempts to discover a single motive

behind the formation o f the lists, Veltri comes to the reluctant con

clusion that no one reason can be discovered. T h e lists have their

origin in the exegetical traditions o f the Rabbis , and the lists have

a distinctly "rabbinic" character. Appropriately, many items take up

difficulties in scripture addressed elsewhere in rabbinic literature, and

employ rabbinic exegetical terminology freely. Nevertheless, the items

o n the list are there for a series o f different reasons. 3 3

vi

T h e discussion o f private emendation elaborated above offers an

alternate context for Versions A and B, preferable in m y opinion to

the Jews," in L. Landman, ed., Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein Memorial Volume (New York, 1980), 37-44 . These circumstances are the basis for the suggestion of Barthelemy, "Eusebe, la Septante et 'les autres'," 191, that one reason for the presence of certain items on the list of passages "altered for King Ptolemy" was to deflect Christian interpretations of these verses.

3 2 D . Wasserstein, "Ptolemy and the Hare," 77—85. 3 3 Veltri, Eine Tora, 107-111.


other suggestions offered thus far. I propose that the Rabbis w h o told Versions A and B were addressing their natural constituency o f Palestinian Jews (at least some o f w h o were bilingual) concerning private emendation, a practice well attested a m o n g them (unlike the hypothetical "original" version posited by T o v as the context for the lists). T h e purpose o f these lists, I submit, was to put some limits on the tendency o f these bilingual Jews to improve the Greek Bible in accordance with their understanding o f the Hebrew. Each item o n the lists may be there for a different reason, but the lists as a whole were intended to teach this audience that there were certain discrepancies which were original (Version A) a n d / o r even had divine sanction (Version B), hence should be untouched. Both Version A and Version B thus become fully meaningful (in contrast to Gruenwald's explanation).

Whether or not rabbinic notions o f original readings were historically correct by our standards is irrelevant. For whatever reason(s) and by whatever process they arrived at that conclusion, m y suggestion is that the Rabbis responsible for Versions A and B were convinced that they knew a group o f readings in the L X X which ought to be preserved against private emendation, and they tried to achieve this goal through the lists o f deviations which were in the T o r a h as translated for K i n g Ptolemy.

O n e further point should be noted in support o f this suggestion. Private emendation o f the Greek Torah , according to T o v , nourished in the era prior to the destruction o f the Temple , and came to a close at the end o f the first century C . E . 3 4 Josephus, w h o wrote at the end o f the first century C.E. and whose comments on private emendation were a point o f departure above, thus fits well into the chronological 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 King Ptolemy were compi led between 70 and 132 , 3 5 more or less at the same time. If D . Wasserstein's dating is correct, understanding the rabbinic traditions on the Greek Bible as a response to private emendation makes excellent chronological sense, as they were addressing an issue still current at that time, the same time at which Josephus wrote.

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


O n e final question need be asked: on the interpretation proposed, did the rabbinic effort succeed? D i d rabbinic intervention preserve the readings o n this list from private emendation (or, in a kind o f b o o m e r a n g effect, did rabbinic endorsement o f these readings cause them to be re-introduced into the manuscript tradition o f the Greek Bible, after they had already been removed)? T h e evidence, as surveyed by T o v , suggests that if my suggestion o f rabbinic motives is correct it was largely ineffective. O f the fifteen Biblical passages T o v considers as forming the central tradition o f the rabbinic list only five or at most six are reflected in the manuscript tradition o f the L X X , while the other nine are found in none 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 Greek renderings which are reflected in the rabbinic account . 3 7

A n attempt to discover the reasons for the apparent failure o f the intention I have attributed to the rabbinic list would pile speculation o n speculation, hence should be approached with extreme caution. I wou ld suggest, however , that if the chronological scheme outlined above is correct, the Rabbis would have intervened fairly late in the process, well towards the end o f the era o f private emendation, after most o f the "damage" had been done . Their efforts might have suited the old proverb o f closing the barn d o o r after the horse has been stolen. 3 8

vii

W h a t prompted these ancient bilinguals to be so critical o f the translation o f the Torah , to the extent that I suggest that Rabbis believed that they needed to be curbed? O n e part o f the answer may be the pride felt by elite bilinguals in mastering two languages. 3 9 Thus, such bilinguals are often fervent opponents o f code switching (introducing

3 6 Tov , "Alterations," 73-76. 3 7 Ibid., 76-82. 3 8 I prefer this suggestion to its converse, which strikes me as perverse: combin

ing the chronological evidence for the end o f the era of private emendation with the date of the rabbinic lists and then explaining the end of private emendation as a result o f rabbinic intervention.

3 9 Note, for example, Josephus's evident pride in his accomplishments in Greek, AJ 20.262-263. See also above, n. 2.


words or terms from one language into phrases in the other) , 4 0 even

though their o w n practice may not always live up to those stan

dards. Perhaps this judgmental bent o f very high level bilinguals has

its origins in a crucial stage o f acquiring another language: the real

ization that the new language is an independent and separate sys

tem, with its o w n lexicon and syntax, and usually employed in a

specific context. This stage is critical both for those w h o learn a sec

ond language later in life, and those w h o g row up speaking two or

more languages, as proven by the w o r d games bilingual children

play, in which they merge words, constructions, or grammatical forms

from two languages for humorous or mischievous effect. T h e wit in

these games is based o n the recognition that items from two systems

which should be kept separate are being jo ined . A bilingual o f that

degree o f accomplishment, w h o has labored to ove rcome that hur

dle and successfully internalized that recognition, may be especially

critical o f those less effective at the endeavor . 4 1

Accordingly, it is not surprising to learn that ancient bilingual Jews

disappointed the author o f Aristeas or Philo o f Alexandria 4 2 in their

attitude towards the Greek Torah . Rather than confirming its accu

racy, they insisted on the difficulties o f translation and gave practi

cal expression to this out look by constant attempts to improve the

translation by private emendation. Whi le full-fledged p r o o f remains

elusive in the absence o f new evidence, I propose that the rabbinic

accounts o f the changes in the T o r a h as translated for K ing Ptolemy

are best understood in this context and against this backdrop, as

addressed to this audience o f bilinguals and as an attempt to regu

late their disposition to correct the Greek Torah . I f m y suggestion

is accepted, the extent to which bilinguals contradicted the conclu

sions attributed to them by Aristeas and Philo is even greater.

4 0 For an ancient example o f opposition to code switching see Neh 13:24, as explained by Spolsky, "Jewish Multilingualism," 36.

4 1 O n this aspect o f bilingualism see Grosjean, Life with Two Languages, 186, 206-207 and Hoffmann, Introduction, 79-88 .

In an informal survey, not meant to be more than anecdotal, I inquired of fellow English speakers who live in Israel how 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.

4 2 The gap between Philo's claims and the attitudes of high level bilinguals such as Josephus may serve as yet one further indication that Philo's knowledge of Hebrew was not extensive. Compare above, n. 5.


From another point o f view, to return to the perspective with

which this article began, the judgmental attitude o f bilinguals towards

the translation o f the T o r a h may be a reflection not only o f the

effort required to speak and write both languages, 4 3 but also o f the

permanent dissonance felt by bilinguals between the two languages

they know and the two cultures these languages represent. Under

those circumstances, one , w h o has labored to ove rcome that hurdle

and successfully internalized that recognition, may be especially crit

ical o f those less effective at the endeavor, truly at h o m e in neither

linguistic nor cultural context . 4 4 In this sense, the attitude o f bilin

guals towards the Greek version o f the T o r a h may be one indica

tion (among others) 4 5 o f the awkwardness they felt in sitting at the

meeting point o f cultures.

4 3 See Josephus's comments on his labors to learn Greek, marred at least in part when speaking Greek by his inability to overcome the accent associated with the language of his youth, AJ 20.263.

4 4 Anderson, Imagined Communities, 92~93, quotes Bipin Chandra Pal describing the pain o f a native Indian educated in English in India and England, who was "as much a stranger in his own native land as the European residents." O n the anomie experienced by bilinguals, their sense of not really belonging to one world or the other, see also Hoffmann, Introduction, 146-148.

4 5 See, for example, Josephus's awkward silence concerning Jewish hopes o f national redemption as expressed in the book of Daniel, AJ 10.210. Compare, also, the delicate balance of polemic and apologetic in Josephus's treatment of the failure of Greek historians to mention the Jews, a major theme of AgAp.

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 F O R J E W I S H C O N C E P T S IN P H I L O

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

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 and Greek cultures in Hellenistic Jewish literature. I intend to deal with a very small aspect o f this—with some Greek words; and more specifically, first, how certain words acquired idiosyncratic connotations in Hellenistic Jewish literature, and second, what the details o f their metamorphosis indicate respecting ideational and cultural developments in Hellenistic Judaism. I know that this is a tall order, but all I wish to d o today is to present a me thodo logy— 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. Whatever else he may have been, he in any event was eminently that. But what is rarely considered is the no less obvious fact that when he discoursed about matters o f religion it was not "religion in general" that he was thinking about, but more particularly, religion as he conceived it to be , in terms o f his own, the Jewish tradition; and the most basic stage in which this is reflected is vocabulary.

Whi le the writings o f any great thinker take on a life o f their own which often goes b e y o n d the concerns and the conscious intention o f their author, and in the final analysis the lasting significance o f their work lies in this latter message, at the same time an important dimension o f their writings is missed unless their words are also read in the same semantic field in which they were written; and respecting Philo, I am convinced that this is the indispensable master key to understanding his writings as his contemporaries read them.

W h e n reading his work, it is important to bear in mind that a significant number o f words whose connotation, when they were used by Jews in Jewish contexts took o n a specifically Jewish meaning, which though related to their general connotation, is not the same.

I hope to show that Philo found m u c h o f what I shall henceforth term the "Judeo-Greek" vocabulary ready to hand, and that in the

32 NAOMI G. COHEN

appropriate contexts these words were automatically understood with

out further ado by the communi ty o f users in their specific "Judeo-

Greek" connotation—at the same time without losing sight o f the

fact that this did not replace their general connotation. T o quote

G . W . H . Lampe's statement respecting the connotation o f Greek words

in patristic writings, in the introduction to his A Patristic Greek Lexicon, "It m u s t . . . on no account be supposed that the ordinary senses o f

such a word are absent. . . and have been replaced by another . . . the

corresponding entry in Liddel and Scott is, as it were, taken as

read . . Z ' 1 This is exactly what I have in mind respecting the "Judeo-

Greek" words n o w to be discussed.

David Runia, in his recent book , Philo in Early Christian Literature, has noted a not insignificant number o f words which he calls verba Philonica "that are c o m m o n in Philo but found nowhere else in pre-

Christian Greek and that are then taken over by the Church fathers

from their reading o f Philo's works." 2 Whi le this is a related facet

o f what I intend to discuss here, it is not the same thing; for what

I hope to be able to show is the converse: that respecting several

rather c o m m o n Greek words—VOLIOC;, voLioGecria, napadoaiq, 86y|ia,

5iKaioaiL)vri, aocpia, and Xoyoq—Philo found a Judeo-Greek connota

tion ready to hand—and these are merely exemplia gratia. Al though

this is today often accepted in principle, 3 it is still almost entirely

disregarded in practice in Philonic studies.

A second point which became evident as I p roceeded , is that

somewhat later these words underwent yet another metamorphosis.

In early Christian writings they were again redefined in accord with

the new needs o f Christian theology, and since Hellenistic-Jewish

texts, including Philo, have survived virtually exclusively thanks to

their adoptive Christian foster homes, the Christian re-definitions o f

the "Judeo-Greek" terms have at least until fairly recently been

accepted as their primary connotations by scholars o f these texts.

This, I suggest, helps to explain why these words have heretofore

so often been misconstrued by scholars o f Philo. I, for one , have

found it fascinating to discover h o w this redefinition o f c o m m o n

1 G .W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961), introduction, vii. 2 David Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature (Minneapolis, 1993), 108. 3 See e.g. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 154: "The achievement of 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.'"

CONTEXT AND CONNOTATION 33

"Judeo-Greek" terms pinpoints some o f the central theological issues in the early days o f Christianity, at the time that it still looked upon itself as a form o f Judaism, and was still developing its own separate identity in terms o f a Jewish frame o f reference.

Already some fifty years ago, Harry Austryn Wolfson, in his monumental work, Philo, pointed to the use o f Greek words in specifically Jewish connotations. H e there noted inter alia, that,

In the Greek translation of the Bible when the translators came to translate the various Hebrew terms for God, 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 of various gods. Shaddai becomes TtocvxoKpcacop (= Almighty), even though, again, in Greek literature that term is used of Hermes . . . The expression El Elyon (Gen 14:20; Ps 78:35) , the most high God, is translated by 6 8eoq 6 vyiGioq, even though in Greek that expression is used of Zeus . . . 4

At the same time Wolfson also pointed out that since all the Hellenistic Jewish writers before Philo denounce polytheism, its mythology and its mysteries, the adoption o f an appellation used by the Greeks for a Greek deity did not mean religious syncretism, but was only a recourse to the convenience o f language. Clearly the terminology has not merely been adopted, but also adapted. It has been given an idiosyncratic "Judeo-Greek" connotation. A n d as for people in general at all times, so too , for the Greek speaking J e w specific context was the overriding determining factor respecting connotation.

JVomos

A n example respecting which there is general consensus is the use o f the Greek w o r d v6[ioq as a standard translation for the Heb rew term T o r a h (n~lin) in Hellenistic Jewish literature. It is used regularly in this manner by the Septuagint whose cultural frame o f reference 5 was first and foremost Jewish and by and large remained

4 Harry Austryn Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1947), 12—13.

5 At least of the books o f the Pentateuch which is technically "the" Septuagint proper.

34 NAOMI G. COHEN

faithful to its avowed aim o f rendering the biblical text into Greek as literally as possible.

Hence respecting words whose semantic range is not the same in the two languages, in the Septuagint it is normally the Greek w o r d which acquired the Heb rew connotat ion rather than the reverse. Because o f the popularity o f the Septuagint it cou ld not but have had a marked influence on the dissemination and adoption o f its particular "Judeo-Greek" vocabulary.

NOJLIO , the w o r d under present consideration, is an excellent illustration o f this. Note that what has changed here is not the meaning o f Torah , but that o f N6|i.oc; which in Greek means "Law," but in "Judeo-Greek" has metamorphosed to include the entire contents o f the Pentateuch—stories, poetry, et al.

It has been pointed out, 6 that the use o f the w o r d NOUOQ for To rah was felicitous because even in the original Greek the w o r d already had divine associations; and this too is an important aspect o f the p h e n o m e n o n under present consideration—that o n the whole the idiosyncratic "Judeo-Greek" connotation was a natural outgrowth o f normative Greek usage—a conscious or unconscious adaptation o f a particular facet o f it to the needs of expressing things Jewish in Greek.

No/uoOema

At the same time, side by side with the Septuagint, and not entirely divorced from it, was another not less important source for "Judeo-Greek"—the emergence o f a Hellenized conceptualization o f Judaism which 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 "Judeo-Greek" more or less as a synonym for that facet o f N6|ioc; = Torah , which connotes the "Mosa ic C o d e o f Law," " T h e Laws o f M o s e s " is a case in point. While it is not found at all in the Septuagint the term is found in its general connotat ion as "constitution" in Plato's oeuvre some thirty-five times and in Aristotle's works fifteen times.

Clearly, its use in Philo's writings close to forty times as a noun,

6 See Alan Segal, "Torah and Nomos in Recent Scholarly Discussion," in Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 13 (1984), 19-28 (and repr.: The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity [Atlanta, 1987], 131-145).

C O N T E X T AND CONNOTATION 35

and even more often in verb form, 7 clearly reflects a Hellenized frame

o f reference—the conceptualization o f the T o r a h as the constitution

o f the Jewish people , and it obviously entered the "Judeo-Greek"

lexicon in order to fill the need o f thoroughly Hellenized Jews to

define their T o r a h in Greek philosophic terminology.

Indeed its primary locus in surviving Hellenistic-Jewish writings

other than Philo is in highly Hellenized contexts. It refers to the

T o r a h in 2 M a c e 6:23, which recounts the story o f the o ld priest

Eleazar's heroic fortitude during the religious persecution which trig

gered the Maccabean revolt, and it is also found in the very simi

lar account in 4 M a c e 5:35 and id. 17:16. 8 I hardly need remind

the reader that both o f these are highly Hellenized composi t ions—

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

2 M a c e , while popular Hellenistic phi losophy is a hallmark o f 4

M a c e . T h e same is true for the writings o f Josephus where it is

found four times. T w o o f these, Ant. 12.36 and id. 110 refer to

exchanges be tween Ptolemy Philadelphus and his ch ief librarian

Demetrius respecting the p roposed translation o f the Bible , 9 and

C. Ap. 2.170 is a brief for Judaism in a Hellenistic frame o f reference. 1 0

Might I conjecture in passing that its rarity in the N e w Testament 1 1

should be explained not only because b y and large the audiences to

which the N T books were addressed, even when they were Greek

speaking, were for the most part not philosophically sophisticated.

Probably at least as important is the fact that the authors o f the N T

had no desire to enhance the value o f the T o r a h in the hearts o f

their readers. O n the contrary, more often than not, when the Torah

is mentioned, the context is one o f rejection.

7 And even more often yet as vouo9eTr)<; to refer to Moses the Lawgiver. 8 In 2 Mace 6:23 the Torah is referred to as xfjq a^iac, Kod GeoKuaxoi) vouoGeoioti;,

in 4 Mace 5:35 as vouoGecuocc;, and id. in 17:16 as xr\c, Geiocq vo(xo08oiaq. 9 The same is the case in Aristeas 30 and in id. 312-313 where, like here, the

context is an exchange between Demetrius and Ptolemy respecting the proposed translation; and this is all the more significant in light of the fact that the author seems to have been sensitive to the different nuance of the Greek words v6|j.o<; and vouoGecnoc, for in Aristeas 45 where it is the High Priest Eleazar who 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. 309-310, where again the speaker is the Jewish community and their leaders.

1 0 And the remaining instance, Ant. 6.93, is a stylized passage where the locution TO Getov rather than 6 Geoq is used.

1 1 Romans 9:4 has vouoGeaiot, while in James 4:12 the vo|a.o0£Tnc; is actually God.

36 NAOMI G. COHEN

Be that as it may, in any event, once the term entered the "Judeo-Greek" lexicon it apparently became thoroughly naturalized as a "Judeo-Greek" term, and apparently filled a real need, for the term vouoGecria = Torah is c o m m o n in Lampe's Patristic Greek Lexicon}2

Tlapddooig (Paradosis)

Ano the r Judeo -Greek term very important to the description o f Judaism is Paradosis. Although in the rare instances where it appears in the Septuagint it means, "to be brought into captivity," in other Hellenistic-Jewish sources its meaning is a function o f the word 's most c o m m o n Greek connotation, "a handing down, transmission." 1 3

A.I . Baumgarten, in his " T h e Pharisaic Paradosis" 1 4 writes that "the use o f Paradosis across independent sources indicates that we are dealing with a technical term that refers to the regulations observed by the Pharisees but not written in the law of Moses."

While this statement is o f course true, it is too narrow, for although the Pharisaic tradition was indeed referred to as Paradosis, the Paradosis was not a Pharisaic monopo ly . As Sanders, Schiffman, and others have pointed out, there was a broad area o f consensus among the people respecting the "ancestral traditions," 1 5 and 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 and file o f Jews commit ted to Judaism.

In both Mat thew 15:2 and Mark 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 belonging to the Paradosis, specifically, the ritual washing o f hands before eating, it is evident from the context that this c o m -

1 2 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.

1 3 W . Bacher, Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Palastinas und Babyloniens (Leipzig, 1914), 3, associates this with the Hebrew miDO.

1 4 A.I. Baumgarten, "The Pharisaic Paradosis," HTR 80 /1 (1987), 63-77:66. See also before him, e.g. Friedrich Buechsel ThDNT 2 (1964), 172, s.v. llapdSocuc;; J .M. Baumgarten, "The 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), 230-5 , 289-293.

1 5 See e.g. Lawrence Schiffman, "Qumran and Rabbinic Halakha," in S. Talmon, ed., Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (Sheffield, 1991), 139, and similarly E.P. Sanders Judaism, Practice and i M g f (Philadelphia, 1992), 48, 450-451 , 465, and passim.


mandment (of the Paradosis) is not viewed as exclusively Pharisaic

even by these early Christians, for we read in Mark 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] of the elders (KpocTotivxec; TT|V 7tapd8oaiv xcbv npec^vxepmv).

Since "all the Jews" are here ment ioned side by side with "the

Pharisees" they are obviously not identical with them. In a like man

ner, Mat t 1 5 : 1 - 6 opens with the statement that, " S o m e o f the

Pharisees and teachers o f the Law came to Jesus" (Oapiaaioi KOCI

ypa\i[iaxeiq) and the prescriptions mentioned there, the injunctions

to wash the hands before eating, and one o f the traditional details o f

the laws o f oaths and consecrations, are o f course not biblical. These

prescriptions as well as others which are inveighed against elsewhere

in the N e w Testament be long to the category o f "ancestral customs

o f the elders." 1 6

So too , in all three o f the instances in which the noun form

Paradosis (riapd8ocn<;)1 7 is found in Josephus 1 8 the context indicates

that it refers to the ancestral traditions. Ant. 13.297 and 408 explic

itly refer to the traditional practices considered obligatory by the

Pharisees, and the use o f the term in Ant. 10.51 is anachronistic

which makes this instance o f the terminus technicus all the more significant.

1 6 Gal 1:14 uses the idiomatic term xoov rcaxpiiccov \x,ox> 7iapa86oecov, to refer to the commandments, both of biblical and of non-biblical origin, whose fulfillment Jews considered to be mandatory. Even the somewhat paradoxical use of the verb form (7iape5coKa) in 1 Cor 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.

1 7 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' writings in a variety of connotations, of which only approximately fifteen have the meaning "to pass on a tradition," and six or seven of these latter have nothing to do with Jewish nomoi [Mason, Josephus, 234]. I therefore think we can safely follow his conclusion that the verb form 7tapa8i8oo(i.i did not usually take on the Judeo-Greek connotation exhibited by riapd8(ooi<; [Paradosis)—even though it too is used where Josephus refers to the transmission of Jewish laws.

1 8 Viz. Ant. X 51, xfj xcbv TtpEoBwepoov neiGop-evoq. . . napa86a£i; Ant. 13.297 t d 8' EK 7tapa86aecoi; xcov rcaxepcov |xf| xnpeiv; AJ 13.408 Kaxd xf|V rcaxpcpav rcapd-Soaiv. All of them are found in those parts of the Antiquities where Greek helpers are not in evidence. For methodological considerations in evaluating the connotation o f this term in Josephus' writings, see my Philo Judaeus, endnote M : IlapdSooic; in Josephus—Methodological Problems, as well as my article 'Josephus and Scripture," JQR 5 4 / 4 (1964), 311-332.

38 NAOMI G. COHEN

*

Philo uses this technical term twice. 1 9 In Ebr. 120, there is a midrashic play o n the words o f the Septuagint text in G e n 27:20, by means o f which he asserts that G o d ' s revelation is a shortcut to the attainment 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 of God's benefit answered rightly, "it is what the Lord God delivered (rcocpeScoKEv) to me" (Gen 27:20). For paradoseis and instructions (7tapoc56rj£i<; yap icai u<pr|yr|o-£i)20 when they come through human channels are slow, but those that come through God are exceeding swift outrunning even the swiftest movement of time.

T h e verb rcapeScoicev (Paredoken) found here in the Septuagint to G e n 27:20: o 7tape8coKev ie6pio<; 6 0e6<; aou means delivered, while rcapd-Soaeic; (paradoseis) are what are delivered, which in this context could hardly mean anything else but traditions. T h e midrashic play on words thus has the Patriarch J a c o b declare that the divinely imparted "traditions and instructions" (7tapa86o£i<; ydp m i u<p^yr|G£i<;)—"what the Lo rd G o d delivered (7tape8o)Kev) to me"—are a m u c h speedier road to perfection than human intellect alone.

*

T h e other Philonic passage which uses the w o r d napadociq, is Spec. Leg. 4 . 1 4 9 - 1 5 0 . Philo here argues that "the ancestral customs (eOn rcoVcpia) . . . are not to be despised because their transmission is without written record (dypacpo^ awcov f| rcapdSoan;)." As I have already

1 9 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 of our knowledge. The matter is discussed at length in Cohen, Philo Judaeus, chs. 9 and 10, 242-287:250-286, and endnote N, 315-319.

2 0 The Greek word {)(priyr|0£i<; is found neither in the Septuagint nor in the N T . A study o f Philo's use of it justifies its being rendered as "instructions"; cf. Spec. Leg. II 256, III 125, IV 140-141, 218 and Virt. 15, 141.


pointed out at length in m y b o o k , 2 1 the passage contains several

terms which together form a mutually explanatory unit.

Section 149 uses the midrashic interpretation o f Deut 19:14 famil

iar to many o f us from rabbinic midrash, which expounds this verse

as referring to the binding status o f "the ancient cus toms" (xcov

dpxcucov eGcov):

[ l ] 2 2 (149) Another commandment of general value is, "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmarks which thy fathers have set up (Deut 19:14)." 2 3 Now this law, we may consider, applies not merely to allotments and boundaries of land in order to eliminate covetousness but also to the preservation of the ancient customs (xcov dpxoucov eOcov).

Philo quotes Deut 9:14 here and in Post. Caini 8 9 , 2 4 expounding

it in the same manner in both places, and the verse is also used

in the same connota t ion in the Damascus D o c u m e n t — e . g . 1.16

and 5.20.

In Spec. 4.149 the "ancient customs" (TCGV dpxaicov eGcov) are equated

by Philo in the immediate 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 of old (Soyuaxa rcaAmcov dv5pcov) not inscribed on monuments nor on leaves of paper which the moth destroys, but on the souls of those who are partners in the same citizenship (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. 2 2 The numbers in square brackets accompanying the quotations in this chapter

[1] [2] etc. are brought to facilitate reference in the ensuing discussion. 2 3 As Wolfson, et al. have pointed out, in rabbinic sources there is frequently a

conflation of this verse with Prov 22:28. For this tendency see Richard T . White, "The House of 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).

2 4 See below in the context of the discussion o f the word Xoyoq. 2 5 LSJ, s.v. noXmia—"citizenship, daily life o f a citizen, body of citizens, con

stitution of a state."

40 NAOMI G. COHEN

Following is a list o f the expressions used here as corresponding terms, without Philo finding it necessary to explain this correspondence.

xcov dpxocicov £0cov are of course £0r|; £0r| = dypacpoi VOUCH;

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(; and Soyuocxoc (to which I shall turn next) are terms which refer to that b o d y o f traditional practices which were considered obligatory by the rank and file o f committed Jews (including o f course the Pharisees, but not them exclusively) and which were eventually incorporated into the halakhic composit ions o f the Oral Law.

In paragraph [3] the "ancestral customs (e0n 7r.dxpioc)" are described as having been "handed down without written record (dypacpoc, auxcov f| rcapdSocic;)." These are "the ancient customs" (xcov dp%cucov e6cov) ment ioned in paragraph [ 1 ] , and described in paragraph [2] as dypacpoi vouoi = "unwritten laws,'" which are 56y|a.axa rcaAoucov dvSpoov . . . vr\q avxr\q 7toA-ixeia<; = "the decisions approved by men o f o ld . "

Soyfia (dogma)

T h e connotat ion o f the word 86yucx (dogma) in Philo is almost universally misunderstood, because o f the meaning it acquired in patristic literature where it came to signify primarily articles o f faith. While this is the meaning which became the standard and virtually exclusive connotat ion o f the w o r d in modern European languages as well as in modern Hebrew, in the ancient world, dogmata were not primarily articles o f faith, but "rules," or "decisions o f recognized authorities," whoever in the particular context they may have been.

Both meanings o f the word dogma are well rooted in classic and Hellenistic Greek usage, but in Philo the juridical aspect o f the term, which spelled out what must be "done," is the dominant meaning.

Since in the context o f the discussion o f the w o r d TCapdSoaic; (in Spec. 4.149) I have brought an example o f Philo's use o f the w o r d Soyjiia, and I shall also return to Philo's use o f this w o r d shortly in conjunction with the discussion o f the w o r d combinat ion 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 found in Plato


forty-one times, and fourteen times in Aristotle. 2 6 Aristotle's Politics II 1269a8 contains many o f the terms found in Philo's Spec. Leg. 4 . 1 4 9 - 1 5 0 . 2 7 Indeed it is, so to speak, its mirror image, negative values being assigned to the very terms which in the section from Philo just quoted, 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 customary 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 of law (xoix; yeypaixuevoxx;) may with advantage not be left unaltered.

As for Plato, although Plato's Republic 538c , and his Laws 644d are cited by Liddel and Scott in illustration o f the connotation: "that which seems to one, opinion or belief" in actual fact this is not their meaning in these passages. A reading o f the Greek text shows that the dogmata referred to are, like for Philo, "rules" or more exactly, "traditional rules of conduct" which Plato—and Philo in his wake—consider to be normative. W e read in Republic 5 3 8 c : 2 8

You know that there are certain rules (86y |iaxa) 2 9 about the right and the seemly (Ttepi 8IKOUCOV KCCI KCCA,COV)30 which were taught us in childhood, and under their parental authority we have been brought up, obeying and honouring them.

There are also opposite habits (erciTriSe-uuma) of pleasure which flatter and attract the soul, but do not influence those of us who have any sense of right, and continue to honour these ancestral traditions (xd rcdxpux) and obey them. 3 1

T h e dogmata, which here too are termed "ancestral traditions" (xd rcdxpioc), must mean "rules," for they are to be "obeyed" (7cei0ap%ouaiv)

2 6 I have not checked out its connotation in each instance because my aim now is merely to show that this was a connotation found in their writings.

2 7 Quoted above in the context of the discussion of 7iocpd8oai<;. 2 8 Our rendition is a retranslation o f the Greek, based upon but not slavishly

adhering to that of B. Jowett, The Dialogues of Plato, 2 vols. (1892, repr. with introduction, New York, 1937).

2 9 Jowett, here, vol. I, 798, has "principles." 3 0 Jowett: here, ibid., "justice and honour." 3 1 Greek: aXk' E K e w a xiucocu xd rcdxpia KOU EKEIVOK; rceiGapxovaiv. Jowett's ren

dition: "and they continue to obey and honour the maxims of their fathers."

42 NAOMI G. COHEN

and obedience refers to actions, not to thoughts; and note that that

their opposite are called "habits" (£7mn8euucxTa)—also an activity, not

an ideology.

In Plato's Laws 644d also, the dogmata refer to rules of conduct. It is

even explicidy stated that when they are embodied in a decree (86yu,a)

by the State, they are called Law (vouoc,).

. . . there is reflection about the good or evil of 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 only

clear instances being in the b o o k o f Esther (twice) and in the first

half o f the b o o k o f Daniel, where it is quite c o m m o n . 3 2 In these pas

sages it translates either the Persian loan w o r d m (Dai) or its Aramaic

equivalent DWD (Te'em) both o f which mean "regulation, statute, decree,

o rd inance ." 3 3

N e e d I remind the reader that this Persian loan w o r d came to be

used in rabbinic Heb rew for Jewish law, where Dot Moshe came to

mean "Biblical Law," and Dot Tehudit and also Dot Tisra'el is used to

refer to "Jewish custom or rabbinic law"? For example, in rabbinic

literature Dat Moshe ve'Tehudit refers to the traditionally appropriate

behavior o f married w o m e n , and rTHTH TWU m mm^n refers to

a wife " w h o transgresses the Law o f Moses and Jewish cus tom." 3 4

In B T Megillah 12a the w o r d Dat is quoted from M T Esther 1:8 and

homiletically expounded as referring to the ordinances o f T o r a h and

the Septuagint to this verse ( M T Esther 1:8 = L X X 2:8) renders M T

Dat as Nomos—which, as we saw above, is the usual Judeo-Greek

equivalent for T o r a h . 3 5 W e thus find M T Dat rendered in the Sep

tuagint both as Dogma and as Nomos—with the connotat ion o f Dat in both contexts being 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. The 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 (Luc) .

3 3 See: J. Schiipphaus, ???, in G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, eds., ThDOT (trans, of ThWAT) (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986), vol. Ill, 346-347.

3 4 See e.g. B T Ketuboth 72a. 3 5 And in B T Sukkah 56b and Pesahim 96a apostasy is called man m .

http://S6yu.cc


It is also clear from the manner o f its use in Josephus and in the

N T that in "Judeo-Greek" the w o r d Soyucx had c o m e to signify the

same thing as the w o r d m and the Aramaic DJftD—promulgation, regulation, decree, ordinance—irrespective o f the source o f authority. This

is what it means in such contexts as Josephus, Ant. 15.136 and

C. Ap. 1.42. In Luke 2:1 and Acts 17:7 Caesar's decrees are called

xd 56yu.axoc while in Acts 16:4 the Soyuaxa referred to are "the deci

sions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem." 3 6

It was natural for Hellenistic Jewish parlance to adopt the Greek

w o r d 56yfxa, which is a literal translation o f the Persian loan word

m and the Aramaic DKD as the Greek locution for (traditional Jewish)

ordinances. T h e connotational fit must have appeared to them to

be very close indeed, and the literature shows that dogma, dogmata was used as a Greek locution for religious commandments (often but

not always, those specifically rabbinic) . 3 7

It is only in patristic, medieval, and later, in modern writings, that

the word dogma came to mean "principles," "tenets," or "the elements

o f a doctrinal system" almost exclusively. 3 8 A n d even in patristic lit

erature, as evidenced by the entry in Lampe, Patr. Lex.,39 it still some

times preserved the connotation "precept, ordinance" o f Mosaic Law.

AiKocioavvri (Dikaiosyne)

Another Greek w o r d which underwent similar metamorphoses, first

into "Judeo-Greek" and then again in the Church, is AiKaioouvn

(Dikaiosyne). Since I have already discussed it at great length, 4 0 I shall

3 6 The remaining two instances in the New Testament, i.e. Col 2:14ff. and Eph 2:15, should also be understood in a similar manner; the dogmata being promulgated, here too, by the Jewish (religious) authorities in Jerusalem. A somewhat similar suggestion was proposed by M . Dibelius and H. Greeven, An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon (Tubingen, 1953+3), 31-32, and this has also been recognized by P.M. O'Cleirigh, "The Meaning of Dogma in Origen," in: E.P. Sanders, ed., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (London, 1980), 207-210. For a summary of other explanations, see: Wesley Carr, " T w o Notes on Colossians," JTS N. S. 24 (1973), 492-3. 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: The term %eip6ypacpov in Col 2:14.

3 7 Cf. A Oepke, ThDN7; vol.11 5. v. 56yucc, 230-1 . 3 8 This is noted by O'Cleirigh, "Dogma in Origen," 205-6. In note 40 he also

remarks that "the distinction between philosophical and juridical spheres of meaning in the usage of dogma is not absolute but oscillates between more and less."

3 9 Lampe, Patr. Lex., s.v. 56yfitx D 3. 4 0 See my Philo Judaeus, Chapter V , 106-128, et passim, and before this, in my

44 NAOMI G. COHEN

n o w merely summarily state m y conclusion: namely that although Philo sometimes used this Greek w o r d to indicate one o f the four cardinal Greek virtues, he also sometimes used it in its Septuagint connotat ion—as a technical term for faithful adherence to T o r a h statutes irrespective o f whether they are ethical or ritual. This is a rendering o f the Heb rew term np*72S before the connotat ion o f the Heb rew w o r d came to mean "charity" exclusively.

Even though in Christianity the term SiKaioauvn underwent a metamorphosis from "works" to "faith," and to "justification by faith" as opposed to "justification by works," the N T still reflects its earlier Judeo-Greek connotation even as it seeks to change it. For example, it is this pointed change in the connotat ion o f the w o r d under present consideration: SiKaioauvn which is the major thrust o f R o m 3:21 which announces the Pauline option o f "righteousness through faith." T h e operative w o r d is now.

R o m a n s 3:21 reads : 4 1

(21) But now apart f rom law, a righteousness f rom G o d (%copi<; vonou 8iKaioat)vr| 6eot>) has been m a d e k n o w n etc.

In sum: Inner Christian theological developments altered the connotations o f both Dogma and Dikaiosyne from their normative meaning in 'Judeo-Greek" as a directive respecting "doing" to one respecting "believing"—the same ideological assumptions being involved in the case o f both words . 4 2

Zcxpia (Sophia) and Aoyoq (Logos)

T h e remaining two words which I shall discuss are Zoquct (Sophia) and Aoyo<; (Logos). It will be most convenient to begin with a few remarks about them together, for scholarship usually associates both o f them with the philosophic and mystic dimension o f Philo's works exclusively, and this in spite o f the well known but mostiy disregarded fact that a m o n g the many connotations o f these words in

article, "The Jewish Dimension of Philo's Judaism," JJS 38 /2 (1987), particularly 181-185.

4 1 And 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.

4 2 See also, O'Cleirigh, "Dogma in Origen," 201-216.


Hellenistic Jewish literature, side by side and often intertwined with

their theosophic dimension, they also very often refer to the con

tents o f the Torah .

Philo's concomi tan t use o f these words in bo th their mystical

d imension 4 3 and to refer to the b o d y o f Torah , need not surprise us

for as Evelyn Underhill, a foremost scholar o f Christian mysticism

pointed out long ago, it is mistaken to think that the life o f the mys

tic is necessarily "an opposit ion to, and an implicit criticism of, the

corporate and institutional form o f religious l i fe ." 4 4 A n d in a similar

vein, she writes elsewhere that "Nothing perhaps has so much con

duced to the misunders tand ing . . . o f the mystics as the tendency

to . . . regard them as the representatives o f a type o f religion hos

tile to all ceremonial worsh ip ." 4 5

Respecting Jewish mysticism in particular, to realize that these are

not mutually exclusive frames o f reference we need only recall the

long list o f halakhic giants over the ages who , while they were fully

commit ted to a life lived in strict accord with the halakhah, were at

the same time also practicing savants in the sphere o f Jewish mys

tic lore. Several random examples over the ages: R a b b i Akiva, the

Ramban , R a b b i Joseph Caro , the Maharal o f Prague o f Golem fame,

and the G a o n o f Vilna.

In the introductory chapter o f Gershom Scholem'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 of the divine Wisdom . . . It is not merely the historical law of the Chosen People, although it is that too; it is rather the cosmic law of the Universe, as God's wisdom conceived it.4 6

4 3 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 of E.R. Goodenough, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven, 1935). On the subject of Philo and mysticism see also: Hans Jonas, Von der Mythologie zur mystischen Philosophic (Gottingen, 1966), and particularly his "The Problem of Knowing God in the Thought of Philo of Alexandria" [in Hebrew], in Commentationes Judaico Hellenisticae in Memoriam Ioannis Lewy (Jerusalem, 1949), 65-84.

4 4 Evelyn Underhill, The Essentials of Mysticism (New York/London/Toronto, 1920), 26. 4 5 In her preface to The Mystics of the Church (New York: Schocken, repr., 1964,

1971). 4 6 Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (London, 1955), 13-14.

46 NAOMI G. COHEN

T h o u g h I very much doubt that Gershom Scholem had Philo in particular in mind, nevertheless, could this be any closer to Philo's concep t ion o f T o r a h 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

Both the Greek w o r d ccxpia (Sophia) and the H e b r e w w o r d riQDn (Hokhma) have long histories. T h e primary meaning o f both words was simply skill in handicraft and arts, 4 7 which is why they could be conceived o f as G o d ' s "craftsman" through whose agency the world 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 force instrumental in the creation o f the world was apparently an axiomatic facet o f the "world view" o f the Semitic speaking peoples. It is already attested in ancient Canaanite sources, 4 8 and it is in line with this that Proverbs 3:19, 8:22ff., et al. 4 9 describe PIDDn ( L X X : Xoqna) as a pre-existent creation o f G o d , instrumental in the creation o f the world. Hence it should not be surprising to discover that Alexandrian and Palestinian Jewish tradition were at one in envisioning Wisdom (nQDn/Zcxpicc) both as having a special relation to G o d and His creation, and as being identified with the T o r a h . 5 0 Following are several examples f rom pre-Phi lonic Hellenistic-Jewish and rabbinic literature where Zocpia is represented both as a primeval creation and at one and the same time as a synonym, or at the very least as a metaphor a, for Torah .

4 7 For early uses of noDPT: Exod 35:10, 25; 36:1-2 etc.; for coquet: Homer, II. 15:412; Xen. , Mem. 4.2.33.

4 8 See e.g. William Foxwell Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore, 1946), 282ff., who pointed this out long ago.

4 9 I have not included e.g. Prov 9:10, Job 28:28, Ps 111:10 because although they too are in line with this conceptualization they need not necessarily be understood in this manner.

5 0 See at length: Wolfson, Philo, vol. I, and from a different perspective, Urbach, Sages, Ch. 12, 286-7, 198-9 and 212-213 (Heb. ed.: 254-5 , and also 175 and 188-9). Although G. Scholem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem, 1974), 9, mentions Prov 8, Job 28, Wisdom 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 my opinion, less than convincingly, that the former developed "through the influence of Greek philosophical speculations on the Logos," and the latter independently, "through rabbinic exegesis of the words of Scripture."


Wisdom of Ben Sira

T h e W i s d o m o f Ben Sira, a Palestinian work, written in Heb rew not very long before the Hasmonean uprising, 5 1 opens with the categorical statement that Wisdom was created by G o d before all else, and that while it has been vouchsafed to all, in the form o f c o m m a n d ments it is the special province o f "them that love H i m . " Thus in Chapter O n e (1:1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 26) we read inter alia:

(1) All Wisdom cometh from the Lord, And is with Him forever. (4) Before them all, was Wisdom created. . . (8) One there is, greatly to be feared, The Lord sitting upon His throne; (9) He Himself created her [Wisdom], and . . . poured her out upon all His works; (10) Upon 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) . . .

Another, even more unequivocal example from Ben Sira is chapter 24 where Wisdom emerges from the "Godhead , " is diffused throughout the world, and then becomes Israel's inheritance:

(1) Wisdom praiseth herself, and is honoured among her p e o p l e 5 2 . . . (3) "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and as a mist I covered the ear th 5 3 . . . (7) With all these (nations) I sought a resting place, 5 4

(8) Then the Creator of 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 I D) .

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 which is Israel's possession:

5 1 Ben-Sira's grandson, who translated the book into Greek, gives the date of his coming to Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of the reign of Euergetes, (viz. Euergetes II).

5 2 Israel is o f course meant. Greek: ev ueaco Xaov ocoTrji;; Heb.: TOP. 5 3 Wisdom is here described as emerging from the "Godhead" and being diffused

over the earth. 5 4 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 of 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.

48 NAOMI G. COHEN

(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 "Law o f Moses" :

(23) All these things are the book of the covenant of God Most High (P(P?io<; 5ioc9r|Kn<; 6£ot> byictov),55 "The Law which Moses commanded, (as) an heritage for the assemblies of Jacob" (LXX. : v6|xov Bv EVTEIAXXTO

i)|xiv Mcoi)0fi<;, KAjipovouiav auvaycoYcat; IC<KCO|3; M T ,nK?Q iTK miD npir rfrnp TWTTD (Deut 33:4).

Deut 33:4 quoted here is the final verse o f the Pentateuch, and as Jack T . Sanders, in his Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, has noted, "in Ben Sira 24, W i s d o m is not a law giver, but rather is [italics original] the law, . . . W i s d o m is being identified with T o r a h . . . " , 5 6 and what is no less relevant, is the point made already at the beginning o f the twentieth century by B o x and Oesterley in their note to the edition o f Ben-Sira found in Charles, APOT, that "the way in which this identification is taken for granted shows that Ben Sira is not expressing a new truth, but one which in his time had already become generally accepted ." 5 7

W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n

T h e syllogism found in Wisdom o f Solomon 6:17-18 associates Wisdom with "her laws"—which in context points to the Laws o f the Torah . T h e passage, which speaks for itself, reads:

(6:17) [Wisdom's, Sophia's] true beginning is desire of instruction; and the care for instruction is love [of her]; (18) and love [of her] is observance of her laws (TT|pr|o~i<; voficov avxr\q); And giving heed to her laws (VOJJXDV) is the possession of immortality (|3£|3aictxn<; dcpBapaiaq).

5 5 Heb.: p " ^ ^ m s "ISO n*7» * » . 5 6 J.T. Sanders, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom (Chico, Calif., 1983), 49. Another

example in Ben Sira of the association o f Torah and Wisdom is Ben Sira 19:17-24. The list is not exhaustive.

5 7 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 "wisdom" and "Torah" in ancient sources see: M . Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism I (London/Philadelphia, 1974), 160ff., esp. 168.


T h e Wisdom of Solomon also uses the words Aoyoc, 5 8 and Eoqna (Logos, Sophia) in apposition to each other in 9 :1 -2 ; and since the evxoXctiq, which are ment ioned there in verse 9, is a terminus technicus for To rah commandments in Hellenistic-Jewish parlance, 5 9 this latter verse also ascribes knowledge o f To rah commandments to premundane Wisdom. T h e relevant verses in the Wisdom of Solomon, chapter nine read:

(1) O God of the fathers, and Lord who keepest Thy mercy, Who madest all things by thy Word (ev A,6ycp COD); 6 0

(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 tradition, 6 1 it is certainly not amiss to include an illustration from rabbinic midrash—one o f the many equations o f W i s d o m (riDDn) with Torah (min). For example, Mekhilta, Parshat Be'shalakh, Masekhta d' Shira (Exod 15:16), 9, and parallels, unhesitatingly uses Prov 8:22 as its p r o o f text for Torah ; and this is so in spite o f the fact that the relevant w o r d in the biblical verse is actually Wisdom (HQDn)—not Torah (mm).62 W e read there:

5 8 The word will be discussed next. 5 9 A good illustration of 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, 221-2.

6 0 Cf. also the similar personification of "the all-powerful W o r d " (6 7tavTo8wan.6<; GOV A-oyoq) in id., 18:15.

6 1 See Philo Judaeus, Chapter T w o , 33-71. 6 2 See H.S. Horovitz, ed., Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishma'el, completed by LA. Rabin

(Frankfurt, 1931), 148 and notes ad loc. The text o f the midrash states: I K I p ] rmmK pD:n hm) ~ D T I n w i rr 'td pp mnp] rmnn . . . pp And 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. And 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 beginning of His way" i m i rPBRn rup 'n

77z£ wora? Ad/og (Logos)/ToraA outside of Philo

Like £o<pioc, the Greek w o r d A,6yo<; is also central to Philo's theo-sophic speculation, so much so that it is at first difficult to realize that it too was regularly used in Hellenistic Jewish writings not only for a stage in the unfolding o f the Divine emanation and the incorporeal ideas, but also as a locution for the T o r a h commandments .

Before turning to this in Philo's own writings I will c o m m e n c e with a few preliminary words respecting its connotat ion elsewhere, first in classic Greek sources, and then in the Septuagint.

Xoyoq (Logos) in Classic Greek Sources

Regular Greek usage at least sometimes used logos as a synonym for nomos. For example, Plato, Laws I V 723c 2 - 3 reads:

. . . and that throughout the whole of this work of 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|(; V O U I G V (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 Deut 9:10, 10:4, refers to the commandments in the Decalogue , while in E x o d 35:1, it means T o r a h commandments in general. So too L X X E x o d 34:28 as well

adoption of the term •,QDn = Sages—viz. experts in Torah knowledge in rabbinic sources. O n the other hand some rabbinic sources set HQDn and Torah as contrasting constructs; see for example, Lamentations Rabbah 2:9: "If someone tells you there is wisdom among the gentiles—believe him . . . there is Torah among the gentiles—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.


as Deut 31:12, which latter prescribes the septennial reading o f the Law, has: "fol low carefully all the words o f this Law (navxaq xohq Xoyovq xov vou,ou xouxoa))." It is obviously not the literal "words" which are indicated, but by metonymy, "all the commandments . " Likewise, Lev 8:36, 6 3 refers to "all the things which G o d commanded ," and while the few instances found in Numbers are not relevant, respecting the b o o k o f Deuteronomy, in addition to the instances just noted, it is worth mentioning Deut 1:18, 6 4 12:28, 6 5 where the w o r d Xoyoq means "commandments , " and note particularly id. 32:46 ( L X X : rcdvxctc; xovq Xoyovq xovxovq, ovq iyco 8icc|iapxr|po|icu ufxiv cr\\i-epov, a ivxeiXeiade xoiq vioiq ujicov cpuXdooeiv Kai rcoieiv rcdvxac, xovq Xoyovq xov vo\iov xovxov; M T : DTT7 DD2 TJJD D ' 13 in bzb rmr\ minn n m ho m rmixh narh d d ^ d m msn where too it refers to the "Divine T o r a h commandments . "

Aoyoq (Logos) and Zcxpia (Wisdom) = Torah in Philo

After this introduction Philo's use o f the words locpict and Aoyoc, not only as an appellation for a property o f G o d , a pre-mundane Divinely created incorporeal being immanent in the world, but also for the Torah , the Law(s) o f Moses follows naturally. Whi le this is not an entirely novel insight, it is all too rarely taken into consideration when reading Philo's works.

Aoyoq (Logos)

Following are some examples o f Philo's use o f the w o r d Aoyoc; (Logos) as a synonym for Torah , and T o r a h Commandments . First, note passages such as the following which refer specifically to the Decalogue. Thus Dec. 32 states:

T h e ten words (A-oyoi) o r oracles, in reality laws o r statutes . . .

(xobq 8eK0c Xoyovq r\ x p r i a n o t x ; , vououi; il Oeaumx; 7ip6<; &Ar|0Eiav ovxac,)

6 3 This is the only instance of this word in the entire book o f Leviticus. 6 4 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 6 5 L X X : cpi)Xdoaco K a i CXKOUE K a i 7tovr|G£i<; 7tdvTa<; xovq Xoyovq, ovq eycb evxiXXo-

u a i CTOI; M T : -pxo OS* T D » H^KH DH3T1 ta riK nPOttfl I D © Note the addition of 7covf|0"£K; in the L X X rendition.

52 NAOMI G. COHEN

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 two more examples, among many, in which the plural form ^oyoi (logoi) refers to biblical commandments . 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)66 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 of us not to adulterate the coinage of virtue (TO dpeTfjc; vouiaua), using these words: "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's boundaries, which thy fathers set up" (Deut 19:14) . . .

Nomos here is o f course Torah , and as I have already noted above when discussing the w o r d Paradosis, Philo uses Deut 19:14 both here and in Spec. 4 .149 in the same manner as is standard in rabbinic sources and in the Damascus D o c u m e n t (e.g. 1.16 and 5.20): as a biblical " p r o o f text" for the commandmen t to preserve the ancient Jewish traditions. T h e context points to the w o r d combinat ion Xoyoi Kai Geioi being a hendiadys — "sacred commandments . " Similarly Fuga 200 reads:

(200) In the next place they dig, not as did the wise Abraham and Isaac, wells (Gen 21:30, 26:18), deep sources of (Torah) Knowledge (£maTt||j,r|) from which draughts of commandments (AxSyoix;) are drawn . . .

"Water" as a metaphor for To rah is a c o m m o n image in Philo, and in this he is at one with both rabbinic midrash and the Damascus D o c u m e n t (3 .15-16 and 6 .2 -10 ) . 6 7

The singular form of the word Aoyoq (Logos) in Philo

Before proceeding, a w o r d concerning the singular form: Aoyoc;. Is the singular form also used as a locution for T o r a h ? 6 8 T h e question,

6 6 Literally, "commandments and sacred" or "words and Divine." 6 7 For a fuller discussion of "water" as a metaphor in Jewish tradition, see Philo

Judaeus, 163-164, 214-215 and n. 29. 6 8 This question was raised by David Runia in the discussion period following

my lecture at the conference.


which was raised in the discussion per iod following m y lecture at the conference , is important , because if only the plural form is found—viz. Aoyoi for the Commandments—then the singular form would still be understood exclusively in its theological/philosophical connotation. I have therefore studied it carefully and can categorically state that the singular form Aoyoc;, both with a descriptive adjective as well as by itself, is also used as a c o m m o n enough and recognized term for the Torah .

T h e term lepoc, A,6yo<; (Hieros Logos)—viz. the singular form Aoyoc; with the defining adjective Tepoc; = " H o l y " is found in Philo's works about forty times in the connotation: H o l y T o r a h or Ho ly Scripture. Following are two instances in illustration, one from the Leg. AIL, and the other from Spec.—highly different portions o f Philo's oeuvre.69

Leg. All. 3.11 states:

For the Sacred Word [= Torah] (6 iepoc; Xoyoq) enjoins that at three seasons of the year every male is to show himself before the Lord the God of Israel (icopun) xot» Geoft 'IcpocriA.) [Deut 16:16].

I begin the second quotation from Spec. 1.215 with the opening o f section 214, o f which it is a direct continuation. T h e T o r a h is first referred to by the phrase lepaic; ypacpaic;, and then in section 215, the same biblical passage referred to is called 6 iepoc; A,6yoc,.

Philo states in Spec. 1 .214-215:

(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 Word [= Torah] (6 iepoc; Xoyoq) therefore, thought good that the altar of God . . .

T o complete the picture I also quote the following instance where the singular form Aoyoc; alone, without any defining adjective, is used as a term for Torah . Spec. 4 .130 states:

(130) . . . the place also received its name from the disaster which befell them, for it was called "Monuments of Lust" (MT: 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. COHEN

(. . . cbq Kai TO %copiov anb Tot> rcepi auToix; naQovc, xr\v mwvv\iiav Xapeiv. EKA,TI9TI yap "Mvf||j.aTa xr\q envQviiiac," fiqo-UK ecmv ev yx>%f\, KaOarcep e8(8ac;ev 6 Xoyoq, ueic^ov KaKov.)

Since, as Colson has noted ad loc . Spec. 4 : 1 2 6 - 1 3 1 , this is a para

phrase o f what is narrated in chapter eleven o f the Book o f Numbers,

especially w . 3 1 - 3 4 , pace Colson, w h o has translated it as "story,"

it could here hardly mean 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 words Aoyoq and Soyucc in

combinat ion as: Xoycov Kai Soyiiaicov. Although these words are found

many times in combinat ion in Philo, this is not so in either Plato

or Aristotle.

I found that while the single words Xoyoc, and 86yu.a appear in

Plato and Aristotle often enough, the semantic unit Xoycov Kai 8oy-

umcov is absent. 7 1 Further, as we have just seen, Xoyoi sometimes

means "biblical commandments" in Hellenistic-Jewish literature, includ

ing the Septuagint and Philo, and the meaning o f Soyuata is "reg

ulations" both there and elsewhere. Hence it is hardly surprising to

find the phrase Xoycov Kai Soyudxcov in Philo to be an id iom indi

cating something like "biblical laws and other regulations," logoi indi

cating the biblical laws, and dogmata all the other "regulations" to

which a J e w was expected to adhere. 7 2

Nevertheless, while it is tempting to associate the combinat ion

Xoycov Kai Soyumcov with the rabbinic combinat ion: ]3D"in WP 'H'ltn, this is irrelevant to the subject under present consideration. In any

event one must also bear in mind that the demarcation between

Krvmyn o r (biblical or rabbinic), is far from being crystal clear

in either the Judeo-Greek or the Judeo-Aramaic traditions.

7 0 And the philosophical connotation does not, of course, come into question. 7 1 Although these two words do appear in the same general context in Plato,

Definitiones (- 'Opoi) 412 a 9-10 , 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 common, and see further below.

7 2 A seeming exception to this, Mos. 2.212, actually supports this hypothesis if it is understood as a satiric play on words. "The word-catchers and the sophists" who are here said to sell 86y|xaTa Kai Xoyoix; are contrasted with "the true philosophy," viz. Judaism.


Following are several examples o f this idiosyncratic w o r d combi nation (Xoycov K a i Soyadxcov) in Philo's oeuvre. I begin with a passage from de Opificio Mundi since this is one o f Philo's most philosophical compositions, and hence its appearance here is all the more significant.

Opif. 153-169 deals with the Garden, the Serpent and the Fall. Sections 157-158 state:

(157) . . . Following a probable conjecture one would say that the serpent spoken of is a fit symbol of pleasure . . . (158) The lover of pleasure . . . 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 comes the relevant statement:

(mmou 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 words, one finds a brief for keeping the c o m mandments contrasted with the profligate life. In contrast I bring Colson 's rendering o f the relevant portion first, for comparison:

(157) . . . Following a probable conjecture one would say that the serpent spoken of is a fit symbol of pleasure . . . (158) The lover of pleasure . . . feeds not on heavenly nourishment, which wisdom by discourses and doctrines (8id Xoycov Kai 8oy|a.dxcov aocp(a) proffers the lovers of contemplation . . .

M y translation:

(157) . . . Following a probable conjecture one would say that the serpent spoken of is a fit symbol of pleasure . . . (158) The lover of pleasure . . . feeds not on heavenly nourishment, that which Eocpia (= Torah) proffers the "lovers of contemplation" (cpiXoGeauooi)73 through the agency of laws and regulations (8id Xoycov K a i Soyuaxcov) . . .

I repeat, only when rendered in this manner is it a meaningful statement: a brief for keeping the commandments vis-a-vis the profligate life, while otherwise the passage reads like no more than sanctimonious verbiage.

cpiXoGeauoci = "lovers of seeing" - Israel are the "seers o f God. ' :

56 NAOMI G. COHEN

*

A second example is Spec. 2. 61—63. Philo here defines Judaism in philosophical terms, subsuming the "Commandmen t s " under the traditional four cardinal virtues. Since in the ancient wor ld "philosophy" was not confined to the pursuit o f speculative knowledge and in Philo's day would have been defined as the search for the best recipe for living the g o o d life, it is not unduly forced for Philo to call the Sabbath gatherings in the Synagogues and Houses o f Study, schools o f philosophy, whose object is the inculcation o f the classic virtues.

T h e passage as a whole means very little when the words Xoycov K a i 8oyaaTcov are rendered, as they have been by Colson, as "the principles of virtue's lore" in the first instance and as "truths and principles" in the second, but it is meaningful when, but only when, the idiosyncratic w o r d combinat ion Xoycov K a i Soyadxcov is rendered as "commandments and regulations."

Spec. 2 . 61 -63 reads:

(61) When He forbids bodily labour on the seventh day, He permits the exercise of the higher activities. These are the study of 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 of philosophy improving thereby the soul and the dominant mind.

(62) So each seventh day there stand wide open in every city, thousands of schools of good sense, temperance, courage, justice and the other virtues,74 in which they sit in order quietly, with ears alert and with full attention . . .

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

*

So too , Philo's lament at the very beginning o f Spec. 3 which is found in the middle o f his survey o f the discrete commandments according to the rubrics o f the Decalogue in the Specialibus Legibus. W e read there: "There was a time when I had leisure for philosophy . . . when

7 4 This fits the frame of reference of the equation of Greek "virtues" with Mosaic laws, about which I wrote in "The Greek Virtues and the Mosaic Laws in Philo," SP 5 (1993), 9 -23 , and in Chapter IV of Philo Judaeus.


m y constant companions were Geioic, del Xoyoic, . . . K a i 86y|aaaiv . . . " For Geioic, del Xoyoic, recall the Xoyoi K a i Geioi hendiadys in Post. Caini 89 = Divine Commandments.15 In view o f the context here, can the connotation o f Geioic, del Xoyoic,. . . K a i 56y|iaoiv be anything other than "divine commandments and ordinances"?

locpia — (Wisdom)

M a n y o f the instances which I found o f Philo's use o f the term Xocpia/'Wisdom in the connotat ion Torah are found in conjunction with a form o f the w o r d combinat ion 86yaa K a i Gecbpr||j.a. Since the exigencies o f time and space preclude discussing this id iom at any length, following are a few words about it en passant. 7 6

A T L G (Thesaurus Lingua Graeca) search respecting the words Soyfia and Gecopr||ia separately, reveals that while each one o f these words is very c o m m o n , this is not so for the combinat ion o f the two as a semantic unit. Whi le this is found some sixteen times in Philo, it is virtually absent in Plato and Aristotle. W h e n considered together with the contexts in which the w o r d combinat ion 86y|ia and Gecoprjaa appear in Philo, one can hardly escape the conclusion that like Xoycov K a i SoyuoVccov just discussed at some length, so too the w o r d combination Soyuct K a i Gecopr|ua, is also an instance o f 'Judeo-Greek" idiomatic terminology.

T h e following example in which the word 2091a = Wisdom is in m y view used in the sense: Torah , illustrates this use o f the idiosyncratic w o r d combinat ion 86yaa K a i Gecbpruia as a "Judeo-Greek" locution. Here too , when the words are understood in this manner the passage is meaningful, but otherwise it hardly reads as anything more than prolix verbiage.

T h e probability that the dogmata and theoremata of Eocpia/ Wisdom d o indeed refer to the traditional Jewish ordinances (dogmata) o f To rah and their theoretical underpinnings (theoremata)—which together are said to comprise the "heavenly doctr ine" = Torah (Logos)—is further increased by the consideration that it is Moses w h o is here described as making the prayer. W e read in Plant. 52:

7 5 It is quoted above in connection with the discussion o f the plural form A,6yot (logoi) as referring to biblical commandments.

7 6 For a fuller discussion, see Philo Judaeus, Chapter Seven, part two, particularly 203-217.

58 NAOMI G. COHEN

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

I know that some will say that the argument is circular, but that is

the nature o f any deciphering o f language. T h e only " p r o o f " pos

sible is that the net result provides a satisfactory meaning which

repeats itself in diverse contexts.

Another example is Congr. 7 9 - 8 0 respecting which the identification

o f Eotpioc/ Wisdom as a referent for T o r a h is sophisticated but none

the less clear. It reads: 7 8

(79) And indeed just as the encyclica contribute to the acquisition of philosophy ((piXoacxpia), so does philosophy to the acquisition of Sophia (Zocpia = Wisdom). For philosophy is the cultivation of Sophia (in\.x"(\o£vaiq aocpiaq), and Sophia (Wisdom) is the knowledge of things divine and human and their causes.

As Colson has noted, the statement, "Sophia (Wisdom) is the knowl

edge o f things divine and human and their causes" is a Stoic defini

t ion, 7 9 but this does not preclude a "Judeo-Greek" connotat ion here

as well, for Philo loves double entendre. A n d the punch line comes in

the immediate continuation: " A n d therefore just as the culture o f

the schools (f| eyicuKAaoc; UOUCIKTI) is (the b o n d servant) to philoso

phy, so must phi losophy be the bondservant o f Sophia (Wisdom)."

In this passage, Sophia (Wisdom), which has here been given its

Stoic definition, "the knowledge o f things divine and human and

their causes," must refer to something other than cpiXooocpia (phi

losophy) per se, for it is stated that cpiXooocpict has been subordinated

to it. J o h n Dillon has suggested the reference to be to theology. 8 0 I

am convinced that it must have meant " T o r a h " specifically, since

for Philo and his contemporary Jewish readers true wisdom was by

7 7 As we have just seen, this "doctrine" (Xoyoq/logos) is a reference the Torah. 7 8 Our 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 of Philo," in: Martin Jan Mulder, ed., Mikra, (Maastricht/ Philadelphia, 1988), 439.

7 9 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."

8 0 John Dillon, The Middle Platonists: A Study of Platonism 80 B.C. to A.D. 220 (London, 1977), 141.


definition "the truth" as revealed in the Torah , and Origen's para

phrase o f the statement lends additional c redence to this under

standing o f the Philonic passage. Origen states: "As a general education

is propaedeutic to phi losophy so phi losophy itself should only be

propaedeutic to Christianity . . . " 8 1 Is this not an adaptation o f the

Philonic syllogism, understood in the manner just suggested, with

T o r a h substituted by Christianity? 8 2

*

In closing, I wish to point out that what has been noted respecting

the development o f the connotat ion o f the words Eocpicc and Aoyoc,

in Christian sources is not in itself new. While , as we have seen, for

the J e w the Heb rew equivalent o f Xotpict (Wisdom), HftDn (hokhma), was

axiomaticalfy identified with the Torah , for the Christian, W i s d o m

became Jesus, or at the very least Christianity. This is well expressed

by R o w a n Greer in a b o o k on early biblical interpretation 8 3 where

he writes that,

. . . we must recognize that when the redeemer is identified with "the first-born of all creation" (Col 1:15), the biblical text involved is certainly Prov 8:22, where "Wisdom" is created by God 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. We are . . . dealing . . . with . . . the transformation of Wisdom, a Jewish exegetical theme.

Likewise, E.A. Sophoc les ' Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods,M which covers the per iod between 146 B.C.E. to 1100 C.E.,

notes that 6 Geioc, Xoyoq o r simply 6 Xoyoq at first meant the holy

writ, Scripture; and later the Christian doctrine in particular; and

in a similar vein, Lampe, Patr. Lex., s.v. A-oyoc, notes under the first

set o f meanings such connotations as Scripture as a whole , a pas

sage o f Scripture; and then, apparently as a development from there,

8 1 Origen, Ep. ad Greg. 4.80ff. [Sources chretiennes). 8 2 And this is all the more relevant in view o f the proverbial influence of Philo's

works on Origen; for which see e.g. O'Cleirigh, "Dogma in Origen," 210-211. 8 3 Authored jointly with James Kugel, Early Biblical Interpretation, (Philadelphia,

1986), 162. 8 4 (New York, 1887.)

60 NAOMI G. COHEN

a c o m m a n d o f divine authority, and finally, Christ incarnate without qualification.

At the very beginning o f the essay I suggested that the adoption o f some o f the Judeo-Greek terminology which I have surveyed today by early Christianity to express its own agenda in the language o f Judaism explains why these words have so often been misconstrued by scholars o f Philo. It also reflects some o f the central theological issues at the time when Christianity still looked upon itself as a form o f Judaism developing its o w n identity in terms o f a Jewish frame o f reference.

Dikaiosyne very early underwent a metamorphosis from "works" to "faith," and in patristic literature—and eventually in all modern languages including modern Hebrew—Dogma c o m e to mean articles o f faith exclusively rather than regulations o f conduct. Respecting Sophia, since for a J e w Wisdom (Sophia) was a synonym for Torah , the revolutionary thesis that Jesus had b e c o m e a "new T o r a h " was expressed in terms which for the Christian believer made it a direct continuation o f what went before—Jesus became Wisdom (Eocpia) incarnate. A n d as for Aoyoc,, it lost its connotation o f "Torah L a w " and came to be identified with a single aspect o f Sophia also coming to be "applied without qualification to Christ incarnate." 8 5

This is an excellent illustration o f one o f the axioms o f the history o f ideas, viz. that the introduction o f even very new ideas is very often achieved by their association with current "truths"—and indeed in order for it to gain acceptance, what is new must also in a very real sense be a continuation o f some aspect o f what went before. These Judeo-Greek words were adapted by early Christianity to express its o w n agenda in the language o f Judaism, using a single facet o f their Jewish meaning, and transforming it.

These words pinpoint and illustrate several o f the central theological issues at the time when Christianity, while still looking upon itself as a form o f Judaism, was developing its o w n identity from within a Jewish frame o f reference, and it is also n o w clear why they have been misconstrued by Philonic scholarship which until recently functioned largely from within the frame o f reference o f Christian theology.

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


W h i c h brings us full circle back to the beginning o f m y presen

tation, for just as early Christianity adopted and adapted Judeo-

Greek terminology to express its own agenda which was different

from contemporary Judaism, long before this, Hellenistic Judaism

had adopted and adapted these very Greek words to express their

own unique concerns.

This has recentiy been pointed out by Runia, in an article on

Philo's Vita Contemplativa, where he writes, 8 6

What the terms "excellence, goodness, contemplation and felicity"8 7

actually refer to in terms of the activities of the Therapeutae themselves stands, one must suspect, at some remove from the epistemic ideals of Greek philosophy. . . . All this gives the final sentence (of the Philonic treatise) . . . a characteristically Philonic double face. The Therapeutae are called "citizens of heaven and the cosmos," 8 8 and they devote their lives to the study of "nature and what it contains" 8 9

. . . What they actually contemplate. . . are the text and doctrines of the Jewish scriptures [italics mine], together with ancient expository writings which included allegorical interpretation.90

C o u l d there be any clearer illustration o f what I have argued in the

present study?

W h i c h brings us to a third and final point: important as Philo's

works may be in the larger context o f religious philosophy, it is n o w

doubly clear that high o n Philo's o w n specific agenda was the pre

sentation o f a brief for a commitment to Judaism which included

the obligation to study and to practice the T o r a h commandments .

This he argued in the language o f a thoroughly Hellenized J e w to

a thoroughly Hellenized audience.

8 6 Runia, D.T. , "The 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.

8 7 These terms are used in the Philonic treatise in its description of the Therapeutae. 88 Vita 90 (final section). 8 9 Ibid. 90 Vita 29.

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

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

J E W I S H A U T H O R S : R E S O N A N C E A N D R E S I S T A N C E

C A R L R . H O L L A D A Y

T h e fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish authors, whose works span some

hundred years or more from the late third century B.C.E . onward,

provide clear examples o f Jews interacting with Hellenistic culture. 1

T h e y serve as important witnesses to the complex process o f cultural

assimilation that many Jews experienced during the Hellenistic-Roman

per iod. 2

O n e reason for their importance is their relatively early date. Sev

eral o f them are reliably dated in the mid-second century B .C .E . 3 A

few o f them are possibly as early as the late third century B .C .E . 4 As

Jewish writings in this per iod go , they are among the earliest datable

writings. But apart from their relatively early dating, they also exhibit

fascinating variety. A m o n g these texts we find Jewish authors writing

tragic and epic poetry, as well as narrative texts that include a wide

range o f literary traditions, including chronography, national romance,

ethnography, allegorical interpretation o f Scripture, to mention only

1 English translations of these texts are readily available in J.H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [= 0 7 ? ] (Garden City, NY, 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).

2 See the very helpful discussion o f assimilation, acculturation, and accommodation 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), 82-102.

3 The following authors are usually dated in the mid-second century: Eupolemus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, Artapanus, Ezekiel the Tragedian, and Aristobulus. B. Bar-Kochva dates Pseudo-Aristeas in the late second century, ca. 116-113, and Pseudo-Hecataeus some 10-20 years later [Pseudo-Hecataeus On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora [Berkeley, 1996], 122-42) . 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 of 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.

4 Those who 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 . H O L L A D A Y

the most obvious ones. Here we see an openness to experiment with

new literary genres that differ quite markedly from those found in

the Bible. Yet another remarkable feature o f these writings is the

extent to which they interact with Hellenistic culture. T h e y provide

a series o f barometric readings o f the ways Greek-speaking Jews read

and interpreted Hellenistic culture. In these texts, we get some sense

o f which Hellenistic values mattered to them. W e also catch a glimpse

o f what Greek texts they were reading and which ones they con

sidered important enough to imitate. Because there are so many

specific instances where the biblical tradition is being recast into a

different m o d e , we are able to see points o f resonance as well as

resistance. In some instances, the Jewish tradition seems to have lent

itself quite readily to being recast using Hellenistic modes o f expres

sion; in others, not so readily. In this paper, we will examine some

o f those "translation moments" that show these Greek-speaking authors

struggling to make sense o f some aspect o f their own tradition as

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

Engaging Hellenism

W e should remind ourselves o f h o w extensively the Hellenistic spirit

pervades these texts. This is true o f some more than others, to be

sure, but the frame o f reference for many o f these authors is the

Hellenistic world broadly conceived. Without a doubt, they are stand

ing within the biblical tradition as they look out onto this world, but

the horizons o f their world extend well beyond the tents o f Shem.

T h e poetic texts serve as a useful barometer in this regard. T h e

pseudonymous poetic texts show us the Greek poets that were thought

to be worthy o f emulation: Hesiod, Aeschylus, Sophocles , Euripides,

Philemon, Diphilus, and Menander . These were the figures to w h o m

verses heralding the one G o d were attributed. If it could be shown

that these eminent Greek authors sang the praises o f the one G o d ,

so m u c h the better for the Jewish tradition. 5 Theodotus , w h o re

casts the G e n 34 account o f the rape o f Dinah in the form o f epic

poetry, has intimate familiarity with the Greek epic tradition. 6 His

5 See H. Attridge, "Fragments of Pseudo-Greek Poets," in Charlesworth, OTP 2.821-30.

6 See F. Fallon, "Theodotus," in Charlesworth, OTP 2.785-93; Holladay, FHJA 2.51-204.

RESONANCE AND RESISTANCE 67

poetry is full o f H o m e r i c phrases, and there are indications that he

is equally familiar with Apollonius o f Rhodes and Callimachus. H e

not only knows these authors, but he knows them well. W h e n he

chooses to render the slaying o f H a m o r and Shechem by Levi and

Simeon, an episode described quite briefly in the Bible, he employs

imagery drawn from the Greek epic tradition. 7 So effective is his

appropriation o f this language that the scene evokes all the terror o f

a Homer ic battle scene. Philo the Epic Poet, whose p o e m On Jerusalem employs language so obscure as to make it virtually untranslatable,

appears to be operating within a tradition o f Hellenistic epic poetry

that placed a high premium on such language. 8 T h e poet Ezekiel, w h o

rendered the story o f the exodus into the form o f a Greek tragedy,

shows intimate acquaintance with Euripides and Aeschylus, as well

as with Herodotus. 9 His knowledge o f the conventions o f tragic poetry

is far from elementary. T h e poetic text that goes under the name

Pseudo-Orpheus shows a similar level o f familiarity with the Greek

poetic tradition. 1 0 As with the other pseudonymous poetic texts, this

one too knows the significance o f attaching belief in the one G o d

to a figure as renowned and influential as Orpheus. Whi le the Jewish

redactions o f the original pagan version o f the p o e m d o not exhibit

the same level o f stylistic skill, their authors are not clumsy poets.

T h e y too know the proper poetic conventions and are skillful enough

to appropriate this monotheistic claim and present Abraham and

Moses as its rightful, original owners.

T h e narrative tradition presents its own examples as well. Demetrius

the Chronographer nowhere mentions his authorial models , nor is

it as clear, as it is in the case o f the poets, that he is directly depen

dent on Greek sources. 1 1 But there are g o o d grounds for thinking

that he is being influenced by the Hellenistic historiographical tra

dition, chronography in particular. Berossus and Mane tho appear to

7 Frg. 8 (Holladay, FHJA 2.124-27). 8 See H. Attridge, "Philo the Epic Poet," in Charlesworth, 077* 2.781-84;

Holladay, FHJA 2.205-99. 9 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).

1 0 See M . LaFargue, "Orphica," in Charlesworth, OTP 2 .795-801; Holladay, FHJA 4.

1 1 See J. Hanson, "Demetrius the Chronogapher," in Charlesworth, OTP 2.843~54; Holladay, FHJA 1.51-91.

68 CARL R. H O L L A D A Y

have established his intellectual horizons, and he may well have writ

ten with Eratosthenes in mind. H o w to classify Artapanus still remains

a mystery, but he seems awfully close to the Hellenistic national

romance literature. 1 2 W e do not have to know the genre o f his work

to be able to discern his Hellenistic horizons. Mousaios and Orpheus

serve as important reference points for understanding Moses. Egyptian

traditions also figure prominently in his respective portraits o f Abraham,

Joseph, and Moses . Non-biblical traditions are freely incorporated

into these portraits. O n e o f the most telling o f such traditions is his

account o f Moses ' imprisonment by Pharaoh when he returns to

Egypt to free the Egyptians. 1 3 In very short compass , Artapanus

rehearses Moses ' miraculous escape from prison, complete with earth

quake, automatic doo r openings, and a confrontation between Moses

and Pharaoh where the irreverent king is struck dead, only to be

revived by Moses . Echoes o f Euripides' Bacchae are heard through

out this episode. 1 4 Whether Euripides served as a source for Artapanus,

or whether he is merely employing a well-established literary conven

tion that was so well-known and widely used that no specific source

need be sought, in either case Artapanus fished in non-biblical waters

for this tradition.

In several o f these texts we find explicit efforts to combine biblical

genealogies with other genealogies. O n e o f the most intriguing exam

ples occurs in Pseudo-Eupolemus, w h o incorporates complementary

genealogies from Babylon and Greece into the biblical lineage that

runs from Enoch and Methuselah finally to Abraham. 1 5 Somehow, the

biblical figures Cush, Mizraim, and Canaan are traceable to the Baby

lonian mythological figure Belus, and figures from Greek genealogies,

notably Kr o n o s and Atlas, are interwoven with Babylonian and bib

lical genealogies. W e thus learn that Belus and Kronos are the same,

and that Adas and Enoch are the same. Such interweaving o f genealo-

1 2 See JJ. Collins, "Artapanus," in Charlesworth, OTP 2 .889-903; Holladay, FHJA 1.189-243.

1 3 Frg. 3.23-26 (Holladay, FHJA 1.218-21). 1 4 For a full discussion of the use of this topos by Greek and Roman 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, "The Literary Genre of the Acts o f the Apostles" (1979), 54-90 .

1 5 See R. Doran, "Pseudo-Eupolemus," in Charlesworth, OTP 2.873-82; Holladay, FHJA 1.157-87.


gies presents many problems. Are the parenthetical identifications

traceable to Alexander Polyhistor rather than Pseudo-Eupolemus him

sel f? 1 6 A n d what is the point o f fusing such disparate genealogies?

W e are not sure. Even with all o f the confusion and ambiguity, some

things are relatively clear. Pseudo-Eupolemus, at the end o f his

rehearsal o f the accomplishments o f Abraham, feels compel led to

introduce other traditions, o r what "the Babylonians say" and what

"the Greeks say." For him, it is not enough simply to rehearse the

biblical story or even to retell it in an amplified version. T o give it

further credence, it needs to be supplemented with other national

traditions; or, at least, these national traditions can be adduced to

complement and reinforce, what is found in the biblical story.

N o such "syncretistic" tendencies (if this is the right way to charac

terize what we find in Pseudo-Eupolemus) are present in Eupolemus. 1 7

Perhaps the closest thing we find is his claim that S o l o m o n gave to

King Souron o f Tyre a golden pillar that was erected in the tem

ple o f Zeus in Tyre (Frg. 2.18). For the most part, Eupolemus ' world

is defined by the biblical text. His preoccupying interest is the tem

ple o f So lomon—the circumstances that led to its construction and

the actual construction itself. Just as the Chronicler embellishes the

account o f the building o f So lomon ' s temple found in 1 Kings, so

does Eupolemus embellish both accounts. T h e net effect o f his account

is a grander, more elaborate temple.

O n e o f the most intriguing instances illustrating Eupolemus' engage

ment with Hellenistic culture is the set o f letters exchanged between

S o l o m o n and the kings o f Egypt and Tyre respectively (Frg. 2 . 3 1 . 1 -

34 .3) . 1 8 T h e y have a biblical basis, since 1 Kgs 5 and 2 Chr 2 record

exchanges between S o l o m o n and Hiram, king o f Tyre , but the bib

lical version o f these exchanges is not cast in explicit epistolary form.

Rather, they are presented as "exchanges," although they would have

occurred as some form o f royal correspondence. Eupolemus, however,

recasts the letters exchanged between S o l o m o n and Hiram (Souron

in Eupolemus) and presents them as Hellenistic letters, complete with

1 6 As suggested by B.Z. Wacholder in the meeting of the Hellenistic Judaism Group at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Francisco, November 22, 1997.

1 7 See F. Fallon, "Eupolemus," in Charlesworth, OTP 2.861-72; Holladay, FHJA 1.93-156.

1 8 See Holladay, FHJA 1.118-23.


formal greetings and well prescribed content. T h e epistolary elements

reflect Eupolemus ' familiarity with Hellenistic literary conventions,

and he uses them effectively to present S o l o m o n as a king highly

respected by his peers in other countries. Eupolemus goes beyond

the biblical account in presenting a similar set o f letters exchanged

by So lomon and the king o f Egypt (Vaphres). T h e y too are presented

as formal, Hellenistic letters, crafted according to the conventions o f

Hellenistic royal correspondence. O n c e again, they have the effect

o f underscoring So lomon ' s superior status to the neighboring king.

In supplying this additional set o f letters, Eupolemus is following the

standard practice o f Hellenistic historians w h o routinely c o m p o s e d

letters and other archival documents to include in their works.

Eupolemus does not explicitiy cite Hellenistic sources on which he

depended. N o r is it clear that he has used particular authors as

models . Yet , his use o f this Hellenistic convention is quite revealing.

These four letters have the effect o f enhancing Solomon ' s status as

an international figure and showing the neighboring kings' deferential

treatment o f Solomon. In addition, they succeed in advancing Eupole

mus ' 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 Mos t High w h o cre

ated heaven and earth, and both kings (Souron more so than Vaphres)

acknowledge the greatness, if not the supremacy, o f So lomon ' s G o d .

Pseudo-Hecataeus, whose status as a Jewish author is n o w more

firmly established by Bezalel Bar-Kochva 's recent monograph , pre

sents yet another variation o f this same p h e n o m e n o n . 1 9 Bar -Kochva

has made a convincing case for reading Pseudo-Hecataeus as a Jewish

writing strongly influenced by the Greek tradition o f ethnography.

Even though only brief excerpts o f his work On the Jews survive, they

deal with topics that roughly correspond to major sub-sections o f

Hellenistic ethnographic works: origo-archaeologia, geography, customs,

and history o f rulers. 2 0 I f Pseudo-Hecataeus' work does be long to the

genre o f Hellenistic ethnography, this would suggest that his m o d

els included not only his namesake Hecataeus o f Abdera but also

his closer contemporaries Megasthenes and Agatharcides o f Cnidus.

Pseudo-Hecataeus ' engagement with Hellenistic culture presents

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

1 9 See note 3 above; also R. Doran, "Pseudo-Hecataeus," in Charlesworth, OTP 2.905-19; HoUaday, FHJA 1.277-335.

2 0 Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 217.


relations be tween the Jews and Hellenistic rulers, most notably

Alexander the Great and Ptolemy I Soter. T h e latter is presented

as the embodiment o f humane generosity w h o extended very favor

able terms to Jews w h o wished to migrate from Syria to Egypt after

the battle o f Gaza in 312 B.C.E . T o illustrate Jewish tenacity in

observing their ancestral laws under duress, Pseudo-Hecataeus cites

an instance when Jewish soldiers refused to participate in the restora

tion o f a Babylonian temple o f Bel that had been ordered by Alexander

the Great . 2 1 Undeterred by the threat o f heavy fines and severe pun

ishment, they stood fast until Alexander exempted them from the

task and pardoned them for their insubordination! Pseudo-Hecataeus

also heralds the role o f Jews in the military campaigns o f Alexander

and his successors, citing the famous incident o f Mosol lamus, the

Jewish soldier, w h o with his sharp-shooting archery skills single-hand

edly exposed the unreliability o f pagan divination. 2 2 Ye t another

episode connecting Jewish history directly to Alexander the Great is

reported by Pseudo-Hecataeus. H e says that Alexander the Great

added the district o f Samaria to the Jews ' territory as a reward for

"the consideration and loyalty shown to him by the Jews ." 2 3

Pseudo-Hecataeus' ethnographic interests doubtless led in many

different directions, but these few instances are enough to show a

rather consistent effort o n his part to connect Jewish history directly

with that o f Alexander the Great and his immediate successors. T h e

legendary nature o f these episodes notwithstanding, they are impor

tant indicators o f the normative status o f Hellenistic tradition and

culture. Alexander the Great and his Ptolemaic successor Ptolemy I

Soter are personalities o f sufficient stature and unquestioned impor

tance in the Hellenistic wor ld that they define the way Pseudo-

Hecataeus constructs his ethnographic history o f the Jewish people .

Like other nations, they too can trace their roots—and their rights—

to the founder o f Hellenistic culture himself. T h e y are fully legitimate

participants in the Hellenistic world. Their migration from Syria to

Egypt was voluntary. T h e y came at the invitation o f Ptolemy I Soter,

and their status there was entirely legitimate, both from the Hellenistic

side and the Jewish side. After all, it was a Jewish high priest,

2 1 See Frg. 1.192 in Holladay, FHJA 1.308-9. 2 2 Frg. 1.201-204 (Holladay, FHJA 1.312-15). 2 3 Frg. 2.43 in Holladay, FHJA 1.316-17.


Ezechias, a man o f impeccable credentials, w h o led the migration.

O n e o f the things that gives their history special credibility is the

way it can be linked with Alexander himself. Their civic rights are

traceable to him. Jewish soldiers served with distinction during his,

and his successors', military campaigns. Through it all, however, they

remained faithful to their ancestral traditions and did so in ways that

were known to Alexander himself. W h e n they refused to participate

in his order to restore a Babylonian temple o f Bel, he relented,

exempting them from the order and even pardoning their insubor

dination. H e rewarded their steadfast loyalty by giving them the dis

trict o f Samaria and did so tribute-free.

Pseudo-Hecataeus' primary world o f residence is Jewish. O n e o f

the key figures in his work is the Jewish high priest Ezechias. T h e

city o f Jerusalem, its surrounding regions, the temple and its sup

porting buildings all remain o f focal interest to Pseudo-Hecataeus.

Heroic features o f Jewish life are important to him, even as he stresses

their religious fidelity. Yet through it all there runs a Hellenistic

thread. For all o f his immersion in Jewish life and tradition, it is

also crucial for him to demonstrate continuity with Hellenistic tra

dition. In another fundamental sense, Hellenistic values related to

political realities and cultural heroes were vitally important to Pseudo-

Hecataeus.

T h e same can be said for Aristobulus. 2 4 Whether we think o f h im

primarily as a philosopher or as a biblical commentator , we cannot

ignore the extent o f his indebtedness to Hellenistic culture. O n e o f

the things that distinguishes him from the rest o f these authors is

his use o f allegorical methods o f interpretation. There are many clear

resonances between his use o f allegory and that o f Stoic interpreters

o f H o m e r , both his contemporaries and his predecessors. 2 5 Certain

features o f his allegorical interpretation remain unclear, but there is

strong scholarly support for seeing Stoic influence on Aristobulus at

this point. In the tradition Aristobulus is designated Peripatetic, even

though distinctive Aristotelian characteristics are hard to detect. C o n

ceivably, this designation may be traceable to strong conceptual links

between certain portions o f Aristobulus and Pseudo-Aristotle's De

2 4 See A.Y. Collins, "Aristobulus," in Charlesworth, OTP 2.831-42; Holladay, FHJA 3.

2 5 See Holladay, FHJA 3.73.


mundo.26 O n e scholar has even suggested that Aristobulus himself

authored this otherwise unidentified text that probably dates to the

first century B . C . E . 2 7 and that eventually came to be included in the

Aristotelian corpus.

Apart from Aristobulus' exegetical method and its indebtedness to

Hellenism, we can also mention his literary horizons as well. H e too

knows the importance o f quoting well-known Greek figures and texts.

H e is the earliest witness w h o quotes the Orphic p o e m we n o w des

ignate as Pseudo-Orpheus, although exactly which version he quotes

remains disputed. He is well enough acquainted with Aratus' Phamomena and the fame it enjoys in the Hellenistic world to quote several lines

from its opening section. 2 8 T o show the importance o f Sabbath obser

vance and to demonstrate its respectability he quotes several Greek

authors, including H o m e r , Linus, and Aeschylus, to name only a

few. S o m e o f the lines are authentic but heavily redacted; others are

pseudepigraphic creations. Yet Aristobulus knows the weight these

names carry in the popular consciousness and the corresponding

importance that attaches to Jewish history and tradition if plausible

connections between these celebrated Greek figures and Judaism can

be shown. In fact, he exhibits an enviable degree o f confidence in

being willing to assert that Pythagoras and Plato actually got their

wisdom from reading the Greek Scriptures. Even so, he knows which

figures matter in this ancient version o f culture wars.

This rehearsal is selective, and closer analysis o f many o f these

texts would reveal even deeper connections with Hellenistic traditions.

T h e y all write in Greek, some more easily and more fluently than

others, but Greek is their tongue, maybe even their native tongue.

With few exceptions, their Bible is the Septuagint. This means that

they are already experiencing the biblical story one step removed

from the Hebrew, and, as we all know, it is a very different story in

many fundamental respects. After all, only the Septuagint version o f

the ages o f the patriarchs makes Demetrius ' chronological calcula

tions even begin to sound credible within a Hellenistic environment

that counted national histories by millennia.

2 6 As suggested by H. Attridge in the Hellenistic Judaism Group at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Francisco, November 22, 1997.

2 7 See Holladay, FHJA 3.93-94 n. 155. 2 8 Frg. 4.6 (Holladay, FHJA 3.170-73).


W h a t strikes us about these authors, then, is h o w thoroughly they

are engaging Hellenistic culture. Somewhere , probably in grammar

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

and Aeschylus, and they are n o w using them as models for their own

creative literary work . 2 9 There are strong indications that they feel the

pressure—and attraction—of Greek intellectual life. T h e likes o f Heca-

taeus, Eratosthenes, Megasthenes, and Agatharcides o f Cnidus are

setting expectations for them, and they are responding in turn. Various

streams o f philosophical traditions are informing them, including

Neo-Pythagoreanism, various forms o f Platonism, Peripateticism, and

Stoicism, and they are being directly influenced by these traditions.

What , then, do we see as we look more closely at these texts?

T h e y are buying heavily into Hellenism, but are they buying whole

heartedly? Or , are they buying uncritically? And , when they buy,

d o they know what they are purchasing? A n d at what price?

F rom these texts I have selected some specific cases that may serve

as useful gauges for getting at these questions. I have attempted to

locate some specific "translation moments" where we can see these

authors struggling with certain aspects o f their Jewish heritage, try

ing to make sense o f it for themselves and presumably for others as

they render it into an identifiably Hellenistic form.

Pseudo-Orpheus: God and Evil

" A n d from g o o d does [ G o d ] give mortals evil—both chilling war

and tearful sufferings." 3 0 So wrote an unknown Alexandrian poet ,

perhaps as early as the third century B .C .E . 3 1 T h e purported speaker

is Orpheus, the renowned mythical singer o f Greece , w h o in this

p o e m speaks o f a transcendent, invisible G o d w h o eludes human

knowledge. H e also speaks o f him as " o n e " and "self-generated," to

w h o m the existence o f all things is traceable. T h e clear object o f

2 9 On the place of 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), 39-52 .

3 0 These are verses 14 and 16 of Pseudo-Orpheus. See Holladay, FHJA 4.152-53 and annotations on this verse, as well as the comments on this verse in subsequent recensions.

3 1 This assumes that Recension A is a pagan composition and not a Jewish pseudepigraph. See Holladay, FHJA 4.67.


such praise is none other than Zeus, "master o f the universe," w h o

presides over the cosmos from his heavenly throne.

At some point, this p o e m fell into the hands o f a Jewish reader,

most likely in Alexandria, w h o found it irresistible. T h e notion o f

one G o d w h o was responsible for creating the universe and w h o

presided in heavenly domin ion over the cosmos so resonated with

the biblical tradition that the p o e m had to be appropriated for Jewish

use and edification. A t least two stages o f redaction are c lear—one

portraying "a unique figure . . . an offshoot o f the Chaldean race" as

the sole recipient o f this divine revelation, another portraying "one

born in the undergrowth" as having received this knowledge from

G o d o n a "two-tablet l a w . " 3 2 In this way, A b r a h a m and Moses

b e c o m e purveyors o f this unique revelation.

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

tradition. For one thing, the figure so described was explicitly named

Zeus (v. 24); for another, he was said to be responsible, in some

way, for inflicting evil upon mortals ( w . 14 & 16).

Fortunately, we are able to trace the recensional history o f this

p o e m with some degree o f confidence, and we are able to see h o w

each o f these assertions was treated b y subsequent Jewish (and

Christian) redactors. T h e line referring to Zeus is simply omitted by

the two redactors o f the "Abrahamic" and " M o s a i c " versions o f the

p o e m . Simple enough. T h e claim about G o d ' s role in inflicting evil

upon humankind has a more fascinating history. It is retained by

the first Jewish redactor with only slight modification. T h e second

Jewish redactor, however, finds it so problematic that he turns the

line into an unqualified denial: " A n d he himself out o f g o o d things

does not enjoin evil on mortal men; but grace and hatred a c c o m

pany him." Similar revisionism is seen in the textual tradition o f the

first recension. 3 3

W h y would the first Jewish reader find the assertion unproblematic

and the second one feel compel led to resort to such drastic revision?

T h e first Jewish redactor may have found nothing troubling about

3 2 Recension B is usually referred to as the "Abrahamic" recension, Recension C as the "Mosaic" recension. Jewish authorship of both recensions is certain. On the recensional history o f the poem and the authors of its compositional stages, see Holladay, FHJA 4 .48-64.

3 3 See the table of textual variants in Holladay, FHJA 4.251, and the discussion o f v. 14 on pp. 162-65. The following discussion draws on the information in the annotations in this section.


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

G o d as the source o f both g o o d and evil. In fact, Clement cites Deut

32:39 where G o d says, "I kill and I make alive; I w o u n d and I heal;

and no one can deliver from m y hand" to show h o w these verses are

resonant with the biblical tradition. Other passages from the Bible

could be cited as wel l . 3 4

At this point, the biblical tradition resonates with the Homer i c

tradition where G o d is understood as the one w h o afflicts humankind

with ills 3 5 or as the giver o f both g o o d and evil . 3 6 T h e Homer i c view

is captured especially well in the moral allegory where Zeus is por

trayed as having two jars, one from which he dispenses ills, the other

blessings; 3 7 or, according to one tradition, three jars, two filled with

evil gifts, the other with blessings. 3 8 T h e H o m e r i c viewpoint is also

well represented a m o n g other poets, including Theogn i s , 3 9 Mimner -

mus, 4 0 Pindar, 4 1 Aeschylus, 4 2 and Menander . 4 3 In Hesiod, even though

the gods are "givers o f g o o d things," 4 4 both g o o d and evil are under

their aegis. 4 5 T h e y can afflict humans with various ills, e.g., pover ty , 4 6

especially as retribution o f wrongdoing . 4 7

As we can see, the first Jewish redactor had both the Bible and a

well-established Greek tradition traceable to H o m e r on his side and

thus saw no need to alter the verse. T h e second Jewish redactor, in

spite o f the strength o f these two traditions, may have been more

heavily influenced by another, equally strong tradition traceable to

Plato. T h e H o m e r i c view is sharply criticized by Plato 4 8 w h o insists

3 4 Isa 45:7; Amos 3:6b; Job 2:10; 5:17-18; 9:17; 10:8; 12:13-25; 13:26; cf. Exod 4:11.

35 II. 15.109; Od. 20.199-203; cf. II. 2.419-20; h.Cer. 147, 216. 36 Od. 4.236-37; 8.62-63; 15.488-89; cf. // . 16.250-52. 37 II. 24.525-33. 3 8 The allegory o f the jars of Zeus is variously appropriated, e.g., Plutarch Mor.

24B, 105C, 600D. The theme recurs in Hesiod Op. 90-104. 3 9 Esp. 133; also 155-58, 171-72, 230-32, 463-64, 591-92; cf. 165-66. 4 0 Frg. 2.15. 41 Isthm. 5.52. 4 2 Niobe Frg. 154a. 15; TrGF 2.488; 2.489. 4 3 Epitr. 1085-86. 4 4 Theog. 633, 664. 4 5 Op. 667-69; Th. 218-20, 900, 905. 46 Op. 638, 717-18. 47 Op. 213-47. 4 8 Resp. 379A-E.


that G o d , being only g o o d , cannot be the source o f evil: " . . . for

the g o o d we must assume no other cause than G o d , but the cause

o f evil we must look for in other things and not in G o d . " 4 9 Citing

Homer ' s use o f the allegory o f the jars o f Zeus as erroneous poetic

folly, Plato rejects the saying (not found in Homer ) that "Zeus is dis

penser alike o f g o o d and o f evil to mortals." 5 0 T h e sentiments o f the

second Jewish redactor are also reflected in other Hellenistic Jewish

texts, e.g., Ep. Arist. 2 0 5 , 5 1 which echoes the Platonic critique o f the

Homer i c view, but especially in Philo w h o consistently distances G o d

from evil in any fo rm. 5 2

T h e p r o b l e m generated some ambivalence a m o n g the Stoics.

Chrysippus is said to have sided with Hesiod's judgment that Zeus

sends calamities upon mortals, 5 3 though insisting that the gods use

such events to punish the wicked, thereby providing a lesson for

everybody else. 5 4

Here is a case, then, where a clearly documented biblical sentiment

about G o d ' s role in relation to evil is taken in opposite directions

by two Greek-speaking Jews probably operating in roughly the same

setting. Wha t makes this case especially interesting is that the bibli

cal sentiment resonates with one stream o f Greek tradition yet stands

in tension with another, equally reputable stream o f Greek tradition.

W e find different versions o f the p o e m responding to each.

This illustrates particularly well the complexities and ambiguities

that were involved in rendering the biblical tradition into plausible

Greek forms. It serves as a salutary reminder that the Hellenistic

tradition itself was far from static and that hellenizing the biblical

tradition could result in two diametrically opposed theological view

points.

49 Resp. 379C. 50 Resp. 379E; cf. Tim. 29E-30A; Pseudo-Plato Epin. 978A. 5 1 Cf. Ep. Arist. 231. 52 Qu. Gen. 1.100; Sacr. 17 §63; Det. 32 §122; Post. C. 23 §80; Conf. 31 §161, 35-36

§179-81; 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.

53 Op. 242-43. 5 4 Plutarch Moral. 1040B-C; cf. Moral. 1048E-F; 1049A-B; 1049D-E; 1050C-D.


Aristobulus: The Sabbath and God's Resting

There is some indication that Greek-speaking Jews experienced spe

cial difficulty when they sought to explain Sabbath observance and

the related notion o f G o d ' s resting on the Sabbath. F rom our b o d y

o f material, this is especially evident in Aristobulus, Frg. 5, a frag

ment devoted exclusively to this question. T h e fragment is too long

to quote in full, so we give only the first part:

Following on this is the fact that God, who made and furnished the whole universe, also gave us a day of rest—because of the toilsome life everyone has—the seventh day, but which, in a deeper sense, might also be called first, that is, the beginning of light through which all things are seen together. And the same thing could be applied metaphorically to wisdom as well, for all light issues from it. And some members of 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 of our ancestors, said more clearly and more eloquently that it was there before heaven and earth. And this is actually in harmony with what was said above. Now, as for what is shown plainly in our code of laws, namely, that God "ceased" working on the seventh day, this does not, as some suppose, substantiate the view that God no longer does anything, but rather means that once he had "ceased" the arrangement of 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 precedes 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 of the sevenfold principle established all around us through which we have knowledge of things both human and divine. And indeed all the world comprising all animal and plant life as well revolves through periods of 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.)5 5

M u c h in this remarkable passage remains unclear. But one thing is

quite clear: Aristobulus' need to demonstrate the philosophical respect

ability o f Sabbath observance and to explain the biblical claim that

G o d "rested."

This is my translation from FHJA 3.177-89.


Walter may be right in suggesting that Frg. 5 is a form o f c o m

mentary o n G e n 2 : 2 - 3 , 3 6 although it is worth noting that the only

explicit biblical reference made throughout the discussion is E x o d

20 :11 . M o r e o v e r , in G e n 2 :2 -3 the operative term is Kata^atico whereas the term Aristobulus introduces as needing some explana

tion is d7t07cauco. Later w h e n he explains the significance o f the

Sabbath, he uses dvd7r.oa)oi<;, which does not occur in L X X Genesis

in connection with the Sabbath, whereas it is the usual term employed

in Exodus . 5 7 However , as he proceeds with his explanation he uses

Katomauco and this may be enough to link his exposition with the

Genesis text.

Assuming that Walter is correct and that G e n 2 :2-3 prompts

Aristobulus' remarks in Frg. 5, what is worth noting for our pur

poses is his disclaimer, "this does not, as some suppose, substantiate

the view that G o d no longer does anything." W h o does Aristobulus

have in mind when he alludes to those w h o will misconstrue God ' s

"rest" to mean that after creating the world G o d ceased to be active?

Cou ld it be a reference to the pagan caricature o f the Jewish G o d

as lazy, as reflected in the tradition later cited by Celsus that after

creating the world, G o d needed a holiday because he was tired? 5 8

Or , are the "some w h o suppose" this questioners in some academic

setting where philosophical topics are being discussed?

T o be sure, there was n o single Hellenistic concept ion o f G o d

with which the notion o f a "resting G o d " might have conflicted. O n

the contrary, it resonated quite well with certain Greek conceptions

o f G o d . In some respects, it might recall images o f inactivity or pas

sivity associated with Aristotle's U n m o v e d Move r , although belief in

creation and providential care o f the world certainly separate the

biblical G o d from Aristode's G o d . 5 9 Plato was another matter, however,

5 6 N. Walter, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos (Berlin, 1964), 30-31 . 5 7 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 god fatigued" (Stern, GLAJJ, 2.663-64, notes on § 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.

5 9 See D . Ross, Aristotle (6th ed.; London, 1995), 184-91.


especially since the Timaeus offered a c o s m o g o n y that presented some

striking parallels to the Genesis creation story. Whi le the degree to

which Aristobulus reflects awareness o f Plato's Timaeus is a matter

o f some debate, this may be an instance where he does so . 6 0 Specifically,

Tim. 42e5~6 describes the Demiurge as having "made all these ordi

nances" after which he "remained in his own accustomed nature"

(Kai 6 Liev Sf| oatavxa xauxa 8iaxdc;a<; euevev ev xco eauxou Kaxd xporcov

TiGei).61 Wha t Plato means is far from clear. Gornford, contrasting

this passage with Gen 2:2, denies that "remained" (eiievev) here means

"rest or cessation o f activity." Instead, "the meaning seems to be

that the Demiurge left these further operations to the created gods,

confining himself to his own proper activity." 6 2 In response to Cornford,

Runia rightly observes that "though [eu£vev] does not indicate a total

cessation o f activity, it does imply a retirement on the part o f the

demiurge from the tasks on which he has been engaged, and this

fits perfectly into the Timaeus'' mythical f ramework." 6 3 It does not

seem inconceivable, then, that Aristobulus knows this passage from

the Timaeus, or at least knows discussions that might imply that the

Demiurge , after having finished the first stage o f creation, lapsed

into some form o f inactivity.

Aristobulus's response is brief, although it should be noted that a

longer version o f his explanation appears to be preserved in Clement

Stromateis (Frg. 5 b ) . 6 4 Accord ing to the shorter version, " O n c e [ G o d ]

had 'ceased' the arrangement o f his works, they were arranged for

all t ime." T h e longer version gives a slightly different twist: " [ G o d ' s ]

having 'ceased' [means] that he had arranged to preserve intact for

all time the original arrangement o f the created order, and that each

o f the things created had 'ceased' being part o f the primordial chaos."

H e further explains, with specific reference to E x o d 20:11, that G o d

wanted to "show the times and proclaim the order by which one

thing precedes the other. For, once he arranged all things, he thus

holds them together and presides over their movements . " 6 5 Here, as

6 0 See D.T . Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Amsterdam, 1983), 1.78.

6 1 Jowett's trans, in E. Hamilton and H. Cairns, The Collected Dialogues of Plato (Bollingen Series 71; Princeton, NJ, 1969), 1171.

6 2 F.M. Cornford, Plato's Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato Translated with a Running Commentary (London, 1937), 147.

6 3 Runia, Philo . . . Timaeus, 1.219. 6 4 See FHJA 3.182-83. 6 5 Strictly speaking, Lxexanoieto should be rendered "alter" or "remodel." For this


elsewhere, Aristobulus anticipates the m u c h fuller discussion that

occurs in Philo Leg. all. 1.5-7. Like Aristobulus, Philo knows the pos

sible ways G o d ' s "resting" can be misconstrued, although he does

not mention specific proponents o f such views. Philo's explanation

is given with specific reference to G e n 2 :2-3 , and he draws on a

philological distinction. T h e term KaxccTtauco, Philo insists, was a felic

itous choice by Moses , because it carried a causal sense: "to cause to

rest," that is, "to bring to a rest, to bring to a conclusion." That he

did not employ the term 7cocuco in its middle form, eTtcxuacxxo, is a

significant distinction for Philo, for that would have implied that G o d

himself actually "rested" or ceased being active. This is an impossi

bility for Philo w h o thinks that G o d ' s creative activity is not tem

poral but eternal. 6 6

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 indicates, G o d can be understood as continuing to be active after the initial creation, with ongoing responsibility for the movements of the various parts of the cosmos. See FHJA 3.229 n. 139.

6 6 The 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 ulv yap Tai<; fi(xeTepai<; T£%vai<; SnuiotipyeiTat, TeA,eico0evTa ioTaTai Kai itevei, baa 8e e%iaxr\\ir) Geoxi, nepaTtoGevTa naXiv Kiveixai-Ta yap xiXr\ avx&v kxepwv eiaiv dp%at, olov f||iipa<; xeXoq VVKXOC, dp%f|, Kai (ifjva 8e K a i ev iawov evicTaiaivovq rcepaTa 8r|7ioD TCOV EÎIKOVTCOV {)7roA,ri7iTeov • yeveaic; TE a t ) (pGeipoixevcov exepcov Kai ipGopd yevvcoLievcov aA,A,cov a7C0TeA,eiTai, COOTE aXrfikq eivai TO Xeyb\ievov o n

GvfiaKei 8' o\)88v TCOV yvyvouevtov, SiaKpivoêvov 8' aXXo npbq aXXo uopcpryv kxepav anedeifyv.

M y modified translation of Colson and Whitaker (LCL) is as follows: "First, then, on the seventh day, having concluded the formation of mortal things, he begins the configuration of other things more divine. For G o d never rests from creating, but just as it is characteristic of fire to burn and o f snow to melt, so also is it characteristic of G o d to create; and even much more so, since he is the source of 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 rjpâTo). For whereas things that are produced by our (own) skills, once finished, stand still and remain as they are, things produced by God's skill, once completed, begin to move again; for their endings are the beginnings of other things, just as the end of day is the beginning o f night, and the openings of a month and of a year must naturally be regarded as limits that


Theodotus: Circumcision and Endogamy

Another interesting case (or set o f cases) is supplied by Theodotus w h o renders G e n 34 into the form o f epic poetry. T h e Bible supplies the basic story line, but Theodotus exercises considerable freed o m as he re-casts the biblical story into poetic 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, And yield another shape.'

Also, see D . Winston's translation in Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, the Giants, and Selections [The Classics of Western Spirituality; New York, 1981], 107.)

Elsewhere, Philo is similarly insistent on God's continuing activity, esp. Cher. 87-90. Discussing the perfect nature of God, Philo introduces Moses' references to the Sabbath, noting that it means "rest." Then emphasizing that it signifies not human rest, but God's rest, Philo sees an important principle: "For in all truth there is but one thing in the universe which rests, that is God. But Moses does not give the name of rest to mere inactivity. The 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 of the universe—sun, moon, etc., that continually move, but insists that they do so because they get fatigued. God, by contrast, does not experience fatigue. "Since then weariness is the natural cause of change in things that turn and vary, and since G o d turns not and changes not, He must be by nature unwearying. But a being that is free from weakness, even though he is making 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 Him alone." (trans. Colson & Whitaker, [LCL]).

Naturally, Sabbath observance occupies Philo in a number of places. At times, he stresses the importance of human inactivity (Migr. Abr. 16 § 91; Her. 35 § 170; Fuga 31 § 173). At other times, the sanctity of the number seven is his primary focus [Opif. 43 § 128; Qu. Gen. 2.41). That he is perfectly capable of discussing Gen 2:2-3 without feeling the need to explain God's "resting" is seen in Decal. 20 § 96-101, 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. He mentions 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 of "rest." Instead, he takes the cycle of God's "working and resting" as a paradigm that embodies the two complementary sides of life, the practical and the contemplative, and proposes this divine paradigm as worthy of human emulation. Similarly, in Post. 18 § 63-65 , discussing the paradox of the younger Israel taking precedence over the "firstborn," he cites Gen 2:2~3, followed by Gen 2:4. He takes the latter to refer to the first day of creation, thus illustrating how seven, while following six, can actually occupy the primal position: "in value [it] takes precedence of every number, in nothing differing from one."

On the Sabbath as the birthday of the world, see Mos. 1.206-7; also Spec. leg. 2.59.


In Frg 4, we have Polyhistor's introductory paraphrase which

reports that H a m o r received J a c o b hospitably, even "giving him a

portion o f land." 6 7 H e also supplies some other non-biblical details:

Dinah and Jacob ' s wives were wool-workers; Dinah went to the city

o f Shechem at the time o f a "great festival" because she wanted to

see the city.

T h e n we have Theodotus ' summary (or is it Polyhistor?):

Eu^eM- 8e T O V TOV 'Eituxop vibv i86vxa EpaaGiyvai auxfjc; Kai dprcdaavxa cbc; emnov StaKouiaat Kai cpGeipai aurfyv. avQiq 8E ovv xtp rcaxpi eXBovxa npbq xov 'IaKcbp dixetv avxriv 7tp6<; yduoi) Koivcoviav.

When Shechem, the son of Hamor, saw her, he loved her; and, seizing her as his own, he carried her away and raped her. And afterwards, when he came with his father to Jacob, he sought her as a partner for marriage.6 8

T h e L X X version (Rahlfs) o f G e n 34:2~4 on which Theodotus ' sum

mary is based is as follows:

Kai ei8ev auxriv IA>X£LI 6 vibq Euuxop 6 Xoppaioc; 6 ctpxcov xr\q yr\q Kai

taxpcbv otuxryv £Koiur|0r| iiex' ax)xf|<; Kai ExarcEivcoaEV ax>xr\v. Kai npoaeaxev xi] \|/t>xfi Aiva^ xr\q Qvyaxpbq IaKcoP Kai fiydnrioev xr\v 7iap0£vov Kai eA,dA,r|-O E V Kaxa xf|v 8 idvoiav xf|<; nap%vov ax>xf\. einev 8E 2/u%£|i, npbq Eiiixcop xov 7tax£pa avxov Xeycov Aafie (xoi xriv 7iai8(aKr|v xavxriv EI<; yt>vaiKa.

And Shechem, the son of Hamor the Ghorraios (Hivite), the ruler of the land, saw her, and taking her, he lay with her and humiliated her. And he devoted himself to the soul of Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke to her in a manner befitting the girl's desire (NRSV: spoke tenderly to her; lit., according to the desire of 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 imaem of Plato (Amsterdam, 1983), 1.219-20. In particular, he notes (correctly, I think) Mut. 46 as a clear case of influence from the Timaeus: "The last three words [of the quotation] disclose the discreet presence of Plato's words in the background. A proper understanding of the creational account leads to the conclusion that in Moses' view there can be no talk of a demiurgic retirement in the manner suggested by Plato (even if it should be mythically intended). God's self-sufficient transcendence entails that his creatorship does not pose a threat to his immutability" (220).

On Philo's view of creation as eternal rather than temporal, see Winston, Philo, 13-21.

6 7 In Gen 33:19, Jacob bought the plot of land from the sons o f Hamor for 100 pieces of money.

6 8 FHJA 2 .114-17.


Theodotus ' paraphrase loses some o f the nuance o f the L X X and is in certain respects a harsher depiction o f Shechem's actions. Like the L X X , Theodotus reports the initial incident for what it was: the rape o f a young girl, but the Bible's report o f Shechem's subsequent amorous overtures is omitted by Theodotus . Instead, according to Theodotus , Shechem raped her, then immediately asked his father to get her as his wife.

Especially worth noting, for our purposes, is h o w Theodotus achieves this shift o f portrayal. While his summary captures the essence o f the biblical narrative, it departs rather conspicuously from the form. T h e L X X reports that Shechem "saw her . . . took her, lay with her, and violated her" (ei5ev ocoxfiv . . . ?uxP©v auxnv . . . £Koi|ir|6r| jxet amriq . . . exaneivoaaev ax>xr\v). Typical o f the Septuagint, the language is straightforward. 6 9

Theodotus uses iSovm for L X X ei5ev, but for the other verbs substitutes language with a distinctively epic, especially H o m e r i c , flavor. His expression " loved her" (epocaGfivai a\)tfj<;) echoes Homer ' s use o f epa|iai, where it is always used o f sexual passion. 7 0 "Seizing her as his o w n " ( a p T t d a a v x a ax; eaviov) also echoes H o m e r , where ap7ta£co is used o f sexual seizure. 7 1 "Carried her away" (8iaKO(i(aai) is not as obviously Homer ic , although KO|O,I^CO occurs 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 Homer ic , although the term is used in the sense "seduce" in D i o Chrysostom and Lysias.

As already noted, since this is a summary o f Theodotus rather than a quotation from actual lines o f his poetry, we d o not know whether the language is his or Polyhistor's. In either case, what is clear is h o w thoroughly the language o f the L X X has been recast.

In Frg. 5, Theodotus gives a poetic version o f G o d ' s covenant with Abraham in G e n 17 :9 -14 . It occurs within the context o f his depiction o f the rape o f Dinah where circumcision plays an important role both in the Bible and in Theodotus ' account. In fact, in the previous fragment, J a c o b has just spoken about the importance

6 9 Examples of KOIU&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 Kg (= 2 Sam) 13:12,14; Ezek 22:10-11; possibly Gen 31:50.

7 0 //. 3.446; cf. 20.223; also //. 16.182, 208. 7 1 //. 3.444. 72 II. 2.875; 11.738.


o f endogamy. In Frg. 5, J a c o b appears to be speaking, and the topic is circumcision (nepixo^ir\q). H e speaks four lines o f hexameter verse:

"Oq nox\ inei 7tdTpr|<; e^riyaye 8iov 'APpad|i, avxbq an' oi)pav60£v KcxA,£a' dvEpa jravxi cruv OIKCO

adpK' cx7ioa\)A.fiaai 7t6a0ri<; ano, Kcd p ixekeccev acx£\i(f£.q 8E TETUKTCU, enei Qebq avxbq 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 God himself uttered it.

Here again, the Bible provides the springboard, but little more . There is hardly any sense in which G e n 17 :9 -14 is being paraphrased in these verses. Rather, Theodotus is taking a biblical episode and recasting it poetically. As before, his acquaintance with the Greek epic tradition is clear. The phrase "he led the noble Abraham out" (e^yaye Siov 'Appadji) is virtually identical to Od. 8.494 fjyaye Sioq 'Oouaaeuc,, al though "nob le Odysseus" functions as the subject, whereas in Theodotus "noble Abraham" is the object o f the verb. Portraying Abraham this way is an obvious departure from the L X X , since the term oioc, does not occur in the L X X . It is, however, frequently used as an honorific epithet by epic poets, especially H o m e r , but also b y Callimachus and Apollonius o f Rhodes , and when referring to mortals it usually means "nob le" or "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 , Apollonius o f Rhodes , and Callimachus, but occurs only once in the L X X . 7 4

W h e n it comes to depicting the act o f circumcision in a hexameter line, Theodotus faces a greater challenge. T h e wording o f L X X Gen 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 produces, however, is not a bad rendering: odpK' a7toouA,fiaai rcoaGnc, d7co. H e is able to retain adpK' from the L X X , but uses his ingenuity in coming up with d7uocn)A,fjcjai, "to strip away." T h e term is used in Pindar for plundering spoils o f war , 7 5 but, as one would expect, has no clear

73 II 8.365; 21.199; Od. 11.18; 12.381; note esp. Zzbq o<>pav60£v //. 17.548. 7 4 4 Mace 4:10. 75 P. 4.110.


counterpart in the epic poets for describing surgical action on the male genitalia. N o r does it occur in the L X X . Similarly, the term for foreskin (rcooGri) has no counterpart in the L X X , nor in H o m e r for that matter, although it does occu r e lsewhere 7 6 Here , again, Theodotus is operating with his own ingenuity.

T h e term for "accomplished" (exiXeooev), the epic aorist o f xeAia), also occurs in H o m e r , Apollonius o f Rhodes , and Gallimachus. T h e term for the permanence o f the covenant o f circumcision (aox£|j.(pr|c;), is also attested in H o m e r , Apollonius, Theocritus, and Nonnus, but does not occur in the L X X . Similarly, the w o r d for "uttered" (eeucev), is the epic and lyric form o f eircev and occurs frequently in H o m e r .

As we have seen, then, Theodotus ' depiction o f the covenant o f circumcision that G o d made with Abraham offers yet another example o f h o w the biblical narrative is re-cast into Greek id iom. It is based on G e n 17 :9 -14 , but the biblical text serves little more than a springboard. In only the remotest sense does Theodotus 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 does so in ways that clearly echo the Greek epic tradition. Since some o f the phrasing had already worked well in hexameter verse previously, T h e o d o t o u s appropriates it virtually unchanged. Here Theodo tus shows that he is not only familiar with epic conventions for depicting heroic figures, but that he also can use them adroitly.

Theodotus thus succeeds quite nicely in conveying the gist o f the biblical account; in fact, he does more . H e accents important features emphasized in the biblical account, either in G e n 17 or elsewhere: the divine origin o f the commandmen t to circumcise and its consequent permanence. T h e biblical content is there, but the literary form is conspicuously Greek. T h e language appears to be chosen with care, and whether Theodotus intended his readers to hear echoes o f H o m e r , Apollonius, and Callimachus or whether these authors merely supply him the language and phraseology, the effect is the same: the biblical story is not merely accommodat ing to the Greek tradition, it is n o w conveying it.

T h e more we read these Greek-speaking Jewish authors, the more we are struck with the freedom they seem to have exercised in recasting the biblical story. This may strike us as b o l d literary license

Dioscorides (Medicus) 4.153; Rufus Onom. 102; Oribasius Fr.


because we assume that something like our L X X existed as a fixed text which these authors read and then chose to embellish to one degree or another. Was this necessarily the case? Perhaps we should assume a m u c h more fluid textual tradition o f the L X X than is sometimes the case when we work with these texts.

Even if we assume a fairly fixed form o f the Greek Bible, especially the Pentateuch, h o w should we construe these various forms o f rewriting or paraphrasing that we encounter? Contemporary practice a m o n g the Hellenistic poets themselves may provide us a clue. Apollonius ' masterpiece the Argonautica offers a useful analogy:

The central poetic technique of Apollonius is the creative reworking of Homer. While the Hellenistic poet takes pains to avoid the repeti-tiveness characteristic of Archaic epic, Homer is the main determinative influence on every aspect of the poem, from the details of language to large-scale narrative patterns, material culture, and technology (e.g. sailing) which is broadly 'Homeric' . 7 7

If Theodotus is operating in the same tradition, we may have a better understanding o f what appears to us as a rather extraordinary degree o f literary license. Taking a classical text and recasting it the way Theodotus does, rather than reflecting poor ly o n the exemplum, may be a way o f honoring it. It may be a way for Greek-speaking Jews to show two things: (a) that they possessed a classic, canonical text, every bit as honorable as H o m e r ; and (b) that they honored it best not simply by transmitting it unchanged but by glossing it, amplifying it, recasting it in language o f the most eminent Greek authors themselves.

O n e o f the most striking instances o f literary recasting occurs in Fragment 8, the final fragment o f Theodotus ' work preserved by Polyhistor. It describes the slaying o f H a m o r and Shechem by Levi and Simeon in which they avenge their sister's defilement. T h e biblical counterpart is G e n 34 :25 -31 . Polyhistor's introductory summary encapsulates G e n 34:25, and the following seven lines o f verse amplify G e n 34:26, which succinctiy describes the killing:

xov xe ELUicop Kai IX>%£|J. xov mov a\>xot> djteKxeivav ev axoucm |j.a%a{pa<; Kai eA,a(3ov xr|v Awav hi xot» OIKOI) xou 5A>X£|J. Kai ec;fjA.0ov.

O C D (3rd ed.), 125.


And they killed Hamor and Shechem his son with the mouth of the sword, and they took Dinah from the house of Shechem and departed.

Theodotus ' rendition o f this episode is not only longer, but also much

more dramatic:

"Q<; TOTE 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 of his collarbone, and the sharp sword

pierced The internal organs through the breastbone and his life left his body

immediately.

In a manner similar to T Levi 6:4, Theodotus depicts two separate

struggles—Simeon against H a m o r and Levi against Shechem. By

separating the two brothers and giving each his own opponent , T h e o

dotus heightens the dramatic effect: two fights are depicted, each

ending in a death. Simeon strikes Hamor ' s head and then appar

ently strangles him, while Levi slays Shechem by driving a sword

through his chest. T h e entire scene is etched with vivid imagery,

drawn almost entirely from the epic tradition. S imeon 's lunging

towards H a m o r is reminiscent o f comba t scenes in H o m e r where

men in battle rush towards each other. 7 8 T h e imagery o f one person

striking another's head and seizing his throat also draws heavily on

language from the epic tradition. 7 9

Levi's "unbounded strength" (uivoc; aaxexoc;) recalls Homer i c lan

guage , 8 0 as does the image o f "loose-flowing hair." 8 1 T h e image o f

7 8 Cf. //. 14.401 (Trojans and Achaeans); also 11.92, 217; 15.726; 16.258. 7 9 Cf. Od. 12.412; also, examples of the head or throat being attacked in con

texts of struggle, cf. //. 3.371; 13.202; 14.412; 18.177; Od. 22.472. 80 Od. 2.85; 3.104; 20.19 (Cyclops); also //. 5.892. 8 1 //. 14.175; 23.141; also 10.15.


Shechem on his knees, clutching at the knees o f Levi, recalls the image o f Lycaon clutching the knees o f Achilles his slayer. 8 2 In fact, pleading for mercy as one clings to the knees o f one's enemies is a recurrent mot i f in H o m e r and Apollonius o f R h o d e s . 8 3 Being struck in the collarbone is also an image from combat scenes in H o m e r . 8 4

T h e sharp sword (£i<poc; 6t]v) is a frequendy mentioned weapon 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 . At virtually every point in this description Theodotus is drawing on a completely different set o f images, most o f them well documented in the Greek epic tradition, most notably in Homer , but also in Apollonius and Callimachus. T h e characters are biblical, but litde else is. T h e texture o f the story is Greek epic. T h e reader (or hearer) sees Simeon choking H a m o r and Shechem on the ground begging for mercy as he clutches the knees o f Levi, but the sounds and images are those o f the Trojan War , the wanderings o f Odysseus, and the Argonauts . W h a t emerges before us in 5a is a literary palimpsest: with Levi, Simeon, Hamor , and Shechem being repainted in Homer i c colors and hues.

T o summarize, Theodotus presents us with yet another anomaly. A t one level, the biblical story is being recast into a Greek mold . T h e content o f the story is biblical, but the form has m o v e d well beyond that o f the Genesis narrative. It is not just a matter o f the Genesis narrative being rendered into hexameter verse. Something else happens. At another level, the Greek story—the Iliad, the Odyssey, Jason and the Argonauts—is being recast as well, and the images from these stories are n o w being incorporated into the biblical story, so that they are effectively being conveyed by the biblical story itself. This may not have been Theodotus ' intention, but it had that effect.

Theodotus also exemplifies another anomaly we often encounter in these texts: an inverse correlation between degree o f Hellenization and a liberal spirit. Quite often, we assume that the greater one's willingness to adopt Hellenistic literary forms and recast the biblical

II. 21.64-135, esp. 21.65. II. 24.357; Od. 22.339, 342-43, 365-66; Apollonius of Rhodes Arg. 4.82, 1013. 77. 5.146, 579; 8.325; 21.117; 22.324. II. 21.116-18; also 16.340.


story into a Hellenistic m o d e , the more liberal one 's theological outlook; or, the more willing one is to blur the boundaries between Judaism and Hellenism, to merge the personalities o f Shem and Japheth.

There could hardly be a better example o f a Jewish writer w h o has mastered Greek literary conventions than Theodotus . By re-casting the story o f the rape o f Dinah as Greek epic, he indicates his willingness to experiment with new literary forms. H e feels no c o m pulsion to stick with narrative as his genre o f choice . N o r does he feel compel led to adhere to biblical imagery. H e feels perfectly free to draw his language from the Greek epic tradition and substitute its words and phrases for those in the biblical text. Nothing is lost, as far as he is concerned, in modifying the biblical story—now embellishing, n o w sharpening it. In a certain sense, the biblical characters take on a Greek identity: Abraham becomes the "noble Abraham," etched in colors reminiscent o f Greek heroes. T h e story o f the conflict between J a c o b and H a m o r resulting from Shechem's rape o f Dinah is told in ways that reactivate images o f the Trojan W a r and Odysseus' wanderings. W e see Simeon and Levi slaying H a m o r and Shechem, but they are faint images o f the biblical characters. T h e y take on the life and movements o f Homer i c characters. In this, and many other ways, the texture of the story becomes Greek. Yet the message it conveys remains staunchly Jewish. Like the biblical account, Theodotus insists o n circumcision as a non-negotiable mark o f ethnic identity. Hamor ' s family will have to be c i rcumcised—no debate. By extension, there can be no intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews. W e see very little, if any, indication o f a liberal spirit in Theodotus . H e knows Shem, and what makes him Shem, and while he has spent a g o o d bit o f time dwelling in the tents o f Japheth, he knows that they are not his real home; or, at least, he keeps his distance under the tents.

Conclusion

W e d o well to remember the obvious: the evidence o f the fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish authors is fragmentary. W e only have pieces from much larger wholes, and even those we have at second or third hand. T h e corrupt state o f the text at many points also requires us to be cautious. Ye t in spite o f the fragmentary, and sometimes corrupt,


state o f the evidence, we are able to identify some o f the contours o f these texts. O n e thing that emerges clearly across the broad spectrum o f these texts is the serious engagement with Hellenism. As we have seen, both the extent and depth o f this engagement are striking. A n d yet the ways they engage Hellenism are far from uniform. This is not simply to say that some engaged Hellenism while others resisted it, or even that a single writing exhibits different levels o f resonance and resistance. Rather, they help us to see some o f the complexities symbolized by the hyphenated expression "Hellenistic-Jewish." T h e y remind us that neither Judaism nor Hellenism was a single, constant phenomenon , but rather that each was a complex set o f beliefs and traditions that could change, depending upon the time and place. For Jews, then, to " b e c o m e Hellenized" did not always have predictable results. In fact, the forms this took could sometimes be polar opposites, even within a single author or within a single text.

It behooves us, then, to press for finer distinctions, even to ask more refined questions. T h e more we understand both sides o f the hyphen—Hellenism and Judaism—the more likely we are to understand the limits and possibilities o f each for accommodat ing 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

D R E S S IN T H E W I S D O M O F S O L O M O N

J O H N J. C O L L I N S

Jewish apocalyptic literature was primarily written in Aramaic and

Hebrew in the land o f Israel, at least in the earliest phase o f its

development . Whi le the b o o k o f Daniel and the various books o f

Enoch were novel in their context, and can be viewed as responses

to the advent o f Hellenism in Israel, they were expressed in tradi

tional Semitic id iom, partly derived from the Bible and partly reach

ing back to mythological themes and motifs that are already attested

in the pre-Israelite cultures o f the second millennium B.C.E. There

were some analogous developments in the Greek-speaking Jewish

Diaspora. T h e Jewish Sibylline Oracles, which first appear in the sec

o n d century B.C.E. , replicate some themes o f the apocalyptic liter

ature, such as the division o f history into periods and the prediction

o f a coming judgment , while expressing them in the id iom o f the

sibyl, the Greek prophetess o f disaster.1 Later, in the per iod after 70

C.E. , the Jewish Sibylline Oracles b e c o m e more markedly apocalyptic,

including predictions o f the destruction o f this world (Book 5) and

the resurrection o f the dead (Book 4). At the same time, we find a

number o f Jewish apocalypses written in Greek, such as 3 Baruch and 2 Enoch.2 These Diaspora apocalypses are typically heavenly

ascents, rather than historical predictions in the manner o f Daniel,

and their focus is on the afterlife o f the individual rather than on

the restoration. But like all apocalypses, their id iom is mythological

and they are works o f imagination rather than o f philosophical rea

soning. In short, apocalyptic literature was not exclusively or pecu

liarly Semitic in its linguistic expression. It remains true, however,

1 J.J. Collins, "The Sibylline Oracles," inJ.H. Charlesworth, ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols; New York, 1983, 1985), 1.317-472.

2 J.J. Collins, "The Genre Apocalypse in Hellenistic Judaism," in D . Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (Tubingen, 1983), 531-48. 2 Enoch is only preserved in Slavonic.

94 JOHN J. COLLINS

that this literature is more typical o f the land o f Israel than o f the

Diaspora in the Hellenistic and R o m a n periods. Conversely, while

the influence o f Greek phi losophy can be found occasional ly in

Heb rew and Aramaic compositions from this time, it is far more

characteristic o f the Jewish literature emanating from Alexandria

around the turn o f the era.

T h e p rob lem that I want to discuss in this essay is not primarily

a matter o f the expression o f apocalyptic ideas in Greek, but the

incorporation o f apocalyptic ideas into a kind o f literature that was

heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. M y example o f this kind o f

literature is provided by the W i s d o m o f So lomon , which I take to

have been written in Alexandria around the middle o f the first cen

tury C .E . 3 T h e b o o k has been described as a logos protreptikos? or

didactic exhortation, or alternatively as an encomium that describes

and c o m m e n d s wisdom. 5 T h e designation encomium is suggested pri

marily by the middle section o f the b o o k (6:22—9:18) which purports

to tell "what wisdom is and h o w she came to b e . " W i s d o m is por

trayed in terms often used for the Stoic Logos , as a spirit that holds

all things together and orders all things well . 6 T h e philosophical con

text o f the book , however, is n o w recognized as Middle Platonism,

which combines elements o f Stoicism with the Platonic idea o f a

transcendent deity. 7 W i s d o m here is not itself the deity, but is "a

breath o f the power o f G o d , and a pure emanation o f the glory o f

the Almighty . . . a reflection o f eternal light, a spotless mirror o f the

working o f G o d " (7:25-26) . W i s d o m mediates between G o d and the

3 See D . Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43; New York, 1979), 20-25 . I demur only at Winston's statement that "the apocalyptic vision in which the author describes the annihilation of the wicked with such ferocious passion (5:16-23) could only be called forth by a desperate historical situation in which the future of the Jewish community of Alexandria (and for a while even that of Palestine) was dangerously threatened . . ."

4 J .M. Reese, Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and its Consequences (Analecta Biblica 41; Rome, 1971), 119-21; Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 18.

5 P. Bizzetti, II Libro delta Sapienza (Brescia, 1984) 157. See the review of Bizzetti by Winston in CBQ 48(1986), 525-7.

6 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), 55-81; H. Engel, " 'Was Weisheit ist und wie sie entstand, will ich verkun-den.' 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), 67-102; C. Larcher, Le Livre de la Sagesse ou la Sagesse de Salomon (Paris, 1984), 479-518.

7 Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 33.

A P O C A L Y P T I C ESCHATOLOGY 95

cosmos and between G o d and humanity: "in every generation she

passes into holy souls and makes them friends o f G o d and prophets"

(7:27). T h e workings o f wisdom in history are expounded in chapters

1 0 - 1 9 , where the success o f the heroes o f biblical history is attrib

uted to the guidance o f wisdom, beginning with A d a m , w h o m she

delivered from his transgression. There is, then, a coherent philoso

phy that is presupposed in this book . It is true that the coherence

is strained by the fact that the righteous are identified with the

Israelites and the wicked with their enemies in the re-telling o f the

story o f the Exodus. But while a stubborn strand o f ethnic particu

larism shines through in this narrative, it is not openly acknowl

edged. There are no explicit references to Israel, only "the righteous,"

"a holy people and blameless race" or "your [God ' s ] children."

T h e hortatory aspects o f the b o o k are most clearly in evidence in

the opening section, 1:1—6:21. This section begins and ends with an

exhortation to justice, but m u c h o f it is taken up with a contrast

between the righteous and the wicked. T h e wicked explain their rea

soning in a long speech in 1:16-2:24; but then articulate their dis

may in another speech in 5 :1 -23 , when the judgment is revealed. 8

It is primarily this judgment 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 Solomon.

Apocalyptic Motifs in the Wisdom of Solomon 1—5

As several scholars have noted, the judgment scene in Wis 5 is m o d

eled on the beginning o f the servant song in Isa 52 :13 -53 :12 . 9 In

Isa 52 :13 -15 , we are told that the servant shall be lifted up, and

that he shall startle nations and kings shall shut their mouths because

o f him. In the opening verses o f chapter 53 anonymous speakers,

presumably the kings o f the earth, express their amazement that one

so despised should be exalted. T h e transformation o f the despised

servant became a paradigm o f the transformation o f the righteous

8 On the structure o f this section of the book see M . Kolarcik, The Ambiguity of Death in the Book of Wisdom 1-6 (Analecta Biblica 127; Rome, 1991), 2 9 - 6 2 .

9 G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Cambridge, Mass., 1972), 68-92; 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.

96 JOHN J. COLLINS

in apocalyptic literature. It is reflected in D a n 11 -12 , where the

martyrs o f the Maccabean era are called maskilim, an allusion to the

servant song, which begins hinneh yaskil cabdi ("behold m y servant

shall prosper"). 1 0 Where the servant made many righteous, the maskilim make many understand (Dan 11:33). In the end, they are lifted up

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 found in the Similitudes o f Enoch (1 Enoch 37 -71 ) , which

was also probably composed in the first century C.E. 1 En 62 describes

the dismay that will c o m e upon the kings o f the earth when they

see the Son o f M a n sitting on his throne o f glory. T h e Son o f M a n in

the Similitudes was never a lowly figure, but he is hidden for a time,

and the powerful do not believe in him until they see him in glory.

T h e y recognize that if this figure is glorified, their self-understanding

was ill-founded. Wis 5 does not demonstrably depend o n either

Daniel o r the Similitudes, but it makes a similar use o f Isa 5 2 - 5 3 :

the righteous at first seem to be o f no account, but eventually they

are revealed in glory. Moreover , this chapter resolves the conflict

between the unjust and the righteous that was described in Wis 2.

This passage (2:12—20) brings to mind the suffering o f the servant

o f the Lord in Isa 53. (The righteous man is called pais theou, which

may mean servant as well as child o f God . ) This figure is repre

sentative o f those w h o are exalted, to the amazement o f their ene

mies, in Wis 5.

T h e exaltation o f the righteous man in Wis 5 is expressed in lan

guage familiar from the Hebrew and Aramaic apocalyptic literature:

" H o w has he been reckoned among the sons o f G o d , and his lot is

among the holy ones" (5:5). T h e sons o f G o d and the holy ones are

the angels. C o m p a r e the claim o f the hymnist in the Hodayo t from

Qumran: " Y o u have purified the corrupt spirit from great sin so

that he can take his place with the host o f the holy ones and can

enter into c o m m u n i o n with the sons o f heaven" ( 1 Q H 11:21-22) or

again : "For your glory you have purified man from sin . . . to b e c o m e

united with the sons o f your truth in the lot o f your holy ones"

( 1 Q H 19:10—11). T h e Epistle o f Enoch promises the righteous that

"you will have great j o y as the angels in heaven . . . for you will be

companions to the host o f heaven" (1 En 104:2-6) . T h e Epistle also

develops the theme o f the mistaken understanding o f the wicked:

See J J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, 1993), 385.

APOCALYPTIC ESCHATOLOGY 97

But when you die, the sinners say about you, As we die, the righteous have died, and of what use to them were their deeds? Behold, like us they have died in sadness and in darkness, and what advantage do they have over us? From now on we are e q u a l . . . I say to you, you sinners, You 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 of their death.

This passage is very close to the false reasoning o f the wicked in

Wis 2, where they pursue a life o f self-indulgence and exploitation

in the belief that "we were born by mere chance, and hereafter we

shall be as though we had never b e e n " (2:2). This reasoning is

declared to be false, because "they did not know the mysteries o f

G o d " (2:22), or realize that when the righteous seemed to die they

were really in peace.

In light o f these parallels, Lothar Ruppert has argued that Wis

2 :12-20 and 5:1-7 are a distinct source, which he calls a "diptych,"

originally c o m p o s e d in Heb rew or Aramaic in the land o f Israel, but

brought to Egypt and translated into Greek before it was incorpo

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 docu

ment served as propaganda for a hasidic-apocalyptic group, that was

critical o f the Hellenistic leanings o f the proto-Sadduccees. I doubt

that such a document can be reconstructed from the W i s d o m o f

So lomon . T h e passages in question are very well embedded in their

contexts. It is likely that the author had an apocalyptic source, quite

possibly c o m p o s e d originally in H e b r e w or Aramaic , but he must

have adapted it for his purposes, and not simply inserted it. Moreover ,

the idea o f immortality, as we find it in W i s d o m o f So lomon , does

not take the form o f resurrection, even the resurrection o f the spirit

that is envisioned in the early Enoch literature, and this argues against

the simple incorporation o f a Semitic apocalyptic source. Also, the

apocalyptic overtones o f the opening chapters o f W i s d o m o f So lomon

are not confined to Ruppert 's alleged diptych. Already in chapter 1

we find that Death is personified in a manner that recalls the figure

o f M o t in Ugaritic myth, which in turn is reflected in biblical pas

sages such as Isa 25:7, where G o d is said to swallow up death for

ever. T h e startling statement that " G o d did not make death" (Wis

1 1 L. Ruppert, Der leidende Gerechte (Wurzburg, 1972), 70—105; "Gerechte und Frevler," 15-19.

98 JOHN J. COLLINS

1:13) may perhaps be illuminated by the mythological pre-history o f

death. T h e adversaries o f Baal in the Ugaritic myth, Death and Sea,

are uncreated, and in m u c h o f the Hebrew Bible G o d ' s work in cre

ation consists o f mastering primeval adversaries and confining them.

T h e notion o f a "kingdom o f Hades" (1:14) recalls the kingdom o f

Belial in the D e a d Sea Scrolls. 1 2 There are also apocalyptic over

tones to the concept o f "the mysteries o f G o d . " T h e w o r d raz, mys

tery, figures prominently in Daniel and again in the D e a d Sea Scrolls,

where we 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 chief mystery o f G o d is immortality.

T h e fact that the apocalyptic motifs in Wis 1-5 are not confined to

the supposed diptych argues that the author was conversant with a

range o f apocalyptic sources, but adapted them freely for his purpose.

Rupper t contends that despite the use o f Greek philosophical ter

minology in the W i s d o m o f So lomon , the thought o f the b o o k is

still determined by biblical and Jewish traditions. This, however, is

only half the story. Wha t we n o w have in Wis 1-5 is not an apoc

alypse, but a wisdom text that attempts to make a philosophically

coherent argument. T h e philosophical sources o f the b o o k must be

acknowledged just as fully as the Jewish, apocalyptic sources.

W e have noted that the plot against the righteous man in the Wis

2 calls to mind the servant p o e m o f Isa 53, but it also has a notable

parallel in a Greek philosophical discourse, the test case o f the truly

just man offered by Glaucon in the second b o o k o f Plato's Republic.14

Glaucon argues that we must imagine the just and the unjust in

their pure states: the just must not only be the best o f men, but

must be thought to be the worst. Moreover , "the just man w h o is

thought unjust will be scourged, racked, bound—he will have his

eyes burnt out; and at last, after suffering every kind o f evil, he will

be impaled" (Republic 361). Socrates' rejoinder to Glaucon occupies

most o f the Republic, but significantly for our purpose, it culminates

in B o o k 10 with a discourse on "the greatest prizes and rewards

which await virtue." "Are you not aware," asks Socrates, "that the

soul o f man is immortal and imperishable?" (Republic 10.608). Socrates

proceeds to argue for the immortality o f the soul on the grounds

1 2 1 Q M 14:9; 1QS 1:23-24; 2:19. 1 3 1QS 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.

1 4 Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 195.

A P O C A L Y P T I C ESCHATOLOGY 99

that no evil corrupts or destroys the soul. In light o f immortality,

the advantages o f the wicked are inconsequential. Socrates argues

that justice attains rewards in this life, but "all these are as nothing,

either in number or greatness in comparison with those other rec

ompenses which await both the just and the unjust after death" (614).

Plato brings the Republic to a close by narrating the myth o f Er, the

Pamphylian, w h o died o n the batde-field but returned to life after

twelve days and told o f the judgment o f the dead and the process

o f reincarnation.

T h e immortality o f the soul is also crucially important in the

W i s d o m o f So lomon . In 8 :19 -20 S o l o m o n boasts that "a g o o d soul

fell to my lot, or rather being g o o d I entered an undented b o d y . "

T h e language recalls the myth o f Er, where Lachesis, daughter o f

Necessity initiates a new cycle o f mortality by proclaiming: "Let him

to w h o m falls the first lot first select a life to which he shall cleave o f

necessity" (Republic 617E). T h e W i s d o m o f So lomon does not envision

reincarnation, and never addresses the question o f the pre-existence

o f the soul. Wis 8:20, "being g o o d I entered an undefiled b o d y , "

would seem to identify the person primarily with the soul. Similarly

in 9:15 we read that "a perishable b o d y weighs d o w n the soul," and

idea that is paralleled in both Plato and Phi lo. 1 5 There is never any

reference to bodi ly resurrection, or indeed to resurrection o f any

sort. Yet , the hope o f the righteous is full o f immortality (3:4) and

they only seem to die; they are said to "five forever" and their reward

is with the Lord (5:15). It seems clear then that the immortality envi

sioned by 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 Glaucon o f the immor

tality o f the soul by rational argument. In the W i s d o m o f So lomon ,

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, however, the b o o k gives

no account o f angelic revelation such as we find in Enoch or Daniel.

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 most

clearly stated in the introduction to So lomon ' s prayer in 8:21: "But

I perceived that I would not possess wisdom unless G o d gave her

to me—and it was a mark o f insight to know whose gift she was."

This is not Platonic reasoning, but neither is it apocalyptic revela

tion. W i s d o m helps the natural reasoning faculty; it does not simply

supersede it from above.

Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 207.

100 JOHN J. COLLINS

T h e W i s d o m o f So lomon does not fully share Plato's understanding

o f immortality, even apart from the issue o f reincarnation. Accord ing

to Plato, all souls are immortal, and they cannot be dissolved by

evil o r wickedness. In the Jewish b o o k too , G o d made all things,

and presumably all souls, for immortality. But the wicked invited

Death, and experience it. Righteousness is immortal, but unright

eousness apparently is not. Pseudo-Solomon is at pains to make clear

that the souls o f the righteous are in the hand o f G o d and that they

live forever. But he says little o f the fate o f the wicked. In the judg

ment scene in chapter 5 they lament that their wealth has vanished

like a shadow, and "we also as soon as we were born , ceased to be ,

and we had no sign o f virtue to show but were consumed in our

wickedness" (5:13). T h e hope o f the ungodly is like thistledown, or

smoke in the wind. All o f this would seem to suggest that the wicked

simply cease to exist; contra Plato, their souls are dissolved by their

wickedness. In fact, the correspondence o f punishment to sin is a

recurring theme in the W i s d o m o f So lomon , especially in chapters

11-19 . It is entirely appropriate, then, that as the wicked believed

that they would be dissolved, so they are.

But if the wicked simply cease to exist, h o w are we to account

for the judgment scene in chapter 5, where they are clearly present

after death to witness the exaltation o f the righteous? I suggest that

this apocalyptic judgment scene plays a role similar to that o f the

Myth o f Er in Plato's Republic—it is a fable or myth, introduced to

facilitate the discussion. 1 6 W e usually assume that judgment scenes

in apocalyptic texts should be taken more literally. That assumption

is open 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 7-12.) In the terminology o f

Ian Ramsey, they are not "picture models ," that aspire to exact cor

respondence with reality, but "disclosure" or "analogue" models that

try to convey a "structure, or w e b o f relationship." 1 7 T h e y are ven

tures in imagination that try to give concrete expression to matters

that are b e y o n d human experience. In this respect, the status o f the

1 6 Cf. Plato, Laws 4.713: "May I still make use o f fable to some extent, in the hope that I may be better able to answer your question?"

1 7 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, NY, 1962), 219-43 .


judgment scene in the W i s d o m o f So lomon may not be so different

from that o f similar scenes in Daniel o r Enoch. T h e difference is

that in the apocalypses these visionary scenes are the only means o f

expressing transcendent realities. T h e W i s d o m o f So lomon , however,

also employs philosophical language which attempts to express these

realities in a more precise and accurate way, and which provides

some criteria against which the visionary language can be measured.

T h e personification o f Death, and the k ingdom o f Hades, also

appear somewhat 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 prophetic and apocalyptic texts. W i s d o m only hints that

there is a negative power that is somehow independent o f G o d . W e

are not told where Death comes from. T h e devil also makes a brief

and enigmatic appearance in explaining the origin o f evil in 2:24:

"By the devil's envy death entered into the wor ld ." But there is no

real place for a devil in the worldview o f the W i s d o m o f So lomon ,

and even death is an anomaly. G o d , we are told, created all things

eis to einai, that they may exist, and the forces o f the cosmos tend

to the preservation o f life. There is no kingdom o f Hades upon earth.

T h e personification o f Death and the mention o f the devil are also

figurative language, ways o f expressing the negative forces, which the

author wants to disassociate from G o d and wisdom. Whatever its

mythologica l overtones, Dea th is spiritualized here. It is a state

brought about by the words and deed o f the ungodly. It is only

experienced by those w h o are o f the port ion (meris) o f Death, not

by the righteous, w h o only seem to die. Ultimately, it is a state o f

non-being. Death is not quite de-mythologized here, since it is in

fact personified. But it does not enjoy the vivid mythological life that

it did in Ugaritic myth, or that Belial enjoys in the D e a d Sea Scrolls.

The Divine Warrior

W e find another venture in mythological language with apocalyptic

overtones in Wis 5 :17-23 . This passage describes a theophany o f

G o d as Divine Warrior , a constellation o f motifs that can be traced

back to the storm-theophany o f Baal in Canaanite texts o f the sec

o n d mil lennium. 1 8 This imagery had been claimed for the G o d o f

1 8 See especially F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), 145-94.

102 JOHN J. COLLINS

Israel from an early point in such texts as Deu te ronomy 33 and

Judges 5. It had also informed the celebration o f the Exodus in the

Psalms, which sometimes suggest a divine attack o n the sea. (Ps

77 :16-20 : "the waters saw you , they were afraid, the very deep trem

bled . . . your arrows flashed on every side . . . the earth trembled and

shook"). T h e immediate source o f this imagery in Wis 5 is found in

Isa 59:15—20. There the Lord saw that there was no justice and set

out to redress the situation. " H e put on righteousness like a breast

plate, and a helmet o f salvation on his head; he put o n garments

o f vengeance for clothing and wrapped himself in fury as in a mande."

W e are assured that his adversaries will be forced to pay according

to their deeds. Paul Hanson has made a persuasive case that this

text reflects dissensions in the Jewish communi ty in the early post-

exilic pe r iod . 1 9 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 on G o d to c o m e

to their aid: " O that you would rend the heaven and c o m e d o w n "

(Isa 64:1). Hanson categorizes this material as proto-apocalypt ic ,

and indeed this imagery also figures prominently in later apocalyptic

texts from the Hellenistic and R o m a n era (e.g. the opening chapter

o f 1 Enoch). T h e imagery o f Isa 59 is reproduced with minor modifications in

Wis 5: "he will put on righteousness as a breastplate, and wear

impartial justice as a helmet; he will take holiness as an invincible

shield, and sharpen stern wrath for a sword." O u r question here is

whether the understanding o f this material is altered by its new con

text in the W i s d o m o f So lomon . T h e primary difference would seem

to lie in the involvement o f creation. Wis 5:16 says that G o d will

arm all creation to repel his enemies, and 5:20 affirms that creation

will j o in him in his fight. T o some degree, the involvement o f cre

ation is already implied in the traditional imagery o f the Divine

Warrior . In Judges 5 we are told that the stars fought from heaven

against Sisera. In Psalm 77 the clouds poured d o w n water and light

ning illuminated the world when G o d led Israel through the sea. All

o f this, however, is understood as a miraculous departure from the

normal workings o f nature. T h e future intervention o f the Divine

Warrior , as envisioned in Isaiah 59, is similarly a departure from

the working 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.


world to reverse its course. In the W i s d o m o f So lomon , in contrast,

creation itself is p rogrammed to ensure the implementation o f justice.

T h e role o f creation in implementing the judgment o f G o d is illus

trated in the account o f the Exodus in Wis 16-19 . T h e story o f the

exodus is taken to show that "creation, serving you w h o made it,

exerts itself to punish the unrighteous, and in kindness relaxes on

behalf o f those w h o trust in y o u " (16:24). Pseudo-Solomon draws

here on Stoic cosmology , in which the elements admit o f different

degrees o f tension or relaxation. 2 0 Nothing new is created, but ele

ments are modified or interchanged. Again in the last chapter o f the

b o o k we are told that "the whole creation in its nature was fash

ioned anew," in accordance with G o d ' s commands , so that his chil

dren would not be harmed (19:6) . 2 1 This is not the new heaven and

new earth o f apocalyptic visions, however. "For the elements changed

places with one another as on a harp the notes vary the nature o f

the rhythm, while each note remains the same" (19:18). T h e cos

mos is a closed system, although it admits o f infinite variation. Philo

also uses the idea o f tension and slackening to explain changes in

nature. T h e b o w that G o d sets in the clouds after the f lood indi

cates that "in the laxness and force o f earthly things there will not

take place a dissolution by their being completely loosened to the

point o f incongruity nor will there be force up to the point o f caus

ing a break" (QG 2.63). G o d also provided the manna by changing

around the elements (Mos 2 . 2 6 6 - 7 ) . 2 2

W e might infer from these statements about the role o f nature in

the W i s d o m o f So lomon , that justice must ultimately prevail in the

cosmos. Just as the Exodus ends with a reshuffling o f the elements

so that the Israelites are sustained and their enemies are undone, so,

we might think, must it also be at the end o f history. In Wis 18:15

we are told that, o n the eve o f the Exodus, "your almighty w o r d

leaped from heaven, from the royal throne, into the midst o f the

land that was d o o m e d , a stern warrior carrying the sharp sword o f

your authentic c o m m a n d , and stood and filled all things with death"

(by killing the first-born o f the Egyptians). This image brings to mind

the vision o f J oh n o f Patmos in Revelation 19:

2 0 Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 300. 2 1 On the exegetical aspect o f this passage, and the implied understanding of

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 (HSM 57; Atlanta, 1997), 112-18.

2 2 Ibid., 330-1 .

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 Word of God . . . From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations . . .

T h e contexts o f the two scenes, however, are very different. T h e 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 represents an incident in history. In Revelation it signals the end o f history, and the coming o f the final judgment .

It is not apparent, however, that the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n actually envisions an end o f history. T h e judgment scene in chapter five can be understood as the judgment o f the dead. It does not require that history, and this world as we know it, have passed away. Neither does Philo seem to have envisioned an end o f this world. T h e wor ld is not indestructible, for Philo, since it "has b e c o m e what it is, and its becoming is the beginning o f its destruction," but he allows that it may be made immortal by the providence o f G o d (Deed. 58). Elsewhere he refers to the view o f some philosophers that "though by nature destructible it will never be destroyed, being held together by a b o n d o f superior strength, namely the will o f its Maker" (Her. 246). This would seem to conform to the view o f Plato in the Timaeus (41 A ) , that "all that is b o u n d may be undone, but only an evil being would wish to undo that which is harmonious and happy ." 2 3 In such a view o f the world there is ultimately litde place for apocalyptic eschatology such as we find in Revelation or 4 Ezra.

Philo, however, makes a place for traditional Jewish eschatology. In his treatise De praemiis et poenis, Philo first discourses on the penalties that await those " w h o have been seduced by the polytheistic creeds which finally lead to atheism and have forgotten the teaching o f their race and o f their fathers in which they were trained from their earliest years" (162). T h e discussion is part o f an exposition o f the laws o f Moses , and so the reference is clearly to the Jewish people . If these people repent, says Philo, following Lev 26:40, they will find favor with G o d . "Even though they dwell in the uttermost parts o f the earth, in slavery to those w h o led them away captive, one signal, as it were, one day will bring liberty to all. This conversion in a b o d y to virtue will strike awe into their masters, w h o

2 3 Plato is speaking of the creation of the lesser gods, who are not indestructible but are promised immortality.


will set them free, ashamed to rule over men better than themselves"

(164). T h e y will then be gathered to their appointed place, while the

curses will be turned against their enemies. "There will c o m e forth

a man," says Philo, citing Balaam's Oracle , "and leading his host to

war he will subdue great and populous nations" (95). Harry Wolfson

concluded from these passages that "the solution found by Philo for

the Jewish p rob lem o f his time was the revival o f the old prophetic

promises o f the ultimate disappearance o f the Diaspora ." 2 4 But even

Wolfson also noted that "the depiction o f the messianic age in Philo

is quite evidently colored with Stoic phraseology." Philo repeatedly

formulates his antitheses in terms o f the virtuous and the wicked,

rather than o f ethnic particularism. His G o d is one "to w h o m all

must belong w h o follow truth unfeigned instead o f mythical figments"

(Praem. 162). Those w h o are killed in the messianic war are "some

fanatics whose lust for war defies restraint or remonstrance" (94) and

those w h o receive the eschatological blessings are "those w h o follow

G o d and always and everywhere cleave to his commandments" (98).

Yet this treatise is remarkable for its lack o f allegorical interpreta

tion. Philo, like the author o f W i s d o m , had a stubborn streak o f eth

nic particularism that was not entirely dissolved by his universalizing

philosophy. His main emphasis is certainly o n the conversion o f

humanity to virtue, which he identifies with the stipulations o f Mosaic

law, but he at least affirms the ingathering o f the exiles and the

messianic age, even if they are far from the center o f his thought.

It may be that the author o f W i s d o m also affirmed them, insofar as

they were found in the Torah , but he makes no mention o f them

in his book . T h e cosmos is p rogrammed to deal with unrighteous

ness when it arises, but the only definitive resolution o f the problem

is found in the respective fates o f righteous and wicked after death.

T h e worldview o f the W i s d o m o f So lomon , and o f Philo, is ulti

mately very different from that o f the apocalypses emanating from

the land o f Israel. In the apocalypses, history has a pattern, but wis

d o m and justice are absent for long stretches. This idea is beauti

fully expressed in the Similitudes o f Enoch, in 1 En 42 :

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 JOHN J. COLLINS

took her seat in the midst of 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.

Such a retreat on the part o f W i s d o m would be unthinkable in the W i s d o m o f So lomon . In the apocalypses, the collaboration o f nature in punishing the wicked is deferred until the eschatological period. In the W i s d o m o f So lomon , it is an ongoing feature o f cosmos and history. Even in the height o f his sharp polemic against the perversity o f Canaanites and Egyptians, the Alexandrian author maintains his faith that the cosmos is in harmony with its maker.

Epilogue

As I no ted at the beginning o f this essay, the contrast be tween W i s d o m and the apocalypses is not simply a matter o f the translation o f Heb rew thought into Greek. It is more a matter o f genre, and the choice o f genre is influenced to some degree by historical setting. T h e most obvious counterpoint to the withdrawal o f W i s d o m in the Similitudes o f Enoch is found in Ben Sira 24, a text originally written in Hebrew, in Jerusalem, before the Maccabean revolt, which claims that W i s d o m did not retire to heaven but pitched its tent in Israel. Ben Sira differs sharply from the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n on the issue o f immortality, but his understanding o f nature is rather similar, if less systematic. T h e Hebrew sage also saw the cosmos as the implement o f G o d . H e speaks o f "winds created for vengeance" and claims that wild animals and even "the sword that punishes the ungodly" never disobey the divine c o m m a n d . T h e righteous and the wicked experience nature differendy, as is also the case in the W i s d o m o f So lomon : "All these [elements] are g o o d for the godly, but for the sinners they turn into evils" (Sir 39:27). Ben Sira shows little interest in national restoration, except in a prayer in chapter 36 which is o f very doubtful authenticity. Like his Alexandrian counterpart, he believes that divine justice is implemented in history o n an ongoing basis.

O n the other hand, Egyptian Judaism would not always maintain its confidence in the justice o f cosmos and history. Both the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n and Philo were products o f a long process o f cultural assimilation, and reflected a stratum o f Jewish society that had been very successful in Hellenistic and R o m a n Egypt. Tha t success is


reflected in their confident theology o f nature, whereby the cosmos

ensures the triumph o f the righteous. By the time these authors wrote

in the early R o m a n period, however , that success was in jeopardy.

It may well be that the bitter polemic against Gentiles in Wis 11-19

reflects the outbreak o f hostilities in Alexandr ia in the time o f

Caligula. 2 5 But much worse was to c o m e . T h e Jewish communi ty in

Alexandria was battered by violence in 66 C.E. and virtually wiped

out in the suppression o f the great Diaspora revolt in the time o f

Trajan. It is only in the per iod after 70 C.E. that we get an apoc

alyptic literature from Egyptian Judaism that foresees the destruc

tion o f this world. T h e most vivid expression o f the new, despairing,

view o f the world is found in the fifth Sibylline Oracle. There again,

nature is enlisted to punish the wicked: "a great star will c o m e from

heaven to the wondrous sea and will burn the deep sea and Babylon

[ R o m e ] itself and the land o f Italy," because o f the destruction o f

the Hebrews (Sib. Or. 5 :158-61) . But this is not a harmonious re

arrangement o f the elements such as we found in the W i s d o m o f

So lomon. T h e Sibyl concludes with a batde o f the stars among them

selves, instigated by 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 of 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 communi ty in Egypt. It is a sad irony that

a communi ty that had placed so much confidence in the goodness

and order o f the cosmos should in the end be driven to such a vision

o f despair.

2 5 So S. Cheon, The Exodus Story in the Wisdom of Solomon. A Study in Biblical Interpretation (Sheffield, 1997), 125-49.

6

P H I L O A N D T H E W I S D O M O F S O L O M O N O N C R E A T I O N , R E V E L A T I O N , 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 J E W I S H H E L L E N I S T I C F U S I O N

D A V I D W I N S T O N

Introduction

In his grand philosophical commentary on the Pentateuch, Philo generally retains the biblical terminology and i d iom in the very process o f transposing that text into a philosophical key. Greek philosophical terms jostle freely with biblical locutions, and the reader is defdy beguiled into discovering Greek philosophical doctrine beneath the literal shell o f the scriptural narrative. N o philosophical teaching appears to be too abstruse to withstand the subtle interweaving o f traditions represented by Philo's distinctive blend o f divergent outlooks. W h e n the disparate elements o f his bicultural heritage are not unduly recalcitrant, Philo often succeeds in fusing them into an impressive unity that conceals their underlying dissonance. In a number o f instances, however, the Jewish componen t in the Philonic mix resists total integration, and in spite o f some subtle modifications introduced here and there in order to diminish the jarring effect, what is peculiarly Jewish and normative cannot be given up. Thus the Jewish concept o f repentance was a notion that was virtually non-existent or at best only marginal in Greek philosophical thought. Yet Philo makes a valiant and almost desperate effort to retain it in his scriptural commentary, and even in biblical passages where there is scarcely a trace o f it he nonetheless feels constrained to introduce it into the text. Although he seeks assiduously to assimilate it to his o w n philosophical approach to Judaism, traces o f his ambivalence are readily detected in his writing. H e generally emphasizes the secondary rank o f repentance in the hierarchy o f virtue, explicitly refers to the scars o f old misdeeds, and clearly indicates the lengthy intellectual process that precedes conversion to a better life. Revealing,

110 D A V I D WINSTON

too , is his casual reference to repentance as an irrational emotion,

a view that follows inevitably from the fundamental philosophical

principles o f his ethical theory. H e was undoubtedly helped to some

extent by his awareness o f a Neopythagorean preoccupat ion with

self-examination that was later taken up by the R o m a n Stoa, 1 but

we clearly have here a striking example o f the pervasive tensions

that characterize much o f his writing. 2

In the present paper, I have focused m y attention o n several

themes in Philo's thought that resist an easy blending o f their Jewish

and Greek elements. M y main concern will be his theory o f prophecy,

perhaps the most complex illustration o f Philo's inner tensions, and

his partially veiled attempt to camouflage his true intent. Since much

in the interpretation o f Philo's doctrine o f p rophecy turns on his

concept ion o f creation, I have included a brief account o f this trou

bled Philonic teaching as well. For if it should be the case that Philo

held a doctrine o f eternal creation, a necessary consequence o f this

would be that G o d ' s revelation o f himself must be part o f a con

tinuous process . I will conc lude with an examinat ion o f Philo's

thoughts o n divine providence, which must reconcile his notion o f

cyclic history with Jewish messianic doctrine. Finally, in order to

broaden the framework o f m y analysis o f Philo, I shall compare his

formulations o f the issues mentioned above with those o f his p rob

ably near contemporary, the author o f the W i s d o m o f So lomon .

Creation

W e begin with a brief account o f the creation doctrine o f the W i s d o m

o f So lomon . T h e author states explicitly that G o d created the world

"out o f formless matter" (e£ djiopcpoi) UA,TIC;) , 3 and there is consider

able evidence that makes it unmistakably clear that this formless mat

ter was considered by him to be eternal, and not itself created by

G o d . 4 M o r e important for our purposes is Wisdom' s understanding

1 Epictetus 3.10.2; Seneca De Ira 3.36.1-4. 2 For a full discussion, see D . Winston, "Philo's Doctrine of 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), 29 -40 .

3 Wis 11:17. 4 See D . Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43. Garden City: Doubleday, 1979)

38-39.

CREATION, REVELATION, AND PROVIDENCE 111

o f the nature o f G o d ' s creative act. Various indications point to the

strong possibility that he conceived o f creation as an eternal process.

T h e most remarkable feature o f his description o f W i s d o m is his

depiction o f her as an eternal effluence or emanation o f G o d ' s power

and glory (Wis 7 :25-26, 2 9 - 3 0 ) , a Neopythagorean notion that even

the more philosophically ambitious Philo was reluctant to express

explicitiy, preferring instead to use locutions that only implied it.5

Unlike Ben Sira (1:4; 24:9) w h o asserts that G o d has created Wisdom,

he says not a w o r d about her creation, describing her instead in the

present tense as a divine radiance, o f which one would have to say

more precisely that she is "ever being p roduced and in a state o f

having been produced ," to use a late formulation employed by the

fifth century Neoplatonist Proclus. 6

N o w , since the philosophical matrix in which this text seems to

be embedded is Middle Platonist, it should be noted that with the

exception o f Plutarch and Atticus, the Middle Platonists denied that

Plato had taught the temporal creation o f the world, maintaining

instead that the description given in the Timaeus was only for the

sake o f "clarity o f instruction." For most Platonists, there could be

no adequate explanation o f why G o d should wait before beginning

to improve the eternal formless matter. Moreover , since the author

o f W i s d o m conceives o f Sophia as a continuous emanation o f the

Godhead , and since it contains the paradigmatic Forms o f all things

and is the instrument o f creation, it is reasonable to presume that

its creative activity is also continuous and that he thus holds a d o c

trine o f eternal creation. Nevertheless, inasmuch as the author o f

W i s d o m is more o f a rhetorician than a philosopher, one cannot be

certain that the philosophical reasoning o f Middle Platonism deci

sively shaped his position o n this question.

O d d l y enough, although Philo was m u c h more the philosopher

than the author o f W i s d o m , he writes with an evidently deliberate

ambiguity concerning the primordial matter from which G o d con

stituted the ordered universe. Yet , as I have shown elsewhere, to

attribute to him the view that G o d created preexistent matter out

o f nothing would not only contradict his explicit statement in Aet. 5

that "nothing comes into being from the nonexistent and nothing is

5 Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 38, 185-86. 6 In Plat. Tim. 290.25.

112 DAVID WINSTON

destroyed into the nonexistent," 7 but would also be incongruous with

his whole language o f creation. T h e argument that G o d created the

cosmos because H e did not begrudge a share in His own excellence

to an existence that in itself had nothing fair o r lovely would c o m

pletely miss the mark if this "unlovely existence" was itself directly

created by G o d . Indeed, Philo 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 inanimate, discordant and dissoluble, and what is more in itself perishable, irregular, and unequal, that God praised, but the works of 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 show elsewhere, G o d is, for Philo,

indirectly the source o f primordial matter, but Philo wou ld have

recoiled from 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 view that primordial matter is for Philo an eternal

entity by the side o f G o d , is, I think, precluded by 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 "does not

admit o f destruction" (Tim. 52b: cpGopdv ou 7upooSe%6|iEvov).8

In sum, inasmuch as God ' s creative act is transtemporal and instan

taneous, its description as an ordered sequence o f cosmogon ic events

is only a function o f the finite human mind seeking analytically to

distinguish its logical stages. Although G o d ' s creation o f the universe,

in accordance with this analytical model , involves a series o f logical

moments , the term "creation" is properly applied only to the for

mation o f the universe as a whole .

W e must n o w determine the precise nature o f G o d ' s atemporal

creative act according to Philo. Although his formulation o f this issue

is nowhere unambiguously stated, there are a number o f strong indi

cations that he held a doctrine o f eternal creation. T o begin with,

if Philo were to adopt the view that G o d ' s creative act had a begin

ning, this would stand in open contradiction to one o f the funda

mental and oft-repeated principles o f his own philosophical worldview,

7 Cf. Spec. 1.266. 8 Tim. 52b: cpGopdv ov jrpoo8ex6(j.evov. See D . Winston, Philo of Alexandria (New

York: Paulist Press, 1981), 7-21.


that G o d is unchangeable . 9 Al though often inconsistent in minor

matters, Philo shows himself too competent a student o f philosophy

to contradict himself in so flagrant a manner. This contradiction is

further sharpened by his statement that " G o d and his beneficent

powers ever make it their business to transmute the faultiness o f the

worse wherever it exists and convert it to the better" (Spec. 4.187).

Since, according to the alternate view o f a creatio continua, primordial

matter exists eternally by the side o f G o d , the Deity must have been

eternally improving it by transforming it into a cosmic order.

Although the above considerations, in m y opinion, are in them

selves sufficient to establish that Philo's doctrine is one o f eternal

creation, there are two further passages that help to confirm it. In

Leg. 1.20, comment ing on G e n 2:4, "when it came into being," Philo

notes that Scripture does not define "when" by a determining limit,

"for the things that c o m e into being (tot ywoiieva) through the First

Cause, c o m e into being with no determining limit" (d7tepvypd(pa)c;).

N o w , if the act o f creation began at an instant o f G o d ' s choosing,

it could no longer be described as taking place (XTuepiypdcpcoc;,10 since,

though indeterminate a parte post, it is clearly determinate a parte ante, i.e., it has a 7tepiypa(pr| o r nipaq11 marking it off from what preceded

it. Similarly, in QG 1.1, comment ing again on G e n 2:4, Philo says

that this verse "appears to indicate indeterminate time, thus pro

viding a refutation disconcerting those w h o sum up the number o f

years, from which point they believe the cosmos came into being."

This seems to be a clear attempt on 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 through an analysis o f Scriptural

chronology are futile. This can only be so if the process o f creation

is not merely continuous, but has in fact no 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 So lomon ' s notion o f revelation are

rooted in its concept ion o f W i s d o m as a divine hypostasis, felicitously

9 Cher. 90; Spec. 3.178; Deus 26; etc. 1 0 Cf. Sacr. 59. 1 1 Cf. Arist. Phys. 218a25: TO 6e vt»v Jtepac; icxi.


defined by Oesterly and Box as "a quasi-personification o f an attribute

proper to G o d , occupying an intermediate position between per

sonalities and abstract beings." 1 2 It is only in the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n

and Philo, where Sophia is conceived as an eternal divine emana

tion, that she appears in this form for the first time in Hellenistic

Jewish writings. Indeed, Wis 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 notion o f a divine outflow was already employed

by adherents o f the Middle Stoa. 1 3

In 7 :22-24 , the author describes W i s d o m by a series o f twenty-

one epithets (7 X 3, a triple perfection), bo r rowed largely from Stoic

philosophy. Like the Stoic deity, W i s d o m is an intelligent breath

(7rveuLia voepov) that pervades (SirjKei) and permeates (%copei) all things 1 4

But her immanence in the cosmos is counterbalanced by the author's

insistence that she nonetheless enjoys a symbiotic relationship with

G o d , a condit ion o f unbroken intimacy with the divine (8:3). It can

thus be said that there is an aspect o f G o d ' s essence in everything

and in the human mind preeminentiy; yet for all that, this essence

remains inseparable from G o d . T h e only comparable concep t in

ancient Jewish thought is Philo's similar notion o f an all-penetrating

divine Logos that reaches into each individual's mind, thereby con

verting it into an extension o f the divine mind, albeit a very frag

mentary o n e . 1 3

But if W i s d o m is pervasively present in all things, and above all

in the operations o f human reason, what is the significance o f human

ity's hot pursuit o f her and the need for special supplication to the

Lord that H e dispatch her from His heavenly throne (9:10)? T h e

issue here is one o f perspective. Since W i s d o m is both immanent

and transcendent, these modes o f description are readily interchange

able, depending on the focus o f the writer. This double aspect will

also explain what often appear to be patentiy contradictory state

ments concerning human conscience in the writings o f Philo. Thus

in Decal. 87, it is emphatically described as "every man's birth fel

l ow and house-mate." In several passages it is clearly identified with

1 2 W.O.E . Oesterly and G.H. Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue (London: Pitman, 1911), 169.

1 3 Cicero Nat. D. 2.79; cf. Div. 1.110; Seneca Ep. 120.14. 14 SVF 2.416, 1021, 1033; Posidonius F 100 Kidd. 15 Det. 90; Gig. 27; Leg. 1.37-38; cf. M . Aurelius 8.57; Corp. Herm. 12.1.


human reasoning or as the true man within the soul . 1 6 S o m e schol

ars, however, are impressed by the many passages where the tran

scendence o f the conscience is apparendy upheld. Mos t emphatic is

Deus 135-38 where conscience, identified with the High Priest, is

described in quasi mystical terms as entering the soul like a pure

ray o f light, to reveal our hidden sins in order to purify and heal

us. If this interpretation were correct, it would mean that for Philo,

man's immanent powers o f reasoning are ultimately inadequate for

applying ethical norms and that without the timely invasions o f God ' s

transcendent gift, human beings would be morally adrift. T h e fact

is, however, that the language used by Philo is not at all unparal

leled in R o m a n Stoics like M . Aurelius and Seneca. T h e latter, for

example, begins at one point by saying that "it is foolish to pray for

sound understanding when you can acquire it from yourself. . . G o d

is near you , he is with you , he is within you . . . " Within the briefest

compass, however, the language o f immanence suddenly shifts almost

imperceptibly to that o f transcendence:

If you see a man who is unterrified in the midst of 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 of 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 of divinity, does indeed associate with us, but still cleaves to its origin . . . (Ep. 41.1-2, 4-5)

Interestingly, Seneca's vivid simile, which probably derives from the

Middle Stoa, recurs m u c h later in the writings o f Schneur Zalman

o f I iadi , founder o f Habad Hasidism, w h o cites it from the Kabbalistic

tract Pardes Rimmonim (1548) o f Moses Cordove ro o f Safed.

It is significant that the author, unlike Ben Sira, nowhere explic

itly identifies W i s d o m with Torah , and with the exception o f a brief

historical reference in 18:9 makes virtually no mention o f the sacrificial

cult. His statement that "love for W i s d o m means the keeping o f her

laws" (6:18) is ambiguous and probably refers to the statutes o f nat

ural law. All we have from him in this regard is but a passing allusion

Deus 50; Post. 59; Det. 23; Fig. 131.


to Israel's mission o f bringing the imperishable light o f the law to

the world (18:4). V e r y likely he believed with Philo that the teach

ings o f the T o r a h were tokens o f divine W i s d o m , and that they

were in harmony with the law o f the universe and as such implant

all the virtues in the human psyche. 1 7 H e conceives o f W i s d o m as

a direct bearer o f revelation, functioning through the workings o f

the human mind, and 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 which the

Mosa ic law is but an image. W h e n he insists that unless G o d send

his W i s d o m d o w n from on high humanity would not comprehend

G o d ' s will (9:17) he is certainly implying that the T o r a h is in need

o f further interpretation for the disclosure o f its true meaning, inter

pretation that W i s d o m alone is able to provide. T h e author thus

closely approximates the position o f Philo, in whose view, even before

the Sinaitic revelation, the Patriarchs were already constituted voiroi

e[i\\fX)%oi, living embodiments o f divine W i s d o m . Similarly, in Wis 10,

Sophia had already served as a personal guide to six righteous heroes

w h o lived before the Sinaitic revelation.

In Philo's grand synthesis, the concept o f divine revelation was

b o u n d to be one o f its most sensitive elements. Although the Hellenic

elevation o f philosophic reason to a preeminent position appears to

have captured Philo's mind and heart very early on, one senses no

inner crisis in his religious world view. T h e price he must pay for

this merging o f disparate and ultimately divergent and at times con

tradictory approaches, is a deliberate measure o f ambiguity in his

m o d e o f exposition that diverts the reader's attention from the sharp

edges o f his construction o f reality. Inasmuch as the issue o f divine

revelation is at the core o f the Mosa ic tradition, it is only to be

expected that the ambiguity inherent in Philo's analysis o f Mosa ic

p rophecy should reflect his deepest ambivalences.

Since the original publication o f m y essay, " T w o Types o f Mosa ic

P rophecy , " 1 8 a full account o f Philo's concept ion o f scriptural inspi

ration has been published by Helmut Burkhardt, 1 9 a response to m y

1 7 Cf. Josephus Ant. 1.24; Pseudo-Aristeas 161; 4 Mace 1:16-17; 5:25-26; Philo Opif. 3; Mos. 2.52.

1 8 D . Winston, "Two Types of Mosaic Prophecy According to Philo of Alexandria," Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 4 (1989), 4 9 - 6 7 .

1 9 H . Burkhardt, Die Inspiration heiliger Schriften bei Philon von Alexandrien (Basel: Brunner Verlag Giessen, 1988).


essay by John Levison, 2 0 and a modification o f his original position

by Yehoshua Ami r . 2 1 I shall therefore first briefly summarize m y ear

lier paper and then try to respond to the new studies just mentioned.

In m y analysis o f Philo's classification o f the divine oracles that con

stitute all o f Scripture (Mos. 2 .189 -91 ) , I attempted to show that his

first category o f oracles, those "spoken by G o d in his own person,

with his prophet for interpreter," probably refers to the particular

laws, not including the Deca logue as such, which he frequentiy tells

us elsewhere was not "delivered through a spokesman or interpreter." 2 2

Since Philo's only concern at this point in his biography o f Moses

was to explain why he was going to confine himself to the predic

tive prophecies spoken by Moses in his own person while "possessed

o f his o w n accord" (it) ouxou Kaxac>%£0£vxoc;) (Philo's third category

o f oracles), and those laws that emerged from a process o f question

and answer (Philo's second category), he simply referred to most o f

the rest o f the laws without adding the further distinction that needed

to be drawn between the particular laws and the Decalogue. However ,

inasmuch as the particular laws, according to Philo, only spell out

the ten summary principles o f the Decalogue , the latter is at least

included implicitiy.

Burkhardt (and originally also Amir) is o f the opinion that the first

category o f oracles refers only to the Decalogue , but that inasmuch

as the particular laws are included in the Deca logue and were inter

preted by Moses , it could be said that the Deca logue too was given

by G o d with Moses as interpreter. But while it is reasonable to

assume that in referring to all the laws excluding those involved in

the question and answer process, Philo m a y have lumped them

together with the Decalogue, since they are at least implicitiy included

in it, it seems to me unreasonable to assume that he wou ld refer

specifically to the Deca logue in a manner that elsewhere explicitly

excludes it. 2 3

2 0 J. Levison, " T w o Types of Ecstatic Prophecy according to Philo," Stadia Philonica Annual 6 (1994), 83-89.

2 1 Y. Amir, "Authority and Interpretation o f Scripture in the Writings of Philo," in Mikra, eds. Morton J. Mulder and Harry Sysling (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 421-53.

22 Spec. 3.7; cf. Proem. 2; Deed. 19. 2 3 In a later publication ("Authority and Interpretation," 437), Amir suggests that

the first category "is undoubtedly the one that gives all the verses of the Torah the character o f oracles. Perhaps because Philo is not concerned here with this first category, but wants to get on to the third, he seems to have been somewhat careless


Philo's description o f the first and third categories o f oracles delivered by Moses yields two types o f prophecy, hermeneutical or noetic and ecstatic, the latter being mediated through possession, the former through the prophet 's noetic response to the divine voice , which is seen by Philo as a figure for rational soul. As for the second category o f oracles, inasmuch as there is no clear indication in Philo's text that the evBouauxajioc; o f Moses when he is posing his questions to the deity involves the kind o f possession that takes him out o f himself, it would seem that both question and answer in the four cases cited by Philo are exemplifications o f noetic prophecy, in which, as we shall see, the prophet 's mind is not only not preempted, but actually appears to seize the initiative. M o r e precisely, the question side is prenoetic, o r a preliminary state o f the noetic, marked by intellectual perplexity and uncertainty. In any case, Philo's m o m e n tary restriction o f the use o f the term "prophecy" largely to the predictive mode l o f inspiration conveniently enables him to focus the reader's gaze almost exclusively on ecstatic prophecy, and thus allows him to deal with the noetic type with almost casual lack o f concern. W e are driven to a distant but singular passage in Decal. 32—35 if we wish to seek out his understanding o f the latter form o f prophecy. Philo's descriptions o f ecstatic possession are rhetorically elaborated in a series o f passages in which it is emphatically asserted that in that state the prophet's sovereign mind is entirely preempted by the divine Spirit, so that he becomes a passive med ium for the Deity's message.

A close examination, however , o f Philo's description o f Moses ' predictive p rophecy reveals that while he has adopted the more radical form o f Greek ecstatic p rophecy as his mode l with regard to the predictive prophecies o f Abraham and Balaam, 2 4 this is not the case with those o f Moses . Here there is no explicit reference to the displacement o f the prophet's mind, to his ignorance o f his own prophetic words, or to the fact that G o d prompts the words that he speaks.

If this interpretation is correct, it would 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 now 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 quotations from God, it might be inferred that they were transmitted to Moses by G o d in his own person.

2 4 Her. 264-66 ; Mos. 1.274-91.


uniqueness that frames Philo's portrait o f Moses , for it is n o w evident that not only is Moses ' legislative prophecy unique, but even his predictive prophecy, a gift he otherwise shares with N o a h and the Patriarchs, 2 5 is likewise unique, since it is not as with the latter, a product o f psychic invasion and displacement. It should be noted that Levison has corroborated m y interpretation through a detailed analysis that demonstrates the integral connect ion between Moses ' emotional state, his experience o f inspiration and his utterance before the people o f Israel.

Levison, however, takes issue with m y assertion that Philo invokes the notion o f ecstatic possession only to explain the ability o f the prophet to predict the future. H e notes that Moses ' announcement o f the Sabbath and the c o m m a n d to slaughter the leaders responsible for the fiasco o f the golden calf are speeches about the present. But as for the c o m m a n d to slaughter the instigators o f the golden calf worship, Philo himself admits that it was more o f an exhortation than an oracular saying, 2 6 and as for his announcement o f the Sabbath, it is couched in Scripture as a prediction. W h e n all the chieftains o f the community told Moses that on the sixth day the peo ple gathered double the amount o f food , he said to them: "This is what the Lord meant: T o m o r r o w is a day o f rest, a holy Sabbath o f the Lord . " This announcement is corroborated by G o d in v. 29: "Mark that the Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore H e gives you two days' food on the sixth day." It should be noted that although in E x o d 16:5, G o d tells Moses that on the sixth day the people will receive "double the amount they gather each day," H e does not indicate that the seventh day is the Sabbath. Levison further argues that Philo, in his account o f Moses ' announcement o f the Sabbath, explicitly connects the mind o f Moses and the divine spirit: "For the mind," says Philo, "could not have made so straight an aim if there was not also the divine spirit guiding it to the truth itself."27 Accord ing to Levison, this suggests "that Moses ' ecstatic prophetic inspiration can engage and quicken the mind, leading it to the truth . . . There may be , then, a closer relationship between hermeneutical p rophecy and ecstatic p rophecy than Winston has suggested." 2 8

2 5 Her. 260 -61 . 2 6 Mos. 2.270. 27 Mos. 2.265. 2 8 Levison "Two Types of Ecstatic Prophecy," 89.


It seems to me , however, that Levison misreads Philo's intentions

here. W h a t Philo is saying is that Moses ' announcement o f the Sab

bath day was not so much conjecture as God-sent inspiration. In

general, says Philo, conjectures are closely akin to predictive prophe

cies, insofar as both are not the certain result o f an individual's

" o w n " knowledge, and therefore remain uncertain until confirmed.

But although predictive p rophecy is not the result o f one 's o w n

knowledge, inasmuch as it is disclosed by the divine spirit, it is known

with certainty. In the case o f Moses , his conjecture was confirmed

for h im through a mildly ecstatic form o f divine inspiration. W e r e

Moses left to his own devices, he could at best only have announced

his "conjecture" to the people , but he could not have announced

the Sabbath as a certainty. Moreover , 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 Moses o f his own power o f foreknowledge

(7tpoyvrooTiicric, ouvdcLrecoc;) and by this he will reveal future events." 2 9

Furthermore, in his introductory remarks to his description o f Moses

here as prophet , Philo notes that the prophet declares by inspiration

(0£O7u£n) what cannot be apprehended by reason (Xoyiairco).3 0 This

is further reinforced by Philo's statement, when speaking o f Jacob ' s

predictive p rophecy (evOouoicovtoc,), that "apprehension o f the future

does not be long to man ." 3 1

T h e question, however, remains: W h y did Philo include in his

third kind o f p rophecy what he himself admits is really only a case

o f exhortation rather than prediction? T h e answer, I believe, lies in

the fact that Philo is here probably working with an exegetical tra

dition that grouped together examples o f Mosaic statements for which

there appear to be no indications in Scripture that G o d had first

informed him concerning these matters. Thus, although the golden

calf episode did not really fit the predictive pattern, he included it

nonetheless, since it undoubtedly appeared in most o f the lists that

were before h im. 3 2

29 Mos. 2.190. 30 Mos. 2.187. 31 Her. 261. 3 2 "The 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 of Moses in the scriptural passages adduced by the Mekilta, he will immediately notice that, according to the Mekilta, Moses did not hesitate in most of these cases


In sharp contrast to ecstatic p rophecy , divine vo ice or noetic

p rophecy does not render its recipient passive. Although no separate

account is given by Philo o f this m o d e o f Mosa ic prophecy, we may

discern its nature from his account o f the giving o f the Decalogue ,

which must serve us as the paradigm for prophecy through the divine

v o i c e . 3 3 G o d , we are there told, is not as a man needing mouth,

tongue, and windpipe . 3 4 Rather H e created a rational soul full o f

clearness and distinctness that shaped the air around it into a flam

ing fire, sounding forth an articulate v o i c e . 3 5 T h e articulate voice

was activated by the p o w e r o f G o d , which 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 by the

impact o f the air, but the hearing o f the mind possessed by G o d

(evGeoi) 8iavoia<;) makes the first advance and goes out to meet

the conveyed meanings ((pGdvei 7tpoD7tavTa>aa xoi<; A-eyoia-evon;) with the

swiftest speed" (Decal. 35). It is clear from this description that the

inspired mind that perceives this special rational soul created by G o d ,

far from being preempted or rendered passive, is rather extraordi

narily quickened and sharpened.

For the notion o f a mind to mind communica t ion in order to

explain the divine voice at Sinai, Philo was indebted to the Middle

Platonic tradition. T h e Platonists had been exercised by the need to

explain the nature o f Socrates' famous daimonion o r sign, and one o f

the interpretations recorded by Plutarch is very similar to that adopted

by Philo. 3 6 Some scholars, however, have seen a contradiction between

Philo's statement in Decal. 33 and 46 that the rational soul created

by G o d for the communica t ion o f the Deca logue "sounded forth an

articulate v o i c e " ((pcovT^v evapGpov) and the statement in Mig. 47—49

that the words o f G o d , unlike those o f mortal beings, are seen as

light is seen, not being divided into nouns and verbs and 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].

3 3 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.

3 4 Cf. Deus 83; Mig. 47-52; 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 windpipe, tongue and mouth. But this is absurd and borders on the fairy-tales of Epicurus." See also Aristobulus, fr. 4, Holloday 3.163.

3 5 Cf. Mekilta Bahodesh 9, Lauterbach 2.266. 36 De gen. 588d. '


o f speech in general as the human voice is . 3 7 It is very likely, how

ever, that while the conceptuality o f the Logos does not consist o f

articulate words, when it is communica ted to the human mind it is

perceived in accordance with the latter's finite capacities. Thus it

appears from Decal. 3 3 - 3 5 that the rational soul created by G o d ,

which is full o f clearness and distinctness, in itself consists o f non-

articulate thought, though subsequentiy it shapes the air into a flaming

fire that sounds forth an articulate voice equally audible to the far

thest, as well as the nearest. But this articulate voice is then con

veyed directiy to the minds o f the people through an intellectual

vis ion. 3 8 If this is correct, then even the intellectual vision o f Moses

is not on the metalinguistic level o f the Logos itself.3 9

In light o f the general thrust o f Philo's philosophical thought, it

is very likely that he understands noetic p rophecy to refer to the

activation o f man's higher mind or his intuitive intellect, by means

o f which he grasps the fundamental principles o f universal being

viewed as a unified whole . This unified vision o f the wor ld o f intel

ligible Forms constitutes for Philo an inherent characteristic o f the

human mind , though for most peop le m u c h effort is ordinarily

required to actualize it. W h e n it does occur , however , one achieves

direct knowledge o f the Divine. Philo therefore undoubtedly under

stood the prophetic revelation through which Moses attained to his

understanding o f the Law, as an intuitive grasp o f the higher divine

realities, the fundamental principles o f being, and the natural laws

that constitute its structure. 4 0

3 7 See Hans Leisegang, Der heilige Geist (Leipzig: Teubner, 1919), 219-21 ; F.N. Klein, Die Lichtterminologie bei Philon von Alexandrien und in den hermetischen Schrifien (Leiden: Brill, 1962), 45-50; A. Kamesar, "Philo and the Literary Quality of the Bible: A Theoretical Aspect o f the Problem," JJS 46.1-2 (1995), 58, n. 15.

3 8 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.

3 9 See D . Winston, "Aspects of 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." The statement o f R. Judah the Patriarch in the Mekilta apparently interprets 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 individual capacities, and the notion that prophecy is not an external action but an immanent force, see the sources cited by Heschel 277-79.

4 0 The 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.


T o support our interpretation o f Philo's theory o f noetic p rophecy

we turn to several passages from The Migration of Abraham. At Mig. 80, Philo notes that thoughts are nothing else than G o d ' s words or

speech, "for without the prompter (TOX> imoPoAicoc;) speech will give

forth no utterance, and mind is the prompter o f speech, as G o d is

o f mind ." 4 1 Moreover , interpreting E x o d 4:10 ("from the time thou

hast begun to speak to thy servant"), he speaks o f G o d ' s flashing

into Moses the light o f truth by means o f the undying words o f

absolute Knowledge and W i s d o m . 4 2 T h e divine illumination o f Moses '

mind is thus mediated through a vision o f the eternal Forms.

T h e passages referred to above lead us back to a characteristic

trait o f Philo's mystical vision, its inherentiy bipolar perspective, which

consistently allows two alternative modes o f describing human intel

lectual activity. F rom the divine perspective, the higher workings o f

the human mind, when it has assimilated itself to the Logos , may

apdy be ascribed to the divine power , which is their true source,

and it may be said that G o d is prompting them from within, though

from the human perspective they may reasonably be assigned to the

individual human mind that appears to be producing them. 4 3 Levison

is thus unduly impressed by those passages in which Philo empha

sizes what appears to be a source o f inspiration that is external to

human beings. H e thus claims that:

Philo's attribution of 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 of inspiration. Despite the mind's affinity with the Logos, external aid is necessary for the ascent of the mind; it does not occur naturally. The divine Spirit is necessary to conquer the enemy of divine ascent, earthly cares. 4 4

Similarly, he writes that "the Spirit prompts the mind to embrace

a higher level o f meaning. Philo's experience, which underlies this

mode l o f inspiration consists o f being led by an external divine aid

to solve exegetical conundrums." 4 5 Moreover , he sees in Philo's

4 1 Cf. Det. 66—67; Brehier, Les idees philosophiques et religieuses, 103, n. 4. 42 Mig. 76. 4 3 Cf. Praem. 54, where Philo writes that: "it was G o d who appointed Moses by

the free judgment of his subjects, G o d who created in them the willingness to choose him as their sovereign."

4 4 J. Levison, "Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings of Philo Judaeus," Journal for the Study of Judaism 26.3 (1995), 293.

4 5 Ibid., 307.


choice of the preposition "upon" to describe the divine spirit's relationship to Bezalel,4 6 in lieu of the conception of Bezalel's being filled with the divine spirit, a subtle rebuttal of Stoic conceptions of the spirit, according to which the human spirit or soul was part and parcel of the cosmic spirit. . . . In contrast to the perspective of Stoicism, namely that the human soul is inherently inspired by virtue of its character as pneuma, Philo contends that the cosmic pneuma is a supplement that temporarily imparts wisdom when it comes upon human beings. 4 7

T h e fact is, however, that Philo has explicitiy adopted the very Stoic

formulation o f the human soul that Levison thinks he is refuting.

H e designates the human intellect as an imprint, or fragment, or

effulgence o f the L o g o s , 4 8 or, as he occasionally puts it, as a port ion

o f the divine ether. 4 9 Admittedly, in a number o f passages, Philo

tends to contrast the Stoic notion o f the mind as a port ion o f ether

with the more reverent characterization o f it by Moses as a faithful

cast (eK|iayeiov eu,(pepeq) o f the divine image . 5 0 But this should not

be taken to mean that Philo wishes to guard against turning the

human mind into a part o f G o d . Philo is only attempting to indi

cate that the description o f the human mind as ethereal pneuma is

to be understood only metaphorically and is not meant to imply that

it is a corporeal substance in the Stoic manner . 5 1 Moreove r , as I

have already indicated above, Philo's many references to the divine

spirit as coming from above (avcoOev) or from without (e^coGev) are

equally characteristic o f Seneca and probably derive from the Middle

Stoa. 5 2

Although Burkhardt's approach to Philo's theory o f scriptural inspi

ration differs considerably from mine in many details, its overall con

clusions are surprisingly similar to my own. Accord ing to Burkhardt

(and Amir 's earlier formulation o f this matter), Philo employs two

different conceptions o f prophecy, one in which prophecy is syn-

4 6 Actually, in Gig. 27, Philo is no longer referring to Bezalel but to the Spirit that was upon Moses, for which he cites Num 11:17 (xov TtveuuocTOc; iov kia aoi).

4 7 J. Levison, "Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings of Philo Judaeus," 279. See now his summary view of Philo's theory of prophecy in John R. Levison, The Spirit in First Century Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 137—60.

48 Opif. 146; Praem. 163. 49 Leg. 3.161; QE 2.46. 50 Mut. 223; Det. 83; Plant. 18. 5 1 See D . Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati:

Hebrew Union College, 1985), 28-30. 52 Mos. 2.69; Virt. 217; Congr. 130; Somn. 1.119.


onymous with hermeneia, the other in which it is distinguished from it. T h e former derives from Plato's theory o f poetic inspiration, which speaks o f an ecstatic state in which the prophet 's mind is displaced, the other from Posidonius' mantic theory in which "the soul is clairvoyant o f itself because o f its kinship with the gods ." These two conceptions, says Burkhardt, are not mutually exclusive, but they bear distinctive emphases, the one focusing on the divine origin o f prophecy, the other taking account o f the human intermediation involved in its transmission. Scriptural inspiration, it turns out, belongs not to ecstatic p rophecy but to the kind in which the prophet speaks in his o w n right. Burkhardt then cites a plethora o f passages that demonstrate that the Mosa ic authorship o f Scripture cannot be detached from his own personality, but is rather its fullest expression. Moses is said to have possessed all the virtues without which he could never have c o m p o s e d the Scriptures. 5 3 Indeed, it was Moses ' status as a vouoc, euiiruxoc,54 that qualified him to b e c o m e the true legislator par excellence. In Mos. 1.4, Philo calls the sacred books "the wonderful monuments o f his wisdom that he has left behind h im." In Spec. 4.105 we are told that "as Moses always adhered to the principles o f numerical science, which he knew by close observation to be a paramount factor in all that exists, he never enacted any law great or small without calling to his aid and, as it were, accommodat ing to his enactment its appropriate number ." Even more direcdy personal is the statement that the prophetic legislator "used to incite and train all his subjects to fellowship, setting before them the m o n ument o f his o w n life like an original design to be their beautiful mode l " (Virt. 51).

It is highly significant that the inspired translation o f Scripture means for Philo keeping pace with the spirit o f Moses . T h e authors o f the L X X are not so m u c h translators as "prophets and priests o f the mysteries, whose sincerity and singleness o f thought has enabled them to go hand in hand 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 o f Scripture is clearly revealed in Philo's attempt to explain the manner in which Moses structured his text in order to demonstrate his [literary] excellence:

53 Mos. 2.11. 54 Mos. 2.4.


We 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 useless entertainment (\|mxaY(Qyr|aou) that they give. 5 5

H e wished to show that the Creator was also the Legislator, and that he w h o follows the law will live in harmony with nature. 5 6 M o r e over, unlike those legislators w h o begin by issuing orders without preliminary words o f exhortation, as though they were addressing slaves rather than free men, a practice characteristic o f tyrants, Moses instead suggests and admonishes rather than c o m m a n d s and his numerous instructions are accompanied by forewords and afterwords. 5 7

Burkhardt's detailed analysis o f the various passages just cited and many others as well is an important contribution to our understanding o f Philo's theory o f scriptural inspiration. His basic approach, however, in the evaluation o f Philo's three types o f p rophecy and their application to the larger issue o f inspiration is fraught with difficulty, inasmuch as he is constrained artificially to connect Moses ' interpretation o f the particular laws with the third category o f oracles . 5 8 Moreove r , and even more important, predictive prophecy, in m y opinion, is clearly the wrong paradigm for the prophetic origin o f the laws. T h e latter are arrived at by means o f a divine inspiration that elevates the mind to its highest intellectual level, thus enabling it to achieve a max imum degree o f clearness and distinctness. For Philo, this constitutes an immanent divine causality that allows him to describe Moses as the interpreter o f G o d "who prompts from within (ev8o0ev v>nr\xo\)Vxo<;) what he should say" (Praem. 55). In predictive prophecy, on the other hand, the prophet must acquire knowledge that is inaccessible to the human mind even when it functions at its highest intellectual level. T o obtain it, Moses , and he alone, has the capacity to induce in himself a mildly ecstatic state in which "he is no longer in himself," in order to access the knowledge found only in the Logos and is available only in this manner.

5 5 See Kamesar, "Philo and the Literary Quality o f the Bible," 59. 5 6 Cf. Opif. 1-3; Abr. 6. 57 Mos. 2.47-51. 5 8 Since the conclusion o f Scripture, which Philo describes as its crowning con

summation, is a narrative account o f Moses' prophecy of this own death (written by him as redactor), and belongs to the third kind of prophecy, Burkhardt infers that all of Scripture must therefore belong to that prophetic category.


Finally, we turn to Amir , w h o n o w appears to derive Moses ' formulation o f the particular laws from the first category o f oracles described by Philo. "The relationship between what comes to Moses ," he writes,

. . . and what he gives out [as hermeneut] cannot be disentangled. There is more of Moses' own personality in Tora than the concept of "interpreter" can cover. . . . Philo conflates the intrahuman and supra-human aspects. . . . What the soul receives directly from God 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.5 9

This comes very close to m y o w n position, although I would characterize what the soul receives directly from G o d more specifically as an "intuitive" intellectual vision, but one that is conceived linguistically, since, in m y opinion, its original metalinguistic divine nature must be a c c o m m o d a t e d to the finite human mind o f the prophet. As for Amir 's assertion that it cannot be written down, I would have to add that this is true, as I have noted elsewhere, in the sense that when the words are within the master dialectician's mind, they are part o f an intellectual vision deriving from a primary principle and their signification is thus transparentiy clear to him, but when in his attempt to communicate them to others, they take on the form o f uttered sound or the written word , they b e c o m e c louded by a veil o f ambiguity and uncertainty. 6 0

Providence

W e turn finally to the doctrine o f divine providence. In T h e W i s d o m o f So lomon , W i s d o m is synonymous with Providence, controlling historical events and in each generation guiding the friends o f G o d and inspiring the prophets. In a fine ode to Wisdom' s saving power in history (10:1-21) , the author assimilates the old covenantal salvation history with its miraculous and sudden divine irruptions to the immanent divine ordering o f human events as mediated by the continuous activity o f W i s d o m . It is her generation by generation election o f holy servants (7:27) that structures the life o f Israel.

5 9 Y. Amir, "Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of Philo," 437-40 .

6 0 Winston, "Aspects of Philo's Linguistic Theory," 125, n. 40.


Although Philo sometimes uses the term " W i s d o m " synonymously

with Logos , it is the latter that generally takes over all o f its func

tions. Extending itself from the center o f the universe to its furthest

bounds and from its extremities to the center again, the Logos runs

nature's unvanquished course, jo in ing and binding fast all its parts.

Constituting the unbreakable b o n d o f the universe, it mediates and

moderates the threatenings o f the opposing elements, so that the uni

verse may produce a complete harmony. 6 1 A t Deus 176, we are told

that the world is a democracy because the Logos proportions to each

race and nation its due. It has been poin ted out that the term

"democracy" as used by Philo is equated not with a specific form

o f government but rather with a general principle o f justice. 6 2 In

another passage, Philo tells us that

. . . all that strikes a false note in human life is the work of inequality, but all that maintains its fitting order is that of 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 of sickness and vices. {Spec. 4.237)

Vlastos has noted that the founders o f Greek scientific thought con

ceived o f cosmic equality as the guaranty o f cosmic justice. A lcman

taught that what preserves health is equality between the powers

(ioovouioc)—moist and dry, co ld and hot, bitter and sweet, and the

rest—and the prevalence o f one o f them produces disease. 6 3 Heraclitus'

notion that "the way up and d o w n is one and the same" 6 4 means

that the sum total o f upward changes in the universe equals the

downward ones, and Philo puts the same interpretation on this frag

ment. H e speaks o f "reciprocation" (dveicciaic,) and interchange accord

ing to the standards o f equality and the bounds o f just ice. 6 5

In the Deus passage cited above (173-76) , Philo emphatically denies

the notion that the fortunes o f empire are a matter o f chance:

61 Fug. 112; Her. 234-36; Plant. 9-10. 6 2 Wolfson, Philo, 2.390; Erwin R. Goodenough, The Politics of Philo Judaeus (Hilde-

sheim: Georg Olms, repr. 1967), 86-90. 6 3 D.K. B4. 6 4 D.K. B80. 65 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.


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 of 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 of each, so that the whole world should like one city maintain the best of constitutions, democracy. 6 6

There was the well-known Greek gnomic saying KTUKXOI; TOC dvSpcoTtiva67

and Herodotus had long ago noted that "human affairs are on a

wheel (TCUKAOI;) which in its turning does not suffer the same man to

have g o o d fortune forever ." 6 8 T h e immediate source o f Philo's state

ment, however , would appear to be the remark o f Demetrius o f

Phalerum quoted by Polybius 6 9 to the effect that cruel Fortune, " w h o

always defeats our reckonings by some novel stroke," had but tem

porarily lent its blessings to the Persians and would in its own g o o d

time take them back and give them instead to the Macedonians ,

w h o would b e c o m e the new masters o f almost the whole world. In

Polybius' writings Fortune (T\)%r|) generally refers to the incalculable

element in human affairs, that which resists rational analysis, and is

thus conceived as an impersonal force. There are many passages,

however , where Fortune is personified and portrayed as punishing

injustice (15.20.5-8; 29 .27 .11-12) but it is above all Polybius' descrip

tion o f R o m e ' s unique rise to world 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) where this rise is seen as part o f a

rational historical process o f cause and effect. Apparentiy Polybius

was ultimately unable in his own mind to assimilate R o m e ' s meteoric

rise to power to a rational process pure and simple, and found himself

resorting on occasion to a teleological concept ion o f Fortune's activ

ities in order to explain this overwhelmingly impressive historic event. 7 0

6 6 Cf. Jos. 131-32, 144; Mos. 1.31, 41; QG 4.43. 67 Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, ed. E.L. Leutsch and P.G. Schneidewin

(Hildesheim: G. Olm, 1958), 2.492. 6 8 1.207; cf. Aristode Eth. nic 1.10, 1100b4; Plutarch Mor. 103f. 6 9 29.21; cf. Diodorus 31.10. 7 0 The interpretation of Polybius' concept of Tyche is much debated. I have fol

lowed that of F.W. Walbank, Polybius (Berkeley: University of California, 1972)


Unlike Polybius, whose formulations, as we have just seen, reveal

a considerable degree o f ambivalence, Philo's concept ion o f the world

historical process would appear to be more strictly impersonal. 7 1 T h e

sequence o f wor ld empires is determined by a cosmic principle o f

equality, a fundamental characteristic o f the divine Logos . Whenever

this principle is violated and some city or nation arrogates to itself

more than its proper share o f power and possessions, a redistribu

tion takes place that eliminates the dislocation that had momentar

ily disturbed the balance o f the divine e c o n o m y . Philo sees this as

a cyclic "dance" o f the Logos in which persistent imbalances and

inequalities that continuously invade the cosmic order are periodi

cally redressed. But if this dance o f the Logos involves a "perpetual

flux" (del pecov), h o w is it to be reconciled with Philo's belief in the

ultimate advent o f a messianic age? T h e answer appears to be that

the rotational equality that rules the present cosmic era will ulti

mately be replaced by a steady-state form o f equality. T h e ideal nat

ural law embod ied in the Mosa ic T o r a h will then govern all the

nations o f the world, so that there will no longer be any dislocations

in the divine e c o n o m y and hence no need for per iodic redistribu

tions. In short, the fundamental principle o f equality that charac

terizes the Logos will not be replaced or diminished in any way,

although its m o d e o f operation will be modified. But although it is

thus possible to reconcile Philo's philosophical concept ion o f divine

providence with the Jewish apocalyptic messianic vision, he clearly

sensed the sharp tension between these two conceptualizations, for

he restricted his comments o n the former to a few brief passages in

Praem. 163 -72 , and even there his denationalizing and psychologiz

ing approach entailed a far-reaching modification o f the Jewish v iew. 7 2

58-65 . See also G.W. Trompf, The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought (Berkeley: University of California, 1979), chaps. 1 and 2.

7 1 For a different view, see Wolfson, Philo, 2.421-23. 7 2 See Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology, 55-58; 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.

7

E U D A I M O N I S M IN H E L L E N I S T I C - J E W I S H L I T E R A T U R E


1. Introduction

T h e title o f this collection o f papers, and o f the Symposium at which they were first presented, is a play on the biblical injunction, pronounced by N o a h on waking up from his drinking bout, that Japheth should dwell in the tents o f Shem (Gen 9:27). A tradition o f nearly two millennia is thus be ing cont inued, namely that this text be explained or exploited in terms o f the relation between Greek and Semitic or Jewish culture. For myself, coming from the far North, the biblical version is more appropriate. I regard myself as a descen-dent o f Japheth w h o is privileged to pay a visit to one o f the strongholds o f Shem. For m y subject, however, the reversal o f the motif by the editor is particularly appropriate. Hellenistic Jews, such as Philo, resident in the Greek stronghold o f Alexandria, were truly sons o f Shem living in the tents o f Japheth. T h e y were heavily reliant on the translation o f the T o r a h into Greek, which according to the interpretation o f R a b b i Judah, 1 this biblical verse allowed. T h e Septuagint translation will play an important role in the argument o f m y paper, albeit mainly in a negative sense. But first I should introduce what the theme o f m y paper will be .

M y intention is to take the reader on an excursion through the terrain o f the history o f ideas, focusing in particular o n the relation between Greek ideas and Jewish ideas. W h e n today I speak about Greek ideas, I mean in the first place those ideas that were developed in the splendid tradition o f Greek philosophy. W e should not forget, however , that in ancient Greek culture ideas were certainly not confined to phi losophy only. Writers such as the tragedians, rhetoricians and historians also made important contributions. In some respects these contributions may have been more influential,

1 Midrash Rabbah 36.8.

132 D A V I D T. RUNIA

because one should never forget that philosophy was a rather elitist and h ighbrow activity in the ancient world. In the case o f Jewish ideas, we o f course first think o f the biblical record, in which a great number o f potent ideas are to be found. Beyond the Tanakh there are the further rich traditions o f Judaism, in which Greek speaking Judaism has a modest place. Here too ideas make their presence felt. In the case o f Hellenistic Judaism, however, there is special c o m plicating factor. T h e medium o f discourse had b e c o m e the Greek language, and that meant that ideas were expressed by means o f the same Greek terms that were developed in the Greek culture mentioned above. Japheth had thus truly made his presence felt in the tents o f Shem.

O u r subject is one very Greek idea and the way it percolates through into Hellenistic Jewish culture. I call this idea eudaimonism. T h e term is derived from the Greek w o r d eudaimonia, which is usually translated as "happiness," but which, 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 human life. If a life measures up to certain criteria, such as goodness, success, prosperity etc., it (or its possessor) may be called eudaimon, which we might translate as "fortunate" or "flourishing" (again it is better to avoid the term "happy") . Together with arete (virtue or excellence), eudaimonia is the key term in Greek philosophical ethics. In the Bible, however, it is totally absent. W e could not, therefore, find a clearer case o f a theme where Japhet and Shem have followed quite separate paths. I f therefore we should find that eudaimonism has gained a place in Hellenistic Jewish thought, as is in fact the case, then we have hit upon a very significant example o f Japheth finding his way into the tents o f Shem. This penetration is the theme o f m y paper.

M o r e concretely, m y p rogram will be as follows. First I shall explain in more detail what eudaimonism involves and why it has obtained a central place in Greek thought. T h e n various Hellenistic Jewish writers—notably Philo and Josephus—will be examined in order 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 paper will then be to evaluate this usage and to ascertain h o w much these authors have been influenced in their thinking by Greek modes 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 Hesiod, but coming into prominence in the 6th and 5th centuries B . C . E . T h e first clue to its significance is given by the e tymology o f the word . 2 It consists o f three components. The first is the word eu meaning "well," the adverb linked to the adjective agathos, " g o o d . " T h e second componen t is daimon, from which the English w o r d " d e m o n " is derived. This noun is most likely derived from the root verb 5a(to, meaning "distribute," and so means something like "distributor" or "divider." T h e daimon is the super-human power w h o exerts a decisive influence on the course o f a person's life. Under the influence o f later developments we are inclined to see the relation between gods and demons as hierarchical, i.e. demons occupy ing a position between gods and men . 3 But in order to understand the e tymology o f eudaimonia this view is quite misleading. G o d s (theoi) and daimones both refer to forces beyond the human sphere. In our context it is best to take them as largely synonymous. T h e third componen t is the suffix "ia" which converts the adjective eudaimon into the noun eudaimonia. So a literal translation o f the term might be something like "well-god-ness." What meaning does this unusual term wish to communicate?

It is well known that archaic Greek thought combined a deep religiosity with a rather pessimistic or even fatalistic perspective on human existence. M e n and w o m e n are in n o way in control o f their own destiny. Their fate or lot is determined by h o w the gods are disposed towards them. If this disposition is positive, then they are eudai-mones. T h e opposite, kakodaimonia, is experienced when the deity is ill-disposed, for whatever reason. T h e n disaster strikes. Let m e give two examples from Greek tragedy. During the Antigone o f Sophocles it becomes clear that Antigone'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 of evils. For those whose house is shaken by the gods escape no kind of doom that creeps over more than a single generation. (Ant. 583—585)

2 For the etymology of eudaimonia see further R. Holte, Art. "Gliick (Gliickseligkeit)," Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum 11 (1981), 246-249. I am not aware of a thorough philological and historical study o f the term.

3 Plato's Symposium was particularly influential in this development; cf. 202d-203a.


T h e royal house o f Thebes is struck by kakodaimonia, which brings about a concatenation o f disasters. T h e reverse may also happen: the gods may grant eudaimonia. This would create a happy ending, and so predictably happens less often in tragedy. 4 But it does occur . At the end o f Euripides' Electra the divine Dioscuri address the play's heroine:

You, betake yourself to the Isthmus' narrow neck of land and go to the fortunate (eudaimon) rock of Gecrops. For when you have fulfilled the fated doom of a murderer, you will flourish (eudaimoneseis), released from these evils. (El. 1288-1291)

W h a t is essential in early Greek thought is the convict ion that what happens to a person in his or her life, whether for g o o d or for ill, is not determined by that person. In the quotes above I have deliberately translated eudaimon with "fortunate." This rendering seems to indicate rather nicely that one's life is determined by the fate or luck that one receives at the hands o f the gods.

N o w it is precisely at this point that Greek philosophy, when it starts to develop out o f archaic Greek thought, raises a strong and highly successful voice o f protest. It cannot be the case, the philosophers claim, that the fate o f human beings is dependent on the whims and caprices o f a deity. As living beings endowed with logos (reason), humans have to have at least a measure o f control over their o w n destiny. T h e philosophers c o m e up with a radical solution. T h e daimon that is responsible for distributing the g o o d life is to a large extent internalized with the human person himself. N o one states this solution more compacdy than the philosopher Heraclirus. In a famous fragment he states: man's ethos (his character or his way o f thinking and doing) is his daimon.5 Plato develops this line o f thinking further. A t the end o f his celebrated cosmological dialogue, the Timaeus, he indicates h o w human life should be . This is an extremely significant passage in Greek philosophy and o f vital importance for our topic, so it should be quoted at some length:

With regard to the most sovereign kind of soul within us we should think as follows: that the god has given it to each person as a daimon

4 For the role of 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).

5 Fr. Bl 19 Diels-Kranz.


[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 of 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 of the heavens, he will reach the goal (telos) of the best life (aristos bios) offered to men by the gods, both now and for the future.6

T h e reference to the e tymology o f eudaimon and the play on words

could not be made more clearly. T h e cultivation o f the mind that

Plato advocates occurs through phi losophy o f course, but we should

note h o w Plato expresses this. H e envisages a process whereby the

mind conforms to the motions o f the heavens, because there the

divine is more strongly present than in humans themselves, whose

head may (or may not) be inclined to the heavens, but whose feet

for the time being are firmly rooted to the ground. Elsewhere, in a

formulation that summarizes the above thesis in a single phrase,

Plato affirms that man's goal in life should be "becoming similar to

g o d (homoidsis theoi) to the extent possible." 7

Against this background I n o w want to outline briefly what the

six essential features o f Greek eudaimonism are which in m y view

we need to take into consideration for our theme today. 8 Firstly, we

note that the g o o d state that the term eudaimonia conveys is intrinsi

cally linked to the notion o f a human life. This was quite evident

in the passages from Sophocles and Plato cited above. A life is judged

to be eudaimon on the basis o f certain criteria which are a matter o f

6 Tim. 90a-c (slightly abbreviated and adapted). 7 Theaet. 176b 1-2; the phrase was to become the standard Platonist formulation

of the goal of human existence. 8 There is no definitive monograph on Greek eudaimonism. The 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), 679-691 . For more extended treatments of 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. IV (Lanham, Maryland, 1989), 77—101.


discussion and dispute, such as excellence, success, achievement, prosperity and so on. These criteria, it is important to note, have an element o f objectivity. Eudaimonia is not a matter o f h o w one feels at the m o m e n t or at the present time. This is why one should on principle avoid the rendering "happiness" and the corresponding adjective "happy," because these terms are in modern usage irreparably subjective, and usually (though not always) also indicate a transient state.9 A better rendering is "well-being," even though it obviously misses the religious connotations present in the original term as conveyed by the e tymology. 1 0

Secondly, the life that eudaimonia describes is the good life, and this means that it is the life that is to be striven for. Goodness in Greek thought is above all associated with finality, the end result o f a process or an action. This notion o f a goal that we should strive for in our lives is expressed in Greek by means o f the technical term telos (goal or end-point). T h e term is related to teleios, meaning perfect or c o m plete. T h e best life is a life that is complete in a meaningful sense. Such completeness, it should be noted, can also involve a temporal aspect. W e recall the famous words o f the early Greek sage and lawgiver Solon: "count no one fortunate and blessed until he is dead." T h e Greeks knew that the turns and changes o f life are many and varied. W e may think we are doing well, but the disasters that hanging over us may be so great that, when they have taken place, it will have to be concluded that our life is and will remain ruined, kakodaimdn.u

Thirdly, so far eudaimonia merely gives a framework o f reference. It has to be filled in, and this is where the Greek philosophers disagree with each other. Each philosopher (and each philosophical school) defines for himself what the telos o f human life is. Various lines o f opinion can be discerned. T h e hedonists seek the end in pleasure. T h e more rigorously inclined stress the importance o f virtue or excellence, both with regard to character and intellectual achievement. T w o other favorites are peacefulness (or freedom from dis-

9 I am not convinced by the attempt of R. Kraut to rescue the standard rendering, " T w o Conceptions of Happiness," Philosophical Review 68 (1979), 167-197.

1 0 As argued by B. Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (London, 1985), 34, who defends the rendering "well-being," "since it is a matter of the shape of one's whole life."

1 1 Herodotus 1.32. The issue is discussed, with explicit reference to Solon, by Aristotle Eth. Nic. 1.9-10, 1100a5ff.


1 2 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. 81-125.

turbance) and self-sufficiency. These can be combined with the two earlier options in different ways.

Fourthly, each Greek ethical system o f thought, almost without exception, has a theological component. Divine bliss represents the ideal, to which humans should aspire, even if it is never wholly within their reach. It is agreed that humankind can never fully attain the blissful immortality o f the gods. But the way to reach the goal is to b e c o m e as similar to the gods as one can, precisely the Platonic formulation we noted just before.

Fifthly, Greek eudaimonism undeniably has an individualistic element. T h e g o o d life that one strives to attain is one 's own. Certainly one should not take this too narrowly. Families, communities, cities can also flourish, be eudaimon. M o r e o v e r personal well being is never a matter merely o f a person's o w n situation, but involves others around him or her, such as a spouse, children, friends etc. Even so, there can be no doubt that eudaimonism focuses more o n the self than on the other.

Sixthly and finally, we must observe that the g o o d life that Greek philosophy holds out to its followers is not just a matter o f theory. It is to be striven for and achieved. A major issue in Greek 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 adamant that it is; followers o f Aristotle are more pessimistic (or realistic, depending on one's view). In order to reach the goal one needs to engage in philosophical discussion and carry out spiritual exercises. 1 2 As a striking example, let me quote an example from an unlikely source, the hedonist and materialist philosopher Epicurus. In his letter on ethics he concludes with the following words:

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 of ataraxia] while awake or while dreaming, but you will live as a god among men. For a man who lives amid immortal 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 mean by Greek eudaimonism can be illustrated by this text, even though the term eudaimonia in fact

138 DAVID T. RUNIA

does not occur in it. T h e theological componen t is particularly striking when one considers Epicurus' (not wholly deserved) reputation for atheism. 1 3

Before we turn to our Jewish authors there is one complicating factor which has to be dealt with. As we noted above, Greek thought is profoundly aware o f the difference between the divine and the human realm. F rom H o m e r onwards it was conventional to use another term for the existence o f the gods. T h e y are makares, "blissful" or "supremely blessed." From this w o r d a more c o m m o n adjective is developed, makarios, usually translated in English as "blessed." In earlier Greek thought there is often a difference in usage between makarios, which is applied to the gods and humans living like god , and eudaimon, which relates to human beings in all their human vulnerability. 1 4 As time goes on, however , the distinction appears to fade, and the two terms are often j o ined together as synonyms. I am stuck with two problems. Firsdy there is the prominent use o f makarios in so-called macarisms or beatitudes, pronouncements o f the form "makarios is he or she w h o . . . " Such statements are very c o m mon, both in Greek literature, and in the Bible (Jewish and Christian). 1 5

I a m afraid that I will have set aside this aspect o f m y theme. Obviously there is some connect ion between the practice o f p ro nouncing beatitudes and the theme o f "well-being" and the g o o d life, but I cannot dwell on this in m y lecture. M y second p rob lem is one o f translation. I am unsure h o w best to translate makarios. English does not have a distinction between selig and gesegnete in German, zalig and gezegend in Dutch. O n e has little alternative but to use the conventional translation "blessed," but, as will emerge later on , I would prefer to reserve this term for another Greek word .

Let this then be sufficient in order to explain what I mean by Greek eudaimonism. W e shall n o w see whether this potent philosophical idea proved attractive to Jews w h o spoke and thought in Greek.

1 3 His name gave rise to the rabbinic term for the impious and godless person, the apikoros.

1 4 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).

1 5 Ample material collected by F. Hauck in TDNT s.v. makarios, IV 362-370.


3. Eudaimonia in the writings of Philo

Proceeding n o w to Hellenistic-Jewish authors, we c o m m e n c e with the most Hellenized o f them all, the great exegete and philosopher Philo o f Alexandria. In dealing with his evidence I am going to have to be 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 occur about 200 times, kakodaimon etc. nearly 50 times, makarios etc. about 60 times. 1 6 W e shall focus on some texts that are both striking and central to his concerns, taking into account the various kinds o f works that make up the Philonic corpus . 1 7

T h e first two texts c o m e from apologetic works. Philo wishes to present two Jewish groups as the living embodiment o f two 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 long description o f their way o f life, Philo concludes as follows:

Let this account suffice for the Therapeutae, who have embraced the contemplation (theoria) of nature and what it contains, and have lived a life of the soul alone, citizens of heaven and the cosmos, truly commended to the father and maker of 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 of felicity (eudaimonia). (Contempl. 90) 1 8

These men and w o m e n , by being engaged in contemplation, develop such arete (excellence) that G o d rewards them with his friendship and they thereby attain eudaimonia. This term is the final w o r d o f the treatise. Philo could not have emphasized it more . Unfortunately the compan ion treatise on the active life is lost, but we d o have a summary o f its argument elsewhere. 1 9 T h e group w h o represent the ideal

1 6 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 2), 138, 168, 191.

1 7 Excellent overview of 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.

1 8 For the interpretation of this difficult text and a defense o f the translation see my article, "The 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.

1 9 As part of Philo's philosophical treatise Prob. (75-91). On the basis o f termi-


o f the active life are the Essenes in Palestine. Here too the final words o f the passage are noteworthy. These athletes o f excellence show spiritual freedom to a high degree. P roof is that none o f the cruel tyrants o f the land—no doubt H e r o d is meant—could do them harm:

Defeated by the goodness (kalokagathia) of these men, these tyrants all treated them as self-governing and free by nature, praising their common meals and their fellowship (koinonia) which is superior to every description, regarding it as the clearest indication of a perfect and highly felicitous life {bios eudaimon). (Prob. 91)

Here too the idea o f eudaimonia is used as a climax. It can hardly be doubted that it is a crucial concept for Philo in presenting his two groups o f Jewish heroes.

T h e second Philonic example is his major exegetical work which is today generally known as the Exposition o f the L a w . 2 0 T h e basic schema o f the eleven connected treatises o f this work is significantly related to his presentation o f the two idealized groups examined above. Philo argues that devotion to G o d and his Law results in the excellences o f piety (eusebeia) and justice (dikaiosune), which in turn are rewarded by the life o f well-being (eudaimonia), as exemplified in the blessings and promises accorded the Patriarchs and the people o f Israel. Philo is giving exegesis o f Pentateuch, but for h im this is far from being an academic exercise. If families and cities and lands and the entire human race should follow the lead o f Moses , supreme felicity (eudaimonia) would be the result (Virt. 119). So far this scenario is no more 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 convinced that one day it will b e c o m e a living reality. 2 1

W e turn n o w to a few passages from this long work, each o f which involves the theme o f eudaimonia. It begins with a commentary on

nological and thematic parallels with Contempl. I would argue that the Prob. passage is a summary o f the lost companion piece, but this must remain somewhat speculative.

2 0 On the general structure of the work see P. Borgen, "Philo of 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 of the work. I am drawing here on unpublished work presented at the European Aassociation of Jewish Studies conference in Toledo, Spain, in July 1998.

2 1 Cf. also Mos. 2.44 (though this work is a general introductory portrait of the great lawgiver Moses, not part of the Exposition of the Law).


2 2 O n Philo's etymology for Israel see the study of E. Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo's Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes (Atlanta, 1996), esp. 61—90.

the creation account o f Genesis 1-3, which gives the Law its philosophical foundation. T h e first man A d a m is presented as reaching the limit o f well-being before being plunged into kakodaimonia when he succumbs to the temptations o f desire (Opif. 150-156) . In the final paragraph Philo sums up his findings:

He that has learnt these things . . . and has engraved their wonderful and priceless forms on his soul, namely (1) that God exists and subsists, (2) that as true Being he is one, (3) that he has made the cosmos and (4) has made it unique . . . conforming it to himself in accordance 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 of piety and holiness. (Opif. 172)

Philo next shows h o w the three Patriarchs through their exemplary lives were "living laws" before the Law was handed down to Moses . This trinity gave birth to the nation o f Israel, whose name means "he that sees G o d . " 2 2 It should be recognized, Philo continues:

that he to whom it is given not only to obtain knowledge of all the other aspects of nature, but also to see the Father and Maker of the universe, will advance to the very peak of felicity (eudaimonia). For nothing is higher than God, and he that has extended the eye of his soul to reach him should pray that he remain and stand firm in him. (Abr. 58)

After this Philo turns to the Law itself, first expounding the Decalogue and then explaining the further injunctions that fall under the ten chief headings. F rom the flood o f material and the frequent references to the theme o f eudaimonia I concentrate on his treatment o f the first two commandments , which he tends to take together. H o w it is possible that people can make and worship graven images? T h e best o f prayers and the goal o f well being is to b e c o m e similar to G o d . This means that you idolaters should pray to b e c o m e like your images, so that you will gather supreme felicity with eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear (Decal. 73). Philo is o f course being deeply sarcastic. No t that G o d needs to be worshipped, for H e is in need o f nothing. But H e wished to guide the human race so that they should find the best goal o f life, knowledge o f H i m w h o truly


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. Moses banishes from his congregation all those w h o deny G o d ' s existence or deify other things such as human reason. Philo then ends the treatise with a magnificent passage.

But we, the intimates and disciples of Moses, shall not give up our search for the One who IS, regarding the knowledge of him as the goal of well-being (eudaimonia) and also as age-long life, just as the Law too says that all those who "cleave to God shall live" (Deut 4:4), laying down a compelling and philosophical doctrine. For truly those who deny God are dead in their souls, whereas those who have taken service in the ranks of the God who IS live an immortal life. (Spec. 1.345)

After the Special Laws have been explained, Philo turns to a treatment o f a number o f excellences (or virtues) which the Law enjoins, but cannot be placed under the individual commandments because they are c o m m o n to them all. T h e aretai that he discusses are justice, courage, humanity, repentance and true nobility o f birth. 2 3 In each case Philo argues that the practice o f excellence will result in the life o f eudaimonia. I cite one passage from the section o n repentance, in which Philo paraphrases the well-known text Deut 30:11-14:

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 of our own constitution, mouth and heart and hands, by which is symbolized words and intentions and actions; for the mouth is the symbol of speech, the heart of intentions and the hands of actions, and in these three lies well-being (to eudaimonein). For whenever 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 God, thus becoming God-loving and God-beloved at the same time. (Virt. 183—185)

Just as in the case o f the Therapeutae, devotion to G o d as shown 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 obey and carry out the commandments

2 3 Perhaps piety [eusebeia) was also included, but this depends on how the textual tradition of Virt. is interpreted.


o f the Law, both at the individual and the collective level, together with the punishments and curses that follow when these are ignored. O n c e again the themes o f eudaimonia and kakodaimonia play an essential role in the argument. Abraham, the man o f trust in G o d (pistis) becomes truly eudaimon and thrice makarios because he accepts G o d as his sole support [Proem. 30). T h e people triumph over their enemies because they have chosen for G o d (Deut 26:17 again) and eudaimonia prevails, consisting both o f theoretical wisdom in the service o f G o d and practical w i sdom in the regulation o f human affairs [Proem. 81). Commentators have often been struck by the eschatolo-gical and even messianic promises related in the final part, which seem out o f keeping with Philo's more spiritual emphasis elsewhere in his writings. 2 4 Partiy the explanation is that he is giving exegesis o f texts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. But why does he choose to d o this? T h e reason is that these promises are one kind o f prize or reward for the life o f excellence and devotion to G o d and His Law. These are counterbalanced, however , by the prizes, which represent spiritual gifts, given to individuals such as the patriarchs, as in the case o f Abraham noted above, w h o becomes eudaimon because o f his trust in G o d .

Finally we briefly turn our attention to Philo's most extensive and famous work, the Allegorical Commentary . T h e stories about the early history o f humankind and the patriarchs in Genesis are converted into an elaborate allegory o f the soul, in which it is revealed h o w the soul has to choose between life and death, between g o o d and evil, between virtue and wickedness, between serving G o d or loving oneself and one's o w n desires. T i m e and time again eudaimonia sums up the positive side o f this disjunction. Take for example the contrast between Abe l and Cain. Comment ing o n G e n 4:8 Philo writes:

[Cain] the soul that has removed from itself the principles of love of excellence and love of God has died to the life of excellence. So that Abel, highly paradoxical though it may seem, both has been killed and lives. He is removed from the mind of the fool, but he lives the life of well-being in God [eudaimon bios). (Det. 48)

2 4 For two differing interpretations of Philo's limited messianic eschatology see D . Winston, Philo's Mystical Theology (Cincinnati, 1985), 55-57; P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (Leiden, 1997), 260-281.


For a final text we return to the theme o f peace and war. This can also be related to the state o f the soul. W h y does Moses sit "far from the c a m p " (Exod 33:7)? T h e reason, we read, is that:

Scripture wishes to intimate that the wise man is a sojourner who migrates from war to peace and from the camp of mortality and confusion to the divine life of peace and devoid of war which is the possession of souls who are rational and fortunate (eudaimones). (Ebr. 100)

T w o texts from the twenty-one books o f the Allegorical Commenta ry represent merely a sample. Examples could be multiplied ad libitum,25

but it is time to m o v e on.

4. Other Hellenistic-Jewish texts

It is necessary also to look at other Hellenistic-Jewish writers. After all, it is quite possible that Philo is not typical o f Hellenistic Judaism 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 exception o f Josephus, the term eudaimonia and related words d o not occur in these writers at all. There is not a single case! 2 6 If we relax our standards somewhat and include the use o f the term makarios as indicating some form o f eudaimonism, then we d o have some examples, but even here occurrences are rather rare if, as p roposed earlier, we exclude macarisms. I briefly mention three texts.

(a) In Joseph and Aseneth the heavenly messenger addresses Aseneth and calls her blessed because the ineffable mysteries have been revealed to her (16:7). Blessed too are all those w h o like her attach themselves to G o d in repentance, for they will partake o f the marvelous h o n e y c o m b . T h e theme o f repentance links this text to the Philonic passage we cited earlier. 2 7

(b) In the Sibylline Oracles there are about ten references to blessed people and a blessed t ime. 2 8 Mos t o f these are eschatological, set in a time when prophecies will c o m e to pass and the Jews will be vindicated against their enemies.

2 5 Note for example the reference to eudaimonia in the final words of three treatises, Post. 185, Ebr. 224, Somn. 1.256.

2 6 Excluding rare cases where eudaimonia means "prosperity," e.g. Testament of Job 35:4, 41:4, Artapanus at Eusebius PE 9.18.1.

27 Virt. 183-185. 2 8 2.179, 3.1, 371, 770, 4.192, 5.71, 107, 249, 414.


(c) In 4 Maccabees the author, a profoundly Hellenized Jew, interprets obedience to the Law in terms o f the philosophical doctrine o f reason's mastery o f the passions. Blessedness is stated to be the reward o f the defiant priest Eleazar, his wife and seven sons. It too is thought o f in future terms: it is the prospect o f an immortal life to be lived beyond death, i.e. b e y o n d the dreadful and fatal torture which they underwent o n account o f their loyalty to the Law and the traditions o f their people .

T h e final author to be considered is Josephus, w h o m I wish to include as a Hellenistic-Jewish writer, although his background is obv ious ly very different f rom that o f Phi lo and the author o f 4 Maccabees . Just as in the case o f Philo, both the term and concept o f eudaimonia are frequently encountered in his two major works (eudaimon etc. 154 times, kakodaimon 4 times, makarios etc. 35 times). Admittedly in a large number o f cases the term hardly means more than prosperity or faring well, and is o f no philosophical significance. But this is not the case for all texts. I shall concentrate on the opening passage o f the Antiquities, in which Josephus outiines the guiding ideas o f his account. History, in his view, has to have a lesson, 2 9

namely that men who conform to the will of God, and do not venture 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 Moses . In justifying the fact that he devotes so m u c h space to natural phi losophy (for example in his paraphrase o f the creation account), 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 God, and then, having become a student of his works with the mind, to imitate to the extent possible the very best model of all and try to follow it . . . [He must be] taught that God . . . grants those who follow Him a felicitous life (eudaimon bios), but involves those who step outside the path of excellence in great disasters. (Ant. 1.19—20)

A few lines later Josephus gives another explanation o f the rationale behind reward and punishment:

2 9 Translations are based on that o f H. St. J. Thackeray in the Loeb Classical Library (first published 1930).


Our legislator, having shown that God 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 we found in Philo's Exposition o f the Law is very striking. Josephus has clearly made a study o f Philo's De opijicio mundi, and probably the Exposition o f the Law in its entirety. 3 0 It would seem that the idea o f eudaimonia was one o f Philo's themes that appealed to him, so that he gave it a place o f prominence right at the beginning o f his long work. These texts give full support to Steve Mason 's assertion: "Josephus presents Judaism as a philosophy that offers a definite response to the human quest for euSaiLiovicc. Happiness is granted by G o d to those w h o observe his laws." 3 1

5. The results so far against the biblical background

W e can summarize the results o f our investigation into Hellenistic-Jewish literature so far. In the case o f Philo and Josephus a form o f eudaimonism is clearly present and plays a prominent role in their thought. Outside these two authors the idea seems to be scarcely present at all. W e only found it in a handful o f documents, all o f which are strongly influenced, in one way or another, by the imperialism o f Greek culture. W h y is it so rare?

T h e answer to this question is, I believe, not far to seek. T h e foundation o f Jewish thought and culture in this per iod was the Tanakh, the Heb rew Bible. Greek-speaking Jews read the Bible in the Septuagint translation. T h e term eudaimonia is entirely absent from this version, while the term makarios is confined to macarisms. M o r e importantly, the Greek idea o f eudaimonism, as I outlined it earlier, is wholly missing. I would argue that it is foreign to biblical thought, if I may use this rather general phrase to cover the wide spectrum o f writings in the Tanakh. Fundamental to the Heb rew Bible is the

3 0 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.

3 1 S.N. Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-critical Study (Leiden, 1991).


covenantal relationship that G o d undertakes with his chosen people . G o d makes his conditions known through the L a w and prophets. Israel has undertaken to obey , for it has chosen life and not death. Its reward is formulated in terms o f promises and blessings, in short shalom, peace. Disobedience to G o d and his Law is a breaking o f the agreement, in short sin. T h e central idea, which stands in contrast to the idea o f eudaimonism, needs a label, and I would suggest the term eulogism, by which I mean the idea o f a human life that is g o o d because humans receive blessings from G o d , and gives praise to H i m in return. I derive the term from the Greek eulogia, "speaking well of, blessing," the term that is so central to the Pentateuch, from the creation account at the outset to the blessing o f Moses at its conclusion. Perhaps we might better speak o f barakism, for the basic idea is Jewish and biblical, expressed in the Heb rew w o r d barak. But eudaimonism and eulogism make a neater contrast. After all, we are speaking mainly Greek today in the tents o f Japheth.

T h e majority o f Hellenistic-Jewish writings remain contentedly within the confines o f this biblical thought which I have outiined. For this reason eudaimonia and eudaimonism are wholly absent. Only a very restricted number o f authors d o make use o f it, and it is no accident that these are the writers w h o are most profoundly influenced by Hellenism, or have strong apologetic motives for making use o f Hellenistic ideas. Foremost a m o n g these is Philo, the Hellenized Jew par excellence. It is on 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 eudaimonism, we argued above, 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 Law, in the detailed allegorical interpretation o f the Genesis narrative. This 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 be argued that the presentation so far has been too preoccupied with terminology. O f course Philo talks about eudaimonia almost on every page. But what does he mean by it? Has the philosopher Wittgenstein not taught us that meaning lies in the use o f a word , not in the w o r d itself? Have we not learnt from the penetrating criticisms mounted against

148 DAVID T. RUNIA

works such as the monumental Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by Kittel and Friedrich, which treated terms as quasi-metaphysical items and paid insufficient attention to the contexts in which they were used? 3 2 Is it not possible that a preoccupat ion with etymologies and parallel usage in authors belonging to a quite different tradition may in fact put us on the wrong track?

R e c e n d y Naomi Cohen has published an important b o o k on Philo, in which she undertakes to introduce us to his "universe o f discourse." Her study explores the nature o f Philo's Jewish commit ment as it emerges from his idiosyncratic synthesis o f Jewish and Greek frames o f reference. Its thesis is that the basic parameters o f Philo's thought stand much closer to that o f the 1 st century Rabbis (if we may use the term) than is generally thought. O n e o f the key moves in her argument is the claim that we have to decode Philo's use o f terminology. K e y Greek terms that he uses over and over again can have a Jewish "meta-meaning." Sophia, wisdom, for example, may mean T o r a h or T o r a h lore; dikaiosune, usually translated "justice," may mean "observance o f the Law"; logoi, which in Greek can mean any number o f things, can refer simply to the c o m mandments, and so o n . 3 3

It is certainly to m y mind a plausible idea that certain Greek terms in Philo may have special Jewish undertones, but this topic cannot be pursued now. Wha t we need to d o is determine whether it is relevant to our subject. Cou ld it be the case that eudaimonia has special Jewish connotations? Is it not possible that Philo might wish to indicate by means o f it the promise held out by G o d to the p e o ple o f Israel, namely that, if they obey the commandments , "it may go well with them and they may live long in the land which the Lord G o d gives them" (Deut 5:16, cf. 5:33, 6:3 etc.). T o put the matter very boldly: is it not possible that by eudaimonia Philo may mean something like the biblical shalom? I f this were the case, then we really should not speak o f eudaimonism in his thought at all. It is really eulogism under a different label, no doubt used for apologetic purposes.

This line o f enquiry meshes well with an earlier approach to our theme which we find in two eminent German interpreters from the

3 2 Most famously by J. Barr in The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961). 3 3 N.G. Cohen, Philo Judaeus: his Universe of Discourse (Frankfurt, 1995), esp. 178-224.

See also her article in this volume.

EUDAIMONISM IN HELLENISTIG-JEWISH LITERATURE 149

first half o f this century. Walter Volker ends his monograph on religious and moral progress and perfection in Philo with a section on eudaimonia. After analyzing the various passages in which Philo uses the term he concludes:

Thus in the end eudaimonia flows together with immortality, and it is identical with standing steadfast, with joy, with peace, with repose. These are all merely descriptions for the attitude of the pious person who dedicates himself wholly to God. This has nothing more to do with the Greek conception of eudaimonia . . . It is the Jewish outlook which emerges loud and clear, the pious person who serves God and fulfils his commandments . . . Around this nucleus are grouped a whole range of theories, conceptions, terms derived from philosophy. They make the conception of eudaimonia rather fluctuating and hard to pin down . . , 3 4

Earlier the eminent classicist Eduard Schwartz was even more severe. Philo is portrayed as a superficial soul w h o converts majestic biblical themes into psychological trivialities. T h e presentation o f Greek philosophical ethics is full o f contradictions, which can easily and simply be resolved if one views them from Jewish perspective, as in the case o f eudaimonia, which has to be read in terms o f Deut 30:20, cleaving unto G o d and choosing for life instead o f death. 3 5

7. The eudaimonia of God

W h a t this line o f thinking amounts to is the following: the language is evidendy the language o f Japheth, but if its meaning is taken into account , it emerges that Philo remains safely within the tents o f Shem. This view entails that Hellenism does not penetrate to the c o r e o f his thought , and that the idea o f e u d a i m o n i s m is no t significandy present. Can this approach be accepted?

T h e argument I have put forward is by no means easy to respond to. Wha t it amounts to is this: Philo says A but really means B. H o w can we prove that when he say A , he really means A ? Wha t we need is evidence that eudaimonism actually has penetrated to the core o f his thinking. I am convinced that such evidence is available.

3 4 W . Volker, Fortschritt und Vollendung bei Philo von Alexandrien: eine Studie zur Geschichte der Frommigkeit (Leipzig, 1938), 344-345 (my translation).

3 5 E. Schwartz, "Aporien im vierten Evangelium," Nachrichten der koniglichen Gesellschqft zu Gottingen (1908), 497-560, esp. 541-542.


In his exploitation o f the Greek idea o f eudaimonia Philo makes a further m o v e which I have so far not mentioned. This step is decisive proof, in m y view, that Greek thought has entered into the marrow o f his bones. There are at least fifteen passages, scattered throughout both the Exposition o f the Law and the Allegorical Commentary , in which Philo states in the clearest terms that God himself is eudaimon. In the most famous o f these texts this idea is presented as a most necessary principle (dogma) for the practitioners o f philosophy:

God 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 of unmixed felicity (eudaimonia). His nature is completely perfect. Or rather God is the summit and end (telos) and limit of 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 wording is even more hyperbolic:

Israel has been taught to look beyond what is created and see what is uncreated and divine, the first Good 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 doing his utmost to accentuate the absolute transcendence o f G o d , using what in later scholastic phi losophy is called the via eminentiae: one takes characteristics o f the physical and the intelligible realms o f reality and affirms that G o d possesses these in even greater, or perhaps better, in absolute measure. 3 6

W h y is this particular argument so important? It is not just that such a concept ion o f divine felicity is totally absent from the H e b r e w Bible . 3 7 There is also a philosophical point at stake. I f eudaimonia is defined as the attitude o f the pious person, consisting o f fearing and obeying and serving and pleasing and cleaving to G o d , then it is quite illogical to state that G o d himself is eudaimon. This would mean

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.

3 7 This also applies to the New Testament, with two minor exceptions: 1 Tim. 1:11, 6:15.


that he would have to fear and obey and serve himself e tc . 3 8 T h e only way out would be to say that there are two wholly different kinds o f eudaimonia, for G o d and for humankind. But this is emphatically not the direction in which Philo wishes to g o . As was noted earlier in the paper, the Greek gods were traditionally regarded as makares, blessed. T h e eudaimonia o f the individual was dependent on the extent to which the dei ty—whoever it happened to be in Greek polytheism—was well disposed towards him. This may remind us o f the blessings o f eulogism, with the vital difference that in the biblical way o f seeing things humankind praises G o d for his goodness, but does not declare him blessed in the absolute sense o f being makarios or eudaimon himself. By emphasizing G o d ' s eudaimonia, Philo joins the ranks o f Greek philosophers w h o regard the divine as representing the ideal or mode l to which humankind should aspire in conscious imitation. Humankind attains the goal o f human felicity by becoming as similar to G o d as can be achieved, i.e. the Platonic doctrine o f homoiosis theioi, assimilation to the divine. 3 9

For this reason I think it is important that Philo in the Exposition o f the L a w twice, w h e n e x p o u n d i n g the first and second c o m mandments, emphasizes that the goal o f our life should be knowledge o f h im w h o IS. T o be sure, this is in the first place meant to be antithetic to those w h o deny G o d ' s existence. Humankind can know that G o d is, but cannot know G o d ' s essence. T o reach that level would mean that humankind was not similar to G o d , but identical with him, an impossible doctrine. But between existence and essence lies a fertile ground for reflection on G o d ' s attributes. T h e task and goal is to serve G o d and b e c o m e his friend, by model ing oneself on what G o d is and on his wonderful attributes. For example the injunction to be 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 man, just like Philo's great hero Moses . T o m y knowledge 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 can follow the example o f Sarah, wisdom personified. 4 0

3 8 Philo puts forward a similar argument at Leg. 3.205ff. to support the view that G o d cannot swear oaths, only to reject it.

3 9 Philo quotes Plato's celebrated passage Theaet. 176b at Fug. 63. See further my Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Leiden, 1986 2), 341—343.

4 0 As N. Cohen has pointed out in her recent monograph, op. cit. (n. 32) 214,


8. Why does Philo accept eudaimonism in his thought?

Philo possesses an unconditional loyalty to Judaism and was a dedicated expositor o f Scripture. As we have seen, in the grand scheme

and also discussed with me in private conversation, the concept of imitatio Dei is also present in the rabbinic tradition. She cites B T Shabbat 133b: "Abba Saul interpreted, 'And I will be like him' (Exod 15:2): be thou like Him: just as He is gracious 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 on the basis o f Deut 13:5 humans are exhorted "to walk after the Shekhinah, i.e. the attributes of the Holy One, blessed is He . . ." Even so, however, there can be no question of humans attaining, or even aspiring, to the divine state. The remainder of the text speaks about clothing the naked, visiting the sick, and so on.

4 1 The opening lines 3.1-12 reveal a remarkable synthesis of Jewish and Hellenistic epithets for God .

4 2 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 usually been located in Alexandrian Judaism. However, there is reason to believe that it was written in the circles associated with the priest Onias, founder of the temple at Leontopolis." Earlier V . Nikiprowetzky had concluded on the basis of a thorough study {La troisieme Sibylle, Paris-The Hague, 1970, x) that this book showed affinities with the religious tendencies of the Therapeutae as described by Philo in his De vita contemplativa.

It is interesting to observe that Josephus, our other Hellenized author, does not part company with Philo on this point, but, being a m u c h less philosophical soul, he scarcely develops it properly. As noted above , in his preface Josephus states that an eudaimon bios accrues to those w h o follow G o d as mode l through excellence (arete). H o w is this done? By participating, we read a few lines later, in G o d ' s perfect excellence. Surely we may conclude that G o d himself possesses complete eudaimonia, even if this is not said in as many words. W e note too that the Jewish adapter o f the third Sibylline Oracle also calls G o d "blessed" in the opening line o f his p o e m . 4 1

After this invocation the opening lines ask why humankind, in possession o f the divine form as G o d ' s image, does not follow the right path, which involves always remembering its immortal creator. T h e reference to G e n 1:26 is unmistakable. For Philo too this text is the biblical basis for the homoiosis doctrine. W e have here perhaps a clue that the document should be located within Alexandrian Judaism, roughly contemporary with Philo. 4 2


o f his Exposition o f the Law, he follows the main contours o f b ib

lical thought. Devot ion and obedience to the Law will bring as its

prize peace and prosperity, despite current appearances to the con

trary. W h y , then, does he interpose the themes o f excellence and

well-being, those chief features o f Greek eudaimonism, in the tradi

tion he wishes to follow? T w o answers are too superficial to really

satisfy.

A first reason is Philo's great love for Greek philosophy. It exerted

such an attraction on him that it p roved irresistible. H e was seduced

by its doctrines o f logos and physis, rationality and nature. A varia

tion o f this approach credits him with a conversion to Judaism. In

his youth he devoted himself to the study o f the liberal arts and

long consorted with lady philosophy herself. But at a certain stage

he b e c a m e conv inced that the true mistress, wi sdom, was to be

located in the traditions o f his o w n people , in the books o f the law

giver M o s e s . 4 3 This meant that he had found his life's work. But

philosophy's influence b y that time was ineradicable, and it shows.

A second reason can be located in the social and cultural situa

tion in which Philo found himself. H e was an intellectual leader in

a communi ty under threat. His writings always have an apologetic motive. H e wished to show that Jewish thought is respectable, or

even more than that. It can match Greek thought on its own ground.

In order to conquer his ideological adversaries he found it necessary

to bo r row some o f their instrumentaria, the conceptuality o f philo

sophical thought. Philosophy supplies him with a language o f rea

son in order to demonstrate the inherent superiority o f the wisdom

lying concealed in the L a w o f M o s e s . 4 4

Both answers contain important kernels o f truth, but the historian

o f ideas remains unsatisfied. Such answers are too general. W e need

to know more specifically what the attraction o f Greek eudaimonism

for Philo was.

M y answer would p roceed along the following lines. As was noted

above, Philo accepts the general contours o f the Jewish view o f the

life devoted to the service o f G o d , resulting in a long and g o o d life.

4 3 This scenario is suggested by J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists (London, 1977, 1996 2), 141.

4 4 For Philo's use of philosophy as a "language of reason" see V . Nikiprowetzky, Le Commentaire de I'Ecriture chez Philon d'Alexandrie: son caractere et sa portee; observations philologiques (Leiden, 1977), 181-192.

154 DAVID T. RUNIA

H e is also able to expound the meaning o f the commandments that are to be obeyed in order to receive G o d ' s promise. But Philo is left with a p rob lem: there still remains a gap between what he encounters in the Law and what he regards as required for his o w n situation in the intellectual environment o f Alexandria. H e wants to know in particular what kind of person he has to be in order to obey the Law and realize the g o o d life for himself and those around him. His answer to this further question is given with the aid o f Greek conceptuality: he has to be a person in possession o f arete, o f virtue or excellence, o f sound moral insight. Mora l excellence in Greek thought is a disposition to d o the right thing at the right time. This is possible because man's character has been schooled by logos, by insight into what one is and what one should d o . T o some extent Philo orients his treatment o f the excellences towards his Jewish traditions: piety (eusebeia) and humanity (philanthrdpid) are given a more central place than they receive in Greek phi losophy. 4 5 Other features o f eudaimonism are less easily reconciled to biblical thought, but Philo nevertheless feels the need to make use o f them. Three such features are central.

First, Philo accepts and works with an analysis o f human nature. Humans are made up o f a combinat ion o f soul and body , each with its o w n needs. These needs cause conflict and it costs m u c h effort to achieve the harmony required for the g o o d life. Philo emphasizes time and time again the tension that exists between the demands o f reason and the demands o f the passions. Obed ience to the c o m mands o f reason and the Law are essential if the g o o d life is to be attained. T h e anthropological analysis makes clear, however , w h y such obedience is often so difficult to put into practice.

Secondly, the role o f the logos is crucial. This is the most fundamental and complex concept o f all in Greek philosophy, and in Philo it is further complicated by the association o f logos with G o d and the Law. Logos basically means that there is order and structure in the world, that the world is the kind o f place that can be understood and lived in with the aid o f reason. It is on this account ,

4 5 As Dillon {The Middle Platonists, 150) notes, there is a canon of two virtues in Greek philosophy. But Nikiprowetzky {Commentaire, 186) is right to note their connection in Philo's mind with the two tables of the Law. See further H. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Cambridge, Mass., 1947, 4th ed. 1968 4), 213-215.


according to Philo (and Josephus concurs with him on this), that the Mosa ic Law commences with the creation account . 4 6 Humankind possesses logos; it enables people to achieve a harmony o f body , soul and mind. It is primarily through the logos, Philo is convinced, that humankind is akin to the divine, for it is created according to the image o f G o d , which (or who) is the Logos. Because o f the Logos something o f G o d ' s felicity is achievable by humans. It is by means o f logos that excellence is developed, and so the g o o d life is achieved. O u r actions should be actions based o n logos. Ye t there is also a correspondence with the logoi, the commands o f the Law. Undeniably we feel a tension here which is inherent in Philo's thought, and which every interpreter stumbles across. T h e logoi are given, they are to be obeyed . But at the same time they are rooted in the universal logos which pervades all o f G o d ' s creation. This means there is a reason for them. Philo feels a needs to understand this logos, this rationale. Here , surely, he really does feel the enticements o f Greek philosophy.

Thirdly, something o f the individualistic emphasis o f Greek eudaimonism comes through in Philo's thinking. Israel represents both G o d ' s people and the individual person w h o emulates the patriarch in "seeing G o d . " 4 7 T h e g o o d life is achieved through the excellence that one develops in response to the logos and the commands o f the Law. T h e Allegorical Commenta ry concentrates above all on the journey o f the soul in quest o f G o d , for to know G o d is the ultimate quest and the source o f well-being. O n e senses that this is the epicenter o f Philo's spirituality, 4 8 a powerful idea which was to be further developed in later Alexandrian Christian thought.

These three elements, the analysis o f human nature, the role o f the logos, and the emphasis on the quest for G o d in the life o f the

4 6 Cf. Philo, Opif. 3 (where logos is expressed in terms of the law of nature, nomas physeos), Josephus, Ant. 1.21-24.

4 7 In her excellent study cited above (n. 22) E. Birnbaum examines the question of Philo and Israel above all from the perspective of 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.

4 8 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.


individual, are all components o f Greek eudaimonism. For Philo they serve the crucial function o f helping him to fill the gap between his loyalty to Judaism and his situation as an intellectual in the Alexandrian metropolis. There is such a thing as the g o o d life. It consists o f serving and emulating G o d . It can be attained through excellence o f character and through the study both o f Scripture and o f the world in which we live. This formulation o f the g o o d life could not have been achieved without a significant contribution o f Greek philosophy and its fundamental idea o f eudaimonia.

9. Shem in the tents of Japheth

Let us return, finally and very briefly, to our opening theme o f the relationship between Shem and Japheth. It was noted then h o w p o w erful and influential ideas can be . Eudaimonism is clearly such an idea. On ly a few surviving Hellenistic-Jewish authors felt attracted to it, chief a m o n g w h o m was Philo. T h e challenge o f this conference is make some kind o f judgment about the desirability and value o f the kind o f appropriation o f Greek ideas that Hellenistic Jews such as Philo made. It would not be opportune to give a definitive verdict on such a huge and complex issue. But two final comments , one in a critical vein, the other more positive, may be considered appropriate.

A crucial part was played in our argument by Philo's willingness to speak about the eudaimonia, the felicity o f G o d . This is a topic that should give us pause for thought. I myself am inclined to foll ow biblical eulogism rather than Greek eudaimonism on 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 we can understand in a meaningful way. Philo's eudaimonism is better off without this super-structure, but it would involve some rethinking on his part, since the idea o f "becoming similar to G o d " is central to the Greek tradition o f eudaimonism to which he is attracted. O n this point Philo did not, I believe, adopt a sufficiently critical stance towards received ideas in Greek phi losophy. 4 9

4 9 O f course one has to take into account the "theology of Exodus," as furnished at Exod 3:14 by the L X X translation of God's self-revelation in terms of Being. Philo is very much aware of the transcendence of Being, but nevertheless at least


What about the role o f philosophy, probably the most character

istic o f all the discoveries and inventions o f Japheth, in all this?

Philosophy involves reflection on the structure o f reality, on the world

and the place o f human beings in it. Eudaimonism is a typical prod

uct o f such reflection. I think reflection o f this kind should be encour

aged. In using and practicing philosophy we can learn from others,

even those w h o d o not share our religious convictions. Philo may

have gone too far in some respects, but the aim was laudable. T h e

Rabbis were too critical o f h im and his writings, a judgment which

led to a profound and long-lasting neglect o f his contribution to

Judaism.

partially follows Greek philosophy in trying to fill in what Being entails. See further my Utrecht inaugural address, "Platonism, Philonism, and the Beginnings of Christian Thought," in Philo and Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers (Leiden, 1995), 1-24.

8

J O S E P H U S B E T W E E N R A B B I N I C C U L T U R E A N D

H E L L E N I S T I C H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y

C H A I M M I L I K O W S K Y

Towards the end o f his magnum opus, The Antiquities of the Jews (Book

20, 263 -5 ) , Josephus is extolling his o w n praises. 1 H e tells his read

ers o f the pains he has taken to acquire the learning o f the Greeks

(the words used are grammaton and poietikon) and to understand all

elements o f the Greek language. H e then continues with a delight

ful explanation, which in that context can only c o m e to justify why

he found it necessary to begin the study o f Greek language and lit

erature at the relatively advanced age when he began to write his

books . 2 "For our people , " he says, "does not favor those w h o learn

the languages o f many different peoples . . . But they give credit for

wisdom to those alone w h o have an exact knowledge o f the law and

w h o have the capability o f interpreting the holy writings." 3 A n d then

1 This paper is essentially the lecture I gave at the conference o f which this volume contains the proceedings. It is with some trepidation that I present it for publication inasmuch as I tread in a field in which I do not feel secure. I have added haphazard annotation and two appendices at the end. Enough has been written on many of the subjects I touch that I could easily have doubled or tripled the extent of annotation. Just about all o f these subjects are also discussed in my introduction to Seder Olam (see note 48), and there one will find much fuller footnotes.

2 That Josephus took part in a delegation to Rome in his twenty-sixth year [Vita 13-16), during the procuratorship of Felix (c. 52 -60 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 who were transported in bonds to Rome. It does not prove that he had in any formal way studied Greek language, literature or rhetoric. See the opposing position presented by 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 by force or by pleading and the use of personal contacts. The former is improbable and the latter necessitates a competent knowledge o f Greek).

3 It should be noted that these two categories—"knowledge o f the law" and

160 GHAIM MILIKOWSKY

Josephus continues, "Consequently, though many have laboriously

undertaken this training, scarcely two or three have succeeded, w h o

were immediately well rewarded for their pains." 4

At first glance, it seems that the "training" (askesin) to which he

alludes in this last sentence refers to what he mentioned in the imme

diately preceding sentence—the "knowledge o f the law" and the

"interpretation o f the holy writings." However , that sentence has no

explicit mention o f training or education, while in the previous sen

tence he does speak explicitly o f the "pains he has taken to acquire

the learning o f the Greeks." I would like to suggest therefore that

when he says that scarcely two or three have succeeded, he is not

claiming that only two or three Jews "have an exact knowledge o f

the law" and "have the capability o f interpreting the holy writings,"

but rather he is claiming that only two or three Jews began with

"an exact knowledge o f the law" and the ability o f "interpreting the

holy writings," and then added to that capability Greek learning. 5

"interpretation of the holy writings"—conform exactly to the rabbinic categories o f mishnah and midrash.

4 The translation here generally follows that of Feldman in the Loeb edition (Josephus, Vol. IX, 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.

5 The passage which Feldman translates as two sentences in English is actually formulated as one very long sentence. Consequently, the connection between studying 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 of Greek among native-born Jerusalemites was very common and Josephus is only exceptional in his Jewish knowledge. I do not think this interpretation of the passage can stand: it seems quite clear that Josephus' study of Greek is subsequent to his acquiring of Jewish learning. I assume that Levine's interpretation is based upon the part of Josephus' sentence I did not quote in the text, where he explains that the Jews do not favor those who learn the language of many peoples "because they consider that this sort o f accomplishment is common, not only to ordinary freemen, but also to slaves, who 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 therefore the passage cannot be taken as an indication that this sort of accomplishment was c o m m o n to Jews. Similarly, in his review o f Do You Know Greek? by J.N. Sevenster, the eminent classicist David M . Lewis rejected Sevenster's interpretation of 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 wonderful 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 who

RABBINIC CULTURE AND HELLENISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY 161

have the goal o f achieving proficiency in languages since that can be, and is, regularly done by simple freemen and even by slaves. The contradiction between the difficulty of learning Greek and the triviality of 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 of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, 25; Missoula, Montana, 1979), 33-34, who 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.

T o put it more plainly, Josephus is not boasting that his Jewish learning is greater than that o f all the Jews in the world other than the two or three w h o are similar to him. Rather he is boasting that o f those Jews w h o are proficient in Jewish learning, many have also attempted to achieve proficiency in Greek learning, but only he, Josephus, and two or three others, have succeeded. (It seems quite plausible, in fact, that he has specific people in mind here.)

I think a similar and complementary notion is found in a statement o f Josephus a few lines earlier. Feldman translates there: "For m y compatriots admit that in our Jewish learning I far excel them" (20.263). Again, this seems to imply quite clearly that Josephus is claiming a proficiency in Jewish learning above all other Jews, but actually the issue is more complicated.

In fact, Feldman's phrase "Jewish learning" does not exist in the Greek. T h e word paideian, "learning," is there, but the words Feldman translated as "Jewish" are epichorion hemonf which means "our country." It is true that Josephus does not really have "Jewish" as an adjective as we do , but he does often use the descriptive term " o f the Jews" when we would use the adjectival form, and consequently the question must be raised why Josephus does not d o so here.

I suspect therefore that Josephus is contrasting the learning o f "the native country," that is, the sort o f learning which takes place in Judea, with the learning o f the "compatriots," the homoethnon, w h o live here in R o m e . H e is not claiming then that he is the most learned o f all Jews, but rather that he is the most learned in Judean learning o f all the Jews w h o live in R o m e . This conforms with his immediately preceding sentence, that there is no one w h o could have rendered such accurate treatises to the Greek world. Josephus does not say that no one else could have written such accurate treatises on Jewish history; he says that no one else could have written such accurate treatises on Jewish history for the Greeks.


T h e r e seems to be n o g o o d reason not to take the claim o f

Josephus, that he was originally only educated in Jewish matters and

started applying himself to Greek language and literature only at a

much later age, at face value. T h o u g h a number o f scholars, among

them Tessa Rajak in an extended discussion, 7 have suggested that

Josephus is simply applying a standard apology-type passage to fore

stall possible critics, the parallels cited are not that convincing, and

not direcdy applicable. Note especially that Josephus is not claiming

that he does not know Greek well n o w at the time o f the c o m p o

sition o f Antiquities, but rather that at one time he did not know

Greek well, but he has since labored hard and has learned it.

At any rate, it appears to me that what Josephus is doing here is

attesting to his o w n endeavor at fusion: C o m i n g to R o m e with a

high level o f Jewish learning—or rather, with what he considered

to be a high level o f Jewish learning—he devoted long hours and

great efforts to achieve proficiency in Greek learning. Without tak

ing too seriously his claim that he is one o f the only two or three

Jews w h o are proficient in both modes o f learning, nonetheless, I

think we can see this passage as attesting to two aspects o f Judaean

culture. (1) It was not customary for Jews in Judea, at least not Jews

belonging to the same social grouping to which Josephus belonged,

to receive a typical Hellenistic education in Greek language and lit

erature while in their youth. (2) At later stages in their lives, a cer

tain number o f Jews o f Josephus' time did attempt to combine Jewish

learning with Greek learning, with, o f course, varying degrees o f

success.

So if we were to try to use Josephus as evidence for one side o f

the classic controversy concerning the penetration o f Hellenistic cul

ture in Jewish Palestine during the centuries surrounding the begin

ning o f the C o m m o n Era—what I would call the Hengel—Stern

debate 8 —we would quickly see that the both sides could claim sup

port from this passage. In the final analysis, though, since a g o o d

7 T . Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia, 1984), 47. 8 See Menahem Stern's classic review of Martin Hengel's Judentum und Hellenismus,

which appeared originally in Qiryat Sefer 46 (1971), 94 -99 [in Hebrew], and which was reprinted in his collected essays, Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (Jerusalem, 1991), 578-586 [in Hebrew]. It cannot be overemphasized that the question of the penetration of Greek culture and learning cannot be assimilated to the question of the penetration o f the Greek language; see Rajak's perceptive comments on this point (above, n. 7), 53.


9 Thus we have the Letter of Aristeas, the Book of Wisdom, 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees, all by unknown authors. All of these, other than Aristeas, were preserved as part of the Bible in various manuscripts of the Septuagint.

1 0 They have been conveniendy collected by Carl Holladay in a series of volumes entitled Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, 4 vols. (Chico, California and Atlanta, Georgia, 1983-1996).

case can be made-—though it cannot be proven—that many o f those

Jews w h o attempted to fuse together Jewish and Hellenistic learning

did so in R o m e or in other capitals o f the R o m a n Empire, I would

say that the honors go to the Stern position. In other words, I sus

pect that most o f us would agree that if Josephus would have remained

in Jewish Palestine, he wou ld not have spent all those years study

ing Greek language and literature.

* * *

But our subject here is not the penetration o f Hellenistic culture into

Jewish Palestine, but the dynamics o f the fusion between Hellenistic

culture and Jewish learning in Josephus himself.

Josephus makes it clear, in that passage we just discussed at such

great length, that he began his study o f Greek language and litera

ture not long before, clearly after he arrived in R o m e . In that con

text I find it astonishing that he has n o hesitation in making such

statements as " R o m e is never ment ioned in the works o f Herodotus

or Thucydides" (Ag.Ap. 1.66) or " H o m e r never used the Greek w o r d

'nomos'" {Ag.Ap. 2.155). Even more remarkable is the entire end o f

the treatise Against Apion, from 2.220 to 2.275: he exhibits there excep

tional proficiency in the customs, laws, literature and history o f Greek

culture in general and the various Greek states in particular. I would

argue therefore—and o f course this is not a new claim—that at least

a g o o d part o f Apion is based upon Josephus' reworking o f earlier

Jewish composit ions.

O u r picture o f Hellenistic Jewish culture is seriously skewed by

the fact that so many works o f Josephus and Philo were preserved

by Christian copyists for their own reasons, but we have no other

complete b o o k by any other known author. 9 However , from the lit

tle we know o f the Hellenistic Jewish fragments, 1 0 we can conclude

that only a small fraction o f that literary heritage has been preserved.

164 CHAIM MILIKOWSKY

Additionally, there are tantalizing hints in Philo o f earlier exegetes

or even schools o f exegetes w h o preceded him and to w h o m he is

at times reacting. I would go further and argue that we should iden

tify three main foci o f Hellenistic Jewish prose writing, the histori

ans, the exegetes and the apologists. 1 1

T h e historians are o f course ably represented by those fragments

I just mentioned. I suspect though that the historians are over-rep

resented a m o n g the surviving fragments o f Hellenistic Jewish culture.

In other words, even though, aside from Philo, fragments o f no other

exegetical work stemming from Hellenistic Judaism have survived, 1 2

I think a g o o d case can be made that actually more Hellenistic

Jewish exegetical composit ions existed than Hellenistic Jewish histo-

riographical composit ions. But by one o f those vagaries o f history,

many o f our fragments o f pre-Philonic Hellenistic Jewish literature

have c o m e to us by means o f Alexander Polyhistor, a Greek author

w h o lived in the first century B.C.E. , and, just about by definition,

a Greek non-Jewish author would preserve—indeed, find coherent—

only historiographical works about the history o f the Jews, and not

exegetical works explicating the Bible.

In addition to the historians and the exegetes, there are also the

apologists. I suspect that m u c h o f the end o f Apion is taken from an

earlier Jewish apologetic work. In addition to the simple implausi-

bility noted above, that Josephus could attain such an extremely high

level o f erudition and expertise in all aspects o f Greek culture in the

per iod that passed between his settling into his new R o m a n dwelling

and his publication o f Apion, there is an additional telling point.

In the opening paragraphs o f Apion, Josephus details his purposes

in writing the book . H e notes three objects: (1) to answer those w h o

claim that the Jewish nation is o f recent vintage because it is not

ment ioned by the Greek historians; (2) to prove that it is ancient by

1 1 Some of 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 however if there existed an extensive genre in antiquity of Jewish philosophical writing, in the same sense that there existed Jewish historical writing, Jewish exegetical writing and Jewish apologetic writing.

1 2 I see no logic in Walter's inclusion of Demetrius and Aristeas under the rubric of exegete—they must be considered historians—and Aristobolus is best incorporated 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).

RABBINIC CULTURE A N D HELLENISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY 165

1 3 This was the attitude towards Josephus exemplified some eighty years ago in G. Holscher's famous article, "Josephos" (2), Realencyklopadie der classischen Altertums-wissenschqft, 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 by Holscher.

quoting non-Jewish authors w h o mention the Jewish nation; and (3) to

answer those w h o lied and slandered the Jewish people .

A n d indeed, as one reads through Apion, one sees that he sticks

very closely to these goals. However , after he completes his defense

o f the Jews against the liars and slanderers, he includes two addi

tional sections, not ment ioned at all in his introduction: a descrip

tion o f the Jewish theocracy and a quite forceful attack on Greek

beliefs and customs. O n e could claim that in the middle o f writing,

he decided to enlarge the scope o f the book , in a completely unde

termined trajectory. But this would mean that he never even set for

himself the goal o f studying Greek customs—in order to attack them—

but he just happened to have all these facts at his fingertips, and

while writing Apion decided to focus all his energies for an attack on

Greek culture.

T h e improbability o f this reconstruction is, I think, obvious. M u c h

more likely is the suggestion that a previously-unknown-to-Josephus

composi t ion, which dealt explicitiy with the contrast between Jewish

and Greek mores, came to his hands after he had already started

writing Apion, and he added these two unplanned-for sections based

upon his reworking o f this composi t ion.

* * *

N o t for a momen t d o I wish to suggest that Josephus was simply a

mechanical copyist artificially combin ing sources which he barely

examined. 1 3 However , I am suggesting—and I will return to this

point over and over in the course o f this paper—that it is mislead

ing to analyze any feature o f Josephus' corpus without at least rais

ing the source-critical question. W a s the passage under scrutiny

c o m p o s e d by Josephus or did he simply incorporate an earlier source

into his work? O f course, the very fact that Josephus included an

earlier source indicates that in some sense he made it his own. None

theless, there is a world o f difference between the act o f inclusion


(and revision) o f an earlier source and the act o f composi t ion. T o

take, for example, that section of Apion which we are presently dis

cussing, the description o f the Jewish theocracy, let us suppose that

there are contradictions between what Josephus writes here and what

he writes in various other works, especially in that section of Antiquities

within which he describes the Law o f M o s e s . 1 4 W o u l d not our per

spective be radically different if we suppose that this section of Apion

is a revision o f an earlier work than if we suppose that it was newly

c o m p o s e d by Josephus? 1 5

It is o f course true that much o f the Quellenkritik so dominant in

the study o f Greek and Latin literature in the 19th and early part

o f the 20th century was extremely dubious. Conclusions about a

text's sources were often suggested on the most flimsy evidence, and

even more invidiously, these conclusions tended to empty the text

itself o f any purpose and meaning. However , very often the reac

tion against the search for a text's sources was excessive. In more

recent t imes—and this is true for many Josephean scholars as well

as for Greek and Latin literary studies in general—it has b e c o m e

more clear that one must attempt to combine the best and most

illuminating aspects o f each approach . 1 6

1 4 And indeed such contradictions do exist. See, for example, the material cited by S. Belkin, "The Alexandrian Source for Contra Apionem II," JQR 27 (1936-37), 1-32. One has to tread carefully with this article, as is generally the case with Belkin's scholarship, but a number of his points are well taken.

1 5 Thus I have hesitations regarding the methodology of articles such as that of T. Rajak, "The 'Against Apion' and the Continuities in Josephus's Political Thought," Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives (JSP Sup 32; Sheffield, 1998), 222—246. The quite radical discontinuities she identifies—see her summary on pp. 242 and 243— do not to my mind even need to be explained: they stem from the simple fact that the description o f the theocracy in Apion is Josephus' revision of an earlier source. (Her own emphasis on "the common ground between Against Apion and the later works" seems to be belied by her own previous analysis). See also D.R. Schwartz, "Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions and Community," Scripta Classica Israelica 1 (1983-1984), 30-52 , who notes several noteworthy discontinuities among the various political statements Josephus makes. A noteworthy example of a too facile use of this part o f Apion can be found in L.H. Feldman, "Josephus as a Biblical Interpreter: The 'Aqedah'," JQR 75 (1984-85), 225, n. 39. Feldman wishes to show there how Josephus "displays his knowledge of Plato," but in the ensuing list, six of the seven passages he notes stem from this apologetic section of Apion (2.168-2.257) where Plato is indeed quoted and referred to extensively, and his only other proof is the passage in the beginning of Apion (1.7) where Josephus asserts that the Greek world is modern and which may be based upon Timaeus 22b-c , though Plato is not quoted.

1 6 See, for example, the comments o f W . H . Stahl concerning scholarship on the

RABBINIC CULTURE A N D HELLENISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY 167

Neoplatonists: "The 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 own ideas and beliefs.

17 Historia 45 (1996), 482. It is unfortunate that Goud did not make use of Daniel Schwartz's extended analysis of 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 of Aristeas (p. 176)—but of course agrees that Josephus often molded these texts and revised them.

1 8 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], 21-66 .

With regard to Josephus, I can d o no better than to quote what

T h o m a s G o u d has written in his article entitled " T h e Sources o f

Josephus Antiquities 19 ." 1 7 H e is dealing there with the famous extended

passage in Josephus which discusses in great detail the murder o f

Caligula and 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 been recognized

that Josephus utilized at least one written source in that discussion,

and many 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 our subject,

but his conclusion is, I think, worthy o f quote: "But this is not to

suggest that Josephus simply turned from one source to another with

no thought for what he was doing. Indeed, throughout we see him

manipulating the material . . . making direct c o m m e n t on the tradi

tions he has at hand." A n d in the larger context o f Josephus and

his sources, Steve M a s o n wrote: " T o summarize: it is clear that

Josephus used sources. . . . That he used them as an anthologist and

not as an author, however, is a proposition made untenable by sev

eral major studies." 1 8

In our specific instance—returning to the end o f Apion—this dou

ble realization, that Josephus made extensive use o f a hypothetical

earlier Hellenistic apologetic source, but also molded it to his needs,

makes it difficult to identify what preceded Josephus and which c o m

ments are his. Nonetheless, this recognition gives us a richer under

standing both o f earlier Hellenistic Judaism as well as o f Josephus'

relationship to that tradition.


That Josephus made extensive use o f this earlier Hellenistic apolo

getic source and also, as we shall see, o f other earlier sources with

out mentioning them by name nor even hinting at their existence

should not surprise us. T h e claim that the use o f earlier sources

without mentioning them by name is necessarily objectionable behav

ior wou ld not be accepted in the ancient world: they simply did not

have the same cultural notions about plagiarism that we have today.

Even more importantly, it is clear from Josephus himself that this

is his m o d e o f operation. O n e example was just mentioned: in b o o k

19 o f Antiquities, Josephus has obviously used either one or two R o m a n

historical sources, but there is no hint o f such usage in the text itself.

A n even more famous example comes from Josephus ' use o f 1 M a c

cabees. I don ' t think there is anyone w h o doubts whether Josephus

used 1 Maccabees , though discussion still continues whether he also

had the Heb rew version or only the Greek version and whether his

c o p y had the entire text as it is in front o f us. Yet , Josephus never

once mentions a b o o k called 1 Maccabees . 1 9

In fact, just about the only non-biblical Jewish b o o k which Josephus

mentions is the Letter of Aristeas in Antiquities 12, 100. In this, as we

just noted, Josephus is following the no rm o f ancient modes o f c o m

position; rarely do ancient historians note their sources. Thus Walbank

pointed out many years ago, in a classic article o n Polybius, h o w

unique Polybius is, that he cites other authors constantly. 2 0 And , in

an article published not long ago, it was pointed out that we have

approximately one hundred and fifty fragments from the history o f

Nicholas o f Damascus, w h o was in fact one o f Josephus' primary

1 9 See the summary of research and conclusions of I. Gafni, "On the Use o f I Maccabees by Josephus Flavius," %ion 45 (1980), 81-95 [in Hebrew].

2 0 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. The normal procedure was to name an authority only in criticism o f his account, or when indicating alternative versions of an event described." (My thanks to Erich Gruen who provided this reference.) A crucial distinction must be made here between historians who deal almost exclusively with the events of their own lifetime or a generation or so earlier, of whom Thucydides is of course the classic example, and between historians who also (or only) deal with earlier periods. The 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), 95-117.


sources for his history o f the Maccabean dynasty and Hellenistic his

tory in general, and o f these one hundred and fifty fragments, not

one cites any earlier source. 2 1

In fact, however, the situation with regard to Josephus is a bit

more complicated: he does cite non-Jewish sources a not insignificant

number o f times. 2 2 But, as we noted above, o f non-biblical Jewish

books, only the Letter of Aristeas is cited by name, though this does

not mean that Josephus did not use any other non-biblical Jewish

books. O n the contrary, he used 1 Maccabees , and quite clearly this

was not the only such b o o k he used. W e have here therefore a very

interesting situation: on the one hand Josephus just about entirely

disregards post-biblical Jewish literature, but o n the other hand,

we are convinced that he was both aware o f and used some o f this

literature.

This is not the place to delve in the implications o f this conclu

sion. I merely wish to point out that a perspective such as that o f

Michael Stone w h o asks why the sages on the whole disregarded

second temple literature is misleading: 2 3 this disregard is already man

ifest in Josephus, and not singular to the sages.

* * *

After this long and important aside, let us return to Apion. I have

already argued that Josephus made use o f a Hellenistic Jewish apolo

getic source in the last part o f this work. Can we say anything else

about the various other sources Josephus used in this work? I think

we can.

2 1 M . Toher, " O n the Use o f Nicolaus' Historical Fragments," Classical Antiquity 8 (1989), 162.

2 2 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 of the non-Jewish sources cited in the first half o f Antiquities, see J.E. Bowley, 'Josephus's Use of 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.

2 3 M.E . Stone, "Introduction," Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M . E . Stone (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad N o v u m Testamentum II.2; Philadelphia, 1984]) xxi.


Especially noteworthy for our question is an inconsequential-by-itself-but-nonetheless-significant inconsistency between two parts o f the book . In the third section (the purely apologetic section where Josephus reacts to anti-Semitic statements that he attributes to Manetho and Apion) , Josephus claims that the Egyptian king Amenophis mentioned by Mane tho never existed and is purely and simply an invention (1.230). But in the second section o f the book , which is dedicated to citing non-Jewish authors w h o mention the Jews, he quotes Manetho (1.94ff.), sums up the regnal years o f the Egyptian kings noted by Mane tho , and includes the years o f Amenophis a m o n g them. 2 4 It is hard to imagine that an individual author w h o was himself studying and investigating Mane tho could c o m e to two such conflicting conclusions in such close proximity.

Let us go o n to one passage especially important for us which is found in that same second section of Apion. This section consists in its entirety o f eight quotes from various non-Jewish authors. Aside from one quote, all others more or less conform to the stated purpose o f this section, to show that non-Jewish authors were aware o f the role that the Jewish people played in wor ld history already at an early date. However , one quote, the last (1.155ff.), stemming from the "Phoenician writings," does not fit in. It makes no mention o f the Jews or o f Judaism. True , Nebuchadnezzar is ment ioned in the quote and his date is set by recourse to the list o f Phoenician kings, but Josephus had already established Nebuchadnezzar 's date in the previous quote, the seventh, from Berossus, w h o himself had mentioned the Babylonian capture o f the Jews in Josephus' sixth quote. There seems to be no reason for an author w h o is keen to prove the antiquity o f the Jews by means o f quotes from non-Jewish authors to cite this passage from the "Phoenician writings" if the passage itself neither mentions the Jews nor tells us anything about their antiquity.

Furthermore, in this section o f Apion, Josephus makes two errors, neither that earthshaking, but which nonetheless impart to us cru-

. cial information about the literary structure o f this work. (1) After Josephus has completed quoting Manetho, he sums up the total number o f years according to Mane tho (1.103); this sum, however, does not equal the total o f all the individual kings listed in the quote from

There are, by the way, three kings with the name Amenophis in that list.


Manetho . (2) A few paragraphs further (1.145), Josephus introduces the second quote from Berossus by saying that the latter will corroborate Josephus' previous statement about the temple, that it was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and rebuilt after Cyrus began his reign. However , the quote itself mentions neither the destruction o f the temple nor its rebuilding.

As I have already noted, none o f these problems on their own are overwhelming, and each one can be addressed locally, in its own context. Nonetheless, when we stop to consider that our close reading o f this section o f Josephus' Contra Apionem has disclosed four more-or-less serious problems, one must wonder if they all stem from a c o m m o n ground . 2 5

I think the most probable explanation o f these anomalies and puzzles is that Josephus based this section of Apion upon a source whose explicit objective was not—as is that o f Josephus himself—to show the antiquity o f the Jews, but to arrange a detailed chronology o f the history o f the Jews. This hypothetical author utilized for this purpose all the evidence that he could find in the various treatises he had at hand which dealt with the other ancient Near Eastern peo ples, that is, the histories o f the Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Phoenicians. ( W e will call this hypothetical composi t ion the chrono-graphy source.) This conjecture will explain satisfactorily h o w the problems we raised in Josephus ' work deve loped . 2 6

Regarding the error we noted that the summation Josephus gives for the Mane tho passage does not equal the total number o f years listed in the passage, quite clearly Josephus first quoted from the chronography source an extensive citation from Manetho, but Josephus skipped a line while quoting the citation. H e then quoted from the chronography source the summation o f all the figures, which was given in order to establish the number o f years that passed from the

2 5 T o recapitulate the four problems: (1) the contradiction between this section of Contra Apionem and the next section regarding the question if Amenophis ever existed; (2) the citation of 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 of the destruction and rebuilding of the temple but it actually does nothing of the sort.

2 6 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 of a chronography source.


Exodus until the beginning o f the Argive dynasty. Since the list o f the kings o f Egypt and the summation were both quotes from this chronographical source, Josephus never performed any calculation himself which would have led him to discover his copying error.

T h e ch ronography source accepted totally the veracity o f the Mane tho passage, and therefore at this point in Apion Josephus raises no doubts about the historicity o f the Egyptian king Amenophis , as he does later when he is using the apologetic source, which did not accept the veracity o f the Manetho passage.

T h e grounds for the other error, the misleading introduction to the second quote from Berossus, are also obvious. T h e chronography source used the quote from Berossus for a specific chronological purpose—in order to justify the date that he had 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 following: " M y date for the destruction o f the temple by Nebuchadnezzar and its rebuilding by Cyrus is confirmed by this passage from Berossus." Josephus, for w h o m the date itself was not important and w h o was not paying much attention to the context, latched onto the fact that these introductory comments appeared to be saying that the citation from Berossus confirmed the actual fact o f the destruction and the rebuilding. H e did not realize that the citation was relevant only for the date itself, and was useful only after these two actions, that is, the destruction and the rebuilding, had already been connec ted to Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus. This same explanation also unravels for us the strange puzzle o f the citation o f the Phoenician source, which is cited by Josephus in spite o f the fact that it makes no mention o f the Jews or o f Judaism. In the chronography source which Josephus used, this passage indeed had absolutely no direct relevance to Jewish history, and was cited only to date Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus. Josephus, following exactly the arrangement o f the quotations which appeared in this hypothetical chronographical source rather blindly, also quoted this passage, even though it has no relevance for his o w n specific objective.

W e conclude therefore that this section o f Apion is a reworking o f an earlier chronographical source, whose primary objective was the chronological reconstruction o f Jewish history, based upon Hellenistic composit ions from the East.

I think it worthwhile n o w to explore the different ideological con texts which control the construction o f these two different works, the


second section o f Josephus' Apion, on the one hand, and this chrono-graphy source upon which it was built, on the other.

Josephus' entire work is in a m o d e o f heavy apologetics, which often has a displeasing ring to our modern and post-modern ears. But there can be no doubt that the second section o f Contra Apionem is the most awkward. Here this J e w o f Palestine, a Judean aristocrat, a Jerusalem-based priest feels the need to prove to the cultural elite o f R o m e that the Jews have existed already for quite some time! A n d which nations are used to testify to the antiquity o f the Jews, which cultures are considered by this J e w to be so obviously ancient that there can be no doubt that their testimony will be accepted? By one o f the ironies o f history, it is none other than the three nations which are so often contrasted and opposed to Israel in the Bible—the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the Canaanites-Phoenicians.

I think with just a little bit o f imagination we can reconstruct quite clearly what is going o n in Josephus' mind. Here this more or less Jewishly learned aristocrat is suddenly thrust into a completely new cultural milieu, one with which he had just about n o contact in Judea, and only peripheral contact through his earlier travels. H e is aware o f h o w little he knows o f this compet ing culture and sets out to study it sufficiently so that he can compose literary works in both its language and its id iom. Even after approximately twenty years in R o m e , he is still acutely aware o f h o w haphazard is his grasp o f Hellenistic culture and still feels the need to show to everyone around him that his cultural heritage has existed for such a long time. Quite clearly, he is responding to specific stimuli: someone doubted the antiquity o f the Jews, and instead o f simply taking this doubt to be a sign o f the doubter 's ignorance, Josephus feels the need to prove the antiquity o f the Jews by recourse to the Greek-writing authors o f the Jews ' neighboring countries.

T h e logic here is very interesting: Josephus is sure in his o w n mind 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 Mane tho , Berossus or the Phoenician writings, but simply citing the Bible, as he did in Antiquities, and saying, "Here it is, this proves our antiquity," is not sufficient. T h e biblical story o f the Jews needs to be vindicated by composi tions written in Greek.

Wha t can we say about the author o f the chronography source which Josephus used? Wel l , first o f all, he had an extraordinary library. I suspect though that it would be more exact to say he had


access to a great library. His use o f Mane tho , Berossus and the

Phoenician writings is singular. It has been pointed out by many

that in spite o f the quite clear intentions o f Mane tho and Berossus

to compose their books as a corrective to the incorrect information

about their respective countries, Egypt and Babylon, which was found

in the histories composed by Greek authors, just about no attention

was paid to their compositions in the subsequent centuries. In fact,

the quotations o f these authors in Apion form a sizable proport ion

o f what has survived from their writings.

This emphasis upon the library o f the chronography source leads

m e o f course to suggest that it was written in Alexandria. I simply

doubt if complete copies o f Manetho , Berossus or this Phoenician

source were to be found in R o m e or any place outside o f the East.

Alexandria is the obvious—though o f course not certain—locale for

its composi t ion.

M u c h more important is its sense o f security in knowing exactiy

w h o the Jews are and where exactly they fit into the universal his

torical narrative. O n e o f the mainstays o f the study o f classical and

Hellenistic historiography has been the idea that Alexander's advances

and conquests in the East were the cause o f renewed Greek inter

est in the East, and that one o f the fruits o f this interest was the

creation o f a new genre o f historiography, the universal history, which

had, as one o f its main elements, the development o f a compara

tive c h r o n o l o g y . 2 7 O u r reconstructed chronography source which

Josephus used fits perfectiy into this intellectual context. In order to

establish firm datings for all o f Jewish history, he needed to find

anchor points in other people 's history. I assume that he knew clas

sical Greek and Hellenistic historiography, and also knew that they

barely mentioned any figure w h o also figured in the biblical histor

ical narrative, and so they could not be used as anchors . 2 8

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 factor in its development (A. Grafton, "Tradition and Technique in Historical Chronology," 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, who 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 of the universal history.

2 8 The one exception to this is o f course Cyrus who was mentioned—very promi-


Having access to these since lost works, that is, Berossus, Manetho,

and the Phoenician writings, he used them to place Jewish history

in a universal context. H e isolated three specific points o f close con

tact between Israel and the surrounding nations—the exodus from

Egypt, the Phoenician help for King S o l o m o n in building the first

temple and the Babylonian destruction o f the first temple—which

are, in addition to being points o f contact between Israel and the

nations, also the three most significant points o f Israelite history dur

ing this entire period. Using these anchor points as his base, he

probably then continued and filled in all the specific chronological

details o f Jewish history, o n the basis o f the biblical data. A n d so,

at the end, he had a complete chronology o f the Jews incorporated

into a universal world ch rono logy . 2 9

T h e difference between the mind-set o f this chronography source

and that o f Josephus seems to m e to be immense. T h e major psy

chological motivation for Josephus' reworking o f the chronography

source is the insecurity o f a nouveau Greek out to prove that his

people is also worthy o f note. T h e author o f the chronography source,

in contrast, has no doubt that the universal history will be enriched

by the addition o f an additional column, that o f the Jews . 3 0

* * *

M y emphasis until n o w has not been on finding elements o f Hellenistic

culture in Josephus' writings. Quite often that type o f an endeavor

can be futile. There is o f course a great deal o f value in detailing

and count ing all the Hellenistic motifs and all the Jewish 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 do with chronology.

2 9 L. Troiani, Commento Storico al "Contro Apione" di Giuseppe (Pisa, 1977), 39—40, 105, has suggested that Josephus used a manual on ancient history from which he culled his citations, and offers the intriguing suggestion that Josephus has accidentally retained the title of 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 Polyhistor-style compilation, but a historiographical monograph focusing on chronological synchronizations relating Jewish history to world history.

3 0 M y image of the "column" is taken from that classic o f comparative chronology, the Canons of Eusebius, within which the chronologies o f the various nations are in fact arranged in parallel columns.


Hellenistic motifs, but it not that obvious h o w to evaluate these matters. Additionally, it is sometimes quite difficult to distinguish between a purely Hellenistic idea and a Jewish idea presented in Hellenistic garb . 3 1

W h a t I have been trying to do in this paper and what will be one o f the foci in m y discussion o f Josephus' Jewish Antiquities is the attempt to isolate various trends in Josephus ' reading and in his library. T h e history o f the books one reads is the history o f that person's mind.

But before I attempt to continue this project o f reconstructing Josephus' library in the context of Antiquities, I must make some more general remarks about the extent o f Hellenization present in this work. M u c h has been written on this topic and m y remarks will be mainly bibliographical in nature.

Mos t noteworthy and profuse are the rather extended series o f articles on Josephus ' portraits o f various biblical figures p roduced by Louis Feldman. 3 2 There can be no doubt that he has identified several recurring characteristics in Josephus' characterizations o f these different figures which owe much to Hellenistic topoi. In addition, there have been several fruitful recent studies by Maren Niehoff, which have analyzed the Hellenistic motifs and narrative techniques in Josephus' rewritten story. 3 3

Well prior to Feldman's series o f studies, there is the classic article o f Isaac Heinemann on Josephus' me thod . 3 4 Heinemann detailed many manifest Hellenistic elements, especially erotic ones, in Josephus' retelling o f the biblical story. M o v i n g back in time, there appeared the less well-known study o f Martin Braun, Griechischer Roman und Hellenistische Geschichtschreibung,35 which, in spite o f its rather expan-

3 1 Josephus' description of the sects is of course a classic example of this tendency to present Jewish concepts in Hellenistic forms.

3 2 Just recently many of 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 do 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.

3 3 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 of Josephus' Narrative Technique in His 'Rewritten Bible'," JSJ 27 (1996), 31-45 .

3 4 "Josephus' Method in the Presentation of Jewish Antiquities," %ion 5 (1940), 180-203 [in Hebrew].

3 5 (Frankfurter Studien zur Religion und Kultur der Antike, 7; Frankfurt, 1934).


Braun's more famous book is, o f course, History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature (Oxford, 1938).

sive-sounding title, is basically a study o f novelistic elements in Antiquities, most specifically the wife o f Potiphar story.

T h e wide-ranging erudition and insightful analysis o f these scholars, especially the last two, Heinemann and Braun, is something to behold. A n d I feel singularly unqualified to c o m m e n t on much o f what they write.

Nonetheless, I d o want to make some remarks about one 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 Manoah ' s wife, that is, Samson's mother, with the angel. In the biblical story, this meeting, in and o f itself, has absolutely nothing even remotely hinting o f the erotic. Yet Josephus (Antiquities 5.276ff.) loads up this very short divine proclamation with a jealous husband, a tall and comely youth, an explanation o f the angel's second coming in order to relieve Manoah ' s suspicions—in short, all the characteristics o f a ju icy 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 which needed to be enlivened and so decided to make the angel into a potential seducer. But I must immediately add that if Josephus had been driven by such motivations, there are other stories in the Bible which are eminently more suitable for such erotic additions. Thus, for example, if we take the incident o f Joseph 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 Josephus' retelling, indeed even less than is found in the Testament o f Joseph, as Braun himself notes.

Turning to the exploits o f that great biblical admirer o f w o m e n , K ing David, Josephus' account o f the meeting o f David with Abigail as well as the account o f his meeting with Bat-Sheba are both more or less completely devoid o f any erotic element. Just think h o w easy it would be to fit both o f these stories into a Hellenistic romance context: the virtuous chaste wife whose evil husband dies and marries the fair youth and then the hero 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, and their love even becomes vindicated and blessed by having the fruit o f their union b e c o m e his heir.


I find it extremely difficult to fathom why an author motivated

to add an erotic element to the biblical narrative would pick the

meeting o f Manoah ' s wife with the angel, and not any o f these other

incidents.

But if we postulate that Josephus is not the one w h o added the

erotic elements to the story o f Manoah ' s wife meeting the angel, but

rather has taken it over from an earlier Hellenistic novella, every

thing makes perfect sense. True that the meeting with the angel has

no erotic element, but the larger biblical context o f the entire Samson

story has o f course an extremely prominent erotic component . This

hypothetical novella took as its subject the entire Samson story, which

begins with the angelic encounter. N o w we are referring to a very

conscious artistic m o d e o f composi t ion, and it is easy to understand

h o w the subsequent Samson and Delilah plot-line caused the author

to insert into the beginning o f the novella additional erotic elements

completely alien to the biblical text. This author was not interpret

ing the Bible, nor was he writing a b o o k o f history: he was creat

ing a story. 3 6

* * *

Again I am emphasizing Josephus' dependence upon written c o m

positions. Indeed, I am convinced that there existed in the ancient

world hundreds o f Jewish-Greek works which were lost forever with

the extinction o f the Judeo-Greek synthesis in late antiquity.

Part o f this convic t ion I have stems from m y researches into

Josephus ' ch rono logy , o r better yet, into Josephus ' chronologies ,

3 6 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 of history. (A not-quite-comparable situation developed in the medieval European world). A paradigmatic example of 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 of 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).


specifically his chronologies in the Antiquities of the Jews. Earlier I discussed at length m y hypothesis concerning the Hellenistic Jewish chronography which was used by Josephus in the second section o f Apion. N o w I wish to speak o f what I have found in Antiquities.

M a n y have noticed that Josephus' chronological data is often contradictory, and one o f the obvious solutions has always been the possibility that he used a multiplicity o f sources. 3 7 That this is indeed the correct solution becomes absolutely indisputable after one looks at all the evidence.

Thus, to take one example, for the per iod between exodus from Egypt and the building o f the first temple, Josephus gives us two explicit numbers in various places, 592 and 612; other passages presume one o f these two figures; and a third figure, 630, is presumed by two additional passages. Additionally, we can determine which differences in reconstructing the history o f this per iod led to these differences, and, perhaps most interestingly o f all, none o f these three figures conform to the summation at which we arrive if we add up all the individual numbers Josephus notes for the per iod from Moses to S o l o m o n . 3 8

T h e multiplicity o f chronographical sources used by Josephus is important for us for two reasons. First o f all, I am convinced that an intense concern with chronology is itself a result o f contact with Hellenistic cul ture. 3 9 But m o r e important for us is the fact that Josephus' use o f multiple sources, as well as his casual, or should I say promiscuous, transition from one source to another, in his various works must be taken as proven. T h e only scenario which can explain the contradictions is that Josephus had available to him a number o f Jewish chronological composit ions. At any one point, he had no preference for any one o f these composit ions. Sometimes he would remember which o f these composit ions he had used previously and would continue to use it, but at other times he wou ld forget, and simply insert the summations o f a conflicting chronology.

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.

3 8 See Appendix 1 for a more detailed discussion. 3 9 I discuss this question extensively in my introduction to Seder Olam (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 chronology (or indeed with any chronology) as their focal point, though the centrality o f the Bible itself did not diminish in any way.


* * *

A few paragraphs earlier, I noted a number o f scholars w h o have dealt with aspects o f Hellenization in Josephus and I remarked that I was going backwards in time. I would like to continue moving back n o w to a very important study o f Josephus, immensely flawed, but nonetheless extremely significant—Holscher's article on Josephus in Pauly Wissowa . 4 0

Holscher 's study has been for many decades the whipping b o y o f Josephean scholarship. Based upon the c o m m o n scholarly paradigm o f the day, he set up an exceedingly sharp contrast between the intellectual wor ld o f a Palestinian priest, o n the one hand, and Hellenistic culture, on the other. Since he saw indications o f Hellenistic culture in every nook and cranny o f Josephus' work, he came to the conclusion that Josephus was simply a relatively witless copyist o f earlier Hellenistic composit ions and not m u c h o f an author.

For us o f course this paradigm no longer holds, and we can easily imagine that many aspects o f Hellenistic culture would have been well-known to an aristocratic priest in Judea, and could have been used b y h im w h e n addressing a non-Jewish, intellectually elite audience. Add ing to this point the fact that Josephus had already spent some twenty years in R o m e before Antiquities appeared, the case that Josephus was a mechanical col lector o f earlier sources simply vanishes.

In spite o f this valid criticism o f Holscher, I think that the world o f scholarship has unjustifiably overlooked some important arguments he made. T h e arguments to which I am referring d o not focus upon specific aspects o f Hellenistic culture. Thus, we could argue for hours if it is probable that Josephus himself had read through Stoic philosophical manuals and knew those technical terms and phrases which c rop up here and there in his books. Questions like these are not, by their very nature, capable o f resolution.

There are basically two arguments o f Holscher 's, which I at least find convincing, and neither has much to d o with Hellenistic culture per se. O n e is the fact that Josephus transliterates the names o f biblical 'figures and places in very different ways in different parts o f his composit ions. W e all know that transliteration is a tricky busi-

4 0 See n. 13.


ness, and I will be the first to admit that I often am careless and

transliterate the same name in different ways. But the differences in

these cases are m i n o r : Jo sephus has c o m p l e t e l y vary ing letter

identifications in different parts o f his works. T o give one example

which is not taken from Holscher, but from a note o f Thackeray:

biblical Heb ron is presented in Josephus variously as Nabro , Nebron ,

Gibron (with a gamma), H e b r o n (asprirated) and Chebron (with a

chi).41 Thackeray simply cites this as a datum, but I think if we mull

over this fact, and add to it many similar facts, it tends to lead us

to the conclusion that a variety o f written works are open in front

o f Josephus and he is using different ones at different times.

T h e second argument has to d o with the astonishing expertise and

familiarity which is found in Josephus' compositions concerning Egypt.

There is no reason why a Jerusalem priest taken to R o m e after the

rebellion wou ld have at his fingertips many facts about Egyptian

topography and the like. O f course, if the subject came up, he could

take out some rolls from the palace library and read up on it, but

Holscher 's evidence comes from places where there would be no

need to insert any details about Egyptian life. 4 2

In light o f all o f the above, I have b e c o m e convinced that Josephus

used a variety o f Jewish-Hellenistic works, and incorporated them in

different ways in his composit ions. But, in the final analysis, let us

not forget that these are his composit ions and not anthologies.

* * *

T h e title o f this paper promised a discussion o f Josephus between

Hellenistic culture and rabbinic culture, but up to this point I have

focused solely upon on the evidence 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.

4 2 I have found a number o f additional indications of specific stances with regard to Egypt which make litde sense in the context o f Josephus himself. The most indicative is I think Antiquities 1.161, where Abraham goes to Egypt, not only because of the famine, but also because he wishes to see if the Egyptian priests have better 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."


therefore time to turn to the question o f Josephus in the context o f

rabbinic culture and learning.

Again, I am not going to enumerate items which may point to

some sort o f a connect ion between Josephus and rabbinic intellec

tual endeavors. T h e listing o f parallels between Josephus and rab

binic literature is a worthwhile enterprise, and it has been done , in

various contexts, by Rappapor t , 4 3 by Weill in his notes to the French

translation o f Books 1-10, 4 4 and a great deal can be learnt from

Ginzberg's notes to his classic Legends of the Jews}5 O f course, m u c h

still remains to be done . But lists o f this sort d o not allow us to

make any definitive statements about Josephus' cultural world. Quite

obviously, the appearance o f an exegetical tradition in a rabbinic

work does not mean that it is a rabbinic tradition. Even more than

it makes sense to talk o f c o m m o n Judaism in the legal sphere, it

makes sense to talk o f a c o m m o n ground o f exegetical traditions, as

indeed J im Kugel and others have shown so wel l . 4 6

H o w then can Josephus be placed in the context o f rabbinic cul

ture? It has been claimed that Josephus presented a variant picture

o f Judea in Antiquities as opposed to the picture he presented in his

Jewish War because he wished to curry favor with the rabbinic party

then becoming dominant in Judea. 4 7 This wou ld fit well with the

notion that there is evidence o f rabbinic culture in Antiquities, but

that does not mean that there necessarily is such evidence.

In truth, however, I do think there is such evidence. Corresponding

to the argument made above concerning Josephus and Hellenistic

4 3 S. Rappaport, Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus (Frankfurt, 1930). 44 Oeuvres completes de Flavius Josephe, Vols. 1-2, tr. J. Weill (Paris, 1900-1926). 4 5 7 vols. (Philadelphia, 1909-1938). 4 6 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). 4 7 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), 157 -171 ; S. Mason , "Josephus on the Pharisees Reconsidered: A Critique of Smith/Neusner," Studies in Religion 17 (1988), 455-469; D . Goodblatt, "The Place of the Pharisees in First Century Judaism: The State of 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), 29 -42 . As many of these studies note and as I remarked above in a different context, the source-critical question makes it very difficult to determine what exactly is Josephus' position on a specific question. In the final analysis, I do not think the argument can be settled conclusively, and each scholar's stance is based to a large extent on his intuitive response.


4 8 The ensuing description and discussion is based upon my extended study of this work. M y critical edition of, commentary on and introduction to Seder Olam is in press, and will be published by the Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History.

4 9 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 how 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 of "eight Greek kings" (many o f whom are unknown to us), and (4) a comparison of the chronological and calendrical details o f the destructions of the two temples.

culture, that m u c h can be learnt about his relationship to Hellenistic culture by isolating and analyzing the Hellenistic sources for his various composit ions, the argument will n o w be made that Josephus used a work o f rabbinic literature.

This claim sounds absurd o n the face o f it. After all, it is agreed that the earliest rabbinic composi t ion is the Mishnah and that was edited about 200 C.E. Furthermore, the generally accepted scholarly consensus is that the Mishnah was not authoritatively written d o w n until centuries later. H o w then could Josephus use o f work o f rabbinic literature?

It is indeed to m y mind correct to say that the Mishnah is the earliest rabbinic composi t ion, and there was no truly rabbinic work c o m p o s e d and written in the first century C.E. But there was a work which was written and c o m p o s e d during that per iod which has close affinities with early rabbinic literature and which became , after revision and redaction, part o f the rabbinic corpus. This work is Seder O l a m and I believe that i t—or rather an earlier non-extant hypo-thetically conjectured proto-Seder Olam—was used by Josephus. 4 8

Seder O l a m is an exegetical chronography which pertains just about exclusively to the biblical period. It begins with the creation o f A d a m and continues until the biblical per iod comes to an end, which happened, according to Seder Olam, precisely when the Persian world-monarchy ceased and the Greek wor ld-monarchy began, that is, when Alexander the Great conquered the Near East. 4 9

T h e first sentence o f Seder O l a m already tells us o f its essential concerns: "From A d a m until the f lood there passed one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years." It is not a self-contained history; it can only be used as an adjunct to the Bible, and knowledge o f the


latter is assumed. Using the events o f the Bible as its base, it con

cerns itself with chronological questions and deals with dates and

ages. T h e following is only a very small sampling o f the numerous

issues touched upon in this work: the number o f years from the f lood

until the dispersion, the age o f Isaac at the time o f the binding, the

age o f J a c o b when he arrived at Laban's house, the number o f years

the children o f Israel remained in Egypt, the number o f years they

were subjugated, the number o f years R e h o b o a m observed the Torah,

the year o f Ahaziah's reign within which Elijah ascended to heaven

and the year o f Jehoiakim's reign within which Nebuchadnezzar

began to reign. All these dates, as well as the dozens o f other dates

detailed in Seder O l a m which are not explicitly recorded in the

Bible, were generated by the investigation and scrutiny o f the b ib

lical text, i.e. by exegetical means. In addition, Seder O l a m devotes

some effort to synchronizing the regnal lists o f the kingdoms o f Judah

and Israel and to resolving various contradictions between the b ib

lical books o f Kings and Chronicles.

Seder O l a m is a unique work in the rabbinic corpus, and its pat

terns o f narrative and exposition are not comparable to that o f any

other rabbinic work. Consequendy it has been difficult to situate it

within any specific context o f rabbinic literature.

According to a rabbinic tradition found in the Babylonian Talmud, 5 0

it was R a b b i Yose , a sage o f the second century o f the c o m m o n era,

o f the generation immediately preceding Rabb i Judah the Patriarch,

w h o "taught" Seder O lam. Ostensibly, if this attribution is accepted

and that Seder O l a m is identified with the Seder O l a m we have,

then it is o f course inconceivable that in the first century Josephus

used the work which we know as Seder O lam.

Nonetheless, though I am convinced that this attribution is cor

rect and that the Seder O l a m to which the Ta lmud refers is the

Seder O l a m we have, I am also confident that Josephus used Seder

Olam, or rather, as I expressed it above, an earlier proto-Seder O l a m

from which our Seder O l a m was derived and which it follows closely.

O n the basis o f a number o f considerations, I have conc luded that

when the T a l m u d says that Rabb i Yose "taught" Seder O l a m this

does not rnean that he composed it in the sense o f a modern author

compos ing a book , but that he transmitted it. T h e chronological c o n -

5 0 This tradition is asserted by Rabbi Yohanan and is found twice in the Babylonian Talmud, Yebamot 82b and Mddah 46b.


5 1 The outcome o f following discussion focusing on the relationship between Josephus and Seder Olam was in fact a contributing-factor in the generation of this reconstruction, but the basic outlines of my general conclusions about Seder Olam were formulated well before I began my close readings of exegetical-chrono-logical traditions common to Seder Olam and Josephus.

5 2 See n. 48. 5 3 See Appendix 2, where I present a short summary of my arguments. 5 4 For simplicity's sake, in the following discussion I will be referring to Seder

Olam, though I mean proto-Seder Olam.

tinuum o f the entire biblical period existed as a complete work before R a b b i Yose 's time; he "taught" it to his students and added his o w n comments . This revised Seder O l a m was the work which became part o f the rabbinic corpus, which was quoted extensively in the Ta lmud, and which was transmitted to future generations.

T h e justifications for this reconstruction are to m y mind incontestable, 5 1 and I present them at length in m y introduction to Seder O l a m . 5 2 In short, the analysis o f both the text itself and the cultural context o f this work leads us to the conclusion that its basic structure was c o m p o s e d towards the end o f the first century or beginning o f the second century o f the c o m m o n era. 5 3 It was this original chronological composi t ion, which we call proto-Seder O lam, which was used by Josephus.

It is immediately apparent that any attempt to conc lude that Josephus used Seder O l a m by means o f an analysis o f exegetical and chronological traditions which appear in both texts must ove rcome several serious methodological hurdles. 5 4 First o f all, these exegetical traditions m a y have b e e n derived f rom the Bible independent ly by a number o f different exegetes, including o f course possibly Josephus himself and the author o f Seder O l a m himself, o r any o f their sources.

Furthermore, even if we would claim that any one specific exegetical or chronological statement should be attributed to one specific originator—in other words , it is not probable that a number o f different people would independently c o m e to the same conclusion on the basis o f the biblical text—even then, this statement can have been transmitted during the course o f time to many different p e o ple, and again there is no need to assume any literary relationship between any two works which contain this statement.

Nonetheless, in spite o f these considerations, I am convinced that there are persuasive grounds for suggesting that there is a literary relationship between Seder O l a m and Josephus.


Josephus, Antiquities 10.18Iff., contains a number o f very strange historical claims: 5 5

[181] for on the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the twenty-third of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he made an expedition against Goele-syria; and when he had possessed himself of 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.

Accord ing to Josephus, in the 23rd year o f Nebuchadnezzar , he conquered Coele-Syria, and then A m m o n and M o a b . Afterwards he entered Egypt, defeated it, replaced its king, captured the Jews w h o were there and brought them to Babylon. These conquests are not known from the Bible nor from any other source, and in fact, J o h n Bright, in his History of Israel, cannot make heads or tails o f them. 5 6

Marcus , in his notes to the L o e b edition, states that these conquests seem to be Josephus' invention and suggests that they are derived from Jeremiah's prophecies against the nations. 5 7 There is indeed some truth to Marcus ' suggestion, but it is not a sufficient explanation in and o f itself. It does not explain the exact date Josephus gives for these conquests, Nebuchadnezzar 's 23rd year, which cannot be dependent upon Jeremiah's prophecies against the nations. Furthermore, additional nations are mentioned in those chapters o f Jeremiah, and why are they not also mentioned by Josephus? Let us n o w look at Seder Olam, chapter 26:

In the twenty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar, Tyre was given into his hand, and he swept away all the Jews who were in Ammon, Moab, and in the area surrounding the Land of Israel, "seven hundred and forty-five persons" (Jer 52:30). In the twenty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, Egypt was given into his hand, "and he carried off its multitude, 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 The translations o f Josephus in the next few pages are based upon the Whiston translation with some modifications.

5 6 J. Bright, A History of Israel, second edition (Philadelphia, 1972), 352. 5 7 Josephus, Vol . VI , Jewish Antiquities, Books I X - X I , ed. and tr., R. Marcus (Loeb

Classical Library; Cambridge, 1966), 259.


Note the astonishing agreement with Josephus: (1) A m n i o n and M o a b and other surrounding nations are conquered by Nebuchadnezzar in his twenty-third year; (2) immediately after this conquest, the conquest o f Egypt is mentioned; (3) as part o f the story o f the conquest o f Egypt, Jews are taken into captivity. No t one o f these three points o f agreement is explicit in the Bible.

There are also differences between Seder O l a m and Josephus, and several o f these differences are significant. First o f all, in Seder Olam, the conquest o f the nations in Nebuchadnezzar 's twenty-third year is accompanied by the capture o f the Jews w h o live a m o n g these nations, and is explicitiy connected to Jer 52:30, which indeed mentions a captivity o f Jews in Nebuchadnezzar 's twenty-third year. Since Josephus does not even mention the capture o f Jews at this point, there is no reason anyone w h o reads Josephus alone would think to connect it to Jer 52:30. Furthermore, according to Seder O lam, the conquest o f Egypt was in Nebuchadnezzar 's twenty-seventh year and is c o n n e c t e d to Ezek, chapter 29 , w h i c h is explici t ly dated to Nebuchadnezzar 's twenty-seventh year. This is why the story o f the conquest o f Egypt follows the story o f the conquest o f A m m o n and M o a b , even though in the prophecies about the nations, Egypt appears first. In addition, Josephus mentions Coele-Syria, but this geographic area is not mentioned in the prophecies about the nations. Presumably, this place name is his paraphrastic rewrite o f the place name Tyre which appears in Seder O l a m . 5 8 Seder O l a m took it from Ezekiel; it appears there as the place where Nebuchadnezzar 's soldiers had to work hard, and for which they received as reward the spoils o f Egypt.

Also the mention o f the taking o f the Jews from Egypt to Babylon, which makes no real sense in Josephus—and is definitely not taken from the prophecies about the nations—has a very clear purpose in Seder O lam. It is part o f a larger, and most fascinating, exegetical complex in Seder O lam; he s o m e h o w had to get Jeremiah from Egypt to Babylon in order that he can return to Israel in the days o f Gyrus. 5 9

5 8 A reason for the revision can easily be suggested: all other place names in the list of conquests are names of larger geographical areas, not names o f cities, and therefore Josephus changed the name Tyre to the name of larger geographical area within which Tyre is contained.

5 9 According to Seder Olam, Jeremiah the prophet was among those who returned to Judea and signed the covenant (see Neh 10:3).


In the light o f this analysis, there can be n o doubt that Josephus' formulation o f these traditions is secondary when compared to that o f Seder Olam. Quite clearly, Josephus had as his source either Seder O l a m or a text very similar to it. A number o f the original elements were excised—specifically, the capture o f the Jews from the areas surrounding Israel and the date o f the conquest o f Egypt—and one componen t was added, the description o f the death o f the king o f Egypt and the appointment o f his replacement, which was indeed taken from Jeremiah's prophecies about the nations.

Note that we have surmounted the methodological obstacles noted above by compar ing, not isolated traditions, but literary contexts wherein a number o f traditions are combined together.

Let us n o w look at another parallel where exegetical and chronological statements not based upon a simple reading o f the biblical text are combined together, Seder O lam, Chapter 25, and Antiquities 10.97ff. First, let us cite the texts.

Seder O lam:

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 of 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 of them mighty men and makers of war" (2 Kgs 24:16).

Antiquities:

[96] Now a litde time afterwards, the king of Babylon made an expedition against Jehoiakim, whom he received [into the city], and this out of fear of the foregoing predictions of 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 of the greatest dignity, together with their king Jehoiakim, whom he commanded to be thrown before the walls, without any burial; and made his son Jehoiachin king of the country and of the city: [98] he also took the principal persons in dignity for captives, three thousand in number, and led them away to Babylon; among whom was the prophet Ezekiel, who was then but young. And this was the end of king Jehoiakim, when he had lived thirty-six years, and of them reigned eleven. But Jehoiachin succeeded him in the kingdom, whose mother's name was Nehushta; she was a citizen of Jerusalem. He reigned three months and ten days.


Marcus (above, n. 57), 120, note a.

Both texts say that Jehoiakim died at the time o f the conquest o f the city by Nebuchadnezzar , that his b o d y was thrown in front o f the gates o f Jerusalem (this is based upon Jer 22:19), and that during the course o f this war with Jehoiakim, three thousand Jews were taken captive. T h e exegetical presuppositions underlying these statements are extremely c o m p l e x and I cannot go into them here. Let it suffice to say that they cannot be reconstructed o n the basis o f Josephus' statements but can be from Seder O l a m . I will note just one crucial point. Marcus, in his commentary, notes that the number o f three thousand captives is taken from Jer 52:28 which does indeed mention three thousand captives, 6 0 but there is nothing in that verse which connects it to the time o f the death o f Jehoiakim, a connect ion explicit a few lines earlier in Seder O lam. Note especially Josephus ' statement that the three thousand captives were important persons, again a datum not found in Jer 52:28, but explicit in the immediate following passage in Seder O l a m , where this exile is connected to 2 Kings 24:16, "ha-kol gibborim coseiy milhamah" ("all o f them mighty men and makers o f war").

T h e last occasion o f a close parallel between a series o f chronological and exegetical statements found in both Seder O l a m and in Josephus is also, to m y eyes, extremely impressive. There is not the slightest hint in the historical books o f the Bible that when Nebuchadnezzar placed Jerusalem under siege in his ninth year, this was his second siege o f Jerusalem. But both Seder O l a m , Chapter 26, and Josephus, Antiquities 10.108ff., tell us that in his eighth year Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem.

Seder Olam:

At that time Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon, and put his trust in the king of E g y p t . . . In the eighth year of Zedekiah the army of the king of Babylon came against Jerusalem. "The army of Pharaoh came out of Egypt, and when the Chaldeans who were besieging Jerusalem heard news of them they withdrew from Jerusalem" (Jer 37:5). And the army of Pharaoh swept away Gaza and returned to Egypt.

Antiquities:

[108] Now when Zedekiah had preserved the league of mutual assistance he had made with the Babylonians for eight years, he broke it, and revolted to the Egyptians, in hopes, by their assistance, of


overcoming the Babylonians. [109] When the king of 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 of 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 of 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 of all Syria.

B o t h wri te that an Egypt ian a r m y left Egyp t to fight against Nebuchadnezzar 's army, that Nebuchadnezzar had to raise the siege o f Jerusalem, but in the end the Egyptian army returned to Egypt, not being able to succeed against Nebuchadnezzar . There is little chance that this historical reconstruction, which is based upon Jer 37 :5 -7 , was devised independendy by Seder O l a m and Josephus. Note especially the fact that both date this siege to Nebuchadnezzar 's eighth year, a feature which cannot be derived direcdy from the Jeremiah text.

In dealing with these close parallels between Josephus and Seder O l a m , we can exclude the possibility that Seder O l a m is dependent upon Josephus, for as we have shown o n a number o f occasions in the discussion, Seder O l a m often retains the original biblical-exeget-ical context which cannot be reconstructed on the basis o f Josephus' words alone. W h a t about the possibility that both are using a third source? This is o f course a classic counter-claim to just about any attempt at source criticism o f two extant works: perhaps there was a third work that they both used. In our case, since we are dealing with extensive passages from two chapters in Seder O l a m , and since there is nothing in Seder Olam's language which needs to be changed in order to postulate that it was Josephus' source, I would counter that this third source was simply that earlier version o f Seder O l a m discussed above and which we call proto-Seder O lam.

T o conclude: I suspect that Josephus' greatest attainment was his successful ability to provide himself with a first-rate Jewish library, which included works exhibiting acute Hellenization as well as works belonging to the proto-rabbinic or early rabbinic culture o f Judea. I have tried to uncover some o f these works—whose use he tried so assiduously to hide—as part o f our continuing efforts to understand the cultural contexts o f Judaism in the Hellenistic and R o m a n periods.

APPENDIX O N E

T H E C H R O N O L O G Y O F I S R A E L F R O M T H E E X O D U S U N T I L T H E B U I L D I N G O F T H E T E M P L E A C C O R D I N G

T O J O S E P H U S

In three different passages Josephus tells us in a most precise and definitive manner h o w many years passed between the exodus from Egypt and the building o f the first temple: the only p rob lem is that he gives us two different figures. In Antiquities 8.61 he writes that 592 years passed, while according to Antiquities 20.230 and Against Apion 2.19 this per iod lasted 612 years. Other passages also allow us to infer h o w long he believed this per iod lasted. Thus , Antiquities 10.147 tells us that 1062 years elapsed from the exodus until the destruction o f the temple and 470 from its construction until its destruction, which leaves 592 years between the exodus and the construction. This chronological datum is also the ground for Josephus' statement in Antiquities 7.68 that 515 years passed from the days o f

Joshua until David 's conquest o f Jerusalem. 6 1

So we see that three chronological statements in Josephus either cite or are based upon one chronological scheme, that 592 years passed between the exodus from Egypt and the building o f the first temple, and two chronological statements cite a second chronological scheme, that 612 years passed between the exodus from Egypt and the building o f the first temple. 6 2

These explicit contradictions have, o f course, been noted by many. S o m e o f the foregoing material was cited by Thackeray, and it led him to claim that 'Josephus has no consistent scheme o f Biblical ch rono logy . " 6 3 This however would be a logical conclusion only were

6 1 Add to these 515 years the forty years in the desert, the thirty-three years o f David from the conquest of Jerusalem until his death, and the four years of Solomon until he began building the temple, and we arrive at 592 years from the exodus until the construction o f the temple.

6 2 I have no idea how the authors of 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?

6 3 So in his comment to Antiquities 7.68: Josephus, Vol . V , Jevuish Antiquities, Books


Josephus to present incompatible data throughout. Given that two

statements in different parts o f Josephus ' oeuvre agree with each

other, and three other statements in different parts o f Josephus ' oeu

vre agree with each other, a more probable inference is that Josephus

is using two schemes o f biblical chronology, each one consistent on

its own .

But this is still not the entire story. Antiquities 9.180 tells us that

the exile from Samaria occurred 945 years after the exodus and 240

years plus seven months and seven days after the division o f the

k ingdom. If we subtract the second number from the first and also

subtract the 76 years remaining to S o l o m o n after the construction

o f the temple until his death, 6 4 we are left with 630 years (plus seven

months and seven days) for the period between the exodus and the

temple building. 6 5

V—VIII, ed. and tr., H. St. J. Thackeray (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, 1966), 395, note c.

6 4 According to Josephus (Antiquities 8.211), Solomon reigned eighty years, and not forty years as the Massoretic text o f the Bible has it.

6 5 Much more troublesome is a passage attributed to Josephus by Clement: "Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of 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 seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of 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 predicated upon easily-discovered Roman chronological data). It does not appear explic-idy 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. He misrepresents the text, plus he mistakenly asserts that Moses led the Israelites out of 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 calculation continues until the tenth year of Antoninus (177 C.E.), and so it must have been composed by a chronographer who 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 -VI , third edition (Griechische christliche Schriftsteller, 52; Berlin, 1960), 91, and add to the list of references W . Christ, "Philologische Studien


zu Clemens Alexandrinus," Abhandlungen der kmiglichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschqften, Philos.-philol. Klasse, X X I Abt., I l l Band, 1901, p. 508.

6 6 Above (n. 44), vol. 2, 90 -91 . As pointed out above, this statement o f Josephus agrees with the claim that from the exodus until the temple building was 592 years.

O u r first conclusion is therefore that Josephus used three different chronological sources, one which claimed that from the exodus to the temple was 592 years, a second which claimed that it was 612 years and a third which claimed that it was 630 years.

Turning n o w to the more speculative attempt o f explaining the development o f these chronological assertions, we must o f course begin by looking at what Josephus himself has to say about the details o f this period. Indeed Weil l in his commentary to Antiquities tells us that he did exactly this. H e sifted through the relevant parts o f Books 5 -7 o f Antiquities and found that the sum o f all the years Josephus notes for the per iod between the entry into the land o f Israel and the conquest o f Jerusalem by David is 504, while Josephus writes in Antiquities 7.68 that this per iod lasted 515 years. 6 6 T h o u g h it should not surprise us were we to find that Weill is unequivocally correct, and that the chronological particulars o f the per iod under question conclusively contradict the aggregate sums presented by Josephus, in truth they can be made to conform with each other. Yet the very way that we will show their agreement proves that Josephus did not generate any o f these aggregate sums by calculating sums from the data he himself cited in his historical retelling o f the per iod from Moses to So lomon .

Weill notes that one judge , A b d o n the son o f Hillel, is mentioned by Josephus but Weill did not include him in his list because Josephus does not tell us h o w many years he judged. This is surely a careless error on the part o f Josephus, and we must therefore add his eight years (Jud 12:13) to Weill 's calculation. Furthermore, Josephus made another careless blunder, one which Wei l l did not catch. Josephus simply skipped T o l a the son o f Puah, one o f the not-very-prominent judges ment ioned in the B o o k o f Judges, w h o served as judge twenty-three years (Jud 10:1-2) .

Add ing these thirty-one years to the 504 years calculated by Weill , we arrive at 535 years from the entry into the land until the conquest o f Jerusalem, still not the 515 years Josephus asserts.

T o determine the actual basis for this Josephean chronology, we must look more carefully at one item in Weill 's list—the regnal years


o f Saul. Weill follows the Greek manuscript tradition o f Antiquities

6.378 and attributes to Saul forty years. However , the Latin trans

lation reads "twenty years" and in Antiquities 10.143, Josephus states

explicidy that Saul reigned twenty years. As Rappapor t argued years

ago, there is g o o d reason to believe that "twenty years" is correct,

and the reading "forty years" found in all manuscripts at 6.378 can

very plausibly be attributed to a scribe or to scribes w h o wished to

make Josephus' text conform to the explicit statement in the N e w

Testament that Saul reigned forty years (Acts 8:21). 6 7

Gonsequendy, we must subtract the extra twenty years that Weill

attributes to Saul from the 535 year total, and then—lo and beho ld—

we have succeeded in harmonizing the chronological details Josephus

presents for the period from Joshua to David and his statement in

Antiquities 7.68 that 515 years passed from the days o f Joshua until

David 's conquest o f Jerusalem. As noted above, if we add 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 S o l o m o n until he began building the temple, we arrive at 592

years from the exodus until the construction o f the temple. Accordingly,

the genesis o f one o f the three different chronologica l sources I

specified above is unambiguously accounted for . 6 8

6 7 Above (n. 43), 51. The arguments of B.Z. Wacholder, Eupolemos: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature (Cincinnati and New York, 1974), 108, against Rappaport are not convincing. Furthermore, neither realized that Josephus's division of Saul's regnal 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), who 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 by J. Hughes, Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology (Journal for the Study o f the Old Testament Supplement Series, 66; Sheffield, 1990), 67, 245-246, 270. Though 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 be 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 indicative against Hughes is the fact that Josephus often includes the number o f months when noting aggregate sums of 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-


Given though that we succeeded in coordinating the various data

only by attributing to Josephus two unintentional errors, it becomes

clear that it was not Josephus himself w h o performed these calcula

tions and formulated these chronological statements. W e must rather

conc lude that Josephus included in his works summations taken

from free-standing chronological sources. T h e disparity between the

position o f this chronological source, which has 592 years from the

tion in his retelling of 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). And then Hughes has to perform the further legerdemain of excising from his summing-up the eight years of 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 of 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 Abdon but not his years o f government? According to Hughes, he simply skipped Abdon, but this is to impute to Josephus a level o f imbecility which is beyond 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 book 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 elegantly—by adding the years Tola and Abdon governed which are in all versions o f the Bible but were inadvertendy skipped by Josephus and by attributing to Saul a reign of only twenty years and not forty years (and of course skipping the eighteen 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 of self-confidence. For example, he has no hesitation in suggesting that chronolo-gists 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 of 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 of evidence against it. His mode of 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 who 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 of data accepted by the community. On this subject I can do no better than recommend the classic treatment o f Gershom Cohen on schema-tology and symmetry in Jewish literature (Abraham Ibn Daud, The Book of Tradition, ed. G .D. Cohen [Philadelphia, 1967]).


exodus until the building o f the temple, and that other chronological source which has 612 years for this same per iod was convincingly explained some one hundred and forty years ago by v. Niebuhr. 6 9

H e noted that some ancient chronological sources attribute twenty years to Saul and others forty years, and suggested that the 592-year chronology is based upon a twenty-year reign for Saul while the 612-year chronology is based upon a forty-year reign for Saul. 7 0 Still unexplained is the third chronological source which has 630 years from the exodus until the building o f the temple. Interestingly enough, the key which allows us to justify this claim comes from Josephus himself. W h e n discussing the beginning o f the monarchy in Antiquities 6.84, Josephus rapidly surveys the various types o f government which had prevailed from the days o f Moses until the anointing o f Saul, and mentions eighteen years o f anarchy between the death o f Joshua and beginning o f the Judges. These eighteen years are nowhere mentioned in Josephus' retelling o f the biblical history where they belong, between the death o f Joshua and the reign o f the first j udge Othniel (Antiquities 5 .117-184) , but if we add them to the 612-year exodus-temple chronology which we have already elucidated, we arrive at the third and last chronological scheme to which Josephus attests, that 630 years passed from the exodus until the building o f the temple.

These analyses indicate very clearly that we should not denigrate the value o f the chronological schemes found in Josephus when they are contradictory. O n the contrary, their value is magnified by the inconsistencies and disagreements. Josephus has preserved for us, inadvertently to be sure, evidence o f the widespread activity and diligence o f early Jewish chronographers, w h o disputed a m o n g themselves h o w should the biblical data be used to compute the chronology o f Israel.

6 9 M . v. Niebuhr, Geschichte Assur's und Babel's seit Phut (Berlin, 1857), 349. 7 0 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 no means claiming that Josephus generated all or even any of these chronological schemes, and indeed we already saw that the New Testament knows of a forty-year reign for Saul.


Chronological Chart of 592 Years Between the Exodus and the Building of the Temple According to Josephus

Moses 40 Joshua 25 Subjugation 8 Othniel 40 Subjugation 18 Ehud 80 Shamgar 1 Subjugation 20 Barak 40 Subjugation 7 G ideon 40 Abimelech 3 T o l a 23 Jair 22 Subjugation 18 Jephthah 6 Ibzan 7 Elon 10 A b d o n 8 Subjugation 40 Samson 20 Eli 40 Samuel 12 Saul 20 David 40 S o l o m o n 4

Total 592

APPENDIX T W O

S E D E R O L A M A S A F I R S T O R S E C O N D C E N T U R Y

C O M P O S I T I O N

I cannot o f course present here the full regalia o f m y arguments that

Seder O l a m was a first o r second century composi t ion, but I will

list them in oudine form. T h e first three chapters o f the introduc

tion to Seder O l a m deal with these matters in great detail.

1. Seder O l a m in its present form must be considered part o f the

rabbinic corpus. T h e names o f rabbinic sages are cited nineteen

times in the composi t ion, and it contains approximately one hun

dred parallels to other rabbinic works.

2. T h e historiographical and chronological concerns o f Seder O l a m

are not encountered in any other rabbinic work. As many schol

ars have noted, rabbinic literature in general has no interest in

historiographical or chronological matters. T h e past qua past is

o f no interest for the sages and an involvement with reconstructing

durations, intervals and dates which in themselves have n o moral

or religious significance cannot be found in rabbinic literature. 7 1

3. T h e modes o f exegesis found in Seder O l a m are radically different

from those c o m m o n to midrashic literature. Seder O l a m does not

disregard grammar, context or logic when reconstructing dates

and ages. N o r can one find in Seder O l a m just about any story

lines not explicit in the biblical text. 7 2

4. Analysis o f the hundred o f so parallels to Seder O l a m in other

rabbinic works indicates that very often Seder O l a m preserves a

more original form o f the parallel, never can it be shown that

the version in Seder O l a m is secondary to the parallel, and occa -

7 1 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 of "Honor thy father and mother," but was not punished for the years he was studying with Eber.

7 2 Thus, Seder Olam does not present us with the dates of any stories about Abraham not. explicit in the Bible, such as Abraham and the idols or Abraham in the furnace.


7 3 M y formulation here is more tentative than the formulations o f my previous conclusions. I have not succeeded in determining any way that Seder Olam could conclude that the Persian world-monarchy lasted 52 years without previously concluding that the second temple period lasted 420 years. (As is well know, these two bits of data, which form the basis o f all rabbinic chronology as well as the counting of the years anno mundi [according to the creation of 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 of the work, this earliest stratum must be post-destruction. If, however, it could be demonstrated that Seder Olam's conclusion about 52 years of Persian dominance were not predicated on a 420-year duration 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 Olam precedes the destruction of the temple. Seder Olam's chronology of the Persian period is discussed at length in my commentary to Chapter 28, Appendix 2.

sionally it can even be proven that the parallel text is specifically dependent upon Seder O l a m .

5. It can be shown that the m o d e o f composi t ion generally postulated for most rabbinic works, i.e. that we should speak more o f editors w h o compile treatises consisting primarily o f collections o f earlier passages rather than o f authors w h o create something new, does not apply to Seder O lam. It is not a collection o f isolated chronological statements but rather is largely the conscious achievement o f a single person (or group o f people) . T h e stylistic and me thodo log i ca l consistencies throughout the work , the cross-references between various chapters and the very fact that an interrelated chronological cont inuum is provided for the entire biblical per iod all reflect a single guiding principle at work from beginning to end.

6. O f the nineteen names o f sages found in Seder O l a m , nine are o f Rabb i Yose . This datum indicates, on the one hand, that there is a special relationship between R a b b i Yose and Seder Olam, and, on the other hand, that he cannot be the author o f Seder O l a m (for why would he cite himself).

7. Seder Olam's reconstruction o f the Persian per iod seems to presuppose that the destruction o f the second temple had already occur red . 7 3

8. T h e consequence o f all o f the above is that Seder O l a m must be at its base a non-rabbinic composit ion strongly influenced by intellectual concerns which were peripheral to the embryonic rabbinic culture but which was in the course o f time incorporated into


the rabbinic corpus. Rabb i Yose was the transmitter o f this c o m position, and to it he added his o w n comments . These comments , which were then formally attributed to Rabb i Yose , were inserted into the text o f Seder O lam, and it continued to be transmitted through the course o f Jewish history.

T H E R E C E P T I O N O F J U D A I S M B Y T H E G R E E K F A T H E R S

9

O N E O F U S O R O N E O F T H E M ?

C H R I S T I A N R E C E P T I O N O F P H I L O T H E J E W I N E G Y P T


1. Two papyrus codices and a snippet

T h e finds that have been made by archaeologists in the land o f

Egypt during the past two centuries have been many and spectac

ular. But few have been as remarkable as the find made more than

a century ago in the town o f Coptos (now Qift, about 600 km south

o f Cairo), to be precise in 1889. It is an intriguing story, so allow

m e to give some details. 1 Whi le excavators were engaged in uncov

ering a G r e c o - R o m a n house, it was noticed that one o f the walls

gave a hol low sound when tapped. W h e n it was carefully opened

up, a papyrus c o d e x b o u n d in leather was found in a niche which

had clearly been carefully prepared for the purpose o f concealing

the b o o k . 2 W h e n examined, it was discovered that the contents o f

the c o d e x were two complete treatises o f Philo o f Alexandria, Who is the Heir of Divine Things? and 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 bound together,

forty-four in total, which yields a b o o k o f eighty-nine pages (the final

sheet was stuck on the binding). Somewhat unusually, it had two

1 I am indebted for this account to C.H. Roberts, Buried Books in Antiquity, Arundell Esdaile Memorial Lecture, 1962 (London, 1963), who based it on Scheil's original report of 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.

2 As described in Roberts, Buried Books in Antiquity, 11. See, further, on the story: T .C . Skeat, "The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels?" New Testament Studies 43 (1997), 24—25, who 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."

204 DAVID T. RUNIA

columns o f text on each page (normally papyrus codices only had

one) . This was possible because, as can be seen in the illustra

tion p rouded by the editor, the pages are almost square in size. T h e

format indicates a better-produced b o o k than the average. O n e is

tempted to speak o f a deluxe edition. Accord ing to papyrologists the

handwriting o f the codex points to a dating in the second half o f

the third century. 3 T h e codex 's binding has yet to be mentioned. As

can be seen in the illustration, the b o o k was b o u n d with a leather

cover which has been beautifully preserved. T h e size can be envis

aged by taking a volume from the L o e b Classical Library and increas

ing its width by half as much again (of course the modern volume

is m u c h thicker). It is clear that the binding is quite different from

what we are used to. In modern terms it resembles a cross between

a binding and a pouch . T h e bindings o f some o f the Nag Hammad i

and B o d m e r codices were similar. 4 In terms o f the history o f the

book , the Philo Coptos codex is a remarkable find. T h e distinguished

papyrologist Col in Roberts has claimed that "it is beyond reason

able doubt the earliest b o u n d b o o k extant." 5

N o w we may be certain that the author o f the contents o f the

c o d e x was Jewish, but was its owner also Jewish? This was almost

certainly not the case. There are a number o f reasons for this. In

the first place the Greek text cop ied out in the c o d e x contains a

number o f abbreviated single words, such as 0 S (with a long stripe

above the two letters) for theos, KS for kyrios, YE for huios, UNA for

pneuma and so o n . 6 These are examples o f the so-called nomina sacra, abbreviations used for sacred names and a limited number o f other

c o m m o n terms. T h e y are characteristic o f Christian scribes. 7 Jewish

scribes did not use them. T h e writer w h o p roduced the c o d e x was

therefore a Christian. It is very likely that its owner was a Christian

3 There are some differences o f opinion on this issue; see Van Haelst, Catalogue des Papyrus Litter aires Juifs et Chretiens, 251.

4 See the illustrations in H. Blanck, Das Buch in der Antike, Beck's Archaologische Bibliothek (Munich, 1992), 89 -91 .

5 Roberts, Buried Books in Antiquity, 14. 6 See the remarks o f Cohn in L. Cohn, P. Wendland, and S. Reiter, Philonis

Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, 6 vols. (Berlin, 1896—1915), l.xlii, based on Scheil. 7 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 of the British Academy 1977 (London, 1979), 26-48; H. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church (New Haven, 1995), 70-74; L.W. Hurtado, "The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: a Proposal," JBL 117 (1998), 655-673.

CHRISTIAN RECEPTION OF PHILO THE JEW IN EGYPT 205

8 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).

9 T .C . Skeat, "The Oldest Manuscript o f the Four Gospels?" 30. He argues for the hypothesis that P4, P64 and 67 all come from the same codex.

1 0 Roberts, Buried Books in Antiquity, 13. 1 1 This persecution was more severe in Egypt than elsewhere; for the destruc

tion of Coptos at the hands of Galerius in 293/4 , cf. A.K. Boardman, Egypt after the Pharaohs 332 B.C.-A.D. 642 (Berkeley, CA, 1986) 44.

as well. T h e fact that the b o o k is a codex also supports this con

clusion. It is well known that the early Christian communi ty strongly

supported the use o f codices and played a significant role in the

transition from the scroll to the c o d e x which was completed by the

end o f the fourth century. 8

There is another remarkable aspect o f the Philo codex which surely

clinches the question o f its ownership. In order to reinforce the

leather binding, strips o f previously used papyrus had been glued

onto it. W h e n removed, these yielded three fragments o f a c o d e x o f

the Gospels. T w o contain brief passages from the Gospel o f Matthew,

the other a substantial section from the Gospel o f Luke. In a very

recent study o f these fragments it has been argued that the codex

from which they derive "has a very g o o d claim to be regarded as

the oldest known c o d e x o f the four Gospels ." 9

W h y then was the c o d e x hidden? T h e fact that the owner was a

Christian furnishes us with a vital clue. Books are hidden for at least

two reasons, which in some circumstances may be interconnected:

because their owners regard them as precious and d o not want them

to be destroyed, or because they d o not want to be caught with

them in their possession. These two reasons also apply to other secret

storages o f books, such as the Qumran scrolls and the N a g Hammadi

codices. T h e hypothesis put forward by Col in Roberts on the basis

o f the dating o f the c o d e x to the second half o f the third century

seems to m e very plausible. 1 0 H e argues that the owner may have

been the victim o f the final wave o f persecutions carried out in name

o f the Emperor Diocletian, which took place just before the triumph

o f the Church in 312 and was later known as the Great Persecution. 1 1

T h e owner knew that that the b o o k would identify him as a Christian,

and so he hid it. T h e fact that it was not later recovered must make

us fear the worst for his fate.

Briefly I should also mention two other Philonic papyri. Some

years later a second Philonic c o d e x was discovered in the town o f

Oxyrhynchus midway be tween C o p t o s and the Nile Delta. T h e

206 DAVID T. RUNIA

surviving remains—fifteen folios (folded single sheets) and five frag

ments—allow the original contents to be reconstructed with a rea

sonable measure o f accuracy. 1 2 It must have a much larger codex ,

consisting o f nearly 400 pages and containing the complete text o f

at least seven Philonic treatises, all (or almost all) belonging to the

Allegorical Commentary . T h e text is written in a single co lumn,

which corresponds to the more usual method o f producing a codex .

This c o d e x too contains the characteristic nomina sacra o f a Christian

codex , and is also to be dated to the third century (probably the

second ha l f ) . 1 3

T h e third papyrus is quite different from the other two. It con

sists o f a mere snippet, a piece o f papyrus measuring no more than

12 by 6.3 c m . W e have no idea where it came from or h o w it found

its way to Berlin. It was only published five years ago, when it was

identified as containing a few lines from Philo's allegorical treatise

On the Unchangeability of God.14 Even though it is so tiny, we can still

be pretty sure that it is a Christian papyrus. Because it is written

o n both sides, it must c o m e from a codex , and despite its negligi

ble length, it too contains a nomen sacrum (0Z for theos in the bo t tom

line verso). T h e publisher o f the fragment dates it to the sixth-

seventh century, but it is very likely to be earlier. 1 5

2. Our subject and program

O n the basis o f what we have so far discussed the following may

be concluded. In provincial Egypt, at a considerable remove from

1 2 For a listing of the fragments, published in five different places, see Van Haelst, Catalogue des Papyrus Litteraires Juifs et Chretiens, 25 If. I follow the reconstruction of

J.R. Royse ("The Oxyrhynchus Papyrus o f Philo," Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 17 [1980], 155-165), who 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 of the Law; but see my comments in "Underneath Cohn and Colson: The 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

1 3 See the comments of Hunt at P.Oxy. 9.1173, = vol. 9 (1912), 16-17. 1 4 W . Brashear, "Literary and Sub-Literary Papyri from Berlin," in A. Biilow-

Jacobsen, ed., Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists, Copenhagen, 23-29 August, 1992 (Copenhagen, 1994); the identification was made by R. Daniel.

1 5 M y colleague, the papyrologist Arthur Verhoogt, kindly informs me that it is


very difficult to date literary hands exactly, and the papyrus may well belong to the 3rd or 4th century.

1 6 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.

1 7 Cf. Ps 77:51 ( L X X ) , "And he smote every first-born in Egypt, first fruit of their labors in the tents of Ham," and the discussion by E. Isaac in the Anchor Bible Dictionary 3.31.

the metropolis o f Alexandria, texts o f a Jewish author were pur

chased and o w n e d by Christians. W e know nothing about these peo

ple, but in the one case the book must have been a precious possession.

Philo's writings survived because they were preserved by the Christian

community . A son o f Shem found favor in the eyes o f the sons o f

Japheth, and this compensated for the fact that he had lost it in the

eyes o f his o w n people . But these sons o f Japheth were different

from the ones that Philo and his compatriots had known. T h e y did

not regard the biblical tradition as foreign and bizarre, but rather

regarded themselves as its heirs, the new Israel. T h e sons o f Shem

o f their own time had, in their view, given up their birthright. All

the more strange, it might seem, that they apparentiy went to so

much 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 broader theme o f the

reception o f Philo's thought and writings in the Christian tradition, 1 6

namely the reception that Philo the J e w enjoyed in Christian Egypt.

This theme allows us to place the evidence o f the Philonic papyri

which has just been examined in a broader perspective. There is,

however, a minor complicat ion in relation to the broader theme o f

our conference. Are there in fact tents o f Japheth in Egypt at all?

T h e case o f Alexandria is exceptional. As a M a c e d o n i a n colony,

whose citizen b o d y was emphatically Greek, it was hardly consid

ered Egyptian at all, as is indicated by the fact that in the ancient

world it was described as Alexandria ad Aegyptum and not in Aegypto. For this reason Philo can be said to have dwelt in the tents o f

Japheth. But Egypt proper , and especially its southern part, has

always been associated in the biblical tradition with the third son o f

Noah , H a m . 1 7 So our theme has to be slightiy reworded: we shall

embark on an examination o f h o w a famous son o f Shem fared in

both the tents o f Japheth and o f H a m in the centuries after his

death.

208 DAVID T. RUNIA

M y program for the rest o f the paper falls into four parts. First I will give a brief account o f Philo's survival in Egypt. This story will be told at a rather general level. Thereafter I will shift m y attention to two specific test-cases o f fourth-century Egyptian Christians w h o were well acquainted with Philo's writings and make reference to him in their writings, beginning with Didymus o f Alexandria, and then turning to Isidore o f Pelusium. Finally I will draw some conclusions and return to the papyri with which we began. Throughout our focus will be on Philo's status as a J e w in a Christian environment. W a s he regarded as "one o f us," an insider w h o had been adopted into the Christian fold and could even be regarded as a Christian, o r was he still thought o f as "one o f them," an outsider w h o was a representative o f a rival religion? As we try to reach an answer on this question, we shall have to take into account the fate o f Jewry and Judaism in Egypt in the first centuries o f our era. It will emerge in our investigations that direct connections can be made between Philo's career in Egyptian Christianity and the varying fortunes o f the Jewish communities in Egypt during the same period.

3. The story of Philo's survival in Egypt: three strands

First, therefore, we turn to the story o f Philo's reception and survival 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 rom the seco n d century onwards the church o f Alexandria and its bishop were immensely powerful and influential. Yet , because it is nowhere mentioned in the N e w Testament or early Christian documents, the origins o f the church were unacceptably obscure. In his Ecclestiastical History Eusebius fills in the missing gaps by reporting the story that the church was founded by Mark, the evangelist and disciple o f the apostle Peter. 1 8 T h e J e w Philo has an important role to play in this story. During his embassy in R o m e he is recorded as having met the aposde Peter. M o r e o v e r his writings offer evidence about the first Egyptian Christians. Famously Eusebius interprets Philo's account o f the Therapeutae in his De vita contemplativa as describing early

Eusebius HE 2 .4-5.


Christians w h o are already living a kind o f ascetic life in anticipa

tion o f the monastic life that was to flourish in Egypt in later cen

turies. 1 9 Later authors develop the theme further. According to Jerome,

Peter and Philo formed a friendship, and this was the reason that

Philo was so laudatory about Mark's followers in Alexandria. Epi-

phanius reports that Philo paid a visit to the communi ty o f Christians

at Lake Mareotis, was given lodgings and participated in their Easter

celebrations. 2 0

These accounts form part o f the legend o f Philo Christianus. 2 1

Philo was a contemporary o f the Aposties. H e had contact with some

o f them, was sympathetic to the early Christian movement , and may

have even been converted to Christianity. 2 2 T h e origins o f this leg

end prior to Eusebius are obscure, but there are indications that it

had an Alexandrian origin and may have been propagated in a lost

work o f Clement o f Alexandria . 2 3 Its significance should certainly not

be exaggerated. Mos t Christian intellectuals must have been aware

o f the fact that Philo was a J e w and that he was a witness to events

that occurred at the beginnings o f the Christian church rather than

a convert.24 Al though later biographical sources continue to tell the

story into Byzantine times, I d o not know o f any document in which

the Alexandrian church actually claims Philo for its own. Nevertheless

the very circulation o f the legend must have helped to give this par

ticular J e w a favorable position in Christian tradition, both in Egypt

and elsewhere. It was a position which was not available to Jews in

the second century and later.

T h e second strand o f our account is the story o f the survival o f

Philo's writings. There is nothing legendary about this. Philo's writ

ings did for the most part survive. 2 5 W e have nearly fifty o f them, a

1 9 Eusebius HE 2.16-18. 2 0 Jerome, De vir. ill. 8, 11; Epiphanius Adv. Haer. 1.29.5. 2 1 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 letter-atura cristiana: Uno studio d'insieme, a cura di R. Radice, eds. D .T . Runia and R. Radice (Milan, 1999), 365-445. For an account of Didymus' use o f Philo, see Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 197-204.

2 2 This is found in its most extreme form in the story of Philo and John the Evangelist in Ps.Prochorus, Acta Johannis 110-112, ed. T. Zahn (Erlangen, 1880); cf. also Photius Bibl. 103.

2 3 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.)

2 4 Eusebius is careful to make this clear. 2 5 For a fuller account, see Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 16-31 (with

210 DAVID T. RUNIA

vast corpus available to us in the original Greek, or in Armenian

and Latin translations. It is well known that these works survived

because Christians regarded them as useful and took the trouble to

ensure that they were preserved. This process o f reception and trans

mission is usually associated with the Episcopal Library o f Caesarea.

W e may be certain that all the Philonic writings we still possess were

present in that library. It is very probable that they were derived

from copies taken there by Origen, when he m o v e d from Alexandria

to Caesarea in 233 C.E. A famous manuscript, n o w located in Vienna,

records the fact that the fourth-century bishop Euzoius had the works

o f Philo transferred to durable parchment cod ices . 2 6 This was the

basis for the Byzantine textual tradition, on which our critical edi

tions are based.

But it would be a mistake to conclude that the role o f Alexandria

and Egypt in this process o f reception and transmission was limited.

In the first place there is the crucial aspect o f the original rescue o f

Philo's writings. Unfortunately this rescue is shrouded in mystery. It

is not a matter o f accident that the entire b o d y o f Jewish-Hellenistic

literature, which must have been very substantial, has vanished almost

without trace. Already in Philo's time the Jewish communi ty in

Alexandria and the rest o f Egypt was under considerable political

threat. After Philo's death the situation gradually worsened and came

to a head in the Jewish revolt o f 115-117 C.E., in which thousands

o f Jews were killed. These tragic events caused the Jewish c o m m u

nities in Egypt to fall into marked decline, from which they only

gradually recovered during the following centuries. It must be imag

ined that Philo's library and the holdings o f the school or synagogue

with which he was associated were destroyed. It is apparent that

someone , o r some institution, made a very deliberate effort to res

cue the Philonic corpus from the disaster just mentioned. It is very

likely that this rescue mission was carried out by Pantaenus and

other members o f the Alexandrian church w h o were associated with

schematic diagram on p. 18); and concentrating on the role o f the Caesarean library, see Runia, "Caesarea Maritima and the Survival of 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), 476-95.

2 6 The famous cross in Cod. Vind. Theoi. Gr. 29; see the illustration at Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 21. The same fact is mentioned by Jerome in his biographical notice on Euzoius, De vir. illus. 113.


2 7 The hypothesis of D . Barthelemy, "Est-ce Hoshaya Rabba 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), 45-78. On Philo and the Christian school of Alexandria, see further: A. Van den Hoek, "The 'Catechetical' School o f Early Christian Alexandria and Its Philonic Heritage," HThR 90 (1997), 59-87 .

2 8 L. Cohn, P. Wendland, and S. Reiter, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, (Berlin, 1896-1915), l.xlix.

2 9 Cf. T .C . Skeat, "The Oldest Manuscript o f the Four Gospels?", 25: "the overwhelming probability must be that a manuscript written in Egypt was written in that country." On the distribution o f books in Egypt see R.S. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity (Princeton, 1993), 102-105.

3 0 I am in effect summarizing chapters 7 to 11 of Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature]

the so-called Catechetical school . 2 7 T h e first Christian w h o explicitly

names Philo and makes extensive use o f his writings was a promi

nent m e m b e r o f this school, Clement, w h o worked in Alexandria

from about 175 to 200 C.E. F rom this group o f commit ted Christian

exegetes and theologians the trail leads, via Origen, to Caesarea.

In the second place there is the danger o f what might be called

Pan-Caesareanism. W h e n evaluating the text o f the Coptus codex ,

the editors o f Philo, C o h n and Wendland , noted that it deviated lit

tle from the text as transmitted though the manuscript tradition and

concluded that the codex itself must have been p roduced by a scrip

torium in Caesarea. 2 8 But this is surely an implausible hypothesis.

There is no need to suppose that all Philonic texts in later anti

quity came from Caesarea, and certainly not those that were in cir

culation in southern Egypt only fifty years after Origen's death. It

is much more likely that copies continued to be produced in Alexandria

for many years and that interested Christians in the remainder o f

Egypt were supplied from there. 2 9

For the third strand o f our story we turn to the reception that

Philo's thought enjoyed in Alexandrian and Egyptian Christianity

and the impact that it made on its exegesis and theology. This theme

is far too large to deal with in a few paragraphs. M o r e o v e r it is

more closely examined in the chapter contributed by Annewies van

den Hoek . So all I shall d o is briefly sketch a few major lines o f

development . 3 0

T h e story starts in the second century. Although it may be sup

posed that Philo's amalgam o f biblical exegesis and Platonism would

212 DAVID T. RUNIA

have appealed to the Christian Gnostic teachers in second century

Alexandria such as Basilides and Valentinus, there is no convincing

evidence to prove decisively that they were acquainted with him. As

we just saw, the first Christian writer to mention Philo is Clement.

By modern standards his extensive but scarcely acknowledged use o f

Philo would be regarded as plagiarism. Clement appears to have lit

tle or no contact with contemporary Jews. 3 1 Judaism is for h im pri

marily a theological position. Philo is regarded as a valuable source

for apologetic purposes, defending the antiquity o f the Jews against

pagan detractors. A t the same time he also furnishes useful exeget

ical material, especially in his allegorical commentaries. Or igen con

tinues this tradition o f quiet appropriation. H e only mentions Philo

three times by name in all his surviving works, but numerous Philonic

themes and exegetical techniques are absorbed in such a way that

from this time onwards they b e c o m e part o f the Christian tradition.

Origen appears to have had more contact with contemporary Judaism

than Clement, but most o f these contacts probably occurred after

his m o v e to Caesarea. 3 2 In the fourth century this Alexandrian tra

dition is continued by Didymus the Blind.

By this time, however , dogmatic 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 dominated by the strug

gle between Arianism and Nicene orthodoxy, the former set in motion

by the Alexandrian priest Arius, the latter championed by the pugna

cious bishop o f the same church, Athanasius. It is not easy to give

both figures a secure place in our account. T h e writings o f Arius

have not survived, so it is hard to tell what Philo might have meant

for him. R o w a n Williams, in his superb b o o k on Arius , 3 3 argues that

Philo can help us understand him, because what he in fact does is

attempt to cut through the Gordian knot o f Alexandrian theology,

wh ich resulted w h e n predecessors such as C lemen t and Or igen

3 1 As noted by R. Van 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.

3 2 See the monograph of N .R .M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 25 (Cambridge, 1976).

3 3 R . Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (London, 1987).


unreflectingly took over assumptions o f Philonic thought . 3 4 In the

case o f Athanasius we d o have an extensive corpus covering four

weighty tomes o f Migne . Philo's name never appears. Athanasius is

persistently hostile to Judaism as a theological position, because it

denies both the incarnation o f G o d and the doctrine o f the trinity.

It is difficult to imagine Athanasius belonging to those church fathers

w h o were prepared to see Philo as a Christian avant la lettreP

Various kinds o f evidence—literary, papyrological and epigraphi-

cal—point to a marked revival o f the fortunes o f Jewish communi

ties in Alexandria and elsewhere in Egypt during the fourth century.

Jews and Christians shared many attitudes, but, as Christopher Haas

has perceptively noted, the very proximity o f their ideology could

easily exacerbate the differences between them and bring the two

communities into conflict . 3 6 T h e power-hungry young bishop Cyril

continues the theological anti-Judaism o f Athanasius, but n o w feels

the need to make it a pretext for direct political action, leading to

the dreadful anti-Jewish riots o f Alexandria in 414—415. Cyril writes

much more than his predecessor. N o less than ten Migne volumes

are required for all his works. T h o u g h his exegesis reveals traces o f

Philonic influence, 3 7 he too makes not a single reference to the J e w

Phi lo . 3 8 This is not the case for one o f Cyril's correspondents, a

priest named Isidore stationed in the town o f Pelusium, with w h o m

we will shortly make better acquaintance.

After this, from the fifth century onwards, the evidence o f Philo's

presence in Egyptian Christianity tapers off. W e may be sure that

he continued to be read. In the early sixth century two brothers, 3 9

w h o both studied in Alexandria, furnish evidence that they read at

least some o f his writings (or extracts f rom them). Zacharias o f

Mytilene records material from Philo on the question o f the eternity

o f the cosmos. Procopius o f Gaza, when compil ing a commentary

o f the Octateuch, quotes Philonic material extensively, though never

3 4 R. Williams, Arius, 124, cited in Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 193. 3 5 As I argue in Philo in Early Christian Literature, 196. 3 6 Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiquity, 123. 3 7 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.

3 8 I have checked this on the T L G E C D - R O M . 3 9 The family relation is not entirely certain. O n Zacharias and Procopius and

their use of Philo see further Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 210.

214 DAVID T. RUNIA

citing him by name. A century later the glorious period o f Egyptian

Christianity comes to an abrupt end, when the Musl im conqueror c A m r ibn a l -As entered Alexandria and raised the flag o f M u h a m m a d

above its walls. T o m y knowledge Philo plays no role whatsoever in

Copt ic Christianity, 4 0 but I would be delighted to be corrected on

this point. T h e great medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides spent

most o f his life living and working in Egypt. H e would have surely

been fascinated with Philo's writings and thought, if he had c o m e

across them, but there is not the faintest piece evidence to suggest

that he had even heard o f his distant Jewish-Egyptian predecessor.

4. Didymus the blind

T h e account I have just given o f Philo's fortunes in Egypt has oper

ated at a high level o f generality. In order to focus more closely o n

our theme, it will be a g o o d idea n o w to take a close look at two

fourth-century Christians w h o both mention Philo quite often and

have clearly made detailed study o f his writings. W h a t was their atti

tude to Philo: was he "one o f us" or "one o f them?"

Until just over fifty years ago, Didymus the blind was a relatively

obscure figure a m o n g the church fathers. Chapters are devoted to

him in the ecclestiastical historians and in Jerome's Lives of Famous Men.41 O n e gets the impression that he was regarded as a kind o f

cult figure. T h o u g h blind—he lost his sight before he reached the

age o f primary school—he nevertheless was able to follow the full

course o f literary, mathematical, philosophical and theological stud

ies, b e c o m i n g one o f the most distinguished theologians o f his time.

These accounts mention a great number o f writings, but almost all

had been lost. Then , all o f a sudden in 1941, another spectacular

papyrus find at T o u r a (just south o f Cairo) brought to light the

extensive remains o f five biblical commentaries, containing in total

more than 2000 pages o f text. These have n o w all been published. 4 2

W e can thus read for ourselves the exegesis o f Didymus, and can

4 0 The 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.

4 1 Socrates HE 4.24, Sozomen HE 3.15, Jerome De vir. ill. 109. 4 2 For an up-to-date overview of the transmission and publication of all Didymus'

writings, see now Biblia Patristica vol. 7 (Paris, 2000), 13—43.


confirm that he stands in the tradition o f the great Alexandrian

exegetes Clement and Origen. Didymus may be regarded as the last

great representative o f the Alexandrian schoo l . 4 3

Until the T o u r a find, there was no indication that Didymus was

acquainted with the writings and thought o f Philo. But in the texts

that we n o w have he refers to Philo explicitiy or implicitiy o n eight

occas ions , 4 4 and it has b e c o m e clear h o w deeply he is indebted to

the tradition o f Christian Alexandrian exegesis which in so many

respects built o n the foundations laid by Philo. W h a t interests us

most in our present context is the way that Didymus refers to Philo

and the attitude that can be discerned behind his words with regard

to his Jewishness. Let us look at a few o f these texts.

T h e majority o f the references are to be found, as might be ex

pected, in the Commentary on Genesis. W h e n expounding the birth o f

Cain and Abe l in G e n 4 : 1 - 2 , Didymus writes (118 .24-119 .5 Nautin):

"And she [Eve] added to give birth to the brother of 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 of learning ((^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 . . .

As it happens we cannot find this explanation in our extant Philonic

corpus. It is consistent with Philo's views elsewhere, and Didymus

states it with such confidence that we may surmise that it is derived

from a lost work . 4 5 H e then goes on to explain the difference between

the professions o f the two brothers (119.15-23) :

In the matter of birth Scripture has placed Cain first, since the chronology requires this, but in their professions it gives first place to the righteous one. The occupation of Abel is more noble and honorable than that of Cain, for ensouled creatures differ from what is soulless

4 3 There is no comprehensive modern monograph on Didymus. 4 4 Listed at Runia, Philo and Church Fathers, 231; texts at Radice-Runia, "Testimonia

de Philone," 396-99. For an account of Didymus' use of Philo, see Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 197—204.

4 5 As argued byJ .R . Royse, "Cain's Expulsion from Paradise: the Text of Philo's Congr. 171," JQR 79 (1989), 223-225.

216 DAVID T. RUNIA

in the order of nature. And Philo rightly stated that those who are to take command over others and themselves should first be educated in the art of 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 of Noah, who is called "farmer" (Gen 9:20) and not "worker" (epyaxern;).

In the comments on the two professions we recognize two exegetical themes that are prominent in Philo's De sacrificiis and De agricultural For the former Philo is explicitiy ment ioned again, for the latter the source is not given, but it certainly comes from Philo.

A few pages later Philo is twice ment ioned as a valuable source for the interpretation o f biblical numbers and names (139 .10-14 , 147.15-18) :

If one wishes to give the passage (Gen 4:18) an anagogic interpretation, one should take one's start from the interpretation of the names, making sure to do this without pedantry (\|/uxpo^oy£iv). Philo has given an explanation of these matters, which the lover of learning (<piXoKaXo<;) will consult with due profit.

This is the explanation given of the passage (Gen 5:3-5) for the moment. But if someone should be interested in the number of the years and in the interpretation of the names of the people born, Philo could give a mystical explanation devoid of pedantry (xiruxpoXoyeiv again). Consult him, therefore, for it will be useful.

T h e terms "anagogic" and "mystical" both refer to the allegorical method, o f which Philo was a recognized master. Names and numbers are not just a matter o f history, but refer to the life o f the soul.

T h e last theme I wish to mention is the relationship between Sarah and Hagar in G e n 16. Here too Didymus refers to Philo, but this time he has strong competit ion (235 .25-31 , 236 .7 -11) :

The anagogical explanation can be explained in the manner that the blessed Paul has figuratively (xvna) referred the two women to the two covenants. Philo too has used this manner of explanation with reference to a different content, referring Sarah to perfect virtue and philosophy, because she is the free and noble-born wife sharing the house according to the laws . . . Sarah is thus interpreted as perfect and spiritual virtue, whereas Hagar the Egyptian servant-girl is said according to Philo to indicate "the preliminary studies" (7ipoy\)itvd0|j,aTa), according to Paul "shadow" (Gal 4:24). For it is impossible to understand any of the spiritual or elevated doctrines apart from the shadow accord-

Esp. Sacr. 50 -51 , Agr. 1-7.


ing to the letter or apart from the preliminary training of the introductory studies . . .

Didymus, it seems, wants to have it both ways. T h e interpretation

o f Paul in Galatians in terms o f freedom and slavery has canonical

authority and must not be neglected. It is clear, however, that he

in fact prefers the Philonic interpretation in which Sarah represents

perfect virtue and Hagar the preliminary stage on the path towards

it. T h e same interpretation is also found in Didymus ' Commentary on Ecclesiastes, where he again explicitly refers to Philo and again shows

a strong attachment to the Philonic interpretation. 4 7

W h a t d o these texts tell us about Didymus ' attitude to Philo's

Jewishness? It is perhaps indicative that on every occasion that he

refers to Philo, he simply names him and does not add an epithet

indicating that he is a J e w or a H e b r e w . 4 8 O n one occasion he is

anonymously described as "one o f the sages engaged in Mosaic learn

ing ." 4 9 This phrase does not necessarily refer to a Jew; it could also

be applied to a Christian exegete. It looks very m u c h as if Didymus

assumes that Philo has been absorbed by the Christian communi ty

and is regarded as "one o f us," a valued member o f the anterior

exegetical tradition, whose Jewishness is in fact quite irrelevant.

Accord ing to our sources Didymus was a loyal supporter o f Nicene

or thodoxy. H e was not a great polemicist. W e know that he wrote

works against the Manicheans and against Christian heretics, but no

anti-Jewish writings have been recorded . 5 0 Nevertheless he remains

a child o f his time and his situation. There are numerous references

to Jews and Judaism in his writings. H e often alludes to the Jews '

rejection o f Jesus during his lifetime, and also to Judaism as a theo

logical position. T h e Jews read the Scriptures according to the let

ter and not according to its spirit. This can obviously not be said

o f the spiritual Philo. By way o f contrast, it is instructive to observe

h o w Didymus refers to the other great Jewish writer w h o wrote in

47 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.

4 8 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).

49 Comm. in %acch. 320.6-9. 5 0 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).

218 DAVID T. RUNIA

Greek, Josephus. O n two occasions he cites h im and calls h im "a

certain Jewish writer o f history," w h o records the disasters that befell

the Jews after Jesus' death and thus vividly illustrates h o w G o d

rejected them o n account o f their wrongdoings . 5 1 T h e contrast with

Didymus ' use o f Philo is clear. In his case there is no need to stress

his Jewishness. Effectively he has b e c o m e "one o f us."

5. Isidore of Pelusium

T h e second Church Father w h o m I want to look at in a little more

detail is less well known. H e is the priest and m o n k Isidore o f

Pelusium, w h o lived from about 365 to 4 3 5 . 5 2 His life thus partially

overlaps with that o f Didymus, but he is about fifty years younger.

H e may well have met Didymus while studying in Alexandria in his

youth, but there is no direct evidence to confirm this. 5 3 Isidore was

priest o f the church o f Pelusium, in the eastern part o f the Nile delta

close to the coast (now the town o f T ineh east o f the Suez Canal).

In due course he became embroiled in conflict with the church hier

archy and retired to a monastery outside the town. F rom this loca

tion he engaged in a vast correspondence with his contemporaries,

ranging from statesmen and bishops (including, as we saw, Cyril) to

local people in his immediate ne ighborhood. A collection o f almost

exacdy 2000 letters survives. Until recently access to this collection

was difficult, but fortunately it is n o w being opened up, so that the

riches o f its evidence on contemporary subjects can be more easily

explored . 5 4

Isidore does not refer to Philo often in this huge corpus o f let

ters. 5 5 In fact only four letters mention him by name. But his cor-

51 Comm. in ^acch. 5.29.2, Comm. in Eccl. 345. 5 2 O n Isidore see now the comprehensive monograph of P. Evieux: Isidore de

Peluse, Theologie Historique 99 (Paris, 1995). 5 3 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 evidence that any of these was Didymus the blind.

5 4 See now Evieux (Isidore de Peluse) and the first volume of 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 of Isidore's Letters.

5 5 On accounts o f Isidore's use of Philo, see Runia "Philo of Alexandria in Five Letters o f Isidore of 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


respondence is o f great interest for our theme. A large number o f

his letters are concerned with explaining matters o f biblical exege

sis. In at least fifteen o f these Isidore makes use o f material taken

directly f rom Philo 's writings. In this respect he cont inues the

Alexandrian tradition. But in most cases the usage is not acknowl

edged . 5 6 In one case, Philo supports a bo ld interpretation o f the

Greek w o r d [ir\noxe in Isa 6:10 as cited by Jesus at Matt 13:15. In

this letter Philo is described as having a reputation for wisdom, but

his Jewishness is not ment ioned. 5 7 Similarly in a letter on the philo

sophical theme o f pathos, Philo is cited as evidence together with

Demosthenes and Josephus. Isidore cites the famous bon mot about

Philo's Platonist tendencies—either Plato philonized or Philo pla-

tonized—but does not say that he is a J e w . 5 8

O f far greater interest is a letter on the theological subject o f the

Trinity. It is too long to quote in its entirety, but the opening words

give a g o o d impression o f its argument. 5 9

I admire the truth for the way in which she has induced the souls of intelligent men to go so far as to combat the preconceived opinion they have of their own doctrines. For the teaching of the truth has embedded the concept of 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 God, "in the image of God I made man (Gen 9:6)," he was constrained and compelled by the truth also to recognize the divine Logos as God. What is the case? Even if he calls him "second," who is coeternal with the Father and higher than number and time, failing in this way to reach precision, nevertheless he did gain a conception of 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 commentary o f the five most important letters; and Philo in Early Christian Literature, 204-209.

5 6 See the lists at L. Friichtel, "Isidor von Pelusion als Beniitzer des Clemens Alexandrinus und anderer Quellen," Philologische Wochenschrift 58 (1938), 61 -64 , 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 material is still to be found.

57 Ep. 2.270 (PG 78) = 770 Evieux. 58 Ep. 3.81 = 881 Evieux. 59 Ep. 2.143 = 643 Evieux. For a complete translation see Runia, "Philo o f

Alexandria in Five Letters o f Isidore of Pelusium," 300-303.

220 DAVID T. RUNIA

M u c h o f the letter concentrates on Philo's position. H e is emphati

cally a Jew, but one w h o recognized and anticipates—albeit not pre

cisely—the Christian doctrine o f the Trinity. Both the Jews and the

Greeks (followed by the heretics) have strayed from the truth, the

former in not recognizing three persons, the latter in multiplying

the single substance and lapsing into polytheism. But is it not far

too bo ld to argue that the or thodox doctrine was already clearly

present in the O l d Testament? O n c e again, remarkably, 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 of intelligence and understanding, as indeed it was to the wise Philo.

Philo here is emphatically a Jew, but a very special one , a J e w w h o

was privileged though his own ability to see something o f the truth.

H o w special Philo's position can be gauged from that fact that Isidore

elsewhere makes numerous strongly anti-Judaic statements. 6 0 M a n y

are primarily theological. Nevertheless they probably reflect the wors

ening relations between Jews and Christians at this time.

T h e final letter is also o f great interest because it directly reflects

contemporary interaction between Christians and Jews. Isidore cer

tainly had some contact with Jews, but these contacts appear to have

been rather limited. Only two letters are certainly addressed to Jews. 6 1

In this letter he corresponds with a local priest Athanasius, w h o has

just had a discussion with a J e w and w h o needs some apologetic

ammunition:

If the Jew who according to your report disagreed with you is of the opinion that the lawgiver spoke his words with no more than the literal meaning, tell him that the ignorance of you Jews is refuted by two of your own writers who lived after the coming of Christ, Philo the master of speculative thought and Josephus the great historian. O f these the former turns almost the entire Old Testament into allegory . . . It would be unjust for the Jews to reject the testimonies of men who among themselves have a reputation for wisdom. 6 2

6 0 O n Isidore's relations to Judaism see the succinct remarks of Treu "Art. 'Isidor II (von Pelusion)'," 997-998; see also H. Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte, 365-367.

6 1 According to Evieux, Isidore de Peluse, 21 (plus two which are questionable). 62 Ep. 3.19 = 819 Evieux.


6 3 An 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.

"Speculative thought" refers to the practice o f allegorical interpretation o f scripture. T h e example o f Philo thus refutes the Jewish viewpoint that the Bible should only be read according to the letter.

Is Philo "one o f us" or "one o f them" for Isidore? T h e answer has to be nuanced. Isidore is clearly sympathetic to Philo and sees him as an ally against both theological Judaism and contemporary Jews. In exegesis his material can be taken over without comment . Yet , differendy than in the case o f Didymus, Philo's Jewishness does receive significant emphasis in certain contexts. In the final analysis, we have to conclude, he does remain "one o f them." But he is a special case.

6. Some conclusions, and back to the papyri

In this paper we have fol lowed the fortunes o f the J e w Philo in the land o f Egypt, on the edge o f which he himself had lived, in the centuries following his death. O u r theme has been Shem in the tents o f Japheth and H a m . T h e results we have reached, based on the evidence that is available to us, present a complex picture.

It has b e c o m e clear that Philo's greatest value, and the prime reason for his survival, was the contribution that he could make in the area o f biblical interpretation. As Didymus tells us explicitiy, he was a valuable exegetical resource. N o t only does give assistance with individual themes, but he also embodies a spiritual approach to scripture which was widely admired. This involved use o f the allegorical method and included the selective use o f philosophical ideas adapted to the biblical context. Because Philo's methods and many o f his themes were taken over, there is no need to emphasize that he was a Jew. U p to the time o f Didymus at least, he appears to have b e c o m e , in a majority o f cases, simply "one o f us ." 6 3

By the fourth century the situation starts to change. T h e fortunes o f the Jewish communi ty in Egypt improve, and this leads to tensions with the n o w dominant Christian church and its supporters. Although our evidence is rather meager, we may extrapolate from the writings o f Isidore (and perhaps also from the silence o f the

222 DAVID T. RUNIA

patriarch Cyril) and conclude that Philo's Jewishness increases in

significance. M o r e often now, he reverts to being "one o f them."

Even so, however , he is a very special case. H e can even be invoked

as apologetic ammunition against his own people .

Finally let me return to the subject with which I began, the Philonic

papyri. As we saw, all three were in all likelihood p roduced and

o w n e d by Christians. It is worth looking once more at their con

tents. It is rather striking that all three contain treatises belonging

to Philo's Allegorical Commenta ry . 6 4 This long work is clearly the

least Jewish (and also most difficult) part o f Philo's (more. It is a

remarkable fact, for example, that the terms 'IouSocioc, and 'Iouoocucoc,

d o not occur in these nineteen treatises at all. It would need a keen

theological mind to discern that they were in fact o f Jewish origin.

Because it is preserved in its entirety, the Coptos papyrus also records

the co lophons o f the two works it contains. In both cases Philo is

named as the author, without any further epithet. 6 5 O f course we

know nothing specific about the owners o f these papyri. T h e y were

presumably provincials, but whether they were professionals or ama

teurs in the areas o f exegesis and theology we simply d o not know.

Al low me , therefore, to end this presentation on Philo in Egypt with

the following speculative thought. I would not be in the least sur

prised if the owners o f these papyri simply assumed that its author

was a Christian interpreter o f scripture. I f I am right, then in their

case we have a clear answer to our question. For these Egyptian

Christians Philo truly was "one o f us."

With possible exception of a section De pietate from De virtutibus. See above n. 12. See Scheil, "Deux traites de Philo," 187, 215.

10

A S S E S S I N G P H I L O ' S I N F L U E N C E I N C H R I S T I A N

A L E X A N D R I A : T H E C A S E O F O R I G E N *

A N N E W I E S V A N DEN H O E K

Preliminaries

In a b road sense, this article confronts methodologica l problems

encountered in compar ing multiple sources or multiple literary tra

ditions and in describing the c o m m o n ground a m o n g them. This

c o m m o n ground can be viewed in either passive or active terms. A

perceived similarity can be regarded as the influence o f one author

on another or, on the contrary, as adaptation o f an author by another.

There are other options as well; the two writers may be connected

by an intermediary writer or by an extended tradition. Furthermore,

the two authors may well not have been directiy linked but may

have drawn o n a c o m m o n source. 1

There are different techniques to determine whether one is deal

ing with influence, adaptation, tradition, o r a c o m m o n source. It

should be determined h o w similar the apparendy c o m m o n material

is. If it is a clear-cut borrowing, one must examine h o w this mate

rial is inserted into the new context and determine what kind o f

alterations are made when borrowings occur in their new environ

ment. If no quotations, allusions, or even less defined references are

present, one can look at the concepts and thought patterns, and

whether they develop in comparable ways. Whatever the techniques

for comparison are, some c o m m o n ground should be available that

makes the compared texts or ideas comparable .

* Many thanks go to the participants o f the conference at Harvard for their constructive remarks, which sharpened the focus of this article.

1 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.

224 ANNEWIES VAN DEN HOEK

In a narrower sense, this study attempts to assess in a compre hensive way the impact that one Jewish author o f the first century could have had on Christian writers some hundred fifty years to two hundred years later. T h e authors also happened to be the first to quote and employ their Jewish predecessor. T h e Jewish author was Philo—also named the Alexandrian or Jewish Philo to distinguish him from other Philos, such as Philo o f Biblos, Philo o f Larissa or Philo o f Eleusis. Philo Alexandrinus is probably the "Shem in the tents o f Japheth" par excellence, and his principal tent mates were the Christian authors Clement and Origen. Clement equally received the epithet "the Alexandrian," to distinguish him from all the other Clements. H e was highly Greek in upbringing, and he was searching for ways to relate his Greek background to a biblical framework, in particular that o f the L X X . Philo's primary role was to provide biblical and exegetical guidance in a Greek context for Clement, w h o for this reason could well be called the "Japheth in the tents o f Shem."

In this article the focus o f attention will be on a second Japheth to Philo's Shem, w h o also worked in Alexandria, a generation after Clement. His name is Origen, and he never received the epithet "Alexandrian" although he was born in Alexandria and lived there for over forty years. H e spent the last two decades o f his life, however, in Caesarea—not constantly, because he traveled around, but Caesarea was his main residence since he had b e c o m e a persona non grata in his hometown.

H o w it came about that Philo's works were known to these early Christian Alexandrians we still do not know. What happened between Philo's death and the appearance o f the first Christian groups in Alexandria is equally uncertain. It is clear, however, that both Clement and Origen had access to most o f Philo's works; they mention him explicidy and give ample p r o o f o f borrowing from him. It is evident, in fact, that Philo's works were preserved for posterity by these Christian authors, especially by Origen, w h o took Philo's works with him to Caesarea, where they were preserved after his death in a library set up by Pamphilus and Eusebius.

Investigating the interrelationship o f two prolific authors such as Philo and Origen is no simple task, and the problems involved are daunting. In the case o f Clement, the situation was somewhat easier since the Clementine corpus o f surviving writings is relatively

THE CASE OF ORIGEN 225

small, and most o f what is left is preserved in its original Greek. 2 In

Origen's case, not only is the quantity o f writings m u c h more exten

sive, but also the preservation o f many is in Latin translation, which

creates special problems in making comparisons. In addition, many

o f Origen's works—especially his biblical commentar ies—no longer

exist whether in the original o r in translation. 3 T h e books that would

have been most valuable in relation to Philo, the commentaries on

the Pentateuch and, in particular, on Genesis are n o w reduced to

fragments known from catenae. The fragments on Genesis are nonethe

less substantial; they still fill fifty columns o f the Migne edition. I f

preserved, however, the commentary could well have covered hun

dreds upon hundreds o f pages.

Objective and Method

From the outset, it should be emphasized that no attempt will be

made to characterize Or igen merely on the basis o f phrases that he

borrows from Philo or any other writer. Origen is one o f the great

theological minds o f all times, and should be read, studied, and

enjoyed in his own right; he is an independent thinker and exegete

and can never b e considered the sum o f his quotations. 4 O n the

other hand, he is an important link between Philo—and thus Jewish

traditions—and Late Antiquity. Eusebius and the Cappadocians o w e d

m u c h to Or igen in that respect. 5 Origen 's works also may have

2 Editions of 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 translation and commentary by various authors; vols. 2, 23, 30, 38, 70, 108, 158, 278-279, 428, 446, 463 [Strom. 3 is forthcoming]).

3 For a comprehensive survey o f editions of Origen's works, see Maurice Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Corpus Christianorum (Turnhout, 1974—), vol. 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—).

4 The formulation goes back to Eric Osborn in a different context, but it is applicable to this situation as well. Prof. Osborn has written extensively on the relationship between Philo and the Christian Alexandrians—in particular, Clement; see his "Philo and Clement," in Prudentia 19 (1987), 35-49; "Philo and Clement: Citation and Influence," in Lebendige Uberlieferung. Festschrift for H.-J. Vogt , 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.

5 Already in Antiquity Origen was recognized as a conduit o f Philonic thinking,


played a role in transmitting Philo to the Latin West, through writers

such as Ambrose , Augustine, Je rome, Rufinus and Calcidius. Thus

although we probably should not overemphasize Philo's role in Origen

in an absolute sense, we should not underestimate the significance

o f the Philonic element either, simply because o f the dispersion and

influence o f Origen's works throughout Antiquity and far into the

Middle Ages.

T h e objective here is to gain further insight into the nature o f the

relationship between Origen and Philo and to assess the extent and

nature o f Philo's role in Origen's work. This kind o f comparison can

be done in various ways but it seems important to make use o f as

much material as possible rather than through isolated, emblematic

cases; seeing many passages brings to the surface patterns o f usage

that are important for a balanced judgement . There are perils in an

"inclusive" comparative method that should be avoided; points o f

comparison should not be viewed with tunnel vision or—what others

have called paral lelomania. 6 Further, in drawing o n the analyses

o f others one must be aware that the presuppositions with which

scholars c o m e to the battlefield often influence their results.7 Scholars

w h o have dealt with the relationship between Origen and Philo have

primarily disagreed whether Origen was indebted to Philo in mat

ters o f biblical interpretation, in matters o f philosophical speculation,

or possibly in a combinat ion o f the two. This is a widely debated

issue, which should be kept in mind from the start.

T h e most important question in terms o f methodology, however,

was to know h o w to compare the two authors, what to compare in

them, and what to use as a starting point. David Runia has dedi

cated various publications to the relationship between Origen and

Philo. H e already identified passages in which the relationship could

be established with some certainty, 8 partiy working from references

for example, by Theodore o f Mopsuestia; see David T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature (Assen, 1993), 173.

6 This term is used by Eric Osborn, see above note 4. 7 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 theological perspective; they rated Philonic influence on Origen according to these views, which resulted in a much higher regard for Philo's influence on Origen for the second group than for the first; see D . Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey. Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum 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.

8 D . Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature (Leiden, 1995), 161-162; idem, Philo


compi led in the Cohn-Wend land edition o f Philo. 9 Cohn-Wend land

listed three places where Origen mentions Philo by name, and Runia

found thirteen other places where Or igen ment ioned a predecessor

or a reference to another source which appears to have been Philo.

In the course o f m y investigations, I have been able to add more

citations o f predecessors w h o must be Philo, bringing up the num

ber to around twenty.

Runia also indicated that more detailed work could b e done o n

individual themes that Or igen takes over and adapts from Philo. A n

attempt is made to follow up on this suggestion, to open up the

material, and to provide a broader basis for study by presenting a

survey o f parallels. W h e n presented critically, a comprehensive assem

blage o f parallels can have value as a resource; other people will be

able look over m y shoulder, agree or disagree, but, at any rate, see

the primary material and draw their o w n conclusions. I will give a

brief sketch o f h o w this survey was undertaken.

First an index was made o f all the Philonic material in Origen:

that means a systematic presentation o f all the material that was to

be found in previous publications, as well as some new finds. T h e

index is based on the major text editions o f the works o f both Origen

and Philo. Those o f Origen came out in the G C S (Berlin 1 8 9 9 - ) . 1 0

Since the twelve volumes were either badly indexed o r not indexed

at all, it was necessary to leaf through them page by page. Then ,

on the Philonic side, the critical notes o f the Cohn-Wend land edi

tion (Berlin 1896—) provided parallels in Origen. 1 1 The Cohn-Wendland

edition does have several indexes but no proper index locorum; here

again David Runia 's work came to the rescue, since some years ago

he published their references in an index . 1 2 Thus, at the basis o f this

endeavor were these two big corpora , G C S and Cohn-Wend land . 1 3

and the Church Fathers (Leiden, 1995), 120-121; idem, "Filone e i primi teologi cris-tiani," in Annali di storia dell'esegesi 14/2 (1997), 355-380.

9 Philonis Alexandrini Opera quae supersunt, ed. L. Cohn and P. Wendland, vols. I -VII (Berlin, 1896-)

1 0 Origenes Werke I -XII , Die Griechischen christiichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, vols. 2 -3 , 6, 10, 22, 29-30, 33, 35, 38, 40, 41 (Leipzig, 1899-).

11 Philonis Alexandrini Opera quae supersunt, vols. I—VII. 1 2 D . Runia, "An Index to Cohn-Wendland's Apparatus Testimoniorum," in The

Studia Philonica Annual, vol. IV (1992), 87-96. 1 3 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 go to Gloria Korsman and Cliff Wunderlich o f the Andover-Harvard library for their continuous support in finding sources.


Other text editions, such as o f the works o f Philo published under

the direction o f the University o f Lyon, were made use of . 1 4 A g o o d

example is Marguerite Harl's edition o f Heres, which has a para

graph o n the transmission o f the text and its Christian reception. 1 5

M y index has the format o f a "catalogue raisonee" a descriptive cat

alogue, in which every passage is briefly analyzed in (one hopes) a

reasonable way. Below, some examples o f the various categories will

be given, in which passages and parallels are summarized, and the

degree o f dependency is assessed. 1 6 Philo's passage is first taken on

its o w n and is followed by a description o f Origen's passage. A brief

conclusive assessment usually follows. T h e degree o f dependency is

rated passage by passage in tabular form; every heading consists o f

a co lumn o f Origen's works, a second co lumn with potential paral

lels in Philo, and a third co lumn with a grade. 1 7

In establishing the degree o f dependency, the point o f compari

son in both authors has to be defined. Since the work is largely

based on selections made by others, the criteria for selection had

varying degrees o f inclusiveness. In general, it turned out that the

Cohn-Wend land edition was much more solidly based than the var

ious editions o f the G C S . O n the other hand, Cohn-Wendland missed

a number o f important passages. Those w h o identified a specific par

allel are noted in parentheses beside the reference. T h e next step

then was to look at the context in which the parallels appeared, to

determine h o w and why Philo and Origen elaborated or allegorized,

and especially whether there were biblical quotations involved. T h e

process is a little schizophrenic, for one always has to send one's

brain in two directions.

For the assessment and grading, an attempt was made to follow

a few rules consistently. First, etymologies were regarded with skep

ticism until certain standards were met. Since etymologies are very

c o m m o n and widespread, they are by themselves inadequate to prove

1 4 Les (Euvres de Philon d'Alexandrie, R . Arnaldez, J. Pouilloux, G. Mondesert eds. (35 vols; Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1961-).

1 5 Marguerite Harl, Philon d'Alexandrie. Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit. Les (Euvres de Philon d'Alexandrie, vol. 15 (Paris, 1966), 154-162.

1 6 The catalogue as a whole has been published in The Studia Philonica Annual, vol. XI I (2000), 44-121 .

1 7 The full catalogue also has a reverse index, in which Philo's works come first and Origen is in second position. The commentary, in this case, is omitted, since it would be duplication.


a relationship between two specific authors. If an etymology, how

ever, occurs in combinat ion with an allegorical interpretation, then

there is more solid ground to see a connect ion. Second, caution must

be used in dealing with allegorical interpretations; an allegory on its

o w n does not necessarily indicate dependency, but when an allegory

is linked with a specific biblical quotation, a relationship seems p rob

able. Third, the kind o f biblical quotation in itself can be an indi

cator. Or igen quo ted some outlandish texts in his homilies: for

example, from Leviticus or the b o o k o f Numbers . I f they had not

occurred previously in the Christian tradition but only in Philo, that

too could be counted as useful evidence. Thus, the assessment o f the

relationship between Philo and Origen is based o n a combinat ion

o f what I hope can be considered objective elements.

T h e grades run from " A " to " D . " T h e letter " A " means certain

dependency, because not only does the passage have a Philonic char

acter but also Origen explicidy indicates that he borrows from some

one. T h e Philonic element o f the passage does not have to involve

a literal quotation to receive an " A . " In three o f these cases Origen

mentions Philo by name, and in the others he refers either to a pre

decessor or more vaguely to " someone . " It had to be determined

whether there was a difference between the indications "predeces

sor" and " s o m e o n e " when in both cases Philo is intended. 1 8 N o t all

references to "predecessors" are, o f course, references to Philo; there

were other writers w h o m Origen considered predecessors, and not

all predecessors can be identified. Although he never quotes h im by

name, Clement is clearly one o f these predecessors. 1 9

T h e letter " B " refers to passages where dependency is highly p rob

able even though Origen does not explicitly indicate that he is bor

rowing from someone. Further d o w n the line is the letter " C , " which

indicates that while a relationship between Origen and Philo is pos

sible, the case cannot be proven. " D " can either be a philosophical

commonp lace , which provides no evidence for a relationship, o r else

1 8 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 mentions Philo by name; the other is without a reference but still receives an "A . " Otherwise Origen presents Philo's thoughts in his own words. Since verbatim quotes are so rare, it seems unnecessary to create a category for them.

1 9 See my "Origen and the Intellectual Heritage o f Alexandria; Continuity or Disjunction?" in Origeniana Quinta, Robert J. Daly, ed., (Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 40-50 .


a case in which there is clearly no relationship at all. Sometimes n o clear-cut assessment can be made, and therefore an "in between" grade, such as " A / B " or " B / G " is given.

This rating system may be too severe in some cases. Without the indication o f a predecessor, many passages given an " A " would have received a m u c h lower grade. For example, both Philo and Origen are fond o f the e tymology o f Egypt as the wor ld o f senses, sometimes connected with the number five.20 Initially, this seemed to be a c o m m o n place, meriting a grade o f " C . " Eventually, however , Or igen brings up this Egyptian unit in connect ion with a reference to predecessors. In this case, an " A " was clearly merited—especially since there was another element present that only Philo had in c o m m o n with Origen. Even without the extra element, all the other occurrences o f the Egyptian unit also had to be upgraded as well to remain consistent.

There is another situation in which commonplaces can be upgraded. W h e n they occur in clusters, it seems m u c h more likely that Origen did have something Philonic in mind; in such cases, they receive a higher rating because o f their accumulation and sometimes even their sequence. In general, however, the system seems effective because o f its relatively rigorous criteria. Caution is necessary in building a solid foundation for a study o f the relationship between these or any two ancient authors.

Examples21

T o show h o w the system works I include a range o f examples, since the p r o o f o f the pudding is in the eating. T h e first example is o f special interest because o f the way Origen addresses the issue o f bor rowing; he not only mentions predecessors but also confronts the very mode rn p rob lem o f plagiarism.

1. Ex.Hom 13.3 (GCS) Mos. 2.88 ( C W ) " C "

Philo interprets the multicolored fabrics o f the tabernacle (Exod 26). T h e four colors relate to the four elements o f the cosmos: earth,

2 0 See example below in Origen, Mum.Hom. 26.4. 2 1 The abbreviations in the headings refer to those who identified the parallels:

GCS: Die Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte; C W : Cohn-Wendland; R: Runia; vdH: van den Hoek.


water, air, and fire. Or igen compares the fabrics with the elements not only o f the world but also o f the human b o d y (. . . quattuor ele-mentorum, ex quibus et mundus et corpus humanum tenent ftguram, id est aeris, ignis, aquae et terrae).

Origen prefaces the simile with the intriguing observations that " S o m e o f our predecessors have also spoken about these things, and as it is not proper to steal other people 's ideas, I think that it is convenient that o n e — i f one acknowledges it—uses fully what has been well said by someone else" (de his dixerunt quidam ante nos, et sicut non decet aliena furari, ita conveniens puto bene dictis alterius abuti fatentem).

Unfortunately, Origen, w h o seems to be so concerned about plagiarizing, fails to name those predecessors. Philo could have been intended, but Josephus (Ant. 3.183; B.J. 5.212) and Clement are also candidates. Clement had used Philo extensively in his treatment o f the temple and the vestments o f the high priest; see Strom. 5.32.3 and van den Hoek , Clement, 116fT. N o n e o f these possible sources, however, refer, as Origen does, to the human body . Origen's c o m ments about predecessors are inadequate to determine w h o m he had in mind; he could even have been drawing on a combinat ion o f sources. Thus, in spite o f Origen's apparent scrupulousness, uncertainty cannot be dispelled.

T h e following series o f examples then proceeds in a descending order from clear dependency to no dependency at all.

2. Mat.Com 10.22 (GCS) Ebr. 208 ( C W ) (R) " A "

Philo discusses gluttony and drunkenness and mentions Pharaoh, w h o usually stands for things connec ted with the body . Quo t ing G e n 40:20, Philo expands on the celebration o f Pharaoh's birthday, a day that stirs up passions and desires and is connected allegorically with perishability.

Origen, w h o refers to one o f his predecessors, also quotes the biblical text and lashes out against those w h o revel in their birthdays, taking H e r o d as a convenient companion for Pharaoh. Origen reveals indebtedness to Philo when he says: "one o f our predecessors noticed Pharaoh's birthday, recorded in Genesis, and stated that it is the wicked person w h o , loving matters o f birth, celebrates his birthday. W e , however, w h o take our starting point from that person (Philo), d o not find a birthday celebrated by a righteous person in any scriptural passage" (Exr|pr)ae a£v ovv xiq xcov 7tp6 TILICGV xr\v avayeypaLiuivriv ev

http://Mat.Com


Teveoei 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 12,129.132), Lev.Hom 8.3, and Reg.Hom. 1. 8.

3. Num.Hom 26.4 (GCS) Migr. 18; Post. 155 (vdH) " A "

Etymology o f Egypt as image o f bodily pleasures. Leading out o f Egypt means leading out o f the realm o f sense perception and sensuality into the places o f virtuous life: . . . to 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. 316. Various other passages deal with Egypt as sense perception or passions o f the b o d y in a different context: Agr. 64; Ebr. 208; Migr. 77; 151; Mut. 174; Somn. 2.109.

Or igen brings up the idea that going out o f Egypt can be understood in two ways "as already often has been said both by our predecessors and by 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, and earthly intercourse is o p p o s e d to a spiritual disposition. Other places in Origen's works, where the theme comes up are, for example: Ex.Hom 3.3, Ez. Sel. 30.4, and Gen.Hom 16.2.6.

If Or igen had not mentioned predecessors, it would have been hard to prove dependency on Philo, since, as Or igen indicates, it was a commonp lace ; the indication, therefore seems to be a general reference to Philo's idea and not to a certain passage. Clement alludes to the image at various occasions but not with all the components ment ioned here, see Strom. 1. 30.4; 2. 47 .1 ; 88.2; 7.40.2.

4. Gen.Cat B (12.116) Congr. 151 ( C W ) (vdH) " A "

In the Hagar and Sarah story, in a passage in which Sarah is said to have been wronged (Gen 16:4-5) , Philo interprets Hagar as the lower forms o f training and Sarah as knowledge and wisdom (see also Congr. 154). T h e interpretation follows the general thrust o f Philo's treatise.

Or igen refers to the same biblical text and seems to question the interpretation: "that which is said by someone in order for us to


search and find is not made clear carefully that virtue was naturally dishonored when she gave birth to preparatory studies; but she was not at all dishonored by Abraham, but by her slave . . . " (E7UTn8£c; OIL)K £oa9Tyv{o0T) T O 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;. . .). Origen gives a distorted view o f Philo's interpretation, but it seems

clear that the " someone" is Philo. Similarly Gen.Cat B ( P G 12, 113).

5. Gen.Hom 14.3 (GCS) Opif. 24; QG 1.4 (vdH) " A / B "

Philo maintains that the noetic world is the logos o f G o d actually creating the world. T h e noetic city is the intellectual capacity o f the architect w h o plans to found the city.

Origen, who is speaking about the digging o f wells and the Philistines, w h o fill them up makes a little detour when he refers to creation. H e states that G o d created everything, and that some even added that G o d created and 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). Thus Origen refers to opinions o f other interpreters. In doing so, it is likely that he had Philo in mind, since he refers to other passages from the same section o f Philo's work.

6. Num.Hom 26.2 (GCS) Ebr. 116 ( C W ) ; Conf. 55 (vdH) " B "

Philo mentions the agreement o f warriors in the L X X version o f N u m 31:49~50 ("none o f them was in discord") and adds a moral allegory. Interestingly, the verb 8ia(pcoveco, whose basic meaning is "to be out o f tune" or metaphorically "to disagree," can have an additional meaning "to fail to answer roll-calls." This may explain the apparent discrepancy between the M T and the L X X . T h e M T reads: " . . . your servants have counted the men o f war w h o are under our c o m m a n d , and there is not a man missing from us." T h e Hebrew verb I p S in the Niphal can mean "to be missing" and in the Qa l "to pass in review" or "to muster." Philo compares the harm o n y o f the soldiers to a musical instrument and subsequentiy to the harmony o f the soul, and it is clear that his allegorical interpretation only works in connect ion with the Greek ve rb . 2 2

With thanks to Christopher Frechette for his help with the Hebrew.


Origen quotes the same biblical text, which was not done by any o f his Christian predecessors, and also has a comparison to an instrument and its harmony.

7. Gen.CatB (PG 12, 124) Her. 51 ( C W ) ; Congr. 7 (vdH) " B "

Philo interprets the story o f Leah and Rachel (Gen 29, 31). H e allegorizes their productivity and barrenness in terms o f virtue; the soul becomes pregnant and the objects o f sense are barren. T h e text and its allegorical application often occur in Philo, see also Mut. 132; 255; Post. 135. In the passage from De congressu, G o d is said to open the w o m b which is ever-virginal (. . . d7to5i8ouoa xcp XTIV deutdpGevov ur|xpav, coc, (pnoi Mayuaf|<;, dvoi^avxi).

Origen cites the same biblical text, which had not been used before in Christian circles. H e also applies the story to the soul, saying that G o d opened Leah's w o m b to give birth to holy (i.e. most virtuous) people . Or igen then adds that according to the spiritual law o f the soul G o d opens the w o m b , in order that she w h o is going to be his mother may bear the Logos o f G o d ('I5cbv 8e Kupioc, 6 Qebq, oxi uiaeixcci Aeia, rivoi^e xf|v |ir|xpav auxfic,. Avoiyei irnxpav erai dyicov yevvrioei Kaxd 8e xov TCveuiTaxiKov vouov yv%r\c, dvoiyei irnxpav, iva yevvr|OT| 0eou Aoyov f| ecouivri auxou |ir|xr|p).

Unless the reference to virginity is coincidental, Philo may have inspired Origen, when he applied the image to M a r y giving birth to the Logos .

8. Lev.Hom 7.6 (GCS) Agr. 131ff. ( C W ) " B / C "

Philo comments on ruminating animals with uncloven h o o f o f Lev 11:4. H e compares their ruminations with the soul, disregarding the issue o f clean and unclean animals. Ruminat ion stands for the soul that listens and goes over speculations one by one; see also Spec. 4. 106f.

Or igen refers to the previous verse o f the same passage (Lev 11:3), which speaks about ruminating animals, in this case with cloven hoof. H e compares the animal to calling back the literal meaning to get at the spiritual meaning, ascending from the visible to the invisible sense. See also Origen, Cels 6.16 and Dt.Cat (PG 12, 812).

This biblical text had been commented on by various Greek-speaking authors and is a kind o f topos. See, for example, the Letter of Aristeas 153-157 (rumination is m e m o r y o f the wonderful deeds o f


G o d ) , and Barnabas 10. 11 (those w h o keep the w o r d o f the Lord and ruminate o n it; see also Clement, Strom. 5 .51 .4 -5 , w h o refers to the Letter of Barnabas). Compare further Irenaeus, Haer. 5.8.3 and Clement, Paed. 3.76; Strom. 7.109.2ff. N o n e o f the above parallel Origen's treatment as closely as Philo does (especially in Dt.Cat [ P G 12, 812]) .

9. Num.Hom 25.3 (GCS) Mut. 65 ( C W ) " C "

Philo gives a justification for changes o f names in biblical texts. These changes, such as from A b r a m to Abraham, are indicators o f more powerful meanings; a small letter change stands for greater entities, and things that are visible imply intellectual realities (aXka tot xoiama Xapaicrfipec; 5a)vaLiea)v elai, (3paxei<; jxEydA-cov, aiaGnxoi vonxcov, cpavepoi &8r|Axov). See also QG 3.43.

Origen states that changes o f names are not fortuitous but done for a reason; they are related to the human condit ion and make a name more suitable for the person being named. Or igen goes on giving examples for pages; see also Gen.Cat B ( P G 12, 115), where a justification is more clearly stated. Although in general terms Origen may have had Philo in mind, the parallel is not close enough to prove it.

10. Lev.Hom 5.4 (GCS) Her. 311 " C "

Philo compares the soul o f the inquisitive person with an oven (Kp{(3ocvo<;, also KA-(Pavo<;). T h e background text is G e n 15:17; see also QG 3.15. T h e connotat ion is positive.

Origen cites the rare text from Lev 7:9, in which various cooking vessels are mentioned, not only clibanus, but also craticula and sartago (see also Augustine for the pun: Carthago-sartago [Corf. 3.1]). Origen also refers to Hosea 7:6, in which the w o r d clibanus occurs. Like Philo, Origen compares the human's heart or soul with an oven but gives the idea a negative connotation.

Philo does not employ Lev 7:9 or H o s 7:6, and Origen does not cite G e n 15:17 (as far as his surviving works show). T h e y use a similar image but give it different overtones.

11. Lev.Hom 6.2 (GCS) Leg. 3.69; QG 1.53 " C / D "

Philo refers to the tunics o f skin (Gen 3:21) in their symbolic meaning as the natural skin o f the body . H e uses the image in a neutral


sense in QG 1.53 but negatively in Leg. 3.69 (Philo speaks about 8ep-iidxivo<; oyKoc;, weight o f skin).

In Origen's homily, the image is used in a negative way against Gnostic ideas, in which tunics o f skin represent dead bodies; c o m pare also Clement, Strom. 3.95.2, similarly in an anti-Gnostic con text. Clement refers to a certain Cassianus as his source. For Clement and Origen it is less the quality o f the b o d y than human behavior and the human condit ion that is linked to death.

Imagery based on the tunics o f skin is widespread, see also Irenaeus, Haer. 1.5.5; Tertullian, Res. 7, therefore dependence on Philo is not likely. See also Origen, Cels. 4.40; Gen.Cat B (PG 12, 101).

12. Gen.Hom 1:11 (GCS) Plant. 28 " D "

A philosophical commonplace , in which an animal or a human being is called a mic rocosm. See Democri tus, 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 252b; Galen, De usu partium 3.10.

Philo expresses the idea rather frequendy but uses a different adjective; he calls a human being Ppaxuc, KOOUOC,; and conversely he notes that others call the cosmos a big "fellow," see Her. 155 (uiyav 8e avOpamov ecpaoav xov KOOUOV eivai); further: Abr. 71; Migr. 220; Opif. 82; Post. 58; Mos. 2.127; 135.

Origen's terminology is: minor mundus, presumably corresponding to LiiKpoq KOCJLTOQ in Greek.

Conclusions

M a n y observations could be made about these parallel passages in Philo and Or igen , but some results o f this investigation can be expressed in tabular form.

T h e total number o f passages under review was 304 from Origen and 249 from Phi lo . 2 3 T h e passages rated " A " or " B " clearly are o f greater interest than those given a " C " or " D . " O f the 304 passages

2 3 In absolute terms more Philonic material was present, but since Origen frequently referred to the same passages, duplications have been eliminated. The numbers in the full catalogue (see footnote 16) only differ slighdy.


from Origen, 109 fell in the categories " A " and " B , " that means that about 4 2 % o f the indications o f the critical editions had a highly-probable relationship with Phi lo . 2 4 O f those 109 passages, twenty had the extra reinforcement o f being connected with an "ancestor" or " someone" before Origen. As already indicated in some o f the examples, being an "ancestor" and being a " someone" had different connotations. T h e "someones" tend to appear when there was a disagreement and Origen could not subscribe to Philo's position.

These highly-likely borrowings derived from twenty-two o f the thirty-six preserved works o f Philo (61%) , as can be seen in the following tabulation: Total number o f passages involved in the c o m parison between Origen and Philo: Origen 304, o f which twenty are rated " A " and 109 " B . " Tota l " A " + " B " is 129 (42%) . Philo 249. Passages rated " A " + " B " are drawn from twenty-two books o f the Philonic corpus, o f which a total o f thirty-six works have been preserved: 2 5

Leg. 10 (4) Somn. + 4

QG + 10 Det. + 2 Opif. + 9 Abr. 2 Migr. + 8 (2) Spec. 2 Her. + 7 QE + 2 Corf. + 6 Fug. 1 (4) Post. 5 (3) Agr. 1 (1) Gig. + 5 (1) Sacr. 1 Mos. 4 (4) Virt. 1 Congr. + 4 (1) Ebr. + 4 (1) Mut. (4) Deus + 4 Contempl. (2) Sobr. + 4 Cher. (1)

Origen's selection from Philo has similarities with Clement: for example, the frequency o f De posteritate, De congressu, and De vita Mosis. Dissimilarities include the virtual absence o f De cherubim and the prominent position o f De opificio mundi in Origen's list, a work that is not well represented in Clement.

2 4 95 passages were rated "B," and another 28 " B / C " ; half of the latter were counted as "B."

2 5 Although the total o f " A " + "B" comes to 129, the number in the tabulation is lower since duplications have been eliminated. The plus sign (+) indicates that


T h e subject matter o f the borrowings can be divided into biblical interpretations and allegories, on the one hand, and philosophical concepts, o n the other. This is, o f course, a rather schematic and artificial division, since biblical allegories frequendy have philosophical o r ethical components ; in fact, most o f them relate to issues like b o d y and soul, g o o d and evil, voluntary and involuntary sins, per-ishibility o f the material world, and so on. In the same way, the philosophical excursus are not purely philosophical either, since they frequendy involve biblical texts. T h e allocation into one group or the other is thus a matter o f where the center o f gravity falls.

T h e two main groups were then divided into subgroups. T h e b iblical allegories were subdivided into mora l allegories, typologies, anthropomorphisms, etymological and numerical speculations and allegorical theory. T h e second group was divided into speculation on the creation o f the world, on the concept o f G o d , and other c o m m o n philosophical issues. T h e results are again tabulated. I also compared the results based on taking " A " and " B " together with the results coming from group " A " alone. It is interesting to see whether one could have obtained the same results from the initial sixteen passages that David Runia had listed (which could later be extended to over twenty). If that were the case, a lot o f work could have been avoided.

Group "A" alone Groups "A" and "B" together Bible + allegory 5 2 % Bible + allegory 7 6 % theory o f allegory 1 0 % theory o f allegory 2 % philosophical questions 19% philosophical questions 1 2 % creation 14% creation 8% G o d 5 % G o d 2 %

T h e tabulation, however, shows that the outcomes were significandy different—efforts to g o beyond a small sampling were not entirely in vain. In group " A " + " B , " which had more than six times as many passages as " A " alone, a substantial shift occur red—above all strengthening the category o f biblical interpretation and allegoriza-tion. Al though the issues involving creation dwindled from 14 to 8%, they still form 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 . "


for Origen's treatment o f creation. T h e larger p o o l o f material then

provides a better balanced and more differentiated assessment o f the

relationship between the two authors.

T h e " A passages" are very revealing in one particular respect,

namely, in clarifying h o w Origen himself perceived Philo's role. O n

more than one occasion, and most notably in his responses to Celsus, 2 6

Origen stressed Philo's importance for the interpretation o f scripture,

and, in particular, for his allegorization o f the law. Origen also added

that Philo was successful and even highly regarded by Greek philoso

phers. H e did so to counter Celsus' argument that the most capa

ble Jews and Christians allegorized their stories as a last resort and

out o f embarrassment because the stories were silly.

Origen's o w n perception o f Philo seems to coincide with his own

practices. No t only did he stress Philo's importance for interpreta

tion o f scripture and allegorization o f law, but the statistics also reveal

that this was the sort o f material he usually bo r rowed from him.

N o t only did he use Philo as a theoretical model , on which he could

rely and which he could call to his defense when Christian biblical

interpretation came under attack, but he also drew on Philo as a

limitless resource for practical purposes. Philo taught him well, and

Origen was capable o f setting off on his o w n to bring these meth

ods to full fruition, more indebted but also more independent than

any Christian writer before him.

26 Cels 4.51; Cels 6.21; Cels 7.20. See also Mat.Com 15.3.

11

" V A N I T Y O F V A N I T I E S " ?

S O L O M O N ' S T R I L O G Y A N D T H E P A T R I S T I C

S U B V E R S I O N O F S C R I P T U R E

N I C H O L A S CONSTAS

Introduction

Plundering the sacred treasures o f the Greeks has been a venerable

Jewish pastime from Philo to Freud. Whi le such spoils were often

said to be little more than decorative ornaments, they were not with

out their power o f attraction, and many a Heb rew soul was indeco

rously beguiled by the spiritual seductions o f Hellenism. In a p o e m

entitled " O f the Jews ( A . D . 50) , " the Alexandrian Greek poet C o n -

stantine Cavafy imaginatively mused on the fate o f a certain discus-

thrower named Ianthis, an Alexandrian J e w struggling—somewhat

disingenuously—to establish his identity with one foot in the syna

gogue and the other in the gymnasium. " M y most valuable days,"

Ianthis declares, "are those when I give up the pursuit o f sensuous

beauty, when I abandon the elegant and severe cult o f Hellenism,

with its over-riding devotion to corruptible white limbs, and b e c o m e

the man I would want to remain forever: a son o f the Jews." T o

this "pious declaration" the Greek poet adds that Ianthis "did not

remain anything o f the kind. T h e Hedonism and Art o f Alexandria

kept him as their dedicated son." 1

Needless to say, not every encounter between Alexandria and

Jerusalem conc luded with the faith o f the latter yielding to the deca

dence and aestheticism o f the former. If the oil o f the gymnasium

1 The poem, written in 1912, is cited from the translation by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard, CP. Cavafy: Collected Poems (Princeton, 1992), 98; cf. 242-43. 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 "More on the Elgin Marbles," in George Papoutsakis, ed., Prose (Athens, 1963), 9-12; 17-22 [in Greek]; cf. P.M. Fraser, "Cavafy and the Elgin Marbles," Modem Language Review 58 (1963): 66-68 . I am thankful to Peter Jeffreys for these references.

242 NICHOLAS CONSTAS

glistened seductively on "corruptible white l imbs," it could also shine

with meridian splendor on the head o f Aaron (cf. Ps 133:2), and be

at length overtaken by a still greater brilliance in the brazen lamps

o f the temple (cf. 1 M a c e 4:50). However , with the rise and improb

able triumph o f Christianity over the prevailing cultural and politi

cal systems o f late antiquity, the dialectical posturing o f Hellenism

and Judaism was increasingly upstaged by this "new [third] class,"

which "neither recognized the gods o f the Greeks nor observed the

superstitions o f the Jews." Instead, it shamelessly vaunted its hybrid

descent from the promiscuous crucible formed by both . 2 Christian

thinkers, in other words, disrupted and redefined the traditional polar

izations o f Hellenism and Judaism, vigorously laying claim to both

traditions while offering allegiance to neither. In moving from binary

to tertiary schemes, these thinkers crossed a dividing line in the

organization o f cultural and religious thought. Such a m o v e served

to create a critical framework in which the new "third class" could

construct its o w n identity by appropriating, reconceptualizing, and

thereby subverting, the sacred treasures o f its two chief competitors.

By the fourth century o f the Christian era, the notion o f a con

tentious triangle formed by Hellenism, Judaism, and Christianity was

firmly entrenched within Christian discourse. In a sermon designed

to popularize the complexities o f the fourth-century Trinitarian con

troversy, Basil o f Caesarea (ca. 3 2 9 - 3 7 9 ) suggested to his congrega

tion that the protracted Christian dispute about the nature o f the

divine being was actually a struggle between Hellenism and Judaism,

with Nicene or thodoxy endeavoring to establish itself somewhere in

between the two. In the sermon's opening lines, Basil declared that

'Judaism wars against Hellenism, and both wage war on Christianity,

as the Egyptians and the Assyrians waged war o n each other and

also on Israel. . . such is the war being waged on the true faith, o n

2 The quotation in the previous sentence is taken from the Epistle to Diognetus 1: "[ . . .] neither recognizing those who are considered to be gods by the Greeks nor observing the superstition of the Jews. . . this new race o f men or way of life," and Clement o f Alexandria, Stromateis 6.5: "[Christians are] from both Hellenic paideia and that of the law being gathered into one race." The earliest reference to Christians as a "chosen race" is 1 Peter 2:9. On these themes, see G. Stroumsa, Barbarian Philosophy: The Religious Revolution of Early Christianity (Tubingen, 1999), 8-43; and, more generally, E.G. Weltin, Athens and Jerusalem. An Interpretative Essay on Christianity and Classical Culture (Atianta: Scholars Press, 1987). On 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.

VANITY OF VANITIES 243

one front by Sabellius, and o n the other by Arianism." 3 T h e sacred

persons o f the Sabellian Trinity, it will be recalled, were but fleeting

epiphanies o f the one and only G o d , a Christian theological posi

tion which Basil construes as a form o f Judaism. Basil elsewhere

explicitiy identifies the two, stating that "Sabellianism is Judaism,"

and that "we should shudder at this heresy as m u c h as we d o at

Judaism." 4 T h e opposing heresy o f Arianism, on the other hand, is

made by Basil to appear o n the homiletical stage wearing the mask

o f Hellenism. As is well known, Arius, a fourth-century presbyter o f

Alexandria, had denied the absolute but not relative divinity o f the

Christian savior, and was subsequently slandered by his opponents

for having introduced a pantheon o f gods and a plurality o f wor

ship into the Christian faith. Invoking the rhetorical categories o f

Hellenism and Judaism was a convenient and effective way to frame

the Christian debates, and Basil summed up his Trinitarian tract On the Holy Spirit by noting that, " o n the one hand are those w h o con

fuse the persons and revert to Judaism; on the other are those w h o

oppose the natures, and are swept away into Greek polytheism"

(§77). 5

Gregory o f Nyssa (ca. 335-394) elevated his brother Basil's pointed

rhetorical triangle into a systematic principle which he uses to orga

nize m u c h o f his thinking. Gregory 's Catechetical Oration, for example,

is a popular handbook o f Christian teaching in the form o f a sus

tained, dialectical response to the theological extremes o f Judaism and

Hellenism. In place o f Sabellius and Arius, Gregory introduces the

philosophers and the prophets, and he articulates a Christian d o c

trine o f G o d in the stammering, equivocal id iom o f Greek reason

3 Contra Sabellianos et Arium et Anomoium (= hom. 24, PG 31.600). 4 Basil, ep. 210: "Sabellianism is Judaism which is being imported under the

appearance of Christianity into the preaching of the Gospel" (St. Basil, Letters, 3.203 [trans. R.J. Defarrari, LCL, Cambridge, Mass., 1986]), and id., ep. 189 [= Gregory of 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).

5 Ed. B. Pruche (Angers, 1947), 257; cf. Basil, ep. 210: "It must be clearly understood that as one who does not acknowledge the community o f [God's] essence falls into polytheism, so he who does not grant the individuality of 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). The equation o f Arianism with Judaism occurs frequently in Athanasius, on which see R. Lorenz, Arius Judaizans? (Gottingen, 1979).


and Jewish revelation. In one o f his many methodological digres

sions, Gregory notes that "truth passes in the mean between these

two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet accepting what is

useful to it from each" (§3; cf. §5) . 6

In both rhetoric and reality, the interaction o f Hellenism, Judaism,

and Christianity was a matter that greatly p reoccupied Christian

thinkers o f late antiquity, especially those living in the Greek east.

This paper studies that interaction as it unfolded in the Greek Chris

tian exegesis o f the Heb rew scriptures (a descriptive category that

itself contains the three terms in question). O f all the sacred trea

sures o f antiquity, the Hebrew scriptures were among the most greatly

prized and therefore among the most intensely contested. That con

test was enacted primarily through strategies o f textual interpreta

tion and the history o f exegesis is therefore a promising site in which

to study the process whereby the Christian "third class" endeavored

to outflank and displace its venerable religious precursor.

In addition to their struggle for ownership o f the Heb rew scrip

tures, Greek speaking Christians expended similar energies with respect

to the writings o f H o m e r and Plato. By the beginning o f the Christian

era, the H o m e r i c epics and the Platonic dialogues had been the sub

jects o f extensive interpretation and had undergone a process o f can

onization similar to that o f the Heb rew Bible. It may not be wide

o f the mark to assert that the canonization o f these works and their

ongoing interpretation were as important to Greek culture and reli

gion as the authority and study o f the Bible was for the Jews. T h e

parallel status o f these two corpora has recentiy been described as a

6 I cite this work from the English translation by W . Moore 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), 477-78; for the Greek text, see PG 45.17D and 20D. See also Gregory Nazianzus, Or. 2.37, who offers a slight variation on 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 of piety" (SC 247 [Paris, 1978], 138, lin. 15); id., Or. 29.2: "The 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 of the Cappadocians exist in unbecoming excess, I know of no major study dealing with the Cappadocians and Judaism. The most recent and otherwise excellent study of 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 of Gregory Nazianzus is generally said to have been a Jewish convert to Christianity, cf. C. Bonis, "Was the Father of Gregory Nazianzus o f Greek or Hebrew Origin?" in Kathegetria: Essays Presented to J. Hussey (Athens, 1988), 173-78.


"double helix" underwriting the emergence o f Christian identity in

a kind o f "double-translation process, in which the Hebrew Scriptures

appear n o w in Greek garb, while G r e c o - R o m a n culture is subsumed

to the Bible ." 7

In the following paper, I examine the early Christian appropria

tion (and subversion) o f these two corpora through the Greek patris

tic interpretation o f "So lomon ' s Tr i logy," i.e., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,

and the Song o f Songs, three Jewish books which many Christians

believed had anticipated the tripartite division o f classical Greek phi

losophy. Within this general framework, m y primary focus will be

on the b o o k o f Ecclesiastes as it was situated and interpreted in the

context o f So lomon ' s trilogy by two early Christian exegetes: Origen

o f Alexandria (ca. 185-254) and his fourth-century disciple Gregory

o f Nyssa. I argue that, unlike Proverbs or the Song o f Songs, Eccle

siastes was particularly resistant to hermeneutical reception within

early Christian theology, and that its reception was secured only after

it had been reframed within the contentious triangle described above.

W h e n seen from the belated Christian angle, both Hebraic wisdom

(i.e., So lomon ' s trilogy) and Hellenic philosophy (i.e., the tripartite

division o f the philosophical curriculum) appeared to blend and blur,

eventually b e c o m i n g indistinct, because "something greater than

S o l o m o n " had n o w taken their place (cf. Matt 12:42).

I. Origen of Alexandria

It would be difficult to exaggerate the influence o f Or igen on the

Greek patristic exegetical tradition, and it will be helpful at this point

to set forth the basic features o f Origen's exegesis as they relate

specifically to m y theme. In B o o k I V o f his On First Principles, Origen

contrasts the true, "spiritual" meaning 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 ("To Young Men, On the Benefits to be Derived from the Writings of 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 Ad Adulescentes: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des christlichen Humanismus (Geneva, 1973), maps the later history of Basil's tract which was interpreted both as a defense of, and an attack on, the Greek classics.


false literal meaning, which he tends to denigrate as the "fleshly" or

"bodi ly" meaning. Origen had earlier described the primordial fall

o f spirit into flesh, and against this metaphysical backcloth the b o d

ily sense o f scripture is understood to be at considerable remove

from the truth o f its spiritual signification. Or igen argues, moreover ,

that fixation on the fleshly sense o f scripture is a categorically 'Jewish"

weakness, and he defines the disjunction between the literal and the

spiritual as corresponding to the opposition between Judaism and

Christianity. 8

Taking the spiritual highground was, o f course, to make a virtue

out o f necessity, inasmuch as Christian exegetes had to legitimize

themselves o n the basis o f a text which they shared with their Jewish

neighbors. T h r o u g h the use o f allegory, o r "spiritual exegesis," as he

preferred to call it, Origen could simultaneously advance a number

o f critical agendas. In the first place, spiritual exegesis was a way to

read Jewish scripture from a uniquely Christian point o f view. It was

also a way to challenge the legitimacy o f Jewish interpretations and

to undermine the authority o f Jewish interpreters. Th rough spiritual

exegesis, Or igen was further enabled to make a sophisticated claim

to ownership o f the scriptures themselves, and at the same time to

argue the legitimacy o f that claim before the pagan public. In the

ever-expanding universe o f allegorical exegesis, Or igen was capable

o f even greater audacity, and having plundered the sacred treasures

o f Palestine, he p roceeded to ransack the schools o f Hellas. H e did

so preeminentiy through his spiritual exegesis o f So lomon ' s trilogy.

II. Solomon's Trilogy

T h e canonical sequence o f Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song o f

Songs was seen by Origen as being directly relevant to the proper

spiritual interpretation o f the books themselves. T h e structural unity

that Or igen perceived in this sequence was further consolidated for

8 For an introduction to Origen's exegetical method, see B. Daley, "Origen's De Principiis: A Guide to the Principles of Christian Scriptural Interpretation," in Nova et Vetera: Patristic Studies in Honor of T.P. Halton, ed. J. Petruccione (Washington, D.C. , 1998), 3 -21 . See also D . Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley, 1992). Note that Origen's spiritual reading of Hebrew scripture was also a way to combat both Gnostic and Marcionite calumniation o f the G o d of Israel and the Christian literalism of Biblical fundamentalists, anthropo-morphites, and millenarians (De Prin. IV.2-3) .


him at another level in the person o f So lomon , the putative inspired

author. Origen was not the first to posit and exploit these connec

tions, although he set the tone for subsequent commentaries on these

books, including that by Theodore t o f Cyrrhus (ca. 3 9 3 - 4 9 6 ) , w h o

was otherwise an undeviating Ant iochene literalist famously at odds

with all things Alexandrian. 9

Origen discusses the nature and significance o f So lomon ' s trilogy

in the prologue to his Commentary on the Song of Songs. Written some

time between 240 and 245, the ten volume Commentary was consid

ered by many to be his masterpiece. O f the ten volumes, only the

first three have survived in a Latin translation by Rufinus, along

with two o f Origen's homilies o n the Song preserved in a Latin

translation by Je rome, w h o notes that, unlike the solid food o f the

Commentary, the homilies were diluted lactations for "babes and suck

lings." In the third chapter o f the expansive prologue to the Commentary, Origen skillfully combines the tropes o f spiritual exegesis with sweep

ing historical revisionism in order to exalt the genius o f his o w n faith

over and against those o f his Jewish and Greek rivals. 1 0

Origen begins these negotiations by suggesting that So lomon ' s tri

logy, when properly understood, is a symbolic unity encompassing

the three branches o f Greek phi losophy. Or igen identifies these

branches as ethics, physics, and enoptics, although he himself prefers

to call them the moral, the natural, and the introspective. 1 1 T h e

9 Theodoret discusses Solomon's trilogy in the preface to his Commentary on the Song of Songs (PG 81.45D-48C); cf. J.-N. Guinot, L'Exegese de Theodoret de Cyr (Paris, 1995), 634-44; cf. 466-84 (= "La polemique anti-painne"), and 484-522 (= "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 of 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 canti-corum 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 of Origen's commentary indebted to Roland Barthes, see Patricia C o x Miller, "'Pleasure of 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.

1 0 Trans. R.P. Lawson, Origen: The Song of Songs, Commentary and Homilies, A C W 26 (New York, 1956). The Latin text o f the Commentary has been edited by L. Bre-sard, et al., SC 735—76 (Paris, 1991), and that of the homilies by O . Rousseau, SC 37 (Paris, 1955). See also, I. Hadot, "Les introductions aux commentaires exege-tiques chez les auters Neoplatoniciens et les auteurs Chretiens," in Les Regies de ^Interpretation, ed. M . Tardieu (Paris, 1987), 99-119, esp. 112-19.

1 1 For a detailed discussion o f this question, see M . Harl, "Les trois livres de


three-fold division o f the philosophical curriculum, while not exacdy

biblical, is well attested among the Stoics in a tradition going all the

way back to Z e n o . 1 2 Origen, however, claims that the Greeks had

actually plagiarized the three-fold division o f philosophy directly from

the trilogy o f S o l o m o n . 1 3 Origen further assures us that S o l o m o n

had himself been taught these principles by the very 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 but a pro

visional type.

In this remarkable, indeed breathtaking turn o f events, Greek phi

losophy has been subordinated to Jewish wisdom, and the son o f

David has been typologically assimilated to the son o f Mary. Having

seen to these arrangements, Origen can n o w fully disclose the dynamic

movement from the literal to the spiritual, a pattern o f moral, intel

lectual, and religious conversion which his Jewish and Greek 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. Dummer (Berlin, 1987), 249-69; 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): 651-66; and Patricia C o x Miller, "Origen and the Bestial Soul: A Poetics of Nature," Vigiliae Christianae 36 (1986): 118—20.

1 2 See Hans Friedrich von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta II (Leipzig, 1968), no. 37-44 , cited in Harl, p . 252, n. 14. Clement, apparentiy under the influence of Philo, had earlier suggested a similar, four-fold schema for the "philosophy o f Moses," cf. Stromateis 1.176, and the texts cited and discussed by J. Danielou, "Clement o f Alexandria and the Primitive Tradition," in id., Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture. Trans. J.A. Baker (Philadelphia, 1973), 48-68 ; cf. Theodoret, Commentary on the Song of Songs: "Proverbs offers ethical benefit to those who desire it; Ecclesiastes interprets the nature of visible things. . . the Song of Songs teaches the mystical coupling of the bride and the bridegroom, so that the entire Solomonic trilogy is a sort of ladder having three rungs: the ethical, the physiological, and the mystical" (PG 81.48AB).

1 3 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 of 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 (Homer has plagiarized Moses), as does Gregory of Nyssa in his sixth homily on Ecclesiastes: "Certain secular philosophers, becoming thieves, no doubt, of 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).


had understood only faintly and in part. After the basic moral train

ing in Proverbs, one must detach oneself from the vanities o f the

visible world described in Ecclesiastes, in order to attain union with

Christ o n the bed o f contemplation envisioned in the Song o f Songs.

In a rhetorical gesture toward more familiar biblical images, Origen

points out that the "three-fold structure o f divine philosophy was

prefigured in the lives o f Abraham, Isaac and J a c o b . " Abraham

exemplifies the obedience in which moral phi losophy consists (cf.

G e n 12:1-4) . Isaac, on the other hand, is the paradigmatic expo

nent o f natural philosophy, digging wells and searching out the roots

o f things (cf. G e n 26:12) . 1 4 J a c o b practices the "inspective science,

and he earned the name o f Israel from his contemplation in the

things o f G o d and saw . . . ladders reaching up from earth to heaven"

(cf. G e n 28:10, 17; 32:2) . 1 5 Origen underscores the fact that all three

patriarchs lived in tents (cf. H e b 11:9), which he interprets as a sign

that those w h o apply themselves to divine philosophy should not be

invested in the earth, but must be always "moving on , not so much

from place to place, as from the knowledge o f inferior matters to

that o f perfect ones."

Origen's interpretation o f Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song 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

had an extraordinary impact o n the work o f subsequent interpreters.

In both east and west, passages from Origen's Commentary were rou

tinely anthologized and readily available to subsequent generations

in a chain stretching from late antiquity through the Renaissance.

Having established the basic principles o f Origen's spiritual exege

sis, along with his revisionist reading o f So lomon ' s trilogy, we may

1 4 Lawson, 44 -45 ; cf. 1 Kings 4:33, where Solomon is portrayed as speaking of "trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of the wall; he spoke also of beasts, and o f birds, and o f reptiles, and of fish." Origen, De Principiis 2.11.5-7, believes that after death the souls of the righteous will be taught the mysteries of the natural world, including "the meaning of 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 Wonderworker, in his paraphrase of Ecclesiastes, notes that Solomon "wisely penetrated the whole nature of the earth," and understood "the natures of things" (trans. Slusser, p. 128, cited below, n. 24).

1 5 For this interpretation of Israel, cf. Origen, Horn. Gen. 15.3 (GCS 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).


n o w turn to the b o o k o f Ecclesiastes as it was situated and interpreted within that trilogy by Origen and Gregory o f Nyssa.

III. The Book of Ecclesiastes

Within the three-fold structure o f "divine phi losophy," the b o o k o f Ecclesiastes forms the central hinge, and it was o f crucial importance in Origen's system o f spiritual pedagogy and mystical ascent. In terms o f its actual contents, however, Ecclesiastes did not readily fit into Origen's tidy tripartite schema. While the b o o k o f Proverbs indeed teaches ethics, and while it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Song o f Songs may actually be concerned with mystical union, it is not immediately clear h o w Ecclesiastes serves as a treatise on physics. Nevertheless, it had to be situated within the unfolding process o f ascent, and bo th O r i g e n and G r e g o r y o f Nyssa accomplished this by focusing their exegetical energies almost exclusively on the notion o f the "vanity" or "futility" o f all creation.

In the prologue to the Commentary on the Song o f Songs, Origen argues that the purpose o f Ecclesiastes is to "teach that all visible and corporeal things are fleeting and brittle; and once the seeker after wisdom has grasped that these things are so, he is b o u n d to spurn and despise them; renouncing the world . . . he will reach out for things unseen and eternal." As such, Origen considers Ecclesiastes to be an admittedly peculiar form o f physics, a science o f nature that displaces nature by emphasizing its futility and transience. Largely on the rhetorical weight o f its opening and concluding exhortation, "Vanity o f vanities, all is vanity" (Eccl 1:2; 12:8), Origen makes the entire b o o k o f Ecclesiastes conform to the crucial, liminal stage o f bodi ly and intellectual "purification . . . through which one learns the difference between things corruptible and things incorruptible; [a stage in which the soul is] cleansed in all its habits and able to p roceed to pure contemplation o f the divine." 1 6

Origen's remarks in the prologue to the Commentary on the deeper meaning o f Ecclesiastes, outlined above, are understandably brief. Having summarily inserted the second b o o k o f So lomon ' s trilogy

1 6 Lawson, 43-44; cf. Theodoret, Commentary on the Song of Song: "Ecclesiastes interprets the nature o f visible things, and teaches us about the vanity of the present life, so that we might learn how all things in the present are subject to death, and thus despise them, and desire the future things which last forever" (PG 81.48A).


within a larger pattern o f interpretation, he embarks upon his cen

tral project which is the spiritual exegesis o f the Song o f Songs. It

is worth noting that Origen additionally c o m p o s e d a set o f scholia on Ecclesiastes surviving only in a handful o f fragments. H e also

alludes to, cites and comments on various passages from Ecclesiastes

throughout his writings (e.g., Eccl 2:14: " T h e wise man's eyes are

in his head"), although he does not contradict or depart from the

basic interpretation that he outlined in the prelude to the Commentary}1

Following Origen, the notion that the b o o k o f Ecclesiastes c o m

prised a kind o f Christian physics was taken up by Gregory o f Nyssa

in his Commentary on the Song of Songs, a collection o f fifteen homilies

written around 3 9 0 . 1 8 In the prologue, Gregory subjects Origen's

theme o f tripartition to a range o f variations, most notably his devel

opmental theory that the books o f Solomon ' s trilogy reflect three

distinctive ages o f the spiritual life. A lo n g these lines, Proverbs is

said to be a primer for spiritual infants w h o are coaxed along by

"childish trinkets." 1 9 Ecclesiastes, on the other hand, is for the matur

ing soul that recognizes the vanity o f the world and desires virtue

instead. In the fourth homily, Gregory returns to the theme o f the

vanity o f the world, and he notes that the "form o f the wor ld" is

itself the very "vanity o f vanities" (Eccl 1:2) because it is unstable

and "passing away" (1 C o r 7:31; cf. Eph 4:17). T h e world, he says,

is a "field" (cf. Matt 13:38) o f appearances devoid o f substance, and

the "powers ," which at Song 2:7 are said to be present in that field,

are not the physical forces o f nature, but the intelligible natures o f

heaven. 2 0 W h e n the earthly detachment o f those heavenly powers is

reproduced and actualized in the human soul through the life o f

1 7 S. Leanza, L'esegesi di Origene at libro dell'Ecclesiaste (Reggio Calabria, 1975). 1 8 See J.B. Cahill, "The Date and Setting of Gregory of Nyssa's Commentary

on the Song o f Songs," JTS 32.2 (1981), 447-60. 1 9 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 of the Canticum Canticorum," Medieval Encounters 4.1 (1998), 1-23, who focuses on Origen and Gregory of Nyssa. Note that Nyssa also divided the stages o f the spiritual life into five distinctive moments, following the five divisions of 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 ana-base spirituele chez Gregoire de Nysse," in Epektasis, ed. J. Fontaine and C. Kanen-giesser (Beauchesne, 1972), 517-31.

2 0 McCambley, Gregory of Nyssa, 105; cf. Origen, Commentary 3.10 (Lawson, 203-5), who interiorizes the "field" within the soul of the bride who must cultivate its inner powers, or alternatively as the "husbandry of G o d " (1 Cor 3:9), i.e., the "common


virtue, G o d ' s will is done "on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt 6:10),

and at that momen t the soul enters, in full stature, into the bridal

chamber o f divine mysteries. 2 1

Gregory had previously addressed these themes more directiy and

at greater length in a series o f eight homilies on Ecclesiastes deliv

ered sometime before the spring o f 381. These homilies, which vary

considerably in length, offer a selective, allegorizing exposition o f the

biblical text from chapter 1:1 through chapter 3:13. 2 2 As with Gregory's

briefer notice in the Commentary, the theme o f the vanity o f creation

provides the major hermeneutical principle for his handling o f the

text in the homilies.

Before turning to Nyssa's homilies, it is worth noting that a para

phrase o f Ecclesiastes, unanimously attributed by the manuscript tra

dition to Gregory Nazianzus, is in fact the work o f Gregory the

Wonderworke r (ca. 2 1 0 - 2 7 5 ) , 2 3 a native o f Cappadoc ia w h o had

studied under Origen in Palestinian Caesarea. U p o n returning to his

native land, Gregory befriended the household o f the elder Macrina,

a m o n g whose grandchildren was Gregory o f Nyssa, w h o wrote the

Life of Gregory the Wonderworker, perhaps on the basis o f some o f his

practice of the Church's faith and way of life." Elsewhere, Origen notes that the human heart is a field entrusted to the angels for cultivation (Horn. Num. 11, ed. L. Doutreleau, SC 442 [Paris, 1999], 30). Evagrius, scholion 291 on Prov 24:27, notes that "Our 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 of 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 of the intelligible principles of the world, into which pure hearts may enter" (ed. P. Gehin, SC 340 [Paris, 1987], 382); cf. id., scholion 38 on Eccl 5:7-8 (ed. P. Gehin, SC 397 [Paris, 1993], 130).

2 1 McCambley, Gregory of Nyssa, 47. 2 2 The homilies were the focus o f the Seventh International Colloquium on

Gregory of Nyssa (St. Andrews, 5-10 September, 1990), which produced an English translation along with 17 supporting studies, ed. S.G. Hall, Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on Ecclesiastes (Berlin and New York, 1993). A critical edition o f the Greek text is available in Gregorii Nysseni Opera, vol. 5, ed. P. Alexander (Leiden, 1962), 277-442; reprinted with an introduction, notes, and a facing page French translation by F. Vinel, Gregoire de Nysse, Homelies sur L'Ecclesiaste, SC 416 (Paris, 1996). See also M . Hirshman, "The Greek Fathers and the Aggada on Ecclesiastes: Formats o f Exegesis in Late Antiquity," Hebrew Union College Annual 59 (1988): 147—51 ("Gregory of Nyssa: Oratory and Exegesis").

2 3 The paraphrase was known and cited by both Jerome and Rufinus, and passages from it are scattered throughout the sixth-century exegetical chain on Ecclesiastes compiled by Procopius o f Gaza (ed. S. Leanza, C C S G 4 [1978]). On Gregory the Wonderworker and the Cappadocians, see Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea, 11-14.


grandmother's recollections. In one episode o f the Life, Nyssa c o m

pares the saint's wisdom in arbitrating a property dispute to the

famous judgement o f S o l o m o n (§50; cf. 1 Kings 3:16-28) . T h e wis

d o m o f the saint, w h o miraculously dried up a marshy lake that had

been at the center o f the dispute, is said to have been vastly supe

rior to that o f So lomon , and Nyssa states that " S o l o m o n himself

would not dispute as to the first prize in this compar ison" (§54).

Nyssa does not mention the saint's paraphrase o f Ecclesiastes, which

was a largely successful attempt to render the semiticisms o f the

Septuagint into smooth, elegant Greek. At the same time, the saint

also worked some wonders o n the text's conceptual indelicacies,

although the relationship between these latter changes and the con

tent o f Nyssa's eight homilies has not yet been studied. 2 4

Having noted Gregory the Wonderworker ' s use o f the Origenist

tradition, we may n o w turn to Gregory o f Nyssa's cycle o f eight ser

mons o n Ecclesiastes. T h e circumstances o f Gregory ' s preaching

remain unclear, although it has been surmised that he delivered these

sermons during Great Lent o f 381, i.e., shortly before the Counci l

o f Constantinople, which met during M a y , June, and July o f that

year . 2 5 Gregory begins the first homily by boldly laying claim to

Ecclesiastes as a whole . F rom his point o f view, Ecclesiastes is a rev

elation offered uniquely to the church, the ecclesia. It " looks," as he

says, "exclusively to the church," embodying the spirit o f Christ in

a particular m o d e o f relation to the ecclesia (horn. 1, p . 34). This

remarkable fact is not asserted about any other b o o k o f the Bible,

all o f which, with the singular exception o f Ecclesiastes, contains

material that is extraneous to the life o f the church in its "struggle

toward godliness" (horn. 1, pp. 33-34) . Gregory repeats this affirmation

2 4 The 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).

2 5 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 oeu-vres de Gregoire de Nysse," Studia Patristica 7 (1966): 159-69; but cf. Vinel, Gregoire de Nysse, 16-20, who argues for a slightly earlier date (ca. 378-79). Note that the later Byzantine lectionary includes not Ecclesiastes, but Proverbs in its cycle of 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 on Ecclesiastes in his chapter on Gregory's Lenten preaching (pp. 2 6 5 -83) or anywhere else in this otherwise admirable study.


at the beginning o f his second homily: "It is to us that the Ecclesiast

speaks. Let us then hear his words, we w h o are the ecclesia" (horn. 2,

p . 48, 5 3 ) . 2 6

Gregory 's belief that Ecclesiastes is a work addressed by Christ

direcdy to the Christian communi ty is based partly on Origen's the

ory that the titles and attributes o f Christ symbolize specific modes

o f divine communica t ion and intention relative to the capacities o f

the receiver. 2 7 Here , however, the notion o f ecclesiastical exclusivity

stands in marked contrast to Gregory 's subsequent acknowledgment

that Ecclesiastes is at the same time a work o f singular exegetical

difficulty. Gregory compares the effort necessary to ascertain the

meaning o f Ecclesiastes to a contest and a struggle:

Indeed, one could think of every hyperbole and still not properly express in words what great struggles the contest with this scripture involves for the contestants, as they fight for a foothold for their thoughts, using their skill as athletes so that they may not find their argument overthrown (horn. 1, p. 33).

T h e principle challenge, o f course, was the pessimistic and indeed

nihilistic notion that the universe is not only a place o f vanity, but

the very "vanity o f vanities," a position that seemed not only to den

igrate creation but to indict by implication the very Creator (horn. 1,

trans, p . 36). For early Christian thinkers, this was a theological

p rob lem o f the highest order, and around that textual irritant the

pearl o f patristic exegesis on Ecclesiastes took shape. For his part,

2 6 This christological and ecclesiastical reading is widespread throughout the later scholia and catenae, cf. Evagrius, scholion 1 on Eccl 1:1: "The ecclesia o f pure souls is the true knowledge of ages and worlds, and of the judgment and providence within them; the 'Ecclesiast' is Christ who engenders this knowledge" (Gehin, SC 397, 58); id., scholion 3 on Prov 1:2: "This is why it says 'He [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 of passions perceived in the passionate and irrational part o f the soul" (Gehin, SC 340, 92). See also the Catena Hauniensis in Ecclesiasten 1,1.1, and 1,2: "If it is the 'Ecclesiast' who speaks, then the things said are worthy of the ecclesia. . . Let the ear of 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 of Gaza begins his Catena in Ecclesiasten with Gregory's above-mentioned affirmation (CCSG 4 [1978], p. 5, lins. 14-16).

2 7 See, for example, Origen, Commentary on John I, trans. J. Trigg, Origen (London and New York, 1998), 114-15; 125-49; cf. Basil, Adversus Eunomium 1.7 (ed. B. Sesboue, SC 299 [Paris, 1982], 188-92), who uses Origen's theory o f the divine names to refute Arian linguistic positivism. For a study of 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).


Gregory seeks to neutralize this p rob lem by asserting the traditional

distinction between the visible and the invisible, which he parallels

to that obtaining between the b o d y and the soul. Each element, he

says, has its o w n proper value and form o f existence. T h e one is

mortal and subject to death, while the other is immortal and impas

sible. O n e looks toward the present, the other "extends to eternity,"

and he concludes that "one ought not to look to this life o f the

senses, which compared with true life is unreal and insubstantial"

(horn. 1, trans, p . 37 ) . 2 8 By placing creation within a wider horizon

o f value, the p rob lem had been solved. T h e vanity o f creation, in

other words, is not absolute but only relative to the permanence and

meaningfulness o f that which is b e y o n d creation. H u m a n beings,

moreover , have an infinite desiring capacity which "all the works

wrought under the sun" (Eccl 1:14) can never satisfy, "neither shall

the eye be satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing" (Eccl

1:8; cf. horn. 1, p . 44), but only by the infinite G o d . T h e senses by

themselves, therefore, are "not a safe yardstick o f the g o o d " (horn.

5, p . 87), and those w h o allow their gaze to b e c o m e fixed solely on

the illusory surfaces o f creation are dragged inexorably into noth

ingness, because the "soul o f the fool, which has b e c o m e a body-

loving and fleshlike thing, in looking at these things looks at nothing;

for clarity o f vision o f these things is truly darkness" (horn 5, p . 91;

cf. horn. 2, p . 5 9 ) . 2 9

Gregory 's reconceptualization o f the vanity o f creation as relative

to the transcendence o f the creator is nicely summarized by his con

temporary Evagrius Ponticus (ca. 345 -399) . Orda ined to the dia-

conate by Nyssa's brother Basil, Evagrius served Gregory Nazianzus

during the latter's brief tenure as archbishop o f Constantinople, and

eventually entered monastic life in Egypt where he devoted 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 intellectual and immaterial. O f these, the non-bodily part is superior to sensory perception . . . [because] sense, which can apprehend the material nature, cannot naturally pass beyond the heavens to what is invisible" (cf. hom 8, p. 130).

2 9 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 who are "lovers o f the flesh" can only be cured by the spiritual flesh of the Eucharist, since "he says, 'my flesh is really food, and my blood is really drink' (John 6:55). The one who loves this flesh will not become a flesh-lover, and the one who regards the blood in this way will be pure from sensual b lood" (hom. 8, p. 132).


to the study o f Origen's works. In his scholion on 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 contemplated the nature of created beings, this verse says, "Do not think that this is the ultimate end that is set aside for you in the promises," for all these things are "vanity of vanities" with respect to the knowledge of God himself. For just as medicines are in vain after perfect health, so too the knowledge of the principles of the ages and of worlds is in vain after one has attained the knowledge of the Holy Trinity.3 0

With the e c o n o m y o f a gnomic utterance suited to memorizat ion by

the hermits and solitaries for which it was written, Evagrius has here

succinctly captured the teaching o f his predecessors: the Christian

church as the domain o f the Ecclesiast, the contemplation o f the

physical wor ld as a stage within spiritual ascent, and its relativiza-

tion in view o f a greater g o o d that is at once therapeutic and epis-

temological.

Finally, in a manner highly reminiscent o f Origen, Gregory 's atti

tude toward the material world is at one point revealingly paralleled

to his attitude toward literalist readings o f scripture. In his inter

pretation o f Ecclesiastes 3:5 ("There is a time for throwing stones"),

Gregory is critical o f those w h o " look only to the literal meaning

and support the superficial interpretation o f the words ," and w h o

would apply to Ecclesiastes 3:5 the "law o f M o s e s " (alluding to E x o d

19:13; Lev 20:2). "It is not right," he says, "to take the law literally

in that way, according to the immediate sense" (horn. 7, p . 111),

and " i f someone stands by the mere letter, I d o not know h o w what

is worthy o f G o d may be understood in the law" (ibid., 114). This

contrast illustrates once again the unique character o f Ecclesiastes as

a site for focused religious debate. Reinterpreted as the " B o o k o f

Christian Physics," Ecclesiastes could epitomize the tension between

the letter and the spirit, the struggle between the physical and the

metaphysical, and as such encoded some o f the core contentions

between the church and the synagogue.

3 0 Gehin, SC 397, 58-61 ; cf. id., scholion 3 on Eccl 1:11: "If there is 'no memorial of the first things,' how 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 Cor 15:28). For if the perceptions o f objects that occur in the intellect lead the mind toward remembrance of those objets, and


Conclusion: Hermeneutics and Metaphysics

Between the literal sense o f scripture and the physical form o f the universe, both Origen and Gregory o f Nyssa saw deep structural affinities. For both commentators, their (somewhat differing) estimation o f the literal and the historical was closely related to their conceptions o f materiality and o f corporeal embodiment . T h e text o f scripture and the texture o f the universe together constitute a unified field o f meaning whose boundaries were determined by the confluence o f hermeneutics, ethics, and ontology. Origen's basic hermeneutical paradigm, rooted in a decoupl ing o f the sensible and the intelligible, was largely an extension o f his doctrine o f creation as separation from the divine source o f meaning and life. By designating the literal meaning as the "bodily meaning" o f scripture, Origen is attesting to its discontinuity and distance from its eternal spiritual truth. This opposit ion also informs Origen's attitude toward Judaism and, to a lesser extent, Hellenism, religious and cultural traditions that he claims are unable to transcend their respective commitments to the literal text o f scripture and the physical texture o f the world.

Origen's preoccupation with the b o o k o f Ecclesiastes, and his pressing need to situate it within his larger phi losophical framework, assumes a heightened sense o f urgency when viewed in this larger context. Origen's "natural science" o f un-natural reversals and supernatural displacements was at the heart o f his entire philosophical enterprise. T h e various oppositions that served him so well, along with the tension and energy coi led within them, all seemed to be encapsulated in the memorable verses that opened and closed this one little book : "Vanity o f vanities, all is vanity" (Eccl 1:2; 12:8). It was a fulcrum that gave him leverage against the rational laws o f Greek science and the sacred laws o f Moses , neither o f which from his point o f view were able to discern the path o f ascent and escape from their o w n finite strictures. Obed ience to the laws o f either tradition was but a proverbial beginning, and not the end o f Christian life.

For Origen, the hermeneutical problems associated with Ecclesiastes resonate with epistemological problems in his anthropology 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., 60-62) ; 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.


christology, and this would prove to be his undoing. Having dug a

pit for his cultural and religious neighbors, he p roceeded to fall into

it himself (cf. Eccl 10:8), or at least was pushed in by later Christians

w h o did not share his disdain for the goodness o f G o d ' s creation. 3 1

For Origen, both the materiality o f the world and the b o d y o f the

savior tend to impede one's knowledge o f the eternal W o r d imma

nent within them. T h e W o r d made flesh is only revelatory when

and to the extent that it ceases to be flesh. T h e body , like the world

in which it is situated, is but a p o o r vehicle for, and certainly not

the object of, divine revelation. T h e incarnation, in other words ,

reveals a pre-existing truth, but it in n o way realizes truth as such. 3 2

Gregory o f Nyssa struggled with many o f these same issues, and

over the course o f his career he m o v e d away from the dualism o f

mind and b o d y (evident in his early works) in the direction o f a

more unitive understanding o f the human person as an inter-depen

dent conjunction o f the two. This was not unrelated to corollary

adjustments in his theology and cosmology. Perhaps one indication

o f Gregory 's desire to distance himself from the legacy o f Or igen is

the fact that in his homilies on Ecclesiastes he never explicitly con

strues this work in the context o f Origen's dematerializing three-

stage ascent. A n d when he ponders the reduplication o f the phrase

"vanity o f vanities," he contrasts it with "work o f works" (Num 4:47)

and "holy o f holies" (Exod 26 :33-34) , but not with the more obvi

ous "Song o f Songs" (horn. 1, pp . 3 5 - 3 6 ) . 3 3

If Or igen was quick to dismiss the theological potential o f matter

and the physical world, along with the worth o f those w h o m he stig-

3 1 Origen's theology, cosmology, and anthropology were condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553; cf. J. Meyerdorff, "The Origenist Crisis o f the Sixth Century" in his Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (New York, 1975), 47-68 . 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 of "Hellenic myths," Justinian, Liber adversus Origenem ( A C O III [Berlin, 1940], 189-90).

3 2 O n which see M . Harl, Origene et la fonction revelatrice du verbe income (Paris, 1958). 3 3 This is all the more intriguing in light of Basil, In principium Proverbiorum: "We

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 of nature (physiologia), and reveals to us the vanity o f this world, so that we do not imagine that transient things are worthy o f our attention, or that vain things are worthy of the soul's concern. The Song o f Songs indicates the manner o f the perfection of the soul, for it describes the union of the bride and groom, i.e., the intimacy of the soul with G o d the Word" (= horn. 12, PG 31.388AB).


matized as earthly and carnal, Gregory was much more cautious.

Gregory's critique o f the literal reading o f Eccl 3:5, mentioned above,

is based not on a philosophical dualism between the letter and the

spirit, but on a system o f ethics and theodicy. Speculative meta

physics yields to right practice and action. Gregory o f course acknowl

edged that, with respect to G o d , the realm o f matter and sense

perception when taken only at face value was ephemeral and mislead

ing. However , the created order for Gregory was nevertheless the

irreducible med ium o f contemplative reflection, a dynamic place o f

encounter between the created soul and the uncreated G o d . 3 4 Gregory's

course in "Christian physics" taught an "art and a method, so to

speak, o f successful living" (hom. 6, p . 98). T h e aim o f which was

to "raise the mind above sensation, to persuade it to abandon all

that seems great and splendid in the world o f existence, and to catch

a glimpse through the eyes o f the soul o f those things which are

unattainable through sense percept ion" (hom. 1, p . 34 ) . 3 5 Without

such training, the sensible world threatened to b e c o m e a closed sys

tem, an empty signifier, leading the mind to confusion and igno

rance. For Gregory, the human spirit must be liberated, not from

the physical b o d y or from the material world, but from the irra

tional domination o f the senses and the limitation o f human mean

ing and desire to finite objects. "Let no one suppose," he affirmed,

"that the words 'vanity o f vanities' are an indictment o f creation"

(hom. 1, p . 36).

3 4 Cf. Evagrius, scholion 1 on Prov 1.1: "A 'proverb' is a saying which through sensible things signifies intelligible things" (Gehin, SC 340, 90); and id., scholion 270 on Prov 24.13: "The one who 'eats honey' is the one who profits from the reading of the sacred scriptures. But the one who discerns the intelligible principles of being from things themselves, from which the apostles and the prophets likewise discerned them, 'eats the honey-comb.' Anyone who wishes may eat honey, but to eat the honey-comb is only for the pure" (ibid., 364).

3 5 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 of mysticism not at all disengaged from a critique of societal oppression and injustice; cf. M . Bergada, "La condemnation de l'esclavage dans Homelie IV" in Hall, Gregory of Nyssa, 185—96.

I N D E X O F M O D E R N A U T H O R S

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., 54-56 , 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., 24In 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 Goodenough, E.R., 128n Goodman, M. , 5n, 139n Goud, 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, 23-24, 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, 25In 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., 25In 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 263

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, 25In 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 Moore , W. , 244n Morris, J., 139n Morrish, G., 42n Morse, R., 178n Mulder, M.J., 58n, 117n Murphy, R., 247n Murphy-O'Connor, 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., 2In Osborn, E.F., 32n, 225n, 226n

Papoutsakis, G., 24In Pelletier, A. , 18n, 22n, 167n Pervo, R., 68n

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., 25In 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 Thompson, D. , 74n Thompson, M. , 4n Toher, M. , 169n Tov, E., 19n, 20n, 2In, 23n, 25-28 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 Van 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

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S

Alexandria, 18, 75, 94, 107, 131, 139, 140, 154, 174, 207-215, 218, 219, 241; anti-Jewish riots in, 213

Ammon, 186, 187 Ammonites, 4, 186 apocalyptic ideas, 93-107; in the

Wisdom of Solomon, 95-106 Argonauts, 90 Arianism, 212, 243 Ashdodites, 4 Assyrians, 195n, 242

Babylon, 1, 68, 174, 186-190 Babylonian, chronological tradition,

174n; destruction of first temple, 175; exile, 1; temple of Bel, 71, 72

Babylonians, 69, 171, 173, 189 bilinguals, 13, 15, 29, 30 Bodmer Codex, 204

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,

244-246; Egyptian, 205, 207-222, 224; Coptic, 214

chronography source, 171—173, 195, 196

Church Fathers, 22, 32, 213 circumcision, 5,7, 82, 84-86 Coele-syria, 186, 187 Coptos, 203, 205; Codex, 203-206,

211, 222 creation, 46, 102, 103, 110-113, 238,

239, 254, 257; eternal, 111-113; of Wisdom, 47, 48; vanity of, 255

daimon, 133, 134 Dat, 42, 43 Dead Sea Scrolls, 98, 101 Death, personified, 101 Decalogue, 50-52 , 56, 117, 141 Demiurge, 80 Devil, 101 Dikaiosyne, 43-44 , 60, 148

Diaspora, 9, 14, 93, 94, 105, 106 dogma, 40 -44 , 54, 60, 150; as articles

o f faith, 40, 43; as rules, 40 -43 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

Forms, 111, 122, 123 Fortune, 129

genealogies, 68, 69 God , Hebrew terms for, 33; as source

o f evil, 74—77; resting on Sabbath, 78-81; 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, 85-90; 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

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

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, 242-244, 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 , 49-54 , 57, 60, 114,

122-124, 126, 128, 130, 134, 148, 153-155; as God, 219; as Torah, 53, 54; in classical Greek sources, 50; in the Septuagint, 50, 51; in Philo, 51-54

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 Moab , 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

New 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, 36-40 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, 247-250, 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 Rome, 107, 129, 161-163, 173, 174,

180, 181, 208

Sabellianism, 243 Sabbath, 73, 78-81, 119, 120 Sadducees, proto-, 97

INDEX OF SUBJECTS 267

Samaritans, p r o t o , 4 Seder Olam, 183-190, 198-200 Septuagint (see also Torah, trans, of ) ,

15-30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 42, 44, 48, 50, 54, 73, 74, 79, 83-87, 89, 90, 125, 131, 146, 224; private emendation of, 19, 20, 27, 28

Sicarii, 6 Slavonic Enoch, 46n Sophia (see also hokhma, Wisdom),

44 -51 , 55, 57-60 , 111, 114, 148 Stoa, Middle, 114, 124; Roman, 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

Torah (see also Law), 1, 14, 20, 35, 42, 48, 51, 53, 59, 60, 105, 116, 130, 184; as Wisdom, 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

Wisdom (see also hokhma, Sophia) 46-51 , 57-60 , 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

I N D E X O F P E R S O N S

Aaron, 242 Abdon, 193, 195n, 197 Abel, 143, 215 Abigail, 177 Abimelech, 197 Abraham, 67-69 , 75, 84-86 , 90, 118,

143, 181n, 198n, 233, 235, 249 Achilles, 89 Adam, 141, 183 Aeschylus, 66, 67, 73, 74, 76 Agatharcides of 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 c Amr ibn al- cAs, 214 Antiochenes, 9 Antiochus IV, 7, lOn Antoninus, 192n Apion, 170 Apollonius o f Rhodes, 67, 85-89 Appolodorus, 174n Apuleius, 178n Aratus, 73 Aristeas, 164n Aristobulus, 65n, 72, 73, 78-81,

164n, 248 Aristode, 34, 41, 54, 57, 73, 79,

137 Arius, 212, 243 Artapanus, 65n, 68 Athanasius, 212, 213 Adas, 68 Atticus, 111 Augustine, 178n, 226

Baal, 101 Balaam, 118 Barak, 197 Baruch, 186 Basil o f Caesarea, 242, 243, 255 Basilides, 212

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, 85-87, 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

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, 214-218, 221 Dinah, 66, 83, 84, 88, 90 Dio 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 269

Eupolemus, 65n, 69, 70 Euergetes, 47n Euripides, 66-68 , 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

Gaon of Vilna, 45 Gideon, 197 Gregory Nazianzus, 243n, 252 Gregory o f Nyssa, 243, 245, 250-259 Gregory the Wonderworker, 249n,

252, 253

Hagar, 216, 217, 232 Haggai, 1 Ham, 207, 221 Hamor, 67, 83, 87-90 Hecataeus of Abdera, 70, 74 Heraclitus, 128, 134 Hermes, 17n Herod, 231 Herodotus, 8n, 9, 67, 129, 163, 175n Hesiod, 66, 76-78, Hiram of Tyre, 69, 70 Homer, 9, 72-74, 76, 77, 78, 84-89 ,

163, 244, 248n Hippolytus of R o m e , 247n

Ibzan, 197 Isaac, 38, 184, 198n, 249 Isidore o f Pelusium, 208, 213, 218-221

Jacob, 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,

37, 43, 132, 145, 146, 152, 155, 159-197, 218-220, 231

Joshua, 191, 194-197 Judah b. Ilai, Rabbi, 17n, 22n Judah the Patriarch, Rabbi, 131, 184 Justinian, 258n Justus of Tiberias, 65n

Kronos, 68

Laban, 184, 198n Leah, 234 Levi, 67, 87-90 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 of Damascus, 168 Noah, 119, 131, 207, 216 Nonnus, 86

Odysseus, 85, 89, 90 Oribasius, 86n Origen o f Alexandria, 20, 59, 211,

212, 215, 224-237, 239, 245-254, 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,

31-35, 38 -41 , 44 -46 , 5 0 - 6 1 , 77, 81, 82n, 99, 103-106, 109-130, 132, 139, 145, 163, 164, 203, 224-239; 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, 98-100, 134, 135, 166n, 219, 244, 248n

Plutarch, 111 Polybius, 129, 130, 168 Potiphar, 18 In Proclus, 111 Procopius of Gaza, 213, 252 Psammetichus, 14n Pseudo-Aristeas, 65n Pseudo-Aristotle, 72, 73 Pseudo-Eupolemus, 65n, 68, 69 Pseudo-Hecataeus, 65n, 70-72 Pseudo-Orpheus, 67, 73-75 Ptolemy I Soter, 26, 71 Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 20, 26, 27,

29, 35 Pythagoras, 73

Rachel, 198n, 234 Rehoboam, 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, 87-90 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, 245-247, 249n, 252n, 253

Solon, 136 Sophocles, 66, 133, 135 Souron o f Tyre, 69, 70

Tatian, 248n Thallus, 65n Theocritus, 86 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 247 Theodotus, 65n, 66, 82-90 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 Zeno, 248 Zeus, 69, 75-77 Zimri, 7

I N D E X O F BIBLE

Genesis 1-3 141 1:1 21n 1:26 21n, 152 2:2 21n, 80 2:2-3 79, 81, 82n 2:4 82n, 113 3:21 235 4:1-2 215 4:2 [ L X X ] 216 4: 8 143 4:18 [ L X X ] 216 5:2 21n 5:3-5 [ L X X ] 216 9:6 219 9:20 [ L X X ] 216 9:27 131 11:7 21n 12:1-4 249 14:20 33 15:17 235 16 216 16:4-5 232 17 86 17:9-14 84-86 17:11 [ L X X ] 85 18:12 21n 19:4 [ L X X ] 84n 19:32-35 [ L X X ] 84n 21:30 52 26:10 [ L X X ] 84n 26:12 249 26:18 52 27:20 [ L X X ] 38 28:10 249 28:17 249 29 234 30:15-16 [ L X X ] 84n 31 234 31:50 [ L X X ] 84n 32:2 249 33:19 83n 34 66, 82 34:2-4 [ L X X ] 83 34:25-31 87 40:20 231 49:6 21n

Exodus 3:14 [ L X X ] 156 4:10 123 4:11 76n 4:20 21n 7:7 192n 12:40 21n 15:2 152n 15:16 49 16:5 119 16:23 79n 19:13 256 20:1 [ L X X ] 50 20:11 79, 80 23:12 79n 24:5 21n 24:11 21n 26 230 26:33-34 258 31:15 79n 33:7 144 34:28 [ L X X ] 50 35:1 [ L X X ] 50 35:2 79n 35:10 46n 35:25 46n 36:1-2 46n

Leviticus 229 7:9 235 8: 36 [ L X X ] 51 11:3 234 11:4 234 11:6 20, 2In. 20:2 256 26:40 104

Numbers 229 4:47 258 11:17 [ L X X ] 124n 11:31-34 54 16:15 21n 25:1-15 7 31:49-50 [ L X X ] 233

272 INDEX OF BIBLE

Deuteronomy 1:18 [ L X X ] 51 4:19 21n 5:16 148 5:33 148 6:3 148 9:10 [ L X X ] 50 10:4 [ L X X ] 50 11:10 49n 12:28 [ L X X ] 51 13:5 152n 14:7 21n, 26 16:16 [ L X X ] 53 17:3 21n 19:14 39, 52 21:14 [ L X X ] 84n 26:17 143 30:11-14 142 30:20 149 31:12 [ L X X ] 51 32:9 47 32:33 8 32:39 76 32:46 [ L X X ] 51 33 102 33:1 47n 33:4 48

Judges 5 102 10:1-2 193 12:13 193

1 Samuel 13:1 194n

1 Kings 69 3:16-28 253 4:33 249n 5 69 6:1 191n 18:18 7

2 Kings 13:12 [ L X X ] 84n 13: 14 [ L X X ] 84n 24:14 188 24:16 188, 189

Isaiah 6:10 219 25:7 97 45:7 76n 52-53 96 53 96, 98

52:13-53:12 95 56-66 102 59 102 59:15-20 102 64:1 102

Jeremiah 22:19 188, 189 37:5 189 37:5-7 190 52:28 188, 189 52:30 186, 187

Ezekiel 20:26 [ L X X ] 42n 22:10-11 [ L X X ] 84n 29 187 29:19 186

Hosea 7:6 235

Amos 3:6 76n

Zechariah 1-9 1

Psalms 76:6 256n 77 102 77:16-20 102 78:35 33 111:10 46n 133:2 242 142:5 256n

Proverbs 245, 246, 249-251

1:1 259n 1:2 254n 3:19 46, 49n 9:10 46n 8 46n 8:22 49, 59 8:22-3 49n 8:22ff. 46 22:28 39n 24:13 259n 24:27 252n

Job 2:10 76n 5:17-18 76n 9:17 76n

INDEX OF BIBLE 273

10:8 76n Daniel 5, 42, 93, 12:13-25 76n 99, 101 13:26 76n 1:2 188 28:28 46n 2:13 [ L X X ] 42n

3:10 [ L X X ] 42n Song of Songs 245, 246 3:12 [ L X X ] 42n 2:7 251 3:29 [ L X X ] 42n

4:3 [ L X X ] 42n Lamentations 6:8 [ L X X ] 42n 2:9 50n 6:9 [ L X X ] 42n

6:10 [ L X X ] 42n Ecclesiastes 245, 246, 6:12 [ L X X ] 42n

249-259 6:13 [ L X X ] 42n 1:1-3:13 252 6:15 [ L X X ] 42n 1:2 250, 251, 6:26 [ L X X ] 42n

256, 257 7-8 1 1:8 255 7-12 100 1:11 256n, 25 7n 11-12 96 1:14 255 11:33 96 2:7-8 259n 2:14 251 Ezra 3:1 248n 9:2 6 3:5 256, 259 10:8 258 Nehemiah 12:8 250, 257 10:3 187n

13:8-9 6 Esther 42 1:8 42 2 Chronicles 4:8 [ L X X ] 42n 2 69 9:1 [ L X X ] 42n 36:6 188

A P O C R Y P H A

Wisdom of Solomon 110, 163n 6:18 115 1:1-6:21 95 6:22-9:18 94 1:13 97-98 7:22-24 114 1:14 98 7:25 46n, 114 1:16-2:24 95 7:25-26 94, 111 2:2 97 7:27 95, 127 2:12-20 96, 97 7:29-30 111 2:22 97 8:1 94n 2:24 101 8:3 114 3:4 99 8:19-20 99 5 95, 96, 100, 8:20 99

102 8:21 99 5:1-7 97 9:1-2 49 5:1-23 95 9:9 49 5:5 96 9:10 114 5:13 100 9:15 99 5:15 99 9:17 116 5:16 102 10-19 95 5:17-23 101 10 116 5:20 102 10:1-21 127 6:17 48 11-19 100

274 INDEX OF BIBLE

11:17 HOn 24:9-11 47, 48 16-19 103 24:23 48, 59 16:24 103 36 106 18:4 116 39:27 106 18:9 115 18:15 103 1 Maccabees 5, 168, 19:6 103 1:14-15 7 19:18 103 1:41-62 10

2:23-26 7 Ben Sira (Sirach) 18, 47 2:26 7 1:1 47 2:46 7 1:4 47, 111 2:47 7 1:8 47 2:48 7 1:9 47 2:54 7 1:10 47 2:58 7 1:26 47 4:50 242 19:17-24 48n 24 106 2 Maccabees 5, 35 24:1 47 4:9 9 24:3 47 4:12-15 7 24:7 47 4:16 7 24:8 47 6-7 10 24:9 111 6:23 35

N E W T E S T A M E N T

Matthew 205 1 Corinthians 6:10 252 1:24 248 12:42 245 3:9 251n 13:15 219 15:28 256n 13:38 251, 252n 7:31 251 15:1-6 37 15:3-5 37n 15:2 36

Galatians Mark 1:14 37n 7:3 36, 37 4:24 216

Luke 205 Ephesians 2:1 43 2:15 43n

4:17 251 John 6:55 255n Colossians

1:15 59 Acts 2:14 ff. 43n 8:21 194 16:4 43 1 Timothy 17:7 43 1:11 150n

6:15 150n Romans 3:21 44 Hebrews 9:4 35n 11:9 249

INDEX OF BIBLE 275

James Revelation 103, 104 4:12 35n 19 103

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) 7, 8 1.16 39, 52 3.15-16 52 5.20 39, 52 6.2-10 52 8.3-2 l b 7

1QH Thanksgiving Hymns 11:21-22 96 19:10-11 96

1QM War Scroll 14:9 98n

1QS Community Rule 1:23-24 98n 2:19 98n 11:3 98n

4Q Sapiential Text A 415-18 98n

O L D T E S T A M E N T PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

Aristobulus 231 77n Frg. 5 78, 79 309-310 35n

309 18 3 Baruch 93 310 24

310-311 15-16, 1 Enoch 93, 102 312-313 35n 37-71 96 42 105 Pseudo-Aristeas 62 96 161 116n 104:2-6 96

3 Macabees 163n 2 Enoch 93

4 Maccabees 145, 163n Joseph and Aseneth 1:16-17 116n 16:7 144 4:10 85n

5:25-26 116n Jubilees 5 5:35 35 3:31 5 17:16 35 6:35-36 5 15:33-34 5 Sibylline Oracles

(Sib. Or.) 93, 152 Letter of Aristeas (Let. 2.179 144

Aris.; Aristeas, Ep. Arist) 15, 18, 20, 3.1 144 Aris.; Aristeas, Ep. Arist) 29, 163n, 3.1-12 152 168, 169 3.371 144

11 6n 3.770 144 30 35n 4 93 45 35n 4.192 144 153-157 234 5 93, 107 205 77 5.71 144

276 INDEX OF BIBLE

5.107 144 Testament of the Twelve 5.158-61 107 Patriarchs 5.249 144 35.4 144n 5.414 144 41.4 144n 5.527-31 107

Testament of Joseph 17 Testament of Job 35:4 144fn Testament of Levi (T. Levi) 41:4 144fn 6:4 88

PHILO

De Abrahamo (Abr.) O n the Life o f Abraham 237

6 126n 47 53n 58 141 71 53n, 236 206 53n

De aeternitate mundi (Aet.) On the Eternity of the World

5 111 108-109 128n

De agricultura (Agr.) O n Agriculture 216, 237

1-7 216n 64 232 13 Iff. 234

De cherubim (Cher.) On the Cherubim 237

86 150 87-90 82n 90 113n 109-112 128n

De confusione linguarum (Conf.) O n the Confusion of 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 53n 130 124n 151 232 154 232

De decalogo (Decal.) On 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 206n, 237

20.82 249n 95 53n 100 144 116 233 218 38 143 53n 208 231, 232 224 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 277

De gigantil ws (Gig.) On Giants De plantations (Plant.) O n Planting 237 9-10 128n

27 114n, 124n 18 124n 31 123 24 123n

28 236 De Iosepho (Ios., Jos.) O n Joseph 52 57-8 131-132 129n 94 53n 144 129n

De posteritate Caini (Post., Post C, Pos De migratione Abrahami (Mig., Migr., Mig. Caini) O n the Posterity o f Cain

Abr.) The Migration of Abraham 206n, 237 237 18 82n

16 82n 23 77n 17 53n 58 236 18 232 59 115n 47-49 121 89 39, 52 47-52 121n 135 234 76 123n 153 53n 77 232 155 232 80 123 185 144n 85 53n 90 53n De praemiis i °A poenis (Praem.) 151 232 O n Rewards and Punishments 220 236 104

2 117n De mutatione nominum (Mut.) 30 143

On the Change of Names 54 123n 237 55 126

39 77n 81 143 46 83n 94 105 65 235 95 105 132 234 162 104, 105 174 232 163 124n 215 53n 163-172 130 223 124n 164 105 255 234

De providentia (Prov.) O n Providence De opificio mundi (Opif) On the Creation 2.53 77n De opificio

146, 237 1-3 126n De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (Sacr.) 3 116n, 155n O n the Sacrifices of Abel and C 8 150n 203, 206n, 24 77n, 233 216, 237 43 82n 17 77n 82 236 50-51 216n 146 124n 55 53n 150-156 141 59 113n 153-169 55 72 53n 157-158 55 78 121n 172 141

De sobrietate (Sobr.) On Sobriety De pietate O n Piety 206n, 222n 237

278 INDEX OF BIBLE

De somniis (Somn.] ) O n Dreams 183-185 142, 144n 237 217 124n

1.53 53n 1.81 53n De vita contemplativa (Contempt, Vita) 1.119 124n On the Contemplative Life 1.141 53n 208, 237 1.191 53n 29 59n 1.206 53n 90 61n, 139 1.226 53n 1.229 53n De vita Mosis (Mos) On the Life of 1.245 53n Moses 237 1.256 144n 1.4 125 2.23 53n 1.31 129n 2.64 53n 1.41 129n 2.109 232 1.206-7 82n 2.272 53n 1.274-91 118n

2.4 125n De specialibus legil ms (Spec., Spec. 2.11 125n Leg.) O n the Special Laws 2.37 22n

237 2.37-40 16 1.214-215 53 2.40 24n, 125 1.215 53n 2.41-42 17 1.266 112n 2.44 140n 1.345 142 2.47-51 126n 2.23 53n 2.52 116n 2.59 82n 2.69 124n 2. 61-63 56 2.88 230 2.80 53n 2.127 236 2.256 38n 2.135 236 3 56 2.187 120 3.1 123 2.189-91 117 3.7 117n 2.190 120 3.125 38n 2.212 54n 3.178 113n 2.265 119n 4.35 77n 2.266-7 103 4.105 125 2.270 119n 4. 106f. 234 4:126-131 54 Legatio ad Gaium (Legat.) 4.130 53 On the Embassy to Gaius 4 .140- 141 38n 5 150 4.149-150 38, 41 4:149 39, 40 Legum allegoriae (Leg., Leg. all, Leg. 4:150 39 alleg.) Allegorical Interpretation 4.187 113 237 4.218 38n 1.5-7 81 4.237 128 1.20 113

1.37-38 114n De virtutibus (Virt.) O n the Virtues 1.76 53n

206n, 222n, 2.105 53n 237 3.11 53

15 38n 3.34 77n 51 125 3.36 53n 119 140 3.69 235, 236 141 38n 3.110 53n

INDEX OF BIBLE 279

3.118 53n 3.161 124n 3.162 53n 3.205ff. 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 Genesis 237

1.1 113 1.4 233 1.53 236 1.100 77n 2.41 82n 2.63 103 3.15 235 3.43 235 4.43 129n

Quis rerum divinarum heres sit (Her.) W h o Is the Heir? 203, 237

35 82n 51 234 95 53n 155 236 160 112 167-8 52 185 53n 207 53n 234-36 128n

J O

Antiquitates judaicae (A.J., Ant.) Jewish Antiquities 20n, 159,

162, 166, 169n, 173, 176, 177, 179, 180, 182

1.9-12 19n 1.14 145 1.19-20 145 1.21-24 155n 1.23 146 1.24 116n 1.161 181n 2.39 181n 2.286 181n

246 104 259 53n 260-61 119n 261 120 264-66 118n 311 235 316 232

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

3. 183 231 5-7 193 5.117 195n 5.117-184 196 5.180 195n 5.276ff. 177 6.84 195n, 196 6.93 35n 6.378 194 7.68 191, 193, 194 8.61 191 8.211 192n 9.180 192 10.51 37n 10.97ff. 188 10.108ff 189

JOSEPHUS

280 INDEX OF BIBLE

10.143 194 Contra Apion (C. Ap.) Against Apion 10.147 191, 194n (Ag. Ap) 14n, 19n, 10.181ff. 186

(Ag. Ap) 30n, 163-167,

10.185 194n 169-174, 179 10.210 30n 1.7 166n 11.112 194n 1.66 163 12.36 35 1.42 43 12.100 168 1.94ff. 170 12.108-109 18 1.103 170 12.110 35 1.134 175n 13.297 37 1.145 171 15.136 43 1.155ff. 170 19 168 1.230 170 20.230 191 2.19 191 20.232 194n 2.155 163 20.262-263 28n 2.168 248n 20. 263 9n, 30n, 161 2.168-2.257 166n 20.263-5 159 2.170 35 20.264 14n 2.204 20n

2.220-2.275 163 Bellum Judaicum (B.J.; War) 2.257 248n

Jewish War 14n, 182 5. 212 231 Vita The Life 6.437 192 13-16 159n 7.254-257 6 7.258 6

E A R L Y C H R I S T I A N W R I T I N G S

Augustine Civitas Dei The City of God 18.18 178n

Confessions 3.1

Barnabas 10.11

235

235

Basil of Caesarea Ad Adulescentes ("To Young Men,

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

243n 243n

In principium Proverbiorum 258n

On the Holy Spirit 77 243

Clement Paedagogus (Paed.) Christ the Educator 3.76 235

Stromateis (Strom.) 1.21. 111.4-112.4 194n 1.21.147.2 192 1. 30.4 232 1.176. 1(2) 248n 1.342 248n 2. 47.1 232 2.88.2 232 3.95.2 236 5. 32. 3 231 5.51.4-5 235 5.595 248 6.5 242n 6.632 248n 7.40.2 232 7.109.2ff. 235

INDEX OF BIBLE 281

Didymus the Blind In Genesim (In Gen)

On Genesis 215 118.24-119.5 215 119.15-23 215 139.10-14 216 147.15-18 216 235.25-31 216 236.7-11 216

Commentarii in Ecclesiasten (Comm. in Eccl.) 217

275-276 217n 345 218n

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

Gregory of Nyssa Catechetical Oration §3 §5

Commentary on the Song of Songs

§4

On the Inscriptions of the Psalms

Sermons on Ecclesiastes (Hom.)

1

243, 244 244 244

251 251

251

252 253-255, 257n, 258, 259 254, 255 259n 255 248n, 255n, 259 256 255n

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 on Prov. 1:1 259n 1 on Prov 1:2 254n 270 on Prov. 24:13 259 291 on Prov. 24:27 252n 1 on Eccl 1:1 254n 3 on Eccl 1:11 256 38 on Eccl 5:7-8 252n

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.) 1.5.5 236 5.8.3 235

Isadore of Pelusium Epistles (Ep.) 2.143 219n 2.270 219n 3.19 220n 3.81 219n

Gregory Nazianzus Oratio in laudem Basili (Or.) 2.37

20.6 29.2

243n, 244n 243n 244n

Jerome Adversus Rufinum 1.13

De viris illustribus (De vir.) On Illustrious Men

8, 11

212n

210n, 214 209

282 INDEX OF BIBLE

109 113

Justin Martyr 1 Apology 44

Justinian Liber Adversus Origenem

214n 210n

248n

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.) Ketubbot (b.Ketub.) 4:42 17n 72a 42n

Sotah (t. Sot.) Sotah 15:8 14n 14a 152n

Talmud, Babylonian 123 Bava Kama (b.B.K.) Shabbat 83a 14n 133b 152n

Sanhedrin (b. Sanh.) Pesahimfb. Pesah) 17a 14n 96a 42n

Avodah ara Sukkah 2b 47n 56b 42n

Niddah Megillah (b. Meg.) 46b 184n 9a 2In, 22n,

23n Talmud, Jerusalem 123 12a 42 Megillah (y. Meg.) 14b-15a 198n l , l l , 71d 21n

M I D R A S H I C C O M P O S I T I O N S

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

Bahodesh

49

121n, 122n

Midrash Tanhuma Genesis 1:1

Numbers 7:1

Yitro 96

Seder Olam

25 26

Sifrei Deuteronomy 70 343

49n

49n

122n

159n, 179n, 183-190, 198-200 188 186, 189

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

Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica (Arg.) 4.82, 1013

76n

150n

87 89n

Democritus Frg. 34

Diodorus 31.10

Dioscorides (Medicus) 4.153

236

129n

Diogenes Laertius 10.135 137

86n

Apuleius The Golden Ass 178n

Epictetus 3.10.2 HOn

Aratus Phaenomena 73

Aristotle Nichomachean Ethics 1.9-10, 1100a5ff. 136n 1.10, 1100b4 129n 1.10, 1101al4-21 138n

Fragments (Fragm.) I 54n

Physica (Phys.) 218a25 113n 252b 236

Poetics (Poet.)

1450a17 134n

Politics

II 1269a8 41

Cicero De divinatione (Div.) 1.110 115n 2.129 122n De natura deorum (Nat. D.) 2.79 115n De officiis (De Off.) II 2, 5 58n

Corpus Hermeticum 12.1 114n 16.1 17n

Euripides Bacchae Electra (El.) 1288-1291 Frg. 839

Galen De usu partium 3.10

Herodotus (Hdt) Histories 1.32 1.207 2.18 2.41 2.154

134 82n

236

136n 129n 8n 8n 14n

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.) 89 22.342-43 89n 2.419-20 76n 22.365-366 89n 2.875 84n 22.472 88n 3.444 84n 3.446 84n Libanius 3.371 88n Epistles 5.146 89n 215 14n 5.579 89n 5.892 88n Marcus Aurelius 8.325 89n Meditations 8.365 85n 8.57 114n 10.15 88n 11.92 88n Menander 11.217 88n Epitrepontes (Epitr.) 11.738 84n 1085-86 76n 13.202 88n 14.175 88n Mimnermus 14.401 88n Frg. 2.15 76n 14.412 88n 15.109 76n Philo of Byblos 15.412 46n F 2.10.8 17n 15.726 88n 16.182 84n Philo the Epic Poet 16.208 84n On Jerusalem 67 16.250-52 76n 16.258 88n Photius 16.340 89n Bibliotheca (Bibl.) 17.548 85n 103 209n 18.177 88n 20.223 84n Pindar 21.64-135 89n Isthmionikai (Isthm.) Isthmian Odes 21.65 89n 5.52 76n 21.116-18 89n P. 21.117 89n 4.110 85n 21.199 85n 22.324 89n Plato 23.141 88n Laws 24.357 89n 644d 41, 42 24.525-33 76n IV 713 100

IV 723c 2-3 50 Odyssey (Od.) 89 2.85 88n Republic 98-100 3.104 88n 361 98 4.236-37 76n 379a-e 77n 8.62-63 76n 379c 77n 8.494 85 379e 77n 11.18 85n 538c 41 12.381 85n 608 98 12.412 88n 614 99 15.488 89 76n 617e 99 20.19 88n 20.199-203 76n Symposium 22.339 89n 202d-203a 133n

286 INDEX OF BIBLE

Theaetetus (Theaet.) Epinomus (Epin) 176b1-2 135, 151n 978a

Timaeus (Tim.) 80, 111, 134 R u f u S 22b-c 166n Onom. 29e-30a 77n 102 41a 104 42e5-6 80 Seneca 52b 112 De Ira 90a-c 135 3.36.1-4

Plutarch Epistulae morales (Ep.) Epistles Moralia (Mor.) 41.1-2 24B 76n 41.4-5 103f. 129n 120.14 105C 76n 600D 76n Sextus Empiricus 1040B-C 77n Adversus mathematicos (Math.) 1048E-F 77n 9.178-79 1049A-B 77n 1049D-E 77n Sophocles 1050C-D 77n Antigone (Ant)

583-585 Polybius 1.4.4 129 Tatian 1.63.9 129 Oratio ad Graecos 15.20.5-8 129 31 29.21 129n 29.27.11-12 129 Theodotus

Fragment 8 Proclus On Plato's Timaeus (In Plat. Tim.) Theophilus 290.25 11 In. Ad Autolycum

3:16 Pseudo-Aristotle De Mundo 73 Theognis

Elegies Pseudo-Hecataeus 133 On the Jews 70 155-58 On the Jews

165-66 Pseudo-Orpheus 171-72 14 74n, 75 230-32 16 74n, 75 463-64 24 75 591-92

Pseudo-Plato Xenophon Definitiones Memorabilia (Mem.) 412a 9-10 54n 4.2.33 415b-c 54n 415b 7 50

kugel - shem in the tents of japhet, essays on the encounter of judaism and hellenism (supplements...

Documents

o f s o

o n e o f t h e

n s t o n

e i d e n b o s t o

w e r e

c o h e n hellenism

g r e e

w i s d o