What’sinaName?ThePlaceofPhilo’sDemutationenominum

intheAllegoricalCommentary(Draftonly;notforcitation)

GregoryE.SterlingYaleDivinitySchool

TheefforttounderstandthestructureofPhilo’sbiblicalcommentariesgoesbackto

antiquity.Asayoungman,EusebiusofCaesareahelpedthepriestPamphilusorganizethe

libraryatCaesarea.1OneofthetaskswastocataloguethetreatisesofPhilothatOrigenhad

broughtfromAlexandria.InhislistofPhilo’streatises,2Eusebiussuggestedthattheyfellinto

threemajorgroups:therewerefifteendifferenttreatisesinatleasttwenty-threescrollson

Genesis,3sixdifferenttreatises–althoughonlyfourinreality–inelevenscrollsonExodus,4and

ninesingle-scrollworks.5ThebishoprecognizedtheseparatenatureoftheQuestionsand

1OnthelibraryseeAndrewCarriker,TheLibraryofEusebiusofCaesarea,VCSup67

(Leiden/Boston:Brill,2003),esp.2-12;andAnthonyGraftonandMeganWilliams,ChristianityandtheTransformationoftheBook:OrigenEusebius,andtheLibraryofCaesarea(Cambridge:Belknap,2006).

2Eusebius,Hist.eccl.2.18.1-8.3Philo,Leg.(unspecifiedplural=multiplescrolls),QG,Agr.1-2(=Agr.andPlant.),Ebr.1-2

(onelost),Sobr.,Conf.,Fug.,Congr.,Her.,Virt.,Mut.,Test.1-2(=lost),Migr.,Gig./Deus,andSomn.1-5

4Philo,QE1-5,Onthetabernacle(=QE2),Decal.,Spec.1-4,Onanimalsforsacrifice(=Spec.1.162-256),andPraem.

5Philo,Prov.,Hypoth.,Ios.,Anim.,Improb.(=lost),Prob.,Contempl.,Nom.(=spurious),Virt.(=Flacc.,Legat.andthreeotherlosttreatisesandnotthepreservedVirt.)

2

AnswersonGenesisandExodus,butdidnotdistinguishbetweentheAllegoricalCommentary

andtheExpositionoftheLawandcertainlynotanysubdivisionswithinthem.6

ThenexteffortthatweknowabouttookplacewhensixthcenturyArmenianChristians

inConstantinopleelectedtotranslatePhilo’sworkssothatArmenianstudentscouldfollow

theirGreekinstructorsexplanationsofPhilo’scomplexGreektexts.7TheHellenizingSchool–as

ithascometobeknown–didnotattempttopreserveallofPhilo,butthepartsthattheGreek

teachersused.8Theyarrangedhisworksintomajorblocks.Forexample,accordingtoGrigor

Abasean’sTheBookofCauses,9thereweresevenblocksofmaterial:providence,10creation,11

allegory,12thelivesofthepatriarchs,13theappearanceatMamre,14theExodus,15and

6OnEusebius’sknowledgeofPhilo’slibraryandtheimportanceofthisevidencesee

DavidT.Runia,PhiloinEarlyChristianLiterature:aSurvey,CRINT3.3(Assen:VanGorcum;Minneapolis:Fortress,1993),16-31andSabrinaInowlocki,EusebiusandtheJewishAuthors:HisCitationTechniqueinanApologeticContext,AJEC64(Leiden/Boston:Brill,2006).

7OntheArmeniancorpusofPhiloseeFolkerSiegert,“DerarmenischePhilon,”ZKG100(1989):353-369andAnnaSirinian,“’ArmenianPhilo:ASurveyoftheLiterature,”inStudiesontheAncientArmenianVersionofPhilo’sWorks,ed.SaraM.LombardiandPaolaPontani;SPhA6(Leiden/Boston:Brill,2011),7-44.

8OntheHellenizingSchoolseeAbrahamTerian,“TheHellenizingSchool:ItsTime,PlaceandScopeofitsActivitiesReconsidered,”inEastofByzantium:SuriaandAremniaintheFormativePeriod,ed.NinaG.Garsian,ThomasF.Mathews,andRobertW.Thomson(Washington,D.C.:DumbartonOaks,CenterforByzantineStudies,1982),175-186.

9OnthisworkseeManeaErnaShirinian,“PhiloandtheBookofCausesbyGrigorAbasean,”inStudiesontheAncientArmenianVersionofPhilo’sWorks,155-189.ForasimilarbutslightlydifferentconstructionseeOlgaVardazaryan,“The‘ArmenianPhilo’:ARemnantofanUnknownTradition,”inStudiesontheAncientArmenianVersionofPhilo’sWorks,191-216,esp.199-200,whofollowsascholiast.Thedifferencebetweenthetwoarrangementsisthattheorderofallegoryandthepatriarchsisreversed.

10Philo,Prov.1-2.11Philo,QG1-3.12Philo,Leg.1-2.13Philo,Abr.14Philo,QG4.15Philo,QE1-2;Spec.1.79-81,131-161,285-345;Spec.3.1-7;Decal.;Spec.3.8-63;

Samp.;Ion;Deo.

3

contemplation.16LikeEusebius,themembersoftheHellenizingSchooldidnotrecognizeor

ignoredPhilo’sowndivisionsofhiscommentaries;theirconcernswerequitedifferent.

Thesetwosources,thelibraryatCaesareaandtheArmeniantranslation,arethe

primarysourcesbywhichPhilo’sworkshavecomedowntous.Itwasnotuntilthemodern

periodthatthestructureofPhilo’sworksbecameanimportantquestion.Intheintervening

centuriesIamonlyawareofonemanuscriptthatarrangedPhilo’sworksinanorderthat

approachesourunderstandinganditdifferssignificantly.Laurentianusplut.X,alsoknownas

Mediceus,17anearlythirteenthcenturymanuscript,containstwenty-eighttreatisesincluding

elevenfromtheAllegoricalCommentary18andtenfromtheExpositionoftheLaw19thatare

arrangedindifferentsequencesthanwethinkofthem,includinginsertingAbr.intothe

sequenceoftreatisesintheAllegoricalCommentary.

ThefirsttwomajoreditionsofPhilobegantheprocessofrecognizingtheorderthat

Philohadcreated.TheeditioprincepsofAdrianusTurnebusin155220printedseventeenofthe

16Philo,Contempl.

17IhaveworkedthroughthelistsinHowardL.GoodhartandErwinR.Goodenough,“AGeneralBibliographyofPhiloJudaeus,”inThePoliticsofPhiloJudaeus:PracticeandTheory,byErwinR.Goodenough(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1938),125-321.ForMsee#100(p.149).

18Philo,Leg.1,Leg.2,Sacr.,Cher.(theorderofSacr.andCher.isreversedfromthemodernorder),Agr.,(Det.andPost.aremissing),Deus,Gig.(theorderofDeusandGig.isreversed),Abr.(outofplacefromtheExposition),Migr.,Congr.,Somn.1.,andPlant.(whichbelongsafterAgr.butisoutofplaceasthetwenty-eighthtreatisefromPhilo).

19Philo,Abr.(includedwiththetreatisesfromtheAllegoricalCommentarybutshouldgoafterOpif.),Opif.,Decal.Spec.1,Spec.2,Spec.3,Spec.4,Moses1-3(placeddifferently,buttheplacementisstillargued),Virt.,Ios.(shouldfollowAbr.afterOpif.).

20AdrianusTurnebus,PhilonisIudaeiinlibrosMosis,demundiopificio,historicos,delegibus.Eiusdemlibrisinglares(Paris:AdrianusTurnebus,1552).Turnebusarrangedtheworksasfollows:Opif.,Leg.1,3(=2),Cher.,Sacr.,Det.,Agr.,Plant.,Ebr.,Sobr.,Gig.,Deus,Conf.,Abr.,Migr.,Congr.,Fug.,Her.,Ios.,Somn.1,Mos.,Virt.51-174,Spec.4.136-150,151-237,Virt.1-50,Decal.,Spec.2.1-38,3,1,Prob.,Contempl.,Virt.187-227,Praem.,Exs.,Aet.,Flacc.,andLegat.

4

treatisesintheAllegoricalCommentarybuthassevenmajorvariationsfromthemodern

selectionandsequence.21Inparticular,TurnebusplacedAbr.andIos.inthetreatisesof

belongingtotheAllegoricalCommentary,amovethatsuggeststhathedidnotunderstandthe

distinctionbetweentheAllegoricalCommentaryandtheExpositionoftheLaw.Thomas

MangeycorrectedmostofTurnebus’smistakesinhis1742editionofPhilo.22Infact,helisted

allofthetreatisesintheAllegoricalCommentaryinthesequencethatwenowusewiththe

exceptionofplacingOpif.attheoutsetoftheAllegoricalCommentaryinsteadofattheoutset

oftheExpositionoftheLaw,anarrangementthathasbeenfollowedbyallmajoreditionsand

translationsexceptthemodernHebrewtranslationofPhilo.23Mangeyalsoarrangedthe

ExpositionoftheLawinthebasicsequencethatwenowknowit.Thesearrangementswere

Turnebus’seditionwasupdatedbyDavidHoescheliusandSigmundGelenius(Geneva:PetrusdelaRouiere,1613)andagain(Paris1640).

21TurnebusbeganwithOpif.,omittedPost.,placedGig.andDeusafterSobr.insteadofafterDet.andPost.,introducedAbr.fromtheExpositionoftheLawbeforeMigr.,reversedtheorderofHer.,Fug.,andCongr.,omittedMut.,andinsertedIos.fromtheExpositionoftheLaw.

22ThomasMangey,PhilonisIudaeioperaquaereperiripotueruntonia,TextumcumMSS,contulit,quamplurimaetiamèCodd.Vaticano,Mediceo,&Bodleiano,scriptoribusitemvetustis,necnoncatenisgraecisineditis,adjecit,interpretationemqueemendavit,universanotis&observationibusillustravit,2vols.(London:WilliamBowyer,1742).

23SuzanneDaniyel-Nataf,YehoshuaAmir,andMarenNiehoff,eds.Ketavim/Filonha-Aleksandroni,6vols.(Jerusalem:BialikInstitueandtheIsraelAcademyofSciencesandHumanities,1986-2015).ItisoddthatthishasbeenthecasesinceLouisMassebieau,LeclassementdesoeuvresdePhilon(Paris:E.Loroux,1889),14andLeopoldCohn,“EinleitungundChronologiederSchriftenPhilos,”Philologus,Supplementband7(1899):385-436,esp.392,recognizedthatOpif.belongedtotheExpositionoftheLaw.

5

followedbyC.E.Richterinhis1828-1830edition24andmoreimportantlybyLeopoldCohnand

PaulWendlandintoday’sstandardeditiomajor.25

WhileCohnhadMangeyandRichterasprecedents,heworkedthroughtheevidencefor

thesequenceofthetreatisesandsetouthisconclusionsinafamousessay.26LouisMassebieau

andEmileBréhier,whoeditedMassibeau’sessays,alsoworkedonthechronologyand

sequenceofPhilo’sworks.27TheGermanscholarandtheFrenchscholarsagreedinrecognizing

thethreemajorcommentaryseries,althoughtheyreacheddifferentconclusionsaboutthe

sequence:CohnarguedthattheAllegoricalCommentaryprecededboththeExpositionofthe

LawandtheQuestionsandAnswersonGenesisandExoduswhileMassebieauandBréhier

contendedthattheExpositionoftheLawprecededtheAllegoricalCommentary.28

Fortunately,wedonotneedtosettletheissueofsequence.Weareconcernedwiththe

selectionandarrangementofthetreatisesintheAllegoricalCommentary,inparticularDe

mutationenominum.IproposetoaddresstheplaceofDemutationenominuminthe

AllegoricalCommentarybyviewingitfromthreelargerperspectives:theconstructionofthe

AllegoricalCommentaryasaseries,thethematicintegrityofindividualtreatises,andthe

questionofsubgroupswithintheseries.Ithinkthattherearesomebroadprinciplesthatneed

24C.E.Richter,PhilonisIudaeioperaomnia:Textuseditusadfidemoptimarumeditionum,8vols.(Leipzig:E.B.Schwickert,1828-1830).

25LeopoldCohn,PaulWendland,SigofredReiter,andIoannesLeisegang,eds.,PhilonisAlexandrinioperaquaesupersunt,7vols.(Berlin:GeorgReimer,1896-1930;2nded.,Berlin:WalterdeGruyter,1962).

26Cohn,“EinleitungundChronologiederSchriftenPhilos,”385-436.27Massebieau,LeclassementdesoeuvresdePhilon,whoworkedthroughthe

arrangementofthetreatises,andLouisMassebieauandEmileBréhier,“EssaisurlachronologiedelavieetdesoeuvresdePhilon,”RevuedeHistoiredesReligions53(1906):25-64,164-185,267-289,esp.164-185and267-279,whoworkedoutthechronologyofthetreatises.

28Massebieau,LeclassementdesoeuvresdePhilon,3,7-41,andCohn,“EinleitungundChronologiederSchriftenPhilos,”396-414.

6

toberecognizedinsituatingaparticulartreatise.Thispaperwillconcentrateonthoselarger

issuesanduseDemutationenominumasanillustration.

AuthorialConstructions Webeginwiththeconstructionoftheseries.WhilethemoderndivisionofPhilo’s

commentariesintothreedistinctseriesisgenerallyaccepted,therearedissenters.29French

scholarshavechallengedthedistinctionbetweentheAllegoricalCommentaryandthe

ExpositionoftheLaw.Inparticular,ValentinNikiprowetzkyarguedthattheAllegorical

CommentaryandtheExpositionoftheLawformedonegrandcommentary,30aviewthatisstill

heldbysomeleadingFrenchPhilonists.31Iamconvincedthatthethreeseriesareauthorial

constructionsofPhilo’sowndesign.Therearefiveindicatorsorcriteriaofauthorialdesign:

explicitstatements,secondaryprefaces,32distinctapproachestothebiblicaltext,33literary

29ThetwomostimportanttreatmentsareJennyMorris,“TheJewishPhilosopherPhilo,”

inEmilSchürer,TheHistoryoftheJewishPeopleintheAgeofJesusChrist,rev.ed.,GezaVermes,FergusMillar,andMartinGoodman(Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1987),3:819-870andJamesR.Royse,“TheWorksofPhilo,”inTheCambridgeCompaniontoPhilo,ed.AdamKamesar(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2009),32-64.

30ValentinNikiprowetzky,Lecommentairedel’écriturechezPhilond’Alexandrie(Leiden:Brill,1977),192-202,241-242,andidem,“BrèvenotesurleCommentaireAllegoriqueetl’ExpositiondelaLoichezPhilond’Alexandrie,”inMélangesbibliquesetorientauxenl’honneurdeM.MathiasDelcor,ed.AndréCqquot,SimonLégasse,andMichelTardieu,AOAT212(Kevalaer:Butzon&Brecker;Keukirchen-Vluyn:NeukirchenerVerlag,1981),321-329.

31MostnotablyMireilleHadas-Lebel,PhiloofAlexandria:AThinkerintheJewishDiaspora,trans.byRobinFréchet;StudiesinPhiloofAlexandria7(Leiden/Boston:Brill,2012),117-122,149.

32Asecondaryprefaceisabriefintroductionattheoutsetofascrollinamultiplescrollworkthatprovidesabridgebetweenthepreviousscrollandthecurrentscrollbyreferringbacktothepreviousscrollandorientingthereadertothecurrentscroll.Itthushelpstosituatethescrollinaseries.OnsecondaryprefacesinPhiloseeGregoryE.Sterling,“‘ProlificinExpressionandBroadinThought’:InternalReferencestoPhilo’sAllegoricalCommentaryandExpositionoftheLaw,”Euphrosyne40(2012):55-76,esp.60-63.

33ThereareanumberoftreatmentsofPhilo’suseofthebiblicaltext.Ihaveattemptedtosummarizemyownunderstandingin“TheInterpreterofMoses:PhiloofAlexandriaandthe

7

forms,anddifferentaudiences.34Letmebrieflyapplythesefivecriteriatoeachoftheseries.I

willtreattheQuestionsandAnswersandExpositionoftheLawbriefly.

QuestionsandAnswersonGenesisandExodus.Whilethereisadebateaboutwhether

theQuestionsandAnswersonGenesisandExodusprecedeorfollowtheAllegorical

Commentary,35thereisvirtuallyaunanimousjudgmentthattheyareaseparateserieswith

theirownintegrity.Thefirsttwocriteriadonotapplysincewedonothaveanyexplicit

statementsbyPhiloandtherearenosecondaryprefaces.However,theotherthreecriteriado

apply.Philohandledthebiblicaltextinadistinctwayinthisseries.Hebeganeachquaestio

withacitationofthebiblicaltext.InthesolutiotheAlexandrianconsistentlybeganwithaliteral

interpretationandthenmovedontoallegoricalreadings.Herarelyusedsecondaryortertiary

BiblicalText,”inACompaniontoBiblicalInterpretationinEarlyJudaism,ed.MatthiasHenze(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2012),415-435.

34ThemostimportanttreatmentsofPhilo’saudiencesareEllenBirnbaum,ThePlaceofJudaisminPhilo’sThought:Israel,Jews,andProselytes,BJS290/SPhiloMS2(Atlanta:ScholarsPress,1996);MartinaBöhm,RezeptionundFunktionderVätererzählungenbeiPhilovonAlexandrien:ZumZusammenhangvonKontext,HermeneutikundExegeseimfrühenJudentum,BZNW128(BerlinandNewYork:deGruyter,2005);andMarenNiehoff,JewishExegesisandHomericScholarshipinAlexandria.(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2011).Cf.alsoErwinR.Goodenough,“Philo’sExpositionoftheLawandhisDevitaMosis.HTR26(1933):109–125,whoarguedthattheExposition,incontrasttoPhilo’sotherworks,addressedabroaderaudience–includingnon-Jews.

35ThosewhothinktheQGEwerewrittenpriortotheAllegoricalCommentaryinclude

AbrahamTerian,“ThePriorityoftheQuaestionesamongPhilo’sExegeticalCommentaries,”inBothLiteralandAllegorical:StudiesinPhiloofAlexandria’sQuestionsandAnswersonGenesisandExodus,ed.DavidM.Hay;BJS233(Atlanta:ScholarsPress,1991),29-46;idem,QuaestionesetsolutionesinExodum.IetIIeversionearmeniacaetfragmentagraeca,PAPM34C(Paris:ÉditionsduCerf,1992),27-51;andGregoryE.Sterling,“Philo’sQuaestiones:ProlegomenaorAfterthought,”BothLiteralandAllegorical,99-123.ThosewhoarguethattheQGEcomeaftertheAllegoricalCommentaryincludeCohn,“EinleitungundChronologiederSchriftenPhilos,”403-404andNiehoff,JewishExegesisandHomericScholarshipinAlexandria,152-168,esp.157-158and168.

8

textsinhisanswer(criterion3).36Theformisalsodistinct:itisthefirstfullzetematic

commentaryfromaJewishauthorthatwehave(criterion4).37Finally,theaudienceappearsto

bespecific(criterion5).Whiletherearedifferentpossibilities,IsuggestthattheQuestionsand

Answersreflecttheschoolinstructioninwhichateacherposedquestionsaboutatextthatwas

underconsideration.TheQuestionsandAnswerswasatypeoffirsttextforstudentswithin

Philo’sschool.Ithelpedthemlearnhowtoreadthetextinacarefulwayandtoknowwhat

questionstoaskandtherangeofpossibleanswers.38

TheExpositionoftheLaw.TheExpositionoftheLawhasthebestattestationasan

independentwork:allfivecriteriaattestPhilo’shandinshapingitasadistinctseries.Onthree

differentoccasionsPhilolaidouttheplanfortheExposition(criterion1).Whilethethreeplans

donotagreeinallofthespecificdetails,theymakeitclearthathehadreflectedontheseries

asawholeandthoughtofitasaunit.39Moreimportantlyforourpurposes,theyindicatethat

PhiloplannedsubunitswithintheExposition,apointtowhichwewillreturnbelow.

36OntheabsenceofsecondarytextsinQGEseeDavidT.Runia,“SecondaryTextsin

Philo’sQuaestiones,”BothLiteralandAllegorical,47-79.37CompareAristotle,Quaest.hom.;Plutarch,Quaest.plat.EarlierJewishauthorsused

thequaestio,butdidnotwritezetematiccommentaries–atleastnonethatweknowabout,e.g.,Demetrius,frgs.2and5;Aristobulus,frg.2.OntheformseeSze-KarWan,“TheQuaestionesetsolutionsinGenesimetinExodumofPhiloJudaeus:ASynopticApproach,”(Ph.D.diss.,HarvardUniversity,1992)andAnnelieVolgersandClaudioZamagni,eds.,Erotapokriseis:EarlyChristianQuestion-and-AnswerLiteratureinContext,CBET37(Leuven:Peeters,2004).

38OnthisseeGregoryE.Sterling,“TheSchoolofMosesinAlexandria:AnAttempttoReconstructtheSchoolofPhilo,”forthcoming.Seealsoidem,“’TheSchoolofSacredLaws’:TheSocialSettingofPhilo’sTreatises,”VC53(1999):148-64;andidem,“Philo’sSchool:TheSocialSettingofAncientCommentaries,”inSophisteninHellenismusundKaiserzeit:Orte,MethodenundPersonnenderBidlungsvermittlung,edBeaticeWyss;STAC(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,forthcoming),123-142.

39Philo,Mos.2.45-47;Abr.2-5;andPraem.1-3.ForadetailedanalysisofthethreestatementsseeGregoryE.Sterling,“‘ProlificinExpressionandBroadinThought,’”67-69.

9

Everytreatiseopenswithasecondaryprefacethatlinksittotheprecedingtreatise

(criterion2).40Theonlyexceptionsarethefirsttreatiseintheseries,Opif.,andtheintroductory

biographytotheseries,Mos.41Sincesecondaryprefacesareintendedtoconnectscrollsina

multi-scrollwork,Philo’sconsistentuseofsecondaryprefacesmakesitclearthathewanted

readerstounderstandthatthescrollscomprisedaunifiedandcontinuouswhole.

TheuniquecharacteroftheExpositionisalsosignaledbyPhilo’sapproachtothebiblical

text(criterion3).Herarelycitedthebiblicaltextasabasisforhiscomments,butretolditand

thenwroteacommentaryontheretelling.ThisledPederBorgentocallitrewrittenBible,a

classificationthatrecognizesthetechniquebutnotthefactthatPhilothenprovideda

commentaryonit.42Theeffectofprovidinganallegoricalcommentaryonaretellingofthetext

inatreatiselikeDeAbrahamoistocombinebothlevelsofreading.

Theliterarycharacterisalsodifferent:therearefivebioiassociatedwiththisattemptto

covertheentirePentateuch(criterion4).43Finally,theworkpresumesthebroadestaudience,

includinginterestedoutsiders(criterion5).Ithinkthatthesetreatisesmightreflectthetypeof

40Philo,Abr.1-6;Ios.1;Decal.1;Spec.1.1;2.1;3.7;4.1,132-35;Praem.1-3.41AlbertC.Geljon,PhilonicExegesisinGregoryofNyssa'sDevitaMoysis,BJS333/SPhM

5(Providence:BrownJudaicStudies,2002),7-46,hasshownthatMos.isatypeofintroductorybiography.IthinkthatitbelongstotheExpositionoftheLawsinceitcontainsaplanfortheExposition(2.45-47)andreferstoitexplicitlywithintheExposition(Virt.52;Praem.53).FordetailsseeSterling,“‘ProlificinExpressionandBroadinThought,’”72-74.

42PederBorgen,PhiloofAlexandria:AnExegeteforHisTime,NovTSup86(Leiden:Brill,1997),46-79,esp.63-79.

43Philo,Mos.1-2;Abr.,andIos.Twootherbioihavebeenlost:DeIsaacoandDeJacobo(Ios.1).

10

presentationsthatPhilogavetolargergroupswhocametohearhimexpoundthelawsof

MosesinmuchthesamewaythatEpictetus,Plotinus,andProclusoffered“publiclectures.”44

TheAllegoricalCommentary.TheAllegoricalCommentaryisalsoadistinctwork.While

wedonothaveanyPhilonicstatementsaboutitsplan(criterion1),wedohavesecondary

prefacesforsixofthepreservednineteentreatises(criterion2).Thefirstthreecreatea

networkoffourtreatises.TherearefourtreatisesthatdealwithNoahaftertheflood:Agr.,

Plant.Ebr.,andSobr.Philolinkedthesefourwithsecondaryprefaces:Plant.1refersbackto

Agr.,45Ebr.toPlant.,46andSobr.backtoEbr.47Theprefacesmaketheworksintoauniton

Noah.Theotherthreesecondaryprefacesarescattered.Twoofthesereferbacktoworksthat

havebeenlost48andtheothertoaprecedingwork,i.e.,Fug.refersbacktoCongr.49The

inconsistentuseofsecondaryprefacesisnotsurprising.WhileDiodorusSiculususedthem

regularlyinhisBibliotheke,50Josephususedthemoccasionallyinhismagnumopus:he

44FortheevidenceseeSterling,“TheSchoolofMosesinAlexandria:AnAttemptto

ReconstructtheSchoolofPhilo.”45SeealsoPhilo,Agr.181,thatanticipatesPlant.46Philo,Ebr.1.47Philo,Sobr.1.ThisappearstobeareferencetoalosttreatiseofEbr.Eusebius,Hist.

eccl.2.18.2,thoughtthatPhilowrotetwotreatisesonEbr.Sincethetreatiseopensbyreferringtofivetopicsandthetreatiseonlyhandlesthreeofthefive,itislikelythatourtreatiseisEbr.1andthatEbr.2islost.ThisisatoddswiththestatementinourpapyrusthatstatesthatitisEbr.2.SeeJamesR.Royse,“TheOxyrhynchusPapyrusofPhilo,”BulletinoftheAmericanSocietyofPapyrologists17(1980):160-161.Ihavefollowedthestatementsofthetextratherthanthepapyrus.

48Philo,Her.1,refersbacktoalostworkonrewardsbasedonGen15:1;andSomn.1.1,referstoaprecedingwork(=Somn.1;ourSomn.1isthenSomn.2).

49Philo,Fug.2.50Alloftheextantbooksexceptfor2,3,and11havesecondaryprefaces.OnDiodorus’s

practiceseeKennethS.Sacks,“TheLesserProoemiaofDiodorusSiculus,”Hermes110(1982):434-444,andidem,DiodorusSiculusandtheHistoryoftheFirstCentury(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1990),9-22.

11

employedtheminfiveofthetwentyscrollsofhisAntiquitates.51Thesecondaryprefacesmake

usrealizethatPhiloconceivedoftheAllegoricalCommentaryasaunity.

Asiswellknown,PhilohandledthebiblicaltextdifferentlyintheAllegorical

CommentarythanhedidineithertheQuaestionesetsolutionesortheExpositionoftheLaw

(criterion3).Theexegesisislemmatic:itworksfromselectionsofthebiblicaltext.Itis,

however,lemmaticinafarmorecomplexwaythantheothertwoseries.Philoanchorshis

exegesisinthemainbiblicallemmafromGenesis,butaddssecondaryandtertiarylayersof

commentarybasedonotherbiblicallemmata.Whilethereferencestothemainbiblical

lemmataareclear,therelationshipamongthesecondaryandtertiarylemmataarenotalways

immediatelytransparent.52Stillthebasicpatternofhisexegesisisunambiguous.53The

interpretationsareoverwhelminglyallegorical.

ThespecificliteraryformofthetreatisesintheAllegoricalCommentaryis–inmany

ways–suigeneris(criterion4).ItclearlyhasrootsintheStoicallegoricalinterpretationsof

HomerandHesiodasrepresentedbycommentatorslikeCornutusandHeraclitus,butgoes

beyondthemindevelopingthenarrative.Itisclosertothephilosophicalcommentariesinthe

largerPlatonictradition,e.g.,theMiddlePlatonicAnonymousTheaetetusCommentaryand

51Josephus,A.J.8.1;13.1;14.1;15.1;and20.1.52Thishasproducedanumberofnegativejudgments.F.H.Colson,“Philo’sQuotations

fromtheOldTestament,”JTS41(1940):250,thoughtthathisargumentationpresented“anawfultangle.”

53ThemosthelpfulsummaryofPhilo’shandlingofthelemmaticexegesisisAlbertC.GeljonandDavidT.Runia,OnCultivation:Introduction,Translation,andCommentary,PACS4(Leiden:Brill,2013),10-21,esp.10-16.

12

Neo-PlatoniccommentarieslikePorphyry’sOntheCaveoftheNymphsandProclus’s

CommentaryontheTimaeus.54Itis,however,distinctinwaysthatwewillsketchbelow.

Finally,theaudiencefortheAllegoricalCommentaryisdifferentthantheaudiencesfor

theothercommentaryseries(criterion5).Theimpliedreaderofthesetreatisesknowsboththe

biblicaltextandtheGreekphilosophicaltraditionreasonablywell.Isuggestthatthesetreatises

wereforadvancedstudentsinPhilo’sschool.

Theupshotofthisdiscussionisthatweneedtothinkabouttheplaceofeachtreatiseas

aunitinalargerunity.Treatisesdonotstandontheirown;theyareunitswithinalargerwhole.

ThematicUnity

Atthesametime,theunitsarediscreteinwaysthatsuggestthatthelengthand

contentswerenotsolelydeterminedbythelengthofapapyrusscroll.IsuggestedthatPhilo’s

treatisesweresimilartobutdistinctfromcommentariesinthephilosophicaltradition.They

differmarkedlybydevelopingspecificthemesforeachscroll.55Itiscorrecttosaythatthe

AllegoricalCommentaryisarunningcommentaryonthetextofGenesis2:1-17:22–or18:2ifwe

includethefragmentDeDeo.Thecommentariesdonot,however,provideabalancedor

relativelyeventreatmentofthedifferentunitsofthebiblicaltext.Philowrotetreatiseson

54ThemostimportanttreatmentsoftheformofthecommentariesareJohnM.Dillon,

“TheFormalStructureofPhilo’sAllegoricalExegesis,”inTwotreatisesofPhiloofAlexandria:ACommentaryonDegigantibusandQuodDeussitimmutabilis,byDavidWinstonandJohnDillon;BJS25(Chico,CA:ScholarsPress,1983),77-88;DavidT.Runia,“TheStructureofPhilo’sAllegoricalTreatises:AReviewofTwoRecentStudiesandSomeAdditionalComments,”VC38(1984):209–256;andidem,“FurtherObservationsontheStructureofPhilo’sAllegoricalTreatises,”VC41(1987):105–138.

55OnPhilo’sdivisionofhisworkintospecificbooksseeJamesR.Royse,“Philo’sDivisionofHisWorksintoBooks,”SPhiloA13(2001):59-85.

13

significantlydifferentlengthsofthebiblicaltextfromahalfverseinbothAgr.andPlant.toa

fullmodernchapterinLeg.1andHer.56Whyvarythelengthofthebiblicaltextsomuch?

Philotypicallyorganizedthetreatisesaroundaspecifictheme.57Wedonotknowifhe

assignedtitlestothetreatises,butinhissecondaryprefacesheconsistentlystatesbasicthemes

forthetreatisestowhichherefers.Forexample,inthesecondaryprefacethatopensPlant.he

summarizedbothAgr.andPlant.:“Intheformerbookwediscussedthematterspertainingto

generalagriculturalskills,atleastwhatwasappropriatetoit.Inthisbookwewillexplain–as

bestwecan–theparticularskilloftendingvines.”58Thestatementismorethanasummaryof

thebiblicaltext;itisasummaryofthecontentsofthetwotreatisesaroundanorganizing

theme.Similarly,PhiloopenedFug.withareferencebacktoCongr.andasummaryofFug.:

“Havingdiscussedintheprecedingthethingsthatwereappropriatetothepreliminarystudies

andevil,wewillnextrecordthetreatmentoffugitives.”59Theothersecondaryprefacesmake

similarstatementsabouttherespectivetreatisestheyaddress.60Thesearetheonlydirect

56Philo,Agr.coversGen9:20aandPlant.explainsGen9:20b;whileLeg.1exploresGen

2:1-3:1aandHer.Gen15:2-18.57IamarguingagainstthepositionofNikiprotwetzky,Lecommentairedel’Écriturechez

Philond’Alexandrie,whothoughtthatthesequentialnatureofPhilo’sexegesisonlyallowedfora“loosethematic”unity.IagreewithNikiprotwetzkythatPhiloincorporatedquaestionesetsolutionesintotheAllegoricalCommentary,butthinkthattheexplicitstatementsinthesecondaryprefacesmustbetakenmoreseriouslythanheallowed.

58Philo,Plant.1.Cf.theconclusionofAgr.181,thatsetsupPlant.:“Letusspeakinturnabouthisskillincultivatingplants.”

59Philo,Fug.2.60Philo,Ebr.1:“Wehavementioned–tothebestofourability–thethingsthatother

philosophershavesaidaboutintoxicationasametaphorintheprecedingbook.Letusnowconsiderwhattheincrediblygreatandwiselawgiverthinksaboutit”;Sobr.1,“Havinggonethroughthethingsthelawgiversaidaboutintoxicationandnakednesspreviously,letusbegintoappendthesubsequentaccounttowhathasbeensaid”(notetheabsenceofathemeforSobr.inthisstatement,butnotinthetreatise);Her.1,“Intheprecedingtreatiseweworkedthroughthetopicofrewardsasaccuratelyaspossible”(noteagaintheabsenceofthetheme

14

statementsthatwehavefromPhiloaboutthetreatisesasawhole.Theysuggestthathe

organizedhistreatisesaroundspecificthemes.

Thereis,however,alimittotheunitythatweshouldnotignore,afactorgeneratedby

thesequentialnatureofPhilo’sexegesisofthebiblicalnarrative.Insometreatises,thetheme

worksforasectionofthetreatise,butnotnecessarilyforallofit.Forexample,inDemutatione

nominum,thethemeproperworksfor§§60-129wherePhiloworksthroughaseriesofname

changes.WemightexpandthisandincludePhilo’sdiscussionofthenamesofGodin§§11-17

(see§§1-53).Whilethisunitdoesnotdealwithachangeofnames,itdoesexplaintherationale

fordifferentdivinenamesandcouldbeunderstoodtoreflectthebroadertheme.However,the

themedoesnotapplytoPhilo’ssubsequentinterpretationofGen17inthetreatise.61The

treatiseisagoodexampleofhowthethememayworkforsomeofthetreatisebutnotallofit.

Thereareothertreatiseswherethethemeworksfortheentiretreatise.Themostobvious

exampleofthisisDesomniis,butitalsoworkswellforDefugaetinventione.

Itisthuspossibletospeakofthematicunityaslongaswekeepinmindthatthe

treatisesdonothavethetypeofclose-knitstructureandcoherencethatwewouldexpectina

twenty-firstcenturymonograph.Evenwhenthetreatiseisclearlyorganizedaroundamajor

themeortwo,thelayersofsecondaryandtertiarylemmatatakereadersintosubjectsthatare

atsomedistancefromthemaintheme.ThekeystructuraldeviceforPhilowasthemainbiblical

forHer.inthisstatement,althoughthetreatisehasacleartheme);Somn.1.1,“TheworkpriortothisoneencompassedGod-sentdreamsincorporatedinthefirsttype,inwhich–aswesaid–theDeitysendsdreamstousinoursleepbyhisowninitiative.Inthistreatisewewillshow–tothebestofourability–thosethatbelongtothesecondtype.”

61Gen17:3(§§54-56),4(§§57-59),16(§§130-153),17a(§§154-174),17b(§§175-200),18(§§201-251),19(§§252-260),20(§§261-263),21(§§264-266),21(§§267-278),and22(§279).

15

lemma.ItisthemainbiblicallemmathatPhiloselectedthatisattheheartofthetheme

whetherthethemeisco-extensivewithallofthetextthatPhiloaddressedornot.Thereis

enoughunityinthetreatisethatthetitlesassignedtothemaregenerallyaccuratesummaries

ofthebasiccontentsofthework.ForthisreasonIthinkthatweneedtotaketheunityof

treatisesseriously,althoughIthinkthatacarefulstudyofthisissueremainsadesideratum.

Theimportanceofrecognizingthethematicunityofthetreatisesisthatwemusttake

theirthematicunityintoconsiderationwhenweaskwhethertherearesubunitsbeyondthe

individualtreatisesintheAllegoricalCommentary.Itistothisquestionthatwenowturn.

SubgroupsofAllegoricalCommentaries

Asweindicatedaboveandiswellknown,therearedistinctsubunitswithinthe

ExpositionoftheLaw.Philo’sfirsttwosummariesoftheplanfortheExpositionoffertwoparts:

creationandthelaws.62Thefinalsummaryaddsonemoresubunit:creation,historicalworks,

andlegislation.63DoestheAllegoricalCommentaryalsohavesubunits?DoesDemutatione

nominumbelongtoacycleoftreatiseswithintheAllegoricalCommentaryordoesitstandasa

discreteunitwithinthelargercommentaryseries?

Sincethenineteenthcentury,scholarshaveexploreddifferentoptions.Massibeauand

BréhierbeganthisinquirybysuggestingthatPhilo’streatisescouldbegroupedchronologically

onthebasisofallusionstopersecutionsagainsttheJews.64Theyorganizedthetreatisesinto

62Philo,Abr.2-5;Mos.2.45-47.63Philo,Praem.1-3.AdamKamesar,“BiblicalInterpretationinPhilo,”TheCambridge

CompaniontoPhilo,74-77,notedthatJosephus,A.J.1.18,hadthesamethreefolddivisionandsuggestedthatthethreefolddivisionmayhavebeenatraditionalschema.

64MassebieauandBréhier,“EssaisurlachronologiedelavieetdesoeuvresdePhilon,”170-185.

16

fourgroups:Leg.throughGig./Deuswerewrittenduringaperiodofpeaceandprosperity;Agr.

throughConf.reflecttheturbulentyearsunderCaligula;Her.,Congr.,andFug.suggestareturn

toaprofoundpeace;andSomn.turnsbacktothepersecutions.Thereareseveralproblems

withthis.First,IamveryskepticalaboutMassibeau’sbasicmethodology:theallusionsare

vagueatbest;Idonotthinkthatwecanrecreateapoliticalhistoryfromthetreatises.Second,

whileitispossiblethatPhilowrotetheAllegoricalCommentaryoverthecourseofhislifetime,I

aminclinedtothinkthathewroteit–oratleastthebulkofit–priortotheExpositionofthe

Laws,aproblemforMassibeaux’sandBréhier’sreconstruction.65

ThenextmajorefforttoanalyzethetreatisesoftheAllegoricalCommentarywasby

anotherFrenchscholar,JacquesCazeaux.Cazeauxwrotetwolargeworksinwhichheapplied

structuralismtogroupsoftextsthatheidentifiedastheAbrahamcycleandtheNoahcycle.66

HetookhiscuefromSacr.83-85andarguedthattheMigr.,Her.,Congr.,Fug.,andMut.formed

aunifiedseriesoftreatises.Similarly,hesuggestedthatGig/Deus,Agr.,Plant.,Ebr.andSobr.

formacycle.WhileCazeaux’sworkisanimpressiveintellectualaccomplishment,hefailsto

takethefundamentallemmaticnatureofPhilo’sexegesisintoaccount,afailurethatleadsto

anoversightofthebasicstructureofPhilo’streatisesandanoverdevelopedsenseofunity.67

65Seemy“‘Prolificinexpressionandbroadinthought.’”66JacquesCazeaux,Latrameetlachaîne:Oulesstructureslittérairesetl’exégèsedes

cinqdesTraitésdePhilond’Alexandrie,ALGHJ15(Leiden:Brill,1983)andidem,Latramedelachaîne,II:LecycledeNoédansPhilond’Alexandrie,ALGHJ20(Leiden:Brill,1989).

67ThemostimportantcritiqueisRunia,“TheStructureofPhilo’sAllegoricalTreatises.”ForarecentattempttoworkfromCazeauxseeUriGershowitzandArkadyKovelman,“ASymmetricalTeleologicalConstructionintheTreatisesofPhiloandintheTalmud,”ReviewofRabbinicLiterature5(2002):228–246,whoarguethatPhiloandtherabbisfollowedtwoorganizationalprinciples:anticipationandsymmetry.Anticipationreferstothepointsthatopenandcloseatreatiseandsymmetrytotheprocessofmovingthroughthetreatise.

17

ThereareotherworksthathaveattemptedtoorganizethetreatisesintheAllegorical

Commentary,butthesearethemajorefforts.68Ouranalysisabovesuggeststhatweneedto

thinkthroughseveralfactorswhenaddressingthisquestion.Ontheonehand,weneedto

explainhowatreatisefitsintotheAllegoricalCommentarythatPhiloconsidersasinglework.

Ontheotherhand,eachtreatisewithintheAllegoricalCommentaryhasaliteraryintegritythat

shouldberespected.Howcanweaddressthesefactorsthatpushbothoutwardandinward?

Iwouldliketoofferasimple–butIhopenotsimplistic–proposal,onethatisrelatively

transparentinthetreatisesthemselves.PhilousedcharactersinGenesisasameansof

introducingapproachestovirtue.Heorganizedtheancestorsintotwotriads69andwrotea

triologyonthesecondtriadofancestorsintheExpositionoftheLaw:Abrahamacquiredvirtue

bylearning,Isaacwasbornwithvirtue,andJacobcametovirtuethroughpractice.70Isuggest

thatPhilousedselectcharactersandtheirrelationshiptovirtueasamajorstructuraldevicein

theAllegoricalCommentary.Therearethreemajorclustersaroundspecificcharacters:

Character Treatises Cain Sacr. Det. Post. Noah Gig./Deus Agr. Plant. Ebr. Sobr.

68E.g.,GaryThorne,“TheStructureofPhilo’sCommentaryonthePentateuch,”Dionysius13(1989):17-50,esp.22-24,arguedthatallthreeseriesshouldbereadasaunit.HethinksthatOpif.3isthekeytotheentireproject.Whilethereissomemeritinrecognizingthecommongroundamongtheseries,itisamistaketoignoretheverydifferentcharacterthateachserieshas..

69Philo,Abr.7-47;Praem.7-23.70Philo,Abr.andIos.1,forthelostworksDeIsaacoandDeJacobo.

18

Abraham Migr. Her. Congr. Fug. Mut. Thethreecharactershavedifferentrelationshipstovirtue;Cainistheembodimentofself-

love;71Noahisamodelofperfectionandoneofthemembersofthefirsttriad;andAbraham

acquiredvirtuebylearningandisamemberofthesecondtriad.Eachindividualtreatise

representsaparticulartakeontherelationshipbetweenthecharacterandvirtue.Inthecaseof

Demutationenominum,thepointaboutAbraham’slearningvirtueismadeexplicitmultiple

times.72ThetreatisedevelopsaninterpretationofGen17thatillustratesthis,butdoesnot

standinanobvioussequencewithothertreatisesaboutAbrahamintheAllegorical

Commentary.ThisistrueforallofthetreatisesinthestoriesaboutAbraham:eachillustrates

hisacquisitionofvirtueinsomeway,butthereisnomovementfromonetreatisetothenextin

hisprogresstowardsvirtue.Themovementisduetothenarrativeofthebiblicaltext.

Thereisanobviousobjectiontothis.Howdoweaccountforthebeginning(Leg.1-3and

Cher.)andendoftheAllegoricalCommentary(Somn.1-2)oratreatiselikeConf.thatisneither

aboutNoahnoraboutAbraham?Thebeginningandendconsistofmulti-scrollworksthathelp

formtheirownunit:therewereoriginallyfourbooksinLeg.73andfiveinSomn.74Thefactthat

71OnCainseeHindyNajman,“CainandAbelasCharacterTraits:AStudyofthe

AllegoricalTypologyofPhiloofAlexandria,”inEve’sChildren:TheBiblicalStoriesREtoldandInterpretedinJewishandChristianTraditions,ThemesinBiblicalNarrative1(Leiden:Brill,2003),107-118.

72Philo,Mut.12,83-88.73Philo,Leg.1-2isprobablyLeg.1;Leg.2islostasthelacunasuggests(Gen3:1b-8ais

notaddressed);Leg.3=Leg.3;andLeg.4islost(Sacr.51andthegapincoverageofGen3:20-23).

19

thebeginningandendoftheserieshaveasymmetryisworthnoting.IwouldsaythatConf.

servesasabridgebetweenthetwoseriesthataddressthetwomajorcharactersofvirtue.I

wouldthuspositfivemajorclustersoftreatiseswithintheAllegoricalCommentary:the

creationofhumanityandprimevalhistory,Cain,Noah,Abraham,anddreams.

Conclusion

ThechallengeinanalyzingtheAllegoricalCommentaryisthatthereareforcesthatpush

usindifferentdirections.Wehaveidentifiedthree:theunityoftheseries,theliteraryintegrity

ofeachtreatise,andthedecisiontowritemultipletreatisesaroundspecificthemesor

characters.

ItisimportantthatwerecognizethattheAllegoricalCommentaryisaPhilonicconstruct

notamodernconstruct:wehaveonlyrecognizedwhatPhiloproduced.Weneedtorespectthe

integrityofthecommentaryseriesasalargerunitofwork.Theworkmaybefairlysummarized

asanallegoryofthesoulthatusesallegoricalexegesisonmultiplelemmaticlevels.

Eachtreatisewithintheserieshasalevelofthematicunitythatshouldalsobe

respected.Aswehaveseen,theextentordegreeofthisunityvaries.Insometreatises,thereis

acommonthemeortwofortheentiretreatise;inothertreatisesthethemeworkswellfora

onlyasectionofthetreatise.Thekeyfactoristheselectionofthemainbiblicallemma.Whileit

mightbetemptingtogeneralizeandsaythatthesmallerthemainbiblicallemmathegreater

theunity,thisdoesnotholdincaseslikeFug.orSomn.Philowasnotconsistentintheextentof

thebiblicallemmaorinthedegreethathethematizedit.Whileweshouldnotoverlookthe

74Eusebius,Hist.eccl.2.18.4.OurSomn.1-2probablyequalstheoriginal2-3.

20

variationsinthetreatises,weshouldalsonotoverlookthedegreetowhichPhilogavethem

someunity.

AglanceatthetreatisesintheAllegoricalCommentarysuggeststhattheyfallintofive

majorgroups.ThreeofthesegroupsfocusonindividualsandlikelyreflectPhilo’swellknown

penchantfordevelopinghisunderstandingofvirtuebiographically.Ifwerespecttheintegrity

ofeachtreatiseandthesequentialnatureofPhilo’shandlingofthebiblicaltext,weneednot

lookforprogressivemovementthatadvancesfromonetreatisetothenextoranyother

patternofmovement.Eachtreatisecanbeunderstoodasadiscretetreatmentofthetextin

question.TheexceptiontothisiswhenPhilowrotepairs,e.g.,Agr.andPlant.orEbr.andSobr.

Thetreatisesthatdealwithamajorfigureinthebiblicaltextmaybereadtogether,butshould

notbereadinthesamewaythatwewouldreadabiography,e.g.,DeAbrahamo.

E.R.DoddsoncecalledPhiloa“jackdaw”ratherthanaphilosopherbecauseofthe

eclecticnatureofhisthought.75WhileitistruethatPhiloiseclecticinthesensethathe

presentsmultipleperspectivesandisnotconsistent,itisamistaketothinkthathedidnothave

abasicframeworkofthought.Inthesameway,whileitisarealchallengetoworkthrougha

treatiseintheAllegoricalCommentaryandseetherelationshipbetweenthevarioussubunits,

letalonethinkabouttheseriesasawhole,itisamistaketothinkthatPhiloworkedwithouta

planorthatthetreatisesdonotreflectthatplan.

75E.R.Dodds,“TheParmenidesofPlatoandtheOriginoftheNeoplatonic‘One’,”CQ22(1928):132.

21