What’s in a Name - torreys.orgtorreys.org/sblpapers2016/S21-144b_Sterling_Name.pdf · What’s in...
Transcript of What’s in a Name - torreys.orgtorreys.org/sblpapers2016/S21-144b_Sterling_Name.pdf · What’s in...
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