Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FYANT1RTA
AND THE
TIMAEUS OF PLATO
VU Boekhandel
PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA
AND THE
TIMAEUS OF PLATO
I
Druk: Offsetdrukkerij Kanters B.V., Alblasserdam
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing
from the holder of the copyright.
VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT TE AMSTERDAM
PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA
AND THE
TIMAEUS OF PLATO
ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT
door
D O U W E THEUNIS RUNIA
geboren te Marknesse
VU Boekhandel
Promotor: Prof. dr. A. P. Bos
Copromotor: Prof. dr. J. C. M. van Winden
Referent: Prof. dr. C. Datema
CONTENTS
Preface v i i
Notice to the reader ix
Samenvatting 448
Notes 453
Bibliography 555
Indices 570
Kampen
Easter 1983
\
\
Abr- De Abrahamo
ios . De Iosepho
Mos. De v i t a Moysis
Decaí. De Decálogo
Spec. De s p e c i a l i b u s legibus
Virt. De v i r t u t i b u s
Praem. De praemiis et poenis, de e x s e c r a t i o n i b u s
Prob. Quod omnis probus l i b e r s i t
Contempl. De v i t a contemplativa
Aet. De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi
Flacc. In Flaccum
Legat. L e g a t i o ad Gaium
Hypoth. Hypothetica
Prov. De Providentia
An im. De animalibus
QG Quaestiones et s o l u t i o n e s i n Genesim
QE Quaestiones et s o l u t i o n e s i n Exodum
PART ONE
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER ONE
The way that the study i s structured c l o s e l y corresponds to the aims which
have j u s t been o u t l i n e d . I t w i l l c o n s i s t of four p a r t s . In p a r t one, the In-
troduction, the necessary background i n f o r m a t i on w i l l be presented - on recent
developments i n P h i l o n i c s c h o l a r s h i p , on P h i l o s h i s t o r i c a l and
f
cultural set-
t i n g , on the career of the Timaeus and i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n from P l a t o to P h i l o ,
and, most importantly, on the method that w i l l be used i n c a r r y i n g out the r e -
search i n the remainder of the study. In the second p a r t , e n t i t l e d Analysis,
the evidence w i l l be set out. A l l the passages i n which P h i l o r e f e r s to or
makes use of the Timaeus w i l l be c o l l e c t e d together and analysed i n a k i n d of
'Commentary . 1
This part w i l l possess a somewhat h y b r i d c h a r a c t e r , f o r the se-
quence of subjects d e a l t w i t h i n the P l a t o n i c work i s r e t a i n e d , but the pas-
sages d i s c u s s ed w i l l of course be drawn from P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s . The task of the
t h i r d p a r t , e n t i t l e d Synthesis, i s to c o l l e c t a l l the pieces of evidence pre -
sented i n the A n a l y s i s and organize them i n t o chapters which w i l l d i s c u s s i n a
synoptic way the three main areas of research o u t l i n e d i n the previous para-
graph. The three chapters of t h i s part correspond to those three areas of i n -
terest. F i n a l l y part f o u r , the Conclusion, advances a l i t t l e beyond the s t r i c t
confines of P h i l o s use of the Timaeus and
f
attempts to place the r e s u l t s of
the i n q u i r y i n a more general perspective.
The vast chasm which separates the extravagant claims of Wolfson and the
contemptuous d i s m i s s a l of Festugiére r e v e a l s more f o r c e f u l l y than anything
else the f a i l u r e of the s c h o l a r s of t h i s generatio n to reach a consensus on
the way P h i l o should be understood and e v a l u a t e d . 8
The points of d i s p u t e can
be summed up under four headings.
(1) Heinemann's attempt to show that P h i l o achieved a s y n t h e s i s of H e l l e -
nism and Judaism d i d not manage to solve a l l the problems a s s o c i a t e d with the
r e l a t i o n between P h i l o Alexandrinus and P h i l o Judaeus. Is the core of P h i l o s f
(a) H a r l — P h i l o as a homo r e l i g i o s u s
To Marguerite HARL the assignment was g i v e n to prepare a t r a n s l a t i o n of
the t r e a t i s e Quis rerum divinarum heres s i t . 4
Recognizing the r i c h n e s s of
I 2.2. 9
Harl s T
s t a r t i n g point i s the r e c o g n i t i o n of the 'double c u l t u r e 1
of P h i l o ,
who expresses des idées grecques avec des
f
expressions j u i v e s et des convic-
t i o n s j u i v e s avec des symboles grecs', whose works and thought c o n s t a n t l y ap-
pear to play on d i v e r s e l e v e l s , ' s o i t que l e s images grecques expriment sa f o i
j u i v e , s o i t que l es images j u i v e s revêtent des c o n v i c t i o n s profondément grec-
ques'. 7
The question i s whether there i s a u n i f y i n g element i n P h i l o ' s thought.
For her views on the nature of P h i l o ' s Greek c u l t u r e H a r l appears much indeb-
ted to Festugière, though she c r i t i c i z e s that s c h o l a r f o r being too severe and
narrow i n h i s judgment. P h i l o ' s Greek ideas and images are devoid of any no-
v e l t y , being drawn from the p h i l o s o p h i c a l koine of h i s time. 8
But a closer ex-
amination r e v e a l s h i s o r i g i n a l i t y , f o r one discovers resonances q u i t e diffe-
rent from those of the 'piété hellénistique commune'. 9
The key to H a r l ' s under-
standing of P h i l o ' s thought l i e s i n the d i s t i n c t i o n which she h a b i t u a l l y makes
between the philosophical mode of expression and the r e l i g i o u s mode which pas-
ses beyond the l e v e l of d i s c u r s i v e t h i n k i n g and l o g i c and i s p r i m a r i l y concer-
ned with the r e l a t i o n to God. 10
P h i l o has i n t e r i o r i z e d the Jewish r e l i g i o n and |
Among those who regard the Greek sid e of P h i l o as predominant there are
two main approaches, both of which must be r e j e c t e d . The p r e s e n t a t i o n of P h i l o
as a systematic p h i l o s o p h er i n the c l a s s i c mould i n e v i t a b l y leads to a d i s t o r -
t i o n of h i s thought. He i s e s s e n t i a l l y a c r i t i c of a l l the p h i l o s o p h i c a l
schools. The task of uncovering p h i l o s o p h i c a l p a r a l l e l s f o r h i s thought i s
important (and as yet by no means exhausted), but can never amount to more
than an a u x i l i a r y aspect of r e s e a r c h . 32
E q u a l l y misguided i s the attempt
I 2.2. 13
The Law of Nature and the Law of Moses are i d e n t i c a l i n an absolute and not a
r e l a t i v e sense. The Law of Nature which the cosmos obeys must be transposed
to the l e v e l of man the microcosm, and t h i s i s achieved by the Law of Moses,
which has God as u l t i m a t e author.
(d) D i l l o n - P h i l o as a Middle P l a t o n i s t
In the same year 1977 the Irish-American s c h o l a r John DILLON published a
book with the t i t l e The Middle P l a t o n i s t s . 4 7
Those readers who eagerly turned
to t h i s f i r s t book-length study of Middle Platonism may have been somewhat
s u r p r i s e d to encounter a long chapter devoted to P h i l o . 4 8
D i l l o n twice empha-
t i c a l l y s t a t e s that he i s attempting only a p a r t i a l study of P h i l o , d e l i b e r -
ately s l a n t e d towards the subject of Middle Platonism and l e a v i n g a s i de those
.aspects of h i s thought which have a Jewish background or are p o s s i b l y o r i g i n a l
to h i m s e l f . 49
Since, however, what he does say i s p e r s u a s i v e l y presented and
i s l i k e l y to exert c o n s i d e r a b l e i n f l u e n c e , i t seems reasonable to accord h i s
study a p l a c e i n our review.
scepticism.
D i l l o n ' s account gains a polemical edge when he argues against the Wolf-
^ sonian conception that P h i l o constructed an e c l e c t i c synthesis of the e n t i r e
1 t r a d i t i o n of Greek philosophy. But i t would a l s o be wrong to regard him as a
superficial dilettante. He was a man who read the t e x t s f o r h i m s e l f , but drew
on a coherent s c h o l a s t i c t r a d i t i o n to understand and e x p l a i n them. 52
Dillon's
r e j e c t i o n of a n ' e c l e c t i c ' P h i l o concurs with a main t h e s i s of h i s work. It i s
well-known that the Middle P l a t o n i s t s appropriated much Pythagorean, S t o i c and
A r i s t o t e l i a n terminology and d o c t r i n e . D i l l o n d e t e c ts a c o n s i s t e n t r a t i o n a l e
16 INTRODUCTION
2.3. Some t r e n d s
itAonrwvuCeu . 2
The proverb i s repeated with approval by numerous P a t r i s t i c auth-
ors and gives r i s e to much d i s c u s s i o n on whether i t r e f e r s to the s t y l e or
content of P h i l o s w r i t i n g s .
f
But the remarks on P h i l o ' s Platonism are gener-
a l l y too b r i e f to dwell on h i s debts to s p e c i f i c d o c t r i n es or dialogues of
Plato. 3
THEODORUS the Metochite (12th century) i n t e r e s t i n g l y described him as
not a l t o g e t h e r d e s p i s i n g T O cpuauxov, but showing more i n t e r e s t i n i a u^nAa,
e t h i c s and mathematics. 4
In the seventeenth century P h i l o was gradually liber-
ated from h i s bondage as a C h r i s t i a n f a t h e r , and a more h i s t o r i c a l l y o r i e n t a -
ted examination was made of h i s w r i t i n g s . Thus, f o r example, i n 1693 Johannes
A l b e r t u s FABRICIUS wrote a b r i e f but important study e n t i t l e d E x e r c i t a t i o de
Platonismo P h i l o n i s I u d a e i . 5
There can be no doubt, he w r i t e s , that P h i l o a t -
tended the P l a t o n i c schools at A l e x a n d r i a and that he spent a l o t of time rea-
ding P l a t o ' s works. 6
And with regard to P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the Mooyog
VOTITOS at Conf. 172 he remarks: 7
The r o l e of the Timaeus tends to be played down. The work has been c r i t i c i z e d
f o r assuming too s t r a i g h t - f o r w a r d a d e r i v a t i o n of P h i l o s f
ideas from the Greek
philosophical tradition. 2 1
The book of Georgios FARANDOS on Cosmos and Logos
i n P h i l o i s shoddily produced and, though r e c o g n i z i n g the importance of the
Timaeus, contains no new material. 2 2
I t presents P h i l o as a systematic Plato-
n i z i n g philosopher with the d o c t r i n e of p e x a v a a T a o t s as the key to h i s thought,
In a competent and highly informative study of the ancient i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of
the genesis of the cosmos presented i n the Timaeus, Matthias BALTES has analy-
sed a l l the P h i l o n i c passages which are r e l e v a n t to that i n t e r p r e t a t i v e prob-
lem. 23
In so doing he pays c l o s e r a t t e n t i o n to c e r t a i n passages i n the 'Arme-
n i an P h i l o 1
than has h i t h e r t o been customary. The important c o n t r i b u t i o n s of
John DILLON and David WINSTON have already been o u t l i n e d . 2 4
An article was
published i n 1979 on P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e of c r e a t i o n by Giovanni REALE. Much i n -
debted to Wolfson, i t regards P h i l o as r e v i s i n g the Timaeus and producing the
f i r s t philosophical elaboration of a true c r e a t i o n i s m i n the h i s t o r y of p h i l o -
sophy. 25
On the subject of c r e a t i o ex n i h i l o Gerhard MAY had one year e a r l i e r
reached r e s u l t s t o t a l l y opposed to those of R e a l e . 26
L a s t l y perhaps a mention
should be made of my own a r t i c l e on the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e problem of the De aet-
e r n i t a t e mundi, i n which the c e n t r a l r o l e which the Timaeus plays i n the s t r u c -
ture of the t r e a t i s e and i t s ideas i s demonstrated. 27
CHAPTER THREE
Together wit h the Septuagint P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s are the most famous product
of A l e x a n d r i a n Judaism. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of A l e x a n d r i a , as the backdrop f o r
P h i l o s e n t i r e l i f e and c a r e e r , cannot be overestimated.
!
Indeed i t i s f a i r to
say that the phenomenon of P h i l o ' s thought could have occurred nowhere e l s e
except i n the c i t y founded i n Egypt by Alexander the G r e a t . 1
Although by P h i -
lo s time i t was
f
e n t e r i ng the long period of i t s d e c l i n e , A l e x a n d r i a was still
a formidable b a s t i o n of H e l l e n i s t i c c u l t u r e , embodied i n the i n s t i t u t i o n s and
t r a d i t i o n s of the Greek p o l i s , i n the proud c l a s s i c i s m of i t s temples and
colonnades, and above a l l i n those v i s i b l e symbols of c u l t u r a l supremacy, the
Museum and the L i b r a r y . Other f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t e d to make A l e x a n d r i a the most
important c i t y i n the Eastern Mediterranean and even a r i v a l of Rome. I t was
the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e centre of Roman Egypt, a f l o u r i s h i n g port and commercial
centre, and a point of confluence f o r peoples (and t h e i r r e l i g i o u s traditions)
from Egypt and the e n t i r e Near East.
From the beginning of the Ptolemaic period Jews from P a l e s t i n e had set-
t l e d i n A l e x a n d r i a , and b e f o r e long i t was the l a r g e s t and most influential
Jewish community i n the D i a s p o r a . 2
The Jews i n A l e x a n d r i a r e c e i v e d , as d i d
other f o r e i g n groups, the r i g h t to form t h e i r own TioAuTeuua, i . e . they were
allowed to o r g a n i z e t h e i r own a f f a i r s and l i v e according to t h e i r customs and
t r a d i t i o n s , though not possessing f u l l p o l i t i c a l autonomy. A l e x a n d r i a n Juda-
ism differs i n c e r t a i n marked respects from the Judaism of the P a l e s t i n i a n
homeland. The c u l t u r a l dominance of Hellenism i n the Near East was complete,
and even P a l e s t i n i a n Judaism was unable to escape i t s impact. 3
But the i n f l u -
ence which Greek c u l t u r e had on the A l e x a n d r i a n Jews was much more profound
and f a r - r e a c h i n g i n i t s e f f e c t s . Within a few generations Greek had become
the language spoken by a l l A l e x a n d r i a n Jews. I t thus became a matter of ne-
c e s s i t y that the sacred s c r i p t u r e s of the Jews be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o the Greek
tongue. The Septuagint, c o n t a i n i n g the Torah i n Greek, gave A l e x a n d r i a n Juda-
ism i t s identity. 4
P h i l o ' s statement that the t r a n s l a t i o n i s i n no way infer-
ior to the o r i g i n a l gives e x p r e s s i o n to the fundamental c o n v i c t i o n which a l -
lowed the Jews of h i s c i t y to remain l o y a l to t h e i r ickpua e§n. 5
Not enough has been s a i d about the aspect of P h i l o ' s education which con-
cerns us most of a l l , h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a i n i n g . 2 6
Here more than anywhere
e l s e P h i l o ' s s i l e n c e concerning the sources of h i s education i s g r e a t l y to be
r e g r e t t e d . During the e a r l i e r Ptolemaic perio d there was no t r a d i t i o n of p h i l o -
s o p h i c a l schools at A l e x a n d r i a — t h i s aspect of l e a r n i n g was left i n the c a -
pable hands of Athens — but i n the f i r s t century B.C. we hear of men such as
A r i s t o , Dio, Eudorus, Potamon and A r i u s Didymus teaching philosophy i n the
city. 2 7
Through l a c k of evidence, however, we can gain no proper idea of how
philosophy was taught and t r a n s m i t t e d i n the A l e x a n d r i a of P h i l o ' s day. The
evidence of the Corpus Philonicum (and e s p e c i a l l y of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a -
t i s e s ) makes i t q u i t e c l e a r that P h i l o possessed a thorough and wide-ranging
knowledge of the d i v e r s e c u r r e n t s of Greek philosophy. One imagines that t h i s
was not s o l e l y the r e s u l t of p r i v a t e r e f l e c t i o n on the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t e x t s and
commentaries to which h i s wealth gave him access, and that he must have r e -
ceived some k i n d of formal t r a i n i n g . D i l l o n suggests that he may have a t t e n -
26 INTRODUCTION
^ e
Epinomis, g e n e r a l l y a s c r i b e d nowadays to PHILIP of Opus, i s a l s o hea-
vily indebted to the Timaeus, but i t s s h i f t of emphasis from d i a l e c t i c to con-
templation of the cosmos and astronomy amounts to a r e v i s i o n of P l a t o ' s p h i l o -
sophy. 30
The author's proposal to e s t a b l i s h a p u b l i c and a p r i v a t e c u l t of the
cosmos and the c e l e s t i a l bodies presages developments i n H e l l e n i s t i c thought. 31
The three snippets of exegesis that have s u r v i v e d suggest that he earned the
above t i t l e because he endeavoured to recover P l a t o ' s intended meaning rather
than systematize and r e i n t e r p r e t i n the Xenocratean manner. 34
The defence of Speusippus and Xenocrates that the genesis of the cosmos was
meant d i d a c t i c a l l y , l i k e the way mathematicians c o n s t r u c t diagrams, was rejec-
ted. 3 8
To me i t remains somewhat of a mystery why A r i s t o t l e should have chosen
t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n when a reading i n terms of c r e a t i o aeterna would have
brought the Timaeus so much c l o s e r to h i s own thinking. 3 9
(2) A r i s t o t l e ignores
I 4. 31
its s c e p t i c a l phase. 50
The Peripatos was busy with n a t u r a l s c i e n c e , while E p i -
cureans and Cynics propounded p h i l o s o p h i e s wholly i n i m i c a l to Platonism. The
i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus on the broad stream of H e l l e n i s t i c thought l a y c h i e f -
ly i n a p a r t i c u l a r way of regarding the cosmos and man's p l a ce i n i t . I t ap-
pears i n works such as Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus, the Phaenomena of Aratus and
t
^ ie
D e
mundo. Noting that awe f o r the beauty and r a t i o n a l i t y of the Universe
and e s p e c i a l l y i t s c e l e s t i a l regions was tending i n t h i s p e r i o d to r e p l a c e the
old c i v i c r e l i g i o n i n the minds of the educated, F e s t u g i e r e e n t i t l e d this
i n t e l l e c t u a l movement as the ' r e l i g i o n cosmique'. 51
We have t r a v e l l e d q u i t e a
long way from P l a t o ' s o r i g i n a l d e p i c t i o n of the cosmos as a g l o r i o u s but im-
p e r f e c t image of a p e r f e c t n o e t i c exemplar.
For a long time i t was thought that the f i g u r e of Posidonius provided the
vital clue. 5 6
He was regarded as having i n i t i a t e d a movement towards a more
r e l i g i o u s l y t i n t e d , o r i e n t a l i z i n g philosophy. A c h i e f instrument of h i s i n -
f l u e n c e was h i s supposed Commentary on the Timaeus, but i t s e x i s t e n ce i s now
considered d o u b t f u l . 5 7
A consensus on Posidonius' s t a t u r e and c o n t r i b u t i o n to
the h i s t o r y of ideas has by no means been r e a c h e d , 58
but i t i s agreed that h i s
I 4. 33
( f ) t h e i r methods
Since Middle Platonism, as we have seen, presents a reasonably unified
p i c t u r e , i t i s p o s s i b l e to giv e an impression of the 'ideology' and methods
used by i t s proponents without running the r i s k of excessive g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . 8 8
The text of the dialogue must have been widely a v a i l a b l e and widely stu-
d i e d , supply and demand r e i n f o r c i n g each o t h e r . 1 1 2
This i s shown by the huge
number of quotations i n l a t e r w r i t i n g s , many of which are v a l u a b l e f o r the r e -
38 INTRODUCTION
c o n s t r u c t i o n of the t e x t . 1 1 3
For those who wished to a s c e r t a i n the bare essen-
t i a l s , epitomes and synopses were i n p l e n t i f u l s u p p l y . 114
The more serious
student could presumably make use of the r i c h store of s c h o l a r l y l i t e r a t u r e
devoted to the explanation and exegesis of the t e x t . Unfortunatel y i t is d i f -
f i c u l t to determine p r e c i s e l y what kind of exegetic works were produced and
how widely they were a v a i l a b l e . Were, f o r example, f u l l - l e n g t h commentaries
on the Timaeus written? This i s a much disputed problem. Dillon attributes
commentaries on the Timaeus to numerous Middle P l a t o n i s t s ; 1 1 5
D o r r i e argues
that the f i r s t f u l l - l e n g t h commentaries comparable to those of Proclus were
produced by P o r p h y r y , 116
The l a t t e r p o s i t i o n seems extreme i n the l i g h t of the
evidence supplied by the papyrus remains of the Anonymous Theatetus Commentary,
which takes the form of a running commentary, a l b e i t at a r a t h e r u n i n s p i r i n g
level. 1 1 7
Much, perhaps, depends on what one takes the d e s c r i p t i o n UTtoyvnyaia
to mean. 118
Even i f the 'commentaries' were not complete or very d e t a i l e d ,
they must have d e a l t with a l l the p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y more important parts of the
text. 1 1 9
Other ways of d i s c u s s i n g the p h i l o s o p h i c a l content of the Timaeus
were p r a c t i s e d i n i n d i v i d u a l t r e a t i s e s (auYYpauuaxa) and i n the genre of £T\TT\-
yaTa. 1 2 0
Summaries of P l a t o n i c philosophy and i n t r o d u c t i o n s to h i s thought
were a l s o , as we have seen, o f t e n h e a v i l y r e l i a n t on the T i m a e u s . 121
Last but
c e r t a i n l y not l e a s t , Timaean d o c t r i n e s were disseminated by means of doxogra-
p h i c a l works. The i n f l u e n c e of these should not be underestimated i n a c u l -
ture not averse to taking shortcuts to l e a r n i n g . 1 2 2
The Timaeus i s u s u a l l y
not e x p l i c i t l y named, but i t s d o c t r i n e s - so s u i t a b l e f o r b r i e f and lucid pre-
s e n t a t i o n — are ubiquitous. 1 2 3
METHOD
(c) priorities
The Timaeus, i n i t s systematic and h i g h l y compressed way, covers an im-
p r e s s i v e range of subjects i n the area of theology, cosmology and anthropology
( i n c l u d i n g psychology and p h y s i o l o g y ) . The endeavour must be to give these
subjects the treatment they r e q u i r e w i t h i n the aims we have s e t . But c e r t a i n
priorities and l i m i t a t i o n s are i n e v i t a b l e . My p o l i c y w i l l be to concentrate
more on the primary aspects of genesis and s t r u c t u r e and l e s s on the secondary
aspects which r e s u l t from that genesis and s t r u c t u r e , such as e t h i c s , eschato-
logy and so on. The Timaeus i s only part of Plato' s oeuvre. Although, as we
have already seen, i t r e c e i v e s a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e amount of a t t e n t i o n i n the
P l a t o n i s t t r a d i t i o n , many other s i g n i f i c a n t and much used t e x t s remain. Phi-
lo's use of other P l a t o n i c dialogues w i l l only be mentioned to the extent that
it i s r e l e v a n t to h i s use of the Timaeus. Our study thus covers only part of
the subject that B i l l i n g s chose f o r h i s monograph, P h i l o s debt to P l a t o . f
An-
other l i m i t a t i o n i s imposed i n r e l a t i o n to non-Platonic p h i l o s o p h i c a l doc-
t r i n e s which P h i l o employs i n h i s w r i t i n g s . Not seldom P h i l o uses such doc-
t r i n e s i n a p a r a l l e l way to those which he draws from the Timaeus. Once again
i t w i l l not be p o s s i b l e to l i s t these every time. The reader i s warned i n ad-
vance that our method i s exposed to the danger of a c e r t a i n one-sidedness i n
i t s o r i e n t a t i o n towards P h i l o s f
Platonism.
44 INTRODUCTION
(3) References to the Old Testament are always made t o the Septuagint i n
the e d i t i o n of Rahlfs ( n i n t h e d i t i o n ) , the numbering of which d i f f e r s sometimes
I 5.1. 45
ANALYSIS
CHAPTER ONE
1.0. Introductor y
1.1.1. F e a s t i n g i n r e t u r n (17a-b)
1.1.2. The summit of philosophy (20a)
1.0. Introductory
of Moses. The Jewish lawgiver has already (§1-2) been favourably compared
with Greek nomothetes and p h i l o s o p h e r s , i m p l i c i t l y i n c l u d i n g P l a t o (as i s made
even c l e a r e r i n the p a r a l l e l passage at Mos.2.49). Moreover the opening chap-
t e r s of O p i f . a r e , as we s h a l l see, crammed with references to the Timaeus. A
few l i n e s below the passage we are now d i s c u s s i n g a v i r t u a l paraphrase of Tim.
28a i s e x p l i c i t l y a t t r i b u t e d to Moses (see below I I 2.1.1. on O p i f . 1 2 ) .
more ancient and impressive than the p a l t r y remains possessed by the Greeks,
(22b4-8):
'Solon, Solon, you Greeks always remain c h i l d r e n (%aZ6eg), a r e a l Greek
greybeard (yepwv) does not e x i s t . . . You are a l l young (veou) i n your
souls (t^uxots) , f o r i n them you hold no s t o r e of ancient b e l i e f (itaAauav
6o£av) handed down by hearsay from long ago (6u'apxotL,av axoriv) , no l e a r -
n i n g hoary wit h time ( u c t d n u a xpovw itoAuov)'.
pbg nai u6axos, d i r e c t l y reminiscent of Tim.22c2; (2) war, barrenness and fam-
ine as examples o f the small d i s a s t e r s l e f t u n s p e c i f i e d at 22c3; (3) the divi-
I I 1.2.2. 55
Ebr.223). Detailed exegesis of the two relevant Biblical texts i n the Allego-
The 'memory of good persons (or b e n e f i t s ) ' h i n t s at the theme we are about to
rather than the cosmological aspect of P l a t o ' s theory comes to the fore. Al-
ready at the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos the seventh day was given h i g h honour as
the b i r t h d a y of the world (Opif.89, Dec.96). But P h i l o wonders why this fact
from the time the I s r a e l i t e s received manna i n the desert (Ex.16:23, c f . Mos.
the memory of the ordinance from being handed down. Here g r e a t e r emphasis i s
nveOpa). The o l d e s t records are thus possessed not by P l a t o ' s Egyptians but
by Philo's Jews! 2
floods i s that they r e f r e s h and p u r i f y the weary earth which has gradually
(Praem.68) . At Pet. 170 (exeg. Gen.6:5-7) we read: onoxe youv i r j v yfjv u6axu
o u p y o s and i s given the d e l i b e r a t i v e verb from Gen.6:6), but the theme of pu-
5. The age of the cosmos. On the ' s c i e n t i f i c ' use of the theme of p e r i -
section.
Now that P h i l o ' s use of the theme has been analysed, an important differ-
ence between the P l a t o n i c source and h i s usage must be pointed out. In the
(Laws 677-9), and i n the P o l i t i c u s myth he speaks of cosmic decay (273d), but
any n o t i o n of d i v i n e r e t r i b u t i o n by means of n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s i s e n t i r e l y
1-2.3. ^£i- 1 4 6
" 1 4 9 :
Philo and T h e o p h r a s t u s
t i o n must be paid to d e t a i l .
Praem.1 (text 'Colson EE 8.312; the emendation of the l a s t two phrases at
C-W 5.336 i s r e j e c t e d as unnecessary):
ri p e v o\5v x o a p o T t o u t a itayxaAws Ttaaa Mat deoTtpenws p e p n v u x a t , Aa3ouaa x r ) v
apxnv a%6 yeveaews oupavou x a u Xr\E,aoa ets av^pouiuou xaxaaxeuriv o pev yap
acpdapxwv xeAetoxaxos, o 6e §vnxu3v. a§avaxa 6e x a u d v r i x a ev yeveaeu auvu-
cpauvwv o TtOLTiTris eupyaaaxo xov nooyov, xa pev yevopeva riyepovuxa, xa 6'ws
UTtrixoa H a t yevriaopeva.
oupavou and focusses on the comparison between heaven and man. At Opif.82 the
same comparison leads him to c a l l man a 'miniature heaven', the onl y time he
presents t h i s v a r i a n t of the macrocosm/microcosm theme (on f u r t h e r aspects of
II 1.3.1. 63
the s i m i l a r i t i e s between heaven and man see below I I 5.2.1-2. 7.2.4.). There
can be no question that the motive behind the change i s to allow an improved
c o r r e l a t i o n with the c r e a t i o n account as presented by Moses. Leaving aside
the c r e a t i o n o f the i n c o r p o r e a l world on 'day one' (Opif.16-35, exeg. Gen.1:
1-5), the heaven i s created first on the second day (Opif.36-37, exeg. Gen.1:
6-8), while the last a ct of c r e a t i o n i s the framing o f man on the s i x t h day
(Opif.69-88, exeg. Gen.1.26-31). The problem of where the c r e a t i o n of the
animals and woman i s to be placed i n the c r e a t i o n a l sequence (on which see be-
low I I 10.2.1-2.) i s set a s i d e . P h i l o i s t a l k i n g i n general terms and the pa-
r a l l e l between Moses and P l a to i s too good to leave unused.
passage, and not every aspect can here be analysed i n d e t a i l (for a discussion
invocation r e q u i s i t e f o r every undertaking great or small and the one now es-
the thematics of the Timaeus, which i n P l a t o ' s words i s concerned nepi xou
TtavTOS... n yeyove n xau dyeves eoxuv (27c4-5, on the n . . . n see below). Phi-
eni lavxos opufj nai auuMpou nai ueydAou i t p d y u a x o s %eov deb nou x a A o u a t v -» e%i
uev rcavxos d6r|Aou nai aiou6auou i t p d y p a x o s $ e o v xaAeCv a£tov, 27c6 d v d y x n -> dv-
below I I 3.1.1.; the term y e v v n x r i s i s not found i n the Tim, but cf.37c7,41a5
ther development.
(2) The comparison between God (source of knowledge) and cosmos (object
aAri^etas TtAetwv (the P l a t o n i c language of epws, uyepos and i t o £ o s from the Phae-
drus myth and the Symposium, so pervasive i n P h i l o ) , i n t h i s way making the
t r a n s i t i o n to the exordium's second p a r t .
Already i t can be concluded that P h i l o i s making every e f f o r t to give the
exordium a s p e c i f i c a l l y P l a t o n i c c o l o u r i n g . The reason must be l o c a t e d i n the
f a c t that the s o l u t i o n to the problem of the cosmos' cp^opa/acpdapaCa i n the De
a e t e r n i t a t e mundi i s b a s i c a l l y that o f the Timaeus, brought i n r e l a t i o n to the
view of Moses at §19. The P l a t o n i c dialogue gives the r i g h t p e r s p e c t i v e on
the r e l a t i o n between God and the cosmos. The P l a t o n i c c o l o u r i n g i s f u r t h e r
r e i n f o r c e d i n the second h a l f o f the exordium, which i s b u i l t up around an
adaptation of Tim.29b-d. I t w i l l be analysed below at I I 2.4.1.
2.0. Introductory
2.0. Introductory
^ e
P r o e m
J-u m
(the d e s i g n a t i o n i s P l a t o ' s own, 29d5) lays the foundation
for the r e s t of Timaeus' long d i s c o u r s e , I t i s more than a methodological
prelude to the account of the cosmogony. W r i t t e n i n an extremely compressed
s t y l e , i t s c h i e f task i s to present the fundamental •philosophical principles
upon which the e n t i r e account i s b u i l t , and to which P l a t o returns on a number
of occasions i n some d e t a i l l a t e r on (37a-c,47e-49b,51c-52c). These p r i n c i p -
les, adhering to the b a s i c ideas of Platonism and themselves the r e s u l t of an
( i m p l i c i t ) e x e r c i s e i n d i a l e c t i c s , are f i r s t o u t l i n e d i n a b s t r a c t o , and then
s u c c e s s i v e l y a p p l i e d to the concrete phenomenon of the cosmos, once i t has
been f o r m a l l y introduced i n t o the d i s c o u r s e . The c a r e f u l l y reasoned and s t r u c -
tured sequence of P l a t o ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n i s made c l e a r i n an a n a l y s i s of the
proemium's contents.
1. Fundamental p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s (27d-28b):
(a) the d i v i s i o n i n t o the realm of being and the realm of becoming (27d5-
28a4;
68 ANALYSIS
at 27d6), 1
while T O auadnTOV i s given the a p p r o p r i a t e name of yeveoug (cf.27d6
yeveotv). P h i l o then skips a few l i n e s i n the Timaeus. His words, knei o\5v
opotTos T E nai auodnTos o6e o x o a y o s , dvayKauws d v eun nai yevnTos 5 are a sim-
p l i f y i n g but e f f e c t i v e paraphrase of P l a t o ' s argument at 28b7-c2, to which we
s h a l l r e t u r n i n the next s u b - s e c t i o n . 2
I t i s t h e r e f o r e very much to the point
that Moses should begin h i s Law with an account of the cosmos' y e v e o u s . In so
doing he produced a f i n e p i e c e of theology (ydXa aeyvws OeoXoyriaas) .
of the two worlds (which has so f a r not been mentioned, i f we except the h i n t
of the n o e t i c world given i n the words auxo T O aya§ov nai a\!)To T O xaAov i n §8).
If the d i v i s i o n i n t o y e v e a u g and ov i s accepted, i t i s evident that the cosmos,
being opaTog nai aua$r|Tog, belongs to the former and i s t h e r e f o r e yevrjTOg.
2. At the same time P h i l o i s very much aware of the f a c t that the first
book of the Law has r e c e i v e d the t i t l e r e v e a t g . Hence h i s statement that Mo-
ses gave the realm of sense the appropriate name (or word) y e v e a u g . Exegesis
of t h i s t i t l e force s the reader, i n P h i l o ' s view, to recognize that Moses pro-
pounds the dichotomy of i n t e l l i g i b l e and sense-perceptibl e r e a l i t y and empha-
t i c a l l y declares the cosmos to be yevriTog. As so o f t e n i n h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l
exegesis, the argumentation i s emphatically circular. The Platonic doctrine
allows one to understand the Mosaic t i t l e , but at the same time the Mosaic
t i t l e v a l i d a t e s the P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e .
For h a l f a millenium these arguments were used over and over again, w i t h an
ever i n c r e a s i n g degree of refinement and s c h o l a s t i c subtlety.
back to the Old Academy. The l a t t e r i s based on the Y < - Y v ó y e v o v nal duoAAuyevov
H i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n he sets out f i r s t of a l l i n a d i r e c t
appeal to the wording of the P l a t o n i c text (hence x a A e u ) . The last five lines
cosmogony (on which see Baltes 5-18); h i s i n f o r m a t i o n may have been derived
Opif .26-28. The words iv dpxf) i n Gen. 1:1 are not meant temporally, but
i n d i c a t e order and h i e r a r c h y , i . e . God made the heaven f i r s t (§28):
nai yap ei Ttdvd'dyoc o Ttouwv eTcotet, xd£tv ou6ev ?jxxov eZxe xd xaAwg Y ^ V O -
yevcr xaAov yap o\)biv iv dxa^ta. xd£ts 6'dxoAoudua nal eupyos eaxt i p o -
riYouyevwv xuvwv nal eioyevojv, et nai yr) xous ditoxeAeayaatv, dAAa X O L xaus
xujv xexxauvoyevojv e i t v o t a u s ' ouxws yap eyeAAov r)npL$&o%aC xe nai diAavets
e l v a t nai dauYXUTou.
II 2.1.3. 77
The main idea of §13-14 i s repeated, but the xd£us i s now more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d
to the planning a c t i v i t y of the c r e a t o r . The c r e a t i o n a l sequence i n d i c a t e s
planned and ordered structure. Now, as we saw at the beginning of t h i s sub-
s e c t i o n , one of the explanations f o r a n o n - l i t e r a l reading of the Timaeus was
that P l a t o presented the cosmogony f o r d i d a c t i c reasons. A standard compari-
son, ever s i n c e the Old Academy, was the way i n which mathematicians 1
generate 1
2.2.1. The c a u s e o f b e c o m i n g ( 2 8 a )
him and, having found him, i t i s impossible to t e l l everyone about him' (28c3-
only two causes (the formal and the m a t e r i a l ) and n e g l e c t e d the e f f i c i e n t cause
mover i s patent.
i s nothing e l s e than the $eou Aoyos f|6ri xoayoTtoi-ouvxos. The cosmos only pos-
sesses i t s r a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e because i t i s the image of the n o e t i c plan for-
med by the c r e a t o r ( i . e . the e f f i c i e n t cause) as h i s Logos before commencing
the c r e a t i v e a c t . Form i s the r e s u l t of and inseparabl y connected with c r e a -
tive activity. Laban i n h i s f o l l y recognizes n e i t h e r the Cause, nor h i s Logos,
nor the archetypa l n o e t i c p l a n , nor the form present i n the cosmos.
(a) i n the P l a t o n i c order uounTris xau itaxrip: Opif.7, Post. 175, Conf. 144,170,
Her.98,236, Fug.177, Abr.58, Decal.105, Spec.1.34, 2.6, 3.199, 4.180, V i r t . 3 4 ,
> > Legat.293, Prov.2.62,72, QG 2.34 (Gr. text at FE 33.107), QE 2.33 (EES
6 4 7 7
2.75) - i n a l l 21 cases;
(b) i n the reverse order Tcaxnp nai ïïouriTns: Opif. 10,21, Her. 200, Fug. 84, Abr.
9, Mos.1.158, 2.48,256, Decal.51, Spec.2.256, 3.178,189, Praem.24,32, Contempl
90, Aet.15, Legat.115, QG 1.58, 4.130, fr.10 (Gr. text FE 33.223) - i n a l l 20
cases.
If there should be any doubt regarding P h i l o ' s awareness of the P l a t o n i c pro-
venance, i t i s proven by a t l e a s t two passages: Opif.21, where he c o n f l a t e s
Tim.28c3 and 29e1 and a t t r i b u t e s i t t o TÛJV âpxatojv T L S ( c f . Boyancé REG 76
(1963)106 and f u r t h e r below I I 3.1.1.); Aet.15, where i t i s i n c l u d e d i n the
b r i e f Timaeus compendium (see above I I 2.1.3.).
But what does God as Tiaxnp mean to P h i l o ? Volker (58) claims in this
context:
account ( Q p i f . 1 6 ):
TipoXa^wv yap b %ebg axe %eo£ O I L utunua naAov oux av itoxe yevobTO 6 t x a
xaAou 7 t a p a 6 e b Y u a T o s oi)6e x i xwv aua^riTwv avunauxtov, b yn ipos apxexunov
xat vonxfiv u 6 e a v aiieuxovua^ri. . .
the r e l a t i o n between the demiurge and the model. Both P l a t o and P h i l o agree
the d o c t r i n e that the ideas are God's thoughts, a theme to which we shall re-
cosmos and the demiurge are described as o yev yap xaAAtaxos xfiv yeyovoxwv, o
TO) apuaxtp 6pav aAAo itAfjv T O KaAAuaxov. The result i s that the demiurge compo-
ses the universe oitws oxu KaAAuaxov eun x a x d cpuauv a p t a x o v xe epyov onteupyaa-
y e v o s (30b5-6). Further on i n the d i s c o u r s e , at 68e2-4, we encounter o xou
KaAAuaxou xe nai a p t a x o u 6 n y t o u p y o s • • • nvuna xov auxdpHri xe nai xov xeAecoxaxov
deov e y e v v a . . . The climax i s found i n the concluding l i n e s of the work (92c7-
9). This cosmos i s etKwv xou vonxo u %ebg a t a ^ n x o s , yeyuaxos nat apuaxos xdA-
Auaxos xe nau xeAeooxaxos y e y o v e v eus oupavog o6e yovoyevfis wv.
The i n f l u e n c e of these passages on P h i l o s thought and T
phraseology i s
q u i t e out of p r o p o r t i o n to the r e l a t i v e infrequency of t h e i r occurrence i n the
Timaeus. We commence with the two passages where P l a t o ' s words at 29a5-6 are
e x p l i c i t l y quoted.
C u r i o u s l y both Marcus (EES 1.5) and Mercier (FE 34A.69) consider that P h i l o i s
a l l u d i n g to Tim.92c, but i t i s evident t h a t , as i n the p a r a l l e l passage, he i s
u t i l i z i n g 29a5-6.
Though once again the sequence of the two phrases i s i n v e r t e d , t h i s time ndA-
Auoxos i s not replaced by x e A e u o x a x o s . The small expansion of the phrase d p t -
a x o s X O J V a t x u wv can again be traced to the i n f l u e n c e of 92c7-8, though i t i s
not impossible that the Armenian here uses a doublet.
Translation
that unadorned matter has been turned i n t o the cosmos with i t s adornment. 8
For these were the f i r s t causes, from which a l s o the cosmos came i n t o
being. Since a l s o the lawgiver of the Jews, Moses, d e s c r i b e d water,
darkness and the abyss as being present befor e the cosmos came i n t o be-
ing. 9
But P l a t o (spoke o f ) matter, Thales the M i l e s i a n water...
Notes
1. Aucher d i x e r u n t ; i n t h i s b a l d form at l e a s t the word appears c o r r u p t .
P h i l o uses cpaou impersonally w i t h great frequency, but i f he uses the past
tense he w i l l s p e c i f y the commentators he has i n mind at the very l e a s t with
xuves, but u s u a l l y i n greater d e t a i l (e.g. Leg.3.115, Aet.89 e t c . ) . I f the
3rd person p l u r a l i s c o r r e c t , we may agree with B a l t e s 36 that P h i l o r e f e r s
to contemporary P l a t o n i s t s . Aucher erroneously p l a c e d t h i s s e c t i o n i n quota-
t i o n marks, apparently wishing to recognize a q u o t a t i o n of Tim.92c ( c i t e d i n a
footnote). There i s no such a l l u s i o n , although we s h a l l see that that text
does p r o v i d e , i n P h i l o s eyes, a good p a r a l l e l f o r 29b1-2.
f
But the problem of two or three causes has l i t t l e bearing on the inter-
p r e t a t i o n of the remainder of the passage. The key question f o r that i s : Why
does P h i l o s e l e c t p r e c i s e l y Tim.29b1-2 to e l u c i d a t e P l a t o ' s understanding of
the cosmos' y e v e o u s ? The two s p e c i f i c problems are: (1) What i s the connec-
t i o n between the f i r s t sentence, i n t r o d u c i n g the views of the P l a t o n i s t s , and
the quote that follows i t ? (2) I t i s c l e a r that P h i l o bases two conclusions
on the quote, i n d i c a t e d by the p a r t i c i p l e s ' c a l l i n g ' and 'showing' which suc-
ceed i t . How can these be derived from P l a t o ' s words? Without wishing to
deny that other s o l u t i o n s are p o s s i b l e , I suggest the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
(1) The a f f i r m a t i o n of the P l a t o n i s t s i n the f i r s t sentence i s a rephra-
s i n g i n the most b a s i c terms of the a p p l i c a t i o n of the t h i r d fundamental p h i -
l o s o p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e presented i n the proemium, i . e . that there must be a mo-
del and that the e x c e l l e n c e of the cosmos d i c t a t e s that a most e x c e l l e n t ( i . e .
n o e t i c ) model was used i n i t s c r e a t i o n . Cf. Somn.1.188 (exeg. Gen.28:17!),
nai o v o n x o s duo xou atadriToO xoauos e v o n ^ n . . . The acceptance of the doctrine
of the 'two worlds' i s p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r what f o l l o w s . Hence I suggest that
P h i l o has read the d o c t r i n e i n t o the a c t u a l wording of the quote, namely i n
II 2.3.3. 95
the words TOUTWV 6e uuapxovTwv (whereas P l a t o means 'these things being so',
i.e. 'these t h i n g s ' r e f e r t o the whole a p p l i c a t i o n of the three p h i l o s o p h i c a l
p r i n c i p l e s t o the cosmos ( c f . Cornford 23)).
(2) How can he now proceed t o e x t r a c t from the quoted text the conclusion
that P l a t o ' c a l l s t h i s cosmos a demonstration of the creator* ? The word ' c a l l '
suggests a l i t e r a l reference t o the Timaeus text ( c f . naXeZ Aet.15). Thus I
suspect that P h i l o i s e x p l a i n i n g the words etnova T U V O S i n 29b2. In t h i s case
T U V O S w i l l not mean 'something' and r e f e r t o the model (as P l a t o meant, c f .
29b4), but r a t h e r w i l l mean 'someone', s i g n i f y i n g God the c r e a t o r ( c f . auiL-ou
Ttvos at 28a4,c2). This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s aided by two other t e x t s i n the T i -
maeus which can be taken to i n d i c a t e an eimliv r e l a t i o n between God and the
cosmos: 29e3, i n which God makes ndvict rcapaiiAriata earner; 92c7, i n which a v a r i a
l e c t i o reads E L H W V TOU TIOLTITOU i n s t e a d of etxwv T O U VOTITOU (see f u r t h e r below
I I 3.5.1. 10.3.1.). At the same time the quoted t e x t 'shows' that the cosmos
i s yevnTOg because such i s the consequence of the o n t o l o g i c a l s t a t us of a ei-
xwv. The t r a n s i t i o n to the next sentence which c o n c i s e l y d e f i n e s God's r e l a -
t i o n to the two worlds — as e t e r n a l TCOUTITTIS of the vonxa and bestower of an
apxn T O U " yCyveo%ab on the aia%r\Ta — i s n a t u r a l enough (apxn p i c k s up yeveaeug
ctpxnv and di'apxns T U V O S ap£auevos i n the e a r l i e r quote). Then f o l l o w s an ab-
rupt switch t o the s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e cosmos, whose 'adornment' i s d e f i n ed i n
order t o u n v e i l the 'unadorned matter', i . e . the second 'cause' explained fur-
ther i n §22.
mos that he can. The importance of the (most) probable account f o r P l a t o can
be gauged from the f a c t that he repeats i t no l e s s than 18 times throughout
the dialogue. The reader cannot p o s s i b l y miss i t .
2. The correctness or otherwise of a c o g n i t i v e a c t , whether of a s e n s i -
b l e or an i n t e l l i g i b l e o b j e c t , i s dependent on the nature and c a p a b i l i t y of
the subject of that a c t . This aspect i s given l e s s emphasis i n our passage.
P l a t o only b r i e f l y mentions the l i m i t a t i o n s imposed on us by our human nature
(29d1). Compare, however, the passage on the c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s of the cos-
mic soul (37a-c) . Concerning s e n s i b l e r e a l i t y i t possesses 6o£at nai nt-aieus
fiefiaioL nai dAndeus (37b9) , and i t i s safe to conclude that i t s knowledge of
the i n t e l l i g i b l e world ( c f . 37b3) i s a l s o s u p e r i o r . Other texts which empha-
s i z e the s u p e r i o r knowledge and true opinion of the gods and the imperfect
c o g n i t i o n of man are 34c2-4,48c6-e1,53d4-7,65b7-d1,68b6-8,d2-7,69a1-2,72d4-8
(but note that at 53d7 P l a t o speaks of knowledge possessed by §eog and men who
are dear to him).
r e c i p i e n t s of knowledge.
But a l s o among incarnated human beings there are various l e v e l s of know-
ledge and belief. At one end of the s c a l e are those who are so weighed down
by b o d i l y d e s i r e s that they can only grope i n darkness. At the other end are
those p r i v i l e g e d beings who are so l i t t l e hindered by the dead-weight of t h e i r
bodies that they a l l but f l o a t i n the a i r and j o i n t h e i r disembodied fellow-
souls. In between are those who must sweat and toil 2
to gain a measure of i n -
s i g h t i n t o the mysteries of created and uncreated r e a l i t y . At Gig.60-61 P h i l o
speaks of men of earth (ensnared by the body), men of heaven (the cpuAopafteCs,
e x e r c i s i n g t h e i r minds), men of God ( e n r o l l e d i n the n o e t i c world, c f . below
II 10.1.3.). Elsewhere other B i b l i c a l l y founded and a l l e g o r i c a l l y expounded
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are used, i n which the two upper l e v e l s are represented by Mo-
ses and B e z a l e l , Abraham and L o t , Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and I s r a e l , and so
on. Resultant i s now a human h i e r a r c h y of r e c i p i e n t s of knowledge.
These passages are reminiscent not only of Tim.29b-d, but even more of t e x t s
such as 53d6-7,72d5-7. The e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a p p l i e d by P l a t o to
the study of d i a l e c t i c s and science are t r a n s f e r r e d by P h i l o to problems of
exegesis. Compare a l s o Cher.55, Mos.2.122, Spec.1.214, QG 3.14. Note a s i m i -
l a r procedure on the part of P l u t a r c h when he embarks on P l a t o n i c exegesis at
Mor.430B,719F,1013B(Eudorus!),1014A.
It must be recognized, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t , although P h i l o e x p l i c i t l y utili-
zes the d o c t r i n e of Tim.29b-d, i n that u t i l i z a t i o n changes of emphasis can be
detected which cause i t to deviate from P l a t o ' s i n t e n t i o n s . This i s n o t i c e d
above a l l i n the f a c t that he i s c l e a r l y l e s s i n t e r e s t e d than P l a t o i n the on-
t o l o g i c a l status of the object of c o g n i t i o n . Only i n the realm of theology
does i t remain of paramount importance; man cannot come to know God's essence
( c f . above I I 2.2.3.). But the r i g i d d i v i s i o n between unshakable knowledge
of i n t e l l i g i b l e objects and (at the most) true o p i n i o n concerning s e n s i b l e ob-
j e c t s , though not wholly ignored, i s r e l e g a t e d to the background. On the other
hand, P l a t o ' s h i n t of the l i m i t a t i o n s of human knowledge i s h e a v i l y e x p l o i t e d .
I t gives support to the idea of a h i e r a r c h y of r e c i p i e n t s of knowledge.
dence on God. 5
Thus, i n s p i t e of the c l e a r use of Tim.29b-d i n Praem.28-29,
at f i r s t s i g h t seems so s i m i l a r , Aet.2.
CHAPTER THREE
3.0. Introductory
3.0. Introductory
Leg.2.46 i n order to show that God i s above the vous i s unfortunate, since the
context shows that the human vous i s meant).
3.1.2. No e n v y i n t h e d i v i n e (29e)
Opif .21: ou xdpuv Tns dpuaxris cpuaews oux ecpdovnaev ouaua pn.6ev e£ a u x n s exouarj
x a A o v , 6uvauevri 6e ndvxa yuvea£au.
Deus 108 (exeg. Gen.6:8): depdova xd d y a d d . . .
Plant.91 (exeg. Gen.28:21): o 6eatoxr)s «ai nyeywv xwv oAoov ou6ev x n s eauxou
cpuaews yexapaAAoov, yevwv 6e l v oyouw, d y a d o s eaxu (Tim.29e1) auvex&s xau cpuAo-
6wpos dveAAbnajs, xwv ovxws dya$cJ5v d(pdova)V xau devvdwv a u x u o s x e A e u o x a x o s x o u s
eu6auyovouau (text Colson EE 3.258).
Migr.183 (exeg. Deut.4:39 and brought i n t o r e l a t i o n with the d o c t r i n e of the
powers): auxn 6e xupuws eaxuv d y a d o x r i s , cp$oyov yev xov y u a d p e x o v xau yuaoxaAov
dneAnAaxuua d(p' e a u x r j s , x d p u x a s 6e yevvwaa a u s xd yfi o v x a eus y e v e a u v d y o u a a
(cf._Ii_m.30a5) dvecpnvev ( f o r m u l a t i o n here i n f l u e n c e d by Phdr.247a7, c f . Fug.62,
De Deo 12).
Congr. 171 (exeg. Gen. 16:6, Deut.8.2-3): x u s O U V O U X W S d v o a u o s e a x u v , u>s uitoAa-
3euv xaxwxnv xov §eov...; d y a $ o s ydp (Tim.29e1) xau dyadffiv a u x u o s , e u e p y e x n s ,
awxrip, xpocpeus, nAouxocpopos, yeyaAo6u)pos, x a x u a v opoav uepwv diieAnAaxws (again
the i n f l u e n c e of Phdr.247a7).
QG 1.55 (exeg. Gen.3.22): The D e i t y , however, i s without part i n any e v i l and
f
The a s s e r t i o n that God i s good and wished to make the cosmos as good as
p o s s i b l e r a i s e s the problem of theodicy. Can God be held r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the
shortcomings of the cosmos and the e v i l things that undeniably occur i n i t ?
At Tim.29e-30a P l a t o c e r t a i n l y expects h i s reader to r e c a l l Rep.379b-c, where
he had proven to h i s own s a t i s f a c t i o n that the good (and thus a l s o o $ e o s ) was
112 ANALYSIS
oux apa itdvxwv ye auxuov, aAAot xwv yev eu Ixovxwv auxuov, xwv 6e xaxwv avau-
xuov (b15-16). For P h i l o too i t i s an axiomatic p r i n c i p l e that God i s the
source of good things only , and that the cause of e v i l w i l l have to be sought
elsewhere. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s h i s comment on the words spoken to Cain by God
i n Gen.4:7, opdws 6e \ir\ 6 t e A n g . To say that a l l t h i n g s , both what i s b e a u t i -
f u l and i t s opposite, came i n t o being through the agency of God i s to f a i l to
make c l e a r - c u t and necessary d i s t i n c t i o n s i n one's t h i n k i n g (Agr.128-129).
That the words i n Tim.29e2-3,30a2-3,6-7,d1-3 were read as r e f l e c t i n g t h i s axi-
omatic p r i n c i p l e can be seen i n P h i l o ' s manner of formulation i n passages such
as Conf. 180 lyTipeieaxaxov 6e xa oilxeua xf) eauxou cpuaeu 6 n u t o u p Y e t v apuaxa xw
aptaxw, Abr.268 $ouAoyevw 6e d x apuaxa, Spec.4.187 ( c i t e d above). Note a l s o
the t e x t s Congr.171 and QG 1.55, already discussed above i n I I 3.1.2., i n
which the a f f i r m a t i o n of God's otcpdovta has theodical intent. Other t e x ts ab-
s o l v i n g God from a l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e v i l are Plant.53, Fug.69, Praem.32,
Prov.2.82 (here matter i s designated the cause of e v i l ) , QG 1.89, f r . 5 (FE 33.
219). The theme of theodicy i s p a r t i c u l a r l y prominent i n the t r e a t i s e s De
Providentia ( c f . Hadas-Lebel FE 35.92-1 14). I t i s a concern which P h i l o shares
with Jewish Wisdom l i t e r a t u r e , though i t i s there expressed i n terms l e s s i n -
fluenced by P l a t o and Greek philosophy ( c f . J.Laporte 'Phil o i n the tradition
of B i b l i c a l Wisdom l i t e r a t u r e ' 109). Further aspects of the problem of theo-
d i c y which are r e l e v a n t to the Timaeus w i l l be discussed below at I I 6.1.3.
6.2.1.
We commence with Opif.21-22. This passage i s the only part of the leng-
thy adaptation of Tim.29e-30a i n §21-23 which so f a r has not been analysed
(see f u r t h e r above I I 3.1.1-3). God's goodness i s u n s t i n t i n g l y bestowed on an
ouaila yn6ev e£ auxfis exouan x a A o v , 6uvayevn 6e i d v x a y u v e a d a u . Creation takes
114 ANALYSIS
place when that ouaua r e c e i v e s (e6exexo) xporcnv xctu yexagoAnv t r iv eLs xdvavxta
dxaxxos xd^us
duouos Tiouoxris
d^uxos ey^uxta
<dvoyouos> oyouoxns
exepouoxnxos - xauxoxns
dvapyoaxuas - T O eudpyooxov
dauycpwvuas yeaxri xo ouycpwvov
Tiav oaov xns x p e t x x o v o s u 6 e a s .
First some a t t e n t i o n must be paid to detail.
ated product i n the Timaeus. But what about P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the pre-
TO Tiadnxov
dcj^uxov ^ 4>uxw$ev
* * > e£ eauxou a x n y a T u a d ev > \)%6 xou vou
dxovnxov ' xuvn^ev *
Given P h i l o ' s fondness f o r compiling l i s t s of contraste d p a i r s (we s h a l l come
across more examples soon), one might consider the p o s s i b i l i t y that an adjec-
t i v e <doxnyctxbaxov> has f a l l e n out. But u n l i k e i n the case of <dvopotos> in
§22 no e d i t o r has included i t i n the text (the word i s used of ououa in Fug.
8, Somn.2.45, c f . Spec.1.48). In c o n t r a s t to §22 P h i l o include s here the op-
p o s i t i o n between d x L v n x o s and xuvndev. Matter appears to have no ' p o s i t i v e '
116 ANALYSIS
of xd ufi OVTCX and TO yf| ov has been examined at some length by Weiss 60-68 (cf.
a l s o Baeumker op.cit.(n.5) 382-383, May 16-17). He p o i n t s out t h a t , i n con-
t r a s t to P l o t i n u s (and Clement of A l e x a n d r i a ) , P h i l o does not explicitly
equate non-being and matter. He argues that Tot yr) OVTCX simply means 'das was
noch n i c h t i n d i e ihm zukommende Form gebraucht worden i s t ' ( 6 2 ) , but that T O
yn ov i n Deus 119 and Mos.2.267 could be meant to r e f e r to p r e - e x i s t e n t matter.
This view a l s o appeals to Winston 8.
p r i n c i p l e c o - e t e r n a l with God (§7); (4) God produces and orders matter simul -
taneously by means of thought, i . e . t h i n k i n g and c r e a t i n g c o i n c i d e (§7); (5)
God f i r s t creates matter and then proceeds to give i t ordered s t r u c t u r e (§8).
It i s the f i n a l s o l u t i o n , i n which the d o c t r i n e of the Timaeus i s modified i n
the l i g h t of s c i p t u r e , that represents P h i l o ' s own view.
D.Winston, (1981) 16-18, basing h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p a r t i a l l y on a t r a n s -
l a t i o n s u p p l i e d by A.Terian, considers i t p o s s i b l e to e x t r a c t from the passage
a 'consistent P h i l o n i c d o c t r i n e ( n . 3 8 ) .
1
P h i l o ' s c h i e f o b j e c t i o n to the P l a t o -
n i s t s ' view that God has created the cosmos from e t e r n i t y i s that matter i s
elevated to an autonomous p r i n c i p l e c o - e t e r n a l with God. But P h i l o i s a reso-
l u t e monist. God by t h i n k i n g e t e r n a l l y brings matter i n t o being and s i m u l t a -
neously orders i t ( c f . Reale no.4). There i s thus no need to p o s t u l a t e a p r i -
mordial formless s t a t e of matter. For Winston t h i s passage, d e s p i t e i t s ' s t y -
l i s t i c gaucherie'(n.38) i s a key witness to P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e of e t e r n a l c r e a t i o n .
Translation
§6. For o f t e n a l s o he who wanders i n s u p e r f i c i a l observatio n thinks that
t h i s cosmos e x i s t s and i s c o n s t i t u t e d from an e t e r n i t y without beginning, 1
l o v e l y form, how then d i d God begin to create the cosmos? Matter being
15
he d i d not c r e a t e , the forms being with him from the beginning. The w i l l
of God does not happen l a t e r , but i s always with him, f o r n a t u r a l move-
ments never cease. And so i t w i l l happen that he creates by always t h i n -
k i n g and gives beginning ( a p x n) of b e i n g to s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e t h i n g s , so
19
that the one who gave i s benefactor and the one who r e c e i v e s p a r t i c i p a t e s
20 i n the good.
§8. But i f someone refuses to concede t h i s and d e c l a r e that these (are)
together, how was matter long ago, that which never e x i s t s i n the cosmos 2 2
unadorned? 23
But i f there was a time when i t was unadorned, the beginning
( a p x n ) of the cosmos would have been when i t was adorned. For i f we con-
5 s i d e r matter to be an unadorned substance d e s t i t u t e of a l l o r d e r , how
24
Notes
1. L i t e r a l l y 'from beginning-less ages (= e£ avapxwv auwvoav? — but P h i l o ne-
ver uses auwv i n the p l u r a l ) . ( T e r i a n renders: 'For there are many who go
about s u p e r f i c i a l l y t h i n k i n g . . . ' )
2. Or 'by anything' (= UTto x u v o s ) .
3. Cf. Aet. 14 (on the same s u b j e c t ! ) , x u v e s 6e ol'ovxau aocpuCopevot. . .
4. S i c ! Cf. Hannick, 'Gott hat d i e Welt vor der Weltschopfung n i c h t angefan-
gen'.
5. ( T e r i a n renders: '...the attempt to show that the c r e a t i o n of the world i s
not p r i o r to God's g i v i n g the world a beginning and that He i s c o n s t a n t l y c r e -
a t i n g t h i s most b e a u t i f u l world...')
6. ( T e r i a n here and i n the next l i n e gives the present tense, 'they say'.)
7. No doubt rendering T O \teZov.
8. ( T e r i a n renders: ' . . . i t i s f o r God who i s without beginning to create a l l
things...)
9. The word f o r 'accusation' i s a p l u r a l e tantum, so both a s i n g u l a r or a
p l u r a l rendering i s p o s s i b l e (Hannick and T e r i a n give the p l u r a l ) . The theme
of a c c u s a t i o n ( i . e . accusing God of not being p r o v i d e n t i a l ) i s very prominent
i n De P r o v i d e n t i a I & I I (cf.1.2-3,6,66,69, 2.24,34,102,109). Note the same
theme i n P l o t i n u s ' I l e p l Tipovouas (Enn.3.2.3.10, 3.2.14.7, 3.3.3.6).
10. Meaning obscure. Cf. Aucher 'superest itaque ut d i c a n t . . . ' , Hannick 'Es
steht im G e g e n t e i l , denn n i c h t s b l e i b t (!): Sie sagten...' But the l a s t verb
i s an i n f i n i t i v e , so that Hannick's 'Sie sagten' i s d o u b t f u l . I t i s thus most
l i k e l y not c o r r e c t to suppose, as B a l t e s does, that the words that f o l l o w give
the view of P h i l o ' s opponents. ( T e r i a n renders: 'It i s c o n f l i c t i n g , because
i t can no longer be s a i d that...')
11. Probably rendering uAnv axoapov nai apopcpov nai a a x n p d x u a x o v , the e p i -
thets of matter discussed above i n I I 3.2.1. In the f o l l o w i n g l i n e s both syn-
tax and meaning become desperatel y obscure.
12. I.e. the opponents attacked i n §6.
13. Does t h i s r e f e r to the xoopos v o n x o s (or even the Logos)? But the n o e t i c
world never i t s e l f makes the s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e cosmos. ( T e r i a n renders more
f r e e l y : 'Now, the wise c r e a t i o n i s by Him, He wrought the b e a u t i f u l form of
the world, c o n c e i v i n g the most b e a u t i f u l idea of matter.')
14. Probably rendering e6e£axo, c f . P l a t o ' s r e c e p t a c l e and Opif.22 e 6 e x e x o .
II 3.2.2. 123
15. According to Conybeare (at Wendland op.cit.42) one ms. reads when . f f
3.4.1. P h i l o a n d t h e P l a t o n i c v o n x o v £(Jjov
eauxoO
31a4 xo ydp Tteptexov Ttdvxa o i o a a vonxd C$a
33b2 xcp 6e xd rcdvxa ev auxij) Ccj3a Tcepuexeuv yeXXovxu c<j«p
69c2 £(pov ev exov xd Ttdvxa ev eauxfo d v n x d a S d v a x d xe
92c6 £(3ov o_pa,Tov_XQ_ _opc__T_a i t e p i e x o v .
The t h i r d and f i n a l P h i l o n i c passage which i s d i r e c t l y reminiscent of P l a t o ' s
d e s c r i p t i o n of the vonxov £(pov i s Plant.2, i n which the c r e a t o r i s d e s c r i b e d
as o xwv cpuxoupywv y e Y ^ a x o s and the cosmos as cpuxov 6e a\5 Ttepuexov ev eaux$
xd ev y e p e t cpuxd d y a itayyupila xadditep x X n y a x u 6 a s ex y t a s d v a ^ X a a x d v o v x a puCns.
The e x e m p l a r i s t i c emphasis of P l a t o ' s account i s d e l e t e d here, but the p o r t r a -
y a l of the cosmos r e v e a l s the i n f l u e n c e of the Timaean phraseology. The title
of (puxoupYos given to God i s d i r e c t l y i n s p i r e d by the context of the 'phyto-
cosmological excursus'(exeg. Gen.9:20). But, as H o r o v i t z 77 notes, i t may
a l s o r e c a l l the famous P l a t o n i c passage (Rep.597d) where the god who i s said
to make the idea of the bed i s named (puxoupYos ( c f . a l s o Tim.80e1, Num.fr. 13),
a passage which would have been known to P h i l o because i t so l u c i d l y legiti-
mated the d o c t r i n e that God t h i n k s the ideas as h i s thoughts.
P h i l o * s debt to P l a t o i s c l e a r , both with regard to the d o c t r i n e of the
n o e t i c exemplar, and i n h i s use of phraseology (note esp. the t r i p l e use of
Tteptexetv). But a s t r i k i n g d i f f e r e n c e i s e q u a l l y apparent. P h i l o does not
take over P l a t o ' s t a l k of a £tuov and Cqia, both at the n o e t i c and the v i s i b l e
l e v e l of being. To place t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n p e r s p e c t i v e i t w i l l be necessary
to examine the r o l e of the P l a t o n i s t t r a d i t i o n .
Texts P l a t o : Timaeus
P h i l o : Opif.16-20,24-25, Aet.15
Middle P l a t o n i s t s : A r i u s Didymus E p i t . p h y s . f r . 1 D i e l s (= AD)
Albinus D i d a s k a l i k o s (= A)
Timaeus Locrus (= TL)
Diogenes L a e r t i u s V i t a P l a t o n i s 3.69-76 (= DL)
Hippolytus Philosophoumena, D i e l s Pox.Gr. (= H)
Aetius P l a c i t a , D i e l s Pox.Gr. (- Aé)
Nichomachus I n t r o d u c t i o a r i t h m e t i c a 1.4-6 (= N)
A t t i c u s (= A t t . )
aYOtXuaTOcpopew" 18
ápxéxuTtos 16,25,Aet.15 AP447.20 N4.2
ano-ßXeTtü) (towards cf.29a3,Rep. 18 A12.1
the ideas) 484c9
yond anything we find i n the accounts of contemporaries, one might compare the
that God first thought (TtpoTepov v o n a a u ) what he was going to c r e a t e and that
God's thoughts are o l d e r than the (created) t h i n g s ; but he does not explicitly
(§18-19).
The reason f o r the prominence of the conception of the model i n the open-
ing part of O p i f . i s that P l a t o ' s theory s u p p l i e s P h i l o with a b r i l l i a n t solu-
t i o n to the formidable problems involved i n the exegesis of the f i r s t verses
of Genesis (problems that were to be repeatedl y d i s c u s s ed i n the P a t r i s t i c
p e r i o d ; on the Nachleben of P h i l o ' s s o l u t i o n c f . J.Pepin, 'Recherches sur l e
sens et l e s o r i g i n e s de l ' e x p r e s s i o n "caelum c a e l i " dans l e l i v r e XII des "Con-
f e s s i o n s " de s. Augustin' ALMA 23 (1953)185-274 and esp. 2 4 4 f f . ) . Gen.1:1-5
i s taken to d e s c r i b e the c r e a t i o n not — as the naive reader might t h i n k - of
the world as we know i t , but of the i n t e l l i g i b l e cosmos which served as a mo-
d e l f o r the c r e a t o r i n the act of c r e a t i o n . Moses shows that the xoouog von. -
o §eos (p&s e o x t . . . nai OV yovov (pws, dXXd HOLL rcavxos exepou cpwxos d p x e -
X U T C O V , yaXXov 6e Ttavxos dpxexuTtou icpeaguxepov nai d v w x e p o v , Xoyov exov
Ttapa6etYyaxos < n a p a 6 e u Y y a x o s > . T O yev yap Tcapd6etYya o i X n p e a x a x o s ?)v
a u x o u X O Y O S , cpws - "e^Tte" yap (pnatv "o $eos* yevea%u cpo5s" — , a u x o s 6e
ou6evu xcov Y E Y O V O X W V o y o u o s .
The j u x t a p o s i t i o n of X O Y O S and e^rce i s c l e a r l y d e l i b e r a t e . Note how Philo as
sociates X O Y O S and prjya (which unambiguously denotes the spoken word) at Sacr
8 (here the Logos i s instrument). On the Logos as God speaking (o Xeywv) c f .
Fug.95,101, QE 2.68 ( a l l exeg. Ex.25:22).
3.4.5. P r e p o s i t i o n a l metaphysics
In P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s there are three texts which are among the earliest
witnesses to the p r e p o s i t i o n a l metaphysics sketched above.
Cher.124-127. Cain goes a s t r a y when he d e c l a r e s "I have gained a man
through God (6ud T O U d e o u ) " (Gen.4:1), f o r God i s not the instrument but the
( e f f i c i e n t ) cause of c r e a t i o n . In order to e x p l a i n t h i s exegesis P h i l o must
fill i n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l background. He does so i n a r a t h e r d i d a c t i c fashion,
s e t t i n g out the b a s i c schema, then g i v i n g a l i m i t e d example and finally apply-
ing i t to the yeveobg of the cosmos. We can s u c c i n c t l y present i t i n the fol-
lowing t a b l e :
By whom: God. Out of which: matter. Through whom: the instrument. The
instrument i s the Logos of God. And towards what was i t made: the model.
Once again four causes are given, but when we compare the l i s t with Cher.126
we f i n d that the f i n a l cause has been delete d and replaced by the formal cause,
i.e. the model towards which the c r e a t o r looks when c r e a t i n g the cosmos (pro-
minent i n the d i s c u s s i o n i n §21; see I I 2.3.3.). Noteworthy i s that here too
the instrumental cause i s included ( i n the other two texts the exegesis deman-
ded i t s presence). It f i t s l e a s t w e l l i n t o the P l a t o n i s t s e r i e s and P h i l o
f e e l s o b l i g e d to e x p l a i n what he i s r e f e r r i n g t o .
4.0. Introductory
4.0. Introductory
The t r a i n of thought here i s only comprehensible when viewed against the back-
ground of a S t o i c c o s m o l o g i c a l problem, namely what keeps the cosmos i n the
centre of the v o i d and stops i t from s i n k i n g at horrendous speed. The problem
had not t r o u b l e d P l a t o and A r i s t o t l e f o r the simple reason that they denied an
extra-cosmic v o i d ( c f . Tim.33d5, De Caelo 1.9). The Stoa d i d accept the v o i d
as a consequence of t h e i r exTcupwaus d o c t r i n e and c e r t a i n changes i n t h e i r l o -
g i c . In a p e n e t r a t i n g study Hahm 103-126 ( c f . a l s o 166-168) e l u c i d a t e s the
1
Ae£w 6n yexd rcappnotas oxu oux'eAaxxovos ouxe lAeuovos ouauas e6eu xq>
xooyu) rcpos xaxaaxeun,v, e n e u o U K dv eyeyevrixo xeAeuog ou6'ev Tiaau xoug ye-
peau oAonAripos, e5 6e 6e6n.yLoupYn.yevos ex xeAeuas ououas dTtexeAeaSn.
Plato's words at Tim.32c-33a can s t i l l h a z i l y be discerned in this sentence,
but a considerable shift i n terminology has taken p l a c e . Not found i n P l a t o ,
f o r example, are the words xaxaoxeun., oAoxAnpos, (xeAeta) ouaCa. Unmistakable
a l s o i n the whole passage i s the emphasis on the non-Timaean concept of uAn;
note auxapxeoxdxns uAns, T O I V uAaus auxapxes axaftyriaaadau, xnv uxavfiv t6euv
uAnv. I t i s apparent that the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the process of c r e a t i o n i n
t n e
Timaeus as i n v o l v i n g a p r e - e x i s t e n t matter out of which the cosmos i s f o r -
med has encouraged a view of matter i n terms of i t s quantity, and so i t must
be granted that Alexander's q u e s t i o n is entirely logical. Philo's assertion
that God 'aimed at a p r e c i s e l y s u f f i c i e n t amount r e q u i r e d f o r the cosmos' c r e -
a t i o n ' , i f combined with the assumption that there i s no matter o u t s i d e the
cosmos, might give r i s e to the s u p p o s i t i o n that God was responsible for crea-
t i n g that matter i n an e a r l i e r stage of the c r e a t i v e process, i . e . a creatio
152 ANALYSIS
i n i s out of the question, f o r i n that case the part would be more powerful
than the whole. Moreover i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l d e s t r u c t i o n are always coupled
together, so that i f a t h i n g i s not subject to the one, i t i s a l s o f r e e from
the other (§23-24).
The. formal argument has been brought to a c o n c l u s i o n , and now Philo calls
as witness (uapxupu a nai xd ev TLUOCLW) the very same s e c t i o n of the Timaeus
which had been paraphrased i n §21. The e n t i r e passage Tim.32c5-33b1 i s quoted
verbatim (§25-26), with only the f o l l o w i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between P h i l o ' s v e r s i o n
and the r e c e i v e d P l a t o n i c text ( l e a v i n g aside a few t r i v i a l differences in
spelling):
Plato Philo
33a2 uv 'dyripwv uva dyripwv
33a3 cuaxdxw mss. xd T W (or xd
by Bernays
33a5 Aueu AuTteu
yflpds xe nai ynpots
33a6 6 t d 6f| xrjv 6 t d xn.v
33a7 xov6e I v a oAov xov6e $eos 6Aov
oAwv e£ ditdvxwv e£ oAwv aTidvxwv
On these d i f f e r e n c e s see the comments of J.Bernays Abh.Berl.Akad.1883 66, C o l -
son EE 9.527. The emendation to auaxdxw would seem to be j u s t i f i e d .
1
Colson
i s i n c o r r e c t when he says that the word i n the P l a t o n i c text i s a modern c o r -
r e c t i o n , s i n c e i t i s supported by a reading i n P r o c l u s . I do not see how i t
i s p o s s i b l e with any c e r t a i n t y to determine whether AuiieC and %eog are P h i l o -
n i c a l t e r a t i o n s , or were already present i n h i s t e x t , or are s c r i b a l changes.
C e r t a i n l y , even a l l o w i n g f o r the resources of a formidable memory, the passage
as a whole would seem too long and the t r a n s c r i p t i o n too accurate to be
achieved without reference to a copy of the dialogue.
P h i l o concludes the e n t i r e s e c t i o n by saying that t h i s i s P l a t o ' s witness to
the dcpdapauot of the cosmos (already affirme d at Aet. 13 where Tim.41a7-b6 i s
quoted), while proof of the f a c t that the cosmos i s d y e v n x o s f o l l o ws en cpuau-
n?)g dxoAouduas (§27) .
below at I I 4.2.7.
Even i f the passage i n Aet. i s d i s r e g a r d e d , i t i s not l i k e l y that P h i l o
would wish to q u a r r e l with the P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e that the cosmos i s not sub-
j e c t to o l d age and d i s e a s e . At Spec.2.5 there i s a r e v e a l i n g remark i n the
context of a d i s c u s s i o n of the t h i r d commandment. I f one should wish to add
to one's Yes or No, l e t not the highest cause be added but the e a r t h , sun,
s t a r s , heaven, the whole cosmos; a^toAoyooxaxa yap x a u x a axe nai Ttpeapuxepa xfjs
Hpexepas yeveaewg Hat itpooext ayripa) 6 u a t a ) V b o u v x a xrj xou TceTcounHoxos yvcoun.. It
i s not doubted that the cosmos and i t s most important p a r t s w i l l continue to
l i v e f r e e from o l d age. But the f i n a l four words, 'according to the purpose
of him who made them', are a t y p i c a l l y P h i l o n i c a d d i t i o n of great significance;
see f u r t h e r below I I 6.1.1. 2
Her.227-229. Why does Moses say nothing about the measurements of the
lampstand i n Ex.25:31-39? Perhaps i n t e r a l i a because i t symbolizes heaven
which i s x u x A o x e p n s nat dxpws etg acpatpav a i o x e x o p v e u u e v o s and has no length
or breadth (§229). The d e s c r i p t i o n i s taken from Tim.33b5 x u x A o x e p e s auxo
exopveuaaxo. As we s h a l l see, P h i l o i s reminded of these words by the B i b l i -
c a l text i t s e l f , though i n Her, the connection i s not made c l e a r .
QE 2.73. In the LXX i n Ex.25 the a d j e c t i v e x o p e u x o s (meaning 'chased'
'embossed') occurs three times (v.18,31,36). From Her.216 and QE 2.63 (Greek
text EES 2.254) i t i s c e r t a i n that i n the f i r s t and t h i r d of these verses
P h i l o d i d read x o p e u x o s i n h i s t e x t . But i n QE 2.73 (exeg. Ex.25:31) he appa-
r e n t l y reads x o p v e u x o s (meaning 'turned' ' l a t h e d ' ) , a v a r i a l e c t i o found only
i n one c u r s i v e ms., i n C y r i l and a l s o i n the Armenian, E t h i o p i a n , Old L a t i n
and S y r i a c t r a n s l a t i o n of the LXX ( c f . A.E.Brooke and N.McLean, The Old T e s t a -
ment i n Greek (London 1902) 2.238). The Armenian e q u i v a l e nt f o r the root
x o p v e u - i s found four times i n our passage (Weitenberg). There i s no need to
I I 4.2.3. 155
assume that the Armenian t r a n s l a t o r imposed the reading of his LXX text on
P h i l o , f o r h i s B i b l i c a l quotations o f t e n remain f a i t h f u l to P h i l o rather than
f o l l o w the Armenian B i b l e ( c f . Lewy De Jona 10n.39). The words ' i l l u m i n a t e d 1
(or 'adorned ) and 'described' i n P h i l o ' s text might seem more s u i t e d to the
1
as god and not as the epyov or 6nuuoupynpa of God w i l l have been made with the
176, Dillon 114). In a number of these t e x t s the complaint i s that the cosmos
i s designated as the TtpcoTos %eog. This leaves open the p o s s i b i l i t y that the
only time that P h i l o uses the expression auodriTOS %eog, directly reminiscent
t i r e t y could be thought a ' r i v a l ' f o r God, but not s t a r s and demons. The
attitude.
3. Even i f the paraphrase and the two quotes from the Timaeus are d i s r e -
garded, the passage Aet.20-44 i s f u l l of P l a t o n i c reminiscences and language
(cf. Pepin 265). Jaeger concluded i n h i s famous book on A r i s t o t l e ' s develop-
ment ( A r i s t o t e l e s 127,141 etc.) from t h i s and other evidence that i n the De
p h i l o s o p h i a he set out to show the great debt he owed to h i s master, but at
the same time to d i s c l o s e by means of p e n e t r a t i n g c r i t i c i s m the new philoso-
p h i c a l paths which he intended to pursue. P l a t o may have even been a p a r t i c i -
pant i n the dialogue, though the c h i e f speaker we know to have been the author
himself.
cal point of view d o u b t f u l . The paraphrase has already made the reference to
t n e
Timaeus so obvious that a f u r t h e r c i t a t i o n o f Tim.32c-33a would be e n t i r e -
l y superfluous. On the other hand P h i l o , f o r whom i n Aet. the r e l a t i o n be-
tween P l a t o and A r i s t o t l e i s of c e n t r a l importance, may w e l l have had good
reasons f o r i n s i s t i n g on A r i s t o t e l i a n dependence, as w i l l become apparent i n
the f i n a l part of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n . I am i n c l i n e d t o agree, t h e r e f o r e , wit h
Pepin 265, E f f e 10,18 and Mansfeld Stud.Hell.Rel.141, that he has recognized
the P l a t o n i c element i n the argument and appended the f i r s t P l a t o n i c quotation
himself.
The second quote from the Timaeus at §38 remains to be examined. As was
noted above i n I I 4.2.4. t h i s quotation i s more problematic because i t s d i r e c t
r e l a t i o n to what precedes i s l e s s obvious. Indeed at f i r s t s i g h t i t would
seem to i l l u s t r a t e the f i r s t argument much b e t t e r than the t h i r d , s i n c e i t
does not even mention the conception of an a l l - p o w e r f u l cpuous r e s p o n s i b l e for
the cosmos' p r e s e r v a t i o n . And the mention o f a d i v i n e composer (o a u r e u s c f .
33d2) i s c l o s e r to the f o u r t h argument than the t h i r d . As i t stands the quote
can only i l l u s t r a t e the s t r e n g th possessed by the nature of the cosmos as the
r e s u l t of the cosmos' s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y .
devoted to the body of the cosmos i t has become apparent that the cosmological
d o c t r i n e s found there are r e g u l a r l y echoed i n P h i l o s works. f
It i s therefore
a l l the more remarkable how r a r e l y P h i l o a c t u a l l y speaks of the 'body of the
II 4.2.8. 165
cosmos 1
or uses expressions that imply that phrase. I have l o c a t e d only three
i n s t a n c e s : Aet.51 ( i n the r e p o r t of a purely S t o i c argument (= SVF 2.397));
Her.155 (the macro/microcosm i d e a i s a t t r i b u t e d to bold s p i r i t s , i . e . that
both the cosmos and man c o n s i s t of a body and a r a t i o n a l s o u l ) ; QE 2.120 (a
rather p u z z l i n g exegesis of Ex.28:34, i n which P h i l o appears to concede more
to S t o i c physic s than i s h i s wont). Thus, where P l a t o speaks of the body of
the cosmos, P h i l o p r e f e r s to r e f e r simply to the cosmos. N a t u r a l l y t h i s does
not mean that he wishes to p l a y down the aspect of cosmic c o r p o r e a l i t y , as a
glance at t e x t s such as Opif.36, Plant.7 w i l l show. The avoidance of the no-
t i o n of the body of the cosmos would seem q u i t e d e l i b e r a t e . I t i s an observa-
t i o n worth bearing i n mind as we pass on now to the subject of the P l a t o n i c
cosmic s o u l .
CHAPTER F I V E
5.0. Introductory
5.0. Introductory
aaaa.
Soul's p r i o r i t y with regard to body i s general Platonic doctrine ( c f . a l s o the
important text Laws 896c). It is difficult to assess to what extent the i n -
fluence of Tim.34c can be s p e c i f i c a l l y f e l t i n P h i l o ' s constant use of the
formula. What, f o r example, should we think of Wolfson's attempt to use t h i s
text to give d e c i s i v e support f o r a systematizing i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Opif.16
(1.205; c f . a l s o H o r o v i t z 72)?
P h i l o speaks of the i n t e l l i g i b l e world as o l d e r i n comparison with the
v i s i b l e world of which he speaks as younger. This d e s c r i p t i o n q u i t e ob-
v i o u s l y r e f l e c t s P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the u n i v e r s a l s o u l as not being
younger than the world but r a t h e r o l d e r . Now i n P l a t o the d e s c r i p t i o n of
the soul and the world r e s p e c t i v e l y as o l d e r and younger means a compari-
son between two things both of which were created, f o r the s o u l , accor-
ding t o P l a t o , was created. Consequently, we have reason t o b e l i e v e that
P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the i n t e l l i g i b l e world and the v i s i b l e world r e s -
p e c t i v e l y as o l d e r and younger a l s o means a comparison between two things
each of which was c r e a t e d .
In other words, P h i l o makes i t q u i t e c l e a r , by means of an a l l u s i o n t o the T i -
maeus, that 'the i n t e l l i g i b l e world of ideas was created by God as something
II 5.1.1. 169
r e a l outside h i s m i n d . 1
Bormann 15 i s without doubt too hasty i n d i s m i s s i n g
the a l l u s i o n out of hand, f o r the notion of s e q u e n t i a l c r e a t i o n presented i n
t n e
Timaeus i s of fundamental importance f o r P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the
Genesis account. It i s important that the noopog voriTOS i s created before the
Koopos atodriTos. Yet Wolf son does, i n my view, give the a l l u s i o n a greater
s p e c i f i c weight than i t can c a r r y . The comparison i n P l a t o i s between soul
and body, not between cosmic p l a n and cosmic product. We note too that P h i l o
i s q u i t e capable of using Tcpeo3uxepos/vewTepos to describe the r e l a t i o n bet-
ween c r e a t o r and created, as Spec.2.166 proves.
The e x p r e s s i o n 'soul of the cosmos' (n xou xoouou (Jjuxn, n xwv OAOJV c|;uxn)
occurs so i n f r e q u e n t l y i n P h i l o that i t must be concluded that he d e l i b e r a t e l y
avoided i t . In the texts Aet.47,50,73,84, Somn.2.2, Prov.1.33,40,45, he i s
e i t h e r t a l k i n g i n the accepted terms of h i s opponents (note xaxd xous dvxu6o-
£ouvxas at Aet.84) or p a t e n t l y taking over the language of h i s source m a t e r i a l .
Revealing i s the s e l f - c o r r e c t i o n at Mut.223. Man's reason (Aoyuouos) i s not
so much a fragment (diooTiaaua) of the cosmic s o u l , but r a t h e r , f o r those who
f o l l o w Moses i n t h e i r p h i l o s o p h i z i n g , an imprint of the d i v i n e image (exuayeu-
ov euxovos, i . e . the Logos; but c f . a l s o Pet.90, on which see below I I 10.1.2.).
At Leg. 1.91 we read: n yap xwv oAwv (|>uxn o $eos eaxu xaxd evvotav. As Colson
EE 1.478 remarks, the r e s t r i c t i v e f o r c e of the l a s t two words i s i l l u m i n a t e d
by the t r a i n of thought at Migr.179-181, where P h i l o takes e x c e p t i o n to the
Chaldean viewpoint that the cosmos or i t s soul i s the primal god. In a l l
these passages P h i l o has above a l l the S t o i c conception of the cosmic s o u l i n
mind. He o b j e c t s to the f a c t that i n i t s theology the Stoa makes no e s s e n t i a l
d i s t i n c t i o n s between a l l the f o l l o w i n g : God, Logos, cosmic vous, cosmic 4>uxn,
providence, f a t e , itveuua ( c f . SVF 1.102,160 e t c . ) . P h i l o ' s avoidance of the
n o t i o n of the cosmic soul must be set beside h i s avoidance of the p a r a l l e l no-
t i o n of the cosmos' body, as noted above i n I I 4.2.8. Instead he gives a much
greater prominence to the f i g u r e of the d i v i n e Logos. This p r e f e r e n c e must
now be placed i n a wider p e r s p e c t i v e .
nai Ttdvxa auv6o0aa xau ouvexouaa', oux'dv euXoyws xo l a v ouxe xaXws 6u-
f
generic 1
word)). As God's archangel i t stands midway between the uncreated
and the c r e a t e d , ouxe d Y e v n x o s u»s o deos u)V ouxe Y e v n x o s ws u y e C s (dvdpcjTcob)
(Her.206, exeg. Deut.5:5 (symbolized by Moses)).
The d e t a i l e d examination of P h i l o ' s passage has shown that there are con-
love f o r the Timaeus (not to mention the f a c t that one would have to know i t
p r e t t y w e l l to make the e x e g e t i c a l connection) and the f u r t h e r p a r a l l e l pas-
sages below, I c o n s i d e r i t probable that §21-25 represents a p o s s i b i l i t y
thought up by P h i l o h i m s e l f , and that the substance of §21-30 as a whole must
be P h i l o n i c , even i f a previous symbolic exegesis i s i n c l u d e d i n §25-26, 1
indivisibility divisibility
same different
monad/unity dyad/plurality
rest motion
form or model matter
rationality irrationality
This tendency goes r i g h t back to the Old Academy and p a r t i c u l a r l y Xeno-
crates ( i n d i v i s i b l e = monad, d i v i s i b l e = dyad, same = p r i n c i p l e of r e s t , d i f -
f e r e n t = p r i n c i p l e of motion (fr.68 Heinze = Plut.Mor 1012D-E); c f . B r i s s o n
275-313 (who s t r e s s e s the p e r n i c i o u s i n f l u e n c e of A r i s t . D e anima 404b18-30),
B a l t e s Timaios Lokros 70-73. For P h i l o ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of duepuoxos and ueptoxri
to the c e l e s t i a l motions I have found no exact p a r a l l e l , but i t i s perhaps im-
p l i e d by the d e s c r i p t i o n of á xw exepoo cpopd ueueptauéva i n Tim.Locr.26. rixus
¿£ax5 ótaveuri^eSoa (§103) i s based on 36d2 ( c f . A l b . D i d . 14.4, where zE, dpxñs
veundeuoa should be emended to i^axfl veun§e£aa). P h i l o ' s comment that the
word TtAcxvnxes i s m i s l e a d i ng (§104) i s d e r i v ed from P l a t o Laws 821c-d, as C o l -
son notes. But the E n g l i s h s c h o l a r confuses matters by suggesting that xau-
xóxnxa (§104) i s a reminiscence of the motion of the same, f o r i t r e f e r s p r i -
m a r i l y to the planets which, though moving i n the r e v o l u t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t ,
nevertheless adhere to the same course f o r a l l e t e r n i t y .
Her.230-236: Another B i b l i c a l t e x t , Gen.15:10 xd ó'opvea oú oueCAev, sets
t h i s passage i n movement. The b i r d s , being winged and s o a r i n g above, symbo-
l i z e two l o g o i or minds, the one the mind of man, the other i t s paradigm,
God's Logos (§230-231). In order to e x p l a i n why the b i r d s were not d i v i d e d ,
i . e . the mind's i n d i v i s i b i l i t y , P h i l o turns to the analogy between man's soul
and the heavens, f o r , as he s u c c i n c t l y affirms., b év dv^pwiw 4^xn 9 xouxo oúpa-
vós év xóouw (§233). The analogy i s worked out as f o l l o w s :
{
divided into 7 parts r divided into 7 c i r c l e s
heaven i - - - - - - - - - - -
r a t i o n a l part outer sphere
undivided undivided
P h i l o introduces the r e f e r e n c e to P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the two spheres by an
anonymous Aoyos exe^ 9 but the words doxtoxov (36d1) and xfiv ó'évxos ¿£cxx?í xun-
detoav éitxd xúxAous (cf.36d2) d i s c l o s e h i s source.
The analogy i s , of course, based on the macrocosm/microcosm relation,
which i s one of the fundamental d o c t r i n e s i n the Timaeus. But i s P h i l o ' s par-
t i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n of i t here a l s o i n the s p i r i t of P l a t o ' s dialogue? The
178 ANALYSIS
P h i l o ' s use of the analogy between the seven c i r c l e s of the planets and
the seven p a r t s of the i r r a t i o n a l soul can be explained i n two ways. Either
we must conclude that we are p r e s s i n g P h i l o s text too hard.
f
His primary aim
i s to show that man s vous i s i n d i v i s i b l e .
f
The analogy with the outer sphere
of heaven s u i t s him n i c e l y , and the numerical equivalence of the part s of the
i r r a t i o n a l s o u l and the p l a n e t a r y c i r c l e s i s too neat to r e s i s t , p h i l o s o p h i c a l
systematics not being h i s concern at the moment. Compare a p a r a l l e l tex t such
as QG 4.110, where he a l s o juggles with numbers i n seeing an analogy between
the s t r u c t u r e of man and the cosmos. 2
Or the p o s s i b i l i t y can be entertained
that P h i l o i s f o l l o w i n g a current i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the d o c t r i n e of soul i n
the Timaeus s i m i l a r to P l u t a r c h ' s , without wishing to put any emphasis on a
p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n that there i s an i r r a t i o n a l element i n the movement of
the c i r c l e of the d i f f e r e n t . In the a r i t h m o l o g i c a l accounts of the hebdomad
the two d o c t r i n e s of the seven planetary c i r c l e s and the seven parts of the
i r r a t i o n a l s o u l are o f t e n mentioned together, but to my knowledge never placed
i n an a n a l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n ( c f . Staehle 41,47, an example at Leg.1.8,11). Such
a procedure would be f o r e i g n to the c a t a l o g u i n g methods of such accounts. If
it i s necessary to decide between the two a l t e r n a t i v e s put forward, my prefer-
ence would l i e with the former. 3
To the subject of the r e l a t i o n between man's
II 5.2.1. 179
5.3. The c r e a t i o n o f t i m e ( T i m . 3 7 c - 3 8 b )
5.3.1. Time a n d t h e c o s m o s
of time. Zeno defined i t as the 6uaaxnua xrjs xtvriaeu>s tout c o u r t , but Chry-
sippus i n s i s t e d that the motion involved was the motion of the cosmos ( c f . SVF
1.93, 2.509-519, R i s t op.cit.273-282). I t i s the l a t t e r d e f i n i t i o n , much c l o -
ser to P l a t o ' s view, which P h i l o propounds. At the same time P h i l o declares
at Aet.54 that the d e f i n i t i o n must be refused i f the motion of the universe
includes the p e r i o d of c o n f l a g r a t i o n and regeneration , when the cosmos departs
from i t s present order and the r e l a t i o n between time and the heavenly bodies
i s n e c e s s a r i l y severed, i f only temporarily. Wolfson i s t h e r e f o r e entirely
c o r r e c t i n concluding (1.319) that f o r P h i l o the S t o i c d e f i n i t i o n was merely a
restatement i n formal language of the P l a t o n i c (and Mosaic) conception of time.
He d i d not add, however, that i n so doing P h i l o was f o l l o w i n g the p r a c t i c e of
doxographers and Middle P l a t o n i s t s , as the examples at Aetius Plac.1.21.2 and
Albinus Did.14.6 show. 3
atd)V i s thus the $uos of both God and n o e t i c cosmos. Such a formulation
does not i s s u e d i r e c t l y from Tim.37c-38c. P l a t o , i n d e s c r i b i n g the model i n
terms such as r) xou Ctpou cpuous auwvtos (37d3, cf.37e5,38b8), has clearly laid
the foundation f o r i t . But the demiurge i s never c a l l e d aucovtos, only wv aet
34a8, cf.37a1). Between P l a t o and P h i l o important i n t e r p r e t a t i v e developments
have taken p l a c e . A text such as Soph.248e-249a stimulated the idea that
( s p i r i t u a l ) l i f e and motion and i n t e l l i g e n c e must be a t t r i b u t e d to the world
of i d e a s . 1
Moreover A r i s t o t l e ' s l y r i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n of h i s highest god was in-
f l u e n t i a l : cpauev 6e xov %eov etvau Cwov a t 6 u o v dpuaxov, woxe Cwri Kat auwv ouv-
I x n s nat du6uos undpxet Tip %e§' xouxo yap o £eos (Met .A 7 1072b29-31, c f . De
Caelo 1.9 279a23-30). Thus, when i n e a r l y Middle Platonism the world of ideas
was presented as thoughts i n God's mind, i t was only l o g i c a l to regard the
auwv which P l a t o had a t t r i b u t e d to the model as the measure of God's existence.
See Tim.Locr.24,30 and B a l t e s ' comments ad l o c . , Plut.Mor.1007C-D,392E-393B.
The last-named passage speaks of God's transcendence above time with a s u b l i m i t y
and awe that would have done P h i l o proud. I t i s against t h i s background of
developments i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Tim.37c-38c that P h i l o ' s b r i e f remarks
on the r e l a t i o n between auoov and xpovos, made i n e x e g e t i c a l contexts, can be
seen i n f u l l clarity.
5.4. The c r e a t i o n o f t h e h e a v e n l y b o d i e s ( T i m . 5 8 b - 4 1 a)
a c t u a l l y a ' c r o s s between the Mosaic eig riyepas xau eus e v u a u x o u s (v. 14) and
1
5.4.2. The a s t r o n o m y o f t h e T i m a e u s
But the Timaeus i s c l e a r l y not P h i l o ' s only or even main source of infor-
mation on astronomical matters. This i s w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d by the names and the
order which he gives the p l a n e t a r y bodies. P l a t o adopts the Pythagorean order
and gives them the m y t h o l o g i c al names (38d1-6). P h i l o p r e f e r s the Chaldean
order ( i t s u i t s the symbolism of the c a n d l e s t i c k much b e t t e r , c f . Her.224 and
H a r l FE 15.274n.3) and the s c i e n t i f i c names introduced a f t e r P l a t o ' s death ( c f .
192 ANALYSIS
gigantibus 6—18 f
Hommage à Georges Vadja (Louvain 1980) 43-71). The b a s i s of
t h i s schema i s the A r i s t o t e l i a n universe with f i v e elements and as many cosmic
regions. The semi-divine ô a û u o v e ç replace P l a t o ' s winged creatures ( i . e .
birds).
Somn.1.134-141 (exeg. Gen.28:12, Jacob's l a d d e r ) : This passage i s almost
e n t i r e l y p a r a l l e l to the f i r s t ( i t i s perhaps derived from the same source),
except that the f i r e - d w e l l e r s are l e f t out, i . e . the universe here has only
four elements and as many x y r i y o t T a (§135). The a i r i s the abode of incorporeal
s o u l s , i n v i s i b l e to the eye, of which some are disembodied human s o u l s , other
demons or angels (§138-141).
5-6, §vn.Td yap xau adavaia £cj>a Aaftojv Mat auuTtAn.pw$£us O6E o xoauos OUTGO. See
air, 3
and of gods and of demons and of men and of animals and of p l a n t s
and of m a t t e r . 4
Notes
6.0. Introductory
6.0. Introductory
creation and structural organization of the cosmos and man (see above I 5.1.c).
l e a r n t more from those dialogues than from the Timaeus, as the study of Bil-
has been bound together cannot be i n d i s s o l u b l e , but assures the gods that they
than the bonds with which they were bound at b i r t h (ox'eyiyveo%e 41b6) — is
mining the one text where P h i l o a c t u a l l y quotes Tim.41a-b verbatim. This pas-
sage can show us the major themes which are e x t r a c t e d from P l a t o ' s words.
seems anxious to give chapter and v e r s e , f o r he not only introduces the cita-
For the second of these reference s I have not been able to f i n d any d i r e c t
parallels. In l a t e r a n t i q u i t y the scene was g e n e r a l l y r e f e r r e d to as the 6n.u-
nyopua (CI.Alex.Str.5.102.3, P r o c l . i n Tim.3.199.11). Here i s undoubtedly pre-
sent the tendency to Homericize the s e t t i n g of P l a t o ' s myth ( c f . esp. the d i s -
course of Zeus i n 11.8.5-27). The n o t i o n of the d i v i n e assembly i s a l s o not
f o r e i g n to the LXX, e.g. at Ps.81:1 o d e o s eoxri ev ouvaywyri detov, ev ueaop 6e
deous d t a x p b v e t ( c f . Job 1:6,2:1, Or.c.Cels .8.3) . We s h a l l see below i n II
6.2.1. that P h i l o regards the p l u r a l s at Gen.1:26,3:22,11:7 as i n d i c a t i n g that
God i s conversing w i t h a team of a s s i s t a n t s . The word he uses to d e s c r i b e
t h i s a c t i v i t y (dLaXeyEO^ab, Conf.168, Fug.69) i s a l s o used by Neoplatonist s to
d e s c r i b e the P l a t o n i c d i s c o u r s e ( c f . Boyance c i t e d on Fug.69).
If we take the text given i n C-W P h i l o ' s quotation differs from the re-
xos). The words of the demiurge are thus a p p l i e d not only to the created gods
6.1.2. v é v e o i Q a n d (pOopa
6.1.3. ftoúAnaic.
God's w i l l and goodness are shown i n the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos and continue
unabated i n the p r o v i d e n t i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of what he has made, being r e v e a l -
ed i n the perpetual process of c o n v e r t i n g the worse to the b e t t e r . The perpe-
t u i t y of God's works, inasmuch as they are not subject to the processes of
genesis and decay i n the sublunary world, i s thus guaranteed, i n f u l l agree-
ment with the words spoken by the demiurge i n Tim.41a-b.
to b r i n g d e s t r u c t i o n upon them. 1
Hadas-Lebel FE 35.142 c o r r e c t l y remarks: 'La
c o r r u p t i o n dépend donc, avant t o u t , du v o u l o i r du Créateur. C'est un point
sur l e q u e l notre auteur s'écarte de l a Stoa pour r e j o i n d r e P l a t o n . ' But i f
the threatened cpdopd i s a p p l i c a b l e a l s o to the heavenly bodies and the cosmos
as a whole (as i s i m p l i c i t ) , then P h i l o unquestionably departs from orthodox
Platonism. The e s c h a t o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e of t h i s t r e a t i s e i s d i f f i c u l t to
rhyme with the d o c t r i n e of acpdapoua a c c r e d i t e d with great c l a r i t y and some
f o r c e to P l a t o and Moses i n Aet.13-19.
6.1.4. 5£0M0C.
structure:
6.1.5. np6vo ta
Decal.58 (exeg. f i r s t commandment): The cosmos should not be thought the auxo-
Kpaxfis d e o g , f o r i t has come i n t o being (ye-vove cf.28b7) and y e v e o u s i s the
beginning of (p§opd, even i f i t i s immortalized through the c r e a t o r ' s upovoua.
words which Moses places i n God's mouth at Gen.1:26, Ttourjowyev avdpojitov Max'
euxova ripeTepav xau na%'oyouwauv. Why i s i t that only the c r e a t i o n of man i s
a t t r i b u t e d to more than one c r e a t o r , as i n d i c a t e d by the use of the p l u r a l
verb? P h i l o s t r e s s e s that h i s answer can only be considered probable (see
above I I 2.4.1.), presumably because he r e a l i z e s that he i s v e n t u r i n g on t h i n
theological ice. Man - u n l i k e the heavenly beings on the one hand and unrea-
soning creature s on the other - has a yuxxr) cpuatSs being capable of both good
and evil. God makes use of a s s i s t a n t s so that man's good a c t i o n s can be a t t r i -
buted t o him, man's bad a c t i o n s to them; e 6 e t yap a v a t x u o v euvat xaxou xov 1 a -
x e p a xous exyovots. These l a s t words are a d i r e c t reminiscence of Tim.42d3.
The i d e n t i t y o f the a s s i s t a n t s i s l e f t u n c e r t a i n (exepoov w s otv ouvepywv, exe-
pot xwv uicnxoojv §75) . On the question of what part of man the a s s i s t a n t s
(help to) make P h i l o i s a l s o r a t h e r vague. Man's vous and Aoyos are l i k e a
xaxCas nai apexfjs ouxos (§73). Do they help make man's r a t i o n a l p a r t , or do
they make the i r r a t i o n a l part of the s o u l which causes the vous to go astray?
But there i s no mention of an i r r a t i o n a l s o u l here, so the former i s more
likely. Note t h a t , when man as an object of sense-perception c o n s i s t i n g of
body and s o u l i s created (§134-135), the shared task i s not r e i n t r o d u c e d (but
i n Gen.2:7 there are no troublesome p l u r a l s ) .
merit that they are not given any form of autonomy (Fug. 175, cf.181) r e f u t e s
any proto-Gnostic imputations i n advance. The e s s e n t i a l goodness of the c r e -
a t i o n i s not i n f r i n g e d by the manner i n which man i s created. On P h i l o ' s r e -
l a t i o n to Gnostic t h i n k i n g see the j u d i c i o u s remarks of R.McL.Wilson, 'Philo of
A l e x a n d r i a and G n o s t i c i s m 1
Kairos 14(1972)213-219, Sandmel 134-139.
(where the sun and moon do r u l e (1:16), but over the day and night).
Spec.1.13-14. The cosmos i s compared to a megalopolis which has rulers
and subjects. The a p x o v x e s are the s t a r s and p l a n e t s , the uitrixoou the crea-
tures who dwell beneath the moon. This i s a s i g n i f i c a n t passage i n the his-
tory of ideas, f o r i t i s the f i r s t known example of the d e s c r i p t i o n of the
heavenly bodies as d p x o v x e s , which was to become one of the most c h a r a c t e r i s -
t i c d o c t r i n e s of Gnostic thought ( c f . Boyance D i e u cosmique
f 1
352, citing Gun-
del RE 20.2 2122). The d e s c r i p t i o n i s i n the f i r s t place i n s p i r e d by the
commonplace image of the cosmos as a s u p e r - c i t y or kingdom, but i t i s clear
that Tim.41 -42 was a l s o i n P h i l o ' s mind. The subordinates (uitapxou) of the
f a t h e r of the universe i m i t a t e (uuuouuevoug, cf.41c5,42e8) him i n h i s govern-
ment of a l l created beings x a x a 6tHnv nai vouov (cf.41c8). The utunaLs of the
heavenly beings l i e s i n t h e i r government and d i r e c t i o n of the sub-lunary realm,
through which they c o n t r i b u t e to the p r e s e r v a t i o n of the whole (cf.§16). As
i f f o r e s e e i n g the p e r v e r s i o n of the d o c t r i n e of the c e l e s t i a l d p x o v x e s that
would l a t e r take p l a c e , P h i l o immediately adds that they are not %coi auxoxpd-
xopes or auxe^ouotou or a u x o u p y o t , f o r t h e i r d i r e c t i v e task i s performed un-
der the s u p e r v i s i o n of the supreme c h a r i o t e e r (§14; c f . the v i r t u a l l y identi-
cal remark on God's x a x ' o u p a v o v exyovou i n the exegesis of the fourth day of
c r e a t i o n at O p i f . 4 6 ) . 1
The d i v i s i o n i n t o the supra- and sub-lunary realms r e -
c a l l s the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Tim.41-42 i n Tim.Locr.44 noted above (but there no
mention i s made of the a c t i v i t y of the heavenly b o d i e s ) . The context of the
P h i l o n i c passage i s c r u c i a l l y important. P h i l o i s e x p l a i n i n g the f i r s t com-
mandment and appeals to Moses' words at Deut.4:19 (quoted i n §15). He concedes
the important task of the heavenly beings i n the f u n c t i o n i n g of the universe
and does not object to t h e i r being c a l l e d %eoC (as i n the Timaeus). But he i s
adamant that these heavenly bodies must not be objects of worship, which i s
the s o l e p r e r o g a t i ve of God the c r e a t o r and %eo£ dewv (§20; cf.41a7 and above
II 6.1.1.). See the p e r c e p t i v e remarks of Goodenough I n t r o d u c t i o n 80-83, who
discerns i n t h i s passage the d e c i s i v e i n t e r p o s i t i o n of Jewish monotheism.
Platonismus 1
FZPhTh 24(1977)60-87, esp. 65-69; one cannot help comparing pub-
l i c o p i n i o n on n u c l e a r armament and n u c l e a r energy i n our own t i m e ). The
planets thus become the malevolent guardians of Gnosticism ( c f . Corp.Herm.
1.24-26).
6.2.3. P a r e n t s as s u b o r d i n a t e creators
6.3.1. Some u s e o f i m a g e r y
7.0. Introductory
7.0. Introductory
a t i o n of harmony.
Man's body i s but a temporary c o n s t r u c t . The young gods borrow small am-
i t , but i t i s a loan that man must repay at death (d7io6o^no6ueva 43a1). There
Post.5: Cain cannot 'go out' (Gen.4:16) from the cosmos, f o r a l l created
things are c o n s t r i c t e d ( n e p L O c p u Y C c s , c f . Tim.58a7) by the c i r c l e of the o u p a -
vos. The p a r t i c l e s of those who d i e are r e d i s t r i b u t e d to the powers of the
universe ( P h i l o sometimes gives the elements the d e s c r i p t i o n 6 u v d u e u s , which
goes back to P r e s o c r a t i c times; c f . Det.154, Her.281), each man paying h i s
loan back a f t e r a longer or s h o r t e r p e r i o d .
Her.281-283: Who are Abraham's f a t h e r s a l l u d e d to i n Gen.15:5? P h i l o r e -
views s e v e r a l suggestions of other exegetes, i n c l u d i n g one that proposes that
the f o u r d p x o x xott 6uvaueus of the cosmos are meant. Man borrows u u x p d u o p u a
(cf .43a1) from the ovoCa of each, a debt which he must repay na.%'wpuouevas
nepuo6ous x a t p a j v . In t h i s exegesis the body i s equated w i t h the four elements,
the s o u l w i th the A r i s t o t e l i a n quintessence. P h i l o makes no d i r e c t comment, but
appears to f i n d t h i s a d d i t i o n a l d o c t r i n e s u f f i c i e n t to escape the charge of a
m a t e r i a l i s t psychology. Contrast QG 3.11, however, where he r e j e c t s the exe-
g e s i s of the f a t h e r s as the four elements. B r e h i e r 163 regards as a s i g n i f i -
cant p a r a l l e l Marc.Aurel. 10.7.2 and e s p e c i a l l y the phrase x a x d 7iepuo6ov I X T I U -
pouuevou. But P h i l o ' s i n s p i r a t i o n i s P l a t o n i c r a t h e r than S t o i c . A b e t t e r
p a r a l l e l i s l o c a t e d i n A l b i n u s ' paraphrase of the Timaeus at Did.16.1, a u x o t
6f] 6aveuoauevo b onto xfjs TtpwxriS uAns u o p u a d x x a Ttpos d ) p u o u e v o u s x p o v o ^ S ws e u s 9
In order to d e s c r i be the disturbances which take place when the soul en-
t e r s the body, P l a t o makes extensive use of the image of r a p i d l y f l o w i n g water
(43a6 r i v e r , b6 b i l l o w , d1 channel). This P l a t o n i c image i s one of P h i l o ' s
f a v o u r i t e s , and i s used i n a large number of d i f f e r e n t contexts and c o n f i g u r a -
t i o n s ( o f t e n , f o r example, the r i v e r becomes a s w i r l i n g eddying t o r r e n t f o r
heightened r h e t o r i c a l e f f e c t ) . At Gig.13, i n a passage saturated w i t h P l a t o -
n i c language ( c f . B i l l i n g s 42-43), the r i v e r i s i d e n t i f i e d wit h the body, into
which souls descend (also at Somn.1.147; cf.43a5-6). Elsewhere the r a g i ng
current symbolizes the objects of perception which f l o o d i n on the mind or r a -
t i o n a l soul and threaten to overwhelm i t (Pet.199, Ebr.7Q, Fug.91, Mut.107; c f .
43c5-7,44a5). Most o f t e n P h i l o employs t h i s imagery to represent the c o n t i n u -
a l stream of the passions which inundate the s o u l so that i t can h a r d l y keep
i t s head above water ( c f . Deus 181, Agr.89, Ebr.22, Conf.23, Mut.186, Somn.2.13,
QG 2.9,75 e t c . ; cf.44a8).
sophical tradition.
s t i l l be e x p l a i n e d.
atadnats and a moderate dose of itadriuaxa, so that the auvaucpoxepov (87e5) can
aCadrjaus x a x ' evepyetav (exeg. Gen.2:21); Leg.3.56, the dependence o f the mind
•*- n t n e
Timaeus, where, a f t e r d e s c r i b i n g the descent of the s o u l i n t o the body,
and Seth on the one s i d e , Cain and h i s progeny on the other. The b i r t h of
journey o f the improvement and ascent of the soul begins, proceeding v i a the
10-66).
Stoa gives the mind or nyeyovuxov a more important r o l e i n the process of sen-
sation. From the nyeyovuxov a v i s u a l nveuya i s extended i n the f a s h i o n of an
i n v e r t e d cone through the a i r as medium to the objects of v i s i o n . Sight oc-
curs when the mind imparts a movement of t e n s i o n to the v i s u a l itveuya (SVF 2.
863-871). Notable i s that the S t o i c s i n t h i s theory accord much l e s s signifi-
cance to the r o l e of l i g h t , s t r e s s i n g instead the importance of the mind as
a c t i v a t o r and of the a i r as medium. P h i l o u t i l i z e s the S t o i c theory of v i s i o n
in the f o l l o w i n g passages: Leg.1.28-30 (exeg. Gen.2:6), Leg.2.35-39 (exeg. Gen.
2:21-23), Post.126-127 (exeg. Gen.4:25, 2 :6) , Fug.182 (exeg. Gen.2:6)(note the
overlap with passages discussed above i n II 7.2.1.) . B i l l i n g s i s correct i n
concluding: 'Where P h i l o uses the S t o i c theory... i t i s i n the i n t e r e s t of the
e x u l t a t i o n of the mind as the only a c t i v e power. 1
But he f a i l s to add that i n
each case P h i l o uses the theory with reference to the A l l e g o r y of the soul
which he e x t r a c t s from Gen.2-4. Since the e n t i r e a l l e g o r y i s b u i l t on the re-
l a t i o n between vous and al'odrious, the S t o i c theory has d i s t i n c t and obvious
advantages, e s p e c i a l l y when we observe that P h i l o does not speak of the rela-
t i o n between s i g h t and mind at Tim.45b-d.
pououxfis xeAeuas cf.47d2). But the arcAnoxua xou dewpeuv and the image of ban-
queting are imported from the Phaedrus myth and the Symposium (the l a t t e r
image a l s o having a strong J u d a i c undertone, c f . Nikiprowetzky 22). The p r o -
gress of man's thought towards philosophy i s i n d i c a t e d by a sequence of p h i l o -
s o p h i c a l q u e s t i o n s , g i v i n g the passage a l e s s a b s t r a c t character than P l a t o ' s
b r i e f words at 47a6-7. The f i n a l words, en 6e xns xouxwv Cn^rioews xo (puAooo-
(puas auveaxn yevos, o5 xeAeuoxepov aya^ov own r\X%ev eus xov a v d p w T i u v o v 3^ov,
amount to a loose paraphrase of 47a7-b2.
Opif.77-78: One of the reasons that man comes l a s t i n the c r e a t i o n of the
cosmos i s that God, l i k e the o r g a n i z e r of a banquet or an a t h l e t i c s f e s t i v a l ,
wished to have a l l things i n readiness f o r the c r e a t u r e to whom he had given
the best of g i f t s , k i n s h i p to h i m s e l f . Two P l a t o n i c themes, the g i f t of the
gods (47a1,b2 e t c . ) and the ouyyeveua of man's mind with the heavenly bodies
(47b8,d2) have been adapted to s u i t the B i b l i c a l anthropology of Gen.1:26 as
Philo interprets i t . The dewpua of the heavenly bodies gives the mind epws
and Ttodos f o r knowledge of them, 6%ev xo cpuAooocpuas av£(3Adoxnoe yevos, ocp'
o u xauxou dvnxos a>v av^pwitos aitadavaxuCexau (again cf.47a7-b2, aiadavaxuCexau
cf.90c3). In §78 the language used to d e s c r i b e the wonders of the cosmos be-
comes exceedingly baroque, even f o r P h i l o . The c o n c l u s i o n , i n which the i a p a -
6euypaxuxfi pououxr) i s l o c a t e d i n the harmony of the heavenly movements and
i m i t a t e d by man i n the d i s c o v e r y of the a r t of music i s p a r t l y adapted from 47d.
Abr.156-164: The longest of the passages on the e x c e l l e n c e of s i g h t i s
set i n motion by the apparently t r i v i a l e x e g e t i c a l question of why one of the
f i v e c i t i e s i n the land of Sodom was not destroyed i n the c o n f l a g r a t i o n (Gen.
14:2,19:20-25). The f i v e c i t i e s symbolize the f i v e senses, of which s i g h t i s
s u p e r i o r to the r e s t . In d e s c r i b i n g the most e s s e n t i a l b e n e f i t (wcpeAeua, c f .
46e8,47a2)gained from s i g h t P h i l o again emphasizes the i n d i s p e n s a b i l i t y of
l i g h t (§156-158). By u s i n g l i g h t , the best of g i f t s , man can contemplate the
beauties of the cosmos and e s p e c i a l l y the %eZa ayaApaxa of heaven (§159).
Sight bring s the understanding i n t o a c t i o n . A s e r i e s of p h i l o s o p h i c a l ques-
t i o n s are posed (§161-163 ), c u l m i n a t i n g i n the question — i f the cosmos i s c r e a -
ted who i s i t s c r e a t o r and what i s h i s way of l i f e ? Thus oocpua and cpuAooocpua
have t h e i r o r i g i n i n the sense of s i g h t (§164). The thematics of the e n t i r e
passage are o b v i o u s l y i n s p i r e d by Tim.47a-c, but v e r b a l reminiscences are a l -
most e n t i r e l y l a c k i n g and there i s much r h e t o r i c a l expansion of the main ideas.
Spec.3.184-192: Exegesis of a law commanding a master, i f he knocks out
h i s servant's eye, to set him f r e e (Ex.21:26). Once more the Mosaic Law draws
a t t e n t i o n to the e x c e l l e n c e of s i g h t . The greatest b e n e f i t that i t gives i s
that i t enables the mind to accept the philosophy which heaven showers down on
i t (§185; on the metaphor see below on Her.78-79). By means of s i g h t the mind
contemplates the cosmos, d e s c r i b e d here i n P h i l o ' s most l y r i c a l v e i n (§187-
188), and comes to the probable c o n c l u s i o n (Aoyuopov euxoxa) that such s p l e n -
d i d order i s not the r e s u l t of random and i r r a t i o n a l f o r c e s , but must be a t -
t r i b u t e d to the 6udvoua of the rcaxrip xau nounxris (§189, c f . 2 8 c 3 ). Other ques-
t i o n s on God, the n o e t i c world, the cosmos and i t s contents f o l l o w (§189-190).
Such i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s the work of philosophy and r e v e a l s a cpuAopa^n xau cpuAo-
$eapova xau xtp ovxu cpuAoaocpov 6uadeouv (§191, cf.90b6). The f i n a l words,
peyuoxov pev 6n xouxo xtp $¿0) xwv av^pwrcwv ayadov 6(l>us itapexexau (§192) are
once more a l o o s e l y worded reminiscence of P l a t o ' s c e n t r a l theme. In t h i s
passage the f a m i l i a r thematics of Tim.47a-c are combined with the 'cosmologi-
c a l argument', i n which the e x i s t e n c e of a supreme being i s deduced from the
ordered design of the u n i v e r s e (other examples i n P h i l o at Leg.3.97-99, Spec.
1.33-35, Praem.41-43, Prov.1.33,42-45; an exhaustive l i s t of ancient examples
i s compiled by A.S.Pease, ' C a e l i enarrant' HThR 34(1941)163-200).
QG 2.34 (almost e n t i r e l y preserved i n Greek, c f . FE 33.106-107): Exegesis
of the window of the ark which o 6uxauos (Noah) opened (Gen.8:6). The ark
symbolizes the body (QG 2.1-7), so the window, i n the language of a l l e g o r y ,
could h a r d l y represent anything e l s e but the sense of s i g h t . Sight i s r e l a t e d
to soul and a k i n to l i g h t . I t cut the f i r s t path to philosophy. Once again
236 ANALYSIS
the heavenly beings are much more e l a b o r a t e and r h e t o r i c a l than i n P l a t o ' s ac-
'scientific'.
x e x a y y e v a s x u v n o e u s : Cf.90c8, p o s s i b l y a l s o a d i s t o r t e d r e c o l l e c t i o n of
47c1 x e x a p a y y e v a s .
X Q p e t a s e y y e A e i s : Cf.40c3 and the harmony of 47d.
fteuas Ttepuo6ous: Cf.47b7,c3.
dpex&v. . . : A t y p i c a l r h e t o r i c a l expansion by P h i l o .
A s i m i l a r exegesis of the same t e x t i s given at Leg.3.40, though the reminis-
cence of the Timaeus i s l e s s c l e a r (note a l s o QG 4.181, exeg. Gen.26:4, a para-
llel text to Gen.15:5). At §185 (exeg. Ex.24:6, c f . I I 6.3.1.) the mss. read:
o uepos Aoyos xou a u y a x o s a£u63v xo aAoyov riytov y e p o s (Jjuxw$nvau nai xpoiov
x u v d Aoyuxov y e v e a d a u , x a u s yev v o u ^ e o t a u s i e p u o 6 o u s d x o A o u d f i o a v . . .
Wendland's conjecture vou fteuaus i s c o n v i n c i n g and has been accepted by Colson
EE 4.374, H a r l FE 15.256. At §233 once again a p a r a l l e l i s drawn between man's
4>uxu and the o u p a v o s , t h i s time with deviant f e a t u r e s discusse d above i n I I 5.
2.1-2. Three separate reference s to the r e l a t i o n between the mind and the hea-
venly r e v o l u t i o n s i n the one t r e a t i s e i s unexpected. The presence of the text
Gen.15:5 i n the pericope d e a l t with i n the t r e a t i s e i s p r i m a r i l y r e s p o n s i b l e .
8.0. Introductory
8.0. Introductory
tended by P l a t o 1
- the concept of n e c e s s i t y i s not used i n o p p o s i t i o n to vous.
2.2.1. 3.2.1.).
(1) The good and bad (cosmic) s o ul of Laws 896d; c f . Plut.Mor.370F,1014E, Num.
ap. Calc.297, A t t . f r . 1 1 , 2 3 , Alb.Did.14.3.
7 2 ) The two opposed r e v o l u t i o n s o f the P o l i t i c u s myth; c f . Plut.Mor.1015A.
(3) The o p p o s i t i o n between the One and the Dyad ( b a s i c a l l y Neopythagorean, but
going back to the l a t e P l a t o and the Old Academy); Cf. Plut.Mor.370D, Num.ap.
Calc.295.
(4) The statement i n Tht.176a that not a l l e v i l can be e r a d i c a t e d ; c f . P l u t .
Mor.371A.
(5) The o p p o s i t i o n between v o u s and avaynr] i n Tim.48a, c f . Tim.Locr.1, Diog.
Laert.3.75-76, Num.ap. Calc.299.
As was a n t i c i p a t e d above, i t i s p o s s i b l e to detect a f a i n t t r a c e of the last-
mentioned d o c t r i n e i n P h i l o ' s t e x t , when he speaks o f the e n t i r e cosmos r e c e i -
v i n g a mixture o f both the powers. At 48a P l a t o d e s c r i b es the yeveous x o u
HOOUOU as having been mixed (ueueLyuevn) from the combination of vous and dv-
otYxri. 2
The passage i n P l u t a r c h Mor.371A-B which begins with an adaptation of
P l a t o ' s words i s i n .fact the c l o s e s t p a r a l l e l we have to P h i l o ' s t e x t :
God matter
father mother
f i r s t cause p a s s i v e object
virtue passions
soul-mind body
yevvav xtlxxeuv
male female
i intelligibility sense-perceptibility
immortality mortality
aaxetos cpauAos.
246 ANALYSIS
ev apx?i enounoev o §eos xov oupavov nai TT\V yfjv. ri 6c yt) r\v otopaxos nau
a H a x a a x e u a o x o s nai O K O X O S enavoa xfjs afivooov, xat, Ttveuua deou eitecpepexo
9
liers . 1
But the r e a d i ng oxriyaxa, meaning 'shapes , i s t o be p r e f e r r e d .
1
8.3.2. Varia
9.0. Introductory
9.0. Introductory
passions o f the soul i n 42a and 69d f i l t e r s through to P h i l o ' s works i s locate d
already has a body (compare P l a t o ' s procedure a t 42a, where the TtaSriuaTa are
garded by the Stoa as the primary passions (rj6ovri, eitbduuCa, Auitn, cpoftos, c f .
SVF 3.386ff.). On P h i l o ' s views on the Ttd$n see f u r t h e r Schmidt 88-90, Volker
II 9.2.1. 261
Other texts which make use of the P l a t o n i c theory of the soul's triloca-
t i o n are Migr.66-67 ( a l s o exeg. Gen.3:14), QE 2.100 (exeg. Gen.27:1),115 (exeg.
Ex.28:30, p a r a l l e l to Leg.3.118ff.). The soul's t r i p a r t i t i o n i s f u r t h e r men-
t i o n e d at Conf.21, Her.64 (note Suyous clovxas, c f . Tim.70b3), V i r t . 1 3 , QE 1.
12, QG 4.195 (text EES
7
2.271, exeg. Gen.26:26). I t would be premature to con-
clude that P h i l o regards the soul as fundamentally t r i p a r t i t e . Other types of
d i v i s i o n are s c a t t e r e d through h i s w r i t i n g s , e.g. an A r i s t o t e l i a n i z i n g tripar-
t i t i o n at Opif.67, QG 2.59 (Greek text FE 33.115), Spec.4.123, extended to
f i v e - f o l d at QG 4.186, the S t o i c e i g h t f o l d d i v i s i o n at Her.232, Mut.111, QG 1.
75, reduced to seven-fol d at Abr.28-30. B i l l i n g s 52, Schmidt 50, Wolfson 1.
385-389, D i l l o n 174 are c e r t a i n l y c o r r e c t when they a f f i r m that P h i l o regards
the s o u l as e s s e n t i a l l y b i p a r t i t e , c o n s i s t i n g of an i n d i v i s i b l e r a t i o n a l part
and a d i v i s i b l e i r r a t i o n a l part ( c f . Her.167,232, Congr.26, QE 2.33 (EES 2.75)
etc.). This i s the view of the soul which dominates the long A l l e g o r y of the
s o u l at the s t a r t of the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary ( c f . above I I 7.1.3.). I t can
indeed be argued that t h i s view i s f a i t h f u l to the s p i r i t of the Timaeus, f o r
on a number of occasions P l a t o t a l k s of the immortal (or d i v i n e ) and the mor-
t a l p a r t of the s o u l (61c7,65a5,69c7,d5,e1,72d4,cf.41d1).
is used).
vous. P l a t o only claims to present an etxws Xoyos i n the realm of the atodriTd .
of P l a t o ' s d i s c o u r s e . 1
of the bowels so that food would not pass too q u i c k l y through the body. This
i n the Timaeus. Given the context the words x d s xevwaews xau TtAnpwaews 6ua6o-
i n QG 2.7:
The themes of the diseas e and h e a l t h of both body and s o u l are found on
v i r t u a l l y every second page of P h i l o ' s c o n s i d e r a b l e oeuvre, so that a d i s c u s -
s i o n i n the context of t h i s study must remain modest (a l a r ge number of t e x t s
c o l l e c t e d by Schmidt 31-48; c f . a l s o Gross 50-70). In comparing and contras-
t i n g d i s e a se of the body and disease of the s o u l , P h i l o i s f o l l o w i n g a long
t r a d i t i o n , i n i t i a t e d by P l a t o (and before him Socrates) and made even more
popular by the Stoa. One example out of many i s found i n the P l a t o n i c a l l y
t i n t e d proemium to the t,reatise Quod omnis probus l i b e r s i t . Those who seek
f o r t r u t h should not allow themselves to be outdone by the s i c k i n body. Just
as these people i n t h e i r d e s i r e f o r h e a l t h e n t r u s t themselves to d o c t o r s , so
those who s u f f e r from the s i c k n e ss of the s o u l , namely l a c k of proper training
or education (dnab6euoua, c f . Tim.86e2), should become d i s c i p l e s of wise men
who can help them throw o f f t h e i r ignorance ( d u a d u a , c f . Tim.86b4) and gain
knowledge (§12; other t e x t s which d e s c r i b e duadua or anaudevoia as v o o o s ^ u x n s
are Leg.3.76, Ebr.14, V i r t . 4 ) .
278 ANALYSIS
that h i s extremely p e s s i m i s t i c view of the body i n the Phaedo was open to mis-
f o r a sound e q u i l i b r i u m between body and soul. The Juvenalian adage mens sana
him i s h e a l t h of the body and freedom from d i s e a s e , so that the mind may be at
(exeg. Gen.27:8-10)? Isaac, even as an o l d man, manages to eat two kids, 'for
10.0. Introductory
10.0 Introductory
p l a n t draws the food i t needs through i t s roots. Man's root i s h i s head (90a8)
which draws food from the heavenly regions by means of s i g h t and learning (cf.
47a-c,90c7). The P l a t o n i c image of man as a heavenly p l a n t ( o u p d v u o v cpuxov
90a6) appeals to P h i l o . On two occasions he i n c o r p o r a t es i t i n s i g n i f i c a n t
analyses of the Mosaic d o c t r i n e of man (Pet.85, Plant.17; see f u r t h e r II 10.
1.1.) . Other passages that unquestionably a l l u d e to P l a t o ' s image are:
Peus 181 (exeg. Num.22:3*1): Balaam i s a YHS dpeuua, not an oupdvuov 3Aaaxr|ua
(as i s I s r a e l ) . A r e c a s t i n g of P l a t o ' s motif i n combination with Tim.91e.
Prov.2.109: Barbarian lands may be f e r t i l e , but only Greece t r u l y gives b i r t h
to a cpuxov oupavuov xau 3Aaoxriua $euov. The a r i d c l i m a t e of Greece i s not a
hindrance but a help i n the case of man's b i r t h , f o r man has h i s roots i n heaven.
QE 2.114 (exeg. Ex.28:21): The phylarchs do 'not go about on the e a r t h l i k e
mortals but become heavenly p l a n t s and move about i n the ether, being f i r m l y
e s t a b l i s h e d t h e r e '. The p o i n t of P l a t o ' s comparison, here combined with a
motif from the Phaedrus myth, i s l a r g e l y l o s t .
Cf. a l s o our remarks below at I I 10.2.2-3. on Tim.91e.
tuated through the T t v e u y a , of which man partakes but not the lower animals
God i s the archetype, man the image, 'man' meaning here not T O óucpues i $ o v but
The two passages which we have analysed show P h i l o at the peak of h i s po-
wers. The r o l e which P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e of man, as presented i n the Timaeus,
plays i n P h i l o ' s thought i s revealed with more than usual c l a r i t y . In order
to show man's e x c e p t i o n a l place i n the s t r u c t u r e of the cosmos, P h i l o centres
his account around the two primary a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l passages of the Mosaic c r e -
ation story. But i n h i s endeavour to explain what these texts actually tell
us about man's nature he r e s o r t s to the two P l a t o n i c accounts of man which he
knew best, the Timaeus and the Phaedrus myth. Man i s separated from the other
earth-bound animals because he possesses a r a t i o n a l s o u l . I t i s i n the posses-
s i o n of reason that man shows a l i k e n e s s to God his creator. Man's possession
of reason o r i e n t a t e s him towards the heavens, and beyond them to God himself.
The object of man's existence i s to set eyes on God and become l i k e him, and
t h i s can only be done with the (mental) eye of the soul.
The message i s straightforward and at the same time of great signifi-
cance i n the h i s t o r y of i d e a s . The reading of Gen.1:26-27 and 2:7 i n terms of
Greek i n t e l l e c t u a l i s m was to have a d i s t i n g u i s h e d career. But, i t must be ob-
served, i n order to e x t r a c t t h i s message from the two Mosaic t e x t s P h i l o has
to engage i n some smart footwork. He has to e x p l a i n why Moses gives a double
286 ANALYSIS
the body, souls who have descended and have been overwhelmed i n the t o r r e n t of
sophy and have escaped the dungeon of the body ( t h i s demonology goes back to
the s o u l (which has both Greek and Jewish antecedents) to the conception of
cf.90c5).
q u i t y because they were read as g i v i n g support to the view that vous i s an on-
<puxfj 5 (JJUXMV e v a w u a x b ) , *90a2-3,c4-5 (where the 6atuwv was taken to be the vous
at Abr.272 (ci>uxfi u e v e v owyaxt, vous 6'ev 4>uxfl), QE 2.11 ('as the mind i s i n
<l>uxn.
288 ANALYSIS
not i n Tim, but c f . Phd.95c5, Rep.501b7, Epin.980d8). Man's body was construc-
than eighty years ago Horovitz suggested that a monograph be devoted to the
treatment of t h i s problem (95). More r e c e n t l y Nikiprowetzky renewed the call
(REJ 124(1965)298). Such a study would encounter severe d i f f i c u l t i e s ; i t is
not s u r p r i s i n g that i t has as yet not been undertaken. In the meantime an
ever-growing p i l e of more l i m i t e d s c h o l a r l y d i s c u s s i o n s can be consulted.
Short b i b l i o g r a p h y on the problem: Horovitz 95-103; B r e h i e r 121-126; B i l l i n g s
39; Schmidt 3-10; K.Steur, Poimandres en P h i l o ( d i s s . Nijmegen, Purmerend
1935) 100-162; Wolfson 1.307,389-395; H.Merki, 'Oyouowous 8eo>: von der p l a t o -
nischen Angleichung an Gott zur G o t t a h n l i c h k e i t b e i Gregor von Nyssa ( F r e i b u r g
i n der Schweiz 1952) 75-83; Bormann 22-26; R.McL.Wilson Studia P a t r i s t i c a 424,
The Gnostic problem 42&n.129; J . J e r v e l l , Imago D e i : Gen1,26f. im Spatjudentum,
i n der Gnosis und i n den p a u l i n i s c h e n B r i e f e n (Gottingen 1960) 52-70; N i k i p r o -
wetzky REJ 124(1965)198; C.Kannengiesser, P h i l o n et l e s Peres sur l a double
f
301-326; T e r i a n 131.
interpretation.
5. An important d i f f e r e n c e must be noted between the p r e s e n t a t i o n i n Opif.
and that i n Leg.I-II (and to a l e s s e r extent i n QG I). In O p i f . man's s t r u c -
ture i s explained i n a cosmological perspective; i n Leg.I-II the dynamics of
that s t r u c t u r e are explored i n an a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e (see a l s o below
III 1.4.a-b). Thus i n Leg.I-II an a l l e g o r i c a l exegesis of Gen.2 i s given i n
terms of man and woman as v o u s and auadnaus, with the r e s u l t that the r u l e s of
the game are c o n s i d e r a b l y changed. I t i s p o i n t l e s s to make a c r o b a t i c attempts
to show that a l l the d e t a i l s of t h i s exegesis are c o n s i s t e n t with accounts i n
O p i f . and elsewhere. 2
The most important r e s u l t of the above observations i s that the man xax'
etxova deoO whose c r e a t i o n i s described i n Gen.1.27 i s man's mind or the r a -
t i o n a l part of h i s s o u l , not the paradeigmatic idea of man. A c r u c i a l touch-
stone f o r our contention i s the passage at Opif.134-135, f a r t h i s i s the text
which has most c l e a r l y suggested to commentators that P h i l o i n t e r p r e t s the two
accounts to denote the c r e a t i o n of Ideal and e m p i r i c a l man respectively.
There i s a v a s t d i f f e r e n c e , he says (§134), between the vuv TtAaodets avdpwitos
(i.e. i n 2:7) and the x a x a xqv euxova $eou yeyovcLs Ttpoxepov ( i . e . i n 1:27).
The d i f f e r e n c e i s made c l e a r i n a l i s t Q£ opposite features:
man' i s the generic e a r t h l y man and the 'man according to the image' i s the
'true man' and man i n his corporeal existence, and that the man described in
§135 i s the same as the man vuv TcAaodeus i n §134 ( i . e . there i s no terminolo -
part of the composite man created i n the latter text. The reason f o r t h i s , we
comes a shadow of i t s true s e l f . The 'man according to the image' i s thus man
e n t i r e l y f a l l e n away. 3
This man can be seen as an i d e a l i z a t i o n , but not i n the
levels.
mind i s man immortal and shows a resemblance to God his creator. While encum-
of the Logos.
tered together (the words xeAos apuoxou 3t,ou i n d5-6 r e f e r back to the eu6au-
s t i t u t i n g e u 6 a u y o v L . a can be l i s t e d as f o l l o w s :
ly Plato) i s evident.
10.2. Woman a n d t h e l o w e r a n i m a l s ( T i m . 9 0 e - 9 2 c )
P h i l o ' s deprecatory views on the female sex can only be understood i f one
recognizes that they are coupled to fundamental metaphysical, psychological
and p h y s i o l o g i c a l assumptions (see above I I 8.2.1.). Even so they do him lit-
tle credit. See the competent a n a l y s i s i n Baer's monography (esp. 35-44,87-
88). Most commonly P h i l o a l l e g o r i z e s the r e l a t i o n between male and female
i n t o that between v o u g and ai'o%T]0\ g. J On the p a r a l l e l between P l a t o ' s theory
of metempsychosis and the r e s u l t s of P h i l o ' s a l l e g o r i c a l method see the fol-
lowing sub-section.
pav d v 6 p o s ws zig apoupav and Tim.91d2 ihg zig apoupav i n v uriipav d o p a x a . . . C$a
H a x a o T t e u p a v T e s i s s u f f i c i e n t to c o n s t i t u t e an a l l u s i o n ( c f . a l s o the use of
Laws 838e at Spec.3.34, Contempl.62).
Pet.85: Man the o u p d v t o v cpuxov i s compared with the other animals who were
made with t h e i r heads f i x e d to the ground. Part of the passage analysed above
i n I I 10.1.2.
Plant.16-17: As we saw above i n the same s u b - s e c t i o n , P h i l o d e s c r i b e s the i n -
h a b i t a n t s of the e a r t h i n the Mosaic sequence plants-*animal s -*man. Thus he
must a l t e r h i s adaptation of Tim.91e (and 90a) a c c o r d i n g l y . Nonetheless a
number of v e r b a l p a r a l l e l s demonstrate h i s dependence on the P l a t o n i c passage:
i d s xecpaAds d v e A x u o a s onto yf\£i Cf.91e7 i d s xecpaAds e t s yfjv e A x o u e v a ! The
vocabulary i s v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l , but P h i l o adapts i t to the sequence
plants-» animals, i n s t e a d of Plato's sequence man -»animals .
£Ttu xecpaAds a u x e v o s : Cf.91e8 rcpourixeus. . . i d s xopucpds.
£%C$aGbv: Cf.91e8 n p e t o a v , a l s o 92a3 $ d o e t s .
T O U S euTtpooftuous Tto6as: Cf.91e7 euitpoodua xcaAa. P l a t o ' s noun has no place
i n P h i l o ' s vocabulary, and so i s a l t e r e d .
In §17 the c o n t r a s t between the other land animals and man i s developed. The
downwards d i r e c t e d v i s i o n of the beasts ( i d s octets xdio) xducpas) i s only implied
i n P l a t o . P h i l o makes i t e x p l i c i t i n order to accentuate the c o n t r a s t with
man's upward v i s i o n .
Gig.31: Here P h i l o ' s use of Tim.91 i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t , f o r he i s concerned
with the c o n t r a s t between two types of men. Those who have r e c e i v e d the d i -
v i n e s p i r i t (exeg. Gen.6:3, c i t e d i n §19) are d o a p x o t x a t d o c o u a x o t ) ( c f . o d p x a s
i n the B i b l i c a l lemma), and spend t h e i r days i n contemplation i n the theatre
of the universe (Tim.90a t r a n s l a t e d i n terms of the Phaedrus myth). Those who
are weighed down by the f l e s h ( c f . the text again) are unable to d i r e c t t h e i r
v i s i o n to the o u p d v u ot Ttepuodou (cf.90d2). T h e i r necks are dragged downwards
( x d i w 6e eAxuodeuoat xov d u x e v a , c f .91e7) and l i k e f o u r - f o o t e d beasts (6txn,v
TexpaTto6u)V, cf.92a2) they stand rooted to the ground ( i . e . i n c o n t r a s t to the
way man's head should be rooted i n the heavens, cf.90a8). Cf. a l s o Her.78
where a s i m i l a r c o n t r a s t i s made.
QG 4.111:(exeg. Gen.24:23, Abraham's servant asks Rebecca whether there i s a
p l a c e to stay i n her f a t h e r ' s house): 'Since he was embarrassed by modest
shame l e s t he seem to boast too g r e a t l y and f r e e l y i n b e l i e v i n g that her l i n e -
age was heavenly and marvellous, he asks again immediately, "Is there indeed a
place and space f o r us with the Father i n the ether and heaven or, s t i l l h i g h -
er, with t h e i r governer, the d i v i n e Logos? For being there, we should leave
a l l mortal and c o r r u p t i b l e things behind. Or s h a l l we be a l t o g e t h e r kept back
and shut i n , planted and rooted i n the e a r t h and with heads bent down as i f we
were t r e e s on a c l i f f ? " ' U n t i l the f i n a l phrase t h i s passage i s almost en-
t i r e l y p a r a l l e l to the t r a i n of thought i n Gig.31. The image at the end d i s -
turbs the Timaeus reminiscence, and may w e l l be a g l o s s .
Anim.11: On t h i s passage see below II 10.2.3.
In the f i r s t two of these texts the animals are given a place i n the cos-
mic s c a l e of being. We s h a l l r e t u r n to t h i s theme i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n .
In the other two texts P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the earth-bound animals i s t r a n s -
f e r r e d m e t a p h o r i c a l ly to men who e x e r c i s e no r e s t r a i n t over t h e i r irrational
passions and appetites. P l a t o n i c metempsychosis i s converted to P h i l o n i c a l -
legory.
The more f o o l i s h the s o u l that has descended i n t o animals, the greater the
God speaks to the serpent i n Gen.3:14, e i t T $ OTT)%£L OOV nai if) x o t X u a Tiopeuor)
and Plato.
9:3)). For Greek and Roman i n t e l l e c t u a l s the Jewish d i e t a r y laws were an ob-
If these words have i n more than one aspect a modern r i n g — they could almost
be an e x t r a c t from current l i t e r a t u r e of the women's or animals' liberation
movement - one of the c h i e f reasons i s that they emphatically c o n t r o v e r t the
o n t o l o g i c a l / h i e r a r c h i c a l / t e l e o l o g i c a l p i c t u r e o f the universe e s t a b l i s h e d i n
the Timaeus. x
The reference to the contempt h e l d f o r animals who have t h e i r
heads bent downward to the ground i s a d i r e c t a t t a c k on P l a t o ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n
306 ANALYSIS
of man and the animals i n Tim.90a,91e. Alexander implies that man create s h i s
own h i e r a r c h i e s and abuses h i s own supremacy i n order to do the animals injus-
tice. His motto could be s a i d to be the famous saying of Protagoras, 'man's
mind i s the measure of a l l t h i n g s ' , quoted and attacked by P h i l o i n Post.35
and elsewhere (see above I I 3.1.3.n.2).
Thus we are not s u r p r i s e d to f i n d that i n the dialogue P h i l o c o r r e c t s
Alexander i n a reprimanding tone (§100):
Let us now stop c r i t i c i z i n g nature and committing s a c r i l e g e . To e l e v a t e
animals to the l e v e l of the human race and to grant e q u a l i t y to unequals
i s the height of i n j u s t i c e . To a s c r i b e s e r i o u s s e l f - r e s t r a i n t to i n d i f -
f e r e n t and almost i n v i s i b l e c r e a t u r e s i s to i n s u l t those whom nature has
endowed with the best p a r t .
Man i s the only earthbound c r e a t u r e who has been made i n God's image, o r , i n
P l a t o n i c terms, possesses mind or r a t i o n a l soul ( i . e . 'the best p a r t ' ) . Hence
it i s no l e s s than s a c r i l e g e i f one t r i e s to elevate the animals to man's l e v -
el (an obvious word-play, c f . Tim.90b1, Plant.17 a v w p d w o e v , a l s o used i n § 11
quoted above). T e r i a n 49 c i t e s some P l a t o n i c passages as antecedents f o r the
views o f Alexander. But he f a i l s to mention how the overt anthropocentrism of
the Timaeus gives powerful support f o r the opposite view and the d e t a i l e d a r -
guments provided by the Stoa.
10.3.1. D o x o l o g y t o t h e cosmos ( 9 2 c )
Gen. 15:2 Etymology of the word 6ea7iOTr]S used by Abraham to address God
i n terms of cosmic 6 e a u o s (6.1.1. 6.1.4. on Her.23).
Etymology of Damaskos leads to a problem concerning man's psy-
chology (10.1.2. on Her.54-57).
Gen.15:5 God's command to Abraham to count the s t a r s leads P h i l o to r e -
c o l l e c t 41d,47a-c (5.2.2. 6.3.1. 7.2.4.).
Gen.15:6 The e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of Abraham's ' t r u s t i n God'
(cf.29b-d)(2.4.1. on Praem.28-30).
Gen.15:9 The she-goat and the etymology of atadnoLg (cf.43c)(7.1.2. on
Her.126, QG 3.3).
Gen.15:10 Abraham's d i v i s i o n of the s a c r i f i c i a l v i c t i m s impels P h i l o to a
long excursus on the theme of d i v i s i o n and the a c t i v i t y of the
Aoyos xoueus, i n which many ideas from the Timaeus are u t i l i z e d
(3.2.1. 4.1.1. 5.4.3. 8.3.1. e t c . ) .
The f a c t that Abraham does not d i v i d e the b i r d s symbolizes an
important p a r a l l e l between the s t r u c t u r e of the macrocosm and
the microcosm (5.2.1-2 on Her.230-236, QG 3.3).
Gen.15:15 Abraham's f a t h e r s and the f a t e of the s o u l a f t e r death (7.1.1.
10.1.3. on Her.280-283, QG 3.11).
Gen.15:18 The symbolism of the r i v e r (cf,43a)(7.1.2. on Her.315, Somn.
2.255) .
Gen.16:2 Hagar i s E g y p t i an by r a c e , meaning that e n c y c l i c a l s t u d i e s i n -
v o l v e the body and the sense of s i g h t (7.2.3. on Congr.21).
Gen.16:6 God i s not an a f f l i c t o r , f o r he has no share i n envy (3.1.2. on
Congr.171).
Gen.16:11 Ishmael, meaning axon Seou, i n d i c a t e s the l e s s e r v a l u e of hear-
ing r e l a t i v e to s i g h t (cf.47a-e)(7.2.3.).
Gen.16:16 Abraham i s 86, and 80 contains the double s c a l e of a r i t h m e t i c
and geometric p r o g r e s s i o n (cf.35a)(5.1.1. on QG 3.38).
Gen.17:1 God's statement that he i s Abraham's God leads to r e f l e c t i o n
on the c r e a t i o n of man (6.2.1. on Mut.30-32).
Gen.24:22 Ten drachmas, the Logos and the harmony of the ennead (5.1.3.
on QG 4.110).
Gen.28:17 The house of God as the Logos, the gate of heaven as the t r a n s -
i t i o n from the s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e to the i n t e l l i g i b l e cosmos
(2.3.3. on Somn.1.188, 5.1.3. on M i g r . 6 ).
Gen.28:21 For Jacob the Lord w i l l be God, i . e . the source of bounteous
b l e s s i n g s (cf.29e)(3.1.2. on P l a n t . 9 1 ) .
Gen.31:13 God who alone stands and e s t a b l i s h e d the cosmos (3.2.1. on Somn.
1.241) .
Gen.38:7 E r , meaning ' l e a t h e r n ' , symbolizes the body as the corpse which
the soul must bear (7.1.3. on Leg.3.69-74).
Deut.17:2-5 Polemic agains t those who worship the heavenly beings (4.2.6.
on Spec.2.255).
Deut.18:3 The part of the o f f e r i n g that accrues to the p r i e s t s (the maw)
and the t r i l o c a t i o n of the soul (9.2.2. on Spec.1.148).
Deut.21:18-21 Father and mother i n a cosmic context (2.2.2. 10.3.1. on Ebr.
30).
Deut.23:2 The expulsion of eunuchs from the holy congregation and a mate-
r i a l i s t philosophy (2.2.1. 3.2.1. on Spec.1.327-329).
Deut.23:4 The e x p u l s i o n of Ammonites and Moabites from the holy congre-
gation and the champions of the mind and the senses (cf.47a-c)
(7.2.3. on Spec.1.336,339).
Deut.23:12-14 A place outside the camp, b o d i l y n e c e s s i t i e s and c o n t r o l of the
passions (9.2.1. on Leg.3.151-159).
Deut.23:18 No o c c u l t r i t e s and mysteries i n the holy congregation (7.2.3.
on Spec.1.322).
Deut.25:13-15 God as the r i g h t and j u s t measure (3.1.3.n.2 on Somn.2.192-194).
Deut.28:12 See above on Ex.16:4,15.
Deut.32:6 God as Father (cf.28c)(2.2.2. on Conf.145).
Deut.32:32-33 Gomorrah, 'man the measure of a l l t h i n g s ' , God the true measure
(3.1.3.n.2 on Somn.2.192-194).
SYNTHESIS
CHAPTER ONE
1.1 The e x t e n t o f P h i l o s f
a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h t h e Timaeus
Quotes
1. 2.1.2. Prov.1.21 Tim.28b4-c2 'And a l i t t l e e a r l i e r he i n d i c a t e d
h i s o p i n i o n on the genesis (of the cosmos) as f o l l o w s ' (a c o n t i n u a t i o n of
the e a r l i e r quote i n Prov.1.20).
2. 2.3.2. P l a n t . 131 Tim.29a5 cl>s e<pn T U S .
3. 2.3.2. QG 1.6 Tim.29a5-6 'just as P l a t o said'.
4. 2.3.3. Prov.1.21 Tim.29b1-2 'And so he says' ( f o l l o w s the two e a r -
l i e r quotes).
5. 4.2.2. Aet.25-26 Tim.32c5-33b1 u a p T U p u a 6e x a u i d e v Tuuauy n e p u
TOU T O V xoopov dvoaov euvau x a u urj c p d a p n o o u e v o v xd6e* . u e v 6rj
. . T O U T O
Only one of the quotations from the Timaeus (no.5) i s of such a length that
c o n s u l t a t i o n of the text must be considered l i k e l y . 1 2
Secondly, when quoting
P l a t o , he appears to adopt the same c u r i o u s l y c a s u a l a t t i t u d e which can be
seen i n h i s references to the ( i n h i s eyes) f a r more a u t h o r i t a t i v e Biblical
text (a phenomenon which has caused s c h o l a r s much c o n c e r n ) . 13
Indeed the r e -
s u l t of such an a t t i t u d e i s that the e n t i r e d i s t i n c t i o n between quotation
and paraphrase i n p r a c t i c e becomes r a t h e r b l u r r e d . Two consequences f o l l o w
f o r the c o n s t i t u t i o n of the P h i l o n i c t e x t . The p r a c t i c e of i n d i c a t i n g quota-
t i o n s by means of quotation marks i s on a number of occasions adopted with i n -
sufficient care. 14
More i m p o r t a n t l y, the method of emending P h i l o ' s quotes on
the b a s i s of the P l a t o n i c t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n , begun by Turnebus and continued
by Mangey and Cohn-Wendland, should be subjected to a c a r e f u l r e - e v a l u a t i o n . 15
The evidence which we have gathered together i n Part I I of our study sug-
gests t h a t , i f by chance P h i l o had had access only to that part of the Timaeus
which C i c e r o t r a n s l a t e d as a p r e l i m i n a r y e x e r c i s e f o r h i s p r o j e c t e d De Univer-
so (27d6-47b2)j 1
the i n f l u e n c e of the work on P h i l o ' s thought need not have
been g r e a t l y diminished. V i r t u a l l y a l l the important ideas and doctrines
which P h i l o draws from the dialogue are l o c a t ed i n the approximately one-third
of Timaeus' speech which introduces the fundamental p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s
(27d-29d) and describes the works of reason performed by the demiurge and his
a s s i s t a n t s up to and i n c l u d i n g the ( p a r t i a l ) c r e a t i o n of man (29d-47e). 2
Two
other passages o u t s i d e t h i s main s e c t i o n are a l s o e x t e n s i v e l y used, the first
e l u c i d a t i n g man's p s y c h o l o g i c a l make-up (69a-72d), the second d e s c r i b i n g man's
true end and h i s p l a c e i n the cosmos and i t s h i e r a r c h y of l i v i n g beings (89d-
92c). For the main f e a t u r e s of the dialogue's i n t r o d u c t o r y part (17a-27d),
the t r a v e l s of Solon and the myth of A t l a n t i s , P h i l o f i n d s a number of appli-
c a t i o n s , but these are u n r e l a t e d to what he does with the r e s t of the work. 3
4
Ill 1.2. 323
question of s o u r c e s . 38
A r i t h m o l o g i c a l observations i n v o l v i n g use of the Timaeus
were found to be p a r a l l e l e d i n other authors who drew on the considerable body
of ancient arithmological l i t e r a t u r e . 3 9
Into t h i s t r a d i t i o n a number of doc-
t r i n e s from the Timaeus had been absorbed f o r i l l u s t r a t o r y purposes. 40
Philo's
references to the mathematical d o c t r i n e s of the Timaeus are thus most likely
prompted by h i s acquaintance with a r i t h m o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , r a t h e r than by a
p r e c i s e r e c o l l e c t i o n of the o r i g i n a l t e x t . 4 1
I n t e r e s t i n g l y , however, at Opif.
89-128 he deletes a r e f e r e n ce to the Timaeus which h i s source c e r t a i n l y con-
t a i n e d , because the r e f e r e n ce to the cosmic soul does not rhyme with h i s exe-
gesis of the seven days of c r e a t i o n . 4 2
The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of aspects of the
Timaeus i n terms of arithmology i s a l s o encountered i n the learned Middle P l a -
tonist, Plutarch. 43
C l e a r l y P h i l o ' s adoption of t h i s procedure was not only
e x e g e t i c a l l y u s e f u l , but followed i n t e l l e c t u a l l y r e s p e c t a b l e , perhaps even
r a t h e r fashionable trends of h i s day.
(a) De o p i f i c i o mundi
P h i l o ' s t r e a t i s e 0nf
the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos according to Moses' 1
is
without doubt the best-known and most f r e q u e n t l y read of h i s w r i t i n g s . In h i s
Introduction to P h i l o Judaeus Goodenough a f f i r m s that i n h i s opinio n the De
o p i f i c i o mundi i s the most d i f f i c u l t of P h i l o ' s t r e a t i s e s . I t s p o s i t i o n at
the beginning of a l l e d i t i o n s of P h i l o i s unfortunate, he suspects, i n that
' i t s d i f f i c u l t y has only too o f t e n made i t the l a s t as w e l l as the f i r s t for a
reader to attempt'. 2
I agree with the American scholar that the t r e a t i s e i s
difficult. I t i s important, however, to c i r c u m s c r i be i n p r e c i s e terms what
the nature of i t s d i f f i c u l t y i s .
(2) The correspondences between Moses' cosmogony and the Timaeus are h e a v i l y
exploited i n order to demonstrate not only that the cosmos was created as the
its parts.
(3) In the B i b l i c a l account the scheme of the seven days ends at Gen.2:4. The
. . . h .
t i o n o f woman. 6
poly p o s i t i o n . 7
Also the i n t e r a c t i o n w i th the other two main themes i s i n t e r -
on f
day o n e , he turns
1
s t r a i g h t to the c r e a t i o n of the heaven on the second
(b) Legum a l l e g o r i a e
The r e l a t i o n between the De o p i f i c i o mundi and the t r e a t i s e s which f o l l o w
it i n a l l e d i t i o n s of P h i l o ' s works, 17
the Legum a l l e g o r i a e , i s h i g h l y problem-
a t i c and has long been the subject of s c h o l a r l y d e b a t e . 18
Clearly Philo re-
gards the Mosaic account of c r e a t i o n as extending to the end of Gen.3. Other-
wise he would not have included the s t o r y of Adam and Eve i n p a r a d i s e as part
of the De o p i f i c i o mundi. But the Legum a l l e g o r i a e also deal with the story
of Adam and Eve, beginning the commentary at Gen.2:1. The reason f o r t h i s
s u r p r i s i n g overlap i s , to our mind, s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . The prime focus of the
Legum a l l e g o r i a e i s the a l l e g o r y of the s o u l . I t i s l o g i c a l that t h i s a l l e g o -
ry can only commence once man, the composite of body and s o u l , has been c r e a -
ted on the s i x t h day. 19
The r e s u l t a n t overlap between the two treatises there-
f o r e by no means r e s u l t s i n needless r e p e t i t i o n . I t ensures that the influ-
ence of the Timaeus can extend i n a most important way beyond the De opificio
mundi i n t o the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary. In an important s e c t i o n of our Commen-
t a r y i t was shown that P h i l o ' s a l l e g o r y of the s o u l i s given p h i l o s o p h i c a l re-
l i e f by means of the s i g n i f i c a n t p a r a l l e l s he f i n d s between Gen.2-4 and Plato's
account of the c r e a t i o n and subsequent career of the soul i n Tim.41c-44d. 20
(c) De p l a n t a t i o n e 1-45
At r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s i n the Commentary our a t t e n t i o n was drawn to the
1
phyto-cosmological excursus' (our t i t l e ) wit h which P h i l o commences the De
p l a n t a t i o n e , f o r the sound reason that i t contains many themes u l t i m a t e l y de-
r i v e d from the Timaeus. P h i l o i s i n s p i r e d by the Mosaic word ecpuxeuoev (Gen.
9:20) to embark on a lengthy d e s c r i p t i o n of the cosmos i n terms of a giant
plant. What sparked o f f t h i s metaphorical tour de f o r c e cannot be considered
c e r t a i n , but i t i s i n our view more l i k e l y to have been the resonance of B i b -
l i c a l and P l a t o n i c imagery than the a p p r o p r i a t i o n of a Posidonian source. 23
At t h i s point one might have thought that the p l a n t metaphor was exhaus-
ted, but that i s not at a l l the case. P h i l o immediately proceeds to a 'phyto-
anthropological f
s e c t i o n (§28-45). A l s o man the microcosm can be d e s c r i b e d as
a p l a n t , possessing growths and shoots capable of bearing fruit. P h i l o makes
g r a t e f u l use of the theme of the Garden of Eden, which can be s u i t a b l y a l l e g o -
rized. The p a r a l l e l with the Legum a l l e g o r i a e i s apparent, although the man-
ner of o r g a n i z a t i o n i s c o n s i d e r a b l y altered. 3 5
(e) De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi
The r e s u l t s of our Commentary have shown that the Timaeus has been worked
i n t o the very woof and warp of that f a s c i n a t i n g l i t t l e t r e a t i s e , the De aeter-
n i t a t e mundi. 51
P l a t o had already demonstrated i n h i s cosmological dialogue
that the questions of the cosmos' createdness and i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y are i n -
t i m a t e l y bound together. P h i l o makes t h i s d o c t r i n e one of the p i l l a r s of h i s
argument. The acpdapata of the cosmos can only be understood i n the perspec-
t i v e of i t s y e v e a t s . 52
I t accounts f o r the prominent r o l e that the Timaeus
plays i n the work.
(f) De P r o v i d e n t i a I & I I
The same a p o l o g e t i c motives are much more c l e a r l y v i s i b l e i n the two books
which P h i l o devoted to the subject of d i v i n e Providence. These two t r e a t i s e s
are the l e a s t a c c e s s i b l e of a l l P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s , not because t h e i r subject
matter i s so d i f f i c u l t , but c h i e f l y on account of the d e f e c t i v e transmission
of the t e x t . 6 3
De P r o v i d e n t i a I has been given the w e l l - o r g a n i z e d s t r u c t u r e of
a H e l l e n i s t i c ouyYpauua, w i t h an i n t r o d u c t i o n , three main s e c t i o n s each d e a l -
ing with a separate theme l u c i d l y introduced (§6,§37,§77), and a l i v e l y con-
clusion. De P r o v i d e n t i a I I i s presented i n the form of a dialogue between the
author and h i s nephew A l e x a n d e r . 64
D i e l s ' hypothesis that Book I too was ori-
g i n a l l y a dialogue i s unnecessary and should be r e j e c t e d . 6 5
The importance of
these two t r e a t i s e s f o r our subject precludes us from passing them over i n
338 SYNTHESIS
silence. But the shaky foundations of the text make i t necessary to put for-
ward our views with l e s s c e r t a i n t y than elsewhere.
Approximately a t h i r d of book I deals with the problem of Providence i n
r e l a t i o n to the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos (§6-36). As i n Opif.7-10 P h i l o argues
that d e n i a l of the cosmos 1
createdness i s tantamount to d e n i a l of d i v i n e Pro-
vidence. In t h i s part of the work the Timaeus i s twice brought forward i n t o
the centre of a t t e n t i o n . The extremely d i f f i c u l t opening paragraphs (§6-8)
bear a c l o s e resemblance to Opif.7-28, but concentrate on r e f u t i n g the doc-
t r i n e of c r e a t i o aeterna r a t h e r than the view that the cosmos i s uncreated.
Creation i s seen as the t r a n s i t i o n from a p r e - e x i s t e n t d i s o r d e r l y matter to
the ordered product of the cosmos, achieved by the p r o v i d e n t i a l c r e a t o r . 66
A
l i t t l e f u r t h e r on P h i l o appeals to the Timaeus more d i r e c t l y , quoting two pas-
sages i n order to prove P l a t o ' s a f f i r m a t i o n of the yeveous xou xoauou and ap-
pending some i n t e r p r e t a t i v e comments ( § 2 1 ) . 67
P l a t o recognized two first caus-
es, God as the e t e r n a l c r e a t o r of the n o e t i c cosmos, and matter which lacks
order and i s transformed by God i n t o the ordered cosmos. 68
By way of illustra-
t i o n a d e f i n i t i o n of the cosmos as s t r u c t u r e d whole i s a t t r i b u t e d to P l a t o .
Though not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the Timaeus, i t c l e a r l y r e v e a ls the i n t e r p o s i t i o n
of the interpretative t r a d i t i o n . 6 9
But i n t h i s section.(§20) P h i l o a l s o quotes
a text from the Timaeus to prove the p o t e n t i a l d e s t r u c t i o n of the cosmos. 70
The stage has now been reached that encourages the attempt at an overview
of the d i v e r s e ways i n which P h i l o u t i l i z e s the Timaeus i n the course of h i s
interminable s e r i e s of w r i t i n g s . We have decided to present t h i s overview i n
the form of a taxonomy. 1
What are the minimum number of c a t e g o r i e s r e q u i r e d to
c l a s s i f y the hundreds of instances of P h i l o n i c usage of the Timaeus c o l l e c t e d
i n the Commentary? L i k e i n a l l taxonomies, there must be an element of arbi-
t r a r i n e s s i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . We have h a l t e d at the hebdomad, a f i t t i n g l y
P h i l o n i c number. One could subdivide f u r t h e r , but perhaps w i t h l e s s p r o f i t .
A f i n a l point that needs emphasis before we begin i s that the order of sequence
has a l o g i c of i t s own but i s not meant to be h i e r a r c h i c a l . I t does not indi-
cate an i n c r e a s i n g order of importance.
being explained. 2
Numerous examples can be given. The phrase T t o t n t r i S HOCI, %a-
xr\p i s so commonplace i n P h i l o s w r i t i n g s f
that one may reasonably question
whether he i s conscious of the P l a t o n i c o r i g i n every time he uses i t . 3
But
cases were a l s o found where the respectabl e p h i l o s o p h i c a l pedigree of the
phrase i s d e l i b e r a t e l y e x p l o i t e d . 4
Exceedingly common i n P h i l o , we found, was
the d i s t i n c t i v e 'language of e x c e l l e n c e ' used by P l a t o to denote p r a i s e of and
admiration f o r the cosmos and ( l e s s often) i t s c r e a t o r . 5
Another i n t e r e s t i n g
example i s P h i l o ' s commentary on the f o u r t h , f i f t h and s i x t h days of creation
i n the De o p i f i c i o mundi. The crude and unsystematic Mosaic t i t u l a t u r e f o r
the s t a r s and the types of animal genera are q u i e t l y but f i r m l y removed and
r e p l a c ed w i t h the more r e s p e c t a b l e and s c i e n t i f i c Platonic counterparts. 6
Cer-
t a i n r a r e words can i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d only have entered P h i l o ' s vocabulary
through a reading of the Timaeus. 7
but have only a small area i n common. E s p e c i a l l y the many symbolic exegeses
i n the E x p o s i t i o n of the Law and Quaestiones i n Exodum I I f o l l o w t h i s pattern.
But a l s o i n the complex a l l e g o r i e s of the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary we discovered
that much i l l u s t r a t o r y m a t e r i a l i s invoked.
Of the copious m a t e r i a l found i n our Commentary two particularly clear
342 SYNTHESIS
In the Appendix that was attached to the end of our Commentary an attempt
was made to compensate f o r i t s P l a t o n o c e n t r i c
1 1
s t r u c t u r e by means of the pre-
s e n t a t i o n of a l i s t of a l l the Pentateuchal t e x t s f o r the explanation of which
P h i l o a l l u d e s to or u t i l i z e s the Timaeus. 2
We concluded the Appendix by tabu-
l a t i n g a l l the examples contained i n the l i s t i n order to give an i n d i c a t i o n
of t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n through the Pentateuch. The information which the table
s u p p l i e s i s v a l u a b l e , even i f allowance must be made f o r i t s deceptive statis-
tical precision. The high c o n c e n t r a t i o n of usage f o r the exegesis of the first
three chapters of Genesis i s wholly p r e d i c t a b l e . And one might a l s o expect
the cosmogonic dialogue to be (to a much l e s s e r extent) r e l e v a n t to the fol-
lowing chapters of the same book, when the world was s t i l l young and the rela-
t i o n to i t s o r i g i n s ( a l s o i n a l l e g o r i c a l terms) was s t i l l keenly f e l t . But i t
i s s u r p r i s i n g to observe the r e g u l a r i t y with which P h i l o turns to m a t e r i a l i n
his e x p o s i t i o n of the remainder of the Books Genesis and Exodus ( f o r the last
three books of Moses the frequency lessens c o n s i d e r a b l y ) . How can t h i s regu-
larity (and d i v e r s i t y ) of a p p l i c a t i o n be explained and what are the consequences
for the Timaeus 1
value to P h i l o i n h i s e x e g e t i c a l labour? In answering these
questions the taxonomy of usage o u t l i n e d i n the previous s e c t i o n w i l l prove
an i n v a l u a b l e instrument.
c u l a r task, but f o r the r e s t has little impact on the design and purpose of
the work being undertaken. I f the question i s looked at i n terms of our tax-
onomy, one might argue that the d e s c r i p t i o n would be apt i f the usage of the
Timaeus had been confined to the f i r s t four c a t e g o r i e s , i . e . language, imagery,
l i t e r a r y embellishment and exegetical i l l u s t r a t i o n . I f f o r these purposes
P h i l o had i n s t e a d used the Jlepu cpuoews of Chrysippus or the Ilepu xoouou of Po-
s i d o n i u s , what would have been the loss? But when the l a s t three categories
are added, the d e s c r i p t i o n c l e a r l y f a l l s s h o r t . 14
I t becomes apparent t h a t , i n
P h i l o s eyes, the Timaeus i s i n the more important aspects of i t s e x e g e t i c a l
f
P h i l o ' s use of the Timaeus i s pervasive and profound. Not only has the
P l a t o n i c dialogue rendered much a s s i s t a n c e i n the task of e l u c i d a t i n g the words
of Moses; i t has a l s o d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d the way that s c r i p t u r e i s read. We
can say - i f the reader w i l l pardon the anachronism - that P h i l o reads the ac-
count of c r e a t i o n and many other parts of the Pentateuch through P l a t o n i c a l l y
tinted spectacles. It i s t h e r e f o r e a l e g i t i m a t e undertaking — t h i s was our
c o n c l u s i o n at the end of the previous chapter - to attempt to give an account
i n general terms of the i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus on P h i l o ' s thought. The scope
of such an account must be c a r e f u l l y d e l i m i t e d . I t w i l l not be our aim, both
for p r a c t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l reasons, to d i s c u s s the i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus
i n the p e r s p e c t i v e of a systematic p r e s e n t a t i o n of P h i l o ' s thought i n the man-
ner of a Drummond or a Wolfson. The aim must be much more modest, namely to
o u t l i n e the way that d o c t r i n e s from the Timaeus have c o n t r i b u t e d to the shaping
of P h i l o ' s views on God and the cosmos, and thus volens nolens to h i s manner
of i n t e r p r e t i n g the B i b l i c a l account. In p a r t i c u l a r our endeavour w i l l be to
pursue, to the extent r e l e v a n t to P h i l o ' s thought, the p h i l o s o p h i c a l problema-
t i c s which are the i n e v i t a b l e consequences of the acceptance of these d o c t r i n e s
(bearing i n mind, however, that he stands somewhere near the beginning of a l -
most two m i l l e n i a of p h i l o s o p h i c a l and t h e o l o g i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n on the same
problems, a s i t u a t i o n with obvious dangers f o r our interpretation). In t h i s
chapter the approach w i l l be to keep 'doxographical' aspects of the subject to
a minimum. The d i s c u s s i o n of P h i l o ' s r e l a t i o n to the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n
of the Timaeus w i l l be reserved f o r the f i n a l chapter of t h i s p a r t of our study.
T n e
Timaeus i s a myth, but i t i s the l e a s t m y t h i c a l of a l l P l a t o ' s myths.
In the account of how the c r e a t o r god ordered the cosmos the n a r r a t i v e element
i s d e l i b e r a t e l y r e s t r i c t e d , r e s u l t i n g i n a complex web of metaphor and imagery
q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from the r i c h l y braided f a n t a s i e s of other P l a t o n i c myths.
Truth i s reserved i n P l a t o ' s philosophy f o r the unchanging world of n o e t i c r e -
a l i t y ; of the s e n s i b l e world f u l l of f l u x and commotion no more than a probable
account can be a t t a i n e d . 1
One may t h e r e f o r e speak of the Timaeus as a 'proba-
ble' or even a ' s c i e n t i f i c ' myth. 2
Why does P l a t o adopt the language of myth
350 SYNTHESIS
•^ ne
Timaeus i s an e x c e l l e n t t e s t - c a s e , i t s myth not m i s l e a d i n g but encouraging
the reader to delve f u r t h e r i n t o the mysteries of philosophy. (3) A frequent,
i f not i n e v i t a b l e , c o r o l l a r y to p r o t r e p t i c i s e s o t e r i c i s m . Myth conceals the
deeper i m p l i c a t i o n s of d o c t r i n e s from those who are as yet unprepared to r e -
c e i v e them. The nature of the demiurge cannot be d i s c l o s e d to a l l and sundry. 6
P h i l o i s as convinced as P l a t o of the f u t i l i t y of s e a r c h i n g f o r t r u t h i n
the world of s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e t h i n g s . 1 0
He i s l e s s convinced, however, that
by t u r n i n g to the world of immutable being t r u t h w i l l be d i r e c t l y w i t h i n man's
grasp. 31
God i s the source of a l l knowledge and u n s t i n t i n g l y bestows i t on man
to the extent that he i s capable of r e c e i v i n g i t . 1 2
No man has been more h i g h -
l y favoured than the prophet Moses, to whom the knowledge contained i n the Law
was granted. P l a t o ' s p r o b a b i l i s m i s given an important r e d i r e c t i o n . Not only
i s i t a p p l i c a b l e to the o b j e c t s of the p h y s i c a l u n i v e r s e , but above a l l to the
task of expounding the words of Moses. The r i c h e s of s c r i p t u r e are inexhaust-
ible. The aim of the exegete can be h a r d l y more than to present probable
Ill 2.1. 351
The d i f f e r e n c e s between Moses and P l a t o are thus not to be explained away, but
the main l i n e s of agreement are more important. P h i l o chooses f o r Moses, as
indeed he must. 15
Could we ask him, he would i n d u b i t a b l y a f f i r m the s u p e r i o r i t y
354 SYNTHESIS
of the o l d e r v e r s i o n .
In the second p l a c e , he does not fail to recognize the metaphorical and con-
c e p t i o n a l l y l i m i t e d nature of both notions. How could images drawn from the
world of sense-perceptible r e a l i t y hope to circumscribe the d i v i n e creative
a c t i v i t y which i s properly speaking a T t e p u y p d c p w s ? 22
God's i n t e r c o u r s e with h i s
own knowledge takes place oux u>s avdpwitos. 23
Concessions to the mythological
t h i n k i n g of the Greek cosmogonies i s a b s o l u t e l y taboo. 24
The d e s c r i p t i o n of
God as demiurge or maker i s a l s o i m p l i c i t l y q u a l i f i e d , as we s h a l l see, by the
a f f i r m a t i o n that God himself does not touch c h a o t i c matter, but leaves that to
h i s instrumental Logos. 25
T h i r d l y a d i s t i n c t i o n must be made, as has already
been h i n t e d a t , between c r e a t i o n on a cosmic s c a l e and c r e a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l
parts of the cosmos. E s p e c i a l l y f o r the c r e a t i o n of l i v i n g beings, a process
where the continuous nature of God's c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y i s apparent, the meta-
phor of p r o c r e a t i v e c r e a t i o n i s the more s u i t a b l e .
Moses d i d not beat about the bush. Right from the very s t a r t he r e s o l v e s the
Ill 2.4. 359
xos denotes both 'subject to the process of becoming and 'having come i n t o be-
1
Tiouta; (2) i n ontological terms — the cosmos always has been and i s c o n t i n u a l -
l y coming i n t o being or being created because i t i s dependent f o r i t s e x i s -
tence on a higher p r i n c i p l e , i t s c r e a t o r , i . e . y e v n t o s means o u x a u T o y e v n x o s 1 5
S t a r t i n g point f o r P h i l o s d o c t r i n e of God
!
i s to be sought nowhere e l s e
than i n the God of the Pentateuch, the God who t o l e r a t e s no other gods beside
him, the God of I s r a e l who revealed himself to the P a t r i a r c h s and above a l l to
the prophet and nomothete Moses. This God s a i d to Abraham, lyu> ei]iL 6 %eog
aou (Gen.l?:!). 1
To Moses h i s s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n was even more sublime, eyw et-yu
o wv; but so that mankind would not lack a t i t l e with which to address him he
added an auwvbov ovoya, xupuog o %eo£ T W V natepwv uywv %eo£ A3potay nai %ebg
Iaaax xau %eo£ Iaxw3 (Ex.3:14-15). 2
But the f a c t that P h i l o i s prepared to a l -
l e g o r i z e t h i s God-given name i s already a t e l l i n g s i g n that he does not wish
to be r e s t r i c t e d i n h i s theology by the p e r s p e c t i v e of n a t i o n a l r e l i g i o n . In
moments of a p o l o g e t i c a l l y d i r e c t e d optimism he d e c l a r e s that t h i s God i s ac-
knowledged by Greeks and barbarians alike (even i f the Jewish race alone knows
how to worship him i n a worthy manner), that the God propounded by the most
h i g h l y reputed philosophy and made known through the Jewish Law i s the same
most ancient and highest cause. 3
And when P h i l o wishes to r e f l e c t on God s f
nature and e x p l a i n what can be thought and s a i d about him, he turns - fateful
d e c i s i o n ! — to the impressive achievements of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l theology of
the Greeks.
5. The Old Academy and Neopythagoreanism. God i s the One or the Monad, 18
or,
i n an even l o f t i e r a f f i r m a t i o n of d i v i n e transcendence and s i m p l i c i t y , nai
evos HOLI uovct6os 7tpeo3uT£pov. 19
When Abraham, s i t t i n g at the oaks of Mamre,
r e c e i v e s three d i v i n e v i s i t o r s but addresses God i n the s i n g u l a r ( c f . Gen.18),
the a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n d i s c l o s e s that God with h i s two c h i e f powers
can appear as a t r i a d , but the mind i n i t i a t e d i n the highest mysteries recog-
n i z e s God as one. 20
But God s oneness does not exclude being; he i s T O ev nai
f
i n d i c a t e s that the noapos vonxos does not possess the absolute being that can
only be a t t r i b u t e d to God. 5
which P h i l o borrows from the Timaeus i s thus reformulated, but i n a way that
i s hardly i n c o n s i s t e n t with the fundamental p r i n c i p l e s of Platonism. The doc-
t r i n a l development of the 'creation 1
of the ideas as the objects of thought of
God as vous i s , to borrow a phrase from D i l l o n , a 'tidying-up' of Plato's
thought. 16
But the i n t r o v e r t e d s e l f - r a t i o c i n a t i o n and self-contemplation of an
A r i s t o t e l i a n vous as highest God i s f a r removed from P h i l o ' s conception of
God's a c t i v i t y . Although P h i l o does not say i n e x p l i c i t terms how God's t h i n k -
ing i s r e l a t e d to h i s p r o v i d e n t i a l a c t i v i t y of continuous c r e a t i o n , 1 7
one might
surmise that God, by continuously t h i n k i n g the n o e t i c cosmos i n the Logos, en-
ables the Logos continuously to e f f e c t u a t e that the v i s i b l e cosmos corresponds
naxd 6uvauuv to i t s i n t e l l i g i b l e model. The i n t e l l e c t u a l i s t i c conception of
the d i v i n e a c t i v i t y i s of c e n t r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r P h i l o ' s anthropology, as
w i l l emerge i n greater d e t a i l below. 18
pure Being ( T O O V ) , the goodness that proceeds from him w i l l have a 'metaphys-
i c a l ' flavour. I t i s indeed unmistakably present i n the De o p i f i c i o mundi,
where, l e t i t be noted, no B i b l i c a l text compels the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the theme
of God's goodness. 27
A l s o s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by P l a t o i s the emphasis placed
on t h e o d i c y . 28
God the c r e a t o r i s the cause of good only. The source of the
e v i l that i s undeniably present i n the cosmos must be sought elsewhere. Even
chastening and r e t r i b u t o r y punishment, which have a paedeutic purpose and are
u l t i m a t e l y b e n e f i c i a l , are not administered d i r e c t l y by God but through the
agency of h i s powers or m i n i s t e r i n g angels.
2. D i v i n e w i l l and d i v i n e immutability. C r e a t i o n , w r i t e s De V o g e l , 37
is
not merely the processio n of the r e l a t i v e out of the absolute , but entails
that t h i s p r o c e s s i o n i s the r e s u l t of a conscious act of w i l l on the part of
the c r e a t o r . Our concern here i s not with the c o r r e c t n e ss of De Vogel's d e f i -
n i t i o n of c r e a t i o n . But i t may help us to determine how P h i l o views t h i s cen-
t r a l problem. In h i s e x p l a n a t i o n of the Mosaic c r e a t i o n a l account he takes
over the Timaean n o t i o n of God's w i l l and goes a step f u r t h e r , a f f i r m i n g that
God wished (ftouAndets) to c r e a t e t h i s v i s i b l e cosmos. 38
I l l u s t r a t i n g the the-
s i s that God 3ouAexab yova x d y a § d , h i s thoughts immediately t u r n to the c r e a -
t i o n and maintenance of the cosmos. 39
On the other hand, P h i l o i s no l e s s con-
vinced that God i s immutable, not subject to the processes of change. God as.
xo ov i s dxpentxov xal dyexd$An.xov 9 completely s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t and both Ttpo xfjs
xou xooyou yeveoews and yexd xnv yeveouv xou navxos remaining ev oyou(p. 40
Also
i n e x e r c i s i n g h i s care over created r e a l i t y God does not change; hence the
s t a b i l i t y of the cosmos i t s e l f . 4 1
The problem, f i r s t r a i s e d by A r i s t o t l e , of
what God was doing before he created the univers e (unemployment, sleep and so
on) does not appear very t r o u b l i n g to P h i l o . 4 2
Not d i p a ^ t a but evepyeua must
be p r e d i c a t e d of the c r e a t o r . 4 3
P h i l o ' s concern i s r a t h e r , and here defence i s
turned i n t o a t t a c k , that i f the cosmos i s not created God must be accused of
d u p a ^ u a , f o r there would be no r e l a t i o n s h i p between God and the cosmos r e q u i r -
ing him to be p r o v i d e n t i a l l y a c t i v e . 4 4
Only God can a u t h e n t i c a l l y combine r e s t
and labour, immutability and c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y . But already the t h i r d problem
area looms.
the Cherubim symbolizing the two highest powers of him that is: 5 1
uovos ydp Ttpos dXrideuav wv xau nounxris eaxtv d4>eu6(J5s, £Tteu6n. i d uf| o v x a
nyayev qig T O e £ v a u , xau 3cxatXeus cpuaeu, 6 t o x t xtov yeyovoxwv o u 6 e u s dv
dpxot 6 t x a t o x e p o v xoO TieTcotrixdxos (Mos .2.100) .
2.7. The L o g o s
P h i l o ' s r e a d i n g of the c o s m o l o g i c al d i a l o g u e .
v i n e Logos, 3
or can even be s a i d to c o i n c i d e w i t h the Logos of God as he i s
a c t u a l l y engaged i n the ac t of c r e a t i o n . 4
The Logos i s the dpxexuTios acppotyus,
p r e s e n t i n g the t o t a l i t y of the i d e a s . 6
I t would be more a c c u r a t e , however, to
At the same time the Logos must be regarded as the euxcov of God, a d e s i g n a t i o n
contact w i t h m a t t e r , 12
but employs the Logos as c u t t e r (xoyeus), which he whets
4. The Logos and the microcosm. The r e l a t i o n of the Logos to man's mind
or r a t i o n a l part of the soul w i l l be discusse d i n the s e c t i o n d e a l i n g with the
i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus on P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e of man. 26
The Logos i n P h i l o can be defined i n the most general terms as that aspect
I l l 2.7. 375
When the Logos acts as God's instrument i t moves between the two l e v e l s indi-
cated, o r g a n i z i n g and imparting to matter as best i t can the form of the noe-
t i c cosmos. The c o n c l u s i o n must be, t h e r e f o r e , that the Logos, seen i n r e l a -
t i o n to the Timaeus, f u n c t i o n s at the l e v e l s o f both the demiurge (and model)
376 SYNTHESIS
imperfection and evil i n the cosmos, though i t i s emphatically not the primary
cause of e v i l which i s the consequence of the f r e e w i l l of the s o u l and the
wrong choices i t h a b i t u a l l y makes. 18
The d e s c r i p t i o n s of the pre-cosmic chaos
are given i n c h i e f l y negativ e terms, 19
a n e g a t i v i t y wholly opposite to that used
i n p r e d i c a t i o n of God as T O O V . I t remains d i f f i c u l t to determine what P h i l o
envisages as the a t t r i b u t e s which account f o r i t s d i s o r d e r , and a l s o how he
imagines i t s e t e r n a l co-quasi-existenc e with God. 20
The Mosaic commentator j
must, i t appears, reserve h i s a t t e n t i o n f o r more p r e s s i n g subjects. 2 1
The Phi^
l o n i s t must, i n c o n t r a s t , conclude that t h i s i s the l e a s t s a t i s f a c t o r i l y de- )
veloped and most obscure area of P h i l o ' s thought.
Important though these ideas are, however, the P h i l o n i s t must not stop.
A f u r t h e r dimension needs to be added. For P h i l o r e c o g n i t i o n of the splendour
of the cosmos and the supreme craftsmanship of the c r e a t o r n e c e s s a r i l y elicits
a response i n the pious s o u l , given expression i n the acts of praise and thanks-
giving. The f r u i t of Ttau6eCa i s 'for p r a i s e ' (auvexos), symbolizing that we
cannot adequately give thanks to God through o b l a t i o n s and sacrifices, but
only i n hymns of p r a i s e , as w e l l t o l d i n the ancient t a l e of the b i r t h of the
Muses. 20
The s a c r i f i c i a l v i c t i m i s d i v i d e d i n t o whole parts i n order to teach
us to give thanks to God f o r the c r e a t i o n of the u n i v e r s e, both f o r the whole
and f o r the p e r f e c t i o n of i t s i n d i v i d u a l p a r t s . 2 1
Once again i t may be consi-
dered c e r t a i n , from these two examples, that P h i l o reads t h i s a t t i t u d e of
p r a i s e and thanksgiving i n t o the Timaeus. The words at Tim.29a5-6 c i t e d ear-
l i e r are used as a concrete i l l u s t r a t i o n of the encomiastic prose and verse to
be w r i t t e n i n honour and thanksgivin g to the c r e a t o r ; 22
the d e s c r i p t i o n of the
symbolism of the s a c r i f i c i a l animal i s d e l i b e r a t e l y reminiscent of P l a t o ' s de-
p i c t i o n of the cosmos. 23
2.11. Cosmology
I t was our task i n the Commentary to determine with some p r e c i s i o n what ideas
in the area of cosmology P h i l o drew from the Timaeus, i n c o n t r a s t to the more
general cosmological d o c t r i n e s known to every educated gentleman and easily
acquired through a reading of i n t r o d u c t o r y works s i m i l a r to the two mentioned
above. 4
the c l o s e r e l a t i o n between the movement of the heavenly bodies and the nature
of time. 9
In a number of t e x t s i t i s c l e a r that P h i l o has d i f f i c u l t y i n under-
standing the p r e c i s e p h i l o s o p h i c a l systematics of the P l a t o n i c a c c o u n t . 10
ries.
The Timaeus c e r t a i n l y aided P h i l o i n d e s c r i b i n g the soul's s t r u g g l e . He
i s p a r t i c u l a r l y keen on the image of t u r b u l e n t water used by P l a t o to describe
the descent of the soul i n t o the body. 24
But most importantly the anthropolo-
g i c a l d o c t r i n e s of the Timaeus and the e x e g e t i c a l theme of the soul's progress
are c r e a t i v e l y merged together i n what we have c a l l e d the 'Allegory of the
soul'. In the lengthy a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the s t o r y of Adam and Eve
and t h e i r progeny P h i l o shows the dynamics i n v o l v e d i n man's composite nature,
f o l l o w i n g the d e t a i l s of the mythical n a r r a t i v e but at the same time not con-
c e a l i n g the i n s p i r a t i o n which he has drawn from the s t r u c t u r e and doctrines
°f t n e
Timaeus. 25
L a t e r on i n the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary the theme of the as-
cent of the soul becomes predominant, so that the d i r e c t c o n t r i b u t i o n of the
390 SYNTHESIS
Timaeus d e c l i n e s . 2 6
Nevertheless the d o c t r i n e s on man's a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l struc-
ture and h i s end i n l i f e r e t a i n an important f o u n d a t i o n al role. I t i s time
that we r e l a t e them to what P h i l o regarded as t h e i r b a s i s i n the B i b l i c a l nar-
rative.
The great nomothete Moses i s a man of 3pctxuAoyCa, not wasting h i s words. 27
There was a time when I devoted myself to philosophy and the contemplation
of the cosmos and i t s contents, g a t h e r i n g the f r u i t s of the noble, much
beloved and t r u l y b l e s s e d l i f e . I was c o n s t a n t l y engaged i n studying d i -
v i n e s u b j e c t s and d o c t r i n e s , r e j o i c i n g with a joy that c o u l d not be s a t i s -
f i e d or sated...
In the words that f o l l o w the s u p e r i o r i t y of i n t e l l e c t u a l p u r s u i t s over the
h u r l y - b u r l y of p o l i t i c s and the 3tos TtpaxxuHos i s affirmed i n language that
for a l l i t s baroque pomposity gives v o i c e to a genuine c r i de coeur. We would
392 SYNTHESIS
By the time that P h i l o f i r s t set eyes on the Timaeus more than three cen-
t u r i e s had elapsed s i n c e i t s p u b l i c a t i o n and the d e c i s i v e p e r i o d i n which P l a -
to's successors i n the Academy grappled with the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the diffi-
c u l t work which the master had bequeathed them. 1
Among these e a r l y i n t e r p r e -
t e r s an important place must be assigned to A r i s t o t l e , even though he resigned
h i s membership of the Academy a f t e r P l a t o ' s death. I t i s with the Stagirite
that we commence. 2
of p h i l o s o p h y . 3
The Platonic doctrine of which the d i s c i p l e gives testimony i s
the ubxxr) 6o£a that the cosmos i s both created and indestructible. 4
What P h i l o
has i n mind here i s unmistakably the literal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which A r i s t o t l e
gave the cosmogony of the Timaeus. 5
A l i t t l e f u r t h e r on i n the same t r e a t i s e ,
the f i r s t four (and a l s o perhaps the s i x t h ) of i t s arguments i n favour of the
cosmos 1
acpdapoua were found to c o n t a in extensive references to and adaptations
of the Timaeus. These are to be a t t r i b u t e d to A r i s t o t l e ' s once famous but now
l o s t dialogue, the De p h i l o s o p h i a . 6
The same work i s almost c e r t a i n l y a l s o the
source f o r the e a r l i e r mentioned l i t e r a l reading of the cosmogonic process.
The t o o l s of p h i l o l o g y do not enable us to determine with p r e c i s i o n whether
P h i l o had d i r e c t access to the A r i s t o t e l i a n dialogue. I have argued that ar-
guments against such a c o n c l u s i o n are c e r t a i n l y no stronger than those i n f a v -
our of i t . D i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , t h e r e f o r e ,
7
P h i l o was acquainted with an
important aspect of the e a r l y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus, which furthermore
enabled him to e s t a b l i s h to h i s own s a t i s f a c t i o n a fundamental d i f f e r e n c e be-
tween the theology and cosmology of P l a t o and that of h i s most illustrious
pupil. Two t e x t s a f f i r m i n the c l e a r e s t terms that Plato's doctrines approach
more n e a r l y the teachings of the man who uaxpoCs xpovous ipoxepov had reached
the p i n n a c l e of philosophy, Moses. 8
the c r e a t i v e immanent Aoyos and the passive vXr\ are two aspects of the same
corporeal ououa, 10
i s so great that i t i s p o i n t l e s s to speak of a S t o i c influ-
ence i n P h i l o ' s understanding of the c r e a t i o n a l process. The f o r m u l a t i o n at
Opif.8 i s i n f a c t very s i m i l a r to a r a t h e r naive Middle P l a t o n i s t i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n of Tim.30a found i n Diogenes L a e r t i u s 1
summary of the P l a c i t a P l a t o n i s . 1 1
reason f o r i t must l i e deeper than the f a c t that there i s no room f o r the cos-
mic soul i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Mosaic cosmogony. P h i l o p r e f e r s the
conception of the d i v i n e Logos because i t suggests an extension of the activity
of God h i m s e l f , not the existenc e of a cosmic e n t i t y separate from God. 22
More-
over i t allows the cosmo-theological ideas from the Timaeus and i t s i n t e r p r e -
t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n to be r e c o n c i l e d with the Jewish Logos-speculation based on
the 'and God s a i d 1
of Gen.1 and other B i b l i c a l texts. 2 3
^ n
a p r i o r i grounds i t i s e n t i r e l y probable t h a t , i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of the Timaeus and of P l a t o ' s thought i n general, P h i l o ' s greates t debt would
have been to that otupeous, which i n h i s time professed l o y a l t y to the P l a t o n i c
t r a d i t i o n , and which modern s c h o l a r s h i p , with i t s penchant f o r rather a r b i t r a r y
(though h i g h l y u s e f u l ) c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , has given the t i t l e 'Middle Platonism'.
The r e g r e t t a b l e s i l e n c e which enshrouds P h i l o ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a i n i n g and the
preference he shows f o r u s i n g anonymous phrases when r e f e r r i n g to Greek p h i l o -
sophers and t h e i r schools have as consequence that i n h i s many w r i t i n g s there
i s not a s i n g l e e x p l i c i t referenc e to P l a t o n i s t s or students of philosophy who
profess to f o l l o w the teachings of P l a t o . 1
At most we can point to one or two
anonymous p l u r a l s that can h a r d l y r e f e r to anyone e l s e except P l a t o n i s t s . 2
passage from which the statement on Mosaic c o n s i s t e n c y was drawn i s a good ex-
tings. 1 7
Numerous examples of t h i s p r a c t i c e were i d e n t i f i e d i n the Commentary.
Numenius. 21
The P y t h a g o r e a n i z i ng arithmology which P h i l o i s so fond of i s
p r a c t i s e d by P l u t a r c h . 2 2
The same author i n t e r p r e t s the E on the D e l p h ic tem-
gorean t h e o l o g y . 23
of the Timaeus. 24
The T U K O S imagery which P h i l o , combining the Timaeus and the
of c r e a t i o n , i s c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l e d i n A r i u s Didymus and A l b i n u s . 2 5
The fact
(ii) The popularity enjoyed by certain texts from the Timaeus i n the w r i -
t i n g s of the Middle P l a t o n i s t s i s a l s o r e f l e c t e d i n P h i l o ' s usage, as can be
observed i n the f o l l o w i n g l i s t (the references i n brackets r e f e r to the Com-
mentary where p a r a l l e l s are g i v e n ) :
28a the two worlds of n o e t i c and sense-perceptible r e a l i t y (2.1.1.)
28b the genesis of the cosmos (2.1.2.)
29a p r a i s e of demiurge and cosmos (2.3.2.)
29e the goodness of demiurge and cosmos (3.1.1.)
30a from d i s o r d e r to order (3.2.1.)
41a-b the i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y of the cosmos (6.1.1.)
47a-c the g i f t of philosophy, Sewpua (7.2.3.) 29
l a i d on the d i s t a n c e between God and the cosmos. Knowledge of the highest God
movement.
principles (the Ideas, the Good, the One) and theological entities (the demi-
knowledge. 40
P l u t a r c h , posing the question xt ouv ovxws 6v e o x u , s t a r t s o f f by
t a l k i n g of x_o aidiov nai ayevnxov xau acpdapxov, but does not h e s i t a t e to switch
n x o u yvwots.
and not the 'Weltschopfung' that the opening words of Genesis might w e l l have
suggested to him. 48
not mean d i r e c t access, f o r the way of preparatory study i s long and arduous.
The highest and greatest good i s not easy to d i s c o v e r nor safe to pass on to
mates... 65
The temptation to d i g r e s s f u r t h e r on the f a s c i n a t i n g subject of
general i s f o r us q u i t e insurmountable. 1
Is i t then p o s s i b l e to show that Philo
between A l b i n u s 1
D i d a s k a l i k o s and P h i l o , always suggestive but never very pre-
c i s e , are e x p l i c a b l e through the use made by A l b i n u s , whether d i r e c t l y or i n -
d i r e c t l y , of the Epitome of A r i u s Didymus. 25
Yet i n my view the d i f f e r e n c e s between the two are greater than the s i m i -
larities. The P l a t o n i s t commentaries, though c e r t a i n l y not d e a l i n g at equal
length with every part of the t e x t , are more c o n t r o l l e d i n t h e i r exposition.
An attempt i s made to f o l l o w the t r a i n of the argument and to gain a p i c t u r e
of the t r e a t i s e as a whole. P h i l o ' s manner of exegesis i n the Allegorical
Commentary tends to be more e p i s o d i c . 3 6
Each verse of s c r i p t u r e , indeed each
phrase and word, contains so many r i c h e s of thought that P h i l o i s f r e q u e n t l y
drawn i n t o long explanations and d i g r e s s i o n s , accompanied by the c i t a t i o n and
e x p l i c a t i o n of numerous p a r a l l e l t e x t s . Moreover a number of the s p e c i a l i n -
t e r p r e t a t i v e techniques which P h i l o needs to c a l l upon i n order to give the
Pentateuch a p h i l o s o p h i c a l content are s c a r c e l y found i n P l a t o n i s t commentaries.
To begin with a t r i v i a l example, P h i l o ' s technique of e x t r a c t i n g deep spiri-
t u a l thoughts from the c r u d i t i e s of the Septuagint t r a n s l a t i o n i s not used by
the P l a t o n i s t s , f o r the simple reason that P l a t o d i d not w r i t e bad Greek. 37
'inbreathed 1
with the d i v i n e i v e u u a , P h i l o f e e l s no l o y a l t y towards Platonism
which would lead him to n e g l e c t or r e j e c t t h i s term. The term i s unreservedly
accepted and i n t e g r a t e d i n t o a b a s i c a l l y P l a t o n i c conception of man's dual
s t r u c t u r e i n a manner which, from the viewpoint of Greek philosophy, gives
r i s e to a number of i n t r a c t a b l e c o m p l i c a t i o n s . 5
At one stage i n the course of
t h i s study P h i l o ' s a t t i t u d e towards the d o c t r i n e s of Greek philosophy was la-
b e l l e d as that of an o p p o r t u n i s t . 6
Opportunism i s rendered p o s s i b l e through
the absence of l o y a l t y . In P h i l o ' s case i t i s compensated (and explained) by
his o v e r r i d i n g l o y a l t y towards the l e t t e r and s p i r i t of the books of Moses.
CONCLUSION
CHAPTER ONE
^ n e
Timaeus casts a long shadow over the w r i t i n g s of P h i l o . To trac e the
o u t l i n e of t h i s shadow has been the task of our study. In the process i t has
proved p o s s i b l e to e l u c i d a t e d i v e r s e and important aspects of P h i l o ' s methods
and thought. By way of c o n c l u s i o n I r e t u r n now to two features of P h i l o ' s use
of the Timaeus which i n my view are p a r t i c u l a r l y deserving of emphasis. These
remarks serve as a prelude to the more general considerations on the nature of
P h i l o ' s achievement which w i l l occupy us i n the remainder of t h i s concluding
part of the study.
A c a r e f u l examination of the Corpus Philonicum - e s p e c i a l l y the De opi-
f i c i o mundi and Legum a l l e g o r i a e , but a l s o numerous passages i n other works -
has revealed how deeply f a s c i n a t e d P h i l o was by the p a r a l l e l s which, i n v i r t u e
of h i s hermeneutical assumptions and e x e g e t i c a l methods, he could discove r be-
tween the P l a t o n i c cosmogony and the Mosaic account of c r e a t i o n . The title of
Moses' f i r s t book i s already profoundly suggestive. The nomothete immediately
draws a t t e n t i o n i n the most emphatic way to the chasm that separates God's
e t e r n a l being from the realm of becoming to which created r e a l i t y belongs.
Just l i k e P l a t o , Moses i s concerned that the cosmos be recognized as yevriTOS. 1
PHILO'S ACHIEVEMENT
The f i r s t explanation holds that the famous Greek lawgivers and philoso-
phers d e r i v e d t h e i r d o c t r i n e s somehow or other from the w r i t i n g s of Moses.
This argument, as i s w e l l known, f i n d s frequent employment i n Jewish and early
C h r i s t i a n l i t e r a t u r e , but i t s extreme form, that t h e f t and p l a g i a r i s m were i n -
volved, 2
occurs i n P h i l o only once. H e r a c l i t u s , i n d e c l a r i n g that "we live
t h e i r death and d i e t h e i r l i f e " , had ' l i k e a t h i e f taken law and opinions from
Moses'. 3
In f i v e other passages P h i l o d e s c r i b es Greek philosophers or legis-
l a t o r s as ' r e c e i v i n g ' t h e i r d o c t r i n e s from Moses or 'drawing' from h i s Laws
l i k e from a f o u n t a i n . 4
I t i s o f t e n overlooked, however, how f r e q u e n t l y he im-
p l i e s that the philosophers are dependent on Moses. The Jewish lawgiver lived
before they d i d , and a n t i c i p a t i o n implies dependence. To give one example out
of many: i f P h i l o a f f i r m s that a Mosaic d o c t r i n e 'was p r a i s e d by some of the
philosophers who came afterwards' ( i . e . A r i s t o t l e and the P e r i p a t e t i c s , Pytha-
goras), he i s s t a t i n g antecedence but s t r o n g l y suggesting dependence. 5
This
procedure i s h i g h l y important f o r an understanding of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a -
t i s e s , i n which a wealth of Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e s are put forward but
the primacy of Moses i s by no means r e l i n q u i s h e d . 6
But P h i l o does not want a l l
h i s eggs i n one basket. There are occasions when he appears to have l e s s con-
f i d e n c e i n the t h e s i s of Greek d e r i v a t i o n . In the De v i t a Moysis he even i n -
cludes Greeks (as w e l l as Egyptians and Chaldeans) among Moses' teachers,
though immediately adding that h i s g i f t e d nature made t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n as
good as s u p e r f l u o u s . 7
In another passage he leaves open whether Socrates was
'taught by Moses or moved by the phenomena themselves'. 8
This remark leads us
s t r a i g h t on to P h i l o ' s second explanation.
Also the cosmos i s created i n such a way as to give man the maximum of a s s i s -
tance i n h i s quest f o r knowledge. Through the contemplation of the celestial
realm man's mind could soar and the b i r t h of philosophy took p l a c e . 1 1
Here i s ,
once again, the theme of Tim.47a-c, so prominent i n P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s . 1 2
It i s
apparent t h a t , on the b a s i s of such cosmological and anthropological ideas,
P h i l o i s not going to deny that the p h i l o s o p h e r s , i n response to the phenomena
IV 2.1. 431
his a s s e r t i o n that t h e i r ancestors were not the p u p i l s but the teachers of the
philosophers i n the matter of r e l i g i o n . 2 1
In the one and same t r e a t i s e P l u -
t a r c h s t a t e s that Pythagoras based h i s precepts on s e c r e t teachings of the
Egyptian p r i e s t s and that the names of Egyptian gods are to be explained by
means of Greek e t y m o l o g i e s . 22
In short, no one-was going to argue with P h i l o ' s
t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions i n a f f i r m i n g the a n t i q u i t y and pre-eminence of the
Jewish nomothete. I t was the content of the laws and d o c t r i n e s claimed f o r
Moses that was the d e c i s i v e f a c t o r .
that P l a t o had given the Pythagorean philosopher Timaeus i n the dialogue that
bears h i s name. 36
as love f o r wisdom and progress on the path t h e r e t o on the one hand and wisdom
as possession of the h i g h e st knowledge on the other i s common i n the Stoa and
Middle P l a t o n i s m . 9
P h i l o a p p l i e s t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n to Abraham (and every stud-
ent of the true p h i l o s o p h y ) , who i s married to Sarah both while p r o g r e s s i n g
towards the attainment of wisdom and when he f i n a l l y reaches i t . 1 0
The contras t
i s thus not between Greek philosophy and Mosaic wisdom, but between two stages
i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of the t r u e philosophy contained i n the Mosaic Law. On
t h i s same text Winston w r i t e s : 1 1
I But how can philosophy supply the language of reason and yet remain sub-
In P h i l o study of the Law has become the worship of God by means of the
e x e r c i s e of man's h i g h e s t f a c u l t y , the i n t e l l e c t . His advocacy of the dewpua
xou xooyou should not be misunderstood. P h i l o was himself no s t a r g a z e r , b u t 2 3
Yet i t should not be overlooked how o f t e n nearness to God means departure from
the world of the senses, how o f t e n the b l e s s i n g s bestowed by God are r e l a t e d
to the a c t i v i t y of the mind, how o f t e n the journey of the soul i s portrayed as
culminating i n the possession of knowledge and wisdom. 27
God i s served not with
a pure heart but with a pure mind. In P h i l o r e l i g i o n i s not merely interior-
ized (Harl), i t i s also i n t e l l e c t u a l i z e d . 2 8
I t i s a l s o undoubtedly true that
P h i l o i s keenly aware of the l i m i t a t i o n s of the human mind and the knowledge
i t can o b t a i n . E s p e c i a l l y the nothingness of the i n t e r p r e t e r c o n f r o n t i n g the
r i c h e s of s c r i p t u r e i s h e a v i l y u n d e r l i n e d. But one should r e c a l l that the
paragon of P h i l o s anthropology i s not the lowly
f
i n t e r p r e t e r but Moses h i m s e l f ,
the great prophet and sage who i s c a l l e d by s c r i p t u r e a 'god , at l e a s t i n r e -
1
death the dark clouds which he himself had seen - f i r s t on the h o r i z o n and
then much c l o s e r - f i n a l l y b u r s t , and the p o l i t i c a l and c u l t u r a l d e c l i n e of
Alexandrian Judaism set i n . Among P a l e s t i n i a n Jews only JOSEPHUS appears to
have d e r i v e d any b e n e f i t from an acquaintance with P h i l o s w r i t i n g s . f 1 8
A com-
p a r i s o n of h i s account of c r e a t i o n with P h i l o ' s De o p i f i c i o mundi shows how
l i t t l e he l e a r n t . 1 9
In choosing to study the Law without d i r e c t recourse to
the d o c t r i n e s of Greek philosophy, the RABBIS chose a l s o to ignore P h i l o . The
p o r t a l g i v i n g access to P h i l o s w r i t i n g s might have been i n s c r i b e d AflAIAEYTOS
!
II
III
De m o e i l i j k h e d e n d i e v o o r t v l o e i e n u i t h e t f e i t d a t een d e e l van
P h i l o s oeuvre i n een Armeense v e r t a l i n g i s o v e r g e l e v e r d , worden n i e t
f
IV
VII
In P h i l o De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi 1 moet de l e z i n g van de h a n d s c h r i f t e n
TTÓvoc gehandhaafd worden.
VIII
In Seneca E p i s t u l a e m o r a l e s 58.28 l e z e men vinelens i.p.v. vincens.
IX
In A l b i n u s D i d a s k a l i k o s XIV p.83.3 L o u i s l e z e men é£axÖ veMHÖeïaa
i . p . v . è£ âpxnç vepnÖeCöa.
X
In de p r o b l e m a t i e k van de v e e l o m s t r e d e n c h r o n o l o g i e van de B r i e v e n
van S y n e s i u s van Cyrene kan a a n z i e n l i j k e v o o r u i t g a n g worden g e b o e k t,
wanneer men s t e e d s de b r i e v e n d i e aan één zelfde correspondent
g e r i c h t z i j n p e r groep a f z o n d e r l i j k behandelt.
XI
Een c u r s u s i n de g e s c h i e d e n i s van de f i l o s o f i e schiet tekort, indien
aan P h i l o van A l e x a n d r i e geen aandacht geschonken w o r d t .
XII
Als z i n s p r e u k v o o r een u n i v e r s i t e i t i s AUXILIUM NOSTRUM IN NOMINE
DOMINI z i n v o l l e r dan POSTERA CRESCAM LAUDE.
XIII
Het a f w i j z e n van i e d e r d i r e k t s c h r i f t b e r o e p i n d i s c u s s i e s i n z a k e
e t h i s c h e v r a g e n , met a l s grond een v e r w i j z i n g naar de h e r m e n e u t i s c h e
p r o b l e m a t i e k , v e r o o r z a a k t v e e l s c h a d e l i j k e v e r w a r r i n g i n de G e r e f o r -
meerde k e r k e n , m.n. op k e r k e r a a d s n i v e a u .
XIV
Geregeld f i e t s e n bevordert het produceren van een proefschrift.
ISEN 90^25^183^7 (2 wlmm}
VVBœkhmézl
Be Boetelaan 1105* Ï0$i HV Amsterdam
Telefoon 020*444355 - telex 18191 vuboe ui