Online Encyclopedia
Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
PHILO
Online EncyclopediaEncyclopedia Home :: PER-PIG
del.icio.us it!
|
PHILO , often called PHILO JUDAEUS, Jewish philospher, appears to have spent his whole See also:life at See also:Alexandria, where he was probably See also:born c. 20—10 B.C. His See also:father See also: He is quite the most important representative of Hellenistic Judaism, and his writings give us the clearest view of what this development of Judaism was and aimed at. The development of Judaism in the diaspora (q.v.) differed in important points from that in See also:Palestine; where, since the successful opposition of the Maccabee See also:age to the Hellenization which See also:Antiochus Epiphanes had sought to carry through by force, the attitude of the nation to See also:Greek culture had been essentially negative. In the diaspora, on the other See also:hand, the Jews had been deeply influenced by the Greeks; they soon more or less forgot their Semitic See also:mother-See also:tongue, and with the See also:language of Hellas they appropriated much of Hellenic culture. They were deeply impressed by that irresistible force which was blending all races and nations into one See also:great See also:cosmopolitan unity, and so the Jews too on their See also:dispersion became in speech and See also:nationality Greeks, or rather " Hellenists." Now the distinguishing See also:character of See also:Hellenism is not the See also:absolute disappearance of the See also:Oriental civilizations before that of See also:Greece but the See also:combination of the two with a preponderance of the Greek See also:element. So it was with the Jews, but in their See also:case the old See also:religion had much more persistence than in other Hellenistic circles, though in other respects they too yielded to the See also:superior force of Greek See also:civilization. This we must hold to have been the case not only in Alexandria but throughout the diaspora from the commencement of the Hellenistic See also:period down to the later See also:Roman See also:Empire. It was only after See also:ancient civilization gave way before the See also:barbarian immigrations and the rising force of Christianity that rabbinism became supreme even among the Jews of the diaspora. This Hellenistico-Judaic phase of culture is sometimes called " Alexandrian," and the expression is justifiable if it only means that in Alexandria it attained its highest development and flourished most. For ' Euseb., H. E. ii. 17, 1; Jer. ut supra; Phot. Bibl. See also:Cod. Io5; Suid., s.v. 4:^ixwr."409 here the. Jews began to busy themselves with Greek literature even under their See also:clement rulers, the first See also:Ptolemies, and here the See also:law and other Scriptures were first translated into Greek; here the See also:process of See also:fusion began earliest and proceeded with greatest rapidity; here, therefore, also the Jews first engaged in a scientific study of Greek See also:philosophy and transplanted that philosophy to the See also:soil of Judaism. We read of a Jewish philosopher See also:Aristobulus in the time of See also:Ptolemy VI. Philometor, in the See also:middle of the 2nd See also:century B.C., of whose philosophical commentary on the See also:Pentateuch fragments have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius. So far as we can See also:judge from these, his aim was to put upon the sacred See also:text a sense which should See also:appeal even to Greek readers, and in particular to get rid of all anthropomorphic utterances about See also:God. Eusebius regards him as a Peripatetic. We may suppose that this philosophical See also:line of thought had its representatives in Alexandria between the times of Aristobulus and Philo, but we are not acquainted with the names of any such. Philo certainly, to judge by his See also:historical See also:influence, was the greatest of all these Jewish philosophers, and in his case we can follow in detail the methods by which Greek culture was harmonized with Jewish faith. On one side he is quite a Greek, on the other quite a See also:Jew. His language is formed on the best classical See also:models, especially See also:Plato. He knows and often cites the great Greek poets, particularly See also:Homer and the tragedians, but his chief studies had been in Greek philosophy, and he speaks of Heraclitus, Plato, the See also:Stoics and the Pythagoreans in terms of the highest veneration. He had appropriated their doctrines so completely that .he must himself be reckoned among the Greek philosophers; his See also:system was eclectic, but the borrowed elements are combined into a new unity with so much originality that at the same time he may fairly be regarded as representing a philosophy of his own, which has for its characteristic feature the See also:constant prominence of a fundamental religious See also:idea. Philo's closest See also:affinities are with Plato, the later Pythagoreans and the Stoics .2 Yet with all this Philo remained a Jew, and a great See also:part of his writings is expressly directed to recommend Judaism to the respect and, if possible, the See also:acceptance of the Greeks. He was not a stranger to the specifically Jewish culture that prevailed in Palestine; in See also:Hebrew he was not proficient, but the numerous etymologies he gives show that he had made some study of that language? His method of exegesis is in point of See also:form identical with that of the Palestinian See also:scribes, and in point of See also:matter coincidences are not absolutely rare.' But above all his whole See also:works prove on every See also:page that he See also:felt himself to be thoroughly a Jew, and desired to be nothing else. Jewish " philosophy " is to him the true and highest See also:wisdom; the knowledge of God and of things divine and human which is contained in the See also:Mosaic Scriptures is to him the deepest and the purest. If now we ask wherein Philo's Judaism consisted we must See also:answer that it lies mainly in the formal claim that the Jewish See also:people, in virtue of the divine See also:revelation given to See also:Moses, possesses the true knowledge in things religious. Thoroughly Jewish is his recognition that the Mosaic Scriptures of the Pentateuch are of absolute divine authority, and that everything they contain is valuable and significant because divinely revealed. The other Jewish Scriptures are also recognized as prophetic, i.e. as the writings of inspired men, but he does not See also:place them on the same lines with the law, and he quotes them so seldom that we cannot determine the See also:compass of his See also:canon. The 2 The fathers of the Church have specially noticed his See also:Platonism and Pythagoreanism; an old See also:proverb even says, with some exaggeration, +] IIaarwv aXwsti'ec ,' <Piawv IrXare.wt c (Jerome, See also:Photius and Suidas, ut supra). Clement of Alexandria directly calls him a See also:Pythagorean. Eusebius (H. E. ii. 4, 3) observes both tendencies. See also:Recent writers, especially See also:Zeller, See also:lay See also:weight also on his Stoic affinities, and with See also:justice, for the elements which he borrows from Stoicism are as numerous and important as those derived from the other two See also:schools. 3 See the See also:list of these in Vallarsi's edition of Jerome (iii. 731—734), and compare Siegfried, " Philonische Studien," in Merx's Archiv. ii. 143–163 (1872). 3 See Siegfried, Philo, pp. 142–159. decisive and normative authority is to him the " See also:holy See also:laws " God would exclude the possibility of any active relation of God of Moses, and this not only in the sense that everything they contain is true but that all truth is contained in them. Every-thing that is right and See also:good in the doctrines of the Greek philosophers had already been quite as well, or even better, taught by Moses. Thus, since Philo had been deeply influenced by the teachings of Greek philosophy he actually finds in the Pentateuch everything which he had learned from the Greeks. From these premises he assumes as requiring no See also:proof that the Greek philosophers must in some way have See also:drawn from Moses, a view indeed which is already expressed by Aristobulus. To carry out these presuppositions called for an exegetical method which seems very See also:strange to us, that, namely, of the allegorical See also:interpretation of Scripture. The allegorical method had been practised before Philo's date in the rabbinical schools of Palestine, and he himself expressly refers to its use by his predecessors, nor does he feel that any further See also:justification is requisite. With its aid he discovers indications of the profoundest doctrines of philosophy in the simplest stories of the Pentateuch.'
This merely formal principle of the absolute authority of Moses is really the one point in which Philo still holds to genuinely Jewish conceptions. In the whole substance of his philosophy the Jewish point of view is more or less completely modified—sometimes almost extinguished—by what he has learned from the Greeks. Comparatively speaking, he is most truly a Jew in his conception of God. The See also:doctrine of mono-See also:theism, the stress laid on the absolute See also:majesty and See also:sovereignty of God above the See also:world, the principle that He is to be worshipped without images, are all points in which Philo justly feels his superiority as a Jew over popular heathenism. But only over popular heathenism, for the Greek philosophers had See also:long since arrived at least at a theoretical monotheism, and their influence on Philo is nowhere more strongly seen than in the detailed development of his doctrine of God. The specifically Jewish (i.e. particularistic) conception of the See also:election of See also:Israel, the See also:obligation of the Mosaic law, the future See also:glory of the chosen nation, have almost disappeared; he is really a cosmopolitan and praises the Mosaic law just because he See also:deems it cosmopolitan. The true See also:sage who follows the law of Moses is the See also:citizen not of a particular state but of the world. A certain See also:attachment which Philo still manifests to the particularistic conceptions of his race is meant only " in majorem Judaeorum gloriam." The Jewish people has received a certain preference from God, but only because it has the most virtuous ancestry and is itself distinguished for virtue. The Mosaic law is binding, but only because it is the most righteous, humane and rational of laws, and even its out-See also: Thus, in the whole substance of his view of the universe, Philo occupies the standpoint of Greek philosophy rather than of See also:national Judaism, and his philosophy of the world and of life can be completely set forth without any reference to conceptions specifically Jewish. His doctrine of God starts from the idea that God is a Being absolutely See also:bare of quality. All quality in finite beings has See also:limitation, and no limitation can be predicated of God, who is eternal, unchangeable, See also:simple substance, See also:free, self-sufficient, better than the good and the beautiful. To predicate any quality (7roiorgs) of God would be to reduce Him to the See also:sphere of finite existence. Of Him we can say only that He is, not what He is, and such purely negative predications as to His being appear to Philo, as to the later Pythagoreans and the Neoplatonists, the only way of securing His absolute See also:elevation above the world. At bottom, no doubt, the meaning of these negations is that God is the most perfect being; and so, conversely, we are told that God contains all perfection, that He fills and encompasses all things with His being. A consistent application of Philo's abstract conception of ' For details, see See also:Gfrorer, Philo, i. 68 seq.; Zeller, Phil. der Gr. (3rd ed., vol. iii., pt. ii., pp. 346-352); Siegfried, Philo, pp. 16o seq. to the world, and therefore of religion, for a Being absolutely without quality and See also:movement cannot be conceived as actively concerned with the multiplicity of individual things. And so in fact Philo does See also:teach that the absolute perfection, purity and loftiness of God would be violated by See also:direct contact with imperfect, impure and finite things. But the possibility of a connexion between God and the world is reached through a distinction which forms the most important point in his See also:theology and cosmology; the proper Being of God is distinguished from the See also:infinite multiplicity of divine Ideas or Forces: God himself is without quality, but He disposes of an infinite variety of divine Forces, through whose See also:mediation an active relation of God to the See also:work]. is brought about. In the details of his teaching as to these mediating entities Philo is guided partly by Plato and partly by the Stoics, but at the same time he makes use of the See also:concrete religious conceptions of heathenism and Judaism. Following Plato, he first calls them Ideas or ideal patterns of all things; they are thoughts of God, yet po sess a real existence, and were produced before the creation of the sensible world, of which they are the types. But, in distinction from Plato, Philo's ideas are at the same time efficient causes or Forces (Suvapeis), which bring unformed matter into See also:order conformably to the patterns within themselves, and are in fact the See also:media of all God's activity in the world. This modification of the Platonic Ideas is due to Stoic influence, which appears also when Philo gives to the iSfen or Suvaµeis the name of Aoyot, i.e. operative ideas—parts, as it were, of the operative See also:Reason. For, when Philo calls his mediating entities Xhyoi, the sense designed is analogous to that of the Stoics when they See also:call God the See also:Logos, i.e. the Reason which operates in the world. But at the same time Philo maintains that the divine Forces are identical with the " daemons " of the Greeks, and the " angels " of the Jews, i.e. servants and messengers of God by means of which He communicates with the finite world. All this shows how uncertain was Philo's conception of the nature of these mediating Forces. On the one hand they are nothing else than Ideas of individual things conceived in the mind of God, and as such ought to have no other reality than that of immanent existence in God, and so Philo says expressly that the totality of Ideas, the K6v7aos vo77r6s, is simply the Reason of God as Creator (No"v Xoyos Kovµo7roiovvros). Yet, on the other hand, they are .represented as hypostases distinct from God, individual entities existing independently and apart from Him. This vacillation, however, as Zeller and other recent writers have justly remarked, is necessarily involved in Philo's premises, for, on the one hand, it is God who works in the world through His Ideas, and therefore they must be identical with God; but, on the other hand, God is not to come into direct contact with the world, and therefore the Forces through which He works must be distinct from Him. The same inevitable amphiboly dominates in what is taught as to the supreme Idea or Logos. Philo regards all individual Ideas as comprehended in one highest and most genera] Idea or Force—the unity of the individual Ideas—which he calls the Logos or Reason of God, and which is again regarded as operative Reason. The Logos, therefore, is the highest mediator between God and the world, the firstborn son of God, the See also:archangel who is the vehicle of all revelation, and the high See also:priest who stands before God on behalf of the world. Through him the world was created, and so he is identified with the creative Word of God in See also:Genesis (the Greek X(ryos meaning both " reason " and " word "). Here again, we see, the philosopher is unable to See also:escape from the difficulty that the Logos is at once the immanent Reason of God, and yet also an See also:hypostasis See also:standing between God and the world. The whole doctrine of this mediatorial hypostasis is a strange intertwining of very dissimilar threads; on one side the way was prepared for it by the older Jewish distinction between the Wisdom of God and God Himself, of which we find the beginnings even in the Old Testament (See also:Job See also:xxviii. 12 seq.; Prov. viii., ix.), and the See also:fuller development in the books of See also:Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, the latter of which comes very near to Philo's ideas if we substitute for the See also:term " wisdom " that of (divine) " Reason." In Greek philosophy, again, Philo, books on Genesis and two on See also:Exodus, but with lacunae. A Latin as we have seen, chiefly follows the Platonic doctrines of Ideas and the Soul of the World, and the Stoic doctrine of God as the Xbyos or Reason operative in the world. In its Stoic form the latter doctrine was pantheistic, but Philo could adapt it to his purpose simply by See also:drawing a sharper distinction between the Logos and the world. Like his doctrine of God, Philo's doctrine of the world and creation rests on the presupposition of an absolute metaphysical contrast between God and the world. The world can be ascribed to God only in so far as it is a cosmos or orderly world; its material substratum is not even indirectly referable to God. Matter (fXt7, or, as the Stoics said, ovvia) is a second principle, but in itself an empty one, its essence being a See also:mere negation of all true being. It is a lifeless, unmoved, shapeless See also:mass, out of which God formed the actual world by means of the Logos and divine Forces. Strictly speaking, the world is only formed, not created, since matter did not originate with God. Philo's doctrine of man is also strictly dualistic, and is mainly derived from Plato. Man is a twofold being, with a higher and a See also:lower origin. Of the pure souls which fill See also:airy space, those nearest the earth are attracted by the sensible and descend into sensible bodies; these souls are the Godward side of man. But on his other side man is a creature of sense, and so has in him a See also:fountain of See also:sin and all evil. The See also:body, therefore, is a See also:prison, a See also:coffin, or a See also:grave for the soul which seeks to rise again to God. From this See also:anthropology the principles of Philo's See also:ethics are derived, its highest See also:maxim necessarily being deliverance from the world of sense and the See also:mortification of all the impulses of sense. In carrying out this thought, as in many other details of his ethical teaching, Philo closely follows the Stoics. But he is separated from Stoical ethics by his strong religious interests, which carry him to very different views of the means and aim of ethical development. The Stoics See also:cast man upon own resources; Philo points him to the assistance of God, without whom man, a See also:captive to sense, could never raise himself to walk in the ways of true wisdom and virtue. And as moral effort can See also:bear See also:fruit only with God's help, so too God Himself is the See also:goal of that effort. Even in this life the truly See also:wise and virtuous is lifted above his sensible existence, and enjoys in See also:ecstasy the See also:vision of God, his own consciousness sinking and disappearing in the divine See also:light. Beyond this ecstasy there lies but one further step, viz. entire liberation from the body of sense and the return of the soul to its See also:original See also:condition; it came from God and must rise to Him again. But natural See also:death brings this consummation only to those who, while they lived on earth, kept themselves free from attachment to the things of sense; all others must at death pass into another body; transmigration of souls is in fact the necessary consequence of Philo's premises, though he seldom speaks of it expressly. Philo's See also:literary labours have a twofold See also:object, being directed either to expound the true sense of the Mosaic law, i.e. the philosophy which we have just described, to his Jewish brethren, or to convince See also:heathen readers of the excellence, the supreme purity and truth, of the Jewish religion, whose holy records contain the deepest and most perfect philosophy, the best and most humane legislation. Thus as a literary figure Philo, in conformity with his See also:education and views of life, stands between the Greeks and the Jews, seeking to gain the Jews for Hellenism and the Greeks for Judaism, yet always taking it for granted that his standpoint really is Jewish, and just on that account truly philosophical and cosmopolitan. The titles of the numerous extant writings of Philo See also:present at first sight a most confusing multiplicity. More than three-fourths of them, however, are really mere sections of a small number of larger works. Three such great works on the Pentateuch can be distinguished. I. The smallest of these is the Z,ir ipara Kal XVOe,s (Quaestiones et solutiones), a See also:short exposition of Genesis and Exodus, in the form of question and answer. The work is cited under this See also:title by Eusebius (H. E. ii. 18, 1, 5; Praep. Ev. vii. 13), and by later writers, but the Greek text is now almost wholly lost, and only about one-See also:half preserved in an Armenian See also:translation. Genesis seems to have occupied six books.' Eusebius tells us that Exodus filled five books. In the Armenian translation, first published by the learned Mechitarist, J. Bapt. Aucher, in 1826, are preserved four 1 See, especially See also:Mai, Scriptt. vett. nov. See also:coll. vol. vu. pt. 1. pp. too, 1o6, Io8. fragment, about half of the See also:fourth books on Genesis (Phil. See also:Jud. CII. quaestt.... super Gen.), was first printed at See also:Paris in 1520. Of the Greek we have numerous but short fragments in various Florilegia? The interpretations in this work are partly literal and partly allegorical. II. Philo's most important work is the NOpw,LEpwv aAA77yopiai (Euseb. H. E. H. i8, 1; Phot. Bibl. Cod. 103), a vast and copious allegorical commentary on Genesis, dealing with chaps. ii. iv., See also:verse by verse, and with select passages in the later chapters. The readers in view are mainly Jews, for the form is modelled on the rabbinic See also:Midrash. The See also:main idea is that the characters which appear in Genesis are properly allegories of states of the soul (ephiroi Ti3s +tuX;;s). All persons and actions being interpreted in this sense, the work as a whole is a very extensive body of See also:psychology and ethics. It begins with Gen. H. 1, for the De mundi opificio, which treats of the creation according to Gen. i., H., does not belong to this See also:series of allegorical commentaries, but deals with the actual history of creation, and that under a quite different literary form. With this exception, however, the Noµwv aXX,lyopial includes all the See also:treatises in the first See also:volume of Mangey's edition, viz. NOpwv iepwv aXX77yopial 7rprerat Twv µera T77V Ef ai /1€pov (Legum alle- goriarum, See also:lib. i., M. i. 43–65), on Gen. ii. i–17. (2) Nog. tep. aXX. Seurspai (See also:Leg. all. lib. H., M. i. 66–86), on Gen. H. Ia. (3)NOp. aX). rplra, (Leg. all. lib. iii., M. i. 87–137), on Gen. iii. 8b–i9. The commentaries on Gen. Hi. lb-8a, 20–23 are lost. (4) IIEpi Tiwv XEpov8ip Kai rift OXOyiv77r poµ¢aias Kai TOV KTLOBEVTOS 7rpCJTOV if aVOOCD70V Keay (De See also:cherubim et flammeo gladio, M. i. 138–162), on Gen. iii. 24 and iv. I. (5) IIEpi wv 1Epovpyooaly "A/3EX es Kai Kai', (De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, M. i. 163–190), on Gen. iv. 2–4. The commentaries on Gen. iv. 5–7 are lost. (6) HEpi TOV TO XEL pop Tw KptierovL OtXELV E7rlriBeeOaL (Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat, M. i. 191–225), on Gen. iv. 8–15. (7) Hest TwV TOU SOK7taLaO4iOV KaHV EyyOvow Kai WS peravaarri yivcrai (De posteritate Caini, &c., M. i. 226–261), on Gen. iv. 16–25; this book, which is wanting in See also:editions See also:prior to Mangey's, is incorrectly given by him, but much more correctly by See also:Tischendorf, Philonea, pp. 84–143. None of the preceding is mentioned by its See also:special title by Euseb. H.E. H. 18, while he cites all that follow by their titles. The reason must be that all up to this point, and no further, are included by him in the Mines ispaav aXX77yopial; agreeing with this we find that these, and these only, are cited under that See also:general title in the Florilegia, especially the so-called Johannes Monachus ineditus (see Mangey's notes before each book). We may therefore conclude with confidence that Philo published the continuous commentaries on Gen. H.–iv. under the title Allegories of the Sacred Laws, and the following commentaries on select passages under special titles, though the identity of literary character entitles us to regard the latter as part of the same great literary See also:plan with the former. (8) IIEpi ylyavrwv (De gigantibus, M. i. 262–272), on Gen. vi. 1–4. (9) "On arpeirTOV See also:ea Moe (Quad See also:Deus sit immutabilis, M. i. 272–299), on Gen. vi. 4–12. (io) Hepi yeepyias (De agricultura, M. i. 300–328), on Gen. ix. 2oa. (II) HEpi Eburovpyias Nwi rd Ssbrepov (De See also:plantation Noe, M. i. 329–356), on Gen. ix. lob. (12) HEpi piO,7i (De ebrietate, M. i. 357-391), on Gen. ix. 21; the introduction shows that this book was preceded by another which put together the views of the philosophers about See also:drunkenness. (13) BegiTo";'lEb,gipsNwe (De sobrietate, M. i. 392–403), on Gen. ix. 24. (14) HEM avyXb,EwS &eXierwv (De confusione linguarum, M. i. 404–435), on Gen. xi. 1–9. (15) HEpi &7roleLai (De See also:migration Abrahami, M. i. 436-472), on Gen. xii. 1–6. (16) IIEpi TOV TLS O See also:TOW BEiwv 7rpayparwv KX77pOVOpOS (Quis rerum divinarum haeres sit, M. i. 473–518), on Gen. xv. 1–18. (17) HEpi See also:gin cis ea 7rpo7raLSEUpara avvdiov (De congressu quaerendae eruditionis causa, M. i. 519–545), on Gen. xvi. 1–6. (18) HEpi (Amy aaws (De profugis, M. i. 546–577), on Gen. xvi. 6–14. (19) HEpi Twv
perovoµ4ophese Kai WV EvEKa u€rovoparovrai (De mutatione nominum,
M. i. 578–619), on Gen. xvii. 1–22 ; in this work Philo mentions that he had written two books, now wholly lost, IIEpi &at77Kiilv (M. i. 586).
(20) HEpi TOV OE07rEp7rTOVS Elvai rote Oveipovs (De somniis, lib. i., M. i.
620–658), on the two dreams of See also:Jacob, Gen. xxviii. and xxxi.
(21) Book H. of the same (M. i. 659-699), on the dreams of See also:Joseph, the chief See also: 96 seq.; Euseb. Praep. Ev. vii. 13. A fragment on the cherubim, Exod. See also:xxv. 18, has been published by Mai, Class. Auctl. iv. 430 seq., by Grossmann (1856) and by Tischendorf (p. 144 seq.). legislation was conformed to the will of nature, and that therefore those who followed it were true cosmopolitans; (b) the See also:Biographies of the Virtuous—being, so to speak, the living unwritten laws which, unlike written laws, present the general types of moral conduct; (c) Legislation Proper, in two subdivisions—(a) the ten See also:principal chapters of the law, (p) the special laws belonging to each of these ten. An appendix adds a view of such laws as do not fall under the rubrics of the See also:decalogue, arranged under the headings of certain See also:cardinal virtues. The treatises which belong to this work are the following: (I) Mot r,jc Mwvaiws Koauoroettas (De mundi opificio, M. i. 1–42). This work does not fall within the number of the allegorical commentaries. On the other hand, the introduction to the See also:treatise De Abrahamo makes clear its immediate connexion with the De mundi opificio. The position of the De mundi opificio at the head of the allegorical commentaries, which is at present usual in the editions, seems indeed to go back to a very See also:early date, for even Eusebius cites a passage from it with the See also:formula 8?ro rov irpwrov Twv Eis Tov vopov (Praep. Ev. viii. 12 fin., ed. See also:Gaisford). The See also:group of the Bloc ao4wv is headed by (2) BLos ao[tloi Tot) KaTa 6chaueaXtav rsXecaeivros rspi vbpWv aypactiwv [a], 6 kart reps 'Appaap (De Abrahamo, M. ii. 1–40). See also:Abraham is here set forth as the type of 6L6aoKaAcKoj apsri , i.e. of virtue as a thing learned. This See also:biography of Abraham was followed by that of See also:Isaac as a type of (ivauc?) apsr5, i.e. of innate or natural virtue, which in turn was succeeded by that of Jacob as representing aTiOTLK?) a0.wwTfl, i.e. virtue acquired by practice; but poth these are now lost. Hence in the editions the next treatise is (3) See also:Bias roXLrLKos orsp fart See also:rep' 'Iwaicti (De Josepho, M. ii. 41–79), where Joseph is taken as the See also:pattern of the wise man in his See also:civil relations. The Biographies of the Virtuous are followed by (4) See also:Riot rwv 6iKa Xoylwv a KccOaXaca vbpwv Eiot (De decalogo, M. ii. 18o–2o9) and (5) If sot r&v See also:ava¢Epopivwv iv (Laic vbpwv ELS ra uuv1 stcovTa K€4hAaLa ran, 6iKa Abywv (De specialibus legibus; the unabridged title is given by Eusebius, H.E. ii. 18, 5). Here under the rubrics of the ten commandments a systematic See also:review of the special laws of the Mosaic See also:economy is given; for example, under the first and second commandments (divine See also:worship) a survey is taken of the entire legislation See also:relating to priesthood and See also:sacrifice; under the fourth (i.e. the See also:Sabbath law, according to Philo's reckoning) there is a survey of all the laws about feasts; under the See also:sixth (See also:adultery) an account of matrimonial law; and so on. According to Eusebius the work embraced four books, which seem to have reached us entire, but in the editions have been perversely broken up into a considerable number of See also:separate tractates. (a) The first book (on the first and second commandments) includes the following: De circumcisione (M. ii. 210–212); De monarchia, lib. i. (ii. 213–222) ; De monarchia, lib. ii. (ii. 222–232) ; De praemiis sacerdotum (ii. 232–237) ; De victimas (ii. 237–250) ; De sacrificantibus, or De victimas offerentibus (ii. 251–264) ; De mercede meretricis non accipienda in See also:sacrarium (ii. 264–269). (b) The second book (on the third, fourth and fifth commandments, i.e. on See also:perjury, Sabbath observance, and filial piety) is incomplete in Mangey (ii. 270-298), the See also:section De septenario (on the Sabbath and feasts in general) being imperfect, and that De colendis parentibus being entirely wanting. Mai to a large extent made good the defect (De cophini festo et de colendis parentibus, See also:Milan, 1818), but Tischendorf was the first to edit the full text (Philonea, pp. 1–83). (c) The third book relates to the sixth and seventh commandments (adultery and See also:murder; M. ii. 299–334). (d) To the fourth book (relating to the last three commandments) belongs all that is found in Mangey, ii. 335–374, that is to say, not merely the tractates De judice (ii. 344–348) and De concupiscentia (ii. 348–358), but also those De justitia (ii. 358–361) and De creatione principum (ii. 361–374). The last-named is, properly speaking, only a portion of the De justitia, which, however, certainly belongs to the fourth book, of which the superscription expressly bears that it treats also ?rip? ScKacoobvris. With this tractate begins the appendix to the work De specialibus legibus, into which, under the See also:rubric of certain cardinal virtues, such Mosaic laws are brought together as could not be dealt with under any of the decalogue rubrics. The continuation of this appendix forms a book by itself. (6) IIEpi Tpewv apsrwv $See also:roc rcpt av6pstas Kai OLAavtpwrtas Kai psravotas (De fortitudine, M. ii. 375--383; De caritate, ii. 383—405; De poenitentia, ii. 405–407). Finally, in less intimate connexion with this entire work is another treatise still to be mentioned, (7) IIspl aOXwv Kai ircTCptow (De praemiis et poenis, M. ii. 408–428) and IIEpi ago, (De execrationibus, M. ii. 429-457), two parts which constitute a single whole and See also:deal with the promises and threatenings of the law. IV. Besides the above-named three great works on the Pentateuch, Philo was the author of a number of isolated writings, of which the following have reached us either in their entirety or in fragments. (I) IIcpi Stew Mwaiws (Vita Mosis, lib. i.-iii., M. ii. 80-179). It is usual to group this, as being See also:biographical in its character, with the Bloc ao¢wv, and thus to incorporate it immediately after the De Josepho with the large work on the Mosaic legislation. But, as has been seen, the Bloc aopwv are intended to represent the general types of morality, while Moses is by no means so dealt with, but as a unique individual. All that can be said is that the literary character of the Vita Mosis is the same as that of the larger work. As in the latter the Mosaic legislation, so in the former the activity of the legislator himself, is delineated for thebenefit of See also:Gentile readers. (2) IIEpi rot) ravra arov6aiov Eivac iXEL'Ospov (Quad omnis See also:probus See also:liber, M. ii. 445–470). In the introduction to this treatise reference is made to an earlier book which had for its theme the converse proposition. The See also:complete work was still extant in the time of Eusebius (H. E. ii. i8, 6) : IIEpi rot) SoIaov stvat ravra 4,ai Xov, c i 7]s iaT1Y 0 xspi roa ?sacra arov6adov 0ELBEpov sisal. The genuineness of the See also:writing now possessed by us is not undisputed: but see See also:Lucius, Der Essenismus (1881), pp. 13–23. (3) Eis (MaKKOP (Adversus Flaccum, M. ii. 517–544) and 4) Hoot &osrwv Kai rpsopetac i1-pas See also:ram, (De legatione ad Gaium, M. ii. 545-600). These two works have a very intimate connexion. In the first Philo relates how the Roman See also:governor See also:Flaccus in Alexandria, towards the beginning of the reign of Caligula, allowed the Alexandrian See also:mob, without interference, to insult the Jews of that See also:city in the grossest manner, and even to persecute them to the shedding of See also:blood. In the second he tells how the Jews had been subjected to still greater sufferings through the command of Caligula that divine honours should be everywhere accorded to him, and how the Jews of Alexandria in vain sought See also:relief by a See also:mission to Rome which was headed by Philo. But both together were only parts of a larger work, in five books, of which the first two and the last have perished. For it is clear from the introduction to the Adversus Flaccum that it had been preceded by another book in which the Jewish persecutions by See also:Sejanus, under the reign of Tiberius, were spoken of, and the Chronicon of Eusebius (ed. Schoene, ii. 15o, 151) informs us that these persecutions of Sejanus were related in the second book of the work now under discussion. But from the conclusion of the Legatio ad Gaium, which we still possess, we learn that it was also followed by another book which exhibited the iraXicy6ta, or See also:change of Jewish fortunes for the better. Thus we make out five books in all—the number actually given by Eusebius (H.E. ii. 5, I). (5) IIEpi irpovoias (De providentia). This work has reached us only in an Armenian translation, which has been edited, with a Latin translation, by Aucher (see below), 1822. It is mentioned by its Greek title in Eusebius (H.E. ii. 18, 6; Praep. Ev. vii. 20 fin., viii. 13 fin., ed. Gaisford). The Armenian text gives two books, but of these the first, if genuine at all, at any See also:rate appears only in an abridged and somewhat revised state.' Eusebius (Praep. Ev. viii. 14) quotes from the second book to an extent that amounts to a series of excerpts from the whole. The short passage in Praep. Ev. vii. 2I, is also taken from this book; and it appears that Eusebius knew nothing at all about the first. (6)'AXitav6pos ?J rept rov abyov EXECV ra 8XOya f'wa(De Alexandro et quod propriam rationem muta animalia habeant; so Jerome, De Vir. Ill. c. II) ; the Greek title is given in Euseb. H.E. ii. 18, 6. This also now exists only in an Armenian translation, which has been edited by Aucher. Two small Greek fragments occur in the Florilegium of See also:Leontius and Johannes (Mai, Scr. See also:vet. nov. coll. vii. 1, pp. 99, See also:low). (7) 'TiroOEruKa, a writing now known to us only through fragments preserved in Euseb. Praep. Ev. viii. 6, 7. The title, as Bernays2 has shown, means " Counsels," " Recommendations," the reference being to such laws of the Jews as can be recommended also to non-Jewish readers. (8) IIEpi 'Iou6atwv, a title met with in Euseb. H.E. ii. 18, 6. The writing is no doubt the same as 'H u?rip' Iov6atwv aroaoyla, from which a See also:quotation is given in Euseb. Praep. Ev. viii. ii. To this place also, perhaps, belongs the De nobilitate (M. ii. 437–444), which treats of that true noblesse of wisdom in which the Jewish people also is not wanting.3 V. The doubtful treatises: (1) IIEpi ptov OEWOnTLKOi Ij iKETwv 4E700 (De vita contemplativa). This contains the See also:sole original account of an ascetic community known as the See also:Therapeutae (q.v.) having their See also:home on the shores of See also:Lake See also:Mareotis. These were held by Eusebius and many other Christian writers to be the earliest Christian monks, which of course could not be the case if it was a genuine work of Philo. On this account, amongst others, it was held to be See also:spurious by See also:Graetz and P. E. Lucius; and this view gradually received the assent of most See also:modern scholars. Latterly, however, L. Massebieau has shown with great thoroughness that in language and thought alike it is essentially Philonic, and the genuineness of the book has also been affirmed by P. Wendland, and especially by F. C. See also:Conybeare. (2) IIEpi adOapatas Kbapov (De incorruptibilitate mundi), declared unauthentic by Z. See also:Frankel and J. See also:Bernays, has been successfully defended by F. Cumont. (3) IIEpi Kbopov (De mundo). It is generally agreed that, in L. See also:Cohn's words, this is " nothing but a compilation from various portions of the reps & .8apatas Kbapov and other Philonic works." (4) Two discourses, De Sam psone and De See also:Iona, extant only in Armenian, and certain other writings of the same See also:kind. These appear only to have been imputed to Philo by See also:chance, and certainly cannot claim to be his work. (5) IIEpi rov" rhvra arov,a7ov Eivac iXEUBEpov (Quod omnis probus liber sit) has been questioned by Z. Frankel and R. Ansfeld; but their arguments would rather point to its being an early work of Philo, which P. Wendland believes to be the case. (6) IIEpi rpovotas (De providentia), which we possess as a whole ' See Diels, Doxographi Graeci, 1879, pp. 1-4; Zeller, Phil. d. Gr. iii. 2, p. 340 (3rd ed). 2 Monatsb. d. Berl. Akad. (1876), pp. 589-609. 3 This conjecture is Dahne's, Theol. See also:Stud. u. Krit. (1833), pp. 990, 1037. only in an Armenian version, consists of two books, the first of which appears to be in a Christian recension, but there is no reason for denying its Philonic origin. Additional information and CommentsThere are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML. Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide. |
|
|
[back] PHILLPOTTS, HENRY (1778-1869) |
[next] PHILO OF BYZANTIUM |