I. The Life And Writings Of Philo

I. THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF PHILO
THE LITERATURE[2506]
[2506] The literature here named refers only to Philo as an author in general. For the literature on Philo’s doctrine see No. II. below. For the literature on his several works see in the places where they are treated of. Still more literature is given in: Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles iv. 721 sqq. Fürst Biblioth. Judaica iii. 87-94. Engelmann Bibliotheca scriptorum classicorum (8th ed. revised by Preuss) vol. i. 1880 pp. 546-548.
Mangey’s edition of the works of Philo the Prolegomena and especially the notes prefixed to the several works.
Fabricius Bibiotheca graeca ed. Harles vol. iv. (1795) pp. 721-750.
Scheffer Quaestionum Philonianarum part. I. sive de ingenio moribusque Judaeorum per Ptolemaeorum saecula Marburgi 1829. Idem De usu Philonis in interpretatione Novi Testamenti Marburgi 1831.
Gfrörer Philo und die alexandrinische Theosophie vol. i. (1831) pp. 1-113.
Creuzer “Zur Kritik der Schriften des Juden Philo” (Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1832 pp. 3-43).
Dähne “Einige Bemerkungen über die Schriften des Juden Philo” (Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1833 pp. 984-1040). Idem art. “Philon” in Ersch and Gruber’s Allg. Encyklopädie § 3 vol. xxiii. (1847) pp. 435-454.
Grossman De Philonis Judaei operum continua serie et ordine chronologico Comment. Pts. i. ii. Lips. 1841-1842.
Steinhart art. “Philo” in Pauly’s Real-Enc. der class. Alterthumswissensch. vol. v. (1848) p. 1499 sq.
J. G. Müller art. “Philo” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. xi. (1859) pp. 578-603. Idem Ueber die Texteskritik der Schriften des Juden Philo Basel 1839 (printed in J. G. Müller Des Juden Philo Buch von der Weltschöpfung 1841 pp. 17-45).
Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel 3rd ed. vol. vi. (1868) pp. 257-312.
Ueberweg Grundriss der Gesch. der Philosophie 4th ed. i. (1871) pp. 240-249.
Hausrath Neutestamentliche Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. vol. ii. (1875) pp. 131-182
Delaunay Philon d’ Alexandrie écrits historiques influence luttes et persécutions des juifs dans le monde romain 2nd ed. Paris 1870.
Treitel De Philonis Judaei sermone Bresl. 1872 (30 pp.).
Siegfried Die hebräischen Worterklärungen des Philo und die Spuren ihrer Einwirkung auf die Kirchenväter (37 pp. gr. 4) 1863. Idem “Philonische Studien” (Merx’s Archiv für Erforschung des A. T. ii. 2 1872 pp. 143-163). Idem “Philo und der überlieferte Text der LXX.” (Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1873 pp. 217 sqq. 411 sqq. 522 sqq.). Idem Zur Kritik der Schriften Philo’s (Ebendas. 1874 p. 562 sqq.)
Siegfried Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des Alten Testaments an sich selbst und nach seinem geschichtlichen Einfluss betrachtet. Nebst Untersuchungen über die Gräcität Philo’s Jena 1875.
Nicolai Griechische Literaturgeschichte 2nd ed. ii. 2 (1877) pp. 653-659.
Grätz Gesch. der Juden vol. iii. (3rd ed. 1878) pp. 678-683.
Bernh. Ritter Philo und die Halacha eine vergleichende Studie Leipzig 1879.
Reuss Geschichte der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments (1881) § 566-568.
Hamburger Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud vol. ii. (1883) arts. “Philo” and “Religionsphilosophie.”
Zöckler art. “Philo” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xi. (1883) pp. 636-649.
Among Jewish Hellenists none other besides Josephus takes so eminent a position as Philo the Alexandrian. Even by reason of the extent of his works which have been handed down he is one of the most important to us. Of no other can we form even approximately so clear a picture of his thoughts and literary and philosophic labours. But he is also in himself evidently the most illustrious among all those who strove to unite Jewish belief with Hellenic culture to be the means of imparting to Jews the cultivation of the Greeks and to Greeks the religious knowledge of the Jews. No other Jewish Hellenist was so fully saturated with the wisdom of the Greeks; no other enjoyed equal consideration in history. This is testified by the immense influence which he exercised upon after times and above all upon Christian theology the inheritor of the Judaeo-Hellenistic.[2507]
[2507] On the consideration enjoyed by Philo in antiquity comp. especially Euseb. Hist. eccl. ii. 4. 3: πλείστοις ἀνὴρ οὐ μόνον τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἔξωθεν ὁρμωμένων παιδείας ἐπισημότατος.
We have but a few scanty notices concerning his life. The assertion of Jerome that he was of priestly race[2508] has no support from older sources nor does Eusebius know anything of it. According to Josephus[2509] he was a brother of the Alabarch Alexander and consequently a member of one of the most aristocratic families of Alexandrian Jews.[2510] The sole event in his life which can be chronologically fixed is his participation in the embassy to Caligula in A.D. 40 of which he has himself furnished an account in the work De Legatione ad Cajum. As he was then of advanced age[2511] he may have been born about the year 20-10 B.C. The Christian legend that he met St. Peter at Rome in the reign of Claudius is of no historical value.[2512]
[2508] De viris illustribus c. 11 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ii. 847): Philo Judaeus natione Alexandrinus de genere sacerdotum.
[2509] Antt. xviii. 8.1.
[2510] Ewald (Gesch. vi. 259) and Zeller (Philos. der Griechen 3rd ed. iii. 2. 339) have of late incorrectly rejected the statement of Josephus and declared Philo to have been the uncle of Alexander because a nephew of Philo named Alexander is mentioned in the work published by Aucher De ratione animalium pp. 123 sq. 161 (in the 8th vol. of Ritter’s edition). But it is nowhere said in it that this Alexander was the Alabarch.
[2511] He designates himself (Legat. ad Cajum § 28 ed. Mangey ii. 572) as φρονεῖν τι δοκῶν περιττότερον καὶ διʼ ἡλικίαν καὶ τὴν ἄλλην παιδείαν. In the beginning of his work composed shortly after (§ 1 Mang. ii. 572) he calls himself γέρων.
[2512] Euseb. Hist. eccl. ii. 17. 1. Hieronymus De viris illustr. c. 11 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ii. 847). Photius Bibliotheca cod. 105. Suidas Lex. s.v. Φίλων (verbally according to the Greek translation of Jerome).
Much has been lost of Philo’s numerous works. But thanks to his being a favourite with the Fathers and Christian theologians the bulk of them has been preserved. Of the collective editions that of Mangey is notwithstanding its deficiencies the most valuable.[2513] Among recent contributions the works of Philo preserved only in Armenian published by Aucher are by far the most important.[2514] Greek portions of greater or less extent were given by Mai[2515] Grosamann[2516] and Tischendorf.[2517] Pitra has communicated material of various kinds from manuscripts.[2518] In the more recent hand editions these publications have been at least partially turned to account.[2519] A satisfactory collective edition is however as yet wanting. That planned long since by Grossmann has not been carried into execution.[2520] For a new edition a careful investigation also of the material offered by the as yet un-printed Florilegia (collections of extracts from the Fathers and more ancient authors) would be necessary.[2521]
[2513] On the editions of Philo’s works (or of separate parts) and of the translations comp. Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. gr. iv. 746-750. S. F. W. Hoffmann Lexicon bibliogr. vol. iii. p. 231 sqq. Fürst Biblioth. Judaica iii. 87-92. Graesse Trésor de livres rares et précieux vol. v. (1864) pp. 269-371. The editio princeps is: Φιλωνος Ιουδαιου εις τα του Μωσεως κοσμοποιητικα ιστορικα νομοθετικα. Του αυτου μονοβιβλα.. Philonis Judaei in libros Mosis de mundi opificio historicos. de legibus. Ejusdem libri singulares Ex bibliotheca regio Parisiis ex officina Adriana Turaebi 1552 fol. Several publications of Höschel at first contributed to the completion of this very imperfect edition (Francof. 1587 Augustae Vindel. 1614). Collective editions appeared also at Geneva 1613 fol. Paris 1640 fol. Frankfort 1691 fol. (the Frankfort edition is only a reprint of the Parisian with identical paging). The edition of Mangey 2 vole. London 1742 fol. marks an important advance. It is the first which is based upon a more extensive comparison of the manuscripts and is also more complete than any former one. The edition of Pfeiffer vols. i.-v. Erlangen 1785-1792 2nd ed. 1820 remained unfinished (it contains only what stands in Mangey vols. i. and ii. 1-40). On the deficiencies in the editions of Mangey and Pfeiffer see Creuzer Stud. und Krit. 1832 pp. 5-17. J. G. Müller Ueber die Texteskritik der Schriften des Juden Philo Basel 1839 p. 5 sqq. (printed in J. G. Müller Des Juden Philo Buch von der Weltschöpfung 1841 p. 18 sqq.).
[2514] They appeared in two vols. under separate titles: (1) Philonis Judaei sermones tres hactenus inediti i. et ii. de providentia et iii. de animalibus ex Armino versione etc. nunc primum in Latium [sic] fideliter translati per Jo. Bapt. Aucher Venetiis 1822. (2) Philonis Judaei paralipomena Armena libri videlicet quatuor in Genesin libri duo in Exodum sermo unus de Sampsone alter de Jona tertius de tribus angelis Abraamo apparentibus opera hactenus inedita ex Armena versione etc. nunc primum in Latium fideliter translata per Jo. Bapt. Aucher Venetiis 1826.
[2515] The works here in question are: (1) Philo et Virgilii interpretes. In it Philonis Judaei de cophini festo et de colendis parentibus cum brevi scripto de Jona editore ac interprete Angelo Maio Mediolan. 1818. (2) Classicorum auctorum e Vaticanis codicibus editorum vol. iv. curante Angelo Maio Romae 1831 (contains: pp. 402-407 Philonis de cophini festo; pp. 408-429 Philonis de honorandis parentibus; pp. 430-441 Philonus ex opere in Exodum selectae questiones). (3) Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e Vaticanis codicibus edita ab Angelo Maio vol. vii. Romae 1833 (contains Pt. I. pp. 74-109 specimens from a Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes with numerous smaller fragments of Philo). (4) Philonis Judaei Porphyrii philosophi Eusebii Pamphili opera inedita. In it: Philonis Judaei de virtute ejusque partibus ed. Ang. Maius Mediolan. 1816 (this work which in the Milan manuscript used by Mai bears the name of Philo is in other manuscripts attributed to Gemistus Pletho and was long printed under his name as Mai himself subsequently remarked). See Leipziger Literaturzeitung 1818 No. 276.
[2516] Grossmann Anecdoton Graecum Philonis Judaei de Cherubinis Exod. xxv. 18 Lips. 1856 (this supposed Anecdoton from the cod. Vat. n. 379 was already printed in the year 1831 in Mai Classicorum auctorum vol. iv. pp. 430-441. Tischendorf indeed knew nothing of it in 1868 comp. his Philonea p. xix. sq.).
[2517] Tischendorf Anecdota sacra et profana (2nd ed. Lips. 1861) pp. 171-174. But especially Tischendorf Philonea inedita altera altera nunc demum recte ex vetere scriptura eruta Lips. 1868. Holwerda in the Verslagen en Mededeelingen der koninkl. Akademie van Wetenschappen Afdeeling Letterkunde tweede reeks derde deel Amsterdam 1873 pp. 271-288 gives emendations of Tischendorf’s text. Idem Derde reeks eerste deel 1884 pp. 274-286.
[2518]a Pitra Analecta sacra spicilegio Solesmensi parata vol. ii. (1884) pp. xxii. sq. 304-334. Pitra here gives: (1) Philo-fragments from the Florilegium of the codex Coislinianus 276 (pp. 304-310). (2) Philo-fragments from various Vatican MSS. (pp. 310-314). (3) A list of the Philo-manuscripts in the Vatican Library together with a list of the several works of Philo contained in these manuscripts (pp. 314-319). (4) Information concerning various ancient and modern Latin translations of Philo (pp. 319-334).
[2519] The hand edition of Richter (8 vols. Lips. 1828-1830) contains besides the text of Mangey the two publications of Aucher and those of Mai of the year 1818. The same texts are also in the Tauchnitz stereotype edition (8 vols. Lips. 1851-1853). On recent editions of separate works of Philo (De opificio mundi by J. G. Müller De incorruptibilitate mundi by Bernays) see below at the proper places. I may also mention that a number of Philo’s writings translated into German will be found in the Bibliothek der griechischen und römischen Schriftsteller über Judenthum und Juden in neuen Uebertragungen und Sammlungen vol. i. Leipzig 1865 [vol. ii. contains Josephus] vol. iii. 1870 vol. iv. 1872.
[2520] Grossmann publicly expressed his intention so long ago as 1829 (Quaestiones Philoneae i. p. 7). Afterwards Tischendorf in particular collected materials for him comp. Anecdota sacra et profana p. 171: Quam Grossmannus longissimo ex tempore novam operum scriptoris istius gravissimi editionem praeparat ea ex collationibus meis codicum fere triginta ubique terrarum dispersorum non modo apparatum habebit locupletissimum et textum prioribus editionibus multo correctiorem verum etiam aucta erit ineditis nonnullis quae in Italia reperire mihi contigit. On the manuscripts of Philo comp. the Prolegomena in Mangey’s edition Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. gr. iv. 743-746. Tischendorf Philonea pp. vii.-xx. Some notices in Mai Nova patrum bibliotheca vi. 2 p. 67 note. A list of the Vatican manuscripts in Pitra Analecta sacra ii. p. 314 and at pp. 316-319 accurate information as to the manuscripts in which each separate work of Philo is contained.
[2521] The best known among the extant printed Christian Florilegia are those of Maximus Confessor Johannes Damascenus and Antonius Melissa. In all three Philo is frequently quoted (see the indexes in Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. gr. ix. pp. 663 731 756). To the same category belong also the Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes in Mai Script. vet. nova collectio vii. 1. 74-109. Mangey has collected from Johannes Damascenus (Sacra parallela) and Antonius Melissa all those passages which are derived from lost works of Philo (Philonis opp. ii. 648-660 670-674). But what Mangey here gives under the name of Johannes Damascenus really comes from two different collections. For Lequien gives in his edition of Johannes Damascenus first (ii. 274-730) the complete text of the Sacra parallela but then also (ii. 730-790) a selection of passages from another and considerably divergent recension of the sacra parallela which is also attributed to Johannes Damascenus. The latter (in a codex Rupefucaldinus of the Jesuit College Paris) seems to me however exactly identical with the so-called Johannes Monachus ineditus extracts of which from lost works of Philo are given by Mangey himself after the supposed extracts from Johannes Damascenus (Philonis opp. ii. 660-670). For both manuscripts belong to the Jesuit College at Paris and have exactly the same superscription (Lequien ii. 274 sq. 731; Mangey i. p. xviii. sq. and ii. 660). Seeing the importance of the so-called Johannes Monachus ineditus in the criticism of Philo the matter deserved a more accurate investigation. Pitra (Analecta sacra ii. 304-310) has given various fragments from Philo from a third recension of the Sacra parallela in the cod. Coislinianus 276. Many similar collections of extracts moreover exist in manuscript which have not as yet been turned to any account with respect to Philo. See Fabricius-Harles Bibl. gr. ix. 720 sq. 758 sq. Comp. on this literature in general: Fabricius-Harles ix. 635-759. Nicolai Griech. Literaturgesch. vol. iii. 1878 pp. 309-318. Wachsmuth Studien zu den griechischen Florilegien Berlin 1882. Zahn Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentl. Kanons Pt. iii. (1884) pp. 7-10.
A tolerably complete catalogue of Philo’s works is already given by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History.[2522] Unfortunately however it is in such disorder as to afford no foothold for the correct classification of the works. In this respect we are almost exclusively referred to the contents of the works themselves a careful consideration of which evidently shows that they by no means form so unconnected a mass as appears from the titles in the editions. The great majority are on the contrary only sub-divisions of some few large works. And indeed as especially Ewald has correctly perceived three chief works on the Pentateuch may be distinguished which alone embrace more than three-quarters of what has come down to us as Philo’s.[2523]
[2522] Euseb. Hist. eccl. ii. 18. The statements of Jerome De viris illustr. c. 11 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ii. 847 sq.) rest entirely upon this catalogue of Eusebius. Again the catalogue in Suidas (Lex. s.v. Φίλων) is copied with only a few additions of his own from the Greek translation of Jerome. Photius Bibliotheca cod. 103 104 105 on the other hand gives somewhat that is independent. Comp. in general the testimonia veterum in Mangey i. pp. xxi.-xxix. The long fragments from different works of Philo in the Praep. evang. of Eusebius are also especially valuable.
[2523] More or less valuable contributions to the correct classification of Philo’s works have been furnished by Mangey Fabricius Gfrörer Dähne Grossmann Ewald and Siegfried in the above-named works and articles (Siegfried in the Zeitshr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1874 p. 562 sqq.). The arbitrarily got up surveys of J. G. Müller and Zöckler are on the contrary useless. Steinhart and Hamburger are also inaccurate. Hausrath ii. 152-154 does the most for confusion.
I. The Ζητήματα καὶ λύσεις Quaestiones et solutiones which first became more widely known through the publications of Aucher from the Armenian are a comparatively brief catechetical explanation of the Pentateuch in the form of questions and answers. It is not easy to ascertain how far they extended. In the time of Eusebius they were extant for only Genesis and Exodus (H. E. ii. 18. 1 and 5) and such other traces as may be regarded as certain extend only to these two books.[2524] The explanation of Genesis comprised probably six books at all events only so much can be certainly pointed out from the quotations.[2525] The explanation of Exodus comprised according to the testimony of Eusebius (H. E. ii. 18. 5) and Jerome five books. Of these are preserved (1) in the Armenian tongue about the half of these eleven books viz. four on Genesis (incomplete) and two on Exodus (also imperfect);[2526] and (2) a large fragment (comprising about half of the fourth book on Genesis) in an old Latin translation which was repeatedly printed in the beginning of the sixteenth century but entirely ignored by the publishers of the Greek works.[2527] Lastly (3) in Greek numerous small fragments still awaiting collection.[2528] By the help of the Armenian text it is now settled that many passages have been taken almost verbally from this work without mention of Philo’s name by the Fathers and especially by Ambrose.[2529] The composition of these Quaestiones et solutiones is in some parts of earlier in other of later date than that of the large allegorical commentary as is shown by the allusions to each other in both works.[2530]
[2524] Grossmann (De Phil. Jud. operum continua serie i. p. 25) and Ewald (Gesch. vi. 294 sq.) suppose that the work extended to the three last books of the Pentateuch also. In Mai Script. vet. nova collectio vii. 1 p. 104a is indeed found a fragment ἐκ τῶν ἐν τῷ λευιτικῷ ζητημάτων. But sometimes errors occur in these quotation formulae also.
[2525] Three fragments ἐκ τοῦ ςʹ τῶν ἐν γενέσει ζητημάτων (Mai Script. vet. nova collectio vii. 1 pp. 100b 106b 108b) occur in the Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes. In Le Quien’s edition of Johannes Damascenus ii. 362 note it is remarked that a fragment there given is introduced in the cod. Rupefucaldinus (see above note 15) by the formula ἐκ τοῦ ςʹ τῶν αὐτῶν (scil. τῶν ἐν γενέσει ζητουμένων). All other known quotations refer to Books i.-v. Only once in Mai Script. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1. 99b is found ἐκ τοῦ θʹ τῶν ἐν γενέσει ζητημάτων where however E must certainly be read for Θ.
[2526] Published in Armenian and Latin by Aucher 1826 (see above note 9). After this in Latin also in Richter Philonis opp. 6 and 7 vols. and in the Tauchnitz stereotype edition (also in 6 and 7 vols.). On the gaps comp. Dähne Stud und Krit. 1833 p. 1038.
[2527] Philonis Judaei centum et duae quaestiones et totidem responsiones super Genesim Paris 1520 fol. (Fabricius-Harles iv. 746). The Giessen University library possesses: Philonis Judaei Alexandrini libri anti-quitatum quaestionum et solutionum in Genesin de Essaeis de nominibus Hebraicis de mundo Basileae 1527 fol. (in which pp. 61-83: Philonis Judaei quaestionum et solutionum in Genesin liber). There are also impressions of 1538 and 1550 (Fabricius l.c.). Aucher pp. 362-443 (under the Armenio-Latin text) and Richter vii. 212-261 follow the impression of 1538. Manuscripts also of this Latin text are still known two Vaticans (Vatican 488 and Urbin 61) and one Laurentianus; see thereon Pitra Analecta sacra ii. 298 sq. 314 332. On the age and character of the translation Pitra Analecta ii. 298 sq. 319 sqq.
[2528] Of Greek fragments are known: (1) A small piece: ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου τῶν Φίλωνος Ζητημάτων καὶ λύσεων on Genesis in Eusebius Praep. evang. vii. 13. (2) The fragment De Cherubinis on Exodus published by Mai Grossmann and Tischendorf (Mai Classicorum auctorum vol. iv. pp. 430-441; Grossmann Anecdoton etc. 1856; Tischendorf Philonea pp. 144-153). (3) Numerous small fragments from Johannes Damascenus Johannes Monachus ineditus Autonius Melissa and the Catena of the cod. Paris Reg. n. 1825 in Mangey Philonis opp. ii. 648-680. Of these certainly it is only the fragments in the codex Rupefucaldinus and in Johannes Monachus ineditus Mang. ii. 653-670 (both probably identical see above note 15) that are expressly traced to the ζητήματα καὶ λύσεις. But many others especially those in the Catena come from it. (4) About thirty to forty small fragments in the Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes in Mai Script. vet. nova collectio vii. 1. 96-109. (5) A portion also of the small fragments edited by Tischendorf (Anecdota sacra et profana pp. 171-174; Philonea pp. 152-155) are probably derived from this work. (b) Six small fragments in the Florilegium of the codex Coislinianus in Pitra Analecta sacra ii. 307 sq. Various other fragments from Vatican manuscripts also in Pitra Analecta ii. 310-314 (a portion at least of these fragments must certainly be included). (7) A more accurate investigation of the Florilegis especially of those not as yet edited (see note 15) would furnish considerable gain in the matter of small fragments.
[2529] Numerous passages from Ambrose are reprinted in Aucher under the Armenio-Latin text. Comp. on the use of Philo by Ambrose generally: Siegfried Philo pp. 371-391. Förster Ambrosius Bischof von Mailand (1884) pp. 102-112.
[2530] Ewald (Gesch. vi. 294) regards the Quaestiones et solutiones as older than the large allegorical commentary. Dähne (Stud. und Krit. 1833 p. 1037) considers it more recent. For a more minute discussion see Grossmann De Phil. Jud. operum continua serie ii. pp. 14-17.
II. While this shorter explanation in a catechetical form was intended for more extensive circles Philo’s special and chief scientific work is his large allegorical commentary on Genesis Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι (such is the title given it in Euseb. Hist. eccl. ii. 18. 1 and Photius Bibliotheca cod. 103. Comp. also Origen Comment. in Matth. vol. xvii. c. 17; contra Celsum iv. 51).[2531] These two works frequently approximate each other as to their contents. For in the Quaestiones et solutiones also the deeper allegorical signification is given as well as the literal meaning. In the great allegorical commentary on the contrary the allegorical interpretation exclusively prevails. The deeper allegorical sense of the sacred letter is settled in extensive and prolix discussion which by reason of the copious adducting of parallel passages often seems to wander from the text. Thus the entire exegetic method with its dragging in of the most heterogeneous passages in elucidation of the idea supposed to exist in the text forcibly recalls the method of Rabbinical Midrash. This allegorical interpretation however has with all its arbitrariness its rules and laws the allegorical meaning as once settled for certain persons objects and events being afterwards adhered to with tolerable consistency. Especially is it a fundamental thought from which the exposition is everywhere deduced that the history of mankind as related in Genesis is in reality nothing else than a system of psychology and ethic. The different individuals who here make their appearance denote the different states of soul (τρόποι τῆς ψυχῆς) which occur among men. To analyse these in their variety and their relations both to each other and to the Deity and the world of sense and thence to deduce moral doctrines is the special aim of this great allegorical commentary. Thus we perceive at the same time that Philo’s chief interest is not—as might from the whole plan of his system be supposed—speculative theology for its own sake but on the contrary psychology and ethic. To judge from his ultimate purpose he is not a speculative theologian but a psychologist and moralist (comp. note 183).
[2531] In the quotations in the Florilegia ἀλληγορία is always in the singular e.g. in Johannes Monachus ineditus ἐκ τοῦ αʹ τῆς νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας ἐκ τοῦ δʹ τῆς νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας (both in Mangey ii. 668). So too in the Florilegrum of the codex Coislinianus (Pitra Analecta sacra) ii. 306 and to that of Leontius and Johannes (Mai Script. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1 pp. 95b 96a 98b 99b 100a 102a 105a 107a 107b).
The commentary at first follows the text of Genesis verse by verse. Afterwards single sections are selected and some of them so fully treated as to grow into regular monographs. Thus e.g. Philo takes occasion from the history of Noah to write two books on drunkenness (περὶ μέθης) which he does with such thoroughness that a collection of the opinions of other philosophers on this subject filled the first of these lost books (Mangey i. 357).
The work as we have it begins at Genesis 2:1 : Καὶ ἐτελέσθησαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ. The creation of the world is therefore not treated of. For the composition De opificio mundi which precedes it in our editions is a work of an entirely different character being no allegorical commentary on the history of the creation but a statement of that history itself. Nor does the first book of the Legum allegorias by any means join on to the work De opificio mundi; for the former begins at Genesis 2:1 while in De opif. mundi the creation of man also according to Genesis 2 is already dealt with. Hence—as Gfrörer rightly asserts in answer to Dähne—the allegorical commentary cannot be combined with De opif. mundi as though the two were but parts of the same work. At most may the question be raised whether Philo did not also write an allegorical commentary on Genesis 1. This is however improbable. For the allegorical commentary proposes to treat of the history of mankind and this does not begin till Genesis 2:1. Nor need the abrupt commencement of Leg. alleg. i. seem strange since this manner of starting at once with the text to be expounded quite corresponds with the method of Rabbinical Midrash. The later books too of Philo’s own commentary begin in fact in the same abrupt manner. In our manuscripts and editions only the first books bear the title belonging to the whole work Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι. All the later books have special titles a circumstance which gives the appearance of their being independent works. In truth however all that is contained in Mangey’s first vol.—viz. the works which here follow—belongs to the book in question (with the sole exception of De opificio mundi).
1. Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι πρῶται τῶν μετὰ τὴν ἑξαήμερον. Legum allegoriarum liber i. (Mangey i. 43-65). On Genesis 2:1-17.—Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι δεύτεραι τῶν μετὰ τὴν ἑξαήμερον. Legum allegoriarum liber ii. (Mangey i. 66-86). On Genesis 2:18 to Genesis 3:1‌a.—Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι τρίται τῶν μετὰ τὴν ἑξαήμερον. Legum allegoriarum liber iii. (Mangey i. 87-137). On Genesis 3:8‌b-19.—The titles here given of the first three books as customary in the editions since Mangey[2532] require an important correction. Even the different extent of Books i. and ii. leads us to conjecture that they may properly be but one book. In fact Mangey remarks at the commencement of the third book (i. 87 note): in omnibus codicibus opusculum hoc inscribitur ἀλληγορία δευτέρα. Thus we have in fact but two books. There is however a gap between the two the commentary on Genesis 3:1‌b-8‌a being absent. The commentary too on Genesis 3:20-23 is wanting for the following book begins with Genesis 3:24. As Philo in these first books follows the text step by step it must be assumed that each of the two pieces was worked up into a book by itself and this is even certain with respect to the second.[2533] Hence the original condition was very probably as follows: Book i. on Genesis 2:1-25‌a Book ii. on Genesis 3:1‌b-3 8‌a Book iii. on Genesis 3:8‌b-19 Book iv. on Genesis 3:20-23. With this coincides the fact that in the so-called Johannes Monachus ineditus the commentary on Genesis 3:8‌b-19 is indeed more often quoted as τὸ γʹ τῆς τῶν νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας (Mangey i. 87 note). When on the other hand the same book is entitled in the MSS. ἀλληγορία δευτέρα this must certainly be explained as showing that the actual second book was already missing in the archetype of these manuscripts.
[2532] I do not give the Latin titles exactly according to Mangey but as they are usually quoted.
[2533] The remark in De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini § 12 fin. (i. 171 Mang.): τί δέ ἐστι τὸ τὴν γῆν ἐργάζεσθαι διὰ τῶν προτέρων βίβλων ἐδηλώσαμεν can refer only to the missing commentary on Genesis 3:23. Comp. Dähne Stud. und Krit. 1863 p. 1015. Grossmann indeed (i. p. 22) thinks it relates to the book De agricultura which was certainly a later composition.
2. Περὶ τῶν Χερουβὶμ καὶ τῆς φλογίνης ῥομφαίας καὶ τοῦ κτισθέντος πρώτου ἐξ ἀνθρώπου Κάϊν. De Cherubim et flammeo gladio (Mangey i. 138-162). On Genesis 3:24; Genesis 4:1. From this point onwards the several books have been handed down no longer under the general title νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι but under special titles. According to our conjecture as above this book would be the fifth unless it formed the fourth together with the commentary on Genesis 3:20-23.
3. Περὶ ὧν ἱερουργοῦσιν Ἄβελ τε καὶ Κάϊν. De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (Mangey i. 163-190). On Genesis 4:2-4. In the codex Vaticanus the title runs: Περὶ γενέσεως Ἄβελ καὶ ὧν αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ Κάϊν ἱερουργοῦσιν. Frequently quoted in Johannes Monachus ineditus with the formula Ἐκ τοῦ περὶ γενέσεως Ἄβελ (see Mangey i. 163 note). Also in the Florilegium of the codex Coislinianus.[2534] The missing commentary on Genesis 4:5-7 would have formed either the conclusion of this book or a separate book.
[2534]a Pitra Analecta sacra ii. 308 sq.
4. Περὶ τοῦ τὸ χεῖρον τῷ κρείττονι φιλεῖν ἐπιτίθεσθαι. Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat (Mangey i. 191-225). On Genesis 4:8-15. The book is already quoted by Origen under this special title (Comm. in Matth. vol. xv. c. 3). Eusebius mistakenly quotes under the same title several passages belonging to De confusione linguarum (Praep. Ev. xi. 15). In the Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes several passages are cited from our book with the formula ἐκ τοῦ ζ καὶ η τῆς νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας.[2535] Also in Johannes Monachus ineditus (Mangey i. 191 note). The unusual formula ἐκ τοῦ ζ καὶ η must surely mean that the seventh book was according to another computation also called the eighth (ἐκ τοῦ ζ τοῦ καὶ η would thus be the more accurate).[2536] This book then is according to the usual numbering the seventh but was in consequence of De opificio mundi being placed first also called the eighth.
[2535] The following passages are cited with this formula: 1. Κυρίως οὔτε ἐπὶ χρημάτων ἢ κτημάτων περιουσίᾳ οὔτε ἐπὶ δόξης λαμπρότητι κ.τ.λ. Mai Script. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1 p. 96a = Mangey i. 217 med. 2. Ἐν ᾗ μὲν ψυχῇ τὸ ἐκτὸς αἰσθητὸν ὡς μέγιστον ἀγαθῶν τετίμηται ἐν ταύτῃ λόγος ἀστεῖος οὐχ εὑρίσκεται κ.τ.λ. Mai Script. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1 p. 107a = Mangey i. 192 init. The same formula is also found 3. Script. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1 p. 102a (where of course ζ καὶ η must be read for ζ καὶ ιγ); and 4. The same p. 107b. The former passage is in the beginning of De posteritate Caini (Mang. i. 228); I have not succeeded in discovering the latter.
[2536] Comp. Dähne Stud. und Kritik. 1833 p. 1015.
5. Περὶ τῶν τοῦ δοκησισόφου Κάϊν ἐγγόνων καὶ ὡς μετανάστης γίνεται. De posteritate Caini sibi visi sapientis et quo pacto sedem mutat (Mangey i. 226-261). On Genesis 4:16-25. This book was first published by Mangey from the cod. Vat. 381. Much more correctly from the same manuscript by Tischendorf Philonea pp. 84-143. Holwerda gave emendations in 1884 (see note [2537] above). This book is in like manner as the former quoted with the formula ἐκ τοῦ η καὶ θ τῆς νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας in Leontius and Johannes[2538] in the Florilegium of the codex Coislinianus[2539] and in Johannes Monachus ineditus (Mangey i. 226 note).
[2537] Tischendorf Anecdota sacra et profana (2nd ed. Lips. 1861) pp. 171-174. But especially Tischendorf Philonea inedita altera altera nunc demum recte ex vetere scriptura eruta Lips. 1868. Holwerda in the Verslagen en Mededeelingen der koninkl. Akademie van Wetenschappen Afdeeling Letterkunde tweede reeks derde deel Amsterdam 1873 pp. 271-288 gives emendations of Tischendorf’s text. Idem Derde reeks eerste deel 1884 pp. 274-286.
[2538] Two passages: 1. Παιδείας σύμβολον ἡ ῥάβδος· ἄνευ γὰρ τοῦ δυσωπῆναι (sic) καὶ περὶ ἐνίων ἐπιπληχθῆναι νουθεσίαν ἐνδέξασθαι καὶ σωφρονισμὸν ὰμήχανον κ.τ.λ. Mai Script. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1 p. 99b = Mangey i. 243.—2. Πέφυκεν ὁ ἄφρων ἐπὶ μηδενὸς ἑστάναι παγίως καὶ ἐνερίσθαι δόγματος· ἄλλοτε γοῦν ἀλλοῖα δοξάζει … Καί ἐστιν αὐτῷ πᾶσα ἡ ζωὴ κρεμαμένη βᾶσιν ἀκράδαντον οὐκ ἔχουσα κ.τ.λ. Mai Script. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1 p. 100 = Mangey i. 230-231.
[2539]a Pitra Analecta sacra vol. ii. (1884) p. 306. The two passages here given by Pitra are in Mangey i. 230 above and 253 (de posteritate Caini § 6 and 43).
Of these hooks none is mentioned by its special title in the catalogue of Eusebius Hist. eccl. ii. 18 while all that follow are quoted under these titles evidently because Eusebius considers the former to be included and the latter not included in the joint title νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι. To this must be added that in the Florilegia also the quotations under the general title extend exactly thus far. It is therefore highly probable that Philo issued the following looks only under the special titles.[2540] Nay it is also evident why this was done viz. because from this point onwards the uninterrupted text was no longer commented on but only selected passages. The exegetic method is however quite the same in the following books.
[2540] In answer to Dähne Stud. und Kritik. 1833 pp. 1019-1024. Ersch and Grüber’s Enc. art. “Philo” p. 442.
6. Περὶ γιγάντων. De gigantibus (Mangey i. 262-272). On Genesis 6:1-4.—Ὅτι ἄτρεπτον τὸ θεῖον. Quod deus sit immutabilis (Mangey i. 272-299). On Genesis 6:4-12. These two paragraphs which are in our editions separated form together but one book. Hence Johannes Monachus ineditus cites passages from the latter paragraph with the formula ἐκ τοῦ περὶ γιγάντων (Mangey i. 262 note 272 note). Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 4: περὶ γιγάντων ἢ [elsewhere καὶ] περὶ τοῦ μὴ τρέπεσθαι τὸ θεῖον.
7. Περὶ γεωργίας. De agricultura (Mangey i. 300-328). On Genesis 9:20‌a.—Περὶ φυτουργίας Νῶε τὸ δεύτερον. De plantatione Noe (Mangey i. 329-356). On Genesis 9:20‌b. The common title of these two books is properly περὶ γεωργίας. Comp. Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ γεωργίας δύο. Hieronymus De vir. illustr. 11: de agricultura duo. Euseb. Praep. Evang. vii. 13. 3 (ed. Gaisford): ἐν τῷ περὶ γεωργίας προτέρῳ. Ibid. vii. 13. 4: ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ.
8. Περὶ μέθης. De ebrietate (Mangey i. 357-391). On Genesis 9:21. From the beginning of this book it is evident that another book preceded it in which τὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις φιλοσόφοις εἰρημένα περὶ μέθης were stated. This first book is lost but was still extant in the time of Eusebius Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ μέθης τοσαῦτα (viz. two). Hieronymus vir. illustr. 11: de ebrietate duo. They seem to have been in the hands of Johannes Monachus ineditus in the reverse order. For what he quotes with the formula ἐκ τοῦ περὶ μέθης αʹ is found in that which has come down to us; while what he cites with the formula ἐκ τοῦ περὶ μέθης δευτέρου λόγου is not found in it (Mangey i. 357 note).
9. Περὶ τοῦ ἐξένηψε Νῶε. De sobrietate (Mangey i. 392-403). On Genesis 9:24.—In the best manuscripts (Vaticanus and Mediceus) the title runs: περὶ ὧν ἀνανήψας ὁ νοῦς εὔχεται καὶ καταρᾶται (Mangey i. 392 note). Almost exactly the same Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ ὧν νήψας ὁ νοῦς εὔχεται καὶ καταρᾶται. Hieronymus vir. illustr. 11: de his quae sensu precamur et detestamur.
10. Περὶ συγχύσεως διαλέκτων. De confusione linguarum (Mangey i. 404-435). On Genesis 11:1-9.—The same title also in Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2. In the Praep. evang. xi. 15 Eusebius quotes several passages from it with the mistaken statement that they are from: Περὶ τοῦ τὸ χεῖρον τῷ κρείττονι φιλεῖν ἐπιτίθεσθαι.
11. Περὶ ἀποικίας. De migratione Abrahami (Mangey i. 436-472). On Genesis 12:1-6.—The same title also in Eusebius H. E. ii. 18. 4.
12. Περὶ τοῦ τίς ὁ τῶν θείων πραγμάτων κληρονόμος. Quis rerum divinarum haeres sit (Mangey i. 437-518). On Genesis 15:1-18.—Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ τοῦ τίς ὁ τῶν θείων ἐστὶ κληρονόμος ἢ περὶ τῆς εἰς τὰ ἴσα καὶ ἐναντία τομῆς. Hieronymus vir. illustr. 11 makes from this double title the two works: De haerede divinarum rerum liber unus De divisione aequalium et contrariorum liber. Suidas Lex. s.v. Φίλων[2541] also follows him. Johannes Monachus ineditus quotes this book with the formula ἐκ τοῦ τίς ὁ τῶν θείων κληρονόμος (Mangey i. 473 note). When he likewise quotes it with the formula ἐκ τοῦ περὶ κοσμοποιΐας (Mangey l.c.) we must not conclude from this that the latter was a general title which was applied to this book as well as others[2542] for we have here simply an error in quotation. In the commencement of this book a former composition is referred to in the words: Ἐν μὲν τῇ πρὸ ταύτης βίβλῳ περὶ μισθῶν ὡς ἐνῆν ἐπʼ ἀκριβείας διεξήλθομεν. This composition is not lost as Mangey supposed (see his note on the passage) but is the book περὶ ἀποικίας which in fact treats περὶ μισθῶν.[2543] We see at the same time that Genesis 13-14 was not commented on by Philo.
[2541]a Comp. also Grossmann i. p. 24 on the fact of the two titles belonging to the same book.
[2542] Mangey i. 473 note. Comp. Dähne Stud. und Krit. 1833 p. 1000 sqq.
[2543] Dähne 1018 sq. Grossmann i. p. 22.
13. Περὶ τῆς εἰς τὰ προπαιδεύματα συνόδου. De congressu quaerendae eruditionis causa (Mangey i. 519-545). On Genesis 16:1-6.—In Eusebius H. E. ii. 18. 2 the title runs: περὶ τῆς πρὸς τὰ παιδεύματα συνόδου. But the προπαιδεύματα which has come down in the Philo-manuscripts is preferable for the fact that Abraham cohabited with Hagar before he had issue by Sarah means according to Philo that we must become acquainted with propaideutic knowledge before we can rise to the higher wisdom and obtain its fruit namely virtue. Comp. also Philo’s own allusion in the beginning of the following book (de profugis): Εἰρηκότες ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ τὰ πρέποντα περὶ τῶν προπαιδευμάτων καὶ περὶ κακώσεως κ.τ.λ.
14. Περὶ φυγάδων. De profugis (Mangey i. 546-577). On Genesis 16:6-14.—Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ φυγῆς καὶ εὑρέσεως.[2544] And exactly so Johannes Monachus ineditus: ἐκ τοῦ περὶ φυγῆς καὶ εὑρέσεως (Mangey i. 546 note). This is without doubt the correct title. For the work deals with the flight and refinding of Hagar.
[2544] The text of Eusebius was here very early corrupted. Jerome (de natura et inventione) already read φυγῆς instead of φύσεως. By continued corruption there then arose in Nicephorus the double title: ὁ περὶ φυγῆς καὶ αἱρέσεως· ἔτι τε ὁ περὶ φύσεως καὶ εὑρέσεως which monstrosity has been even admitted into the text of Eusebius by his recent editors.
15. Περὶ τῶν μετονομαζομένων καὶ ὧν ἕνεκα μετονομάζονται. De mutatione nominum (Mangey i. 578-619). On Genesis 17:1-22.—The same title in Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 3. Johannes Monachus ineditus quotes under this title much that is not found in this book nor in any of the preserved works of Philo (Mangey i. 578 note). In this book Philo alludes to a lost work: Τὸν δὲ περὶ διαθηκῶν σύμπαντα λόγον ἐν δυσὶν ἀναγέγραφα πράξεσι which was no longer extant in the time of Eusebius (comp. H. E. ii. 18. 3).[2545]
[2545]a The allusion in the Quaest. et solut. in Exodum ed. Aucher p. 493 certainly relates to the same work. Comp. Grossmann i. p. 25.
16. Περὶ τοῦ θεοπέμπτους εἶναι τοὺς ὀνείρους. De somniis lib. i. (Mangey i. 620-658). On Genesis 28:12 sqq. and Genesis 31:11 sqq. (the two dreams of Jacob).—Lib. ii. of the same work (Mangey i. 659-699). On Genesis 37, 40-41 (the dreams of Joseph and of Pharaoh’s chief butler and baker).—According to Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 4 and Hieronymus vir. illustr. 11 Philo wrote five books on dreams. Thus three are lost. Those that have come down to us seem to judge from their openings to be the second and third. In any case our first was preceded by another which probably treated on the dream of Abimelech[2546] Genesis 20:3. Origenes contra Celsum vi. 21 fin. already mentions the paragraph on Jacob’s ladder Genesis 28:12 (contained in the first of the preserved books).
[2546] Gfrörer i. 43. Dähne 1025. Grossmann i. 25
III. The third chief group of Philo’s works on the Pentateuch is a Delineation of the Mosaic Legislation for non-Jews. In this whole group indeed the allegorical explanation is still occasionally employed. In the main however we have here actual historical delineations a systematic statement of the great legislative work of Moses the contents excellence and importance of which the author desires to make evident to non-Jewish readers and indeed to as large a circle of them as possible. For the delineation is more a popular one while the large allegorical commentary is an esoteric and according to Philo’s notions a strictly scientific work. The contents of the several compositions forming this group differ indeed considerably and are apparently independent of each other. Their connection however and consequently the composition of the whole work cannot according to Philo’s own intimations be doubtful. As to plan it is divided into three parts. (a) The beginning and as it were the introduction to the whole is formed by a description of the creation of the world (κοσμοποιΐα) which is placed first by Moses for the purpose of showing that his legislation and its precepts are in conformity with the will of nature (πρὸς τὸ βούλημα τῆς φύσεως) and that consequently he who obeys it is truly a citizen of the world (κοσμοπολίτης) (de mundi opif. § 1). This introduction is next followed by (b) biographies of virtuous men. These are as it were the living unwritten laws (ἔμψυχοι καὶ λογικοὶ νόμοι de Abrahamo § 1 νόμοι ἄγραφοι de decalogo § 1) which represent in distinction from the written and specific commands universal moral norms (τοὺς καθολικωτέρους καὶ ὡσὰν ἀρχετύπους νόμους de Abrahamo § 1). Lastly the third part embraces (c) the delineation of the legislation proper which is divided into two parts: (1) that of the ten chief commandments of the law and (2) that of the special laws belonging to each of these ten commandments Then follow by way of appendix a few treatises on certain cardinal virtues and on the rewards of the good and the punishments of the wicked. This survey of the contents shows at once that it was Philo’s intention to place before his readers a clear description of the entire contents of the Pentateuch which should be in essential matters complete. His view however is in this respect the genuinely Jewish one that these entire contents fall under the notion of the νόμος. The work begins with:
1. Περὶ τῆς Μωϋσέως κοσμοποιΐας. De mundi opificio (Mangey i. 1-42).—It was customary to place this work at the head of Philo’s works before the first book of the Legum allegoriae. And this position has been resolutely defended especially by Dähne.[2547] Gfrörer on the other hand already convincingly showed that the book de Abrahamo must be immediately joined to de mundi opificio.[2548] He has only erred in the matter of declaring this whole group of writings older than the allegorical commentary (p. 33 sq.). It was easy to show in reply that this popular delineation of the Mosaic legislation is on the contrary more recent than the bulk of the allegorical commentary.[2549] On the other hand there is nothing to prevent our relegating the work de mundi opificio also to the more recent group. We have already shown p. 331 above that it is not connected with the allegorical commentary. On the contrary the beginning of the work de mundi opificio makes it quite evident that it was to form the introduction to the delineation of the legislation and it is equally plain that the composition de Abrahamo directly follows it. Comp. de Abrahamo § 1: Ὃν μὲν οὖν τρόπον ἡ κοσμοποιΐα διατέτακται διὰ τῆς προτέρας συντάξεως ὡς οἷόν τε ἦν ἠκριβώσαμεν. To refer this intimation to the whole series of the allegorical commentaries is both by reason of the expression κοσμοποιΐα and of the singular διὰ τῆς προτέρας συντάξεως quite impossible.—But however certain all this is the matter is not thus as yet settled. For on the other hand it is just as certain that the composition de mundi opificio was subsequently placed at the head of the allegorical commentaries to compensate for the missing commentary on Genesis 1. Only thus can it be explained that Eusebius Praep. evang. viii. 13 quotes a passage from this composition with the formula (viii. 12 fin. ed. Gaisford): ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου τῶν εἰς τὸν νόμον).[2550] It is just this which explains the transposition of this treatise into the catalogue of Eusebius Hist. eccl. ii. 18 (it was in his eyes comprised in the νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι) and also the peculiar form of citation: ἐκ τοῦ ζ καὶ η [resp. ἐκ τοῦ η καὶ θ] τῆς νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας mentioned p. 333 above.—There still remains the question whether this supplementary insertion of the Legum allegoriae between de mundi opificio and de Abrahamo originated with Philo himself? This is especially the view of Siegfried.[2551] It seems to me however that the reasons brought forward are not conclusive.[2552] J. G. Müller has lately brought out a separate edition of this composition with a commentary.[2553]
[2547] Dähne Stud. und Krit. 1833 p. 1000 sqq. Ersch and Gruber’s Encyklop. art. “Philon” p. 441. Comp. also Grossmann ii. p. 6. J. G. Müller Des Juden Philo Buch von der Weltschöpfung pp. 13 15 sqq. The same in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. xi. 581.
[2548] Gfrörer i. pp. 8-10.
[2549] See especially Grossmann ii. pp. 13 14.
[2550] Another quotation from this treatise is introduced in the Praep. evang. with the formula (xi. 23 fin. Gaisf.): λέγει δʼ οὖν ὁ Ἑβραῖος Φίλων τὰ πάτρια διερμηνεύων αὐτοῖς ῥήμασιν.
[2551] Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1874 p. 562 sqq.
[2552] For this arrangement of Philo’s writings ((1) Creation of the world (2) Allegorical commentary (3) Legislation) the following two passages have since Dähne been cited as conclusive: 1. Vita Mosis ed. Mang. ii. 141 where it is said of the Holy Scriptures which Moses composed: τὸ μὲν ἱστορικὸν μέρος τὸ δὲ περὶ τὰς προστάξεις καὶ ἀπαγορεύσεις ὑπὲρ οὗ δεύτερον λέξομεν τὸ πρότερον τῇ τάξει πρότερον ἀκριβώσαντες. Ἔστιν οὖν τοῦ ἱστορικοῦ τὸ μὲν περὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως τὸ δὲ γενεαλογικόν· τοῦ δὲ γενεαλογικοῦ τὸ μὲν περὶ κολάσεως ἀσεβῶν τὸ δʼ αὖ περὶ τιμῆς δικαίων. Philo here divides the contents of the Mosaic writings into only two chief groups the historical and the legislative. When he then says that he would treat of the latter after having already minutely treated of the former it follows first only that the delineation of the Mosaic legislation was later than the allegorical commentary (to which the expression with respect to the ἱστορικὸν μέρος probably refers; for the βίοι σοφῶν which treat only of the good not of both good and bad cannot by any means be intended). When he next goes on to again divide the historical portion more particularly into two sections: (1) περὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως (2) τὸ γενεαλογικόν we may certainly infer that the composition of de mundi opificio must be placed before that of the vita Mosis which is also probable on other grounds (see note 82 below). At all events there is in the passage no intimation as to what was the actual order of Philo’s own works. 2. This is also the case with the second passage de praemiis et poenis ed. Mang. ii. 408 sq. Philo here divides the revelations (λόγια) imparted by means of Moses into three categories (ἰδέαι) viz. (1) τὴν περὶ κοσμοποιΐας (2) τὸ ἱστορικὸν μέρος i.e. the ἀναγραφὴ πονηρῶν καὶ σπουδαίων βίων and (3) τὸ νομοθετικὸν μέρος. Of all this he had so far as time allowed treated in his former writings. This indication too can with respect to the ἱστορικὸν μέρος refer only to the allegorical commentary. I cannot however discern in it any intimation as to the actual order of Philo’s own works since only the order of the contents of the Pentateuch is given and it is said that all this was treated of in Philo’s earlier writings.
[2553] J. G. Müller Des Juden Philo Buch von der Weltschöpfung herausgegeben und erklärt Berlin 1841.
2. Βίος σοφοῦ τοῦ κατὰ διδασκαλίαν τελειωθέντος ἢ περὶ τόμων ἀγράφων [αʹ] ὅ ἐστι περὶ Ἀβραάμ. De Abrahamo (Mangey ii. 1-40).—With this composition commences the group of the νόμοι ἄγραφοι i.e. the βίοι σοφῶν (de decalogo § 1) the biographies of virtuous men who exhibit by their exemplary behaviour the universal types of morality. Of such types there are twice three viz. (1) Enos Enoch Noah; (2) Abraham Isaac Jacob. Enos represents ἐλπίς Enoch μετάνοια καὶ βελτίωσις Noah δικαιοσύνη (de Abrahamo § 2 3 5). The second triad is more exalted: Abraham is the symbol of διδασκαλικὴ ἀρετή (virtue acquired by learning) Isaac of φυσικὴ ἀρετή (innate virtue) Jacob of ἀσκητικὴ ἀρετή (virtue attained by practice) see de Abrahamo § 11; de Josepho § 1 (Zeller iii. 2. 411). The first three are only briefly dwelt on. The greater part of this composition is occupied with Abraham.—In Eusebius H. E. ii. 18. 4 the title runs: βίου [read βίος] σοφοῦ τοῦ κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τελειωθέντος ἢ [περὶ] νόμων ἀγράφων. Δικαιοσύνην instead of the διδασκαλίαν furnished by the Philo manuscripts is here certainly incorrect. For Abraham is the type of διδασκαλικὴ ἀρετή. The number αʹ must be inserted after ἀγράφων this book being only the first of the unwritten laws.
3. Βίος πολιτικὸς ὅπερ ἐστὶ περὶ Ἰωσήφ. De Josepho (Mangey ii. 41-79).—After the life of Abraham we next expect the biographies of Isaac and Jacob. That Philo wrote these is made certain by the opening of de Josepho. They seem however to have been very soon lost since not a trace of them is anywhere preserved. The beginning of de Josepho makes it also certain that this composition follows here which is strange since we might have expected that the number of typical βίοι was exhausted with the triad Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Joseph however is made to succeed them because the examples of Abraham Isaac and Jacob refer only to the ideal cosmopolitan state of the world not to the empiric world with its various constitutions. The life of Joseph is therefore said to show “how the wise man has to move in actually existing political life.”[2554]—In the editions the title is βίος πολιτικοῦ the manuscripts have βίος πολιτικός (Mangey ii. 41 note. Pitra Analecta ii. 317). Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 6: ὁ πολιτικός. Photius Biblioth. cod. 103: περὶ βίου πολιτικοῦ. Suidas Lex. s.v. Ἀβραάμ· Φίλων ἐν τῷ τοῦ πολιτικοῦ βίῳ (Suidas in the article Φίλων following the Greek translator of Jerome writes περὶ ἀγωγῆς βίου).
[2554] Siegfried Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theologie 1874 p. 565 sq.
4. Περὶ τῶν δέκα λογίων ἃ κεφάλαια νόμων εἰσί. De decalogo (Mangey ii. 180-209).—After the life of Joseph is generally inserted the life of Moses which certainly would according to its literary character be in place in this group. It is however nowhere intimated that this composition which comes forward quite independently is organically connected with the entire work now under discussion. Nay it would be an interruption in it. For in it Moses as a lawgiver stands alone he is thus no universally valid type of moral conduct nor is he depicted as such.—Hence the composition de decalogo with which the representation of the legislation proper (τῶν ἀναγραφέντων νόμων de decalogo § 1) begins reciting indeed first of all the ten commandments given by God Himself without the intervention of Moses must necessarily follow the life of Joseph.—The title of this composition vacillates very much in the manuscripts (Mangey ii. 180 note). The usual form περὶ τῶν δέκα λογίων resting on the cod. Augustanus is confirmed by Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 5. Jerome in consequence of a careless abbreviation in the text of Eusebius has de tabernaculo et decalogo libri quattuor.
5. Περὶ τῶν ἀναφερομένων ἐν εἴδει νόμων εἰς τὰ συντείνοντα κεφάλαια τῶν δέκα λόγων αʹ βʹ γʹ δʹ. On the special laws referring to the respective heads of the ten sayings Such is the title according to Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 5 of the work de specialibus legibus; and with this agree the Philo-manuscripts with the sole exception that instead of εἰς τὰ συντείνοντα κεφάλαια τῶν δέκα λόγων its special contents are stated for each of the four books (e.g. εἰς τρία γένη τῶν δέκα λόγων τὸ τρίτον τὸ τέταρτον τὸ πέμπτον κ.τ.λ.). In this work Philo makes a very laudable attempt to reduce the special Mosaic laws to a systematic arrangement according to the ten rubrics of the decalogue. Thus he states in connection with the first and second commandments (the worship of God) the entire legislation concerning the priesthood and sacrifices in connection with the fourth (the sanctification of the Sabbath) all the laws concerning festivals in connection with the seventh (the prohibition of adultery) the marriage laws in connection with the remaining three the entire civil and criminal law. Herein notwithstanding the brevity of statement we frequently recognise an agreement with the Palestinian Halachah. Philo indeed has no professional acquaintance with it on which account we also meet with many divergences therefrom.[2555] According to the testimony of Eusebius H. E. ii. 18. 5 the whole work comprised four books which have it seems been preserved entire though needing to be restored from the mangling they have undergone in the manuscripts.
[2555] On Philo’s relation to the Halachah comp. the careful investigation of Bernh. Ritter Philo und die Halacha eine vergleickends Studie Leipzig 1879.
(a) Book I.: περὶ τῶν ἀναφερομένων ἐν εἴδει νόμων εἰς βʹ κεφάλαια τῶν δέκα λογίων· τό τε μὴ νομίζειν ἔξω ἑνὸς θεοῦ ἑτέρους αὐτοκρατεῖς καὶ τὸ μὴ χειρότμητα θεὸν πλαστεἳν. This title which is missing in the editions stands in the cod. Mediceus at the head of the treatise de circumcisione (Mangey ii. 210 note). But even without this external evidence the commencement of the said treatise would of itself prove that this first book begins with it. The whole book comprises the following pieces: de circumcisione (Mangey ii. 210-212) de monarchia (Mangey ii. 213-222)[2556] de monarchia lib. ii. (Mangey ii. 222-232) de praemiis sacerdotum (ii. 232-237) de victimis (ii. 237-250)[2557] de sacrificantibus or de victimas offerentibus (ii. 251-264) de mercede meretricis non accipienda in sacrarium (ii. 264-269).[2558]
[2556] The beginning is also in Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 18. 12 sqq. ed. Gaisford.
[2557] This piece is mentioned Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 5 as a separate composition: περὶ τῶν εἰς τὰς ἱερουργίας ζώων καὶ τίνα τὰ τῶν θυσιῶν εἴδη.
[2558] On where this piece belongs see especially Gfrörer i. 12 sq.
(b) Book II.: περὶ τῶν ἀναφερομένων ἐν εἴδει νόμων εἰς τρία γένη τῶν δέκα λόγων τὸ τρίτον τὸ τέταρτον τὸ πέμπτον τὸ περὶ εὐορκίας καὶ σεβασμοῦ τῆς ίερᾶς ἑβδομάδος καὶ γονέων τιμῆς.[2559] Under this title the editions give first only a small portion (Mangey ii. 270-277) and then add as a separate portion the treatise de septenario (Mangey ii. 227-298) which of course belongs to this book. The text of de septenario is however incomplete in Mangey and the treatise which we expect de colendis parentibus is entirely missing. The greater portion of this missing treatise was already given by Mai (De cophini festo et de colendis parentibus Mediolan. 1818 also in Classicor. auctor. vol. iv. 402-429); but the complete text of this book was first given by Tischendorf Philonea pp. 1-83.[2560]
[2559] The title according to Tischendorf Philonea p. 1.
[2560] Emendations to the text of Tischendorf were given by Holwerda 1873. See note 12 above.
(c) Book III.: περὶ τῶν ἀναφερομένων ἐν εἴδει νόμων εἰς δύο γένη τῶν δέκα λόγων τὸ ἕκτον καὶ τὸ ἕβδομον τὸ κατὰ μοίχων καὶ παντὸς ἀκολάστου καὶ τὸ κατὰ ἀνδροφόνων καὶ πάσης βίας (Mangey ii. 299-334).—According to Mangey ii. 299 note Philo here shows a knowledge of Roman law.
(d) Book IV.: περὶ τῶν ἀναφερομένων ἐν εἴδει νόμων εἰς τρία γένη τῶν δέκα λογίων τὸ ηʹ καὶ τὸ θʹ καὶ ί τὸ περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἐκικλέπτειν καὶ ψευδομαρτυρεῖν καὶ μὴ ἐπιθυμεῖν καὶ τῶν ἐς ἕκαστον ἀναφερομένων· καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης ἣ πᾶσι τοῖς λογίοις ἐφαρμόζει ὅ ἐστι τῆς συντάξεως (Mangey ii. 335-358).—This book was first published by Mangey from the cod. Bodleianus 3400. Some kind of word (such as τέλος) or the number δʹ is missing at the close of the title. In the editions the last sections also appear under the special titles: de judice (ii. 344-348) and de concupiscentia (ii. 348-358). That they are also integral portions of this book cannot considering their contents be doubtful.—To the same book too belongs as an appendix the treatise περὶ δικαιοσύνης de justitia (Mangey ii. 358-374) which again is in the editions wrongly divided into two sections: de justitia (ii. 358-361) and de creatione principum (ii. 361-374). The latter section does not deal exclusively with the appointment of authorities but is simply a continuation of the treatise de justitia. This whole treatise is closely connected with the fourth book de specialibus legibus nay forms part of it as is intimated by the closing words of the latter (Mang. ii. 358: νυνὶ δὲ περὶ τῆς … δικαιοσύνης λεκτέον) and especially by the title of the whole book in which it is expressly stated that it also treats περὶ δικαιοσύνης ἣ πᾶσι τοῖς λογίοις ἐφαρμόζει (Mangey ii. 335).[2561]
[2561] In Mangey λογίκοις is printed. I suppose this a printer’s error is for λογίοις. At all events the latter must be the reading. For the thought is that justice like the other cardinal virtues is realized not by the practice of any one of the commandments but by the practice of all the ten (it is τοῖς δέκα λογίοις ἐφαρμόττουσα as it is said at the close of de concupiscentia (Mang. ii. 358).
6. Περὶ τριῶν ἀρετῶν ἤτοι περὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ φιλανθρωπίας καὶ μετανοίας. De fortitudine (Mangey ii. 375-383) de caritate (ii. 383-405) de poenitentia (ii. 405-407).—The treatise de justitia the continuation of which is here given is referred to in the commencement of this book (περὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ τῶν κατʼ αὐτὴν ὅσα καίρια πρότερον εἰπὼν μέτειμι τὸ ἑξῆς ἐπʼ ἀνδρίαν). This book then also belongs to the appendix of the work de specialibus legibus and it was only an external reason (viz. that of making the two books nearly equal in extent) which occasioned Philo to combine a portion of this appendix with the fourth book itself and to give the rest as a separate book.[2562] The title of this book is found as given by Mangey in cod. Bodleianus (Mang. ii. 375 note). Confirmed by Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ τῶν τριῶν ἀρετῶν ἃς σὺν ἄλλαις ἀνέγραψε Μωϋσῆς. Hieronymus vir. illustr. 11: de tribus virtutibus liber unus. Two manuscripts the Mediceus and Lincolniensis have on the other hand: περὶ ἀρετῶν ἤτοι περὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ εὐσεβείας καὶ φιλανθρωπίας καὶ μετανοίας. It seems to speak in favour of this title that the treatise de caritate begins with the words (Mang. ii. 383): τὴν δὲ εὐσεβείας συγγενεστάτην καὶ ἀδελφὴν καὶ δίδυμον ὄντως ἑξῆς ἐπισκεπτέον φιλανθρωπίαν as though a treatise de pietate were missing between de fortitudine and de caritate. Still the words do not necessarily require this meaning. On the contrary the title of the Med. and Lincoln. seems to have arisen from this incorrect meaning.[2563]—According to Gfrörer and Dähne only the treatise de fortitudine is in place here and the two others (de caritate and de poenitentia) must be entirely separated from it and added as an appendix to the Vita Mosis.[2564] The sole foundation however for this view is the bare fact that in the beginning of de caritate the Vita Mosis is cited. This is certainly too weak an argument to oppose to the testimony of the manuscripts to the connection of these three treatises with each other. Their contents on the contrary show that the treatises here placed together belong to the work de specialisms legibus. Those Mosaic laws also are here placed together which belong not to the rubrics of the ten commandments but to the rubric of certain cardinal virtues which latter indeed are only actually realized by the practice of the Decalogue in its entirety (compare the close of de concupiscentia ii. 358 Mangey).[2565]
[2562] That such external reasons were of authority in the literary activity of the ancients is shown especially by Birt (Das antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhältniss zur Litteratur 1882).—In Philo it is observable almost throughout that his books occupy about thirty to forty pages in Mangey’s edition.
[2563] The predicate τὴν εὐσεβείας συγγενεστάτην is said to serve only to characterize the high value of the φιλανθρωπία (it is directly related to εὐσέβεια the source of all virtues).—According to the close of de concupiscentia (Mang. ii. 358) Philo had already on a former occasion spoken on εὐσέβεια and some other cardinal virtues (περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἡγεμονίδος τῶν ἀρετῶν εὐσεβείας καὶ ὁσιότητος ἔτι δὲ καὶ φρονήσεως καὶ σωφροσύνης εἴρηται πρότερον). It is probable that this does not mean a separate lost book but certain sections in the books that have come down to us. See Grossmann i. pp. 22-24.—We see moreover that the Stoic enumeration of four cardinal virtues which Philo elsewhere adopts (Leg. alleg. i. 56 Mang.: φρόνησις σωφροσύνη ἀνδρία δικαιοσύνη; comp. Zeller 3rd ed. iii. 2. 403) is here also the basis though not strictly adhered to.
[2564] Gfrörer i. 17-23. Dähne Stud. und Krit. 1833 pp. 1033-1036. Ersch and Grüber art. “Philon” p. 443.
[2565] Gfrörer certainly asserts (i. 20) that the treatise de cantate “is not written in so didactic and analytic a manner as the compositions de fortitudine and de justifia but historically and with constant reference to the life of Moses.” In truth however the de caritate being a summary of all such Mosaic laws as fall under the rubric of φιλανθρωπία (comp. the survey of it contents in Richter’s ed. v. 184) properly belongs to the work de specialibus legibus.
7. Περὶ ἄθλων καὶ ἐπιτιμίων. De praemiis et poenis (Mangey ii. 408-428).—Περὶ ἀρῶν. De execrationibus (Mangey ii. 429-437).—These two pieces so inaptly separated from each other form in reality but one book. Comp. Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 5: περὶ τῶν προκειμένων ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τοῖς μὲν ἀγαθοῖς ἄθλων τοῖς δὲ πονηροῖς ἐπιτιμίων καὶ ἀρῶν.—In the beginning of this composition Philo says that having in his former works treated of the three main categories of the Mosaic revelations (the κοσμοποιΐα the ἱστορικόν and the νομοθετικὸν μέρος) he now purposed to pass to the rewards appointed for the good and the penalties destined for the wicked. Hence this writing is later than the works of Philo hitherto discussed and joins on as a sort of epilogue to the delineation of the Mosaic legislation.—On the treatise de nobilitate which Mangey combines with this composition see below No. IV. 7.
IV. Besides these three large works on the Pentateuch Philo wrote several separate compositions of which the following have been preserved some entire some in fragments.
1. Περὶ βίου Μωσέως.[2566] Vita Mosis lib. i. (Mangey ii. 80-133) lib. ii. (Mangey ii. 134-144) lib. iii. (Mangey ii. 145-179).—The division into three books is already found in the manuscripts but is certainly a false one as is proved by the following quotation by Philo himself de caritate § 1 (Mangey ii. 383 sq.): δεδήλωται πρότερον ἐν δυσὶ συντάξεσιν ἃς ἀνέγραψα περὶ τοῦ βίου Μωϋσέως.[2567] Our books i. and ii. are in fact but one book as even their extent serves to show. The work is already quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. i. 23. 153: ᾗ φησι Φίλων ἐν τῷ Μωυσέως βίῳ. Comp. also Strom. ii. 19. 100. Hence it is the more remarkable that it should be absent from the catalogue of Eusebius. In its place appears (H. E. ii. 18. 5) a work περὶ τῆς σκηνῆς. Now as the tabernacle is fully described in the Vita Mosis the treatise περὶ τῆς σκηνῆς is certainly a portion of the Vita Mosis;[2568] probably however the text of Eusebius is imperfect. The date of composition of this work was according to Mangey ii. 141 (see the passage note [2569] above) probably antecedent to that of the large work on the Mosaic legislation; but probably subsequent to de mundi opificio (see below note [2570] and thus to speak more precisely between de mundi opif. and de Abrahamo. We have already seen (p. 342 sq.) that it is no integral element of the delineation of the Mosaic legislation though certainly connected with it by its entire literary character. For as in the larger work the Mosaic legislation so in this the life and acts of the legislator himself are wortrayed for heathen readers.
[2566] Mangey gives the title in the following form: Περὶ βίου Μοσέως (sic!) ὅπερ ἐστὶ περὶ θεολογίας καὶ προφητείας. The addition is a very inappropriate one since the work treats first (Book i.) of Moses as a ruler and afterwards (Book ii.) of Moses as lawgiver priest and prophet.
[2567] The reading τρισί adopted by Mangey and his followers instead of δυσί is found in only one manuscript cod. Paris Reg. 2251 (Mangey ii. 80 note 383 note). Comp. also Dähne Stud. und Krit. 1833 p. 1031 sq. Ewald vi. 300.
[2568] So also Grossmann i. p. 24.
[2569] For this arrangement of Philo’s writings ((1) Creation of the world (2) Allegorical commentary (3) Legislation) the following two passages have since Dähne been cited as conclusive: 1. Vita Mosis ed. Mang. ii. 141 where it is said of the Holy Scriptures which Moses composed: τὸ μὲν ἱστορικὸν μέρος τὸ δὲ περὶ τὰς προστάξεις καὶ ἀπαγορεύσεις ὑπὲρ οὗ δεύτερον λέξομεν τὸ πρότερον τῇ τάξει πρότερον ἀκριβώσαντες. Ἔστιν οὖν τοῦ ἱστορικοῦ τὸ μὲν περὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως τὸ δὲ γενεαλογικόν· τοῦ δὲ γενεαλογικοῦ τὸ μὲν περὶ κολάσεως ἀσεβῶν τὸ δʼ αὖ περὶ τιμῆς δικαίων. Philo here divides the contents of the Mosaic writings into only two chief groups the historical and the legislative. When he then says that he would treat of the latter after having already minutely treated of the former it follows first only that the delineation of the Mosaic legislation was later than the allegorical commentary (to which the expression with respect to the ἱστορικὸν μέρος probably refers; for the βίοι σοφῶν which treat only of the good not of both good and bad cannot by any means be intended). When he next goes on to again divide the historical portion more particularly into two sections: (1) περὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως (2) τὸ γενεαλογικόν we may certainly infer that the composition of de mundi opificio must be placed before that of the vita Mosis which is also probable on other grounds (see note 82 below). At all events there is in the passage no intimation as to what was the actual order of Philo’s own works. 2. This is also the case with the second passage de praemiis et poenis ed. Mang. ii. 408 sq. Philo here divides the revelations (λόγια) imparted by means of Moses into three categories (ἰδέαι) viz. (1) τὴν περὶ κοσμοποιΐας (2) τὸ ἱστορικὸν μέρος i.e. the ἀναγραφὴ πονηρῶν καὶ σπουδαίων βίων and (3) τὸ νομοθετικὸν μέρος. Of all this he had so far as time allowed treated in his former writings. This indication too can with respect to the ἱστορικὸν μέρος refer only to the allegorical commentary. I cannot however discern in it any intimation as to the actual order of Philo’s own works since only the order of the contents of the Pentateuch is given and it is said that all this was treated of in Philo’s earlier writings.
[2570] Vita Mosis lib. iii. § 11 (Mang. ii. 152): ἔχει δὲ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἀμυθήτους ἀρετὰς ἡ τετρὰς ὧν τὰς πλείστας ἠκριβώσαμεν ἐν τῇ περὶ ἀριθμῶν πραγματείᾳ.—Quaest. et solut. in Genes. ed. Aucher p. 331: jam dictum fuit in libro in quo de numeris actum est. Comp. the same pp. 224 359. Grossmann i. p. 24. In the work de opificio mundi Philo refers to a dissertation on the number four as one yet to be written p. 11 Mang.: πολλαῖς δὲ καὶ ἄλλαις κέχρηται δυυάμεσι ἡ τετρὰς ἃς ἀκριβέστερον καὶ ἐν τῷ περὶ αὐτῆς ἰδίῳ λόγῳ προσυποδεικτέον. If this is identical with the work περὶ ἀριθμῶν it would follow that the Vita Mosis was a later work than de opificio mundi. Comp. Grossmann ii. p. 6.
2. Περὶ τοῦ πάντα σπουδαῖον εἶναι ἐλεύθερον. Quod omnis probus liber (Mangey ii. 445-470).—This work is properly only one half of a larger one which worked out the thought suggested in the title in its two opposite aspects Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 6: περὶ τοῦ δοῦλον εἶναι πάντα φαῦλον ᾧ ἑξῆς ἐστιν ὁ περὶ τοῦ πάντα σπουδαῖον ἐλεύθερον εἶναι. Philo himself alludes to the first and missing half in the opening of the second and preserved half. A long portion of the latter (on the Essenes) is given in Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 12. The genuineness of the work has not been unassailed. The circumstance that the description of the Essenes differs in a few subordinate points from that given by Philo himself in another work (Apologia pro Judaeis in Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 11) has especially given rise to suspicion. Its genuineness is however according to the thorough investigations of Lucius surpassingly probable. The work may it is conjectured belong to Philo’s earliest period and may not give the description of the Essenes according to his own inspection.[2571]
[2571] Lucius Der Essenismus (1881) pp. 13-23. Hilgenfeld also esteems this work genuine but on the contrary regards the Apologia pro Judaeit as spurious (Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol. 1882 pp. 275-278. Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums 1884 pp. 87 sq. 105-116).
3. Εἰς Φλάκκον. Adversus Flaccum (Mangey ii. 517-544).—Περὶ ἀρετῶν καὶ πρεσβείας πρὸς Γάϊον. De legatione ad Cajum (Mangey ii. 545-600).—In these two books Philo relates the persecutions which the Jews had to endure especially at Alexandria in the time of Caligula. The narrative is so detailed and graphic that it could be written only by one who had himself participated in a prominent manner in the events. This circumstance makes these two books an authority of the first rank not only for the history of the Jews of those days but also for the history of Caligula. It cannot be perceived from the statements in Mangey how the titles run in the best manuscripts. On the title Φίλωνος εἰς Φλάκκον he only remarks (ii. 517): similiter codex Mediceus in reliquis vero manuscriptis scribitur Φίλωνος Ἑβραίου ἱστορία ὠφέλιμος καὶ πάνυ βίῳ χρήσιμος. Τὰ κατὰ τὸν Φλάκκον [sic: therefore not τοῦ Φλάκκου] ἤτοι περὶ προνοίας.[2572] Still more indefinite are Mangey’s statements concerning the title of the second composition (ii. 545): in nonnullis codicibus sic legitur: ἱστορία χρήσιμος καὶ πάνυ ὠφέλιμος περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸν Γάϊον καὶ τῆς αἰτίας τῆς πρὸς ἅπαν τὸ Ἰουδαίων ἔθνος ἀπεχθείας αὐτοῦ. According to the statements of Pitra (Analecta sacra ii. 318 sq.) the titles usual in the printed text Εἰς Φλάκκον and Περὶ ἀρετῶν καὶ πρεσβείας πρὸς Γάϊον appear to be also those which prevail in the manuscripts. In Photius Bibliotheca cod. 105 (ed. Bekker) it is said: Ἀνεγνώσθη δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ λόγος οὗ ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ "Γάϊος ψεγόμενος" καὶ "Φλάκκος ἢ Φλάκκων ψεγόμενος" ἐν οἷς λόγοις κ.τ.λ. (therefore two λόγοι). So too Eusebius in the Chronicle.[2573] Comp. also Johannes Monachus ineditus (Mangey ii. 517): ἐκ τῶν κατὰ Φλάκκου. On the titles mentioned by Eusebius in the Ecclesiastical History see farther on. Only the two books which have come down to us seem to have been extant in the time of Photius. But the beginning of the first and the close of the second show that they are only portions of a larger whole. For the book adversus Flaccum begins (ii. 517): Δεύτερος μετὰ Σηιανὸν Φλάκκος Ἀουίλλιος διαδέχεται τὴν κατὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐπιβουλήν. Thus this book was preceded by another in which the persecutions inflicted on the Jews by Sejanus were narrated. The book de legatione ad Cajum moreover ends with the words: Εἴρηται μὲν οὖν κεφαλαιωδέστερον ἡ αἰτία τῆς πρὸς ἅπαν τὸ Ἰουδαίων ἔθνος ἀπεχθείας Γάϊου· λεκτέον δὲ καὶ τὴν παλινῳδίαν [πρὸς Γάϊον].[2574] Hence another book must have followed in which Philo related the παλινῳδία i.e. the turn for the better in the fate of the Jews by the death of Caligula and the edict of toleration of Claudius. Now we know also from a notice in the Chronicle of Eusebius that the persecutions under Sejanus were related in the second book of this entire work.[2575] Consequently we should reckon not less than five books for the whole. And this is confirmed by the decided statement in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius ii. 5. 1: καὶ δὴ τὰ κατὰ Γάϊον οὗτος Ἰουδαίοις συμβάντα πέντε βιβλίοις παραδίδωσι. The brief survey too given by Eusebius of the contents of this work agrees exactly with these results. For he says that Philo here relates how in the time of Tiberius Sejanus made great exertions in Rome to destroy the whole nation and that in Judaea Pilate caused great commotion among the Jews because he desired to undertake something with respect to the temple which was contrary to their institutions.[2576] After the death however of Tiberius Caius who then came to the throne behaved indeed with the greatest arrogance to all but inflicted most injury on the whole Jewish nation.[2577] What is here said respecting Sejanus and Pilate cannot refer to some occasional declarations in the books preserved to us. For these treat only of the time of Caligula. The oppressions however of Sejanus and Pilate must according to the above intimations of Eusebius have been related in a separate paragraph before the events under Caligula. From all that has been said the following must consequently have been the arrangement of the whole work. Book i. contained it may be presumed a general introduction. Book ii. related the oppressions in the reign of Tiberius by Sejanus in Rome and by Pilate in Judaea. Among the former must undoubtedly be placed the important measure of A.D. 19 by which all Jews were banished from Rome.[2578] Among the attempts of Pilate “to undertake something with respect to the temple contrary to Jewish institutions” the setting up of consecrated shields in the palace of Herod mentioned in the letter of Agrippa[2579] communicated by Philo cannot at all events be intended; we must rather regard them as the facts recorded by Josephus viz. that Pilate caused the soldiers to march into Jerusalem with the imperial ensigns and employed the temple-treasure in building an aqueduct.[2580] That the former act was also related by Philo is expressly testified by Eusebius.[2581] Book iii. is the preserved composition adversus Flaccum which relates the persecution of the Alexandrinian Jews arising from the initiative of the populace of that city in the commencement of Caligula’s reign. It had as yet nothing to do with the setting up of the statue of the emperor in the Jewish synagogue nor with any edict of Caligula. In Book iv. on the contrary i.e. in the Legatio ad Cajum which is preserved are depicted the sufferings inflicted on the Jews in consequence of the edict of Caligula that Divine honours should everywhere be paid him. Lastly the lost Book v. treated of the παλινῳδία in the sense stated above.
[2572]a The title κατὰ Φλάκκον also in the codex Coislinianus is in Pitra Analecta sacra ii. 310.
[2573] Euseb. Chron. ed. Schoene ii. 150-151. The text runs: (a) according to Jerome (l.c. p. 151 note k): Refert Filo in eo libro qui Flaccus inscribitur; (b) according to the Armenian (p. 150 note q): Philon in eo libro quem ipse ad Flacum scripsit refert; (c) according to Syncellus (ed. Dindorf i. 626): Φίλων ἱστορεῖ ἐν τῷ ἐπιγεγραμμένῳ λόγῳ Φλάκκῳ (the title ad Flacum in the Armenian translation arose from a mistaken understanding of this dative Φλάκκῳ. Thus a comparison of Jerome and the Armenian shows that the correct text of Eusebius is preservèd in Syncellus).
[2574] The words πρὸς Γάϊον are according to Mangey missing in the manuscripts and must therefore certainly be expunged.
[2575] Euseb. Chron. ed. Schoene ii. 150-151 and indeed: (a) according to Jerome (l.c. p. 151 note b): Seianus praefectus Tiberii qui aput eum plurimum poterat instantissime cohortatur ut gentem Judaeorum deleat. Filo meminit in libro legationis secundo (b) According to the Armenian (p. 150): Seianus Tiberii procurator qui intimus erat consiliarius regis universim gentem Judaeorum deperdendam exposcebat Meminit autem hujus Philon in secundo relatione. (c) According to Syncellus (ed. Dindorf i. 621): Σηιανὸς ἔπαρχος Τιβερίου Καίσαρος περὶ τελείας ἀπωλείας τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν Ἰουδαῖων πολλὰ συνεβούλευε τῷ Καίσαρι ὡς Φίλων Ἰουδαῖος ἐξ Ἀλεξανδρείας διάγων ἱστορεῖ ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ τῆς περὶ αὐτοῦ πρεσβείας.
[2576] H. E. ii. 5. 7: Πρῶτον δὴ οὗν κατὰ Τιβέριον ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς Ῥωμαίων πόλεως ἱστορεῖ Σηιανὸν … ἄρδην τὸ πᾶν ἔθνος ἀπολέσθαι σπουδὴν εἰσηγηοχέναι ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς Ἰουδαίας Πιλᾶτον … περὶ τὸ ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἔτι τότε συνεστὼς ἱερὸν ἐπιχειρήσαντά τι παρὰ τὸ Ἰουδαίοις ἐξὸν τὰ αέγιστα αὐτοὺς ἀναταράξαι.
[2577] H. E. ii. 6. 1: Μετὰ δὲ τὴν Τιβερίου τελευτὴν Γάϊον τὴν ἀρχὴν παρειληφότα … πάντων μάλιστα τὸ πᾶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνος οὐ σμικρὰ καταβλάψαι.
[2578] Tacitus Annal. ii. 85. Sueton. Tiber. 36. Joseph. Antt. xviii. 3. 5. Comp. also Philo Legat. ad Cajum § 24 (Mang. ii. 569).
[2579] Philo Legat. ad Cajum § 38 (Mang. ii. 589 sq.).
[2580] Joseph. Antt. xviii. 3. 1-2. Bell. Jud. ii. 9. 2-4. Comp. Euseb. H. E. ii. 6.
[2581] Euseb. Demonstratio evangelica viii. p. 403: Αὐτὰ δὴ ταῦτα καὶ ὁ Φίλων συμμαρτυρεῖ τὰς σημαίας φάσκων τὰς βασιλικὰς τὸν Πιλάτον νύκτωρ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἀναθεῖναι. A confusion with Josephus cannot exist since Eusebius just before in the same passage quotes Josephus also as authority for the same fact.—It must also be remembered that the setting up of the state took place according to Philo in the temple i.e. the temple forecourt (which indeed Eusebius erroneously gives as also the account of Josephus).
The statements of Eusebius give rise also to some difficulties with regard to the title of the entire work. According to the passage from the Chronicle quoted above (note [2582] the whole work seems to have been designated ἡ πρεσβεία. And Eusebius says also when giving the contents of the whole work that all this is written ἐν ᾗ συνέγραψε πρεσβείᾳ (H. E. ii. 5. 6). This title is therefore possible because Philo’s account of the embassy to Caligula of which he was the leader forms in fact the kernel of the whole. The several books might then have had their special titles such as Φλάκκος or the like (see above p. 350). Now Eusebius says further towards the conclusion of his summary of the contents that Philo had related a thousand other sufferings which befell the Jews at Alexandria ἐν δευτέρῳ συγγράμματι ᾧ ἐπέγραψε "περὶ ἀρετῶν (H. E. ii. 6. 3). From this it appears to result that Philo had treated of these events in two works the title of one being ἡ πρεσβεία of the other περὶ ἀρετῶν. This inference is however precluded not only by its improbability but by the circumstance that Eusebius in his chief catalogue of Philo’s writings H. E. ii. 18 only mentions the latter title. He says that Philo ironically gave to his work on the ungodly deeds of Caius the title περὶ ἀρετῶν (H. E. ii. 18. 8). No other work referring to these events is mentioned though the catalogue is in other respects a very complete one. We are thus I think constrained to admit that the δευτέρῳ is the gloss of a transcriber who could not make the different titles in ii. 5. 6 and ii. 6. 3 harmonize and that in fact both titles refer to one and the same work.
[2582] Euseb. Chron. ed. Schoene ii. 150-151 and indeed: (a) according to Jerome (l.c. p. 151 note b): Seianus praefectus Tiberii qui aput eum plurimum poterat instantissime cohortatur ut gentem Judaeorum deleat. Filo meminit in libro legationis secundo (b) According to the Armenian (p. 150): Seianus Tiberii procurator qui intimus erat consiliarius regis universim gentem Judaeorum deperdendam exposcebat Meminit autem hujus Philon in secundo relatione. (c) According to Syncellus (ed. Dindorf i. 621): Σηιανὸς ἔπαρχος Τιβερίου Καίσαρος περὶ τελείας ἀπωλείας τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν Ἰουδαῖων πολλὰ συνεβούλευε τῷ Καίσαρι ὡς Φίλων Ἰουδαῖος ἐξ Ἀλεξανδρείας διάγων ἱστορεῖ ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ τῆς περὶ αὐτοῦ πρεσβείας.
A special interest has always been attached to this work by reason of its importance as an historical authority. It has been repeatedly published separately[2583] translated into modern languages[2584] and made the subject of historical research.[2585] The dispute of its genuineness by Grätz scarcely deserves mention[2586] This book must not be confounded with the book de tribus virtutibus (see above p. 345) nor with that published by Mai de virtute ejusque partibus (see above note [2587]
[2583] Philonis Judaei lib. de virtutibus s. de legatione ad Cajum imp. graece cura S. F. N. Mori Lips. 1781. Dahl Chrestomathia Philoniana 2 vols. 1800-1802. On a Paris edition of 1626 comp. Fabricius-Harles iv. 741. Fürst Biblioth. Judaica iii. 89.
[2584] Die Gesandtschaft an den Cajus aus dem Griechischen des Philo translated by Jo. Frid. Eckhard Leipzig 1783. Philo Judaeus om Judarnas förföljelse under Flaccus och Legationen till Cajus Caligula etc. öfversättn. med noter och anmerkn. by J. Berggren Söderköping 1853. Philon d’Alexandrie écrits historiques influence luttes et persécutions des juifs dans le monde romain by F. Delaunay 2nd ed. Paris 1870 (gives a translation of contra Flaccum and Leg. ad Caj.). On an older French translation of d’Andilly see Fabric.-Harles iv. 749. On an English one Fürst Bibl. Jud. iii. 91. An English translation by Yonge of Philo’s entire works appeared in 4 vols. London 1851-55.
[2585] Comp. above § 17‌e and the literature there mentioned. Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. iv. 740 sq. and the works and articles there mentioned of Boecler Tillemont Ernesti and especially Jo. Christ. Gottleber Animadversiones historicae et philologico-criticae ad Philonis legationem ad Cajum 4 pts. Meissen 1773-74. Dähne in Ersch and Gruber art. “Philon” pp. 439-440. Bloch Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus (1879) pp. 117-123.
[2586] Grätz Gesch. der Juden 2nd ed. iii. 487-492 abridged in the 3rd ed. iii. 681. Comp. also Monaatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1877 pp. 97 sqq. 145 sqq.
[2587] The works here in question are: (1) Philo et Virgilii interpretes. In it Philonis Judaei de cophini festo et de colendis parentibus cum brevi scripto de Jona editore ac interprete Angelo Maio Mediolan. 1818. (2) Classicorum auctorum e Vaticanis codicibus editorum vol. iv. curante Angelo Maio Romae 1831 (contains: pp. 402-407 Philonis de cophini festo; pp. 408-429 Philonis de honorandis parentibus; pp. 430-441 Philonus ex opere in Exodum selectae questiones). (3) Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e Vaticanis codicibus edita ab Angelo Maio vol. vii. Romae 1833 (contains Pt. I. pp. 74-109 specimens from a Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes with numerous smaller fragments of Philo). (4) Philonis Judaei Porphyrii philosophi Eusebii Pamphili opera inedita. In it: Philonis Judaei de virtute ejusque partibus ed. Ang. Maius Mediolan. 1816 (this work which in the Milan manuscript used by Mai bears the name of Philo is in other manuscripts attributed to Gemistus Pletho and was long printed under his name as Mai himself subsequently remarked). See Leipziger Literaturzeitung 1818 No. 276.
4. Περὶ προνοίας. De providentia.—The title in Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 6; Praep. evang. vii. 20 fin. viii. 13 fin. The work is only preserved in Armenian and has been published by Aucher with a Latin translation.[2588] Two Greek fragments a smaller and a very large one in Euseb. Praep. evang. vii. 21 and viii. 14. The Armenian text comprises two books. Of these however the first though on the whole genuine has at all events been preserved in only an abbreviated and in some parts a touched up form.[2589] Eusebius seems to have been acquainted with only the second at least both fragments belong to this book and are introduced by Eusebius with the formula ἐν τῷ (Sing.) περὶ προνοίας.[2590] In the Ecclesiastical History the reading fluctuates between τὸ περὶ προνοίας and τὰ περὶ προνοίας. There are quotations also in Johannes Damascenus and Johannes Monachus ineditus.[2591]
[2588] Aucher Philonis Judaei sermones tres etc. (1822) pp. 1-121. Also in Latin in Richter’s hand edition (8th small vol.) and in the Tauchnitz edition (8th small vol.).
[2589] Comp. Diels Doxographi Graeci (1879) pp. 1-4. Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen iii. 2 (3rd ed. 1881) p. 340.
[2590] The first fragment (vii. 21) is from the middle of the second book (Aucher pp. 80-82); the second (viii. 14) consists of several large portions extending throughout the second book and forming a selection from it (Aucher pp. 44-121). The two small fragments published by Höschel (1614) and taken by him from the Ἰωνιά of Michael apostolius (see Fabricius-Harles v. 110 sq. ix. 758 xi. 189 sqq. Nicolai Griech. Litgesch. iii. 316 sqq.) are perhaps also derived from Eusebius. See the fragments in the Frankfort ed. p. 1197 sq.; and Euseb. Praep. evang. ed. Gaisford viii. 14. 2-7 And 39-41.
[2591] See Mangey ii. 634 note x.
5. Ἀλέξανδρος ἢ περὶ τοῦ λόγον ἔχειν τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα (this title in Euseb. H. E. ii 18. 6). De Alexandro et quod propriam rationem muta animalia habeant (so Jerome de viris illustr. c. 11).[2592]—This work too is preserved only in Armenian and has been published by Aucher.[2593] Two short Greek fragments are found in the Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes.[2594] The book belongs to Philo’s later works the embassy to Rome being already contemplated p. 152 (ed. Aucher).
[2592] Some editions and manuscripts of Jerome have De Alexandro dicente quod etc.
[2593] Aucher Philonis Judaei sermones tres etc. (1822) pp. 123-172. And following him Richter (8th email vol.) and the Tauchnitz edition (8th small vol.).
[2594] Mai Script. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1 p. 99b (below): ἐκ τοῦ περὶ τῶν ἀγόγων ζῴων. Ibid. p. 100a (above): ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ.
6. Ὑποθετικά.—Our knowledge of this work rests solely on the fragments in Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 6-7 which are introduced by Eusebius with the words (viii. 5 fin.): Φίλωνος … ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου συγγράμματος ὧν ἐπέγραψεν Ὑποθετικῶν ἔνθα τὸν ὑπὲρ Ἰουδαίων ὡς πρὸς κατηγόρους αὐτῶν ποιούμενος λόγον ταῦτά φησιν. The title does not signify “suppositions concerning the Jews”[2595] but as Bernays has pointed out “counsels recommendations.” For Ὑποθετικοὶ λόγοι are such dissertations as contain moral counsels or recommendations in contradistinction to theoretical investigations of ethic questions. Philo as the preserved fragments already show has devoted the main point of his work to the discussion of such Jewish precepts as he could recommend to the obedience of a non-Jewish circle of readers to whom the work is unmistakeably directed.[2596] As the work pursues apologetic aims we might be inclined to regard it as identical with the Apologia pro Judaeis to be forthwith mentioned but that Eusebius distinguishes the two by different titles.
[2595] So Ewald vi. 304. Comp. also Grossmann i. p. 16.
[2596] Bernays “Philon’s Hypothetika und die Verwünschungen des Buzyges in Athen” (Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie 1876 pp. 589-609; reprinted in Bernays Gesammelte Abhandlungen 1885 i. 262-282. Comp. especially p. 599).
7. Περὶ Ἰουδαίων.—This title in Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 6. Ἡ ὑπὲρ Ἰουδαίων ἀπολογία from which Eusebius (Praep. evang. viii. 11) borrows the description of the Essenes is certainly identical with this work. The conjecture of Dähne that the piece de nobilitate (Mangey ii. 437-444) also belongs to this work is not improbable.[2597] It treats of true nobility i.e. of the wisdom and virtue of which the Jewish nation also was not devoid and is therefore a very suitable element in an apology for the Jews. The genuineness of the ἀπολογία has been recently disputed by Hilgenfeld (see above note [2598]
[2597] Dähne Stud. und Krit. 1833 pp. 990 1037. In the article “Philes” in Ersch and Grüber p. 440 Dähne again expresses this conjecture.
[2598] Lucius Der Essenismus (1881) pp. 13-23. Hilgenfeld also esteems this work genuine but on the contrary regards the Apologia pro Judaeit as spurious (Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol. 1882 pp. 275-278. Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums 1884 pp. 87 sq. 105-116).
V. The last-named works are only known to us by fragments but the following books most of which have been already mentioned in this survey are entirely lost. (1) Of the Quaestiones et solutiones two books on Genesis and more than three on Exodus (see above p. 327). (2) Two books of the Legum allegoriae (see above p. 332). (3) The first book περὶ μέθης (see p. 335). (4) Both the books περὶ διαθηκῶν (see p. 337). (5) Three of the five books de somniis (see p. 337). (6) The two biographies of Isaac and Jacob (see p. 342). (7) The work περὶ τοῦ δοῦλον εἶναι πάντα φαῦλον (see p. 349). (8) The first second and fifth books of the work on the persecutions of the Jews under Caligula (see p. 350). (9) A work περὶ ἀριθμῶν to which Philo refers in the Vita Mosis and elsewhere.[2599] (10) A dialogue between Isaac and Ishmael on the difference between true wisdom and sophisticism of which it is not indeed certain whether Philo wrote or only intended to write it.[2600] (11) According to a remark in Quod omnis probus liber Philo intended to write a disquisition “On the government of the wise.”[2601] We do not know whether this intention was carried out. (12) In the Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes a small piece is cited ἐκ τῶν περὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ.[2602] Can a work known to us under some other name be intended?
[2599] Vita Mosis lib. iii. § 11 (Mang. ii. 152): ἔχει δὲ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἀμυθήτους ἀρετὰς ἡ τετρὰς ὧν τὰς πλείστας ἠκριβώσαμεν ἐν τῇ περὶ ἀριθμῶν πραγματείᾳ.—Quaest. et solut. in Genes. ed. Aucher p. 331: jam dictum fuit in libro in quo de numeris actum est. Comp. the same pp. 224 359. Grossmann i. p. 24. In the work de opificio mundi Philo refers to a dissertation on the number four as one yet to be written p. 11 Mang.: πολλαῖς δὲ καὶ ἄλλαις κέχρηται δυυάμεσι ἡ τετρὰς ἃς ἀκριβέστερον καὶ ἐν τῷ περὶ αὐτῆς ἰδίῳ λόγῳ προσυποδεικτέον. If this is identical with the work περὶ ἀριθμῶν it would follow that the Vita Mosis was a later work than de opificio mundi. Comp. Grossmann ii. p. 6.
[2600] De sobrietate § 2 (Mang. i. 394 above): Σοφίαν μὲν γὰρ Ἰσαὰκ σοφιστείαν δὲ Ἰσμαὴλ κεκλήρωται ὡς ἐπειδὰν ἑκάτερον χαρακτηρίζωμεν ἔν τισι διαλόγοις ἐπιδείκνυμεν. Comp. Grossmann i. p. 25.
[2601] Quod omnis probus liber § 3 (Mang. ii. 448): Ἀλλʼ ὁ μὲν περὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ σοφοῦ λόγος εἰς καιρὸν ἐπιτηδειότερον ὑπερκείσθω. Comp Grossmann i. p. 25.
[2602] Mai Script. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1 p. 103a.
VI. The following supposed works of Philo are now pretty generally regarded as spurious:—
1. Περὶ βίου θεωρητικοῦ ἢ ἱκετῶον ἀρετῶν. De vita contemplativa (Mangey ii. 471-486).—Eusebius twice cites the title in the following form (H. E. ii. 17. 3 and ii. 18. 7): περὶ βίου θεωρητικοῦ ἢ ἱκετῶν. The ἀρετῶν added at the end must therefore be expunged. Eusebius H. E. ii. 17 gives full information concerning the contents comp. also ii. 16. 2. This composition has since the time of Eusebius enjoyed special approbation in the Christian Church. Christian monks being almost universally recognised in the “Therapeutae” here described and glorified.[2603] The likeness is indeed surprising; but for that very reason the suspicion is also well founded that the author’s design was under the mask of Philo to recommend Christian monachism. But apart from this there are other suspicious elements by reason of which even such critics as do not regard the Therapeutae as representing a Christian but as a Jewish ideal of life have denied the authorship of Philo.[2604] Upon the ground of the identification of the Therapeutae with Christian monks Lucius after the precedent of Grätz and Jost[2605] has declared this composition spurious.[2606] It is by his thorough and methodical investigation that the spuriousness of its authorship has been definitely decided.[2607]
[2603] Photius Bibliotheca cod. 104 forms an exception: Ἀνεγνώσθησαν δὲ καὶ τῶν παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις φιλοσοφησάντων τήν τε θεωρητικὴν καὶ τὴν πρακτικὴν φιλοσοφίαν βίοι· ὧν μὲν Ἐσσηνοὶ οἱ δὲ θεραπευταὶ ἐκαλοῦντο κ.τ.λ. Epiphanius Haer. 29. 5 quotes this composition with the formula ἐν τῇ περὶ Ἰεσσαίων αὐτοῦ ἐπιγραφομένῃ βίβλῳ but is nevertheless of opinion that it treats of Christians. Compare the testimonia veterum before Mangey’s edition and the literature in Fabricius-Harles iv. 738 sq. Of this older literature must be specially mentioned Montfaucon’s French translation furnished with valuable notes Le livre de Philon de la vie contemplative etc. traduit sur l’original grec avec des observations ou l’on fait voir que les Therapeutes dont il parle etoient Chrestiens Paris 1709. The texts of an old and of a more recent Latin version are given by Pitra Analecta sacra ii. 322-331.
[2604] Especially Nicolas Revue de Théologie Strasbourg 1868 p. 25 sqq. and Kuenen De godsdienst van Israël ii. 440-444. Also Weingarten art. “Mönchtum” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. 761-764.
[2605] Grätz Gesch. der Juden 2nd ed. iii. 463 sqq. Jost Gesch. des Judenthums und seiner Secten i. 214 note 2.
[2606] Lucius Die Therapeuten und ihre Stellung in der Geschichte der Askese eine kritische Untersuchung der Schrift de vita contemplativa Strassburg 1879.
[2607] Comp. also my notice of Lucius in the Theol. Literaturzeitung 1880 pp. 111-118. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1880 pp. 423-440. Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen iii. 2 (3rd ed. 1881) p. 307. For its genuineness also Delaunay Revue archéologique new series vol. xxii. (1870-71) pp. 268-282 xxvi. (1873) pp. 12-22. The same Moines et sibylles dans l’antiquité judéo-grecque 1874 pp. 11-51. Bestmann Gesch. der christlichen Sitte vol. i. (1880) p. 133 sqq.
2. Περὶ ἀφθαρσίας κόσμου. De incorruptibilitate mundi (Mangey ii. 487-516).—This composition is regarded as genuine by Grossmann and Dähne.[2608] But even the transmission of the manuscripts and the external testimony are unfavourable to its genuineness[2609] which since the investigations of Bernays has been generally given up. Bernays has also especially shown that the traditional text has fallen into disorder through the transposition of the pages.[2610] He has published the text in Greek and German according to the order restored by himself[2611] and furnished it with a commentary.[2612] Bücheler gives emendations of Bernays’ text.[2613] Zeller attempts to show that the composition has been touched up.[2614]
[2608] Grossmann i. p. 21. Dähne in Ersch and Gruber art. “Philon” p. 441.
[2609] Mangey remarks of this composition (ii. 487 note): deest in maxima parte codicum nec recensetur in indiculis Eusebii Hieronymi Photii et Suidae.
[2610] Bernays “Ueber die Herstellung des Zusammenhanges in der unter Philo’s Namen gehenden Schrift περὶ ἀφθαρσίας κόσμου durch Blätterversetzung” (Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie 1863 pp. 34-40; reprinted in Bernays Gesammelte Abhandlungen 1885 i. 283-290).
[2611] Bernays “Die unter Philon’s Werken stehende Schrift über die Unzerstörbarkeit des Weltalls nach ihrer ursprünglichen Anordnung wieder-hergestellt und ins Deutsche übertragen” (Transactions of the Berlin Academy 1876 phil.-hist. class pp. 209-278). Also separately.
[2612] Bernays “Ueber die unter Philon’s Werken stehende Schrift über die Unzerstörbarkeit des Weltalls” (Transactions of the Berlin Academy 1882 phil.-hist. class Tr. iii. p. 82). Also separately. The commentary has been published by Usener as a posthumous work of Bernays.
[2613] Bücheler Philonea (Rhein. Museum vol. xxxii. 1877 pp. 433-444).
[2614] Zeller Der pseudophilonische Bericht über Theophrast (Hermes vol. xv. 1880 pp. 137-146).
3. Περὶ κόσμου. De mundo (Mangey ii. 601-624).—The spuriousness of this work has long been acknowledged.[2615] It is a collection of extracts from other works of Philo especially from the composition de incorruptibilitate mundi.[2616]
[2615] Wilh. Budäus who translated it into Latin (1526) already acknowledged its spuriousness. Comp. also Mangey ii. 601 note. Fabricius-Harles iv. 742. Grossmann i. p. 21. Dähne in Ersch and Grüber art. “Philon.”
[2616] See the parallels pointed out in Grossmann i. p. 28.
4. De Sampsone (Aucher Paralipomena Armena 1826 pp. 549-577).—De Jona (Aucher pp. 578-611).—A general agreement prevails as to the spuriousness of these two discourses which are published in Armenian and Latin by Aucher.[2617]
[2617] The text is also given in Richter’s and the Tauchnitz editions. Comp. generally: Dähne Stud. und Krit. 1833 pp. 987-989. Freudenthal Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift über die Herrschaft der Vernunft (Fourth Book of Maccabees) 1869 pp. 9-12 141-147. Grossmann i. p. 21 does not express himself quite decidedly on the question of genuineness.
5. Interpretatio Hebraicorum nominum. Origen Comment. in Joann. vol. ii. c. 27 (Opp. ed. Lommatzsch i. 150) mentions an apparently anonymous work on this subject: εὕρομεν τοίνυν ἐν τῇ ἑρμηνείᾳ τῶν ὀνομάτων. Eusebius says that it is ascribed to Philo but the manner in which he speaks of it plainly shows that he was only acquainted with the work as an anonymous one H. E. ii. 18. 7: καὶ τῶν ἐν νόμῳ δὲ καὶ προφήταις Ἑβραϊκῶν ὀνομάτων αἱ ἑρμηνεῖαι τοῦ αὐτοῦ σπουδαὶ εἶναι λέγονται. Jerome says that according to the testimony of Origen Philo was the author. Hence he evidently saw the work only in an anonymous copy. He himself desired to translate it into Latin but found the text so barbarized that he considered it necessary to undertake an entirely new work.[2618] In the preface he expresses himself concerning the history of these Onomastica as follows: Philo vir disertissimus Judaeorum Origenis quoque testimonio conprobatur edidisse librum hebraicorum nominum eorumque etymologias juxta ordinem litterarum e latere copulasse. Qui cum vulgo habeatur a Graecis et bibliothecas orbis inpleverit studii mihi fuit in latinam eum linguam vertere Verurn tam dissona inter se exemplaria repperi et sic confusum ordinem ut tacere melius judicaverim quam reprehensione quid dignum scribere. Itaque.… singula per ordinem scripturarum volumina percucurri et vetus aedificium nova cura instaurans fecisse me reor quod a Graecis quoque adpetendum sit.… Ac ne forte consummato aedificio quasi extrema deesset manus novi testamenti verba et nomina interpretatus sum imitari volens ex parte Origenem quem post apostolos ecclesiarum magistrum nemo nisi inperitus negat. Inter cetera enim ingeni sui praeclara monimenta etiam in hoc laboravit ut quod Philo quasi Judaeus omiserat hic ut christianus inpleret. According to this account of Jerome it must certainly be admitted that Origen already considered Philo to be the author. But the work being anonymous his testimony is not sufficient and the question of authorship cannot be decided on internal grounds because the work is no longer extant in its most ancient form.[2619] A tolerably copious list of Philonean etymologies may be collected from those works of Philo which have been preserved.[2620]
[2618] This Onomasticon of Jerome (liber interpetationis hebraicorum nominum) is in Vallarsi’s edition of Jerome’s works vol. iii. 1-120 and in Lagarde Onomastica sacra (1870) pp. 1-81.
[2619] For various Greek and Latin Onomastica of scriptural names see Vallarsi Hieronymi Opp. iii. 537 sqq. and Lagarde Onomastica sacra p. 161 sqq. The work de nominibus Hebraicis (see above note 21) printed under Philo’s name in the Basle collection of certain works of Philo is simply the Onomasticon of Jerome. Comp. on this whole literature Fabricius-Harles Bibliotheca graeca iv. 742 sq. vi. 199 sqq. vii. 226 sq.
[2620] Such collections are found in Vallarsi Hieronymi Opp. iii. 731-744 and in Siegfried Philonische Studien (Merx’ Archiv ii. 2. 143-163).
6. On a Latin work de biblicis antiquitatibus ascribed to Philo see Fabricius-Harles iv. 743 and especially Pitra Analecta sacra ii. 298 sq. 319-322. The pseudo-Philonian Breviarum temporum a forgery of Annius of Viterbo (Fabricius-Harles l.c.) must not be confounded with this. On the treatise de virtute ejusque partibus published by Mai under Philo’s name see above note [2621]
[2621] The works here in question are: (1) Philo et Virgilii interpretes. In it Philonis Judaei de cophini festo et de colendis parentibus cum brevi scripto de Jona editore ac interprete Angelo Maio Mediolan. 1818. (2) Classicorum auctorum e Vaticanis codicibus editorum vol. iv. curante Angelo Maio Romae 1831 (contains: pp. 402-407 Philonis de cophini festo; pp. 408-429 Philonis de honorandis parentibus; pp. 430-441 Philonus ex opere in Exodum selectae questiones). (3) Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e Vaticanis codicibus edita ab Angelo Maio vol. vii. Romae 1833 (contains Pt. I. pp. 74-109 specimens from a Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes with numerous smaller fragments of Philo). (4) Philonis Judaei Porphyrii philosophi Eusebii Pamphili opera inedita. In it: Philonis Judaei de virtute ejusque partibus ed. Ang. Maius Mediolan. 1816 (this work which in the Milan manuscript used by Mai bears the name of Philo is in other manuscripts attributed to Gemistus Pletho and was long printed under his name as Mai himself subsequently remarked). See Leipziger Literaturzeitung 1818 No. 276.